United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478 Research and Development EPA/600/SR-93/242 April 1994 EPA Project Summary Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program—Quality Assurance Program Plan Brian A. Schumacher The quality assurance (QA) policy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requires every moni- toring and measurement project to have a written and approved quality assur- ance program and project plan. The purpose of this quality assurance pro- gram plan is to specify the policies, organization, objectives, and the qual- ity evaluation and quality control (QC) activities needed to achieve the data quality requirements of the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sedi- ments (ARCS) Program. These specifi- cations are used to assess and control measurement errors that may enter the system at various phases of the pro- gram, (during sampling, preparation, and analysis). This Project Summary was developed by EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, to announce key findings of the research project that is fully documented in a separate report of the same title (see Project Report ordering information at back). Project Description The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act,' Section 118(c)(3), authorize the USEPA Great Lakes National Pro- gram Office (GLNPO) to coordinate and conduct a 5-year study and demonstra- tion project relating to the control and re- moval of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes, with emphasis on removal of toxic pollutants from bottom sediments. Five ar- eas were specified in the Clean Water Act as requiring priority consideration in locat- ing and conducting demonstration projects: Saginaw Bay, Ml; Sheboygan Harbor, Wl; Grand Calumet River, IN; Ashtabula River, OH; and Buffalo River, NY. In response, GLNPO has initiated the ARCS Program. ARCS is an integrated program for the development and testing of assessment and remedial action alternatives for con- taminated sediments. The overall objectives of the ARCS pro- gram are to: (1) assess the nature and extent of bottom sediment contamination at selected Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs), (2) evaluate and demonstrate re- medial options, including removal, immo- bilization, and advanced treatment tech- nologies, as well as the "no action" alter- native, and (3) provide guidance on the assessment of contaminated sediments and the selection and implementation of necessary remedial actions in the AOCs and other locations in the Great Lakes. To accomplish the objectives of the ARCS program, two committees, one non- technical workgroup, and three technical workgroups were established. The names of the individual workgroups and their ba- sic responsibilities are: Management Advisory Committee: Ad- vises the GLNPO Director on their per- ceptions of the overall progress of the ARCS 'program and reviews annual work and funding plans for the ARCS program. Activities Integration Committee: Over- sees the ARCS program, including the technical activities of each of the ------- workgroups, develops and coordinates the QA/QC program, and coordinates the data management activities of the ARCS pro- gram. Toxlcity/Chemlstry Workgroup: As- sesses the current nature and extent of contaminated sediment problems by study- Ing the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of contaminated sediments and their biotic communities, demonstrates cost-effective assessment techniques at the priority consideration areas that can be used at other Great Lakes AOCs, and produces three-dimensional maps show- Ing the distribution of contaminated sedi- ments in the priority areas. Risk Assessment/Modeling Workgroup-. Assesses the current and future hazards presented by the contaminated sediments to all biota (aquatic, terrestrial, and hu- man) under the "no action" alternative and other remedial alternatives at the priority consideration areas, as well as develops a ranking scheme for site comparison. Engineering/Technology Workgroup: Evaluates and tests available removal and remedial technologies for contaminated sediments, selects promising technologies for further testing, and performs field dem- onstrations on as many of the promising technologies as possible. Communication/Liaison Workgroup: Facilitates the flow of Information from the technical workgroups and the overall ARCS program to the interested public and provides feedback from the public to the ARCS program on needs, expecta- tions, and perceived problems. Expertise for the three technical workgroups (toxicity/chemistry, risk assess- ment/modeling, and engineering/technol- ogy) was sought from numerous federal and state government agencies (USEPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceano- graphlc and Atmospheric Administration, Bureau Of Mines, Illinois Natural History Survey, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation), universities and colleges (Wright State University, Michigan State University, University of Michigan, State University College of New York at Buffalo, Memphis State Univer- sity, University of Minnesota, Saginaw Val- ley State College, University of California at Santa Barbara, and private industry (Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Com- pany, Science Applications International Corporation, and Battelle-Marine Sciences Laboratory). Further discussion of the primary re- sponsibilities, including sampling and analyses, to be performed by the three technical workgroups is presented in the following text. Toxicity/Chemistry Workgroup Four different types of sampling sta- tions were established for the sediment toxicity testing by the Toxicity/Chemistry (T/C) workgroup: reconnaissance stations, master stations, priority master stations, and extended priority master stations. A brief description of the site selection crite- ria, sampling process, and analyses per- formed on each station type follows. Sampling locations for the reconnais- sance stations were selected to give the greatest possible coverage of the entire AOC and to obtain a zone of intensive sampling around a known "hot spot". Site coordinates were obtained using the Lo- ran C navigation or the global positioning system. Samples were obtained using a Vibra-core* unit. Observations of sediment color, texture, smell, and layering were performed on-site. Subsamples of approxi- mately 61-cm (2-ft) intervals were col- lected, placed in 4 L polyethylene bottles, kept on ice in the field, and stored at the laboratory at 4°C. Indicator parameters, including ammonia, conductivity, metals, Microtox™ bioluminescence assay, organohalogens, pH, sediment grain size fractions, solvent extractable residue, to- tal solids, volatile solids, and total organic carbon (TOC), were analyzed in various media (pore water, elutriate, and/or sol- ids). In principle, the indicator parameters correlate with other measurements of con- tamination and toxicity. Therefore, use of the indicator parameters allow the detailed analyses from the few master stations to be extrapolated throughout the site, based on correlations between reconnaissance and master station data. Information from these analyses and from profiling data obtained during the reconnaissance sur- vey will be used to prepare three-dimen- sional contamination maps during the post- survey phase. The locations of the master stations (in- cluding the priority and extended priority master stations) were selected based on the availability of historical sediment con- taminant concentration data and contami- nant maps from each AOC, input from local authorities, and a desire to provide some degree of complete geographic cov- erage in each AOC. Stations were usually positioned along the sides of the dredged shipping channel since these shallow ar- eas are usually the location of sediment deposition zones. Collection of the bulk sediment sample was performed using ei- ther a Van Veen or Ponar grab sampler. * Mention of trade names or commericial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Approximately 15 L of sediment at master stations and approximately 120 L of sedi- ment at priority master stations was col- lected. The sediment from the grabs was transferred and composited in 5-gal plas- tic bag-lined buckets. Upon completion of the sampling effort, the sediments were transported to shore and homogenized. Homogenization con- sisted of mixing the sediments in a ce- ment mixer for 15 min. Once the sediment was determined to be visually homoge- neous, the sample was transferred to la- beled, high-density polyethylene bottles. A 5-cm headspace was left in each bottle to allow for later sample homogenization at the analytical laboratories. The bottles were stored on ice in the field and in walk- in coolers at 4 ± 2° C in the dark at the analytical laboratories. Chemical analyses for all master sta- tion (including priority and extended prior- ity master stations) samples included: metals, pH, acid volatile sulfides, meth- ylmercury, tributyltin, pesticides, polychlo- rinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aro- matic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins/furans, and total organic carbon. Analyses were performed using standardized, approved EPA methods. Where standardized EPA methods do not exist, written standard operating procedures or published refer- ences for the method were provided by the analytical laboratory. To examine the toxicity (actual and po- tential) of the sediments, pore waters, and elutriates to living organisms in the Great Lakes, numerous bioassays were per- formed on the sediments from the various levels of master stations. At each master station, a tiered testing approach was used to determine the toxicity of the sediments. Tier I testing focuses on acute toxicity testing using Daphnia magna, Ceriodaphnla dubia, Chironomus riparius, Chironomus tentans, Selenastrum capricomutum, and Microtox™, benthic community structure, and mutagenicity testing while Tier II focuses on partial life- cycle toxicity employing Hyalella azteca assays. Tier III testing focuses primarily on full life-cycle toxicity and bioaccumulation using Hyalella azteca and Pimephales promelas. Appropriate water quality parameters were monitored. Priority master stations were selected from the master stations to represent sedi- ments with a wide range in the degree of contamination in each AOC. These sta- tions underwent the same testing as the master stations. Additionally, the following comparative bioassays were performed: Microtox™, Selenastrum capricomutum, Daphnia magna, Hyalella azteca, Lemna minor, Pimephales promelas, Hydrilla ------- verticillata, Diaporeia sp, Hexagenia limbata, Panagrellus redivivus, and indig- enous bacterial enzyme function. This ad- ditional suite of bioassays was used to assist in the selection of optimal sediment toxicity test assays for a given contami- nant group (PAHs), provide comparisons with the International Joint Commission recommended test battery, and aid in the determination of biologically significant con- taminant levels in "grey" areas where con- taminants are likely to produce some acute and chronic toxicity effects. Most, if not all, of the sediments se- lected as priority master stations under- went a bioaccumulation assay using Pimephales promelas. If the potential ex- ists for the bioaccumulation of a contami- nant or suite of contaminants identified in the sediment, the priority master station was designated as an extended priority master station and the fish tissue under- went analysis for the suspected bioaccumulated contaminants. The ex- • tended priority master station sediments were areas of high contaminant levels (a "hot spot") in each AOC. Fish tumor and abnormality identifica- tion on' the brown bullhead (Atnelurus nebulosus) were also performed as part of the T/C workgroup testing program. The brown bullhead has been selected as the primary fish due to its intimate contact with the bottom sediments. Surveys were conducted in the Buffalo, Ashtabula, and Saginaw Rivers to determine the incidence of external abnormalities and internal tu- mors. Risk Assessment/Modeling Workgroup One of the primary objectives of the Risk Assessment and Modeling (RA/M) workgroup is to perform hazard evalua- tions. The phrase "hazard evaluation" re- fers to the overall evaluation of impacts to all receptors of concern resulting from ex- posure to sediment contaminants and con- sists of several discrete assessments. The ultimate purpose of the hazard evaluation is to determine the existing and future health risks and effects (carcinogenic, re- productive, systemic effects, community structure impacts) presented to human and environmental receptors (aquatic, avian, mammalian) from direct or indirect con- tact with sediment contaminants under dif- ferent remedial options. The hazard evalu- ation is comprised of four assessments: exposure, human health risk, aquatic haz- ard, and wildlife hazard assessments. Two levels of evaluation will be exam- ined, baseline and comprehensive hazard evaluations. Baseline human health haz- ard evaluations will be performed for all five AOCs and will be developed from available site-specific information. The baseline hazard evaluations describe the hazards to receptors under present site conditions or the "no action" alternative. This baseline assessment will examine all potential pathways by which humans may incur risk from exposure to sediments at a given location. Comprehensive hazard evaluations will be performed for the Buffalo River and Saginaw River AOCs. These evaluations describe the hazards to receptors under different remedial alternatives. The reme- dial alternatives include examining selec- tive removal or capping of "hot spots", source control, or dredging of an entire river, among others. Additionally, the com- prehensive risk assessment will examine risk from losses of selected remedial al- ternatives. Sampling consisted predominantly of the collection of samples to support the mini- mass balance/synoptic surveys on the Buffalo and Saginaw Rivers. These ef- forts included the collection of the water column samples, simultaneous measure- ments of river discharge and associated water quality parameters, and sampling of fish populations. For the Buffalo River sys- tem, sampling of combined sewer outfall (CSO) discharges were performed. Two additional river characterization studies (sediment transport and sediment resuspension potential studies) were con- ducted on the Buffalo River AOC. The basic goal in the sampling design for the mini-mass balance/synoptic sur- veys is to collect information about the river system during several periods of low flow (or quasi-steady state) conditions as well as during at least one high flow event (after a major storm system has passed through the AOC or during the spring snow melt). These data provide information on the relative importance and amplitude of point and non-point pollutant sources to the AOC on both a temporal and a spatial scale. These same data also serve as a primary information source for the mass- balance, near-field dispersion, far-field dis- persion, and food chain models to be used by the RA/M workgroup. Samples were collected from fixed stations (six in the Saginaw River AOC and 7 within the Buf- falo River AOC) for all sampling events to measure pollutant influxes to the AOC, ambient concentrations within the AOC, and effluxes to the lake, harbor, or bay. Measurements of the river flow condi- tions (flow velocity and direction, sediment load, thermal stratification, etc.) and water quality parameters (pH, conductivity, tem- perature, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a content) were made simultaneously with the collection of the water column samples using a variety of automated measure- ment systems including: the Sea-Bird® Model SBE-25 Sealogger, Sea-Bird® SEACAT SBE-16® recorder fitted with a Sea Tech Transmissometer, HydroLab Surveyor II®, LI-COR® system, March- McBirney Model 301 Flow Velocity Meter and/or Price and Weathermeasure cur- rent meters. Under both high and low flow condi- tions, numerous measurements were taken throughout the AOC to determine dissolved contaminant concentrations in the water column and on the suspended sediment. Contaminants measured in the Buffalo River included: total PCBs, DDT, dieldrin, chlordane, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)- anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo- (k)fluoranthene, chrysene, Pb, and Cu. The contaminants analyzed in water and par- ticulate samples collected in the Saginaw River AOC included: total PCBs, Pb, Fe, Cu, and Zn. Conventional water quality parameters of sulfides, alkalinity, hardness, chlorides, TOC, dissolved oxygen content, and total suspended solids were also mea- sured in both AOCs. Analyses were per- formed using standardized, approved EPA methods. Where standardized EPA meth- ods do not exist, written standard operat- ing procedures or published references for the method were provided by the ana- lytical laboratory. Fish samples were collected at both the Buffalo and Saginaw River AOCs to sup- port the food chain modeling efforts. Fish were collected throughout the entire AOCf Carp (Cyprinus carpio) was collected as the primary fish in the Buffalo River while walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) was sampled in the Saginaw River. Carp were chosen to be sampled in the Buffalo River due to their abundance and representa- tiveness of the river's bottom feeders. Walleye were selected in the Saginaw River AOC because of its abundance, the importance of the walleye fishery at the AOC, and past use of the walleye in bioaccumulation studies. The sediment transport studies involve the determination of the resuspension po- tential of the bottom sediments. The sam- pling strategy involves collecting samples and testing resuspension potential through- out the AOC. The primary consideration was to perform tests at sites with muddy bottom sediments since these sediments are most easily resuspended during natu- ral high flow events. The second river characterization study involves the collection of total suspended solids data and other limnological param- eters, such as water temperature, con- ductivity, and velocity, during high flow ------- events In the river. These data will be used in the calibration of hydrodynamic and sediment transport models. Collection efforts were performed throughout the Buf- falo River AOC during an event large enough to initiate bottom scour of the river bed. Engineering/Technology Workgroup Sampling for the Engineering/Technol- ogy (E/T) workgroup consisted of gather- ing enough bulk sediments from one or two locations within an AOC to supply all the bench scale remediation processes with the "same" initial sediment. The sedi- ments collected were grossly contaminated with a given class or classes of contami- nants. Site selection was based on his- torical data, the results of the sediment characterization from the T/C workgroup efforts, and discussions among members of the three technical workgroups. Site locations were marked on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sounding charts after determination via triangulation. Bulk samples were collected from the toe of the channel using a crane barge bucket operation. Sediments were then scooped or shoveled from the bucket, working from top to bottom, to fill approximately twenty 5-gallon plastic buckets. Sample compositing and homogenization was per- formed using a cement mixer. Sediments were deemed homogeneous by visual in- spection of texture, color, and water con- tent. After homogeneity has been obtained, samples were stored at 4° C in the dark prior to analysis. In general, the remedial processes in the ARCS program are aimed at the deg- radation of organic compounds, such as pesticides, RGBs, and PAHs. However, several remedial processes, such as siev- ing and cycloning, froth flotation, gravity separation, and magnetics, were used to demonstrate remediation possibilities for sediments contaminated with heavy met- als. To select the remedial processes for the organic contaminants, a literature re- view was performed of existing remediation technologies. Upon completion of the lit- erature review, several remedial processes were selected by the E/T workgroup for two different levels of testing, the bench- scale tests and pilot-scale demonstrations. To determine if a remediation process has been successful, contaminant con- centrations must be determined prior to and after the remediation has been com- pleted. Therefore, testing was performed on both untreated and treated sediments, as well as water and oil fractions (remediation by-products) depending upon the process being tested. Parameters monitored by the E/T workgroup included: metals, pH, pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, oil and grease, total organic carbon, mois- ture content, conductivity, and total vola- tile solids. Analyses were performed using standardized, approved EPA methods. Where standardized EPA methods do not exist, written standard operating proce- dures or published references for the method were provided by the analytical laboratory. Quality Assurance Program The data collection criteria provide a balance between constraints of time and cost and the quality of data necessary to achieve the ARCS program research ob- jectives. The ARCS quality assurance pro- gram plan (QAPP) is designed to accom- plish the following objectives: • Establish the QA/QC criteria used to control and assess data collection in the ARCS program, • Provide comparable sampling, prepa- ration, and analytical methods, • Utilize assessment samples and pro- cedures to verify the quality of the data, • Perform field and on-site laboratory system audits to ensure that all ac- tivities are properly performed and that discrepancies when identified are resolved, and • Evaluate the data and document the results in a final QA report to GLNPO management. The raw data for the ARCS program was collected during three major opera- tional phases consisting of sediment map- ping, sampling, and analysis. A certain amount of data measurement uncertainty is expected to enter the system at each phase. The sampling population itself is a source of confounded uncertainty that is extremely difficult to quantify. Generally, the data quality objectives (DQOs) for the ARCS program encom- pass the overall allowable uncertainty from sample measurement and from the sam- pling population that the data users are willing to accept in the analytical results. Because of the many confounding sources of uncertainty, overall DQOs for the ARCS program are not described herein. This QAPP focuses on the definition, imple- mentation, and assessment of Measure- ment Quality Objectives (MQOs) that are specified for the entire sample prepara- tion and analysis phases of data collec- tion as well as for the verification of the field sampling phase. The MQOs are de- fined according to the following six at- tributes: • Detectability - the lowest concentra- tion of an analyte that a specified analytical procedure can reliably de- tect, • Precision - the level of agreement among multiple measurements of the same characteristic, • Accuracy - the difference between an observed value and the "true" value of the parameter being measured, • Representativeness - the degree to which the data collected accurately represents the population of interest, • Completeness - the quantity of data that is successfully collected with re- spect to the amount intended in the experimental design, and • Comparability - the similarity of data from different sources included within individual or multiple data sets; the similarity of analytical methods and data from related projects across AOCs. Initial MQOs were established by the principal laboratories performing a given type of measurement (inorganic or organic analyses, bioassays) after discussion and approval by the members of the T/C, and/ or E/T workgroups. In most cases, the initial proposed QA program and MQOs are equivalent to the QA program rou- tinely implemented at the analytical labo- ratory. Upon the initiation of the formal QA program within the ARCS program, the existing MQOs were either accepted or modified with additional requirements to ensure data quality in the ARCS program. The resultant MQOs were then applied to all parameters in the process of being analyzed and to all future analyses. To produce data of known quality, par- ticipating laboratories are required to ana- lyze certain types of QC samples that are known to the laboratory staff and that can be used by the analysts to identify and control analytical measurement uncer- tainty. Each QC sample has certain speci- fications that must be met before data for that parameter is considered acceptable. These specifications include acceptance limits and frequency of sample use re- quirements. The various types of QC samples for the chemical and physical parameters, as well as the water quality parameters run in conjunction with bioas- says and fish bioaccumulation studies, in- cluded: analytical replicaites, field dupli- cates, reagent blanks, reference materi- ------- als, matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates, surrogate spikes for organic analyses, and ongoing calibration check samples. Addi- tionally, acceptance criteria and limits have been established for initial instrument cali- bration and method detection limits, where appropriate. QC samples that are unique to bioassays, fish bioaccumulation stud- ies, and/or mutagenicity testing included: reference toxicants, reference sediments, pre-exposure sampling, spontaneous re- version rates, and strain integrity testing. Secondary confirmation of organism iden- tification by an independent scientist, ana- lytical replicates, and relative abundance of species comparisons within the AOC and between independent identifications are required as QA/QC checks during benthic community structures determina- tions. Quality Assurance Implementation The quality assurance program is imple- mented through on-site systems audits of both laboratory and field operations, inde- pendent assessments, and other proce- dures used to control and assure the qual- ity of the data being collected. Verification of these data will be accomplished through a series of manual checks for success in meeting the ARCS program established MQOs. All data will be reviewed for the following items: • completeness of the submitted dataset in terms of missing data, • completeness of the submitted data in terms of the completeness quality assurance objective, • formal submission of the data as indi- cated by signatures of the PI and laboratory QA officer, • logbooks, in particular to determine holding time violations, • raw data including sample weights, extract volumes, dilution or concen- tration factors, instrument readings (e.g., chromatograms, quantification reports, etc.), and dates of analysis, where appropriate, • proper frequency of use and success- ful completion of the established MQOs for QC samples on a dated per batch basis, • method detection limits and their de- terminative data and dates of deter- mination, • calibration data on a per instrument per analyte basis, • in-house performance a.udit and other QA reports as specified in the sub- mitted QAPPs, and • a discrepancy report indicating at what point during the laboratory operations the formal ARCS QA program was initiated and providing a. discussion of the QA program at the laboratory prior to the institution of the ARCS overall QA program. Data Quality Assessment and Reporting The assessment of detectability (detec- tion limits) is accomplished on a param- eter basis at two different levels, compli- ance with ARCS specified MDLs and cal- culation of actual IDLs. The final results will be grouped in tabular form to allow comparisons among the values for any parameter of interest. A statistical evaluation procedure that has been developed by the ARCS QA staff is applied to the data to assess pre- cision as a function of confounded data collection uncertainty. An additive step- function model is used, where an observed value of any sediment, elutriate, or water characteristic is considered as the sum of the "true" accepted value and an error term. Precision is evaluated for each vari- ance segment of the range of concentra- tion for a given analyte. The assessment of accuracy is based on the ongoing calibration check samples and the use of certified reference materi- als, standard reference materials, or stan- dards for the inorganic and organic analy- ses while for the bioassays and fish bioaccumulation studies, the assessment of accuracy rely upon the use of refer- ence toxicants and the reference sedi- ment. The recoveries of matrix and surro- gate spikes for the inorganic and organic analyses can also be used in the assess- ment of accuracy. One aspect of sampling representative- ness is assessed by comparing the indi- vidual site locations and AOC coverage with the locations and expected coverage DQOs. Representativeness of the homog- enization and subsampling procedures at the analytical laboratories may be as- sessed using precision estimates for the analytical and field replicate samples. Upon completion of the ARCS program, a comparison will be made among the laboratories that will focus on method dif- ferences, QC sample results, laboratory effects, and other QA features of the pro- gram to assess program comparability. Summary statistics will be used to collate individual values into pooled groups that enable the data-users to discern trends within the overall ARCS program. Field sampling completeness is as- sessed by comparing the actual number of stations collected to the number re- quested during the design phase of the ARCS program. Completeness of the sample preparation and analytical phases is calculated as the number of analyses passing the QA requirements divided by the number of analyses performed at a given laboratory. Each participating laboratory is required to produce at least one written report to document their QA/QC activities as well as several oral laboratory updates at the all-hands meetings to be planned through- out the duration of the ARCS program. Communications among the various par- ticipants in the ARCS program has been maintained through conference calls, site visits, releases of preliminary draft data, and all-hands and workgroup meetings. A final written summary of the QA ac- tivities and final results is required from each participating ARCS program labora- tory, and should accompany the submis- sion of the laboratory QA approved dataset. Other periodic QA reports will be submitted to the ARCS QA officer, workgroup chairs, and GLNPO staff as specified in the laboratory's QAPP. The ARCS QA staff will produce a docu- mented sample/data tracking system such that hardcopy and electronic forms of the database can be easily located, identified, and collated for use and distribution by the staff at GLNPO. Quality Assurance/Quality Control of Historical Databases A QA/QC evaluation scale was devel- oped for the RA/M workgroup to allow for the objective assessment of historical data used in the risk assessments and model- ing efforts. Evaluation scales were pro- duced for inorganic and organic chemistry analyses. The verification process will in- clude QA/QC compliance checking for ac- curacy, precision, spike analyses, blanks, detection limits, calibration (initial and ongoing), and holding times, as well as other QA/QC concerns that can affect the integrity of the sample and resultant data. The final evaluation of a dataset is presented as a combination of a number value and a flag list. The numerical value for a given parameter or suite of param- eters is assigned based on the successful completion of each required QA/QC sample or measurement. A list of appro- priate flags are attached to each numeri- cal rating to indicate where discrepancies ------- exist between the laboratory data and the acceptance limits of the required QA pro- gram. Two different interpretation can be made using the final ratings. The first in- terpretation is based upon the formal ARCS QA program while the second in- terpretation is based upon the "full poten- tial" of the submitted dataset in which dif- ferences between the ARCS QA program and the QA program implemented during the generation of the data can be ac- counted. Data Management System The Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES) has been used as the final data- base repository for the ARCS program. ODES was designed to support the deci- sion making processes associated with marine/water monitoring programs. Since ODES was originally designed for saltwa- ter systems, some modification of data fields may be required to adapt the sys- tem for the fresh water environment ana- lyzed in the ARCS program. ODES is comprised of three separate components: the ODES database, ODES reporting and graphical tools, and ODES menu system. Through the ODES menu system a user may access information stored in the ODES database and use the ODES tools to produce analytical reports. The ODES database combines source in- put information with river, harbor, and bay environmental information including bio- logical data, sediment pollutant data, wa- ter quality data, and field sampling data. •&V.S. GOVERNMENT PUNTING OFFICE: MM - S5MC7/IM24S ------- ------- Brian A. Schumacher is with the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478. Brian A. Schumacher is the EPA Project Officer (see below). The complete report, entitled "Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program—Quality Assurance Program Plan," (Order No. PB94-144581/AS; Cost $27.00, subject to change) will be available only from: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone: 703-487-4650 The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at: Environmental Monitoring and Systems Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478 United States Environmental Protection Agency Center for Environmental Research Information Cincinnati, OH 45268 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 BULK RATEE POSTAGE & FEES PAID EPA PERMIT NO. G-35 EPA/600/SR-93/242 ------- |