NEIC
EPA-330 /9-89-002
NEIC PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR
CONTRACT EVIDENCE AUDIT AND
LITIGATION SUPPORT FOR
EPA ENFORCEMENT CASE DEVELOPMENT
National Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL POTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
EPA-330/9-89-002
NEIC PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR
CONTRACT EVIDENCE AUDIT AND
LITIGATION SUPPORT FOR
EPA ENFORCEMENT CASE DEVELOPMENT
February 1989
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Denver, Colorado
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
-------
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. LITIGATION SUPPORT FOR CASE DEVELOPMENT 5
REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE .6
PROJECT PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT 7
LITIGATION SUPPORT PHASES 7
Work Assignment 7
Workplan 8
Work Product and Reporting 8
Project Completion 8
CASE FILE ORGANIZATION 9
EVIDENTIARY DATABASES 10
Waste Transactions Databases 10
Analytical Summary Databases 12
Cost Recovery Databases 15
SAMPLE PROFILES AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSION . . 15
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 19
104(e) NOTICE LETTER TRACKING SYSTEM 25
III. EVIDENCE AUDIT SUPPORT FOR CASE DEVELOPMENT 29
AUDIT PLANNING 32
Evidence Audit Phases 33
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AUDIT 36
Requirements Specific to Field Investigations 36
LABORATORY OPERATIONS AUDIT 50
Requirements Specific to Laboratory Audits 51
i
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
CEAT ROLE IN LABORATORY AUDITS FOR THE
NATIONAL CONTRACT LABORATORY PROGRAM 54
Requirements Specific to the CLP Lab Audit 55
DOCUMENT CONTROL AUDIT 58
Requirements Specific to the Document
Control Audit 58
POTENTIAL RESPONSIBLE PARTY SEARCH AUDIT ... 65
Requirements Specific to the PRP Search Audit .... 65
APPENDICES
A Field Investigations Audit Checklist
B Laboratory Operations Audit Checklist
C Document Control Audit Checklist
D PRP Search Audit Checklist
E Sample Narrative Evidence Audit Report
ii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
FIGURES
1 Document Inventory Printout . . 11
2 Generator by Waste Type Printout 13
3 Waste Type by Generator Printout 14
4 Analytical Summary by Sampling Site 16
5 Analytical Summary by Compound 17
6 Cost Summary Printout 18
7 Sample Evidence Profile 20
8 Sample Request for Admission Format . 21
9 Administrative Record Index 26
10 Sample 104(e) Tracking Report 27
11 Sample Tag 39
12 Chain-of-Custody Record 40
13 Organic Traffic Report (VIAR) 41
14 Inorganic Traffic Report (VIAR) 42
iii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM), Offices of Regional Counsel,
National Enforcement Investigations Center, Regional Environmental Services
Divisions, and contractors, executes a program of enforcement of
environmental statutes and regulations. The statutes upon which this
program is based include: The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA),
as amended; the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977; the Clean Air Act (CAA), as
amended; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as
amended; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA); the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986; the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as
amended; and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Implementing
regulations have been, and continue to be, promulgated according to timetables
established by law, a variety of court decisions and consent decrees and
administratively established schedules.
The Agency deploys in-house and contractor technical teams to conduct
evidence-gathering investigations and inspections and other
enforcement-related technical evaluations in support of the enforcement
program. These teams include engineers, scientists, technicians, and
attorneys, functioning as individual investigators or groups, in offices,
laboratories, and field sites. In addition, the Agency performs an oversight
and/or shared operating role where enforcement programs have been fully or
partially delegated to state agencies.
Technical data, operating and process information, production data, and
related information produced or obtained in the course of enforcement
inspections, investigations, and evaluations are potential evidence. As such,
-------
they must be (a) reliable, (b) gathered with constitutional safeguards and
(c)maintained with integrity. The potential evidence may take any of several
forms including a field notebook, film, computer tape, a sample tag, a
degradable sample, etc. Typically, a case preparation investigation may
generate large volumes of file material, samples, data tabulations and reports.
Security and accountability (i.e., chain-of-custody) must be maintained even
while the evidence is in shipment.
Cases developed by EPA, pursuant to the environmental statutes for
referral to the Department of Justice, must be based upon rigorously
documented evidence and supporting data in order to minimize delay in filing,
facilitate Discovery proceedings, present a convincing case to the attorneys
engaged in pre-trial negotiations, and finally, prevail in the courtroom.
Current document handling procedures are not standardized and the
types and volume of documents relating to a case are often overwhelming to
the case attorney. It is increasingly seen that a single hazardous waste case
may involve 100,000 or more documents. The attorneys are confronted with
difficult tasks of assembling and organizing all documents, preparing witness
lists and extracting information necessary to prepare interrogatories and
conduct depositions. Documents delivered to the attorneys are often poorly
organized, not inventoried and come from numerous Agency and external
sources (i.e., Regional and Headquarters divisions and branches, Department
of Justice, state offices, and contractors). Records obtained from the opposition
are often so voluminous or disorganized that it is difficult for the case attorney
to effectively review them. Lack of sufficient assembly and organization of this
material becomes obvious to the opposition at the time of Discovery, during
settlement and negotiation discussions, or at trial. The consequences are to
unknowingly expose case strategy, to inadvertently release privileged or
confidential material, or to be unaware of documents that strengthen or
2
-------
weaken the case. The Agency position is vulnerable if the litigation team does
not have confidence in the integrity of the supporting documentation. The case
file must be complete and organized for rapid and efficient access.
The National Enforcement Investigations Center has for many years
imposed internal evidence auditing procedures on case files developed in the
course of investigations conducted by the NEIC staff. These audits assist case
attorneys in their preparations for pre-trial and trial phases of Agency
litigation efforts. The evidence audit system is designed to: (1) establish an
overall case document control system, (2) provide quick and complete access to
records, and (3) ensure admissibility of the evidence. The system is flexible to
accommodate the increase of material as the case progresses and is adaptable
to changes in case strategy.
With the advent of hazardous waste programs and the conduct of a
major portion of the Agency's hazardous waste site investigations by
contractors, NEIC was tasked to make evidence audits and litigation support
available to Regional and Headquarters staffs for case file development.
The Contractor Evidence Audit Team (CEAT) is available to Regional
Counsel Offices and state enforcement programs to perform evidence audits
and to assist EPA, state, or contractor staffs in establishing chain-of-custody
and document control systems. Points of contact between EPA and the CEAT,
for administrative matters, will be EPA's Contracting Officer and the
contractor's Project Manager. For operational assignments, direction and
delivery of completed work, contacts will be EPA's Project Officer or Deputy
Project Officer and the CEAT Leader.
3
-------
This manual is intended to provide operational guidance to the CEAT;
the Project Officer, Deputy Project Officer and their technical staffs; users of
the service; and other agencies having related needs.
4
-------
II. LITIGATION SUPPORT FOR CASE DEVELOPMENT
-------
II. LITIGATION SUPPORT FOR CASE DEVELOPMENT
The CEAT provides a service to EPA Regional and Headquarters legal
and program offices for assistance in management of case file systems. The
service supports EPA efforts in managing large volumes of documents
generated in-house or obtained from state, local or industrial sources. The
work effort includes document sorting, organizing, numbering, inventorying,
reviewing, and developing computer databases for information storage and
retrieval. The CEAT also provides a service to track the history and
chain-of-custody for samples collected as evidence, and services to research and
maintain specific subsets of information pertinent to the resolution of cases.
Support for cases involving large numbers of documents is labor and
resource intensive. The Project Officer maintains strict control of the project
phases to ensure that objectives specified in the work plan are completed in a
timely and efficient manner. All work assigned to the CEAT must be
addressed in the work plan. Phases of case preparation assistance are:
• Request for Assistance
• Project Planning/Development
• Work Assignment
• Workplan
• Work Product and Reporting
• Project Completion
Work hours and costs incurred will be tracked on a project-by-project
basis for use in cost recovery actions.
5
-------
REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Each project begins with a request for assistance directed to the NEIC
Project Officer. A verbal contact must be followed by a written request. The
Project Officer or Deputy must verify that the request is within the scope of
work of the CEAT contract. A written response to each request will be
provided and will identify NEIC and CEAT contacts to coordinate the work.
A project file will be initiated at this point and all documents pertaining to the
work will be included in that file. A CEAT project number is issued for each
case for document and cost accounting and, if the request involves NEIC
support, an NEIC project number may be assigned. Case preparation
assistance may require a rapid response and quick turnaround on the work
product. CEAT services can be initiated within a few days if an emergency
situation exists.
Requests for litigation support are received from:
Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrators
Senior Enforcement Counsel
Inspector General
Headquarters Office Directors
Headquarters Division Directors
Department of Justice, Headquarters
Regional Administrators
Deputy Regional Administrators
Regional Counsels
Regional Division Directors
U.S. Attorney's Offices
State and local program directors
with the knowledge and
concurrence of the
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring
) with the knowledge and
) concurrence of the
) Regional Counsel
6
-------
PROJECT PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT
A meeting or conference call will be held with the principal parties
involved (NEIC, CEAT, and requester). The following will be established:
• Project title and location
• Enforcement objectives and regulations involved
• Name, phone number, and address of Regional or Headquarters
contact
• Nature of work and specific objectives required
• Time constraints and legal deadlines to be met
• Justification for priority treatment
• Location of all document sources and contacts
• Volume of records to be managed
• Assessment of physical condition of records and degree of
organization already accomplished
• Location(s) of work to be performed
• Requirement for computer services
• Amount of participation by requester
• Confidentiality requirements
• Work product required
A record of this meeting or call will be prepared and placed in the file.
LITIGATION SUPPORT PHASES
Work Assignment
The Project Officer or Deputy will issue a written work assignment to
the CEAT leader including contacts, objectives, schedules,. and reporting
7
-------
requirements. A verbal assignment may be made in quick response situations
and will be followed in writing.
Workplan
The CEAT task leader will prepare a draft workplan for the project
approved by the team leader. The draft plan will be submitted to NEIC for
approval and to the requester for comment. Once acceptable to all
participants, it will serve as the basis for completing the work. A final plan
will be prepared, a copy placed in the file, and work initiated.
Any deviation from the workplan by the CEAT or directed by the
requester must be approved by the NEIC Project Officer.
Work Product and Reporting
The work product will be determined for each case and may be a written
report or a memorandum stating that each objective has been completed.
Written communication between the CEAT and the requesting office must be
routed through the NEIC Project Officer or Deputy.
Monthly progress reports for each project will include complete status
information and will be delivered to the Project Officer within 15 working days
of the end of the month.
Project Completion
The CEAT leader will notify the NEIC Project Officer that each objective
for the assignment has been completed. A memo transmitting any reporting
requirements or computer printouts will be prepared by NEIC and sent to the
8
-------
requester. Additional work required by the requester will be treated as a new
assignment.
Litigation support services are designed to ensure completeness and
integrity of the supporting case documentation. This process is intended to
organize, inventory and summarize documents prior to referral to the
Department of Justice. EPA cases vary dramatically in volume and type of
records generated. Smaller and less complex cases present fewer document
management problems; however, all cases require the use of well-organized
Agency and other documents. Litigation support services conducted by the
CEAT include: (1) case file organization, (2) development of evidentiary
computer databases, (3) preparation of sample profiles, and (4) other
evidentiary support activities.
CASE FILE ORGANIZATION
Proper management of documentary evidence is a critical element in
enforcement case preparation. The CEAT provides assistance to ensure that
all case-related documents are gathered, organized, and inventoried for use by
the litigation team and for production during Discovery. The document
gathering phase requires identification of all parties participating in the
investigation. The case attorney must instruct each division, branch or
contract group to produce their files. The CEAT assembles the records and
inventories each group's files. In order to facilitate document retrieval, the
CEAT extracts bibliographic information from each record and enters it into
a computer database. The database typically contains: (1) the name of the
author, (2) author's organization, (3) document date, (4) addressee,
(5) document type, (6) document title, and (7) number of pages. Other
information is recorded at the request of the case attorney. The database can
be searched on these categories for document retrieval. Document numbers
9
-------
are stamped to serve as a file locater and to ensure file completeness and
accountability. The CEAT can also perform key wording for documents
considered critical to case development. An example of a document inventory
printout is shown in Figure 1.
Case file organization may employ the use of image processing and/or
full-text inventories. These processes will enhance the flexibility and ease of
storage and retrieval. Basic extraction procedures will vary with each process
but the seven data elements above would be provided, at a minimum.
EVIDENTIARY DATABASES
The case development process may require summaries of technical
information. The CEAT provides a wide variety of computerized databases for
this purpose. Information summaries can be tailored to meet the needs of
specific cases. Examples of evidentiary databases include: (1) waste
transactions at hazardous waste sites, (2) summaries of analytical data, and
(3) summaries of costs for cost recovery actions.
Waste Transactions Databases
Many hazardous waste facilities have operated over a period of years
and have been involved in thousands of transactions with hundreds of waste
transporters and generators. Billing invoices, shipping manifests, account
ledgers, and other documents not only establish the "paper trail" leading to
hazardous waste generators, but also provide information needed to evaluate
the degree of hazard presented by the waste facility. This information may
prove necessary to enforcement personnel in finding potentially responsible
parties and in formulating an adequate remedial plan. EPA must be able to
identify what wastes were shipped by the generator, the quantities of wastes
10
-------
Figure 1
DOCUMENT INVENTORY
DOCUMENT TYPE: Utter
# PAGES: 3 DOCUMENT #: 12000 *
TITLE/DESCRIPTION: Information for May
Generator/Transporter
Meeting
WITHHELD
REASON
Not Resp.
TO: FROM:
SIGNED ?: Yes
PROGRAM FILE CODE: 1
PRODUCED
PROGRAM FILE
Signature, if
different from
author:
Record #: 1
DOCUMENT TYPE: Memo
# PAGES: 2
TITLE/DESCRIPTION: Contractor work
on Document
Inventory Assist.
TO: FROM:
SIGNED ?: No
PROGRAM FILE CODE: 2
ENFORCEMENT FILE
DOCUMENT #: 12004 *
*
WITHHELD REASON
PRODUCED
* Record #: 2
DOCUMENT TYPE: Report # PAGES: 47 DOCUMENT #: 11006 *
TITLE/DESCRIPTION: Pesticide Cones. * WITHHELD REASON
AWcHii
TO: FROM: * PRODUCED
SIGNED ?: Yes
PROGRAM FILE CODE: 3
Signature, if
OFF REG CSL different from
author: *
* Record #: 3
11
-------
shipped, which of those wastes are "hazardous," and how those wastes were
treated, stored, and/or disposed. CEAT services provide review and summary
of waste information and development of computer systems to list the findings.
Examples of database printouts are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
Summary reports from the database, can be prepared by sorting and
listing data. Some of the important applications of information stored within
the database are:
• A list of generators disposing of wastes at a waste facility
• A list of generators based on the quantity of wastes disposed of by
them at the waste facility
• A list, of generators based on the types of wastes disposed of by
them at the facility
• The frequency of facility use by a generator
• The total quantities and types of waste present at the site
For example, knowing which generators disposed of the largest quantities of
hazardous wastes found migrating ofF-site via groundwater or contaminated
leachate may aid in the assessment of civil or criminal penalties.
Responsibility for the disposal of specific chemical constituents can be traced
to the particular generator.
Analytical Summary Databases
CEAT services are provided to summarize and list analytical data on
computerized systems. Analyses from samples collected during enforcement
investigations can be arrayed in a variety of ways. Examples include lists of:
12
-------
Figure 2
GENERATOR BY WASTE TYPE
Generator
(Total Gallons)
Waste
Type
Volume
(Gallons)
% of Total
Volume
Ledger/
Manifest
World Chemical
(16,537 gallons)
Waste sulfuric acid
1,310
7.9%
50/7713
5/3983
85/5574
HCL acid
8,230
49.8%
63/8435
Soda ash
221
1.3%
70/3181
Copper sulfate
1,565
9.5%
45/1924
Electroplate sludge
3,666
22.2%
5/939
76/6070
Ammonium
hydroxide
1,545
9.3%
34/2347
48/3886
Chemsafe Recycling
(10,591 gallons)
Waste sulfuric acid
428
4.0%
78/6949
HCL acid
2,412
22.8%
34/9982
Sodium cyanide
394
3.7%
32/7416
Waste filter cake
2,296
21.7%
20/2880
Waste oil
5,061
47.8%
83/992
13
-------
Figure 3
WASTE TYPE BY GENERATOR
Waste Type
(Total Gallons)
Generator
Volume
(Gallons)
% of Total
Volume
Ledger/
Manifest
Waste sulfuric acid
(46,251 gallons)
H&L Plastics
1,946
4.2%
87/4908
84/8933
79/1886
Twins Solvent
4,281
9.3%
77/8160
77/6457
Morrison Mfg. Co.
5,864
12.7%
33/2310
25/9579
American
Pharmaceutical
4,487
9.7%
28/7294
83/8818
68/1403
Sturbridge Steel
Co.
13,160
28.5%
3/8297
32/7997
43/9659
17/8923
Auto-Glass, Inc.
16,513
35.6%
62/3152
14
-------
• All compounds detected at a given sample location
• Frequency of occurrence of a particular compound at all sample
locations
• Results of various sampling episodes over time
• Ranking of compounds by concentration or occurrence
• Compounds analyzed for but not detected
Quality control and quality assurance information can also be added to
the database. Precision, accuracy, detection limit, and codes indicating
acceptability of data are common data quality indicators. Examples of
printouts of analytical summaries are shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Cost Recovery Databases
The CEAT work provides for development of databases to list cost
information for cost recovery actions. The CEAT reviews cost documents and
extracts data for entry into the computer. Printouts are prepared listing the
case name, the organization incurring costs, a breakdown of itemized costs,
amounts paid, and name of payor. An example of a cost summary printout is
provided in Figure 6.
SAMPLE PROFILES AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
Sample profiles are a graphic representation of sample history from the
time of collection through analysis and reporting. The profile tracks the
chain-of-custody, identifies names and dates of possession, lists documents
verifying possession, and presents analytical tasks performed.
The sample profile is intended to support the admissibility of evidence
and to identify potential weaknesses in the chain-of-custody or integrity of
15
-------
Figure 4
ANALYTICAL SUMMARY BY SAMPLING SITE
Site (10) Case No. Well (10 OW - 1 Site Well
SMO Sample No. Sampling Date 09/14/83 Agency USEPA/FIT
Lab Lab No. Analysis Date 10/08/83
Priority Pollutants - Organic Compounds
Acids
PPB
DQ
Base/Neutrals
PPB
DQ
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
100
UV
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
100
UV
P-Chloro-m-cresol
100
uv
Bis(2-chloroisoprophyl)ether
200
UV
2-ChIorophenol
100
KV
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
200
UV
2,4-Dichlorophenol
100
UV
Hexachlorobutadiene
100
UV
2,4-Dimethylphenol
100
UV
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
100
UV
2-Nitrophenol
200
KI
Isophorone
3,000
V
4-Nitrophenol
500
KI
Naphthalene
100
KV
2,4-Dinitrophenol
500
UI
Nitrobenzene
100
UV
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
200
UV
Pentachlorophenol
100
UV
n-nitrosodiphenylamine
100
UV
Phenol
590
V
n-nitrosodipropylamine
100
UV
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
100
UV
Base/Neutrals
Benzyl butyl phthalate
100
UV
Di-n-butyl phthalate
100
UV
Acenaphthene
100
UV
Di-n-octyl phthalate
100
UV
Benzidine
100
UV
Diethyl phthalate
100
UV
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
100
KV
Dimethyl phthalate
110
V
Hexachlorobenzene
100
UV
Benzo(a)anthracene
100
UV
Hexachloroethene
100
UV
Benzo(a)pyrene
200
UV
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
100
UV
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
200
UV
2-Chloronaphthalene
100
UV
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
200
UV
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2,400
UV
Chrysene
200
UV
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
100
KV
Acenaphthylene
100
UV
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
600
V
Anthracene
100
UV
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
100
UV
Benzo(ghi)perylene
200
UV
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
200
UV
Fluorene
100
UV
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
200
UV
Phenanthrene
100
UV
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
200
UV
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
200
UV
Fluoranthene
100
UV
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pjnrene
200
UV
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 100
UV
Pyrene
100
UV
Nonprioritv Pollutants Organic Compounds
Benzoic Acid
1,400
I
4-Chloroaniline
500
UV
2-Methylphenol
50
UV
Dibenzofuran
100
UV
4-Methylphenol
50
KV
2-Methyl naphthalene
200
UV
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
1,000
UV
2-Nitroaniline
1,000
UV
Aniline
50
UV
3-Nitroaniline
1,000
UV
Benzyl alcohol
200
UV
4-Nitroaniline
1,000
UV
16
-------
Figure 5
ANALYTICAL SUMMARY BY COMPOUND
Sampling Data from September 13 and 14, 1983
Sample Source Concentration (PPB) DQ
Parameter: P-Chloro-m-cresol
OW - 1 site well
100
uv
OW - 2 site well
100
UL
OW - 4 site well
100
uv
IW - 1 interceptor well
100
UL
IW - 2 interceptor well
100
UL
IW - 3 interceptor well
100
UL
MW - IB monitor well
100
UV
MW - 2B monitor well
100
UL
MW - 3B monitor well
100
UV
MW - 4B monitor well
100
UV
MW - 4B (D) monitor well duplicate sample
100
UL
MW - 5B monitor well
100
UV
MW - 6B monitor well
100
UV
MW - 7B monitor well
100
UV
MW - 7B (D) monitor well duplicate sample
100
UV
MW - 8B monitor well
100
uv
MW - 9B monitor well
10
UL
MW - 10B monitor well
10
UL
MW - 11B monitor well
10
UL
MW - 12B monitor well
10
UL
MW - 13B monitor well
10
UV
MW - 13B (D) monitor well duplicate sample
10
UV
MW - 14B monitor well
10
UL
17
-------
Figure 6
COST SUMMARY PRINTOUT
PROJECT
PAYMENT NO.
2 CONTRACT NO.
PAYOR: US EPA
PAYEE:
Current
Comments DC Na
Amount Requested:
125274.99
286
Date:
04/30/87
Amount Paid:
125274.99
Amount Withheld
.00
Date:
00/00/00
0
Cost Type:
Contracts
Work period:
4-3 through 4-30-82
Work performed:
Site preparation,
waste loading,
disposal and
monitoring
Cost Categories
Current
Comments DC Not
Personal:
32727.54
Equipment:
27402.50
Transport:
12080.00
Mat and Prod.:
12723.15
Disposal:
40341.80
Miscellaneous:
.00
18
-------
samples. The CEAT works with the case attorney to review documents or
obtain other records which could rehabilitate the evidence. The profile can also
be used to produce a potential witness list for all people handling the sample.
An example of a sample profile is shown in Figure 7.
Sample-related information, such as the chain-of-custody information
presented in the above-mentioned sample profiles, as well as sampling
protocols, analysis protocols, location maps, and analytical summaries may also
be presented in a Request for Admission format. In a typical case involving
numerous samples, a computerized database is developed to facilitate the work
effort. The Requests are prepared in a formal predescribed format, as designed
and approved by the case attorney [Figure 8]. The attorney typically has
already planned Requests related to other aspects of the litigation. The draft
Request for Admission, which the CEAT prepares, will follow the same general
format.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS
The administrative record (AR) is the completed compilation of
documents that a state or federal agency considered or relied on in selecting
a response action at a hazardous waste site. The AR is required by the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) of 1986, and allows the public to participate in and comment on
the selection of the action.
The contract provides assistance in developing the AR by compiling,
inventorying, indexing, and screening hundreds, sometimes thousands, of site
documents generated by agencies and private parties. These documents make
19
-------
Figure 7
SAMPLE EVIDENCE PROFILF
|S.'»( C*SE •:
NOTE OF USQJUTORY:
SAWU -*a:
CMln^oNCuitodyRetord
WHES COLLECTED
¦OH:
AT:
Chaln-gf-tmtody Record
imm KLIU4UISHED n:
BY:
Chaln-of-Cmtody Record
SAiiPlU RICEIYLO
ON:
BT:
Cha1n-of-Custody Record
—was aillHDUISHEO 10:
. FtKIUL ttPfttSS
OH:
BT:
federal Express
Cha1n»of-Cmtody Record
sAkpi£5
tfcnvra n
FOR:
BY:
ON:
' SWPLZ HTRACTIOHS
Acid: BY;
BY:
6/M: BY:
BT:
PtH: BY:
Bl:
SplkM/STDS added BT:
iMO Extraction chronicle
extraction Logbook PageU)
0*1 Ijr Extraction Accord Pagets)
ON:
1Y:
\L
VOOniES IVOA)
PREPARATION
5WI latricttan Ctiramcio
VOA GC/HS Wort sheet
' AC 10 FHACTICH\
GC/HS MU.VS1S
OH:
B*:
Acias GC/Hi worksheets^
GC/HS Logbook Pagelsl
•Organic! Analyst!
Dit> Sheets
y SASE/KEUTRlit FR«T10>K
GC/HS AHIU.TSIS
OH:
II:
B/H CCM5 Ubrltsheets'
GC/MS Logbook Page!si
•Organlcs Analysis
Oata Sheets
/ ftSTtCIOES FRACTIOUN,
GC NUU.YSIS
ON:
&*:
Pesticides GC worksheets
•Organlcs Analysis
Data Sheets
'VOLATILES <«OAI "N
FMC1MN X/MS NULIS1S
OH:
BV:
*0A 6C/MS worksheets
GC/HS logbook Page! si
•Organ!cs Analysis
Oata Sheets
Results tabulation Form
VQA fraction does tot
require ti»Ktl9H
Sm;l»l ny be stored I or i varying
period after cwpletlon or analysis
based upon saa»le type and contract
*
-------
Figure 8
SAMPLE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION FORMAT
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NUMBER
The following parts of the request, numbered I.A. through II.J., relate
to EPA sample number .
I.A. That the analytical results are accurately reported in the document
referenced in II.D.
I.B. That the analytical results as reported in the document referenced in
II.D., are admissible into evidence.
I.C. That the analytical results as reported in the document referenced in
II.D., accurately reflect the presence or absence of chemical compounds
in the sample at the time the sample was analyzed.
I.D. That the analytical results as reported in the document referenced in
II.D., accurately reflect the concentrations of chemical compounds in the
sample at the time the sample was analyzed.
I.E. That the analytical results as reported in the document referenced in
II.D., accurately reflect the presence or absence of chemical compounds
in the matrix from which the sample was taken at the time the sample
was collected.
I.F. That the analytical results as reported in the document referenced in
II.D., accurately reflected the concentrations of chemical compounds in
the matrix from which the sample was taken at the time the sample was
collected.
If your response to all the parts of the request, numbered I.A. through
I.F., is to admit, do not continue with the remainder of this request. If not,
continue with the remainder of this request.
II.A. That the sample was taken from and sampled by methods
described in Exhibit .
II.B. That the sample was handled and transported in a manner consistent
with the methods described in Exhibit .
II.C. That the sample was analyzed by methods described in Exhibit
21
-------
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NUMBER (continued)
II.D. That the analytical results for the sample are accurately reported in
Exhibit .
II.E. That on , the sample was collected from
which is accurately depicted in
Exhibit by .
[Reference document (s): .]
II.F. That on , the sample was transferred from
to .
[Reference document(s): .]
II.G. That on , the sample was shipped to
by
[Reference document(s): . .]
II.H. That on , the sample was received at
by .
[Reference document(s): .]
•ILL That the sample was prepared and analyzed as follows:
PREPARATIONS
was performed on by .
[Reference document(s): .]
was performed on by
[Reference document(s):
was performed on by
[Reference document(s):
was performed on by
[Reference document(s):
was performed on by
[Reference document(s): .1
22
-------
PREPARATION (continued)
was performed on
bv
[Reference documentfs): .1
was Derformed on
bv
[Reference document(s): .1
was Derformed on
bv
[Reference document(s): .1
was Derformed on
bv
[Reference document(s): .1
ANALYSES
was Derformed on
bv
fReference documents): .1
was Derformed on
bv
fReference document(s): .1
was Derformed on
bv
fReference document(s): .1
was Derformed on
bv
fReference documentfs): .1
was Derformed on
bv
fReference document(s): .1
was Derformed on
bv
fReference document(s): .1
was Derformed on
bv
fReference documentfs): .1
was Derformed on
bv
[Reference document(s): .1
was Derformed on
bv
[Reference document(s): .1
continued)
23
-------
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NUMBER (continued)
ANALYSES (continued)
was performed on by .
[Reference documents): .]
was performed on by .
[Reference document(s): .]
was performed on by .
[Reference document(s): .]
II.J. That each of the following documents which can be found in
is genuine.
24
-------
up the "site file." Pertinent documents in the site file are selected and
incorporated into the site's AR.
As the AR is developed, both a computerized site file index and a
computerized AR index are produced. By producing both indices, the Agency
is able to quickly review the "universe" of documents pertaining to a site and,
therefore, evaluate the completeness of the AR accurately. An example of an
Administrative Record report can be found in Figure 9.
104(eVNOTICE LETTER TRACKING SYSTEM
104(e)/Notice Letter Tracking Systems are developed to assist the user
with accurate and timely information regarding the transmittal and receipt of
correspondence between the USEPA and potentially responsible parties (PRPs).
The contractor will develop databases that track, locate, and summarize
correspondence letters, as well as PRP replies to 104(e) information requests,
notice letters, and special notice letters. In addition, manipulation of the
database enables the user to find the address of the PRP, the PRP contact and
address, the date letters are mailed to the PRP, the date letters are received
by the PRP, the date the replies are received by EPA, and a summary of those
replies.
Individual systems can be modified to include "tickler" systems that alert
the user to upcoming due dates, adaption of Microsoft Word for case narratives
of each PRP, and keyword summaries for easy location of similar information.
An example report from a 104(e) tracking system can be found in Figure 10.
25
-------
Figure 9
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.INDEX
07/07/88 EASTERN SURPLUS SITE - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX PAGE: ]
DATE I 02/05/86 PAGES: 7
CATEGORY: 1.2 PRE-REMEDIAL - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 0001
TITLE/SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE EASTERN
SURPLUS COMPANY SITE. EPA PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FORMS
AND A MAP OF THE AREA ARE ATTACHED.
AUTHOR : BERTOCCI, CYNTHIA S.
ORGAN IZ AT I ON: STfiTE OF MAINE - DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ADDRESSEE : SMITH, DON
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION I
DOCUMENT TYPE: MEMO
DATE: 18/28/B6 PAGES:
CATEGORY: 1.2 PRE-REMEDI AL - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 0002
TITLE/SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CHECK LIST FOR EPA IMMEDIATE REMOVAl
ACTION AT THE EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY SITE.
AUTHOR : NOT INDICATED
ORGANIZATION: U.S. EPA - REGION I
ADDRESSEE : NOT INDICATED
ORGANIZATION: NOT INDICATED
DOCUMENT TYPE: REPORT/STUDY
DATE: 04/03/86 PAGES: ;
CATEGORY! 1.3 PRE-REMEDI AL - SITE INSPECTION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 0001
TITLE/SUBJECT: TRIP REPORT FOR THE APRIL 3, 1986 VISIT TO THE EASTERN
SURPLUS SITE TO ASSESS SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLAN FUTURE
CLEAN-UP ACTIVITIES.
AUTHOR : BERTOCCI, CYNTHIA S.
ORGANIZATION: STATE OF MAINE - DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ADDRESSEE : FILE
ORGANIZATION: NOT INDICATED
DOCUMENT TYPE: MEMO
-------
Figure 10
SAMPLE 104(e) TRACKING REPORT
01/04/89
LONE PINE - FINAL REPORT
PAGE j
COMPANY NAME:
A. K. A. :
INSURANCE CO.:
TYPE OF BUSINESS:
TYPE OF ENTITY:
IN OPERATION:
RESPONSE STATUS:
DATE SENT BY EPA:
INITIAL RESPONSE:
EPA FOLLOW-UP:
FINAL RESPONSE:
RESPONSE AUTHOR:
TITLE:
DOCUMENT(S):
3-M CORPORATION
MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY
MULTIPLE < 1954- 198c:)
A/V, MAGNETIC, ELEC. TAPE, HEAT TUBING
MANUFACTURER
YES
04/11/88
05/£7/86
08/03/88
08/26/88
SUSAG, RUSSELL H.
DIR. ENV. REGULATORY AFFAIRS
CORRESPONDENCE, CONTRACTS, AND AGREEMENTS WITH THE LONE PINE
CORPORATION
GEN/TRANS;
WASTE TYPES:
ADMITS DISPOSAL;
GENERATOR
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
PETROLEUM/PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
CHEMICAL WASTE
HAZARDOUS WASTE
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINERS
CHEMICAL SOLVENTS
CERCLA WASTE MATERIAL
YES
TREATMENT:
STORAGE:
COMMENTS:
YES
NO
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ESTIMATES OF WASTE TYPE QUANTITIES IN
5/26/82 AND 1988 RESPONSES. HOLD NJPDES PERMIT NO.
NJ0004359. PLANT RECORDS INDICATE ONLY THE TWO FREEHOLD
PLANTS UTILIZED LONE PINE.
-------
Figure 10 (Cont.)
SAMPLE 104(e) TRACKING REPORT
01/04/09
LONE PINE SUMMARY DATA
PAGE: 1.1
TRANSPORTER:
WASTE TYPE:
QUANTITY:
LONE PINE DISPOSAL:
DATES:
FREEHOLD CARTAGE, INC.
EMPTY DRUMS, PAPER & WOOD PRODUCTS
UNKNOWN
YES
01/01/73 - 12/31/79
TRANSPORTER:
WASTE TYPE:
QUANTITY:
LONE PINE DISPOSAL:
DATES:
FREEHOLD CARTAGE, INC.
ELECTRICAL TAPE CONVERTING WASTE
UNKNOWN
YES
01/01/73 - 12/31/79
TRANSPORTER:
WASTE TYPE:
CONSTITUENTS:
QUANTITY:
LONE PINE DISPOSAL:
DATES:
FREEHOLD CARTAGE, INC.
WASTE ELECTRICAL TAPE COATINGS
ADHESIVES IN MINERAL SPIRITS & TOLUENE
UNKNOWN
YES
01/01/73 - 12/31/73
TRANSPORTER:
WASTE TYPE:
QUANTITY:
LONE PINE DISPOSAL:
DATES:
FREEHOLD CARTAGE, INC.
MEK & TOLUENE-CONTAMINATED MATERIAL
UNKNOWN
YES
01/01/73 - 12/31/73
TRANSPORTER:
WASTE TYPE:
QUANTITY:
LONE PINE DISPOSAL:
DATES:
FREEHOLD CARTAGE, INC.
WASTE TRICHLOROETHYLENE
UNKNOWN
YES
01/01/73 - 12/31/73
TRANSPORTER:
WASTE TYPE:
QUANTITY:
LONE PINE DISPOSAL:
DATES:
FREEHOLD CARTAGE, INC.
WASTE MINERAL OIL
UNKNOWN
YES
01/01/73 - 12/31/73
-------
III. EVIDENCE AUDIT SUPPORT FOR CASE DEVELOPMENT
-------
III. EVIDENCE AUDIT SUPPORT FOR CASE DEVELOPMENT
The work of the CEAT is to investigate adherence to procedures for
chain-of-custody, document control and security of evidence by enforcement
investigators and laboratories. The audits performed usually consist of
collecting raw data pertaining to field investigations and laboratory activities,
recording the data and observations on checklists, preparing a summary
report, and testifying in support of the authenticity of evidence presented by
the contract personnel. EPA employees may analyze the data supplied and
may spot check the performance of the team.
Requests for audits must be directed to the NEIC Project Officer. Verbal
contacts must be followed up in writing. The Project Officer or Deputy verifies
that the request is within the scope of work of the CEAT contract. A written
response to the requestor will state the NEIC and CEAT contacts who will
coordinate the work. A project file shall be initiated and all documents
pertaining to the project shall be included in that file. A CEAT project number
shall be assigned and, if NEIC support is required, an NEIC project number
may be assigned.
Requests will be accepted from:
Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrators
Senior Enforcement Counsel
Inspector General
Headquarters Office Directors
Headquarters Division Directors
Department of Justice, Headquarters
Regional Administrators
Deputy Regional Administrators
) with the knowledge and
) concurrence of the
) Assistant Administrator
) for Enforcement and
) Compliance Monitoring
29
-------
Regional Counsels
Regional Division Directors
U.S. Attorney's Offices
State and Local Program Directors
) with the knowledge and
) concurrence of the
) Regional Counsel
Evidence Audit assignments will be issued, in written form, by the
Project Officer or Deputy except in urgent situations requiring immediate
response by the contractor. Any oral assignment will be followed by written
confirmation at the earliest practical time.
Assignments will normally be made in terms of:
• Field investigations audit
• Laboratory operations audit
• Document control audit
• PRP search audit
• Combinations of the above
Field investigation audits, laboratory operations audits, document
control audits, and PRP search audits are to be conducted according to the
checklists and criteria provided in Appendices A through E. A document
control audit, frequently a component of the other types of audits, is a "desk
top" audit of field notebooks, chain-of-custody records, and other documents
located in the EPA Regional Office, Contractor's field offices, or appropriate
state agency offices.
Checklists will be submitted to the Project Officer within ten (10)
working days following completion of the audit. The checklist submission will
be accompanied by a narrative report which will summarize findings, provide
observations not covered by the checklists, identify all audit documents, and
30
-------
contain a statement of opinion by the CEAT management. A sample narrative
report is included as Appendix E.
Audit teams will be tailored to meet the needs of the EPA enforcement
programs and priorities. A field investigations audit may require the services
of an engineer or technician while a laboratory operations audit requires a
chemist or person familiar with laboratory procedures. Teams of two or three
persons may be formed to conduct more complex audits.
The composition of audit teams will be determined by the Project Officer
or the Deputy Project Officer (DPO) in consultation with the CEAT leader.
The CEAT must maintain a credible internal quality control mechanism. EPA
does not expect that each auditor be a CPA, nor that each team include a CPA;
however, upper management is expected to exercise internal controls and
participatory oversight such that they can certify to EPA that the work of the
CEAT meets EPA requirements. Each set of checklists and the summary
report will include an opinion to that effect by the team leader.
At the conclusion of each audit, the audit plan, checklists, logbooks, and
summary report, together with any related data or documents, will be
submitted to the Project Officer. After review by the Project Officer, copies will
be provided to the Regional Counsel for inclusion in the case files. Any
material for which a claim of confidentiality has been made will be transferred
to the appropriate Document Control Officer. All audit material is evidence
and CEAT members are subject be to called as witnesses. They must comply
with Discovery requests, warrants, subpoenas, or court orders for any case
which they audit.
31
-------
AUDIT PLANNING
The Project Officer maintains continuing liaison with Regional and
Headquarters enforcement officials to identify investigations most likely to
proceed to litigation and will prioritize those cases for auditing. When
possible, the audits will be scheduled to minimize travel time and expenses.
The Project Officer will confer frequently with the CEAT leader to establish
schedules and review progress.
As audits are scheduled, the Project Officer will arrange for the CEAT
to receive a copy of the plan of investigation. The project plan details the
project's scope, logistics, and schedules. Items addressed in the project plan
include:
1. Objectives
2. Background information
3. Survey methods, including sampling locations, schedules and
procedures, analytical requirements, quality control program, etc.
4. Process data to be collected
5. Personnel and equipment requirements
6. Safety program and equipment
7. Chain-of-custody and document control procedures
With the exception noted below, an Audit Plan shall be developed by the
CEAT leader in coordination with the project coordinator assigned to the
investigation that is to be audited. The Project Officer may, on occasion, direct
that an unannounced audit be performed. The CEAT leader must, insofar as
possible, cause the audit schedule to conform to the schedule of the
investigator(s) being audited. The evidence audit should not cause inordinate
32
-------
delays or otherwise inhibit the execution of the investigation, laboratory
operation, etc.
The CEAT personnel must conform to the safety regimen imposed by the
project coordinator (i.e., same safety clothing, equipment, and procedures are
to be used). The audit plan should include the statement of clothing,
equipment, and procedures to be employed.
The Audit Plan will be reviewed by the Project Officer or DPO and,
when approved, will become the authorization for the CEAT to proceed. Verbal
authorization may be given by the Project Officer or DPO if followed by a
written authorization.
Evidence Audit Phases
Evidence audits provide for handling physical and documentary evidence
obtained during field, lab, and case file investigations, on-site inspections, or
remedial actions. The audit addresses the investigator's adherence to
established policies and procedures for evidence handling, requirements of a
project plan, and/or specifications in a contract or consent decree. In the
absence of specified requirements for a project, the CEAT shall conduct the
audit in accordance with NEIC policies and procedures for document control
and chain-of-custody.
Work hours and costs incurred by the CEAT will be tracked on a
project-by-project basis for use in cost recovery actions.
33
-------
Audit phases are:
• Request (see page 4)
• Work assignment
• Workplan
• Audit preparation
• On-site audit
• Reporting
Work Assignment
The Project Officer or Deputy will issue a written work assignment for
each audit. A verbal assignment may be made in emergency situations but
will be followed in writing. The assignment will normally include:
• Name(s), address(es), and phone numbers) of contact(s)
• Project location(s)
• Objectives of the audit
• Audit standards or requirements
• Schedules
• Reporting requirements
Workplan
The CEAT task leader will prepare a draft workplan for submission to
NEIC and the requestor. Once accepted by all participants, it will form the
basis for completing the work. Any deviation from the workplan must be
approved by the NEIC Project Officer.
34
-------
Audit Preparation
The auditors will review project plans, standard operating procedures,
safety plans, or other documents supplied by the requestor for background
information. Travel will be planned and audit logbooks and checklists
prepared. Safety equipment will be taken as needed.
On-site Audit
A briefing is scheduled with the audit team leader prior to site entry.
The auditors will describe the audit process and then obtain updated
information on the field, lab, or case file tasks. The CEAT member(s) assigned
to a particular audit will contact the project coordinator on-site and proceed
with the schedule for conducting the on-site investigation audit. The audit is
the evaluation of sample identification and control, chain-of-custody
procedures, field documentation, security of evidence and sampling operations.
The evaluation is based on the project plan and directions given by the CEAT
leader and the Project Officer. Specifics regarding the audit in progress are
contained in the Audit Plan.
The CEAT will maintain a record of all activities performed during the
investigation audit including logbooks, work papers, and checklists. The
checklists are included herein as Appendices A through D. The auditor must
accurately track the dates and times of audit activities and the document
numbers that have been reviewed. Included in the record will be the project
codes, project location, identification of the investigators assigned to the project
and auditor's name. The checklists must be completed in their entirety and
any other pertinent information should be recorded in the "Comments" section.
35
-------
Reporting
A follow-up written report gives details of the audit debriefing. The
report lists findings and recommendations in accordance with lab, field, PRP,
and/or document control guidance, NEIC Policy and Procedures, and
established operating procedures. The report is submitted to NEIC within ten
(10) working days of the completion of the audit. Reports will be transmitted
by the NEIC Project Officer or Deputy to the requestor, EPA program official,
and audited facility, when appropriate. Reports contain a statement signed by
the CEAT team leader.
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AUDIT
Field evidence audits provide for handling physical and documentary
evidence obtained during field investigations, on-site inspections, or remedial
actions. The audits include review of sample identity procedures and
document control techniques. The audits typically focus on determining
adherence by the site sampling/investigation team to sampling plans, Quality
Assurance Project Plans, and NEIC's Evidence Audit Requirements and
Policies and Procedures.
The field audit phases follow the general guidelines stated in the
previous section. A Field Investigations Audit Checklist can be found in
Appendix A. Field investigations also have some unique requirements.
Requirements Specific to Field Investigations
Pre-audit communication between the CEAT and the project coordinator
is necessary to determine if any special safety considerations or entry problems
exist. The CEAT member(s) arriving at the field investigation site should
36
-------
follow entry procedures identical to those of the investigation team. If possible,
the auditor should enter the site with the team. The CEAT should give the
project coordinator ample time to arrange for their entry. If the auditor
arrives at the investigation site unannounced, the facility should be entered in
the following manner:
1. The plant premises should be entered through the main gate or
through the entrance designated by the source, if in response to
an inspection notification letter.
2. The CEAT member should introduce himself/herself in a
dignified, courteous manner to a responsible plant official and
briefly describe the purpose of the visit. Identification credentials
should always be shown. A responsible plant official may be the
owner, operator, officer, the plant environmental engineer, or
agent-in-charge of the facility.
3. If a guard is present at the entrance, the CEAT member should
present credentials and request that the guard call his/her
superior on the phone. When the name is known, the member
may request that the guard call the responsible official directly.
4. If the company provides a blank sign-in sheet, log, or visitors
register, it is acceptable to sign it. CEAT members must adhere
to the directives of the CEAT leader regarding signing a release
of liability (waiver) when entering a facility under the authority
of Federal law.
37
-------
5. If entry is refused, the CEAT member should not contest the issue
with the facility representative, but should immediately do the
following:
a. Obtain name and title of the individual denying entry and
record the date and time.
b. State that he/she is a member of a technical investigative
team under contract to EPA, ask if he/she heard and
understood the reason for the visit, record the answer and
any reasons given for denial of entry.
c. Leave the premises and notify the appropriate CEAT
leader who, in turn, must notify the Project Officer or
DPO.
Sample Control
The evidence audit addresses handling of samples from time of collection
through analysis until final disposition. A sample is physical evidence
collected from a facility or from the environment. Evidence control is an
essential part of all enforcement investigations. A sample must be identified
as to the location, date, time, and name of person collecting it. A sample tag
[Figure 11] is used for this purpose. All samples are also listed in a
Chain-of-Custody Record [Figure 12].
Contractor Field Investigation Teams conducting investigations for the
Hazardous Waste Site program use two additional forms for samples shipped
to contractor laboratories. They are Organic Traffic Report [Figure 13] and
Inorganic Traffic Report [Figure 14].
38
-------
Figure 11
SAMPLE TAR
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Building S3, Bos 25227, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
3ERA
Project Code
Station No.
Mamh/Day/Year
Time
Designate:
Comp,
Grab
z
cn ?
cn
cn
Station Location
Samoiers 'Signat-jresi
3:3
3 i.S
CSi 03
O O
C I
0 q tr
' i 5 =
¥ i 52 §
=r i - w
1 °
S I c/i
<" I -
! W
Z
>
V)
m
v>
® -o
"* 3
~5
2
Z =:
0 £
~ *
-------
rir-ure 12
C!-:AIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Office of Enforcement Building 53, Box 25227, Denver Federal Center
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD Denver, Colorado 80225
PROJ. NO
PROJECT NAME
NO.
OF
CON-
TAINERS
REMAflKS
SAMPLERS: (Signature)
STA. NO.
DATE
TIME
COMP
CD
<
oc
o
STATION LOCATION
Relinquish
ed by: (Signature!
Date
/Time
Received by: (Signature!
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Date
'Time
Received by: (Signature)
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Date
Time
Received by: (Signature)
Relinquished by: (Signeture)
Date
Time
Received by: (Signature!
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Date
'Time
Received for Laboratory by:
(Signature)
Date / Time
Remarks
Distribution: Original Accompanies Shipment: Copy to Coordinator Field Files
N 111
-------
322,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEWON AGENCY HWI Sample Management Office
r-O B^xSiS Aiey.rs-vir/: Viraris 22113-702 BS^J-FTS 557-2-42':
•RGAN1CS TRAFFIC REPORT
Sample Number
R 4576
0 Case Number:
Sample Site Name/Code:
© SAMPLE CONCENTRATION
(Check One)
Low Concentration
Medium Concentration
@ SAMPLE MATRIX
(Check One)
Water
Soil/Sediment
© Ship To:
Attn:
Transfer
Ship To:
© Regional Office: -
Sampling Personnel:
(Name)
(Phone)
Sampling Date:
(D For each sample collected specify nui
of containers used and mark volume le
on each bottle.
Number of
Containers
Water
(Extractable)
(Begin)
(End)
Water
(VOA)
(7) Shipping Information
Name of Carrier
Soil/Sediment
Water
(Ext/VOA)
Other
Date Shipped:
Airbill Number:
(§) Sample Description
Surface Water
Groundwater
Leachate
Mixed Media
Solids
Other (specify).
Approx
Total V<
0 Sam
r4576
r4576
R 4576
R 4 5 7 6
r 4576
r4576
r 4576
r4576
r 4576
r 4576
• \V ater
(Extractable)
¦ Water
(Extractable)
¦ Water
(Extractable)
¦ Water
(Extractable)
• W ater
(VOA)
¦ Water
(VOA)
¦ Soil/Sediment
(Ext & VOA)
• Soil/Sediment
(Ext & VOA)
¦ Water
(Ext & VOA)
¦ Water
(Ext & VOA)
© Special Handling Instructions:
(e.g., safety precautions, hazardous nature)
SMOCOPY
ciqure 13
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HWI Sample Management Office^
INORGANICS TRAFFIC REPORT
Sample Numb*
MC 4101
(?) Case Number.
Sample Site Name/Code:
® SAMPLE CONCENTRATION
(Check One)
Low Concentration
Medium Concentration
@ SAMPLE MATRIX
(Check One)
Water
Soil/Sediment
(?) Ship To:
Attn:
(n) Samplino Office:
Sampling Personnel:
(Phon«)
(e) Shipping Information:
Name Of Carrier:
1"W« Rhipp«H-
Sampling Date:
(Beain) _ -ni (End)
Airhill Ntimhar
Sample Description:
(Check One)
Surface Water
Ground Water
Leachate
_ Mixed Media
Solids
Othor
(J) Mark Volume Level
On Sample Bottle
Check Analysis required
Task 1 & 2
Task 3 Ammonia
Sulfide
Cyanide
(specify)
MATCHES ORGANIC SAMPLE NO.
SMOCOFY
Transfer
Ship To:
mc 4101 - Task 1 & 2
MC4101 ¦ Task 1 & 2
MC 4101 • Task 3
MC 4101 • Task 3
MC 4101 • Task 3
MC 41 0 1 • Task 3
MC4101 -Task 3
Figure 14
-------
Data from on-site measurements are recorded directly into a field
logbook or Field Data Record (FDR).
Sample Tap
Samples are removed from the sample location and transferred to a
laboratory or other location for analysis. Before removal, however, a sample
is often separated into portions depending on the analysis to be performed.
Each portion is preserved in accordance with prescribed procedures and the
sample is identified with a sample tag. The information recorded on the
sample tag includes:
Project Code
An assigned number
Station Number
A two-digit number assigned by the Project
Leader and listed in the project plan
Date
Time
Station Location
Samplers
Tag Number
Remarks
A six-digit number indicating the year, month
and day of collection
A four-digit number indicating the time of
collection - for example: 0954
The sampling station description, as specified
in the project plan
Each sampler's name is listed
A unique serial number is stamped on each
tag
The samplers record pertinent observations
43
-------
The sample tag contains an appropriate place for designating the sample
as a grab or composite and identifying the type of sample collected for analysis.
The sample tags are securely attached to each sample.
After collection, separation, identification and preservation, the sample
is maintained under chain-of-custody procedures discussed later. If the
composite or grab sample is to be split, it is aliquoted into similar sample
containers. Identical information is recorded on the tag of each split. This
identifies the split sample for the appropriate government agency, facility,
laboratory, or company. In a similar fashion, all tags on blank or duplicate
samples are marked "Blank" or "Duplicate," respectively, unless otherwise
directed.
The CEAT examines a selected number of sample tags for completeness
and accuracy. The team member determines if the station number and
location are identified; the date and time collected are indicated; the type of
sample and analysis are specified; the preservative, if used, is identified; and
the sampler(s) signature(s) appear on the tag. The auditor also determines if
the station location accurately identifies where the sample was taken and if
the sampling methods used were as specified in the project plan or directed by
the project coordinator.
Chain-of-Custodv Record
Possession of samples collected during enforcement investigations must
be traceable from the time collected until introduced as evidence in legal
proceedings. Chain-of-Custody Records are used for this purpose.
44
-------
A sample is in your custody if the following criteria are met:
1. It is in your possession.
2. It is in your view, after being in your possession.
3. It was in your possession and then locked up to prevent
tampering.
4. It was in your possession and then transferred to a designated
secure area.
Custody Procedures
1. In collecting samples for evidence, only the number that provides
a good representation of the media being sampled are to be
collected. To the extent possible, the quantity and types of
samples and sample locations are determined prior to the actual
field work. As few people as possible should handle samples.
2. The team member actually accomplishing the sampling is
personally responsible for the care and custody of the samples
collected until they are transferred or dispatched properly.
3. Sample tags must be completed for each sample, using waterproof
ink unless prohibited by weather conditions. For example, a
logbook notation would explain that a pencil was used to fill out
the sample tag because a ballpoint pen would not function in
freezing weather.
4. The project coordinator must review all field activities to
determine whether proper custody procedures were followed
during the field work and decide if additional samples are
required.
45
-------
To maintain and document sample possession, chain-of-custody
procedures are followed.
Transfer of Custody and Shipment
1. Samples are accompanied by a Chain-of-Custody Record
[Figure 12]. When transferring the possession of samples, the
individuals relinquishing and receiving will sign, date, and note
the time on the record. This record documents sample custody
transfer from the sampler, often through another person, to the
analyst.
2. Properly packaged samples are dispatched to the appropriate
laboratory for analysis, with a separate custody record
accompanying each shipment. Shipping containers are locked or
secured with evidence tape for shipment to the laboratory. The
method of shipment, courier name(s), and other pertinent
information is entered in the "Remarks" section.
3. Whenever samples are split with a source or government agency,
a separate Chain-of-Custody Record or Sample Receipt is
prepared for those samples and marked to indicate with whom
the samples are being split. The sample tag serial numbers from
all splits are recorded on the custody record. The person
relinquishing the samples to the facility or agency should request
the signature of a representative acknowledging receipt of the
samples. If a representative is unavailable or refuses to sign,
this is noted in the "received by" space. When appropriate, as in
the case where the representative is unavailable, the custody
46
-------
record should contain a statement that the samples were
delivered to the designated location and the date and time noted.
4. All shipments will be accompanied by the Chain-of-Custody
Record identifying its contents. The original record will
accompany the shipment, and a copy is retained by the project
coordinator.
5. If sent by mail, the package will be registered with return receipt
requested. Freight bills, post office receipts, and bills of lading
are retained as part of the permanent documentation.
The CEAT selects a predetermined number of Chain-of-Custody Records
to be audited in the field. The records must be reviewed to determine if the
station number and description corresponds to the sample tag, if the date and
time correspond, if the parameters to be analyzed have been properly
identified, and if all custody transfers have been documented and the date and
time of transfer recorded.
The audit team also determines if samples are kept in custody at all
times and are handled to prevent tampering. Sampling equipment should also
be checked for security and to detect tampering.
Sample Management Office Forms
A contract Sample Management Office (SMO) manages the shipment of
samples from hazardous waste site investigations and allocates workloads to
participating contractor laboratories. The Organic and Inorganic Traffic
Reports [Figures 13 and 14] are to be executed by Field Investigation Teams
and are subject to audit as are the previously discussed documents. This
47
-------
portion of the audit is to ensure that the information recorded on the forms is
correct and that it coincides with the information on the sample tags and on
the Chain-of-Custody Record.
Field Documentation
Observation and measurements during field investigations must be
documented in bound logbooks or Field Data Records. These records are
intended to provide sufficient data and observations to enable participants to
reconstruct events that occurred during the project and to refresh the memory
of the investigators if called upon to give testimony during legal proceedings.
Logbooks: Project logbooks are reviewed by the CEAT during the field
investigation audit to see that each is signed and all entries are dated.
Logbook entries must be legible, written in ink, and contain accurate
and inclusive documentation of an individual's project activities.
Because the logbook forms the basis for reports written later, it must
contain only facts and observations. Language should be objective,
factual and free of personal feelings or other terminology which might
prove inappropriate. All pertinent information should be recorded in
these logbooks from the time each individual is assigned to the project
until the project is completed. Entries made by individuals other than
the person to whom the log book was assigned must be dated and signed
by the individual making the entry.
Field Data Records: Where appropriate, Field Data Records (in the form
of individual sheets or bound logbooks) are maintained for each survey
sampling station or location. In-situ measurements and field
observations are recorded in the FDRs with all pertinent information
necessary to explain and reconstruct sampling operations. Each page
48
-------
of a Field Data Record is dated and signed by all individuals making
entries oil that page. The coordinator and the field team on duty are
responsible for ensuring that FDRs are present during all monitoring
activities and are stored safely to avoid possible tampering.
The CEAT reviews Field Data Records in the same manner as the
logbooks.
Photographs: Photographs may be taken for evidentiary purposes and
must also be controlled. The CEAT reviews field logbooks to determine
if the photographs are properly documented. When movies, slides, or
photographs are taken which visually show sampling sites or provide
other documentation, they are numbered to correspond to the logbook
entries. The name of the photographer, date, time, site location, and
site description are entered sequentially in the logbook as photos are
taken. Chain-of-custody procedures depend upon the type of film and
the processing it requires.
Corrections to Documentation: As previously noted, unless prohibited
by weather conditions, all original data recorded in logbooks, FDRs,
sample tags, custody records, and other data sheet entries are written
with waterproof ink. None of the documents listed above are to be
destroyed or thrown away, even if they are illegible or contain
inaccuracies which require a replacement document.
If an error is made on a document, the individual may make corrections
simply by drawing a line through the error and entering the correct
information. The erroneous information should not be obliterated.
49
-------
Sampling Operations
The CEAT reviews sampling operations to determine if they are
performed as stated in the project plan or as directed by the project
coordinator. The proper number of samples should be collected at the assigned
locations. The CEAT checks to determine that the samples are in prescribed
containers and are preserved in accordance with standard operating
procedures. The CEAT determines if the required field measurements and
quality assurance checks are performed and documented, as directed.
A closing briefing shall be held with the field team leader to verbally
review CEAT observations. Written comments shall not be provided at this
time. Unresolved problems will be discussed with the NEIC Project Officer
and then with the requestor.
LABORATORY OPERATIONS AUDIT
The CEAT performs audits as requested at laboratories supporting
enforcement investigations. Evidence audits may be conducted for EPA, state,
or contractor laboratories. The audit addresses sample control, laboratory
documentation procedures, security of evidence and document control.
Completed case files are also reviewed for completeness, integrity, and
adherence to evidentiary requirements. The evaluation is based on project
plans, laboratory standard operating procedures, or contract requirements.
Laboratory Audit phases follow the general guidelines stated in the
Audit Planning Section. A Laboratory Operations Audit Checklist can be
found in Appendix B. In addition, there are requirements specific to the
Laboratory Operations Audit.
50
-------
Requirements Specific to Laboratory Audits
Sample Control
The CEAT verifies the following laboratory custody procedures:
1. A designated sample custodian accepts custody of the shipped
samples and verifies that the information on the sample tags
matches that on the Chain-of-Custody Records. Pertinent
information as to shipment, pick up, courier, etc. is entered in the
"Remarks" section. The custodian then enters the sample tag
data into a bound logbook. The samples are then stored in a
secure area. The auditor will determine if the laboratory follows
protocols established by EPA for sample storage and preservation.
2. The custodian distributes samples to the appropriate analysts.
The names of individuals who receive samples are recorded in
internal laboratory records. Laboratory personnel are responsible
for the care and custody of samples from the time they are
received until they are exhausted or returned to the custodian.
3. When sample analysis and necessary quality assurance checks
have been completed, the unused portion of the sample must be
disposed of properly and according to a schedule established by
the project coordinator, project officer, or case attorney. All
identifying tags, data sheets, and laboratory records shall be
retained as part of the permanent documentation.
51
-------
Laboratory Documentation
All sample data, laboratory observations, and calculations are recorded
in logbooks or on bench sheets. All documentation is accountable once project
information is recorded. Each document shows the project code, dates, name(s)
of analyst(s), and other pertinent information concerning the identification of
the sample or laboratory results. Instrument printouts, graphs, and other
documents are labeled in a similar manner. All other documentation
concerning the project such as correspondence, report notes, methods,
documents, references, sample inventories, checkout logs, etc. becomes part of
the permanent record.
Logbooks need to contain information sufficient to recall and describe
succinctly each step of the analysis performed because it may be necessary for
the analyst to testify in subsequent enforcement proceedings. Moreover,
sufficient detail is necessary to enable others to reconstruct the procedures
followed, should the original analyst be unavailable for testimony. Any
irregularities observed during the analytical process need to be noted. If, in
the technical judgment of the analyst, it is necessary to deviate from a
particular analytical method, the deviation shall be justified and the rationale
shall be fully documented.
The auditor reviews selected examples from each document type to
determine if they are being handled in an approved manner. Recording shall
be done in ink and all corrections to documentation shall be done in the
manner previously described.
52
-------
Evidence Security
The CEAT reviews laboratory procedures to verify that samples are in
custody or secured from tampering during receipt, storage, and analysis.
Tracking forms, bench sheets, or logbooks are used to trace sample possession
and document names of personnel handling samples.
Document Control
The CEAT reviews laboratory procedures for assembly and organization
of all documents pertaining to a particular case. Laboratory procedures must
ensure that all case-related documents are filed at the conclusion of analysis.
These records include, but are not limited to:
• Chain-of-Custody records
• Sample tags
• Traffic report forms
• Sample log-in records
• Sample tracking forms
• Analyst logbook pages
• Instrument printouts
• Instrument logbook pages
• Correspondence
• QA/QC records
• Bench records
• Final report
The CEAT audits completed laboratory files and records for samples in
progress to determine adherence to laboratory procedures. Observations of the
auditor(s) are recorded in logbooks or on checklists [Appendix B].
53
-------
CEAT ROLE IN LABORATORY AUDITS FOR THE NATIONAL CONTRACT
LABORATORY PROGRAM
The CEAT is assigned by the NEIC Project Officer to conduct quarterly
on-site evidence audits in support of the National Contract Laboratory
Program (CLP). This program is managed by the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response Support Services Branch and was created to provide
analytical support for hazardous waste site investigations.
The work effort is to provide the CLP Program Manager with
observations of contract laboratory evidence handling procedures.
Requirements are established for sample receipt, log-in, storage, tracking, data
recording, data reporting, and document filing. These requirements are stated
in the contract as "Specifications for Chain-of-Custody and Document Control
Procedures." The CEAT reports any deviations from these policies and
procedures to the NEIC Project Officer who notifies the CLP Program Manager
that corrections or improvements are needed.
The CEAT auditors form a team with representatives from the EPA
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas (EMSL-LV) to
conduct the on-site inspections. EMSL-LV has a support role to the CLP for
monitoring contract laboratory quality assurance requirements. They also
provide guidance for correction of laboratory technical problems. Close
communication between NEIC, EMSL-LV, and the CEAT is necessary to
coordinate these audits.
Audit phases consist of:
• Laboratory notification
• Work assignment (see Audit Planning)
54
-------
• Audit preparation (see Audit Planning)
• On-site inspection (also see Audit Planning)
• Reporting
• Followup
Requirements Specific to the CLP Lab Audit
Laboratory Notification
EMSL-LV has the responsibility prepare a quarterly audit schedule and
notify the laboratories. NEIC and CEAT are advised as the inspections are
confirmed. Each laboratory director is informed of the date of audit, names of
the team members, and topics covered. Copies of the notification letter are
provided to NEIC.
On-site Inspection
CEAT and EMSL-LV representatives meet prior to visiting the
laboratory to discuss any special problems to be addressed and for an update
on any changes since the last audit.
EMSL-LV designates a team leader who introduces the auditors and
begins a pre-inspection briefing with the laboratory director. CEAT members
participate in this briefing to identify evidence audit activities to be addressed.
Following the briefing, a tour of the laboratory facility is made and
CEAT auditors make notes and fill out checklists. The procedures require the
auditor(s) to observe and record how the laboratory handles sample receipt,
log-in, storage, sample tracking, data recording, data reporting and document
filing. Specific laboratory documents are reviewed to assure proper
55
-------
identification and recordkeeping practices are followed. An exit briefing is held
to present findings and make recommendations to the laboratory director.
Followup
Deficiencies reported for an audit are addressed in the next quarterly
audit. If improvements have not been made, CEAT notifies the NEIC Project
Officer who, in turn, informs the CLP Manager.
The CEAT also supports the National Contract Laboratory Program
(CLP) by providing evidence audits of completed laboratory case files. The
audit is a review of records to determine if established policies and procedures
for document control and custody have been followed. In coordination with the
CLP Program Manager and the Sample Management Office (SMO), NEIC has
established a system for routing contract laboratory case files to the CEAT for
audit and then to Regional offices. Audit phases are:
• Work assignment
• Receipt of records
• Evidence audit
• Transmittal of records
• Reporting
Work Assignment
This work effort is a continuing activity assigned by the Project Officer.
Individual case file assignments are not made unless there is a priority request
from a Regional office.
56
-------
Receipt of Records
Contract laboratories submit completed case files to the CEAT on a
routine basis. Transfer of records is accomplished at the same time as sample
disposal (approximately 60 days after analysis). The records are inventoried
and numbered prior to shipment. The CEAT inspects and logs in all
shipments.
Evidence Audit
Evidence audits are conducted on all records received. Audit standards
are based on laboratory contract requirements and established EPA procedures
for evidence handling. A two-level audit system is in effect. All files are
checked for completeness and selected cases include development of sample
profiles. Sample profiles are graphic representations of sample history from
the time of collection through analysis and reporting of data. The large volume
of records generated by contract laboratories requires that the CEAT audit a
percentage of the total. Selection of cases is on a random basis; however,
NEIC accepts requests from Regional offices for audits of priority cases.
Transmittal of Records
The CEAT transfers case files within 10 days to Regional offices upon
completion of the audit. Regional contacts for the documents are identified by
the Sample Management Office. Sample profiles and cover letters accompany
the transfer. Audit findings requiring clarification or special attention by the
Region will be transmitted by NEIC.
57
-------
Reporting
The CEAT provides a monthly summary of cases audited and copies of
transmittal cover letters to the Project Officer.
DOCUMENT CONTROL AUDIT
A document control audit is conducted once field and laboratory records
have been completed, assembled, organized, and stored. The audit consists of
a review of the case file to ensure completeness and consistency. Document
Control Audit phases follow the general guidelines stated in the Audit
Planning Section. A Document Control Audit Checklist can be found in
Appendix C. In. addition, Document Control Audits have some specific
requirements.
Requirements Specific to the Document Control Audit
The CEAT reviews the assembled file and record observations regarding
(1) file organization and format, (2) document accountability, and
(3) separation and control of confidential business information. Investigation
teams and laboratories must establish orderly filing and inventory systems.
Following is a description of case file preparation procedures followed by NEIC.
This system serves as guidance for conducting document control audits by the
CEAT.
58
-------
File Organization and Format
The file is assembled in the following order:
a. Project plan
b. Project logbooks
c. Field data records
d. Sample identification documents
e. Chain-of-Custody records
f. Analytical logbooks, lab data, calculations, bench sheets, graphs,
etc.
g. Correspondence
1. Interoffice
2. EPA
3. Industry
4. Record of confidential material
h. Report notes, calculations, etc.
i. Reference literature
j. Sample (on hand) inventory
k. Check-out logs
1. Litigation documents
m. Miscellaneous - photos, maps, drawings, etc.
n. Final report
No confidential material is included in this file. Draft reports are
disposed of and only the final report appears in the file. Confidential material
must be maintained in a separate file under custody of a Document Control
59
-------
Officer. Confidential material is checked out from the DCO on a need-to-know
basis.
A central element of the document control audit, to be performed by the
CEAT, is a determination that filing systems ensure document accountability
and file security.
Document Accountability
To provide accountability, each document features a unique serialized
number which is assigned when the file is assembled. This number consists
of a three-digit project code, the Branch initials, and a three-digit document
number. For example, the first item in the Chemistry Branch file for project
123 would have the number 123-CB-001.
The inventory list consists of the serialized document number and a brief
description of the item. Examples are:
123-CB-001 5/15/76 Memo from Mary Smith to John Doe re Toxicity
and Health Effects Data
123-CB-002 Computer Printouts, Blank #2, Air GC/MS, 2 pages
123-CB-003 6/1/76 Handwritten notes of John Doe, 3 pages
The document control audit specifically consists of checking each
document submitted for accountability. A written explanation is prepared for
any documents unaccounted for. Documents are reviewed to ensure that they
all appear on an inventory and that all documents listed on the inventory are
accounted for. The auditor checks the documents for the proper numbering
60
-------
system. Documents are examined to determine that all necessary signatures,
dates and project codes are included.
Control of Confidential Business Information
The CEAT examines any documents marked "confidential" and
determines if they are handled and stored in the proper manner. Any
information received with a request of confidentiality is handled as
"confidential." When confidential material is received, it is marked as such
and placed in a locked filing cabinet or safe. Only authorized personnel are
allowed access to the file.
Reproduction should be kept to an absolute minimum. If it is essential
that a copy be made, the person who maintains control of the file will make the
copy. No confidential information may be entered into a computer or data
handling system without proper safeguards. Requests for access to confidential
information by any member of the public or a state, local, or federal agency
shall be handled according to the procedures contained in the Freedom of
Information Act regulations (40 CFR 2). All requests for enforcement records
are directed to the case attorney.
Toxic Substances Control Act Confidential Business Information
In 1976, Congress enacted PL 94-469, the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). This act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a mandate
to protect public health and the environment from unreasonable chemical
risks.
Several product categories which fall under the jurisdiction of other
federal laws have been exempted from this law. These categories are:
61
-------
pesticides, tobacco, nuclear material, food, food additives, drugs, cosmetics, and
firearms and ammunition.
During the course of an evidence audit, the CEAT may encounter
documents which a company has declared confidential under the Toxic
Substances Control Act. If such claim has been made, the project coordinator
should advise the CEAT during the preaudit discussions. CEAT members are
not cleared for TSCA CBI and will not work with this material.
A company may claim confidentiality for any or all information collected
by EPA during an inspection if it meets all of the following criteria:
1. The company has taken measures to protect the confidentiality of
the information, and it intends to continue to take such measures.
2. The information is not, and has not been, reasonably obtainable
without the company's consent by other persons (other than
government bodies) by use of legitimate means (other than
Discovery based on a showing of special need in a judicial or
quasi-judicial proceeding).
3. The information is not publicly available elsewhere.
4. Disclosure of the information would cause substantial harm to the
company's competitive position.
Once confidentiality has been claimed, there are stringent procedures
that must be followed. Each person who will have access to TSCA Confidential
Business Information must have special clearance. Procedures for obtaining
62
-------
clearance and how to handle the information received are outlined in the TSCA
Confidential Business Information Security Manual.
Some examples of the requirements for handling TSCA Confidential
Business Information are listed below.
You are responsible for the control and security of all TSCA Confidential
Business Information you receive. Specifically, you shall:
1. Discuss TSCA Confidential Business Information only with
authorized persons
2. Safeguard the information when actually in use by:
a. Keeping it under constant surveillance and being in a
position to exercise direct physical control over it
b. Covering it, turning it face down, placing it in approved
storage containers, or otherwise protecting it when
unauthorized persons are present
c. Returning it to approved storage containers when not in
use and at close of business
3. Not reproduce TSCA Confidential Business Information
documents. Copies must be obtained through a Document Control
Officer (DCO)
4.
Not destroy TSCA Confidential Business Information documents
except upon approval by and under the supervision of a DCO
63
-------
5. Not discuss TSCA Confidential Business Information over the
telephone
The penalties for violating the required procedures are severe. A
"violation" is the failure to comply with any provision in the TSCA Confidential
Business Information Security Manual, whether or not such failure leads to
actual unauthorized disclosure of TSCA Confidential Business Information.
Violators of the procedures outlined in the manual may be removed from
the authorized access list and be subject to disciplinary action with penalties
up to and including dismissal.
Willful unauthorized disclosure of TSCA Confidential Business
Information may subject the discloser to a fine of not more than $5,000 or
imprisonment for not more than one (1) year or both.
The foregoing is a brief summary of the requirements imposed for
handling TSCA Confidential Business Information. It is essential that
personnel be familiar with these requirements. TSCA confidential files are
subject to inspections by personnel from the EPA Security and Inspection
Division, as well as personnel from the Office of the Inspector General, to
ascertain that all procedures are being followed.
Personnel should not accept or assume custody of material or data
declared "TSCA Confidential" unless (a) the matter has been thoroughly
discussed with the Document Control Officer, (b) the recipient(s) have been
cleared for "TSCA Confidential" by the EPA Regional Administrator, and
(c) approved procedures for handling the data have been implemented.
64
-------
POTENTIAL RESPONSIBLE PARTY SEARCH AUDIT
PRP searches, the identification of companies or individuals linked with
a hazardous waste site, related to Superfund Sites are routinely conducted for
the Agency through one of several Technical Enforcement Support (TES)
Contracts. One of the services offered through the CEAT contract is audits of
these PRP Searches for completeness, integrity, quality assurance, and
adequate review, adequate supporting documentation, and compliance with
written PRP search procedures, Work Plans, and Work Assignment
requirements.
PRP Search audits are conducted in support of the Technical
Enforcement Support Contracts to ensure that the PRP Searches conducted
meet agency requirements. These audits are useful for monitoring contractor
performance and adherence to specified PRP search procedures. PRP search
audits are particularly useful at the initial stages of case preparation prior to
referral to ensure that the PRP report is complete, consistent, adequately
documented, and contains the required information. PRP search audits are
based on guidance published in the manual "Potentially Responsible Party
Search Manual" (Draft), dated January 1987.
Potential Responsible Party Search Audit phases follow the general
guidelines stated in the Audit Planning Section. A Potential Responsible Party
Search Audit Checklist can be found in Appendix D. In addition, Potential
Responsible Party Search Audits have some specific requirements.
Requirements Specific to the PRP Search Audit
The audit is the evaluation of all project file and reference
documentation presented to back-up prepared PRP Search lists. The manual
65
-------
"Potentially Responsible Party Search Manual" (Draft), dated January 1987,
provides the guidance against which the CEAT assesses procedural and
evidentiary compliance with EPA standards. The evaluation is based on the
project plan and directions given by the CEAT leader and the Project Officer.
Specifics regarding the audit in progress are contained in the Audit Plan.
The CEAT will maintain a record of all activities performed during the
PRP Search audit including logbooks, work papers, and checklists. The
checklists are included herein as Appendix D. The auditor must accurately
track the dates and times of audit activities and the document numbers that
have been reviewed. Included in the record will be the project codes, project
location, identification of the investigators assigned to the project and
auditor's name. The checklists must be completed in their entirety and any
other pertinent information should be recorded in the "Comments" section.
66
-------
APPENDICES
A Field Investigations Audit Checklist
B Laboratory Operations Audit Checklist
C Document Control Cudit Checklist
D PRP Search audit checklist
E Sample Narrative Evidence Audit Report
-------
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AUDIT CHECKLIST
-------
Appendix A
FIELD CHECKLIST
Briefing with Project Coordinator
SIGNATURE OF AUDITOR DATE OF AUDIT
PROJECT COORDINATOR PROJECT NO.
PROJECT LOCATION
TYPE OF INVESTIGATION
(authority, agency)
Yes No N/A 1. Was a project plan prepared? If yes, what items
are addressed in the plan?
Yes No N/A 2. Were additional instructions given to project
participants (i.e., changes in project plan)? If
yes, describe these changes.
Yes No N/A 3. Is there a written list of sampling locations and
descriptions? If yes, describe where documents
are.
Yes No N/A 4. Is there a map of sampling locations? If yes,
where is the map?
Yes No N/A 5. Do the investigators follow a system of
accountable documents? If yes, what documents
are accountable?
A-l
-------
Yes No N/A 6. Is there a list of accountable field documents
checked out to the project coordinator? If yes,
who checked them out and where is this
documented?
Yes No N/A 7. Is the transfer of field documents (sample tags,
chain-of-custody records, logbooks, etc.) from the
project coordinator to the field participants
documented? If yes, where is the transfer
documented?
A-2
-------
FIELD CHECKLIST
Field Observations
Yes No N/A 1. Was permission granted to enter and inspect the
facility? (Required if RCRA inspection.)
Yes No _ N/A 2. Is permission to enter the facility documented?
If yes, where is it documented?
Yes No N/A 3. Were split samples offered to the facility? If yes,
was the offer accepted or declined?
Yes No N/A 4. Is the offering of split samples recorded? If yes,
where is it recorded?
Yes No N/A 5. If the offer to split samples was accepted, were
the split samples collected? If yes, how were
they identified?
Yes No N/A 6. Are the number, frequency, and types of field
measurements and observations taken, as
specified in the project plan or as directed by the
project coordinator? If yes, where are they
recorded?
A-3
-------
7. Are samples collected in the types of containers
specified for each type of analysis? If no, what
kind of sample containers were used?
8. Are samples preserved, as required? If no or
N/A, explain.
9. Are the number, frequency, and types of samples
collected, as specified in the project plan or as
directed by the project coordinator? If no,
explain why not.
10. Are samples packed for preservation when
required (i.e., packed in ice, etc.)? If no or N/A,
explain why.
11. Is sample custody maintained at all times? How?
-------
FIELD CHECKLIST
Document Control
Yes No N/A Have all unused and voided accountable
documents been returned to the coordinator by
the team members?
Yes No N/A 2. Were any accountable documents lost or
destroyed? If yes, have document numbers of all
lost or destroyed accountable documents been
recorded and where are they recorded?
Yes No N/A 3. Are all samples identified with sample tags? If
no, how are samples identified?
Yes No N/A 4. Are all sample tags completed (e.g., station
number location, date, time analyses, signatures
of samplers, type, preservatives, etc.)? If yes,
describe types of information recorded.
Yes No N/A 5. Are all samples collected listed on a
Chain-of-Custody Record? If yes, describe the
type of chain-of-custody record used and what
information is recorded.
A-5
-------
6. If used, are the sample tag numbers recorded on
the chain-of-custody documents?
7. Does information on sample tags and
Chain-of-Custody records match?
8. Does the Chain-of-Custody Record indicate the
method of sample shipment?
9. Is the Chain-of-Custody Record included with the
samples in the shipping containers?
10. If used, do the sample traffic reports agree with
the sample tags?
11. If required, has a receipt for samples been
provided to the facility (required by RCRA)?
Describe where offer of a receipt is documented.
12. If used, are blank samples identified?
-------
Yes No N/A 13. If collected, are duplicate samples identified on
sample tags and Chain-of-Custody Records?
Yes No N/A 14. If used, are spiked samples identified?
Yes No N/A 15. Are logbooks signed by the individual who
checked out the logbook from the project
coordinator?
Yes No N/A 16. Are logbooks dated upon receipt from the project
coordinator?
Yes No N/A 17. Are logbooks project-specific (by logbook or by
page)?
Yes No N/A 18. Are logbook entries dated and identified by
author?
Yes No N/A 19. Is the facility's approval or disapproval to take
photographs noted in a logbook?
A-7
-------
Yes No N/A 20. Are photographs documented in logbooks (e.g.,
time, date, description of subject, photographer,
etc.)?
Yes No N/A 21. If film from a self-developing camera is used, are
photos matched with logbook documentation?
Yes No N/A 22. Are sample tag numbers recorded? If yes,
describe where they are recorded.
Yes No N/A 23. Are calibration of pH meters, conductivity
meters, etc., documented? If yes, describe where
they are documented.
Yes No N/A 24. Are amendments to the project plan documented?
If yes, describe where the amendments are
documented.
A-8
-------
FIELD CHECKLIST
Debriefing with Project Coordinator
Yes No N/A 1. Was a debriefing held with project coordinator
and/or other participants?
Yes No N/A 2. Were any recommendations made to the project
participants during the debriefing? If yes, list
recommendations.
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY OPERATIONS AUDIT CHECKLIST
-------
Appendix B
LABORATORY OPERATIONS AUDIT CHECKLIST
SIGNATURE OF AUDITOR DATE OF AUDIT
LABORATORY CEAT PROJECT #
LABORATORY LOCATION
CONTRACTS IN EFFECT
(List Contract Numbers)
1. Name of Sample Custodian and other personnel responsible for sample
receipt and document control.
2. Where are the Sample Custodian's procedures and responsibilities
documented?
3. Where are written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) pertaining to
receipt of samples documented (laboratory manual, written instructions,
etc.)?
4. Where is the receipt of Chain-of Custody Record(s) with samples being
documented?
5. Review sample receipt documentation to assure that the nonreceipt of
chain-of-custody record(s) with samples is being documented.
6. Where is the integrity of the shipping container(s) being documented
[custody seal(s) intact, container locked or sealed properly, etc.]?
B-l
-------
7. Review the sample receipt documentation to assure that the lack of
integrity of the shipping container(s) is being documented (i.e., evidence
of tampering, custody seals broken or damaged, locks unlocked or
missing, etc.).
8. Determine, by asking the Sample Custodian or reviewing the laboratory
SOP manual, if agreement among Sample Management Office forms,
Chain-of-Custody records, and sample tags is being verified? State
source of information.
9. Where is the agreement or nonagreement verification being
documented?
10. Review sample receipt documentation to assure that sample tag
numbers are recorded by the Sample Custodian.
11. Where are written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) pertaining to
sample storage documented (laboratory manual, written instructions,
etc.)?
12. Do written SOPs and actual laboratory practices demonstrate laboratory
security?
13. Describe sample storage area (upright refrigerator in GC lab, walk-in
cooler in sample receiving area, etc.).
B-2
-------
14- How is sample identification maintained?
15. How is sample extract (or inorganics concentrate) identification
maintained?
16. How are written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) pertaining to
sample handling and tracking documented?
17. How are written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) pertaining to
sample handling and tracking documented?
18. What laboratory records are used to record personnel receiving and
transferring samples in the laboratory?
19. Affirm that each instrument used for sample analysis (GC, GC/MS, AA,
etc.) has an instrument log. List those instruments that do not.
20. Determine where analytical methods are documented and ask if
methods are available to the analysts.
21. Determine where quality assurance procedures are documented and ask
if procedures are available to the analysts.
B-3
-------
22. How are written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for compiling
and maintaining sample document files documented?
23. How are sample documents filed (by case number, internal laboratory
number, batch number, sample number, etc.)?
24. Review sample document files to determine if a document file inventory
is prepared for each case file.
25. Review sample document files to determine if all documents in the case
files are consecutively numbered according to the file inventories.
26. Observe the document file storage area to determine if the laboratory
document files are stored in a secure area.
27. Has the laboratory received any confidential documents?
Complete 28, 29 and 30 ONLY if the response to question 27 was yes.
28. Review the case files to assure that confidential documents are
segregated from other laboratory documents.
29. Review the case files to assure confidential documents are stored in a
secure manner.
30. Review recommendations from the previous audit to determine if the
recommendations have been implemented. If not, the recommendations
should be repeated and the laboratory director and the Project Officer
should be notified.
B-4
-------
LABORATORY CHECKLIST
Debriefing with Laboratory Personnel
1. List observations made by the auditor.
2. Make recommendations with respect to each observation.
3. Discuss observations and recommendations made by the auditor.
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C
DOCUMENT CONTROL AUDIT CHECKLIST
-------
Appendix C
DOCUMENT CONTROL AUDIT CHECKLIST
PROJECT NO. DATE OF AUDIT
PROJECT LOCATION SIGNATURE OF AUDITOR
FILE LOCATION
Yes No 1. Have individual files been assembled (field
investigation, laboratory, other)?
Comments:
Yes No 2. Is each file inventoried?
Comments:
Yes No 3. Is there a list of accountable documents?
Comments:
Yes No 4. Are all accountable documents present or accounted
for?
Comments:
Yes No 5. Is a document numbering system used?
Comments:
Yes No 6 Has each document been assigned a document
control number?
C omments:
C-l
-------
Yes No 7. Are all documents listed on the inventory accounted
for?
Comments:
Yes No 8. Are there aiiy documents in the file which are not on
the inventory?
C omments: ;
Yes No 9. Is the file stored in a secure area?
Comments:
Yes No 10. Are there any project documents which have been
declared confidential?
C omments:
Yes No 11. Are confidential documents stored in a secure area
separate from other project documents?
Comments:
Yes No 12. Is access to confidential files restricted?
Comments:
Yes No 13. Have confidential documents been marked or
stamped "Confidential"?
C omments:
C-2
-------
Yes No 14. Is confidential information inventoried?
Comments:
Yes No 15. Is confidential information numbered for document
control?
Comments:
Yes No 16. Have any documents been claimed confidential
under TSCA?
Comments:
C-3
-------
APPENDIX D
PRP SEARCH AUDIT CHECKLIST
-------
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-l of 17
Revision No. 8
Revision Date: 01/00/89
PRP AUDIT CHECKLIST
Project Name:
Site I.D. Number:
W.A. Number:
TES Contract Number:
Site Proposed for NPL (Date):
Site Listed on NPL (Date):
Type of Audit:
Contractor Name:
PRP Program Manager (Contractor):
PRP Project Manager (Contractor):
PRP Project Leader (Contractor):
Audit Team:
Date(s) of Audit:
CAT Project Number:
CAT Contract Number:
Date
Signature of Audit Team Leader
-------
A. PRP Program/Project Manager Interview (Pre-Audit Briefing)
1. Has the auditor discussed the reasons for the audit?
Yes No Not Applicable
2. Has the Program/Project Manager been made aware of how the audit will be
conducted?
Yes No Not Applicable
3. Has the Program/Project Manager been made aware of:
(a) How the results of the audit will be communicated?
Yes No Not Applicable
(b) How the records of the audit will be maintained?
Yes No Not Applicable
4. Has the Program/Project Manager been made aware of
findings/recommendation presented during previous audits?
. Yes No Not Applicable
Previous Audit Findings/Recommendations:
5. Major concerns of the audit procedure:
6. Auditor's Comments:
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-2 of 17
-------
B. PRP Project Leader and Project Members Pre-Audit Briefing (may be combined with
A. above)
7. Has the auditor discussed the reasons for the audit?
Yes No Not Applicable
8. Have the Project Leader and project members been made aware of how the
audit will be conducted?
Yes No Not Applicable
9. Have the Project Leader and project members been made aware of:
(a) How the results of the audit will be communicated?
Yes No Not Applicable
(b) How the records of the audit will be maintained?
Yes No Not Applicable
10. Have the Project Leader and project members been made aware of
findings/recommendation presented during previous audits?
Yes No Not Applicable
Previous Audit Findings/Recommendations:
11. Major concerns of the audit procedure:
12. Auditor's Comments:
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-3 of 17
-------
c.
PRP Report Preparation Procedures
13. Does the deliverable include information covering the ten basic tasks generally
recommended for PRP searches and discussed in the OWPE/PRC PRP Search
Manual guidelines?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
Information Source:
14. Is the OWPE/PRC PRP Search Manual currently available to the contractor
(i.e., Project Manager, Project Leader, and team members)?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
Information Source:
15. Has the OWPE/PRC PRP Search Manual been updated to reflect guideline
changes?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
Information Source:
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-4 of 17
-------
16.
Are quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures documented?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
Procedure Name:
Information Source:
17. Are quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures in place for the
following? (Specify procedure title):
(a) Information taken from documents referenced in report and included
as attachments.
(b) Information taken from documents referenced in report and not
included as attachments
c) Corporate history/financial status information
d) Summary of title search records
e) Computer databases
f) Other (please specify)
Information Source:
18: If quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures are not documented,
how are these procedures done? (If applicable, the auditor should ask this
question of the Project Manager.)
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-5 of 17
-------
Project File Review
19. Did the contractor receive a work assignment to perform the work?
Yes No
If yes, what work assignment number:
If yes, when (by Prime):
If yes, when (by Subcontractor):
If no, please explain.
Information Source:
20. What date was the work assignment initiated by the:
EPA Primary Contact?
EPA Regional Contact?
EPA Headquarters Project Officer?
EPA Headquarters Contracting Officer?
21. Did the contractor submit a work plan?
Yes No
If yes, when?
If no, please explain.
Information Source:
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-6 of 17
-------
22. Was the Work Plan approved?
Yes No
If yes, when?
If no, please explain.
Information Source:
23. Deliverable being audited:
Draft PRP
Final PRP
Draft Letter Report'
Final Letter Report
Other, please explain
24. Date deliverable was submitted to:
Prime Contractor:
EPA:
25. Does a project logbook exist?
Yes No Not Applicable
If no or not applicable, please explain.
Information Source:
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-7 of 17
-------
26. Is the logbook signed by the Project Leader?
Yes No Not Applicable
Information Source:
27. Comments by the auditor on case file:
E. PRP Report Review
28. Do the tasks outlined in the Work Plan correspond with the tasks reported in
the deliverable [Task 3.1.9]?
Yes No
If necessary, please explain.
29. Are directions given by EPA contacts documented in the PRP Report [Tasks
3.1.1 and 3.1.9]?
Yes ' No
If necessary, please explain.
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-8 of 17
-------
30. Does the report list all sources contacted (whether or not information was
obtained [Tasks 3.1.9]?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
31. Were interviews conducted with government officials [Task 3.1.5]?
Federal: Yes No Number of interviews conducted
State: Yes No Number of interviews conducted
Local: Yes No Number of interviews conducted
If no, please explain.
32. Were former government officials with knowledge of the site interviewed
[Tasks 3.1.5, 3.2.5]?
Yes No Not Applicable
Number of interviews conducted:
33. Were private citizens with knowledge of the site interviewed [Task 3.2.5]?
Yes No Not Applicable
Number of interviews conducted:
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-9 of 17
-------
34.
Are written interview summaries included in the report [Task 3.2.5]?
Yes No Not Applicable
If no, please explain.
35. Were site-specific government files reviewed with officials in these agencies
[Task 3.1.1]?
Federal: __ Yes No Number of interviews conducted
State: Yes No Number of interviews conducted
Local: Yes No Number of interviews conducted
36. List the government agencies/organizations contacted [Tasks 3.1.1 and 3.1.5]:
Agencv/Organization Documents Collected
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
37. Were 104(e)/RCRA 3007 letters sent to PRPs [Tasks 3.1.2]?
Yes No
If yes, when? !
If no, please explain.
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-10 of 17
-------
38. If 104(e) letters were sent before the PRP search was conducted, were
responses incorporated into the report [Task 3.1.2]?
Yes No Not Applicable
If no, please explain.
If yes, did the contractor recommend that follow-up 104(e) letters be sent to
PRPs based on the initial 104(e) responses [Task 3.1.2]?
Yes No Not Applicable
39. If 104(e) letters were sent to PRPs after the PRP search was completed, did
the contractor provide input and/or draft questions for EPA [Task 3.1.2]?
Yes No Not Applicable
If no, please explain.
40. Does the report include a section discussing the history of operations at the
site [Task 3.1.4]?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-ll of 17
-------
41. Does the report address each PRP's involvement (history of operations) in
separate sections within the report?
Yes No
42. Do any significant gaps exist in the history of operations section of the report?
Yes No
If yes, please explain.
43. Does the report include a section discussing the property history of the site
[Task 3.1.10]?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
44. Does the report include a chain-of-title summary of the site [Tasks 4.1.9 and
3.1.10]?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-12 of 17
-------
45. Does the chain-of-title summary include in the report document continuous
ownership of the property [Task 3.1.10]?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
46. Was the chain-of-title summary developed by company personnel [Task 3.1.10]?
Yes No Not Applicable
If no, summary developed bjt:
47. If requested, does the report include a section discussing corporate history
[Tasks 3.1.7 and 3.1.9]?
Yes No Not Applicable
If no, please explain.
48. If requested, does the report include a section discussing financial status [Task
3.1.3]?
Yes No Not Applicable
If no, please explain.
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-13 of 17
-------
49. If requested, does the report include a section identifying parties as PRPs
[Task 3.1.9]?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
50. Is each PRP identified as either an owner, operator, transporter, generator, or
successor [Task 3.1.9]?
Yes . No Not Applicable
If no, please explain.
51. Are complete addresses provided for each identified PRP [Task 3.1.6]?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
52. For each PRP listed, is a reason for their designation as a PRP provided [Task
3.1.9]?
Yes No
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-14 of 17
-------
53. Is each reason for designating a party as a PRP documented, and are the
documents attached to the report [Task 3.1.9]?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
54. Does the report contain quantitative waste information for each PRP and a
preliminary volumetric ranking of all PRPs [Tasks 3.1.4 and 3.1.9]?
Yes No
If yes, was a database used?
If no, please explain.
55. Is an inventory list of attachments and/or index of records collected included
in the report [Tasks 3.1.8 and 3.1.9]?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
56. For each statement of fact and conclusion drawn in the report, are supporting
documents referenced [Task 3.1.9]?
Yes No
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-15 of 17
-------
Are all document references that are listed in the report present and attached
to the report [Task 3.1.9]?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
Do supporting documents accurately reflect the written statements in the PRP
report [Task 3.1.9]?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
Does the report include a section offering recommendations for additional or
follow-up research [Task3.1.9]?
Yes No
If no, please explain.
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-16 of 17
-------
F. Audit Debriefing
Findings:
Recommendations:
Discussion of findings/recommendations made during the previous audit:
CEAT Audit Checklist
Page D-17 of 17
-------
APPENDIX E
SAMPLE NARRATIVE EVIDENCE AUDIT REPORT
-------
C.G. Wills, Chief
Enforcement Specialists Office
October 4, 1979
Robert Laidlaw, Evidence Audit Unit
Project Review, ABM-Wade Disposal Site, Philadelphia, PA (616)
Attached for your review is the draft evidence audit report for project
#616, ABM-Wade Disposal Site, Philadelphia, PA.
E-l
-------
EVIDENCE AUDIT REPORT
ABM-WADE DISPOSAL SITE, PHILADELPHIA, PA - PROJECT #616
October 4, 1979
An evidence audit was conducted on project documents for project #616
during September 1979. All accountable documents charged to the project are
accounted for. Project documents generated within the individual branches are
complete as listed on each branch inventory. These documents have been
reviewed and are in accordance with NEIC policies and procedures. Field and
laboratory operations were not audited.
The following accountable documents were issued to the project
coordinator on February 5, 1979:
Logbooks 616-01 through 616-07
Custody tags 2805 through 2854
Chain-of-custody records 0470 through 0485
In addition, six custody locks and two keys were issued on the same
date.
Custody tag numbers 2805 through 2826 are attached to sample
containers that are located in the chemistry regulated laboratory. These tags
are accounted for as follows:
Once the samples and containers have been disposed of, the tags will be
removed and placed in the evidentiary file. Accountable documents that were
charged to the project, but which were not used, had the project number
removed or were disposed of and are not included in the project evidentiary
file. These unused documents are listed below.
2805-Sta 01 03/14/79 @ 0848
2806-Sta 02 03/14/79 @ 0855
2807-Sta 03 03/14/79 @ 0900
2808-Sta 04 03/14/79 @ 0905
2809-Sta 05 03/14/79 @ 0910
2810-Sta 06 03/14/79 @ 0915
2811-Sta 07 03/14/79 @ 0930
2812-Sta 18 03/14/79 @ 0938
2813-Sta 19 03/14/79 @ 0940
2814-Sta 08 13/14/79 @ 0945
2815-Sta 09 03/14/79 @ 0950
2816-Sta 10 03/14/79 @ 0955
2817-Sta 11 03/14/79 @ 1000
2818-Sta 12 03/14/79 @ 1005
2819-Sta 13 03/14/79 @ 1030
2820-Sta 22 03/14/79 @ 1035
2821-Sta 20 03/14/79 @ 1040
2822-Sta 14 03/14/79 @ 1045
2823-Sta 21 03/14/79 @ 1048
2824-Sta 16 03/14/79 @ 1051
2825-Sta 15 03/14/79 @ 1054
2826-Sta 17 03/14/79 @ 1100
E-2
-------
Logbook
Logbook
Logbook
Logbook
Logbook
616-02
616-03
616-04
616-05
616-06
Custody tags
Custody records
2835 through 2854
0477 through 0485
In addition, all custody locks and keys were returned.
The ABM-Wade Disposal Site file consists of the following individual
inventoried branch files:
Centred file
Field Operations Branch file
Process Control Branch file
Technical Services Branch file
Chemistry Branch file
Each of these files were audited to determine if the documentation
procedures are in accordance with NEIC policies and procedures. No deviation
was observed.
The review of the Central File demonstrated that all documents were
inventoried and numbered with the project number and serialized document
number. All of the documents listed on the inventory are present in the file.
There was one document (616-CF-15) that pertains to project #618. This was
removed and placed in the project file for #618.
The Central File did not contain an official written request for work to
be performed. However, the request for work is discussed in a memo from Mr.
Benson to the Director, NEIC, on January 26, 1979 (616-CF-16) and further
discussed in a memo from Deputy Assistant Director, Operations, on
February 2, 1979 (616-CF-12). These memos did detail the objectives of the
project and related these objectives to an enforcement action under section
7003 (RCRA).
The Field Operations Branch file demonstrated that all documents are
accounted for and are inventoried. All of the documents are properly identified
and numbered with the exception of the photographs. The photographs are
described on the back of the prints and in the logbook, but are not individually
numbered.
The Process Control Branch file contains properly identified and
E-3
-------
organized documents. These documents were handled in a manner consistent
with NEIC policies and procedures. All documents listed on the inventory are
accounted for.
The Technical Services Branch file is inventoried and all documents on
the inventory are accounted for. The documents are not individually labeled
with the project number or a serialized document number.
The Chemistry Branch file contains properly identified and organized
documents. The documents listed on the inventory are all accounted for and
are labeled with the project number and a serialized document number. All
of the documentation appears to be handled consistent with NEIC policies and
procedures.
These files are secured in the evidentiary file located in Building 53.
E-4
------- |