A

Sampling & Analysis Plan

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank

Washington State Penitentiary
RI/FS Work Plan
APPENDIX A:
Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

Contract No. C0700036
Work Assignment No. EANE026

Prepared for:
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Toxics Cleanup Program
North 4601 Monroe
Spokane, Washington 99205-1295

By:
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
720 Third Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98104

June 2009
Updated by Parametrix, Inc.
1231 Fryar Avenue
Sumner, WA 98390

February 2010
Under Contract to the Washington State Department of Corrections
Contract No. 10-321A

This page intentionally left blank

T

able of Contents

Section

1

Introduction................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6

2

Site Description .................................................................................................... 1-2
Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................ 1-2
Previous Investigations ........................................................................................ 1-2
Contaminants of Concern .................................................................................... 1-4
Areas of Concern ................................................................................................. 1-5
Additional Areas of Interest ................................................................................. 1-8

Objectives and Design ................................................................. 2-1
2.1

3

Page

Field Data Collection Technologies..................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1
Topographical Survey ........................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2
Geophysical – Survey ........................................................................... 2-1
2.1.3
Direct-Push Soil and Soil Gas Sampling .............................................. 2-2
2.1.4
Monitoring Well Drilling and Soil Sampling ....................................... 2-2
2.1.5
Groundwater Sampling ......................................................................... 2-3
2.1.6
Test Pits................................................................................................. 2-3
2.1.7
Grab Sampling ...................................................................................... 2-4
2.1.8
Surface Water Sampling ....................................................................... 2-4

RI Field Investigation .................................................................... 3-1
3.1

3.2

Groundwater Investigation................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1
Security and Safety Orientation of Field Staff...................................... 3-1
3.1.2
Clearance of Drilling Locations ............................................................ 3-1
3.1.3
Monitoring Well Installation and Sampling ......................................... 3-1
3.1.4
Assessment of Vicinity Water Wells as Potential Sampling
Locations ............................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.5
Groundwater Sampling ......................................................................... 3-2
3.1.6
Site Topographic Survey ...................................................................... 3-3
AOC Investigation ............................................................................................... 3-3
3.2.1
Area of Concern #1: WSP Landfill...................................................... 3-4
3.2.2
Area of Concern #2: Former Dry Cleaning Services ........................... 3-4
3.2.3
Area of Concern #3: Former Motor Pool............................................. 3-4
3.2.4
Area of Concern #4: Former UST Locations....................................... 3-5
3.2.5
Area of Concern #5: Former Auto Body/Furniture Refurbishing
Site ........................................................................................................ 3-5

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

i

February 24, 2010

Table of Contents (Cont.)
Section

Page
3.2.6

3.3

4

Field Sampling Methods............................................................... 4-1
4.1
4.2

4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7

5

QA/QC for Chemical Analyses ........................................................................... 7-1
Data Quality Assurance Review Procedures ....................................................... 7-1

Data Analysis, Record Keeping and Reporting
Requirements ................................................................................ 8-1
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4

9

Chemical Analyses and Target Detection Limits ................................................ 6-1

QA/QC Requirements ................................................................... 7-1
7.1
7.2

8

Sample Storage Requirements ............................................................................. 5-1
Chain of Custody Procedures............................................................................... 5-2

Laboratory Analytical Methods.................................................... 6-1
6.1

7

Station Positioning Methods ................................................................................ 4-1
Sample Collection and Other Field Procedures ................................................... 4-1
4.2.1
Geophysical Survey .............................................................................. 4-1
4.2.2
Drum Sampling ..................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.3
Soil Grab Sampling............................................................................... 4-2
4.2.4
Direct-Push Sampling ........................................................................... 4-2
4.2.5
Soil Sampling During Sonic Drilling ................................................... 4-3
4.2.6
Monitoring Well Sampling ................................................................... 4-4
4.2.7
Surface Water Sampling ....................................................................... 4-4
Decontamination Procedures ............................................................................... 4-4
Sample Handling .................................................................................................. 4-4
Sample Identification, Containers, and Labels .................................................... 4-5
Field Documentation Procedures ......................................................................... 4-5
Investigation-Derived Waste ............................................................................... 4-6

Sample Handling Procedures ...................................................... 5-1
5.1
5.2

6

Area of Concern #6: Former Hazardous Waste Accumulation
Area ....................................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.7
Area of Concern #7: Steam Plant Boiler Ash ...................................... 3-5
3.2.8
Area of Concern #8: Sign Shop ........................................................... 3-5
3.2.9
Area of Concern #9: Metal Plant #1 .................................................... 3-5
3.2.10 Additional Areas of Interest .................................................................. 3-5
Sampling Limitations ........................................................................................... 3-6

Chemical and Physical Data ................................................................................ 8-1
Data Interpretation ............................................................................................... 8-1
Record Keeping Procedures ................................................................................. 8-1
Reporting Procedures ........................................................................................... 8-1

Health and Safety Plan ................................................................. 9-1

February 24, 2010

ii

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

Table of Contents (Cont.)
Section

Page

10

Schedule...................................................................................... 10-1

11

Project Team and Coordination ................................................. 11-1
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6

12

Project Planning and Coordination .................................................................... 11-1
Mobilization ....................................................................................................... 11-1
Field Sample Collection ..................................................................................... 11-2
Laboratory Sample Preparation and Analysis.................................................... 11-2
QA/QC Management ......................................................................................... 11-2
Data Report ........................................................................................................ 11-2

References .................................................................................. 12-1

Figures
Appendices
A

Chemical Analytical Parameters, Laboratory Methods, and
Method Detection Limits

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

iii

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank

L

ist of Figures

Figures
1.

Proposed RI Monitoring Well Locations

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

v

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank

L

ist of Tables

Table

Page

Table 1-1. Confirmed Contaminants of Concern for WSP .......................................................... 1-5
Table 1-2. Suspected Contaminants of Concern for WSP ........................................................... 1-5
Table 1-3. Areas of Concern ........................................................................................................ 1-6
Table 3-1. Rationale for Installation of New RI Monitoring Wells at WSP................................ 3-2
Table 3-2. Analytes for Quarterly RI Sampling........................................................................... 3-3

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

vii

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank

L

ist of Abbreviations and Acronyms

µg/l

micrograms per liter

AOC

area of concern

bgs

below ground surface

CCOC

Confirmed Contaminant of Concern

COC

Contaminant of Concern

CDL

construction debris landfill

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

COC

contaminant of concern

DOC

Department of Corrections

Ecology

Washington State Department of Ecology

EM

electromagnetic

GE

General Electric Company

GPM

Government Project Manager

GPS

global positioning system

HAS

hollow-stem auger

HWA

HWA Geosciences, Inc.

IDW

investigation-derived waste

L/min

liters per minute

MTCA

(State of Washington) Model Toxics Control Act

NAD

North American Datum

O&M

operation and maintenance

PAHs

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PCBs

polychlorinated biphenyls

PCE

tetrachloroethene

PPE

personal protective equipment

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

ix

February 24, 2010

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (Cont.)

RCW

Revised Code of Washington

RI/FS

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

SAP

Sampling and Analysis Plan

SCOC

Suspected Contaminant of Concern

SOP

Standard Operating Procedure

SVOCs

semi-volatile organic compounds

TCE

trichloroethene

TPH

total petroleum hydrocarbons

TPH-D

total petroleum hydrocarbons-diesel range

UTM

Universal Transverse Mercator

VOCs

volatile organic compounds

WSP

Washington State Penitentiary

February 24, 2010

x

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

1

Introduction

The Washington State Penitentiary (WSP) is the subject of a remedial investigation /
feasibility study (RI/FS) under the management of the Washington State Department of
Corrections (DOC) and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Toxics Cleanup
Program. The objective of the RI/FS is to determine the nature and extent of
contamination related to activities of the WSP. The property lines of the WSP serve as
the boundary of the investigation study area as illustrated in Work Plan Figure 1. This
area includes the WSP facilities in the eastern half of the property and the WSP Landfill
to the northwest of the facilities. The facilities include the buildings and improvements
both inside and outside of secure areas. If impacted areas are encountered outside of the
property lines, they may also be included in the investigation.
Previous investigations have confirmed the presence of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in the groundwater at the Sudbury Road Municipal Landfill (Sudbury Landfill)
and in monitoring wells upgradient of the Sudbury landfill. These monitoring wells are
considered to be downgradient of the WSP. In several monitoring wells at the Sudbury
Landfill and the WSP Landfill, the concentration of tetrachloroethene (PCE) and
trichloroethene (TCE) have exceeded the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method A
cleanup levels for groundwater.
The objective of this Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) is to characterize the nature and
extent of contamination that can be reasonably identified in areas of concern (AOCs) or
potential AOCs at the WSP site, and to determine if contaminants may be migrating onto
WSP property from upgradient sources. Although the AOC initially identified was the
WSP Landfill, this SAP includes other AOCs within the WSP that may be sources of
contamination that may be migrating in groundwater beneath the WSP Landfill or may be
migrating off site through other pathways. These additional AOCs were identified based
on a review of available information about past investigations and activities that were
known to have involved hazardous materials. This SAP describes the proposed
investigation activities to characterize the nature and extent (vertical and horizontal) of
soil and groundwater contamination in AOCs at the site, and to define the characteristics
of soils and groundwater to support a future feasibility study.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

1-1

February 24, 2010

1. Introduction

The DOC is the Potentially Liable Party (PLP) responsible for completing the RI/FS at
WSP. DOC retained Parametrix, Inc. to implement the RI/FS, including updating this
RI/FS SAP with specific information regarding AOCs, supporting historical information,
investigation rationale, media to be sampled, sampling methods, sample types, sampling
locations, chemicals to be analyzed, and the phasing and scheduling of the RI/FS. This
Final RI/FS SAP retains the structure and much of the content of the Work Plan prepared
by Ecology and Environment, Inc., incorporates updates and revisions from a
supplemental data search completed by Parametrix, and has been approved by Ecology
subsequent to detailed discussions between Ecology and DOC.

1.1 Site Description
The WSP is an active correctional facility located at 1313 North 13th Avenue, Walla
Walla, Washington (Work Plan Figures 1 and 2). The facility itself occupies a 560-acre
site, and the adjacent WSP Landfill occupies an area of approximately 7.7 acres.
Current and past operations at the WSP include a license plate factory, sign shop,
furniture refinishing facility, cannery, and dairy. Institution support activities include
food service, janitorial, and various operation and maintenance (O & M) functions.
Prison O & M functions include a photo processing shop (no longer in use); X-ray, dental
and medical laboratories; laundry and dry cleaning operations; motor pool; fix it shop;
and grounds maintenance facility.
The WSP Landfill (also referred to as the Construction Demolition Landfill) is located in
a former topographic depression northwest of the WSP facility. The landfill was the
principal disposal site for DOC construction and demolition debris from the early 1970s
until 1987. During its operation, the WSP Landfill received construction, demolition,
yard, and farm waste. The landfill is divided into an east cell (3.4 acres) and a west cell
(4.3 acres), separated by a north-south access road (Ecology 2000).
Southwest of the WSP facility is a pond and wetlands area. A portion of the WSP facility
surface water runoff and storm water drainage is directed to this pond and wetlands area.

1.2 Regulatory Framework
Regulations govern both the RI/FS and continuing operations at the WSP. The RI/FS
investigation and remedial activities will be conducted in accordance with the MTCA,
including the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 70.105D and the MTCA
Cleanup Regulation, Chapter 173-340. Together, these regulations will also guide
determination of final contaminant cleanup levels following further site investigation.

1.3 Previous Investigations
Previous investigations conducted in the vicinity of the WSP and Sudbury Landfills are
briefly summarized below. For further details refer to the RI/FS Work Plan.

February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

1-2

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

1. Introduction

Surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water, and groundwater samples have been collected
and analyzed from locations in and around the WSP during previous investigations
conducted over 20 years. Groundwater samples have been collected beneath and
upgradient of the Sudbury Landfill at locations shown in Work Plan Figure 1.
The results of previous investigations indicate the following:













In 1984, General Electric Company (GE) prepared a polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB) Regulatory Compliance Report. GE conducted a site-wide search of all
PCB and non-PCB facilities and inspected all PCB transformers on site. A total of
92 transformers plus oil-filled circuit breakers and oil-filled disconnects on site
were inspected. Two transformers filled with insulating oil (potentially containing
PCBs) were found to be leaking (GE 1984).
In March 1992, Ecology conducted an Initial Investigation at the Washington
State Penitentiary due to anonymous complaints of chemical dumping on-site. As
part of the Initial Investigation, multiple letters were sent to former employees of
WSP, the County Health department, and the contractor used during the closure of
the WSP Landfill in order to gather further information. All respondents of this
letter claimed to have no knowledge of any inappropriate dumping at the WSP
Landfill (Ecology 1992). Because no evidence was found to support these claims,
the Initial Investigation determined that the site needed to be carried forward in
the MTCA process.
A Site Hazard Assessment was conducted by SAIC in April 1995 in order to
gather information on past and present waste management activities and other site
specific environmental data. This assessment was conducted in order to score the
site following the Washington Ranking Method (WARM) Scoring Manual
guidelines. The overall ranking given to the WSP Landfill after the field site
hazard assessment was “3” (Ecology 1995).
In 1995, Parametrix, Inc., performed a Site Assessment concluding that the WSP
Landfill did not present an imminent threat to human health or the environment
that required immediate remedial actions. However, the assessment also
concluded that there was insufficient information to rule out or confirm the
possibility that contaminants might have been buried in the WSP Landfill
(Parametrix 1995).
In 1996, DOC decommissioned and removed seven USTs from the WSP facility.
Total petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel range (TPH-D) were detected in some
of the UST excavations, but none of the results exceeded current MTCA soil
cleanup levels. Additional soil was excavated at the one site where levels
exceeded the cleanup levels in effect at the time and the final sample results were
non-detect (DOC 1996).
In 1998, HWA Geosciences, Inc., (HWA) performed a hydrogeologic evaluation
and evaluated surface water and ground water quality of the closed WSP Landfill.
HWA installed four groundwater monitoring wells. Groundwater samples were
collected from the Sudbury Landfill and the newly installed monitoring wells. In
some samples the following analytes exceeded MTCA Method A cleanup levels

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

1-3

February 24, 2010

1. Introduction





or Washington State Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs): total dissolved
solids, iron, manganese, nitrate-nitrogen, TCE, and PCE. Arsenic, benzene,
chloroform, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, and toluene were also detected
in the samples (HWA 1998).
In 1999, Ecology completed a Contaminant Source Identification/Assessment
(CSI/A) study for potential sources of VOCs detected in the upgradient
groundwater monitoring wells at Sudbury Landfill. The CSI/A was conducted
under a Site Assessment Cooperative Agreement between Ecology and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The CSI/A study included a review of
Sudbury Landfill groundwater monitoring data for 1991 through 1998. Available
groundwater data indicated that groundwater quality in the shallow aquifer was
being impacted by upgradient sources. Recommendations made at the conclusion
of this study included the execution of a Preliminary Assessment (PA) that
focused on the WSP Landfill while also evaluating past and present prison
institutional operations (Ecology 1999).
In 2000, Ecology released a PA report. PA activities consisted of research and file
review. One of the conclusions from the PA stated that the shallow sedimentary
aquifer had been impacted by VOCs and the WSP Landfill has been assessed as a
high potential source of the contamination (Ecology 2000).

1.4 Contaminants of Concern
Contaminants of Concern (COCs) are chemicals (analytes) that may pose a threat to
human health or the environment. For this SAP, an analyte was classified as a Confirmed
Contaminant of Concern (CCOC) if a previous quantitative analysis detected it in soil or
groundwater. Applicable cleanup levels were not used as minimum standards to establish
CCOCs, because the site has not been adequately characterized. If the site is not
adequately characterized, then detections in some locations do not rule out the possibility
of an exceedance in other locations. An analyte was classified as a Suspected
Contaminant of Concern (SCOC) if it is known or suspected to have been used or
produced, and a reasonable possibility of a spill or release to the environment could not
be ruled out.
Previous investigations have confirmed the presence of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in groundwater. The concentrations of PCE and TCE in some samples were
above the MTCA Method A cleanup levels for groundwater. CCOCs that were detected,
but were below cleanup applicable levels, are arsenic, benzene, chloroform, chromium,
copper, lead, manganese, and toluene.. Table 1-1 lists the CCOCs and the MTCA Method
A groundwater cleanup levels (WAC 173-340-900). When a MTCA groundwater
cleanup level does not exist for a given contaminant, the Washington State Water Quality
Standards Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for groundwater is shown (WAC 173200-040).
SCOCs include TPH as diesel (TPH-D); semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs),
which include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). Confirmed and suspected COCs are summarized in the tables below.

February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

1-4

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

1. Introduction

Table 1-1. Confirmed Contaminants of Concern for WSP
Maximum
Concentration
(µg/L)
0.046
0.6
2.87
5.2
1.6
735

Groundwater
Cleanup
Level (µg/L)
5
5
7**
1,000**
15
50**

Confirmed
Locations
by
S-3
HWA 1998
MW-3
EMCON 1995
MW-4, MW-9
HWA 1998
S-1
HWA 1998
S-1
HWA 1998
S-3
HWA 1998
MW-2*, MW-5,
Tetrachloroethene Groundwater
MW-7, MW-8,
7.1
5
EMCON 1995
MW-9
Toluene
Surface Water
S-1, S-2, S-3
2.2
1,000
EMCON 1995
MW-1, MW-2,
Trichloroethene
Groundwater
MW-3, MW-4,
6.56
5
HWA 1998
MW-5
*This MW-2 is not the same as the one associated with the WSP Landfill.
**This contaminant has no MTCA Method A cleanup level for groundwater. The limit shown is for the WA
State MCL.
Chemical
Arsenic
Benzene
Chloroform
Copper
Lead
Manganese

Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater

Table 1-2. Suspected Contaminants of Concern for WSP
Chemical

Media

Diesel

Groundwater and Soil

Ethyl benzene

Groundwater and Soil

PCBs

Soil, concrete pads
and foundations

SVOCs

Groundwater and Soil

Vinyl chloride

Soil

Xylenes

Groundwater and Soil

Area(s) of Concern
WSP Landfill, Former
motor pool, Hazardous
waste area
WSP Landfill, Former
motor pool, Haz waste
area
WSP Landfill, power
plants, unknown
transformer location(s)
WSP Landfill, Former
motor pool, Haz waste
area
WSP Landfill, Dry
Cleaners, Sudbury
Landfill
WSP Landfill, Former
motor pool, Haz waste
area

Reason for Concern
Underground storage tank and motor pool

Underground storage tank and motor pool
Former power plant and suspected storage
area in WSP
Underground storage tank and motor pool

A breakdown product of TCE

Underground storage tank and motor pool

1.5 Areas of Concern
Based on the preliminary site conceptual model and evaluation of existing data, AOCs for
the site have been chosen and are shown in the tables and described below (also, see
Figure 7 of the Work Plan).

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

1-5

February 24, 2010

1. Introduction

Table 1-3. Areas of Concern
Conf ir me d
Cont am in ant
of C o n ce rn *

Ar e a of C on ce rn /
Pot ent ia l Ar e a of Con ce rn
1. WSP Landfill (AOC)

VOCs, metals

2. Former dry cleaning services (AOC)
3. Former motor pool (potential AOC)
4. Former UST areas (potential AOC)
5. Former auto body shop and furniture
refurbishing facility (potential AOC)
6. Former hazardous waste accumulation area
(potential AOC)
7. Steam plant boiler ash (potential AOC)
8. Sign shop (potential AOC)
9. Metal Plant #1 (potential AOC)

TPH-D

Su sp ec ted
Cont am in ant
of C on ce rn
VOCs, TPH-D, SVOCs,
PAHs (boiler ash fill at
various WSP locations)
VOCs
VOCs, TPH-D, SVOCs
TPH-D, SVOCs
VOCs, TPH-D, SVOCs
VOCs, SVOCs, metals,
PCBs and TPH
PAHs
VOCs
VOCs

PCBs
Not an AOC based on
10. PCB storage area (location of two leaking
additional information
transformers unknown) (potential AOC)
and discussions with
Ecology
*Analytes that have been detected in previous sampling events.
PCB
SVOCs
TPH
TPH-D
VOCs
PAHs

=
=
=
=
=
=

Polychlorinated biphenyl compound
Semi-volatile organic compounds
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Total petroleum hydrocarbons-diesel
Volatile organic compounds
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

AOC #1: WSP Landfill – PCE, TCE, and chloroform were detected in groundwater
samples adjacent to or down gradient of the WSP Landfill. In addition, toluene was
detected in seasonal surface water samples collected near the landfill. Due to the
suspicion of buried drums other SCOCs are diesel and SVOCs.
AOC #2: Former dry cleaning facility – Two dry cleaning locations existed formerly at
the WSP. Dry cleaning was originally done in a building (F20) that has since been
demolished, and the second location was in building C30. According to DOC the dry
cleaning solvent used was perchloroethene (PCE, a chlorinated solvent). Stoddard solvent
is another common solvent used in the dry cleaning process, but its use at WSP is not
confirmed and is not considered a significant environmental threat.
AOC #3: Former motor pool – Typical operations for such a facility include fueling,
parts degreasing and hazardous material storage. These are possible sources of VOCs,
SVOCs, TPH, and Metals.

February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

1-6

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

1. Introduction

AOC #4: Former UST Areas – Although most of the UST excavations had confirmation
samples below the MTCA Method A cleanup levels in effect at the time, no data was
found regarding two UST areas. At former UST #11 it is unclear if any petroleum
contamination extends beneath the adjacent building foundation to the south. There is
also an additional former UST location near the former motor pool, and no data was
available for confirmation samples.
Additional information obtained by DOC in September 2009, and further data evaluation
by Ecology, resulted in the conclusion that sufficient soil sampling was done during
removal of the former USTs, and that additional soil sampling will not be required.
However, testing of groundwater in future monitoring wells drilled at WSP will include
petroleum hydrocarbons.
AOC #5: Former auto body shop and furniture refurbishing – Possible sources of TPH,
metals, SVOCs, and VOCs.
AOC #6: Former Hazardous Waste Accumulation Area – Adjacent to the current power
house, this area was used to store unknown quantities of hazardous waste. SCOCs
include VOCs, SVOCs, metals, PCBs and TPH.
AOC #7: Steam Plant Boiler Ash – Since coal and wood were used until the late 1990s
as fuel sources for producing steam at WSP, PAHs are a concern in areas where boiler
ash was deposited as fill on the site. Also, to the extent that any PCB oil-filled electrical
transformers or equipment was used in these areas, this area may also have been a
potential source of PCBs. On the basis of additional clarification provided by DOC in
September 2009 regarding historical power use, steam generation, and associated
electrical components at the site, Ecology eliminated PCBs as SCOCs for AOC #7.
Regarding the boiler ash issue, the greatest potential for exposure to ash is in unpaved
areas of WSP where ash may have been used as fill (such as the “yards” associated with
the BAR units and the western edge of the WSP facility).
AOC #8: Sign shop – Possible source of VOCs and SVOCs.
AOC #9: Metal plant #1 – This area is suspected due to the former use of paint and
solvents here. Chemicals of concern for this AOC are VOCs and metals.
AOC #10: PCB storage area– Additional information obtained by DOC in
September 2009 documented the location of the former cement block building where
transformers were stored, which had a concrete floor and was demolished in the mid 1990s.
The area of this former building was subsequently graded and is now an open grasscovered area. A facility wide changeout and cleanup of PCB-containing transformers was
completed at WSP in 1986. Any potential leakage of older transformers in the former
storage building would have been contained within the building. After considering this
information, Ecology concluded that AOC 10 would be eliminated from further
investigation.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

1-7

February 24, 2010

1. Introduction

1.6 Additional Areas of Interest
Some locations in the vicinity of the WSP are not considered potential source locations,
but there is a need to assess the current level of contamination, either as an assessment of
background levels or as an assessment of impact. The following locations will be
evaluated for potential their impacts:





February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

Sudbury Landfill monitoring wells
Nearby irrigation wells
Industrial areas across the street to the east and to the south (see Ecology 1999)

1-8

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

2

Objectives and Design

This section discusses the sampling design and approach to meet the overall project
objectives and the data quality objectives for the investigation. For technologies where
soil, soil gas or groundwater samples are collected, field screening and/or laboratory
analyses will be conducted for the COCs that apply for the given AOC. Both field
screening and laboratory analytical results will be used to confirm potential source areas,
and determine the lateral and vertical extent of COCs.

2.1 Field Data Collection Technologies
Below are the kinds of technologies that this SAP utilizes to collect the desired data. This
section provides a general description of the technology and its uses, and why it is
applicable to the site. Specific details are provided in Section 3.2 on how samples or data
are to be collected using these technologies.
2.1.1

Topographical Survey

A topographical survey will be conducted to confirm surface flow direction of
stormwater runoff into catch basin and other runoff management devices. The survey will
be conducted by a licensed land surveyor and based on North American Datum of 1983
(NAD 83). Survey data from WSP facility files and recent project will be evaluated prior
to scoping this task, to avoid duplication of effort.
If accessible the elevations of stormwater culverts and pipelines may be measured if flow
direction cannot otherwise be determined. It is believed that some stormwater discharges
to land to the north, some discharges to a drainage channel that leads to the southern
pond, and some likely discharges to the combined sanitary sewer. A better understanding
of the stormwater pathways will help to determine the potential transport of COCs.
2.1.2

Geophysical – Survey

An EM or Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey will be conducted at the WSP
Landfill before any intrusive investigation measures are used, unless field observations
indicate that soil gas sampling may help interpret geophysical survey findings. The
geophysical survey will be performed on both cells to assess the potential presence of
drums or other metal containers buried at the landfill. Whichever geophysical method
proves effective during initial testing will be used to survey both landfill cells. EM survey
equipment measures ground conductivity through electromagnetic induction. GPR sends
Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

2-1

February 24, 2010

2. Objectives and Design

a radar signal into the ground and measures the return signal. The results of the
geophysical survey could help direct other landfill investigation activities, such as
locations of soil gas sample points and test pits.
2.1.3

Direct-Push Soil and Soil Gas Sampling

The ability of a truck-mounted direct-push drilling rig to collect soil and soil gas samples
beneath the site will be evaluated, based on geologic conditions, sample depths, and
equipment capabilities. This decision will be based on geologic conditions encountered
during installation of monitoring wells at the WSP site (see Section 2.1.4). The rig forces
a narrow diameter probe into the earth to any desired depth, but is limited by the
geotechnical constraints of the subsurface. If appropriate, this technology can be used to
collect soil and soil gas samples:
Soil: Soil samples will be collected at 5-foot depth intervals (starting at ground surface)
to a depth of 25 feet, or until refusal depth is reached. Depths may be exceeded if
observable contamination is present. One soil sample will be collected from each interval.
Soil Gas1: Soil gas samples will be collected at 2-foot depth intervals to a depth of 20
feet or until refusal depth is reached. A gas sampling vacuum pump will be attached to
the probe and connected to field sampling equipment that tests for methane, oxygen,
carbon dioxide, and volatile organics. The soil gas sample results will be used to identify
potential source areas where soil sampling will be required (if methane percent is greater
than 25 percent of the lower explosive limit or the volatile organic vapors are above
background concentrations). Samples may be sent to a laboratory to confirm field
screening results.
Groundwater: If feasible a truck-mounted direct-push drilling rig will be used to collect
groundwater samples, if groundwater is encountered during soil or soil gas sampling.
However, it is not anticipated that groundwater will be found at depths accessible by
direct-push technology. When practical, one groundwater sample will be collected from
each location.
2.1.4

Monitoring Well Drilling and Soil Sampling

A truck-mounted hollow-stem auger (HSA) drilling rig was originally considered to
install groundwater monitoring wells at the WSP site. However, based on the depths to
groundwater observed in prior test drilling at the site (up to 65 feet), the HSA method
would not likely penetrate to the depths required and allow proper completion of
monitoring wells at these depths. Therefore, the sonic drilling method will be applied to
install monitoring wells at WSP. Sonic drilling advances a hollow casing using sound
energy and provides a continuous core of geologic materials penetrated during drilling
that is retained inside the drill casing by a plastic sleeve. The extruded geologic material
1

February 24, 2010

An alternative passive soil gas sampling method can be used for this site but would require additional lead
time. A passive sampling device would be placed underground for a period of one to two weeks. After
retrieval it is sent to the laboratory for analysis, requiring even more lead time. This method can be
considered for this site, but would be implemented one month ahead of the activities described herein.

2-2

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

2. Objectives and Design

is then available for visual description, soil property testing, and collection of soil samples
for chemical analysis. The entire length of the core will be examined for physical description,
odor, visual stratification, disposed debris, organic vapors, and any other distinguishing
characteristics. Up to five soil samples will be collected at each monitoring well location
for chemical analysis with sample materials determined by field observations.
Upon reaching the targeted depth below the water table, a monitoring well consisting of a
2-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC screen (10 to 15 feet, to straddle the water table) and
riser pipe will be installed in the borehole, and will be designed and completed in
compliance with the WAC 173-160 regulations pertaining to resource protection wells.
Completed monitoring wells will be developed by the drilling contractor by means of
surging and pumping, to remove as many residual fine particles from the well installation
process.
2.1.5

Groundwater Sampling

Groundwater samples from monitoring wells installed as part of this RI, and from other
selected existing wells near WSP (to the extent they are available and practical) will be
sampled four times during the RI. The three pre-existing monitoring wells associated
with the Sudbury Landfill adjacent to the WSP property boundary (MW-7, MW-9, and
MW-10) will be sampled (with permission from the City of Walla Walla). The existing
inventory of records of private water wells in the vicinity of the WSP will be evaluated
and selectively field checked to identify which wells to sample. Criteria for selection
include:







Confirmation of total well depth, from a well log or a field measurement.
A location and depth that could be affected by groundwater contamination from
the WSP.
A determination by Ecology and DOC that water quality from a well needs to be
verified to ensure the safety of a private water supply.
A location that would provide hydrogeologic data for the RI.
Permission by the well owner to collect samples.

Groundwater sampling parameters and techniques are described in Section 3 of this SAP.
2.1.6

Test Pits

Based on the results of the geophysical investigation, test pits will be dug to determine
the subsurface conditions of the landfill and to determine whether hazardous materials are
present. An excavator or backhoe will be used. If objects are encountered that require
careful excavation, hand digging will be used. Ambient air monitoring will be conducted
during excavation, and soil samples will be collected from test pits. If any drums or other
containers are found during the excavation of test pits, the Parametrix team will consult
with DOC and Ecology before implementing a container sampling and removal plan.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

2-3

February 24, 2010

2. Objectives and Design

2.1.7

Grab Sampling

Grab sampling is a straight forward method of collecting easily accessible soil or surface
water. This includes soil at or near the ground surface, soil exposed by excavation, or
water from runoff streams or stagnant ponds. A typical depth used is 6 inches but this can
vary depending on location circumstances. In addition to the specific sample locations,
surface soil samples will be collected if a location shows visible signs of contamination
such as distressed vegetation or discolored soil. The surface soil sample will be collected
and analyzed for the applicable contaminant of concern based on the sample location.
2.1.8

Surface Water Sampling

The surface water sample results will be used to help determine whether CCOCs or SCOCs
are being transported off site via stormwater. The surface water sample will be collected
and analyzed for the applicable contaminant of concern based on the sample location.

February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

2-4

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

3

RI Field Investigation
3.1 Groundwater Investigation
3.1.1

Security and Safety Orientation of Field Staff

The field investigation team and all field work subcontractors will review in detail the
WSP security procedures and policies included in Attachment D to the Work Plan and
will be thoroughly prepared to follow these procedures and policies while on the WSP
property. The team will proceed through security clearance procedures, on-site security
briefings, and on-site safety briefings required to conduct contractor work at WSP.
3.1.2

Clearance of Drilling Locations

Maps and plans of subsurface structures, utility systems, and other underground
infrastructure will be obtained through the WSP Plant Manager. A meeting of the field
investigation leaders and DOC staff will be held at WSP to discuss each proposed drilling
location with respect to security access, the potential to negatively impact DOC
operations, the locations of underground utilities and structures, and access/egress of
drilling equipment. Once locations have been approved by DOC, an underground utility
locating company will be retained to check each drilling location with field detection
equipment. Drilling locations will be adjusted based on this field check, as necessary.
3.1.3

Monitoring Well Installation and Sampling

The depth to groundwater and the direction of groundwater flow in the uppermost aquifer
beneath the WSP site (the shallow aquifer), which occurs within sand and gravel
lacustrine sediments, is important to establish early in the RI. Although the general
groundwater flow direction is to the west, flow directions beneath WSP must be
delineated to assess upgradient and downgradient relationships of on-site AOCs and
potential off-site groundwater contamination sources. Collection of groundwater samples
early during the RI is also important for comparison of current groundwater quality data
with CCOCs and SCOCs described above in Section 1.4, and with applicable
groundwater quality standards.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

3-1

February 24, 2010

3. RI Field Investigation

A total of nine new monitoring wells are proposed for installation during the RI field
work, at the locations shown on Figure 1. The rationale for each of these monitoring
wells is described in Table 3-1. The monitoring wells will be drilled and installed by the
sonic method, as previously described in Section 2.1.4. The final locations of these
monitoring wells will be established after a thorough check of location access and
subsurface utilities.
Table 3-1. Rationale for Installation of New RI Monitoring Wells at WSP
Well Number
MW-6, -7, -8

Associated
AOCs
none

MW-9
MW-10
MW-11

none
3
6

MW-12
MW-13

2
multiple

MW-14

multiple

3.1.4

Rationale
Upgradient of WSP and downgradient from potential
contamination sources east of WSP
Upgradient of WSP (background well)
Adjacent to AOC 3 (former motor pool)
Downgradient of AOC 6 (former hazardous waste
accumulation area)
Downgradient of the former dry cleaning area
Downgradient of the southern portion of WSP at boundary of
built facility; upgradient of Sudbury LF wells MW-7 and
MW-10
Downgradient of WSP Landfill and upgradient of Sudbury
LF monitoring wells MS-7 and MW-9

Assessment of Vicinity Water Wells as Potential Sampling
Locations

Area water well data collected by Ecology will be evaluated in detail to determine if any
local water wells with documented well construction details are completed in the shallow
aquifer and could be available for sampling as part of the WSP RI. This evaluation will
include location checking of candidate wells in the field, without accessing private
property. A list of water wells for potential sampling will be prepared and discussed by
DOC and Ecology, including options for obtaining access to these wells. No private well
owners will be contacted until approved by DOC and Ecology. If such water wells are
available for sampling, sampling procedures will specifically be developed for each
private water well system, to assure collection of representative groundwater samples and
measurement of groundwater levels. Approximate well elevations and locations will be
established with GPS equipment.
3.1.5

Groundwater Sampling

The first quarterly sampling event of the RI will be conducted immediately after the new
monitoring wells have been installed and developed. Table 3-2 lists the new and
previously existing monitoring wells to be sampled and the analytes to be tested.
Groundwater sampling procedures are described below in Section 4.

February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

3-2

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

3. RI Field Investigation

Table 3-2. Analytes for Quarterly RI Sampling
Quarterly RI Sampling Event
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
VOCs
X
X
X
X
Metals 1
X
X
X
X
SVOCs
X
X
PAHs
X
X
TPH-Gx, TPH-Dx
X
X
Conventionals 2
X
X
X
X
Field Parameters 3
X
X
X
X
1
Metals: MTCA Metals + Confirmed Metals: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead, copper,
manganese; total and dissolved metals (samples filtered in the field) will be tested.
2
Conventionals: sodium, calcium, ammonia, nitrate, carbonate, bicarbonate/alkalinity, sulfate
3
Field Parameters: pH, specific conductance, temperature, dissolved oxygen, redox
Parameter

Four quarterly groundwater sampling events provide data representative of differing
seasonal conditions (including variations in factors such as precipitation,
evapotranspiration, leakage from irrigation canals, net recharge to groundwater,
groundwater elevations, and groundwater gradients). All of the quarterly sampling events
include the CCOCs. Two of the quarterly events (opposite seasons) also include the
suspected chemical groups SVOCs, PAHs, and TPH. This sampling approach provides
sufficient data to assess repeatability of results, support the risk assessment, and facilitate
the selection of remedial alternatives in the FS.
3.1.6

Site Topographic Survey

The topographic survey will be conducted using the methodology described in Section
2.1.1 of this SAP. This work will be closely coordinated with the WSP Plant Manager
and associated engineering staff,

3.2 AOC Investigation
Based on the historical data discussed in the RI Work Plan and in previous sections of
this RI SAP, preliminary sampling areas and the type of sampling to be performed in
each AOC were developed and are described in the following sections of this SAP. All
final sampling methods and technologies will be decided in the field after a thorough site
examination has been conducted.
Any soil sampling or soil gas probe work will be done in areas of exposed soil, as close
as possible to contamination sources. Coring and drilling through pavement or building
floors will be avoided by selection of appropriate drilling and soil sampling locations in
open and accessible areas.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

3-3

February 24, 2010

3. RI Field Investigation

3.2.1

Area of Concern #1: WSP Landfill

An EM or GPR geophysical survey will be conducted on both cells of the landfill to the
extent possible. The primary function of the survey is to locate any abandoned drums or
metal containers. The geophysical survey will help direct potential landfill investigation
activities such as locating soil gas sample points, test pit activities, and possible drum
sampling and removal actions. If the EM survey identifies any metallic anomalies that
could be drums or other metal containers, the Parametrix team will consult with DOC and
Ecology before implementing a container sampling and removal plan.
If a drum (or suspected drum) is discovered during any subsequent WSP Landfill
investigation activities, then the same notification procedures will be followed and further
investigation work at the WSP Landfill will stop immediately. No other field activities at
the WSP Landfill will continue until a disposition for the drums has been determined.
Soil gas probes will be installed in both cells of the WSP Landfill to assess the potential
presence of methane and VOCs in the landfill. Preliminary locations of twelve gas probes
are shown on Figure 1. However, based on the geophysical survey interpretation, any
probe location that poses a potential risk of puncturing a container will be reconsidered.
If a location is suspected of having a buried container, a gas probe will not be placed
there until container presence can be ruled out.
Additionally, if present, surface water samples and sediment samples will be collected
from the catch basins east of the landfill, runoff streams, and the manufactured ponds (if
possible) near the landfill.
Once soil and possibly soil gas analytical results have been received from the soil gas
survey, test pits will be excavated within the landfill to further characterize the contents
of the landfill. Locations of test pits will be based on the geophysical survey and soil
sampling results. Additional soil samples will be collected during test pit excavation.
There will be a minimum of two test pits for each landfill cell (see Figure 1).
3.2.2

Area of Concern #2: Former Dry Cleaning Services

A preliminary soil gas survey will be conducted at both dry cleaning locations. Surface
soils will be collected during the soil gas investigation if locations show visible signs of
contamination such as distressed vegetation or discolored soil. If field screening results of
the soil gas survey show the presence of VOCs, then confirmatory direct-push soil
sampling will be conducted at a minimum of three locations to determine soil
concentrations of COCs (see Figure 1).
3.2.3

Area of Concern #3: Former Motor Pool

A preliminary visual survey of the area will be done to identify the most appropriate
sampling locations. If there is evidence of a spill (e.g., visible signs of contamination
such as distressed vegetation or discolored soil), then surface soils will be collected.
Direct-push soil gas and soil sampling will be collected at a minimum of two locations
near the former motor pool building foundation.
February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

3-4

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

3. RI Field Investigation

3.2.4

Area of Concern #4: Former UST Locations

No soil sampling; see Section 1.5 of this SAP.
3.2.5

Area of Concern #5: Former Auto Body/Furniture Refurbishing Site

Similar to the former motor pool AOC, sampling activities include an initial visual survey
followed by a soil gas survey and direct-push soil sampling at a minimum of two
locations.
3.2.6

Area of Concern #6: Former Hazardous Waste Accumulation Area

After a thorough inspection of the facility to identify the most appropriate sampling
locations, a preliminary soil gas survey will be followed by confirmatory direct-push soil
sampling at a minimum of two locations. Drain lines near this location will be inspected,
and water and sediments in drains will be sampled if practical.
3.2.7

Area of Concern #7: Steam Plant Boiler Ash

The greatest potential for exposure to ash is in unpaved areas of WSP where ash may
have been used as fill (such as the “yards” associated with the BAR units and the western
edge of the WSP facility). Surface soil samples will be collected at the approximate
unpaved locations shown on Figure 1 to check for chemical components of the ash.
3.2.8

Area of Concern #8: Sign Shop

If the location of this AOC can be confirmed, sampling activities would be similar to the
former motor pool AOC, including an initial visual survey followed by a soil gas survey
and direct-push soil sampling at a minimum of two locations.
3.2.9

Area of Concern #9: Metal Plant #1

If the location of this AOC can be confirmed, sampling activities will be similar to the
former motor pool AOC, including an initial visual survey followed by a soil gas survey
and direct-push soil sampling at a minimum of two locations.
3.2.10

Additional Areas of Interest

The visible elements of the stormwater pathway to the south of the WSP will be
inspected. If water or sediments are present in an appropriate location, samples will be
collected according to procedure. The investigator will note at what point it appears that
stormwater from other adjacent facilities is co-mingled with the WSP stormwater
effluent.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

3-5

February 24, 2010

3. RI Field Investigation

3.3 Sampling Limitations
In keeping with the objectives of the preliminary investigation, no biological sampling or
toxicity testing is planned for this investigation.
Due to the nature of the facility, there will be access restrictions and site security
procedures for all field personnel. Prior to mobilization, the WSP facility administration
will be notified of the proposed schedule. All site procedures for access and security will
be followed by every team member. In addition, during any field work near or within the
WSP facility, the administration of the WSP facility will be notified on a daily basis of
the proposed activities. Sample locations and daily field activities may be changed or
curtailed due to site access restrictions and/or security requirements.

February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

3-6

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

4

Field Sampling Methods
This section describes the various details necessary for collecting data and samples in the
field. Specific instructions are discussed for recording sample locations, decontaminating
equipment between and after sampling, labeling sampling containers, documenting
activities and managing waste resulting from the field. The next section (Section 4)
discusses how the samples are handled as they leave the site.

4.1 Station Positioning Methods
Based on the EM survey, field observations, and historical data, sample locations will be
determined in the field. A global positioning system (GPS) will be used to determine the
coordinates for all sample locations. Coordinates will be referenced to the Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 11 North coordinate system using North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
In coordination with DOC a utility location survey will be conducted in any areas where
any means of invasive sampling is planned. Existing utility maps will be a useful guide,
but will not be relied upon for accuracy.

4.2 Sample Collection and Other Field Procedures
4.2.1

Geophysical Survey

A geophysical contractor will be retained to test ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and
electromagnetic (EM) survey methods of the WSP Landfill. Whichever method appears
to be most effective in identifying buried objects and the landfill/native material interface
will be used to survey both cells of the landfill. All field activities and visual observations
will be recorded in the daily logbook. After the survey has been done and the data
reviewed, the data will be used to determine the potential locations of any buried drums
or containers.
4.2.2

Drum Sampling

If drums are discovered at the WSP Landfill, the Contactor will contact DOC. The
Contactor will have a drum sampling and removal plan prepared and ready to implement
in case drums are found. No other field activities at the WSP Landfill will continue until
a disposition for the drums has been determined. Once a drum or container has been
removed, several soil grab samples will be collected in the vicinity to determine whether
any soil was contaminated by leakage.
Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

4-1

February 24, 2010

4. Field Sampling Methods

4.2.3

Soil Grab Sampling

This procedure applies to any soil sample collected from an exposed surface, including
both typical ground cover and soil exposed by the excavation of test pits. Using a
decontaminated sampling spoon or other instrument, the sampler will collect a soil
sample into a decontaminated stainless steel bowl and, to the extent feasible, large pieces
of debris and organic matter will be removed. If the sample is scheduled for VOC
analyses, then three VOC sample aliquots will be collected using an EnCore® soil VOC
collection units or their equivalent. The EnCore® soil VOC collections units are
hermetically-sealed sample vials designed to decrease the amount of VOC loss due to
sample transport, handling, and analyses.
If the remaining sample shows any signs of localized contamination (e.g., staining, strong
odors, discoloration, etc.), then a sample of the suspected higher concentration will be
collected before homogenizing the remainder of the sample. The remaining sample
material is then thoroughly homogenized with the spoon. Aliquots of homogenized soil
for laboratory analysis will be placed directly into the appropriate, labeled sample
containers. Any field observations such as date, time, sample physical characteristics,
sample location, sampler, and approximate sample depth will be recorded in a field
logbook.
If an excavator is used, the operator will use the bucket and scoop up approximately
½ cubic foot of soil. Once the excavator is no longer in motion and it is safe to proceed,
the sampler will signal the operator and approach the excavator bucket to collect an
aliquot of soil. From this point the sampler follows the same steps as for the hand dug
samples.
4.2.4

Direct-Push Sampling

The ability of a truck-mounted direct-push drilling rig to collect soil samples beneath the
site will be evaluated, based on geologic conditions, sample depths, and equipment
capabilities. This decision will be based on geologic conditions encountered during
installation of monitoring wells at the WSP site (see Section 2.1.4).
If feasible, the sampling team will initially use the direct-push rig to collect soil gas for
field screening and laboratory analyses as necessary. For field screening sample
locations, the direct-push would advance up to 20 feet bgs. A soil gas reading would be
collected at 2 foot intervals and recorded in the field logbook2. If no detections of COCs
are encountered in successive readings, the field team may abandon the sample location
and proceed to the next. If indications of COCs are detected by field measuring
equipment, then the field team may continue to a deeper depth until refusal is met. A
laboratory sample would be collected periodically to back up both field detections and
non-detections. Each push probe location would be abandoned following all applicable
WAC requirements.
2

February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

At the discretion of the field supervisor, sampling intervals may be increased to 4 feet after 10 feet bgs

4-2

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

4. Field Sampling Methods

For subsurface soil sample locations, the direct-push would advance up to 25 feet bgs. A
soil sample would be collected and recovered at 5-foot intervals. The recovered soil
sample for a given interval would be placed into a decontaminated stainless steel bowl
and to the extent feasible, large pieces of debris and organic matter will be removed. If
the sample is scheduled for VOC analyses, EPA Method 5035A would be used and three
VOC sample aliquots would be collected using an EnCore® soil collection unit or their
equivalent. If the remaining sample shows any signs of localized contamination (e.g.,
staining, strong odors, discoloration, etc.), then a sample of the suspected higher
concentration would be collected before homogenizing the remainder of the sample. Then
the remaining sample in the bowl would be thoroughly homogenized with a
decontaminated stainless steel spoon. Aliquots of homogenized soil for laboratory
analysis would be placed directly into the appropriate, labeled sample containers. Any
field observations such as date, time, sample physical characteristics, sample location,
sampler, and approximate sample depth would be recorded in a field logbook. The well
location would be abandoned following all applicable WAC requirements.
In addition, if groundwater is encountered during the soil sampling a water sample would
be collected if possible. At least one casing volume would be removed prior to sampling.
Volatile organic samples would be collected first for analysis. Additional aliquots for
laboratory analysis would be placed directly into appropriate labeled sample containers.
Any field observations such as date, time, sample physical characteristics, sample
location, sampler, and approximate sample depth would be recorded in a field logbook.
The well location would be abandoned following all applicable WAC requirements.
4.2.5

Soil Sampling During Sonic Drilling

Sonic drilling advances a hollow casing using sound energy and provides a continuous
core of geologic materials penetrated during drilling that is retained inside the drill casing
by a plastic sleeve. The extruded geologic material is then available for visual
description, soil property testing, and collection of soil samples for chemical analysis.
The entire length of the core will be examined for physical description, odor, visual
stratification, debris, and any other distinguishing characteristics. Up to five soil samples
will be collected at each monitoring well location for chemical analysis.
The soil material will be photographed and observations will be recorded in a field
logbook. For each core interval section, the following data will be recorded on the core
log at depth intervals to the nearest 0.1 feet:







Physical description in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System
(includes soil type, density, consistency, and color);
Odor (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbons);
Visual stratification;
Vegetation;
Debris;

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

4-3

February 24, 2010

4. Field Sampling Methods



4.2.6

Presence of oil sheen; and
Any other distinguishing characteristics or features.
Monitoring Well Sampling

Groundwater samples will be collected from new well locations, as well as preexisting
locations at (1) upgradient from the Sudbury Landfill (MW-7, MW-9, & MW-10), (2) at
the WSP Landfill, and (3) the existing well near the dry cleaning facility. The sampling
team will purge and sample all monitoring wells using flow rates of 0.2–0.3 liters per
minute (L/min; Barcelona 1989). Using a flow-through cell, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, pH, and redox will be recorded. Prior to sampling, all four water quality
parameters should be within 5% for three consecutive readings. The pump will be
disconnected from the flow-through cell and the sample will be collected from the pump
in the appropriate sample containers. Any field observations such as date, time, sample
physical characteristics, sample location, sampler, and approximate sample depth will be
recorded in a field logbook.
4.2.7

Surface Water Sampling

The sampling team will collect surface water samples by dipping a decontaminated bottle
into the water and pouring the water sample into the appropriate sample containers. Any
field observations such as date, time, sample physical characteristics, sample location,
sampler, and approximate sample depth will be recorded into a field logbook

4.3 Decontamination Procedures
The HSA auger flights, split spoons, direct-push drilling rods, soil samplers, compositing
pans, groundwater pumps, and sampling utensils will be thoroughly decontaminated prior
to use in accordance with standard operating procedures. The equipment will be washed
with non-phosphate detergent and water, rinsed with fresh water, and rinsed with
distilled/deionized water. If a noticeable oily sheen or petroleum odor is observed, the
sampling bowls and utensils used to process those samples will not be used for
subsequent sample processing.
All hand work will be conducted with disposable nitrile gloves, which will be changed
after handling each individual sample and between sampling locations to prevent crosscontamination between samples.

4.4 Sample Handling
Unless the sample is intended for VOC analysis, all soil samples will be placed into a
separate decontaminated stainless-steel pan and homogenized until a consistent color and
texture is achieved. Soil coming in direct contact with the core tube wall will be not be
included in the samples to the extent practical. The volume of homogenized soil needed
to perform the required analyses will then be placed in appropriately labeled sample
containers obtained from the analytical laboratories.

February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

4-4

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

4. Field Sampling Methods

All groundwater samples will be collected directly from the pump into the appropriate
labeled sample containers obtained from the analytical laboratories. All surface water
samples will be collected using a dedicated sampling container and poured into
appropriately labeled sample containers obtained from the analytical laboratories.
Table A-1 lists sample container, volume, and preservation requirements.

4.5 Sample Identification, Containers, and Labels
Each sample will be labeled with a unique alphanumeric sample identification number
that identifies the characteristics of the sample. The sample identification structure will
be AAA-##-##-AA-###, with the characters defined as follows:







Characters 1, 2, and 3 –Site Location, Washington State Penitentiary: WSP.
Characters 4 and 5 – AOC number.
Characters 6 and 7 – Station location sequential number: 01, 02, 03, etc.
Characters 8 and 9 – Matrix: SS = surface soil; SB = subsurface soil; SW =
surface water; GW = groundwater; SG = soil gas; DM = drum.
Characters 10, 11, and 12 – Sample depth interval bottom depth: 000 = surface,
010 = 8 to 10 feet, 110 = 108 to 110 feet, etc.

For example, the subsurface soil sample collected from 1.0 to 2.0 feet bgs from the fifth
monitoring well location in the WSP Landfill (AOC #1) would be labeled WSP-01-05SB-002.
Sample aliquots submitted to the analytical laboratories will be placed in pre-cleaned
sample containers and preserved as specified in Table A-1. The procedure for sample
storage and shipping is described in Section 4.
Sample labels will be self-adhering, waterproof material. An indelible pen will be used to
fill out each label. Each sample label will contain the project name, sample identification
number, date and time of collection, analyses, preservation, and initials of the person
preparing the sample. Sample labels will be protected by packaging tape wrapped around
the entire jar to prevent loss or damage of the labels during handling and storage.

4.6 Field Documentation Procedures
A complete record of field activities will be maintained. Documentation necessary to
meet QA objectives includes field notes and field forms, sample container labels, and
chain of custody forms. The field documentation will provide descriptions of all sampling
activities and weather conditions as well as names of sampling personnel, and will record
all modifications, decisions, and/or corrective actions to the study design and procedures
identified in this SAP.
Field logbooks will be kept on site during field operations. Daily activities will be
recorded in a bound field logbook of water-resistant paper. Two additional logbooks will
be used: one consisting of bound, paginated field forms for core sampling; and one for an

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

4-5

February 24, 2010

4. Field Sampling Methods

inventory of sample containers (separate from the chain of custody documentation). All
entries will be made legibly, in indelible ink, and will be signed and dated. Information
recorded will include the following:









Date, time, place, and location of sampling
Names of on-site personnel and visitors
Daily safety discussion notes and any safety issues
QA samples collected (duplicate samples, field blanks, etc.)
Field measurements and their units
Observations about site, location, and samples (weather, current, odors,
appearance, etc.)
Equipment decontamination verification

Field logbooks are intended to provide sufficient data and observations to enable
participants to reconstruct events that occur during field activities. Entries should be
factual, detailed, and objective. Unless restricted by weather conditions, all original data
recorded in field logbooks, on sample identification tags, on chain of custody records,
and on field forms will be written in waterproof ink. If an error is made, the individual
responsible may make corrections by crossing out the error with a single line and entering
the correct information. The erroneous information will not be obliterated. All corrections
will be initialed and dated. All documentation, including voided entries, will be
maintained with project files.

4.7 Investigation-Derived Waste
Investigation-derived waste (IDW) expected to be generated by sampling activities
during the field activities includes:






Soil core sample material not submitted to the laboratories;
Groundwater from developing, purging, and sampling monitoring wells;
Equipment decontamination fluids; and
Disposable protective clothing and sampling supplies.

The monitoring well HSA cores will be processed at each monitoring well. Excess soil
core material will be containerized in drums and disposed of properly. Groundwater from
well development, purging, and sampling will be containerized in drums and disposed of
properly. Fluids generated during equipment decontamination will be contained in drums
and disposed of properly following field activities.
Used personal protective equipment (PPE) such as Tyvek suits or gloves and disposable
supplies such as paper towels and packaging will be placed in plastic storage bags and
disposed of as municipal waste. If PPE contains residual soil, the PPE will be
decontaminated using the procedures outlined in Section 3.3, and will be disposed of as
non-hazardous waste. Waste material such as cardboard and aluminum will be recycled
as feasible.

February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

4-6

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

5

Sample Handling Procedures

5.1 Sample Storage Requirements
All samples will be stored in insulated coolers and preserved by cooling with ice or
frozen gelpacks to a temperature of 4°C. Maximum sample holding and extraction times
will be strictly adhered to by field personnel and the analytical and testing laboratories.
Preparation of jars for shipment to fixed laboratories will be performed in the following
manner:








Samples will be packaged and shipped in accordance with U.S. Department of
Transportation regulations as specified in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
173.6 and 49 CFR 173.24.
Sample containers will be placed in plastic zip-loc bubble-pack bags or wrapped
in bubble pack and secured with packaging tape.
Three to four ice packs in a garbage bag will be placed at the bottom of a cooler.
Sample containers will be placed in a garbage bag and filled with the sample
bottles. Additional bags of ice will be added as needed to surround the bag
containing the samples.
Chain of custody forms will be enclosed in a plastic bag and taped to the inside lid
of the cooler.
The cooler will be sealed with strapping tape and a custody seal.

Samples for chemical analyses will be hand-couriered or shipped via overnight delivery
to the analytical laboratories at the close of sampling activities, and accompanied by the
chain of custody record. The chain of custody record will be signed by the individual
relinquishing the samples to be couriered or shipped. When samples are received at the
laboratory, the shipping container seal will be broken and the condition of the samples
will be recorded by the receiver. The field personnel will be responsible for the
following:




Packaging the samples;
Signing the chain of custody before placing it inside the cooler;

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

5-1

February 24, 2010

5. Sample Handling Procedures






Applying a shipping label, a waybill, a custody seal, and strapping tape to the
cooler;
Shipping the samples in accordance with the maximum holding time allowed for
the analyses to be performed;
Notifying the laboratory of when the samples are shipped; and
Confirming receipt of the samples in good condition by the laboratory.

All samples will be retained for a minimum of six months from the time they were
received using standard laboratory handling procedures. They may be removed from the
laboratory prior to the end of the six-month period only at the direction of the Contactor
project manager.

5.2 Chain of Custody Procedures
Samples will be retained at all times in the field crew's custody until they are delivered or
shipped to the appropriate laboratory by the Contactor personnel. Chain of custody forms
will be initiated at the time of sample collection to ensure that all collected samples are
properly documented and traceable through storage, transport, and analysis. When all line
items on the form are completed or when the samples are relinquished, the sample
collection custodian will sign and date the form, list the time, and confirm the
completeness of all descriptive information contained on the form. Each individual who
subsequently assumes responsibility for the samples will sign and date the form. The field
chain of custody terminates when the laboratory receives the samples. The field sample
custodian will retain a copy of the completed, signed chain of custody form(s) for project
files.

February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

5-2

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

6

Laboratory Analytical Methods

6.1 Chemical Analyses and Target Detection Limits
All of the chemical analytical procedures used in this program will be performed in
accordance with the most current federal and state analyses, where applicable.
The samples will be analyzed by an approved laboratory for one or more of the following
analyte groups: VOCs, NWTPH-Diesel, SVOCs, PCBs, and total metals. The laboratory
will use the methods summarized in Attachment A, Table A-1. All samples for chemical
analyses will be maintained at the analytical laboratory at the temperatures specified and
analyzed within the holding times shown in Table A-1.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

6-1

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank

7

QA/QC Requirements

7.1 QA/QC for Chemical Analyses
The chemistry QA/QC procedures summarized in Table A-1 will be followed.
A written report will be prepared by the analytical laboratory documenting all the
activities associated with sample analyses. At a minimum, the following will be included
in the report:







Results of the laboratory analyses and QA/QC results;
All protocols used during analyses;
COC procedures including explanation of any deviation from those identified in
the report;
Any protocol deviations from the approved sampling plan; and
Location and availability of the data.

7.2 Data Quality Assurance Review Procedures
At a minimum, all laboratory data will undergo a QA1 review (PTI 1989a). If requested
by Ecology, the data will be reviewed following QA2 procedures (PTI 1989b). If data fail
the review, the laboratory will be contacted and the data will be re-analyzed, qualified, or
unqualified with an explanation. For each data type, the quality of the data will be
summarized in validation memos.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

7-1

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank

8

Data Analysis, Record Keeping and
Reporting Requirements

8.1 Chemical and Physical Data
The analysis of soil, groundwater, soil gas, and field screening data will include:
(1) tabulation of chemistry and other physical parameter results, including field screening
and laboratory results; (2) comparison of any applicable chemistry results with the most
stringent regulatory levels for groundwater contaminants derived from criteria in
Chapter 173-340-720 WAC; (3) spatial evaluation of chemical results; (4) preparation of
overlay maps with pertinent data; and (5) data quality assurance of chemistry results.
Additional data evaluations (e.g., spatial analysis, isopleth maps, measures of central
tendency, and regression analysis) may be conducted, as needed, to discern origins and
trends in contamination.

8.2 Data Interpretation
Soil, groundwater, and soil gas chemical and physical data, including field screening
results and laboratory results, will be evaluated primarily to assess the presence of
contaminants of concern. The evaluation will follow the criteria established to identify
contaminated soil and groundwater described in Section 1.5. Results of this assessment,
in conjunction with waste characterization and other physical data, will be used in the
development of a feasibility study to remove the contaminants of concern.

8.3 Record Keeping Procedures
Records and documents generated during planning and implementing the investigation
will be maintained in accordance with the Records Management section of the contract.

8.4 Reporting Procedures
A written report will be prepared that documents all activities associated with collection,
preparation and handling, transportation, and chemical and physical analysis of samples.
The analytical laboratory reports will be included as appendices.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

8-1

February 24, 2010

8. Data Analysis, Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements

At a minimum, the following will be included in the data report:











February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

A brief statement of the purpose of the remedial investigation.
A brief summary of the field sampling and laboratory analytical procedures
followed, referencing the SAP and detailing any deviations from that plan that
were necessitated by conditions encountered during sampling.
A general vicinity map showing the location of the site with respect to familiar
landmarks.
Sampling station map and tabulated coordinate values (latitude and longitude) and
their datum.
Soil, groundwater, and soil gas data tables summarizing the chemical and physical
parameter results, as well as pertinent QA/QC data.
Interpretation of the results of the remedial investigation.
Copies of complete laboratory data packages, as appendices or attachments.
Quality assurance reports, as appendices or attachments.
Copies of field logs, as appendices or attachments.

8-2

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

9

Health and Safety Plan

A Site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) has been prepared for the field
investigation and is included as Appendix C to the Work Plan. This HASP incorporates
the requirements and policies of WSP regarding health, safety, and security measures.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

9-1

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank

10

Schedule

The preliminary schedule for the RI field investigation and the RI/FS project is included
as Appendix E to the Work Plan. This schedule will be updated as the field investigation
progresses.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

10-1

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank

11

Project Team and Coordination

The WSP RI/FS will include the following subtasks:
1. Project planning and agency coordination
2. Mobilization
3. Field sample collection
4. Laboratory preparation and analysis
5. QA/QC management
6. Draft and Final data reports

11.1 Project Planning and Coordination
Mr. Shane Loper, DOC, will be the Government Project Manager (GPM) and will
provide overall project coordination, supply government-furnished data and services,
provide review comments on the report, and coordinate with the Parametrix project team.
Mike Warfel will be the Parametrix project manager and will be responsible for
executing the approved SAP, overseeing the collection and storage of field samples, and
reporting analytical results to Ecology. Ecology’s representative is Ms. Sandra Treccani.

11.2 Mobilization
Mobilization will include the following activities:





Procurement of sub-Contractor services, equipment, and materials – This may
include, but is not limited to, geophysical surveys, drilling services, equipment
rental, laboratory services, and waste disposal and safety supplies;
Coordination with the WSP facility administration staff – Sampling near and
around the areas within or near the facility will require coordination with the WSP
administration staff; and
Establishing site support facilities – Land-based support services will be required
to facilitate the site activities.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

11-1

February 24, 2010

11. Project Team and Coordination



Testing and inspection of equipment – All drilling rigs, communication devices,
sampling equipment, locating equipment, and safety equipment will be inspected,
and tested if necessary, each day prior to deployment.

11.3 Field Sample Collection
Parametrix team staff will be responsible for collection and processing of samples in
accordance with the SAP and transport of samples to the analytical laboratory for
chemical analysis.

11.4 Laboratory Sample Preparation and Analysis
The Parametrix team will be responsible for sample processing and delivery to the
analytical laboratory. Established protocols for decontamination, sample preservation,
holding times, and chain of custody documentation will be observed. Analytical
laboratories will be determined later.

11.5 QA/QC Management
The Parametrix team will perform QA oversight for the laboratory programs. The
Contractor will ensure that the laboratory analytical and QA/QC data are considered valid
and procedures meet the required analytical quality control limits.

11.6 Data Report
The Parametrix team will coordinate preparation of the Remedial Investigation Report,
which will be prepared in accordance with the most stringent regulatory levels for
groundwater contaminants derived from Chapter 173-340-720 WAC.

February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

11-2

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

12

References
General Electric (GE). 1984. PCB Appraisal. Conducted by GE for DOC. April 2-5, 1984.
HWA Geosciences Inc. (HWA). 1998. Preliminary Hydrogeologic EvaluationConstruction Demolition Landfill Washington State Penitentiary Walla Walla, WA.
Prepared for the Washington State Department of Corrections. September 3, 1998.
Parametrix. 1995. Closed Construction/Demolition Landfill Washington State
Penitentiary Walla Walla, WA. Prepared for the Washington State Department of
Corrections. June 23, 1995.
PTI Environmental Services, 1989a. Data validation guidance manual for selected
sediment variable. Prepared for Ecology, Olympia, WA.
_________. 1989b, Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis guidance manual: data
quality evaluation for proposed dredged material disposal projects. Prepared for
Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC). 1996. Division of Correctional
Industries. Underground Storage Tank Removal and Health and Safety Plan.
June 1996.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2000. Preliminary Assessment
Washington State Penitentiary Narrative Report. Prepared by Phil Leinhart,
Hydrologist Toxics Cleanup Program, Ecology. October 2000.
_________. 1999. Sudbury Road Landfill Site Contaminant Source
Identification/Assessment Report. Prepared under an Agreement between Ecology
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 1999.
_________. 1995. Site Hazard Assessment Data Collection Summary Sheets for the
Washington Ranking Method –Surface Water, Air, and Groundwater routes only.
Prepared for the Washington State Penitentiary. April 25, 1995.
_________. 1992. Initial Investigation Data Sheets. Prepared by the Washington State
Penitentiary.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

12-1

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank

Figures

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank

AOC #1 - Washington State Penitentiary Landfill

AOC #8 - Sign Shop (location unknown)

---1-125--

AOC #2 - Former Dry Cleaning

Confirmed Contaminants: Trichloroethene and
Chloroform in groundwater samples and toluene in
surface water samples. Combustible gas also present.

MW-1

Proposed Sampling: Geophysical survey will be
conducted to determine if drums are present in
landfill. Manual excavation of test pits as well as soil
gas, soil, surface water, and groundwater sampling.

S-3

MW-2

S-2

Confirmed COCs: No sampling has been
conducted.

Confirmed COCs: No sampling has been
conducted but strong chemical odors observed
during demolition. Area suspected as primary
source of contamination.
S-1

MW-9

Suspected COCs: VOCs and SVOCs (chlorinated
solvents, degreasers, and petroleum products).
Proposed Sampling: Soil gas survey and soil
sampling at two locations.

Suspected COCs: TCE and its degredation
products.
Proposed Sampling: Soil gas survey followed
by soil sampling.

AOC #9 - Metal Plant (location unknown)

Farm Shop

Lq.t9J
[~:t9]

MW-9

Confirmed COCs: No sampling has been
conducted.

MW-3

~~
~*=c70iJ
S70iJ

Suspected COCs: VOCs (solvents).

T 11

MW-4

Proposed Sampling: Soil gas survey and soil
sampling at two locations.

Recycle

D

AOC #5 - Auto Body Work and
Furniture Refinishing Shop

C.m.
C,m.

Department
Deplrtment

Confirmed COCs: No sampling has
been conducted.

MW-12

Proposed Sampling: Groundwater
MW-14 sampling, well installation, and
groundwater monitoring to assess
groundwater flow.

MW-5
AOC #7 - Steam Plant Boiler Ash

AOC #6 - Former Hazardous Waste
Accumulation Area
Confirmed COCs: No sampling has been conducted.

MW-11

Proposed Sampling: Soil gas survey and
soil sampling.

LEGEND

T1

T1

Suspected COCs: VOCs, SVOCs, Metals, and TPH.
See Section 3.2 for more details.

MW-7

Former Tank (UST) Location

AOC #3 - Former Motor Pool

nSlon Project
Expansion

2006 - 2007

MW-8

Confirmed COCs: No sampling has been conducted.
Suspected COCs: Metals.
Proposed Sampling: Surface soil at potential
locations of ash disposal.

T 10

~ocated

MW-10

T

Ea~ ~

EgO City Water Su
Supply
Located on the East
erimeter Fence line
Penmeter

~

T3

Confirmed COCs: No sampling has been conducted.

T4

Suspected COCs: VOCs, SVOCs, Metals, and TPH.
See Section 3.2 for more details.

~
Expa .

T8

T9

Proposed Sampling: Soil gas survey and soil
sampling.

~

MW-7

MW-13

MSC Control Area

AOC #4 - Former UST Locations (8 total)
Proposed Sampling: Groundwater sampling.

~

MI Control Area

~

Future Expansion

Surface Water Sample
WSP Monitoring Well
Sudbury Road Landfill Monitoring Well

General Groundwater
Flow Direction

Proposed RI Monitoring Well

MW-10

---=~=======-===:::QiGra~vel~ROad~=-

Proposed Test Pit Location

---fi
-.J\.

Proposed Gas / Soil Probe Location
Proposed Surface Soil Sample Location

ecology and environment, inc.
&

z

Seattle, Washington

Source: Washington State Department of Corrections, 2009.

Construction Yard
--'----

WASHINGTON STATE PENITENTIARY
Walla Walla, Washington

Gravel Road

litJfL
UJ

MW-6 (Northwest corner of intersection
of RR tracks and May Avenue.)
ReesAve.

N
Not to Scale

Figure 1
PRELIMINARY RI SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Date:
7/14/09

Drawn by:
AES

10:002330WD2703\fig 7
Updated 02/11/2010 by Parametrix, Inc.

A

Chemical Analytical Parameters,
Laboratory Methods, and Method
Detection Limits
This is Appendix A to the document:
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix A: Final Sampling & Analysis Plan

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank

Table A-1. Chemical Analytical Parameters, Laboratory Methods, and Method Detection Limits
PAHs by Method 8270D SIM
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
1-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo[a]anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

Soil
MDL
0.000372
0.000281
0.000204
0.000179
0.000282
0.000176
0.000186
0.000151
0.000179
0.000125
0.0000872
0.000103
0.000134
0.0000966
0.0000577
0.0000706
0.0000530
0.0000638

Soil
PQL
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067

Soil
Units
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm

Water
MDL
0.0137
0.0195
0.00587
0.00438
0.00617
0.00589
0.00590
0.00494
0.00431
0.00693
0.00418
0.00503
0.00611
0.00553
0.00607
0.00391
0.00353
0.00412

Water
PQL
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010

Water
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

Semivolatiles by Method 8270D
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
Pyridine
Phenol
Aniline
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
2-Chlorophenol
n-Decane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
(3+4)-Methylphenol (m,p-Cresol)
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Hexachloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

Soil
MDL
0.0103
0.245
0.0128
0.146
0.0135
0.0138
0.0141
0.0118
0.0123
0.0127
0.0118
0.0125
0.0127
0.0118
0.0142
0.0142
0.0157
0.0129
0.0151
0.0162
0.0129

Soil
PQL
0.033
0.33
0.033
0.17
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.83
0.033

Soil
Units
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm

Water
MDL
0.195
0.144
0.233
0.266
0.441
0.392
0.302
0.328
0.323
0.305
0.322
0.320
0.360
0.287
0.349
0.393
0.369
0.346
0.392
0.360
0.382

Water
PQL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Water
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

Page 1 of 6

SPE
MDL
0.0154
0.0141
0.0142
0.0108
0.0190
0.0123
0.0101
0.00979
0.00729
0.00479
0.00585
0.00626
0.00618
0.00594
0.0143
0.00603
0.00618
0.00646

SPE
PQL
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010

SPE
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

Table A-1. Chemical Analytical Parameters, Laboratory Methods, and Method Detection Limits
Semivolatiles by Method 8270D
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Benzoic acid
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
1-Methylnaphthalene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,3-Dichloroaniline
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
1,4-Dinitrobenzene
Dimethylphthalate
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Dinitrobenzene
Acenaphthylene
3-Nitroaniline
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Acenaphthene
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Dibenzofuran
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Diethylphthalate
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether
4-Nitroaniline
Fluorene
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
n-Octadecane
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole

Soil
MDL
0.0126
0.0175
0.0130
0.0147
0.00586
0.0131
0.0112
0.0143
0.0140
0.0102
0.0130
0.0117
0.0128
0.0127
0.00964
0.0108
0.0121
0.00868
0.00822
0.0118
0.0119
0.00612
0.00478
0.0102
0.0116
0.00969
0.0109
0.00843
0.00954
0.0131
0.0110
0.0185
0.00948
0.00699
0.0118
0.0156
0.00984
0.0100
0.00902
0.0199
0.0109
0.0101
0.00910

Soil
PQL
0.033
0.17
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.17
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.17
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.17
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.33
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033

Soil
Units
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm

Water
MDL
0.313
0.0356
0.407
0.429
2.68
0.354
0.339
0.387
0.344
0.265
0.346
0.280
0.206
0.309
0.334
0.322
0.287
0.236
0.377
0.292
0.293
0.249
3.95
0.397
0.222
0.345
0.275
0.287
0.235
0.357
0.228
0.345
0.262
0.267
2.12
0.271
0.170
0.240
0.468
0.335
0.283
0.230
0.276

Page 2 of 6

Water
PQL
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Water
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

Table A-1. Chemical Analytical Parameters, Laboratory Methods, and Method Detection Limits
Semivolatiles by Method 8270D
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Benzidine
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
bis-2-Ethylhexyladipate
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo[a]anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

Soil
MDL
0.0140
0.00986
0.00128
0.0117
0.0222
0.0148
0.115
0.0125
0.0126
0.0191
0.0131
0.0106
0.0151
0.00922
0.0111
0.00938
0.00920

Soil
PQL
0.033
0.033
0.33
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.33
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033

Soil
Units
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm

Water
MDL
0.276
0.250
1.19
0.271
0.359
0.285
2.13
0.309
0.321
0.172
0.235
0.240
0.316
0.228
0.233
0.257
0.274

Water
PQL
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Water
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

NWTPH-Dx
Diesel
Lube Oil

Soil
MDL
8.78
14.6

Soil
PQL
25
50

Soil
Units
ppm
ppm

Water
MDL
0.0791
0.138

Water
PQL
0.25
0.40

Water
Units
ppm
ppm

Volatiles by Method 8260B
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Iodomethane
Carbon Disulfide
Methylene Chloride
(trans) 1,2-Dichloroethene
Methyl t-Butyl Ether
1,1-Dichloroethane
Vinyl Acetate
2,2-Dichloropropane
(cis) 1,2-Dichloroethene

Soil
MDL
0.628
1.69
0.857
0.536
1.69
0.647
0.210
4.57
0.643
0.281
2.74
0.789
0.173
0.219
0.231
0.253
0.179

Soil
PQL
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0

Soil
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

Water
MDL
0.143
0.0313
0.0399
0.0978
0.175
0.0599
0.0459
0.562
0.343
0.0258
0.175
0.0335
0.0507
0.0426
0.163
0.0702
0.0380

Water
PQL
0.20
1.0
0.20
0.20
1.0
0.20
0.20
5.0
1.0
0.20
1.0
0.20
0.20
0.20
2.0
0.20
0.20

Water
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

Page 3 of 6

Table A-1. Chemical Analytical Parameters, Laboratory Methods, and Method Detection Limits
Volatiles by Method 8260B
2-Butanone
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,1-Dichloropropene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
Dibromomethane
Bromodichloromethane
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
(cis) 1,3-Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Toluene
(trans) 1,3-Dichloropropene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
1,3-Dichloropropane
2-Hexanone
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Chlorobenzene
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Styrene
Bromoform
Isopropylbenzene
Bromobenzene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
n-Propylbenzene
2-Chlorotoluene
4-Chlorotoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
p-Isopropyltoluene

Soil
MDL
1.23
0.489
0.315
0.286
0.366
0.346
0.142
0.266
0.554
0.302
0.351
0.273
3.29
0.197
0.518
0.291
0.203
0.375
0.297
0.229
0.679
0.298
0.199
0.196
0.254
0.168
0.401
0.273
0.178
0.538
0.162
0.244
0.462
0.306
0.179
0.325
0.336
0.258
0.262
0.209
0.183
0.278
0.242

Soil
PQL
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Soil
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

Water
MDL
0.523
0.0710
0.0527
0.0336
0.0329
0.0612
0.0241
0.0359
0.0484
0.0542
0.0661
0.0217
0.210
0.0613
0.141
0.0291
0.0506
0.0978
0.0457
0.0660
0.0969
0.0382
0.0952
0.0340
0.0465
0.0243
0.0333
0.0255
0.0231
0.0928
0.0284
0.117
0.0557
0.0939
0.0188
0.0401
0.0402
0.0258
0.0243
0.0217
0.0220
0.0266
0.0257

Page 4 of 6

Water
PQL
5.0
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
1.0
0.20
2.0
1.0
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
2.0
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.20
1.0
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20

Water
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

Table A-1. Chemical Analytical Parameters, Laboratory Methods, and Method Detection Limits
Volatiles by Method 8260B
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
n-Butylbenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Naphthalene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

Volatiles by Method 8260B/SIM
Vinyl Chloride

ICP Metals by Method 200.7/6010B
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc

Soil
MDL
0.269
0.321
0.222
0.940
0.383
0.503
0.314
0.259

Soil
PQL
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0

Soil
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

Water
MDL
0.123
0.107
0.0394
0.468
0.0398
0.0529
0.0547
0.0586

Water
PQL
0.20
0.20
0.20
1.0
0.20
0.20
1.0
0.20

Water
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

Soil
MDL

Soil
PQL

Soil
Units

Water
MDL

Water
PQL
0.020

Water
Units
ppb

Soil
MDL
3.55
1.65
0.0103
0.0744
0.155
0.384
1.18
0.389
3.37
0.201
9.64
0.361

Soil
PQL
5.0
10
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
5.0
2.5
10
0.50
10
2.5

Soil
Units
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm

Water
MDL
53.1
25.8
0.223
1.49
4.40
5.98
35.6
7.34
52.5
5.54
135
4.95

Water
PQL
100
200
10
10
10
10
100
50
200
10
200
50

Water
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

Page 5 of 6

Dissolved
MDL
63.2
44.1
0.466
1.17
3.26
6.42
20.9
7.99
102
5.41
184
5.85

Dissolved
PQL
100
200
10
10
10
10
100
50
200
10
200
50

Dissolved
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

Table A-1. Chemical Analytical Parameters, Laboratory Methods, and Method Detection Limits
ICP/MS Metals by Method 200.8/6020
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc

Soil
MDL
0.0180
0.0104
0.00720
0.00461
0.0438
0.0153
0.0353
0.0178
0.0485
0.0163
0.00547
0.133

Soil
PQL
5.0
10
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
5.0
2.5
10
0.50
5.0
2.5

Soil
Units
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm

Water
MDL
0.160
0.577
0.230
0.0401
0.654
0.321
0.218
0.303
1.06
0.199
0.0284
2.32

Water
PQL
5.5
3.3
11
4.4
11
11
1.1
56
5.6
11
5.6
56

Water
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

Mercury by Method 7470A/7471A
Mercury
Mercury (low)

Soil
MDL
0.000247
n/a

Soil
PQL
0.25
n/a

Soil
Units
ppm
n/a

Water
MDL
0.0126
0.0145

Water
PQL
0.50
0.038

Water
Units
ppb
ppb

Page 6 of 6

Dissolved
MDL
0.0441
0.0661
0.0517
0.0154
0.109
0.304
0.0123
0.0364
0.127
0.0609
0.0133
0.487

Dissolved
PQL
5.0
1.0
10
4.0
10
10
1.0
40
5.0
10
5.0
50

Dissolved
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb

B

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank

Washington State Penitentiary
RI/FS Work Plan
APPENDIX B:
Final Quality Assurance
Project Plan

Contract No. C0700036
Work Assignment No. EANE026

Prepared for:
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Toxics Cleanup Program
North 4601 Monroe
Spokane, Washington 99205-1295

By:
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
720 Third Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98104

June 2009
Updated by Parametrix, Inc.
1231 Fryar Avenue
Sumner, WA 98390

February 2010
Under Contract to the Washington State Department of Corrections
Contract No. 10-321A

This page intentionally left blank.

Publication and Contact Information
This plan is available on the Department of Ecology website at
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites/state/pen_hp.htm
Data for this project will be available on Ecology’s Environmental Information Management
(EIM) website at www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/index.htm.

Work Assignment Information
1. Firm: Parametrix, Inc.

2. Contract No.: Department of Corrections Contract No. 10-321A

3. Project Name: Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS at Walla Walla
4. Work Assignment Number:
5. SIC:

Project:

6. Start Date:

Fund Code:
End Date:

For more information please contact:
Sandra Treccani
Washington State Department of Ecology
Toxics Cleanup Program
North 4601 Monroe
Spokane, Washington 99205-1295
Email: Treccani, Sandra (ECY) [satr461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Phone: 509/329-3412
Distribution List:
Sandra Treccani, Washington State Department of Ecology
Lauren S. Loper, Washington State Department of Corrections

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

Quality Assurance Project Plan
Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
June 2009
Updated February 2010

Approved By:
[Final Approval List TBD]
Signature

Date

Michael R. Warfel, Project Manager, Parametrix, Inc.

Signature

Date

Stuart Currie, QA Lead and Senior Chemist, Parametrix, Inc.

Signature

Date

Bill Kammin, QA Officer, Washington State Department of Ecology

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

T

able of Contents

Section

Page

Abstract ................................................................................................... vii
1

Introduction................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
1.2

Background .......................................................................................................... 1-1
Previous Studies ................................................................................................... 1-2

2

Project Description ....................................................................... 2-1

3

Organization and Schedule .......................................................... 3-1
3.1
3.2

4

Organization ......................................................................................................... 3-1
Schedule ............................................................................................................... 3-1

Experimental Design .................................................................... 4-1
4.1

Project Tasks ........................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1.1
Task 1: Preparation ............................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2
Task 2: Sample Collection .................................................................... 4-1
4.1.3
Task 3: Laboratory Analyses ................................................................ 4-1
4.1.4
Task 4: Reporting.................................................................................. 4-2

5

Health and Safety.......................................................................... 5-1

6

Measurement Procedures ............................................................ 6-1

7

Quality Objectives ........................................................................ 7-1

8

Quality Control Procedures ......................................................... 8-1
8.1
8.2

9

Field ..................................................................................................................... 8-1
Laboratory ............................................................................................................ 8-5

Data Verification, Review, and Validation ................................... 9-1
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5

Data Verification .................................................................................................. 9-1
Data Quality (Usability) Assessment ................................................................... 9-2
Data Validation .................................................................................................... 9-2
Data Management Procedures ............................................................................. 9-2
Audits and Reports ............................................................................................... 9-2

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

i

February 24, 2010

Table of Contents (Cont.)
Section

10

Page

References .................................................................................. 10-1

Appendices
A

February 24, 2010

Meeting Notes

ii

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

L

ist of Tables

Table 1

Page
Organization Chart ..................................................................................................... 3-1

Table 2

Proposed Project Schedule ......................................................................................... 3-2

Table 3

Areas of Concern ....................................................................................................... 7-4

Table 4

Chemical Analytical Parameters, Laboratory Methods, and Method Detection
Limits ......................................................................................................................... 7-5

Table 5

Sample Volumes, Containers, Preservation, and Holding Times for Target
Analytes ..................................................................................................................... 8-2

Table 6

Field Quality Control Samples for Each Parameter monitored at POTWs ............... 8-4

Table 7

Analytical Laboratory Quality Control Samples ....................................................... 8-5

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

iii

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

L

ist of Abbreviations and Acronyms

o

degrees Celsius

CDL

construction debris landfill

COC

chain of custody

DOC

Washington State Department of Corrections

DQOs

data quality objectives

Ecology

Washington State Department of Ecology

EIM

Environmental Information Management (database)

EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

FS

Feasibility Study

GC

gas chromatograph

GC/ECD

gas chromatograph/electron capture detector

GC/FID

gas chromatograph/flame ionization detector

GC/MS

gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer

IDW

investigation-derived wastes

LCS

laboratory control sample

MS

matrix spike

MSD

matrix spike duplicate

NWTPH

Northwest total petroleum hydrocarbons

PAHs

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PARCC

precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability

PCBs

polychlorinated biphenyls

PCE

tetrachloroethene

RI

Remedial Investigation

QA

quality assurance

QAPP

Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC

quality control

C

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

v

February 24, 2010

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (Cont.)

SAP

Sampling and Analysis Plan

SOP

Standard Operating Procedure

SVOCs

semivolatile organic compounds

TCE

trichloroethene

ug/L

micrograms per liter

TPH

total petroleum hydrocarbons

UST

underground storage tank

VOCs

volatile organic compounds

WSP

Washington State Penitentiary

February 24, 2010

vi

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

Abstract

This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is provided for the preliminary Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to be managed by the Washington State
Department of Corrections and Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program. The
goal of the RI/FS is to determine the nature and extent of contamination related to and
downgradient of the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla, Washington. Further
information on the project objectives can be found in the Work Plan.
This QAPP describes the objectives of the field study and the quality assurance
procedures to be followed to achieve those objectives. This QAPP is supplemental to the
project Work Plan as Appendix B and supports the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP,
Work Plan Appendix A). The contractor who will implement the Work Plan, SAP, and
QAPP has not been selected at this time. After the study is completed, analytical data will
be uploaded to the Department of Ecology’s Environmental Information Management
database and a final report describing the results will be posted to Ecology’s website.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

vii

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

1

Introduction

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), in coordination with the
Department of Corrections (DOC), became involved with the Washington State
Penitentiary (WSP) in Walla Walla, Washington in 1992. The WSP Landfill was
added to Ecology’s Confirmed and Suspected Contamination Sites List on
June 8, 1992 because of concerns about the WSP Landfill, and other past
activities at the WSP facility being potential sources of contamination detected in
groundwater downgradient from the site.
On behalf of Ecology and DOC, Ecology and Environment, Inc., (E & E)
prepared the preliminary Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). It was based on
the Ecology document “Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans
for Environmental Studies” (2004a) and on guidance provided by Ecology’s site
manager and representatives of DOC.
The Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) is the Potential Liable
Party (PLP) responsible for completing the RI/FS at WSP. DOC retained
Parametrix, Inc. to implement the RI/FS, including updating this RI/FS QAPP
with information specific to the project team and analytical laboratory that will
complete the project.
The “site” is defined by the property boundaries of the WSP. The site definition
may be updated by new information as it becomes available. A site area map can
be seen in Figure 1 of the Work Plan.

1.1 Background
Previous investigations have confirmed the presence of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in the groundwater upgradient of the Sudbury Road
Municipal Landfill (Sudbury Road Landfill) and downgradient of the WSP
Landfill. In several monitoring wells, the concentrations of tetrachloroethene
(PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) have exceeded the Model Toxics Control Act
(MTCA) Method A cleanup levels for groundwater (see Work Plan Table 2-1).

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

1-1

February 24, 2010

1. Introduction

1.2 Previous Studies
Surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water, and groundwater samples have been
collected and analyzed from locations in and around the WSP during previous
investigations conducted at various times between 1984 and 2000. Groundwater
samples have been collected upgradient of the Sudbury Road Landfill and
surrounding the WSP landfill. Previous investigations conducted in the vicinity of
the WSP and the Sudbury Road Landfill are summarized in the project Work
Plan.

February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

1-2

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

2

Project Description

The overall project objectives are to characterize both the nature and the vertical
and horizontal extents of soil, surface water, and groundwater contamination at
specified areas of concern (AOCs) around the site and define the characteristics of
soils and groundwater to support a future feasibility study.
The project will evaluate concentrations of several contaminants of concern
(COCs):







Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-D)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs)
Total metals

Each of these contaminants is of concern for one or more of the following
reasons:




The contaminant has been detected in previous investigations, or
Historical records have indicated the contaminants were used or stored on
site.

Surface soil, subsurface soil, storm drain sediments, surface water, groundwater,
and soil gas samples will be collected from the WSP and the WSP Landfill.
The general location of the WSP is illustrated in Work Plan Figure 1. The
boundary of the study area for the investigation is illustrated in Work Plan
Figures 1 and 2.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

2-1

February 24, 2010

This page intentionally left blank.

3

Organization and Schedule

3.1 Organization
This QAPP was developed in conjunction with a review of information about the
WSP facility. Key staff assigned to this work and their responsibilities are shown
in the following organization chart:
Table 1

Organization Chart

Personnel
Jack Olson,
P.E.
Sandra
Treccani, LG,
LHG
Teresita Bala,
PhD
Mike Warfel,
LG, LHG
Arnie Sugar,
LG, LHG
To Be
Determined
To Be
Determined
Stuart Currie

Project Role
DOC Client
Site Manager

Site Engineer
Project Manager,
Contract with
DOC
RI Manager
Field Team
Manager
Field Team Site
Safety Officer
QA Lead

Company
Department of
Corrections
Department of
Ecology
Department of
Ecology
Parametrix

HWA
Geosciences

Cell Phone
360-239-4619

Email
jaolson@doc1.wa.gov
satr461@ecy.wa.gov

tbal461@ecy.wa.gov
425-457-0621

mwarfel@parametrix.com

206-794-3130

asugar@hwageo.com

Parametrix

3.2 Schedule
The anticipated schedule for the deliverables and the field sampling event is
shown in Table 2. Any DOC-approved schedule changes will be relayed as soon
as possible to the project team by the Contractor’s project manager by telephone
and email.

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

3-1

February 24, 2010

3. Organization and Schedule
Table 2

Proposed Project Schedule

Deliverable/Activity
Status Reports
Draft QAPP
Final QAPP
Phase I Sampling Event
Phase II Sampling Event
Data Verification and Validation
Data Entry into EIM
Draft Technical Report
Final Technical Report
Key:
EIM
QAPP

February 24, 2010

ecol~'
eCO)02Y

and
lIml envi.l"onmenf,
environment, inc.

Tentative Schedule
Monthly

See Project Schedule in Appendix E of the
Final Work Plan

Environmental Information Management Database
Quality Assurance Project Plan

3-2

Washington State Penitentiary RI/FS
Appendix B: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan