Summary of EPA Regional Data Quality "Best Practices" for Federal Facilities
Project Planning - Data Generation - Data Validation and Use - Laboratory Evaluations - Miscellaneous Related Topics
Project Planning
Practice Description |
EPA Region |
Is Practice Documented? |
Benefits |
Limitations |
Measures of Success |
Current Status |
Quality Assurance Project Planning (QAPP) Guidance |
1 |
Region 1, EPA-New England Compendium of Quality Assurance Project Plan Guidance. Draft Final, 9/98. |
Consistent application of QA activities in project planning,
implementation, and assessment
Applies to EPA-lead
and non-EPA-lead projects
Adheres to QA/R-5
Allows graded
approach to QAPP preparation (level of detail and complexity
can be varied depending upon project magnitude and
objectives)
Emphasizes need for
project planning meetings
Provides "fill in
the blank" worksheets to facilitate QAPP preparation -
Worksheets capture
critical project information -
Completed worksheets
become tables in the QAPP -
Worksheets minimize
inclusion of useless "boilerplate" language in the QAPP
Expedites QAPP
preparation, review, and approval and decreases
costs
|
|
|
|
DQO Summary Form |
1 |
EPA-NE-DQO Summary Form |
Summarizes specific DQOs for each sampling event
Copies required for the QAPP/SAP, RSCC/authorizing organization, and data validation report/Tier I cover letter |
|
|
Current form in use since 1996 |
Regional QA Manual for CERCLA/RCRA |
2 |
Region 2 CERCLA QA Manual |
Delineates Region-specific requirements for each step in the data collection process
Improves efficiency of project planning
Improves efficiency of document review and approval
Aids in obtaining data of known and documented quality
Enhances the consistency of investigations at various sites
|
Increased costs associated with QA/QC
Only applicable to CERCLA sites
|
|
Last revised in 1989, current plans are to revise
Used for all CERCLA investigations |
Regional QAPP Guidance
for Air and Water |
2 |
Region 2 QAPP Guidance |
Saves time and resources
Improves connection between project goal and results
Improves QAPP preparation efficiency and effectiveness
|
|
QAPPs approved sooner |
Most recent revision 1997 |
Regional Quality Management Plan |
2 |
SOP for Quality Assurance Project Plan Review. HW-8A, 3/92
Evaluation of QA Work Products Generated by Prime Contractors. HW-4, 7/92
SOP for Reviewing RFI QAPPs. HW-8, 10/94 |
Ensures that data collected will be suitable for intended purpose
Ensures that proposed field collection techniques are appropriate
Ensures that analytical methods proposed are of appropriate sensitivity for the project goals
|
|
|
Routine for CERCLA and RCRA projects |
Intranet QA Homepage |
3 |
No |
Provides links to QA documents for project planning, data validation, and QAPP preparation
Provides names and telephone numbers of QA contacts for each Division
Provides name of contact person for Regional Data Validation Guidances
Provides electronic copy of Regional Quality Management Plan and approved Divisional Quality Management Plans
|
|
|
In use since 1998 |
Project Scoping Meetings |
3 |
No |
Identifies barriers prior to sample collection/analysis
All stakeholders have the opportunity to provide input into site decisions
Output is a mutually agreed upon site model, with specific details about data collection, analyses, and data validation
|
Participation at request of Project Manager |
Shorter TAT for QAPP review and approval
Limited need for revisions
|
In use since 1983 |
Regional Quality Management Plan |
3 |
Region 3 Quality Management Plan. 9/96 |
Establishes QA policy and program requirements for all environmental measurement projects in the Region |
Lack of Management System Review findings |
In standard use since 1996; revised QMP under development |
|
Technical Review of QAPPs |
3 |
Draft Region 3 Quality Management Plan for Superfund
Region 3 QAPP Checklist (optional
|
Region identifies QAPP expectations for the Federal Facility
Field work cannot begin until EPA approves the QAPP
Reviews for Superfund QAPPs completed by a QA team to ensure consistent reviews
|
|
Lack of problems in field and analysis
Lack of unusable data
|
|
Quality Assurance Project Planning (QAPP) Guidance |
4 |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for EPA Region 4. RQAM-97001, Revision 1. 5/98
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/oqa/r4qmp598.html |
Requires QAPP for all internal and external (EPA funded or mandated) projects that involve data collection
Requires adherence to EPA QA/R-5 for QAPP contents
Requires use of DQO or similar planning process
QA Management Plan has been signed and approved by all Region 4 Division Directors
Requires approval of QAPPs by Project Manager/Officer and regional QA Manager
|
Project manager/ officer must be aware of QA requirements and responsible for implementation
Not all project managers/officers have same degree of knowledge or expertise in data quality issues
Question of who has primary responsibility for data quality for Federal Facilities, EPA, or other Federal organization initiating the project
No mandatory QA training for project managers
|
|
In standard use;
QAPP checklist to be revised;
QA Management Plan is current and in effect
Training (voluntary) on Agency QA policy and DQOs planned for some program divisions
|
Pre-QAPP Meetings - Region's policy to meet for all sampling events before QAPP preparation. Meeting involves the lab, the State, Federal Facility representative and its contractor, and EPA site manager and support staff. Purpose of the meeting is to define project objectives and potential quality assurance problems. |
5 |
Quality Assurance Management Plan for the Superfund Division |
Clarifies project requirements and goals prior to sample collection
Expedites the document approval process
Saves time and money
|
|
Shorter QAPP review and approval process |
In standard use since 1987 |
Regional Model QAPPs - Require the use of a model QAPP format, including the use of a "document control format" |
5 |
Yes, regional policy |
Expedites QAPP approval process
Ensures a consistent, complete document submitted for review
Institutes mini-QAPPs for small, in-house projects
Describes how and when to use QAPP amendments and addenda
Document control format allows revisions to be prepared, identified, and reviewed more efficiently
|
|
Shorter QAPP review and approval process |
In standard use since 1991 |
Technical Review of QAPPs is centralized |
6 |
No |
Allows tracking in Regional Database (QTRAK)
Provides for consistency in application of QA policy requirements
Allows maintenance of common problems to be addressed to a Regional QA forum for implementing and working
|
|
|
|
QA Officer's position located organizationally under each Deputy Division Chief |
6 |
No |
Permits functional responsibility and accountability, and strengthens working relationships at all organizational levels |
|
|
|
Regional Quality Management Plan |
6 |
Quality Management Plan for EPA, Region 6 (Q-96-039) |
Establishes QA policy and program requirements for all environmental measurement projects in the Region
Allows Region to make "good decisions" |
Increased cost and time required to ensure Plan requirements are being implemented, periodically assessed, and improved |
|
In standard use since February 1996 |
Field Analytical Measurement Technologies, Applications, and Selection, prepared by Region 9 QA Office in coordination with the California Military Environmental Coordination Committee |
9 |
The subject document was published by the Chemical Data Quality/Cost Reduction Process Action Team in April 1996. Hundreds of copies have been distributed at National Federal Facilities Conferences |
Expedites base closure and return of Superfund sites to beneficial use |
|
Used by Federal Facilities and referenced in their Sampling and Analysis Plans |
In use since April 1996 |
Brownfields and Tribal factsheets on planning for data collection activities |
9 |
In Factsheet format |
Assist Brownfields and Tribal Grant Recipients to effectively plan data collection activities |
|
Contribution to Brownfields and Tribal partners developing better planning documents |
In use since 1997 |
Regional Guidance on preparation of Field Sampling; also Regional Guidance for preparation of a streamlined one-time sampling plans |
9 |
Regional Guidance Document Format |
Provide technical guidance for sample collection planning not available in national QA guidance documents |
|
Contributes to planners developing better planning documents |
In use since 1989; revised in 1998 |
Technical Review of QAPPs |
10 |
No |
Region identifies QAPP expectations for the Federal Facility
Field work cannot begin until EPA approves the QAPP
|
|
|
In standard use |
Data Generation
Practice Description |
EPA Region |
Is Practice Documented? |
Benefits |
Limitations |
Measures of Success |
Current Status |
Field audit procedures for sampling operations and field laboratories |
1 |
SOP for Technical System Audits, Rev. 0, 6/28/96
Low Stress (Low Flow) Purging and Sampling Procedures for the Collection of Ground Water Samples from Monitoring Wells. Revision 2, 7/30/96
|
Ensures consistency of data quality from field component
Reduces field error
|
|
|
In standard use since 1990 |
Standard Field Analytical Procedures |
1 |
SOP for Elemental Analysis Using the X-Met 920 Field X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzer. 10/29/96
Region 1, EPA-NE Immunoassay Guidelines for Planning Environmental Projects. 10/96
PCB Field Testing Analytical Methods for Soil and Sediment Samples. Revision 3, 6/21/95
|
Ensures consistency of data quality from
field analyses
Promotes use of innovative
technologies
|
|
|
In standard use since publication date of
each document |
Standard Field Analytical
Procedures |
2 |
USEPA Region 2
Low Stress (Low Flow) Ground Water Sampling SOP.
3/98 |
Ensures consistency of data quality from
field component
Reduces field error |
|
|
Regional Policy |
Field Audits |
2 |
SOPs for audits of some air and water
sampling activities
SOP for
Conducting CERCLA Field Audits. HW-20, 10/94
SOP for Preparing
a Technical Systems Audit. HW-27, 7/95 |
Ensures conformance with field portion of
QAPP |
Audits are expensive (both time and
money) |
|
In standard use |
Field Oversight conducted by EPA and
contractor staff during sampling events |
2 |
No |
Ensures that approved practices are being
implemented in the field
Provides technical assistance/assurance
to Site Managers |
|
|
|
Split sampling |
2 |
No |
Provides "check" on field sampling
techniques
Provides "check" on laboratory
analyses |
|
|
|
Field Oversight |
3 |
Field Filtration
Policy for Monitoring Groundwater Requiring Metals
Analyses (QAD009)
Dioxin Sampling
and Quality Control Guidance (QAD015A)
QA Branch Service
Request Form (QAD021)
Dioxin's
International Toxicity Equivalency Factors
(QAD016)
Quality Control
Blank Definitions (QAD011)
Aqueous Sample
Preservation for VOC Analyses (QAD007)
Data Validation
Documents (QAD004) |
Provide users with existing procedures
for sample collection, QAPP review requests, and data
validation
Clear and concise summaries of
procedures |
All topics are not
addressed |
|
In use since 1990; QA Directives to be
revised |
Standard Field Analytical
Procedures |
4 |
Region 4
Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and
Quality Assurance Manual. 5/96
Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/oqa/r4qmp598.html |
Standardized procedures for sampling
design, sample collection, field measurements, and field
quality assurance
Used in all Superfund, RCRA, and water
field investigations performed by Region 4 Science and
Ecosystem Support Division
Region 4 contractors required to follow
SOP and are trained in its procedures and
application |
Not necessarily used by other Federal
agencies unless required by the EPA project
manager |
|
SOP is current and in
effect |
Best Practices for
detection and Deterrence of Laboratory Fraud, prepared by
Region 9 QA Office in coordination with the California
Military Environmental Coordination Committee |
9 |
The subject document was published by the
Chemical Data Quality/Cost Reduction Process Action Team in
March 1997; hundreds of copies have
been distributed at National Federal Facilities
Conferences |
Contributes to reduction occurrences and
elimination of laboratory fraud |
|
Used by Federal Facilities and non-Federal
facilities in developing their fraud prevention
programs |
In use since March 1997 |
Generation of
Field-based Data Using Energy Dispersive XRF, prepared
jointly with the California Department of Toxics and
Substance Control |
9 |
In SOP format |
Provides guidance on planning and
generating adequate QC information for field-based analytical
technologies |
|
Adapted by sampling and analysis
planners |
In use since January 1999 |
Guidance on the use of Performance
Evaluation Samples to assess field and lab
performance. |
9 |
Yes, in guidance format |
Provides an effective tool for assessing
performance of field contractor and contract
labs |
|
Generation of performance results to be
used for evaluation of data usability and lab/field
oversight |
In use since 1997 |
Regional Policy Memo on the requirement
that the Federal Facility QA Officer be a Federal employee and
have proper QA/QC training |
9 |
Yes, in Region Policy Memo, signed by R9
ARA |
Remediates potential vulnerability
identified by the IG regarding a Federal Facility contractor
acting as the QA officer |
|
Federal Facilities designate qualify
Federal employees to be QA Officers |
|
Regional Policy Memo on best practices for
collection, preservation, and analysis of soil samples
containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) |
9 |
Yes, in Region Policy Memo, signed by R9
ARA |
Prevents generation of low bias VOC data
in soil samples due to volatilization and
biodegradation |
|
Adaption by planners for sample collection
in QA and sample plans |
To be completed by April
1999 |
Field Oversight - EPA Region 10 conducts
field oversight during sampling events by using oversight
contractors and EPA personnel |
10 |
No |
Ensures consistency of data quality from
filed sampling |
|
|
Conducted on a regular basis for PRP-led
site work; audits of field operations performed on an as
requested basis |
-->
Data Validation and Use
Practice Description |
EPA Region |
Is Practice Documented? |
Benefits |
Limitations |
Measures of Success |
Current Status |
Data Validation Guidelines (including the
Quality System) |
1 |
Region 1, EPA-NE
Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating
Environmental Analyses. 12/96 revision |
Applies to all programs in Region Ensures
consistency of data quality
Allows use of project-specific validation
criteria
Offers three different levels (tiers) of
validation to meet project objectives |
|
|
In standard use since
1988 |
Data Validation Oversight and Method
Modifications Program |
1 |
SOP for Data
Validation of EPA/Region 1 Contractors. Rev. 2,
5/26/93 |
Promotes data quality by ensuring
adherence to regional data validation policy |
|
|
In standard use since
1988 |
Tiered Data Validation |
1 |
Region 1 Tiered
Organic and Inorganic Data Validation Guidelines. Draft,
7/1/93 |
Includes three tiers of validation (Tiers
I, II, and III)
- Tier I includes a data package
completeness check
- Tier II includes Tier I procedures,
plus a review of tabulated QC and sample data
- Tier III includes Tier I and II
procedures, plus a review of raw instrument data
Reduces data validation costs and
time
Tier II requires 50 percent less time than
Tier III
Tier I requires even less
time |
Time savings dependent on case size and
fraction |
|
In standard use since July
1993 |
Electronic Data Validation |
1 |
Guidance Document
for Completing Region 1 Data Validation Utilizing CADRE Data
Review. 2/95 |
Data validation performed
electronically
Reduced data validation
costs |
Only applicable to volatile and
semivolatile organic CLP data |
|
In standard use since February
1995 |
Data Validation Guidelines |
2 |
SOP Evaluation of
Metals Data for CLP. HW-6, rev 11, 1/92
TCLP Data
Validation. HW-7, Revision 3, 3/93
Organic Data Review
for Low Conc. Water. HW-13, rev 2, 10/96
CLP Organic Data
Review. HW-15, Revision 2, 5/93
PCDD/PCDF Data
Review. HW-11, Revision 2, 8/93
Numerous constituent/method specific
SOPs |
Ensures consistency in data
validation
Saves time/resources |
|
|
Standard use |
Electronic Data Validation |
2 |
CADRE SOP.
HW-28, revision 3, 8/97 |
Saves time and resources
Reduces timeframes associated with
completing dv
Allows for efficient and effective
streamlining of the dv process |
Not functional for
pesticides/PCBs
Requires frequent updates |
|
Standard use |
Data Validation Summary
Report |
2 |
|
Allows for ready identification of
specific data issues
Assists Remedial Project Managers
interpret data |
Time and resource
expenditures |
|
Standard use |
Data Qualification Check |
2 |
SOP Qualification
Check of Contractor Validated Organic Data. HW-10,
1/92 |
Allows for oversight of contractor
validated data
Provides consistent and systematic
approach to data review |
|
|
Occasional use |
Final Report Review for Air and
Water |
2 |
SOP available for most forms of final
report review, including data validation |
Ensures accurate reporting and data
calculation
Evaluates usability of data for intended
use |
|
|
In standard use, but not
routine |
Data Validation Guidelines |
3 |
Region 3 Superfund
Data Validation Policy. 1995
Region 3
Modifications to the National Functional Guidelines for
Organic Data Review. 9/94
Region 3
Modifications to the National Functional Guidelines for
Inorganic Data Review. 4/93 |
Ensures consistency of data
quality |
|
Useful data to risk assessors/ project
managers |
In standard use |
Oversight of Data Validation - For all
data obtained from the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP),
EPA's contractors complete validation for which EPA performs
oversight. At times, EPA will review raw data packages and
data validation reports originally validated by other
government agencies or private parties. |
3 |
No |
Provides assurance validation was done
correctly |
|
|
SOPs in development |
Tiered Data Validation |
3 |
Innovative
Approaches to Data Validation. 6/95 |
Reduced data validation costs
Validation level selected based on data
quality objectives (need) |
|
|
In standard use since June
1995 |
Electronic Data Validation |
3 |
Innovative
Approaches to Data Validation. 6/95
Region 3
Modifications to the National Functional Guidelines for
Inorganic Analyses. 4/93
Region 3
Modifications to the National Functional Guidelines for
Organic Analyses. 9/94 |
Use of CADRE reduces redundancy and
cost
Easier upload to CARDE
Electronically can/send data summary forms
with appropriate qualifiers to RPMs for easy upload to project
file |
Only applicable to volatile and
semivolatile organic CLP data
Dependent on accuracy of electronic data
from laboratory
CADRE does not incorporate all regional
modifications; manual data validation must also be
performed
Not applicable to non-CLP data or data in
non- Agency standard format |
Shorter TAT for data validation
Reduced costs for data
validation |
In use since 1998 |
Data Validation Guidelines |
4 |
Region 4 Office of Quality Assurance
Standard Operating Procedures for Contract Laboratory Program
Routine Analytical Services. Revision 2.0, 1/99
Data Validation Standard Operating
Procedures for Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxin and
Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran. Revision 2.0, 10/98
Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd |
Standardized procedures for data
validation and reporting via Region 4's Laboratory Information
Management System
Used for all Superfund contract lab data
reviewed by the Office of Quality Assurance
Supplements Superfund CLP National
Functional Guidelines for Data Review |
Not necessarily used by other Federal
agencies or private sector organizations, unless required by
the EPA project manager |
|
SOPs are current and in
effect |
Data Validation Summary Report - Region
requires that a data validation summary be submitted with all
reports (e.g., Remedial Investigations) at BRAC
sites |
5 |
No |
Determination whether data quality meets
intended use
Identification of uncertainties in the
data
Identification of lab
problems |
Federal Facility submittals are not always
as detailed as the Regional example report |
|
In standard use since
1995 |
Region 9 Tier Data Validation
Guidance |
9 |
Yes, in Guidance Document
Format |
Assists the Region, Federal Facilities,
States, Tribes, local governments, and their contractors in
determining the appropriate level for data review and
validation commensurate with project needs. Puts resource and
effort where it should be |
|
Consistent adaption and
implementation |
First Draft completed in December
1998 |
U.S. ACOE - EPA Region 9 PBMS Data Review
Guidance |
9 |
Yes, in guidance document
format |
Assists the Region, Federal Facilities,
States, Tribes, local governments, and their contractors
perform the appropriate level for data review and validation
for PBMS analytical methods |
|
Consistent adaption and
implementation |
ACOE to prepare second draft by April
1999 |
Region 9 Full Data Validation
SOP |
9 |
Yes, in typical SOP format |
Defines Region 9 full data validation SOP
for performing Non-CLP data. (This is to include non-$F
methods) |
|
Consistent adaption and
implementation |
To be completed by June
1999 |
Region 9 Guidance on Documentation
Requirements for Data Validation |
9 |
Yes, in guidance format |
Provides consistent specification to
laboratories on the necessary amount of documentation to be
generated for data validation |
|
Consistently used in Region
9 |
In place since 1989 |
Region 9 Guidance on Documentation
Requirements for non-CLP Data Validation |
9 |
Yes, in guidance format |
Provide consistent specification to
laboratories on the amount of necessary documentation to be
generated for data validation |
|
Consistent adaption and
implementation |
In place since 1997 |
Oversight of Data Validation - On a
regular basis, EPA's contractors and, at times, the EPA
Regional QA office validate raw lab packages. When necessary,
EPA also re-reviews or performs oversight data validation on
raw data packages originally validated by other government
agencies or their contractors. |
10 |
No |
Provides a high level of assurance that
validation was done correctly |
Increased cost and length of
investigations |
|
Performed on a regular or as needed
basis |
Labratory Evaluations
Practice Description |
EPA Region |
Is Practice Documented? |
Benefits |
Limitations |
Measures of Success |
Current Status |
Performance Evaluation (PE)
Samples |
1 |
EPA Region 1
Performance Evaluation Program Guidance. Revised,
7/96
SOP for Using
Organic and Inorganic PE Samples. Revised,
8/6/96
SOP for Using PE
Samples in Analysis of Polychlorinated Di-Benzo-Dioxins.
Revised, 6/22/93 |
Apply to all programs in the
Region
Requires one single blind PE Sample per
batch of 19 or fewer samples, per analytical parameter,
matrix, and concentration level
PE samples are linked to the tiered data
validation system
Potential cost savings if failed PE
samples result in reduced payment or non-payment to
laboratory |
Limited range of PE samples available (in
terms of matrices, analytes, and concentrations) |
|
In standard use since July
1993 |
PE Sample Database |
1 |
EPA Region 1
Performance Evaluation Program Guidance. Revision,
7/96
SOP for Using
PeacTOOLS System and PERS Rating System. Revision 1,
6/22/93 |
Provides data quality information on each
sample batch
Provides lab performance
data |
Only contains lab performance data for
labs that have analyzed Region 1 samples |
|
In standard use since July
1993 |
Laboratory Prequalification for Analytical
Services |
1 |
Region 1 Laboratory
Pre-Qualification SOP. 3/94
Region 1 Laboratory
Audit SOP. 3/94 |
Method for evaluating contracted and/or
subcontracted lab qualifications and ensuring technical
capability before obtaining analytical services |
|
|
In standard use since March
1994 |
Laboratory Audits |
1 |
Standard Operating
Procedure for Technical Systems Audits.
6/28/96 |
Provides for assessment of lab
capabilities for specific programs, projects, and/or
methods |
|
|
In standard use since
1988 |
Reduced Payment/Data
Rejection |
1 |
SOP for Submitting
Data for Reduced Payment/Data Rejection.
9/9/91 |
Cost savings from reduced payments for
poor data
Means for rejecting unusable
data |
|
|
In standard use since
1991 |
Split Sampling |
1 |
No |
|
|
|
Utilized on an as needed
basis |
Performance Evaluation (PE) Samples -
Region requires use of PEs for air and water, whenever
available |
2 |
No |
Provide assurance that lab analysis is
acceptable |
Limited range of PE sample
availability |
|
In standard use |
On-site Technical Lab Audit for Air and
Water |
2 |
SOP for Laboratory Technical System
Audit |
Ensures conformance with lab portion of
QAPP |
Audits are expensive (both time and
money |
|
In standard use, but not
routine |
Performance Evaluation (PE)
Samples |
2 |
Region 2 CERCLA QA
Manual |
Ensures labs can adequately perform
analysis |
Time and resources needed to arrange for,
obtain, ship, and interpret PEs |
|
Standard procedure |
Laboratory Prequalification for Analytical
Services |
2 |
Region 2 CERCLA QA
Manual |
Method for evaluating lab qualifications
and ensuring technical capability before obtaining analytical
services |
|
|
Standard use |
Laboratory Audits |
2 |
SOP for Preparing a
Technical Systems Audit. HW-27, 7/95 |
Provide for assessment of lab capabilities
for specific programs, projects, and/or methods |
|
|
Standard use |
Communication of Laboratory
Problems |
2 |
No |
Ensures prompt resolution of problems as
they are encountered
Enhances communication between Region,
CLASS contractor, and labs
Ensures regional TPO is aware of lab
performance issues |
Primarily used for CLP (i.e., for split
samples |
|
Standard use |
Reduced Payment/Data
Rejection |
3 |
No |
Review Laboratory Quality Management
Plans, certification status, and method detection limit
studies to assess lab capabilities in meeting needs of
project/program |
Limited to "paper" audit due to limited
resources |
|
|
Reduced Payment/Data
Rejection |
3 |
No |
|
|
|
SOP in development |
Performance Evaluation
Samples |
3 |
No |
|
Limited range (no BRAC) |
|
Performed as requested or as
needed |
On-site Technical Audits |
3 |
Technical Systems
Audit Process for Region 3 Laboratory. 3/98 |
Onsite performed by Contract Laboratory
Program to ensure lab capabilities |
Limited resources prevent on-site visits
to non-CLP laboratories |
|
|
Split Sampling |
3 |
No |
|
|
|
Done on a regular basis |
Communication of Laboratory Problems - For
BRAC sites, Region requests that the Federal Facility
communicate lab problems during the process, not after the
fact |
5 |
No |
Alerts EPA of lab problems
earlier
Can involve EPA in determining corrective
actions and, therefore, reduce the need for
re-sampling |
Federal Facility does not always
cooperate |
|
In standard use since 1996 for problem
sites only |
Best Practices for
detection and Deterrence of Laboratory Fraud, prepared by
Region 9 QA Office in coordination with the California
Military Environmental Coordination Committee |
9 |
The subject document was published by the
Chemical Data Quality/Cost Reduction Process Action Team in
March 1997; hundreds of copies have been distributed at
National Federal Facilities Conferences |
Contributes to reduction occurrences and
elimination of laboratory fraud. |
|
Used by Federal Facilities and non-Federal
facilities in developing their fraud prevention
programs |
In use since March 1997 |
Guidance on the use of Performance
Evaluation Samples to assess field and lab
performance |
9 |
Yes, in guidance format |
Provides an effective tool for assessing
performance of field contractor and contract
labs |
|
Generation of performance results to be
used for evaluation of data usability and lab/field
oversight |
In use since 1997 |
Performance Evaluation
Samples |
10 |
No |
Provide measure of lab
performance |
Can be time consuming and
expensive
Used only if lab is to be used on a
long-term basis |
|
Performed on an as requested or as needed
basis |
On-site Technical Lab Audits |
10 |
No |
Provide measure of lab
performance |
Not performed regularly due to time and
expense involved
Most labs not used on a long-term basis
(used on an event by event basis); therefore, pre-award and
on-going lab audits become very expensive |
|
Done on occasion, but not
regularly |
Split Sampling |
10 |
No |
Provides measure of lab
performance |
|
|
Done on a regular basis as deemed
necessary by the EPA site
manager |
Miscellaneous Related Topics
Practice Description |
EPA Region |
Is Practice Documented? |
Benefits |
Limitations |
Measures of Success |
Current Status |
Sample Tracking Database |
1 |
The Regional Sample
Control Center Guidance for the CLP and Delivery of Analytical
Services (DAS) Program for EPA-NE. 7/96
NESTS - current database
CLPSTS - precursor database |
Tracks samples from field collection
through analysis and validation
Includes QC information and validation
tier |
Does not include non-CLP samples collected
by other Federal agencies |
|
|
Sample Tracking Database |
2 |
No |
Tracks samples from field collection
through analysis and validation and distribution to
user
Ensures timely response to sample specific
issues |
Time and resource constraints
Only used on mega-projects |
|
Site/project specific application
only |
Quality Assurance Training
Program |
1 |
Region 1 Quality System: overview of
Region 1 quality system, QA Order 5360.1 CHG 1 briefing,
overview of Region 1 quality management plan, and developing
quality management plans for States and Tribes
Project Planning: overview of the Region 1
systematic planning process, Region 1 QAPP program, project
scoping and QAPP preparation, and preparing a generic program
QAPP |
|
|