File: 18G 60 y~po D.B. ELELSON AIR FORCE BASE OPERABLE UINIT-2 SOURCE AREAS ST13/DP26 TREATABILITY STUDY INFORMAL TECHNqICAL INFORMATION REPORT VOLUME III: DATA EVALUATION AND VALIDATION REPORTS (FIELD ACTIVITIES ADDENDUM, APPENDIX E) FINAL MIR FORCE CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE BROOKS MIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS FEBRUARY 16, 1996 MIR FORCE CENTER for ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE Source Areas ST13/DP26 Treatability Study Informal Technical Information Report Volume III: Data Evaluation and Validation Reports (Field Activities Addendum, Appendix B) Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska *0 February 16, 1996 FINAL Appendix E Data Evaluation and Validatdon Reports R112-96/ES/8840002.77AA Appendix E Data Quality Evaluation Elelson Afr Force Base Source Areas ST13/DP26 This appendix to the Field Activites Addendum presents the results of the Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC) protocols implemented during the groundwater sampling and analysis portion of the site investigation. The quality indicators from every aspect of the data collections have been reviewed, and an assessment of the data with regard to the project specific objectives is presented. The reliability of the sampling and analytical procedures used during the investigation was demonstrated by implementing the project specific quality assurance procedures specified in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP). Successful execution of these procedures provides strong supporting evidence for the acceptance of the data as being representative of the areas under investigation. A complete evaluation of the procedures implemented during the investigation are summarized in this Data Quality Evaluation (DQE). The DQE for the Source Areas ST13/DP26 Investigation was divided into two phases. The first phase includes the discussion of the overall field sampling effort and the field quality control (QC) activities employed. The resulting QC data were presented and compared to the procedures and goals established in the QAPJP, as well as the verification of the completeness, accuracy and representativeness of the field sampling. The second phase deals with the analytical program and the results of the QC activities as stipulated in the QAPjP. An overall comparison to data quality objectives (DQOs) was performed as well as a complete data review. A Level IV validation was performed on 100% of the data. The validation was performed using the "USEPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review" (February 1994) and "USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review"~ (February 1993) for guidance. The results of the validation are included in the DQE. All elements of data evaluation were then compiled and used to determine the usability and overall applicability of the resulting data. I. Field Sampling Program Field Quality Control Activities - To ensure the reliability of the field sampling procedures, materials and analytical data, field QA/QC samples were collected or prepared for each medium sampled, each sample shipment and/or each sampling event. The results of the Rin-m~~s/s84M.TMA~E-2 QAIQC! samples are then used to address any sample variability and uncertainty in procedures. Field Duplicates - As required by the QAPjP, one field duplicate was collected and submitted to the laboratory for analysis. The purpose of the field duplicate is to generate data used to evaluate the precision of the sample collection and analysis process. Laboratory duplicates are discussed under Laboratory Quality Control Activities. Typically, water samples are found to be more comparable than other matrices. Water samples, however, may show significant differences when there is stratification or layering. Higher RPI~s are thought to reflect difficulties often encountered during the collection of duplicate samples or sample handling. Wide variations in results may be attributable to actual variations in concentrations rather than denoting problems with precision or sampling effectiveness. Also, when "estimated" concentrations are reported, there is potential for increased variability between the primary and duplicate sample results. They are useful, however, in evaluating variations in field conditions. A field duplicate @H2008) was submitted with the original sample @H2001) collected from area DP26 location 26-1. All parameters and results for the original sample and its duplicate are presented in Table F-1. Data for the samples compared well as demonstrated in the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) calculations. The RPD results were calculated as follows: A-B RPD = ----------- 100 [(A+B)/2] where: RPD = Relative percent difference A = Original sample result B = Duplicate sample result. Please note that when no concentrations are detected in the sample an "NC' is used to represent that the RPD was "not calculable" for that parameter. There was no quantifiable result available for the RPD calculation for "non-detect" data. Field duplicate results agreed with the original sample results within 20 percent with the exception of the Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) analysis which required dilution. The results from the initial runs for both the original and duplicate sample agreed well, but the dilution runs showed greater variation at 58 percent. This outlier noted in the GRO analysis was not deemed crucial to the quality Mn-%IES/8$40M.TMA ~E-3 of the data due to the potential nonhomogeneity of the sample (i.e. the potential presence of free product) and the fact that the analysis is to be used as an indicator parameter only. All other reported concentrations compared well, demonstrating good precision in the sample collection process. Tri Blanks - Volatile organic samples are susceptible to contamination by diffusion of organic compounds into the sample container. Trip blanks were analyzed in order to monitor possible sample contamination during shipment and storage. The blanks were submitted with each batch of sample containers requiring volatile organic compounds (VOC) analysis. The trip blanks originated in the laboratory, accompanied the samples through collection and shipment back to the laboratory and were then stored with the samples. All samples submitted for volatile organics analysis were shipped to the laboratory accompanied by a trip blank sample. The reported trip blanks and sample results do not indicate the presence of contaminants introduced during the sample shipping and storage process. Results of the trip blank analyses are reported and will be archived with the corresponding sample analytical data. If. Analytical Program The analytical program determined, with documented precision and accuracy, if specific compounds and analytes were present in the groundwater samples collected from the STIN3DP26 areas under investigation. Chemical analyses for the investigation were performed in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846), Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, September 1986 and subsequent revisions; Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW), EPA-600/4-79-020, Revised March 1983; Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) Field Manual, Guidelines for Site Assessment Cleanup and Underground Storage Tank (UST) Closure, October 1989 and Alaska State methods for the analysis of Gasoline Range Organics (GRO and Diesel Range Organics (DRO). The groundwater and associated QC samples were analyzed for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PA~s); benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and the xylene isomers (BTEX); total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as DRO and GRO; total and dissolved organic and inorganic lead; cations, anions, alkalinity, hardness, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Table F-2 lists the analytical parameters and specified methods for which samples were tested. RLP2-96F/Ess8MI2 TMA E-4 The submitted data packages were reviewed for completeness and compliance to the approved final work plan (IT, 1995) and 10096 of the data have been validated using EPA Level IV functional guidelines. All samples were submitted to the laboratory accompanied by a request for analysis (RFA) form. The RFAs provided project specific analytical specifications and quality control instruction to the laboratories. A formal chain-of-custody (COC) traceability record was included in conjunction with the RFA for documentation of custody for sample transportation, storage and eventual disposition by the laboratory. All custody documentation was included in the data packages submitted. QA/QC Procedures - The project QAIQC program described in the QAPjP was followed for the sample collection and laboratory analysis of samples. The elements of this program are discussed in the sections that follow. The laboratory analytical program consisted of EPA SW-846, MCAWW, CAL LUFT and Alaska State methods with level IV deliverables. Deliverables include sample preparation information, calibration records, QC data such as method blanks, spikes, duplicates, surrogate recoveries, all associated raw data and copies of the RFA/COC records. Chemical analyses for this project were performed following standardized protocols, which include specific requirements for how compounds are analyzed, identified and reported. Each of the methods employed included specific QAIQC protocols that are used to support the validity of the sampling event and the resulting data. These QAIQC protocols are a critical part of the analytical method and were followed