[Home]

[RFI Report]

Appendix B

Data Verification Report

its rework DATA VerificaTION REPORT

for

samples collected from

Camp Stanley Storage Activity

Boerne, TEXAS

Data Verifiers: Michelle Wolfe & Tammy Chang

Parsons

INTRODUCTION

    The following data verification summary report covers environmental soil samples and associated field quality control (QC) samples collected from the Camp Stanley (for ITS Rework) on March 17, 2000.  Samples from the following Sample Delivery Group (SDG) were analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs):

    Field quality control samples collected were one trip blank; matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD); and field duplicates. During the initiation of this project, it was determined that ambient blanks were not necessary due to the absence of a source at the site. The trip blank was analyzed for volatile organics only.  All other field quality control samples were analyzed for the same parameters as their associated samples.

    All samples were collected by Parsons.  All analyses were performed by APPL, Inc. following procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP, version 3.0.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

    The data submitted by the laboratory has been reviewed and verified following the guidelines outlined in the AFCEE QAPP, version 3.0.  Information reviewed in the data packages include sample results; the summary of laboratory quality control results; case narrative; raw data; and chain-of-custody forms.  The analyses and findings presented in this report are based on the reviewed information, and whether guidelines in the AFCEE QAPP were met. 

SVOC SDG 32244

General

    This SDG consisted of three (3) confirmation environmental soil samples.  The samples were collected on March 17, 2000 and analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs).

    SVOC analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 8270C.  All samples for this SDG were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required by the method.

Accuracy

    Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples; LCS samples; and surrogate spikes.  There was no MS/MSD analyzed for this SDG.

    All LCS and surrogate %Rs were within acceptance criteria.

Precision

    Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values.  There was no MS/MSD analyzed for this SDG.  There were no field duplicates analyzed for this SDG.

Completeness

    Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data. 

    All results were considered usable.  The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.

Representativeness

    Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions.  Representativeness has been evaluated by:

·        Comparing the chain-of-custody procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·        Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·        Evaluating holding times; and

·        Examining laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during analysis.

    All samples in this SDG were analyzed following chain-of-custody forms (COCs) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required for the analysis.

·        All instrument performance check criteria was met.

·        All initial calibration criteria were met.

·        All continuing calibration criteria were met.

·        All second source verification criteria were met.

·        All internal standard criteria were met.

    There was one method blank associated with the SVOC analyses in this SDG.  The blank was free of any SVOCs above the RL.

VOC SDG 32244

General

    This SDG consisted of twenty (20) samples, including fourteen (14) confirmation environmental soil samples, two field duplicate soil samples, one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples, one equipment blank sample and one trip blank sample.  The samples were collected on March 17, 2000 and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

    VOC analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 8260B.  All samples for this SDG were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required by the method.

Accuracy

    Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples; LCS samples; and surrogate spikes. Sample RW-B22-SS05 (0.0-0.5’) was analyzed as the MS/MSD sample for this SDG.

    All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:

Sample RW-B22-SS05 (0.0-0.5’)

                 - The %R was compliant

    The results for the non-compliant analytes in the associated samples from the same site and of similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect was present.

    All LCS and surrogate %Rs were within acceptance criteria.

Precision

    Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values.  Sample RW-B22-SS05 (0.0-0.5’) was analyzed as the MS/MSD sample for this SDG. Sample RW-B22-SS05 (0.0-0.5’) FD was the field duplicate of sample RW-B22-SS05 (0.0-0.5’). 

    All MS/MSD and field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria.

Completeness

    Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data. 

    All results were considered usable.  The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.

Representativeness

    Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions.  Representativeness has been evaluated by:

·        Comparing the chain-of-custody procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·        Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·        Evaluating holding times; and

·        Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during collection or analysis.

    All samples in this SDG were analyzed following chain-of-custody forms (COCs) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required for the analysis.

·        All instrument performance check criteria was met.

·        All initial calibration criteria were met.

·        All continuing calibration criteria were met.

·        All second source verification criteria were met.

·        All internal standard criteria were met except for as follows:

    AFCEE specified that no action was to be taken for the internal standard outliers for the samples.

    There were three method blanks, one equipment blank and one trip blank associated with the VOC analyses in this SDG.  All blanks were free of any VOCs above the RL.

ITS rework DATA VERIFICATION SUMMARY REPORT

for soil samples collected from

camp stanley Storage activity

Boerne, TEXAS

Data Verification by: Michelle Wolfe and Katherine LaPierre

Parsons

INTRODUCTION

    The following data verification summary report covers environmental soil samples and field quality control (QC) samples collected from the Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSSA) under ITS rework on March 16 and 17, 2000. Samples in the following laboratory Sample Delivery Groups (SDGs) were analyzed for metals:

    Field quality control samples collected were equipment blanks, matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD), and field duplicates.  No ambient blanks were collected for this project.  During the initiation of this project, it was determined that ambient blanks were not necessary due to the absence of a source at the site.  All field quality control samples were analyzed for the same parameters as their associated samples.

    All samples were collected by Parsons Engineering Science (Parsons ES) and analyzed by O'Brien & Gere Laboratories, Inc. (OBG) following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP, version 3.0.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

    The data submitted by the laboratory has been reviewed and verified following the guidelines outlined in the AFCEE QAPP, version 3.0.  Information reviewed in the data packages include sample results; the summary of laboratory quality control results; case narratives; raw data; and chain-of-custody forms.  The analyses and findings presented in this report are based on the reviewed information and whether the guidelines in the AFCEE QAPP were met.  

ICP METALS

General

    These SDGs consisted of thirty-six (36) samples; including thirty (30) environmental soil samples, three field duplicates, one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples and one equipment blank.  The samples were collected on March 16 and 17, 2000 and were analyzed for a reduced list of ICP metals, which included barium, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc.

    The ICP metals analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 6010B. Except as indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.

    It should be noted that many of the soil samples in these SDGs were analyzed at a 5X dilution due to the high concentration of calcium present.

Accuracy

    Accuracy was evaluated using the percent recovery (%R) obtained from the MS/MSD samples and laboratory control spike (LCS) samples.  Sample RW-B34-SB03 (7.5-8.0) was analyzed as the MS/MSD for these SDGs.

    All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:

( ) indicates that the recovery met QC criteria.

    The barium results in the samples from site B34 collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSD samples were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect (low bias) was present.

    All LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.

Precision

    Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations and the field duplicate analyte values.  The following samples were collected and analyzed as field duplicates:

All MS/MSD RPDs were within acceptance criteria.

All field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:

The barium results for all samples collected on the same sampling date as the non-compliant field duplicate pair were considered estimated and flagged “J” if detected above the RL.  The “J” flag was not applied if the result was below the RL (flagged “F”) or if the result was previously flagged “M” due to the failing MS/MSD since both the “F” flag and the “M” flag supercede the “J” flag in the AFCEE QAPP flag hierarchy.

Representativeness

    Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions.  Representativeness has been evaluated by:

·        Comparing the chain-of-custody (COC) procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·        Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·        Evaluating holding times; and

·        Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during sample collection or analysis.

    All samples in these SDGs were analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP.  All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required by the method.   

·        All initial calibration criteria were met.

·        All initial and continuing calibration verification criteria were met.

·        All second source verification criteria were met.

·        All dilution test criteria were met.

·        All post digestion spike addition criteria were met.

    There were six method blanks, one equipment blank and several calibration blanks associated with the ICP metal analyses in these SDGs.  All blanks were free of any metals of concern above the RL.

Completeness

    Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data. 

    All ICP metals results for the samples in these SDGs were considered usable.  The completeness for the ICP metals portion of these SDGs is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.

ARSENIC

General

    These SDGs consisted of thirty-six (36) samples; including thirty (30) environmental soil samples, three field duplicates, one set of MS/MSD samples and one equipment blank.  The samples were collected on March 16 and 17, 2000 and were analyzed for arsenic.

    The arsenic analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7060A. Except as indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.

    It should be noted that several samples in these SDGs were analyzed at a dilution based on the ICP screening results.  This is an approved variance for the OBG laboratory.

Accuracy

    Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. Sample RW-B34-SB03 (7.5-8.0) was analyzed as the MS/MSD for these SDGs.

All MS/MSD and LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.

Precision

    Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations and the field duplicate analyte values.  The following samples were collected and analyzed as field duplicates:

    The MS/MSD RPD was within acceptance criteria.

    The field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:

    The arsenic results for all samples collected on the same sampling date as the non-compliant field duplicate pair were considered estimated and flagged “J” if detected above the RL.  The “J” flag was not applied if the result was below the RL (flagged “F”) since the “F” flag supercedes the “J” flag in the AFCEE QAPP flag hierarchy.

Representativeness

    Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions.  Representativeness has been evaluated by:

·        Comparing the COC procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·        Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·        Evaluating holding times; and

·        Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during sample collection and analysis.

    All samples in these SDGs were analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP.  All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required by the method.   

·        All initial calibration criteria were met.

·        All initial and continuing calibration verification criteria were met.

·        All second source verification criteria were met.

·        All dilution test criteria were met.

·        All recovery test criteria were met.

    There were four method blanks, one equipment blank and numerous calibration blanks associated with the arsenic analyses in these SDGs.  All blanks were free of any arsenic above the RL.

Completeness

    Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data. 

    All arsenic results for the samples in these SDGs were considered usable.  The completeness for the arsenic portion of these SDGs is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.

CADMIUM

General

    These SDGs consisted of thirty-six (36) samples; including thirty (30) environmental soil samples, three field duplicates, one set of MS/MSD samples and one equipment blank.  The samples were collected on March 16 and 17, 2000 and were analyzed for cadmium.

    The cadmium analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7131A. Except as indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.

Accuracy

    Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. Sample RW-B34-SB03 (7.5-8.0) was analyzed as the MS/MSD for these SDGs.

    The MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:

( ) indicates that the recovery met QC criteria.

    The cadmium result in samples from site B34 collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSD sample were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect (low bias) was present.

    The LCS %R was within acceptance criteria.

Precision

    Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations and the field duplicate analyte values.  The following samples were collected and analyzed as field duplicates:

The MS/MSD RPD failed to meet acceptance criteria as follows:

    The cadmium results in all associated samples were previously flagged “M” due to the failing MS/MSD recoveries, so no further corrective action was necessary.

All field RPDs were within acceptance criteria.

Representativeness

    Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions.  Representativeness has been evaluated by:

·        Comparing the COC procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·        Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·        Evaluating holding times; and

·        Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during sample collection or analysis.

    All samples in these SDGs were analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP.  All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required by the method.   

·        All initial calibration criteria were met.

·        All initial and continuing calibration verification criteria were met.

·        All second source verification criteria were met.

·        All dilution test criteria were met.

·        All recovery test criteria were met.

    There were three method blanks, one equipment blank and several calibration blanks associated with the cadmium analyses in these SDGs.  All blanks were free of any cadmium above the RL.

Completeness

    Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data. 

    All cadmium results for the samples in these SDGs were considered usable.  The completeness for the cadmium portion of these SDGs is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.

LEAD

General

    These SDGs consisted of thirty-six (36) samples, including thirty (30) environmental soil samples, three field duplicates, one set of MS/MSD samples and one equipment blank.  The samples were collected on March 16 and 17, 2000 and were analyzed for lead.

    The lead analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7421. Except as indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.

    It should be noted that several samples in these SDGs were analyzed at a dilution based on the ICP screening results.  This is an approved variance for the OBG laboratory.

Accuracy

    Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. Sample RW-B34-SB03 (7.5-8.0) was analyzed as the MS/MSD for these SDGs.

    The MS/MSD failed to meet acceptance criteria as follows:

    The lead results for all samples from site B34 collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSD samples were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect (low bias) was present.

    The LCS %R was within acceptance criteria.

Precision

    Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations and the field duplicate analyte values.  The following samples were collected and analyzed as field duplicates:

The MS/MSD RPD was within acceptance criteria.

All field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:

The lead results for all samples collected on the same sampling date as the non-compliant field duplicate pair were considered estimated and flagged “J” if detected above the RL.  The “J” flag was not applied if the result was below the RL (flagged “F”) or if the result was previously flagged “M” due to the failing MS/MSD since both the “F” flag and the “M” flag supercede the “J” flag in the AFCEE QAPP flag hierarchy.

Representativeness

    Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions.  Representativeness has been evaluated by:

    There were four method blanks, one equipment blank and numerous calibration blanks associated with the lead analyses in these SDGs.  All blanks were free of any lead above the RL.

Completeness

    Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data. 

    All lead results for the samples in these SDGs were considered usable.  The completeness for the lead portion of these SDGs is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.

MERCURY

General

    These SDGs consisted of thirty-six (36) samples, including thirty (30) environmental soil samples, three field duplicates, one set of MS/MSD samples and one equipment blank.  The samples were collected on March 16 and 17, 2000 and were analyzed for mercury.

    The mercury analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7471A for soils and 7470A for waters. Except as indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.

Accuracy

    Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. Sample RW-B34-SB03 (7.5-8.0) was analyzed as the MS/MSD for these SDGs.

    The MS/MSD failed to meet acceptance criteria as follows:

    The mercury result in samples from site B34 collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSD sample were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect (low bias) was present.

    All LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.

Precision

    Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations and the field duplicate analyte values.  The following samples were collected and analyzed as field duplicates:

    The MS/MSD RPD failed to meet acceptance criteria as follows:

The mercury results in all associated samples were previously flagged “M” due to the failing MS/MSD recoveries, so no further corrective action was necessary.

All field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria.

Representativeness

    Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions.  Representativeness has been evaluated by:

·        Comparing the COC procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·        Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·        Evaluating holding times; and

·        Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during sample collection or analysis.

    All samples in these SDGs were analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP.  All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required by the method.   

·        All initial calibration criteria were met.

·        All initial and continuing calibration verification criteria were met.

·        All second source verification criteria were met.

    There were three method blanks, one equipment blank and numerous calibration blanks associated with the mercury analyses in these SDGs.  All blanks were free of any mercury above the RL.

Completeness

    Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data. 

    All mercury results for the samples in these SDGs were considered usable.  The completeness for the mercury portion of these SDGs is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.

ITS rework DATA VERIFICATION SUMMARY REPORT
for explosives samples collected from

camp stanley storage activity

Boerne, TEXAS

Data Verifiers: Laura Kelley and Sandra Dover

Parsons

INTRODUCTION

    The following data validation summary report covers environmental soil samples collected from the Camp Stanley Storage Activity (ITS Rework) on March 16 and 17, 2000.  The samples from the following laboratory Sample Delivery Groups (SDGs) were analyzed for explosives:

    Field quality control samples collected were an equipment blank; matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD); and field duplicates.  All field quality control samples were analyzed for the same parameters as their associated samples.  The equipment blank (RW-RL17-EB11) was analyzed and reported in SDG 00C-0059-02 and is associated with both SDGs (00C-0051-01 and 00C-0059-01).

    All samples were collected by Parsons and analyzed for explosives compounds by DataChem Laboratories following procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP, version 3.0.  Target analytes included: 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, 2-nitrotoluene, 3-nitrotoluene, 4-nitrotoluene, HMX, nitrobenzene, RDX and tetryl.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

    The data submitted by the laboratory has been reviewed and verified following the guidelines outlined in the AFCEE QAPP, version 3.0.  Information reviewed in the data packages includes sample results; the summary of laboratory quality control results; case narrative; raw data; chain-of-custody forms, cooler or container information checklist and a nonconformance corrective action report.  The analyses and findings presented in this report are based on the reviewed information, and whether guidelines in the AFCEE QAPP were met.

EXPLOSIVES SDG 00C-0051-01

General

    This SDG consisted of six (6) environmental soil samples.  The samples were collected on March 16, 2000 and analyzed for explosives.  There was one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples, and two soil field duplicate samples analyzed with these samples that were from SDG 00C-0059-01.

    The explosives analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 8330.  All samples for this SDG were analyzed following the procedures in the AFCEE QAPP.  All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.

Accuracy

    Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples, LCS sample, and surrogate spikes.  No sample was designated by the field team as an MS/MSD in this SDG.  The laboratory reported the batch MS/MSD sample, RW-B5-SS01(0.5), which was from SDG 00C-0059-01.

    The MS/MSD, LCS, and surrogate spike %Rs were within acceptance criteria.

Precision

    Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD values and the field duplicate values.  No sample was designated by the field team as an MS/MSD in this SDG.  The laboratory reported the batch MS/MSD sample, RW-B5-SS01(0.5), which was SDG 00C-0051-01. No samples were designated by the field team as field duplicate pairs in this SDG. There were two samples, RW-B5-SS01(0.5) and RW-B22-SS01(0.5), collected in duplicate and analyzed as field duplicates from SDG 00C-0059-01.

    The laboratory reported the batch field duplicate pairs, All MS/MSD and field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria.

Completeness

    Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data. 

    All results were considered usable.  The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.

Representativeness

    Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions.  Representativeness has been evaluated by:

·          Comparing the chain-of-custody procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·         Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·         Evaluating holding times; and

·         Examining laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during analysis.

    All samples in this SDG were analyzed following the chain-of-custody (COC) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP.  All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.  The average of three injections for each initial calibration standard was used to establish the linearity check.

·         All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met.

·         All second source calibration verification criteria were met.

·         Second column confirmation was not required since all sample results were non-detect.

·         All MDLs were < half the AFCEE approved reporting limit for all compounds except 2-nitrotoluene. No action was taken on the samples since the 2-nitrotoluene RL is less than the action level.

    There was one method blank and one equipment blank associated with the explosive analyses in this SDG.  Both blanks were free of any target compounds above the RL. 

    The equipment blank (RW-RL17-EB11) was analyzed in a different SDG (00C-0059-02).  The 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene result in RW-RL17-EB11 was rejected based on the low recovery in the associated LCS and LCSD.  No action was taken on the soil samples associated with RW-RL17-EB11 since all LCS recoveries associated with the soil samples were acceptable.

    All data are considered usable and all flags are correct according to AFCEE QAPP, version 3.0.

EXPLOSIVES SDG 00C-0059-01

General

    This SDG consisted of fifteen (15) samples, including eleven (11) environmental soil samples, two soil field duplicate samples, and on set of MS/MSD samples.  The samples were collected on March 17, 2000 and analyzed for explosives. 

    The explosives analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 8330.  All samples for this SDG were analyzed following the procedures in the AFCEE QAPP.  All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.

Accuracy

    Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples, LCS sample, and surrogate spikes.  Sample RW-B5-SS01(0.5) was used as the MS/MSD sample for this SDG.

    The MS/MSD, LCS, and surrogate spike %Rs were within acceptance criteria.

Precision

    Precision was evaluated using the RPD results obtained from MS/MSD values and the field duplicate values. Sample RW-B5-SS01(0.5) was used as the MS/MSD sample for this SDG.  There were two field duplicate pairs analyzed in this SDG.  Samples RW-B5-SS01(0.5) and RW-B22-SS01(0.5) were collected in duplicate and analyzed as field duplicate samples in this SDG.

All MS/MSD and field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria.

Completeness

    Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data. 

    All results were considered usable.  The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.

Representativeness

    Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions.  Representativeness has been evaluated by:

·          Comparing the chain-of-custody procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·         Comparing actual analytical procedures to those described in the AFCEE QAPP;

·         Evaluating holding times; and

·         Examining laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during analysis.

    All samples in this SDG were analyzed following the COC and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP.  All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.  The average of three injections for each initial calibration standard was used to establish the linearity check.

·         All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met.

·         All second source calibration verification criteria were met.

·         Second column confirmation was not required since all sample results were non-detect.

·         All MDLs were < half the AFCEE approved reporting limit for all compounds except 2-nitrotoluene. No action was taken on the samples since the 2-nitrotoluene RL is less than the action level.

    There was one method blank and one equipment blank associated with the explosive analyses in this SDG.  Both blanks were free of any target compounds above the RL. 

    The equipment blank (RW-RL17-EB11) was analyzed in a different SDG (00C-0059-02).  The 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene result in RW-RL17-EB11 was rejected based on the low recovery in the associated LCS and LCSD.  No action was taken on the soil samples associated with RW-RL17-EB11 since all LCS recoveries associated with the soil samples were acceptable.

    All data are considered usable and all flags are correct according to AFCEE QAPP, version 3.0.