NCD062555792_20011018_Sigmons Septic Tank Service_FRBCERCLA FS_Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan Volume 1 - Quality Assurance Project Plan-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
••
I
I'
I
I
DRAFT
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
VOLUME 1 -QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
SIGMON'S SEPTIC TANK SITE
STATESVILLE, IREDELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
DRAFT
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
VOLUME 1 -QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
SIGMON'S SEPTIC TANK SITE
Statesville, Iredell County, North Carolina
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I DRAFT
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
VOLUME 1 -QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
SIGMON'S SEPTIC TANK SITE
Statesville, Iredell County, North Carolina
USEPA Work Assignment 0040-RICO-A44F
BVSPC Project No. 048140.0101
October 18, 2001
Prepared by
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
1145 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 475
Alpharetta, Georgia 30004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project P!an
EPA Comract '.'\o_ 68-W-99-0➔ J
\.\'ork Assignmen1 ~o. 040-R1CO-r\4P7
1 Sigmon·s Septic Tani-Site
Table of Contents
Section . TOC
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page N°.
Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A&A-1
1.0 Project Description ................................................. 1-1
I. I Site Location. Description, and Operational History .................... 1-2
1.2 Regulatory History .............................................. 1-4
2.0 Description of Current Conditions ..................................... 2-1 ,· 'l.1 • 2.1 Topography and Physiography .................................... 2-1
2.2 Climate ...................................................... 2-1
2.3 l-lydrogeologic Setting ........................................... 2-1
2.4 Groundwater Use ............................................... 2-3
2.5 Surface Water Use .............................................. 2-3
2.6 Demography and Land Use ....................................... 2-4
2. 7 Endangered and Threatened Species ................................ 2-4
3 .0 Project Management ................................................ 3-1
3.1 Project Organization ............................................ 3-1
3.2 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
Drum Service Site ............................................... 3-3
3.3· Project Description and Schedule .................................. 3-3
3.3.1 Rl/FS Description ......................................... 3-3
3.3.2 Description of the Work to be Performed ....................... 3-4
3.3.3 Proposed Project Schedule .................................. 3-4
3.4. Data Quality Objectives .......................................... 3-5
3.4.1 DQO Step I: State the Problem .............................. 3-6
3.4.2 DQO Step 2: Identify the Decision ............................ 3-9
).4.3 DQO Step 3: Identify the Inputs to the Decision ................ 3-10
3.4.4 DQO Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries .................... 3-12
3.4.5 DQO Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule ....................... 3-14
J.4.6 DQO Step 6: Specify Tolerable Limits on Decision Errors ........ 3-15
3.4.7 DQO Step 7: Optimize the Design ........................... 3-20
3.5 Speciai' Training Requirements and Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
3.6 Documentation and Records ..................................... 3-23
3.6.1 Field Operation Records ................................... 3-23
3.6.2 Laboratory Records .. : .................................... 3-28
4.0 Measurement Data Acquisition ....................................... 4-1
4.1 Sampling Process Design ........................................ 4-1
4.1.1 Sample Collection Schedule ................................. 4-1
4.1.2 Sampling Design Rationale .................................. 4-1
4.1.3 Sampling Design Assumptions ............................... 4-1
4.1.4 Procedures for Selecting Locations for Environmental Samples ..... 4-2
4.1.5 Classification of Critical Samples ............................. 4-2
4.2 Sampling Methods Requirements .................................. 4-2
Quali1y Assurance Pro_iect Plan
EPA Contract No, 68-W-99-043
\\.'ork Assignmen1 ;,.,:o_ 040-RJCO-A.tP7
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Table of Contents (Continued)
Section : TOC
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page NQ. 4.3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements ......................... 4-4 4.3.1 Sample Numbering ........................................ 4-4 4.3.2 Sample Identification ....................................... 4-8
4.3.3 Chain-of-Custody Procedures ............................... 4-11
4 .3 .4 Field Custody Procedures r ................................. 4-14 4.3 .5 Sample Packaging and Shipping ............................. 4-15 4.3.6 Transfer of Custody Procedures ............................. 4-16
4.3.7 Sample Custodians ....................................... 4-17 4.4 Analytical Method Requirements ................................. 4-17
4.4. I Analytical Methods ....................................... 4-17 4.4.2 Sample Preparation Procedures .............................. 4-18
4.4.3 Field Samples ........................................... 4-18
4.4.4 QC Sample Description .................................... 4-18 4.5 Field Instrument Requirements ................................... 4-21 4.5.1 Foxboro OVA Model 128 .................................. 4-21 4.5.2 Oxygen/LEL Meter (O/LEL) ................................ 4-23 4.5.3 Water Temperature, pH, and Conductivity Meter ................ 4-25
4.5.4 Water Turbidity .......................................... 4-26 4.5.5 Salinity, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen, and Temperature Meter .. 4-27 4.5.6 Redox Meter ............................................ 4-27
4.6 Inspection/ Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables ..... 4-28 4. 7 Data Acquisition Requirements ................................... 4-29
4. 7.1 Precision ............................................... 4-29
4. 7.2 Accuracy ............................................... 4-29
4.7.3 Representativeness ........................................ 4-30
4. 7.4 Comparability ........................................... 4-30
4.7.5 Completeness ............................................ 4-3 I 4.8 Data Management ............................................. 4-31
4.8.1 Data Recording .......................................... 4-31 4.8.2 Data Validation .......................................... 4-31
4.8.3 Data Transmittal ......................................... 4-32 4.8.4 Data Transformation and Reduction .......................... 4-32 4.8.5 Data Analysis ............................................ 4-32
4.8.6 Data Tracking ........................................... 4-32 4.8. 7 Data Storage and Retrieval ................................. 4-33
4880 R . . 4" . . ata eportmg ....................................... ·. . . . -JJ 5.0 Assessment/Oversight ............................................... 5-1 5. I Assessments/Oversights ......................................... 5-1 5.1.I Surveillance 5-1 5.1.2 Field Investigation Audit .................................... 5-1
5.1.3 Laboratory Activities Audits 5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assuranci: Prn_ii:ct Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Sec1ion : TOC
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I Work Assignmi:nt No. 040-R!CO-A4Pi
Sigmon·s Scp1ic Tank Site
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page Ne.
5.2 Corrective Action Protocols 5-2
6-1
6-1
6-2
7-1
6.0 Data Validation and Usability ........................................ .
6.1 Data Review. Validation. and Verification Requirements .............. .
6.2 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives ........................ .
7.0 References ...................................................... .
Tables
Table 1-1
Table 1-2
Table 1-3
Table 1-4
Figures
Figure 1-1
Figure 1,-2
Figure 1-3
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3:-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3,5
Figure 4-1
Figure 4,2
Figure 4-.3
Figure 4-4
Figure 4-5
Figure 5-1
Analytical Results for ESI Soil Samples ..................... 1-11
Anal11ical Results for ESI Groundwater Samples ............. 1-13
Analytical Results for ESI Surface Water Samples ............ 1-14
Analytical Results for Sediment Samples .................... 1-15
Site Location Map ....................................... 1-3
Site Layout Map ........................................ 1-5
Phase II SSI sample Location Map ......................... 1-10
Project Organization Chart ................................ 3-2
Conceptual Site Model ................................... 3-8
Well Development Log .................................. 3-24
Groundwater Sample Collection Record .................... 3-25
Daily Progress Report ................................... 3-26
Field Change Request Fom1 ............................... 4-7
Sample Label ........................................... 4-9
Sample Tag ........................................... 4-10
Custody Seal .......................................... 4-12
Chain-ot~Custody Record ................................ 4-13
Field Investigation Audit .................................. 5-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality A:..suran..:i.: l'rnjc..:1 Plan
EPA (nnLnKt :--;o. 68-\\'-99-043
\Vork ,\ssignment \Jo. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigrnon·s Sr:ptic Tank Site
Section: A&A
DRAFT
October I 8, 200 I
Page I of2
ASTs
Black & Veatch
"C
CFR
CPR
DEM
DO
DOT
DQI
DQO
EPA
ESI
FID
FTL
H,,
HASP
HSM
LEL
LFL
ftrnhos/crn
NBS
NCDNR.
NTU
O,
OSHA
OVA
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Acronyms and Abbreviations
aboveground storage tanks
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation
degrees Celsius
Code 'of Federal Regulations
cardicipulrnonary resuscitation
Division of Environmental Management
dissolved oxygen
U.S. Departrnent of Transportation
data quality indicator
data quality objective
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Expanded Site Inspection
flame ionization detector
field team leader
alternative hypothesis
health and safety plan
null hypothesis
health and safety manager
lower explosive limit
lower flammability limit
microhms per centimeter
National Bureau of Standards
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
oxygen
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
organic ,:apor analyzer
Quality :\~:-uram.:i.: l'rnji.:ct Plan
EPA Contract :,.,\1. 68•W-99-0-U
Work Assignment So. 00➔0-RICO-A44F
Sigmori's St'.'ptic Tank Site
Section: A&A
DRAFT
October ! 8, 200 I
Page 2 of2
PARCC
PPEs
QA
QAM
QAPP
QC
RAC
RCRA
Rl/FS
ROD
RPM
RPO
SA
SES
SESD
sow
SSC
SI
SR
SSR
TCLP
VI
V2
voes
precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and
completeness
primary points of entry
per square inch gauge
quality assurance
Quality Assurance Manager
quality assurance project plan
quality control
EPA Response Action Contract
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
EPA Remedial Project Manager
relative percent difference
spike added from spiking mix
Sigmon Environmental Services
Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Statement of Work
site safety coordinator
site inspection
unspiked sample
spike sample results
Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
primary sample value
duplicate sample value
volatile organic compound
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
()ualily Assurance-Projci.:-1 Plan
EPA Contract :--.:o. 68-W-49-0--U
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A.J-IF
Sigm011s Septic Tank Site
1.0 Project Description
Section : I
DRAFT
October I 8, 200 I
Page I of 15
This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) has been prepared in response to a Statement of
Work (SOW) for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study(RI/FS) at the Sigmon's Septic Tank
Site in Statesville, Iredell County, North Carolina, issued to Black & Veatch Special Projects
Corp. (Black & Veatch) on July 19, 2001, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region 4. This SOW was issued through EPA Response Action Contract (RAC) No. 68-
W-99-043 under Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F. This QAPP is a critical planning
document for the RI/FS environmental data collection activities to be performed at the Sigmon's
Septic Tank 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 organizatioo performing the work is reflected in the project and in associated
technical goals. ll1is 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 dated
July 19, 200 I (EPA, 200 I a). The format and information in this QAPP are based on the EPA
Requiremen1sjor Quality Assurance Projec/ Plans for Environmental Data Opera/ions (EPA
QAIR-5), dated November 1999 (EPA, 1999a), and supplemented by the EPA Guidance for
Q11a/i1y ,4ss11rcmce Projecl P/cms (EPA QAIG-5), dated February 1998 (EPA, I 998a).
The following is a discussion of the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site's physical description and
operational and regulatory history. The site background information provided in this section is
taken from the following documents.
I) Work Assignment Form for Work Assignment No. 029-RICO-A44F Rev. 0 (EPA,
2001a).
2) txpanded Site Inspection. Sigmon's Septic Tank Service. March 31, 2000 (NCDENR,
2000a).
3) Combined Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection, September 30, 1998 (NCDENR,
I 998b).
Oualily Assurnm..:c Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-0-13
Work t\ssignmcnl :--;o. 00-10-RICO·A•lAF
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
1.1 Site Location, Description, and Operational History
Section: I
DRAFT
October I 8, 200 I
Page 2 of 15
The Sigmon's Septic Tank Site is located at 1268 Eufola Road approximately 5 miles southwest
ofStatesville. iredell County. North Carolina (NCDENR, 2000a). The site is located between
Eufola Road to the north and Lauren Drive to the south. Private landowners own the properties
located east and west of the site; the Pine Grove Cemetery is also located east of the site
(NCDENR, 2000a; USGS, 1993). A landing strip is located about 0.5 mile south of the site
(USGS, 1993). The site location is shown on Figure 1-1.
The Sigmon's Septic Tank Site is approximately 15.35 acres in size (NCDENR, 2000a).
According to Iredell County plat maps (Iredell County Mapping Office, 2001 b ), the site is divided
into two properties; the southern parcel is 8. 9 acres in size and is listed in the name of the deceased
Mr. Henry Sigmon, and the northern parcel is 6.45 acres in size and is owned by his daughter, Ms.
Mary Sigmon. Mary Sigmon and her family live in the onsite residence on the northern property.
A 1.25-acre pond (former borrow pit) is located south of the Sigmon house. An office for Sigmon
Environmental, Inc., (the current name of the business) is located south of the pond. An open-
walled. roofed storage building is located to the east of the office. The office is accessed via a
gravel driveway that runs north-south. Further south along the gravel drive is an old storage shed.
At the time of the site visit (September 26. 200 I) there were empty, rusted drums; buckets; old·
tires; old car seats; and other debris within and near the storage shed. According to Mary Sigmon,
these materials are ail from her father's operations; the drums fonneriy contained car wash fluids
and/or liquid waste from International Paper (Black & Veatch. 2001 b).
Approximately I 00 feet south of the shed next to the gravel drive are six aboveground storage
tanks (ASTs) containing liquid wastes. The ASTs include: 2 rectangular concrete basins
(approximately 1,000 gallons each), 2 cylindrical rusted tanks (approximately I 0,000 gallons
each). and 2 cylindrical rusted tanks (approximately 12.000 gallons each) (Black & Veatch.
200 I b ).
A waste pile and former lagoons are located in the southern portion of the site. Two lightly
vegetated open pits approximately 2 to 3 feet in depth are located nearthe southeastern cornerof
·•·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REF. USGS 7.5 MINUTE SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC MAP: TROUTMAN, NC 1993. 1" = 3,000'
SITE LOCATION MAP
SIGMON'S SEPTIC TANK SITE
STATESVILLE, !REDELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(hmlity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Con1rnc1 No. 68-W-99-0-IJ
\\'ork Assignment r-..'o. 00-I0-RlCO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section : I
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page 4 of 15
the site. The two pits are approximately 30 feet by l O feet and 15 feet by 8 feet in size (Black &
Veatch. 2001 b).
The site is enclosed with a 4-foot barbed wire fence. and warning signs are posted on the fence
and trees. There are breaks in the fence on the eastern and southern sides of the site (Black &
Veatch. 2001b). A site layout map is provided as Figure 1-2.
Sigmon· s Septic Tank Service. a wholly owned subsidiary of AAA Enterprises. was owned and
operated by the Sigmon family since 1970. The business pumped septic tank wastes and heavy
sludges from residential. commercial. and industrial customers; installed and repaired septic tanks;
and provided a variety of industrial waste removal services. The wastes were described as
septage. grease. and a milky white liquid. From 1970 to 1978. the wastewaters were discharged
to the City of Statesville wastewater treatment plant. From approximately 1973 to 1974, the
sludges were applied to area farmlands: however, the file material does not specify on to which
properties the sludges were applied. From 1978 to 1992, the septic wastes were disposed in eight
to ten uni ined lagoons located on the southern portion of the site. The dimensions of the area in
which all oft he lagoons were located were 213 feet by 250 feet (approximately 1.2 acres). The
lagoons were not permitted by the State of North Carolina, however, during the 1998 site
inspection (SI). Mr. Sigmon indicated that he had verbal permission from the Iredell County Health
Department and from representatives of the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management. Mooresville Regional Office (NCDENR, 2000a). .•
1.2 Regulatory History
The Sigmon ·s Septic Tank Site first came to the attention of the North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development (NCDNRCD) and the Iredell County Health
Department in June 1980. on a site inspection to investigate the septage disposal problems of the
area. In September of 1980, temporary monitoring wells were installed by the NCDNRCD and
Division of Environmental Management (DEM), at the request of the Department of Human I Resources. Samples were analyzed for alkalinity, bicarbonate, carbonate, chloride, dissolved
solids. hardness. and pH (NCDENR, 2000a).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ' , ;;;----;-:::;::,, .. ■ -··-~~~r";f ~::=-·-"'
; . )
•O ._,. • • r
, •• I
/
.. ·:,J
,. ~
o----
REf. -USGS 7.5 MINUTE SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC MAP: TROUTMAN, NC 1993. m I
SITE LAYOUT MAP
SIGMON'S SEPTIC TANK SITE
STATESVILLE, IREDELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(
1" = 600'
FIGURE
1-2
·•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Comract No. 68-W-99-0➔J
Work Assignment No. 0040-RJCO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section : I
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 6 of 15
In November 1980. Mr. Sigmon submitted an interim status hazardous waste permit application
(EPA Part A) indicating that the site was used for disposal of hazardous waste. In June 198 I,
Mary Sigmon. daughter and current owner of the septic tank service, requested that the permit
application be withdrawn because they were no longer transporting hazardous waste. In April '
1982. Mary Sigmon requested the facility be re-classified as a transporter of hazardous waste
(NCDENR. 2000a).
In 1987. four additional temporary monitoring wells were installed and sampled by DEM (MW I
through MW 4). Anal)1ical results were compared to EPA Drinking Water Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCL) and/or North Carolina Title I SA Subchapter2L Classification and
Water Quality Standards Applicable to Groundwater. The following sample results were above
the applicable standards: nitrates, barium, chromium, copper, iron, mercury, manganese, and lead.
During this investigation lagoon samples were also collected.
In 1990. during a site investigation by Keith Masters, Hazardous Waste Compliance Unit,
observed two surface impoundments numbers eight and nine had been closed out. He further
observed, surface impoundments identified as seven and ten containing waterrun-offfrom the
existing six operating ponds and were connected by a septic T. The waters collected in these two
ponds were used for irrigation'purposes.
Sigmon 's Septic Tank Service received a Notice of Violation from DEM on August 9, 1990,
regarding the groundwater contamination. Sigmon·s was required to submit a site assessment
report and to install two new monitoring wells to replace MWI and MW2. which had been ' .
damaged., The two new monitoring wells were installed in the same location as the original wells.
The site was referred to the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Section in September 1990, based
on the 19p lagoon sampling anal)1ical results
In 1991. groundwater samples w~re collected by DEM from nearby drinking water wells. The
analytical results revealed elevated levels of metals and organics.
Qualit~· Assuran..:c Pro_jcct Plan
EPA Contract No. 08-V.·"-99-0-tJ
Work Assignm.:nt Nn 00-+0-R!CO-,\-t4F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Sit,:
Section: I
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page7ofl5
In 1992, DEM and the Hazardous Waste Section conducted an on-site investigation of the Sigmon
site lagoons. Analytical results from this sampling indicated elevated levels of7 metals and I 3
volatile organics in the aqueous lagoon samples and 4 metals and 18 volatile organics in the sludge
samples. However. all recorded levels were below Resource. Conservation Recovery Act
(RCRA) Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) levels for toxicity characteristics.
Accordingly. the Hazardous Waste Section referred the site to the North Carolina Solid Waste
Section because the chemical constituents within the lagoons did not meet the statutory definition
of hazardous waste.
In May I 993. DEM noted levels of mercury, lead, 2-chlorotoluene, benzene, 1,3,5-
trimethylbenzene. n-butylbenzene. and naphthalene above the North Carolina 2L groundwater
standards in two monitoring wells. The Sigmon 's were subsequently ordered to supply an alternate
drinking water source for two residences that were approximately 400 feet from the lagoon area.
In September 1993. AAA Enterprises contracted Shield Environmental Associates to analyze
samples from the lagoon area. Results from these samples indicated elevated levels of petroleum
hydrocarbons. metals. and organic compounds.
According to AAA Enterprises, seven of the eight lagoons were closed in accordance with DEM
Notice of Regulatory Requirements for 15A NCAC 2L .OI 06 (f) (3) and (4) in 1995. The
excavated waste was piled onsite adjacent to the lagoon area and the lagoon sludge was excavated
to a depth of IO feet and mixed with sawdust. Subsequently, the lagoons were filled with soil from
the northern portion of the Sigmon's property. The site was then referred to the North Carolina
Superfi.md Section by DEM w1th the possibility of emergency removal of the waste pile. However,
land application of the sludge was considered but denied due to sufficient acreage to apply the
sludge.
In September 1995. both Sigmon 's Septic Tank Service and AAA Enterprises ceased operations
for financial reasons. In January I 996. Mary Sigmon formed Sigmon Environmental Services
(SES). that is currently active at the site. SES was permitted as a septage management firm by the
North Carolina Solid Waste Section to discharge septage to a nearby wastewater treatment
facility. In December I 996. the site was added to CERCLIS database for further investigation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,
I
I
I
Quali1y Assurance Projci.:t l'lan
EPA Contract No. 6~-\V-99-043
Work Assignmcm :--:n. 0040-R.ICO-A44F
Sigmon:S Septic Tank Site ,
St:ction: I
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page 8 of 15
In January 1997. the North Carolina Superfund Section referred the site to Region 4 EPA
Emergency Response and Removal Branch for removal evaluation. EPA subsequently determined
that the site did not meet removal eligibility.
In 1998. the Superfund Section conducted a Combined Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection
of the site. The investigation confirmed the presencc,af groundwater contamination south and east
of the Sigmon• s property and the presence oforganic and inorganic compounds within the waste
pile and the lagoon. Barium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, chlorobenzene, 1,4-
dichlorobenzene, and 1,2-dichlorobenzen were detected within several wells. The surface water
pathways were also of concern. Two of the four primary points of entry (PPEs) were documented
as fisheries and sampling results detected barium. chromium, lead, and manganese within one of
the fisheries (Davidson pond) and magnesium within the other fishery (unnamed tributary).
On December6 and 7. 1999. the North Carolina Superfund Section conducted sampling forthe
Expanded Site Investigation (ES!) at the site. Ten surface and subsurface soil, six sediment and
surface water. and nine groundwater samples were collected and analyzed during the ES!. Four
of the soil samples were collected from three lagoons that exhibited signs of stressed vegetation.
Two of the soil samples were collected from the waste piles. The last two soil samples were
collected from the drainage dit~hes along Lauren Dr., west and eastofthe Davidson pond. Two
background soil samples were.also collected. Five sediment and surface water samples were
collected from the Davidson pond and the unnamed tributary. The background sediment sample
was collected upstream on the unnamed tributary. Seven of the groundwater samples were
collected from private residential wells (Cascadden, Lambreth, and Pons families), and one of the
groundwater samples were collected from an on-site monitoring well. The background monitoring
well was located Northwest of the Lambreth/Pons well. The ES! sample locations are presented
on Figure 1-3.
Organic and inorganic constin1ents detected in onsite surface and subsurface soils include: antimony
at 42 mg/kg. barium at I .400 mg/kg. cadmium at 4.6 mg/kg, chromium at 140 mg/kg, copper at
380 mg/kg. lead at 250 mg/kg. magnesium at 4, l 00 mg/kg. manganese at 290 mg/kg, nickel at 350
mg/kg. potassium at 3.200 mg/kg, selenium at 2.5 mg/kg, silver at 3.5 mg/kg, zinc at 1,400 mg/kg,
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-R!CO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tani. Site
Sec1ion: I
DRAFT
Occobcr I 8, 200 I
Page 9 of 15
acetone at 160 ug/kg. carbon disulfide at 9 ug/kg, methyl ethyl ketone at 76 ug/kg, cyclohexane
at 39 ug/kg. benzene at 18 ug/kg. methyl cyclohexane at 180 ug/kg, toluene at 290 ug/kg, ,
tetrachloroethylene at 5 ug/kg, methyl isobtityl ketone at 80 ug/kg, methyl butyl ketone at 270 ·
ug/kg. chlorobenzene at 200 ug/kg, ethyl benzene at 300 ug/kg, total xylenes at 1,300 ug/kg,
isopropyl benzene at 12 ug/kg, 1,3-dichlorobenzene at 170 ug/kg, 1,4-dichlorobenzene at 290
ug/kg, 1,2-dichlorobenzene at 250 ug/kg, (3&/or4 )methyl phenol at 48,000 ug/kg, naphthalene at
6,200 ug/kg. 4-chloroaniline at 980 ug/kg, 2-methyl naphthalene at 4,300 ug/kg, I, I-bi phenol at
3,500 ug/kg, dimethyl phthalate at 47,000 ug/kg, phenanthrene at 1800 ug/kg, benzyl butyl
phthalate at 220,000 ug/kg, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at I 00,000 ug/kg. Summaries of the
organic and inorganic analytical results for soil are presented in Table 1-1.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals detected in groundwatei concentrations include:
barium at 83 ug/1. cobalt at 1.2 ug/1. manganese at 260 ug/1, magnesium at 10,000 ug/1, total
mercury at 4.6 ug/1, nickel at 4.2 ug/1, l,l dichloroethane. cis-1.2-dichlorthene, 1,4-
dichlorobenzene. chlorobenzene at 72 ug/1, xylenes at 2 ug/1, 1,2-dichlorobenzene at 8 ug/1,
benzene at 2 ug/1, and 1.3 dichlorobenzene at I ug/1. Summaries of the VOC and metal analytical
results for groundwater are presented in Table I-2.
Inorganic constituents detected in the surface water samples include: arsenic at 18 ug/1, barium 210
ug/1, cadmium 1.2 ug/1, cobalt I 4 ug/1, iron 7,000 ug/1, manganese 1,300 ug/1,nickel 11 ug/1, and
zinc 220 ug/1. Summaries of the metal analytical results for surface water are presented in Table
1-3.
Sediment sample SST-023-SD was considered a background sample during the ES!; however,
it was collected from a surface water pathway that could potentially be impacted by the site. The
following constituents were detected in sediment samples at elevated concentrations when
compared to background sample SST-021-SD: arsenic (8 mg/kg). barium (210 mg/kg), chromium
(46 mg/kg). copper (3 7.1 mg/kg). iron (3200 to 37000 mg/kg). manganese (280 to 380 mg/kg),
nickel (21 mg/kg). and zinc ( 150 mg/kg). Analytical results are summarized in Table 1-4.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' -
' ---, --t: .... ¥"':-·r
~~~ ~-'::::~~~~j
~..,, -:,
,. ·-.
•
REFS. -USGS 7.5 MINUTE SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC MAP: TROUTMAN, NC 1993; NCDENR, ESI REPORT SIGMON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE, MARCH 2000.
,:,, SIGMON'S SEPTIC TANK SITE
STATESVILLE, IREDELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
HISTORICAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
DECEMBER 1999 ESI
1" =
FIGURE
1-3
- - ------- ----- ----
Table 1-1
Analytical Results for ESI Soil Samples
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
Sample Description ws SST-010-WS SST-011-WS SST-012-WS SST-013-WS SST-113-WS SST-014-SS SST-014-SB SST-017-SL SST-018-Sl
Drainage ditch Drainage ditch
on Lauren Dr., on Lauren Dr.. PRGs Lagoon west of the east of the (Residential NC Soil
~ontam1nant Waste P1!e Waste Ptle sample Lagoon sample Lagoon sample Duplicate Background Background pond pond Values} Values EPA SSLs
lnoraanics fma/kal
luminum 31000 16000 48000 11000 25000 22000 11000 33000 30000 15000 7600 NO 50
ntimonv .. 42J .. 28J 25J 29J 0.49UJ 0.52UJ .. . . 3.1 NO 3.5
rsenic 3.2 38 2.2 2.4 .. 2 1.3U 3.2 2.7 3.4 0.39 NO 10
Barium 230 310 140 310 1200 1400 17 18 85 160 540 848 165
Cadmium 4.6J 3.9J 0.57J 3.8J 2.8J 3.SJ 0.07UJ 0.07UJ .. ·-3.7 NO 1.6
Calcium 4100 6500 1700 9600 5600 9100 600U 640U .. 2700 NO NO NO
Chromium. total 75 60 40 68 120 140 7.9 19 21 31 30 27 0.4
Cobalt .. .. .. .. .. O,S9UJ 1.5UJ . . 7.SJ 470 NO 20
Co e, 200J 3SOJ 64J 340J 260J 310J 3.4UJ 2.7UJ 10J 24J 290 NO 40
Iron 23000 17000 24000 9700 17000 17000 8200 29000 20000 19000 2300 NO 200
Lead 180J 1SOJ 64J 170J 210J 250J 5.BJ 10J 13J 12J 40 270 50
Mannesium 4100 2700 3800 1200 2800 3000 180 450 1300 4200 NO NO NO
Mannanese 290 180 220 160 220 240 37 47 240 180 180 NO 100
Mercurv 0.26 0.56 .. 0.51 0.61 0.8 0.05U 0.06U ·• .. 2.3 NO 0.1
Nicker 74 61 20 33 310 350 2 4 8.2 17 160 NO 30
Potassium 3200 2200 3300 990 2400 2500 240 570 1100 4000 NO NO NO
Selenium .. 2.SJ 1.6J 2J 0.42UJ 0.44UJ .. . . 39 NO 0.81
Silver 3.5 3.2 .. .. . . 0.28U 1.2U .. --39 ND 2
Sodium 380 1200 760 1200 3100 4000 36U 38U .. 110 NO NO NO
Vanadium 49 41 56 27 36 36 20 69 46 45 55 NO 2
Zinc 870 880 310 1400 930 1100 7.4 11 36 100 2300 ND 50
Oraanics fuafkal
3 &/or 41 methvlohenol .. 7200J .. 48000 23000 23000 370U 50J . . .. 31000 NO NO
1, 1-biohenvl 1700J .. .. 2100J 2400J 3500J 370U 400U .. . . 3500000 NO 60000
4-chloroaniline 14000J 3400J 89J 9400J 14000J 9800J 11U 130J .. .. 24000 NO NO
1.2-dichlorobenzene 250 6J .. .. .. 11U 12U .. .. 3700000 7000 NO
1.3-dichlorobenzene 7J 19 .. .. 76 170 11U 12U .. .. 1300 24000 NO
1,4-dichlorobenzene 24 120 44 10J 290 100 11U 12U .. ·-3400 1000 NO
2,4-dinitrotoluene .. --. .. .. 370U 45J .. --720 NO NO
2-methvlnaohthalene 3600J 1900J --2200J 2700J 4300J 370U 400U .. .. NO 3000 NO
4-nitroohenol ·-.. .. .. .. -920U 79J -.. 49000 NO NO
ri.cenanhthene .. .. .. .. .. . . 370U 60J . . 130J 370000 8000 20000
Acetone .. 21 67 43 160 130 11U 12U -·-160000 2810 NO
Anthracene .. .. .. . . 370U 400U .. 250J 2200000 995000 100
Benzenaldehvde .. .. 3000J .. . . 370U 400U 440J 52J 610000 NO NO
Benzene .. 18 .. 14J 14J 11U 12U .. . . 650 5.6 50
Benzo alanthracene .. --.. .. .. .. 370U 400U .. 830 620 340 NO
Benzo a rene .. .. .. .. --370U 400U .. 730 62 88 100
Benzo blftuoranthene .. .. .. .. .. . . 370U 400U .. 960 620 1000 NO
Benzo nhilanthracene .. .. .. .. .. -370UJ 400UJ 280J NO 6720000 NO
Benzo k)ftuoranthene .. .. .. ·-.. . . 370U 400U .. 840 6200 12000 ND
Benzvl buh l ohtha!ate 220000 .. .. .. . . 370U 400U .. . . NO NO NO
Table 1-1
Analytical Results for ESI Soil Samples
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
Sample Description WS SST-010-WS SST-011-WS SST-012-WS SST-013-WS SST-113-WS SST-014-SS SST-014-SB SST-017-SL SST-018-Sl
Drainage ditch Drainage ditch
on Lauren Dr., on Lauren Dr., PRGs Lagoon west of the east of the (Residential NC S011 Contaminant Waste Pile Waste Pile sample lagoon sample lagoon sample Duplicate Background Background pond pond Values\ Values EPA SSL: bis/ 2-eth, lhexvl \o hthalate 240000 38000 920J 100000 97000 74000 370U 2700 ----35000 NO NO Carbazole ----370U 400U --270J 24000 NO NO Carbon disulfide SJ 4J 7J 4J BJ 9J 11 U 12U ----36000 4000 NO Chlorobenzene 11J 9J 74 10J 5000J 200 11U 12U --15000 NO 50 Chrvsene ------------370U 400U --920 62000 38000 NO Cvclohexane 39 ----11U 12U ----1400000 ND 100 D1benzofuran --------370U 400U --68J 29000 4700 NO Dimethvl nhthalate ----------47000 370U 400U --460 100000000 NO 200000 Ethvl benzene --41 300 --190 280 11U 12U ----2300000 240 50 Fluoranthene ----------370U 400U --1600 230000 276000 100 Fluorene ----------370U 400U --120J 260000 44000 ND ldeno(1,2,3-cdmvrene --------370UJ 400UJ --320J 620 3000 ND lsooroo1 !benzene --12J --11J 16J 11U 12U ----ND 2000 NO Methyl buh I ketone --270 --------11U 12U ----NO ND NO Methvl eth1 I ketone --34 --76 70 11U 12U --730000 690 ND Methvl isobuh I ketone ------80 11U 12U --79000 ND NO Methvlrvctohexane SJ 40 180 --26 38 11U 12U --260000 ND ND Naohthalene 3700J 2500J --2000J 6200J 11000J 370U 400U ----5600 580 100 n-nitroso di-n-oromlamine ------------11U 70J --69 ND 20000 Phenathrene 1800J ------370U 400U --1200 ND 60000 100 Phenol ----------370U 90J ----3700000 ND 50 Pvrene ------------370U 400U --1600 230000 286000 100 Stvrene ----------11U 12U 4J 1700000 ND 100 Tetrachloroethylene --SJ --------11U 12U ----5700 7.4 10 Toluene 17 63 210 4J 7000J 290 11U 12U ----520000 7000 50 x~lenes, total --200 1300 15J 730 200 11U 12U ---210000 5000 50
ND = Not Determined
--Indicates that the i:-onstItuent waS not detected above the sample quantitation limit
hadinn -Exceeds PRG. NC soil value, or EPA SSL.
- - ---- - --- - -- ---- --
------ - - -- --- ------
Table 1-2
Analytical Results for ESI Groundwater Samples
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
Sample Description SST-001-MW SST-002-PW SST-003-PW SST-103-PW SST-004-PW SST-005-PW SST-006-PW SST-007-PW SST-008-PW
Duplicate of Region 9 North
On-site the PRGs Carolina
Monitoring Cascadden Cascadden Sheppard Lambreth/ John Davidson Background (Tap Water Federal 2L
Contaminant well Lees well well well well Potts well Lambreth well well well Values) MCL Standards
lnorganics (ugfl)
Aluminum 8800 .. .. .. .. . . .. . . 49U 3600 50 to 200· ND
~•senic 4.2J .. .. .. .. . . .. . . 2.2UJ 0045 50 50
Banum 620 16 380 380 83 31 32 .. 22 260 2000 .2000
Calcium 210000 12000 22000 24000 13000 2700 4500 6200 2800 ND ND ND
Chromium 86 .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . 0.70U 11 100 50
Cobalt . 39 .. . 2.6 2.4 12 . . .. .. 0.60U 220 ND ND
Copper 26J .. 33J .. .. . . .. 38J 30J 140 1300·· 1000
Iron 11000 .. .. .. .. . . .. .. 60U 1100 300" 300
lead 12 .. 4.4 3 .. 2 4.6 8.6 3.4 ND 1 s·· 15
Magnesium 64000 .. 10000 10000 3800 .. .. 1600 400U ND ND ND
Manganese 27000 21 260 260 100 15 7 .. 4.2 88 ND 50
Mercury 6.6J .. 1.3J 1.1 J 4.6J .. .. .. 0.10UJ 1.1 2 1.1
Nickel 73 .. 4.2 23 .. .. .. .. 1.3U 73 ND 100
Potassium 11000J 1300J 4700J 4700J 2400J 1800J 1900J 1800J 1500J ND ND ND
Sodium 120000 3300 7800 8600 5000 2200 1600 5100 1400 ND ND ND
Zinc 44 110 31 28 .. .. 200 820 560 1100 ND 2100
Organic (ugllJ
1.1 dichloroe1hane 3 .. 0.6J 0.6J 0.8J .. .. -1U 81 ND 700
1.2-dichlorobenzene 8 .. .. .. -. . .. -1U 37 600 620
1,3.dichlorobenzene 1 .. .. ---.. .. 1U 0.55 600 620
1,4-dichlorobenzene 11 .. 0.6J 0.6J 2 .. . . .. 1U 05 75 75
!Acetone 29J SJ .. .. --.. .. SUR 61 ND 700
Benzene 2 .. .. .. 0.4J --.. 1U 0.35 5 1
Chlorobenzene 72 .. .. .. .. . . .. -1U 11 ND 50
Chloroethane 1 .. .. .. .. -.. .. 1U 4.6 ND ND
~s-1,2-dichloroethene 3 .. 0.8J 0.8J 0.8J .. .. .. 1U 6.1 70 70
lxy1enes. total 2 .. .. .. O.SJ . . .. .. 1U 140 10000 530
Notes:
NO = Not Determined
---Indicates that the constituent was not detected above the sample quantitation limit.
* = Secondary drinking water regulation
** = Action level
Shadina = Exceeds PRG, MCL, or NC 2L Standards
Table 1-3
Analytical Results for ESI Surface Water Samples
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
Sample Description SST-019-SW SST-020-SW SST-021-SW SST-022-SW SST-023-SW SST-024-SW Davidson pond
Davidson pond surtace water Surface water NC NC suface water sample(at the attribution sample for Surtace water sample Freshwater Freshwater sample(at culvert discharge into the PPE#2 from an downstream of pond Upstream surface Standards Standards EPA discharge into the intermittent steam). unnamed tributary in intermittent water sample on Surface water (Human (Aquatic Freshwater Contaminant pond). PPE#1 PPE#1 (backaround) tributarv (attribution) unnamed tributary sample from PPE#2 Health) lifel swsv lnoraanic lua/ll
Aluminum --1900 420U ------ND ND 87 Arsenic 4.8J 3.6J 2.2UJ ----18J ND 50 190 Barium 210 120 3.6U 14 26 15 ND ND ND Cadmium 1.2 --030U 1 --ND 2 0.66 Calcium 8700 6300 2600U 4000 6000 4300 ND ND ND Cobalt 14 4.8 0.60U ------ND ND ND Iron 7000 3400 360U --740 --ND 1000 1000 Lead 1.3 4.1 1.1U ----ND 25 1.32 Maanesium 2700 2000 1400 1200 2700 1500 ND ND ND Manoanese 1300 770 9.4 11 130 35 ND ND ND Nickel 11 4.3 1.3U ------ND 88 87.71 Potassium 20000J 16000J 4200J 1600J 4300J 2400J ND ND ND Sodium 4400 1400 160U 4200 4900 4200 ND ND ND Zinc 220 85 1.3U ----ND 50 58.91 Orqanic (ug/L)
Acetone I 13J --BJ ------I ND ND I ND Toluene I ----1U --0.4J --ND 11 175 ---Indicates that the constituent was not detected above the sample quantilation limit.
ND = Not Determined
Shadino -Exceeds screening value
- ---- -- - -- -- - -- --- -
- - ---- - ------ ------
Table 1-4
Analytical Results for ESI Sediment Samples
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
Sample Description SST 019-SO SST-020-SO SST-17 SL SST-18-Sl SST-021-SD SST-022-SD SST-023-SD SST-024-SO
Davidson pond Davidson pond Sedimentr attribution
sediment sample(at sediment sample(at sample for PPE#2 Sediment sample EPA
culvert discharge the discharge into Drainage Ditch from Drainage Ditch from from an unnamed downstream of pond Upstream sediment Sediment
into the pond). the intermittent Site to Davidson road to Davidson tributary in intermittent sample on unnamed Sediment sample Screening
Contaminant PPE#1 steam\_ PPE#1 -nd ~nd lbackaroundl lribula"· 'attnbution' tributarv from PPE#2 Values
lnoroanic fma/kal
luminum 40000 19000 30000 15000 37000 3900 9100 1400 ND
Arsenic 8 1.5 2.7 3.4 3.7 ------7.24
Barium 210 28 85 160 82 34 64 10 ND
Calcium 110 ----2700 2000U ------ND
Chromi1um 46 8.1 21 31 16 7.7 14 3.5 52.3
ConnPr 37J --10J 24J 11U ------18.7
Iron 37000 16000 20000 19000 11UJ 5200 12000 3200 ND
Lead 21J BJ 13J 12J 21J 2J 9.2J 1.6J 30.2
Maanesium 5400 1300 180 450 2600 940 550 180 ND
Manaanese 140 99 37 47 120 280 380 44 ND
Nickel 21 3.5 8.2 -17 7.7 3.7 4.3 0.9 15.9
Potassium 5100 1700 1100 4000 2200 780 580 240 ND
Sodium 98 99 --110 120U -------ND
vanadium-85 35 46 45 54 --27 ND
Zinc 150 27 36 100 45 13 30 5.6 124
Oraanic luo/kal
IAnthracene 82J ------11oou ------330
Benzo a)anthracene 430J ----830 1100U ------330
Benzo a1nvrene 450J ----730 1100U ------330
Benzo b)fluoranthene 560 ----960 1100U • ------ND
Benzo 'nhi lene 170J ----280J 1100U ------ND
Benzo k lfluoranthene 480J ----840 1100U ----NO
Carbazole 99J --1100U --NO
Chrvsene 510J ----920 11oou ----330
Oibenzo/a,hlan\hracene 88J ------1100U ------330
Fluoranthene 810 ---1600 11oou ------330
tndeno( 1.2.3--cdmvrene 210J ----320J 1100U ----NO
Phenanthrene 450J ------1100U ------330
n--,.rene 810 ----1600 1100U ------330
---Indicates that the constituent was not detected above the sample quantitation limit
ND= Not Determined
Shadinc. = Exceeds Sediment Screenina Value
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A+lF
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
2.0 Description of Current Conditions
Section: 2
DRAFr
October 18. 2001
Page I of 4
This section provides a description of the current conditions in the general vicinity of the site
as well as site specific conditions.
2.1 Topography and Physiography
The Siginon's Septic Tank Site, located in Iredell County, North Carolina, lies within the
central portion of the Piedmont Physiographic province in west central North Carolina. The
regional topography is characterized by well-rounded hills dissected from the ancient
peneplain surface by east-flowing streams (NCDCD, I 954) and long, undulating ridges
trending toward the northwest (USGS, 1987). Iredell County lies within two river basins:
the Catawba River basin in the southeastern portion and the Yadkin River basin in the
northwest (NCDCD, 1950). U.S. Highway 21 follows the divide separating the Catawba and
the Yadkin river basins northward from Mecklenburg County to Troutmans and then north
westward followed by a rural road to Alexander County (NCDCD, 1954).
The site is located in the southeastern quadrant oflredell County within the Catawba River
basin (USGS, 1993). Site elevations range between approximately 910 feet above mean sea
level (ams!), on the western portion of the site and 960 feet ams!, near the southeast edge of
the site. Surface drainage generally flows in a southwesterly direction channeled by 2
unnamed intermittent streams that converge with the Catawba River approximately 1.5 miles
to the southwest (USGS. 1993 ).
2.2 Climate
Normal annual precipitation within Iredell County is approximately 48 inches while the
mean annual evaporation is approximately 40, with a net annual precipitation of 8 inches
(USDC. 1983) The 2-year, 24-hour rainfall for Iredell County is 3.8 inches (USDC. 1985).
2.3 Hydrogeologic Setting
The Piedmont Physiographic province is characterized by low to high-grade metemorphosed
crystaline rock. which has undergone one·or two subsequent regional metamorphic events
and up to four deformation events. and some unmetamorphosed intrusive igneous rock.
Compositions for both metamorphic and igneous rock range from felsic to ultramafic. The
rocks are broken and displaced by numerous faults. and nearly everywhere are rock
Quality Assurance Proj~-c, Plan
EPA Contracl No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RJCO-A-I-IF
Sigmon·s Scp1ic Tank Site
Section: 2
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 2 of 4
fractures without displacement (USGS, 1987). Composite gneiss is the dominant rock type
in Iredell County, composed of mica schist interlayered with granite. Hornblende gneiss is
common as large mappable bodies and thin Sill-like bodies in other rocks. Weathered
hornblende gneiss produce deep red soils. whereas soils where hornblende is scarce tend to
be sandy and light in color. The largest occurrence of granite is in the Mooresville area
where it underlies a broad interstrearn area. Gabbro occurs in a large area along U.S. Route
70 in the eastern part of the county and also in the southwestern corner of the county. Rocks
of the granite-diorite complex have limited occurrence along the southern and eastern
borders of the county (NCDCD. 1954). Boring logs from six boring locations within 3 to
4 miles of the site indicate that the underlying regolith (weathered rock zone) extends from
IO to 140 feet below land surface. Bedrock consists of biotite gneiss. biotite schist,
hornblende gneiss, granite gneiss, chlorite gneiss, and some'granite (NCDNRCD. 1978). The
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site is underlain predominantly by mica schist and granite schist (Ref.
NCDCD. 1954).
The Piedmont largely consists of an unnamed and unconfined regional aquifer system. The
Regolith saturated zone varies in depth from 5 to 50 feet below land surface with a mean
depth of 31.3 ft below land surface (USGS, 1989). The water table within the regolith zone
mimics the land surface topography, although with subdued relief. For this reason,
topography can be used to predict the direction of groundwater flow (USGS, 1989). The
Piedmont unconfined aquifer system consists of the regolith, transitional (lower portion of
the regolith), and fractured bedrock zones. The saturated regolith provides the bulk of the
water storage within the Piedmont groundwater system (USGS, 1989). Its porosity is
between 35 and 50 percent near land surface (USGS, 1989). and the hydraulic conductivity
through the saprolite measures 0.5 to IO inches per hour ( 1-20 feet per day) (USGS, 1989).
At the base of the regolith is a zone of weathered bolders and saprolite that has a high
relative permeability and can be subject to high groundwater flow (USGS, 1989). Beneath
this is the zone of fractured bedrock. Its capacity a~ a groundwater reservoir is far less than
the saturated regolith zone with a porosity of0.01 to 2 percent. The hydraulic conductivity
of fractured bedrock is generally 0.00 I to 3 feet per day (USGS. I 989). Because much of
the flow is likely confined to the transition zone and the top 30 feet of fractured rock, water
or contamination commonly travel under a half mile before discharged into a stream (Ref.
USGS. 1989). This relatively quick circulation prevents the water from collecting much
mineral matter in solution. With the exception of a high iron content in some places, the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A4-IF
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section : 2
DRAFf
October l lt 200 I
Page 3 of -1
water is of good chemical quality almost everywhere. Municipal and industrial wells seated
in hornblende gneiss yield on average 60 gallons per minute (NCDCD, 1954 ). Depth to the
water table. as estimated from the site elevation with respect to local surface water on the
topographic quad. is approximately 10 to 30 feet below land surface at the Sigmon's Septic
Tank Site (USGS, 1993).
2.4 Groundwater Use·
No municipal water supply wells exist within a 4-mile radius of the site. The City of
Statesville obtains water from a surface water intake on the South Yadkin River. The intake.
located 5.5 miles north of the City of Statesville, is not influenced by the Sigmon·s Septic
Tank Service site. Although the ~ity has not extended any water lines within four miles of
the site, West Iredell Water Corporation and the City of Troutman supply water to areas
within four miles of the site. No wellhead protection areas exist in North Carolina
(NCDENR, 2000b).
Five community wells within the 4-mile radius of the site provide drinking water to
subdivisions and mobile home parks. The remaining population relies on private potable
water wells for drinking. Numerous potable water wells are located on or surround the site.
These include the Sheppard, former Cascadden, Lambreth, and Davidson wells to be
sampled in the RI (NCDENR, 2000b). Additionally, the two Davidson connected supply
wells provide drinking water to several rental properties bordering the site owned by Mr.
Chris Davidson (Black & Veatch, 200 I b)
2.5 Surface Water Use
Intermittent streams and drainage swales drain the site to the west and southeast. There are
no drinking water intakes located within the 15-mile surface water pathway. The perennial
stream. downstream of the confluence of the intermittent streams draining the site, is a
fishery mostly in the Spring. ,Within the 15-mile surface water pathway the extent of the
Catawba River. into which the perennial stream discharges, is heavily fished for human
consumption. The Catawba River is protected by NCDENR classification as a water supply
in moderate to highly developed watershed. utilized for primary recreation. and a critical
area. Additionally. the Catawba River feeds another recreationally fished water body. Lake
Norman (NCDENR. 2000b).
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Con1rac1 No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignmeni No. ()()..10-RIC0-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Sile
2.6 Demography and Land Use
Section: 2
DRAFf
October 18. 200 I
Page 4 of 4
The population of Iredell County was 122,660 for the year 2000 (USCB). Statesville, the
County Seat, is the largest population center in the county. Within the vicinity of the site,
land use is dominated by rural and residential properties. Mrs. Mary Sigmon lives onsite
with two children. Numerous residences surround the site and cattle graze on properties
bordering the site, owned by Mr. Lambreth and Mr. Davidson (Black & Veatch, 2001 b;
ICMO, 2001 ).
2.7 Endangered and Threatened Species
A discussion of the endangered and threatened species in the vicinity of the Sigmon's Septic
Tank Site can be found in the Draft Screening Level Ecolvgical Risk Assessment, Steps I
and 2, completed by Black & Veatch October 18, 200 I, for the Sigmon 's Septic Tank Site.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contrac1 No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignmem No. 0040-RJCO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
3.0 Project Management
Section: 3
DRAFr
October 18. 2001
Page I of 28
The following project management elements address the procedural aspects of project
development for the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site.
3.1 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 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 presented below:
•
•
•
Decision
Makers
EPA Remedial Project Manager Giselle Bennett
QA EPA QA Manager (QAM) Gary Bennett
Managers Black & Veatch QAM Virgil A. Paulson, P.E.
Principal Black & Veatch Project Manager Chris Allen. P.E .
Data Users Black & Veatch Project Staff John Jenkins, P.G.
Scotti Holcombe, P.E. ·
Shruti Shah
Mary A. Wenska
A project organization chart is presented on Figure 3-1. Black & Veatch in Alpharetta.
Georgia. has overall responsibility for the investigation at the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site.
The Black & Veatch Project Manager. Mr. Chris Allen, 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. Allen will be the primary contact with the EPA
Remedial Project Manager (RPM}, Ms. Giselle Bennett. Mr. Allen will serve as the Project
Review Team Leader and will ensure that valid data is collected and used in .a technically
correct manner. Mr. Virgil A. Paulson, the Quality Assurance Manager, is responsible for
the overall management of the Quality Assurance Program. The Black & Veatch
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 3-1 Project Organization Chart
U.S. EPA Region IV
Charles Hayes
EPA Contracting Officer
Rob Stern
EPA Project Officer
I
Black & Veatch (Alpharetta, Georgia)
Harvey B. Coppage, P.E.
EPA RAC 4 Program 1'v!cmager ,_.
Krista Jones
RAC -I Deputy Program Manager
I
Black & Veatch (Alpharetta, Georgia)
Project Manager
Chris Allen, P.E.
Project Team Leaders .
John Jenkins, P.G. -Project Geologist
Scotti Holcombe, P.E. -Project Engineer
Shruti Shah -Project Scientist . . Mary Wenska -Community Relations Specialist
Subcontractors
Land Surveying
To Be Determined
Drilling
To Be Determined
·, Analytical
To Be Determined
J
U.S. EPA Region IV
Giselle Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
South Site Management Branch
U.S; EPA SESD
Gary Bennett
Chief Quality Assurance Officer
Contract Laboratory Program
Black & Veatch
Virgil Paulson
·· Black & Veatch QA Manager
Jack Schill
Black & Veatch Director of Health & Safety
Invcstigation-Deriv_ed Waste
To Be Determined
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-AMF
Sigmon·s Scp1ic Tank Site
Section: 3
DRAFT
October 18. 2001
Page J of28
Project Manager; the Quality Assurance Manager; the Project Geologist. Mr. John Jenkins;
Project Engineer. Ms. Scotti Holcombe; Project Scientist. Ms. Shruti Shah; and the
Community Relations Specialist, Ms. Mary Wenska, will be responsible for implementation
of the work plan, data evaluation, electronic deliverables, and ensuring that the data
requirements of the project art, met.
The EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) oversees the 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 Rl will be conducted by both CLP
and non-CLP laboratories.
3.2 Remedial. Investigation/Feasibility Study at the Sigmon's
Septic Tank Site
Information on the location. the operational history, and the regulatory history of the
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Service site is presented in Section 1.0 of the QAPP.
3.3 Project Description and Schedule
3.3.1 RIIFS Description
An Rl/FS is scoped for the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site under the SOW issued to Black &
Veatch on July 19. 2001. The objective of the Rl/FS is to develop the minimum amount of
data necessary to support the selection of an approach for site remediation and then use this
data to develop a well-supported Record of Decision (ROD). The scope includes generating
data to close gaps in a characterirntion of the site by identifying the type and concentration
of hazardous wastes or hazardous constituent releases. the rate and direction at which the
releases are migrating, and the distance over which releases have migrated. The Rl/FS will
also contain a human health risk assessment and a full ecological risk assessment (EPA,
2001a).
QuaJ ity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Conrract No. 68-W-99--043
\.\'ork Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon 's Scp1ic Tank Site
3.3.2 Description of the Worlc to be Performed
Section: 3
DRAFT
October IR. 2001
Page 4 of 28
Planned field activities include installation of temporary and permanent monitoring wells;
collection of surface and subsurface soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater samples;
collection of water levels from site monitoring wells to determine the hydraulic gradient of
the site; estimating hydraulic conductivity using monitoring well slug tests; and disposal of
investigation-derived wastes (!OW). Proposed surface and subsurface soil, surface water,
sediment, and monitoring well sample locations are presented in Section 3.0 of the Field
Sampling Plan (FSP) as well as a description of the fieldwork proposed for this RI/FS.
Upon completion of the initial site investigation activities and receipt ofanalytical data from
the laboratory. a Data Evaluation report will be submitted to EPA Region 4 for review that
will be prepared in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Statement of Work
dated July 19, 2001. Based on the results presented in the Data Evaluation report, EPA
Region 4 arid Black & Veatch will discuss data evaluation results, ,and EPA Region 4
dete~ine the need for a followup site investigation., If a followup site investigation is
deemed necessary. then another data evaluation report will be submitted after receipt of
analytical results for EPA Region 4 to determine if enough data is available to proceed with
a draft RI report. If the amount of data is still not satisfactory, then the site investigation/data
evaluation report process will be repeated until the amount of data is satisfactory. The RI
report will be submitted to EPA Region 4 for review and will also be prepared in accordance
with the requirements set forth in the Statement of Work dated July 19. 2001. Based on the
results presented in the,most recent Data Evaluation report and final RI report. EPA Region
4 will determine the need for further investigations to support the FS.
3.3.3 Proposed Project Schedule
The proposed schedule for completion of the RI/FS at the Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site is
presented in Section 5 of the RI/FS Work Plan. The schedule reflects the work assignment
established review period lengths for EPA Region 4 review of each of the draft planning
documents and the turnaround periods for preparation of final planning documents upon
receipt of review comments from EPA.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Sep1ic Tank Site
3.4 Data Quality Objectives
Section: J
DRAH
October 18. 2001
Page 5 of 28
Data quality objectives (DQOs) are qualitative and quantitative statements derived from the
resultant of each step of a process that: I) 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 Guidance for the Dala Quality
Objectives Process (G-4) (EPN600/R-96/055) -August, 2000.
' 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 for 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 makers to determine when enough data has 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 in order to produce a more efficient data collection
design. The seven steps of the DQO process are described below:
• Step I: 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. Other specific activities
will include: I) Identifying members of the DQO planning team. 2) Defining the
. conceptual site model. 3) Defining the exposure scenario. 4) Specifying
available resources.
• Step 2: Identify the Decision -Identify what questions the investigation will
attempt to resolve. and what action may result. Specific activities will include:
1) Identifying the principal study questions. 2) Defining the alternate actions that
could result.
3) Combining the study question and alternate actions into a decision document.
QuaJity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignmem No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: J
DRAfT
October 18. 200 I
Page 6 of 28
4) Where applicable, organize multiple decisions. The desired end product of
this step is a decision statement that links the study question to possible actions
that will resolve the problem.
• 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. Specific activities include: I) Identifying the information that
will be needed to resolve the decision statement. 2) Determining the sources for
this information. 3) Determining what criteria will be used to establish an action
level. 4) Confirming that measurement methods exist.
• 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: Specif)' 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.
3.4. 1 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 SOW for the Sigmon's
Septic Tank Site. dated July 19,200 I (EPA. 2001 a). During the previous investigations that
have been conducted in the 15.35-acre area that is currently defined as the Sigmon's Septic
Tank Site, several organic and inorganic compounds have been detected at concentrations
exceeding current state and federal regulations in the surface and subsurface soil. surface
water. sediment. and groundwater. Surface and subsurface soil contamination exceeding
EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for residential soil, North Carolina
Contaminated Soil Cleanup Levels, Chapter 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code
(NCAC) Section 2L. and EPA soil screening levels includes concentrations of aluminum,
antimony. arsenic, barium. cadmium. chromium. copper, iron. lead, manganese, mercury.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-\.\/-99-043
Work Assignmen1 No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 3
DRAFT
October I 8. 200 I
Page 7 of 28
nickel, selenium, silver, vanadium, zmc, 3-and/or 4-methylphenol, anthracene,
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, •
chlorobenzene, ethyl benzene, fluoranthene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, toluene, and
total xylenes. Additionally, concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, iron.
manganese, mercury, nickel, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, benzene, and
chlorobenzene exceeded EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). EPA PRGs. and/or
North Carolina Groundwater Standards. Surface water concentrations exceeding EPA
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria -Correction April 1999, Human Health for
Consumption of Water and Organisms, EPA freshwater surface water screening values
(SWSVs). and/or North Carolina Surface Water Quality Standards (SWSs) for freshwater
classifications, I SA NCAC 28.0200, include inorganic constituents aluminum, cadmium,
iron, lead, and zinc. Sediment concentrations detected above EPA sediment screening
values (SSV s) includes both organic and inorganic constituents arsenic, copper, nickel, zinc.
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo{a)pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthene. phenanthrene, and pyrene.
A conceptual site model is provided in Figure 3-2. Presently, visitors or adolescent
trespassers and residents at the Sigmon Septic Tank Site may be exposed to contaminated
surface soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater via the ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation. Current and future residents may also be exposed to contaminated fish via
ingestion. Future workers may be exposed to contaminated surface soil, sediment, surface
water. and groundwater via ingestion and dermal contact. The future construction worker
may be exposed to surface and subsurface soil via ingestion and dermal contact.
The RI/FS will be performed by Black & Veatch through RAC Contract No. 68-W-99-043
under contract Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F with EPA Region 4. EPA Region
4 will provide comments on the RI/FS Work Plan. EPA Region 4 and FDEP will provide
' comments on the QAPP, the Field Sampling Plan. and future investigation reports.
1,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Primary
Source
Open Pits 1
Former
Lagoons
~
~
. .
Primary
Release
Mechanisms
-.
Secondary
Source
I
Surface
Soil
' ,
Subsurface
-.
Secondary
Release
Mechanism
Surface
Runoff
-
.. -
Figure 3-2
Conceptual Site Model
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
Statesville. Iredell County, North Carolina
Pathways
-.
--
-
Tertiary
Release
Mechanism
~ .
Pathways
.
~1 Fish*
-· Surface Water ~,
Infiltration ~ ;Groundwater• Discharge/ Waste Piles I ~ Soil • I I ~ • I Leaching I . Seepage
Storage
Tanks Area
. ~, -I .
.... I Leaks I-
* Fish will be quantitatively evaluated if it is determined that site-related CO PCS are in the Davidson or Sliwinski ponds.
** Only sediment that is not covered by water will be quantitatively evaluated for human exposure.
o Exposure route will be qualitatively evaluated.
n Exposure route will be quantitatively evaluated.
Sediment•• • -
Rh:till
.... .... .... ....
C C C C
G> G> G> G> -,, ,, ,, ,, ... "iii "iii "iii "iii 0 G> G> G> G> J ~ a: a: a: a: .!!?u, ~ G> .l!! .l!! ... >,,;. ~ G> ... .... ' ., ., "iii ~ -" G>
~ -" C C ~ ... ... I 0 ua> 0c" o= 0 3:: 0
I U,C) ;7 ~ ;7 CIIC0" 3:: .!!!< .... G> C ' o-:::,.-:::,.-....
I ,, ... .... G> 'Sa> 'S~ .... G> "iii 0
<1::ll ::, C) ~ ::, Cl C :;: ~ ~ ~ 0 u ...,., ::,
COi C • ~ ~ ~ G> ... I ~ .... a,Q. ... ., ... ., ... ::, --= ... ::, --= ::, ... G> ~ ~ ~ ~ .... C
C1f • 8 aeRlJEs ::, ... ~ cl:?. ~ 0~ ::, 0
Ot--IL 0
. In:::idrtal Irgsbm ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ .
[enra]_ Cblta± ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
InJcstim • •
In:::idrtal Irgsbm ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
[enra]_ Qnta::t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
In:::idrtal Irgsbm ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -. I:enral Ch ita t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
.
InJcstim ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
~
• [enra]_ Qnta::t ■ ■ ■ ■
IrlEJatim ■ ■ ■ ■
. In:::idrtal Irgsbm ■ .
[enra]_ Qnta::t ■
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quali1y Assurance Project Plan
EPA _Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Section: 3
DRAFT
October 18. 2001
Page 9 of 28
Work Assignmcn1 No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
The DQO planning team will consist of the following representatives:
• Decision
Makers
• QA
Managers
• Principal
Data Users
EPA Remedial Project Manager
EPA QA Manager (QAM)
Black & Veatch QAM
Giselle Bennett
Gary Bennett
Virgil A. Paulson, P.E.
Black & Veatch Project Managet' Chris Allen, P .E.
Black & Veatch Project Staff John Jenkins, P.G.
Scotti Holcombe, P.E.
Shruti Shah
Mary A. Wenska
Available resources include representatives of the EPA, Black & Veatch, and the North
~arolina Department of Environmental Natural Resources.
3.4.2 DQO Step 2: Identify the Decision
The second step in the DQO process is to identify the questions that the investigation will
attempt to resolve. and identify the alternative actions that may be necessary based on the
outcome of the investigation. In the DQO process, the combination of these elements is
called the decision.
Based on a review of the problem defined in Section 3.4.1, the following principal questions
have been developed for this investigation:
• What are the levels of contamination at the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site?
• What is the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination in the soil and
groundwater that may be associated with the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site?
• What is the vertical and horizontal extent of surface water and sediment
contamination in the onsite ponds and wetlands, in the intermittent stream, and
onsite drainage ditches?
• What are the current and future risks to human health and ecological receptors
associated with the contaminants present at the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site?
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--0-13
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
Section: 3
DRMT
October 18. 2001
Page 10 of28
Based on the results of the RI/FS at the Sigmon's Septic Tank Service 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:
• Install additional monitoring wells to delineate the vertical and horizontal extent
of contamination in the groundwater.
'· ,.
• Collect additional surface soil. subsurface soil, groundwater. surface and
sediment samples to delineate the extent of contamination.
• Analyze select soil and groundwater samples for additional parameters to
determine geophysical characteristics.
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 this investigation:
• Determine whether contamination is migrating from onsite or offsite sources.
• Determine whether the nature and extent of contamination has been determined
and requires additional sampling and/or analyses.
• Determine whether the detected concentrations exceed state and federal
standards.
• Determine the minimum data required to support the development of a well-
supported ROD.
3.4.3 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 (ARARs). and PR Gs
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99..Q.iJ
Worl,; Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Scp1ic Tank Site
obtained through environmental measurements.
Section: 3
DRAf-.7"
October 18. 200 I
Page 11 of28
• 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 decision for the RI for the Sigmon· s
Septic Tank Service site:
• Historical records of chemical and physical deposition.
• Environmental sampling data from surface and subsurface soil. sediment.
groundwater. and biota in conjunction with past environmental sampling data; the
level of this data should be of sufficient quality to support an evaluation of
alternatives. and engineering design.
• Site specific natural attenuation data.
• Potential human and environmental targets which may be affected by site
contamination.·
The criteria on which the decision will be made are as follows:
• Soil -EPA Region 9 preliminary remediation goals ( PRGs) for residential soil
(EPA, 2000c ), North Carolina Contaminated Soil Cleanup Levels, Chapter I SA
of the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Section 2L (NCDENR,
20001), and EPA soil screening levels (SSLs) (EPA, 1999c).
In the absence of these regulated concentrations, the criteria shall be two times
the concentration identified in the background sample for inorganic compounds.
In the absence of an adequate background samples, the criteria shall be the site-
specific risk assessment.
In the case of organic compounds, the EPA will not compare the concentrations
to background levels. Instead, the specific compounds will be carried through the
baseline risk assessment and addressed in the "uncertainties" section of that risk
assessment.
• Groundwater -EPA Region 9 PR Gs for tap water (EPA. 2000c ). federal drinking
water standards or MCLs (EPA. 20001). and North Carolina Groundwater
Standards. ISA NCAC 2L (NCDENR. 2000b).
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon ·s· Septic Tank Site
Section: 3
DRAFr
October I 8. 200 I
Page 12 of28
In the absence of these regulated concentrations, the criteria shall be two times
the concentration identified in the background samples for inorganic compounds.
In the absence of an adequate background samples, the criteria shall be the site-
specific risk assessment.
In the case of organic compounds, the EPA will not compare the concentrations
to background levels. Instead, the specific compounds will be carried through the
baseline risk assessment and addressed in the "uncertainties" section of that risk
assessment.
• Surface Water-EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria -Correction
April 1999, Human Health for Consumption of Water and Organisms (EPA,
I 999d), EPA freshwater surface water screening values (SWSV s) (EPA, 1999e)
and North Carolina Surface Water Quality Standards (SWSs) for freshwater
classifications. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 (NCDEHR, 2001 ).
• Sediment -EPA sediment screening values (SSVs) (EPA, 19991).
3.4.4 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 decision. In order for
environmental samples to be representative of the domain or area for which the decision 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) which will be covered by the decision.
These include:
• Spatial boundaries that define what should be investigated and where the samples
should be collected; and
• 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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Projecl Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignment No. ()().40-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 3
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 13 of28
3.4.4.1 Spatial Boundaries of the Study. Typically there are fouractions which 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. The scale of decision making is generally based on:
I) the risk that exposure presents to targets; 2) technological considerations; and
3) other project specific considerations (i.e., historical use).
Surface and subsurface soil, surface water, sediment and groundwater will be sampled within
the geographic boundaries of the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site, 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 2 feet bis. The characteristic which defines the
domain of interest is any contaminant concentration in any environmental media sample
which 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.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RJCO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Sile
Section: 3
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 14of28
3.4.4.2 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 which may affect this include
seasonal fluctuations and meteorological conditions.
Because the study is intended to provide the qualitative and quantitative human health and
ecological risk posed by the site, the time frame that the decision must reflect will b<! the
lifetime exposure to the constituents of potential concern. Because the constituents of
potential concern have been previously identified at the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site, the RI
sampling effort shall occur as soon as feasible. Constituents concentrations may have varied
between the time of the previous investigations and the RI sampling effort; 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 Sigmon's Septic Tank Site, the data collection shall be
performed within a reasonable period after the initial RI sampling effort.
3.4.5 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 above
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Projec1 Plan
EPA Comract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
to develop a decision rule.
Section: J
DRAn
October 18, 200 I
Page 15 of28
lfthe maximum concentration from any sample location exceeds the criteria listed in Section
3.4.3, then further assessment may be recommended. In addition, if the human health and
ecological risk assessments warrant, and if the vertical and horizontal extent of
contamination has been sufficiently defined, then the potential remedial options will be
recommended. Ifno contaminant concentrations exceed the criteria listed in Section 3.4.3,
no further action will be recommended.
3.4.6 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 or 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.
QuaJity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Sep1ic Tank Site
Section: 3
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 16 of28
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 alternative hypothesis, H.). 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 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 erroroccurs 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Projecl Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO..A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 3
DRAFf
October 18. 200 I
Pagcl7of28
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 higr.~st 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 3.4.3, 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 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 ofincorrectly concluding that the concentrations of site-related contaminants do not exceed the action level are more severe than the consequences ofincorrectly concluding that the concentrations of site-related contaminants exceed the action level.
• Establish the true state of nature for each decision error. In the example above. 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 base! ine condition or null hypothesis (l-10 = the site is contaminated). and define the true state of nature for the less severe decision error as the alternative hypothesis (H, = the site is not contaminated). Since the burden ofproofrests on the alternative hypothesis. the data must demonstrate enough information to authoritatively
Quality Assurance Project Plan
['.PA Contract No. 68-W-9Q-043
Work Assignmenl No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Sep!ic Tank Site
Scclion: 3
DRAfT
Oc1ober 18. 200 I
Page 18 of28
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 IO 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 (tolerate 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.
The third step in developing decision error rates is to specify a range of possible parameter
values where the consequences of decision errms ·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 oc_currence of
decision errors. The most stringent limits on decision errors that are typically encountered
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
•'
I
I
I
I
I
,.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignmenl No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site,
Section: 3
DRAFT
October I 8_ 200 I
Page 19 of28
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.
3.4.6.1 The First Decision for the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site. Based on previous
investigation reports, the possible range of contaminants expected to be found at the site is
between O and 48,000 parts per million (ppm). 48,000 ppm iron was detected in surface
soils.
Null Hypothesis (H0) = One or more site contaminant concentrations are greater than
or equal to the criteria listed in Section 3.4.3.
Alternate Hypothesis,(1-1,) = All site contaminant concentrations are below the criteria
listed in Section 3.4.3 ..
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 which exceed the criteria specified in Section 3.4.3.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Wort Assignmen1 No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic TanK Sile
Section: 3
DRAFf
October 18. 2001
Page 20 of28
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
3.4.3, when in truth, all concentrations are below the specified criteria.
Allowable Decision Error Rates
True Concentration "C" as a Acceptable Probability of Percentage of Criteria Specified in Recommending Additional Action Section 3A.3.
:,;70% :,;20% (false negatives)
70% < C :,; 100% :,30% (false negatives)
> 100% :cc90% ( < 10% false oositives)
3.4.6.2 The Second Decision for the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site. Based on
previous investigation reports, the possible range of contaminants expected to be found at
the Sigmon's Septic Tank Service site is between 0 and 48,000 ppm.
The Null Hypothesis (H0 ) = The site is sufficiently characterized.
Alternate Hypothesis (H,) = 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 has 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 has 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.
3.4.7 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 RD that are expected to satisfy
I
I
i
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
i
:1
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
WorL: Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 3
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 21 of28
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.
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 Field Sampling Plan and in this document to accommodate the
required additional environmental data collection.
3.5 Special Training Requirements and 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 Plan (HASP) and one Task-Specific HASP
for each field effort will be submitted to EPA Region 4 to meet planning document
requirements specified in the SOW for the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site RI/FS.
All personnel (Black & Veatch and their subcontractors) who will engage in hazardous waste
operations at the Sigmon's Septic Tank site must present to the Black & Veatch 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
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-{)43
WITT Assignment No. 0040-RJCO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 3
DRMT
Oc1ober I 8. 200 I
Page 22 of28
on site performing hazardous waste operations. The training must comply with Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations found in 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 three 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. Black &
Veatch individuals functioning in a SSC capacity shall also have at least 6 days of experience
at the level of protection planned for in the HASP. A SSC qualified at a given level of
protection is also qualified as a SSC at a lower level of protection.
At least two people onsite will be trained and currently certified in first aid and adult
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). First aid and CPR records for all anticipated onsite
workers are to be included in the Site-Specific HASP.
Personnel who use air supplied respirators must provide the Black & Veatch Health and
Safety Manager (HSM) written certification that they have been trained in the proper use,
inspection, emergency use, and limitations of the equipment by a competent person. The
training must be current within 12 months prior to the use of the equipment. Personnel who
participate in permitted confined space entry, radiation work, asbestos work, or work
involving lockout/tagout of energy sources, if applicable, must provide the Black & Veatch
HSM written certification that they have been trained in accordance with the applicable
OSHA regulations before performing such work.
Personnel who use health and safety monitoring equipment other than that provided by the
Black & Veatch equipment center must provide \\Titten certification to the Black & Veatch
HSM that they have been trained in the use, maintenance, calibration, and operation of the
equipment by a competent person before using the equipment.
All Black & Veatch personnel who engage in hazardous waste operations must present, to
the Black & Veatch SSC, certification of completion, within the 24 months prior to the
beginning of site activities, a comprehensive medical monitoring examination. All Black &
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
·I
I
I
• I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68•W•99--0-0
Work Assignment No. ()()4Q.RICO.A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tani.: Site
Section: 3
DRAFr
October 18. 2001
Page 23 of 28
Veatch subcontractor personnel who engage in hazardous waste operations must present, to
the Black & Veatch 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 I 9 I 0. I 20 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
Black & Veatch activities begin.
3.6 Documentation and Records
This section defines the records which are critical to the project and what information needs
to be included in the reports, as well as the data reporting format and the document control
procedures to be used. Specification of the proper reporting format, compatible with data
validation, will facilitate clear and direct communication of the investigation.
3.6.1 Field Operation Records
Th_e field operating records to be used in this investigation will document field procedures
and any measurements performed during the sampling effort. These records include the Well
Development Log, the Groundwater Sample Collection Record, and the Daily Progress
Report presented on Figure 3-3, Figure 3-4, and Figure 3-5 respectively. Chain-of-custody
records will also be used to document the progression of field samples and QC samples;
chain of custody records will also be used to document the progression of field samples and
QC samples; chain-of-custody records are discussed in further detail in Section 4.3.3.
I
I
I.
I
Project Name:
Project N•:
Date of Installation:
Weather:
Well N•: _________ _
Sample N•: --------
Well Development Log
Location:
Performed By:
Date of Development:
Notes:
I .. Static Water Level: Before
24 Hours
(ft\
(ft)
I 2. Quantity of Water Loss During Drilling -'-'"----'-------~------..i.saWIIQOfiln•
Quantity of Standing Water in Well
' I
I
I
I --
1
I
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
and Annulus Before Development
Depth -Top of Well Casing to
Bonom of Well
Screen Length
Height of Casing above Ground Surface
Depth to Top of Sediment
Before Development
After Development
Physical Character of Water
Type/Size -Development Equipment
Description of Surge Technique
Quantity of Water Removed
Removal Duration
Time of Photograph
14. Remarks
15. Parameters
Tune
Temperature (°F)
pH
Turbidity (NTIJ)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1./'q
Specific Conductance (µmhos/cm)
Development Conditions
• Water is reasonably clear.
• Sediment Thickness < 5 percent of screen length.
a oni
fee
fee
ee
fee
ee
hour/minute
Figure 3-:3
nc111~-; _________ _
I Sample N•:
Groundwater Sample Collection Record
Project· Name:
Project W:
Location: I Weather:
I.) Water. level data (from TOC): I Total well depth
Water table depth
Water column length
Volume H20 in well
TOC ht. above/below land
Casing diameter/type
· · 2.) Well purge data: ,I,
,-
1
:I
I,
I
Purge method
Total purge volume
Field testing equipment
Dccon method/misc.
Tune
Volume Removed
Temperature
pH
Conductivity
Turbidity
Color
HNu/OVA
Rcdox Potential
. tifssolvcd Oxygen
Other
Date/Time Start:
Date/Time Finish:
Analysis:
Samplers:
Well Volume Chart
2 J 4 5 I 7 I I 10
Cuing Volume (gal)
I
I ... ··-·····---····--·-··-·· ··--------·--·------------·-------·· . ------··-····-----··•·· ·----··---··· ..
I Figure 3-1.\
I
I
I
I
I
DAILY PROGRESS
REPORT
EPA RPM: Giselle Bennett
PROJECT: Sigmon's Septic Tank
Service Site
JOB N2: 48140.0103
CONTRACT N2: 68-W-99-043
SUB-CONTRACTORS ON SITE:
,VU«"
Figure 3-5
DATE
DAY
WEATHER
TEMPERATURE
WIND
HUMIDITY
s
Bright Sun
to 32
Still
O,y
',..,,~.., ... , ·----,:
l
M T W TH F s
Clear Overcast Rain Snow
32-35 50-70 70-85 85-up
Mod. High
'®:l. Humid Report No.
PROJECT: Sigmon's Septic Tank Ser.
JOB NQ48140 0103
TOMORROW'S EXPECTATIONS: .
PREPARED BY:
2
:1
REPORT N2•
DATE:------------.
-------------=
REVIEWED BY:
I
I
I
'
I
I
.I
0
I
'I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RJCO-A-1-IF
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 3
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 28 of28
A bound field logbook will be maintained by the Black & Veatch sampling team to provide
a daily record of significant events, observations, and measurements taken during the field
investigation. All entries into the field logbook will be made with indelible ink. The field
logbooks are intended to provide sufficient data and observations to enable the field team to
reconstruct events that occur during the project. The field logbooks will contain the
following as a minimum:
• Name of the sample collector.
• Date and military time of collection.
• Weather conditions, including temperature.
• The site number and name.
• Location of sampling point.
• Sample identification number.
• Type of sample.
• Calculations, results, and calibration data for field sampling, field analytical, and
field phy_sical measurement equipment.
• Any field measurements taken [i.e., organic vapor analyzer (OVA), groundwater
levels and depths, etc.].
• Field observations, especially any notice of stained soil, stressed or absent
vegetation, and whether located in a drainage area.
• References, such as maps or photographs, of the sampling site.
• Any procedural steps taken that deviate from those presented in this QAPP.
3.6.2 Laboratory Records
Laboratory records that are to be sent to SESD for data qualification are described in Exhibit
Hof the CLP SOWs for Organic and Inorganic Analysis.
I,
I
I
I
I
1,
I
,I,
n
•
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Projcc1 Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-\\'-99--043
Work Assignment No. 0040-R!CO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site ·
4.0 Measurement Data Acquisition
4.1 Sampling Process Design
Section: 4
DRAFJ"
Oc1ober IR. 2001
Page I of 33
The purpose of the sampling process design is to describe all relevant components of the
investigation design; define the key parameters to be investigated; indicate the number and
type of samples to be collected; and describe where, when, and how the samples are to be
collected,
4.1.1 Sample Collection Schedule
The anticipated schedule for sample collection activities at the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
is presented in Section 5.0 of the Rl/FS Work Plan.
4.1.2 Sampling Design Rationale
The objective of the field investigation at the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site is to develop the
minimum amount of data necessary bener define the extent of soil, groundwater, surface
water. sediment. and biota contamination requiring remediation to support the selection of
an approach for site remediation to support a ROD. In order to achieve this objective.
samples must be collected from the soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment. and biota at
the Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site. Rationale for sample locations proposed for this Rl/FS are
presented in Section 3.0 of the Rl/FS FSP.
4.1.3 Sampling Design Assumptions
This section presents assumptions made to establish the effectiveness and representativeness
of the data obtained from samples collected at the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site. These
assumptions include:
• Homogeneity of the soil samples.
• Independence in the collection of individual samples (no aliquot samples will be
collected; individual samples will be collected from each sampling location).
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-V.'-99-043
Wort.: Assignment No. OO-t0-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 2 of 33
4.1.4 Procedures for Selecting Locations for Environmental Samples
The number of samples to be collected during this investigation and a description of these
samples are presented in Section 3.0 of the FSP.
4.1.5 Classification of Critical Samples
Critical samples are those for which valid data must be obtained in order to satisfy the
, objectives of the sampling and analysis task; noncritical samples are those for informational
purposes only or needed to provide background information. An example of a critical data
point is a surface soil sample collected near the boundary of the estimated extent of surface
soil contamination. All samples which are submitted for quantitative chemical analyses
during the investigations are considered critical samples. An example of critical samples for
each sampling medium at the Sigmon's Septic Tank Sevice site is presented below:
• Groundwater -groundwater samples collected from potable, temporary, and
permanent monitoring wells.
• Soil -surface and subsurface soil samples collected from north, northeast,
central, and south-southwest of the site. North, south, southeast, northwest,
and southwest of the storage tanks. North and south of the shed. and the
southeast corner of the open pit.
• Surface water -surface water samples collected from the onsite pond,
intermittent stream, Lamberth's, Silinski's, West's, and William's ponds,
perennial stream. Lamberth's spring, and drainage ditched.
• Sediment -sediment samples collected from the onsite pond, intermittent
stream, Lamberth's, Silinski's, West's. and William's ponds, perennial stream.
Lamberth's spring. and drainage ditched.
4.2 Sampling Methods Requirements
The objective of the sampling and preservation procedures outlined in this section is to
obtain samples which yield consistently high quality. The use of proper sampling equipment,
strict controls in the field. and appropriate chain-of-custody and analytical procedures will
reduce the potential for sample misrepresentation and unreliable analytical data. All
sampling activities will be performed in accordance with the EPA Region IV Environmemal
Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual (Revised
J
I
I
I
I
I
I '--'
I
I
' I
I
i
I
I
1·
I
I
I
I
·1
.I
I
I
I
.I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Sec1ion · 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 3 of 33
1997) (EISOPQAM) (EPA, 1997) and the Black & Veatch FDEP Comprehensive Quality
Assurance Plan (CompQAP) No. 920291, dated June 2000 (Black & Veatch, 2000c).
Surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, surface waterand sediment will be collected from
locations within and near the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site as described in Sectio 3.0 of the
Rl/FS FSP. All of the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site samples will be collected and analyzed for
the parameter groups included in the EPA CLP Routine Analytical Services (RAS) to
eliminate and/or document contamination. Including volatile organics [Modified EPA
Method 624-groundwater and surface water; SW-846 Method 5035/8260B (using Encore™
T-handles and Encore™ samplers) -soil and sediment]; semivolatile organics (Modified
EPA Method 625); pesticides/PCBs (Modified EPA Method 608); and metals (Modified
EPA Method 200 series) (EPA, 2000j). Three surface soil, three subsurface soil, and one
groundwater sample will be analyzed for dioxin (SW-846 Method 8290). Additional
parameters to be analyzed for in soil and sediment samples to support the ecological risk
assessment include non-CLP methods for pH (SW-846 Method 9040/9045); TOC [SW-846-
Method 9060 (dry combustion)]; and grain size (ASTM D 421 and 422).
The EISOPQAM will se~e as the primary document from which all field procedures will
be developed (EPA, 1997). Container, preservation, and holding time requirements must
also meet the requirements of the EISOPQAM (EPA, I 997). The analytical methods
selected and/or modified will have detection limits that are less than, or equal to, federal
MCLs and state regulatory levels. All contractor personnel conducting sampling will be
experienced in implementing the sampling procedures as outline_d herein. Modifications
and/or changes to the procedures described in the EISOPQAM will not be implemented
without the prior approval of the EPA RPM or designated representative and will be
documented in field logbooks. A field change request form will be completed which details
the conditions that necessitated the change and indicate the date approval of the change was
received from EPA. An example of the form is presented on Figure 4-1. Details that pertain
to the soils investigation, groundwater investigation, and decontamination procedures are
presented in Section 3.0 of the FSP. Details that pertain to the management of IDW are
presented in Section 7.0 of the FSP.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Wori.. Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
4.3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements
Section: 4
DRAH
October 18. 2001
Page 4 of33
The primary objective of sample custody procedures is to create an accurate written record
which can be used to trace the possession and handling of all samples from the moment of
their collection, _through analysis, until their final disposition. All procedures for sample
labeling, handling, and reporting will comply with EPA-approved sample control procedures,
field recording procedures, and document control (EPA, 1997).
4.3. 1 Sample Numbering
A sample numbering system will be used to identify each sample for analysis. The purpose
of this numbering system is to provide a tracking system for retrieval of data on each sample.
The sample numbers will include the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site location and the surface
soil. subsurface soil, monitoring well, surface water, sediment, or biota sample location.
The designation "SS" represent samples collected from the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site.
Examples of sample numbers are given below:
A surface soil sample collected from the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site.
SS-SF-10 I
A subsurface soil sample collected from the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site.
SS-SB-101
Soil samples collected from the sampling grid will be identified by row and column
number as well as depth. For example, a surface soil sample collected from the second
row and third column and a subsurface soil collected from IO to 12 feet bis (the third
subsurface soil sample depth) at that grid location would be labelled:
SS-SF-23
SS-SB3-23
I
I
••
I
••
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 5 of 33
A groundwater sample collected from a shallow surficial temporary well, deep surficial
monitoring well, fractured bedrock monitoring well, and private potable water wells at
the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site.
SS-TW-01 (shallow surficial temporary well)
SS-MW-0 I A ( deep surficial monitoring well)
SS-MW-02C (fractured bedrock monitoring well)
SS-PW-01 (private potable water well)
A surface water sample collected from the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site.
SS-SW-01
A sediment sample collected from the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site.
SS-SD-01
A water trip blank will be designated as indicated below. Equipment field blanks (EB),
field blanks (FL), material blanks (BK), and preservative blanks (PB) will be designated
in a similar fashion.
SS-TB-01
Duplicate samples will be identified with a "D" positioned after the location
number.
SS-SF-104O is a duplicate sample of SS-SF-104
All sample identification numbers will be entered onto the appropriate EPA Organic or
Inorganic Traffic Report & Chain of Custody Record or Black & Veatch Chain of Custody
Record by the field team representative. including date and time of sample collection.
specified analytical methods. sample tag number. and sample label number, if appropriate.
The sample identification numbers. including sample codes allocated for this sampling effort.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-R/CO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18. 2001
Page 6 of 33
will be used on sample tags, chain-of-custody records, and all other applicable.
documentation used during the sampling activity.
I
i
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 4-1
Field Change Request Form Page_
Modifications and/or changes to the procedures described in the EISOPQAM are not to be implemented without prior approval
of EPA and are to be documented in field logbooks and on Field Change Request Forms. Access to the Field Change Request
Forms must be available to all field team members who are affected by the changes.
Revision EISOPQAM EPA Official Condition(s) Prompting Deviation
Number Section/Subject/Page Phone Number Modification( s )/Change( s) Implemented
Annroval Date
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
II
,I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Con1rac1 No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Sile
4.3.2 Sample Identification
Section· 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 8 of 33
Samples to be analyzed by a CLP laboratory for routine analysis are identified by a sample
label with adhesive on it which is attached to the sample container. The labels are identified
by organic [VOCS (volatiles), EXTRACT (extractables), or inorganic [METALS (metals),
CN (cyanide)] analysis and are sequentially numbered per type of analysis (Organic -number
begins with D; Inorganic -number begins with MD). The labels are supplied by SESD for
each sampling event on each project and arc identifiec!wia an EPA CLP project and case
number. An example of the sample label is presented on Figure 4-2. A duplicate of the
sample label will also be attached to the back of a sample tag. The sample tags are
accountable documents after they are attached to a sample container. The following
information shall be included on the sample tag using waterproof, non-erasable ink:
• Project and case codes.
• Site name.
• Field identification of sample station number.
• Date and time of sample collection.
• Designation of sample as a composite or grab sample.
• Medium sampled.
• Name of sampler (signature)
• The general types of analyses to be conducted.
• Whether the sample is preserved.
• Any relevant comments ( odor, color, etc.).
Samples to be analyzed by a CLP laboratory or SESD for special analysis will be identified
by a sample tag only. An example of the sample tag is presented on Figure 4-3.
I
I
I
I
I
I ,-
I
I
METALS I MDQD85
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Figure 4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
~
Cl
I Ii,
!
1
t I=
! ;:-
i j
£
I
!
i
l
Preservative:
Yes □ No □
ANALYSES
BOD Anions
Solids ss s ss
COD TOC, Nutrients
I Phenolics
Mercu I Metals I C anicle
Oil and Grease
I Remarks:
I
Tag No. . l.ab~No.
4-32001
-~
•
1
I ' ' i I i
\
e, in
0 ..... 0 "It
J!! .!
i :i I -Cl) i ~·. !:::
"B ~811) -~ ..... u ... .!. CDC -11> a. D.. 0 .....
Cl) = :c c:-! s 0 O O" 1-,i!.c" ,c( 0 a. .... ~c< ""~ :..= ~ 0 ... :s ...
CD
Figure 4-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-0..U
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
4.3.3 Chain-of-Custody Procedures
Section· 4
DRMT
October 18. 200 I
Page 11 of33
Chain-of-custody procedures are comprised of maintaining sample custody and
documentation of samples for evidence. To document chain-of-custody, an accurate record
of samples must be maintained in order to trace the possession of each sample from the time
of collection to its introduction to the laboratory. A sample tag and/or label should be
completed for each sample as specified in Section 4.3 .2. After the sample tag is affixed to
the sample container, a Black & Veatch custody seal is placed over the container lid such that
the container cannot be opened without breaking the seal. An example of a custody seal is
presented on Figure 4-4. The custody seal provides the following information.
• Sample station number.
• Date of seal.
• Name, title, and signature of person affixing the seal.
After the sample tags and custody seals are affixed to sample containers, all samples will be
secured in a resealable plastic bag (Zip-Loe"). Glass sample containers will be shipped in
containers filled with vermiculite.
Sample custody is maintained by an EPA Organic or Inorganic Traffic Report & Chain-of-
Custody Record for routine analysis or a Chain-of-Custody Record for special analysis.
These records document the transfer of sample custody from the sample custodian to another
person or the laboratory. An example of the Chain-of-Custody Record is presented on Figure
4-5. In order to simplify sample custody procedures, as few people as possible should have
custody of the samples during the investigation Once this record is completed, it becomes
an accountable document and must be maintained in the project file. The following
information must be supplied in the indicated spaces in detail.
• The project and case number.
• The project name.
• The signature of all samplers.
• The sampling station number.
• The date and time of sample collection.
• Grab or composite sample designation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I_
I
I . : 1
.I
I
ll.l ..
.... IJB:.IQlllfil : . ' ' ' ' . . -
I! .!...
I
~
i • ,
i i
oi ~o
C ~' .. -0
c62 f
J g1
Im
I
. . .
. . . ·--· ~--.. -·
. ··--..... ----..... ···-· .. ---···--... -·· -----··-··· ···-··· -· .
... :-.-":-··-~---::· -----.. ~ . .:... .. ' ..... ;. ---
•'••· . ·-······-·· ·•-----·--... ··-····. . .. ----,----·-·----·
-...
...
I
U1
-----------

-
: HAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
""'°"· NO. IIIIOJICT NAMI
' \ NO. ·-· o,
: CON-
TAINEAS
.: I ITA. NO. MTW TIIII ~ 8TATl0ff LOCATION'
'
i
I
,I ,,
I /
'
; !
' I /I 1:
I :,
j
I
I
I
: ' '
I . ; . ~. •.
"°"""" ~-by: ..,__ --Au I hod by: ....,___, AallnquMW by· fNII I
. I . . , I ; I
...,.,_..,.."" by. reea .....
oaion-AINt 1dby: t11r1w•1
AoUONj~~ Illy: ..,_ I I . I Aooo-lOf 1Abo<ll01y by: Olit•/Timt
__ ,..
Datem-I """""""-Illy: -I ,._
I ' !
om 1n1 .. SN'plM"I: Pln91 cop,i ta A.Id t'IIH
CllllrlDullon: WIIUo ond Yollo,, AoCI P
--
REMIAIUC:8
Oal•/Tlrne Received bJ: ,..._...,. ..
I o.,.,r,,.,. R9ceht•d by: ,..._,,. ..
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contracl No. 68-W-99-043
\\/orl,; Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A-1-ff
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
• Brief description of type of sample and the sampling location.
• The total number of sample containers.
• Any necessary remarks.
• Documented transfer of the samples.
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 14 of33
• Remarks, including air bill numbers or registered or certified mail serial numbers.
The original signature copy and an additional copy of the Chain-of-Custody Record is
enclosed in a plastic bag and secured to the inside of the cooler lid. A copy is retained in the
project file.
4.3.4 Field Custody Procedures
The following custody procedures will be followed:
• Only the minimum number of samples that provide a good representation of the
media being sampled will be collected. As few people as possible will handle the
samples during the investigation, sample custodians are presented in Section 4.3.7.
• Sample stickers, where appropriate, will be provided by SESD.
• Sample tags, supplied by Black & Veatch, will be completed for each sample, using
waterproof. non-erasable ink.
• All samples will be sealed immediately upon collection utilizing Black & Veatch's
custody seal. The field investigator shall write the date and his signature on the
seal.
• All sample locations and times will be documented in bound field logbooks.
• All samples will be kept within sight of the sampling team in a secured location
until they are properly and formally transferred to another person or facility.
• A Chain-of-Custody Record will be completed for all samples collected.
• Custody seals can be used to maintain custody on numerous items when necessary
by utilizing similar procedures as those outlined previously in this section.
All measurements made and samples collected will be recorded in the field logbook. If an
incorrect entry is made. regardless of the type of data document, the incorrect data will be
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-Vii-99-043
Work Assignmcn1 No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Pagel5of33
crossed out with a single strike mark. the correct information entered either above or adjacent
to the error. and the correction initialed and dated by the person making the correction.
4.3.5 Sample Packaging and Shipping
Samples collected during environmental field investigations must be classified prior to
shipment, either as environmental samples or hazardous waste samples. In general, most
groundwater and soil samples will be classified as environmental samples. The shipment of
environmental samples is based on protocol developed jointly by the EPA, U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), and OSHA in the "Final National Package for Compliance with
Department of Transportation Regulations in the Shipment of Environmental Laboratory
Samples" (OSHA, 1981 ).
When samples are shipped by common carrier or the United States mail, DOT Hazardous
Materials Regulations (49 CFR 172) must be followed. The shipment of preserved samples
is not regulated; however, the amount of preservative used must not exceed the
concentrations provided in 40 CFR 136.3. The proper preservation of environmental
samples should not exceed these concentrations.
Samples will be shipped to the laboratory at proper temperatures to ensure sample
preservation. Ice will be included in all coolers and will be placed around all four sides of
the sample containers due to sample preservation requirements which dictate maintaining the
samples at 4 degrees Celsius (°C). The following sample packaging requirements will be
followed:
• Allow sufficient headspace in all sample containers ( except for volatile organic
containers with a septum seal) to compensate for any pressure or temperature
change (approximately IO percent of the container volume).
• Sample bottle lids are never to be mixed. All sample lids must stay with the
original containers. Ensure that sample container lids are tight to prevent leakage.
• Sample bottles will be placed in individual plastic Zip-loc" type bags and sealed
with tape. Glass containers will be shipped in vermiculite.
• Select a sturdy cooler and secure and tape shut the drain plug. Line the cooler with
a large heavy duty plastic bag.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: ~
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 16 of33
• Place two to four inches of vermiculite in the bonom of the cooler in the plastic
bag. Place sample bottles in the cooler in such a way that they do not touch one
another.
• Ice that has been double bagged will be placed on top of and/or between the
samples. Fill all remaining space between the samples with vermiculite.
• A copy of the custody record must be placed in a plastic bag and taped to the inside
of the cooler lid.
• Custody seals will be secured across opposite edges of the shipping container lid;
two seals will be used per shipping container. Nylon strapping tape will be
wrapped around the package in at least two locations. The seal will be signed
before the sample(s) is shipped and will be covered with clear tape.
• "This End Up" labels will be placed on all four sides of the shipping container.
"Fragile" labels will be placed on at least two sides of the cooler.
• Shipping containers will have a clearly visible return address.
4.3.6 Transfer of Custody Procedures
' All samples will be accompanied by a Chain-of-Custody Record. When transferring the
possession of samples. the individuals receiving the samples shall sign, date, and note the
time that they received the samples on the form. In instances where samples are split with
a facility, state regulatory agency, or other government agency, the facility, state regulatory
agency. or other government agency representative will sign a Receipt For Samples Form
instead of the Chain-of-Custody Record.
Samples will be properly packaged for shipment to the laboratory for analyses. Shipping
containers shall be secured by using nylon strapping tape and custody seals.
The original and one copy of the Chain-of-Custody Record will be placed in a plastic bag and
taped inside the secured shipping container if samples are shipped. One copy of the record
will be retained by the Black & Veatch sample custodian. The original record will be
transmitted to the Black & Veatch Project Manager after samples are accepted by the
laboratory. This copy will become a part of the project file.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Con1rac1 No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Pagel7of33
If sent by mail, the package will be registered with return receipt requested. If sent by
common carrier, an airbill will be used. Receipts from post offices and airbills will be
retained as part of the documentation of the chain-of custody. The airbill number will be
recorded in the remarks section at the bottom of the Chain-of-Custody Record.
The receiving laboratory will complete a cooler receipt form noting any problems with the
incoming samples.
4.3.7 Sample Custodians
In order to ensure the security of the samples collected during the RJ investigation. it is
important to limit the number of persons that handle the samples from the time of sample
collection to receipt at the laboratory.
Sample collection will be performed by Black & Veatch field personnel. The Black &
Veatch Project Project Geologist (Mr. John Jenkins) or other designated personnel will be
responsible for the preparation of sample labels, custody seals, and chain-of-custody records
for each sample and for the proper shipment of sample coolers to the laboratory. Upon
receipt of the sample coolers at the laboratory, sample custody will be retained by the
laboratory's Custody Technician. The laboratory's procedures for sample custody are
presented in the EPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work Exhibit H for Multi-
Media, Multiconcentration Organic Analytical Service-OLM04.2, for Low Concentration
Organic Analytical Service-OLCO2. l, and for Multi-Media, Multiconcentration Inorganic
Analytical Service-ILMO4. l (EPA. 2000e; EPA, 2000h).
4.4 Analytical Method Requirements
4.4. 1 Analytical Methods
All of the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site samples will be collected and analyzed for the
parameter groups included in the EPA CLP Routine Analytical Services (RAS) to eliminate
and/or document contamination. Including volatile organics [Modified EPA Method 624 -
groundwater and surface water; SW-846 Method 5035/82608 (using Encore™ T-handles
and Encore™ samplers)-soil and sediment]; semivolatile organics (Modified EPA Method
625); pesticides/PCBs (Modified EPA Method 608); and metals (Modified EPA Method 200
series) (EPA. 2000c). Three surface soil, three subsurface soil, and one groundwater sample
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Scp1ic Tank Site
Section: 4
DRAFr
October 18. 200 I
Page 18 of33
will be analyzed for dioxin (SW-846 Method 8290). Additional parameters to be analyzed
for in soil and sediment samples to support the ecological risk assessment include non-CLP
methods for pH (SW-846 Method 9040/9045); TOC [SW-846-Method 9060 (dry
combustion)]; and grain size (ASTM D 421 and 422).
4.4.2 Sample Preparation Procedures
The objective of the sampling and preservation proceJures outlined in this document is to
obtain samples which yield consistent quality. The use of proper sampling equipment. strict
controls in the field, and appropriate chain-of-custody and analytical procedures will reduce
the potential for sample misrepresentation and unreliable analytical data.
Sample containers will be provided by Black & Veatch. Where appropriate, pre-preserved
sample containers will be used.
A summary of the analytical and extraction methods, sample containers, method of
preservation, holding time, and holding conditions is presented in Section 3.0 of the FSP.
4.4.3 Field Samples
During the initial site investigation or the Phase I field investigation for the Rl/FS at the
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site, a total of 439 samples will be collected for environmental
analyses not including samples for QA/QC purposes. These samples include 59 surface soil
samples, 306 subsurface soil samples. 34 groundwater samples, 20 surface water samples.
and 20 sediment samples. A summary of the samples to be collected at Sigmon's Septic
Tank Site and the proposed analytical methods is presented in Section 3.0 of the FSP.
4.4.4 QC Sample Description
Quality control is defined as the "overall system of technical activities that measures the
attributes and performance of a process, item, or service against defined standards to verify
that they meet the stated requirements established by the customer." In addition to field
matrix samples. the field team will submit various QC samples, including control samples,
background samples, split samples, duplicate samples, trip blanks, spike samples, equipment
field blanks. preservative blanks. field blanks, and material blanks (EPA. 1997). QC samples
are collected during the field investigation to isolate any site effects ( control sample). define
'
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Pagel9of33
background conditions (background sample), and evaluate field and laboratory variability
(spikes, blanks, splits, and duplicates). These sample types are described below.
• Control. sample - a sample collected to isolate a source of contamination; may
require the collection of both an upgradient and downgradient sample.
• Background sample - a sample collected from an area suspected to be upgradient
from the source and suspected to be free''of any contamination.
• Split sample - a sample portioned into two or more containers from a single sample
container or sample mixing container. The primary purpose of a split sample is to
measure sample handling variability.
• Duplicate sample -two or more samples collected from a common source. The
purpose of a duplicate sample is to estimate the variability of a given contaminant.
Typically, one duplicate is collected for every set of20 samples collected per media
and/or partial set of 20 samples.
• Trip blank - a sample of organic-free water or clean soil which is prepared prior to
the sampling event in the actual container and is stored with the investigative
samples. Trip blanks are packaged for shipment with the investigative samples and
submitted for analysis. At no time after their preparation are trip blanks to be
opened prior to reaching the laboratory. Trip blanks are used to determine if
samples were contaminated during storage and/or transportation to the laboratory.
A water trip blank must accompany each shipment of water samples submitted for
volatile organic analysis, and a soil trip blank must accompany each shipment of
soil samples submitted for volatile organic analysis. Since none of the samples to
be collected during the field investigation will be analyzed for volatile organic
compounds, no trip blanks will be necessary.
• Spike samples - a sample provided by EPA Region 4 and sent directly to the CLP
lab. This sample has known concentrations of contaminants and are used to
measure the negative bias due to sample handling or analytical procedures. or to
assess the performance of a laboratory.
• Equipment field blank -a sample collected using organic-free water which has been
run over/through decontaminated sample collection equipment. An equipment
blank is used to determine if contaminants have been introduced by contact of the
sample medium with sampling equipment.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 4
DRAl7'
October 18. 200 I
Page 20 of 33
• Preservative blank - a sample prepared in the field used to determine any
contamination of the preservatives during field operations.
• Field blank - a sample prepared in the field to evaluate the potential for
contamination of a sample from a source not associated with the sample collected.
Organic-free water is taken to the site and placed into the appropriate sample
containers. Field blanks should be collected in dusty environments and/or from
areas where volatile organic contamination is present in the atmosphere and
originating from a source other than the source being sampled.
• Material blank -a sample of sampling materials, construction materials. or reagents
generated during field operations collected to measure any positive bias from
sample handling variability.
• Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate -samples generated to determine long-term
precision and accuracy of the analytical method on various matrices and to
demonstrate acceptable compound recovery by the laboratory at the time of sample
analysis. Typically, one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples is
collected for every set of 20 samples collected per media and/or partial set of 20
samples.
• The QC samples are collected as check on sample handling, sample transportation
and laboratory methods and procedures. Acceptance criteria is handled by the
Science and Ecosystems Support Division (SESD) of the EPA during validation
of the analytical results. Should there be a problem with the samples, either
caused by B& V or the CLP lab which would be determined
by SESD, the corrective action would most likely be
resampling.
As part of the sampling program, QC samples will be submitted to the laboratory with field
investigative samples in order to evaluate the confirmatory sampling procedures and
analytical methodologies. Approximately five percent of the field investigative samples will
be collected in order to evaluate sample handling, shipment, and laboratory procedures. A
summary of the QC samples, analyses, and containers is presented in Section 3.0 of the FSP.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RJCO-A44F
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
4.5 Field Instrument Requirements
Sec1ion: 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Pagc2lof33
The analytical and health and safety screening instruments that may be used in the field
during the Rl/FS investigatiDn are listed below:
• OVA Flame Ionization Detector (FID)
• Oxygen/Lower Explosive Limit Meter (O,ILEL)
• Temperature, specific conductance. and pH meter
• Turbidity meter
• Water level indicator
• Salinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (00), and temperature meter
• Redox meter
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 onsite. Instruments will be calibrated, at 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.
4.5.1 Foxboro OVA Model 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:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I
D
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Projec1 Plan
EPA Contracl No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignmenl No. 0040-RICO.A44F
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
• Inspect the instrument for cracks, and check calibration.
• Connect the probe/readout assembly to the unit.
Section: -t
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 22 of 33
• Connect the probe extension to the probe assembly; check for tight seal.
• Place INSTR/BA TT switch to "test" position; verify that the battery is charged.
• Place INSTR/BA TT switch to the "on" position; allow warm-up of five minutes.
• Tum the PUMP SWITCH on.
• Place CALIBRATE SWITCH to "x IO" 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 guage (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 I 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 labelled R32
(located within the instrument housing in the gray circuit block on back of the unit)
to obtain 95 ppm.
• Close the H2 SUPPLY VAL VE, move PUMP SWITCH to off, and adjust
CALI BRA TE ADJUST knob to 4 ppm.
• Move the calibrate switch to xi and observe meter. If the meter moves to 4 ppm,
move the calibrate switch to x IO and adjust meter needle to 4 ppm. If the meter
does not move to 4 ppm, adjust potentiometer labelled R3 l to obtain a reading of
4 ppm.
• Move calibrate switch to x I 00 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 labelled R33 to obtain reading of 40 ppm.
The Foxboro OVA Model 128 is operated in the following manner:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. ()()..t0-RIC0-A44F
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 23 of 33
• Open hydrogen TANK VAL VE ( 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 one-minute; depress IGNITE BUTTON for a few seconds (and
no more than five-seconds) until flame ignites; observe "kick" of meter needle; the
instrument is now readily for use.
• Measure a volume of air for volatile organic vapors by placing the probe for about
three to six seconds in the volume that is to be sampled.
Shutdown procedure of the OVA is:
• Close the hydrogen TANK VAL VE.
• Close the hydrogen SUPPLY VAL VE.
• Place INSTR switch to "off'.
• Wait five-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.
4.5.2 Oxygen/LEL Meter (O/LELJ
Oxygen/LEL meters are used to determine the potential for the combustion or explosion of
unknown atmospheres. A typical O/LEL meter determines the level of organic vapors and
gases present in an atmosphere as a percentage of the LEL or lower flammability limit (LFL)
by measuring the change in electrical resistance in a Wheatstone bridge circuit. O/LEL
meters also contain an oxygen detector. The oxygen detector is useful for determining the
existence of atmospheres deficient in oxygen.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. (}()40-RICO-A44F
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
Section; 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 24 of 33
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 0 2 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 oxygen.
The MSA Model 361 is calibrated in the following manner:
• Attach the flow control to the 75% pentane/15% oxygen 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% and 55%. If the
indication is not in the correct range, remove the right end of the indicator and
adjust the LEL SP AN control to obtain 50%.
• Verify the oxygen reading between 13% and 17%.
• 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 IO 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 I 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.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Wort.: Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tani.: Site
4.5.3 Water Temperature, pH, and Conductivity Meter
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page 25 of 33
It is anticipated that a HyDAC/Cambridge Model 9 l 0 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.
4.5.3.1 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 temperature data will be recorded to the nearest l 0f. Cross-checks and
duplicate field analyses should agree within plus or minus l 0f. 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.
4.5.3.2 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 (µmhos/cm).
Results will be reported to the nearest ten units for readings under 1.000 µmhos/cm and the
nearest 100 units for readings over 1,000 µmhos/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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contracl No. 68-W-99--043
V..'orl.: Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18. 2001
Page 26 of33
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
µmhos/cm.
4.5.3.3 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.
• Rinse the electrode and place in the 4.0 or I 0.0 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.
4.5.4 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 Oto 1000 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). Instrument calibration
will be conducted by the equipment provider, and will be checked in the field before each
use against a knmvn standard. Reported readings will be to the nearest NTU.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contrac1 No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page 27 of 33
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 c;ll with sample water. activate tesfing switch, and obtain reading, switching
to proper scale.
• Record sample reading and calibration readings in log book.
4.5.5 Salinity, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen, and Temperature Meter
It is anticipated that a YSI Model 58 salinity. conductivity, dissolved oxygen. and
temperature meter will be used to measure DO levels in aqueous samples. Calibration
procedures for this instrument include automatic compensation of temperature and salinity
readings up to 2.5 times greater than sea water. The following procedure is used for
collecting DO data:
• Fill glass jar with sample water, insert DO probe, and slowly stir. DO levels will
decrease; record the lowest observed DO level and the corresponding temperature
and salinity level.
4.5.6 Redox Meter
It is anticipated that an Orion 092A meter will be used to measure the redox potential in
aqueous samples. This meter is calibrated by the manufacturer; however. a self-test must be
run on the meter each time the meter is used. The following procedure is used for collecting
redox potential data:
• Fill glass jar with sample water and insert redox probe. The redox potential will
decrease rapidly; when the value begins to stabilize, record this value.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Sep1ic Tank Site
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 28 of 33
4.6 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., chain of custody seal on box of sample containers).
• Name of responsible field personnel.
The Field Team Leader is responsible for insuring that consumables are properly inspected
and that the documentation procedures stated above have been accomplished.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Worl Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tani.: Siie
4.7 Data Acquisition Requirements
Section: 4
DRAH
October I 8. 200 I
Page 29 of 33
Data quality indicators (DQis) 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.
4. 7. 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 IO percent of samples collected at each site.
Precision is determined in the laboratory by assessing the relative percent difference for
matrix spike duplicate an_alyses for organics and sample duplicates for inorganics. Relative
percent difference (RPO) is expressed as follows:
RPO= {(Vl-V2]/([Vl+V2]/2)} +x 100,
where: RPO = relative percent difference
VI = primary sample value
V2 = duplicate sample value.
4. 7.2 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:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
I
0
u
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. 1
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A4-ff
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Spike Recovery (percentage)= ([SSR-SR]/SA) x 100
where: SSR = spike sample results
SR = unspiked sample results
SA = spike added from spiking mix.
Section. 4
DRAFT
October IR. 2001
Page 30 of 33
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.
4. 7.3 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.
4. 7.4 Comparability
Comparability is a parameter used to express the confidence with which one set of data may
be compared with another. In order 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.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
4. 7.5 Completeness
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page·J\ of33
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. Onsite measurement techniques can provide a high degree of
completeness because invalid measurements can normally be repeated relatively quickly and
easily.
4.8 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.
4.8. 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; a discussion of field operating
records in presented in Section 3.6.1 of this QAPP.
Laboratory records that will be generated EPA SESD, are discussed in the EPA Contract
Laboratory Program Statement of Work Exhibit H for Multi-Media, Multiconcentration
Organic Analytical Service-OLM04.2, for Low Concentration Organic Analytical Service-
OLCO2. l. and for Multi-Media, Multiconcentration Inorganic Analytical Service-ILMO4. l
(EPA, 2000e).
4.8.2 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
USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Data Validation Standard Operating Procedures/or
Contract Laboratory Program Routine Analytical Services. Revision 2.1 (EPA. I 999c).
Field data log books and chain-of-custody 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quali1y Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmun's Septic Tank Site
Section: 4
DRAFT
October 18. 200 I
Page 32 of 33
information on field conditions at the time of sample collection to qualify the sample
analytical results.
4.8.3 Data Transmittal
Data will be transmitted from the laboratory to SESD to Black & Veatch via paper-copy data
packages and electronic files. The standard laboratory data reports generated during this
project will consist of a transmittal memorandum and the following for organic and inorganic
analyses:
Organic 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.
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 digestion and analysis dates.
4.8.4 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 in order to produce data summary tables that will be presented in the Rl/FS
report.
4.8.5 Data Analysis
Groundwater and soil data will be compared to the applicable state and federal regulations
as presented in Section 3.4.3 of this QAPP.
4.8.6 Data Tracking
Data tracking will be performed by the Black_& Veatch Project Manager. Project Geologist.
Project Engineer. or Project Scientist. Data will be tracked using a database which will
include the date of collection. date of transmittal to laboratory. and date of analysis. It is
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contrac1 No. 68-W-99...Q.43
Work Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Sep1ic Tani.: Sile
Section: 4
DRAFT
Octoher 18. 200 I
Page 33 of33
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.
4.8.7 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 three years following project
completion and closeout.
4.8.8 Data Reporting
Five copies of the data evaluation summary report will be submitted to the EPA within 10
days after the receipt of the analytical data from· SESD. The report will include the
following elements:
a. Project Status
b. Summary of analytical data
c. Results of performance evaluations and audits
d. Results of periodic data quality assessments
e. Any significant QA problems
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurnn..:c Projt:cl Plan
EPA Contrncl No 68-W-99-043
Work ,\ssignment :--10. 00409-RJCO-A-1-ff
Sigmon·s Sc-pti..: Tank Site
5.0 Assessment/Oversight
5.1 Assessments/Oversights
Section : 5
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page I of 11
Assessments and oversights will be performed during the Rl/FS in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of the QAPP.
"
5.1.1 Surveillance
Surveillance is the continual or frequent monitoring of the status of the project and the analysis of
records to ensure that specified project requirements are fulfilled. Surveillance of the RI/FS
investigation at the Sigmon's Septic Tank Site will be performed by EPA and Black & Veatch.
Black & Veatch field personnel will continuously monitor field activities, including all subcontractor
activities and sampling efforts. EPA will monitor the project through monthly progress reports and
communication with Black & Veatch.
5.1.2 Field Investigation Audit
This section describes the procedure for auditing activities performed during field investigations.
The audit addresses the adherence to procedures documented in the QAPP. At least one internal
field investigation audit may be perforn1ed at the direction of Black & Veatch's QAM during the
field investigation activities; internal field investigation audits may be performed by the QAM or by
personnel under his/her direction. External field audits may also be conducted by EPA at their
discretion. Audits may be announced or unannounced.
The auditor will re\"iew the Work Plan, QAPP, FSP, standard operating procedures, safety plans,
orother pertinent project documents for background information. Equipment that may be required
for the audit. including safety equipment, will be obtained for use during the audit. The Black &
Veatch Project Manager will be informed thatthe audit is to take place in order for the auditor to
obtain updated information on site conditions.
A briefing will be scheduled with the sampling team prior to initiating the audit. The auditor shall
brielly describe the audit process and obtain updated information on the field tasks. The audit is
the evaluation of adherence to project planning documents (Work Plan. QAPP, and FSP), sample
Quality t\ssurance Project Plan
EPA Contra.ct ~o. 68·\\'•99•043
Work Assignment No. 00409•RICO·A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section: 5
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page2ofll
identification and control. chain-of-custody procedures, field documentation, security of evidence,
and sampling operations. The evaluation is based primarily on the project planning documents.
The auditor will maintain a record ofall activities performed during the audit, which may include
log books, work papers, and check! ists. An exan1ple checklist is given in Figure 5-1. The auditor
must accurate I)' track the dates and times of audit activities and the document numbers that have
been reviewed. Included in the record will be the project codes, project location, identification of
the investigators assigned to the project, and auditor's name. The checklists must be completed
in their entirety and other pertinent information should be recorded in the "comments" section.
5.1.3 Laboratory Activities Audits
Laboratories under the EPA CLP undergo various audits, including internal system audits, external
systems audits. internal performance audits, and external performance audits. A description of
these audits is presented in the EPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work, Exhibit E
for Multi-Media, Multiconcentration Organic Analytical Service-OLMO4.2, for Low
Concentration Organic Analytical Service-OLCO2. I. and for Multi-Media, Multiconcentration
Inorganic Analytical Service-ILMO4. I (EPA, 2000e).
5.2 Corrective Action Protocols
Surveillance and field investigation audits may reveal findings of practice or procedure that do not
conform to the QAPP and corrective measures must be implemented in a timely manner. The initial
responsibility for monitoring QC activities in the field is that of the Field Team Leader(FTL). The
FTL is responsible for verifying that all QC procedures are followed. This requires that the FTL
assess the correctness of the field methods, determine the ability to meet QA/QC objectives, and
evaluate the impact a procedure has upon field objectives and the resulting data quality. In the
event that a problem arises which may jeopardize the ability to meet QA/QC objectives, the FTL
will contact the EPA project coordinator and the Black & Veatch Project Manager to inform them
oft he situation. if appropriate. Corrective action measures will be determined and implemented,
with the approval of the EPA Project Coordinator. if necessary. In addition, auditors from the
FDEP may assess and require that corrective action be taken. with the concurrence of the project
manager. FTL. or field QA manager. The problem. the corrective action taken,and the results of
that action will be recorded in the field logbook by the FTL.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
0
u
II
II
I
I
I
I
Signature of Auditor
Project Manager
Project Location
Type of Investigation
Authority/ Agency
YES
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
NO
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
N/A
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
I.
2.
3.
-1.
5.
6.
7.
Figure 5-1
Field Investigation Audit
BRIEFING WITH FIELD TEAM LEADER (FTL)
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Date of Audit:
Project N°:
CHECKLIST
Was a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) prepared" If yes, what items are
addressed in the plan?
Were additional instructions given to project participants (e.g., changes in the QAPP)? If
yes. describe these changes.
ls there a written list of sampling locations and descriptions? If yes, describe where
documents are.
Is there a map of sampling locations? If yes, where is the map?
Do the investigators follow a system of accountable documents? lfyes, what documents
are accountable?
Is there a list of accountable field documents checked out to the FTL? If yes, who
checked 1hem Olli and \vhere is this documented?
Is the transfer of field documents (sample tags, chain•of-custody records. logbooks, etc.)
from FTL to the field participants documented? If yes, where is the transfer documented?
I
Figure 5-1 (Continued) I
Field lnvesti&ation Audit I FIELD OBS VATIONS
Quality Assurance Project Plan
CHECKLIST
YES NO N/A NO: I
□ □ □ I. Was permission granted to enter and inspect the facility? I
□ □ □ 2. Is permission to enter the facility documented? ff yes, where is it documented? I
I
□ □ □ 3. Were split samples offered to the facility? If yes, was the offer accepted or declined?
I
□ □ □ 4. Is the offering of split samples recorded? If yes, where is it recorded? I
I
□ □ □ 5. If the offer to split samples was accepted, were the split samples collected? If yes, how were they identified? I
□ □ □ 6. Are the number, freque~cy and types of field measurements and observations taken as specified in the project plan or as directed by the FTL? If yes. where are they recorded?
I
I
□ □ □ 7. Are samples collected in the types of containers specified for each type of analysis? If I no. what kind of sample containers were used?
I
□ □ □ 8. Are samples preserved as required? Ifno or NIA, explain. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
u
II
I
I
I
I
I
YES
□
□
□
NO
□
□
□
N/A
□
□
□
Figure 5-1 (Continued)
Field lnvestioation Audit
FIELD OBS~VATIONS
Quality Assurance Project Plan
CHECKLIST
9. Are the number, frequency and types of samples collected as specified in the QAPP or as directed by the FTL? lfno, explain why not0
10. Are samples packed for preservation when required (i.e., packed in ice, etc.)? lfno or NIA. explain why.
11. Is sample custody maintained at all times? How?
I
Figure 5-1 (Continued) I Field lnvest~ation Audit
DOCUMEN CONTROL
Quality Assurance Project Plan I CHECKLIST
YES NO NIA N2: I □ □ □ I. Have all unused and voided accountable documents been returned to the FTL by the
learn members?
I
□ □ □ 2. Were any accountable documents lost or destroyed? If yes, have document numbers of I all lost or destroyed accountable documents been recorded? Where are they recorded?
I
□ □ □ 3. Are all samples identified with sample tags? Ifno, how are samples identified? I
□ □ □ 4. Are all sample tags completed (e.g., station N2., location, date, time, analyses, signatures I
of samplers, type, preservatives, etc.)? If yes, describe types of information recorded,
I
□ □ □ 5. Are all samples collected listed on a chain-of-custody record? If yes, describe the type I of chain-of-custody record used and what information is recorded.
I
□ □ □ 6. I fused, are the sample tag numbers recorded on the sample description forms?
I
□ □ □ 7. Does information on sample tags and chain-of-custody records match? I
I
□ □ □ 8. Does the chain-of-custody record indicate the method of sample shipment? I
I
□ □ □ 9. ls the chain-of-custody record included with the samples in the shipping container? I
I
I
I CHECKLIST
YES NO N/A NQ:
I
I □ □ □ 10. !fused. do the sample traffic reports agree with the sample tags?
I
I □ □ □ I I. If required, has a receipt for samples been provided to the facility? Describe where offer of a receipt is documented.
I
II □ □ □ 12. If used, are blank samples identified?
II
□ □ □ 13. If collected, are duplicate samples identified on sample description forms? II
I □ □ □ 14. !fused, are spiked samples identified?
I
I □ □ □ 15. Are logbooks signed by the individual who entered the information'?
·I
I □ □ □ 16. Arc logbooks dated upon receipt from the FTL?
I
I □ □ □ 17. Are logbooks project-specific (by logbook or by page)?
I
I
YES NO NIA NO:
□ □ □ 18.
0 □ □ 19.
□ □ □ 20.
□ □ □ 21.
□ □ □ 22.
□ □ □
□ □ □ 24.
CHECKLIST
Are logbook ent_ries dated and identified by author"
Is the facility's approval or disapproval to take photographs noted in a logbook?
Arc photographs documented in logbooks (e.g .. time, date, description of subject,. photographer, etc,)?
If film from a self-developing camera is used, are photograph matched with logbook documentation?
·Are sample tag numbers recorded?
Are calibration of pH meters. conductivity meters, etc., documented? If yes, describe \.\!here this is documented.
:-r
Are amendments to the project documented? If yes. describe where the amendments are documented.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
YES
□
□
NO
□
□
N/A
□
□
Figure 5-1 (Continued)
Field lnvestiQation Audit
DEBRIEF1Ncrw1TH FTL
Quality Assurance Project Plan
CHECKLIST
I. Was a debriefing held with FTL and/or other participants?
\Vere any recomJ71endations 11]pde to the project participants during the debriefing? If yes. list recommendations.
Site Name
Project Manager
Dates of Activity
Type of Activity
YES NO N/A
,
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
NO:
.~,
I.
,
·'·
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Figure 5-1 (Continued)
Field lnvesti~ation Audit
STRUCTURE OF ELD LOGBOOK
Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA Officer:
Project N2:
CHECKLIST
Is purpose of sampling activity stated?
Does logbook show location and description of samples?
Is reference map included?
Is sampling crew identified?
ls a daily activity log provided?
Are pages consecutively numbered?
Are entries in indelible ink?
Are errors lined through and corrections initialed?
Are pages signed or initialed?
\Vere the names and telephone numbers of field contacts recorded?
Have records of field calibrations been included?
Are the name of the shipping agent and shipping dates included?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
II
()uality :\ssuranct: Project Plan
EP,\ Conlruct Nn. 68.\\.'-99-043
Work Assignment '.\'o. 00409-RICO-A➔•ff
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Site
Section : 5
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page 11 of 11
In the event that one of the CLP laboratories is unable to meet QA/QC objectives, appropriate
corrective action measures w~II be initiated by informing SESD who ~II inform ihe laboratory's QA
oflicer. The Black & Veatch Project Manager and the projectteam ~II maintain daily contact ~th
both the FTL and the SESD liaison with the CLP laboratory. In the eventoflaboratory problems
requiring additional field work ( e.g. resampling, etc.), or field problems requiring laboratory action
(mislabeling, etc.), the Black & Veatch project team will decide on the appropriate corrective
action.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality ,\ssLiran...:e l'niject Plan
EPA Contract \1n, 68-W-99-043
Work :\ssignmcnt '.\.'n, 0040-RICO-t\4-IF
Sigmon·s Septic Tani-Site
6.0 Data Validation and Usability
Section: 6
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page I orJ
6.1 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 below. 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 forconformityto the specifications,
including type and location.
• Sample Collection Procedures -Verify that sample collection procedures were
performed in accordance with procedures presented in this QAPP. !fit is determined
that a deviation occurred in the collection procedure, the procedure shall, at a minimum,
conform to the EISOPQAM (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 offield instruments were pertom1ed in accordance
with the manufacturer specifications presented in this QAPP.
(_)ualit~· i\ssurancl.' Pni_j.:ct Plan
EPA Contract :\"o. 68-W-99-0-Ll
\\'ork ,\ssignmcrH :--.:o. 0040-RJCO-,\4.ff
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Si1e
Section: 6
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page2of3
The data validation and verification process v,~11 be performed by the Black & Veatch team leader
or an appropriate assignee. If QA/QC problems are detected during the data validation and
verification process, the individual who is responsible for detecting the problem will notify the Black
& Veatch project manager. The project manager will notify the EPA RPM of problems detected
during the validation and verification process with recommendations for resolution or describing
what measures were used to resolve the problems. A complete description of the problem and its
resolution will be included in the following monthly report. The project manager will follow the
steps specified for corrective action in Section 7.0, if necessary.
6.2 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives
Data quality assessment (DQA) is the assessment phase that follows data validation and
verification: DQA determines how well the validated data can support their intended uses. The
DQA process forthis investigation will be conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined
in the Guidance for Data Qualify Assessment (EPA QAIG-9), dated January 1998 (EPA,
1998c). The DQA 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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality :\ssurancc Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-\.\'-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-R!CO-A44F
Sigmon's Septic Tank Site
Section : 6
DRAFT
October 18. 200 !
Page 3 of3
• Draw Conclusions from the Data• This step involves perfonning the calculations required
for the statistical test and documenting the interferences drawn as a result of these
calculations.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Prn_ject Plan
Er1\ Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignmcm No. 00➔0-RICO-A4-ff
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Service
7.0 References
Section: 7
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Pagelof4
EPA. 2001 a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Work Assignment Form for WA No. 040-
RICO-A44F. May 7. 2001.
Black & Veatch, 200 I b. Letterto Ms. Giselle Bennett, EPA Region 4, from Christopher J. Allen,
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp .. dated Octobe_r I, 2001. Subject: Site Visit Letter
Report.
NCDENR. 2000a. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Expanded
Site Inspection Report. Sigmon's Septic Tank Service Site. NCO 062 555 792. Statesville. Iredell
County. North Carolina, March 31, 2000.
EPA, I 999a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Assurance Division, EPA
Requirements for Oualitv Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Data Operations (EPA
OA/R-5). November. 1999.
EPA. I 998a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, EPA
Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA OA/G-5). February 1998.
NCDENR. 1998b. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Combined Pre! i 111 i narv Assessment/Site Inspection Report. Sigmon' s Septic Tank Service Site.
Statesville. Iredell Countv. North Carolina, NCO 062 555 792, September 30, 1998.
USGS. 1993. U.S. Geological Survey. 7.5 minute series Topographic Quadrangle Maps of
North Carolina: Troutman. North Carolina 1993.
2001b. Iredell County Mapping Office, Plat Maps, September 26, 2001.
1954. LeGrand. Harry E .. '·Geology And Ground Water In The Statesville Area, North Carolina,"
North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development. 1954. Bulletin# 68.
Quali1y Assurance Project Plan
EP:\ Contract 0,\1. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment :--.:o. 0040-RJCO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Service
Section: 7
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page 2 of4
1987. Daniel, Charles C., ''Statistical Analysis Relating Well Yield to Construction Practices and
Sitting of Wells in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces of North Carolina", United States
Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report, 86-4132, I 987.
1950. Mundorf[ M. L "Flood-Plain Deposits ofNorth Carolina Piedmont and Mountain Streams
asa Possible Source of Ground-Water Supply"North Carolina Department of Conservation and
Development, 1950. Bulletin #59.
1985. U.S. Department of Commerce, "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States," Technical
Paper No. 40, October 1985.
1978. Groves, Michael R., "Lithologic Logs of Wells in Iredell County, North Carolina",
Groundwater Section: Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, 1978, Circular 17.
1989. Harned, Douglas A., 'The Hydrogeologic Framework and a Reconnaissance of
Groundwater Quality in the Piedmont Province ofNorth Carolina, v..ith a Design for Future Study",
USGS Water-Resources Investigation Report 88-4130, 1989.
U.S. Census Bureau, "State and County QuickFacts: Iredell County," U.S. Census Bureau web
page.
1983. U.S. Department of Commerce, "The Climatic Atlas of the United States," 1983.
EPA. 2000c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 9 Preliminary Remedial Goals,
Novemher 22. 2000.
EPA. 2000d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water Regulations and Health
Advisories, Summer 2000.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
()uality ,\ssurance Prnje..:t Plan
EPA Con1r.1c1 No. 68-W-99-043
\Vork Assignment No. 0040-RICO-A44F
Sigmon·s Septic Tank Si.::rvicc
Section: 7
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page 3 of 4
EPA. 2000e. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract Laboratorv Program. Statements
of Work for Multi-Media. Multi-Concentration Organic (OLM04.2). Inorganic (ILM04. I). and
Low Concentration Organic (OLC02. I) from EPA Internet Website, October 20, 2000.
EPA, 1999b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Ecological Risk Assessment
Bulletins• Supplement to Risk Assessment Guidance (RA Gs). August 11, I 999.
EPA. I 997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Services Division,
Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual
(EISOPQAM). May 1996 (Revised 1997).
NCDENR, 200 I c. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Surface
Water Quality Standards, Chapter 15A, North Carolina Administrative Code, Section 2B
0.0200s, obtained from the internet at http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swstdsfag.html on August 30,
2001.
NCDENR, 2000f. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division
of Water Quality. Groundwater Section, Groundwater Section Guidelines for the Investigation and
Remediation of Soil and Groundwater, July 2000.
EPA. 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Guidance for the Data Oualitv Objectives Process, EPA QNG-4, September 1994.
EPA. 1998c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Guidance for DataOualitv Assessment: Practical Methods for Data A·nalvsis (EPA QA/G-9),
January 1998.
EPA. 1999b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Ecological Risk Assessment
Bulletins -Supplement to Risk Assessment Guidance (RAGs). August 11, 1999.
()uali1y Assura111.:c Projc..::1 Plan
EPA Contract ~•o. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 0040-R!CO-A44F
Sigmon· s Septic Tank Service
Section: 7
DRAFT
October 18, 200 I
Page ➔ of4
EPA, 1999c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Data Validation Standard Operating
Procedures for Contract Laboratorv Program Routine Analytical Services, Revision, 2.1, July
1999.
EPA. 2000g. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water Regulations and Health
Advisories, Summer 2000.
EPA. 2000h. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract Laboratorv Program, Statements
of Work for Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration Organic (OLM04.2), Inorganic (ILM04. l ),and
Low Concentration Organic (OLC02. l) from EPA Internet Website, October 20, 2000.
OSHA. ! 981. Memorandum from David Weitzman, Work Group Chairman, Occupational
Health and Safety Administration (PM-273), to EPA, April 13, 1981. Subject: Final regulation
package for compliance with DOT regulations in the shipment of environmental laboratory samples.
NCDENR.20011. North Carolina Contaminated Soil Cleanup Levels, Chapter 15A of the North
Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Section 2L, 2000.
EPA. 1999d. National Recommended Water QualityCriteria-Crorrection April I 999, Human
Health for Consumption of Water and Organisms, 1999.
EPA. I 999e. Fresh Water Surface Water Screening Values, 1999.
EPA, I 999f. Sediment Screening Values. 1999.
Black & Veatch. 2000j. Comprehensive Quality Assurance Plan (CompQAPP No. 92091 ), June
2000.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I