Reconciliation with User Requirements. Emission results for an engine or emission control device are normally accepted as-is provided that all QA/QC information is reconciled with CFR requirements. Limits for accuracy or precision are not normally set or determined for emission results. Test data will be acceptable for ETV if all DQOs and DQIGs are met. APPENDIX A: APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS AND PROCEDURES
1. EPA Documents EPA. Policy and Program Requirements for the Mandatory Agency-wide Quality System. EPA Order 5360.1 A2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 2000. EPA. EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans. EPA QA/R-2, EPA Publication No. EPA/240/B-01/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. Washington, DC. March 2001. EPA. Environmental Technology Verification Program, Quality Management Plan. EPA Publication No. EPA/600/R-08/009. xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/etv/pubs/600r08009.pdf, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, OH. January 2008. EPA. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans. EPA QA/R-5, EPA Publication No. EPA/240/B-01/003. Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 2001.
Reconciliation with User Requirements. It is the responsibility of data users to perform a data usability assessment to ensure that DQOs have been met, and reported investigation results are adequate and appropriate for their intended use. This data usability assessment should utilize results of the data verification and data validation efforts to provide information on overall data quality specific to each investigation. The data usability assessment should evaluate results with regard to several data usability indicators. Table D-1 summarizes several indicators of data usability and presents general evaluation methods for each indicator. Depending upon the nature of the investigation, other evaluation methods may also be appropriate. The data usability assessment results and conclusions should be included in any investigation-specific data summary reports. Non-attainment of project requirements may result in additional sample collection or field observations in order to achieve project needs. Xxxxxxx, X.X. and Xxxxxxx X. 1987. The Morbidity and Mortality of Vermiculite Miners and Millers Exposed to Tremolite-Actinolite: Part II. Mortality. Am. J. Ind. Med. 11:15-26. CDM Xxxxx (formerly CDM). 2011. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Summary Report for the Xxxxx Asbestos Superfund Site. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 by CDM Xxxxx. Draft – May. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans – EPA QA/R-5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. EPA/240/B-01/003. March. xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/quality/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf . 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process – EPA QA/G4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information. EPA/240/B-06/001. February. xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/quality/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf
Reconciliation with User Requirements. Once the final report is submitted, the BVCP Project Manager will review the field duplicates to determine if they appear to indicate a problem with meeting quality objectives. If problems are indicated, the BVCP Project Manager will contact the contractor to discuss and attempt to reconcile the issue. Completeness will also be evaluated to determine if the completeness goal for this project has been met. If data quality indicators do not meet the project's requirements as outlined in this QAPP and applicable SSQA, the data may be discarded and re-sampling may occur. The BVCP Project Manager will determine the cause of the failure (if possible) and make the decision to discard the data and re-sample. If the failure is tied to the analyses, calibration and maintenance techniques will be reassessed as identified by the appropriate lab personnel. If the failure is associated with the sample collection and re-sampling is needed, the sampling methods and procedures will be reassessed as identified by the field audit process. Corrective action will be undertaken by all parties to address specific problems as they arise. Corrective actions required will be identified through the use of control charts for chemical analyses, precision and accuracy data, through performance auditing, and through systems audits. • EPA Guidance for Representative Sampling, OSWER Directives 9360.4-10 and 9360.4-16, December 1995. • EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA/600/R-98/018, February 1998. • EPA Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, EPA/600/R-96/084, January 1998. • EPA Guidance for Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA/600/R-96/055, September 1994. BVCP Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act DQO Data Quality Objectives EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MRBCA Missouri Risk-based Corrective Action Process NELAC National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference QA Quality Assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC Quality Control SOP Standard Operating Procedure SSQA Site-Specific Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound VOA Volatile Organic Analysis VOC Volatile Organic Compound the potential loss of the volatiles during the mixing process. Duplicate samples for volatile organics analyses are sometimes collected prior to mixing, however, ...
Reconciliation with User Requirements. The decision process by the City is an evaluation to assess whether the response actions were effective and the site may be redeveloped. The decision, including the data to support the decision, is considered quantitative for technical implementation. The data are the sole determinants in deciding if the property is feasible for the future planned renovation and office use. With the increased reliance on laboratory systems to produce quality data, a significant failure to validate project data will be less likely to be used in the process. Laboratory data failures will be given more extensive consideration and will result in a written opinion by the Project Manager as to usability relative to the quality process and by the City. Key to the reconciliation will be the following considerations: ■ Is the invalid or qualified data point the sole determinant? ■ Does inclusion of the flawed method or qualified data point/set skew the resultant TAC 350 comparison? If the resultant opinion of the Project Manager indicates that the data is not usable, additional samples will be required in order to meet the requirements of the QAPP and the project decision relative to the TAC 350 thresholds. EPA suggests periodic QAPP review and updates relative to project parameters and program or regulatory guidance. The anticipated period of cleanup activity governed by the QAPP is indicated to be less than 4 months. No update or review is anticipated after approval. This QAPP was prepared for the exclusive use of the Grantee for the specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted environmental engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied are intended or made. In the event any changes in project parameters or regulatory guidance as referenced in this plan are identified, the QAPP cannot be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of the plan are modified or verified in writing by the Project Manager. mhos/cm micromhos per centimeter AAI All Appropriate Inquiry ACM Asbestos-Containing Material AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements AST Aboveground Storage Tank ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes CAD Computer-Aided Drafting CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CFR Code of Federal Regulations COC Cont...
Reconciliation with User Requirements. These data will be used to define the extent and magnitude of copper contamination in marinas throughout the San Diego Region. These data can be used directly by SWAMP in their assessment of California’s waterbodies by inclusion in the State’s 305(b) report. Data analysis will address study uncertainty (see section 6.5). For data that do not meet DQOs, management has two options:
1. Retain the data for analytical purposes, but flag these data for QA deviations.
2. Do not retain the data and exclude them from all calculations and interpretations. The choice of option is the decision of the Project Manager. If qualified data are to be used, then it must be made clear in the final report that these deviations do not alter the conclusions of the study.
Reconciliation with User Requirements. Data will be evaluated quantitatively for compliance with the project Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) in terms of precision, accuracy, and completeness and will be evaluated qualitatively through preparation of an assessment that summarizes the overall usability of the collected data to meet the project objectives . The project management team should make a determination as to whether the collected data is sufficient or if additiona l work is required to remedy insufficient or unusable data. Additional work may entail re -sampling, redesign of the sampling plan, making improvements to sampling quality control, making improvements to analytical quality c ontrol, amending the required xxx lyses for the project,
Reconciliation with User Requirements. The Project Manager will review all data deliverables upon receipt from the lab. Laboratory results will be checked for data qualifiers entered by the lab to ensure that sample collection and preservation procedures were adequate and that laboratory analysis procedures met quality assurance objectives. Any outstanding issues will be addressed immediately with the lab and/or sampling staff to ensure that project quality assurance objectives are met. The Project Manager will review and validate the data during interim reporting to management and final reporting stages of the project. If there are any problems with quality sampling and analysis, these issues will be addressed immediately and methods will be modified to ensure that data quality objectives are being met. Modifications to monitoring will require notification to the Project Manager and subsequent edits to the approved QAPP.
Reconciliation with User Requirements. The overall goal of this monitoring effort is to track long-term trends in the Morro Bay estuary and its watershed. The specific goals of the monitoring are laid out in Section 5.2. The monitoring was designed to include sampling locations, methods and frequency to assist in addressing these goals. However, MBNEP-generated data will not be adequate for completely addressing all of these goals and is expected to be supplemented by other sources. Uncertainty regarding the data will be assessed with data verification and validation procedures as outlined in Sections 22 and 23. The project requires adequate data to address its goals, and the completeness criteria indicates whether this data will be adequate. The completeness criteria is the most essential in determining whether the collected data provide enough information to answer the original questions asked. Long-term trend data is required, with no gaps in the data collection and consistent sample collection and handling. All data with limitations on its data use are flagged in our database. If we receive requests for our data or if we conduct any data analysis, those questionable data records will not be included. All data will be analyzed for outliers and trends. Data is summarized in graphs and charts and presented on an annual basis in a data summary report that is submitted to the RWQCB Contract Manager. All trends, anomalies and relationships are discussed in the report. Adequate information on sample design will be provided to inform users of limitations in data use. All data is collected, managed and maintained in a SWAMP-compatible manner. While not currently part of the SWAMP umbrella, it could easily be incorporated at any time. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1994. Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Region (Basin Plan). Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1995. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Non- Point Source Pollution and Treatment Measure Evaluation for the Morro Bay Watershed. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP), Tentative Attention Levels. EPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. Morro Bay National Estuary Program. 2000. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Morro Bay National Estuary Program, Morro Bay, California. Morro Bay National Estuary Program. 2000. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Vol. II Environmental Monitoring Plan. Morro Bay Na...
