Prepared for:

BNSF Railway
Fort Worth, TX

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Shallow Soil Remedial Action
Former Right-of-way, 27 Acres, and Switching Yard
Blackwell, Oklahoma

AECOM, Inc.
July 2009
Document No.: 01140232
Prepared for:
BNSF Railway
Fort Worth, TX

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Shallow Soil Remedial Action
Former Right-of-way, 27 Acres, and Switching Yard
Blackwell, Oklahoma

_________________________________
Prepared By Jeremy Seibert, P.E., Project Engineer

_________________________________
Reviewed By Craig Niedermeier, P.E., Senior Project Manager

AECOM, Inc.
July 2009
Document No.: 01140232
 AECOM Environment

Contents

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

1.1 Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 Project Management.............................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Problem Definition/ Background...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project/Task Description ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Project Tasks ................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3.1 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality............................................................. 2-2
2.3.2 BNSF.................................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.3.3 AECOM .............................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.3.4 EMR ................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.5 CTEH.................................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.3.6 Test America Laboratories ................................................................................................ 2-2

3.0 Field Data Generation and Acquisition............................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Sampling Methods........................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Sampling Methods........................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Sample Labeling .............................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.4 Sample Chain-of-Custody Protocol................................................................................................. 3-2
3.5 Sample Packaging and Shipment................................................................................................... 3-3
3.6 Field Documentation........................................................................................................................ 3-3
3.7 Quality Assurance............................................................................................................................ 3-3
3.7.1 Laboratory quality control .................................................................................................. 3-3
3.7.2 Construction Quality Control ............................................................................................. 3-4
3.8 Data Management ........................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.9 Quality Objectives and Criteria........................................................................................................ 3-4

4.0 Data Validation ....................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification....................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Reconciliation, Documentation, and Records ................................................................................ 4-1

5.0 Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control ............................................................................. 5-1

5.1 QA/QC Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Surveying ........................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Track Work......................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.3 Backfill Materials ................................................................................................................ 5-1

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial i July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM Environment

5.1.4 Site Restoration ................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1.5 Offsite Disposal.................................................................................................................. 5-1

6.0 Reporting ................................................................................................................................................ 6-2

7.0 References .............................................................................................................................................. 7-1

List of Tables
Table 1 ROD-Based Soil Cleanup Levels for Protection of Human Health 3-1

List of Appendices
Appendix A SOPs

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial ii July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM Environment

1.0 Introduction

This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) prepared by AECOM Environment (AECOM), on behalf of the
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), is to be implemented during remedial activities at the right-of-way (ROW),
27-acres, and switching yard (collectively referred to as Site) properties located in Blackwell, Oklahoma.

1.1 Purpose and Scope

This QAPP provides the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) measures that will be implemented during
remedial activities to ensure they are conducted in accordance with the approved Final Shallow Soil Remedial
Action Work Plan (RETEC, 2005), the Technical Specifications and Construction Drawings, and the applicable
requirements specified in the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Record of Decision
(ROD) (ODEQ, 1996) for the Soil Remediation Unit (SRU) at the former Blackwell zinc smelter site.

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial 1-1 July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM Environment

2.0 Project Management

The remedial action is being managed by AECOM, on behalf of BNSF, under the direction of the Oklahoma
DEQ. The remedial construction work will be conducted by EMR Inc. (EMR) under the direction of AECOM.

2.1 Problem Definition/ Background

The former Blackwell Zinc smelter facility, located to the north of the 27-acre parcel and less than one mile
west of the former switching yard, operated a horizontal retort zinc and cadmium smelting facility from
approximately 1916 through 1974 in the location of the present BIA property. The BIA property is located on
the western edge of Blackwell, Oklahoma and to the north and adjacent to the ROW and 27-acres. The
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Record of Decision (ROD) (ODEQ, 1996) for the Soil
Remediation Unit (SRU) at the former Blackwell Zinc smelter Site states that the facility’s operations resulted in
the release of hazardous substances into the environment at levels that exceed background concentrations.
The ROD established soil cleanup levels for three metals: arsenic, cadmium, and lead; for
residential/recreational and commercial/industrial land use.

Soil investigation activities were conducted at the Site between October 2002 and July 2004 to delineate
surface soil areas with concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, and lead that exceed the applicable ROD criteria.
The investigation activities also included identifying areas with visually apparent smelter debris.

2.2 Project/Task Description

It is anticipated that approximately 5,750 cubic yards (7,500 tons) of soil and gravel, 1,150 cubic yards (1,500
tons) of ballast material, and 2,300 cubic yards (3,000 tons) of visually apparent smelter debris will require
removal and placement into on-site stockpiles for disposal characterization. Excavation in areas with existing
railroad tracks will require removal of the tracks prior to removing impacted ballast material. The stockpiles will
be characterized and treated if required prior to disposal. Treatment will include on-site stabilization.

2.3 Project Tasks

The specific tasks that will be undertaken to complete the remedial action are described in detail in the
approved Final Shallow Soil Remedial Action Work Plan (RETEC, 2005). The tasks are as follows:

 Site Clearing and Preparation

 Excavation of Impacted Areas

 Confirmation Sampling

 Stockpile Characterization and Disposal

 Site Restoration

 Surveying

 Data Validation

 Reporting

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial 2-1 July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM Environment

2.3.1 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

The members of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and their responsibilities are as
follows:

DEQ Environmental Programs Specialist; DEQ project manager responsible for oversight of the
remedial activities on the project.

2.3.2 BNSF
BNSF Manager Environmental Remediation; Responsible for management of remedial activities.

2.3.3 AECOM
AECOM Senior Project Manager: Responsible for management of remedial activities and responsible
for management of all project documentation.

AECOM on-Site Construction Manager: Responsible for oversight of the remedial contractor to
ensure that work is being performed in accordance with the approved Final Shallow Soil Remedial
Action Work Plan (RETEC, 2005), the Technical Specifications and Construction Drawings, and this
QAPP.

2.3.4 EMR
EMR Project Manager: Responsible for management of remedial activities.

EMR Primary On-Site Superintendent: Responsible for conducting the remedial action in accordance
with the approved Final Shallow Soil Remedial Action Work Plan (RETEC, 2005), the Construction
Specifications and Drawings and this QAPP.

EMR Secondary On-Site Superintendent/ General Foreman: Responsible for conducting the
remedial action in accordance with the approved Final Shallow Soil Remedial Action Work Plan
(RETEC, 2005), the Construction Specifications and Drawings, and this QAPP.

2.3.5 CTEH
Senior Technician: Responsible for conducting perimeter air monitoring in accordance with the
Revised Perimeter Air Monitoring Procedures (AECOM, 2009).

Junior Technician: Responsible for conducting perimeter air monitoring in accordance with the Revised
Perimeter Air Monitoring Procedures (AECOM, 2009).

2.3.6 Test America Laboratories

Laboratory: Responsible for analyzing samples collected at the Site and providing analytical data that is
precise, accurate, and complete.

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial 2-2 July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM Environment

3.0 Field Data Generation and Acquisition

The remediation plan for the Site will consist of excavating impacted soil and ballast material and
transporting and disposing of the impacted material at an approved BNSF disposal facility. To ensure that
soils exceeding the ROD criteria have been removed from the Site, a confirmation sampling program will
be implemented. Excavated areas will be backfilled with clean soil and ballast material. All disturbed
areas will be restored to site grading and runoff conditions in existence prior to the beginning of remedial
activities.

3.1 Sampling Methods

Confirmation sampling will be conducted to ensure that all impacted soil and ballast material is excavated
and disposed off-site. Confirmation samples will be collected in accordance with the approved Final
Shallow Soil Remedial Action Work Plan (RETEC, 2005).

Floor confirmation samples will be collected as composites within each excavation area at a frequency of
one composite sample per 5,000 square feet of excavation floor. Wall confirmation samples will be
collected as composites within each excavation area at a frequency of one composite sample for a
maximum of 100 linear feet of excavation sidewall. Confirmation sample results will be compared to the
applicable ROD criteria (residential/recreational or commercial/industrial). The ROD criteria selection is
based on the observed adjacent land use, and the requirement for a 50-foot residential buffer zone to be
applied to Site property adjacent to identified residential areas.

Air monitoring will consist of collecting air samples at the site perimeter that is predominantly downwind from
the work area as discussed within the Revised Perimeter Air Monitoring Procedures (AECOM, 2009).

3.2 Sampling Methods

All soil samples shall be collected using the methods outlined in the AECOM SOP for Soil Sampling (SOP
210), which is provided in Appendix B of the approved Final Shallow Soil Remedial Action Work Plan (RETEC,
2005) and included in Appendix A of this QAPP. Soil confirmation samples will be analyzed for arsenic,
cadmium, and lead SW-846 Method 6010 (prep method 3050) and compared to the ROD (ODEQ, 1996)
Criteria listed in Table 1.

Table 1: ROD-Based Soil Cleanup Levels for Protection of Human Health (ODEQ, 1996)

Commercial/
Residential/
Analyte
Industrial
Recreational (mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
50 200
Arsenic
75 200
Cadmium
Lead 750 2,000

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial 3-1 July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM Environment

Stockpile characterization samples will be analyzed for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
RCRA 8 Metals and zinc using SW-846 Method 6010/7000 series (prep method 3050) with TCLP extraction
Method 1311.

Perimeter air monitoring samples will be analyzed for arsenic, lead, and cadmium using the Modified NIOSH
method 7300 (ICP/MS analysis). Perimeter air monitoring samples for particulate matter will be analyzed
using NIOSH method 0600.

3.3 Sample Labeling

All sample containers will be labeled with the following information:

• Project name

• Sampling location

• Sample number

• Depth interval (if applicable)

• Date and time of sample collection

• Sampler’s initials

• Requested analyses

Sample labels will be completed in waterproof, permanent ink and will have a self-adhesive backing to allow
for attachment to the sample container. Labels may be covered with wide clear tape to prevent slippage. An
example sample label is presented within SOP

3.4 Sample Chain-of-Custody Protocol

Possession of samples collected in the field will be recorded from the time of collection until analyzed by the
accredited laboratory using chain-of-custody protocols and documentation. Samples will remain in the physical
possession of the responsible person or will be placed in locked storage. Sample possession and transfer will
be documented on a chain-of-custody form and will include the following information:

• Project name and number

• Name(s) of sampler

• Sample identification number and location

• Date and time of sample collection

• Number and type of sample containers

• Analytical Methods

• Preservatives

• Courier

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial 3-2 July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM Environment

• Signatures documenting change of sample custody

Chain-of-custody forms will accompany samples at all times. When transferring possession of the samples,
the individuals relinquishing and receiving the samples will sign, date, and note the time of transfer on the
record. A commercial delivery service will be identified by company name and shipping number. The original
chain-of-custody record will accompany the samples to the accredited analytical laboratory, and will be
returned to the AECOM QA/QC Officer or the AECOM Project Manager with the analytical results. A copy of
each record will be kept on-file.

3.5 Sample Packaging and Shipment

Sample containers will be wrapped with bubble wrap to prevent breakage during shipment. Ice will be packed
with the samples for shipment to the accredited analytical laboratory. A chain-of-custody form will be
completed and sealed in a plastic bag, which will be attached to the inside lid of the cooler for shipment. A
bottle filled with water (temperature blank) will be placed in each cooler to be used for checking the
temperature of the samples upon arrival by the laboratory. The sample coolers will be sealed with tape prior to
shipment and signed custody seals will be placed across the contact between the top and bottom of the
cooler. All sample packing and shipment will be in accordance with AECOM SOP for Packing and Shipping
(SOP 110) ), which is provided in Appendix B of the approved Final Shallow Soil Remedial Action Work Plan
(RETEC, 2005) and included in Appendix A of this QAPP. SOP 110 also contains examples of a bottle label,
a chain of custody, and a custody seal.

3.6 Field Documentation

Field documentation will be prepared and collected by BNSF’s representative with the help of the selected
remedial construction contractor to ensure that all work is performed according to this work plan and the
remedial construction specification documents. Field documentation will include, but are not limited to, the
following:

Daily Activity Log – A daily activity log will be completed to document general site activity and personnel
working on-site. Information recorded in the daily activity log will include the condition of erosion control
methods, equipment and personnel on-site, hours worked, volumes of material excavated, and confirmation
sampling results.

Health and Safety Log – This daily record of safety tailgate meeting topics, personnel conducting work, Site
visitors, and air monitoring results will be maintained by BNSF’s representative with the assistance of the
selected remedial construction contractor.

Analytical Sample Results – Records of sample collection and analysis, including chain-of-custodies and
laboratory analytical reports will be maintained by BNSF’s representative with the assistance of the selected
remedial construction contractor.

Manifests for Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Waste Shipments – All completed disposal manifests will be
maintained by BNSF’s representative with the assistance of the selected remedial construction contractor.

To prevent tampering, shipping procedures will meet the Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements.

3.7 Quality Assurance

3.7.1 Laboratory quality control
For QA/QC purposes, a minimum of one duplicate confirmation sample will be submitted per twenty samples
collected, and one field blank and one equipment rinse blank sample will be collected for each day of sampling

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial 3-3 July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM Environment

activities. All QA/QC samples will be submitted for laboratory analysis for the same parameters as the related
confirmation samples (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, and lead).

The various sampling methods specified in the Revised Perimeter Air Monitoring Procedures (AECOM, 2009)
will be used as a means to support the real-time monitoring efforts and evaluate the effectiveness of
engineering controls used in association with the scheduled site activity. Field blanks will be collected using
the sampling tubes and filters similar to the real-time air samples. Field blanks will be handled in the same
manner as the samples. Field blanks will be collected at a rate of 5% of real-time air samples collected.

3.7.2 Construction Quality Control

Construction quality assurance will be performed by AECOM with the help of the selected remedial
construction contractor to ensure remedial activities are being implemented in accordance with this work plan
document and the separate technical specifications and construction drawing documents.

3.8 Data Management

All analytical data, field notes, inspection reports, manifests, and any other form of project documentation will
be sent to the AECOM Project Manager. The AECOM Project manager will keep copies of all project
documentation on-file.

3.9 Quality Objectives and Criteria

All data collected during the course of the project will be evaluated using the following three metrics:

 Precision
 Accuracy
 Completeness

The validation process is discussed in detail in The AECOM SOP for Data Assessment (SOP 410), which is
provided in Appendix B of the approved Final Shallow Soil Remedial Action Work Plan (RETEC, 2005) and
included in Appendix A of this QAPP.

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial 3-4 July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM Environment

4.0 Data Validation

4.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification

Analytical data QA/QC review will be performed on all laboratory data to validate precision, accuracy, and
completeness. The QA/QC review will include assessment of data according to the appropriate data validation
techniques presented in the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program document National Functional Guidelines
for Inorganic Data Review (US EPA, 2002) as they apply to the reported methodology.

4.2 Reconciliation, Documentation, and Records

Problems with analytical procedures, analytical results outside QC limits, or other unusual conditions will be
documented during the data verification or validation process. Where additional explanations from the
laboratory are required, the information will be documented by the laboratory and provided to AECOM. This
information will be summarized in a data assessment report accompanying the analytical data. The report will
include a list of samples reviewed, the completed data verification/validation checklist, and a table of qualified
analytical data. An example of the AECOM Analytical Data Validation Checklist is presented as Appendix 2 of
SOP 410, which is contained in Appendix B of the approved Final Shallow Soil Remedial Action Work Plan
(RETEC, 2005) and included in Appendix A of this QAPP.

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial 4-1 July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM Environment

5.0 Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control

5.1 QA/QC Objectives

The objective of Construction Quality Control is to document that the remedial action is performed in
accordance with the approved Final Shallow Soil Remedial Action Work Plan (RETEC, 2005), the Technical
Specifications and Drawings, and this QAPP.

5.1.1 Surveying
The Remedial Contractor will make surveys and layouts, as necessary; to delineate the excavation areas. All
surveys will be performed using a licensed land surveyor in the State of Oklahoma. Survey control points will
be inspected by AECOM for location, sufficiency, and adequacy. All surveys will be recorded in field
notebooks and copies will be kept by the AECOM project manager.

5.1.2 Track Work

Railroad work will be conducted under the supervision of an AECOM Licensed Professional Engineer in the
State of Oklahoma to insure that the railroad work is conducted in accordance with AREMA specifications and
FRA regulations. All inspections shall be documented and copies will be kept by the AECOM Project
Manager.

5.1.3 Backfill Materials

All backfill materials will be characterized prior to use and then placed as specified within the Technical
Specifications and Construction Drawings and approved Final Shallow Soil Remedial Action Work Plan
(RETEC, 2005). All backfill material characterization data will be sent to AECOM for review. A copy of the
data will be kept on-file by the AECOM Project Manager. The Contractor will be responsible for submitting a
representative soil backfill sample for laboratory analysis for priority pollutants including metals using SW-846
Method 6000/7000 series (prep Method 3050), volatile organic compounds using SW-846 Method 8260, semi-
volatile organic compounds using SW-846 Method 8270, and pesticides and polychlorinated byphenols using
SW-846 Method 8080 series. The results of sample will be compared to the EPA Region 6 Medium Specific
Screening Levels (MSSLs)

5.1.4 Site Restoration

All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with a native grass mixture recommended for Blackwell by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) field center in Newkirk, Oklahoma. Upon completion of the work,
BNSF will monitor the seeded areas and apply nutrients/ water as needed.

5.1.5 Offsite Disposal

All excavated material will be segregated into stockpiles and characterized using the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) prior to disposal. All characterization samples will be collected using the methods
described in SOP 210 of Appendix B of the approved Final Shallow Soil Remedial Action Work Plan (RETEC,
2005) and included in Appendix A of this QAPP. Any material that exhibits TCLP levels above regulatory limits
will be stabilized and re-characterized.

Upon confirmation that material does not exceed TCLP regulatory levels, it will be manifested and transported
to the Waste Management East Oak RDF located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for disposal.

The final copy of all manifests will be sent to the AECOM project manager and to BNSF to be kept on-file.

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial 5-1 July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM Environment

6.0 Reporting

The response action activities will be documented through the completion and submittal of a Remedial
Activities Completion Report. The report will include all pertinent documentation including figures
depicting the excavation areas, results of all confirmation sampling (including an electronic version of the
laboratory analytical reports) data validation reports, excavated soil disposal manifests, field logs, and
photographic documentation of field activities.

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial 6-2 July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM Environment

7.0 References

AECOM, 2009. Revised Perimeter Air Monitoring Procedures, Former Right-of-Way, 27-Acres, and
Switching Yard, Blackwell, Oklahoma. June, 2009

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 1996. Record of Decision for the Soil
Remediation Unit of the Blackwell Zinc Site, Blackwell, Oklahoma. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality. April, 1996.

RETEC, 2005. Shallow Soil Remedial Action Work Plan, Former Right-of-Way, 27-Acres, and Switching
Yard, Blackwell, Oklahoma. November 2, 2005.

US EPA,2002. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program, National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data
Review, EPA 540/R-0 11008, July 2002.

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial 7-1 July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM Environment

Appendix A

SOPs

SOP 210: Soil Sample Collection

SOP 110: Packing and Shipping Samples

SOP 410: Data Assessment

F:\Project\BNSF\BNSF Projects\Blackwell\Remedial July 2009

Activities\QAPP\Shallow Soil Remediation QAPP_Final.doc
 AECOM SOP No: 110
Rev. Date: 05/02/02
Rev. By: AB/LDA/DG

AECOM Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 110

Packing and Shipping Samples

1.0 Purpose and Applicability

The AECOM Environment. (AECOM) SOP 110 describes proper packaging methods and
shipment of samples to minimize the potential for sample breakage, leakage, or cross-
contamination, and provide a clear record of sample custody from collection to analysis.
Specific project requirements as described in an approved Work Plan, Sampling Plan,
Quality Assurance Project Plan, Job Hazard Analysis (JHA), Safety Task Analysis Review
(STAR), or Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) will take precedence over the
procedures described in this document.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(1976) (RCRA) regulations (40 CFR Section 261.4 (d)) specify that samples of solid waste,
water, soil, or air collected for the purpose of testing are exempt from regulation when any of
the following conditions apply:

 Samples are being transported to a laboratory for analysis

 Samples are being transported to the collector from the laboratory after
analysis

 Samples are being stored:

 By the collector prior to shipment for analysis

 By the analytical laboratory prior to analysis
 By the analytical laboratory after testing but prior to return of sample to
the collector or pending the conclusion of a court case

Samples collected by AECOM are generally qualified for these exemptions. AECOM SOP
110 deals only with these sample types. If you have any addition questions about shipping
requirements contact the AECOM Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) Department.

2.0 Responsibilities
The field sampling coordinator is responsible for the enactment and completion of the chain-
of- custody and the packaging and shipping requirements outlined here and in project-specific
sampling plans.

SOP 110–Packing and Shipping Samples 1 of 8

 AECOM SOP No: 110
Rev. Date: 05/02/02
Rev. By: AB/LDA/DG

3.0 Health and Safety

This section presents the generic hazards associated with packing and shipping samples and
is intended to provide general guidance in preparing site-specific health and safety
documents. The Site-Specific HASP, JHAs, and STARs will address additional requirements
and will take precedence over this document. Note that packing and shipping samples
usually requires Level D personal protection unless there is a potential for airborne exposure
to site contaminants. Under circumstances where potential airborne exposure is possible
respiratory protective equipment may be required based on personal air monitoring results.
Upgrades to Level C will be coordinated with your Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) or
EHS Coordinator.

Health and safety hazards with packing and shipping of samples include the following:

 Exposure to sample preservatives – Know the types of sample preservatives

sent to you by the analytical laboratory. Understand the potential exposures
(inhalation, ingestion skin contact) and use chemically impervious gloves to
protect your hands from acids in particular.

 Anticipate the potential for spills – Glass containers are subject to breakage
and if dropped on the floor will create a spill. Know how to contain the spill,
have spill response materials available, and understand the proper disposal
methods for spilled materials. Wear personal protective equipment (PPE) to
clean up the spill as appropriate (Level C or D).

 Broken glass – Be aware of the possibility for broken glass in previously used
coolers. Inspect the cooler before you place samples in it and clean out any
broken glass safely (i.e. with a small brush).

 Coolers can be heavy – Use proper lifting techniques to pick up loaded

coolers. Bend your legs and lift with a straight back to avoid a back injury.

 Do not use your teeth to cut tape to size, use a tape dispenser.

4.0 Supporting Materials

The following materials must be on hand and in sufficient quantity to ensure that proper
packing and shipping methods and procedures may be followed:

 Chain-of-custody forms and tape

 Sample container labels

 Coolers or similar shipping containers

SOP 110–Packing and Shipping Samples 2 of 8

 AECOM SOP No: 110
Rev. Date: 05/02/02
Rev. By: AB/LDA/DG

 Duct tape or transparent packaging tape

 Zip-lock type bags

 Protective wrapping and packaging materials

 Ice

 Shipping labels for the exterior of the ice chest

 Transportation carrier forms (Federal Express, Airborne, etc.)

 PPE as specified in the Site-Specific HASP

 Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for any chemicals or site-specific

contaminants (including sample preservatives)

 A copy of the Site-Specific HASP

5.0 Methods and Procedures

All samples must be packaged so they do not leak, break, vaporize, or cause cross-
contamination of other samples. Waste samples and environmental samples (e.g.,
groundwater, soil, etc.) should not be placed in the same shipping container. Each individual
sample must be properly labeled and identified. A chain-of-custody record must accompany
each shipping container. When refrigeration is required for sample preservation, samples
must be kept cool during the time between collection and final packaging.

All samples must be clearly identified immediately upon collection. Each sample bottle
label (Figure 1) will include the following information:

 Client or project name, or unique identifier, if confidential

 A unique sample description
 Sample collection date and time
 Sampler’s name or initials
 Indication of filtering or addition of preservative, if applicable
 Analyses to be performed

After collection, identification, and preservation (if necessary), the samples will be
maintained under chain-of-custody procedures as described below.

5.1 Chain-Of-Custody
A sample is considered to be under custody if it is in one’s possession, view, or in a
designated secure area. Transfers of sample custody must be documented by chain-of-

SOP 110–Packing and Shipping Samples 3 of 8

 AECOM SOP No: 110
Rev. Date: 05/02/02
Rev. By: AB/LDA/DG

custody forms (Figure 2). The chain-of-custody record will include, at a minimum, the
following information:

 Client or project name, or unique identifier, if confidential

 Sample collector’s name
 AECOM’s mailing address and telephone number
 Designated recipient of data (name and telephone number)
 Analytical laboratory’s name and city
 Description of each sample (i.e., unique identifier and matrix)
 Date and time of collection
 Quantity of each sample or number of containers
 Type of analysis required
 Date and method of shipment

Additional information may include type of sample containers, shipping identification air bill
numbers, etc.

When transferring custody, both the individual(s) relinquishing custody of samples and the
individual(s) receiving custody of samples will sign, date, and note the time on the form. If
samples are to leave the collector’s possession for shipment to the laboratory, the subsequent
packaging procedures will be followed.

5.2 Packing for Shipment

To prepare a cooler for shipment, the sample bottles should be inventoried and logged on the
chain-of-custody form. At least one layer of sorbent protective material should be placed in
the bottom of the container. Be careful for any broken glass. A heavy-duty plastic bag, if
available, should be placed in the shipping container to act as an inner container. As each
sample bottle is logged on the chain-of-custody form, it should be wrapped with protective
material (e.g., bubble wrap, matting, plastic gridding, or similar material) to prevent
breakage. The protective material should be secured with tape. The sample should then be
placed in a zip-lock type bag. Each sample bottle should be placed upright in the heavy-duty
plastic bag inside the shipping container. Each sample bottle cap should be checked during
wrapping and tightened, if needed. Avoid over tightening, which may cause bottle cap to
crack and allow leakage. Additional packaging material, such as bubble wrap, should be
spread throughout the voids between the sample bottles.

Most samples require refrigeration as a minimum preservative. To ensure that samples are
received by the laboratory within required temperature limits, place cubed ice directly over
packed samples, making sure that ice is present on all sides of each sample (a 2-inch layer of
ice should be present on top of the samples prior to shipment).

If applicable, secure the inner heavy-duty bag with clear packing tape. This will prevent
water from leaking out of the package, thus stopping shipment (package handling companies
will not ship a leaking package).

SOP 110–Packing and Shipping Samples 4 of 8

 AECOM SOP No: 110
Rev. Date: 05/02/02
Rev. By: AB/LDA/DG

Place the original completed chain-of-custody record in a zip-lock type plastic bag and place
the bag on the top of the contents within the cooler or shipping container. Alternatively, the
bag may be taped to the underside of the container lid. Retain a copy of the chain-of-custody
record with the field records.

Close the top or lid of the cooler or shipping container and rotate/shake the container to
verify that the contents are packed so that they do not move. Add additional packaging if
needed and reclose. Place signed and dated chain-of-custody seal (Figure 3) at two different
locations (front and back) on the cooler or container lid and overlap with transparent
packaging tape. The chain-of-custody seal should be placed on the container in such a way
that opening the container will destroy the tape. Packaging tape should encircle each end of
the cooler at the hinges. Use proper lifting techniques when picking up the cooler.

Sample shipment should be sent via an overnight express service that can guarantee 24-hour
delivery. Retain copies of all shipment records as provided by the shipper.

6.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Recipient of sample container should advise shipper and/or transporter immediately of any
damage to the container, breakage of contents, or evidence of tampering.

7.0 Documentation
The documentation for support of proper packaging and shipment will include AECOM or
the laboratory chain-of-custody records and transportation carrier’s airbill or delivery
invoice. All documentation will be retained in the project files.

SOP 110–Packing and Shipping Samples 5 of 8

 Sample Label

AECOM

Figure 1
Figure 2
Chain of Custody Seal

AECOM

Figure 3
 AECOM SOP No: 210
Rev. Date: 06/28/01
Rev. By: JR/LDA/DG

AECOM Standard Operating Procedure

(SOP) 210
Soil Sample Collection

1.0 Purpose and Applicability

The AECOM Environment (AECOM) SOP 210 describes methods used to obtain soil
samples for physical testing, stratigraphic correlations, and chemical analysis. Soil samples
are obtained in conjunction with surface sampling, test pit excavation, soil boring, and
monitoring well installation programs. These procedures provide specific information for
determining the physical makeup of the surface and subsurface environment, as well as how
to estimate the extent and magnitude of soil contamination, if present. AECOM SOP 210
will discuss sampling of the surface material with hand tools and sampling of the subsurface
material by augers and split spoons, and within test pits by backhoes and hand tools.

Specific project requirements as described in an approved Work Plan, Sampling Plan,

Quality Assurance Project Plan, Job Hazard Analysis, Safety Task Analysis Review, or Site-
Specific Health & Safety Plan will take precedence over the procedures described in this
document.

2.0 Responsibilities
The project geologist/engineer will be responsible for the proper use and maintenance of all
types of equipment used for obtaining soil samples. The geologist/engineer will determine
the location, total depth, and overall size of each surface sample collection point and test pit,
and the location and depth of all subsurface borings based on the project specific sampling
plan. The project geologist/engineer will be responsible for locating any subsurface utilities
or structures, and disseminating this information to the contractor prior to commencing the
sampling program. The location of overhead utilities and obstructions relative to the
sampling locations will also be noted. In addition, a Safety Task Analysis Review will be
conducted to assess any other potential health and safety hazards associated with soil sample
collection.

It shall be the responsibility of the project geologist/engineer to observe all activities

pertaining to soil sampling and subsurface investigations to ensure that all the standard
procedures are followed properly, and to record all pertinent data on a field log or field book.
The collection, handling, and storage of all samples will be the responsibility of the
geologist/engineer.

It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide safe and well-maintained equipment for
obtaining subsurface samples in borings and for decontamination of the equipment. Test pit
construction, split-spoon sampling, and subsurface augering will be conducted by the

SOP 210–Soil Sample Collection 1 of 12

 AECOM SOP No: 210
Rev. Date: 06/28/01
Rev. By: JR/LDA/DG

contractor. In addition, the contractor will be responsible for containment of cuttings, if

required.

3.0 Health and Safety

This section presents the generic hazards associated with soil sampling techniques and is
intended to provide general guidance in preparing site-specific health and safety documents.
The Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan, Job Hazard Analyses, and Safety Task Analysis
Reviews will address additional requirements and will take precedence over this document.
Note that sample collection usually requires Level D personal protection unless there is a
potential for airborne exposures to site contaminants.

Health and safety hazards include but are not limited to the following:

Test Pit Excavation

 Heavy equipment operation

 Cave-in (trench/excavation work)
 Hazardous materials (exposure and/or release)
 Utilities (underground)
 High noise levels
 Air quality (i.e., chemical, dust, explosive conditions)
 Uneven walking/working surfaces

Hollow Stem Auger Drilling

 Heavy equipment operation

 Pinch points
 Rotating parts
 Loose clothing
 Heavy lifting
 Air quality (i.e., chemical, dust, explosive conditions)
 Hazardous materials (exposure and release)
 Pressurized lines
 High noise levels
 Utilities (underground or overhead)
 Hoisting
 Overhead hazards
 Hand hazards

Rotary Drilling (Mud/Air)

 Same as above

 Increased noise hazard

SOP 210–Soil Sample Collection 2 of 12

 AECOM SOP No: 210
Rev. Date: 06/28/01
Rev. By: JR/LDA/DG

 Increased dust hazard (air rotary)

 Cyclones/Diverters (pressurized lines should be anchored with whip-stops)

 Investigation derived waste containment

 Blow protect inspection/replacement

 Sample collection (i.e., there are increased hazards when taking samples from
air rotary rigs resulting from overhead hazards (cyclones), pressurized lines,
increased noise, and air quality at sample collection outlets. Field personnel
must be aware of these hazards and initiate engineered controls to limit these
hazards.)

If site/project conditions warrant the use of other drilling techniques, hazards associated with
these techniques will be evaluated by amendment in the site-specific Health & Safety Plan,
Job Hazard Analyses, or Safety Task Analysis Reviews. Drill rig inspections, if applicable,
will be completed prior to initiating soil sampling.

4.0 Supporting Materials

In addition to materials provided by the contractor, the geologist/engineer will provide:

 Sample bottles/containers and labels

 Boring or test pit logs

 Field notebook

 Chain-of-custody forms

 Depth-measurement device

 Stakes and fluorescent flagging tape

 Decontamination solution

 Camera for photographing sections

 Sampling equipment (e.g., knives, trowels, shovels, hand augers, aluminum

foil, etc.)

 Plastic garbage bags

 Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for any chemicals or site specific
contaminants

SOP 210–Soil Sample Collection 3 of 12

 AECOM SOP No: 210
Rev. Date: 06/28/01
Rev. By: JR/LDA/DG

 A copy of the site-specific Health and Safety Plan

5.0 Methods and Procedures

Specific sampling equipment and methodology will be dictated by characteristics of the soil
to be sampled, type of soil samples required, and by the analytical procedures to be
employed. Soil samples obtained at the surface may be collected using a shovel, trowel, or
hand auger. A hand auger can be used to extract shallow soil samples up to 10 feet below
the surface. Sampling to obtain uniform coverage within a specified area will often require
the use of an area grid. These considerations will be followed based upon project specific
requirements.

There are two types of samples that may be required by the project sampling plan, grab or
composite. A grab sample is collected from a specific location or depth and placing it in the
appropriate sample container. A composite sample consists of several discrete locations (or
depths) mixed to provide a homogeneous, representative sample. To ensure that the sample
is representative, the soil volume and collection method from each discrete location should
be as identical as possible. It should be noted that samples analyzed for volatile organic
compounds cannot be composited since it is necessary to expose the soil to the atmosphere
prior to transfer into the sample container.

The sampling depth interval in borings is typically one sample for every five feet with
additional samples taken at the discretion of the project geologist/engineer when significant
color, textural, or odor changes are encountered. Deviations in the standard operating
procedure will be covered in the project specific sampling plans.

Most subsurface explorations by AECOM will be on privately owned land, often an

industrial facility. Prior to commencing subsurface exploration, AECOM will work with the
facility manager to locate any subsurface utilities or structures and discuss any pertinent
health and safety issues. Utility companies, (electric, gas, water, phone, sewer, etc.) who
may have equipment or transmission lines buried in the vicinity, will also be notified. Many
regions have organizations, which represent all utilities for these notification purposes.
Allow enough time after notification (typically three working days) for the utilities to
respond and provide locations of any equipment, which may be buried on site. Overhead
lines must also be kept in consideration when a drilling rig is used. As a rule of thumb, the
rig and derrick should be at least 25 feet away from overhead lines unless special shielding
and grounding are provided. In addition, consult the site-specific health and safety
documentation.

SOP 210–Soil Sample Collection 4 of 12

 AECOM SOP No: 210
Rev. Date: 06/28/01
Rev. By: JR/LDA/DG

5.1 General Applications

General locations shall be mapped by the field geologist/engineer using a stationary structure
as the reference point. Specific locations for test pits and sampling locations will be
documented by survey or by using topographic maps and/or plans. A preliminary log of the
test pit, or boring shall be prepared in the field by the field geologist/engineer. A sketch of
the test pit may be necessary to depict the strata encountered. Before measuring the depth to
groundwater, if encountered, the field geologist/engineer will allow sufficient time for
stabilization of the water table in the excavation or boring. All information shall be recorded
on the field log or the field book.

5.2 Surface Sampling

Prior to surface sampling, remove all surface materials that are not to be included in the
sample such as rocks, twigs, and leaves. For sample collection taken within the upper two to
three feet, use a shovel or trowel. A hand auger may be used for depths of up to 10 feet.
When using the hand auger, auger the hole to the required depth, then slowly remove the
auger and collect the soil sample from the auger flight or auger bucket at the point
corresponding to the required depth. A tube sampler can be attached to the auger rods after
augering to the desired depth, inserted into the open borehole, and then advanced into the
soil at the base of the boring. If sampling is in sandy or non-cohesive soil, a shovel may be
necessary to collect samples. Sample logging is described in Section 5.5.

Photographs of specific geologic features or sample location may be required for

documentation purposes. A scale or item providing a size perspective should be placed in
each photograph. The frame number and picture location shall also be documented in the
field book. All equipment shall be decontaminated following AECOM SOP 120 between
sample locations unless otherwise specified in the project specific sampling plan.

5.3 Test Pit Excavation and Sampling

Test pits shall be excavated in compliance with applicable safety regulations. Walls should
be cut as near vertical as possible to facilitate stratigraphic logging. Field personnel will not
enter an open test pit deeper than four feet without shoring or benching present. Samples
shall be collected from the backhoe bucket with a trowel or from the side of the test pit wall
(depending upon the depth of the test pit and the safety precautions in place). The size,
depth, and orientation of the test pit shall be recorded on the test pit log (Figure 1). Sample
logging is described in Section 5.5.

Photographs of specific geologic features or sample location may be required for

documentation purposes. A scale or item providing a size perspective should be placed in
each photograph. Frame numbers and picture locations shall also be documented in the field
book.

SOP 210–Soil Sample Collection 5 of 12

 AECOM SOP No: 210
Rev. Date: 06/28/01
Rev. By: JR/LDA/DG

The test pit shall be inspected and the test pit log reviewed to ensure that all the appropriate
and/or required data and samples have been collected. All test pits will be backfilled to
original grade and compacted. All equipment shall be decontaminated following AECOM
SOP 120 and guidance provided in the Health and Safety Plan between sample locations
unless otherwise specified in the project specific sampling plan. Avoid using flammable
liquids for decontamination purposes.

5.4 Subsurface Sampling

Note: AECOM employees conducting these operations must have completed a drilling safety
course.

Borings are typically advanced by two methods: rotary drilling and augering. The casing
shall be of the flush-joint or flush-couple type and of sufficient size to allow for soil
sampling, coring, and/or well installation. All casing sections shall be straight and free of
any obstructions. Hollow-stem augers or solid-flight augers with casing may be used
according to specific project requirements. Rotary drilling with water, mud, or air may be
used in dense or indurated formations to advance to the required sample depth where a split
spoon sampler or a coring device will be used to obtain the sample. Re-circulated water
shall not be used when casing is being driven unless specified in project specific sampling
plans and/or directed and properly documented by the field geologist/engineer. If re-
circulated water is used, all loose material within the casing shall be removed by washing to
the required sampling depth using a minimum amount of water. Care should be taken to
limit re-circulation of the wash water to those times when the water supply is extremely
limited or unavailable. The amount of water used should be documented in the project field
book or on the field form.

Generally subsurface soil samples shall be obtained using a split-tube type sampler (split
spoon), however, other devices (Shelby tubes, continuous samples, core, etc.) may be used as
specified in the project specific sampling plan. Split-spoons come in a variety of sizes with
the most standard having a 2-inch OD, a 1 3/8-inch ID and a 24-inch long barrel with an 18-
inch sample capacity. Split spoons shall be equipped with a check valve at the top and a flap
valve or basket-type retainer at the bottom. Samples shall be obtained using the standard
penetration test (SPT), which allows for qualitative determination of mechanical properties
and aids in identification of material type. The number of hammer blows shall be recorded
on the boring log (Figure 2) for each six-inch drive distance.

The soil sampler shall be opened immediately upon removal from the casing. If the recovery
is inadequate (i.e., most of the penetrated material was not retained inside the soil sampler), a
note will be made on the boring log stating that “no recovery” was possible at that depth. In
the event that gravels or other material prevent penetration by the split spoon, samples may
be collected from the auger flights. Slowly remove the auger and collect the sample at the
point corresponding to the required depth. Samples collected in this manner must be
documented on the boring log. Sample logging is described in Section 5.5.

SOP 210–Soil Sample Collection 6 of 12

 AECOM SOP No: 210
Rev. Date: 06/28/01
Rev. By: JR/LDA/DG

Photographs of specific geologic features or sample location may be required for

documentation purposes. A scale or item providing a size perspective should be placed in
each photograph. The frame number and picture location shall also be documented in the
field book. All equipment will be decontaminated following AECOM SOP 120 between
sample locations and sample depths unless otherwise specified in the project specific
sampling plan.

Upon completion of the boring, backfill may be required. The backfill may consist of native
material, hydrated bentonite chips/pellets, Portland cement/bentonite grout, or other low
permeability material as specified in the project specific sampling plan. All applicable
state/federal regulations concerning plugging of boreholes should be reviewed prior to the
commencement of field activities.

5.5 Sample Logging

To ensure consistent descriptions of soil or rock material, the following criteria should be
included on the sampling logs:

 Soil or rock type

 Depth ranges, recorded in feet
 Grain size
 Roundness
 Sorting
 Moisture
 Color
 Degree of oil contamination
 Remarks

Examples of soil types would be gravel, sand, silt, or clay. Soil types should be based on the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Figure 3 shows the USCS table. Examples of
rock types include limestone, shale, claystone, siltstone, and sandstone. Soil/rock
classifications determined in the field may be subject to change based upon laboratory tests.
Factors to consider before changing a field determination include the expertise of the field
geologist/engineer and laboratory personnel, representative character of the tested sampling,
labeling errors, etc. Any changes made after this consideration shall be discussed and
incorporated in the project report.

Grain size, roundness, and degree of sorting should also be included on the log if they are
discernable. In addition to composition, blow counts and the length of the sample recovered
should also be recorded on the sampling log. The degree of sample moisture should be
described as dry, moist, and wet.

The color(s) or range of color(s) of the soil or rock type should be defined. If a Munsell
color chart is used, the number designation of the color will also be recorded in the
description. A notation of the degree of oil contamination should be included on the sample

SOP 210–Soil Sample Collection 7 of 12

 AECOM SOP No: 210
Rev. Date: 06/28/01
Rev. By: JR/LDA/DG

log. The contamination should be noted as high (30 %), medium (10-30 %), low (1-10 %),
or none. Other classifiers may include odor (low to high) and mottling (low to high).

Remarks should include anything pertinent to the sample description or sample collection
that is not described above. Other information to be placed on the logs as appropriate is:

 PID readings (with associated calibration information)

 Appearance of contamination (consistency)

 Degree of fracturing or cementation in the rock

 Drilling equipment used (rod size, bit type, pump type, rig manufacturer and
model, etc.)

 Special problems and their resolution (hole caving, recurring problems at a

particular depth, sudden tool drops, excessive grout takes, drilling fluid losses,
lost casing, etc.)

Dates for start and completion of borings

 Depth of first encountered free water

 Definitions of special abbreviations used on log

5.6 Sample Handling

Specific procedures pertaining to the handling and shipment of samples shall be in
accordance with AECOM SOP 110. A clean pair of gloves and decontaminated sampling
tools will be used when handling the samples during collection to prevent cross
contamination. A representative sample will be placed in the sampling container. Sample
containers (jars or bags) shall be labeled with the following information:

 Client or project name, or unique identifier, if confidential

 Unique sample description (i.e., test pit, boring, or sampling point number and
horizontal/vertical location)

 Sample collection date and time

 Sampler’s name or initials

 Analyses to be performed

These data shall be recorded on the field logs and/or field book. Larger bulk samples shall
be placed in cloth bags with plastic liners or plastic five-gallon buckets. Sample bags shall
be marked with the information listed above.

SOP 210–Soil Sample Collection 8 of 12

 AECOM SOP No: 210
Rev. Date: 06/28/01
Rev. By: JR/LDA/DG

6.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements include, but are not limited to,
blind field duplicates, blind rinsate blanks, and blind field blanks. These samples will be
collected on a frequency of one QA/QC sample per 20 field samples or a minimum of one
QA/QC sample per day unless otherwise specified in the project specific sampling plan.

7.0 Documentation
Documentation may consist of all or part of the following:

 Test pit or boring log

 Sample log sheets

 Field log book

 Chain-of-custody forms

 Shipping receipts

 Health & Safety forms (Job Hazard Analysis, Safety Task Analysis Review,
and/or Site Specific Health & Safety Plan amendments)

 PID calibration records

All documentation shall be placed in the project files and retained following completion of
the project.

8.0 References
Handbook of Suggested Practices for the Design and Installation of Ground-Water Monitoring
Wells, EPA/600/4-89/034, published by National Water Well Association, 1991.

RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document, published by

National Water Well Association, 1986.

A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations, EPA 540/P-87/001, published by the Office of

Emergency and Remedial Response, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, US EPA,
1987.

Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocols: Sampling Techniques and Strategies, EPA/600/R-

92/128, published by the Environmental Research Center, 1992.

SOP 210–Soil Sample Collection 9 of 12

AECOM BORING
BORING LOG SHEET OF
PROJECT CONTRACTOR MONUMENT

PROJECT # DRILLER RISER

LOCATION RIG TYPE SCREEN

TOTAL DEPTH METHOD FILTER PACK

DATE CASING ID SEAL

START FINISH BORING ID GROUT

LOGGED BY DMS BIT TYPE GROUND ELEV.

SAMPLE
BLOWS
TYPE DEPTH % DEPTH SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
PER 6
AND RANGE REC FEET CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
INCH
NUMBER

GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT) DATE/TIME

REMARKS
 AECOM
Test Pit Log
TEST PIT: TP-
SHEET:

PROJECT: LOCATION: CONTRACTOR:

PROJECT NO.: EQUIPMENT USED:

DATE: TOTAL DEPTH (ft.):

START TIME: FINISH TIME: LOGGED BY:

Depth (ft.)
Type and
Number
Sample

Soil and Rock Description and Comments

Range
Depth

USCS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Groundwater
TEST PIT PLAN NORTH
Date Time (hours after Depth (ft.)
completion)

Comments:
 FIELD GUIDE AND USCS CLASSIFICATION TABLE

SAND Table Title

SPT, N Relative LETTER TYPICAL
SOIL TYPE FIELD TEST MAJOR DIVISIONS
Blows/ft. Density, % SYMBOL DESCRIPTIONS
VERY LOOSE Easily penetrated with ½ “ reinforcing rod pushed by
4 0 – 15 WELL – GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL
SAND hand.
CLEAN GW – SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
Easily penetrated with ½ “ reinforcing rod pushed by FINES.
LOOSE SAND 4 – 10 15 – 35 hand. GRAVELS
MEDIUM DENSE Penetrated a foot with ½ “ reinforcing rod driven with 5-lb
GRAVEL AND (LITTLE OR NO
POORLY – GRADED GRAVELS,
10 – 30 35 – 65 hammer. GRAVELLY
FINES)
GP GRAVEL – SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
SAND OR NOT FINES.
DENSE SAND 30 – 50 65 – 85 Penetrated a foot with ½ “ reinforcing rod driven with 5-lb SOILS
hammer.
VERY DENSE Penetrated only a few inches with ½ “ reinforcing rod MORE THAN 50% OF SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND –
50 85 – 100 driven with 5-lb hammer. GRAVELS GM
SAND COARSE FRACTION SILT MIXTURES.
PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE WITH FINES
COARSE (APPRECIABLE
GRAINED AMOUNT OF
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL – SAND
CLAY SOILS
FINES) GC – CLAY MIXTURES.

Undrained Unconfined MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS WELL – GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
Shear Compressive LARGER THAN CLEAN SW SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES.
SPT, N NO. 200 SIEVE
CLAY THUMB Strength c Strength
BLOWS/ SIZE SAND
CONSISTENCY PENETRATION (PSF) (PSF) (LITTLE OR NO
FT. SAND AND FINES)
POORLY – GRADED SANDS,

TORVANE
Pocket SP GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO
Penetrometer SANDY SOILS FINES.

Easily penetrated several

inches by thumb. Exudes MORE THAN 50% OF
SILTY – SANDS, SAND – SILT
VERY SOFT between thumb and <2 250 500 COARSE FRACTION
SANDS SM MIXTURES
fingers when squeezed PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE
in hand. WITH FINES
Easily penetrated one APPRECIABLE
SOFT inch by thumb. Molded 2–4 250 – 500 500 – 1000 AMOUNT OF
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND – CLAY
by light finger pressure. FINES) SC MIXTURES.
Can be penetrated over
MEDIUM ¼ “ by thumb with
4–8 500 – 1000 1000 – 2000
STIFF moderate effort. Molded
by strong finger pressure. INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
Indented about ¼ “ by 1000 – ML CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
STIFF thumb but penetrated 8 – 15 2000 – 4000 SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY.
only with great effort. 2000
Readily indented by 2000 – SILTS AND
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
VERY STIFF 15 – 30 4000 – 8000 LIQUID LIMIT LESS MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
thumbnail.
4000 CLAYS THAN 50 CL CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY,
Indented with difficulty by CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS.
HARD thumbnail. >30 >4000 >8000 FINE
GRAINED ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY
SOILS OL CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY.
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
MORE THAN 50%
MILLIMETERS INCHES SIEVE SIZES OF MATERIAL IS INORGANIC SITLS, MICACEOUS OR

BOULDERS > 300 > 11.8 - SMALLER THAN MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
NO. 200 SIEVE SILTY SOILS.
COBBLES 75 – 300 2.9 – 11.8 - SIZE

COARSE 75 – 19 2.9 - .75 - SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT

GRAVEL CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
FINE 19 – 4.8 .75 - .19 ¾ “ – No. 4 CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS.

COARSE 4.8 – 2.0 .19 - .08 No. 4 – No. 10

SAND MEDIUM 2.0 - .43 .08 - .02 No. 10 – No. 40 ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
OH
FINE .43 - .08 .08 - .003 No. 40 – No. 200 HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS.

SILTS < .08 < .003 < No. 200

FINES
CLAYS < .08 < .003 < No. 200 PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS.
 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM

AECOM Standard Operating Procedure 410

Data Assessment

1.0 Purpose and Applicability

The purpose of the AECOM Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 410 is to assess the
quality and legal defensibility of analytical data.

The AECOM Environment (AECOM) SOP 410 describes the procedure used for the
assessment of laboratory data in support of risk assessment, field remediation, site
characterizations, monitoring programs, and preliminary site investigations. Data
assessment is especially important if the data is to be used in critical decision making or
will undergo close legal scrutiny.

Generally, data verification and validation will follow review criteria presented in the
USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for
Organic/Inorganic Data Review (Functional Guidelines), document numbers EPA540/R-
99/008 and EPA540/R-01/008 of October 1999 (Organic) and July 2002 (Inorganic), as
they apply USEPA SW-846 or ASTM (Standard Methods) methodology. Specific
project requirements as described in an approved Work Plan, Sampling and Analysis Plan
(SAP), Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), Job Hazard Analysis (JHA), Safety Task
Analysis Review (STAR), or Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) will take
precedence over the procedures described in this document. If required, regional
government regulations will take precedence over the procedures described in this
document.

2.0 Responsibilities
 The Project Manager has the responsibility to communicate project requirements
and data quality objectives to support personnel, and to provide applicable work
documents such as the Work Plan, SAP, QAPP, JHA, STAR, or Site-Specific
HASP to the QA Manager. The Project Manager establishes the level of data
assessment that is required (see Section 5.2), alerts the QA Manager that data
assessment will be required, and arranges for the data to be delivered to the Data
Validators.

 The Quality Assurance (QA) Manager has the responsibility to schedule data
validation work. The QA Manager provides final review of laboratory audits,
data usability reports, and QAPPs. The QA Manager also provides peer review as
needed for data assessment reports. In addition, the QA Manager reviews the
data assessment SOP annually, maintains the currency of guidance documents,
and keeps abreast of new analytical standards and regulatory requirements.

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 1 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM
 The Project Chemist serves as the resource and primary contact for all laboratory
activities. The project chemist has the responsibility to conduct and report on-site
inspections (laboratory audits) of proposed subcontracting laboratories against
contract and regulatory requirements, and follows-up and reports on the status of
corrective measures implemented in response to deficiencies identified during
systems audit(s). The Project Chemist also provides laboratory coordination for
projects, assessment of project data and reports on the usability and completeness
of the analytical work, and provides peer review of draft data assessment reports.

 The Data Validator has the responsibility to assess data and report on the
precision, accuracy, method compliance, and completeness of the analytical work.
The Data Validator also provides peer review of draft data assessment reports,
and works with the Project Chemist and Project Manager to establish sampling
and analysis requirements. The Data Validator will use his/her technical degree,
environmental laboratory experience, and training in data validation along with
knowledge of project requirements to assess the analytical data according to
guidance documents that are detailed in this SOP.

3.0 Health and Safety

Section 3.0 is not applicable.

4.0 Supporting Materials

Section 4.0 is not applicable.

5.0 Methods and Procedures

5.1 Definitions
 Data assessment is a systematic process for reviewing a body of data against a
set of criteria to provide assurance that the data are adequate for their intended
use. Data assessment consists of data editing, screening, checking, auditing,
verification or validation, certification, and review. The level of effort devoted to
data assessment will depend on the data quality objective level (DQO Level) to be
met and the AECOM data validation level (AECOM DV Level) conducted. Refer
to Section 5.2 for a description of these levels.

 Precision is a measure of the closeness with which multiple analyses of a given

sample agree with each other. Precision is evaluated by replicate analyses, by
repeated analyses of a known, stable standard, or by analysis of known additions
to samples. It is a measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements
of the same property, usually under prescribed similar conditions. Precision is
best expressed in terms of relative percent difference (RPD) or percent difference
(%D). Various measures of precision exist depending upon the “prescribed

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 2 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM
similar conditions.” Field precision is measured by evaluating field duplicate
results. Laboratory precision is measured by evaluating laboratory duplicate
RPDs, laboratory control sample/laboratory control sample duplicate
(LCS/LCSD) RPDs, matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) RPDs, or
serial dilution %Ds.

 Accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measurement (or average of

measurements of the same thing), with an accepted reference or true value,
usually expressed as the difference between two values, or the difference as a
percentage of the reference or true value. Field accuracy, a measure of the
sampling bias, is measured by evaluating blank samples that originate in the field
or that track sample transport. Laboratory accuracy, a measure of the system bias,
is measured by evaluating LCS/LCSD percent recoveries (%Rs), MS/MSD %Rs,
and organic system monitoring compounds (surrogate) %Rs.

 Completeness is a ration of the amount of valid data obtained from a

measurement system compared to the amount projected to be obtained under ideal
conditions. Completeness is the overall ratio of the number of samples planned
versus the number of samples with valid analyses. Completeness goals are set at
90-100%. Determination of completeness may include, but is not limited to
review of chain of custody records, laboratory analytical methods and detection
limits, laboratory case narratives, electronic data deliverables (EDDs), and
specific project requirements.

 Method Compliance is a data quality indicator that describes the degree with
which a laboratory has followed the specifications of the EPA or nationally-
recognized, validated, and published analytical method. Method compliance
ensures comparability of the analytical data. Method compliance is assessed by
evaluating sample integrity, holding times, laboratory blanks, system performance
checks, initial and continuing instrument calibrations, internal standards, target
analyte identification, and analyte quantitation against method specified
requirements, while applying EPA data validation guidelines as applicable.

 Bias is a measure of systematic error. It has three components, one due to the
method, another to a laboratory’s use of the method, and the third due to sample
matrix.

 Qualifiers are alphabetic “flags” assigned to results in the data review and
validation process to indicate the limitations of the results based on specific
quality control criteria. The specific reasons for assigning qualifiers are provided
in the associated data validation report. Examples of data qualifiers are the EPA-
defined data qualifiers assigned under the EPA Contract Laboratory Program
(CLP). See Table 1 for a list of EPA qualifiers for organics and inorganics and
their meanings.

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 3 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM

5.2 Levels of Data Assessment

Data quality objectives (DQOs) are qualitative and quantitative statements, which specify
the quality of the data required to support decisions made during various site activities.
DQOs are based on the end uses of the data to be collected. Different data uses require
different levels of data quality. Five data quality objective levels (DQO Levels) are
defined in the USEPA guidance document Model Quality Assurance Project Plan, Office
of Superfund, Region V, 1991 (USEPA, 1991). Four different AECOM data validation
levels (AECOM DV Levels) have been developed to identify the varying levels of
methodology, documentation, and data assessment effort required to meet the requested
EPA DQO Levels. The EPA DQO Levels and the corresponding AECOM data
validation levels are defined as follows:

5.2.1 DQO Level 1 – AECOM DV Level not applicable

DQO Level 1 (Screening) - No AECOM DV Level: This provides the lowest level data
quality assurance but the most rapid results. It is often used for health and safety
monitoring at the site, preliminary comparison to previous results, initial site
characterization to locate areas for subsequent and more accurate analyses, and for
engineering screening of alternatives (bench-scale tests).

DQO Level 1 does not generate any quality control results, so data validation is not
applicable.

5.2.2 DQO Level 2 – AECOM DV Level I

DQO Level 2 (Field Analyses) - AECOM DV Level I: This provides rapid results but
better quality assurance than DQO Level 1. This level may include mobile laboratory
generated data depending on the level of quality control exercised.

AECOM DV Level I data verification applies to these limited field tests only.

5.2.3 DQO Level 3 – AECOM DV Level II

DQO Level 3 (Engineering) – AECOM DV Level II: This provides an intermediate level
of data quality assurance and is used for preliminary site characterization. Engineering
analyses may include mobile laboratory generated data and some analytical laboratory
methods (e.g., laboratory data with quick turnaround used for screening but without full
quality control documentation.

AECOM DV Level II data assessment protocol is generally followed for preliminary site
investigations or on-going long-term monitoring events that have already passed stricter
scrutiny and do not continue to require full CLP or CLP-type data validation. With Level
II data verification, the laboratory is entrusted to have met all internal quality control
requirements (i.e., calibrations, performance checks) as directed in the analytical methods
followed. A AECOM Level II Data Assessment provides a definitive assessment of
analytical precision, accuracy, method compliance, and completeness but does not

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 4 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM
examine other internal quality control checks (i.e., calibrations, performance checks).
The minimum analytical documentation provided by the laboratory for a AECOM Level
II data package should include: case narratives, detection limits, percent moisture
calculations, dilution factors, method blanks, surrogates, matrix spikes, laboratory control
samples, laboratory duplicates, extraction and analysis dates, and Chain-of-Custody
forms. Sample summary forms must include the sample ID, the laboratory sample ID,
date sampled, matrix, method reference, units of measurement, and initial and final
sample volumes. QC summary forms must include a means to cross reference laboratory
QC with the associated samples. This level of data assessment is also referred to as a data
verification.

5.2.4 DQO Level 4 – AECOM DV Levels III and IV

DQO Level 4 (Confirmational) – AECOM DV Levels III and IV: This provides the
highest level of data quality assurance and is used for purposes of risk assessment,
evaluation of remedial alternatives, and litigation support. These analyses require full
QA/QC support and documentation in accordance with EPA recognized protocols.
Analytical laboratory data deliverables associated with DQO Level 4 allow for thorough
data validation procedures to be followed.

AECOM DV Level III data validation is followed for site investigations of a more
conclusive nature, sites undergoing risk assessment, and/or for sample data that must pass
litigation scrutiny. All aspects provided in a Level II data package are contained in a
Level III package, so precision, accuracy, method compliance, and completeness can be
assessed. Additionally, analytical system performance, and overall qualitative and
quantitative measurements are evaluated. In addition to the Level II documentation
stated above, a Level III data package should include at a minimum: system performance
(tuning) reports, instrument calibrations, internal standards, interference checks, serial
dilutions, preparation/extraction benchsheets, analysis run logs, and chromatograms and
quantitation reports for all samples and standards. CLP Forms I-VIII or equivalent for
organics and CLP Forms I-XIV or equivalent for inorganics.

AECOM DV Level IV data validation follows AECOM DV Level III procedures, and
additionally contains back-calculation of 10% of the reported sample and QC results.
With increased laboratory implementation of direct download capabilities from
instrumentation to laboratory information management system (LIMS) reporting systems,
this level of review is not as widely required.

5.2.5 DQO Level 5 – AECOM DV Levels III and IV

DQO Level 5 (Non-Standard Methods) - AECOM DV Levels III and IV: This refers to
analyses by non-standard protocols, for example, when exacting detection limits or
analysis of an unusual chemical compound is required. The analyses often require
method development or adaptation. The level of laboratory QA/QC documentation
provided is similar to that of DQO Level 4.

AECOM DV Levels III and IV are applicable to this DQO Level.

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 5 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM
5.2.6 Focused Review

A focused review investigation answers specific data quality issues such as

nonconformances that would cause data rejection. A focused review is initiated in
response to specific questions from data users regarding data (quality) usability or
technical issues.

5.3 Basic Approaches for Data Assessment

The Functional Guidelines, regional modifications, and specific project requirements
provide the basis for data assessment.

The Functional Guidelines address gas chromatography/mass spectrometric (GC/MS)

analyses of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and
furans, inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICP) metals, graphite furnace
atomic absorption (GFAA) metals, cold vapor atomic adsorption (CVAA) metals, and
total cyanide. The Functional Guidelines were written for the USEPA Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP Superfund) program. This approach will be used in areas
where the Functional Guidelines can be applied to related technology. For
technologies that are not addressed in the Functional Guidelines, the AECOM
standard approach for validating data is detailed in the following sections. Appendix
1 details the standard AECOM approach to areas of data assessment that are not fully
covered in the Functional Guidelines.

5.3.1 GC Purgables

Volatile organic data by gas chromatography (GC) methods such as 8021B and gasoline
range organics (GRO) are assessed using the Functional Guidelines (Organic), unless
otherwise requested by the client. The Functional Guidelines address volatiles
determinations by GC/MS technology (8260B), but the qualification guidance for holding
time, surrogates, blanks, laboratory control standards and matrix spikes may be applied to
GC analyses. For a higher level of review, USEPA SW-846 method-specific QC
requirements will be applied to measurements like instrument calibration. EPA-defined
data qualifiers are applied to validated GC data. The validator must use professional
judgment, regulatory agency (e.g., EPA, AFCEE) guidance, and method specifications to
assess the usability of GC data.

The following information is essential when validating GC VOA data.

5.3.1.1 Method Specification Limits

Parametric limits that are specifically noted in the analytical method and must be
met to assure that the process is in-control. The limits may regard initial and
continuing calibrations and laboratory control standard recoveries.

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 6 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM
5.3.1.2 Laboratory Quality Control Limits

The laboratory may use “pre-control” limits prior to establishing statistical control
limits based on historical data. The validator may determine whether the lab’s
“pre-control” or statistical limits are reasonable by comparing them to any
precision and accuracy data provided in the method (e.g., Standard Methods,
“Precision and Bias” sections).

5.3.1.3 Regulatory Agency Guidance Documents

Regulatory agencies publish data validation guidance documents to standardize

the process. One example is the Functional Guidelines (Organic) which addresses
GCMS volatile analysis, but the qualification guidance may be applied to GC
analyses.

5.3.2 GC/HPLC Extractable Hydrocarbons, Herbicides, OP Pesticides

Semivolatile (extractables) organic data by gas chromatographic methods such as

SW8310, diesel range organics (DRO), organophosphorus pesticides (SW8141), and
herbicides (8151A) are validated using the Functional Guidelines (Organic), unless
otherwise requested by the client. The Functional Guidelines address organochlorine
pesticide determinations by GC technology. However, the qualification guidance for
holding time, surrogates, blanks, laboratory control standards, and matrix spikes may be
applied to other GC analyses. For a higher level of review, USEPA SW-846 method-
specific QC requirements will be applied to measurements like instrument calibration.
EPA-defined data qualifiers are applied to validated GC data. The validator must use
professional judgment, regulatory agency (e.g., EPA, AFCEE) guidance, and method
specifications to assess the usability of GC data.

The following information is essential when validating GC and HPLC extractables data
data.

5.3.2.1 Method Specification Limits

Parametric limits that are specifically noted in the analytical method and must be
met to assure that the process is in-control. The limits may regard initial and
continuing calibrations and laboratory control standard recoveries.

5.3.2.2 Laboratory Quality Control Limits

The laboratory may use “pre-control” limits prior to establishing statistical control
limits based on historical data. The validator may determine whether the lab’s
“pre-control” or statistical limits are reasonable by comparing them to any
precision and accuracy data provided in the method (e.g., Standard Methods,
“Precision and Bias” sections).

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 7 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM
5.3.2.3 Regulatory Agency Guidance Documents

Regulatory agencies publish data validation guidance documents to standardize

the process. One example is the Functional Guidelines (Organic) which addresses
GCMS volatile analysis, but the qualification guidance may be applied to GC
analyses.

5.3.3 General Chemistry

General chemistry analyses encompass gravimetric, colorimetric, spectrophotometric,

and potentiometric technologies. This type of analyses may also be referred to as Wet
Chemistry or Classic Chemistry. This category of analyses includes such diverse tests as
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Hexavalent
Chromium. Precision and accuracy control limits for these analyses will follow the
control limits given in the Functional Guidelines (Inorganic), unless the laboratory
provides control-charted QC limits. EPA-defined data qualifiers are applied to validated
wet chemistry data unless otherwise requested by the client. The validator must use
professional judgment, regulator agency (e.g., EPA, AFCEE) guidance, and method
information to assess the usability of wet chemistry data.

The following information is essential when validating general chemistry data.

5.3.3.1 Method Specification Limits

Method Specification Limits: Parametric limits that are specifically noted in the
analytical method must be met to assure that the process is in control. The limits
may regard analytical conditions, quality control checks or sample holding times
prior to analysis.

Example: BOD Specification Limit from SM 17 5210B

Dissolved oxygen uptake of seed control: 6.0 – 1.0 mg/L

Should the seed control uptake be outside the limits, seed viability is in question.

5.3.3.2 Laboratory Quality Control Limits

The laboratory may use “pre-control” limits prior to establishing statistical limits
using historical data. The validator may determine whether the lab’s “pre-
control” or statistical limits are reasonable by comparing them to any precision
and accuracy data provided in the method (e.g., Standard Methods “Precision and
Bias” sections.)

5.3.3.3 Regulatory Agency Guidance Documents

Regulatory agencies publish data validation guidance documents to standardize

the process. One example is the Functional Guidelines (Inorganic) which

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 8 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM
addresses only total cyanide and trace metals analyses, but the qualification
guidance may be applied to other inorganic analyses.

5.4 Assessment of Data Quality Indicators

Analytical data will be reviewed for precision, accuracy, method compliance, and
completeness. The following sections provide a discussion of the steps necessary to
evaluate these data quality indicators. The following criteria are recommended and
should be evaluated on a project-specific basis. Evaluation of the analytical data will
include:

 A review of the Work Plan or QAPP;

 A review of the laboratory project narrative;

 A review of holding times, detection limits, dilutions, methods of analysis;

 A check of data flags, reporting units, and sample matrices;

 Precision assessment by reviewing field duplicates, laboratory duplicates,

LCS/LCSD sets; MS/MSD sets, and serial dilutions;

 Accuracy assessment by reviewing field blanks, equipment rinse blanks, trip

blanks, LCS/LCSD recoveries, MS/MSD recoveries, and surrogate recoveries;

 Method compliance assessment by reviewing sample integrity and specific

analytical method QC measurements such as system performance checks or tunes,
instrument calibrations, laboratory blanks, internal standards, interference checks,
and target analyte identification and quantitation as necessary;

 Completeness assessment by reviewing chain of custody records as well as

overall precision, accuracy, and method compliance results for data rejected due
to extreme quality control non-compliance.

Any deviations from the requirements of the QAPP will be identified in the data
assessment report. Additionally, the laboratory will be contacted, if necessary and
appropriate corrective actions will be requested.

5.4.1 Evaluation of Precision

Precision is the measure of variability of individual sample measurements. Field

precision is determined by comparison of field duplicate sample results. Laboratory
precision is evaluated by examination of laboratory duplicates, LCS/LCSD RPDs,
MS/MSD RPDs, and metals serial dilutions. Field duplicates are generally collected at a
frequency of 1 in 20 samples, with at least one field duplicate per matrix collected.
Laboratory duplicate frequency is generally one in 20 samples for organics, and one in 10
samples for inorganics, with at least one duplicate analysis per sample matrix.

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 9 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM
Evaluation of field and laboratory duplicates for precision is done using the Relative
Percent Difference (RPD) or Percent Difference (%D). The RPD is defined as the
difference between two duplicate samples divided by the mean and expressed as a
percent. The %D for serial dilutions during metals analysis indicates how close a diluted
value corresponds with the original result. Field duplicate RPD (advisory) limits are set
at 0-30% for water samples and 0-50% for soil samples. These field duplicate RPD
limits have been taken from EPA Region I guidance on data review. Laboratory RPD
and %D limits reference published US EPA limits or laboratory control charted limits,
and vary with the analysis and sample type (i.e., duplicate, LCSD, MSD, serial dilution).
When RPDs or %Ds exceed limits, consideration will be given to the possibility of
sample heterogeneity

5.4.2 Evaluation of Accuracy

Field accuracy is a measure of the sampling bias, and is determined by evaluating field
blank, equipment (rinsate) blank, and trip blank results. Field blanks and equipment rinse
blanks document sample contamination occurring during field activities. Trip blanks
document volatile organic contamination occurring during sample transport. Field blanks
are generally collected at a one in 20 sample frequency or one per sampling event
whichever is more frequent. Equipment rinse blanks are generally collected at a one in
20 sample frequency, unless dedicated sampling equipment is used. One trip blank is
required for each cooler containing samples for volatiles analysis.

Laboratory accuracy is a measure of the system bias. Laboratory QC samples, used to

measure accuracy, follow type and frequency criteria set forth in the analytical methods
employed (usually one in 20 for organics, and one in ten for inorganics). Laboratory
accuracy is evaluated by reviewing LCS/LCSD, MS/MSD, and surrogate percent
recoveries (%Rs). Percent recoveries are compared to published limits or statistical
laboratory limits depending on the analysis. LCS/LCSD recoveries demonstrate the
overall performance of the analysis. MS/MSD recoveries provide information on sample
matrix interferences that may affect analytical performance. Surrogate recoveries
measure system performance and efficiency, and also provide insight into matrix
interference possibilities.

5.4.3 Evaluation of Method Compliance

The degree to which the laboratory has complied with the specifications of a published,
validated (e.g., EPA) method is evaluated in order to assess the comparability of the
analytical data. The parameters assessed include sample integrity, holding times,
laboratory blanks, system performance checks, initial and continuing instrument
calibrations, internal standards, GFAA metals duplicate injections, post digestion spikes,
target analyte identification, and analyte quantitation. Laboratory blanks are analyzed to
identify any contaminants introduced during the preparation, extraction, or analysis phase
of the method. Tunes are performed to ensure mass resolution and proper identification
of target analytes during GC/MS analysis. Instrument calibrations measure system
performance throughout the analytical procedure and establish the quantitation criteria for
the analytes. ICP interference checks verify the laboratory’s interelement and

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 10 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM
background correction factors. GFAA duplicate injections and post digestion spikes aid
in sample analyte quantitation.

Method compliance parameters are evaluated according to the appropriate methodology

followed. In instances where QC criteria are not met for these parameters, data validation
qualifiers are assigned in accordance with the appropriate guidance documents.

5.4.4 Evaluation of Completeness

Completeness is the overall measure of the ratio of samples planned versus the number of
samples with verified analyses. Determination of completeness includes a review of
project objectives, chain-of-custody records, laboratory analytical methods and detection
limits, and a review of project narratives. Completeness also includes 100% review of
the laboratory QC summary reports. The data quality objective is to achieve 90-100%
completeness of data collected, unless otherwise stated in the QAPP.

5.5 Electronic Disk Deliverable (EDD)

When requested by the client or project manager, the EDD will be compared to hard copy
data and data validation qualifiers will be added to the EDD. The EDD may also be
checked for compliance with specified project formats.

5.6 Improper Laboratory Practices

The Data Validator will be alert to improper laboratory practices and will report any to
the Project Manager.

6.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Elements and appendices of the SOP will be reviewed by the QA Manager annually for
currency. The QA Manager or his/her designee will ensure that the governmental
validation guidance documents on the AECOM Analytical Data Quality Interest Group
Site are current. Reports will be peer reviewed before delivery to the internal or external
client.

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 11 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM

7.0 Documentation
Problems with analytical procedures, analytical results outside QC limits, or other
unusual conditions will be documented during the data verification or validation process.
This information will be summarized in a data assessment report accompanying the
analytical data. The report will include a list of samples reviewed, the completed data
verification/validation checklist, and a table of qualified analytical data. An example of
the AECOM Analytical Data Validation Checklist is presented as Appendix 2.
Modifications to the checklist may be made to best frame for clarity the information for
the client. Any modifications will undergo peer review before being presented to the
client.

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 12 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM

8.0 References

USEPA Contract Laboratory Program, National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data
Review, EPA 540/R-01/008, July 2002.

USEPA Contract Laboratory Program, National Functional Guidelines for Low Concentration
Organic Data Review, Final, EPA 540-R-00-006, June 2001.

USEPA, Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation, Peer Review Draft,
EPA QA/G-8, June 2001.

USEPA Contract Laboratory Program, National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review,
EPA 540/R-99/008, October 1999.

USEPA, Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), Statement of Work for Organic Analysis, Multi-
Media, Multi-Concentration, Document OLM3.2, 1996.

USEPA Contract Laboratory Program, National Functional Guidelines for Dioxin/Furan Data
Validation, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, Document DFLM01.1), Draft, January 1996.

USEPA, Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis, Multi-
Media, Multi-Concentration, Document ILM4.0, 1995.

USEPA, Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater, 40
CFR, Part 136, Revised as of July 1, 1995, Appendix A to Part 136.

USEPA, Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples, EPA/600/4-91-010,

June 1991 and Supplement I, EPA/600-R-94-111, May 1994.

USEPA, Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples,

EPA/600-R-93-100, August 1993.

USEPA, Model Quality Assurance Project Plan, Region V, Office of Superfund, May 1991.

USEPA, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, Third
Edition, September 1986 and its updates.

USEPA, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA600/4-79-020, Revised March
1983.

American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution
Control Federation, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th
Edition, 1995.

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 13 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM

Table 1 Data Validation Qualifier Flags

Organic and Inorganic Data Validation Qualifiers

J The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of
the analyte in the sample (estimated concentration).
N The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptive evidence to make a
“tentative identification”.
NJ The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte that has been “tentatively identified” and the associated
numerical value represents its approximate concentration (tentative identification/estimated
concentration).
R The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet
quality control criteria. The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be verified. Data identified as
rejected cannot be used in decision-making.
U The reported concentration is determined to be a false positive due to the presence of laboratory or field
contamination. This qualifier is only assigned to positive results during data validation, and is not
identical to the U laboratory flag that indicates undetected results. Often, project directives will dictate
that the U data validation qualifier be entered as “UB” into the project database to avoid confusion.
UJ The analyte was not detected above the reported concentration. However, the reported quantitation limit
is approximate and may or may not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and
precisely measure the analyte in the sample.

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 14 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM

Appendix 1
“Grey Areas” and Guidance for their Evaluation

General:

Grossly Exceeded Holding Time: Two times the holding time (from the day sampled), unless
otherwise defined. For example, if a holding time is defined as 7 days, it would be grossly
exceeded at 15 days.

Soil Holding Times: The default will be the method recommended holding time period. For
example, the holding times for soil total organic carbon will be 28 days; SVOCs (8270) and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons by GC (8310) will be 14 days from the day sampled to
extraction, if thermal preservation has been maintained, and 40 days from extraction to analysis;
and dioxins and furans (methods 1613B, 8290, 8280A) will be one year from the day sampled to
extraction, if thermal preservation has been maintained, and 40 days from extraction to analysis.

GC and GC/MS Organics:

Laboratory control samples (LCSs) will be required for all organic analyses. If no laboratory
control limits are specified, or if the data validator believes that the laboratory control limits are
too broad, the limits of 70-130% will be employed. LCSs outside 70-130% will be qualified as J
or UJ, if the recovery is below 30%, the analytes will be rejected in all associated data.

Organic LCS/LCSD and MS/MSD and RPDs: If two of the three are out, (i.e., a LCS % R and an
RPD), J or UJ according to direction of bias.

Extremely low GC/MS internal standard areas: If not otherwise defined, analytes associated
with internal standards that are recovered at 10% or less will be rejected.

Organic MS %R below 10%: reject analyte in this sample.

GC or HPLC 2nd column confirmation greater than 40% difference - qualify as NJ and suggest
GC/MS confirmation. N portion is left up to professional judgment.

PAH Method 8310 calibration: ICAL - r2 > 0.990, r > 0.995 or RSD < 20%; CCAL - %D < 15%,
but any ND analyte may be –15% to +30% for 1 detector

Metals:

Metals CRDL standards (all metals): use 50-150 %R as standard. If < 50% then J and UJ
anything below twice the low standard. If > 150% then J hits below twice the low standard

Negative CCBs: If CCB is a negative value that is greater than twice the reporting limit, J hits
up to 5 times the RL and UJ for NDs.

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 15 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM
Metals Serial Dilution: If concentration of initial analysis is > diluted analysis, J flag all hits in
associated samples as positive interference. If initial concentration is < diluted concentration, J
and UJ all results in associated samples as negative interference.

Dissolved metals greater than total metals: If the dissolved concentration is > RL, J and UJ as
appropriate in that sample.

General Chemistry:

Control limits for LCS, MS, RPD: default to Functional Guidelines metals control limits unless
laboratory control-charted limits are provided.

Continuing instrument calibration: use + 50 %D as acceptance limit, unless otherwise specified

in the analytical method.

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 16 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM

Appendix 2
AECOM ANALYTICAL DATA VALIDATION CHECKLIST

Project Name: Laboratory:

Project Reference: Sample Matrix:
AECOM Project Task Number: Sample Start Date:
Date Validated/By Whom: Sample End Date:
Validation Report Reviewed By: Review Date:
Samples Analyzed:
Parameters Analyzed:

Laboratory Project IDs:

PRECISION, ACCURACY, METHOD COMPLIANCE, AND COMPLETENESS ASSESSMENT
Precision: Acceptable Unacceptable Initials
Comments:
Accuracy: Acceptable Unacceptable Initials
Comments:
Method Compliance: Acceptable Unacceptable Initials
Comments:
Completeness: Acceptable Unacceptable Initials
Comments:
VALIDATION CRITERIA CHECK
Data validation flags used in this review:

1. Did the laboratory identify any non-conformances Yes No Initials

related to the analytical results?
Explanation:
2. Were sample Chain-of-Custody forms complete? Yes No Initials
Comments:
3. Were all the analyses requested for the samples on Yes No Initials
the COCs completed by the laboratory?
Comments:

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 17 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM

AECOM ANALYTICAL DATA VALIDATION CHECKLIST (cont.)

4. Were samples received in good condition and at the Yes No Initials

appropriate temperature?
Comments:
5. Were the requested analytical methods in compliance Yes No Initials
with WP/QAPP, permit, or COC?
Comments:
6. Were detection limits in accordance with Yes No Initials
WP/QAPP, permit, or method?
Comments:
7. Do the laboratory reports include only those Yes No Initials
constituents requested to be reported for a specific
analytical method?
Comments:
8. Were sample holding times met? Yes No Initials
Comments:
9. Were correct concentration units reported? Yes No Initials
Comments:
10. Were the reporting requirements for flagged data Yes No Initials
met?
Comments:
11. Were laboratory blank samples free of target Yes No Initials
analyte contamination?
Comments:
12. Were trip blank, field blank, and/or equipment rinse Yes No Initials
blank samples free of target analyte contamination?
Comments:
13. Were instrument calibrations within method control Yes No Initials
limits?
Comments:
14. Were surrogate recoveries within control limits? Yes No Initials
Comments:
15. Were laboratory control sample recoveries within Yes No Initials
control limits?
Comments:

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 18 of 19

 AECOM SOP No: 410 Rev. 3
Rev. Date: 01/17/2003
Rev. by: SM

AECOM ANALYTICAL DATA VALIDATION CHECKLIST (cont.)

16. Were matrix spike recoveries within control limits? Yes No Initials
Comments:
17. Were duplicate RPDs and/or serial dilution %Ds Yes No Initials
within control limits?
Comments:
18. Were organic system performance criteria met? Yes No Initials
Comments:
19. Were internal standards within method criteria for Yes No Initials
GC/MS sample analyses?
Comments:
20. Were inorganic system performance criteria met? Yes No Initials
Comments:
21. Were blind field duplicates collected? If so, discuss Yes No Initials
the precision (RPD) of the results.
Duplicate Sample No. Primary Sample No.
Comments:
22. Were qualitative criteria for organic target analyte Yes No Initials
identification met?
Comments:
23. Were 100% of the EDD concentrations and Yes No Initials
reporting limits compared to the hardcopy data reports?
Comments:
24. General Comments:

SOP 410 – Data Assessment 19 of 19