Quality assurance project plan : supplemental field investigation, Collinsville zinc smelter site, Collinsville, Oklahoma.

              Quality Assurance Project Plan
Supplemental Field Investigation
Collinsville Zinc Smelter Site
Collinsville, Oklahoma
Prepared for
Cyprus Amax Minerals Company
Prepared by
3010 Briarpark Drive, Suite 400
Houston, Texas 77042
Revision 04
April 2011
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
i
Table of Contents ________________________________________________
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... v
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................. 1-1
2.0 Project Management ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project/Task Organization .................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality .................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Cyprus Amax ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.3 Shaw ....................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.1.3.1 Project Manager ........................................................................................ 2-2
2.1.3.2 Data Validation Manager ........................................................................... 2-2
2.1.3.3 Health and Safety Specialist ..................................................................... 2-2
2.1.3.4 Field Site Manager .................................................................................... 2-2
2.1.3.5 Construction Project Coordinator .............................................................. 2-3
2.1.4 Analytical Laboratories ............................................................................................ 2-3
2.1.5 Construction Contractor ........................................................................................... 2-3
2.2 Problem Definition/Background ............................................................................................ 2-4
2.3 Project/Task Description ....................................................................................................... 2-4
2.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data ......................................................... 2-4
2.4.1 Step 1: State the Problem ....................................................................................... 2-5
2.4.2 Step 2: Identify the Decision .................................................................................... 2-5
2.4.3 Step 3: Identify Inputs to the Decision ..................................................................... 2-6
2.4.4 Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries ....................................................................... 2-7
2.4.5 Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule ............................................................................. 2-8
2.4.6 Step 6: Specify Limits on Decision Errors ................................................................ 2-9
3.0 Sampling and Analytical Data ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Data Quality Objectives ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Special Training Requirements/Certification ......................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Documentation and Records ................................................................................................ 3-3
4.0 Data Generation and Acquisition .................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Sampling Process Design .................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Sampling Methods Requirements ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Sample Labels ...................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.4 Chain-of-Custody.................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.4.1 Field Chain-of-Custody ............................................................................................ 4-2
4.4.2 Sample Custody Seals ............................................................................................ 4-3
4.4.3 Laboratory Sample Custody .................................................................................... 4-3
4.5 Sample Packaging and Shipment ......................................................................................... 4-4
4.6 Field Documentation ............................................................................................................. 4-8
4.6.1 Field Activity Logbook .............................................................................................. 4-8
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
ii
4.7 Analytical Methods Requirements ........................................................................................ 4-9
4.8 QC Requirements ............................................................................................................... 4-10
4.8.1 Laboratory Quality Control ..................................................................................... 4-10
4.8.2 Field Quality Control .............................................................................................. 4-11
4.9 Instrument Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance Requirements ..................... 4-13
4.10 Instrument Calibration and Frequency ................................................................................ 4-13
4.11 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables ............................... 4-13
4.12 Data Acquisition Requirements (Non-direct Measurements) .............................................. 4-13
4.13 Data Management .............................................................................................................. 4-14
5.0 Sampling and Analysis Quality Assurance ...................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Readiness Review ................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.2 Field Assessments and Surveillances .................................................................................. 5-1
5.3 Corrective Action Procedures for Field Sampling ................................................................. 5-2
5.4 Laboratory QA Program ....................................................................................................... 5-2
5.5 Disposition of Records .......................................................................................................... 5-2
6.0 Data Validation and Usability .......................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements ...................................................... 6-1
6.2 Validation and Verification Methods ..................................................................................... 6-2
6.3 Reconciliation with User Requirements ................................................................................ 6-4
7.0 Construction Quality Control/Quality Assurance ............................................................................. 7-1
7.1 Data Quality Objectives ........................................................................................................ 7-1
7.2 QC/QA Requirements ........................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2.1 Surveying ................................................................................................................ 7-1
7.2.2 Backfill Materials ..................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2.3 Sod .......................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.3 Clean Material Requirements ............................................................................................... 7-3
7.4 Materials Disposal ................................................................................................................ 7-4
8.0 References .................................................................................................................................... 8-1
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
iii
List of Tables ___________________________________________________
Table 2-1 ODEQ PRGs from the TFMS Record of Decision
Table 3-1 Summary of Data Quality Objectives
Table 4-1 Laboratory Quality Control Measures and Frequency
Table 7-1 Specific Construction Quality Control and Quality Assurance Criteria
Table 7-2 EPA Laboratory Analytical Methods for Replacement Materials
List of Figures __________________________________________________
Figure 2-1 Collinsville Project Organizational Chart
Figure 4-1 Example Sample Bottle Label
Figure 4-2 Example Sample Custody Seal
Figure 4-3 Example Shipment Checklist
List of Appendices _______________________________________________
Appendix A Shaw E&I Standard Operating Procedures
Appendix B Sampling Field Forms
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
Signatures Page
This Quality Assurance Project Plan is approved for use in implementation of the Supplemental
Field Investigation Work Plan and the Proposed Soil Consolidation Area Pre-Design Site
Characterization Work Plan at the Collinsville Zinc Smelter Site in Collinsville, Oklahoma. The
signatures below denote approval of the document and intent to abide by the procedures outlined
within it.
June 7, 2011
___________________________________________ ___________
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Date
___________________________________________ __June 2, 2011
Shaw Environmental, Inc. Date
Copies of this document are on file with:
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Shaw Environmental, Inc.
Cyprus Amax Minerals Company
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
v
Acronyms and Abbreviations ______________________________________
AR analysis request
ASPA American Sod Producers Association
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BZC Bartlesville Zinc Company
COC chain-of-custody
CoPCs chemicals of potential concern
Cyprus Amax
CSP
Cyprus Amax Minerals Company
Collinsville Soil Program
CZS Collinsville Zinc Smelter Site
CPC Construction Project Coordinator
CC Construction Contractor
DEQ
DI
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Deionized
DOT Department of Transportation
DQO Data quality objectives
DVM Data Validation Manager
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ER equipment rinsate
FD Field duplicate
FRI Focused Remedial Investigation
FS Field split
FSM Field Site Manager
GPS global positioning system
HSS Health and Safety Specialist
IATA International Air Transport Association
LCS laboratory control sample
LCSD laboratory control sample duplicate
LQAP Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan
Microbac Microbac Laboratories, Inc
MS matrix spike
MSD matrix spike duplicate
NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program
PDWP Pre-Design Site Characterization Work Plan
OAC
PM
Oklahoma Administrative Code
Project Manager
POC point-of-contact
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
vi
PRG preliminary remediation goal
PTI PTI Environmental Services
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC quality control
RAWP Remedial Action Work Plan
REC percent recovery
RPD relative percent difference
RSD relative standard deviation
SAP
SCA
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Soil Consolidation Area
SFIWP Supplemental Field Investigation Work Plan
Shaw Shaw Environmental, Inc.
SLP Shadow Lake Park
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
TFMS Tulsa Fuel Manufacturing Site
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
1-1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Scope
The 2007 Supplemental Field Investigation Work Plan (EMC2, 2007a) was prepared to outline
procedures for performing additional characterization at the Collinsville Zinc Smelter Site (CZS)
located near Collinsville, Oklahoma. That Work Plan included a Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) as an appendix. The 2007 Work Plan has been revised to incorporate various changes
that occurred during implementation of the field work and create a separate, stand-alone QAPP.
The revised Work Plan, Supplemental Field Investigation Work Plan Revision 1, (Shaw
Environmental, Inc., 2008a) will be referred to throughout the remainder of this document as the
SFIWP.
The purpose of this QAPP (Revision 4) is to update the previous version of the CZS QAPP
(Shaw, 2008b) and to establish the policies, organization, objectives, functional activities, and
specific quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) activities for soil and sediment
sampling and remediation that may be required within the CZS located near Collinsville,
Oklahoma. Additionally, groundwater sampling will be required at monitoring well locations
within the Soil Consolidation area (SCA), as described herein. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company
(Cyprus Amax),a successor parent company to the historic and now dissolved operator of the
Collinsville Smelter, has entered into a Consent Agreement with the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) to perform the initial site investigations of the CZS and Consent
Decree to conduct an investigation and, if necessary, remediation of soil potentially impacted by
historic smelter operations on residential, commercial, and public properties within the town of
Collinsville. Investigation and remediation of soil within Collinsville is being conducted by the
Collinsville Soil Program (CSP), which is an environmental program being performed in
Collinsville by Cyprus Amax.
In conjunction with this revised QAPP, Cyprus Amax is issuing a Pre-Design Site
Characterization Work Plan (PDWP) for a proposed Soil Consolidation Area (Shaw, 2011) to
receive and accommodate future excavated soil and smelter material generated by both the CZS
and the CSP. The SCA is located on property formerly occupied by the Collinsville Smelter, and
was recently purchased by Cyprus Amax. In addition to soil and sediment sampling,
groundwater monitoring wells will also be installed and sampled as part of the PDWP and will
meet the general requirements of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board pursuant to Oklahoma
Administrative Code (OAC) Section 785:35-7. Pertinent information from the PDWP is also
being included in this QAPP. The scope of this QAPP was developed from United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protocols outlined in EPA Requirements for Quality
Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/R-5 (EPA, 2001).
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
2-1
2.0 Project Management
2.1 Project/Task Organization
Planning, field investigation, and reporting will be conducted by Shaw and coordinated with the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Key project personnel and other parties
involved with this program including specific QA/QC responsibilities and relationships for
organizations involved in analytical activities are discussed in this section. Figure 2-1 provides
the Collinsville Project Organization Chart, which identifies lines of responsibility and
communications.
2.1.1 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
The DEQ is the lead agency for sampling at the CZS. Ms. Sara Downard will serve as the DEQ
Project Manager (PM). The primary responsibilities for the DEQ PM are as follows:
• Review and approve the project documents and subsequent revisions; and
• Ensure implementation of project documents.
Contact information for DEQ is as follows:
DEQ Primary Point-of-Contact
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1677
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
Ms. Sara Downard
Phone: (405) 702-5126
Fax: (404) 702-5101
Email: sara.downard@deq.ok.gov
2.1.2 Cyprus Amax
Cyprus Amax is the entity implementing the SFIWP and Mr. Michael Leach will serve as Cyprus
Amax’s PM. The primary responsibility for the Cyprus Amax PM is to serve as the point-of-contact
between Cyprus Amax and DEQ regarding all project implementation matters.
Contact information for the Cyprus Amax PM is as follows:
Cyprus Amax Primary Point-of-Contact
Environmental Services & Sustainable
Development Department
One North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Mr. Michael Leach
Phone: (602) 366-8452
Email: michael_leach@fmi.com
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
2-2
2.1.3 Shaw
Shaw will have primary responsibility for preparing and executing project plans, investigations,
and reports for soil, sediment, and groundwater sampling. Functional QA/QC responsibilities
specific to Shaw are discussed in the following sections.
2.1.3.1 Project Manager
The PM serves as a direct liaison between Cyprus Amax and the Shaw project team and
coordinates all Shaw field activities associated with the SFIWP. The Shaw PM will be the
primary point-of-contact with the Cyprus Amax PM, Shaw, and all contracted services (e.g.,
laboratories, labor, etc.). Responsibility for coordination with contracted services may be
delegated by the PM to a project team member such as the Field Site Manager (FSM), or other
qualified individual.
2.1.3.2 Data Validation Manager
The Data Validation Manager (DVM) will perform validation of laboratory documents and
records for each data set using the following EPA guidance, as applicable to the EPA methods of
analysis for metals:
• Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation (EPA, 2002); and
• USEPA Final Contract Laboratory Program, National Functional Guidelines for
Inorganic Data Review (EPA, 2004).
Additionally, the DVM will apply data qualifiers, defined in EPA's Functional Guidelines, to the
results as needed, if applicable laboratory or method control limits are not met, or if samples are
affected by field or laboratory contamination. The DVM may from time to time delegate
responsibilities to another qualified individual.
2.1.3.3 Health and Safety Specialist
The Health and Safety Specialist (HSS) will provide professional support by reviewing all health
and safety programs as they apply to this project. The HSS is responsible for providing
professional health and safety support and oversight management to the FSM. The HSS will
review and provide support in all concerns regarding the health and safety of Shaw field
personnel assigned to this project.
The HSS may from time to time delegate responsibilities to another qualified individual.
2.1.3.4 Field Site Manager
The FSM is responsible for supervising all field investigation activities. The Project FSM will
work directly with the PM to coordinate all Shaw activities for the SFIWP. The Shaw FSM will
be the primary point-of-contact (POC) between the Shaw PM and contracted services (e.g.,
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
2-3
laboratories, labor, etc.) FSM responsibilities include: implementing adequate internal controls
and review procedures to eliminate conflicts, errors, and omissions, and verifying technical
accuracy during collection of sampling data; and ensuring compliance with this QAPP.
The FSM may from time to time delegate responsibilities to another qualified individual.
2.1.3.5 Construction Project Coordinator
The Construction Project Coordinator (CPC) is responsible for managing remediation activities
and for liaising with Cyprus Amax, the Construction Contractor (CC), the property owner, and
DEQ relative to those activities. The CPC is responsible for ensuring the CC implements any
required remediation activities in accordance with any forthcoming Remedial Action Work Plan
(RAWP) and this QAAP. The CPC will provide guidance, direction, and support to the project
team and will ultimately be responsible to DEQ for reporting all cleanup related activities. The
CPC also is responsible for coordinating and documenting the cleanup activities and assigning
QA/QC responsibilities for the cleanup activities.
The CPC may from time to time delegate responsibilities to another qualified individual.
2.1.4 Analytical Laboratories
All chemical analyses will be performed by Microbac Laboratories, Inc. (Microbac) located in
Marietta, Ohio. Microbac meets the certification requirements for DEQ and/or the National
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP).
Contact information for Microbac is as follows:
Microbac Primary Point-of-Contact
Microbac Laboratories, Inc.
158 Starlite Drive
Marietta, Ohio 45750
Stephanie Mossburg
158 Starlite Drive
Marietta, Ohio 45750
(740) 373-4071
Microbac has a Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan (LQAP) (Microbac, 2010)
consistent with a national accreditation program and will be capable of achieving project-required
method reporting limits, as well as project Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for
accuracy, precision, and bias to the extent that this is technically feasible using standard
technology.
2.1.5 Construction Contractor
The CC will have primary responsibility for implementing the required remediation activities.
The CC will perform certain QC activities as designated by the CPC.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
2-4
2.2 Problem Definition/Background
Between 1911 and 1918, the Bartlesville Zinc Company (BZC) owned and operated a zinc
smelter on approximately 220 acres about one mile south of Collinsville. This 220-acre property
is now known at the CZS.
The Work Plan, Collinsville Smelter Site Focused Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(PTI Environmental Services [PTI], 1996) and subsequent Focused Remedial Investigation and
Focused Feasibility Study (Exponent, 200lb) documents provide the CZS background history,
results of previous sampling events, and conceptual site model that determined arsenic,
cadmium, and lead to be the CZS chemicals of potential concern (CoPCs).
A soil sampling/removal action was performed in 2006 at the Shadow Lake Park (SLP) property
located within the CZS, and consequently the SLP property is not included in the SFIWP scope.
Soil sampling of the SLP was performed by Cyprus Amax in March 2006 to determine the lateral
and vertical (i.e., up to l8-inches, as required by DEQ) extent of impacted materials at the trailer
park. Soil sampling was performed as outlined in the Sampling Work Plan (EMC2, 2006a)
approved by DEQ via email dated March 9, 2006, and soil sampling results and sampling
locations are summarized in the Summary Report, March 2006 Soil Sampling Event (EMC2,
2006b). Removal action activities were performed in accordance with the Final Removal Action
Work Plan (EMC2, 2006c), and are summarized in the Removal Action Completion Report
(EMC2, 2007b).
2.3 Project/Task Description
Soil and sediment samples, as well as groundwater samples near the proposed SCA, will be
analyzed for metals as discussed in the SFIWP, the PDWP, and this QAPP. Sampling locations,
where known, are provided in the SFIWP. The objective of the soil, sediment, and groundwater
sampling is to evaluate the need for remedial action. A separate RAWP will be submitted to
DEQ to address any necessary remediation.
2.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data
DQOs are qualitative and quantitative statements that clarify study objectives, define the type of
data needed, and establish error limits for the quality and quantity of data needed to support
decisions. DQOs are used to establish performance criteria, or measurement quality objectives,
that take into account the purpose of data collection, the types of data needed, and tolerable
limits for making decision errors (EPA, 2000b). DQOs are developed through a six-step process:
Step 1: State the Problem
Step 2: Identify the Decision
Step 3: Identify Inputs to the Decision
Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
2-5
Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule
Step 6: Specify Limits on Decision Errors
The following sections present a discussion of DQO development for the CZS.
2.4.1 Step 1: State the Problem
Environmental impacts from historic zinc smelting activities at the CZS may have impacted soil,
sediment, and groundwater within the CZS. Transport mechanisms include historic stack
emissions and the use of smelter material as fill. In addition, materials from the historical smelter
operations were re-graded and used as fill in portions of the CZS by the activities of the State of
Oklahoma’s Conservation Commission.
The previous FRI indicated the presence of arsenic, cadmium, and lead in soil within the CZS at
concentrations above background levels. That investigation was limited by the inability to obtain
access agreements from all property owners within the CZS. Therefore, the objectives of the
SFIWP and PDWP is to collect samples in those FRI areas where: 1) access to perform FRI
sampling was previously denied by property owners; and 2) to supplement the FRI data by
further characterizing certain areas within the CZS.
If the data from the FRI, the PDWP, and the SFIWP indicate the need for remediation, a RAWP
will be developed to delineate the extent of and the performance criteria for the remediation. The
implementation of the RAWP will require the collection of analytical data similar to that
prescribed by the SFIWP and the PDWP; analytical data to confirm the suitability of backfill of
capping materials; and surveying or other similar data to verify compliance with the performance
criteria specified within the RAWP.
2.4.2 Step 2: Identify the Decision
The purpose of this step is to identify the decision(s) that require the collection of information.
The primary decisions to be addressed during implementation of the SFIWP include
determining:
• Whether the nature and extent of soil/sediment contamination has been adequately
defined, or if further investigation is necessary; and
• Whether soil/sediment constituent concentrations exceed preliminary remediation
goals and require remediation: and
• Water quality within the vicinity of the proposed SCA.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
2-6
The primary decisions to be addressed during the implementation of a RAWP include
determining:
• The lateral extent of soil impacts on the CZS requiring remediation;
• The depth of excavation that may be required within those areas to achieve final
remediation goals;
• Whether backfill materials that are used to either cap or backfill areas that require
remediation are suitable; and
• That the performance criteria specified within the RAWP have been achieved.
2.4.3 Step 3: Identify Inputs to the Decision
Step 3 identifies information that is needed to support the decision identified in Section 2.4.2. To
adequately address the decision statements, the following types of inputs are needed:
• For the SFIWP
– Analytical laboratory data (analyzed for arsenic, cadmium, and lead, and ten
percent of all samples collected analyzed for zinc) to evaluate the nature and extent
of contamination in soil/sediment.
• For the implementation of any future RAWP
– Soil samples that are representative of average concentrations of arsenic, cadmium,
and lead within identified property use areas;
– Representative samples of backfill and capping materials that can be used to
determine the chemical and physical suitability of these materials for use in
remediation;
– Analytical laboratory data from analysis of samples identified above, for arsenic,
cadmium, lead, or other constituents of interest; and
– Field measurements verifying the depth and lateral extent of any required
remediation.
• For the implementation of the PDWP:
– Additional analytical laboratory data (analyzed for arsenic, cadmium, and lead) to
evaluate the nature and extent of impact in soil; and
– Information on groundwater quality conditions within the vicinity of the proposed
SCA.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
2-7
2.4.4 Step 4: Define the Study Boundaries
Step 4 clarifies the characteristics that the collected environmental data are intended to represent.
The following activities are performed to define the study boundaries: define the population of
interest; define the geographic area; as needed, divide the population into relatively
homogeneous strata; determine the time frame to which the decision applies; determine the data
collection time frame; define the scale of decision making; and identify any constraints on the
data collection. The following paragraphs address each of these items.
Media of Interest
Surface and subsurface soil, sediment, that require characterization for the purpose of
determining whether remediation is required, the extent of such remediation, and suitability of
backfill or capping materials are all potential media of interest. The primary potential
constituents of interest in these media include arsenic, cadmium, zinc, and lead, although
organics and other metals may be of interest to determine suitability of backfill materials.
In the case of the proposed SCA, groundwater samples will be collected from the monitoring
wells that will be installed during implementation of the PDWP. The samples will be submitted
to a state certified laboratory and analyzed for primary potential constituents of interest,
including arsenic, cadmium, lead, additional elements (calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium)
and wet chemistry parameters
Geographic Area
The geographic area under consideration is the 220-acre CZS located in Collinsville, Oklahoma.
Figure 1 of the SFIWP provides a Site Location Map.
Stratify the Site
The transport mechanisms for potential impacts of smelter waste on exposed soil are air
emissions and transport of material as fill. Soil samples that are obtained to determine whether a
remediation is required will be obtained form the 0- to 3-inch as well as the deeper intervals
specified within the SFIWP.
Groundwater for site characterization will be obtained from the mid-point of the screened
interval of each installed monitoring well. Screen placement shall be determined in the field
based on site conditions, as determined by the field geologist, in coordination with the project
manager, during well installation, as specified in the PDWP.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
2-8
Time Frame
Sample collection is current and ongoing. Submittal of the site characterization data is to be
completed within 90 days of field data collection.
Scale of Decision Making
Non-residential properties within Zones 1, 2, and 3 of the CZS will be evaluated as identified in
the SFIWP.
Constraints on Data Collection
Sampling may be delayed by adverse weather conditions that would limit accessibility to certain
locations on the CZS. Owners will have to provide an access agreement for collection of data
from a given property.
2.4.5 Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule
In Step 5, a decision rule is developed that defines the conditions that would cause the decision
maker to choose among alternative actions. Activities involved in Step 5 include: specifying the
statistical parameter that characterizes the analytical population; specifying an action level for
the decision; confirming that detection limits will allow reliable comparison with the action
level; and stating the decision rule.
Statistical Parameters Population Characterization
The primary population of interest in soils is the average concentration of metals in each interval.
These average concentrations will be obtained through a composite sample as described in the
SFIWP. Sediments will be characterized by grab samples. The objective of the SFIWP is to
characterize areas within the CZS as requiring either remediation or additional characterization.
In the case of soils, this evaluation will be made for each area represented by a given composite
sample; therefore, no statistical evaluation of the population of all samples will be required. The
grab samples obtained for sediment and groundwater samples will also be evaluated based on
individual sample results.
It is anticipated that a RAWP will be required. The RAWP may include the collection of
additional data to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of any required remediation. A
statistical evaluation of the data generated by the implementation of the RAWP may be used as
part of delineating the extent of remediation or verification of removal of impacted materials.
Any such statistical evaluation will be detailed in the RAWP.
Action Level
The current land use within the CZS includes residential, agricultural, and industrial. Existing
residential use areas are being evaluated separately from the SFIWP; however, evaluations of the
SFIWP data will consider the potential for future residential use within existing agricultural-use
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
2-9
areas. The EPA has issued a Record of Decision for remediation of the Tulsa Fuel Manufacturing
Site (TFMS) that includes site-specific preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) (EPA, 2008).
These PRGs are shown in Table 2-1. Given the similarity in sources and contaminants between
the TFMS and the CZS, the DEQ PRGs will be used to evaluate the data generated through the
implementation of the SFIWP. The analytical results for groundwater will be compared to DEQ
residential groundwater criteria.
Confirm Detection Limits
To the extent that it is technically feasible using routine analytical techniques, the reporting
limits for critical parameters should be low enough to allow comparison of the data to the DEQ
PRGs and screening levels for the site. The analytical detection limits provided in Table 3-1 are
believed to be sufficient for this purpose.
Decision Rule
The following decision rule is applicable for this project:
• If the concentration of a soil/sediment parameter exceeds the DEQ PRGs, remediation
will be required and additional data will be required to determine the lateral and
vertical extent of the remediation;
• If the concentration of a groundwater parameter exceeds the residential screening
levels, further investigations may be required.
2.4.6 Step 6: Specify Limits on Decision Errors
To minimize the possibility of decision errors, the components of the total study error are
examined, including sampling design error and measurement error. Sampling design error can be
minimized by collecting a larger number of samples, or in the case of resource limitations, by
using screening technologies to focus sampling on areas of potential concern. Measurement
errors can be minimized by replicate analysis of the same sample or by selecting cleanup,
preparation, and analysis methods that are best suited to the site matrix. Measurement errors will
be assessed by reviewing precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and
comparability as discussed in Section 3.0.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
3-1
3.0 Sampling and Analytical Data
This section specifies the DQOs and the procedures that will be used to achieve those DQOs for
sampling and laboratory analytical data.
3.1 Data Quality Objectives
The primary use of data generated by implementation of the SFIWP and the PDWP will be to
evaluate the soil, sediment, and groundwater concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, and lead
relative to DEQ PRGs. To serve this purpose, the data must be of known and acceptable quality,
and must have sufficient sensitivity to confidently detect target parameters at, or below the DEQ
PRGs.
To meet these objectives, DQOs for analytical data have been defined in terms of precision,
accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability of the data. Quantification and
detection limit, bias, precision, completeness, and holding time DQOs are presented in
Table 3-1. Attainment of these quantitative DQOs will ensure that the data collected are
sufficient and of adequate quality for their intended uses. Otherwise, data that do not meet DQOs
will be qualified during data validation, and their limitations will be noted. The following
qualitative DQOs for representativeness and comparability will also be implemented for
measurements to ensure that the resulting data are representative of environmental conditions
and are comparable with results from previous investigations:
• Soil sub-samples will be taken from well-homogenized composite samples so that they
will be representative of ambient conditions at each location;
• Groundwater samples will be collected from across monitoring well screened
intervals, as determined by the field geologist based on site conditions, including
groundwater elevation, at the time of sampling, and as required by DEQ Title 252
(DEQ, 2010);
• Water levels and elevations in the monitoring wells will be measured following
installation, and in monthly intervals (at approximately the same date each month) for
a period of one year, as required by DEQ Title 252 (DEQ, 2010); and
• Adequate quantities of sample will be collected to allow all necessary analyses to be
conducted, as appropriate (e.g., field sample analysis, laboratory QC analyses), and to
provide archived samples for possible future re-analysis of chemical concentrations, or
as replacements for the possible loss of original samples.
Generally, the DQOs for precision (Table 3-1) are based on the EPA method QC acceptance
criteria and on the predicted method bias as a function of concentration in environmental
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
3-2
samples. The detection limits included in Table 3-1 were determined after consideration of
feasible analytical methods and the detection limit requirements for the end uses of the data.
QA objectives for measurement data are usually expressed in terms of accuracy (bias and
precision), completeness, representativeness, and comparability. Definitions of these
characteristics are as follows:
• Bias - The degree of conformity of a measurement (or an average of measurements of
the same parameter), X, with an accepted reference value, T, expressed as a
percentage of a ratio, X/T x 100. Bias is one component of the accuracy of
measurements.
• Precision - A measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements of the
same property, usually under prescribed similar conditions. Precision is expressed in
terms of the relative standard deviation for three or more measurements or relative
percent difference for two measurements. Various measures of precision exist,
including laboratory and field duplicate measurements. Precision is the second
component of the accuracy of measurements.
• Completeness - A measure of the amount of valid data expressed as a percentage
obtained from a measurement system compared with the amount that was expected to
be obtained under normal conditions. Field and analytical data may be specified at
different completeness levels.
• Representativeness - The degree to which data accurately and precisely represent the
true value of a characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point,
a process condition, or an environmental condition.
• Comparability - The confidence with which one data set can be compared with
another. All data in a particular data set will be obtained by the same methods to
ensure comparability of the results. Analytical comparability will be accomplished by
analysis of samples, including EPA performance evaluation standards and reference
materials.
3.2 Special Training Requirements/Certification
Special training requirements or certifications for this project are limited to the following:
• Certification in the State of Oklahoma and/or NELAP for the lab performing chemical
analyses.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
3-3
The Shaw PM is responsible for assuring that the project team and any subcontractors have the
appropriate training and certifications. The work will be completed in conformance with OSHA
29 CFR 1910.120 requirements and all other applicable health and safety standards.
3.3 Documentation and Records
All sampling and analytical results will be provided to the DEQ PM in a summary report. The
summary report will contain a sampling field map, tables of field and analytical data, and a
summary of data validation and data quality. The project records and documents will be
maintained in a project file at the Shaw office in Houston, Texas for six months following
completion of work, and thereafter will be archived with Cyprus Amax.
The most current version of this QAPP will be maintained by the Shaw QC Manager. If revision
is required, the updated version will be provided to the DEQ PM and any other parties on the
distribution list. Revisions to the QAPP may be readily identified by the revision number and
date appearing in the header of this document.
All field data will be entered into bound notebooks and field sampling forms. Record-keeping
and documentation procedures are discussed in detail in the SFIWP and the PDWP.
Information pertaining to the analytical laboratory documentation, record keeping, and narratives
will be provided in the laboratory data package. The minimum data anticipated for the laboratory
data package are the sample and QC results associated with the analysis.
Field notebooks, chain-of-custody (COC) records, field data sheets, disks, tapes, and lab reports
will be filed and stored at Shaw’s Houston, Texas office.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-1
4.0 Data Generation and Acquisition
4.1 Sampling Process Design
Details regarding the sampling process design and rationale are provided in the SFIWP and the
PDWP and are not repeated here.
4.2 Sampling Methods Requirements
Detailed information regarding sample collection procedures/methods, required equipment, and
decontamination of sampling equipment is provided in the SFIWP. All sampling procedures will
be in accordance with the applicable Shaw Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) provided as
attachments to the SFIWP and the PDWP.
4.3 Sample Labels
All samples for laboratory analysis will be placed in an appropriate sample container for
shipment to the contract laboratory. Shaw’s SOP EI-FS006 (Appendix A) provides guidance for
sample labeling. Samples will be adequately marked for identification from the time of collection
and packaging through shipping and storage. The sample identification and collection
information will be presented on a label attached to the sample container. The label will be
completed using permanent ink or pre-printed from the geodatabase (sample tracking system).
An example of a typical sample label sheet has been included in Figure 4-1. At a minimum, all
sample labels will include the following sample information:
• Field sample number
• Project name and number
• Analysis requested for the sample collected
• Method of preservation/conditioning
• Date and time of collection
• Initials of the persons collecting the sample
Figure 4-1
Example Sample Bottle Label
Project #: ___________________________
Project Name: _______________________
Sample Loc: _________________________
Preservative: _________________________
Sample Team initials:
Comments:
Sample #: ___________________________
Date:________________________________
Time: ______________________________
Analysis: ___________________________
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-2
4.4 Chain-of-Custody
Strict COC protocols will be followed and documented throughout sampling, sample handling,
sample shipping, sample archiving, and sample analysis. Shaw’s SOP EI-FS003 (Appendix A)
provides guidance for COC protocols. Every stored or analyzed sample will be recorded on a
COC form printed from the geodatabase. The COC form will be attached to the laboratory results
and will be included in the project file as part of the permanent records. An example of the
analysis request/chain-of-custody (AR/COC) form, which will be similar to the form printed
from the geodatabase, is provided in Appendix B.
4.4.1 Field Chain-of-Custody
The sampling team, field sample coordinator, and site manager will maintain overall
responsibility for the care and custody of the samples collected until they are transferred or
properly dispatched to the laboratory. All shipping or sample transfer information will be
recorded at the end of each day, or collection period, on AR/COC form(s).
Transfer of custody and shipping procedures are as follows:
• Before sampling begins, the site manager will instruct site personnel in the proper
AR/COC procedures.
• The quantity and types of samples and sample locations are presented based on the
rationale in the SFIWP. Any special shipping, handling, and/or custody requirements
will also be identified.
• All coolers must be secured at the site with custody seals prior to transport to the
laboratory. Custody seals will be signed and dated by one of the sample team
relinquishing custody of the samples being shipped. Also, custody seals will be placed
on each container so that the container cannot be opened without breaking the seal.
• AR/COC records initiated in the field will be placed in a plastic bag and taped to the
underside of the top of the shipping container used for sample transport.
• An AR/COC entry will be made in the field for each sample. This document will
accompany the samples in shipment, and a copy will be maintained at the site for
placement in the project files at the conclusion of field activities. The custody of
individual sample containers will be documented by recording each sample number on
the appropriate AR/COC form.
• Each time responsibility for custody of the sample changes, the new custodian will
sign and date the record. This does not include overnight courier personnel whenever
samples are shipped in coolers that have been sealed with signed custody seals.
• Shipping containers will be secured using plastic wrapping tape, or duct tape, and
custody seals to ensure that samples are not disturbed during transport.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-3
4.4.2 Sample Custody Seals
Custody seals are narrow strips of adhesive paper or glass fiber used to demonstrate that no
tampering of the sample container, equipment, and sample cooler has occurred. The custody
seals will be signed and dated by the field technician and placed across the opening of the lid and
body of the sample transport containers (e.g., cooler) and at a least on one side and the front of
the container. The custody seals will be covered with clear, wide tape. These custody seals shall
be plainly visible. A custody seal should also be placed from one side, across the top (lid), and to
the other side of each sample container. An example sample custody seal is shown in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-2
Example Sample Custody Seal
Custody Seal
Person Collecting Sample: ____________
__________________________________
Date Collected: _____________________
Sample #: _____________________________
Time Collected: _________________________
4.4.3 Laboratory Sample Custody
The COC shall be maintained upon receipt by the laboratory. The laboratory sample custodian
signs the AR/COC form and verifies the condition and receipt of all samples included on the
AR/COC form. Any discrepancies are immediately forwarded to the project chemist for
resolution. The laboratory shall also employ an internal COC procedure that minimizes any
potential for tampering or adulteration of field samples prior to analysis. Copies of completed
AR/COC forms and internal custody records shall be included in the data deliverables associated
with each sample delivery group.
The laboratory will complete the “sample condition” portion of the AR/COC form upon receipt
of the sample shipment. The laboratory will sign the AR/COC form and fax or email a copy of
the form to the field sample coordinator to confirm receipt of the samples by the laboratory. The
original AR/COC form will remain with the samples until final disposition of the samples is
determined. A signed copy of the AR/COC form will be included with the analytical results
provided by the laboratory. An original copy will be provided by the laboratory upon final
disposition of the samples that are disposed of or returned.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-4
4.5 Sample Packaging and Shipment
Sample preservation, packing, and shipping will follow the procedures specified in Shaw’s SOP
EI-FS012, Shipping and Packaging of Non-Hazardous Samples (Appendix A). Completed
AR/COC forms will be secured and included with each shipment of coolers transported to the
laboratory. General sample packaging and shipping will be as follows:
• Samples will be placed in appropriate containers provided by the analytical laboratory.
• Sample containers will be protected from breakage by a packing material that is added
to the shipping container to prevent shifting of samples during transportation.
• Signed and dated tamper-proof custody seals will be taped across the lid of each
shipping container on all four sides. (Section 4.4.2 describes sample custody seals)
• Each sample sent to the laboratory will be identified on the COC form, placed in a
plastic bag, and shipped inside the shipping container.
• The laboratory address, telephone, and contact name will be included on the original
air bill and, if multiple packages are sent, on each sample cooler.
When the sample team completes sample collection, labeling, and chemical preservation (if
required), the sample will be sealed in an outer plastic zipper storage bag and placed into a
designated field sample cooler or original sample jar boxes for maintenance of custody and
shipping purposes. If icing is required (for water samples only), samples will be placed into a
field sample cooler, on ice, to chill the sample to 4o + 2oC. AR/COC forms will be used to
inventory all of the samples collected that are in the cooler for field storage and eventual
shipment. After the sample cooler and the sampling team return to the field office or sample
mobilization area, the samples are inventoried and segregated for shipment to the analytical
laboratory. Next, the AR/COC forms (Appendix B) are initiated using the information from the
sample label and sample information from the geodatabase. All samples collected for metals
analysis will be shipped by an overnight delivery service, on an appropriate basis, within method
holding time, by appropriate sample grouping.
Samples that are collected for off-site laboratory analysis requiring overnight shipment will be
generally prepared by:
• Sealing each sample container in an outer plastic zipper storage bag.
• Securely wrapping and taping each collected sample in bubble wrap. (or other similar
shock-absorbing material)
Samples transported by common carrier, or any other means, other than hand-carrying, to an on-site
laboratory or direct transport by a laboratory courier, must be prepared in accordance with
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-5
the applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or the International Air Transport
Association (IATA) regulations and specifications. These regulations and specifications may
stipulate the use of sealed, inner packaging (e.g., metallic paint cans, fiberboard canisters) and
outer packaging that meets specific testing requirements and is listed by specification number in
the shipping regulations.
Samples will be shipped overnight via Federal Express, United Parcel Service, or similar service
to the subcontract analytical laboratory. All field and QC samples will be placed in appropriately
labeled, pre-cleaned sample containers, and enclosed within a plastic zipper storage bag. The
bottom of the shipping cooler will be lined with absorbent material. Currently, the analytical
method to be used for this project does not require soil and sediment samples to be iced.
If samples require cooling, the following procedures will apply:
• A sufficient quantity of ice will be placed on the absorbent material to cover the
bottom of the cooler.
• All ice used inside the cooler will be placed in plastic zipper storage bags of one quart
or larger size and will be double bagged. All four sides of the cooler will then be lined
with ice packs.
• Each sample container will be wrapped with bubble pack or similar material to prevent
breakage. The wrapped sample container will then be placed in a plastic zipper storage
bag and sealed. The zipper storage bagged sample containers will then be placed
within the space created from the placement of the ice.
• Any remaining void space will then be filled with bubble pack, foam peanuts, or
absorbent material to prevent movement of the sample containers during transport.
• Once the samples are secured, ice will be placed on top of the sample containers,
thereby completely surrounding the sample containers with ice packs. The remaining
headspace in the cooler, if any, will be filled with bubble pack, foam peanuts, or
absorbent material. All shipping procedures will follow Shaw SOP EI-FS012,
(Appendix A).
The following instructions are for shipping low concentration samples from the site:
• Samples must be shipped in “strong outer packaging” (a plastic cooler is acceptable).
• Both Shaw and subcontract laboratory’s addresses must appear on container.
• The following information must be printed on the container:
– FRAGILE (if glass containers are shipped) with “THIS SIDE UP” arrows on two
sides of the cooler.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-6
• Inner packages cannot exceed one gallon each, and the entire shipment (cooler,
samples, and absorbent) cannot exceed 66 pounds.
• Coolers must be packed with absorbent material.
• If icing is required, temperature conditions will be checked and reported on the Cooler
Receipt Form upon arrival at the laboratory.
• Inner containers should have their lids secured with tape.
• Prior to sealing the cooler with custody seal and tape, a Shaw Shipment Checklist will
be completed and reviewed. A sample of the Shipment Checklist is shown as
Figure 4-3.
– NOTE: If any sample is suspected to be highly hazardous, the Project Chemist (or
QC Officer) will be contacted for shipping instructions.
• Samples must be shipped using the appropriate carrier’s air bill.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-7
Figure 4-3
Example Shipment Checklist
Project Name Project No
Street Address Date: Time:
City/State/Zip __________________________________________________________________________
Phone Number ( ) ___________________ Fax Number ( ) ____________________
SAMPLE CHECKLIST
Yes No Comments
Sample lids are tight and custody seals in place? 􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
Are sample numbers, dates, times and other label information
legible and complete?
􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
Have all sample numbers, dates, times and other sample data
been logged into sample logbook?
􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
Do sample numbers and sample description on the labels match
with those on the COC?
􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
Have the samples been properly preserved? 􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
Have the COC forms been filled out completely and correctly? 􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
Are the labels filled out in the indelible ink and/or label taped over
with clear tape?
􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
Have the COC forms been properly signed in the transfer section? 􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
PACKAGING CHECKLIST
Has each sample been placed into an individual plastic bag? 􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
Has the drain plug of the cooler been taped closed with waterproof
tape from the inside?
􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
Has the cooler been adequately lined with cushioning absorbent
pads?
􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
Have all the samples been placed into the cooler in an upright
position?
􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
Is there adequate spacing of samples so that they will not touch
during shipment?
􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
Have an adequate number of ice packs been placed around and on
top of samples?
􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
Has the COC been placed in a zipper storage bag and taped to the
inside of the lid of the cooler?
􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
Is an analytical request form needed and is it in a zipper storage
bag under the lid of the cooler?
􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
Have custody seals been placed over the lid? 􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
Has the cooler been properly labeled with correct address and
proper certification?
􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
Has the laboratory performing the analysis been notified of the
shipment of samples?
􀀀 􀀀 ________________________________
________________________________
PROBLEMS/RESOLUTIONS
Prepared by: ____________________________ Signature: ________________________
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-8
The completed AR/COC forms shall be enclosed in plastic zipper storage bags and taped to the
underside of the lid of the cooler. The drain of the cooler will be taped shut. On the day of
shipment, fresh ice, if required, will be added to the coolers to ensure that preservation criteria is
met, the lid will be taped shut, and four custody seals or evidence tape will be fixed to the
coolers. The coolers will then be sent to the subcontract analytical laboratory.
For samples that will be hand-carried to the laboratory for analysis or delivered by laboratory
courier, elaborate packaging is not required so long as the samples are adequately protected from
breakage and sample temperature is maintained. At all times, from the point of sample collection
in the field through storage, inventory, preparation, and shipment, the samples must remain
sealed, protected from sources of contamination, and adequately preserved as required and
following COC procedures.
4.6 Field Documentation
Field documentation will include, but is not limited to, sample labels, AR/COC forms, and
shipping papers. To maintain appropriate qualitative assessment of data quality and usability,
field notes of all cleaning and sampling procedures will be recorded, and sample labels and
COCs will be documented by the field sampling team. All field notes and sample documentation
will be reviewed by a technical reviewer who is not a member of the field team. Any serious
quantitative or qualitative evidence of data inadequacy will require documented justification that
data are acceptable or re-sampling will be required.
Field activity logbooks, electronic sample forms, and COC are described in the following
sections.
4.6.1 Field Activity Logbook
During each day of field sampling and at each sample site, all pertinent field survey and
sampling information will be recorded in a bound field logbook. All entries into the field
logbook will be made in indelible ink (See Shaw SOP EI-FS001, Appendix A). Each day’s
entries will be initialed and dated at the end of each day by the field sampling crew. All
corrections shall consist of line-out deletions, which are initialed.
At a minimum, entries in the field logbook shall include:
• Date and time at the start of work and description of weather conditions.
• Names of field sampling crew.
• Project name and number.
• Description of site conditions and any unusual circumstances encountered.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-9
• Sample site location, including a reference sketch if site conditions are different from
the plan provided to the sampling crew.
• Equipment identification.
• Details of actual work effort, particularly any deviations from the aforementioned
methods.
• Field observations, including a brief lithologic description of the soil and sediment
samples. The description will include soil type (e.g., clay, sand, etc.), color, relative
density and plasticity, and degree of moisture. The description will be captured on a
single sheet or form for each composite sample and will include separate notations for
each aliquot in the composite. Significant differences between aliquots in a composite
and/or between depth intervals for a composite sample will be generally described.
• Time that field work was terminated for the day.
• Specific details for each sampling location.
• Details of photo documentation.
• A property site description (e.g., physical address and property parcel identification
number).
Strict COC procedures will be maintained and documented in the field logbook. While being
used in the field, field logbooks will remain with the field team at all times. Upon completion of
the field effort, field logbooks will be filed as part of the permanent records. Any changes in the
sampling procedures in this QAPP or the SFIWP will be documented in the field logbook and all
final reports.
4.7 Analytical Methods Requirements
All soil and sediment samples obtained as part of the implementation of the SFIWP will be
analyzed by the following:
• SW846 6010B “Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy”
(EPA, 1996)
• The samples will be digested in accordance with the techniques specified in SW846
3051 “Microwave Assisted Acid Digestion of Sediments, Sludges, Soils, and Oils”
(EPA, 2007)
All groundwater samples obtained as part of the implementation of the PDWP will be analyzed
by the following:
• Method 200.7 “Determination of Metals and Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry” (EPA 1994)
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-10
• Method 200.8 “Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively
Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry” (EPA1994)
• Wet Chemistry (Chemical Oxygen Demand, Chloride, Sulfate, Nitrates, and
Carbonates): EPA 400 “Chemical Oxygen Demand” (EPA 1999); SW846 9056
“Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromatography”(EPA 2007); and EPA
300 “Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromatography”(EPA 1993)
4.8 QC Requirements
Several different types of QC checks will be used to document the validity of the generated data.
These QC checks reveal information about sampling technique, analyst technique, instrument
capability, possible sources of contamination, precision of the results, and difficulties with the
matrix.
4.8.1 Laboratory Quality Control
The following laboratory quality control samples will be generated at the analytical laboratory.
Additional laboratory QC checks are summarized in Table 4-1.
• Calibration Verification - Initial calibration of instruments will be performed at the
start of the project and when any ongoing calibration does not meet control criteria.
The number of points used in the initial calibration is defined in each analytical
method. Ongoing calibration verification will be performed as specified in the
analytical methods to monitor instrument performance. In the event that an ongoing
calibration does not meet control limits, analysis of project samples will be suspended
until the source of the control failure is either eliminated or reduced to within control
specifications. Any project samples analyzed while the instrument was out of control
will be re-analyzed.
• Instrument Blank - Instrument blanks are analyzed to verify that there is no cross
contamination between sample analysis runs within the system. Instrument blanks
must be analyzed following calibration verification, before sample analysis is initiated,
and after analysis of samples that contain target analyte concentrations in exceedance
of the DEQ PRGs, or potentially interfering materials. The instrument blanks must not
contain target analyte concentrations greater than the required reporting limits, and if
such concentrations are consistently observed, the laboratory must investigate and
eliminate contamination sources, if possible.
• Method Blank - Method blanks are used to assess possible laboratory contamination
of samples associated with all stages of preparation and analysis of sample extracts.
Blank corrections will not be applied by the laboratories to the original data. For
metals and conventional analyses, 1 method blank will be analyzed for every digestion
batch, or 1 for every 20 samples, whichever is more frequent.
• Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate - Matrix spike (MS) samples will be used to
evaluate the effect of sample matrices on the quantification of contaminant
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-11
concentrations and therefore the bias of the method for the analytes of interest and the
matrix. A MS is a sample, prepared in duplicate, to which a known concentration of
pure analyte is added prior to digestion or extraction and analysis. For metals and
conventional analyses, matrix spike samples will be analyzed at a frequency of 1 for
every 20 samples received, or once per sample delivery group, whichever is greater.
• Laboratory Duplicate - Laboratory duplicates will be used to determine the precision
of the analytical methods. Duplicate results are calculated as relative percent
differences. Duplicates will be analyzed at a frequency of 1 for every 20 samples
received or once per sample delivery group, whichever is greater.
• Laboratory Control Sample/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate - When available,
laboratory control samples (LCSs) will be used as a check on laboratory performance
of metals and conventional analyses. For metals and applicable conventional
parameters, one LCS will be analyzed either for every digestion batch or for every 20
samples, whichever is more frequent. The source of the LCS must be included in the
data package.
4.8.2 Field Quality Control
Field QC samples will include field duplicates. Field QC samples will be collected for every
depth interval sampled. The following QC samples will be collected in the field and analyzed by
the analytical laboratories with the natural samples.
Field Duplicates and Field Splits
A field duplicate (FD) or field split (FS) is a second sample collected at the same location as the
original sample. Duplicate samples will be collected by splitting the collected composite and also
managed in an identical manner during storage, transportation, and analysis as the original
sample. The sample containers will be assigned an ID number such that they cannot be identified
(blind duplicate) as duplicate samples by laboratory personnel performing the analysis. Duplicate
sample results are used to assess precision of the sample collection process.
An FS receives the same treatment as the customary FD; however, it is sent to a separate
laboratory or to DEQ as a means not only to assess precision, but also to evaluate and determine
project laboratory performance. The precision is calculated by determining the relative percent
difference (RPD). Natural variability in the matrix may account for a significant portion of the
measured precision. In these cases, the data are compared and the differences recorded and
reported in the site specific final report.
No data are qualified based on the results of field duplicate analysis; however, changes in sample
preparation, or analysis may be warranted based on precision data. One FD will be collected for
every ten field composite samples. Field RPD criteria of 50 will initially be used to assess field
precision. If the FD result exceeds this value, the data and supporting information will be
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-12
reviewed to determine if additional sampling is warranted, or if changes to the sampling protocol
need to be considered.
Field duplicates will be collected at a minimum frequency of 1 per 10 composite samples, or 1
per sampling event, whichever is more frequent
Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Samples
A MS sample is an aliquot of sample fortified (spiked) in the laboratory with known
concentrations of representative analytes of interest (before sample preparation and analysis).
The spiked sample analysis is designed to provide precision and accuracy information about the
effect of each sample matrix on the sample preparation and the measurement methodology.
When this is performed in duplicate as a matrix spike duplicate (MSD), a second aliquot of the
sample is spiked with identical concentrations of target analytes. The MSD data are used to
verify the results of the MS and to evaluate the analytical precision of the spiked samples.
MS/MSD sample pairs may be required for some events or media at a frequency specified in the
task-specific work plans. One MS/MSD sample pair will be collected for every 20 field
composite samples. For ease of tracking, field samples will be collected, thoroughly
homogenized, and placed in separate containers for the original, MS, and MSD. Although the
sample will be given a single sample number, each aliquot will be individually designated as the
original, MS, or MSD for analysis on the sample label and the AR/COC form.
MS/MSD samples will be collected and analyzed at a frequency of 1 for every 20 samples
received, or 1 per sampling event, whichever is more frequent.
Equipment Rinsate Samples
Equipment rinsate (ER) samples are collected from sampling equipment that has been thoroughly
decontaminated to check for the existence of any possible residual contamination. ER samples
are deionized (DI) water collected from a second final rinse of the decontamination process. ER
samples will be collected from the sampling equipment, placed in appropriate containers
supplied by the analytical laboratory, labeled accordingly, and analyzed for the same parameters
as the field samples. Results of the ER analyses provide information as to the effectiveness of the
equipment decontamination process and potential cross-contamination during sampling tasks.
The sampling equipment will be decontaminated after sampling each location and the frequency
will be one ER per 20 field composite samples. If ER samples indicate that the equipment is
being adequately cleaned, the collection frequency may be reduced over time.
Sampling equipment rinsate water will be collected and analyzed in accordance with the
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) at a minimum frequency of 1 per 20 composite samples, or 1
per sampling event, whichever is more frequent.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-13
Shifted Grid Samples
Shifted grid samples will be collected and analyzed to determine if the initial composite sample,
collected from the sample area at which the shifted grid confirmation is performed, adequately
evaluates the soils at that sample area.
Shifted grid samples will be collected in accordance with the SAP at a minimum frequency of 1
per 20 composite samples, or 1 per sampling event, whichever is more frequent.
4.9 Instrument Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance Requirements
Soil/sediment sampling equipment will consist of direct push sampling equipment, stainless steel
augers, trowels, shovels, and plastic zipper-seal bags as necessary. Sampling locations will be
located using a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit. All sampling equipment will be
cleaned and inspected for damage daily. Damaged or defective equipment will be immediately
replaced. All monitoring well sampling, gauging, and water quality monitoring procedures and
equipment maintenance practices are detailed in the PDWP, including equipment specifications
and references to appropriate Shaw SOPs (Shaw, 2011)
4.10 Instrument Calibration and Frequency
The hand-held GPS unit will be calibrated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations. No other soil/sediment sampling equipment calibration is required. The water
quality meter will be calibrated following the guidelines specified in Shaw’s SOP, Water Quality
Meter Use, SOP–EI-FS204 (Appendix A).
4.11 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables
All sample containers, shipping coolers, and corresponding labels and sampling COC forms will
be provided by the analytical laboratory. Sample containers provided by the laboratory will be
analyte-free or demonstrated to not contain contaminants for the analytes being monitored.
4.12 Data Acquisition Requirements (Non-direct Measurements)
Acquisition of non-direct data is not anticipated for this project.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
4-14
4.13 Data Management
The Shaw DVM, or designee, has the overall responsibility for data management. These data
management activities include record-keeping, tracking, document control systems, and data
handling to process, compile, analyze, and transmit data. Day-to-day oversight of sampling
activities, laboratory activities, and data tracking and receipt will be the responsibility of the
Shaw FSM or a designated project team member.
All project teams members are responsible for handling data in a manner consistent with
procedures listed in the SFIWP, the PDWP, and this QAPP, which includes information
pertaining to field logbooks, photographs, sample numbering, sample documentation, laboratory
assignments, documentation (cooler/shipping documentation and filing system), and corrections
to documentation.
The following procedures will be used to ensure that all samples are collected for the required
parameters:
• Daily coordination/communication between the Shaw DVM and FSM to ensure
sampling is being conducted as planned;
• COC forms checked daily for accuracy by the FSM; and
• Laboratory reports reviewed upon receipt by the DVM, or designated project team
member, to ensure the correct sample numbers and parameters have been entered and
that the sample names are correctly recorded.
Analytical data reduction, review, reporting, and storage requirements are outlined in the
contract laboratory’s LQAP. Checklists and standard forms are provided in the laboratory’s
LQAP and/or standard operating procedures for laboratory activities. The laboratory will provide
an electronic deliverable of the data in an Excel® spreadsheet, Access® database, and/or flat,
fixed width text file format.
At a minimum, the electronic deliverable will contain the following information:
Minimum Electronic Deliverable Contents
Laboratory identification number Sample name/identification
Sample collection date Analytical Method
Parameter name Units of measure
Analytical result Laboratory qualifier(s)/flag(s)
Sample analysis date
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
5-1
5.0 Sampling and Analysis Quality Assurance
5.1 Readiness Review
A readiness review will be performed prior to start-up of field activities, and periodically
thereafter to verify that all systems and procedures are in place. Systems typically include
management functions and responsibilities, processes used for data and information management
and control, and processes employed to plan, schedule, execute, and review work that is
performed. Procedures will be reviewed to ensure that all work activities are defined and that any
required reading and training has been completed. The readiness review will include the
following areas:
• Project organization and responsibilities
• Management assessment and communication
• Work processes, planning, scheduling, sampling, reporting, etc.
• Identification of requirements
• Completed work authorizations from property owners
• Completed utility assessments and dig permits
• Training to procedures
• Sampling processes and procedures
• Laboratory QA program and identified POC
• Sample packing and shipping
• Data and information management
• Control of records and documentation
• Documentation of activities
• Reporting
5.2 Field Assessments and Surveillances
The Shaw QA representative will schedule and coordinate periodic assessments and
surveillances of field activities to evaluate the execution of sample collection, sample
identification, and control of samples and information in the field. Management assessments are
informal reviews and are performed routinely by management, or a designee, to ensure that work
is being performed in a consistent manner and to identify any problems early in the process.
Surveillances are coordinated with QA personnel and often focus on key areas of performance
identified during management assessments. The assessments and surveillances shall also include
observations of COC procedures, completeness and accuracy of field documentation, and capture
of any field measurements.
Sampling operations will be reviewed and compared against the SAP and other applicable
procedures. The reviewer will verify that sample collection techniques specified in the SAP are
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
5-2
uniformly applied during each sampling event and are consistent between different sampling
teams, if employed. The reviewer will also verify that appropriate containers are used, and that
documentation of the sampling operation is complete, accurate, and legible.
Any field measurements, such as GPS coordinates, will be randomly spot-checked to determine
whether the instrument is functioning properly and if the sensitivity range of the instrument is
appropriate for the project.
5.3 Corrective Action Procedures for Field Sampling
The field sampling program will employ a corrective action program that addresses all out-of-normal
situations. The SAP follows a process that is defined by the size and physical layout of
each property to be sampled. If different conditions are encountered that require modification of
either the number, or location of samples to be collected, a variance record form will be
generated that identifies any changes that are made and the reason for the change. The project
chemist will review all variances and will make any recommendations to management that may
be necessary to address recurring problems, any deficiencies in the process, or opportunities for
improvement. If potential deviations from defined work processes are discovered during
management assessments, QA surveillances, or by other workers, these are handled as non-conformances
and must be corrected with appropriate corrective action. The QA representative
reviews the identified deviation and determines whether corrective action is required. If required,
the corrective action is documented and tracked until completed.
Groundwater monitoring activities will be specific to the soil consolidation area and not
applicable to other discrete CZS or CSP remediation areas. Accordingly, groundwater
monitoring well installation, development, sampling, and gauging procedure specifics are
presented in the PDWP, which includes all appropriate SOPs (Shaw, 2011).
5.4 Laboratory QA Program
All analyses will be performed by a laboratory that has a written QA/QC program that meets
EPA quality requirements and has been approved by the state. Metals, primarily lead, arsenic,
and cadmium, are the only parameters of interest for this project; however, if additional
parameters are required, laboratory QA requirements shall apply to those parameters also.
Further details are spelled out in the QAPP.
5.5 Disposition of Records
During the course of the project, Shaw will maintain all electronic and hardcopy data
deliverables as part of the project file. Following completion of the project, or as otherwise
required by contract, all records, including AR/COC forms, logbooks, log forms, hardcopy data
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
5-3
packages, validated data and records, EDD, and other field records shall be transferred to the
client for long-term storage.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
6-1
6.0 Data Validation and Usability
6.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements
Reconciliation of the analytical data obtained during the project to the DQOs will occur
following assessment by the DVM. The DVM will assess the quality of the laboratory results
through evaluation of the results of the submitted QA/QC samples (method blanks, field
duplicates, MS/MSDs, etc.) and laboratory internal QA/QC samples (blanks, duplicates,
LCS/laboratory control sample duplicates (LCSDs), etc.). Any issues associated with the data
quality will be resolved through reporting to DEQ for comment resolution.
Data validation will include a review of any method-specific QA/QC criteria as outlined in
Section 5.2. Data qualifiers, when appropriate, will be added to the data. A brief summary is
provided below:
• Analytical Precision - Precision will be evaluated by calculating the RPD for field
duplicates and MS/MSD samples. RPD criteria outside of QC limits may result in
qualification of data as estimated (J*). Data will not be qualified solely based on RPD
criteria not being met. Rather, outlying RPD data will be reviewed with other QC data
to assess the overall impact to data quality.
Precision for duplicate chemical analyses will be calculated as the RPD:
RPD = {(abs [Dl - D2]) / ((Dl – D2)/2)}*100
where:
RPD = relative percent difference
Dl = sample value
D2 = duplicate sample value.
For three or more measurements, the relative standard deviation (RSD) will be
calculated:
RSD = (standard deviation/mean)*100
• Analytical Accuracy - Accuracy will be assessed by evaluating the results of spiked
samples for percent recovery (REC) and blank samples for potential contamination of
samples. REC results for spike samples (LCSs and MSs) will be used to assign
qualifiers to analytical data. A REC above QC limits suggests the possibility of high
bias in the analytical results, and detections will be qualified as estimated (J* or J+)
when this occurs. A REC below QC limits suggests the possibility of low bias in the
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
6-2
analytical results, and data will be qualified as estimated (J* or J-) or unusable (R)
based upon the magnitude of the deviance from QC limits.
Blank samples will be used to determine the existence and magnitude of
contamination resulting from laboratory (or field) activities. The laboratory calibration
blank is used in establishing the analytical curve, and the method blank is used to
identify possible contamination resulting from varying amounts of the acids used in
the sample processing. The method blank must contain all the reagents in the same
volume used in the samples and must be carried through the complete digestion
procedure. Equipment blanks are collected in the field from the sampling equipment to
check for possible residual contamination and assess potential cross-contamination
during sampling tasks. Detections in any blank samples will be used to qualify similar
detections in associated field samples. If a field sample has a detection of a compound
that is less than five times the blank concentration, then the field sample result will be
qualified as undetected (U*).
• Representativeness - Representativeness will be assessed by examining sample
preservation, results of the precision and accuracy evaluation, and adherence to
method holding time. Failure of field or laboratory personnel to properly handle
samples may result in qualification of the data as estimated or unusable. The
representativeness review will qualitatively consider whether precision and/or
accuracy are sufficient to characterize the samples. Analytical data for samples that are
not analyzed within holding times wil1 be qualified as estimated (J* or J-) or unusable
(R) based upon the magnitude of the holding time exceedance.
• Completeness - Completeness will be measured for each set of data received by
dividing the number of valid measurements (all measurements except rejected data)
actually obtained by the number of valid measurements that were planned:
– Completeness = (valid data points obtained/total data points planned)*100
To be considered complete, the data set must also contain all QC check analyses that verify the
precision and accuracy of the results.
• Comparability - Comparability will be assessed by evaluating whether samples were
collected in a manner similar to previous sampling events and analyzed using the
similar analytical methodology as previous events.
6.2 Validation and Verification Methods
Data validation evaluates the quality of field and laboratory activities and documents the quality
of data generated. The goals of data validation are to evaluate achievement of DQOs for the
project, to ensure achievement of all project contractual requirements, to determine the impact of
DQOs that were not met, and to document the results of data validation. The intent is to evaluate
the data against project DQOs and planning documents to ensure that goals are met. Ideally, the
end result of validation is a technically sound, statistically valid, legally defensible, and properly
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
6-3
documented data set for decision-making purposes. General information pertaining to
verification and validation activities is provided in the Guidance on Environmental Data
Verification and Data Validation (EPA, 2002).
Data validation requires knowledge of the type of information that is validated. Therefore, a
person familiar with field activities, such as the FSM, is typically assigned to the validation of
field activities, documents, and records. Likewise, a person familiar with analytical
methodology, such as a chemist, is typically assigned to the validation of laboratory documents
and records.
Shaw evaluates data quality through the evaluation of both field and laboratory QC data.
Validation is initiated at the time of first sample collection. Field documents are reviewed by the
FSM or a designee to determine that all samples and analyses were appropriately collected,
containerized, labeled, and submitted to the laboratory. These items will be verified daily during
sampling activities. Additionally, the FSM, DVM, or designee will be in communication with the
laboratory during sample collection and analysis to verify condition of sample receipt,
appropriate sample log-in, etc. If problems are noted at this point, they can easily be corrected or
locations re-sampled, if needed, while the field crews are still mobilized.
Following analysis, the laboratory data submittal is verified by the DVM for conformance with
method, procedural, and contractual requirements. The contracted laboratory will be responsible
for accurately performing the prescribed methods per EPA protocols. This includes all
procedures, QC checks, corrective actions, and data storage. In general, chemical data is
validated by evaluation of the laboratory submittal against any requirements established in the
analytical method and QAPP. The Shaw DVM will perform chemical validation to include a
review of the following items following receipt of the analytical data packages:
• COC appropriately completed;
• Requested analyses performed;
• Analysis occurred within holding times;
• Blank results (method blank and rinsate blank);
• Duplicate results (laboratory duplicates, MS/MSD, LCS/LCSD, and field duplicates);
• Spike recovery results (LCS/LCSD, and MS/MSD);
• Achievement of target reporting limits;
• Validity and usability of data, and
• Completeness (field completeness and laboratory completeness).
The validation will include a review of any method-specific criteria for the items listed. Data
qualifiers, when appropriate, will be added to the data. Results of Shaw’s DVM chemical
validation review may be presented with the final data summary report to DEQ.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
6-4
However, data validation extends beyond method, procedural, and contractual compliance to
determine the quality of the data set and the types of uncertainty introduced by a failure to meet
requirements. It includes a determination, where possible, of the reasons for any failure to meet
requirements, and an evaluation of the impact of the failure upon the overall data set. In this
manner, the effect of any data rejection is presented in terms of its impacts on the overall
uncertainty and usability of the data set.
Following verification and validation, the Shaw PM will work with the DVM to perform a global
review of the findings to determine overall usability of the data set for its intended purpose.
6.3 Reconciliation with User Requirements
After data has been validated, the Shaw DVM will evaluate the results by considering the QC
parameters outlined in Section 6.1. If problems are noted with sample collections, the data may
be discarded and re-sampling may occur. The Shaw PM will make this decision after
consultation with project personnel.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
7-1
7.0 Construction Quality Control/Quality Assurance
This section describes the requirements for QC and QA during implementation of any required
remediation activities. In general, the CC will be responsible for all QC requirements specified in
this section, including functions delegated to subcontractors. The CPC will have the discretion to
assign QC responsibilities to other parties associated with the construction activities including
construction inspectors that are members of the CPC’s staff. In such a case, the CPC will have
separate individuals on his staff perform QA activities.
7.1 Data Quality Objectives
The primary use of data associated with the construction QA/QC will be to verify that the:
• Horizontal and vertical limits of the remediation required for a given area have been
achieved;
• Backfill and revegetation materials are suitable for replacement of excavated soils and
revegetation of the disturbed area; and
• Material managed in the site meets the specification for placement specified in the
RAWP.
7.2 QC/QA Requirements
The primary QC procedures to be used during remediation are the use of adequately skilled
personnel for the work being performed and compliance with the RAWP and this QAPP. In
addition, periodic visual inspections, elevation measurements, and material testing will be
performed to ensure compliance with the requirements of the RAWP. These QC/QA
requirements are specified in Table 7-1. Specific requirements for the various measurements,
sampling, analytical test methods, and acceptance criteria are described in the remainder of this
section.
7.2.1 Surveying
Where referenced as either a QC or QA requirement survey measurements will meet the
following criteria:
• Distance ± 0.15 ft.
• Elevation ± 0.15 ft.
7.2.2 Backfill Materials
The physical characteristics of the backfill material will be determined at the frequency specified
in Table 7-1 and meet the acceptance criteria specified in this section. In addition the backfill
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
7-2
materials shall have concentrations of metals and organics that meet the requirements specified
in Section 7.3.
• Top Soil - Soil used in the upper four inches of a residential yard area backfill that is
to be re-vegetated shall be a natural workable, friable, loamy soil that is suitable for
the establishment of and sustaining vegetation without amendments. Top soil shall
also be free of refuse, foreign materials, hard clumps (> 3 inches), stiff clay, hardpan,
gravel, noxious weeds, brush, or other undesirable material.
• General Backfill - General backfill may be any soil that is not classified as a PT, OH,
or OL material as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
D2487 and does not contain unsuitable materials. Unsuitable materials include, but are
not limited to those materials containing roots and other organic material, trash debris,
frozen particles, contaminated soils, and stones larger than three inches.
• Gravel backfill - Gravel backfill shall consist of a natural or processed mixture of
hard, durable particles of coarse aggregate. Crushed aggregate shall consist of 100
percent crushed stone. The materials shall be relatively free from soft or decomposed
particles and clay. The gradation, as determined by ASTM D422 ,shall be as follows:
U.S. Standar d Sieve Size Percent Passing
1 inch
100
¾ inch
90 - 100
No. 4
40 - 65
No. 8
30 - 50
No. 200
3 - 9
The determination of whether the backfill material meets the above requirements for the physical
characteristics will be determined by the CPC based on visual observation, clay, silt, and sand
composition data determined by gradation analysis, as well as visual and other pertinent
characteristics to evaluate the appropriateness of the soil as backfill.
7.2.3 Sod
The physical characteristics of the sod that may be used for revegetation will be determined at
the frequency specified in Table 7-1 and meet the acceptance criteria specified in this section. In
addition, the soils associated with the root structure of the sod shall have concentrations of
metals and organics that meet the requirements specified in Section 7.3.
• Sod shall have a minimum age of 18 months, with root development that will support
its own weight, without tearing, when suspended vertically be holding the upper two
corners and shall have a soil thickness of ¾ -inch minimum to 1 ½-inch maximum.
• Sod shall be American Sod Producers Association (ASPA) approved or certified and
may be field grown, with a strong fibrous root system, free of stones, burned or bare
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
7-3
spots, and shall be 99 percent weed free. The one percent allowable weeds shall not
include any undesirable perennial or annual grasses or plants described as noxious by
current State statute or regulation.
• Sod shall be harvested from the field source area by machine cutting in accordance
with ASPA guidelines in minimum widths of 18 inches and minimum lengths of 48
inches.
7.3 Clean Material Requirements
In addition to the physical characteristics specified in Section 7.2, samples of backfill materials
and sod shall be analyzed for metals and organics to verify that these materials are suitable for
use as “clean” backfill. The type of sample and frequency of analysis are specified in Table 7-1.
The requirements for clean backfill and sod are as follows:
Constituent Concentration
Arsenic < 20 mg/kg
Cadmium < 20 mg/kg
Lead < 100 mg/kg
Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Silver, and Mercury
Review and approval of
DEQ
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Pesticides
Semivolatiles
Volatiles
Herbicides
Analytical methods for the above analysis are specified in Table 7-2.
Where composite samples are specified in Table 7-1, the samples will be composited following
the SOP for composite samples referenced in the applicable work plan. The number of aliquots
for each material type is specified in Table 7-1. The aliquot locations will be determined as
follows:
• When the frequency of a composite sample is specified as one per source, the aliquot
locations will be distributed throughout the source material.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
7-4
• When the frequency is determined by the quantity of materials used, the aliquot
locations will be evenly distributed around the surface of the stockpile of material that
is sampled.
Samples will be managed relative to labeling, COC, shipping, etc. following the procedures
specified in Section 4.0 of this QAPP.
7.4 Materials Disposal
All remediation-derived excavated material is to be collected at the soil consolidation area, as
described earlier in this QAPP. All material, including site-related groundwater, will be
sampled, sequestered, and evaluated in accordance with the plan described in the PDWP (Shaw,
2011).
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
8-1
8.0 References
ASTM D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified
Soil Classification System)
ASTM D422 63(2007), Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils
EMC2, 2006a, Sampling Work Plan, Shadow Lake Park Property Oklahoma, Prepared for
Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, March.
EMC2, 2006b, Summary Report, March 2006 Soil Sampling Event, Shadow Lake Park Property,
Collinsville, Oklahoma, Prepared for Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, May.
EMC2, 2006c, Final Removal Action Work Plan, Shadow Lake Park Property, Collinsville,
Oklahoma, Prepared for Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, July.
EMC2, 2007a, Supplemental Field Investigation Work Plan, Shadow Lake Park Property,
Collinsville, Oklahoma, Prepared for Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, January.
EMC2, 2007b, Removal Action Completion Report, Shadow Lake Park Property, Collinsville,
Oklahoma, Prepared for Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, January.
Exponent, 2001a, Focused Remedial Investigation, Collinsville Smelter Site, Prepared for Phelps
Dodge Corporation: Tempe, Arizona, January.
Exponent, 2001b, Focused Feasibility Study, Collinsville Smelter Site, Prepared for Phelps
Dodge Corporation: Tempe, Arizona, January.
PTI Environmental Services (PTI), 1996, Work Plan, Collinsville Smelter Site Focused
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. Prepared for counsel to Cyprus Amax Minerals
Company, June.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996a, Method 3051B – Acid Digestion
of Sediments, Sludges and Soils, December.
EPA, 1996b, Method 6010B – Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry,
December.
EPA, 2000a, Final Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations
(EPA QA/G-4HW), January.
EPA, 2000b, Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, August (EPA QA/G-4), August.
EPA, 2001, EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Interim Final (EPA QAIR-
5), March.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
8-2
EPA, 2002, Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation, EPA QA/G8
(EPA/240/R-02/004), November.
EPA, 2004, EPA Final Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for
Inorganic Data Review (EPA540-R-OI-008, OSWER 9240.1-35), October.
EPA, 2008. Record of Decision, Tulsa Fuel & Manufacturing Superfund Site, Collinsville, Tulsa
County, Oklahoma. November.
Microbac, 2007, Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan
Oklahoma Administrative Code, 2011. Title 785 Oklahoma Water Resources Board Chapter 35.
Well Driller and Pump Installer Licensing.
<http://www.owrb.ok.gov/util/rules/pdf_rul/RulesCurrent2010/Ch35.pdf>, Accessed March
2011.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), 2010, Title 252, Chapter 515,
Management of Solid Waste, July 11, effective date.
Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw), 2008a, Supplemental Field Investigation Work Plan
Revision 1, Collinsville Zinc Smelter Site, Collinsville, Oklahoma, Prepared for Cyprus Amax
Minerals Company, August.
Shaw, 2008b. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Supplemental Field Investigation, Collinsville
Zinc Smelter Site, Collinsville, Oklahoma, Prepared for Cyprus Amax Minerals Company.
November.
Shaw, 2011, Draft Proposed Soil Consolidation Area, Pre-Design Site Characterization Work
Plan, Collinsville, Zinc Smelter Site, Collinsville, Oklahoma, Prepared for Cyprus Amax
Minerals Company, February.
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
Tables
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Collinsville, Oklahoma
Table 2-1
ODEQ PRGs from the TFMS Record of Decision
COC Site-Specific PRG
Soil, Residential (mg/kg) or (ppm)
Arsenic 37
Cadmium 75
Lead 500
Soil, Nonresidential (mg/kg) or (ppm)
Arsenic 200
Cadmium 560
Lead 1,000
Sediment (mg/kg) or (ppm)
Arsenic 181
Cadmium 813
Lead 500
Surface Water (μg/L) or (ppm)
Cadmium 238
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
Table 3-1
Summary of Data Quality Objectives
Variable Detection Limit Bias Precision Completeness Recommended
Preservation
Technique
Holding Time
Goals (1) (percent) (2) (RPD) (percent) (days)
Soil/Sediment
(As, Cd, Pb, Zn) 1 mg/kg 65-135 35 90 NA 180
Groundwater As – 0.001 mg/L;
Cd – 0.0006mg/L;
Pb – 0.001mg/L;
65-135 35 90
(As, Cd, Pb) HNO3 to pH <2 180
(Ca, Mg, K, Na)
Ca – 0.2 mg/L
Mg – 0.5 mg/L
K – 1.0 mg/L
Na – 0.5 mg/L
65-135 35 90
HNO3 pH <2.0
180
Chemical Oxygen
Demand 150 mg/L 65-135 35 90 H2SO4/pH <2.0 28
Chloride 0.2 mg/L 65-135 35 90
NA
28
Sulfate 1.0 mg/L 65-135 35 90 Ice to 4+/-2°C
28
Nitrates 0.05 mg/L 65-135 35 90 H2SO4/pH <2.0 28
Carbonates 20 mg/l 65-135 35 90 Ice to 4+/-2°C
14
Notes:
(1) Detection limit goals are estimates and may not be specified in all referenced analytical methods. Actual method detection
limits reported by laboratories may differ from goals, depending on sample matrix.
(2) Bias as presented in PTl's June 1996, 'Work Plan, Collinsville Smelter Site Focused Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study'
RPD relative percent difference As arsenic Zn zinc.
NA Not Applicable Ca calcium
mg milligrams Cd cadmium
kg kilograms Pb lead
L Liter K potassium
HNO3 Nitric Acid Mg magnesium
H2S04 Sulfuric Acid Na sodium
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
Table 4-1
Laboratory Quality Control Measures and Frequency
Analysis Type Control Limit Frequency
Initial Calibration Verification
90-110% Once for each time instrument is calibrated
(independent reference)
Continuing Calibration Verification 90-110% One per every 10 analyses and following the last sample analysis (1)
Continuing Calibration Blank Reporting Limit (2) One per every 10 analyses and following the last sample analysis
Instrument Blank Reporting Limit (2) One per every 10 analyses, following the last sample analysis, , and if
potentially interfering materials are encountered (1)
Method Blank Reporting Limit (2) One per batch or per 20 samples of similar matrix, whichever is more frequent
Preparation Blank Reporting Limit (2) One per batch or per 20 samples of similar matrix, whichever is more frequent
Matrix Spike (predigestion spike) 60-130% (3) One per batch or per 20 samples of similar matrix, whichever is more frequent
Matrix Spike Duplicate 35RPD One per batch or per 20 samples of similar matrix, whichever is more frequent
Laboratory Control Sample 80-120% One per batch or per 20 samples of similar matrix, whichever is more frequent
Laboratory Control Sample
35RPD One per batch or per 20 samples of similar matrix, whichever is more frequent
Duplicate
Laboratory Duplicate 35RPD One per batch or per 20 samples of similar matrix, whichever is more frequent
ICP Serial Dilution + 10%D One per batch or per 20 samples of similar matrix and concentration, whichever is more frequent
ICP Interference Check Sample +20% of true value At beginning and end of each analysis run, after the ICV, or at a minimum of twice per 8 hour
working shift, whichever is more frequent.
Notes:
(1) Acceptable continuing calibration verification/continuing calibration blank pair must bracket an instrument reslope.
(2) The absolute value of the blank must be less than the reporting limit or less than 10 times the lowest sample concentration in the preparation batch. (3) An exception is made to this
control limit when the sample concentration exceeds the spike concentration by a factor of 4 or more.
Batch a group of samples prepared at the same time
RPD relative percent difference
D difference
icp inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry
ICV initial calibration verification
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
Table 7-1
Specific Construction Quality Control and Quality Assurance Criteria
Construction
Element Parameter Acceptance
Criteria
Contractor’s Quality Control
Requirements
Quality Assurance and Basis for
Acceptance by Construction
Project Coordinator
Method Minimum
Frequency Method Minimum
Frequency
Soil excavation in
each designated
area
Depth Minimum depth
specified by
remediation plan
throughout
excavated area
except as other wise
approved by CPC
Visual, grade
stakes, measure
with tape from
string line, etc.
Every Excavation Five point pre and
post excavation
measurements with
a tape measure
adjacent to
excavation and
string line across the
excavation plus
visual inspection for
uniformity
Each designated
excavation area
Horizontal
Dimensions
Extent is sufficient
to remove all
material within
designated area
except as otherwise
approved by the
CPC
Initial layout of
excavation area
using flags, stakes,
string line, etc.
Every Excavation Visual inspection of
planned excavation
area
Documentation with
GPS, tape, or survey
measurements
Each designated
excavation area
Backfill Material Arsenic, Lead,
Cadmium
As per QAPP Provide material that meets the acceptance
criteria
Grab sample One per 500 CY
Organics and
other metals as
per QAPP
DEQ Review and
approval
Five point
composite sample
One per 10,000 CY
or change in source
material
Physical
Properties
As per QAPP Test results from
qualified laboratory
One per 10,000 CY Data Review Per sampling event
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
Construction
Element Parameter Acceptance
Criteria
Contractor’s Quality Control
Requirements
Quality Assurance and Basis for
Acceptance by Construction
Project Coordinator
Method Minimum
Frequency Method Minimum
Frequency
Backfill
Compaction
Soil placed in
open areas not
subject to traffic
or other similar
uses
As per QAPP Sufficient passes
with construction
equipment to
achieve uniform
compaction
All backfill areas Visual acceptance All backfill area
Soil placed as
sub base traffic
areas
95% maximum dry
density and ± 3%
optimum moisture as
determined by the
Standard Proctor
(ASTM D698-D).
In-situ density and
moisture content
One per 2,500 sq. ft. or
minimum of two per
contiguous placement
area
Review of
compaction data and
visual observation
for uniformity
All backfill area
Determination of
maximum dry
density and
optimum
moisture for
subgrade soils
ASTM 698 One per 5,000 cy of
material from the same
source
Review of data All test results
Gravel As per QAPP Sufficient passes
with construction
equipment to
achieve uniform
compaction
All backfill areas Visual acceptance All backfill area
Replacement Sod Arsenic, Lead,
Cadmium
As per QAPP Provide material that meets the acceptance
criteria
Five point
composite sample of
soil associated with
root mass
One per source
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
Construction
Element Parameter Acceptance
Criteria
Contractor’s Quality Control
Requirements
Quality Assurance and Basis for
Acceptance by Construction
Project Coordinator
Method Minimum
Frequency Method Minimum
Frequency
Organics and
other metals
DEQ Acceptance
Physical
Properties
As per QAPP Supplier
certifications
One per source Data Review
Visual inspection
Per submittal
As needed
Other Vegetation Unspecified As per technical
specifications
Supplier
certifications
One per source Data Review
Visual inspection
Per submittal
As needed
Offsite Disposal Unspecified DEQ and Disposal
Facility Acceptance
NA NA EPA approved
Methods
As required by
DEQ and Disposal
Facility
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
Table 7-2
EPA Laboratory Analytical Methods for Replacement Materials
Test Preparation Method Test Method
Herbicides - SW8151A
Eight RCRA Metals, Total Metals
Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Silver SW3050 SW6010B
Arsenic, Selenium SW3051 SW6020
Mercury - SW7471A
TCLP Metals
Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium
Lead, Selenium, Silver SW3015 SW6010B
Mercury SW3015 SW7470A
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) SW3550 SW8082
Pesticides SW3550 SW8081A
Semivolatiles SW3545 SW8270C
Volatiles SW5030 SW8260B
Notes:
TCLP - toxicity characteristic leachate procedure
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
Figures
Cyprus Amax
Project Manager
Mike Leach
602.708.2321
Data Validation
Manager
Kim Napier
865.692.3590
Field Site
Manager
Michele Eiland
918.371.8305
Construction Project
Coordinator
Glenn Smalley
940.391.4548
Health and Safety
Manager
Steve Wall
225.281.0411
Sampling
Teams
Analytical
Laboratory
Microbac
Site Safety
Officer
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Sara Downard
405.702.5126
Shaw
Project Manager
Charles Janson
832.466.3042
Quality Control
Manager
Hugh Adams
225.987.7338
Sampling
Teams
Sampling
Teams
Figure 2 - 1
Collinsville Project Organization Chart
04/27/2011
Collinsville, OK
Quality Assurance Project Plan April 2011
Collinsville, Oklahoma
Appendix A
Shaw E&I Standard Operating Procedures
Procedure No. EI-FS001
Revision No. 1
Date of Revision 9/8/06
Page 1 of 5
This document contains proprietary information of Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Inc. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
retains all rights associated with theses materials, which may not be reproduced without express written permission of the company.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Subject: Field Logbook
1. PURPOSE
This procedure is intended to communicate the requirements for selection, use, and maintenance of
all field logbooks. Field logbooks are often used to document observations, sampling information, and
other pertinent information on project sites. They are considered legal documents and should be
maintained and documented accordingly as part of the project file.
2. SCOPE
This procedure is applicable to all Shaw E & I site operations where field logbooks are utilized to
document all site activities and pertinent information.
3. REFERENCES
􀂃 Nielsen Environmental Field School, 1997, Field Notebook Guidelines
4. DEFINITIONS
􀂃 Significant detail—Any piece and/or pieces of information or an observation that can be
considered pertinent to the legal reconstruction of events, description of conditions, or
documentation of samples and/or sampling procedures.
􀂃 Significant event—Any event or events that could influence or be considered pertinent to a
specific task or function and therefore require documentation in the Field Logbook.
􀂃 Field Logbook—Logbooks used at field sites that contain detailed information regarding site
activities that must include dates, times, personnel names, activities conducted, equipment used,
weather conditions, etc. Field logbooks can be used by a variety of different field personnel and
are part of the project file.
5. RESPONSIBILITIES
5.1 Procedure Responsibility
The Field Sampling Discipline Lead is responsible for maintenance, management, and revision of this
procedure. Questions, comments, or suggestions regarding this technical SOP should be directed to
the Field Sampling Discipline Lead.
5.2 Project Responsibility
Shaw employees performing this task, or any portion thereof, are responsible for meeting the
requirements of this procedure. Shaw employees conducting technical review of task performance
are also responsible for following appropriate portions of this SOP.
For those projects where the activities of this SOP are conducted, the Project Manager, or designee,
is responsible for ensuring that those activities are conducted in accordance with this and other
appropriate procedures. Project participants are responsible for documenting information in sufficient
Procedure No. EI-FS001
Revision No. 1
Date of Revision 9/8/06
Page 2 of 5
This document contains proprietary information of Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Inc. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
retains all rights associated with theses materials, which may not be reproduced without express written permission of the company.
detail to provide objective documentation (i.e. checkprints, calculations, reports, etc.) that the
requirements of this SOP have been met. Such documentation shall be retained as project records.
6. PROCEDURE
6.1 General
Each site or operation, as applicable, will have one current Logbook, which will serve as an index of
all activities performed at the site or in the task performance. The Logbook is initiated at the start of
the first applicable activity. Summary entries are made for every day that covered activities take
place. Multiple field logbooks may be used depending upon the number of different types of field
personnel conducting work and the various activities at the site. These field logbooks and the site
logbooks shall be made part of the project files.
Information recorded in field logbooks includes observations (significant events and details), data,
calculations, time, weather, and descriptions of the data collection activity, methods, instruments, and
results. Additionally, the field logbook may contain descriptions of wastes, biota, geologic material,
and site features including sketches, maps, or drawings as appropriate.
6.2 Equipment and Materials
􀂃 Logbook(s), bound with numbered pages, hard-covered, waterproof preferred. One per project or
separate significant task (example-treatment residual composite collection).
􀂃 Indelible black or dark blue ink pen
􀂃 Other items needed to perform required tasks: compass, ruler, calculator, etc.
6.3 Preparation
Site personnel responsible for maintaining field logbooks must be familiar with the SOPs for all tasks
to be performed.
Field logbooks are project files and should remain with project documentation when not in use.
Personnel should not keep Field logbooks in their possession when not in use. Field logbooks should
only leave the project site for limited periods, and they should always be returned to the site files or
the designated on-site location (Sampler’s Trailer, etc.).
Field logbooks shall be bound with lined, consecutively numbered pages. All pages must be
numbered prior to initial use of the field logbook.
The front cover shall include the following information:
􀂃 Project Number
􀂃 Project Name and Task(s) included in logbook
􀂃 Dates covered by logbook—the starting date must be entered on the first day of use
􀂃 Logbook number—if more than one logbook will be needed to cover project/task(s)
The inside front cover shall contain a listing and sign-off of each person authorized to make entries
and/or review the logbook. All persons who make entries or review/approve such entries must signify
their authority to enter into the logbook via their signature and the date of their signing on the inside
front cover. If initials are used for entries instead of full names, the initials must be entered beside the
full name on the inside cover.
Procedure No. EI-FS001
Revision No. 1
Date of Revision 9/8/06
Page 3 of 5
This document contains proprietary information of Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Inc. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
retains all rights associated with theses materials, which may not be reproduced without express written permission of the company.
6.4 Operation
The following requirements must be met when using a field logbook:
􀂃 Record significant details and/or events, work, observations, material quantities, calculations,
drawings, and related information directly in the field logbook. If data-collection forms are in use,
the information on the form need not be duplicated in the field logbook. However, any forms used
to record site information must be referenced in the field logbook.
􀂃 Information must be factual and unbiased.
􀂃 Do not start a new page until the previous one is full or has been marked with a single diagonal
line so that additional entries cannot be made. Use both sides of each page.
􀂃 Write in black or dark blue indelible ink.
􀂃 Do not erase, scribble over, or blot out any entry. Do not use White-Out or like correction items.
Before an entry has been signed and dated, changes may be made; however, care must be taken
not to obliterate what was written originally. Indicate any deletion by a single line through the
material to be deleted. Any change shall be initialed and dated. Error codes (Attachment 1)
should be added to the end of the deleted entry. All error codes should be circled.
􀂃 Do not remove any pages from the book.
􀂃 Do not use loose paper and copy into the field logbook later.
􀂃 Record sufficient information to completely document field activities and all significant
details/events applicable to the project/task(s) covered by the logbook.
􀂃 All entries should be neat and legible.
Specific requirements for field logbook entries include the following:
􀂃 Initial and date each page.
􀂃 Sign and date the final page of entries for each day.
􀂃 Initial, date, and if used, code all changes properly.
􀂃 Draw a diagonal line through the remainder of the final page at the end of the day.
􀂃 Record the following information on a daily basis:
a) Date and time
b) Name of individual making entry
c) Detailed description of activity being conducted including well, boring, sampling, location
number as appropriate
d) Unusual site conditions
e) Weather conditions (i.e., temperature, cloud cover, precipitation, wind direction and speed) and
other pertinent data
f) Sample pickup (chain-of-custody form numbers, carrier, time)
g) Sampling activities/sample log sheet numbers
h) Start and completion of borehole/trench/monitoring well installation or sampling activity
Procedure No. EI-FS001
Revision No. 1
Date of Revision 9/8/06
Page 4 of 5
This document contains proprietary information of Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Inc. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
retains all rights associated with theses materials, which may not be reproduced without express written permission of the company.
i) Health and Safety issues, such as PPE upgrades, monitoring results, near-misses, and
incidents associated with the logbook areas
j) Instrumentation calibration details
Entries into the field logbook shall be preceded with the time of the observation. The time should be
recorded frequently and at the point of events or measurements that are critical to the activity being
logged. All measurements made and samples collected must be recorded unless they are
documented by automatic methods (e.g., data logger) or on a separate form required by an operating
procedure. In such cases, the field logbook must reference the automatic data record or form.
While sampling, make sure to record observations such as color and odor. Indicate the locations from
which samples are being taken, sample identification numbers, the order of filling bottles, sample
volumes, and parameters to be analyzed. If field duplicate samples are being collected, note the
duplicate pair sample identification numbers. If samples are collected that will be used for matrix
spike and/or matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate analysis, record that information in the field logbook.
A sketch of the station location may be warranted. All maps or sketches made in the field logbook
should have descriptions of the features shown and a direction indicator. There must be at least one
fixed point with measurements on any map drawn. Maps and sketches should be oriented so that
north is towards the top of the page.
Other events and observations that should be recorded include (but are not limited to) the following:
􀂃 Changes in weather that impact field activities
􀂃 Visitors to the site associated with the covered task(s). Note their time of arrival and departure
and provide a brief summary of their purpose on site.
􀂃 Subcontractor activities applicable to the covered task(s)
􀂃 Deviations from procedures outlined in any governing documents, including the reason for the
deviation. Deviations from procedures must be accompanied with the proper authorization.
􀂃 Significant events that may influence data, such as vehicles in the vicinity of VOC sampling efforts
􀂃 Problems, downtime, or delays
􀂃 Upgrade or downgrade of personal protective equipment
6.5 Post-Operation
To guard against loss of data due to damage or disappearance of field logbooks, all original
completed logbooks shall be securely stored by the project. All field logbooks will be copied at the
end of each work shift and attached to the daily reports.
At the conclusion of each activity or phase of site work, the individual responsible for the field logbook
will ensure that all entries have been appropriately signed and dated and that corrections were made
properly (single lines drawn through incorrect information, initialed, coded, and dated). The completed
field logbook shall be submitted to the project records file.
6.6 Restrictions/Limitations
Field logbooks constitute the official record of on-site technical work, investigations, and data
collection activities. Their use, control, and ownership are restricted to activities pertaining to specific
field operations carried out by Shaw personnel and their subcontractors. They are documents that
may be used in court to indicate and defend dates, personnel, procedures, and techniques employed
Procedure No. EI-FS001
Revision No. 1
Date of Revision 9/8/06
Page 5 of 5
This document contains proprietary information of Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Inc. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
retains all rights associated with theses materials, which may not be reproduced without express written permission of the company.
during site activities. Entries made in these notebooks should be factual, clear, precise, and as non-subjective
as possible. Field logbooks, and entries within, are not to be utilized for personal use.
7. ATTACHMENTS
􀂃 Attachment 1, Common Data Error Codes
8. FORMS
None.
Procedure No. EI-FS001
Attachment No. 1
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 1
Common Data Error Codes
COMMON DATA ERROR CODES
􀂃 RE Recording Error
􀂃 CE Calculation Error
􀂃 TE Transcription Error
􀂃 SE Spelling Error
􀂃 CL Changed for Clarity
􀂃 DC Original Sample Description Changed After Further Evaluation
􀂃 WO Write Over
􀂃 NI Not Initialed and Dated at Time of Entry
􀂃 OB Not Recorded at the Time of Initial Observation
All Error Codes should be circled.
Procedure No. EI-FS003
Revision No. 1
Date of Revision 9/8/06
Page 1 of 4
This document contains proprietary information of Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Inc. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
retains all rights associated with theses materials, which may not be reproduced without express written permission of the company.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Subject: Chain of Custody Documentation - Paper
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this procedure is to provide the requirements for completion of written Chain of
Custody (COC) documentation and to provide a suggested Chain of Custody Form for project
use.
2. SCOPE
This procedure is applicable to all Shaw E & I efforts where samples are transferred among
parties, including to off-site testing facilities. Adherence to this procedure is not required
whenever the same individual/team is performing the sampling and testing within the same
workday, and transfer to the testing process is being documented by other means, e.g. sampling
and then field-screening in a mobile laboratory.
3. REFERENCES
􀂃 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste;
Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, Third Edition.
􀂃 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Requirements for the Preparation of Sampling and Analysis
Plans, EM200-1-3.
􀂃 Shaw E & I, 2002, Sampler’s Training Course Handout.
4. DEFINITIONS
􀂃 Custody—The legal term used to define the control and evidence traceability of an
environmental sample. A sample is considered to be in an individual’s custody when it is in
actual physical possession of the person, is in view of the person, is locked in a container
controlled by the person, or has been placed into a designated secure area by the person.
􀂃 Chain of Custody Form—A form used to document and track the custody and transfers of a
sample from collection to analysis or placement in a designated secure area within the testing
facility.
􀂃 COC Continuation Page—Additional page(s) that may be included with a Chain of Custody
form. The continuation page(s) contain the information on additional samples contained
within the same cooler/shipping container associated with the cooler/shipping container
Chain of Custody form.
5. RESPONSIBILITIES
5.1 Procedure Responsibility
The Fiel