Quality assurance project plan : supplemental field investigation, Collinsville zinc smelter site |
Previous | 1 of 4 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
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
Object Description
Description
Title | Quality assurance project plan : supplemental field investigation, Collinsville zinc smelter site |
OkDocs Class# | E4850.3 C713q 2011 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/VCP/CollinsvilleSoilProgram/Collinsville%20Smelter/Final%20Updated%20QAPP.pdf |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text |
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.
|
Date created | 2011-09-27 |
Date modified | 2011-10-28 |
Tags
Add tags for Quality assurance project plan : supplemental field investigation, Collinsville zinc smelter site