FA8903-17-C-0011_Draft_UFP-QUAP_Addendum.pdf

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN AND UNIFORM

FEDERAL POLICY-QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT

PLAN ADDENDUM

FOR LAND USE CONTROL AND LONG TERM

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AT VARIOUS SITES

DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE

COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA

June 2017

Prepared For:

Air Force Civil Engineering Center 2261 Hughes Avenue Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, TX 78236

Contract No: FA8903-17-C-0011

Prepared By:

1608 13th Avenue South, Suite 300 Birmingham, Alabama 35205 1-800-806-4001 www.bhate.com

This page intentionally left blank.

UFP-QAPP ADDENDUM

DOBBINS AIR RESERVE BASE, GEORGIA

June 2017 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................ iii Introduction

Worksheets 1 and 2 – Title and Approval Page

Worksheets 3 and 5 – Project Organization and QAPP Distribution

Worksheets 4, 7, and 8 – Personnel Qualifications and Sign-off Sheet

Worksheet 6 – Communication Pathways

Worksheet 9 – Project Planning Session Summary

Worksheet 10 – Conceptual Site Model

Worksheet 11 – Project/Data Quality Objectives

Worksheet 12 – Measurement Performance Criteria

Worksheet 13 – Secondary Data Criteria and Limitations

Worksheet 14 and 16– Project Tasks and Schedule

Worksheet 15 – Reference Limits and Evaluation Table

Worksheet 17 – Sampling Design and Rationale

Worksheet 18 - Sampling Locations and Methods

Worksheets 19 and 30 - Sample Containers, Preservation, and Hold Times

Worksheet 20 – Field Quality Control Summary

Worksheet 21 – Field SOPs

Worksheet 22 – Field Equipment Calibration, Maintenance, Testing, and Inspection

Worksheet 23 – Analytical SOPs

Worksheet 24 – Analytical Instrument Calibration

Worksheet 25 – Analytical Instrument and Equipment Calibration, Maintenance, Testing, and Inspection

Worksheet 26 and 27 – Sampling Handling, Custody, and Disposal

Worksheet 28 – Analytical Quality Control and Corrective Action

Worksheet 29 – Project Documents and Records

Worksheets 31, 32, and 33 – Assessments and Corrective Action

Worksheet 34 – Data Verification and Validation Inputs

Worksheet 35 – Data Verification Procedures

Worksheet 36 – Data Validation Procedures

Worksheet 37 – Data Usability Assessment

REFERENCES

June 2017 ii

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 LF001 Site Map Figure 3 FT002 Site Map Figure 4 FT003 Site Map Figure 5 DP005 Site Map Figure 6 DP006 Site Map Figure 7 OT004 Site Map Figure 8 OT007 Site Map Figure 9 ST008 Site Map

Appendices

Appendix A Health and Safety Plan

June 2017 iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AFCEC Air Force Civil Engineering Center

ARB Air Reserve Base

Bhate Bhate Environmental Associates, Inc.

°C Degrees Celsius

CA Corrective Action

CCV Continuing Calibration Verification

CHMM Certified Hazardous Materials Manager

COC Contaminants of concern

DO Dissolved oxygen

DoD Department of Defense

DQI Data Quality Indicators

DQO Data Quality Objective

FID Flame Ionization Detector

GA EPD Georgia Environmental Protection Division

GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy

GIS Geographic Information System

HASP Health & Safety Plan

HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response

ICAL Initial calibration

ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy

ICS Interference Check Solution

ICV Initial calibration verification

IDQTF Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force

IDW Investigation derived waste

ISTD Internal Standard

LCS Laboratory Control Sample

LNAPL Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

LOD Level of Detection

LOQ Level of Quantification LTM Long Term Management LUC Land Use Control μg/L Micrograms per liter μmhos/cm Micromhos per centimeter MB Method Blank MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MDL Method Detection Limit mg/L Milligrams per liter MS Matrix spike

June 2017 iv

MSD Matrix spike duplicate mV Millivolt NA Not Applicable NTU Nephelometric turbidity units ORP Oxidation Reduction Potential PBR Performance Based Remediation P.G. Professional Geologist PID Photoionization detector QA Quality Assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC Quality Control

RL Reporting limit

RPD Relative Percent Difference

RPM Remediation Project Manager

RSD Relative Standard Deviation

SDG Sample Delivery Group

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SVOCs Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

UFP Uniform Federal Policy

U.S. United States

UST Underground storage tank

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

June 2017 v

June 2017 1

INTRODUCTION

This Uniform Federal Policy - Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) Addendum has been prepared by Bhate Environmental Associates, Inc. (Bhate), for the Air Force Civil Engineering Center (AFCEC) under General Services Administration contract number FA8903-17-C-0011, solicitation number FA8903-17-R-0041. The document is intended for use during Land Use Control (LUC) and Long Term Management (LTM) activities at Various Sites at Dobbins Air Reserve Base (ARB) located in Cobb County, Georgia. LF001, FT002, FT003, DP005 DP006, OT004, OT007, ST008 are shown on Figure 1.

This project-specific UFP-QAPP addendum will supplement the site-wide UFP-QAPP already in place at Dobbins ARB. It will describe, in comprehensive detail, the necessary quality assurance (QA), quality control (QC), and other technical activities that will be implemented to ensure that the results of the work performed under this contract satisfy the stated performance criteria. It was prepared in accordance with the United States (U.S.)

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) UFP-QAPP Optimized Worksheets guidance (USEPA, March 2012) and all worksheets for this document were obtained from the UFP-QAPP website located at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/part2ufp_wbk_0305.pdf and from the from the Approved September 2015 UFP-QAPP addendum for site DP005.

Background Per Site

Dobbins ARB was constructed in 1941 and is the only remaining operational U.S. Military Facility in northern Georgia. The facility is currently home to several branches of military service including the Air Force Reserve Command, the Georgia National Guard, and the Marine and Navy reserve units.

Site LF001 (Past Base Landfill) is an old landfill that was in use from the 1940s to the mid-1970s receiving office waste, household waste, and shop waste in unlined open shallow trenches (Figure 2). The north-south oriented trenches were dug progressively one at a time and each measured approximately 450 to 500 feet long by approximately 20 feet wide. As each trench was filled, a newer trench was dug immediately to the west while the older trench was backfilled and abandoned. Over the course of the 30 years of operation, the approximately 8 trenches are located within an area approximately 500 feet long by 500 feet wide and are collectively known as the Base Landfill, Site LF001. After the trenches were closed to waste burial, extensive construction demolition was dumped on the site before that practice was halted in the early 1980s. The site has not been lined or capped as is common in today’s landfills. The landfill has never been permitted to receive Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) wastes. A Decision Document for LF001 was submitted to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) in 1997 recommending No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) status. GA EPD responded in December 2005 that they did not concur with a NFRAP recommendation for LF001 due to continued contamination and lack of existing and future receptor risk models. Additional investigation, risk assessment, and LUCs were http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/part2ufp_wbk_0305.pdf

June 2017 2 noted as required. For this field effort, LUC inspections will continue and two groundwater monitoring wells will also be sampled.

Site FT002 is a closed earthen fire training pit collocated with a current concrete engine run-up area (Figure 3). Fire training exercises were conducted at the site from the 1950s until the early 1970s and the fuel source was fuels mixed with solvent waste. The perimeter of the site is grassed and wooded. Two monitoring wells are located in the wooded area downgradient of the location and between the burn pit and a nearby stream. Off-flightline access to the site needs to be improved and maintained for proper maintenance and management of the site. It is categorized as a low risk site. Contaminants of concern (COCs) include various solvents. The GA EPD concurred with NFRAP with contaminants left behind that exceed Maximum Contaminant levels (MCLs). LUCs are required. Land use restrictions are posted, and the site is located in a restricted area. For this field effort, LUC inspections will continue and 2 groundwater monitoring wells will also be sampled.

Site FT003 is a training pit designed to be a state of the art fire training facility in the early 1970s burning jet fuel in various locations within the concrete lined pit filled with gravel and training mockups (Figure 4). Contaminated water and fuel would then be drained through subsurface drains into fuel/water sumps, where it was then conveyed by gravity flow lines to an oil/water separator (OWS) and then into an industrial waste line to an oily water industrial waste treatment system operated by Lockheed located on Air Force Plant 6. Fuel was gravity fed to the burner system from an aboveground fuel tank. The GA EPD concurred with NFRAP with contaminants left behind that exceed MCLs. LUCs are required. For this field effort, LUC inspections will continue.

Site DP005 (Aviation Gasoline [AVGAS] Sludge Burial Site A) is collocated with the base’s fuels storage area and is immediately adjacent to six removed 25,000 gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) and two existing aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) (Figure 5). Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) associated with fuel and fuel sludge were identified above acceptable minimum contaminant levels. A dual phase vacuum extraction system operated at the site for 4 years and was successful in removing light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) to a non-detect status. The system has removed VOCs and SVOCs in the groundwater to a point, as determined by computer modeling, that the contaminants will not impact surface water bodies. Although sampling has proven that levels of the VOCs in the groundwater are progressively decreasing, these levels remain in excess of State of Georgia In-stream water quality standards. Computer modeling has determined, however, that the downgradient stream will not be impacted. In recent semiannual sampling, LNAPL has not been detected. The original remediation goals have been met, although the site will require land use restrictions and groundwater monitoring until residual levels of contamination achieve MCLs through natural attenuation. The USTMP has determined that no further active remediation is required for the referenced release. LUCs are required. For this field effort, LUC inspections will continue and 11 groundwater monitoring wells will also be sampled.

June 2017 3

Site DP006 (Fuel sludge Burial Site B) is approximately 500 feet southeast of the Base’s fuels storage area and currently sits beneath a Georgia Army National Guard (GANG) Armory.

Sludge from an unknown number of tanks and sludge removal events was deposited on this site from the early 1950s until the site was built up by the GANG in 1979 to 1980. Sludge from the various tanks was believed to have been dumped in open pits in this area, which was sometimes also used as outdoor storage. The specific site where these pits were placed has not been identified but is believed to be beneath the parking pavement and buildings constructed on the site. A Decision Document for DP006 was submitted to GA EPD in 1997 recommending NFRAP. GA EPD concurred with the NFRAP recommendation for DP006 from June 2004 to February 2005 with LUCs. For this field effort, LUC inspections will continue.

Site OT004 (Big Lake) was originally constructed in 1907 as a back-up water source for the City of Marietta (Figure 7). It had an original surface area of approximately 5 acres and followed the existing contours of the land. Based on adjacent topography and the height of the concrete and stone dam, it originally had an average depth of 7 feet with the deepest part being 24 feet deep next to the dam. Over the course of the century of existence, excessive sedimentation due to early prevalent farming and construction techniques, and normal stream bank decay, the lake has filled to approximately one-half capacity with sediments. At some point these sediments became contaminated with pesticides, heavy metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). Most experts believe Air Force activities up-gradient of the lake are the major source of these contaminants. For this field effort, LUC inspections will continue.

OT007 (Little Lake) was originally constructed in 1910 as a spring fed farm pond adjacent to the farm house (Figure 8). It had an original surface area of approximately 1.3 acres and followed the existing contours of the land with the exception that a stream from distant farm fields was made to by-pass the pond keeping the water clear during storm events. It was constructed of bermed soil that allowed the drive to the farm house to cross the access road.

It originally had an average depth of 4 feet with the deepest part being 7 or 8 feet deep next to the dam. Over the course of the century of existence, excessive sedimentation due to early prevalent farming and construction techniques, and normal stream bank decay, the lake has filled to approximately one-quarter capacity with sediments. At some point these sediments became contaminated with PCBs, heavy metals, and pesticides, with most experts believing Air Force activities up-gradient of the lake are the major source of these contaminants. The GA EPD concurred with NFRAP for this site with contaminants left behind that exceed MCL.

LUCs are required. For this field effort, LUC inspections will continue.

Site ST008 is the former fuel transfer lines that were in use from the early 1950s to the early 1980s and consisted of a system of multiple 4-inch and 6-inch diameter gravity-flow pipelines of unspecified material and depth (Figure 9). These lines constituted the rail off-loading headers and fuel tank fill lines for six former 25,000-gallon USTs located at the petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) Tank Farm. The six USTs were removed in August 1991. The fuel transfer lines were approximately 1,000 feet in length and extended from the former fueling system railhead to the POL Tank Farm. Investigations conducted in the 1990s confirmed soil and

June 2017 4 groundwater contamination. The transfer lines were excavated and removed in 1998, and confirmatory soil sampling showed levels below GA UST soil threshold levels. The GA EPD granted No Further Action (NFA) status for this site on November 7, 2001, with LUCs being required. For this field effort, LUC inspections will continue.

June 2017 5

WORKSHEETS 1 AND 2 – TITLE AND APPROVAL PAGE

Document Title Sampling and Analysis Plan and Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum for Land Use Control and Long Term Management at Multiple Sites Dobbins Air Reserve Base Cobb County, Georgia

Project Name and Site Location

Land Use Control and Long Term Management at Multiple Sites

Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Cobb County, Georgia

Contract Name and Number

Land Use Control and Long Term Management at Various Sites Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Georgia Contract # FA8903-17-C-0011

Document Author and Affiliation

Jonathon Geroux, Bhate Environmental Associates, Inc.

Author Contact Information

1608 13th Avenue South, Suite 300 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-918-4000

Preparation Date June 2017

Client Air Force Civil Engineering Command

Regulator Organization Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Regulatory Approval

AFCEC Contracting Officer’s Representative Approval

AFCEC Contracting Officer Approval

Contractor Name Bhate Environmental Associates, Inc.

Contractor Project Manager

Tracy L. Walker

Contractor Quality Control Manager

Corey Green

June 2017 6

Site Name/Project Name: Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Various Sites

Site Location: Marietta, Cobb County, Georgia

Site Number/Code: LF001, FT002, FT003, DP005, DP006, OT004, OT007, and

ST008

Operable Unit: Not applicable

Contractor Name: Bhate Environmental Associates Inc.

Contractor Number: FA8903-17-C-0011

Contract Title: Long-Term Management at Various Sites Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Georgia

1. Identify guidance used to prepare QAPP:

This Site-Specific UFP-QAPP was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force (IDQTF) Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Part 1: UFP-QAPP Manual (UFP-QAPP Manual) (IDQTF, 2005) and the Department of Defense (DoD) Quality Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories Version 5 (DoD QSM 5) (DoD, 2013.

2. Identify regulatory program:

DoD Environmental Restoration Program and GA EPD UST Program

3. Identify approval entity:

GA EPD

4. Is this QAPP generic or site specific?

Site specific

5. List dates of scoping sessions that were held:

20 April 2017 (between Bhate and AFCEC)

6. List dates and titles of QAPP documents written for previous site work, if applicable:

Facility-Wide Uniform Federal Policy Quality Assurance Program Plan for Performance-Based Remediation, Air Force Plant 6 and Dobbins Air Reserve Base, 2015

7. List organizational partners (stakeholders) and connection with lead organization:

Test America Savannah GA Lab

June 2017 7

8. List data users:

AFCEC, GA EPD, and Bhate

9. If any required QAPP elements and required information are not applicable to the project, then identify the omitted QAPP elements and required information below:

Not applicable (none omitted)

June 2017 8

June 2017 9

WORKSHEETS 3 AND 5 – PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND QAPP DISTRIBUTION

QAPP Recipient Title Organization Telephone Number E-mail Address

Antonio Lodico Contracting Officer’s Representative

(COR)

AFCEC (210) 395-0638 Antonio.lodico@us.af.mil

Laurel Cordell Remediation Project Manager (RPM) AFCEC (478) 327-9272 Laurel.cordell@us.af.mil

Christian Fernandez Contracting Officer (CO) AFCEC (210) 395-8722 christina.fernandez@us.af.mil

Tracy Walker, P.G. Project Manager (PM) Bhate

(205) 918-4000 (office)

(205) 213-4027 (cell) twalker@bhate.com

Jonathon Geroux Task Manager Bhate

(205) 918-4000 (office)

(601) 408-0444 (cell) jgeroux@bhate.com

James Cook Field Geologist Bhate (205) 213-4027 (cell) jcook@bhate.com

Sally Smith, CIH, CSP, CPEA, CHMM

Health & Safety Manager Bhate

(205) 918-4000 (office)

(205) 983-4150 (cell) ssmith@bhate.com

Corey Green, REM QC Manager (QCM) Bhate (205) 918-4000 (office) cgreen@bhate.com

Notes: P.G. – Professional Geologist, CIH – Certified Industrial Hygienist, CSP – Certified Safety Professional, CPEA – Certified Professional Environmental Auditor, CHMM – Certified Hazardous Materials Manager, REM – Registered Environmental Manager mailto:Laurel.cordell@us.af.mil mailto:christina.fernandez@us.af.mil mailto:twalker@bhate.com mailto:jgeroux@bhate.com mailto:jcook@bhate.com mailto:ssmith@bhate.com mailto:cgreen@bhate.com

June 2017 10

June 2017 11

WORKSHEETS 4, 7, AND 8 – PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND SIGN-OFF SHEET

Name Role for Project Education Specialized

Training Certification

Signature/Date

Tracy Walker, P.G. Project Manager

Bachelors of Science, Masters of Science, Geology, 26 years of environmental consulting experience overseeing and coordinating hazardous waste projects.

Professional Geologist (AL, CA, MS, TX)

Corey Green, REM QC Manager

Bachelors of Science, Chemistry; Masters of Sciences, Environmental Systems Engineering, 19 years of experience in report and plan preparation for environmental investigations, compliance, and remediation and 15 years of experience performing QC reviews of project deliverables.

REM,

Nationwide

Jonathon Geroux Task Manager

Bachelors of Science, Masters of Science, Geology, 2.5 years of experience in environmental compliance with 3 years of groundwater monitoring experience.

Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response

(HAZWOPER)

June 2017 12

June 2017 13

WORKSHEET 6 – COMMUNICATION PATHWAYS

Communication Driver Organization and Role Name Contact Information Procedure (timing, pathway, documentation)

Communication with AFCEC (Lead Agency)

AFCEC COR Antonio Lodico Antonio.lodico@us.af.mil

(210) 395-0638

Primary point of contact for AFCEC; provides technical guidance and direction to Bhate; can delegate communication to other internal or external points of contact; communicates with

GA EPD.

Communication with GA EPD (Lead Regulatory Agency)

GA EPD Project Manager

Susan Eason Contact information needed.

Primary point of contact for GA EPD; provides regulatory support to the project; reviews project deliverables and provides technical comments.

Communication with Bhate (Contractor Organization)

Bhate Project Manager

Tracy Walker twalker@bhate.com

(205) 918-4000

Primary point of contact for Bhate;

responsible for communication with the client through work plans, monthly progress reports, E-mail updates, teleconference calls, and meetings. Has the authority to initiate and approve corrective actions.

Communication with Bhate Field Staff

Bhate Task Manager

Jonathon Geroux jgeroux@bhate.com

(205) 918-4000

Primary point of contact for communicating issues and problems at the field team level;

documents and conveys progress of field activities.

Health and Safety Requirements

Bhate Health and Safety Manager

Sally Smith ssmith@bhate.com

(205) 918-4000

Handles internal communication regarding safety and health requirements. Empowers personnel the right to stop work for any identified health and safety issue.

Responsible for receiving, reviewing, and correcting any and all health and safety related issues.

June 2017 14

June 2017 15

WORKSHEET 9 – PROJECT PLANNING SESSION SUMMARY

Post Award Meeting Minutes 20 April 2017

Location and Time Teleconference: Call-in number, 712-832-8310; Access code, 549-6566 2:00 p.m. Central Time (3:00 p.m. Eastern time)

1. Introductions Tracy Walker began the meeting with introductions to identify everyone on the call.

Antonio Lodico-AFCEC COR

Laurel Cordell-Dobbins Base RPM (Located at Robins AFB)

Tracy Walker-Bhate PM

Jonathon Geroux-Bhate Task Manager

2. Scope of Work

Work Plans

Mr. Walker began the meeting discussing the Work Plans.

Mr. Walker made note that there were some discrepancies between the CDRLs and the PWS concerning the Project Plans.

Mr. Lodico clarified that AFCEC requires that an addendum to the current UFP-QAPP is needed.

Mr. Walker stated that Bhate will be submitting a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) as an Appendix to the Addendum. (Appendix A)

Mr. Lodico specified that Bhate will need to submit a Draft, Draft Final, and Final version of the Plan.

Bhate confirmed that a Draft Plan will be submitted to AFCEC for review.

Bhate confirmed that a Draft Final Plan will be submitted to AFCEC, Base Point of Contact (POC), and to the Regulators for review.

Mr. Walker raised a question about the length of regulator review. It was noted in the questions and answers during the proposal process that regulator review could take up to 60 days. Is this accurate?

Ms. Cordell stated that it would be dependent on the work load that the regulators might have; however, currently their work load has gotten lighter and they may be a bit faster. She also stated that if we need to get something reviewed quickly that she could reach out to them and ask for an expedited review.

Bhate confirmed that for the Draft and Draft Final versions of the work plan a CD-ROM will be sufficient.

June 2017 16

Bhate confirmed that a Final Plan will be submitted to AFCEC and the Regulators as a CD- ROM version and Ms. Cordell would like a hard copy along with the CD-ROM.

Groundwater Sampling

According to the PWS, samples are to be collected from 15 monitoring wells (2 wells at LF001, 2 wells at FT002, and 11 wells at DP005).

Mr. Geroux stated that the PWS does not specify which wells to sample at each site, it only states a number. After a review of previous sampling plans and reports, only 8 wells were last sampled at DP005. LTM sampling has never occurred at LF001 and FT001. The Second Five Year Review Document (2014) has a table with 6 wells listed for LF001 and 2 wells listed for FT002. Bhate requested direction as to which wells should be sampled for each site.

Mr. Lodico stated that he was looking in the PCEAD and that it did not have the specific names of the wells.

Ms. Cordell stated that she was going to get the information on each site so that Bhate could sample the correct wells.

Ms. Cordell also said that she would try and acquire the Geographic Information System (GIS) data from the base for the wells to be sampled.

Bhate would like to produce accurate maps for all plans and reports and having the specific GIS data for all wells to be sampled would help to produce the correct maps.

Sampling is projected to take place in September 2017 pending the time it takes to get approval of the work plan.

The PWS stated the specific COC needing to be tested at each site. Samples will be submitted to TestAmerica Laboratories in Savannah, GA. This is the same laboratory that has been used for past LTM sampling at Dobbins.

Ms. Cordell stated that keys for well locks could be acquired from base environmental.

Bhate would need to coordinate through her when the sampling would take place so that Dobbins Environmental could be on Base on that day.

Land Use Control Inspections

Bhate will conduct visual LUC inspections at eight sites (LF001, FT002, FT003, DP005, DP006, OT004, OT007, and ST008).

Ms. Cordell stated the key to any gate locks would be with the keys for the wells.

Bhate will be using forms reproduced from previous LUC inspections in an effort to produce similar data. LUC inspection results will be provided in the Annual report.

As directed by Mr. Lodico, Bhate will use the existing Monitoring Well Summary from the 2014 Second Five Year Review as the basis of the Well Inventory that will be provided in the Annual Report.

Waste Management

Bhate will collect purge water generated during sampling in 55-gallon drums.

June 2017 17

Mr. Walker asked where the 55-gallon drum could be stored and requested that it be stored at DP005. DP005 has the most wells to be sampled and therefore would generate the most purge water.

Ms. Cordell stated that she would find out if the drum could be staged at DP005 or another location.

Bhate will be utilizing SP Petroleum of Atlanta, GA to dispose of purge water pending sample results.

Solid materials/used personal protective equipment will be bagged and treated as non-regulated solid waste and disposed in a trash bin off-site.

Reporting

A Land Use Control Inspection and Long-Term Management Report will be submitted within 30 days after the groundwater sampling and LUC inspections.

Bhate was directed to produce the same versions (Draft, Draft Final, and Final) as the Addendum to the UFP-QAPP for the Annual Report. Bhate was also directed to send the report in the same format and to the same parties as directed for the UFP-QAPP Addendum.

Miscellaneous

Mr. Walker stated that Bhate would be submitting a Monthly Status Report to describe what work was completed during the month and what work was scheduled for the next month.

Bhate will be providing a monthly invoice with the report for approval.

Mr. Lodico stated that to review the Monthly Status Report he would contact the Base POC to confirm the work described had been completed.

Mr. Lodico stated that when entering invoices into WAWF system that he should be attached on the submission and attention made to him. If he does not get an e-mail from the system then he will not know that Bhate has submitted an invoice.

Mr. Walker asked if Ms. Cordell could send Bhate the base access form so that our personnel that will be completing the LTM activities can prepare the documentation for Base access.

Mr. Walker asked if Bhate should funnel all questions through Mr. Lodico or if it would be okay to contact Ms. Cordell as long as Mr. Lodico was copied. This was accepted by AFCEC.

Mr. Lodico brought up the topic of Environmental Resources Program Information Management System (ERPIMS). Bhate will need to inform the personnel at ERPIMS when the sampling will occur. Bhate will be given a time frame as to when the data from sampling will need to be entered into the ERPIMS database. ERPIMS data entry is required under this contract.

June 2017 18

June 2017 19

WORKSHEET 10 – CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

The problem to be addressed by the project is described below.

Site LF001

This site is a landfill that was in use from the 1940s to the mid-1970s receiving office waste, household waste, and shop waste in unlined open shallow trenches. The site has not been lined or capped as is common in today’s landfills. The landfill has never been permitted to receive RCRA wastes. A Decision Document for LF001 was submitted to GA EPD in 1997 recommending NFRAP. GA EPD responded in December 2005 that they did not concur with a NFRAP recommendations for LF001 due to continued contamination. Samples will be collected from two wells for metals analysis. LUCs and LTM activities are required to monitor remaining contaminants in groundwater.

Site FT002

Site FT002 is a closed earthen fire training pit collocated with a current concrete engine run-up area. Fire training exercises were conducted at the site from the 1950s until the early 1970s and the fuel source was fuels mixed with solvent waste. The perimeter of the site is grassed and wooded. Two monitoring wells are located in the wooded area downgradient of the location and between the burn pit and a nearby stream. Off-flightline access to the site needs to be improved and maintained for proper maintenance and management of the site. It is categorized as a low risk site. Contaminants of concern (COCs) include various solvents. The GA EPD concurred with NFRAP with contaminants left behind that exceed Maximum Contaminant levels (MCLs). LUCs are required. Land use restrictions are posted, and the site is located in a restricted area. For this field effort, LUC inspections will continue and 2 groundwater monitoring wells will also be sampled.

Site DP005

The site is located adjacent to an area of the ARB that was previously used as a fuel storage area. Previous site environmental investigations identified VOCs and SVOCs in groundwater at concentrations above MCLs on site. LNAPL and dissolved-phase groundwater contaminants were remediated through the use of dual phase vacuum extraction over a 4-year period.

Although VOCs and SVOCs have been removed to levels that will not impact nearby surface water bodies, these contaminants still exceed Georgia in-stream water quality standards and MCLs. Samples will be collected from 11 wells for fuels (TPH-GRO, -DRO, -ORO) analysis. LUCs and LTM activities are required to monitor remaining contaminants in groundwater.

The environmental questions being asked:

June 2017 20

What are the current concentrations and extent of metals at site LF001, VOCs at site FT002, and fuels at site DP005 in groundwater?

At what rate are COCs degrading in groundwater?

Are controls in place to manage the COCs remaining in groundwater at the sites?

Synopsis of Previous Investigations:

For additional information about the sites, refer to the Facility-Wide UFP-QAPP for Performance-Based Remediation at Air Force Plant 6 and Dobbins ARB, Worksheet #10.

The possible classes of contaminants and the affected matrices:

The classes of contaminants that will be sampled at DP005 are TPH-GRO, -DRO, and -ORO.

Historically this site has been sampled for VOCs and SVOCs. Sampling has found VOCs and SVOCs in concentrations above the MCLs for groundwater and above Georgia water quality standards for surface water. Site LF001 will be sampled for metals and according to the Decision Document for Past Base Landfill LF001 (May 2000) the concentration for Antimony (23.4 µg/L) was in exceedance of the GA Type III Risk Reduction Level of 6 µg/L. Site FT 02 will be sampled for VOCs and according to the Decision Document for Past Fire Training Area FT-02 (May 2000) the concentration for Trichloroethene (6.98 µg/L) was in exceedance of the GA Type III Risk Reduction Level of 5 µg/L.

Rationale for inclusion of chemical and nonchemical analyses:

Historical site characterization efforts have found concentrations exceeding regulatory limits;

therefore, samples collected in this investigation will be analyzed in the laboratory for metals (LF001), VOCs (FT002), and fuels (DP005) to monitor contamination.

Stabilization parameters (dissolved oxygen [DO], oxidation reduction potential [ORP], pH, temperature, specific conductivity, and turbidity) will be monitored during low flow purging methods prior to collecting samples at each well. Achieving stabilization of these parameters will ensure that all stagnant waters within the well are removed and are replaced by groundwater from the adjacent formation that is representative of actual aquifer conditions.

Project decision conditions (if/then statement):

If, after this round of annual sampling, contamination continues to be above MCLs, then additional rounds of sampling will be required for LTM.

June 2017 21

WORKSHEET 11 – PROJECT/DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES

What are the goals of the study?

This project is intended as part of a LTM plan for sites DP005, LF001, and FT002. One round of low-flow groundwater sampling will be conducted from 15 monitoring wells and samples will be analyzed by an analytical laboratory. This will provide additional data on the levels of remaining contamination at the sites. The data will be documented in a LTM Report which will provide information on all previous activities performed at the site and recommendations for future management.

What are the information inputs?

A single round of groundwater monitoring data will be collected and analyzed. This data will help track the progress of natural attenuation and be used to evaluate LUCs utilized at all sites.

Groundwater quality data will also be used to help determine future action at the three sites where groundwater samples will be collected.

What is the analytic approach?

Data obtained from this round of groundwater monitoring will be instrumental in developing long-term land management strategies for the sites. Any existing contamination on these sites must be reduced below MCLs to be protective of human health and the environment.

Results of this sampling will help to determine the rate at which contamination levels are reaching the MCLs and will provide for the development of future sampling plans and other LUCs.

Where, when, and how should the data be collected/generated?

Field activities will tentatively take place in the Fall of 2017. Groundwater samples will be collected from the 15 site wells one time using AFCEC-approved low-flow sampling methods.

On-site monitoring well samples will be field analyzed for DO, ORP, pH, temperature, specific conductivity, and turbidity to ensure stabilization of the well prior to sampling. On-site samples will also be analyzed for Metals at LF001 (D1-W12 and D1-W13), VOCs at FT002 (D2- W7 and D2-W23), Fuels at DP005 (D5-W11R, D5-W35, D5-W36, D5-W47R, D5-W51, D5-W52, D5-W54, D5-W55, D5-W56, D5-W57, and D5-W58) for contaminant delineation and migration. The groundwater samples will be sent to an analytical laboratory which will generate analytical data. Data results will be reviewed after completion of the sampling round and summarized in a report.

Data Reporting

Upon receipt of all analytical results and completion of data analysis, Bhate will prepare a

June 2017 22 report of findings. Other relevant information to be included in the report include the laboratory analytical reports, analytical data summary tables, figures with sample locations and groundwater surface contours, LUC inspection forms for each site, disposal documentation, and an interpretation of results.

QA/QC activities and results will be documented in a QA/QC section of the report. These summaries of QA/QC activities will assess the performance of measurement systems and data quality based on the following information:

Data QA reviews, including assessment of accuracy, precision, completeness, and representativeness;

Significant QA issues discovered, corrective actions taken, and recommendations for future actions; and

Any significant deviations from the Program QAPP or applicable QAPP Addendum.

In the event of an emergency, or in case it is essential to implement corrective action immediately, reporting may consist of verbal conversations with appropriate personnel. A summary of the emergency events and implemented corrective action will be included in the QA/QC section.

June 2017 23

WORKSHEET 12 – MEASUREMENT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

The quality of the data to be collected for this project will be verified using appropriate Measurement Performance Criteria (MPC) established for both sampling procedures and analytical methods. The criteria will relate to the DQIs in the table below. The MPCs follow those defined in the DoD Quality Systems Manual, Version 5.0 (DoD, July 2013).

Sampling Procedure

Analytical Method

Data Quality Indicators (DQIs)

Measurement Performance Criteria

QC Sample and / or Activity Used to Assess

Measurement Performance

QC Sample Assesses Error for Sampling (S), Analytical

(A) or both (S&A)

Matrix: Groundwater Analytical Group: VOCs Concentration Level: Low

Low-flow sampling using a portable pump from monitoring wells

USEPA 8260B

Precision

Relative Percent Difference (RPD), reference Worksheet 15

Laboratory Duplicate A

Precision RPD, reference Worksheet 15 Field Duplicate S & A

Precision RPD, reference Worksheet 15 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike

Duplicate S & A

Accuracy ± Percent Recovery, reference Worksheet 15 Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) A

Accuracy ± Percent Recovery, reference Worksheet 15 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike

Duplicate S & A

Representativeness Contamination of samples with a target analyte as referenced in Worksheet 28

Method Blank, Trip Blank S & A

Comparability

Qualitative evaluation of QAPP compliance with industry standard methods, matrix specific units

All samples S & A

Sensitivity Reference Worksheets 15 and 28

Initial Calibration, Continuing Calibration Verification, Method

Detection Limits (MDLs), Reporting Limits (RLs)

A

Completeness > 90% Laboratory Analysis Percent Completeness S & A

June 2017 24

Analytical Method

Data Quality Indicators (DQIs)

Measurement Performance Criteria

QC Sample and / or Activity Used to Assess

Measurement Performance

QC Sample Assesses Error for Sampling (S), Analytical

(A) or both (S&A)

Matrix: Groundwater Analytical Group: Fuels(GRO/DRO/ORO) Concentration Level: Low

Low-flow sampling using a portable pump from monitoring wells.

USEPA 8015C Precision RPD, reference Worksheet 15 Laboratory Duplicate A

Precision RPD, reference Worksheet 15 Field Duplicate S & A

Accuracy ± Percent Recovery, reference

Worksheet 15

LCS A

Representativeness Contamination of samples with a target analyte as referenced in Worksheet 28

Method Blank/Trip Blank (GRO Only)

S & A

Comparability

Qualitative evaluation of QAPP compliance with industry standard methods, matrix specific units

All samples S & A

Sensitivity Reference Worksheets 15 and

Initial Calibration, Continuing Calibration Verification, MDLs, RLs A

Completeness > 90% Laboratory Analysis Percent Completeness S & A Matrix: Groundwater Analytical Group: Metals(6010C/7470A) Concentration Level: Low

Low-flow sampling using a portable pump from monitoring wells.

USEPA

6010C/7470A

Precision RPD, reference Worksheet 15 Laboratory Duplicate A

Precision RPD, reference Worksheet 15 Field Duplicate S & A

Accuracy ± Percent Recovery, reference

Worksheet 15

LCS A

Representativeness Contamination of samples with a target analyte as referenced in Worksheet 28

Method Blank S & A

Comparability

Qualitative evaluation of QAPP compliance with industry standard methods, matrix specific units

All samples S & A

June 2017 25

Analytical Method

Data Quality Indicators (DQIs)

Measurement Performance Criteria

QC Sample and / or Activity Used to Assess

Measurement Performance

QC Sample Assesses Error for Sampling (S), Analytical

(A) or both (S&A)

Sensitivity Reference Worksheets 15 and

Initial Calibration, Continuing Calibration Verification, MDLs, RLs

A

Completeness > 90% Laboratory Analysis Percent Completeness S & A

June 2017 26

June 2017 27

WORKSHEET 13 – SECONDARY DATA CRITERIA AND LIMITATIONS

This worksheet identifies sources of secondary data (data generated for purposes other than this specific project or data pertinent to this project generated under a separate QAPP) and summarizes information relevant to their uses for the current project.

Data Type Source Data uses relative to current project

Factors affecting the reliability of data and limitations on data use

Previous Report – includes site background information and groundwater chemical data

Sullivan-Weston Services JVA, LLC, 2015, Long Term Management

Report: Perform Land Use Control and Long-Term Management for Site DP005, AVGAS Sludge Burial Site A, Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Marietta, Georgia

Data provides comparison with historical groundwater analytical data from the site

None

June 2017 28

June 2017 29

WORKSHEET 14 AND 16– PROJECT TASKS AND SCHEDULE

Activity Responsible Party Planned Start

Date Planned

Completion Date Deliverable(s)

Deliverable Due Date

Analysis of Groundwater Samples For VOCs, metals, and fuels

TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc.

(TestAmerica) October 2017 November 2017

Groundwater Analytical Data, Validated Data

Report November 2017

LUC and LTM Reporting Bhate October 2017 February 2018 LUC and LTM Report February 2018

Disposal of investigation derived waste (IDW) to a treatment facility or appropriate disposal facility

SP Petroleum and Bhate

November

November 2017 Waste Disposal Manifests November 2018

June 2017 30

June 2017 31

WORKSHEET 15 – REFERENCE LIMITS AND EVALUATION TABLE

Analyte CAS Number Reference

RL Units Reference

MDL Units

Reference

LCS %

Recovery Low

Reference

LCS %

Recovery High

Reference

LCS RPD

Matrix: Groundwater Analytical Group: VOCs (USEPA 8260B)

Acetone 67-64-1 10.0 µg/L 7.00 µg/L 39 160 20

Benzene 71-43-2 1.00 µg/L 0.430 µg/L 79 120 20

Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 1.00 µg/L 0.440 µg/L 79 125 20

Bromoform 75-25-2 1.00 µg/L 0.430 µg/L 66 130 20

Bromomethane 74-83-9 5.00 µg/L 2.50 µg/L 53 141 20

2-Butanone 78-93-3 10.0 µg/L 3.40 µg/L 56 143 20

Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 2.00 µg/L 0.430 µg/L 64 133 20

Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 1.00 µg/L 0.330 µg/L 72 136 20

Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 1.00 µg/L 0.260 µg/L 82 118 20

Chloroethane 75-00-3 5.00 µg/L 2.50 µg/L 60 138 20

Chloroform 67-66-3 1.00 µg/L 0.500 µg/L 79 124 20

Chloromethane 74-87-3 1.00 µg/L 0.400 µg/L 50 139 20 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 1.00 µg/L 0.410 µg/L 78 123 20 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 1.00 µg/L 0.400 µg/L 75 124 20

Cyclohexane 110-82-7 1.00 µg/L 0.390 µg/L 71 130 20

Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 1.00 µg/L 0.320 µg/L 74 126 20

1,2-Dibromo-3- Chloropropane

96-12-8 5.00 µg/L 1.10 µg/L 62 128 20

1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 1.00 µg/L 0.440 µg/L 75 127 20

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 1.00 µg/L 0.370 µg/L 80 119 20

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 1.00 µg/L 0.430 µg/L 80 119 20

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 1.00 µg/L 0.460 µg/L 79 118 20

Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 1.00 µg/L 0.600 µg/L 32 152 20

1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 1.00 µg/L 0.380 µg/L 77 125 20

1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 1.00 µg/L 0.500 µg/L 73 128 20

1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 1.00 µg/L 0.360 µg/L 71 131 20

1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 1.00 µg/L 0.670 µg/L 78 122 20

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 1.00 µg/L 0.330 µg/L 79 121 20

2-Hexanone 591-78-6 10.0 µg/L 2.00 µg/L 57 139 20

Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 1.00 µg/L 0.350 µg/L 72 131 20

Methyl acetate 79-20-9 5.00 µg/L 1.80 µg/L 56 136 20

Methylcyclohexane 108-87-2 1.00 µg/L 0.430 µg/L 72 132 20

June 2017 32

RL Units Reference

MDL Units

Reference

LCS %

Recovery Low

Reference

LCS %

Recovery High

Reference

LCS RPD

Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 5.00 µg/L 2.50 µg/L 74 124 20

4-Methyl-2-pentanone 108-10-1 10.0 µg/L 2.10 µg/L 67 130 20

Methyl tert-butyl ether 1634-04-4 10.0 µg/L 0.300 µg/L 71 124 20

Styrene 100-42-5 1.00 µg/L 0.270 µg/L 78 123 20

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 1.00 µg/L 0.620 µg/L 71 121 20

Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 1.00 µg/L 0.740 µg/L 74 129 20

Toluene 108-88-3 1.00 µg/L 0.480 µg/L 80 121 20 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 1.00 µg/L 0.370 µg/L 75 124 20 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 1.00 µg/L 0.420 µg/L 73 127 20

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 5.00 µg/L 2.5 µg/L 69 130 20

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 1.00 µg/L 0.370 µg/L 74 131 20

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 1.00 µg/L 0.330 µg/L 80 119 20

Trichloroethene 79-01-6 1.00 µg/L 0.480 µg/L 79 123 20

Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 1.00 µg/L 0.420 µg/L 65 141 20

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane

76-13-1 1.00 µg/L 0.360 µg/L 70 136 20

Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 1.00 µg/L 0.500 µg/L 58 137 20

Xylenes, Total 1330-20-7 2.00 µg/L 0.570 µg/L 79 121 20

1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (surrogate)

17060-07-0 NA NA NA NA 81 118 NA

4-Bromofluorobenzene (surrogate)

460-00-4 NA NA NA NA 85 114 NA

Dibromofluoromethane (surrogate)

1868-53-7 NA NA NA NA 80 119 NA

Toluene-d8 (surrogate) 2037-26-5 NA NA NA NA 89 112 NA

Matrix: Groundwater Analytical Group: TPH-GRO (USEPA 8015C)

C6-C10 8006-61-9 0.100 mg/L 0.100 mg/L 78 122 50 a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (surrogate)

98-08-8 NA NA NA NA 69 133 NA

Matrix: Groundwater Analytical Group: TPH-DRO/ORO (USEPA 8015C)

C10-C28 STL00143 0.100 mg/L 0.0850 mg/L 36 132 30

C20-C36 STL00426 0.500 mg/L 0.400 mg/L 41 113 30 o-Terphenyl (surrogate) 84-15-1 NA NA NA NA 56 125 NA

Matrix: Groundwater Analytical Group: Metals (USEPA 6010C/7470A)

Aluminum 7429-90-5 200 µg/L 70 µg/L 86 115 20

Antimony 7440-36-0 20.0 µg/L 15.0 µg/L 88 113 20

Arsenic 7440-38-2 20.0 µg/L 15.0 µg/L 87 113 20

Barium 7440-39-3 10.0 µg/L 5.00 µg/L 88 113 20

June 2017 33

RL Units Reference

MDL Units

Reference

LCS %

Recovery Low

Reference

LCS %

Recovery High

Reference

LCS RPD

Beryllium 7440-41-7 4.00 µg/L 0.300 µg/L 89 112 20

Cadmium 7440-43-9 5.00 µg/L 3.00 µg/L 88 113 20

Calcium 7440-70-2 500 µg/L 75.0 µg/L 87 113 20

Chromium 7440-47-3 10.0 µg/L 4.00 µg/L 90 113 20

Cobalt 7440-48-4 10.0 µg/L 3.00 µg/L 89 114 20

Copper 7440-50-8 20.0 µg/L 5.00 µg/L 86 114 20

Iron 7439-89-6 50.0 µg/L 50.0 µg/L 87 115 20

Lead 7439-92-1 10.0 µg/L 10.0 µg/L 86 113 20

Magnesium 7439-95-4 500 µg/L 75.0 µg/L 85 113 20

Manganese 7439-96-5 10.0 µg/L 3.00 µg/L 90 114 20

Nickel 7440-02-0 40.0 µg/L 5.00 µg/L 88 113 20

Potassium 7440-09-7 1,000 µg/L 50.0 µg/L 86 114 20

Selenium 7782-49-2 20.0 µg/L 20.0 µg/L 83 114 20

Silver 7440-22-4 10.0 µg/L 1.50 µg/L 84 115 20

Sodium 7440-23-5 1,000 µg/L 1,000 µg/L 30 111 20

Thallium 7440-28-0 25.0 µg/L 15.0 µg/L 85 114 20

Vanadium 7440-62-2 10.0 µg/L 3.00 µg/L 90 111 20

Zinc 7440-66-6 20.0 µg/L 20.0 µg/L 87 115 20

Mercury 7439-97-6 0.200 µg/L 0.200 µg/L 80 124 20

Notes: CAS – Chemical Abstract Service, µg/L = micrograms per liter, mg/L – milligrams per liter, LCS – Laboratory Control Sample, % - percent, NA – Not applicable

RLs, MDLs, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are evaluated and reviewed quarterly and/or annually and therefore are subject to change. The laboratory will adhere to the most current limits and SOPs.

June 2017 34

June 2017 35

WORKSHEET 17 – SAMPLING DESIGN AND RATIONALE

Describe and provide a rationale for choosing the sampling approach:

Previous site investigations have identified VOC and SVOC contamination above MCLs and State of Georgia in-stream water quality standards. Action has been taken to reduce contamination, including removal of LNAPL to a non-detect status and reduction of dissolved and vapor phase hydrocarbons. Semiannual and annual sampling has been performed in previous years to monitor decreasing levels of contamination and evaluate the effectiveness of LUCs/LTM activities. Results from the proposed round of sampling will be used for similar purposes, including recommendations for future activities.

Given that previous information exists about the site and the sampling will be conducted from previously installed and sampled monitoring wells, the judgmental type of sampling will be used. Sampling is being conducted primarily to track reduction of contamination over time and develop strategies for future site management.

Describe the sampling design and rationale in terms of what matrices will be sampled, what analytical groups and at what concentration levels, the sampling locations (including QC, critical, and background samples), the number of samples to be taken, and the sampling frequency (including seasonal considerations):

Fifteen existing groundwater monitoring wells will be sampled (see Worksheet 18) via low- flow methods. These monitoring well locations have been selected by the RPM and are representative of the site and will be identified using the sample location maps (Figures 2, 3, and 5). Low-flow sampling methods will be used for the collection of groundwater samples to reflect the total mobile organic and inorganic loads (dissolved and colloidal sized fractions) transported through the subsurface under ambient flow conditions, with minimal physical and chemical alterations from sampling procedures. Each sample will be analyzed in the field for DO, ORP, pH, temperature, specific conductivity, and turbidity to determine stabilization. Once groundwater conditions stabilize, chemical samples will be collected. The operational criteria for DO, ORP, specific conductance, pH, and temperature are three successive readings at 5-minute intervals within the following ranges (USACE, 2002):

Parameter Criteria

Turbidity <50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU)

DO ± 10% above 1 mg/L or ± 0.1 mg/L below 1 mg/L

ORP ± 10 millivolts (mV)

Specific conductance ± 20 micromhos per centimeter (µmhos/cm) pH ± 0.1 standard units

Temperature ± 0.5 Degrees Celsius (°C)

June 2017 36

Chemical samples will be analyzed in the laboratory for metals at LF001, VOCs at FT002, and fuels at DP005. QC groundwater samples (duplicates) will be collected during the sampling event and sent to the primary laboratory. Additionally, trip blanks per cooler containing VOCs and GRO will be included with the samples shipped to the lab for analysis.

Worksheet 18 provides a summary of…