QIJAI I TY ASSDRANCE S^ROJEC I PLAN 

Oregon Department of Environinental Quality 

Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Program 

Group A. PROJECT MANAGEMENT 

QUAUTY ASSURANCE P15iOJEGT PLAN 

Oregon Depaiiment qf Enyrronmental Quality 

Underground Storage Tank (UST) Prog ram 

Al Document Approval J?age 

Wendy Wiles M/uA.4 ^ UJfL.^----^--

Administrator, Land Quality Division 

- ^ 

Andree* PoHpck iL_hA:ix v%-<-^t-c 

Manager, Hazdrdons'Waste and Tanks PrJagraitis 

t^r-ii.^ 

Mitch Scheel fy\.X&M._.^'S cJ^'-^aP^^-^ 

Policy Coordinator, UST Section / 

Scott Hoateoii 

Quality AssilrattGe QifleEf, BEQ 

<5ina Grepo-Gro 

Quality AssujatiEeManflgj^i;, USEPA Regi 

<3. 

iiiii 

state of Or ^ 

Qeparhnaniof 

Envlrotim«ntat 

Uhil QuallW Divtsloh 

TanksiSapdoi* 

fill SVV Sixth Avenue 

"PIl(aic:(5lM),i29*S91i 

•Fax: {idiynum 

ltltp;/fw\ih\>.oi'esi)ii,'g0^'/P 

£ Q / 

DEQOJ-LQ'00*2-QAPP 

V'eraOfi^.O 

WefaPilM IO-,LQ-017 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

A2 Table of Contents 

GROUP A. PROJECT MANAGEMENT i 

A1 Document Approval Page i 

A2 Table of Contents iii 

A3 Distribution List : 1 

A4 Project Organization 1 

A5 Project Background 2 

A6 Project Description 2 

A7 Quality Objectives and Criteria 3 

A8 Special Training 5 

A9 Documentation and Records 6 

GROUP B. DATA GENERATION AND ACQUISITION 9 

Bl Sampling Process Design ..9 

B2 Sampling Methods 9 

B3 Sample Handling and Custody 14 

B4 Analytical Methods 15 

B5 Quality Control 17 

86 Instrument Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance 21 

B7 Instrument Calibration and Frequency 22 

B8 Supplies and Consumables 22 

B9 Non-Direct Measurements 22 

BIO Data Management 22 

GROUP C. ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT 24 

CI Assessment and Response Actions 24 

C2 Reports to Management 24 

GROUP D. DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY 25 

Dl Data Review, Validation, and Verification 25 

D2 Corrective Action 26 

D3 Data Usability 26 

Version 2.0 Page iii 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

List of Tables 

Table A7-1 Field and Laboratory QC Elements and Assessment Criteria 4 

Table B2-1 Sample Containers, Preservation, and Holding Times 10 

Table B4-1 Analytical Methods References 16 

List of Figures 

Figure 1 Organizational Chart 27 

Version 2.0 Page iv 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

A3 Distribution List 

Wendy Wiles, Administrator, Land Quality Division 

Andree Pollock, Manager, UST Program 

Mike Kortenhof, Northwest Region UST Program Manager 

Max Rosenberg, Westem Region Cleanup Program Manager 

Sheila Monroe, Eastem Region Cleanup Program Manager 

Bmce Gilles - Northwest Region Section Supervisor, Clean-up, HOT 

UST and HOT Program Regional Office Project Managers 

Greg Pettit, Division Administrator, Laboratory and Environmental Assessment Division 

Scott Hoatson, Agency Quality Assurance Officer -

Brian Doling, Organic Analytical Laboratory Manager 

RaeAim Haynes, Inorganic Laboratory Manager 

Environmental Consultants under contract with the DEQ for work on UST sites 

A4 Project Organization 

U ST and HOT program site investigations and corrective actions involve DEQ staff fi^om the following 

divisions: 

• Land Quality Division; 

• Laboratory and Environmental Assessment Division; 

• Northwest Region; 

• Westem Region; and 

• Eastem Region.' 

An organizational chart for relevant persoimel in these divisions is provided in Figure 1. 

A4.1 UST Program Staff in Headquarters 

UST Program staff in DEQ headquarters shall: 

• Provide policy oversight and training; 

• Prepare reports for EPA; and 

• Secure EPA grant funding. 

A4.2 Regional Office Staff 

UST program staff in the regional offices shall: 

• Serve as project managers for responsible party-lead UST cleanup sites within their respective 

regions; 

Version 2.0 Page 1 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Evaluate responsible parties' compliance with all rules and regulations governing the cleanup of 

petroleum-contaminated sites; 

Manage state contractor cleanups at sites where the responsible party is unable or unwilling to 

comply with the regulations; 

Provide policy oversight and training; 

Provide technical assistance; 

A4.3 Laboratory Division Staff 

DEQ Laboratory Division staff shall: 

• Perform requested test methods on samples submitted by agency staff; 

• Perform requested test methods on samples that have been split with either contractors for statemanaged sites or with responsible parties; 

• Provide technical assistance to agency staff; 

• Review analytical results for data quality; 

• Prepare DEQ laboratory reports for program and regions; 

• Assist in department training program for proper sample collection, preservation, handling, and 

docuhientation requirements; 

• Assist in the preparation and evaluation of site-specific Quality Assurance Project Plans 

(QAPPs); 

• Serve as the Quality Assurance (QA) office for the program; and 

• Initiate corrective action through program and regions when deficiencies in sample collection, 

preservation, handling, test methods, and documentation are identified. 

A5 Project Background 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides funding to states for both Underground 

Storage Tank (UST) compliance and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup program 

activities. In order to use federal LUST Tmst Funds for sampling and analysis activities, EPA requires 

states to have an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). In addition to fimding, approval of 

this QAPP is an essential component of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ's) 

application for State Program Approval fi'om EPA Region X. DEQ expects to submit an application by 

June 2010. 

Upon approval of the application for State Program Approval, DEQ will obtain primacy through EPA to 

implement the UST programs covered within Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) Section 9003, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). In 

this capacity, the State of Oregon DEQ is responsible for the implementation of EPA's mles and 

regulations for USTs. 

The activities conducted under this project plan are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 30, 33, 

35, 231, and 280. Implementation will require the involvement of staff from the DEQ's Land Quality 

Division, Regional Offices, and Laboratory and Environmental Assessment Division. 

A6 Project Description 

The majority of investigations carried out by the DEQ UST/LUST program involve USTs that contain 

petroleum hydrocarbons. Project managers must evaluate this QAPP and assess whether it meets the 

specific needs of the project. Site-specific QAPPs will be developed by DEQ or outside contractors for 

Version 2.0 Page 2 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

those investigations that require sampling and analytical protocols not addressed in this plan. For samples 

not routinely sent to the DEQ laboratory, the project manager must notify the laboratory prior to sample 

submittal and ensure that the DEQ laboratory receive site-specific QAPPs as needed. 

The Heating Oil Tank Program allows third party certification of cleanups and decommissionings of 

heating oil tanks by DEQ licensed service providers. When a licensed contractor completes a cleanup or 

decommissioning, the company submits a certification to DEQ. DEQ will then issue a letter to the tank 

owner registering the contractor's certification. The combination of the contractor's certification and 

DEQ's registration is equivalent to the "No Further Action" letter. 

This QAPP defines the duties and responsibilities of DEQ staff and establishes standard operating 

procedures for sample collection, preservation, handling, documentation, and analysis for UST site 

investigations conducted by responsible parties and/or DEQ contractors. The objective is to ensure that 

all data obtained during UST site investigations are representative of actual site conditions. The data also 

must be of known quality and, where necessary, legally defensible. 

Data obtained imder this QAPP will be used to confirm releases from petroleum-containing USTs. This 

QAPP is also applicable to the activities of DEQs Heating Oil Tank (HOT) Program The data will be 

used to evaluate the nature, magnitude, and extent of the petroleum contamination, determine the extent 

of remedial action that is required, and measure the adequacy of the remedial actions undertaken by 

responsible parties or DEQ contractors. 

Responsible parties and contractors may choose to follow the requirements outlined in this QAPP or 

prepare and submit a QA Plan for approval by DEQ. All data reported to DEQ must reference what QA 

Plan was used for the project. 

A7 Quality Objectives and Criteria 

The purpose of this section is to provide qualitative and quantitative information that defines the goals for 

data quality for the UST and HOT programs. 

The primary goal of sampling and analysis is to determine if a site is contaminated due to leaks from 

USTs and HOTs. The data collected will be used to support decisions for site closures or where 

necessary, support the need for additional data collection activities to make decisions regarding how to 

remedy the site. 

In order for proper decisions to be made, the data for this project plan must be of known quality. To 

ensure that the quality can be assessed, the sampling organization and the laboratory conducting the 

analyses must retain sufficient documentation to enable DEQ to recreate the sampling activities and 

analytical results for review. 

Site specific sampling activities must be described in a work plan or sampling plan. 

The laboratory quality system should be defined and documented in a quality manual that would meet 

National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) 2003 standards. The 2003 

NELAC Standard is currently available from The NELAC Institute's website at http://www.nelacinstitute.org/. The laboratory should also perform quality control measures that meet 2003 NELAC 

standards of "Essential Quality Control."' 

'' NELAC 2003, section "5.5.9.2 EssentiaMuality Control Procedures" 

Version 2.0 Page 3 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Specific Quality Assurance (QA) objectives include collecting a sufficient number of transport (trip) 

blanks, rinsate blanks, and duplicate samples to evaluate the potential for contamination from sampling 

equipment and sampling technique. (Note: Blanks may be collected and held for analysis until it is 

detemiined contamination may be a concem.) In addition, the laboratory conducting the analyses must 

analyze a sufficient number of Quality Control (QC) standards, blanks, replicates and spikes intemally to 

evaluate results against numerical QA goals established for precision and accuracy as shown in Table A7-

1. The objective is to follow sampling techniques in such a manner that the analytical results are 

representative ofthe media and conditions being measured. 

Table A7-1 Field and Laboratory QC Elements and Assessment Criteria 

QC Element, • Frequency , Media* ' Analyte Type* Criteria 

O 

O 

TJ 

il 

O 

o 

£< 

S 

2 

Trip Blank 

Rinsate 

Blank 

Field 

Duplicate 

Method 

Blank 

Laboratory 

Duplicates 

or Matrix 

Spike 

Duplicates 

1 per cooler 

5% for each 

media sampled 

(but at least one 

sample per field 

event) 

5% for each 

media sampled 

(but at least one 

sample per field 

event) 

5% for each 

preparation 

5% for each 

media sampled 

All 

All 

Air, water 

Solids, 

nonaqueous 

liquids 

All 

Air, water 

Solids, 

nonaqueous 

liquids 

Organic 

All 

Inorganic 

Organic 

Inorganic 

Organic 

All 

Inorganic 

Organic 

Inorganic ' 

Only when collecting VOCs 

< method reporting limit, or 

<10% ofthe lowest concentration identified 

in any sample 

RPD +/- 20% for concentrations > 5X the 

MRL, or 

Absolute difference 5 MRL for average 

concentrations s MRL 

RPD +/- 30% for concentrations > 5X the 

MRL, or 

Absolute difference s MRL for average 

concentrations < MRL 

RPD +/- 35% for concentrations > 5X the 

MRL, or 

Absolute difference 5 MRL for average 

concentrations < MRL 

RPD +/- 50% for concentrations > 5X the 

MRL, or 

Absolute difference < 2X MRL for average 

concentrations < MRL 

< method reporting limit or <10% ofthe 

lowest concentration identified in any sample 

RPD +/- 20% for concentrations > 5X the 

MRL, or 

Absolute difference < MRL for average 

concentrations < MRL 

RPD +/- 35% for concentrations > 5X the 

MRL, or 

Absolute difference < MRL for average 

concentrations < 5 X the MRL 

RPD +/- 35% for concentrations > 5X the 

MRL, or 

Absolute difference < MRL for average 

concentrations s 5X MRL 

Version 2.0 Page 4 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

QC Element FreqiueMcy?^!:Media* Analyte Type* Criteria | 

-

Laboratory 

Fortified 

Sample 

(Matrix 

Spike) 

Surrogates 

Laboratory 

Control 

Sample 

5% for each 

preparation 

Each sample 

1 per analytical 

batch 

Air, water 

Solids, 

nonaqueous 

liquids 

All 

All 

Organic 

Inorganic 

Organic 

Inorganic 

Organic 

Organic 

Inorganic 

Organic 

RPD +/- 50% for concentrations > 5X the 

MRL, or 

Absolute difference < 2X MRL for average 

concentrations s 5x the MRL 

Recovery: 80-120% 

Recovery: 60-140% 

Recovery: 70-130% for at least 80% of the 

analytes in a single method 

Recovery: 50-120% for at least 80% of the 

analytes in a single method" 

Recovery: 50-150%** 

Recovery: 85-115% 

Recovery: 70-130%** 

Notes: 

Water applies to all aqueous media containing less than 15% settleable solids, including drinking water, 

groundwater, surface water, waste effluent, etc. Solids applies to all non-aqueous media containing 15% or 

more settleable solids, including soils, sediments, and sludges. Non-aqueous liquids applies to any nonwater substance containing less than 15% solids, including solvents, fuels, oils, etc. Air applies to all media 

in the gaseous state at ambient conditions at the time of sampling (including soil vapors). 

* 

Inorganic analytes include all metals. Organic analytes include petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile/semivolatile organic compounds, PCBs, Not all analytes may be covered by this list. For additional information, 

contact the QA chemist at the DEQ laboratory. Variances from this list should be docurnented in site specific 

QA Plans. 

** May not apply to compounds that are known to be problematic. Obtain approval from the UST or HOT 

project manager or contact DEQ LEAD to obtain approval for wider acceptance limits. 

A8 Special Training 

Safety fraining courses relevant to UST cleanup project activities are readily available. Contractors are 

responsible for ensuring that their personnel are informed about and trained on relevant OSHA guidelines. 

All DEQ UST project managers are required to have a minimum of 24 hours of initial health and safety 

fraining and receive an annual 8-hour refresher course. Staff should contact the DEQ Health and Safety 

Manager or their Premises Safety Representative for questions about health and safety practices. 

Field activities can create unexpected risks. Staff should approach any sampling event as a potentially 

hazardous event and obtain the proper training to recognize, deal with, and protect themselves from 

hazardous materials. If you have questions about what you might be dealing with, use existing resources 

(e.g., MSDS, literature, laboratory staff, the Health and Safety Plan that the consultant and/or contractor 

has prepared for the site, etc.) and contact the appropriate authority (e.g., DEQ Health & Safety Manager, 

Laboratory Managers, Safety Committee). The Health <& Safety Manager can recommend and supply the 

most appropriate personal protective equipment and is responsible for managing the respiratory protection 

program. 

Version 2.0 Page 5 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

A9 Documentation and Records 

A9.1 Introduction 

Documents and records produced from UST and HOT projects must be properly managed. Documents 

and records typically produced may include, but are not limited to: 

Site-specific QA Plans or sampling and analysis plans (SAPs) ; 

Design certification; 

Photo logs; 

Transportation documents (manifests and bills of lading) 

Field notes and records; 

Chain-of-custody forms; 

Laboratory analytical reports; 

Field and laboratory QC data; 

Data validation reports; and 

Records of commimication such as phone logs, memos, e-mails, or other written 

correspondence. 

(Note: Documentation, required in the HOT program regulations to be submitted to DEQ, constitutes 

a satisfactory sampling plan for HOT projects.) 

Project records will be maintained by the Project Manager in both printed and elecfronic formats 

whenever practicable. Printed records serve as the official record and will be maintained in the site's file 

for a period of no less than 20 years after project completion. Elecfronic records, wherever possible, will 

be maintained in write-protected formats such as the Portable Document Format (.pdf). In maintaining 

and archiving these electronic records, UST will follow guidance and procedures established in the 

agencies records retention schedule. 

Each organization should have their own specific procedures for presenting and confrolling data. 

However, the record keeping system must allow historical reconstmction of all activities that produced 

the resultant sample analytical data. The history ofthe sample must be readily understood through the 

documentation. This shall include inter-laboratory fransfers of samples or extracts. 

All sampling and analysis records must be maintained for at least 5 years after project completion and be 

available to DEQ upon request. 

Laboratories shall have their own chain of custody form, which must contain the sample identification, 

the location, date and time of collection, collector's name, preservation type, sample type, and any special 

remarks conceming the sample. The DEQ's custody form (DEQ06-LAB-0054-FORM) must be filled out 

if samples will be analyzed by DEQ or if data is going to be uploaded into LASAR database. Certain 

information on the form is absolutely necessary. Such information as the Sampling Project Location/Site 

should be kept short but be as descriptive as possible. These data elements are necessary for accurately 

posting data in the agency's databases [Laboratory Analytical Storage and Retrieval (LASAR) and 

LIMS]. 

A9.2 Sampling Acceptance Policy 

It is DEQ laboratory policy to accept samples for analysis, and report analysis results, for samples that 

meet the following requirements upon receipt at the DEQ laboratory. Non-DEQ laboratories should have 

their own written policy which the DEQ's project manager should receive (it may also be in a submitted 

VersionZ^O Page 6 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

QA Plan or as part of their Quality Manual). The policies of the contracted laboratories should have 

similar content. 

1. Complete sample documentation must be provided including: 

Name and address ofthe project site, 

Program/project Q-time number 

Sample description; 

Sample matrix (air, liquid, solid, sludge, sediment); 

QC Type (Trip Blank, Equipment (rinsate) Blank, Field Duplicate, etc) 

Special remarks describing the sample, if appropriate. 

Sample classification (grab, continues, composite); 

Date and time of collection; 

Sampling location (including latitude, longitude, and elevation), or permanent LASAR station 

number; and brief description of each sampling location 

Name of contact person for the project, 

Name of sample collector, 

Container ID numbers used at each location, and 

Requested analyses for each sample (or, if sample is to be held for possible future analysis). 

The date and time that each person received or relinquished the sample(s), including their 

signed name. 

Information must be legible 

All information must be written on the field form in waterproof blue or black ink. 

Samples must be properly labeled 

Use durable labels 

Include a unique identification number traceable back to the COC. 

Include preservative used (Container codes are acceptable if defined). 

Use indelible ink 

Information must be legible 

3. Sample container(s) must be appropriate for sample type and analysis requested, including 

preservative(s) as needed. 

4. Parameter/Method recommended holding times must not be exceeded. 

5. Adequate quantities of samples must be supplied to accommodate tests requested by collector, 

stipulated in site-specific QAPP by project manager or judged appropriate by laboratory management. 

6. A site-specific QAPP or SAP must be prepared when more than ten (10) field samples are submitted, 

includuig: 

• The number of samples by matrix, including QA (sample duplicates, matrix spikes and duplicates, 

blanks, etc.); 

• The name ofthe project manager and sample collector (if different); 

• The name of the person to whom the data are to be reported; 

• The analyses (tests) requested; and 

• The detection limit needed [qualitative screen, drinking water Maximum Contaminant Limit 

(MCL), Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), NPDES permit compliance, etc.]. 

• Refer to EPA QA division documents for additional information on preparing site-specific 

QAPPs (http://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.htmn. 

Version 2.0 Page 7 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

(Note: HOT program requirements for sampling documentation constitute a Sampling plan, no 

additional plan needs to be provided as long as the other QC requirements in this QAPP (or an 

altemative DEQ approved QAPP) are followed.) 

Sample(s) failing to meet the sample acceptance criteria mav be analyzed, depending on the 

circumstances, but the data must be clearly flagged when reported as having been compromised due to a 

deficiency in one or more of the elements listed above. Release of data from compromised samples will 

be deferred awaiting the necessary documentation. 

Documentation of any of these elements may be fiimished at any time up to the release of the final 

decision on the site from DEQ, but preferably as soon as possible. When all acceptance criteria are 

consequently met, the qualifying flag will be expunged from the report, if the quality of the data is not 

affected. 

7. Third party laboratory analytical reports must include the following information for DEQ review 

(Note: When DEQ LEAD provides the analytical work, the same information is evaluated prior to 

reporting results): 

• A QA summary ofthe report, including a discussion of sample conditions upon arrival, as well as any 

QA/QC issues that may have arisen during analysis. 

• Complete result package that identifies the result, the units, and any qualifying data flags. 

• A complete QC package for each analyte-matrix combination that includes the QC data identified by 

the project's DQOs and DQIs. 

• The report must definitively link the samples with their associated QC results. 

A9.3 Corrections to Documentation 

All original data recorded in field notebooks, chain-of-custody records, and other forms will be written in 

waterproof ink. None of these documents will be destroyed or thrown away, even if they are illegible or 

contain inaccuracies that require a replacement document. If an error is made on a document assigned to 

one individual, that individual will make corrections by crossing a single line through the error, entering 

the correct information, and initialing the correction. 

Alterations or changes to QAPPs, SAPs, analytical reports, or any other formal written documentation 

will be accomplished by attaching an erratum or addendum to the fi-ont of the original document. All 

errata and addenda must be signed and dated. Changes to electronic records must mirror appropriate 

changes in printed records. (Altematively, a revised document may be created as long as the revision is 

clearly noted and supersedes the previous document. Both original and revised versions must be 

maintained in the project files. 

Version 2.0 Page 8 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Group B. DATA GENERATION AND ACQUISITION 

Bt Sampling Process Design 

Site assessments generally require the collection of several types of samples including soils, vapors, 

surface and ground water, water from industrial, municipal, or residential wells, and tank contents (i.e. 

sludge). 

Field sampling personnel will make arrangements with the analyzing laboratory for proper sample 

containers, sampling request forms, and sampling equipment at least two weeks in advance of a sampling 

event. If a specific event has more than 10 field samples or will occur more than once, a site-specific 

QAPP or SAP will be required. 

Equipment should be assembled based on the type of samples to be collected. Preparation and assembly 

ofthe required equipment and materials should follow these steps: 

• All equipment will be checked for proper calibration, assembly, and operation.prior to use. 

• All sampling equipment that may potentially contact the samples will be decontaminated 

according to the procedures outlined in the Mode of Operation Manual (MOM), DEQ03-

LAB-0036-SOP , which is available from the water quality monitoring group at the DEQ 

laboratory or it can be found on-line at 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/techrpts/docs/DEO03LAB0036SOP.pdf 

• Sampling equipment will be transported in such a manner as to maintain its cleanliness. 

B1.1 Parameter-Specific Sampling Requirements 

Table B2-1 lists the sample containers that are to be used, sample volumes required, preservation 

requirements, and special handling requirements for the parameters most commonly tested at pefroleumcontaminated sites.' Additional information on sampling requirements is contained in the DEQ 

laboratory' s Field Sampling Reference Guide (FSRG) DEQ86-LAB-0002-Q AG 

The required order of sample collection, regardless of matrix being sampled, is: 

1. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC); 

2. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (NWTPH-Dx and Gx) and Hydrocarbon Identifications (HCIDs); 

3. Exfractables (PCBs); and (PAH) 

4. Total Recoverable Metals (Lead). 

B2 Sampling Methods 

It is very important to use proper sample containers and appropriate preservation techniques when 

collecting samples. Samples should always be collected in containers supplied by the analyzing 

laboratory. This ensures that the container has been properly cleaned. Also, when the container is filled, 

the analyzing laboratory will have sufficient sample to do the requested test. Samples submitted to the 

laboratory that are not in a laboratory supplied container (e.g., mayonnaise, pickle, or peanut butter jars) 

are likely to be rejected. Samples must also be properly preserved or they may be rejected. It is 

acceptable under NELAC standards to accept such as long as the data is qualified as such. Refer to Table 

B2-1 for mformation on proper containers, preservatives, and holding times. 

Version 2.0 Page 9 of 27 ^09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Table B2-1 Sample Containers, Preservation, and Holding Times 

PARAMETER : CONTAINER (^) - ; . PRESERVAXIVE i HOLDING TIMES:v:| 

yblatile6rganics(8260C, NWTPH-Gx,) v i^ f ^ ^ " } * ' 

Liquids 

Soils 

(extraction EPA 5035A) 

Pure Product 

Soil Vapors (EPA TO15) 

2 40-ml vials with Teflonlined septum caps 

2 40-ml vials with Teflonlined septum caps 

(approximately 5 g 

sample in each vial) 

1 40-ml vial with Teflonlined septum caps 

Tedlar Bag 

Summa Canister 

4 drops cone. HCL 

Cool, 4°C 

No headspace 

Methanol & 

Cool, 4°C or 

Cool, 4°C / < -7°C 

Cool, 4°C 

None 

None 

14 days 

14 days 

48hr/.14days 

14 days . 

72 hours 

30 days 

Seifii-Vdiatile br^gartics ^ . 

NWTPH-Dx 

Liquids 

Soils 

NWTPH-HCID 

Liquids 

Soils 

PAHs (8270D) 

Liquids 

/ 

Solids 

PCBs (8082A) 

Liquids 

Extraction (351 OA, 

3520A) 

Soils 

Extraction (3550B, 

3545A) 

I^Liter amber glass 

bottle with Teflon liner 

4 - 8 oz glass glass jar 

with Teflon liner 

1-Liter glass bottle with 

Teflon liner 

4 - 8 oz glass glass jar 

with Teflon liner 

1-Liter glass bottle with 

Teflon liner 

4 - 8 oz glass glass jar 

with Teflon liner 

1-Liter glass bottle with 

Teflon liner 

4 - 8 oz glass glass jar 

with Teflon liner 

5 ml HCl, pH<2 

Cool,4°C 

Cool, 4°C 

5 ml HCl, pH<2 

Cool, 4°C 

Cool, 4°C 

Cool, 4°C 

Cool,4°C 

Cool,4°C 

Cool, 4°C 

14 days to extraction/ 

analysis within 40 days 

of extraction 

14 days to extraction/ 

analysis within 40 days 

of extraction 

7 days to extraction/ 

analysis within 40 days 

of extraction 

14 days to extraction/ 

analysis within 40 days 

of extraction 

7 days to extraction/ 

analysis within 40 days 

of extraction 

7 days to extraction/ 

analysis within 40 days 

of extraction 

1 year 

1 year 

/ 

Version 2.0 Page 10 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

PARAMETER 

Metals (6010/6020) 

Liquids 

Soils 

CONTAINER (1) 

250-ml polyethylene 

Polyethylene or glass 

with Teflon liner 

PRESERVATIVE 

HNO3, pH<2 

None 

HOLDING TIMES 

6 months 

28 days 

(1) Collect duplicate containers on at least 5% ofthe water samples for matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate analysis. 

B2.1 Sampling Soils 

Sampling will be performed to determine the nature, magnitude, and extent of the soil contamination. 

Use a stainless steel spoon to collect samples from surface soils. Subsurface soils can be collected while 

wells are being drilled, during excavation and removal of the tanks, from shallow test pits, or using a 

hollow-core soil drill. The DEQ laboratory has no special equipment to collect subsurface soils, beyond 

using augers and core samplers. A sufficient number of samples must be taken to represent the area that 

is being evaluated. Samples will be collected according to procedures outlined in A Compendium of 

Superfund Field Operations Methods (EPA/540/P-87/001). Note: for DEQ staff, this compendium 

document may be foimd on Q-Net under the fracking number of "EPA87-LAB-0008-RGD". 

All soil samples will be discrete samples unless a site-specific plan has been developed to collect 

composite samples for a specified purpose. Composite sampling, achieved by collecting several roughly 

equal sub-samples and thoroughly mixing to form one sample, is NOT acceptable for the analysis of 

volatile materials in any situation. Soil samples should contain as few cobbles or stones as possible, 

unless you vvish them to be included in the analysis. 

B2.1.1 Hand Augers 

Hand augers can be used to collect samples at depths up to approximately 3 feet. The sample is extmded 

into an aluminum or stainless steel pan followed by immediate placement into appropriate sample 

containers. It is possible to obtain discrete depths by forcing the soil core from the auger and collecting 

the depth of interest. The project manager shall assess whether a lined or stainless steel auger is 

necessary. 

B2.1.2 Test Pits 

Test pits may be excavated by hand or by using power equipment such as a backhoe to permit detailed 

examination and a better understanding of the nature and extent of the contamination. Samples are 

collected from the walls or floor of the pit after removing approximately 3 inches of the exposed surface 

layer. Samples are placed directly into the appropriate sample containers. Samplers must be made aware 

of the hazards of entering a test pit. Safety fraining courses should cover confined space entry and 

sloping/shoring of test pits. 

B2.1.3 Boreholes 

Subsurface soil samples can be collected from boreholes using a split-spoon sampler during drilling 

operations. Drill cuttings are screened using an organic vapor analyzer (OVA) to determine where 

samples should be collected. Note: Most screening is done using-a photo-ionization detector (PID) with a 

10.2eV lamp. The split-spoon sample will be collected according to the ASTM D1586 standard 

penetration test method and the sample will be fransferred directly from the split spoon into the 

appropriate sample containers. All soil classifications will be performed using the ASTM D2487 soil 

classification method. 

Version 2.0 Page 11 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

B2.2 Petroleum in Soils 

Methods for analysis are designated in Oregon's Cleanup Rules, for Leaking Petroleum UST Systems 

(OAR 340-122-0205 through 340-122-0360). Pefroleum products in soil are first identified by a 

hydrocarbon identification test (HCID), and then quantified by the appropriate total pefroleum 

hydrocarbon (TPH) method. The procedures for several of these methods were developed jointly with the 

Washington Department of Ecology and are referred to as the Northwest Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 

Methods (NWTPH) 

B2.2.1 NWTPH Methocjs 

• NWTPH-HCID is a qualitative screen used to determine which pefroleum products (if any) are 

present, and what subsequesnt quantitative methods may be required. 

• NWTPH-Gx is the quantitative method for gasoline. 

• NWTPH-Dx is the quantitative method for diesel. 

• TPH- 1664 Modified is the quantitative method for soils containing lubricating oils and bunker 

fiiels. 

• TPH-1664 is for quantification of generic petroleum hydrocarbons in water. 

B2.2.2 Other Organics 

Other common analyses used to identify or characterize unknown organic contaminants include MTBE, 

MBAS, glycol/fluorescein, lignin-tannin, total organic carbon (TOC), chemical oxygen demand (COD), 

total organic halogens (TOX), and formaldehyde. 

• Oxygenated Fuel Additives such as MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) or Ethanol:. MTBE 

was.recently phased out as a fuel additive and replaced most commonly with Ethanol. There may 

be other oxygenates of interest depending on the fiael blend. MTBE, Ethanol and other 

oxygenates have been included with the constituents that can be measured by Method 8260C. 

• MBAS (methylene blue active substances): 

MBAS includes anionic surfactants such as LAS (linear alkylbenzene sulfonates), other 

sulfonates and sulfate esters. This is a non-specific colorimetric test that can detect the presence 

of detergents. 

• PCBs and Chlorinated Pesticides: 

PCBs and chlorinated pesticides are both extracted by the same method, therefore a single 

container maiy be used to sample for these two analyses. Other organic tests require a separate 

container for each method of extraction. 

• PAHs 

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are semivolatile compoimds that are associated with 

petroleum products and some are known carcinogens. They are solvent extracted and can be 

analyzed by GC/MS or GC/MS in SIM mode (lower detection limits) 

B2.3 Water 

Sampling water for petroleum constituents may be necessary to determine whether contamination has 

migrated to groundwater of nearby surface water. Physical evidence such as odors, organic films on the 

surface of water, and soil discoloration are good indicators ofthe migration of contaminants to water. 

Surface water locations may include stteams, brooks, or wetland areas that are adjacent to or 

downgradient from underground storage tanks. Groundwater samples are typically collected from the 

Version 2.0 Page 12 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

uppermost aquifer, but may also include samples from deeper aquifers, and from nearby residential, 

indusfrial, and municipal wells. 

Note; Fuel oxygenates are much more soluble in water than petroleum products and often migrate faster 

and farther than pefroleum hydrocarbon related constituents. 

All long-term surface water sampling requires an approved site-specific QAPP (refer to A9.2). 

B2.3.1 Surface water 

Surface water samples are best collected using a stainless steel bucket (unless sample for metals). Before 

collecting a sample, the container should be rinsed out with water from the area to be sampled. Then 

collect a fresh sample. Avoid dipping-the bottle into the sample. If possible, pour from the collection 

container, with minimal agitation, into the sample bottle. Residue from the outside surface of the bottle, 

or your hands, could contaminate samples or expose you to hazardous materials. If a stainless sampling 

container is not available, dip the sample bottle directly into the water, install lid, and wipe off the outside 

ofthe container with a paper towel. 

B2.3.2 Groundwater 

Monitoring wells without dedicated pumps may be sampled using dedicated or disposable bailers. DEQ 

personnel^ who are performing the sampling event may request disposable bailers from the DEQ 

laboratory.. Sample Coordinator. 

Before collecting drinking water or irrigation well samples, purge the water lines. Fill the sample 

container directly from the tap imless the sample is to be split. Ensure that split samples are 

homogeneous by filling a large clean container, shake container to mix, and pour into appropriate bottles. 

Samples used to measure field parameters (temperature, pH, DO, etc.) or samples collected in purge vials 

for VOC analyses cannot be split in this manner. They must be filled individually, directiy from the tap 

or bailer. All samples from a given site should be representative. 

All monitoring wells must be properly installed and developed as specified in the DEQ's Groundwater 

Monitoring Well Drilling, Construction, and Decornmissioning guidance document. Constmction of 

wells must also meet Water Resource Division's mles and regulations. Nonstandard wells or problems 

encountered during sampling should be noted in the field log and in subsequent reports. 

B2.3.3 Residentiar Water Samples 

The following procedures should be employed when sampling residential water supplies: 

• Obtain permission to access property and obtain samples for analysis. 

• Inspect the water system to locate the tap nearest to the wellhead. Samples should be collected 

prior to any treatment units (UV units, reverse osmosis, etc.) if possible. 

• Purge the system for a few minutes to fiush the plumbing and holding tanks so that the sample 

collected is as representative ofthe ground water as that system can produce. Remove any faucet 

aerators and reduce water fiow prior to collecting samples. Collect the sample directiy from the 

tap into the sample containers. Samples for VOCs are to be collected according to procedures 

outiined in DEQ's Field Sampling Reference Guide (DEQ86-LAB-0002-QAG). 

Additional sampling procedures may be found in DEQ's Water Quality Monitoring (WQM) section's 

Mode of Operation Manual (MOM) (DEQ03-LAB-0036-SOP) 

Version 2.0. Page 13 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

(http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/techrpts/technicaldocs.htm)., which includes procedures for sampling 

rivers, sfreams, estuaries, lakes, groimdwater wells, soil, shellfish, fish, and sediment. 

B2.4 Vapors 

Refer to the DEQ Guidance for Assessing and Remediating Vapor Intrusion in Buildings to make 

appropriate risk-based decisions about vapor intmsion into indoor air at environmental cleanup and 

Underground Storage Tank (UST) cleanup sites when the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) shows the 

potential for vapor intmsion. 

B3 Sample Handling and Custody 

Sample integrity must be maintained throughout the collection, fransport, storage, and analysis process. 

Consequently all field activities must be fully documented, the samples must be clearly identified, and 

custody procedures followed in both field and laboratory operations. 

The primary objective of chain-of-custody procedures is to provide an accurate and legally defensible 

written or computerized record that can be used to trace the possession and handling of a sample from 

collection through completion of all required laboratory analyses. A sample is considered in custody 

when it is: 

• In someone's physical possession; 

• In someone's view; or 

• Locked up or kept in a secured area that is restricted to authorized personnel. 

All changes in sample possession must be fully and completely documented, with the date, time, and 

. persons relinquishing and receiving the sainples on the appropriate chain-on-custody record. 

B3.1 Field Documentation 

The following types of field documentation should be maintained as part of the sample handling and 

custody record. Additional types of documentation may be relevant and should be identified in the sitespecific SAP. 

Field logbooks; 

Site observations and photographs (with written descriptions); 

Sample collectors; 

Date/time of sample collection; 

Sample number; 

Location of sampling station (include latitude/longitude); 

Number and type of samples shipped; 

Number of shipping containers sent; 

Equipment numbers and/or calibration infonnation; 

Sample collection forms; and -

Analytical request forms. 

B3.2 Field Custody Procedures 

To ensure proper custody while in the field, the following custody procedures will be followed: 

• Sample bottles from containers that appear to have been compromised shall not be used; 

Version 2.0 Page 14 of 27 09/08/2010 
• 

Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

The sample collector will assume responsibility for the samples until transferred to another 

person following the appropriate chain-of-custody procedures; 

All sample data will be recorded in ink in a field notebook and on the appropriate field forms; 

• A site team leader will assess if additional samples are required; 

• All samples requiring thermal preservation must be shipped with an appropriate temperature 

blank (in each cooler), which will (at a minimum) consist of a 100-mL polyethylene bottle filled 

with clean water; Altematively, a random sample container will used as the temperature blank. 

• Each cooler (shipping container) in which samples are packed will be sealed and accompanied 

by one copy of the chain-of-custody record that is sealed in a zip-lock bag and taped to the 

inside Hd of the shipping container; 

• A separate chain-of-custody record will accompany each shipment of samples; 

• Packaging, marking, labeling, and shipping of samples will comply with all regulations 

promulgated by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 49 CFR 171-177, and Intemational Air 

Transport Association (lATA); and 

• Freight bills and bills of lading will be maintained as part ofthe permanent project record. 

B3.3 Laboratory Custody Procedures 

Transfer of the samples into laboratory custody will follow standard custody procedures and be fiilly 

documented on a Chain-of-Custody form. (The DEQ lab uses DEQ06-LAB-0054-FORM, available on QNet). The sample receiver shall note the condition ofthe shipping containers and the custody seals (i.e., 

broken, unbroken). The laboratory individual responsible for sample intake shall document the condition 

of individual samples in the shipping container as well as the temperature of the container upon receipt 

(recording the temperature of the temperature blank or if no temperature blank is present, recording the 

temperature of one of the samples in the cooler). If the shipping contairier, any individual sample 

containers, or the shipping temperature is out of control, the laboratory should contact their client for 

instractions on how to proceed with sample processing. The laboratory should follow the procedures 

documented in its Quality Manual for chain-of-custody sample handling. 

B4 Analytical Methods 

B4.1 Introduction 

All analytical methods used on samples from UST inspections must comply with relevant requirements of 

applicable federal or state programs for which they were collected (e.g.. Clean Water Act - CWA, Safe 

Drinking Water Act - SDWA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - RCRA, Clean Air Act - CAA, 

etc.), or EPA-approved altemate methods. The most recently approved methods under the CWA and 

SDWA were promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 136) on July 21, 2003. 

Current, adopted methods under RCRA SW-846 can be obtained from the EPA website at 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/sw846.htm. 

All results for analytical testing on soil and solid matrix samples for Organic and Inorganic 

analyses must be reported on a dry weight basis and identified as such in the final report. 

Wet weight result / % solids = Dry weight result [Equation B-1] 

Version 2.0 Page 15 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

B4.2 Methods 

Table B4-1 below lists the classes of analytes that are typically ofthe greatest interest for the UST and 

HOT programs, as well as the preferred analytical methods. This table provides a starting point for 

selecting analytical methods for site specific QA Plans. 

A list ofthe routine analytical methods that the DEQ laboratory uses is contained in the Field Sampling 

Reference Guide (DEQ86-LAB-0002-QAG). Laboratories performing analyses of UST samples must 

employ the methods referenced or use approved methods from the source documents. Current, adopted 

methods under RCRA SW-846 can be obtained from the EPA website at 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/sw846.htm. Since the list of adopted analytical methods is 

subject to periodic update, contact the UST or LUST project manager or DEQ laboratory for a list of 

currently approved methods Sites specific QA plans should outline the specific analytes and limits of 

quantitation (LOQ) that are expected. 

Table B4-1 Analytical Methods References 

Analytical Methods References^ 

Parameters 

Inorganic Analysis 

Lead 

Lead 

Organic Analysis 

HCID 

NWTPH-G as 

gasoline 

NWTPH-D as diesel 

NWTPH-O as motor 

oil 

PCBs 

Oil & Grease 

(Hexane Extractable 

Material) 

Semi Volatiles (PAH) 

'Method;', y. ,' , .,"5 

EPA 601 OC 

EPA 6020A 

• ' ^ :' ' • ; / 

NWTPH-HCID 

NWTPH-GX 

NWTPH-DX 

NWTPH-DX 

EPA 8081A (8000C) 

Alternative - 8270D 

EPA 1664 

EPA 8270D-SIM 

EPA 8330 

-Technique 

ICP 

ICP/MS 

Capillary GC/FID 

Purge & Trap 

GC/FID 

Sonic Ext GC/FID 

Sonic ExL GC/FID 

Solvent Ext. 

GC/EC 

Alt: GC/MS 

Hexane Ext. GC 

GC/MS 

HPLC 

LOQ^ (approximate) 

Water (Soil) 

0.1 mg/L (10 mg/Kg) 

0.005 mg/L (1 mg/Kg) 

• ',•' ':•'[ "• •--i-,!?'^'-.'-• 

not quantified 

0.25 mg/L (20 mg/Kg) 

0.25 mg/L (25 mg/Kg) 

0.5 mg/L (100 mg/Kg) 

0.001 ug/L 

5 mg/L 

0.001-0.005 mg/L 

^ Test t^ethods for Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, USEPA SW-846, 3"* edition (Updates IIV), February 2007 

^ LOQ = Limit of Quantitation 

Version 2.0 Page 16 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Volatile Organics 

Volatile Organics in 

air 

MTBE, Ethanol and 

Oxygenates 

Percent solids (for Dry 

weight correction) 

EPA 8260C 

EPA TO-15 

EPA 8260C 

CLP-ILM05.3(or 

equivalent) 

Purge & Trap 

GC/MS 

GC/MS 

Purge & Trap 

GC/MS 

Gravimetric 

0.0005 - 0.001 mg/L 

0.005-0.01 Omg/L 

(ketones) 

0.5 ppbv 

0.001 - 025. mg/L (varies 

by compound) 

0.1% 

B5 Quality Control 

Because of the role data plays in determining regulatory courses Of action and decision-making, a QA/QC 

program to ensure data reliability and quality data is essential. These efforts are based on Department 

policy outlined in DEQ's Agency Quality Management Plan (DEQ03-LAB-0006-QMP). 

: /=•"• " • ' 

IC- •-•. ' • 

DEQ recognizes that regulatory actions and environmental decision-making requires data and information 

of the highest possible quality. Consequently, DEQ has implemented an agency-wide Quality 

Management System, which is documented in the DEQ Quality Management Plan (DEQ03-LAB-0006-

QMP). Every procedural aspect, from project planning, sample collection, laboratory analysis, to data 

assessment, imparts a significant and often critical bearing on environmental decisions. 

B5.1 Project Planning 

DEQ employs a team-based project planning approach that draws together diverse interests and 

participants to define the scope and framework of a project before actual work begins. This QAPP 

describes and defines the general quality objectives ofthe UST and HOT programs. Site-specific quality 

objectives are often fiirther defined by site specific QA Plans or sampling and analysis plans. This 

"graded" approach to quality system management ensures that quality activities are conducted throughout 

the project, but allows for the fiexibility to tailor quality-related activities to individual projects. All site 

specific QA Plans or sampling and analysis plans are to receive a quality qssurance review and be 

approved by the DEQ project manager and quality assurance officer (or QA designee). 

It is understood that project/sampling plans for voluntary clean-up activities will be submitted to DEQ 

after the work has been performed, however, DEQ must still review and approve the activities prior to 

issuing final decision on the site.' For projects initiated by DEQ or those having direct DEQ oversight, the 

QA Plans should be approved prior to the start of the project. 

B5.2 Field QC Requirements 

B5.2.1 Training Field Personnel 

All field personnel must be trained in acceptable sampling techniques, sample collection, preservation and 

handling procedures, and field instmment operation and documentation procedures prior to collection of 

samples under the UST or HOT programs. Proper ttaining is critical to ensure representative samples are 

collected, documented and contamination is minimized. 

Version 2.0 Page 17 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

B5.2.2 Field QC Samples 

Field fransport (trip) blanks will be submitted for each site survey requiring volatile organics analysis. 

The blanks are prepared by the analyzing laboratory using distilled, de-ionized water and shipped with the 

other sample bottles to_ the field and then retumed to the analyzing laboratory with the' samples for 

analysis. Do not separate fransport blanks from other samples. They must be packaged with the 

environmental samples collected during the sampling event. 

Transfer blanks will be collected for each site survey. The transfer blank consists of two VOC purge vials 

filled with purified water at the site and shipped back with the samples. Transfer blanks are used to assess 

potential contamination of samples from the site environment. 

Specific procedures for VOC sampling are outlined in the DEQ Field Sampling Reference Guide 

(DEQ86-LAB-0002-QAG). 

Field duplicates will be collected when the site survey has more than ten samples or the sample collection 

takes more than one day to complete. If more frequent duplicates are required, it must be stated in the site 

specific QA Plan or Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP). Field duplicate samples are taken within five 

minutes of collecting the original samples and include all the sub-samples. These samples are shipped 

back with the other sample bottles for analysis. The use of mafrix spikes and matrix spike-duplicates are 

described in DEQ's Field Sampling Reference Guide (DEQ86-LAB-0002-QAG).. 

I 

B5.3 Laboratory QC Requirements 

Routine quality control procedures shall be- outlined in the analyzing laboratory's Quality Manual 

(however named) and are used for all samples that are submitted for this project. Routine procedures 

shall follow NELAC standards, which include: 

1. Daily instmment calibration and/or calibration verification prior to analysis of any samples. 

2. Calibrations must be verified according to the analytical methods using a standard source other 

than the source used for the instrument calibration 

3. Method blank analysis daily or at a frequency of 1/20 samples, whichever is greater. 

4. Analysis of a Laboratory Confrol Sample (LCS) at a frequency of 1/ per batch of 20 or fewer 

samples This sample is sometimes referred to a blank spike. 

5. Analysis of a matrix spike at a frequency of 1/20 samples or as the matrix changes to assess 

accuracy and identify possible matrix interferences. 

6. Analysis of laboratory sample duplicates or mafrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD) on a 

frequency of 1/20 samples to assess the precision ofthe analysis. 

7. Determination of the minimum reporting limit based on detection limit studies and the 

concentration range of calibration standards. 

The expectations for analytical precision and accuracy fall within the overall expectations for precision 

and accuracy as described in . Precision and accuracy will vary with the analytical method and laboratory 

procedures. The laboratory must qualify any results that do not meet the acceptance criteria on the 

analytical reports. The analyzing laboratory must make precision and accuracy statements available upon 

request '-

Most project will only require the information necessary for a Stage 2A validation as defmed in EPA-540-

R-08-005 (Guidance for Labeling Extemally Validated Laboratory Analytical Data for Superfund Use) to 

be submitted. This means the analyzing laboratory must include, in addition to sample results, sample 

receipt conditions and sample-related QC results (method blanks, LCS, matrix spikes and laboratory 

Version 2.0 Page 18 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

duplicate). If additional validation is required for a specific project, it should be defined in a QA plan or 

sampling and analysis plan. 

B5.4 Data Assessment 

Data assessment, verification, and validation are the quality-management tools used to determine if 

project data meet the planned DQOs and requirements defined in this QAPP and in site-specific SAPs. 

During data assessment and validation, project data should be evaluated for completeness, correctness, 

and compliance against the method, and procedural or confractual requirements ofthe project. In the 

event that the analytical data is compromised in some way, data qualifying flags must be used to explain 

the variance. 

Laboratories must qualify all results that are affected by QC exceptions, as noted above, or other events 

that affect the interpretation ofthe analytical results. The following data qualifying flags are standard 

USEPA validation flags that can be used by analytical laboratories providing services for UST and HOT 

projects. The "Q" flag should be used to identify QC issues that may be relevant to interpretation ofthe 

analytical and are not identified using one ofthe other flags. All "Q" flags must have explanatory 

statements. 

Note: Laboratories may use different or additional data flags; however, each flag must be defined 

unambiguously in the analytical report. 

• J - the result is an estimate because the measured sample concentration is less than the laboratory's method 

reporting limit (MRL) but greater than the method detection limit (MDL), or laboratory QC criteria were 

not satisfied. 

• J+ - the result is an estimate (see "J"), and may be biased high. 

• J- - the result is an estimate (see "J"), and may be biased low. 

• B - the blank was contaminated with the analyte being reported. 

• U - the measured sample concentration is less than the laboratory's reported quantitation limit (MRL). 

• N - the analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is sufficient evidence to make a 

"tentative identification." 

• R - the data are unusable due to serious QC failures. The presence or absence of an analyte. cannot be 

verified. Resampling and/or reanalysis is required for verification. 

• UJ - the analyte was analyzed for but not detected at the reported quantitation limit. Result is also 

estimated because of QC failures. 

• NJ - the analysis has indicated the presence of an analyte that has been "tentatively identified" and the 

associated value represents its approximate concentration. 

• Q - not all quality control criteria were satisfied. 

Data validation and assessment are done by evaluating data against five Quality Assurance elements: 

• Precision; 

• Accuracy; 

• Representativeness; 

• Comparability; and 

• Completeness. 

The generic data assessment criteria for project data is discussed and defined in sections B5.3.1 to 

B5.3.5. DEQ validates the data against performance measures and DQOs established in this QAPP 

and in site-specific QA Plans and SAPs, may assign QC data quality levels (DQL) of A+, A, B, C, D, 

E, and F following the criteria detailed in DEQ guidance document; Data Validation Guidance for the 

•41-

Version2.0 Page 19 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

LASAR Database (DEQ09-LAB-0006-QAG) used by DEQ's QA section, which is specific to the 

analytical method, sample matrix, and the analyte of interest: 

• A+ - Data of known quality; collected by DEQ; meets QC limits established in the QAPP. 

• A - Data of known quality; submitted by entities outside of DEQ; meets QC limhs established in a DEQapproved QAPP. 

• B - Data of known but lesser quality; data may not meet established QC but is within marginal acceptance 

criteria; or data value may be accurate, but controls used to measure DQO elements failed (e.g., batch failed 

to meet blank QC limit); such data may be usefiil in limited situations or in supporting other, higher quality 

data, (essentially the same function as the EPA "J" flag") 

• C - Data of unacceptable Quality; data are typically discarded (Void) in response to analytical failure. 

Note: There may be rare instances where there may be field data that may still meet DQOs as determined 

by the Project Officer. In these cases a result should be entered (and "estimated" instead of "Void" however 

the DQL must remain at C. There must also be a comment in the final report that explains the qualification. 

(Essentially the same as the EPA "R" flag) 

• D - Incomplete data; no sample collected or no reportable results, typically due to sampling failure. 

• E - Data of unknown quality or known to be of poor quality; no QA information is available, data could be 

valid, but no evidence is available to prove either way. Data is provided for educational use only. 

• F - Exceptional event; "A" quality data (data is of known quality), but is not representative of sampling 

conditions as required'in the QAPP or SAP (e.g., an air particulate sampler fails to sample the full time 

period because adverse conditions such as a forest fire overloaded the sampling equipment). 

DEQ uses the validation criteria found in Data Validation Guidance for the LASAR Database 

(DEQ09-LAB-0006-QAG) as guidance for applying DQLs to the data. The DEQ QA section should 

be contacted when developing DQL criteria for site-specific SAPs that are different than that found in 

this QA Piatt. 

85.4.1 Precision measurements 

Precision is a measure of the scatter of the data when more than one measurement is made on the same 

sample. Scatter is commonly attributed to sampling activities or chemical analysis. Duplicate samples 

are collected in the field to assess precision attributable to sampling activities. Replicate analyses are 

perfonned with each test to assess data variability attributable to laboratory analysis. Precision will be 

expressed as the relative percent difference (RPD). Project managers should indicate their preference as 

to what sample should be duplicated. 

Site-specific QAPPs may request tighter control limits to initiate corrective action. For concentrations 

well above the reporting limit (5x the RL), 20% RPD for water samples and 35% RPD for Soil samples is 

normally acceptable. If concenfrations are low, precision will be assessed by difference. The analyzing 

laboratory shall determine their confrol limit as specified in section Dl.l. Until the analyzing laboratory 

has collected sufficient data, it is acceptable to arbitrarily set the control lunit to that presented in the cited 

method. The DEQ QA section will review agency sampling events with duplicate samples and prepare a 

QA report when requested. 

B5.4.2 Accuracy measurements 

Accuracy is a measure of the difference between observed test results and tme sample concenfration. 

Inasmuch as trae concenfrations are not known, accuracy is inferred from recovery data determined from 

standard reference materials and by matrix spikes. 

Version 2.0 Page 20 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Some methods specify control limits. For those methods that do not, routine accuracy for inorganic 

parameters is 100 ± 20-25% recovery for LCS, and 100 ± 10-15 % for calibration verification. For 

organic parameters the routine accuracy is ± 30% for LCS and 100 ± 20% for calibration verification. 

Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates are used on analyses where contaminants are not routinely detected. 

Samples that are collected for this project plan may not be spiked. However, accuracy shall be assessed 

from other samples analyzed at the same time. A site-specific QAPP may require a sample from the 

project be spiked. Some organic methods require surrogate spikes on each sample, from which accuracy 

is assessed. Inorganic parameters typically have an accuracy limit of 100 ± 25%, organic parameters are 

100 ± 30-50%, The analyzing laboratory shall determine their confrol limit as specified in section D1.2. 

Until the analyzing laboratory has collected sufficient data, it is acceptable to arbitrarily set the control 

limit to that presented in the cited method. 

B5.4.3 Representativeness 

Representativeness is a measure of how closely the observed test results on the sample matrix reflect the 

actual site conditions. Sampling procedures must be designed so results represent the matrix being 

measured. Sample handling protocols for storage, preservation, and transportation have been developed 

to preserve the representation of the collected samples. Proper documentation will establish that 

protocols have been followed and sample identification and integrity assured. Transfer blanks, transport 

blanks, and field duplicates will be used to assess field and transport contamination and method variation. 

Laboratory method-blanks will be run on a daily basis. 

Since special or unusual sample conditions might affect the accuracy of an analysis, it is helpfiil to have 

information about the sample matrix. Results of such matrix tests may give additional insight to the 

representativeness of the analyses. Tests that describe the sample matrix may be requested on a sitespecific basis. 

B5.4.4 Comparability 

The objective of this parameter is to assure that data developed during the investigation are either directly 

comparable, or comparable with defined limitations, to literature data or other applicable criteria. 

Comparability of the data will be maintained by using EPA approved procedures. The analyzing 

laboratory shall list analytical methods used in their Quality Manual (however named). If a site-specific 

QAPP requires a new method, it should include how the method compares to other methods. The 

analyzing laboratory shall measure comparability of test methods not cited in EPA or DEQ 

documentation by evaluating inter-laboratory splits or altemate test procedures. 

B5.4.5 Completeness 

Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data obtained from the analytical measurement system 

compared to the amount that you expected to obtain. It is defined as the total number of samples taken 

for which valid analytical data are obtained divided by the total number of samples collected and 

multiplied by 100. For this project at least 90%) ofall samples tested should yield valid (non-rejected) 

data. 

B6 Instrument Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance 

All instmments and equipment will be tested, inspected, and maintained according to the manufacturer's 

guidelines and recommendations. Regular analytical performance audits will be carried out as prescribed 

by NELAC standards. 

Version 2.0 Page 21 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

B7 Instrument Calibration and Frequency 

All instmments and equipment will be operated and calibrated according to the manufacturer's guidelines 

and recoinmendations as prescribed by the analytical methods and the NELAC standards. Personnel who 

have been properly trained in these procedures will operate and calibrate the instruments. 

B7.1 Instrument Calibration 

Instruments are calibrated and/or verified each time they are used. The degree of calibration and 

verification depends upon the instrament and method: 

• Thermometers are referenced periodically to an NIST certified thermometer. Results are 

documented. 

• pH meters are calibrated with pH 7.0, pH 4.0, and pH 10.0 buffers. Results are documented in 

logbooks. 

B7.2 Field Screening Instruments 

Field screening data are generally qualitative in nature and often used to provide real-time data for health 

and safety purposes. Data generated from this type of sampling provides: 

• Identification of soil, water, air, and waste locations that have a high likelihood of showing 

contamination through subsequent laboratory analysis; 

• Information used for health and safety consideration'during site reconnaissance and subsequent 

intrasive activities; and 

• Qualitative data if the contaminant is known and the instrument is calibrated to that 

substance. 

Instruments will be calibrated and maintained according to manufacturer's instractions. 

B8 Supplies and Consumables 

The analyzing laboratory shall have written procedures for inspecting and accepting supplies and 

consumables. 

B9 Non-Direct Measurements 

Data from non-measurement sources, such as computer databases, computer programs, or scientific 

publications, must be approved for use by the Department in a site-specific QAPP or a Corrective Action 

Plan that complies with the requirements of OAR 340-122-0250. 

B10 Data Management 

Data management includes data entry, validation, transfer, storage, and reporting. Precautions shall be 

taken each time the data are reduced, recorded, calculated, or transcribed to prevent introduction of errors 

or loss of information. 

1. Collection: For both manual data and computerized data acquisition systems, intemal quality confrol 

checks shall be developed and implemented to avoid errors in the data collection process. 

2. Validation: Data validation is defined as the "process whereby data are accepted or rejected based 

on a set of criteria." 

3. Transfers: Data fransfer steps shall be minimized. Procedures shall be established to ensure that 

data fransfer is error free (or there is an acceptable error rate), no information is lost in transfer, and 

data output is 100%) recoverable from data input. 

Version 2.0 Page 22 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

4. Storage: At each stage of data processing, procedures shall be established to ensure data integrity 

and security. Raw data sheets must be retained on file or stored electronically. Physical samples 

should be stored for 30 days after the data has been released from the laboratory with appropriate 

attention to proper disposal of potentially hazardous materials. 

5. Reduction: Data reduction includes any process that changes either the form of expression, the 

numerical value of data results, or the quantity of data. This includes validation, verification, and 

statistical or mathematical analysis of the data. Reduction is distinct from data transfer in that it 

entails a change in the dimensions ofthe data set. 

Data reported to the DEQ for posting in LASAR must be submitted with the prescribed data elements . 

The (project manager must determine .whether the analytical data should be loaded into LASAR. The 

project manager's decision to submit the data for LASAR upload shall be based on whether the data 

measures an impact on the environment This data may prove usefial for multimedia decision and should 

be available for the entire agency. Data that is used to determine composition of unreleased sources need 

not be loaded into LASAR. 

When samples are split between a contractor and the DEQ laboratory, the project manager shall ensure 

that the analytical data of contract laboratories will be submitted to the DEQ laboratory. 

I Version 2.0 Page 23 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Group C. ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT 

C1 Assessment and Response Actions 

The analyzing laboratory shall document assessment procedures as prescribed in NELAC standards. 

Such documentation shall be made available to DEQ persoimel upon request. 

C1.1 Technical System Audits 

EPA conducts triennial on-site evaluations of the DEQ laboratory to assess analytical capabilities for 

inorganic, TTHM, and VOC parameters under the SDWA. Any substantive deficiencies cited will be 

corrected immediately, or within the time frame set by the evaluator. Substantive recommendations will 

be implemented as soon as possible. 

Laboratories should be participating in at least annual proficiency testing studies for the UST parameters 

(twice per year is sfrongly suggested). Laboratories that are accredited under NELAP are required to 

perform 2 studies per year for accredited parameters. 

• Water Pollution (WP) Performance Evaluation Studies 

This study is used for laboratories that analyze non-potable water (surface water, ground 

water, waste water). 

• Soil Soild Waste Performance Evaluation per NELAC 2003 standard for select analytes. 

Laboratories that are accredited under NELAP have a general assessment performed by the 

accrediting agency, (for laboratories accredited through the State of Oregon, they are assessed by 

DEQ LEAD staff. 

The DEQ Project Manager may perform (or arrange for) random site specific TSAs or TSA's based 

on document review or complaints. 

CI.2 Quality Systems Audits of DEQ 

The DEQ UST program staff and DEQ QA Officer shall participate in system audits conducted by the 

EPA Region X QA Management Office, on a triennial basis, or as requested by Program Management, 

and in National Performance Audit Programs (NPAPs) when they are made available. Additionally, 

annual audits on random projects should be performed by the agency QA officer. Such evaluations 

provide tiie opportunity for an objective assessment of the adequacy of resources, adherence to data 

generating and processing procedures, and review of quality confrol and quality assurance activities. It 

shall be scheduled through the QA Officer and conducted according to protocols published in Standard 

reference documents such as EPA's Reference to Systems Audits, (RA5). 

C1.3 Performance Evaluation Audits 

Laboratories should perform routine audits as prescribed in NELAC standards. 

C2 Reports to Management 

Project managers are responsible for reporting UST cleanup activities in their respective regions. 

Procedures for preparing these reports may vary between regions. The UST Program also provides EPA 

Region X with semi-annual activity reports 

Version 2.0 Page 24 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Group D. DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY 

D1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification 

Upon completion of the analyses, the analyzing laboratories will review the data packet and provide a 

specific report for that sampling event. The analyzing laboratory will submit this QA/QC report with the 

analytical data report. This report may also be loaded into LASAR, the electronic database, for use by 

DEQ personnel. 

Each laboratory shall have their own procedure for validating the quality of data they generate. The 

analyzing laboratory must check precision and accuracy prior to reporting data. Acceptance criteria from 

calibrations and verifications are based on control limits found in the analytical methods. Replicate 

analyses for precision, and QC standard or spike recoveries for accuracy or on limits specified in this 

QAPP or by approved site-specific QAPPs or SAPs. 

Note: Laboratory historical confrol limits may be used if they are at least as restrictive as the QAPP 

limits or have been approved by the Project Manager. Procedures for establishing confrol limits are 

described in this section. 

Data review, verification, and validation procedures and requirements are discussed in Section B5 -

Quality Control. For the purposes of this QA Plan, analytical data with DQLs of A+, A, or B will be 

acceptable for use. Ifthe DEQ project manager feels that data with the Quality level of "C" is satisfactory 

for their needs it must be clearly documented in thefr final report as to how the DQOs can still be met. 

D1.1 Precision 

The absolute Relative Percent Difference (RPD) is used to assess the precision of the analytical method, 

calculated using the equation: 

RPD= Xs-Xd x100% [Equation D-1] 

[Xs + Xd]/2 

Where: 

Xs = result for the sample; and 

Xd = result for the duplicate sample. 

The units of Xs must equal to those of Xd 

The average RPD is calculated using the previous year's data. Outliers are excluded from the data set 

using Dixon's test. A maximum of ten percent of the data can be excluded from the data set using this 

procedure. Confrol limits are calculated by multiplying the average RPD by 3.27, which represents the 

99%) confidence limit. If insufficient data is available it is acceptable to arbifrarily set the confrol limit to 

that presented in the cited DEQ-approved method. 

D1.2 Accuracy 

The accuracy of the data set is determined using spiked samples. The accuracy is calculated using the 

equation: 

Version 2.0 Page 25 of 27 , 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

2^2sl2kx100% [Equation D-2] 

Where: 

A = recovery for the added spike; 

Xss = result for the spiked sample; 

Xs = result for the sample; 

T = tme value ofthe added spike. 

Average percent recovery is calculated using the previous year's data (at least 20 data points). Outliers 

are excluded from the data set by the use of Dixon's test. A maximum of ten percent of the data may be 

excluded from the data set using this procedure. If insufficient data is available it is acceptable to 

arbifrarily set the confrol limit to that presented in the cited DEQ-approved method. Waming and Control 

Limits are set as follows: 

Waming limits = A (avg.) +2sx 

Confrol limits = A (avg.) +3sx 

Where: Sx = standarddeviationof the mean of the data set 

D2 Corrective Action 

Corrective action is initiated whenever an "out of control" condition is identified (e.g., either conttol 

limits or holding time has been exceeded). Corrective action generally consists of 

• Calibrating the analj^ical system and repeating the analysis, if holding time permits. 

• 

• 

The laboratory or field staff are responsible to document the "out of control" conditions and 

the (corrective action taken. During the investigation ofthe "out of control" condition, 

determine the course of corrective action.. 

If time for reanalysis exceeds the allowable holding time for the analyte, the project manager 

and sampler are notified and resampling is requested. 

However, if resampling is not feasible and the particular analytical results are not critical, 

initial analytical results are flagged and reported as an "estimate," indicating that all QC 

criteria have not been met. 

The analysis of error may also conclude that the sampling method was either incorrect or "out of 

confrol". In these cases, the project manager is notified and either training at the analyzing laboratory 

or in the field with the field staff is recommended. 

D3 Data Usability 

All data that meets the criteria outlined in this QA Plan or a site specific plan is determined to be useable. 

Any data that is qualified shall be assessed by the project manager to ensure that the data collected 

addresses the DEQ's needs to evaluate the UST or HOT site. In other words, ensure the data is still 

suitable to make appropriate agency determinations (such as site closure). 

Version 2.0 Page 26 of 27 09/08/2010 
Department of Environmental Quality UST Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Figure 1 Organizational Chart 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Organizational Chart - UST Program 

Administrator 

Laboratory 

Administrator 

Land Quality 

Quality Assurance 

Officer 

Inorganic Section 

Manager 

Hazardous Waste 

And Tanks 

Program Manager 

Organic Section 

Manager 

Deputy 

Director 

Administrator 

Northwest Region 

Northwest Region 

Cleanup 

Program Manager 

UST Policy 

Coordinator 

UST Project Managers 

Responsible Party . 

Contract Lab 

State Managed 

Contract Lab 

Administrator 

Eastern Region 

1 

Sheila Monroe 

Eastem Region 

Cleanup 

Program Manager 

1 

UST Project 

Mnnn apr« 

Responsible Party 

Contract Lab 

1 

State Managed 

Contract Lab 

Administrator 

Westem Region 

Greg Aitken 

Westem Region 

Cleanup 

Program Manager 

UST Program 

Mfmaoprc 

Responsible Party 

Contract Lab 

State Managed 

Contract Lab 

Version 2.0 Page 27 of 27 09/08/2010 

A