Laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control Data ...

1 STATE OF connecticut . DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. Laboratory Quality Assurance AND. Quality Control . data Quality assessment AND. data usability evaluation . GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. May 2009. Revised December 2010. Amey Marrella, Commissioner 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106. (860) 424-3705. Laboratory Quality Assurance AND Quality Control GUIDANCE. data Quality assessment AND data usability evaluation . GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. (Effective May 1, 2009). PREAMBLE. The connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) has been working to improve the Quality and consistency of analytical data used to support environmental investigation and remediation projects statewide.

2 The CTDEP Remediation Division, Laboratory Quality Assurance / Quality Control Work Group (Work Group) was established in 2004 to assist and advise the CTDEP in these efforts. The Work Group is comprised of licensed environmental professionals (LEPs), data validators, representatives from private laboratories, the connecticut Department of Public Health (CTDPH), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the CTDEP. The CTDEP gratefully acknowledges the contributions and assistance of those individuals who volunteered their time and effort to help develop and prepare this document.

3 The Remediation Standard Regulations, sections 22a-133-1 to 22a-133k-3 of the Regulations of connecticut State Agencies ( RSRs ), include numeric criteria in Appendices A through F ( RSR. criteria ) which are used to determine if a potential risk to human health or the environment may exist. The results of analyses performed on environmental media are used to determine if remediation is needed. Because of the nature of environmental media, limitations of analytical methods, characteristics of analytes, and human error, the results of environmental analysis may contain an element of uncertainty and in some cases may be significantly biased, and therefore may not be representative of the actual concentrations of the analytes in the environmental media.

4 Thus, an evaluation of the Quality of the analytical data in relation to the intended use is important in order for the environmental professional to make decisions which are supported by data of known and sufficient Quality . There are many ways to evaluate the Quality of analytical data in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness and sensitivity in relation to the intended use of the data . Precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness and sensitivity are collectively referred to as the PARCCS parameters.

5 This guidance document describes a CTDEP- accepted, two-step process for data evaluation . The first step in the process consists of an assessment of data Quality . The second step is an evaluation to determine whether the data can be used to support the decisions that will be made using that data . Use of this guidance provides consistency in evaluation and presentation of data Quality information that will facilitate review. If an alternative process is used, such a process should be documented in order to explain the thought process and may involve a commitment of significant resources to demonstrate that the data is of known and sufficient Quality and is usable relative to its intended purpose.

6 To assist the environmental professional in obtaining analytical data of known Quality , the Work Group developed the Reasonable Confidence Protocols (RCPs). The RCPs are analytical procedures that include specific Laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) criteria that produce analytical data of known and documented Quality . When Reasonable Confidence is achieved for a particular data set, the environmental professional will have Reasonable Confidence that the Laboratory has followed the RCPs, has described non-conformances, if any, and has adequate information to make judgments regarding data Quality .

7 The Reasonable Confidence Protocols were published in July and December 2006 and enhanced the ability of the environmental professional to readily obtain from the Laboratory the necessary information to identify and document the precision, accuracy and sensitivity of data . Therefore, CTDEP will accept evaluations of the Quality of data using available QC information to evaluate precision, accuracy and sensitivity for samples collected prior to September 1, 2007. If precision and accuracy QC data are not available, it is only necessary to evaluate sensitivity.

8 For samples collected on or after September 1, 2007, CTDEP expects the environmental professional to evaluate the analytical data in relation to the PARCCS parameters either in accordance with this guidance or a similarly accurate alternative process. This document excludes radiological issues including, but not limited to, those described in Title 22a Chapters 446 and 446A that are overseen by the CTDEP Monitoring and Radiation Division of the Bureau of Air Management. This document does not apply to Polychlorinated Biphenyls pursuant to the Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 761.

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv DEFINITION OF TERMS vii 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 2. OVERVIEW OF THE data Quality assessment AND data usability . evaluation PROCESS 2-1 data Quality Objectives 2-3 Uncertainty in Analytical data 2-4 Types of Analytical data 2-4 RCP data 2-5 Non-RCP data 2-5 Pre-RCP data 2-6 PARCCs Parameters 2-6 Precision 2-6 Accuracy 2-7 Representativeness 2-7 Comparability 2-8 Completeness 2-8 Sensitivity 2-8 3. data Quality assessment 3-1 Batch Quality Control Versus Site Specific Quality Control 3-1 Evaluating Significant Quality Control Variances 3-2 Poorly Performing Compounds 3-2 i Common Laboratory Contaminants 3-3 Bias 3-3 High and Low Bias 3-3 Non-Directional Bias 3-3 4.

10 data usability evaluation 4-1 evaluation of Bias 4-3 General Quality Control Information 4-4 Chain of Custody Forms 4-4 Sample Preservation and Holding Times 4-4 Equipment, Trip and Field Blanks 4-5 Field Duplicates 4-7 Laboratory Quality Control Information 4-8 Reasonable Confidence Protocol Laboratory Analysis QA/QC Certification Form 4-9 Reporting Limits 4-10 Method Blanks 4-11 Laboratory Duplicates 4-11 Surrogates 4-12 Laboratory Control Samples 4-14 Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicates 4-15 Using Multiple Lines of Evidence to Evaluate Laboratory QC Information 4-18 data usability Evaluations for Non-RCP and Pre-RCP Analytical data 4-20 ii data usability Evaluations