Uniform Federal Policy - Quality Assurance Project Plan SI … · · 2013-05-20Quality Assurance...

APPENDIX F

Uniform Federal Policy - Quality Assurance Project Plan

APPENDIX F: FINAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN Camp Withycombe MMRP Site Inspection East MRS: WITH-002-R-01 Clackamas, Oregon Prepared for:

Army National Guard Directorate 111 S. George Mason Drive Arlington, Virginia 22202 Prepared by:

AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 7376 SW Durham Road Portland, Oregon 97224 (503) 639-3400 July 2011 Contract No. W9133L-10-F-0193 Project No. 3-2106-0179

Army National Guard Directorate, Camp Withycombe, Clackamas, Oregon Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

Contract No. W9133L-10-F-0193 27 July2011 i

Table of Contents

Page

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .......................................................................... iii

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Worksheet #1 Title and Approval Page ........................ 1

QAPP Worksheet #2 – QAPP Identifying Information ................................................................. 2

QAPP Worksheet #3 – Distribution List ...................................................................................... 3

QAPP Worksheet #4 – Project Personnel Sign-Off Sheet .......................................................... 5

QAPP Worksheet #5 – Project Organizational Chart .................................................................. 6

QAPP Worksheet #6 – Communication Pathways...................................................................... 7

QAPP Worksheet #7 – Personnel Responsibilities and Qualifications Table .............................. 9

QAPP Worksheet #8 – Special Personnel Training Requirements Table.................................. 13

QAPP Worksheet #9 – Project Scoping Session Participants Sheet......................................... 15

QAPP Worksheet #10 – Problem Definition.............................................................................. 16

QAPP Worksheet #11 – Project Quality Objectives/Systematic Planning Process Statements ................................................................................................................... 18

QAPP Worksheet #12 – Measurement Performance Criteria Table.......................................... 20

QAPP Worksheet #13 – Secondary Data Criteria and Limitations Table .................................. 27

QAPP Worksheet #14 – Summary of Project Tasks ................................................................. 30

QAPP Worksheet #15 – Reference Limits and Evaluation Table .............................................. 32

QAPP Worksheet #16 – Project Schedule Timeline Table ........................................................ 44

QAPP Worksheet #17 – Sampling Design and Rationale ......................................................... 46

QAPP Worksheet #18 – Sampling Locations and Methods/SOP Requirements Table ............. 47

QAPP Worksheet #19 – Sampling Locations and Methods/SOP Requirements Table ............. 48

QAPP Worksheet #20 – Field Quality Control Sample Summary Table .................................... 50

QAPP Worksheet #21 – Project Sampling SOP References Table .......................................... 51

QAPP Worksheet #22 – Field Equipment Maintenance, Testing, and Inspection Table............ 52

QAPP Worksheet #23 – Analytical SOP References Table ...................................................... 54

QAPP Worksheet #24 – Analytical Instrument Calibration Table .............................................. 55

QAPP Worksheet #25 – Analytical Instrument and Equipment Maintenance, Testing, and Inspection Table ........................................................................................................... 58

QAPP Worksheet #26 – Sample Handling System ................................................................... 62

QAPP Worksheet #27 – Sample Custody Requirements Table ................................................ 63

QAPP Worksheet #28 – Laboratory QC Samples Table ........................................................... 64


Contract No. W9133L-10-F-0193 27 July2011 ii

QAPP Worksheet #29 – Project Documents and Records Table .............................................. 73

QAPP Worksheet #30 – Analytical Services Table ................................................................... 74

QAPP Worksheet #31 – Planned Project Assessments Table .................................................. 75

QAPP Worksheet #32 – Assessment Findings and Corrective Action Responses .................... 76

QAPP Worksheet #33 – QA Management Reports Table ......................................................... 77

QAPP Worksheet #34 – Verification (Step I) Process Table ..................................................... 78

QAPP Worksheet #35 – Validation (Steps IIa and IIb) Process Table ...................................... 80

QAPP Worksheet #36 – Analytical Data Validation (Steps IIa and IIb) Summary ..................... 84

QAPP Worksheet #37 – Usability Assessment ......................................................................... 87

Appendix F-1 Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures and Limits


Contract No. W9133L-10-F-0193 27 July 2011 iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AEDBR Army Environmental Database - Restoration AES atomic emission spectroscopy AMEC AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. ARNG Army National Guard BIP blow-in-place bgs below ground surface CAS Chemical Abstracts Service CCAL continuing Calibration CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHMM Certified Hazardous Materials Manager CLP Contract Laboratory Program COR Contracting Officer’s Representative CSDGM Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata CSM conceptual site model DDESB Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board DEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality DFTPP decafluorotriphenylphosphine DGPS differential global positioning system DGM Digital Geophysical Mapping DID Data Item Description DMM discarded military munitions DoD Department of Defense DQO data quality objective DU Decision Unit EDD electronic data deliverable EM Electromagnetic EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program EP Engineer Pamphlet EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


Contract No. W9133L-10-F-0193 27 July 2011 iv

ERA Ecological Risk Assessment ERIS Environmental Restoration Information System FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee FSP Field Sampling Plan GC gas chromatography gdb Geosoft data base file GIS geographic information system GPS global positioning system HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response HPLC high performance liquid chromatography HRR Historical Records Review HTRW Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste ICAL initial calibration ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma ICV initial calibration verification ID Identification IRT Instrument Response Test IS Incremental Sampling ISO Industry Standard Objects IVS Instrument Verification Strip KD Known Distance kg kilogram KO Contracting Officer LAW light anti-tank weapon LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation MC munitions constituents MD munitions debris MEC munitions and explosives of concern MDL method detection limit


Contract No. W9133L-10-F-0193 27 July 2011 v

mg milligrams mm millimeter MMRP Military Munitions Response Program MPPEH material potentially presenting an explosive hazard MRA Munitions Response Area MRS Munitions Response Site MS mass spectrometry NA not applicable NFA no further action NSSDA National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation OE Ordnance and Explosives OMD Oregon Military Department ORARNG Oregon Army National Guard OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PAO Public Affairs Officer PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PM Project Manager POC point of contact QA quality assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC quality control QL Quantitation Limit QSM Quality Systems Manual RBC Risk Based Concentration RDX hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine RG Oregon Registered Geologist RI Remedial Investigation RPD relative percent deviation RSL Regional Screening Level RTK Real Time Kinematic


Contract No. W9133L-10-F-0193 27 July 2011 vi

SDSFIE Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment SI Site Inspection SOP standard operating procedure SSHP Site Safety and Health Plan SUXOS Senior Unexploded Ordinance Supervisor TA TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. TBD to be determined TCE trichloroethene TNT trinitrotoluene TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon TSA technical systems audit UFP Uniform Federal Policy U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers UXO unexploded ordnance UXOSO UXO Safety Officer UXOQCS UXO Quality Control Specialist WGS84 World Geodetic System 1984 VOC volatile organic compound


Contract No. W9133L-10-F-0193 27 July 2011 1

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Worksheet #1 Title and Approval Page

Title: East Munitions Response Site (MRS) Camp Withycombe Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP)

Site Location: Camp Withycombe, Clackamas, Oregon

Revision Number: Final

Revision Date: 26 July 2011

Lead Organization:

Army National Guard (ARNG) Directorate

111 S. George Mason Drive Arlington, Virginia 22202 Preparer’s Name and Organizational Affiliation

Danille Jorgensen, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AMEC)

Preparer’s Address, Telephone Number, and E-mail Address

7376 SW Durham Road Portland, OR 97224 503-639-3400 [email protected]

Preparation Date: 3 January 2011

Contractor Project Lead:

Scott Kranz, P.G., AMEC Signature

Contractor Quality Assurance Officer

Mary Schneider, CMQ/OE, CQA Signature

Approval, Lead Agency:

Kim Harriz, Army National Guard Directorate Signature



QAPP Worksheet #2 – QAPP Identifying Information

Site Name/Project Name: Site Inspection (SI) at WITH-002-R-01, East MRS MMRP, Camp Withycombe

Site Location: Camp Withycombe, Oregon

Operable Unit Not Applicable (NA)

Work Assignment Number: NA

Revision Number: Final

Revision Date: 23 July 2011

Contractor Name: AMEC.

Contract Number: W9133L-10-F-0193

1. Identify guidance used to prepare this QAPP:

Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force (IDQTF) Uniform Federal Policy (UFP) for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP) (IDQTF 2005) and United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) QA/G-5: EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA, 2002)

2. Identify regulatory program: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

3. Identify approval entity: ARNG Directorate

4. Indicate whether the QAPP is a generic or a project-specific QAPP. (circle one)

5. List dates of scoping sessions that were held: 9/29/2010

6. List dates and titles of QAPP documents written for previous site work, if applicable: NA

7. List organizational partners (stakeholders) and connection with lead organization:

ARNG Directorate, Oregon Military Department (OMD), Oregon Army National Guard (ORARNG), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

8. List data users:

ARNG Directorate, ORARNG, OMD, ODEQ, USACE, Project Chemists, Project Geophysicists, UXO Technicians, Project Managers, Risk Assessors

9. If any required QAPP elements and required information are not applicable to the project, then circle the omitted QAPP elements and required information on the attached table. Provide an explanation for their exclusion below:



QAPP Worksheet #3 – Distribution List

QAPP Recipients Title/Role Organization Telephone

Number E-mail Address

Kim Harriz MMRP Program Manager, Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

ARNG Directorate

(703) 607-7991 [email protected]

Jim Arnold Restoration Manager

OMD Joint Force Headquarters OMD Environmental Branch (AGI-E)

(503) 584-3551

[email protected]

Bob Williams Project Manager (PM)

Oregon ODEQ

(503) 229-5696

[email protected]

Marc Anderson PM USACE – Omaha District

(402) 995-2282 [email protected]

Scott Kranz PM AMEC (503) 639-3400 [email protected]

Paula Bond MMRP Program Manager

AMEC (865) 671-6774

[email protected]

Charles Esler

Senior Scientist AMEC (503) 639-3400 [email protected]

Leonard Farr, Senior Scientist AMEC (503) 639-3400 [email protected]

Maya Taylor SI/RI Lead AMEC (503) 639-3400 [email protected]

Raye Lahti Senior Geophysicist

AMEC (715) 794-5889 [email protected]

Jeremy Haney Geophysical Field Team Lead


Larry Hudgins UXO Program Manager


Scott Sigler Senior Unexploded Ordnance Supervisor (SUXOS)


Jason Kanski UXO Safety Officer/Quality Control Specialist (UXOSO/QCS)

AMEC (859) 815-0970

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]�







QAPP Worksheet #3 Continued – Distribution List

QAPP Recipients Title/Role Organization Telephone

Number E-mail Address

Mary Schneider, CMQ/OE, CQA

QA Officer AMEC (909) 569-7805 [email protected]

Danille Jorgensen

Project Chemist AMEC (503) 639-3400 [email protected]

Mandy Putney Community Relations

EnviroIssues (503) 248-9500 [email protected]

To Be Determined (TBD)

UXO Technicians Environmental Samplers

AMEC TBD TBD






QAPP Worksheet #4 – Project Personnel Sign-Off Sheet

Project Personnel Title Telephone Number Signature

Date QAPP Read

Danille Jorgensen Project Chemist (503) 639-3400

Raye Lahti Senior Geophysicist (715) 794-5889

Larry Hudgins UXO Program Manager (704) 655-1352

Scott Sigler SUXOS (318) 332-3265

Jason Kanski UXOSO/QCS (859) 815-0970

Maya Taylor SI Coordinator (503) 639-3400

Brett VanDelinder TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. (TA)-Denver PM

(303) 736-0100

Terri Torres TA-Tacoma PM (253) 922-2310



QAPP Worksheet #5 – Project Organizational Chart


Contract No. W9133L-10-F-0193 27 July2011 7

QAPP Worksheet #6 – Communication Pathways

Communication Drivers Responsible Entity Name Phone Number Procedure (Timing, Pathways, etc.)

Overall implementation of the project AMEC Scott Kranz (503) 639-3400 • Primary point of contact (POC) for ARNG, ORARNG, DEQ, and OMD

Project Management for the Lead Agency

OMD Restoration Manager

Jim Arnold (503) 584-3551 • OMD Restoration Manager will ensure project scope of work requirements are fulfilled.

Point of Contact with Regulators and Stakeholders

OMD Jim Arnold (503) 584-3551

• OMD Restoration Manager will act as primary point of contact for ODEQ and other stakeholders

Approval of Documents ARNG Directorate, OMD,

ODEQ

Kim Harriz Jim Arnold

Robert Williams

(703) 607-7991 (503) 584-3551 (503) 229-5696

• ODEQ will provide concurrence of documents through letter notification to ARNG Directorate/OMD

• ARNG/OMD will provide concurrence of through approved work plans

Approval of Field Operations OMD Restoration Manager

Jim Arnold (503) 584-3551 • Field manager will submit daily field reports to the OMD Restoration Manager for approval. OMD Restoration Manager will process all requests for changes.

Technical issues during implementation of the project

AMEC PM Scott Kranz

(503) 639-4300

• Field crew will notify the PM, who will notify the ARNG/OMD via phone/email of significant technical or quality-related issues.

Stop Work for Quality or Safety Issue Any site personnel

including but not limited to

SUXOS, ARNG, OMD, USACE

Scott Sigler

(318) 332-3265

• Any project member can call a stop work for safety issues. AMEC team members must notify their supervisor, who in turn notifies the AMEC Project Manager (verbal, electronic). If the ARNG/OMD/USACE calls a ‘stop-work’, the ARNG PM/OMD POC will notify the AMEC PM (electronic or written).



QAPP Worksheet #6 Continued – Communication Pathways

Communication Drivers Responsible Entity Name Phone Number Procedure (Timing, Pathways, etc.)

Changes to QAPP or other plans, designs, or procedures

AMEC PM Scott Kranz (503) 639-3400 • Will notify ARNG COR prior to implementation for review and approval

Deviation(s) from QAPP AMEC PM Scott Kranz (503) 639-3400 • Will notify the ARNG COR/PM

Field Program Quality Issues SUXOS UXOSO/QCS

Scott Sigler Jason Kanski

(318) 332-3265 • Will notify AMEC PM who in turn will contact the ARNG or OMD as necessary

Corrective Action for field program quality issues

SUXOS Scott Sigler (318) 332-3265 • Will notify AMEC PM to determine corrective action (verbal, written, or electronic)

Analytical Quality Control Issues AMEC QA Officer Mary Schneider (909) 396-1936 • Will notify AMEC PM of any significant quality control issues. AMEC PM will notify the ARNG as appropriate.

Analytical Quality Control Corrective Action

AMEC PM Scott Kranz (503) 639-3400 • Will contact ARNG/OMD PMs with proposed corrective action for review and approval as necessary.

Sample quality issue (e.g., broken sample bottles, incorrect preservation)

TA-Denver Brett VanDelinder

(303) 736-0100 • Will notify the AMEC RI/SI Coordinator and AMEC Project Chemist who will then contact the AMEC PM to determine impacts to the end data use.

Corrective action (s) for sample quality issues

AMEC Project Chemist

Danille Jorgensen

(503) 639-3400 • Will respond to issue from laboratory with potential corrective action to AMEC PM who will contact ARNG for approval as appropriate

Geophysical Quality Control Issues AMEC Project Geophysicist

Raye Lahti (715) 794-5889 • Will notify AMEC PM who will notify the ARNG as appropriate.



QAPP Worksheet #7 – Personnel Responsibilities and Qualifications Table

Name Title Organizational Affiliation Responsibilities

Kim Harriz

MMRP Program Manager ARNG

• Provides project scope and direction • Review and approval of draft and draft final documents • Coordinates with the USACE Omaha District for review of

select documents.

COR ARNG

• Ensures that the project scope of work requirements are fulfilled

• Oversees the project cost and schedule • Provides direction to the project team • Acts as lead interface with agencies • Documents AMEC Performance

Jim Arnold Restoration Manager OMD

• Primary Lead Agency Project Manager • Oversees project execution • Coordinates all activities with contractor and USACE • Review draft and draft final documents • Coordinate with the Public Affairs Office (PAO), Oregon

Department of Transportation (ODOT), and project stakeholders

Marc Anderson Technical Project Manager

USACE – Omaha District

• Provides technical support as requested by ARNG Program Manager



QAPP Worksheet #7 Continued – Personnel Responsibilities and Qualifications Table


Scott Kranz Project Manager AMEC

• Coordinates work activities of AMEC’s personnel and subcontractors, and ensures that all personnel adhere to the administrative and technical requirements of the project

• Monitors and reports the progress of work, and ensures that the project deliverables are completed on time and within project budget

• Monitors the budget and schedule, and notifies the client and Program Lead of any changes that may require administration actions

• Ensures adherence to the quality requirements of the contract, project scope of work, and quality control (QC)

• Ensures that all work meets the requirements of the technical specifications and complies with applicable codes and regulations

• Ensures that all work activities are conducted in a safe manner in accordance with the Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP)

• Serves as the primary contact between the client, and AMEC for actions and information related to the work and including appropriate technical personnel in the decision-making

• Coordinates satisfactory resolution and completion of nonconformance reports

• Submits the QAPP to the client approval

Mary Schneider Project QA Officer AMEC • Ensures adherence to the quality requirements of the

contract, project scope of work, and quality control

Maya Taylor SI/RI Lead AMEC • Coordinates project deliverables and team assignments

Larry Hudgins AMEC Field Manager AMEC

• Manages/supervises field activities on a daily basis • Routes quality issues to the AMEC Project Manager





Scott Sigler SUXOS AMEC

• Overall accountability for all UXO handling activities • Implements project work plans, Standard Operating

Procedures (SOPs) • Oversight of field crews and subcontractors • Ensures compliance with all federal, state, and local statutes

regarding munitions responses

Jason Kanski UXOSO/QCS AMEC

• Oversees all aspects of safety on this project • Documents site conditions and photographs field activities

during site audits • Ensures that all fieldwork is conducted in accordance with

the Work Plan • Provides direction to field staff and subcontractors • Performs reviews and inspections of UXO field teams to

ensure that project procedures are being followed

TBD UXO Technicians (I, II, III) AMEC

• Conduct UXO avoidance activities • Perform analog-instrument-assisted visual surveys (AVS) • Perform intrusive investigation of geophysical anomalies • Reacquire geophysical targets

Raye Lahti Project Geophysicist AMEC

• Submits field information data for upload into the data management database

• Checks electronic data for completeness (e.g., all required fields are entered)

• Submits properly formatted data • Adequately reviews and understands all SOPs and guidance

applicable to their tasking for the project





Jeremy Haney

Geophysical Field Team Lead

AMEC

• Directs and oversees field DGM activities • Observes QC activities and validates results • Reviews geophysical data • Reviews and processes geophysical data • Selects target anomalies • Prepares data deliverables

Patrick McCarthy GIS/Database Specialist AMEC

• Manage target anomaly data • Manage intrusive investigation data • Create Anomaly Maps

TBD Geophysical Field Team AMEC

• Performs QC and equipment function tests • Collects DGM data • Reacquires geophysical target anomalies

Danille Jorgensen Project Chemist AMEC

• Acts as a liaison between AMEC and the laboratory • Provides technical project oversight • Coordinates laboratory and administrative activities to meet

project goals.

Breanna O’Connell

Data Validation Specialist AMEC

• Reviews data packages received from the analytical laboratory

• Qualifies analytical results based on validation results

Brett VanDelinder PM/Chemist TA-Denver

• Oversees tasks with the analytical laboratory • Monitors the quality of laboratory operations • Communicates issues to the AMEC Task Manager • Resolves issues and providing resolution document



QAPP Worksheet #8 – Special Personnel Training Requirements Table

Project Function

Specialized Training –

Title or Description of

Course

Training Provider

Training Date

Personnel/Groups Receiving Training

Personnel Titles/Organizational

Affiliation

Location of Training Records/Certificates

All field personnel Initial 40-hour OSHA

HAZWOPER Certification

and annual 8-hour refresher courses per 29 CFR 1910.120

(e)

Medical Surveillance

Program per 29 CFR

1910.1025

Vendor Prior to arrival at

site

All Field personnel AMEC and subcontractors

Certificates will be maintained on-site with project files

Field Supervisor(s) 8-hour OSHA HAZWOPER Supervisor

Training per 29 CFR

1910.120(e)(4) 1926

Vendor

Prior to arrival at

Site

Field Manager Field Manager/ AMEC




QAPP Worksheet #8 Continued – Special Personnel Training Requirements Table

Project Function

Specialized Training –

Title or Description of

Course

Training Provider

Training Date

Personnel/Groups Receiving Training

Personnel Titles/Organizational

Affiliation

Location of Training Records/Certificates

Munitions Response/Recognition

MEC Safety Training

UXOSO, SUXOS

Prior to participation

in field activities

All field personnel AMEC and subcontractors

Documentation will be maintained in daily

field reports

AVS Use of hand-held

electromagnetic instrument

Project Geophysicist,

SUXOS


in field activities

Geophysical survey teams, UXO Teams

Geophysical Survey Teams, UXO Teams/

AMEC and subcontractors

Documentation will be maintained in

project files

UXO Operations Meets qualifications of

Data Item Description

(DID) OE-025,

Department of Defense

(DoD) Certified

Courses or Schools


in field activities

UXO Team SUXOS, UXOSO/QCS, Tech I,II,IIIs/AMEC and

subcontractors




QAPP Worksheet #9 – Project Scoping Session Participants Sheet

Project Name: Camp Withycombe RI and SI Site Name(s): Camp Withycombe – East MRS and West MRS

Projected Date(s) of Sampling:

3/31/11-6/2/11 Site Locations: Camp Withycombe, OR

Project Manager:

Scott Kranz

Date of Technical Project Planning (TPP) Meeting:

Sept 29, 2010

Name Title Affiliation Telephone Number E-mail Address Project

Role

Ann Wood

Chief, Cleanup & Restoration Branch

ARNG-ILE (703) 607-7199 [email protected]

Chief, Cleanup & Restoration Branch

Kim Harriz MMRP Program Manager

ARNG-ILE (703) 607-7991 [email protected] COR

Jim Arnold Environmental Restoration Manager

OMD-AGI-E (503) 584-3551 [email protected]

OMD Restoration Manager

Scott Kranz Senior PM AMEC (503) 639-3400 [email protected] AMEC PM

Maya Taylor Environmental Scientist AMEC (503) 639-3400 [email protected] SI/RI Lead







QAPP Worksheet #10 – Problem Definition

The problem to be addressed by the project: The East MRS is located in Camp Withycombe in Clackamas, Oregon and is operated by the Oregon Military Department (OMD) / Oregon Army National Guard (ORARNG). The project area was identified as a potential MRS after MEC and MD were encountered during the investigation and remedial action of several former small arms firing ranges (SAFRs) at Camp Withycombe. The former SAFR restoration project was conducted under the ARNG Directorate Compliance Clean-up (CC) Program. To further evaluate the presence of potential MRSs, The OMD completed a Preliminary Assessment (PA) of Camp Withycombe in December 2009 (OMD, 2009).

Historical research was conducted in 2009 to identify known and potential sources of MEC and MC located on the West MRS resulting from former military training activities, to define the boundary of the MRS, and to compile information to be used in a preliminary Conceptual Site Model (CSM).

The historical research identified former training and waste disposal activities at Camp Withycombe and concluded that the East MRS contains several undocumented waste disposal areas and was used for practice and live-fire of small, medium, and large caliber munitions. The results indicate undocumented waste disposal areas are may contain discarded military munitions (DMM), MC, and other contaminants. The results also indicate MEC and munitions debris (MD), including 40mm smoke grenades, rifle grenades, 60mm mortar rounds, 35mm sub-caliber rockets, 3.5-inch practice rockets, and 37mm projectiles have been found in surface and subsurface soil during previous investigations within the East MRS Figure D-2 (Appendix D). There is a potential for encountering MEC and MC, impact areas, and disposal areas in the East MRS.

The objective of the SI is to evaluate the presence or absence of DMM, MEC, MC, and waste constituents in East MRS and to evaluate if waste constituents from disposal areas impacted the groundwater.

The environmental questions to being asked: • Are MEC and MC present in the East MRS? • What are the boundaries of the East MRS? • What are the approximate boundaries of the disposal areas in the East MRS? • Are waste constituents from disposal areas or present in down gradient groundwater? • Are DMM, MC, and solid waste present in disposal area soil

Observations from any site reconnaissance reports: MEC and MC have been identified in the East MRS during previous investigations. Thirty-six (36) MEC and 325 MD were found and disposed during the small arms firing ranges restoration project. The restoration project area only covered a small portion of the East MRS and it is suspected that more MEC and MD are present throughout the East MRS. Solvents were detected on one monitoring well in the East MRS during an offsite groundwater investigation. Personnel interviews have indicated disposal areas were located on the hillside of the East MRS, and that practice and live-fire small arms, artillery, and mortar training were conducted throughout Camp Withycombe.



QAPP Worksheet #10 Continued – Problem Definition

A synopsis of secondary data or information from site reports: Data and information from previous reports are summarized in Section 2.1 of the SI Work Plan.

The possible classes of contaminants and the affected matrices: Explosives, metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may be present in East MRS soil from past munitions use and disposal activities. VOCs, explosives, TPH, and perchlorate may be present in groundwater

The rationale for inclusion of chemical and nonchemical analyses: MEC and MD have been observed in the East MRS and interviews with site personnel indicated discarded military munitions (DMM) was buried in the East MRS and the East MRS was an impact area for small arms, artillery, and mortar training. Explosives and metals are associated with MEC, MD and DMM. Analysis of these chemicals in soil may indicate their presence or absence in the East MRS.

Metals, PAHs, TPH, and VOCs are associated with shop waste including parts, batteries and chemicals that were reportedly buried in disposal areas in the East MRS. Analysis of these constituent in soil may indicate the presence or absence of solid waste associated with disposal areas.

VOCs associated with chemicals and explosives associated with DMM suspected in disposal areas may have leached to groundwater. Analysis of these constituents may indicate the presence or absence of DMM and chemicals in disposal areas.

MEC, MD, DMM and some solid waste has a metallic signature. Impact areas may have physical indicators such as visible MEC and MD and craters and disposal areas may have physical indicators such as depressions, waste, and staining. An AVS (non-chemical analyses) will use visual identification and geophysical anomaly detection using analog metal detectors to identify the extent of MEC/ MD throughout the East MRS and estimate the extent of disposal areas in the East MRS.

Information concerning various environmental indicators: Abiotic media samples and visual observations (stressed vegetation, staining, etc.) will be used as indicators for the condition of the environment and as benchmarks to monitor change.

Project decision statement: If visual evidence indicates the presence of MEC in the East MRS, then further investigation or a removal action will be recommended. If the field investigation does not indicate the presence of MEC, then a no further action (NFA) for MEC will be recommended.

If MC or waste constituents are present in soil and groundwater at concentrations above screening levels, then further investigation will be recommended



QAPP Worksheet #11 – Project Quality Objectives/Systematic Planning Process Statements

Identify the data users: The primary data users are the ARNG Directorate, OMD, ODEQ, Geophysicists, OESS Safety Person, UXO Technicians Risk Assessors, Chemist, project managers

Identify the data uses: • To evaluate the presence or absence of MEC and MD in the East MRS. • To evaluate the presence or absence of MC in the East MRS • To determine the locations and approximate boundaries of the disposal areas in the East MRS • To evaluate the presence or absence of MC and waste constituents in the disposal area • To evaluate the presence or absence of MC and waste constituents in groundwater

Identify the data types: • Analog instrument-assisted visual survey data

o Documentation of observations o Geographic Information System (GIS) Data o EM signal strength in millivolts (mV)

• Analytical Data o Constituent concentrations in soil o Constituent concentrations in groundwater

Data quality required: • AVS field personnel should be able to identify munitions debris greater than 5 cm during AVS. • AVS field personnel should be able to identify evidence of munitions use (craters, berks, etc.) • Field personnel should be able to recognize physical evidence of disposal areas (staining,

changes in topography, evidence of ground disturbance) • 90 percent (%) of validated data not rejected according to criteria in Worksheet #12

Quantity of Data Needed: • Sufficient data to determine presence or absence of MEC in soil, and MC in soil and groundwater • Sufficient data to determine presence and define the approximate boundaries of disposal areas

Sampling Design/Rationale Sampling Design and Rationale are including in Section 6.2 of the SI Work Plan.



QAPP Worksheet #11 Continued – Project Quality Objectives/Systematic Planning Process Statements

Data Collection and Reporting:

Spatial data will follow the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA) format. In addition, GIS data sets will be accompanied by metadata, conforming to FGDC’s Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM) and be provided in a geodatabase that is compliant with the Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment (SDSFIE). The horizontal accuracy of GIS data will be tested in accordance with the NSSDA and the results shall be recorded in the metadata. All data shall be provided in the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) project in the appropriate zone, and shall have a datum of World Geodetic System (WGS) 84.

MEC, MD, and anomaly density data will be collected along meandering transects throughout the East MRS and in areas with suspected disposal areas. Data will be manually recorded on field forms and interpreted using Geosoft Oasis montaj and ESRI ArcGIS. Interpreted density maps with approximate disposal area boundaries will be generated and presented in the final report.

DGM survey methods will be utilized for the majority of data collection in the West MRS. Geophysical data will collected and stored on field computers in the Geonics proprietary binary format. Data will be imported into a Geosoft database (.gdb) using Oasis montaj for review and processing. Final processed data and target anomaly list(s) will be provided in .gdb format as they are completed. Full anomaly lists with intrusive investigation data for select anomalies will be provided with the final report.

Samples will be collected and submitted for laboratory analysis in accordance with Worksheet 18. Analysis will be performed by a laboratory that holds current accreditation through the DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) and the State of Oregon ELAP. The analytical data generated by the off-site laboratory will be reported in a Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)-equivalent data package format (hardcopy) and electronic data deliverable (EDD) format. The analytical results will be supplied to AMEC in sufficient quality/quantity to facilitate uploading the data into the Environmental Restoration Information System (ERIS) database. The data will be presented in SI and RI Reports.

Data Archiving: Following data validation, project data stored in EQuIS will be converted into the ERIS database deliverable format and uploaded to the ERIS website. The data will be validated by an AMEC chemist. All field forms, field notes, log books, data packages, and validation reports will be included in the RI and SI Reports. All project reports and documentation will be archived in the master project file.



QAPP Worksheet #12 – Measurement Performance Criteria Table

Matrix Soil and Groundwater

Analytical Group Explosives

Concentration Level NA

Sampling Procedure

Analytical Method

Data Quality Indicators (DQIs)

Measurement Performance

Criteria

QC Sample and/or

Activity Used to

Assess Measurement Performance

QC Sample Assesses Error for

Sampling (S), Analytical (A) or both (S&A)

See QAPP Worksheet

#18 EPA Method

88330A

Precision (field)

< 30% RPD when detected concentrations

>5x QL; Difference <QL if concentrations <

5x QL

Field Duplicate

compared to Primary Sample

S&A

Precision (laboratory)

< 20% RPD

(DoD QSM v 4.1)

Matrix Spike Duplicate

Laboratory Duplicate

A

Accuracy DoD QSM v 4.1

(DoD 2009) specified limits

Laboratory Control Sample

A

Accuracy DoD QSM v 4.1 (DoD

2009) specified

limits

Matrix Spike A

Accuracy + 30% of spike concentration

Surrogate Compounds

A

Accuracy No analyte > ½ QL

Method Blank A

Completeness Greater than 90% acceptable

data

Data Validation

S&A



QAPP Worksheet #12 Continued – Measurement Performance Criteria Table

Matrix Soil

Analytical Group Metals


Sampling Procedure

Analytical Method

Data Quality Indicators

(DQIs)


Criteria

QC Sample and/or Activity

Used to Assess


QC Sample Assesses Error for Sampling

(S), Analytical (A) or both

(S&A)

See QAPP Worksheet

#18

EPA Methods, 6020 and

7471

Precision (field)



5x QL

Field Duplicate compared to

Primary Sample S&A


< 20% RPD

DoD QSM v 4.1



A

Accuracy DoD QSM v 4.1 specified limits

Laboratory Control Sample A


Matrix Spike A


Method Blank A


data

Data Validation S&A




Matrix Soil and Groundwater

Analytical Group VOCs


Sampling Procedure

Analytical Method


(DQIs)


Criteria


Used to Assess




(S&A)

See QAPP Worksheet

#18

EPA Method 8260B

Precision (field)



5x QL


Primary Sample S&A


< 30% RPD

(DoD QSM v 4.1)



A

Accuracy DoD QSM v 4.1

(DoD 2009) specified limits


Accuracy DoD QSM v 4.1 (DoD 2009)

specified limits

Matrix Spike A

Accuracy (organics)

DoD QSM v 4.1 (DoD 2009)

specified limits

Surrogate Compounds

A


Method Blank A


data

Data Validation S&A




Matrix Groundwater

Analytical Group Perchlorate


Sampling Procedure

Analytical Method


(DQIs)


Criteria


Used to Assess




(S&A)

See QAPP Worksheet

#18

EPA Method 6860

Precision (field)



5x QL


Primary Sample S&A


< 15% RPD

DoD QSM v 4.1



A

Accuracy 80%-120%

DoD QSM v 4.1


Accuracy 80%-120%

DoD QSM v 4.1

Matrix Spike A


Surrogate Compounds

A


Method Blank A


data

Data Validation S&A




Matrix Soil

Analytical Group PAHs


Sampling Procedure

Analytical Method


(DQIs)


Criteria


Used to Assess




(S&A)

See QAPP Worksheet

#18

EPA Method 8270

Precision (field)



5x QL


Primary Sample S&A


< 30% RPD

DoD QSM v 4.1



A




Matrix Spike A


Surrogate Compounds

A


Method Blank A


data

Data Validation S&A




Matrix Soil

Analytical Group TPH-dx


Sampling Procedure

Analytical Method


(DQIs)


Criteria


Used to Assess




(S&A)

See QAPP Worksheet

#18 NWTPH-

dx

Precision (field)



5x QL


Primary Sample S&A

Precision (laboratory) < 35% RPD Matrix Spike

Duplicate A

Accuracy Method specified limits


Accuracy + 30% of spike concentration

Matrix Spike A

Accuracy (organics)

+ 30% of spike concentration

Surrogate Compounds

A

Accuracy No analyte > ½ the QL

Method Blank A


data

Data Validation S&A




Analytical Group: Equipment Functionality Tests for Analog Assisted Visual Surveys

Quality Control Parameter Frequency Instrument Measurement

Performance Criteria Activity used to

Assess Measurement Performance

Response Test At least once per day.

White’s, hand-held EM devices

100% of seed items along a test strip must be detected. Instrument responses must free from false-positives, false-negatives, and variable or inconsistent responses.

The operator will verify the instrument response of at least 4 industry standard object (ISO) seed items buried in known locations.

Position Test At least once per day.

Recreational-Grade GPS

100% of 5 recorded measurements must be within 25 feet of the known location

Recorded positions will be checked against a known benchmark.



QAPP Worksheet #13 – Secondary Data Criteria and Limitations Table

Secondary Data Data Source (Originating

Organization, Report Title, and Data)

Data Generator(s) (Originating Org., Data

Types, Data Generation/Collection Dates)

How Data Will Be Used Limitations on Data Use

Soil Analytical Data

• Remedial Investigation Report and Addendum, Camp Withycombe Former Small Arms Firing Ranges, AMEC, 2006 & 2008

• Draft Construction Summary Report, Former Small Arms Firing Ranges, AMEC 2010

• Final Burial Pit Removal Report, Armed Forces Reserve Center, Camp Withycombe, AMEC 2010

• AMEC, Metals & Explosives Soil Analytical Data , Sample collection dates: August – November 2007

• AMEC, metals confirmation soil samples, sample collection dates: July – October 2008

• AMEC, metals confirmation soil samples

• Refine CSM • Determine locations

where MC has been addressed

No limitations noted.

Groundwater Analytical Data • Soil and Groundwater Investigations, Dames & Moore 1991

• Additional Small Arms Firing Ranges Characterization, Hart Crowser, 1996

• Clackamas County Parcel Limited Groundwater Investigation, AGRA, 1998

• Dames & Moore, Dissolved lead groundwater data, sample collection: April 1991

• Hart Crowser, total and dissolved metals groundwater data, sample collection: June 1996

• Refine CSM • Determine current

concentrations of MC in groundwater

• Evaluate trends in concentration levels




QAPP Worksheet #13 Continued – Secondary Data Criteria and Limitations Table

Secondary Data Data Source (Originating Organization, Report Title,

and Data)




Groundwater Analytical Data Continued

• Remedial Investigation Report, Camp Withycombe Former Small Arms Firing Ranges, AMEC, 2006

• Groundwater Monitoring Reports, AMEC 2009 - 2011

• AMEC, metals groundwater analytical data, Sample Collection date: July 2006

• AMEC, metals groundwater analytical data: Quarterly sampling event

• Refine CSM • Determine current

concentrations of MC in groundwater

• Evaluate trends in concentration levels


Surface Water Analytical Data • Site Investigation, Camp Withycombe Firing ranges, Clackamas, Oregon, 1995

• Hart Crowser, lead surface water data, 1995

• Refine CSM • Identify potential surface

water areas • Determine if lead is present

in surface water


Excavated soil volumes • Draft Construction Summary Report, Former Small Arms Firing Ranges, AMEC 2010

• AMEC, soil excavation volumes, final volumes calculated October 2008

• Determine areas that have been remediated for metals already


Locations/type of MEC • Draft Construction Summary Report, Former Small Arms Firing Ranges, AMEC 2010

• AMEC, location and characterization of identified MEC/MD items;

• Determine locations were MEC has been addressed

• Refine CSM

No limitations noted

Personnel interviews • Included as Appendix A of the SI WP, March 2011

• Various personnel, interview forms: accounts of past use on the site; Interviews occurred 2008

• Refine CSM • Determine potential

locations of training • Identify locations of

potential disposal areas




QAPP Worksheet #13 Continued – Secondary Data Criteria and Limitations Table

Secondary Data Data Source (Originating Organization, Report Title,

and Data)




Aerial photographs • USACE – Portland District, 1936 - 1998

• USACE, aerial photographs, 1936, 1944-1945, 1948, 1956, 1963, 1971, 1980, 1990, 1998

• Determine locations of former ranges, firing points, impact areas.

Resolution of maps varies from year to year



QAPP Worksheet #14 – Summary of Project Tasks

East MRS: SI Project Tasks

1. Analog Instrument-Assisted Visual Survey

2. MEC Disposal

• MEC Blow –in-place

• MEC Consolidation and Open Detonation

3. MC Sampling Tasks:

• East MRS Investigation – One composite sample will be collected from each of the eight meandering-transects. The composite sample will consist of five individual sub-samples and will be collected approximately 0-6 inches bgs, not to exceed 12 inches. Soil samples from transects will be analyzed for explosives.

• East MRS Disposal Areas – At least 10 discrete soil samples will be collected from within the boundaries of the six disposal areas, with at least one sample collected from each burial. Soil samples collected from the disposal areas will be analyzed for metals, PAHs, VOCs, TPH, and explosives.

• Groundwater Samples – One groundwater samples will be collected from each of the eight monitoring wells and analyzed for VOCs, perchlorate, and explosives.

4. Analysis Tasks:

Soil samples will be analyzed for metals by EPA Methods 6020/7471A, VOCs by EPA Method 8260B, PAHs by EPA Method 8270C, TPH by NWTPH-dx, and explosives by EPA Methods 8330 and 8330B. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8260B, explosives by EPA Method 8330, perchlorate by EPA Method 6860, and TPH by NWTPH-HCID. All analysis will be performed by TA-Denver and TA-Tacoma.

5. Quality Assurance Tasks:

Soil sampling and field activities will follow the guidance outlined in the SOP and FSP. The analysis, review, and validation of analytical data will adhere to QC procedures established in this QAPP.

6. Secondary Data:

See Worksheet #13.



QAPP Worksheet #14 Continued – Summary of Project Tasks

7. Data Management Tasks:

MC and Waste Constituent Analytical Data: EQuIS software will be used to process and store analytical and field data. Data stored in EQuIS will be converted into the ERIS database deliverable format and uploaded to the ERIS website. The data will be validated by AMEC and all field forms, field notes, log books, and data packages will be included in the SI Report and all project documentation will be archived in the master project file.

Geophysical Data: All anomaly data generated from the geophysical data or collected during analog instrument assisted visual surveys and intrusive investigations will be stored in a GIS accessible Access database. QC test results will be documented on the appropriate field forms and tracked in an Access database. All field forms, field notes, log books, and data packages will be included in the SI Report and all project documentation will be archived in the master project file.

8. Documentation and Records:

Sample locations will be surveyed by an Oregon licensed surveyor. Sample collection will be documented in field notes, field sampling logs, and on the chain-of-custody forms. All field forms, field notes, log books, and data packages will be included in the SI Report and all project documentation will be archived in the master project file.

9. Assessment/Audit Tasks:

An internal audit of field activities including sampling and field measurements will be conducted by the ARNG. This field sampling technical systems audit (TSA) will verify that all established procedures are being followed.



QAPP Worksheet #15 – Reference Limits and Evaluation Table

Matrix: Soil Analytical Group: Explosives by 8330A

Compound CAS Number

Project Screening Criteria/

Action Limit1 (mg/kg)

Project Quantitation Limit Goal

(mg/kg)

LOQ (mg/kg)

LOD (mg/kg)

MDL (mg/kg)

HMX 2691-41-0 3800 1200 0.10 0.04 0.0227

RDX 121-82-4 5.5 1.8 0.20 0.08 0.043

1,3,5-TNB 99-35-4 2200 730 0.10 0.04 0.0138

1,3-DNB 99-65-0 6.1 2.0 0.10 0.04 0.0166

Tetryl 479-45-8 240 80 0.20 0.08 0.0439

NB 98-95-3 4.8 1.6 0.30 0.08 0.085

2,4,6-TNT 118-96-7 19 6.0 0.10 0.04 0.0307

4-Am-DNT 19406-51-0 150 50 0.10 0.04 0.0299

2-Am-DNT 355-72-78-2 150 50 0.10 0.04 0.0329

2,4-DNT 121-14-2 1.6 0.50 0.10 0.04 0.0147

2,6-DNT 606-20-2 61 20 0.10 0.04 0.0191

2-NT 88-72-2 2.9 1.0 0.20 0.08 0.0472

3-NT 99-08-1 6.1 2.0 0.20 0.08 0.064

4-NT 99-99-0 30 10 0.20 0.1 0.0365

NG 55-63-0 6.1 2.0 2.0 0.4 0.215

PETN 78-11-5 NA NA 2.0 0.4 0.493

3,5-DNA 618-87-1 NA NA 0.10 0.04 0.009

1Oregon risk based concentrations (RBCs), September 2009, for soil, leaching to groundwater, residential were used for project screening criteria. In the instances where Oregon RBCs were not established for a specific analyte, EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs), November 2010, for residential soil were used.



QAPP Worksheet #15 Continued – Reference Limits and Evaluation Table

Matrix: Groundwater Analytical Group: Perchlorate by EPA 6860

Compound CAS Number


Action Limit1 (µg/L)


(µg/L)

LOQ (µg/L)

LOD (µg/L)

MDL (µg/L)

Perchlorate 14797-73-0 26 8 0.05 0.02 0.0088

1EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs), November 2010, for tapwater was used.




Matrix: Soil Analytical Group: Metals by EPA 6020

Compound CAS Number




(mg/kg)

LOQ (mg/kg)

LOD (mg/kg)

MDL (mg/kg)

Antimony 7440-36-0 31 10 0.200 0.040 0.014

Arsenic 7440-38-2 22 8 0.500 0.150 0.0506

Barium 7440-39-3 15,000 5,000 0.250 0.200 0.0705

Beryllium 7440-41-7 160 50 0.100 0.065 0.0225

Cadmium 7440-43-9 170 50 0.100 0.025 0.0094

Chromium 7440-47-3 NA NA 0.200 0.200 0.076

Cobalt 7440-48-4 230 75 0.100 0.018 0.0066

Copper 7440-50-8 3,100 1,000 2.50 0.200 0.0711

Lead 7439-92-1 30 10 0.100 0.050 0.0182

Manganese 7439-96-5 1,800 600 0.100 0.090 0.033

Nickel 7440-02-0 1,500 500 0.350 0.075 0.0253

Selenium 7782-49-2 390 120 0.500 0.250 0.133

Silver 7440-22-4 390 120 0.100 0.060 0.0203

Thallium 7440-28-0 NA NA 0.100 0.010 0.0035

Vanadium 7440-62-2 5.5 1.5 0.500 0.100 0.0385

Zinc 7440-66-6 23,000 8,000 2.50 0.900 0.316





Matrix: Soil Analytical Group: PAHs

Compound CAS Number




(mg/kg)

LOQ (mg/kg)

LOD (mg/kg)

MDL (mg/kg)

Acenaphthene 83-32-9 3,400 1,000 0.005 0.00035 0.00016

Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 NA NA 0.005 0.00035 0.00017

Anthracene 120-12-7 17,000 6,000 0.005 0.00035 0.00013

Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 3.5 1.1 0.005 0.00035 0.00015

Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 0.90 0.30 0.005 0.00035 0.00014

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 0.15 0.04 0.005 0.00035 0.00015

Benzo(ghi)perylene 191-24-2 NA NA 0.005 0.00035 0.0002

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 1.5 0.4 0.005 0.00035 0.00013

Chrysene 218-01-9 15 3 0.005 0.00035 0.00019

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 3.4 1.1 0.005 0.00035 0.00024

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 2,300 700 0.005 0.00035 0.00021

Fluorene 86-73-7 2,300 700 0.005 0.00035 0.00023

Indeno(123-cd) pyrene 193-39-5 0.15 0.05 0.005 0.00035 0.00024

Naphthalene 91-20-3 0.087 0.087 0.005 0.00035 0.00033

Phenanthrene 86-73-7 NA NA 0.005 0.00035 0.00031

Pyrene 129-00-0 1,700 600 0.005 0.00035 0.00018





Matrix: Soil Analytical Group: VOCs

Compound CAS Number

Project Screening Criteria/ Action Limit1

(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)

LOQ (mg/kg)

LOD (mg/kg)

MDL (mg/kg)

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-20-6 1.9 0.5 0.005 0.001 0.0006

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 400 133 0.005 0.001 0.0005

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 0.56 0.15 0.005 0.001 0.0006

1,1,2-Trichloroethane2 79-00-5 0.0046 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.0009

1,1-Dichloroethane2 75-34-3 0.037 0.037 0.005 0.001 0.0002

1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 11 4 0.005 0.001 0.0006

1,1-Dichloropropene 563-58-6 NA NA 0.005 0.001 0.0005

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 87-61-6 49 15 0.005 0.001 0.0008

1,2,3-Trichloropropane 96-18-4 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.0008

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 22 7 0.005 0.001 0.0007

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 16 4 0.005 0.001 0.0006

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane

96-12-8 4.9 1.5 0.01 0.001 0.0006

1,2-Dibromoethane3 106-93-4 0.000081 0.000081 0.005 0.001 0.0005

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 70 25 0.005 0.001 0.0005

1,2-Dichloroethane2 107-06-2 0.0014 0.0014 0.005 0.001 0.0007

1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 0.89 0.3 0.005 0.001 0.0006

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 3.1 1 0.005 0.001 0.0006

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 NA NA 0.005 0.001 0.0005




Compound CAS Number




(mg/kg)

LOQ (mg/kg)

LOD (mg/kg)

MDL (mg/kg)

1,3-Dichloropropane 142-28-9 1,600 400 0.005 0.001 0.0005

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0.081 0.03 0.005 0.001 0.0008

2,2-Dichloropropane 594-20-7 NA NA 0.005 0.001 0.0004

2-Butanone (MEK) 78-93-3 28,000 9,000 0.02 0.01 0.0018

2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 1,600 400 0.005 0.001 0.0005

2-Hexanone 591-78-6 210 75 0.02 0.01 0.0049

4-Chlorotoluene 106-43-4 5,500 1,500 0.005 0.001 0.0008

4-Isopropyltoluene 99-87-6 NA NA 0.005 0.001 0.0005

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)

108-10-1 5,300 1,500 0.02 0.01 0.0044

Acetone 67-64-1 61,000 20,000 0.02 0.01 0.0054

Benzene 71-43-2 0.0093 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.0005

Bromobenzene 108-86-1 300 100 0.005 0.001 0.0005

Bromochloromethane 74-97-5 NA NA 0.005 0.001 0.0003

Bromodichloromethane2 75-27-4 0.0025 0.0025 0.005 0.001 0.0002

Bromoform 75-25-2 0.22 0.05 0.005 0.001 0.0002

Bromomethane 74-83-9 0.098 0.03 0.01 0.001 0.0005

Carbon Disulfide 75-15-0 820 250 0.005 0.001 0.0004

Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 0.013 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.0006

Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 6.5 2 0.005 0.001 0.0005

Chloroethane 75-00-3 320 100 0.01 0.001 0.0009




Compound CAS Number


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)

LOQ (mg/kg)

LOD (mg/kg)

MDL (mg/kg)

Chloroform2 67-66-3 0.0033 0.001 0.01 0.001 0.0003

Chloromethane 74-87-3 2.2 0.5 0.01 0.001 0.0008

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 6 2 0.005 0.001 0.0006

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 542-75-6 1.7 0.5 0.005 0.002 0.0013

Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 0.016 0.05 0.005 0.001 0.0006

Dibromomethane 74-95-3 25 7 0.005 0.001 0.0008

Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 180 90 0.01 0.001 0.0005

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 0.16 0.05 0.005 0.001 0.0007

Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 6.2 2 0.005 0.001 0.0006

Iodomethane 74-88-4 NA NA 0.005 0.005 0.0004

Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 2100 700 0.005 0.001 0.0006

m,p-Xylene 179601-23-1 25 8 0.003 0.002 0.001

Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)

1634-04-4 0.092 0.03 0.02 0.001 0.0003

Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 0.038 0.13 0.005 0.001 0.0008

Naphthalene 91-20-3 0.087 0.03 0.005 0.001 0.0006

n-Butylbenzene 104-51-8 NA NA 0.005 0.001 0.0006

n-Propylbenzene 103-65-1 3400 1100 0.005 0.001 0.0006

o-Xylene 95-47-6 25 8 0.005 0.001 0.0006

sec-Butylbenzene 135-98-8 NA NA 0.005 0.001 0.0008

Styrene 100-42-5 390 100 0.005 0.001 0.0006




Compound CAS Number


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)

LOQ (mg/kg)

LOD (mg/kg)

MDL (mg/kg)

tert-Butylbenzene 98-06-6 NA NA 0.005 0.001 0.0005

Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 0.0054 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.0006

Toluene 108-88-3 140 60 0.005 0.001 0.0007

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 2.5 0.8 0.005 0.001 0.0004

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 NA NA 0.005 0.001 0.0007

Trichloroethene2 79-01-6 0.0023 0.0023 0.005 0.001 0.0002

Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 72 25 0.01 0.002 0.001

Vinyl Chloride3 75-01-4 0.00051 0.00051 0.005 0.002 0.0013

Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 970 300 0.01 0.01 0.0011


2In instances where the LOQ does meet the Project Quantitation Limit Goal, data will be reported to the MDL. 3The RSL or RBC for this analyte is lower than the best commercially available laboratory detection limit.




Matrix: Soil Analytical Group: NWTPH-Dx

Compound CAS Number1


Action Limit (mg/kg)


LOQ (mg/kg)

LOD (mg/kg)

MDL (mg/kg)

#2 Diesel (C10-C24) NA 3,200 1,000

25 12.5 5.7

Motor Oil (C24-C36) NA 100,000 30,000

50 12.5 9.1 1TPH do not have CAS numbers. Matrix: Groundwater Analytical Group: NWTPH-HCID

Compound CAS Number1

Project Screening Criteria/ Action Limit2 (mg/L)

Project Quantitation Limit Goal (mg/L)

LOQ (mg/L)

LOD (mg/L)

MDL ((mg/L)

#2 Diesel (C10-C24) NA 0.360 0.25 0.25 NA NA

Motor Oil (C24-C36) NA NA NA 0.5 NA NA

Gasoline NA 0.420 0.15 0.1 NA NA 1TPH do not have CAS numbers.

2Oregon risk based concentrations (RBCs), September 2009, for groundwater, ingestion and inhalation from tapwater, occupational were used for project screening criteria.




Compound CAS Number

Project Screening

Criteria (µg/L)1


(µg/L)

LOQ(µg/L)

LOD (µg/L)

MDL (µg/L)

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane2 630-20-6 0.52 0.52 1 0.2 0.17 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 9100 2730 1 0.2 0.16 1,1,2-Trichloroethane4 79-00-5 0.23 0.23 1 0.4 0.32 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 2.3 2.3 1 0.2 0.16 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 340 102 1 0.2 0.14 1,1-Dichloropropene 563-58-6 NA NA 1 0.4 0.15 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 87-61-6 29 8.7 1 0.4 0.18 1,2,3-Trichloropropane4 96-18-4 0.00072 0.00072 3 0.8 0.77 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 2.3 2.3 1 0.8 0.32 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 15 4.5 1 0.2 0.14 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane4 96-12-8 0.00032r 0.00032 5 1.6 0.81

1,2-Dibromoethane4 106-93-4 0.0063 0.0063 1 0.2 0.18 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 370 111 1 0.2 0.13 1,2-Dichloroethane3 107-06-2 0.14 0.14 1 0.2 0.13 1,2-Dichloropropane2 78-87-5 0.39 0.39 1 0.2 0.13 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 12 3.6 1 0.8 0.14 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 NA NA 1 0.2 0.16 1,3-Dichloropropane 142-28-9 730 219 1 0.2 0.15 1,4-Dichlorobenzene2 106-46-7 0.42 0.42 1 0.4 0.16 2,2-Dichloropropane 594-20-7 NA NA 1 0.4 0.2 2-Butanone (MEK) 78-93-3 7100 2130 6 3.2 1.83 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 730 219 1 0.4 0.17 2-Hexanone 591-78-6 47 14.1 5 3.2 1.4 4-Chlorotoluene 106-43-4 730 219 1 0.4 0.17 4-Isopropyltoluene 99-87-6 NA NA 1 0.4 0.17 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 2000 600 5 3.2 1.04

Acetone 67-64-1 22000 6600 10 6.4 1.9 Benzene2 71-43-2 0.39 0.39 1 0.2 0.16 Bromobenzene 108-86-1 88 26.4 1 0.2 0.17 Bromochloromethane 74-97-5 83 24.9 1 0.2 0.1 Bromodichloromethane4 75-27-4 0.12 0.12 1 0.2 0.17 Bromoform 75-25-2 7.2 2.16 1 0.4 0.19 Bromomethane 74-83-9 8.7 2.61 2 0.4 0.21 Carbon Disulfide 75-15-0 1000 300 2 0.8 0.45 Carbon Tetrachloride3 56-23-5 0.19 0.19 2 0.4 0.19 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 91 27.3 1 0.2 0.17 Chloroethane 75-00-3 21000 6300 2 1.6 0.41 Chloroform3 67-66-3 0.19 0.19 1 0.2 0.16 Chloromethane 74-87-3 190 57 2 1.6 0.3




Compound CAS Number Project

Screening Criteria (µg/L)1

Project Quantitation Limit Goal (µg/L)

LOQ(µg/L)

LOD (µg/L)

MDL (µg/L)

Dibromochloromethane2 124-48-1 0.68 0.68 1 0.4 0.17 Dibromomethane 74-95-3 8.2 2.46 1 0.4 0.17 Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12) 75-71-8 200 60 2 0.8 0.31

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 1.4 1.4 1 0.2 0.16 Hexachlorobutadiene2 87-68-3 0.86 0.86 1 0.4 0.12 Iodomethane 74-88-4 NA NA 2 0.2 0.23 Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 680 204 1 0.4 0.19 m,p-Xylene 179601-23-1 200 60 2 0.8 0.34 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) 1634-04-4 12 12 5 0.4 0.25

Methylene Chloride2 75-09-2 4.4 4.4 5 0.4 0.32 Naphthalene4 91-20-3 0.14 0.14 1 0.8 0.22 n-Butylbenzene 104-51-8 1800 540 1 0.4 0.14 n-Propylbenzene 103-65-1 1300 390 1 0.2 0.16 o-Xylene 95-47-6 200 60 1 0.4 0.19 sec-Butylbenzene 135-98-8 NA NA 1 0.4 0.17 Styrene 100-42-5 1600 480 1 0.4 0.17 tert-Butylbenzene 98-06-6 NA NA 1 0.4 0.16 Tetrachloroethene4 127-18-4 0.093 0.093 1 0.4 0.2 Toluene 108-88-3 2300 690 1 0.4 0.17 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 110 33 1 0.2 0.15 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 NA NA 1 0.4 0.19 Trichloroethene4 79-01-6 0.039 0.039 1 0.2 0.16 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 75-69-4 1300 390 2 0.8 0.29

Vinyl Chloride4 75-01-4 0.025 0.025 1.5 0.8 0.4 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 410 123 3 1.6 0.94

1Oregon risk based concentrations (RBCs), September 2009, for groundwater, ingestion and inhalation from tapwater, occupational were used for project screening criteria. In the instances that DEQ RBCs were not established, EPA RSLs (November 2009) were used.

2The project quantitation limit is exceeded by the RL/LOQ, but is achieved by both the LOD and the MDL. Results will be reported to the MDL.

3The project quantitation limit is exceeded by the RL/LOQ, but is achieved by the MDL. Results will be reported to the MDL.

4The project quanitation limit is not achievable by the best available technology.




Matrix: Groundwater Analytical Group: Explosives by 8330A

Compound CAS Number

Project Screening Criteria/ Action Limit1 (mg/L)


(mg/L)

LOQ (mg/L)

LOD (mg/L)

MDL (mg/L)

1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene 99-35-4 1100 400 1 0.4 0.2

1,3-Dinitrobenzene 99-65-0 3.7 1.0 0.4 0.15 0.0887

2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene 118-96-7 2.2 0.75 0.4 0.15 0.0724

2,4-Dinitrotoluene2 121-14-2 0.22 0.22 0.4 0.15 0.0838

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 37 10 0.2 0.15 0.0645

2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene 35572-78-2 73 20 0.2 0.15 0.0507

3,5-Dinitroaniline 618-87-1 NA NA 0.4 0.144 0.1315

4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene 19406-51-0 73 20 0.2 0.15 0.0577

HMX 2691-41-0 1800 600 0.4 0.15 0.0876

m-Nitrotoluene 99-08-1 3.7 1.2 0.4 0.15 0.0834

Nitrobenzene2 98-95-3 0.12 0.12 0.4 0.15 0.091

Nitroglycerin 55-63-0 3.7 3.7 3 1.5 0.921

o-Nitrotoluene2 88-72-2 0.31 0.31 0.4 0.15 0.0855

PETN 78-11-5 NA NA 2 1.5 0.416

p-Nitrotoluene 99-99-0 4.2 1.5 1 0.4 0.2

RDX 121-82-4 0.61 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.0523

Tetryl 479-45-8 150 50 0.24 0.15 0.0793

1EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs), November 2010, for tapwater were used.

2In instances where the LOQ does meet the Project Quantitation Limit Goal, data will be reported to the MDL.



QAPP Worksheet #16 – Project Schedule Timeline Table

Activity ID Activity Name OriginalDuration Start Finish

Camp Withycombe MMRP Project 730 15-Sep-10 14-Sep-121000 Notice to Proceed 0 15-Sep-102000 End Project 0 14-Sep-12

Task 1 - Approved Project Management Plan (PMP) and Quality Assurance Surveillance 730 15-Sep-10 14-Sep-12 1.1 PMP and QASP 125 15-Sep-10 17-Jan-11

1010 Prepare Draft PMP and QASP 31 15-Sep-10 13-Dec-101020 Review Draft PMP and QASP (ORARNG/NGB) 10 14-Dec-10 23-Dec-101030 Prepare Final PMP and QASP 15 3-Jan-11 17-Jan-11

1.2 Technical Project Planning (TPP) 730 15-Sep-10 14-Sep-121050 Technical Project Planning (TPP) 730 15-Sep-10 14-Sep-121060 TPP Meeting #1 1 16-Dec-10 17-Dec-101070 TPP Meeting #2 1 14-Apr-11 14-Apr-111080 TPP Meeting #3 1 4-Oct-11 4-Oct-11

1.3 Community Involvement Support 730 15-Sep-10 14-Sep-121090 Community Relations 730 15-Sep-10 14-Sep-12

10100 Prepare Draft Community Relations Plan (CRP) Document 45 15-Sep-10 29-Oct-1010110 Review Draft CRP Document (ORARNG/NGB) 31 30-Oct-10 29-Nov-1010114 Prepare Draft-Final CRP Document 21 4-May-11 20-Jun-1110116 Review Draft-Final CRP Document (ORARNG/NGB) 31 20-Jun-11 20-Jul-1110120 Prepare Final CRP Document 21 20-Jul-11 4-Aug-1110125 Public Open House 1 4-May-11 4-May-1110130 Establish Repository and Administrative Record 610 30-Jun-11 14-Sep-12

Task 2 - Achieve Site Inspection (SI) at WITH-002-R-01: East MRS 486 15-Sep-10 13-Jan-12 2.1 SI Work Plan/QAPP/SSHP 233 15-Sep-10 5-May-11

10140 Prepare Draft SI Work Plan/QAPP/SSHP 46 15-Sep-10 11-Jan-1110150 Review Draft SI Work Plan/QAPP/SSHP (ORARNG/NGB) 31 12-Jan-11 16-Feb-1110160 Prepare Draft-Final SI Work Plan/QAPP/SSHP 21 16-Feb-11 9-Mar-1110170 Review Draft-Final SI Work Plan/QAPP/SSHP 36 10-Mar-11 10-Jun-1110180 Prepare Final SI Work Plan/QAPP/SSHP 21 10-Jun-11 1-Jul-11

2.2 SI Field Investigation 61 11-Jul-11 10-Sep-1110190 Analog Survey and Soil Sampling of Hillside Area 12 11-Jul-11 26-Jul-1110200 Hillside Area Groundwater Sampling 1 27-Jul-11 27-Jul-1110210 Upload Analytical Data to ERIS 1 10-Sep-11 10-Sep-11

2.3 SI Report 367 10-Sep-11 11-Sep-1210220 Prepare Draft SI Report 43 10-Sep-11 9-Nov-1110230 Review Draft SI Report (ORARNG/NGB) 30 9-Nov-11 21-Dec-1110240 Prepare Draft-Final SI Report 24 21-Dec-11 24-Jan-1210250 Review Draft-Final SI Report 30 24-Jan-12 6-Mar-1210260 Prepare Final SI Report 22 6-Mar-12 5-Apr-1210270 Update MRSPP Score 4 5-Sep-12 11-Sep-12

Task 3 - Achieve Remedial Investigation (RI) at WITH-001-R-01: West MRS 695 15-Sep-10 10-Aug-12 3.1 RI Work Plan 289 15-Sep-10 1-Jul-11

10290 Prepare Draft RI Work Plan 60 15-Sep-10 11-Jan-1110300 Review Draft RI Work Plan (ORARNG/NGB) 31 12-Jan-11 14-Feb-1110310 Prepare Draft-Final RI Work Plan 14 14-Feb-11 10-Jun-1110320 Review Draft-Final RI Work Plan 95 7-Mar-11 10-Jun-1110330 Prepare Final RI Work Plan 21 10-Jun-11 1-Jul-11

3.2 Explosives Siting Plan (ESP) 254 15-Sep-10 26-May-1110340 Prepare Draft ESP 31 15-Sep-10 27-Oct-1010350 Review ESP (ORARNG/NGB) 29 28-Oct-10 8-Jun-1110360 Review ESP (USATCES) 30 10-Jun-11 11-Jul-1110370 DDESB Review ESP 30 10-Jun-11 11-Jul-11



QAPP Worksheet #16 Continued – Project Schedule Timeline Table

Activity ID Activity Name OriginalDuration Start Finish

3.3 Fill Characterization 117 1-Jun-11 26-Sep-1110380 Prepare Draft SAP 5 1-Jun-11 10-Jun-1110390 Review Draft SAP 10 10-Jun-11 24-Jun-1110400 Prepare Final SAP 5 24-Jun-11 1-Jul-1110420 Soil Sampling 1 1-Jul-11 4-Jul-1110430 Laboratory Analysis and Data Validation 10 4-Jul-11 18-Jul-1110440 Prepare Draft Report and SWLA Permit Application 10 18-Jul-11 1-Aug-1110450 Review Draft Report and SWLA Permit Application 10 1-Aug-11 15-Aug-1110460 Prepare Final Report and SWLA Permit Application 5 15-Aug-11 22-Aug-1110470 ODEQ Approval of SWLA Permit 45 22-Aug-11 6-Oct-11

3.4 RI Field Investigation 219 30-Sep-11 6-May-1210480 OMD Preparation of Southeastern Corner of Sunrise Corridor Area 5 30-Sep-11 7-Oct-1110490 Mobilization - Stockpile Area 1 10-Oct-11 11-Oct-1110500 Geophysical System Verification 2 11-Oct-11 12-Oct-1110510 Prepare IVS Report 2 13-Oct-11 15-Oct-1110520 DGM Survey of Stockpile Area 5 17-Oct-11 21-Oct-1110530 Prepare DGM Submittals 5 24-Oct-11 28-Oct-1110540 Review DGM Submittals 5 31-Oct-11 4-Nov-1110550 Intrusive Investigation of Stockpile Area 3 7-Nov-11 9-Nov-1110560 Sockpile Area Soil Sampling 2 10-Nov-11 11-Nov-1110570 OMD Preparation of Sunrise Highway Corridor Area 31 14-Nov-11 14-Dec-1110580 Mobilization - Sunrise Highway Corridor Area 1 15-Dec-11 15-Dec-1110590 Geophysical System Verification 2 15-Dec-11 16-Dec-1110600 Prepare IVS Report 2 16-Dec-11 19-Dec-1110610 DGM Survey of Sunrise Highway Corridor Area 10 19-Dec-11 4-Jan-1210620 Prepare DGM Submittals 10 21-Dec-11 6-Jan-1210630 Review DGM Submittals 5 9-Jan-12 13-Jan-1210640 Intrusive Investigation of Sunrise Highway Corridor Area 10 16-Jan-12 3-Feb-1210650 Sunrise Highway Corridor Area Soil Sampling 5 6-Feb-12 10-Feb-1210660 Laboratory Analysis and Data Validation 30 10-Feb-12 26-Mar-1210670 Analog and Digital Geophysical Survey of Camp Withycombe Area 8 13-Feb-12 22-Feb-1210680 Prepare DGM Submittals 10 15-Feb-12 29-Feb-1210690 Review DGM Subittals 5 29-Feb-12 7-Mar-1210700 Intrusive investigation of Camp Withycombe Area 10 8-Mar-12 21-Mar-1210710 Camp Withycombe Area Soil Sampling 1 22-Mar-12 22-Mar-1210720 Upload Analytical Data to ERIS 1 6-May-12 6-May-12

3.5 RI Report 141 22-Mar-12 10-Aug-1210730 Prepare Draft RI Report 64 22-Mar-12 25-May-1210740 Review Draft RI Report (ORARNG/NGB) 30 25-May-12 24-Jun-1210750 Prepare Draft-Final RI Report 14 24-Jun-12 3-Jul-1210760 Review Draft-Final RI Report 30 3-Jul-12 2-Aug-1210770 Prepare Final RI Report 15 2-Aug-12 23-Aug-1210780 Update MRSPP Score 5 3-Aug-12 10-Aug-12

Task 4 - Achieve Technical Memorandum (TM) at WITH-001-R-01: West MRS 71 28-Jul-11 6-Oct-1110790 Prepare Draft TM 30 13-Feb-12 14-Mar-1210800 Review Draft TM (ORARNG/NGB) 30 14-Mar-12 13-Apr-1210810 Prepare Final TM 5 16-Apr-12 20-Apr-12



QAPP Worksheet #17 – Sampling Design and Rationale

Sampling Design and Rationale are discussed in Section 6.2 of the SI Work Plan.



QAPP Worksheet #18 – Sampling Locations and Methods/SOP Requirements Table

DU Sampling Location/

ID Number

Sampling SOP

Reference Matrix

Depth (inches

bgs) Analytical

Group Deliverable Deliverable Due Date

East MRS, TBD1

CW-East-TRANSECT-01 Camp

Withycombe E-1, Soil Sampling

Methodology

Soil, Composite

0-6 not to exceed 12

Explosives Level III/IV Data Package and EQuIS

EDDs

14 days after sample receipt

East MRS Disposal Area, TBD2

CW-East-DA TRANSECT-01

Camp Withycombe

E-1, Soil Sampling

Methodology

Soil, Discrete Not to exceed 12

Metals, Explosives, PAHs, TPH-dx, and

VOCs

Level III/IV Data Package and EQuIS

EDDs


Groundwater wells, MW1-MW8 CW-MW1- 01 thru

CW-MW8- 01

Camp Withycombe

E-2, Groundwater

Sampling Methodology

Groundwater NA VOCs, NWTPH-HCID, perchlorate, explosives

Level III/IV Data Package and EQuIS

EDDs


1Soil sample locations will be selected based on the results of the analog-assisted visual survey of the East MRS described in the SI Work Plan. MEC, MD, and subsurface anomaly density data collected from each of the meandering transects will be evaluated to indentify one 300-foot segment per transect with the highest potential concentration of MEC. Visual observation indicating impact areas, including pits or craters, will also be considered with selecting sample locations. East MRS sample locations are discussed in Section 3.3.1.1 of the SI FSP.

2At least one sample will be collected from each of the disposal areas. Sample locations will be selected after review of the data from the analog assisted visual survey of the disposal areas described in the work plan. Anomaly concentrations and evidence of contamination will determine where samples will be collected within the disposal areas. East MRS Disposal Area sample locations are discussed in section 3.3.1.2 of the SI FSP.



QAPP Worksheet #19 – Sampling Locations and Methods/SOP Requirements Table

Matrix Analytical Group

Analytical and Preparation Method/SOP Reference1 Containers Sample

Volume Preservation

Requirements Maximum Holding Time (Preparation/Analysis)2

Soil Metals DV-MT-0018 Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass

Spectrometry by SW846 6020

1 x 4 ounce Glass jar 2 grams Cool ≤6°C 180 days

Soil Mercury DV-MT-0023 Mercury in Solids by Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption SW 7471B

1 x 4 ounce Glass jar 2 grams Cool ≤6°C 28 days

Soil – Discrete/

Composite

Explosives DEN-LC-0002 Nitroaromatic and Nitroamine

Explosive Compunds by HPLC Method 8330A and 8330B

1 x 4 ounce Glass jar 4 grams Cool ≤6°C

protect from light 7 days/40 days

Soil PAH DV-MS-0011 GC/MS Analysis based on Methods 8270C and 625

1x 4 ounce Glass jar 30 grams Cool ≤6°C

14 days/40 days

Soil TPH TA-GS-0339 Semivolatile Petroleum

Products Method for Soil and Water

1 x 4 ounce Glass jar 50 grams Cool ≤6°C 14 days/40 days



QAPP Worksheet #19 Continued– Sampling Locations and Methods/SOP Requirements Table


Analytical and Preparation Method/SOP Reference Containers Sample

Volume Preservation

Requirements Maximum Holding Time (Preparation/Analysis)

Soil VOCs

DEN-MS-0010 Determination of Volatile

Organics by GC/MS Based on Method 8260B, 624, and

524.2

1 x 4 ounce Glass jar 5 grams Cool ≤6°C NA/14 days

Groundwater VOCs

DEN-MS-0010 Determination of Volatile

Organics by GC/MS Based on Method 8260B, 624, and

524.2

3 x 40 ml glass vials with PTFE

lined septum and an open screw

cap1

40 ml

No headspace; pH<2; Cool ≤6°C; protect

from light

NA/14 days Preserve with HCl

Groundwater Explosives

DEN-LC-0002 Nitroaromatic and

Nitroamine Explosive Compunds by HPLC Method

8330A and 8330B

1 L Amber with Teflon lined cap 1 L

Cool ≤6°C protect from

light, Acidify to pH 2 with NaHSO4

7 days/40 days

Groundwater Perchlorate DV-LC-0024, Perchlorate in Water and Solids by IC/MS by SW 846 Method 6860

250 ml glass bottle 100 ml Cool ≤6°C; protect from light 28 days

Groundwater NWTPH-HCID TA-GS-0326, Hydrocarbon Identification Method 1 L Amber 1 L Cool ≤6°C; 7 days/28 days



QAPP Worksheet #20 – Field Quality Control Sample Summary Table


No. of Sampling Locations/

No. of Env. Samples

No. of Field

Duplicate Pairs

No. of Field Triplicate Groups

No. of MS/MSD

No. of Field Blanks/

Equipment Blanks/PT Samples

No. of VOA Trip Blanks Total No.

of Samples to Lab

Soil Metals East MRS: 8 composites 1 (10%) 0 1 (5%) 0 0 33

East MRS Disposal Area: at least 10

1 (10%)

1 (5%)

Soil Explosives (Discrete

and Composite Samples)

East MRS: 8 composites 1 (10%) 0 1 (5%) 0 0 33

East MRS Disposal Area: at least 10

1 (10%)

1 (5%)

Soil TPH East MRS Disposal Area: at least 10

1 (10%) 0 1 (5%) 0 0 13

Soil VOCs East MRS Disposal Area: at least 10

1 (10%) 0 1 (5%) 0 1 14

Groundwater VOCs1 MW1-MW8: 8 samples 1 (10%) 0 1 (5%) 1 1 13

Groundwater Explosives1 MW1-MW8: 8 Samples 1 (10%) 0 1 (5%) 1 0 11

Groundwater Perchlorate1 MW1-MW8: 8 Samples 1 (10%) 0 1 (5%) 1 0 11

Groundwater TPH1 MW1-MW8: 8 Samples 1 (10%) 0 1 (5%) 1 0 11 1One equipment blank sample will be collected during the groundwater sampling event. The equipment blank sample will be collected from the same sampling equipment and in the same manner as the groundwater samples, using deionized water in place of groundwater. The samples will be analyzed for the same analytes as the groundwater samples. If disposable sampling equipment is used, an equipment blank sample is not necessary.



QAPP Worksheet #21 – Project Sampling SOP References Table

Reference Number

Title, Revision Date and/or Number

Originating Organization

Equipment Type

Modified for

Project Work?

Comments

E-2 SOP Groundwater Sampling

Methodology

AMEC Bladder pump No NA

E-1 SOP Soil Sampling Methodology

AMEC Shovel, trowel, hand auger, or

excavator

No NA

E-3 UXOGeo-SOP-0010

Conducting an Analog Instrument

Assisted Visual Survey

AMEC Held-Held metal detector or

magnetometer

No NA



QAPP Worksheet #22 – Field Equipment Maintenance, Testing, and Inspection Table

Field

Equipment Fu

nctio

nalit

y Te

st A

ctiv

ity

Mai

nten

ance

A

ctiv

ity Testing/

Inspection

Activity

Frequency Acceptance

Criteria Corrective Action

Responsible

Person SOP Reference

Hand-Held Metal Detector

Source verification

in instrument verification strip (IVS)

Initial Daily & End-of-

day

Response and detection of IVS items tested

If source is not detected, the instrument will be subject to maintenance activities onsite, and offsite as necessary

Operator (UXO Technician)

Manufacturer’s operation manual

Hand-Held Metal Detector

Battery check

Daily Batteries above manufacture level of acceptance

If instrument fails the battery test, the battery will be replaced and the test repeated and/or sent offsite for maintenance. Instrument will not be used until it passes the battery test.

Operator (UXO Technician)


Positioning System (GPS)

Precision and

Accuracy Tests

Morning and Evening or if equipment is

replaced

Offset < 25cm

If offset is >25cm, a root-cause analysis will be performed. Equipment will not be used until the acceptance criteria are met.

Operator (Field Geophysicist)

GPS Accuracy and Precision Tests SOP



QAPP Worksheet #22 Continued – Field Equipment Maintenance, Testing, and Inspection Table

Field

Equipment Fu

nctio

nalit

y Te

st A

ctiv

ity

Mai

nten

ance

A

ctiv

ity Testing/

Inspection

Activity

Frequency Acceptance

Criteria Corrective Action

Responsible

Person SOP Reference

Positioning System (GPS)

Battery and

cable checks

Morning, Mid Day

Instrument functions according to manufacturer’s specifications

If instrument does not respond, the battery will be replaced or the cable connections will be checked. Check will be performed and passed prior to use.


Manufacturer’s operation manual, Cable Shake SOP

Communication Equipment

Verification Daily

Radios and secondary communication devices are operational

Work will not begin until a reliable means of communication is established





QAPP Worksheet #23 – Analytical SOP References Table

Lab SOP Number1

Title, Revision Date, and/or Number

Definitive or Screening

Data Matrix and

Analytical Group Instrument Organization Performing

Analysis

Modified for

Project

DEN-LC-0002 Nitroaromatic and Nitroamine Explosive Compounds by HPLC

Method 8330A and Method 8330B

Definitive Soil, Explosives HPLC TA-Denver No

DV-MT-0018 Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry by SW846 6020

Definitive Soil, Metals ICP/MS TA-Denver No

DV-MT-0023 Mercury in Solids by Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption SW 7471A

Definitive Soil, Mercury CVAA TA-Denver No

DV-MS-0010 Determination of Volatile Organics by GC/MS Based on Method

8260B, 624, and 524.2

Definitive Soil and Groundwater,

VOCs

GC/MS TA-Denver No

TA-GS-0339 Semivolatile Petroleum Products Method for Soil and Water

Definitive Soil, TPH GC/MS TA-Tacoma No

DV-GC-0010 Gasoline Range Organics by NWTPH-dx

Definitive Soil, TPH GC/FID TA-Denver No

DV-MS-0002 PAH by GC/MS Selected Ion Monitoring

Definitive Soil, PAHs GC/MS TA-Denver No

DV-LC-0024 Perchlorate in Water and Solids by IC/MS by SW 846 Method 6860

Definitive Groundwater, Perchlorate

IC TA-Denver No

TA-GS-0326 Hydrocarbon Identification Method, Method NWTPH-HCID

Definitive Groundwater, TPH GC TA-Tacoma No

1 Copies of laboratory SOPs are provided in Appendix F-1. The laboratory SOPs are the property of TestAmerica and is to be used only for the duration of and in connection with the implementation of this project. Information presented in hardcopies of the SOPs may be updated at a later date, and therefore, may not contain the most current information.



QAPP Worksheet #24 – Analytical Instrument Calibration Table

Instrument Calibration Procedure Frequency of Calibration

Acceptance Criteria

Corrective Action (CA)

Person Responsible

for CA

SOP Reference

HPLC/ UV detector

Initial Calibration (ICAL)

Initially prior to sample analysis, when calibration

verification standards indicate calibration

relationship is no longer valid, whenever

significant instrument maintenance is

performed.

%RSD<20% or

r ≤0.995

Perform Maintenance

and re-calibrate

Laboratory Analyst

DEN-LC-0002

Continuing Calibration (CCAL) Daily 85%-115%

Repeat CCAL once; repeat ICAL if second CCAL

fails

Laboratory Analyst

ICP-AES (Metals)

ICAL Daily %RSD<30% or r>0.995

Repeat initial calibration

Laboratory Analyst

DV-MT-0018 Initial Calibration Verification

(ICV) 1/curve 90-110%

Repeat ICV once; repeat ICAL if

second ICV fails

Laboratory Analyst

Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV) Every 10 samples 90-110%

Repeat CCV once; repeat ICAL if

second CCV fails

Laboratory Analyst



QAPP Worksheet #24 – Analytical Instrument Calibration Table


Acceptance Criteria


Person Responsible

for CA

SOP Reference

GC/MS (PAHs)

ICAL Method inception, CCAL fails

RRF ≥ 0.05, %RSD<30%


Laboratory Analyst

DV-MS-0002

GC/MS decafluorotriphenylphosphine

(DFTPP) Tune Beginning of 12-hour shift Method-

specified Repeat until

criteria are met Laboratory

Analyst

CCAL Prior to start of analysis

and every 12 hours thereafter

RRF ≥ 0.05, %D±25%


fails

Laboratory Analyst

GC/MS (VOCs)

ICAL Method inception, CCAL fails

RRF ≥0.05, %RSD<30%


Laboratory Analyst

DV-MS-0010

GC/MS BFB Tune Beginning of 12-hour shift Method-specified

Repeat until criteria are met

Laboratory Analyst

CCAL Prior to start of analysis

and every 12 hours thereafter

RRF ≥ 0.05, %D±25%


fails

Laboratory Analyst



QAPP Worksheet #24 Continued– Analytical Instrument Calibration Table


Acceptance Criteria


Person Responsible

for CA

SOP Reference

IC

ICAL CCAL fails

Method inception,

Retention times

within ±10% Repeat ICAL

Laboratory Analyst

DV-LC-0024 ICV

Once after each ICAL, prior to beginning a

sample run

Retention times and recoveries

within ±10%


fails

Laboratory Analyst

CCV

Each working day, whenever effluent is

changed, and after 10 samples

Retention times and recoveries

within ±10%


fails

Laboratory Analyst



QAPP Worksheet #25 – Analytical Instrument and Equipment Maintenance, Testing, and Inspection Table

Instrument / Equipment

Maintenance Activity

Testing Activity

Inspection Activity Frequency Acceptance

Criteria Corrective

Action Responsible

Person SOP

Reference

HPLC/ UV detector

Check valves and change

seals

Acquire check standard, observe

retention time stability, and

check for air in system

expressed by cavitations of

baseline.

Passing calibration and check standard

As needed

Acceptable calibration and

stable calibration check standards

Perform

instrument

maintenance

Laboratory Analyst

DEN-LC-0002 Replace Guard

Column and in-line filter


chromatography and peak shape.


As needed



Perform

instrument

maintenance

Laboratory Analyst

Back-flush column and/or replace column


chromatography and peak shape.


As needed



Perform

instrument

maintenance

Laboratory Analyst



QAPP Worksheet #25 Continued – Analytical Instrument and Equipment Maintenance, Testing, and Inspection Table



Testing Activity


Criteria Corrective

Action Responsible

Person SOP

Reference

Mass Spectrometer

Pump Oil Level NA

Visual inspection of oil gauge and color

of oil

Check Monthly; Change Annually

Adequate oil level Add oil Laboratory

Analyst

DV-MT-0018, DV-MS-002 DEN-MS-0010

Detector Bake Out

Observation of deteriorating

chromatography NA As needed No interference/

carryover peaks Clean

detector Laboratory

Analyst

Clean source, replace filament


chromatography

Visual inspection of

filaments As needed

No interference; adequate spectral

resolution

Clean source; replace filament

Laboratory Analyst

Detector Pre-calibration

Resolution adjustment

Observation of tuning spectrum

Every 12 hours

Per method tuning

requirements Adjust optics

Laboratory Analyst

ICP-AES

Check pump tubing


chromatography

Visual Inspection Daily No defects

Replace worn or leaking tubing

Laboratory Analyst

DV-MT-0018

Check liquid argon supply

Observe tank gauge

Observe tank gauge Daily Adequate level

Replace tank if

necessary

Laboratory Analyst

Check fluid level

in waste container

NA Visual observation Daily No waste

overflow Empty waste

container Laboratory

Analyst

Check filters NA Visual observation Weekly Filters not

clogged Clean or replace

Laboratory Analyst






Testing Activity


Criteria Corrective

Action Responsible

Person SOP

Reference

ICP-AES

Check torch NA Visual observation Daily No issues

Clean or replace torch

Laboratory Analyst

Check spray chamber and

entrance slit for debris

NA Visual observation Monthly No debris

Replace or clean spray

chamber or entrance slit

Laboratory Analyst

Clean and align nebulizer NA Visual

observation Monthly Visual inspection

Clean and align, if needed

Laboratory Analyst

CVAAS

Replace disposables,

flush lines

Visual inspection of

flow

Check connections Daily Visual

Replace accessories,

as needed

Laboratory Analyst

DV-MT-0023

GC

Bake injector/column

Daily observation of

instrument performance


chromatography As needed No interference/

carryover peaks

Clean injector and/or column

Laboratory Analyst

DEN-MS-0010

DV-MS-0011

DV-GC-0010

Change/remove guard column;

Replace connectors and

liners




chromatography As needed

No interference/ carryover peaks

Change guard

column, connectors, and/or liners

Laboratory Analyst




GC



Compare CCV response to

previous day or ICAL

Identify Shifts in Response Daily

Method requirements Recalibrate

Laboratory Analyst



Chromato-graphic

resolution, retention time

checks


chromatography Daily

Adequate resolution of

peaks in accordance with

method requirements or

analyst judgment

Change chromato-

graphic column

Laboratory Analyst




chromatography

Carrier gas flow rate Daily

Compound retention time within method requirements

Check for leaks;

adjust flow

Laboratory Analyst




chromatography

Check temperature of detector, inlet, column oven

Daily Verify in

accordance withmethod SOP

Adjust if outside limits

Laboratory Analyst

IC

Change Guard columns NA Preventative

Maintenance As needed No

interference/carry over peaks

Replace guard

column

Laboratory Analyst

DV-LC-0024

Replace tubing NA Preventative Maintenance As needed No leaks Replace

worn tubing Laboratory

Analyst



QAPP Worksheet #26 – Sample Handling System

SAMPLE COLLECTION, PACKAGING, AND SHIPMENT

Sample Collection (Personnel/Organization): AMEC Field Sampling Team

Sample Packaging (Personnel/Organization): AMEC Field Sampling Team

Coordination of Shipment (Personnel/Organization): AMEC Field Sampling Team

Type of Shipment/Carrier: FedEx

SAMPLE RECEIPT AND ANALYSIS

Sample Receipt (Personnel/Organization): AMEC Field Sampling Team

Sample Custody and Storage (Personnel/Organization): AMEC Field Sampling Team

Sample Preparation (Personnel/Organization): AMEC Field Sampling Team

Sample Determinative Analysis (Personnel/Organization AMEC Field Sampling Team

SAMPLE RECEIPT AND ANALYSIS

Sample Receipt (Personnel/Organization): Sample Custodian, TA-Denver/TA-Tacoma

Sample Custody and Storage (Personnel/Organization Sample Custodian, TA-Denver/TA-Tacoma

Sample Preparation (Personnel/Organization): Sample Custodian, TA-Denver/TA-Tacoma

Sample Determinative Analysis (Personnel/Organization): Analytical Chemist, TA-Denver/TA-Tacoma

SAMPLE ARCHIVING

Field Sample Storage (No. of days from sample collection): Samples to be shipped within 24 hours

properly preserved. Sample and Extract/Digestate Storage: Disposal of the samples will occur 90 days after a complete and validated data package is obtained by AMEC. Samples disposal must be approved of by the AMEC project chemist.

Biological Sample Storage (No. of days from sample collection): NA

SAMPLE DISPOSAL

Personnel/Organization: Sample Custodian, TA-Denver/TA-Tacoma Number of Days from Analysis: Disposal of the samples will occur 90 days after a complete and validated data package is obtained by AMEC. Samples disposal must be approved of by the AMEC project chemist.



QAPP Worksheet #27 – Sample Custody Requirements Table

Sample Identification Procedures: The purpose of sample designation is to enable discrete sample tracking. Sample ID codes will be dependent on the sample type, as specified below. Duplicate samples will be identified using a blind naming convention. Primary samples will be designated by adding -01 to the end of the sample ID, equipment blanks will be designated by adding an -02 to the end of the sample ID, and duplicate samples will be designated by adding an -03 to the end of the sample ID.

Soil samples identified using five elements, separated by hyphens, in the following formats: • Site ID – MRS ID – Transect Number –Sample Type. For example the sample ID CW-East-T4-

01 would represent a primary sample (-01) collected from Camp Withycombe, in the East MRS, near semi-fixed transect number T4.

• Site ID – MRS ID – Disposal Area Transect Number – Sample Type. For example the sample ID CW-East-DAN01-01 would represent a primary sample (-01) collected from Camp Withycombe, in the East MRS, from Disposal Area North transaction DAN01.

Groundwater samples will be identified using four elements, separated by hyphens, in the following format: Site ID – Monitoring Well Number –Sample Type. For example the sample ID CW-MW2-02 would represent a duplicate sample (-02) collected from Camp Withycombe monitoring well MW-2.

Sample identification procedures are also discussed in the SI FSPs.

Field Sample Custody Procedures (sample collection, packaging, shipment, and delivery to laboratory): Each sample will be individually identified and labeled after collection, then sealed with custody seals and enclosed in a plastic cooler (see the FSPs). The sample information will be recorded on chain-of-custody forms, and the samples shipped/couriered to the appropriate laboratory via expedited delivery service.

Laboratory Sample Custody Procedures (receipt of samples, archiving, and disposal): A sample custodian at the laboratory will accept custody of the samples, and check them for discrepancies, proper preservation, integrity, etc. If noted, issues will be forwarded to the AMEC Project Lead to determine if corrective action is necessary. The sample custodian will relinquish custody to the appropriate department for analysis. Disposal of the samples will occur 90 days after a complete and validated data package is obtained by AMEC. Samples disposal must be approved of by the AMEC project chemist.



QAPP Worksheet #28 – Laboratory QC Samples Table

Matrix

Discrete and Composite

Soil Samples,

Groundwater


Analytical Method /

SOP Reference

EPA 8330A/ DEN-LC-

0002

QC Sample Frequency / Number1

Method / SOP QC

Acceptance Limits2

Corrective Action

Person(s) Responsible

for Corrective

Action

Data Quality

Indicator (DQI)

Measurement Performance Criteria

Method Blank 1/batch No analytes

≥QL

Reanalyze with all associated

samples if there are suspect instrument

performance or loading issues.If instrument is

acceptable then re-prep and reanalyze samples. See note3

Analyst or QA Manager Accuracy No analytes ≥QL



QAPP Worksheet #28 Continued – Laboratory QC Samples Table

Matrix Soil, Groundwater


Analytical Method /

SOP Reference

EPA 8330A/ DEN-LC-

0002


Method / SOP QC

Acceptance Limits2

Corrective Action


for Corrective

Action

Data Quality

Indicator (DQI)


LCS 1/batch DoD QSM v. 4.1-specified

limits



performance or loading issues.If instrument is

acceptable then re-prep and reanalyze samples.

Analyst or QA Manager Accuracy DoD QSM v. 4.1-specified

limits

Surrogate

All environmental and laboratory

samples

70%-130%

Reanalyze once to confirm

matrix interference.

Analyst or QA Manager Accuracy 70%-130%

MS 1/batch DoD QSM v. 4.1-specified

limits

Evaluate in consideration of LCS results. If

LCS is acceptable then

narrate indication of

matrix effects in MS present.

Analyst or QA Manager Accuracy DoD QSM v. 4.1-specified

limits

1Batch is equivalent to 20 or fewer samples prepared and analyzed together with common QC samples.




Matrix Soil


Analytical Method /

SOP Reference

EPA 6020/ DV-MT-0018


Method / SOP QC

Acceptance Limits2

Corrective Action


for Corrective

Action

Data Quality

Indicator (DQI)


Criteria

Method Blank 1/batch No analytes ≥QL



performance or loading issues. If instrument is acceptable then

re-prep and reanalyze samples. See note3

Analyst or QA Manager Accuracy No analytes ≥QL




Matrix Soil


Analytical Method /

SOP Reference

EPA 6020/ DV-MT-0018


Method / SOP QC

Acceptance Limits

Corrective Action


for Corrective

Action

Data Quality

Indicator (DQI)


Criteria

LCS 1/batch DoD QSM v. 4.1-specified

limits



performance or loading issues. If instrument is acceptable then

re-prep and reanalyze samples.

Analyst or QA Manager Accuracy DoD QSM v. 4.1-

specified limits

Post-digestion Spike As specified in DoD QSM 4.1

75%-125% Narrate possible reasons.

Analyst or QA Manager Accuracy 75%-125%

Serial Dilution 1/batch

≤10% for analytes with concentration

>50x IDL

Narrate possible reasons.

Analyst or QA Manager Accuracy

≤10% for analytes with concentration

>50x QL

Interference Check Solution (ICS-A and

ICS-AB)

At the beginning of

an analytical run and every 12

hour

ICS-A: Absolute value

of concentration

for all non-spiked

analytes ≥ MDL

ICS-AB: Within ± 20% of true

value.

Terminate analysis;

reanalyze ICS, and all

associated samples.


ICS-A: Absolute value of

concentration for all non-spiked

analytes ≥ MDLICS-AB: Within ±

20% of true value.




Matrix Soil


Analytical Method /

SOP Reference

EPA 6020/ DV-MT-0018


Method / SOP QC

Acceptance Limits

Corrective Action


for Corrective

Action

Data Quality

Indicator (DQI)


Criteria

Method of Standard Additions (MSA)

When matrix

interference is

confirmed.

NA NA Analyst Accuracy NA

MS/MSD 1/batch

75%-125% spike recovery,

and ≤20% RPD between

MS/MSD results

Evaluate in consideration of LCS results. If

LCS is acceptable then

narrate indication of

matrix effects in MS present


75%-125% spike recovery, and ≤20% RPD

between MS/MSD results





Matrix Soil


Analytical Method/SOP Reference EPA 8270D/DV-MS-0011

QC Sample

Frequency/ Number1

Method/SOP QC Acceptance Limits

Corrective Action

Person(s) Responsible for Corrective Action

Data Quality Indicator (DQI)


Method Blank 1/batch No analytes ≥

½ QL



performance or loading issues. If instrument is ok then re-prep and reanalyze

samples. See Note a.

Analyst or QA Manager Accuracy No analytes ≥ ½

QL

LCS 1/batch DoD QSM v 4.1 specified limits



performance or loading issues. If instrument is ok the re-prep and reanalyze

samples.

Analyst or QA Manager Accuracy DoD QSM v 4.1

specified limits




Matrix Soil


Analytical Method/SOP Reference EPA 8270D/DV-MS-0011

QC Sample

Frequency/ Number1

Method/SOP QC Acceptance Limits

Corrective Action

Person(s) Responsible for Corrective Action

Data Quality Indicator (DQI)


Surrogate

All environmental and laboratory samples

DoD QSM v 4.1 specified limits

Reanalyze once to confirm matrix interference



Internal Standard

All environmental and laboratory samples





MS/MSD 1/batch DoD QSM v 4.1 specified limits

Evaluate in consideration of LCS results. If LCS is acceptable then narrate indication of matrix effects in MS/MSD present.

Analyst or QA Manager

Accuracy, Precision






Matrix Soil


Analytical

Method/SOP

Reference

NWTPH-dx/

TA-GS-0339

QC Sample

Frequency/ Number1

Method/SOP QC

Acceptance Limits

Corrective Action


for Corrective

Action

Data Quality

Indicator (DQI)


Criteria

Method Blank

1/batch No analytes ≥½ QL

Reanalyze with all associated samples if there are suspect

instrument performance or loading issues.

If instrument is ok then re-prep and

reanalyze samples.


Accuracy No analytes ≥½

QL

LCS 1/batch Laboratory

specified limits (Appendix F-1)

Reanalyze with all associated samples if there are suspect

instrument performance or loading issues.

If instrument is ok the re-prep and

reanalyze samples.


Accuracy Laboratory





Matrix Soil


Analytical

Method/SOP

Reference

NWTPH-dx/

TA-GS-0339

QC Sample

Frequency/ Number1

Method/SOP QC

Acceptance Limits

Corrective Action


for Corrective

Action

Data Quality

Indicator (DQI)


Criteria

Surrogate

All environmental and laboratory

samples

50%-150%

Method specified limits



Accuracy

50%-150%

Method specified limits

MS/MSD 1/batch Laboratory


Evaluate in consideration of LCS

results. If LCS is acceptable then

narrate indication of matrix effects in

MS/MSD present.


Accuracy, Precision

Laboratory specified limits (Appendix F-1)




QAPP Worksheet #29 – Project Documents and Records Table

Sample Collection

Documents and Records

On-site Analysis

Documents and Records

Off-site Analysis Documents and Records

Data Assessment Documents and

Records

Geophysical QC and Data Collection Forms Other

• Field logbooks

• Chain-of-custody forms

• Sample labels

• Shipping records

• Variance Request Forms

• Field logbooks

• Chain-of-custody forms

• Variance Request Forms

• Laboratory sample receipt logs

• Chain-of-custody form • Standard traceability logs • Instrument calibration logs • Instrument maintenance

logs • Sample preparation

worksheets/logs • Sample analysis

worksheets/run logs • Chromatograms/raw

data/instrument printouts • Sample results/Form Is • QC sample results • Telephone/email logs • Corrective action

documentation

• Laboratory data review checklists

• Corrective action documentation

• Data validation report

• Hand-Held Magnetometer / Metal-Detector Function Check Sheet

• Hand-Held GPS Function Check Sheet

• Telephone/email logs

• Corrective action documentation

• Photographs



QAPP Worksheet #30 – Analytical Services Table


Sample Location/ID Numbers

Analytical SOP

Data Package Turnaround

Time

Laboratory/Organization(Name and Address, Contact Person and Telephone Number)

Backup Laboratory/Organization

(Name and Address, Contact Person and Telephone Number)

Soil Metals, Explosives, VOCs, and PAH

East MRS, East MRS Burial Pit, Sunrise

EPA Methods 6020, 7471, 8330A, 8330B,8270C and 8260B

21 Days

TA-Denver Brett VanDelinder 4955 Yarrow Street Arvada, CO 80002 303.736.0100

NA

TPH NWTPH-dx TA-Tacoma Terri Torries 5755 8th Street East Tacoma, WA 98424 253.922.2310

NA

Groundwater VOCs, Explosives, and Perchlorate,

Monitoring Wells MW1 thru MW8

EPA Methods 8260B, 8330, and 6860,

21 Days

TA-Denver Brett VanDelinder 4955 Yarrow Street Arvada, CO 80002 303.736.0100

NA

TPH NWTPH-HCID TA-Tacoma Terri Torries 5755 8th Street East Tacoma, WA 98424 253.922.2310

NA



QAPP Worksheet #31 – Planned Project Assessments Table

Assessment Type Frequency

Internal or

External

Organization Performing Assessment

Person(s) responsible for

Performing Assessment

Person(s) Responsible for Responding to Assessment

findings

Person(s) Responsible for Identifying and Implementing



for Monitoring Effectiveness

of CA

Operational Readiness Review

Prior to commencement of field program and prior to initiating major phases of work

Internal AMEC Scott Kranz, AMEC Project Manager

AMEC’s Project Manager/Lead



Laboratory Technical Systems/ Performance Audits

As needed External AMEC AMEC Project Lead or MC Field Manager

TA-Denver and Tacoma Quality Managers

TA-Denver and Tacoma Quality Manager

TA-Denver and Tacoma Quality Managers and AMEC Project Lead

On-site Readiness Assessment

Prior to initiation of field activities

Internal AMEC AMEC MC Field Manager

AMEC Project Lead or designee

AMEC Project Lead or designee

AMEC’s Project Manger and/or the AMEC MC Field Manager



QAPP Worksheet #32 – Assessment Findings and Corrective Action Responses

Assessment Type

Nature of Deficiencies

Documentation

Individual(s) Notified of Findings

(Name, Title, Organization)

Time frame of Notification

Nature of Corrective Action Response Documentation

Individual(s) Receiving Corrective

Action Response (Name, Title, Organization)

Time frame for Response

Operational Readiness Review

Checklist or logbook entry

Scott Kranz, AMEC Project Lead

Immediately to within 24 hours of review

Checklist or logbook entry

TBD, AMEC MC Field Manager and/or Scott Kranz, AMEC Project Lead

Immediately to within 24 hours of review

Field Observations/ Deviations from Technical Management Plan

Logbook or Field Change Request


Immediately to within 24 hours of deviation

Logbook or Field Change Request


Immediately to within 24 hours of deviation

Laboratory Technical Systems/ Performance Audits

E-mail followed by deficiency report

Danille Jorgensen, AMEC Project Chemist

ASAP after identification

Corrective Action Report

Danille Jorgensen, AMEC Project Chemist

Within 14 days of notification to contractor



QAPP Worksheet #33 – QA Management Reports Table

Type of Report Frequency (daily, weekly,

monthly, quarterly, annually, etc.)

Projected Delivery Dates(s)

Person(s) Responsible for Report Preparation (Title and

Organizational Affiliation) Report Recipient(s) (Title and

Organizational Affiliation)

Data validation report As performed

Up to 15 business days after receipt of data package

Breanna O’Connell, AMEC AMEC QA Manager, Contents summarized in SI Report

Variance Request Form As required per variance/field change

Prior to field change if feasible

Scott Kranz, AMEC Project Lead Contents summarized in SI Report



QAPP Worksheet #34 – Verification (Step I) Process Table

Verification Input Description Internal/External Responsible for Verification

(Name, Organization)

Field logbooks Field notes will be reviewed periodically to determine completeness, appropriateness, ease of understanding, etc., of information recorded. Logbooks will be placed in the project files.

Internal AMEC RI/SI Lead or designee

Chain-of-custody forms

Chain-of-custody forms will be reviewed against the samples packed in the specific cooler prior to shipment. Original chain-of-custody forms will be sent with the samples to the laboratory, while a copy is retained for the project files.

Internal AMEC RI/SI Lead or designee

Sample receipt and log-ins

Sample receipt and log-in summaries will be reviewed to determine potential receipt issues that may impact data quality and for consistency with the chain-of-custody forms.

Internal/ External TA-Denver and AMEC RI/SI Lead (or designee)

Laboratory analytical data package prior to release

Data packages will be reviewed/verified internally by the laboratory performing the work for completeness and technical accuracy prior to submittal.

External TA-Denver and TA-Tacoma

Laboratory analytical data package

All data packages will be verified by AMEC chemists. The data validation strategy for this project is 10% Level IV data validation and 90% Level III data validation for all laboratory data, excluding waste samples. In Level III data validation, data quality is assessed evaluating parameters by the appropriate criteria (or limits) specified in Worksheets #12, #19, and #28 of the project QAPP, CLP requirements, or the analytical methods. If calculations for quantitation are verified, it is done on a limited basis and may require raw data in addition to the standard data forms normally present in a data package. Level IV data validation follows the EPA protocols and CLP criteria set forth in the National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Data Review (EPA 2010) and National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund

Internal Breanna O’Connell, AMEC



QAPP Worksheet #34 Continued – Verification (Step I) Process Table

Verification Input Description Internal/External Responsible for Verification


Laboratory analytical data package continued.

Data Review (EPA 2008). Level IV data validation consists of Level III data validation as well as checking calculations of quantified analytical data including routine field samples and field and laboratory QC samples. Additionally, instrument performance, calibration, and calibration standard data are evaluated to ensure that detection limits and data values are appropriate.

Data validation report

Data validation reports will be reviewed by the AMEC Project Lead.

Internal AMEC Project Lead or designee

Electronic data Electronic laboratory data and field data will be reviewed for consistency with the hardcopy information.


Data validation report The validated analytical results will be compiled in a tabulated summary. Entries will be reviewed/verified against hardcopy information.




QAPP Worksheet #35 – Validation (Steps IIa and IIb) Process Table

Step IIa/IIb Verification Input Description Responsible for Verification


IIa Data Deliverables and QAPP

Ensure that all required information on sampling and analysis from Step I was provided (including planning documents).

Data Validator- Breanna O’Connell/AMEC

IIa Analytes

Ensure that required lists of analytes were reported as specified in governing documents (i.e., method, procedure, or contract).


IIa Chain-of-Custody

Examine the traceability of the data from time of sample collection until reporting of data. Examine chain-of-custody records against contract, method, or procedural requirements.


IIa Holding Times

Ensure that samples were analyzed within holding times specified in method, procedure, or contract requirements (Worksheet #19). If holding times were not met, confirm that deviations were documented, that appropriate notifications were made (consistent with procedural requirements), and that approval to proceed was received prior to analysis.


IIa Sample Handling

Ensure that required sample handling, receipt, and storage procedures were followed, and that any deviations were documented.




QAPP Worksheet #35 Continued– Validation (Steps IIa and IIb) Process Table



IIa Sampling Methods and Procedures

Establish that required sampling methods were used and that any deviations were noted. Ensure that the sampling procedures and field measurements met performance criteria and that any deviations were documented.


IIa Field Transcription Authenticate transcription accuracy of sampling data (i.e., from field notebook to reports).

Project Chemist – Danille Jorgensen/AMEC

IIa Analytical Methods and Procedures

Establish that required analytical methods were used and that any deviations were noted. Ensure that the QC samples met performance criteria and that any deviations were documented.


IIa Data Qualifiers

Determine that the laboratory data qualifiers were defined and applied as specified in methods, procedures, or contracts.


IIa Laboratory Transcription

Authenticate accuracy of the transcription of analytical data (i.e., laboratory notebook to reporting form, or instrument to Laboratory Information Management System [LIMS]).


IIa Standards Determine that standards meet contract, method, or procedural requirements.







IIa Communication Establish that field or laboratory personnel followed required communication procedures.

Project Chemist - Danille Jorgensen/AMEC

IIa Audits

Review laboratory audit reports, accreditation, and certification records for the laboratory’s performance on specific methods.


IIa Step IIa Validation Report

Summarize deviations from methods, procedures, or contracts. Include qualified data and explanation of all data qualifiers.


IIb Data Deliverables and QAPP Ensure that the data deliverables from Step IIa were provided.


IIb Deviations

Determine the impacts of any deviations from sampling or analytical methods and SOPs. For example, confirm that the methods given in the QAPP were used and, if they were not, determine if data still meet MPCs. Consider the effectiveness and appropriateness of any corrective action.


IIb Sampling Plan

Determine whether the sampling plan was executed as specified (i.e., the number, location, and type of field samples were collected, and analyzed as specified in the QAPP).







IIb Sampling Procedures

Evaluate whether sampling procedures were followed with respect to equipment and proper sampling support (e.g., techniques, equipment, decontamination, volume, temperature, preservatives, etc.).


IIb Field Duplicates Compare results of collocated field duplicates with criteria established in the QAPP.


IIb Project Quantitation Limits

Determine that quantitation limits were achieved, as outlined in the QAPP and that the laboratory successfully analyzed a standard at the QL.


IIb Confirmatory Analysis Evaluate agreement of laboratory results.


IIb Performance Criteria

Evaluate QC data against project-specific performance criteria in the QAPP (i.e., evaluate quality parameters beyond those outlined in the methods).


IIb Data Qualifiers

Determine that the data qualifiers applied in step IIa were those specified in the QAPP and that any deviations from specifications were justified.


IIb Step IIb Validation Report

Summarize outcome of comparison of data to MPC in the QAPP. Include qualified data and explanation of all data qualifiers.




QAPP Worksheet #36 – Analytical Data Validation (Steps IIa and IIb) Summary

AMEC chemists will perform validation on the data associated with this QAPP. With the exception of waste extent samples, data will be validated at 90 % EPA Level III and 10 % EPA Level IV. Samples will be selected for Level III and Level IV validation on a per method basis (i.e.: 1 sample per 10 samples analyzed for a method) to ensure all methods are appropriately validated. Preferably, entire SDGs or analytical batches will be chosen for Level IV validation to ensure efficiency. Data validation will be performed in accordance with the DoD Quality System Manual, and patterned after the EPA CLP National Functional Guidelines (NFGs) for Superfund Organic and Inorganic Data Review (EPA 2008, 2010), and QC criteria specified in this document.

For Level III data validation, data quality will be assessed by comparing the QC parameters to the appropriate criteria (or limits) as specified in this QAPP. Verification of quantitation calculations may be performed on a limited basis and may require raw data in addition to the standard data forms.

Level IV (full) data validation follows the EPA protocols and CLP criteria as set forth in the functional guidelines for evaluating organic (EPA 2008) and inorganic (EPA 2010) analyses. These guidelines apply to full data packages that include raw data (e.g., instrument spectra and chromatograms), backup documentation for calibration standards, analysis run logs, dilution factors, and additional information necessary to check calculations for quantified analytical data. Calculations are checked for QC samples (e.g., MS/MSD and LCS data) and routine field samples (including field duplicates, field blanks, and equipment blanks). To assure that detection limits and data values are appropriate, an instrument performance, method of calibration, and calibration standards are evaluated.

Analytical data may be qualified based on data validation reviews. Qualifiers will be consistent with the applicable EPA National Functional Guidelines, and will be used to provide data users with an estimate of the level of uncertainty associated with the qualified result.

Data validation results will be evaluated with respect to the attached qualifiers to determine data usability issues, if any. The following qualifiers may be assigned during the validation process.

J – estimated concentration

R – rejected value (unusable)

N – presumed identity

U – not detected (e.g., not present based on blank contamination)

UJ – sample detection limit is estimated.

Data validation will be patterned after CLP National Functional Guidelines (NFG). The objectives, evaluations, and actions employed during the data validation process will follow those outlined in the NFG. Differences between NFG and project validation procedures will include review items and data validation criteria. The laboratory will be permitted to provide CLP-like forms in lieu of true CLP forms. The data validation criteria will not adhere to NFG but will be based on method criteria for preservation, holding times, instrument tuning, calibration, instrument performance checks, internal standard responses, serial dilutions, and target compound identification; laboratory-specified criteria for surrogate, laboratory control samples, laboratory duplicates, and matrix spikes; and the validator’s professional judgment.



QAPP Worksheet #36 – Analytical Data Validation (Steps IIa and IIb) Summary

Step IIa/IIb Matrix Analytical Group

Concentration Level

Validation Criteria

Data Validator (title and organizational affiliation

IIa/IIb Soil Metals Medium SW-846 Method 6020/7471; DoD QSM v.1 (DoD 2009)

IIa: Breanna O’Connell, Data Validator, AMEC IIb: Danille Jorgensen, Project Chemist, AMEC

IIa/IIb Soil Explosives Medium SW-846 Method 8330A;

DoD QSM v.1 (DoD 2009)


IIa/IIb Soil PAHs Medium SW-846 Method 8270C;



IIa/IIb Soil VOCs Low

SW-846 Method 8260B;



IIa/IIb Soil VOCs Low Method NWTPH-dx


IIa/IIb Groundwater VOCs Low

SW-846 Method 8260B;



IIa/IIb Groundwater Explosives Low SW-846 Method 8330B;





Step IIa/IIb Matrix Analytical Group

Concentration Level

Validation Criteria

Data Validator (title and organizational affiliation

IIa/IIb Groundwater Perchlorate Low SW-846 Method 6860;



IIa/IIb Groundwater TPH Low Method NWTPH-HCID




QAPP Worksheet #37 – Usability Assessment

A data usability report will be prepared by AMEC incorporating the findings of the data validation effort, evaluation of the data against the DQOs specified in this QAPP, and other supporting information. Analytical DQOs will be assessed through application of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability (PARCC) parameters to ensure that the data are of sufficient quality to meet the project objectives. Data validation reports will be reviewed and assessed for meeting DQOs. The project chemist will review the data validation reports for any deviations. This assessment will evaluate data on a matrix-specific, analyte-specific and location-specific basis. The potential impact of any sampling discrepancies or data qualifications (rejected, nondetected, estimated) on the remedial actions will be discussed. Recommendations for further actions will be provided, if necessary and appropriate. The project chemist will prepare a data quality assessment report that will summarize the findings of the data assessment and discuss the usability of the data to be included in the report.

Elements that will be addressed in the usability report include, but are not limited to:

● Compliance of sampling methods with the FSP ● Completeness of sampling effort ● Potential sampling error ● Compliance of analyses with FSP methods and QC requirements ● Completeness of laboratory analyses ● Potential analytical error ● Corrective actions and resolutions ● Validation findings ● Measurement performance criteria ● Remedial options

The following subsections describe each of the PARCC parameters and how they will be assessed within this project.

Precision Precision is the degree of mutual agreement between individual measurements of the same property under similar conditions. Usually, combined field and laboratory precision is evaluated by collecting and analyzing field duplicates and then calculating the variance between the samples, typically as an RPD.

Where:

A = First duplicate concentration

B = Second duplicate concentration

1002/)(×

+

−=

BABA

RPD



QAPP Worksheet #37 Continued– Usability Assessment

Field sampling precision is evaluated by analyzing field duplicate samples. Field duplicates will be collected and analyzed at a frequency of ten percent for groundwater and vapor samples. Laboratory analytical precision is evaluated by analyzing laboratory duplicates or matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD). MS/MSD samples will be generated for all analytes for this project. The results of the analysis of each MS/MSD pair will be used to calculate an RPD for evaluating precision.

Accuracy Field accuracy will be assessed by collecting and analyzing equipment rinsate, trip blank, and source water blank QC samples as appropriate. These QC samples will be used to evaluate the potential for target analytes to enter samples as a result of sampling processes.

A program of sample spiking will be conducted to evaluate laboratory accuracy. This program includes analysis of the MS and MSD samples, LCSs or blank spikes, surrogate standards, and method blanks. MS and MSD samples will be prepared and analyzed at a frequency of 5 % for groundwater samples. LCS or blank spikes are also analyzed at a frequency of 5 %. Surrogate standards, where applicable, are added to every sample analyzed for organic constituents. The results of the spiked samples are used to calculate the % recovery for evaluating accuracy.

Where:

S = Measured spike sample concentration

C = Sample concentration

T = True or actual concentration of the spike

Results that fall outside the accuracy goals will be further evaluated based on the results of other QC samples.

Representativeness Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represent the characteristics of a population, variations in a parameter at a sampling point, or an environmental condition that they are intended to represent. Representative data will be obtained for this project through careful selection of sampling locations and analytical parameters. Representative data will also be obtained through proper collection and handling of samples to avoid interference and minimize contamination.

Representativeness of data will also be ensured through the consistent application of established field and laboratory procedures. Field blanks (if appropriate) and laboratory blank samples will be evaluated for the presence of contaminants to aid in evaluating the representativeness of sample results. Data determined to be nonrepresentative, by comparison with existing data, will be used only if accompanied by appropriate qualifiers and limits of uncertainty.

100% ×−

=T

CSR




Completeness Completeness is a measure of the percentage of project-specific data that are valid. Valid data are obtained when samples are collected and analyzed in accordance with QC procedures outlined in this QAPP, and when none of the QC criteria that affect data usability is exceeded. When all data validation is completed, the number of valid results divided by the number of possible individual analyte results, expressed as a percentage, determines the completeness of the data set. For completeness requirements, valid results are all results not qualified with a rejected (R) flag. The requirement of completeness is 95 % for samples and is determined using the following equation:

Completeness will also be evaluated as part of the data quality assessment process. This evaluation will help determine whether any limitations are associated with the decisions to be made based on the data collected.

Comparability Comparability expresses the confidence with which one data set can be compared with another. Comparability of data will be achieved by consistently following standard field and laboratory procedures and by using standard measurement units in reporting analytical data.

Assessment activities are presented below.

results possible ofnumber results analyte validofnumber 100% ×=ssCompletene




Table 37-1. Usability Assessment Activities

Item Assessment Activity

Person Responsible for Activity

Data Deliverables and FSP

Ensure that all necessary information was provided, including but not limited to validation results. Danille Jorgensen, AMEC

Deviations Determine the impact of deviations on the usability of data. Danille Jorgensen, AMEC

Sampling Locations Determine if alterations to sample locations continue to satisfy the project objectives. Scott Kranz, AMEC

Chain-of-Custody Establish that any problems with documentation or custody procedures do not prevent the data from being used for the intended purpose.

Danille Jorgensen, AMEC

Holding Times Determine the acceptability of data where holding times were exceeded. Danille Jorgensen, AMEC

Damaged Samples Determine whether the data from damaged samples are usable. If the data cannot be used, determine whether resampling is necessary.


SOPs and Methods Evaluate the impact of deviations from SOPs and specified methods on data quality. Danille Jorgensen, AMEC

QC Samples Evaluate the implications of unacceptable QC sample results on the data usability for the associated samples. For example, consider the effects of observed blank contamination.


Matrix Evaluate matrix effects (interference or bias). Danille Jorgensen, AMEC

Meteorological Data and Site Conditions

Evaluate matrix effects (interference or bias). Danille Jorgensen, AMEC

Comparability Evaluate the possible effects of meteorological (e.g., wind, rain, temperature) and site conditions on sample results. Review field reports to identify whether any unusual conditions were present and how the sampling plan was executed.


Completeness Evaluate the impact of missing information. Ensure that enough information was obtained for the data to be usable (completeness as defined in PQOs documented in the FSP).





Table 37-1. Usability Assessment Activities

Item Assessment Activity

Person Responsible for Activity

Critical Samples

Establish that critical samples and critical target analytes/COCs, as defined in the QAPP, were collected and analyzed. Determine if the results meet criteria specified in the QAPP.


Data Restrictions

Describe the exact process for handling data that do not meet PQOs (i.e., when measurement performance criteria are not met). Depending on how those data will be used, specify the restrictions on use of those data for environmental decision-making.


Usability Decision

Determine if the data can be used to make a specific decision considering the implications of all deviations and corrective actions.


Usability Report

Discuss and compare overall precision, accuracy/bias, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity for each matrix, analytical group, and concentration level. Describe limitations on the use of project data if criteria for data quality indicators are not met.


Uniform Federal Policy - Quality Assurance Project Plan SI … · · 2013-05-20Quality Assurance...

Documents

Transcript of Uniform Federal Policy - Quality Assurance Project Plan SI … · · 2013-05-20Quality Assurance...