Appendix B Final 2011 Quality Assurance Project Plan · Final 2011 Quality Assurance Project Plan East Harbor Operable Unit Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site September 21, 2011

Appendix B Final 2011 Quality Assurance Project Plan

Final

2011 Quality Assurance Project Plan East Harbor Operable Unit

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site

September 21, 2011

Prepared for:

US Environmental Protection Agency

Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101

US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District

2735 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98124

Prepared by:

HDR Engineering, Inc. 626 Columbia Street NW,

Suite 2A Olympia, WA 98501

Science and Engineering for the Environment, LLC

4401 Latona Ave NE Seattle, WA 98105

Ken Taylor Associates, Inc. 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, Washington 98104

Cross-Walk with EPA Requirements

CROSS‐WALK WITH EPA QAPP REQUIREMENTS

Preparers: HDR, SEE, KTA Date Submitted: September 21, 2011

ELEMENT DOCUMENT SECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Contains project title Quality Assurance Project Plan Cover Page

Indicates revision number, if applicable Quality Assurance Project Plan Not yet applicable

Indicates organization’s name Quality Assurance Project Plan Title Page

Dated signature of organization’s project manager

presentQuality Assurance Project Plan Approval and Title Sheet

Dated signature of organization’s QA manager present Quality Assurance Project Plan Approval and Title Sheet

Other signatures, as needed Quality Assurance Project Plan Approval and Title Sheet

Lists QA Project Plan information sections Quality Assurance Project Plan Table of Contents

Document control information indicated Quality Assurance Project Plan Footers show final

Includes all individuals who are to receive a copy of the

QA Project Plan and identifies their organizationProject Management Plan Section 1.2, Table PMP‐1

Identifies key individuals involved in all major aspects of

the project, including contractors

Project Management Plan

Field Sampling Plan

Analytical Quality Assurance Plan

PMP Section 1.3, Table PMP‐2

FSP Section 3.0

AQAP Section 2.0, Table AQAP‐1

Discusses their responsibilities


Field Sampling Plan



FSP Section 3.0

AQAP Section 2.0, Table AQAP‐1

Project QA Manager position indicates independence

from unit generating dataProject Management Plan PMP Section 1.3, Table PMP‐2, Figure PMP‐1

Identifies individual responsible for maintaining the

official, approved QA Project PlanProject Management Plan PMP Section 1.3, Table PMP‐2

Organizational chart shows lines of authority and

reporting responsibilitiesProject Management Plan PMP Section 1.3, Figure PMP‐1

States decision(s) to be made, actions to be taken, or

outcomes expected from the information to be obtained

Work Plan (OMMP)


2011 OMMP Addendum, Section 2, Table 1


Clearly explains the reason (site background or historical

context) for initiating this project

Work Plan (OMMP)


2011 OMMP Addendum, Section 1.0

PMP Section 2.1

Identifies regulatory information, applicable criteria,

action limits, etc. necessary to the projectProject Management Plan PMP Section 2.4, Tables PMP‐5, 6,and 7

Summarizes work to be performed, for example,

measurements to be made, data files to be obtained,

etc., that support the project’s goals


Field Sampling Plan


PMP Section 2.3

FSP Section 5.0

AQAP Section 3.0

Provides work schedule indicating critical project points,

e.g., start and completion dates for activities such as

sampling, analysis, data or file reviews, and assessments


Field Sampling Plan


FSP Section 4.0

Details geographical locations to be studied, including

maps where possible

Work Plan (OMMP)


Field Sampling Plan

2011 OMMP Addendum, Tables 1‐5, 7 ‐ 9

PMP Section 1.3, Figure PMP‐2

FSP Tables 1‐8, 11

Discusses resource and time constraints, if applicable Field Sampling Plan FSP Section 4.0

A3. Distribution List

PROJECT TITLE: 2011 Quality Assurance Project Plan

Monitoring Year 17, East Harbor Operable Unit


A5. Problem Definition/Background

A4. Project/Task Organization

A2. Table of Contents

A1. Title and Approval Sheet

A6. Project/Task Description







Identifies performance/measurement criteria for all

information to be collected and acceptance criteria for

information obtained from previous studies, including

project action limits and laboratory detection limits and

range of anticipated concentrations of each parameter

of interest

Analytical Quality Assurance PlanTables AQAP‐3 through AQAP‐4

Tables AQAP‐6 through AQAP‐10

Discusses precision Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 8.1

Addresses bias Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 8.2 (as accuracy)

Discusses representativeness Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 8.3

Identifies the need for completeness Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 8.5

Describes the need for comparability Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 8.4

Discusses desired method sensitivity Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 8.6

Identifies any project personnel specialized training or

certifications


Health and Safety Plan

PMP Section 3.0

HSP Appendix D (certificates)

Discusses how this training will be providedProject Management Plan


PMP Section 3.0

HSP Section 6.1.2

Indicates personnel responsible for assuring these are

satisfied



PMP Section 3.0

HSP Section 6.1.2

Identifies where this information is documentedProject Management Plan


PMP Section 3.0

HSP Appendix E

Identifies report format and summarizes all data report

package informationProject Management Plan PMP Section 4.4

Lists all other project documents, records, and electronic

files that will be producedProject Management Plan PMP Section 4.4

Identifies where project information should be kept and

for how longProject Management Plan PMP Section 4.4

Discusses back up plans for records stored electronically Project Management Plan PMP Section 4.4

States how individuals identified in A3 will receive the

most current copy of the approved QA Project Plan,

identifying the individual responsible for this

Project Management Plan PMP Section 4.4

Describes and justifies design strategy, indicating size of

the area, volume, or time period to be represented by a

sample

Work Plan (OMMP)

Field Sampling Plan

Details the type and total number of sample

types/matrix or test runs/trials expected and needed

Field Sampling Plan


FSP Table FSP‐2

AQAP Table AQAP‐2

Indicates where samples should be taken, how sites will

be identified/locatedField Sampling Plan

FSP Section 5.1

FSP Table FSP‐1

Discusses what to do if sampling sites become

inaccessible

Identifies project activity schedules such as each

sampling event, times samples should be sent to the

laboratory, etc.

Field Sampling Plan FSP Table FSP‐3

Specifies what information is critical and what is for

informational purposes only

Identifies sources of variability and how this variability

should be reconciled with project information



PMP Section 4.4.2

AQAP Section 8.0; Tables AQAP‐6 to AQAP‐9

Not applicable

A.9 Documentation and Records

A8. Special Training/Certifications

A7. Quality Objectives and Criteria

DATA GENERATION and ACQUISITION

B1. Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design)

Not applicable







Identifies all sampling SOPs by number, date, and

regulatory citation, indicating sampling options or

modifications to be taken

Field Sampling Plan


FSP ‐ operating procedures embedded in text

AQAP Section 3.3

Indicates how each sample/matrix type should be

collectedField Sampling Plan FSP Sections 5.2 ‐ 5.6

If in situ monitoring, indicates how instruments should

be deployed and operated to avoid contamination and

ensure maintenance of proper data

If continuous monitoring, indicates averaging time and

how instruments should store and maintain raw data, or

data averages

Indicates how samples are to be homogenized,

composited, split, or filtered, if neededField Sampling Plan FSP Sections 5.2 ‐ 5.6

Indicates what sample containers and sample volumes

should be used

Field Sampling Plan


FSP Table FSP‐2

AQAP Table AQAP‐10

Identifies whether samples should be preserved and

indicates methods that should be followed

Field Sampling Plan


FSP Table FSP‐6


Indicates whether sampling equipment and samplers

should be cleaned and/or decontaminated, identifying

how this should be done and by‐products disposed of

Field Sampling Plan

Investigation‐Derived Waste Plan

FSP Section 5.2 ‐ 5.4

FSP Section 8.0

IDWP Table IDWP‐4

Identifies any equipment and support facilities neededField Sampling Plan


FSP Sections 5.2 ‐ 5.6

AQAPP Section 7.0

Addresses actions to be taken when problems occur,

identifying individual(s) responsible for corrective action

and how this should be documented

Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 10.0

States maximum holding times allowed from sample

collection to extraction and/or analysis for each sample

type and, for in‐situ or continuous monitoring, the

maximum time before retrieval of information

Field Sampling Plan


FSP Table FSP‐6


Identifies how samples or information should be

physically handled, transported, and then received and

held in the laboratory or office (including temperature

upon receipt)

Field Sampling Plan


FSP Section 7.0

AQAP Section 4.0

AQAP Section 5.2

Indicates how sample or information handling and

custody information should be documented, such as in

field notebooks and forms, identifying individual

responsible

Field Sampling Plan

Analytical Quality Assurance PlanFSP Section 6.0

Discusses system for identifying samples, for example,

numbering system, sample tags and labels, and attaches

forms to the plan

Field Sampling Plan FSP Section 6.3

Identifies chain‐of‐custody procedures and includes form

to track custody

Field Sampling Plan


FSP Section 6.4

AQAP Section 5.2; AQAP Appendix C

Identifies all analytical SOPs (field, laboratory and/or

office) that should be followed by number, date, and

regulatory citation, indicating options or modifications

to be taken, such as sub‐sampling and extraction

procedures


Identifies equipment or instrumentation needed Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Table AQAP‐5

Specifies any specific method performance criteria Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Tables AQAP‐5 through AQAP‐9

B3. Sample Handling and Custody

Not applicable

Not applicable

B4. Analytical Methods

B2. Sampling Methods







Identifies procedures to follow when failures occur,

identifying individual responsible for corrective action

and appropriate documentation


Identifies sample disposal procedures Investigative Derived Waste Plan IDWP Section 4.3

Specifies laboratory turnaround times needed Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 11.1.1

Provides method validation information and SOPs for

nonstandard methods

For each type of sampling, analysis, or measurement

technique, identifies QC activities which should be used,

for example, blanks, spikes, duplicates, etc., and at what

frequency

Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Tables AQAP‐11 and AQAP‐12

Details what should be done when control limits are

exceeded, and how effectiveness of control actions will

be determined and documented

Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Sections 10.2 and 10.3

Identifies procedures and formulas for calculating

applicable QC statistics, for example, for precision, bias,

outliers and missing data


Identifies field and laboratory equipment needing

periodic maintenance, and the schedule for thisAnalytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 9.0

Identifies testing criteria Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 9.0

Notes availability and location of spare parts

Indicates procedures in place for inspecting equipment

before usageAnalytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 9.0

Identifies individual(s) responsible for testing, inspection

and maintenanceAnalytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 9.0

Indicates how deficiencies found should be resolved, re‐

inspections performed, and effectiveness of corrective

action determined and documented


Identifies equipment, tools, and instruments that should

be calibrated and the frequency for this calibrationAnalytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 7.0

Describes how calibrations should be performed and

documented, indicating test criteria and standards or

certified equipment


Identifies how deficiencies should be resolved and

documentedAnalytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 7.0

Identifies critical supplies and consumables for field and

laboratory, noting supply source, acceptance criteria,

and procedures for tracking, storing and retrieving these

materials

Identifies the individual(s) responsible for this

Identifies data sources, for example, computer

databases or literature files, or models that should be

accessed and used

Describes the intended use of this information and the

rationale for their selection, i.e., its relevance to project

Indicates the acceptance criteria for these data sources

and/or models

Identifies key resources/support facilities needed

Describes how limits to validity and operating conditions

should be determined, for example, internal checks of

the program and Beta testing

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

B5. Quality Control

B6. Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance

B7. Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency

Not applicable

B8. Inspection/Acceptance for Supplies and Consumables

B9. Non‐direct Measurements







Describes data management scheme from field to final

use and storage



PMP Section 4.0

AQAP Section 11.0

Discusses standard record‐keeping and tracking

practices, and the document control system or cites

other written documentation such as SOPs


Field Sampling Plan


PMP Section 4.0

FSP Section 6.0

AQAP Section 11.0

Identifies data handling equipment/procedures that

should be used to process, compile, analyze, and

transmit data reliably and accurately

Project Management Plan PMP Section 4.0

Identifies individual(s) responsible for this Project Management Plan PMP Table PMP‐2

Describes the process for data archival and retrieval Project Management Plan PMP Section 4.0

Describes procedures to demonstrate acceptability of

hardware and software configurations

Attaches checklists and forms that should be used

Lists the number, frequency, and type of assessment

activities that should be conducted, with the

approximate dates



PMP Section 4.2.2

AQAP Section 12.0

Identifies individual(s) responsible for conducting

assessments, indicating their authority to issue stop

work orders, and any other possible participants in the

assessment process



PMP Section 4.2.2

AQAP Section 12.0

Describes how and to whom assessment information

should be reported



PMP Section 4.2.2

AQAP Section 12.0

Identifies how corrective actions should be addressed

and by whom, and how they should be verified and

documented



PMP Section 4.2.2

AQAP Section 12.0

Identifies what project QA status reports are needed and

how frequentlyAnalytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 12.0

Identifies who should write these reports and who

should receive this informationAnalytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 12.0

Describes criteria that should be used for accepting,

rejecting, or qualifying project dataAnalytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 11.0

Describes process for data verification and validation,

providing SOPs and indicating what data validation

software should be used, if any


Identifies who is responsible for verifying and validating

different components of the project data/information,

for example, chain‐of‐custody forms, receipt logs,

calibration information, etc.


Identifies issue resolution process, and method and

individual responsible for conveying these results to data

users


Attaches checklists, forms, and calculations Analytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 8.0 and 11.0

Describes procedures to evaluate the uncertainty of the

validated dataAnalytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 11.0

Describes how limitations on data use should be

reported to the data usersAnalytical Quality Assurance Plan AQAP Section 11.0

C2. Reports to Management

D3. Reconciliation with User Requirements

DATA VALIDATION and USABILITY

D1. Data Review, Verification, and Validation

D2. Verification and Validation Methods

B10. Data Management

Not applicable

Electronic only ‐ EQuIS checker and ADR.net checker

ASSESSMENT and OVERSIGHT

C1. Assessments and Response Actions

KUNAS.KARL.J.1230144377

Digitally signed by KUNAS.KARL.J.1230144377 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=KUNAS.KARL.J.1230144377 Date: 2011.09.26 12:09:03 -07'00'

BACHMAN.BRENDA.M.1228894687

Digitally signed by BACHMAN.BRENDA.M.1228894687 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=BACHMAN.BRENDA.M.1228894687 Date: 2011.09.27 16:55:41 -07'00'

1

Cody, Sandy

From: Morson, Barbara J.Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 9:41 AMTo: Winters, NancySubject: FW: Fw: QAPP Signature Page - Wyckoff OMMP

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Kunas, Karl J NWS [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 10:14 AM To: Morson, Barbara J.; Bachman, Brenda M NWS Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: FW: Fw: QAPP Signature Page ‐ Wyckoff OMMP Brenda, Barb; Please consider the Wyckoff OMMP QAPP approved. Don & Howard confirmation below. We should have PDF on Monday. Thanks. Thanks, Howard, Justine, Don. v/r, Karl J. Kunas, P.E. Program & Project Manager ‐ US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District (206) 764‐3448 [email protected] ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 10:09 AM To: Kunas, Karl J NWS Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Fw: QAPP Signature Page ‐ Wyckoff OMMP Karl; I am not in the office today to sign, but I can do it first thing in the morning on Monday (I get in at 7 AM). In addition, you can use this email as an approval from me. Thanks. Howard Orlean Superfund RPM Office of Environmental Cleanup US EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Ave Suite 900: M/S; ECL‐111 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206)553‐2851

2

From: Don Matheny/R10/USEPA/US To: "Kunas, Karl J NWS" <[email protected]> Cc: Justine Barton/R10/USEPA/US@EPA, Howard Orlean/R10/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 09/30/2011 10:06 AM Subject: RE: Fw: QAPP Signature Page ‐ Wyckoff OMMP Karl, I signed the approval page this morning and placed it on Howard's desk. Don Matheny Chemist, USEPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Ave Suite 900 (OEA‐095) Seattle, WA 98101‐3140 (206) 553‐2599 (206) 553‐8210 (fax) [email protected] From: "Kunas, Karl J NWS" <[email protected]> To: Justine Barton/R10/USEPA/US@EPA, Don Matheny/R10/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Howard Orlean/R10/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 09/30/2011 10:04 AM Subject: RE: Fw: QAPP Signature Page ‐ Wyckoff OMMP Justine, Don; If you could let me know when Don has reviewed/signed, I want to pass that information to HDR, and then we will all be comfortable with the Monday start. Thanks. v/r, Karl J. Kunas, P.E. Program & Project Manager ‐ US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District (206) 764‐3448 [email protected] ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 4:47 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Kunas, Karl J NWS Subject: Re: Fw: QAPP Signature Page ‐ Wyckoff OMMP YAY! Thanks Don! :) JB Justine Barton

3

US EPA Region 10, ms ETPA‐088 1200 Sixth Ave. Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101‐3140 [email protected] phone 206.553.6051 fax 206.553.6984 From: Don Matheny/R10/USEPA/US To: Justine Barton/R10/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 09/29/2011 04:36 PM Subject: Re: Fw: QAPP Signature Page ‐ Wyckoff OMMP Justine, Sure thing. I'll have it on his desk tomorrow morning. Don Matheny Chemist, USEPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Ave Suite 900 (OEA‐095) Seattle, WA 98101‐3140 (206) 553‐2599 (206) 553‐8210 (fax) [email protected] From: Justine Barton/R10/USEPA/US To: Don Matheny/R10/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 09/29/2011 04:00 PM Subject: Fw: QAPP Signature Page ‐ Wyckoff OMMP Here is the electronic copy of the signature page...I've left a hard copy on your chair to sign on Friday. Please then take it to Howard's chair (NW corner of 11th floor) so he can sign on Monday morning. Thanks! JB :) Justine Barton US EPA Region 10, ms ETPA‐088 1200 Sixth Ave. Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101‐3140 [email protected] phone 206.553.6051 fax 206.553.6984 ‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded by Justine Barton/R10/USEPA/US on 09/29/2011 03:58 PM ‐‐‐‐‐ From: "Kunas, Karl J NWS" <[email protected]> To: Justine Barton/R10/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Howard Orlean/R10/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 09/29/2011 10:10 AM Subject: FW: QAPP Signature Page ‐ Wyckoff OMMP

4

Justine, I believe Howard is out today, and I have not heard back regarding the Wyckoff OMMP QAPP signature page (message, below). Fieldwork is slated to start on Monday, so I thought I'd contact you for any insight. As it stands, the signature page requires Howard's and Don Methany's signatures. Thanks. v/r, Karl J. Kunas, P.E. Program & Project Manager ‐ US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District (206) 764‐3448 [email protected] ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Kunas, Karl J NWS Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 7:50 AM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Bachman, Brenda M NWS; Morson, Barbara J. Subject: QAPP Signature Page ‐ Wyckoff OMMP Howard, Please find attached subject PDF. Request you route/sign and forward to HDR as complete with copy to me ‐‐ or advise otherwise. Thanks. v/r, Karl J. Kunas, P.E. Program & Project Manager ‐ US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District (206) 764‐3448 [email protected] ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Kunas, Karl J NWS Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:26 PM To: 'Morson, Barbara J.'; '[email protected]' Cc: Bachman, Brenda M NWS Subject: RE: Transmittal of Final 2011 Wyckoff Eagle Harbor Quality Assurance Project Plan Barb, I have downloaded the files. I'm also having the QAPP signature page routed, and hope to have a version with mine & Brenda's e‐signatures over to EPA by mid‐week. Does anything else have Corps/EPA signatures? Thanks. Howard, If you could hold‐off signing the QAPP until you get the PDF w/ Corps' signatures, might avoid duplication. Thanks. v/r, Karl J. Kunas, P.E. Program & Project Manager ‐ US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District

5

(206) 764‐3448 [email protected] [attachment "Wyckoff OMMP QAPP_Final_sig pg_HDR‐Corps.pdf" deleted by Don Matheny/R10/USEPA/US]

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan ii Final September 21, 2011

Table of Contents Project Management Plan

1.0 Project Management Elements ........................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Distribution List ...................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Organization ............................................................................................... 1 1.4 Components of the Work Plan ................................................................................ 2 1.5 Site Terminology .................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Problem Definition/Background ......................................................................................... 5 2.1 Site Chronology ...................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Recent Site Activities .............................................................................................. 6 2.3 Project Description and Schedule for Year 17 Monitoring .................................... 6 2.4 Quality Objectives for Year 17 Monitoring ............................................................ 7

3.0 Special Training .................................................................................................................. 8 4.0 Data Reduction, Validation, Management and Reporting .................................................. 9

4.1 Data Reduction........................................................................................................ 9 4.1.1 Hand Calculations ....................................................................................... 9

4.2 Field Data .............................................................................................................. 10 4.2.1 Field Data Reduction ................................................................................ 10 4.2.2 Field Data Evaluation ............................................................................... 10

4.3 Laboratory Data .................................................................................................... 12 4.3.1 Data Evaluation ......................................................................................... 12 4.3.2 Raw Data Management ............................................................................. 13

4.4 Data Management and Reporting ......................................................................... 13 4.4.1 Database Development ............................................................................. 14 4.4.2 Data Entry, Quality Assurance and Processing ........................................ 14 4.4.3 Data Analysis and Reporting .................................................................... 15

4.5 Data Storage and Security ..................................................................................... 15 4.6 Reporting............................................................................................................... 16

5.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 17

List of Tables

PMP-1. Distribution List

PMP-2. Project Personnel and Responsibilities

PMP-3. Chronology of Events and Activities at the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, EHOU

PMP-4. Project Schedule

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan iii Final September 21, 2011

PMP-5. Area and Monitoring Objectives

PMP-6. Remedial Goals for Intertidal and Subtidal Areas

PMP-7. Washington State Sediment Standards to be used to evaluate Stations J-9 and J-10

List of Figures

PMP-1. Organizational Chart PMP-2. Aerial Photograph of the East Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Facility

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan iv Final September 21, 2011

Field Sampling Plan

1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................1 1.2 Components of the Work Plan .................................................................................1 1.3 Site Terminology .....................................................................................................3 1.4 Monitoring Elements and Tools to Address the 2011 OMMP Addendum .............4

1.4.1 Physical Stability Monitoring ......................................................................4 1.4.2 Chemical Isolation Monitoring ....................................................................4 1.4.3 Natural Recovery Monitoring ......................................................................5 1.4.4 Biological Monitoring ..................................................................................6 1.4.5 Additional Monitoring .................................................................................6

2.0 Objectives and Scope ...........................................................................................................7 2.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................7 2.2 Scope of Field Work ................................................................................................7

2.2.1 Subtidal Cap Monitoring..............................................................................8 2.2.2 Intertidal Cap Monitoring ............................................................................9 2.2.3 Exposure Barrier System Monitoring ........................................................10 2.2.4 East Beach Monitoring ..............................................................................10 2.2.5 North Shoal Monitoring .............................................................................11 2.2.6 Biological Monitoring ................................................................................11

3.0 Project Organization and Responsibilities .........................................................................12 3.1 Monitoring Personnel.............................................................................................12 3.2 Physical, Chemical, and Biological Monitoring Task Coordinators .....................12 3.3 Field Sampling Personnel ......................................................................................13

4.0 Field Project Schedule .......................................................................................................14 5.0 Field Activities ...................................................................................................................15

5.1 Navigation and Positioning ....................................................................................15 5.1.1 Rationale ....................................................................................................15 5.1.2 Procedures ..................................................................................................16

5.2 Surface Sediment Sampling ...................................................................................17 5.2.1 Rationale ....................................................................................................17 5.2.2 Procedures ..................................................................................................19

5.3 Through-cap Cores.................................................................................................23 5.3.1 Rationale ....................................................................................................23 5.3.2 Procedures ..................................................................................................25

5.4 Collection of Sediments at J-9 and J-10 ................................................................28 5.4.1 Rationale ....................................................................................................28 5.4.2 Sampling Locations ...................................................................................29 5.4.3 Procedures ..................................................................................................29 5.4.4 QA/QC, Blank Samples, and Frequency ...................................................29

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan v Final September 21, 2011

5.5 Clam Tissue Collection ..........................................................................................29 5.5.1 Rationale ....................................................................................................29 5.5.2 Sampling Locations ...................................................................................29 5.5.3 Survey Schedule .........................................................................................30 5.5.4 Survey Methods .........................................................................................30 5.5.5 Reporting....................................................................................................30

5.6 Visual Surveys .......................................................................................................30 5.6.1 Birds and Mammals ...................................................................................30 5.6.2 Invertebrates and Macroalgae ....................................................................32 5.6.3 Forage Fish.................................................................................................33

6.0 Sample Activity Documentation/Chain Of Custody Procedures .......................................40 6.1 Field Logbook ........................................................................................................40 6.2 Photographs............................................................................................................41 6.3 Sample Numbering System....................................................................................41 6.4 Sample Documentation ..........................................................................................43

6.4.1 Sample Labels ............................................................................................43 6.4.2 Chain-of-Custody Records.........................................................................43 6.4.3 Receipt of Samples ....................................................................................44

6.5 Corrections to Documentation ...............................................................................44 6.6 Data Storage and Security ......................................................................................44

7.0 Sample Packaging and Shipping ........................................................................................46 7.1 Sample Container Preparation ...............................................................................46 7.2 Sample Packaging ..................................................................................................46

7.2.1 Shipping .....................................................................................................47 8.0 Investigation-Derived Wastes ............................................................................................48 9.0 Field Data Management, Validation, and Corrective Actions ...........................................49

9.1 Field Data Management .........................................................................................49 9.2 Field Data Evaluation ............................................................................................49 9.3 Corrective Actions .................................................................................................50

10.0 References ..........................................................................................................................51

List of Tables

FSP-1. Planned Sampling Stations for Year 17 (2011) Monitoring

FSP-2. Sample Types, Sample Matrix, Number of Surface and Core Samples, and Sample Analyses

FSP-3. Projected Field Project Schedule

FSP-4. Horizontal Control Points at and around the East Harbor Operable Unit

FSP-5. Quality Assurance Quality Control Samples

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan vi Final September 21, 2011

FSP-6. Sample Type, Container, Holding Times, Preservatives, and Storage Requirements

List of Figures

FSP-1. Aerial Photograph of the East Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Facility

FSP-2. Locations of Intertidal and Subtidal Sediment Caps and Exposure Barrier System

FSP-3. Intertidal Area Designations

FSP-4. Locations of Subtidal Surface Sediment Grain Size Sampling Stations

FSP-5. Locations of Subtidal Cap Surface Sediment Chemistry Sampling Stations

FSP-6. Locations of Subtidal Cap Subsurface Sediment Chemistry Sampling Stations

FSP-7. Locations of Intertidal Cap and Exposure Barrier System Surface Sediment Sampling Stations

FSP-8. Locations of North Shoal and East Beach Intertidal Surface Sediment and Seep Sampling Stations

FSP-9. Procedures for Sectioning and Subsampling of Through-Cap Sediment Cores

FSP-10. Sediment Core Processing Log

FSP-11. Forage Fish Spawning Survey Visual Habitat Survey Areas

List of Appendices

A. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Clam Tissue Sampling

B. Scope of Work Bathymetric Survey Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Bainbridge Island, Washington

C. Chain of Custody Form

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan vii Final September 21, 2011


1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................1 1.2 Guiding Documents .................................................................................................1

2.0 Project Organization and Responsibilities ...........................................................................2 2.1 Monitoring Personnel...............................................................................................2

3.0 Objectives for Measurement Data .......................................................................................3 3.1 Chemicals of Concern ..............................................................................................3 3.2 Data Quality .............................................................................................................4

3.2.1 Field Measurement Data ..............................................................................4 3.2.2 Geotechnical Data ........................................................................................4 3.2.3 Laboratory Analytical Data ..........................................................................4

3.3 Analytical Methods ..................................................................................................5 3.4 Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantitation .......................................................6

3.4.1 Limits of Detection (LODs) .........................................................................6 3.4.2 Limits of Quantitation (LOQs) ....................................................................6

4.0 Methods and Quality Control for Field Activities ...............................................................7 4.1 Sampling Procedures ...............................................................................................7 4.2 Field Measurement Instrument Calibration Procedures ..........................................7 4.3 Sample Handling, Containers, Preservation, and Holding Times ...........................8 4.4 Coordination with Analytical Laboratory ................................................................9

5.0 Methods and Quality Control for Laboratory Activities ....................................................10 5.1 Analytical Laboratories ..........................................................................................10 5.2 Laboratory Sample Handling and Custody ............................................................10

5.2.1 Sample Custody .........................................................................................10 5.2.2 Laboratory Internal Sample Custody .........................................................11 5.2.3 Archived Samples ......................................................................................12

5.3 Analytical Methods ................................................................................................12 5.3.1 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) .....................................................................12 5.3.2 Grain Size...................................................................................................13 5.3.3 Percent Solids.............................................................................................13 5.3.4 Metals and Mercury ...................................................................................13 5.3.5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) ..............................................13 5.3.6 Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) ............................................14 5.3.7 PCBs Aroclors ...........................................................................................14

5.4 Laboratory Performance ........................................................................................14 5.4.1 Quantitation Limits ....................................................................................14 5.4.2 Laboratory Control Samples (LCSs) .........................................................15 5.4.3 Blanks ........................................................................................................15 5.4.4 Compound Identification ...........................................................................16

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan viii Final September 21, 2011

5.4.5 Laboratory Performance Oversight ............................................................16 6.0 Field and Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control Samples ...............................................18

6.1 Field Quality Control Samples...............................................................................18 6.1.1 Equipment Rinsate Blanks .........................................................................18 6.1.2 Field Duplicates .........................................................................................18 6.1.3 Temperature Blanks ...................................................................................19

6.2 Laboratory Quality Control Samples .....................................................................19 6.2.1 Initial and Continuing Calibration Standards ............................................19 6.2.2 Blanks ........................................................................................................19 6.2.3 Surrogate Spikes ........................................................................................19 6.2.4 Laboratory Control Samples (LCS), LCS Duplicate (LCSD), and Standard

Reference Material (SRM) .........................................................................20 6.2.5 Matrix Spike (MS) and MS Duplicate (MSD) ...........................................20 6.2.6 Laboratory Duplicate Samples ...................................................................20

7.0 Laboratory Instrument Calibration ....................................................................................21 7.1 Standard Solutions .................................................................................................21 7.2 Balances .................................................................................................................21 7.3 Refrigerators ..........................................................................................................21 7.4 Volumetric Measurements .....................................................................................22 7.5 Water Supply System .............................................................................................22 7.6 Laboratory Instruments ..........................................................................................22 7.7 Analytical Laboratory Calibration Procedures ......................................................22

8.0 Analytical Data Quality Indicators ....................................................................................23 8.1 Precision .................................................................................................................23 8.2 Accuracy ................................................................................................................23 8.3 Representativeness .................................................................................................24 8.4 Comparability ........................................................................................................24 8.5 Completeness .........................................................................................................25 8.6 Sensitivity ..............................................................................................................25

9.0 Preventive Maintenance .....................................................................................................26 9.1 Preventive Maintenance .........................................................................................26 9.2 Field Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency .......................................26 9.3 Laboratory Instrument Maintenance and Calibration ............................................26 9.4 Calibration and Maintenance Records ...................................................................26

10.0 Corrective Actions .............................................................................................................27 10.1 Field Corrective Action ..........................................................................................27 10.2 Laboratory Corrective Action ................................................................................28 10.3 Corrective Actions Following Data Review ..........................................................29

11.0 Laboratory Data Reduction, Deliverables, Validation, Reporting .....................................30 11.1 Laboratory Data Reduction, Review, and Deliverables .........................................30

11.1.1 Data Reduction Procedures ........................................................................30

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan ix Final September 21, 2011

11.1.2 Data Review Procedures ............................................................................31 11.1.3 Data Deliverables .......................................................................................32

11.2 Data Review and Data Validation ..........................................................................33 12.0 Performance and System Audits ........................................................................................36

12.1 Systems Audits.......................................................................................................36 12.2 Audit Procedure .....................................................................................................37 12.3 Audit Response ......................................................................................................37 12.4 Follow-Up Action ..................................................................................................38 12.5 Audit Records ........................................................................................................38

13.0 References ..........................................................................................................................39

List of Tables

AQAP-1. Project Personnel, Roles, Contact Information and Specific Quality Assurance Responsibilities

AQAP-2. Sample Types, Sample Matrix, Number of Surface and Core Samples, and Sample Analyses

AQAP-3. Remedial Goals for Intertidal and Subtidal Sediment and Laboratory LODs and LOQs

AQAP-4. Sediment Management Standards, LODs, and LOQs for Sediments

AQAP-5. Sample Preparation and Analysis Methods for Sediment and Water Samples

AQAP-6. Accuracy and Precision Control Limits for PAHs in Sediments

AQAP-7. Accuracy and Precision Control Criteria for SMS Chemicals in Sediments

AQAP-8. LODs, LOQs, and Accuracy and Precision Control Limits for PAHs in Water

AQAP-9. LODs, LOQs, and Accuracy and Precision Control Criteria for SMS Chemicals in Water

AQAP-10. Sample Type, Container, Holding Times, Preservatives, and Storage Requirements

AQAP-11. Field Quality Control Sample Requirements

AQAP-12. Laboratory QA Sample Requirements

AQAP-13. Parameters Used to Evaluate Data Quality

AQAP-14. Data Quality Review Responsibilities

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan x Final September 21, 2011

Acronym List ADR Automated Data Review AQAP Analytical Quality Assurance Plan ARI Analytical Resources Incorporated ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials C Celsius CAS Chemical Abstract System CFR Code of Federal Regulations CG/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy CLP Contract Laboratory Program CMS Coastal Modeling System CoC Chain-of-Custody COC Chemical of Concern CPR Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation CSL Cleanup Screening Level CSM Conceptual Site Model CVAAS Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrum DGPS Differential Global Positioning System DI Distilled water DoD Department of Defense DQI Data Quality Indicators DQO Data Quality Objectives DQSR Data Quality Summary Report DVR Data Validation Report EBS Exposure Barrier System EDD Electronic Data Deliverable EHOU Eagle Harbor Operable Unit EIM Environmental Information Management EPA Environmental Protection Agency EQuIS Environmental Quality Information System FSP Field Sampling Plan GC Gas Chromatography GC/ECD Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Device gINT Geotechnical Integrator GPC Gel Permeated Chromatography GPS Global Positioning System HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Site Operations Training HDPE High Density Polyethylene HDR HDR Engineering, Inc. HSP Health and Safety Plan

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan xi Final September 21, 2011

ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma ICP/AES Inductively Coupled Plasma/Atomic Emission Spectroscopy IDWP Investigation Derived Waste Plan KTA Ken Taylor Associates, Inc. LAET Lowest Apparent Effects Threshold LCS Laboratory Control Sample LCSD Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate LIMS Laboratory Information Management System LOD Limits of Detection LOQ Limits of Quantitation LVI Large Volume Injection MCLU Minimum Cleanup Level MDL Method Detection Level MHHW Mean Higher High Water MLLW Mean Lower Low Water MRL Method reporting Level MS/MSD Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate MSL Mean Sea Level NAD North American Datum NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NTCRA Non-Time Critical Removal Action OMMP Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan OU Operable Unit PAH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon PC Personal Computer PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PCP Pentachlorophenol PID Photo Ionization Detector PMP Project Management Plan PPE Personal Protective Equipment PSEP Puget Sound Estuary Program PVC Polyvinyl Chloride QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control QAM Quality Assurance Manager QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QSM Quality System Manual for Environmental Laboratories ROD Record of Decision RPD Relative Percent Difference SEDD Staged Electronic Data Deliverable SEE Science and Engineering for the Environment, LLC

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan xii Final September 21, 2011

SIM Selective Ion Monitoring SMS Sediment Management Standards SOP Standard Operating Procedure SOW Scope of Work SQS Sediment Quality Standard SRM Standard Reference Material SVOC Semi-volatile Organic Compound TOC Total Organic Carbon TSD Treatment, Storage and Disposal UE Ultrasonic Extraction USACE US Army Corps of Engineers VOA Volatile Organic Analysis VOC Volatile Organic Compound WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Final 2011 Quality Assurance Project Plan

Project Management Plan East Harbor Operable Unit


September 21, 2011

Prepared for:





Prepared by:






2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan, Project Management Plan i Final September 21, 2011

Table of Contents 1.0 Project Management Elements ........................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Distribution List ...................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Organization ............................................................................................... 1 1.4 Components of the Work Plan ................................................................................ 2 1.5 Site Terminology .................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Problem Definition/Background ......................................................................................... 5 2.1 Site Chronology ...................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Recent Site Activities .............................................................................................. 6 2.3 Project Description and Schedule for Year 17 Monitoring .................................... 6 2.4 Quality Objectives for Year 17 Monitoring ............................................................ 7

3.0 Special Training .................................................................................................................. 8 4.0 Data Reduction, Validation, Management and Reporting .................................................. 9

4.1 Data Reduction........................................................................................................ 9 4.1.1 Hand Calculations ....................................................................................... 9

4.2 Field Data .............................................................................................................. 10 4.2.1 Field Data Reduction ................................................................................ 10 4.2.2 Field Data Evaluation ............................................................................... 10

4.3 Laboratory Data .................................................................................................... 12 4.3.1 Data Evaluation ......................................................................................... 12 4.3.2 Raw Data Management ............................................................................. 13

4.4 Data Management and Reporting ......................................................................... 13 4.4.1 Database Development ............................................................................. 14 4.4.2 Data Entry, Quality Assurance and Processing ........................................ 14 4.4.3 Data Analysis and Reporting .................................................................... 15

4.5 Data Storage and Security ..................................................................................... 15 4.6 Reporting............................................................................................................... 16

5.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 17

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan, Project Management Plan ii Final September 21, 2011

List of Tables PMP-1. Distribution List

PMP-2. Project Personnel and Responsibilities

PMP-3. Chronology of Events and Activities at the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, EHOU

PMP-4. Project Schedule

PMP-5. Area and Monitoring Objectives

PMP-6. Remedial Goals for Intertidal and Subtidal Areas

PMP-7. Washington State Sediment Standards to be used to evaluate Stations J-9 and J-10 List of Figures PMP-1. Organizational Chart PMP-2. Aerial Photograph of the East Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Facility

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan, Project Management Plan 1 Final September 21, 2011

1.0 Project Management Elements

1.1 Introduction

This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) provides specific guidance for field and quality assurance procedures that will be followed by HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) and Science and Engineering for the Environment LLC (SEE), and their subcontractors during Year 17 monitoring implementing the 2011 Operations Maintenance and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) Addendum (HDR and SEE 2011). HDR is the prime contractor conducting this work under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Seattle District, with direction from the USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10. The QAPP is specifically limited to field activities during Year 17 monitoring studies of the East Harbor Operable Unit (EHOU) and responds to the Statement of Work (SOW) dated May 27, 2011 titled “Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan Implementation East Harbor Operable Unit Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site". The 2011 Work Plan replaces the 2002 Work Plan; however, portions of the 2002 Work Plan detailing sampling methodologies are carried forward by reference.

The work conducted under this QAPP will guide the monitoring that will be carried out in this 17th year of monitoring at the EHOU (hereafter referred to as “Year 17 monitoring”). The 2011 Operations Maintenance and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) Addendum (HDR and SEE 2011) is the Work Plan for Year 17 monitoring, and provides the framework for the QAPP. The results of the Year 17 monitoring will be analyzed and interpreted in the 2012 Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor EHOU Monitoring Report. EPA will use the Monitoring Report in support of the Five Year Review required in 2012.

This document is the Project Management Plan (PMP) component of the QAPP. The PMP details the component documents that collectively comprise the overall plan for work during the Year 17 monitoring, organization of the project team, problem definition and site objectives, data reduction, management and reporting procedures, and the overall project schedule.

1.2 Distribution List

Signees and those people listed in Table PMP-1 (distribution list) will receive a copy of this Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and its components, as well as the Work Plan (2011 OMMP Addendum), Health and Safety Plan (HSP), and Investigation-Derived Waste Plan (IDWP). The Contract Project Manager will provide official copies and any subsequent revisions to the individuals on the distribution list.

1.3 Project Organization

Project organization and individuals responsible for ensuring the quality of field operations, data collections, and laboratory procedures for the Year 17 monitoring are provided in Table PMP-2 along with their responsibilities. The organizational chart is depicted in Figure PMP-1.


1.4 Components of the Work Plan

This document, the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is one component of the Year 17 Monitoring Work Plan that implements the 2011 OMMP Addendum. The Year 17 Work Plan and this PMP are updates of the 2002 Year 8 OMMP Work Plan (SEA 2002) and supporting documents. The 2011 OMMP Addendum describes changes to sections of the 1995, 1999, and 2002 Work Plans, and references those plans where changes have not occurred. This revised document also contains new information relevant to monitoring of the intertidal areas surrounding the site (West Beach (including the EBS), Intertidal Cap, North Shoal, and East Beach depicted in Figure FSP-3).

This QAPP is written to meet the function requirements from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA 2002). A table showing where the required elements of EPA’s guidance occur in this QAPP is presented at the front of this document. The five documents listed below comprise the Year 17 EHOU Monitoring Work Plan:

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The overall plan for monitoring including objectives, monitoring plan design, measurement methods (types of data to be collected), schedule, deliverables, use of monitoring results in site management, the project team, and project responsibilities. The QAPP has three components, described below.

Project Management Plan (PMP). The PMP is the bridge document for the QAPP. In addition to providing the overall project organization and personnel responsibilities (Section 1.2), the PMP provides the program elements common to the field and analytical monitoring including site information and history, monitoring objectives of the 2011 OMMP Addendum, personnel training requirements, data management, reporting requirements, and an overall schedule for completion of the monitoring and reporting.

Field Sampling Plan (FSP). The FSP describes the field procedures and detailed activities including physical elevation monitoring, surface and subsurface sediment samples for chemical analyses, biological tissue residue analyses, and qualitative biological survey procedures. The FSP addresses sample analyses procedures only from sample collection up to delivery to the analytical laboratories or data reduction locations.

Analytical Quality Assurance Project Plan (AQAP). The AQAP provides the details of field sampling and analytical procedures that will be followed so that the environmental data are of known and documented quality and suitable for their intended uses, and the environmental data collection and technology programs meet stated requirements. It will include the data quality objectives of sample collection, numbers and types of stations to be sampled for each data type, field procedures, and instrumentation. The chemical analysis component includes detailed direction to the analytical laboratory on analytical methods, data quality objectives, sample custody, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures, data deliverables, data management, and reporting. The AQAP is provided to office personnel and the analytical laboratory.


Investigation-Derived Waste Plan (IDWP). The IDWP details the handling procedures, containerization, and disposal of investigation-derived wastes (IDW) generated during the monitoring program, including decontamination products, excess sample material, and personal protective equipment.

Health and Safety Plan (HSP). This plan describes the procedures and equipment that will be used to protect the health and safety of project staff and the public during monitoring. The HSP identifies chemical and physical hazards, types of work zones, protective equipment and procedures, responsible individuals, and an emergency plan.

1.5 Site Terminology

Throughout this document specific terms will be used to reference the study areas within the EHOU. Figures FSP-2 and FSP-3 show the areas of the EHOU that have been remediated along with the extent of individual removal actions or remedial activities. Below are the definitions of specific terminology for each action and study area for the EHOU.

1994 Phase I Subtidal Cap. The 1994 Phase I subtidal cap was placed in 1994-1995 as part of a Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA). This NTCRA consisted of placement of an approximately 1 m (3ft) thick sediment cap over 21.4 hectares of subtidal sediments. Figure FSP-2 depicts the extent of the 1994 Phase I sediment cap.

2000 Phase II Subtidal Cap. Figure FSP-2 shows the 2000 Phase II subtidal cap, which was placed to augment the 1994 Phase I cap. The 2000 Phase II cap overlaps the Phase I cap at its southern boundary, and covers uncapped shallow subtidal sediments not previously capped during the 1994 NTCRA. In the area where the 2000 cap overlaps the 1994 NTCRA, cap materials were placed to cover surface sediments with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations that were above the SQS, as reported in the 1999 Year 5 monitoring results.

2001 Phase III Subtidal Cap. The 2001 Phase III cap extends shoreward from the 2000 Phase II cap. It overlaps both the 1994 Phase I and 2000 Phase II caps. It was placed over uncapped shallow subtidal sediments and intertidal sediments. Figure FSP-2 shows the extent of the 2001 Phase III subtidal cap.

Exposure Barrier System (EBS). The EBS, completed in 2008, covers approximately 5.1 acres of intertidal and shallow subtidal sediments on West Beach. The location of the EBS is shown in Figures FSP-2 and FSP-3.

Intertidal Cap. The intertidal cap is the extension of the 2001 Phase III subtidal cap shoreward, covering the intertidal surface sediments where PAH concentrations exceeded the Sediment Quality Standards (SQS). Figures FSP-2 and FSP-3 depicts this cap.

North Shoal. The North Shoal consists of the intertidal area on the north shore of the former Wyckoff facility. It is bounded to the west by the intertidal cap and to the east by East Beach. Figure FSP-3 shows the North Shoal area.


East Beach. East Beach consists of the intertidal area on the eastern side of the former Wyckoff facility. As depicted in Figure FSP-3, it is bounded to the north by the North Shoal and extends southward to the Wyckoff property boundary.

West Beach. West Beach (formerly known as the Mitigation Beach) lies at the western edge of the Wyckoff facility property boundary and encompasses both the EBS and the riparian habitat upland from the intertidal EBS. West Beach and the delineation of the EBS and the Intertidal Cap are shown in Figure FSP-3. The former Mitigation Beach was constructed in 2000 and 2001 with the areas above +17 ft MLLW vegetated to provide riparian habitat around the Wyckoff facility which, with the EBS, constitutes West Beach.


2.0 Problem Definition/Background

The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, EHOU is located on Bainbridge Island, Washington (Figure PMP-2). The Record of Decision (ROD) for this Operable Unit (OU) is dated September 24, 1994 (EPA 1994).

The EHOU OMMP was first developed in 1995 (EPA and USACE 1995) to support overall site management. The 1995 OMMP was implemented after completion of the first phases of remediation at the site (1994 – 1995) and was intended to guide monitoring related to remedy effectiveness and to provide additional information regarding potential additional remedial requirements. As site conditions have warranted and further remedial actions were implemented, the OMMP has been amended to account for the necessary changes in operations, monitoring, and management practices.

Monitoring studies conducted from 1994 to 2002 indicate that the 21.4-hectare sediment cap was largely functioning as intended by isolating underlying contaminated sediments and providing suitable habitat for benthic organisms. Since 2002, additional remediation occurred in West Beach where polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations were found to be elevated relative to the Washington State Sediment Management Standards (SMS) [Sediment Quality Standard (SQS) or Minimum Cleanup Levels (MCUL)] (Ecology 1995). In other areas (East Beach, North Shoal), the progress of monitored natural recovery continues to be tracked, with a goal of achieving PAH levels below the MCUL in 10 years.

The 2011 OMMP Addendum (HDR and SEE 2011) is the third addendum to the 1995 OMMP. It presents the current state of knowledge; rationale for changes to the 1995, 1999, and 2002 OMMP Addenda objectives; and specific monitoring methods. The 2011 OMMP Addendum focuses monitoring objectives on areas remediated since the 2002 monitoring event. It presents the framework for monitoring to determine whether the implemented remedial actions are functioning as designed and provides the information necessary to guide and develop the Work Plan for monitoring that will be carried out in Year 17 monitoring. All subtidal and intertidal areas of the EHOU will be monitored under this Work Plan. Biological surveys of bird, mammal, invertebrate, macroalgae, and forage fish species will be conducted. The data gathered from the Year 17 monitoring will supply information to the EPA in support of the Five Year Reviews required in 2012 and 2017.

2.1 Site Chronology

A succession of companies treated wood and wood products from the early 1900s through 1988 at the Wyckoff site. Initially, treatment was accomplished by wrapping wood and poles with burlap and asphalt; however, by 1910 pressure treatment with creosote and bunker oil began. The Wyckoff treatment plant was one of the largest in the United States. Wood preservative and treatment operations included:

The use and storage of creosote, pentachlorophenol, solvents, gasoline, antifreeze, fuel and waste oils, and lubricants

Generation and management of process wastes

Treatment and discharge of wastewaters


Storage of treated wood and wood products.

Little historic information exists about the waste management practices at the Wyckoff facility. Prior to its reconstruction in the 1920s, the facility was reported to have floated logs in and out of the lagoon that once existed at the Wyckoff facility. The lagoon was subsequently filled. Beginning in the 1940s, treated logs were also transported to and from the facility at the former West Dock via a transfer table pit, and the chemical solution drained from retorts after a treatment cycle went directly onto the ground and seeped into the soil and groundwater below. This process continued until operations ceased in 1988. Wastewater was also discharged into Eagle Harbor for an unknown number of years, and the practice of storing treated pilings and timber in the water continued until the late 1940s. Further introduction of process and treatment-related products and wastes occurred during the period of facility operation and included drips, releases from handling, and spills.

Table PMP-3 provides a brief chronology of site events and activities that are pertinent to the EHOU intertidal and subtidal remedies. The chronology is adapted from the EPA’s 5-Year review document (EPA 2002) and previous site investigations.

2.2 Recent Site Activities

Relevant completed remedial actions in the EHOU include:

Placement of a subtidal sediment cap completed in three phases between 1993 and 2002

Upland source control completed in February 2001 by installation of a sheet pile wall around the perimeter of the former process area

Construction of a Mitigation Beach (completed in 2002) including removal of 366 linear meters (m) [1,200 linear feet (ft)] of bulkhead; excavation of approximately 40,000 cubic yards (cy) of upland sediments; and placement of 8,500 cy of clean imported sand - creating approximately 0.8 hectares (2 acres) of intertidal beach habitat.

Construction of the Exposure Barrier System (EBS) including approximately 1,000 feet of West Beach and approximately 5.1 acres from the southern edge of the existing subtidal cap.

2.3 Project Description and Schedule for Year 17 Monitoring

The 2011 OMMP Addendum (HDR and SEE 2011) provides the monitoring objectives and the work to be completed in the Year 17 monitoring event. Figure PMP-2 provides a general site map for the Year 17 monitoring. Detailed site maps that support the overall program monitoring objectives are provided in the 2011 OMMP Addendum and in the FSP. The paragraphs below provide a brief overview of the planned monitoring efforts. More detailed descriptions of the monitoring are provided in the FSP.

Physical stability surveys will be used to compare current conditions to historic conditions, support an evaluation of whether additional actions are needed if differences are significant, and to support the conceptual site model (CSM). Physical stability surveys include the following elements:


Bathymetric surveys (conducted by the USACE)

Beach elevation surveys (conducted by the USACE)

Sediments collected for grain size analyses (conducted by the consultant team)

A hydrodynamically-coupled particle transport model (based on Coastal Modeling System [CMS] Flow) (adapted by the USACE) for areas of interest for the EHOU.

Chemical analyses of sediment surface and subsurface samples will be performed for PAHs and conventional parameters to confirm that the sediment caps are isolating the chemicals of concern. The contractor team will obtain samples of the following sediment types for analysis:

Surface sediments from the subtidal cap

Subsurface sediments from the subtidal cap

Surface sediments from the intertidal cap area

Surface and subsurface sediments from the North Shoal and East Beach areas (to determine the extent of natural remediation).

Biological monitoring will consist of the following three elements:

Qualitative habitat use surveys will be conducted to document utilization of the intertidal areas as habitat for birds, terrestrial mammals, marine invertebrates, and macroalgae.

Clam tissue will be collected and analyzed from East Beach and North Shoal sediments to assess the extent of natural recovery since 2002 and to provide additional human health risk information. Clam collection and tissue analyses will be conducted by the USACE.

Forage fish use surveys will be conducted to evaluate the use of the intertidal and adjacent subtidal caps.

The planned project schedule by task is provided in Table PMP-4. A detailed plan for sampling events in the EHOU is provided in the FSP.

2.4 Quality Objectives for Year 17 Monitoring

The project’s quality objectives for Year 17 monitoring are summarized in Table PMP-5. Components of monitoring include physical stability surveys; chemical analyses of PAH concentrations in surface sediments from the subtidal and intertidal caps; analyses of PAH concentrations from North Shoal and East Beach intertidal surface and subsurface sediments; evaluation of results from biological surveys of birds, mammals, invertebrates, macroalgae, and forage fish; and the evaluation of PAH and lipids concentrations from East Beach clam tissue.

Sediment data quality objectives are also defined by the Remedial Goals for the subtidal and intertidal sediments, as established in EPA’s 2007 Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) (EPA 2007) are listed in Table PMP-6. In addition, some areas of the EHOU are evaluated against the Washington SMS, as defined in Chapter 173-204 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) (Ecology 1995). The SMS, which are listed in Table PMP-7, also serve as data quality objectives for this program.


3.0 Special Training

The site-specific HSP describes the health, and safety training requirements for the sampling event. All site personnel obtaining or processing sediment samples have met the Hazardous Waste Site Operations Training (HAZWOPER) and other requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120(e), including:

Forty hours of initial off-site training or its recognized equivalent

Eight hours of annual refresher training for all personnel (as required)

Eight hours of supervisor training for personnel serving as Sediment Site Health and Safety Officers

Three days of work activity under the supervision of a trained and experienced supervisor

Current certification in Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and First Aid.

The Project Health and Safety Officer will ensure that all personnel have met the required training. Training records for contract personnel conducting sediment sampling and core processing are located in Appendix E of the HSP.


4.0 Data Reduction, Validation, Management and Reporting

Technical and managerial data will be collected as part of this project. Technical data from the field and laboratory will be combined and evaluated against the overall program monitoring objectives in Tables PMP-5 to PMP-7. Managerial data will consist principally of audit and inspection documentation. This information will be used to assess and verify the quality of the measurements taken during the EHOU monitoring and validate adherence to protocols (both field and laboratory) established for the project.

The following sections describe the generation, checking, management, and reporting of data from both field sampling and laboratory analysis.

4.1 Data Reduction

This section outlines the procedures for ensuring the correctness of the data reduction process. The procedures describe steps for verifying the accuracy of data reduction. Data will be reduced either manually on calculation sheets or electronically on pre-formatted printouts. The following responsibilities will be delegated in the data reduction process:

Technical personnel will document and review their own work and are accountable for its correctness.

Major calculations will receive both a method and an arithmetic check by an independent reviewer (or peer reviews). The reviewer will be accountable for the correctness of the checking process.

An independent technical review will be conducted to ensure the consistency and defensibility of the concepts, methods, assumptions, and calculations. This will be scheduled by the HDR Project Manager and will include a spot check of all manual data transcriptions performed during data reduction, analysis, and reporting. If errors are found, a more thorough review of the transcriptions will be scheduled by the Project Manager.

The HDR Project Manager will be responsible for ensuring that data reduction is performed in a manner that produces quality data after review and approval of calculations.

4.1.1 Hand Calculations

All hand calculations will be recorded on numbered calculation sheets or notebooks and will be legible and in logical progression with sufficient descriptions. Major calculations will be checked by a scientist of professional level equal to or higher than that of the originator. After completing the check, the reviewer will sign and date the calculation sheet or notebook page immediately below the signature of the originator. Both the originator and reviewer are responsible for the correctness of calculations. A calculation sheet or notebook will contain the following, at a minimum:

Project title and brief description of the task


Date performed and signature of person who performed the calculation

Basis of calculation

Assumptions made or inherent in the calculation

Complete reference for each source of input data

Methods used for calculations

Results of calculations, clearly annotated.

4.1.2 Computer Analyses

Computer analyses include the use of programs, models, and data management systems. For published software with existing documentation, test runs will be periodically performed to verify that the software is performing correctly. This will include both ADR.net software and EqUIS software used to manage field and analytical data.

All quality control measures will be documented as referenced in applicable procedures.

4.2 Field Data

4.2.1 Field Data Reduction

All field measurements and observations will be recorded in project logbooks, on field data forms, or on similar permanent records by field technicians. Field measurements include water depths, visual descriptions, instrument readings, and meteorological conditions. Field data will be recorded directly and legibly in field notebooks or on customized field forms (numbered), and all entries will be signed and dated. If entries must be changed, the change will not obscure the original entry. The correction will be signed and dated. Field data records will be organized into standard formats whenever possible and retained in permanent files.

Managerial documentation consists of the following types of information:

Data processing and storage records

Sample identification and chain-of-custody records

Field changes and variances

Document control, inventory, and filing records

Quality assurance/quality control records

Health and safety records

Contract and project tracking records.

The combined data records will be sufficiently detailed to provide a complete and accurate history of data gathering and results for future legal or administrative actions, if necessary.

4.2.2 Field Data Evaluation


Data will be verified by the Sediment Technical Lead, who will review all collected data to ensure that correct codes and units have been used. When the data are returned to the field office at the end of the work day, the Sediment Technical Lead or a designated representative will review the data for representativeness, accuracy, and comparability with other data collected. The Sediment Technical Lead will direct the field scientists to make necessary corrections to the record and initial them. The Sediment Technical Lead will then sign the records to indicate that he/she has reviewed them. After data reduction into tables, the Sediment Technical Lead will review data sets for anomalous values. Any inconsistencies discovered will be resolved by seeking clarification from the field personnel responsible for data collection.

Managerial and technical data will be verified by the HDR Project Manager for completeness. Random checks of sampling and field conditions will be made by the Sediment Technical Lead. The HDR Project QA Officer will review selected field data and procedures during random site visits to ensure adherence to QA/QC procedures. Whenever possible, peer review will also be incorporated into the data evaluation process in order to maximize consistency among field personnel. All data evaluation will be verified by a dated signature.

The purpose of data evaluation is to ensure that defensible and justifiable data are obtained by following the project's environmental measurement objectives listed below:

The project FSP will be followed

Equipment and instruments will be properly calibrated and in working order in accordance with manufacture specifications

Samples will be collected according to procedures specified in the FSP and SOPs on file at SEE

Sufficient sample volume will be collected to maintain sample integrity and conduct all required analyses

Samples will be properly preserved in accordance with the AQAP

All applicable blanks and field QC samples will be provided per the frequency listed in the AQAP

Complete chain-of-custody documentation will be kept throughout the duration of the monitoring effort, and copies will be included with each sample shipment

Field samples will arrive at the laboratory in good condition and within specified hold times.

The purpose of the evaluation process is to eliminate field data that are not collected or documented in accordance with specified protocols outlined in the AQAP and FSP. In some instances, the field data will be used only for approximation purposes. In all cases, evaluation of field data will be performed on two levels. First, all field data will be verified at the time of collection by following the quality control checks outlined in the AQAP and FSP. Second, field data will be verified by the Sediment Technical Lead, who will review the field data documentation to identify discrepancies or unclear entries. Additionally, the HDR Project QA Officer will conduct field audits to ensure compliance with FSP and QAPP. Field data documentation will be reviewed against the following criteria, as appropriate:


Stated project objectives of the Work Plan

Stated QA objectives of the QAPP

Sample location and adherence to the FSP

Field instrumentation and calibration

Sample collection protocol, volume, and preservation

Blanks collected and submitted at the required frequency

Field duplicates collected and submitted at the required frequency

Sample documentation protocols

Chain-of-custody protocol

Sample shipment.

Descriptive statistics for completeness will be calculated and reported. Final data evaluation will be performed by the Project Manager and Sediment Technical Lead. All evaluation criteria and QC check results will be presented and discussed in the "Quality Assurance" section of the monitoring report.

4.2.3 Field Data Reporting

The type and format of technical data to be gathered during the monitoring program are detailed in the FSP. A detailed description of the type and format for technical reports to be produced during this project is presented in the PMP Section 4.4. In addition, technical reports will undergo a formal internal quality assurance review by knowledgeable senior technical reviewers.

4.3 Laboratory Data

4.3.1 Data Evaluation

All data generated by laboratory analysis of samples will be evaluated by reviewing data packages including the chain-of-custody. Three analytical levels for quality control are described that correspond to the data evaluation specifications in the AQAP: quality control by the laboratory, by EPA, and by KTA. The purpose of the evaluation process is to eliminate unacceptable analytical data and to designate a data qualifier for any data quality limitation discovered. In some instances, the analytical data may be used only for approximation purposes. Data evaluation summary reports will be filed with the data and will describe the usability of the data (i.e., the degree to which evaluated data are suitable for the purposes intended and whether the data are useful for other purposes).

ARI Data Review

To ensure that the final reported result is accurate and in the correct format, data will be reviewed by ARI at the analytical, reporting, and approval levels. In addition, ARI's Project Manager performs a final, cursory review of the results prior to submission of the deliverable package. Electronic laboratory data will be provided in ADR.net (A1/A3) format. The A1/A3


files will be checked using the ADR CCS by the laboratory. A detailed discussion of data reduction, reporting, and evaluation by ARI is presented in the laboratory QAPP on file at ARI.

KTA Data Quality Evaluation

All sediment samples collected during Year 17 monitoring will be reviewed and validated in accordance with EPA's guidelines for evaluating organics data (EPA 2008) and inorganics data (EPA 2010). If required, qualifiers will be applied to sample data as specified by EPA's functional guidelines (EPA 2008 and EPA 2010).

Data quality evaluation and reporting will be accomplished by the KTA Data QA Officer for all data including conventional (i.e., TOC) and contaminant analytes. Analytical data documentation will be evaluated against the following criteria, as appropriate:

Chain-of-custody protocols and documentation

Sample condition upon arrival at the analytical laboratory

Analysis data versus applicable holding times

Frequency of quality assurance and quality control analysis

Laboratory blank contamination

Calibration procedures and criteria

Laboratory accuracy (percent recovery versus control limits)

Laboratory precision (RPD versus control limits)

Completeness.

4.3.2 Raw Data Management

An important part of the data record for the project is the availability of all raw laboratory data. The ability to recheck data accuracy will be important, and ultimately, the project record can only be complete if all data are maintained in an orderly, usable manner. ARI will be directed under contract terms to deliver raw data for all samples submitted. The KTA Data QA Officer, under the direction of the HDR Project Manager, will be the custodian for these electronic and hardcopy records. The KTA Data QA Officer will be responsible for providing the laboratory with specific electronic formats (e-QAPP) for each type of data, and with guidance for specific information required by the project.

4.4 Data Management and Reporting

The purpose of data management is to ensure the availability of complete, accurate, and valid data in an easily accessible and usable format. This section provides an overview of the methods and procedures that will be followed in the implementation of the data management plan as part of the EHOU monitoring. Proper data management will ensure the validity and accessibility of accurate data for environmental data analysis and evaluation.


4.4.1 Database Development

The database for the monitoring component of the EHOU OMMP will consist of evaluated data from environmental sampling conducted during the monitoring program and data from previous environmental sampling programs such as the Eagle Harbor preliminary investigation (Integral and USACE 2004, Tetra Tech 1986), the RI (CH2M Hill 1989), and the RA (USACE 1994). The contractor will use EPA data validation guidelines and QC criteria specified in the AQAP to determine compliance with QC objectives. Data qualifier codes applied to the validated data will be consistent with EPA guidelines.

All evaluated data will be electronically stored as described in PMP Section 4.5. Queries can be made of the data using these programs, which screen for different analytical or environmental parameters. The Electronic Data Manager will assist in developing database queries so that screenings can be conducted efficiently and rapidly. Also, once all data have been validated, data will be transmitted to the USACE in formats specified in the SOW dated May 27, 2011.

4.4.2 Data Entry, Quality Assurance and Processing

All field data undergoing manual entry into EQuIS (or for boring logs entered first into gINT) will be verified for accuracy by checking at least 10 percent of the data. Validation of laboratory data will be conducted in ADR.net. Validation will include a review of the laboratory data to evaluate concentrations qualified as rejected values. Rejected values will not be deleted from the database. They are electronically flagged so that any queries conducted of the database will ignore the rejected values.

Field duplicates will also be evaluated. The order of priority for use of duplicate results to report as a single datum will be: primary sample result is greater than field duplicate result. The primary result will be used as the point estimation of concentration unless the primary value is rejected, in which case the field duplicate result will be used. The field duplicate result is not intended to represent a quantity but instead, to provide independent checking on both field sampling techniques and laboratory analysis.

Once the above evaluation is complete, additional field QC samples are evaluated. These field QC samples include field blanks and equipment rinsates. A more detailed explanation of field QC is presented in the FSP. The steps for field blanks and equipment rinsate sample evaluation is as follows:

All environmental samples are matched with associated field blanks and equipment rinsates.

All potential contaminants detected in field blanks and equipment rinsates are evaluated and adjusted: concentrations are raised by a factor of 10, based on the detected compound and EPA validating procedures (EPA 2008 and 2010).

All concentrations in the associated environmental samples are then compared to the adjusted blank and rinsate results. If the environmental sample concentration does not exceed the blank or rinsate concentrations (10x), then the analyte is considered not detected at the concentration reported.


Once the field QC sample evaluation is complete, the following steps are followed to complete processing:

Duplicate laboratory values from redundant analyses, reanalyses, and dilutions are evaluated and resolved.

Field duplicate analyses are evaluated as stated above.

Following the completion of these steps, a value can be selected per parameter, sampling location, matrix, and day. However these QC values are used (e.g., average, maximum value), all data will be entered into the database and identified individually. The laboratory data will then be available for analysis.

Electronic uploading of data will be verified by using the ADR CCS and the EQuIS Data Processor to check for EQuIS requirements. All original field and analytical data reports, data reduction reports, QC information, and chain-of-custody forms will be kept on file by the HDR Project Manager. All electronic files associated with the EHOU OMMP will be periodically backed up until delivery of the Year 17 Final Monitoring Report and associated documents. At that time, data will be stored electronically by the USACE.

4.4.3 Data Analysis and Reporting

To maintain organization of data analysis activities, the HDR Electronic Data Manager will assist and oversee queries made of the database. Queries will be made of the EHOU OMMP database using data retrieval programs that screen for different analytical or environmental parameters. Data analysis will include conducting analyses that compare concentration values to background levels, Washington’s SMS (Ecology 1995) or other applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. Other analyses include comparisons of concentrations over time, with depth, or within particular regions of the study area.

Database queries will typically consist of a combination of site, location, station, sampling date, analysis type, compound or element, data validation qualifier, and upper and lower data values. Queried data can be exported into spreadsheet programs and manipulated for report presentation. All tabulated data reports and data analysis results will be presented in a standard format, clearly referenced to sources of data, and utilizing standard annotation. The HDR Electronic Data Manager will assist in the creation and implementation of reporting formats to be used during the monitoring, to ensure standardization and compatibility with EPA protocols.

4.5 Data Storage and Security

All documents generated during field and lab activities will be placed in the project files. Access to these records is controlled by the Project Manager, and will be restricted to authorized personnel working on the project. Electronic files will be maintained in EQuIS once data checking is complete.


4.6 Reporting

Following the field and laboratory work, the Year 17 Monitoring Report will be prepared to include the data analyses, and interpretation of the sediment sampling, results of the CMS and bathymetric surfaces analysis, biological surveys, forage fish survey, and clam tissue analysis.

The Final Monitoring Report will include the following data elements:

Scanned copies of field log books appended

Field equipment and calibration information (included in the field notebooks)

Sediment sample station location latitude and longitude provided from GPS instrumentation and input into EQuIS

Coring logs

Completed chain of custody forms

CMS model input and output files

Analytical laboratory data.

The Final Monitoring Report will be provided to the USEPA, Region 10 and USACE in electronic searchable pdf format. Both agencies will store, retain, and back up the document and all records associated with this project for periods of time prescribed by their respective agency’s policies and regulations.


5.0 References

CH2M Hill. 1989. Final Remedial Investigation Report for Eagle Harbor site, Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared for U.S. EPA Region 10, Hazardous Site Control Division, Contract No. 68-01-7251. Prepared by CH2M-Hill, Bellevue, WA

Ecology. 1995. WAC 173-204. Sediment Management Standards.

EPA. 1994. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor, EPA Id: WAD009248295, OU 01, Bainbridge Island, WA. September 24, 1994. Pub. No.: EPA/ROD/R10-94/079.

EPA. 2002. Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans. EPA QA/G-5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. Pub. No. EPA/240/R-02/009. December 2002.

EPA. 2007. Explanation of Significant Differences, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, East Harbor Operable Unit. September 2007.

EPA. 2008. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technical Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 2008, USEPA-540-R-08-01.

EPA. 2010. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Data Review, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technical Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 2010, USEPA 540/R-10/011.

EPA and USACE. 1995. Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, East Harbor Operable Unit. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington and the US. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Prepared with assistance from Science Applications International Corporation. July 17, 1995.

HDR and SEE. 2011. Revised Final 2011 Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan Addendum Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, East Harbor Operable Unit. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. and Science and Engineering for the Environment, LLC. May 10, 2011.

Integral and USACE. 2004. 2002-2003 Year 8 Environmental Monitoring Report East Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Harbor Operable Unit, Bainbridge Island, Washington. Prepared by Integral Consulting, Inc. and USACE. Prepared for USEPA. August 16, 2004.

SEA. 2002 Eagle Harbor, Field Sampling Plan, Monitoring Year 8, Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Program, East Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund


Site. Prepared by Striplin Environmental Associates. Prepared for USEPA and USACE. October 25, 2002.

Tetra Tech. 1986. Preliminary Investigation, Eagle Harbor, Bainbridge Island, Washington. Prepared for Black and Veatch, Engineers-Architects. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Ecology, Tetra Tech, Bellevue, WA.

USACE. 1994. On-scene Coordinator's Report. Statement of Findings. East Harbor Operable Unit Removal Action, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Bainbridge Island, Washington. Final Draft. Prepared by the U.S. EPA Region 10 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District with Assistance By SAIC, Bothell, WA. July 26, 1994.

Table PMP‐1. Distribution List

Name Position Contact Information

Howard Orlean Eagle Harbor Superfund

RPM

US EPA Region 10, ms ECL‐111

Office of Environmental Cleanup

1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900

Seattle, WA 98101

phone: (206) 553‐2851

email: [email protected]

Don Methany EPA QA Officer US EPA Region 10, ms OEA‐095

1200 Sixth Ave. Suite 900

Seattle, WA 98101‐3140

phone (206) 553‐2599


Karl Kunas Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District

4735 E. Marginal Way S


Phone: (206) 764‐3448


Brenda Bachman USACE QA Officer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District



Phone: (206) 764‐3524


HDR

Barbara Morson

Project Manager 626 Columbia Street NW

Olympia, WA 98501

Phone: (360) 570‐4421

Email: [email protected]

HDR

Bill Ahlert

Project QA Officer 1720 Spillman Drive, Suite 280

Bethlehem, PA 18015

Phone: (610) 807‐5102


HDR

Nancy Winters

Project Coordinator 626 Columbia Street NW

Olympia, WA 98501

Phone: (360) 570‐7256


HDR

Chad Wiseman

Lead Biologist for

Invertebrates and Macro

Algae Surveys

626 Columbia Street NW

Olympia, WA 98501

Phone: (360) 570‐4427


HDR

Michael Witter

Lead Biologist for

Bird and Mammal Surveys

500 108th Street NE, Suite 1200

Bellevue, WA 98004

Phone: (425) 450‐6381


HDR

Becky Holloway

Lead Biologist for

Forage Fish Surveys

4717 97th Street NW

Gig Harbor, WA 98332

Phone: (253) 858‐5686


HDR

Amita Patel

Electronic Data Manager One Blue Hill Plaza, Floor 12

PO Box 1509

Pearl River, NY 10965

Phone (845) 735‐8300 x 329

Emial: [email protected]

SEE

Tim Thompson

Sediment Technical Lead

Health and Safety Officer

4401 Latona Ave NE

Seattle, WA 98105

Phone: (206) 418‐6173


SEE

David Browning

Senior Sediment Scientist 5541 Keating Rd. NW

Olympia, WA 98502

Phone: (360) 866‐6806


KTA

Mingta Lin

Data QA Officer 3530 32nd Way NW

Olympia, WA 98502

Phone: (360) 867‐9543


ARI

Cheronne Oreiro

Laboratory Project Manager 4611 S 134th Pl # 100

Tukwila, WA 98168‐3212

Phone: (206) 695‐6214


EPA Manchester

Laboratory

Gerald Dodo

Analytical Project Manager

Clam Tissue Analyses

7411 Beach Drive East

Manchester, WA 98353

Phone: (360) 871‐8728


Technical Contractor Team

Laboratory Analyses

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District

Table PMP‐2. Project Key Personnel and Responsibilities

Name Role Contact Information Responsibilities

Howard OrleanWyckoff/ Eagle Harbor Project

Manager




Seattle, WA 98101

phone: (206) 553‐2851


Provides oversight of all program activities. Reviews final project QA

objectives, needs, problems, and requests. Approves appropriate QA

corrective actions as needed.

Don Matheny EPA QA Officer

US EPA Region 10, ms OEA‐095

1200 Sixth Ave. Suite 900


phone (206) 553‐2599


Reviews the QAPP and laboratory QAP (including SOPs) providing

approval for laboratory analytical methods and procedures. Provides

QA/QC support to the EPA RPM. Evaluates appropriate QA corrective

actions.

Karl Kunas Project Manager

Project Manager



Phone: (206) 764‐3448




corrective actions as needed. Provides liaison between contractor team

and EPA.

Brenda Bachman USACE QA Officer

QA Officer



Phone: (206) 764‐3524


Reviews the QAPP and laboratory QAP (including SOPs) providing

approval for laboratory analytical methods and procedures. Provides

QA/QC support to the USACE Project Manager. Evaluates appropriate

QA corrective actions.

HDR

Barbara MorsonProject Manager


Olympia, WA 98501

Phone: (360) 570‐4421


Implements necessary actions and adjustments to accomplish program

objectives. Oversees project performance and provides direction to

accomplish project objectives. Ensures the project tasks are

successfully completed within the projected time period. Maintains

official copy of QAPP and all revisions.

HDR

Bill AhlertProject QA Officer

1720 Spillman Drive, Suite 280

Bethlehem, PA 18015

Phone: (610) 807‐5102


Provides senior technical QA support to the project work plan and

reports.

HDR

Nancy WintersProject Coordinator


Olympia, WA 98501

Phone: (360) 570‐7256


Assists the Project Manager to implement necessary action and

adjustments to accomplish program objectives. Coordinates all facets

of the project ensure completion in accordance with Work Plan.

HDR

Chad Wiseman

Lead Biologist for

Invertebrates and Macro

Algae Surveys


Olympia, WA 98501

Phone: (360) 570‐4427


Prepares the FSP associated with the invertebrate and macroalgae

surveys. Conducts the surveys in compliance with the FSP and prepares

sections of the draft and final monitoring report associated with

invertebrate and macroalgae surveys.

HDR

Michael Witter

Lead Biologist for

Bird and Mammal Surveys

500 108th Street NE, Suite 1200

Bellevue, WA 98004

Phone: (425) 450‐6381


Prepares the FSP associated with the bird and mammal visuals surveys.

Conducts the surveys in compliance with the FSP and prepares sections

of the draft and final monitoring report associated with bird and

mammal surveys.

HDR

Becky Holloway

Lead Biologist for

Forage Fish Surveys

4717 97th Street NW

Gig Harbor, WA 98332

Phone: (253) 858‐5686


Prepares the FSP associated with the forage fish surveys. Conducts the

surveys in compliance with the FSP and prepares sections of the draft

and final monitoring report associated with bird and mammal surveys.

HDR

Amita PatelElectronic Data Manager

One Blue Hill Plasa, Floor 12

PO Box 1509


Phone (845) 735‐8300 x 329


Performs input of field data and management of electronic data

deliverable to meet project requirements for field database. Works

closely with the Sediment Technical Lead. Manages to ensure the

completeness and correctness of the field data deliverables.

SEE

Tim Thompson


Field Health and Safety Officer

4401 Latona Ave NE

Seattle, WA 98105

Phone: (206) 418‐6173


Prepares the FSP and assists in preparing the AQAP associated with the

sediment sampling. Serves as Field Manager in conducting the

sediment sampling in compliance with the FSP and QAPP. Supervises

implementation of standard operating procedures, health and safety

procedures, project modifications, and corrective actions during field

operations. Serves as Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer. Ensures

core logs are entered into the database. Prepares the draft and final

monitoring report and recommendations for future actions.

SEE

David BrowningSenior Sediment Scientist

5541 Keating Rd. NW

Olympia, WA 98502

Phone: (360) 866‐6806


Assists in the preparation of FSP and AQAP. Conducts the sediment

sampling in compliance with the FSP and QAPP at the direction of the

Field Manager. Prepares the draft and final monitoring report.

KTA

Mingta LinData QA Officer

3530 32nd Way NW

Olympia, WA 98502

Phone: (360) 867‐9543


Prepares the AQAPP. Reviews and approves laboratory QAP (including

SOPs) for the project. Provides technical QA assistance to accomplish

project objectives, including suggestions for corrective action

implementation. Provides chemical data verification and validation and

ensures validated chemical data are entered into the database.

ARI

Cheronne OreiroLaboratory Project Manager

4611 S 134th Pl # 100


Phone: (206) 695‐6214


Responsible for the analysis of sediment chemistry parameters. Ensures

implementation of the project and laboratory QA plans, reports to KTA

Data QA Officer, and serves as the laboratory point of contact.

EPA Manchester

Laboratory

Gerald Dodo





Phone: (360) 871‐8728


Responsible for chemical analyses of clam tissue samples. Ensures

implementation of the USACE QAPP for clam tissue analyses, and

reports through the RPM to the USACE Technical Lead.

Laboratory Analyses




Event/Activity Date

The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor site was added to the National Priority List (NPL) 1987

Completion of the Remedial Investigation (RI) 1989

Completion of the Feasibility Study (FS) for Eagle Harbor 1991

Removal Action – Placement of sand cap over 21.4 hectares of contaminated sediments 1993‐1994

Construction monitoring of removal action 1993‐1994

EPA completed ROD for the East Harbor OU, which included the following elements: (1) monitor and maintain

the existing sediment cap, additional capping in remaining subtidal areas of concern; (2) monitor success of

natural recovery in intertidal areas; (3) enhance existing institutional controls to reduce public exposure to

contaminated fish and shellfish; (4) demolish in‐water structures

1994

Baseline, Year 0 monitoring of subtidal cap 1994

Year 1 monitoring of subtidal cap 1995


Removal of in‐water structures (e.g., piers and pilings) 1998‐1999

1999 OMMP Addendum 1999


Installation of sheet pile wall around upland site 1999‐2001

Intertidal investigation around the Wyckoff facility 1999‐2002

Placement of Phase II subtidal cap 2000‐2001

Placement of Phase III subtidal nearshore and intertidal cap 2001‐2002

EPA created habitat Mitigation Beach at West Beach and placed Phase III subtidal nearshore and intertidal cap 2001‐2002


Year 8 monitoring of subtidal cap, intertidal cap, Mitigation Beach, and East Beach natural recovery 2002

First 5‐Year Review 2002

Surface sediment samples in the visibly‐contaminated areas of the West Beach Mitigation Beach 2005

West Beach intertidal sediment investigations 2005‐2006

Second 5‐Year Review (EPA 2007a) 2007

Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) for the West Beach Exposure Barrier System (EBS) 2007

Construction of the West Beach EBS 2007‐2008


Table PMP‐3. Chronology of Events and Activities at the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, EHOU

Table PMP-4. Planned Project Schedule

Estimated Date Activity

1‐Jul‐11 Notice to Proceed on OMMP Work Plans & Monitoring

1‐Aug‐11 Submittal of Draft Work Plan

2‐Sep‐11 Receipt of Government Comments

5‐Sep‐11 Meeting to Resolve Comments

9‐Sep‐11 Complete Fall Bird and Mammal Survey

21‐Sep‐11 Final Work Plan

23‐Sep‐11 Complete Fall Invertebrate and Macroalgae Surveys

1‐Oct‐11 Approval of Final Work Plan

3‐Oct‐11 Start Field Work

4‐Nov‐11 Conclusion of Field Work

25‐Nov‐11 Receipt of Laboratory Analytical Data

30‐Nov‐11 Complete Fall Forage Fish Survey

23‐Dec‐11 Receipt of Validated Data

TBD Receipt of Additional PAH Fingerprinting

TBD Validation of Additional PAH Fingerprinting

17‐Feb‐12 Draft Monitoring Report

16‐Mar‐12 Receipt of Government Comments

23‐Mar‐12 Resolution Meeting for Government Comments

30‐Mar‐12 Complete Spring Forage Fish Survey

13‐Apr‐12 Draft Final Monitoring Report

24‐Apr‐12 Present Findings at Meeting of Stakeholders

30‐Apr‐12 Complete Spring Bird and Mammal Surveys

15‐May‐12 Final Monitoring Report

21‐May‐12 Draft Addendum to Final Monitoring Report (Biological Surveys)

22‐Jun‐12 Final Addendum to Final Monitoring Report (Biological Surveys)

Table PMP-5. Area and Monitoring Objectives (O&F denotes objective for the Operational and Functional Determination).

5YR denotes objective for the upcoming 5 year review

O&F 5YR

X X

Evaluate the physical stability of

all subtidal zones in the East

Harbor OU

• Single beam bathymetry

• Through‐cap cores (subtidal areas only)

Assess physical stability and trends on the of the subtidal areas of the East Harbor OU.

One foot of erosion is generally taken as indicator of change; a subjective review of the

area of change is used to evaluate significance. Elevation comparisons will be made to

the 2004 updated baseline elevation map.

X X

Physical stability of intertidal areas

including the Phase III cap, the

EBS, East Beach and North Shoal

• Single beam bathymetry (subtidal areas only)

• Photogrammetry

Assess physical stability and trends at all intertidal areas including the EBS. One foot of

erosion is generally taken as indicator of change; a subjective review of the area of

change is used to evaluate significance.

X

Understand coastal erosion,

transport and deposition

processes within the EHOU

Develop, calibrate and apply a

coupled hydrodynamic‐sediment

transport model

• Single beam bathymetric survey (subtidal areas only)

• CMS Flow Hydrodynamic Model

• Physical grain size data.

Evaluate physical transport processes within the EHOU using a hydrodynamic model

developed for Puget Sound, CMS Flow.

North and South Subtidal Cap

• On‐Cap Surface Sediment Samples Surface sediment (0 ‐ 10 cm)

samples from the 2002 on‐cap stations. Three grab samples per grid

composited to a single sample for analysis.

• Off‐Cap Surface Sediment Samples Sample from one off‐site

location as a potential reference for recontamination source

identification.

Compare results to Washington Management Quality Standards (SMS) Minimum

Cleanup Level (MCUL) or second Lowest Apparent Effects Threshold (2LAET).

• Through‐Cap Coring Collect cores from the 2002 stations, and an

additional six (6) from the north area of the Phase 1 cap. Analyze

cap/surface interface, and the section 15 ‐ 30 cm above the native

sediment, or 15‐30 cm above the 1994 Phase I/II/III interface where

required. Archive remaining material and conduct "bottom up" tiered

analysis if deepest segment exceeds MCUL.

Compare results to SMS MCUL or 2LAET

• Surface and through‐cap coring within grids J9 and J10. Collect

three (3) surface and three (3) through‐cap cores in adjacent to 2002

sampling point.

Compare to WA SMS. If exceeded for subsurface samples, analyze core sections above

and below. Average results across three cores/surface sediment samples and compare

again to the SQS.

Determine whether northern cap

meets remediation goals in light of

visually noticeable surface water

sheen.

• On‐Cap Surface Sediment Samples Additional surface sediment (0 ‐

10 cm) samples from grids within 1999‐designated "Zone C". Three

grab samples per grid composited to a single sample for analysis.

Compare results to SMS MCUL or 2LAET. May evaluate fingerprint samples to support

conceptual model for PAH mobility.

X X

If surface contamination is

observed, determine whether

the source of recontamination is

from the underlying sediments,

or from offsite sources.

Evaluate the potential for vertical

migration from underlying

sediments, and whether the PAH

signature in the surface sediment

is indicative of native

contaminated sediments or from

offsite sources.

• Analysis of suite of standard and alkyl‐PAH. Collect and archive

sufficient surface and native sediments from all chemical isolation

sediment samples to analyze PAHs for chemical fingerprinting.

Analyses will occur only where surface stations exceed the SQS.

Conduct a statistical analysis to fingerprint source of recontamination on surface of cap.

Demonstrate that the cap is

physically stable and remaining

in place at a desired thickness?

X X

Determine if the cap meets

cleanup goals as defined in the

ROD.

Evaluate chemical isolation in

surface and subsurface capped

sediments.

Site‐Wide Activities

EHOU Objective A1 Area Objective Monitoring Objective Associated Field and Analytical Actions (for Discussion) Evaluation Process and Criteria

Table PMP-5. Area and Monitoring Objectives (O&F denotes objective for the Operational and Functional Determination).

5YR denotes objective for the upcoming 5 year review

O&F 5YR

EHOU Objective A1 Area Objective Monitoring Objective Associated Field and Analytical Actions (for Discussion) Evaluation Process and Criteria

X X

• West Beach Exposure Barrier Surface Sediment Samples Surface

sediment (0 ‐ 10 cm) samples from the areas exceeding the SQS or

LAET in the 2006 West Beach. Sample stations to be translated to

EHOU OMMP grid system, and composite sampling (3 per grid).

Analyze for conventional and SMS PAHs. Archive additional material

for potential recontamination source identification

Compare results to SQS, and MTCA Method B. Evaluate fingerprint data if needed to

support CSM for PAH mobility.

X X

• Intertidal Cap Surface Sediment Samples Surface sediment (0 ‐ 10

cm) samples from the 2002 intertidal cap stations. Three grab

samples per grid composited to a single sample for analysis. Archive

material for potential recontamination source identification

Compare results to SQS, and MTCA Method B. Evaluate fingerprint data if needed to

support the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for PAH mobility.

X X

Evaluate whether the placed

remedies provides functioning

habitat, and if shellfish are found,

whether they are safe for human

consumption

• Clam Tissue Samples

• Forage fish use survey

• Habitat Use Surveys

• Compare clam chemical tissue results to standards for human health

• Evaluation of fish use of the EBS and intertidal cap

• Qualitative evaluation of bird, mammal and invertebrate use of the available habitat

X X

Determine if seeps and/or

contaminant concentrations at

East Beach have decreased over

time, and what is the rate of the

chemical natural recovery

• East Beach Visual Survey for seeps. Repeat visual survey

conducted in 2002.

• East Beach Intertidal Surface Sediment Samples Repeat the 2002

sampling at East Beach on the former 50‘ grid. The sampling locations

may be modified based on visual confirmation of seeps

Monitor chemical concentrations in zone of compliance to fulfill ROD requirement for

monitored natural attenuation. Verify Natural Recovery Study predictions for recovery

and LPAH model predictions. Results will be compared to MCUL and supplemental

human health criteria. Compare results to SMS and MTCA Method B to support CSM of

natural recovery.

X X Chemical Recovery at North Shoal

•North Shoal Surface Sediment Samples Surface sediment (0 ‐ 10

cm) samples from the 2002 grid cell stations. Three grab samples per

grid composited to a single sample for analysis. Archive material for

potential recontamination source identification

Monitor chemical concentrations in zone of compliance to fulfill ROD requirement for

monitored natural attenuation. Verify Natural Recovery Study predictions for recovery

and LPAH model predictions. Results will be compared to MCUL and supplemental

human health criteria. Compare results to SMS and MTCA Method B to support CSM of

natural recovery.

X X

Evaluate whether natural recovery

has resulted in a decrease in clam

tissue PAH levels.

• Clam Tissue Samples

• Habitat Use Surveys

• Compare contaminant concentrations in clams on the East Beach to risk levels and

evaluate effect of source control measures.

• Qualitative evaluation of bird, mammal and invertebrates use of the available habitat

Assess the effectiveness of

placed cap and EBS in isolating

contaminants in native

sediments, and determine if

these areas provide functioning

habitat

Determine whether chemical

isolation is maintained.

East Beach and North Shoal

Evaluate the effectiveness and

progress of the monitored

natural recovery remedy

Intertidal Cap and West Beach

Table PMP-6. Remedial Goals for Intertidal and Subtidal Areas

Total LPAH ‐‐ 370 780 5.2 ‐‐

Anthracene ‐‐ 24,000 1,200 0.96 ‐‐

Acenaphthylene ‐‐ ‐‐ 66 1.3 ‐‐

Acenaphthene ‐‐ 4,800 57 0.5 ‐‐

Fluorene ‐‐ 3,200 79 0.54 ‐‐

Phenanthrene ‐‐ ‐‐ 480 1.5 ‐‐

Methyl naphthalene;1‐ ‐‐ 24 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Methyl naphthalene;2‐ ‐‐ 320 64 0.67 ‐‐

Naphthalene ‐‐ 1,600 170 2.1 ‐‐

Total HPAH ‐‐ ‐‐ 5,300 17 1.2

Indeno (1,2,3,‐C,D) Pyrene 0.14 ‐‐ 88 0.69 ‐‐

Dibenzo (a,h) Anthracene 0.14 ‐‐ 33 0.23 ‐‐

Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene ‐‐ ‐‐ 78 ‐‐ ‐‐

Benzo[a]anthracene 0.14 ‐‐ 270 1.6 ‐‐

Benzo[a]pyrene 0.14 ‐‐ 210 1.6 ‐‐

Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Total Benzofluoranthenes ‐‐ 450 3.6 ‐‐

Chrysene 0.14 ‐‐ 460 2.8 ‐‐

Pyrene ‐‐ 2,400 1,400 3.3 ‐‐

Fluoranthene ‐‐ 3,200 1,200 2.5 ‐‐

Total PAH 1.4B ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Pentachlorophenol 8.3 ‐‐ 690 0.69 ‐‐

Notes:

A The values shown are from the 2007 ESD and are individually at 1E‐06 incremental lifetime cancers

B Sum of Benzo(a)pyrene toxicity equivalents are not to exceed 1E‐05 incremental lifetime cancers.

C Sediment Management Standards MCUL expressed as mg/kg organic carbon; and 2LAET second Lowest Apparent Effects Threshold expressed as mg/kg dry weight .

Subtidal and Intertidal

Sediment 2LAET C

(mg/kg ‐dry) Used at

and below 0.5% OC.

ROD Intertidal

Sediment, Human

Health (mg/kg)

Analyte

Intertidal Sediment,

Method B, Carcinogen,

Direct Contact (ingestion

only), unrestricted land

useA (mg/kg)

Intertidal Sediment Method

B, Non‐carcinogen, Direct

Contact (ingestion only),

unrestricted land use

(mg/kg)

Subtidal and Intertidal

Sediment MCULC

(mg/kg OC)

Analytes SQS CSL

Conventional Inorganic Parameters (mg/kg)

Total Organic Carbon

Grain Size

Metals

Arsenic 57 93

Cadmium 5.1 6.7

Chromium, total 260 240

Copper 390 390

Lead 450 530

Mercury 0.41 0.59

Silver 6.1 6.1

Zinc 410 960

Organic Compounds

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Total LPAH 370 780

Anthracene 220 1,200

Acenaphthylene 66 66

Acenaphthene 16 57

Fluorene 23 79

Phenanthrene 100 480

1‐Methylnaphthalene

2‐Methylnaphthalene 38 64

Naphthalene 99 170

Total HPAH 960 5,300

Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene 34 88

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 12 33

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 31 78

Benzo(a)anthracene 110 270

Benzo(a)pyrene 99 210

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Total Benzofluoranthene (b,j,k) 230 450

Chrysene 110 460

Pyrene 1,000 1,400

Fluoranthene 160 1,200

Dibenzofuran 15 58

mg/kg OC

Table PMP-7. Washington State Sediment Standards to be used to evaluate Stations J-9 and J-10

Sediment

Management

Standards

Analytes SQS CSL

Table PMP-7. Washington State Sediment Standards to be used to evaluate Stations J-9 and J-10

Sediment

Management

Standards

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

1,2‐Dichlorobenzene 2.3 2.3

1,4‐Dichlorobenzene 3.1 9

1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene 0.8 1.8

Hexachlorobenzene 0.38 2.3

Hexachlorobutadiene 3.9 6.2

Phthalate Esters

Dimethylphthalate 53 53

Diethylphthalate 61 110

Di‐n‐butylphthalate 220 1,700

Butylbenzylphthalate 4.9 64

Di‐n‐octylphthalate 58 4,500

bis(2‐Ethylhexyl)phthalate 47 78

Phenols and Substituted Phenols

Phenol 420 1,200

2‐Methylphenol (o‐Cresol) 63 63

4‐Methylphenol (p‐Cresol) 670 670

2,4‐Dimethylphenol 29 29

Pentachlorophenol 360 690

Miscellaneous Extractables

Benzoic Acid 650 650

Benzyl Alcohol 57 57

PCBs Aroclors

Aroclor 1016 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Aroclor 1221 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Aroclor 1232 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Aroclor 1242 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Aroclor 1248 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Aroclor 1254 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Aroclor 1260 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Aroclor 1262 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Aroclor 1268 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Total PCBs 12 65

Organonitrogen Compounds mg/kg OC

N‐Nitrosodiphenylamine 11 11

Notes:

mg/kg=milligram per kilogram

µg/kg=microgram per kilogram

mg/kg OC = milligram per kilogram organic carbon

mg/kg OC

mg/kg OC

mg/kg OC

Figure PMP-1. Organization Chart

Howard Orlean EPA Region 10

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Project Manager

Karl Kunas USACE

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Project Manager

Barb Morson HDR

Project Manager

Project H&S Officer

Nancy WintersHDR

Project Coordinator

Brenda Bachman USACE

QA Officer

Don Matheny EPA

QA Officer

Bill Ahlert HDR

Project QA Officer

Mingta LinKTA

Data QA Officer

Cheronne OreiroARI Laboratory

Project Manager

Tim ThompsonSEE


Sediment Site H&S Officer

Dave Browning SEE

Senior Sediment Scientist

Becky Holloway Chad Wiseman

Mike Witter HDR

Lead Biologists

Gerald DodoEPA

Manchester Laboratory Project Manager

APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY BETWEEN EAST HARBOR AND WEST HARBOR OPERABLE UNITS

WYCKOFF

EAGLE HARBORBAINBRIDGEISLAND

BAINBRIDGE ISLANDFERRY TERMINAL

Winslow Way E

Wyatt Way NW

Madis

on Av

e N

NE Eagle Harbor Rd

Olympic Dr SE

FigurePMP-2

Aerial Photograph of the East Harbor Operable Unit,

Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Facility

2011 OMMP ImplementationEast Harbor Operable Unit


Figure NameProject Name

0 1,000 2,000500Feet

0 100 200 300 400 50050Meters

/

PROJECT LOCATION

2011 Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

Field Sampling Plan East Harbor Operable Unit


September 21, 2011

Prepared for:





Prepared by:






2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan, Field Sampling Plan i Final September 21, 2011

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................1

1.2 Components of the Work Plan .................................................................................1

1.3 Site Terminology .....................................................................................................3

1.4 Monitoring Elements and Tools to Address the 2011 OMMP Addendum .............4

1.4.1 Physical Stability Monitoring ......................................................................4

1.4.2 Chemical Isolation Monitoring ....................................................................4

1.4.3 Natural Recovery Monitoring ......................................................................5

1.4.4 Biological Monitoring ..................................................................................6

1.4.5 Additional Monitoring .................................................................................6

2.0 Objectives and Scope ...........................................................................................................7

2.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................7

2.2 Scope of Field Work ................................................................................................7

2.2.1 Subtidal Cap Monitoring..............................................................................8

2.2.2 Intertidal Cap Monitoring ............................................................................9

2.2.3 Exposure Barrier System Monitoring ........................................................10

2.2.4 East Beach Monitoring ..............................................................................10

2.2.5 North Shoal Monitoring .............................................................................11

2.2.6 Biological Monitoring ................................................................................11

3.0 Project Organization and Responsibilities .........................................................................12

3.1 Monitoring Personnel.............................................................................................12

3.2 Physical, Chemical, and Biological Monitoring Task Coordinators .....................12

3.3 Field Sampling Personnel ......................................................................................13

4.0 Field Project Schedule .......................................................................................................14

5.0 Field Activities ...................................................................................................................15

5.1 Navigation and Positioning ....................................................................................15

5.1.1 Rationale ....................................................................................................15

5.1.2 Procedures ..................................................................................................16

5.2 Surface Sediment Sampling ...................................................................................17

5.2.1 Rationale ....................................................................................................17

5.2.2 Procedures ..................................................................................................19

5.3 Through-cap Cores.................................................................................................23

5.3.1 Rationale ....................................................................................................23

5.3.2 Procedures ..................................................................................................25

5.4 Collection of Sediments at J-9 and J-10 ................................................................28

5.4.1 Rationale ....................................................................................................28

5.4.2 Sampling Locations ...................................................................................29

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan, Field Sampling Plan ii Final September 21, 2011

5.4.3 Procedures ..................................................................................................29

5.4.4 QA/QC, Blank Samples, and Frequency ...................................................29

5.5 Clam Tissue Collection ..........................................................................................29

5.5.1 Rationale ....................................................................................................29

5.5.2 Sampling Locations ...................................................................................29

5.5.3 Survey Schedule .........................................................................................30

5.5.4 Survey Methods .........................................................................................30

5.5.5 Reporting....................................................................................................30

5.6 Visual Surveys .......................................................................................................30

5.6.1 Birds and Mammals ...................................................................................30

5.6.2 Invertebrates and Macroalgae ....................................................................32

5.6.3 Forage Fish.................................................................................................33

6.0 Sample Activity Documentation/Chain Of Custody Procedures .......................................40

6.1 Field Logbook ........................................................................................................40

6.2 Photographs............................................................................................................41

6.3 Sample Numbering System....................................................................................41

6.4 Sample Documentation ..........................................................................................43

6.4.1 Sample Labels ............................................................................................43

6.4.2 Chain-of-Custody Records.........................................................................43

6.4.3 Receipt of Samples ....................................................................................44

6.5 Corrections to Documentation ...............................................................................44

6.6 Data Storage and Security ......................................................................................44

7.0 Sample Packaging and Shipping ........................................................................................46

7.1 Sample Container Preparation ...............................................................................46

7.2 Sample Packaging ..................................................................................................46

7.2.1 Shipping .....................................................................................................47

8.0 Investigation-Derived Wastes ............................................................................................48

9.0 Field Data Management, Validation, and Corrective Actions ...........................................49

9.1 Field Data Management .........................................................................................49

9.2 Field Data Evaluation ............................................................................................49

9.3 Corrective Actions .................................................................................................50

10.0 References ..........................................................................................................................51

List of Tables

FSP-1. Planned Sampling Stations for Year 17 (2011) Monitoring

FSP-2. Sample Types, Sample Matrix, Number of Surface and Core Samples, and Sample Analyses

FSP-3. Projected Field Project Schedule

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan, Field Sampling Plan iii Final September 21, 2011

FSP-4. Horizontal Control Points at and around the East Harbor Operable Unit

FSP-5. Quality Assurance Quality Control Samples

FSP-6. Sample Type, Container, Holding Times, Preservatives, and Storage Requirements

List of Figures

FSP-1. Aerial Photograph of the East Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Facility

FSP-2. Locations of Intertidal and Subtidal Sediment Caps and Exposure Barrier System

FSP-3. Intertidal Area Designations

FSP-4. Locations of Subtidal Surface Sediment Grain Size Sampling Stations

FSP-5. Locations of Subtidal Cap Surface Sediment Chemistry Sampling Stations

FSP-6. Locations of Subtidal Cap Subsurface Sediment Chemistry Sampling Stations

FSP-7. Locations of Intertidal Cap and Exposure Barrier System Surface Sediment Sampling Stations

FSP-8. Locations of North Shoal and East Beach Intertidal Surface Sediment and Seep Sampling Stations

FSP-9. Procedures for Sectioning and Subsampling of Through-Cap Sediment Cores

FSP-10. Sediment Core Processing Log

FSP-11. Forage Fish Spawning Survey Visual Habitat Survey Areas

List of Appendices

A. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Clam Tissue Sampling

B. Scope of Work Bathymetric Survey Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Bainbridge Island, Washington

C. Chain of Custody Form

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan, Field Sampling Plan 1 Final September 21, 2011

1.0 Introduction

This Field Sampling Plan (FSP) describes the detailed field sampling and analysis procedures to be conducted during the Year 17 monitoring implementing the 2011 Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) Addendum (HDR and SEE 2011) for the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, East Harbor Operable Unit (EHOU) located on Bainbridge Island, Washington (Figure FSP-1). This monitoring includes physical elevation monitoring, surface and subsurface sediment samples for physical and chemical analyses, biological tissue analyses, and qualitative biological surveys. The monitoring objectives, and the specific data collected to address those objectives may be found in Table PMP-5 of the Project Management Plan, and in Table 1 of the OMMP.

This FSP provides specific guidance for field and quality assurance procedures that will be followed by HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) and Science and Engineering for the Environment LLC (SEE), and their subcontractors during Year 17 monitoring. HDR is the prime contractor conducting this work under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Seattle District, with direction from the USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10. The FSP is specifically limited to field activities during Year 17 monitoring studies of the EHOU and responds to the Statement of Work (SOW) dated May 27, 2011 titled “Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan Implementation East Harbor Operable Unit Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site". The 2011 Work Plan replaces the 2002 Work Plan; however, portions of those plans detailing sampling methodologies are carried forward by reference.

1.1 Project Location

The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site is located on the eastern side of Bainbridge Island in central Puget Sound (Figure FSP-1). Eagle Harbor is an east-west trending embayment whose mouth to Puget Sound lies at the eastern reach. The bay is approximately 2 square kilometers in area, and approximately 3.7 kilometers long; it is widest (0.9 kilometers) just inside its entrance, becoming progressively narrower to the west. Water depths are 15 to 18 meters below mean lower low water at the entrance, gradually becoming shallower to the west.

The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site encompasses contaminated areas of Eagle Harbor and the 16 hectare (40 acre) upland and intertidal regions of the former Wyckoff wood-treating facility, as well as other upland sources of contamination to the harbor, including the former shipyard on the north shore. The site is currently divided into three OUs or management areas: the East Harbor OU, the West Harbor OU, and the Soil and Groundwater OU. Figure FSP-1 shows the project location within Eagle Harbor, while Figure FSP-2 shows where subtidal and intertidal caps have been placed at the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor East Harbor OU.

1.2 Components of the Work Plan

This FSP is one component of the Year 17 Monitoring Work Plan that implements the 2011 OMMP Addendum. The Year 17 Work Plan and this FSP are updates of the 2002 Year 8 OMMP Work Plan and supporting documents. The 2011 OMMP describes changes to sections of the 1995, 1999 and 2002 Work Plans, and references those plans where changes have not


occurred. This revised document also contains new information relevant to monitoring of the intertidal areas surrounding the site (West Beach (including the Exposure Barrier System (EBS)), Intertidal Cap, North Shoal, and East Beach depicted in Figure FSP-3). The five documents listed below comprise the Year 17 EHOU Monitoring Work Plan:

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The overall plan for monitoring including objectives, monitoring plan design, measurement methods (types of data to be collected), schedule, deliverables, use of monitoring results in site management, the project team, and project responsibilities. The QAPP has three components described below.

Project Management Plan (PMP). The PMP is the bridge document for the QAPP. In addition to providing the overall project organization and personnel responsibilities (Section 1.3) the PMP provides the program elements common to the field and analytical monitoring including site information and history, monitoring objectives of the 2011 OMMP Addendum, personnel training requirements, data management, reporting requirements, and an overall schedule for completion of the monitoring and reporting.

Field Sampling Plan (FSP). The FSP describes the field procedures and detailed activities including physical elevation monitoring, surface and subsurface sediment samples for chemical analyses, biological tissue residue analyses, and qualitative biological survey procedures. The FSP addresses sample analyses procedures only from sample collection up to delivery to the analytical laboratories or data reduction locations.

Analytical Quality Assurance Project Plan (AQAP). The AQAP provides the details of field sampling and analytical procedures that will be followed so that the environmental data are of known and documented quality and suitable for their intended uses, and the environmental data collection and technology programs meet stated requirements. It will include the data quality objectives of sample collection, numbers and types of stations to be sampled for each data type, field procedures, and instrumentation. The chemical analysis component includes detailed direction to the analytical laboratory on analytical methods, data quality objectives, sample custody, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures, data deliverables, data management, and reporting. The AQAP is provided to office personnel and the analytical laboratory.

Investigation-Derived Waste Plan (IDWP). The IDWP details the handling procedures, containerization, and disposal of investigation derived wastes (IDW) generated during the monitoring program, including decontamination products, excess sample material, and protective equipment.

Health and Safety Plan (HSP). This plan describes the procedures and equipment that will be used to protect the health and safety of project staff and the public during monitoring. The HSP identifies chemical and physical hazards, types of work zones, protective equipment and procedures, responsible individuals, and an emergency plan.



Throughout this document specific terms will be used to reference the study areas within the EHOU. Figures FSP-2 and FSP-3 show the areas of the EHOU that have been remediated along with the extent of individual removal actions or remedial activities. Below are the definitions of specific terminology for each action and study area for the EHOU.

1994 Phase I Subtidal Cap. The 1994 Phase I subtidal cap was placed in 1994-1995 as part of a Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA). This NTCRA consisted of placement of an approximately 1 m (3ft) thick sediment cap over 21.4 hectares of subtidal sediments. Figure FSP-2 depicts the extent of the 1994 Phase I sediment cap.

2000 Phase II Subtidal Cap. Figure FSP-2 shows the 2000 Phase II subtidal cap, which was placed to augment the 1994 Phase I cap. The 2000 Phase II cap overlaps the Phase I cap at its southern boundary, and covers uncapped shallow subtidal sediments not previously capped during the 1994 NTCRA. In the area where the 2000 cap overlaps the 1994 NTCRA, cap materials were placed to cover surface sediments with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations that were above the SQS, as reported in the 1999 Year 5 monitoring results.

2001 Phase III Subtidal Cap. The 2001 Phase III cap extends shoreward from the 2000 Phase II cap. It overlaps both the 1994 Phase I and 2000 Phase II caps. It was placed over uncapped shallow subtidal sediments and intertidal sediments. Figure FSP-2 shows the extent of the 2001 Phase III subtidal cap.

Exposure Barrier System (EBS). The EBS, completed in 2008, covers approximately 5.1 acres of intertidal and shallow subtidal sediments on West Beach. The location of the EBS is shown in Figures FSP-2 and FSP-3.

Intertidal Cap. The intertidal cap is the extension of the 2001 Phase III subtidal cap shoreward, covering the intertidal surface sediments where PAH concentrations exceeded the Sediment Quality Standards (SQS). Figures FSP-2 and FSP-3 depicts this cap.

North Shoal. The North Shoal consists of the intertidal area on the north shore of the former Wyckoff facility. It is bounded to the west by the intertidal cap and to the east by East Beach. Figure FSP-3 shows the North Shoal area.

East Beach. East Beach consists of the intertidal area on the eastern side of the former Wyckoff facility. As depicted in Figure FSP-3, it is bounded to the north by the North Shoal and extends southward to the Wyckoff property boundary.

West Beach. West Beach (formerly known as the Mitigation Beach) lies at the western edge of the Wyckoff facility property boundary and encompasses both the EBS and the riparian habitat upland from the intertidal EBS. West Beach and the delineation of the EBS and the Intertidal Cap are shown in Figure FSP-3. The former Mitigation Beach was constructed in 2000 and 2001 with the areas above +17 ft MLLW vegetated to provide riparian habitat around the Wyckoff facility which, with the EBS, constitutes West Beach.


1.4 Monitoring Elements and Tools to Address the 2011 OMMP Addendum

A brief description of the salient monitoring elements and the tools that will be used to address those in the 2011 OMMP Addendum are presented below. The technical rationale for each monitoring technology, its goals within the 2011 OMMP Addendum and the areas of the EHOU where the monitoring technologies are applied are shown in the PMP as Table PMP-5. Associated analytical methods are described in the AQAP.

1.4.1 Physical Stability Monitoring

Physical stability measures are used to compare current conditions to historic conditions, support an evaluation of whether additional actions are needed if differences are significant, and to support the conceptual site model (CSM). Physical stability measures include the following:

Bathymetry. Bathymetry has been an integral part of subtidal cap monitoring since the 1994 NTCRA, and in each subsequent monitoring event. Bathymetric surveys are used to compare current conditions to historical conditions in all areas of the EHOU. The methods and goals of the bathymetric surveying remain unchanged from the 1995 OMMP and the 1999 and 2002 OMMP Addenda. Bathymetric surveys will be conducted by the USACE; the specific elements are discussed in Section 5 and in Appendix B

Beach Elevation Surveys. Beach elevation surveys are used to confirm the physical stability of intertidal remedial construction efforts and support the CSM particularly in the area of East Beach and North Shoal. Beach elevation survey information will also be used to assess the stability of the EBS at West Beach. Beach elevation surveys will be conducted by the USACE; the specific elements are discussed in Section 5 and in Appendix B.

Grain Size Distribution Sampling. Grain size data has been a component of all previous monitoring events as first defined in the 1995 OMMP. Additional stations were added to the 2011 OMMP Addendum to support the construction and calibration of a sediment transport model for all of Eagle Harbor. Monitoring locations where sediment grain size analyses will be conducted are shown on Figure FSP-4. Grain size sampling will be conducted by the consultant team.

Sediment Transport Model. To increase understanding of the coastal erosion, transport, and deposition processes affecting the EHOU, a hydrodynamically coupled particle transport model will be constructed, calibrated, and validated. An existing hydrodynamic model first developed for Puget Sound, Coastal Modeling System (CMS) Flow, will be adapted for areas of interest for the EHOU. The sediment transport model will be developed by the USACE and is discussed further Section 5 and in Appendix B.

1.4.2 Chemical Isolation Monitoring

Sediment surface and subsurface samples, chemically tested for quantities of PAHs, are used to confirm that the sediment cap remedy is isolating the chemicals of concern. All chemical


isolation monitoring is conducted by the contractor team. Measures used to ensure chemical isolation include the following:

Subtidal Cap Surface Sediment Collection. Surface sediments representing the top 10 centimeters (cm) of the sediment column will be collected from all areas of the subtidal cap. Locations include those utilized in previous monitoring events and new locations targeted from historical data evaluation and remedial actions taken since the 2002 monitoring event. This will include the stations identified in the 2002 OMMP Addendum, as well as additional historic sampling locations from previous monitoring events. Station locations for subtidal surface sediment grain size are shown in Figure FSP-4, while station locations for surface chemistry are shown in Figure FSP-5. Specific station coordinates and analyses are shown in Tables FSP-1 and FSP-2. Methods for subtidal cap surface sediment collection are discussed in Section 5.2.

Subtidal Cap Subsurface Sediment Collection. Subsurface sediments will be collected from the subtidal cap areas identified in the 2002 OMMP Addendum but will also include additional cores collected from the northern area of the Phase I cap and additional cores where PAHs were identified in discreet samples collected in the 2002 monitoring event. Station locations for subtidal cap subsurface sediment sampling is shown in Figure FSP-6, and in Table FSP-1. Specific analyses are presented in Table FSP-2. Methods for subtidal subsurface sediment collection are discussed in Section 5.3.

Intertidal Surface Sediment Collection. Intertidal surface sediment collections will occur on the Phase III cap, as well as from new stations established on the EBS. Phase III Intertidal Cap monitoring was established in the 2002 OMMP Addendum; the EBS intertidal monitoring is new to the 2011 OMMP Addendum. Intertidal surface sediment sampling locations are shown in Figure FSP-7, and in Tables FSP-1. Specific analyses are given in Table FSP-2. The intertidal surface sediment collection methodology and sampling strategy is discussed in Section 5.2.

1.4.3 Natural Recovery Monitoring

Natural recovery is the identified remedial alternative for the North Shoal and East Beach. Seep surveys, sediment surface and subsurface samples, chemically tested for levels of PAHs, and are used to determine whether natural recovery is occurring at the rate anticipated in the Record of Decision (ROD). Locations of North Shoal and East Beach Intertidal surface sediment and seep sampling stations are shown in Figure FSP-8, and in Table FSP-1. Specific analyses are given in Table FSP-2. All monitoring will be conducted by the contractor team. The monitoring methods include the following:

Seep Visual Identification and Sediment Collection. Seep identification at East Beach includes visual inspections of the area to determine the presence or absence of intertidal seeps. A specific protocol for visual inspection of seeps, consistent with the 2002 effort, is described in Section 5.2. Discrete seep samples will be collected where seeps are observed consistent with the approach utilized in the 2002 monitoring activities.

Intertidal Surface Sediment Collection. Intertidal surface sediment collection methods are discussed in Section 5.2.


Intertidal Subsurface Sediment Collection. Intertidal subsurface sediment are discussed in Section 5.3.

1.4.4 Biological Monitoring

Biological monitoring is conducted to help address whether the remedies provide functioning habitat, and where shellfish occur, to determine if those shellfish are safe for human consumption. An addition to the 2011 OMMP addendum is a forage fish habitat use survey. Biological monitoring measures include the following:

Habitat Use Survey. A qualitative habitat survey will document utilization of the intertidal areas as habitat for avian, terrestrial, and marine organisms. This includes visual surveys of birds, mammals, fish, invertebrates, and macroalgae throughout all intertidal areas of the EHOU. Figure FSP-3 shows the general locations for conducting the survey; methods are discussed in Section 5.6.

Clam Tissue Collection. The collection of clam tissue samples from East Beach and North Shoal sediments was first included in the 2002 OMMP Addendum and is included for 2011. The purpose of the collection and analysis of clam tissues is to assess whether clam tissue chemical concentrations have changed since the 2002 monitoring event and to provide additional human health risk information. Clam sampling and analyses from the Intertidal Cap and the EBS will also be included in the 2011 field effort, if sufficient numbers of clams can be collected from those two areas. Clam tissue and analyses are conducted by the USACE; the methods are described in a separate sampling and analysis plan (Appendix A).

Forage Fish Use Survey. A special study will be initiated to evaluate the use of the intertidal and adjacent subtidal caps (including the EBS) principally by the Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) but also by surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) and other forage fish. This survey is required per environmental documentation for the original West Beach EBS construction (EPA and USACE 2000) and is listed in the EBS Biological Assessment (EPA and USACE 2007) as a conservation measure necessary to inform future maintenance of the EBS. The forage fish use survey will incorporate data gathered during beach elevation surveys and grain size analyses to provide an overall assessment of West Beach and the Intertidal Cap as forage fish habitat. Specific methods for conducting the survey are presented in Section 5.6.3.

1.4.5 Additional Monitoring

Recontamination Source Identification. PAH source identification is an optional component on the 2011 OMMP Addendum. Should PAH levels be found in surface sediments above sediment quality criteria, a select set of surface sediment stations will be re-analyzed to provide results sufficient for PAH fingerprinting (including alkylated PAH) for PAH source identification. PAH fingerprinting data evaluation remains an optional recontamination assessment tool to determine whether elevated surface PAH levels are due to on-site (creosote) or off-site (pyrogenic PAH and urban runoff) sources. Specific methods for collection and archiving sediments for possible PAH fingerprint analyses are discussed in Section 5.2.2.


2.0 Objectives and Scope

The program objectives for Year 17 monitoring are consistent with those outlined in the 2011 OMMP Addendum and the Performance Work Statement For Performance Based Contract Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan Implementation East Harbor Operable Unit Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site dated May 27, 2011. These objectives support the goals of subtidal cap monitoring, intertidal cap monitoring, intertidal beach habitat assessment and natural recovery, and the remedial design program.

2.1 Objectives

The 2011 OMMP Addendum addresses the monitoring methods and approach that provide data to assess the objectives defined in PMP Table PMP-5. This FSP focuses on Year 17 monitoring, which addresses the monitoring objectives of subtidal and intertidal cap physical stability, isolation of underlying contaminated native sediments, qualitative assessments of the EHOU as habitat, and the potential surface recontamination by off-site sources. In addition, patterns of contamination in North Shoal and East Beach intertidal sediments previously identified in the RI and the Year 8 (2002) monitoring (CH2M Hill 1989, USACE 2001, EPA 2004) will be confirmed or updated to assess natural attenuation. The specific monitoring objectives, the tools that will be employed to provide data on those questions and how those data may be used are summarized in PMP Table PMP-5.

2.2 Scope of Field Work

Specific elements of Year 17 monitoring are summarized below. Physical monitoring of subtidal and intertidal areas, and biological tissue monitoring, will be accomplished separately by the USACE. The elements of Year 17 monitoring addressed in this FSP include:

On-Cap Surface Sediment Collections - Surface sediments (0-10 cm) will be collected and analyzed for PAH and conventional parameters to evaluate chemical character of cap surface. On-cap surface sediments will be collected from a total of 22 stations. An additional 10 stations will be sampled and analyzed for grain size only; the data to be used to support the physical transport modeling effort.

Through-Cap Coring - Core samples of the cap and a focused segment of the underlying material will be collected and analyzed for PAH and conventional parameters to evaluate isolation of contaminated native sediments underlying the cap. Through-cap cores will be collected at 14 stations.

Focused Sampling at Grids J-9 and J-10 - Surface sampling and through-cap coring within grids J9 and J10 will be collected and analyzed for the full suite of Sediment Management Standards (SMS) chemicals-of-concern (COCs). Within each grid three (3) surface and three (3) through-cap cores will be collected and analyzed.

Intertidal Cap Surface Sediment Collections – Surface sediments (0-10 cm) will be collected from the intertidal sediment cap on the north shore of the Wyckoff Facility and analyzed for


PAH and conventional parameters to evaluate the chemical character of the cap surface. A total of three (3) locations will be sampled on the intertidal cap.

Exposure Barrier System Surface Sediment Collection and Monitoring - EBS monitoring will include visual seep surveys, and surface sediment chemistry. A total of five (5) locations on the EBS will be sampled for surface sediments (0-10 cm) and analyzed for PAH and conventional parameters.

East Beach Surface Sediment Collections - Surface sediments (0-10 cm) from the East Beach will be collected and analyzed for PAH and conventional parameters to determine the lateral extent of surface sediments that contain PAH and to monitor natural recovery. A total of 20 locations, 15 grid cell stations and 5 discrete (point) stations, will be sampled.

East Beach Intertidal Sediment Cores – Sediment cores will be collected to a minimum depth of one meter below mudline from the intertidal area of the East Beach and analyzed for PAH and conventional parameters to determine the vertical and lateral extent of PAH bearing subsurface sediments. Intertidal sediment cores will be collected from eight (8) locations along the East Beach.

East Beach Clam Tissue Collections - Collect clams from locations from the intertidal areas from the East Beach. Tissues will be analyzed for PAH and lipids content to provide information of biological uptake of PAH, and used to assess potential risk.

North Shoal Intertidal Surface Sediment Collection - Surface sediments (0-10 cm) will be collected at five (5) intertidal locations and analyzed for PAH and conventional parameters to ensure that surface sediments along the North Shoal do not have PAH concentrations that exceed the SQS.

West Beach, East Beach, North Shoal and Intertidal Cap Intertidal Habitat Surveys - Qualitative surveys of mammals, birds, invertebrate and macroalgae use of the West Beach, East Beach, North Shoal and Intertidal Cap intertidal habitats will be conducted.

Fish Survey - Qualitative surveys of the use of the intertidal and adjacent subtidal caps (including the EBS) principally by the Pacific sand lance, surf smelt, and other forage fish.

In addition, if surface sediments from the subtidal cap show PAH concentrations that exceed Washington SQS levels, sediments will be tested for PAH alkyl homologs and PAH fingerprinting. The purpose of this testing is to determine if surface recontamination is present, and if so, whether recontamination is from on-site or off-site (e.g., urban run-off) sources. The data needed to quantify the alkyl PAHs will be collected as part of the required PAH analysis and quantification will occur only at those stations where SMS PAH concentrations exceed the SQS.

2.2.1 Subtidal Cap Monitoring

Subtidal cap monitoring will consist of the collection of surface sediments from 22 locations and the collection of core samples from 14 locations. Surface and subsurface sediments will be analyzed for PAH and conventional parameters. In addition, 10 stations will be sampled and


analyzed for grain size only. These locations include portions of the cap placed during the 1994 Removal Action, 2000 Phase II Capping and 2001 Phase III Capping. The purpose of this monitoring is to determine whether the surface sediment of the cap is remaining clean relative to the SMS (surface sediments) and whether the cap is effective in isolating the underlying PAH-contaminated sediments (sediment cores).

Stations to be sampled for surface sediment chemistry, surface sediment grain size, and cored for subsurface sediment chemistry are summarized in Table FSP-1. Sample numbers, matrices and QC samples are summarized in Table FSP-2. Surface sediment sampling stations sampled for grain size are shown in Figures FSP-4, for surface sediment chemistry in Figure FSP-5, and for through-cap coring stations in Figure FSP-6. For Year 17 monitoring, all stations are defined based on the grid-sampling design initiated in the 2002 OMMP Addendum. For surface sediments, a minimum of three replicate grab samples will be collected from randomly selected locations within each grid cell at each station. For subsurface sediments a minimum of two vibracores will be collected for each grid cell that defines a station.

In many of the coring locations, the 1994 Phase I sediment cap has been augmented with additional cap material placed during the 2000 Phase II and 2001 Phase III capping events. Based on post-placement bathymetric surveys, there may be accumulations of cap material in excess of 3 m (10 ft) at some locations. For the core collections, a 4.3 m (14 ft) core barrel will be used and will be driven to either refusal (i.e., the core no longer penetrates into the sediment) or the full length of the core barrel. Depending on the thickness of the cap, it may not be possible to sample the underlying, pre-cap sediments.

At stations where no additional cap material has been placed since the 1994 Phase I cap. The sampling and sectioning procedures for Year 17 monitoring will be identical to those followed in previous monitoring events and described in the 2002 OMMP. For these stations, isolation of the underlying precap sediments will be evaluated by analyzing the cap material 15-30 cm above the pre-cap/cap sediment interface for PAH.

For stations where significant amounts [i.e., 0.3 m (1 ft) or greater] of sediment has been placed over the 1994 Phase I cap during the 2000 Phase II and 2001 Phase III capping events, isolation of underlying sediments will be evaluated by sampling the 15-30 cm interval of 2000 Phase II/2001 III cap sediments above the 1994 Phase I cap/2000 Phase II and 2001 Phase III cap boundary. Given the relatively long elapsed time between the placement of the 1994 Phase I cap and the 2000 Phase II and 2001 Phase III caps, the stratigraphic contact between the units should be discernible based on grain-size, sorting and the presence of features that would denote a former sediment-water interface (e.g., buried redox potential discontinuity).

2.2.2 Intertidal Cap Monitoring

Intertidal cap monitoring will consist of the collection of surface sediments from three locations on the cap and an intertidal habitat survey described in Section 2.2.5. Sediments will be analyzed for PAH and conventional parameters for comparison to the SMS. The purpose of this monitoring is to confirm that the surface of the intertidal cap has concentrations of PAH that are less than the SQS and therefore provides suitable habitat for benthic organisms. Station locations for surface sediment sampling on the intertidal cap are listed in Table FSP-2 and shown


in Figure FSP-7. Station designations for the intertidal cap samples reference grid cell locations (e.g. J4-a3, refers to grid cell J4 and a3 subcell).

2.2.3 Exposure Barrier System Monitoring

EBS monitoring will include physical stability, visual seep surveys, surface sediment chemistry, and habitat use. Physical stability will be principally conducted by the Corps, and include comparisons of the 2011 elevations with the 2008 post-construction elevations. The methods will follow those discussed in Section 2.2.1 of the OMMP. Confirmation of physical stability will also include hand-measures of the cover thickness, to the extent practicable, by pushing a measuring rod through the fish habitat fill and recording both the location of the measure and the length the rod passes through the fish habitat fill before contacting the underlying rock layer.

A total of five (5) locations on the EBS will be sampled for surface sediments (0-10 cm) and analyzed for PAH and conventional parameters. The same surface sediment grid cell composite discussed for subtidal surface sampling will be used at the EBS stations. During all sampling efforts (including biological and clam tissue sampling) the EBS will be monitored for seeps.

Habitat use and the forage fish survey are discussed in Section 2.2.6. Monitoring of the riparian habitat shoreward of the EBS, as was done in 2002, will not be conducted.

2.2.4 East Beach Monitoring

Surface and subsurface sediments from the East Beach will be collected and analyzed for PAH and conventional parameters. The purpose of this monitoring is to monitor natural recovery and to characterize the distribution of PAHs in East Beach sediments. Previous investigations (USACE 2001, EPA 2004) indicated the presence PAH in subsurface sediments at the East Beach.

For surface sediments, 20 samples will be collected, with 15 stations occupying grid cells bracketing the documented zones of PAH bearing sediments. Five additional discrete samples will be located in the vicinity of the intertidal seeps and will be located visually during the sampling at areas adjacent to historical or visible seeps. Intertidal surface sediments at from the East Beach will be collected from elevations between 1 and –2 ft MLLW. Surface sediment sampling locations are listed in Table FSP-3 and shown in Figure FSP-8.

Intertidal sediments from the East Beach will also be cored to determine the extent of PAH in subsurface sediments at eight grid cell locations. Each grid cell location will produce a unique set of samples in order to characterize PAH distributions within that grid cell (i.e. compositing only within a grid cell location, not across grid cells). Cores will be collected from the locations shown in Figure FSP-8; stations are listed in Table FSP-1. Coring locations were determined based on the intertidal sediment study conducted by the UASACE (2001) and those occupied during the 2002 monitoring event. The cores were located to both delimit the extent of the PAH deposit based on the presence of PAH bearing sediments documented in the USACE study as well as characterizing the PAH concentrations of subsurface sediments within this deposit. Intertidal cores will be collected by vibracore to depth of at least one meter (3.3 ft) below mudline, or refusal. Cores will be logged and representative samples of sediments showing


visible evidence of PAH contamination (e.g., sheening, staining, free NAPL) will be collected and analyzed. Samples above and below this layer will be archived.

2.2.5 North Shoal Monitoring

Monitoring of the North Shoal consists of the collection of surface sediments (0-10 cm) from five (5) intertidal locations and a survey of intertidal habitat use. The purpose of the surface sediment monitoring is to ensure that sediments on the North Shoal remain uncontaminated relative to the SMS. Sediments will be analyzed for PAH and conventional parameters for comparison to the SMS. Stations on the North Shoal to be sampled are shown in Figure FSP-8 and listed in Table FSP-1. Analyses to be conducted are shown in Table FSP-2.

2.2.6 Biological Monitoring

Intertidal areas within the EHOU will be monitored to provide information on habitat use over time. In 2011 and early 2012, qualitative biological surveys will be conducted to evaluate whether the placed remedies and or the natural recovery provide functioning habitat. Bird and mammal visual surveys will be conducted in the fall of 2011 and spring of 2012 to determine habitat use in the terrestrial, riparian zone and intertidal areas at West Beach, the Intertidal Cap area, North Shoal, and East Beach. These intertidal areas will also be surveyed in the fall for habitat use by intertidal invertebrates and macroalgae.

The Intertidal Cap and the EBS will be surveyed for evidence of forage fish spawning, with an emphasis on use by Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus). This survey is required per environmental documentation for the original West Beach EBS construction (EPA and USACE 2000) and is listed in the EBS Biological Assessment (EPA and USACE 2007) as a conservation measure necessary to inform future maintenance of the EBS.

Shellfish tissue has been contaminated in the past primarily with PAHs at concentrations that posed a risk to subsistence-level and recreational shellfish consumers due in part to potential chemical contamination associated with the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site. The shellfish survey will serve two purposes. Clams will be collected to assess habitat use by the clams in the intertidal areas of at West Beach, the Intertidal cap, North Shoal, and East Beach. Clam tissue analysis will be conducted from clams gathered at North Shoal and Intertidal Beach to evaluate whether natural recovery has resulted in a decrease in PAH concentrations within clam tissue, and whether or not they are suitable for human consumption based on health protective values to be derived.


3.0 Project Organization and Responsibilities

This section identifies individuals responsible for specific aspects of field sampling for Year 17 monitoring. The overall project management is defined in PMP, with contact information provided in Table PMP-1. Personnel responsible for laboratory analysis, quality assurance, data management, and reporting of the physical, chemical, and biological monitoring are detailed in the QAPP, but are also briefly mentioned in this document in relation to successfully accomplishing the field sampling associated with Year 17 monitoring.

3.1 Monitoring Personnel

HDR and its team will conduct the field activities and sample collection specified within this FSP. Ms. Barbara Morson is the HDR Project Manager and the Project Health and Safety Officer. She will be the contractual point of contact for the USACE and EPA. Ms. Nancy Winters of HDR is the project coordinator and will provide administrative and technical assistance, and is the alternative point of contact for the EPA and USACE.

Tim Thompson and David Browning of SEE will coordinate and conduct all physical and chemical monitoring tasks, as well as analysis and reporting. Mr. Tim Thompson will serve as the Sediment Technical Lead and the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer for the field work. SEE is the technical point of contact for the USACE and EPA.

Analytical Resources Inc. (ARI) will conduct all chemical and conventional analyses for sediments and rinsates. Archived samples will be stored at ARI until the conclusion of the period of performance for the Year 17 monitoring, at which time the samples will be transferred to the USACE or disposed at the direction of the USACE. Quality Assurance and Quality Control oversight of laboratory will be the responsibility of Mr. Mingta Lin of KTA.

Subtidal sampling will be conducted from the R/V Nancy Anne operated by Marine Sampling Services (MSS). Mr. Tim Thompson and/or Mr. David Browning in tandem with Mr. Bill Jaworski of MSS will be responsible for station positioning for all on-water field efforts for monitoring. Mr. Browning will be responsible for positioning/surveying associated with intertidal sediment. A sub-meter accuracy differential global positioning system will be used for all sampling activities. The shipboard GPS will be provided by Mr. Bill Jaworski for sampling activities conducted aboard the R/V Nancy Ann. A backpack differential GPS will be used during the intertidal sediment and tissue collections. On the research vessel, the GPS will be interfaced to an integrated navigation system that will store target sampling locations, provide a plan-view display of the vessel position relative to the target sampling location, and record the location of sample acquisition once the sample is taken.

3.2 Physical, Chemical, and Biological Monitoring Task Coordinators

The managers of the physical, chemical and biological monitoring efforts, along with their sampling (measurement tools) responsibility are listed below. These managers will be responsible for managing field sampling and survey work, laboratory analysis, data analysis and


interpretation, and reporting for the listed monitoring methods. They will also be responsible for directing staff, coordinating with the HDR Project Manager, and preparing all reports and other work products in their technical area.

Monitoring Type Manager Measurement Tools

Physical USACE Bathymetry Beach Elevation Surveys

Chemical Tim Thompson David Browning

Sediment Coring, Surface Sediment Chemistry

Biological USACE Chad Wiseman Mike Witter Becky Holloway

Clam Tissue Collection Invertebrate and Macroalgae Surveys Bird and Mammal Surveys Forage Fish Survey

PAH Fingerprinting Mingta Lin Surface sediment chemistry and specialized analyses

3.3 Field Sampling Personnel

The personnel listed in the above table will conduct the field program, with the exception of Mr. Mingta Lin, who will oversee laboratory chemical analyses for sediment and water (rinsate) samples. All field personnel conducting the chemical sediment sampling have extensive marine sampling and/or biological monitoring experience and are familiar with the methods for conducting this work. All field personnel conducting sediment sampling have current health and safety certification as required by OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120.

In the event additional personnel are necessary, other personnel with marine sampling experience will assist in conducting the field work. At a minimum, those individuals will have current health and safety certification and will be required to read and comply with the relevant sections of this FSP and the Health and Safety Plan.


4.0 Field Project Schedule

The overall schedule for the project is presented in the PMP in Table PMP-4. The projected schedule for the field sampling for Year 17 monitoring of the East Harbor Operable Unit is presented in Table FSP-3. Note that the sampling of clam tissues was decoupled from sediment sampling; it was necessary to sample the clams in the springtime, typically a time of high clam tissue lipid content. This has been completed by the USACE; the work plan for those activities is in Appendix A.

Field activities for the EHOU monitoring during Year 17 monitoring will take place over approximately three weeks in the months of September and October 2011. The projected schedule is tentative and dependent on the progress of Work Plan approval and the timing of each monitoring element.

The following sequence of field sampling events is anticipated:

Mobilization and setting the DGPS will take approximately 1 day.

Intertidal cap surface sediment sampling is estimated to take 0.5 days.

EBS surface sediment sampling is estimated to take 0.5 days.

East Beach intertidal sediment sampling is estimated to take 2.5 days.

North Shoal intertidal sediment sampling is estimated to take 0.5 days.

East Beach intertidal subsurface coring is estimated to take 2 days.

Sampling of surface sediments (0 - 10 cm) using the van Veen grab sampler is anticipated to take 4 days based on the field logs from the 2002 sampling. Mobilization and demobilization is included in this estimate.

Through-cap coring is estimated to take 2-3 days, including mobilization.

Core processing (both intertidal and through-cap is estimated to take 2-3 days.

Habitat use surveys of the EBS, North Shoal, Intertidal Cap and East Beach are estimated to require on day for the invertebrate and macro algae, one day for the fall and one day for the spring bird and mammal survey, and one day in each the fall and early spring for the forage fish survey.


5.0 Field Activities

This section details the activities, procedures, and data quality objectives for the field sampling efforts for Year 17 monitoring at the EHOU. General descriptions of how each monitoring tool works, and its relationship to the overall program is provided below. Definitions for the quality assurance parameters (precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability) are given in Section 8.0 of the AQAP.

Field collections for physical monitoring will be conducted by the USACE or its contractors in accordance with specifications from the Seattle District. The physical monitoring is being conducted as part of the overall task but outside of the activities covered in this FSP. Physical monitoring consists of intertidal and supratidal elevation surveys and subtidal bathymetric surveys. The specifications and methodologies for the field sampling or data collection portions of these surveys may be found in Appendix B, Scope of Work for Bathymetric Sampling and the Scope of Work for Aerial Photography and Surveying of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Site.

All field activities must be conducted in accordance with the site Health and Safety Plan.

5.1 Navigation and Positioning

5.1.1 Rationale

Precise navigation and positioning is required to document the locations where samples were acquired and to occupy and reoccupy sampling locations from previous investigations and monitoring activities. Accurate and precise positioning is a required quality control parameter for all objectives. Detailed procedures for navigation and positioning are described below.

5.1.1.1 Method

A differential global positioning system (DGPS) will be used to navigate to, occupy, and document all over water stations aboard the R/V Nancy Ann or the R/V Mudhen operated by Marine Sampling Services. A Trimble 4000 RS DGPS utilizing the U.S. Coast Guard differential signal from Oak Harbor, WA will be interfaced to a computer running software enabling real-time plan view navigation to the required sampling stations. Station coordinates will be digitally recorded and in the field logs at the time of collection of each sample in North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

Navigation and positioning will be accomplished using a sub-meter accuracy DGPS utilizing the Coast Guard broadcast differential correction signal. For shipboard operations, the DGPS system will be interfaced to an integrated navigation system that will use the GPS data to display the vessel position in plan-view along with a target sampling station, store the coordinates of target sampling locations, and record coordinates of sample acquisition. For intertidal sampling, a backpack DGPS will be used, with target sampling locations entered in the DGPS prior to sampling. The positioning system must be able to provide highly accurate positions (±2 meters in real-time) with a rapid positional update (e.g., every 3 seconds or less). The methods and QA/QC procedures described herein are applicable to all surveys.


5.1.1.2 Study Area Definition

The survey area is similar to that surveyed during previous monitoring events but now also encompasses East Beach and intertidal cap areas. The study area is shown in Figure FSP-2.

5.1.2 Procedures

5.1.2.1 Equipment

The following equipment is required for operation of the navigation system:

Differential Global Positioning System

Sub-meter GPS unit(s) VHS NMEA Differential Receiver GPS and VHS Antennae

Integrated Navigation System Components

PC-based Computer System Including Monitor Printer/Plotter Navigation software

5.1.2.2 Survey Setup

The integrated navigation system is controlled through a series of menu-driven options and presents a visual display of the ship's position relative to the intended destination. Before a survey begins, a file is created containing the horizontal control check point coordinates, sampling points (waypoints), survey parameters, chart parameters, and data recording parameters. Eagle Harbor surveys have used state plane coordinates (X and Y) and the 1927 North American Datum (NAD 27) in 1994, and NAD 83/WGS-84 datums with geographic coordinates in subsequent surveys. The survey will be conducted utilizing GPS, which operates in the WGS-84 or NAD 83 datums.

5.1.2.3 Data Quality Objectives, Instrument Calibration, and Quality Control Procedures

The Data Quality Objective (DQO) for navigation is precision placement with an accuracy of ± 2 m for a minimum completeness of 100 percent of all sampling stations. To meet these parameters, the instrument quality control procedures described below will be followed.

A location of known position (horizontal control check point) will be visited by the survey vessel prior to the start of each survey day to ensure that the positioning system is operating satisfactorily. Horizontal control points previously used at the EHOU are listed in Table FSP-4. A record of the daily "navigation check" will be kept in the field log.


Precision navigation and positioning are critical to successful completion of this program. To ensure that the DQO of ±2 meters is satisfied, the following institutional controls will be implemented:

Setup procedures for the navigation system will be established and followed aboard the research vessel to ensure that the antennae are always in the exactly same location.

To verify accurate horizontal control, a known position will be occupied daily, prior to survey operations. A log will be kept of the daily fixes to identify any errors in the navigation system.

Before field operations, the navigator will check the system's hardware and software to make sure the computer, peripherals, and diskettes are functional.

A proper supply of electronic and mechanical spares will be maintained on shore and aboard the research vessel to insure minimal down-time.

5.1.2.4 Real-time Data Collection and Display

The GPS unit calculates the vessel’s position using the satellite signal time delays and the broadcast differential correction. The integrated navigation system displays the vessel’s position in plan-view relative to a target sampling position, or waypoint. Target sampling locations for surface sediment collections and through-cap core collections will be loaded into the shipboard integrated navigation system prior to the start of the survey and retrieved and displayed throughout the survey. Once the research vessel is piloted to within a specified distance from the target sampling location, data will be collected, including a fix of vessel position at the moment of sample acquisition. This fix will be recorded digitally and in the project field log.

5.1.2.5 Data Processing

Records of sampling locations will be maintained and reported in geographic (latitude and longitude) NAD 83 coordinates. The integrated navigation system will be used to display and record position data, however, all coordinate conversions and geographic data processing will be accomplished using Corpscon and ArcView®, respectively.

5.1.2.6 Data Reporting

Navigation deliverables consist of listings of proposed and actual sampling locations for sediment sampling, sediment coring, intertidal sediment sampling, and clam tissue collections. QA deliverables include daily horizontal control check points.

5.2 Surface Sediment Sampling

5.2.1 Rationale

Surface sediment samples, representing sediments 0-10 cm below mudline, will be collected from both on and off the subtidal cap, on the intertidal cap, on the EBS, and from both the North Shoal and East Beach intertidal sediments. The 0-10 cm surface sediment samples will be collected to assess the chemical character of surface sediments with respect to the Washington


SMS. Specifically, on-cap 0-10 cm surface sediment data will be used to evaluate the objective of whether the cap is providing a clean substrate. Subtidal on-cap surface sediment will also be compared to the same data from previous monitoring events. An additional 10 samples will be collected and analyzed for grain size only; these data will be used to calibrate the CMS Flow transport model. The East Beach and North Shoal intertidal 0-10 cm surface sediments will be evaluated with respect to the SMS and historical data to evaluate the progression of natural recovery at those sites. These data will be used to assess recovery and support final remediation plans. The objectives and rationale for surface sediment sampling are defined in the 2011 OMMP Addendum and are given in PMP Table PMP-5.

5.2.1.1 Sampling Locations

The stations where 0-10 cm surface sediment samples will be collected are itemized in Table FSP-1 and are shown in Figures FSP-4 through FSP-8. Of the 10 grain-size sampling stations, five (5) have defined positions (Figure FSP-4), while five (5) remain discretionary stations to be named by the USACE modeling personnel.

5.2.1.2 Sample Collection, Field, and Laboratory Analyses

Collection of subtidal surface sediment samples collected using a 0.25 m2 hydraulically-driven power grab from the R/V Nancy Anne. Intertidal surface sediment samples will be collected either by a hand-core, or by the power grab from the R/V Mud Hen.

Sample collection and analyses fall into following groups:

Samples collected on the subtidal cap, the intertidal cap, the EBS and the North Shoal require the collection of three grab samples per grid composited to a single sample for analysis. These samples will be analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC), grain size, and the SMS-designated list of PAHs. Additional material will retained for each station for potential PAH fingerprint analysis.

Samples collected on the East Beach represent single, discrete samples that are analyzed for TOC, grain size, and the SMS-designated list of PAHs. Additional material will retained for each station for potential PAH fingerprint analysis.

The 10 additional surface samples that will be analyzed for grain size only.

The total number of 0-10 cm surface sediment samples and corresponding analyses to be performed are shown in Tables FSP-1 and FSP-2. More specific details on methods are described below.

5.2.1.3 QA/QC, Blank Samples, and Frequency

QA/QC for surface sediment samples collected for chemical analyses include procedures for collecting an undisturbed sediment sample with no sampling-induced cross-contamination, evaluating the representativeness of the sediment and ensuring the accuracy of analyses. QA/QC for the collection of surface sediment samples is described in the discussion of field collection procedures.


DQOs for surface sediment chemical analyses require the collection of field duplicates, blanks, and equipment rinsates. A summary of QC samples required is presented in Table FSP-5. A discussion of those requirements may be found in Section 6.0 of the AQAP.

To evaluate the representativeness of the sediment samples as well as spatial heterogeneity of surface sediments, surface sediment field duplicates will be taken at a frequency of 5 percent (1 in 20). Surface sediments for field duplicates will be collected from one subtidal cap sediment station, one from the North Shoal, and an intertidal surface sediment station from the East Beach. These stations were selected to represent a range of PAH concentrations from those most likely to have the highest concentrations (i.e., East Beach) to those having an intermediate PAH concentration at levels at or below the SMS SQS.

To evaluate collection-related cross-contamination, equipment rinsate samples will be taken at a frequency of 5 percent, or one per sampling event, whichever is more frequent (Table FSP-5). Rinsate blanks will be distilled water rinsates taken from the decontaminated sampling devices and compositing utensils. A single field blank, consisting of a distilled water container left open during the sampling cycle, will also be taken.

Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) analyses will be conducted on 5 percent of the samples or one per batch, whichever is more frequent (see AQAP). Sufficient sediment will be collected from each station such that the MS/MSD can be conducted on any sample. Based on the screening of extract, samples that appear to be highly contaminated will not be selected for MS/MSD due to their high probability of adverse matrix interferences and likely poor recoveries. Samples of intermediate concentration will be chosen for MS/MSD analysis based on conversations with the analytical laboratory, using best professional judgment.

5.2.2 Procedures

5.2.2.1 Equipment

The following equipment is required for conducting surface sediment sampling:

Sampling vessel with winch (subtidal sediments)

0.25 m2 hydraulically-driven power grab (subtidal sediment)

Hand-cores (intertidal sediments)

Decontaminated stainless steel sampling spoons and mixing bowls

Solvents (isopropanol and/or hexane), distilled water, and Alconox for cleaning sampling equipment and tools

Ruler/measure

Sample jars

Labels and tape

Ice chests

Tygon tubing for siphoning overlying water


Gloves and personal protection equipment (e.g., polyethylene, nitrile, solvex gloves, raingear, steel toed boots)

Containers for IDW

Field Notebooks/sampling logs

DGPS Positioning system

Integrated navigation system.

5.2.2.2 Sampling Methods for Surface Samples using the Power Grab

Surface grab samples (upper 10 cm) will be collected from the subtidal regions of the EHOU using the 0.25 m2 hydraulically-driven power grab. For surface sediment samples collected with the grab, the research vessel will be piloted to within 5 m of the sampling station coordinates, the sampler deployed, lowered to the seafloor, retrieved, and then brought back on deck. Samples will be collected to minimize any disturbance to the sediments. All overlying waters will be carefully siphoned off prior to subsampling.

Surface sediments under the SMS are defined as those in the top 10 cm (0.33 ft). Sample collection procedures are as follows:

Prior to sampling the power grab is washed with a phosphate-free detergent (e.g., Alconox®), and rinsed with site water.

Once the boat is in the general proximity of the planned sampling station, the power grab is lowered through the water column until just above the sediment surface. The boat is positioned to within ± 3 ft of the designated target coordinates for the specific station, and the power grab is set on the sediment surface.

The jaws of the sampler are closed, and at that time, the station name, latitude/ longitude, time of collection, and depth to mudline are noted in the field log.

Retrieval of the grab should initially occur no faster than 1 foot per second.

When the grab sampler approaches the water surface, the winch should be stopped, and any handling lines in use should be attached to the winch cable to reduce swinging of the grab.

The winch should then be restarted to slowly bring the grab into the boat with minimal swinging. The grab sampler should be secured as soon as possible once it has been retrieved into the boat.

After the power grab has been secured, the upper access doors of the sampler should be opened, and the sediment sample should be inspected carefully before being accepted. The following acceptability criteria should be satisfied:

The jaws of the sampler will fully closed; there is no protruding rock, branches, or other debris that prevented a clean and complete closure.

Sediment is not extruded from the upper face of the sampler (i.e., the sediment sample is not overflowing through the screens and flaps at the top of the sampler).


Overlying water is present (an indication of minimal leakage).

The sediment surface is relatively flat and appears undisturbed, which indicates minimal disturbance or loss of sample (winnowing).

The entire surface of the sample is included in the sampler.

If a sample does not meet one or more of the above acceptability criteria, it should be rejected, and the sampling station should be resampled. If the sample is acceptable, the following observations should be noted in a field log or notebook before sediment is removed and placed into sample collection containers for subsequent shipment to a laboratory.

Station location

Time of collection

Latitude and longitude

Depth to mudline

Depth of penetration (cm)

Gross characteristics of the sediment

o Texture

o Color

o Biological observations (e.g., live organisms, shells, tubes, plant material)

o Presence of debris (e.g., wood chips or fibers, man-made debris or trash)

o Odor (e.g., hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, oil, creosote, etc.)

o Color (Munsell scale)

o Sheen

Vertical profile information

o Stratification, other changes in sediment characteristics

o Presence and depth of redox potential discontinuity layer, if visible

Comments regarding sample quality (leakage, disturbance, any other pertinent observations).

After these observations have been recorded, the collected sediment can be removed from the sampler. An estimated 2 L of sediment will be required per station for chemical analyses. Additional sediment volumes would be collected for duplicate or matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate analyses. Sample volume requirements are given in Table FSP-6.

Prior to collection at the next station, the sampler is rinsed with site water, washed with the phosphate-free detergent, and rinsed again with site water. Residual sediments not retained for chemical analyses, as well as equipment rinsates, will be handled as documented in the IDWP.


5.2.2.3 Sampling Methods for Intertidal Surface Samples using the Hand Core

For intertidal surface sediments, sampling personnel will transit by foot to sampling stations using a backpack DGPS to navigate. Once at the station, sediment will be collected by either a stainless steel spoon or inserting a stainless steel hand-core into the sediment. Undisturbed, representative sediment will be sampled, as evidenced by lack of megafaunal burrowing or scavenging, presence of debris, or evidence of recent anthropogenic disturbance.

The same sample observations noted above will be recorded in a field log or notebook before sediment is removed and placed into sample collection containers for subsequent shipment to a laboratory.

5.2.2.4 Sample Compositing and Homogenization

A sample from the desired depth interval, away from the sides of the grab, will be transferred to a pre-cleaned stainless steel bowl for compositing. For those stations requiring three grabs for compositing, approximately 1.5 L of sediment will be required from each station for physical and chemical analyses. An additional 500 ml of sediment will be archived. Sample volume and holding requirements are given in Table FSP-6.

During sample preparation, non-representative material (e.g., debris) will be removed from the sample at the direction of the chief scientist. Until all grab samples have been collected at a given station, the bowl will be covered with aluminum foil, and protected from direct light. Samples will be homogenized by mixing with a stainless steel spoon until uniform consistency and color are achieved.

5.2.2.5 Sampling for Physical Analyses

Sample volumes and container requirements are given in Table FSP-6. Volumes collected will be sufficient for the laboratory to run all quality assurance analyses as required by the AQAP.

For grain size analysis, approximately 500 mL of the homogenized sediment will be transferred to either a glass or plastic jar, using a decontaminated stainless steel spoon. The appropriate sample label will be completed, attached, and taped to the sample container. The sample container will then be placed in a zippered bag, and kept on ice at approximately 4ºC until transfer to the laboratory. Appropriate transfer procedures are discussed in Section 6.

5.2.2.6 Sampling for Chemical Analyses

For TOC analysis, approximately 125 mL of sediment will be transferred into a glass jar fitted with a Teflon liner. The sample label will be completed and affixed, and the jar will be bagged and kept on ice until transfer to the laboratory.

For sediment organic (PAH) analysis by method 8270, a minimum of 250 mL of homogenate will be transferred into a glass jar with a Teflon-lined lid. Care will be taken to assure that the inside of the bottle, cap, and sample are not cross-contaminated during transfer. For TPH analyses, 250 ml of homogenate will be placed in a pre-cleaned glass jar. Samples will be


labeled, bagged, and kept on ice until transfer to the analytical laboratory. In addition, 500 ml of sediment homogenate will be collected and archived.

5.2.2.7 Sample Containers and Storage Techniques

After sample preparation (e.g., compositing), the samples will be processed and shipped according to sample handling and custody procedures described in Sections 5 and 6. Maximum holding times are listed in Table FSP-6.

5.2.2.8 Field Quality Control Sampling Procedures

Field quality control samples and field duplicates will be collected at stations where duplicate analyses are required. For the previously designated field duplicate stations, QA samples for the chemical analyses will be collected from the same composite.

For equipment rinsate blanks, 2 liters of distilled water will be poured into and through the decontaminated sampler and collected into a decontaminated stainless steel bowl. Any tools used in the sediment transfer process (e.g., spoons) will also be placed into the bowl and water. The water will then be transferred into 1 liter glass bottles, labeled, and processed as described above.

5.2.2.9 Decontamination Procedures

Sediment collection and compositing equipment will be decontaminated prior to initiation of sampling and between sampling locations. Decontamination methods are consistent with PSEP (1989a and b); the following procedures will be used for all subsampling equipment (e.g., stainless steel bowls and utensils) decontamination:

Clean with site water and nonphosphate detergent; use a brush to remove particulate matter Rinse thoroughly with site water Rinse with 1N nitric acid Rinse with deionized water Rinse with isopropyl alcohol Rinse thoroughly with deionized water Air dry.

All decontamination fluids will be handled according to the IDWP. If visible creosote is observed on the sampler, decontamination will also include hexane; hexane is more efficient in removing petroleum-based residue than methanol. All decontamination rinsates will be collected for appropriate disposal as outlined in the IDWP.

5.3 Through-cap Cores

5.3.1 Rationale

On-cap sediment core sampling addresses the cap’s ability to chemically isolate underlying chemicals of concern. For stations that have not been supplemented with sediment from the


2000 Phase II and 2001 Phase III capping events, the subsectioning plan will be consistent with the plan established in the 1995 OMMP and continued in the 2002 OMMP. At these stations, the segment of subsurface sediment that is 15-30 cm above the pre-cap sediment and cap sediment interface will be sampled and analyzed. This will be denoted as the “primary gradient sample.” In addition, cap sediment above and below this interval will be collected and archived. Analysis of archived samples will be pending results from the analyses of the primary gradient samples. A schematic of the core sampling scheme is given in Figure FSP-9.

For stations that have been augmented with additional cap material, the sectioning and subsampling plan requires modification. Based on post-placement bathymetry following the 2000 Phase II and 2001 Phase III capping events, up to 3 m (10 ft) of new sediment overlays the 1994 Phase I cap at some locations. At locations where there is a thick accumulation of new cap material, it may not be possible to sample to the pre-cap (native sediment) and cap interface. For these stations, subsampling and sectioning will be based on the contact between the 1994 Phase I cap and the 2000 Phase II/2001 Phase III cap interface.

At stations where 45 cm (1.5 ft) or more of 2000 Phase II/2001 Phase III capping material overlies the 1994 Phase I cap, the primary gradient sample for analysis will be collected 15-30 cm above the 1994 Phase I cap/2000 Phase II and 2001 Phase III cap interface. Sediments above and below the primary gradient sample will be archived, with analysis dependent on the results from the primary gradient sample. This sectioning plan is consistent with that implemented in the Year 8 monitoring event.

For stations where less than 45 cm (1.5 ft) of recently placed cap material overlies the 1994 Phase I cap, the interval 5-20 cm or 10-25 cm above the 1994 Phase I/2000 Phase II and 2001 Phase III cap interface will be the primary gradient sample. In addition, sediments above and below this interface will also be subsampled and archived. Additional archive samples will be taken if there is evidence of contamination.

5.3.1.1 Sampling Locations

Sampling locations will be restricted to on-cap locations. Station locations for sampling are given in Table FSP-1, and are shown in Figure FSP-6. The through-cap coring stations represent a range of thinly capped areas to thickly capped areas with focus being on the recently placed 2000 Phase II and 2001 Phase III areas. In addition, through cap cores will be collected from grid cells sampled during the 2002 monitoring to document the vertical distribution of chemical concentrations over time.

5.3.1.2 Sample Collection, Field Analysis, and Laboratory Analyses

The objective is to obtain core samples that represent the entire thickness of the cap and a small portion (10-30 cm) of underlying native sediments. Cores will be examined, sectioned, and composited as described in the following sections. To achieve sufficient volume for physical and chemical analyses, multiple cores may be required at each collection location. The primary samples collected will be analyzed for PAHs, TOC, and grain size.


5.3.1.3 QA/QC, Blank Samples, and Frequency

Sediment core field duplicates will be taken at a frequency of 5 percent (1 in 20) or one per sampling event, whichever is more frequent. Equipment rinsate samples will be taken a frequency of 5 percent, or one per sampling event, whichever is more frequent. Equipment rinsate samples will be final distilled water rinsates collected from the decontamination of collection and composting utensils (e.g., stainless steel bowls, spoons, etc.).

Trip blanks will not be required for 2011 Year 17 monitoring because volatile organic compounds are not being measured.

5.3.2 Procedures

5.3.2.1 Equipment

The following equipment is necessary to collect sediment cores:

Research Vessel with winch

Vibracore and core barrels

o Vibracore with 4-inch diameter aluminum tubes (5-14 ft. length)

o Sediment coring log form and field logs

o Pre-cleaned sample containers and labels

o Processing table and supplies (e.g., gloves, foil, coolers, plastic drop cloth)

o Core sectioning equipment (pipe cutters, saw, caps)

o Decontamination materials and buckets

o Aluminum trays or foil and rubber mallets

o Vibratory extruder

o Measuring stick

o Stainless steel core sample holders

o Camera for photo documentation

DGPS Positioning System

Integrated Navigation System

5.3.2.2 Sampling Methods for Subsurface Coring

Positioning of the research vessel and vibracore unit will be the same as that described for collecting surface sediment samples. The sediment core procedure includes the following:

All data from sediment core collection is recorded real-time onto field logs.

The sampling vessel is maneuvered to the designated target coordinates for dredge prism stations using the DGPS and an on-board navigation system.


Prior to occupying a sampling station a pre-cleaned aluminum core barrel fit with a core-catcher is set into the vibracore apparatus.

Once the boat is in the general proximity of the planned sampling station, the coring apparatus is lowered vertically through the water column till just above the sediment surface. The boat is positioned to within ± 3 ft of the designated target coordinates for dredge prism stations, and the core unit is set on the sediment surface.

The vibracore unit is switched on, and the progress of the cores descent through the mud is monitored for achievement of the target push depth (8 ft.) or refusal.

For each core attempt, the station name, latitude/longitude, time of collection, depth to mudline, depth of drive, and total drive time are noted in the field log.

The core apparatus is retrieved and brought back on board. The field crew will note the condition (texture, color, presence of debris) of the material in the bottom of the core, and then fix a plastic cap over the tube to retain material prior to removing the tube for cutting.

The amount of material retained in the core tube is measured and recorded in the field log. The recovery depth is the total length of tube penetration minus the measured depth from the top of the tube to the height of the mud in the tube.

Compare the length of the recovered core to the station core penetration depth. If the length of the core is less than 60 percent of the core penetration depth, discard the core:

If the core is discarded, make an additional attempt at least 1foot from the previous location.

o If the second attempt fails, determine if there is a physical reason (e.g., sediment type) that is preventing adequate recovery.

o A maximum of three attempts will be made.

o If the third attempt fails the recovery criteria, the core is retained, and in consultation with the USACE and EPA determine if the core should be processed and analyzed.

The retained core tube is placed into an on-board cutting jig, measured and marked (scoring the metal) in 4 ft. intervals. Each interval is marked with the station name, the core interval (i.e., A, B, or C) and the direction to the top of the core. Once cut, the scored labels may be written over with a permanent marker.

The tubes are cut and capped, with the cap being secured with duct tape. The station, date, time, interval, and a direction arrow to the top of the tube are made with a permanent marker on the duct-taped cap.

The cut and marked core intervals are stored vertically in a core rack, on ice, and in the dark (e.g., under a tarp) till processing.

The actual depth of sediment inside the core tube (sample recovered) may be less than the core tube’s penetration into the harbor bottom, depending on the degree of compaction and loss of sample out the bottom of the tube. In soft fine-grained sediments, typical sample recoveries using this sampler range from 75 to 85 percent of the penetration depth. As the cap is composed of coarser-grained materials, recoveries may be lower. The sample tube will be removed and handled as described in the following sections. Penetration of the core barrel into the sediments


will be monitored using a transducer at core head. Rate of penetration will be recorded in the core acquisition log.

5.3.2.3 Field Measurement Procedures

All information concerning the collection of cores will be entered in a field notebook. At a minimum, this will include station, date, time of collection, depth of core, rate of penetration, visual or olfactory evidence of COC, and any other features that may affect the quality of data.

For Year 17 monitoring, cores will be collected in a 4-inch inner diameter decontaminated aluminum core tube. A continuous core sample, up to 14 feet in length, will be collected. Once retrieved, acquisition will be determined by measuring the amount of sediment within the core tube. Percent recovery will be recorded as recovery length/drive length times 100. Once measured, the core will be cut into intact 4-foot lengths for transport to the processing laboratory. Each section will be covered with aluminum foil and capped to prevent leakage of porewater. Any water overlying the core will be siphoned or drained prior to cutting into 4-foot segments. Each segment will be labeled with station name, replicate, time, date and interval below mudline.

5.3.2.4 Sample Compositing and Homogenization

Extrusion, logging, subsampling and compositing of the core samples will occur in a processing laboratory. Core segments will be processed by scoring each core segment lengthwise and then splitting the tube and exposing the sediment. All processing will occur on a foil-covered processing table. Each core will be logged with time, date, personnel, sediment type, stratigraphic features and the presence or absence of any visible contamination recorded in the core log. In addition, photographs of each core segment will be taken. Each core photograph will also include a label denoting station, replicate, time and date along with a scale. Each core will be examined by the Senior Sediment Scientist, and those observations will be recorded in a sediment coring log (Figure FSP-10).

The core subsamples will be collected from the exposed center portion of the core; the outermost 0.5 cm will be discarded if at all possible. For each sediment core, the strata to be composited are described above. The subsamples will be mixed to visible uniformity in pre-cleaned stainless steel bowls. Subsamples will then be transferred into the appropriate containers for the individual analyses and then processed and shipped according to sample handling and custody procedures described in Section 6.0.

5.3.2.5 Sampling for Physical Analyses

Sample volumes and container requirements are given in Table FSP-6. Volumes collected will be sufficient for the laboratory to run all quality assurance analyses as required by the AQAP.

For grain size analysis, approximately 500 mL of the homogenized sediment will be transferred to either a glass or plastic jar, using a decontaminated stainless steel spoon. The appropriate sample label will be completed and taped to the sample container. The sample container will then be placed in a Ziploc bag, and kept on ice at approximately 4°C until transfer to laboratory custody. Appropriate transfer procedures are discussed in Section 6.0.


For TOC analysis, approximately 125 mL of sediment will be transferred into a glass jar fitted with a Teflon liner. The sample label will be completed and affixed, and the jar will be bagged and kept on ice until transfer to laboratory custody.

5.3.2.6 Sampling for Chemical Analyses

Sample volumes and container requirements are given in Table FSP-6. For sediment organic (PAH) analysis, 500 mL of homogenate will be transferred into a glass jar with a Teflon-lined lid. Care will be taken to assure that the inside of the bottle, cap, and sample are not cross-contaminated during transfer. Sample label and jar processing will proceed as described above. Samples for optional PAH fingerprinting will not be collected from subsurface sediments, as the purpose of fingerprinting is to evaluate potential chemical inputs to the cap surface from off-site sources.

5.3.2.7 Sample Containers and Storage Techniques

After sample preparation (e.g., compositing), the samples will be processed and transferred to laboratory custody according to sample handling and custody procedures described in Sections 5 and 6. Storage and maximum holding times may be found in Table FSP-6.

5.3.2.8 Field Quality Control Sampling Procedures

For the previously designated field duplicate station, QA samples for the chemical analyses will be collected from the same composite.

For equipment rinsate blanks, 2 liters of distilled water will be poured into and through the decontaminated sampler, and collected into a decontaminated stainless steel bowl. Any tools used in the sediment transfer process (e.g., spoons) will also be placed into the bowl and water. The water will then be transferred into 1 liter glass bottles, labeled, and processed as described above.

5.3.2.9 Decontamination Procedures

At a minimum, all sediment collection and compositing equipment (aluminum core tubes, stainless steel shoes, bowls and spoons) will be decontaminated prior to initiation of sampling and between sampling locations. Decontamination methods were previously described in Section 5.2.2.9. All rinsates will be collected and disposed of in a manner consistent with that defined in the IDWP.

5.4 Collection of Sediments at J-9 and J-10

5.4.1 Rationale

The area defined by grids J-9 and J-10 are the focus of additional coring and evaluation in Year 17 of monitoring. Three discrete cores and three surface sediment samples will be collected within each of these two grids (six cores total). Initially, both the surface sample and the primary gradient sample will be analyzed for all SMS-listed chemicals. Sediments above and below the primary gradient will be subsampled and archived. If the deepest sample contains PAH


concentrations exceeding the SMS criteria, a bottom-up tiered analysis will occur to determine the depth at which cap material is ‘clean’. In either grid where any single chemical exceeds the SQS for PAHs in one or more of the three surface sediment samples, the results from the three samples are averaged and compared to the SQS. If the average exceeds the SQS, the grid would be designated a “cluster of concern,” which may trigger additional sampling or remedial action.

5.4.2 Sampling Locations

Sampling locations will be restricted to on-cap locations. Station locations for sampling are given in Table FSP-1, and are shown in Figure FSP-5.

5.4.3 Procedures

The procedures for surface sediment sampling at J-9 and J-10 are the same as those described in Section 5.2 for other on-cap surface sediments samples. The important difference is that the three samples collected per grid are treated as discrete, individual samples that are measured for the full-suite of SMS chemicals of concern.

The procedures for subsurface core sampling is the same as those described for through-cap cores in Section 5.3.

5.4.4 QA/QC, Blank Samples, and Frequency

One set of field duplicates, one set of MS/MSD, and one field rinsate will be taken for J-9 and J-10 samples. This is to ensure that one set of QA/QC samples is run for the full-suite of SMS chemicals of concern.

Trip blanks will be required for samples collected at J-9 and J-10 in 2011 Year 17 monitoring as volatile organic compounds are measured in the suite of SMS analytes.

5.5 Clam Tissue Collection

5.5.1 Rationale

Clam tissue residue analyses will be conducted to provide information to on PAH body burdens in clams on the beaches adjacent to the Wyckoff site. The tissue chemistry data may be used in a future human health risk assessment, future trends analysis, and for assessment of natural recovery.

Clam tissue sampling will be conducted by the USACE under a separate QAPP (Appendix A). Elements of that plan salient to this FSP are discussed briefly here.

5.5.2 Sampling Locations

For the Year 17 monitoring, the 2011 OMMP stated that clam tissue is to be sampled at the EBS, the Intertidal Cap, North Shoal, and the East Beach. The actual sampling locations for clam tissues would be dependent on clam density and presence of the target species (Protothaca staminea). However, in the Clam Tissue QAPP the USACE reported that in a reconnaissance


survey conducted on 19 April 2011, only horse clams of harvestable size will be collected from three intertidal areas at the site – Intertidal Beach, North Shoal, and East Beach, West Beach did not have sufficient clams to provide adequate tissue for analysis.

5.5.3 Survey Schedule

Collection of clam tissue samples at the EHOU occurred in May 2011. The sampling of clam tissue occurred ahead of the Work Plan in order to characterize the clam tissues at a time period where lipid content is highest.

5.5.4 Survey Methods

Specific survey methods and analytical methods are documented in Appendix A.

5.5.5 Reporting

Reporting of the clam tissue data will consist of tabular summaries of PAH and lipid content by station. All data will be validated, however no interpretive discussion of the clam tissue PAH and lipid concentration data will be provided.

5.6 Visual Surveys

5.6.1 Birds and Mammals

5.6.1.1 Rationale

Visual surveys will be conducted to determine habitat use in the terrestrial, riparian zone and intertidal areas to an elevation of 0 feet mean low low water (MLLW) depicted in Figure FSP-3. The surveys will document the observed use of the terrestrial, riparian and intertidal habitats by resident or transient fauna and local and migratory birds. In addition, a habitat map showing upland and riparian habitat types will be developed using GIS to help interpret site observations and expected habitat use of the area. These observations will be planned to include a complete low-tide cycle.

Locations. For purposes of the visual surveys and collecting field observations, the shoreline area surrounding the site has been divided into six subareas: the intertidal beaches at East Beach, North Shoal, the Intertidal Cap, and West Beach/EBS, and the riparian areas at the West Beach and East Beach (Figure FSP-3). (Note that the North Shoal and West Beach do not have associated riparian habitat). Each of the four intertidal areas and the two riparian area(s) will be surveyed separately.

Schedule. Bird and mammal surveys will be conducted concurrently and will occur twice within the 2011/2012 study year. The initial site survey will be conducted in the fall (mid-September to early November) 2011 and the second survey will be conducted in the spring of 2012 (April/May).

Methods. The bird and wildlife surveys in all six areas will be based on field observations and anecdotal evidence. Bird surveys in all six areas will be performed using a modified point count


method to identify species presence. Wildlife observations will be recorded in a field notebook along with notes on habitat use and behavior. Habitat will be mapped with plant species affiliations.

5.6.1.2 Procedures and Equipment

Procedures. The bird and wildlife surveys in all six areas will be based on field observations – (either direct observations, or tracks and/or scat) and anecdotal evidence. Bird species data will be collected using a modified point count (Ralph et al. 1993). The point counts will be conducted by having an experienced observer stand in one spot and record all birds seen or heard in the survey area for a predetermined time. For the EHOU bird survey, a 30-minute point count will be conducted at each of the six survey subareas. The observer will position himself at a location to provide the most complete view of the entire subarea. The observer will tally the number of each species seen or heard in the survey area during a 30 minute period. Counts will be conducted in the early morning in favorable weather conditions. The observer will also note any mammal or human activities observed during the count period.

A habitat map will be developed by determining the habitat types observed and noted during the bird and mammal observations. A recent aerial photograph will be used and refined observations to delineate habitat boundaries in the field. No quantified habitat variables will be used to develop the habitat types, but dominant structure and vegetation will be used to differentiate terrestrial and riparian habitat types. Intertidal habitat types will not be delineated under this task.

Equipment. The following equipment is required for conducting the visual surveys:

Binoculars

Camera, film

Trimble ™ GeoXT Explorer DGPS positioning system

Field notebooks and data sheets, graph paper

Pens and permanent markers

Field guides and species keys.

5.6.1.3 Reporting

The Final Year 17 Monitoring Report and its Addendum (spring results) of the bird and mammal visual survey results will include the following:

Bird and wildlife species lists Plant species list (native and non-native invasive species will be identified) Map(s) showing aerial cover of identified terrestrial and riparian habitat types.


5.6.2 Invertebrates and Macroalgae

5.6.2.1 Rationale

Intertidal areas within the EHOU will be monitored to provide information on habitat use over time. It is expected that habitat use will vary with time. Visual observations of intertidal invertebrates and macroalgae will be recorded to evaluate whether placed remedies and natural recovery provide functioning habitat.

Locations. Marine invertebrates and macroalgae will be qualitatively identified and mapped along the intertidal zone of the West Beach/EBS, Intertidal Cap, North Shoal, and East Beach (Figure FSP-3). For the purposes of this survey, the intertidal zone is defined by the area between the mean lower low water (MLLW) elevation and the supratidal fringe (i.e., between the highest high tide and the lowest high tide).

Schedule. This survey must be completed between June 1 and October 1 in order to accurately map macroalgae distribution (WDFW 2008). The survey will be completed in one day. The specific survey date will be selected based on favorable tidal conditions (i.e., a lower low tide during daylight hours, but also within the constraints of the project schedule and the index period.

Methods. The marine invertebrate and macroalgae survey will be based on field identification and presence/ absence data. Transects will be established, locations on each transect identified and coordinates obtained. At each location on a transect, marine invertebrates and macro algae will be characterized.


Procedures. The marine invertebrate and macroalgae survey will be based on field identification and presence/ absence data. Transects will be established perpendicular to the shoreline, from the MLLW to the supratidal fringe. Transect spacing will be determined in the field, based on representativeness and time constraints. Transect locations will be recorded with a Trimble GEO XT differentially corrected GPS unit (2-meter accuracy). Three locations on each transect will be selected for characterization of marine invertebrate and macroalgae presence/ absence. The locations on each transect will roughly target the MLLW, mean sea level (MSL), and mean higher high water (MHHW) elevations. These locations will be visually identified and photographs taken.

At each location on a transect, marine invertebrates and macro algae within a 0.25 square meter quadrat will be characterized and identified. Burrowing invertebrates will be collected with a clam gun or sediment corer. Sieves, squirt bottles, and white trays will be used to assist in isolating the invertebrates from the sediment matrix and aiding in field identification. Photographs of each unique invertebrate and macroalgae taxon will be taken for additional documentation.

Equipment. The invertebrate and macroalgae survey will require the following equipment:

Field identification keys


Sediment corer/ clam gun Stakes and string Tape measure Waterproof field notebook and forms Sharpies, pencils, etc. Camera Trimble Geo XT Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Quadrat 1000 micron sieves, Squirt Bottle, white tray 5 gallon bucket Waders.

5.6.2.3 Reporting

In the Final Year 17 Monitoring Report, HDR will prepare lists of marine invertebrates and macroalgae by sampling location within each transect, respectively. Photographs of each transect location and a representative photograph of each unique invertebrate and macroalgae taxon will be included in appendices. The transects and sampling locations will be included on a figure. If available, elevation contour lines from the survey associated with this project will be included in this figure.

5.6.3 Forage Fish

5.6.3.1 Rationale

As stated in the 2011 OMMP Addendum, upper intertidal areas of the Intertidal Cap and the EBS will be surveyed for evidence of forage fish spawning, with an emphasis on use by Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus). This survey is required per environmental documentation for the original West Beach/EBS construction (EPA and USACE 2000) and is listed in the EBS Biological Assessment (EPA and USACE 2007) as a conservation measure necessary to inform future maintenance of the EBS. The forage fish spawn survey will follow the bulk sampling protocol for field surveys (Moulton and Penttila 2001; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW] 2011b), and will follow the presence/absence and enumeration protocols (WDFW 2011d and e) in the lab to determine presence/absence of eggs in samples and to quantify spawning abundance by species.

Forage Fish Use of Project Area

Surf Smelt Spawn – Timing and Habitat

Some coastal areas in Washington, such as the San Juan Islands, support year-round spawning surf smelt (Penttila 1999, 2000, 2005). In the Bremerton-Poulsbo area and in southern Puget Sound, the most dominant spawning periods occur from September through March (Penttila 2005), though limited spawning may occur throughout the year. During spawning, surf smelt deposit eggs, about 1 millimeter (mm) in diameter, in the upper intertidal zone on mixed sand and gravel beaches. Following spawning, eggs are dispersed across the beach by wave action. Eggs incubate from two to eight weeks, depending on ambient temperature (Penttila 2005).


The Intertidal Cap and EBS of the Wyckoff Superfund project area are situated on the southeastern side of Eagle Harbor on the east coast of Bainbridge Island. According to the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Section 220-110-240, Hydraulic Code Rules, Eagle Harbor is part of “Tidal Reference Area #5”, Central Puget Sound (Penttila 2000). Prior to WDFW’s systematic survey effort conducted in the early 1990s, surf smelt spawning activity in Eagle Harbor was relatively unknown. However, a year-long series of surveys in the area conducted by WDFW from 1990-1991 recorded more than 58 spawning occurrences. Although spawning was recorded during all months of the year, data suggested a more widespread spawning activity in the fall and winter months (Penttila 2000).

Sand Lance Spawn – Timing and Habitat

Pacific sand lance appear to use the same mixed sand and small gravel spawning substrate as surf smelt, as eggs from both species are often collected in the same samples (Penttila 2000). Sand lance eggs can be distinguished from those of surf smelt by their smaller size, slightly irregular shape, and adherence to sand grains. In contrast to surf smelt, Pacific sand lance will also use pure sand beaches that are not used by surf smelt. Spawn appears as shallow, circular pits on the upper beach that are deposited from early November though February. Eggs are 0.6 to 0.8 mm in size and, depending on temperature, may incubate for up to four weeks (Penttila 1999, 2000, 2005). As such, incubating eggs might be present on spawning beaches through March. Sand lance were identified in the intertidal cap and its extension into the Phase II/III subtidal cap during Year 8 monitoring (2002) of the site in late November (Penttila and Perry 2006).

Other Forage Fish Spawn

Penttila (2011) cautioned that another forage fish egg type, rock sole, may be encountered during the bulk sampling event, particularly during the February sampling period. Rock sole are quite common on Bainbridge Island beaches from December through March. Rock sole eggs are about the size of sand lance eggs; however, they are perfectly round, glossy and featureless with no adherent substrate particles or attachment structures.

Locations. Based on the life history and communications with Dan Penttila of Salish Sea Biological (retired WDFW forage fish spawning coordinator) (Penttila, 2011), forage fish spawning surveys will be conducted in the upper intertidal zones of the Phase III Intertidal Cap and EBS (see Figure FSP-11) during the fall-winter months. Mr. Penttila conducted surveys of the project area in 2006 (Penttila and Perry 2006) and is familiar with the local forage fish spawning seasons. Surveyors will examine the upper intertidal areas of the Intertidal Cap and EBS to determine the presence of potential spawning zones. These zones are in the upper third of the beach, near the upper tidal limit. Surf smelt spawning and incubation areas are typically within the +7 to +9 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) tidal zone, about 1 to 2 feet below the log line. Sand lance spawning areas are typically within the +5 to +8 feet MLLW tidal zone.

Schedule. Based on biological information specific to the project area and the recommendations of WDFW (Lowry 2011) and Penttila (2011), HDR will conduct visual surveys and bulk sampling of suitable spawning substrate in late November 2011 and early February 2012. Although the 2011 OMMP Addendum states that the late-winter 2012 surveys would be


conducted in March, Penttila (2011) suggests that the surveys be conducted in early February to increase the potential for locating sand lance eggs

Methods. HDR will first conduct a qualitative survey of the West Beach/EBS and Phase III Intertidal Cap area. This survey will record environmental conditions on the beach based on field observations. Following the identification of intertidal substrate that is suitable for spawning forage fish, HDR will collect samples of transects in the intertidal zone. These samples will be condensed and processed in the lab to determine if eggs are present. Eggs, if found, will be counted to estimate abundance by species. More specific details on each survey method are described in the subsequent section.


Procedures. HDR biologist certified in forage fish surveys will conduct the survey. HDR will coordinate the survey with the Suquamish Tribe and the WDFW.

The forage fish spawning surveys will occur in the following four phases:

Visual Habitat Survey, recording environmental conditions observed on data sheets provided by WDFW (2011a).

Bulk Sampling will be conducted using the protocols presented in the “Field Manual for Sampling Forage Fish Spawn in Intertidal Shore Regions” (Moulton and Penttila 2001), and “WDFW Protocol FF-01: Procedures for Obtaining Bulk Beach Substrate Samples” (WDFW 2011b).

Condensing Bulk Samples (Winnowing) will follow “WDFW Protocol FF-02: Procedures for recovering winnowed light fraction subsamples of forage fish egg-sized material from bulk beach substrate samples” (WDFW 2011c). and

Lab analysis of winnowed samples will follow “WDFW Protocol FF-04: Laboratory Procedure for Counting and Staging Forage Fish Eggs Obtained from Processed Winnowed Light Fraction Field Samples” (WDFW 2011d)

The procedures outlined in these methods have been updated and approved for use by the current WDFW forage fish spawning coordinator, Dr. Dayv Lowry (Lowry 2011). WDFW has provided HDR with updated field and lab data sheets for use during the field survey and subsequent lab analysis. Details relative to each survey protocol are presented below.

Visual Habitat Survey.

HDR biologists will first conduct qualitative surveys of the intertidal zones of West Beach/EBS and the Phase III Intertidal Cap (Figure FSP-11) to characterize environmental conditions, including substrate size and type, to determine if intertidal habitats are suitable for forage fish spawning. HDR will record visual observations of habitat conditions for beach, upland, landmark, tidal elevation, length and width of surveyed area, and visual evidence of spawn. This survey will provide a qualitative assessment of West Beach and the Intertidal Cap relative to forage fish spawning habitat.


Bulk Sampling.

Following the visual survey, suitable spawning substrates in intertidal areas of the Intertidal Cap and EBS will be surveyed for spawn using the bulk sampling method (WDFW 2011b; Moulton and Penttila 2001). Sampling areas (depicted in Figure FSP-11) may be extended waterward based on the results of the visual survey. Bulk sampling of forage fish spawning areas consists of collecting beach samples during the lowest tide practicable. Following collection, samples are processed for lab analysis to determine if eggs are present and to provide a quantitative estimate of abundance by species in the sampled area.

HDR certified field biologists will collect substrate samples of gravel/sand in the upper intertidal zone for up to 20 transects using the following approach:

A landmark will be selected from which surveyors will measure the distance to the bulk substrate sample tidal elevation.

A 100 feet measuring tape will be stretched along the selected tidal height. Standing at one end of the measuring tape, surveyors will record a GPS measurement using a Trimble GPS unit. Field biologists will take several representative photographs of the transect. Photographs will be taken from one end of the transect toward the other to provide a parallel view of the transect in relation to the beach, as well as up and down the beach, with the cardinal direction recorded on the data sheet.

Using a 16-ounce sample jar or a large scoop, and starting at one end of the transect, four scoops of sand will be collected from the top 2-4 inches of sediment. Samples will be collected about 10 paces apart and will be deposited into a plastic bag that is marked with the sample transect number. The scooped area will be about 3 to 4 feet long and will skim the upper portion of the substrate. Following the collection of samples, the bag will be at least half full.

Collected sample bags will be placed in a cooler and securely transferred back to the office for processing. Samples will be stored in a cool location until analysis the following day.

Condensing Bulk Samples – Winnowing.

Bulk samples will be returned to the office for processing. Alternatively, if there is ample time, samples may be processed on the beach following bulk sampling. HDR will condense the samples following the methods described by WDFW (2011c). Each bulk sample transect will be maintained and processed separately. The following methods will be used to recover forage-fish egg-sized material from the bulk beach samples:

Bulk samples will be thoroughly wetted and sieved through a set of 4 mm, 2 mm, and 0.5 mm screens using buckets of shore-side water at the site, or a freshwater hose offsite. Screens will be carefully cleaned between samples.

Beach substrate retained in the 4 mm and 2 mm screens will be discarded.

Material from the 0.5 mm screen (i.e., “egg-sized material”) will be placed in a rectangular dishpan and covered with one-inch of water.


The dishpan material will be rotated/tilted (i.e., “winnowed”) to impart rotation to water, which will cause lighter material to rise to the surface, where it will accumulate toward the center of the pan.

The pan contents will then be tilted to move the lighter material to the lower left corner of the pan; water will be decanted from the opposite side.

The pan will be held in the tilted position and sample jars will be used to skim the surface (one-inch) of material from the lower left corner of the deposit.

If the sample is not to be analyzed within a day, ethyl alcohol (preservative) will be added to the jar.

If preservative is used, the lids of the sample jars will be fitted loosely to allow gas to escape, and jars will be placed in a well-ventilated area until samples are processed.

Laboratory Analysis of Winnowed Samples.

Winnowed samples will first be analyzed in the laboratory using “Protocol FF-03” (WDFW 2011e) to determine if eggs are present in the sample. If surveyors identify eggs, the enumeration lab protocol (Protocol FF-04) provided by WDFW (2011d) will be used to quantify egg abundance by species. The enumeration protocol includes the following:

The contents of each transect’s condensed winnowed sample will be thoroughly mixed. A Petri dish/measuring plate will be placed on a scale and tarred.

If preservative is present, it will be poured off into an appropriate waste container. The petri dish will be filled with sediment and a pipette will be used to remove residual preservative or other liquid. A paper towel will be used to blot the sample dry and the sample will be weighed.

Using a dissecting microscope (10-20x) and dissecting needles/forceps, winnowed materials will be examined. Observed eggs will be counted per transect sample, using the species diagrams presented in Protocol FF-04 (WDFW 2011d). Data will be recoded on the data sheets provided by WDFW.

When counting is complete, preserved samples from each transect will be placed into separate containers, labeled with the collection date, location, and sampler.

To calculate the egg density of samples by species, the weight of all sediment subsamples will be combined to obtain a total weight for the entire bulk sample (i.e., entire sample area).

The abundance of sand lance, rock sole and other eggs is typically low enough that complete analysis of the winnowed light fraction is possible. Surf smelt subsampling may be required if samples capture high spawn densities. If subsamples of surf smelt spawn are necessary, the total number of eggs in the bulk sample may be estimated by dividing the combined weight of all subsamples by the total sample weight, and then dividing the number of eggs in the combined samples by this value.

Following preliminary lab analysis, egg samples from each transect will be fixed for a few days in small, marked sample jars with ethyl alcohol. Samples will then be drained of the


preservative and shipped overnight in a padded box to Dan Penttila of Salish Sea Biological, in LaConner, WA.

Quality Control - Forage Fish Egg Confirmation.

Collected samples will be shipped to Dan Penttila, Salish Sea Biological, for species confirmation and review of abundance estimates. Mr. Penttila will record the results of his analysis on a lab data form, and results will be forwarded to HDR for verification of density/abundance estimates per transect. These data will be presented in a summary survey report that will include results of both the November 2011 and February 2012 surveys.

Equipment. The following equipment is required for conducting the bulk sampling in the field and for subsequent sample condensing and analysis in the lab.

Equipment needed for collecting bulk beach samples:

500 ml plastic jar or a metal scoop 3.7 L Ziplock bags Waterproof labels and a pencil Black sharpies 100 feet of transect/survey tape for measuring distances A clinometer or hypsometer (optional) Clip board, data forms and copies of the protocols – pre-printed on Right in Rain paper Camera and GPS Electrical tape.

Equipment needed for condensing samples:

Nested set of 4 mm/2 mm/0.5 mm screens 2, 5-gallon buckets with several large holes drilled near lip as rinse water outlets 1, 2-gallon plastic dish-pan 400-500 ml wide-mouth sample jars Pencil and Rite-in-the-Rain paper (cut into small squares for labeling samples) Plastic pipettes Rubber gloves Water hose with area of sufficient drainage for rinsing samples Ethyl alcohol.

Equipment for lab analysis of winnowed samples:

Rubber gloves Petri dishes/measuring plates Spoons Dissecting scope with 10-20x magnification Buckets/pans Oval microscope dish/clear plastic deli container cover Dissecting probes and plastic pipettes


Lab data sheets Padded shipping container to transport eggs to be identified to species Scale.

5.6.3.3 Reporting

HDR will prepare an Addendum to the 2012 Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor East Harbor Operable Unit (EHOU) Year 17 Final Monitoring Report, presenting the results of the November 2011 and February 2012 surveys. The report will include all information collected during the sampling periods, in the form of summary tables on lab and field data sheets, and supplemental text. The survey report will include the following:

1. A list of all sites sampled, including photos and figures illustrating transect locations (delineated in the field with a GPS unit);

2. A determination of whether or not eggs were found in each transect;

3. A summary of sampling at each site, including environmental conditions (i.e., substrate type, tidal stage), suitability for sand lance and surf smelt spawning;

4. A summary of findings for each site relative to the number of samples taken, and the number of eggs located and identified by species, as confirmed by Dan Penttila of Salish Sea Biological; and

5. A qualitative assessment of West Beach, the Intertidal Cap and the EBS as forage fish habitat based on visual surveys of substrate conditions in the upper intertidal zone.


6.0 Sample Activity Documentation/Chain Of Custody Procedures

This section describes procedures for maintaining sample control through field, sample, and shipping documentation. This section is intended to cover all activities from collection through to receipt of the samples by the lab, or placing of field records into the final evidence file.

6.1 Field Logbook

A bound, water resistant field notebook (with numbered pages) will be maintained throughout collection activities by each field team leader (sampling and sample processing) to provide a daily record of events, observations, and measurements during field investigations. Station and sample log sheets will also be completed by the site representative. All entries will be signed and dated. All other participants in the field investigation will use these notebooks and field forms which will be kept as a permanent record. Any inadvertent entries or mistakes in the log book will be crossed out and initialized by the recorder (refer to Section 6.5).

The notebooks and field forms are intended to provide sufficient data and observations to permit reconstruction of events that occurred during the project.

The following information will be documented in the field notebooks:

Name and title of author, date, and time of entry

Names and responsibilities of other team members on-site

Names and titles of any site visitors

Project name and location

Purpose of sampling activity

Material to be sampled

Site safety meeting (if applicable)

Levels of personnel protection (if applicable): level of protection originally used, changes in protection if required, reason for changes

Documentation on samples taken: date, time, location (and depth), type of sample, sample identification numbers, sample matrix, analyses required, sample characteristics and description (i.e., cloudy water, approx. grain size for classification of sediment), readings taken (if any)

Equipment utilized

Project samples and QA samples: know where they are to be sent, date they are sent, air bill (if not hand delivered)

On-site measurement data/parameters/instruments (if any): e.g., PID readings Calibration record


Field observations and remarks

Weather conditions

Unusual circumstances or difficulties and resolutions

Photographs taken

Deviations to the approved 2011OMMP Addendums and/or FSP

Chain-of-custody record numbers

Investigation-derived wastes, such as contents and approximate volume of waste, disposal method, type and predicted level of contamination

Signature and date (entered by personnel responsible for observations) at close of field day operations.

All original data recorded in field notebooks, sample identification numbers, chain-of-custody records, and receipt-for-sampling forms will be written with waterproof ink. None of these accounted, serialized documents will be destroyed or thrown away, even if they are illegible or contain inaccuracies that require a replacement document.

6.2 Photographs

Photographic records are an important component of the surface sediment coring components of Year 17 monitoring. Additional photographs of field conditions, collection activities, or general conditions will be made during the field activities.

Photographs of field activities will be taken. At a minimum, one representative photograph of each field activity will be taken (e.g., cap surface sediment sampling, through-cap coring, intertidal cap surface sediment sampling, etc.).

Photographs of North Shoal and East Beach sampling locations will also be collected as part of the sampling program. Photo documentation of discrete sampling locations relative to seep is integral to rationale for sampling. These photographs will include a label stating station identification, time, date and scale.

Photographs of through-cap and East Beach intertidal cores will be taken. These photographs will document stratigraphy and support subsampling and compositing decisions.

All photographs taken during the collection and processing of surface and subsurface sediments will be submitted as an appendix in the draft and final monitoring reports.

6.3 Sample Numbering System

All samples collected during 2011 Year 17 monitoring will be identified with a two part sample numbering system: the sample tracking number and the “blind” laboratory number. The sample tracking number contains information about the sample linking it to location collected, time collected and the strata collected. A blind numeric sample number will also be generated for labeling the samples sent to laboratory. The numbering system is the same as that used in the 2002 Year 8 monitoring.


The same sample numbering strategy as past surveys will be used in this monitoring effort to maintain programmatic consistency. For the sample tracking number, information regarding the media collected, the site, the station location, the sequence of samples collected from a station (i.e., more than one sample may be collected from a core), date sampled, and the stratigraphic interval at which the sediments were sampled.

Media - The media of the sample collected will be designated using two letters. For this 2011 Year 17 monitoring, three options are available: sediment (SS), water/rinse (WR) samples, and tissue (TI) samples. No PE samples are slated for analysis during Year 8monitoring activities.

Site - For the Year 17 monitoring program only one option is available, "EH", which stands for East Harbor Operable Unit.

Location - These are the grid cell station identifiers (Table FSP-1; i.e. I-9, J-10).

Sequence - A sequential number given to a sample at a specific location on a given sampling date.

Date - The date on which the specific sample was collected.

Interval - The depth of the strata sampled measured downward from the mudline, in centimeters (i.e., a sample taken in the top 10 cm of the sediment column would be designated 0.10, with mudline being 0 cm and 10 cm being the lower limit of sample acquisition).

An example of the sample numbering system is given below. The sample identification shows that this is the top section (0 - 10 cm) of a sediment sample collected at station G-8 on 14 October 2011and is the first sample collected at this station.

This would equate to a sample identification number of SSEHG-800010142011.10 (media:site:station:sequence:date:strata).

To ensure that the field samples are delivered "blind' to the laboratory, all sample containers will be labeled using only the calendar date with a sequentially assigned number on the day of sampling. For example:

Blind I.D. 10111001

101411 Sample collected on October 14, 2011 (10/14/2011)

001 The first sample collected on October 14, 2011

Both the field and the blind identifications must be entered into the field log book. An example record would read:

SSEHG-800010142011.10 = 10111001


6.4 Sample Documentation

Sample documentation refers to tracking procedures that begin with sample labeling, and continue until the conclusion of analysis and the sample is destroyed.

6.4.1 Sample Labels

All samples must have properly affixed labels prior to packing and shipment to the laboratory. Information must be legibly written in indelible ink and include at a minimum the following information:

Project Name Project Number Blind Sample Identification Number Sampler's Initials Preservatives (if used) Required Analysis Date and Time of Collection Type of Sample (sediment, rinsate water).

Prior to packing, the field scientists should check to ensure that both the lab sample identification number and the field sample identification number are recorded in the field log book, and that those numbers match on the sample label.

The label is affixed to the sample container, and wrapped with a layer of clear packing type to ensure the labels do not come off.

6.4.2 Chain-of-Custody Records

Verifiable sample custody is an integral part of all field and laboratory operations associated with this field investigation. The primary purpose of the chain-of-custody (CoC) procedures is to document the possession of the samples from collection, through storage and analysis, to reporting. CoC forms will become the permanent records of sample handling and shipment.

Field sampling personnel are responsible for the care and security of samples from the time the samples are collected until they have been turned over to the shipping agent or laboratory. A sample is considered to be in one’s custody if it is in plain view at all times, in the physical possession of the sampler, or stored in a locked place where tampering is prevented.

Empty coolers containing ice or ice substitute will be available at the study area for use each day in the field. Samples collected during the day will be stored in these coolers beginning at the time of collection. The coolers will be locked inside the field vehicle or other secure location when sampling personnel are not present.

A CoC form will be filled out for samples in each cooler. An example CoC is provided in Appendix C. Each CoC form will contain the following information:

Sample identification numbers


Date and time of sampling

Type of sample and number of sample containers associated with each sampling point

Total number of sample containers in cooler

Unique cooler identification number

List of analyses requested

Name and signature of sampling personnel

Shipping airbill number, when applicable

Comments regarding MS/MSD samples or any other information that is necessary for the laboratory

Space for transfer of custody acknowledgment.

When the CoC form is complete, field team members will cross-check the form. If samples are repackaged for shipping or delivery, one team member will cross-check the CoC form with the samples that are packed while another team member packages the samples. Corrections will be made to each record with a single strike mark that is dated and initialed. The person who initials corrections will be the same person who relinquishes custody of the samples. The CoC forms will be signed and dated, placed in resealable plastic bags, and taped to the inside lid of the respective coolers. Copies of the completed chains of custody will be retained by the field crew and one copy will be provided to USACE.

6.4.3 Receipt of Samples

All samples will be hand delivered to the analytical laboratories, EPA Manchester Laboratory and ARI, Tukwila WA. Upon delivery, the field scientist and the EPA and ARI sample custodians will review and transfer the custody forms. A copy of the signed form will be given to the SEE scientist and filed in the permanent evidence file. A cooler receipt form will also be filled out by EPA and ARI upon receipt of the samples and will become part of the permanent record files. Receipt of sample procedures by EPA and ARI are described in Section 4.3 of the AQAP.

6.5 Corrections to Documentation

When an error is made on an accountable document, corrections may be made by first placing a single line through the error, initialing and dating the lined-out item, and entering the correct information. The erroneous information must not be obliterated. Any subsequent error discovered on an accountable document should be corrected by the person who made the entry. All subsequent corrections must be initialed and dated.

6.6 Data Storage and Security

All documents generated during field and lab activities will be placed in the permanent evidence files, and stored in locked, fire-proof cabinets. Access to these records is controlled by the HDR Project Manager, and will be restricted to authorized personnel working on the project.


Data transferred to electronic media will be copied onto back-up discs and along with a hard copy of those data records, stored with the permanent record files. Users of the computerized data are prohibited from altering the data in electronic records through user-entry restrictions built into the computer software. Where electronic data are required for technical report generation, users will be given either read-only access, or copies of those files.


7.0 Sample Packaging and Shipping

This section outlines the procedures necessary for properly packaging and shipping of environmental samples to be sent to the lab. The procedures outlined below are performed after samples have been collected and placed in proper containers and correctly preserved.

7.1 Sample Container Preparation

Following sample collection and filling of sample jars, the following procedures are followed to prepare sample containers for shipping:

The outer surfaces of all sample containers are wiped down with disposable towels to remove any adhering mud or sediment. Distilled water may be used to rinse the jars, if necessary.

All sample labels should be clearly filled out following procedures described in see Section 6.4.1. Labels will be affixed to each sample jar and taped.

The master sample log/chain-of-custody form is completed following procedures outlined in Section 6.4.2. Each sample jar is verified against the chain-of-custody form to ensure that the intended analyses are to be conducted and the correct sample jars are prepared.

Each sample jar is placed in a plastic zippered bag, and the bag is sealed. As much air as possible is squeezed from the bag before sealing.

7.2 Sample Packaging

All sample containers will be placed in a strong shipping container, such as a metal or plastic picnic cooler with a hard plastic liner. The shipping container should be sufficient to prevent leaks or spills of ice water or broken sample containers. The shipping container will be adequately cleaned between shipments to prevent cross-contamination of samples. The following procedures will be used to pack samples for shipping:

Samples are transported using insulated, rigid ice chests (coolers). The drain plug is secured shut using duct tape or strapping tape.

Glass sample containers are wrapped with plastic insulating material (bubble wrap) to prevent contact with other sample containers or the inner walls of the cooler. Additional packing material will be placed above and below the sample containers. Adequate ice or blue ice is dispersed in the cooler to ensure that the samples maintain a temperature of 4C until delivery to the lab.

If samples contain potentially hazardous materials, the cooler is lined with absorbent packing for liquids and Styrofoam packing for solids (49 CFR 171,172,173). The cooler will also be lined with a large plastic bag and sealed over the top of the sample containers.

Once the cooler is properly filled, the completed chain-of-custody form is sealed in a Ziploc plastic bag and taped to the inside cover of the ice chest.


The cooler is closed and sealed with duct tape or strapping tape. Prior to shipment, two custody seals are placed on the cooler, one on the front and one on the side. Each custody seal is signed and dated.

An address label is affixed to the cooler. A "This Side Up" sticker is placed on the cooler and "Fragile" labels on two sides and the top of the cooler.

7.2.1 Shipping

Transfer of samples from the project site to the project analytical laboratory is expected to be performed by field personnel or via an overnight courier service. Deliveries must be arranged with the laboratory before samples are shipped. Deliveries may be shipped directly to the laboratory or to the courier’s office for pickup by laboratory personnel.

All chemical analyses of sediment samples will be performed by ARI in Tukwila, WA. The Laboratory Project Manager and contract information are as follows:

Laboratory Project Manager - Cheronne Oreiro 4611 S 134th Pl # 100 Tukwila, WA 98168-3212 Phone: (206) 695-6214


8.0 Investigation-Derived Wastes

A separate IDW Plan has been developed to provide specific waste generation and handling protocols for the field sampling and analytical programs in accordance with guidance presented in EPA's Management of Investigations-Derived Wastes During Site Inspection (EPA 1992). The complete IDWP is a companion document to this FSP. Disposal of field-generated wastes, including sampled sediments, field supplies, and decontamination fluids, must conform to the requirements of the IDWP.


9.0 Field Data Management, Validation, and Corrective Actions

9.1 Field Data Management

All field measurements and observations recorded in project log books, on field data forms, or on similar permanent records by field technicians, are to become part of the permanent evidence file. Field data is to be recorded directly and legibly in the logbooks or forms, with all entries signed and dated.

Managerial documentation consists of:

Data processing and storage records

Sample identification and chain-of-custody records

Field changes and variances

Document control, inventory, and filing records

Quality assurance/quality control records

Health and safety records

Financial and project tracking records.

9.2 Field Data Evaluation

The purpose of data evaluation is to ensure that defensible and justifiable data are obtained. To that end, reviews will be judged against the following:

Stated objectives of the 2011 OMMP Addendum

Proper execution of the procedures defined in the FSP

Equipment and instruments properly calibrated and in working order

Samples/data collected according to the FSP

Adequate documentation and justification of deviations from the FSP

Sufficient sample volume collected to maintain sample integrity, conduct all analyses and yet minimize investigation derived waste

All applicable field QC samples collected and provided to the laboratory

Completed and accurate chain-of-custody documentation kept throughout sample transfer

Field samples arrive at the laboratory in good condition.

Initial responsibility for verification of accurate entries will lay with the field data logger. At the end of the sampling day, the data logger must sign and date the log book. The SEE Sediment Technical Lead will then verify data to ensure that all pertinent information has been entered and


that correct codes and units have been used. The Sediment Technical Lead will direct the field data logger to make any necessary corrections to the record, and initial them (refer to Section 6.5). The Sediment Technical Lead will then sign the records to indicate that he/she has reviewed them.

When the data is returned to the office at the end of a specific phase of field operations (e.g., acoustic surveys), the Sediment Technical Lead (Section 3.2) or a designated representative will review the data for representativeness, accuracy, and comparability with other data collected. The Sediment Technical Lead will direct the responsible field personnel to make necessary correction to the record, and initial them. The Sediment Technical Lead will then sign the records to indicate that he/she has reviewed them.

After data reduction into tables or arrays, the Sediment Technical Lead and his associate will review data sets for anomalous values. Any inconsistencies will be resolved by seeking clarification from the field personnel responsible for data collection.

Managerial and technical data will be verified by the Project Manager for reasonableness and completeness. The Sediment Technical Lead and his associate will make random checks of sampling and field conditions. The designated QA Officer will review selected field data and procedures during random site visits to ensure adherence to the FSP and AQAP. Whenever possible, peer review will also be incorporated into the data evaluation process in order to maximize consistency among field personnel. All data evaluation will be verified by a dated signature.

9.3 Corrective Actions

The purpose of the evaluation process is to qualify or eliminate field information or samples that were not collected or documented in accordance with specified protocols outlined in the FSP/AQAP. Corrective actions for field methods were discussed in Section 6.5. If a problem occurs which might jeopardize the integrity of the project or cause quality assurance objectives not to be met, corrective measures will be determined and discussed among the HDR Project Manager, the USACE, and EPA. Once a course of action has been determined, it will be documented on a field change request form and implemented.

Procedures may be found in Section 10.0 the AQAP.


10.0 References

Brooks, R. 2011. Dorn, P. 2011. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Wyckoff Project Contact. Personal communication with Becky Holloway, HDR, July 15, 2011

CH2M Hill. 1989. Final Remedial Investigation Report for Eagle Harbor site, Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared for U.S. EPA Region 10, Hazardous Site Control Division, Contract No. 68-01-7251. Prepared by CH2M-Hill, Bellevue, WA

EPA. 1992. Guide to Management of Investigation-Derived Wastes. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. 9345.3-03FS. January 1992.

EPA and USACE. 2000. Design Analysis, Compensatory Mitigation. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington by US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. May 25, 2000

EPA. 2004. 2002-2003 Year 8 Environmental Monitoring Report. Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, East Harbor Operable Unit, Bainbridge Island, Washington. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington and the US. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Prepared by Integral Consulting and the US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. August 16, 2004.

Dorn, P. 2011. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Marine and Fish Ecologist. Personal communication with Becky Holloway, HDR, July 8, 2011

Lowry, D. 2011. WDFW Marine Ecologist and Forage Fish Spawning Coordinator. Personal communications with Becky Holloway, HDR, July 8 and 14, 2011.

Moulton, L.L. and D. E. Penttila. 2001. San Juan County Forage Fish Assessment Project: Field Manual for Sampling Forage Fish Spawn in Intertidal Shore Regions.

Penttila, D. 1999. Summary Report, San Juan Co., surf smelt spawning beaches, February 1989 through May 1990. WDF Memorandum to Greg Hueckel, July 3, 1990.

Penttila, D. 2000. Documented Spawning Seasons of Populations of the Surf Smelt, Hypomesus, in the Puget Sound Basin. State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Marine Resources Division. Briefing Report.

Penttila, D. 2005. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations. Forage Fish Spawning Habitats. Draft 2005.

Penttila, D. 2011. Marine Ecologist, Salish Sea Biological (retired WDFW Forage Fish Coordinator). Personal communication with Becky Holloway, HDR, April 19, 2011.

Penttila, D. and K. Perry. 2006. State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Forage Fish Spawning Habitat Survey Field Report: Blakely and Eagle Harbors, SE Bainbridge Island.


Ralph, C. J., G.R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of Field Methods for Monitoring Landbirds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-144. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

PSEP. 1989a. Puget Sound Estuary Program: Recommended guidelines for measuring organic compounds in Puget Sound sediment and tissue samples. Final report. Prepared for U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Puget Sound, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. PTI Environmental Services, Inc., Bellevue, WA.

PSEP. 1989b. Puget Sound Estuary Program: Recommended protocols for measuring metals in Puget Sound sediment and tissue samples. Final report. Prepared for U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Puget Sound, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. PTI Environmental Services, Inc., Bellevue, WA.

USACE. 2001. East Beach Intertidal Investigation Report. Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, East Harbor Operable Unit, Bainbridge Island, WA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.

WAC. 2010. Hydraulic Code Rules WAC 220-110.

WDFW. 2011a. Forage Fish Spawner Survey Data Sheet, with field observation sampling codes (original protocol by D. Penttila, reformatted by D. Lowry, July 2011).

WDFW. 2011b. WDFW Intertidal Forage Fish Spawning Habitat Survey Protocols: Protocol FF-01: Procedures for Obtaining Bulk Beach Substrate Samples.

WDFW. 2011c. WDFW Intertidal Forage Fish Spawning Habitat Survey Protocols: Protocol FF-02: Procedures for recovering winnowed light fraction subsamples of forage fish egg-sized material from bulk beach substrate samples (original protocol by D. Penttila, updated by D. Lowry, July 2011).

WDFW. 2011d. WDFW Intertidal Forage Fish Spawning Habitat Survey Protocols: Protocol FF-04: Laboratory procedure for counting and staging forage fish eggs obtained from processed “winnowed light fraction” field samples (original protocol by D. Small, updated by D. Lowry, July 2011).

WDFW. 2011e. WDFW Intertidal Forage Fish Spawning Habitat Survey Protocols: Protocol FF-03: Laboratory procedure for determining forage fish egg presence/absence from preserved “winnowed light fraction” beach substrate samples (original protocol by Dan Penttila, reformatted by Dayv Lowry, July 2011).

WDFW. 2008. Eelgrass/Macroalgae Habitat Interim Survey Guidelines. Prepared by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Revised 6/16/2008.

Table FSP ‐ 1. Planned Sampling Stations for Year 17 (2011) Monitoring

Discrete Surface Samples

within Grid Cell

Discrete Cores

within Grid Cell

C‐9 (off cap) 47 37 05.03 122 30 37.33 ‐ ‐ ‐

F‐7 47 37 10.17 122 30 26.72 ‐ ‐

F‐9 47 37 05.50 122 30 26.42 ‐ ‐

F‐10 47 37 02.87 122 30 26.45 ‐ ‐ ‐

G‐4 47 37 17.61 122 30 22.16 ‐ ‐

G‐8 47 37 07.52 122 30 23.93 ‐ ‐

G‐9 47 37 05.30 122 30 23.17 ‐ ‐ ‐

H‐2 47 37 22.55 122 30 19.91 ‐ ‐

H‐4 47 37 17.70 122 30 19.60 ‐ ‐ ‐

H‐5 47 37 15.21 122 30 19.73 ‐ ‐ ‐

H‐9 47 370 5.33 122 30 19.38 ‐ ‐

H‐10 47 37 02.68 122 30 19.44 ‐ ‐

I‐3 47 37 19.71 122 30 16.14 ‐ ‐

I‐4 47 37 17.76 122 30 15.99 ‐ ‐ ‐

I‐5 47 37 15.23 122 30 16.18 ‐ ‐

I‐8 47 37 07.73 122 30 16.17 ‐ ‐

I‐9 47 37 05.44 122 30 15.86 ‐ ‐

I‐10 47 37 02.80 122 30 15.68 ‐ ‐

J‐2 47 37 22.52 122 30 12.78 ‐ ‐

J‐4 47 37 17.91 122 30 12.68 ‐ ‐

J‐9 47 37 05.31 122 30 12.49 ‐ ‐ 3 3

J‐10 47 37 03.09 122 30 12.28 ‐ ‐ 3 3

J‐11 47 37 00.79 122 30 12.81 ‐ ‐ ‐

K‐7 47 37 10.68 122 30 08.91 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ M‐3 (off cap) 47 37 20.35 122 30 01.26 ‐ ‐ ‐

N‐8 47 37 08.37 122 29 57.86 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P‐3 47 37 20.60 122 29 50.89 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P‐7 47 37 10.95 122 29 50.73 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ S‐6 47 37 13.41 122 29 40.13 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Model Data Station Model Data Station Model Data Station Model Data Station Model Data Station

14 22 6 6 10

J10‐E5 47 37 02.04 122 30 10.37 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

J11‐D2 47 37 01.00 122 30 11.22 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

J11‐A5 47 36 59.42 122 30 13.36 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3

G12‐B2 47 36 58.46 122 30 23.47 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

F12‐D1 47 36 59.01 122 30 25.71 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

G11‐A4 47 36 59.75 122 30 24.23 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

H12‐A2 47 36 58.27 122 30 20.57 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

I12‐C2 47 36 58.45 122 30 15.57 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

5

K9‐B4 47 37 04.90 122 30 9.18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

K9‐D3 47 37 05.49 122 30 7.75 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

L9‐B4 47 37 05.03 122 30 5.55 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

L9‐D4 47 37 04.95 122 30 3.97 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

M9‐A3 47 37 05.54 122 30 2.65 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

5

M10‐E4 47 37 02.68 122 29 59.61 ‐ ‐ ‐

N10‐A4 47 37 02.67 122 29 58.95 ‐ ‐ ‐

N10‐B4 47 37 02.74 122 29 58.18 ‐ ‐ ‐

N10‐A5 47 37 02.17 122 29 58.88 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

N10‐B5 47 37 02.21 122 29 58.10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

N11‐A1 47 37 01.70 122 29 58.90 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

N11‐A2 47 37 01.21 122 29 58.85 ‐ ‐ ‐

N11‐B2 47 37 01.19 122 29 58.07 ‐ ‐ ‐

N11‐C2 47 37 01.23 122 29 57.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

N11‐B3 47 37 00.71 122 29 58.09 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

N11‐B4 47 37 00.20 122 29 58.14 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

N11‐C4 47 37 00.21 122 29 57.33 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

N11‐B5 47 36 59.73 122 29 57.89 ‐ ‐ ‐

N11‐C5 47 36 59.66 122 29 57.12 ‐ ‐ ‐

N11‐D5 47 36 59.75 122 29 56.37 ‐ ‐ ‐

8 15

M10‐D4 47 37 02.61 122 30 0.35 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

M11‐E1 47 37 01.69 122 29 59.55 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

N11‐A1 47 37 01.70 122 29 58.90 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

N11‐A5 47 36 59.68 122 29 58.81 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

N12‐B4 47 36 57.76 122 29 58.01 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

0 5

Exposure Barrier System

2002 Grid Cell

Station IDLatitude Longitude

Subsurface Sediment

Chemistry

Surface Sediment

Chemistry and Grain

Size

J‐9 & J‐10 Detailed EvaluationSurface Sediment

Grain Size Only 1

Subtidal Cap

Total Samples:

Intertidal Cap

Total Samples:

Discrete Seep Samples

Total Samples:

Total Samples:

North Shoal

Total Samples:

East Beach

Grid Samples

Total Samples:

Subtidal Cap Number Gradients

On‐Cap Surface Sediment Samples

• Fifteen (15) 2002 on‐cap stations. Three grab samples per grid


20 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 20 20 20 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Off‐Cap Surface Sediment Samples

• Two (2) off‐site location as a potential reference for

recontamination source identification: C9 and M3

2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2 2 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Primary 14 14 14 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Shallow 4 4 4 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Deep 0 0 0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Surface Samples within grids J9 and J10.

• Three (3) surface samples (composite)6 ‐‐‐ 6 6 6 6 ‐‐‐ 6

Primary 6 6 6 6 ‐‐‐ 6

Shallow 6 6 6 6 ‐‐‐ 6

Deep 0 0 0 0 ‐‐‐

Surface Sediment Grain Size

• Five (5) identified stations ‐ single grab samples

• Five (5) stations to be identified ‐ single grab samples

10 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 10 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

• Analysis of suite of standard and alkyl‐PAH. Collect and archive

sufficient surface and native sediments from all chemical isolation

sediment samples to analyze PAH34 for chemical fingerprinting.

Analyses will occur only where surface stations exceed the SQS.

‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ By change order ‐‐‐

Exposure Barrier System and Intertidal Cap

West Beach Exposure Barrier Surface Sediment Samples

• Five (5) areas exceeding the SMS or LAET in the 2006 West Beach

DER. Sample stations to be translated to EHOU OMMP grid system,

and composite sampling (3 per grid).

5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 5 5 5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Intertidal Cap Surface Sediment Samples

• Three (3) 2002 intertidal cap stations. Three grab samples per grid


3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 3 3 3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐


East Beach Intertidal Surface Sediment Samples

• Fifteen (15) 2002 sample locations at East Beach on the 50‘ grid.

Sampling locations may be modified based on visual confirmation of

seeps

15 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 15 15 15 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

East Beach Discrete Seep Surface Sediment Samples

• Five (5) 2002 sampling locations at East Beach, Sampling locations


5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 5 5 5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

East Beach Subsurface Coring

• Eight 2002 stations‐‐‐ 8 ‐‐‐ 16 16 16 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

North Shoal Surface Sediment Samples

• Three (3) 2002 grid cell stations, and two(2) additional new

stations. Analyze for conventionals and PAHs, and archive material

for potential recontamination source identification

5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 5 5 5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Grain Size

Through‐cap coring within grids J9 and J10.

• Three (3) through‐cap cores (discrete) in subcells adjacent to

2002 sampling point.

‐‐‐ 6

Conventionals

(TOC, Total Solids)

Table FSP‐2 Sample Types, Sample Matrix, Number of Surface and Core Samples, and Sample Analyses

Surface SedimentCores

Through‐Cap Coring

• Nine (9) 2002 stations

• Five (5) from the north area of the Phase 1 cap.

‐‐‐ 14

SVOCs by

8270

Fingerprinting (PAH34

by 8270 SIM)Metals

PAHs by SIM

8270

Associated Field and Analytical ActionsSample Numbers

Table FSP‐3. Projected Field Project Schedule

Date Activity

6/6‐10/2011 USACE Bathymetric Survey

7/9,28/2011 USACE Photogrammetry Survey

To Be Determined USACE CMS Flow Model

5/18/2011 USACE Clam Tissue Survey

9/9/2011 Conduct Fall Bird and Mammal Survey

9/23/2011 Conduct Fall Invertebrate and Macroalgae Survey

10/3/2011 Mobilization for Field Work

10/4/2011 Subtidal Surface Sediment Grain Size Sampling

10/5/2011

10/6/2011

10/7/2011

10/11/2011

10/12/2011

10/13/2011

10/14/2011 J9‐J10 Subsurface Sediment Sampling

10/17/2011

10/18/2011

10/19/2011

10/20/2011

10/21/2011

10/24/2011 EBS and Intertidal Cap Sampling

10/25/2011 East Beach and North Shoal Surface Sediment Sampling

10/26/2011

10/27/2011

10/28/2011

10/31/2011 EBS and Intertidal Cap Sampling

11/1/2011 Core Processing/Demobilization

11/30/2011 Conduct Fall Forage Fish Survey

3/30/2012 Conduct Spring Forage Fish Survey

4/30/2011 Conduct Spring Bird and Mammal Survey

Subtidal Surface Sediment Chemistry Sampling

Subtidal Subsurface Coring

Core Processing

X Y

DOT 47 37 17.432 122 30 50.577 1225962 231233.5

MARINA 47 36 58.375 122 30 46.883 1226172.8 229297.45

NAVAID 47 37 19.155 122 29 50.597 1230073.7 231318.72

Table FSP‐4. Horizontal Control Points at and

around the East Harbor Operable Unit

Washington State Plane

Coordinates NAD 83

Horizontal Control Points

StationLatitude (NAD

83 ‐ North)

Longitude (NAD

83 ‐ West)

Number Gradients

Surface Sediment Samples

Field Replicates (5%) 3 3 3 ‐‐‐ 1 ‐‐‐

MS/MSD (5%) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Water ‐ Equipment Rinsate (5%)‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Subtidal Cap

Field Replicates (5%) 2 2 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

MS/MSD (5%) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Water ‐ Equipment Rinsate (5%)‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Field Replicates (5%) 1 1 1 1 ‐‐‐ 1

MS/MSD (5%) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1 1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Water ‐ Equipment Rinsate (5%)‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1 1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Table FSP‐5. Quality Assurance Quality Control Samples

Field Groups and

Associated QA/QC

SVOCs by

8270

Fingerprinting (PAH34 by

8270 SIM)Metals


Sample NumbersConventionals

(TOC, Total Solids)Grain Size

PAHs by SIM

8270

‐‐‐Chemistry and Grain Size = 55

Grain size only = 10‐‐‐

‐‐‐

6 6 12

22 ‐‐‐

J9/J10 SMS Samples

Table FSP‐6. Sample Type, Container, Holding Times, Preservatives, and Storage Requirements

ParameterMinimum

Sample Size1 Container Description

Preservation

RequirementsHolding Time

Grain size 100 g 16‐oz glass 4°C 2°C 6 months

TOC 25 g4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

14 days

6 months

Total Solids 50 g4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

14 days

6 months

Metals 50 g4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

6 months

1 years

Mercury 2 1 g4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

28 days

1 years

PAHs and PCP 200 g 8‐oz glass4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

14 days

1 year

PAH Fingerprinting (archive) 200 g 8‐oz glass4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

14 days

1 year

SVOCs and PCB Aroclors 200 g 16‐oz glass4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

14 days

1 year

Archive 1000 g16‐oz glass

16‐oz glass

4°C ±2°C

‐20°C ±2°C

14 days

6 months

Metals 100 mL 6 months

Mercury 10 mL 28 days

PAHs and PCP 500 mL 2 x 500 mL Amber glass 4°C 2°C 14 days

Semivolatile Organic Compounds 500 mL 2 x 500 mL Amber glass 4°C 2°C 14 days

PCB Aroclors 500 mL 2 x 500‐mL Amber glass 4°C 2°C 14 days

Notes:

HDPE = high density polyethylene

PAHs ‐ Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PCP ‐ Pentachlorophenol

PCB ‐ Polychlorinated biphenyl

SVOCs ‐ Semivolatile organic compounds

VOA ‐ Volatile organic analytes

1. Recommended minimum field sample sizes for one laboratory analysis. Actual volumes to be collected have been increased to

provide a margin of error and allow for retests.

2. During transport to the lab, samples will be stored on ice. The mercury sample will either be analyzed

Sediment Samples

4‐oz glass

4‐oz glass

Water Samples

500 mL HDPE4°C 2°C;

pH <2 w/ HNO3

FigureFSP-1



Project Name Figure Name2011 OMMP ImplementationEast Harbor Operable Unit


WYCKOFF

BAINBRIDGE ISLAND

0 325 650 975 1,300162.5

Feet

0 80 160 240 32040

Meters

/


EAGLE HARBOR

PROJECT LOCATION

EE

E

EEE

EE

E

E

E E E E E

EE E E

EE

FigureFSP-2

Locations of Intertidal and Subtidal Sediment Caps and Exposure Barrier System



EAGLE HARBOR

BAINBRIDGE ISLAND

FERRYTERMINAL

2001 PHASE III CAP BOUNDARY

WYCKOFF

E 1

,226

,000

E 1

,228

,000

E 1

,227

,000

E 1

,229

,000

E 1

,230

,000

N 230,000

N 232,000

N 231,000

NOTES: 1. HORIZONTAL CONTROL BASED ON WA. COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH ZONE, NAD 83/91.

Legend1994 PHASE I CAP BOUNDARY

2000 PHASE II CAP BOUNDARY


EXPOSURE BARRIER SYSTEM


1994 PHASE I CAP BOUNDARY

0 350 700 1,050 1,400175

Feet

/0 100 200 300 40050

Meters


FigureFSP-3

Intertidal Area Designations

Project Name Figure Name

EAGLE HARBOR




WYCKOFF

INTERTID

AL CAP

NORTH SHOAL

EA

ST

BE

AC

H

0 120 240 360 48060

Feet

/0 30 60 90 12015

Meters

WEST BEACH

WEST BEACH

RIPARIAN HABITAT

YY

Y

YYY

YY

Y

Y

Y Y Y Y Y

YY Y Y

YY

13

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

A HGFEDCB MLKJI RQPN SO

H-10

H-2

F-7

I--10

H-5

G-9

G-8

F-10

C-9 H-9

H-10

I-9

I-8

K-7

M-3

J-4

N-8

S-6

P-3

#7

P-7

J-10

#7 #7

#7

#7

J-9F-9

I-5

J-11

I-4G-4 H-4

I-3

J-2

FigureFSP-4

Locations of Subtidal Surface Sediment Grain Size Sampling Stations


EAGLE HARBORBAINBRIDGE ISLAND

FERRYTERMINAL

APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY BETWEENEAST HARBOR AND WEST HARBOROPERABLE UNITS

WYCKOFF

E 1,22

6,000

E 1,22

8,000

E 1,22

7,000

E 1,22

9,000

E 1,23

0,000

N 230,000

N 232,000

N 231,000

GRID COLUMN

GRIDROW




Legend

0 300 600 900 1,200150Feet

/

SURFACE SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY AND GRAIN SIZE (COMPOSITE SAMPLES)SURFACE SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE ONLY (DISCRETE SAMPLES)UP TO 5 ADDITIONAL SURFACE SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE STATIONS FOR TRANSPORT MODEL AT TO BE DETERMINED LOCATIONS (E.G. PRITCHARD PARK)

#7

0 90 180 270 36045Meters

NOTE:

YY

Y

YYY

YY

Y

Y

Y Y Y Y Y

YY Y Y

YY

13

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5


H-5

H-10

H-9

!.

")

")

G-4 H-4 I-4

I-3

J-2

I-9

I-8

J-4

J-9

F-7

H-5

H-9C-9 G-9

G-8

M-3

J-11

J-10I--10F-10

H-10

FigureFSP-5

Locations of Subtidal Cap Surface Sediment Chemistry Sampling Stations


EAGLE HARBORBAINBRIDGE ISLAND

FERRYTERMINAL


1994 PHASE I CAPBOUNDARY


WYCKOFF

E 1,22

6,000

E 1,22

8,000

E 1,22

7,000

E 1,22

9,000

E 1,23

0,000

N 230,000

N 232,000

N 231,000

GRID COLUMN

GRIDROW




Legend1994 PHASE I CAP BOUNDARY2000 PHASE II CAP BOUNDARY2001 PHASE III CAP BOUNDARYEXPOSURE BARRIER SYSTEM


0 390 780 1,170 1,560195

Feet

/0 100 200 300 40050

Meters

SUBTIDAL CAP SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATIONSSUBTIDAL CAP SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION WHERE THREE SAMPLES WILL BE COLLECTED")

F-9

I-5

H-2

ÎÎ

Î

ÎÎÎ

ÎÎ

Î

Î

Î Î Î Î Î

ÎÎ Î Î

ÎÎ

13

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5


!(

!(

")

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

")

H-2 J-2

J-4

I-3

G-4

I-5

J-9I-9

I-8

F-7

F-9 H-9

G-8

I-10J-10

H-10

Locations of Subtidal Cap Subsurface Sediment Chemistry Sampling Stations


EAGLE HARBOR

BAINBRIDGE ISLANDFERRYTERMINAL


1994 PHASE I CAPBOUNDARY


WYCKOFF

E 1,22

6,000

E 1,22

8,000

E 1,22

7,000

E 1,22

9,000

E 1,23

0,000

N 230,000

N 232,000

N 231,000

GRID COLUMN

GRIDROW




Legend1994 PHASE I CAP BOUNDARY2000 PHASE II CAP BOUNDARY2001 PHASE III CAP BOUNDARYEXPOSURE BARRIER SYSTEM

0 325 650 975 1,300162.5Feet

/0 100 200 300 40050

Meters


FigureFSP-6

THROUGH-CAP CORING STATIONSTHROUGH CAPCORING LOCATION WHERE 3 CORES WILL BE COLLECTED")

9

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

I

c d e

J

a b c d e

K

a b c d e

L

a b c d e

M

a b c d e

N

a b c d e a b c d e a b c d e a b c d e a

HGF

a b c d e a b

E

10

11

12

13

YR08NSG-1TS00

YR08EBNL-1TS00

YR08EBHC-1TS20

YR08EBHC-1TS10

Locations of Intertidal Cap and Exposure Barrier System

Surface Sediment Sampling Stations


EAGLE HARBOR

2001 PHASE III BOUNDARY

WYCKOFF

E 1,23

0,000

GRID COLUMN

GRIDROW




Legend2001 PHASE III CAP BOUNDARY

Exposure Barrier System

0 120 240 360 48060

Feet

/0 20 40 60 8010

Meters

FigureFSP-7

GRID COLUMN

H12-A2G12-B2

F12-D1

I12-C2

G11-A4


J10-E5

J11-D2

J11-A5

Intertidal Surface Sediment Sampling Location

M10-E4 N10-B4N10-A4

N11-A1N11-C2

N11-B2

N11-B3N11-B4

N11-C4

N11-C5

N11-D5N11-B5

N10-B5N10-A5

N11-A2

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

1

2

3

4

5

9

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

a b c d e

I

a b c d e

J

a b c d e

K

a b c d e

L

a b c d e

M

a b c d e

N

a b c d e

O

10

11

12

13

L9-B4

K9-D3 M9-A3

0 125 250 375 50062.5

Feet

Locations of North Shoal and East Beach Intertidal Surface

Sediment and Seep Sampling Stations

/Project Name Figure Name

EAGLE HARBOR

WYCKOFF

GRID COLUMN

GRIDROW



NOTES:HORIZONTAL CONTROL BASED ON WA.COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH ZONE, NAD 83/91.

EAST BEACH SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION

NORTH SHOAL INTERTIDAL SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION



#* SEEP SAMPLING LOCATONS [From North to South: M10-D4, M11-E1, N11-A1, N11-A5, and N12-B1]

0 125 250 375 50062.5

Feet

/0 30 60 90 12015

Meters

#*

FigureFSP-8

2001PHASE III CAPBOUNDARY

Groundwater Treatment Plant


K9-B4 L9-D4

#* #*

#* #*

#* #* #*

Legend#* EAST BEACH SURFACE & SUBSURFACE SAMPLE LOCATION

Figure FSP-9. Procedures for Sectioning and Subsampling of Through-Cap Sediment Cores

tthompson

Typewritten Text

FIGURE FSP-9

mdalzell

Rectangle

CORE PROCESSING LOG

Location Description

Time: Date: Cored By: Marine Sampling Sys.

Water Depth: Water Level: Penetration: Acquisition:

Depth

(unit) % Sample

Recov Depth

Project: Eagle Harbor Monitoring Core Type : Vibracore

Logged By:

Page _____ of _____Station ID:

Core Size: 4" OD Aluminum; 3.75" ID

Lithology Description

Sediment Type

lithification, moisture content, porosity, permeability/fracturingPID

Sample #

Sampling

MunselColor

mdalzell

Typewritten Text

Figure FSP-10.

FigureFSP-11Locations of Forage Fish Spawning Survey and

Visual Habitat Survey Areas


EAGLE HARBOR




WYCKOFF

INTERTIDAL CAP

NORTH SHOAL

EAST BEACH

0 120 240 360 48060Feet

/0 30 60 90 12015

Meters

WEST BEACH

WEST BEACH

RIPARIAN HABITAT

Appendix A

Final Quality Assurance Project Plan Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Clam Tissue Sampling

Final

Quality Assurance Project Plan


Clam Tissue Sampling

EPA ID: WAD009248295

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10

1200 6th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101

Prepared by:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District

4735 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98134

Final

25 May 2011

A 2.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS

A 1.0 APPROVAL PAGE ........................................................................................................ 2

A 2.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. 3

A 3.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST .................................................................................................... 7

A 4.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION .......................................................................................... 8

A 5.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................. 10 A 5.1 Problem Definition .................................................................................................. 10 A 5.2 Project Background ................................................................................................ 11

A 6.0 PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 12 A 6.1 Work Tasks and Products .......................................................................................... 12

A 7.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ................................ 13 A 7.1 Data Quality Objectives .............................................................................................. 13

A 7.1.1 STATE THE PROBLEM .................................................................................................................................. 14

A 7.1.2 IDENTIFY THE DECISION(S) .......................................................................................................................... 14

A 7.1.3 OPTIMIZE THE DATA COLLECTION DESIGN ................................................................................................. 15

A 7.2 Performance Criteria to Achieve Data Quality Objectives ................................. 16 A 7.2.1 Precision .............................................................................................................................................. 19

A 7.2.3 Representativeness .............................................................................................................................. 20

A 7.2.4 Comparability ....................................................................................................................................... 20

A 7.2.5 Completeness ...................................................................................................................................... 21

A 7.2.6 Sensitivity ............................................................................................................................................ 21

A 8.0 SPECIAL TRAINING/CERTIFICATION ....................................................................... 21

A 9.0 DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS ..................................................................................... 22

B 1.0 SAMPLING PROCESS DESIGN FOR CLAM TISSUE ......................................................... 24

B 2.0 SAMPLING METHODS .................................................................................................... 25 B 2.1 Shellfish Tissue Sampling ........................................................................................... 25

B 2.1.1 Equipment ................................................................................................................................................... 25

B 2.1.2 Preparation for Sampling ............................................................................................................................ 25

B 2.1.3 Sampling Process ................................................................................................................................. 25

B 3.0 SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY ......................................................................... 26 B 3.1 Sample Labeling ...................................................................................................... 26 B 3.2 Sample Identification .............................................................................................. 27 B 3.3 Sample Packaging and Shipment ......................................................................... 27 B 3.4 Sample Custody ........................................................................................................... 27 B 3.5 Holding Times ......................................................................................................... 28

B 4.0 ANALYTICAL METHODS ........................................................................................... 29

B 4.1 Analysis of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Extracts by GC/MS-SIM ............. 30 B 4.1.2 Method 3550C (Modified) – Tissue Preparation and extraction ................................................................ 31

B 4.1.3 Method Cleanup ‐ Methods 3535A, 3610A, 3620C, 3630C ........................................................................ 31

B 4.2 Percent Lipid Analysis ............................................................................................ 31 B 4.3 Analytical Method Detection Limits ..................................................................... 31

B 4.3.1 Detection LimitS ................................................................................................................................... 31

B 5.1 Field Quality Control .............................................................................................. 32 B 5.2 Laboratory Quality Control Samples ................................................................... 32

B 6.0 INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT TESTING, INSPECTION, AND MAINTENANCE ................ 33

B 7.0 INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY .................................. 34 B 7.1 Laboratory Instrument Calibration ...................................................................... 34

B 8.0 INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES ............................... 34

B 9.0 DATA MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 34 B 9.1 Data Reduction ........................................................................................................ 34 B 9.2 Laboratory Data Deliverables ............................................................................... 34 B 9.3 Electronic Data Management ................................................................................ 35

C 1.0 ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS .................................................................. 36 C 1.1 Assessments ............................................................................................................. 36 C 1.2 Response Actions ..................................................................................................... 37

C 2.0 REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT .................................................................................... 38

D 1.0 DATA REVIEW (VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION) ................................................ 38

D 2.0 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION METHODS ........................................................... 38

Table A 7-1 Data Quality Objectives Table A 7-2. Method Performance Criteria Figure 1 Wyckoff Sampling Locations Figure 2 Wyckoff Vicinity

List of Acronyms

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Restoration, Compensation, and Liabilities Act

CL confidence level

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

DL detection limit

DQOs data quality objectives

EHOU East Harbor operable unit

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

LCS laboratory control sample

LOD limit of detection

LOQ limit of quantiation

MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

OUs Operable Units

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCP pentachlorophenol

PM U. S. Army Corps of Engineers project manager

ppm parts per million (mg/kg)

ppb parts per billion (µg/kg)

QAPP quality assurance project plan

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

QL quantitation limits

ROD Record of Decision

RPM Remedial Project Manager

SOP standard operating procedure

A 3.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST

QAPP Recipient, Title

Mailing Address Telephone/Fax Email Address

EPA Region 10

Howard Orlean, Regional Project Manager

U.S. EPA Region 10 Office of Environmental Cleanup 1200 Sixth Ave Suite 900: M/S; ECL-111 Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: (206) 553-2851

[email protected]

Don Matheny, QA Officer

U.S. EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Mail Code: OEA-095 Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: (206) 553-2599

[email protected]

Jennifer Crawford, EPA Region 10 RSCC

U.S. EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Mail Code: OEA-095 Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: (206) 553-6261

[email protected]

Washington State Department of EcologyPete Kmet, WA State Department

of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600

Phone: (360) 407-7199

[email protected]

US Army Corps of Engineers Karl Kunas, Project Manger

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District 4735 E. Marginal Way South, Seattle WA 98134

Phone: (206) 764-3448

[email protected]

Catherine Martin, Project Chemist


Phone: (206) 764-3264

[email protected]

Deborah Johnston, Technical Lead/QAO


Phone: (206) 764-4532

[email protected]

Suquamish Tribe Richard Brooks Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department

P.O. Box 498 15838 Sandy Hook Rd Suquamish, WA 98392

Phone: (360) 394-8442

[email protected]

A 4.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION The project team consists of representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), the Suquamish Tribe, and the Washington State Department of Health. Funds for this project have been secured through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) cleanup program.

The project team provides the overall framework for the data collection approach by defining project objectives and data quality requirements, and ensuring that they are met during the execution of the project. The project team must keep the EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) informed of how the project is proceeding. Project updates will be given to the EPA RPM by the Corps Project Manager (PM) during regularly scheduled meetings, phone calls, and emails or faxes as appropriate. The roles of the project team members are described below.

EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) – Howard Orlean: The EPA RPM is the principal EPA authority for this project, as the project involves follow-up work and long-term monitoring for a prior CERCLA remedial action. Mr. Orlean shall provide oversight of all project activities, reviews, and approves the QAPP and corrective actions, subsequent revisions, or addendums/amendments. The RPM shall be kept informed of progress on a regular basis and will be consulted at significant project milestones.

EPA Quality Assurance (QA) Officer – Don Matheny: The EPA QA Officer provides quality assurance oversight. Oversight activities include review of the QAPP, project QA documentation, and assurance that corrective actions required have been completed.

EPA Regional Sample Control Coordinator (RSCC) – Jennifer Crawford: The RSCC is the primary point of contact for the analytical coordination with EPA Manchester Environmental Laboratory (MEL) and schedules all sample analyses performed at MEL. The RSCC provides regional sample identification numbers, project codes, sampling documentation forms (COC), and custody seals. All sample deliveries to MEL must notify the RSCC on the day of shipment.

EPA Manchester Environmental Laboratory (MEL) Project Manager – Gerald Dodo: The MEL Project Manager has overall responsibility for assuring that the analytical data meet the requirements of the QAPP. He is responsible for oversight of client services including project management, sample receiving, information technology, and data deliverables. Manchester Laboratory, Manchester, Washington is responsible for the dissection and homogenization of clam tissues, analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and lipid concentrations in clam tissue samples.

Corps Project Manager (PM) – Karl Kunas: The PM shall maintain specific project management authority throughout the life of the project, and be responsible for overall management and execution of the project to include project quality, cost and schedule. Specific PM tasks include:

1. Providing the project team with funding for each task

2. Tracking and reporting to EPA the financial expenditures, obligations, and schedule

3. Ensuring that EPA’s goals and objectives for the project are achieved.

Corps Independent Technical Reviewer (ITR) – Brenda Bachman: The ITR will be responsible for providing independent technical review of project documents and data, proper selection and application of established criteria, regulations, laws, principles, and professional procedures.

Corps Project Chemist – Cathy Martin: The Project Chemist is the primary point of contact for the analytical coordination with EPA, data quality review, and data management contractor. The Chemist will coordinate data quality reviews and incorporation of data into the project database. The Chemist is responsible for the quality of all analysis activities associated with this project’s laboratory activities. Ms. Martin will coordinate data validation and data management.

Corps Technical Lead – Deborah Johnston: The technical manager will be responsible for overall project coordination; technical planning and implementation, production of work plans, and assuring all project deliverables are appropriate and complete.

The project organizational chart can be found below.

EPA Region 10QA OfficerDon Matheny206.553.2599

USACE Project ManagerKarl Kunas

206-764-3448

Independent Technical Review Coordinator

Brenda Bachman

206-764-3524

EPA Region 10Remedial Project

ManagerHoward Orlean206-553-2851

EPA Region 10LaboratoryGerald Dodo

360-871-8728

ChemistCathy Martin206-764-3264

Site Health and Safety Officer

TBD

Technical Lead/QA Officer

Deborah Johnston(206) 439-4532

Direct lines of authorityIndirect line of authority

EPA Region 10Regional Sample

Control CoordinatorJennifer Crawford

206-553-6261

Database Administrator

Lawrence Lin206-764-6172

EPA Region 10ESAT

Data Validator

A 5.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND

A 5.1 Problem Definition

The Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is performing long-term monitoring activities at the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site located in Bainbridge Island, Washington (Figures 1 and 2). The monitoring activities described herein are being conducted pursuant to CERCLA, Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA), the requirement of the 1994 Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site East Harbor Operable Unit (EHOU) Record of Decision (ROD), and regulatory requirements of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).

The ROD has a goal of “enhancing existing institutional controls to reduce public exposure to contaminated fish and shellfish”; however, only limited information exists to determine compliance with this goal. The purpose of the clam tissue collection and analysis is to

determine the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) body burdens of clams on the beaches adjacent to the Wyckoff site. The tissue chemistry data may be used in a future human health risk assessment, future trends analysis, and for assessment of natural recovery. Shellfish tissue will be collected for analysis in May 2011from all areas of the site if sufficient clams can be collected. Tissue will be analyzed for PAHs and lipids. Specifically, this QAPP describes obtaining and analyzing shellfish tissue and is the second clam tissue monitoring event to occur since sediment remedial activities were completed. Analytical activities will occur thereafter and will be discussed in more detail in a future revision of this QAPP.

A 5.2 Project Background

The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site is located on the east side of Bainbridge Island, in Central Puget Sound, Washington (Figure 2). Eagle Harbor is an east-west trending embayment opening to Puget Sound to the east. The site includes an inactive 40-acre wood-treating facility containing contaminated soil and groundwater, contaminated sediments in adjacent Eagle Harbor, and other upland sources of contamination to the harbor, including a former shipyard. The Remedial Investigation conducted by EPA identified mercury and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as the principal contaminants of concern in marine sediments. In addition, the Record of Decision for the Wyckoff / Eagle Harbor Superfund site named polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metals as the major risk drivers resulting from consumption of seafood near Eagle Harbor. The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site is located on the southern shoreline near the entrance to Eagle Harbor and has four operable units (OUs). This QAPP is concerned with the East Harbor OU that includes intertidal and subtidal sediments of the site.

The basis of the conceptual site model is as follows: sediments in East Eagle Harbor are contaminated with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and other organic compounds, and sediments in West Eagle Harbor are contaminated with metals, primarily mercury. After completion of the RI/FS, EPA proposed initial cleanup actions in the East Harbor operable unit. The proposed sediment remedy was a clean sediment cap over approximately 50 acres of contaminated subtidal and intertidal sediments in the East Harbor. Specific long-term monitoring objectives for Eagle Harbor are grouped into two major areas: 1) monitor conditions on the completed subtidal sediment cap for effectiveness and potential for recontamination, and 2) monitor intertidal areas for contaminant containment, natural recovery, stability, and habitat use. Four monitoring events have occurred since the initial sediment cap was placed in 1994 and all results indicate that the cap is appropriately containing contaminated sediments and reducing exposure.

The proposed soil and groundwater remedy was a pump and treat system that maintains hydraulic control, and a sheet pile wall that prevents contaminated soil and groundwater from entering the harbor. Residual contamination exists outside the sheet pile wall and can be seen in the form of low-tide seeps in the intertidal area on the east beach (multiple seeps) and

north shoal (one seep). There is visual evidence that the seeps have decreased significantly in the last ten years suggesting that the quantity of light non-aqueous phase liquids has decreased consistent with natural recovery study predictions. While seeps have been visually identified, no consistent mapping has occurred over time to identify whether their locations are stationary, but anecdotal evidence indicates they remain within a defined area. Monitoring of intertidal sediment indicates that while some sediment remains contaminated above state criteria, eelgrass is abundant in the east beach and north shoal areas except in and immediately adjacent to seeps. Eagle Harbor is within the usual and accustomed fishing area of the Suquamish Tribe, whose reservation is located on the Kitsap Peninsula north of Bainbridge Island. The Suquamish Tribe retains the right to harvest fish and marine invertebrates and to have fishery resource habitat areas protected within the Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing areas.

A 6.0 PROJECT/TASK DESCRIPTION

A 6.1 Work Tasks and Products

The work tasks and products to be completed as part of this monitoring effort include:

1. Development of a QAPP and a Site-specific Safety and Health Plan (SSHP)

2. Collection of clams for tissue analysis of lipids and the chemicals of concern (PAHs)

3. Development of a Technical Memo that describes the field collection and analytical procedures and results

A 6.2 Project Schedule

An estimated task breakdown and schedule is provided below:

TASK START (2011)

FINISH (2011)

Prepare QAPP and SSHP 15 March 30 April QAPP Review and comment response 30 April 10 May Final QAPP approval 11 May 13 May Clam location surveys (includes GPS locations)

19 April

Field collection 18 May 19 May

Incorporate MEL MDLs and SOPs into QAPP

1 June 7 June

Analysis results received TBD TBD Review analytical data and prepare data quality reports

TBD TBD

Prepare field report TBD TBD Prepare draft technical memo TBD TBD Draft monitoring report submittal TBD TBD

Receive comments from external review TBD TBD Final monitoring report submittal TBD TBD

A 7.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

As stated in the EPA’s guidance on the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) Process [EPA, 1994], DQOs are qualitative and quantitative statements that clarify study objectives, define the appropriate type of data to collect, determine the most appropriate conditions from which to collect the data, and specify tolerable levels of potential decision errors that will be used as the basis for establishing the quality and quantity of data needed to support decisions. The DQOs established for this project and the performance criteria necessary to achieve the DQOs are discussed below.

Table 7-1 Data Quality Objectives

Area Objective Collection and analysis will assist EPA to assess the natural recovery process. The ROD states that monitoring is necessary to document natural recovery.

Monitoring Objectives Collect and analyze clam tissue for PAH and lipid concentrations. Provide data sufficient to support future human health risk determination by others Associated Field and Analytical Actions Collect sufficient clam tissue for analysis. Analyze for PAH concentration and lipid content. Evaluation Process and Criteria Provide PAH tissue concentration values with sensitivity sufficient to utilize data for human health risk analysis. Potential to use this data as a baseline for future trend analysis. There are no established tissue-based PAH protectiveness goals in the ROD. The ROD states a sediment-based human health objective of 1,200 ug/kg dry wt high-molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (HPAH), based on the 90th percentile of background Puget Sound subtidal sediments. HPAHs were considered to have approximated the carcinogenic PAHs evaluated during risk assessment. A teleconference will be held prior to completing the analytical portions of the QAPP to develop cPAH risk-based tissue standards to support suitably low analytical goals for tissue. This determination will guide whether reference area collections are needed to establish trends, i.e., whether health protective values are above background or not.

A 7.1 Data Quality Objectives

The DQOs are identified by a seven-step DQO process that requires 1) stating the problem, 2) identifying the decision, 3) identifying the inputs to the decision, 4) defining the boundaries of the study, 5) developing a decision rule, 6) specifying tolerable limits on

decision errors, and 7) optimizing the design for collecting data. Steps 3 through 6 are incorporated as sub-steps below.

A 7.1.1 STATE THE PROBLEM

The elements necessary to “state the problem” were discussed in Sections A 5.0 to A 5.2. Briefly, sediment and shellfish tissue were contaminated in the past primarily with PAHs at concentrations that posed a risk to subsistence-level and recreational shellfish consumers due in part to potential chemical contamination associated with the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site. Other contaminants found in the area are metals presumably from the shipyard which operated across the harbor from the Site. Clam tissue analytical results will provide current tissue concentrations and will be compared to previous monitoring results to determine if concentration trends exist. These results may be used to determine if collected clams have been impacted by contaminants associated with the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor site, and whether or not they are suitable for human consumption based on health protective values to be derived.

A 7.1.2 IDENTIFY THE DECISION(S)

The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor clam tissue sampling effort will consist of one primary decision before final conclusions can be drawn.

Decision

Are the clam beds situated adjacent to the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site impacted by chemical contaminants and are the levels safe for subsistence and recreational harvesters? Results may be compared to a reference station and previous sample results to determine if contaminant levels are or are not reflective of regional conditions.

Inputs to Decision:

1. Consensus on extent of clam collection location strategy.

2. Collection of sufficient clam tissue to characterize PAH contamination. (Minimum analytically-imposed tissue sample mass is approximately 100 g for PAH and lipid analysis.)

3. While no sediment sampling is planned for this event, several surveys of sediment PAH in beach sediments exist and may be used to estimate Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factors (BSAFs) in the post-remedy environment.

Boundaries

Based on a reconnaissance survey conducted on 19 April 2011, only horse clams of harvestable size will be collected from three intertidal areas at the Site – Intertidal Beach, North Shoal, and East Beach (Figure 1). West Beach did not have sufficient clams to provide adequate tissue for analysis. Clams will be collected during the low tides which occur from 17 to 19 May 2011.

Native littleneck clams were the primary specie targeted for collection in the high to mid-intertidal zone. However, during the 19 April survey only eight clams were collected over the entire beach and it was determined by team consensus (4-22-11) that only horse clams would be collected during the May sampling. Eight composite samples consisting of five individual clams will be taken from three separate beach areas as noted above to determine the 95 percent upper confidence limit for a human health risk analysis.

On the East Beach and North Shoal an attempt will be made to sample nearest the locations that were sampled during the spring 2003 collection event (East Beach Clam Tissue Report 2004). The 19 April survey collected horse clams from sites adjacent to the 2003 collection sites. The locations are adjacent to historical seeps but not within the seep itself. If a targeted location does not have sufficient clams the collection area may be enlarged to collect enough clams for analysis.

Decision Rules (To be completed after discussions amongst risk assessors)

1. Clam tissue concentration exceeds or does not exceed risk based human health tissue concentration.

2. Do the levels represent an unacceptable health risk for harvesters?

Limits on the Decision Errors. Limits are described in Section B.1.2

Optimization of Data Collection Design. See Section A 7.1.3.

A 7.1.3 OPTIMIZE THE DATA COLLECTION DESIGN

Tissue Collection

Based on the 19 April survey, eight composite clam tissue samples will be collected and analyzed in accordance with Puget Sound Protocols and Guidelines, Recommended Guidelines for Sampling Marine Sediment, Water Column, and Tissue in Puget Sound [PSAT, 1997]. The tissue samples will be extracted using EPA Method 3550B modified (industrial blender rather than sonication), cleaned up using EPA Method 3660B, 3665A, and 3640A if needed, and analyzed for PAHs using EPA Method 8270 PAH-SIM modified as necessary to achieve the required reporting limits. The Manchester Environmental Laboratory SOP shall be used for lipid content analysis.

Samples will consist of horse clams collected at the sampling stations at Intertidal Cap, North Shoal, and East Beach, and delivered to the lab for cleaning, resection, compositing, freezing, and homogenization. Tissues analyzed will consist of the neck (the skin of the neck and the hardened tip will be removed prior to analysis), strap, and gut ball tissue (gutball contents will be removed and discarded prior to analysis). Since the clams are large, the liquid inside the shell will not be retained similar to the process for cleaning geoducks. The clams will not be depurated. It is important to note that the resected clam tissue should be frozen in liquid nitrogen and then tissumized.

Recommended holding times for frozen tissue samples have not been established by EPA for organics analyses, but a 1-year maximum holding time (similar to the sediment holding time) is recommended for Puget Sound studies. Extracts should be analyzed within 40 days. Extended sample storage in a glass jar can minimize desiccation. At a minimum, the samples should be kept frozen at -18° C until extraction. Therefore, at this time the laboratory will clean and resect the tissue then freeze them for up to one year until analysis. The MEL SOP for this procedure will be incorporated in early June 2011. SOPs will be included in Attachment 1.

Tissue data collection designs are discussed in detail in Sections B 1.0 and B 2.0. Section B 4.0 describes the horse tissue sample preparation and homogenization procedures.

A 7.2 Performance Criteria to Achieve Data Quality Objectives

Performance criteria specify the acceptable levels of uncertainty in measured data that can be used to support project decisions and achieve DQOs. Performance criteria for the analysis will be incorporated in early June 2011. SOPs will be included in Attachment 1. The associated data quality indicators of precision, accuracy (bias), representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity are defined in Table A 7-2. Any data which fall outside of these criteria must be scrutinized to determine the effects of data usability for the intended purpose of the data. Benzo(a)pyrene Toxic Equivalent Quotient (TEQ) will be calculated for seven carcinogenic PAHs (cPAHs). Toxic Equivalent Factors (TEFs) will be applied to seven cPAHs pertaining to their relative toxicity to benzo(a)pyrene. PAH TEFs are outlined in EPA guidance. (EPA, 1993). The Manchester Environmental Laboratory LOQ for the seven carcinogenic PAHs is estimated to range from 1 to 2 ppb. This range of LOQs is calculated to resolve between 6.06 E-6 and 1.21E-5 cancer risk for the child Tribal subsistence consumer.

Table A 7-2. Sensitivity Accuracy and Precision Requirements

Method (Analysis/Prep/Cleanup)

Surrogate

CAS Number

Laboratory Quantitation Limits

Benchmark Value

Method Quality Indicators

LOD (µg/kg)

LOQ1

(µg/kg)

ROD or Screening Criteria2

Surrogate(s) % Recovery

Blank MS/MSD % Recovery

MS/MSD RPD

Matrix - Clam Tissue Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (SW-846, 8270D-SIM; 3520C; 3630C) 1-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 -- 1.0 --

No analytes detected > ½ RL and > 1/10 the amount measured in any sample or 1/10 the regulatory limit (whichever is greater). Blank result must not otherwise affect sample results.

≤30% 2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 -- 1.0 -- 45-105 ≤30% Acenaphthene 83-32-9 -- 1.0 -- 45-110 ≤30% Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 -- 1.0 -- 50-105 ≤30% Anthracene 120-12-7 -- 1.0 -- 55-110 ≤30% Fluorene 86-73-7 -- 1.0 -- 50-110 ≤30% Naphthalene 91-20-3 -- 1.0 -- 40-100 ≤30% Phenanthrene 85-01-8 -- 1.0 -- 50-115 ≤30% Benz(a)anthracene* 56-55-3 -- 1.0 -- 55-110 ≤30% Benzo(a)pyrene* 50-32-8 -- 1.0 -- 55-110 ≤30% Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2 -- 1.0 -- 40-125 ≤30% Chrysene* 218-01-9 -- 1.0 -- 55-110 ≤30% Dibenz(a,h)anthracene* 53-70-3 -- 1.0 -- 40-125 ≤30% Fluoranthene 206-44-0 -- 1.0 -- 55-115 ≤30%

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene* 193-39-5 -- 1.0 -- 45-125 ≤30% Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 -- 1.0 -- 40-115 ≤30% Pyrene 129-00-0 -- 1.0 -- 50-130 ≤30% Benzo(b)fluoranthene* 205-99-2 -- 1.0 -- 45-120 ≤30% Benzo(k)fluoranthene* 207-08-9 -- 1.0 -- 45-125 ≤30% 2-Fluorobiphenyl 321-60-8 45-105 Terphenyl-d14 -- 30-125 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 118-79-6 35-125 2-Fluorophenol 367-12-4 35-105 Phenol-d5/d6 -- 40-100

Nitrobenzene-d5 4165-60-0 35-100

Total Lipids (3541C per MEL SOP)

Total Lipids NA NA 1,000 mg/kg NA

Daily calibration of balance: Criteria is +/-5 milligrams to +/- 0.02 grams Dup≤30%

1. The Manchester Laboratory anticipates that 1 ppb is their capability however, limits will be incorporated upon receipt of the MEL SOPs in early June 2011. 2. There are no established tissue-based PAH protectiveness goals in the ROD. The ROD states a sediment-based human health objective of 1,200 ug/kg dry wt high-molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(HPAH), based on the 90th percentile of background Puget Sound subtidal sediments. Analytical techniques are listed by analytical method; preparation method; cleanup method SW-846: SW-846 Update IVA

Benzo(a)pyrene Toxic Equivalent Quotient (TEQ) will be calculated for seven carcinogenic PAHs (cPAHs). Toxic Equivalent Factors (TEFs) will be applied to seven cPAHs pertaining to their relative toxicity to benzo(a)pyrene. PAH TEFs are outlined in EPA guidance. (EPA, 1993). The Manchester Environmental Laboratory LOQ for the 7 carcinogenic PAHs is estimated to range from 1 to 2 ppb. This range of LOQs is calculated to resolve between 6.06 E-6 and 1.21E-5 cancer risk for the child Tribal subsistence consumer. *Carcinogenic PAHs

A 7.2.1 PRECISION

Precision is the degree to which a set of observations or measurements of the same property, obtained under similar conditions, conform to themselves. Precision is usually expressed as standard deviation, variance, percent difference, or range, in either absolute or relative terms.

Examples of QC measures for precision include field duplicates, laboratory duplicates, matrix spike duplicates, analytical replicates, and surrogates. For this project, analytical variability will be measured as the relative percent difference (RPD) or coefficient of variation between results for laboratory duplicate pairs. Precision will be calculated as the RPD as follows:

where:

%RPDi = Relative percent difference for compound i

Oi = Value of compound i in original sample

Di = Value of compound i in duplicate sample

The resultant RPD will be compared to acceptance criteria shown in Tables 5 through 13. If the criteria are not met, the laboratory will justify why the acceptability limits were exceeded and implement appropriate corrective actions. The RPD will be reviewed during data quality review, and the reviewer will note any deviations from the specified limits and comment on any effects on the report data.

Field variability for clam’s tissue will be measured by determining the coefficient of variation which is defined as the ration of the standard deviation to the mean:

Where:

CV = Coefficient of variation

σ = standard deviation

µ = mean

A 7.2.2 Accuracy/Bias

Accuracy is the amount of agreement between a measured value and the accepted reference value. Laboratory accuracy will be measured as the percent recovery of matrix spike

%1002

%

ii

iii DO

DORPD

| CV

samples, laboratory control samples, and the performance evaluation sample. Additional potential bias will be quantified by the analysis of method quality control samples (blanks, LCSs, MSs and MSDs). By evaluating the direction and magnitude of deviation from target values, the data user can assess potential bias and uncertainty introduced by inaccuracy. For example, a noncompliant LCS with recovery below the lower control limit may imply that the sample results are biased low. Accuracy shall be calculated as percent recovery of the target analyte as follows:

where:

%Ri = percent recovery for compound i

Yi = measured analyte concentration in sample i

Xi = known analyte concentration in sample i

Si = amount of spike added

The resultant percent recoveries will be compared to acceptance criteria and deviations from specified limits shown in Tables 5 through 13. If the objective criteria are not met, the laboratory will justify why the acceptability limits were exceeded and implement appropriate corrective actions. Percent recoveries will be reviewed during data quality review, and the reviewer will note any deviations from the specified limits and comment on any effects on the report data.

A 7.2.3 REPRESENTATIVENESS

Representativeness is a qualitative parameter that expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point, or an environmental condition. Representativeness is a parameter that focuses primarily on the proper design of the sampling program or the subsampling of a given sample. In order to meet the needs of the data users, project data must meet the measurement performance criteria for sample representativeness specified in the QAPP. Discussion of the methods and approaches used to satisfy the representativeness criteria is found throughout this plan.

A 7.2.4 COMPARABILITY

Comparability is a qualitative parameter that expresses the confidence with which data from one study can be compared with data from another. This goal will be achieved by using standard techniques to collect and analyze representative samples and by reporting analytical results in appropriate units. Comparability will be evaluated during the QA review.

%R = 100% (Yi-X )/S

A 7.2.5 COMPLETENESS

Completeness calculations represent general measurements of the data set by comparison to contractual, analytical, technical and field sampling goals. Completeness measurements will be calculated as follows:

reportedresults

resultscompliantcontractssCompleteneContract

#

#%100

Note: A sample results may be unqualified without being contract compliant. For example, when an LCS>UCL but associated samples are nondetected, the result is not contract compliant. The goal is 100 percent.

reportedresults

resultsdunqualifiessCompleteneAnalytical

#%100

Note: The goal for holding times in 100 percent. The overall analytical completeness is ≥90 percent.

plannedsamples

resultsuseablessCompleteneTechnical

#

#%100

Note: Estimated results considered as useable for project decision making. The goal is ≥95 percent.

plannedsamples

collectedsamplesssCompleteneSamplingField

#

#%100

Note: Field sampling completeness must be calculated separately for each field QC element. The goal is 100 percent.

A 7.2.6 SENSITIVITY

Sensitivity is the capability of a test method or instrument to discriminate between measurement responses representing different levels (e.g., concentrations) of a variable of interest. Examples of QC measures for determining sensitivity include laboratory fortified blanks, a method detection limit study, and calibration standards at the quantitation limit (QL).

A 8.0 SPECIAL TRAINING/CERTIFICATION

The site-specific safety and health plan (SSHP) describes the health, safety, and training requirements for the sampling event. All site personnel will meet the Hazardous Waste Site

Operations Training (HAZWOPER) and other requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120(e), including:

1. Forty hours of initial off-site training or its recognized equivalent;

2. Eight hours of annual refresher training for all personnel (as required);

3. Eight hours of supervisor training for personnel serving as Site Health and Safety Officers;

4. Three days of work activity under the supervision of a trained and experienced supervisor.

All site personnel will participate in medical surveillance programs that meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120(f).

Prior to the start of operations at the site, the Site Health and Safety Officer will conduct a site safety briefing, which will include all personnel involved in site operations. All site personnel are to attend the briefings and sign the briefing form. Subsequent site safety briefings will be conducted at least weekly, or whenever there is a change in task or significant change in task location. Briefings will be conducted if new personnel report to the site. For each briefing, the Site Health and Safety Officer will complete a site safety briefing form that will be kept in the project file.

A 9.0 DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS

The following documents and records will be produced during this investigation:

Records

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan

Analytical data (hardcopy and SEDD files)

Field notebooks and forms

Documents

Field Reports Summary of field activities and identification of any deviations from this QAPP Tabulation of all field and laboratory data EPA Region 10 Sample Custody & Analysis Chain-of-Custody form (dated July 2005) Photographs

Clam Tissue Technical Memorandum Tabulation of all field and laboratory data Descriptions of data analysis performed Interpretations of results in relation to the purpose and objectives of the field activities

Identification of areas where additional investigation may be needed Data validation reports Quality Control Summary Report (assessment of DQIs and data usability)

All documentation relevant to this project will be managed by the Corps Project Manager pursuant to Army Regulation 25-400-2, the Modern Army Recordkeeping System.

Field forms, field notes, and original laboratory data will be stored in the project files and will not be reproduced for these reports.

A review conference will be held to discuss the memorandum and recommendations. Formal, written responses to project team review comments will be prepared and incorporated into the final reports if necessary. Draft reports will be submitted to EPA for review and comment. If necessary, a review conference may be held to discuss and clarify comments prior to production of the final reports.

Field Activities

All field activities will be recorded in a bound field logbook that has consecutively numbered pages. The logbook will provide a daily record of significant events, observations, and measurements taken during the field investigation. The field log books are intended to provide sufficient data and observations to enable the field team to reconstruct events that occurred during the project. The field log books will contain the following as a minimum:

1. Date and time of sample collection 2. Weather conditions, including temperature 3. The location number and name (e.g., Eagle Harbor) 4. Location of sampling point (GPS) 5. Sample identification number 6. Species of sample 7. Any field measurement taken 8. Field observations, especially any notice of stains or smell of contamination 9. References, such as maps or photographs of the sampling site 10. Any procedural steps taken that deviate from those outlined in this QAPP

Field activities will be documented in a draft and final technical memorandum that will be included as an appendix to the final Monitoring Report. In addition to including information from the field log book, the memorandum will summarize sampling procedures, sample packing, and sample delivery to the laboratory. Laboratory data will be kept in a project file at the Corps Seattle District.

GROUP B: DATA GENERATION AND ACQUISITION

B 1.0 SAMPLING PROCESS DESIGN FOR CLAM TISSUE

The goal of this sampling effort is to determine the average chemical concentrations in clam populations at the Site with enough precision to clearly determine whether the data is of sufficient quality that it could be used in a future human health risk assessment and determine the effect of source control measures. Clam tissue collection and analysis will focus on the horse clam (Tresus capax or T. nuttallii) of harvestable size. Eight composite samples will be collected and analyzed for PAH and lipid content. To achieve a conservative measure of contaminant load, the Suquamish tribe requested that clam tissue analysis should be done when lipid content is highest. Since it is generally accepted that organic compounds accumulate in the lipid stores of organisms, estimates of temporal trends and spatial gradients of exposure can be improved by standardizing contaminant levels against lipid content, for example by normalization, regression, or analysis of variance. Lipid normalization (regression, etc.) reduces the within-sample variability. Therefore, clams will be collected during the spring season 2011 specifically 18 to 19 May.

The collection of clams will be dependent on the presence of enough clams within the intertidal sediments. A sample will be collected from each of the eight composite sampling locations from Intertidal Beach, North Shoal, and East Beach. This will provide adequate samples to determine the 95 percent upper confidence limit for use in a human health risk analysis. Five individual horse clams will be collected for each composite sample and will be analyzed to estimate the variance in chemical tissue concentrations. The clams will be dug from one or more locations along a 100-foot stretch of beach for the composite1 with collection locations as close as possible to those used in the previous monitoring event. At East Beach, clams will be collected from three locations adjacent to the historical seeps but not within the seep itself. If a targeted location does not have enough clams, the collection area adjacent to the seep may be enlarged in order to collect sufficient clams. Sampling locations will be determined by the location of potential clam siphon holes on the sediment surface. All collected horse clams will be measured individually to estimate approximate tissue weight.

Tissue samples will be collected across the decision unit from eight locations (Intertidal Beach, North Shoal, East Beach) with the East Beach and North Shoal locations duplicating the 2003 sample locations as much as possible.

Based on the field survey on 19 April 2011, only horse clams will be collected for the tissue analysis, and no clams will be collected from West Beach.

1 As per recommendation of Richard Brooks (4/8/11) to follow design in Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program Shellfish Programs Implementation Plan Feb 1990.

B 2.0 SAMPLING METHODS This section describes equipment and procedures for clam tissue sampling. Sampling will be performed in accordance with Puget Sound Protocols and Guidelines, USACE guidelines, and EPA guidelines (PSAT 1997a, 1997b; EPA, 2001; USACE, 2001).

B 2.1 Shellfish Tissue Sampling

B 2.1.1 EQUIPMENT

The following equipment and supplies are necessary to collect tissue samples:

Rain gear and boots PPE (e.g., nitrile gloves, eye protection) Pre-made labels Tin foil and/or Ziploc bags A temperature blank Paper towels Packing materials (bubble wrap), garbage bags, tape, scissors Field notebook, pens, and clipboard Ruler Shovels/rakes COC forms GPS

B 2.1.2 PREPARATION FOR SAMPLING

The sampling team will need to familiarize themselves with the target shellfish species to be collected, horse clam (Tresus capax or T. nuttallii). Field guides with pictures will be used and the sampling team will include a Tribal representative.

B 2.1.3 SAMPLING PROCESS

Collection of shellfish tissue samples at EHOU is scheduled to occur 18 to 19 May 2011. The purpose of sampling during the springtime is to characterize the shellfish tissue at a time when lipid content is highest. Shellfish tissue collection and analysis will focus on a shellfish species commonly used for human consumption- horse clam. Per discussion with Richard Brooks of the Suquamish Tribe (2/17/2011), it is anticipated that only shellfish of harvestable size (the State of Washington Statewide Harvest Rules has “no minimum size” for collecting horse clams) will be collected. The goal for the sampling effort is to represent as accurately as possible the types of shellfish that would actually be harvested and therefore clams of four inches or larger will be collected. Efforts will be made to sample from the same locations on East Beach and North Shoal as were sampled on May 6, 2003.

The shellfish survey conducted on 19 April 2011 indicates sufficient biomass for sampling at Intertidal Cap, North Shoal, and East Beach. It was determined that a total of eight horse clam composite samples will be collected within the. No clams will be collected at West Beach due to the lack of sufficient biomass from the April reconnaissance. Shellfish will be

unearthed at a sufficiently low tide using forks, rakes, or shovels. Only undamaged clams will be retained for analysis. Once clams are collected they will be rinsed in site seawater to remove adhering sediment and placed in a stainless steel bowl. Like species will be measured and separated whole into separate baggies. The baggies will be labeled, cooled, and transported to Manchester Laboratory for resection, compositing, and frozen for archiving. Measurement data, species, tidal zone location, substrate, and number of shellfish collected per sample location will be recorded in the field log book. Sufficient numbers of shellfish will be collected so that a minimum of 100 grams of tissue will be available per sample for PAH analysis which includes 10 grams for lipid analysis. The purpose of the tissue survey will be to help establish tissue chemical levels.

Samples will be given sample IDs that are numbered consecutively from1120440-1120449. Samples to include MS/MSD will be identified on the chain-of-custody.

Sample labels will be placed on each individual sample. Sample labels, whether blank or preprinted, will contain an abbreviated summary of the logbook entry for the sample. The following information will be included on sample container labels:

Project number (EPA Project Code) Sample identification number Date and time of sampling Name of sampling personnel Matrix Analyses to be performed

Because the samples cannot be homogenized in the field, no field duplicate or MS/MSD samples will be processed in the field. Instead, extra shellfish (if possible) from one sample location will be provided to the laboratory so that they can be homogenized at the laboratory and then split into a primary sample, duplicate sample, MS sample, and MSD sample as appropriate. After the field data has been logged, the shellfish will be placed in Ziploc bags,

and placed in an ice chest cooled to a temperature of 4C. The cooler will be transferred to the analytical laboratory under chain of custody.

Any deviations from pre-determined sample locations or shellfish species collected shall be clearly documented in the field log book, in the final Monitoring Report, and on the site map.

B 3.0 SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY This section describes the sample handling system from sample collection through disposal. The purpose of these procedures is to ensure that the quality of samples is maintained during collection, transportation, storage, and analysis.

B 3.1 Sample Labeling

An individual sample label will be placed on each sample collected. At a minimum the label will contain the following information: time of collection, date of collection, location of

sample, analysis requested, project code, and sample ID number. This information will be transferred onto the chain of custody forms.

B 3.2 Sample Identification

Every sample collected in the field will be labeled and accompanied by a chain-of-custody form when delivered to the laboratory for analysis. Information on the sample label shall contain, at a minimum, sample identification number, analysis requested, sampling date and time, project code, and the initials of the field sampler. The label will be formatted similar to the following:

All samples collected will be assigned a unique identification code provided by EPA as follows:

.

B 3.3 Sample Packaging and Shipment

Samples will be packed in coolers using bubble wrap along with ice packs, blue ice, or crushed ice for transport to the laboratory at 4 degrees Celsius. Temperature blanks will be placed in each sample cooler. All samples will be accompanied by chain-of-custody forms. Chain-of-custody records will be maintained by the field sampling crew to document and verify sample transfer to laboratory.

B 3.4 Sample Custody

After sample collection, samples will be maintained in the custody of field personnel until formally transferred to the laboratory or storage area. For the purposes of this work, custody will be defined as follows:

1. Samples will be in plain view of the field personnel; or

2. Samples will be stored inside an appropriate container that is in plain view of the field personnel; or

3. Samples will be stored inside any locked space such as a cooler, locker, car, truck, or trailer to which field personnel have the only immediately available key(s) or lock combination.

Custody Records

Custody records will be maintained for all samples recovered. Custody records are defined as formal EPA Region 10 Sample Custody & Analysis chain-of-custody forms. The information on the chain-of-custody form should contain, at a minimum, the following:

1. Project Name

2. EPA Project Code 3. Sample identification number 4. Date and time of sample collection 5. Sample location identification and/or description 6. Sample matrix type 7. Signatures sample handlers 8. Type of analyses requested (indicate MS/MSDs if applicable) 9. Number of containers used to hold the sample 10. Method of shipment 11. Signatures indicating relinquishment and acceptance of samples including date and time

of sample transfer 12. Phone number and name of person to whom results should be reported

If samples leave the custody of the designated person as defined above, custody seals will be affixed to the sample or shipping containers. The custody seals will contain, at a minimum, the name and title of the person responsible for the samples, the signature of that person, and the date when the custody seal was applied.

The lead sampler will be responsible for sample tracking and chain-of-custody procedures in the field. The sampling lead will prepare field notebook entries and ensure they match the prepared chain-of-custody forms prior to transfer of the samples into coolers. All information on the chain-of-custody forms will be cross-checked against field notebook entries and sample labels prior to sample transfer.

Laboratory Custody Procedures

A designated sample custodian at the laboratory will accept custody of the shipped samples from the carrier and enter the preliminary information about the samples into a sample receipt log, including the initial of the person delivering the samples and the status of the custody seals on the coolers (i.e., broken versus unbroken), if affixed. The custodian responsible for sample log-in will follow the laboratory’s SOP for opening the coolers, checking cooler temperature, checking the contents, and verifying that the information on the chain-of-custody agrees with the samples received.

B 3.5 Holding Times

All samples collected will be preserved by cooling in accordance with EPA and PSEP protocols. Recommended holding times for frozen tissue samples have not been established by EPA for organics analyses, but a 1-year maximum holding time (similar to the sediment holding time) is recommended for Puget Sound studies. Extracts should be analyzed within 40 days. Extended sample storage in a glass jar can minimize desiccation. At a minimum, the samples should be kept frozen at -18° C until extraction.

B 4.0 ANALYTICAL METHODS Horse clams once removed from the sediment will be rinsed in site seawater, measured, and placed in baggies with a sample label. Whole clams will be placed in a cooler with ice to cool them to 4oC and delivered to the laboratory. Five individual horse clams will be collected for each composite sample, sent to the laboratory and processed for archiving. Clams will not be depurated prior to processing. A minimum of 100 g of clam tissue (whole body without shell) is required in each composite for analysis of PAH and lipids. The process will include resection of the entire clam tissue, remove the outer skin and hard tip from the neck, discard the contents of the gutball (empty the gutball and retain gutball tissue for analysis), homogenize the composite samples, and freeze the samples in glass jars at -18oC for later analysis (Section B 4.1.1). The laboratory will report the total weight for each homogenized sample. Horse clam tissue samples will therefore include skinned neck (hard tip removed), strap, and empty gutball. The following tissue sample preparation and homogenization procedure is modified from the WA Dept of Health February 4, 2011 Technical Assistance for preparing geoduck tissue samples.

Dissection

1. Remove one horse clam from the cooler. 2. Rinse horse clam over the sink with DI water (using squirt bottle). 3. Note sample identification number on tracking sheet. 4. Weigh the whole horse clam and enter weight (g) on tracking sheet. 5. Cut away shell from tissue (on cutting board covered with aluminum foil). 6. Cut muscle from shell (if still attached). 7. Cut gutball away from siphon/mantle and set aside for trim and removal of contents. 8. Trim the non-edible tissue from siphon/mantle and discard (generally the hard tip of the

siphon). 9. Take siphon/mantle to water bath are for skinning 10. Rinse gutball with DI water. Remove the contents from the gutball and discard. Combine

the empty gutball with the siphon/mantle tissue. 11. Weigh the tissue and enter the weight on the tracking sheet. 12. Repeat process with all horse clams from the same sample location. Discard foil and

clean knives and cutting boards.

Skinning

1. Prepare DI water bath to approximately 200oF (near boiling). 2. Place one horse neck/mantle in the water bath for 10 seconds. 3. Remove from water bath with tongs or strainer. 4. Pull outer skin from neck and mantle using fingers or forceps and discard skin and hard

tip. 5. Split siphon and rinse with DI water to remove detritus. 6. Weigh siphon/mantle and enter the weight on tracking sheet. 7. Repeat steps with all horse clams from the same sample location.

8. Discard water bath, clean pot and utensils with soap and water. Rinse with acetone or methanol.

Chopping

1. Place horse clam tissue on cutting board (no need to dice the gutball tissue). 2. Cut siphon/mantle into dice sized cubes. 3. Place cube tissue into a small zip-loc bag or a bowl. Five horse clams from the same

sample site are placed in a large zip-loc bag for the composite sample. 4. Tissue is ready to be homogenized. 5. Discard foil and clean knives and cutting boards.

Grinding/Homogenization

1. Place the horse clam tissue into Robot Coupe Blixer (or similar industrial blender). 2. Multiple horse clams of the same sample and tissue type can be placed in Robot Coupe until ¾ full. 3. Pour liquid nitrogen over the tissue until covered (~2 cups). 4. Cover Robot Coupe. 5. Press the “on” button. 6. Turn off after 60 seconds. 7. Ensure that the tissues are homogeneously ground (if not adding more liquid nitrogen and/or additional blending may be necessary). 8. Using a spatula, place ground tissue into an ICHEM jar for archiving at -18oC. 9. Discard remaining homogenate and clean Robot Coupe before processing the next horse clam sample. The horse clam tissues from each sample, composed of 100 grams of tissue, will be homogenized and placed in glass containers by Manchester Laboratory for archiving at -18oC for subsequent PAH and percent lipid tissue analyses. The laboratory will report the total weight for each homogenized sample. Shells will be archived for potential age analysis.

B 4.1 Analysis of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Extracts by GC/MS-SIM

A modified SW-846 method 8270D is used to determine the concentration of selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in extracts prepared from clam tissue samples. The sample extracts are analyzed by GC/MS in the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode.

The samples are prepared for analysis by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) using the liquid-liquid extraction (Method 3520C) and, if necessary, sample cleanup with silica gel to remove polar organics (Method 3630C). The semivolatile compounds are introduced into the GC/MS by injecting the sample extract into a gas chromatograph (GC) with a narrow-bore fused-silica capillary column. The GC column is temperature-programmed to separate the analytes, which are then detected with a mass spectrometer (MS) connected to the gas chromatograph. Analytes eluted from the capillary column are

introduced into the mass spectrometer via a jet separator. Identification of target analytes is accomplished by comparing their mass spectra with the electron impact (or electron impact-like) spectra of authentic standards. Quantitation is accomplished by comparing the response of a major (quantitation) ion relative to an internal standard using a six-point calibration curve. Selective Ion Monitoring (SIM) will be used instead of a full scan monitoring due to the low detection limits needed for the screening level criteria.

SOPs for all analytical procedures will be incorporated in Attachment 1 in early June 2011.

B 4.1.2 METHOD 3550C (MODIFIED) – TISSUE PREPARATION AND EXTRACTION

Samples for PAH analysis will be prepared by homogenizing the sample using an appropriate industrial blender containing 1:1 methylene chloride/acetone with anhydrous sodium sulfate. The homogenized extract is then decanted through acidified glass wool and the glass wool is rinsed with methylene chloride. The extract is dried again in a sodium sulfate column and concentrated in a Kuderna-Danish concentrator equipped with a with a Snyder column. Concentration to final volume is achieved using an evaporative concentrator.

B 4.1.3 METHOD CLEANUP - METHODS 3535A, 3610A, 3620C, 3630C

Sample cleanup is then performed using one or more of following procedures; modified SW-846 methods 3535A, 3610A, 3620C, 3630C. All sample batches undergoing cleanup will be prepared with a cleanup blank to be analyzed with the batch.

B 4.2 Percent Lipid Analysis

The percent lipid determination of homogenized clam tissue is based on the procedures outlined in the NIST certificate of analysis of SRM 1946. The percent lipid determination utilizes a Soxtherm® to extract a portion of homogenized clam tissue, dried with diatomaceous earth, with 100 percent methylene chloride.

B 4.3 Analytical Method Detection Limits

Sensitivity requirements for all methods and matrices are driven by the project objectives (Table A 7-2). The field and laboratory methods selected provide data of sufficient sensitivity to allow the project team to evaluate site conditions and meet the project objectives. Specific sensitivity requirements by target analyte are presented in Table A 7-2. Target analytical quantitation limits (QL) are based on the risk-based benchmarks listed in the table. Where data will be used to support engineering objectives and not risk assessment, the QL is based on the sensitivity of the routine method selected for use in this project. The laboratories have been requested to report results for detected PAHs down to the method detection limit. Concentrations reported between the LOQ and LOD will be J-qualified.

B 4.3.1 DETECTION LIMITS

The limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) for each analyte and matrix as well as for all preparatory and cleanup methods routinely used on samples shall be performed

in accordance with the Laboratory’s standard operating procedures and as required by their NELAC accreditation. The current NELAC standard can be found in National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference Standard Quality Systems Appendix C (June 2003) Section C.3 (EPA/600/R-04/003).

B 5.0 QUALITY CONTROL

The overall quality assurance objectives for field sampling and laboratory analysis are to produce data of known and appropriate quality to support the project objectives. Appropriate procedures and quality control checks will be used so that known and acceptable levels of accuracy and precision are maintained for each data set. Field quality control and laboratory quality control samples will be employed to evaluate data quality. Quality control samples are controlled samples introduced into the analysis stream whose results are used to review data quality and to calculate the accuracy and precision of the chemical analysis program. Laboratory quality control samples as described in the referenced methods will be followed. A summary of method QC criteria can be found in Table A 7-2.

All quality control measurements and data assessment for this project will be conducted on samples from and within batches of samples from this project alone; in other words, no “other project” samples will be used with samples from this project for assessment of data quality. The laboratory will notify the Project Chemist of any quality exceedances outlined in this QAPP as soon as possible.

B 5.1 Field Quality Control

Field quality control samples are collected to monitor the variability associated with sample collection techniques and methods. Field duplicates cannot be collected for clam sampling since two clams are unlikely to reside next to each other. Rinates samples will not be collected because all clams will be rinsed with site seawater to remove potential contamination prior to being bagged.

B 5.2 Laboratory Quality Control Samples

Method Blanks

Method blanks are used to check for laboratory contamination and instrument bias. Laboratory method blanks will be analyzed at a minimum frequency of five percent or one per analytical batch. Analytical results for each sample shall be clearly associated with a particular method blank. In order to evaluate low-level determinations of target compounds in samples, the laboratory will report any detected concentration found in method blanks that exceed control criteria.

Laboratory Control Samples

Laboratory control samples (LCS) are used to monitor the laboratory’s day-to-day performance of routine analytical methods, independent of matrix effects. The LCS is

prepared by spiking silica sand with standard solutions prepared independently of those used in establishing instrument calibration. For the rinsate blanks, deionized water will be spiked with standard solutions. The LCS are extracted and analyzed with each batch of samples. Results are compared on a per-batch basis to established control limits and are used to evaluate laboratory performance for precision and accuracy. LCS are commercially available as well, and may be used. Laboratory control samples may also be used to identify any background interference or contamination of the analytical system that may lead to the reporting of elevated concentration levels or false positive measurements.

Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Samples (MS/MSD)

Matrix spikes are used to assess sample matrix interferences and analytical errors, as well as to measure the accuracy of the analysis. Known concentrations of analytes are added to environmental samples; the MS/MSD are then processed through the entire analytical procedure and the recovery of the analytes is calculated. Results are expressed as percent recovery of the known spiked amount. MS/MSD pairs will be analyzed at a minimum frequency of one per twenty samples or one per analytical batch.

Because MS/MSD samples measure the matrix interference of a specific matrix, only MS/MSD samples from this investigation will be analyzed, and not samples from other projects. The MS/MSD samples will be analyzed for the same parameters as the associated field samples in the same analytical batch. Samples for use by the laboratory as MS or MS duplicates will be identified on the chain-of-custody form, and additional sample volumes must be provided to the laboratory.

MS/MSD analyses not meeting quality control criteria will be reanalyzed once. If subsequent analyses result in out of control recoveries both results will be reported by the laboratory and the corresponding data flagged.

Laboratory Duplicate Samples

Precision of the analytical system is evaluated by using laboratory duplicates. Laboratory duplicates are two portions of a single homogeneous sample which are split, extracted, and analyzed separately for the same parameter.

B 6.0 INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT TESTING, INSPECTION, AND MAINTENANCE

The laboratory shall maintain detailed logs for each instrument documenting the preventative maintenance and repairs performed. All laboratory instruments will be maintained as specified in the Manchester laboratory’s QA plan, standard operating procedures and according to manufacturers’ instructions.

B 7.0 INSTRUMENT/EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY B 7.1 Laboratory Instrument Calibration

Laboratory instrument calibration will be conducted in accordance with the QC requirements identified in the manufacturers’ instructions and the laboratory SOPs.

Calibration of all analytical instrumentation is required to ensure that the analytical system is operating correctly and functioning at the sensitivity required meeting project objectives. Each instrument will be calibrated with standard solutions appropriate to the instrument and analytical method, in accordance with the methodology specified and at the QC frequency specified in the laboratory SOPs.

The calibration and maintenance history of the fixed laboratory instrumentation is an important aspect of the project’s overall QA/QC program. As such, all initial and continuing calibration procedures will be implemented by trained personnel following the manufacturer’s instructions and in accordance with applicable EPA protocols to ensure the equipment is functioning within the tolerances established by the manufacturer and the method-specific analytical requirements.

B 8.0 INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIES AND CONSUMABLES

Supplies and consumables for the field sampling effort will be inspected upon delivery and accepted if the condition of the supplies is satisfactory. For example, sample bags will be inspected to ensure that they are the correct size and quantity and were not damaged in shipment.

B 9.0 DATA MANAGEMENT B 9.1 Data Reduction

The laboratory will perform in-house analytical data reduction under the direction of the laboratory manager. Data reduction will be conducted as follows:

Laboratory data reduction procedures will be those specified in EPA SW-846 and those described in the laboratory SOPs. The data reduction steps will be documented, signed, and dated by the analyst.

The laboratories will maintain detailed procedures for laboratory record keeping, supporting the validity of all analytical work. Each data report package will contain the laboratories’ written memorandum that the requested analytical method was run and that all QA/QC checks were performed.

B 9.2 Laboratory Data Deliverables

The laboratory data reports will consist of data packages that will contain complete documentation. Raw data will be stored at the Manchester laboratory. Each laboratory data

report will be accompanied by a full data review. The information in this review will include the following as applicable:

Case narrative identifying the laboratory analytical batch number. The laboratory manager or their designee must sign the narrative.

Matrix and number of samples included. Analyses performed and analytical methods used. Description of any problems or exceedances of QC criteria and corrective action taken. Copy of chain-of-custody forms for all samples included in the analytical batch. Tabulated sample analytical results with units, data qualifiers, explanation of data

qualifiers, percent solids, sample mass or volume, dilution factor, laboratory batch and sample number, field sample number, and dates sampled, received, extracted, and analyzed all clearly specified. Surrogate percent recoveries will be included for organic analyses.

All calibration, quality control, and sample raw data including bench sheets, preparation logs, chromatograms, mass spectra, quantitation reports, and other instrument output data.

Blank summary results indicating samples associated with each blank. Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates result summaries with calculated percent recovery

and relative percent differences. Laboratory control sample results, when applicable, with calculated percent recovery. Electronically formatted data deliverable (diskette) results.

B 9.3 Electronic Data Management

The USACE will generate a State of Washington Environmental Information Management (EIM) format (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/) to track and report the following:

1. Sample station information including location, and field observations.

2. Sample collection information including sample number, station, matrix, type of sample (field, blank, duplicate), date of collection, and sampler.

3. Analytical results including concentration, units, qualifier and analytical method.

Validated laboratory electronic data deliverables will be loaded into the USACE EQuIS™ database management system, thereby avoiding hand-entry errors. EQuIS™ has a direct EIM output report. Additional information such as location coordinates, and depth interval from field sampling documentation forms, will be loaded into EQuIS™ separately. The report will be produced and verified against the validated Lab Certificates. Data can only be placed into the EIM database once the equivalent of a QA1 data review (approximately a Stage 2a in current terminology) has taken place and the data are deemed acceptable.

The full requirements for validation of project data can be found in Section D.

C 1.0 ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS C 1.1 Assessments

Assessments will be used to increase the user’s understanding of the activity being assessed and to provide a basis for improving that activity. Assessments may be conducted by the EPA or the Corps. All assessments will be planned and documented according to the project requirements.

No routine auditing is currently scheduled for this project. However, if problems are encountered that warrant further examination, performance and systems audits may be conducted to determine whether:

1. The QA program has been documented in accordance with specified requirements

2. The documented program has been implemented

3. Any nonconformances were identified and corrective actions or identified deficiencies were implemented

The PM will be responsible for: initiating audits, selecting the audit team, overseeing audit implementation, supervising and checking that samples are collected and handled in accordance with this plan, that documentation of work is adequate and complete, and overseeing that the project performance satisfies the QA objectives as set forth in this QAPP.

Reports and technical correspondence will be peer reviewed by qualified individuals before being finalized. Copies of all audit reports will be submitted to EPA for review.

Performance Audits

Performance audits are used to determine the status and effectiveness of both field and laboratory measurement systems and to provide a quantitative measure of the quality of data generated. For laboratories, this involves the use of standard reference samples or performance evaluation samples. These samples have known concentrations of constituents that are analyzed as unknowns in the laboratory. Results of the laboratory analyses are calculated and compared for accuracy against the known concentrations of the samples and evaluated in relation to the project measurement quality objectives (performance criteria).

Technical Systems Audits

Technical system audits are used to confirm the adequacy of the data collection (field operation) and data generation (laboratory operation) systems. The on-site audits are conducted to determine whether the project-specific plans and field and laboratory SOPs are being properly implemented. A system audit may cover the field or laboratory portions of the project. The Project Manager or RPM may request that a system audit of the field or laboratory operations be performed.

C 1.2 Response Actions

The ultimate responsibility for maintaining quality throughout the project rests with the Project Manager. The day-to-day responsibility for assuring the quality of field and laboratory data rests with the field manager and the laboratory program administrator, respectively.

Any nonconformance with the established QC procedures will be expeditiously identified and controlled. Where procedures are not in compliance with the established protocol, corrective actions will be taken immediately. Subsequent work that depends on the nonconforming activity will not be performed until the identified nonconformance is corrected.

Field Corrective Action

The Field Coordinator will review the procedures being implemented in the field for consistency with the established protocols. Sample collection, preservation, labeling, etc., will be checked for completeness. Where procedures are not strictly in compliance with the established protocol, the deviations will be documented and reported to the Project Manager. Corrective actions will be defined by the Field Coordinator and documented as appropriate. Upon implementation of the corrective action, the Field Coordinator will provide the Project Manager with a written memo documenting field implementation. The memo will become part of the project file.

Laboratory Corrective Action

Laboratory corrective action will comply with the "National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference, Chapter 5, Quality Systems, Revision 16, July, 2002." The laboratory documents corrective action procedures in Section 3.10 of "The Quality Assurance Manual for the U.S. EPA Region 10 Environmental laboratory, Revision 6, November, 19, 2009".

Reconciliation with User Requirements

Field and laboratory data generated for this project will be reviewed to ensure that all project objectives are met. The following elements will be evaluated for nonconformances to determine the overall impact to project objectives:

field documentation

sample collection procedures

laboratory analytical and documentation procedures

data quality (precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness and sensitivity)

Significant nonconformances and their impact to data usability will be documented in the project. Appropriate actions, including resampling and reanalysis, may be recommended to the Project Manager so that the project objectives can be accomplished.

C 2.0 REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT

A draft and final Monitoring Report will be prepared that includes a discussion of field work, results of all chemical tests, and recommendations for future activities. Field work will be documented in a draft and final technical memorandum that will be included as an appendix to the final Monitoring Report. In addition to including information from the field log book, the memorandum will summarize sampling procedures, sample locations or changes, sample packing, and sample delivery to the laboratory.

D 1.0 DATA REVIEW (VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION) Data generated from the EPA Manchester Lab will under a full data quality review prior to its release in accordance with its review policies and standard operating procedures. This will be conducted by an independent reviewer who is not involved in the generation of the data. A data review memorandum will accompany all hardcopy data results provided by the lab and data qualifiers will be applied.

D 2.0 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION METHODS

All data validation will be performed in accordance with the QA/QC requirements specified in this QAPP.

Validation deliverables will include a Data Validation Report discussing QA conformance and deviations issues that may have affected the data quality. Interpretation of data usability based on precision, accuracy, representativeness, reproducibility, completeness and comparability will be provided in a Quality Control Summary Report (QCSR). Qualifiers will be added to data during the review as necessary.

Qualifiers applied to the data as a result of the review will be limited to:

U The analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the reporting limit.

J The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is an estimate of the concentration of the analyte in the sample.

J+ The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is an estimate of the concentration of the analyte in the sample with a high bias.

J- The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is an estimate of the concentration of the analyte in the sample with a low bias.

UJ The analyte was not detected above the sample reporting limit. However, the reporting limit is approximate and may or may not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.

R The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet quality control criteria. The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be verified.

Figure 1. Wyckoff Sampling Locations

Figure 2. Wyckoff Vicinity

ATTACHMENT 1

Manchester Environmental Laboratory

Standard Operating Procedures

(to be provided in June 2011)

SAFETY AND HEALTH PLAN

Wyckoff Shellfish Clam Tissue Sampling Survey

Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 10 1200 6th Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98101

Prepared by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Seattle District 4735 East Marginal Way South

Seattle, Washington 98134

May 16, 2011

SSHP for Wyckoff Clam Tissue Sampling Survey

ii

Table of Contents SAFETY AND HEALTH PLAN ................................................................................................................................ I

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 6

1.1. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE ................................................................................................................. 6 1.2. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PLANNED FIELD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................... 6 1.3. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ......................................................................................................................... 6

2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND RISK ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 7

2.1. CHEMICAL HAZARDS ................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2. POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES ................................................................................................................... 7 2.3. ACTION LEVELS........................................................................................................................................... 8 2.4. PHYSICAL AND OTHER HAZARDS ................................................................................................................ 8 2.5. SITE RULES/PROHIBITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.6. WORK PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................... 9 2.7. MATERIAL HANDLING PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................... 9 2.8. DRUM/CONTAINER HANDLING PROCEDURES AND PRECAUTIONS ................................................................ 9 2.9. CONFINED SPACE ENTRY PROCEDURES ....................................................................................................... 9 2.10. HOT WORK, SOURCES OF IGNITION, FIRE PROTECTION/PREVENTION, AND ELECTRICAL SAFETY ................ 9 2.11. EXCAVATION AND TRENCH SAFETY ............................................................................................................ 9 2.12. GUARDING OF MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................ 10 2.13. LOCKOUT/TAGOUT .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.14. FALL PROTECTION ..................................................................................................................................... 10 2.15. PROTECTIVE MEASURES ............................................................................................................................ 10 2.16. ILLUMINATION ........................................................................................................................................... 10 2.17. SANITATION ............................................................................................................................................... 10 2.18. ENGINEERING CONTROLS .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.19. PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 10 2.20. SIGNS AND LABELS .................................................................................................................................... 10

3. STATEMENT OF SAFETY AND HEALTH POLICY ................................................................................ 10

4. RESPONSIBILITIES AND LINES OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................. 12

5. SUBCONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS ..................................................................................................... 14

6. TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................................... 14

6.1. GENERAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................................... 14 6.2. SITE-SPECIFIC TRAINING ............................................................................................................................ 14

7. MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE ........................................................................................................................ 14

8. SAFETY AND HEALTH INSPECTIONS ..................................................................................................... 14

8.1. TYPES OF INSPECTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 14 8.2. INSPECTION PROCEDURES ......................................................................................................................... 15

9. SAFETY AND HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, AND COMPLIANCE ......... 17

10. ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT REPORTING ............................................................................................... 17

10.1. DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 17 10.2. REPORTING PROCEDURES .......................................................................................................................... 17

11. MEDICAL SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 20


iii

12. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 20

13. HAZARD COMMUNICATION ..................................................................................................................... 20

13.1. MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS / CHEMICAL HAZARD INFORMATION .................................................... 20 13.2. LABELS AND OTHER FORMS OF WARNING .................................................................................................. 21 13.3. TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 21 13.4. PROTECTIVE MEASURES ............................................................................................................................ 21

14. EMERGENCY RESPONSE ........................................................................................................................... 22

14.1. TYPES OF EMERGENCIES ........................................................................................................................... 22 14.2. ADVANCED PLANNING .............................................................................................................................. 22 14.3. TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 23 14.4. MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 23 14.5. EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................................................... 23 14.6. SAFETY PRACTICES ................................................................................................................................... 23 14.7. DOCUMENTATION ...................................................................................................................................... 24

15. CONTINGENCY PLANNING ....................................................................................................................... 24

15.1. MEDICAL EMERGENCY .............................................................................................................................. 24 15.2. CHEMICAL EXPOSURE (NOT ANTICIPATED) ................................................................................................ 24 15.3. ACCIDENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 24 15.4. UNANTICIPATED SIGNIFICANT CONTAMINATION ........................................................................................ 24 15.5. FIRE ........................................................................................................................................................... 25 15.6. SEVERE WEATHER .................................................................................................................................... 25

16. JOB CLEANUP DECONTAMINATION ...................................................................................................... 27

16.1. PERSONNEL DECONTAMINATION ............................................................................................................... 27 16.2. EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION ............................................................................................................... 28

17. SITE CONTROL MEASURES ...................................................................................................................... 28

17.1. SITE ZONE LAYOUT ................................................................................................................................... 28 17.2. EXCLUSION ZONE ...................................................................................................................................... 28 17.3. CONTAMINATION REDUCTION ZONE .......................................................................................................... 28 17.4. SUPPORT ZONE .......................................................................................................................................... 29 17.5. SITE SECURITY .......................................................................................................................................... 29 17.6. ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................ 29 17.7. GENERAL SITE ACCESS ............................................................................................................................. 29 17.8. LOCAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 29 17.9. SIGN-IN/SIGN-OUT AND GENERAL NOTICES/REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................... 29 17.10. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................ 29

18. COLD STRESS ................................................................................................................................................ 30

18.1. FROSTBITE ................................................................................................................................................. 30 18.2. HYPOTHERMIA .......................................................................................................................................... 30 18.3. EXPOSURE LIMITS ..................................................................................................................................... 31

19. PLAN FOR PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE ............................................................ 33

20. ACTIVITY HAZARD ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 34


v

Table 1 - Emergency Contingency Information

SITE LOCATION Wyckoff Superfund Site Eagle Harbor Drive NorthEast Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

NEAREST HOSPITAL

Harrison Memorial Hospital 2520 Cherry Avenue Bremerton, Washington ........................................ (360) 377-3911 Hours of Operation: 24 hours The route from the facility to the hospital is depicted on Figure 15-1.

EMERGENCY RESPONDERS

Police Department ..................................................................... 911 Fire Department ........................................................................ 911 Ambulance ................................................................................ 911

EMERGENCY CONTACTS

Tim Grube, Corps Health & Safety Office ........... (206) 764-3503 Karl Kunas, Corps of Engineers ............................ (206) 764-3448

IN EMERGENCY, CALL FOR HELP

AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

Give the following information: Where you are (cross streets or landmarks) Phone number you are calling from What happened - type of injury, accident How many persons need help What is being done for the victim(s) You hang up last - let whomever you called hang up

first


6

1. INTRODUCTION

This site-specific Safety and Health Plan (SSHP) is for use by all USACE personnel and other personnel (i.e., Suquamish Tribe Representatives) performing the clam tissue survey at the Wyckoff Superfund Site in May 2011. A copy of this plan shall be either posted at the site, or readily available at all times that USACE employees are present. All employees assigned to site work shall read, sign, and abide by this SSHP. Table 1 lists emergency contacts for the site. This SSHP was prepared on 16 May 2011 for USACE activities relating to the referenced site.

1.1. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site is located on the east side of Bainbridge Island, in Central Puget Sound, Washington. The site includes an inactive 40-acre wood-treating facility containing contaminated soil and groundwater, contaminated sediments in adjacent Eagle Harbor, and other upland sources of contamination to the harbor, including a former shipyard. The Remedial Investigation conducted by EPA identified mercury and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as the principal contaminants of concern in marine sediments. In addition, the Record of Decision for the Wyckoff / Eagle Harbor Superfund site named polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metals as the major risk drivers resulting from consumption of seafood near Eagle Harbor. This SSHP is concerned with the East Harbor OU that includes intertidal and subtidal sediments of the site. The Record of Decision for the Wyckoff / Eagle Harbor Superfund site named polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metals as the major risk drivers resulting from consumption of seafood near Eagle Harbor. The ROD has a goal of “enhancing existing institutional controls to reduce public exposure to contaminated fish and shellfish”; however, only limited information exists to determination compliance with this goal. The purpose of the clam tissue collection and analysis is to determine the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) body burdens of clams on the beaches adjacent to the Wyckoff site. The tissue chemistry data may be used in future human health risk assessment. Section 1.3 describes the site location, topography, approximate size and past uses of site. Section A5.0 of the QAPP includes more detailed information.

1.2. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PLANNED FIELD ACTIVITIES

The following field activities are currently planned:

Collect horse clams (Tresus nuttallii and/or T. capax) from eight composite locations and transport them to the EPA Manchester Laboratory for preparation, compositing, and freezing for later analysis.

1.3. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

USACE ensures that all personnel comply with the basic provisions of the following as applicable to the specific project tasks:

• Washington State General Safety and Health Standards WAC 296-24, and General Occupational Health Standards WAC 296-62;


7

• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations (29 CFR 1910 and

1926), including Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, Final Rule (29 CFR 1910.120); and

• US Army Corps of Engineers Health and Safety Requirements Manual, EM 385-1-1,

November 3, 2003.

2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND RISK ANALYSIS

2.1. CHEMICAL HAZARDS

Descriptions of the principal health hazards of the contaminant of concern follow: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs) – as cresoste

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are potent atmospheric pollutants that consist of fused aromatic rings. PAHs occur in oil, coal, and tar deposits, and are produced as byproducts of fuel burning (whether fossil fuel or biomass). Many useful products such as mothballs, blacktop, and creosote wood preservatives contain PAHs. As a pollutant, they are of concern because some compounds have been identified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are lipophilic, meaning they mix more easily with oil than water. The larger compounds are less water-soluble and less volatile (i.e., less prone to evaporate). Because of these properties, PAHs in the environment are found primarily in soil, sediment and oily substances, as opposed to in water or air.

PAHs are a group of organic contaminants that form from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons, such as coal and gasoline. PAHs are an environmental concern because they are toxic to aquatic life and several are suspected human carcinogens. PAHs known for their carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic properties are benz[a]anthracene and chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[j]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[ghi]perylene, coronene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene (C20H14), indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (C22H12) and ovalene. A person’s lungs, liver, skin, and kidneys can be damaged by exposure. The NIOSH 10 hour-TWA for coal tar volatiles (NIOSH considers creosote to be a coal tar product) is 0.1 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3), while the OSHA PEL-8-hourTWA for coal tar 0.2 mg/m3. Dermal and inhalation exposure may contribute significantly to uptake of these chemicals, and therefore all skin exposure should be avoided. Target organs include the lung, kidney and skin.

2.2. POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES

Exposure via this route is not likely due to moisture within the sediments which will prevent dust or particulates from becoming airborne.

Inhalation

Exposure via this route could occur if contaminated sediments contact the skin or clothing, or if Skin Contact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatic�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_aromatic_ring�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratogen�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipophilic�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatility_(chemistry)�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratogen�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benz(a)anthracene�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysene�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzo(b)fluoranthene�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzo(j)fluoranthene�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzo(k)fluoranthene�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzo(a)pyrene�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzo(ghi)perylene�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronene�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dibenz(a,h)anthracene�

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene&action=edit&redlink=1�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovalene�


8

shellfish or tools puncture protective gloves and skin is not intact; however, the expected concentrations would be minimal. Protective clothing and decontamination activities specified in this plan will minimize the potential for skin contact with the contaminants.

2.3. ACTION LEVELS

No action levels are set for this project.

2.4. PHYSICAL AND OTHER HAZARDS

Heat/cold stress

. The work will be performed in May. No heat or cold stress is expected providing samplers dress appropriately for the conditions.

Adverse weather

. Heavy rainfall generates the potential for runoff, slips/strips and falls, and reduced visibility. High winds (generally above 15 – 20 mph) can cause soil dispersion; high wind conditions causing visible dust may be sufficient cause to stop work. Electrical storms may be possible.

Tides.

Coordinate work around low tides to minimize slip/trip/falls or drowning hazard. Consult tide tables prior to scheduling work and complete before tides become high.

Illumination

. Work will be performed during daylight hours; no additional lighting will be necessary.

Solar radiation

. The potential for sunburn exists when working during daylight hours. Sunscreen with appropriate SPF for skin type should be used.

Noise

. No sources of elevated noise levels will be used for sampling activities.

No radiological or biological hazards are anticipated for the work at this site. Standard Operating Safety Procedures, Engineering Controls, and Work Practices The USACE maintains a primary commitment to the health and safety of employees. As a matter of policy, USACE will:

• Comply with all applicable laws and regulations related to health and safety • Take all appropriate precautions to provide a safe work environment for employees • Provide only those services that can be performed safely • Maintain a formal health and safety program that addresses the risks to USACE

employees • Charge project managers and Health and Safety personnel with the responsibility for

implementing the USACE health and safety program

2.5. SITE RULES/PROHIBITIONS

Prohibitions

Eating, drinking, smoking, and chewing gum or tobacco are not allowed while sampling or preparing samples for shipment. Eating and drinking are allowed on site in the support zone or


9

in the vehicle, provided that good hygiene practices are followed prior to eating or drinking.

The vehicle speed limits posted in the area shall be strictly adhered to.

Firearms and alcohol are strictly prohibited on site.

Housekeeping

Responsibility for good housekeeping rests with each employee and shall be enforced by the Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO). Any materials brought to the site will be removed prior to leaving the site.

Motor Vehicles

All employees who operate motor vehicle equipment at or during transportation to the job site must hold a valid driver's license. Seat belts must be worn at all times when the vehicle is in motion. Vehicles must be operated in compliance with applicable state and federal laws as well as the provisions of WAC 296-155-600 through 296-155-630.

Hand and Power Tools

Sampling equipment includes shovels and other minor hand tools. No power tools are required.

2.6. WORK PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

No work permits are required for this project.

2.7. MATERIAL HANDLING PROCEDURES

Detergent solutions may be used for decontamination and are not considered hazardous materials.

2.8. DRUM/CONTAINER HANDLING PROCEDURES AND PRECAUTIONS

No drum handling is required for this project. Ergonomic hazards are the most likely to be encountered during handling of sample containers.

2.9. CONFINED SPACE ENTRY PROCEDURES

No confined space entry is required for this project.

2.10. HOT WORK, SOURCES OF IGNITION, FIRE

PROTECTION/PREVENTION, AND ELECTRICAL SAFETY

No hot work is required for this project. No electrical hazards are present within the intertidal areas to be sampled.

2.11. EXCAVATION AND TRENCH SAFETY

No trenching or excavating of site materials is required for this project.


10

2.12. GUARDING OF MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT

No equipment or machinery which requires guarding will be utilized for this project.

2.13. LOCKOUT/TAGOUT

Lockout/tagout procedures are not required for this project.

2.14. FALL PROTECTION

It is not anticipated that working at heights will be required for this project, as all work will be conducted at ground level.

2.15. PROTECTIVE MEASURES

The use of gloves, protective clothing, boots, and eyewear will be required as discussed in Section 13. All personal protective equipment used will be in accordance with Subpart I of Title 29 CFR 1910 and Subpart E of Title 29 CFR 1926. Any emergencies or problems involving hazardous chemicals will be reported to the USACE Project Manager, who in turn will notify other agencies and authorities, as necessary.

2.16. ILLUMINATION

No additional illumination measures are anticipated.

2.17. SANITATION

Requirements of EM 385-1-1, Chapter 2 will be followed. Since the field work is of short duration, the field team will use public toilets in town or on the ferry, unless arrangements can be made for access to on-site facilities.

2.18. ENGINEERING CONTROLS

No special engineering controls are required for this project.

2.19. PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT

Not applicable to this project.

2.20. SIGNS AND LABELS

No special signs or labels are required for this project.

3. STATEMENT OF SAFETY AND HEALTH POLICY

All USACE employees are to follow the Safety and Health Requirements Manual, EM 385-1-1 as well as the Safety and Occupational Health Program, NWSOM 385-1-1, and site specific requirements. The Seattle District Policy Memo on Safety and Occupational Health is included below.


11


12

4. RESPONSIBILITIES AND LINES OF AUTHORITIES

USACE Project Manager – Karl Kunas Responsibilities • Ensure that projects are performed in a manner consistent with the

USACE health and safety program • Ensure that the project health and safety plans are prepared,

approved, and properly implemented when required • Implement health and safety plans • Ensure that adequate funds are allocated to fully implement

project health and safety • Coordinate with the District Health & Safety Officer and Site

Safety and Health Officer on health and safety matters Authority (Safety Related)

• Assign Field Safety Manager to project and, if necessary, assign a suitably qualified replacement

• Suspend field activities, if health and safety of personnel are endangered, pending an evaluation by the District Health and Safety Officer

• Suspend an individual from field activities for infractions of the health and safety plan, pending an evaluation by the USACE safety personnel

USACE District Safety and Occupational Health Officer - Tim Grube Responsibilities • Provide leadership and adequate resources for health and safety

• Monitor the implementation of the Health and Safety Program within the operations area of responsibility

• Track health and safety regulations that affect USACE personnel and subcontractors

• Maintain records pertaining to medical surveillance, training, fit testing, chemical exposure, and incidents

• Update the USACE Health and Safety Manual • Manage the employee medical surveillance program • Audit key aspects of Health and Safety Program and report

effectiveness to management Authority • Determine and implement personnel disciplinary actions, as

required • Suspend work on a project that jeopardizes the health and safety

of personnel • Implement improvements to the USACE health and safety

program • Approve the health and safety qualifications of employees • Approve or disapprove health and safety plans • Establish employee training and medical surveillance procedures • Suspend work on any project that jeopardizes the health and

safety of personnel • Determine the types of occupational safety and industrial

hygiene services to be provided by USACE Site Safety and Health Officer –


13

Responsibilities • Direct health and safety activities on site • Report immediately all safety-related incidents or accidents to

the District Safety and Occupational Health Officer and project manager

• Assist project managers in all aspects of implementing health and safety plans

• Maintain health and safety equipment on site • Implement emergency procedures as required

Authority • Temporarily suspend field activities if health and safety of personnel are endangered, pending further consideration by the District Safety and Occupational Health Officer

• Temporarily suspend an individual from field activities for infractions of the health and safety plan, pending further consideration by the District Safety and Occupational Health Officer.


14

5. SUBCONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS

No subcontractors will be used on site for this project; however, representatives from the Suquamish Tribe will be participating in the clam survey.

6. TRAINING

6.1. GENERAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

Considering the site history and contaminants of concern, an employee exposure at or above the action level for site contaminants is not anticipated. However the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120 are applicable. USACE field personnel will have received 40-hour initial hazardous waste operations training, with 8 hour annual refresher; and three days of field experience under a hazardous waste operations trained supervisor. At least one person on site shall have first aid/CPR training as well as bloodborne pathogen training in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1030.

6.2. SITE-SPECIFIC TRAINING

Workers performing site activities shall be trained in the following areas:

• Acute and chronic effects of toxic chemicals to which they may be exposed; • Routes of exposure (skin penetration and inhalation) and specific operations that could

result in exposure; • Purpose and limitations of personal protective equipment; • Personnel and equipment decontamination; and • Emergency response.

The SSHO shall provide follow-up training to all site workers prior to any change in operations. Special training shall be conducted if unanticipated problems occur.

7. MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE

Since the activities for this project are limited in duration (less than a week) and there is minimal potential for exposure, no medical surveillance is required for this project.

8. SAFETY AND HEALTH INSPECTIONS

USACE is committed to providing a safe working environment for all its employees through polices set forth in the health and safety program. USACE is committed to ensuring compliance with the health and safety program and regulatory requirements, and to identifying and correcting deficiencies of the program. Health and safety auditing is a key component in determining program effectiveness.

8.1. TYPES OF INSPECTIONS

Health and safety inspections include project administrative inspections, office inspections, and field inspections. Inspections can include visual evaluations with no written report, reports written in logbooks, and inspections using standard USACE safety forms.


15

All USACE projects with field tasks are subject to health and safety inspections. Field inspections are conducted based on risks, level of site activity, employee concerns, and client or regulatory requirements. Field inspections will normally be conducted by the District Safety and Occupational Health Officer or designee. Inspections are conducted periodically by the USACE Field Safety Officer to evaluate compliance with the health and safety plan and regulatory or client requirements. For this project, no inspections are anticipated other than those conducted daily by the Field Safety Officer. A daily inspection form is included below as Figure 8-1.

8.2. INSPECTION PROCEDURES

For field inspections, a verbal review of concerns shall be completed with the USACE Site Manager upon inspection completion and the completed inspection form shall be provided to the USACE Project Manager, Safety and Occupational Health Officer, and Field Safety Officer. Significant concerns shall be followed up by the inspector to ensure corrective action has been taken.


16

Figure 8-1 - On-Site Safety Meeting/Tailgate Meeting Documentation

Project Name: Date:

Location: Start Time:

Conducted By: Stop Time:

Topics Covered:

Comments:

ATTENDANCE:

Name (print): Signature:







17

9. SAFETY AND HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, AND COMPLIANCE

Refer to NWSOM 385-1-1 Safety and Occupational Health Program, and the District Safety and Occupational Health Policy Letter dated January 8, 2004 (included in Section 3).

10. ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT REPORTING

All health and safety incidents shall be reported to USACE management and health and safety staff. The prompt investigation and reporting of incidents will reduce the risk of future incidents, and better protect USACE and subcontractor employees.

10.1. DEFINITIONS

A health and safety incident is any event listed below:

• Illness resulting from chemical exposure or suspected chemical exposure • Any physical injury to USACE employees, whether or not it requires medical

attention • Fire, explosions, and flashes resulting from activities performed by USACE • Property damage resulting from activities performed by USACE • Vehicular accidents occurring on-site, while traveling to and from client locations,

or with any company-owned vehicle • Infractions of safety rules and requirements • Unexpected chemical exposures • Complaints from the public regarding USACE field operations

10.2. REPORTING PROCEDURES

Reporting Format

Incident reports shall be prepared by completing the Health and Safety Incident Report form (see Figure 10-1). This form may be obtained from any USACE Safety and Occupational Health Officer and is provided in EM-385-1-1.

Responsible Party

Reports of incidents occurring in the field shall be prepared by the USACE Field Safety Officer or, in the absence of the Field Safety Officer, the Supervising Field Manager, witness, or injured/exposed individual.

Filing

A report must be submitted to the District Safety and Occupational Health Officer within 24 hours of each incident involving medical treatment. When an injury or illness is reported, the Safety and Occupational Health Officer must deliver a copy of the report to the individual in charge of Human Resources, so that a Worker’s Compensation Insurance Report can be filed if necessary. Reports must be received by Human Resources within 48 hours of each qualifying


18

incident. A copy of the incident report will be provided to the USACE Project Manager.

Major Incidents

Incidents that include fatalities, hospitalization of three or more employees or subcontractors, or involve injury/illness of the public shall be reported to the Safety and Occupational Health Officer and the Project Manager.


19

Figure 10-1 Health and Safety Incident Report Project Name: __________________

Project Number: __________________

Date of Incident: __________________

Time of Incident: __________________

Location: __________________

__________________

TYPE OF INCIDENT (Check all applicable items)

Illness Fire, explosion, flash

Injury Unexpected exposure

Property damage Vehicular accident

Health and safety infraction

Other (describe) _____________________________

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT (Describe what happened and possible cause. Identify individual involved, witnesses, and their affiliations; and describe emergency or corrective action taken. Attach additional sheets, drawings, or photographs as needed.)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reporter: ________________________________ Print Name

___________________________ Signature

___________________ Date

Reporter must deliver this report to the Operating Unit Health & Safety Officer within 24 hours of the reported incident for medical treatment cases and within five days for other incidents.

Reviewed by: ___________________________________________ Operating Unit Health & Safety Officer

___________________ Date

Distribution by Field Safety Officer:

- USACE Safety and Occupational Health Officer: Tim Grube - USACE Site Health and Safety Officer: Joe Marsh or Emile Pitre - Project Manager: May Carrell - Personnel Office (medical treatment cases only)


20

11. MEDICAL SUPPORT

At least one USACE field personnel trained in First Aid/CPR will be present on site. Refer to Section 16 for addition information and map/directions to the hospital.

12. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

Based on past sampling events at the site, the nature of contamination, and the procedures to be used for sample collection, the following personal protective equipment is required: safety glasses or goggles, nitrile gloves, and slip-resistant rubber boots. Clothing will consist of long pants and clothing suitable for working in possibly warm or cool weather.

PPE Rationale Long pants Required at all times on site. Long sleeve shirt Required at all times on site. Slip-resistant rubber boots

Required at all times on site.

Hard hat Not required as no overhead hazards exist. Nitrile gloves During surveying to prevent contamination

from sample media. Leather work gloves As needed to handle sampling equipment. Safety glasses/goggles During surveying Ear plugs Not required as no excessive levels of noise

are anticipated. Sunscreen As needed during daylight hours. Hat To keep head warm, as needed. Tyvek-type coveralls or rain gear

To protect street clothes from becoming contaminated/dirty, as needed.

13. HAZARD COMMUNICATION

USACE is committed to informing employees of hazardous substances present in their places of work in accordance with the OSHA Hazard Communication (HAZCOM) requirements, Title 29 CFR 1910.1200 and 1926.59. Under the HAZCOM program, employees will be informed of the contents of the HAZCOM regulations, the hazardous properties of chemicals with which they work, safe handling procedures, and measures to take to protect themselves from these chemicals.

13.1. MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS / CHEMICAL HAZARD

INFORMATION

Material safety data sheets (MSDS) provide specific information on the chemicals to which workers may be exposed. No chemicals will be used or brought on site for this clam survey. Material safety data sheets for certain chemical residues existing in environmental media at


21

hazardous waste sites are not required because these chemicals are not consumer products and are typically not present in consumer product form.

13.2. LABELS AND OTHER FORMS OF WARNING

No hazardous chemicals will be used during the clam survey. However, if they were to be used, they would be properly labeled. Original labels will list the chemical identity, appropriate hazard warnings, and the name and address of the manufacturer. Referral will be made to the corresponding MSDS to assist in verifying label information. Original labels will not be defaced or removed. If chemicals are transferred from a labeled container to a portable container that is intended only for immediate use, no labels are required on the portable container. However, no hazardous materials or chemicals should be permanently used or stored in unlabeled containers.

13.3. TRAINING

Everyone who works with or is potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals will receive initial training on the HAZCOM requirements and the safe use of those chemicals. Those individuals involved in the Hazardous Waste Practice receive chemical hazard training in their 40-hour course, in the 8-hour refresher course, and in site-specific briefings. Employees not in the Hazardous Waste Practice, who are potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals, will be trained in:

• The basic requirements of HAZCOM and employees’ rights to information on chemical hazards.

• USACE program to comply with HAZCOM, and procedures to follow the standard, the company program, and MSDS record keeping/availability.

• How to interpret and use the labels on containers of hazardous materials. • The potential physical hazards and health effects of the hazardous substances and how to

use MSDS for more information. • Methods and observations that may be used to detect the presence or release of chemicals. • The measures that employees can take to protect themselves from chemicals.

All HAZCOM training will be documented by a sign-in sheet recording each employee’s attendance, the date, and the training topics covered. This sign-in sheet will be retained in the project file. The implementation of the Hazard Communication Program will be under the general direction of the Site Safety and Health Officer.

13.4. PROTECTIVE MEASURES

The use of gloves, protective clothing, boots, and eyewear will be required as discussed in Section 12. All personal protective equipment used will be in accordance with Subpart I of Title 29 CFR 1910 and Subpart E of Title 29 CFR 1926. Any emergencies or problems involving hazardous chemicals will be reported to the USACE Project Manager, who in turn will notify other agencies and authorities, as necessary. (This situation is not expected for this project as no hazardous chemicals are being brought to the site).


22

14. EMERGENCY RESPONSE

This section provides guidance in preparing for contingency or emergency situations during field activities. With adequate planning and preparedness, consequences of emergencies can be minimized or prevented. All persons working onsite shall follow the existing plan in the event of an emergency. In addition to reviewing this section, see also Table 1 and Section 15. Emergency preparedness starts with advanced planning. It requires anticipation of potential problems or hazards. Proper emergency preparedness involves use of the project health and safety documents that may address emergency situations. It involves training, site orientation of personnel, medical information of personnel, and availability of emergency equipment and services.

14.1. TYPES OF EMERGENCIES

There are three major categories of emergencies that can occur during hazardous waste site investigations. They are medical emergencies, accidents, and safety equipment problems.

Medical Emergencies

Medical emergencies can be described as situations that present a significant threat to the health of personnel involved in site investigations. These can result from chemical exposures, heat stress, cold stress, and poisonous insect or snake bites. Medical emergencies must be dealt with immediately and proper care should be administered. This may be in the form of first aid and emergency hospitalization.

Accidents

Accidents can result from physical hazards on a site. These hazards may be associated with intertidal surveying. Accidents may include:

• Sprains • Cuts by shells or debris (broken glass, metal, etc.) in the sand

Appropriate medical attention must be provided to individuals involved in site investigations who have suffered an accident.

Safety Equipment Problems

A source of emergency may develop due to malfunction or other problems associated with safety equipment being used by investigative personnel. These types of problems may or may not result in emergency situations. However, safety equipment problems must be corrected before proceeding with field investigative activities. Safety problems may include:

• Leaks or tears in protective clothing • Encountering contaminants for which prescribed protective equipment may not be

suitable

14.2. ADVANCED PLANNING


23

Advanced planning should be practiced and should include assessments of potential hazards or problems that may be encountered, and should consider:

• Hazard evaluation • Emergency precautions • Hospital/poison control centers (telephone numbers) • Emergency transportation systems (fire, police, ambulance) • Emergency routes (maps to medical facilities) • Escape routes:

− On-site escape (rapid evacuation to safe area) − Off-site escape (best means of evacuation from site)

14.3. TRAINING

Investigative teams should include personnel with training in first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Personnel should become familiar with the site area, available equipment, and emergency services available. The method for requesting emergency services will be emphasized during the initial site briefing.

14.4. MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE INFORMATION

Personnel should be aware of any special medical problems of individual team members. This may include allergies to insect stings, poison plants, penicillin, etc. Field sampling personnel will record any medical problems during the initial site safety briefing. This information should be made available to responding medical personnel in an emergency. No medical surveillance meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120 is required for this project.

14.5. EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT

The emergency equipment will be maintained at an accessible location and in proper working condition. This equipment may include:

• First aid kits • Eye wash kits • Decon wipes or water for hand washing or other skin contact • Fire extinguisher

Equipment should be checked before commencing site investigation activities, and defective equipment repaired or replaced before performing the site investigation. Provisions should be made for redundant or back-up safety equipment. A cell phone should be brought to the site and tested for operability in the area.

14.6. SAFETY PRACTICES

The following safety practices should be employed to prevent or deal with emergency situations:

• Check to ensure that all preplanning information is correct. • Maintain thorough knowledge of expected weather conditions. Avoid working in wet

weather, electrical storms, extremely hot conditions, or extremely cold conditions. • Thoroughly understand tasks to be performed and review the activity hazard analysis

prior to performing the task. • Thoroughly brief all members of the team on all aspects of the tasks. • Operate machinery and instruments according to manufacturers’ specifications.


24

• Use common sense and be vigilant for safety hazards. Safety hazards shall be corrected immediately.

14.7. DOCUMENTATION

Records should be maintained with regard to emergency situations. Incident/accident reports should be filed in the event of an incident or accident as described in Section 10.2.

15. CONTINGENCY PLANNING

Emergency response by police, fire, and/or medical services can be obtained by dialing 911. The caller should be prepared to be able to give precise directions to the accident scene. A map to the nearest medical treatment facility is provided in Figure 15-1.

The nearest hospital is: Harrison Memorial Hospital 2520 Cherry Avenue Bremerton, Washington ........................................ (360) 377-3911 Hours of Operation: 24 hours

Emergency Numbers: Ambulance/Fire Department 911 The following contingency actions shall be taken if the listed event occurs:

15.1. MEDICAL EMERGENCY

• Provide emergency medical treatment if necessary • Obtain emergency medical services by calling 911.

(Remember that dialing “911” on your cell phone may put you in direct contact with the 911 center for your home dialing location. Prior to arrival on site, confirm directions for calling the 911 center in the area).

• Notify the USACE District Safety and Occupational Health Officer

15.2. CHEMICAL EXPOSURE (NOT ANTICIPATED)

• Move the victim to fresh air • Administer emergency medical treatment such as CPR, if necessary • Obtain emergency medical treatment by calling 911 as soon as possible • Perform decontamination as long as it is safe to do so • Coordinate with emergency medical personnel and notify them of the chemicals to

which the victim may have been exposed

15.3. ACCIDENTS

• Provide emergency medical treatment or transportation if necessary. Take victim to obtain medical treatment as soon as possible as long as the injuries are not life-threatening.

• Notify the USACE Field Safety Officer

15.4. UNANTICIPATED SIGNIFICANT CONTAMINATION


25

• Move from the work area to a safe area upwind of contamination • Notify the USACE District Safety and Occupational Health Officer

15.5. FIRE

• As long as it is safe to do so, attempt to arrest the fire with a fire extinguisher, and move threatened vehicles/equipment or sources of fuel

• If the fire cannot be controlled, call the fire department by calling 911 • Notify the USACE District Safety and Occupational Health Officer

15.6. SEVERE WEATHER

A basic contingency plan for severe weather is to get inside one of the vehicles or, if safe to do so, leave the site and wait it out inside a nearby building.

Figure 15-1 - Hospital Route Map Starting from: Eagle Harbor Dr NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98366-8204

Arriving at: 2520 Cherry Ave, Bremerton, WA 98310-4229

Distance: 34.2 miles Approximate Travel Time: 1 hr 2 mins

Directions

1. 1. Start at EAGLE HARBOR DR NE, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND going toward WYATT WAY NW - go 2.6 mi

2. Turn Right on NE OLD CREOSOTE HILL RD - go 0.7 mi

3. Turn Right on TAYLOR AVE NE - go 0.3 mi

4. Turn Left on EAGLE HARBOR DR NE - go 2.1mi

5. Bear Right on WYATT WAY NW - go 0.1 mi

6. Turn Left on FINCH RD NE - go 0.3 mi

7. Turn Right on SPORTSMAN CLUB RD NE - go 1.6 mi

8. Turn Left on WA-305 NE - go 4.4 mi

9. Continue on AGATE PASS BRG(WA-305) - go 0.5 mi

10. Continue on WA-305 NE - go 6.4mi

11. Take ramp onto WA-3 S toward BREMERTON - go 7.1 mi

12. Take exit #45/SILVERDALE/E BREMERTON - go 0.2 mi

13. Turn Left on NW WAAGA WAY(WA-303) - go 3.3 mi

14. Continue to follow WA-303 - go 4.0 mi


26

15.

Turn Left on SHERIDAN RD - go 0.2 mi

Turn right on Cherry Ave – go 0.4 mi

Arrive at 2520 Cherry Ave, Bremerton, on the left

When using any driving directions or map, it's a good idea to make sure that the road still exists, to watch out for construction, and to follow all traffic safety precautions. These directions are only to be used as an aid in planning.


27

16. J OB C L E A NUP DE C ONT A M I NA T I ON

Each sampling site will be restored, as completely as possible, to the condition that existed prior to commencing work. All non-hazardous, solid refuse (including PPE) shall be bagged and discarded for proper disposal.

16.1. PERSONNEL DECONTAMINATION

All personnel entering the contamination reduction zone will decontaminate affected clothing and skin surfaces before leaving the site. Hand washing or similar facilities shall be provided and required to be used. Hand washing facilities shall be located within the immediate vicinity of the work area for access by the employees who are required to work in the exclusion areas. Each employee who enters an exclusion area shall wash their hands and face at the end of each work shift (after removing protective clothing and equipment) and before eating, drinking, or smoking.

Decontamination Requirements

Boots, rubber gloves, and respirators (if required) shall be free of liquid or soils and sediment from the exclusion zone by completely decontaminating them prior to being removed to other areas. Figure 16-1 is a general layout of a typical decontamination area within a given contamination reduction zone.

Disposable Materials

All disposable clothing, gloves, expendable protective wear, and other disposable material generated during site activities shall be placed in 10-mil plastic bags and disposed of appropriately at an off-site solid waste disposal facility.

Personal Hygiene

All site workers will thoroughly wash hands and face before eating, drinking, or performing other actions with a hand-to-mouth component.


28

Figure 16-1. Typical Decontamination Layout

EXCLUSION ZONE

"HOT LINE"

Wastewater to Buckets 1 Remove and Dispose of Disposable Equipment

Wastewater to Buckets 2 Wash and Rinse Inner Gloves and Boots

Plastic Bag for Transport/Disposal

3 Remove Gloves

CONTAMINATION CONTROL LINE

SUPPORT ZONE

16.2. E QUI PM E NT DE C ONT AM I NAT I ON

This section covers the decontamination of equipment to be used in the performance of the work and any other item leaving the exclusion zone. The items referred to in this section shall be decontaminated using the following procedures or other similar procedures.

• Items shall be washed with a solution of suitable detergent and water. • Items shall then be rinsed with potable or deionized water, as required for prevention of

cross-contamination.

17. SI T E C ONT R OL M E A SUR E S

The area surrounding the site is accessible to the public. The field team is responsible for keeping unauthorized persons from entering the work area while work activities are in progress.

17.1. SI T E Z ONE L AY OUT

The area in the vicinity of the intertidal area will be temporarily divided into three areas: an exclusion zone, contamination reduction zone, and support zone. Health and safety staff shall ensure that each employee has the proper personal protective equipment for the zone in which they are expected to perform work.

17.2. E X C L USI ON Z ONE

The exclusion zone is the area within the intertidal area. Although there is only minimal contamination expected on site as a result of previous cleanup activities, the intertidal area is the area where the clam survey will occur.

17.3. C ONT AM I NAT I ON R E DUC T I ON Z ONE

The contamination reduction zone (or “decontamination zone”) is established to minimize the possibility of the transfer of contaminating substances onto people, equipment, or into the air to


29

unregulated areas. This shall be accomplished by decontamination. Care will be taken to prevent the spread of contamination from this area. The area just landward of the intertidal area will be used as the decontamination zone. In this way, there is minimum potential for decontamination fluids (i.e., washwater) to be spilled within the intertidal area. Gloves will be removed and disposed of in trash bags, and boots and any other clothing (like waders) in contact with the sediment will be rinsed and removed before personnel get into vehicles.

17.4. SUPPOR T Z ONE

The support zone shall include the remaining areas of the site outside of the exclusion and contamination reduction zones. Break areas shall be located in this area. No equipment or personnel shall be permitted to re-enter the support zone from the exclusion zone without passing through the contamination reduction zone. Eating, smoking, and drinking of liquids shall be allowed only in the support zone.

17.5. SI T E SE C UR I T Y

To maintain site security, only authorized individuals may enter any part of the active work site. However, since the intertidal area is a public beach, care should be exercised to prevent contamination of non-trained personnel.

17.6. ON-SI T E AND OF F -SI T E C OM M UNI C AT I ONS

On-site communication will primarily be verbal. The primary means of communication off-site will be via cell phone. As a contingency, site personnel should confirm cell phone signal is available as well as note the location of the nearest telephone to be used in case of emergency.

17.7. G E NE R AL SI T E A C C E SS

The area surrounding the site is accessible to the on-site employees and general public. The field team is responsible for minimizing unauthorized persons from entering the sampling area while work activities are in progress.

17.8. L OC AL R E QUI R E M E NT S

Notification shall be given to CH2M Hill personnel at the Wyckoff facilitie, that outside personnel will be on site.

17.9. SI G N-I N/SI G N-OUT AND G E NE R AL NOT I C E S/R E QUI R E M E NT S

The SSHO will record in the field logbook when the team and visitors arrive and leave the site. Any communications with visitors will be noted. Any team member needing to leave the site for any reason shall make sure the field safety manager is aware of his/her departure. A minimum of two people must be on site at all times.

17.10. PR OH I B I T E D A C T I V I T I E S

Eating, drinking, smoking, and chewing gum or tobacco are not allowed during work activities outside the support zone. Eating and drinking are allowed on site within the support zone provided that good hygiene practices are followed prior to eating or drinking. Firearms and alcohol are strictly prohibited on site.


30

18. C OL D ST R E SS

The purpose of this section is to provide information on cold stress and the procedures for preventing and dealing with cold stress. Adverse climatic conditions are important considerations in planning and conducting site operations. Ambient temperature effects can include physical discomfort, reduced efficiency, personal injury, and increased accident probability.

18.1. F R OST B I T E

Local injury resulting from cold is included in the generic term frostbite. There are several degrees of damage. Frostbite can be categorized into:

• Frost nip or initial frostbite (1st degree frostbite): Characterized by blanching or whitening of skin.

• Superficial frostbite (2nd degree frostbite): Skin has a waxy or white appearance and is firm to the touch, but tissue beneath is resilient. Blistering and peeling of the frozen skin will follow exposure.

• Deep frostbite (3rd degree frostbite): Tissues are cold, pale, and solid; extremely serious injury with possible amputation of affected area.

Frostbite can occur without hypothermia when the extremities do not receive sufficient heat. The toes, fingers, cheeks, and ears are the most commonly affected. Frostbite occurs when there is freezing of the fluids around the cells of the affected tissues. The first symptom of frostbite is an uncomfortable sensation of coldness, followed by numbness. There may be tingling, stinging, or cramping. Contact by the skin with tools or other metal objects below 20oF (-7oC) may results in contact frostbite. The prevention of frostbite includes early recognition of problems, adequate protective clothing, recognizing the combination of wind and low temperature (see Table 18-1), adequate fluids, work-rest regimens with heated rest areas, and use of controls such as windbreaks and heaters. The initial treatment for frostbite includes bringing the individual to a warm location, removal of clothing in the affected area, and placing the affected parts in warm (100 to 105oF) water. Do not massage or rub the frostbite area. After the initial treatment, wrap the affected area loosely in sterile gauze and seek medical attention.

18.2. H Y POT H E R M I A

Hypothermia results when the body loses heat faster than it can be produced. When this situation first occurs, blood vessels in the skin constrict in an attempt to conserve vital internal heat. Hands and feet are first affected. If the body continues to lose heat, involuntary shivers begin. This is the body’s way of attempting to produce more heat, and it is usually the first real warning sign of hypothermia. Further heat loss produces speech difficulty, confusion, loss of manual dexterity, collapse, and finally death. Wet clothes or immersion in cold water greatly increases the hypothermia risk. The progressive clinical presentation of hypothermia may be seen in Table 18-2. This table has been provided as a reference of signs/symptoms to watch for in the event of conditions conducive to cold stress. Prevention of hypothermia includes planning for outside work in winter conditions, particularly


31

work over water. Planning will include adequate layers of clothing, training employees in recognizing hypothermia in themselves and others, recognition of the combination of wind and temperature (see Table 18-1), use of controls such as wind-breaks and heaters, a work-rest schedule, and adequate fluid intake. Prompt treatment of hypothermia is essential. Once the body temperature drops below 95oF, the loss of temperature control occurs, and the body can no longer rewarm itself. Initial treatment includes reducing heat loss by moving the individual out of the wind and cold, removal of wet clothing, applying external heat (such as a pre-warmed sleeping bag, electric blanket, or body heat from other workers) and follow-up medical attention.

18.3. E X POSUR E L I M I T S

The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has adopted TLVs for cold stress. These limits set maximum work periods based on a combination of wind and temperature.

Table 18-1. Wind Chill Factors

Wind speed

Cooling power of wind as Equivalent Chill Temperature

M/sec Temperature, degrees C Calm 4 2 -1 -4 -7 -9 -12 -15 -18 -21 -23 -26 -29 -32 -34 -37 -40 -43 -46 -48 -51 2.2 2 -1 -4 -7 -9 -12 -15 -18 -20 -23 -26 -29 -32 -34 -37 -40 -43 -46 -48 -51 -57 4.5 1 -7 -9 -12 -15 -18 -23 -26 -29 -32 -37 -40 -43 -46 -51 -54 -57 -59 -62 -68 -71 6.7 -4 -9 -12 -18 -21 -23 -29 -32 -34 -40 -43 -46 -51 -54 -57 -62 -65 -68 -73 -76 -79 8.9 -7 -12 -15 -18 -23 -26 -32 -34 -37 -43 -45 -51 -54 -59 -62 -65 -71 -73 -79 -82 -84 11.2 -9 -12 -18 -21 -26 -29 -34 -37 -43 -46 -51 -54 -59 -62 -68 -71 -76 -79 -84 -87 -93 13.4 -12 -15 -18 -23 -29 -32 -34 -40 -46 -48 -54 -57 -62 -65 -71 -73 -79 -82 -87 -90 -96 15.6 -12 -15 -21 -23 -29 -34 -37 -40 -46 -51 -54 -59 -62 -68 -73 -76 -82 -84 -90 -93 -98 17.9 -12 -18 -21 -26 -29 -34 -37 -43 -48 -51 -56 -59 -65 -71 -73 -79 -82 -87 -90 -96 -101 Winds above 18 m/s have little additional effect

Little danger Increasing danger (flesh may freeze within one minute

Great danger (flesh may freeze within 30 sec)

From EM 385-1-1, Table 6-5.


32

Table 18-2. Progressive Clinical Presentations of Hypothermia (provided for reference to signs of hypothermia only)

Temperature

Clinical Signs oC oF 37 98.6 “Normal” oral temperature 36 96.8 Metabolic rate increases in an attempt to compensate for heat loss 35 95.0 Maximum shivering 34 93.2 Victim conscious and responsive, with normal blood pressure 33 91.4 Severe hypothermia below this temperature 32 31

89.6 87.8

Consciousness clouded; blood pressure becomes difficult to obtain; pupils dilated but react to light; shivering ceases

30 29

86.0 84.2

Progressive loss of consciousness; muscular rigidity increases; pulse and blood pressure difficult to obtain; respiratory rate decreases

27 82.4 Ventricular fibrillation possible with myocardial irritability 27 80.6 Voluntary motion ceases; pupils non-reactive to light; deep tendon and superficial

reflexes absent 26 25

78.8 77.0

Ventricular fibrillation may occur spontaneously

24 75.2 Pulmonary edema 22 21

71.6 69.8

Maximum risk of ventricular fibrillation

20 68.0 Cardiac standstill 18 64.4 Lowest accidental hypothermia victim to recover 17 62.6 Isolectric electroencephalogram 9 48.2 Lowest artificially cooled hypothermia patient to recover

Note: Presentations approximately related to core temperature. Reprinted from the January 1982 issue of American Family Physician, published by the American Academy of Family Physicians.


33

19. PL A N F OR PR E V E NT I ON OF A L C OH OL A ND DR UG A B USE

(Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Subpart 252.223-7004, Drug-Free Work Force)

It is the policy of USACE to provide its employees with a working environment that is free from the effects of substance abuse. It is prohibited to unlawfully manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess, or use a controlled substance during working hours or on site property. In addition, employees are prohibited from being at work while under the influence or effects of controlled substances. All employees and subcontractors are subject to substance abuse testing: 1) based on a reasonable suspicion that the employee may be drug-involved, 2) following a workplace accident or unsafe practices, or 3) as a follow-up procedure when the employee has previously tested positive for drug use or has completed a drug rehabilitation or counseling program.


34

20. A C T I V I T Y H A ZA R D A NA L Y SI S

ACTIVITY HAZARD CONTROL

Driving to, on, and from the site

Striking pedestrians, runaway vehicles, striking structures, overturning vehicles

Wear seat belts at all times while vehicles are in motion. Use licensed drivers. Define vehicle routes of travel. Obey Washington State driving regulations. Do not drive over holes or down sides of improperly sloped depressions. Obey speed limits established on property.

Clam sampling locations

Slipping on wet surfaces Wear appropriate slip-resistant, rubber boots

Skin or clothing contamination from sediments

Avoid touching or stepping on surfaces with visibly contaminated puddles, or stains. Appropriate PPE will be worn. Proper decontamination and personal hygiene will prevent spread of contamination.

Working in the dark / low lighting conditions

Do not perform work if personnel cannot see their surroundings, equipment, or work area. Use sources of lighting such as headlamps, flashlights, and possibly upland lighting directed toward the intertidal area and powered by a generator. Another option is the use of a camping-type lantern on a portable table. Meet minimum requirements of Table 7-1 (EM 385-1-1, 2003) of 30 lumens per square foot.

Incoming tides Coordinate work around low tides to minimize slip/trip/falls or drowning hazard. Consult tide tables prior to scheduling work and complete before tides become high.

Cold stress Minimize the chance of frostbite or hypothermia by observing the precautions of Section 18. Prevention of frostbite includes early recognition of problems, adequate protective clothing, recognizing the combination of wind and low temperature (see Table 18-1), adequate fluids, work-rest regimens with heated rest areas, and use of controls such as windbreaks and heaters. Prevention of hypothermia includes planning for outside work in winter conditions, particularly work over water. Planning will include adequate layers of clothing, training employees in recognizing hypothermia in themselves and others, recognition of the combination of wind and temperature (see Table 18-1), use of controls such as wind-breaks and heaters, a work-rest schedule, and adequate fluid intake.

Skin contact with contaminated sediment

Wear impermeable, chemical-resistant safety boots, nitrile gloves, polyethylene-coated Tyvek protective clothing or rain gear as needed.

Accidental ingestion of contaminants

Decontaminate clothing and skin prior to eating, drinking, smoking, or other hand to mouth contact.

Incoming tides Coordinate work around low tides to minimize slip/trip/falls or drowning hazard. Consult tide tables prior to scheduling work and complete before tides become high.

Decontamination of equipment

Skin or eye contact with contaminated media

Wear safety glasses, gloves during decontamination procedures


35

ACTIVITY HAZARD CONTROL

Accidental ingestion of contaminants

Full decontamination, using scrub brushes, alkaline detergent solution, rinse water. Wash hands and face before eating, drinking, smoking, or other hand to mouth contact.

Appendix B

Scope of Work Bathymetric Survey Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor

Superfund Site Bainbridge Island, Washington

1

SCOPE OF WORK BATHYMETRIC SURVEY

WYCKOFF/EAGLE HARBOR SUPERFUND SITE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON

23 May 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Interagency Agreement (IA) DW-96-957580, the Seattle District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will provide technical support services to accomplish a bathymetric survey at the Wyckoff/East Eagle Harbor Superfund Site East Harbor Operable Unit.

1.1 Objectives The objective for this work are to perform a bathymetric survey and provide an ASCII xyz file of the survey data.

1.2 Authority The monitoring and other activities described herein are being conducted pursuant IA DW-96-957580 between USACE and EPA Region 10. 2.0 SURVEY CREW The USACE survey crew will be led by Greg King, Lead Surveyor, with support from Gerald Fletcher and Mike Davis. The field work is scheduled to take place 6-7 June 2011, with 8-10 June 2011 as the backup dates in case there is bad weather or other problems. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF WORK A single-beam bathymetric survey will be completed utilizing the transect lines shown on Figure 1. The navigation line spacing standards as shown below should in no way affect the location of tracklines shown in Figure 1 in order to assure comparability with previous data. All monitoring activities conducted in Eagle Harbor or surrounding waters must accommodate the Washington State Ferry schedule. The survey crew will provide its own requisite materials, equipment, personnel and computations to accomplish a Class 3 hydrographic survey of specified work. 3.1 Standards The survey will conform to the EM 1110-2-1003 "Hydrographic Surveying Manual" accuracy standards for Class 3 surveys, procedure specifications for bathymetry and specifications contained herein.

2

Navigation line spacing interval for data collected will be determined on site for optimum beam coverage and overlap in order to meet the accuracy and resolution required to ensure that no gap in coverage exists. Cross-line checks will be run for all Class 3 surveys. Procedures and Tolerances will conform to criteria prescribed in EM 1110-2-1003. The hydrographic survey vessel conforms to the U.S. Coast Guard requirements for passenger carrying vessels of its size. The vessel has adequate seating space for each survey crewmember. An operator possessing a valid Corps of Engineers license to pilot passenger carrying vessels will be present on the vessel during all sounding operations. The entire survey crew must have Government ID in his/her possession while onboard the hydrographic survey vessel. 3.2 Datum Final horizontal positions will be referenced to the Washington Coordinate System, North Zone, NAD 83/91. Final vertical positions referenced to the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) 88 (Geiod 03). NOS Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), Tidal Epoch 1983-2001 The unit of measurement will be the U.S. Survey Foot. 3.3 Depth Measurement Echo Sounding for depth will be accomplished by a fully integrated and automated hydrographic data acquisition system utilizing single beam technology that: a) Is capable of speed of sound correction adjustments and has a frequency operating

capability of 200 kHz +/- 20 with a manufacturer's stated accuracy of 0.5 feet or less. b) Has motion sensor capability with a manufacturer's stated compensation accuracy of +/-

0.05 degrees or less for vessel pitch and roll and the greater of 5 cm or 5% for heave. Bar checks and calibration will be performed at the intervals specified in EM 1110-2-1003 for Class 3 surveys. A velocity meter/sound profiler may be substituted for a bar and shall be performed in accordance with Manual specifications. Calibrations and checks will be taken at 3-meter intervals or less to the maximum working depth at the site and shown on the depth record (fathometer files and/or in field notes). 3.4 Data Processing Sounding files will be edited to eliminate extraneous data and display an accurate representation of the harbor. Data with a quality index of less than 3 and depths below or above known parameters will be eliminated. Thinning interval will not exceed 10 feet.

3

3.5 Deliverables An x, y, z coordinate data file will be provided for the survey in comma-delineated ASCII format. Data sequence will be Point ID, Northing, Easting, Elevation, and Description. All horizontal and vertical control monuments utilized, their location, designation, description, and XYZ values will be clearly defined. 4.0 SPECIFIC TASKS The following specific tasks will be performed by the in-house staff.

4.1 Task 1 - Perform Bathymetric Survey Preparation/Mobilization Survey cap area as shown on Figure 1 Evaluation and Reporting

4.2 Task 2 – Deliverables Provide deliverables as described in Section 3.5 above. 5.0 COORDINATION Points of contacts are for the work are: USACE Project Manager - Mr. Karl Kunas, (206) 764-3448 USACE Hydrographic Survey Chief - Ms. Lonnie Reid-Pell, (206) 764-6988 EPA Region 10 Remedial Project Manager - Mr. Howard Orlean, (206) 553-2851 6.0 HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN EM385-1-1 will be followed for all work. Employees will not be coming into contact with contaminants at the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site.

4

Figure 1 Figure 1

Appendix C

Chain of Custody Form

Final 2011 Quality Assurance Project Plan

Analytical Quality Assurance Plan East Harbor Operable Unit


September 21, 2011

Prepared for:





Prepared by:






2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan, Analytical Quality Assurance Plan i Final September 21, 2011

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................1 1.2 Guiding Documents .................................................................................................1

2.0 Project Organization and Responsibilities ...........................................................................2 2.1 Monitoring Personnel...............................................................................................2

3.0 Objectives for Measurement Data .......................................................................................3 3.1 Chemicals of Concern ..............................................................................................3 3.2 Data Quality .............................................................................................................4

3.2.1 Field Measurement Data ..............................................................................4 3.2.2 Geotechnical Data ........................................................................................4 3.2.3 Laboratory Analytical Data ..........................................................................4

3.3 Analytical Methods ..................................................................................................5 3.4 Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantitation .......................................................6

3.4.1 Limits of Detection (LODs) .........................................................................6 3.4.2 Limits of Quantitation (LOQs) ....................................................................6

4.0 Methods and Quality Control for Field Activities ...............................................................7 4.1 Sampling Procedures ...............................................................................................7 4.2 Field Measurement Instrument Calibration Procedures ..........................................7 4.3 Sample Handling, Containers, Preservation, and Holding Times ...........................8 4.4 Coordination with Analytical Laboratory ................................................................9

5.0 Methods and Quality Control for Laboratory Activities ....................................................10 5.1 Analytical Laboratories ..........................................................................................10 5.2 Laboratory Sample Handling and Custody ............................................................10

5.2.1 Sample Custody .........................................................................................10 5.2.2 Laboratory Internal Sample Custody .........................................................11 5.2.3 Archived Samples ......................................................................................12

5.3 Analytical Methods ................................................................................................12 5.3.1 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) .....................................................................12 5.3.2 Grain Size...................................................................................................13 5.3.3 Percent Solids.............................................................................................13 5.3.4 Metals and Mercury ...................................................................................13 5.3.5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) ..............................................13 5.3.6 Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) ............................................14 5.3.7 PCBs Aroclors ...........................................................................................14

5.4 Laboratory Performance ........................................................................................14 5.4.1 Quantitation Limits ....................................................................................14 5.4.2 Laboratory Control Samples (LCSs) .........................................................15 5.4.3 Blanks ........................................................................................................15 5.4.4 Compound Identification ...........................................................................16

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan, Analytical Quality Assurance Plan ii Final September 21, 2011

5.4.5 Laboratory Performance Oversight ............................................................16 6.0 Field and Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control Samples ...............................................18

6.1 Field Quality Control Samples...............................................................................18 6.1.1 Equipment Rinsate Blanks .........................................................................18 6.1.2 Field Duplicates .........................................................................................18 6.1.3 Temperature Blanks ...................................................................................19

6.2 Laboratory Quality Control Samples .....................................................................19 6.2.1 Initial and Continuing Calibration Standards ............................................19 6.2.2 Blanks ........................................................................................................19 6.2.3 Surrogate Spikes ........................................................................................19 6.2.4 Laboratory Control Samples (LCS), LCS Duplicate (LCSD), and Standard

Reference Material (SRM) .........................................................................20 6.2.5 Matrix Spike (MS) and MS Duplicate (MSD) ...........................................20 6.2.6 Laboratory Duplicate Samples ...................................................................20

7.0 Laboratory Instrument Calibration ....................................................................................21 7.1 Standard Solutions .................................................................................................21 7.2 Balances .................................................................................................................21 7.3 Refrigerators ..........................................................................................................21 7.4 Volumetric Measurements .....................................................................................22 7.5 Water Supply System .............................................................................................22 7.6 Laboratory Instruments ..........................................................................................22 7.7 Analytical Laboratory Calibration Procedures ......................................................22

8.0 Analytical Data Quality Indicators ....................................................................................23 8.1 Precision .................................................................................................................23 8.2 Accuracy ................................................................................................................23 8.3 Representativeness .................................................................................................24 8.4 Comparability ........................................................................................................24 8.5 Completeness .........................................................................................................25 8.6 Sensitivity ..............................................................................................................25

9.0 Preventive Maintenance .....................................................................................................26 9.1 Preventive Maintenance .........................................................................................26 9.2 Field Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency .......................................26 9.3 Laboratory Instrument Maintenance and Calibration ............................................26 9.4 Calibration and Maintenance Records ...................................................................26

10.0 Corrective Actions .............................................................................................................27 10.1 Field Corrective Action ..........................................................................................27 10.2 Laboratory Corrective Action ................................................................................28 10.3 Corrective Actions Following Data Review ..........................................................29

11.0 Laboratory Data Reduction, Deliverables, Validation, Reporting .....................................30 11.1 Laboratory Data Reduction, Review, and Deliverables .........................................30

11.1.1 Data Reduction Procedures ........................................................................30

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan, Analytical Quality Assurance Plan iii Final September 21, 2011

11.1.2 Data Review Procedures ............................................................................31 11.1.3 Data Deliverables .......................................................................................32

11.2 Data Review and Data Validation ..........................................................................33 12.0 Performance and System Audits ........................................................................................36

12.1 Systems Audits.......................................................................................................36 12.2 Audit Procedure .....................................................................................................37 12.3 Audit Response ......................................................................................................37 12.4 Follow-Up Action ..................................................................................................38 12.5 Audit Records ........................................................................................................38

13.0 References ..........................................................................................................................39

List of Tables

AQAP-1. Project Personnel, Roles, Contact Information and Specific Quality Assurance Responsibilities

AQAP-2. Sample Types, Sample Matrix, Number of Surface and Core Samples, and Sample Analyses

AQAP-3. Remedial Goals for Intertidal and Subtidal Sediment and Laboratory LODs and LOQs

AQAP-4. Sediment Management Standards, LODs, and LOQs for Sediments

AQAP-5. Sample Preparation and Analysis Methods for Sediment and Water Samples

AQAP-6. Accuracy and Precision Control Limits for PAHs in Sediments

AQAP-7. Accuracy and Precision Control Criteria for SMS Chemicals in Sediments

AQAP-8. LODs, LOQs, and Accuracy and Precision Control Limits for PAHs in Water

AQAP-9. LODs, LOQs, and Accuracy and Precision Control Criteria for SMS Chemicals in Water

AQAP-10. Sample Type, Container, Holding Times, Preservatives, and Storage Requirements

AQAP-11. Field Quality Control Sample Requirements

AQAP-12. Laboratory QA Sample Requirements

AQAP-13. Parameters Used to Evaluate Data Quality

AQAP-14. Data Quality Review Responsibilities

2011 Quality Assurance Program Plan, Analytical Quality Assurance Plan 1 Final September 21, 2011

1.0 Introduction

This Analytical Quality Assurance Plan (AQAP) defines the laboratory analytical quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures to be followed for the 2011 Year 17 monitoring implementing the 2011 Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) Addendum (HDR and SEE 2011) for the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, East Harbor Operable Unit (EHOU) located on Bainbridge Island, Washington. Along with the Project Management Plan (PMP) and the Field Sampling Plan (FSP), these documents comprise the overall Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Year 17 monitoring.

The AQAP provides the analytical procedures to be followed to ensure that the environmental data are of known and documented quality and suitable for their intended uses, and the environmental data collection and technology programs meet stated requirements. It includes field procedures, including instrumentation, the data quality objectives of sample collection, and numbers and types of stations to be sampled for each data type. The chemical analysis component includes detailed direction to the analytical laboratory on analytical methods, data quality objectives, sample custody, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures, data deliverables, data management, and reporting. The overall QAPP is provided to field staff, the analytical laboratory, and the data management team.

1.1 Purpose and Scope

The AQAP documents the appropriate analytical methods and QA procedures for the analysis of sediment and water (as equipment rinsates). The goal of the AQAP is to ensure that data of sufficiently high quality are generated to support the project Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The DQOs for the Year 17 Monitoring at the EHOU are provided in Table PMP-5, and are the Area and Monitoring Objectives listed in that table. Additional DQOs, as they relate to the procedures associated with laboratory analysis, sample custody, internal and continuing instrument/equipment calibration, internal QC checks, performance and system audits, preventative maintenance and scheduling, data quality assessment, corrective action, and QA reports applicable to this project, are described herein.

1.2 Guiding Documents

The analytical methods detailed within this document are generally consistent with those used in the 2002 Year 8 monitoring event. In order to meet the monitoring objectives it is necessary to ensure consistency in data quality between this and previous monitoring events. The AQAP specifies the procedures, policies, and QA/QC activities designated to achieve the project DQOs. As specified in the May 27, 2011 Statement of Work, this QAPP follows the EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans EPA QA/G5 (herein referred to as “G5”) (EPA 2002). To be consistent with past EHOU QAPPs, this document follows the general outline in the 2002 QAPP (SEA 2002). A cross-walk which shows how the elements of the QAPP, including the PMP, FSP, and AQAP meet the G5 requirements is provided in the QAPP.


2.0 Project Organization and Responsibilities

This section identifies individuals responsible for specific aspects of analytical work, laboratory oversight, and data validation for Year 17 monitoring. The overall project management is defined in PMP Section 1.2, with contact information provided in Table PMP-1. Personnel responsible for field sampling and laboratory analysis, quality assurance, data management, and reporting of the physical, chemical, and biological monitoring are presented in Table AQAP-1, and discussed below.

2.1 Monitoring Personnel

HDR and its team will conduct the field activities and sample collection specified within this FSP. Ms. Barbara Morson is the HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) Project Manager and will be the contractual point of contact for the USACE and EPA. Ms. Nancy Winters of HDR will provide administrative and technical assistance, and is the alternative point of contact for the EPA and USACE.

Mr. Tim Thompson of Science and Engineering for the Environment, LLC (SEE) is the Sediment Technical Lead. Mr. Thompson and. David Browning of SEE will coordinate and conduct all physical and chemical monitoring tasks, as well as analysis and reporting. SEE is the technical point of contact for the USACE and EPA.

Analytical Resources Inc. (ARI) will conduct all chemical and conventional analyses for sediments and rinsates. Archived samples will be stored at ARI until the conclusion of the period of performance for the Year 17 monitoring, at which time the samples will be transferred to the USACE or disposed at the direction of the USACE. Ms. Cherone Oreiro of ARI is the Laboratory Project Manager.

EPA Manchester Lab will conduct the chemical and lipid analyses according to the Final Quality Assurance Project Plan Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Clam Tissue Sampling which was prepared by the USACE and is given in Appendix A of the FSP. The EPA lab will report through the EPA RPM to the USACE Technical Lead; the USACE is responsible for all QA/QC, data validation, data management, and reporting issues related to clam tissue sampling. Mr. Gerald Dodo is the EPA Laboratory Project Manager.

Mr. Mingta Lin of Ken Taylor Associates, Inc. (KTA) is the Data QA Officer, and provides QA/QC oversight of laboratory and final data validation. Mr. Lin will also be responsible for the PAH fingerprinting analyses, should those be authorized.


3.0 Objectives for Measurement Data

There are both qualitative and quantitative criteria against which the performances of the EHOU remedies are evaluated. These are presented as the Area and Monitoring Objectives in the 2011 OMMP Addendum, and are shown in Table PMP-1 in the PMP. The types of and numbers of analytical samples necessary to meet the objectives of Year 17 monitoring are listed in Table AQAP-2. These are further detailed in Section 1 of the 2011 OMMP Addendum.

Quantitative limits for the chemicals of concern are set to evaluate the performance of the on the subtidal and intertidal caps, and the Exposure barrier System (EBS). The cap performance criteria are given in Table AQAP-3. Additional quantitative limits, as the Washington State Sediment Management Standards (SMS), will be used to evaluate the performance of the natural recovery alternatives at the North Shoal and East Beach. The SMS, shown in Table AQAP-4, will also be used to evaluate the measured chemicals in grids J-9 and J-10.

Project target analytes, quantitative limits, goals, analytical methodologies, analytical precision and accuracy criteria, and required QA/QC measurements are presented in Sections 4.0 and 5.0.

Data quality will be assessed in terms of specific data quality indicators - precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity. Definitions of these terms and applicable assessment procedures are described in Section 8.0.

3.1 Chemicals of Concern

The Chemicals of Concern (COCs) defined by the Record of Decision (ROD) include the following (Table AQAP-3):

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

Total petroleum hydrocarbons, which were part of previous monitoring, including 2002, are not carried forward into Year 17 monitoring.

The COCs defined by the Washington State SMS include, in addition to PAHs (Table AQAP-4):

Total metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, and zinc)

Halogenated compounds (e.g., chlorobenzenes)

Phthalate esters

Phenols and substituted phenols

Miscellaneous extractables (benzoic acid, benzyl alcohol, dibenzofuran)

Organonitrogen compounds

PCB Aroclors.


Other physical parameters that will be measured include total organic carbon (TOC), total solids, and grain size. Specific analyses by stations are listed in Table AQAP-2.

3.2 Data Quality

The quality control program associated with this investigation and documented in this AQAP has been developed to address project DQOs, and ensure the measurements on field data and laboratory analytical data are conducted in a consistent and quality manner. A more detailed description of the sampling rationale and station locations can be found in the 2011 OMMP Addendum. Field sampling and measurement procedures are detailed in Section 5 of the FSP.

3.2.1 Field Measurement Data

Field measurements will include the following:

DGPS station locating

Station depth to mudline

Sediment core boring logs.

Procedures for verification of field measures are discussed in Section 5.0.

3.2.2 Geotechnical Data

Geotechnical parameters will be collected as part of the investigation. These parameters include the following:

Grain size distribution

USCS classification

Moisture content

Total solids

Organic content.

These data will not be validated, but will be verified to ensure that proper QC procedures are followed and are within method-specified control limits.

3.2.3 Laboratory Analytical Data

There are three specific media that will be analyzed in the Year 17 monitoring: sediment, water (from equipment rinsates), and clam tissue. Clam tissue QA/QC procedures are in a separate document, the Final Quality Assurance Project Plan Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site Clam Tissue Sampling which was prepared by the USACE and is given in Appendix A of the FSP. QA/QC procedures, requirements, and evaluation criteria set forth in this AQAP are subjected to sediment and water samples.


The specific quantitative criteria that are applied to the sediment chemistry results are those that are defined in the 1994 ROD, and the subsequent 2007 Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) (EPA 1994 and 2007). Those specific criteria are given in Table AQAP-3. In addition, the results from Grids J-9 and J-10 are compared to the Washington SMS (Table AQAP-4). A DQO for the analytical data is that the data must be of sufficient quality to be compared to these criteria. In order to make these comparisons, the laboratory reporting limits must be below those criteria. To generate data of sufficient quality for these uses, the following approach will be followed:

Analytical methods used for sediment sample analyses will be consistent with those specified in EPA Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846) (EPA 1998 and updates), the Washington Department of Ecology’s (Ecology) Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Appendix (Ecology 2008), and those specified in this AQAP.

The laboratory data reduction and reporting will conform to the Department of Defense (DoD) Quality System Manual for Environmental Laboratories ([QSM]; DoD 2009). Data reports submitted by the analytical laboratory will be sufficient for the level of data validation defined in Section 10.

Data quality review and validation will be performed on the analytical data according to the procedures specified in Section 10.

Documents will be retained in the laboratory for a minimum of 10 years from the time of report receipt of the report from the laboratory.

3.3 Analytical Methods

Laboratory analytical methodologies are selected for this site investigation based on the following criteria:

The analytical laboratory will analyze samples according to EPA and Ecology approved methods.

The chosen methods will be capable of achieving the project DQOs.

The specific analytical methods for each of the analytical parameters are presented in Section 4.0.

The laboratory's (i.e., ARI's) standard operating procedures (SOPs) and Laboratory Quality Assurance Manual must be in compliance with DoD QSM (DoD 2010) and SW846 - EPA Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (EPA 1998 and updates). ARI’s Quality Assurance Manuals will be maintained at the laboratories and ready for examination as needed by this project. ARI’s Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan is available on the internet at http://www.arilabs.com/portal/downloads/lqap.pdf .

Table AQAP-5 summarizes sample preparation and analysis methods for sediment and water (rinsate) samples. Quality control limits for PAHs in sediments are given in Table AQAP-6, for SMS chemicals of concern in Table AQAP-7, and for water (rinsate) in Table AQAP-8 and AQAP-9.


3.4 Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantitation

Laboratory Limits of Detection (LODs) and Limits of Quantitation (LOQs)1 for sediments are listed in Table AQAP-3 and Table AQAP-4. The LODs and LOQs are set to provide data that will be below the most stringent of either the Remedial Goals for the intertidal and subtidal area, and the SMS. Quality control limits for sediments are presented in Tables AQAP-6 and AQAP-7; those limits are further discussed in Section 4. LODs, LOQs, and QC control limits for water (rinsate) analyses are given in Table AQAP-8 and AQAP-9, and are discussed further in Section 4.

3.4.1 Limits of Detection (LODs)

As defined in the DoD QSM (DoD 2009), Appendix D, Section D1.2.1, the LOD is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte. LODs are determined through a study following the requirements in 40 CFR 136, Appendix II.

3.4.2 Limits of Quantitation (LOQs)

As defined in the DoD QSM (DoD 2009), Appendix D, Section 1.2.2, the LOQ represents the value for which the laboratory has demonstrated the ability to reliably quantify target analytes within a prescribed performance criteria for the method performed. Operationally, the LOQ is equivalent to or greater than the concentration of the lowest calibration standard in the initial calibration curve. Sample-specific LOQs for an individual sample will be adjusted according to the percent moisture (for dry-weight-basis sample result reporting), sample/extract volume used for the analysis, sample matrix effects (if any), and dilution(s).

As required by the DoD QSM (DoD 2009), all laboratory analytical results will be evaluated and reported down to the LODs; concentrations reported below the LOQs but above the LODs will be qualified as estimated values (J-flag assigned) by the laboratory; these values can only be used as semi-quantitative data points.

In cases where the reported LODs and LOQs could not attain to the project required levels specified in this AQAP for specific sample(s) or analyte(s), the laboratory will demonstrate the efforts of best practice to obtain the optimal quantitation limits given the sample matrix or method limitations. For instance, progressive multiple dilutions may be needed for an SVOCs analysis to ensure reported LODs and LOQs are lowest-possible for each target compound. A one-time dilution for all compounds is not acceptable unless the dilution factor is determined the lowest-possible for the given sample matrix.

1 Note that the LOD and LOQ defined in this QAPP are equivalent to Method Detection Limits and Method Report Limits, respectively.


4.0 Methods and Quality Control for Field Activities

This section briefly summarizes the field measurement procedures, sample handling, and coordination procedures that are germane to the interactions between field sampling team and analytical laboratory. To generate high quality data during Year 17 monitoring, general field operations and practices, and specific sample collection and inventory must be well planned and carefully implemented. Discussion of this information and the planned monitoring tasks are provided in the 2011 OMMP Addendum and in the PMP. Detailed sampling procedures are presented in the FSP.

4.1 Sampling Procedures

Field sampling protocols are presented in Sections 5.0 through 7.0of the FSP. Specifically, the following FSP sections pertain to the sampling methods that will be utilized on this project:

FSP Section 2.2 and Table FSP-1 provide the station locations and the type of samples to be collected

FSP Section 5.1 provides specific information on navigation and positioning using a differential global positioning system (DGPS)

FSP Section 5.2 presents the methods for collection of subtidal surface sediment samples for physical and chemical analyses

FSP Section 5.3 presents the methods for collection and processing of subtidal sediment core samples for physical and chemical analyses

FSP Section 5.4 presents the methods for collection of surface sediment and core samples for physical and chemical analyses at grids J-9 and J-10

FSP Section 6.0 gives the procedures for field sample activity documentation and chain-of-custody procedures

FSP Section 7.0 for sample container preparation and shipping.

4.2 Field Measurement Instrument Calibration Procedures

The calibration and general maintenance of the instruments used in the field will be the responsibility of the Sediment Technical Lead. All calibration procedures and measurements will be made in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. Field instruments will be checked and calibrated before their use on site.

It is expected that field measurements will include the following:

DGPS station locating

Depth to mudline (fathometer and lead line)

Core logging.


A DGPS will be used to navigate to, occupy, and document all over water stations aboard the R/V Nancy Ann operated by Marine Sampling Services. A Trimble 4000 RS DGPS utilizing the U.S. Coast Guard differential signal from Oak Harbor, WA, will be interfaced to a computer running software enabling real-time plan view navigation to the required sampling stations. Station coordinates will be digitally recorded and in the field logs at the time of collection of each sample in NAD 83.

Prior to the start of field collections during each day of survey operations, a known horizontal control point will be occupied to ensure the accuracy of the positioning and navigation systems. The horizontal control point will be determined with the Navy, but is currently expected to be the northeast corner of the finger pier. All daily navigation checks are expected to be within ± 2 m. All documentation pertinent to the calibration and/or maintenance of field instruments will be maintained in an active field logbook.

For each station, the time and depth to mudline will be recorded with a fathometer and a hand-held lead line. All depths will be recorded in the field notebook as depth to mudline, but will be converted to depth mean lower low water (MLLW) using tidal data for Eagle Harbor.

All cores will be logged and photographed. Significant core details will include general soil type based on the Unified Soil Classification System, color based on a Munsel color chart, the approximate grain size, presence or evidence of biota (e.g., roots, mollusk shells), presence of other materials (e.g., wood chips or industrial materials), presence of visible hydrocarbon, odor, and color. The hand-written logs will be translated to an electronic core log using the gINT® software system. All e-core logs will be 100 percent hand-checked against the written logs.

4.3 Sample Handling, Containers, Preservation, and Holding Times

Sample containers, preservation, and holding times are summarized in Table AQAP-10. Samples will be collected in glass or plastic containers, depending on the types of analyses. The containers will have screw-type lids to ensure adequate sealing of the bottles. Lids of all containers will have Teflon inserts to prevent sample reaction with the lid and to improve the quality of the seal. Commercially available pre-cleaned jars will be used (e.g., I-Chem or similar).

Sample preservation procedures are used to maintain the character of analytes as sampled (i.e., representative concentrations and/or speciation in situ) during storage and shipment. Sediment samples collected for this investigation will be preserved by cooling to 4C 2 C and may also be frozen. Sample preservation techniques are presented in Table AQAP-10.

Samples will be placed in the appropriate sample container, preserved, and refrigerated (on ice in a cooler) immediately after sample collection. The samples will be transferred to the laboratory as soon as possible using chain-of-custody (CoC) procedures, as described in Sections 6 and 7 of the FSP. Based on the potential levels of contaminants, samples for all analyses will be hand-delivered or shipped as environmental samples.


Upon receipt of coolers at the investigation laboratory, a cooler receipt form will be completed to document sample condition. The laboratory will complete and submit a cooler receipt form for each investigation cooler. The form will describe the condition of custody seals, errors, or inconsistencies on the CoC form and bottle labels, packing materials, the temperature of the samples, the condition of the sampling containers, the appropriateness of the sample preservation, and the adequacy of the sample aliquots submitted. The laboratory will transmit the CoC and cooler receipt forms to the Project Manager and Data QA Officer within 24 hours of sample receipt.

Should any anomalies associated with sample integrity (e.g., sample breakage, sample ID confusion) occur/identified upon sample receipt at the laboratory, the laboratory should notify the HDR Project Manager and Data QA Officer immediately. The findings and resolution will be documented in the Sample Receipt Form. The laboratory will make every effort to meet all specified holding times. In case of holding time exceedance, the Laboratory Project Manager should contact the HDR Project Manager and the Data QA Officer immediately for resolution. The incident and resolution should be documented and reported in the case narrative along with original communication records.

4.4 Coordination with Analytical Laboratory

The Sediment Technical Lead and Data QA Officer will work directly and closely with the Laboratory Project Manager prior to and during the course of field activities. The Sediment Technical Lead will coordinate logistic and sample transit needs and procedures with the laboratory. The Data QA Officer is responsible for review of day-to-day sample custody and receipt confirmation provided by the laboratory, and act as a project liaison to coordinate all project needs and communications with the analytical laboratory.


5.0 Methods and Quality Control for Laboratory Activities

This section describes the analytical procedures to be used for investigation laboratory measurements. The analytical methods and associated QA/QC procedures were selected based on consideration of the investigation DQOs.

5.1 Analytical Laboratories

The chemical analyses of investigation sediment samples will be performed by ARI. The laboratory Project Manager and contact information are as follows:

ARI Laboratory Project Manager – Cheronne Oreiro 4611 S 134th Pl # 100 Tukwila, WA 98168-3212 Phone: (206) 695-6214 email: [email protected]

The chemical analyses of tissue samples will be conducted by EPA’s laboratory in Manchester, WA. The EPA laboratory Project Manager and contact information are:

EPA Manchester Laboratory Laboratory Project Manager - Gerald Dodo 7411 Beach Drive East Manchester, WA 98353 Phone: (360) 871-8728

[email protected]

The discussion below pertains only to analyses of sediments and water samples at ARI. QA/QC procedures for clam tissue analyses at the EPA laboratory are covered separately in Appendix A.

5.2 Laboratory Sample Handling and Custody

The Sediment Technical Lead will arrange for sediment samples to be shipped or delivered to ARI. The samples are deemed under ARI custody at the point the samples arrive at the laboratory and are signed for by an authorized representative of ARI on the CoC form accompanying the samples. ARI will carry full responsibility of maintaining sample integrity from this point toward the end of sample archiving period, as determined in writing by the Project Manager.

5.2.1 Sample Custody

The sample custodian at each laboratory will accept custody and log samples into the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). The sample custodian will check that the CoC forms were properly completed and signed, that a sample receipt form is completed for each cooler, and that samples are stored under the required temperature conditions. The laboratory will deliver a copy of the CoC and sample receipt form to the Project Manager and Data QA Officer.


Any breaks in the CoC or non-conformances will be noted and reported in writing to the Data QA Officer within 24 hours of receipt of samples. The laboratory should follow requirements stated in Section 4.3 in cases of sample integrity non-conformance.

Upon receipt by the laboratory, the sample custodian will follow these procedures:

Check for custody seals and ensure that they were placed at two locations on the outside of the shipping container.

Date and sign the chain-of-custody form, airbill, and any other documents using full signature.

Open each cooler, place a thermometer inside the temperature blank (see Section 10.1.3) until the temperature stabilizes, and record the cooler's temperature on the sample analysis form.

Remove all sample containers from coolers and check for breakage.

Compare sample identification numbers and number of bottles to the chain-of-custody form. All discrepancies in chain-of-custody, analysis requested, number of bottles, etc. will be recorded on the chain-of-custody form and laboratory database (laboratory information management system (LIMS).

The laboratory shall complete a cooler receipt form and submit the original to HDR. ARI shall provide the completed original chain-of-custody to HDR for inclusion in the evidence files. The EPA laboratory shall provide a copy of the completed chain-of-custody to the USACE; the original chain-of-custody forms will be retained by EPA.

Log samples into the LIMS. Record date and time of sample collection, date received, turn-around-time, name of person logging the job, client code, client project number and name, ARI job number, number of jars, sample matrix, requested analyses, method of sample delivery, the airbill number (if applicable), and integrity of samples received (including cooler temperature).

After admitting the samples, log them into the appropriate lab refrigerators. Custody has been relinquished as soon as samples are logged into appropriate lab refrigerators.

The laboratories will follow their documented in-house chain of custody procedures when handling samples for this project. This will include procedures to ensure that samples are secure and that chain of custody is maintained.

For sediments and water, chain-of-custody records will be retained by HDR and ARI and are the responsibility of the laboratory project manager. A copy of the record will be included in the data deliverable to HDR.

5.2.2 Laboratory Internal Sample Custody

The Laboratory Project Manager will ensure that a sample-tracking record is maintained that follows each sample through all stages of laboratory processing. The sample-tracking record must contain, at a minimum, the names of individuals responsible for performing the analysis;


dates and times of sample extraction, preparation, and analysis; and the type of analysis being performed.

Any sample needing further analysis that is not performed by the initial contracted laboratory will be subject to all custody specifications provided in the previous section.

5.2.3 Archived Samples

Archive samples will be collected for all sediment samples. Up to 16-ounces of sediment will be collected for archiving for samples that are scheduled for analysis, as available. In addition, any sample remaining in the sample jars after aliquots are removed for analysis by the laboratory will be archived. For sediment core samples not scheduled for analysis, two 32-oz jars for each sample will be collected for archiving (one jar stored at 4±2°C and another at -20±4°C).

All archive samples will be submitted to ARI. Sample aliquots for chemical analyses will be stored at -20±4°C; sample aliquots for grain size and total solids analyses will be stored at 4±2°C. Sediment remaining after analysis will be archived by the laboratory that completed the analysis. The laboratories will maintain internal CoC documentation and proper storage conditions for the entire time that the samples are in their possession. All laboratories for this project will store the archive and excess samples for 12 months following the completion of data evaluation and validation. Disposal of excess and archived samples will be approved by the USACE Project Manager, or her designee, in writing prior to the disposal.

5.3 Analytical Methods

The analytical methodologies, procedures, and QC measurements and criteria follow current analytical protocols in the following documents:

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846) (EPA 1998 and updates)

DoD QSM (DoD 2009)

Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW) (EPA 1983)

Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water Samples (Plumb 1981)

Puget Sound Estuary Protocols (PSEP 1997)

Annual Book of ASTM Standards.

Sample extraction, cleanup, and analysis methods for sediments are specified in AQAP-5. Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.8 briefly describe key procedures applied to the chemical analyses on the investigation samples.

5.3.1 Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

TOC will be analyzed with the methodology published by Plumb in 1981, as recommend in the Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP) protocols. An aliquot of the sample is pre-treated with hydrochloric acid (HCl) to liberate inorganic carbon (principally carbonate). The pretreated


aliquot is then oxidized in an oven at approximately 850°C to convert carbon to carbon dioxide (CO2), the converted CO2 is then measured via infrared spectrophotometry. Results are expressed in terms of carbon per dry weight of the un-acidified sample.

5.3.2 Grain Size

Grain size by the hydrometer and wet sieve method following American Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM) Method D 422 (modified). Wet sieve analysis will be used for the sieve sizes U.S. No. 4, 10, 18, 35, 60, 120, 200, and 230. Hydrogen peroxide will not be used in preparations for grain size analysis. (Hydrogen peroxide breaks down organic aggregates and its use may result in overestimation of the percent fine particles found in undisturbed sediment). Hydrometer analysis will be used for particles finer than the 230 sieve. The 230 sieve is recognized as the break between very fine sand and coarse silt (PSWQAT 1986). A salt correction will also be applied for the analysis of grain size in marine environments.

5.3.3 Percent Solids

All analytical data will be reported on a dry-weight basis. Moisture content determination will be performed following SW-846 Method 160.3. Samples will be oven-dried at 110C to a constant dry weight. Gravimetric water content will be calculated as weight of water divided by total dry weight.

5.3.4 Metals and Mercury

A combination of ICP/AES and cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry (CVAAS) will be used for metals and mercury analyses.

Sediment samples will be digested with nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide solution and brought up to a final digestate volume of 100 mL (EPA SW-846 Method 3050). Sample digestates will then be analyzed with ICP/AES for chromium, copper, nickel and zinc; and with ICP/MS for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium, and silver.

Mercury in sediment and water samples will be extracted with aqua regia and oxidized with potassium permanganate into solutions. Sample solutions will then be analyzed with CVAAS.

5.3.5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

PAHs will be analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) following SW-846 Method 8270D. A Selective Ion Monitoring (SIM) mode for the MS will be used for PAHs identification and quantitation to achieve lower detection limits. The Ultrasonic Extraction (UE) method (SW-846 Method 3550) will be used for sediment sample extraction; water samples will be extracted with continuous liquid-liquid extraction (SW-846 Method 3520C). Cleanup options will be employed at the discretion of the senior/supervisory analytical chemist. One additional procedural modifications is that the sample primary extract will be dried over silica gel and anhydrous sodium sulfate (Na2SO4),


To control the quality of laboratory analysis of samples, established preservation and storage measures will be followed. Recommended sample sizes, sample containers, preservation techniques, and maximum holding times for these analyses are presented in Table AQAP-9.

5.3.6 Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)

Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) include chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g., 1,2-dichlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene), phthalate esters, phenols and substituted phenols, miscellaneous extractables, and organonitrogen compounds (Table AQAP-4). SVOCs analysis will be completed with GC/MS using large volume injection (LVI) sample introduction technique for optimal detection limits. Sediment samples will be extracted with automated Soxhlet extraction technique (SW-846 Method 3541) and extracts go through gel permeation chromatography (GPC) cleanup (SW-846 Method 3640A) prior to instrumental analysis. Water samples will be extracted with the continuous liquid-liquid extraction technique (SW-846 Method 3520C).

5.3.7 PCBs Aroclors

A 25-gram sample aliquot will be extracted to a final extract volume of 10 mL using Soxhlet extraction technique (SW-846 Method 3541). Water samples will be extracted with the Sediment sample extracts will go through acid cleanup (EPA SW-846 Method 3665) followed by Florisil and sulfur removal by tetrabutyl ammonium sulfite procedure. A split-less injection to the GC/ECD will be used to optimize the analytical sensitivity. Water samples will be extracted with the Continuous liquid-liquid extraction technique (SW-846 Method 3520C).

5.4 Laboratory Performance

The laboratory will ensure the quality of results by maintaining an integrated QA system of activities involving the planning, implementation, assessment, reporting, and quality improvement of data. These activities will be performed or facilitated by the Laboratory QA Officer and will include the (1) performance of periodic audits (system and technical); (2) participation in proficiency testing programs/inter-laboratory comparisons, (3) routine analysis of certified reference materials or second source reference materials, and (4) monitoring method performance (sensitivity, precision and bias) through an evaluation of batch QC samples (method blank, laboratory control samples [LCS]) control ranges/charts.

The selected methods and QC requirements listed in this section are sufficient to meet the investigation objectives. Although a best effort will be made to achieve the investigation objectives, there may be cases for which it is not possible to meet the specified goals. Any significant limitation to data quality caused by analyses that fail to meet the data quality indicators (DQIs) specified in this AQAP will be identified and brought to the attention of the Data QA Officer, the HDR and USACE Project Managers, and the USACE Technical Lead.

5.4.1 Quantitation Limits

The laboratory must ensure that all possible procedures for achieving minimum reporting limits are applied as specified in Tables AQAP-3 and AQAP-4. These procedures may include sample


cleanup, increased aliquot size, and concentration of extracts. Due to the significant analytical method modification to achieve the low-level detection limits required by this project, some reporting limits may not follow the QSM requirement of LOQ greater than three (3) times the LOD. In addition, the laboratory will report (as estimated) all detected compounds with concentrations below the LOQs but above the LODs. If dilutions are necessary to bring individual target analytes within the calibration range, these analytes will be reported from the dilution whereas the remaining analyte results will be reported from the nondiluted analytical run.

5.4.2 Laboratory Control Samples (LCSs)

If target analytes in LCSs are out of control limits, corrective action will be taken. Initially, the effect the QC failure has on the samples will be evaluated. Regardless of the results of this assessment, the laboratory will take steps to find the source of the problem and correct it. Typically, the laboratory will reanalyze the LCS for the failed analytes only. If the second analysis fails, the LCS, method blank, and all associated samples of the batch will be re-prepared and reanalyzed for the failed analytes only. When there are multiple target analytes (more than five), sporadic marginal failures of a few target analytes included in the LCS may be acceptable without requiring reanalysis of the entire batch. The control limits for LCS in various analytical methodologies are summarized in Tables AQAP-6 through AQAP-9. Note that the LCS control limits specified in this AQAP were based on the most current laboratory performance-based charted values. The QSM recommended control limits were not adopted because analytical methods used in this investigation were significantly modified from the regular QSM referenced methods in order to achieve low-level detection limits required by this investigation.

5.4.3 Blanks

The DoD QSM (DoD 2009) states that the method blank is acceptable if “the concentration of all target analytes is below one-half the LOQ for each target analyte, or less than 5 percent of the regulatory limit associated with that analyte, or less than 5 percent of the sample result for the same analyte, whichever is greater.” The laboratory will be required to comply with this USACE guidance as follows:

If an analyte is found only in the method blank, but not in the batch samples, no further corrective action is necessary.

If an analyte is found in the method blank at concentrations that exceed criteria, and in some or all of the other batch samples, the laboratory will reanalyze (within the holding times) the method blank and any samples containing the same contaminant.

If the contamination remains at concentrations that exceed criteria, the laboratory will re-prepare and reanalyze (within the holding times) the contaminated samples, a new method blank, and batch-specific QC samples.

If holding times are exceeded before reanalysis occurs, the laboratory must notify the HDR Project Manager and Data QA Officer immediately for optimal resolutions.


5.4.4 Compound Identification

Laboratory requirements for compound identification are prescribed within the EPA (1998) analytical methods used. In some organic methods, the information is included directly within the method (e.g., GC/MS Method 8270D), or this information is referenced to a general EPA (1998) method (such as 8000B) that outlines procedures applicable to several chromatographic methods (e.g., GC). Laboratory SOPs present procedures required to establish retention time windows (window width and location) for each target analyte for each chromatographic column used in the analysis.

Laboratory requirements for compound confirmation are prescribed within the EPA (1998) analytical methods used. For GC/MS methods, compound confirmation is obtained from the mass spectrum following specified procedures included within the methods, and no additional measures are needed. For GC methods, procedural options are presented in Method 8000B, Section 7.9, and include the use of the GC/MS or other analytical technique (if applicable), a dissimilar column (if available), or a second detector as a means for confirmation. When a secondary column is used, SW-846 Method 8000C, Section 7.9, states that the analysis must meet the QC criteria (for example, for calibration or retention time).

When confirmed, the agreement between the primary and secondary columns (or detectors) is compared to evaluate method performance and decide the value to report (if applicable). The difference between the results is calculated as the relative percent difference (RPD) for comparability purposes only. These RPD values are generally not used to determine the presence or absence of the target analyte. Presence or absence is determined by the signal being present above method criteria on both columns. When disparity in the results occurs, the laboratory must review the chromatograms to evaluate potential sources of error (such as overlapping peaks or matrix interference). When no evidence of interference is found, the larger of the values will be reported to ensure that any decisions made based on the data are conservative with regard to the environment.

If alkylated PAH analyses are performed, alkylated PAHs including the parent and derivatives will be identified, quantitated, and reported as individual compounds. The results will be used for source tracking of PAHs present in the J-9 and J-10 sediments. Histograms of the PAHs results along with sample chromatograms (generated during the GC/MS-SIM analysis) and TOC results will be used as fundamental information in data analysis for the source determination.

5.4.5 Laboratory Performance Oversight

The procedures described in the subsequent paragraphs will be instituted to ensure that the data comply with investigation-specific QC criteria as presented in this AQAP.

The laboratory will receive copies of the final QAPP, including this AQAP, to furnish resources required to meet all the requirements in these documents. The laboratory is required to transmit to the HDR Project Manager and Data QA Officer the completed and signed CoC forms and cooler receipt forms via e-mail or facsimile as described in Section 4.3. The HDR Project Manager and Data QA Officer will review the forms and confirm the adequacy and completeness


of the requested analyses, evaluate sample receiving conditions, and take corrective action as needed.

The laboratory will notify the Data QA Officer within 24 hours should any anomalies occur in relation to sample receiving, handling, preparation, and analysis during the entire course of the project. The Data QA Officer is responsible for, in a timely manner, notifying and resolving reported nonconformities and/or follow the chain-of-command up to the HDR and USACE Project Managers for ultimate corrective actions.

Preliminary analytical results (Contract Laboratory Program [CLP] Form-1) and the results of the laboratory QC analysis will be transmitted to the Project Manager and Data QA Officer within 10 business days after the last sample arrives at the laboratory for an analytical batch for all analyses including PAHs. For PCBs and for the balance of the SVOC list, the laboratory shall provide preliminary analytical and laboratory QC analysis results to the HDR Project Manager and Data QA Officer within 10 business days. The Data QA Officer is responsible for reviewing the Form-1s for holding time, target analyte list, and LOD/LOQ compliance with requirements stated in this AQAP.

A Level III Data verification and validation will performed on 100 percent of the final laboratory data packages by the Data QA Officer. In addition, 10 percent of the data packages will subject to a full (Level IV) validation.

Any discrepancy or anomalies identified will be resolved with the laboratory immediately, or follow the chain-of-command up to the HDR and USACE Project Managers for adequate corrective actions.


6.0 Field and Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control Samples

QC samples are controlled samples introduced into the analysis stream, the results of which are used to assess data quality and to calculate the accuracy and precision of the chemical analysis program. The purpose of each type of QC sample, collection and analysis frequency, and evaluation criteria are described in this section. Collection frequencies for field QC samples are summarized in Table AQAP-11.

QC procedures for the analytical laboratories will be consistent with the requirements described in the analytical methods and this AQAP. The laboratory will be required to conduct all QC measurements on samples from this investigation in each sample preparation batch. QC analyses performed on non-project samples will not be reported in addition to those on the project samples.

6.1 Field Quality Control Samples

Field QC is accomplished through the analysis of controlled samples that are introduced to the laboratory from the field. Field duplicates, and temperature blanks will be collected and submitted to the investigation laboratory to provide a means of assessing the quality of data resulting from the field sampling program. Field quality control samples will be run based on three sample groups: (1) surface sediment samples, (2) subtidal subsurface samples, and (3) grids J-9 and J-10 SMS samples. Frequency of analyses for these three groups is discussed, below. Field quality control samples for clam tissue residue samples are discussed in Appendix A of the FSP.

6.1.1 Equipment Rinsate Blanks

Rinsate blanks are collected to determine the potential for cross-contamination of samples between sampling locations and samples. At a minimum, one rinsate blank will be collected using distilled water provided by the laboratory after 20 environmental samples are collected or one per week for each sampling technique. When possible, dedicated and disposable sampling equipment will be used to collect and composite sediment samples. When dedicated or disposable sampling equipment is used, the potential for sample cross-contamination due to field procedures is eliminated; therefore no rinsate samples are required.

Three (3) rinsates will be collected during surface sediment sampling and analyzed for PAHs; two (2) rinsates will be collected during the subtidal subsurface (core) sampling and analyzed for PAHs; and one (1) rinsate will be collected during the Grids J-9 and J-10 sampling and the rinsate analyzed for the full suite of SMS chemicals.

6.1.2 Field Duplicates

Field duplicate samples are used to check for sampling and analysis reproducibility. Field duplicate samples will be collected at a frequency of 20 percent of the sediment field samples. Field duplicate samples will be collected in conjunction with and analyzed by the same methods as the primary samples. Field duplicate samples will be collected from areas most likely to be


contaminated and will be submitted blind to the laboratory, with sample numbers that are indistinguishable from the primary sample numbers. Control limits for field duplicate precision are 50 percent RPD for sediment samples. Calculation and reporting of the RPD for field duplicates are described in Section 9.1.

Three (3) field replicates will be collected from surface sediment samples and analyzed for PAHs; two (2) field replicates will be collected from subtidal subsurface (core) samples and analyzed for PAHs; and one (1) field replicate will be collected from Grids J-9 and J-10 and analyzed for the full suite of SMS chemicals.

6.1.3 Temperature Blanks

Temperature blanks are used to supplement the determination of cooler temperatures upon receipt of the coolers at the laboratory. One temperature blank will be prepared using a 500-mL high density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle with analytical-grade DI water and submitted to the investigation laboratory with each cooler. The temperature blank will be packed on ice in the cooler in the same manner as the rest of the samples and labeled “temperature blank.” All sample coolers must have a temperature blank included.

6.2 Laboratory Quality Control Samples

Laboratory QC is accomplished by analyzing initial and continuing calibration samples, method blanks, surrogate spikes, LCSs, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) pairs, and laboratory duplicate samples. A listing of the required laboratory QC samples is given in Table AQAP-10. Investigation-specific QC criteria (including frequency, QC limits, and corrective actions) are presented in Table AQAP-7 and Table AQAP-8. The required laboratory quality assurance samples are summarized in Table AQAP-12.

6.2.1 Initial and Continuing Calibration Standards

Laboratory instrument calibration and maintenance requirements are discussed in Section 8.

6.2.2 Blanks

Method blanks are used to check for laboratory and reagent contamination, instrument bias, and accuracy. Laboratory method blanks will be analyzed at a minimum frequency of 5 percent or one per analytical batch for all chemical parameter groups.

QC criteria require that minimum contamination be detected in the blank. If a chemical is detected, the action taken will follow the criteria established by this AQAP. Blank samples will be analyzed for the same parameters as the associated field samples. The concentrations of analytes detected in the method blanks will not be subtracted from the sample concentrations.

6.2.3 Surrogate Spikes

Surrogate compounds are compounds that are unlikely to be detected in environmental samples; but chemically similar to target compounds. For all organic analyses (e.g., VOCs, PAHs, SVOCs, and PCBs), surrogate compounds required by the respective methods will be added to


all field and QC samples and processed through the entire sample preparation and analysis procedures (VOCs will be spiked at the purging vessel prior to sample introduction to GC/MS).

Percent recovery of surrogates is calculated concurrently with the analytes of interest. The percent recovery is a measure of accuracy of the overall sample preparation and analysis procedures.

6.2.4 Laboratory Control Samples (LCS), LCS Duplicate (LCSD), and Standard Reference Material (SRM)

LCSs are prepared and analyzed in each sample preparation batch to monitor the laboratory’s day-to-day performance of routine analytical methods, independent of matrix effects. LCSs associated with water samples are prepared by spiking reagent water with standard solutions containing all target compounds. Spiking levels will be between the low- and mid-level calibration standards. Standard Reference Materials (SRM) will be used, instead of blank spikes, in lieu of LCS/LCSD for sediment analyses. The RPD value for LCS and LCSD allows the evaluation of laboratory precision. Should any LCS recovery outliers occurs, corrective actions will be taken in accordance with the DoD QSM, Appendix DOD-B (DoD 2009).

6.2.5 Matrix Spike (MS) and MS Duplicate (MSD)

MS/MSD sample pairs are used to assess the magnitude of effects by a specific sample matrix on analytical accuracy and precision. Known concentrations of target analytes are added to aliquots of the selected project sample(s); the spiked aliquots are then processed through the entire preparation and analysis procedures. The percent recovery of the spiked amounts and the RPD value between the MS and MSD are calculated. The percent recovery is used for the evaluation of sample matrix-specific accuracy and the RPD value for the precision.

The sample for MS/MSD analyses will be designated in the field and will be collected from a location with the estimated lowest concentrations of target analytes so that the added spike compounds are not masked by the sample analyte concentrations. Required laboratory QC criteria for MS/MSD sediment samples are provided in Tables AQAP-6 and AQAP-7.

Three (3) samples will be selected for MS/MSD analyses from surface sediment samples for PAHs analyses only; two (2) samples will be selected for MS/MSD analyses from subtidal subsurface (core) samples for PAHs analyses only; and one (1) sample will be selected for MS/MSD from Grids J-9 and J-10 for the full suite of SMS chemicals.

6.2.6 Laboratory Duplicate Samples

Precision of the analytical system is evaluated by analyzing MS/MSD pairs and laboratory duplicates. Laboratory duplicates are two portions of a single homogeneous sample analyzed for the same parameter. Laboratory duplicates will be prepared and analyzed with investigation samples being analyzed for metals and other inorganic analytes. If a sample contains high native concentrations of organic compounds, a laboratory duplicate (instead of MSD) will be analyzed.


7.0 Laboratory Instrument Calibration

Instrument calibration will be in compliance with (1) respective analytical methods, (2) this AQAP, and (3) the Laboratory Quality Assurance Manual. General requirements are discussed below.

7.1 Standard Solutions

A critical element in the generation of quality data is the purity/quality and ability to trace the standard solutions and reagents used in the analytical operations. To ensure the highest purity possible, the laboratory will obtain all primary reference standards and standard solutions from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the EPA repository, or other reliable commercial source. The laboratory will maintain a written record of the supplier, lot number, purity/concentration, receipt/preparation date, name of the analyst, method of preparation, expiration date, and all other pertinent information for all standards, standard solutions, and individual standard preparation logs.

Standard solutions will be validated prior to use. Validation procedures can range from a check for chromatographic purity to verification of the concentration of the standard solution using another standard solution prepared at a different time or obtained from a different source. Stock and working standard solutions will be checked regularly for signs of deterioration, such as discoloration, formation of precipitates, or change of concentration. Care will be exercised in the proper storage and handling of standard solutions, and all containers will be labeled as to compound, concentration, solvent, expiration date, and preparation data (with initials of preparer and date of preparation). Reagents will be examined for purity by subjecting an aliquot or subsample to the corresponding analytical method.

7.2 Balances

The laboratory will calibrate analytical balances annually according to manufacturer’s instructions and make a calibration check before each daily use by laboratory personnel. All balance calibrations will use Class 1 or S weights and will be within a range appropriate to the sample mass. Acceptance criteria are 1 percent for top-loading balances and 0.1 percent for analytical balances. Annual calibrations and calibration checks will be documented in appropriate hardbound logbooks with pre-numbered pages.

7.3 Refrigerators

The laboratory will monitor all refrigerators for proper temperature by measuring and recording internal temperatures on a daily basis using NIST-certified or NIST-traceable thermometers. At a minimum, thermometers used for these measurements will be calibrated annually according to manufacturer’s instructions. Refrigerators will be maintained at 4C 2 C and freezers at −10 C to −20 C. Refrigerator and freezer temperatures will be documented in appropriate hardbound logbooks with pre-numbered pages.


7.4 Volumetric Measurements

Before use, volumetric glassware or other laboratory ware will be inspected for cracks or damages. Eppendorf-type pipettes will be verified (weekly, at a minimum) at the volume to be used or at two different volumes that bracket the range of use. Fixed-volume Eppendorf-type pipettes will be verified monthly. All nonstandard laboratory ware used to measure the initial sample volume or the final volume of the extracts/digestates will be verified to be accurate within 3 percent. Each calibration check will be documented in appropriate hardbound logbooks with pre-numbered pages.

7.5 Water Supply System

The investigation laboratory will maintain an appropriate water supply system that is capable of furnishing ASTM Type II polished water to the various analytical areas. ASTM Type I or equivalent water will be used for trace metal analysis.

Initial calibration blanks and continuing calibration blanks will be used to document that the laboratory water supply system produces water that is free of the analytes of interest at the level of concern for the investigation. Method blanks will be used to ensure that none of the reagents used for the requested analyses are contaminated with the analytes of interest.

7.6 Laboratory Instruments

As stated in laboratory SOPs, calibration of all analytical instrumentation is required to ensure that the analytical system is operating correctly and functioning at the sensitivity required to meet investigation-specific objectives. Each instrument will be calibrated with standard solutions appropriate to the instrument and analytical method, in accordance with the methodology specified, and at the QC frequency specified in the laboratory SOPs.

The calibration history of the fixed laboratory instrumentation is an important aspect of the investigation’s overall QA/QC program. Therefore, all initial and continuing calibration procedures will be implemented by trained personnel following the manufacturer’s instructions and in accordance with applicable EPA protocols to ensure the equipment is functioning within the tolerances established by the manufacturer and the method-specific analytical requirements.

7.7 Analytical Laboratory Calibration Procedures

All instrument performance checks (i.e., instrument tuning for mass spectrometers), initial calibrations (including second source initial calibration verification) , and continuing calibration verifications will comply with:

EPA SW-846 and respective analytical methods (EPA 1998 and updates)

DoD QSM (DoD 2009)

ARI SOPs

ARI Laboratory Quality Assurance Manual.


8.0 Analytical Data Quality Indicators

The quality and usability of data collected in this investigation will be determined, based on the outcomes of data verification and validation, and expressed as DQIs - precision, accuracy (bias), representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity evaluated as indicated in Table AQAP-13 and the subsequent discussion. Tables AQAP-6 through AQAP-9 present a summary of QC samples and parameters corresponding to each of the DQIs.

The definition of the DQIs is discussed in the following sections.

8.1 Precision

Precision is defined as the degree of agreement between or among independent, similar, or repeated measures. Precision is expressed in terms of analytical variability. For this investigation, analytical variability will be measured as the RPD or coefficient of variation between analytical laboratory duplicates and between the MS and MSD analyses. Monitoring variability will be measured by analysis of blind field duplicate samples.

Precision will be calculated as the RPD as follows:

2/100(%)

DS

DSRPD

where:

S = analyte concentration in a sample D = analyte concentration in a duplicate sample

The resultant RPD will be compared with criteria established by this AQAP, and deviations from these criteria will be reported. If the AQAP criteria are not met, the laboratory will supply a justification of why the limits were exceeded and implement the appropriate corrective actions. The RPD will be evaluated during data review and validation. The data reviewer will note deviations from the specified limits and will comment on the effect of the deviations on reported data.

8.2 Accuracy

Accuracy is the amount of agreement between a measured value and the true value. It will be measured as the percent recoveries of MS and MSD, organic surrogate compounds, and the LCS. Additional potential bias will be assessed using calibration standards and blank samples (e.g., method blanks).

In cases where accuracy is determined from spiked samples, accuracy will be expressed as the percent recovery. The closer these values are to 100, the more accurate the data. Surrogate recovery will be calculated as follows:


100(%)Recovery SC

MC

where:

SC = spiked concentration MC = measured concentration

MS percent recovery will be calculated as follows:

100(%)Recovery

SC

USCMC

where:

SC = spiked concentration MC = measured concentration USC = unspiked sample concentration

The resultant percent recoveries will be compared with criteria established by this AQAP, and deviations from these criteria will be reported. If the objective criteria are not met, the laboratory will supply a justification of why the limits were exceeded and implement the appropriate corrective actions. Percent recoveries will be evaluated during data review and validation, and the data reviewer will comment on the effect of the deviations on the reported data.

8.3 Representativeness

Representativeness is the degree to which sample results represent the system under study. This component is generally considered during the design phase of a program. This program will use the results of all analyses to evaluate the data in terms of its intended use. Site sampling locations for this investigation are placed using a biased approach to maximize the likelihood of locating and identifying site contamination. Areas of apparent contamination have been selected to be representative of potential impacts from past activities. Representativeness will also be determined by evaluating hold time, sample preservation, and blank contamination. Samples with expired hold times, improper preservation, or contamination may not be representative.

8.4 Comparability

Comparability is the degree to which data from one study can be compared with data from historical studies at the site, other similar studies, reference values (such as background), and reference materials. This goal will be achieved through the use of standard techniques to collect samples, EPA-approved methods to analyze samples, and consistent units to report analytical results. Data comparability also depends on data quality. Data of unknown quality cannot be compared.


8.5 Completeness

The basis for evaluation of the analytical data will be the DQIs contained in this section, and guidelines established by the USEAP Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) National Functional Guidelines (EPA 2008 and 2010). Quality data are data that fulfill the DQO requirements established in these documents. Completeness for quality data (percentage of quality data out of the total data set generated) for Year 17 monitoring will be greater than or equal to 95 percent. Data will be rejected if these criteria are not met and no documented corrective actions have been taken. Rejected data are not usable.

The amount of sample collected will be sufficient to re-analyze the sample should the initial results not meet QC requirements. Because the number of sample aliquots that will be collected to measure each parameter exceeds that required for the analysis, thus allowing for reanalysis, 100 percent completeness is anticipated. Less than 100 percent completeness could result if sufficient chemical contamination exists to require sample dilutions, resulting in an increase in the investigation-required detection/quantitation limits for some parameters. Highly contaminated environments can also be sufficiently heterogeneous to prevent the achievement of specified precision and accuracy criteria. If the corrective actions recommended in the analytical methodology, laboratory SOP, and this AQAP have been applied but investigation-specific QC criteria cannot be met, the data are still usable and the laboratory will flag the data and provide written documentation of the corrective actions taken. Overall investigation completeness will be 95 percent for usable data (defined as the percentage of usable data compared to the total data set generated).

Completeness will be calculated as follows:

100(%) P

VssCompletene

where:

V = number of valid measurements

P = number of planned measurements

Valid and invalid data (i.e., data qualified with the R flag [rejected] will be identified during data review and validation (Section 10.2).

8.6 Sensitivity

Sensitivity will be determined by reviewing LODs and LOQs. LOQs will be set low enough to allow meaningful comparisons with screening criteria to the extent possible, taking into account matrix effects. The laboratory will report compounds detected above the LODs and positively identified below the LOQs, as estimated (J-flagged) values.


9.0 Preventive Maintenance 9.1 Preventive Maintenance

Manufacturers have established guidelines for preventive maintenance of their instruments and equipment. Preventive maintenance is implemented on a schedule based on the type and stability of the instruments and equipment, investigation-required accuracy, intended use, and environmental factors. Preventive maintenance minimizes down time and ensures the accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and traceability of data collected while using the instruments and equipment. Maintenance is conducted by trained technicians, using service manuals or through service agreements with qualified maintenance contractors. Instruments and equipment that are identified to be out of calibration or malfunctioning are removed from operation until they are recalibrated or repaired. In addition, backup for instruments/equipment and critical spare parts are maintained to quickly correct malfunctions. Examples of typical equipment maintenance spare parts may include but not be limited to filters, tubing, and fittings.

9.2 Field Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency

Calibration of equipment and instrumentation ensures that accurate and reliable measurements are obtained. All instruments and equipment used on the investigation are calibrated and adjusted to operate within manufacturers' specifications and with a frequency stipulated by the maintenance schedule or by analytical method. Instrument calibration will be conducted at the beginning of each workday and at midday in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. A final calibration will be conducted at the end of the day after the last field sample has been analyzed. The initial calibration will be conducted in accordance with specific analytical methods and calibration standards if appropriate to the instrument being used. One-point calibrations will be conducted thereafter. In addition, one-point calibrations will be made when sampling conditions change, when sample matrices change, and/or if the instrument readings become unstable.

9.3 Laboratory Instrument Maintenance and Calibration

The procedures for maintenance and calibration used by the analytical laboratory are included in their laboratory QA plans and analytical methods. The laboratory selected for this investigation has demonstrated its ability to analyze investigation samples within holding time by having well-maintained instruments and adequate backup instrumentation.

All laboratory calibration standards must be traceable to the NIST or other primary standards. Methods and intervals of calibration are based on the type of equipment, stability characteristics, required accuracy, intended use, and environmental conditions. Section 6.0 provides detailed requirements for laboratory instruments.

9.4 Calibration and Maintenance Records

Calibration and maintenance schedules and records are maintained for the laboratory’s instruments and field equipment. Both equipment and equipment records are located in a controlled-access facility when not in use. This is done to minimize equipment damage, theft, and tampering that may jeopardize either field or laboratory measurements or, ultimately, data quality.


10.0 Corrective Actions

The investigation plans and training establish the baseline for field quality control. The ultimate responsibility for maintaining quality rests with the Project Manager. The day-to-day responsibility for ensuring the quality of field and laboratory data rests with the Sediment Technical Lead, Data QA Officer, and the laboratory program administrator.

Results of QA reviews and audits typically identify the requirement for a corrective action. The Data QA Officer is responsible for reviewing all audit and nonconformance reports to determine areas of poor quality or failure to adhere to established procedures. Non-conformances are reported formally by the Data QA Officer to the Project Manager. The Project Manager is responsible for evaluating all reported non-conformances, determining the root cause, conferring with the Data QA Officer on the steps to be taken for correction, and ensuring that the corrective action is developed and scheduled. Corrective action measures are selected to prevent or reduce the likelihood of future occurrences and address the root causes to the extent identifiable. Selected measures are appropriate to the seriousness of the nonconformance and are realistic in terms of the resources required for implementation.

Any nonconformance with the established QC procedures will be expeditiously identified, corrected, and controlled. Where procedures are not in compliance with the established protocol, corrective actions will be taken immediately. Subsequent work that depends on the nonconforming activity will not be performed until the identified nonconformance is corrected.

In summary, corrective action involves the following steps:

Discovery of a nonconformance

Identification of the responsible party

Determination of root causes

Planning and scheduling of corrective/preventive action

Review of the corrective action taken

Confirmation that the desired results were produced.

10.1 Field Corrective Action

The Sediment Technical Lead will review the procedures being implemented in the field for consistency with the established protocols. Sample collection, preservation, labeling, and other procedures will be checked for completeness. Where procedures are not in compliance with the established protocol, the deviations will be field documented and reported to the Project Manager.

Examples of field nonconformances include, but are not limited to, the following:

Items provided by a subcontractor supplier that do not meet the contractual requirements

Errors made in following work instruction or improper work instruction


Unforeseen or unplanned circumstances that result in services that do not meet quality/contractual/technical requirements

Unapproved or unwarranted deviations from established procedures

Sample chain-of-custody missing or deficient

Data falling outside established objective criteria.

Corrective actions will be defined by the Sediment Technical Lead and Project Manager with concurrence with the USACE and EPA, and documented. Problems that require corrective action are documented by the use of a corrective action report. Upon implementation of the corrective action, the Sediment Technical Lead will provide the Project Quality Assurance Manager with a written memo documenting field implementation. The memo will become part of the investigation file.

10.2 Laboratory Corrective Action

The laboratory Quality Assurance Manager (QAM) will review the data generated to ensure that all samples have been analyzed as specified in this AQAP. Percent recoveries of surrogates and spiked analytes from LCS samples and MS samples will be evaluated for accuracy. RPDs for laboratory duplicate or MSD samples will be evaluated for precision. Corrective action requirements for noncompliant data are presented in the DoD QSM, Appendix DOD-B (DoD 2009) and in the laboratory SOPs.

The Laboratory Project Manager will deliver the CoCs and cooler receipt forms to Project Manager within 12 hours of sample receipt. Project Manager will be notified immediately if discrepancies occur between the contracted analyses and the analyses listed on the CoCs. The Data QA Officer will contact the Project Manager to discuss noncompliant data sets within 72 hours of first discovering that any analysis failed to meet the required data quality criteria. If the analyses cannot produce data sets that are within control limits, the USACE and EPA will be notified. At a minimum, corrective actions are necessary if any of the following occur.

Initial calibration verification and continuing calibration verification do not meet investigation-specific QC criteria

Any changes of LOQs

Blanks contain contaminants at concentrations greater than the LOQ for any target analyte

The QC data are outside the acceptance windows for precision and accuracy established for LCS

Surrogate recoveries are outside the acceptance window for accuracy for organic analysis

Undesirable trends are detected in surrogate, MS or LCS recoveries

Undesirable trends are detected in RPD for MS/MSD or laboratory duplicates

The Laboratory Quality Assurance Manager (QAM) detects deficiencies during internal or external audits.


If laboratory personnel identify a nonconformance in analytical methodologies or QC sample results, corrective actions will be implemented immediately. Corrective action procedures will be handled initially at the bench level by the analyst, who will review the preparation or extraction procedure for possible errors and perform various checks such as the instrument calibration, spike, calibration mixes, and instrument sensitivity. The analyst will immediately notify his/her supervisor of the identified problem and the investigation that is being conducted. If the problem persists or the cause cannot be identified, the matter will be referred to the laboratory supervisor and Laboratory QAM for further investigation. When the problem has been resolved, the Laboratory QAM will file full documentation of the corrective action procedure, and if data are affected, the Project Managers at HDR, USACE, and EPA will be provided a corrective action memo for inclusion into the investigation file.

Corrective action may include, but will not be limited to, the following.

Recalibrating analytical instruments.

Reanalyzing suspect samples if holding time criteria permit. The need for reanalysis is dependent on the number of analytes that are out of compliance, the importance of the outlier to the decision-making process, and the magnitude of the outlying data. For example, an LCS sample with one analyte recovery at 125 percent, representing a sample batch where the average sample concentration was 10 parts per million (ppm), would not necessarily require reanalysis of the LCS or the entire sample batch.

Resampling and analyzing newly collected samples.

Evaluating and amending sampling and/or analytical procedures.

Accepting data with an acknowledged level of uncertainty.

Evaluating and attempting to identify limitations of the data.

Following the implementation of the required corrective action measures, data still deemed unacceptable will not be accepted by the Laboratory Project Manager and follow-up corrective actions will be explored.

10.3 Corrective Actions Following Data Review

The Data QA Officer will review the field and laboratory data generated for this investigation to ensure that all investigation QA objectives are met. If any nonconformances in the data have resulted from the field procedures, sample collection procedures, field documentation procedures, or laboratory analytical and documentation procedures, the impact of those nonconformances on the overall investigation QA objectives will be assessed. Appropriate actions, including resampling and reanalysis may be recommended to the Project Manager so that the investigation objectives can be accomplished.


11.0 Laboratory Data Reduction, Deliverables, Validation, Reporting

This section describes the processes of data generation, reduction, reporting, review, and validation. Data reduction and data quality review responsibilities are summarized in Table AQAP-14.

11.1 Laboratory Data Reduction, Review, and Deliverables

Data generated by the laboratory will undergo generation, reduction, and verification procedures described in the laboratory’s QA plans and SOPs.

11.1.1 Data Reduction Procedures

The laboratory will perform in-house analytical data reduction under the direction of the Laboratory QAM. Laboratory data reduction procedures will be those specified in EPA-approved methods and those described in the laboratory SOPs. The data reduction steps will be documented, signed, and dated by the analyst. Data reduction will be conducted as follows;

Raw data produced by the analyst will be processed and reviewed for compliance with investigation-specific QC criteria established in this AQAP. The analyst will also review the raw data for overall reasonableness and for transcription or calculation errors.

After the data have been entered into the laboratory information management system (LIMS), a computerized report will be generated and sent to the laboratory supervisor or senior chemist.

The laboratory supervisor will decide whether any sample reanalysis is required. The laboratory Project Manager will contact the Data QA Officer to discuss noncompliant data sets upon discovering that any analysis fails to meet the required data quality criteria. If corrective actions have been taken and data still do not meet investigation QA requirements, the USACE and EPA will be notified.

Upon acceptance of the preliminary reports by the laboratory QA manager, final reports will be generated. Final data reports will be available within approximately 15 business days of sample submittal.

The laboratory analyst will assign QC qualifiers, as described and defined in the laboratory QA plans, if any of the following occurs:

The concentration of the chemical is below required reporting limit, but is positively identified

The chemical is also found in the laboratory blank

Spiking analyte recoveries (bias) are outside investigation-specified control limits (inorganic analyses only)


Laboratory duplicate precision is outside investigation-specified control limits (inorganic analyses only).

Other sample-specific qualifiers will be added, as necessary, to describe QC conditions.

The laboratory will maintain detailed procedures for laboratory recordkeeping supporting the validity of all analytical work. Each data report package submitted will contain the laboratory’s written certification that the requested analytical method was run and that all QA/QC checks were performed. The laboratory program administrators will provide copies of applicable independent third party external audits, which will become part of the central investigation files.

11.1.2 Data Review Procedures

The laboratory analysts have the initial responsibility for verifying the correctness and completeness of the data based on an established set of guidelines and on the investigation-specific QC criteria. The analysts will ensure that the following QC elements have been satisfactorily completed:

Documentation of sampling receipt and handling is complete

Sample preparation information is correct and complete

Analysis information is correct and complete

Raw data, including manual integrations, have been correctly interpreted; and manual integration will be identified on the chromatograms

Appropriate preparation and analysis procedures have been followed

Site-specific special sample preparation and analytical requirements have been met

Analytical results are correctly calculated and complete

QC sample results are within investigation QC limits

Laboratory blanks are within investigation QC limits

Documentation is complete. All anomalies in the preparation and analysis have been documented; holding times are documented; and all data (including data generated before and after corrective actions or cleanup are conducted) are included in the laboratory data report.

The laboratory supervisor or QAM will provide an independent peer review of the analytical data package to ensure that the following QC elements are acceptable:

Appropriate laboratory SOPs have been referenced

Calibration data are scientifically sound and appropriate to the method

QC sample data are within investigation-specific limits

Qualitative and quantitative results are correct

Raw data, including manual integration, have been correctly interpreted


Documentation is complete and correct.

11.1.3 Data Deliverables

To ensure that investigation chemical data are sufficient to meet both qualitative and quantitative objectives, laboratory data deliverables that will permit a data quality assessment consistent with the requirements of this AQAP are required.

The laboratory will prepare and retain full analytical and associated QC documentation. The laboratory will report the data as analytical batches of 20 samples or less, along with associated QC reporting data. The analytical results will be submitted in both hard copy and electronic formats for review by the Data QA Officer. Data packages will be unbound and paginated.

Information provided will be sufficient to review the data with respect to:

Holding times and sample conditions

Calibrations and instrument performance

Detection/quantitation limits

Spike and surrogate recoveries

Duplicate analyses (laboratory duplicates and MS/MSDs)

LCS

Blank contamination

Target compound identification and quantitation

Analytical system performance.

The analytical data will be provided in a complete CLP-type deliverable data format including the following hard copy information for each analytical data package.

Cover sheet listing the samples included in the report.

Narrative comments describing problems encountered in analysis, identification of any analyses not meeting quality control criteria, including holding times, and cautions regarding nonquantitative use or unusable data due to out-of-control-limit QC results.

CoC forms and cooler receipt forms.

Documentation of extraction, clean-up, and analytical methods used.

Tabulated results of inorganic and organic compounds identified and quantified, with analyte-specific LODs and LOQs. All analytes will be reported for each sample as a detected concentration or as not detected above the specific limits of quantitation, which must be stated. The laboratory will also report, dilution factors, date of extraction, extraction batch, cleanup procedures used, date of analysis, surrogate percent recoveries, batch run logs, and analytical batch number for each sample, with corresponding sample results. All sediment data are to be reported as dry weight and the percent moisture must be provided.


Analytical results for QC sample spikes, laboratory duplicates, initial and continuing calibration, verifications of standards and laboratory blanks, standard procedural blanks, LCSs, laboratory reference materials, ICP interference check samples, and detection limit check samples.

Documentation of rationale for the use of method of standard addition if required.

Raw data system printouts (or legible photocopies) identifying date of reported analysis, analyst, parameters analyzed, calibration curves, calibration verifications, second column confirmations, method blanks, any reported sample dilutions, cleanup logs, laboratory duplicates, spikes, control samples, sample spiking levels, preparation/extraction logs, run logs, and chromatograms.

Chromatograms labeled with analyte peaks, internal standards, and surrogate standards where applicable.

Mass calibration and mass spectral tuning data for GC and GC/MS analyses.

Data reduction and QC review steps will be documented, signed, and dated by an authorized laboratory representative. Corresponding to each individual laboratory report, an electronic data deliverable (EDD) will be prepared in Ecology’s Environmental Information Management (EIM) format, and Automated Data Review (ADR) version 1.2a (A1/A3) format. The ADR EDDs will pass the ADR Checker and the checker reports submitted along with the laboratory data package.

11.2 Data Review and Data Validation

The purpose of the data validation is to eliminate unacceptable and minimize suspect analytical data and to designate a data qualifier for any data quality limitation discovered. A formal data validation will be performed by the Data QA Officer and will include a review of laboratory performance criteria and sample-specific criteria. The Data QA Officer shall determine whether the measurement performance criteria have been met, and will calculate the data completeness for the project.

A Level III Data verification and validation will performed on 100 percent of the final laboratory data packages by the Data QA Officer. In addition, 10 percent of the data packages will subject to a full (Level IV) validation. Data will be appropriately labeled according to the level of validation.

The data will be evaluated using QC criteria specified in the analytical methods, DoD Quality System Manual for Environmental Laboratories (DoD QSM) Version 4.2 (DoD 2009), and this AQAP. Validation will be performed using the following guidance:

EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review (EPA 2010)

EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review (EPA 2008).

The data validation will examine and verify the following parameters against criteria set forth in this AQAP:


Sample management and holding times

Instrument tuning, calibration, and calibration verification

Laboratory and field blank results

Detection and reporting limits

Laboratory replicate results

MS/MSD results

LCS and/or standard reference material results

Filed QC sample results

Surrogate spike recovery (organic analyses only)

Internal standard recovery (internal calibration methods only)

Inter-element interference check (ICP analyses only)

Serial dilution (metals only).

Final data qualifiers will be assigned based on applicable laboratory qualifiers and outcome of the data validation. Final data qualifiers are limited to and defined as follows.

U The analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the reporting limit.

J The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is an estimate of the concentration of the analyte in the sample.

UJ The analyte was not detected above the sample reporting limit. However, the reporting limit is approximate and may or may not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.

N The identification of the compound is assumptive because the ion spectrum or dual column confirmation was not conclusive.

NJ The identification of the compound is assumptive and the reported value is considered estimated.

R The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet quality control criteria. The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be verified.

In cases of multiple analyses (such as an un-diluted and a diluted analysis) performed on one sample, the optimal result will be determined and only the determined result is to be reported for the sample.

Results of the data validation will be documented and discussed in a Data Validation Report (DVR) that will provide a basis for meaningful interpretation of the data quality and evaluate the need for corrective actions and/or a more extensive data quality investigation. The DVR shall be appended to the project report.


After the fieldwork and the final analytical data have been completed and reviewed, a Data Quality Summary Report (DQSR) will be prepared by the Data QA Officer. The report will summarize QA and audit information, including the results of the data review; evaluate field QC sample data, such as field duplicates; indicate any corrective actions taken; and describe overall compliance with the PMP, FSP, and this AQAP.

Proposed topics to be included in the Data Quality/Usability Summary Report are:

Investigation scope

Investigation description

Sampling procedures

QC activities

Analytical procedures

Chemical data quality assessment (field duplicate results, detected analyte table, total results table(s), and rejected or qualified results table)

Conclusions and recommendations.


12.0 Performance and System Audits

Performance and systems audits may be conducted to determine whether:

The QA program has been conducted and documented in accordance with specified requirements

The documented program has been implemented

Any nonconformances were identified and corrective actions were implemented.

The Project Manager will be responsible for seeing that the investigation performance satisfies the QA objectives as set forth in this FSP. The Data QA Officer will be responsible for initiating audits, selecting the audit team, and overseeing audit implementation.

The Sediment Technical Lead will be responsible for supervising and ensuring that samples are collected and handled in accordance with the QAPP and that documentation of work is adequate and complete. Field performance will be evaluated using field duplicate samples.

Reports and technical correspondence will be peer reviewed by qualified individuals before being finalized.

12.1 Systems Audits

Technical systems audits are used to confirm the adequacy of the data collection (field operation) and data generation (laboratory operation) systems. The on-site audits are conducted to determine whether the investigation-specific plans and field and laboratory SOPs are being properly implemented. Systems audits of the field and laboratory procedures are not expected during this investigation. However, in the event that an on-site field audit is required, the audit procedures described in this section will be followed.

Internal systems audits of the laboratory will be performed when the Laboratory QAM identifies the need, which may be throughout this investigation. An additional laboratory systems audit may be requested by the QAM, if warranted. The frequency of on-site audits will depend on the type of interaction and communications the QAM experiences with the laboratory staff, and on the frequency of observations of noncompliance with investigation-specific QC criteria and SOPs.

The Laboratory QAM will regularly conduct the following internal audits:

Technical audit, including reviews of calibration and equipment monitoring records, laboratory logbooks, maintenance records, and instrument control charts

Data quality audit reviews, including all aspects of data collection, reporting, and review.

Management system audits, verifying that management and supervisory staff are effectively implementing and monitoring all QC activities necessary to support the laboratories’ QA program.


12.2 Audit Procedure

This subsection provides requirements and guidance for performing internal and external audits, as required to verify compliance with the elements of the FSP.

The Project Manager and, if appropriate, other audited entity (e.g., Sediment Technical Lead, Project Coordinator) will be notified by the QAM of an audit a reasonable time before the audit is performed. This notification will be in writing and include information such as the general scope and schedule of the audit, and the name of the audit team leader.

A pre-audit conference will be conducted at the audit site with the appropriate manager or designated representative (e.g., Sediment Technical Lead, laboratory Project Manager). The purpose of the conference will be to confirm the audit scope, present the audit plan, discuss the audit sequence, and plan for the post-audit conference.

The audit team will then implement the audit. Selected elements of the FSP will be audited to the depth necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation. Checklists prepared by the audit team and approved by the QAM will be sufficiently detailed to document major audit components. Conditions requiring immediate corrective action will be reported immediately to the QAM.

At the conclusion of the audit, a post-audit conference will be held with the audited entities, or their designated representatives. The audit team leader will concisely state the audit findings and clarify any misunderstandings. The findings will be acknowledged by signature of the Project Manager or designated representative upon completion of the post-audit conference.

An audit report will be prepared by the audit team leader and signed by the QAM. The report will include the following:

Description of the audit scope

Identification of the audit team

Persons contacted during pre-audit; audit; and post-audit activities

A summary of audit results; including an evaluation statement regarding the effectiveness of the FSP elements that were audited

Details of findings and program deficiencies

Recommendations for corrective actions to the QAM; with a copy to the Project Manager and others as appropriate.

12.3 Audit Response

The Project Manager and audited entities, or their designated representatives, will respond to an audit report within 7 days of receipt. The response will clearly state the corrective action for each finding, including action to prevent recurrence and the date the corrective action will be completed.


The QAM, upon receipt of the response, will take the actions described in Section 11.4 below.

12.4 Follow-Up Action

Follow-up action will be performed by the QAM or designated representative to:

Evaluate the adequacy of the Project Manager or other audited entity’s response

Determine that corrective action is appropriate and scheduled for each finding

Confirm that corrective action has been accomplished as scheduled.

Follow-up action may be accomplished through written communications, re-audit, or other appropriate means. When all corrective actions have been verified, the QAM will send a memo to the Project Manager or other audited entity signifying the satisfactory closeout of the audit.

12.5 Audit Records

Original records generated for all audits will be retained in the central investigation files. Records will include audit reports, written responses, the record of completion of corrective actions, and documents associated with the conduct of audits that support audit findings and corrective actions as appropriate.


13.0 References

ASTM. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. American Society for Testing and Materials Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

DOD. 2010. Quality Systems Manual for Environmental Laboratories. Final Version 4.2, Environmental Data Quality Workgroup, Department of Defense. October, 25, 2010.

Ecology. 2008. Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Appendix. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No 03-09-043. February 2008.

EPA. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW) US Environmental Protection Agency. 600/4-79-020, revised March 1983.


EPA. 1998. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846). 3rd ed. and Revised Update IIIA. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. April 1998.

EPA 2002. Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans. EPA QA/G-5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. Pub. no. EPA/240/r-02/009. December 2002.

EPA. 2006. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. 2006.Clarification of SW-846 Method 8081 and Supplemental Guidance for Data Review, Memorandum. Roy Araki. May 2006.

EPA. 2007. Explanation of Significant Differences, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, East Harbor Operable Unit. September 2007.

EPA. 2008. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technical Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 2008, USEPA-540-R-08-01.

EPA. 2010. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Data Review, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technical Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 2010, USEPA 540/R-10/011.

PSWQAT. 1997. Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Organic Compounds in Puget Sound Water, Sediment, and Tissue Samples. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. April 1997.

PSWQAT. 1986. Recommended Protocols for Measuring Conventional Sediment Variables in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. March 1986.


PSEP. 1997. Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Organic Compounds in Puget Sound Water, Sediment and Tissue Samples, Appendix B, Guidance for Selected Ion Monitoring. Puget Sound Estuary Program. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, WA.

SEA. 2002 Eagle Harbor, Field Sampling Plan, Monitoring Year 8, Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Program, East Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site. Prepared by Striplin Environmental Associates. Prepared for US EPA and USACE. October 25, 2002.

Table AQAP-1. Project Personnel, Roles, Contact Information and Specific Quality Assurance Responsibilities

Name Role Contact Information Responsibilities

Howard Orlean Eagle Harbor Superfund RPM




Seattle, WA 98101

phone: (206) 553‐2851



objectives, needs, problems, and requests. Coordinates data

validation for the project. Approves appropriate QA corrective

actions as needed.

Don Matheny EPA Quality Assurance Officer

US EPA Region 10, ms ETPA‐088

1200 Sixth Ave. (MD‐103)


phone (206) 553‐2599


Reviews the QAPP and laboratory QAP providing approval for

methods and analytical procedures. Provides QA/QC support to the

EPA Project Manager. Evaluates appropriate QA corrective actions.

Coordinates EPA internal data validation review

Karl Kunas Project Manager

Project Manager



Phone: (206) 764‐3448




corrective actions as needed.

Brenda Bachman USACE Project QA Officer




Phone: (206) 764‐3524


Reviews the QAPP and laboratory QAP providing approval for

methods and analytical procedures. Provides QA/QC support to the

USACE Project Manager. Evaluates appropriate QA corrective

actions.

HDR

Barbara Morson

Project Manager

Project Health and Safety Officer


Olympia, WA 98501

Phone: (360) 570‐4421


Implements necessary action and adjustments to accomplish

program objectives. Oversees project performance and provides

technical expertise to accomplish project objectives. Ensures the

project tasks are successfully completed within the projected time

period.

HDR

Bill AhlertProject QA Officer

1720 Spillman Drive, Suite 280

Bethlehem, PA 18015

Phone: (610) 807‐5102


Provides senior technical QA support to the project work plan and

reports.

HDR

Nancy WintersProject Coordinator


Olympia, WA 98501

Phone: (360) 570‐7256


Assists the Project Manager to implement necessary action and

adjustments to accomplish program objectives. Coordinates all

facets of the project ensure completion in accordance with Work

Plan.

HDR

Amita PatelElectronic Data Management

One Blue Hill Plaza, 412

PO Box 1509


Phone: (845) 735‐8300 ext 329


Performs field data input and management of electronic data

deliverables to meet project requirements for field database. Works

closely with the Sediment Technical Lead to ensure the completeness

and correctness of the field data deliverables.

SEE

Tim Thompson


Sediment Site Health and Safety

Officer

4401 Latona Ave NE

Seattle, WA 98105

Phone: (206) 418‐6173


Oversees field operations and sampling design. Provides onsite

technical support. Supervises implementation of standard operating

procedures, health and safety procedures, project modifications, and

corrective actions during field operations.

SEE

David BrowningSenior Sediment Scientist

5541 Keating Rd. NW

Olympia, WA 98502

Phone: (360) 866‐6806


Assists in the preparation of FSP and AQAP. Conducts the sediment

sampling in compliance with the FSP and QAPP at the direction of the

Field Manager. Prepares the draft and final monitoring report.

KTA

Mingta LinData QA Officer

3530 32nd Way NW

Olympia, WA 98502

Phone: (360) 867‐9543


Prepares AQAP. Oversees laboratory operations for adherence to

AQAPP. Reviews and approves laboratory QAP for use on this

project. Provides technical QA assistance to accomplish project

objectives, including suggestions for corrective action

implementation. Provides QA/QC support to the Project Manager

and is responsible for project performance, system audits, and data

validation.

Analytical Laboratory

ARI

Cheronne Oreiro

Laboratory Project Manager

Sediments and Water

4611 S 134th Pl # 100


Phone: (206) 695‐6214


Responsible for the chemical analysis of sediments and water,

including PAH fingerprinting if required. Ensures implementation of

the project and laboratory QA plans, reports to the Project Chemist,

and serves as the laboratory point of contact.

EPA Manchester Laboratory

Gerald Dodo





Phone: (360) 871‐8728


Responsible for chemical analyses of clam tissue samples. Ensures

implementation of the USACE QAPP for clam tissue analyses, and

reports through the EPA RPM to the USACE Technical Lead.




Subtidal Cap Number Gradients


• Fifteen (15) 2002 on‐cap stations. Three grab samples per grid composited

to a single sample for analysis.

20 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 20 20 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐


• Two (2) off‐site location as a potential reference for recontamination source

identification: C9 and M3

2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Primary 14 14 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Shallow 4 4 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Deep 0 0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐


• Three (3) surface samples (composite)6 ‐‐‐ 6 6 6 ‐‐‐ 6

Primary 6 6 6 ‐‐‐ 6

Shallow 6 6 6 ‐‐‐ 6

Deep 0 0 0 ‐‐‐




10 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

• Analysis of suite of standard and alkyl‐PAH. Collect and archive sufficient

surface and native sediments from all chemical isolation sediment samples to

analyze PAH34 for chemical fingerprinting. Analyses will occur only where

surface stations exceed the SQS.

‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ By change order ‐‐‐



• Five (5) areas exceeding the SMS or LAET in the 2006 West Beach DER.

Sample stations to be translated to EHOU OMMP grid system, and composite

sampling (3 per grid).

5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 5 5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐




3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 3 3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐



• Fifteen (15) 2002 sample locations at East Beach on the 50‘ grid. Sampling

locations may be modified based on visual confirmation of seeps

15 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 15 15 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐


• Five (5) 2002 sampling locations at East Beach, Sampling locations may be

modified based on visual confirmation of seeps

5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 5 5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐


• Eight 2002 stations‐‐‐ 8 ‐‐‐ 16 16 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐


• Three (3) 2002 grid cell stations, and two(2) additional new stations. Analyze

for conventionals and PAHs, and archive material for potential

recontamination source identification

5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 5 5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Note:

Conventionals ‐ Total organic carbons, total solids, and grain size

‐‐‐ 6

Table AQAP-2. Sample Types, Sample Matrix, Number of Surface and Core Samples, and Sample Analyses

Metals




‐‐‐ 14

Associated Field and Analytical ActionsSample Numbers

SVOCs by

8270D

Fingerprinting

(PAH34 by 8270D‐

SIM)

ConventionalsPAHs by

8270D‐SIMSurface

Sediment

Cores

Table AQAP-3. Remedial Goals for Intertidal and Subtidal Sediment and Laboratory LODs and LOQs

LOD LOQ

Total LPAH ‐‐ 370 780 5.2 ‐‐

Anthracene 0.0025 0.005 ‐‐ 24,000 1,200 0.96 ‐‐

Acenaphthylene 0.0025 0.005 ‐‐ ‐‐ 66 1.3 ‐‐

Acenaphthene 0.0025 0.005 ‐‐ 4,800 57 0.5 ‐‐

Fluorene 0.0025 0.005 ‐‐ 3,200 79 0.54 ‐‐

Phenanthrene 0.0025 0.005 ‐‐ ‐‐ 480 1.5 ‐‐

Methyl naphthalene;1‐ 0.0025 0.005 ‐‐ 24 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Methyl naphthalene;2‐ 0.0025 0.005 ‐‐ 320 64 0.67 ‐‐

Naphthalene 0.005 0.005 ‐‐ 1,600 170 2.1 ‐‐

Total HPAH ‐‐ ‐‐ 5,300 17 1.2

Indeno (1,2,3,‐c,d)pyrene 0.004 0.005 0.14 ‐‐ 88 0.69 ‐‐

Dibenzo (a,h)anthracene 0.004 0.005 0.14 ‐‐ 33 0.23 ‐‐

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.004 0.005 ‐‐ ‐‐ 78 ‐‐ ‐‐

Benzo[a]anthracene 0.0025 0.005 0.14 ‐‐ 270 1.6 ‐‐

Benzo[a]pyrene 0.0025 0.005 0.14 ‐‐ 210 1.6 ‐‐

Benzo[b]fluoranthene ‐ 0.005 0.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Benzo[k]fluoranthene ‐ 0.005 0.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Total Benzofluoranthenes 0.005 0.005 ‐‐ 450 3.6 ‐‐

Chrysene 0.0017 0.005 0.14 ‐‐ 460 2.8 ‐‐

Pyrene 0.0025 0.005 ‐‐ 2,400 1,400 3.3 ‐‐

Fluoranthene 0.004 0.005 ‐‐ 3,200 1,200 2.5 ‐‐

Total PAH 1.4B

‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Pentachlorophenol 0.0098 0.025 8.3 ‐‐ 690 0.69 ‐‐ A ‐ The values shown are from the 2007 ESD and are individually at 1E‐06 incremental lifetime cancersB ‐ Sum of Benzo(a)pyrene toxicity equivalents are not to exceed 1E‐05 incremental lifetime cancers.C ‐ Sediment Management Standards MCUL expressed as mg/kg organic carbon; and 2LAET second Lowest Apparent Effects Threshold expressed as mg/kg dry weight .

LOD ‐ Limit of Detection

LOQ ‐ Limit of Quantitation

mg/kg ‐ milligram per kilogram

ROD Intertidal

Sediment,

Human Health

(mg/kg)

Laboratory LOD/LOQ

(mg/kg)Analyte

Intertidal Sediment,

Method B, Carcinogen,

Direct Contact (ingestion

only), unrestricted land

useA (mg/kg)

Intertidal Sediment

Method B, Non‐

carcinogen, Direct

Contact (ingestion only),

unrestricted land use

(mg/kg)

Subtidal and

Intertidal

Sediment MCULC

(mg/kg OC)

Subtidal and

Intertidal Sediment

2LAET C

(mg/kg ‐dry) Used at

and below 0.5% OC.

LODs LOQs SQS CSL

Conventional Inorganic Parameters

Total Organic Carbon Plumb, 1981 ‐ 0.02 0.05 ‐ ‐

Grain Size PSEP ‐ 0.10% 0.10% ‐ ‐

Total Solids SW160.3 0.10% 0.10% ‐ ‐

Metals

Arsenic SW6010B 7440‐38‐2 0.46 5 57 93

Cadmium SW6010B 7440‐43‐9 0.11 0.2 5.1 6.7

Chromium SW6010B 7440‐47‐3 0.27 0.5 260 240

Copper SW6010B 7440‐50‐8 0.6 2 390 390

Lead SW6010B 7439‐92‐1 0.13 2 450 530

Mercury SW7471A 7439‐97‐6 0.0013 0.025 0.41 0.59

Silver SW6010B 7440‐22‐4 0.03 0.3 6.1 6.1

Zinc SW6010B 7440‐66‐6 0.12 1 410 960

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Total LPAH SW8270D ‐ ‐ ‐ 370 780

Anthracene SW8270D 120‐12‐7 4.5 20 220 1,200

Acenaphthylene SW8270D 208‐96‐8 5.71 20 66 66

Acenaphthene SW8270D 83‐32‐9 3.28 20 16 57

Fluorene SW8270D 86‐73‐7 4.35 20 23 79

Phenanthrene SW8270D 85‐01‐8 3.64 20 100 480

2‐Methylnaphthalene SW8270D 91‐57‐6 3.06 20 38 64

Naphthalene SW8270D 91‐20‐3 2.76 20 99 170

Total HPAH SW8270D ‐ ‐ ‐ 960 5,300

Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene SW8270D 193‐39‐5 4.68 20 34 88

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene SW8270D 53‐70‐3 4.31 20 12 33

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene SW8270D 191‐24‐2 4.4 20 31 78

Benzo(a)anthracene SW8270D 56‐55‐3 3.29 20 110 270

Benzo(a)pyrene SW8270D 50‐32‐8 5.45 20 99 210

Benzo(b)fluorantheneB SW8270D 205‐99‐2 3.47 20 ‐ ‐

Benzo(k)fluorantheneB SW8270D 207‐08‐9 4.18 20 ‐ ‐

Total Benzofluoranthene SW8270D ‐ ‐ 20 230 450

Chrysene SW8270D 218‐01‐9 3.75 20 110 460

Pyrene SW8270D 129‐00‐0 1.94 20 1,000 1,400

Fluoranthene SW8270D 206‐44‐0 2.91 20 160 1,200


1,2‐Dichlorobenzene SW8270D 95‐50‐1 2.5 20 2.3 2.3

1,4‐Dichlorobenzene SW8270D 106‐46‐7 2.86 20 3.1 9

1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene SW8270D 120‐82‐1 3.48 20 0.8 1.8

Hexachlorobenzene SW8270D 118‐74‐1 4.29 20 0.38 2.3

Hexachlorobutadiene SW8270D 87‐68‐3 4.57 100 3.9 6.2

(%)

(µg/kg)

(mg/kg) (mg/kg)

(mg/kg OC)

(µg/kg)

Table AQAP-4. Sediment Management Standards, LODs, and LOQs for Sediments

(mg/kg OC)

Sediment Management

Standards

Organic Compounds

Analytes CAS #

Laboratory LODs/LOQsAnalytical

Method

LODs LOQs SQS CSL

Table AQAP-4. Sediment Management Standards, LODs, and LOQs for Sediments

Sediment Management

Standards

Analytes CAS #

Laboratory LODs/LOQsAnalytical

Method

Phthalate Esters

Dimethylphthalate SW8270D 131‐11‐3 2.9 20 53 53

Diethylphthalate SW8270D 84‐66‐2 36.6 50 61 110

Di‐n‐butylphthalate SW8270D 84‐74‐2 8.16 20 220 1,700

Butylbenzylphthalate SW8270D 85‐68‐7 6.14 20 4.9 64

Di‐n‐octylphthalate SW8270D 117‐84‐0 5.84 20 58 4,500

bis(2‐Ethylhexyl)phthalate SW8270D 117‐81‐7 14.6 25 47 78


Phenol SW8270D 108‐95‐2 8.64 20 420 1,200

2‐Methylphenol (o‐Cresol) SW8270D 95‐48‐7 5.25 20 63 63

4‐Methylphenol (p‐Cresol)A SW8270D 106‐44‐5 6.63 40 670 670

2,4‐Dimethylphenol SW8270D 105‐67‐9 3.46 40 29 29

Pentachlorophenol SW8270D 87‐86‐5 48.5 200 360 690


Benzoic Acid SW8270D 65‐85‐0 101 400 650 650

Benzyl Alcohol SW8270D 100‐51‐6 6.09 20 57 57

Dibenzofuran SW8270D 132‐64‐9 4.1 20 15 58

PCBs Aroclors

Aroclor 1016 SW8082 12674‐11‐2 0.759 10 ‐ ‐

Aroclor 1221 SW8082 11104‐28‐2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Aroclor 1232 SW8082 11141‐16‐5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Aroclor 1242 SW8082 53469‐21‐9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Aroclor 1248 SW8082 12672‐29‐6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Aroclor 1254 SW8082 11097‐69‐1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Aroclor 1260 SW8082 11096‐82‐5 1.006 10 ‐ ‐

Aroclor 1262 SW8082 37324‐23‐5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Aroclor 1268 SW8082 11100‐14‐4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total PCBs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 12 65

Organonitrogen Compounds

N‐Nitrosodiphenylamine SW8270D 86‐30‐6 5.39 20 11 11

Notes:A 3‐Methylphenol and 4‐methylphenol co‐eluteB Benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene co‐elute

mg/kg = milligram per kilogram

µg/kg = microgram per kilogram

mg/kg OC = milligram per kilogram organic carbon

SQS ‐ Sediment Quality Standard

CSL ‐ Cleanup Screening Level

CAS ‐ Chemical Abstract System

(µg/kg) (mg/kg OC)

(µg/kg) (mg/kg OC)

(µg/kg) (mg/kg OC)

(µg/kg) (µg/kg)

(µg/kg) (µg/kg)

Analyte Preparation Method Procedure Analytical Method Technique

Total Organic Carbon Plumb 1981 Acid pretreatment Plumb et al., 1981Combustion; coulometric

titration

Grain Size PSEP 1986 Oven dry PSEP 1986 Sieves and pipette

Total Solids SW160.3 Oven dry SW160.3 Gravimetric

PAHs and PCPSW3550C

SW3640A

Ultrosonic extraction

Gel permeation chromatographySW8270D GC/MS‐SIM

Metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium,

copper, nickel, silver, & zinc)SW3050B Acid digestion SW6010B ICP/AES

Mercury SW7471A Potassium permanganate oxidation SW7471A CVAAS

SVOCsSW3546

SW3640

Microwave extraction

Gel permeation chromatographySW8270D GC/MS

PCB Aroclors

SW3546

SW 3665A

SW3620B

EPA 3660B

Microwave extraction

Sulfuric acid cleanup

Florisil cleanup

Sulfur cleanup

SW8082A GC/ECD

PAHs and PCP SW3520C continuous liquid‐liquid extraction SW8270D GC/MS‐SIM

Metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium,

copper, nickel, silver, & zinc)SW3005A Acid digestion SW6010B ICP/AES

Mercury SW7470A Potassium permanganate oxidation SW7470A CVAAS

SVOCs SW3520C continuous liquid‐liquid extraction SW8270D GC/MS

PCB Aroclors SW3520C continuous liquid‐liquid extraction SW8082 GC/ECD

Notes:

All methods cited herein are based on EPA Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW‐846, Third Edition, unless otherwise noted.

CVAAS: cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry

GC/ECD: gas chromatography/electron capture detector

GC/MS: gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

ICP/AES: inductively coupled plasma/atomic emission spectrometry

ICP/MS: inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry

PAHs: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PCB: polychlorinated biphenyl

PCP: pentachlorophenol

PSEP: Puget Sound Estuary Program

SIM: selective ion monitoring

SVOCs: semi‐volatile organic compounds

Sediment Samples

Water Samples

Table AQAP-5. Sample Preparation and Analysis Methods for Sediment and Water Samples

Analyte CAS#

Surrogate

Spike %R LCS & MS %R (%) RPD (%)

1‐Methylnaphthalene 90‐12‐0 30 – 160 7 ≤ 40

2‐Methylnaphthalene 91‐57‐6 37 – 100 ≤ 40

Acenaphthene 83‐32‐9 39 – 100 ≤ 40

Acenaphthylene 208‐96‐8 35 – 100 ≤ 40

Anthracene 120‐12‐7 41 – 106 ≤ 40

Benzo(a)anthracene 56‐55‐3 47 – 114 ≤ 40

Benzo(a)pyrene 50‐32‐8 44 – 111 ≤ 40

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205‐99‐2 30 – 160 7 ≤ 40

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207‐08‐9 30 – 160 7 ≤ 40

Benzofluoranthene(s) (Total) ‐ 30 – 160 7 ≤ 40

Chrysene 218‐01‐9 51 – 106 ≤ 40

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53‐70‐3 42 – 116 ≤ 40

Dibenzofuran 132‐64‐9 39 – 100 ≤ 40

Fluoranthene 206‐44‐0 52 – 109 ≤ 40

Fluorene 86‐73‐7 42 – 100 ≤ 40

Indeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 193‐39‐5 41 – 114 ≤ 40

Naphthalene 91‐20‐3 37 – 100 ≤ 40

Pentachlorophenol 87‐86‐5 37 – 115 ≤ 40

Phenanthrene 85‐01‐8 47 – 100 ≤ 40

Pyrene 129‐00‐0 47 – 111 ≤ 402‐Methylnaphthalene‐d 10 7297‐45‐2 34 – 100 ≤ 40

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene‐d 14 13250‐98‐1 10 – 117 ≤ 40

Notes:

(1) Detection Limit (DL) as defined in ARI SOP 1018S

(2) Limit of Detection (LOD) as defined in ARI SOP 1018S

(3) Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) as defined in ARI SOP 1018S

(5) Control limits calculated using all data from 1/1/08 through 12/31/08.

(6) Relative Percent Difference between analytes in replicate analyzes.

(7) Default limits pending generation of historic limits.

LCS ‐ Laboratory control sample

MS ‐ Matrix spike

%R ‐ Percent recovery

RPD ‐ Relative percent difference

(4) Highlighted control limits (bold font) are adjusted from the calculated values to reflect that ARI does

not use control limits < 10 for the lower limit or < 100 for the upper limit.

Table AQAP‐6. Accuracy and Precision Control Limits for PAHs in Sediment

Analyte Analytical Method

Surrogate Spike

Accuracy 1

(% Rec.) 2

LCS Accuracy

(% Rec.)

Matrix Spike

(% Rec.)

Precision

(RPD)

Conventional Inorganic Parameters

Solids, Total SW160.3 NA NA ≤20

Total Organic Carbon PSEP 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Grain Size PSEP NA NA ≤20

Metals

Arsenic SW6010B 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Cadmium SW6010B 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Chromium SW6010B 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Copper SW6010B 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Lead SW6010B 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Mercury SW7471A 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Nickel SW6010B 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Silver SW6010B 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Zinc SW6010B 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Organic Compounds

PAHs

2‐Methylnaphthalene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Acenaphthene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Acenaphthylene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Anthracene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzo(a)anthracene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzo(a)pyrene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzo(b)fluoranthene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzo(k)fluoranthene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Chrysene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Dibenzofuran SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Fluoranthene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Fluorene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Naphthalene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Phenanthrene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Pyrene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

2‐Fluorophenol SW8270D 30‐160

Phenol‐d 5 SW8270D 30‐160

2‐Chlorophenol‐d 4 SW8270D 30‐160

1,2‐Dichlorobenzene‐d 4 SW8270D 30‐160

Nitrobenzene‐d 5 SW8270D 30‐160

2‐Fluorobiphenyl SW8270D 30‐160

2,4,6‐Tribromophenol SW8270D 30‐160

p‐Terphenyl‐d 14 SW8270D 30‐160


1,2‐Dichlorobenzene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

1,4‐Dichlorobenzene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Hexachlorobenzene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Hexachlorobutadiene SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Table AQAP‐7. Accuracy and Precision Control Criteria for SMS Chemicals in Sediments

Analyte Analytical Method

Surrogate Spike

Accuracy 1

(% Rec.) 2

LCS Accuracy

(% Rec.)

Matrix Spike

(% Rec.)

Precision

(RPD)

Table AQAP‐7. Accuracy and Precision Control Criteria for SMS Chemicals in Sediments

Phthalate Esters

Dimethylphthalate SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Diethylphthalate SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Di‐n‐butylphthalate SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Butylbenzylphthalate SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Di‐n‐octylphthalate SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

bis(2‐Ethylhexyl)phthalate SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Phenol SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

2‐Methylphenol (o‐Cresol) SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

4‐Methylphenol (p‐Cresol) SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

2,4‐Dimethylphenol SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Pentachlorophenol SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzoic Acid SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzyl Alcohol SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Dibenzofuran SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

PCB Aroclors

Aroclor 1016 SW8082 53‐100 53‐100 ≤40

Aroclor 1260 SW8082 58‐112 58‐112 ≤40

Decachlorobiphenyl SW8082 35‐119

Tetrachloro‐m‐xylene SW8082 33‐143


N‐Nitrosodimethylamine SW8270D 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Notes:

The values are subject to change as the laboratory is updating the control limits per EPA requirements.

(2) % Rec. = Percent recovery



(1) Listed surrogate spike, precision, and accuracy control limits based on in‐house performance statistics of Analytical

Resources Inc.

Analyte CAS#

LOD(1)

(µg/L)

LOQ(2)

(µg/L)

Surrogate

Spike %R

LCS & MS %R(4)

(%) RPD(5) (%)

1‐Methylnaphthalene 90‐12‐0 0.05 0.1 30 – 160 6 ≤ 40

2‐Methylnaphthalene 91‐57‐6 0.05 0.1 36 – 103 ≤ 40

Acenaphthene 83‐32‐9 0.05 0.1 38 – 102 ≤ 40

Acenaphthylene 208‐96‐8 0.05 0.1 38 – 104 ≤ 40

Anthracene 120‐12‐7 0.05 0.1 35 – 130 ≤ 40

Benzo(a)anthracene 56‐55‐3 0.05 0.1 38 – 141 ≤ 40

Benzo(a)pyrene 50‐32‐8 0.075 0.1 27 – 123 ≤ 40

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205‐99‐2 0.05 0.1 30 – 160 6 ≤ 40

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207‐08‐9 0.05 0.1 30 – 160 6 ≤ 40

Benzofluoranthene(s) (Total) ‐

Chrysene 218‐01‐9 0.05 0.1 55 – 114 ≤ 40

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53‐70‐3 0.05 0.1 34 – 113 ≤ 40

Dibenzofuran 132‐64‐9 0.05 0.1 46 – 100 ≤ 40

Fluoranthene 206‐44‐0 0.05 0.1 39 – 144 ≤ 40

Fluorene 86‐73‐7 0.05 0.1 42 – 114 ≤ 40

Indeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 193‐39‐5 0.05 0.1 34 – 109 ≤ 40

Naphthalene 91‐20‐3 0.05 0.1 33 – 103 ≤ 40

Pentachlorophenol 87‐86‐5 0.15 0.5

Phenanthrene 85‐01‐8 0.075 0.1 30 – 160 6 ≤ 40

Pyrene 129‐00‐0 0.05 0.1 46 – 126 ≤ 402‐Methylnaphthalene‐d 10 7297‐45‐2 33 – 104 ≤ 40

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene‐d 14 13250‐98‐1 22 – 133 ≤ 40

Notes:

(1) Limit of Detection (LOD) as defined in ARI SOP 1018S(2) Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) as defined in ARI SOP 1018S

(4) Control limits calculated using all data from 1/1/08 through 12/31/08.

(5) Relative Percent Difference between analytes in replicate analyzes.

(6) Default limits pending generation of historic limits.

LCS ‐ Laboratory control sample

MS ‐ Matrix spike

%R ‐ Percent recovery

RPD ‐ Relative percent difference

µg/L ‐ Microgram per liter

Table AQAP‐8. LODs, LOQs, and Accuracy and Precision Control Limits for PAHs in Water

(3) Highlighted control limits (bold font) are adjusted from the calculated values to reflect that ARI does not use control limits < 10

Table AQAP‐9. LODs, LOQs, and Accuracy and Precision Control Criteria for SMS Chemicals in Water

Analyte

Analytical

Method LOD LOQ

Surrogate Spike

Accuracy 1(%

Rec.)

LCS Accuracy

(% Rec.)

Matrix

Spike

(% Rec.)

Precision

(RPD)

Metals

Arsenic SW6010B 3.33 50 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Cadmium SW6010B 0.18 2 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Chromium SW6010B 1.24 5 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Copper SW6010B 0.92 2 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Lead SW6010B 1.55 20 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Mercury SW7470A 0.0026 0.02 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Nickel SW6010B 3.86 10 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Silver SW6010B 0.43 3 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Zinc SW6010B 1.45 10 80‐120 75‐125 ≤20

Organic Compounds

PAHs

1‐Methylnaphthalene SW8270D 0.199 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

2‐Methylnaphthalene SW8270D 0.241 3

Acenaphthene SW8270D 0.347 3 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Acenaphthylene SW8270D 0.274 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Anthracene SW8270D 0.303 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzo(a)anthracene SW8270D 0.373 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzo(a)pyrene SW8270D 0.425 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzo(b)fluorantheneB SW8270D 0.298 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene SW8270D 0.464 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzo(k)fluorantheneB SW8270D 0.487 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Chrysene SW8270D 0.397 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene SW8270D 0.437 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Dibenzofuran SW8270D 0.198 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Fluoranthene SW8270D 0.29 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Fluorene SW8270D 0.266 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene SW8270D 0.435 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Naphthalene SW8270D 0.326 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Phenanthrene SW8270D 0.283 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Pyrene SW8270D 0.379 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

2‐Fluorophenol SW8270D 30‐160

Phenol‐d 5 SW8270D 30‐160

2‐Chlorophenol‐d 4 SW8270D 30‐160

1,2‐Dichlorobenzene‐d 4 SW8270D 30‐160

Nitrobenzene‐d 5 SW8270D 30‐160

2‐Fluorobiphenyl SW8270D 30‐160

2,4,6‐Tribromophenol SW8270D 30‐160

p‐Terphenyl‐d 14 SW8270D 30‐160


1,2‐Dichlorobenzene SW8270D 0.436 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

1,4‐Dichlorobenzene SW8270D 0.470 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene SW8270D 0.495 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Hexachlorobenzene SW8270D 0.335 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Hexachlorobutadiene SW8270D 0.604 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

µg/L

µg/L

Table AQAP‐9. LODs, LOQs, and Accuracy and Precision Control Criteria for SMS Chemicals in Water

Analyte

Analytical

Method LOD LOQ

Surrogate Spike

Accuracy 1(%

Rec.)

LCS Accuracy

(% Rec.)

Matrix

Spike

(% Rec.)

Precision

(RPD)

Phthalate Esters

Dimethylphthalate SW8270D 0.264 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Diethylphthalate SW8270D 0.407 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Di‐n‐butylphthalate SW8270D 0.304 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Butylbenzylphthalate SW8270D 0.402 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Di‐n‐octylphthalate SW8270D 0.331 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

bis(2‐Ethylhexyl)phthalate SW8270D 1.05 2 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Phenol SW8270D 0.445 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

2‐Methylphenol (o‐Cresol) SW8270D 0.329 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

4‐Methylphenol (p‐Cresol)A SW8270D 0.536 2 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

2,4‐Dimethylphenol SW8270D 0.627 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Pentachlorophenol SW8270D 2.746 3 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzoic Acid SW8270D 8.647 10 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Benzyl Alcohol SW8270D 0.409 2 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

Dibenzofuran SW8270D 0.198 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40


N‐Nitrosodimethylamine SW8270D 0.392 1 30‐160 30‐160 ≤40

PCB Aroclors

Aroclor 1016 SW8082A 0.0175 0.1 53‐100 53‐100 ≤40

Aroclor 1260 SW8082A 0.0174 0.1 58‐112 58‐112 ≤40

Decachlorobiphenyl SW8082A 25 ‐ 100

Tetrachloro‐m‐xylene SW8082A 10 ‐ 128

Notes:

(1) Listed surrogate spike, precision, and accuracy control limits based on in‐house performance statistics of Analytical Resources I

The values are subject to change as the laboratory is updating the control limits per EPA requirements.A 3‐Methylphenol and 4‐methylphenol co‐eluteB Benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene co‐elute

Highlighted control limits (bold font) are adjusted from the calculated values to reflect that ARI does not use control



Table AQAP‐10. Sample Type, Container, Holding Times, Preservatives, and Storage Requirements

ParameterMinimum

Sample Size1 Container Description

Preservation

RequirementsHolding Time

Grain size 100 g 16‐oz glass 4°C 2°C 6 months

TOC 25 g4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

14 days

6 months

Total Solids 50 g4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

14 days

6 months

Metals 50 g4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

6 months

1 years

Mercury 2 1 g4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

28 days

1 years

PAHs and PCP 200 g 8‐oz glass4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

14 days

1 year

PAH Fingerprinting (archive) 200 g 8‐oz glass4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

14 days

1 year

SVOCs and PCB Aroclors 200 g 16‐oz glass4°C 2°C‐20°C ±2°C

14 days

1 year

Archive 1000 g16‐oz glass

16‐oz glass

4°C ±2°C

‐20°C ±2°C

14 days

6 months

Metals 100 mL 6 months

Mercury 10 mL 28 days

PAHs and PCP 500 mL 2 x 500 mL Amber glass 4°C 2°C 14 days

Semivolatile Organic Compounds 500 mL 2 x 500 mL Amber glass 4°C 2°C 14 days

PCB Aroclors 500 mL 2 x 500‐mL Amber glass 4°C 2°C 14 days

Notes:

HDPE = high density polyethylene

PAHs ‐ Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PCP ‐ Pentachlorophenol

PCB ‐ Polychlorinated biphenyl

SVOCs ‐ Semivolatile organic compounds

VOA ‐ Volatile organic analytes

1. Recommended minimum field sample sizes for one laboratory analysis. Actual volumes to be collected have been increased to

provide a margin of error and allow for retests.

2. During transport to the lab, samples will be stored on ice. The mercury sample will either be analyzed

Sediment Samples

500 mL HDPE

Water Samples

4°C 2°C; pH <2 w/ HNO3

4‐oz glass

4‐oz glass

Number Gradients

Field Replicates (5%) 3 3 3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

MS/MSD (5%) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Water ‐ Equipment Rinsate (5%) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Field Replicates (5%) 2 2 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Water ‐ Equipment Rinsate (5%) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Field Replicates (5%) 1 1 1 1 1

MS/MSD (5%) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1 1 ‐‐‐

Water ‐ Equipment Rinsate (5%) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1 1 ‐‐‐

6 6 12

MetalsSurface Sediment

Cores

Chemistry and Grain Size = 55

Grain size only = 10‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Surface Sediment Samples

Subtidal Cap

J9/J10 SMS Samples

‐‐‐ 22 ‐‐‐

Table AQAP‐11. Field Quality Control Sample Requirements

Field Groups and

Associated QA/QC

Sample NumbersConventionals

(TOC, Total Solids)Grain Size

PAHs by 8270‐

SIMSVOCs by 8270

Table AQAP‐12. Laboratory QA Sample Requirements

Method Blanks Triplicates1 Replicates2 SRM3 Matrix Spike1 Surrogates4

5 6

1 1

5 6

5 6

1

Notes:1 Frequency of Analysis (FOA) = 5% or one per batch, whichever is more frequent2 Matrix spike duplicate analysis to be performed in lieu of replicate3 Standard Reference Material4 Surrogate spikes required for every sample, including matrix spiked samples, blanks, and reference materials5 FOA = one per extraction batch6 FOA = <20 samples: one per batch; 20+ samples: 1 triplicate and additional duplicates for a minimum of 5% total replication7 PCP = Pentachlorophenol

Total Organic Carbon

Total Solids

Grain Size

Analysis Type

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons & PCP

Metals

Semivolatile Organic Compounds

PCB Aroclors

Table AQAP‐13. Parameters Used to Evaluate Data Quality

Data Quality

Indicators QC Parameters

RPD values of:

(1) LCS/LCS Duplicate

(2) MS/MSD

(3) Field Duplicates

Percent Recovery (%R) or Percent Difference (%D) values of:

(1) Initial Calibration and Calibration Verification

(2) LCS

(3) MS

(4) Surrogate Spikes

Results of:

(1) Instrument and Calibration Blank

(2) Method (Preparation) Blank

(3) Trip Blank

(4) Equipment Rinsate Blank

Results of All Blanks

Sample Integrity (CoC and Sample Receipt Forms)

Holding Times

Total vs. Dissolved Metals Correlation

Sample‐specific LOQs

Sample Collection Methods

Laboratory Analytical Methods

Data qualifiers

Laboratory deliverables

Requested/Reported valid results

Sensitivity LODs and LOQs

Precision

Accuracy/Bias

Representativeness

Comparability

Completeness

Table AQAP‐14. Data Quality Review Responsibilities

Laboratory review of preliminary data quality and data reduction X

Independent review of preliminary data X X

Laboratory review of final data quality X

Data evaluation and validation X

Data validation report and data quality summary report X

Task Project Chemist Project ManagerLaboratory

Final

Investigation-Derived Waste Management Plan

East Harbor Operable Unit


September 21, 2011

Prepared for:





Prepared by:






Investigation-Derived Waste Management Plan i Final September 21, 2011

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Documents Comprising the Work Plan for the Year 17 Monitoring ....................... 2 1.3 Site Terminology ..................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Monitoring Elements Relevant to IDW Generation ................................................ 3

1.4.1 Chemical Isolation Monitoring .................................................................... 3 1.4.2 Natural Recovery Monitoring ...................................................................... 3

2.0 Organization and Responsibilities ....................................................................................... 4 3.0 Site Contaminant Characteristics ......................................................................................... 4

3.1 Historical Site Use ................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Pre-Removal Action Contaminant Characteristics .................................................. 5 3.3 Year 8 Contaminant Characteristics ........................................................................ 5

4.0 Expected Types, Quantities and Disposal of IDW .............................................................. 5 4.1 Sediment .................................................................................................................. 6

4.1.1 Surface Sediment Grab Samples ................................................................. 6 4.1.2 Subsurface Core Samples ............................................................................ 6 4.1.3 Intertidal Hand-Collected Surface Sediments ............................................. 7

4.2 Decontamination Fluids ........................................................................................... 7 4.2.1 Personal Protective Equipment .................................................................... 8 4.2.2 Disposable Equipment ................................................................................. 8

4.3 Post-Chemical Analyses Disposal of Samples at the Laboratory ............................ 8 5.0 Disposal of Residual Core Sediments .................................................................................. 8 6.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 9

List of Tables

IDWP-1. Summary of Chemicals of Concern Reported in the EHOU IDWP-2. Summary of Chemical Results from the 2002 Year 8 Monitoring Event IDWP-3. Expected Types and Disposal of Investigation-Derived Waste IDWP-4. Sediment sample Types, Collection and Processing Methods, and appropriate

disposal procedures

Investigation-Derived Waste Management Plan 1 Final September 21, 2011

1.0 Introduction

This Investigation-Derived Waste (IDW) Plan (IDWP)describes the procedures for management of waste materials generated during the Year 17 monitoring described in the revised 2011 Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) Addendum for the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, East Harbor Operable Unit (EHOU) located on Bainbridge Island, Washington.

1.1 Purpose and Scope

This IDWP provides specific guidance for handling investigation-derived wastes. This guidance will be followed by HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), and Science and Engineering for the Environment LLC (SEE), and their subcontractors during Year 17 Monitoring. HDR is the prime contractor conducting this work under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Seattle District, with direction from the USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10. The IDWP is specifically limited to field and laboratory activities during Year 17 monitoring studies of the EHOU site and responds to the Statement of Work (SOW) dated May 27, 2011 titled “Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan Implementation East Harbor Operable Unit Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site."

This IDWP follows guidelines set forth and regulations referenced in Management of Investigation-Derived Wastes during Site Inspections (EPA 1992).

According to EPA guidelines, the most important elements of managing IDW include:

Leaving a site in no worse condition than existed prior to the investigation

Removing wastes that pose an immediate threat to human health or the environment

Complying with federal and state applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) to the extent practicable

Carefully planning and coordinating IDW management

Minimizing the quantity of generated wastes.

The EPA guidelines also suggest an approach that:

Characterizes IDW through the use of existing information, previous test results, knowledge of the waste generation process, and best professional judgment

Containerizes and disposes hazardous materials, including solids, decontamination fluids, and personal protective equipment (PPE) at an appropriate disposal facility

Leaves on-site non-hazardous soil (sediment) cuttings and decontamination fluids preferably without containerization and testing.


1.2 Documents Comprising the Work Plan for the Year 17 Monitoring

The 2011 OMMP Addendum is the overall work plan for Year 17 monitoring. The OMMP addendum includes the objectives, monitoring plan design, measurement methods (types of data to be collected), schedule, deliverables, use of monitoring results in site management, project team, and project responsibilities through the year 2016. This IDWP is a component of the overall Work Plan for the 2011 Year 17 monitoring event. The companion documents include the following:

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The QAPP provides the details of field sampling and analytical procedures that will be followed so that the environmental data are of known and documented quality and suitable for their intended uses, and the environmental data collection and technology programs meet stated requirements. The QAPP has three components: the Project Management Plan (PMP), the Field Sampling Plan (FSP) and the Analytical Quality Assurance Project Plan (AQAP). The QAPP includes field and laboratory procedures, including instrumentation, the data quality objectives of sample collection, and numbers and types of stations to be sampled for each data type. The chemical analysis component includes detailed direction to the analytical laboratory on analytical methods, data quality objectives, sample custody, QA/QC procedures, data deliverables, data management, and reporting.

Investigation-Derived Waste Plan (IDWP). This document, details the handling procedures, containerization, and disposal of wastes generated during the monitoring program, including decontamination products, excess sample material, and protective equipment.

Health and Safety Plan (HSP). The HSP describes the procedures and equipment that will be used to protect the health and safety of project staff and the public during monitoring. The HSP identifies chemical and physical hazards, types of work zones, protective equipment and procedures, responsible individuals, and an emergency plan.


Throughout this document, specific terms will be used to reference the study areas within the EHOU. Figures showing these areas may be found in the FSP and are not shown here. Below are the definitions of specific terminology for each action and study area for the EHOU.

Subtidal Cap. The subtidal cap area includes materials placed in 1994, 2000, and 2001. The materials placed were either chemically-clean dredged sediments and/or quarry run sands. The cap functions to isolate the underlying contaminated sediments.

Exposure Barrier System. The EBS, completed in 2008, covers approximately 5.1 acres of intertidal and shallow subtidal sediments on West Beach.

Intertidal Cap. The intertidal cap is the extension of the 2001 Phase III subtidal cap shoreward, covering the intertidal surface sediments where polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) concentrations exceeded the Washington State Sediment Quality Standards.


North Shoal. The North Shoal consists of the intertidal area on the north shore of the former Wyckoff facility. It is bounded to the west by the intertidal cap and to the east by East Beach.

East Beach. East Beach consists of the intertidal area on the eastern side of the former Wyckoff facility. It is bounded to the north by the North Shoal and extends southward to the Wyckoff property boundary.

West Beach. West Beach (formerly known as the Mitigation Beach) lies at the western edge of the Wyckoff facility property boundary and encompasses both the EBS and the riparian habitat upland from the intertidal EBS.

1.4 Monitoring Elements Relevant to IDW Generation

Year 17 monitoring at the EHOU is described in the FSP and the 2011 OMMP Addendum. Monitoring includes physical stability monitoring, chemical monitoring, and natural resource monitoring. It is the chemical monitoring portion that will generate wastes that must be appropriately managed. A brief description of chemical monitoring elements and tools relevant to this IDWP are discussed below. The technical rationale for each monitoring element may be found in the 2011 OMMP Addendum. Specific methods for collection and analyses are discussed in the QAPP.

1.4.1 Chemical Isolation Monitoring

Sediment surface and subsurface samples will be collected and chemically tested for quantities of PAHs and pentachlorophenol. Measures used to ensure chemical isolation include the following:

Subtidal Cap Surface Sediment Collection. Surface sediments representing the top 10 centimeters (cm) of the sediment column will be collected from all areas of the subtidal cap.

Subtidal Cap Subsurface Sediment Collection. Subsurface sediments will be collected from the subtidal cap areas identified in the 2002 OMMP Addendum but will also include additional cores collected from the northern area of the Phase I cap and additional cores where PAHs were identified in discreet samples collected in the 2002 monitoring event.

Intertidal Surface Sediment Collection. Intertidal surface sediment collections will occur on the intertidal cap, as well as from new stations established on the EBS.

1.4.2 Natural Recovery Monitoring

Natural recovery is an identified remedial alternative for the North Shoal and East Beach. Seep surveys, and sediment surface and subsurface samples will be collected and chemically tested for levels of PAHs. The monitoring methods include the following:

Seep Visual Identification and Sediment Collection. Seep identification at East Beach includes visual inspections of the area to determine the presence or absence of intertidal seeps. Discrete seep samples will be collected where seeps are observed.


Intertidal Surface Sediment Collection. Intertidal surface sediment will be collected and chemically analyzed.

Intertidal Subsurface Sediment Collection. Intertidal subsurface sediments will be collected and analyzed.

2.0 Organization and Responsibilities

Overall program management for the 2011 Year 17 monitoring is presented in the PMP of the QAPP. Project personnel who will be responsible for ensuring the proper handling of IDW for this project and tasks relevant to the IDWP, are as follows:

Project Manager Barbara Morson, HDR. Familiar with state and federal regulations. Reviews and approves this IDWP. Ensures that all personnel involved with the generation of IDWP are properly trained in the correct management of wastes per the IDWP. Implements necessary actions and adjustments to accomplish program objectives. Oversees project performance and provides direction to accomplish project objectives. Ensures the project tasks are successfully completed within the projected time period. Maintains official copy of IDWP and all revisions.

Sediment Technical Lead, Tim Thompson, SEE. Prepares the IDWP and ensures that the field and laboratory personnel implement the procedures of the plan. Serves as Field Manager in conducting the sediment sampling in compliance with the FSP, QAPP, and IDWP. Notes and records all potentially hazardous wastes and volumes generated during sampling and is responsible for transferring potentially contaminated sediments back to EPA’s project office at Eagle Harbor for appropriate disposal.

Senior Sediment Scientist, David Browning, SEE. Assists in implementation of the FSP and QAPP. Lead geologist for collection, processing, and logging of sediment cores. Will ensure appropriate waste management procedures during the processing and subsampling of sediment cores at Analytical Resources, Inc. (ARI).

3.0 Site Contaminant Characteristics

Management of IDW requires an understanding of the chemicals of concern that may require special handling. The Year 17 monitoring program requires that cores be collected through the subtidal and intertidal caps; pre-removal action contaminants in the bedded sediment will be encountered in those cores. The sections below provide a brief overview of chemicals used at the site, pre-remedial action chemical concentrations in the sediments, and what was observed during the previous monitoring event in 2002.

3.1 Historical Site Use

A succession of companies treated wood and wood products from the early 1900s through 1988. Initially treatment was accomplished by wrapping wood and poles with burlap and asphalt; however, by 1910 pressure treatment with creosote and bunker oil began. The Wyckoff treatment plant was one of the largest in the United States. Wood preservative and treatment operations included:


The use and storage of creosote, pentachlorophenol, solvents, gasoline, antifreeze, fuel and waste oils, and lubricants

Generation and management of process wastes

Treatment and discharge of wastewaters

Storage of treated wood and wood products.

There is little historic information about the waste management practices at the Wyckoff facility. Prior to its reconstruction in the 1920s, the facility was reported to have floated logs in and out of the lagoon that once existed at the Wyckoff facility. The lagoon was subsequently filled. Treated logs were also transported to and from the facility at the former West Dock via a transfer table pit, and the chemical solution that drained from retorts after a treatment cycle went directly onto the ground and seeped into the soil and groundwater below. This process began in the 1940s and continued until operations ceased in 1988. Wastewater was also discharged into Eagle Harbor for an unknown number of years, and the practice of storing treated pilings and timber in the water continued until the late 1940s. Further introduction of process and treatment-related products and wastes occurred during the period of facility operation and included drips, releases from handling, and spills.

3.2 Pre-Removal Action Contaminant Characteristics

PAHs are the principal chemicals of concern identified in the Record of Decision (EPA 1994), and for which the performance of the remedial alternatives are measured against (2011 OMMP Addendum). Table IDWP-1 provides a summary of the concentrations of PAHs in the sediments prior to implementation of the removal action. Total PAHs were measured as high as 3,000 mg/kg in sediments, but PAHs were more typically between 10 and 100 mg/kg in the immediate offshore areas around the Wyckoff facility. Of note have been the presence of free product in the pre-cap sediment column and pockets or pools of product at the sediment-water interface located in the “hot spot” of the EHOU (CH2MHill 1989).

3.3 Year 8 Contaminant Characteristics

Table IDWP-2 provides a summary of the concentrations of PAHs observed in 2002 in the subtidal subsurface core samples, East Beach surface samples, and North Shoal surface sediment samples. These locations and samples represent the highest levels reported from the Year 8 monitoring, and are likely to be similar to the highest levels encountered in 2011. Total PAHs in 2002 were measured as high as approximately 3,100 mg/kg in East Beach sediments and averaged between approximately 7 and 451 mg/kg.

4.0 Expected Types, Quantities and Disposal of IDW

To handle IDW properly, field personnel must determine the types (i.e., sediment, decontamination fluids), the characteristics (state or federal hazardous substances), and quantities of anticipated wastes. In addition to direct observation of the IDW for evidence of contamination (e.g., creosote sheen), sample analytical results can be used to evaluate the containerized wastes, or a representative composite sample can be collected and analyzed.


The expected types, maximum expected quantity, and appropriate disposal methods for IDW are given in Table IDWP-3. Each type of IDW is discussed in more detail, below.

4.1 Sediment

Based upon the previous results of sediment samples collected during the Remedial Investigation, and subsequent monitoring events at the EHOU, only PAH compounds in the form of creosote contamination could potentially exceed state and federal hazardous waste criteria. PAHs are considered extremely hazardous wastes by Washington Administrative Code 173-303-100 if the total concentration in a matrix by weight is greater than 1.0% (or 10,000 mg/kg). There are no dangerous waste criteria for PAHs. Based upon the results from the 2002 Year 08 monitoring event (Table IDWP-1), no sediment is expected to be generated that would be considered extremely hazardous wastes.

Sediments will be collected using three different methods during the Year 17 monitoring:

Surface sediment grab samples using a 0.1 m2 grab sampler, subsampled in the field

Subsurface cores using a 4-inch vibracore unit, subsampled at the analytical laboratory

Intertidal sediments collected by hand and subsampled in the field.

The sampling method, expected type and maximum quantity generated, and appropriate disposal method by EHOU study area is shown in Table IDWP-3.

4.1.1 Surface Sediment Grab Samples

In general, all surface sediment grab samples collected from on the cap surface, off-site for background and/or grain size analyses, or from the EBS on West Beach, are expected to be clean sediments. Samples will be brought onboard the vessel and subsampled for compositing and filling of sample jars, and the residual sediments will be returned in the sampler to the cap surface approximately at the collection site. The estimated maximum volume of residual clean sediments that will be returned to the sea floor is approximately 210 L, or 55 gallons

If during sediment sampling operations, field personnel observed that the sediment samples contain obvious creosote contamination, that material will be placed onboard into plastic 5-gallon buckets with lids and taken to the EPA contaminated waste transfer pad at the site project office at Eagle Harbor (see Section 5). Field personnel will record into the field notebook the collection site, sediment conditions that required retention, and the approximate quantity of material.

4.1.2 Subsurface Core Samples

All through-cap cores, and those cores collected at East Beach, will be collected using a 4-inch vibracore unit from the vessel. The cores will be cut, capped, the caps taped, and then transported for processing at the laboratory, ARI. At ARI, the cores will be cut vertically, logged for sediment lithology, and then sub-sampled according to the procedures listed in the FSP.


All residual sediments will be placed into plastic lined 5-gallon buckets with secure lids, and transported back to the EPA contaminated waste transfer pad. In coordination with the site manager(s) at the transfer pad, field staff will place the IDW in the appropriate and/or container. EPA will be responsible for the appropriate final disposal of these sediments. Based upon the volumes generated during the Year 8 monitoring event, and the planned sampling for Year 17, an estimated maximum volume of IDW as sediment is approximately 625 L or 165 gallons.

4.1.3 Intertidal Hand-Collected Surface Sediments

Intertidal samples will be collected and composited by hand at East Beach and from the EBS at West Beach. In general, it is anticipated that the residual sediments will be non-hazardous, and can be returned to the approximate origin of collection.

If during sediment sampling operations, field personnel observed that the sediment samples contain obvious creosote contamination, that material will be placed onboard into plastic 5-gallon buckets with lids and taken to the EPA contaminated waste transfer pad. Field personnel will record into the field notebook the collection site, sediment conditions that required retention, and the approximate quantity of material.

4.2 Decontamination Fluids

Decontamination fluids are used to clean the sampling and compositing equipment between sampling stations. These include a non-phosphate detergent (e.g., Alconox®), 10% nitric acid, and isopropyl alcohol. In cases where obvious creosote contaminates the sampling gear, it may be necessary to use hexane to clean the equipment. All decontamination fluids will be handled in accordance with procedures established in the FSP and in the HSP.

Prior to sampling, the grab sampler and the 4-inch core barrels will be cleaned with a weak Alconox solution. Alconox, and the rinsate after washing, may be disposed of in the municipal wastewater collection system, or the rinsate may be washed overboard.

The decontamination procedure defined in the FSP includes an Alconox wash and rinses with 10% nitric acid, isopropyl alcohol, and deionized water. All decontamination fluids will be retained in 5-gallon plastic bucket; the nitric acid retained separately from the hexane, isopropyl alcohol, and the deionized water rinsate. Nitric acid may be disposed of by first adding sufficient sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) to neutralize the acid, at which point it may be safely disposed of in the municipal wastewater system. The alcohol/deionized water may also be disposed in the municipal collection system. Based upon the 2002 Year 8 monitoring, and the planned sampling in 2011, the maximum estimated volume of decontamination fluid is approximately 10 gallons

Hexane, which may be necessary as decontamination fluid if/where creosote stains sampling equipment, is considered a state and federal hazardous waste. All hexane used must be collected for appropriate disposal. The hexane may be added to the residual core sediments destined for disposal at the appropriate RCRA landfill. The field staff will record the approximate volume of hexane used in the field and/or laboratory log book. Based on Year 8 monitoring, the estimated maximum volume of hexane that may be used is 1 L or 0.264 gallons.


4.2.1 Personal Protective Equipment

Personal protective equipment (PPE) as IDW that will require disposal includes gloves, Tyvek (if used), and respirator cartridges. Unless grossly contaminated, PPE will be bagged as trash at the end of each work day. If grossly contaminated, the PPE will be added to the sediments to be containerized into 55-gallon drums at EPA’s transfer facility.

4.2.2 Disposable Equipment

Disposal equipment includes aluminum foil, core caps, plastic bags, and the used aluminum core barrels. Materials such as foil, caps, and plastic bags will be bagged as trash at the end of each work day. Up to 20, 35-gallon trash bags are anticipated. These will be disposed of as solid waste.

The used core tubes will be washed and taken to an appropriate recycling facility. Approximately 400 lbs of aluminum core tubes will be recycled.

4.3 Post-Chemical Analyses Disposal of Samples at the Laboratory

The laboratory will dispose of all sample remains and extracts, following accepted waste disposal procedures. ARI will dispose of remaining sample aliquots and extracts following procedures in the ARI Chemical Hygiene Plan. The ARI Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan notes that in consideration of disposal requirements for hazardous samples, each sample processed by the laboratory will be evaluated for contamination levels based on final analytical results. Those samples containing analytes of interest at or above regulated disposal levels will be identified and handled as hazardous waste. A designated staff member coordinates periodic pickup and disposal of hazardous waste by a permitted Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facility and maintains hazardous waste disposal records. Specific guidelines for handling hazardous samples and waste are detailed in the ARI Chemical Hygiene Plan.

5.0 Disposal of Residual Core Sediments All residual sediments collected during core processing or obviously contaminated materials collected during subtidal surface sampling, will be taken to the waste transfer and decontamination pad at EPA’s Eagle Harbor Superfund site. The address of that facility is:

EPA Wyckoff/ Eagle Harbor Superfund Site 5350 Creosote Place NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

Field staff will transfer the residual sediments into Department of Transportation-approved, 55-gallon steel drums. As the transfer will occur within the exclusion zone for the site, all personnel entering the site, the exclusion zone, or contamination reduction zones must meet the training requirements of Washington WISHA (WAC 296-800) and federal OSHA (29 CFR 1910.120), including 40 hours of formal Hazardous Waste Site Operations (HAZWOPER) training and be current on the 8 hours of annual refresher training.


Prior to leaving the exclusion zone, the vehicle and personnel will need to go through the site decontamination procedures.

EPA will be responsible for the manifesting and final disposal of these sediments.

6.0 References

CH2MHill 1989. Remedial Investigation Report for Eagle Harbor Site, Kitsap County, Washington. Final Report. Prepared by CH2MHill, Bellevue, WA.

EPA. 1992. Guide to Management of Investigation-Derived Wastes. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No. 9345.3-03FS. January 1992.


Table IDWP‐1. Summary of Chemicals of Concern Reported in the EHOU1

Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average

Naphthalene 2.0 560,000 32,855 34.0 2,180,000 66,977

Acenaphthylene 8.0 220,000 641 6.0 568,000 48,482

Acenaphthene 2.0 100,000 10,165 19.0 170,000 11,261

Fluorene 1.1 49,000 4,723 1.5 953,000 50,390

Phenanthrene 8.1 140,000 7,319 5.0 2,650,000 87,776

Anthracene 0.4 20,000 1,136 2.7 1,520,000 31,840

2‐Methylnaphthalene 9.0 220,000 62,017 18.0 130 57

Fluoranthene 18.0 54,000 4,224 15.0 1,320,000 59,537

Pyrene 38.0 24,000 3,211 15.0 823,000 50,786

Benzo(a)anthracene 1.9 5,000 488 6.0 220,000 10,876

Chrysene 0.8 5,000 404 4.4 514,000 23,271

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7.0 5,400 366 10.0 108,000 7,285

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.2 1,400 184 5.0 41,100 3,702

Benzo(a)pyrene 1.6 2,500 231 11.0 87,400 5,261

Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene 2.8 1,100 116 22.0 14,700 1,350

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.6 680 87 7.7 16,540 4,554

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 12.0 890 145.0 9.3 85,400 6,325

HPAH

Notes:

1. Data table from 1995 Investigation Derived Waste Plan for the EHOU.

2. Only detected values were used for this table

PAHs2 Intertidal Sediment Subtidal Sediment

µg/kg

Table IDWP‐2. Summary of Chemical Results from the 2002 Year 8 Monitoring Event

Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average

Naphthalene 16 3,030 405 20 1,740,000 110,193 16 1,800 636

Acenaphthylene 17 133 31 19 3,460 357 19 1,000 346

Acenaphthene 19 6,280 884 19 327,000 25,328 19 1,500 516

Fluorene 19 5,750 812 19 209,000 15,127 19 2,500 847

Phenanthrene 15 14,100 2,018 19 339,000 28,696 16 48,000 16,045

Anthracene 17 2,200 287 19 84,700 8,449 19 9,000 3,023

2‐Methylnaphthalene 19 2,060 304 19 630,000 38,912 19 420 153

LPAH 19 31,360 4,376 20 2,703,160 188,055 32 63,800 21,383

Fluoranthene 19 5,770 1,266 16 165,000 27,076 17 160,000 53,442

Pyrene 19 4,350 866 22 127,000 18,933 51 130,000 43,450

Benz(a)anthracene 19 1,240 222 16 30,600 4,988 19 29,000 9,716

Chrysene 19 1,500 235 20 33,600 5,004 19 30,000 10,110

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 19 1,040 134 20 14,800 2,473 23 13,000 4,394

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 19 578 94 20 8,740 1,618 28 13,000 4,386

Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene 19 1,618 218 20 23,230 4,079 107 26,000 8,799

Benzo(a)pyrene 19 527 85 16 9,760 1,684 15 9,600 3,234

Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene 19 664 117 19 3,570 822 19 1,200 414

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19 664 97 19 1,420 484 19 660 233

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 19 154 42 19 2,850 508 19 920 321

HPAH 19 15,949 2,959 38 396,690 66,986 153 387,380 193,767

Total PAHs 38 47,309 7,335 58 3,099,850 255,041 185 451,180 215,149

µg/kg

PAHs

Subtidal Cap Subsurface East Beach Surface North Shoal Surface

Table IDWP‐3. Expected Types and Disposal of Investigation‐Derived Waste

Waste Category Origin/Use Maximum Anticipated Quantities Appropriate Disposal

Cap Surface Sediments

Off‐cap Surface Sediments

West Beach Surface Sediments

On‐Cap Cores

East Beach Surface Sediment Samples

North Shore Surface Sediment Samples

Alconox No disposal restrictions

Nitric AcidNeutralize with sodium bicarbonate, municipal

sewage discharge

Isopropyl Alcohol Dilute with water, municipal sewage disposal

Rinse Water Municipal sewage disposal

Hexane 1 gallon

Collect all generated fluids in a lined plastic bucket.

Dispose with contaminated sediments in drums at

EPA's Eagle Harbor Field Office

Gloves

Respirator cartridges

Tyvek

Aluminum Foil

Core Caps

Plastic Bags

Aluminum Core Tubes 400 lbs Cleaned and recycled

See Table IDWP‐4

55 gallons

165 gallons

Placed in plastic garbage bag and disposed of as

trash

55 gallons

20, 35‐gallon plastic garbage bags

Personal Protective Equipment

Disposal Equipment

Nonhazardous Waste

Potentially Hazardous Waste

Decontamination Fluid

Subtidal Cap


• Fifteen (15) 2002 on‐cap stations.20 ‐‐‐

Surface sediment on‐cap samples collected

with a grab sampler, and processed onboard

the R/V Nancy Anne

Residual materials in the grab sampler will be returned to the cap

surface at the point of collection


• Two (2) off‐site location as a potential reference for

recontamination source identification: C9 and M3

2 ‐‐‐



the R/V Nancy Anne

Residual materials in the grab sampler will be returned to the sea

floor at the point of collection


• Three (3) surface samples (composite)6 ‐‐‐



the R/V Nancy Anne

Residual materials in the grab sampler will be returned to the cap

surface at the point of collection




10 ‐‐‐

Surface sediment samples collected with a

grab sampler, and processed onboard the R/V

Nancy Anne





• Five (5) surface sediment stations 5 ‐‐‐

Surface sediments collected either with 0.1 m2

grab sampler, or by hand in intertidal

Vessel‐collected materials returned to sea floor

Hand‐collected materials returned to origin site




3 ‐‐‐

Surface sediment samples collected with a

grab sampler, and processed onboard the R/V

Nancy Anne





• Fifteen (15) 2002 sample locations at East Beach on the 50‘ grid.

Sampling locations may be modified based on visual confirmation of

seeps

15 ‐‐‐

Surface sediments collected intertidally by

hand, composited and placed in jars in the

field.

Residual sediments placed back on East Beach


• Five (5) 2002 sampling locations at East Beach, Sampling locations


5 ‐‐‐

Surface sediments collected intertidally by

hand, composited and placed in jars in the

field.

Residual sediments placed back on East Beach


• Eight 2002 stations‐‐‐ 8


• Three (3) 2002 grid cell stations, and two(2) additional new

stations.

5 ‐‐‐

Notes:

6

1. For surface sediment samples, the listed disposal option is only were gross contamination is not observed. If obvious contaminated sediments are collected, these must be retained on board the vessel in lined plastic bucket and

Table IDWP‐4. Sediment Sample Types, Collection and Processing Methods, and Appropriate Disposal Procedures

Sample Numbers

Disposal 1,2

2. Laboratory sample disposal is the responsibility of Analytical Resources Inc.

EHOU Field Sampling Stations by Area

Residual core cuttings at ARI will be placed into 5 gallon lined plastic

buckets, and transported back to the EHOU for appropriate disposal

at EPA's EHOU Transfer Facility, and the disposed of at an approved

RCRA Subtitle‐C landfill

Cores will be collected onboard the R/V Nancy

Anne, and then transported to ARI for

processing.



processing.






processing.




RCRA Subtitle‐C landfill




‐‐‐ 14


Numbers

Collection and Processing

Through‐cap coring within grids J9 and J10.

• Three (3) through‐cap cores‐‐‐

Final

2011 Health and Safety Plan East Harbor Operable Unit


September 21, 2011

Prepared for:

US Environmental Protection Agency Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101



Prepared by:






Health and Safety Plan ii Final September 21, 2011

Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Requirements of this HSP ....................................................................................... 1 1.2 Documents Comprising the Work Plan for the Year 17 Monitoring ...................... 2

2.0 Site Characteristics (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.a) ........................................................ 3 3.0 Monitoring Activities .......................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Chemical Isolation Monitoring ............................................................................... 5 3.2 Natural Recovery Monitoring ................................................................................. 5 3.3 Biological Monitoring ............................................................................................. 6

4.0 Activity Hazard Analysis (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.b) .............................................. 7 4.1 Definitions............................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Chemical Hazards ................................................................................................... 8

4.2.1 Potential Chemical Hazards in Sediments .................................................. 8 4.2.2 Potential Hazards of Decontamination Chemicals ..................................... 9 4.2.3 Potential Hazards of Sample Preservation Chemicals .............................. 11

4.3 Physical Hazards ................................................................................................... 11 4.3.1 Research Vessel Operations ...................................................................... 11 4.3.2 Physical Exposure ..................................................................................... 12 4.3.3 Slips, Trips, and Falls................................................................................ 12

5.0 Site Control Zones (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.j) ....................................................... 14 5.1 Exclusion Zone ..................................................................................................... 14 5.2 Contamination Reduction Zone ............................................................................ 14 5.3 Support Zone ......................................................................................................... 14

6.0 Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 15 6.1 Responsible Individuals and Qualifications (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.c) .... 15

6.1.1 Onsite Personnel and Responsibilities ...................................................... 15 6.1.2 Qualifications of Onsite Personnel (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.d) ..... 16 6.1.3 Medical Surveillance Program (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.f) ............ 17

6.2 Respiratory Protection Program (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.e) ...................... 17 6.3 Protective Equipment (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.e) ...................................... 18

6.3.1 Personal Protective Equipment ................................................................. 18 6.3.2 Safety Equipment ...................................................................................... 19 6.3.3 Monitoring Equipment and Procedures (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.g)

................................................................................................................... 19 6.4 Site Safety Procedures (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.i) ..................................... 20

6.4.1 Safety Rules .............................................................................................. 20 6.4.2 Work Limitations ...................................................................................... 21 6.4.3 Decontamination Procedures (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.k, l) ........... 21 6.4.4 Visitors ...................................................................................................... 22

7.0 Emergency Procedures (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.m, n) .......................................... 23

Health and Safety Plan iii Final September 21, 2011

7.1 Reporting/Notification Procedures ....................................................................... 23 7.2 Hospital Routes ..................................................................................................... 25

7.2.1 Harrison Silverdale Hospital ....................................................................... 25 7.2.2 Harbor View Medical Center .................................................................... 27

7.3 Man Overboard ..................................................................................................... 29 7.4 Cold Stress ............................................................................................................ 29

8.0 Plan Acceptance ................................................................................................................ 30 9.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 31 List of Appendices A Health and Safety Forms

B Activity Hazard Analysis

C Safety Task Analysis (STAR) Form

D Health and Safety Certification for Field Personnel

E Accident/ Incident Forms

List of Tables

HSP-1. List of Potential Chemical Hazards and Hazard Information for Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor EHOU

HSP-2. Exposure Limits for Decontamination Chemicals

HSP-3. Exposure Limits for Sample Preservation Chemicals

HSP-4. Checklist of Recommended Safety Meeting Topics

HSP-5. Emergency Contacts/Telephone Numbers

List of Figures

HSP-1. Aerial Photograph of the East Harbor Operable Unit Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Facility HSP-2. Transportation Route to Harrison Silverdale Hospital HSP-3. Transportation Route from ARI to Harbor View Medical Center

Health and Safety Plan iv Final September 21, 2011

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations COC Chemical of Concern CPR Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation CRZ Contamination Reduction Zone EHOU East Harbor Operable Unit FSP Field Sampling Plan H2S Hydrogen sulfide HDR HDR Engineering, Inc. HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air HSP Health and Safety Plan IDLH Immediate Danger to Life and Health KTA Ken Taylor and Associates MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PAH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons PEL Permissible Exposure Limit PMP Project Management Plan PPE Personal Protective Equipment QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan ROD Record of Decision SEE Science and Engineering for the Environment, LLC STEL Short Term Exposure Limit SVOC Semi Volatile Organic Compound TLV Threshold Limit Value TWA Time Weighted Average USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Health and Safety Plan v Final September 21, 2011

HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN CHECKLIST

(For Verification Purposes Only)

Project: Year 17 Monitoring East Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Bainbridge Island

Date:

Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Verified by:

Site: Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, East Harbor Operable Unit

Please make sure that you verify compliance with the following items:

Necessary Signatures (Health and Safety Officer, Project Manager, HASP Preparer)

Training Requirements (Section 1.3)

Medical Monitoring Requirements (Section 1.4)

Fit-Testing (Section 1.5)

Appendix E Notice Posted (Section 1.7)

Hazard Communication Program Material Posted (Section 1.8)

Appropriate PPE Available (Section 3)

Work Zones Established (Section 5.1) Appropriate Signage in Place (Section 5.1) Appropriate Decontamination Equipment and Procedures in Place (Section 6.6)

Emergency Telephone Numbers Verified & Posted (Section 7)

Hospital Route Verified & Posted (Section 7)

Evacuation Routes Established (Section 7.6)

Amendments, if applicable, are properly documented (Page VI and Appendix A)

Site Safety Acknowledgment Form Completed (Appendix B)

Kick-Off Meeting Convened and Documented (Appendix D)

Material Safety Data Sheets Included (Appendix H)

Air Monitoring Data Recorded (Appendix I)

Equipment Calibration Log Completed (Appendix J)

Record of Hazardous Waste Field Activity Completed (Appendix K)

Signature Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer

Health and Safety Plan 1 Final September 21, 2011

1.0 Purpose

This Health and Safety Plan (HSP) describes the safety and health guidelines developed to protect on-site personnel, off-site receptors that will be followed by HDR Inc. (HDR) and Science and Engineering for the Environment LLC (SEE), and their subcontractors during Year 17 Monitoring. HDR is the prime contractor conducting this work under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Seattle District, with direction from the Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10. The HSP is specifically limited to field and laboratory activities during Year 17 monitoring studies of the East Harbor OU site and responds to the Statement of Work (SOW) dated May 27, 2011 titled “Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan Implementation East Harbor Operable Unit Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site".

This HSP has been prepared in accordance with state [Chapter 296-800 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC)] and federal safety regulations [Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 29 CFR 1910 and 29 CFR 1926] and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) safety and health requirements (EM 385-1-1 (2008) and ER 385-1-92 (2007)). The following subjects are addressed in the plan: existing site characteristics, description of field monitoring activities and laboratory activities, hazard evaluation, hazard monitoring and control procedures, worker training requirements, and emergency procedures.

The procedures and guidelines contained herein were based upon the best available information regarding the physical, chemical and biological hazards known, or suspected to be present on the project site at the time of the plan's preparation. This SSHP may not be appropriate if the work is not performed by or using the methods presently anticipated. Specific requirements may be revised if new information is received or site conditions change. Any revisions to this plan will be made with the knowledge and concurrence of both the Safety and Health Manager and the Project Health and Safety Officer (HSO).

1.1 Requirements of this HSP

A copy of this HSP shall be present at all field-related activities including sediment sampling, sediment core processing, and biological surveys. All individuals performing field work must read, understand, and comply with this plan. Visitors must also read and comply with the plan. The plan must be read before a participant undertakes field activities. If any part is unclear, the individual should seek clarification from one of the safety officers prior to commencing field work. Once the information has been read and understood, the individual must sign the Acknowledgment Form (Appendix A), which will then be placed in the project file. Failure to comply with the requirements of the HSP is grounds for immediate dismissal from the program.

This plan may be amended or modified at any time, based on the judgment of the Project Health and Safety Officer, the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer, or the Project Manager. If modified or amended, a Site Safety Plan Amendment (Appendix A) will be completed and signed. Any modification will be presented to the onsite team during a safety briefing and will be entered in the Safety Meeting Form (Appendix A). The Safety Meeting Form must be acknowledged by all sampling and processing personnel.


Visitors to the site must be accompanied by an HDR or SEE staff member and must not enter identified exclusion or contamination reduction zones without having completed the required training and medical surveillance. Visitors must complete the visitor log (Appendix A).

1.2 Documents Comprising the Work Plan for the Year 17 Monitoring

This HSP is a component of the overall Work Plan for the 2011 Year 17 monitoring event. Companion documents to this HSP, and cited herein, include the following:

Work Plan. The 2011 OMMP Addendum is the overall work plan for Year 17 monitoring. The OMMP addendum includes the objectives, monitoring plan design, measurement methods (types of data to be collected), schedule, deliverables, use of monitoring results in site management, project team, and project responsibilities through the year 2016.

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The QAPP provides the details of field sampling and analytical procedures that will be followed so that the environmental data are of known and documented quality and suitable for their intended uses, and the environmental data collection and technology programs meet stated requirements. The QAPP has three components: the Project Management Plan (PMP), the Field Sampling Plan (FSP) and the Analytical Quality Assurance Project Plan (AQAP). The QAPP includes field and laboratory procedures, including instrumentation, the data quality objectives of sample collection, and numbers and types of stations to be sampled for each data type. The chemical analysis component includes detailed direction to the analytical laboratory on analytical methods, data quality objectives, sample custody, QA/QC procedures, data deliverables, data management, and reporting.

Investigation Derived Waste Plan (IDWP). This document, details the handling procedures, containerization, and disposal of wastes generated during the monitoring program, including decontamination products, excess sample material, and protective equipment.

Health and Safety Plan (HSP). Describes the procedures and equipment that will be used to protect the health and safety of project staff and the public during monitoring. The HSP identifies chemical and physical hazards, types of work zones, protective equipment and procedures, responsible individuals, and an emergency plan.


2.0 Site Characteristics (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.a)

The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site is located on the eastern side of Bainbridge Island in central Puget Sound (Figure HSP-1). Eagle Harbor is an east-west trending embayment whose mouth to Puget Sound lies at the eastern reach. The bay is approximately 2 square kilometers in area, and approximately 3.7 kilometers long; it is widest (0.9 kilometers) just inside its entrance, becoming progressively narrower to the west.

The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site encompasses contaminated areas of Eagle Harbor and the 16 hectare (40 acre) upland, intertidal, and underwater regions of the former Wyckoff wood-treating facility, as well as other upland sources of contamination to the harbor, including the former shipyard on the north shore. The site is currently divided into three operable units (OUs): the East Harbor OU, the West Harbor OU, and the Soil and Groundwater OU. The 2011 monitoring activities will be conducted within the East Harbor OU (EHOU).

A succession of companies treated wood and wood products from the early 1900’s through 1988 in Eagle Harbor. Initially treatment was accomplished by wrapping wood and poles with burlap and asphalt, however, by 1910 pressure treatment with creosote and bunker oil began. The Wyckoff treatment plant was one of the largest in the United States. Wood preservative and treatment operations included the use and storage of creosote, pentachlorophenol, solvents, gasoline, antifreeze, fuel and waste oils, and other lubricants.

The primary chemicals of concern (COC) for the site are carcinogenic PAHs (e.g., benzo(a)pyrene) and non-carcinogenic PAHs (acenaphthene, anthracene, fluorene, naphthalene, and pyrene. Although relatively nontoxic, naphthalene is included as a COC because it is widely distributed throughout the site in relatively high concentrations and it serves as an indicator for the presence of non-carcinogenic PAHs.

Site hazards are further discussed in Section 4.

FigureHSP-1





WYCKOFF

BAINBRIDGE ISLAND

0 325 650 975 1,300162.5Feet

0 80 160 240 32040Meters

/


EAGLE HARBOR

PROJECT LOCATION


3.0 Monitoring Activities

Tasks undertaken at the EHOU under this HSP include chemical isolation monitoring, natural recovery monitoring, and biological monitoring. A brief description of each task is provided below.

3.1 Chemical Isolation Monitoring

Sediment surface and subsurface samples, chemically tested for quantities of PAHs, are used to confirm that the sediment cap remedy is isolating the chemicals of concern. All monitoring to ensure the caps are chemically isolating the contaminants by the caps is conducted by the HDR team. This monitoring includes:

Subtidal Cap Surface Sediment Collection. Surface sediments representing the top 10 centimeters (cm) of the sediment column will be collected from all areas of the subtidal cap from the R/V Nancy Anne. Locations include those utilized in previous monitoring events and new locations targeted from historical data evaluation and remedial actions taken since the 2002 monitoring event. This will include the stations identified in the 2002 OMMP Addendum, as well as additional historic sampling locations from previous monitoring events. Station locations for subtidal surface sediment grain size and surface chemistry are shown in the Field Sampling Plan (Figures FSP-4 and FSP-5, respectively).

Subtidal Cap Subsurface Sediment Collection. Subsurface sediments will be collected from the subtidal cap areas identified in the 2002 OMMP Addendum but will also include additional cores collected from the northern area of the Phase I cap and additional cores where PAHs were identified in discreet samples collected in the 2002 monitoring event. These samples will be collected from the vessel, the R/V Nancy Anne, transported and processed at Analytical Resources Inc. (ARI) in Tukwila, WA. Station locations for subtidal cap subsurface sediment sampling is shown in the FSP Figure FSP-6.

Intertidal Surface Sediment Collection. Intertidal surface sediment collections will occur on the Phase III cap, as well as from new stations established on the EBS. Phase III Intertidal Cap monitoring was established in the 2002 OMMP Addendum; the EBS intertidal monitoring is new to the 2011 OMMP Addendum. Intertidal surface sediment sampling locations are shown in the FSP on Figure FSP-7. These samples may be collected either from the vessel or from on foot in the intertidal.

3.2 Natural Recovery Monitoring

Natural recovery is the identified remedial alternative for the North Shoal and East Beach. Seep surveys, sediment surface and subsurface samples, chemically tested for levels of PAHs, and are used to determine whether natural recovery is occurring at the rate anticipated in the ROD. Locations of North Shoal and East Beach Intertidal surface sediment and seep sampling stations are shown in the FSP on Figure FSP-8.

Seep Visual Identification and Sediment Collection. Seep identification at East Beach include visual inspections of the area to determine the presence or absence of intertidal seeps. Discrete


seep samples will be collected where seeps are observed consistent with the approach utilized in the 2002 monitoring activities. Because of the need to sample next to confirmed hydrocarbon seeps in the intertidal, by necessity these samples will be collected on-foot during low tide sequences. As this sampling event will take place in October of 2011, those tides occur at night.

Intertidal Surface Sediment Collection. Intertidal surface sediments will be collected for chemical analyses may be collected from the Nancy Anne (e.g., Phase III Cap area), or on-foot in the intertidal area (e.g., West Beach).

Intertidal Subsurface Sediment Collection. Intertidal subsurface sediments will also be collected for chemical analyses; all subsurface sediment samples will be collected on-board the Nancy Anne, and processed at ARI.

3.3 Biological Monitoring

Biological monitoring is conducted to help address whether the remedies provide functioning habitat, and where shellfish occur, to determine if those shellfish are safe for human consumption. An addition to the 2011 OMMP Addendum is a forage fish habitat use survey. Biological monitoring measures include the following:

Habitat Use Survey. A qualitative habitat survey will document utilization of the intertidal areas as habitat for avian, terrestrial, and marine (invertebrates and macro algae) organisms. This includes visual surveys of birds, mammals, fish, invertebrates, and macroalgae throughout all intertidal areas of the EHOU as depicted in FSP Figure FSP-11. Biologists conducting the visual surveys (walking about the site and recording species observed) will have no potential for exposure to the chemical of concern at the site. A portion of the surveys will be conducted in the remediated areas where caps have been placed over the sediments (West Beach/EBS and the Intertidal Cap areas). In the natural recovery areas (North Shoal and East Beach), survey scientists will walk across, but will not conduct any intrusive activities into the sediments. It is also important to note that both the eastern and western ends of the site are flanked by public park and park users are not excluded from the site.

Clam Tissue Collection. The collection of clam tissue samples from East Beach and North Shoal has been performed by the USACE under a separate HSP.

Forage Fish Use Survey. A study will be initiated to evaluate the use of the West Beach/Exposure Barrier System and the Intertidal Cap (FSP Figure FSP-3). These areas have been remediated. The survey will evaluate use of these areas principally by the Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) but also by surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) and other forage fish by visual observation and sieving a thin layer of the remediated cap to collect fish eggs. Biologists conducting the forage fish survey will perform intrusive activities by sampling surface sediments (top 2-4 inches) in the intertidal zone.


4.0 Activity Hazard Analysis (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.b)

This section presents the Activity Hazard Analysis (AHA), and the steps that will be taken to minimize worker exposure to health and safety hazards. The overall hazard level associated with the activities described in Section 3 is low to moderate. Potential hazards while working at the site include, but are not limited to the following:

Exposure to toxic and/or hazardous chemicals Physical hazards of slips, trips and falls on the boat and intertidal areas Physical hazards from use of sampling equipment and operations on a vessel Physical hazards from working conditions (e.g., hypothermia).

Specific AHA for each of the tasks described in Section 3 are presented in Appendix B. As described below, protective equipment and safe working procedures will help prevent accidents caused by these hazards. Exposure to biological, explosive, or radiological hazards are not anticipated during this program.

4.1 Definitions

Chemical hazards are defined by the following terms:

Time Weighted Average (TWA): The recommended exposure limits for a hazardous chemical in the workplace, typically during an 8-hour workday over a 40-hour work- week. TWAs are recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under the authority of OSHA.

Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL): The legal maximum air concentration of a hazardous chemical to which workers may be exposed on an 8-hour basis as established by OSHA and WISHA. The PEL is a time weighted average value (PEL-TWA), and for all chemical discussed below, the corresponding PEL-TWA is the same for OSHA and WISHA.

Threshold Limit Value (TLV): The recommended maximum air concentration of a hazardous chemical to which workers may be exposed on an 8-hour basis. TLVs are time weighted average values (TLV-TWA) and are recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).

Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL): A 15-minute TWA exposure that should not be exceeded at any time during a workday.

Ceiling Limit: Employee’s exposure which should not be exceeded during any part of the work day.


4.2 Chemical Hazards

4.2.1 Potential Chemical Hazards in Sediments

The AHA for sediment sampling and processing may be found in Tables HSP B-1 and B-2. For field sampling, the principal routes of exposure are inhalation, dermal contact, and oral ingestion. Inhalation risk is considered low; field personnel will be working in the open where and volatile emissions will quickly dissipate. Dermal contact is appropriately addressed by the required use of PPE; the minimal requirement for this project is modified Level D (see Section 6). Oral ingestion is prevented by the use of control zones (see Section 5). Core processing in the laboratory also has the potential for dermal, inhalation, and oral ingestion of contaminated sediments. Core processing will occur either outdoors, or within a fume hood at ARI. A photoionization detector (PID) calibrated for volatile organic compounds will be used at the laboratory. Lab personnel will be required to upgrade to Level C, using respirators equipped for organic vapors, if the PID readings exceed the action levels in the breathing zone. Dermal and oral exposure are controlled in the same way described for sediment sampling. All residual sediments must be treated as investigation-derived waste (IDW), and managed according to the IDWP.

The principal COCs at the site are PAHs. PAHs identified by EPA as COCs in the 1994 Record of Decision include naphthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, 2-methylnaphthalene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and denzo(g,h,i)perylene. While relatively nontoxic, naphthalene is included as a COC because it is widely distributed throughout the site in relatively high concentrations and it serves as an indicator for the presence of other PAHs. Table HSP-1 provides a summary of health-based chemical exposure information for the primary COCs. The COCs can pose ingestion, dermal contact, and respiration hazards; some are also suspected or known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic.

PAHs: PAHs are relatively nonvolatile; respiratory and inhalation hazards would occur only under dusty (dry) and windy conditions that are not likely to be found while handling sediment samples. However, there is the potential to encounter PAH contaminants in the sediments, and potentially in the form of a non-phase aqueous liquid. The site history of the former Wyckoff site as a creosote pole-treating facility suggest a potential to encounter PAHs in those forms.

PAH contact with the skin and eyes can cause irritation and burning. EHOU sediments contain several PAHs, including naphthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, anthracene, fluorene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, and benzo(g,h,i) perylene.


Table HSP-1. List of Potential Chemical Hazards and Hazard Information for EHOU Site

Contaminant

Skin Absorbent

Hazard OSHA

PEL-TWAa ACGIH

TLV-TWAbNIOSH

REL-TWAc STELd IDLHe

Naphthalene Yes 10 ppm

(50 mg/m3) 10 ppm

(50 mg/m3) 10 ppm

(50 mg/m3) 15 ppm

(79 mg/m3) 250 Notes:

a OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit-Time Weighted Average (PEL-TWA). b American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Value-Time Weighted Average (TLV-TWA). c National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Exposure Limit-Time Weighted Average (REL-TWA). d Short-Term Exposure Limit, expressed as a 15-minute time-weighted average and not to be exceeded at any time during the day. e Immediately Dangerous to Life & Health.

4.2.2 Potential Hazards of Decontamination Chemicals

The AHA for sediment sampling and processing, including decontamination chemicals, may be found in Tables HSP B-1 and B-2. For field and laboratory sampling and processing, he principal routes of exposure are inhalation, dermal contact, and oral ingestion. Exposure reduction and control methods are the same as those described previously. All residual decontamination fluids must be treated as IDW and managed according to the IDWP.

Health-based chemical information for chemicals which will be used for decontamination is provided in Table HSP-2. Precautions will be taken for chemicals which will be used for sample collection and decontamination of sampling gear and implements as described in Section 6.3.1).

Table HSP-2. Exposure Limits for Decontamination Chemicals

Contaminant

Skin Absorbent

Hazard OSHA

PEL-TWA ACGIH

TLV-TWANIOSH

REL-TWA STEL IDLHIsopropyl Alcohol Yes

400 ppm (980 mg/m3)

400 ppm (983 mg/m3)

400 ppm (980 mg/m3)

500 ppm (1230 mg/m3) 2000 ppm

Nitric Acid Yes 2 ppm

(5 mg/m3) 2 ppm

(5.2 mg/m3)2 ppm

(5 mg/m3) 4 ppm

(10 mg/m3) 25 ppm

n-Hexane Yes 50 ppm

(180 mg/m3) 50 ppm

(176 mg/m3)50 ppm

(180 mg/m3)None

established 100 ppm


Isopropyl alcohol: Isopropanol is an organic solvent that will be used as an equipment decontamination rinse. It is a clear, colorless liquid with a mild order, and is highly flammable. The routes of exposure can include inhalation, ingestion, dermal contact, and vapors or splashing into eyes. Inhalation of vapors can cause irritation of the respiratory tract. Exposure to high concentrations has a narcotic effect, producing symptoms of dizziness, drowsiness, headache, staggering, unconsciousness and possibly death. Ingestion may cause drowsiness, unconsciousness, and death. Other symptoms include gastrointestinal pain, cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may also result. Contact with skin can cause irritation with redness and pain. Isopropynol may be absorbed through the skin with possible systemic effects. Vapors can cause eye irritation, while splashing liquid into the eye will cause severe irritation, possible corneal burns and eye damage.

Isopropyl alcohol is not classifiable as a human carcinogen. The single lethal dose for a human adult is about 250 mLs (8 ounces).

Nitric acid (1 Normal): Nitric acid will be used to strip trace amounts of metals from sampling equipment to prevent cross contamination. It is a clear, colorless liquid with a strong odor. Concentrated nitric acid may be fatal if inhaled. Symptoms include irritation of the respiratory tract with burning pain in the nose and throat, coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath and pulmonary edema. Inhalation symptoms may be delayed in expression. Nitric acid will burn exposed skin on contact. Ingestion will cause burning in the gastrointestinal tract burns, and may cause perforation of the digestive tract. Splashing into the eye will cause severe eye burns, and may cause irreversible eye injury.

n-Hexane: n-Hexane is a hydrocarbon produced from crude oil that is a component of many solvents. It is a volatile solvent that will be used only when necessary to remove creosote from sampling equipment, if encountered. It is a clear, colorless liquid with a mild gasoline-like odors and is highly flammable. No deaths have been reported in humans after exposures to hexane via any route. Because of its high volatility, the most likely route of exposure is inhalation.

The risk of human health effects depends on the concentration of hexane in the air and the duration of exposure. Prolonged occupational exposures (months to years) of greater than 500 ppm have resulted in significant human toxicity (DHHS 1999) . n-Hexane is a narcotic agent; an irritant to the eyes, upper respiratory tract, and skin; and a neurotoxin. Exposure of humans to 5,000 ppm n-hexane for 10 minutes causes marked vertigo; exposure to 1,500 ppm results in headache and slight nausea. Eye and upper respiratory tract irritation has been reported to occur in humans exposed to 880 ppm n-hexane for 15 minutes. Dermal contact with n-hexane results in immediate irritation characterized by erythema and hyperemia; exposed subjects developed blisters 5 hours following dermal exposure to n-hexane. Blurred vision, restricted visual field, and optic nerve atrophy has been reported to occur in association with n-hexane-induced polyneuropathy(USDL 2011) . Muscle wasting and atrophy have been reported in humans that have received chronic occupational exposure (DHHS 1999). n-Hexane will be used in open, well ventilated areas only.


4.2.3 Potential Hazards of Sample Preservation Chemicals

The AHA for wildlife and fish surveys is presented in Table HSP B-3. Denatured ethyl alcohol will be used to preserve fish eggs. For field and laboratory sampling the principal route of exposure would be oral ingestion. Exposure reduction and control methods are to not drink the denatured alcohol. All residual sample preservation fluids must be treated as IDW and managed according to the IDWP.

Table HSP-3 shows that the inhalation exposure thresholds for ethyl alcohol are very high; these levels are not possible to encounter in the field. While not readily absorbed through the skin, all personnel will use nitrile gloves when handling ethyl alcohol. Toxicity information for ethyl alcohol is provided, below.

Ethyl Alcohol: Ethyl alcohol or ethanol is a volatile solvent that will be used to preserve forge fish eggs. It is a clear, colorless liquid with a weak odor and is highly flammable. Ingestion may be fatal if swallowed in quantities. Ingestion may cause kidney damage, and may cause drowsiness, cough, anemia and liver damage. Other expression can include central nervous system depression, followed by headache, dizziness, drowsiness, and nausea. Advanced stages may cause collapse, unconsciousness, coma and possible death due to respiratory failure. Inhalation may cause irritation of the nose. If splashed into the eye ethyl alcohol produces irritation, characterized by a burning sensation, redness, tearing, and inflammation. Dermal exposure will cause skin irritation. Prolonged or repeated skin contact may cause dermatitis. Personnel are required to wear protective gloves and goggles whenever handling this decontaminating agent. Ethyl alcohol will be used in open, well ventilated areas only.

Table HSP-3. Exposure Limits for Sample Preservation Chemicals

Contaminant

Skin Absorbent

Hazard OSHA

PEL-TWA ACGIH

TLV-TWANIOSH

REL-TWA STEL IDLH

Ethyl Alcohol No 1000 ppm

(1900 mg/m3)1000 ppm

(1800mg/m3)1000 ppm

(1900mg/m3)None

established 3300 ppm

4.3 Physical Hazards

4.3.1 Research Vessel Operations

Subtidal sediment samples will be collected according to the Field Sampling Plan from the vessel, the R/V Nancy Anne operated by Marine Sampling Services (MSS). The on-board physical hazards associated with the deployment and retrieval of large pieces of sampling equipment result from their weight and the method of deployment. Only personnel whose presence is required will be allowed on the back deck during deployment and retrieval of the samplers. The corer and surface grab samplers will always be handled by two persons. A safety line may be attached to the equipment during deployment and retrieval in rough waters or high winds. However, Eagle Harbor is a protected embayment within the greater Puget Sound, rough waters or high winds are seldom encountered. However, under circumstances of potentially dangerous waves or winds, the vessel pilot and cruise leader will employ best professional


judgment to ensure safe field operations. Emergency procedures for a man-overboard are discussed in Section 7.3.

To avoid injuries from deck gear and equipment, all personnel handling large equipment (e.g., van Veen grab, corer) on deck will wear PPE described in Section 6.3. All personnel will also wear a Type III or Type V US Coast Guard-approved life vests when aboard the vessel. The vessel is also equipped with throwable life rings, and each crew member will be briefed on their storage location and their use.

Sample handling equipment, containers, deck lines, and water hoses not in immediate use will be kept clear of walkways and work areas until needed. Each time operations at a given station have been completed, the deck will be washed to prevent slipping.

Slip, trip, fall hazards are also a potential hazard during on-board operations. All unnecessary gear must be stowed so as not to occur in major work areas or walk pathways. Ropes and hydraulic lines will be coiled out of the way when not in use. Sediment or other materials spilled on the boat deck will be cleaned up immediately.

4.3.2 Physical Exposure

Exposure to the elements and fatigue are two major causes of accidents onboard boats, as well as working outdoors. The sampling may include long work days, as well as sampling at night. In the East Harbor the weather can be unpredictable. Working in cold, rough waters can lead to sea sickness, fatigue, and exposure. The combination of rough waters and fatigue increases the chances for a man-overboard situation. To prevent fatigue and overexposure in adverse weather conditions, field personnel will take regular work breaks. Extra clothing will be brought to accommodate changes in weather. Cold stress can be manifested as both hypothermia and frostbite (discussed further in Section 7.4). Heat-related illnesses can occur at any time when protective clothing is worn. However, as this work will be conducted in October, 2011, heat stress is not expected to be an issue.

Fatigue also presents a hazard when working at sea. It can be compounded by the motion of the vessel, exposure, or heat stress. Personnel should monitor their own condition and capabilities and should be responsible for taking appropriate measures (discussed below) to relieve fatigue, exposure, or heat stress. The cruise leader/safety officer and vessel operator can also direct any member of the crew to cease working.

4.3.3 Slips, Trips, and Falls

Slips, trips, and falls may be a hazard to field crew working in either the terrestrial environment, intertidal areas, or on-board the vessel. Personnel should comply with the following rules when working in these areas:

Keep working area orderly. Tools must not be left on the ground where they would present a tripping hazard.

Spills of chemicals should be immediately cleaned up using absorbent spill pads, and should be managed as investigation derived waste.


Personnel using hand or mechanical tools must position themselves to avoid slipping, considering the leverage as well as anticipating likely consequences if the tool suddenly moves or gives way.

Personnel should walk cautiously in the intertidal areas as these areas may be slippery.

When sampling at night, the buddy system is required and all personnel must carry adequate lighting.


5.0 Site Control Zones (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.j)

For sediment sampling and processing three control zones will be established - an exclusion zone, a contamination reduction zone (CRZ), and a support zone, will be established. This procedure will help ensure that personnel are properly protected against the hazards present where they are working, and that work activities and contamination are appropriately confined.

5.1 Exclusion Zone

The exclusion zone is the area where contamination could or does occur. During intrusive sampling (e.g., sediment sample collection), the exclusion zone includes the area of the vessel in which collected sediments are handled. This part of the vessel is designated as the Exclusion Zone only when sediment is being handled. When no sediment is onboard, the entire vessel is considered the Support Zone. During core processing at ARI, the laboratory, located in Tukwila, Washington, the exclusion zone will be the area in which the core is extruded and sampled, under the hood. The exclusion zone will be clearly marked by the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer or his designee.

Only authorized field personnel will be allowed in the exclusion zone. Eating and/or drinking may only occur outside the exclusion zone and the CRZ.

The minimal level of protection required will be modified Level D; as noted previously an upgrade to Level C may be required if/where the inhalation action levels are exceeded. At any time, site personnel may choose to wear respirators, even if the action levels are not exceeded. Levels of protection are discussed in more detail in Section 6.3.

5.2 Contamination Reduction Zone

The contamination reduction zone (CRZ) is the transition area between the contaminated area and the clean area. The CRZ during sediment sampling is the vessel deck, except as noted in the preceding paragraph. Decontamination of both personnel and equipment will occur in this zone to prevent the transfer of chemicals of concern to the support zone.

5.3 Support Zone

The support zone is where all personnel will suit-up in specified personal protective equipment before entering the exclusion zone. On the sampling vessel, the support zone will be located in the cabin or holds of the vessel, or on the vessel deck when contaminated sediment is not on deck. A support zone for laboratory operations will be designated on-site prior to sampling. The support zone includes storage areas for “clean” equipment and resting and eating facilities for personnel.


6.0 Procedures

6.1 Responsible Individuals and Qualifications (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.c)

Safety during the field investigation shall be the responsibility of the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer, his designee, and every member of the field investigation team. At least one Health and Safety Officer shall be present at the site at all times during intrusive field activities related to the investigation. The organization of responsible individuals is described below including specific responsibilities of each.

6.1.1 Onsite Personnel and Responsibilities

Project organization and health and safety responsibilities for SEE employees for this sampling program will be as described below.

Project Health and Safety Officer. Barb Morson of HDR is the Project Health and Safety Officer for all monitoring for the EHOU. Responsibilities for the Project Health and Safety Office include:

The writing, review, and any modifications or addenda to the Health and Safety Plan Ensuring that requirements of the HSP are rigorously followed by all field personnel and

subcontractors.

Ensuring that all necessary personal protective equipment, health and safety training, and supplies are available to the field team.

Ensuring that all field personnel are up to date with required training and medical monitoring requirements.

Ensuring that subcontractors are informed of applicable provisions of the HSP and that they have an adequate health and safety program that will protect their employees.

Confirming local emergency response phone numbers and locations.

Daily coordination with the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer to ensure that all elements of the HSP are appropriately implemented

Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer. Tim Thompson is the Sediment Site Safety Officer for all sediment monitoring for the EHOU. He is responsible for ensuring the overall health and safety procedures in the field and laboratory, including the following:

Ensuring that requirements of the HSP are rigorously followed by all field personnel and subcontractors.

Conducting and documenting the initial and daily health and safety briefings.

Ensuring that all necessary personal protective equipment, health and safety training, and supplies are available to the field team; and evaluating and modifying the level of protective apparel and safety equipment, as necessary, based on site conditions.


Ensuring that the field team observes decontamination procedures.

Ensuring that visitors are accompanied by an SEE or HDR staff member and do not enter identified exclusion or contamination reduction zones without having completed the required training and medical surveillance.

Completing safety task analysis review (STAR) (Appendix C). Ensuring that daily work schedules and tasks are appropriate for the required levels of effort and weather conditions.

Confirming local emergency response phone numbers and locations.

Ensuring that monitoring equipment is properly calibrated and used correctly.

Initiating corrective action for observed safety violations, and reporting unsuccessful attempts to correct a violation to the Project Manager.

If the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer determines that site conditions are unsafe, he has the authority to suspend field operations until the problem is corrected. If warranted, the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer can modify HSP procedures to reflect field conditions. Any changes must be documented using Form 2 and field staff must be informed of the change.

Field Staff. All employees and subcontractors will be responsible for knowing and implementing the policies and procedures stated in the HSP, including:

Complying with proper safety and health practices, as stated in the HSP and described in training.

Using required safety devices and personal protective equipment.

Notifying a supervisor of unsafe conditions or acts immediately.

Reporting all accidents to a supervisor promptly, regardless of the severity of injury.

Carrying out all work in a manner not endangering to any employee.

6.1.2 Qualifications of Onsite Personnel (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.d)

All personnel who enter the exclusion or contamination reduction zones must meet the training requirements of Washington WISHA (WAC 296-800) and federal OSHA (29 CFR 1910.120). Hazardous waste site workers are required to have 40 hours of formal health and safety training or an equivalent amount of training and onsite hazardous waste work experience prior to beginning field activities. Hazardous waste site workers must also have 3 days of supervised field experience and 8 hours of annual refresher training. Visitors, auditors, or other employees whose work onsite will be for a specific task of limited duration and whose work will not result in exposure over published exposure limits are required to have 24 hours of health and safety training. The Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer must also have 8 hours of supervisory training and be certified in first aid and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by the American Red Cross. Documentation of staff training is presented in Appendix D.

In addition to formal instruction, each team member will be briefed on site-specific conditions during a safety meeting to be conducted before beginning the field program. This meeting will be conducted by the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer. A recommended checklist of topics


to be addressed at this meeting is provided in Table HSP-4. In addition, there will also be daily “tailgate” safety briefings for all field staff prior to beginning work each day. These meetings may review safety procedures, address anticipated problems or changes in site conditions, or inform field staff of any changes to the HSP and/or new information. A record of the initial and daily safety meetings, including the date and time, name of person providing the briefing, topics covered, and signatures of all attendees, will be maintained using the form in Appendix A.

Table HSP-4. Checklist of Recommended Safety Meeting Topics Personal Protection Gear

On-dock slip, trip, fall hazards

On-boat slip, trip, fall hazards

Sediment Chemical Hazards

On-dock exclusion zones and contaminant reduction zones

On-boat exclusion zones and contaminant reduction zones

Investigative-derived waste disposal requirements

Man-overboard procedures

Site evacuation procedures

Emergency Contact procedures

On dock drill rig safety procedures

On-boat van Veen and coring safety procedures

6.1.3 Medical Surveillance Program (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.f)

Medical surveillance is required for all site personnel with more than minimal potential exposure to hazardous substances.HDR has an established medical surveillance monitoring program. Physical exams are given before assignment, at least every two years when there is potential exposure to hazardous materials, and upon employment termination. Additional exams will be given, if needed, to evaluate specific exposures or unexplained illnesses. Content of the exams is determined by an occupational medicine physician.

The physical examination verifies that individuals are physically able to use protective equipment, to work in hot or cold environments, to wear respiratory protection , and to not be predisposed to occupationally induced disease. Any limitations are noted in the verification letter provided by the attending physicians to the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer. Each individual subcontractor is responsible for supplying their own medical surveillance.

6.2 Respiratory Protection Program (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.e)

Personnel utilizing respiratory protection will participate in a respiratory protection program (WAC 296-800). HDR personnel are provided formal respirator training, fit-testing, and are medically cleared to wear respirators. Subcontractor personnel are responsible for their own respirator training and fit-testing.


6.3 Protective Equipment (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.e)

6.3.1 Personal Protective Equipment

Levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) have been defined by the EPA (1984) and WA-WISH (WAC 296-800-16020):

Level A requires use of a fully encapsulated suit and full facepiece pressure demand self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with a 5-minute, supplied air escape pack for the highest level of respiratory, skin, and eye protection. Level A is not anticipated at the site, and therefore is not discussed further.

Level B requires maximum respiratory protection by the use of supplied air or a positive pressure SCBA. A 5-minute, supplied air escape pack is required while in Level B. Dermal protection is selected on the basis of anticipated hazards. Level B is not anticipated at the site, and therefore is not discussed further.

Level C requires an air-purifying respirator that is specific to the chemicals of concern. The degree of dermal protection depends on anticipated hazards.

Level D is the basic work uniform, described below, as modified for work at the site.

Numerous variations are possible with each level of protection. Conditions that warrant a change in level of protection (i.e., action levels) are noted below.

Specific levels of protection have been selected for this field work on the basis of previous site investigations. The default PPE for all site work is modified Level D. Upgrade to Level C will be required where air monitoring results in the breathing zone exceed the action levels specified in Section 6.3.3. All personnel may voluntarily opt to use Level C for this program.

Modified Level D protection includes regular work clothes or one-piece disposable Tyvek or coated rain pants (bib overalls) if contaminant exposure through splashing is anticipated. Splash protection may be upgraded to coated rain jacket and pants, taped at the wrists and ankles if appropriate, as determined necessary by the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer. Also included are the following:

Polypropylene, nitrile or polyethylene inner-disposable gloves (for intrusive work only)

Nitrile outer gloves (for intrusive work only)

Neoprene steel-toed, chemically resistant, impermeable outer boots

Hard hat (if overhead hazards are present)

Safety glasses or goggles when conditions for splash exposure exist

When from the vessel, all personnel aboard the vessel will wear a Type III or Type V U.S. Coast Guard-approved personal flotation devices (e.g. life vests).

Hearing protection will be available upon request.


Level C protection includes all Level D equipment described above (including all equipment identified for intrusive work), plus a half-face air purifying respirator equipped with organic vapor cartridges and High Efficiency Particulate Absolute (HEPA) filter. Persons with beards that can not obtain adequate respirator seals will not be permitted in areas requiring Level C protection. They will leave the area immediately when action levels are exceeded, and will not be permitted to return until the level of protection is downgraded to Level D.

6.3.2 Safety Equipment

Additional safety supplies to be kept on-board the sampling vessel, in the processing laboratory, and accompanying all placed in the field vehicle and on the vessel include:

First-aid kit Eye wash kit Blanket Clean water Fire extinguisher (ABC type).

6.3.3 Monitoring Equipment and Procedures (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.g)

All sediment sampling activities are considered intrusive. To determine the appropriate level of respiratory protection (based on action levels provided in Tables HSP-1 and HSP-2), air near the breathing zone in the processing facility will be monitored using a portable PID. Air sampling is not required for the field as (1) all activities take place outdoors in a well-ventilated area, and (2) no action levels have been exceeded in similar previous EHOU field sampling and monitoring events. Background readings will be taken before these activities begin.

Action Levels for Laboratory Activities. For laboratory processing of sediment cores, the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer shall have a PID (H-NU with 11.7 eV lamp). The organic vapor action level (measured using a photoionization detector) for field activities is 10 ppm above background in the breathing zone for 5 minutes or longer, or greater than 100 ppm instantaneously in the breathing zone. This action level is based on the PEL-TWA of 10 ppm for naphthalene, which was found to be the lowest threshold value for volatile/semivolatile organic compounds that may be present in sediments. If the action level is exceeded, then lab personnel must either leave the work area until the condition subsides or don half-face air purifying respirators equipped with organic vapor cartridges and an outer HEPA filter. As a general precaution, cartridges will be replaced after 3 hours of use or at the end of each day, whichever occurs first. The organic vapor action level for exiting the area is any series of readings consistently greater 5 ppm above background for 5 minutes.

Sample Preservation and Equipment Decontamination. Nitric acid and isopropyl alcohol used for decontamination are not likely to approach applicable exposure limits because they are used in small quantities and the work will be conducted in an open-air location (e.g., on the vessel deck). Air monitoring is required when hexane is used either on the vessel or in the laboratory. The action level for hexane is listed below; an upgrade to Level C will be required if the action level is exceeded.


HSP-4. Action Levels

Chemical Name Action Level (ppm)

Contaminants in the Sediments Naphthalene 10

Decontamination Chemicals Hexane 25

6.4 Site Safety Procedures (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.i)

Safety is the responsibility of every individual involved in project efforts. Whether in the office or in the field, properly followed procedures are essential to maintain personal safety and to minimize injuries or accidents involving equipment.

6.4.1 Safety Rules

All personnel working in the field will follow the rules and procedures listed below:

1. Before any field operations take place, all personnel must review this HSP and become familiar with the required safety procedures. The Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer will review safety procedures with the field team at the initiation of field operations. Measures to ensure that this health and safety plan is being followed will include daily safety meetings. Periodic inspections or audits may be conducted at the discretion of the Project Health and Safety Officer or a USACE Safety Officer.

2. The Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer will confirm key emergency services prior to the start of sampling activities. The purpose of this information exchange is twofold: to establish final procedures for use in onboard emergencies and to inform outside help of the activities being performed onsite and the associated potential problems. The USACE will inform the Washington State department of Transportation (Ferries) of the operations and locations of the research vessel.

3. Copies of this health and safety plan will be available on board the vessel, in field vehicles, and will be at the processing laboratory. A waterproof copy of the completed Emergency Contacts section (Table HSP-5) will be posted near the ship-to-shore radiom and in the laboratory. In addition, a waterproof map of the site including waterways, associated piers and hospital locations will be posted in the same location.

4. The Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer in conjunction with the vessel operator will continually monitor weather conditions (e.g., storm fronts, lightning, high winds). A radio capable of receiving the National Weather Service frequency for the Seattle area will be on board or onshore and monitored periodically. The Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer will have the responsibility and the authority to halt operations if conditions are deemed to be unsafe.

5. Only the team members meeting the training and medical requirements of HAZWOPER will be allowed on the vessel or in the laboratory for core processing.


6.4.2 Work Limitations

No eating, drinking, or smoking in the exclusion or contamination reduction zones

No contact lenses in the exclusion or contamination reduction zones

No facial hair that would interfere with respirator fit for personnel wearing respirators

Buddy system at all times

Work schedule to avoid fatigue and cold/heat stress

6.4.3 Decontamination Procedures (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.k, l)

Personnel. At the discretion of the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer, personnel will be required to undergo one or more of the following decontamination steps:

Equipment drop

Tape removal (if used)

Outer glove wash with AlconoxTM and water rinse; removal and placement in plastic bag (intrusive operations only)

Safety boot washdown, using scrub brushes, with AlconoxTM and water

Rain-slick washdown with AlconoxTM and water (intrusive operations only).

Note: for breaks, rain slicks may be washed down and then removed to the waist.

Inner glove removal and disposal (intrusive operations only) Hand and face wash Thorough wash and shower at end of day at an off-site location.

It is emphasized that skin washing is one of the easiest ways to reduce ingestion and skin absorption of chemicals. All exposed skin, including hands, arms, face and neck should be washed frequently and thoroughly throughout the work day, and always before eating, drinking, or smoking.

In case of an emergency, gross decontamination procedures will be speedily implemented if possible. If a life-threatening injury occurs and the injured person cannot undergo decontamination procedures, the medical facility will be informed that the injured person has not been decontaminated and given information regarding the most probable chemicals of concern.

Sampling Equipment. All sampling equipment will be decontaminated prior to initiation of sampling and between sampling locations. Equipment decontamination methods will be as described in the Puget Sound Estuary Program Protocols (PSEP 1997a,b):

Rinse with tap or site water Scrub with Alconox detergent Tap water rinse Distilled water rinse


0.1 N nitric acid rinse Isopropyl alcohol rinse Distilled water rinse

If creosote or other petroleum-based residue is encountered, sampling equipment will also be rinsed with hexane.

Only small volumes of dilute nitric acid and solvents will be on the deck to minimize the possibility of an accidental spill. Should a spill of decontamination chemicals occur, the spill will be cleaned up and treated as investigation derived waste and managed in accordance with the IDW plan.

Disposal of Decontamination Chemical Waste Generated Onsite. Investigative derived waste (IDW), from contaminated samples and decontamination of equipment will be handled according to the procedures defined in the Investigation Derived Waste Plan.

6.4.4 Visitors

All visitors to the vessel must be granted written admission to the site by the USACE representative, the HDR project manager, and the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer. Authorized visitors will only be allowed to observe operations from the vessel’s cabin, and must obey all instructions of the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officers. Exceptions to this are representatives from USEPA, Washington Department of Ecology, and the USACE who establish that they possess training, medical monitoring, and respirator fit-testing consistent with the requirements of this plan. They must also possess appropriate health and safety equipment at the time of the visit, and have a health and safety plan at least as stringent as this plan, or adopt this plan as their own.


7.0 Emergency Procedures (EM 385-1-1, Section 28.B.02.m, n)

7.1 Reporting/Notification Procedures

In the case of any emergency, the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer must be notified immediately. If the situation is life-threatening and notification of the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer would delay emergency response, field personnel may initiate the appropriate emergency contacts prior to notifying the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer. Emergency decontamination of injured persons shall be accomplished if not injurious to them. The Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer will initiate contacts as follows:

1) Call appropriate emergency services numbers (ambulance, fire, etc.) if not already done. Provide the following information:

Name and location of person reporting

Location of accident/incident

Name and affiliation of injured party

Description of injuries

Status of medical aid effort

Details on any chemicals involved and description of any personnel or contaminated gear to be sent with the injured party

Summary of the accident, including the suspected cause and the time of occurrence

Temporary control measures taken to minimize further risk.

Note: This information is not to be released under any circumstances to parties other than those listed in Table HSP-5 and bona fide emergency response team members.

2) Call Project Manager (Table HSP-5) and provide information noted in Step 1 above.

3) The Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer will complete a written accident/incident report using the form in Appendix E within 24 hours, sending copies to the project manager and the HDR’s company safety officer.

The following resources are to be used in cases of emergency:

Emergency Contacts: Table HSP-5 includes both the appropriate emergency services and the appropriate project contacts.

Nearest Phone: A cellular telephone will be on the vessel and in the field vehicle onshore.

Onsite Emergency Equipment: An industrial first aid kit, ABC portable fire extinguisher, and an eyewash kit will be located on the vessel and in the core processing area.


Offsite Emergency Services: Phone numbers for offsite emergency services are listed in Table HSP-5. Copies of this table must be located on the boat, field vehicle and core processing area.

After the required emergency contacts are made, the Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer should promptly notify the HDR Project Manager and the USACE Project Manager.

Table HSP-5. Emergency Contacts/Telephone Numbers Fire: 911

Police: 911

Ambulance: 911Capable of Transporting Contaminated Personnel?

Yes: No:

Hospital (field – Eagle Harbor): Phone: 360-744-8800

Harrison Silverdale Hospital 1800 NW Myher Rd. Silverdale, WA 98383

Chemical Trauma Capabilities? Yes: No: Decontamination Capabilities? Yes: No: Directions from Site to Hospital: See Section 7.2

Note: See map for route to hospital at the end of this section.

The route to the hospital will be verified in field. Distance from the Site to the hospital is: 22 miles. The approximate driving time is: 35 minutes.

Hospital (laboratory - Tukwila): Phone: (206) 744-3300

Harbor View Medical Center 325 Ninth Ave Seattle, WA 98104

Chemical Trauma Capabilities? Yes: No: Decontamination Capabilities? Yes: No: Directions from Site to Hospital: See Section 7.2

Note: See map for route to hospital at the end of this section.The route to the hospital will be verified in field. Distance from the Site to the hospital is: 10.2 miles. The approximate driving time is: 14 minutes.

Poison Control Center (800) 222-1222

National Response Center (800) 424-8802

Center for Disease Control (404) 639-3311 (24-hour)

ATF (explosion information) (800) 461-8841

Chemtrec (800) 424-9300

State Environmental Agency: WDOE (360) 407-6000

U.S. EPA Region Name: Region 10 (206) 553-1200

HDR Project Manager Barb Morson(360) 570-4412

SEE Sediment Site Health and Safety Officer Tim Thompson(206) 619 4109

SEE Laboratory Health and Safety Designee David Browning(360) 701-9596

Client Contact: USACE Karl Kunas(206) 764-3448

USACE Environmental Compliance Coordinator Brenda Bachman206) 764-3524


7.2 Hospital Routes

7.2.1 Harrison Silverdale Hospital

1800 NW Myhre Rd. Silverdale, WA 98383 (503) (360) 744-8800

Directions from EHOU CERCLA Site to Hospital


Figure HSP-2. Transportation Route to Harrison Silverdale Hospital


7.2.2 Harbor View Medical Center

325 Ninth Ave Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 744-3300

Directions from ARI to Harbor View Medical Center


Figure HSP-3. Transportation Route from ARI to Harbor View Medical Center


7.3 Man Overboard

There is a potential for a man-overboard situation while the team is working over water on the research vessel or from the dock. This potential is increased when heavy equipment (e.g., Power Grab sampler or subsurface corer) is being used, or during stormy weather. If a person falls overboard, all vessel engines will be stopped immediately. Flotation devices (e.g., life rings) attached to lines will be thrown to the victim from the vessel. The victim will then be brought aboard the research vessel or towed to shore; wet clothes will be removed and replaced with dry clothing. The victim may need to be treated for cold stress (discussed below). No other person shall enter the water except if the victim is unconscious or seriously injured. Rescuers must wear life preservers and be tethered to the research vessel or shore.

7.4 Cold Stress

Field work will be conducted during mid-to-late Fall; cold stress is a possibility. Cold stress can occur when site personnel may be subject to low air temperatures, rain, and winds, or in a man overboard situation. In these conditions, field teams must be prepared to wear proper protective clothing and to recognize symptoms of cold stress. Cold stress can be manifested as both hypothermia and frostbite:

Hypothermia, a cold-induced decrease in the core body temperature, can decrease attentiveness and manual dexterity. Hypothermia produces shivering, numbness, drowsiness, muscular weakness, and, if severe enough, death.

Treatment: A victim of hypothermia should be taken indoors (or vessel’s cabin) quickly. Provide rapid but gentle rewarming. Remove wet or cold garments and provide warm, dry clothing or covering. Dry the person thoroughly. If the victim reacts and is conscious, give a hot drink. It may be necessary to wrap the victim together with warm water bottles, or persons in blankets, or a sleeping bag. Call in medical care at once.

Frostbite results from the constriction of blood vessels in the extremities, and decreases the supply of warming blood to these areas. This drop in blood supply may result in the formation of ice crystals in the tissues, causing tissue damage. The symptoms of frostbite are white or grayish skin, blisters, or numbness.

Treatment: Bring the victim indoors and rewarm the areas quickly in water of

102oF to 105oF. Give a warm drink - not hot coffee, tea (or any other caffeine- containing beverage), or alcohol. The victim should not smoke. Smoking tends to constrict the blood vessels in the skin, making the injury slow to heal. Keep the frozen parts in warm water or covered with warm cloths for 30 minutes. Then elevate the injured area and protect it from injury. Do not allow the blisters to be broken. Use sterile, soft, dry material to cover the injured areas. Keep the victim warm and get immediate medical care.


8.0 Plan Acceptance This site health and safety plan has been written for the use of HDR personnel and its subcontractors. HDR claims no responsibility for its use by others. The plan is written for the specific site conditions, purposes, dates, and personnel specified and must be amended if these conditions change.

PLAN PREPARED BY: Barb Morson HDR Engineering, Inc.

DATE: August 1, 2011

PLAN ACCEPTED BY: Tim Thompson

DATE SEE, LLC


9.0 References

ACGIH. 1996. Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH): Cincinnati, OH.

ATSDR. 2007. Toxicological Profile for Arsenic. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta GA. Available on the web at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp2.html#bookmark08

CH2M Hill. 1989. Remedial Investigation Report for Eagle Harbor Site, Kitsap County, Washington. Final Report. Prepared by CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA.

DHHS, 1999. Toxicological Profile for n-Hexane. U.S. Department of health and Human Services, Public Heath Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. July 1999.

NIOSH. 1997. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington D.C. J.J. Keller & Associates, Inc., Neenah, WI.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2003. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual. EM 385-1-1.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2007. US Army Corps of Engineers - Safety and Occupational Health Requirements for Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Activities. ER 385-1-92

USDL. 2011. Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for n-Hexane. U.S. Department of Labor. Website accessed July 22, 2011. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/n-hexane/recognition.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and SAIC. 1994. On-scene Coordinator’s Report. Statement of Findings. East Harbor Operable Unit Removal Action, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Bainbridge Island, Washington. Final Report. Prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, with the assistance of Science Applications International Corporation, Bothell, WA.

Health and Safety Plan Wyckoff Site, Eagle Harbor, WA

Appendix A

Health and Safety Forms


Health and Safety Forms A-1

Site Safety Plan Acknowledgment Form

This project requires the following: that you read and comply with this Health and Safety Plan; that you be supplied with proper personal protective equipment (PPE), [including respirators]; and that you be trained on the use of the provided PPE. Personnel who are not respirator trained, medical evaluated, and provided a respirator will evacuate the work area if conditions require an up-grade to EPA/OSHA Level C PPE which includes respiratory protection. When respirator use is not required, voluntary respirator use is permissible, if such respirator use will not in itself create a hazard, under this SSHP. By signing this acknowledgment form, you are acknowledging that HDR has met these obligations to you. I Have Reviewed, Understand and Agree to Follow the HDR Site Safety and Health Plan for the Eagle Harbor East Operable Unit Year 17 Monitoring Program.

Name (Print) Signature Affiliation Date



Site Safety Plan Amendments

Amendment No.: Client: USACE Project Number:

Location: Eagle Harbor East Operable Unit Date:

Project Manager: Barbara Morson Site Engineer:

Site Safety Officers: Tim Thompson, David Browning

Amendment:

Reason for Amendment:

Alternative Safeguard Procedures:

Required Changes in PPE:

Site Safety Officer Date

Project Manager Effective Date



Site Safety Meeting Form

Project Name: Location: Date: Time: Project Number: Instructor:

Safety Topics Presented JHA/STAR: Lessons Learned: BEST O&F: General Safety Topics:

Name Attendee’s Signature



Visitor Sign-In Log

Client: Project Number:

Location: Site Engr.:

Project Mgr.: Site EHS Officer:

Date Name Affiliation Purpose of Visit

Site EHS Training

Do you have Level D PPE?

Time In

Time Out

Yes No Yes No


Appendix B

Activity Hazard Analyses


Activity Hazard Analysis B-1

Activity Hazard Analysis

HSP Table B-1. Sediment Sampling

JHA Type: Investigation O&M Office Construction New Revised Date: August 1, 2011

Office: Seattle, WA Client: US Army Corps of Engineers Location: East Eagle Harbor Operable Unit, Winslow, WA

Work Type: Over-water monitoring and sediment sampling Work Activity: Sediment sampling on boat, or on-foot in the intertidal

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Level D, Personal Floatation Device, Head Lamp if sampling at night. See Section 6.3.1 of this HSP

Development Team Position/Title Reviewed By Position/Title Date

Tim Thompson Sediment Sampling Lead Barbara Morson Program H&S August 1, 2011

David Browning Project Geologist August 1, 2011

Job Steps Potential Hazard Critical Actions

Sampling from vessel Sampling in intertidal

Man-overboard/drowning Have life preservers or flotation devices available for supervising personnel, instrument operator, and sentinels.

Personnel in the boat will be required to wear personal flotation devices (USCG approved PFDs).

Safe wading depth will be considered to be 2.5 feet. Be aware of conditions; leave the area if inclement weather conditions present

hazards to personnel. Use buddy system. Ensure that all sampling personnel working on water can swim. Use radios to maintain contact with supervisor and safety officer. Wear Coast Guard-approved life jackets at all times while on the deck of the

vessel. Hands pinched between gunnel and pier, dock, barge, etc.

Keep hands inside the gunnels at all times.



Sediment Sampling (continued) Job Steps Potential Hazard Critical Actions

Sampling from vessel

Sampling in intertidal

Hydraulic A-frame and Van Veen sampler Pinch Points Energized Equipment Overhead Hazard.

Inspect hydraulic lines and equipment daily/weekly before use. Make sure all personnel are aware of potential pinch points before work begins. Do not stand underneath hydraulic A-frame, or any other overhead hazard . Wear a hard hat at all times on the vessel when there are overhead obstructions.

Obey the instructions of the vessel captain. Work on boats. Wear appropriate slip-resistant boots with a steel toe. Keep the sampling area

clean. Ensure that personnel working from or in boats are familiar and competent with

boat operation and boating safety. PFDs are required when working in boats. Hard hats are not required in boats unless there is an overhead hazard. Maintain balance in boat. No unnecessary standing or quick movements.

Work in the intertidal Buddy system required; work with a minimum of two people Be aware of the tide schedule, always keep an eye on falling/rising tides PFDs are required when working on/near water If sampling at night, appropriate headlamps must be worn

Tripping or falling over equipment. Only the necessary personnel should be in the area of operation. Always return equipment to proper storage location on the vessel.

Hypothermia Be aware of high winds and wind chill potential. Stop work if rain/wind/temperature conditions become too severe. Wear insulated clothing with a rain-shell as the outer layer. Monitor yourself and co-workers for signs of cold stress.

Lifting-Related Injuries Avoid manual lifting of heavy objects. Use mechanical means if available. Get assistance if object is above 50 lbs.

Use proper lifting technique; center the load, and lift with the legs, not the back. Chemical hazards All personnel must have 40 hour-training and are current with 8-hour refresher

Level D PPE required Where double nitrile gloves when handling sample equipment If obviously contaminated material drips onto PPE, clean immediately.




HSP Table B-2. Sediment Core Compositing



Work Type: Sediment sampling Work Activity: Transport cores, cut cores, subsection cores for chemical analyses

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Level D, See Section 6.3.1 of this HSP


Tim Thompson Sediment Sampling Lead Barbara Morson Program H&S August 1, 2011

David Browning Project Geologist August 1, 2011


1. Transporting Cores

2. Cutting Cores

Lifting-Related Injuries Use proper lifting technique; center the load, and lift with the legs, not the back. Avoid manual lifting of heavy objects greater the 50 lbs. Use 2nd assistance Use appropriate work gloves when handling cores

Tripping or falling over equipment. Only the necessary personnel should be in the area of operation. Always return equipment to proper storage location at ARI.

Use of rip saw to cut core tubes Only operate equipment in the designated area Level D PPE required, with addition of leather or other appropriate work gloves Full face-shield and safety glasses required when cutting cores Hearing protection required when cutting cores Buddy system required. Second person must observe the core cutter.

Chemical hazards All personnel must have 40 hour-training and are current with 8-hour refresher Level D PPE required PID readings to be taken in the breathing zone during cutting of through cap cores Where double nitrile gloves when handling cores If obviously contaminated material drips onto PPE, clean immediately.



Activity Hazard Analysis: Sediment Core Compositing (continued) Job Steps Potential Hazard Critical Actions

3. Logging cores

4. Processing sediment samples

Chemical Hazards All personnel must have 40 hour-training and are current with 8-hour refresher Level D PPE required Periodic PID readings to be taken in the breathing zone during cap logging Work only on designated table, line with plastic and aluminum If obviously contaminated material drips onto PPE, clean immediately. Compositing and processing samples work only in the fume hood or well-

ventilated area 5. Decontamination of

bowls and spoons

6. Residual sediment disposal

7. Core washing

Chemical Hazards All personnel must have 40 hour-training and are current with 8-hour refresher Level D PPE required. Respirators must be available for all personnel Periodic PID readings to be taken in the breathing zone during core washing and

decontamination. If levels exceed the REL for coal tar pitch volatiles, don respirators

Work only in designated, well-ventilated area If obviously contaminated material drips onto PPE, clean immediately.

Physical Hazards Cut aluminum tube edges may be sharp; use gloves at all times during handling of gloves.

Stack cleaned cores tubes only in designated area till transport to recycling facility 8. Proper retention and

disposal of IDW Chemical hazards All personnel must have 40 hour-training and are current with 8-hour refresher

Read and follow the site Investigation-Derived Waste Plan Nitric acid wash to be retained in separate bucket with lid. Neutralize daily with

baking soda, dilute to twice volume, dispose in municipal system. Alconox and isopropyl alcohol to be retained in separate bucket with lid. At end of

day, dilute to twice volume with water, coordinate with lab to dispose through sanitary sewer as appropriate.

Retain all residual sediments in separate plastic-lined bucket with secure lid. Retain all core wash water in separate bucket with secure lid. Dispose of residual sediments and core wash water in accordance with the IDWP Recycle all washed aluminum tubes




Table HSP B-3. Biological Surveys



Work Type: Biological surveys Work Activity: Visual surveys and collection of fish eggs on-foot in upland and intertidal areas

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Level D, See Section 6.3.1 of this HSP


Barbara Morson Program H&S Officer August 1, 2011

August 1, 2011


1. Visual surveys on foot in upland and intertidal area

2. Collection of fish eggs in intertidal area

Work in the intertidal Buddy system required; work with a minimum of two people Be aware of the tide schedule, always keep an eye on falling/rising tides PFDs are required when working on/near water If working at night, appropriate headlamps must be worn

Slip, trip, falls on uneven terrain Only necessary personnel should be in the area of survey. Prior to starting work, identify any areas of potential hazards.

Chemical hazards All personnel must have 40 hour-training and are current with 8-hour refresher Level D PPE required, including nitrile gloves for sample collection

Health and Safety Plan Wyckoff Site, Eagle harbor WA

Appendix C

Safety Task Analysis Review (STAR) Form


Work in Watercraft C-1

Identify Potential Hazards Abrasions Biological Hazards (Plants, Animals, Insects) Cave-in (Trench/Excavation Work) Chemical/Thermal Burn Cuts Dermatitis Dropping Materials/Tools to Lower Level Drowning/Flowing Water Dust Electrical Shock Elevated/Overhead Work Energized Equipment Fire Flammability Foreign Body in Eye Hazardous Materials (Exposure or Release) Heat or Cold Stress Heavy Equipment Operation Heavy Lifting High Noise Levels Impact Noise Inability to Maintain Communication Inclement Weather Overhead Work Overhead Utilities Underground Utilities Pinch Points Pressurized Lines Slips, Trips, Falls Sprains/Strains Traffic Underground Utilities Confined Space New or Rental Equipment Surface Water Run-On/Run-Off Odor/VOC Emissions Compressed Gas Cylinders Generated Wastes (Solids/Liquids) Known/Unknown Visitors Visibility New Personnel Hoists/Rigging/Slings/Wire Rope Special Operations/Instructions (Attach) Ergonomics

Identify Controls Air Monitoring Barricades/Fencing/Silt Fencing Buddy System Appropriate Clothing/Monitoring of Weather Confined Space Procedures Decontamination Drinking Water/Fluids Dust abatement Measures Equipment Inspection Exclusion Zones Exhaust Ventilation Fall Protection Fire Extinguisher/Fire Watch Flotation Devices/Lifelines Grounds on Equipment/Tanks Ground Fault Interrupter Ground Hydraulic Attachments Hand Signal Communication Hazardous/Flammable Material Storage Hazardous Plant/Animal Training Hearing Protection (Specify) Hoses, Access to Water Hot Work Procedures Insect Repellent or Precautions Isolation of Equipment or Process (LO/TO) Stormwater Control Procedures/Methods Machine/Equipment Guarding Manual Lifting Equipment (Chain Falls) Protective Equipment (Specify) Proper Lifting Techniques Proper Tool for Job Radio Communication Respirator, (Specify Type) Safety Harness/Lanyard/Scaffold Sloping, Shoring, Trench Box Vehicle Inspection Spill Prevention Measures/Spill Kits Equipment Manuals/Training Emergency Procedures/Incident Management Plan Appropriate Labels/Signage Derived Waste Management Plan Visitor Escort/Orientation/Security Window Cleaning/Defrost

Proper Work Position/Tools

Pre-Task Review (Yes/No/NA) 1. Has Job Hazard Analysis been completed

and reviewed? _____

2. Is Job Scope understood by all Personnel? _____

3. Proper Safety Equipment on job site? ___ 4. Permit Issued?

What type? Hot Work Confined Space Excavation Other:

5. Proper Tools for Job on site? ______ 6. Oxygen/Flammability checked? ________ 7. Reviewed MSDSs for any hazardous

substance that might be present? ______ 8. Proper training for all personnel?

________ 9. Are there any planned deviations from set

procedures for equipment modifications? __ If so, contact supervisor to check applicability of MOC procedures.

10. Is there any work planned that could cause activation of emergency procedures? ___ If so, have these procedures been discussed and communicated?

Post-Task Review

1. Work area cleaned up?_________ 2. All locks and tags removed and signed off

by individuals?______________ 3. Have Permits been turned in? ______ 4. STAR submitted to EHS Department? ____________ 5. Were there any unplanned deviations

from set procedures or equipment modifications? _______________

If so, contact supervisor to check applicability of MOC procedures.


Work in Watercraft C-2

Safety Task Analysis Review (STAR)

Task Description:

List Tasks:

Company: ________________________

Completed By: _____________________

Date: ____________________________

Job Location:

List Additional Hazards (Hazards Not Shown with Check Box)

List Additional Controls (Controls Not Shown with Check Box)

Tailgate Meeting Topic

Signatures of Personnel on Task Analysis Review/Tailgate Meeting:

Mentor Assigned to Work

(not applicable)

Lessons Learned (Based on changes in conditions, EHS Near- Incidents/ Observations, Potential Emergencies)

Is there a better/safer way to perform the work/task?

Supervisor Review (date/Time): ___________ EHS Review (date/time):_________________ Comments:


Appendix D Health and Safety Certification for Field Personnel

THE NATIONALENVIRONMENTAL TRAINERS

Maricris Oramahas satisfactorily passed an exam and completed an 8-hour annual refresher training course entitled

Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Responsemeeting the requirements identified in Title 29 CFR 1910.120.

This course has been awarded 1.34 Industrial Hygiene CM Points by the American Board of IndustrialHygiene-Approval Number 13334. This course is also eligible for .66 Continuance of Certification

(COC) points from the Board of Certified Safety Professionals

June 01, 2011

Course Number 1001, Awarded 8 PDH'sFlorida Board of Professional Engineers

CEU Provider Number 0004284

www.nationalenvironmentaltrainers.com

Signature of Instructor

Clay A. Bednarz, MS, RPIH


Kimberly Hawkinshas satisfactorily passed an exam and completed an 8-hour annual refresher training course entitled




September 23, 2011







Chad Wisemanhas satisfactorily passed an exam and completed an 8-hour annual refresher training course entitled




April 06, 2011






Health and Safety Plan Wyckoff Site, Eagle Harbor WA

Appendix E Accident and Incident Report Form

Page 1 of 3 Revised 03/03/2011

H E A L T H & S A F E T Y

ACCIDENT/INCIDENT REPORT

HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions 8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE | 68114-4049 Phone: 402.399.1088 | Fax: 402.548-5089

1. ACCIDENT

An accident is a situation that results in physical injury (no matter how slight). Can be divided into serious or minor.

Serious An accident that requires the injured employee to receive any of the following: (a) medical care beyond first aid (would include stitches, broken bones, etc.), (b) remain overnight in a medical facility, or (c) miss work on any day following the date of injury.

Minor An accident that does not result in the injured employee having to remain overnight in a medical setting, receive extended medical treatment or require the injured employee to be absent from work other than the date of injury. Examples might include sprains, strains, bruises, moderate abrasions/simple lacerations, etc.

If this involves vehicular damage, refer to the “LEGAL” site on the Portal > Business Ins > Document Type > Automobile Insurance

To file Workers’ Compensation, refer to the “LEGAL” site on the Portal > Business Ins > Document Type > Workers’ Compensation

CATASTROPHE An OSHA term meaning the occurrence of any of the following: a. The death of one or more employees,

b. The hospitalization for treatment of three (3) or more employees, OR c. A heart attack on the job resulting in death.

NEAR-MISS INCIDENT This is any incident where no injury occurred, but where the potential for injury (e.g., fractures, loss of consciousness, crushing, amputation, death) existed. Examples might include being struck by moving equipment/vehicles, electrical shock, slipping or tripping, falls, trench cave-ins, etc.

ILLNESS Not resulting from a sudden trauma; typically caused by prolonged exposure to air contaminants or biological pathogens (heat stress, viral, bacterial, fungal, etc. Includes injectable animal poisons – snakebite, spider). Also includes cumulative disorder; i.e., wrist, elbow.

2. Location of Accident, Incident, Catastrophe, Incident or Illness:

Exact Location (field site, office, const. site, etc.): (Project Info found on pg 3) Nearest City/State:

Date of Accident/Incident: Time: AM PM Time Employee Began Work: AM PM

Reported On: Time: AM PM To Whom: Was Workers’ Compensation filed? Y N

Employee Supervisor: Arch Eng CCC DBI DTA CAN EOC UK Other

3. Information about the Employee (EE): More than one EE? Y N (If more than one EE injured use one Accident/Incident Report per individual.)

Dept. No.: HDR 5-Digit ID No.: Job Title: Date Hired:

First MI Last Name (Legal): Nickname (if used): Date of Birth: (Month/Day)

Home HDR Office Name: Home HDR Office Phone:

Personal Home Address with City, State ZIP Male Female

4. Witnesses: First MI Last Name (Legal): Job Title: Home Office Name: Home Office Phone:

5. Health Care Treatment Facility Used: NONE Did you file a Workers’ Compensation Claim at the facility? See your HR Representative for assistance.

Name: Address: Phone:

a.

b.

6. Treating Physician/Health Care Provider: NONE Did you file a Workers’ Compensation Claim at the doctor’s office? See your HR Representative for assistance.

Name: Phone:

a.

b.

7. Was Medication Administered/Prescribed by Treating Physician/Health Care Provider? Yes No

If Yes, was it over-the-counter or prescription strength: Over-the-Counter Over-the-Counter BUT Prescription Strength Prescription

8. Did you miss any days away from work other than the day of accident/injury?: Yes No If Yes, how many?

Dates: Date returned to work: Physical therapy treatments prescribed: Yes No

Work restrictions: Yes No Job transfer: Yes No Still under doctor’s care: Yes No

In addition:





8. (Continued) - Employee Treated Yes No

Details / Extent of Injuries and prognosis / PT / scans / MRI / bed rest / band-aid, etc. WHAT DID THE DOCTOR DO?

Job Restrictions or Transfer Chiropractor visits

MRI or X-rays Massages

Physical Therapy or ? Splint/Brace (hard-flexible)?

Band-aid or Glue or Stitches Prognosis?

What did Dr say? Dr’s orders? Other?

9. Describe the Accident, the project activity being performed, and just how the accident occurred:

(Please be descriptive, use Proper names, etc.) (Use Page 3 if necessary.)

10. If this is a laceration injury to the hand, was protective glove being worn at the time of the accident? Yes No NA

11. Causative Factors (What circumstances contributed to the hazardous incident?): (Additional information can be continued on Page 3.)

12. Prevention (What changes, if made, would prevent the circumstances from reoccurring?): (Additional information can be continued on Page 3.)

13. Which of the preventative actions listed above are to be implemented? (Additional information can be continued on Page 3.)

NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING REPORT

DATE: PHONE:

Number of pages attached: OSC please keep copy for reference, a signed copy will be returned when signed.

For Use by Health and Safety Manager. The completion of this form is for internal HDR Health & Safety use only.

Record on OSHA 300 Form NO YES If checked YES, recordkeeper MUST record on OSHA 300 Form within seven days for OSHA compliance. If Workers’ Compensation claim filed, recordkeeper must work with employee until case is closed by WC. _ James N Woolcott / Date

Slip, Trip, Fall VEH BIO ERGO LIFT LAC SB/CB1 Puncture Other _____________________________

DISTRIBUTION: Original to Corporate Safety (Jim Woolcott) for comments & final distribution

DM/MP OSC EE(s) HR Contact if WC claim filed This form is in lieu of OSHA Form 301.

1 SB-Struck By / CB-Caught Between

(Circle One)





First MI Last Name (Legal):

Additional Project Site Information, complete only if required.: (Please type NA if not known)

1. Project Name:

2. Project Number:

3. Project Manager:

4. Client Name:

Please use this page for additional information and include the number of the question you are continuing.