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
------- |