FINAL PROGRAMMATIC UNIFORM FEDERAL POLICY–QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (UFP-QAPP) ANNEX 19 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION MONITORING PROGRAM

September 2016 Submitted By: U.S. ARMY INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMAND ATTN: IMSO, Building 2261 2405 Gun Shed Road, Fort Sam Houston, Texas 78234-1223 Submitted To: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 11545 Rockville Pike, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP iii September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

LIST OF WORKSHEETS ........................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 52

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP iv September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

LIST OF WORKSHEETS Page

QAPP Worksheets #1 and #2. Title and Approval Page .............................................................................. 4 QAPP Worksheets #3 and #5. Project Organization and QAPP Distribution ............................................. 9 QAPP Worksheets #4, #7, and #8. Personnel Qualifications and Sign-Off Sheet ..................................... 10 QAPP Worksheet #6. Communication Pathways ...................................................................................... 11 QAPP Worksheet #9. Project Planning Session Summary ........................................................................ 14 QAPP Worksheet #10. Conceptual Site Model ......................................................................................... 15 QAPP Worksheet #11. Project/Data Quality Objectives ........................................................................... 18 QAPP Worksheet #12. Measurement Performance Criteria ...................................................................... 22 QAPP Worksheet #13. Secondary Data Uses and Limitations .................................................................. 26 QAPP Worksheets #14 and #16. Project Tasks and Schedule ................................................................... 27 QAPP Worksheet #15a. Project Action Levels for the ERM Media ......................................................... 28 QAPP Worksheet #15b. Laboratory-Specific Detection/Quantitation Limits for Surface Water ............. 29 QAPP Worksheet #15c. Laboratory-Specific Detection/Quantitation Limits for Sediment...................... 30 QAPP Worksheet #17. Sampling Design and Rationale ........................................................................... 31 QAPP Worksheet #18. Sampling Locations and Methods ........................................................................ 32 QAPP Worksheets #19 and #30. Sample Containers, Preservation, and Hold Times ............................... 33 QAPP Worksheet #20. Field Quality Control Summary ........................................................................... 34 QAPP Worksheet #21. Field SOPs ............................................................................................................ 35 QAPP Worksheet #22. Field Equipment Calibration, Maintenance, Testing, and Inspection................... 36 QAPP Worksheet #23. Analytical SOPs.................................................................................................... 38 QAPP Worksheet #24. Analytical Instrument Calibration ........................................................................ 39 QAPP Worksheet #25. Analytical Instrument and Equipment Maintenance, Testing, and

Inspection ................................................................................................................................ 41 QAPP Worksheets #26 and #27. Sample Handling, Custody, and Disposal ............................................. 42 QAPP Worksheet #28. Analytical Quality Control and Corrective Action ............................................... 43 QAPP Worksheet #29. Project Documents and Records ........................................................................... 45 QAPP Worksheets #31, #32, and #33. Assessments and Corrective Action ............................................. 46 QAPP Worksheet #34. Data Verification and Validation Inputs ............................................................... 47 QAPP Worksheet #35. Data Verification Procedures................................................................................ 48 QAPP Worksheet #36. Data Validation Procedures .................................................................................. 49 QAPP Worksheet #37. Usability Assessment ............................................................................................ 50

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP v September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ac Acre AEC U.S. Army Environmental Command CAR Corrective Action Report CAS Chemical Abstract System CCV Continuing Calibration Verification CD Compact Disc CFR Code of Federal Regulations CoC Chain-of-Custody COR Contracting Officer’s Representative COTR Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative CPR Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation CSM Conceptual Site Model DA Department of the Army DAC Derived Air Concentration DI Deionized DoD U.S. Department of Defense DOE U.S. Department of Energy DQA Data Quality Assessment DQI Data Quality Indicator DQO Data Quality Objective DU Depleted Uranium EDD Electronic Data Deliverable ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal ERM Environmental Radiation Monitoring ERMP Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan FedEx Federal Express FTP Field Technical Procedure GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System HASL Health and Safety Laboratory HASP Health and Safety Plan HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response ICAL Initial Calibration ICP-MS Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry ICS Interference Check Sample ICV Initial Calibration Verification IDQTF Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force IEC International Electrotechnical Commission IMCOM Installation Management Command IS Internal Standard ISO International Organization for Standardization KeV Kiloelectron Volts kg Kilogram LCS Laboratory Control Sample LCSD Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate LOD Limit of Detection LOQ Limit of Quantitation

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP vi September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

MDC Minimum Dose Concentration MDL Method Detection Limit MeV Megaelectron Volts MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate N/A Not Applicable NAVSCOLEOD Naval School Explosive Ordnance Disposal NCR Nonconformance Report NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PAERMP Programmatic Approach for the Preparation of Site-Specific Environmental

Radiation Monitoring Plans pCi/g Picocuries per Gram pCi/L Picocuries per Liter PMP Project Management Professional POC Point of Contact PWS Project Work Statement QA Quality Assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC Quality Control QSM Quality Systems Manual RCA Radiation Control Area RL Reporting Limit RPD Relative Percent Difference RSSO Radiation Safety Staff Officer SHSO Site Health and Safety Officer SML Source Material License SOP Standard Operating Procedure SUXOS Senior Unexploded Ordnance Supervisor SW Solid Waste TA Training Area U-232 Uranium-232 U-233 Uranium-233 U-234 Uranium-234 U-235 Uranium-235 U-236 Uranium-236 U-238 Uranium-238 UFP Uniform Federal Policy USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS U.S. Geological Survey UXO Unexploded Ordnance Note: The above acronym list contains the acronyms used in the Introduction and Worksheets #3 and #5, the Project Organization and QAPP Distribution. All other worksheets contain their own acronym list.

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 1 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

INTRODUCTION

This Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) describes the quality assurance (QA), quality control (QC), and additional technical activities that must be implemented to ensure that data collected are of sufficient quality to support the objectives of environmental radiation monitoring (ERM) at all sites covered under the U.S. Army Environmental Center Nationwide Depleted Uranium (DU) Remedial Design Sampling Program and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amended license (Source Material License [SML] SUC-1593) that authorizes the U.S. Army to possess DU at sites across the United States. The UPF-QAPP also describes field sampling procedures and laboratory protocols for ERM activities, describes the ways in which QA and QC are applied to analytical results, and discusses data management and reporting. Leidos has prepared this plan in accordance with the project work statement (PWS) requirements under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Contract No. W912QR-16-D-0003, Delivery Order No. 002. The U.S. Army has not determined who will execute the ERM fieldwork and laboratory analyses. Where organization-specific details (e.g., names, telephone numbers) are required, the entries in the UFP-QAPP Worksheets state, “to be determined” or “TBD,” and will be established prior to execution of field sampling and laboratory analysis. In some cases, example information is provided.

Background

The Davy Crockett Weapon System was in the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) inventory of weapons between 1961 and 1971. The Davy Crockett was a battalion-level, nuclear-capable recoilless weapon used by infantry, armored, airborne, and mechanized divisions. This system consisted of the M28 (Light Weapon), which was deployed between 1961 and 1968, and the M29 (Heavy Weapon), which was used until 1971. This nuclear capable weapon system fired practice projectiles that contained high explosives during training. The M101 20mm spotting round, which was only used with the M28 Light Weapon, was used to verify the aiming point of the weapon system. The spotting rounds emitted white smoke on impact but did not explode. Remnants of the tail assemblies remain at sites where the U.S. Army trained on the weapons system. The M101 was a small (about 8 inches in length and 1-inch diameter) low-speed projectile weighing about 1 pound and containing 6.7 ounces of DU. Unlike modern munitions that use DU as penetrators to defeat enemy armor, the DU in the M101 was used to provide weight sufficient for the spotting round to simulate the flight of the supercaliber Davy Crockett projectile. Approximately 75,000 M101 rounds were manufactured. The U.S. Army demilitarized approximately 44,000 of these M101 spotting rounds at the original manufacturing facility (U.S. Army 2011 DCrockettInfo).

The Atomic Energy Commission, NRC’s predecessor, gave the U.S. Army a license to make, test and distribute the spotting rounds. Under that license, the U.S. Army distributed the rounds for training. The license expired in 1978, after the U.S. Army had stopped producing and distributing the spotting rounds. In 2005, the U.S. Army found tail assemblies from the spotting rounds at the Schofield Barracks on Oahu. This discovery prompted a review of all sites that trained with the system. The U.S. Army found DU at other sites, including the Pohakuloa Training Area (TA) on the island of Hawaii. Under NRC regulations, the U.S. Army must have a license to possess this material. The U.S. Army applied for a possession-only license in November 2008. The USACE researched the identity of U.S. Army ranges in the United States where the M101 may have been used. Once this records review identified a potential range, USACE conducted site surveys or worked with the local U.S. Army office to determine whether there is evidence that live-fire training with the M101 occurred at a range. The U.S. Army would have conducted training with the Davy Crockett Weapon System at Department of the Army (DA) major and subordinate installations. It was not until 2011 that the U.S. Army identified all of the sites where it used the Davy Crockett system. At that time, NRC and the U.S. Army decided to continue with licensing the two Hawaiian sites and to address the remaining installations through an amendment.

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 2 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

SML SUC-1593 continues to cover the Schofield Barracks and Pohakuloa TA (Hawaii). It now also applies to Forts Benning and Gordon (Georgia), Forts Campbell and Knox (Kentucky), Fort Carson (Colorado), Fort Hood (Texas), Joint Base Lewis-McChord/Yakima Training Center (Washington), Fort Bragg (North Carolina), Fort Polk (Louisiana), Fort Riley (Kansas), Fort Sill (Oklahoma), Fort Jackson (South Carolina), Fort Hunter Liggett (California), Fort Wainwright (Alaska), and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (New Jersey). The NRC license allows the U.S. Army to possess up to 12,567 pounds of DU at the sites and limits the amount of DU the U.S. Army can possess at each location. It requires the U.S. Army to comply with NRC regulations and standards for protecting the public and the environment from radiation and is subject to NRC inspections and periodic reviews. The license requires the U.S. Army to have environmental monitoring as well as radiation safety and physical security plans. These requirements are meant to ensure the DU will not pose a future health risk. The license does not authorize the U.S. Army to use the DU or decommission the sites. Any cleanup would require additional review and approval by NRC to ensure that public health and safety will continue to be protected. The amended license will ensure the U.S. Army has done careful studies and developed site-specific plans for environmental monitoring. ERM activities are being conducted at all sites associated with this license to ensure that DU, present within the radiation control area (RCA), does not pose a threat to human health and the environment through inadvertent or unanticipated release or migration.

Programmatic UFP-QAPP for the Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan

The most recent requirements for ERM sampling were described in the Programmatic Approach for Preparation of Site-Specific Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plans (PAERMP) (ML16004A369) (U.S. Army 2015). NRC has accepted the PAERMP and incorporated it into the license by reference (license condition 11). The Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan (ERMP) for SML SUC-1593 includes installation-specific annexes that provide site-specific and RCA-specific plans in addition to those in the main ERMP document. This Programmatic UFP-QAPP is applicable to all sites and addresses field and analytical requirements that are common and applicable to all sites and RCAs.

This UFP-QAPP is designed to meet the requirements of applicable Federal regulations for SML SUC-1593, particularly NRC regulations specified in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 20, “Standards for Protection against Radiation.” This QAPP is designed to meet the overall ERM goals of providing:

• A general historical and current perspective of DU activity in various media with details provided in the Site-Specific ERMP Annexes.

• Sampling and analytical procedures to be implemeted to provide an accurate indication of the magnitude and extent of any DU release or migration from past operations.

Environmental monitoring activities at Davy Crockett sites include the collection of samples from suitable surveillance locations, described in Site-Specific ERMP Annexes, using appropriate sampling methods, techniques, and analyses to address credible transport pathways.

This UFP-QAPP documents and describes details for the following topics:

• Data quality objectives (DQOs) for the ERM sampling at all sites

• Procedures for field measurements, observations, and sampling of surface water and sediment

• Requirements for the radiological analysis of environmental samples for total and isotopic uranium (uranium-234 [U-234], uranium-235 [U-235], and uranium-238 [U-238]) concentrations

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 3 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

• Action levels and associated corrective actions for surface water and sediment sample results

• Data management activities and reporting requirements for analytical data.

This Programmatic UFP-QAPP was prepared using guidance from the UFP QAPP Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets (IDQTF 2012). The UFP-QAPP Manual is a set of consensus documents prepared by the Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force (IDQTF) to provide instructions for preparing QAPPs for any environmental data collection operation. The UFP was developed as a joint initiative by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), DoD, and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to ensure that environmental data are of known and documented quality and suitable for their intended uses, and environmental data collection and technology programs meet stated requirements. Other guidance documents used during the preparation of this UFP-QAPP are the DoD Quality Systems Manual (QSM), Version 5.0 (DoD 2013) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulation (NUREG)-1757 (NRC 2006).

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 4 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAPP Worksheets #1 and #2. Title and Approval Page

Project Identifying Information

a. Programmatic UFP-QAPP for the Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program, Annex 19 to the “Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan for License SUC-1593.”

b. Contract No. W912QR-16-D-0003, Delivery Order No. 002

1. Lead Organization

a. U.S. Army Installation Management Command Dr. Robert Cherry, License Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) Signature, Date

b. U.S. Army Environmental Command (AEC) Joan Jackson, Project Manager Signature, Date

c. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – Louisville District Brooks Evens, Contracting Officer’s Representative Signature, Date

2. Federal Regulatory Agency

a. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – Headquarters Amy M. Snyder, Project Manager Signature, Date

3. Investigative Organization

a. TBD

TBD, Project Manager Signature, Date

b. TBD TBD, Deputy Project Manager Signature, Date

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 5 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

c. TBD TBD, Quality Assurance Officer Signature, Date

4. Regulatory Program: NRC monitoring requirements specified in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR), Section 20.1101 (entitled Radiation Protection Programs), 20.1301 (entitled Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public), 20.1302 (entitled Compliance with Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public), 20.1501 (under Subpart F–Surveys and Monitoring), 20.2001 (under Subpart K–Waste Disposal), and 20.2103 (entitled Records of Surveys)

5. Approval Entity: NRC

6. Plans and reports from previous investigations relevant to this project: a. ARCADIS/Malcolm Pirnie. 2011. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), Operational

Range Assessment Program Phase II Quantitative Assessment, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Benning, Georgia. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. September 23.

b. ARCADIS/Malcolm Pirnie. 2012. Final Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment Report, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Riley, Kansas. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. July. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.

c. Cabrera (Cabrera Services, Inc.). 2014. Final Report: Vegetation Sampling for Depleted Uranium Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army – Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville. March.

d. EA (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.). 2010. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan, ORAP Phase II Quantitative Assessment, U.S. Army Operational Range Assessment Program, Quantitative Operational Range Assessments, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Hood, Texas. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. May.

e. EA. 2011a. Final Site-Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. April.

f. EA. 2011b. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, Fort Carson, Colorado. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District and U.S. Army Environmental Command. March.

g. EA. 2011c. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, Fort Carson, Colorado. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District and U.S. Army Environmental Command. September.

h. EA. 2011d. Revised Final Site-Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Hunter Liggett, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. January.

i. EA. 2012a. Final Site-Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, Donnelly Training Area, Alaska. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. May.

j. EA. 2012b. Final Operational Range Assessment Program (ORAP) Phase II Quantitative Assessment Report, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Benning, Georgia. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Baltimore District. September.

k. EA. 2012c. Final Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment Report, Fort Carson, Colorado. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District and U.S. Army Environmental Command. August.

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 6 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

l. EA. 2012d. Final Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment Report, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Hood, Killeen, Texas. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District and U.S. Army Environmental Command. September.

m. EA. 2012e. Final Site-Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, Fort Knox, Kentucky. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. September.

n. EA. 2012f. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, Fort Polk and Peason Ridge, Louisiana. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. August.

o. EA. 2012g. Final Operational Range Assessment, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, Joint Base Mcguire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. Version 1.0. Prepared for HQ AFCEE/TDN, Lackland Air Force Base. April.

p. EA. 2012h. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, Schofield Barracks Military Reservation, Oahu, Hawaii. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. July.

q. EA. 2012i. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, Yakima Training Center, Washington. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. March.

r. EA. 2013a. Final Site-Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. November.

s. EA. 2013b. Final Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment Report, Fort Polk, Louisiana. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District and U.S. Army Environmental Command. September.

t. EA. 2013c. Final Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase I Qualitative Assessment Report Addendum, Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. December.

u. EA. 2013d. Final Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment Report, Yakima Training Center, Yakima, Washington. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District and U.S. Army Environmental Command. November.

v. EA. 2014a. Final ORAP Phase II Quantitative Assessment Report, Donnelly Training Area, Alaska, U.S. Army Operational Range Assessment Program, Quantitative Operational Range Assessments. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. January 24.

w. EA. 2014b. Final Operational Range Assessment Program Phase II Quantitative Assessment Report, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District and U.S. Army Environmental Command. March.

x. EA. 2014c. Final Operational Range Assessment Program Phase II Quantitative Assessment Report, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District and U.S. Army Environmental Command. September.

y. EA. 2014d. Revised Final Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment Report, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Hunter Liggett, Jolon, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District and U.S. Army Environmental Command. January. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.

z. EA. 2014e. Final Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment Report, Fort Knox, Kentucky. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District and U.S. Army Environmental Command. September.

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 7 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

aa. EA. 2014f. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan, ORAP Phase II Quantitative Assessment, U.S. Army Operational Range Assessment Program, Quantitative Operational Range Assessments, Fort Sill, Lawton, Oklahoma. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. May.

bb. EA. 2014g. Final Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment Report, Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District and U.S. Army Environmental Command. December.

cc. EA. 2014h. Final Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase I Qualitative Assessment Report Addendum, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Tacoma, Washington. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. March.

dd. EA. 2015. Final Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment Report, Schofield Barracks Military Reservation, Oahu, Hawaii. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District and U.S. Army Environmental Command. August.

ee. Malcolm Pirnie (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.). 2009. Final Work Plan Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Jackson and McCrady Training Center, South Carolina. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. March.

ff. Malcolm Pirnie. 2010. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan, Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Riley, Kansas. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. April.

gg. NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016. Source Materials License Number SUC-1593, Docket No. 040-09083, Reference No. Amendment No. 1. (ML13259A062).

hh. PIKA-PIRNIE (PIKA-PIRNIE JV, LLC.). 2012. Final Addendum to the UFP QAPP ORAP Phase II Quantitative Assessment, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Jackson and McCrady Training Center, March 2009, Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Quantitative Assessment, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Jackson and McCrady Training Center, South Carolina. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. February.

ii. PIKA-PIRNIE. 2014. Final Report Operational Range Phase II Assessment, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Jackson and McCrady Training Center, South Carolina. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, Army National Guard (ARNG) Directorate, and U.S. Army Environmental Command. January.

jj. U.S. Army. 2015a. Programmatic “Radiation Safety Plan for IMCOM Ranges Affected by M101 Davy Crockett Spotting Round Depleted Uranium.” NRC ADAMS Accession Number ML16004A369. December 31.

kk. U.S. Army. 2015b. Programmatic “Physical Security Plan for U.S. Army Installation Management Command Ranges Affected by Depleted Uranium in M101 Davy Crockett Spotting Rounds.” NRC ADAMS Accession Number ML16004A369. December 31.

ll. U.S. Army. 2015c. “Programmatic Approach for Preparation of Installation-specific Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plans.” NRC ADAMS Accession Number ML16004A369. December 31.

mm. USACHPPM (U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine). 2008. Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase II Assessment Report, Fort Gordon, Georgia, No. 38-EH-053B-08. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command. September 8.

nn. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2007. Annex 00, Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28, Schofield Barracks and Associated Training Areas, Islands of Oahu and Hawaii. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District. May.

oo. USACE. 2008a. Project Archive Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District. January. Draft.

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 8 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

pp. USACE. 2008b. Annex 1, Final Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Hood, Texas. Revised, January.

qq. USACE. 2008c. Annex 2, Final Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Benning, Georgia. Revised, March.

rr. USACE. 2008d. Annex 3, Final Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Carson, Colorado. Revised, April.

ss. USACE. 2008e. Annex 4, Final Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Revised, May.

tt. USACE. 2008f. Annex 6, Final Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Knox, Kentucky. Revised, June.

uu. USACE. 2008g. Annex 7, Final Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Riley, Kansas. Revised, August.

vv. USACE. 2008h. Annex 8, Final Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Lewis and Yakima Training Center, Washington. Revised, July.

ww. USACE. 2008i. Annex 11, Final Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Revised, November.

xx. USACE. 2008j. Annex 13, Final Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Greely, Alaska. Revised, October.

yy. USACE. 2009a. Annex 11, Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Dix, New Jersey. April. Revised Final.

zz. USACE. 2009b. Annex 38, Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Hunter Liggett, California. July. Revised Final.

aaa. USACE. 2009c. Annex 50, Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. June. Revised Final.

bbb. USACE. 2009d. Final Annex 51, Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Gordon, Georgia. Revised, July.

ccc. USACE. 2009e. Final Annex 53, Installation Specific Archives Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting M101 for Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28 at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Revised July.

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 9 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

s #3

and

#5.

Pro

ject

Org

aniz

atio

n an

d Q

APP

Dis

trib

utio

n

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 10 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

s #4

, #7,

and

#8.

Per

sonn

el Q

ualif

icat

ions

and

Sig

n-O

ff Sh

eet

Nam

e Pr

ojec

t Titl

e/R

ole

Educ

atio

n/Ex

perie

nce

Spec

ializ

ed T

rain

ing/

Cer

tific

atio

ns

Sign

atur

e/D

ateb

Arm

y/Pr

ime

Con

trac

tor:

Fie

ld E

xecu

tion

and

Rep

ortin

g

TBD

P

roje

ct M

anag

er

TB

D

Dep

uty

Pro

ject

Man

ager

Fi

eld

Man

ager

TBD

Q

A O

ffice

r

TBD

H

SO

TBD

P

roje

ct C

hem

ist/D

ata

Val

idat

or

Labo

rato

ry:

TBD

TBD

P

roje

ct M

anag

er

TB

D

QA

Man

ager

a A

ll fie

ld p

erso

nnel

sch

edul

ed f

or f

ield

wor

k at

any

of

the

Nat

ionw

ide

DU

Ins

talla

tions

mus

t be

tra

ined

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith H

azar

dous

Was

te O

pera

tions

29

Cod

e of

Fed

eral

R

egul

atio

ns (C

FR) 1

910.

120,

29

CFR

192

6.65

and

enr

olle

d in

a m

edic

al s

urve

illan

ce p

rogr

am th

at m

eets

the

requ

irem

ents

of 2

9 C

FR S

ectio

n 19

10.1

20(f)

. A

ll pe

rson

nel m

ust h

ave

expe

rienc

e in

haz

ardo

us w

aste

site

wor

k, u

se o

f per

sona

l pro

tect

ive

equi

pmen

t, an

d em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

pro

cedu

res.

b

Sig

natu

res

indi

cate

per

sonn

el h

ave

read

and

agr

ee to

impl

emen

t thi

s U

FP-Q

APP

as w

ritte

n.

CFR

= C

ode

of F

eder

al R

egul

atio

ns

DU

= D

eple

ted

Ura

nium

H

SO

= H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Offi

cer

QA

= Q

ualit

y As

sura

nce

QA

PP =

Qua

lity

Assu

ranc

e P

roje

ct P

lan

TBD

= T

o B

e D

eter

min

ed

UFP

= U

nifo

rm F

eder

al P

olic

y

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 11 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#6.

Com

mun

icat

ion

Path

way

s C

omm

unic

atio

n D

river

s R

espo

nsib

le E

ntity

N

ame

Phon

e N

umbe

r Pr

oced

ure

(tim

ing,

pat

hway

, etc

.) R

egul

ator

y A

genc

y In

terfa

ce

IMC

OM

RS

SO

/Nat

ionw

ide

DU

P

rogr

am L

icen

se R

SO

D

r. R

ober

t Che

rry

210.

466.

0368

S

igns

and

sen

ds a

ll lic

ense

-requ

ired,

writ

ten

corr

espo

nden

ce o

rigin

atin

g fro

m th

e U

.S. A

rmy.

Le

ads

all w

ritte

n an

d ve

rbal

com

mun

icat

ions

re

gard

ing

licen

se a

ctio

ns, i

nclu

ding

term

inat

ion

proc

esse

s, w

ith N

RC

. R

egul

ator

y A

genc

y In

terfa

ce

AE

C P

roje

ct M

anag

er

Ms.

Joa

n Ja

ckso

n 21

0.46

6.17

11

Sup

ports

Nat

ionw

ide

DU

Pro

gram

Lic

ense

RS

O in

co

mm

unic

atio

ns w

ith N

RC

, as

requ

este

d.

Reg

ulat

ory

Age

ncy

Inte

rface

N

RC

A

my

Sny

der

301.

415.

6822

Le

ads

regu

lato

ry re

view

s an

d di

strib

utes

do

cum

ents

sub

mitt

ed b

y th

e U

.S. A

rmy

or

desi

gnee

to o

ther

NR

C p

erso

nnel

. O

ther

Age

ncy

Inte

rface

U

SA

CE

CO

TR

TBD

TB

D

If pr

ojec

t exe

cutio

n is

con

tract

ed, c

oord

inat

es

U.S

. Arm

y in

put a

nd re

view

for w

ork

plan

de

velo

pmen

t and

acc

ess

to s

ampl

ing

loca

tions

with

in

stal

latio

n of

ficia

ls b

y te

leph

one

and/

or e

mai

l. M

anag

e al

l Pro

ject

Pha

ses

Pro

ject

Man

ager

TB

D

TBD

C

omm

unic

ates

issu

es to

IMC

OM

R

SS

O/N

atio

nwid

e D

U P

rogr

am L

icen

se R

SO

, AE

C

Pro

ject

Man

ager

, and

US

AC

E C

OTR

, if a

pplic

able

. D

istri

bute

s al

l doc

umen

ts fo

r pro

ject

to U

.S. A

rmy

and

NR

C b

y m

ail a

nd/o

r em

ail.

Rep

ortin

g D

ata

Qua

lity

Issu

es

QA

Offi

cer

Pro

ject

Che

mis

t TB

D

TBD

R

epor

ts n

eed

for c

orre

ctiv

e ac

tions

or f

lagg

ing

of

anal

ytic

al re

sults

to th

e P

roje

ct M

anag

er w

ho,

depe

ndin

g on

sev

erity

of i

ssue

s, re

ports

cor

rect

ive

actio

ns to

U.S

. Arm

y by

tele

phon

e an

d/or

em

ail.

Cha

nges

to Q

AP

P P

rior t

o Fi

eldw

ork

QA

Offi

cer

Pro

ject

Che

mis

t TB

D

TBD

C

omm

unic

ates

any

nec

essa

ry c

hang

es to

the

QA

PP

bas

ed o

n da

ta q

ualit

y pr

ior t

o fie

ldw

ork

to

the

Pro

ject

Man

ager

by

tele

phon

e an

d/or

em

ail.

Cha

nges

to Q

AP

P D

urin

g P

roje

ct E

xecu

tion

QA

Offi

cer

Pro

ject

Che

mis

t TB

D

TBD

C

omm

unic

ates

any

nec

essa

ry c

hang

es to

the

QA

PP

bas

ed o

n da

ta q

ualit

y du

ring

proj

ect

exec

utio

n to

the

Sam

ple

Man

ager

and

Pro

ject

M

anag

er b

y te

leph

one

and/

or e

mai

l. C

hang

es to

QA

PP

Fie

ld

Sam

plin

g P

roce

dure

s

Pro

ject

Man

ager

TB

D

TBD

Tr

ansm

its a

ll ch

ange

s to

QA

PP a

nd/o

r req

uest

ed

chan

ges

to fi

eld

sam

plin

g or

scr

eeni

ng p

roce

dure

s ba

sed

on fi

eld

cond

ition

s to

QA

Offi

cer a

nd P

roje

ct

Che

mis

t by

tele

phon

e an

d/or

em

ail.

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 12 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#6.

Com

mun

icat

ion

Path

way

s (C

ontin

ued)

Com

mun

icat

ion

Driv

ers

Res

pons

ible

Ent

ity

Nam

e Ph

one

Num

ber

Proc

edur

e (ti

min

g, p

athw

ay, e

tc.)

Fiel

d P

rogr

ess

Rep

orts

P

roje

ct M

anag

er

TBD

TB

D

Com

mun

icat

es p

rogr

ess

mad

e du

ring

field

wor

k ex

ecut

ion

to c

lient

and

regu

lato

ry a

genc

ies

as

requ

ired

by te

leph

one

and/

or e

mai

l. Fi

eld

Cor

rect

ive

Act

ions

P

roje

ct M

anag

er

TBD

TB

D

Com

mun

icat

es fi

eld-

rela

ted

prob

lem

s an

d/or

co

rrec

tive

actio

ns id

entif

ied

whi

le in

the

field

to Q

A

Offi

cer a

nd P

roje

ct C

hem

ist b

y te

leph

one

and/

or

emai

l. S

topp

ing

Wor

k D

ue to

Hea

lth

and

Saf

ety

Issu

es o

r U

nexp

ecte

d Fi

eld

Con

ditio

ns

Fiel

d M

anag

er/S

ite H

&S

M

anag

er

TBD

TB

D

Ens

ure

all f

ield

sta

ff fo

llow

app

rove

d H

AS

P fo

r fie

ldw

ork.

All

field

sta

ff ha

ve s

top

wor

k au

thor

ity a

t al

l tim

es fo

r tas

ks th

ey a

re p

erfo

rmin

g or

ob

serv

ing.

R

epor

ting

Sam

ple

Rec

eipt

Is

sues

/Dat

a Q

ualit

y Is

sues

La

bora

tory

Pro

ject

Man

ager

TB

D

TBD

R

epor

ts a

ll sa

mpl

e re

ceip

t and

dat

a qu

ality

issu

es

to Q

A O

ffice

r or P

roje

ct C

hem

ist b

y te

leph

one

and/

or e

mai

l as

soon

as

poss

ible

afte

r the

issu

es

are

iden

tifie

d.

Labo

rato

ry Q

C V

aria

nces

La

bora

tory

Pro

ject

Man

ager

TB

D

TBD

R

epor

ts a

ll la

bora

tory

QC

var

ianc

es to

QA

Offi

cer

or P

roje

ct C

hem

ist b

y te

leph

one

and/

or e

mai

l as

soon

as

poss

ible

afte

r the

issu

es a

re id

entif

ied.

A

naly

tical

Cor

rect

ive

Act

ions

La

bora

tory

Pro

ject

Man

ager

TB

D

TBD

R

epor

ts a

ll an

alyt

ical

cor

rect

ive

actio

ns to

QA

O

ffice

r or P

roje

ct C

hem

ist b

y te

leph

one

and/

or

emai

l as

soon

as

poss

ible

afte

r the

issu

es a

re

iden

tifie

d.

Dat

a V

erifi

catio

n Is

sues

, In

clud

ing

Inco

mpl

ete

Rec

ords

La

bora

tory

Pro

ject

Man

ager

TB

D

TBD

R

epor

ts a

ll da

ta v

erifi

catio

n is

sues

incl

udin

g in

com

plet

e re

cord

s to

QA

Offi

cer o

r Pro

ject

C

hem

ist b

y te

leph

one

and/

or e

mai

l as

soon

as

poss

ible

afte

r the

issu

es a

re id

entif

ied.

D

ata

Val

idat

ion

Issu

es

Incl

udin

g N

onco

mpl

ianc

e w

ith

Pro

cedu

res

or M

etho

ds

QA

Offi

cer

Pro

ject

Che

mis

t TB

D

TBD

C

omm

unic

ates

all

data

val

idat

ion

issu

es in

clud

ing

nonc

ompl

ianc

e w

ith p

roce

dure

s or

met

hods

to th

e P

roje

ct M

anag

er b

y te

leph

one

and/

or e

mai

l as

soon

as

poss

ible

afte

r the

issu

es a

re id

entif

ied.

D

ata

Rev

iew

Cor

rect

ive

Act

ions

Q

A O

ffice

r P

roje

ct C

hem

ist

TBD

TB

D

Com

mun

icat

es a

ny n

eces

sary

dat

a re

view

co

rrec

tive

actio

ns to

the

Pro

ject

Man

ager

by

tele

phon

e an

d/or

em

ail a

s so

on a

s po

ssib

le a

fter

the

issu

es a

re id

entif

ied.

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 13 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#6.

Com

mun

icat

ion

Path

way

s (C

ontin

ued)

AE

C =

U.S

. Arm

y E

nviro

nmen

tal C

omm

and

CO

TR =

Con

tract

ing

Offi

cer’s

Tec

hnic

al R

epre

sent

ativ

e D

U =

Dep

lete

d U

rani

um

HA

SP

= H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Plan

H

&S

= H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

IMC

OM

= In

stal

latio

n M

anag

emen

t Com

man

d N

RC

= U

.S. N

ucle

ar R

egul

ator

y C

omm

issi

on

QA

= Q

ualit

y As

sura

nce

QA

PP =

Qua

lity

Assu

ranc

e P

roje

ct P

lan

QC

= Q

ualit

y C

ontro

l R

SO

= R

adia

tion

Saf

ety

Offi

cer

RS

SO

= R

adia

tion

Site

Saf

ety

Offi

cer

TBD

= T

o B

e D

eter

min

ed

US

AC

E =

U.S

. Arm

y C

orps

of E

ngin

eers

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 14 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#9.

Pro

ject

Pla

nnin

g Se

ssio

n Su

mm

ary

Proj

ect N

ame:

Env

ironm

enta

l Rad

iatio

n M

onito

ring

Pro

gram

Pr

ojec

ted

Dat

e(s)

of S

ampl

ing:

TB

D

USA

CE

Tech

nica

l Man

ager

: Bro

oks

Eve

ns

Site

Nam

e: V

ario

us (1

8) D

avy

Cro

cket

t ins

talla

tions

– s

ee li

st b

elow

Si

te L

ocat

ion:

Var

ious

– s

ee li

st b

elow

Dat

e of

Ses

sion

: 9 J

une

2016

Lo

catio

n of

Ses

sion

: Tel

econ

fere

nce

Scop

ing

Sess

ion

Dis

cuss

ion:

Int

rodu

ctio

n of

the

key

pro

ject

par

ticip

ants

, re

view

of

proj

ect

requ

irem

ents

and

exp

ecta

tions

, di

scus

sion

of

prop

osed

de

liver

able

s an

d pr

ojec

t sch

edul

e fo

r dev

elop

men

t of s

ite-s

peci

fic a

nnex

es a

nd th

is Q

AP

P.

Nam

e Ti

tle

Org

aniz

atio

n Ph

one

Num

ber

Emai

l Add

ress

Pr

ojec

t Rol

e R

andy

Cer

ar

Tech

nica

l Dire

ctor

A

EC

21

0.46

6.16

72

rand

all.j

.cer

ar.c

iv@

mai

l.mil

IMC

OM

Inte

rface

Jo

an J

acks

on

Pro

ject

Man

ager

A

EC

21

0.46

6.17

11

joan

.f.ja

ckso

n.ci

v@m

ail.m

il A

EC

Pro

ject

Man

ager

D

enis

e M

iller

E

nviro

nmen

tal S

uppo

rt M

anag

er

AE

C

210.

466.

1700

de

nise

.n.m

iller

4.ci

v@m

ail.m

il A

EC

Dep

uty

Pro

ject

Man

ager

Kris

tina

Cur

ley

Pub

lic A

ffairs

A

EC

21

0.46

6.16

59

kris

tina.

s.cu

rley2

.civ

@m

ail.m

il A

EC

Pub

lic A

ffairs

B

ob C

herr

y Li

cens

e R

SO

IM

CO

M

210.

466.

0368

ro

bert.

n.ch

erry

.civ

@m

ail.m

il IM

CO

M R

SO

/Lic

ense

RS

O

Bro

oks

Eve

ns

CO

TR

US

AC

E/L

ouis

ville

50

2.31

5.63

35

And

rew

.B.E

vens

@us

ace.

arm

y.m

il U

SA

CE

Tec

hnic

al L

ead/

CO

TR

Nor

a H

awk

Pro

ject

Man

ager

U

SA

CE

50

2.31

5.68

98

Nor

a.L.

Haw

k@us

ace.

arm

y.m

il U

SA

CE

Pro

ject

Man

ager

D

avid

Bra

ncat

o P

roje

ct C

hem

ist

US

AC

E

502.

315.

6494

D

avid

.J.B

ranc

ato@

usac

e.ar

my.

mil

US

AC

E C

hem

ist

Joe

Skib

insk

i P

roje

ct M

anag

er

Leid

os

571.

526.

7753

sk

ibin

skij@

leid

os.c

om

Leid

os P

roje

ct M

anag

er

Jam

ie J

ohns

on

Dep

uty

Pro

ject

Man

ager

Le

idos

57

1.52

6.77

46

jam

ie.r.

john

son@

leid

os.c

om

Pro

ject

Eng

inee

r M

ike

Bar

ta

Sen

ior E

colo

gica

l Ris

k A

sses

sor

Leid

os

901.

236.

7393

ba

rtam

@le

idos

.com

E

nviro

nmen

tal M

onito

ring

Task

M

anag

er

Ste

ve P

assi

g S

enio

r Hea

lth

Phy

sici

st/P

roje

ct M

anag

er

Leid

os

314.

770.

3026

m

icha

el.s

.pas

sig@

leid

os.c

om

Rad

iolo

gica

l Tas

k M

anag

er/

Sen

ior H

ealth

Phy

sici

st

AE

C =

U.S

. Arm

y E

nviro

nmen

tal C

omm

and

CO

TR =

Con

tract

ing

Offi

cer’s

Tec

hnic

al R

epre

sent

ativ

e IM

CO

M =

Inst

alla

tion

Man

agem

ent C

omm

and

QA

PP =

Qua

lity

Assu

ranc

e P

roje

ct P

lan

RS

O =

Rad

iatio

n S

afet

y O

ffice

r TB

D =

To

Be

Det

erm

ined

U

SA

CE

= U

.S. A

rmy

Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs

Site

Nam

es a

nd L

ocat

ions

:

Forts

Ben

ning

and

Gor

don

(Geo

rgia

) Fo

rt Br

agg

(Nor

th C

arol

ina)

Fo

rts C

ampb

ell a

nd K

nox

(Ken

tuck

y)

Fort

Car

son

(Col

orad

o)

Fort

Jack

son

(Sou

th C

arol

ina)

Fo

rt H

ood

(Tex

as)

Fort

Hun

ter L

igge

tt (C

alifo

rnia

) Fo

rt Po

lk (L

ouis

iana

)

Fort

Rile

y (K

ansa

s)

Fort

Sill

(Okl

ahom

a)

Fort

Wai

nwrig

ht (A

lask

a)

Join

t Bas

e M

cGui

re-D

ix-L

akeh

urst

(New

Jer

sey)

Jo

int B

ase

Lew

is-M

cCho

rd F

ort L

ewis

and

the

Yaki

ma

Trai

ning

C

ente

r (W

ashi

ngto

n)

Scho

field

Bar

rack

s an

d Po

haku

loa

Trai

ning

Are

a (H

awai

i)

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 15 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAPP Worksheet #10. Conceptual Site Model

Introduction This QAPP addresses the QA, QC, and additional technical activities that must be implemented to ensure that data collected during ERM activities at the Davy Crockett installations are of sufficient quality to support the NRC requirements. The principal objective of ERM activities at all Davy Crockett installations and RCAs is to provide an evaluation of uranium activity in various media, and a timely indication of the magnitude and extent of any DU release or migration offsite from past operations. NRC issued the U.S. Army’s SML SUC-1593 (originally issued in October 2013 for two sites in Hawaii) to possess DU at sites across the country. The March 2016 amendment added 16 installations; the license continues to cover the Schofield Barracks and Pohakuloa TA (Hawaii). It now also applies to Forts Benning and Gordon (Georgia); Fort Bragg (North Carolina); Forts Campbell and Knox (Kentucky); Fort Carson (Colorado); Fort Hood (Texas); Joint Base Lewis-McChord: Fort Hunter Liggett (California); Fort Jackson (South Carolina); Fort Polk (Louisiana); Fort Riley (Kansas); Fort Sill (Oklahoma); Fort Wainwright (Alaska); Fort Lewis and the Yakima Training Center (Washington); and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (New Jersey). The U.S. Army will apply the same programs for environmental monitoring, radiation safety, and physical security to all sites covered by NRC SML SUC-1593 as issued to CG IMCOM. The physical security and radiation safety programs are similar to those in the original license. However, the U.S. Army showed, and NRC agreed, that less environmental monitoring is needed because the exposures would be well below the NRC limits even during ground disturbing activities. Separate environmental monitoring plans are required for each of the installations, which generally require limited monitoring of potential routes for transport of contamination out of the impact areas. These plans also include criteria for periodic review to address any changes that may affect risk, tailored to the conditions at each installation. These site-specific plans (see Annexes 1-18) provide detailed information and CSM for each of the sites covered under the license and amendment.

Background Information and Sources of Known or Suspected Hazardous Waste The license is needed for DU from spotting rounds that were part of the 1960s-era Davy Crockett weapons system. Used for targeting accuracy, the spotting rounds emitted white smoke on impact but did not explode. The spotting round was a low speed projectile weighing about 1 pound and containing 6.7 ounces of DU. Remnants of the tail assemblies may remain at a number of sites where the U.S. Army trained on the weapons system. Under NRC regulations, the U.S. Army must have a license to possess this material. The U.S. Army applied for a possession-only license in November 2008. It was not until 2011 that the U.S. Army identified all of the sites where it used the Davy Crockett system. At that time, NRC and the U.S. Army decided to continue with licensing the two Hawaiian sites and to address the remaining installations through an amendment. A U.S. Army information booklet states that the DU is mostly in large fragments. It is on operational ranges not accessible to the public. Natural uranium is made up of three isotopes: U-234, U-235 and U-238. “Depleted” uranium has a lower percentage of U-234 and U-235 than natural uranium. DU is about twice as dense as lead, making it useful in commercial and military applications. Uranium in a form that dissolves easily can be toxic to the kidneys if ingested in large amounts, such as by inhaling dust or drinking contaminated water. The DU at the U.S. Army sites is not believed to be in this soluble form. The high density and large fragment size mean the DU cannot easily become airborne or move off site. There is no immediate or imminent health risk to people who work at U.S. Army posts or live in communities adjacent to these military facilities from DU residues from the M101 present in the impact areas. The U.S. Army believes that health effects are unlikely for several reasons: • Any DU residues from the M101 training operations are limited to impact areas well within the perimeter of

operational ranges. Because explosive hazards (i.e., UXO) are normally present on operational range impact areas, public access is generally prohibited and authorized access is strictly controlled. Authorized access is strictly limited to personnel fully trained to recognize the potential hazards associated with military munitions.

• Numerous studies conducted by non-military agencies, including the World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, have not found credible evidence linking DU in the environment to radiation-induced illnesses.

• The migration of DU off a military installation by natural processes is highly unlikely. Studies have shown that DU transport is limited and that it is unlikely to move from a range under most conditions. Studies also have shown that the DU fragment size and the environmental conditions on U.S. Army ranges serve to prevent migration, including by air. Nevertheless, the U.S. Army will monitor ranges where there are DU residues from M101 use present, when required to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.

• The U.S. Army conducted an extensive survey at Schofield Barracks covering over 425 acres, which resulted in the collection of over 1,400 air, vegetation, and soil samples that were sent to independent laboratories for testing and analysis. These data were used to perform a risk assessment released in 2008 that concluded that “no adverse human health impacts are likely to occur as a result of exposure to the uranium present in soil.”

QAPP Worksheet #10. Conceptual Site Model (Continued)

Programmatic UFP-QAPP 16 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

The U.S. Army is using this comprehensive analysis along with information concerning the presence of DU at each range and other installation and range-related factors (e.g., land access, adjacent communities) to assess potential health risks posed

Known/Suspected Contaminants and Class NRC’s criterion is that a U-238/U-234 concentration or activity ratio less than 3.0 is assumed representative of natural uranium, whereas higher ratios are potentially indicative of the presence of DU. All samples with U-238/U-234 activity ratios greater than 3.0 by alpha spectrometry will be reanalyzed using ICP-MS for their U-234, U-235, and U-238 masses in an effort to identify samples with DU content by confirming both the total mass of uranium present in the sample and the mass percent of U-235. These supplemental data are used to augment U-238/U-234 activity information. Given that natural uranium is commonly present in samples with DU and that low activity samples exhibit significant total propagated uncertainty, confirmation that a given sample exhibits DU is often problematic and confirmation by a secondary analytical method often is needed to determine if DU is present. The U-238 to U-234 activity ratio and the weight percent U-235 are used to determine whether a given sample is indicative of natural uranium or DU. The laboratory will use alpha spectrometry to analyze samples for U-234 and U-238 activities in order to comply with license condition #17 in NRC SML SUC-1593. All samples with U-238/U-234 activity ratios exceeding 3.0 will be reanalyzed using ICP-MS for their U-234, U-235, and U-238 masses to identify samples with DU content (NRC 2016). The ICP-MS results for U-234, U-235, and U-238 are summed to calculate a total mass of uranium present (i.e., total uranium), which will be used to calculate the U-235 weight percentage specified in 10 CFR § 110.2 (Definitions) and then to determine if the sample results are indicative of totally natural uranium (at or about 0.711 weight percent U-235) or DU mixed with natural uranium (obviously less than 0.711 weight percent U-235).

Primary Release Mechanism The original source of DU contamination is M101 spotting rounds fired into an impact area. Upon impact, these rounds remained intact or mostly intact on or near the surface of the RCA. SDADs from AR 385-63 were used to delineate 1,000m x 1,000m target zones/impact areas for M101 spotting rounds. Where the status of individual ranges identified M101 training during the target timeframe (1958 to 1968), the U.S. Army established one or more RCAs for the range, where appropriate. It is not known for any RCA, except for part of the RCA at Schofield Barracks (Cabrera 2013), whether a cleanup or retrieval of these rounds ever occurred, so the assumption is that most, if not all, the DU in rounds fired into an RCA remain in the RCA in some form. The purpose of the Site-Specific ERMPs prepared as annexes to the PAERMP is to describe the site-specific environmental radiation sampling program to detect M101 spotting round DU leaving the RCA. The plan explains, for a specific RCA, which environmental pathways require evaluation, which samples will be collected for those evaluations, where these samples will be collected, how often these samples will be collected, and how these samples will be analyzed for DU.

Secondary Contaminant Migration Each Site-Specific ERMP annex will evaluate the potential pathways for DU migration. Per the PAERMP, sampling is not required from within the RCA. Only the sampling of sediment and surface waters is planned at the 18 Davy Crockett sites and potential migration will be discussed in the Site-Specific ERMP Annexes.

Fate and Transport Considerations The type of release affects the magnitude and extent of DU transported through the environment and the potential for exposure of humans and wildlife. The Site-Specific ERMP Annexes will address sediment transport characteristics, erosion transport characteristics and aeolian transport characteristics.

Key Physical Aspects of the Site Site descriptions can be found in the individual Site-Specific ERMP Annexes, which include information such as climatic conditions, geologic conditions, hydrologic conditions, soil type, sediment transport characteristics, erosion transport characteristics, aeolian transport characteristics, and land use.

Potential Receptors and Exposure Pathways The transport of DU can be potentially completed along identified pathways to human and/or ecological receptors. Specific details regarding the potential receptors will be discussed in the Site-Specific ERMP Annexes.

Land Use Considerations Specific details regarding land use considerations will be discussed in the Site-Specific ERMP Annexes.

QAPP Worksheet #10. Conceptual Site Model (Continued)

Programmatic UFP-QAPP 17 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

Nature and Extent of Contamination Discussion of nature and extent of suspected DU present within the RCAs can be found in Section 4 of the individual site-specific ERMP Annexes.

Data Gaps and Uncertainties The primary data gap/uncertainty associated with each Davy Crockett site/installation is the concentration of uranium isotopes in surrounding environmental media over time.

AR = Army Regulation CFR = Code of Federal Regulations CG = Command General CSM = Conceptual Site Model DU = Depleted Uranium ERM = Environmental Radiation Monitoring ERMP = Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan ICP-MS = Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry IMCOM = Installation Management Command NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission PAERMP = Programmatic Approach for Preparation of Site-Specific Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plans

QA = Quality Assurance QAPP = Quality Assurance Project Plan QC = Quality Control RCA = Radiation Control Area SDAD = Safety Danger Area Diagram SML = Source Material License TA = Training Area U-234 = Uranium-234 U-235 = Uranium-235 U-238 = Uranium-238 UXO = Unexploded Ordnance

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 18 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAPP Worksheet #11. Project/Data Quality Objectives This worksheet documents the seven steps of the USEPA DQO process (USEPA 2006) for the

collection and analysis of the ERM samples (sediment and surface water) and subsequent reporting, with specifics regarding sample locations and rationale provided in the Site-Specific ERMP Annexes.

Step 1: State the Problem: NRC requires the U.S. Army to determine whether DU is migrating from RCAs. The License RSO is to determine the ratio of U-238 activity to U-234 activity in environmental samples from radiochemistry laboratory analyses reports and, if DU is suspected, the weight-percentage of U-235 present in the samples.

Step 2: Identify the Goals of the Study: Determine if detectable amounts of DU from M101 spotting rounds are migrating out from RCAs and impacting human health and the environment? The term, “detectable amounts” is related to the term “minimum detectable concentrations” (MDCs, as defined in MARSSIM). The License RSO has identified a radiochemistry laboratory with MDLs and RLs shown in Worksheets #15b and #15c for surface water and sediment, respectively, to determine if the project action levels listed in Worksheet #15a have been exceeded or not.. If radiochemical laboratory analyses results from the primary analytical method (alpha spectrometry) indicate and secondary analytical method (ICP-MS) confirm that detectable amounts of DU from M101 spotting rounds is migrating out of an RCA, the Army will: • Report results to NRC • Perform confirmatory sampling and analyses for that RCA • Obey any subsequent NRC orders • Continue implementation of the ERMP for that RCA until NRC ends the requirement. Step 3: Identify Information Inputs: The information that is required to resolve the decision statement, establish release criteria, and confirm the appropriate analytical methods in order to provide adequate data to make the decisions are identified below.

Information Required to Resolve the Decision Statement: Environmental variables or other information are needed to resolve the decision statement. Per the PAERMP, this includes: • Presence of detectable amounts of DU in surface water flowing from the RCA • Presence of detectable amounts of DU in groundwater potentially affected by DU in the RCA • Presence of detectable amounts of DU in soil eroded from the RCA • Presence of detectable amounts of DU in sediment that surface water flowing from the RCA carried from the

RCA. Identify and list the sources for the required information. Per the PAERMP: • If surface water routinely flows from the RCA, then sampling of this surface water will occur. If flow occurs

throughout the year, then sampling will occur every 3 months. If flow is intermittent, then sampling will occur during that flow, but no less than 3 months apart.

• The U.S. Army will make available for NRC review upon request the results of all U.S. Army measurements of uranium concentration in groundwater samples that were collected with the purpose of meeting SDWA requirements.

• If existing wells potentially influenced by DU in the RCA are available, then whenever anyone samples these wells for any purpose, he or she will also require analyses for isotopes of uranium and report the results to the Installation RSO. Otherwise, no conditions require groundwater sampling.

• Semiannual soil sampling is required if the general erosion rate for the RCA is greater than 2 tons per acre per year or if the localized erosion rate in an area of 25 m2 exceeds a volume of 3.75 m3 per year.

• Surface water and sediment sampling will occur at the same time and near the same place. If surface water is not present, sediment sample(s) will be collected as planned (per site-specific annexes).

Information Required to Establish Action Levels: NRC has provided the action level in license condition #17 (“analytical sampling results from locations outside of the RCA indicate that the U-238/U-234 activity ratio exceeds 3”).

QAPP Worksheet #11. Project/Data Quality Objectives (Continued)

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 19 September 2016 Davy Crockett ERMP

Information Required to Confirm that Appropriate Measurement Methods Exist to Provide the Necessary Data: Appropriate measurement methods exist to provide the necessary data. • Surface water sampling (only for water flowing out of the RCA) • Groundwater sampling (none performed for license purposes; sampling for other purposes will include uranium

as an analyte) • Soil sampling (only for eroded soil) • Sediment sampling (only at same locations as surface water sampling, if any) • Radiochemistry and chemistry analyses. Laboratory analytical methods have been chosen for sample analysis to provide detection limits for isotopic and total uranium that are sufficiently low for ERM. The U.S. Army has selected the use of alpha spectrometry (e.g., DOE HASL method 300) to measure total and isotopic uranium (U-234, U-235, and U-238) activities with an overall project isotopic MDC goal of 0.1 pCi/L for water samples and 0.1 pCi/g for soil/sediment samples. For samples with U-238/U-234 ratios exceeding 3.0, the U.S. Army will re-analyze samples using ICP-MS (e.g., Solid Waste Method 6020A) with reporting limit goals of 0.05 μg/L for water and 5 µg/kg for soil/sediment samples. Analysis by ICP-MS for U-234, U-235, and U-238 mass concentrations will identify samples with DU content (NRC 2016). The ICP-MS results for U-234, U-235, and U-238 are summed to calculate a total mass of uranium present (i.e., total uranium), which will be used to calculate the weight percent U-235 to determine if the sample results are indicative of totally natural uranium (at or about 0.711 weight percent U-235) or DU mixed with natural uranium (obviously less than 0.711 weight percent U-235), as specified in 10 CFR § 110.2 (Definitions).

Step 4: Define the Boundaries of the Study: Specify characteristics that define the true but unknown value of the parameter of interest: NRC has provided the parameter of interest in license condition #17 (“analytical sampling results from locations outside of the RCA indicate that the U-238/U-234 activity ratio exceeds 3”). The chemical boundaries for surface water, and sediment sampling during the ERM are limited to total/isotopic uranium activities and concentrations based on analysis results from alpha spectrometric and ICP-MS methods (e.g., HASL 300and SW846 6020A). Define the geographic area within which all decisions must apply: See Site-Specific ERMP Annexes developed for each “M101 Impact Area,” which NRC has incorporated into the license by reference. They show the specific locations and the surrounding area of each RCA. Each RCA defines the local area for ERM purposes based on the 1,000m x 1,000m target zones/impact areas delineated for historical training with M101 spotting rounds. Determine the timeframe to which the decision applies: The timeframe is the duration of the license. Additional temporal considerations for the ERM include the estimated time it may require DU to reach groundwater, the time it may take a potential DU groundwater plume to reach a surface water body, the seasonal fluctuations of groundwater levels, migration directions, the seasonal effects of surface water runoff, and flood events. Practical constraints, such as the seasonal variability in the presence or absence of surface water, physical boundaries, and requirements in the U.S. Army’s license also are considered. Determine when to collect data: See STEP 3. Define the scale of decision making: The PAERMP and the environmental setting provide guidance for sampling strategies included in the Site-Specific ERMP Annexes. These strategies are based on the collection of media that could be impacted by DU from M101 spotting rounds from historical training operations and transported outside RCAs to impact human health and the environment. The Site-Specific ERMP Annexes do not address other potential hazards that may be present within and outside RCAs such as explosive safety hazards and potential risks associated with other munitions constituents. Identify practical constraints on data collection: Possible constraints include inaccessible areas due to: • Bad weather (safety) – Wait for improved conditions • Ongoing training (land use) – Wait for completion of training • Rough terrain (safety) – Apply risk management principles (DA PAM 385-30) • UXO (safety) – No sampling. Additional constraints or obstacles that may interfere with full implementation of data collection include seasonal conditions when sampling is not possible (e.g., flooding, lack of surface water) or during controlled burns when accessing the site is dangerous. Sampling surface water and sediment is more practical and safer during low-flow events in late summer and fall. However, limiting surface water and sediment sampling to low-flow seasons has drawbacks related to potential runoff during storm events. Actual temporal and physical constraints to sampling are discussed in the Site-Specific ERMP Annexes.

QAPP Worksheet #11. Project/Data Quality Objectives (Continued)

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 20 September 2016 Davy Crockett ERMP

Step 5: Develop the Analytic Approach: The PAERMP provides decision rules about whether, where, and when environmental samples will be collected. . License condition #17 provides information to develop the decision rule about whether a sample reliably contains DU. The following action levels are based on criteria specified in the PAERMP and NRC regulations (10 CFR § 110.2 for Definitions): • 30 µg/L or more for surface water based on the SDWA MCL

• U-238/U-234 ratio of 3.0 or greater

• Weight percent U-235 less than 0.711. The surface water decision rules for the designing of Site-Specific ERMP Annexes are provided below. Principal decision-makers regarding these rules and potential further action are the Army and the regulatory agencies: • IF detections are below the action level (30 µg/L) within all surface water samples, THEN no action is required. • IF detections are greater than the action level (30 µg/L) within one or more surface water samples, THEN the

locations will be resampled in order to verify the results. • IF the results (detections > action level) are verified, THEN the NRC will be notified and the results will be further

assessed. The findings and recommended corrective actions will be documented by the U.S. Army’s License RSO. The License RSO will provide recommendations to the SUC-1593 Responsible License Authority based on his evaluation.

The decision rules for assessing the presence of DU in any environmental media sampled during the Site-Specific ERMP Annexes are provided below. Principal decisions regarding these rules and potential further action are the Army and the regulatory agencies: • IF the U-238/U-234 ratio by alpha spectrometry is less than 3.0 for any sampled media, THEN no action is

necessary. • IF the U-238/U-234 ratio by alpha spectrometry is greater than 3.0 for any sampled media, THEN the sample will

be analyzed by ICP-MS. • IF the percentage of U-235 present in the sample is less than 0.7 percent (by mass), THEN the Army will report

results to NRC, perform confirmatory sampling and analyses for that RCA, obey any subsequent NRC orders, and continue implementation of the ERMP for that RCA until NRC ends the requirement.

Step 6: Specify Performance or Acceptance Criteria: Decisions with respect to the DU activity concentration (for samples analyzed by alpha spectrometry) or mass concentration (for samples analyzed by ICP-MS) must fully consider each source of uncertainty such that the result includes the total propagated uncertainty. Decision errors can occur at various stages during the sample collection and analysis. This uncertainty includes a variety of factors such as the variability inherent in radioactive decay; uncertainty introduced in determining the sample volume or mass; detector/instrument background; detector calibration; and sample characteristics, such as solubility and homogeneity. Worksheet #12 provides the performance criteria to be used for acceptance of analytical data as well as the sensitivity of the analytical methods/instrumentation used to perform the chemistry analyses as presented on Worksheet #15. The usability of the analytical data will be based on adherence of the analysis of the QC requirements summarized on Worksheet #28 and on overall precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness as described in Worksheet #37. Step 7: Describe the Plan for Obtaining Data: The Site-Specific ERMP Annexes present the sampling plan and field tasks for each site. In general, the collection of surface water and sediment samples are proposed as detailed in these plans to collect the necessary data to satisfy the decision statement for the ERMP: The analytical samples will be supplemented by the appropriate number of QC samples (e.g., field duplicate, MS/MSD) as described on Worksheet #28. All samples will be containerized, labeled, and tracked in accordance with the established SOPs listed on Worksheet #21. Worksheet #14/16 provides the proposed schedule of activities for the Site-Specific ERMP Annexes. Worksheet #17 presents the sampling design, rationale, and figures for the Site-Specific ERMP Annexes.

QAPP Worksheet #11. Project/Data Quality Objectives (Continued)

Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 21 September 2016 Davy Crockett ERMP

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations DA = Department of the Army DOE = U.S. Department of Energy DQO = Data Quality Objective DU = Depleted Uranium ERM = Environmental Radiation Monitoring ERMP = Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan GC = Garrison Commander HASL = Health and Safety Laboratory ICP-MS = Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry MARSSIM = Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level MDC = Minimum Detectable Concentration MDL = Method Detection Limit M2 = Square Meters MS = Matrix Spike MSD = Matrix Spike Duplicate NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission

PAERMP = Programmatic Approach for Preparation of Site-Specific Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plans PAM = Pamphlet pCi/g = Picocuries per Gram pCi/L = Picocuries per Liter QAPP = Quality Assurance Project Plan QC = Quality Control RCA = Radiation Control Area RL = Reporting Limit RSO = Radiation Safety Officer SDWA = Safe Drinking Water Act SOP = Standard Operating Procedure U-234 = Uranium-234 U-235 = Uranium-235 U-238 = Uranium-238 USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency µg/kg = Micrograms per Kilogram µg/L = Micrograms per Liter UXO = Unexploded Ordnance

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 22 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#12

. M

easu

rem

ent P

erfo

rman

ce C

riter

ia

Mat

rix: S

urfa

ce W

ater

A

naly

tical

Gro

up o

r Met

hod:

TB

D fo

r alp

ha s

pect

rom

etry

(exa

mpl

es b

elow

bas

ed o

n H

AS

L 30

0)

Con

cent

ratio

n Le

vel:

Low

DQ

I Q

C S

ampl

e or

Mea

sure

men

t Pe

rfor

man

ce A

ctiv

ity

Mea

sure

men

t Per

form

ance

Crit

eria

Ove

rall

Pre

cisi

on

Fiel

d du

plic

ate

RE

R ≤

3.0

whe

n ur

aniu

m is

det

ecte

d in

bot

h sa

mpl

es

≥ sa

mpl

e-sp

ecifi

c R

L A

naly

tical

Pre

cisi

on

La

bora

tory

– L

CS

D/M

SD

Labo

rato

ry e

ffect

s

LCS

D/M

SD

La

bora

tory

dup

licat

e R

ER

≤3.

0 R

ER

≤3.

0

Ana

lytic

al A

ccur

acy/

Bia

s

Labo

rato

ry –

LC

S/M

S

LCS

/MS

U-2

33/U

-234

75

-125

%

U-2

38

75-1

25%

La

bora

tory

Acc

urac

y/B

ias

(con

tam

inat

ion)

M

etho

d bl

ank

No

targ

et a

naly

te c

once

ntra

tions

≥1/

2 R

L

Ana

lytic

al A

ccur

acy/

Bia

s

Labo

rato

ry a

nd m

atrix

effe

cts

Trac

er

U-2

32

30-1

10%

Com

plet

enes

s N

umbe

r of v

alid

dat

a po

ints

atta

ined

ver

sus

the

plan

ned

num

ber

90%

DQ

I = D

ata

Qua

lity

Indi

ctor

H

AS

L =

Hea

lth a

nd S

afet

y La

bora

tory

LC

S =

Lab

orat

ory

Con

trol S

ampl

e LC

SD

= L

abor

ator

y C

ontro

l Sam

ple

Dup

licat

e LO

Q =

Lim

it of

Qua

ntita

tion

MS

= M

atrix

Spi

ke

MS

D =

Mat

rix S

pike

Dup

licat

e R

ER

= R

elat

ive

Erro

r Rat

io

RL

= R

epor

ting

Lim

it TB

D =

To

Be

Det

erm

ined

U

-232

= U

rani

um-2

32

U-2

33 =

Ura

nium

-233

U

-234

= U

rani

um-2

34

U-2

48 =

Ura

nium

-238

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 23 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#12

. M

easu

rem

ent P

erfo

rman

ce C

riter

ia (C

ontin

ued)

Mat

rix: S

edim

ent

Ana

lytic

al G

roup

or M

etho

d: T

BD

for a

lpha

spe

ctro

met

ry (e

xam

ples

bel

ow b

ased

on

HA

SL

300)

C

once

ntra

tion

Leve

l: Lo

w

DQ

I Q

C S

ampl

e or

Mea

sure

men

t Pe

rfor

man

ce A

ctiv

ity

Mea

sure

men

t Per

form

ance

Crit

eria

O

vera

ll P

reci

sion

Fi

eld

dupl

icat

es

RE

R ≤

3.0

whe

n ur

aniu

m is

det

ecte

d in

bot

h sa

mpl

es

≥ sa

mpl

e-sp

ecifi

c R

L A

naly

tical

Pre

cisi

on

La

bora

tory

– L

CS

D/M

SD

Labo

rato

ry e

ffect

s

LCS

D/M

SD

La

bora

tory

dup

licat

e R

ER

≤3.

0 R

ER

≤3.

0

Ana

lytic

al A

ccur

acy/

Bia

s

Labo

rato

ry –

LC

S/M

S

LCS

/MS

U

-233

/U-2

34

75-1

25%

U

-238

75

-125

%

Labo

rato

ry A

ccur

acy/

Bia

s (c

onta

min

atio

n)

Met

hod

blan

k N

o ta

rget

ana

lyte

con

cent

ratio

ns ≥

1/2

RL

Ana

lytic

al A

ccur

acy/

Bia

s

Labo

rato

ry a

nd m

atrix

effe

cts

Trac

er

U-2

32

30-1

10%

Com

plet

enes

s N

umbe

r of v

alid

dat

a po

ints

atta

ined

ver

sus

the

plan

ned

num

ber

90%

DQ

I = D

ata

Qua

lity

Indi

cato

r H

AS

L =

Hea

lth a

nd S

afet

y La

bora

tory

LC

S =

Lab

orat

ory

Con

trol S

ampl

e LC

SD

= L

abor

ator

y C

ontro

l Sam

ple

Dup

licat

e M

S =

Mat

rix S

pike

M

SD

= M

atrix

Spi

ke D

uplic

ate

QC

= Q

ualit

y C

ontro

l

RE

R =

Rel

ativ

e E

rror R

atio

R

L =

Rep

ortin

g Li

mit

TBD

= T

o B

e D

eter

min

ed

U-2

32 =

Ura

nium

-232

U

-233

= U

rani

um-2

33

U-2

34 =

Ura

nium

-234

U

-238

= U

rani

um-2

38

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 24 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#12

. M

easu

rem

ent P

erfo

rman

ce C

riter

ia (C

ontin

ued)

Mat

rix: S

urfa

ce W

ater

A

naly

tical

Gro

up o

r Met

hod:

TB

D fo

r IC

P-M

S (e

xam

ples

bel

ow b

ased

on

6020

A)

Con

cent

ratio

n Le

vel:

Low

DQ

I Q

C S

ampl

e or

Mea

sure

men

t Pe

rfor

man

ce A

ctiv

ity

Mea

sure

men

t Per

form

ance

Crit

eria

Ove

rall

Pre

cisi

on

Fiel

d du

plic

ate

RP

D ≤

30%

whe

n ur

aniu

m is

det

ecte

d in

bot

h sa

mpl

es ≥

sam

ple-

spec

ific

LOQ

A

naly

tical

Pre

cisi

on

La

bora

tory

– L

CS

D

La

bora

tory

and

mat

rix e

ffect

s –

MS

D

LCS

D/M

SD

La

bora

tory

dup

licat

e R

PD

≤20

%

RP

D ≤

20%

Ana

lytic

al A

ccur

acy/

Bia

s

Labo

rato

ry –

LC

S

Labo

rato

ry a

nd m

atrix

effe

cts

– M

S

LCS

/MS

* U

-238

LC

S 8

0-12

0%

M

S 7

5-12

0%

La

bora

tory

Acc

urac

y/B

ias

(con

tam

inat

ion)

M

etho

d bl

ank

No

targ

et a

naly

te c

once

ntra

tions

≥1/

2 LO

Q

Ove

rall

Acc

urac

y/B

ias

(con

tam

inat

ion)

Fi

eld

equi

pmen

t rin

sate

bla

nks

and

field

QC

bl

anks

(sou

rce

tap

and

sour

ce D

I wat

er)

N/A

Com

plet

enes

s N

umbe

r of v

alid

dat

a po

ints

atta

ined

ver

sus

the

plan

ned

num

ber

90%

*Not

e: D

ata

will

be

eval

uate

d to

the

QS

M li

mits

(87-

120%

), bu

t cor

rect

ive

actio

n w

ill o

nly

be p

ursu

ed if

the

yiel

ds fa

ll ou

tsid

e ou

r sta

ndar

d la

bora

tory

crit

eria

(sho

wn

abov

e).

Any

yie

lds

that

fall

outs

ide

of th

e Q

SM

crit

eria

will

be

narra

ted.

D

I = D

eion

ized

D

QI =

Dat

a Q

ualit

y In

dica

tor

ICP

-MS

= In

duct

ivel

y C

oupl

ed P

lasm

a-M

ass

Spe

ctro

met

ry

LCS

= L

abor

ator

y C

ontro

l Sam

ple

LCS

D =

Lab

orat

ory

cont

rol S

ampl

e D

uplic

ate

LOQ

= L

imit

of Q

uant

itatio

n M

S =

Mat

rix S

pike

M

SD

= M

atrix

Spi

ke D

uplic

ate

N/A

= N

ot A

pplic

able

Q

APP

= Q

ualit

y As

sura

nce

Pro

ject

Pla

n Q

C =

Qua

lity

Con

trol

QS

M =

Qua

lity

Sys

tem

Man

ual

RP

D =

Rel

ativ

e P

erce

nt D

iffer

ence

TB

D =

To

Be

Det

erm

ined

U-2

32 =

Ura

nium

-232

U

-233

= U

rani

um-2

33

U-2

38 =

Ura

nium

-238

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 25 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#12

. M

easu

rem

ent P

erfo

rman

ce C

riter

ia (C

ontin

ued)

Mat

rix: S

edim

ent

Ana

lytic

al G

roup

or M

etho

d: T

BD

for I

CP

-MS

(exa

mpl

es b

elow

bas

ed o

n 60

20A

) C

once

ntra

tion

Leve

l: Lo

w

DQ

I Q

C S

ampl

e or

Mea

sure

men

t Pe

rfor

man

ce A

ctiv

ity

Mea

sure

men

t Per

form

ance

Crit

eria

Ove

rall

Pre

cisi

on

Fiel

d du

plic

ate

RP

D<

40%

whe

n ur

aniu

m is

det

ecte

d in

bot

h sa

mpl

es ≥

sam

ple-

spec

ific

LOQ

A

naly

tical

Pre

cisi

on

La

bora

tory

– L

CS

D

La

bora

tory

and

mat

rix e

ffect

s –

MS

D

LCS

D/M

SD

La

bora

tory

dup

licat

e R

PD

< 20

%

RP

D<

20%

Ana

lytic

al A

ccur

acy/

Bia

s

Labo

rato

ry –

LC

S

Labo

rato

ry a

nd m

atrix

effe

cts

– M

S

LCS

/MS

* U

-238

LC

S 8

0-12

0%

M

S 7

5-12

5%

Labo

rato

ry A

ccur

acy/

Bia

s (c

onta

min

atio

n)

Met

hod

blan

k N

o ta

rget

ana

lyte

con

cent

ratio

ns ≥

1/2

LOQ

Ove

rall

Acc

urac

y/B

ias

(con

tam

inat

ion)

Fi

eld

equi

pmen

t rin

sate

bla

nks

and

field

QC

bl

anks

(sou

rce

tap

and

sour

ce D

I wat

er)

N/A

Com

plet

enes

s N

umbe

r of v

alid

dat

a po

ints

atta

ined

ver

sus

the

plan

ned

num

ber

90%

*Not

e: D

ata

will

be

eval

uate

d to

the

QS

M li

mits

(83-

120%

) but

cor

rect

ive

actio

n w

ill o

nly

be p

ursu

ed if

the

yiel

ds fa

ll ou

tsid

e ou

r sta

ndar

d la

b cr

iteria

(sho

wn

abov

e).

Any

yie

lds

that

fall

outs

ide

of th

e Q

SM

crit

eria

will

be

narra

ted.

D

I = D

eion

ized

IC

P-M

S =

Indu

ctiv

ely

Cou

pled

Pla

sma-

Mas

s S

pect

rom

etry

D

QI =

Dat

a Q

ualit

y In

dica

tor

LCS

= L

abor

ator

y C

ontro

l Sam

ple

LCS

D =

Lab

orat

ory

Con

trol S

ampl

e D

uplic

ate

LOQ

= L

imit

of Q

uant

itatio

n M

S =

Mat

rix S

pike

MS

D =

Mat

rix S

pike

Dup

licat

e N

/A =

Not

App

licab

le

QC

= Q

ualit

y C

ontro

l Q

SM

= Q

ualit

y S

yste

ms

Man

ual

RP

D =

Rel

ativ

e P

erce

nt D

iffer

ence

TB

D =

To

Be

Det

erm

ined

U

-238

= U

rani

um-2

38

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 26 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#13

. Se

cond

ary

Dat

a U

ses

and

Lim

itatio

ns

Dat

a Ty

pe

Sour

ce

Dat

a U

ses

Rel

ativ

e to

Cur

rent

Pr

ojec

t Fa

ctor

s A

ffect

ing

the

Rel

iabi

lity

of

Dat

a an

d Li

mita

tions

on

Dat

a U

se

Pre

viou

s Sa

mpl

ing

Res

ults

V

ario

us re

ports

list

ed o

n Q

APP

W

orks

heet

s #1

and

#2.

In

form

atio

n re

late

d to

the

hist

oric

al

sam

plin

g lo

catio

ns a

nd fi

eld

proc

edur

es u

sed

hist

oric

ally

.

Ther

e ar

e no

fact

ors

affe

ctin

g th

e re

liabi

lity

of th

e pr

evio

us s

ampl

ing

resu

lts.

QA

PP =

Qua

lity

Assu

ranc

e P

roje

ct P

lan

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 27 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

s #1

4 an

d #1

6. P

roje

ct T

asks

and

Sch

edul

e

Act

iviti

es

Res

pons

ible

Org

aniz

atio

n D

eliv

erab

le

Plan

ned

Star

t D

ate

Del

iver

able

Due

Dat

e

Dev

elop

“Pro

gram

mat

ic a

nd S

ite-S

peci

fic E

RM

P fo

r N

atio

nwid

e D

U S

ites”

and

sub

mit

to N

RC

U

.S. A

rmy

(IMC

OM

) Fi

nal E

RM

P

7 Ju

ne 2

016

21 S

epte

mbe

r 201

6*

Dev

elop

site

-spe

cific

dos

e m

odel

ing

para

met

ers,

co

nduc

t mod

elin

g, a

nd re

port

resu

lts fo

r RC

As

at 1

8 lic

ense

d lo

catio

ns to

NR

C

U.S

. Arm

y (IM

CO

M)

Fina

l ER

MP

7

June

201

6 21

Sep

tem

ber 2

016*

Con

duct

fiel

d sa

mpl

ing

at R

CAs

at 1

8 lic

ense

d lo

catio

ns

U.S

. Arm

y (IM

CO

M)

Fina

l Rep

ort

TBD

* TB

D*

Dev

elop

and

sub

mit

Fina

l Rep

orts

for R

CA

s at

18

licen

sed

loca

tions

to N

RC

U

.S. A

rmy

(IMC

OM

) Fi

nal R

epor

t TB

D*

TBD

*

*Lic

ense

Num

ber S

UC

-159

3, C

ondi

tion

#18

stat

es, “

With

in 6

mon

ths

of th

e ef

fect

ive

date

of t

he li

cens

e am

endm

ent,

the

licen

see

shal

l pro

vide

to th

e N

RC

for a

ppro

val,

site

-spe

cific

en

viro

nmen

tal r

adia

tion

mon

itorin

g pl

ans

for

each

inst

alla

tion

liste

d in

Lic

ense

Con

ditio

n #1

0 th

at a

ddre

ss a

ll R

CAs

at

the

inst

alla

tions

. Th

e lic

ense

e sh

all f

ully

impl

emen

t ea

ch

inst

alla

tion’

s si

te-s

peci

fic e

nviro

nmen

tal r

adia

tion

mon

itorin

g pl

an w

ithin

6 m

onth

s of

NR

C a

ppro

val.”

D

U =

Dep

lete

d U

rani

um

ER

MP

= E

nviro

nmen

tal R

adia

tion

Mon

itorin

g P

lan

IMC

OM

= In

stal

latio

n M

anag

emen

t Com

man

d

NR

C =

Nuc

lear

Reg

ulat

ory

Com

mis

sion

R

CA

= R

adia

tion

Con

trol A

rea

TBD

= T

o B

e D

eter

min

ed

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 28 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#15

a. P

roje

ct A

ctio

n Le

vels

for t

he E

RM

Med

ia

Med

ium

To

tal U

rani

um A

ctio

n Le

vel

Cor

rect

ive

Act

ion

Sur

face

Wat

er

> 30

µg/

L

R

esam

ple.

If a

ctiv

ity v

erifi

ed, n

otify

NR

C a

nd a

sses

s re

sults

. Th

e fin

ding

s an

d re

com

men

ded

corr

ectiv

e ac

tions

will

be

docu

men

ted

by th

e U

.S. A

rmy’

s Li

cens

e R

SO

. Th

e Li

cens

e R

SO

will

pro

vide

re

com

men

datio

ns to

the

SU

C-1

593

Res

pons

ible

Lic

ense

Aut

horit

y ba

sed

on h

is e

valu

atio

n.

Less

than

30

µg/L

N

o co

rrec

tive

actio

n.

All

U-2

38/U

-234

ratio

> 3

.0

Rea

naly

ze th

e sa

mpl

es u

sing

ICP-

MS

(SW

846

602

0A),

track

tren

d at

lo

catio

n.

Less

than

3.0

N

o co

rrec

tive

actio

n.

Wei

ght p

erce

nt U

-235

> 0

.711

N

o co

rrec

tive

actio

n.

Wei

ght p

erce

nt U

-235

< 0

.711

Th

e U

.S. A

rmy

will

repo

rt re

sults

to N

RC

, per

form

con

firm

ator

y sa

mpl

ing

and

anal

yses

for t

hat R

CA

, obe

y an

y su

bseq

uent

NR

C o

rder

s, a

nd

cont

inue

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

Site

-Spe

cific

ER

MP

Ann

ex fo

r tha

t RC

A

until

NR

C e

nds

the

requ

irem

ent.

ER

M =

Env

ironm

enta

l Rad

iatio

n M

onito

ring

ER

MP

= E

nviro

nmen

tal R

adia

tion

Mon

itorin

g P

lan

ICP

-MS

= In

duct

ivel

y C

oupl

ed P

lasm

a-M

ass

Spe

ctro

met

ry

NR

C =

Nuc

lear

Reg

ulat

ory

Com

mis

sion

R

CA

= R

ange

Con

trol A

rea

RS

O =

Rad

iatio

n S

afet

y O

ffice

r U

-234

= U

rani

um-2

34

U-2

35 =

Ura

nium

-235

U

-238

= U

rani

um-2

38

µg/L

= M

icro

gram

s pe

r Lite

r

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 29 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#15

b. L

abor

ator

y-Sp

ecifi

c D

etec

tion/

Qua

ntita

tion

Lim

its fo

r Sur

face

Wat

er

Ana

lyte

C

AS

Num

ber

RL

MD

L

TBD

(exa

mpl

es b

elow

bas

ed o

n H

ASL

300

) (pC

i/L)

U-2

33/U

-234

11

-08-

5 0.

10

N/A

U-2

35/U

-236

15

117-

96-1

0.

10

N/A

U-2

38

7440

-61-

1 0.

10

N/A

Tota

l Ura

nium

74

40-6

1-1

N/A

N

/A

TBD

(exa

mpl

es b

elow

bas

ed o

n SW

846

6020

A) (

µg/L

) *

U-2

33/U

-234

11

-08-

5 0.

05

0.00

03

U-2

35/U

-236

15

117-

96-1

0.

05

0.00

03

U-2

38

7440

-61-

1 0.

05

0.00

03

Tota

l Ura

nium

74

40-6

1-1

0.05

0.

0003

*Sam

ples

with

U-2

38/U

-234

rat

ios

exce

edin

g 3.

0 w

ill b

e re

-ana

lyze

d us

ing

Sol

id W

aste

Met

hod

6020

A w

ith w

ater

or

sedi

men

t re

mai

ning

from

the

aliq

uot c

olle

cted

for t

he a

lpha

spe

ctro

met

ry a

naly

sis.

CA

S =

Che

mic

al A

bstra

ct S

yste

m

HA

SL

= H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Labo

rato

ry

MD

L =

Met

hod

Det

ectio

n Li

mit

N/A

= N

ot A

pplic

able

R

L =

Rep

ortin

g Li

mit

pCi/L

= P

icoc

urie

s pe

r Lite

r TB

D =

To

Be

Det

erm

ined

U-2

33 =

Ura

nium

-233

U

-234

= U

rani

um-2

34

U-2

35 =

Ura

nium

-235

U

-236

= U

rani

um-2

36

U-2

38 =

Ura

nium

-238

µg

/L =

Mic

rogr

ams

per L

iter

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 30 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#15

c. L

abor

ator

y-Sp

ecifi

c D

etec

tion/

Qua

ntita

tion

Lim

its fo

r Sed

imen

t

Ana

lyte

C

AS

Num

ber

RL

MD

L

TBD

(exa

mpl

es b

elow

bas

ed o

n H

ASL

300

) (pC

i/g)

U-2

33/U

-234

11

-08-

5 0.

10

N/A

U-2

35/U

-236

15

117-

96-1

0.

10

N/A

U-2

38

7440

-61-

1 0.

10

N/A

Tota

l Ura

nium

74

40-6

1-1

N/A

N

/A

TBD

(exa

mpl

es b

elow

bas

ed o

n SW

846

6020

A) (

µg/k

g) *

U-2

33/U

-234

11

-08-

5

5 1

U-2

35/U

-236

15

117-

96-1

5 1

U-2

38

7440

-61-

1

5 0.

1

Tota

l Ura

nium

74

40-6

1-1

5

0.1

*Sam

ples

with

U-2

38/U

-234

rat

ios

exce

edin

g 3.

0 w

ill b

e re

-ana

lyze

d us

ing

Sol

id W

aste

Met

hod

6020

A w

ith

wat

er o

r sed

imen

t rem

aini

ng fr

om th

e al

iquo

t col

lect

ed fo

r the

alp

ha s

pect

rom

etry

ana

lysi

s.

CA

S =

Che

mic

al A

bstra

ct S

yste

m

HA

SL

= H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Labo

rato

ry

MD

L =

Met

hod

Det

ectio

n Li

mit

N/A

= N

ot A

pplic

able

pC

i/g =

Pic

ocur

ies

per G

ram

R

L =

Rep

ortin

g Li

mit

TBD

= T

o B

e D

eter

min

ed

U-2

33 =

Ura

nium

-233

U

-234

= U

rani

um-2

34

U-2

35 =

Ura

nium

-235

U

-236

= U

rani

um-2

36

U-2

38 =

Ura

nium

-238

µg

/kg

= M

icro

gram

s pe

r Kilo

gram

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 31 September 2016 Davy Crockett ERMP

QAPP Worksheet #17. Sampling Design and Rationale

ERM Sampling of Sediment and Surface Water Samples (see Worksheet #18 for sample IDs) Physical boundaries: See Site-Specific ERMP Annexes for the proposed sampling locations outside the RCA boundaries during the ERM at all sites. Time period: Sampling to be conducted quarterly beginning within 6 months after receiving NRC approval over several months per the schedule presented on Worksheet #14/16. Description of sampling areas: The Site-Specific ERMP Annexes contain the specific design for each RCA. The PAERMP constrains decisions about the design for obtaining data. The ERMP was developed to provide direct surveillance of the most probable migration routes through periodic sampling and analysis of radioactive constituents. Basis for number and placement of samples: The Site-Specific ERMP Annexes contain the details regarding the number and location of samples. Sampling methodology: Site-specific information affecting the collection of surface water and sediment samples can be found in the Site-Specific ERMP Annexes. All sediment and surface water sampling for the ERM will follow the SOPs listed on Worksheet #21. All sediment and surface water samples will be analyzed for total and isotopic uranium by an analytical laboratory. How sample positions will be located and determined in the field: The locations of the sediment and surface water are presented in the Site-Specific ERMP Annexes. The sample locations will be located in the field using site maps generated by the project GIS analyst. In addition, these locations will be preloaded into a handheld DGPS, which will then be used by field personnel to locate the sample locations. Plan for changed location: The proposed ERM sampling locations are pre-established and, where possible, have been historically sampled during previous sampling activities. If insufficient surface water is observed at the predetermined locations, the potential need for relocation of any sampling while in the field will be determined by consultation between the Project Manager and License RSO (or designee). Contingencies for field condition effects: The ERM sampling approach at each site is pre-established and will be implemented by following the field SOPs with minimal impact from field conditions. Any required changes will be approved through completion of Field Change Orders.

DGPS = Differential Global Positioning System ERM = Environmental Radiation Monitoring ERMP = Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan GIS = Geographic Information System ID = Identifier NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission

PAERMP = Programmatic Approach for Preparation of Site-Specific Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plans RCA = Radiation Control Area RSO = Radiation Safety Officer SOP = Standard Operating Procedure

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 32 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#18

. Sa

mpl

ing

Loca

tions

and

Met

hods

R

efer

to th

e Si

te-S

peci

fic E

RM

P A

nnex

es fo

r det

ails

on

the

sam

plin

g lo

catio

ns fo

r eac

h in

stal

latio

n. F

ield

sam

plin

g m

etho

ds a

nd S

OPs

can

be

foun

d on

Wor

kshe

et #

21 o

f thi

s Pro

gram

mat

ic U

FP-Q

APP

. E

RM

P =

Env

ironm

enta

l Rad

iatio

n M

onito

ring

Pla

n Q

APP

= Q

ualit

y As

sura

nce

Pro

ject

Pla

n S

OP

= S

tand

ard

Ope

ratin

g P

roce

dure

U

FP =

Uni

form

Fed

eral

Pol

icy

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 33 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

s #1

9 an

d #3

0. S

ampl

e C

onta

iner

s, P

rese

rvat

ion,

and

Hol

d Ti

mes

Labo

rato

ry/C

onta

ct In

form

atio

n

Labo

rato

ry N

ame:

La

bora

tory

Add

ress

: C

ity, S

tate

: PO

C:

Emai

l and

Pho

ne N

umbe

r:

Acc

redi

tatio

ns/C

ertif

icat

es:

Expi

ratio

n:

Sam

ple

Del

iver

y M

etho

d:

TBD

TB

D

TBD

TB

D

DoD

ELA

P A

ccre

dite

d TB

D

Mat

rix

Ana

lytic

al

Gro

up

USE

PA

Prep

arat

ion

and

Ana

lytic

al

Met

hod

Labo

rato

ry

Ana

lytic

al a

nd

Prep

arat

ion

Met

hod/

SOP

Org

aniz

atio

n Pe

rfor

min

g A

naly

sis

Sam

ple

Con

tain

er

Qua

ntity

and

Typ

e Sa

mpl

e Pr

eser

vatio

n

Dat

a Pa

ckag

e Tu

rnar

ound

Ti

me

Sam

ple

Hol

ding

Tim

e G

roun

dwat

er/

Sur

face

Wat

er

Isot

opic

U

rani

um a

Alp

ha

spec

trom

etry

(e.g

., H

AS

L 30

0)

Alp

ha

spec

trom

etry

(e

.g.,

HA

SL

300)

TBD

1,

1-L

pol

ypro

pyle

ne

bottl

e C

ool 4

° 30

day

s 6

mon

ths

Gro

undw

ater

/ S

urfa

ce W

ater

Is

otop

ic

Ura

nium

IC

P-M

S (e

.g.,

SW84

6 60

20A

) IC

P-M

S

(e.g

.,SW

846

6020

A

TBD

1,

1-L

pol

ypro

pyle

ne

bottl

e C

ool 4

° 30

day

s 6

mon

ths

Sed

imen

t Is

otop

ic

Ura

nium

a

Alp

ha

spec

trom

etry

(e.g

., H

AS

L 30

0)

Alp

ha

spec

trom

etry

(e

.g.,

HA

SL

300)

TBD

1,

8-o

z. g

lass

jar,

can,

or p

last

ic b

ag

Coo

l 4°C

30

day

s 6

mon

ths

Sed

imen

t Is

otop

ic

Ura

nium

IC

P-M

S (e

.g.,

SW84

6 60

20A

) IC

P-M

S (e

.g.,

SW84

6 60

20A

) TB

D

1, 8

-oz.

gla

ss ja

r, ca

n, o

r pla

stic

bag

C

ool 4

°C

30 d

ays

6 m

onth

s

a Sam

ples

with

U-2

38/U

-234

ratio

s ex

ceed

ing

3.0

will

be

re-a

naly

zed

usin

g S

olid

Was

te M

etho

d 60

20A

with

wat

er o

r sed

imen

t rem

aini

ng fr

om th

e al

iquo

t col

lect

ed fo

r the

alp

ha

spec

trom

etry

. D

oD =

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Def

ense

E

LAP

= E

nviro

nmen

tal L

abor

ator

y Ac

cred

itatio

n P

rogr

am

HA

SL

= H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Labo

rato

ry

ICP

-MS

= In

duct

ivel

y C

oupl

ed P

lasm

a-M

ass

Spe

ctro

met

ry

PO

C =

Poi

nt o

f Con

tact

S

OP

= S

tand

ard

Ope

ratin

g P

roce

dure

SW =

Sol

id W

aste

TB

D =

To

Be

Det

erm

ined

U

-234

= U

rani

um-2

34

U-2

38 =

Ura

nium

-238

U

SE

PA =

U.S

. Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 34 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#20

. Fi

eld

Qua

lity

Con

trol

Sum

mar

y Th

e fo

llow

ing

are

max

imum

num

bers

of

field

and

QC

sam

ples

that

may

be

colle

cted

und

er th

is Q

APP

; fre

quen

cies

will

be

as in

dica

ted

belo

w fo

r the

QC

sam

ples

at e

ach

site

/inst

alla

tion

Para

met

er

Ana

lytic

al M

etho

d N

umbe

r of F

ield

Sa

mpl

es (1

) Fi

eld

Dup

licat

e Sa

mpl

es (2

) M

S/M

SD S

ampl

es (3

) To

tal

Ana

lyse

s Se

dim

ent

Tota

l/Iso

topi

c U

rani

um*

TBD

* 33

4

2 37

Su

rfac

e W

ater

To

tal/I

soto

pic

Ura

nium

* TB

D*

33

4 2

37

*Sam

ples

ana

lyze

d w

ith a

lpha

spe

ctro

met

ry w

ith U

-238

/U-2

34 ra

tios

exce

edin

g 3.

0 w

ill b

e re

-ana

lyze

d us

ing

ICP

-MS

for w

ater

or s

edim

ent;

rem

aini

ng s

ampl

e fro

m

the

aliq

uot c

olle

cted

for t

he a

lpha

spe

ctro

met

ry a

naly

sis

will

be

used

for t

he IC

P-M

S a

naly

sis.

(1)

Max

imum

exp

ecte

d nu

mbe

r of s

ampl

es is

app

roxi

mat

ely

31 c

o-lo

cate

d su

rface

wat

er/s

edim

ent s

ampl

es fr

om a

ll ac

tive

rang

es.

(2)

Fiel

d du

plic

ates

will

be

colle

cted

at a

n ov

eral

l fre

quen

cy o

f 10%

for e

ach

mat

rix.

(3)

MS

/MS

D s

ampl

es w

ill b

e co

llect

ed a

t an

over

all f

requ

ency

of 5

% fo

r eac

h m

atrix

. N

OTE

: Fi

eld

QC

sam

ples

are

lim

ited

to f

ield

dup

licat

es a

nd s

ampl

es c

olle

cted

to

be u

sed

for

MS/

MS

D;

QA

split

sam

ples

are

not

pro

pose

d. E

quip

men

t rin

sate

sa

mpl

es a

re n

ot re

quire

d be

caus

e sa

mpl

ing

will

be

perfo

rmed

usi

ng d

ispo

sabl

e eq

uipm

ent.

IC

P-M

S =

Indu

ctiv

ely

Cou

pled

Pla

sma-

Mas

s S

pect

rom

etry

M

S =

Mat

rix S

pike

M

SD

= M

atrix

Spi

ke D

uplic

ate

QA

= Q

ualit

y As

sura

nce

QC

= Q

ualit

y C

ontro

l

QA

PP =

Qua

lity

Assu

ranc

e P

roje

ct P

lan

TBD

= T

o B

e D

eter

min

ed

U-2

34 =

Ura

nium

-234

U

-238

= U

rani

um-2

38

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 35 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#21

. Fi

eld

SOPs

R

efer

ence

N

umbe

r Ti

tle, R

evis

ion

Dat

e, a

nd/o

r Num

ber

Orig

inat

ing

Org

aniz

atio

n Eq

uipm

ent T

ype

Mod

ified

for

Proj

ect W

ork?

C

omm

ents

TB

D

TB

D

TB

D

TB

D

TB

D

TB

D

TB

D

TB

D

TB

D

TB

D

S

OP

= S

tand

ard

Ope

ratin

g P

roce

dure

TB

D =

To

Be

Det

erm

ined

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 36 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#22

. Fi

eld

Equi

pmen

t Cal

ibra

tion,

Mai

nten

ance

, Tes

ting,

and

Insp

ectio

n

Fiel

d Eq

uipm

ent

Cal

ibra

tion

Act

ivity

M

aint

enan

ce

Act

ivity

Te

stin

g A

ctiv

ity

Insp

ectio

n A

ctiv

ity

Freq

uenc

y A

ccep

tanc

e C

riter

ia

Cor

rect

ive

Act

ion

Res

pons

ible

Pe

rson

SO

P R

efer

ence

S

chon

sted

t®

Han

dhel

d M

agne

tom

eter

or

sim

ilar

N/A

C

heck

bat

tery

P

ass

unit

over

kn

own

met

allic

ob

ject

Insp

ect f

or

visi

ble

dam

age

Insp

ect p

rior t

o ea

ch u

se

Pro

per t

one

prod

uced

R

epla

ce b

atte

ry

and/

or

deco

ntam

inat

e

UX

O

Spe

cial

ist

Ope

ratio

n M

anua

l

DG

PS

N

/A

Che

ck b

atte

ry

and

cabl

e co

nnec

tions

Sta

rt un

it an

d ch

eck

disp

lay

for p

rope

r ge

ogra

phic

po

sitio

ning

Insp

ect f

or

visi

ble

dam

age

Insp

ect p

rior t

o ea

ch u

se

N/A

R

epla

ce

batte

ry; r

eboo

t as

requ

ired

Fiel

d S

ampl

er

Ope

ratio

n M

anua

l

Hor

iba

U-2

2 W

ater

Qua

lity

Met

er o

r si

mila

r

Ver

ify

calib

ratio

n w

ith

auto

-cal

ibra

tion

solu

tion

for p

H,

cond

uctiv

ity,

and

turb

idity

fo

llow

ing

man

ufac

ture

r’s

inst

ruct

ions

Che

ck b

atte

ry

N/A

In

spec

t for

vi

sual

dam

age

Cal

ibra

te a

t be

ginn

ing

of d

ay

Cal

ibra

tion

is

with

in ra

nge

Rec

alib

rate

if

nece

ssar

y,

repl

ace

batte

ries

or

perfo

rm

mai

nten

ance

as

requ

ired

Fiel

d S

ampl

er

Ope

ratio

n M

anua

l, S

OP

-8

Bic

ron

Mic

rore

m

Met

er o

r si

mila

r

Cal

ibra

te w

ith

NIS

T tra

ceab

le

sour

ces

Per

form

de

taile

d Q

A/Q

C c

heck

at

leas

t dai

ly

and

whe

n in

stru

men

t re

spon

se is

qu

estio

nabl

e

Com

pare

in

stru

men

t re

adin

s w

ith

thos

e of

a

know

n ra

diat

ion

sour

ce

Insp

ect f

or

visi

ble

dam

age

Insp

ect a

m

inim

um o

f dai

ly

and

whe

n in

stru

men

t re

spon

se is

qu

estio

nabl

e;

calib

rate

at l

east

an

nual

ly

Cal

ibra

tion

is

with

in ra

nge

Rep

lace

ba

tterie

s,

cabl

es a

nd

myl

ar a

s ne

eded

; rep

air

and

reca

libra

tion

by

man

ufac

ture

r as

nee

ded

Hea

lth

Phy

sics

te

chni

can

in

Coo

rdin

atio

n w

ith

Cal

ibra

tion

Tech

nici

an

Man

ufac

ture

rs’

Ope

ratio

n an

d M

aint

enan

ce

Man

uals

Ludl

um M

odel

44

-9 G

M/

Fris

ker o

r si

mila

r

Cal

ibra

te w

ith

NIS

T tra

ceab

le

sour

ces

Per

form

de

taile

d Q

A/Q

C c

heck

at

leas

t dai

ly

and

whe

n in

stru

men

t re

spon

se is

qu

estio

nabl

e

Com

pare

in

stru

men

t re

adin

gs w

ith

thos

e of

a

know

n ra

diat

ion

sour

ce

Insp

ect f

or

visi

ble

dam

age

Insp

ect a

m

inim

um o

f dai

ly

and

whe

n

inst

rum

ent

resp

onse

is

ques

tiona

ble;

ca

libra

te a

t lea

st

annu

ally

Cal

ibra

tion

is

with

in ra

nge

Rep

lace

ba

tterie

s,

cabl

es, a

nd

myl

ar a

s ne

eded

; rep

air

and

reca

libra

tion

by

man

ufac

ture

r as

nee

ded

Hea

lth

Phy

sics

Te

chni

cian

in

coor

dina

tion

with

C

alib

ratio

n Te

chni

cian

Man

ufac

ture

rs’

Ope

ratio

n an

d M

aint

enan

ce

Man

uals

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 37 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#22

. Fi

eld

Equi

pmen

t Cal

ibra

tion,

Mai

nten

ance

, Tes

ting,

and

Insp

ectio

n (C

ontin

ued)

Fiel

d Eq

uipm

ent

Cal

ibra

tion

Act

ivity

M

aint

enan

ce

Act

ivity

Te

stin

g A

ctiv

ity

Insp

ectio

n A

ctiv

ity

Freq

uenc

y A

ccep

tanc

e C

riter

ia

Cor

rect

ive

Act

ion

Res

pons

ible

Pe

rson

SO

P R

efer

ence

Lu

dlum

Mod

el

43-8

9 D

uel

Pho

spho

r A

lpha

/Bet

a D

etec

tor w

ith

Mod

el 2

360

Sca

ler/

Rat

emet

er o

r si

mila

r

Cal

ibra

te w

ith

NIS

T tra

ceab

le

sour

ces

Per

form

de

taile

d Q

A/Q

C c

heck

at

leas

t dai

ly

and

whe

n in

stru

men

t re

spon

se is

qu

estio

nabl

e

Com

pare

in

stru

men

t re

adin

gs w

ith

thos

e of

a

know

n ra

diat

ion

sour

ce

Insp

ect f

or

visi

ble

dam

age

Insp

ect a

m

inim

um o

f dai

ly

and

whe

n

inst

rum

ent

resp

onse

is

ques

tiona

ble;

ca

libra

te a

t lea

st

annu

ally

Cal

ibra

tion

is

with

in ra

nge

Rep

lace

ba

tterie

s,

cabl

es, a

nd

myl

ar a

s ne

eded

; rep

air

and

reca

libra

tion

by

man

ufac

ture

r as

nee

ded

Hea

lth

Phy

sics

Te

chni

cian

in

coor

dina

tion

with

C

alib

ratio

n Te

chni

cian

Man

ufac

ture

rs’

Ope

ratio

n an

d M

aint

enan

ce

Man

uals

Ludl

um M

odel

44

-10

Gam

ma

Sci

ntill

atio

n D

etec

tor w

ith

Mod

el 2

221

Sca

ler/

Rat

emet

er o

r si

mila

r

Cal

ibra

te w

ith

NIS

T tra

ceab

le

sour

ces

Per

form

de

taile

d Q

A/Q

C c

heck

at

leas

t dai

ly

and

whe

n in

stru

men

t re

spon

se is

qu

estio

nabl

e

Com

pare

in

stru

men

t re

adin

gs w

ith

thos

e of

a

know

n ra

diat

ion

sour

ce

Insp

ect f

or

visi

ble

dam

age

Insp

ect a

m

inim

um o

f dai

ly

and

whe

n

inst

rum

ent

resp

onse

is

ques

tiona

ble;

ca

libra

te a

t lea

st

annu

ally

Cal

ibra

tion

is

with

in ra

nge

Rep

lace

ba

tterie

s,

cabl

es, a

nd

myl

ar a

s ne

eded

; rep

air

and

reca

libra

tion

by

man

ufac

ture

r as

nee

ded

Hea

lth

Phy

sics

Te

chni

cian

in

coor

dina

tion

with

C

alib

ratio

n Te

chni

cian

Man

ufac

ture

rs’

Ope

ratio

n an

d M

aint

enan

ce

Man

uals

DG

PS

= D

iffer

entia

l Glo

bal P

ositi

onin

g S

yste

m

N/A

= N

ot A

pplic

able

N

IST

= N

atio

nal I

nstit

ute

of S

tand

ards

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

QA

= Q

ualit

y As

sura

nce

QC

= Q

ualit

y C

ontro

l S

OP

= S

tand

ard

Ope

ratin

g P

roce

dure

U

XO =

Une

xplo

ded

Ord

nanc

e

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 38 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#23

. An

alyt

ical

SO

Ps

Ref

eren

ce N

umbe

r Ti

tle, R

evis

ion

Dat

e, a

nd/o

r Num

ber

Def

initi

ve o

r Sc

reen

ing

Dat

a M

atrix

A

naly

tical

G

roup

Org

aniz

atio

n Pe

rfor

min

g A

naly

sis

Mod

ified

for

Proj

ect

Wor

k?

TBD

TB

D

TBD

TB

D

TBD

S

OP

= S

tand

ard

Ope

ratin

g P

roce

dure

TB

D =

To

Be

Det

erm

ined

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 39 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#24

. An

alyt

ical

Inst

rum

ent C

alib

ratio

n

Inst

rum

ent

Cal

ibra

tion

Proc

edur

e*

Freq

uenc

y of

Cal

ibra

tion

Acc

epta

nce

Crit

eria

C

orre

ctiv

e A

ctio

n

Pers

on

Res

pons

ible

for

Cor

rect

ive

Act

ion

SOP

Ref

eren

ce

Alp

ha

Spe

ctro

met

ry

(exa

mpl

e in

form

atio

n ba

sed

on

HA

SL

300

Met

hod)

Initi

al C

alib

ratio

n (IC

AL)

P

rior t

o in

itial

use

or

follo

win

g re

pair/

loss

of

cont

rol

At l

east

two

calib

ratio

n pe

aks

that

are

1) ≥

700

keV

apar

t; or

2) t

hat b

rack

et a

ll pe

aks

to b

e de

term

ined

. E

nerg

y vs

. ch

anne

l slo

pe

equa

tion

<15

keV

per

chan

nel.

FWH

M <

100

keV

for e

ach

peak

use

d fo

r ca

libra

tion.

Min

imum

of

3,00

0 ne

t cou

nts

in e

ach

peak

.

Cor

rect

pro

blem

; re

peat

TB

D

TBD

Ene

rgy

calib

ratio

n (C

HK

)

Ene

rgy

calib

ratio

ns s

hall

be

perfo

rmed

for t

he s

yste

ms

mon

thly

or w

hen

a ca

libra

tion

QC

che

ck

indi

cate

s an

una

ccep

tabl

e ch

ange

in p

aram

eter

s

Thre

e is

otop

es in

3-6

MeV

ra

nge.

Ene

rgy

posi

tions

of

isot

opes

with

in ±

40

KeV

of

expe

cted

val

ue.

Cor

rect

pro

blem

; re

peat

cal

ibra

tion

proc

edur

e;

inst

rum

ent

mai

nten

ance

; co

nsul

t with

te

chni

cal d

irect

or

TBD

TB

D

Effi

cien

cy

calib

ratio

n an

d ba

ckgr

ound

ch

eck

(ICV

)

Imm

edia

tely

afte

r ini

tial

calib

ratio

n Th

ree

isot

opes

in 3

-6 M

eV

rang

e. E

nerg

y po

sitio

ns o

f is

otop

es w

ithin

± 2

0 K

eV o

f ex

pect

ed v

alue

.

Cor

rect

pro

blem

; re

peat

cal

ibra

tion

proc

edur

e;

inst

rum

ent

mai

nten

ance

; co

nsul

t with

te

chni

cal d

irect

or

TBD

TB

D

Sub

tract

ion

spec

trum

(BK

G)

Sub

tract

ion

spec

trum

sha

ll be

per

form

ed fo

r the

sy

stem

s m

onth

ly o

r whe

n a

calib

ratio

n Q

C c

heck

in

dica

tes

an u

nacc

epta

ble

chan

ge in

par

amet

ers

With

in 3

σ of

mea

n ac

tivity

of

rece

nt B

SC

s fo

r tot

al R

OI.

Cor

rect

pro

blem

; re

peat

cal

ibra

tion

proc

edur

e;

inst

rum

ent

mai

nten

ance

; co

nsul

t with

te

chni

cal d

irect

or

TBD

TB

D

Che

ck (C

CV

) an

d ba

ckgr

ound

ch

eck

(ICC

)

Rou

tine

qual

ity c

ontro

l ve

rific

atio

ns a

re p

erfo

rmed

w

eekl

y

Pea

k ce

ntro

id, p

eak

reso

lutio

n, p

eak

area

, ca

libra

tion

and

back

grou

nd

mus

t pas

s st

atis

tical

test

<3

sig

ma.

Cor

rect

pro

blem

; re

peat

pro

cedu

re;

inst

rum

ent

mai

nten

ance

; co

nsul

t with

te

chni

cal d

irect

or

TBD

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 40 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#24

. An

alyt

ical

Inst

rum

ent C

alib

ratio

n (C

ontin

ued)

Inst

rum

ent

Cal

ibra

tion

Proc

edur

e*

Freq

uenc

y of

Cal

ibra

tion

Acc

epta

nce

Crit

eria

C

orre

ctiv

e A

ctio

n

Pers

on

Res

pons

ible

for

Cor

rect

ive

Act

ion

SOP

Ref

eren

ce

ICP

-MS

(e

xam

ple

info

rmat

ion

base

d on

M

etho

d 60

20A

)

ICA

L –

min

imum

3-

poin

t ca

libra

tion

and

a ca

libra

tion

blan

k

Dai

ly i

nitia

l ca

libra

tion

prio

r to

sam

ple

anal

ysis

Fi

ve s

tand

ards

and

a b

lank

; co

rrel

atio

n co

effic

ient

of ≥

0.

995.

TBD

Sec

ond

sour

ce

ICV

O

nce

afte

r eac

h in

itial

ca

libra

tion,

prio

r to

sam

ple

anal

ysis

Val

ue o

f sec

ond

sour

ce fo

r al

l ana

lyte

(s) w

ithin

± 1

0% o

f ex

pect

ed.

Rec

alib

rate

TB

D

CC

V

Eve

ry 1

0 sa

mpl

es

All

anal

ytes

with

in +

/- 10

% o

f ex

pect

ed v

alue

. R

ecal

ibra

te

TBD

ICV

L/C

CV

L Im

med

iate

ly a

fter I

CV

/CC

V +/

- 30%

exp

ecte

d va

lue.

R

ecal

ibra

te

TBD

IS

E

very

fiel

d sa

mpl

e,

stan

dard

, and

QC

sam

ple

IS in

tens

ity in

the

sam

ples

w

ithin

30-

120%

of i

nten

sity

of

the

IS in

the

ICA

L bl

ank.

Rea

naly

ze fa

iled

sam

ples

at 5

-fold

di

lutio

ns u

ntil

crite

ria

is m

et.

For f

aile

d Q

C, c

orre

ct p

robl

em

and

reru

n al

l as

soci

ated

faile

d fie

ld s

ampl

es

TBD

BK

G =

Bac

kgro

und

BS

C =

Bac

kgro

und

Sub

tract

ion

Cou

nt

CC

V =

Con

tinui

ng C

alib

ratio

n V

erifi

catio

n C

CV

L =

Low

leve

l CC

V C

HK

= E

nerg

y C

alib

ratio

n FW

HM

= F

ull W

idth

-Hal

f Max

imum

H

AS

L =

Hea

lth a

nd S

afet

y La

bora

tory

IC

AL

= In

itial

Cal

ibra

tion

ICC

= In

itial

Cal

ibra

tion

Che

ck

ICP

= In

duct

ivel

y C

oupl

ed P

lasm

a

ICV

= In

itial

Cal

ibra

tion

Ver

ifica

tion

ICV

L =

Low

leve

l IC

V IS

= In

tern

al S

tand

ard

KeV

= K

iloel

ectro

n V

olts

M

eV =

Meg

aele

ctro

n V

olts

M

S =

Mas

s S

pect

rom

etry

Q

C =

Qua

lity

Con

trol

RO

I = R

egio

n of

Inte

rest

S

OP

= S

tand

ard

Ope

ratin

g P

roce

dure

TB

D =

To

Be

Det

erm

ined

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 41 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#25

. An

alyt

ical

Inst

rum

ent a

nd E

quip

men

t Mai

nten

ance

, Tes

ting,

and

Insp

ectio

n In

stru

men

t/ Eq

uipm

ent

Mai

nten

ance

A

ctiv

ity

Test

ing

Act

ivity

In

spec

tion

Act

ivity

Fr

eque

ncy

Acc

epta

nce

Crit

eria

C

orre

ctiv

e A

ctio

n R

espo

nsib

le

Pers

on

SOP

Ref

eren

ce

Alp

ha

Spe

ctro

met

ry

(exa

mpl

e in

form

atio

n)

Cle

an

cham

bers

and

pl

anch

ette

ho

lder

s qu

arte

rly

Phy

sica

l ch

eck

Phy

sica

l che

ck

Mon

thly

A

ccep

tabl

e ba

ckgr

ound

an

d ca

libra

tion

effic

ienc

ies

Rec

alib

rate

; in

stru

men

t m

aint

enan

ce;

cons

ult w

ith

Tech

nica

l Dire

ctor

TBD

TB

D

ICP

-MS

(e

xam

ple

info

rmat

ion)

ICB

/CC

B

Inst

rum

ent

perfo

rman

ce

Inst

rum

ent

cont

amin

atio

n ch

eck

ICB

: Afte

r ev

ery

calib

ratio

n ve

rific

atio

n an

d IC

V/IC

VL

pair

CC

B:

ever

y 10

sa

mpl

es a

fter

CC

V/C

CV

L pa

ir

ICB

: No

anal

ytes

de

tect

ed >

½ R

L; C

CB

: no

ana

lyte

det

ecte

d >

3X

MD

L N

o an

alyt

es d

etec

ted

> LO

D

Det

erm

ine

poss

ible

sou

rce

of

cont

amin

atio

n an

d ap

ply

appr

opria

te

mea

sure

to

corr

ect t

he

prob

lem

; re

anal

yze

calib

ratio

n bl

ank

and

all a

ssoc

iate

d sa

mpl

es

TBD

TB

D

Dai

ly

perfo

rman

ce

chec

k

Tune

and

st

abili

ty

chec

k

Inst

rum

ent

stab

ility

and

pe

rform

ance

ch

eck

Dai

ly

RS

D ≤

5% fo

r all

tune

an

alyt

es

Indi

vidu

al m

asse

s +/

- 0.

05 a

mu

Pea

k R

esol

utio

n 0.

7 +/

- am

u at

10%

pea

k he

ight

A

bund

ance

: M

g 75

00 c

ps

In 4

0000

cps

U

300

00 c

ps

% O

xide

s (C

eO/C

e) ≤

4%

D

ual c

harg

e (B

a++/

BA

)≤3%

Trou

bles

hoot

ing;

re

do th

e tu

ne/p

rofil

e

TBD

Not

e: I

nfor

mat

ion

is p

rovi

ded

for e

xplo

sive

s an

d SV

OC

-rela

ted

com

poun

ds b

ecau

se th

ese

data

will

be

valid

ated

. C

CB

= C

ontin

uing

Cal

ibra

tion

Bla

nk

CC

V =

Con

tinui

ng C

alib

ratio

n V

erifi

catio

n C

CV

L =

Low

leve

l CC

V cp

s =

Cou

nts

per S

econ

d IC

B =

Initi

al C

alib

ratio

n B

lank

IC

P =

Indu

ctiv

ely

Cou

pled

Pla

sma

ICV

= In

itial

Cal

ibra

tion

Ver

ifica

tion

ICV

L =

Low

leve

l IC

V

LOD

= L

imit

of D

etec

tion

MD

L =

Met

hod

Det

ectio

n Li

mit

MS

= M

ass

Spe

ctro

met

ry

RL

= R

epor

ting

limit

RS

D =

Rel

ativ

e St

anda

rd D

evia

tion

SO

P =

Sta

ndar

d O

pera

ting

Pro

cedu

re

SV

OC

= S

emiv

olat

ile O

rgan

ic C

ompo

und

TBD

= T

o B

e D

eter

min

ed

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 42 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

s #2

6 an

d #2

7. S

ampl

e H

andl

ing,

Cus

tody

, and

Dis

posa

l Sa

mpl

ing

orga

niza

tion:

TB

D

Labo

rato

ry: T

BD

M

etho

d of

sam

ple

deliv

ery:

Com

mer

cial

car

rier (

TBD

) with

ove

rnig

ht d

eliv

ery

Num

ber o

f day

s fr

om re

port

ing

until

sam

ple

disp

osal

: Unt

il sa

mpl

e di

spos

al is

app

rove

d by

U.S

. Arm

y

Act

ivity

O

rgan

izat

ion

and

Title

/Per

son

Res

pons

ible

SO

P R

efer

ence

Sam

ple

Labe

ling

Sam

ple

Man

ager

TB

D

CoC

For

m C

ompl

etio

n S

ampl

e M

anag

er

TBD

P

acka

ging

S

ampl

e M

ange

r/Fie

ld M

anag

er/F

ield

Cre

w

TBD

S

hipp

ing

Coo

rdin

atio

n S

ampl

e M

ange

r/Fie

ld M

anag

er/F

ield

Cre

w

TBD

S

ampl

e R

ecei

pt, I

nspe

ctio

n, a

nd L

ogin

S

ampl

e R

ecei

ving

Sta

ff TB

D

Sam

ple

Cus

tody

/Sto

rage

S

ampl

e R

ecei

ving

Sta

ff TB

D

Sam

ple

Pre

para

tion

Tech

nici

ans

TBD

S

ampl

e D

eter

min

ativ

e An

alys

is

Tech

nici

ans

TBD

S

ampl

e D

ispo

sal

Sam

ple

Was

te D

ispo

sal S

taff

TBD

CoC

= C

hain

-of-C

usto

dy

TBD

= T

o B

e D

eter

min

ed

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 43 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#28

. An

alyt

ical

Qua

lity

Con

trol

and

Cor

rect

ive

Actio

n

QC

Sam

ple

Freq

uenc

y/

Num

ber

Met

hod/

SOP

QC

A

ccep

tanc

e Li

mits

C

orre

ctiv

e A

ctio

n

Title

/Pos

ition

of

Pers

on

Res

pons

ible

for

Cor

rect

ive

Act

ion

Mea

sure

men

t Per

form

ance

Crit

eria

To

tal/I

soto

pic

Ura

nium

(exa

mpl

e in

form

atio

n ba

sed

on H

ASL

300

Met

hod)

Fi

eld

Dup

licat

e O

ne p

er 1

0 sa

mpl

es

RE

R ≤

3.0

N

o co

rrec

tive

actio

n is

take

n on

fiel

d du

plic

ate

data

alo

ne.

Ass

ess

data

and

det

erm

ine

if re

-sam

plin

g is

requ

ired.

QA

Offi

cer

RE

R ≤

3.0

whe

n ur

aniu

m is

det

ecte

d in

bo

th s

ampl

es ≥

sam

ple-

spec

ific

RL

Met

hod

Bla

nk

Eac

h an

alyt

ical

bat

ch

<RL

for c

omm

on

labo

rato

ry

cont

amin

ants

; <½

RL

for o

ther

co

ntam

inan

ts

Re-

anal

yze

sam

ples

if

poss

ible

; oth

erw

ise,

repo

rt da

ta a

nd n

arra

te.

TBD

<

CR

DL

LCS

O

ne p

er a

naly

tical

ba

tch

See

Wor

kshe

et #

12

Re-

prep

and

re-a

naly

ze

sam

ples

if s

uffic

ient

sam

ple

volu

me

is a

vaila

ble;

oth

erw

ise,

re

port

data

and

nar

rate

.

TBD

S

ee W

orks

heet

#12

LCS

D o

r Lab

orat

ory

Dup

licat

e O

ne p

er a

naly

tical

ba

tch

See

Wor

kshe

et #

12

Re-

prep

and

re-a

naly

ze

sam

ples

if s

uffic

ient

sam

ple

volu

me

is a

vaila

ble;

oth

erw

ise,

re

port

data

and

nar

rate

.

TBD

S

ee W

orks

heet

#12

Trac

er

All

sam

ples

30

-110

% re

cove

ry

Rea

naly

ze s

ampl

e to

con

firm

, Fl

ag o

utlie

rs.

TBD

A

ccep

tabl

e re

cove

ries

Tota

l/Iso

topi

c U

rani

um (e

xam

ple

info

rmat

ion

base

d on

602

0A M

etho

d)

Fiel

d D

uplic

ate

One

per

10

sam

ples

R

PD

≤30

% fo

r wat

er;

≤40%

for s

oil

N

o co

rrec

tive

actio

n is

take

n on

fiel

d du

plic

ate

data

alo

ne.

Ass

ess

data

and

det

erm

ine

if re

-sam

plin

g is

requ

ired.

QA

Offi

cer

RP

D ≤

30%

whe

n ur

aniu

m is

det

ecte

d in

bot

h sa

mpl

es ≥

sam

ple-

spec

ific

LOQ

Met

hod

Bla

nk

Eac

h an

alyt

ical

bat

ch

<RL

for c

omm

on

labo

rato

ry

cont

amin

ants

; <½

RL

for o

ther

co

ntam

inan

ts

Re-

anal

yze

sam

ples

if

poss

ible

; oth

erw

ise

repo

rt da

ta

and

narr

ate.

TBD

<½

RL

Cal

ibra

tion

Bla

nk

Bef

ore

begi

nnin

g a

sam

ple

run,

afte

r ev

ery

10 s

ampl

es,

and

at th

e en

d of

the

anal

ysis

seq

uenc

e

<RL

for c

omm

on

labo

rato

ry

cont

amin

ants

; <½

RL

for o

ther

co

ntam

inan

ts

Re-

anal

yze

sam

ples

if

poss

ible

; oth

erw

ise

repo

rt da

ta

and

narr

ate.

TBD

<½

RL

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 44 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#28

. An

alyt

ical

Qua

lity

Con

trol

and

Cor

rect

ive

Actio

n (C

ontin

ued)

QC

Sam

ple

Freq

uenc

y/

Num

ber

Met

hod/

SOP

QC

A

ccep

tanc

e Li

mits

C

orre

ctiv

e A

ctio

n

Title

/Pos

ition

of

Pers

on

Res

pons

ible

for

Cor

rect

ive

Act

ion

Mea

sure

men

t Per

form

ance

Crit

eria

M

S/M

SD

LC

S/L

CS

D

Labo

rato

ry D

uplic

ate

Min

imum

of o

ne ty

pe

of Q

C d

uplic

ate

per

20 s

ampl

es

RP

D <

20%

R

epre

p an

d re

anal

yze

sam

ple

and

dupl

icat

e if

suffi

cien

t sa

mpl

e m

ater

ial i

s av

aila

ble.

TBD

S

ee W

orks

heet

#12

MS

LC

S

One

per

ana

lytic

al

batc

h S

ee W

orks

heet

#12

R

e-an

alyz

e sa

mpl

es

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pr

epar

ty

batc

h if

poss

ible

; oth

erw

ise,

re

port

data

and

nar

rate

.

TBD

S

ee W

orks

heet

#12

Pos

t Dig

estio

n S

pike

W

hen

mat

rix s

pike

fa

ils

80-1

20%

R

eana

lyze

pos

t-dig

estio

n sp

ike.

TB

D

Acc

epta

ble

reco

verie

s

Ser

ial D

ilutio

n E

ach

new

sam

ple

mat

rix

1:5

dilu

tion

mus

t ag

ree

with

in ±

10%

of

orig

inal

det

erm

inat

ion

Per

form

pos

t-dig

estio

n sp

ike

addi

tion

if se

rial d

ilutio

n do

es

not m

eet c

riter

ia.

TBD

1:

5 di

lutio

n m

ust a

gree

with

in ±

10%

of

orig

inal

det

erm

inat

ion.

CR

DL

= C

ontra

ct R

equi

red

Det

ectio

n Li

mit

HA

SL

= H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Labo

rato

ry

LCS

= L

abor

ator

y C

ontro

l Sam

ple

LCS

D =

Lab

orat

ory

Con

trol S

ampl

e D

uplic

ate

LOQ

= L

imit

of Q

uant

itatio

n

MS

= M

atrix

Spi

ke

MS

D =

Mat

rix S

pike

Dup

licat

e

QA

= Q

ualit

y As

sura

nce

QC

= Q

ualit

y C

ontro

l R

ER

= R

elat

ive

Erro

r Rat

io

RL

= R

epor

ting

Lim

it R

PD

= R

elat

ive

Per

cent

Diff

eren

ce

SO

P =

Sta

ndar

d O

pera

ting

Pro

cedu

re

TBD

= T

o B

e D

eter

min

ed

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 45 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#29

. Pr

ojec

t Doc

umen

ts a

nd R

ecor

ds

CoC

= C

hain

-of-C

usto

dy

ED

D =

Ele

ctro

nic

Dat

a D

eliv

erab

le

QA

= Q

ualit

y As

sura

nce

QC

= Q

ualit

y C

ontro

l TB

D =

To

Be

Det

erm

ined

Rec

ord

Type

G

ener

atio

n Ve

rific

atio

n St

orag

e Lo

catio

n/A

rchi

val

Sam

ple

Logb

ook

Sam

ple

Man

ager

Fi

eld

Man

ager

TB

D

Iden

tific

atio

n of

QC

Sam

ples

S

ampl

e M

anag

er

QA

Offi

cer

TBD

C

oC R

ecor

ds

Sam

ple

Man

ager

Fi

eld

Man

ager

TB

D

Sam

ple

Shi

ppin

g R

ecor

ds

Sam

ple

Man

ager

Fi

eld

Man

ager

TB

D

Dig

ital P

hoto

grap

hs

Fiel

d Te

am L

eade

r P

roje

ct M

anag

er

TBD

C

alib

ratio

n (F

ield

Equ

ipm

ent)

Logs

Fi

eld

Team

Lea

der

Pro

ject

Man

ager

TB

D

Sam

ple

Rec

eipt

For

ms

Labo

rato

ry S

ampl

e M

anag

er

Pro

ject

Man

ager

TB

D

Sam

ple

Ana

lytic

al R

ecor

ds (F

ull L

evel

IV D

ata

Pac

kage

) La

bora

tory

Pro

ject

or Q

A M

anag

er

QA

Offi

cer

TBD

E

quip

men

t Cal

ibra

tion

(Lab

orat

ory)

and

Mai

nten

ance

Rec

ords

La

bora

tory

Pro

ject

or Q

A M

anag

er

QA

Offi

cer

TBD

S

ourc

e D

ocum

enta

tion

on S

tand

ards

and

Sur

roga

tes

Labo

rato

ry P

roje

ct o

r QA

Man

ager

Q

A O

ffice

r TB

D

QA

/QC

Rec

ords

La

bora

tory

Pro

ject

or Q

A M

anag

er

QA

Offi

cer

TBD

C

ase

Nar

rativ

e La

bora

tory

Pro

ject

or Q

A M

anag

er

QA

Offi

cer

TBD

C

orre

ctiv

e Ac

tion

Rep

orts

Q

A/Q

C O

ffice

r P

roje

ct M

anag

er

TBD

E

DD

La

bora

tory

Pro

ject

Man

ager

D

ata

Val

idat

or

TBD

E

quip

men

t Ins

pect

ion

Form

s S

ampl

e M

anag

er

Pro

ject

Man

ager

TB

D

Dat

a V

erifi

catio

n/V

alid

atio

n A

sses

smen

t Rep

ort

Dat

a V

alid

ator

Q

A/Q

C O

ffice

r TB

D

Non

conf

orm

ance

Rep

ort F

orm

s Q

A O

ffice

r P

roje

ct M

anag

er

TBD

R

eadi

ness

Rev

iew

Che

cklis

t Q

A O

ffice

r P

roje

ct M

anag

er

TBD

R

eadi

ness

Rev

iew

Act

ion

Item

Mem

oran

dum

Q

A O

ffice

r P

roje

ct M

anag

er

TBD

D

ocum

ent R

evie

w R

ecor

ds

Inde

pend

ent T

echn

ical

Rev

iew

er

Pro

ject

Man

ager

TB

D

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 46 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

s #3

1, #

32, a

nd #

33.

Asse

ssm

ents

and

Cor

rect

ive

Actio

n A

sses

smen

ts

Ass

essm

ent T

ype

Pers

on(s

) Res

pons

ible

for

Perf

orm

ing

Ass

essm

ent (

title

and

or

gani

zatio

nal a

ffilia

tion)

Fr

eque

ncy

Estim

ated

Dat

es

Ass

essm

ent

Del

iver

able

D

eliv

erab

le D

ue

Dat

e TB

D

A

sses

smen

t Res

pons

e an

d C

orre

ctiv

e A

ctio

n

Ass

essm

ent

Type

Pers

on(s

) Res

pons

ible

for

Res

pond

ing

to A

sses

smen

t Fi

ndin

gs (t

itle

and

orga

niza

tiona

l af

filia

tion)

A

sses

smen

t Res

pons

e D

ocum

enta

tion

Tim

efra

me

for

Res

pons

e

Pers

on(s

) Res

pons

ible

for

Iden

tifyi

ng a

nd

Impl

emen

ting

Cor

rect

ive

Act

ions

(titl

e an

d or

gani

zatio

nal a

ffilia

tion)

Pers

on(s

) Res

pons

ible

for

Mon

itorin

g Ef

fect

iven

ess

of

Cor

rect

ive

Act

ion

(title

and

or

gani

zatio

nal a

ffilia

tion)

TB

D

TBD

= T

o B

e D

eter

min

ed

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 47 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAPP Worksheet #34. Data Verification and Validation Inputs

Item Description Verification

(completeness)

Validation (conformance to

specifications in the QAPP)

Analytical Data Package 1 Cover sheet (laboratory identifying information) X X 2 Case narrative and definition of qualifiers X X 3 Sample receipt records X X 4 Sample results (Form Is) X X 5 Blanks summaries X X 6 MS/MSD summaries X X 7 LCS summaries X X 8 Trace recoveries X X 10 Initial and continuing calibration summaries X X 11 Post digestion spike X X 12 Serial dilution X X 13 Analytical raw data for all data (i.e., calibrations, QC, and

samples) X X

14 Required laboratory signatures X X 15 NCRs/CARs (if applicable) X X

CAR = Corrective Action Report LCS = Laboratory Control Sample MS = Matrix Spike MSD = Matrix Spike Duplicate NCR = Nonconformance Report QAPP = Quality Assurance Project Plan QC = Quality Control

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 48 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAPP Worksheet #35. Data Verification Procedures Records

Reviewed Requirement Documents Process Description

Responsible Person, Organization

Field Logbook

QAPP Verify that records are present and complete for each day of field activities. Verify that all planned samples, including field QC samples, were collected and that sample collection locations are documented. Verify that meteorological data were provided for each day of field activities. Verify that changes/exceptions are documented and were reported in accordance with requirements. Verify that any required field monitoring was performed and results are documented.

Project and Field Manager – Daily Project QA Officer

Sample Receipt and CoC

QAPP, Laboratory SOPs

The condition of shipping coolers and enclosed sample containers will be documented upon receipt at the analytical laboratory. This documentation will be accomplished using a cooler receipt checklist. A Sample Receipt Confirmation Report will be transmitted to the Project Chemist within 48 hours of sample receipt. The original completed checklist will be transmitted with the final data package.

Documentation of sample receipt and generation of sample receipt checklist – Laboratory Project Manager Review of Sample Receipt Confirmation Report to ensure samples were logged in correctly – Project Chemist

Laboratory Data Package

QAPP, Laboratory SOPs

Verify data package for completeness, as defined in the QAPP, for the following: • Cover sheet with identifying

information • Case narrative • Sample receipt information and CoC • Sample results • Blanks summaries • MS/MSD summaries • LCS summaries • Tracer recovery summaries • ISs • Initial and continuing calibration

summaries • Analytical raw data • Required laboratory signatures.

Before release from laboratory – Laboratory Project Manager or QA Officer Upon receipt –Project Chemist

NCRs/CARs (if applicable)

QAPP Verify that corrective action was implemented according to plan.

QA Officer

CAR = Corrective Action Report CoC = Chain-of-Custody IS = Internal Standard LCS = Laboratory Control Sample MS = Matrix Spike MSD = Matrix Spike Duplicate

NCR = Nonconformance Report QA = Quality Assurance QAPP = Quality Assurance Project Plan QC = Quality Control SOP = Standard Operating Procedure

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 49 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#36

. D

ata

Valid

atio

n Pr

oced

ures

D

ata

Valid

ator

Pr

ojec

t Che

mis

t A

naly

tical

Gro

up/M

etho

d To

tal/I

soto

pic

Ura

nium

– a

lpha

spe

ctro

met

ric a

nd IC

P-M

S m

etho

ds

Dat

a D

eliv

erab

le R

equi

rem

ents

TB

D

Ana

lytic

al S

peci

ficat

ions

/Mea

sure

men

t P

erfo

rman

ce C

riter

ia

Labo

rato

ry S

OP

s (T

BD

); Q

AP

P W

orks

heet

s #1

2, #

15, #

24, a

nd #

28

Mea

sure

men

t Per

form

ance

Crit

eria

W

orks

heet

#12

, DoD

QS

M

Per

cent

of D

ata

Pac

kage

s to

be

Val

idat

ed

100%

P

erce

nt o

f Raw

Dat

a R

evie

wed

10

%

Per

cent

of R

esul

ts to

be

Re-

Cal

cula

ted

10%

V

alid

atio

n P

roce

dure

P

roce

dure

bas

ed o

n cu

rrent

DoD

QS

M V

ersi

on 5

.0 a

nd th

is Q

AP

P

Not

e: N

onco

mpl

iant

dat

a w

ill b

e qu

alifi

ed a

s fo

llow

s:

U =

Th

e an

alyt

e w

as a

naly

zed

for,

but w

as n

ot d

etec

ted

abov

e, th

e re

porte

d sa

mpl

e qu

antit

atio

n lim

it. T

hese

resu

lts a

re q

ualit

ativ

ely

acce

ptab

le.

J =

Th

e an

alyt

e w

as p

ositi

vely

iden

tifie

d; t

he a

ssoc

iate

d nu

mer

ical

val

ue is

the

app

roxi

mat

e co

ncen

tratio

n of

the

ana

lyte

in t

he s

ampl

e.

Thes

e re

sults

are

qu

alita

tivel

y ac

cept

able

but

est

imat

es.

UJ

= T

he a

naly

te w

as n

ot d

etec

ted

abov

e th

e re

porte

d sa

mpl

e qu

antit

atio

n lim

it.

How

ever

, the

rep

orte

d qu

antit

atio

n lim

it is

app

roxi

mat

e an

d m

ay o

r m

ay n

ot

repr

esen

t the

act

ual l

imit

of q

uant

itatio

n ne

cess

ary

to a

ccur

atel

y an

d pr

ecis

ely

mea

sure

the

anal

yte

in th

e sa

mpl

e. T

hese

resu

lts a

re q

ualit

ativ

ely

acce

ptab

le

but e

stim

ates

. R

=

The

anal

yte

resu

lt w

as re

ject

ed d

ue to

ser

ious

def

icie

ncie

s in

the

abili

ty to

ana

lyze

the

sam

ple

and/

or to

mee

t QC

crit

eria

. Th

e pr

esen

ce o

r abs

ence

of t

he

anal

yte

cann

ot b

e ve

rifie

d.

DoD

= U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of D

efen

se

ICP

-MS

= In

duct

ivel

y C

oupl

ed P

lasm

a-M

ass

Spe

ctro

met

ry

QA

PP =

Qua

lity

Assu

ranc

e P

roje

ct P

lan

QC

= Q

ualit

y C

ontro

l

QS

M =

Qua

lity

Sys

tem

s M

anua

l S

OP

= S

tand

ard

Ope

ratin

g P

roce

dure

TB

D =

To

Be

Det

erm

ined

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 50 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#37

. U

sabi

lity

Asse

ssm

ent

Proj

ect M

anag

er: T

BD

Pr

ojec

t QA

Offi

cer:

TB

D

Proj

ect C

hem

ist:

TBD

Fi

eld

Task

Lea

der:

TB

D

Fiel

d Sa

mpl

e M

anag

er: T

BD

St

atis

ticia

n: T

BD

Rev

iew

the

Proj

ects

Obj

ectiv

es a

nd S

ampl

ing

Des

ign:

The

data

usa

bilit

y as

sess

men

t will

be

perfo

rmed

by

a te

am o

f pro

ject

per

sonn

el.

The

QA

Offi

cer w

ill b

e re

spon

sibl

e fo

r inf

orm

atio

n in

the

data

usa

bilit

y as

sess

men

t. N

ote

that

the

data

usa

bilit

y as

sess

men

t w

ill b

e co

nduc

ted

on v

erifi

ed/v

alid

ated

dat

a.

All

data

tha

t w

ere

not

reje

cted

dur

ing

the

verif

icat

ion

and

valid

atio

n pr

oces

s w

ill b

e us

ed fo

r dec

isio

n m

akin

g. A

fter t

he d

ata

usab

ility

ass

essm

ent h

as b

een

perfo

rmed

, dat

a de

emed

app

ropr

iate

for u

se th

en w

ill b

e us

ed

to s

uppo

rt fu

rther

reco

mm

enda

tions

. Th

e re

sults

of t

he d

ata

usab

ility

ass

essm

ent w

ill b

e pr

esen

ted

in th

e fin

al D

QA

. D

ata

Verif

icat

ion/

Valid

atio

n O

utpu

ts:

P

reci

sion

—R

esul

ts o

f al

l la

bora

tory

dup

licat

es,

MS

/MS

D p

airs

, LC

S/L

CS

D p

airs

, an

d fie

ld d

uplic

ates

will

be

asse

ssed

aga

inst

mea

sure

men

t pe

rform

ance

crit

eria

pro

vide

d on

Wor

kshe

et #

12.

The

RP

Ds

exce

edin

g cr

iteria

will

be

iden

tifie

d in

the

DQ

A.

A di

scus

sion

will

follo

w s

umm

ariz

ing

the

resu

lts o

f th

e la

bora

tory

pre

cisi

on.

Any

con

clus

ions

abo

ut th

e pr

ecis

ion

of th

e an

alys

es w

ill b

e dr

awn,

and

any

lim

itatio

ns o

n th

e us

e of

the

data

will

be

desc

ribed

.

A

ccur

acy/

Bia

s C

onta

min

atio

n—R

esul

ts f

or a

ll la

bora

tory

met

hod

and

inst

rum

ent

blan

ks a

nd f

ield

QC

bla

nks

will

be

asse

ssed

aga

inst

mea

sure

men

t pe

rform

ance

crit

eria

pro

vide

d on

Wor

kshe

et #

12.

Res

ults

for

ana

lyte

s th

at e

xcee

d cr

iteria

will

be

iden

tifie

d in

the

DQ

A.

Any

con

clus

ions

abo

ut t

he

accu

racy

/bia

s of

the

anal

yses

bas

ed o

n co

ntam

inat

ion

will

be

draw

n, a

nd a

ny li

mita

tions

on

the

use

of th

e da

ta w

ill b

e de

scrib

ed in

the

DQ

A.

O

vera

ll A

ccur

acy/

Bia

s—Th

e re

sults

for

the

LC

S/L

CS

Ds,

MS

/MS

Ds,

IS

s, a

nd t

race

r re

cove

ry w

ill b

e as

sess

ed a

gain

st m

easu

rem

ent

perfo

rman

ce

crite

ria p

rovi

ded

on W

orks

heet

#12

. In

add

ition

, ini

tial a

nd c

ontin

uing

cal

ibra

tion

data

will

be

com

pare

d to

the

requ

irem

ents

pro

vide

d on

Wor

kshe

et #

24.

A di

scus

sion

will

follo

w s

umm

ariz

ing

over

all a

ccur

acy/

bias

. An

y co

nclu

sion

s ab

out t

he o

vera

ll ac

cura

cy/b

ias

of th

e an

alys

es w

ill b

e dr

awn,

and

any

lim

itatio

ns o

n th

e us

e of

the

data

will

be

desc

ribed

in th

e D

QA

.

Se

nsitiv

ity—

Res

ults

for a

ll sa

mpl

es w

ill be

pre

sent

ed s

epar

atel

y in

tabu

lar f

orm

at fo

r eac

h an

alys

is.

The

resu

lts fo

r eac

h an

alyt

e w

ill be

che

cked

aga

inst

the

labo

rato

ry M

DLs

and

repo

rting

lim

its, a

nd p

roje

ct a

ctio

n le

vels

. A

disc

ussi

on w

ill fo

llow

sum

mar

izin

g th

e re

sults

of t

he la

bora

tory

sen

sitiv

ity.

Any

conc

lusi

ons

abou

t the

se

nsitiv

ity o

f the

ana

lyse

s w

ill be

dra

wn,

and

any

limita

tions

on

the

use

of th

e da

ta w

ill be

des

crib

ed in

the

DQ

A.

R

epre

sent

ativ

enes

s—R

epre

sent

ativ

enes

s w

ill b

e ac

hiev

ed b

y us

ing

stan

dard

sam

plin

g an

d an

alyt

ical

met

hodo

logi

es g

over

ning

sam

ple

colle

ctio

n m

etho

ds,

sam

ple

size

, pr

eser

vatio

n an

d ha

ndlin

g, a

nd m

etho

dolo

gy.

Rep

rese

ntat

iven

ess

will

be

asse

ssed

qua

litat

ivel

y by

ens

urin

g th

at s

ampl

e co

llect

ion,

ha

ndlin

g, a

nd a

naly

sis

met

hodo

logi

es w

ere

follo

wed

. A

dis

cuss

ion

will

follo

w s

umm

ariz

ing

the

resu

lts o

f the

repr

esen

tativ

enes

s of

the

resu

lts.

Any

conc

lusi

ons

abou

t the

repr

esen

tativ

enes

s of

the

anal

yses

will

be

draw

n, a

nd a

ny li

mita

tions

on

the

use

of th

e da

ta w

ill b

e di

scus

sed

in th

e D

QA

.

C

ompa

rabi

lity—

Com

para

bilit

y w

ill b

e ac

hiev

ed b

y us

ing

stan

dard

sam

plin

g an

d an

alys

is p

roce

dure

s th

at c

an b

e re

prod

uced

in fu

ture

sam

plin

g ev

ents

. A

naly

tical

resu

lts a

lso

will

be

com

pare

d se

mi-q

ualit

ativ

ely

to h

isto

rical

dat

a av

aila

ble

for t

he s

ite a

nd fi

eld

obse

rvat

ions

. A

disc

ussi

on w

ill fo

llow

sum

mar

izin

g th

e re

sults

of t

he c

ompa

rabi

lity

of th

e re

sults

. A

ny c

oncl

usio

ns a

bout

the

com

para

bilit

y of

the

anal

yses

will

be

draw

n, a

nd a

ny li

mita

tions

on

the

use

of th

e da

ta w

ill be

des

crib

ed in

the

DQ

A.

C

ompl

eten

ess—

A c

ompl

eten

ess

chec

k w

ill b

e do

ne o

n al

l of

the

dat

a ge

nera

ted

by t

he l

abor

ator

y.

Com

plet

enes

s cr

iteria

are

pre

sent

ed o

n W

orks

heet

#12

Com

plet

enes

s w

ill b

e ca

lcul

ated

as

the

num

ber

of v

alid

dat

a po

ints

(i.e

., th

ose

that

are

not

rej

ecte

d in

the

dat

a ve

rific

atio

n an

d va

lidat

ion

proc

ess)

div

ided

by

the

tota

l num

ber

of d

ata

poin

ts p

lann

ed.

Any

con

clus

ions

abo

ut t

he c

ompl

eten

ess

of t

he d

ata

for

each

ana

lyte

will

be

draw

n, a

nd a

ny

limita

tions

on

the

use

of th

e da

ta w

ill b

e de

scrib

ed in

the

DQ

A.

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 51 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

QAP

P W

orks

heet

#37

. U

sabi

lity

Asse

ssm

ent (

Con

tinue

d)

R

econ

cilia

tion—

Eac

h of

the

pro

ject

qua

lity

obje

ctiv

es p

rese

nted

on

Wor

kshe

et #

11 w

ill b

e ex

amin

ed t

o de

term

ine

if th

e ob

ject

ive

was

met

. T

his

exam

inat

ion

will

incl

ude

a co

mbi

ned

over

all a

sses

smen

t of t

he re

sults

of e

ach

anal

ysis

per

tinen

t to

an o

bjec

tive.

Eac

h an

alys

is w

ill fi

rst b

e ev

alua

ted

sepa

rate

ly

in t

erm

s of

the

maj

or im

pact

s ob

serv

ed f

rom

the

dat

a va

lidat

ion,

dat

a qu

ality

indi

cato

rs, a

nd m

easu

rem

ent

perfo

rman

ce c

riter

ia a

sses

smen

ts.

Bas

ed o

n th

e re

sults

of

thes

e as

sess

men

ts, t

he q

ualit

y of

the

dat

a w

ill b

e de

term

ined

. B

ased

on

the

qual

ity d

eter

min

ed,

the

usab

ility

of t

he d

ata

for

each

ana

lysi

s w

ill b

e de

term

ined

. B

ased

on

the

com

bine

d us

abili

ty o

f the

dat

a fro

m a

ll an

alys

es fo

r an

obj

ectiv

e, it

will

be

dete

rmin

ed if

the

pro

ject

qua

lity

obje

ctiv

e w

as m

et a

nd

whe

ther

pro

ject

act

ion

limits

wer

e ex

ceed

ed.

The

final

repo

rt w

ill in

clud

e a

sum

mar

y of

all

the

poin

ts th

at w

ent i

nto

the

reco

ncili

atio

n of

eac

h ob

ject

ive.

As

part

of

the

reco

ncili

atio

n of

eac

h ob

ject

ive,

con

clus

ions

will

be

draw

n, a

nd a

ny li

mita

tions

on

the

usab

ility

of a

ny o

f the

dat

a w

ill b

e de

scrib

ed.

Verif

y th

e A

ssum

ptio

ns o

f the

Sel

ecte

d St

atis

tical

Met

hod:

NA

Im

plem

ent t

he S

tatis

tical

Met

hod:

N/A

D

ocum

ent D

ata

Usa

bilit

y an

d D

raw

Con

clus

ions

: A

n an

alyt

ical

DQ

A re

port

will

be

gene

rate

d an

d w

ill d

iscu

ss li

mita

tions

of d

ata

usab

ility

. Th

is w

ill in

clud

e th

e ev

alua

tion

of s

igni

fican

t tre

nds

and

bias

es in

the

QC

re

sults

alo

ng w

ith a

ll co

mpo

nent

s in

clud

ed in

the

data

ver

ifica

tion/

valid

atio

n re

port

such

as

prec

isio

n, a

ccur

acy,

sen

sitiv

ity, r

epre

sent

ativ

enes

s, c

ompa

rabi

lity,

and

co

mpl

eten

ess.

In

gene

ral,

data

qua

lifie

d as

est

imat

ed d

ue to

the

verif

icat

ion

and

valid

atio

n pr

oces

s w

ill b

e us

ed fo

r dec

isio

n m

akin

g. R

ejec

ted

data

will

not

be

used

. P

oten

tial

trend

s an

d bi

ases

and

non

conf

orm

ance

s (s

uch

as o

utlie

r ca

libra

tions

, sp

ikes

or

elev

ated

DL,

LO

D,

and

LOQ

val

ues)

will

be

eval

uate

d to

de

term

ine

if th

ere

are

any

limita

tions

on

data

usa

bilit

y an

d di

scus

sed

in th

e D

QA

DL

= D

etec

tion

Lim

it D

QA

= D

ata

Qua

lity

Ass

essm

ent

IS =

Inte

rnal

Sta

ndar

d LC

S =

Lab

orat

ory

Con

trol S

ampl

e LC

SD

= L

abor

ator

y C

ontro

l Sam

ple

Dup

licat

e LO

D =

Lim

it of

Det

ectio

n LO

Q =

Lim

it of

Qua

ntita

tion

MD

L =

Met

hod

Det

ectio

n Li

mit

MS

= M

atrix

Spi

ke

MS

D =

Mat

rix S

pike

Dup

licat

e N

/A =

Not

App

licab

le

QA

= Q

ualit

y As

sura

nce

QC

= Q

ualit

y C

ontro

l R

PD

= R

elat

ive

Per

cent

Diff

eren

ce

TBD

= T

o B

e D

eter

min

ed

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Preliminary Final Programmatic UFP-QAPP 53 September 2016 Nationwide DU ERMP

REFERENCES

Cabrera (Cabrera Services, Inc.). 2013. Vegetation Sampling Plan For Depleted Uranium, Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii. US Army Corps Of Engineers, US Army – Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville, AL 35816-1822. June

DoD (U.S. Department of Defense). 2013. Quality Systems Manual for Environmental Laboratories. Prepared by the Department of Defense Environmental Data Quality Workgroup. Version 5.0 Final. July.

IDQTF (Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force). 2012. Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans (UFP-QAPP) Manual, Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets. March.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006. NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Revision 1: Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria. Washington, DC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

U.S. Army. 2011. Davy Crockett M101 Spotting Round, Information Guide. U.S. Army Public Affairs Office. August.

U.S. Army. 2015. Programmatic Approach for the Preparation of Site-Specific Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan (NRC ADAMS accession number ML16004A369).

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2007. DoD Quality Systems Manual Supplement. USACE Louisville District. March.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Depleted Uranium Technical Brief. EPA-402-R-06-011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation, Radiation Protection Division, Washington, DC 20460. December.

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK