[Home] [Master Table of Contents]

[Table of Contents]

AOC 43 Final RCRA Facility Investigation/Closure Report

Appendix B - AETC 5068 Data Verification Summary Report

Data Verification by: Michelle Wolfe and Katherine LaPierre, Parsons ES

Introduction

The following data verification summary report covers environmental soil and aqueous samples and associated field quality control (QC) samples collected from the Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSSA) under AETC DO5068 during the period from March 16 through March 26, 2001. Samples in the following laboratory Sample Delivery Groups (SDGs) were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals:

Field quality control samples collected were trip blanks, 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 QC samples were analyzed for volatiles.

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 (COC) 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.

Volatiles

General

These SDGs consisted of forty-one (41) samples, including twenty-seven (27) environmental soil samples, three field duplicates, three sets of MS/MSDs, two equipment blanks and three trip blanks. The samples were collected on March 16, 19 and 21, 2001 and were analyzed for a reduced list of VOCs, which included 1,1-dichloroethene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, and trichloroethene.

The VOC analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 8260B. Except as indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.

It should be noted that the samples collected on 3/24/2001 for volatile analysis were not used due to insufficient sample volume. All samples were recollected on 4/05/2001 and were analyzed in SDG 8615 (AETC DO5068-#14) for volatiles only.

Accuracy

Accuracy was evaluated using the percent recovery (%R) obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples and the surrogate spikes. Samples AOC42-SS04 (0.5-1.0), AOC42-SB02 (7.0-8.0) and AOC42-SB05 (15.0-16.0) were analyzed as MS/MSD samples for this data package.

All MS/MSD, LCS and surrogate %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 and 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:

All instrument performance check criteria were met.

All initial calibration criteria were met.

All initial and continuing calibration verification criteria were met.

All second source verification criteria were met.

All internal standard criteria were met.

There were four method blanks, two equipment blanks and three trip blanks associated with the VOC analyses in this data package. All blanks were free of VOCs 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 VOC results for the samples in these SDGs were considered usable. The completeness for the VOC portion of these SDGs is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.

ICP Metals

General

These SDGs consisted of forty-five (45) samples, including thirty (30) environmental soil samples, four field duplicates, four sets of MS/MSDs and three equipment blanks. The samples were collected on March 16, 19, 21 and 26, 2001 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 USEPA SW846 Method 6010B. 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. Samples AOC42-SS04 (0.5-1.0), AOC42-SB02 (7.0-8.0), AOC42-SB05 (15.0-16.0) and AOC43-SS03 (0.5-1.0) were analyzed as MS/MSD samples for this data package.

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

The barium, chromium and nickel results for the samples from the same site and collected at a similar depth as the non-compliant MS/MSDs were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect 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:

All MS/MSD RPDs were within acceptance criteria.

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

The barium, nickel and zinc results for all samples collected on the same date as the non-compliant field duplicate pairs 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:

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 forty-five (45) samples, including thirty (30) environmental soil samples, four field duplicates, four sets of MS/MSDs and three equipment blanks. The samples were collected on March 16, 19, 21 and 26, 2001 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.

Accuracy

Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. Samples AOC42-SS04 (0.5-1.0), AOC42-SB02 (7.0-8.0), AOC42-SB05 (15.0-16.0) and AOC43-SS03 (0.5-1.0) were analyzed as MS/MSDs for these SDGs.

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

The arsenic results for the samples from the same site and collected at a similar depth as MS/MSD were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect was present.

The 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:

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

The arsenic results for all associated samples were previously flagged “M” due to the failing MS recovery. Therefore, no additional corrective action was necessary.

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

The arsenic results for all samples collected on the same date as the non-compliant field duplicate pairs 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:

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

These SDGs consisted of forty-five (45) samples, including thirty (30) environmental soil samples, four field duplicates, four sets of MS/MSDs and three equipment blanks. The samples were collected on March 16, 19, 21 and 26, 2001 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. Samples AOC42-SS04 (0.5-1.0), AOC42-SB02 (7.0-8.0), AOC42-SB05 (15.0-16.0) and AOC43-SS03 (0.5-1.0) were analyzed as MS/MSDs for these SDGs.

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

The cadmium results for the samples from the same site and collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSDs were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect 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:

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

The cadmium results for all associated samples were previously flagged “M” due to the failing MS recovery. Therefore, no additional corrective action was necessary.

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

The cadmium results for all samples collected on the same 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:

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 forty-five (45) samples, including thirty (30) environmental soil samples, four field duplicates, four sets of MS/MSDs, and three equipment blanks. The samples were collected on March 16, 19, 21 and 26, 2001 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. Samples AOC42-SS04 (0.5-1.0), AOC42-SB02 (7.0-8.0), AOC42-SB05 (15.0-16.0) and AOC43-SS03 (0.5-1.0) were analyzed as MS/MSDs for these SDGs.

Several MS/MSD %Rs were outside acceptance criteria as follows:

The lead results for the samples from the same site and collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSDs were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect 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:

All MS/MSD and 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:

The lead results for all samples analyzed in the same batch as the non-compliant dilution tests were considered estimated and flagged “J” if 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 a failing MS/MSD since both the “F” flag and the “M” flag supercede the “J” flag in the AFCEE QAPP flag hierarchy.

All post digestion spike criteria were met except for the following:

The lead results for all samples analyzed in the same batch were previously flagged “J” due to the non-compliant dilution test. Therefore, no additional corrective action was necessary.

There were three method blanks, three equipment blanks 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 forty-five (45) samples, including thirty (30) environmental soil samples, four field duplicates, four sets of MS/MSDs, and three equipment blanks. The samples were collected on March 16, 19, 21 and 26, 2001 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. Samples AOC42-SS04 (0.5-1.0), AOC42-SB02 (7.0-8.0), AOC42-SB05 (15.0-16.0) and AOC43-SS03 (0.5-1.0) were analyzed as MS/MSDs for these SDGs.

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

The mercury results for the samples from the same site and collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSD were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect 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:

All MS/MSD and 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:

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%.