&EPA
United States Environmental Monitoring and Support FPA-tiOO '7-78-083
Environmental Protection Laboratory May 1978
Agency Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Evaluation of the
U.S. Geological
Survey Laboratory
Denver, Colorado
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-78^083
May 1978
EVALUATION OF THE
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY LABORATORY
DENVER, COLORADO
by
Robert L. Booth
Office of the Director
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
US EPA
Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
EPA West Bldg Room 3340
Mailcode 3404T
1301 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20004
202-566-0556
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not con-
stitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
Environmental measurements are required to determine the quality of
ambient waters and the character of waste effluents. The Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory-Cincinnati conducts research to:
o Develop and evaluate techniques to measure the presence and
concentration of physical, chemical, and radiological
pollutants in water, wastewater, bottom sediments, and
sol id waste.
o Investigate methods for the concentration, recovery, and
identification of viruses, bacteria, and other microbio-
logical organisms in water. Conduct studies to determine
the responses of aquatic organisms to water quality.
o Conduct an agency-wide quality assurance program to assure
standardization and quality control of systems for monitor-
ing water and wastewater.
This report summarizes the results of an evaluation of the capabil-
ities of the U.S. Geological Survey Laboratory, Denver, Colorado, to
provide valid data for the analyses of water and waste samples on a
variety of contaminants and parameters commonly requested by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Dwight G. Ballinger
Director
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory - Cincinnati
-------
ABSTRACT
An onsite evaluation was made of the capabilities of the U.S.
Geological Survey Laboratory at Denver, Colorado. Particular emphasis
was placed on determining their ability to meet the monitoring requirements
connected with their contractual efforts with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This monitoring is a major part of the Environmental
Protection Agency's quality assurance program in support of energy-related
activities in the western United States.
Overall, water analyses for parameters related to the broad areas
of chemistry, organics and pesticides, and radiochemistry are being
conducted by approved sampling/preservation techniques and laboratory
methods. Results on unknown performance samples and cross-check samples
were well within acceptable ranges, thus documenting their ability to
generate valid data. Specific recommendations for areas of improvement are
given.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ni.n
Abstract lv
1. Executive Summary 1
2. Background 2
3. Water Chemistry 3
4. Radiochemistry °
5. Performance Evaluation 10
-------
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An onsite evaluation was made of the capabilities of the U.S.
Geological Survey Laboratory at Denver, Colorado. Particular emphasis was
placed on determining their ability to meet the monitoring requirements
connected with their contractual efforts with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). This monitoring is a major part of EPA's
quality assurance program in support of energy-related activities in the
western United States.
Team members consisted of Dwight G. Ballinger, Director, and
Robert L. Booth, Deputy Director of the Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory - Cincinnati, Office of Monitoring and Technical
Support, Office of Research and Development. A separate visit was made
by David G. Easterly of the Environmental Monitoring and Support Labora-
tory - Las Vegas to determine their radiochemistry capabilities.
Overall, water analyses for parameters related to the broad areas of
chemistry, organics and pesticides, and radiochemistry are being conducted
by approved sampling/preservation techniques and laboratory methods.
Results on unknown performance samples and cross-check samples were well
within acceptable ranges, thus documenting their ability to generate valid
data. The laboratory has ample space, services, and equipment. The
present staff is composed of well-qualified, conscientious scientists and
technicians. There is a need, however, for more senior professional staff
to conduct project studies concurrently with the technicians responsible
for laboratory analyses. Additional manpower is also needed in the
organics program to establish the precision and accuracy of their method-
ology and to institute a daily program of quality control techniques.
Although approved sampling/preservation techniques are followed,
holding times are often exceeded even before arrival at the laboratory.
This problem must be corrected. In addition, a thorough review at the
management level concerning more effective use of standard reference
materials, duplicates, and spikes is strongly recommended.
-------
SECTION 2
BACKGROUND
An evaluation was made of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Lab-
oratory at Denver, Colorado. The evaluation consisted of preliminary ques-
tionnaires and onsite visits. Radiochemistry was reviewed January 10-12,
1977, and water chemistry, January 31 through February 2, 1977. The visits
included an initial briefing session attended by the USGS senior staff and
chaired by Russell McAvoy, Laboratory Director; a general laboratory tour;
two days of detailed discussions with their staff (ranging from the respec-
tive section chiefs to the personnel working at the bench and responsible
for processing the collected samples); and a debriefing attended by senior
staff and members of the evaluation team to discuss the preliminary
findings. Subsequently, unknown performance samples were provided by the
Quality Assurance Branch, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory -
Cincinnati to document their ability to generate valid data in the areas of
trace organics, minerals, nutrients, demand, and trace metal analyses.
-------
SECTION 3
WATER CHEMISTRY
(Reported by Dwight G. Ballinger and Robert L. Booth, EMSL-CI)
Sampling, Preservation, and Holding Times
Most samples are collected by personnel from the USGS District
Offices/Laboratories and shipped to the Denver Facility for processing
and analyses. Approximately 80,000 samples are received, and 20 to 30
tests per sample are made, generating 3 to 4 million pieces of data.
Minnesota and all states west of the Mississippi are serviced. Approx-
imately 75% of the samples are surface waters, 20% are groundwater, and
5% are other. At present, no samples are being analyzed for either the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) or the National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES).
The Sample Receiving Department is responsible for providing proper
containers for sample collection in the field:
1. For trace metals, use polyethylene that has been acid-rinsed; it
may be reused.
2. For inorganics, use polyethylene containers direct from the man-
ufacturer once only.
3. For TOC and organics, use glass. Filtration and preservation are
done in the field per approved techniques. All samples are
processed as soon as possible and are held at least 14 days after
data are stored in the terminal.
Recommended holding times are not being observed. There was ample
evidence of samples with holding times that were exceeded even before
arrival at the laboratory. Internal lab tour also surfaced TOC samples
that were 2 to 3 weeks old, boron samples over 6 months old, and pesticide
samples approximately 3 months old.
RECOMMENDATION: Institute an immediate program to rectify problems
in (1) sample shipment (adhere to recommended
holding times), (2) sample receiving (process
samples in shortest turn-around time possible), and
(3) the laboratory (guarantee timely analyses of
received samples).
-------
Anajjftj_ca 1 Methodology
The laboratory has Its own methods that do not necessarily check
completely with USGS Techniques of Water Resources Investigations series.
For the most part, however, methodology appeared to be by approved methods
manuals. Potential exceptions to 304(g) test procedures are boron,
antimony, molybdenum (need to do extraction techniques), arsenic, COD,
cyanide, color, and turbidity.
RECOMMENDATION: Document the methodology used in more formal fashion,
determine where variances are present, and submit
as proposed alternative test procedures for EPA
consideration.
Personnel
The Denver facility has 47 permanent and 35 temporary positions.
The ratio of technicians to professionals is approximately 2:1. They
are mandated to contract 0.5 million in FY 77 and 1.5 million in FY 78
for analytical services that will require strict quality control. Over-
all, the staff is composed of well-qualified, conscientious scientists
and technicians. There are at least two areas, however, that need
additional manpower.
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Provide additional senior staff to conduct
project studies.
2. Provide additional professional staff to the
Organics Section to prevent backlog of samples,
document quality control programs, and institute
a daily quality control practice.
Space and Services
The Denver facility is a comparatively new one-floor structure. The
space has been utilized in a most efficient manner, and services are ex-
cellent. Except for some minor first aid items that were verbally noted
in the debriefing, no problem areas were noted.
Equipment
The Denver facility is exceptionally well equipped and capable of
performing all the routine analyses in water and waste monitoring. The
facility has the latest equipment, particularly, in atomic absorption
spectroscopy instrumentation, Technicon equipment, and gas chromatography
instrumentation.
Data Handling and Review
The Denver facility is currently expanding its computer handling of
-------
all data by going to an online lab automation system via contract with
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories that will be similar to EPA's system
operational at EMSL-CI and Region V's Central Laboratory. Their Quality
Assurance Section has the responsibility for reviewing all data before it
is reported and checking back with the respective Section Chiefs on any
problem areas. Results of performance on standard reference materials
(USGS water samples used as Water Quality checks) and computer logic
checks are the two basic mechanisms used for determining the validity of
the reported data. The Quality Assurance Section does not routinely uti-
lize results of performance on replicates (precision) and spiked (accuracy)
samples. Thus for measurements that do not have unknown Standard Reference
Materials (SRMs), there are no quality control checks other than what the
analyst does in preparation of calibration curves.
RECOMMENDATION: A thorough review should be made at the management
level to determine the most effective ways of
utilizing quality control data generated from SRMs,
duplicates, and spikes.
Quality Control
The older version of their quality control program was available for
review, but a newly documented plan should be available in the near future.
We understand it will be coordinated by Bernard Malo of USGS. Key elements
of the present system are:
1. Use of standard water reference samples furnished by Marv Fishman
at least 1 to 3 times per day for major cations/ions.
2. Use of these samples at least twice per week for metals.
3. Submission of samples as unknowns to analysts.
4. Next-morning computer evaluation: Any value that exceeds 1.5 x SD*
is flagged and reviewed by the section responsible for analysis.
5. A new Quality Assurance Section that submits samples to District
Offices, who in turn ship into Denver on a 1-per-week basis. Use
of dummy stations again, the following morning results are re-
viewed. The computer simply states, for example, "chloride
missed."
6. Use of standard water reference samples as known values by
section chiefs.
7. Use of nutrients standard only (used only as a check on standard
curve).
8. Rejection rate of approximately 12%.
*SD from Skougstad1s/Fishman1s RR studies.
-------
9. Use of demand Analyses Sets not as quarterly samples but only
as checks on standard curve.
10. Request for pesticides/organics quality control samples through
Harold Clements, EMSL-CI. (Note: These have since been made
available).
11. Performance of approximately 100 checks, including ion/caton
balance checks, that are done automatically by the computer;
(ditto for total versus dissolved, etc.).
The Organics Section has a quality assurance program that operates
independently of the above general practice. Key elements of its present
system are:
1. Quality assurace practice
a. Dosed samples (spiked)
(1) Once/month
(a) Use levels from lower (0.5 to 1.0 ppt) detection on
up to 0.5 to 1.0 ml acetone.
(b) Spike into distilled water only; want to expand to
natural waters.
b. Check samples. Use Applied Science and their own; will want
to use EMSL's.
c. Blind samples. Hope eventually to have SRM samples (still
some question as to how real values will be
determined).
d. Duplicates. Don't use on water; some in sediments.
(1) Have done limited sample splitting with Atlanta facility.
e. Multi-lab studies. ASTM roundrobins.
2. Performance eevaluation
a. No established criteria for rejection of results (Need SRM's
or equivalent).
b. Unestablished precision of methods (strive for ± 10% in
standards).
c. No bias data.
-------
d. No formal program for repeatability (again, strive for ± 10%).
RECOMMENDATION: 1. National Bureau of Standards (NBS) thermometer
is needed to verify readings on ovens.
2. Formal use of class S weights is needed to check
out balances.
3. Methodology needs to be documented by establishing
the precision and accuracy of methods.
4. More frequent use needs to be made of duplicate
and spiked samples rather than almost total
dependence on SRMs.
-------
SECTION 4
(Reported by David G. Easterly, EMSL-LV)
On the afternoon of January 10, 1977, I met with Russell L. McAvoy,
Vic Janzer, and Bernard Malo of the USGS. Doug Skie of EPA also
attended the meeting. A general discussion on the purpose and mode of
operation of the visit was held with the above personnel followed by a
tour of the USGS laboratory.
On January 11, a more detailed discussion as well as an onsite in-
spection of the USGS facilities was conducted. Topics of discussion in-
cluded staffing, facilities, equipment, quality assurance program responsi-
bilities, and general laboratory operations.
The present staffing appears very knowledgeable in the field of radio-
chemistry, and all are very well experienced in this field. For the present
workload at the USGS laboratory, and particularly for any expansion,
additional professional personnel should be considered. Even though all
personnel are well experienced, it is felt that additional periodic
training would be advantageous. The laboratory facilities and equipment
are excellent, and the general laboratory operation appears excellent.
All of the USGS personnel I talked with seemed aware of the importance
of good quality control practices and indicated a sincere desire to produce
data that are scientifically defensible. These observations are also
supported by the good results obtained on samples they have analyzed from
the EMSL-LV cross-check program. The following suggestions are offered for
consideration, however:
1. A written quality control plan should be developed. Each
branch and, in some cases, each project should have such a plan.
2. A routine performance check should be conducted on all balances,
including documentation in log books.
3. Although background tables are kept on a continuing basis
quality control charts should be employed in the laboratory
operation.
4. A planned service maintenance program should be considered
for all counting equipment.
-------
On the morning of January 12, a debriefing was held with Russell
McAvoy, Vic Janzer, and Bernard Malo, and the above topics were discussed.
Again, it is felt that the personnel at the USGS laboratory are doing
a good job and are aware of the importance of good quality control
practices.
-------
SECTION 5
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
(Conducted by John A. Winter, EMSL-CI)
Performance evaluation samples were analyzed by the laboratory staff
for the following groups: trace metals, minerals, nutrients, demands, and
trace organics. Results of these analyses were reported directly to the
Quality Assurance Branch, EMSL-CI, and processed by means of a computer
program that compared reported values to actual values in relation to
results from previous EPA method studies or from similar interlaboratory
data.
Overall, the laboratory staff had an outstanding performance. With
the exception of values for low-level specific conductance, low-level
sulfate, and high-level methoxychlor, all reported values were well within
the warning limits (95% confidence level). The values for conductance and
sulfate were still well within the acceptance limits (99% confidence level),
and the potential problem with methoxychlor was resolved in subsequent
analyses of additional check and performance samples. Thus the laboratory
ultimately showed satisfactory performance for all of the parameters cited
in the following major groupings:
Trace Metals Nutrients
Aluminum Ammonia-N
Arsenic Nitrate-N
Beryl 1i urn Orthophosphate
Cadmium Kjeldahl-N
Cobalt Total Phosphorus
Chromium
Copper Demands
Iron
Mercury COD
Manganese TOC
Nickel
Lead Organics
Selenium
Vanadium Endrin
Zinc Lindane
10
-------
M1 n e r a l_s Cr g a n 1 c s (Co n 11 n u e d)
pH Mcthoxychlor
Specific Conductane Toxaphene
IDS PCB (1254)
Total Hardness PCB (1016)
Calcium PCB (1016 and 1254)
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
11
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse be/ore completing}
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-78-083
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOt*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
May 1978 issuing date
EVALUATION OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY LABORATORY,
DENVER, COLORADO
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS)
Robert L. Booth
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
3. PERFORMING ORG\NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab- Cinn., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
rinn'nnat.i, Ohio 457KR
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
IHD621
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
In House
12. SPONSORING AGENCY .NAME AND ADDRESS
Same as above
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
In House
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/06
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
An onsite evaluation was made of the capabilities of the U.S. Geological Survey
Laboratory at Denver, Colorado. Particular emphasis was placed on determining
their ability to meet the monitoring requirements connected with their contractual
efforts with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This monitoring is a major
part of the Environmental Protection Agency's quality assurance program in support
of energy-related activities in the western United States.
Overall, water analyses for parameters related to the broad areas of chemistry,
organics and pesticides, and radiochemistry are being conducted by approved sampling/
preservation techniques and laboratory methods. Results on unknown performance samples
and cross-check samples were well within acceptable ranges, thus documenting their
ability to generate valid data. Specific recommendations for areas of improvement are
given.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Evaluation
Water Analysis
Quality Assurance
Valid Data
Monitoring, Ambient
14B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN1
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS /Thit Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
18
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
KPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
ir U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1978 -767 14O/1388
12
------- |