Document RpLVKy3gnrXDbJYKOznQpgoG7

BACK TO MAIN MULTI-CITY STUDY FIELD REPORT FOR FINFISH, MICRO-LAYER ,4ND BULK WATER COLLECTION IN CLEVELAND TENNESSEE, DECATUR ALABAMA, AND COLUMBUS GEORGIA for Project Number 31565 submitted to September 23,1999 Prepared by David K. Shreffler Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory 1529 West Sequim Bay Road Sequim, WA 98382 (360)-681-3660 BACK TO MAIN Introduction Page: 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTIO...N................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SURVEYSPECIFICPERMITS............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 FIELDPERSONNE..L............................................................................................................................ 1 2. METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 2 3. CHRONOLOG...Y...................................................................................................................................... 3 4. RESULT.S................................................................................................................................................ 6 4.1 ONSITEOBSERVATION...S.................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 INSTRUMENTATIROENSULTS.............................................................................................................. 8 4.3 COMMUNICATIO..N...S......................................................................................................................... 9 5. DEVIATIONFSROMSOPS.................................................................................................................... 12 6. PHOTODOCUMENTATION............................................................................................................. 15 LIST OF TABLES TABLE1 CHRONOLOGYOF EVENTSON AUGUST9. 1999............................................................................. 3 TABLE2 CHRONOLOGYOF EVENTSON AUGUST10. 1999........................................................................... 4 TABLE3 CHRONOLOGYOF EVENTSON AUGUST11. 1999........................................................................... 5 TABLE4 CHRONOLOGYOF EVENTSON AUGUST12.1999............................................................................ 5 TABLE5 SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM HIWASEE RIVER. CLEVELAND. TN ........................................... 7 TABLE6 SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM TENNESSEE RIVER. DECATLJR. AL ............................................ 7 TABLE7 SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER. COLUMBUS. GA ............................. 8 TABLE8 SAMPLING SITEPOSITIONSIN CLEVELAND. TN............................................................................ 8 TABLE9 SAMPLING SITEPOSITIONS IN DECATUR, AL ................................................................................ 9 TABLE10 SAMPLINGSITEPOSITIONS IN COLUMBUS, GA ........................................................................... 9 TABLE11 GPS POSITIOVNERIFICATIORNESULT.S................................................................................................ 9 Finfish Field Report 2.doc Baltelle QF Aqk . . . Puning Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN Introduction Page: 1 1. INTRODUCTION The objective of this sampling task was to collect representative finfish, microlayer, and bulk water samples for trace-level analysis of specific FOSE-based flurochemical (FC) residuals. This sampling task is in support of a larger effort to assemble baseline information about the distribution of FC in selected media that represent environmental dispersion from a source and bioaccumulation in the human food chain. The cities selected for sample collection were designated `study' or `control' cites prior to the involvement of Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory staff on this project. `Study' cities are in areas with FC ,productionfacilities or large industrial FC-consumers. `Control' cites do not contain FC production or consumption facilities and are matched to study cities based on general location, population size, and drinking water source. This survey report covers field sampling in Cleveland Tennessee, Decatur Alabama, and Columbus Georgia. Finfish, microlayer, and bulk water samples were collected in accordance with Revision 2 of the QAPP (7/23/99) during the period from 8/9/99 through 8/12/99. All samples were collected in the vicinity of the same sites where Battelle Duxbury had previously sampled surface water and sediment in Cleveland, Decatur, and Columbus. 1.1 Survey Specific Permits Scientific collecting permits for the collection of freshwater fish species were obtained for Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia prior to departing on this sampling trip. Sample collections at all sites were made at public access points (e.g., boat ramps, county or city parks) in an effort to avoid conflicts with private property owners. Methods of collection were limited to electroshocking and seine nets, as specified in the conditions of our permits. 1.2 Field Personnel Field personnel for this sampling effort were Liam Antrim and Dave Shreffler from Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory in Sequim, Washington. Mr. Shreffler .was the Sampling Task Leader for this effort. Rich Purdy from the client's organization observed the microlayer, bulk water, and finfish sampling efforts in Decatur, Alabama. Finfish Field Report 2.doc Battelle qp Aqk& . . . Puning Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN methods Page: 2 2. METHODS The collection of environmental samples was conducted according to Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs). The SOPs used in the Multi-City Study were written by Battelle Duxbury and Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory (MSL) and were used to train field personnel prior to conducting field activities. Signed training documentation forms are on file at MSL for all of the SOPs used for this study. These SOPs, along with the QAPP, served as the guidance documents for the collection of field samples. Any deviations from these SOP:; were documented in the field. In addition, all field personnel were trained in GLP requirements, as specified in 40CFR Part 792. The specific methods used for sample collection are summarized below. GPS Data The collection of position data (latitude and longitude) was completed at each sampling location using a Trimble GeoExplorer unit according to Battelle SOP 3-164-01. Because this SOP is specific to the Garmin 12XL Personal Navigator system, all deviations to the SOP were carefully noted. Instrument accuracy was validated by comparing an acquired position versus a position of known location. Finfish Samples Finfish samples were collected using a backpack electroshocker or a seine net. The backpack electroshocker was operated according to SOP MSL-T-023-00. There is no SOP for finfish collection using the seine net. Microlayer Samples Surface microlayer samples were collected using a glass plate sampler. Collection and handling of microlayer samples were performed according to SOP MSL-T-0;!2-00. Bulk water Samples Bulk water samples were collected via direct submersion according to SOP M3-F-2.0. Spiking of bulk water samples was performed in accordance with SOP M3-17-4.0. Temperature Data Air and water temperatures were measured using a calibrated digital.thermometer according to SOP MSL-M-047-00. Sample Packaging and Shipping, All samples were packaged and shipped according to SOP No. 5-2110-01. Recording Data Raw data for the finfish, microlayer, and bulk water samples were recorded on field data sheets, which also served as chain of custody forms. Site observations, deviations from SOPs, communications, and all other forms of documentation were recorded on Daily Log sheets according to SOP MSL-D-001-00. Finfish Field Report 2.doc @Bafielle . .. Putting Twhnology To Work BACK TO MAIN Chronology Page: 3 3. CHRONOLOGY Tables 1 through 4 provide a detailed chronology of the events that occurred each day of the survey. Travel days on 8/8/99 and 8/13/99 are not included in this chronology because no sampling was performed on those days. All times listed in these tables have been transcribed from the daily logs, unless preceded by the letters "Est.", indicating that the time was estimated based on my best recollection of the events of the day. The times are recorded in the local time of the sampling city, with the exception that in Columbus, Georgia on 8/12/99 times were inadvertently recorded in Central Time Zone instead of the correct Eastern Time Zone. The reported times in Table 4 are thus 1 hour earlier than the actual, local time. Table 1. Chronology of Events on August 9,1999 0806 0930 0949 1352 1406-1645 1705-1721 1730-1814 1820-1837 Est. 1902 Est. 1935 Arrived at Fed-Ex in Atlanta; 2 shipments from suppliers containing nitrile gloves and sample bottles were missing. We re-ordered these items and had them shipped to Chattanooga.TN for DickuD at fed-ex on 8/10/99 Reinitialized GPS at Atlanta Fed-Ex; prepared digital camera for field use; intialized disk Left Fed-Ex in Atlanta en route to Cleveland; stopped to buy necessary field supplies in Cleveland: had lunch Arrived at Duxbury's surface water site, a public access area off of Eads Bluff Road. Three swimmers in water. Electroshocked-300m of shorelineto the SE of gravel shoreline at end of access road, according to MSL-T-023-00. No swimmers in water at start of shocking. Collected 2 large gar (1 escaped), many bluegill (1 with obvious lesions); fish were put into methanol rinsed foil and placed on ice temporarily, while we resumed electroshocking to the NW of the public "beach." No GPS readings were recorded; GPS not functioning properly. Sewed net onto anode of shocker to facilitate catching fish; fish appear to be stunned for only a brief period (1-2 secs) and often directly under the anode ring. This makes it very difficult for the netter to scoop up the shocked fish. Having a net on the anode ring should help. Electroshocked-100m of shorelineto NW of public beach, accordingto MSL-T-02300. Collected a few more bluegill. . Processed fish samples and packaged for shipping. Labels on inner of 2 Ziploc bags; no label on foil. 48 bluegill packaged in foil with same sample ID #. Anode more effective now with net sewn onto rim. Went to Cleveland Wastewater Treatment Plant on Old Lower River Road, after putting new batteries in GPS and verifying proper functioning. No one working at the time knew where the benchmark was that Duxbury had used previously. Must return tomorrow AM and speak with Mike Ward, the supervisor. Left P O W to drive to Chattanoogaand spend the night. End of samplingday. Finfish Field Report 2.doc . . . Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN Chronology Page: 4 Table 2. Chronology of Events on August 10,1999 0830 1003 1008-1039 1046 1047-1137 1054 1139 1215 1330 1528 1801 Shipped Cleveland fish samples to Duxbury; called Michael Meara to alert him they were coming. Picked up gloves and sample bottles shipped overnight by supplier. Liam called Kim Andrews (Columbus)to verify that new bottles are acceptable. They came from a different supplier and our concern is the packaging says "foam-lined caps." Kim out for the day; spoke with Martha McCulley (spelling?) and she said to use methanol-rinsedfoil inside the c a m Arrived at microlayerhulk water site where we sampled fish yesterday. Collected bulk water samples according to M3-F-2.0 and spiked appropriate samples according to M3-F-4.0. Sample MC-1110B spike ampoule was not methanol-rinsed before inserting in sample bottle; only true for this sample. Spike batch = 48218-11.07 Exp. 10/1/99. Labels taped onto bottles to ensure they don't float off in ice bath. GPS rover file established = R081014A Collected microlayer samples according to MSL-T-022-00. No foil placed on inside of field blank lids. GPS status indicates URA = 32m. According to manual, this means SA is activated by Dept. of Defense. Data need to be post-processed to get differential correction. Decon of microlayer sampler in prep for Decatur, AL. Went back to ClevelandP O W and talked to Mike Ward. He didn't know where benchmark was that Duxbury used. We took GPS coordinates at a brass, unlabeled benchmark embedded in concrete near the chlorine building. Shipped microlayer and bulk water samples to Columbus from Chattanooga fed-ex, then drove to Decatur. AL. Arrived in Decatur, AL. Met up with Richard Purdy and decided to begin sampling in Decatur at -1700. Arrived at Riverwalk Marina site. After surveying the area, we decided to avoid the 1805 1819 1845-1901 1906-2009 2012 204 1 interfere with samples. Prepared labels, put microlayer sampler together, recorded site observations. Established GPS rover file = R081023A Bulk water samples collected according to M3-F-2.0. Bulk water samples spiked according to M3-F-4.0 Microlayer samples collected according to MSL-T-022-00. Packed up all supplies; did decon of microlayer sampler according to MSL-T-022-00. End of sampling day. Finfish Field Report 2.doc BaUelle qF hgw& . . . Purring Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN Chronology Page: 5 0813 0815 0821- 1036 0821- 1036 1046 1048-1113 1121-1147 1156-1219 1242 1248 1324 Arrived at site where microlayerhulk water were sampled yesterday. Conditions calmer this morning, better water clarity. Less human activity (boats, fishermen, etc.) Recorded GPS coordinates,adwater temp., water conditions,set up electroshocker. Electroshocked-50m to N and S of area where we sampled microlayer/bulk water, according to MSL-T-023-00. Also sampled rock riprap at edge of dredged marina area and shoreline W of boat ramp. Lots of small fish, mostly centrarchids, a few juvenile bass, a few cyprinids, 1 small gar. Rich Purdy departed Sorted fish by species,placed on methanol-rinsedfoil on ice for temporary storage, while we collect more fish. Seined at boat ramp; 2 independent sets. Collected additional fish more effectively than with shocker. Packaged all fish samples according to MSL-T-023-00. Took photos of all areas where we sampled fish: 1) shoreline near microlayer sample site, 2) boat ramp, 3) rock riprap near marina banks Departed for Fed-Ex in Huntsville; all sampling in Decatur completed Did GPS calibration at Dry Creek WWTP at the effluent raceway. Spoke with Ed Buyers, the plant supervisor,he was uncertain where Duxbury took their GPS readings. Table 4. Chronology of Events on August 12,1999 0903 0915 1001-1014 1021-1113 1 158-1245 1321- 1343 1403-1519 1636 1726 1742 1754 Arrived at Lake Oliver City Marina, Columbus, GA, after driving from Opelika, AL where we spent last night. Scoped out the area and selected a shady spot near the boat ramp for microlayer sampling. Prepared bottle labels, microlayer sampler,took photos, GPS measurements,recorded site conditions. GPS rover file = R081214A. Because of the lost shipment of bottles and labels, we ran out of adhesive labels. We made labels out of notebook paper and securely taped them to the sample bottles. Collected bulk water samplesaccordin-gto M3-F-2.0. Spikedbulk water samples according to M3-F-4.0. Collected microlayer samples according to MSL-T-022-00. Collected fish using seine net. We got so many fish in one seine haul that we decided to stop collecting temporarily and process the fish. We collexted between the boat ramp and the bait shop/store. Seined and processed more fish from the boat ramp. Did 2 separate sets: one down the center of the ramp, a second to the right of the ramp. Electroshocked-100m of shorelineto left of boat ramp and bait shop; no fish kept. Packaged all fish samples for shipping to Duxbury. Arrived at Columbus, GA Fed-Ex. Shipped samples to Duxbury and Columbus; shipped electroshockerto PNNL, all other supplies shipped to MSL. Departed for Pine Grove Landfill to calibrate GPS Calibrated GPS at Pine Grove Landfill 7160SacerdoteLri All sampling completed. Finfish Field Report 2.doc Baltelle qfl dqk& . . . Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN Results Page: 6 4. RESULTS The field survey to Cleveland Tennessee, Decatur Alabama, and Columbus Georgia resulted in the successful collection of all required finfish, microlayer, and bulk: water samples listed in the QAPP. Tables 5-7 provide a list of the samples collected including sampling locations and sample ID'S. 4.1 Onsite Observations Cleveland, TN: Microlayer, bulk water, and finfish samples were collected from the Hiwasee River at a State of Tennessee public access area along Eads Bluff Road. This is the same location where Duxbury previously sampled surface water and sediment. The area appears to be used primarily for swimming, picnicking, and recreational fishing. Camping is not allowed. We observed a fair amount of garbage and dog feces along the shoreline. We also found one recently dead, bloated bluegill and one carp carcass. The water was brown in coloration with a noticeable microlayer film, including some floating leaves and grass. The shoreline was completely vegetated and there were no houses in the vicinity of the area we electroshocked. The substrate was gravel with silty-mud on top. In general, there appeared to be lots of good fish cover-submerged logs, tree branches, and overhanging shoreline vegetation. Decatur, AL: Microlayer, bulk water, and finfish samples were collected from the Tennessee River near the Rivenvalk Marina, just west of the Highway 72 bridge. This is the same location where Duxbury previously sampled surface water and sediment, and was among the busiest sites we have visited to date. The Marina was popular with jet skiers, fisherman, recreational boaters, and pet owners walking their dogs. There is also a restaurant and convenience shop adjacent to the boat launch. The water was brownish-green in coloration with a slight film on the surface. Microlayer and bulk water samples were collected to the west of the boat ramp, along a side channel that is adjacent to a Cherokee Archaeological Site. During the evening that we collected microlayer and bulk water samples, thousands of purple martins blanketed the sky above a small vegetated island approximately 60m from where we were sampling. The birds appeared to be circling in a feeding frenzy on recently hatched insects. Fish were sampled from four areas with different habitat conditions: 1) the vicinity of the microlayeribulk water sampling site, which was dominated by cattails and other aquatic vegetation; 2) a cobbleiboulder shoreline to the east of the Cherokee Site and the west of the boat ramp; 3) the concrete boat ramp; and 4)the rock riprap that armors the banks of the marina. Columbus, GA: Microlayer, bulk water, and finfish samples were collected from the Chattahoochee River at the Lake Oliver City Marina. The marina is located off of Highway 219 on River Road. This is the same location where Duxbury previously sampled surface water and sediment. The shoreline around the marina was littered with garbage. We observed large flocks of ducks and geese, as well as lots of feces along the shoreline and in the water. The water was Finfish Field Report 2.doc Baitelle R p h4k . . . Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN Results Page: 7 brownish-green in coloration with a thick surface film. Several fishermen were fishing off the end of one of the floating piers at the marina; they had no fish in their buckets for us to examine. Lake Oliver is regionally recognized for its trophy largemouth bass fishing. The lake is also popular with jet skiers and swimmers. Water temperatures were very high at all three cities: Cleveland (28.3 "C),Decatur (29.5 "C), Columbus (31.8 "C). We did not measure dissolved oxygen, but suspect that it was very low in such warm waters. Live fish held in buckets died very quickly from suffocation. Matrix Microlayer water Microlayer water Microlayer water Microlayer water Microlayer water Microlayer water Bulk water Bulk water Bulk water Bulk water Bulk water Bulk water Finfish-bluegill ( n 4 8 ) Finfish-gar (n=l) Matrix Microlayer water Microlayer water Microlayer water Microlayer water Microlayer water Microlayer water Bulk water Bulk water Bulk water Bulk water Bulk water Bulk water Finfish-bluegill (n=l 11) Finfish-gar (n=l) Finfish-largemouth bass (n=17) Finfish-gizzard shad fn=8) Sample ID MC-1 l O l B MC- 1102K MC- 1103H MC- 1104B MC- 1105K MC- 1106H MC- 1107B MC-1108K MC- 1109H MC-1110B MC-11 11K MC-1112H MC-1113 MC-1114 Approximate Total Volume (L)or Weight (P) Collected 1 0.5 0.5 0 (FIELD BLANK) 0 (FIELD BLANK) 0 (FIELD BLANK) 1 1 1 1 1 1 -225 g -500g Location Collected Eads Bluff Road Public Access Eads Bluff Road Public Access Eads Bluff Road Public Access Eads Bluff Road Public Access Eads Bluff Road Public Access Eads Bluff Road Public Access Eads Bluff Road Public Access Eads Bluff Road Public Access Eads Bluff Road Public Access Eads Bluff Road Public Access Eads Bluff Road Public Access Eads Bluff Road Public Access Eads Bluff Road Public Access Eads Bluff Road Public Access Sample ID MC-2 1OlB MC-2 102K MC-2 103H MC-2 104B MC-2 105K MC-2 106H MC-2 107B MC-2 1O8K MC-2 109H MC-2 11OB MC-2 111K MC-2 112H MC-2 113 MC-2114 MC-2 115 MC-2116 Approximate Total Volume 0.)or Weight (g) Collected 1 0.5 0.5 0 (FIELD BLANK) 0 (FIELD BLANK) 0 (FIELD BLANK) 1 1 1 1 1 1 -7OOg -1758 -loog -1 1 7 5 ~ Location Collected Riverwalk Marina Riverwalk Marina Riverwalk Marina Riverwalk Manna Riverwalk Marina Riverwalk Marina Riverwalk Marina Riverwalk Marina Riverwalk Marina Riverwalk Marina Riverwalk Marina Riverwalk Marina Riverwalk Marina Riverwalk Marina Finfish Field Report 2.doc Baflelle qF A4R& . . . Putting Technology To Work Table 7. Samples Collected from ChattahoocheeRiver, Columbus, G,4 BACK TO MAIN Results Page: 8 4.2 Instrumentation Results The location of each sampling site was determined using a Trimble GeoExplorer GPS unit. The positions for each site are reported in Tables 8-10. Following the field survey, all GPS site positions were differentially-corrected to NAD 1927 (Cornus) using post-processing methods. The results of the differential corrections are also presented in Tables 8-10. Following shipment to Atlanta, GA the instrument was reinitialized at the Fed-ex office on 8/9/99. Within several minutes of reinitializing, the unit was displaying locations of the local area, which indicated that it was working properly. Later that day the GPS failed to work properly in Cleveland, Tennessee and we determined that subsequent difficulties. it needed new batteries. After .replacing the batteries, we had no At each new sampling location, the GPS was calibrated by recording the accepted position of a benchmark, monument, or known physical location and comparing this to the GPS derived position. Because of access restrictions and the long driving times required to move between the three different cities, we were unable to record both morning and evening GPS positions at each calibration location. The results of the calibrations for each sampling day are presented in Table 11. Table 8. Sampling Site Positions in Cleveland, TN Sampling Location Hiwasee River: microlayer, bulk water, finfish Latitude N 35O20'40.92" Longitude W 84'5 1'12.17'' Address Eads Bluff Road Finfish Field Report 2.doc . . . Putting Technology To Work I Differential correction BACK TO MAIN Results Pape: 9 I N 35'20'39.2089" I W 84'51'12.6333" I Eads Bluff Road Table 9. Sampling Site Positions in Decatur, AL Sampling Location Tennessee River: microlayer, bulk water Tennessee River: finfish Latitude N 34'37'06.57" N 34'37'04.88'' Differential correction N 34'37'03.2661'' Longitude W 86'58'22.40'' W 86'58'20.64" W 86'58'21.7638'' Address Riverwalk Marina & Hwy 72 Riverwalk Marina & Hwy 72 Riverwalk Marina & Sampling Location Chattahoochee River: microlayer, bulk water Chattahoochee River: finfish Latitude N 32'3 1' 13.50" N 32'31' 16.52" Differential correction 1 N 32'31' 16.1242" Longitude W 84'59' 32.69" W 84'59' 32.28" I W 84'59' 32.7503" Address Lake Oliver City Marina (Hwy 219 & River Road) Lake Oliver City I Marina (Hwy 219 & I River Road) Lake Oliver City Marina (Hwy 219 & River Road) Table 11. GPS Position Verification Results Calibration Locations Accepted Position at Cleveland, TN Municipal POTW GPS Measured Position (AM) GPS Measured Position (PM) Accepted Position at Dry Creek, AL WWTP GPS Measured Position (AM) GPS Measured Position (PM) Accepted Position at Pine Grove, GA Landfill Entrance Gate GPS Measured Position (AM) GPS Measured Position (PM) Latitude N 35'18'35'' N 35'18'38.4456'' No data N 34'37'3 1.5" No data N 34'37'32.2816" N 32.48860 (converted from GA state plane coordinates) No data N 32'29'47.1839'' , Longitude vr 840479582 9 9 PI 84'47'57.5854'' No data PJ 86'59'55.7'' 8,435291(converted from GA state plane coordinates No data PJ 8 4 91'51.7035" 4.3 Communications During the completion of the field survey, several conversations regarding the sampling effort were noted. These communications were conducted between BatteXle MSL staff and staff from Finfish Field Report 2.doc $3 Battelle 4.?. Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN Results Page: 10 other Battelle offices (e.g., Columbus, Duxbury), as well as various municipal employees or the public. *InAtlanta, Georgia we arrived at Fed-ex on 8/9/99 and discovered that shipments of nitrile gloves and sample bottles from two suppliers had not arrived. Liam Antrim re-ordered the gloves and bottles from a different supplier, who shipped them fed-ex to Chattanooga. We picked them up the following day in Chattanooga, with only minor delays in our sampling schedule. On 8/9/99 several swimmers at our sampling location in Cleveland, Tennessee asked questions about the nature of our study. I provided a general answer without divulging our client or the specifics of what we were testing for and why. *Wespoke with two workers at the Cleveland Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant on Old Lower River Road on 8/9/99. They did not know where the benchmark was that Duxbury had located previously. They suggested we return the following day and talk to Mike Ward, the plant supervisor. *Liam spoke with Martha McCauley at Columbus on 8/10/99 to confirm whether the new bottles we ordered from a different supplier were acceptable for our sampling efforts. Martha confirmed that the bottles were acceptable and recommended using methanol-rinsed aluminum foil inside the caps. .On 8/10/99 we spoke with Mike Ward, the plant supervisor at the Cleveland POTW, who also did not know where the benchmark was that Duxbury used for their GPS calibrations. We took GPS readings at a brass, unlabeled benchmark embedded in concrete near the chlorine building. The coordinates for this benchmark were closer to the coordinates reported by Duxbury than any other benchmark we were able to locate. -We met Richard Purdy, a toxicologist with our client's company, in Decatur, Alabama on 8/10/99. He joined us to observe the sampling effort at the Riverwalk Marina. In the course of our conversation, two issues came up that need to be addressed: 1) Rich mentioned that teflon is not to be used in this study. I had not heard this before. We need to confirm whether the ESS bottles used for the first sampling effort had teflon-lined lids. The bottles used for the samples in Cleveland, Decatur, and Columbus, did not have teflon-lined lids. 2) He described hearing from Columbus about the MSLPNNL confusion associated with collecting brackish water samples in Mobile, Pensacola, and Port St. Lucie. He was given the impression that MSLPNNL "didn't know what to do when the water was brackish not fresh." I explained that the confusion on my part resulted because collecting brackish water samples was a significant deviation from the QAPP, which clearly states that samples were to be collected from a surface-water source of drinking water at all locations. He acknowledged that he, too, was unsure about why Duxbury, and subsequently MSLPNNL, were directed to collect samples at brackish water locations. Given the number of personnel involved in this Finfish Field Report 2.doc -....-. Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN Results project, there needs to be a clearer line of communication between the Client, Columbus, Duxbury, MSL, and PNNL. *Priorto electroshocking along the riprap shoreline at the Riverwalk Marina on 8/11/99, we spoke with the manager of a convenience store next to where we intended to sample. He demanded to know who we were working for and I explained that the client was confidential. He kept pushing until I appeased him by explaining that the data we:were collecting would not be used in any way to pass judgment on the water quality within the vicinity of the marina. *On8/11/99 we spoke with Ed Buyers, the plant supervisor at Dry Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant in Decatur, Alabama. He was uncertain where Duxbury took ,theirGPS readings. We recorded GPS coordinates near the effluent pipe at a location that w,asas close as we could find to the coordinates reported by Duxbury for this location. *On8/12/99 we were approached by many people at the Lake Oliver City Marina, who were curious about our study. We provided our generic answer that we were taking samples to assess water quality and fish health. This answer satisfied people without having to divulge our client or the specifics of what the samples will be tested for. *Eachtime we shipped samples from a Fed-ex location, I called Michael Meara at Duxbury and Kim Andrews at Columbus to alert them that coolers with samples were shipped to them and to give them the Fed-ex tracking numbers. Finfish Field Report 2.doc Battelle dk %lfl . . . Puning Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN Deviations from SOPs Page: 12 5. DEVIATIONS FROM SOPS During the collection of samples from Cleveland, Decatur, and Columbus all deviations from SOPs were carefully noted on the Daily Log sheets by the Sampling Team Leader, Dave Shreffler. None of these deviations were deemed significant enough to compromise sample integrity or data quality. All known deviations are documented below. Section 10.1 and M3-F-7: Trip blanks were not prepared for this; survey. The project manager made this decision. Section 11.1.1: Separate Site Logs were not completed for each sampling location. Instead, all required information was recorded on the sampling form. 0 Section 11.1.4: The project manager did not create the matrix arid sample-specific forms for this portion of the study. They were created by the Sampling Team leader. 0 Amendment 2 to Revision No. 1 and Section 7.3.5: A 1L microlayer sample was collected for Rep 1 and 500 mL were collected for Reps 2 and 3. The project manager confirmed the volumes. Amendment 2 to Revision No. 1 Section 11.1.4 and SOP M3-F-4: One label, not two labels, was prepared. No label was affixed to the custody forms. Labels were not preprinted. 40 CFR Part 792: The methanol, deionized water, and BCL matrix spike containers were not labeled according to GLP standards. Methanol and deionized water should be labeled with Identity, Date opened or prepared, Concentration, Lot No, Analyst who opened or prepared, Storage Conditions, and Expiration Date. The last 5 items were not documented on the labels, although other information was. Spiking solutions are considered a reference substance and should be labeled with the name, Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) or code number, batch number, expiration date (if any is given), and the storage conditions necessary to maintain the stre:ngth,identity, purity, and composition of the material. The project manager is responsible for ensuring that spike solutions from BCL are properly labeled. SOP 5-210 states that coolers should be washed prior to use. The coolers used for sample shipment were not washed. Finfish Field Report 2.doc hmqw.f&.l. Batlelle Purring Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN Deviations from SOPS Collection and Handling of Fish Samples Using a Backpack Electroshocker (MSL-T-023-00) -Blocknets were not set up at the downstream and upstream ends of the sampling reach as specified in Section 5.2.4. It was impractical with only two people to install block nets and also conduct electroshocking. Such an effort would require a minimum of three people. -No sample label was placed on the outside of the aluminum foil as specified in Section 5.2.14. One label between the double Ziploc bags was deemed adequate. -Finfish Datasheets were used instead of chain of custody forms as specified in Section 5.2.16. The finfish datasheets contained more information than what could reasonably fit on the COC forms. *Collectionand Handling;of Aquatic Surface Microlayer Samples (MSL-T-022-00) -As requested by Marcia Nishioka, no soap was used in the decontamination phase of the microlayer sampling. This is a deviation from Section 5.1. -Air space was left in some 1L bottles containing 500mL microlayer samples, as authorized by Marcia Nishioka. This is a deviation from Section 5.2.9. -Sample bottles were not wrapped in bubble wrap as specified in Section 5.2.11. Sample bottles were packed in the original cardboard shipping boxes. Crushed ice 'was tightly packed between the sample bottles, so that there was no space between the bottles. -Aquatic Microlayer Sample Data Sheets were used instead of chain. of custody forms as specified in Section 5.2.12. The data sheets allowed more room for additional information than the chain of custody forms. -Methanol-rinsed foil was place inside the lids of all microlayer sample bottles. *Collectionand Handling of Water Samples for the Multi-Cities Proliect (M3-F-2.0) -Surface Bulk Water Sampling Data Sheets were used instead of chain of custody forms as specified in Section 3.1.9. The data sheets allowed more room for additional information than the COC forms. Methanol-rinsed foil was placed inside the lids of all bulk water sample bottles. Calibration and Use of Thermometers (MSL-M-047-00) No deviations were documented Use of Garmin GPS 12XL Personal Navigator (3-164-01) -The Garmin GPS 12XL unit was unavailable at the time of this field effort. Instead a comparable GPS unit, a Trimble GeoExplorer, was used. We were unable to collect AM and PM position data at each of the calibration sites. This is a deviation frorn the SOP. Finfish Field Report 2.doc . . . Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN Deviations from SOPS *SpikinlrField SamDles for the Muli-Cities Project (M3-F-4.0) -Spiking solutions were sent to us in glass ampoules, rather than screw-topped vials. Thus, to open the ampoules we used a triangular file to score the top of the ampoule. This was a necessary deviation from Section 3.2.3. *AssigningSamDle Identification Numbers to Samples Collected for the Multi-Cities Proiect JM3-F-6.0) -In order to have enough unique sample identification numbers for each city, we used a sample ID format of MC-nnnn. This was a deviation from Section 2.1, which specifies an ID format of MC-D. *Packa-gingand Shipping of Samples (5-210-01) -One inch of bubble wrap was not used on the bottom of each cooler. This is a deviation from Section 4. Finfish Field Report 2.doc . . . Puning Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN PhotoDocumentation Page: 15 6. PHOTODOCUMENTATION Photographs were taken with a digital Sony Mavica camera at each sampling location. These photos document the site conditions where the fish, microlayer, and bulk water samples were collected, and will also potentially serve as a visual reference if it becomes necessary for field staff to return to these locations. Photo 1. Hiwasee River, Cleveland, Tennessee. View upstream froim the sampling location where microlayer, bulk water, and finfish samples were collected. This location is a public access area along Eads Bluff Road. Finfish Field Report 2 -....-. Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN PhotoDocumentation Page: 16 Photo 2. Hiwasee River, Cleveland, Tennessee. View across the Hiwasee River from the sampling location where microlayer, bulk water, and finfish samples were collected. Finfish Field Report 2 Battelle dq&.p.. Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN PhotoDocumentation Page: 17 Photo 3. Hiwasee River, Cleveland, Tennessee. View downstream from the sampling location where microlayer, bulk water, and finfish samples were collected. Finfish Field Report 2 Baltelle qp A4W& . . . Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN PhotoDocumentation Page: 18 Photo 4. Tennessee River, Decatur, Alabama. View to the north of the location where microlayer and bulk water samples were collected, near the Riverwalk Marina adjacent to the Highway 72 bridge. Finfish Field Report 2 A-d-4W ....-L. Baftelle Putting TechiolowpToWork BACK TO MAIN PhotoDocumentation Page: 19 Photo 5. Tennessee River, Decatur, Alabama. View away from shore at the location where microlayer and bulk water samples were collected, near the Riverwalk Marina adjacent to the Highway 72 bridge. Finfish Field Report 2 ...-.. Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN PhotoDocumentation Page: 20 Photo 6. Tennessee River, Decatur, Alabama. View to the south of the location where microlayer and bulk water samples were collected, near the Riverwalk Marina adjacent to the Highway 72 bridge. Finfish Field Report 2 #%Baltelle ??. Putting Technology TOWork BACK TO MAIN PhotoDocurnentation Page: 21 Photo 7. Tennessee River, Decatur, Alabama. Liam Antrim (left) and Dave Shreffler (right) electroshocking near the location where microlayer and bulk water samples were collected. Finfish Field Report 2 &gBaftelle LWWL . . . Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN PhotoDocumentation Page: 22 Photo 8. Tennessee River, Decatur, Alabama. Liam Antrim (left) and Dave Shreffler (right) electroshocking east of the location where microlayer and bulk water samples were collected. Highway 72 bridge is in the background. Finfish Field Report 2 qBBanelle dk .. . Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN PhotoDocumentation Page: 23 Photo 9. Tennessee River, Decatur, Alabama. Riprap at the Riverwalk Marina where finfish were sampled with the backpack electroshocker. Finfish Field Report 2 %&Battelle A4WL . .. Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN PhotoDocumentation Page: 24 Photo 10. Tennessee River, Decatur, Alabama. Riverwalk Marina boat launch where finfish were sampled with a beach seine net. Finfish Field Report 2 %RBattelle A*&& . . . Putting Technology To Work BACK TO MAIN PhotoDocumentation Page: 25 Photo 11. Chatahoochee River, Columbus, Georgia. View of the location where microlayer and bulk water samples were collected at the Lake Oliver City Marina, on River Road off of Highway 219. Finfish Field Report 2 ~6Baltelle a4b1 . .. Puttine TechnolopvTo Work BACK TO MAIN PhotoDocumentation Page: 26 Photo 12. Chatahoochee River, Columbus, Georgia. View of the location where finfish samples were collected with a seine net and backpack electroshocker at the Lake Oliver City Marina, on River Road off of Highway 219. Finfish Field Report 2 qaBaltelle .. A+& . Purring Technology To Work