United States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office of Water Office of Solid Waste EPA
Regulations and and Emergency 530-SW-8 7-005 C
Standards (WH-552) R.«8P?n«« „ _
' D'C' 20 4609 '
TECHNICAL REPORT: APPENDIX G
EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION
•*»£:'
|^™P v %i
CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL GAS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, library (Pt-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, tl 60604-3590
-------
OSW/OW - ITD
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION
SAMPLING PLAN AND
SAMPLING QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
PREPARED FOR
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
401 M STREET, S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
PREPARED BY
CENTEC CORPORATION
11260 ROGER BACON DRIVE
RESTON, VIRGINIA 22090
APPROVAL SIGNATURES:
Susan L. de Nagy
EPA Project Manager
EPA
y Assurance Officer
Andrew Procko
CENTEC Quality Assurance Officer
Kerri C. Kennedy
CENTEC Project Manager
JANUARY 31, 1987
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DISCLAIMER iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY 3
3.0 DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS 6
4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT
DATA IN TERMS OF PRECISION, ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS,
REPRESENTATIVENESS, AND COMPARABILITY 7
5.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS 10
6.0 SAMPLE CUSTODY 33
7.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY 38
8.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 39
9.0 DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING 40
10.0 INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS 41
11.0 SYSTEM AUDITS 42
12.0 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 43
13.0 SPECIFIC ROUTINE PROCEDURES USED TO ASSESS
DATA PRECISION, ACCURACY, AND COMPLETENESS .... 44
14.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION 45
15.0 REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT 47
REFERENCES 48
11
-------
DISCLAIMER
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
EPA endorsement or recommendation for use.
iii
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AA
COD
cm
DOT
EPA
ft
GC
GC/MS
ICP
ICR
in
ITD
ml
mm
NH3
NO 2
NO 3
OSW
OWRS
Pt
POC
QA
QC
RCRA
TCLP
TOG
VOA
Atomic absorption
Chemical oxygen demand
Centimeter
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Foot
Gas Chromatography
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
Inductively Coupled Plasma
Ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity
Inch
Industrial Technology Division
Milliliter
Millimeter
Ammonia
Nitrite
Nitrate
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Pint
Purgeable Organic Compounds
Quality Assurance
Quality Control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Total Organic Carbon
Volatile Organics Analysis
-------
Section No. 1
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 1 of 48
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION
SAMPLING PLAN AND SAMPLING QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This document presents the sampling plan and the quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan for the Office of Solid
Waste/Office of Water Regulations and Standards Exploration,
Development, and Production of Crude Oil and Natural Gas Field
Sampling and Analytical Results Project.!/2 The sampling project
began in early June 1986. The sampling project was completed in
September 1986. This final revision to the project sampling plan
and QA/QC plan reflects comments received and includes
clarifications to the original text.
The objective of this sampling project was to collect preliminary
information regarding the constituents of wastes from oil and gas
exploration, development, and production activities. A secondary
objective was to develop technical information regarding the
sources, volumes, and characteristics of wastes generated from
oil and gas activities. The results were included in a technical
report providing information about the wastes from this industry
and their waste management practices (EPA 530-SW-87-005).
Samples were collected from exploration, development, and
production sites. After collection and preservation, samples
were shipped to laboratories for analysis. Laboratory tests were
performed for organic compounds, metals, classical wet chemistry
parameters, and for certain other analytes.
-------
Section No. 1
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 2 of 48
This document describes the sampling and quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) requirements for the field sampling
portion of the OSW/OWRS Exploration, Development, and Production
of Crude Oil and Natural Gas Project only (see EPA
530-SW-87-005). This document describes practices and procedures
for sample collection, preservation, and shipment, and for
quality assurance of these activities. This document does not
include any portion of the analytical QA/QC or data validation
procedures.
-------
Section No. 2
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 3 of 48
2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
The sampling project was administered through EPA's Industrial
Technology Division (ITD). It was organized as shown in Figure
1. Ms. Susan de Nagy was the EPA Project Manager. Ms. Kerri C.
Kennedy was the Sampling Project Manager. Day-to-day sampling
activities were conducted by EPA contract sampling teams in
direct contact with the EPA Project Manager and the Sampling
Project Manager.
On-site activities were managed by a Sampling Engineer. The
Sampling Engineer was responsible for all onsite decisions
pertaining to safety, equipment, sample collection, and sampling
personnel.
William A. Telliard was the EPA Project Quality Assurance
Officer. Reporting to Mr. Telliard was Mr. Andrew Procko, the
Sampling Project QA Officer. Mr. Telliard was responsible for
the quality of the entire sampling project. Mr. Procko was
responsible for quality assurance of sampling activities. The
Project QA Officer and the Sampling QA Officer had full authority
to visit sites, audit sampling activities, and audit reports and
data to assure that all sampling activities resulted in data
which met Agency requirements.
-------
EPA
Project Manager
Susan de Nagy
EPA
Project QA Officer
William Telliard
Sampling
Project Manager
Kerri Kennedy
(CENTEC)
Sampling
QA Officer
Andrew Procko
(CENTEC)
Sampling Teams
Bruce Hoskins
Jamie Mclntyre
(CENTEC)
Figure 1. Sampling Project Organization
o
H>
CD
O JO CO
P (0 (0
ft « O
fl> H- ft
.. W P-
H-O
Q O 3
(u 3
3 ZS
c z o
0 •
3*
co
NJ
-------
Section No. 2
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 5 of 48
The Sampling Engineer conducted onsite evaluations, and
supervised sampling, sample preservation, and sample shipment.
The Sampling Engineer was in daily or near daily telephone
communication with the Sampling Project Manager and the EPA
Project Manager for resolution of technical and logistical
problems. She or he kept detailed records of these activities in
the form of Sampling Reports (Appendix C of the EPA Technical
Report [EPA 530-SW-87-005]) that became a permanent record of
these activities. These Reports were forwarded to the Sampling
Project Manager and Sampling QA Officer after each site visit.
The Sampling QA Officer audited the Sampling Reports to assure
that proper sampling procedures were followed and documented.
-------
Section No. 3
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 6 of 48
3.0 DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS
3.1 Field Site Investigations
During the site visit, data regarding the physical
characteristics of the site were documented. This data included
information regarding operating, control, or disposal practices,
and physical characteristics of specific features of the site
(for example, the size of a pit). These technical data and any
modification of the sampling procedures were documented in the
Sampling Report (Appendix C of the EPA Technical Report [EPA
530-SW-87-005]) for each site.
3.2 Documentation of Sampling, Preservation, and Shipping
The sample site locations were documented in the Sampling Reports
in sufficient detail to permit the Agency and the operator to
unambiguously reference the location from which a given sample
was taken. The sampling records showed the date, time, and
location sampled. The individual bottles used for each
fraction of each sample collected were documented on the
EPA-ITD Sample Control Center "Traffic Report" for that sample.
A copy of the Traffic Report became a permanent part of the
Sampling Report. Shipping records, in the forms of copies of
bills of lading or airbills became a permanent part of the
sampling records, so that sample holding times could be audited.
-------
Section No. 4
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 7 of 48
4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT DATA IN TERMS
OF PRECISION, ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, REPRESENTATIVENESS,
AND COMPARABILITY
4.1 Precision and Accuracy
Measurements of concern to this sampling project included length,
width, height, and volume. Linear measurements (length, width,
and height) were essential to identify and obtain the sampling
location within a site (for example, the center of a quadrant in
a pit). These measurements were taken using a standard tape
measure, accurate to 0.32 cm (1/8 in).
Volume measurement was needed to assure that an adequate size
sample was taken. Sampling kits were designed which carried the
essential type, number, and size of sample containers. If these
containers were more than 80 percent full, an adequate sample was
obtained. (VOA vials were completely filled without any air
space.) Table 1 lists the contents of one complete sample kit.
4.2 Completeness
Completeness was assured through onsite audits of the sample kit
and containers. The completeness objective was greater than 98
percent for the sampling portion of this project.
-------
Section No.
Revision No.
TABLE 1.
SAMPLE CONTAINER SIZE
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 8 of 48
SAMPLE CONTAINERS REQUIRED FOR SAMPLE KITS
1 gallon (glass)
1 gallon (glass)
(6) 40 ml VGA vials (glass)
(4) 40 ml VOA vials (glass)
1 gallon (glass)
1 gallon (glass)
1 gallon (glass)
1 gallon (glass)
(2) 40 ml TOA vials (glass)
1 quart (glass)
(2) 40 ml VGA vials (glass)
1 quart (plastic)
1 quart (plastic)
1 quart (glass)
1 quart (glass)
100 ml (plastic)
1 quart (plastic)
1/2 gallon (glass)
(2) 40 ml VOA vials (glass)
1 gallon (glass)
1 gallon (glass)
REQUIRED ANALYSIS
GC/MS for semivolatile organics
GC/MS for semivolatile organics
GC/MS for volatile organics
GC/MS for volatile organics
GC/MS for dioxins/furans
GC/MS for dioxins/furans
GC for pesticides/herbicides
GC for pesticides/herbicides
TCLP volatile fraction
TCLP semivolatile fraction
Purgeable organics
ICP and AA for metals
Cyanide
Oil and grease
TOC, COD, NH3, NQ2 and N03
Sulfide
Conventionals, RCRA ICR
Metals, cyanide, conventionals,
RCRA ICR, TCLP metals
Purgeable organics
Refrigerate and retain
Refrigerate and retain
SAMPLE PHASE
Liquid
Solid
Liquid
Solid
Liquid
Solid
Liquid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Solid
Solid
' Liquid
Solid
-------
Section No. 4
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 9 of 48
4.3 Representativeness
Verification was established that each type of facility to be
sampled (e.g., waste pit, produced water) had sufficient number
of samples for data analysis. For pit sampling,
representativeness of liquid samples was assured by compositing
grab samples taken from horizontal and vertical intervals as
described in detail in Section 5.2. Produced water samples were
similarly composited (see Section 5.3). Representativeness of
sludge samples was assured by directing sampling and compositing
of sludge, as described in Section 5.2. The sampling and
compositing procedures described herein were a balance of
representativeness, consideration of sampling practicality, and
logistics.
4.4 Comparability
The following measures were taken to ensure comparability of
field work performed by different sampling teams:
o Uniform written sampling procedures and equipment
were provided to each sample team.
o Standardized field sampling data forms (SCC Traffic
Reports) were used.
o Uniform handling and shipping procedures were
implemented for all collected samples.
o ' Uniform sampling containers were prepared by one
contractor for use by each sample team.
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 10 of 48
5.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS
This section discusses in detail the sampling methods and
procedures that were implemented by each sample team at each
designated sample site. Protocols were established on the
sampling equipment to be utilized, sampling performance for pits,
produced waters, centralized treatment facilities, and tank
bottoms, and safety measures to be observed.
5.1 Sampling Equipment
This section discusses the equipment used by the sample team in
.the field to collect the required samples.
5.1.1 List of Sampling Supplies and Equipment
The following supplies and equipment were used in this sampling
project:
Cleaning supplies and equipment
- Cleaning brush
Clean cloth
- Tap water
Pressure sprayer for water
Sampling equipment
- Sample kit (See Table 1. Proper containers were
supplied by an EPA contract laboratory. Sample kit
preparation is discussed below.)
- Five gallon glass carboy
Coring devices and accessories (Wildlife Supply Co.,
Catalog No. 2440-A10)
Coring tube liners (glass and Teflon)
Ponar dredge (6 inch x 6 inch) (Wildlife Supply Co.,
Cole Farmer Catalog No. J-5471-10)
Liquid thief, Bacon Bomb Type (1 pint) (Fisher
Scientific, Catalog No. 14-209)
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6 ~
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 11 of 48
- Gauging tape (Sentry Tank Associates, Inc., Item No.
4464)
- Hammer (1 pound)
- Wood stakes
- Neoprene gloves
- Surgical gloves
- Measuring tape (100 feet)
- Compass
Range-finder
Camera and film (35 mm)
Stainless steel spoon
Teflon sheets (used as funnels)
- pH test kit
Free chlorine field test kit
Miscellaneous
Bound field logbook
Masking tape
- Packing tape
- Writing tools
- Cooler boxes or ice chests (for refrigerated samples)
- Ice for shipping
Shipping materials
Shipping instructions and appropriate shipping forms
Rope
Rowboat (2-3 person)
- Plastic trash bags
- Draeger tubes
- Respirator masks
- Life jackets
5.1.2 Field Sample Kit Preparation
This section discusses the methods used by the laboratory to
prepare bottles included in the kits assembled for each sample
site visit. Further discussion of the preservatives and holding
times associated with each sample bottle is presented in Section
6.2, "Sample Preservation."
VPA Vials. The bottles, caps, and cap liners were washed
with Alconox soap and water. They were rinsed with three volumes
of tap water. A final three volume rinse with deionized water
-------
Section No. _
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 12 of 48
was performed. The bottles and liners were dried in an oven at
105°C for one (1) hour. Preservatives were added to the bottles
as soon as they were cool. The bottles were then assembled and
labeled.
Organic GC/MS, Dioxin, and Pesticide/Herbicide Bottles. The
bottles, caps, and cap liners were washed with Alconox soap and
water. They were rinsed with three volumes of tap water,
followed with a three volume rinse with deionized water. The
bottles and liners were dried in an oven at 105°C. The bottles
and liners were rinsed with one volume of methylene chloride and
allowed to air dry before assembling.
Bottles for Metals and RCRA Analysis. The bottles, caps,
and cap liners were washed with Alconox soap and water. They
were rinsed with three volumes of tap water, followed by a three
volume rinse with deionized water. They were then acid rinsed as
follows: 1:1 nitric acid followed by tap water, and 1:1
hydrochloric acid followed by tap water. They were given a final
three volume rinse with deionized water. Preservatives were
added and the bottles were assembled and labeled.
Bottles for Cyanides. The bottles, caps, and cap liners
were washed with Alconox soap and water. They were rinsed with
three volumes of tap water. A final three volume rinse with
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 13 of 48
deionized water was performed. Preservatives were added and the
bottles were assembled and labeled.
Bottles for COD, TOC, NH3, NC>2, AND NO3. The bottles, caps,
and cap liners were washed with Alconox soap and water. They
were rinsed with three volumes of tap water. The bottles and
liners were then rinsed in NO-CHROMIX - Sulfuric Acid. They were
again rinsed with three volumes of tap water, followed by three
volumes of deionized water. Preservatives were added and the
bottles were assembled and labeled.
Bottles for Sulfide. The bottles, caps, and cap liners were
washed with Alconox soap and water. They were rinsed with three
volumes of tap water, followed by a three volume rinse with
deionized water. Preservatives 'were added and the bottles were
assembled and labeled.
Bottles for Oil and Grease. The bottles, caps, and cap
liners were washed with Alconox soap and water. They were
rinsed with three volumes of tap water, followed by a three
volume rinse with deionized water. They were rinsed with
acetone. The bottles and liners were dried in an oven at 105°C.
Preservatives were added and the bottles were assembled and
labeled.
-------
Section No. ^
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 14 of 48
Bottles for POC and Volatile TCLP. The bottles, caps, and
cap liners were washed with Alconox soap and water. They were
rinsed with three volumes of tap water. A final three volume
rinse with deionized water was performed. The bottles and liners
were dried in an oven at 105°C for one (1) hour. Preservatives
were added to the bottles as soon as cool. The bottles were then
assembled and labeled.
Bottles for Semivolatile TCLP. The bottles, caps, and cap
liners were washed with Alconox soap and water. They were
rinsed with three volumes of tap water, followed by a three
volume rinse with deionized water. They were dried in an oven at
105°C. They were then rinsed with methylene chloride and dried
in an oven at 105°C. The bottles were then assembled and
labeled.
5.2 Pit Sampling
This section explains both the rationale for selecting sampling
locations and the proper protocols for sample collection and
handling.
5.2.1. Sample to be Collected
All pit samples were composited grab samples. For each pit to be
sampled, two composited samples were taken: one of solids
(sludge) and one of liquid (supernatant). If no discrete liquid
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 15 of 48
phase existed in a particular pit, no liquid composited sample
was taken.
Only one pit was sampled at a given site. When a site had
multiple pits, one pit was chosen using the following selection
process: At a drilling site where there were working pits in
addition to a reserve pit, the reserve pit was sampled. At a
centralized pit or treatment facility where there was more than
one pit in use, the sampled pit was chosen based on its status at
the time of sampling. Factors involved in pit selection included
the quantities of sludge and liquid in the pit, the amount of
activity the pit was involved in, accessibility of the sample
points, and safety considerations. For a site with multiple
centralized pits used primarily for evaporation, a recently
active pit was favored over an inactive pit as such a pit
inactive for a long period of time would probably consist of
analytes in a concentrated form. Clearly, an inaccessible pit or
a pit judged unsafe for sampling was not selected at a multiple
pit site. Reasons for the selection of one pit from a choice of
more than one pit were documented in the individual Sampling
Reports (Appendix C of the EPA Technical Report [EPA
530-SW-87-005]).
The selection of precise sampling locations within a pit was by a
specific design. Using this design, a standard scheme for
selecting sampling points was followed. As shown in Figure 2,
-------
Section No. b
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 16 of 48
•Sample Point
Figure 2- Sampling Subdivisions of a Mud Pit
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 17 of 48
each pit was divided into four equal area sections. Samples were
taken from the center of each section. The reason for this
approach was that regardless of the shape or size of the pit, the
method would introduce no subjective judgments that would
influence the sampling.
5.2.2. Pit Sample Collection Procedures
The following are the chronological steps taken by the sampling
team for proper sample collection.
I. The Sampling Engineer established sample points as
described in Section 5.2.1.
II. To remove any contamination potential, all sampling
equipment was rinsed by dipping at least twice in the pit
prior to taking the sample.
III. The sampling team attained the sampling location.
IV. At each sampling point, the required amount of sample was
collected by means of the relevant sampling procedures
explained below.
-------
Section No. j
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 18 of 48
A. Solids sample collection
At the sample point, a sample of solids (mud or sludge) was
collected using either a coring device or a dredge (Figure
3 and Figure 4, respectively). The preferred method was
the coring device as the cores contained stratified solids
samples that penetrated the sludge by up to 2 feet. Dredge
samples were collected only if site specific conditions
prevented the use of the coring device. Dredge samples
contained mostly solids from the top of the sludge level.
The coring devices were equipped with liner tubes for easy
removal of the collected sample. The liner tubes were made
of glass or Teflon. Plastic liners were not used in this
project as they would have contaminated the sample.
Within the same pit, core liners were reused without
cleaning. Since the final sample was composited,
individual sample point cross-contamination was
irrelevant.
B. Liquid sample collection
At the sample point, liquid was collected with a stainless
steel liquid thief sampler. The thief is pictured in
Figure 5.
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 19 of 48
Figure 2. Hand Coring Device and Accessories
(From Kahl Scientific Instrument Corp.)
Figure 4.
Ponar Grab Dredge
(From APHA, 1976)
-------
Section No. 5_
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31,
Page 20 of
1987
48
Figure 5. Liquid Thief and Tank Thief Hatch
(From American Petroleum Institute,
Primer of Oil and Gas Production,
1976.)
-------
Section No. 3
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 21 of 48
The design of the thief sampler allowed a liquid sample to
be taken at any specific depth. Several samples were taken
at the same lateral position but at different depths to
create a more representative composited grab sample. In
this projectf liquid samples were taken at four evenly
spaced depths between the liquid surface and the bottom of
the pit. The reason for this approach was that regardless
of the shape or size of the pit (also for tanks), no
subjective judgments influenced the sampling. The
amount of liquid collected at each depth approxi-
mately equaled one-fourth of the composited volume
required to fill all necessary sample bottles.
In the same pit, the thief was not cleaned between
individual samples. However, the exterior of the thief was
wiped free of any oil, sludge, or debris picked up by the
thief between samples within the same pit.
V. Once the individual samples were collected, they
were composited, mixed, and transferred. For sludge
samples, the cores or dredge samples were placed in a
stainless steel container where they were thoroughly
mixed. The mixed sample was then transferred to the
required sample containers by means of a stainless
steel spoon or glass scoop.
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 22 of 48
For liquid samples, the first collected grab sample was
used to fill the VOA vials. The remaining individual
samples were placed in a 5-gallon glass container and
mixed. Mixing was accomplished by manually agitating the
container until the contents were visually homogeneous.
The combined grabs were then transferred to sample
containers by means of funnel formed from a Teflon sheet.
Sample transfers between containers were kept to a minimum
to limit sample contact with the atmosphere.
Before sample transfer, foreign material such as
stones, nails, or trash was discarded. After placing
the sample in the proper sample containers, all
disposable items were discarded (glass coring tube
liners, intermediate glass sample holding containers,
etc.) and all Teflon and reusable glass items
cleaned. Cleaning required washing the equipment with
detergent and hot water followed by rinses with tap
water. Teflon items were shipped from the field to a
laboratory for cleaning with methylene chloride.
Reusable items not in direct contact with the sample
were cleaned with water.
VI. The sampling team collected all necessary field data
regarding the samples and attached identifying labels
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 23 of 48
to the containers. The samples were packed,
preserved, and shipped promptly via overnight shipping
service.
VII. The sampling team prepared site documentation for the
approval of the Sampling Engineer. This included
recording pertinent data in the log book, drawing site
maps, documenting Sample Control Center information^
and photographing the site along with identifying
landmarks. Further information about each site was
obtained by discussing the operation of the facility
with a representative of each site operator.
5.3 Produced Water Sampling
This section explains both the rationale for selecting sampling
locations and the proper protocols for sample collection and
handling.
5.3.1. Samples to be Collected
Produced water samples were either grab samples from process
lines or composited grab samples from tanks. One sample was
collected at each designated site. Samples were taken from
produced water tanks or process lines.
The following sampling methods were used for produced water
sampling. Sampling from storage tanks consisted of grab samples
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 24 of 48
taken from four depths evenly spaced from the liquid surface to
the bottom of the tank, and then combined. The design of the
thief hatch at the top of a tank prohibited taking samples at
different lateral positions. When a storage tank was
inaccessible to sampling from the top, a sample point was sought
in the form of a tap that provided direct discharge from the
tank, or a tap in a flow line exiting the tank. Samples obtained
at taps or from process lines were taken as grab samples.
5.3.2. Produced Water Sample Collection Procedures
The following is the chronological steps taken by the sampling
team for proper sample collection.
I. The Sampling Engineer established sample points for
storage tank or process line as described in Section 5.3.1.
II. To remove any contamination potential, all sampling
equipment was rinsed by repeated dipping in the tank or
flow line prior to taking the sample.
III. The sampling point location was attained by means of
accessing the top of storage tanks, or a valve or
other process line from the source.
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 25 of 48
IV. At each sampling point, the required amount was
collected by means of a liquid thief or similar
device at evenly spaced intervals from the liquid
surface to the bottom. If an alternate sampling
device was required, glass, Teflon, or stainless
steel construction was used.
V. From each sample site location, the collected
individual samples were placed in a container and
mixed to create the total liquid sample. Refer to
Section 5.2.2.B. for mixing and transferring protocols
for liquid samples. Foreign material such as stones,
nails, or trash was discarded. After placing the
mixed sample in the proper containers, all disposable
items were properly discarded and all reusable items
cleaned as previously discussed in Section 5.2.2.
VI. The Sampling Engineer was responsible for collecting
all necessary field data regarding the sample and for
attachment of identifying labels to the containers.
Samples were packed, preserved, and shipped promptly via
overnight shipping service.
VII. Proper site documentation was prepared under
direction of the Sampling Engineer. This
documentation included recording pertinent data in
-------
Section No. ->
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 26 of 48
the log book, drawing site maps, and photographing
the site along with identifying landmarks. Further
information about each site was obtained by
discussing the operation of the facility with a
representative of each site operator.
5.4. Centralized Treatment Facilities
This section explains both the rationale for selecting sampling
locations and the proper protocols for sample collection and
handling.
5.4.1. Sample to be Collected
All samples were a series of composited grab samples. Both
liquid and solid samples were collected. For each treatment
facility, three samples were taken: liquid influent, liquid
effluent, and effluent sludge. Specifically directed samples for
treatment facilities were taken from pits, tanks, or process
lines, using the procedures previously described. For pit
samples, the procedures in Section 5.2.1 were used. For tank or
process line samples, the procedures in Section 5.3.1 were used.
5.4.2. Centralized Treatment Facility Sample Collection
Procedures
The following are the chronological steps taken by the sampling
team for proper sample collection.
-------
Section Mo. 5
Revision No. 6 ~
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 27 of 48
I. To remove any contamination potential, all sampling
equipment was rinsed by repeated dipping in the pit or tank
prior to taking the sample.
II. The sampling team attained the sampling location.
III. At each sampling point, the required amount was
collected using equipment specified in the protocols.
Pit sampling procedures are discussed in Section
5.2.2. Tank and process line sampling procedures are
discussed in Section 5.3.2.
IV. The individual samples from each sample site were
placed in a container and mixed to create the total
sample as previously described in Sections 5.2.2 and
5.3.2. See Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.2 for equipment
and protocols. Foreign material such as stones,
nails, or trash was discarded. After placing the
mixed sample in the sample containers, all disposable
items were properly discarded and all reusable items
cleaned as previously discussed in Section 5.2.2.
V. The Sampling Engineer was responsible for collection
of all necessary field data regarding the sample and for
attachment of identifying labels to the containers. The
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 28 of 48
samples were packed, preserved, and shipped promptly
using an overnight shipping service.
VI. The Sampling Engineer was responsible for preparation
of proper site documentation. This documentation
included recording pertinent data in the log book,
drawing site maps, documenting Sample Control Center
information and photographing the site along with
identifying landmarks. Further information about
each site was obtained by discussing the operation of
the facility with a representative of each site
operator.
5.5 Field Tank Sludge
All samples were composited grab samples. The preferred method
of sample collection at a particular tank was using the coring
device with the glass or Teflon liner. If this was not feasible,
sampling was conducted with the Ponar dredge. After sample
collection, the sample transfer and identification protocols
described in the above section were followed.
5.6 Safety Considerations
It was not known whether the sampled wastes were hazardous. It
was therefore recommended that the sampling team observe EPA
Level D protection as a baseline.4 EPA Level D protection
provided a minimal level of protective equipment including:
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 29 of 48
Protective gloves
Steel toe shoes
Cloth coveralls
Hard hat
Safety glasses
Ear plugs (optional)
In addition, life jackets were worn when sampling from the boat.
Also, when sampling required the use of chest waders to wade into
a pit, a life line was connected from the sampler to the shore.
The Sampling Engineers were fully knowledgeable in the required
levels of EPA protection for different sampling projects and
experienced in conducting field sampling of potentially hazardous
materials.
At each site, an evaluation was made by the Engineer prior to
sampling to determine if any additional levels of protection were
necessary. This evaluation included the use of portable Draeger
tubes and hand pumps for detection of hydrogen sulfide. The
preliminary waste characterization identified hydrogen sulfide as
a constituent which might have been encountered during sampling.
If the ambient concentration of hydrogen sulfide at a site was
greater than the threshold limit value ceiling of 15 mg/m^ (10
ppm)5, sampling would have been aborted. No sampling at any site
investigated was cancelled for this reason.
A Draeger unit consists of a calibrated glass tube filled with a
reactant (lead acetate is used in hydrogen sulfide tubes). A
hand pump is used to draw a known volume of gas through the glass
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 30 of 48
tube as shown in Figure 6. The degree of color change in the
reactant denotes the concentration. Several scales are usually
presented on the tube for high and low concentrations. According
to Neil Adams**, the quantitative measurements obtained with the
Draeger unit are accurate. In the hands of trained personnel,
they can be used to detect a wide range of concentrations by
using various tubes and pumped volumes. Since they are not
electronic, they are not subject to electronic malfunction
onsite. The unit and tubes are rugged; previously opened tubes
even can be reused for hydrogen sulfide provided that in previous
uses no hydrogen sulfide was detected.°
^
The Sampling Engineer had the option to abort sampling if workers
experienced eye, skin, or bronchial irritation, or if they were
experiencing narcosis of sufficient degree to increase accident
proneness, impair self-rescue, or materially reduce work
efficiency.
Any further protective equipment required at any particular site
was at the discretion of the Sampling Engineer. Also at the
discretion of the Sampling Engineer was whether safety conditions
(or the lack of them) warranted cancellation of sampling at a
particular site. Such conditions included (but were not limited
to) the inability to safely reach the designated sample point,
adverse weather conditions, or incomplete sampling teams. When
sampling required the opening of a tank thief hatch, the Sampling
-------
-------
Section No. 5
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 32 of 48
Engineer wore a gas mask and used a Draeger tube for hydrogen
sulfide gas detection as soon as the hatch was opened. If a
dangerous level of hydrogen sulfide was found coming from the
tank, sampling would have been aborted.
If sampling at a particular site was to be cancelled due to
safety concerns, this would have been immediately reported to the
EPA Project Manager and the Quality Assurance Officer along with
the reasons for the cancellation. During the course of the
sampling project, no sampling at a site was cancelled due to
safety concerns.
Prior to sampling at each site, the sampling team was informed of
emergency procedures, the location of the nearest hospital, the
4
location of the nearest poison center, and the corresponding
emergency phone numbers.
-------
Section No. 6
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 33 of 48
6.0 SAMPLE CUSTODY
This section describes the proper procedures for sample handling,
preservation, and shipment.
6.1 Sample Handling
As described in Section 5, after collecting the individual
samples, sample transfer was kept to a minimum. Sample contact
with plastic was avoided unless the final sample container was
plastic.
6.2 Sample Preservation
Once a sample has been collected, steps were taken to preserve
the chemical and physical integrity of the sample during trans-
port and storage prior to analysis. Depending upon the type of
analysis to be performed on the sample, preservatives such as
sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, or nitric acid were added to the
sample bottles (see Section 5.1.2). All samples were shipped to
the laboratories under ice. All required materials to preserve
samples were included in the sample kits. Table 2 lists the
preservatives and holding times associated with each sample
container included in the sample kits.
6.3 Sample Shipment
All samples were shipped from the field on the day of collection
using an overnight commercial delivery service unless
circumstances did not permit this. In that event, samples were
-------
TABLE 2.
Section No.
Revision No.
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 34 of 48
REQUIRED PRESERVATIVES AND MAXIMUM HOLDING TIMES
SAMPLE CONTAINER
Metals
Cyanide
Oil and grease
Sulfide
COD, TOG, NH3, NO2,
Routine
FCC
VGA vial
VGA vial
VOA vial
Extractable organics
Dioxins/furans
REQUIRED PRESERVATIVES
HNO3 to pH <2
NaOH to pH >12
Cool 4°C
H2S04 to pH <2
Cool, 4'C
Zn(C2H302)2
Cool, 4°C
H2SO4 to pH <2
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
HC1, Cool, 4°C
Na2S2O3, Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4*C
Cool, 4°C
Pesticides/herbicides Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
TCLP - volatiles Cool, 4°C
TCLP - extractables Cool, 4*C
MAXIMUM HOLDING TIME
6 months (except Hg, whose
holding time is 28 days)
14 days
28 days
7 days
28 days
28 days (except BOD, whose
holding time is 48 hours)
14 days
14 days
14 days
14 days
7 days until extraction;
40 days after extraction
7 days until extraction;
40 days after extraction
7 days until extraction;
40 days after extraction
14 days
7 days until extraction;
40 days after extraction
-------
Section No. 6
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 198f
Page 35 of 48
shipped in the most expedient method available. The outside of
the shipment container required the following information: a
shipping label with the complete address of the receiving
laboratory including the responsible laboratory person to receive
the samples, a designated box number to indicate to the receiver
exactly how many sample boxes were included in the shipment, and
any required DOT or hazardous waste labels.
Sealed sample containers were packed and sealed in shipping
containers prior to shipment. Shipping containers were turned
over directly to the shipping agent (overnight shipper, airline,
etc.) whenever possible. In exceptional circumstances, the
Sampling Engineer enlisted a delivery service or hotel service
staff to turn a shipment over to the shipping agent. Care was
taken to ensure the integrity and promptness of shipment.
Documentation of the transaction was maintained.
6.4 Field Custody Procedures
Each sample had an identification tag attached to it. Shipment
record forms were written for each group of samples shipped to a
particular laboratory. These forms were the standard Sample
Control Center Organics Traffic Reports and Metals Traffic
Reports shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively. At least
one copy of each form accompanied sample shipment to a
laboratory. One copy of each form remained in the custody of the
sample team.
-------
Section No. 6
Revision No.§
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 36 of 48
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOOY DIVISION
SAMPLE CONTROL CENTER
P.O. BOX 1407
ALEXANDRIA. VA 22313
703/557-5040 / FTS-S-557-5040
EPISODE NO:
RANGE OF SAMPLE NOS:
ORQANIC3 TRAFFIC REPORT
INDUSTRIAL FIRM SAMPLED:
CITY:
STATE.
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY:
CONFIDENTIAL YES NO
SAMPLING OFFICE:
SAMPLER:
SAMPLING DATE.
BEGIN:
END:
SHIPPING INFORMATION
SHIP TO:
ATTN:
CARRIER:
AIRBILL NO:
DATE SHIPPED:
SAMPLE POINT DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE
NUMBER
ii
li
li
ADDITIONAL SAMPLC
OCSCMIPTION
!f
I
WHITE - SCC COPY YELLOW - SAMPLER COPY PINK — LAB COPY FOR RETURN TO SCC GOLD - LAB COPY
Figure 7
-------
Section No. 6
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 37 of 48
USEPA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOOY DIVISION
SAMPLE CONTROL CENTER
P.O. BOX 1407
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313
703/557-5040 / FTS-B-557-5040
EPISODE NO:
RANGE OF SAMPLE NOS:
METALS TRAFFIC REPORT
INDUSTRIAL FIRM SAMPLED:
CITY.
STATE:.
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY.
CONFIDENTIAL: YES NO
SAMPLING OFFICE:
SAMPLER:
SAMPLING DATE
BEGIN:
END:
SHIPPING INFORMATION
SHIP TO:
ATTN:
CARRIER:
AIRBILL NO:
DATE SHIPPED:
SAMPLE POINT DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPE
SAMPLE
NUMBER
RAW WATER ]
(CITY. RIVER. WELL) 1
8
!
i
'
L UNTREATED EFFLUENT 1
(RAW WASTE WATER) 1
I
A
ADDITIONAL SAMPLE
DESCRIPTION
i
!
|:
U4 METALS TASK 1
""' (ICPONLV)
... METALS TASK II
"«
-------
Section No. '
Revision No. 6
Date: January"31, 1987
Page33of
7.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY
This section is not applicable to the f^eld sampling portion of
this project.
-------
Section No. 8_
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 39 of 48
8.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
This section is not applicable to the field sampling portion of
this project.
-------
Section No. 9
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 40 of 48
9.0 DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING
During field activities, no analytical parameters were collected
with the exception of tests for pH and free chlorine. These
tests were conducted in the field by the Sampling Engineer to
provide estimates of the pH and free chlorine content to the
receiving analytical laboratories. These estimates were used by
the laboratories in decisions about handling and analysis of the
samples. Since the estimates were not reported as analytical
data, they were not subject to any reduction or validation
procedures.
The remainder of the data obtained were from observations noted
in the field logbook. These data were not analytical parameters
but site specific information such as the sizes of onsite pits or
the sequence of treatment. Such data was confirmed by visual
observation where possible in the field. Notes from logbooks
remained in the possession of the Sampling Engineers until the
conclusion of field sampling unless otherwise directed by the EPA
Project Manager. Information from the logbooks was compiled and
submitted as part of the Technical Report (EPA 530-SW-87-005).
-------
Section No. 10
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 41 of 48
10.0 INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS
The required field quality control check for this project was
five percent field duplicates. Field duplicates were collected
by the sampling team at the sites designated by the Sampling
Project Manager. Shipment of field duplicates was concurrent
with a shipment of regular field samples.
-------
Section No. 11
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 42 of 48
11.0 SYSTEM AUDITS
System audits were conducted in the field by the EPA Quality
Assurance Officer and the Sampling QA Officer. The dates of
these audits were documented in the Sampling Reports (Appendix C
of the EPA Technical Report [EPA 530-SW-87-005]).
-------
Section No. 12
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 43 of 48
12.0 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
The Sampling Engineer visually examined all sampling equipment
upon arrival at the sample site to assure it was in proper
working order. The Sampling Engineer re-examined the equipment
upon completion of sampling to assure that sampling equipment
remained in working order.
To prevent delays in field sample collection or shipment, the
sampling team had in its possession spare parts and tools for
field repair of critical sampling equipment. Spares of all glass
or other breakable objects used in collection were available.
Extra shipment containers were obtained in the case of damage to
sample shipment containers.
-------
Section No. 13
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 44 of 48
13.0 SPECIFIC ROUTINE PROCEDURES USED TO ASSESS DATA PRECISION,
ACCURACY, AND COMPLETENESS
This section is not applicable to the field sampling portion of
this project as no data generated in the field was subject to the
assessment procedures for statistical precision, accuracy, and
completeness.
-------
Section No. 14
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 45 of 48
14.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION
This section describes the conditions or situations that might
have been encountered that could have caused deviations in
standard sampling methods or cancellation of sampling at any
given site. First, no sampling was conducted with any method
that, in the judgment of the Sampling Engineer, Sampling Project
Manager, EPA Project Manager, Sampling QA Officer, or EPA QA
Officer, endangered any member of the sampling team or would
result in an inaccurate, imprecise, or non-representative sample
being collected. If safe or representative sampling could not be
achieved, no sampling was performed at that site.
For pit sampling, the following list of preferred and alternate
sampling methods is given. They are listed in decreasing order
of priority:
1. Use of coring tube; sampling points achieved
by use of rowboat.
2. Use of Ponar dredge; sampling points achieved
by use of rowboat.
3. Use of coring tube; sampling points achieved
by wading into pit or using boards to walk
into pit.
4. Use of coring tube while standing at edge of
pit.
5. Use of Ponar dredge while standing at edge of
pit.
-------
Section No. 14
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 46 of 48
If none of the above methods could have been safely used, no
sludge sample would have been taken from the pit.
The limiting factor for pit sampling was the pit condition. The
pit must have been reasonably accessible. A breached pit was
sampled for solids only. A completely evaporated pit or a pit
where the liquids were injected or land applied was sampled for
solids only. A frozen pit was sampled using a manual auger, ice
picks, or similar appropriate equipment.
Produced water or sludge sampling from tanks were dependent upon
tank condition. An empty tank would not be sampled. A tank with
no thief hatch, no valves, or other reasonably accessible opening
would not be sampled. Any tank of questionable construction
integrity would not be sampled.
Any deviations in sampling procedures were noted in the field
logbook and the individual Sampling Reports (Appendix C of the
EPA Technical Report [EPA 530-SW-87-005]). Any major deviations
or cancellation of sampling for any reason at a site was
immediately reported to the EPA Project Manager and Quality
Assurance Officer.
-------
Section No. 1->
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 198/
Page 47 of 48
15.0 REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT
15.1 Sampling Reports
A site-specific Sampling Report was generated for each location
visited or sampled. Each Sampling Report contained the following
information:
Sample site name and location
Description of facility
- Date sampled
Attendees' list, including sampling team members, State
and Federal Government representatives, and other
observers
Photographs of site
Specific sampling equipment used
Description of disposal or control technology used
onsite
Problems encountered during sampling visit
Deviations from sampling quality assurance plans
These Sampling Reports became part of the Technical Report (SPA
530-SW-87-005).
15.2 Quality Assurance Reports
Quality Assurance Reports were generated by the Sampling QA
Officer. They contained the results of any and all field audits
conducted during the course of sampling along with any quality
assurance problems and recommended solutions.
At the end of the sampling project, a summary report listing the
non-conformances and corrective actions was produced by the
sampling contractor.
-------
Section No. References
Revision No. 6
Date: January 31, 1987
Page 48 of 48
REFERENCES
1. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-01-7153.
2. Environmental Protection Agency. Decision Document on
Onshore Oil and Gas Regulatory Issues, February 1986.
3. Environmental Protection Agency. Handbook for Sampling and
Sample Preservation of Water and Wastewater, September,
1982.
4. Environmental Protection Agency. Dioxin Strategy, 1983.
5. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in Workroom
Air, 1977"
6. Adams, Neil, Well Control Problems and Solutions, Petroleum
Publishing Company, Tulsa,Oklahoma,1980.
------- |