tory or research agency quality assurance (QA)
Determine effective remedial alternatives
programs and procedure take over and are cited
that will prevent the waterfowl and second-
only by reference in this field QAPP.
ary receptors from ingesting WP.
The integrated risk assessment model (IRAM)
Organization
is the joint effort of four research agencies to com-
This QAPP is consistent with the USEPA guid-
bine into one model the available information on
ance document Interim Guidelines and Specifica-
habitat, waterfowl behavior, WP distribution at
tions for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans,
the ERF, physical processes (tides, sedimentation,
QAMS-00580m dated 29 December 1980. The
quality control (QC) procedures implemented in
summer effort will obtain data to fill in remaining
the field are discussed to describe how data of
data gaps and then answer the following ques-
known and accepted quality are produced at ERF.
tions:
This document consists of the following vol-
What is the probability of waterfowl encoun-
umes:
tering and retaining a WP particle?
Volume 1--QAPP and supporting appendi-
Given a probability of encountering par-
ces.
ticles, what is the probability for toxicosis?
Volume 2--Scopes of work for specific
Remedial methods under investigation in 1994
investigations at ERF in 1994.
include using waterfowl deterrents (hazing,
methyl anthranilate), capping pond sediments
Volume 1, the QAPP, contains the following sec-
(BentoBalls, geotextile liners), dredging and dry-
tions:
ing sediments, draining the pond and exposing
Program description.
sediments to air, and natural attenuation.
Program organization and responsibility.
The report summarizes the 1994 projects,
Quality assurance objectives for measure-
including specific objectives, types of measure-
ment of data.
ment data that will be collected, and how the data
Sampling procedures.
will be used. The data can be grouped into one of
Sample custody procedures.
the four data categories: biological, chemical,
Calibration and maintenance of equipment.
physical, and meteorological.
Analytical methods.
Field and laboratory investigations, surveys,
and treatability studies will be conducted begin-
Data reduction, validation, and reporting.
Internal QC checks and frequency.
ning in March 1994 and continued through Octo-
Performance and system audits.
ber 1994. Data entry and evaluation activities will
Preventive maintenance procedures and
continue past 1994. On overall ERF 1994 field sea-
schedules.
son schedule produced by CRREL is included.
Precision, accuracy, and completeness
The research agencies involved in conducting
assessment.
the 1994 fieldwork are as follows:
Corrective action.
CRREL, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Quality assurance reports to management.
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
The scopes of work in Volume 2 were written
(USAEHA), Aberdeen Proving Ground,
by participating research agencies for each ERF
Maryland.
investigation. Each scope of work provides the
Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New
following:
Hampshire.
Background information.
Denver Wildlife Research Center (DWRC)
Specific objectives.
and Animal Damage Control (ADC), United
Field sampling and analysis plan.
States Department of Agriculture, Denver,
Quality assurance project plan.
Colorado.
Health and safety plan.
National Biological Survey (NBS), Patuxent
Personnel responsibilities.
Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland.
Schedules.
New England Institute for Landscape Ecol-
ogy (NEILE), Canaan, New Hampshire.
Synopsis of 1994 planned investigations
The data use end points are critical to deter-
The 1994 investigations have the following
mining the levels of QA/QC required in gather-
objectives:
ing the data. Data used for screening information
Develop an integrated risk assessment model.
may require less attention to sampling details and
8
to contents
Previous Page
