Scribd
Upload
88 views233 pages

AppendixD Data Validation Reports PDF

Uploaded by

Diraf Farid
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
88 views233 pages

AppendixD Data Validation Reports PDF

Uploaded by

Diraf Farid
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 233

Appendix D

Data Validation Reports


Data Validation Procedures
Dundalk Marine Terminal Sediment and Surface
Water Data Validation Process

The purpose of the independent data validation process for the Dundalk Marine Terminal
(DMT) Sediment and Surface Water Study is to assess the effect of the overall analytical
process on the usability of the data. The validation process includes the verification and
interpretation of analytical data, which provides the end user with a more complete
understanding of the quality and defensibility of the laboratory data. The two major
categories of data evaluation are laboratory performance and matrix interferences.
Evaluation of laboratory performance is a check for compliance with the analytical methods
and regulatory requirements; either the laboratory did, or did not, analyze the samples
within the limits of the established analytical method. Evaluation of matrix interferences is
more subtle and involves the analysis of several areas of results including surrogate spike
recoveries, matrix spike recoveries, and reproducibility of duplicate sample results.
Before the final analytical results were released by the laboratory, both the sample and QC
data were carefully reviewed to verify sample identity, instrument calibration, detection
limits, dilution factors, numerical computations, accuracy of transcriptions, and chemical
interpretations. Additionally, the QC data were reduced and the resulting data were
reviewed to ascertain whether they were within the laboratory-defined limits for accuracy
and precision. Any non-conforming data were discussed in the laboratory’s data package
case narrative.
The hardcopy data packages (SDG-Sample Delivery Group) were reviewed by Validata,
LLC, an independent validation firm that applied the review criteria detailed in the DMT
Quality Assurance Project Plan (CH2M HILL, 2006), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) data validation guidance from USEPA Region III, and New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) guidelines for hexavalent chromium (Cr[VI]) analysis.
The following guidelines were used:

• USEPA. 1993. Region III Modifications to the Laboratory Data Validation


Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Inorganics Analyses. April. Washington, D.C.
(individual method requirements and guidelines).

• USEPA Region III. 1995. Innovative Approaches to Data Validation. June.


Washington, D.C.

• USEPA. 2004. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines


for Inorganic Data Review. EPA 540-R-04-004. October. Washington, D.C.

• NJDEP. 2005. Standard Operating Procedure for Analytical Data Validation of


Hexavalent Chromium, SOP No. 5.A.10, Revision 2. Trenton, New Jersey.
Areas of review included (when applicable to the method) holding time compliance,
calibration verification, blank results, matrix spike precision and accuracy, method accuracy
as demonstrated by laboratory control samples (LCS), field duplicate results, surrogate
recoveries, internal standard performance, and interference checks. Additionally, the
validators re-calculated the final laboratory quantitations to verify proper reporting of
analyte concentrations, spike recoveries, and calibrations. A data review worksheet and
summary report were completed for each of these data packages and any non-conformances
documented on individual SDG summary forms. This data review and validation process is
independent of the laboratory's data checks and focuses on the usability of the data to
support the project data interpretation and decision-making processes.
Data that were not within the acceptance limits were appended with a qualifying flag,
which consists of a single or double-letter abbreviation that indicates the nature of the
identified non-conformance. This data set along with the validation flags were uploaded
into the Locus© database. Although the qualifying flags are appended to data records
during the database query process, they are also included in the final data summary table
deliverable so that the data will not be used indiscriminately. These also include secondary,
or the multi-digit “sub-qualifier” flags (reason codes), which are entered into the database.
These secondary flags help to define the validation reasons for the primary flags. The
following USEPA Region III primary flags were used to qualify the data for this study:

• (No Code) = Confirmed Identification.


• B = Not detected substantially above the level reported in laboratory or field blank.
• R = Unreliable result. Analyte may or may not be present in the sample. Supporting
data necessary to confirm result.
• N = Tentative identification. Consider present. Special methods may be needed to
confirm its presence or absence in future sampling events.
• J = Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
• K = Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected
lower.
• L = Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected
higher.
• UL = Not detected, quantitation limit is probably higher.
• Q = No analytical result.
• NJ = Qualitative identification questionable due to poor resolution. Presumptively
present at approximate quantity.
• U = The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the associated
value. The associated value is either the sample quantitation limit or the sample
detection limit.
• R = The data are unusable. Analyte may or may not be present in the sample.
• UJ = The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated detection limit is an
estimate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.
• X = Result was excluded. The data are associated with re-runs and dilutions and are
excluded because another useable result exists. (There can only be a single valid result
per parameter per sample.) This qualifier may be used in conjunction with a sub-
qualifier (i.e. XMS, XLCS, as a sub-qualifier for rejection.
Data Validation Report (May 2007)
Data Validation Report (August 2007)
Data Validation Report (December 2007)
Data Validation Report (February 2008)

You might also like