NCD982096653_20050324_Ram Leather Care Site_FRBCERCLA SAP QAPP_Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan Volume 2 - QAPP Remedial Design-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ & @ WI/ il' ~fm
MAR 2 8 2005 ~j
SIJPERfUND SECTION
Draft
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Volume 2 -Quality Assurance Project Plan
Remedial Design
Ram Leather Care Site
Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina
March 24, 2005
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 2 -QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
REMEDIAL DESIGN
RAM LEATHER CARE SITE
CHARLOTTE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
USEPA Work Assignment 369-RDRD-A419
BVSPC Project No. 048369
March 24, 2005
Prepared by
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
1145 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 475
Atlanta, Georgia 30004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SIGNATURES AND APPROVALS
Nancy D. Geller Date
Black and Veatch Project Manager
Harvey B. Coppage Date
Black and Veatch Program Manager
Beverly Stepter Date
EPA Remedial Project Manager
Gary Bennett Date
EPA Quality Assurance Officer
Robert Stem Date
EPA Project Officer
Charles Hayes Date
EPA Contracting Officer
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Table of Contents
Section: TOC
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 1 of3
Section and Page Na.
Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................... AA-I
Distribution List ............................................. , . . . . . . DL-1
1.0 Introduction ....................................................... 1-1
2.0 Project Management ........... , ....... , ......... , .................. 2-1
2.1 Project and Task Organization .......... , ........... , . , ...... , . , .. 2-1
2.2 Problem Definition and Background ................... , ............ 2-2
2.3 Project Description ............................................. 2-3
2.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data ................. 2-3
2.4.1 DQO Step 1: State the Problem ...... , ........................ 2-5
2.4.2 DQO Step 2: Identify the Decision ............................ 2-5
2.4.3 DQO Step 3: Identify the Inputs to the Decision .................. 2-6
2.4.4 DQO Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries ...................... 2-7
2.4.5 DQO Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule ......................... 2-9
2.4.6 DQO Step 6: Specify Tolerable Limits on Decision Errors .......... 2-9
2.4.7 DQO Step 7: Optimize the Design ............................ 2-14
2.4.8 Measurement Performance Criteria ........................... 2-14
2.5 Special Training Requirements/Certification ........................ 2-17
2.6 Documentation of Records ...................................... 2-I 8
2.6.1 Field Operation Records ................................... 2-18
2.6.2 Laboratory Records ....................................... 2-19
2.6.3 Document Control ........................................ 2-19
2.6.4 Project Record Maintenance and Storage ...................... 2-19
3.0 Data Generation and Acquisition ...................................... 3-1
3.1 Sampling Process Design ........................................ 3-1
3.2 Sampling Methods ............................................. 3-1
3.2.1 Deep Well Aquifer Test ..................................... 3-1
3.2.2 Groundwater Extraction Sampling ............................ 3-2
3.2.3 Effluent Sampling ......................................... 3-2
3.3 Sample Handling and Custody .................................... 3-3
3.3.1 Sample Preservation and Holding Time ........................ 3-3
3.3.2 Sample Custody and Shipping Requirements .................... 3-3
3.4 Analytical Methods ............................................. 3-4
3.5 Quality Control Samples ......................................... 3-5
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: TOC
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 2 of3
3.5.1 Field and Laboratory Quality Control Samples ................... 3-5
3.5.2 Corrective Action .......................................... 3-6
3.6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance ............ 3-6
3.6.1 Foxboro OVA Model 128 .......................... , ........ 3-7
3.6.2 Oxygen/LEL Meter (O/LEL) ................................ 3-9
3.6.3 Water Temperature, pH, and Conductivity Meter ................. 3-9
3.7 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables ..... 3-11
3.8 Non-Direct Measurements ....................................... 3-12
3.9 Data Management ............................................. 3-12
3.9.1 Data Recording .......................................... 3-12
3.9.2 Data Validation .......................................... 3-12
3.9.3 Data Transmittal., ........................................ 3-13
3.9.4 Data Transformation and Reduction .......................... 3-13
3.9.5 Data Analysis ............................................ 3-13
3.9.6 Data Tracking ................. , .......................... 3-13
3.9.6 Data Storage and Retrieval ................................. 3-13
4.0 Assessment/Oversight ............................................... 4-1
4.1 Assessments and Response Actions ................................ 4-1
4.2 Reports to Management .......................................... 4-1
5.0 Data Validation and Usability ......................................... 5-1
5.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements ............... 5-1
5.2 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives ........ , ................ 5-2
6.0 References ....................................................... 6-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Tables
Table 2-1
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Figures
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-3
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Table of Contents (Continued)
Project Schedule
Analtyical Method and Sample Summary
Sample Checklist
Site Location Map
Site Layout Map
Project Team Organization Chart
Groundwater Sample Collection Record
Chain-of-Custody Form
Custody Seal
List of Appendices
A QAPP Review Checklist
Section: TOC
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 3 of3
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
Section: AA
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 1 of2 Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
ARAR
Black & Veatch
BOA
BOD
'C
CFR
CLP
coc
CPR
DCA
DCE
DNAPL
DO
DQA
DQI
DQO
EISOPQAM
FID
FTL
gpm
EPA
FID
FSP
FTL
HASP
HSM
IDW
IROD
kg
LFL
MCAWW
MCDEP
µmhos/cm
NBS
NCDEM
NCDENR
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
Basic Ordering Agreement
Biochemical chemical demand
Degrees Celsius
Code of Federal Regulations
Contract Laboratory Program
chemical of concern
cardiopulmonary resusitation
1, 1-Dichloroethane
I, 1-Dichloroethene
dense non-aqueous phase liquid
dissolved oxygen
data quality assessment
data quality indicator
data quality objective
Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality
Assurance Manual
flame ionization detector
field team leader
gallons per minute
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Flame Ionization Detector
Field Sampling Plan
Field Team Leader
Health and Safety Plan
Health and Safety Manager
Investigation-derived waste
Interim Record of Decision
Kilogram
Lower flammability limit
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Waters and Wastes
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection
microhms per centimeter
National Bureau of Standards
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
QuaJity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4l9
Ram Leather Care Site
Notice of Violation
Occupational Safley and Health Administration
Oxygen/Lower Explosive Limit
Organic vapor analyzer
Section: AA
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 2 of2
NOV
OSHA
O2/LEL
OVA
PARCC
PCE
PPE
ppb
ppm
precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness
Tetrachloroethylene
psi
ps1g
QA
QAPP
QC
RA
RD
RI
RPD
SAP
SSC
SESD
SMP
SOP
sow
TAL
TAT
TCE
TDS
TOC
TSS
WAM
ug/kg
ug/L
personal protective equipment
parts per billion
parts per million
pounds per square inch
pounds per square inch guage
Quality assurance
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Quality control
Remedial action
Remedial design
Remedial Investigation
relative percent difference
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Site Safety Coordinator
Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Site Management Plan
Standard operating procedure
Statement of Work
Target Analyte List
turnaround time
Trichloroethyelene
Total dissolved solids
Total organic carbon
Total suspended solids
Work Assignment Manager
micrograms per kilogram
micrograms per liter
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Distribution List
Beverly Stepter, EPA Remedial Project Manager (2 copies)
Nile Testerman, NCDENR Project Manager (1 copy)
Robert Stem, EPA Project Officer ( cover letter only)
Charles Hayes, EPA Contracting Officer ( cover letter only)
Harvey Coppage, Black and Veatch Program Manager (cover letter only)
Nancy Geller, Black and Veatch Project Manager (2 copies)
Gary Bennett, EPA Quality Assurance Manager (1 copy)
Section: DL
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page I of 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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
1.0 Introduction
Section: I
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Pagel ofl
This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) has been prepared in response to a Statement
of Work (SOW) for the Remedial Design (RD) at the Ram LeatheF Care Site located in
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, issued to Black & Veatch Special Projects
Corp. (Black & Veatch) on September 27, 2004, by the United States Environmental
Protec'tion Agency Region 4 (EPA) (EPA, 2004a). This QAPP is a critical planning
document for the RD environmental data collection activities to be performed at the Ram
Leather Care site.
This Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), including a Field Sampling Plan (FSP) and QAPP,
has been prepared by Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. (Black & Veatch) under
Contract Number 68-W-99-043 with EPA Region 4 and under specific authorization ofEP A
Region 4 through Work Assignment Number 369-RDRD-A419 Statement of Work (SOW)
(EPA, 2004a) and in accordance with the Draft Remedial Design Work Plan for the Ram
Leather Care Site, dated December 6, 2004 (Black & Veatch, 2004). The Draft Remedial
Design Work Plan for the Ram Leather Care Site was approved by EPA on February 24,
2005.
This document will address the implementation of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
activities throughout the life cycle of the project and is the basis for identifying how the
quality system of the organization performing the work is reflected in the project and in
associated technical goals. The format and information in this QAPP are based on the EPA
Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QAIR-5), dated March 200 I (EPA,
2001a), and supplemented by the Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA
QAIG-5), dated December 2002 (EPA, 2002). The QAPP Review Checklist presented in
Appendix C of the Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QAIG-5), dated
December 2002 (EPA, 2002) was used in preparation of this QAPP to ensure that the
required QAPP elements were included. This checklist is provided in Appendix A.
The site location, site description, operational history, and the nature and extent of
contamination for the Ram Leather Care site are presented in Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4,
respectively, of the FSP which is presented in Volume I of this SAP (Black & Veatch, 2005).
A site vicinity map and a site layout map are presented as Figures 1-1 and 1-2, respectively.
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. 369-RDRD-A4 l 9
Ram Leather Care Site
2.0 Project Management
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page I of20
The following project management elements address the procedural aspects of project
development for the RD at the Ram Leather Care site. This section provides an overall
approach to managing the project, including:
• Project organization, roles, and responsibilities.
• Project definition and background.
• Project description.
• Quality objectives and criteria for measurement data.
• Special training requirements.
• Documentation and records management.
2.1 Projectffask Organization
The purpose of the project organization is to provide the EPA and the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) a clear understanding of the
role of each participant in the RD 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 EPA Work Assignment Beverly Stepter
Makers Manager Nile Testerman
NCDENR
• QA EPA QA Manager Gary Bennett
Managers Black & Veatch QA Manager Virgil A. Paulson, P.E.
• Principal Black & Veatch Project Manager Nancy Geller, P.E.
Data Users Black & Veatch Project Staff Courtney Collins
Gina Kelly
A project organization chart is presented on Figure 2-1. Black & Veatch in Alpharetta,
Georgia, has overall responsibility for the RD at the Ram Leather Care site. The Black &
Veatch Project Manager, Ms. Nancy Geller, has primary responsibility for execution of the
work. The Project Manager will track performance of the work against schedule and budget
constraints, be involved in data review, oversee the preparation of technical reports, and will
be responsible for maintaining the official, approved QAPP for the RD at the Ram Leather
Care site. Ms. Geller will be the primary contact with the EPA Project Coordinator, Ms.
Beverly Stepter. Ms. Geller will also ensure that valid data is collected and used in a
technically correct manner.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4l 9
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 2 of20
The Black & Veatch Project Manager, and the Project Engineer, Ms. Courtney Collins, will
be responsible for implementation of the work plan, data evaluation, electronic deliverables,
and ensuring that the data requirements of the project are met. Ms. Gina Kelly, the Project
Chemist, will be responsible for validation of non-Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) data.
The EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Divsion (SESD) oversees the Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) and maintains its own QA program under the direction of Mr.
Gary Bennett. Mr. Bennett is responsible for ensuring that the analytical work contracted to
CLP laboratories and the data qualification of the data by SESD personnel is conducted in
accordance with the appropriate QA procedures (EPA, 2004b ). The analytical work to be
performed under this work assignment will be conducted by both CLP and non-CLP
laboratories. The Black & Veatch QA Manager, Mr. Virgil Paulson, has primary
responsibility for the QA for the entire Black & Veatch organization. Mr. Paulson is located
at the Black & Veatch headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas.
2.2 Problem Definition and Background
The Interim Record of Decision (!ROD) for the Ram Leather Care site was issued on
September 30, 2004 (EPA, 2004c), and describes several source categories; the areas
identified were the septic tank/septic tank drain field, former dumpster area, surface water
ditch/culvert, and former drum storage area.
Septic Tank/Septic Tank Drain Field-A subsurface septic tank wastewater system has been
in operation at the site since 1977. The septic tank is located on the north side of the Ram
Leather Care building. Wastewater from the septic tank was pumped to a drain field in the
southern portion of the property. This partially vegetated area is unfenced and accessible to
the adjacent residents.
Former Dumpster Area -The former dumpster area (where filter burning occurred) is
located on the south side of the Ram Leather Care building, This area is currently covered
and serves as part of the gravel parking lot. The wastes generated at the site were placed in
the metal dumpster from 1977 until 1984. The dumpster has since been removed.
Surface Water/Ditch Culvert -Water from the northern portion of the site flows in a ditch
and through culverts under a railroad track and Route 24/27 to an intermittent stream across
the street from the site. Soil samples were collected from locations just prior to entering the
culvert under the railroad track. The area was sampled to determine if contamination was
leaving the site via surface water drainage.
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 3 of20
Former Drum Storage Area -After 1984, 55-gallon drums were used to store the waste
generated at the site. The former drum storage area is located next to the western part of the
building where drums were placed on a cement pad. A grassy area is adjacent to the cement
pad. Contamination in this area is due, in part, to drum leakage and spills. When discovered
in 1991, it was noted that the bungs had been left open allowing rain to enter the drums and
overflow. Areas of stained or stressed vegetation have been observed in the area adjacent to
the drum storage area.
The IROD cleanup levels for the chemical of concern at the Ram Leather Care site are
presented in the Table 1-1. The chemicals of concern include 1,2-dichloroethane, chloroform,
cis-1,2-dichloroethene, tetrchloroethylene (PCE), and trichloroethylene (TCE) in
groundwater, and PCE in soil.
The interim remedy selected in the IROD includes Soil Alternative S3 -Excavation, Off-Site
Transportation, and Disposal at Subtitle D Landfill; and Groundwater Alternative G3 -Pump
and Treat with Physical/Chemical Treatment and Groundwater Monitoring. Data collection
activities will be performed as part of the RD for the Ram Leather Care site in order to obtain
information that will be used in the Black & Veatch' s preliminary design of the interim
groundwater and soil remedies and will be provided to the performance-based remedial
action (RA) subcontractors for interim remedy implementation.
2.3 Project Description
This QAPP is a critical planning document for the RD environmental data collection
activities to be performed at the Ram Leather Care site. Data collection activities will
include:
• Deep well aquifer test (FSP, Section 3.1.1)
• Groundwater extraction sampling (FSP, Section 3.1.2)
• Effluent sampling (FSP, Section 3.1.4)
The deep aquifer test will be performed on a former onsite drinking water well (DW00 11 );
the location of this well is presented on Figure 1-2. The extent of the soil excavation as
defined in the IROD is presented on Figure 2-2. The revised work plan project schedule is
presented on Table 2-1.
2.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data
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
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 4 of20
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
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 Data Quality
Objectives Process (EPA QAIG-4), dated August 2000 (EPA, 2000a); much of the following
sections have been paraphrased or taken directly from this document.
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 1: State the Problem -Concisely describe the problem to be studied. Review
previous investigation reports and existing information in order to develop an
understanding of how to define the problem.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Step 2: Identify the Decision -Identify what questions the investigation will attempt
to resolve, and what action may result.
Step 3: Identify the Inputs to the Decision -Identify the information that needs to be
obtained ( analytical data results, field measurements) in order to resolve the decision
statement.
Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries -Specify the time periods and spatial area to
which decisions will apply. Determine when and where data will be collected.
Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule -Define the statistical parameter of interest, specify
the action level, and integrate the previous DQO outputs into a single statement that
describes the logical basis for selecting alternative actions.
Section 6: Specify Tolerable Limits on Decision Error-Define the decision maker's
tolerable decision error rates based on a consideration of the consequences of making
an incorrect decision.
Step 7: Optimize the Design -Evaluate information from the previous steps and
generate alternative data collection designs. Select the most resource-effective
design that meets the DQOs.
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. 6&-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
2.4.1 DQO Step I: State the Problem
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 5 of20
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 Ram Leather
Care site dated September 27, 2004 (EPA, 2004a). The data collected during the RI indicates
that soils and groundwater at the site and groundwater at neighboring private wells are
contaminated with chlorinated solvents typically associated with dry cleaning operations.
Site-related contaminants include PCE, TCE, DCE, and DCA. The extent of contamination
has been estimated to the north and west-northwest of the site. The extent remains to be
defined on the southern side and east-northeast directions from the facility. The two former
potable onsite wells (the "old" and the "new") have high levels of contamination. The
purpose of the RD is to conduct activities necessary to develop performance-based
subcontract documents that will implement the remedial activities in the !ROD.
The RD will be performed by Black & Veatch through Response Action Contract No. 68-W-
99-043 under Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419. EPA Region 4 and NCDENR will
provide comments on the QAPP, FSP, and future data reports and design reports.
2.4.2 DQO Step 2: Identify the Decision
The second step in the DQO process is to identify the questions that the RD will attempt to
resolve and identify the alternative actions that may be necessary based on the outcome of
the RD. In the DQO process, the combination of these elements is called the decision.
Based on a review of the problem defined in Section 2.4.1 and the project description defined
in Section 2.3, the following principal questions have been developed for the environmental
data collection activities to be performed prior to the preliminary design of the interim
remedies:
• Will the duration of the aquifer pump test (24 hours) be sufficient to adequately
estimate the maximum sustainable extraction capacity of deep well DW00! I such
that the data can be used in the preliminary design of the groundwater interim
remedy?
• Do the results of the groundwater extraction sampling indicate consistent
groundwater quality during the duration of the aquifer pump test such that the data
can be used in the preliminary design of the groundwater interim remedy?
• Do the results of the effluent samples indicate that activated carbon treatment is
capable of treating extracted groundwater to concentrations acceptable for onsite
discharge? ·
Based on the results of environmental data collection activities to be performed at the Ram
Leather Care site, additional data collection activities may be necessary to solve the problem
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 6 of20
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
in order to have the data required to perform the preliminary design of the interim remedies,
including:
• Perform additional aquifer pump tests at longer durations.
•
•
Collect additional groundwater extraction samples during an additional aquifer pump
test conducted over a longer duration to determine if changes in groundwater quality
changes over the pumping duration.
Research alternative activated carbon treatment units or other types of
physical/chemical treatment.
The principal questions and the alternative actions are combined into a decision statement
that expresses a choice among alternative actions. The following decision statements have
been drafted for these environmental data collection activities:
• Determine the maximum sustainable extraction capacity of deep well DW00I I such
that the data can be used in the preliminary design of the groundwater interim
· remedy.
•
•
Determine groundwater quality concentrations through groundwater extraction
sampling.
Determine post-treatment groundwater quality concentrations through effluent
sampling.
2.4.3 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). The following information is required to make the
decisions formulated in Section 2.4.2:
•
•
Aquifer pumping test: Pumping rate will be monitored by a totalizing flow meter
supplemented by manual checks using volume-calibrated containers. The water level
will be monitored by a dedicated pressure transducer and with a self-contained
electronic data logger; data from the logger will be downloaded via a personal
computer connection. Electronic water level measurements will be supplemented
with periodic manual measurements. Pumped groundwater will be field-monitored
for temperature, conductivity, pH, visual clarity, and odor at least one per hour ( or
a minimum of24 field measurement readings).
Groundwater extraction samples will be analyzed for volatile organics and metals and
water quality parameters, including total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended
solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total organic carbon (TOC),
hardness, alkalinity, chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate. Samples will be
analyzed by either an EPA Region 4 designated CLP laboratory, SESD, or a
subcontract laboratory, as specified in Section 3.1.2 of the FSP.
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
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 7 of20 Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4 l 9
Ram Leather Care Site
• Effluent samples collected post-carbon treatment will be analyzed for volatile
organics, metals, and water quality parameter (TDS, TSS, BOD, TOC, hardness,
alkalinity, chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate) and submitted to the subcontract
laboratory for expedited analysis as specified in Section 3.1.4 of the FSP.
Analytical data collected during the RD will be compared to the following:
I.
2.
3.
The criteria for 1,2-dichloroethane, chloroform, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, PCE, and
TCE in groundwater, and PCE in soil shall be the cleanup goals as specified in the
IROD for the Ram Leather Care site (EPA, 2004b). Table 1-1 in the FSP
summarizes these criteria.
For other constituents detected in groundwater, analytical data shall be compared to
the MCLs and the North Carolina Groundwater Standards (Groundwater Protection
Rules, !SA NCAC 2L).
If it is determined that soil sampling is required, other constituents detected in soil
would be compared to EPA Soil Screening Level from Soil Screening Guidance:
Technical Background Document (EP A/540/R95/128) and Soil Screening Guidance:
Users Guide (EP A/540/R96/0l 8).
2.4.4 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 ofthis step is
to clearly define the set ofcircumstances (boundaries) which will be covered by the decision,
including spatial and temporal boundaries. Spatial boundaries define what should be
investigated and where the samples should be collected. Temporal boundaries describe when
samples should be collected and what time frame the study data should represent.
Practical constraints which could interfere with sampling are also identified within this step
of the DQO process. A practical constraint is any hindrance or obstacle that may interfere
with the full implementation of the study design.
2.4.4.1 Spatial Boundaries of the Study. Typically there are four actions 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
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 8 of20
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
•
•
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).
The IROD addresses the contaminated soils and groundwater as an interim action. Because
the existing data are not sufficient to determine the likelihood of attaining long-term
objectives ( e.g., restoring groundwater) over all portions of the plume and site-related
contaminants continue to be found in nearby potable wells, a phased groundwater response
action was selected. The soil interim remedy, soil excavation and disposal, will be conducted
on soils from land surface to the depth of the water table ( approximately 26 feet below land
surface) in the former drum storage area as a means of removing the source of chlorinated
solvents leaching to groundwater. After the soil interim remedy is completed, the
groundwater interim remedy (pump and treat with chemical/physical treatment) will be
performed on existing deep well DW00l 1 to remove groundwater contaminated with
chorinated solvents in the vicinity of the former drum storage area.
2.4.4.2 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.
Groundwater extraction samples will be collected during the 24-hour aquifer pumping test.
It is assumed that samples of pumped groundwater will be collected during the initial,
middle, and final portions of the pumping period.
Following carbon treatment, the treated water will be temporarily contained in a Frac tank
prior to discharge. One effluent sample will be collected at the approximate mid-point ( or
12th hour) of groundwater extraction, and one sample will be collected after groundwater
extraction and treatment is complete.
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
QuaJity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 9 of20 Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
2.4.5 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
stati~tical 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 to
develop a decision rule.
The following objective criteria have been developed that define the conditions that would
cause the decision maker to pursue alternative actions:
• If the aquifer pump test (24 hours) is not sufficient to adequately estimate the
maximum sustainable extraction capacity of deep well DW00 11 such that the data
can be used in the preliminary design of the groundwater interim remedy, then
additional aquifer pump test(s) may will be considered.
• If the results of the groundwater extraction sampling do not indicate consistent
groundwater quality during the duration of the aquifer pump test such that the data
can be used in the preliminary design of the groundwater interim remedy, then
additional groundwater samples may be collected during an additional aquifer pump
test conducted over a longer duration to determine if changes in groundwater quality
changes over the pumping duration.
• If the results of the effluent samples indicate that the selected activated carbon
treatment is not capable of treating extracted groundwater to concentrations
acceptable for on-site discharge, then alternative activated carbon treatment units or
other types of physical/chemical treatment will be considered.
2.4.6 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
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Cootract No. 68-W-99-043
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 10 of20
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
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.
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 error occurs when sampling data mislead the decision
maker into believing that the burden of proof has been satisfied and that the null hypothesis
(H0 or baseline condition) should be rejected. Consider an example where the decision
maker presumes that concentrations of contaminants of concern exceed the action level (i.e.,
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 11 of20
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 proofhas not been satisfied so that the null
hypothesis (H0) is not rejected when it should be. A false negative error in the previous
example occurs when the data lead the decision maker to wrongly conclude that the site is
contaminated when it truly is not.
The first step in establishing limits on decision errors is to determine the possible range of
the parameter of interest. The possible range of the parameter of interest should be
established by estimating its upper and lower bounds. This means defining the lowest
(typically zero in environmental studies) and highest concentrations at which the
contaminant(s) is expected to exist at the site. This will help focus the remaining activities
of this step on only the relevant values of the parameter. Historical data, including analytical
data, should be used to define contaminant concentrations if available.
The second step in establishing decision error limits is to define both types of decision errors
and identify the potential consequences of each. The 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 of incorrectly concluding that the concentrations of site-related
contaminants exceed the action level.
• Establish the true state of nature for each decision error. In the 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 baseline
condition or null hypothesis (i.e., H0 = the site is contaminated), and define the true
state of nature for the less severe decision error as the alternative hypothesis (i.e., H,
= the site is not contaminated). Since the burden of proof rests on the alternative
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 12 of20
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
•
hypothesis, the data must demonstrate enough information to authoritatively reject
the null hypothesis and conclude the alternative. Therefore by setting the null
hypothesis equal to the true condition that exists when the more severe decision error
occurs, the decision maker is guarding against making the more severe decision error.
Assign the terms "false positive" and "false negative" to the proper decision errors .
A false positive decision error corresponds to the more severe decision error and a
false negative decision error corresponds to the less severe decision error.
The potential consequences of decision errors at several points within the false positive and
false negative ranges should be defined and evaluated. For example, the consequences of a
false positive decision error when the true parameter value is merely 10 percent above the
action level may be minimal because it would cause only a moderate increase in the risk to
human health. On the other hand, the consequences of a false positive error when the true
parameter is ten times the action level may be severe because it could greatly increase the
exposure risk to humans as well as cause severe damage to a local ecosystem. In this case,
decision makers would want to have less control (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 errors are relatively minor. The acceptable
decision error region is a range of points (bounded on one side by the action level) where the
consequences of a false negative decision error are relatively minor. It is not generally
feasible or reasonable to control the false negative decision error rate to low levels because
the resources that would be required would exceed the expected costs of the consequences
of making that decision error. In order to determine with confidence whether the true value
of the parameter is above or below the action level ( depending on the more severe decision
error), the site manager would need to collect a large amount of data, increase the precision
of the measurements, or both.
The fourth step in establishing decision error limits is to assign probability values to points
above and below the action level that reflect the acceptable probability for the occurrence of
decision errors. The most stringent limits on decision errors that are typically encountered
for environmental data are 0.01 (one percent) for both the false positive and false negative
decision errors. The most frequent reasons for setting limits greater than 0.01 are that the
consequences of the decision errors may not be severe enough to warrant setting decision
error rates that are this stringent. If the decision is made to relax the decision error rates from
0.01 for false positive and false negative decision errors, the scoping team should document
the rationale for setting the decision error rate. This rationale may include potential impacts
on cost, human health, and ecological conditions.
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 13 of20
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.
Based on previous investigation reports, the possible range of contaminants expected to be
found at Ram Leather Care is between O and 78,000 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) (based
on the maximum detected concentration of PCE in soil) and between O and 4,000
micrograms per liter (ug/L) (based on the maximum detected concentration of PCE in
groundwater).
Null Hypothesis (H0) = For effluent samples collected after carbon treatment, one or
more contaminant concentrations are greater than or equal to the criteria listed in
Section 2.4.3.
Alternate Hypothesis (H.) = For effluent samples collected after carbon treatment, all
site contaminant concentrations are below the criteria listed in Section 2.4.3.
Groundwater extraction samples are expected to contain contaminant concentrations greater
than the criteria listed in Section 2.4.3; however, it will be noted if contaminant
concentrations appear to increase or decrease during the duration of the aquifer pumping test.
Also, contaminant concentrations will be compared to historical concentrations from well
D WOO 11 to determine if contaminant concentrations have increased or decreased over time.
The false positive decision error will occur if the decision maker decides, based on individual
effluent sampling data, that the treated water does not contain concentrations exceeding
criteria listed in Section 2.4.3, when in truth, that entire volume of treated water actually
contains concentrations exceeding criteria listed in Section 2.4.3.
The false negative decision error will occur if the decision maker decides, based on
individual effluent sampling data, that the treated water contains concentrations exceeding
criteria listed in Section 2.4.3, when in truth, that entire volume of treated water does not
actually contain concentrations exceeding criteria listed in Section 2.4.3.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 14 of20
Allowable Decision Error Rates
True Concentration "C" as a Percentage Acceptable Probability of Recommending
of Criteria Specified in Section 2.4.3. Additional Action
:s;70% :s;20% (false negatives)
70%< C :s; 100% :s;30% (false negatives)
>100% ~90% (:s; 10% false positives)
2.4. 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 that are expected to satisfy the DQOs. To
achieve this goal, it may be necessary to work through this step more than once after
revisiting previous steps of the DQO process. The following activities are required to
optimize the design:
• Review the results from the previous DQO process steps as well as existing
information.
• Develop general sampling and analysis design alternatives.
• Verify that each design alternative satisfies the DQOs.
• Select the most resource-effective design which achieves all DQOs .
• Document the operational details and theoretical assumptions of the selected
sampling and analysis design.
Further modifications of the DQO decision error limits may be proposed pending the review
of additional information as it is made available. Such a change would necessitate
corresponding changes in the FSP and in this document to accommodate the required
additional environmental data collection.
2.4.8 Measurement Performance Criteria
The measurement performance criteria are checked on several levels:
•
•
•
Built-in QC standards
Senior review
Management controls
The analytical data is given specific QC standards by which it must abide. If these standards
are not met, the data is suitably qualified. The bench chemist and the laboratory's QA
manager check the analytical data and QC results.
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 15 of20
All documents that pertain to the quality standards of the project are drafted by and reviewed
internally by Black & Veatch staff with relevant technical experience. While performing
field sampling activities, the field site supervisor and the site QA officer will supervise
activities to assess if standard operating procedures (SOPs) are being followed.
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.
2.4.8.1 Precision. Precision is a measure of agreement among replicate measurements of
the same property, under prescribed similar conditions. Specifically, it is a quantitative
measure of the degree of variability of a group of measurements compared to the average
value. Standard deviation, coefficient of variation, range, and relative range are terms often
used to express precision. Data precision will be evaluated through the collection of split and
duplicate samples (field and in-house) at a rate of5 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 analyses for organics and sample duplicates for inorganics. Relative
percent difference (RPD) is expressed as follows:
RPD
where: RPD
VI
V2
=
=
=
=
{[Vl-V2]/([Vl+V2]/2)} x 100
relative percent difference
primary sample value
duplicate sample value.
2.4.8.2 Accuracy. Accuracy measures the bias of a measurement system. Sources of error
introduced into the measurement system may be accounted for by using field/trip blanks,
spike samples, and analysis by two different laboratories. Accuracy is assessed by measuring
the percent recoveries of surrogate spikes for organic analyses and by spike sample percent
recoveries for inorganic analyses. For. a spike sample, known amounts of standard
compounds are added to the sample. Spike recoveries are calculated as follows:
Spike Recovery(%) =
where: SSR =
SR =
([SSR-SR]/SA) x I 00
spike sample results
unspiked sample results
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
SA = spike added from spiking mix.
Section: 2
Revision No.: O
March 24, 2005
Page 16 of20
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 QNQC sample descriptions, sampling and
decontamination procedures, and field documentation be followed so that the project
objectives and DQOs are met.
2.4.8.3 Representativeness. Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data
accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a population parameter at a sampling
point, a process condition, or an environmental condition. Representativeness is a qualitative
term that is evaluated to determine whether in situ and other field measurements are made
and physical samples collected in such a manner that the resulting data appropriately reflect
the media and phenomenon measured or studied.
2.4.8.4 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 it6ms
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.
2.4. 8.5 Completeness. Completeness is a measure of the relative number of analytical data
points that meet all the acceptance criteria for accuracy, precision, and additional criterion
required by the specific analytical methods used. The goal for essentially all data uses is that
sufficient amounts of valid data will be generated. Onsite measurement techniques can
provide a high degree of completeness because invalid measurements can normally be
repeated relatively quickly and easily.
2.4.8.6 Sensitivity. Sensitivity is the capability of a method or instrument to discriminate
between measurement responses representing different levels of the variable of interest.
Sensitivity can be determined by the minimum concentration that can be measured by a
R
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 17 of20
method ( or method detection limit), by an instrument (instrument detection limit), or
laboratory ( quantitation limit).
2.5 Special Training Requirements and Certification
The purpose of this section is to ensure that any specialized training requirements necessary
to the project are known and that the procedures are described in sufficient detail to ensure
that specific training skills 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. A Site-Specific Health and Safety
Plan (HASP) and a Task-Specific HASP for the Ram Leather Care site will be submitted to
EPA Region 4 to meet planning document requirement specified in the SOW for the Ram
Leather Care site RD.
All personnel (Black & Veatch and their subcontractors) who will engage in hazardous waste
operations at The Ram Leather Care 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
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.
Consistentwith29 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
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 18 of20
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 written 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 &
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 1910.120 et. seq. The
certification must be signed by a medical doctor and indicate any work limitations placed on
the individual. The certification also must specify that the individual is capable of working
while wearing respiratory protective equipment. The certification must be presented before
Black & Veatch activities begin.
2.6 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.
Based on the various types of reports and design reports that will be submitted under the
SOW for the RD for the Ram Leather Care site, various report formats will be utilized. The
formats used for reports and design reports on other EPA projects will be incorporated on
this task.
2.6.1 Field Operation Records
The field operating record to be used in this investigation will include the Groundwater
Sample Collection Record as presented on Figure 2-3. 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 3 .3.
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 19 of20
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 physical 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.
2.6.2 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. (EPA, 2001c; EPA, 2004d).
2.6.3 Document Control
Document control is d_efined as the maintenance of investigation project files. All official
and original documents relating to the investigation must be placed in the official project
files. All evidence file documentation will be maintained by Black & Veatch under the
document control system. Upon termination of the project, all records (field records,
laboratory records) will be archived and submitted to EPA Region 4.
2.6.4 Project Record Maintenance and Storage
Project records will be stored and maintained in a secure manner by Black & Veatch until
the end of the project. Each project team member is responsible for filing all project
information or providing it to the administrative assistant familiar with the project filing
system. Individual team members may maintain separate files or notebooks for individual
tasks but must provide such files to the project file room upon completion of each task.
The general project file categories are as follows:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
correspondence
non-laboratory project invoices and approvals by vendor
original unbound reports
non-laboratory requests for proposals, bids, contracts, SOWs
field data
data evaluation and calculations
site reports from others
photographs
insurance documentation
laboratory analytical data and associated documents/memos
regulatory submittals, licensing, and permitting applications
site and reference material
Health and Safety Plans
figures and drawings
Section: 2
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 20 of20
A project-specific index of file contents is kept with the project files at all times. Upon
termination of the project, all records (field records, laboratory records, etc.) will be archive
and submitted to EPA Region 4.
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
3.0 Data Generation and Acquisition
3.1 Sampling Process'Design
Section: 3
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page I of 13
The FSP provides the sampling and analysis requirements for this project. Sampling
activities will include collection of three groundwater extraction samples and two effluent
samples after carbon treatment. All samples collected during the RD will be considered
critical samples. The objective of the RD field sampling at the Ram Leather Care site is to
obtain certain data necessary to include in the preliminary design for the groundwater interim
remedy, pump and treat with physical/chemical treatment. Rationale for sample locations
proposed for this RD are presented in Sections 3.1.2 and 2.1.4 of the FSP.
The anticipated schedule for sample collection activities at the Ram Leather Care site is
presented in Table 2-1.
3.2 Sampling Methods
The Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance
Manual (EISOPQAM) (EPA, 2001 c) will serve as the primary document from which all field
procedures will be developed.
3.2.1 Deep Well Aquifer Test
The aquifer pumping test will be conducted at onsite deep well DW00l l. The EISOPQAM
does not contain a SOP for aquifer pump tests.
Water will be extracted from the pumping well with a submersible pump capable of pumping
10 to 15 gallons per minute (gpm). The submersible pump will be installed and connected
to the appropriate electrical and plumbing hardware to enable the pumping rate to be varied
within the desired range, or pulsed if required
The aquifer test will be conducted for 24 hours of continuous constant-rate pumping. The
pumping rate will be monitored every 30 minutes for the first 2 hours and every hour
thereafter. The pumping rate will be monitored by a totalizing flow meter supplemented by
manual checks using volume-calibrated containers. The water level in the pumping well will
be monitored by a dedicated pressure transducer and with a self-contained electronic data
logger; data from the logger will be downloaded via a personal computer connection.
Electronic water level measurements will be supplemented with periodic manual
measurements. A second set of critical equipment (including pump, generator, and pressure
transducer) will be kept on-hand in case of malfunction. Upon pumping completion, the
recovery of the water level will be recorded until the water level reaches 90 percent of the
· static level, whereupon the test is complete.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 3
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 2 of 13
During the 24-hour aquifer test, pumped groundwater will be field-monitored for
temperature, conductivity, pH, visual clarity, and odor at least one per hour ( or a minimum
of 24 field measurement readings).
The following sections in the EISOPQAM present SOPs that apply to field activities
associated with the deep well aquifer test:
• Section E.2: Large Diameter Electric Submersible Pumps
• Section 15.5: Groundwater Level Measurements
• Sections 16.2, 16.3, and 6.4: Field Mea5urements for Temperature, Conductivity, and
pH
3.2.2 Groundwater Extraction Sampling
Because the aquifer pump test will be conducted continuously for 24 hours, the SOP
presented in the EISOPQAM, Section 7.2.3, Continuously Running Pumps, has been
assumed to apply to this type of sampling and, thus, a purge is not required. Low flow
sampling is not necessary, since it is not necessary to minimize purge volumes. Therefore,
groundwater extraction samples will be collected directly from the submersible pump.
Samples will be allowed to run directly into all sample containers with the metals sample
aliquot being collected first. Each VOA sample vial will be filled such that no headspace
remains in the sample container. Measurements of pH, specific conductance, temperature,
and turbidity will be recorded at the time of sampling (EISOPQAM, Sections 16.2, 16.3, and
6.4: Field Measurements for Temperature, Conductivity, and pH).
A summary of analytical methods, containers, preservatives, holding time requirements, and
the number of field and QC samples is presented on Table 3-1. A sample checklist
presenting the analyses and QC sample designations per sample code is provided on Table
3-2.
3.2.3 Effluent Sampling
It is assumed that samples of carbon-treated groundwater will be collected from an in-line
spigot located between the carbon filter and the Frac tank, as stated in the SOP presented in
the EISOPQAM, Section 7.2.3, Continuously Running Pumps. Samples will be allowed to
run directly into all sample containers with the metals sample aliquot being collected first.
Each VOA sample vial will be filled such that no headspace remains in the sample container.
Measurements of pH, specific conductance, temperature, and turbidity will be recorded at
the time of sampling (EISOPQAM, Sections 16.2, 16.3, and 6.4: Field Measurements for
Temperature, Conductivity, and pH).
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
Qua1ity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
3.3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements
3.3.1 Sample Preservation and Holding Time
Section: 3
Revision No.: O
March 24, 2005
Page 3 of 13
A summary of analytical methods, containers, preservatives, holding time requirements, and
the number of field and QC samples is presented on Table 3-2. Sample containers for
chemical analysis will be certified by the generator/vendor as precleaned. Where possible,
pre-preserved sample containers will be utilized. Otherwise, preservatives will be prepared
using reagent-grade chemicals and added to the sample bottles by the laboratory prior to
shipment to the field site. Samples will be stored on ice to 4 degrees Celsius (°C) for
preservation.
3.3.2 Sample Custody and Shipping Requirements
3.3.2.J Sample Custody. Sample custody procedures include the use of field logbooks,
sample labels, custody seals, and chain-of-custody (COC) forms. Each person involved with
sample handling must be trained in COC procedures before the start of field operations. The
COC form must accompany the samples during shipment from the field to the laboratory.
An example ofan EPA Organic Traffic Report and COC record is presented in Figure 3-1.
A sample is under custody when the following conditions exist:
• It is in one's actual possession.
• It is in one's view, after being in one's physical possession.
• It was in one's physical possession and that person locked it up to prevent tampering.
• It is in a designated and identified secure area.
3.3.2.2 Sample Shipping and Chain of Custody. Proper sample handling, shipment, and
maintenance of a COC are key components of building the documentation and support for
data that can be used to make project decisions. It is important that all sample handling and
sample COC requirements are performed completely, accurately, and consistently.
A properly completed COC form will accompany samples to the laboratory. The unique
sample IDs and descriptive identification information ( date, time, etc.) will be listed on the
COC form. When transferring possession of samples, the individuals relinquishing and
receiving them will sign, date, and note the time on the record. The COC record documents
the transfer of sample custody from the sampler to the laboratory.
Samples will be properly packaged for shipment and dispatched to the laboratory for analysis
with a separate signed custody record enclosed in each sample box or cooler. Samples will
be shipped priority for overnight delivery. Hard plastic ice chests or coolers with similar
QuaJity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 3
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 4 of 13
durability will be used for shipping samples. The samples must be sealed in individual
plastic bags and cushioned within the sample box or cooler to prevent damage. Shipping
containers will be closed and secured with strapping tape and custody seals for shipment to
the laboratory. The preferred procedure includes use of custody seals attached to two sides
of the cooler. The custody seals are to be covered with clear plastic tape. An example of a
custody seal is presented as Figure 3-2. The cooler is to be strapped shut with strapping tape
in at least two locations.
Each shipping container will be clearly marked with a sticker containing the originator's
address. When samples are relinquished to a shipping company for transport, the tracking
number from the shipping bill or receipt will be recorded on the COC form.
Commercial carriers are not required to sign off on the custody form as long as the custody
forms are sealed inside the sample cooler and the custody seals remain intact. The COC
record identifying the contents will accompany all shipments. The original record will
accompany the shipment, and the field copies will be retained by the sampler to
accommodate sample tracking. The copy of the COC form will be used to answer questions
from the analytical laboratory regarding that day's sample shipment.
3.3.2.3 Laboratory Sample Custody. The laboratory's procedures for sample custody are
presented in the EPA CLP SOW Exhibit H for Multi-Media, Multi-concentration Organic
Analytical Service-OLM04.3 (EPA, 2003) and for Multi-Media, Multi-concentration
Inorganic Analytical Service-ILM05.3 (EPA, 2004d).
3.4 Analytical Method Requirements
Samples will be analyzed using EPA-approved methods or other recognized standard
methods. The principal sources for analytical methods are the Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Wastes (SW-846), and the Methods for Chemical Analysis of Waters and Wastes
(MCA WW). A summary of analytical methods, containers, preservatives, holding time
requirements, and the number of field and QC samples is presented on Table 3-2. The scope
of the analytical method and a summary of the analytical QA/QC are provided in this
document. The method QA/QC is provided in detail in the individual laboratory's QAPP.
All samples submitted to CLP laboratories will be analyzed on standard turnaround times
(TAT) as dictated by the CLP laboratory performing the analysis. CLP laboratories will be
responsible for analyzing aqueous samples for volatile organics (Modified EPA Method 624
-low/regular concentration) and Target Analyte List (T AL) metals (Modified EPA Method
200 Series). Information on these methods, including quantitation limits and QC
requirements, is presented in the EPA CLP SOW Exhibit H for Multi-Media, Multi-
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 3
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 5 ofll
concentration Organic Analytical Service-OLM04.3 (EPA, 2003) and for Multi-Media,
Multi-concentration Inorganic Analytical Service-ILM0S.3 (EPA, 2004d).
Analyses to be performed by the subcontract laboratory will be specified for expedited
analyses (next business day); the TAT will be noted on the COC for the expedited analyses.
The subcontract laboratory will be selected from a list of laboratories that have Basic
Ordering Agreement (BOA) contracts through Black & Veatch for use on EPA projects.
Quantitation limits and QC control limits will be provided with each data package from the
subcontract laboratory.
3.5 Quality Control Samples
3.5.1 Field and Laboratory Quality Control Samples
The CLP laboratory has a QC program to assess the reliability and validity of the analyses
being performed. The purpose and creation of QC samples is discussed in the FSP and
summarized below. Table 3-2 outlines frequency of the QC samples to be collected. This
information is also noted in the FSP. It is assumed that EPA spikes will not be required due
to the minimal number of samples. Field blanks and equipment rinsate blanks will not be
required on this project.
Trip blanks are used to detect VOC contamination during sample shipping and handling.
The laboratory will produce and provide trip blank samples they will be analyzing. Trip
blanks will consist of a certified clean sample vial filled with contaminant-free laboratory
water. The vials will contain no air bubbles. One trip blank sample will be sent for each day
VOC samples are shipped to the laboratory, in each cooler containing VOC samples.
Duplicate or "blind" field samples are collected to monitor the precision of the field sampling
and analytical process. The identity of the duplicate samples is not noted on the laboratory
COC form. The site supervisor will select 1 of every 10 sample locations for collection of
a field duplicate sample. The identity of the duplicate samples will be recorded in the
field-sampling logbook.
Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate samples are collected to measure the precision and
accuracy of the field sampling and laboratory analysis. One matrix spike and one matrix
spike duplicate sample pair will be collected for at least every 20 samples sent to the offsite
laboratory.
All data from the CLP laboratories will undergo data validation by EPA SESD. All data
received from the subcontract laboratory will undergo data validation by Black & Veatch
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
3.5.2 Corrective Action
Section: 3
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 6 of 13
Any project team member may initiate a field corrective action process. The corrective
action process consists ofidentifying a problem, acting to eliminate the problem, monitoring
the effectiveness of the corrective action, verifying that the problem has been eliminated, and
documenting the corrective action.
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 QNQC 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 QNQC objectives, the FTL will contact the EPA Work Assignment Manager
(WAM) and the Black & Veatch Project Manager to inform them of the situation, if
appropriate. Corrective action measures will be determined and implemented, with the
approval of the EPA W AM, 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 be taken, and the results of that
action will be recorded in the field logbook by the FTL.
In the event that one of the CLP laboratories is unable to meet QNQC objectives,
appropriate corrective action measures will be initiated by informing SESD who will inform
the laboratory's QA officer. The Black & Veatch Project Manager and the project team will
maintain daily contact with both the FTL and the SESD liason with the CLP laboratory, as
required. In the event that the subcontract laboratory is unable to meet QNQC objectives,
appropriate corrective action measures will be initiated by informing the Black & Veatch
Project Manager. In the event oflaboratory problems requiring additional field work ( e.g.
resampling, etc.), or field problems requiring laboratory action (mislabeling, etc.), the Black
& Veatch project team, in conjunction with the EPA W AM, will decide on the appropriate
corrective action.
3.6 Field Instrument Requirements
The analytical and health and safety screening instruments that may be used in the field
during the RD are listed below:
• OVA Flame Ionization Detector (FID)
• Oxygen/Lower Explosive Limit Meter (O/LEL)
• Temperature, specific conductance, and pH meter
• Turbidity meter
• Water level indicator
• Salinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature meter
• Redox meter
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
QuaJity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 3
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 7 of 13
The instruments will be calibrated according to manufacturers' specifications before and after
each field use, or as otherwise described below. 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 field screening equipment, procedures for
use, calibration procedures and frequency, and any applicable inspection and maintenance
procedures.
3.6.1 Foxboro OVA Model 128
The Foxboro/OVA 128 is a type ofFID. The OVA is a general screening instrument used
to detect the presence of most organic vapors. The OVA measures gases and vapors by
responding to an unknown sample correlated to a gas of known composition to which the
instrument is calibrated.
The Foxboro OVA Model 128 is calibrated in the following manner:
• Inspect the instrument for cracks, and check calibration.
• Connect the probe/readout assembly to the unit.
• Connect the probe extension to the probe assembly; check for tight seal.
• Place INSTR/BA TT switch to "test" position; verify that the battery is charged.
• Place INSTR/BATT switch to the "on" position; allow warm-up of five minutes.
• Turn the PUMP SWITCH on.
• Place CALIBRATE SWITCH to "x 10" mode.
• Connect gas regulator to a cylinder of 95 parts per million (ppm) methane-in-air
calibration gas and observe that the pressure is above 50 pounds per square inch guage
(psig).
• Attach tubing with tee to gas regulator and to end of close area sample.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 3
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 8 of 13
• Open gas regulator valve fully. Observe meter reading after approximately 1 to 2
minutes. If the reading is 95 ppm, close the regulator valve, disconnect the tubing, from
the gas regulator and close area sampler, and removal the regulator from the gas
cylinder. If the reading is not 95 ppm, adjust the potentiometer labeled R32 (located
within the instrument housing in the gray circuit block on back of the unit) to obtain 95
ppm.
• Close the H2 SUPPLY VAL VE, move PUMP SWITCH to off, and adjust CALIBRATE
ADJUST knob to 4 ppm. .
• Move the calibrate switch to x I 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 R31 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 04 ppm.
The Foxboro OVA Model 128 is operated in the following manner:
• Open hydrogen TANK VALVE (observe pressure of approximately 150 pounds per
square inch (psi) for each hour of intended operation).
• Open hydrogen SUPPLY VAL VE ( 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.
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. 369-RDRD-A4l 9
Ram Leather Care Site
3.6.2 Oxygen/LEL Meter (O/LEL)
Section: 3
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 9 of 13
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.
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-ho~e 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.
3.6.3 Water Temperature, pH, and Conductivity Meter
It is anticipated that a HyDAC/Cambridge Model 910 brand conductance, pH, and
temperature meter will be utilized during field activities. Each unit will be checked before
each day's activities for mechanical or electrical failures, weak batteries, fouled or cracked
electrodes, and dirty conductivity cells.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 3
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 10 of 13
3.6.3.1 Temperature. The HyDAC instrument will be field-checked and calibrated daily for
temperature against a glass thermometer which has been initially calibrated against a
National Bureau of Standards (NBS) certified thermometer or one traceable to NBS
certification. All temperature data will be recorded to the nearest 0.1°F. Cross-checks and
duplicate field analyses should agree within plus or minus I °F. The HyDAC instrument has
an accuracy rating of plus or minus 2°F.
To obtain a temperature reading, fill the instrument cup with aqueous sample. Depress the
reading button and record the stabilized temperature. If the temperature does not stabilize,
rinse the cup with the aqueous sample until the temperature stabilizes.
3. 6.3.2 Specific Conductance. Before use in the field, the following procedures will be used
to calibrate conductance on the HyDAC instrument:
• Remove the black plug on the bottom-right of the instrument revealing the adjustment
potentiometer screw. ·
• Add standard conductance solution (provided by manufacturer) to the cup, discard, and
refill. Repeat until the digital readout repeats the same reading twice in a row.
• Adjust the potentiometer until the digital display indicates the known value of
conductance. Turning the screw clockwise decreases the reading and counter-clockwise
increases the reading.
Specific conductance results will be expressed in microhms per centimeter (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.
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.
3.6.3.3 pH. While in the field, the HyDAC instrument will be calibrated for pH daily before
use with two buffers bracketing the expected sample pH. The following procedures will be
used to calibrate pH:
• Place the pH electrode in the 7.0 buffer solution; adjust the ZERO potentiometer on the
face of the instrument so that the digital display indicates 7.0.
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 3
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 11 of 13
• Rinse the electrode and place in the 4.0 or 10.0 buffer solution; adjust the SLOPE
potentiometer on the face of the instrument so that the digital display indicated the value
of the buffer chosen.
In case of an apparent pH misrepresentation, the electrode will be checked with pH 7.0 buffer
and re-calibrated to the closest reference buffer. Then the sample will be re-tested.
Duplicate tests should agree within 0.1 standard unit. Temperature resistant, combination
electrodes will be employed in conjunction with the meters. Litmus paper will be used only
for determining pH ranges, for determining approximate pH values, or for determining the
pH of concentrated hazardous waste samples which may damage the instrument. Readings
will be reported to the nearest 0.01 standard unit. The HyDAC instrument has an accuracy
rating of plus or minus 0.1 standard unit at 77° F.
To obtain a pH value, insert the electrode into the aqueous sample, depress the reading
button, and record the pH value.
3.7 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables
All supplies and consumables that may directly or indirectly affect the quality of the project
must be clearly identified and documented by field personnel. Typical examples of supplies
and consumables include sample bottles, calibration gases, tubing, materials for
decontamination activities, deionized water, and potable water. For each item identified,
field personnel shall document the inspection, acceptance testing requirements, or
specifications (i.e., concentration, purity, source of procurement) in addition to any
requirements for certificates of purity or analysis.
Acceptance criteria must be consistent with overall project technical and quality criteria. If
special requirements are needed for particular supplies or consumables, a clear agreement
should be established with the supplier (i.e., particular concentration of calibration gas).
Upon inspection, all supplies will be documented in a field log book by field personnel. This
logbook will contain the following information for each supply/consumable:
• Description of supply or consumable.
• Date received.
• Name/address of manufacturer or supplier.
• Attached documentation (yes/no and description) (i.e., calibration checks, concentration
verification for calibration gases).
• Expiration date (if applicable).
• Special precautions (if applicable).
• Meets acceptance criteria (yes/no).
• Comments (i.e., chain of custody seal on box of sample containers).
• Name ofresponsible field personnel.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
3.8 Non-Direct Measurements
Section: 3
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 12 of 13
This element addresses data obtained from existing data sources and not directly measured
or generated during this product. Data that will be used during the RD for the Ram Leather
Care site include existing site reports (i.e., IROD, remedial investigation [RI)) and existing
electronic drawing files. These data are deemed acceptable since existing site reports and
documents have undergone review by EPA. These data are intended to provide background
information and the basis for preliminary design drawings
3.9 Data Management
Data management is a process in which to track the data from its generation in the field
and/or laboratory to their final use and storage.
3.9.1 Data Recording
The field operating records to be used in this investigation will document field procedures
and any measurements performed during the sampling effort. Laboratory records that will
be generated by the CLP laboratories and SESD are discussed in the EPA CLP SOW Exhibit
H for Multi-Media, Multi-concentration Organic Analytical Service-OLM04.3 (EPA, 2003)
and for Multi-Media, Multi-concentration Inorganic Analytical Service-ILM05.3 (EPA,
2004d).
Laboratory records that will be generated by the subcontract laboratory will include all
information as discussed in the EPA CLP SOW Exhibit H for Multi-Media, Multi-
concentration Organic Analytical Service-OLM04.3 (EPA, 2003) and for Multi-Media,
Multi-concentration Inorganic Analytical Service-ILM05.3 (EPA, 2004d).
3.9.2 Data Validation
A data quality evaluation of the laboratory results and field data will be performed prior to
their use for conducting the evaluation of site contaminant distributions and magnitudes. All
data from the CLP laboratories will undergo data validation by EPA SESD. All data
received from the subcontract laboratory will undergo data validation by the Black & Veatch
Project Chemist. Data quality evaluations will be performed in accordance with the
procedures outlined in the EPA CLP National Functional Guidelines for Low Concentration
Organic Data Review (EPA-540-R-00-006, dated June 2001) (EPA, 2001c), National
Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (EP A-540/R-99-008, October 1999) (EPA,
1999), and the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review (EPA 540-R-04-
004, October 2004) (EPA, 2004e).
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.
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 3
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 13 of 13
Laboratory data will typically be reviewed for data qualifier flags and anomalous data values.
This information will be compared to results of duplicate and blank samples, and to
information on field conditions at the time of sample collection to qualify the sample
analytical results. The Black & Veatch Project Engineer is responsible for verifying and
validating field data log books and chain-of-custody forms.
3.9.3 Data Transmittal
Data will be transmitted from the CLP laboratory to SESD to Black & Veatch via paper-copy
data packages and electronic files, followed by data reduction, analysis, and report
preparation.
Data will be transmitted from the subcontract laboratory directly to Black & Veatch via
paper-copy data packages and electronic files, followed by data validation, data reduction,
analysis, and report preparation.
3.9.4 Data Transformation and Reduction
Based on the minimal amount of data to be generated, data received from the laboratory on
electronic files will be not be used to create a database for the project.
3.9.5 Data Analysis
Aqueous data will be compared to the applicable state and federal regulations as presented
in Section 2.4.3 of this QAPP.
3.9.6 Data Tracking
Data tracking will be performed by the Black & Veatch Project Manager. Based on the
minimal amount of data to be generated, data received from the laboratory on electronic files
will be not be used to create a database for the project.
3.9. 7 Data Storage and Retrieval
Field data (logbooks, well development forms, groundwater sample collection forms) and
laboratory data packages will be stored in hard copy in the Black & Veatch file storage room,
as part of the project file. In addition, laboratory data will be stored in a database format.
This information will be retained in the project file for at least three years following project
completion and closeout.
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
4.0 Assessment and Oversight
4.1 Assessments and Response Actions
Section: 4
Revision No: 0
March 24, 2005
Page I of I
Assessment and oversight activities are performed to determine whether the QC measures
identified in the FSP and this QAPP are implemented and documented as required. The
Black & Veatch Project Manager will perform assessment and oversight to check
conformance to plans during reviews of project documents and design reports. Checks may
address the following questions:
• Is the FSP and QAPP being adhered to?
• Is nonconformance being identified, resolved, and documented with a process or system?
• Are identified deficiencies being corrected?
• Are sampling operations being performed as stated in the FSP?
• Are the sample labels being filled out completely and accurately?
• Are the COC records complete and accurate?
• Are the field notebooks being filled out completely and accurately?
• Are the documents generated during assessment activities being stored as described in
the QAPP?
The task manager can determine the need for a conformance check or assign it to another
team member. Assessment activities may include surveillance, inspection, peer review,
management system review, performance evaluation, and data quality assessment. The
results of the assessment and oversight activities will be reported to the site manager who
will be responsible for ensuring that the corrective action response is completed, verified, and
documented.
4.2 Reports to Management
Status reports will be prepared monthly by the Black & Veatch Project Manager and will, at
a minimum, discuss current activities, problems encountered and their resolution, and
planned work, and will be submitted to the EPA W AM, EPA Project Officer, and EPA
Contracting Officer.
The analytical laboratory will provide sample acknowledgment letters and sample status
updates by phone or electronic mail. These requirements will be specified in the laboratory
sow.
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
5.0 Data Validation and Usability
5.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements
Section: 5
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 1 of2
The purpose of this section is to state the criteria for deciding the degree to which each data
set has met its quality specifications. All data from the CLP laboratories will undergo data
validation by EPA SESD. All data received from the subcontract laboratory will undergo
data validation by the Black & Veatch Project Chemist. Data quality evaluations will be
performed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the EPA CLP National Functional
Guidelines for Low Concentration Organic Data Review (EPA-540-R-00-006, dated June
2001) (EPA, 2001 c ), National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (EP A-540/R-
99-008, October 1999) (EPA, 1999), and the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic
Data Review (EPA 540-R-04-004, October 2004) (EPA, 2004e).
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, and will be the responsibility of the Black &
Veatch Project Engineer and Project Chemist. The process of data verification will include
the following:
• Sampling Design -Each sample shall be checked for conformity to the specifications,
including type and location.
• Sample Collection Procedures -Verify that sample collection procedures were
performed in accordance with procedures presented in this QAPP. If it is determined
that a deviation occurred in the collection procedure, the procedure shall, at a minimum,
conform to the EISOPQAM (EPA, 2001 b ); 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.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A4 l 9
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 5
Revision No.: O
March 24, 2005
Page 2 of2
• Calibration -Verify that the calibration of field instruments were performed m
accordance with the manufacturer specifications presented in this QAPP.
5.2 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 for this investigation will be conducted in accordance with the procedures
outlined in the Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods for Data Analysis
(EPA QAIG-9), dated July 2000 (EPA, 2000b). 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.
• Draw Conclusions from the Data -This step involves performing the calculations
required for the statistical test and documenting the interferences drawn as a result of
these calculations.
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. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
6.0 References
Section: 6
Revision No.: 0
March 24, 2005
Page 1 of2
Black & Veatch, 2004. Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp., Draft Remedial Design Work
Plan/or the Ram Leather Care Site, December 6, 2004.
Black & Veatch, 2005. Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp., Draft Sampling and Analysis
Plan, Volume I: Field Sampling Plan/or the Ram Leather Care Site, March 24, 2005.
EPA, 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract Laboratory Program, National
Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (EPA-540/R-99-008), October 1999.
EPA, 2000a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for the Data Quality
Objectives Process (QA/G-4), EPA/600/R-96/055, August 2000.
EPA, 2000b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for Data Quality
Assessment: Practical Methods for Data Analysis (QAIG-9), EP A/600/R-96/084, July 2000.
EPA, 2001a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Requirements for Quality
Assurance Project Plans (QAIR-5), EPA/240/8-01/003, March 2001.
EPA, 2001 b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Investigations
Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual (EISOPQAM), November
2001.
EPA, 2001c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract Laboratory Program,
National Functional Guidelines for Low Concentration Organic Data Review (EPA-540-R-
00-006), June 2001.
EPA, 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for Quality Assurance
Project Plans (QAIG-5), EP A/240/R-02/009, December 2002.
. EPA, 2003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract Laboratory Program Statement
of Work for Multi-Media, Multiconcentration Organics Analysis, OLM04.3, August 2003.
EPA, 2004a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Statement of Work for the
Remedial Design, Ram Leather Care Site, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, September
27, 2004.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 369-RDRD-A419
Ram Leather Care Site
Section: 8
Revision No.: 0
January 25, 2005
Page 2 of I
EPA, 2004b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem
Support Division, Analytical Support Branch Laboratory Operations and Quality Assurance
Manual, November 2004.
EPA, 2004c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Interim Record of Decision
for the Ram Leather Care Site, September 2004.
EPA, 2004c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract Laboratory Program
Statement ofWork for Multi-Media, Multiconcentration Inorganic Analysis-ILM05.3, March
2004.
EPA, 2004e. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract Laboratory Program,
National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review (EPA 540-R-04-004), October
2004.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
g
I
u
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-1
Project Schedule
Remedial Design -Ram Leather Care Site
Project Deliverable Projected Date EPA Review Projected Date
or Project Event of Submission Period to Receive EPA
or Comments
Occurrence
Task I -Project P/a1111ing and Support
Monthly Report/Invoice 20" of each NA NA
month
Scoping Meeting Minutes I 1/9/04 IO days 11/19/04
Draft RD Work Plan 12/6/04 21 days 12/27/04
(receipt of W AF
on 2124105)
Site Visit 12113/04 NA NA
Site Visit Report 12/23104 7 days 12130104
Cover Letter and Revised 3/11/05 NA NA
Schedule (in lieu ofFinal
RD Work Plan)
Draft Site-Specific HASP 1219/04 21 days 12130104
and Task HASP for Site
Visit
Final HASP (Site-Specific) 3125105 NA NA
Draft Site-Specific Plans 3125105 21 days 4115105
(includes FSP, QAPP, SMP)
and Task HASP for Field
Activities
Final Site-Specific Plans 5/2105 NA NA
(includes FSP, QAPP, SMP)
Task 3-Data Acquisitio11
Premobilization Activities 5/3105 -6113/05 NA NA
for Aquifer Test (30-day period
after submittal
ofFinal Site-
Specific Plans)
Aquifer Test 6114105 -NA NA
6/20105
Task 4 -Sample Analysis
Sample Analysis -6114105 -NA NA
Subcontract Laboratory 6116105
Number of
Copies
3
Electronic
mail
3
NA
3
3
3
3
3
3
NA
NA
NA
Receipt of Data from 6/29/05
Subcontract Laboratory
Sample Analysis -CLP 6/21/05 -
Laboratory and SESD 7/25/05
NA NA
NA NA
NA
NA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
u
u
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Deliverable Projected Date EPA Review
or Project Event of Submission Period
or
Occurrence
Task 5 -Analytical Support and Data Validation
Perform Data Validation 7/4/05 NA
from Subcontract Laboratory
Task 6 -Data Evaluation
Data Evaluation Report 8/15/05 15 days
Task 8 -Preliminary Plans -Soil Interim Remedy
Preliminary Design for Soil 5/13/05 30 days
Interim Remedy
(to include: Basis of Design
Report, Design Criteria
Report,
Project Delivery Strategy
and Scheduling, Preliminary
RA Schedule and Cost
Estimate)
Response to Design Review 7/12/05 15 days
Comments
Task 8 -Preliminary Plans -Groundwater Interim Remedy
Preliminary Design for 8/31/05 30 days
Groundwater Interim
Remedy
(to include: Basis of Design
Report, Design Criteria
Report, Project Delivery
Strategy and Scheduling,
Preliminary RA Schedule
and Cost Estimate)
Response to Design Review 10/17/05 15 days
Comments
Task 9 -Equipment, Services, Utilities
List of Long-Lead 8/17/05 IO days
Procurement Items (Soil)
List of Long-Lead 11/22/05 10 days
Procurement Items
(Groundwater)
• Projected Date Number of
to Receive EPA Copies
Comments
NA NA
8/30/05 3
6/24/05 3
7/27/05 3
9/29/05 3
11/1/05 3
8/30/05 3
12/1/05 3
Project Deliverable Projected Date EPA Review Projected Date
or Project Event of Submission Period to Receive EPA
or Comments
Occurrence
Task 11 -Pre-Final and Final Design -Soil Interim Remedy
Pre-Final Design for Soil 8/27/05 21 days 9/15/05
Interim Remedy
Pre-Final Response to 9/29/05 15 days I0/14/05
Comments
Draft Subcontract Bid 10/5/05 21 days 10/26/05
Documents
Final Subcontract Bid l l /9/05 NA NA
Documents
Task 11 -Pre-Final and Final Design -Groundwater Interim Remedy
Pre-Final Design for 11/30/05 21 days 12/21/05
Groundwater Interim
Remedy
Pre-Final Response to 1/4/06 15 days 1/19/06
Comments
Draft Subcontractor Bid 1/10/06 21 days 1/31/06
Documents
Final Subcontractor Bid 2/4/06 NA NA
Documents
Task I 2 -Post Remedial Design Support -Soil Interim Remedy
Issue Invitation to Bid 11/14/05 NA NA
Receive and Evaluate Bids 12/13/05 NA NA
Task 12 -Post Remedial Design Support -Groundwater Interim Remedy
Issue Invitation to Bid 2/17/06 NA NA
Receive and Evaluate Bids 3/22/06 NA NA
Notes:
NA -Not applicable.
Number of
Copies
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
n
I
n
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-1
Project Schedule
Remedial Design -Ram Leather Care Site
Project Deliverable Projected Date EPA Review Projected Date
or Project Event of Submission Period to Receive EPA
or Comments
Occurrence
Task I -Project Planning and Support
Monthly Report/Invoice 20" of each NA NA
month
Scoping Meeting Minutes 11/9/04 10 days 11/19/04
Draft RD Work Plan 12/6/04 21 days 12/27/04
(receipt of W AF
on 2/24/05)
Site Visit 12/13/04 NA NA
Site Visit Report 12/23/04 7 days 12/30/04
Cover Letter and Revised 3/11/05 NA NA
Schedule (in lieu of Final
RD Work Plan)
Draft Site-Specific HASP 12/9/04 21 days 12/30/04
and Task HASP for Site
Visit
Final HASP (Site-Specific) 3/25/05 NA NA
Draft Site-Specific Plans 3/25/05 21 days 4/15/05
(includes FSP, QAPP, SMP)
and Task HASP for Field
Activities
Final Site-Specific Plans 512/05 NA NA
(includes FSP, QAPP, SMP)
Task 3-Data Acquisition
Premobilization Activities 5/3/05 -6/13/05 NA NA
for Aquifer Test (30-day period
after submittal
of Final Site-
Specific Plans)
Aquifer Test 6/14/05 -NA NA
6/20/05
Number of
Copies
3
Electronic
mail
3
NA
3
3
3
3
3
3
NA
NA
Project Deliverable Projected Date EPA Review
or Project Event of Submission Period
or
Occurrence
Task 4 -Sample Analysis
Sample Analysis -6/14/05 -NA
Subcontract Laboratory 6/16/05
Receipt of Data from 6129/05 NA
Subcontract Laboratory
Sample Analysis -CLP 6/21/05 -NA
Laboratory and SESD 7/25/05
Task 5 -Analytical Support and Data Validation
Perform Data Validation 7/4/05 NA
from Subcontract Laboratory
Task 6 -Data Evaluation
Data Evaluation Report 8/15/05 I 5 days
Task 8 -Preliminary Plans -Soil Interim Remedy
Preliminary Design for Soil 5/13/05 30 days
Interim Remedy
(to include: Basis of Design
Report, Design Criteria
Report,
Project Delivery Strategy
and Scheduling, Preliminary
RA Schedule and Cost
Estimate)
Response to Design Review 7/12/05 15 days
Comments
Task 8 -Preliminary Plans -Groundwater Interim Remedy
Preliminary Design for 8/31/05 30 days
Groundwater Interim
Remedy
(to include: Basis of Design
Report, Design Criteria
Report, Project Delivery
Strategy and Scheduling,
Preliminary RA Schedule
and Cost Estimate)
Response to Design Review 10/17/05 15 days
Comments
Projected Date
to Receive EPA
Comments
NA
NA
NA
NA
8/30/05
6/24/05
7/27/05
9/29/05
11/1/05
Number of
Copies
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
3
'
3
3
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
n
n
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Deliverable Projected Date EPA Review Projected Date
or Project Event of Submission Period . to Receive EPA
or Comments
Occurrence
Task 9 -Equipment, Services, Utilities
List of Long-Lead 8/17/05 JO days 8/30/05
Procurement Items (Soil)
List of Long-Lead 11/22/05 10 days 12/1/05
Procurement Items
(Groundwater)
Task 11 . Pre-Final and Final Design -Soil Interim Remedy
Pre-Final Design for Soil 8/27/05 21 days 9/15/05
Interim Remedy
Pre-Final Response to 9/29/05 15 days I0/14/05
Comments
Draft Subcontract Bid 10/5/05 21 days 10/26/05
Documents
Final Subcontract Bid 11/9/05 NA NA
Documents
Task I I -Pre-Final and Final Design• Groundwater Interim Remedy
Pre-Final Design for 11/30/05 21 days 12/21/05
Groundwater Interim
Remedy
Pre-Final Response to 1/4/06 15 days 1/19/06
Comments
Draft Subcontractor Bid 1/10/06 21 days 1/31/06
Documents
Final Subcontractor Bid 2/4/06 NA NA
Documents
Task 12 • Post Remedial Design Support -Soil Interim Remedy
Issue Invitation to Bid 11/14/05 NA NA
Receive and Evaluate Bids 12/13/05 NA NA
Task 12 -Post Remedial Design Support • Groundwater Interim Remedy
Issue Invitation to Bid 2/17/06 NA NA
Receive and Evaluate Bids 3/22/06 NA NA
Notes:
NA • Not applicable.
Number of
Copies
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
- -- - -- -- ---l!!!!!!!!I 1!!!!11 =a I!!!!
Table 3-1
Analytical .\lethod and Sample Summary
Ram Leather Care Site RD
Charlotte, MeckJenben, County, i"'orth Carolina
Matrix/Parameter Analytical Method Container Presen-ati\le Holding Time Field Quali tY Control Samoles Total No. of
Type Samples Trip Pres. Field Matrii Matri1 Spike Total Containers
Blanks Blank Duplicates Spike Spike Samples QC
(I) (1)(2) (I) (3) Duplicate (4) Samples
Gr'o'uiidwater;n?l!P.'ili: ::• . .. :v" ,:,
Modified EPA Method 624 3x40mL,
Volatile Organics (low/regular concenu-arion) \ia\ HCI, Ice to 4oC 14 days 2 I 0 I I I 0 I 18
Modified EPA Method 200 I I-D:03 to pH<!, I I I Metals Series I x I L, P lee to 4oC 6 months 2 0 0 I I I 0 0 5
'G'round\\ater,(SES6":or,SUbcontract1l!aboratorfJIStandard!Turnaround ··,, ' _i, .:1:L .. •:i-r " 'l""'' ···--' ' "
Total dissolved solids (TDS) MCA WW Method 160.1 I X 1 L, P Ice to 4oC 7 days 2 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 2
I xSOOmL. p I H2504 to pH<2, I Total Organic Carbon ([OC) MCA WW Method415.l Ice to 4oC 28 davs 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total suspended solids (TSS) MCA WW Method 160.2 I;.: 1 L, P Ice to 4oC 7 days 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
) MCA WW Method 405.1 I;.: 1 L,P lee to 4oC 48 hours 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
:-;'itrate MCA WW Method 353.2 1 dOOmL, P lee to 4oC 48 hours 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Chloride MCA WW Method 325.3 I dOOmL, P :-;'one 28 days 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Sulfate MCA WW Method375.4 lx500mL.P Ice to 4oC 28 days 2 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 2
Immediate filter.
Phosphate (ortho) MCA WW Method 300.0 lx500mL,P Ice to 4oC 48 hours 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
H:-:O3 to pH<2,
Hardness MCA WW Method 130.1 I;.: 1 L, P Ice to 4oC 6 months 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Tota\ Alkalinity MCA WW Method 310.2 l;.:500mL,P Ice to 4oC 14 days 2 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 2
'Gro'uiidv.--ater:1SUbcOlltract!l!alxir--aton: -Ex itedtTurnaround . ..
Volatile Organics SW-846 Method 82608 \ia\ HCI. Ice to 4oC 14 days 3 I 0 I I I I 0 5 21
SW-846 Methods 60108 and HNO3 to pH<2, I Metals 7470A I;.: I L,P Ice to 4oC 6 months 3 0 0 I I I 0 5 8
Total dissolved solids ([DS) MCA WW Method 160.l J;.:IL,P Ice to 4oC 7 days 3 0 0 I I I I 0 5 8
H2S04 10 pH<2, I I Total Organic Carbon ([OC} MCA WW Method 415.1 !x500mL.P Jee to 4oC 28 days 3 0 0 I I I 0 5 8
Total suspended solids ([SS) MCA WW Method 160.2 I;.: I L,P Ice to 4oC 7 days 3 0 0 I I I I I 0 5 8
) MCA WW Method 405.1 I;.: l L,P Ice to 4oC 48 hours 3 0 0 I I I I 0 5 8
Nitrate MCA WW Method 353.2 I dOOmL. P Ice to 4oC 48 hours 3 0 0 I I I I 0 5 8
Chloride MCA WW Method 325.3 I dOOmL, P None 28 days 3 0 0 I I I I 0 5 8
Sulfate MCA WW Method 375.4 I x500mL,P Ice to 4oC 28 days 3 0 0 I I I 0 5 8
Immediate filter,
Phosphate (ortho) MCA WW Method 300.0 I x500mL,P Iceto4oC 48 hours 3 0 0 I I I 0 5 8
I I HNO3 to pH<2,
Hardnes5 MCA WW Method 130.1 Ix 1 L,P Ice to 4oC 6 months 3 0 0 I I I 0 5 8
Total Alkalinity MCA WW Method 310.2 lx500mL,P Ice to 4oC 14 days 3 0 0 I I I 0 5 8
"""' I Sample containers, preservatives, and holding times and other infonnation were obtained from
EPA SES~Ys ~ Anal)ti~al Support Branch, Laboratory Operations and Quality Assurance Manual" (EPA, 2004a).
2 Plastic;
3 One trip blank will be included with each r.hipment of samples submined for volatile organic analysis.
4 It is assumed that spiked samples will not be obtained from EPA Region 4 SESD.
MCAWW Methods for Chemical Analysis of Waters and Wastes
TBD To be detennined.
--- - -- - - --
Table 3-2
Sample Checklist
Ram Leather Care Site RD
Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina
~ ==
Sample Code Sample Analytical Designated
Type Methods Laboratory
;;,_,I 't{<J;,;,PJi,n'iltvAJe~ 'Extraction 'Samp]in
DW0l !-AT0I Field V, MET CLP
Subcontract Lab or SESD
DW0l 1-AT02
DW0I I-AT03
DW0J I-AT99
EF-12HR
EF-24HR
Field WQ
Field V,MET CLP
MS V,MET CLP
MSD V,MET CLP
Field WQ Subcontract Lab or SESD
Field V,MET, WQ Subcontract Lab (Expedited)
Duplicate of AT03 V, MET, WQ Subcontract Lab (Expedited)
'E _uent J!ll!Pli!! -;-,,"''.)'-;f--~ ----= ....,...-_J -----------
Field V, Met, WQ Subcontract Lab (Expedited)
Field V,Met, WQ Subcontract Lab (Expedited)
MS V,Met, WQ Subcontract Lab (Expedited)
MSD V,Met, WQ Subcontract Lab (Expedited)
= V Volatile organics
MET Metals
WQ Water quality parameters, including TDS, TSS, TOC, BOD,
nitrate, chloride, sulfate, phosphate, hardness, and alkalinity.
;.;a G!iell lii!!i!!I l!!i!I
I
I
I
I
I
D Figures
D
E
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
D
I
D
u
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
===
f+++++Hf-
COUNTY LINE
PARCEL BOUNDARY
RAILROAD
S01.NCa: DES Resource Groups, Inc., survoy. Augus! 15, 2002
Mecklenbwg Co. Land Reoords ON., aenal phobgraph, Juoo2001.
Adaptod Imm: llfieclclooburg Co. Land Records Div., topographic attnbutes.
Octlber2002.
Figure 1-1
Site Vicinity Map
Ram Leather Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
I
I
I
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
DRINKING WATER WELL
MONITORING WELL
PRESUMED
DUMPSTER
LOCATION
~ '':/'
\\,
\ \ ✓SEPTIC \ DRAIN FIELD
1 HEAD BOX
0 MW-5
\
\
LEGEND
100 50 0
Site Layout Map
Ram Leather Care Site
MM MM M
1" = 100'
Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina
100
Figure
1-2
Figure 2-1
Project Team Organization Chart
Ram Leather Care RD
Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina
U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc:i:,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc:i:, Region 4
Region 4 Athens, Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia Gary Bennett -QA Manager
Beverly Stepter -Work Assignment Manager
Robert Stem -Project Officer North Carolina Department of Environment Charles Hayes -Contracting Officer )I••········ and Natural Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nile Testerman -Project Manager, Superfund
Section
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
Alpharetta, Georgia Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
Nancy Geller, P.E. -Project Manager •••••••••• Overland Park, Kansas
Courtney Collins, Project Engineer Virgin Paulson, P.E. -QA Manager
Gina Kelly, Project Chemist
ENERGY WATER INFORMATION GOVERNMENT
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 2-3
Groundwater Sample Collection Record
Ram Leather Care RD
Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina
Well ID: __________ _
Sample ID: __________ _
Groundwater Same le Collection Record
Project Name:
Project Number:
Location:
Weather:
I) Water Level Data (from TOC) (A)
Total Well Depth (B)
2)
3)
Water Column Length (C=B-A)
Water Volume in Well (D=0./7*C)
Casing Diameter
Well Purge Data
Purge Method
Total Purge Volume (3*D)
Field Testing Equipment
Parameters
Time
Volume Removed (gal)
Temperature ( )
pH
Conductivity ( )
Turbidity (NTU)
Color
OVA (ppm)
Redox Potential (mV)
DO (mg/L)
Salinity(%)
Other
Other
Filtered?
Sample Turbidity (NTU)
Sample Time
Yes/No
Dateffime Start:
Dateffime Finish:
Analysis:
Samplers:
ft bis
--

-
-

-
-

-
-

-

-
Figure 3-1
Chain-of-Custody Form
Ram Leather Care RD
l!!!!!!!I I!!!!!!!!
Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina
&EPA USEPA Contract Laboratory Program
Organic Traffic Report&. Olain of Custody Record
DnShtpped: 6/16/2005 Chain of Custody Record .......
c.rrlerNam•: FedE,
Slw,ttun:
R.Unquls.had By (Data/ TlnM) R~By ,.,roan: 121223233434 1 Shipped to: M Sdentlllc
1544 S11\Wust Road 2
Sulle 505
The Woodlands TX TT380 3
[phone]
'
ORGANIC """"' ''"~ ANALYSIS/ TAGNoJ mTION
SAMPLE No. """"' ,.,,., ~ROUND PRE3ERVATIYEI &om.t I.OCATICW
D2YZ2 Ground Water JO VOA(21) (HCL)(3) DW011-AT01
D2YZ3 Ground Water/ MIO VOA(21) (HCL)(9) OW011-AT02
Nancy Geller
02YZ4 Field QC/ MIO
N,nq ... M
VOA(21) (HCL)(3) TBW-01
Slllpmtn!lorC.1 MffiP1911) lo be UMd tor laboratory QC; I Addltlon&I ~ Slgnature(1): ,,_.,,
D2YZJ --·
Case No: 99999
DAS No: L SOGNo:
For Lab Use Only
(Daul Time) Lab Contract No: '
Unit Prlc9:
T,_,.rTo:
Lab Contract No:
UnttP~:
SAIIPLE 00l1.fCT INORGANIC FORL.A8USEOtt.Y
Sampll CondllanOI R,calpt DAlE/IIME SAMPLE No.
M02'YZ2
S: 6/15/2005 18:00 M02Y23
S: 6115/2005 16:20
ltooi.T~l'ltlll9 Chain of Custody Sul Number:
Up0nRacllpt:
A~lsKay: Cone.ntnillon: L" Low, M" Low/Ml!dlu'n, H" High T~i.11:' Compos!la • C, Grab = G C11&1ody SNJ Intact? -1 Shlpm,ant Iced? _
VOA: CLP TCL Volatiles -.
TR Number: 4-394627301-032105-0002 LABORATORY COPY
~~ ro:-i= Ma:Sg~ir«)'m~.T~~=lh~~= 1CS~soori&~,~~ Center Or., Chantilly, VA 20151-3819; Phone [phone]; Fai,; F2VS.1. 0'7 Paa• 1 of 1
7n'\IA1A.....il.M?
111111
- --
Figure 3-1
Chain-of-Custody Form
Ram Leather Care RD
Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina
oEPA USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Case No: 99999
Inorganic Traffic Report & Chain of Custody Record DAS No: L SDG No;
O_Shlpp9d, 8/1612005 Chain of CUstody Record ...... , For Lab Use Only
C......Name; FedEx S11111tur-=
R111nqutsh9d By (Ostelllme) RIIC8Mld By (Dall I Tl..,.) l.-b Contract No: Alrblll: 454556566767
Shipped to: BoMer Analytical T estlng 1 Unit Prfc9;
Co. 2 2703 Oak Grove Road Tni..,.,.To:
Hattiesburg MS 39402 3 [phone] Lab Contract No:
4 UnltPrle■:
INORGANIC ''"""' oc,oa ,..._,.., TAG Nol """" IA■PLE allLECT ORGANIC FORLABUSEON.V
SAMPLE No. ........ ,,,., ""'''"""" PRESERVA TM:/ Bolls1 COCATION """"'' SAMPLE No. S.mpll Condlllon On Rewlpt
MD2VZ2 Ground Waler JG TM(21) (HNO3)(1J OW011-AT01 02Y22
MD2Y23 Ground Waler/ MIG TM(21) {HN03)(2) 0W011~T02 S: 6115/2005 18:00 D2Y23 Nancy Geller
ShlpnllltfarC.1 Nmplll{I) tD be ,..ci for labomol'y QC:
I
AddltlDnlil Sample, Slgnatu,9(1): I cooi.r r~rmir. Chain of C.,.tody s.al Number. ,_.,, llp)n R11:tlpt; MD2Y23
Analyals K"Y: "°""""""' L•Low,M,.l.ow/Mediim,H•Hlgh
_,
~•C,Grn•G C,atody s..l lntai:l:7 - I Shipment k:MI? -
TM= CLP TAI.. Total Metals
TR Number. 4-394627301-032105-0001 LABORATORY COPY
PR provtdn praltmlN,y tnutl,i. Requnta for prefbnlnary rn.ulta wUI incr'HH ~ ,;osts.
Send Copy to: Sample Management Office, Attn: Heather Bauer, CSC, 15000 Conference Center Or., Chantilly, VA 20151-3819; Phone [phone]; Fax F2"5.1.IMJ' Page 1 of 1 7n'\/ll11l..4M?
---liil'II -- - -- --
- - - - --- - - --- -11!!!!1!!1 m!!I l!!!!I l!!!!!I a!! -
Figure 3-2
Custody Seal
Ram Leather Care RD
Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina
Official Sample Seal SAMPLE NO.
ill ~p½,~KP~J~ I~~ SIGNATURE
PRINT NAME ANO TITLE
l°"TE ~
~ 0 iii
~ LU ~ 1§
I
I
E
I
m
I Appendix A
QAPP Review Checklist
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
-- - - - - - - - - --1!!!!!11 !!!!I I!!!!! I!!!!! !!!!I ~ ~
Appendix A -QAPP Review Checklist
This checklist presented in Appendix C of the EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QAIG-5), dated December
2002 (EPA, 2002) was used in preparation of this QAPP to ensure that the. required QAPP elements were included. The
corresponding section, figure, or table number has been provided for ease in reference.
PROJECT TITLE: Ram Leather Care Site Remedial Design
Preparer: Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. Date Submitted for Review:
Reviewer: _______________ _ Date of Review:
Acceptable Page/
Element (Yes/No) Section Comments
A1. Title and Approval Sheet
Contains project title Cover page
Indicates revision number, if applicable Cover page,
headers
Indicates organization's name Cover page,
Section 1.0
Date signature of organization's project manager --Signatures will be obtained for the Final
QAPP
Dated signature of organization's QA manager present Signatures will be obtained for the Final
QAPP
Other signatures, as needed Signatures will be obtained for the Final
QAPP
A2. Table of Contents
Lists QA Project Plan information sections Table of
Contents
Document control information indicated Revision#
in headers
Acceptable Page/
Element (Yes/No) Section Comments
A3. Distribution List
Includes all individuals who are to receive a copy of the Distribution
QA Project Plan and identifies their organization List
A4. ProjectfTask Organization
Identifies key individuals involved in all major aspects Section 2.1
of the project, including contractors
Discusses their responsibilities Section 2.1
Project QA Manager position indicates independence Section 2.1,
from unit generating data Figure 2-1
Identifies individual responsible for maintaining the Section 2.1
official, approved QA Project Plan
Organizational chart shows lines of authority and Figure 2-1
reporting responsibilities
AS. Problem Definition/Background
States decision(s) to be made, actions to be taken, or Section 2.2
outcomes expected from the information to be obtained
Clearly explains the reason (site background or Section 2.2
historical context) for initiating this project
Identifies regulatory information, applicable criteria, Section 2.2
action limits, etc. necessary to the project
A6. ProjectfTask Description
Summarizes work to be performed, for example, Section 2.3
measurements to be made, data files to be obtained,
etc., that support the project's goals
Provides work schedule indicating critical project Table 2-1
points, e.g., start and completion dates for activities
such as sampling, analysis, data or file reviews, and
assessments
----
1111!!!1 l!!l!!!!!!!!I -l!!l!!!!!!!!I l!!l!!!!!!!!I !!!!!!!I l!!l!!!!!!!!I I!!!!! !!!!!!I I!!!!! I!!!!! I!!!!!! . I!!!!!!! I!!!! I!!!!! !!!!I
Acceptable Page/
Element (Yes/No) Section Comments
Details geographical locations to be studied, including Figures 1-2
maps where possible and 2-2
Discusses resource and time constraints, if applicable NA Five-year interim remedy.
A7. Quality Objectives and Criteria
Identifies performance/measurement criteria for all Sections
information to be collected and acceptance criteria for 2.4.1
information obtained from previous studies, including through
project action limits and laboratory detection limits and 2.4.7
range of anticipated concentrations of each parameter
of interest
Discusses precision Section
2.4.8
Addresses bias Section
2.4.8
Discusses representativeness Section
2.4.8
Identifies the need for completeness Section
2.4.8
Describes the need for comparability Section
2.4.8
Discusses desired method sensitivity Section
2.4.8
Acceptable Page/
Element (Yes/No) Section Comments
AB. Special Training/Certifications
Identifies any project personnel specialized training or Section 2.5
certifications
Discusses how this training will be provided Section 2.5
Indicates personnel responsible for assuring these are Section 2.5
satisfied
Identifies where this information is documented Section 2.5
A.9 Documentation and Records
Identifies report format and summarizes all data report Section 2.6
package information
Lists all other project documents, records, and Sections
electronic files that will be produced 2.6.1 and
2.6.2
Identifies where project information should be kept and Section
for how long 2.6.3
Discusses back up plans for records stored Section
electronically 2.6.3
States how individuals identified in A3 will receive the NA QAPP will be submitted to persons listed on
most current copy of the approved QA Project Plan, the Distribution List via courier delivery, in-
identifying the individual responsible for this office delivery, or Federal Express
B1. Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design)
Describes and justifies design strategy, indicating size Section 3.1
of the area, volume, or time period to be represented
by a sample
Details the type and total number of sample Section 3.1
types/matrix or test runs/trials expected and needed
Indicates where samples should be taken, how sites Section 3.1
will be identified/located
- - -- ------ - --- --- --
Acceptable Page/
Element (Yes/No) Section Comments
Discusses what to do if sampling sites become NA
inaccessible
Identifies project activity schedules such as each Table 2-1
sampling event, times samples should be sent to the
laboratory, etc.
Specifies what information is critical and what is for Section 3.1
informational purposes only
Identifies sources of variability and how this variability NA
should be reconciled with project information
B2. Sampling Methods
Identifies all sampling SOPs by number, date, and Section 3.2
regulatory citation, indicating sampling options or
modifications to be taken
Indicates how each sample/matrix type should be Section 3.2
collected
If in situ monitoring, indicates how instruments should NA In-situ pumps and data logger will only be
be deployed and operated to avoid contamination and used at one location.
ensure maintenance of proper data
If continuous monitoring, indicates averaging time and NA
how instruments should store and maintain raw data, or
data averages
Indicates how samples are to be homogenized, Table 3-1
composited, split, or filtered, if needed
Indicates what sample containers and sample volumes Table 3-1
should be used
Identifies whether samples should be preserved and Table 3-1
indicates methods that should be followed
Indicates whether sampling equipment and samplers FSP Section
should be cleaned and/or decontaminated, identifying 3.2
how this should be done and by-products disposed of
Acceptable Page/
Element (Yes/No) Section Comments
Identifies any equipment and support facilities needed Section
3.2.1
Addresses actions to be taken when problems occur, Sections
identifying individual(s) responsible for corrective action 2.1, 3.5.2
and how this should be documented
B3. Sample Handling and Custody
States maximum holding times allowed from sample Table 3-1,
collection to extraction and/or analysis for each sample Sections
type and, for in-situ or continuous monitoring, the 3.2.1, 3.2.2,
maximum time before retrieval of information 3.2.3
Identifies how samples or information should be Section
physically handled, transported, and then received and 3.3.2
held in the laboratory or office (including temperature
upon receipt)
Indicates how sample or information handling and Section
custody information should be documented, such as in 3.3.2
field notebooks and forms, identifying individual
responsible
Discusses system for identifying samples, for example, FSP,
numbering system, sample tags and labels, and Section 4.0
attaches forms to the plan
Identifies chain-of-custody procedures and includes Section
form to track custody 3.3.2
B4. Analytical Methods
Identifies all analytical SOPs (field, laboratory and/or Section 3.4
office) that should be followed by number, date, and and Table
regulatory citation, indicating options or modifications to 3-1
be taken, such as sub-sampling and extraction
procedures
Identifies equipment or instrumentation needed NA Specified in analytical method SOPs
------------------
-- -----------------
Acceptable Page/
Element (Yes/No) Section Comments
Specifies any specific method performance criteria NA Specified in analytical method SOPs
Identifies procedures to follow when failures occur, Sections
identifying individual responsible for corrective action 2.1, 3.5.2
and appropriate documentation
Identifies sample disposal procedures Section 2.1
Specifies laboratory turnaround times needed . Section 3.4
Provides method validation information and SOPs for NA
nonstandard methods
BS. Quality Control
For each type of sampling, analysis, or measurement Section 3.5,
technique, identifies QC activities which should be Table 3-1
used, for example, blanks, spikes, duplicates, etc., and
at what frequency
Details what should be done when control limits are Section 3.5
exceeded, and how effectiveness of control actions will
be determined and documented
Identifies procedures and formulas for calculating Section
applicable QC statistics, for example, for precision, 2.4.8
bias, outliers and missing data
B6. Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance
Identifies field and laboratory equipment needing Section 3.6
periodic maintenance, and the schedule for this
Identifies testing criteria Section 3.6
Notes availability and location of spare parts NA
Indicates procedures in place for inspecting equipment Section 3.6
before usage
Identifies individual(s) responsible for testing, Section 3.6
inspection and maintenance
Acceptable Page/
Element. (Yes/No) Section Comments
Indicates how deficiencies found should be resolved, Section 3.6
re-inspections performed, and effectiveness of
corrective action determined and documented
B7. Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency
Identifies equipment, tools, and instruments that should Section 3.6
be calibrated and the frequency for this calibration
Describes how calibrations should be performed and Section 3.6
documented, indicating test criteria and standards or
certified equipinent
Identifies how deficiencies should be resolved and Section 3.6
documented
li&I illli liilili liiilil liill liillli liiiil lilliil liililil llilllll ---------
-------------------
Acceptable Page/
Element (Yes/No) Section Comments
BB. Inspection/Acceptance for Supplies and Consumables
Identifies critical supplies and consumables for field Section 3.7
and laboratory, noting supply source, acceptance
criteria, and procedures for tracking, storing and
retrieving these materials
Identifies the individual(s) responsible for this Section 3.7
B9. Non-direct Measurements
Identifies data sources, for example, computer Section 3.8
databases or literature files, or models that should be
accessed and used
Describes the intended use of this information and the Section 3.8
rationale for their selection, i.e., its relevance to project
Indicates the acceptance criteria for these data sources Section 3.8
and/or models
Identifies key resources/support facilities needed NA
Describes how limits to validity and operating NA
conditions should be determined, for example, internal
checks of the program and Beta testing .
B10. Data Management
Describes data management scheme from field to final Section 3.9
use and storage
Discusses standard record-keeping and tracking Section 3.9
practices, and the document control system or cites
other written documentation such as SOPs
Identifies data handling equipmenVprocedures that Section 3.9
should be used to process. compile, analyze, and
transmit data reliably and accurately
Identifies individual(s) responsible for this Section 3.9
Describes the process for data archival and retrieval Section 3.9
Acceptable Page/
Element (Yes/No) Section Comments
Describes procedures to demonstrate acceptability of Section 3.9
hardware and software configurations
Attaches checklists and forms that should be used NA
C1. Assessments and Response Actions
Lists the number, frequency, and type of assessment Section 4.1
activities that should be conducted, with the
approximate dates
Identifies individual(s) responsible for conducting Section 4.1
assessments, indicating their authority to issue stop
work orders, and any other possible participants in the
assessment process
Describes how and to whom assessment information Sections 4.1
should be reported and 4.2
Identifies how corrective actions should be addressed Section
and by whom, and how they should be verified and 3.5.2
documented
C2. Reports to Management
Identifies what project QA status reports are needed Section 4.2
and how frequently
Identifies who should write these reports and who
should receive this information
Section 4.2
D1. Data Review, Verification, and Validation
Describes criteria that should be used for accepting, Section 5.1
rejecting, or qualifying project data
D2. Verification and Validation Methods
Describes process for data verification and validation, Section 5.1
providing SOPs and indicating what data validation
software should be used, if any
iiliil i!lliilil lliii --liiillil -liilliil -liilllll -----
-------------------
Acceptable Page/
Element (Yes/No) Section Comments
Identifies who is responsible for verifying and validating Section 5.1
different components of the project data/information, for
example, chain-of-custody forms, receipt logs,
calibration information, etc.
Identifies issue resolution process, and method and Section 5.1
individual responsible for conveying these results to
data users
Attaches checklists, forms, and calculations NA
D3. Reconciliation with User Requirements
Describes procedures to evaluate the uncertainty of the Section 5.2
validated data
Describes how limitations on data use should be Section 5.2
reported to the data users