GEI Consultants, Inc.
VOLUME II - APPENDICES
MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION
WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
QUARTER 2 REPORT
Tinkham Garage Site
Londonderry, New Hampshire
GEI Project Number 92113
THE CANNONS SITES GROUP
GEI Consultants, Inc.
-\ Robert A. Mullin, P.E.
53 Regional Drive
Concord, New Hampshire Revision 0
(800) 678-1502 October 7, 1994
Data Validation Summary Report - Quarter 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. ANALYTICAL PROGRAM 3
3. DATA EVALUATION 4
3.1 Data Completeness 4
3.2 Holding Times 4
3.3 Laboratory Method Blanks, Trip Blanks, and Equipment Blanks 4
3.3.1 Laboratory Method Blanks 4
3.3.2 Trip Blanks 6
3.3.3 Equipment Blanks 6
3.4 Surrogate Recoveries 7
3.5 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Recoveries 7
3.6 Laboratory Control Sample Results 7
3.7 Field Duplicate Results 9
3.8 Compound Quantitation 10
4. SUMMARY 11
LIST OF TABLES
A-l. Blanks with Detected Contaminants
A-2. Field Duplicate Analysis Summary
A review and validation of analytical data were performed for ground water samples collected
by GEI Consultants, Inc. (GEI) during the second quarterly sampling event (Q2) of the Water
Quality Monitoring Program (WQMP) at the Tinkham Garage site (site) in Londonderry,
New Hampshire. The WQMP for the site, drafted in accordance with the August 16, 1989
Cannons Engineering Case Consent Decree for remedial response actions, is described
(Section 6.3) in the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) of the Draft Interim Management of
Migration (MOM) Work Plan, revision 0, dated June 17, 1994.
Thirty-two (32) monitoring wells, four (4) blind field duplicate, four (4) trip blank, three (3)
non-dedicated equipment blank and one (1) potable decontamination water source samples
were submitted in Q2 to National Environmental Testing, Inc., Cambridge Division, (NET)
of Bedford, Massachusetts, for EPA Method 624 (40 CFR 136.1) purgeable volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS).
The quality assurance objectives for the WQMP data are presented in Section 3 of the site-
specific Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), Volume II of the SAP. As described in the
QAPP and consistent with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance and
language for Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities (OSWER Directive
9355.0-7B, March 1987), analytical Level III was chosen for the analyses of all Q2 samples.
Analytical Level III is appropriate for the data uses of the WQMP, i.e., monitoring during
remedial actions. As described in Section 4.3.1 and Appendix B of OSWER Directive
• Level III analytical support consists of laboratory analysis using standard EPA-
approved procedures with confirmed identification and quantification of target
analytes, e.g., EPA Method 624 GC/MS. Level III protocols have built-in Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC), including instrument tuning, calibration runs,
method blanks, surrogate standards, matrix evaluations and QC check samples (for
NET Method 624 VOA QC, see Table 7.1, page 4 of 14, of NET's Laboratory
Quality Assurance Plan (LQAP), revision 4, dated 04/15/94; provided in Appendix C
of the QAPP). Level III external QA employed in Q2 included trip blanks, equipment
blanks, and blind field duplicate submittals. The NET Level III deliverables package
for the Tinkham WQMP contains a project narrative, chain-of-custody documents and
reports of method blanks, surrogate recoveries, batch matrix spike evaluations, and
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) results.
NET VOA laboratory packages for Q2 of the WQMP were reviewed by GEI using the
methodologies described in the QAPP, revision 0, dated June 17, 1994. This review assessed
precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability (PARCC); the
indices of data quality and data useability identified in the QAPP for the Tinkham MOM
Level III analytical performance was evaluated based on the referenced-method or laboratory
QC protocols and acceptance limits where applicable. In addition, the Level III review used
the EPA guidance documents "Laboratory Data Validation: Functional Guidelines for
Evaluating Organics Analyses," dated February 1988 (DV Guidelines) for criteria and
procedures in data quality assessment and qualification.
2. ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
Thirty-two (32) ground water samples and twelve (12) field QC samples were analyzed by
NET using EPA Method 624 GC/MS for purgeable VOCs.
All Q2 analytical data generated through NET's Laboratory Information Management System
(LIMS) were transferred to GEI via computer diskette files to minimize the possibilities for
data transcription errors and to facilitate the generation of an EPA Region 1 data management
compatible (e.g. LOTUS 1-2-3, QUATTRO) spreadsheet database of site ground water
quality monitoring results.
Level III analytical data were evaluated based upon the following parameters:
• data completeness;
• holding times;
• laboratory method blanks, trip blanks and equipment blanks;
• surrogate spike recoveries;
• batch matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate recoveries;
• LCS results; and
• sample quantitation limits.
Q2 analytical results were reported to GEI as follows:
NET Job No. of Analytical Level and Method
94.02645 10 Level III EPA Method 624 GC/MS
94.02669 16 Level III EPA Method 624 GC/MS
94.02685 14 Level III EPA Method 624 GC/MS
94.02824 4 Level III EPA Method 624 GC/MS
3. DATA EVALUATION
3.1 Data Completeness
Review of the Method 624 Level III NET data packages found that sufficient data and supporting laboratory
documentation were present to perform a validation of the chemical data as described in the QAPP. The
percentage of valid and acceptable data generated by the Q2 sampling and analysis effort more than satisfies
the intended uses and data quality objectives established for the monitoring program.
3.2 Holding Times
Holding times for volatile analyses of water quality samples are specified in the QAPP, revision 0, dated
June 16, 1994, Table 2.
All Method 624 VOC analyses of Q2 were performed within holding time criteria.
3.3 Laboratory Method Blanks, Trip Blanks, and Equipment Blanks
Criteria for assessing the presence of blank contamination were based on EPA DV guidelines. In the
guidelines a procedure is outlined for developing action levels to address the possible consequence of any
blank contamination detected. Sample detection limits for the "common laboratory contaminants" methylene
chloride, acetone, toluene, 2-butanone, and phthalate esters were adjusted to an action level of ten times
the highest concentration detected in the associated blank analyses while action levels for other constituents
were adjusted to five times the highest concentration detected in the blanks. Concentrations of these
constituents in analytical samples reported at less than the action levels for the blanks would be considered
potentially indicative of blank contamination and qualified as not detected (U) at the concentration reported.
Actions would not be applied to sample results exceeding the blank action levels. Note that dilution factor
multipliers are considered in developing blank contaminant action levels.
A summary of constituents reported in all blank samples is presented in Table A-l.
Laboratory method blank results were applied to all samples analytically associated with that method blank
run. Trip blank results were applied to all samples in the given day's sample shipment that were
commonly contained. Equipment blank results were applied, based on the use of the non-dedicated
equipment piece in sample collection during the Q2 sampling event.
3.3.1 Laboratory Method Blanks
Laboratory method blanks were performed and reported for all Method 624 sample batch groups.
The quantitation limits for all method blanks were checked against laboratory contract required
method detection limits and reporting limits used in sample reports.
An assessment of each reported laboratory method blank contaminant is presented below.
All other laboratory Method 624 blanks were reported to be free of contamination on the various
dates of analyses for WQMP Q2 samples.
NET Job Number 94.02645
• acetone, methylene chloride, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane were detected, below the method
reporting limit (MRL), in the method blank for run batch number 1826 on 08/29/94. Action
levels were developed for each method blank contaminant. Ten WQMP samples were
included in this run batch.
The compound 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane was not detected in any of these ten samples.
Acetone and methylene chloride were detected in only one sample (NAI-C3) of the ten. The acetone
result for NAI-C3 (82 /ig/L) was greater than the lOx action level based on the level of method
blank contamination (4 jtig/L) and is accepted. The methylene chloride result for NAI-C3, however,
was less its action level.
Action: Report the result for methylene chloride in sample NAI-C3 as not detected at the
concentration reported (