Download - 2014 Data Validation for 2013_5 May 2014
Erler &
Kalinowski,
Inc.
Consulting Engineers and Scientists
1870 Ogden Drive Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 292-9100 Fax: (650) 552-9012
5 May 2014
Patricia Bowlin
EPA Project Coordinator - MGM Brakes Site
Superfund Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Janice Goebel
Environmental Specialist
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
North Coast Region
5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A
Santa Rosa, California 95403
Subject: Transmittal of Data Validation Report for April and October 2013
MGM Brakes Superfund Site -Cloverdale, California
(EKI 890016.34)
Dear Ms. Bowlin and Ms. Goebel:
On behalf of TBG, Inc. and Indian Head Industries, Inc., the “Settling Defendants,” Erler &
Kalinowski, Inc. (“EKI”) is transmitting data validation packages for samples collected at
the MGM Brakes Superfund Site, in Cloverdale, California (the “Superfund Site”).
Groundwater sample collection and analysis is being conducted pursuant to Consent
Decree No. C-89-4047 (JPV), entered 18 May 1990 (the “Consent Decree”) for the MGM
Brakes Superfund Site.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) requested these data
validation packages in response to the EKI letter dated 29 January 2014. The January 2014
letter requested approval to abandon the remaining two monitoring wells at the Superfund
Site in view of the EPA determination that the Superfund Site qualifies for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure (Army Corp of Engineers, 2013).
Data validation was performed for the two semi-annual groundwater sampling events
which occurred in April and October 2013. The result of the validation is included in the
report prepared by AQA Services which is included as Attachment A. All the data for
Letter to Ms. Bowlin and Ms. Goebel
5 May 2014
Page 2
chemicals of concern (“COCs”) defined in Section VI, Paragraph I of the Consent Decree
defines as Trichloroethene (“TCE”), vinyl chloride, benzene, and cis-1, 2-dichloroethene
(“cis-1,2-DCE”) were considered valid. AQA qualified analytical result of “not detected”
for dichlorodifluoromethane in two samples as biased low (UJ). Dichlorodifluoromethane
is not a COC at the Superfund Site1.
In view of the EPA determination that the Superfund Site qualifies for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure and the validated data for samples collected in 2013, we ask that the
two remaining groundwater monitoring wells be permanently decommissioned following
the well abandonment protocols described in this letter. Upon approval of this request,
groundwater monitoring at the Site will be terminated. The groundwater monitoring wells
will be destroyed as described in the EKI letter dated 29 January 2014. A report will be
submitted to U.S. EPA and the RWQCB summarizing the fieldwork and forwarding copies
of permits, analytical data sheets, and the State of California Well Completion Reports.
We appreciate your review of this request. If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC.
Thomas J. Belick, P.E.
Chief Engineer
RCE 26845
Karen A. Gruebel, Ph.D.
Project Manager
cc: Ronald Parker (Indian Head Industries, Inc.)
Jim Udstuen (representing TBG, Inc.)
1 The LCS/LCSD for dichlorodifluoromethane associated with the sample B-93 collected April 2013 had a
low average percentage recovery. The MS/MSD for dichlorodifluoromethane associated with the sample B-
73 collected October 2013 had a low average percentage recovery. These recoveries resulted in the UJ flag
for these samples.
Letter to Ms. Bowlin and Ms. Goebel
5 May 2014
Page 3
List of Attachments
Attachment A: TBG Indian Head Project, Cloverdale California, Data Validation Report
TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. Job Numbers:720-49392-1 and 720-53005-1, prepared by
AQA Services, April 2014
Attachment B – Analytical Report Job Number:720-49392-1, prepared by TestAmerica,
April 2014, with comments by AQA Services.
Attachment C - Analytical Report Job Number 720-53005-1, prepared by TestAmerica,
April 2014, with comments by AQA Services.
ATTACHMENT A
TBG Indian Head Project, Cloverdale California, Data Validation Report TestAmerica
Laboratories, Inc. Job Numbers:720-49392-1 and 720-53005-1
Prepared by AQA Services
April 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Table 1
Quality Assurance Review
1. Data Validation
A. Summary of Level 4 Data Validation of Laboratory Job Number 720-49392-1
B. Summary of Level 4 Data Validation of Laboratory Job Number 720-53005-1
2. Conclusions
Introduction
This quality assurance review is based upon an examination of the data generated from the analyses of samples that were collected as part of the TBG Indian Head Project located in Cloverdale, California. The samples were collected on April 23 and October 9, 2013, and were submitted to TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. for analysis. The samples included in this quality assurance review are presented in Table 1.
This review has been performed in accordance with the “National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review” (U.S. EPA, October 1999) with guidance from the Region 9 Data Quality Indicator Table for EPA Method 8260 (U.S. EPA, December 1999).
The data deliverables were examined to determine the usability of the analytical results and compliance relative to requirements specified by the reported methodology. Qualifier codes have been entered into the appropriate field in the electronic data, where necessary, so that the data user can quickly assess the qualitative and/or quantitative reliability of any result based on the criteria evaluated.
This critical QA review identifies data quality issues for specific samples and specific evaluation criteria. The data qualifications allow the data end-user to best understand the usability of the analytical results. Data that have not been qualified in this report should be considered valid based on the QC criteria that have been applied.
TABLE 1
SAMPLES INCLUDED IN THIS QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW
Sample Identification
Laboratory Sample ID
Laboratory Job ID
Date Sampled
Parameter(s) Examined
April 2013 Sampling Event
B-50 720-49392-1 720-49392-1 04/23/2103 V
B-50MS (Matrix Spike)
720-49392-1MS 720-49392-1 04/23/2103 V*
B-50MSD (Matrix Spike Duplicate)
720-49392-1MSD 720-49392-1 04/23/2103 V*
B-73 720-49392-2 720-49392-1 04/23/2103 V
B-73MS (Matrix Spike)
720-49392-2MS 720-49392-1 04/23/2103 V
B-73MSD (Matrix Spike Duplicate)
720-49392-2MSD 720-49392-1 04/23/2103 V
B-91 720-49392-3 720-49392-1 04/23/2103 V
B-91MS (Matrix Spike)
720-49392-3MS 720-49392-1 04/23/2103 V
B-91MSD (Matrix Spike Duplicate)
720-49392-3MSD 720-49392-1 04/23/2103 V
B-92 720-49392-4 720-49392-1 04/23/2103 V
October 2013 Sampling Event
B-50 720-53005-1 720-53005-1 10/09/2013 V
B-73 720-53005-2 720-53005-1 10/09/2013 V
B-73MS (Matrix Spike)
720-53005-2MS 720-53005-1 10/09/2013 V
B-73MSD (Matrix Spike Duplicate)
720-53005-2MSD 720-53005-1 10/09/2013 V
B-91 720-53005-3 720-53005-1 10/09/2013 V
B-92 720-53005-4 720-53005-1 10/09/2013 V
Notes:
Bold - Samples included in the data validation report.
V - Volatile Organics by U.S. EPA (EPA) Method 8260B.
V* - 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene by U.S. EPA (EPA) Method 8260B.
TBG Indian Head Project
DV Report
Page 1 AQA Services
Quality Assurance Review
This report summarizes the findings of the Level 4 data validation performed on the data for the eight (8) aqueous samples and eight (8) project-specific laboratory QC samples specified in Table 1. The samples were collected as part of the TGB Indian Head Project located in Cloverdale, California. The samples were collected on April 23 and October 9, 2013. The samples were submitted to and analyzed by TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc.’s facility in Pleasanton, California. The samples were analyzed for Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260B as specified in Table 1. 1.0 Data Validation
This section presents results of the Level 4 data validation of the samples with respect to each of the areas of data review listed above. Where appropriate, data have been qualified in accordance with the “National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review” (U.S. EPA, October 1999) with guidance from the Region 9 Data Quality Indicator Table for EPA Method 8260 (U.S. EPA, December 1999). These data qualifier flags indicate a bias in the reported data and should be considered during all project evaluations. Each analytical method was reviewed in the following areas to determine any impact to data quality and usability.
Data Completeness
Analytical Holding Times and Sample Preservation
Laboratory Method Blank Samples
GC/MS Tunes
Initial Calibrations
Initial Calibration Verifications
Continuing Calibrations
Surrogate Recoveries
Laboratory Control Samples/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicates (LCS/LCSD)
Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Samples
Internal Standard Areas and Retention Times
Compound Identification and Quantification
Verification of Electronic Data File 1.A Summary of Level 4 Data Validation for Laboratory Job Number 720-49392-1
This section presents results of the data validation of the samples with respect to each of the areas of data review listed in Section 1.0.
TBG Indian Head Project
DV Report
Page 2 AQA Services
1.A.1 Data Completeness
Four (4) aqueous samples were submitted for analysis. All sample analyses were performed as requested on the chain-of-custody (COC). According to the case narrative, one (1) vial for sample B-73 was received broken. According to the case narrative, the vials for sample B-50 were labeled B-73; however, the time of sampling matched the time of sampling recorded for sample B-50. Therefore, the vials were logged-in and analyzed as sample B-50. According to the case narrative, sample B-50 was reanalyzed for 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene due to concern over carryover due to the presence of high levels of 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene in the previous sample analyzed. Based on the reanalysis, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene was not detected in sample B-50. The GC/MS VOA Manual Integration Summary (page 48) associated with sample B-92 was incomplete. Since the all of the analytes listed on the form are not detected, qualification of the data was not warranted on this basis. On all of the LCS/LCSD and MS/MSD Summary Forms (Form IIIs) and the ICV and CCV Summary Forms (Form VIIIs), xylenes (total) were not reported. In all cases, acceptable results were displayed based on the raw data provided. The laboratory included an initial calibration (ICAL) for instrument HP9 performed on 3/21/2013 in the data package. However, no data was associated with this ICAL; consequently, this ICAL and all of the associated data (pages 88, 254-314, 439-442, and 554) are superfluous and have not been reviewed. Sample B-73 (page 83) and Method Blank (MB-720-135536/5; page 86) were recorded on the incorrect GC/MS VOA Instrument Performance Check Summary Form (Form V). The data reviewer has corrected the Form V’s in the annotated data package. On all GC/MS VOA Internal Standard Area and Retention Time Summary Forms (Form VIII’s), the laboratory defined the RT Limit as “± 30 minutes of the internal standard RT” instead of ± 30 seconds of the internal standard RT. The data reviewer corrected the RT Upper and Lower Limits and the definition throughout the data package.
TBG Indian Head Project
DV Report
Page 3 AQA Services
For the ICV (ICV 720-134388/15) analyzed on 04/15/2013 at 19:40, the laboratory did not provide a GC/MS VOA Internal Standard Area and Retention Time Summary Forms (Form VIII). Based on a review of the raw data provided, acceptable internal standard areas and RT’s were displayed. Sample B-92, Method Blank (MB-720-135523/5), LCS (LCS--720-135523/6), and LCSD (LCSD-720-135523/7) were recorded twice once on the incorrect GC/MS VOA Internal Standard Area and Retention Time Summary Forms (Form VIII – pages 99 and 100) and then again on the correct GC/MS VOA Internal Standard Area and Retention Time Summary Forms (Form VIII – pages 101 and 102). The data reviewer has noted the issue on the incorrect Form VIII’s (pages 99 and 100) in the annotated data package. 1.A.2 Analytical Holding Times and Sample Preservation
The samples submitted to the laboratory for analysis were properly preserved according to guidelines established by the U.S. EPA. In addition, all samples were analyzed within the recommended holding times for EPA Method 8260B. 1.A.3 Laboratory Method Blank Samples
A laboratory method blanks was analyzed with each batch of samples. The laboratory method blanks were free of contamination at or above the laboratory reporting limits. 1.A.4 GC/MS Tunes
All GC/MS tuning and mass calibrations met the method-specified criteria (m/z ratios). All project samples were analyzed within the tune windows. 1.A.5 Initial Calibrations
For the initial calibration, the average relative response factors (≥ 0.05) and percent relative standard deviations (≤ 30%) were within QC criteria for all target compounds. 1.A.6 Initial Calibration Verifications
For the initial calibration verification, the recoveries were within the laboratory limits for all target compounds. 1.A.7 Continuing Calibrations
For the continuing calibration, the relative response factors (≥ 0.05) and percent differences (≤ 25%) were within QC criteria for all target compounds.
TBG Indian Head Project
DV Report
Page 4 AQA Services
1.A.8 Surrogate Recoveries
All surrogate recoveries met Region 9 QC criteria. 1.A.9 Laboratory Control Samples/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicates (LCS/LCSD)
LCS/LCSD were prepared and analyzed with each batch of samples. Except as noted below, the LCS/LCSD results (average percent recoveries and relative percent differences) were within acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision established by the laboratory and the appropriate guidance documents.
• A low average percent recovery (69.0%) was reported for dichlorodifluoromethane in the LCS/LCSD analyses associated with sample B-92; consequently, the non-detect for dichlorodifluoromethane in sample B-92 was qualified as biased low (UJ).
1.A.10 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Samples
All project samples used for the MS/MSD analyses are listed in Table 1. Acceptable precision and accuracy were demonstrated by the project samples used for the MS/MSD analyses except as noted:
• Although the MS/MSD recoveries for dichlorodifluoromethane in Batch 135422 (B-50) were outside of the control limits, only 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene was reported from the batch. Consequently, qualification of the data was not warranted on this basis.
1.A.11 Internal Standard Areas and Retention Times
For all project analyses, the internal standards met the criteria for retention times and areas. 1.A.12 Compound Identification and Quantification
All samples in this Laboratory Job Number underwent Level IV validation including recalculation of positive results, compound identification, and retention times. All results were verified within 10% of the value reported. 1.A.13 Verification of Electronic Data File
The sample data in the electronic file (XLS) provided by the client matched the sample data reported in the hardcopy laboratory report. The data reviewer added a field for the DV Qualifier to the electronic file. 1.B Summary of Level 4 Data Validation for Laboratory Job Number 720-53005-1
This section presents results of the data validation of the samples with respect to each of the areas of data review listed in Section 1.0.
TBG Indian Head Project
DV Report
Page 5 AQA Services
1.B.1 Data Completeness
Four (4) aqueous samples were submitted for analysis. All sample analyses were performed as requested on the chain-of-custody (COC). According to the case narrative, three (3) Trip Blanks were received that were not on the COC. The Trip Blank were logged in and placed on hold. On all of the LCS/LCSD and MS/MSD Summary Forms (Form IIIs) and the ICV and CCV Summary Forms (Form VIIIs), xylenes (total) were not reported. In all cases, acceptable results were displayed based on the raw data provided. On all GC/MS VOA Internal Standard Area and Retention Time Summary Forms (Form VIII’s), the laboratory defined the RT Limit as “± 30 minutes of the internal standard RT” instead of ± 30 seconds of the internal standard RT. The data reviewer corrected the RT Upper and Lower Limits and the definition throughout the data package. 1.B.2 Analytical Holding Times and Sample Preservation
The samples submitted to the laboratory for analysis were properly preserved according to guidelines established by the U.S. EPA. In addition, all samples were analyzed within the recommended holding times for EPA Method 8260B. 1.B.3 Laboratory Method Blank Samples
A laboratory method blanks was analyzed with each batch of samples. The laboratory method blank was free of contamination at or above the laboratory reporting limits. 1.B.4 GC/MS Tunes
All GC/MS tuning and mass calibrations met the method-specified criteria (m/z ratios). All project samples were analyzed within the tune windows. 1.B.5 Initial Calibrations
For the initial calibration, the average relative response factors (≥ 0.05) and percent relative standard deviations (≤ 30%) were within QC criteria for all target compounds. 1.B.6 Initial Calibration Verifications
For the initial calibration verification, the recoveries were within the laboratory limits for all target compounds.
TBG Indian Head Project
DV Report
Page 6 AQA Services
1.B.7 Continuing Calibrations
For the continuing calibration, the relative response factors (≥ 0.05) and percent differences (≤ 25%) were within QC criteria for all target compounds.
1.B.8 Surrogate Recoveries
All surrogate recoveries met Region 9 QC criteria. 1.B.9 Laboratory Control Samples/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicates (LCS/LCSD)
LCS/LCSD were prepared and analyzed with each batch of samples. The LCS/LCSD results (average percent recoveries and relative percent differences) were within acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision established by the laboratory and the appropriate guidance documents. 1.B.10 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Samples
All project samples used for the MS/MSD analyses are listed in Table 1. Acceptable precision and accuracy were demonstrated by the project samples used for the MS/MSD analyses except as noted:
• A low average percent recovery (61.5%) was reported for dichlorodifluoromethane in the MS/MSD analyses of sample B-73; consequently, the non-detect for dichlorodifluoromethane in sample B-73 was qualified as biased low (UJ).
1.B.11 Internal Standard Areas and Retention Times
For all project analyses, the internal standards met the criteria for retention times and areas. 1.B.12 Compound Identification and Quantification
All samples in this Laboratory Job Number underwent Level IV validation including recalculation of positive results, compound identification, and retention times. All results were verified within 10% of the value reported. 1.B.13 Verification of Electronic Data File
The sample data in the electronic file (XLS) provided by the client matched the sample data reported in the hardcopy laboratory report. The data reviewer added a field for the DV Qualifier to the electronic file.
TBG Indian Head Project
DV Report
Page 7 AQA Services
2.0 Conclusions
This QA review has identified aspects of the analytical data that required qualification due to LCS/LCSD recoveries and MS/MSD recoveries. To confidently use any of the analytical data within this sample set, the data user should understand the qualifications and limitations of the results.
DATA QUALIFIER DEFINITIONS
U The analyte was detected above the laboratory-reported sample quantitation limit. However, due to contamination from an outside source such as laboratory or field equipment, the analyte should be considered “not detected” at or above the adjusted sample quantitation limit.
J The analyte was positively identified but the associated numerical value may not represent the actual concentration of the analyte in the sample due to an analytical bias in precision or accuracy, or because the resulting concentration has been reported at a confidence level of less than 99%.
UJ The analyte was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit. However, the reported quantitation limit is approximate and may or may not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
R The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet quality control criteria. The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be verified and data are not usable.
N The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification.
DNR Do Not Report in the final data set. The data were included in the hardcopy report for completeness only as the sample analyses were associated with laboratory Batch QC analyses. These results should not be used as part of the decision-making process nor reported as part of the final data set.
+ The result is biased high.
- The result is biased low.
NA Not analyzed.
µg/L micrograms per liter.
mg/L milligrams per liter.
ATTACHMENT B
Analytical Report Job Number:720-49392-1
Prepared by TestAmerica with Comments by AQA Services
April 2014
ATTACHMENT C
Analytical Report Job Number 720-53005-1
Prepared by TestAmerica with Comments by AQA Services
April 2014