DSHW-2006-002861 - 0901a0688013e797

ATK
ALUANT TECHSYSTEMS
ATK Thiokollnc.
P.O. Box 707
Brigham City, UT 84302-0707
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
22 August 2007
8200-FY07-ST039
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
288 North 1460 West
P. O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880
Attenfion: Dennis R. Downs
00.0^") 7/
AUG 3 1 2005
UTAH DIVISION OF
SOLID & HAZARDOUS WASTE
Subject: ATK Thiokol Inc. Promontory Facility Risk Assessment Process
Description and Waste Characterizafion
Reference: June 22, 2006 DSHW Letter Regarding Quality Assurance Project Plan
for Emission Characterizafion of Open Buming Waste Propellant
Materials
Dear Mr. Downs
Attached is the Final Quality Assurance Project Plan for Emission Characterizafion of
Open Buming Waste Propellant Materials. In response to the Divisions June 22, 2006
letter. Table 3-2 has been updated to include the reporting limits for perchlorate, NH3,
CEM gases, HCN, HCl, and CI2.
Please contact Blair Palmer at [phone] if you have any quesfions conceming these
documents. My telephone number is [phone].
Sincerely
David P. Gosen, P.E.
Director, Environmental Services
FINAL
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
for
EMISSION CHARACTERIZATION OF
OPEN BURNING
WASTE PROPELLANT MATERIALS
Prepared for:
ATK Launch Systems
Promontory Facility
Brigham City, Utah
Prepared by:
URS Corporation
8181 East Tufts Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80237
June 2006
QXIALllY AlsWANCE PROJECT PLAN
for
EMISSION Cm^RACTlEOZATIOM OF
OPENBimi^INQ
WASTEI^KOPELLANT MATERIALS
Apprpvals:
BAi Blair Patthet;.; ATK Lsuinch Systetrts
Date;
^fllifm^
George Goach, ATK tauiicli Sy-siems
i//<vr/^^&^Cp
M
Ghriis Falkenbtii'Sv AliKLaunch
Systems
Sloven L.Bac^0QA; URS (Sualiiy
Assiiiance Officer
Vl/^i
•Jpd^
'1. )I fmif
Dislribution:
• Blair Palmer
• George Gooch
• iGliris Firlkenbcig;
• Johnjp^ Ciirspn
• SteveriGvBuCa
7\TK
ATK
ATK
URS
URS
Final
TABIE OF GONTENTS
Section 1 Project Descnption...... 1-1
1.1 Background I-l
1.2 Tesfing Approach Summary 1-1
1.2.1 Open Detonafion Open Buming Improved Tesfing
Chamber 1-2
1.3 Test Procedures 1-2
Section 2 Project Organization and Responsibility 2-1
2.1 ATK Launch Systems 2-1
2.2 URS Project Manager 2-1
2.3 URS QuaUty Assurance Officer 2-1
2.4 URS Technical SpeciaUst and Field Support Staff 2-2
2.5 UTAH Department of Environmental Quality 2-2
2.6 Analyfical Laboratories 2-2
Section 3 Quality Assurance Objectives for Measurement Data 3-1
3.1 Intended Data Usage 3-1
3.2 General Quality Assurance Considerafions 3-1
3.2.1 Precision 3-2
3.2.2 Accuracy 3-2
3.2.3 Representafiveness 3-2
3.2.4 ComparabiUty 3-2
3.2.5 Completeness 3-3
3.2.6 Sensifivity 3-3
Section 4 Sample Selection and Collection 4-1
4.1 Sampling Methods 4-1
4.1.1 Total Suspended Particulate 4-1
4.1.2 Particulate Metals Analysis 4-2
4.1.3 PmisandPmio 4-2
4.1.4 Carbonyls 4-2
4.1.5 Semivolafile Organic Compounds 4-2
4.1.6 Dioxins/Furans 4-3
4.1.7 Volafile Organic Compounds and Tracer Gas Analysis 4-3
4.1.8 Hydrogen Chloride/Chlorine Analysis 4-3
4.1.9 Confinuous Emission Monitoring 4-3
4.2 Sampling Preparafion, Quality Control, and Measurement 4-4
4.2.1 Calibrafion of Field Instrumentafion 4-4
4.2.2 Preparafion of Sampling Equipment and Containers and
Field Decontaminafion 4-4
4.2.3 Field Blanks, Duplicates, Splits, and Quality Control 4-4
4.2.4 Preservafion, Transportafion, and Storage of Samples 4-5
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGSXPALMEBGMOCAL SETTINGSMEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\OAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 1
URS
Final
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.3 Documentafion... 4-6
Sections Sample Analysis 5-1
5.1 Field Operations 5-1
5.1.1 Sample Container Labeling 5-1
5.1.2 Sample Custody (Custody Seals, Chain-Of-Custody, and
Analysis Request) 5-1
5.2 Laboratory Operafions 5-1
Section 6 Laboratory Calibration Procedures and Frequency 6-1
Section 7 Analytical Procedures 7-1
Section 8 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting 8-1
8.1 DataReducfion 8-1
8.2 Data Validation 8-1
8.2.1 Field Data Validafion 8-1
8.2.2 Laboratory Data Reducfion and Review 8-2
8.2.3 Independent Review 8-3
8.3 Data Reporting 8-8
Section 9 Field and Laboratory Quality Control Checks 9-1
Section 10 Performance and System Audits 10-1
Section 11 Preventive (maintenance 11-1
11.1 Field Equipment 11-1
11.2 Laboratory Equipment 11-1
Section 12 Data Assessment Procedures 12-1
12.1 Precision 12-1
12.2 Accuracy 12-1
12.3 Completeness 12-1
12.4 Representafiveness 12-2
12.5 Comparability 12-2
Section 13 CorrectiveAction 13-1
13.1 Field Changes 13-2
13.2 Laboratory Data 13-2
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ U
URS
Final
TABIE OF CONTENTS
Section 14 Quality Assurance Reports to Management 14-1
Section 15 Miscellaneous 15-1
15.1 Tumaround Time 15-1
Section 16 References 16-1
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Sampling Analysis Methods
Table 3-1 Measurement Quality Objectives
Table 3-2 Maximum Reporting Limits by Analytical Method
Table 4-1 Sample Preservafions and Holding Times Requirements
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 ODOBi Test Facility at DPG
Figure 2-1 Project Organizational Chart
List of Appendices
Appendix A Lists of Analytes
Appendix B Lisfing of Letter of Instmefions
C:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 111
URS
Final
list of Abhreviatidns
ATK ATK Launch Systems
CDD chlorinated dibenzodioxin
CDF chlorinated dibenzofuran
CEM continuous emission monitor
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CI2 chlorine
CO carbon monoxide
COC chain of custody
CO2 carbon dioxide
CVAAS cold vapor atomic absorpfion spectroscopy
DNPH 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
DoT U.S. Department of Transportafion
DPG U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground
DQO Data Quality Objecfive
DSHW Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
ECD electron capture detector
EPA U.S. Environmental Protecfion Agency
FID flame ionizafion detection
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy
HCl hydrogen chloride
HMX octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine
HpCDD Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
HPLC high-performance liquid chromatography
HRGC high-resolufion gas chromatography
HRMS high resolufion mass spectrometry
HpCDF Heptachlorodibenzofuran
HxCDD Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
HxCDF Hexachlorodibenzofuran
IAW in accordance with
ICAP inducfively coupled argon plasma
LCS laboratory control sample
LOI letter of instmcfion
MDL method detecfion limit
MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
URS C:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 1V
Final
UstofAbareviatiqns
NEW net explosive weight
NOx iiitrogen oxides
OB open buming
ODOBi Open Detonafion Open Bum-improved
OCDD octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
OCDF octachlorodibenzofuran
PARCC precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness
PeCDD pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
PeCDF pentachlorodibenzofuran
PETN pentaerythritoltetranitrate
PM Project Manager
PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns
PMio particulate matter smaller than 10 microns
PUF polyeurethane foam plug
QA quality assurance
QAO Quality Assurance Officer
QC quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RCRA Resource Conservafion and Recovery Act
RDX hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,35-triazine
REC record of environmental considerafion
RL reporting limit
RPD relative percent difference
RSD relafive standard deviation
SDG sample delivery group
SFe sulfur hexafluoride
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOP standing operating procedure
SRM standard reference material
SVOC semivolafile organic compound
TCDD tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
TCDF tetrachlorodibenzofuran
TIC tentafively idenfified compound
TM Task Manager
TSP total suspended particulate [matter]
URS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ V
Final
ListofAaarcviations
URS sampling and analysis contractor (formeriy Radian Int.)
UV ultraviolet
VOC volafile organic compound
WDTC West Desert Test Center
URS C:\D0CUMENTS AND SEmNGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ VI
Final
SiCTIOMONE Project Description
1.1 BACKGROUND
ATK Launch Systems (ATK) operates several facilities within the State of Utah for the
producfion of solid rocket motors. Rocket motors are produced for a variety of customers and
generally contain either Class 1.1 or Class 1.3 propellant as defined by the Department of
Transportafion (DoT).
As part of these facilifies, ATK operates three different sites for open buming (OB) of explosive
waste generated during producfion of these motors. These open bum units are currenfiy
managed as interim status Resourcie Conservafion and Recovery Act (RCRA) units with
preparations underway for obtaining full RCRA Subpart X pemiits. The Utah Department of
Environmental Quality Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (DSHW) requires human health
and ecological risk assessments as part ofthe Subpart X permitting process.
Understanding emissions from these units is a necessary component for the risk assessment
process. In 1997, ATK corrunissioned the U.S. Army to test Class 1.1 materials at the
BANGBOX facility located at the Dugway Proving Grounds in westem Utah. Materials tested
included Class 1.1 propellants along with contaminated materials such as cloth and paper wipes,
plastics, and cleaning items. The tests determined emission factors for airbome pollutants
produced when these materials are bumed. These emission factors are used with air dispersion
modeling to help determine downwind impact from open buming.
ATK sfill requires emission factors for the other major class of propellant (Class 1.3) produced at
the Utah facilities. Additional characterization tests are planned in the near future for Class 1.3
materials at the Dugway facilifies. This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is to provide the
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) required to idenfify and quantify emissions from open
buming of these materials.
1.2 TESTING APPROACH SUiWMARY
This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is to provide the quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) required to identify and quanfify the emissions resulfing from the open buming of three
test materials using the Open Detonafion Open Buming Improved (ODOBi) tesfing chamber.
Three test materials will be studied. The first material will be 100% Class 1.3 propellant. The
other two test materials will consists of a mixture of Class 1.3 propellant blended with different
percentages of materials such as cloth, paper, paper wipes, plastics, and cleaning items.
The 85% propellant 15% trash sample was determined by doing a two-week-long survey of the
types and quanfifies of contaminated waste coming and from each live-area waste dock. The
Dock Quardinators responsible for those waste docks completed this survey. The 15% trash
rafion was the result of an analysis of the past three years of bum data on a daily bum basis. This
sample is intended to be representafive of the most of the 1.3 contaminated waste streams treated
at Promontory.
The 65% propellant 35% trash sample was determined very similar to the method for the sample
described above. This is the same sample break-down that was used for the 1.1 propellant
tesfing that ATK completed in the 1997-1998 fime frame.
UICS C;\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132008.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 1-1
Final
SiCTlOHQNE Proiect Description
1.2.1 Open Detonation Open Burning Improved Testing Chamber
The ODOBi site is located in the west desert area of the West Desert Test Center/Dugway
Proving Ground. The ODOBi test facility, shown in Figure 1-1, includes a test chamber with a
removable stack. The ODOBi test chamber and stack are made of 2.54-cm (l-in) and 0.63-cm
(0.25-in) thick steel, respecfively. The chamber consists of top and bottom secfions that, when
bolted together, give an ellipsoidal shape and a volume of approximately 36 m''. An altemate
configurafion is to replace the stack with a venfilation cover. The ventilation cover is basically a
framework of angle iron designed to keep shrapnel from the test within the chamber and prevent
overpressure by releasing the gases at the fime of deployment.
Test items are placed in the chamber or suspended in the center and remotely inifiated. Sample
probes are inserted into the test chamber to convey the combusfion products to sampling trains
and instmments for idenfificafion and quantificafion. There are 21 sampling ports in the
chamber wall. The ports are used for manual method sampling: two ports for sampling TSP, one
port for PM10/PM2.5, two ports for SVOCs, two ports for dioxins/furans, two ports for HCI/CI2,
and one port for VOCs, carbonyls and tracer gas sampling. One port is used for continuous
monitoring of CO, CO2, NOx, and SO2. An additional port has been installed for tracer gas
injecfion. The sample media is located irrmiediately outside the chamber. An electrical firing
circuit remotely deploys the test items and releases the SFe tracer gas. After sampling has
concluded, the chamber door is opened to release the remaining gases. The chamber is then
prepared for the next test.
The sample results will be in the units of pounds of target compound per pound of test item. The
samples with the quanfifies of trash will be used as emission factors for the 1.3 contaminated
waste streams treated and the pure propellant sample will be used for waste streams that are
primarily pure propellant such as waste rocket motors.
1.3 TEST PROCEDURES
Continuous air analyzers will be used on-site to monitor each test bum. Additional air emissions
samples will be collected and ship off-site for analyfical tesfing.
Detonafions will be performed using various convenfional means, depending on the test item
characterisfics. The quanfity of material will be chosen to achieve a net explosive weight per
trial.
The ATK materials to be tested are placed in the center of the chamber. The tracer gas is
released into the chamber immediately after the deployment of the items. Samplers to measure
total suspended particulate (TSP) matter, metals, particulate matter smaller than 10 microns
(PMio), particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), SVOCs, dioxins/furans, HCl and
CI2 are located just outside the chamber (except PM10/PM2.5, which is inside the chamber) and
connected to the chamber by short probes. The sampling rate is monitored and recorded. Two
other probes convey gases from the chamber into two separate manifolds located in a bunker
adjacent to the test chamber. One manifold distributes the gases to the continuous analyzers
(NOx, CO, CO2, SO2, and HCl), and the other manifold distributes gases to the VOCs, tracer, and
carbonyls sampling lines in the bunker.
UKM C:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 1 -2
Final
SECTIONTWO Proiect Organization and Responsibility
The project organizafion chart is shown in Figure 2-1.
2.1 ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS
The ATK Launch Systems (ATK) Project Manager is responsible for the contracting of URS,
Inc. and will oversee and approves work performed by URS in support of the Emission
Characterization of Open Buming Waste Propellant Materials Project.
2.2 URS PROJECT MANAGER
The URS Project Manager (PM) is responsible for overall project management, including
planning, communicafion with clients and regulators, coordinafion of data acquisition/field
acfivifies, the health and safety of project participants, and implementafion of the project quality
assurance (QA) program as given in this QAPP. The PM works direcfiy with, and is advised by,
the URS Quality Assurance Officer (QAO) in the implementafion ofthis plan.
Additional responsibilifies include engineering capabilifies, safety, and test report preparation.
2.3 URS QUALITY ASSURANCE OFFICER
The URS QAO communicates with the URS PM, and Task Managers (TMs) on project QA and
addifionally has direct reporting access to the Corporate QA Officer on quality-related matters.
The QAO is responsible for the development, implementafion, and maintenance of the
comprehensive project QA program. The QAO communicates with all levels of program and
project management to assure that a quality product is prepared for submittal. Specific
responsibilifies of the QAO are as follows:
• Prepare the project-specific QAPP and provide QA/guidance to the TMs in the development of
any required task-specific instmefions.
• Respond to QA needs, resolve problems, and answer requests for guidance or assistance.
• Review audit and nonconformance reports to determine areas of poor quality or failure to
adhere to established procedures.
• Confer with an audited entity on the steps to be taken for corrective actions and track
nonconformance unfil correcfion. Confer with the URS PM to resolve an inadequate corrective
acfion.
• Maintain, with the concurrence of the ATK PM, URS PM, URS Health and Safety Manager
the authority to stop work on any task where a critical situafion requires stopping work to
prevent further discrepancies, danger to personnel, loss ofdata, or other problems.
• Establish and maintain a filing system (including LOIs and SOPs) and all correspondence
between ATK and URS for audifing purposes.
• Serve as the official contact for all QA matters with the ATK Project Manager.
• Provide training on QA policies, procedures, and methodology as required.
^JjRS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 2- 1
Final
SECTIONTWO Proiect Organization and Responsiiiiiity
2.4 URS TECHNICAL SPECIALIST AND FIELD SUPPORT STAFF
URS will provide the technical specialists as required to prepare and finalize the test plan, the
health and safety plan (describes the duties and responsibilities of the assigned URS Health and
Safety Manager) and test report in accordance with the contract and this QAPP. URS will also
provide the test personnel required to execute the approved test plan.
2.5 UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Will provide regulatory oversight ofthe program, and will review and provide comments on the
test plan, QAPP, and test report.
2.6 ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES
Commercial laboratories will analyze sample media after tesfing. The lisfing of the required
analytical testing and associated methodologies are provided in Table 1-1.
The offsite laboratories and assigned analysis are identified as follows:
• Sevem Trent Laboratories, Knoxville, TN
• Eastem Research Group, Durban, NC
• ALTA Labs, EC Darado Hills, CA
• Air Toxics Limited, FoIsOrn, CA
• Data Chem Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
These laboratories were chosen because they have been approved by Dugway Proving Ground
and have successfully demonstrated their capabilifies tesfing on these types of samples. All
laboratories have NELAC certificafion with the exception of Eastem Research Group (ERG).
ERG will perform the PM2.5 and PMio, cyclone/particulate filler tesfing. The state of Utah does
not certify this method. As a result, certificafion of ERG by the state of Utah is not required.
mCS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 2-2
Final
SECTIONTHREE Quality Assurance Obiectives for Measurement Data
The overall QA objecfive for this project is to develop and implement procedures for obtaining
and evaluafing data that meet the DQOs to assure or confirm that the required decisions can be
made at a specified and acceptable level of uncertainty. The procedures defined in this QAPP
and Letter of Instmefions are established to assure that field measurements, sampling methods,
and analyfical data provide informafion that is comparable and representative of the actual field
condifions, and that the data generated are technically defensible.
The analyfical QA objecfives are defined in terms of sensifivity and the PARCC parameters of
precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability. The primary goal of
this QAPP is to define procedures that assure the quality and integrity of the collected samples,
the representativeness of the results, the precision and accuracy of the analyses, and the
completeness of the data. Data that meet the QA objectives and goals will be deemed
acceptable. Data that do not meet objecfives and goals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis
to ascertain usability.
3.1 INTENDED DATA USAGE
To achieve project DQOs, this QAPP and associated LOIs are designed to assure that a sufficient
number of samples will be collected using technically valid scientific procedures. Utilization of
the QAPP requires implementation of procedures for obtaining and evaluating data in a manner
that will result in a quanfitafive or qualitafive representafion of the PARCC parameters. The
parameters of precision, accuracy, and completeness provide a quantitative measure of the
quality of the data collected using the ODOBi. The parameters of representafiveness and
comparability ufilize documentafion of the ODOBi and laboratory procedures to qualitatively
evaluate the data. Specificafion of required sensifivity levels is also an integral component of
obtaining data that will safisfy the DQOs. Following the collecfion and analysis of the samples,
a determination will be made whether the DQOs established for the data-collection effort were
satisfied.
The data will be used to assess the human health and ecological assessment associated with open
buming the hazardous waste that will be represented by the ODOBi test samples. The primary
data quality objecfive is to produce data of sufficient quality to conduct the risk assessments.
The data collected will be validated and determined by the validator if the assigned laboratory
met the minimum quality control criteria ofthe respective analytical methodologies. The results
of analyfical data will ulfimately be evaluated using professional judgment in the context of the
project-specific data objecfives. Upon a safisfactory review a statement in each data package
report will denote if data are of sufficient quality and if the data can be used for their intended
use.
3.2 GENERAL QUALITY ASSURANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Data quality indicators are defined in terms ofthe PARCC parameters in the following
subsecfions. The assessment of the data quality indicators is necessary to determine data
usability. The established precision and accuracy limits are listed in Table 3-1. The laboratory
must meet the QC acceptance criteria presented in Table 3-1. The method duplicate (MD),
matrix spike (MS), and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) limits given in Table 3-1 will be used for
data verificafion. The method detecfion limits (MDLs) and reporting limits (RLs) for each
URS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 3-1
Final
SECTIONTHREE Quaiity Assurance Obiectiwes for iweasurement Data
analytical method to be contracted by an off-site conmiercial laboratory are provided in Table 3-
2.
3.2.1 Precision
Precision is a measure of mutual agreement among replicate (or between duplicate) or co-located
sample measurements of the same analyte. The closer the numerical values of the measurements
are to each other, the more precise the measurement. Precision for a single analyte will be
expressed as a relative percent difference (RPD) between results of field duplicate samples,
laboratory duplicate samples, or MSD samples for cases where both results are sufficiently large
(i.e., > five fimes the RL). Otherwise, the absolute difference between the results is compared to
a factor of the RL (the RL is used for nondetect results). In addifion, the lab will assess precision
by conducfing roufine instmment checks to demonstrate that operafing characterisfics are within
predetermined limits.
3.2.2 Accuracy
Accuracy is a measure of bias in a measurement system. The closer the value of the
measurement agrees with the tme value, the more accurate the measurement. This will be
expressed as the percent recovery of a surrogate, LCS anaiyte, MS analyte, or of a standard
reference sample.
3.2.3 Representativeness
Representafiveness is a qualitative parameter that expresses the degree to which sample data
accurately and precisely represents characterisfics of a population, parameter variations at a
sampling point, or an environmental condition. The design of, and rationale for, the sampling
program (in terms of the purpose for sampling, selecting the sampling locations, the number of
samples to be collected, the ambient conditions for sample collection, the frequencies and timing
for sampling, and the sampling techniques) assures that the environmental condition has been
sufficientiy represented.
The emission factors from these tests will be representative of the 1.3 propellant contaminated
wastes and the 1.3 pure propellant wastes.
3.2.4 Comparability
Comparability is a qualitative parameter expressing the confidence with which one data set can
be compared to another. Data sets will be considered comparable only when precision and
accuracy are considered acceptable during data validation. Sample data will be collected and
reported in order to be comparable with other measurement data for similar samples and sample
conditions. This goal will be achieved through following standard procedures to collect and then
analyze representative samples and through reporting analytical results in appropriate and
consistent units. Each analytical procedure selected from among the acceptable options will be
used for all investigative analyses, unless rationale is provided for any alteration. In essence,
comparability will be maintained by consistency in sampling conditions, selection of sampling
procedures, saniple preservation methods, analytical methods, and data reporting units.
mCS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 3-2
Final
SECTIONTHREE Quaiity Assurance Obiectiwes for iweasurement Data
3.2.5 Completeness
Completeness is a measure of the number of valid measurements obtained in relation to the total
number of measurements planned. The closer the numbers are, the more complete the
measurement process. Completeness will be expressed as the percentage of valid or usable
measurements to planned measurements. An objective of the field-sampling program is to
establish the quantity of data needed to support the investigation. This will be achieved by
obtaining samples for all types of analyses required at each individual location, a sufficient
volume of sample material to complete the analyses, samples that represent all possible
contaminant situations under investigation, and samples at critical data locations, such as
background and control samples. The overall completeness goal for investigative activities is
100% for each sampling event. The effect of any rejected data on project objectives will be
evaluated in order to assess the need for recollection or reanalysis of these samples.
3.2.6 Sensitivity
To evaluate the utility of the data for comparison to numeric standards or screening it is
important that the sensitivity of the methods utilized is acceptable. This QAPP specifies the use
of routine and commercially available U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved
analytical methods. The project risk assessors have reviewed the laboratory reporting limits.
Based on their review, the proposed reporting limits are within the normal detection limits for the
organic and inorganic samples by USEPA air methods. As a result, the proposed reporting limits
are considered acceptable and can be used based on their intended use.
Table 3-2 identifies the analytical reporting limits by method.
UKS C:\bOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 3-3
Final
SECTIONFOUR Sample Selection and Coilection
Air emissions samples generated from buming the ATK test materials using the ODOBi test
chamber will be collected on-site and shipped off-site for analyfical testing.
The ODOBi test chamber and stack are made of 2.54-cm (l-in) and 0.63-cm (0.25-in) thick steel,
respectively. The chamber consists of top and bottom sections that, when bolted together, give
an ellipsoidal shape and a volume of approximately 36 m . An altemate configuration is to
replace the stack with a ventilation cover. The ventilation cover is basically a framework of angle
iron designed to keep shrapnel from the test within the chamber and prevent overpressure by
releasing the gases at the time of deployment.
Test items are placed in the chamber or suspended in the center and remotely initiated. Sample
probes are inserted into the test chamber to convey the combustion products to sampling trains
and instmments for identification and quantification. There are 21 sampling ports in the
chamber wall. The ports are used for manual method sampling: two ports for sampling TSP, one
port for PM10/PM2.5, two ports for SVOCs, two ports for dioxins/furans, two ports for
HCI/CI2/NH3, hydrogen cyanide, and one port for VOCs, carbonyls and tracer gas sampling.
One port is used for continuous monitoring of CO, CO2, NOx, and SO2. An additional port has
been installed for tracer gas injection. The sample media is located immediately outside the
chamber. An electrical firing circuit remotely deploys the test items and releases the SFe tracer
gas. After sampling has concluded, the chamber door is opened to release the remaining gases.
The chamber is then prepared for the next test.
All field-sampling methods that will be used during these tests are based on EPA methodologies
[see letters of instmcfion (LOIs) in Detailed Test Plan for Phase IX Emission Characterization of
Smoke/Pyrotechnics and Propellants, May 2006]. However, in order to be used in the ODOBi"
test chamber, some procedure modificafions are needed (e.g., remote operafion and relatively
short sampling period). Target sampling fimes for each type of sampler are presented in the
LOIs.
4.1 SAMPLING METHODS
A general summary of methods to be used to support this invesfigafion is provided in the
following subsecfions and presented in Table 1-1. A list ofthe target analytes is presented in
Appendix A.
4.1.1 Total Suspended Particulate
The concentration of Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) is determined gravimetrically in
accordance with (IAW) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 60 (see DPG LOl-101 in
Appendix B) Method 5. Each filter is weighed before and after testing to determine the net
weight gain of particles. The concentration of the TSP is the mass of particles collected on the
filter divided by the volume of air sampled, corrected to standard temperature and pressure
condifions.
UKS C:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 4-1
Final
SECTIONFOUR Sampie Selection and Collection
4.1.2 Particulate Metals Analysis
The quartz/glass-fiber filter used for the determination of TSP will also be used for the
determinafion of particulate metals. After the filter is weighed to determine the TSP
concentrafion, the enfire filter will be digested with concentrated acid IAW EPA Method 29 (see
DPG LOI-107 in Appendix B). The digestate will be analyzed for mercury, using cold vapor
atomic absorption spectroscopy (CVAAS) modified Method 7470/7471 and all other metals by
inductively coupled argon plasma (iCAP) emission spectroscopy IAW Method 6010 (DPG LOI-
107 in Appendix B). Appendix A presents the list of target metals.
4.1.3 PM2.5ANDPM10
PM2.5 and PMio will be sampled by using two cyclones and a filter IAW 40 CFR 51 Method
201A (see DPG LOI-304 in Appendix B). The sample is collected from the chamber using a
short probe. The gases then pass through two cyclones in series. The first cyclone removes
particles larger than 10 microns. Particles that pass through the first cyclone, but not the second,
are between 2.5 microns and 10. PM2.5 pass through the second cyclone. Each fraction will be
measured gravimetrically. The concentrafion of PM2.5 and PMio will be computed as the mass of
collected particles in each range, divided by the volume of air sampled, corrected to standard
condifions.
4.1.4 Carbonyls
The concentrafion of formaldehyde and other TO-11 carbonyl compounds will be determined
IAW EPA Compendium Method TO-11A (see DPG LOI-109 in Appendix B). A sample stream
of gas will be drawn through tubes that contain sorbent and are coated with 2,4-dinitrophenyl-
hydrazine (DNPH). The tubes will then be capped and shipped to the laboratory for analysis,
using high-performance liquid chromatography with an ultraviolet absorpfion detector.
4.1.5 Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Semivolafile organic compounds (SVOCs) are measured based on the procedure in SW-846
0010 (see DPG LOI-301 in Appendix B). Sorbent cartridges for the determinafion of SVOCs in
air will be analyzed based on SW-846 Method 8270C (see DPG LOI-301 in Appendix B) plus
tentafively idenfified compounds (TICs). The samples are collected by using a combination
quartz filter/adsorbent cartridge. The cartridge contains XAD-2 polymeric resin beads. After
sampling, the filters and adsorbent cartridge will be extracted with solvent. The effluent is then
analyzed by gas chromatography (GC) equipped with mass spectrometry (MS) detection.
TICs will be reported when the response of the compound is equal or greater than 10 percent of
the response of the associated intemal standard and the mass spectra library match of the TIC
compound is greater than or equal to a hit quality index factor of 90 or greater. Hard copy TIC
reports and spectra will be placed in the appropriate data package.
mCS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGSVTEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 4-2
Final
SECTIONFOUR Sample Selection and Collection
4.1.6 Dioxins/Furans
Dioxins/furans are measured based on the procedure in 40 CFR 60 Method 23 (see DPG LOI-
301 in Appendix B). Sorbent cartridges for the determination of dioxins/furans in air are
analyzed based on SW-846 Method 8290 (see DPG LOI-301 in Appendix B). The samples are
collected using a quartz filter and adsorbent cartridge. The cartridge contains XAD-2 resin
beads. After sampling, the filters arid adsorbent cartridge are extracted with solvent. The
effluent is analyzed by high-resolufion GC (HRGC) equipped with high-resolufion MS (HRMS)
detection. Appendix A presents the target isomers for this determinafion.
4.1.7 Volatile Organic Compounds and Tracer Gas Analysis
Gas samples collected in 6-L canisters will be analyzed for volafile organic compounds (VOCs)
by using a GC and multiple detectors as described in EPA Compendium Method TO-14A (see
DPG LOI-104 in Appendix B). Most compounds will be identified via GC/MS full scan. Light
hydrocarbons (e.g., acetylene, ethane, ethylene, and propane) will be identified using GC/flame
ionization detection (FID). The target analytes are listed in Appendix A. Total nonspeciated
VOCs will be determined by using appropriate sections of EPA Compendium Method TO-12
(see DPG LOI-104 in Appendix B). A GC with an electron capture detector will be used to
analyze for the tracer gas SFg in gas samples collected in 1.0-L canisters.
4.1.8 Hydrogen Chloride/Chlorine and Ammonia Analysis
HCI/CI2/NH3 will be measured by using the EPA Method 26 sampling train (see DPG LOI-108
in Appendix B). Gas will be bubbled through dilute solutions of sulfuric acid and sodium
hydroxide in series. The HCl and the NH3 and are absorbed in the sulfuric acid solution, while
the C12 passes through and is absorbed by the sodium hydroxide solution. The chloride
concentration in the liquid solutions will be measured with an ion chromatograph. For test items
that contain significant amounts of chlorine, the particulate filter from the sampling train will be
recovered and sent to the laboratory for analysis. The filter will be extracted using deion-ized
water and the chlorine concentration will be measured with an ion chromatograph. HCl will also
be measured using CEMS as described in secfion 4.1.9.
4.1.9 Continuous Emission Monitoring
Real-time eniissions of NOx, CO, CO2, SO2, and HCl will be measured using CEMs (see DPG
LOI-106 in Appendix B). Chamber gases will be continuously recirculated through a manifold
in the bunker adjacent to the test chamber. A small slipstream will be pulled from the manifold
into each analyzer. Multipoint calibrations will be performed on each instmment before the test
series to verify that response is linear. As needed, zero and upscale calibration standards will be
used to check for analyzer drift and bias (at least twice per day). The analyzer outputs during
sampling will be stored by the data acquisition system.
UKS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 4-3
Final
SECTIONFOUR Sample Selection and Collection
4.1.10 Perchlorates
The quartz/glass-fiber filter used for the determinafion of TSP will also be used for the
determination of perchlorates. After the filter is weighed to determine the TSP concentration,
perchlorates are leached from the filter by shaking the entire filter in reagent water for 1 hour.
The digestate will be analyzed for perchlorates by using ion chromatography IAW EPA Method
314.
4.2 SAMPLING PREPARATION, QUAUTY CONTROL, AND MEASUREMENT
4.2.1 Calibration of Field Instrumentation
Prior to actual sampling, all field instmments will be calibrated to assure that accurate and
reliable measurements are obtained.
Calibration procedures and criteria for sampling equipment are based on the sampling methods
in Appendix B. For sampling trains, this primarily applies to gas sample volume. For CEMs,
this primarily applies to concentration drift and span. For all analytical measurements, the range
of the instmment calibration is specified to encompass the range of probable experimental
values. This approach ensures that all results are based upon interpolative analyses rather than
extrapolafive analyses. Calibrafions are designed to include, where pracficable, at least four
measurement points evenly spaced over the range. This practice minimizes the probability that
false assumpfions of calibrafion linearity will be made. In addifion, it is common practice to
select, when pracficable, at least one calibrafion value that approximates the levels anficipated in
the actual measurement. Typically, calibrafion frequency is dictated by the need to demonstrate
the stability of the calibration value over the course of measurements.
4.2.2 Preparation of Sampling Equipment and Containers and Field Decontamination
Sampling media such as polyurethane foam (PUF) plugs, Summa Canisters, sorbent traps, filters,
will be provided by the corresponding commercial laboratories performing the contracted sample
analyses.
4.2.3 Field Blanks, Duplicates, Splits, and Quality Control
QC checks of both field sampling and laboratory sample analysis will be used to assess and
document data quality and to idenfify irregularifies in the measurement process that need
correcfion.
QC samples will be employed to assess various data quality parameters such as
representafiveness ofthe environmental samples, the precision of sample collecfion and handling
procedures, the thoroughness of the field equipment decontaminafion procedures, and the
accuracy of laboratory analysis. To evaluate bias and contamination from field collection
procedures, blanks will be prepared from distilled or deionized water.
In addifion to the field QC samples idenfified below, the analytical laboratory will use a series of
QC samples as identified in the laboratory QA plan and specified in the standard analytical
UKS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 4-4
Final
SECTIONFOUR Sample Selection and Collection
methods. The types of laboratory QC samples include method blank, LCS, MS, and laboratory
duplicate Or MSD. A LCS will be analyzed for each method and batch.
Analyses of QC samples will be performed for samples of similar matrix type and
extracfion/analysis method and for each sample batch. To supplement the use of QC samples,
the laboratory will generate and use control charts to assess performance on the QC samples.
The following secfions describe field QC samples that will be collected.
4.2.3.1 Equipment Blanks
Equipment decontaminafion rinsates will not be required because dedicated sampling equipment
will be used.
4.2.3.2 Field Replicates
Each ATK test material will be bumed three separate fimes for a total of nine separate tests. As a
result triplicate samples representing each sample will be collected and submitted to the off-site
commercial lab for tesfing. These samples will be analyzed for all parameters identified in Table
1-1.
4.2.3.3 Field Blanks
Field blanks will be used to indicate the presence of extemal contaminants that may have been
introduced into the samples during collecfion. Field blanks will be collected and analyzed for all
parameters of interest. Field blanks will be prepared on site during the sampling event. At least
one field blank sample will be analyzed for each group of samples of a similar matrix type per
event (i.e., one field blank per investigation area per matrix analyzed). The field blanks will be
handled and analyzed in the same manner as all environmental samples. The field blanks will be
collected by assembling and recovering one complete sampling system. No gaseous samples
will be passed through the sampling train.
4.2.3.4 ThpBlanks
Trip blanks will not be prepared or analyzed specific to this invesfigafion.
4.2.3.5 Peiiormance Evaluation Samples
PE samples will not be prepared or analyzed specific to this invesfigafion.
4.2.4 Preservation, Transportation, and Storage of Samples
Preservation requirements and associated holding times will be in accordance with QC
requirements specified in Tables 4-1 to ensure sample integrity. Samples collected during this
investigation will be either shipped to the laboratory via an ovemight carrier or will be hand
delivered to analytical laboratory if geographically possible.
UKS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 4-5
Final
SECTIONFOUR Sample Selection and Collection
4.3 DOCUMENTATION
Field data measurements and observations will be recorded in field logbooks and the appropriate
field forms.
UKS C:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 4-6
Final
SECTIONFIVE Sample Analysis
The laboratory QA/QC procedures in this QAPP are intended to be minimum requirements. The
selected laboratories to perform the work will meet, at a minimum, the requirements of this
QAPP and the QA/QC requirements specified in the labs specific laboratory standard operating
procedures (SOPs).
Written documentation of sample custody from the time of sample collection through the
generation of data by analysis of the sample is recognized as a vital aspect of an environmental
investigation. As described below, sample custody applies to both field and laboratory
operations. Official custody of the sample and its corresponding documentation will be
maintained throughout the handling of the sample, from the time of collection, through
preparation and analysis, and until sample disposal.
5.1 FIELD OPERATIONS
5.1.1 Sample Container Labeling
Sample labels will be filled out in the field. Minimum requirements for informafion to be
included on sample container labels are included in Test Plan.
5.1.2 Sample Custody (Custody Seals, Chain-of-Custody, and Analysis Request)
For field operafions, standard sample collecfion procedures have been developed for sample
custody, labeling, analysis request, and tracking. All samples will be idenfified, labeled, and
logged onto a COC form, as a part of an overall procedure designed to assure the integrity of the
resulfing data. The record ofthe physical sample (locafion and time of sampling) will be joined
with the analytical results through accurate accounfing of the sample custody.
5.2 LABORATORY OPERATIONS
All laboratories complefing chemical analyses will be required to maintain samples in a secure
locafion with limited access from the fime of sample receipt through sample disposal. Sample
custody procedures within a laboratory will be dependent upon the laboratory quality assurance
plan (QAP) and/or SOPs. The laboratory will be responsible for maintaining logbooks and
records that provide an unintermpted custody record throughout sample preparafion and analysis.
The general steps to be followed by the analyfical laboratory for sample receipt, sample labeUng,
and sample custody are:
• Laboratory receives samples
• A sample receipt checklist is filled out. The following items are documented on the
checklist.
The temperature of the temperature blank (taken and recorded before the samples are
unpacked), where applicable.
- Containers are checked for breakage/damage.
URS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 5- 1
Final
SECTIONFIVE Sampie Analysis
Preservafive use (once the cooler is unpacked, all bottles are checked to ensure that
the samples have been preserved properly), where applicable.
Agreement between botfie labels and the COC form.
Verification that adequate sample volume for each analysis has been provided.
• A lot number or sample delivery group (SDG) number is then assigned
• The sarnple bottles are then labeled with the laboratory number
• The sample bottle laboratory number labeling is verified
• If any discrepancies were found during login, the laboratory PM will notify the URS
QAO.
• The samples are placed in refrigerators if applicable.
• After the final report has been issued, samples are moved to archive.
UKS C:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 5-2
Final
SECTIONSIX Laboratory Calibration Procedures and Frequency
All laboratory instmments will be calibrated in accordance with the analyfical method
requirements. All analytes reported will be present in the inifial and continuing calibrafions, and
these calibrafions will meet the acceptance criteria specified in the method, at a minimum. All
results reported will be within the calibrated range. Records of standards preparafion and
instmment calibration will be maintained and submitted with the final data package. Calibration
standards for all analyses shall be traceable to a certified Standard Reference Material (SRM)
that idenfifies the chemical composition, purity, property, and expirafion date.
The initial calibrafion will be checked at the frequency specified in the method using standard
materials. Mulfipoint calibrafions will contain the minimum number of calibrafion points
specified in the method. It is permissible to drop the highest and lowest concentration standards
from the calibration as long as the calibration range is adjusted appropriately and as long as the
adjusted calibration includes the minimum number of standards specified in the method. If the
low point standard is omitted, the reporting limit for associated data must be adjusted
accordingly. If linearity criteria cannot be met by dropping either the high or low point standard,
the instmment must be recalibrated.
UKS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGSUEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 6" 1
Final
SECTIONSEVEN Analytical Procedures
Chemical analysis of samples for investigative activities will be completed using the methods (or
equivalent methods with approval) listed in Table 1-1. During the field activities, samples will
be collected and preserved as described in Table 4-1. Sample holding times listed are calculated
from the date and time of collection.
For organic analyses for which there are multiple surrogate standards analyzed (e.g.. Methods
SW-846 8270C, 8290) and one of theses surrogates fail to fall within surrogate recovery limits,
results may be reported without reextraction and/or reanalysis if all of the following criteria are
met:
• There must be objective evidence of sample matrix interferences (e.g., multiple
interfering peaks visible on chromatograms, co-eluting peaks, documented evidence that
extracts solidify before reaching final concentration volume, first hand observation such
as the presence of mulfiple phases, or results from earlier tesfing). The laboratory PM
must contact the Environmental Contractor Project Chemist to relay the information and
get approval to report without reanalysis.
• Surrogate recoveries in LCSs and method blanks from the same extraction batch must be
within surrogate recovery limits for an exception to be considered.
• One of the two surrogates for gas chromatographic methods must meet the surrogate
recovery limits, and the recovery for both must be greater than 10%.
• No more than one surrogate compound can be out of surrogate recovery limits for either
the acid or base/neutral fracfion for 8270C, and all surrogate recoveries must be greater
than 10%.
The methods do not and cannot include all analytical situations. These additional criteria are
provided as a means of applying technically jusfifiable evaluafion criteria in situafions where
there is clear and documented evidence that a reextracfion and reanalysis will not improve the
quality of the data.
For SW-846 8000 series analyses. Method 8000B Sections 7.5.1.2.3 and 7.7 require that the data
user must be provided with inifial calibrafion and/or calibrafion verificafion data or a specific list
ofthose compounds for which the relative standard deviafion (RSD) exceeded 20% and/or a list
of those analyses that exceeded the 15% percent difference or percent drift limits. For analyses
conducted under this QAPP, those compounds outside ofthese criteria and the actual values of
the RSD and/or percent differences outside of these criteria shall be provided in the laboratory
case narrafive.
UKS C:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 7-1
Final
SECTIONEIGHT Data Reduction, Walidation, and Reporting
The following secfions describe the process of handling data in terms of data generation,
checking, and formatted reports for both field sampling and laboratory analytical data.
8.1 DATA REDUCTION
This section outlines the methodology for assuring the correctness of the data reduction process.
The procedures describe steps for verifying the accuracy of data reducfion. Data will be reduced
either manually on calculation sheets or by computer on formatted printouts. The following
responsibilities will be delegated in the data reduction process:
• Technical personnel will document and review their own work and are accountable for its
correctness,
• Selected calculations will receive both a method and an arithmetic check by an
independent checker. The checker will be accountable for the correctness of the checking
process,
• An intemal technical review will be conducted to assure the consistency and defensibility
ofthe concepts, methods, assumptions, calculations, etc., and
• The data reduction will be performed in a manner that produces accurate data through
review and approval of calculations.
8.2 DATA VALIDATION
As appropriate and consistent with DQOs, decisions and recommendations will be based upon
validated data. The process through which data will be accepted, qualified, or rejected will be
based upon specific data validation criteria. These criteria are discussed in the following
sections for both field and laboratory data. Personnel experienced with sampling and analytical
protocols and procedures will perform the data validation in accordance with the established
criteria and the intended use of the data.
The continuous air monitoring data generated during this project will not be validated using EPA
methodologies for data validation. However, bias and drift will be verified based on
manufactures recommendations. These data will be verified for contract compliance, holding
time compliance (as applicable), QC sample frequency and results, and overall data quality.
Data validafion qualifiers will not be applied to screening data. An overall data usability
assessment will be made.
Qualified chemists not involved with the actual generation of data will conduct an analytical data
validation for the definitive data. The data package will be validated using the criteria contained
in EPA's Funcfional Guidelines (EPA 2002, EPA 1999) that are pertinent to the SW-846
analytical method and the QA acceptance criteria contained in this QAPP.
8.2.1 Field Data Validation
The purpose of the field data validafion process is to evaluate the usability of field data that are
collected or documented in accordance with specified protocols outlined in appropriate LOI.
Field data documentafion will be validated against the following criteria, as appropriate:
^JACS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 8-1
Final
SECTIONEIGHT Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting
Sample locafion and adherence to the plan
Field instmmentation and calibration
Sample collection protocol
Sample volume
Sample preservation
Blanks collected and submitted with each respective sample set
Duplicates collected and submitted with each respective sample set
Sample documentation protocol
Field COC protocol
8.2.2 Laboratory Data Reduction and Review
Data reduction is the process of converting measurement system outputs to an expression of the
parameter that is consistent with the comparable objective identified in this plan. Reduction of
analytical data will be completed in accordance with the off-site analytical laboratory's Quality
Assurance Plan (QAP) and SOPs.
The first level of review, which may contain mulfiple sublevels, will be conducted by the
analytical laboratory that has inifial responsibility for the correctness and completeness of the
data. The laboratory data reviewer will evaluate the quality of the analyfical data based on an
established set of laboratory guidelines (laboratory QAP and SOPs) and this QAPP. This person
will review the data packages to confirm the following:
Sample preparafion informafion is correct and complete
Analysis information is correct and complete
The appropriate laboratory SOPs have been followed
Analyfical results are correct and complete
QC sample results are within established control limits
Blank results are within appropriate QC limits
Analyfical results for QC sample spikes, sample dupUcates, inifial and confinuous
calibrafion verifications of standards and blanks, standard procedural blanks, LCSs, and
inductively coupled plasma (ICP) emission spectrometer interference check samples are
correct and complete
• Tabulafion of reporting limits related to the sample is correct and complete
• Documentafion is complete (all anomalies in the preparation and analysis have been
documented; holding fimes are documented)
The laboratory will perform the in-house analyfical data reducfion and QA review under the
direcfion of the laboratory PM or designee. The laboratory is responsible for assessing data
UKS C:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\L0CAL SETTINGS\TEMP0RARY INTERNET FILES\OLK880\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 8-2
Final
SECTIONEIGHT Data Reduction, Walidation, and Reporting
quality and advising of any data that were rated "preliminary" or "unacceptable," or were flagged
with any other notafions that would caution the data user of possible unreliability.
Data reduction, QA review, and reporting by the laboratory will include the following:
• Raw data produced by the analyst are processed and reviewed for attainment of QC
criteria as outlined in this QAPP, the laboratory QAP, and/or established EPA methods.
The raw data will also be reviewed for overall reasonableness.
• The data reviewer will check all manually entered sample data for entry errors and will
check for transfer errors in all data electronically uploaded from the instmment output
into the software packages used for calculations and generafion of report forms. Based
on these checks, the reviewer will decide whether any sample re-analysis is required.
• The laboratory will review initial and continuing calibration data, and calculation of
response factors, surrogate recoveries, MS/MSD recoveries, post-digestion (analytical)
spike recoveries, intemal standard recoveries, LCS recoveries, sample results, and other
relevant QC measures.
• Upon acceptance of the preliminary reports by the laboratory data reviewer, the
laboratory QA officer or designee will review and approve the data packages prior to the
final reports being generated.
The data reduction and the QC review steps will be documented, signed, and dated by the analyst
and the laboratory project manager or designee.
8.2.3 Independent Review
Section 8.2.2 describes the level of review of the analytical data by the off-site laboratory that
has generated the data. The second level of review and verification of the analytical data will be
performed by data verificafion personnel independent of the laboratory generating the data. The
purpose of this second level of review is to provide an independent review of the data package
and will include a review of laboratory performance criteria and sample-specific criteria. The
following subsecfions discuss the process for independent review of laboratory performance
criteria and sample-specific criteria. The amount and level of data validafion will be based on
the end use of the data and nature of the decisions that will be based on the data.
Since the data review by the off-site analytical laboratory includes a thorough review of
laboratory performance criteria (which are independent ofthe field samples being analyzed), the
independent verification will include evaluafion of QA/QC issues idenfified in the laboratory
case narrafive. These QA/QC issues will be evaluated relafive to the laboratory performance
criteria (e.g., initial calibrafion, confinuing calibration verificafion, LCS analysis, interference
check sample analysis) to verify that the laboratory analyses are in compliance with method
specifications. This will be conducted for 100% of data from the off-site laboratory. The review
of laboratory performance criteria is discussed in Section 8.2.3.1.
The independent verification will also include a review of sample-specific criteria for 100% of
the data packages for each analysis type for those parameters that are sample-related. The
parameters include: holding fimes, surrogate recoveries, MS recoveries, field duplicate
agreement, MSD and laboratory duplicate precision, post digesfion (analytical) spike recoveries,
UKS C:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 8-3
Final
SECTIONEIGHT Data ReducUon, Validation, and Reporting
ICP serial dilution analysis agreement, and qualificafion of sample data based on analytes
reported as detected in blank analyses.
All analytical data received from the laboratory shall meet the data package requirements
specified in the URS terms and condifions contained in the lab contract. Fully validatable data
packages will be submitted as appropriate. The laboratory will be contacted with regard to any
missing or incorrect deliverables in the data packages noted during the validation process. The
data reviewer will document all subsequent submittals and resubmittals from the laboratory,
recalculations, and data reviewer corrections. The data package will be reviewed for evaluation
and compliance with method specificafions. Method non-compliances idenfified during the
review, professional judgments used, and conclusions reached conceming usability of non-
compliant data will be described in data verification and completeness reports. These reports
will also describe the results of the sample-specific review and the impact on the quality and
usability of the data.
Data verification and completeness reports will be completed for each data package reviewed
and submitted to DSHW with associated sample results.
8.2.3.1 Review of Laboratoiy Peiiormance Criteria
Results not meeting method acceptance criteria are documented by the laboratory in the case
narrative. The subsecfions below discuss how each of the laboratory performance parameters
reported as not meefing acceptance criteria would be identified and documented in the data
review report. The lab performance parameters to be reviewed include:
8.2.3.1.1 Initial Calibration
The analytical method shall be used to determine the QC acceptance criteria for inifial calibration
for those methods covered under this QAPP. If the case narrative or data review process
indicates that the initial calibrafion for any analyte did not meet the acceptance criteria, it will be
documented in the data review report.
8.2.3.1.2 Initial and/or Continuing Calibration Verification
The analyfical method will be used to determine the QC acceptance criteria for initial and
continuing calibrafion verification for those methods covered under this QAPP. If the case
narrative or data validation process indicates that the initial or continuing calibration verification
for any analyte did not meet the acceptance criteria, it will be documented in the data review
report.
8.2.3.1.3 Internal Standard Data
The analyfical method will be used to detemiine the QC acceptance criteria for intemal standard
area counts for gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) organic analysis and for
intemal standard quanfitafion for methods covered under this QAPP. Intemal standard area
counts are not a direct measure of the accuracy of the analysis. If the case narrafive or data
review process indicates that the intemal standard data did not meet the acceptance criteria, it
will be documented in the data review report.
UKS C:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 8-4
Final
SECTIONEIGHT Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting
8.2.3.1.4 Dual Column Confirmation Results
None of the specified analytical methods require second column confirmafion as documented in
this QAPP.
8.2.3.1.5 Laboratory Control Sample Analysis
The analyte recoveries obtained for LCS analyses will be compared to analytical method
requirements and to the acceptance range established by the contract laboratory. If the case
narrafive or data review process indicates that the LCS did not meet the acceptance criteria, it
will be documented in the data review report.
8.2.3.1.6 Inductively Coupled Plasma Interference Check Sample for Metals
The analyfical method specifies the QC acceptance criteria for interference check sample (ICS)
analysis for metals analysis methods covered under this QAPP. If the case narrative or data
review process indicates that the ICS did not meet the acceptance criteria, it will be documented
in the data review report.
8.2.3.2 Review of Method-Specific Requirements
The data verificafion review will also include a review of method -specific criteria for all of the
data packages for each analysis type for those parameters that are sample related. Data
verificafion and completeness checks will be conducted and documented.
No recalculafion of results from the raw data or transcription error checking will be performed
during the review ofthe sample-specific criteria.
8.2.3.2.1 Other Items Identified in the Case Narrative
If analytes idenfified in the case narrafive are not covered by the subsecfions below and are found
to be noncompliant, the data reviewer shall evaluate the problem based on method requirements.
If the analytical method does not specify requirements related to the criterion under evaluation,
the data reviewer should utilize professional judgment to evaluate the effect of the reported item
or condition on the associated analytical data. All uses of professional judgment shall be
described in the report of the data validation process.
8.2.3.2.2 Blanks
The results for background and ambient blanks, preparation blanks, calibration blanks, and other
blanks reported in the data package will be reviewed. If the case narrative or data review
process indicates that the blank results could impact the associated sample results, it will be
documented in the data review report.
Preparation blanks are associated with all samples prepared with that sample (preparation batch).
Continuing calibration blank samples are considered to be associated with all samples in a given
analytical mn. The highest continuing calibration blank samples concentration will be used in the
data review assessment process.
UKS C:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 8-5
Final
SECTIONEIGHT Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting
8.2.3.2.3 Metals and Inorganic Analyses
Metals data from ICP and other inorganic data will be evaluated for method compliance and will
also undergo evaluation or for following specific criteria:
Holding fimes
Duplicate sample analysis
MS sample analysis
MSD or laboratory duplicate precision
Post digesfion (analyfical) spike recoveries
ICP serial dilufions
Field duplicate result agreement
Holding Times
Holding times and sample temperatures will be compared to the holding fime and sample
temperature requirements contained in Table 4-1 of this QAPP. Results for analyses not
performed within holding time limits wili be identified and documented in the data review
report.
Duplicate Sample Analysis
Results for the duplicate sample (laboratory duplicate or MSD) will be compared to the criteria
in Table 3-1. If the duplicate results for an analyte do not satisfy the applicable evaluation
criterion, results for that analyte in the sample that duplicate was performed on will be
documented in the data review report.
Matrix Spike Sample Analysis
The analyte recoveries obtained for MS (or MSD) analyses will be compared to the acceptance
range contained in Table 3-1 for cases in which the native sample concentration is less than four
times the spike concentration, as specified in the EPA Functional Guidelines. When sample
concentrations of an analyte are greater than four times the spiking concentration, the results are
considered to be inappropriate for assessing accuracy. Data associated with MS recoveries that
are outside the acceptance range will be identified and documented in the data review assessment
report.
Post-Digestion Spike Recovery
The analyte recoveries obtained for post-digestion spike analyses will be compared to the
acceptance range for accuracy in the analytical method. Under some circumstances, laboratories
will quantify results by the method of standard additions to compensate for low post-digestion
spike recovery. As such, the low spike recovery would not indicate poor accuracy. However, if
the result for the sample on which the post-digestion spike analysis was performed was not
obtained by the method of standard additions and the post-digestion spike recovery was outside
^JKS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 8-6
Final
SECTIONEIGHT Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting
of the acceptance limits, the result for the sample on which the post-digestion spike was mn will
be identified and documented in the data review assessment report.
ICP Serial Dilution
ICP serial dilutions are mn to help evaluate whether or not significant physical or chemical
interferences exist due to the sample matrix. When analyte concentrafions are sufficiently high
(the concentrafion in the original sample is minimally a factor of 50 above the instmment
detection limit) the results obtained for a five fold-dilution of the original sample are compared
to the original results by means of a percent difference (%D). The %D is compared to a
precision acceptance limit of ±15%. If the absolute value of the percent difference between the
diluted and original result is greater than 15%, all results for that analyte in that SDG will be
identified and documented in the data assessment report.
Field Duplicate Agreement
Criteria in Table 3-1 will be used to assess the reported results. If the criteria are not met for an
analyte, all associated sample data will be identified and documented in the data review
assessment report.
Replicate trains will be collected for some analytes. However, the purpose of collecting
duplicate trains is to ensure that at least one useable sample is collected per mn.
8.2.3.2.4 Organic Analyses
For organics by GC or GC/MS, the data will be evaluated for method compliance and will then
also undergo evaluafion for following specific criteria:
• Holding fimes
• Laboratory Control Sample
• Surrogate spike results
• MS/MSD analyses
• Intemal standard recoveries for isotopic dilufion GC/MS analyses
• Tentatively identified compounds
• Field duplicate result agreement
The data reviewer should use guidance from EPA Functional Guidelines to address issues not
covered by this QAPP.
Holding Times
The holding fimes will be compared to the holding fime requirements contained in Tables 4-1..
Results for analyses not performed within holding time limits will be idenfified and documented
in the data review assessment report.
^JICS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 8-7
Final
SECTIONEIGHT Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting
Laboratory Control Samples
A laboratory control sample (LCS) is prepared by spiking an aliquot of the standard matrix with
a known concentrafion of the analyte(s) of interest. The recovery of the target analyte (s) must
be reported within a stafistical recovery Umit(s) range. The QC acceptance recovery is
statistically calculated based upon historical lab performance. Typically, QC acceptable limits
are reported within 80-100 %. The purpose of the LCS is to monitor laboratory performance for
a specific method.
Surrogate Spike Results
The surrogate recoveries obtained for each sample analysis for which surrogates were analyzed
will be compared to the laboratory historical limits to assess trending and if the percent recovery
is reported within the limits specified in Table 3-1. Results for analytes in the sample associated
with surrogate recoveries outside the acceptance range will be identified and documented in the
data review assessment report.
Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Sample Analysis
The analyte recoveries obtained for MS and MSD analyses will be compared to the acceptance
range contained in Table 3-1 for cases in which the native sample concentration is less than four
times the spike concentrafion. When sample concentrations of an analyte are greater than four
times the spiking concentration, the results are considered to be inappropriate for assessing
accuracy. Data associated with MS or MSD recoveries outside the acceptance range will be
idenfified and documented in the data review assessment report.
8.3 DATA REPORTING
Field measurements and observations will be recorded in field logbooks. Laboratory data will be
recorded in the standard formats described in the Laboratory Statement of Work.
UKS C:\D6CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 8-8
Final
SECTIONNINE Field and Laboratory Quality Control Checks
QC checks of both field sampling and laboratory sample analysis will be used to assess and
document data quality and to identify discrepancies in the measurement process that need
correcfion. Field QC samples are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.3.
The analyfical laboratory will use a series of QC samples as idenfified in the laboratory QA plan
and specified in the standard analyfical methods. The types of laboratory QC samples include
method blank, LCS, MS, and laboratory duplicate or MSD. A LCS will be analyzed for each
method and batch. Analyses of QC samples will be performed for samples of similar matrix type
and extracfion/analysis method, and for each sample batch. To supplement the use of QC
samples, the laboratory will generate and use control charts to assess performance on the QC
samples.
UKS C:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 9- 1
Final
SECTIONTEN Performance and System Audits
Performance or system audits will not be performed under this QAPP.
UKS'^^OCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGSXTEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 10-1
Final
SECTIONELEVEN Prewentiwe Maintenance
11.1 FIELD EQUIPMENT
All field equipment and instmments used to generate data will be adjusted and maintained to
operate within manufacturers' specificafions. Maintaining the necessary accuracy, precision,
sensifivity, and traceability of theequipment helps assure that reliable measurements and
representative data will be obtained. Methods and intervals of inspection and maintenance will
be based on the type of equipment, stability characterisfics, required accuracy, intended use, and
environmental factors (such as temperature, humidity, etc.). As appropriate, back-up equipment
and critical spare parts will be maintained in order to quickly correct equipment malfuncfion.
As appropriate, inspecfion records and maintenance schedules will be maintained for instmments
and equipment and will be stored in the project files. Equipment that is identified to be
malfunctioning will be removed from operafion and tagged until repaired.
11.2 LABORATORY EQUIPMENT
Guidelines for inspecfion and prevendve maintenance of laboratory equipment will be
established in the laboratory QAP. Essentially, inspection and preventive maintenance will be
implemented on a scheduled basis to minimize downtime and to assure accurate measurements
from laboratory equipment. This program is designed to achieve results commensurate with the
specified capabilities of equipment operation, thus generating data of known quality without
concem for misapplication. In addition, back-up equipment and critical spare parts will be
maintained in order to quickly correct equipment malfunction.
All equipment and instmments used to generate data will be adjusted and maintained to operate
within manufacturers' specifications and the method requirements. Maintaining the necessary
accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and traceability of the equipment helps assure that reliable
measurements and representative data will be obtained. Methods and intervals of inspection and
maintenance will be based on the type of equipment, stability characteristics, required accuracy,
intended use, and environmental factors (such as temperature, humidity, etc.). Such an effort
will be conducted by trained technicians using service manuals or through service agreements
with a qualified maintenance contractor. In addition, procedures will assure that equipment is
properiy used by trained personnel.
Inspection and maintenance, schedules and records will be maintained for the equipment, as
appropriate. Both equipment and equipment records will be located in a controlled access
facility. Each instmment will be assigned a unique identificafion number to document and track
usage and maintenance. Equipment that is idenfified to be malfunctioning will be removed from
operafion unfil repaired.
UKS^:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SEmNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 11-1
Final
SECTIONTWELVE Data Assessment Procedures
All data generated for the project will be assessed for accuracy, precision, completeness,
representativeness, and comparability. This secfion establishes the methods for calculafing
accuracy, precision and completeness and for evaluating representativeness and comparability
12.1 PRECISION
Precision examines the spread of data about their mean (Secfion 3.2.1). The spread represents
how different the individual reported values are from the average reported values. Precision is
thus a measure of the magnitude of errors and will be expressed as the RPD or the RSD for all
methods. The lower these values are, the more precise are the data. These quanfities are defined
as follows:
RPD (%)
RSD (%)
100 x |S-D|
(S + D)/2
(s/X) x 100
where: D
S
X
s
Concentration or value of an analyte in a duplicate sample
Concentration or value of an analyte in a original sample
Mean of replicate analyses
Standard deviafion
12.2 ACCURACY
Accuracy measures the average or systematic error of an analytical method (Section 3.2.2). This
measure is defined as the difference between the measured value and the actual value. Accuracy
will be expressed as the percent recovery. This quanfity is defined as follows:
Recovery (%) = |SC-UC| X 100
KC
where: SC =
UC
KC
12.3 COMPLETENESS
Measured concentration ofan analyte in spiked sample or LCS
Measured unspiked concentration of an analyte (assume to be zero for
LCS and surrogates)
Known concentradon of an analyte added
Completeness establishes whether a sufficient amount of valid measurements were obtained
(Section 3.2.5). The closer this value is to 100%, the more complete the measurement process.
The overall project completeness goal is 100%. Completeness will be calculated as follows:
Completeness (%) V X
R
100
where: V
R
Number of valid measurements (includes data qualified
as estimated)
Number of planned measurements
URS OADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 12-
Final
SECTIONTWELVE Data Assessment Procedures
12.4 REPRESENTATIVENESS
Representafiveness expresses the degree to which data accurately and precisely represents the
environmental condifion (Secfion 3.2.3). A statement on representafiveness will be presented in
data validafion reports nofing the degree to which the data represents the emissions of the waste
materials that will be tested.
12.5 COMPARABILITY
Comparability expresses the confidence with which one set of data can be compared to another
(Secfion 3.2.4). A statement on comparability noting the degree to which data meet the
comparability goal will be presented in data validafion reports.
UMCS-^OCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGSXTEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 1 2-2
Final
SECTIONTHIRTEEN Correctiye Action
Provisions for establishing and maintaining QA reporting to the appropriate management
authority will be instituted to assure that early and effecfive correcfive action can be taken when
data quality falls outside of established acceptance criteria. In this context, correcfive action
involves the following steps:
• Discovery of a nonconformance
• Identification of the root cause of the problem and the responsible individual(s)
• Discuss, plan and schedule corrective/preventive action
• Review the corrective acfion taken
• Confirmation that the desired results were achieved
It is the intent of the QA process to minimize corrective actions through the development and
implementafion of effective intemal controls. To accomplish this, procedures will be
implemented as described in this secfion to acfivate a corrective action for each measurement
system when acceptance criteria have been exceeded. In addition, reviews and audits will be
conducted on a periodic basis to check this implementation. Results of QA reviews and audits
typically identify the requirement for corrective action. When this occurs, a corrective action
plan will be prepared to include: identification ofthe corrective action, organizational level
responsible for the action taken, steps to be taken for correction, and approval for the corrective
action.
Activities subject to QA and QC will be evaluated for compliance with applicable standard
procedures. This includes both field and laboratory operafions as described in this QAPP and
LOIs. A lack of compliance with these procedures will consfitute a nonconformance. The URS
Quality Assurance Officer (QAO), or any URS project member who discovers or suspects a
nonconformance, is responsible for inifiafing a nonconformance report (NCR). The QAO will be
responsible for reviewing all audit and NCRs to detemiine areas of poor quality or failure to
adhere to established procedures. The QAO will report nonconformances to the URS PM. The
PM will assure that no additional work, which is dependent on the nonconforming activity, is
performed unfil a confirmed nonconformance is corrected.
The URS PM will be responsible for evaluating all NCRs, conferring with the QAO on the steps
to be taken for correction, and execufing the correcfive action as developed and scheduled.
Correcfive action measures will be selected to prevent or reduce the likelihood of future
nonconformances and address the causes to the extent idenfifiable. Selected measures will be
appropriate to the seriousness of the nonconformance and realistic in terms of the resources
required for implementation.
Upon complefion of the corrective action, the QAO will evaluate the adequacy and completeness
of the action taken. If the action is found to be inadequate, the QAO and URS PM will confer to
resolve the problem and determine any further actions. Implementation of any further action will
be scheduled by the URS PM. If the corrective action is found to be adequate, the QAO will
notify the URS PM of the satisfactory corrective action and the completion of the audit.
UKS^^^DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\L0CAL SETTINGS\TEMP0RARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 13-1
Final
SECTIONTHIRTEEN CorrectiveAction
13.1 FIELD CHANGES
The URS PM is responsible for all investigative activities. In this role, the URS PM at times will
adjust the field program to accommodate project-specific needs. When it becomes necessary to
modify this program, the URS PM will notify the ATK PM and URS QAO.
13.2 LABORATORY DATA
The laboratory will report the types of out-of-control occurrences, how these occurrences are
documented, and who is responsible for correction and documentation. Generally, corrective
acfion will be inifiated by out-of-control events such as: poor analysis replicafion, poor recovery,
instmment calibrafion problems, blank contamination, etc.
Appropriate laboratory personnel will initiate corrective action at any fime during the analytical
process when deemed necessary based on analytical judgment, method requirements, or when
QC data indicate a need for acfion. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to:
Re-analysis
Calculation checks
Instmment recalibration
Preparation of new standards/blanks
Re-ex trae ti on/di gesti on
Dilufion
Application of another analysis method
Additional training of analysts
The following items must be documented for out-of-control incidents so that corrective action
may be taken to set the system back "in control." These items will typically constitute a
corrective action report that is signed by the laboratory director and the laboratory QA contact:
• Where the out-of-control incident occurred,
• When the incident occurred and was corrected,
• Who discovered the out-of-control incident,
• Who verified the incident, and
• Who corrected the problem?
The laboratory will be responsible for re-sampling and re-analysis costs associated with gross
failure to meet laboratory QA/QC objecfives. In consultation with the Environmental Contractor
Project Chemist, wither the Environmental Contractor PM or the QAM may initiate a request for
correcfive acfion.
UICS-^DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGSVTEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132008.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 13-2
Final
SECTIONFOURTEEN Quality Assurance Reports to Management
The investigation report (typically the Letter Report of Findings) will address the status and
results of the sampling and associated QA/QC process for each data generation activity. The
report will typically address and document the following QA/QC items:
Measurement system performance and data quality. This secfion of the report will present the
assessment of precision, accuracy, and completeness in relation to the specified field and
laboratory data acceptance criteria and data assessment procedures.
• Audit findings and corrective acfion measures. This secfion of the report will present the
effectiveness of the data QA program and implementation, and include a summary of
findings and observations resulting from audits, as appropriate.
• Final laboratory QA assessment. This secfion of the report will present a summary of the
laboratory results and performances based upon the data validafion process.
• The routine evaluations of data quality described throughout this QAPP will be
documented and filed along with the data in the project files. A summary of data quality
and the results of checking the sample data against the quality assurance objectives will
be presented in the final report that presents and summarizes the data generated.
Reporting nonconformances and field changes to management is discussed in Secfion 13.
An effecfive QC program should include formal and frequent reports to management and
technical staff of progress in the on-going implementation of the QC plan. At a minimum, the
following parties should receive updates on project status: 1) ATK Project Manager; 2) URS
PM; 3) URS QAO; and 4) other technical staff.
^JKS-\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\L0CAL SETTINGS\TEMP0RARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_071 32006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 14-1
Final
SECTIONFIFTEEN Miscellaneous
15.1 TURNAROUND TIME
Reporting of data will occur within the time frames specified in the Work Orders to the
laboratory. In case of any anficipated delays, the laboratory PM for the project will nofify the
Environmental Contractor Project Chemist.
UKS':\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 15-1
Final
SECTIONSIXTEEN References
EPA, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Headquarters, Department ofthe Army, Washington, DC, Technical Manual (TM) 9-1370-203-
34&P, Military Pyrotechnics, March 1996.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, Environmental Protection
Agency Test Methods for Evaluafing Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846),
Methods 0010, 8270, and 8290,, November 1986.
U.S. Army Defense Ammunifion Center and School, Logisfics Review & Assistance Office,
Savanna, Illinois, Hazard Classification of United States Military Explosives and
Munifions, Rev. 11, February 2001.
U.S. Army Defense Ammunifion Center, McAlester, Oklahoma, MIDAS Home Page,
http://206.37.241.30/.
U.S. Army Developmental Test Command (DTC), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, Test
Authorization in the Test Resource Management System for West Desert Test Center
(WDTC), U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), Utah, to perform Emission
Products Characterizafion of Munitions Study (Phase IV), Test Project No. 8-CO-160-
000-067, 14 March 2001.
U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), Utah, Detailed Test Plan, Emission Characteri-
zafion of Training Ordnance Phase I, II, III, & IV Smoke & Simulators in the
BANGBOX™ Test Facilifies, DPG Document No. DPG-TP-98-026, March 1998.
U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), Utah, Detailed Test Plan fir Phase IX, Emission
Characterization of Smoke/Pyrotechnics and Propellants, WDTC-TP-06-031, June 2006.
U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), Utah, Hazardous Waste Management Plan,
Environmental Activities, June 2000.
U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), Utah, Record of Environmental Consideration for
Phase-V Emission Characterization for Exploding Ordnance and Smoke/Pyrotechnics
(BangBox FY03) Testing at U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), Dugway,
Utah. TRMS Number 8-CO-160-000-067, 30 July 2003.
U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), Utah, Regulation 350-104, Training and Certi-
fication Program for Conventional Ammunition, Chemical Laboratory, and Chamber
Test Facility Operations, June 1996.
U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), Utah, Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) DP-
OOOO-P-851, Rev. 4, Propellant Explosive and Pyrotechnic Thermal Treatment Evaluation
Test Facilities (PEP-TTET) (BANG BOXES), 1 August 2005.
U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), Utah, Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) DP-
OOOO-H-138, Rev. 6, Munitions Demilitarization - Open Buming of Propellant,
Propellant Charges, Bulk Explosives (HMX or RDX), 4 June 2002.
U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), Utah, Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) DP-
OOOO-G-139, Rev. 8, Munitions Demilitarization - Open Detonation of Explosives, and
Emergency Procedures, 13 December 2004.
^JICS^:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 16-1
Final
SECTIONSIXTEEN References
U.S. Army Environmental Center, Pollution Prevention & Environmental Technology Division
FY99 Annual Report, Innovative Technology Demonstration, Evaluation and Transfer
Activities, Doc. No. SFIM-AEC-ET-TR-99070, January 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Final USEPA Contract Laboratory
Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA 540-R-99-008,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Final USEPA Contract Laboratory
Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. EPA 540-R-Ol-
008, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
UDEQ, see Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
USEPA QA/G-4. 2000. Guidance fro the Data Quality Objectives Process, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Washington,
D.C, EPA/600/R-96/056.
USEPA QA/R-5. 2001. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans for
Environmental Data Operations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C, EPA/240/B-01/003.
USEPA QA/G-5. 2002. EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Washington,
D.C, EPA/240/R-02/009.
^JICS':\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\L0CAL SEmNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ 16-2
Final
Figures
Final
"•••%T'W!^mmwwi
Figure 1-1 ODOBi Test Facility at DPG
Final
URS
QA Officer
Steve Baca, CQA
Alliant Thiokol
Project Manager
Blair Palmer
URS
Project Manager
John Carson
Commercial
Laboratories
URS
Administrafive
URS
Health & Safety
Sally Miller, CIH
URS
Technical Specialists
(i.e.. Chemists, Data
Managers)
URS
Field Support Staff
Figure 2-1 Project Organizational Chart
Final
Tables
Final
Table 1-1
Sampling and Analysis Methods
Analytical
Target
TSP
Metals
Perchlorates'^
PM10/PM2.5
Dioxins/
Furans
SVOCs
VOCs
Tracer Compound
(SFfi)
HCI/CI2/NH3'
HCN"^
Carbonyls
CO, CO2, NOx,
SO2, HCl
Sampling
Equipment
Particulate filter
Particulate filter
Particulate filter
Cyclones/particulate
filters
Modified Method 5
Modified Method 5
SUMMA® canisters
Canisters
Impinger train
Soda lime sorbent
tube
DNPH-laced sorbent
tube
CEM
Sampling Method''
Method 5 in Appendix A
of 40 CFR 60
Method 5 in Appendix A
of 40 CFR 60
Method 5 in Appendix A
of40CFR60
Method 201A in 40 CFR
51 withPM|oandPM2.5
cyclones
Method 23 in Appendix A
of 40 CFR 60
SW-846 Method 0010
EPA Compendium
Methods TO-12 and
TO-14
Grab
Method 26 in 40 CFR 60,
and Conditional Test
Method 027
NIOSH Method 6010
EPA Compendium
Method TO-11A
Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, and
10 in Appendix A of 40
CFR 60
Analytical Method
Method 5 in Appendix A of
40 CFR 60
SW-846 Methods
6010/7470"'
EPA Method 314"
Method 201A in 40 CFR 51
SW-846 Method 8290'
SW-846 Method 8270' plus
TICs
EPA Compendium Methods
TO-12 and TO-14 plus
TICs
GC/Electron Capture
Detector
Method 26 in 40 CFR 60,
and Conditional Test Method
027
NIOSH Method 6010
EPA Compendium Method
TO-11A
Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, and
10 in Appendix A of 40
CFR 60
Laboratory
STL
STL
STL
ERG
Alta Labs
STL
ATL
ATL
ERG
DataChem
ATL
None
The sampling equipment and methods used during the tests will be based on standard methods, as indicated (see
Appendix B for details). Method modifications will be necessary to accommodate the testing characteristics of the
ODOBi.
•"AnalysesofTSP.
'Analysis of soluble TSP fraction.
"* Filter and adsorbent.
^Energetics, NH3, and HCN samples will not be collected for the ATK OB tests as requested by the customer (ATK).
ATK = ATK Thiokol Propulsion
ATL = Air Toxics Limited
CEM = continuous emission monitor
Final
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
CI2 = chlorine
CO = carbon monoxide
CO2 = carbon dioxide
DNPH = 2, 4-dinitrophenylhydrazine
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERG = Eastem Research Group
GC = gas chromatography
HCl = hydrogen chloride
HCN = tiydrogen cyanide
NH3 = ammonia
NIOSH = National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NOx = nitrogen oxides
OB = open bum
ODOBi = open detonation/open bum-improved
PMio = particulate matter smaller than 10 microns
PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns
SFs = sulfur hexafluoride
SO2 = sulfur dioxide
STEM = sampling train for energetic materials
STL = Sevem Trent Laboratories
SVOC = semivolatile organic compound
TIC = tentatively identified compound
TSP = total suspended particulate matter
USACHPPM = U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine
voc = volatile organic compound
Final
Table 3-1
Measurement Quality Objectives
Test Parameter
TSP
PM,(/PM2.5
Perchlorates
Metals
VOCs
Tracer Compound
SVOCs
Dioxins/Furans
HCI/CI2/NH3
HCN
Carbonyls
NOx, CO, CO2, SO2,
HCl
Accuracy Object!vCd)
95 to 105% accuracy of flow and
filter-weighing devices
95 to 105% accuracy of flow and
filter weighing devices
80 to 120% recovery of matrix
spike
75 to 125% recovery of post
digestion matrix spike from filter
70 to 130% recovery of laboratory
media spike (laboratory
calibration check material,
transferred into a canister, and
analyzed with the field samples)
60 to 140% for polar compounds
80 to 120% recovery of laboratory
media spike
40 to 120% surrogate spike
recoveries
40 to 135% surrogate spike
recoveries
85-115% recovery for matrix
spike
75 to 125% recovery for matrix
spike
70 to 130% recovery of media
spike
±5% of span for zero and upscale
bias checks
Precision Objective
RPD <25% for multiple runs on a single event
RPD <25% for multiple runs on a single event
RPD <25% on MS/MSD
<20% RPD for recovery of post digestion MS/MSD
from filter
<25% RPD for top ten peaks on laboratory duplicate
analyses
±10% RPD for laboratory duplicate analyses
<50% RPD for MS/MSD for all compounds
<20% RPD for MS/MSD
<25% RPD for MS/MSD
<20% RPD for MS/MSD
<25% RPD for duplicate media spikes
±3% of span for zero and upscale drift checks
1) Limits will be updated based on labs running averages in reference to surrogate recoveries
CO = carbon monoxide
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CI2 = chlorine
HCl = hydrogen chloride
HCN = hydrogen cyanide
MS/MSD = matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
NH3 = ammonia
NO, = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns
PMio= particulate matter smaller than 10 microns
RPD = relative percent difference
SO2 = sulfur dioxide
SVOC = semivolatile or ganic compound
TSP = total suspended particulate [matter]
VOC = volatile organic compound
Final
Table 3-2
Laboratory Identification, Analyses Method and Respective Reporting Liniits
Air Toxics Limited
Carbonyls Rep. Lmt
(TO-11 A) (ug)
Formaldehyde 0.05
Acetaldehyde 0.1
Propanal 0.25
Acetone 0.25
Crotonaldehyde 0.25
Methyl Ethyl
Ketone/Butyraldehydes 0.25
Benzaldehyde 0.25
Isopentanal 0.25
Pentanal 0.25
o-Tolualdehyde 0.25
m,p-Tolualdehyde 0.25
Hexanal 0.25
2,5-
Dimethyibenzaldehyde 0.5
Data CheiT) Laboratories
HCN Rep. Lmt
(NIOSH 6010) (ug)
Cyanide 0.2
" HCl is reported as chloride in t
ALTA Labs
Dioxins/Furans
(Method 8290)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
STL
Perchlorates
(Method 314)
Perchlorate
he acid samples, and Cl
Rep. Lmt
(pg)
10
50
50
50
50
50
100
10
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
100
Rep. Lmt
(ug)
0.4
2 is reporte
ERG
HCI/CI2/NH3 Rep.
(Method 26A Lmt
&CTM-27) (ug)
Chloride^ 10
Ammonium 10
URS
Rep.
CEM Gases Lmt
(ppm)
CO2 1.0
CO 0.04
NOx 0.20
SO2 0.20
HCl 0.20
d as chloride in the a
STL
Metals „^^, ^.
(Method "7^^-*
7470/6010) ^"^'
Aluminum 20
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
kaline samples
6
1
20
0.5
0.5
1
5
2.5
1
500
1.5
0.2
4
30
1
2
3.5
2
Final
Air Toxics Limited
VOCs
TNMOG
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Diethylbenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Diethylbenzene
1,4-Dioxane
1-Butene
1-Hexene
1-Pentene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone)
2-Ethyltoluene
Rep Lmt
(ppbv)
10
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
2
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
0.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0.5
2
STL
SVOCs
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Diphenyihydrazine
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1-Chloronaphthalene
1-Naphthylamine
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenoi
2,4-Dinitrotoiuene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Chioronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Methylphenol & 4-Methylphenol
3-Nitroaniline
Rep Lmt
(ug)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
50
50
10
10
50
Final
Air Toxics Liirnited
VOCs
2-Hexanone
2-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
2-Methylpentane
2-Nitropropane
2-Propanol
3-Chloropropene
3-Ethyltoluene
3-Methylheptane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
4-Ethyltoluene
4-Ethyltoluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
alpha-Chlorotoluene
alpha-Pinene
Benzene
beta-Pinene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Butanal
Butane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroacetonitrile
Chlorobenzene
Rep Lmt
(ppbv)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0.5
2
0.5
2
5
5
2
2
0.5
2
0.5
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
5
5
0.5
0.5
5
0.5
STL
SVOCs
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Aniline
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
CS
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Rep Lmt
(ug)
50
10
10
10
20
10
50
50
10
10
10
10
20
10
100
10
10
10
10
10
100
100
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
Final
Air Toxics Limited
VOCs
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
cis-2-Butene
cis-2-Pentene
Cumene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Decane
Dibromochloromethane
D-Limonene
Ethane
Ethanol
Ethene
Ethyl Benzene
Ethyl Ether
Ethyl Methacrylate
Freon 11
Freon 113
Freon 114
Freon 12
Heptane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexane
Isobutane
Isopentane
Isoprene
m.p-Xylene
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl Acrylate
Rep.Lmt
(ppbv)
0.5
0.5
2
0.5
0.5
2
2
0.5
0.5
2
2
0.5
2
5
2
5
0.5
2
5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
0.5
2
2
2
0.5
2
2
STL
SVOCs
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dinoseb
Diphenylamine
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitro-o-toluidine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nltrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o-Toluidine
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Rep Lmt
(ug)
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Final
VOCs
Air Toxics Liniited
Rep Lmt
(ppbv)
Methyl Methacrylate 2
Methyl tert-butyl ether 0.5
Methylcyclohexane 2
Methylcyclopentane 2
Methylene Chloride 0.5
Naphthalene 2
n-Butanol 2
n-Butylchloride 5
Nonane 2
Octane 2
o-Xylene 0.5
Pentane 2
Propane 5
Propylbenzene 0.5
Propylene 5
Styrene 0.5
Tetrachloroethene 0.5
Tetrahydrofuran 0.5
Toluene 0.5
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.5
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.5
trans-2-butene 2
trans-2-Pentene 2
Trichloroethene 0.5
Undecane 2
Vinyl Acetate 2
Vinyl Chloride 0.5
STL
SVOCs
Pentach lorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Rep Lmt
(ug)
10
10
50
50
10
10
10
10
20
10
Final
Table 3-3
Listing of LOIs for Smoke and Pyrotechnics, and Exploding Ordnance Tests
LOI
Number
101
104
106
107
108
109
301
304
Revision
Number
3
3
3
4
3
3
1
1
Revision Date
02 February 2005
02 February 2005
24 October 2005
02 February 2005
02 February 2005
02 February 2005
02 February 2005
02 February 2005
Test Cliamber
ODOBi
ODOBi
ODOBi
ODOBi
ODOBi
ODOBi
ODOBi
ODOBi
Title
TSP Sampling and Analysis
Procedure
VOCs and Tracer Compounds
Sampling and Analysis
Procedure
CEM Sampling and Analysis
Procedure
Particulate Metals Sampling
and Analysis Procedure
HC1/C12/NH3 Sampling and
Analysis Procedure
Carbonyls Sampling and
Analysis Procedure
SVOCs & Dioxins/Furans
Sampling and Analysis
Procedure
PM2.5/PM10 Sampling and
Analysis Procedure using
Cyclones
Responsible
Organization |
URS
URS
URS
URS
URS
URS
URS
URS
OEM = Continuous Emission Monitor
Cl2= Chlorine
HCl = Hydrogen Chloride
HCN = Hydrogen Cyanide
NH3 = ammonia
ODOBi = Open Detonation Open Bum-improved
PM:5 = Particulate Matter < 2.5 microns
PMIO = Particulate Matter < 10 microns
SVOC = Semivolatile Organic Compound
TSP = Total Suspended Parliculale Matter
URS = sampling and analysis contractor (formerly Radian Int.)
voc = Volatile Organic Compound
Final
Table 4-1
Sample Preservations and Holding Time Requirements
Metals
Perchlorates
HCl/Cl2/NH3(„
HCN
SVOCs
VOCs
Dioxins/furans
Carbonyls
Tracer Compound
Preservation
None
None
4°C for acid samples
None
4°C
None
4°C
None
None
Holding time
Mercury - 28 days.
All others- 180days.
28 days.
Analyze acid samples within 14 days
Analyze alkali samples within 28 days
14 days.
Extract within 14 days; analyze within 40 days following
extraction.
30 days.
Extract within 14 days; analyze within 40 days following
extraction.
Extract within 14 days; analyze within 30 days following 1
extraction.
30 days.
(1) Sodium thiosulfate will be added as a preservative for CI2
Cl2= Chlorine
HCl - hydrogen chloride
HCN = Hydrogen cyanide
NH3 = Ammonia
SVOC = semivolatile organic compound
VOC = volatile organic compound
AppendixA
Lists Of Analytes
Final
AppendixA
Lists of Anaiytes
Table A.l.
VOC Target Analyte List (EPA Compendium Method TO-14).
VOCs
1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Diethylbenzene
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Diethylbenzene
1,4-Dioxane
1-Butene
1-Hexene
1 1-Pentene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone)
2-Ethyltoluene
2-Hexanone
2-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
2-Methylpentane
2-Nitropropane
2-Propanol
3-Chloropropene
3-Ethyltoluene
3-Methylheptane
3-Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
4-Ethyltoluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrylonitrile
alpha-Chlorotoluene
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Butane
Carbon Disulflde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroacetonitrile
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
cis-2-Butene
cis-2-Pentene
Cumene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Decane
Dibromochloromethane
Ethane
Ethanol
Ethene
Ethyl Benzene
Ethyl Ether
Ethyl Methacrylate
Freon 11
Freon 113
Freon 114
Freon 12
Heptane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexane
Isobutane
Isopentane
Isoprene
m,p-XyIene
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl Acrylate
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
Methylene Chloride
n-Butylchloride
Nitrobenzene
Nonane
Octane
o-Xylene
Pentane
Propane
Propylbenzene
Propylbenzene
Propylene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
TNMHC"
Toluene
trans-1,2-
Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-
Dichloropropene
trans-2-butene
trans-2-Pentene
Trichloroethene
Undecane
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
"Total nonmethane hydrocarbon.
UKSC:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGSNTEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ A" 1
Final
AppendixA
Lists of Anaiytes
Table A.2.
SVOC Target Analyte List (EPA SW-846 Method 8270).
1,2,4,5-
Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1-Chloronaphthalene
1-Naphthylamine
2,3,4,6-
Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-ChIorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
SVOCs
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Methylphenol & 4-
Methylphenol
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
7,12-
Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Aniline
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fl uoranthene
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dinoseb
Diphenylamine
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexach lorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hex ach loropropene
Indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Methyl methanesulfonate
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitro-o-toluidine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o-Toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
URS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGSVTEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ A-2
Final
AppendixA
Lists of Analytes
Table A.3.
Carbonyls Target Analyte List (EPA Compendium Method TO-11 A).
Carbonyls
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexanal
Isopentanal
M,p-Tolualdehyde
MEK/Butyraldehydes
o-Tolualdehyde
Pentanal
Propanal
Table A.4.
Metals Target Analyte List (EPA Method 29).
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Table A.S.
Dioxins/Furans Target Analyte List (EPA SW-846 Method 8290).
Dioxins
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (TCDD)
1,2,3,7,8,9-
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(HxCDD)
1,2,3,7,8-
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(PeCDD)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
Heptachlorod i benzo-p-
dioxin (HpCDD)
1,2,3,4,7,8-
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(HxCDD)
1,2,3.4,6,7,8,9-
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(OCDD)
1,2,3,6,7,8-
Hexach lorodi benzo-p-
dioxin (HxCDD)
Furans |
2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
(TCDF)
1,2,3,6,7,8-
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
(HxCDF)
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-
Heptachlorodibenzofuran
(HpCDF)
1,2,3,7,8-
Pentachlorodibenzofuran
(PeCDF)
2,3,4,6,7,8-
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
(HxCDF)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
Octachlorodibenzofuran
(OCDF)
2,3,4,7,8-
Pentachlorodibenzofuran
(PeCDF)
1,2,3,7,8,9-
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
(HxCDF)
1,2,3,4,7,8-
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
(HxCDF)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
Heptachlorodibenzofuran
(HpCDF)
UICO C:\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ A-3
Final
AppendixA
Lists of Analytes
Table A.6
Other Target Compounds
Other Target Compounds
Ammonia Hydrogen Chloride
Particulate Matter (TSP,
PM,o,PM2.5)
Chlorine
CEM gases (CO2, CO, SO2,
and NOx)
Perchlorate |
Hydrogen cyanide
CEM = continuous emission monitor
CO = carbon monoxide
CO, = carbon dioxide
NO, = nitrogen oxides
PM25 = particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns
PMio = particulate matter smaller than 10 microns
SO2 = sulfur dioxide
TSP = total suspended paniculate matter
mC«*C.\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ A-4
Appendix B
Listing of the Letters Of Instruction
Final
Appendix B
Letters Of Instruction
Table B.l.
Listing of LOIs for Smoke and Pyrotechnics, and Exploding Ordnance Tests.
» EOS
"Nii'mberj*'
..•'•.^''•tiffiiy(i,|l;_s^H^;^lif
;Number-j
P^^ponsil>lei
EOrganization?!;
101 02 February 2005 Smoke Chamber,
BANGBOX™ or
ODOBi
TSP Sampling and Analysis
Procedure
URS
104 02 February 2005 Smoke Chamber,
BANGBOX™ or
ODOBi
VOCs and Tracer Compounds
Sampling and Analysis
Procedure
URS
106 24 October 2005 Smoke Chamber,
BANGBOX™ or
ODOBi
CEM Sampling and Analysis
Procedure
URS
107 02 February 2005 Smoke Chamber,
BANGBOX™ or
ODOBi
Particulate Metals Sampling
and Analysis Procedure
URS
108 02 February 2005 Smoke Chamber,
BANGBOX™ or
ODOBi
HCI/CI2/NH3 Sampling and
Analysis Procedure
URS
109 02 February 2005 Smoke Chamber,
BANGBOX™ or
ODOBi
Carbonyls Sampling and
Analysis Procedure
URS
301 02 February 2005 Smoke Chamber,
or ODOBi
SVOC, Dioxins/Furans,
Sampling and Analysis
Procedure
URS
304 02 February 2005' Smoke Chamber,
or ODOBi
PM2.5/PM10 Sampling and
Analysis Procedure using
Cyclones
URS
305 02 February 2005 Smoke Chamber
BANGBOX™, or
ODOBi
Perchlorates Sampling and
Analysis Procedure
URS
306 23 March 2006 Smoke Chamber
or ODOBi
Energetics Sampling and
Analysis Procedure
(Alternate)
URS
307 23 March 2006 Smoke Chamber
BANGBOX™, or
ODOBi
Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN)
Sampling and Analysis
Procedure (Alternate)
URS
(1) A complete copy ofthe LOIs can be found in the Detailed Test Plan for Phase IX Emission
Characterization of Smoke/Pyrotechnics and Propellants, May 2006
CEM - Continuous Emission Monitor PM2.5 = Particulate Matter < 2.5 microns
^JICM C.\D0CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGSNTEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ B-l
Final
Appendix B
Letters Of Instruction
CI2 = Chlorine PMio = Particulate Matter < 10 microns
HCl = Hydrogen Chloride SVOC = Semivolatile Organic Compound
HCN = Hydrogen Cyanide TSP - Total Suspended Particulate Matter
LOI = letter of instruction URS = sampling and analysis contractor (formerly Radian Int.)
NH3 = ammonia VOC = Volatile Organic Compound
ODOBi = open detonation/open burn-
improved
UKS C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\PALMEBG\LOCAL SETTINGSNTEMPGRARY INTERNET FILES\OLK860\QAPP_FINAL_07132006.DOC\24-JUL-06\\ B-2
Summary Page 1 of 3
LIOIA Search
Learning Disabilities
AssoclaUbn cHAmatoa Find It Fast
Le:irnlng Disabilities Association
:.„-» AnniJalLGonrerenco V- •
•I.:. ...-• • '.cjas«SM[^ats!t?*E:r_..#:...:
[fi'^-'State-Ghaptm^-li
ll.x,. • J - .: .:;.W,.»VM, fjMMfA.:!.^?^...
39
"4^Research-jnm»iiini»!T??j
'E:^ Bpokstorei:"^ .•sis: ..•.v.iaE!;*..:.-,.iiiS:ffi. i^f- •,-gai'?j?tta!iaiiiL'3fea:
/?ri Summary
In recent years, a problem-solving approach referred to as responsiveness to
intervention (RTI) has received increased attention as a process of remedial
interventions that can help generate data to guide instruction and identify students
with learning disabilities (LD) who may require special education and related
services. Core concepts include the systematic (1) application of scientific,
research-based interventions in general education; (2) measurement of student
responses to the interventions; and (3) use of the response data to change the
intensity or type of subsequent intervention.
Historically, RTI refines earlier initiatives such as prereferral intervention and
teacher assistance teams. Recent interest in RTI has emerged from concern about
the inadequacies of the ability-achievement discrepancy criterion for identifying LD,
the need to reduce referrals to special education by using well-designed instruction
and intensified interventions in general education, and the recent NICHD-
coordinated research on early reading difficulties indicating that early intervention
could significantly reduce reading problems in students. IDEA 2004 now includes
language permitting the use of data from a process that determines if the child
responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation
procedures as an alternative criterion to the ability-achievement discrepancy. In
addition, up to 15% of Part B funds can be used for "early intervening services...
[for those needing] additional academic and behavioral support..."
Although there is no universal RTI model, it is generally understood to include
multiple tiers that provide a sequence of programs and services for students
showing academic difficulties. Briefly, Tier 1 provides high-quality instruction and
behavioral supports in general education. Tier 2 provides more specialized
instruction for students whose performance and rate of progress lag behind
classroom peers, and Tier 3 provides comprehensive evaluation by a
multidisciplinary team to determine ifthe student has a disability and is eligible for
special education and related services.
Although parent participation is widely recognized as essential to improving
educational outcomes for students, many parents express concern about whether
ongoing, meaningful involvement will occur in an RTI model. How will they be
included in state and local planning? Involved in all phases ofan RTI process?
Informed of their referral rights? Will their child's education depend more on their
own knowledge and initiative than on school efforts? Certainly, positive parent-
school partnerships will depend on commitment by both home and education
professionals.
Potential benefits cited by RTI proponents include (1) earlier identification of
students with LD using a problem-solving approach rather than an ability-
achievement discrepancy formula with the expectation of minimizing "wait to
http://www.ldaamerica.org/news/rti-summary.asp 8/28/2006
Summary Page 2 of 3
fail," (2) reduction in the number of students referred for special education, (3)
reduction in the overidentification of minority students, (4) data that are maximally
relevant to instruction, (5) focus on student outcomes with increased
accountability, and (6) promotion of shared responsibility and collaboration.
While RTI seems to encourage addressing the needs of students at risk, the use of
RTI for eligibility purposes has raised questions about whether RTI is prone to
systemic errors in identifying students with LD. For example, some high-ability
students with intellectual strengths and support may achieve in the normal range
and be denied the individualized instruction enabling them to make academic
progress consistent with their ability.
Although it is generally agreed that RTI can identify a pool of at-risk students, it
does not appear to be sufficient to identify a specific learning disability. It may,
however, serve as an important component of an evaluation for special education
eligibility. Research data from large-scale implementation of RTI are needed to
determine the efficacy of RTI for differentiating a specific learning disability from
other disabilities and students without disabilities.
Before implementation of an RTI approach, many issues about the structure and
components to be used, as well as how students will move through the process,
must be addressed and efficacy research conducted. In selecting the number of
tiers and instructional options, and timelines to be used, models will vary along a
flexibility-rigidity continuum. The result will affect such factors as degree of
individualization, cost of staff resources, and likelihood of replication. Factors that
affect movement within and between tiers, such as cut scores, timelines for team
decision-making, and where interventions are provided must also be resolved so
that access to services is maximized and delay of services, including special
education, is avoided.
Ensuring availability of needed resources is also an important step prior to
implementation. What space and materials will be required? How will student and
teacher schedules be affected? What time must be allowed for phase-in and
professional development? How will the impact of increased documentation
requirements be minimized? Especially unclear is the answer to the question of
whether costs will increase or decrease and by how much.
Although NJCLD has long been concerned about professional preparation, RTI
approaches will require new or changed roles for administrators, general education
and special education teachers, and related services personnel. Questions arise
about how needed professional development will be determined, provided, and
followed-up. What are the specific competencies required to provide high quality
scientific, research-based interventions, continuous progress monitoring, and timely
recognition of nonresponsiveness in general education? What types of field
experience and mentoring are most helpful to novice and practicing teachers? How
will collaborative skills be fostered within the culture ofthe school?
Once vital competencies are determined, the question of what documentation can
ensure that those competencies are actually in the repertoire of professionals must
be asked. Does state licensure address the needed competencies or are alternate
certification. Board certification, or other formal documentation of competence
useful? A related, and growing, personnel problem is the difficulty recruiting and
retaining highly qualified teachers, especially when career ladders have not proved
effective and advanced certification often results in teachers moving out of the
classroom. It is not yet known whether the new responsibilities of RTI will motivate
teachers to stay in classrooms.
Research on RTI has primarily focused on intervention studies that investigate the
http://www.ldaamerica.org/news/rti-summary.asp 8/28/2006
Summary Page 3 of 3
delivery and efficacy of instructional methods and materials or on field studies that
explore the instructional components that might be incorporated into an RTI
approach. Intervention studies, many of which have been conducted by the NICHD,
formed the basis for the provision in IDEA 2004 that permits "use of a process that
determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of
the evaluation procedures" for identifying LD. Focusing on early skills in decoding,
these studies have shown that many evidence-based early reading programs are
equally effective, if instruction is focused, uses small groups, ensures high response
rates, includes immediate feedback, and follows a sequential mastery of topics.
Field studies of RTI have explored the actual practices applied in problem-solving
approaches using either standard protocols or individualized interventions. Although
existing studies have found changes in the way support services were used and
identified a lower proportion of minority students as having LD, many key questions
have not yet been addressed. These include student success rates over time and
the numbers of children beyond third grade receiving continued interventions or
returning to general education, as well as the effects of various criteria for
adequate response to intervention and achievement norms or benchmarks based
on classroom, local, or state criteria on eligibility for tiers or for special education
and related services.
Of special interest is the work of the National Research Center on Learning
Disabilities, which is seeking to identify and study medium- and large-scale RTI
sites that use best practice and meet criteria enabling replication. Using these as
pilot sites, the goal is to recognize RTI models that demonstrate improved
achievement in students with and without disabilities beyond the primary years and
assist others in adopting such proven models. While the need for such research and
evaluation is pressing, it is also an enormously complex undertaking. Large-scale
implementation of RTI will vary widely depending on factors such as the selection
and fidelity of interventions, tiers, resources, timelines, and professional
development. Careful reporting of such variables and adherence to established
research standards will be critical to shaping RTI models that successfully inform
and enhance instruction.
The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities intends that this paper will
encourage study and consideration ofthe information, issues, and research related
to RTI in order to guide its thoughtful implementation, advance the field of special
education, and enhance the academic outcomes and life success of all students,
including students with learning disabilities.
NOTE: This document was approved by the National Joint Committee on Learning
Disabilities (NJCLD) as an official paper of the NJCLD in June 2005
Top
L3 Print this paga (^ Share this Daae
This page is Bobby Approved.
Hprne | Contact Us | Linl< To. y.s | Disclaimer | P.riyacy Pol.i.cy I Donate
Learning Disabilities Association of © 2005 LDA of
America America
4155 Library Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15234-1349
Phone [phone] Fax (412) 344-
0224
http://www.ldaamerica.org/news/rti-summary.asp 8/28/2006