Miscellaneouse Specifications.pdf

SPECIFICATION ATTACHMENTS

Indiana Harbor CDF Wastewater Treatment Plant

DOCUMENT 00 31 24.13 Page 1

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 00 31 24.13

SOIL CONTAMINATION REPORT

02/23

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SITE CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY

1.1.1 Information from Previous Site Investigations

1.2 SITE HISTORY

1.2.1 Refinery Operation (1918-1981)

1.2.2 Post Plant Closure (1981-2003)

1.2.3 CDF Construction (2003-2012)

1.2.4 RECENT HISTORY (2012-2022)

1.3 GROUNDWATER

1.3.1 Groundwater Sampling Results

1.3.2 Groundwater Elevations

1.4 FREE PHASE HYDROCARBONS

1.5 METHANE

1.6 CLASSIFICATION OF CDF AS A DAM

1.7 SURVEY CONTROL DATA AND MAPPING

1.8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE

PART 2 PRODUCTS (NOT USED)

PART 3 EXECUTION (NOT USED)

-- End of Section Table of Contents --

DOCUMENT 00 31 24.13 Page 2

SECTION 00 31 24.13

SOIL CONTAMINATION REPORT

02/23

The material presented in this section is intended to provide the Contractor with a historical background of the site. Although a number of sampling events have occurred at the Indiana Harbor and Canal (IHC) Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) site, all hazards potentially present at the site may not have been characterized. The following paragraphs are a summary of information.

1.1 SITE CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY

1.1.1 Information from Previous Site Investigations

Several consulting firms have performed investigations at the former Energy Cooperative, Incorporated (ECI) site. The IHC CDF is located on the north parcels. Some previous investigations included data collected from other parcels held by ECI. Only the information relevant to the project parcel will be discussed here. This section covers the general site history and environmental considerations.

1.2 SITE HISTORY

1.2.1 Refinery Operation (1918-1981)

The "ECI property" was the location of a petroleum products refinery from 1918 to 1981. Peak production was approximately 140,000 barrels per day.

The project parcel, termed the main refinery, contained the principal production area and also included storage, a marine loading area, rail loading areas, insecticide manufacturing, truck docking facilities, and an American Petroleum Institute (API) separator. The refinery operations included the production of mineral spirits, propane, leaded and unleaded gasoline, fuel oil, kerosene, asphalt and asphalt products, liquefied petroleum gas, grease, lubricating oils, paraffin wax, phenols, and sulfur. Between 1940 and 1958, pyrethrum extract, consisting of dried heads of certain varieties of chrysanthemums, was filtered on site. The filtered extract was combined with kerosene, used as an insecticide base, to produce an insecticide. The maximum annual production of insecticide base occurred in 1944 when 49,359 barrels were produced. This accounted for 0.26 percent of the total plant production.

1.2.2 Post Plant Closure (1981-2003)

Former owners of the project site include Sinclair from 1918 to 1968, Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) from 1968 to 1976, and ECI from 1976 to 1981. In 1981, ECI filed for bankruptcy, and in the late 1980s, all buildings and above ground structures were razed in response to a court order. Several inches of clean topsoil were graded to cover the site. In 1989, the City of East Chicago became the owner of the site as payment for back taxes owed by ECI. The site has open Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) status because the court-approved closure of the facility was not comparable to a RCRA approved closure. The site also requires RCRA corrective action, due to the contamination of soil and

DOCUMENT 00 31 24.13 Page 3 groundwater on site from past industrial activities.

1.2.3 CDF Construction (2003-2012)

USACE began construction of the dredged material Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) at the ECI site in 2003. Construction activities involved installation of a perimeter slurry wall, canal cut-off wall, gradient control system, clay containment dikes, and other related features.

Construction of the gradient control system also included covering the site outside the CDF dike toe with approximately one-foot (average) clay depth, various thicknesses of clean fill material for grading, topsoil, and seed.

Shallow excavations at the site are expected to encounter the clay and fill material that was placed by USACE, some fill placed prior to USACE use of the site (variable undocumented thickness), and native soils below that. Within the native soils, utilities, pipelines, foundations, and other debris was left in place at the time of the bankruptcy closure. The buried objects are undocumented and may be encountered during deeper excavations. Although the surface of the site is currently considered "clean", the deeper soils may be contaminated with the same range of compounds found in the groundwater at the site.

1.2.4 RECENT HISTORY (2012-2022)

The Indiana Harbor Canal (IHC) was not dredged between 1972 and 2012 due to a lack of suitable sediment disposal locations. Following completion of the CDF, dredged material was placed into the CDF in 2012. By the end of 2020, approximately 1.7 million cubic yards of dredged material from the Indiana Harbor Canal have been placed within the CDF. Sediment within IHC (and the CDF) contains elevated concentrations of metals, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) due to legacy contamination from adjacent and upstream sources. Historical sediment sampling reports can be provided upon request. The average sediment elevation within the CDF is 601.0-feet at the end of 2020, though there are areas of lower or higher sediments throughout the CDF cells.

Several hotspots of sediment with PCBs greater than 50 parts per million were discovered within the dredge area of the IHC, requiring the USACE to obtain Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) approval for the CDF. TSCA dredging was completed in 2019, and approximately 20,000 cubic yards of TSCA-regulated sediment was placed within the east cell of the CDF.

In order to limit the potential of volatile emissions from legacy sediment contamination, the CDF is operated as a ponded facility. At least two-feet of water is maintained over the CDF sediment at all times. Pond water is a combination of influent from the Gradient Control System (groundwater), precipitation, pore or canal water from dredged material, and backwash from the wastewater treatment plant. Pond water chemical characteristics are provided in these specifications. The CDF pond water elevation varies and is a factor of: the amount of precipitation, the amount of groundwater discharged to the CDF, dredging and sediment placement into the CDF, water treatment volume, and water transfer between the two cells.

The CDF is currently undergoing an expansion where the height of the exterior dikes of the CDF will be increased in stages. The total dike height increase will be 11 feet. An impact of the dike expansion on wastewater treatment will be the removal and re-installation of the WWTP piping as required. The Contractor shall coordinate with USACE and other

DOCUMENT 00 31 24.13 Page 4 contractors during water treatment to determine placement of piping and access to the CDF decant structures for water withdrawal. Additional information regarding treatment plant coordination with the dike raise is in 44 41 13.10 03 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.

1.3 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater at the CDF is contaminated due to the historical industrial activities at the former ECI Site. The Gradient Control System prevents groundwater releases to the environment by lowering groundwater levels within the slurry wall to create an inward hydraulic gradient; discharging effluent to the CDF. The Gradient Control System (a network of 96 extraction wells around the perimeter of the CDF site) has been operating since 2010.

1.3.1 Groundwater Sampling Results

Several groundwater sampling events have occurred at the ECI site. Wells located on the main refinery parcel were sampled in 1991, 1993 through 1994, and 1995. Sampling events were conducted by different contractors, and different parameters were measured during the sampling events. The results from each sampling event are summarized below. Complete reports on sampling activities may not be available for Contractor review.

Groundwater samples collected in June and November of 1991 were analyzed for volatiles, semi-volatiles, dissolved and total metals. Pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also analyzed in the November, 1991 sampling event. The highest concentration of volatiles was detected in monitoring well MW-32 at the north end of the site; this well also contained free product. The highest concentration of pesticides was also found in monitoring well MW-32. The only PCB detected was Aroclor 1254, which was found in a concentration of 0.004 mg/L in monitoring well MW-27. The range of detected contaminants is summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM 1991.

COMPOUND RANGE

Benzene 0.02 - 57 mg/L

Chlorobenzene 0.002 - 0.02 mg/L

Chloroform ND - 0.04 mg/L

1,2-dichloroethane ND - 0.06 mg/L a chlordane 0.01 - 1.2 g/L (estimated)1 g chlordane 0.0064 - 3.3 g/L (estimated)

Endrine 0.013 - 0.06 g/L (estimated)

Heptachlor 0.013 - 0.055 (estimated)

Heptachlor epoxide 0.0085 - 1.6 g/L (estimated)

DOCUMENT 00 31 24.13 Page 5

Methoxychlor 0.025 - 0.32 g/L (estimated)

Arsenic 0.004 - 0.1 mg/L (estimated)

Barium 0.09 - 1.5 mg/L

Chromium 0.007 - 0.2 mg/L (estimated)

Lead 0.01 - 2 mg/L (estimated)

Mercury 0.0005 - 0.004 mg/L (estimated)

Aroclor 1254 0.004 mg/L

Pesticides 15.2 g/L (estimated)

NOTES:

1 The concentration ranges followed by the notation "estimated" means the laboratory provided a quantitative estimate.

2 Compounds not listed were not found in detectable concentrations.

Groundwater samples were collected from the four recovery wells along the north bank of the canal in 1993 and 1994. The samples were collected quarterly and analyzed for metals and volatiles. This water was being injected into the subsurface through a re-infiltration trench on site.

Table 2 gives a summary of the groundwater sampling results.

TABLE 2. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM 1993-1994.

COMPOUND RANGE

Arsenic ND - 0.06 mg/L

Lead ND - 0.02 mg/L

Acetone ND - 0.05 mg/L

Benzene ND - 0.25 mg/L

Ethylbenzene ND - 0.03 mg/L

Methyl tert butyl ether ND - 0.43 mg/L

Total Xylene ND - 0.15 mg/L

In 1995, groundwater samples were taken from four existing wells and four new wells by Patrick Engineering. Samples were analyzed for volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, PCBs, total metals, phenolics, oil and grease, cyanide, and general water quality parameters. The detected compounds are summarized in Table 3. All metal concentrations were low (less than 0.5 mg/L for all metals) and are not reported.

TABLE 3. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM 1995.

DOCUMENT 00 31 24.13 Page 6

COMPOUND RANGE

Benzene ND - 19 g/L

Naphthalene ND - 7 g/L

Total Xylene ND - 9 g/L

Cyanide ND - 0.032 mg/L

Phenolics ND - 0.13 mg/L

Oil and grease ND - 371 mg/L

In 2017, USACE, USEPA, and IDEM collected groundwater samples from the Gradient Control System monitoring wells. The agencies collected a range of general chemistry compounds, organic compounds, metals, and other parameters. A brief summary of the results of select parameters are shown below. Additional results may be provided upon request.

TABLE 4. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM 2017.

COMPOUND LCL (95 Percent) UCL (95 Percent)

TOC (ppm) 28 38

Alkalinity (as CaCO3 ppm) 7 36

Chloride (ppm) 16 36

Arsenic (ppb) 7 13

Barium (ppb) 54 119

Boron (ppb) 209 373

Total Chromium (ppb) 0.07 1.4

Copper (ppb) 0.04 2.4

Lead (ppb) 0.03 1.2

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (ppb)

0.23 0.23 m- and/or p-Toluidine (ppb) 0.23 2.3

Benzene (ppb) 0.15 0.15

Methyl tert-butyl ether (ppb) 0.23 0.23

Toluene (ppb) 0.18 0.18

DOCUMENT 00 31 24.13 Page 7

1.3.2 Groundwater Elevations

The following table represents the average groundwater elevation at various onsite locations for the month of February 2023. The Contractor shall use the site map with the Gradient Control System wells (Section 00 31 32.13 SUBSURFACE DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION, Appendix B) for reference in reviewing these groundwater levels. Additional discussion can be found in Section 00 31 32.13 SUBSURFACE DRILLING AND SAMPLING

INFORMATION.

TABLE 5. GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS AT GCS MW-A WELLS.

WELL NUMBER GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (feet)

MW-1A 576.2

MW-2A 577.5

MW-3A 578.7

MW-4A 579.6

MW-5A 578.7

MW-6A 578.7

MW-7A 578.8

MW-8A 579.1

MW-9A 579.1

MW-10A 579.4

MW-11A 580.5

MW-12A 579.4

MW-13A 578.2

MW-14A 578.2

MW-15A 578.9

MW-16A 577.9

MW-17A 577.7

MW-18A 576.0

MW-19A 574.6

MW-20A 576.6

DOCUMENT 00 31 24.13 Page 8

WELL NUMBER GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (feet)

MW-21A 575.3

MW-22A 575.5

1.4 FREE PHASE HYDROCARBONS

A hydrocarbon layer has been intermittently encountered during groundwater monitoring activities since the beginning of the site investigations in 1991. In 1991, oil was discovered to be seeping into the canal. An oil recovery system was installed along the north bank of the canal (i.e., the south edge of the main refinery parcel), and was in operation from 1992 until construction of the CDF started in the early 2000s when the system was dismantled. Currently, oil still exists in several areas at the site, at various depth and thickness. According to hydrocarbon and groundwater measurements from 29 wells and 18 piezometers at the time, a hydrocarbon pool is floating above the groundwater. Table 6 gives the range of hydrocarbon layer thicknesses. Not all wells contained measurable amounts of hydrocarbon.

TABLE 6. HYDROCARBON LAYER THICKNESS AT THE ECI SITE, 1991 - 1992.

MONITORING WELL PRODUCT THICKNESS RANGE (Feet)

MW01 3.91 - 7.80

MW02 0.05 - 1.74

MW03 None - 3.39

MW05 0.31 - 1.41

MW06 0.12 - 2.30

MW07 None - 0.11

MW08 0.84 - 1.93

MW09 None - 1.90

MW11 1.77 - 4.72

MW12 None - 3.52

MW13 None - 1.26

MW25 0.09 - 1.38

MW26 0.52 - 1.57

MW27 1.00 - 2.16

DOCUMENT 00 31 24.13 Page 9

MONITORING WELL PRODUCT THICKNESS RANGE (Feet)

MW28 0.41 - 1.34

MW29 0.09 - 1.01

MW32 0.50 - 3.18

MW38 0.40 - 1.93

P01 None - 0.94

P11 0.18 - 1.40

P13 None - 0.38

P15 1.55 - 2.91

P16 None - 0.41

P18 None - 0.02

P20 1.10 - 1.98

P21 0.83 - 2.13

P22 None - 0.33

P23 0.89 - 2.39

P26 None - 0.43

P27 None - 0.50

P28 1.16 - 1.72

The free product from four wells was sampled in July 1991 and in January 1992. The hydrocarbon samples were analyzed for volatiles, RCRA metals, PCBs, and physical characteristics. Table 7 summarizes the results of detected compounds for all tests except the physical characteristics. The sample with the PCB concentration of 850 mg/kg was collected from MW06, located by the canal at the southern end of the property.

TABLE 7. HYDROCARBON LAYER ANALYTICAL RESULTS, 1991 - 1992.

PARAMETER RANGE OF DETECTED

CONCENTRATIONS

NUMBER OF SAMPLES

COLLECTED

NUMBER OF SAMPLES

WITH DETECTED VALUES

Benzene 51-920 mg/kg 4 4

DOCUMENT 00 31 24.13 Page 10

PARAMETER RANGE OF DETECTED

CONCENTRATIONS

NUMBER OF SAMPLES

COLLECTED

NUMBER OF SAMPLES

WITH DETECTED VALUES

Ethylbenzene 230-670 mg/kg 4 4

Toluene 51-920 mg/kg 4 4

Xylene 470-2300 mg/kg 4 4

Arsenic 0.5-2.3 mg/kg 4 3

Barium 0.2-0.5 mg/kg 4 2

Chromium 0.5-1.8 mg/kg 4 2

Lead 2.5-6.0 mg/kg 4 3

PCBs(Total) 3-63, 850 mg/kg 4 1

The high PCB concentration detected in MW06 in July of 1991 led to a more extensive investigation of PCBs in the hydrocarbon layer. A total of 25 samples were collected from 13 wells and five piezometers over a time period from October, 1991 to February, 1992. Seven out of the 25 samples collected contained detectable concentrations of PCBs. All of the detected concentrations were from wells or piezometers around MW06 or by the canal at the southern edge of the main refinery parcel. Excluding MW06, the detected PCB concentration range from 3 mg/kg to 63 mg/kg.

During groundwater sampling activities conducted by Patrick Engineering in November 1995, free product levels were measured in the monitoring wells sampled. Free product was only present in wells MW01, MW26, and MW29.

The thickness of free product varied from less than 0.1 feet (MW01) to over three feet (MW29).

1.5 METHANE

Methane has been detected in the soil and groundwater at the site. It is likely that the methane is generated from the biodegradation of organic matter/compounds in sediment, and of hydrocarbons in site soil and groundwater under anaerobic conditions. A soil gas survey was conducted in 2018 using temporary probes installed around the perimeter of the site. The 2018 "snapshot" sampling detected methane in soil throughout the site. After the soil gas survey, permanent gas monitoring wells were installed around the perimeter of the CDF on the inside of the slurry wall, including the north side of the site where high levels of TPH and BTEX had been detected; on the east side of the site adjacent to Indianapolis Boulevard and near the control panel where methane was originally detected; on the south side of the site near Administration Building and along the Canal; on the northwest side near dike tar seep on the exterior of the CDF dike; and finally three wells outside slurry wall along Indianapolis Boulevard.

Continuous subsurface soil gas monitoring at the installed permanent soil gas wells since 2019 confirms high methane levels on north and east sides of the site, and relatively lower methane levels on south and west sides of the site. The continuous soil gas monitoring at the offsite wells outside the slurry wall show varying methane levels, ranging from no

DOCUMENT 00 31 24.13 Page 11 detections in the southeast corner of the site, to high levels in the northeast corner of the site. Methane levels are not detected at the well near the Administration Building based on the continuous gas monitoring.

Methane has not been detected in the Administration Building or the crawl space beneath the building.

1.6 CLASSIFICATION OF CDF AS A DAM

The IHC CDF was designed to operate as a ponded facility in which the impounded dredged material would be kept covered with at least 2 feet of water at all times for air emission control. Because of the intentional ponded operation of the CDF, the facility in effect functions as a dam and dam safety management practices will be applied throughout the lifecycle of the CDF, including but not limited to the requirement of routine surveillance and monitoring, and annual inspections in accordance with ER 1110-2-1156 and ER 1110-2-100. The facility has been listed in the National Inventory of Dams (NID) by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources under NID No. IN04071. The CDF has been assigned a dam hazard classification of HIGH based on the findings of the first Periodic Assessment of the facility in 2015. An Emergency Action Plan (EAP) is in effect for the site, and training of site personnel to recognize and report dam safety concerns is required. Daily dam safety awareness is required for all personnel working on site.

The Contractor is required to remain vigilant of erosion on the interior slopes of the CDF dike, especially of waterline erosion that may lead to scarp development. Also, existing slope repairs require monitoring for deterioration because additional repair may be needed. Report damage to Government.

The Contractor shall monitor for signs of seepage on the downstream side of the perimeter dike. Wet areas along the toe could be from poor site drainage but should be checked for evidence of seepage (active flow or turbidity, and sand boils). Inspection for seepage will be covered in more detail in the dam safety training.

1.7 SURVEY CONTROL DATA AND MAPPING

In November 1997, Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc. was contracted by USACE, Chicago District to review pre- and post-site conditions, existing reports, as-built drawings, miscellaneous design and engineering drawings, utility maps, surveys, and various other maps and reports that Chicago District obtained from record archives of previous refinery owners. Field reconnaissance was conducted by Smith Engineering, and many of the existing structures referenced either the Indiana West State Plane coordinates or local ECI coordinates. The survey work provided conversion factors for translation between the two coordinate systems. In December, 1997 two brass ACOE datum control marks (brass caps) provided by the Chicago District were installed north of the project site (refer to Appendix A). These control marks were installed on the Cline Avenue (Hwy

912) bridges located at the northwest and northeast corners from the project. Two existing control points established in October, 1988 were field located on the south end of the project at the Lake George Canal Indianapolis street bridge on the southeast corner and the rail road bridge on the southwest corner. These four marks were tied and closed to establish horizontal and vertical control for the project.

In April 1994, Aero-Metric Engineering, Inc. was contracted by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers Chicago District to prepare aerial mapping, DOCUMENT 00 31 24.13 Page 12 topographic and planimetric project mapping for the ECI site in Lake County, Indiana. Stereo aerial photography was performed to complete the mapping requirements. The October, 1988 ground controls were used and verified to compile the mapping.

1.8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE

The following information is available for review. Information may be reviewed by contacting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chicago District at 231 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1500, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

a. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station (WES) was contracted by the Chicago District to perform a surface geophysical survey. The purpose of this survey was to attempt to locate pipeline, concrete foundations, and other buried structures that may remain in-place following demolition of the site. The work was conducted in August 1995 and documented in a report entitled "Geophysical Investigations at the Indiana Harbor CDF Site, East Chicago, Indiana", January 1996.

b. Real Estate Mapping Survey and Record Search, Smith Engineering Consultants, Inc., August 2000. The figures include survey results and some utility information.

c. Pilot Systems Report and Design Work Plan for the Full-Scale Free Phase Hydrocarbon Confinement/Recovery System, Volumes 1 - 4, Environmental Resources Management, April 1992.

d. Monthly and quarterly operation reports, submitted by Arcadis Geraghty and Miller (ARCO's Consultant) to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, covering the period of operation from November 1, 1998 until April 30, 2000. These reports include a summary of the oil quantity recovered and also well gauging data, including product layer thickness, for some of the existing wells located on the ECI property.

e. Geraghty & Miller, "Hydrogeologic Design Hydrocarbon Confinement/Recovery System", June 1992. Contains information on the installation of the ARCO recovery wells on the ECI site.

f. Geraghty & Miller, "Phase V-A Investigation Report, ECI Refinery Site, East Chicago Indiana", April 1993. Contains information on the hydraulics of the shallow groundwater.

PART 3 EXECUTION (NOT USED)

-- End of Section --

Indiana Harbor CDF Wastewater Treatment Plant W912P623B00XX

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 00 31 32.13

SUBSURFACE DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION

10/03

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

1.2 SITE SPECIFIC DATA

1.3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

PART 2 PRODUCTS (NOT USED)

PART 3 EXECUTION (NOT USED)

-- End of Section Table of Contents --

DOCUMENT 00 31 32.13 Page 1

100%BCOES - 08/22/23

SECTION 00 31 32.13

SUBSURFACE DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION

10/03

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Subsurface exploratory borings have been obtained by the Government to determine the general character of the subsurface materials within the Indiana Harbor and Canal Confined Disposal Facility (IHC CDF) property.

The logs of representative borings that are nearest to the proposed construction under this contract are included for the convenience of the Contractor. These borings are included in Appendix A at the end of this section. The Government assumes no responsibility for any interpretation or deductions made by the Contractor from the logs and data.

Surface elevations on the boring logs were those existing at the time subsurface investigations were made and do not necessarily represent present site grades after construction of the existing dike, interim cap and other site features. Cross sections of the interim cap that indicate the original site grade around the existing downstream embankment toe are included in the plans.

While the borings are generally representative of subsurface conditions at their respective locations and for their respective vertical reaches, localized variations of characteristics of the subsurface materials should be anticipated. In addition, pipes or other artificial obstructions abandoned from previous site use as a refinery may exist in the subsurface below fill materials added as part of the original CDF construction.

Groundwater elevations, shown on the boring logs, were those encountered at the time when the borings were taken. It is noted that light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) occasionally has been encountered at the water table surface across the site. Groundwater flow into and out of the site is impeded by subsurface groundwater barriers around the full perimeter and a groundwater extraction system at the site generally suppresses the groundwater elevations on the site interior at least two feet below the levels on the exterior sides of the cutoff walls. Recent groundwater elevations encountered around the site are presented in 00 31 24.13 .

1.2 SITE SPECIFIC DATA

Boring logs and other soil sampling information are provided at the end of this section as Appendix A.

1.3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Additional information on subsurface conditions at the project site is contained in the following reports:

a. Patrick Engineering, Inc., (1996) Phase I Site Investigation - Indiana Harbor CDF Geotechnical Investigation , prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District.

DOCUMENT 00 31 32.13 Page 2

b. Patrick Engineering, Inc., (2003) Report of South Cutoff Wall Investigation for the Indiana Harbor and Canal Confined Disposal Facility , prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District.

c. USACE, Chicago District, (2005) Indiana Harbor and Canal Confined Disposal Facility Cutoff Wall Foundation Report .

d. STS Consultants, LTD, (2007) Indiana Harbor and Canal Confined Disposal Facility Subsurface Investigation for Design of Wastewater Treatment Facility , prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District.

e. Black and Veatch, (2014) Indiana Harbor and Canal Confined Disposal Facility Gradient Control System Foundation Report , prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District.

f. GEI Consultants, (2018) Subsurface Investigation Report IHC Confined Disposal Facility Proposed Perimeter Dike Raise prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District

g. GEI Consultants, (2018) Subsurface Investigation Report IHC Confined Disposal Facility Proposed Center Dike Raise prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District

These reports may be reviewed by contacting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District at 231 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604 (Attn: Jan Merl, 312-846-5495).

PART 2 PRODUCTS (NOT USED)

PART 3 EXECUTION (NOT USED)

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 31 32.13 Page 3

H6TCNJHM

Highlight

H6TCNJHM

Highlight

H6TCNJHM

Highlight

H6TCNJHM

Highlight

H6TCNJHM

Highlight

H6TCNJHM

Highlight

H6TCNJHM

Highlight

H6TCNJHM

Highlight

H6TCNJHM

Highlight

H6TCNJHM

Highlight

H6TCNJHM

Highlight

H6TCNJHM

Highlight

SS: 9-13-9; N=22

Qp = >4.5 tsf

WC = 12.8%

SS: 8-6-7; N=15

Qp = 4.5 tsf

WC = 15.7%

SS: 4-2-2; N=4

Qp = 3.0 tsf

WC = 15.9%

SS: 3-4-5; N=9

Qp = 3.0 tsf

WC = 19.1%

SS: 4-4-5; N=9

Qp = 2.5 tsf

WC = 21.5%

SS: 3-6-8; N=14

Qp = 4.5 tsf

SS: 2-6-8; N=14

Qp = >4.5 tsf

WC = 16.9%

SS: 4-5-8; N=13

Qp = 4.0 tsf

WC = 19.8%

SS: 4-6-8; N=14

Qp = 3.5 tsf

WC = 21.0%

SS: 15-11-50/3"; N=>50

SS: 50/3"; N=>50

SS: 22-23-17; N=40

+609.3

+597.3

+592.8

+587.8

+586.1

+583.3

0.5

12.5

17.0

22.0

23.7

26.5

0.0 1.5

2.5 4.0

5.0 6.5

7.5 9.0

10.0 11.5

12.5 14.0

15.0 16.5

17.5 19.0

20.0 21.5

22.5 24.0

25.0 26.5

27.5 29.0

FILL: Crushed limestone gravel FILL: Silty clay, trace fine sand, trace fine gravel - gray to brown at 7.5' - very stiff to hard (CL)

FILL: Silty clay with sand, trace fine gravel -brown - hard (CL)

FILL: Silty clay, trace fine sand, trace fine gravel - gray to brown at 7.5' - very stiff to hard (CL)

FILL: Silty sand, trace fine gravel, trace slag -gray - moist - medium dense (SM) strong hydrocarbon odor obstruction at 23.7 ft FILL: Sandy slag, trace clay - bluish gray - wet

- extremely dense (SLAG) Slight hydrocarbon odor

Silty sand, trace fine gravel - wet - medium dense to dense (SM) strong to slight hydrocarbon odor

- trace shells at 50 ft

80.0

80.0

60.0

93.3

93.3

100.0

86.7

86.7

100.0

66.7

16.7

80.0

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

RECOV-

ERY

1. PROJECT

NAVD88

UNDISTURBED13. TOTAL NO. OF

OVERBURDEN SAMPLES

TAKEN

Army Corps of Engineers

INSTALLATION SHEET

18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

OF

CD-02

+609.8

CME-75

7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN (FT.)

8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK (FT.)

9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE (FT.)

DEG. FROM VERT.

4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and file number)

SHEETS

STARTED

DRILLING LOG

COMPLETED

Hole No. CD-02

IHC CDF Center Dike Raise

16. DATE HOLE

96.5

DIVISION

17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

6/11/2018 6/12/2018

Chicago District 3

Strata Earth Services, LLC

Bill McCarthy

11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM or MSL)

DISTURBED

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

3. DRILLING AGENCY

5. NAME OF DRILLER

6. DIRECTION OF HOLE

2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)

VERTICAL INCLINED

592.3

19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR

N 2,331,424 E 2,842,978

Hole No. CD-02

PROJECT HOLE NO.

IHC CDF Center Dike Raise CD-02PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.1836

MAR 71

ENG FORM

SS: 16-22-27; N=49

SS: 18-23-21; N=44

SS: 12-12-14; N=26

SS: 15-14-17; N=31

SS: 14-15-20; N=35

SS: 14-15-17;N =32

SS: 9-13-15; N=28

SS: 9-12-13; N=25

SS: 9-9-12; N=21

SS: 2-5-6; N=11

Qp = 1.0 tsf

WC = 26.5%

Su = 2200 psf Qp = 1.0 tsf

WC=22.2%

Su = 2300 psf

SS: 2-4-6; N=10

Qp = 1.25 tsf

WC = 25.0%

Su = 2200 psf Qp = 1.0 tsf

WC=22.1%

Su = 2150 psf

SS: 2-6-8; N=14

Qp = 1.75 tsf

WC = 21.7%

Su = 2250 psf

+557.8 52.0

30.0 31.5

32.5 34.0

35.0 36.5

37.5 39.0

40.0 41.5

42.5 44.0

45.0 46.5

47.5 49.0

50.0 51.5

52.5 54.0

55.5 57.5

59.0 60.5

62.0 64.0

65.5 67.0

Silty sand, trace fine gravel - wet - medium dense to dense (SM) strong to slight hydrocarbon odor

- trace shells at 50 ft (continued)

Silty clay, trace fine gravel, trace fine sand -gray - firm to stiff (CL)

53.3

80.0

80.0

73.3

80.0

86.7

80.0

86.7

86.7

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

RECOV-

ERY

SHEETS

PROJECT 2INSTALLATION

Chicago District

DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet) ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

609.8 Hole No. CD-02

IHC CDF Center Dike Raise

SHEET

OF 3

Hole No. CD-02

PROJECT HOLE NO.

IHC CDF Center Dike Raise CD-021836-A

JUN 67

ENG FORM

Qp = 1.5 tsf

WC=20.7%

Su = 2200 psf

SS: 1-3-5; N=8

Qp = 1.0 tsf

WC = 22.9%

Su = 2025 psf Qp = 1.25 tsf

WC-22.5%

SS: WOH-3-4; N=7

Qp = 1.0 tsf

WC = 21.5%

SS: 1-5-7; N=12

Qp = 1.0 tsf

WC = 22.2%

SS: 4-7-9; N=16

Qp = 2.0 tsf

WC = 21.1%

SS: 6-12-14; N=26

Qp = 3.0 tsf

WC = 15.8%

+519.8

+513.3

90.0

96.5

68.5 70.5

72.0 73.5

75.0 77.0

80.0 81.5

85.0 86.5

90.0 91.5

95.0 96.5

Silty clay, trace fine gravel, trace fine sand -gray - firm to stiff (CL) (continued)

Silty clay, trace fine gravel, trace fine sand -gray - stiff to very stiff (CL)

End of boring at 96.5 ft bgs. Backfilled with cement-bentonite grout.

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

RECOV-

ERY

SHEETS

PROJECT 3INSTALLATION

Chicago District

DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet) ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

609.8 Hole No. CD-02

IHC CDF Center Dike Raise

SHEET

OF 3

Hole No. CD-02

PROJECT HOLE NO.

IHC CDF Center Dike Raise CD-021836-A

JUN 67

ENG FORM

SS: 2-12-19; N=31

SS: 9-4-5; N=9

QP = >4.5 tsf

WC = 14.7%

SS: 12-9-9; N=18

QP = >4.5 tsf

SS: 4-11-13; N=24

SS: 3-5-4; N=9

SS: 6-6-6; N=12

SS: 3-4-6; N=10

SS: 6-9-7; N=16

SS: 6-9-12; N=21

SS: 6-8-8; N=16

SS: 7-10-13; N=23

SS: 10-12-11; N=23

+591.0

+588.2

+583.6

+575.6

0.6

3.4

8.0

16.0

0.0 1.5

2.5 4.0

5.0 6.5

7.5 9.0

10.0 11.5

12.5 14.0

15.0 16.5

17.5 19.0

20.0 21.5

22.5 24.0

25.0 26.5

27.5 29.0

FILL: Brown topsoil FILL: Crushed limestone (GM)

FILL: Silty clay, trace fine gravel, trace fine sand - gray - hard (CL)

FILL: Fine to medium poorly graded sand, trace fine gravel, trace to little slag - black -moist - loose to medium dense (SP)

Silty fine to coarse sand, trace fine gravel -gray and brown - saturated - medium dense

(SM)

93.3

100.0

40.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

80.0

66.7

73.3

66.7

86.7

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

RECOV-

ERY

1. PROJECT

NAVD88

UNDISTURBED13. TOTAL NO. OF

OVERBURDEN SAMPLES

TAKEN

Army Corps of Engineers

INSTALLATION SHEET

18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

OF

PD-04

+591.6

CME-75

7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN (FT.)

8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK (FT.)

9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE (FT.)

DEG. FROM VERT.

4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and file number)

SHEETS

STARTED

DRILLING LOG

COMPLETED

Hole No. PD-04

IHC CDF Center Dike Raise

16. DATE HOLE

81.5

DIVISION

17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

6/14/2018 6/14/2018

Chicago District 3

Strata Earth Services, LLC

Bill McCarthy

11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM or MSL)

DISTURBED

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

3. DRILLING AGENCY

5. NAME OF DRILLER

6. DIRECTION OF HOLE

2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)

VERTICAL INCLINED

576.6

19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR

N 2,331,207 E 2,843,451

Hole No. PD-04

PROJECT HOLE NO.

IHC CDF Center Dike Raise PD-04PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.1836

MAR 71

ENG FORM

SS: 10-12-13; N=25

SS: 9-9-12; N=21

SS: WOH/18"; N=0

Qp < 0.25 tsf

WC = 12.0%

Su = 1000 psf Qp = 0.5 tsf

WC = 48.4%

PI = 25

Su = 1750 psf

SS: WOH-2-8; N=10

Qp < 0.25 tsf

WC = 26.8%

Qp = 4 tsf

WC = 20.9%

SS: 4-8-10; N=18

Qp = 4.5 tsf

WC = 20.6%

SS: 7-9-11; N=20

Qp = >4.5 tsf

WC = 20.2%

SS: 6-8-11; N=19

Qp = 3.5 tsf

WC = 21.6%

SS: 3-10-11; N=21

Qp = >4.5 tsf

WC = 17.2%

SS: WOH-3-4; N=7

Qp = 1.5 tsf

WC = 32.0%

Su = 2375 psf Qp = 0.75 tsf

WC=32.1%

Su = 2150 psf

SS: 1-4-4; N=8

Qp = 1.25 tsf

WC = 23.8%

Su = 2150 psf Qp = 1.75 tsf

WC = 21.7%

Su = 2275 psf

SS: 1-6-7; N=13

+557.1

+549.4

+540.6

+537.6

34.5

42.2

51.0

54.0

30.0 31.5

32.5 34.0

35.0 36.5

38.0 40.0

17a 41.5 43.0

44.0 45.5

46.5 48.0

49.0 50.5

51.5 53.0

55.0 56.5

58.0 60.0

61.5 63.0

64.5 66.5

Silty fine to coarse sand, trace fine gravel -gray and brown - saturated - medium dense (SM) (continued)

- with seams of fine sand and trace silt at 32.5 ft

Silty clay, trace fine sand, trace shells - gray -very soft to soft (OL)

Silty clay, trace fine gravel, trace fine sand -brown - very stiff to hard (CL)

Silt, trace clay - brown with gray lenses and mottles - hard (ML)

Silty clay, trace fine gravel, trace fine sand -gray - firm to stiff (CL)

80.0

80.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

93.3

100.0

86.7

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

RECOV-

ERY

SHEETS

PROJECT 2INSTALLATION

Chicago District

DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet)

ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

591.6 Hole No. PD-04

IHC CDF Center Dike Raise

SHEET

OF 3

Hole No. PD-04

PROJECT HOLE NO.

IHC CDF Center Dike Raise PD-041836-A

JUN 67

ENG FORM

Qp = 1.5 tsf

WC = 22.2%

Su = 2750 psf Qp = 2.5 tsf

WC = 20%

SS: 11-11-12; N=23

Qp = 2.5 tsf

WC = 16.5%

SS: 4-10-20; N=30

Qp - 4.0 tsf

WC = 17.2%

+520.6

+511.6

+510.1

71.0

80.0

81.5

68.0 69.5

71.0 73.0

75.0 76.5

80.0 81.5

Silty clay, trace fine gravel, trace fine sand -gray - firm to stiff (CL) (continued)

Silty clay, trace fine gravel, trace fine sand -gray - stiff to very stiff (CL)

Silty clay, trace fine gravel, trace fine sand -gray - hard (CL)

End of boring at 81.5 ft Backfilled with cement-bentonite grout.

100.0

100.0

100.0

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

RECOV-

ERY

SHEETS

PROJECT 3INSTALLATION

Chicago District

DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet)

ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

591.6 Hole No. PD-04

IHC CDF Center Dike Raise

SHEET

OF 3

Hole No. PD-04

PROJECT HOLE NO.

IHC CDF Center Dike Raise PD-041836-A

JUN 67

ENG FORM

SECTION 01 35 45 Page 1

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 01 35 45

CHEMICAL DATA QUALITY CONTROL

1.1 REFERENCES

1.2 ACRONYMS

1.3 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT

1.4 CHEMISTRY REQUIREMENTS

1.4.1 Data Quality Objectives (DQO)

1.5 SUBMITTALS

1.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE ELEMENTS

1.6.1 Laboratory Requirements

1.6.2 Sample Collection and Analysis

1.6.3 Laboratory Turnaround Time

1.6.4 Review of Primary Laboratory Data

1.6.5 Validation of Data

1.7 PART 2

PRODUCTS (NOT USED)

PART 3 EXECUTION

3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

3.1.1 Authority and Responsibility

3.2 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN

3.2.1 Field Sampling Plan

3.2.2 Quality Assurance Project Plan

3.3 CHEMISTRY DATA PACKAGE

3.3.1 Required Electronic Data Deliverables

3.3.2 Electronic Data Deliverables

3.4 CONTROL OF CHEMICAL DATA QUALITY

3.5 ANALYTICAL TESTING LABORATORIES

3.5.1 Laboratory Analytical Requirements

3.5.2 Laboratory Performance

3.6 CHEMICAL DATA QUALITY REVIEW

3.7 QUARTERLY DATA REPORT

3.8 NOTIFICATION OF NON-COMPLIANCE

-- End of Section Table of Contents --

SECTION 01 35 45 Page 2

SECTION 01 35 45

CHEMICAL DATA QUALITY CONTROL

The Contractor is responsible for all labor, equipment, etc. required to conduct all sampling needed during operation of the CDF wastewater treatment plant and to meet the relevant regulatory requirements for the CDF. The requirements of this specification section apply to the sampling and data analysis associated with the operation of the wastewater treatment plant.

The Contractor is responsible for adherence to all current and applicable, relevant, and appropriate requirements, particularly regarding Department of Defense (DoD) and/or United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) publications, such as guidance manuals, standard protocols, and regulations concerning the collection, shipment/transport, analysis, and documentation/record-keeping/custody of environmental samples. In addition, all the chemical data that is generated must be reviewed and assessed to ensure it is of acceptable quality to support and satisfy the intended use, project-specific data quality objectives (DQOs), and needs of regulators. The data must be technically valid, of known quality, legally defensible, and sufficient to meet or exceed the project-specific DQOs.

1.1 REFERENCES

The publications listed below form a part of this specification to the extent referenced. The publications are referred to within the text by the basic designation only.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE)

EM 200-1-3 (2001) Engineering and Design - Requirements for the Preparation of Sampling and Analysis Plans

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)

DTIC ADA 427785 (2005) Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Part 1: UFP-QAPP Manual, Evaluating, Assessing, and Documenting Environmental Data Collection and Use Programs, Final, Version 1, March

EPA-505-B-04-900A

DTIC ADA 426957 (2005) Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Part 2B, Quality Assurance/Quality Control Compendium:

Minimum QA/QC Activities, Final, Version 1, March 2005

SECTION 01 35 45 Page 3

EPA-505-B-04-900B

DOD QSM (2013) Department of Defense Quality Systems Manual For Environmental Laboratories, latest final version, (currently version 5.0, Final, July 2013).

http://www.denix.osd.mil/edqw/upload/QSM-Version-5-0-

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

EPA 540/R 99-008 (1999) USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review

EPA 540-R-04-004 (2004) USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review OSWER 9240.1-45

EPA/240/B-06/001 (2006) Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4, February 2006 http://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html

1.2 ACRONYMS

The definition of acronyms used by the Contractor that pertain to chemical data quality control shall be clearly defined for all contract related products and communications. This shall include all abbreviations used and all data qualifiers.

1.3 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT

Separate payment will not be made for providing and maintaining the chemical data quality requirements including the chemical data quality management, chemical data validation, minimum chemical data reporting requirements, and chemical data quality submittal requirements; these costs shall be included in the applicable unit prices contained in the bidding schedule.

1.4 CHEMISTRY REQUIREMENTS

A Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements in paragraph titled "SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN", of this specification, the PWS, and with EM 200-1-3 and shall include Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) in accordance with the EPA's seven-step DQO process as described in EPA/240/B-06/001.

1.4.1 Data Quality Objectives (DQO)

Sample acquisition, chemical analysis and chemical parameter measurements shall be performed so that the resulting data meet and support data use requirements. The chemical data shall be acquired, documented, verified and reported to ensure that the specified precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness and sensitivity requirements are achieved.

The different categories of sampling that are anticipated for this project are:

http://www.denix.osd.mil/edqw/upload/QSM-Version-5-0-http://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html

SECTION 01 35 45 Page 4

(1) to determine the chemical characteristics of materials to be disposed of off site, including free product (such as waste oil) and other hazardous or chemical waste;

(2) to sample to support manifesting, transporting, and disposing of hazardous or solid waste off-site such that the requirements of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and other applicable Federal, State, and local laws are met;

(3) to sample the water treated by the onsite treatment plant to determine compliance with the site's NPDES discharge permit criteria including whole effluent toxicity testing;

(4) to sample the treatment plant influent water to document variability in the influent characteristics to determine additional treatment requirements.

Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) shall be developed in accordance with the EPA's seven-step DQO process as described in EPA/240/B-06/001. The Contractor shall develop project-specific DQOs for each of the sampling categories above by:

(1) defining the problem,

(2) identifying the goals,

(3) providing information inputs,

(4) defining the boundaries,

(5) developing the analytical approach,

(6) specifying performance criteria, and

(7) developing a detailed plan for obtaining the data.

In accordance with EM 200-1-10, precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity (PARCCS) parameters need to be documented for the target analytes of concern at the levels of concern (at or below project action levels) in the environmental media of interest and evaluated with respect to acceptance limits, which are designed to ensure that measurement uncertainty is within the limits prescribed by the DQOs.

1.5 SUBMITTALS

Submittals are described in the PWS.

1.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE ELEMENTS

The Contractor shall be responsible for the following QA elements necessary to monitor and ensure the quality of chemical data produced.

1.6.1 Laboratory Requirements

The Contract Laboratory shall be accredited by the Department of Defense Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (DoD ELAP) (reference Environmental Data Quality Workgroup web page https://www.denix.osd.mil/edqw/Index.cfm) by a DOD approved Accrediting Body which is ISO/IEC 17011:2004 compliant for all applicable matrix and method combinations. As an element of the DOD ELAP, all laboratories must http://www.denix.osd.mil/edqw/Index.cfm)

SECTION 01 35 45 Page 5 demonstrate the ability to generate acceptable results from the analysis of proficiency-testing (PT) sample(s), subject to availability, using each applicable method in the specified matrix. DoD ELAP accreditation establishes that laboratories have an established and documented laboratory quality system that conforms to ISO/IEC 17025 as implemented by the DoD Quality Systems Manual (DoD QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, latest version. The Contractor shall ensure the laboratory makes appropriate documentation available to the Contracting Officer. The Laboratory Accreditation documentation (including a copy of DoD ELAP accreditation, SOPs, MDLs, and LCS control ranges) will be submitted as part of the Sampling and Analysis Plan submittal.

The Contractor shall identify all proposed project laboratories meeting the requirements in the Sampling and Analysis Plan for all parameters in the NPDES permit, including Whole Effluent Toxicity testing in accordance with the NPDES permit requirements. If a laboratory fails to meet the DoD QSM or project-specific requirements at any time, the Government may request the use of the laboratory be discontinued and replacement analytical services be procured from a laboratory which can meet these requirements.

If the Contract Laboratory is not accredited for any particular matrix or method required for this contract, then the Contractor must propose a subcontract laboratory which is capable of satisfying all of the requirements. The subcontract laboratory will be subject to all the provisions and requirements of the contract and accompanying technical scope of work.

Selected laboratories shall notify the Contractor and COR immediately of change in status of laboratory operations that may affect on-going compliance with project requirements. The COR may, at any time, conduct audits (including requests for pertinent data or information) that support an environmental laboratory's certifications including compliance with the DoD QSM. If the COR finds the laboratory non-compliant, alternate compliant laboratory services will be utilized, until such time as compliance is again demonstrated.

1.6.2 Sample Collection and Analysis

The Contractor shall be responsible for collection and transportation of samples to the laboratory.

a. The Contractor shall provide all labor and field supplies, including sample containers and shipping coolers, for collecting and shipping samples for QA testing. The Contractor shall properly collect, label, and package the samples, fill out all chain-of-custody forms, and ship the samples by one-day delivery service to the designated laboratory for analysis. Samples must be maintained at a temperature less than 4 degrees C until analyses are performed.

b. The Contractor shall collect primary sample Quality Control (QC) samples in the form of a sample duplicate at the rate of one per 10 samples and a matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) at a rate of one per 20 samples. At a minimum, the Contractor should follow the guidance in the DoD QSM and EM 200-1-10, whichever is more stringent. The QC samples will be analyzed for the same parameters as the parent sample.

1.6.3 Laboratory Turnaround Time

SECTION 01 35 45 Page 6

The results from the measurements that require analytical chemistry shall be submitted from the laboratory to the Contractor no later than seven (7) calendar days following the day the samples were collected unless specified otherwise. Sampling during treatment plant startup shall be analyzed on a 24-hour turn around time.

1.6.4 Review of Primary Laboratory Data

The Contractor shall be responsible for the independent data review of the entire primary data set in accordance with paragraph titled "CHEMICAL DATA QUALITY REVIEW". The independent reviewer will be a qualified individual independent from the laboratory personnel performing the analyses and can be a separate third-party entity, or laboratory personnel who did not perform the analyses, or an employee of the Contractor. The reviewer must be able to be objective and identify errors/problems and appropriate corrective actions without concerns about potential repercussions.

1.6.5 Validation of Data

The Contractor shall be responsible for 100% review of the data in accordance with EPA 540/R 99-008 and EPA 540-R-04-004 and paragraph titled "CHEMICAL DATA QUALITY REVIEW". Validation of treatment plant effluent data to be reported in the DMR/MMRs to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) as required in the site's NPDES permit shall be performed prior to inclusion in the DMR/MMRs.

Documentation of the data validation will be included in Quarterly Data Reports.

The Contractor shall perform a review of the raw data from a given batch.

The data quality shall be measured by laboratory compliance with the required methods, QC sample results, and acceptable practices for analysis and data reduction.

PART 3 EXECUTION

3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor shall be responsible for chemical sample acquisition, sample analysis, instrumental measurements of chemical parameters and for chemical data quality control. An effective chemical data quality control system shall be established that meets the requirements for the chemical measurement DQO applicable to the project. The system shall cover chemical measurements pertaining to and required for Contractor and subcontractor produced chemical data. The Contractor shall control field screening, sampling, and testing in conjunction with all relevant project activities to meet all DQO and ensure completion of work within the required time.

3.1.1 Authority and Responsibility

The Contractor shall provide a diagram, flow chart, or figure clearly depicting…