sampling and analysis plan, volume 2 - quality … · contracting officer robert stem project...

3 2 0003

Stt# ._ $rea* ^_^-%

Sampling and Analysis Plan <$m-Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan

Barber Orchard Site Haywood County, North Carolina

Prepared Under EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043

USEPA Work Assignment 034-RICO-A4T9 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

Barber Orchard Site

10086088

Prepared by Black and Veatch Special Projects Corporation

1145 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 475 Alpharetta, Georgia 30004

April 27, 2001

3 2 0 0 0 4

SIGNATURES AND APPROVALS

Edward Hicks Date Black and Veatch Project Manager

Harvey Coppage Date Black and Veatch Program Manager

Jon Bornholm Date EPA Project Manager

Gary Bennett Date EPA Quality Assurance Officer

Robert Stern Date EPA Project Officer

Charles Hayes Date EPA Contracting Officer

3 2 0005

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: TOC EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-RICO-A4T9 Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page i of v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

2.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2-1 2.1 Project Organization 2-1 2.2 Problem Definition and Background 2-6

2.2.1 Background 2-6 2.2.2 Site Problem 2-7

2.3 Project Description 2-7 2.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data 2-8

2.4.1 Data Quality Objectives 2-8 2.4.2 DQO Step 1: State the Problem 2-10 2.4.3 DQO Step 2: Identify the Decision 2-10 2.4.4 DQO Step 3: Identify the Inputs to the Decision 2-11 2.4.5 DQO Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries 2-13

2.4.5.1 Spatial Boundaries of the Study 2-13 2.4.5.2 Temporal Boundaries of the Study 2-14

2.4.6 DQO Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule 2-15 2.4.7 DQO Step 6: Specify Tolerable Limits on Decision Errors 2-16

2.4.7.1 The First Decision for the Barber Orchard Site 2-19 2.4.7.2 The Second Decision for the Barber Orchard Site 2-20

2.4.8 DQO Step 7: Optimize the Design 2-21 2.4.9 Measurement Performance Criteria 2-21

2.5 Special Training Requirements/Certification 2-22 2.6 Documentation and Records 2-23

2.6.1 Field Sampling Documentation 2-23 2.6.2 Sample Identification System 2-23 2.6.3 Laboratory Records 2-24 2.6.4 Project Record Maintenance and Storage 2-24

3.0 MEASUREMENT AND DATA ACQUISITION 3-1 3.1 Sampling Process Design and Rationale 3-1 3.2 Sampling Methods Requirements 3-2 3.3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements 3-2

3.3.1 Sample Preservation and Holding Time 3-2 3.3.2 Sample Custody and Shipping Requirements 3-4

3.3.2.1 Sample Custody 3-4 3.3.2.2 Sample Shipping and Chain of Custody 3-4 3.3.2.2 Laboratory Sample Custody 3-5

3.4 Analytical Method and Quality Control Requirements 3-5

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: TOC i EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 " Work Assignment 034-R1CO-A4T9 Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page ii of v

3.4.1 Analytical Sample Analysis Turnaround 3-5 3.5 Quality Control Samples 3-6

3.5.1 Field and Laboratory Quality Control Samples 3-6 3.5.2 Field Corrective Action 3-8

3.6 Field Instrument Requirements 3-8 3.6.1 Foxboro OVA Model 128 3-9 3.6.2 Oxygen/LEL Meter 3-11 3.6.3 Water Temperature, pH, and Conductivity Meter 3-12

3.6.3.1 Temperature 3-12 3.6.3.2 Specific Conductance 3-13 3.6.3.3 pH 3-13

3.6.4 Water Turbidity 3-14 3.7 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables 3-15 3.8 Data Acquisition Requirements 3-16

3.8.1 Precision 3-16 3.8.2 Accuracy 3-16 3.8.3 Representativeness 3-17 3.8.4 Comparability 3-17| 3.8.5 Completeness 3-18

3.9 Data Management '..... 3-18 3.9.1 Data Recording 3-18 3.9.2 Data Validation 3-18 3.9.3 Data Transmittal 3-19 3.9.4 Data Transformation and Reduction 3-19 3.9.5 Data Analysis 3-19 3.9.6 Data Tracking . . ' 3-19 3.9.7 Data Storage and Retrieval 3-19

4.0 ASSESSMENT/OVERSIGHT 4-1 4.1 Assessments and Response Actions 4-1 4.2 Reports to Management 4-2

5.0 DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY 5-1 5.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements 5-1 5.2 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives 5-2

LIST OF TABLES

3-1 Sample Containers, Preservatives, and Holding Times 3-2 3-2 QC Sample Summary 3 - |

3 2 0

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignment 034-R1CO-A4T9 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site

Section: TOC Revision No. 0

Date: April 27. 2001 Page iii of v

LIST OF FIGURES

2-1 Project Team Organizational Chart

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Tables A-1 through A-3, Project Quality Control Objectives B Field Forms and Logs

LIST OF ACRONYMS

2-2

°C op

\lg/L AR ARAR ASTM Black & Veatch CFR CLP COC COPC DQI DQO EPA ER FDEP FDER FID FSP GC/MS ID IDW IT LEL |imhos/cm mg/kg MS/MSD NTU 02

OSHA OVA

degrees Celsius degrees Fahrenheit micrograms per liter analytical request applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement American Society for Testing and Materials Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation Code of Federal Regulations Contract Laboratory Program chain-of-custody contaminants of potential concern data quality indicator data quality objective U.S. Environmental Protection Agency equipment rinse Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Department of Environmental Regulation flame ionization detection field sampling plan gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy identification number investigation-derived waste IT Corporation lower explosive limit micromhos per centimeter milligrams per kilogram matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate nephelometic turbidity unit oxygen Occupational Safety and Health Administration organic vapor analyzer

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignment 034-RJCO-A4T9 Rl/FS Barber Orchard Site

Section: TOC Revision No. 0

Date: April 27. 2001 Page iv of v

PARCC PCA PCE PPM PRG psig QA/QC QAPP RAC RPD RI/FS SAP SESD SOP SOW SSC TAT VOC

precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness preliminary contamination assessment tetrachloroethene parts per million preliminary remediation goal pounds per square inch gage quality assurance/quality control quality assurance project plan Response Action Contract relative percent difference remedial investigation/remedial study sampling and analysis plan Science and Ecosystem Support Division standard operating procedure statement of work site safety coordinator turn around time volatile organic compound

3 2 0007

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: TOC EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-RJCO-A4T9 Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page v of v

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Jon Bornholm, EPA Project Manager Robert Stern, EPA Project Officer Charles Hayes, EPA Contracting Officer Harvey Coppage, Black and Veatch Program Manager Edward Hicks, Black and Veatch Project Manager Randy Kurth, IT Corporation Project Manager Mary Hall, IT Corporation Quality Assurance Manager Tony Tingle, IT Corporation Site Manager Jorge Ramirez, IT Corporation Remedial Design Task Manager William Anderson, IT Corporation Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Task Manager To be named, IT Corporation Site QA/QC Officer To be named, IT Corporation Field Site Supervisor EPA Contract Laboratory Program Laboratory Manager (To be named)

3 2 0

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignment 034-RICO-A4T9 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance project plan (QAPP) has been prepared in response to the statement of work

(SOW) for the remedial investigation/feasibility study (PJ/FS) for the Barber Orchard site in

Haywood Count, North Carolina, issued to Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation (Black &

Veatch) on September 28, 2000, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV (EPA).

This SOW was issued through EPA Response Action Contract (RAC) No. 68-W-99-043 under Work

Assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9. This QAPP is a critical planning document for the RI

environmental data collection activities to be performed at the Barber Orchard site.

This document will address the implementation of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)

activities throughout the life cycle of the project and is the basis for identifying how the quality

system of the organization performing the work is reflected in the project and in associated technical

goals. This QAPP is an integral part of the sampling and analysis plan and incorporates the elements

of a data management plan as specified in the EPA SOW for the RI/FS at the Barber Orchard site.

The format and information in this QAPP are based on the October 1997 EPA document

Requirements/or Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Data Operations (EPA QA/R-

5), and supplemented by the February 1998 EPA document Guidance for Quality Assurance Project

Plans (EPA QA/G-5).

Section: 1.0 Revision No. 0

Revision Date: April 27, 2001 Page 1 of 1

3 2 0009

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignment 034-RJCO-A4T9 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site


Revision Date: April 27, 2001 Page 1 of24

2.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

This section provides an overall approach to managing the project, including:

Project organization, roles, and responsibilities

Project definition and background

Project description

Quality objectives and criteria for measurement data

Special training requirements

Documentation and records management.

Black & Veatch has tasked their team subcontractor, IT Corporation (IT) with a majority of the

technical effort for the RI/FS at this site.

2.1 Project Organization The purpose of the project organization is to provide the EPA with a clear understanding of the role

of each participant in the RI/FS and to provide the lines of authority and reporting for the project. The

following participants, including principal data users, decision makers, and project QA managers, are

included:

Decision

Makers

QA Managers

Principal Data

Users

EPA Project Manager Jon Bornholm

EPA QA Manager Gary Bennett

Black & Veatch QA Manager Carol King

IT Corporation QA Manager Mary Hall

Black & Veatch Project Manager Edward Hicks

IT Corporation Site Manager Tony Tingle

IT Corporation Task Managers TBD

US EPA REGION 4 Charles Hayes

Contracting Officer

Robert Stem Project Officer

Atlanta, GA

Black & Veatch Harvey Coppage, PE

RAC 4 Program Manager

Krista Jones RAC 4 Deputy Program Manager

Alpharetta, GA

Black & Veatch Edward Hicks, PE Project Manager Alpharetta, GA

IT Corporation Randy K Project 1 Knoxvi

Tony Tii SiteM Knoxvi

TE Task M Knoxvi

urth, PG Manager lle.TN

igle, PG anager lle.TN

ID anagers lle.TN

US EPA Region 4 Jon Bornholm

Project Manager Atlanta, GA

US EPA SESD Gary Bennett

Chief Quality Assurance Officer Contract Laboratory Program

Black & Veatch Carol King

QA Officer - Alpharetta, GA

•

Figure 2-1 Organization Chart

•

3 2 00

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2.0 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-RJCO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 3 of 24

A project organization chart is presented on Figure 2-1. Black & Veatch in Alpharetta, Georgia, has

overall responsibility for the work at Barber Orchard site. The Black & Veatch Project Manager, Mr.

Edward Hicks, has primary responsibility for execution of the work. The project manager will track

performance of the work against schedule and budget constraints, will be involved in data review, and

will oversee the preparation of technical reports. Mr. Hicks will be the primary contact with the EPA

remedial project manager, Mr. Jon Bornholm. Mr. Hicks will also serve as the project review team

leader, and will ensure that valid data is collected and used in a technically correct manner. The

Black & Veatch/IT project team will be responsible for implementation of the work plan, data

evaluation, electronic deliverables, and ensuring that the data requirements of the project are met.

Under the direction of the IT Site Manager, Mr. Tony Tingle, IT will provide a team of fully trained

personnel to this project. The team will include a multi-disciplinary technical staff of engineers,

geologists, chemists, toxicologists, technicians, skilled tradesmen, and administrative support

personnel. This team will provide the support necessary to perform the RI/FS work. The site

manager will be supported by IT's QA management team, which will provide reviews, guidance, and

technical advice on project execution issues. Members of this staff will be on an "as-needed" basis

to assist in smooth project execution. The project team, consisting of supervisory and health and

safety personnel, will support the site manager and QA/QC staff to ensure that the project is safely

executed in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, statutes, and industry codes. Individuals

of the project team are responsible for fulfilling appropriate portions of the project QA program, in

accordance with assignments made by the site manager. The site manager is responsible for

satisfactory completion of the project QA program. The site manager may assign specific

responsibilities to the task managers and/or other members of the project staff.

The responsibilities of IT's key members in the project organization are:

IT Site Manager, Tony Tingle. The IT site manager is responsible for the overall direction of this

project executed under his supervision. He provides the managerial administrative skills to ensure

that resource allocations, planning, execution, and reporting meet contract requirements. He is

ultimately accountable for all work activities undertaken on this project. The global quality-related

responsibilities of the site manager can include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Organization of the project staff and assignment of responsibilities

• Understanding of contract and scope of work for a specific project

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2.0 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 Rl/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 4 of 24

Communication to the project staff regarding client requirements and QA practices

Identification, documentation, and notification to the client and project staff and QA

personnel of changes in the scope of work, project documentation, and activities

Supervision of preparation and approval of project-specific procedures, work plans, and

QAPPs

Approval of project design basis, design parameters, drawings, and reports

Approval of project remedial action/construction methodologies

Dissemination of project-related information from the client such as design basis, input

parameters, and drawings

Liaison for communications with the client and subcontractors and between the project staff

and other internal groups

Decision of whether or not drawings require independent review

Investigation of nonconformances, notification of QA personnel, and implementation of

corrective actions

Determination of the effect of nonconformances on the project and the appropriateness for̂

reporting such items to the client, and providing appropriate documentation for reporting

Determination that changes, revisions, and rework are subject to the same QC requirements

as the original work

Serve as final reviewer prior to release of project information

Approve and sign outgoing correspondence

Custodian of all project-related documents.

Some of these responsibilities may be assigned by the site manager to the task manager, who will

remain on site throughout the project field activities.

Task Managers, TBD. The task managers are responsible for the day-to-day management of this

work. They will ensure sufficient resource allocations to maintain project schedule and budget. They

will provide daily feedback to the site manager on project progress, issues requiring resolution, etc.

The quality-related responsibilities of the task managers include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Notification to the site manager (or Black & Veatch project manager) if the project cannot

be completed with regard to quality, schedule, or cost

• Oversight and control of lower tier subcontractor services

• Liaison for communications with IT project staff and other internal groups

3 2 00

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2.0 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-RJCO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RJ/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 5 of 24

• Supervision of day-to-day site activities in accordance with project and program

requirements

• Preparing the QC reports

• Initiating corrective actions for nonconformance identified on site.

Project Chemical QA Officer, Ben Dettorre. The chemical QA officer is responsible for

implementing the project chemical QA program. He is responsible for informing the site manager

of any site-specific QA issues. His responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Reviewing subcontractor's QA manuals and/or laboratory quality management plans, and if

possible, performing audits on the labs

• Certifying the level of QA that has been achieved during the generation of analytical data

• Initiating and overseeing all audit functions

• Stopping work if quality objectives are not being met

• Initiating investigations for nonconformance, identifying appropriate corrective actions, and

performing follow-up audits to ensure that the corrective actions were successful.

Site QA Officer, TBD. The site QA officer is responsible for implementing the project plans and

ensuring that the QA and data quality objectives (DQO) are being met for the project. He is also

responsible for informing the chemical QA officer of any site-specific problems and for coordinating

QA efforts with the contracted laboratory. His specific responsibilities include, but are not limited

to, the following:

Determining if the project and DQOs are being met

Evaluating chemical data for technical validity and ensuring adherence to published guidelines

Analyzing and interpreting all subcontracted technical and laboratory results

Implementing QA/QC procedures

Ensuring the continuity of chain-of-custody (COC) evidence

Working with the QC officer to compile and submit required QA reports

Compiling, revising, updating, and submitting sampling and analysis plans (SAP)

Implementing corrective actions as required by the chemical QC officer

Ongoing QA/QC training of new and current personnel

Reviewing laboratory invoices for completeness and accuracy, if necessary.

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2.o' EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-RJCO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 Rl/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 6 of 24

Site Field Supervisor, TBD. The field supervisor will:

Implement the SAP and designated QA/QC procedures.

Oversee all field sampling activities.

Report all QC data to the site officer for review.

Implement corrective actions as required by the site QA officer.

Perform on-site screening and analyses of samples, if needed.

Fill out sample tracking forms and related analytical and QC forms and logbooks.

Ensure that the samples are handled, packaged, and shipped according to the SAP.

Ensure that the laboratory supplies the sample containers, shipping supplies, COC records,

and the required QC samples (i.e., trip blanks).

Sample Technicians, TBD. The sample technicians will be responsible for:

• Carrying out all sampling in accordance with approved procedures and methodologies a s ^ B

defined in the SAP

• Generating field blanks, equipment rinsate blanks, and acquiring field duplicate samples as

required by the SAP

• Completing sampling logbooks, sampling forms, labels, custody seals, COC forms, and other

paperwork as required by the SAP

• Packaging and shipping of samples to appropriate laboratories.

The EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) oversees the Contract

Laboratory Program (CLP) and maintains its own QA program under the direction of Mr. Gary

Bennett. Mr. Bennett is responsible for ensuring that the analytical work contracted to CLP

laboratories and the data qualification of the data by SESD personnel is conducted in accordance with

the appropriate QA procedures. The analytical work performed for this RI/FS will be conducted by

both CLP and non-CLP laboratories.

2.2 Problem Definition and Background

2.2.1 Background

The site consists of approximately 500 acres located off of U.S. Highway 74 approximately 3 miles

west of Waynesville in Haywood County, North Carolina. The 500-acre site has historically been

•

3 2 0012

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2.0 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-RJCO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 Rl/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 7 of 24

used as agricultural land for an apple orchard from 1903 until 1998. The majority of the site has been

subdivided for residential development, with homes constructed on a portion of the parcels. More

information regarding the Barber Orchard site background can be found the Barber Orchard Work

Plan, Volume 1.

2.2.2 Site Problem In 1999, samples from a residential water well on the former orchard property reported detected

pesticide contamination. Subsequent sampling results again reported detected pesticides, as well as

arsenic and lead, within surface soils throughout the former orchard area. EPA proposed the

subdivision a Superfund site and in 1999 initiated an emergency response to remediate those

properties developed as residences that contained arsenic in surface soils at concentrations greater

than forty milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). In addition to arsenic, lead, dichlorodiphenyl-

dichloroethane, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene, dieldrin, alpha-betahexachlorocyclohexane, endrin,

and endrin ketone have been identified as contaminants of potential concern (COPC).

The objective of this RI/FS is to determine the nature and extent of contamination, quantify potential

risk to human health and the environment, and collect sufficient data to conduct an FS to evaluate

potential remedial measures for the Barber Orchard site.

2.3 Project Description IT will furnish the necessary personnel, materials, equipment, services, and facilities to perform the

work as the team subcontractor to Black &Veatch. IT will provide a team of fully trained personnel

including engineers, chemists, toxicologists, technicians, skilled tradesmen, and administrative

support personnel. This team will provide the support necessary and the management structure to

perform the tasks required to complete RI/FS.

The scope of work for this project may include the following activities:

Site reconnaissance

Civil survey

Installing, logging, and sampling shallow and deep monitoring wells

Collecting surface and subsurface soil samples

Collecting sediment and surface water samples

Camping equipment decontamination

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignment 034-R1CO-A4T9 Rl/FS Barber Orchard Site

• Investigation-derived waste (IDW) sampling, analysis, and disposal

• Collecting treatability study soil samples.

The objective of RI is to gather sufficient information on the nature and extent of the COPC in soils

and in the groundwater to determine if remediation will be required and to perform an FS on possible

remediation options.

A CLP laboratory, selected by the EPA, will be used for all sample analyses with the exception of

samples collected for any treatability study testing. Treatability study samples, if required, will be

analyzed by IT's Technology Applications Laboratory in Knoxville, Tennessee.

The objectives, sampling rationale, approximate locations, estimated number of samples, and analysis

for these tasks are described in detail in the project field sampling plan (FSP). It should be noted that

the exact sample locations and the total number of samples and analyses may change from those

described in the FSP, depending on actual field conditions. Critical samples will include alj|

environmental samples collected from source areas (upgradient, downgradient, and side gradient

locations) and all QC samples.

2.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data

2.4.1 Data Quality Objectives DQOs are qualitative and quantitative statements derived from the resultant of each step of a process

that: (1) clarifies the study objective; (2) defines the most appropriate type of data to collect; (3)

determines the most appropriate conditions from which to collect the data; and (4) specifies tolerable

limits on decision errors that will be used as the basis for establishing the quantity and quality of data

needed to support the decision. The DQO process for this project is described in the September 1994

EPA document .Fma/ Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA QA/G-4), and the 1998

document Final Guidance for the Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QA/G-5). Much of the

following sections have been paraphrased or taken directly from these documents.

The DQO process is a strategic planning approach based on the scientific method designed to ensure

that the type, quantity, and quality of environmental data used in decision-making are appropriate fo |

the intended application. By using the DQO process, a decision-maker uses specific criteria for

determining when data are sufficient for site decisions. This provides a mechanism for decision-

section: 2 Revision No.


•

3 2 0013

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2.0 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 9 of 24

makers to determine when enough data have been collected. Because the DQO process is based on

the scientific method, the legal defensibility of site decisions are improved by providing a complete

record of the decision process and the criteria used for arriving at all conclusions.

The DQO process consists of seven steps; the output from each step influences the choices that will

be made later in the process. Although it is a linear sequence of steps, the DQO process is iterative

in practice; the outputs from one step may lead to reconsideration of prior steps. This iteration is

encouraged to produce a more efficient data collection design. The seven steps of the DQO process

are as follows:

• Step 1: State the Problem - Concisely describe the problem to be studied. Review previous

investigation reports and existing information in order to develop an understanding of how

to define the problem.

• Step 2: Identify the Decision - Identify what questions the investigation will attempt to

resolve, and what action may result.

• Step 3: Identify the Inputs to the Decision - Identify the information that needs to be obtained

(analytical data results, field measurements) in order to resolve the decision statement.

• Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries - Specify the time periods and spatial area to which

decisions will apply. Determine when and where data will be collected.

• Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule - Define the statistical parameter of interest, specify the

action level, and integrate the previous DQO outputs into a single statement that describes the

logical basis for selecting alternative actions.

• Section 6: Specify Tolerable Limits on Decision Error - Define the decision maker's tolerable

decision error rates based on a consideration of the consequences of making an incorrect

decision.

• Step 7: Optimize the Design - Evaluate information from the previous steps and generate

alternative data collection designs. Select the most resource-effective design that meets the

DQOs.


Section: 2 Revision No.


O^B^

2.4.2 DQO Step 1: State the Problem The first step in the DQO process is to identify and clearly state the problem. For this work effort,

the problem has been defined by the EPA Region 4 in the SOWs for the RI/FS of this site. The EPA

SOW for this site can be found in the site work plan. The object of the RI/FS at this site is to collect

data to determine the nature and extent of the COPC within the former orchard area for developed

and nondeveloped parcels, and also to collect the minimum amount of data necessary to support the

selection of an approach for site remediation and then to use this data in a well-supported record of

decision.

The RI/FS will be performed by Black &Veatch, with assistance from their team subcontractor, IT,

under work assignment No. 034-RICO-A4T9 with EPA Region 4. The EPA will provide comments

on the QAPP, FSP, and future investigation reports.

2.4.3 DQO Step 2: Identify the Decision The second step in the DQO process is to identify the questions that the investigations will attempt

to resolve and identify the alternative actions that may be necessary based on the outcome of the

investigations. In the DQO process, the combination of these elements is called the decision.

Based on a review of the problem defined in Section 2.2.1, the following principal questions have

been developed for these investigations:

• What are the levels of COPC at the Barber Orchard site?

• What is the vertical and horizontal nature and extent of the COPC?

• What are the current and future risks to human health and ecological receptors associated with

the COPC?

Based on the results of the RI/FS at the site, alternative actions may be necessary to solve the

problem. The following are alternative actions that may be necessary to answer the aforementioned

principal questions:

3 - 2 0 0 1 4

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2.0 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RJ/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 11 of 24

• Install additional monitoring wells to delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of

contamination in the groundwater.

• Collect groundwater and subsurface soil samples from additionally installed well boreholes

to delineate the extent of contamination.

• Analyze samples for additional parameters based on analytical results of the initial

background sampling.

The principal questions and the alternative actions are combined into a decision statement that

expresses a choice among alternative actions. The following decision statements have been drafted

for these investigations:

• Determine whether contamination is migrating vertically and/or horizontally from on-site

sources.

• Determine whether the vertical and horizontal extent of groundwater contamination in the is

delineated during the initial investigation and requires the installation of additional monitoring

wells.

• Determine whether the nature of contamination has been determined and requires additional

sampling and/or analyses.

• Determine whether the detected concentrations exceed state and federal regulatory standards.

• Determine whether any natural attenuation is occurring at a rate that will effectively

remediate the site without subsequent remedial action.

2.4.4 DQO Step 3: Identify the Inputs to the Decision The third step in the DQO process is to identify the information needed to support the decision

(known as decision inputs), and specify which inputs require new environmental data. Action levels,

applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARAR), and preliminary remediation goals




•

(PRG) are examples of required inputs to the decision. The following activities will help identify

required inputs to the decision:

• Identify the informational inputs needed to resolve the decision.

• Identify sources for each informational input and list those inputs that are obtained through

environmental measurements.

• Determine the basis for establishing contaminant-specific action levels.

• Identify potential sampling techniques and appropriate analytical methods.

The following information is required to make the decisions for the RI for the site:

• Historical records of chemical and physical deposition

• Potential human and environmental targets that may be affected from site contamination

• Environmental sampling data from subsurface soil and groundwater in conjunction with past _

environmental sampling data; the level of this data should be of sufficient quality to support^B

a risk assessment, an evaluation of alternatives, and engineering design

• Site-specific geophysical data.

The criteria on which the decisions will be made are as follows:

The cleanup criteria for groundwater shall be the more stringent of the North Carolina state

regulations (from the 2000 document from North Carolina Department of Environment and

Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management Hazardous Waste Section, Guidelines/or

Determining Soil and Groundwater Cleanup Levels at RCRA Hazardous Waste Sites, revised

draft, September) and federal maximum contaminant levels. In the absence of these regulated

concentrations, the criteria shall be two times the concentration identified in the background

sample or any quantifiable concentration if the contaminant was not detected in the

background sample. In the absence of an adequate background sample, the criteria shall be

the site-specific risk assessment. Remedial efforts will focus on elimination of the source

contaminants so natural attentuation can provide for the residual contamination reduction to

actual target cleanup levels.

3 2 0015

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2.0 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-RJCO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 13 of 24

2.4.5 DQO Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries The fourth step in the DQO process is to specify the spatial and temporal limits of the environmental media that the data must represent to support the decisions. For environmental samples to be representative of the domain or area for which the decisions will be made, the boundaries of the study must be precisely defined. The purpose of this step is to clearly define the set of circumstances (boundaries) that will be covered by the decisions. These include:

• Spatial boundaries that define what should be investigated and where the samples should be collected

• Temporal boundaries that describe when samples should be collected and what time frame the study data should represent.

Practical constraints which could interfere with sampling are also identified within this step of the DQO process. A practical constraint is any hindrance or obstacle that may interfere with the full implementation of the study design.

2.4.5.1 Spatial Boundaries of the Study. Typically, there are four actions that must be considered when establishing the spatial boundaries of the study. They are:

• Define the domain or geographic area within which all decisions must apply. The domain must be distinctively marked (i.e., volume, property boundaries, operable units).

• Specify the characteristics that define the domain of interest. These include contaminant type and media of concern. When defining the media of concern, it is useful to consider what medium was originally contaminated, and what inter-media transfer of contamination has likely occurred (i.e., leaching, transport, etc.).

• When appropriate, divide the domain into units which have relatively homogeneous characteristics. This is accomplished by using existing information. Units of the domain may include regions exhibiting similar concentrations, similar depth of contamination, similar process operations, or similar media structure (i.e., geologic strata).

• Define the scale of decision-making. This is the smallest domain characteristic (such as area, volume, time frame, media, etc.) for which the project team wishes to control decision errors.


Section: 2 Revision No. 0


•

The scale of decision making is generally based on: (1) the risk that exposure presents to

targets; (2) technological considerations; and (3) other project specific considerations (i.e.,

historical use).

Subsurface soil and groundwater will be sampled within the geographic boundaries of the site, and

in the vicinity of the site where contaminants that may be attributable to the site have been detected

as determined from previous investigation reports, and immediately beyond and/or below previous

locations to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of site-attributable contamination.

Subsurface soil is defined as the interval of greater than 1 foot below surface level. The characteristic

that defines the domain of interest is any contaminant concentration in any environmental media

sample that is common to contaminants historically used or detected at the site. The site shall be

subdivided into soil and groundwater units upon completion of the investigation, if necessary. The

scale of decision-making shall be the entire site and any detected plumes in the vicinity of the site that

may be attributable to the site.

2.4.5.2 Temporal Boundaries of the Study. Typically there are two factors to consider when''

establishing the temporal boundaries of the study. These factors include:

• The time frame over which the data will apply. This is the most appropriate time frame that

the decision must reflect.

• When the data should be collected. Conditions that may affect this include seasonal

fluctuations and meteorological conditions.

Because the RI is intended to provide the qualitative and quantitative health risk posed by the site,

the time frame that the decision must reflect will be the lifetime exposure to COPC. Because COPC

have been previously identified at the site, the RI sampling efforts shall occur as soon as is feasible.

Constituent concentrations may have varied between the time of the previous investigations and the

RI sampling efforts; therefore, analytical results which will be compared as a basis for constituent

verification must be evaluated with this in consideration. The potential variation of constituents with

time is not significant in the short duration to warrant an accelerated sampling effort. If it is necessary

to collect additional samples at the site, the data collection shall be performed within a reasonable^^

time period after the initial sampling efforts for the RI. ^ ^

3 2 0016

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2.0 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 15 of 24

All groundwater data to be collected in association with the site shall be collected on the same day

when feasible for like hydraulic conductivity unit depths, to provide a sound basis for comparison.

Because diurnal variations of constituent concentrations are expected to be minimal, samples may be

collected at any time of day. Meteorological conditions will be monitored prior to and during the

investigation to ensure that adverse conditions will not effect the time constraints for sampling

objectives.

Proposed time frames for the field investigative studies are detailed in the project schedule submitted

with the work plan for the RI/FS. Adjustments to these time frames may have been made to include

additional regulatory review times and comments responses. These delays will continue to be

possible. The proposed field investigation studies detailed in the FSP are scheduled to begin in June

2001 and conclude in September 2001.

2.4.6 DQO Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule The fifth step in the DQO process is to develop a logical "if... then..." statement that defines the

conditions that would cause the decision maker to choose among alternative actions. The purpose

of this step is to clearly define objective criteria by which decisions can be made. Activities necessary

for the development of a decision rule are:

• Specify the statistical parameter that characterizes the domain of interest. The statistical

parameter is a descriptive measure such as mean, median, proportion, or maximum.

• Specify the action level for the decision. The action level is typically a contaminant

concentration level that sets the limit at which further action is warranted.

• Combine actions from previous steps in the DQO process with those listed to develop a

decision rule.

If the maximum concentration from any sample location exceeds the criteria listed in Section 2.4.4,

then further assessment may be recommended. In addition, if the risk assessment warrants, and if the

vertical and horizontal extent of contamination has been sufficiently defined, then the potential

remedial options will be recommended. If no contaminant concentrations exceed the criteria listed

in Section 2.4.4, no further action will be recommended.

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2.0 ( EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard S ite Page 16 of 24

2.4.7 DQO Step 6: Specify Tolerable Limits on Decision Errors The purpose of this sixth step of the DQO process is to specify the decision-maker's acceptable limits

on decision errors which are used to establish appropriate performance goals for limiting uncertainty

in the data. Decision-makers are intrinsically interested in the true status of some feature of a site.

However, because measurement data can only estimate this status, decisions that are based on

measurement data may possess some error (decision error). Therefore, the goal is to design a

sampling plan that limits the probability of making a decision error to a level that is acceptable. In

general, reducing decision errors increases costs. The decision-maker must balance the desire to limit

decision errors to acceptable levels with the cost of reducing decision errors.

There are two reasons why the decision-maker cannot know the true value of a domain parameter,

including:

• The domain or population of interest almost always varies over time and space. Limited

sampling will miss some features of this natural variation because it is usually impossible on

impractical to measure every point or to measure over all time frames. Sampling error occurs

when sampling is unable to capture the complete scope of natural variability that exists in

the true state of the environment.

• A combination of random and systematic errors inevitably arise during the various steps of

the measurement process, such as sample collection, sample handling, sample preparation,

sample analysis, data reduction, and data handling. These errors are called measurement

errors because they are introduced during measurement process activities.

The combination of sampling error and measurement error is called total study error, which is directly

related to decision error. Because it is impossible to eliminate error in measurement data, basing

decisions on measurement data will lead to the possibility of making a decision error.

The probability of making decision errors can be controlled by adopting a scientific approach. The

scientific method employs a system of decision-making that controls decision errors through the use

of hypothesis testing. In hypothesis testing, the data are used to select between one condition of the

environment (the baseline condition or null hypothesis, H0) and the alternative condition ( the^B|

alternative hypothesis, HJ. For example, the decision-maker may decide that a site is contaminated^^

(the baseline condition) in the absence of strong evidence (study data) that indicates that the site is

3 2 0017

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2.0 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 17 of 24

clean (alternative hypothesis). Hypothesis testing places the greater weight of evidence on disproving

the null hypothesis or baseline condition. Therefore, the decision-maker can guard against making

the decision error that has the greatest undesirable consequence by setting the null hypothesis equal

to the condition that, if true, has the greatest consequence of decision error.

False Positive Error. A false positive error occurs when sampling data mislead the decision- maker

into believing that the burden of proof has been satisfied and that the null hypothesis (H0 or baseline

condition) should be rejected. Consider an example where the decision-maker presumes that

concentrations of contaminants of concern exceed the action level (i.e., the baseline condition or null

hypothesis is: concentrations of contaminants of concern exceed the action level). If the sampling

data lead the decision-maker to incorrectly conclude that the concentrations of contaminants of

concern do not exceed the action level when they actually do exceed the action level, then the

decision-maker would be making a false positive error.

False Negative Error. A false negative error occurs when the data mislead the decision maker into

wrongly concluding that the burden of proof has not been satisfied so that the null hypothesis (H0) is

not rejected when it should be. A false negative error in the previous example occurs when the data

lead the decision-maker to wrongly conclude that the site is contaminated when it truly is not.

The first step in establishing limits on decision errors is to determine the possible range of the

parameter of interest. The possible range of the parameter of interest should be established by

estimating its upper and lower bounds. This means defining the lowest (typically zero in

environmental studies) and highest concentrations at which the contaminant(s) is expected to exist

at the site. This will help focus the remaining activities of this step on only the relevant values of the

parameter. Historical data, including analytical data, should be used to define contaminant

concentrations if available.

The second step in establishing decision error limits is to define both types of decision errors and

identify the potential consequences of each. The action level specified in Section 3.4.5, should be

used to designate the areas above and below the action level as the range where the two types of

decision errors could occur. The process of defining the decision errors has four steps:

• Define both types of decision errors and establish which decision error has more severe

consequences near the action level. For instance, the threat of health effects from a

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-R1CO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 18 of 24

contaminated hazardous waste site may be considered more serious than spending extra

resources to remediate the site. Therefore, a decision-maker may judge that the

consequences of incorrectly concluding that the concentrations of site-related contaminants

do not exceed the action level are more severe than the consequences of incorrectly

concluding that the concentrations of site-related contaminants exceed the action level.

• Establish the true state of nature for each decision error. In the previous example, from the

decision-maker's perspective, the true state of the site for the more severe decision error will

be that the concentrations of site-related contaminants exceed the action level. The true state

of nature for the less severe decision error is that the concentrations of site-related

contaminants do not exceed the action level.

• Define the true state of nature for the more severe decision error as the baseline condition or

null hypothesis (H0 = the site is contaminated), and define the true state of nature for the less^

severe decision error as the alternative hypothesis (Ha = the site is not contaminated). Sinc(

the burden of proof rests on the alternative hypothesis, the data must demonstrate enough

information to authoritatively reject the null hypothesis and conclude the alternative.

Therefore, by setting the null hypothesis equal to the true condition that exists when the more

severe decision error occurs, the decision-maker is guarding against making the more severe

decision error.

• Assign the terms "false positive" and "false negative" to the proper decision errors. A false

positive decision error corresponds to the more severe decision error and a false negative

decision error corresponds to the less severe decision error.

The potential consequences of decision errors at several points within the false positive and false

negative ranges should be defined and evaluated. For example, the consequences of a false positive

decision error when the true parameter value is merely 10 percent above the action level may be

minimal because it would cause only a moderate increase in the risk to human health. On the other

hand, the consequences of a false positive error when the true parameter is ten times the action level

may be severe because it could greatly increase the exposure risk to humans as well as cause severe

damage to a local ecosystem. In this case, decision-makers would want to have less control (tolera1

higher probabilities) of decision errors of relatively small magnitudes and would want to have more

control (tolerate small probabilities) of decision errors of relatively large magnitudes.

3 2 0018


The third step in developing decision error rates is to specify a range of possible parameter values

where the consequences of decision errors are relatively minor. The acceptable decision error region

is a range of points (bounded on one side by the action level) where the consequences of a false

negative decision error are relatively minor. It is not generally feasible or reasonable to control the

false negative decision error rate to low levels because the resources that would be required would

exceed the expected costs of the consequences of making that decision error. In order to determine

with confidence whether the true value of the parameter is above or below the action level (depending

on the more severe decision error), the site manager would need to collect a large amount of data,

increase the precision of the measurements, or both.

The fourth step in establishing decision error limits is to assign probability values to points above and

below the action level that reflect the acceptable probability for the occurrence of decision errors. The

most stringent limits on decision errors that are typically encountered for environmental data are 0.01

(one percent) for both the false positive and false negative decision errors. The most frequent reasons

for setting limits greater than 0.01 are that the consequences of the decision errors may not be severe

enough to warrant setting decision error rates that are this stringent. If the decision is made to relax

the decision error rates from 0.01 for false positive and false negative decision errors, the scoping

team should document the rationale for setting the decision error rate. This rationale may include

potential impacts on cost, human health, and ecological conditions.

The last step in establishing decision error limits is to check the limits on decision errors to ensure

that they accurately reflect the decision-maker's concerns about the relative consequences for each

type of decision error. The acceptable limits on decision errors should be smallest (i.e., have the

lowest probability of error) for cases where the decision-maker has greatest concern for decision

errors. This means that if one type of error is more serious than another, then its acceptable limits

should be smaller (more restrictive). In addition, the limits on decision errors are usually largest (high

probability of error can be tolerated) near the action level, since the consequences of decision errors

are generally less severe as the action level is approached.

2.4.7.1 The First Decision for the Barber Orchard Site

Null Hypothesis (H0) = One or more site contaminant concentrations are greater than or equal

to the criteria listed in Section 2.4.4.


Section: 2.1 Revision No.


•

Alternate Hypothesis (HJ = All site contaminant concentrations are below the criteria listed in Section 2.4.4.

The false positive decision error will occur if the decision-maker decides, based on sampling data, that the site is not contaminated, when in truth, some portion of the site contains concentrations that exceed the criteria specified in Section 2.4.4.

The false negative decision error will occur if the decision-maker decides, based on sampling data, that some portion of the site is contaminated above the criteria specified in Section 2.4.4, when in truth, all concentrations are below the specified criteria.

Allowable Decision Error Rates

True Concentration "C" as a Percentage

of Criteria Specified in Section 2.4.4.

<70%

70% < C < 100%

> 100%

Acceptable Probability of Recommending

Additional Action

<20% (false negatives)

<30% (false negatives)

>90% (< 10% false positives)

2.4.7.2 The Second Decision for the Barber Orchard Site

The Null Hypothesis (H0) = The site is sufficiently characterized. Alternate Hypothesis (HJ = The site is not sufficiently characterized.

The false positive decision error will occur if the decision-maker decides that the site is not sufficiently characterized, when in truth, sufficient data have been collected from the site.

The false negative decision error will occur if the decision-maker decides that the site is sufficiently characterized, when in truth, sufficient data have not been collected from the site.

The acceptable decision error for the second decision will provide less than 20 percent false positive^ or false negative errors.

3 2 0019


2.4.8 DQO Step 7: Optimize the Design

The purpose of this final step in the DQO process is to identify the most resource-effective sampling

and analysis design for generating data during the RI that are expected to satisfy the DQOs. To

achieve this goal, it may be necessary to work through this step more than once after revisiting

previous steps of the DQO process. The following activities are required to optimize the design:

Review the results from the previous DQO process steps as well as existing information.

Develop general sampling and analysis design alternatives.

Verify that each design alternative satisfies the DQOs.

Select the most resource-effective design which achieves all DQOs.

Document the operational details and theoretical assumptions of the selected sampling and

analysis design.

It is believed that the quantity of environmental samples specified in the FSP and in this QAPP will

accomplish the goals of the RI and the goals of the decision error limits indicated herein. Further

modifications of the DQO decision error limits may be proposed pending the review of additional

information as it is made available. Such a change would necessitate corresponding changes in the

FSP and in this document to accommodate the required additional environmental data collection.

2.4.9 Measurement Performance Criteria

The measurement performance criteria are checked on several levels:

Built-in QC standards

Senior review

• Management controls.

The analytical data is given specific QC standards by which it must abide. If these standards are not

met, the data is suitably qualified. The bench chemist and the laboratory's QA manager check the

analytical data and QC results.

All documents that pertain to the quality standards of the project are drafted by and reviewed

internally by IT staff with relevant technical experience. While performing field sampling

activities, the field site supervisor and the site QA officer will supervise activities to assess if standard

operating procedures (SOP) are being followed.

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignment 034-RICO-A4T9 Rl/FS Barber Orchard Site

Section: 2 Revision No.

Revision Date: April 27. 2001 Page 22 of 24

•

Data generated from the described tasks will be used to evaluate the extent and level of the

contamination and to identify or select remediation alternatives. Project-specific quality objectives

are listed in Appendix A, Tables A-l through A-3. These include the quantitation, project action,

accuracy, precision, and completeness limits by which the data will be evaluated.

2.5 Special Training Requirements/Certification The purpose of this section is to ensure that any specialized training or certification requirements

necessary to the project are known and that the procedures are described in sufficient detail to ensure

that specific training skills and certifications can be verified, documented, and updated. This section

will summarize training requirements for Black & Veatch personnel and their subcontractors, more

specifically, health and safety training requirements. Site-specific health and safety plans will be

submitted to EPA Region 4 to meet planning document requirements specified in the SOW for the

Barber Orchard RI/FS.

All personnel (Black & Veatch and their subcontractors) who will engage in hazardous waste

operations at the Site must present to the Site Safety Coordinator (SSC) a certificate of completion

for an initial 40-hour hazardous waste operations training course or the most recent

certificate of completion for an 8-hour refresher course. The course must have been completed within

the 12 months of the individual being on site performing hazardous waste operations. The training

must comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations found in Title

29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.120(e). The certification must be presented to the SSC

before site activities begin. All personnel must complete a minimum of 3 days of on-the-job training

under the direct supervision of a qualified SSC or site supervisor before they are qualified to work

at a hazardous waste site unsupervised.

Consistent with 29 CFR 1910.120 paragraph (e)(4), individuals serving in a supervisory role, such

as the field team leader or SSC, require an additional 8 hours of training. A SSC qualified at a given

level of protection is also qualified as a SSC at a lower level of protection.

At least one person on site will be trained and currently certified in first aid and adult

cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

3 2 0020

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2.0 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 Rl/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 23 of 24

All subcontractor personnel who engage in hazardous waste operations must present, to the SSC,

certification of completion, within the 12 months prior to the beginning of site activities, a

comprehensive medical monitoring examination. The examination must comply with OSHA

regulation found at 29CFR 1910.120 et. seq. The certification must be signed by a medical doctor

and indicate any work limitations placed on the individual. The certification also must specify that

the individual is capable of working while wearing respiratory protective equipment. The

certification must be presented before field activities begin.

All project team members have been chosen with the necessary experience, technical skills, and

licenses to perform required EPA project tasks. No additional special training or certification should

be required for this project. Subcontractors chosen to complete tasks such as drilling and laboratory

analysis will meet project-specific requirements and the specifications of the EPA and the State of

North Carolina.

2.6 Documentation and Records

2.6.1 Field Sampling Documentation Field team members will keep a daily record of significant events, observations, and measurements

during sampling. The required contents of the field logbook are specified in the FSP. A field logbook

will be initiated at the start of the first on-site activity and maintained to record on-site activities

during all sampling events. The field logbook will be supplemented by sampling analytical request

(AR) or COC sheets, sample collection logs, and/or notes recorded onto site maps of adjoining

properties. Appendix B contains examples of field forms and logs that may be required for

documentation purposes. All documents generated during the field effort are controlled documents

that become part of the project file.

2.6.2 Sample Identification System Unique sample identification numbers (ID) will be assigned to samples collected to establish database

integrity using the sample ID development procedure in the FSP. Unique sample IDs are used to

prevent sample number duplication in the database. A record of the unique sample ID and the

corresponding sample location, time, and date will be kept in the field notebook and on field data

sheets. The field analysis data are recorded in bound field logbooks or recorded on data sheets along

with sample identity information while in the custody of the sampling team. The sample labels and

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 2.0* EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 0 Work Assignment 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 Rl/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 24 of 24

AR/COC sheets will list the unique sample ID as well as the appropriate sample location number,

date, time, samplers, and other relevant information.

2.6.3 Laboratory Records Laboratory records that are to be sent to SESD for data qualification are described in Exhibit H of the

CLP SOWs for Organic and Inorganic Analysis. Standard turnaround times will be requested for

sample analysis.

2.6.4 Project Record Maintenance and Storage Project records will be stored and maintained in a secure manner by both Black & Veatch and IT until

the end of the project. Each project team member is responsible for filing all project information or

providing it to the administrative assistant familiar with the project filing system. Individual team

members may maintain separate files or notebooks for individual tasks but must provide such files

to the project file room upon completion of each task.

The general project file categories are as follows:

Correspondence

Nonlaboratory project invoices and approvals by vendor

Original unbound reports

Nonlaboratory requests for proposals, bids, contracts, SOWs

Field data

Data evaluation and calculations

Site reports from others

Photographs

Insurance documentation

Laboratory analytical data and associated documents/memos

Regulatory submittals, licensing, and permitting applications

Site and reference material

Health and safety plans

Figures and drawings.

A project-specific index of file contents is kept with the project files at all times. Upon termination^^

of the project, all records (field records, laboratory records, etc.) will be archive and submitted to EPA

Region 4.

3 2 0021

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignments 034-RJCO0A4T9 Rl/FS Barber Orchard Site

3.0 MEASUREMENT DATA ACQUISITION

This section describes the procedures for collecting, handling, measuring, acquiring, and managing

data to be performed in support of the RI/FS. It addresses the following aspects of measurement and

data acquisition:

• Sampling process design

• Sampling method requirements

• Sample handling and custody requirements

• Laboratory analytical methods requirements

• Laboratory QC requirements

• Field instrument and equipment testing, inspection, and maintenance requirements.

• Field and laboratory instrument calibration and frequency

• Inspection and acceptance requirements for supplies and consumables

• Data acquisition requirements

• Data management.

3.1 Sampling Process Design and Rationale The FSP provides the sampling and analysis requirements for this project. SOPs for each sampling

method are referenced in the FSP or attached to the FSP. The following media may be sampled and

analyzed as part of this project:

• Soils, including borings and IDW samples

• Surfacewater and sediment samples

• Water, including groundwater and purge water

• Other miscellaneous disposables (i.e., sampling personal protective equipment).

The planned sampling locations, frequencies, rationale for selection, and analytical parameters for

each location are detailed in the FSP. It should be noted that the exact sample locations and the total

number of samples might change from those described in the work plan, depending on field

conditions encountered. The specific contaminants at the site are metals and chlorinated pesticides,

but other analyses, including natural attenuation parameters, may be required for this effort.

Section: 3 Revision No. I


1

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignments 034-RICO0A4T9 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site

Section Revision No


•

3.2 Sampling Methods Requirements SOPs for each field sampling method are contained in or referenced in the FSP.

3.3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements

3.3.1 Sample Preservation and Holding Time Table 3-1 summarizes the requirements for sample containers, preservatives, and sample holding times for individual analytical methods and media to be sampled. Sample containers for chemical analysis will be certified by the generator/vendor as precleaned. Detailed information on sample locations and quantities are summarized in the FSP. Preservatives will be prepared using reagent-grade chemicals and added to the sample bottles by the laboratory prior to shipment to the field site. Samples will be stored on ice to 4 degrees Celsius (°C) for preservation.

TABLE 3-1

Sample Containers, Preservatives, and Holding Times

Analysis as Needed Method Container Preservative

and Storage Maximum Hold Time

Investigative Soil Samples

VOCs

SVOCs

Metals

Organochlorine Pesticides

PCBs

Organophosphorous

Pesticides

Chlorinated Herbicides

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

ILM04.0

OLM04.2 OLM04.2 SW-846 8141A SW-846 81S1A

3X5 gram Encore™ Sampling receptacle

1X8 oz wide-mouth glass

1X4 oz wide-mouth

glass

1X8 oz wide-mouth glass

4'C

4'C

4'C

4°C

48 hours pre-extraction 14 days post-extraction

14 days pre-extraction

40 days post-extraction

Hg 28 days, all others 6 mos.

14 days pre-extraction 40 days post-extraction

2

3 2 0022




TABLE 3-1

Sample Containers, Preservatives, and Holding Times 1

Analysis as Needed Method Container Preservative

and Storage Maximum Hold Time

Waters

VOCs

SVOCs

Metals

Organochlorine Pesticides

PCBs

Organophosphorous

Pesticides

Chlorinated Herbicides

Methane, Ethane, and Ethene

Total Organic Carbon

Alkalinity

pH, ORP, Conductivity, Temperature, and DO

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.0

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

SW-846 8141A

SW-846 8151A

EPA RSK-175

EPA 415.1/9060

EPA 310.1

Specific Instrument Method

3x40 mL vials, Teflon cap

2x1 L amber bortk.Teflon cap

1x1 L poly

2x1 L amber bottle,Teflon cap

3x40 mL vials, Teflon cap

1-250 mL amber

glass

1000 mL

polyethylene bottle

In-Line flow through cell

4'C, Hcl pH<2

4°C

4°C, HN03

pH<2

4°C

4°C

4°C, HCL or

HjS04 pH<2

4°C

NA

14 days


Hg 28 days, all others 6 mos.


14 days to analysis

14 days to analysis

14 days to analysis

NA

IDW for Disposal

TCLP VOCs

SVOCs

Metals

TCLP Pesticides TCLP Herbicides

SW-846 method

1311/5030/8260B

SW-846 method 1311/3510C/3520C&

8270C

SW-846 method 1311/3010A/6010B

SW-846 1311/8081A

SW-846 1311/8151

120 mL wide-mouth

bottle, Teflon cap

500 mL wide-mouth

bottle, Teflon cap

120 mL wide-mouth

bottle. Teflon cap

1X500 mL wide-mouth glass

4'C

4"C

4°C

4*C

7 days to TCLP extraction, 14 days from extraction to analysis

7 days to TCLP extraction, 14 days to prep, 40 days from prep to analysis

7 days to TCLP extraction, Hg 28 days, all others 6 mos. to analysis

7 days to TCLP extraction,14 days

to analysis

3

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignments 034-RJCO0A4T9 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site

3.3.2 Sample Custody and Shipping Requirements

3.3.2.1 Sample Custody. Sample custody procedures include the use of field logbooks, sample

labels, custody seals, and AR/COC forms. Each person involved with sample handling must be

trained in AR/COC procedures before the start of field operations. The AR/COC form must

accompany the samples during shipment from the field to the laboratory. An example of the

AR/COC can be found in Appendix B.

A sample is under custody when the following conditions exist:

• It is in one's actual possession.

• It is in one's view, after being in one's physical possession.

• It was in one's physical possession and that person locked it up to prevent tampering.

• It is in a designated and identified secure area.

3.3.2.2 Sample Shipping and Chain of Custody. Proper sample handling, shipment, an

maintenance of an AR/COC are key components of building the documentation and support for data

that can be used to make project decisions. It is important that all sample handling and sample

AR/COC requirements are performed completely, accurately, and consistently.

A properly completed AR/COC form will accompany samples to the laboratory. The unique sample

IDs and descriptive identification information (date, time, etc.) will be listed on the AR/COC form.

When transferring possession of samples, the individuals relinquishing and receiving them will sign,

date, and note the time on the record. The AR/COC record documents the transfer of sample custody

from the sampler to the laboratory.

Each sample container will be secured with a custody seal. Samples will be properly packaged for

shipment and dispatched to the laboratory for analysis with a separate signed custody record enclosed

in each sample box or cooler. Samples will be shipped priority for overnight delivery. Hard plastic

ice chests or coolers with similar durability will be used for shipping samples. The coolers will be

lined with a containment layer, e.g. a plastic garbage bag, to provide additional protection against

leakage. An absorbent material, e.g. vermiculite, will be used when shipping liquid samples in

sufficient quantity to absorb liquids that may be released in the event of sample container breakagl

within the container. The samples must be sealed in individual plastic bags and cushioned, e.g., with

bubble wrap, within the sample box or cooler to prevent damage. Shipping containers will be closed



4

. 3 2 0 0 2 3

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignments 034-RJCO0A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 Rl/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 5 of 19

and secured with strapping tape and custody seals for shipment to the laboratory. The preferred

procedure includes use of custody seals attached to two sides of the cooler. The custody seals are to

be covered with clear plastic tape. The cooler is to be strapped shut with strapping tape in at least two

locations.

Each shipping container will be clearly marked with a sticker containing the originator's address.

When samples are relinquished to a shipping company for transport, the tracking number from the

shipping bill or receipt will be recorded on the AR/COC form.

Commercial carriers are not required to sign off on the custody form as long as the custody forms are

sealed inside the sample cooler and the custody seals remain intact. The AR/COC record identifying

the contents will accompany all shipments. The original record will accompany the shipment, and

the field copies will be retained by the sampler to accommodate sample tracking. The completed

AR/COC will be faxed to the analytical laboratory and the IT project chemist on the day of sample

collection. The AR/COC form will be used to answer questions from the analytical laboratory

regarding that day's sample shipment.

3.3.2.3 Laboratory Sample Custody. The laboratory's procedures for sample custody are

presented in the 1996 EPA CLP SOW Exhibit H for Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration Organic

Analytical Service-OLM04.2, for Low Concentration Organic Analytical Service-OLC02.1, and for

Multi-Media, Multi-concentration Inorganic Analytical Service-ILMO4.0.

3.4 Analytical Method and Quality Control Requirements Samples will be analyzed using EPA-approved methods or other recognized standard methods. The

principal source for analytical methods is the SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes.

Nominal reporting limits are shown in the Table A-1 in Appendix A along with precision and

accuracy goals. Table 3-1 contains the specific methods that are to be used along with the associated

extraction methods. The scope of the method and a summary of the analytical QA/QC are provided

in this document. The method QA/QC is provided in detail in the laboratory QA plan.

3.4.1 Analytical Sample Analysis Turnaround Samples will be analyzed on standard turnaround times (TAT) as dictated by the CLP laboratory

performing the analysis and listed in the FSP. Other analysis performed by the treatability laboratory

5

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignments 034-RJCO0A4T9 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site

Section: Revision No. 1


will also be on a standard TAT. If analytical results are to be expedited, the laboratories will be

contacted and the TAT will be noted on the AR/COC.

3.5 Quality Control Samples

3.5.1 Field and Laboratory Quality Control Samples The CLP laboratory has a QC program to assess the reliability and validity of the analyses being

performed. The purpose and creation of QC samples is discussed in the FSP and summarized in the

following text. Table 3-2 outlines frequency of the QC samples to be collected. This information is

also noted in the FSP. EPA spikes may be required with each shipment. If required, these samples

will come from the EPA QA laboratory and will be shipped to the CLP laboratory as field samples.

Field blanks will not be required on this project.

Trip blanks are used to detect volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination during sample

shipping and handling. Trip blanks for water samples will consist of a certified clean sample vi^^fc

filled with contaminant-free laboratory water (e.g. HPL grade). The vials will contain no air bubbles.

Trip blanks for soil samples will consist of a sample jar of an analyte free solid matrix. Soil TBs will

be purchased from an approved source with documentation certifying the analyte free matrix. One

trip blank sample will be sent for each day VOC samples are shipped to the laboratory, in each cooler

containing VOC samples.

TABLE 3-2

QC Sample Summary

Method

VOCs

SVOCs Pesticides Herbicides

Metals

Field Methods (HACH)

Duplicates

1 out of 20

1 out of 20

1 out of 20

1 out of 20

Equipment

Blanks

1 out of 10

1 out of 10

1 out of 10

NR

Matrix Spikes

1 out of 20

1 out of 20

1 out of 20

NR

Matrix Spike

Duplicates

1 put of 20

1 out of 20

1 out of 20

NR

Trip Blanks

One per cooler containing volatiles (from lab)

NR

NR

NR t

NR = not required.

3 2 0 0 2 4

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignments 034-RICO0A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RJ/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 7 of 19

Temperature blanks will be required in each cooler in order to monitor the temperature of the samples

upon receipt at the analytical laboratory. Thie temperature blank container.will be labeled as

"Temperature Blank", however, it will not receive a CLP traffic report number nor should it be

included on the traffic report form. Tap water will be used for the temperataej>lank. Sample matrix

will not be used. The temperature blank will be coljectedihi a small, e.g. 50 to 100 milliliter, glass

or plastic container.

Equipment rinsate blanks are samples of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Type II

water passed through and over the surface of decontaminated sampling equipment. The rinse water

is collected in sample bottles, preserved, and handled in the same manner as the field samples.

Equipment rinse (ER) blanks are used to monitor effectiveness of the decontamination process. The

typical frequency for ER blanks is one per ten field samples, or 10 percent. Typically, if more than

one type of equipment is used to collect samples for a particular matrix, an equipment rinsate blank

is collected and submitted for each representative group of equipment. Typically, equipment rinsate

blanks are analyzed for the same analytes as the corresponding samples.

Duplicate or "blind" field samples are collected to monitor the precision of the field sampling and

analytical process. The identity of the duplicate samples is not noted on the laboratory AR/COC

form. The site supervisor will select one of every twenty sample locations for collection of a field

duplicate sample. The identity of the duplicate samples will be recorded in the field-sampling

logbook. Field duplicate samples are chosen from locations that are expected to have higher levels

of contamination.

Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples are collected to measure the precision

and accuracy of the field sampling and laboratory analysis. One matrix spike and one matrix spike

duplicate sample pair will be collected for at least every 20 samples sent to the off-site laboratory.

MS/MSD samples will be chosen from locations expected to have lower levels of contamination.

Quality control blanks, i.e. source material samples, will be collected and analyzed from all source

materials used in such a manner as to make contact with any environmental media and/or sampling

equipment. For example, a source water sample from supply water, for the^decontaminatipn of

sampling equipment will be collected. A source water sample from the supply water for the drilling

operations will be collected. A source sample from both bentonite pellets and the sand to be used for

the well filter pack will be collected. Others will be collected as needed to determine the constituents,

7

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 3 I EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignments 034-RJCO0A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RVFS Barber Orchard Site Page 8 of 19

if any, and at what concentrations may be introduced into environmental samples by materials of construction and/or operational equipment. These quality control blanks will be analyzed for the same parameters as the environmental samples for which they are quality control.

It is anticipated that the EIA will provide spiked samples to be sent to the contract laboratory. These samples will be submitted "blind" to the lab and the results used to measure analytical performance.

3.5.2 Field Corrective Action Any project team member may initiate a field corrective action process. The corrective action process consists of identifying a problem, acting to eliminate the problem, monitoring the effectiveness of the corrective action, verifying that the problem has been eliminated, and documenting the corrective action.

Corrective actions include correcting AR/COC forms and problems associated with sample collection, packaging, shipping, and field record keeping; or additional training in sampling and analysis Additional approaches may include resampling or evaluating and amending sampling procedures. The site QA/QC officer will summarize the problem, establish possible causes, and designate the person responsible for a corrective action. Additionally, the site QA/QC officer will verify that the initial action has been taken and follow-up at a later date to verify that the problem has been resolved.

3.6 Field Instrument Requirements The analytical and health and safety screening instruments that may be used in the field during the RI/FS and RD investigations are as follows:

Photoionization detector (PID) Organic vapor analyzer (OVA) Flame Ionization Detector (FID) Oxygen/lower explosive limit (02/LEL) meter Temperature, specific conductance, and pH meter Turbidity meter Water level indicator Reduction-oxidation potential meter

Dissolved oxygen meter Dust/Particulate monitoring equipment.

8

3 2 0 0 2 5

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignments 034-RICO0A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 9 of 19

The instruments will be calibrated according to manufacturers' specifications before and after each

field use, and as otherwise deemed necessary. Manufacturers' specifications will be available on site.

Instruments will be calibrated, at a minimum, each day prior to field use. Daily calibration

procedures will be recorded in the field logbook, including the following information:

Instrument name and serial number

Date and time of calibration

Responses to battery check, alarm, and instrument use

Calibration gas used and concentration

Initials of person performing calibration.

The following section presents a description of commonly used field screening equipment,

procedures for use, calibration procedures and frequency, and any applicable inspection and

maintenance procedures.

3.6.1 Foxboro OVA Mode/128

The Foxboro/OVA 128 is a type of FID. The OVA is a general screening instrument used to detect

the presence of most organic vapors. The OVA measures gases and vapors by responding to an

unknown sample correlated to a gas of known composition to which the instrument is calibrated.

The Foxboro OVA Model 128 is calibrated in the following manner:

Inspect the instrument for cracks, and check calibration.

Connect the probe/readout assembly to the unit.

Connect the probe extension to the probe assembly; check for tight seal.

Place INSTR/BATT switch to "test" position; verify that the battery is charged.

Place INSTR/BATT switch to the "on" position; allow warm-up of 5 minutes.

Turn the PUMP SWITCH on.

9

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 3 I EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. I Work Assignments 034-RICO0A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 10 of 19

Place CALIBRATE SWITCH to "x 10" mode.

• Connect gas regulator to a cylinder of 95 ppm methane-in-air calibration gas and observe that the pressure is above 50 per square inch gauge (psig).

• Attach tubing with tee to gas regulator and to end of close area sample.

• Open gas regulator valve fully. Observe meter reading after approximately 1 to 2 minutes. If the reading is 95 ppm, close the regulator valve, disconnect the tubing from the gas regulator and close area sampler, and removal the regulator from the gas cylinder. If the reading is not 95 ppm, adjust the potentiometer labeled R32 (located within the instrument housing in the gray circuit block on back of the unit) to obtain 95 ppm.

Close the H2 SUPPLY VALVE, move PUMP SWITCH to off, and adjust CALIBRATE ADJUST knob to 4 ppm. ^ ^

• Move the calibrate switch to xl and observe meter. If the meter moves to 4 ppm, move the calibrate switch to xlO and adjust meter needle to 4 ppm. If the meter does not move to 4 ppm, adjust potentiometer labeled R31 to obtain a reading of 4 ppm.

• Move calibrate switch to xlOO and observe meter. If needle moves to 40 ppm, then instrument is ready for use. If needle does not move to 40 ppm, adjust potentiometer labeled R33 to obtain reading of 40 ppm.

The Foxboro OVA Model 128 is operated in the following manner:

• Open hydrogen TANK VALVE (observe pressure of approximately 150 psi for each hour of intended operation).

• Open hydrogen SUPPLY VALVE (observe pressure of 8 to 12 psi).

Wait approximately 1-minute; depress IGNITE BUTTON for a few seconds (and no more than 5-seconds) until flame ignites; observe "kick" of meter needle; the instrument is now readily for use.

10

3 2 0026




• Measure a volume of air for volatile organic vapors by placing the probe for about 3 to 6

seconds in the volume that is to be sampled.

Shutdown procedure of the OVA is:

Close the hydrogen TANK VALVE.

Close the hydrogen SUPPLY VALVE.

• Place INSTR switch to "off'.

• Wait 5-seconds, so that lines bleed; place PUMP switch to "off".

• The instrument may remain connected temporarily or be disconnected for packing and

shipment.

Preventive maintenance of the Foxboro OVA is conducted by the manufacturer at six to nine month

intervals. Other preventive maintenance measures include battery charging, cleaning of the

instrument, and factory servicing.

3.6.2 Oxygen/LEL Meter

02/LEL meters are used to determine the potential for the combustion or explosion of unknown

atmospheres. A typical 02/LEL meter determines the level of organic vapors and gases present in

an atmosphere as a percentage of the LEL or lower flammability limit by measuring the change in

electrical resistance in a Wheatstone bridge circuit. O/LEL meters also contain an 02 detector. The

oxygen detector is useful for determining the existence of atmospheres deficient in 02.

It is anticipated that the MSA Model 361 Combination Gas Alarm will be utilized during the field

investigation. Each unit will be placed on battery charge each night. Readings will be recorded in

percent 02 and percent LEL. The accuracy rating of this instrument is plus or minus 3 percent for

combustible gas and plus or minus 0.8 percent for 02.

The MSA Model 361 is calibrated in the following manner:

11


Section: 3 \ Revision No. 1

Revision Dale: April 27, 2001 Page 12 of 19

• Attach the flow control to the 75 percent pentane/15 percent 02 calibration gas tank.

• Connect the adapter hose to the flow control and open the flow control valve.

• Connect the adapter-hose fitting to the inlet of the instrument; within 30 seconds, the LEL

meter should stabilize and indicate between 47 percent and 55 percent. If the indication is

not in the correct range, remove the right end of the indicator and adjust the LEL SPAN

control to obtain 50 percent.

• Verify the oxygen reading between 13 percent and 17 percent.

• Disconnect the adapter-hose fitting from the instrument, close the flow control valve, and

remove the flow control from the calibration gas tank.

• Attach the flow control to the 10 ppm hydrogen sulfide calibration gas tank (40 ppm gas may{

be use); open the flow control valve.

• Re-connect the adapter-hose fitting to the inlet of the instrument; after approximately 1

minute, the TOX readout should stabilize and indicate between 7 to 13 ppm (35 to 45 ppm

for 40 ppm gas). If the indication is not in the correct range, remove the right end of the

indicator and adjust the TOX SPAN control to obtain 10 ppm (or 40 ppm).

• Disconnect the adapter-hose fitting from the instrument and the gas tank, close the flow

control valve, and remove the adapter-hose from the flow control.

3.6.3 Water Temperature, pH, and Conductivity Meter It is anticipated that a HyD AC/Cambridge Model 910 brand conductance, pH, and temperature meter

will be utilized during field activities. Each unit will be checked before each day's activities for

mechanical or electrical failures, weak batteries, fouled or cracked electrodes, and dirty conductivity

cells.

3.6.3.1 Temperature. The HyDAC instrument will be field-checked and calibrated daily for,

temperature against a glass thermometer which has been initially calibrated against a National

Bureau of Standards (NBS) certified thermometer or one traceable to NBS certification. All

12

3 2 0027

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignments 034-RICO0A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RJ/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 13 of 19

temperature data will be recorded to the nearest 1 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Cross-checks and dupli

cate field analyses should agree within plus or minus 1°F. The HyDAC instrument has an accuracy

rating of plus or minus 2°F.

To obtain a temperature reading, fill the instrument cup with aqueous sample. Depress the reading

button and record the stabilized temperature. If the temperature does not stabilize, rinse the cup with

the aqueous sample until the temperature stabilizes.

3.6.3.2 Specific Conductance. Before use in the field, the following procedures will be used to

calibrate conductance on the HyDAC instrument:

• Remove the black plug on the bottom-right of the instrument, revealing the adjustment potentiometer screw.

• Add standard conductance solution (provided by manufacturer) to the cup, discard, and refill.

Repeat until the digital readout repeats the same reading twice in a row.

• Adjust the potentiometer until the digital display indicates the known value of conductance.

Turning the screw clockwise decreases the reading and counter-clockwise increases the

reading.

Specific conductance results will be expressed in microhms per centimeter (|imhos/cm). Results

will be reported to the nearest ten units for readings under 1,000 |imhos/cm and the nearest 100 units

for readings over 1,000 |imhos/cm. Duplicate field analyses should agree within plus or minus 10

percent. The HyDAC instrument has an accuracy rating of plus or minus 2 percent full scale at 77°F.

To obtain a specific conductance reading, adjust the conductance-temperature dial to the recorded

temperature. Depress the reading button and record the specific conductance in |imhos/cm.

3.6.3.3 pH. While in the field, the HyDAC instrument will be calibrated for pH daily before use

with two buffers bracketing the expected sample pH. The following procedures will be used to

calibrate pH:

• Place the pH electrode in the 7.0 buffer solution; adjust the ZERO potentiometer on the face of the instrument so that the digital display indicates 7.0.

13

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 3 J EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignments 034-R1CO0A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 14 of 19

• Rinse the electrode and place in the 4.0 or 10.0 buffer solution; adjust the SLOPE potentiometer on the face of the instrument so that the digital display indicated the value of the buffer chosen.

In case of an apparent pH misrepresentation, the electrode will be checked with pH 7.0 buffer and

re-calibrated to the closest reference buffer. Then the sample will be re-tested. Duplicate tests

should agree within 0.1 standard unit. Temperature resistant, combination electrodes will be

employed in conjunction with the meters. Litmus paper will be used only for determining pH ranges,

for determining approximate pH values, or for determining the pH of concentrated hazardous waste

samples which may damage the instrument. Readings will be reported to the nearest 0.01 standard

unit. The HyDAC instrument has an accuracy rating of plus or minus 0.1 standard unit at 77° F.

To obtain a pH value, insert the electrode into the aqueous sample, depress the reading button, and

record the pH value.

3.6.4 Water Turbidity It is anticipated that an HF Scientific Turbidity Meter will be utilized during field activities. The

accuracy rating of the turbidimeter is typically plus or minus 2 percent of the reading plus stray light

from 0 to 1,000 nelphometric turbidity unit (NTU). Instrument calibration will be conducted by the

equipment provider, and will be checked in the field before each use against a known standard.

Reported readings will be to the nearest NTU.

To field screen aqueous samples for turbidity, the meter is inspected and allowed to equilibrate to

ambient temperatures. The instrument is calibrated, and the sample cell is rinsed with deionized

water. The following procedure is used for collecting turbidity data:

• Rinse sample cell with deionized water, follow by rinsing with several volumes of sample water.

• Fill cell with sample water, activate testing switch, and obtain reading, switching to proper scale.

• Record sample reading and calibration readings in log book.

14

3 2 0028

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignments 034-RICO0A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 15 of 19

3.7 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and

Consumables All supplies and consumables that may directly or indirectly affect the quality of the project must be

clearly identified and documented by field personnel. Typical examples of supplies and consumables

include sample bottles, calibration gases, tubing, materials for decontamination activities, deionized

water, and potable water. For each item identified, field personnel shall document the inspection,

acceptance testing requirements, or specifications (i.e., concentration, purity, source of procurement),

in addition to any requirements for certificates of purity or analysis.

Acceptance criteria must be consistent with overall project technical and quality criteria. If special

requirements are needed for particular supplies or consumables, a clear agreement should be

established with the supplier (i.e., particular concentration of calibration gas).

Upon inspection, all supplies will be documented in a field log book by field personnel. This

logbook will contain the following information for each supply/consumable:

• Description of supply or consumable

• Date received

• Name/address of manufacturer or supplier

• Attached documentation (yes/no and description) (i.e., calibration checks, concentration verification for calibration gases)

• Expiration date (if applicable)

• Special precautions (if applicable)

• Meets acceptance criteria (yes/no)

• Comments (i.e., COC seal on box of sample containers)

• Name of responsible field personnel.

15

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignments 034-RJCO0A4T9 Revision Date: April 27,2001 Rl/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 16 of 19

3.8 Data Acquisition Requirements Data quality indicators (DQI) are qualitative and quantitative descriptors used to interpret the degree

of acceptability or utility of data. The principal DQIs are precision, accuracy (or bias),

representativeness, comparability, and completeness (PARCC). Of the five DQIs, precision and

accuracy are the quantitative measures, representativeness and comparability are the qualitative

measures, and completeness is a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures. Data

aquisition goals for the PARCCs parameters are presented in the tables in Appendix A.

3.8.1 Precision Precision is a measure of agreement among replicate measurements of the same property, under

prescribed similar conditions. Specifically, it is a quantitative measure of the degree of variability

of a group of measurements compared to the average value. Standard deviation, coefficient of

variation, range, and relative range are terms often used to express precision. Data precision will be

evaluated through the collection of split and duplicate samples (field and in-house) at a rate of 5 to

10 percent of samples collected at each site. Precision is determined in the laboratory by assessing

the relative percent difference for matrix spike duplicate analyses for organics and sample duplicates

for inorganics. Relative percent difference (RPD) is expressed as follows:

RPD = {[Vl-V2]/([Vl+V2]/2)} x 100

where:

RPD = relative percent difference

VI = primary sample value

V2 = duplicate sample value.

3.8.2 Accuracy Accuracy measures the bias of a measurement system. Sources of error introduced into the

measurement system may be accounted for by using field/trip blanks, spike samples, and analysis

by two different laboratories. Accuracy is assessed by measuring the percent recoveries of surrogate

spikes for organic analyses and by spike sample percent recoveries for inorganic analyses. For a

spike sample, known amounts of standard compounds are added to the sample. Spike recoveries are

calculated as follows:

Spike Recovery (percentage) = ([SSR-SR]/SA) x 100

16

3 2 00

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignments 034-RJCO0A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 17 of 19

where

SSR = spike sample results

SR = unspiked sample results

SA = spike added from spiking mix.

The spike sample results are used to evaluate matrix effects and the accuracy of the samples

analyzed. Sources of error include the sampling process, field contamination, preservation, handling,

sample matrix, sample preparation, and analytical techniques. Field accuracy cannot be determined

for the project. However, it is more important that the criteria outlined in the sections of the work

plan concerning QA/QC sample descriptions, sampling and decontamination procedures, and field

documentation be followed so that the project objectives and DQOs are met.

3.8.3 Representativeness Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represent a

characteristic of a population parameter at a sampling point, a process condition, or an environmental

condition. Representativeness is a qualitative term that is evaluated to determine whether in situ and

other field measurements are made and physical samples collected in such a manner that the resulting

data appropriately reflect the media and phenomenon measured or studied.

3.8.4 Comparability Comparability is a parameter used to express the confidence with which one set of data may be

compared with another. To achieve comparability in data sets, it is important that standard

techniques are used to collect and analyze representative samples and to report analytical results.

The presence of the following items enhances the comparability of data sets:

Two data sets should contain the same set of variables of interest.

Units in which these variables were measured should be convertible to a common metric.

Similar analytical and quality assurance procedures.

Similar time of measurements.

Similar measuring devices.

Rules for excluding certain types of observations from both samples.

17

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignments 034-R1CO0A4T9 Rl/FS Barber Orchard Site



3.8.5 Completeness

Completeness is a measure of the relative number of analytical data points that meet all the

acceptance criteria for accuracy, precision, and additional criterion required by the specific analytical

methods used. The goal for essentially all data uses is that sufficient amounts of valid data will be

generated. On-site measurement techniques can provide a high degree of completeness because

invalid measurements can normally be repeated relatively quickly and easily.

3.9 Data Management Data management is a process in which to track the data from its generation in the field and/or

laboratory to their final use and storage.

3.9.1 Data Recording The field operating records to be used in this investigation will document field procedures and any

measurements performed during the sampling effort; field operating records are presented in'

Attachment A of this QAPP.

Laboratory records that will be generated by the EPA SESD are discussed in the 1999 EPA CLP

SOW Exhibit H for Multi-Media, Multi-concentration Organic Analytical Service-OLM04.1, for

Low Concentration Organic Analytical Service-OLC02.1, and for Multi-Media, Multi-concentration

Inorganic Analytical Service-ILMO4.0.

3.9.2 Data Validation A data quality evaluation of the laboratory results and field data will be performed prior to their use

for conducting the evaluation of site contaminant distributions and magnitudes. Data quality

evaluations will be performed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the 1999 EPA CLP

Data Validation Standard Operating Procedures for Contract Laboratory Program Routine

Analytical Services, Revision 2.1. Field data log books and COC forms will be cross-checked

against each other and against the laboratory results to assess conformity of sample identification

numbers. Laboratory data will typically be reviewed for data qualifier flags and anomalous data

values. This information will be compared to results of duplicate and blank samples, and to

information on field conditions at the time of sample collection to qualify the sample analytical^B

results.

18

3 2 0030

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 3 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignments 034-RICO0A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 Rl/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 19 of 19

3.9.3 Data Transmittal Data will be transmitted from the laboratory to SESD to Black & Veatch via paper-copy data

packages and electronic files; the data will then be forwarded to IT for data reduction, analysis, and

report preparation. The standard laboratory data reports generated during this project will consist

of a transmittal memorandum and the following for organic and inorganic analyses:

• Cover page describing data qualifiers, sample project and case number, and a description of any technical problems encountered with the analyses.

• Sample data and extraction and analyses dates.

3.9.4 Data Transformation and Reduction Data received from the laboratory on electronic files will be used to create a database for the project.

This database will be used to extract data according to method and sample identifications to produce

data summary tables that will be presented in the RI/FS reports.

3.9.5 Data Analysis Environmental sample data will be compared to the applicable state and federal regulations as

presented in Section 2.4.4 of this QAPP.

3.9.6 Data Tracking Data tracking will be performed by the Black & Veatch project manager, IT site manager, and/or IT

task managers. Data will be tracked using a database that will include the date of collection, date

of transmittal to laboratory, and date of analysis. It is important that these dates are tracked to ensure

that sample holding times are not exceeded. Upon receipt of the data packages and electronic data

files from the laboratory, data will be maintained in a database where additional tracking information

can be added if needed.

3.9.7 Data Storage and Retrieval Field data (logbooks, well development forms, groundwater sample collection forms) and laboratory

data packages will be stored in hard copy in the Black & Veatch file storage room, as part of the

project file. In addition, laboratory data will be stored in a database format. This information will

be retained in the project file for at least 3 years following project completion and closeout.

19

3 2 GO

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Work Assignments 034-R1CO0A4T9 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site

4.0 ASSESSMENT/OVERSIGHT

4.1 Assessments and Response Actions

Assessment and oversight activities are performed to determine whether the QC measures identified

in the FSP and this QAPP are implemented and documented as required. The site manager and the

task managers will perform assessment and oversight to check conformance to plans. For example,

during a field review, the FSP may be checked to verify that a sample location has been correctly

sampled or that the field QC samples were collected at the appropriate frequency. Additional checks

may address the questions:

Is the FSP being adhered to?

• Is nonconformance being identified, resolved, and documented with a process or system?

• Are identified deficiencies being corrected?

Are sampling operations being performed as stated in the FSP?

Are the sample labels being filled out completely and accurately?

Are the AR7COC records complete and accurate?

• Are the field notebooks being filled out completely and accurately?

Are the documents generated during assessment activities being stored as described in the

QAPP?

The task manager can determine the need for a conformance check or assign it to another team

member. Assessment activities may include surveillance, inspection, peer review, management

system review, performance evaluation, and data quality assessment. The results of the assessment

and oversight activities will be reported to the site manager who will be responsible for ensuring that

the corrective action response is completed, verified, and documented.

Section: 4 Revision No. I

Revision Date: April 27, 2001 Page l of 2

1

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 4 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignments 034-PJCO0A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 2 of 2

4.2 Reports to Management Status reports to management will be prepared monthly and will, at a minimum, discuss current

activities, problems encountered and their resolution, and planned work.

The analytical laboratory will provide sample acknowledgment letters and sample status updates by

phone or electronic mail. These requirements will be specified in the laboratory SOW.

2

3 2 0032

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 5 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignments 034-RICO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RVFS Barber Orchard Site Page 1 of 2

5.0 DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY

5.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements The purpose of this section is to state the criteria for deciding the degree to which each data set has

met its quality specifications. Validation and verification procedures that shall be conducted during

the project are presented in this section. The conformance to these procedures will ensure the

representativeness and integrity of the samples from the time of sample collection through analysis

at the laboratory.

Upon completion of the sampling investigation, Black & Veatch will review all pertinent

documentation in order to determine to what degree each data item has met its quality specifications

as presented in this QAPP. The process of data verification will include the following:

• Sampling Design - Each sample shall be checked for conformity to the specifications,

including type and location.

• Sample Collection Procedures - Verify that sample collection procedures were performed in

accordance with procedures presented in this QAPP. If it is determined that a deviation

occurred in the collection procedure, the procedure shall, at a minimum, conform to the

E1SOPQAM (EPA, 1997); this deviation shall also be documented in the field logbook.

• Sample Handling - Verify that the sample was labeled, documented, and shipped properly

in accordance with procedures presented in this QAPP.

• Analytical Procedures - Verify that each sample was analyzed by the methods specified in

this QAPP.

• Quality Control - Verify that QC was performed during sample collection, handling, and

analysis. A QC report shall be included in the qualified laboratory data package received

from the SESD.

• Calibration - Verify that the calibration of field instruments were performed in accordance

with the manufacturer specifications presented in this QAPP.

1

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance Project Plan Section: 5 EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Revision No. 1 Work Assignments 034-RJCO-A4T9 Revision Date: April 27, 2001 RI/FS Barber Orchard Site Page 2 of 2

5.2 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives Data quality assessment is the assessment phase that follows data validation and verification; data

quality assessment determines how well the validated data can support their intended uses. The data

quality assessment process for this investigation will be conducted in accordance with the procedures

outlined in the January 1999 EPA document Guidance for Data Quality Assessment (EPA QA/G-9).

The data quality assessment process involves fives steps that begin with a review of the planning

documentation and end with an answer to the questions posed during the planning phases of the

investigation. The five steps are summarized as follows:

• Review the DQOs and Sampling Design - This step involves reviewing the DQO outputs to

assure that they are still applicable. The sampling design and data collection documentation

shall be reviewed for consistency with the DQOs.

• Conduct a Preliminary Data Review - This step involves reviewing the QA reports,

calculating basic statistical analyses, and generating graphs of the data. This review shall be

used to learn about the structure of the data and to identify patterns, relationships, and/or

potential anomalies.

• Select the Statistical Test - The most appropriate procedure for summarizing and analyzing

the data, based on the review of the DQOs, the sampling design, and the preliminary data

review. The key assumptions must be identified in order for the statistical procedures to be

valid.

• Verify the Assumptions of the Statistical Test - Given the data, evaluate whether the

assumptions hold true, or whether departures are acceptable.

• Draw Conclusions from the Data - This step involves performing the calculations required

for the statistical test and documenting the interferences drawn as a result of these

calculations.

2

3 2 0 0 3 3

APPENDIX A

Tables A-1 through A-3 Project Quality Control Objectives

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Vol. 2 Rl/FS Barber Orchard

TABLE A-l PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL OBJECTIVES

TCL/TAL ANALYSES

j

^^p \pp Version 1.0

December 2000

Method No Analyte / Component

TCL VOLATILES BY GC/MS

OLM04.2

OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2 OLM04.2 OLM04.2 OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2 OLM04.2 OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2


OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2 OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

Dichlorodifluoromethane Chlorome thane

Vinyl Chloride Bromomethane

Chloroethane Trichlorofluoromethane

1,1-Dichloroethene 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane

Acetone Carbon Disulfide Methyl Acetate

Methylene Chloride trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

Methyl tert-Butyl Ether 1,1-Dichloroethane

cis-l ,2-Dichloroethene 2-Butanone Chloroform

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Cyclohexane

Carbon Tetrachloride Benzene

1,2-Dichloroethane Trichloroethylene

Methylcyclohexane

1,2-Dichloropropane

Bromodichloromethane

cis-l,3-Dichloropropene

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone Toluene

trans-l,3-Dichloropropene

1,1,2-Trichloroethane Tetrachloroethylene

Minimum PQL

Water

ug/L

10

10 10 10

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

10 10

10 10 10 10

10 10 10

10 10

10 10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10 10

Soil

ug/kg

10

10 10

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

10 10 10

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

10 10 10

10 10

10

10

10

10

10

Accuracy Limits

MS/MSD Recoveries Water

% 60-140

60-140

60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140

60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

Soil

% 20-150

20-150 20-150

20-150 20-150 20-150

20-150 20-150 20-150

20-150 20-150 20-150 20-150 20-150

20-150 20-150 20-150 20-150 20-150 20-150 20-150 20-150 20-150

20-150

20-150 20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150 20-150

Precision Limits

MS/MSD RPD Water

% <30

<30 <30 <30

<30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30

<30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30

<30 <30 <30 <30

<30 <30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30 <30

<30

Soil

% <50 <50

<50 <50

<50 <50

<50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

<50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

<50

<50 <50

<50

<50 <50

<50 <50

<50

<50

Accuracy Limits

LCS Recoveries Water

% 38-116 38-116 31-121

49-117

62-116 55-126 54-128 55-126 43-165 76-119 55-126 55-126 61-138 62-141 62-141

70-131 50-163 65-129 68-135 68-135 67-125 51-139 68-135 67-137

68-135 76-132

68-135

70-122

77-119 31-137 42-154

70-141

67-131

Soil

% 38-116 38-116 31-121

49-117 62-116 55-126 54-128 55-126 43-165 76-119 55-126 55-126 51-148 62-141

62-141 60-141 50-163 65-129

68-135 68-135 67-125 51-139 68-135 67-137

58-145

76-132

58-145 70-122

77-119

31-137

42-154

70-141

67-131

Precision Limits

Field Dup RPD

Water

% <50 <50 <50

<50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

. <50 • <50

<50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

<50 <50 <50

<50 <50

<50

<50 <50

<50

<50

<50 <50

Soil

% <75 <75 <75

<75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75

<75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75

<75 <75 <75 <75

<75 <75

<75

<75 <75

<75

<75

<75 <75

Completeness Limits

Water

% 95

95 95 95

95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95

95

95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95

95

95 95

95 95

95

95

95

95

95 95 95

Soil

% 90 90 90 90

90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

90 90 90 90 90

90 90 90 90

90 90

90 90

90

90

90

90

90 90

90

CD CD O J

1of6

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Vol. 2 RI/FS Barber Orchard


TCL/TAL ANALYSES

QAPP Version 1.0

December 2000

Method No

OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2 OLM04.2


OLM04.2 OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2 OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2

Analyte / Component

2-Hexanone

Dibromochloromethane 1,2-Dibromoethane

Chlorobenzene

Ethylbenzene Xylenes, Total

Styrene Bromoform

Isopropylbenzene 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1,3-Dichlorobenzcne

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzcne

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr) l,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (SUIT)

Toluene-d8 (Surr)

Minimum PQL

Water

10 10

10

10 10 10 10

10 10 10 10

10 10

10 10

Soil

10 10

10

10 10 10 10 10 10

10 10 10 10

10 10

Accuracy Limits


60-140

60-140

60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140 60-140

60-140

60-140 60-140

75-125 62-139

75-125

Soil 20-150

20-150

20-150 20-150 20-150 20-150 20-150 20-150 20-150

20-150 20-150

20-150 20-150

20-150 20-150 65-135 52-149 65-135

Precision Limits

MS/MSD RPD Water

<30

<30

<30

<30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30

<30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30

Soil

<50

<50

<50 <50

<50 <50 <50

<50 <50 <50 <50 <S0 <50 <50 <50

Accuracy Limits


47-165

64-120

67-129

69-140 59-140 68-133 71-133 67-129 55-138 55-138 51-139 51-139 51-139 42-154

51-139

Soil 47-165

64-120

67-129

69-140 59-140 68-133 71-133 67-129 55-138 55-138 51-139 51-139

51-139 42-154

51-139

Precision Limits

Field Dup RPD Water

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50 <50 <50

<50 <50 <50 <50

<50 <50 <50 <50

Soil <75

<75

<75

<75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75 <75

Completeness Limits

Water

95

95

95

95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95

95 95 95

Soil

90 90

90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

TCL SEMr-VOLA TILES BY GC/MS

OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2 OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2 OLM04.2

Phenol Bis (2-chlorocthyl) ether

2-Chlorophenol

2-Methylphcnol

2,2'-Oxybis (1 -Chloropropane) [bis (2-Chloroisopropyl) ether]

Acetophenone

4-Methylphenol N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine

Hexachloroethane

Nitrobenzene

Isophorone

2-Nitrophenol

2,4-Dimethylphenol Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane

ug/L

10 10

10 10

10

10

10 10

10

10 10

10

10 10

ug/kg

330 330

330 330

330

330 330

330

330

330

330

330 330

330

ug/L

60-140

60-140 60-140 60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140 60-140

60-140 60-140

60-140

60-140 60-140

60-140

ug/kg

20-150

20-150 20-150 20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150 20-150

20-150

20-150 20-150

20-150 20-150

20-150

% <30 <30 <30

<30

<30

<30 <30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30 <30

<30

% <50

<50 <50 <50

<50

<50

<50 <50

<50

<50

<50

<50 <50

<50

% 25-125

44-125 41-125 25-125

36-166

33-125

33-125

37-125

25-153 46-133

26-175

44-125 45-139

49-125

% 25-135 34-135 31-135

25-135

26-175

25-135 25-135

27-135

25-163 36-143

25-175

34-135

35-149 39-135

% <50 <50 <50 <50

<50

<50

<50 <50

<50 <50

<50

<50 <50

<50

% <75 <75 <75 <75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75 <75

<75

<75 <75

<75

% 95 95 95

95

95

95

95 95

95

95 95

95 95 95

% 90 90 90 90

90

90

90

90

90

90 90

90 90 90

2 of 6

Sampling end Analysis Plan, Vol. 2 RI/FS Barber Orchard


TCL/TAL ANALYSES

\

WQAPP Version 1.0

December 2000

Method No

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

Analyie / Component

2,4-Dichlorophenol

Naphthalene

4-Chloroaniline

Hexachlorobutadiene

Caprolactum

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol

2-Melhylnaphthalene

Hexachlorocyclopentadicne

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol

l.l '-Biphenyl

2-Chloronaphthalene

2-Nitroanilinc

Dimethyl phthalate

2.6-Dinitrotoluene

Acenaphthylene

3-Nitroaniline

Acenaplithene

2,4-Dinitrophenol

4-Nitrophenol

Dibenzofuran

2.4-Dinitrotoluene

Diethyl phthalate

Fluorene

4-Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether

4-Nitroaniline

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine

4-Bromophcnyl-phenyl ether

Hexachlorobenzene

Atrazine

Pentachlorophenol

Phenanthrene

Anthracene

Carbazole

Minimum PQL

Water

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

25

10

10

25

10

10

10

25

10

25

25

10

10

10

10

10

25

25

10

10

10

25

25

10

10

10

Soil

330

330

330

330

330

330

330

330

330

830

330

330

830

330

330

330

830

330

830

830

330

330

330

330

330

830

830

330

330

330

800

830

330

330

330

Accuracy Limits

MS/MSD Recoveries

Water

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

Soil

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

Precision Limits

MS/MSD RPD

Water

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

Soil

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

Accuracy Limits

LCS Recoveries

Water

46-125

50-125

45-136

25-125

44-125

44-125

41-125

41-125

39-128

25-175

60-125

60-125

50-125

25-175

47-125

47-125

51-125

49-124

30-151

25-131

52-125

39-139

37-125

48-139

51-132

40-143

26-134

27-125

53-127

46-133

28-136

28-136

54-125

45-165

34-132

Soil

36-135

40-135

35-146

25-135

34-135

34-135

31-135

31-135

29-138

25-175

50-135

50-135

40-135

25-175

37-135

37-135

41-135

39-135

25-161

25-141

42-135

29-149

27-135

38-149

41-142

30-153

25-144

25-135

43-137

36-143

38-146

38-146

44-135

35-175

34-132

Precision Limits

Field Dup RPD

Water

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

Soil

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

Completeness Limits

Water

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

Soil

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

3 of 6

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Vol. 2

RI/FS Barber Orchard TABLE A-l

PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL OBJECTIVES TCL/TAL ANALYSES

QAPP

Version 1.0

December 2000

Method No

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

Analyte / Component

Di-n-bulylphthalate

Fluoranlhene

Pyrene

Butylbenzylphthalatc

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine

Benzo (a) anthracene

Chrysene

bis (2-Ethylhcxyl) phthalate

Di-n-octylphthalate

Benzo (b) fluoranlhene

Bcnzo (k) fluoranlhene

Benzo (a) pyrene

Indeno (L2,3-cd) pyrene

Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene

Benzo (g,h.i) perylcne

Nitrobenzcne-d5

2-Fluorobiphenyl

Terphenyl-dI4

Phenol-d5

2-Fluorophenol

2,4,6-Tribromophenol

2-Chlorophcnol-d4

1,2-Dichorobenzcne-d4

Minimum I'QL

Water

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Soil

330

330

330

330

330

330

330

330

330

330

330

830

330

330

330

Accuracy Limits

MS/MSD Recoveries

Water

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

35-114

43-116

33-141

10-110

21-110

10-123

33-110

16-110

Soil

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

23-120

30-115

18-137

24-113

25-121

19-122

20-130

20-130

Precision Limits

MS/MSD RPD

Water

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

Soil

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

Accuracy Limits

LCS Recoveries

Water

34-126

47-125

47-136

26-125

29-175

51-133

55-133

33-129

38-127

37-125

37-123

41-125

27-160

50-125

34-149

Soil

25-136

37-135

37-146

25-135

25-175

41-143

45-143

25-139

28-137

27-135

37-123

31-135

25-170

40-135

25-159

Precision Limits

Field Dup RPD

Water

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

Soil

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

Completeness Limits

Water

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

Soil

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

TCL PESTICIDES/PCBs

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

alpha-BHC

beta-BHC

delta-BHC

gamma-BHC (Lindane)

Heptachlor

Aldrin

Heptachlor epoxide

Endosulfan 1

Dieldrin

4,4'-DDE

ug/L

0.050

0.050

0.050

0.050

0.050

0.050

0.050

0.050

0.10

0.10

ug/kg

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

3.3

3.3

% 60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

% 20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

% <30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

% <50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

% 75-125

51-125

75-126

73-125

45-128

47-125

53-134

49-143

42-132

45-139

% 65-135

41-133

65-136

63-130

35-138

37-126

43-144

39-153

32-142

35-149

% <50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

% <75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

% 95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

% 90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

4 of 6


RI/FS Barber Orchard TABLE A-l

PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL OBJECTIVES TCL/TAL ANALYSES

QAPP

Version 1.0

December 2000

Method No

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

/DLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

OLM04.2

Analyte / Component

Endrin

Endosulfan II

4,4'-DDD

Endosulfan sulfate

4,4'-DDT

Methoxychlor

Endrin ketone

Endrin aldehyde

alpha-Chlordane

gamma-Chlordane

Toxaphene

Arochlor-1016

Arochlor-1221

Arochlor-1232

Arochlor-1242

Arochlor-1248

Arochlor-1254

Arochlor-1260

Decachlorobiphenyl (DCBP) (Surr)

Tetrachloro-m-xylene (TCMX) (Surr)

Minimum PQL

Water

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.5O

0.10

0.10

0.050

0.050

5.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Soil

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

17

3.3

3.3

1.7

1.7

170

33

67

33

33

33

33

33

Accuracy Limits

MS/MSD Recoveries

Water

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

60-140

34-133

45-125

Soil

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

20-150

25-143

35-135

Precision Limits

MS/MSD RPD

Water

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

Soil

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

Accuracy Limits

LCS Recoveries

Water

43-134

75-159

48-136

46-141

34-143

73-142

43-134

75-150

41-125

41-125

41-126

54-125

41-126

41-126

39-150

41-126

29-131

41-126

Soil

33-144

65-169

38-146

36-151

25-153

63-152

33-144

35-160

31-135

31-133

31-136

44-127

31-136

31-136

29-160

31-136

25-141

31-136

Precision Limits

Field Dup RPD

Water

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

Soil

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

Completeness Limits

Water

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

Soil

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

TAL METALS BY ICP

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

1LM04.0

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

mg/L

0.2

0.06

0.01

0.2

0.005

0.005

5

0.01

0.05

0.025

0.1

mg/kg

22.0

10.0

40.0

1.0

1.0

0.50

100

20

10.0

2.0

3.0

mg/L

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

mg/kg

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

% <30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

% <50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

% 80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

% 80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

% <50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

% <75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

% 95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

% 90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

5 of 6

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Vol. 2 Rl/FS Barber Orchard


TCL/TAL ANALYSES

QAPP Version 1.0

December 2000

Method No

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

1LM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

ILM04.0

Analyte / Component

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Nickel

Potassium

Selenium

Silver

Sodium

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

Minimum PQL

Water

0.003

5

0.015

0.04

5

0.005

0.01

5

0.01

0.05

0.02

Soil

10.0

100

2.0

2.0

600

3.0

1.0

10.0

6.0

1.0

1.0

Accuracy Limits


50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

Soil

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

Precision Limits

MS/MSD RPD Water

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

Soil

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

Accuracy Limits


80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

Soil

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

Precision Limits

Field Dup RPD

Water

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

Soil

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

Completeness Limits

Water

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

Soil

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

TAL METALS BY GFAA

7041

7060A

7091

7131A

7191

7421

7740

7761

7841

Antimony

Arsenic

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Lead

Selenium

Silver

Thallium

mg/L

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.001

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.001

mg/kg

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.1

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.1

% 50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150.

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

50-150

% 30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

30-170

% <30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

<30

% <50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

% 75-125

74-120

75-125

75-125

75-125

75-125

70-125

75-125

75-125

% 75-125

74-1120

75-125

75-125

75-125

75-125

70-125

75-125

75-125

% <50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

<50

% <75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

<75

% 95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

95

% 90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

MERCURY BY COLD VAPOR

7470

7471

Mercury

Mercury

mg/L

0.001

NA

mg/kg

NA

NA

% 50-150

50-150

% NA

NA

% <30

<30

% NA

NA

% 70-130

70-130

% NA

NA

% <50

<50

% NA

NA

% 95

95

% NA

NA

CYANIDE

9010A/90I2

9013

Cyanide

Cyanide

mg/L

0.010

NA

mg/kg

NA

0.020

% 50-150

NA

% NA

30-170

% <30

NA

% NA

<50

H

75-125

NA

% NA

75-125

% <30

NA

% NA

<50

% 95

NA

% NA

90

6 of 6


RI/FS Barter Orchard TABLE A-2

PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL OBJECTIVES WET CHEM ANALYSES

QAPP

Version 1.0

December 2000

Method

Number

305.1

3I0.1

350.2

9056

5050

325.3

300.0

9252

SM 35O0D

90IO

7.3.3.2

9010

9010A

IOI0

1020

340.2

9056

9056

353.2

353.2

9095

9040

9045

9065

365.2

160.1

160.2

160.3

120.1

SM 4500D

Analyte /

Component

WET CHEMISTRY

Acidity

Alkalinity

Ammonia

Bromide

Chloride

Chloride

Chloride

Chloride

Chromium, Hexavalcnt

Cyanide, Amenable

Cyanide, Reactive

Cyanide, Total

Cyanide, Total

Flash Point, Pensky-Martens

Flash Point, SetaFlash

Fluoride

Nitrate

Nitrite

o-Phosphate

Sulfate

Nitrate

Nitrite

o-Phosphate

Sulfate

Paint Filter Test

pH, Electrometric

pH, Electrometric

Phenolics, Tot Recov

Phosphorus, Total

Residue, Filterable

Residue, Nonfilterable

Residue, Total

Specific Conductance

Sulfate

Minimum PQL

Water

mg/L

N/A

N/A

N/A

Soil

mg/kg

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Accuracy Limits

MS/MSD recoveries

Water

%

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

N/A 70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

N/A 70-130

N/A 70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

Soil

%

N/A N/A N/A

70-130

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

70-130

N/A 70-130

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

70-130

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Precision Limits

MS/MSD deviation

Water

%

<30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 N/A <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 N/A <30 N/A <30 <30

<30 <30 <30

<30 <30

Soil

%

N/A N/A N/A <50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <50 N/A <50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <50 N/A <50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A

Accuracy Limits

LCS recoveries

Water

%

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

N/A 70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

N/A 70-130

N/A 70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

Soil

%

N/A N/A N/A

70-130

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

70-130

N/A 70-130

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

70-130

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Precision Limits

Field Dup deviation

Water

%

<30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 N/A <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 N/A <30 N/A <30 <30 <30

<30 <30 <30 <30

Soil

%

N/A N/A N/A <50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <50 N/A <50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <50 N/A <50 N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Completeness Limits

Water

%

95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95

N/A 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95

N/A 95

N/A 95 95 95 95 95 95 95

Soil

%

N/A N/A N/A 90

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 90

N/A 90

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 90

N/A 90

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

CD

o o

Page I of 2

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Vol. 2 RI/FS Barter Orchard

TABLE A-2 PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL OBJECTIVES

WET CHEM ANALYSES

QAPP Version 1.0

December 2000

Method Number

7.3.4.2

7.3.4.2 SM5310C

9060 180.1

SM214A SM209B

Analyte / Component

Sulfide, Reactive

Sulfide, Reactive Total Organic Carbon Total Organic Carbon

Turbidity

Turbidity

Solids, Total Dissolved

Minimum PQL

Water

mg/L

N/A

Soil

mg/kg

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

N/A

Accuracy Limits

MS/MSD recoveries

Water

% 70-130

N/A

70-130

70-130 70-130

70-130

70-130

Soil

% N/A

70-130

N/A N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

Precision Limits

MS/MSD deviation

Water

% <30

N/A <30

<30

<30 <30

<30

Soil %

N/A

<50

N/A N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

Accuracy Limits LCS recoveries

Water

% 70-130

N/A

70-130 70-130 70-130

70-130

70-130

Soil

% N/A

70-130

N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

Precision Limits

Field Dup deviation Water

% <30

N/A

<30 <30

<30

<30

<30

Soil

% N/A

<50

N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

Completeness Limits

Water

% 95

N/A

95 95

95 95 95

Soil %

N/A

90

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A

CM

NO

CD CD

Page 2 of 2

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Vol 2 RI/FS Barber Orcliard

Method No


TCLP ANALYSES

QAPP Version 1.0

December 2000

Analyte / Component

Minimum PQL

TCLP

Accuracy Limits

MS/MSD Recoveries

TCLP

Precision Limits

MS/MSD Deviation

TCLP

Accuracy Limits

LCS Recoveries

TCLP

Precision Limits

Field Dup Deviation

TCLP

Completeness Limits

TCLP

TCLP Volatlles

8260B 8260B 8260B S260B 8260B 8260B 8260B 8260B 8260B 8260B

1,1-Dichloroelhylene 1,2-Dichloroethane

Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride

Chlorobenzene Chloroform

Methyl Ethyl Ketone Tetrachloroethylene Trichloroethylene

Vinyl Chloride

(mg/L)

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 20 1

20 0.7 0.1 0.05

(%) 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150

(%) <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

(%) 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130

(%) <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

(%) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

TCLP Senii-Volatiles

8270C 8270C 8270C 8270C 8270C 8270C 8270C 8270C 8270C 8270C 8270C

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

2,4-Dinitrotoluene Cresol

Hexachlorobenzene Hexachloroethane

Hexachlorobutadiene Nitrobenzene

Pentachlorophenol Pyridine

(mg/L) 1

80 0.4 0.02 40

0.02 0.5 0.4 0.4 80 1

(%) 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150

(%) <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

(%) 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130

(%) <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

(%) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

TCLP Pesticides

8081A 8081A 8081A 8081A 8081A 8081A

Endrin Lindane

Methoxychlor Toxaphene Chlordane

Heptachlor and its Hydroxide

(mg/L)

0.004 0.08

1 0.1

0.005 0.001

(%) 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150

(%) <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

(%) 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130

(%) <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

(%) 90 90 90 90 90 90

CD CD

N3 Page 1 ol" 2

Sampling and Analysis Plan, Vol 2 Rl/FS Barber Ordiard

Method No


TCLP ANALYSES

QAPI' Version 1.0

December 2000

Analyte / Component

Minimum PQL

TCLP

Accuracy Limits

MS/MSD Recoveries

TCLP

Precision Limits

MS/MSD Deviation

TCLP

Accuracy Limits

LCS Recoveries

TCLP

Precision Limits

Field Dup Deviation

TCLP

Completeness Limits

TCLP

TCLP Herbicides

8151A 8151A

2,4-D 2,4,5-TP

(mg/L)

2 0.2

(%) 50-150 50-150

(%) <50 <50

(%) 70-130 70-130

(%) <50 <50

(%) 90 90

TCLP Metals 6010B 6010B 601 OB 6010B 601 OB 7470

6010B 6010B

Arsenic Barium

Cadmium Chromium

Lead

Mercury Selenium

Silver

(mg/L) 1

20 0.2 1 1

0.04 0.2 1

(%) 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150 50-150

(%) <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

(%) 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130 70-130

(%) <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

(%) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Characteristics

7.3 7.3

1010 1020A 1030 9040

Reactive Sulfide Reactive Cyanide

Ignitability (Pensky Martens) Ignitability (Setaflash) Ignitability of Solids

pH (Corrosivity)

(mg/kg) 50 25

40 Cor 100°F 40 Cor 100°F 40 Cor 100°F

N/A

(%) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

(%) <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

(%) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

(%) <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

(%) 90 90 90 90 90 90

Miscellaneous

9095A Paint Filter Pass/Fail

(%) N/A

(%) N/A

(%) N/A

(%) N/A

(%) 90

o CD

Page 2 of 2

3 2 0044

APPENDIX B

Field Forms and Logs

•oject Name:

•oject Number:

Variance No: VAR -

_ o f _

Linked w/NC No:

Date of Issue:

3 2

(if applicable)

/ /

Page

0045

- Variance Report -Summary Of the Change: (by the person identifying the change)

ientified by: Date:

I. Variance Requested: (by the person identifying the change and the review committee)

^ ^ Be Performed by:

^ K Be Verified by:

Date:

Date:

II. Justification for Variance: (by the review committee)

IV. Applicable Document/Work Plan: (by the person identifying the change)

Distribution List:

•

- Signatures -

Requested by:

Approved by:

Proj Manager Approval:

QA Approval:

— ~ • • • • •>-— — - ^

Date

Dale

Due

"type name" Date

1 1 1U • ! • • I

<l:\SHARED\COMMON\DAMBarberOrchard\QAPP\FieldForms\VARLOG.DOC

JT3 ~ — T CORPORATION

t Member of The IT Gnnif)

'lace:

)ate: Time:

Dther Participants: ^one

Topic(s):

3 2 0046

- Record of Telecon -Project Name:

Project No:

Call: To or From (circle one)

Name:

Call: To or From (circle one)

Name:

Telephone Number:

Company Name:

Company Address:

I. Summary (Decisions/Action Items Required):

•

II. Summary of Action Items:

^^Distribution List: Other Distribution •"'̂ -.-•-..';".'. .-v.- - Signatures < - ^ j S ^ V ^

Prepared by:

Page 1 of 1

>HSHARED\COMMON\DAMBarbeiOrchard\QAPP\FieldForms\telecon.DOC

3 2 0 0 4 7 Page ol"

Sample Collection Log

SITE ID LOCATION ID SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE NUMBER SAMPLE TYPE

LOG DATE: / / (MM/DD/YY) LOG TIME: (HHMM)

SAMPLE START DEPTH: (xx.xx) SAMPLE ENDING DEPTH: (xx.xx)

CONTAINERS:

QTY SIZE TYPE/Preservation PARAMETER METHOD

SAMPLING METHOD: U HP HA TP PP B G NA = (other) tube sample hydropunch(soil) hand auger hydropunch(GW and WL) peristalic pump bailer grab FIELDQC

MATRIX: SO WG WQ WH DC SE WS (other)

Soil Groundwater FIELDQC Field blank Drill cuttings sediment Surface water

AIR FORCE ID: Plant 6 Dobbins AFB SAMPLING ZONE: N/A

LOCATION CLASS: WL PH NA SL PZ HP BH (other)

(Desc of Location Type) Well Hydropunch Fieldqc Surface Piezometer Holding Pond Borehole (Fill out as complete as possible)

Enter sample numbers for blanks associated to this sample:

Matrix Spike (MS): Matrix Spike Dup (SD): Field Dup(FD):

Ambient Blank (AB): Trip Blank (TB): Equipment Blank (EB):

WATER QUALITY PARAMETER RESULTS at TIME of SAMPLING

Temp

C

PH Cond. Turbidity

(NTU)

Dissolved oxygen (mo/L)

Static Water Level: (if applicable)

Redox/ Eh

(mV)

Depth to Well Bottom: (if applicable)

COMMENTS:

SAMPLE TEAM: PREPARED BY:

N : \ S H A R E D \ C O M M O N V D A M B A R S E R O R C H A R D \ Q A P P \ F I E L D F O R M S \ S C L . D O C

3 2 0 0 48

Example Sample Label

IT Corporation Project Number 819271

EPA Barber Orchard

Sample No.: Location:

Lab:

Sample Date: Time:

Sample Type: Matrix:

Analysis:

Preservation:

Require 4°C: Filtered:

Sampler:

Remarks:

N:\SHARED\COMMON\DAMBarberOrchard\QAPP\FieldForms\Samplelabel.doc

13 ^CORPORATION

^^oject Name:

ate of Issue:

Linked w/Variance No; Page of

3 2 0049 Project Number:

- Nonconformance Report -Summary of the Nonconformance Or Change: (by the person identifying the nonconformance)

ientified by: Date:

1. Recommended Corrective Action: (by the person identifying the nonconformance and the review committee)

'o Be Performed by:

"o Be Verified by:

Date:

Date:

II. Corrective Action Implementation: (by those implementing the corrective action)

•

Vas Performed by:

•Vas Verified by:

Date:

Date:

-low was Corrective Action Verified?

V. Nonconformance Resolution: (by the review committee)

Distribution List:

•

- Signatures -

Requested by: typed name and date Signature:

Approved by: typed name and date Signature:

Proj Manager Approval: typed name and date Signature:

QA Approval: typed name and date Signature:

::\SHARED\COMMON\DAMBarberOrchard\QAPP\FieldForms\NONCONF.DOC

#

3 2 0050

New Location Log Project Name:

Project No:

SITE ID: Site 50

LOCATION ID:

LOCATION CLASSIFICATION: (Circle one) BH - borehole SL - surface location

(other)

Geohydrologic Flow Classification (Circle one): U = Upgradient D = Downgradient C = Crossgradient

LOCATION CLASSIFICATION: (Circle one) I = Inside or O = Outside - AFB Boundaries

LOCATION PROXIMITY (Circle one): I = Inside Site Boundary 0 = Outside Site Boundary

ELEVATION: ;

NORTH COORDINATE:

EAST COORDINATE:

ESTABLISHING COMPANY: ITC

DRILLING COMPANY:

CONSTRUCTION METHOD (Circle one): HA - hand augered V - driven tube NA - not applicable

HP - hydropunch HS - hollow stem auger

EXCAVATING COMPANY:

77 117 IT DATE ESTABLISHED: rr/ ir / ir (Date finished)

DEPTH: (XXXX.XX in Feet)

BORING HOLE DIAMETER: (XX.XX in Inches)

LOCATION DESCRIPTION:

Prepared by: Reviewed by:.

N:\SHARED\COMMON\DAMBarberOrchard\QAPP\FieldForms\New_Loc_Log.doc

t

Well Development Purge Log

PROJECT: COST CODE: DELIVERY ORDER:

SITE ID: LOCATION ID: (Well Number) SAMPLE # Tubing set at depth:_

Purging Method/Equipment MICRO PURGE Sampling Equipment/ID No: Type of Tubing:

Well Casing Diameter in : Unit Casing Volume : N/A Weather Conditions:.

Sounding (Depth to Well Bottom): Static Water Level (Depth to Water): Screen Length:

Date Time

24hr

N/A Purge Rate

(ml/min)

Dynamic H20 Level

(ft)

Total Volume

Purged (ml)

Temp

C

pH Cond.

Ms/cm

Turbidity

(NTU)

Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)

Redox/ Eh

<mV)

Prepared

Br

Water Description

NOTE - DO NOT FORGET TO INCLUDE THE UNITS FOR THE CONDUCTIVITY READINGS.

Recovery Depth* (ft from TOC) : Final Recovery Time* (min) : * Taken As Final Water Level Reading and Time after sampling is complete and well has recovered

CD CD cn

N:\SHARED\CONtMON\DANTBARBERORCHARD\OWP\FlEl-DFORMS\GWPURCELOG.rxx:

I *

3 2 0 0 5 2

Groundwater Monitoring Well Database

Site: _, ^ _

Well Number

>

|

•

MWor EW

Installation Date Northing Easting

Elevation from Casing

Consultant/ Contractor

Previous Name

N:\SHARED\COMMONVDAMBarberOrchard\QAPP\FieldForms\GWMonitoring.doc

FIELD AUDITING CHECKLIST 3 2 0053 Page of

Field Audit General Information : Audit Start Date: Time Started:

Audit Finish Date:

Auditor:

Auditee:

Time Completed:

Organization:

Organization:

Field Activity Audited: Type of Audit: INITIAL or FOLLOWUP (circle) INTERNALor EXTERNAL

Purpose of Audit:

II. Activity-Specific Audited Items: Item Yes No Comment

A. Site Preparation and Organization 1. Clean/Contaminated/Contamination Reduction zones established, marked, and in use? Is field personnel aware?

2. Is field supervisor/task manager on-site to direct field activities? Are appropriate personnel in the field?

3. Have work plans been prepared? Are they approved? Available on-site? Are the personnel familiar with the documents?

4. Is decontaminated equipment staged properly until use?

5. Contaminated equipment and supplies recovered from the area when activity is completed?

6. Are site areas secure and access limited to authorized personnel only?

7. Are proper health and safety measures incorporated into the activity? Is proper PPE worn? is air monitoring appropriate? H&S inspections preformed regularly?

B. General Site Issues

1. Are status meetings routinely held to notify field crews of changes in site activities, plans, and procedures?

2. If subcontractors are used, are they adequately trained? Do they know the task objectives? Are they familiar with the project/task plans?

Item Yes No Comment

N:\SHARED\COMMON\DAMBarberOrchard\QAPP\FieldForms\FIELDAUDITfNGCHECKLIST.doc

3 2 0 0 5 4 FIELD AUDITING CHECKLIST

Page. of

3. Is the necessary equipment on-site to perform the tasks adequately? Are the personnel trained to operate equipment?

4. Are investigation derived wastes properly stored, handled, disposed?

5. Are on-site records complete? Field logbooks up to date? Equipment calibration logs current? Any

6. Any chemical reagents/solvents on-site? Stored properly? Labeled w/dates? Flammables segregated from acids? MSDSs available?

7. Sample storage/prepn area clean and adequate? Temp documentation/custody in place if stored >24 hr on-site?

8. On-site Dl water supply system functioning? Regularly maintained? Maintenance logbook? Test results?

9. Field instruments stored in good condition? Maintenance/calibr records on-site? Calibration standards stored properly? Expired? Probes stored correctly? In aood condition?

C. Sample Collection Activities

1. Have the sample locations been properly identified before collection? Is sample location/IDs assigned unique?

2. Is the sampling method/equipment selected appropriate to collect the most representative sample from the matrix?

3. Is the sampling equipment properly cleaned, calibrated, and prepared for field use?

4. Is the sample documentation adequate, timely, and provide an accurate recording of the details of the collection activity?

5. Are appropriate procedures used to reduce the possibility of field contamination or analyte loss?

6. Are the associated field QC samples collected to meet the requirements of the QAPP or WP? Are they documented correctly?

7. Are the sample preservation techniques employed as specified in the QAPP or WP? Is preservation documented on label and COC?

8. Are samples appropriately stored, packaged, and shipped to the analysis laboratory?

9. Is the laboratory made aware of incoming sample shipment contents? Is the sample coordinator contacted and doc. Relayed?

10. Is a contingency plan in place for handling nonconformances with sample receipt? Is POC designated on the COC?

N:\SHARED\COMMON\DAMBarberOrchard\QAPP\FieldForms\FIELDAUDITINGCHECKLIST.doc

3 2 0 0 5 5 FIELD AUDITING CHECKLIST

Page of

Auditor Comments/Notes:

N:\SHARED\COMMON\DAMBarberOrchard\QAPP\FieldForms\FIELDAUDITINGCHECKLIST.doc

IT CORPORATION AMimbtrcfntlTCroap Lithologic Information

(for ERPIMS)

SITE ID: LOCATION ID:

INSTALLATION ID:

Logging Company:_ Log Date: (mm/dd/yy)

Beginning Depth (xxxx.xx)

Ending Depth (xxxx.xx)

Lithologic Code

ASTM Soil Classification

Stratigraphic Order

Visual Description

Prepared By:

OJ

CD CD en ON

N:\SHARED\COMMON\DAMBARBERORCHARD\QAPP\FIELDFORMS\ERPJMS LITHOLOG.DOC

EH IT CORPORATION .< J h t h W Thr ITCnw/i

FIELD ACTIVITY DAILY LOG

3 2 0 0 5 7

Dai

ly L

og Date

No.

Sheet of

PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.

FIELD ACTIVITY SUBJECT:

DESCRIPTION OF DAILY ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS:

VISITORS ON SITE: CHANGES FROM PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND OTHER SPECIAL ORDERS AND IMPORTANT DECISIONS.

WEATHER CONDITIONS: IMPORTANT TELEPHONE CALLS:

IT PERSONNEL ON SITE:

SIGNATURE: DATE:

N:\SHARED\COMMON\DAMBarberOrchard\QAPP\FieldForms\DailyLog.doc

IT CORPORATION (.w^,/>T,/7vrr&.«?i

i_2 0058

Dai

ly L

og Date

No.

Sheet of

FIELD ACTIVITY DAILY LOG CONTINUATION SHEET

PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.

FIELD ACTIVITY SUBJECT:

DESCRIPTION OF DAILY ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS:

N:\SHARED\COMMON\DAMBarbeiOrchard\QAPP\FieldForms\DailyLog2.doc

3 2 0059

EH n CORPORJUICM

Groundwater Level Measurements

Site ID: Team Members:

Measurement Method: Equipment:

Measurement Reason:

Location ID

Static Water Level (ft BTOC)

Sounding (ft BTOC)

Date Measured

Time Measured

Prepared

By

Depth to

LNAPL (ft BTOC)

LNAPL Thickness

•

4/23/01 / 4:1 B PM / wtilev.xis / Sheetl

3 2 0063 Extraction Well Construction Form (Bedrock)

Project:

Location:

Client: Subcontractor:

Driller:

IT Field Representative:

Well Number: _

Site Location: _

Installation Date

Northing: _

Easting: _

IT Project Number:

OU#

Top of Vault Elevation (ft):

Top of Measuring Tube Elev. (ft):

Approximate Diameter

of Section 1 Borehole (in):

Diameter of Surface Casing (in):

Depth to Bedrock (ft):

Bottom of Surface Casing (ft):

Depth to Water (ft):

During Drilling:

Date:

Post Development:

Date:

Approximate Diameter

of Section 2 Borehole (In):

Well Casing Diameter (in):

Top of Bentonite Seal (ft):

Top of Filter Pack (ft):

Top of Screen Interval (ft):

Bottom of Screen Interval (ft):

Bottom of Well (ft):

Bottom of Filter Pack (ft):

Bottom of Borehole (ft):

nra

^..-re---M Liy j i f tyyr

"3

TOC J

Vault:

Dimensions (ft):

Pump:

Manufacturer

Type:

Size:

Shut off Sensor Depth (ft):

Reset Sensor Depth (ft):

Surface Casing:

Type:

Diameter (in):

Installation:

s

Tremle

Cementing Plug

Haliburton

Other Plug

Annular Space Seal:

Type: Bentonite-Cement Grout

Installation: Gravity Tremie Pumped

Bentonite Seal:

Manufacturer

Type: Pellets Slurry

Installation: 6-ln lifts One Section

Gravity Tremie

Hydration time (hrs):

Pumped

Filter Pack Material:

Manufacturer:

Product Name:

Size:

Volume Added (ft3):

Installation: Gravity

Well Casing:

Manufacturer:

Type:

Diameter (in):

Well Screen Casing:

Manufacturer:

Type:

Slot Size (in):

Slot Type:

Sump/End Cap:

Backfill Material:

Tremie

%Open

Continous

wrap

Factory slot

IT CORPORATION c*<rialmmUnVBr(in»»Lip\fld form\Wellcon1 xJaNExtraaion Bedrock M/23/01

Depths and heights are referenced to ground surface unless specified TOC.

All elevations are referenced to MSL (NAVD 88).

3 2 0064

HTRW DRILLING LOG Hole Number

Company Name Drilling Subcontractor

IT Corporation Sheet Sheets

1 of

Project Location

Name of Driller Manufacturer's Designation of Drill

Sizes and Types of Drilling

and Sampling Equipment

Northing Easting NAD NCVD

Surface Elevation

Date Started Date Completed

Overburden Thickness Depth Groundwater Encountered

Depth to Bedrock Depth Drilled into Rock Depth to Water and Elapsed Time After Drilling Completed

Total Depth of Hole Other Water Level Measurements (Specify)

Geotechnical Samples Undisturbed Total Number of Core Boxes

Samples for Chemical Analysis VOC Metals Other Other Other Total Core Recovery

Disposition of Hole Backfilled Monitoring Wen Other Signature of Geologist

Location Sketch/Comments Scale: (not to scale)

EE3 Project Hote Number

4/23/01 / 4:18 PM / Hlrwtog1.xls / pagel

1 i •I g

I HTRW DRILLING

m 1 o

I Gtoiogitl:

!

Remarks

(u) A

j8A

O»

y

Analytical Sample

No.

Geotech. Sample or Core Box No.

Field Screening

Results (ppm)

oujn/sosn

Description ol Materials sflqlii)

Mldao

(U) *ai3

iiii|iiii|iiii|iiii|iiii|nii|iin

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

11

11

11

M1

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

1 j

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

1

5s INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

•

Project Name/No:

Sample Team Member:

Profit Center:

Project Manager:

Purchase Order No.:

Required Report Date:

ANALYSIS REQUEST AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD

Sample Shipment Date:

Laboratory Destination:

Laboratory Contact:

Project Contact/Phone:

Carrier Waybill No.: FEDEX

REFERENCE DOCUMENT NO.:

P A G E _ 1 _ OF

BUI To:

Report To:

Sample Number

Sample Type/

Description

Date/Tim Collected

Container Type

Sample Volume

Preservative Requested Testing Program

Condition on Receipt

Disposal Record

Special Instructions: Possible Hazard Identification: Use caution when handling.

Non-haz: Flammable: Poison B: Unknown: Turnaround Time:

Normal: Rush: 1. Relinquished by:

2. Relinquished by:

3. Relinquished by:

Sample Disposal:

Return to Client: Disposal by Lab: Archive:

Level of QC Required: I. II. III. Project Specific: Date: Time: Date: Time: Date: Time:

1. Received by:

2. Received by:

2. Received by:

Date: Time: Date: Time: Date: Time:

Comments:

CD CD ON ON

sampling and analysis plan, volume 2 - quality … · contracting officer robert stem project...

Documents