NCD981475932_20040514_FCX Inc. (Washington Plant)_FRBCERLA RD_Final Sampling and Analysis Plan Vol 1 - Quality Assurance Project Plan-OCR

I
I
['·'
r .
I
f .. EPA Region 4 RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACT
Contract No. 68-W~99-043 '
L
r.
f
I
BLACK & VEATCH Special Projects Corp.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINAL
ID)rn©rnow~rm
ml MAY 2 4 2004 lW
SUPERFUND SECTION
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
VOLUME 1 -QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
REMEDIAL DESIGN
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
WASHINGTON, BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,j
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
,I
I
FINAL
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
VOLUME 1 -QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
REMEDIAL DESIGN
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
I
I
I -.
Harvey Coppage
SIGNATURE PAGE
APPROVALS:
Q&;:JJ7};JJ
David Russell, P.E.
Black & Veatch Site Manager
Kenneth Lucas
U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager
Gary Bennett
U.S. EPA Quality Assurance Officer
Rob Stem
U.S. EPA Project Officer
Charles Hayes
U.S. EPA Contracting Officer
Black & Veatch
U.S. EPA Region IV
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
I
I'
' .1
I '
,,.
.i
I
••• ' ' ,.
1.
·I
I
I
!I
t
I
·I
I
. I
FINAL
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
VOLUME 1 -QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
REMEDIAL DESIGN
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
USEPA Work Assignment 344-RDRD-049H
BVSPC Project No. 048344.0121
May 17, 2004
Prepared by
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
1145 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 475
Alpharetta, Georgia 30004
I
I.
I
I
' I
·I
'.I
I
I ,,
I
\I ,,
;I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No, 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Table of Contents
Section : TOC
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page I of 3
Page N11.
Acronyms and Abbreviations., .. , ... , .. ,, .... ,, ... , ...... , , .... , , , ... A&A-1
1.0 Project Description . , ...... , ..... , .......... , .... , ............ , , .... 1-1
1.1 Site Location, Description, and Operational History , , ........... , , , .. , . 1-2
1.2 Regulatory History .......................................... , , . . 1-7
2.0 Description of Current Conditions , .... , ... , . , .. , , ...... , ..... , , ....... 2-1
2.1 Topography and Physiography .. , .... , ........... , , ..... , , , ....... 2-1
2.2 Climate , .. , .. , , .. , .. , .. , , ........................... , ........ 2-1
2.3 Hydrogeologic Setting .... , , . , , .... , ......... , , , .............. , .. 2-1
2.4 Groundwater Use ................. , ... , ................... , ..... 2-3
2.5 Surface Water Use , ..... , ........... , . , .......... , .............. 2-4
2.6 Demography and Land Use .. , ............. , ..... , ... , ........ , ... 2-4
3,0 Project Management ... , , .. , ..... , ..... , .... , ......... , ... , , .. , , ... , 3-1
3.1 Project Organization ............................................ 3-1
3.2 Remedial Design Study at the FCX Washington Site .... , ...... , .... , .. 3-3
3.3 Project Description and Schedule ...... , ............. , .... , ... , ... , 3-3
3.3.1 RD Description ... , .. , , ................ , , ........ , ....... , . 3-3
3.3.2 Description of the Work to be Performed . , ...... , ....... , , . , , .. 3-4
3.3.3 Proposed Project Schedule ...... , .......... , ....... , , ...... , 3-5
3.4 Data Quality Objectives .... , , ... , ... , , .... , .... , , .. , , ... , ... , .... 3-5
3.4.1 DQO Step I: State the Problem ..... , , ......... , ....... , ..... 3-7
3.4.2 DQO Step 2: Identify the Decision ....... , , ...... , ......... , .. 3-8
3.4.3 DQO Step 3: Identify the Inputs to the Decision ... , , ....... , ... , 3-9
3.4.4 DQO Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries ... , ....... , ....... , 3-10
3.4.5 DQO Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule ....... , , .............. 3-11
3.4.6 DQO Step 6: Specify Tolerable Limits on Decision Errors .... , ... 3-12
3.4,7 DQO Step 7: Optimize the Design, .. , ..... , .... , ....... , .... 3-17
3,5 Special Training Requirements and Certification .. , ...... , , ... , . . . . . 3-18
3 .6 Documentation and Records .. , ... , ... , , ................. , ... , .. , 3-20
3.6. J Field Operation Records ........... , , ........ , ... , , ........ 3-20
3.6,2 Laboratory Records ........... , ....... , ........ , ... , ...... 3-25
4.0 Measurement Data Acquisition , .. , ....... , , ........ , ....... , , ..... , , . 4-1
4.1 Sampling Process Design . , ......... , , ...... , ..... , ...... , ....... 4-1
4.1.1 Sample Collection Schedule ........... , ........ , ... , ... , .. , . 4-1
4. 1.2 Sampling Design Rationale . , , .. , , , ............ , ...... , ...... 4-1
4.1.3 Sampling Design Assumptions ...... , ... , .... , ... , ... , .. , .... 4-1
4.1.4 Procedures for Selecting Locations for Environmental Samples , .... 4-2
4.1.5 Classification of Critical Samples .. , ... , ... , ... , , .. , .... , .... , 4-2
4.2 Sampling Methods Requirements ..... , ........ , ........... , ....... 4-2
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Table of Contents (Continued)
Section : TOC
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page2 of 3
Page N".
4.3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements ......................... 4-5
4.3.1 Sample Numbering ........................................ 4-5
4.3.2 Sample Identification ....................................... 4-6
4.3.3 Chain of Custody Procedures ................................ 4-8
4.3.4 Field Custody Procedures .................................. 4-10
4.3.5 Sample Packaging and Shipping ............................. 4-12
4.3.6 Transfer of Custody Procedures ............................. 4-14
4.3.7 Sample Custodians ....................................... 4-14
4.4 Analytical Method Requirements ................................. 4-15
4.4.1 Analytical Methods ....................................... 4-15
4.4.2 Sample Preparation Procedures .............................. 4-15
4.4.3 Field Samples ........................................... 4-16
4.4.4 QC Sample Description .................................... 4-16
4.5 Field Instrument Requirements ................................... 4-18
4.5.1 Foxboro OVA Model 128 .................................. 4-19
4.5.2 Oxygen/LEL Meter (O/LEL) ............................... 4-21
4.5.3 Water Temperature, pH, and Conductivity Meter ................ 4-22
4.5.4 Water Turbidity .......................................... 4-24
4.5.5 Salinity, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen, and Temperature Meter .. 4-24
4.5.6 Redox Meter ............................................ 4-24
4.6 Inspection/ Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables ..... 4-25
4.7 Data Acquisition Requirements ................................... 4-26
4.7.1 Precision ............................................... 4-26
4.7.2 Accuracy ............................................... 4-26
4.7.3 Representativeness ........................................ 4-27
4.7.4 Comparability ........................................... 4-27
4.7.5 Completeness ............................................ 4-28
4.8 Data Management ............................................. 4-28
4.8.1 Data Recording .......................................... 4-28
4.8.2 Data Validation .......................................... 4-29
4.8.3 Data Transmittal ......................................... 4-29
4.8.4 Data Transformation and Reduction .......................... 4-30
4.8.5 Data Analysis ............................................ 4-30
4.8.6 Data Tracking ........................................... 4-30
4.8.7 Data Storage and Retrieval ................................. 4-30
4.8.8 Data Reporting ........................................... 4-30
5.0 Assessment/Oversight ............................................... 5-1
5.1 Assessments/Oversights ......................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Surveillance .............................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Field Investigation Audit .................................... 5-1
5.1.3 Laboratory Activities Audits ................................. 5-2
I,
I ,, ,,
I ,,
,I
J,
,
I:
,I
:1
f .,
.1
I·
·t;
I
I
,I
·1
I
I
1·
i
I
,I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Section ; TOC
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 3 of 3
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
. FCX Washington Site
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page Ng.
5.2 Corrective Action Protocols ...................................... 5-2
6.0 Data Validation and Usability ......................................... 6-1
6.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements ............... 6-1
6.2 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives ......................... 6-2
7.0 References ....................................................... 7-1
Tables
Table 1-1
Table 1-2
Table 1-3
FF_i9HI~.-.s .. ,
1 e'Fl'
lll!i
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-3
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Figure 4-4
Figure 4-5
Figure 5-1
Analytical Results for RI/FS (1993) Groundwater Samples . . . . . . 1-10
Analytical Results for 1998 Groundwater Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14
Analytical Results for 2002 Groundwater Samples ............ 1-21
Project Organization Chart ................................ 3-2
Groundwater Sample Collection Record .................... 3-21
Daily Progress Report ................................... 3-22
Well Development Log .................................. 3-24
Field Change Request Form ............................... 4-4
Sample Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
Sample Tag ............................................ 4-7
Custody Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
Traffic Report and Chain of Custody Record ................. 4-11
Field Investigation Audit .................................. 5-3
I
I
I \J
I
·I
1.-' . ,
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No, 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
ASTs
Black & Veatch
oc
CFR
CLP
CPR
DEM
DO
DOT
DQI
DQO
EPA
Em-31
FCX
FID
FTL
H,
HASP
Ho
HSM
IDW
LEL
LFL
µmhos/cm
MNA
NBS
NCDHR
NTU
o,
ORP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Acronyms and Abbreviations
aboveground storage tanks
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation
degrees Celsius
Code of Federal Regulations
contract laboratory program
cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Division of Environmental Management
dissolved oxygen
U.S. Department of Transportation
data quality indicator
data quality objective
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
electromagnetic survey
FCX Washington Site
flame ionization detector
field team leader
alternative hypothesis
health and safety plan
null hypothesis
health and safety manager
investigative derived waste
lower explosive limit
lower flammability limit
microhms per centimeter
monitored natural attenuation
National Bureau of Standards
North Carolina Department of Human Resouces
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
oxygen
oxidation-reduction potential
Section: A&A
Final
May 17, 2004
Page I of2
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: A&A
Final
May 17, 2004
Page 2 of2
OSHA
OVA
PARCC
PPB
PPEs
psig
QA
QAM
QAPP
QC
RAC
RAO
RCRA
RD
ROD
RPM
RPO
SA
SESD
sow
SSC
SI
SR
SSR
TAL
TAT
TCL
TCLP
VI
V2
voes
XRF
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
organic vapor analyzer
precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and
completeness
parts per billion
primary points of entry
per square inch gauge
quality assurance
Quality Assurance Manager
quality assurance project plan
quality control
EPA Response Action Contract
Remedial Action Objectives
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Remedial Design
Record of Decision
EPA Remedial Project Manager
relative percent difference
spike added from spiking mix
Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Statement of Work
site safety coordinator
site inspection
unspiked sample
spike sample results
target analyte list
technical assistance team
target compound list
Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
primary sample value
duplicate sample value
volatile organic compound
x-ray refractoin
·I
I ,,
·/
·1
,1
I
I
·I
I
\I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,1
·I
:I ..
,,,
t
I
II
,1.
I
. 1
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
1.0 Project Description
Section: I
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page I of27
This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) has been prepared in response to a Statement
of Work (SOW) for the Remedial Design (RD) at the FCX Washington Site in Washington,
Beaufort County, North Carolina, issued to Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. (Black
& Veatch) on September 25, 200 I, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region 4. Additional direction for this QAPP was provided in the EPA's comments
on the Technical Memorandum dated December 20, 2002 (EPA, 2003). The SOW was
issued through EPA Response Action Contract (RAC) No. 68-W-99-043 under Work
Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H. This QAPP is a critical planning document for the RD
environmental data collection activities to be performed at the FCX Washington Site.
This document will address the implementation of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
activities throughout the life cycle of the project and is the basis for identifying how the
quality system of the organization performing the work is reflected in the project and in
associated technical goals. This QAPP is an integral part of the Sampling and Analysis Plan
and incorporates the elements of a Data Management Plan as specified in the EPA SOW for
the RD dated September 25, 2001 (EPA, 2001). The format and information in this QAPP
are based on the EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental
Data Operations (EPA QAIR-5), dated November 1999 (EPA, 1999a), and supplemented by
the EPA Guidance/or Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QAIG-5), dated February 1998
(EPA, 1998a).
The following is a discussion of the FCX Washington Site's physical description and
operational and regulatory history. The site background information provided in this section
is taken from the following documents .
1) WorkAssignmentFormforWorkAssignmentNo. 044-RDRD-049H Rev. 0 (EPA,
2001)
2) Record of Decision, FCX Washington Site, September 15, 1993 (EPA, 1993)
3) Groundwater Sampling Results for February 1998 and April 1993, June 25, 1998
(CDM, 1998)
QuaJity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: I
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 2 of27
4) Technical Memorandum Remedial Design FCX Washington Site, December 20,
2002 (Black & Veatch, 2002).
1.1 Site Location, Description, and Operational History
The FCX site is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of and within the city limits of
Washington, North Carolina. The site covers approximately 12 acres and is bounded in the
northeast by the intersection of Grimes Road (SR 1402) and Whispering Pine Road (SR
1404), Mt. Pleasant Canal to the east, wetlands leading to Kennedy Creek and Tar River to
the south and southwest, and agricultural land to the west-northwest (EPA, 1993). The site
location is shown on Figure 1-1.
The FCX facility operated a farm supply distribution center which repackaged and sold
pesticides, herbicides, and tobacco treating chemicals from 1945 to 1985. From 1960 to
1981, an unknown amount of chemical waste in plastic containers and paper bags, generated
by FCX, was buried in an on-site landfill located in source area 5, southwest of the former
FCX warehouse (EPA, 1993).
A warehouse, main chemical burial trench, and blending building are located on the site.
The site is broken up into five source areas. A site features map is shown on Figure 1-2. A
site layout map is shown on Figure 1-3.
Source area 1 is located between Grimes Road and the farmland, approximately 230 yards
north-northwest of the former FCX warehouse, and is comprised primarily of several small
to medium office/storage buildings and silos/tanks associated with the W.B. Gerard & Sons,
Inc., fertilizer and hardware company located at 425 Grimes Road shown in source area 3 on
Figure 1-2. Source area 1 is located on relatively flat terrain which has a gradual slope to the
south and southwest. In addition, a man-made drainage ditch, located parallel and south of
Grimes Road borders this source area to the northeast. This manmade drainage ditch also
borders both source areas 2 and 3 to the northeast. Surface water in this ditch flows in a
southeasterly direction prior to its confluence with the Mt. Pleasant Canal northwest of the
Cleon Lathan residence in source area 3. Source area 2 is located between Grimes Road and
the farmland located 115 yards north-northwest of the former FCX warehouse. The
significant site features of source area 2 include a
·I ,,
.1,
I
.J
,I
:1
a.
I
:1
"I
I ,, ,,
,I
I
' a
,I
I
;I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
,I
'I
ii
I ,,
Ii
I
FCX WASHINGTON
SITE
NORTH
CAROLINA
SITE LOCATION MAP FCX WASHINGTON SITE
BEAUFO~T COUNTY
WASHINGTON, BEAUFORT COUNlY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE
1-1
I ,,
I
I
I ,,
I ,,
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I, ,,
,j
I
:=-.tRUL.\Hfl
300 .... CCIPIID ... ~ FR re ... -CWIW Db .,_ ...... ,£3..::...l 1111
SITE FEATURES MAP
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
. ·!IQ~
Cll'l1lPr :ex
150
. . 8-"<1""1)
(<
crlll'l'llr ra: Ol'hl
LEG£NC
..._..._ }:NC%
-----. ------Slllf'AC! ~,;-(:,
----S~AQ . &::'-
a) SCU'>;C AIQ
WASHINGTON, BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
JOO
FIGURE
1-2
I
I ,,
I
I
a
I ,.
·,-~
I
. ' I
I
I
:I
I , .
••
I
,.
I
I
f/JIW!J.111)
-·--._ ~ -.... ... ---...
. ""-_·U& -.-·· __ .. ~-~-·.
""." . ' . --
·...:.. .
~ ! .
Lrcx
WAUHOUSE
LEGEND
-"-" S<JllrA([ WAl'!II C>IW<C,
~-.-WC"Ult05. .
600 300 0 600 ,... CDND ,... -nr or Bil rm ;a ""'" ,.,,,,,. DWP...._ FWIILI• MDICI'. 1111 1·-soo·
Ill SITE LAYOUT MAP
FCX WASHINGTON SITE
WASHINGTON, BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE
1-3
' I
-I
I
I
i
I ,,
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: I
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 6 of27
large warehouse building and a gravel parking lot associated with the Charlie Tom's
Restaurant & Oyster Bar (the former FCX blending building). A surface water drainage
ditch originates in the southwest corner of source area 2, and water in this ditch flows in a
southeasterly direction parallel to the southwest property line and the abandoned Seaboard
Coastline Railroad Spur. This drainage ditch discharges into Mt. Pleasant Canal near the
Cleon Lathan residence.
Source area 3 is located between Grimes Road and the farmland located west of the former
FCX warehouse and 50 yards north-northeast of the warehouse. Mt. Pleasant Canal forms
the eastern border of source area 3. The significant site features of this source area include
a large warehouse building, the former FCX storage building, located in the northern portion
of the source area and the Cleon Lathan residence located in the southern portion of the
source area, adjacent to the Mt. Pleasant Canal. At the time of the RI field investigation,
residents occupied the large warehouse. Several small depressions/drainage ditches are also
located in the center of source area 3 which divert surface water runoff northeast towards the
drainage ditch parallel to Grimes Road. Source area 3 also contains a former loading dock,
several concrete grain silo supports pads located south of the adjacent to the large warehouse
building, and a secondary access road parallel to the abandoned Seaboard Coastline Railroad
Spur. The access road connects the southwest corner of source area 3 with the paved
entrance road to the Cecil Campbell Trucking Company (old FCX warehouse).
Source area 4 is located between source area 3 and source area 5. It consists of the Cecil
Campbell Trucking Company warehouse, a paved entrance and parking lot located south of
the warehouse, existing grain storage silos, a former grain storage silo, concrete support pads
on the southwest corner of the warehouse, and secondary access roads that surround the
warehouse to the north, west, and south. The Mt. Pleasant Canal boarders source area 4 to
the southeast. Water in a small surface drainage ditch originating at the former silo concrete
support pad flow in a southeasterly direction between source areas 4 and 5, and discharges
into Mt. Pleasant Canal near the waste stockpile (source area 5).
Source area 5 is located south-southwest of source area 4, and north-northeast of a small
agricultural field and the wetlands. The Mt. Pleasant Canal borders source area 5 to the
southeast. Located in this area are the excavated and backfilled main chemical burial trench,
and the fenced contaminated pesticide waste stockpile. A small concrete block retaining wall
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: I
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 7 of27
and gravel pad where above ground storage tanks once existed, are located on the southwest
corner of the fences stockpile area.
1.2 Regulatory History
In July 1986, a preliminary assessment of the FCX site was prepared by the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources (NCDHR). This preliminary assessment indicated that
pesticides, in the form of toxic powder and liquid wastes, were buried on site, and a potential
for groundwater, soil, and drinking water contamination existed. The report recommended
that a site investigation be performed (CDM, 1993).
The FCX site was inspected by the NCDHR, Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Branch, on August 26, 1986. Chemical analyses revealed the presences of organics and
inorganics. Ambient air monitoring during the site inspection using an HNu did not detect
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) above background levels (CDM, 1993).
In May 1987, FCX, Inc., employed the resources of Rose and Purcell, Inc., and GSX, Inc.,
to study on-site contamination and clear the chemical warehouse located in source area 4.
Chemical analysis of one soil sample collected by GSX in the vicinity of the main chemical
burial trench revealed the presence oftoxaphene at a concentration of2,400 mg/kg, copper
at 480 mg/kg, and various other contaminants (CDM, 1993).
In August 1988, the EPA Region 4 technical assistance team (TAT) conducted a site
reconnaissance sampling investigation. An electromagnetic survey (EM-31) and a magnetic
survey were used to identify the boundaries of the chemical burial trenches located in source
area 5. Soil samples collected near the main chemical burial trench during the 1988
sampling investigation revealed the presence of elevated concentrations of DDD, DDE,
DDT, alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, dieldrin, phenol, heptachlor, and methoxychlor
(CDM, 1993).
In January 1989, EPA conducted a removal action at the site in which approximately 3,000
cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated from the main chemical burial trench located
in source area 5. The soil was stockpiled within a secured area in the southern corner of this
source area.
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. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: I
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 8 of27
Additionally, in 1990 TAT collected soil samples from the area surrounding the former FCX
blending building located in source area 2. Subsequently in January, an additional 49 cubic
yards of contaminated soil was excavated from the area surrounding the former FCX
blending building. This removed waste was consolidated with the previously removed waste
located in source area 5 (COM, 1993).
In association with the 1990 TAT sampling investigation and subsequent removal action
activities at the site, additional soil sampling in source area 2 revealed the presence of
pesticides, volatile organics, and semi-volatile organics at elevated concentrations (COM,
I 993).
In July 1990, in response to a report that the permalon liner covering the contaminated soil
stockpile was tom, EPA constructed a temporary containment berm around the waste
stockpile to prevent potential contaminant runoff, and repaired the tom liner. During this
operation, additional buried material located two feet below ground surface was identified
at the northern comer of the stockpile. The material had a total pesticides concentration of
103 mg/kg (COM, 1993).
In August 1990, a groundwater sampling investigation in the vicinity of the former
warehouse and chemical burial trench was performed by Westinghouse Environmental and
Geotechnical Services, Inc., for Fred Webb Grain, Inc. Four 2-inch stainless steel wells were
installed in source areas 4 and 5. Analyses of groundwater samples collected from the
Westinghouse wells revealed elevated levels of endrin and 4,4-000 (COM, 1993).
A Remedial Investigation /Feasability Study (RI/FS) was completed by COM Federal
Programs Corporation in April 1993. The RI/FS included a geophysical survey of source
area 5 and the installation of 18 monitoring wells, the collection of 498 soil samples analyzed
by an onsite lab, 52 soil samples analyzed by a CLP lab, 9 particulate air samples, 3 surface
water samples, 9 sediment samples, 2 benthic invertebrate samples, 2 fish tissue samples, and
22 groundwater samples. The soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater, and biota samples
were analyzed for full target contaminant list/target analyte list (TCL/TAL) analyses.
However, the 498 soil samples analyzed onsite were only tested for pesticides (COM, 1993 ).
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-ROR0-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: I
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 9 of27
Several organic constituents were detected in groundwater samples at concentrations greater
than background including: aldrin, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, alpha-BHC, beta-BHC,
gamma-BHC, delta-BHC, dieldrin, 4,4-DDT, 4,4-DDE, 4,4-DDD, endrin, endosulfan sulfate,
toxaphene, gamma-chlordane, alpha-chlordane, endrin ketone, chloroform 1,2-
dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, benzene, toluene, chlorobenzene, total xylenes, bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate, carbazole, and pentachlorophenol. Several metals were detected in
groundwater samples at concentrations greater than two times background including:
beryllium, nickel, zinc, mercury, and manganese (COM, 1993). Analytical results are
summarized in Table 1-1.
Following the evaluation of the RI data and the risk assessment, EPA determined that
emergency removal actions were necessary at the site for protection of human health and the
environment. In 1993 EPA signed a record of decision (ROD) for the site. The emergency
removals occurred during 1995 and 1996 at the site. No further action was needed for soils,
however, remedial design for groundwater was initiated in early 1997 (COM, 1997).
In November and December of 1997 COM Federal Programs conducted direct push
technology groundwater sampling at the FCX site. Sample results were attached to the letter
report dated June 25, 1998. However, exact locations of these samples have not been
identified and cannot be confirmed.
In February 1998 three new downgradient monitoring wells (MW-I 0-SH, MW-11-SH, and
MW-12-SH were installed and sampled at the FCX site. The purpose of installing and
sampling these new wells was to (1) estimate the boundaries of the contaminant plumes
emanating from the source areas identified by the RI and (2) confirm the results of the DPT
groundwater sampling conducted in November and December 1997, which indicated low
concentrations of pesticides and VOCs across the site.
' I
I
I
I .,
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I;
' '
I
,I
I ~,
'
I
:i
------ -- -
Table 1-1
FCX Washington Site Anlytical Results for RI/FS (1993) Groundwater Samples
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
MW1-SH MW1-DP
Chemical Backaround Background MW2-SH MW2-DP MW3-SH MW3-DP MW4-SH MW4-DP MWS-SH MWS-DP
Omanlc Cu .. 11 )
iAk1rin ----------
Heptachlor --------- -Heptachlor Epoxide ----------
Alpha-BHC --- ------ -Beta-BHC ----------
Gamma-BHC (Lindane) -------- - -Della-BHC ----------
Diek:lrin --- -2.6N -- ---
4.4-00T (P,P-OOT) --------- -
4,4-DOE (P,P-OOE) --------- -
4,4-DDD (P,P-DDD) ----4.1 --- - -
Endrin ----------Endosulfan Sulfate ----------Toxaphene ----110 -- -- -
Gamma-Chlordane ----- ---- -Alpha.Chlordane --------- -
Endrin Ketone ----1.5 ---- -
Chlomfonn -------- --
1,2-Dichloroethane ---. --. -----
1,2-0ichlotopron:1ne -------- -
-
Benzene --------- -oluene --------- -Chlorobenzene -------- --
otal Xylenes ----------
Bis(2-Ethv1hexyl) Phthalate ------- --68
Cart>azole ------- -- -Pentachlorophenol ----------
lnoraanlcs (u,.11 )
Beryllium 6 ---------,..hromium 42 -16 10 16 8J 8J 51J 19 -Nd<el 46 -11 16J 23 11J -57J 20J -Lead 53J -21J SJ 15J 7J 6J 77J 18J -nc 110J 13J 110J 30J 91J 25J 24J 190J 49J 15J Mercury 21J -43J ----34J - -
Manganese 1500 93 890 1200 1200 190 200 5900J 1100 25
Notes:
-Indicated not detected
J Indicates estimated value.
C Indicates value was confirmed by GC/MS.
N Indicates presumptive evidence.
Concentrations presented in ug/L
All samoles were analyzed by a CLP laboratorv.
Table 1-1
FCX Washington Site Analytical Results for RI/FS (1993) Groundwater Samples
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
MW1-SH MW1-DP MW9-SH Chemical Backaround Backaround MW6-SH MW6-DP MW7-SH MW7-DP MWB-SH MWB-DP MW9-SH Ounlicate MW9-DP Organic lunn )
Aldrin ------0.63N 0.14 ---Heptachlor -

-

-

-

-
-2.1 --

-
-Heptachlor Epoxide -

-
0.051 -

-

-
0.49 --

-
-a.lpha-BHC ------1.7 -0.061 0.061 -Beta-BHC ------1.7 ----Gamma-BHC (Lindane) ----0.050 -1.4 ----Delta-BHC ----0.053 -4.8C -

-

-
-Dieldl'ln ------2.2C --

-
-,4-0DT (P,P-DOT) -

-
1.3 -

-
-4.6C -0.15 -,4-DDE (P,P-ODE) ---

-

-
-0.42 -

-

-
-,4-DDD (P,P-DDD) -

-
0.57 -

-
-2.0C ----Endrin -

-
0.13 -

-
-1.1 -

-

-
-Endosutfan Sulfate -

-

-

-
-0.21 --0.14 0.12 -oxaohene -

-
----

-
-

-

-
-Gamma-Chlordane ------1.6 ----A1pha-Chlordane ---

-

-
-0.77 -

-
--ndrin Ketone -

-

-

-

-

-
1.6 -

-

-
-
Chloroform -

-
----14 -

-

-
-1,2-Dichloroethane -

-
------

-

-
-1,2-Dichloropropane -

-
-

-

-
---100J --Benzene --------830 790 -oluene --------2200 2100 2J Chlorobenzene ---

-

-

-

-
-22J -2J otal X vlenes -

-
----

-
-3300 3200 -
Bis(2-Ethy1he"'") Phthalate ---

-

-

-

-
---Carbazole --------10J 10J -Pentachlorophenol ---

-

-
---

-
--lnoruanlcs (unll )
IBeryflium 6 -19 -21 -SJ -9J 9J -Chromium 42 -56 8 56 29 36J 20J 18J 23J 12 Nickel 46 -91 -59 20J 29J 14J 39J 41J 10J Lead 53J -85J SJ 32J 47J 31J 11J 29J 35J 12J 1.Finc 110J 13J 210J 25J 150J 80J 97J 30J 47J SSJ 38J Mercury 21J -44J -42J -.51J -

-

-
.22J Manganese 1500 93 4800 62 4800 470 2500J 530J 8300J 9500J 180
Notes:
-Indicated not detected
J Indicates estimated value.
C Indicates value was confirmed by GC/MS.
N Indicates presumptive evidence.
Concentrations presented in ug/L.
l<\11 samples were anaiv,ed bv a CLP laboratorv. ---·---·--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I V
I
I
Table 1-1
FCX Washington Site Analytical Results for RI/FS 1993 Groundwater Samples
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
WMW2
Chemical WMW1 WMW2 COUP\ WMW3 WMW4
Oraanlc (ua/L}
Aldrin -0.82 0.98 --
Heptachlor - - ---
Heptachlor Epoxide - - - --
lpha-BHC -4.1 3.9 - -
Beta•BHC -1.4N 1.SN --
Gamma-BHC (Lindane) -8 7.7 --
Oetta-BHC -10 9.9 - -
Dieldrtn -2 1.6N --
4,4-00T (P,P-00T) --1.8 - -
4,4-00E (P,P-00E) - - - --
4,4-000 (P,P-000) -13 11 - -
Endrin --1.2 - -
Endosutran Sulfate 0.14 - - --
oxaphene - - - --
Gamma-Chlordane - - ---
loha-Chlordane -- - --
Endrin Ketone -2.8 2.9 -0.14
Chloroform - -11J -
1,2-Dichloroethane -35 - -
1,2-Dichloropropane -10 390 -
Benzene - -12J -
oluene --SJ -
Chlorobenzene 3J 150 13J -
otal Xvlenes -SJ 41 -
8is(2-Ethvlhexvl) Phthalate --- -
Carbazole --- -
Pentachloroohenol -76 --
lnoraanlcs fua/L)
Bervmum - - - -5
Chromium 47 15 17 43J 41
Nickel 87 38J 36 140J 39
Lead 48J 23J 24J 40J 45J
Zinc 82J 370J 340J 75J 70J
Mercury .44J .24J .27J 2.8J -
Manganese 2800 2100 2200 4700J 4600
Notes:
-Indicated not detected
J Indicates estimated value.
N Indicates presumptive evidence.
Concentrations presented in ug/L.
IAII samples were analyzed by a CLP laboratorv.
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. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: I
HNAL
May I 7, 2004
Page 13 of27
During the ROD, remedial action objectives (RAOs) were established, and therefore
groundwater samples are being compared to the RAO values. Several constituents were
detected in groundwater samples at concentrations greater than the RAOs including: lead,
manganese, endrin, alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, gamma-BHC, dieldrin, aldrin, alpha chlordane,
gamma chlordane, benzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, total xylenes, and toxaphene.
Analytical results for the 1998 sampling event are summarized in Table 1-2. The 1993 and
1998 groundwater sample locations and results exceeding RAOs for each monitoring well
are shown on Figures 1-4 and 1-5.
In 2002, 15 groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for metals, volatile organic
compounds, semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides, daughter products of pesticides,
and select natural attenuation parameters from the existing well network. A technical
memorandum, Technical Memorandum Remedial Design FCXWashington Site, December
20, 2002, evaluated the 1993, 1998, and 2002 data (Black & Veatch, 2002). The purpose of
the technical memorandum was to support an assessment of utilizing MNA and a permeable
reactive barrier (PRB) as remedial measures to replace a pump-and-treat remedy. The
Technical Memorandum concluded that contaminant concentrations were decreasing in the
monitoring wells at the FCX Washington site and that MNA with a PRB should be further
examined for its effectiveness as an alternative remedy, The Technical Memorandum also
recommended placement of additional monitoring wells down gradient of the site and to
implement a MNA groundwater monitoring program, including performance monitoring.
Analytical results for the 2002 sampling event are summarized in Table 1-3. The 2002
groundwater sample locations and results for each monitoring well are shown on Figure 1-6.
-----------------
Table 1-2
FCX Washington Site Analytical Results for 1998 Groundwater Samples
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
Remedial
Metals Action FX-MW-FX-MW-FX-MW-FX-MW-FX-MW-FX-MW-FX-MW-FX-MW-FX-MW-FX-MW-FX-MW-FX-MW-FX-MW-FX-MW-FX-MW- FX-MW-
(ug/L) Objective 01-SH 01-DP 02SH 02-DP 03-SH 03-DP 05-SH 05-DP 07-SH 07-DP 08-DP 09-SH 09-DP 10-SH 11-SH 12-SH
!Aluminum none 83 . NA 77 4400 -340 42 400 -. 61 68 -. -
IA,-i;;pnic none -. NA . -. . - -. . . . . . -
Barium none 120 58 NA 95 36 30 16 32 24 13 32 100 19 59 25 56
Bervllium 4 . . NA . -. -- -
. . -. - -.
Calcium none 47,000J 43,000J NA 200,000J 25,000 99000 11,000J 79,000J 21000J 66,000J 71,000 89,000J 78,000J 6d,000 160,000 110,000
Cobalt none 1J -NA -- -. -. --. --6J .
ConnAr none 520J 39J NA 77J SJ . 40J 350J 54J 11J 2J 60J 330J 9J -3J
Iron none 5200 -NA -1600 -540 . 460 -390 25,000 . 560 38,000 750
Lead 15 54.J 6J NA 10J - -BJ 11J SJ -. 8J 38J . -.
Magnesium none 5600 2900 NA 13,000 1500 4800 1400 3000 1500 1200 900 5300 1800 6000 19,000 5400
Manganese 697 310J 27J NA 270J 6J 25 17J 120J 55J 18J 46 IUOJ 30J 150 2100 280
Potassium none 1300J 7800J NA -2200 6600 3100J 5300J 4100J 2400J 3400 3900J 3000J 11,000 12,000 3500
Sodium none 5600J 20,000J NA 20,000J 2900 8200 2700J 7000J 2700J 12,000J 3400 8900J 11,000J 4000 44,000 6800
inc none 110J 25J NA 36J 33 . 14J 72J 16J - -20J 77J . 23 -
Chromium 50 . -NA . -. -. - -10 . . 13 - -
Nickel 100 -. NA -2J - -- - -. 50J -16J 12J 7J vanadium none --NA -. - -- --. - - -. .
Notes:
ug/L microgram per liter.
J Indicates estimated quantity.
NA Sample not collected.
constituent was below detection limit.
Italicized concentrations are in excess of remedial action objective concentrations.
-
Table 1-2
FCX Washington Site Analytical Results for 1998 Groundwater Samples
Remedial
Parameters Action
ua/L Obiective FX-MW--01-SH
Pesticides
Endrin
Endrin Ketone
Delta-BHC
loha-BHC
Beta-BHC
r."mma-BHC (Lindane)
,4-DDT (P,P-ODT)
oxaphene
Dieldrin
Aldrin
Endosutfan II (Beta)
IAlpha.Ghlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
voes
!Acetone
hloroform
Methyl ethyl Ketone
Methyl lsobutyt Ketone
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Bromodichloromethane
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
!Toluene
Total Xylenes
svocs
Bis(2-Ethylhexyt) Phthalate
Phenol
Naphthalene
-methylnapthalene
-methylphenol
(3 and/or 4-) methylohenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Carbazole
Acenapthene
Notes:
ug/L micrograms per liter
J estimated quantity
0.2
none
none
0.014
0.047
0.0265
0.25
0.031
0.0053
0.005
none
0.027
0.027
none
0.19
none
none
none
none
1
100
none
1000
400
6
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
4.3
none
N Indicates presumptive evidence of presence of material.
constituent was below detection limit
NM groundwater sample was not collected from this weU.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
-.
.
.
-
.
-
.
-.
.
-
-.
-
-
.
.
10J
10J .
.
-
.
.
-.
.
Washington, Beaufort Countv, North Carolina
FX-MW--01-DP FX-MW--02-SH FX-MW--02-DP FX-MW--03-SH
-NM 0.01J 0.7N . NM . .
-NM --. NM -. . NM . 0.078J
-NM . -
0.01J NM -.
-NM . 19N . NM . . . NM --
-NM . .
-NM . -. NM -.
. NM . .
. NM --
-NM . .
NM --. NM . .
-NM . .
-NM --. NM . .
-NM . .
. NM -. . NM . -
-NM . -. NM . -
-NM . . . NM -.
-NM . .
. NM -. . NM . -. NM -. . NM . .
. NM --. NM --. NM -.
Italicized concentrations are in excess of remedial action objective concentrations. ---- --· ---
FX-MW--03-DP
-.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-.
.
.
.
-.
-.
.
-
.
-.
-
-.
-.
-
.
-
-
-
.
.
.
- -
FX-MW--05-SH FX-MW--05-DP
. .
. -
-.
. -. .
. -
-.
. -
-.
. -
-.
. .
. -
-.
. .
. .
.
-.
. -
-.
. -
-.
. .
--
. .
-.
--
. .
. -
-.
--
-.
. -. .
. .
. .
---
--- -------- - -
Table 1-2
FCX Washington Site Analytical Results for 1998 Groundwater Samples
Kemeu1a1
Parameters Action
ua/L Obiective FX-MW-07-SH
Pesticides
Endrin 0.2 -
Endrin Ketone none -
Delta-BHC none -
Alpha-BHC 0.014 -
~eta-BHC 0.047 -
Gamma-BHC (lindane) 0.0265 -
4.4-DDT (P,P-oon 0.25 -
rroxaphene 0.031 -
Dieldrin 0.0053 -
IA1t1rin 0.005 -
Endosulfan JI (Beta) none -
'Alpha-Chlordane 0.027 -
Gamma-Chlordane 0.027 -
voes
Acetone none -
Chlorofonn 0.19 -
Methyl ethvl ketone none -
Methyl lsobutvl Ketone none -
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane none -
Bromodichloromethane none -
Benzene 1 -
Chlorobenzene 100 -
Ethvlbenzene none -
tro1uene 1000
tTotal Xylenes 400 -
svocs
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 6 -
Phenol none -
Naphthalene none -
"-methylnaDthalene none -
.,-methylphenol none -
(3 and/or 4-) methylphenof none -
., ,4-dimelhylphenol none -
Dibenzofuran none -
Fluorene none -
henanthrene none -
Carbazole 4.3 -
cenapthene none -
Notes:
ug/L micrograms per liter
J estimated quantity
N Indicates presumptiv6 evidence of presence of material.
constituent was below detection limit
NM groundwater samP'e was not collected from this well.
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
FX-MW-07-DP FX-MW-08-DP FX-MW-09-SH FX-MW-09-DP
----
--0.09J -
--0.067N ---0.042J ---0.13 ---0.04JN -----
----
----
----
------------
----
--------------------
--120 -------170 -
240
--600 -
-
----
------79 -
--46 -
--SJ -
--17 ---6J ---1J -
--2J ---1J ---3J -
----
Italicized concentrations are in excess of remedial action objective concentrations.
FX-MW-10-SH
0.15
-
0.043J
0.046J
0.042J
0.051
-
-
1.0N
0.14N
-
0.29
0.38N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24
-
---
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.. -- -
FX-MW-11-SH FX-MW-12-SH
-0.17
--
0.2 -
----
----
--
0.14 0.074J
0.47N -
0.16N -
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1J -
4J -
1J -
--
--
--
--
8J -
--
--
----
2J -
--
--
2J -
-
Parameters •
ug/L FX-MW--01-SH
Mlscellaneous Comnnunds (unn )
Jisulfolon
imethytmethanethioamide
Pentamethylbenzene
Dihydrodimethylindene (2 isomers)
Dihydrodimethytindene (3 isomers)
'Ethyldimethylbenzene
Dimethytnaphthalene (2 isomers)
Biphenyt
Nnnylphenol (2 isomers)
tTetramethylbenzene (2 isomers)
Tetramethylbenzene
thyttrimethylbenzene
etramethylbutylphenol
Elhyl(methylethvl)benzene
Carbary!
Benzothiozole
1-methylnaphthalene
14.,.;de-substituted benzene (2 isomers)
Caprolactam
Methylthio-benzothiazole
1.11.1kanes
Methylethylbenzene (3 isomers)
Propytbenzene
rimethylbenzene (3 isomers)
Propenylbenzene
Methytisopropytbenzene
rimethvlbenzene (2 isomers)
Methytpropylbenzene (3 isomers)
lndane
Phenylbutene
etrahydronapthalene
Methyl benzoic acid
20-Methyl-1-naphthalene acetic acid
ubuthluron
Notes.
ug/L
J
micrograms per liter
estimated quantity
N presumptive evidence of presence of material
constituent below detection limit
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
-
Table 1-2
FCX Washington Site Analytical Results for 1998 Groundwater Samples
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
FX-MW--01-DP FX-MW--02-SH FX-MW--02-DP FX-MW--03-SH FX-MW--03-DP
--------------------
-------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
-----
-----------------------------------
misc.ellaneous compounds have no stated RAO's in the FCX Washington Site ROD
---- ---
FX-MW--05-SH FX-MW--04-DP FX-MW--07-SH
---
---
------
---
---
------------
---
---
------
---
---
---
---
---------------------
------
------------
---
---
----
--- ---_, ----
Table 1-2
FCX Washington Site Analytical Results for 1998 Groundwater Samples
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
Parameters •
ug/L FX-MW--07-DP
Miscellaneous Compounds (unfl J
Disulfolon .
Dimethylmethanethioamide .
Pentamethylbenzene .
Dihydrodimethylindene (2 isomers) .
Dihydrodimethylindene (3 isomers) .
Ethyldimethylbenzene -
Dimethylnaphthalene (2 isomers) .
Biphenyl .
Nonytphenol (2 isomers) .
Tetramethvlbenzene (2 isomers) -
T etramethylbenzene .
Ethyttrimethytbenzene .
T etramethylbutylphenol .
Ethyt(methvlethyl)benzene .
art>a,yt .
Benzothiozole -
1-methylnaphthalene -
.o.7ide.substituted benzene (2 isomers) .
Caprolactam .
Methylthio benzothiazole .
lkanes .
Methylethvlbenzene (3 isomers) .
Propylbenzene .
rimethylbenzene (3 isomers) .
Propenytbenzene -
MethylisoproDVlbenzene .
rimethytbenzene (2 isomers) .
'-'ethylpropylbenzene (3 isomers) -
lndane -
Phenylbutene .
etrahydronapthalene .
Methyl benzoic acid -
0-Methyt..1-naphthalene acetic acid .
ubuthluron .
Prometon .
Notes.
ug/L micrograms per liter
J estimated quantity
N presumptive evidence of presence of material
constituent below detection limit
FX-MW--08-DP FX-MW--09-SH
. -. -
--
--
--
-100J
--
. .
. ---. .
. .
--
--
--. .
--
--
--
--
-100J
-300J . 30JN . 300J . 80JN
-20J
-400J
-90J
-100JN
-30J . 30JN
-40J
-20JN
--
6JN .
miscellaneous compounds have no stated RAO's as stated in the FCX Washington Site ROD
FX-MW--09-DP FX-MW-10-SH
. -
-.
-.
-.
-.
-.
-.
--. .
. .
. -. .
--
--
--
-.
. .
-.
-.
. .
--
--. .
. .
--
. .
--
----
--. .
. -
. .
3JN .
. .
---- -
FX-MW-11-SH FX-MW-12-SH
300JN .
. .
8JN .
10JN -
20JN -
6JN -
10JN .
. .
10JN .
8JN .
5JN -
4JN -
-.
-.
-.
5JN .
6JN .
. .
. -
20JN .
. .
-6JN
-.
. .
-.
. -
. -
--
--
--. .
. .
. -
--. .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ll
I
I
It
I
I
I
ll
I
I
I
I
CONTAMINANT
LEAD
CONTAMINANT
MANGANESE
CONTAMINANT
DIELDRIN ,-----------,1 4,4-000 CONTAMINANT UG/L TOXAPHENE
ALDRIN 0.8.l N ENDRJN KETONE HEPTAOiLOR 2.1 LEAD HEPTAOiLOR EPOXJDE 0.48 MANGANESE AI.PHA-BHC 1. 7
BETA-BHC 1.7 ILEADCONTAMJNANT GAMMA-BHC 1.4 DIEL.ORIN 2.2 C 4,4-DOT 4.8 C 4,4-DDE 0.42 MANGANESE 4,4--000 2.9 C ENORIN 1.1
UG/L
21 J
UG/L
1200
UG/L
2.8 N
4.1
110
1.5
15 J
1200 "~t 18 J
1100
GAMMA-0il..ORDANE 1.8 AI.PHA-OilOROANE o. n CONTAMINANT BER'l'UJUM 8 J LEAD 31 J MANGANESE 2500 J
CONTAMINANT
BJS(2-E1H"II..HEXYI..)
PH1HALA1E
i:.;ALDRl=:::.:N'--_____ o.=:,1:..:4I------
CONTAMINANT UG/L
HEPTAQfl..OR EPOXIDE 0.051 4,4-00T 1.3 CONTAMINANT UG/L 4,4-000 0.57 BER'l'WUM 19 OfROMIUM 58 ALDRIN 0.98 LEAD 85 J ALPHA-BHC 3.9 MANGANESE 4800 -BHC 1.5 N A-BHC (UNOANE) 7.7
1.8N
T 1.8
11
1.2
0iLOR0£1HANE 33 Oil.OROPRa'ANE 8 J ZENE 180 OiLOROPHDIOL 78
,... CICIPIID narm, I a;r HM -cmw a DL .., ____ , .., talS
YM&B_.-:..._■~DDlll.m8"& WYM.LD.
CONTAMINANT
ALDRIN
ALPHA-BHC
BETA-BHC
GAMMA-BHC (UNDANE)
DIEl.DRIN
4,4-000
1,2-DIOil.OROE1HANE
1,2-DIOiUlROPROPANE
OILOR08EMZENE
PENTAOilOROPHENQ.
FCX WASHINGTON SITE WASHINGTON, BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
0.82
4.1
1.4 N
8
2
13
35
10
150
78
cqNTAMINANT UG
BER'l'WUM
LEAD
MANGANESE
51 J nJ
5900 J
UG
8
53 J
1300
cc»ITAMINANT
;,;........:...------jDEl.~-BHC
UG/L
8
GAMMA-BHC
BER'IUJUM
OiROMIIJM
LEAD
MANGANESE
CONTAMINANT
CONTAMINANT UG/L
M.PHA-BHC 0.081
4,4-00T ,,,.,..,.,.-0.15 1.2-DICHLOROPROPANE 100 J BENZENE 830 ·----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~TIUJENE 2200 ,r TOTAL XYLEN£S 3300 CONTAMINANT UG/1. CARBAZOLE 10 J BER'tlUUM 9 J LEAD 29 J
JM
UG/1.
0.053
0.050
21
58
32 J
4800
UG
OilOROFORM 11 J 1,2-DICHl.OROPROPANE 390 MANGANESE 8300 J
ZEN£ 12 J
J;g
RI/FS (1993) SAMPLE LOCATION AND CONCENTRATION MAP
LEGEND
-----~ --
' -]
~---S<miCE ... l[lt ----=......-
~ -·
DUPUCAlE
0.081
790
2100
3200
10 J
9 J
35 J
9500 J
Y'
FIGURE
1-4
I
n
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTAMINANT UG/l
ENDRIN
BETA-BHC
TOXAPHENE
TAMINANT
0.7N
0.07BJ
19N
UG/L
HA-BHC 0.046J AMMA-BHC 0.051 1-----IELDRIN 1.0N RIN 0.14N HA CHLORDANE 0.29 AMMA CHLORDANE O.J8N S(2-ElHY\.HEXYL) PHTHALA TE 24
CONTAMINANT UG/L
MANGANESE 2100 DIELORIN 0.14 ALDRIN 0.47N
CONTAMINANT
UG/L CONTAMINANT MANGANESE 840J l£AD ALPHA-BHC 0.042J BETA-BHC 0.1J GAMMA-BHC
0.04JN BENZENE 120 TOTAL XYLENE 600
,... CCPED FW-,. :m::nne me cs rn; WRJH cemwe EJMIINilENTM.. PIUliBibfAGEMCV. 111U JIDULIS ..,_ NII£ R11 VAUD attD:1ID M1C1W 1Hl RAD1 fRCIII 'H AEIXIID 01 -
UG
38J
JOO
CONTAMINANT UG/L
l£AD
CONTAMINANT UG/L
DIEi.ORiN 0.074J
LEGEND
--FENCE
........., TREE UN£
--SURFACE WAlER
----SOURCE AR£A BOUNDARY
54J
J;f 0 JOO
1998 SAMPLE LOCATION AND CONCENTRATION MAP FCX WASHINGTON SITE FIGURE
1-5
WASHINGTON, BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
liilil -
Param•te~
Met.tis (ug/L)
Aluminum
!Ranum
!Cadmium
alcium
Chromium
""' ead
M=>nnesium
Nickel
otassium
Sitve,
ISl'V1iUffi
Tru.llium
!Vanadium
l7in,
!Cyanide
PeaUcidea/PCS. (ug/1..)
-ta-BHC
Delta-BHC
4,4'--0"
Endosulfan U
n<1nn
ndrin Ketone
"-"'mma-BHC
:...,,mma-Chlordane/2
➔<WJonaehlof ... ~
fTotalDOT
tr-12
-
Pesticides Daughter Productli (ug/L) r-..,,
2,4'-00D
,4-000
,4'-00MU
,,,4'-0DE
14,4'-ODE
7,4'-0DT
4,4'-0DT
EPO:ode ,_
---
FC-MW-01A FC-MW-01B
4130/2002 1 4130/2002 '
· 53,000 85,000
1.7R ·40
1ClUR
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.10U 0.10U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.02SU
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
a.osou a.OSOU
0.025U 0.025U
1.0U 1.0U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.1CNJ o.,ou
-- ---Table 1-3
FCX Washington Site Groundwater Sampling 2002
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
FC-MW-028
5/112002 1
310,000
2,600.
10UR
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.1CNJ
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.10U
FC-MW-03A
511/2002 1
19,000
1.4R
10UR
a.sou
a.sou
a.sou
a.sou
-4.0U
:~~~/o:53.i_'r :'"~-
2.ou
2.0U
2.ou
a.sou
5/l/2002 1
10UR
0.10U
0.10U
0.10U
0.10U
0.10U
::o.0094ib):t'\?
0.10U
0.023
o.,ou
o.,ou
2.0U 0.10U
a.sou 0.10U
2.0U 0.10U
2.0U 0.10U
4.0U 0.10U
FC-MW-OSA
4129/2002 1
·12.000
10UR
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
1.10U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
a.osou
0.025U
1.0U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U 0.0251J 0.0251J :~"'..~~o:mM •1..~~ 2.0U 0.10U 0.025U 0.025U 0.025U 0.025U 2.0U
0.025U 0.025U 0.025U 2.0U
0.025U 0.025U 0.025U ,.ou
0.025U 0.025U 0.025U a.sou
0.025U 0.025U 0.025U 2.0U
o.,ou
0.10U
0.10U
7:f', l'1 o:0098.J ittXi
;.~t:;!;;{o.023Ji.i\~~
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
---
4130/2002 1 4130/2002 1
71,000-
·-18
10UR
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
72,000
5.1
2,100
'"60J
UR
4,800J
10UR
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025ll
o.1ou o.1ou
·',;'y;}:" 0.0049J ,tt;fl; ;h.• '.-;;·.%0.00TTJ y:_ ·• -,;,
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.013J 1-~\:~~o:012J:-:-?'(:':.
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.0SOU a.osou
0.025U 0.025U
LOU LOU
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.10U 0.10U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
0.025U 0.025U
'.£'
.. -
FC-MW-07A FC-MW-07B
511/2002 1 511/2002 •
0.57
17,000 ·10,000·~
19
-3.1.
'560
~ :; '~16c.:,:::.'.'..r:· ;:,:;_;_:;dJ:~SQ:;:;.kl~'.'.".;
10UR 10UR
NA 0,025U
NA 0.0251J
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.0251.J
NA o.,ou
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 1.0U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.10U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
NA 0.025U
FC-MW-01A FC-MW-01B
Parameters
4/30/2002 1 4/JQ/2002 I
Partar 26 0.010U 0.10U
Partar 32 0.010U 0.10U
Partar 39 0.01DU 0.10U
Partar 40 0.010U 0.10U
Par1ar41 0.010U 0.10U Partar44 0.010U 0.10U
Partar62 0.010U 0.10U
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)
eruene 1.0U 1.0U
Chlorobenzeoo 1.0U 1.0U c-~t>exane 1.DU 1.0U
lh't'imelh"''"-'"ene ( 2 isomers) 1.0U 1.0U
E""'"'""'ene 1.0U 1.0U
Hexactiloro.1,3-butadiene 1.0U 1.0U
lndane LOU 1.0U
I n,ene 1.0U 1.0U
"""thvt !-ho""' ether lMTBEl 1.0U 1.0U
"""" 1.0U 1.0U
ene 1.0U 1.0U
etrachloroetheoo LOU 1.0U ...... 1.0U 1.0U 1,3,5-Trimelhvl......,,.eoe 1.0U 1.0U
1,2,3-Trimeth 1.0U 1.0U 1,2,-4-TrimettMhAn:,,ene LOU 1.0U
m-and/or P-)~ 1.0U LOU
0-,yieM 1.0U 1.0U
Semivotatile Organic Compounds & Miscellaneous Compounds {ug/l.)
1, 1-BIPHENYL 10U 10U
,Z·BIS(P--CHLOROPHENYL)ETHANOL 10U 10U
.METHYLPHENOL 10U 10U
CENAPHTiiENE 10U 10U
:HLOROBENZENE 10U 10U
JETHYL PHTHAl.A TE 10U 10U
FLUORANTHENE 10U 10U
FLUORENE IOU IOU
HEXACHLOROBENZENEtHCBl 10U IOU
~EXACHLOROBUTADIENE 10U 10U
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE IHCCP) 10U 10U
HE.XAMETHYLCYCLOTRISILOXANE 10U 10U
:NITROBENZENE 10U IOU
'.)(":TAMETHYLCYCLOTRISILOXANE 10U 10U IPHENANTHRENE 10U 10U
N•tunal Attenutaion Panametera (mg/I..)
Ali.-.. ~ .. -. Total (AS CACO.) 92 160
Chloride 33 16A Methane .. 0.37J ,_N ·-0 -◄
Table 1-3
FCX Washington Site Groundwater Sampling 2002
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
FC-MW-028 FC-MW-OlA FC-MW-038 FC-MW-05A
S/1/2002 I 511/2002 1 513/2002 1 -4129/2002 1
0.10U ::1wi•1 :zJN"'.:...-~· ... 0.020U 0.010U
0.10U ifu;f.-i~o:s5.f :'iw. ::::. ~i ~•:.o.ot3Ni•::/~ 0.010U
0.10U ~*:(i.BBN\':?'' 0.020U 0.010U
0.10U :-:..-:~"1;2N. _, 0.0091JN 0.010U
0.10U 0.40U 0.020U 0.010U
0.10U 1's::it'<,,-0.48N. 0.011 0.010U
0.10U ;..:1,::-~~ 0.41°' ·o.0021JN ·. 0.010U
I.OU 1.ou I.OU 1.DU
1.0U ,.au 1.0U 1.DU
1.0U ,.au 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
10JN
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U ,.au 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U I.OU LOU
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U LOU 1.0U 1.DU
1.0U 1.ou 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U LOU 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.ou 1.0U I.OU
1.0U t.OU 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
10U 10U 10U 10U
10U 10U 10U 10U
IOU 10U 10U 10U
10U 10U 10U 10U
10U tOU· 10U 10U
10U 10U IOU 10U
10U 10U IOU NR
IOU 10U 10U 10U
10U 10U 10U 10U
IOU 10U 10U 10U
IOU 10U 10U 10U
10U 10U 10U 10U
10U IOU 10U IOU
10U 10U 10U 10U
10U 10U 10U 10U
260 45 I 160 26
640 2.4A I 33 2.4A
O.""--~ ....,__ 0.84 ...... --,.,.,,_ ......., ,--6.3-5:4
FC-MW-05B FC-MW.-05B-O FC-MW-07A FC-MW-07B
4/30/2002 1 4130/2002 1 511/2002 I 51112002'
o.oosou 0.010U NA 0.010U
O.OtOU 0.010U NA 0.010U
0.010U Q.010U NA 0.010U
O.OlOU O.OtOU NA 0.010U
0.010U Q.010U NA 0.010U
0.010U 0.010U NA O.OtOU
0.010U O.OtOU NA 0.010U
1.0U LOU 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.DU 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U LOU 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U LOU 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U LOU 1.DU 1.0U
1.0U LOU 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U LOU 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.DU LOU 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
LOU LOU 1.0U 1.0U
LOU 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U LOU 1.0U 1.0U
~J~2.8J.:.,.:::::,'};;_ 10U NA 10U
10U IOU NA 10U
10U 10U NA 1ou
10U 10U NA 1ou
10U 10U NA 10U
IOU 10U NA \OU
10U IOU NA 10U
10U 10U NA \OU
10U 10U NA 1ou
10U 10U NA 1ou
10U 10U NA 10U :-i?' :!•.~ ....... ~~~ 10U NA 1ou
10U 10U NA IOU
))C!l!'l< !!OJN t,<;t!;f,1 10U NA 10U
10U 10U NA 10U
140 140 I 38 I 180
21 26 I 20 I 14A ~, . .-u.--· 1.4l•-·-·-I 2.8 I 2.8 I 0.52 I o.osou
----------Table 1-3 - -FCX Washington Site Groundwater Sampling 2002
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
FC-MW-01A FC-MW-01B FC-MW-028 FC-MW-OJA FC-MW-038 FC-MW-05A
Parameters
4130/2002 1 4/30J20Q2 I 5/112002 I 5/1/2002 1 513/2002 1 4129/2002 1
Nilrite-N;o~en 0.050U 0.050U 0.050U 0.050U o·· 0.050U
Sulfate 41 55 260 5.0A 59 12
Total Oraanic Com~ ""d 6.4 1.0U 1.4 2.1 I.OU
Carbon Dioxide I.OU 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0UJ 1.0U
Acetic Acid 1.0UJ 1.0UJ 1.0UJ 1.0UJ 1.0UJ 1.0UJ Pro...,.-'-Acid 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U I.OU I.OU 1.0U
0.~n..,. Acid IOU IOU IOU 10U 10U \OU n-B·..._......, Acid I.OU 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
l-lactic: Acid 25U 25U 25U 25U 25U 25U
Field Parameters
Tem.......,.tute (riAnrees Cebus) NE NE 19.07 18.01 19.98 18.21
loH 5.47 7.46 6.65 6.07 7.55 5.74
Oxidation Reduction Potential 79 -47 NE 135.1 103,7 205.9
Turbiditv (NTU) 1.1 ... , 0.2 • -0.2 -5.4
Dissolved Q,n,nen (mn/11 -0.58 NE NE 8.21 11.◄7 9.96
Dissolved Q,n,nen (%) NE 6.6 129.5 NE 127.5 104.5
C I (us/an) 322 447 346.9 96 547 411
Total Ferrous Iron 2(mg/l) • 0 0 0 0 0 Sulfide' 0.08 BMR BMR BMR BMR BMR
S<>linitu NE NE 1.64 NE 0.27 0.2 Nitrite• (mg/l) NE NE NE 0 0 NE
Notes:
t\rt?i."··t~?~trli'~~lU.:t~,~---10:n{!::.t~ Indicates detected concentration
ug/1.. micrograms per Bter
mg/l miligrams per liter
wan
0 Duplicate Sample
N Indicates presumptive evidence of presence of matenal.
J Estimated Value
R Rejeded data, QC Indicates data iS uroseab1e
A Avet'age value
U Material was analyzed for but not detected. Constituent was below detection limit
L Actual value iS knoNn to be greater than value given.
NE Not evaluated
NA Not analyzed
BMR Below measuring range limit
* No reading available, instrument prob6em
•• Field Test Kit used to measure Nilrile
1 Sample Collectioo Date
2 Field te&t kit: Hanna Instruments/ HI 383◄-0
3 Field lest kit: Onon Aquafast U / AC2016
◄ Field lest kit: Hama Instruments/ HI 3873
--.. -
FC-MW-05B FC-MW-05B-O FC-MW-07A FC-MW-07B
4/30/2002 I 4/30/2002 I 5/1/2002 I 5/1/2002'
o.osou o.osou O.OSOU 0.050U
32 ,0 19 38A
1.0U 1.0U 1.6 1.3
1.0U 1.0U I.OU 1.0U
1.0UJ 1.0UJ 1.0UJ 1.0UJ
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
10U 10U 10U IOU
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U
25U 25U 25U 25U
17.12 NE 15 17.33
7.28 NE 5.88 7.32
146.3 NE 97.-4 41.3 .... , NE • -2.8
7.66 NE -3.72 0.73
79.◄ NE NE 6.4
397 NE 149 444
0 NE 0 0
0.05 NE BMR BMR
0.19 NE 0.09 0.21
NE NE NE NE
D!!!!I
P•rameterw
Metals (ug/L)
~1uminum
anum
admium
hromium
Coppe,
Iron
Lead
............
Nickel
Potassium ·-Sodium
Table 1-3
FCX Washington Site Groundwater Sampling 2002
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
FC-MW-08B FC-MW.Q9A FC-MW-098 FC-MW-10A
512/2002 • 5/3/2002 I 513/2002 I 512/2002 I
2.9R
FC-MW-11A FC-MW-t2A
512/2002 1 512/2002 1
UR
1.3R 1.1R
10UR
Oteldrin o.02su 1~~mo~1J~i a.1ou &i£'£~~-o:s •'7"' · ,2,o.'-'!i:.o/,.0;38J~.,,, tf;ll{"!i;0:03~'r. ndosulfan u o.02su 00'..-,;t~~._~~~lf o.1ou o.1ou a.sou o.02su ndrin o.02su o.2su o.1ou ~lf~"\i0)2;W.'i;\t a.sou ~.A'\~0;013,,1?,',l,t= .• ,.. Endrin Ketone 0.025U ~--Hcn'j_~~°¥. 0.10U :f~:{i'J:,i).fS . .:S.~~ O.SOU ot;,-,-a!.0.~'1!!~~-~"mma-BHC 0.025U 0.25U o.1ou 0.10U ~,,;.'{:t~0,23t._~;";,' 0.025U ~mma-Chlonfane/2 o.025U o.2su o.1ou t'f,,\>. ....... ~,n·~~~"½~-""', a.sou '' ·",· tJ~; ....,thonw+alnr O.OSOU 0.50U 0.20U 0.20U 1.0U 0.050U
To~ 1.0U 10U 3.0U ◄

.
O
U

20U 1.0U
PHtJcidn Daughter Products (ug/1..)
hlo<dene/2
,◄'·DDD
◄,<t'-DDMU
,<t'-DDE
,<t'-DDE
,<t'-DDT
i◄,◄'-ODT
0.025U
0.025U
a.025U
0.1aU
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.025U
0.25U
0.25U
0.25U
0.50U
0.25U
0.25U
0.25U -a.025U ~ ~~~
a.sou
a.sou
0.10U 0.025U 0.10U 0.10U O.SOU
0.1aU o.1au a.sou
0.10U :~j§u,tu:7:.IN~~ 2.aU 0.10U
o.1ou o.1ou a.sou o.02su
o.10u o.1ou a.sou o.02su
0.1au J.f;t(i[OJl.'¥U~ 0.50U D.025U
11!!!!1
- -----
Param•ters
Pattar26
li:iartar 32
Partar 39
Partar4D
Par1ar41
Partar44
Par1ar62
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)
Benzene
~•~<>benzene c--E nzene ( 2 isomers)
one
ll-lAxachlor0-1,3-butadiene
ndane
I
I one
lt.Aelhul l..holhll ether (MTBE)
one
tr•-
olueoe
1,3,5-Trime»..." ........ ene
1,2,3-Trim_._,eoe
1.2,4-Trimett...1-... .. ene
(m--and/or o-)wul..nA ~-Semlvolatlle Organic Compounds & Misc
1,1-BIPHENYL
",2'-8IS(P-CHLOROPHENYL)ETHANOL
12-METHYLPHENOL
IACENAPHTHENE
HLOROBENZENE
DIETHYL PHTHAu\TE
IFLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
/HEXACHLOROBENZENE (HCB)
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAOIENE tHCCP
\.IEXAMfTHYLCYCLOTRISILOXANE
NITROBENZENE
IY.T AMETHYLCYCLOTRISILOXANE
IPHENANTHRENE
Natural Attenutalon Paramatara (mg/L)
AJkafiritv, Total !AS CACOi)
~
Methane
Nitrate-Nit......,en
l!!!!9 aa --Table 1-3
FCX Washington Site Groundwater Sampling 2002
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
FC-MW-08B FC-MW-09A FC-MW-09B FC-MW-10A
512/2002' 5/312002 I 5/3/2002 I 5/2/2002 I
0.010U 0.10U 0.020U 0.040U
0.010U 0.t0U 0.020U 0.040U
0.010U 0.IOU 0.020U 0.040U
0.010U a.tau 0.020U 0.040U
0.010U 0.10U 0.020U 0.040U
0.010U 0.t0U 0.020U 0.040U
O.OtOU 0.10U 0.020U 0.012J
1.0U :ct:::":~-{,: 55 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 10U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U ~.~•<;9.6J 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U -~~-\;;-200JN . 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U i'7~;;-~~~ 330 . 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 10U 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U ;:}~T~· 200JN ~ .--"', 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U :~fft:t~·32.~ . ·~ ·•: 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 10U [ r.?~'. Jl,1.3?} '?·, •~ 1.0U
1.0U tl:-tl..~8:6J~t-!.~~ 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U ~'it"t'~OO·t~·;-'!/"1~ 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U 10U 1.0U ,,_,;>;.'.~~0.61J~;,i,-::t,
1.0U s•;~g33~;:{~~\'-~: 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U ~~96_if-.,~1'f--· 1.0U f.0U
1.0U t~Tfl200J ~.:J-:-J~ 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U ~~~~.k15CXJ'!~~~~ 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U ~™BSOI:'"-'~.:'.~~~ 1.0U 1.0U
1.0U ~tJf.f'A"°f16D··~':< ~~ '~ 1.0U 1.0U
10U 2~{t::¼'2.8J -~~-:-.'.;2 1IIU 10U
10U ;.;~*30JN t 'J{,?~ 10U 10U
10U ~~~°i,i2 -,~ .. : .. -:-::.: 10U 10U
10U 20U 10U 10U
10U f,:;;J,t~-~:1: 1J -~.:.~!.,.:"., 10U 10U
10U :.rtr:ttt"J1Jt~:':~~:f: 10U 10U
10U 10U 10U 10U
10U ~~A,~~ }~i?;Jt 10U 10U
10U 10U 10U 10U
10U ~~"Pt17JM,~',.~ 10U 10U
10U 10U 10U 10U
10U 10U 10U 10U
10U :n--~~.,~ .. 1-t~:,: 10U 10U
10U 10U 10U 10U
10U r~i:t?f:t1 :e,(.J'!~#:; 10U 10U
150 270 180 140
5.6 14A 16A 5.5
1.4U 9,000 2.9 1.4U
0.16 o.n 0.14 2.5
FC-MW-11A
512/2002 I
·e:,-;·•·-o:11JN•'..(?T.-
0.20U
{' •: ···,o.ooor:·1 ;_-
0.20U
0.21N' ...
0.20U
0.20U
1.0U
: 2.4A;..,, .. :.:·,
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
.. ~.-1.6A·;-.y·_.i_-
1.0U
,.ou
1.0U
1.0U
,.ou
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
1.ou
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
10U
10U
10U
~~~1.4J:~~:;:t:.~
10U
10U
it.t";;t~ 500JN .£.;~:
10U
-~~-::i:·2,3J:..-;..-;._~;:
1IIU
,;r~~2Jffi~
10U
10U
~!.¾~"f5QJNi,~
10U
100
8.5
26A
0.056
--iliiJ
FC-MW-12A
5/2/2002 I
0.10U
O.tOU
0.10U
0.10U
O.IOU
0.10U
0.10U
1.0U
t.OU
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
I.OU
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
1.0U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
100
5.4A
1.4U
3.6
---
Parameters
Nitrtle-N1•-en
Sulfate
Total Organic Comrv,und
Carbon Dio.lide
Acetic Acid
P'"""""' ic Acid
l0unrw-Acid
n-.Butyric Acid
L-lactic Acid
Field Parametera
Tem,_,.,.ture ,.....,,rees Celcius)
H
Oxidation Reduction Potential
Turbicf1tv lNTU)
DiSSOlved Q_..~ (mnn)
Dissotve<l QV\11'\An (%)
Cond·.,...._ .... , fus/cml
Total Ferrous lro,.2(mg/L)
SUOide'
5ai;nik,
Nitrite· (mg/L)
Notes:
Table 1-3
FCX Washington Site Groundwater Sampling 2002
Washington, Beaufort County, North Carolina
FC-MW.08B FC-MW-09A FC-MW-098 FC-MW-10A
512/2002 4 513/2002 1 5/3/20021 S/2/2002 1
0.050U o-o·· 0.050U
21 30A 30A 26
17A 18 1.2
1.0U 1.0UJ 1.0UJ 1.0U
1.0UJ 1.0UJ 1.0UJ 1.0UJ
1.0U 1.0U t.OU 1.0U
10U 10U ,au ,au
1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.DU
25U 25U 25U 25U
15.91 18.24 16.83 19.03
6.3 7.09 6.57 7.01
.... 6.4 15 193 132.3
-5.4 0.2 -0.3 0.2
8.14 7.37 3.3 7.38
82.3 79 NE NE
604 451 348 331
5 0 0 0
0.25 0.04 0.06 0.06
0.29 0.22 NE NE NE 0 NE NE .. -... -<11(!1·~¥:~~~.=EV.:-.Q··••7,_,, ... ,,,.~:.-;....•,r,,·_;.,-.~.-·~~ .. t,)_~1.~&-°)'~~~.;_;;._i~~ Indicates detecced concentration
--liiil
ug/1.. miaograms per iter
mg/I.. miWgrams per liter
,s1an
D
N
Duplicate Sample
Indicates presumptive evidence of presence of material.
Estimated Value
Rejected data, QC indicates data is WlUseable
Average value
J
R
A
u
L
Material was analyzed for but not detected. Constituent was below detection limit. Actual value Is known lo be greater than value given. NE
NA
BMR
Nol evaluated
Not analyzed
Below measuring range limit
• No reading available, instrument problem
.. Field Test Kit used to measure Nrutte
1 Sample Collec:tion Dale
2 Field lest kit: Hanna Instruments I HI 38J4.0
3 Field test kit: Orion Aquafast II/ AC2016
4 Field tesl kit: Hanna Instruments I HI 3873
-iiii -
FC-MW-11A FC-MW-12A
512/2002 1 5/2/2QQ2 I
0.050U 0.050U
230 69
4.4 1.2
1.0U 1.0U
1.0UJ 1.0UJ
1.0U 1.0U
10U 10U
1.0U 1.0U
25U 25U
16.82 17.9
6.07 5.87 ... n
0.4 •
11.39 -3.9
NE NE
705 332
5 0
0.25 0.1◄
NE NE
NE NE
111!1 11!!!!1
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTAMINANT UG/l
ALPHA-CHLORDANE/2
DIEI.DRIN 0.53J GAMMA-CHLORDANE/2 0.41J lOXAPHENE 45
A CHLOROANE/2
IAI.LlfflN
BHC
IN
-CHLOROANE/2
CONTAMINANT UG/l
MANGANESE
Al.PH-BHC
ALDR1N
DIELDRIN
GAMMA-BHC
1,500J
0.099J
2.7
O.JBJ
0.23
UG/l
0.23
0.19
0.87J
0.8
0.4
CONTAMINANT
DIELDRIN
4.4'-DDE
BENZENE
UG/l
0.11
0.028.J
55
CONTAMINANT UG/l
DlaDRIN 0.03
,._ Cll'B ,_.,..,. £ !P n:z ITf W11Dt CWIW wnnrmrua. AWi 1 ..._ • ..,_. -FIii YM.1D 1E11:11D ,_,.Nao flDI 'IHI IIIIXWI a, JOO -
l£GENC
_,,_,_
.--.:a...
--Sl.AFAC! W>tll ----:=..~ ~--
J50 °
2002 SAMPLE LOCATION AND CONCENlRA TION MAP FCX WASHINGTON SITE WASHINGTON, BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
yo
FIGURE
1-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
2.0 Description of Current Conditions
Section: 2
FfNAL
May 17, 2004
Page I of5
This section provides a description of the current conditions in the general vicinity of the site
as well as site specific conditions.
2.1 Topography and Physiography
The FCX Washington Site, located in Beaufort County, North Carolina, lies within the
Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province which is characterized by broad flat surfaces
that slope gently toward the southeast. Marked topographic variations are not common as
broad, flat, interstream areas are the dominant topographic feature, although moderately
dissected portions of the surface occur along narrow belts bordering major streams.
Elevations in the Beaufort County area range from 135 above mean sea level (ams!) in the
western part of the county to zero in eastern parts along the coast. Land surface elevations
at the FCX site ranged from 6.61 to 13. 79 feet ams!, Beaufort County is located midway
between the Albemarle Embayment and the Cape Fear Arch in a syform or depression
(CDM, 1993).
2.2 Climate
The climate, while moderate with regard to the daily range of temperatures, can be
characterized as mild with warm and humid summers, and calm winters. Summers are long
and quite warm, with afternoon temperatures averaging 90° F approximately 33% of the
midsummer days, and with sea breezes generally occurring around noon to alleviate the
inland heat. During winter, numerous polar air masses reach the middle Atlantic Coast
causing sharp drops in temperatures. The average annual temperature for the period 1945
through 1982 is 63 ° F. Rainfall is generally evenly distributed throughout the year with the
driest weather usually occurring in the spring and the wettest weather occurring in the
summer. The average annual precipitation for the period 1945 through 1982 is 53. 7 inches,
and the average annual snowfall is 3 inches for the same time period (CDM, 1993).
2.3 Hydrogeologic Setting
The FCX Washington Site is underlain by seven aquifers. They include a surficial (water
table) aquifer and six deeper semi-confined to confined aquifers. A more formal designation
of these aquifer systems in order of increasing depth is as follows: Surficial/water table
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 2
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 2 of 5
aquifer, Yorktown aquifer, Castle Hayne aquifer, Beaufort aquifer, Peedee aquifer, Black
Creek aquifer, and Cape Fear aquifer (CDM, 1993).
The water table or surficial aquifer is comprised of undifferentiated surficial sands of recent
age. The thickness of the water table aquifer ranges from 2 to 8 feet, averaging 4.6 feet.
Underlying the water table aquifer is the Yorktown aquifer. This aquifer is semi-confined
and is separated from the water table aquifer by the upper clayey sediments of the Yorktown
Formation. This clay is formally designated as the upper Yorktown semi-confining unit and
is continuous throughout the site area. The thickness of the upper Yorktown semi-confining
unit ranges from 6 tol2 feet, and averages 9 feet. Below this upper semi-confining unit are
the permeable sediments that comprise the Yorktown aquifer. These sediments consist
primarily of shells and sand. The saturated thickness of the Yorktown aquifer ranges from
16 to 27 feet, and averages 23 feet. The base of the Yorktown aquifer is formed by the clays
of the Yorktown Formation and of the Castle Hayne Limestone. Formally this clay unit is
designated as the Castle Hayne confining unit. Only the upper portion of the Castle Hayne
confining unit was penetrated during the RI subsurface investigation, and therefore its exact
thickness below the FCX Washington site is not known. Based on site lithologic data, it is
known that the Castle Hayne confining unit is at least 38 feet thick. The Yorktown aquifer
is the deepest aquifer that was penetrated during the subsurface investigation (CDM, I 993).
Lying below the Yorktown aquifer is the Castle Hayne aquifer system. This system includes
the upper clay confining unit and the limestone rock of the Castle Hayne Limestone. The
total thickness of this Castle Hayne aquifer system is expected to be 152 feet with the
thickness of the upper confining unit at 20 feet and the deeper permeable limestone section
at 132 feet. Published values of hydraulic conductivity for the permeable portion of the
Castle Hayne aquifer range from 51 to 200 feet per day, and averages 65 feet per day.
Hydraulic head differences measured between the Yorktown and the Castle Hayne aquifer
indicates that groundwater moves upward from the Castle Hayne aquifer, and recharges the
overlying Yorktown aquifer (CDM, 1993).
The Beaufort aquifer system underlies the Castle Hayne aquifer system. The Beaufort
aquifer system is 85 feet thick and consists of an upper clay that is..5J__feeUhick and a deeper
more permeable sand unit that is 85 feet thick. An average hydraulic conductivity reported
in existing hydrogeological data for the Beaufort aquifer and Castle Hayne aquifer indicate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
D
g
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68.W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD--049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 2
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 3 of5
the groundwater moves from the Beaufort aquifer upward into the Castle Hayne aquifer
system (CDM, 1993).
The Peedee aquifer system lies below the Beaufort aquifer system and is 115 feet thick. This
system is comprised of an upper clay unit which is about 37 feet thick and a deeper
permeable sand unit that is 80 feet thick. Reported hydraulic conductivity values for the
Peedee aquifer averages 33 feet per day. Differences in hydraulic head between the
overlying Beaufort and Peedee aquifer systems indicate a potential for groundwater to move
from the Peedee aquifer upward into the Beaufort system (CDM, 1993).
Underlying the Peedee aquifer system is the Black Creek aquifer system. This system is 210
feet thick and is comprised of an upper clay confining unit that is 127 feet thick and a deeper
more permeable clayey sand unit that is 83 feet thick. The hydraulic conductivity of the
Black Creek aquifer is estimated to range from 15 to 50 feet per day, and averages 28 feet
per day. The differences in hydraulic head measured in the Black Creek aquifer and in the
overlying Peedee aquifer indicate that groundwater movement between these aquifers is
downward from the Peedee aquifer into the Black Creek aquifer (CDM, 1993).
Below the Black Creek aquifer system are the Cape Fear and Lower Cretaceous aquifer
systems. These systems combined can reach a thickness of at least 1,300 feet. The
hydraulic conductivity for these systems have been estimated to range between 20 and 75
feet per day, and average 34 feet per day. The source of groundwater recharge to these
systems is from downward leakage through overlying aquifers. Upward leakage may also
occur as groundwater moves upward from the underlying basement rock units into these
systems (CDM, 1993).
2.4 Groundwater Use
The population in the vicinity of the site obtains its potable water supply from either public
water supply wells or from private wells. A water use survey was conducted within a 0.50
mile radius around the site by CDM Federal in March 1992. The survey consisted of
contracting 129 potential water users of which 80 responses were received. The results
showed 71 respondents within 0.50 mile radius of the site relied exclusively on municipal
water supplies. Five of the 71 municipal water users also had private wells which were not
used. Six of the respondents had private wells which were used for potable water as well as
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section : 2
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 4 of5
general home use and irrigation. Three respondents had private wells which were used for
livestock watering and irrigation, but used municipal water for drinking and household
purposes. The water use survey indicated two of the private wells were constructed to a
depth of 80 feet below land surface, one to a depth of250 feet, and one to a depth of 15 feet.
Well depth regarding the private wells were not reported (CDM, 1993).
2.5 Surface Water Use
The FCX Washington site is located within the drainage basin of the Tar-Pamlico River
system. The Tar-Pamlico River system originates in the northeastern part of the Piedmont
Physiographic Province and flows southeast to its terminus in the Pamlico Sound. The Tar-
Pamlico River system is known as the Tar River above Tranters Creek near the City of
Washington and as the Pamlico River below Tranters Creek. The nearest downslope water
body to the site is Kennedy Creek which flows southeast and drains into the Tar River.
Kennedy Creek is classified as a Class C surface water and is used for fishing and wildlife
propagation, secondary recreation, agriculture, and other low quality uses. The Pamlico
River is designated as tidal saltwater and is Class SC water which is used for fish and
wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, and other lower quality uses (CDM, 1993).
2.6 Demography and Land Use
Based on the 1990 Census information, Washington had an estimated population of9,075
people. Additionally, there were four minor population centers located within a 4-mile
radius of the site. These population centers include Washington Park centered three miles
southeast of the site, Chocowinity centered 4 miles south-southwest of the site, Hootentown
centered 3.5 miles east-southeast of the site, and Wharton Station centered 3.9 miles
northwest of the site. Washington Park had an estimated population of 403 and Chocowinity
has an estimated population of 624, based on the 1990 census results. Demographic
information was not available for Hootentown and Wharton Station which were
unincorporated (CDM, 1993).
Land use around the site is primarily light industrial, commercial, residential, and
agricultural. Agricultural fields surround the site to the north, west, southeast, and
southwest. A 275-acre freshwater wetlands is located further to the south and southwest of
the site. The former abandoned city dump is located within these wetlands. Industries in
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 2
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 5 of5
the area include distribution centers for trucking, agro-chemical, propane, and manufacturing
companies related to the textile industry (COM, 1993).
Residential neighborhoods are interspersed within light/commercial areas which line the
main roads within a three mile radius of the site. Approximately 11,350 residents are
estimated to live within a three mile radius of the site, Recreational areas near the FCX
Washington site include a public swimming pool and a little league baseball field (COM,
1993),
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
3.0 Project Management
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page I of25
The following project management elements address the procedural aspects of project
development for the FCX Washington Site.
3.1 Project Organization
The purpose of the project organization is to provide the EPA and the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) with 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 Remedial Project Manager Kenneth A. Lucas
Makers NCDENR Project Manager Nile P. Testerman, P.E.
• QA EPA QA Manager (QAM) Gary Bennett
Managers Black & Veatch QAM Virgil A. Paulson, P .E.
• Principal Black & Veatch Project Manager David Russell, P .E .
Data Users Black & Veatch Project Staff Currie Mixon
Shruti Shah
A project organization chart is presented on Figure 3-1. Black & Veatch in Alpharetta,
Georgia, has overall responsibility for the investigation at the FCX Washington Site. The
Black & Veatch Project Manager, Mr. David Russell, has primary responsibility for
execution of the work. The Project Manager will track performance of the work against
schedule and budget constraints, will be involved in data review, and will oversee the '
preparation of technical reports. Mr. Russell will be the primary contact with the EPA
Remedial Project Manager (RPM), Mr. Kenneth Lucas. Mr. Russell will serve as the Project
Review Team Leader and will ensure that valid data is collected and used in a technically
correct manner. Mr. Virgil A. Paulson, the Quality Assurance Manager, is responsible for
the overall management of the Quality Assurance Program. The Black & Veatch
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 3-1 Project Organization Chart
U.S. EPA Region IV
Charles Hayes
EPA Contracting Officer
Rob Stern
EPA Project Officer
I
Black & Veatch (Alpharetta, Georgia)
Harvey B. Coppage, P.E.
U.S. EPA Region IV
Kenneth Lucas
Remedial Project Manager
North Site Management Branch
EPA RAC 4 Program Manager
I
Black & Veatch (Alpharetta, Georgia)
Project Manager
Dave Russell, P.E.
Project Team Leaders
David Prouty -Project Geologist
Currie Mixon -Project Engineer
Shruti Shah -Project Scientist
U.S. EPA SESD
Gary Bennett
Chief Quality Assurance Officer
Contract Laboratory Program
Black & Veatch
Virgil Paulson
Black & Veatch QA Manager
Jack Schill
Black & Veatch Director of Health & Safety
Subcontractors
Analytical
Accura Analytical Laboratories
Drilling
To Be Determined
Investigation-Derived Waste
To Be Determined
Surveying
To Be Determmed
0
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 3 of25
Project Manager; the Quality Assurance Manager; the Project Geologist, Mr. David Prouty;
Project Engineer, Mr. Currie Mixon; and the Project Scientist, Ms. Shruti Shah, will be
responsible for implementation of the work plan, data evaluation, electronic deliverables, and
ensuring that the data requirements of the project are met.
The EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) oversees the CLP and
maintains its own QA program under the direction of Mr. Gary Bennett. Mr. Bennett is
responsible for ensuring that the analytical work contracted to CLP laboratories and the data
qualification of the data by SESD personnel is conducted in accordance with the appropriate
QA procedures. The analytical work performed for this RD will be conducted by both CLP
and non-CLP laboratories.
3.2 Remedial Design Investigation at the FCX Washington Site
Information on the location, the operational history, and the regulatory history of the FCX
Washington site is presented in Section LO of the QAPP.
3.3 Project Description and Schedule
3.3.1 RD Description
An RD is scoped for the FCX Washington Site under the SOW issued to Black & Veatch on
September 25, 2001. The purpose of the remedy is to reduce groundwater contaminants
levels within the long-term cleanup standards specified in the ROD (EPA, 1993). According
to the ROD, the RA for OU #I consists of: (I) extraction of contaminated groundwater from
within and at the periphery of the plume; (2) treatment of contaminated water, followed by
discharge to surface water, meeting all appropriate requirements; and (3) disposal of
residuals generated from the above treatment processes as appropriate. However, after a
comparison of the groundwater analytical results from April 1993 and February 1998, an
indication of reduction in the concentration of some pesticides and VOCs over time was
observed (CDM, 1999). This reduction prompted the examination of natural attenuation
processes potentially responsible for these changes in concentrations through an investigation
of monitored natural attenuation (MNA) as an alternative to the pump-and-treat remedy listed
in the ROD.
The objective of this investigation is to gather representative data necessary to fill in the data
QuaJity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 4 of25
gaps, in order to evaluate the use ofMNA at the FCX site. The goals are to delineate the
extent of the groundwater contamination; to continue to develop a set of natural attenuation
parameters, contaminant daughter products concentrations, and contaminant concentrations
to be monitored in the groundwater wells; and to examine the feasibility of using a permeable
reactive barrier (PRB) for the groundwater migrating from source area 3. These data are
needed to characterize and understand the processes acting at the site in order to determine
the feasibility of selecting MNA.
Specifically, the objectives of the current phase of work, as stated in the EPA Region 4's
comments on June 5, 2003, on the Technical Memorandum "Field Investigation Results,
Bioscreen Analysis and Recommendations" (EPA, 2003) are to:
I. Determine if manganese, toxaphene, gamma chlordane, dieldrin, aldrin, beta BHC,
lindane, DDE, and benzene are migrating beyond the site and current monitoring
system
2.
3.
Determine if the above compounds are discharging to the wetland and accumulating
in the sediment or contaminating surface water above the protection standards
specified in the ROD
Determine if MNA will act to reduce concentrations of compounds other than
toxaphene
3.3.2 Description of the Work to be Performed
Additional characterization of the nature and extent of contamination is needed to address
the objectives of this current phase of work. Activities to support the characterization
include the construction of five new monitoring wells (including subsurface soil samples
from these locations during construction) and the collection of two surface water, sediment,
and pushpoint samples in the wetland area south of the site. Other planned field activities
include collection of groundwater samples, obtaining water levels and slug test results from
site monitoring wells, collection of groundwater to support a bench scale treatability study,
and disposal of investigation-derived wastes (IDW). Proposed monitoring well locations,
groundwater, surface water, sediment, and pushpoint sample locations are presented in
Section 3.0 of the Field Sampling Plan (FSP) as well as a description of the fieldwork
proposed for this RD investigation.
Upon completion of the site investigation activities and receipt of analytical data from the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
D
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
u
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 5 of25
laboratory, a data evaluation report will be submitted to EPA Region 4 for review that will
be prepared in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Statement of Work dated
September 25, 200 I. Based on the results presented in the data evaluation report, EPA
Region 4 and Black & Veatch will discuss data evaluation results, and EPA Region 4 will
determine the need for a followup investigation. If a followup investigation is deemed
necessary, then another data evaluation report will be submitted after receipt of analytical
results for EPA Region 4 to determine if enough data is available to propose MNA as an
alternative to the remedy for the RD. If the amount of data is still not satisfactory, the
investigation/data evaluation report process will be repeated until the amount of data is
satisfactory, at which point a report discussing the feasability of MNA as a remedy for the
RD will be submitted to EPA Region 4 for review. Concurrently, the feasibility of another
remedial technology, a PRB, will be determined as a possible component for the RD for the
FCX site. A treatability study will be performed to determine the effectiveness of a reactive
material and hydrogeologic information will be gathered from the site in the process of this
determination. Based on the results presented in the most recent data evaluation report and
final MNA report, EPA Region 4 will determine the need for further investigations to
support the RD.
3.3.3 Proposed Project Schedule
The proposed schedule for completion of the RD at the FCX Washington Site is presented
in Section 5 of the RD Interim Work Plan. The schedule reflects the work assignment
established review period lengths for EPA Region 4 review of each of the draft planning
documents and the turnaround periods for preparation of final planning documents upon
receipt of review comments from EPA.
3.4 Data Quality Objectives
Data quality objectives (DQOs) are qualitative and quantitative statements derived from the
resultant of each step of a process that: I) clarifies the study objective; 2) defines the most
appropriate type of data to collect; 3) determines the most appropriate conditions from
which to collect the data; and 4) specifies tolerable limits on decision errors that will be used
as the basis for establishing the quantity and quality of data needed to support the decision.
The DQO process for this project is described in the Guidance for the Data Quality
Objectives Process (G-4) (EPA/600/R-96/055) (EPA, 1994).
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 6 of25
The DQO process is a strategic planning approach based on the scientific method designed
to ensure that the type, quantity, and quality of environmental data used in decision making
are appropriate for the intended application. By using the DQO process, a decision maker
uses specific criteria for determining when data are sufficient for site decisions. This
provides a mechanism for decision makers to determine when enough data has been
collected. Because the DQO process is based on the scientific method, the legal defensibility
of site decisions are improved by providing a complete record of the decision process and
the criteria used for arriving at all conclusions.
The DQO process consists of seven steps; the output from each step influences the choices
that will be made later in the process. Although it is a linear sequence of steps, the DQO
process is iterative in practice; the outputs from one step may lead to reconsideration of prior
steps. This iteration is encouraged in order to produce a more efficient data collection
design. The seven steps of the DQO process are described below:
• Step I: State the Problem -Concisely describe the problem to be studied. Review previous investigation reports and existing information in order to develop an understanding of how to define the problem. Other specific activities will include: 1) Identifying members of the DQO planning team; 2) defining the conceptual site model; 3) defining the exposure scenario; and 4) specifying
available resources.
• Step 2: Identify the Decision -Identify what questions the investigation will attempt to resolve, and what action may result. Specific activities will include: 1) Identifying the principal study questions; 2) defining the alternate actions that could result; 3) combining the study question and alternate actions into a decision document; and 4) where applicable, organize multiple decisions. The desired end product of this step is a decision statement that links the study question to possible actions that will resolve the problem.
• Step 3: Identify the Inputs to the Decision -Identify the information that needs to be obtained (analytical data results, field measurements) in order to resolve the decision statement. Specific activities include: I) Identifying the information that will be needed to resolve the decision statement; 2) determining the sources
for this information; 3) determining what criteria will be used to establish an action level; and 4) confirming that measurement methods exist.
• Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries -Specify the time periods and spatial area
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Section; 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 7 of25
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
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.
3.4. 1 DQO Step 1: State the Problem
The first step in the DQO process is to identify and clearly state the problem. For this work
effort, the problem has been defined by the EPA Region 4 in the SOW for the FCX
Washington Site, dated September 25, 200 I (EPA, 200 I), with additional direction provided
in the comments on the Technical Memorandum (EPA, 2003). A preliminary evaluation of
the nature and extent of contamination for the FCX Washington Site is based primarily on
the RI/FS and 1998 and 2002 sampling data. This evaluation attempts to address the nature
and extent of contamination in groundwater by comparing the analytical results to the RA Os
established in the ROD (EPA, 1993). Groundwater contamination, as determined by
concentrations detected above RA Os, includes both inorganic and organic constituents. The
extents of the contamination are not known, as the existing monitoring well network does
not indicate the limits of the contaminant plume. Contaminants detected at concentrations
above these levels include: lead, manganese, endrin, alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, gamma-BHC,
dieldrin, aldrin, alpha chlordane, gamma chlordane, benzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
total xylenes, and toxaphene. The DQO planning team will consist of the following
representatives:
• Decision EPA Remedial Project Manager Kenneth A. Lucas
Makers NCDENR Project Manager Nile P. Testerman, P.E.
• QA EPA QA Manager (QAM) Gary Bennett
Managers Black & Veatch QAM Virgil A. Paulson, P.E.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 8 of25
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
• Principal
Data Users
Black & Veatch Project Manager
Black & Veatch Project Staff
David Russell, P .E.
Currie Mixon
Shruti Shah
Available resources include representatives of the EPA, Black & Veatch, and the NCDER.
3.4.2 DQO Step 2: Identify the Decision
The second step in the DQO process is to identify the questions that the investigation will
attempt to resolve, and identify the alternative actions that may be necessary based on the
outcome of the investigation. In the DQO process, the combination of these elements is
called the decision.
Based on a review of the problem defined in Section 3.4.1, the following principal questions
have been developed for this investigation:
• What are the current levels of contamination in groundwater and how do they compare with past sampling events at the FCX Washington Site?
• What are the extents of the groundwater contamination at the FCX Washington site and are contaminants traveling offsite?
• What are the subsurface environmental conditions indicated by the natural attenuation parameters in the groundwater and what do these conditions suggest as the major transformation reactions for the contaminants?
• What are the contaminant pesticide daughter products and at what levels are they being produced and being degraded in the groundwater?
• Is MNA a viable remedial action for the FCX Washington Site?
Based on the results of the sampling event, alternative actions may be necessary to solve the
problem. The following alternative actions may be necessary to answer the aforementioned
principal questions:
• Conduct additional testing to determine the level and extent of groundwater contamination in the areas where additional data is needed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
g
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 9 of25
• Monitor identified areas of contamination over time to confirm that groundwater
contamination is decreasing through natural processes and not simply migrating
to adjacent areas.
• Use a PRB as an additional remedial alternative for the most contaminated
groundwater at the site.
• Evaluate additional remedial alternatives for the FCX Washington site
3.4.3 DQO Step 3: Identify the Inputs to the Decision
The third step in the DQO process is to identify the information needed to support the
decision (known as decision inputs), and specify which inputs require new environmental
data. Action levels, applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), and PR Gs
are examples of required inputs to the decision. The following activities will help identify
required inputs to the decision:
• Identify the informational inputs needed to resolve the decision.
• Identify sources for each informational input and list those inputs that are
obtained through environmental measurements.
• Identify potential sampling techniques and appropriate analytical methods.
The following information is required to make the decision for the RD for the FCX
Washington Site:
• The extent of groundwater contamination and concentration
• The levels of contaminants in the wetland area downgradient of the site
• A decreasing trend in concentrations and mass of parent compounds m
groundwater
• MNA parameters conducive to degradation of parent compounds in groundwater
• Pesticide daughter products found in the groundwater and evaluated levels of
degradation
• MNA clean-up methodology
• Effectiveness and life expectancy of a PRB for groundwater
The criteria on which the decision will be made are as follows:
• Groundwater -Based on the FCX Washington Site ROD Remedial Action
Objectives (RAO's) (EPA, 1993)
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
• MNA decision-making criteria (EPA, 1997a)
3.4.4 DQO Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page IO of25
The fourth step in the DQO process is to specify the spatial and temporal limits of the
environmental media that the data must represent to support the decision. In order for
environmental samples to be representative of the domain or area for which the decision will
be made, the boundaries of the study must be precisely defined. The purpose of this step is
to clearly define the set of circumstances (boundaries) which will be covered by the decision.
These include:
• Spatial boundaries that define what should be investigated and where the samples
should be collected; and
• Temporal boundaries that describe when samples should be collected and what
time frame the study data should represent.
Practical constraints which could interfere with sampling are also identified within this step
of the DQO process. A practical constraint is any hindrance or obstacle that may interfere
with the full implementation of the study design.
3.4.4. 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 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).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
u
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 11 of25
• 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:
1) the risk that exposure presents to targets; 2) technological considerations; and
3) other project specific considerations (i.e., historical use).
Groundwater will be sampled within the expected pathways of groundwater passing through
the contaminated areas of the FCX Washington Site. The characteristic which defines the
domain of interest is any contaminant concentration in any environmental media sample
which is common to contaminants historically used or detected at the site. The site shall be
subdivided into groundwater units upon completion of the investigation, if necessary. The
scale of decision making shall be the entire site.
3.4.4.2 Temporal Boundaries of the Study. Typically there are two factors to
consider when establishing the temporal boundaries of the study. These factors include:
• The time frame over which the data will apply. This is the most appropriate time
frame that the decision must reflect.
• When the data should be collected. Conditions which may affect this include
seasonal fluctuations and meteorological conditions.
Because contaminants at levels above the RA O's have been previously identified at the FCX
Washington Site, the RD investigation shall occur as soon as feasible. Constituents
concentrations may have varied between the time of the previous investigations and the RD
sampling effort; therefore, analytical results which will be compared as a basis for constituent
verification must be evaluated with this in consideration. The potential variation of
constituents with time is not significant in the short duration to warrant an accelerated
sampling effort. !fit is necessary to collect additional samples at the FCX Washington Site,
the data collection shall be performed within a year after the initial RD investigation
sampling effort.
3.4.5 DQO Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule
The fifth step in the DQO process is to develop a logical "if. .. then ... " statement that defines
the conditions that would cause the decision maker to choose among alternative actions. The
purpose of this step is to clearly define objective criteria by which decisions can be made.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Activities necessary for the development of a decision rule are:
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 12 of25
• Specify the statistical parameter that characterizes the domain of interest. The
statistical parameter is a descriptive measure such as mean, median, proportion,
or maximum.
• Specify the action level for the decision. The action level is typically a contaminant concentration level that sets the limit at which further action is warranted.
• Combine actions from previous steps in the DQO process with those listed above to develop a decision rule.
If the maximum concentration from any sample location exceeds the criteria listed in Section
3.4.3, then further assessment may be recommended. That assessment could include
additional monitoring, fate and transport calculations for MNA, and/or the use of a PRB for
areas of high concentrations. If no contaminant concentrations exceed the criteria listed in
Section 3.4.3, no further action will be recommended.
3.4.6 DQO Step 6: Specify Tolerable Limits on Decision Errors
The purpose of this sixth step of the DQO process is to specify the decision maker's
acceptable limits on decision errors which are used to establish appropriate performance
goals for limiting uncertainty in the data. Decision makers are intrinsically interested in the
true status of some feature of a site. However, because measurement data can only estimate
this status, decisions that are based on measurement data may possess some error ( decision
error). Therefore, the goal is to design a sampling plan that limits the probability of making
a decision error to a level that is acceptable. In general, reducing decision errors increases
costs. The decision maker must balance the desire to limit decision errors to acceptable
levels with the cost of reducing decision errors.
There are two reasons why the decision maker cannot know the true value of a domain
parameter, including:
• The domain or population of interest almost always varies over time and space. Limited sampling will miss some features of this natural variation because it is usually impossible or impractical to measure every point or to measure over all
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
0
g
m
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. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 13 of25
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.,
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
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043 Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 14 of25
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
error.
False Negative Error -A false negative error occurs when the data mislead the decision
maker into wrongly cone! uding that the burden of proof has not been satisfied so that the null
hypothesis (H0) is not rejected when it should be. A false negative error in the previous
example occurs when the data lead the decision maker to wrongly conclude that the site is
contaminated when it truly is not.
The first step in establishing limits on decision errors is to determine the possible range of
the parameter of interest. The possible range of the parameter of interest should be
established by estimating its upper and lower bounds. This means defining the lowest
(typically zero in environmental studies) and highest concentrations at which the
contaminant(s) is expected to exist at the site. This will help focus the remaining activities
of this step on only the relevant values of the parameter. Historical data, including analytical
data, should be used to define contaminant concentrations if available.
The second step in establishing decision error limits is to define both types of decision errors
and identify the potential consequences of each. The action level specified in Section 3.4.3,
should be used to designate the areas above and below the action level as the range where
the two types of decision errors could occur. The process of defining the decision errors has
four steps:
• Define both types of decision errors and establish which decision error has more
severe consequences near the action level. For instance, the threat of health
effects from a contaminated hazardous waste site may be considered more serious
than spending extra resources to remediate the site. Therefore, a decision maker
may judge that the consequences ofincorrectly concluding that the concentrations
of site-related contaminants do not exceed the action level are more severe than
the consequences ofincorrectly concluding that the concentrations of site-related
contaminants exceed the action level.
• Establish the true state of nature for each decision error. In the example above,
from the decision maker's perspective, the true state of the site for the more
severe decision error will be that the concentrations of site-related contaminants
exceed the action level. The true state of nature for the less severe decision error
is that the concentrations of site-related contaminants do not exceed the action
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
0
B
I
Quality Assurance Project Plwi
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
level.
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 15 of25
• Define the true state of nature for the more severe decision error as the baseline
condition or null hypothesis (H0 = the site is contaminated), and define the true
state of nature for the less severe decision error as the alternative hypothesis (H,
= the site is not contaminated). Since the burden of proof rests on the alternative
hypothesis, the data must demonstrate enough information to authoritatively
reject the null hypothesis and conclude the alternative, Therefore by setting the
null hypothesis equal to the true condition that exists when the more severe
decision error occurs, the decision maker is guarding against making the more
severe decision error.
• Assign the terms "false positive" and "false negative" to the proper decision
errors. A false positive decision error corresponds to the more severe decision
error and a false negative decision error corresponds to the less severe decision
error.
The potential consequences of decision errors at several points within the false positive and
false negative ranges should be defined and evaluated. For example, the consequences of a
false positive decision error when the true parameter value is merely IO percent above the
action level may be minimal because it would cause only a moderate increase in the risk to
human health. On the other hand, the consequences of a false positive error when the true
parameter is ten times the action level may be severe because it could greatly increase the
exposure risk to humans as well as cause severe damage to a local ecosystem. In this case,
decision makers would want to have less control (tolerate higher probabilities) of decision
errors of relatively small magnitudes and would want to have more control (tolerate small
probabilities) of decision errors of relatively large magnitudes.
The third step in developing decision error rates is to specify a range of possible parameter
values where the consequences of decision 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
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
of the measurements, or both.
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 16 of25
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 0.0 I ( one percent) for both the false positive and false negative
decision errors. The most frequent reasons for setting limits greater than 0.0 I 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.
The last step in establishing decision error limits is to check the limits on decision errors to
ensure that they accurately reflect the decision maker's concerns about the relative
consequences for each type of decision error. The acceptable limits on decision errors should
be smallest (i.e., have the lowest probability of error) for cases where the decision maker has
greatest concern for decision errors. This means that if one type of error is more serious than
another, then its acceptable limits should be smaller (more restrictive). In addition, the limits
on decision errors are usually largest (high probability of error can be tolerated) near the
action level, since the consequences of decision errors are generally less severe as the action
level is approached.
3.4. 6. 1 The First Decision for the FCX Washington Site. Based on previous
investigation reports, the possible range of contaminants expected to be found at the site is
between O and 9,500 parts per billion (ppb).
Null Hypothesis (H0) = One or more site contaminant concentrations are greater than
or equal to the criteria listed in Section 3.4.3.
Alternate Hypothesis (H.)= All site contaminant concentrations are below the criteria
listed in Section 3.4.3 ..
The false positive decision error will occur if the decision maker decides, based on sampling
data, that the site is not contaminated, when in truth, some portion of the Site contains
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
D
D
u
m
J,·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
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. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
concentrations which exceed the criteria specified in Section 3.4.3.
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 17 of25
The false negative decision error will occur if the decision maker decides, based on sampling
data, that some portion of the site is contaminated above the criteria specified in Section
3 .4.3, when in truth, all concentrations are below the specified criteria.
Allowable Decision Error Rates
True Concentration "C" as a Acceptable Probability of
Percentage of Criteria Specified in Recommending Additional Action
Section 3.4.3.
;:70% ;:20% (false negatives)
70% < C ;: 100% ;:30% (false negatives)
> 100% :,90% (;: 10% false positives)
3.4.6.2 The Second Decision for the FCX Washington Site. Based on previous
investigation reports, the possible range of contaminants expected to be found at the FCX
Washington Site is between 0 and 9,500 ppb.
The Null Hypothesis (H0) = The site is sufficiently characterized.
Alternate Hypothesis (H.) = The site is not sufficiently characterized.
The false positive decision error will occur if the decision maker decides that the site is not
sufficiently characterized, when in truth, sufficient data has been collected from the site.
The false negative decision error will occur if the decision maker decides that the site is
sufficiently characterized, when in truth, sufficient data has not been collected from the site.
The acceptable decision error for the second decision will provide less than 20 percent false
positive or false negative errors.
3.4.7 DQO Step 7: Optimize the Design
The purpose of this final step in the DQO process is to identify the most resource-effective
sampling and analysis design for generating data during the RD that are expected to satisfy
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 18 of25
the DQOs. To achieve this goal, it may be necessary to work through this step more than
once after revisiting previous steps of the DQO process. The following activities are
required to optimize the design:
• Review the results from the previous DQO process steps as well as existing
information.
• Develop general sampling and analysis design alternatives.
• Verify that each design alternative satisfies the DQOs.
• Select the most resource-effective design which achieves all DQOs.
• Document the operational details and theoretical assumptions of the selected
sampling and analysis design.
Further modifications of the DQO decision error limits may be proposed pending the review
of additional information as it is made available. Such a change would necessitate
corresponding changes in the Field Sampling Plan and in this document to accommodate the
required additional environmental data collection.
3.5 Special Training Requirements and Certification
The purpose of this section is to ensure that any specialized training or certification
requirements necessary to the project are known and that the procedures are described in
sufficient detail to ensure that specific training skills and certifications can be verified,
documented, and updated. This section will summarize training requirements for Black &
Veatch personnel and their subcontractors, more specifically, health and safety training
requirements. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and one Task-Specific HASP
for each field effort will be submitted to EPA Region 4 to meet planning document
requirements specified in the SOW for the FCX Washington Site RD.
All personnel (Black & Veatch and their subcontractors) who will engage in hazardous waste
operations at the FCX Washington 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
I
I
I
I
I
D
u
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
g
m
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. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 19 of25
on site performing hazardous waste operations. The training must comply with Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations found in 29 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 1910.120(e). The certification must be presented to the SSC before site
activities begin. All personnel must complete a minimum of three days of on-the-job training
under the direct supervision of a qualified SSC or site supervisor before they are qualified
to work at a hazardous waste site unsupervised.
Consistent with 29 CFR 1910.120 paragraph ( e)( 4), individuals serving in a supervisory role,
such as the field team leader or SSC, require an additional 8 hours of training. Black &
Veatch individuals functioning in a SSC capacity shall also have at least 6 days of experience
at the level of protection planned for in the HASP. A SSC qualified at a given level of
protection is also qualified as a SSC at a lower level of protection.
At least two people onsite will be trained and currently certified in first aid and adult
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). First aid and CPR records for all anticipated onsite
workers are to be included in the Site-Specific HASP.
Personnel who use air supplied respirators must provide the Black & Veatch Health and
Safety Manager (HSM) written certification that they have been trained in the proper use,
inspection, emergency use, and limitations of the equipment by a competent person. The
training must be current within 12 months prior to the use of the equipment. Personnel who
participate in permitted confined space entry, radiation work, asbestos work, or work
involving lockout/tagout of energy sources, if applicable, must provide the Black & Veatch
HSM written certification that they have been trained in accordance with the applicable
OSHA regulations before performing such work.
Personnel who use health and safety monitoring equipment other than that provided by the
Black & Veatch equipment center must provide 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 &
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 20 of25
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.
3.6 Documentation and Records
This section defines the records which are critical to the project and what information needs
to be included in the reports, as well as the data reporting format and the document control
procedures to be used. Specification of the proper reporting format, compatible with data
validation, will facilitate clear and direct communication of the investigation.
3.6.1 Field Operation Records
The field operating records to be used in this investigation will document field procedures
and any measurements performed during the sampling effort. These records include the
Groundwater Sample Collection Record, the Daily Progress Report, and the Well
Development Log presented on Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3, and Figure 3-4. Chain-of-custody
records will also be used to document the progression of field samples and QC samples.
Chain-of-custody records are discussed in further detail in Section 4.3.3.
D
D
I
,j,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
ti
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Figure 3-2
Section: 3
FINAL
May I 7, 2004
Page 21 of25
\.\ell Ng: ________ _
Sample ND:
Groundwater Sample Collection Record
Project Name:
Project N9:
Location:
Weather:
I.) Water level data (from TOC):
Total well depth
Water table depth
Water column length
Volume H.:P in ·well
TOC ht. above/below land
Casing diameter/type
2.) Well purge data:
Purge method
Total purge volume
Field testing equipment
Decon method/misc.
Tune
Volume Removed
Temperature
pH
Conductivity
Turbidity
Color
HNu/OVA
Rtd0.1 Potential
Dissolved Oxygen
Other
Date(fime Start:
Date/Time FiniSh:
Analysis:
Salllplers:
. ,
Well VOiume Chart
2 3 4 5 I 7 I I 10
Cuin9 Volume (gal)
Fi2ure .1-4
I
I
I
I
1·
,1
I
DAILY PROGRESS REPORT Figure 3-3
DATE
DAY ~'----=-s____,'---'M--'-_r---1.1_w____,,_r_H__.__F-L~s:.....J
EPA RPM: Kenneth Lucas
PROJECT: FCX Washington Site
JOB N•: 48344.0124
CONTRACT N•: 68-W-99-043
SUB-CONTRACTORS ON SITE:
I ur, "" c:
. I '
WEATHER
TEMPERATURE
WIND
HUMIDITY
Brfght Sun
to 32
Still
O,y
I ANU ~-·~-......... ,:
1
Clear Overcast Rain Snow
32-35 50-70 70-85 85-up
Mod. High --Humid Report No.
PROJECT: FCX Washington Site. REPORTN•. -----------
JOB N°48144.0124 0 ATE: ------------
TOMORROWS EXPECTATIONS: .
PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY:
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·t
I
I
Figure 3-4
Well N': ________ _
Sample N•: ________ _
Well Development Log Project Name:
Location: Project N':
Perfonned By: Dare of lns1alla1ion:
Weather:
I.
2.
3.
4.
Static Water Level: Before
24 Hours
Quantity of Water Loss During Drilling Quantity of Standing Water in Well and Annulus Before Development
Dtpth • Top of Well Casing 10 Bollom of Well
S. Screen Length
6. Height of Casing above Ground Surface 7. Dtpth to Top of Sediment
Before Development
After Development
8. Physical Character of Water 9. Type/Size • Developmeot Equipment 10. Descriptlon of Surge Technique
11. Quantity of Water Removed
12. Removal Duration
13. Time of Photograph
14. Remarks
IS. Parameters
Tune
Temperature ("F)
pH
Tutbidity (l'ml)
Dis.,olved Oxygen (mg/LfC)
Spedfic CoadllClan<z (~an)
Development Conditions
• Waler is reasonably dear.
Dare of Development:
Notes:
{ft}
• Sedime111 Thicknezs < 5 percea1 of SCllOe1I lengdl.
'
'
hour/miourc
m
g,
0
0
0
b
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 3
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 25 of25
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
3.6.2 Laboratory Records
Laboratory records that are to be sent to SESD for data qualification are described in Exhibit
Hlofthe CLP SOWs for Organic and Inorganic Analysis (EPA, 2000).
1(/
I
I
' I
I,
m
-u
q:
n
,g-
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
• I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
4.0 Measurement Data Acquisition
4.1 Sampling Process Design
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page I of30
The purpose of the sampling process design is to describe all relevant components of the
investigation design; define the key parameters to be investigated; indicate the number and
type of samples to be collected; and describe where, when, and how the samples are to be
collected.
4.1.1 Sample Collection Schedule
The anticipated schedule for sample collection activities at the FCX Washington Site is
presented in Section 5.0 of the RD Work Plan.
4.1.2 Sampling Design Rationale
The objective of the field investigation at the FCX Washington Site is to develop the
minimum amount of data necessary better define the extent of groundwater contamination
requiring remediation to support the selection of an approach for site remediation to support
a ROD. In order to achieve this objective, samples must be collected from the groundwater,
sediment, and surface water atthe FCX Washington Site. Rationale for sample locations
proposed for this RD are presented in Section 3 .0 of the RD FSP.
4.1.3 Sampling Design Assumptions
This section presents assumptions made to establish the effectiveness and representativeness
of the data obtained from samples collected at the FCX Washington Site. These assumptions
include:
• Measurements of natural attenuation parameters (including field parameters)
indicate the subsurface environmental conditions of the area from which they are
taken
• Contaminant daughter products identified in groundwater samples are the result of
the initial breakdown of the parent contaminants
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 2 of30
• Pushpoint, sediment, and surface water samples collected from the wetland area
south of the site indicate the effect of groundwater discharging to the surface water
leading to Kennedy Creek
4.1.4 Procedures for Selecting Locations for Environmental Samples
The number of samples to be collected during this investigation and a description of these
samples are presented in Section 3.0 of the FSP.
4.1.5 Classification of Critical Samples
Critical samples are those for which valid data must be obtained in order to satisfy the
objectives of the sampling and analysis task; noncritical samples are those for informational
purposes only or needed to provide background information. All samples which are
submitted for quantitative chemical analyses during the investigations are considered critical
samples. An example of critical samples for each sampling medium at the FCX Washington
site is presented below:
• Groundwater -groundwater samples collected from existing and new
permanent monitoring wells.
• Push point, sediment, and surface water -samples collected from the wetland
area south of the site.
• Subsurface soil samples collected from the installation of the monitoring wells
4.2 Sampling Methods Requirements
The objective of the sampling and preservation procedures outlined in this section is to
obtain samples which yield consistently high quality. The use of proper sampling equipment,
strict controls in the field, and appropriate chain of custody and analytical procedures will
reduce the potential for sample misrepresentation and unreliable analytical data. All
sampling activities will be performed in accordance with the EPA Region IV Environmental
Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual (Revised
1997) (EJSOPQAM) (EPA, 1997b) and the Black & Veatch Comprehensive Quality
Assurance Plan (CompQAP) No. 920291, dated June 2000 (Black & Veatch, 2000).
D
D
-,fl.
0
·O
0
B
.m
I
D
I
I
D
.o
D
I
I
D
u
I
I
D
u
I
•
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section; 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 3 of30
Groundwater, pushpoint, surface water, and sediment samples will be collected from
locations within and adjacent to the FCX Washington site as described in Section 3.0 of the
RD FSP. Subsurface soil samples will be collected during the installation of the five new
monitoring wells for IDW purposes. All of the groundwater, surface water, and pushpoint
FCX Washington site samples will be collected and analyzed for including: volatile organics
(Modified EPA Method 624); semivolatile organics (Modified EPA Method 625);
pesticides/PCBs (Modified EPA Method 608); cyanide (Method 90 I 0A); and metals
(Modified EPA Method 200 series) (EPA, 2000). The sediment samples collected from the
wetland area will also be analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC) (SW-846 Method 9060).
Twenty groundwater and three surface water and pushpoint samples will be analyzed for
non-CLP parameters including: daughter products of alpha BHC (Modified EPA Method
8081 GC/MS); alpha, beta, and gamma hexachlorocyclohexane (Modified EPA Method 8081
GC/MS); chlordane, and toxaphene (Method 8081 GC/ECD); DDT, DDE, DDD (Modified
EPA Method 8081 GC/MS & Method 8081 GC/ECD). The natural attenuation parameters
of methane/ethane (RSK 175); carbon dioxide (MCA WW Method 305.1); total organic
carbon (TOC) (MCA WW Method 415.1); chloride (MCA WW Method 352.2); nitrate
(MCA WW Method 353.2); nitrite (field test kit); sulfate (MCA WW Method 375.4); sulfide
(field test kit); total alkalinity (MCA WW Method 310.2); and total ferrous iron (field test
kit) will also be quantified analytically for groundwater which includes pushpoint samples.
The three sediment samples and five subsurface soil samples will be analyzed for volatile
organics (SW-846 Method 5035/8260B); semi volatile organics (Modified EPA Method 625);
pesticides/PCBs (Modified EPA Method 608); cyanide (Method 901 0A); and metals
(Modified EPA Method 200 series) (EPA, 2000).
The EISOPQAM will serve as the primary document from which all field procedures will
be developed (EPA, 1997b ). Container, preservation, and holding time requirements must
also meet the requirements of the EISOPQAM (EPA, 1997b ). The analytical methods
selected and/or modified will have detection limits that are less than, or equal to, federal
MCLs and state regulatory levels. All contractor personnel conducting sampling will be
experienced in implementing the sampling procedures as outlined herein. Modifications
and/or changes to the procedures described in the EISOPQAM will not be implemented
without the prior approval of the EPA RPM or designated representative and will be
documented in field logbooks. A field change request form will be completed which details
the conditions that necessitated the change and indicate the date
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Figure 4-1
Field Change Request Form
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 4 of30
Page_
Modifications and/or changes to the procedures described in the EISOPQAM are not to be implemented without prior approval
of EPA and are to be documented in field logbooks and on Field Change Request Forms. Access to the Field Change Request
Forms must be available to all field team members who are affected by the changes.
I
I
'I
1.
I
I
I
u
D
0
I
0
I
0
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 5 of30
approval of the change was received from EPA. An example of the form is presented on
Figure 4-1. Details that pertain to the groundwater investigation (including subsurface soil
samples from monitoring well construction), surface water/sediment investigation, and
decontamination procedures are presented in Section 5.0 of the FSP. Details that pertain to
the management ofIDW are presented in Section 7.0 of the FSP.
4.3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements
The primary objective of sample custody procedures is to create an accurate written record
which can be used to trace the possession and handling of all samples from the moment of
their collection, through analysis, until their final disposition. All procedures for sample
labeling, handling, and reporting will comply with EPA-approved sample control procedures,
field recording procedures, and document control (EPA, 1997b ).
4.3. 1 Sample Numbering
A sample numbering system will be used to identify each sample for analysis. The purpose
of this numbering system is to provide a tracking system for retrieval of data on each sample.
The sample numbers will include the FCX Washington Site location and the subsurface soil
and monitoring well sample location. The designation "FC" represent samples collected
from the FCX Washington Site. Examples of sample numbers are given below.
A sediment sample collected from the FCX Washington Site:
FC-SD-01
A groundwater sample collected from a permanent monitoring well at the FCX Washington
Site:
FC-MW-01
Soil and water trip blanks will be designated as indicated below, respectively. Equipment
field blanks (EB), field blanks (FL), material blanks (BK), trip blanks (TB), and preservative
blanks (PB) will be designated in a similar fashion.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
FC-TB-S0l
FC-TB-W0l
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 6 of30
Duplicate samples will be identified with a "D" positioned after the location number, as in
this example of a surface water sample:
FC-SW-02D is a duplicate sample ofFC-SW-02
All sample identification numbers will be entered onto the appropriate EPA Organic or
Inorganic Traffic Report & Chain of Custody Record or Black & Veatch Chain of Custody
Record by the field team representative, including date and time of sample collection,
specified analytical methods, sample tag number, and sample label number, if appropriate.
The sample identification numbers, including sample codes allocated for this sampling effort,
will be used on sample tags, chain-of-custody records, and all other applicable
documentation used during the sampling activity.
4.3.2 Sample Identification
Samples to be analyzed by a CLP laboratory for routine analysis are identified by a number
assigned by SESD for each project and case number. The numbers are organized by organic
and inorganic analysis and are sequentially numbered by type of analysis (the organic number
begins with D; the inorganic number begins with MD). Adhesive labels will be generated
by the samplers; these labels will include the CLP sample number along with the following
additional information:
• Project and case codes.
• Sample station location.
• Date and time of sample collection.
• Designation of sample as a composite or grab sample.
• Analyses to be performed.
• Whether the sample is preserved.
The label will be affixed to the sample container. A duplicate of the sample label will be
affixed to the back of a sample tag. Sample tags are accountable documents after they are
m
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
D
I
o
0
0
n
u
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 7 of JO
attached to a sample tag. Examples of the sample labels and tags are presented on Figure 4-2
and Figure 4-3, respectively.
Figure 4-2 Figure 4-3
• •
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
g
B
D
0
0
D
0
D
u
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RORD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 8 of 30
samples to be analyzed by a CLP laboratory or SESD for special analysis will not include a
CLP sample number and will not require a label on the sample container.
4.3.3 Chain of Custody Procedures
Chain of custody procedures are comprised of maintaining sample custody and
documentation of samples for evidence. To document chain of custody, an accurate record
of samples must be maintained in order to trace the possession of each sample from the time
of collection to its introduction to the laboratory. A sample tag and/or label should be
completed for each sample as specified in Section 4.3.2. After the sample tag is affixed to
the sample container, a Black & Veatch custody seal is placed over the container lid such that
the container cannot be opened without breaking the seal. An example of a custody seal is
presented on Figure 4-4. The custody seal provides the following information.
• Date of seal.
• Name, title, and signature of person affixing the seal.
After the sample tags and custody seals are affixed to sample containers, all samples will be
secured in a resealable plastic bag (Zip-Loe®). Glass sample containers will be shipped in
containers filled with vermiculite.
Sample custody is maintained by an EPA Organic or Inorganic Traffic Report & Chain of
custody Record for routine analysis or a Chain of custody Record for special analysis. These
records document the transfer of sample custody from the sample custodian to another person
or the laboratory. In order to simplify sample custody procedures, as few people as possible
should have custody of the samples during the investigation. These records will be generated
by the sample custodian using the FORMS II Lite software. The following information must
be supplied:
• Site name and location (state)
• Account code for the Work Assignment
• Project code and case number
• The action (e.g. RI, RD, or RA) and funding entity (e.g. superfund or PRP)
• Project leader and company name
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
g
a
I
u
I
0
0
n
D
QuaJity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Figure 4-4
•. ..J ......... ,,.
I
I I
t--'
I
,,
.
=.
' i ' I •.
'
I 3.: ,,
Fl
~~-' ' 0 ~;: si !' I 11·
I
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 9 of 30
I
I
-
I
0
u
D
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. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
• Analyses to be perfonned by the laboratory
• Station/location, sample name, media, and sample type
• Date and time of sample location
• Analysis concentration: routine (M), low (L ), or high (H)
• An assignment of bottles and tag numbers per sample analysis
• The laboratory, carrier, and airbill number
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 10 of30
By design, some of the above items will not print on the laboratory copy of the record;
however, the region copy contains all of the above infonnation. The original signature
laboratory documenting transfer of the samples is inclosed in a plastic bag and secured to the
inside of the cooler lid. The region copy is retained in the project file. An example record
is presented as Figure 4-5.
4.3.4 Field Custody Procedures
The following custody procedures will be followed:
• Only the minimum number of samples that provide a good representation of the
media being sampled will be collected. As few people as possible will handle the
samples during the investigation, sample custodians are presented in Section 4 .3. 7.
• Sample labels will be used, with CLP sample numbers as provided by SESD for
CLP analysis only.
• Sample tags, supplied by Black & Veatch, will be completed for each sample, using
adhesive labels generated in FORMS II Lite.
• All samples will be sealed immediately upon collection utilizing Black & Veatch's
custody seal. The field investigator shall write the date and his signature on the
seal.
• All sample locations and times will be documented in bound field logbooks.
-----1!!!11!! == == .. iiiii liiii
oEPA USEPA Contract Laboratory Program \.oasu Nu; :1:1:1:1:1
Organic Traffic Report & Otain of Custody Record DAS No: L SOGNo:
OatllShi~: 111'2004 Chain of Custody Record ...... For lab Use Onty
C,,nier Name: FedEx Slgatun::
Rellnqui9"-d 8y (Oat. I Tlme) R~Br {Data/Time) UlbContl'Kl:No: Airtlll: 12J.t56789012
ShlP,edto: liberty Analytical 1 lmn Price;
Co,po,,tioo 2 501 Madisoo Avenue T,-...,To:
Cary NC 27513 3
(919) 379-<1100 Ulb COlthXt No: • Un!IPnca:
ORGANIC MA.TRIXI CQNc, ...... ,.., TAGMoJ STATICW SMIPU COLLECT INORGANIC fatLABU5EO~Y SAMPLE No. '"'""' TYPE -PRESERVATMI Bolll• LOCATION DAlEfTIIIE SAMPLE No. ~ Condllon On R,c:.rw,t
ll0001 Ground Water/ MIG BNA (21). PEST(21), 101 (lee Onty), 102 (k:a MW01 S: 1/1/2004 9:00 JOHN SAMPLER VOA(21) Only), 103 (Ice Only), 104
(Ice Only), 105 (HCL), 106
,00002 Ground Water/ MIG
(HCL), 107 (HCL) (7)
BNA (21), PEST (21), 108 (Ice Only), 109 (Ice MW01D S: 111'200( 900 JOHN SAMPLER VOA{21) Only), 110(Jce0nly), 111
(Ice Only), 112 (HCL), 113
Ill (HCL), 114 (HCL) (7)
llOOOJ GrourN:S Watet/ MIG BNA (21). PEST (21), 115 (k:e Only), 116 (Ice MW02 S: 1/1/200ol 9:50 I JOHN SAMPL.ER VOA(21) Only), 117 (Ice Only), 118 .,,.
(lce0nly}, 119(HCL), 120 ~ (HCL), 121 (HCL) (7) .. Ground Water/ MIG 8NA (21), PEST (21), 122 (Ice Omy), 123 (Ice MWDJ 5: 1/1/2004 11:15 = JOHN SAMPLER VQA.(21) Only), 124 (Ice Onty),.125 OJI (loe Only), 126 (lat Only), ·-127 (Ice Only), 128 {Ice f., Only), 129 (Ice Only), 130
(HCL), 131 (HCL), 132
(HCL), 133{HCL), 134
(HCL), 135 (HCL), 136
(HCL),'137 (HCL), 138
(HCL)(17)
D0005 F,ekj QC/ MIG VOA(21) 139 (HCL), 140 (HCL), 141 TB01 S: 111/2004 15:00 SAMPLE (HCl)(J)
CUSTODIAN
9'1pritnl lorC.. fSampk,C•) ID be UMd b lllbonrtory QC: I Addltlonal a..., Slgnaturejat; ICoollrT-..pe~ Chain of Custody s..i Number: °"""'""' Upc;lnlllalpl: 0000<
ANifpa~: Concentration: L * I..Dw, M • LoowMedun, H,. His,h T~: CanposC:e = C, Grall,. G Cil9toctySullnlKI:? -I Shtpment Ind?
BNA,. CLP TCL Semivolatim, PEST• CLP TCL Pestlclde/PCBs, VOA = CLP TCL Volatilea
TR Number. 4-081617644-092403-0002
PR provldn pnUmlt-, rHUlb. Raq--. tlor pn,Umlnary l'Hl,11~ wW lncfMM analytbl eosb..
Send Copy lo: Samplo Management Office, 2000 Edmund Halll,y Or., Reston, VA. 20191-3400 Phone [phone] Fu 7()3/26(..9222
LABORATORY COPY
FNU.045 PIQII 1 of 1
I
I
I
g
0
8
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. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 12 of30
• All samples will be kept within sight of the sampling team in a secured location
until they are properly and formally transferred to another person or facility.
• A Chain of custody Record will be completed for all samples collected.
• Custody seals can be used to maintain custody on numerous items when necessary
by utilizing similar procedures as those outlined previously in this section.
All measurements made and samples collected will be recorded in the field logbook. If an
incorrect entry is made, regardless of the type of data document, the incorrect data will be
crossed out with a single strike mark, the correct information entered either above or adjacent
to the error, and the correction initialed and dated by the person making the correction.
4.3.5 Sample Packaging and Shipping
Samples collected during environmental field investigations must be classified prior to
shipment, either as environmental samples, geochemical, or hazardous waste samples. The
shipment of environmental samples is based on protocol developed jointly by the EPA, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), and OSHA in the "Final National Package for
Compliance with Department of Transportation Regulations in the Shipment of
Environmental Laboratory Samples" (OSHA, 1981 ).
When samples are shipped by common carrier or the United States mail, DOT Hazardous
Materials Regulations ( 49 CFR 172) must be followed. The shipment of preserved samples
is not regulated; however, the amount of preservative used must not exceed the
concentrations provided in 40 CFR 136.3. The proper preservation of environmental
samples should not exceed these concentrations.
Samples will be shipped to the laboratory at proper temperatures to ensure sample
preservation. Ice will be included in all coolers and will be placed around all four sides of
the sample containers due to sample preservation requirements which dictate maintaining the
samples at 4 degrees Celsius (°C). The following sample packaging requirements will be
followed:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 13 of 30
• Allow sufficient headspace in all sample containers ( except for volatile organic
containers with a septum seal) to compensate for any pressure or temperature
change (approximately 10 percent of the container volume).
• Sample bottle lids are never to be mixed. All sample lids must stay with the
original containers. Ensure that sample container lids are tight to prevent leakage.
• Sample bottles will be placed in individual plastic Zip-Joe® type bags and sealed
with tape. Glass containers will be shipped in vermiculite.
• Select a sturdy cooler and secure and tape shut the drain plug. Line the cooler with
a large heavy duty plastic bag.
• Place two to four inches of vermiculite in the bottom of the cooler in the plastic
bag. Place sample bottles in the cooler in such a way that they do not touch one
another.
• Ice that has been double bagged will be placed on top of and/or between the
samples. Fill all remaining space between the samples with vermiculite.
• A copy of the custody record must be placed in a plastic bag and taped to the inside
of the cooler lid.
• Custody seals will be secured across opposite edges of the shipping container lid;
two seals will be used per shipping container. Nylon strapping tape will be
wrapped around the package in at least two locations. The seal will be signed
before the sample(s) is shipped and will be covered with clear tape.
• "This End Up" labels will be placed on all four sides of the shipping container.
"Fragile" labels will be placed on at least two sides of the cooler.
• Shipping containers will have a clearly visible return address.
4.3.6 Transfer of Custody Procedures
R
0
0
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
g
B
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 14of30
All samples will be accompanied by a Chain of Custody Record. When transferring the
possession of samples, the individuals receiving the samples shall sign, date, and note the
time that they received the samples on the form. In instances where samples are split with
a facility, state regulatory agency, or other government agency, the facility, state regulatory
agency, or other government agency representative will sign a Receipt For Samples Form
instead of the Chain of Custody Record.
Samples will be properly packaged for shipment to the laboratory for analyses. Shipping
containers shall be secured by using nylon strapping tape and custody seals.
The original signature laboratory copy of the Chain of Custody Record will be placed in a
plastic bag and taped inside the secured shipping container if samples are shipped. The
region copy of the record will be retained by the Black & Veatch sample custodian. The
region copy will be transmitted to the Black & Veatch Project Manager after samples are
accepted by the laboratory. This copy will become a part of the project file.
If sent by mail, the package will be registered with return receipt requested. If sent by
common carrier, an airbill will be used. Receipts from post offices and airbills will be
retained as part of the documentation of the chain of custody. The airbill number will be
recorded on the Chain of Custody Record. The receiving laboratory will complete a cooler
receipt form noting any problems with the incoming samples.
4.3. 7 Sample Custodians
In order to ensure the security of the samples collected during the RD investigation, it is
important to limit the number of persons that handle the samples from the time of sample
collection to receipt at the laboratory.
Sample collection will be performed by Black & Veatch field personnel. The Black &
Veatch Project Geologist (David Prouty) or other designated personnel will be responsible
for the preparation of sample labels, custody seals, and chain of custody records for each
sample and for the proper shipment of sample coolers to the laboratory. Upon receipt of the
sample coolers at the laboratory, sample custody will be retained by the laboratory's Custody
Technician. The laboratory's procedures for sample custody are presented in the EPA
Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work Exhibit H for Multi-Media,
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 15 of30
Multi concentration Organic Analytical Service-OLM04.2, for Low Concentration Organic
Analytical Service-OLCO2. l, and for Multi-Media, Multiconcentration Inorganic Analytical
Service-ILMO4.l (EPA, 2000).
4.4 Analytical Method Requirements
4.4. 1 Analytical Methods
All of the groundwater FCX Washington Site samples will be collected and analyzed for the
parameter groups included in the EPA CLP Routine Analytical Services (RAS) to eliminate
and/or document contamination. All samples except those collected for the treatability study
will be analyzed by one or more of the following CLP established analytical methods:
volatile organics [Modified EPA Method 624-groundwater and surface water; SW-846
Method 5035/8260B (using Encore™ I-handles and Encore™ samplers) -sediment and
subsurface soil], semivolatile organics (Modified EPA Method 625), pesticides/PCBs
(Modified EPA Method 608), cyanide (Method 901 0A), and metals (Modified EPA Method
200 series). Three sediment samples will be analyzed for TOC (SW-846 Method 9060).
Twenty groundwater, three push point, and three surface water samples will be analyzed for
non-CLP parameters including daughter products of alpha BHC (Modified EPA Method
8081 GC/MS); alpha, beta, and gamma hexachlorocyclohexane (Modified EPA Method 8081
GC/MS); chlordane, and toxaphene (Method 8081 GC/ECD); and DDT, DOE, ODD
(Modified EPA Method 8081 GC/MS & Method 8081 GC/ECD). Twenty groundwater
samples and three pushpoint samples will be analyzed for natural attenuation parameters of
methane/ethane (RSK 175); carbon dioxide (MCA WW Method 305.1 ); total organic carbon
(TOC) (MCA WW Method 415.1 ); chloride (MCA WW Method 352.2); nitrate (MCA WW
Method 353.2); nitrite (field test kit); sulfate (MCA WW Method 375.4); sulfide (field test
kit); total alkalinity (MCA WW Method 310.2); and total ferrous iron (field test kit).
4.4.2 Sample Preparation Procedures
The objective of the sampling and preservation procedures outlined in this document is to
obtain samples wltich yield consistent quality. The use of proper sampling equipment, strict
controls in the field, and appropriate chain of custody and analytical procedures will reduce
the potential for sample misrepresentation and unreliable analytical data.
D
0
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
0
D
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. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 16 of30
Sample containers will be provided by Black & Veatch. Where appropriate, pre-preserved
sample containers will be used. A summary of the analytical and extraction methods, sample
containers, method of preservation, holding time, and holding conditions is presented in
Section 3.0 of the FSP.
4.4.3 Field Samples
During this the second round of field investigation activities for the RD at the FCX
Washington Site, a total of 32 samples will be collected for environmental analyses, not
including samples for QA/QC purposes. These samples include 3 surface water, 3 sediment,
3 push point, 20 groundwater, and 5 subsurface samples. Additionally, a volume of
groundwater will be collected for a PRB treatability study. A summary of the samples to be
collected at FCX Washington Site and the proposed analytical methods is presented in
Section 3.0 of the FSP.
4.4.4 QC Sample Description
Quality control is defined as the "overall system of technical activities that measures the
attributes and performance of a process, item, or service against defined standards to verify
that they meet the stated requirements established by the customer." In addition to field
matrix samples, the field team will submit various QC samples, including control samples,
background samples, split samples, duplicate samples, trip blanks, spike samples, equipment
field blanks, preservative blanks, field blanks, and material blanks (EPA, 1997b ). QC
samples are collected during the field investigation to isolate any site effects ( control
sample), define background conditions (background sample), and evaluate field and
laboratory variability (spikes, blanks, splits, and duplicates). These sample types are
described below.
• Control sample -a sample collected to isolate a source of contamination; may
require the collection of both an upgradient and downgradient sample.
• Background sample -

a

sample collected from an area suspected to be upgradient
from the source and suspected to be free of any contamination.
• Split sample -a sample portioned into two or more containers from a single sample
container or sample mixing container. The primary purpose of a split sample is to
measure sample handling variability.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 17 of30
• Duplicate sample -two or more samples collected from a common source. The
purpose of a duplicate sample is to estimate the variability of a given contaminant.
Typically, one duplicate is collected for every set of20 samples collected per media
and/or partial set of 20 samples.
• Trip blank -a sample of organic-free water or clean soil which is prepared prior to
the sampling event in the actual container and is stored with the investigative
samples. Trip blanks are packaged for shipment with the investigative samples and
submitted for analysis. At no time after their preparation are trip blanks to be
opened prior to reaching the laboratory. Trip blanks are used to detem1ine if
samples were contaminated during storage and/or transportation to the laboratory.
A water trip blank must accompany each shipment of water samples submitted for
volatile organic analysis, and a soil trip blank must accompany each shipment of
soil samples submitted for volatile organic analysis.
• Spike samples -a sample provided by EPA Region 4 and sent directly to the CLP
lab. This sample has known concentrations of contaminants and are used to
measure the negative bias due to sample handling or analytical procedures, or to
assess the performance of a laboratory.
• Equipment field blank-a sample collected using organic-free water which has been
run over/through decontaminated sample collection equipment. An equipment
blank is used to determine if contaminants have been introduced by contact of the
sample medium with sampling equipment.
• Preservative blank -a sample prepared in the field used to determine any
contamination of the preservatives during field operations.
• Field blank -a sample prepared in the field to evaluate the potential for
contamination of a sample from a source not associated with the sample collected.
Organic-free water is taken to the site and placed into the appropriate sample
containers. Field blanks should be collected in dusty environments and/or from
areas where volatile organic contamination is present in the atmosphere and
originating from a source other than the source being sampled.
• Material blank -a sample of sampling materials, construction materials, or reagents
generated during field operations collected to measure any positive bias from
sample handling variability.
• Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate -samples generated to determine long-term
precision and accuracy of the analytical method on various matrices and to
demonstrate acceptable compound recovery by the laboratory at the time of sample
D
D
0
g
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
a
g
g
0
I
0
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May I 7, 2004
Page 18 of JO
analysis. Typically, one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples is
collected for every set of 20 samples collected per media and/or partial set of 20
samples.
• The QC samples are collected as check on sample handling, sample transportation
and laboratory methods and procedures. Acceptance criteria is handled by the
Science and Ecosystems Support Division (SESD) of the EPA during validation
of the analytical results. Should there be a problem with the samples, either caused
by B&V or the CLP lab which would be determined by SESD, the corrective action
would most likely be resampling.
As part of the sampling program, QC samples will be submitted to the laboratory with field
investigative samples in order to evaluate the confirmatory sampling procedures and
analytical methodologies. Approximately five percent of the field investigative samples will
be collected in order to evaluate sample handling, shipment, and laboratory procedures. A
summary of the QC samples, analyses, and containers is presented in Section 3.0 of the FSP.
4.5 Field Instrument Requirements
The analytical and health and safety screening instruments that may be used in the field
during the RD/RA investigation are listed below:
• OVA Flame Ionization Detector (FID)
• Oxygen/Lower Explosive Limit Meter (O,ILEL)
• Temperature, specific conductance, and pH meter
• Turbidity meter
• Water level indicator
• Salinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature meter
• Redox meter
The instruments will be calibrated according to manufacturers' specifications before and after
each field use, and as otherwise deemed necessary. Manufacturers' specifications will be
available onsite. Instruments will be calibrated, at minimum, each day prior to field use.
Daily calibration procedures will be recorded in the field logbook, including the following
information:
• Instrument name and serial number.
• Date and time of calibration.
Qua1ity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
• Responses to battery check, alarm, and instrument use.
• Calibration gas used and concentration.
• Initials of person performing calibration.
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 19 of30
The following section presents a description of commonly used field screening equipment,
procedures for use, calibration procedures and frequency, and any applicable inspection and
maintenance procedures.
4.5.1 Foxboro OVA Model 128
The Foxboro/OVA 128 is a type of FID. The OVA is a general screening instrument used
to detect the presence of most organic vapors. The OVA measures gases and vapors by
responding to an unknown sample correlated to a gas of known composition to which the
instrument is calibrated.
The Foxboro OVA Model 128 is calibrated in the following manner:
• 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 "xl0" mode.
• Connect gas regulator to a cylinder of 95 ppm methane-in-air calibration gas and
observe that the pressure is above 50 per square inch gauge (psig).
• Attach tubing with tee to gas regulator and to end of close area sample.
• Open gas regulator valve fully. Observe meter reading after approximately I to 2
minutes. If the reading is 95 ppm, close the regulator valve, disconnect the tubing,
from the gas regulator and close area sampler, and removal the regulator from the
m
u
I
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
u
D
0
6
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 20 of JO
gas cylinder. If the reading is not 95 ppm, adjust the potentiometer labelled R32
(located within the instrument housing in the gray circuit block on back of the unit)
to obtain 95 ppm.
• Close the H2 SUPPLY VAL VE, move PUMP SWITCH to off, and adjust
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 10 and adjust meter needle to 4 ppm. If the meter
does not move to 4 ppm, adjust potentiometer labelled R3 l to obtain a reading of
4ppm.
• Move calibrate switch to x I 00 and observe meter. If needle moves to 40 ppm, then
instrument is ready for use. If needle does not move to 40 ppm, adjust
potentiometer labelled R33 to obtain reading of 40 ppm.
The Foxboro OVA Model 128 is operated in the following manner:
• Open hydrogen TANK VAL VE ( observe pressure of approximately 150 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'.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 21 of30
• The instrument may remain connected temporarily or be disconnected for packing
and shipment.
Preventive maintenance of the Foxboro OVA is conducted by the manufacturer at six to nine
month intervals. Other preventive maintenance measures include battery charging, cleaning
of the instrument, and factory servicing.
4.5.2 Oxygen/LEL Meter (0/LEL)
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 4 7% and 55%. If the
indication is not in the correct range, remove the right end of the indicator and
adjust the LEL SPAN control to obtain 50%.
• Verify the oxygen reading between 13% and 17%.
• Disconnect the adapter-hose fitting from the instrument, close the flow control
valve, and remove the flow control from the calibration gas tank.
D
0
0
u
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
D
0
u
u
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 22 of JO
• 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 IO 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.
4.5.3 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.
4.5.3.1 Temperature. The HyDAC instrument will be field-checked and calibrated daily
for temperature against a glass thermometer which has been initially calibrated against a
National Bureau of Standards (NBS) certified thermometer or one traceable to NBS
certification. All temperature data will be recorded to the nearest I °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.
4.5.3.2 Specific Conductance. Before use in the field, the following procedures will
be used to calibrate conductance on the HyDAC instrument:
• Remove the black plug on the bottom-right of the instrument revealing the
adjustment potentiometer screw.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 23 of30
• 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 I 00 units for readings over 1,000 µmhos/cm. Duplicate field analyses should agree
within plus or minus IO 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.
4.5.3.3 pH. While in the field, the HyDAC instrument will be calibrated for pH daily
before use with two buffers bracketing the expected sample pH. The following procedures
will be used to calibrate pH:
• Place the pH electrode in the 7 .0 buffer solution; adjust the ZERO potentiometer
on the face of the instrument so that the digital display indicates 7.0.
• Rinse the electrode and place in the 4.0 or I 0.0 buffer solution; adjust the SLOPE
potentiometer on the face of the instrument so that the digital display indicated the
value of the buffer chosen.
In case of an apparent pH misrepresentation, the electrode will be checked with pH 7.0 buffer
and re-calibrated to the closest reference buffer. Then the sample will be re-tested.
Duplicate tests should agree within 0.1 standard unit. Temperature resistant, combination
electrodes will be employed in conjunction with the meters. Litmus paper will be used only
for determining pH ranges, for determining approximate pH values, or for determining the
pH of concentrated hazardous waste samples which may damage the instrument. Readings
m
u
D
0
0
D
u
m
I
I
I
1,
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
u
D
u
R
R
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRO-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 24 of30
will be reported to the nearest 0.01 standard unit. The HyDAC instrument has an accuracy
rating of plus or minus 0.1 standard unit at 77° F.
To obtain a pH value, insert the electrode into the aqueous sample, depress the reading
button, and record the pH value.
4.5.4 Water Turbidity
It is anticipated that an HF Scientific Turbidity Meter will be utilized during field activities.
The accuracy rating of the turbidimeter is typically plus or minus 2 percent of the reading
plus stray light from O to 1,000 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). Instrument
calibration will be conducted by the equipment provider, and will be checked in the field
before each use against a known standard. Reported readings will be to the nearest NTU.
To field screen aqueous samples for turbidity, the meter is inspected and allowed to
equilibrate to ambient temperatures. The instrument is calibrated, and the sample cell is
rinsed with deionized water. The following procedure is used for collecting turbidity data:
• Rinse sample cell with deionized water, follow by rinsing with several volumes of
sample water.
• Fill cell with sample water, activate testing switch, and obtain reading, switching
to proper scale.
• Record sample reading and calibration readings in log book.
4.5.5 Salinity, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen, and Temperature Meter
It is anticipated that a YSI Model 58 salinity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and
temperature meter will be used to measure DO levels in aqueous samples. Calibration
procedures for this instrument include automatic compensation of temperature and salinity
readings up to 2.5 times greater than sea water. The following procedure is used for
collecting DO data:
• Fill glass jar with sample water, insert DO probe, and slowly stir. DO levels will
decrease; record the lowest observed DO level and the corresponding temperature
and salinity level.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
4.5.6 Redox Meter
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 25 of30
It is anticipated that an Orion 092A meter will be used to measure the redox potential in
aqueous samples. This meter is calibrated by the manufacturer; however, a self-test must be
run on the meter each time the meter is used. The following procedure is used for collecting
redox potential data:
• Fill glass jar with sample water and insert redox probe. The redox potential will
decrease rapidly; when the value begins to stabilize, record this value.
4.6 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and
Consumables
All supplies and consumables that may directly or indirectly affect the quality of the project
must be clearly identified and documented by field personnel. Typical examples of supplies
and consumables include sample bottles, calibration gases, tubing, materials for
decontamination activities, deionized water, and potable water. For each item identified,
field personnel shall document the inspection, acceptance testing requirements, or
specifications (i.e., concentration, purity, source of procurement) in addition to any
requirements for certificates of purity or analysis. Acceptance criteria must be consistent
with overall project technical and quality criteria. If special requirements are needed for
particular supplies or consumables, a clear agreement should be established with the supplier
(i.e., particular concentration of calibration gas).
Upon inspection, all supplies will be documented in a field log book by field personnel. This
logbook will contain the following information for each supply/consumable:
• Description of supply or consumable.
• Date received.
• Name/address of manufacturer or supplier.
• Attached documentation (yes/no and description) (i.e., calibration checks,
concentration verification for calibration gases).
• Expiration date (if applicable).
• Special precautions (if applicable).
• Meets acceptance criteria (yes/no).
• Comments (i.e., chain of custody seal on box of sample containers).
D
u
D
D
0
0
0
u
a
u
I
I
I
I
g
g
0
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. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
• Name of responsible field personnel.
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 26 of JO
The Field Team Leader is responsible for insuring that consumables are properly inspected
and that the documentation procedures stated above have been accomplished.
4.7 Data Acquisition Requirements
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 (P ARCC). Of the five DQis,
precision and accuracy are the quantitative measures, representativeness and comparability
are the qualitative measures, and completeness is a combination of quantitative and
qualitative measures.
4. 7. 1 Precision
Precision is a measure of agreement among replicate measurements of the same property,
under prescribed similar conditions. Specifically, it is a quantitative measure of the degree
of variability of a group of measurements compared to the average value. Standard
deviation, coefficient of variation, range, and relative range are terms often used to express
precision. Data precision will be evaluated through the collection of split and duplicate
samples (field and in-house) at a rate of 5 to 10 percent of samples collected at each site.
Precision is determined in the laboratory by assessing the relative percent difference for
matrix spike duplicate analyses for organics and sample duplicates for inorganics. Relative
percent difference (RPO) is expressed as follows:
RPO= {[Vl-V2]/([Vl+V2]/2)} +x 100,
where: RPO = relative percent difference
VI = primary sample value
V2 = duplicate sample value.
4. 7.2 Accuracy
Accuracy measures the bias of a measurement system. Sources of error introduced into the
measurement system may be accounted for by using field/trip blanks, spike samples, and
analysis by two different laboratories. Accuracy is assessed by measuring the percent
recoveries of surrogate spikes for organic analyses and by spike sample percent recoveries
QuaJity Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section; 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 27 of30
for inorganic analyses. For a spike sample, known amounts of standard compounds are
added to the sample. Spike recoveries are calculated as follows:
Spike Recovery (percentage)= ([SSR-SR]/SA) x 100
where: SSR = spike sample results
SR = unspiked sample results
SA = spike added from spiking mix.
The spike sample results are used to evaluate matrix effects and the accuracy of the samples
analyzed. Sources of error include the sampling process, field contamination, preservation,
handling, sample matrix, sample preparation, and analytical techniques. Field accuracy
cannot be determined for the project. However, it is more important that the criteria outlined
in the sections of the work plan concerning QA/QC sample descriptions, sampling and
decontamination procedures, and field documentation be followed so that the project
objectives and DQOs are met.
4. 7.3 Representativeness
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely
represent a characteristic of a population parameter at a sampling point, a process condition,
or an environmental condition. Representativeness is a qualitative term that is evaluated to
determine whether in situ and other field measurements are made and physical samples
collected in such a manner that the resulting data appropriately reflect the media and
phenomenon measured or studied.
4. 7.4 Comparability
Comparability is a parameter used to express the confidence with which one set of data may
be compared with another. In order to achieve comparability in data sets, it is important that
standard techniques are used to collect and analyze representative samples and to report
analytical results. The presence of the following items enhances the comparability of data
sets:
• Two data sets should contain the same set of variables of interest.
• Units in which these variables were measured should be convertible to a common
metric.
I
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
0
8
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
• Similar analytical and quality assurance procedures.
• Similar time of measurements,
• Similar measuring devices.
• Rules for excluding certain types of observations from both samples.
4. 7.5 Completeness .
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 28 of30
Completeness is a measure of the relative number of analytical data points that meet all the
acceptance criteria for accuracy, precision, and additional criterion required by the specific
analytical methods used. The goal for essentially all data uses is that sufficient amounts of
valid data will be generated. Onsite measurement techniques can provide a high degree of
completeness because invalid measurements can normally be repeated relatively quickly and
easily.
4.8 Data Management
Data management is a process in which to track the data from its generation in the field
and/or laboratory to their final use and storage,
4.8.1 Data Recording
The field operating records to be used in this investigation will document field procedures
and any measurements performed during the sampling effort; a discussion of field operating
records in presented in Section 3.6.1 of this QAPP.
Laboratory records that will be generated EPA SESD, are discussed in the EPA Contract
Laboratory Program Statement of Work Exhibit H for Multi-Media, Multiconcentration
Organic Analytical Service-OLM04.2, for Low Concentration Organic Analytical Service-
OLCO2. l, and for Multi-Media, Multiconcentration Inorganic Analytical Service-ILMO4. l
(EPA, 2000).
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
4.8.2 Data Validation
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 29 of30
A data quality evaluation of the laboratory results and field data will be performed prior to
their use for conducting the evaluation of site contaminant distributions and magnitudes.
Data quality evaluations will be performed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the
US EPA Contract Laboratory Program Data Validation Standard Operating Procedures for
Contract Laboratory Program Routine Analytical Services, Revision 2.1 (EPA, 1999b ).
Field data log books and chain of custody forms will be cross checked against each other and
against the laboratory results to assess conformity of sample identification numbers.
Laboratory data will typically be reviewed for data qualifier flags and anomalous data values.
This information will be compared to results of duplicate and blank samples, and to
information on field conditions at the time of sample collection to qualify the sample
analytical results.
4.8.3 Data Transmittal
Data will be transmitted from the laboratory to SESD to Black & Veatch via paper-copy data
packages and electronic files. The standard laboratory data reports generated during this
project will consist ofa transmittal memorandum and the following for organic and inorganic
analyses:
Organic Analyses
• Cover page describing data qualifiers, sample project and case number, and a
description of any technical problems encountered with the analyses.
• Sample data and extraction and analyses dates.
Inorganic Analyses
• Cover page describing data qualifiers, sample project and case number, and a
description of any technical problems encountered with the analyses.
• Sample data and digestion and analysis dates.
4.8.4 Data Transformation and Reduction
Data received from the laboratory on electronic files will be used to create a database for the
project. This database will be used to extract data according to method and sample
I
D
D
0
0
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
g
u
0
D
0
n
n
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 4
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 30 of JO
identifications in order to produce data summary tables that will be presented in the RD/RA
report.
4.8.5 Data Analysis
Groundwater and soil data will be compared to the applicable state and federal regulations
as presented in Section 3.4.3 of this QAPP.
4.8.6 Data Tracking
Data tracking will be performed by the Black & Veatch Project Manager, Project Geologist,
Project Engineer, or Project Scientist. Data will be tracked using a database which will
include the date of collection, date of transmittal to laboratory, and date of analysis. It is
important that these dates are tracked to ensure that sample holding times are not exceeded.
Upon receipt of the data packages and electronic data files from the laboratory, data will be
maintained in a database where additional tracking information can be added if needed.
4.8.7 Data Storage and Retrieval
Field data (logbooks, well development forms, groundwater sample collection forms) and
laboratory data packages will be stored in hard copy in the Black & Veatch file storage room,
as part of the project file. In addition, laboratory data will be stored in a database format.
This information will be retained in the project file for at least three years following project
completion and closeout.
4.8.8 Data Reporting
Five copies of the data evaluation summary report will be submitted to the EPA within 10
days after the receipt of the analytical data from SESD.
following elements:
• Project Status
• Summary of analytical data
• Results of performance evaluations and audits
• Results of periodic data quality assessments
• Any significant QA problems
The report will include the
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. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
5.0 Assessment/Oversight
5.1 Assessments/Oversights
Section : 5
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page I of II
Assessments and oversights will be performed during the RD in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of the QAPP.
5.1.1 Surveillance
Surveillance is the continual or frequent monitoring of the status of the project and the
analysis ofrecords to ensure that specified project requirements are fulfilled. Surveillance
of the RD/RA investigation at the FCX Washington Site will be performed by EPA and
Black & Veatch, Black & Veatch field personnel will continuously monitor field activities,
including all subcontractor activities and sampling efforts, EPA will monitor the project
through monthly progress reports and communication with Black & Veatch.
5.1.2 Field Investigation Audit
This section describes the procedure for auditing activities performed during field
investigations. The audit addresses the adherence to procedures documented in the QAPP.
At least one internal field investigation audit may be performed at the direction of Black &
Veatch's QAM during the field investigation activities; internal field investigation audits may
be performed by the QAM or by personnel under his/her direction. External field audits may
also be conducted by EPA at their discretion. Audits may be announced or unannounced.
The auditor will review the Work Plan, QAPP, FSP, standard operating procedures, safety
plans, or other pertinent project documents for background information, Equipment that may
be required for the audit, including safety equipment, will be obtained for use during the
audit. The Black & Veatch Project Manager will be informed that the audit is to take place
in order for the auditor to obtain updated information on site conditions.
A briefing will be scheduled with the sampling team prior to initiating the audit. The auditor
shall briefly describe the audit process and obtain updated information on the field tasks.
The audit is the evaluation of adherence to project planning documents (Work Plan, QAPP,
and FSP), sample identification and control, chain-of-custody procedures, field
documentation, security of evidence, and sampling operations. The evaluation is based
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
primarily on the project planning documents ..
Section: 5
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 2 of 11
The auditor will maintain a record of all activities performed during the audit, which may
include log books, work papers, and checklists. An example checklist is given in Figure 5-1.
The auditor must accurately track the dates and times of audit activities and the document
numbers that have been reviewed. Included in the record will be the project codes, project
location, identification of the investigators assigned to the project, and auditor's name. The
checklists must be completed in their entirety and other pertinent information should be
recorded in the "comments" section.
5.1.3 Laboratory Activities Audits
Laboratories under the EPA CLP undergo various audits, including internal system audits,
external systems audits, internal performance audits, and external performance audits. A
description of these audits is presented in the EPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement
of Work, Exhibit E for Multi-Media, Multiconcentration Organic Analytical Service-
OLMO4.2, for Low Concentration Organic Analytical Service-OLCO2.l, and for Multi-
Media, Multiconcentration Inorganic Analytical Service-ILMO4. l (EPA, 2000).
5.2 Corrective Action Protocols
Surveillance and field investigation audits may reveal findings of practice or procedure that
do not conform to the QAPP and corrective measures must be implemented in a timely
manner. The initial responsibility for monitoring QC activities in the field is that of the Field
Team Leader (FTL). The FTL is responsible for verifying that all QC procedures are
followed. This requires that the FTL assess the correctness of the field methods, determine
the ability to meet 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 project
coordinator 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 Project Coordinator, if necessary. In addition, auditors from the FDEP
may assess and require that corrective action be taken, with the concurrence of the project
manager, FTL, or field QA manager. The problem, the corrective action taken, and the
results of that action will be recorded in the field logbook by the FTL.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Signature of Auditor
Project Manager
Project Location
Type of Investigation
Authority/ Agency
YES
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
NO
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
NIA
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
N•:
I.
2.
3.
4.
Figure 5-1
Field lnvestiaation Audit
BRIEFING WITH FIELD1EAM LEADER (FTL)
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Date of Audit:
Project N•:
CHECKLIST
Was a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) prepared? If yes, what items are
addressed in the plan?
Were additional instructions given to project participants (e.g., changes in the QAPP)? If
yes, describe these changes.
Is there a written list of sampling locations and descriptions? If yes, describe where
documents are.
Is there a map of sampling locations? If yes, where is the map?
5. Do the investigators follow a system of accountable documents? If yes, what documents
are accountable?
6. ls there a list of accountable field documents checked out to the FTL? If yes, who
checked them out and where is this documented?
7. Is the transfer of field documents (sample tags, chain-of-custody records, logbooks, etc.)
from FTL to the field participants documented? If yes, where is the transfer
documented?
I
Figure 5-1 (Continued) I
Field lnvesti&ation Audit I FIELD OBS VATIONS
Quality Assurance Project Plan
CHECKLIST
YES NO N/A N•: I
D D D I. Was permission granted to enter and inspect the facility? I
D D D 2. Is permission to enter the facility documented? If yes, where is it documented? I
I
D D D 3. Were split samples offered to the facility? If yes, was the offer accepted or declined? I
D D D 4. Is the offering of split samples recorded? If yes, where is it recorded? I
I
D D D 5. If the offer to split samples was accepted, were the split samples collected? If yes, how were they identified? I
D D D 6. Are the number, frequency and types of field measurements and observations taken as I
specified in the project plan or as directed by the FTL? If yes, where are they recorded?
I
D D D 7. Are samples collected in the types of containers specified for each type of analysis? If I no, what kind of sample containers were used?
I
D D D 8. Are samples preserved as required? If no or NI A, explain. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YES
D
D
D
NO
D
D
D
N/A
D
D
D
N':
Figure 5-1 (Continued)
Field Investigation Audit
FIELD 08S~VATIONS
Quality Assurance Project Plan
CHECKLIST
9. Are the number, frequency and types of samples collected as specified in the QAPP or as
directed by the FTL? If no, explain why not?
10. Are samples packed for preservation when required (i.e., packed in ice, etc.)? lfno or
NIA, explain why.
11. Is sample custody maintained at all times? How?
I
Figure 5-1 (Continued) • Field lnvest~ation Audit
DOCUMEN CONTROL
Quality Assurance Project Plan I CHECKLIST
YES NO N/A N•:
Have all unused and voided accountable documents been returned to the FTL by the teaml D D D 1.
members?
I
D D D 2. Were any accountable documents lost or destroyed? If yes, have document numbers of I all lost or destroyed accountable documents been recorded? Where are they recorded?
I
D D D 3. Are all samples identified with sample tags? If no, how are samples identified? I
D D D 4. Are all sample tags completed ( e.g., station N•., location, date, time, analyses, signatures I
of samplers, type, preservatives, etc.)? If yes, describe types of information recorded.
I
D D D 5. Are all samples collected listed on a chain-of-custody record? If yes, describe the type of I
chain-of-custody record used and what information is recorded.
I
D D D 6. !fused, are the sample tag numbers recorded on the sample description forms?
I
D D D 7. Does information on sample tags and chain-of-custody records match? I
I
D D D 8. Does the chain-of-custody record indicate the method of sample shipment? I
I
D D 9. Is the chain-of-custody record included with the samples in the shipping container? I D
I
I
• CHECKLIST
YES NO N/A N•: ---
I D D D 18. Are logbook entries dated and identified by author?
•
I D D D 19. ls the facility's approval or disapproval to take photographs noted in a logbook?
I
D D D 20. Are photographs documented in logbooks ( e.g., time, date, description of subject,
I photographer, etc.)?
I D D D 21. If film from a self-developing camera is used, are photograph matched with logbook
documentation? I
I D D D 22. Are sample tag numbers recorded?
I
I D D D 23. Are calibration of pH meters, conductivity meters, etc., documented? If yes, describe
where this is documented.
I
g D D D 24. Are amendments to the project documented?
documented.
If yes, describe where the amendments are
g
g
I
0
D
YES
□
□
NO
□
□
N/A
□
□
I.
2.
Figure 5-1 (Continued)
Field Investigation Audit
DEBRIEFIN<!WITH FTL
Quality Assurance Project Plan
CHECKLIST
Was a debriefing held with FTL and/or other participants?
Were any recommendations made to the project participants during the debriefing? If
yes, list recommendations.
I
I
I
I
I
-------___,I
I
D
D
0
D
D
D
I
I
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Site Name
Project Manager
Dates of Activity
Type of Activity
YES NO
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
NIA N':
□ I.
□ 2.
□ 3.
□ 4.
□ 5.
□ 6.
□ 7.
□ 8.
□ 9.
□ 10.
□ 11.
□ 12.
Figure 5-1 (Continued)
Field lnvesti~ation Audit
STRUCTURE OF ELD LOGBOOK
Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA Officer:
Project N':
CHECKLIST
Is purpose of sampling activity stated?
Does logbook show location and description of samples?
Is reference map included?
Is sampling crew identified?
Is a daily activity log provided?
Are pages consecutively numbered?
Are entries in indelible ink?
Are errors lined through and corrections initialed?
Are pages signed or initialed?
Were the names and telephone numbers of field contacts recorded?
Have records of field calibrations been included?
Are the name of the shipping agent and shipping dates included?
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68•W•99•043
Work Assignment No. 344•RDRD•049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 5
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page II of!!
In the event that one of the CLP laboratories is unable to meet QA/QC 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 liaison with the CLP laboratory. In
the event of laboratory problems requiring additional field work (e.g. resampling, etc.), or
field problems requiring laboratory action (mislabeling, etc.), the Black & Veatch project
team will decide on the appropriate corrective action.
D
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
D
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD-049H
FCX Washington Site
6.0 Data Validation and Usability
Section: 6
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page I of2
6.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements
The purpose of this section is to state the criteria for deciding the degree to which each data
set has met its quality specifications. Validation and verification procedures that shall be
conducted during the project are presented below. The conformance to these procedures will
ensure the representativeness and integrity of the samples from the time of sample collection
through analysis at the laboratory.
Upon completion of the sampling investigation, Black & Veatch will review all pertinent
documentation in order to determine to what degree each data item has met its quality
specifications as presented in this QAPP. The process of data verification will include the
following:
• Sampling Design -Each sample shall be checked 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, 1997a); this deviation shall also be documented in the field logbook.
• Sample Handling -Verify that the sample was labeled, documented, and shipped properly in accordance with procedures presented in this QAPP.
• Analytical Procedures -Verify that each sample was analyzed by the methods specified in this QAPP.
• · Quality Control -Verify that QC was performed during sample collection, handling, and analysis. A QC report shall be included in the qualified laboratory data package received from the SESD.
• Calibration -Verify that the calibration of field instruments were performed in accordance with the manufacturer specifications presented in this QAPP.
The data validation and verification process will be performed by the Black & Veatch team
leader or an appropriate assignee. If QNQC problems are detected during the data validation
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDRD--049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 6
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 2 of2
and verification process, the individual who is responsible for detecting the problem will
notify the Black & Veatch project manager. The project manager will notify the EPA RPM
· of problems detected during the vali.9tio1;1,and verific11tion process with recolI)IIlen~tions
for resolutiori' or describing what measures were used to resolve the problems. A complete
description of the problem and its resolution will be included in the following monthly
report. The project manager will follow the steps specified for corrective action in Section
5.2; if necessary. ·-, .
6.2_ Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives
Data quality assessment (DQA) is the assessment phase that follows data validation and
verification; DQA determines how well the validated data can support their intended uses. . .. . "
The DQA process for this investigation will be conducted in accordance with the procedures
outlined in the Guidance for Data Quality Assessment (EPA QAIG-9), dated January 1998
(EPA, 1998b). 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 co11Sistericy with the DQOs. ,,
• Conduct a Preliminary Data Review -This step involves reviewing the QA reports,
calculating basic statistical analyses, and g~i:ierating 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 perforrcing the calculations
required for the statistical test and documenting the interferences drawn as a result
of these calculations.
I
D
0
D
u
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
g
g
I
I
I
g
Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA Contract No. 68-W-99--043
Work Assignment No. J44-RDRD-049H FCX Washington Site
7.0 References
Section: 7
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page I of2
Black & Veatch, 2000. Comprehensive Quality Assurance Plan (CompQAPP No. 92091), June 2000.
Black & Veatch, 2002. Black and Veatch Special Projects Corp., Technical Memorandum Remedial Design FCX Washington Site, December 2002.
CDM, 1993. CDM Federal, Remedial Investigation/Feasability Study, April 15, 1993.
CDM, 1998. CDM Federal, Groundwater Sampling Results for February 1998 and April 1993, June 25, 1998.
CDM, 1999. CDM Federal, Attachment I MNA Monitoring Plan, May 7, 1999.
EPA, 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Decision, September 15, 1993.
EPA, 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Guidance for the Data Oualjty Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4, September 1994.
EPA, 1997a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Use of Monitored Natural Attenuationi at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites, Directive 9200.4-17, 1997.
EPA, 1997b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Services Division, Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual (EISOPQAM), May 1996 (Revised 1997).
EPA, 1998a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans <EPA OA/G-5), February 1998.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 344-RDR0-049H
FCX Washington Site
Section: 7
FINAL
May 17, 2004
Page 2 of2
EPA, 1998b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods for Data Analysis (EPA QA/G-9),
January 1998.
EPA, 1999a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Assurance Division, EPA
I
I
D
D
I
~R&eOgJW1!!0,!!re;rmrue;rnrntsi:]·f<[QO[.r !,10!!,!U!!!alwity~-A~S!§!Sur~an!!!C!,!e;JP;Jr:QOJ.!;je~ct!:j·Pt:Jl!l!aanrusi:Jf,[Qo[.r E~nrrv~i!!ro;!!nm!!ruee1n!!!tal~-Dliarnta!!.!0~pe!,.!r:l!at!!!iOQ.!llSllif~E.tP Ad----u--
OA/R-5), November, 1999.
EPA, 1999b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Data Validation Standard Operating
Procedures for Contract Laboratory Program Routine Analytical Services. Revision. 2.1, July
1999.
EPA, 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract Laboratory Program.
Statements of Work for Multi-Media. Multi-Concentration Organic (OLM04.2). Inorganic
<ILM04.1 ). and Low Concentration Organic (OLC02.1) from EPA Internet Website, October
20, 2000.
EPA, 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Work Assignment Form for WA No.
044-RDRD-049H, September 25, 2001.
EPA, 2003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comments to Technical Memorandum
"Field Investigation Results. Bioscreen Analysis and Recommendations" FCX (Washington
Site). December 20. 2002, June 5, 2003.
OSHA, 1981. Memorandum from David Weitzman, Work Group Chairman, Occupational
Health and Safety Administration (PM-273), to EPA, April 13, 198 I. Subject: Final
regulation package for compliance with DOT regulations in the shipment of environmental
laboratory samples.
D
D
E
D
I
I
D
D
D
I
E
u
D