[Home] [Master Table of Contents]
Data Validator: Michelle Wolfe
Introduction
The following data validation summary report covers environmental soil and aqueous samples and associated field quality control (QC) samples collected from the Camp Stanley Camp Stanley Storage Activity Site under RL83 during the period January 14, 2000 through February 11, 2000. Samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc by the following laboratory Sample Delivery Groups (SDGs):
| 31789 | 31982 | |
Field quality control samples collected were trip blanks; equipment blanks; matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD); and field duplicates. The trip blanks were analyzed for volatile organic compounds 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.
The data submitted by the laboratory has been reviewed and validated 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 meeting guidelines in the AFCEE QAPP (with the exceptions noted below).
This SDG consisted of twelve (12) samples, including nine (9) confirmation environmental soil samples, one field duplicate soil sample and one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples. The samples were collected on January 14, 2000 and analyzed for arsenic.
The arsenic analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7060A. All samples for this SDG were collected and analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS sample. Sample 58-SS01 was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
Sample 58-SS01
| Analyte | MS %R | MSD%R | QC |
| arsenic | 66.1 | - | 74-120 |
| The MSD %R result was compliant. | |||
The arsenic result in the associated samples was flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect was present.
The LCS %R was within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) calculated based on MS/MSD results and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample 58-SS01 was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample 58-SS100 was the field duplicate of sample 58-SS01.
The MS/MSD and the field duplicate RPDs were both within acceptance criteria.
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 to be usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
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 |
| | Examining laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during the analysis. |
All samples in this SDG were collected and analyzed following the chain-of-custody (COC) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.
| | All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met. |
| | All second source calibration criteria were met. |
| | The serial dilution %D was outside acceptance criteria for arsenic (16.8% D). No further action was needed since the arsenic result was already flagged “M” due to MS/MSD outliers. |
| | The post digestive spike criteria were met. |
There were numerous method and calibration blanks associated with the arsenic analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any arsenic above the RL.
This SDG consisted of one equipment blank sample. The sample was collected on January 14, 2000 and analyzed for arsenic.
The arsenic analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7060A. This sample was analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. Sample were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS sample. There was no MS/MSD analysis in this SDG.
The LCS %R was within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) calculated based on MS/MSD results and the field duplicate analyte values. There was no MS/MSD analysis in this SDG. There were no field duplicates analyzed in this SDG.
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 to be usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
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 |
| | Examining laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during the analysis. |
This sample was collected and analyzed following the chain-of-custody (COC) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. Samples was prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.
| | All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met. |
| | All second source calibration criteria were met. |
| | The serial dilution and post digestive spike analyses were not required since the associated sample was non-detect for arsenic. |
There were numerous method and calibration blanks associated with the arsenic analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any arsenic above the RL.
This SDG consisted of thirteen (13) samples, including nine (9) confirmation environmental soil samples, one field duplicate soil sample, one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples and one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on January 14, 2000 and analyzed for barium, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc.
The barium, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 6010B. 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 times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS/LCSD samples. Sample 58-SS01 was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
The MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample 58-SS01
| Analyte | MS %R | MSD%R | QC |
| Nickel Zinc | 70.8 73.5 | 69.9 72.4 | 75-125 75-125 |
The nickel and zinc result in the associated samples in this SDG were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect was present.
The LCS/LCSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) calculated based on LCS/LCSD results, MS/MSD results and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample 58-SS01 was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample 58-SS01 was used as the laboratory duplicate. Sample 58-SS100 was the field duplicate of sample 58-SS01.
All MS/MSD RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
The laboratory duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample 58-SS01
| Analyte | RPD | QC |
| copper | 22.5 | 20 |
The copper result in the associated samples was considered to be estimated and flagged “J”.
All LCS/LCSD RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
The field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for copper (28.3% RPD). The copper result in the associated samples was considered to be estimated and flagged “J”.
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 to be usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
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 |
| | Examining laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during analyses. |
All samples in this SDG were collected and analyzed following the chain-of-custody (COC) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the respective analysis.
| | All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met. |
| | All second source calibration criteria were met. |
| | All interference criteria were met. |
| | The serial dilution %D criteria was met except for as follows: |
Sample 58-SS01
| Analyte | %D | QC |
| Barium Chromium Nickel Zinc | 11.6 17.1 23.1 15.0 | 10 10 10 10 |
The barium and chromium results in the associated samples were considered to be estimated and flagged “J”. No further action was needed for the nickel and zinc results since these results were already flagged “M” due to MS/MSD outliers.
| | The post digestive spike criteria were met except for as follows: |
Sample 58-SS01
| Analyte | %R | QC |
| Barium Chromium Nickel Zinc | 77.0 75.6 67.0 71.2 | 85-115 85-115 85-115 85-115 |
The barium and chromium results in the associated samples were considered to be estimated and flagged “J”. No further action was needed for the nickel and zinc results since these results were already flagged “M” due to MS/MSD outliers
There were numerous method and calibration blanks and one equipment blank associated with the metal analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any metals above the RL.
This SDG consisted of twelve (12) samples, including nine (9) confirmation environmental soil samples, one field duplicate soil sample and one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples. The samples were collected on January 14, 2000 and analyzed for cadmium.
The cadmium analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7131. Except where indicated in this report, 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 times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS sample. Sample 58-SS01 was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
All MS/MSD and LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) calculated based on MS/MSD results and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample 58-SS01 was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample 58-SS100 was the field duplicate of sample 58-SS01.
Both MS/MSD and the field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
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 to be usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
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 |
| | Examining laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during the analysis. |
All samples in this SDG were analyzed following the chain-of-custody (COC) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the respective analysis.
| | All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met. |
| | All second source calibration criteria were met. |
| | The serial dilution %D was outside acceptance criteria for cadmium (15.3% D). The cadmium result was considered to be estimated and flagged “J”. |
| | The post digestive spike criteria were met. |
There were numerous method and calibration blanks associated with the cadmium analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any cadmium above the RL.
This SDG consisted of one equipment blank sample. The sample was collected on January 14, 2000 and analyzed for cadmium.
The cadmium analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7131. This sample was analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. This sample was prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS sample. There was no MS/MSD analysis in this SDG.
The LCS %R was within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) calculated based on MS/MSD results and the field duplicate analyte values. There was no MS/MSD analysis in this SDG. There were no field duplicates analyzed in this SDG.
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 to be usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
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 |
| | Examining laboratory blank for cross contamination of samples during the analysis. |
This sample was analyzed following the chain-of-custody (COC) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE. Sample was prepared and analyzed within the holding time required for the analysis.
| | All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met. |
| | All second source calibration criteria were met. |
| | The serial dilution and post digestive spike analyses were not required since the associated sample was non-detect for cadmium. |
There were numerous method and calibration blanks associated with the cadmium analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any cadmium above the RL.
This SDG consisted of twelve (12) samples, including nine (9) confirmation environmental soil samples, one field duplicate soil sample and one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples. Samples were collected on January 14, 2000 and analyzed for lead.
The lead analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7421. 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 times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS sample. Sample 58-SS01 was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
Sample 58-SS01
| Analyte | MS %R | MSD%R | QC |
| Lead | 56.6 | - | 74-124 |
| - The MSD %R was compliant. | |||
The lead result in the associated samples was flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect was present.
The LCS %R was within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) calculated based on MS/MSD results and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample 58-SS01 was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample 58-SS100 was the field duplicate of sample 58-SS01.
Both MS/MSD and the field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
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 to be usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
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
· Examining laboratory blank for cross contamination of samples during the 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 results for the non-diluted run for nine of the ten samples were above the upper calibration standard. The samples were diluted and reanalyzed. The results for the original non-diluted analysis are flagged “R”.
· All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met.
· All second source calibration criteria were met.
· The serial dilution %D was outside acceptance criteria for lead (21.6% D). No further action was needed since the lead result was flagged “M” due to MS/MSD outliers.
· The post digestive spike %R was outside acceptance criteria for lead (76% R). No further action was needed since the lead result was flagged “M” due to MS/MSD outliers.
There were numerous method and calibration blanks associated with the lead analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any lead above the RL.
This SDG consisted of one equipment blank sample. The sample was collected on January 14, 2000 and analyzed for lead.
The lead analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7421. This sample was analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS sample. There was no MS/MSD analysis in this SDG.
The LCS %R was within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) calculated based on MS/MSD results and the field duplicate analyte values. There was no MS/MSD analysis in this SDG. There were no field duplicates analyzed in this SDG.
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 to be usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
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
· Examining laboratory blank for cross contamination of samples during analysis.
This sample was analyzed following the chain-of-custody (COC) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE. Sample was prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.
· All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met.
· All second source calibration criteria were met.
· The serial dilution and post digestive spike analyses were not required since the associated sample was non-detect for cadmium.
There were numerous method and calibration blanks associated with the lead analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any lead above the RL.
This SDG consisted of twelve (12) samples, including nine (9) confirmation environmental soil samples, one field duplicate soil sample and one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples. The samples were collected on January 14, 2000 and analyzed for mercury.
The mercury analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7471A. Except where indicated in this report, 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 times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS sample. Sample 58-SS01 was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
Sample 58-SS01
| Analyte | MS %R | MSD%R | QC |
| Mercury | 160.3 | 120.6 | 77-120 |
The mercury result in the associated samples was flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect was present.
The LCS %R was within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) calculated based on MS/MSD results and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample 58-SS01 was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample 58-SS100 was the field duplicate of sample 58-SS01.
The MS/MSD RPD was within acceptance criteria.
The field duplicate RPD was outside the acceptance criteria for mercury (34.4% RPD). No further action was needed since the mercury results were already flagged “M” due to MS/MSD outliers.
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 to be usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
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
· Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during collection or analysis.
All samples in this SDG were analyzed following the chain-of-custody (COC) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis. The results for the non-diluted run for sample 58-SS01 and 58-SS100 were above the upper calibration standard. The samples were diluted and reanalyzed. The results for the original non-diluted analysis are flagged “R”.
· All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met.
· All second source calibration criteria were met.
· The serial dilution criteria were met.
· The post digestive spike %R was outside the acceptance criteria (66% R). No further action was needed since the mercury result was already flagged “M”.
There were numerous method and calibration blanks associated with the mercury analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any mercury above the RL.
This SDG consisted of one equipment blank sample. The sample was collected on January 14, 2000 and analyzed for mercury.
The mercury analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7420. This sample was analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. This sample was prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS sample. There was no MS/MSD analysis in this SDG.
The LCS %R was within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) calculated based on MS/MSD results and the field duplicate analyte values. There was no MS/MSD analysis in this SDG. There were no field duplicates analyzed in this SDG.
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 to be usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
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
· Examining laboratory blank for cross contamination of samples the analysis.
This sample was analyzed following the chain-of-custody (COC) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE. Sample was prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.
· All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met.
· All second source calibration criteria were met.
· The serial dilution and post digestive spike analyses were not required since the associated sample was non-detect for mercury.
There were numerous method and calibration blanks associated with the mercury analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any mercury above the RL.
This SDG consisted of twelve (12) samples, including nine (9) confirmation environmental soil sample, one field duplicate soil sample and one matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate set. The samples were collected on February 11, 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 times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples; LCS samples; and surrogate spikes. Sample 58-SS01 was analyzed as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample 58-SS01
| Analyte | MS %R | MSD%R | QC |
| 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 1,1-dichloropropene 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 1,2-DCB 1,2-EDB 1,3,5-trimethylbenene 1,3-DCB 1,4-DCB 1-chlorohexane 2-chlorotoluene | - - - 22.8 26.3 59.6 52.6 - 61.4 47.4 45.6 54.4 59.6 | 59.6 59.6 61.4 15.8 17.5 42.1 36.8 56.1 43.9 31.6 31.6 43.9 42.1 | 62-108 64-135 65-135 65-147 65-145 65-135 65-135 65-135 62-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 63-135 |
Continued
| Analyte | MS %R | MSD%R | QC |
| 4-chlorotoluene Bromobenzene Bromoform Bromomethane Chlorobenzene Chloromethane Cis-1,3-dichloropropane Dichlorodifluoromethane Ethylbenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropylbenzene M & p – xylene n-butylbenzene n-propylbenzene Naphthalene o-xylene p-isopropyltoluene sec-butylbenzene Styrene Tert-butylbenzene Tetrachloroethene Toluene Trans-1,3-dichloropropane Trichlorofluoromethane | 54.4 59.6 - 40.4 59.6 57.9 36.8 56.1 - 28.1 - - 42.1 61.4 26.3 - 45.6 50.9 54.4 61.4 - - 40.4 47.4 | 38.6 42.1 59.6 42.1 50.9 56.1 33.3 52.6 54.4 19.3 52.6 50.0 28.1 42.1 22.8 54.4 31.6 33.3 43.9 42.1 56.1 61.4 38.6 - | 64-135 65-135 65-135 62-135 65-135 65-135 64-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 65-135 61-135 64-135 56-135 57-135 |
- The %R was compliant.
The results for the non-compliant analytes in the associated samples were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect was present.
The LCS and surrogate %Rs were all within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results calculated based on MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample 58-SS01 was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample 58-SS100 was the field duplicate of sample 58-SS-1.
All MS/MSD RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample 58-SS01
| Analyte | RPD | QC |
| 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 1,2-DCB 1,3,5-trimethylbenene 1,3-DCB 1,4-DCB 2-chlorotoluene 4-chlorotoluene bromobenzene hexachlorobutadiene isopropylbenzene n-butylbenzene n-propylbenzene p-isopropyltoluene sec-butylbenzene tert-butylbenzene | 36.4 40.0 34.5 35.3 33.3 40.0 36.4 34.5 34.0 34.5 37.0 31.0 40.0 37.3 36.4 41.7 37.3 | 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 |
The results for the non-compliant analytes in the associated samples were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect was present.
All field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
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 to be usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
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
· Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during collection or 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.
· All instrument performance check criteria were 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 were two method blanks associated with the VOC analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of VOCs above the RL.
This SDG consisted of two (2) samples, including one trip blank sample and one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on February 11, 2000 and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
VOC analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 8260B. Both samples were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples; LCS sample; and surrogate spikes. There was no MS/MSD analysis in this SDG.
All LCS and surrogate %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results calculated based on MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. There was no MS/MSD analysis in this SDG. There were no field duplicates analyzed in this SDG.
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 to be usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
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
· Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during collection or 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.
· All instrument performance check criteria were 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, one trip blank and one equipment blank associated with the VOC analyses in this SDG. The method and trip blanks were free of VOCs above the RL. The equipment blank contained 0.97 mg/l of chloroform. No action was needed since the associated samples that contained chloroform are already flagged “F”.
This SDG consisted of twelve (12) samples, including nine (9) confirmation environmental soil sample, one field duplicate soil sample and one matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate set. The samples were collected on January 14, 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 times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples; LCS samples; and surrogate spikes. Sample 58-SS01 was analyzed as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample 58-SS01
| Analyte | MS %R | MSD%R | QC |
| 3,3’-dichlorobenzidine 3-nitroaniline 4-chloroaniline 4-nitroaniline benzoic acid N-nitrosodiphenylamine | 2.4 38.9 26.8 20.0 20.5 - | 1.2 36.3 26.3 18.9 16.8 10.0 | 25-175 41-135 35-146 30-153 25-172 25-135 |
- The MS%R was compliant.
The results for the non-compliant analytes in the associated samples were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect was present.
The LCS and surrogate %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) calculated based on MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample 58-SS01 was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample 58-SS100 was the field duplicate of sample 58-SS-1.
All MS/MSD RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample 58-SS01
| Analyte | RPD | QC |
| 3,3’-dichorobenzidine N-nitrosodiphenylamine | 68.7 91.4 | 30 30 |
The results for the non-compliant analytes in the associated samples were flagged “M” to indicate a matrix effect was present.
All field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
The 3,3’-dichlorobenzidine result in the samples in this SDG was flagged “R” due to non-compliant continuing calibration %D. The completeness for this SDG is 98.4% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
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
· Examining laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during the 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.
· All instrument performance check criteria were met.
· All initial calibration criteria were met.
· All continuing calibration criteria were met except for as follows:
| Date | Analyte | %D | Affected Samples |
| 1/28/00 | 3,3’-dichorobenzidine | 35.7 | 56-SS01 56-SS02 56-SS03 61-SS01 61-SS02 61-SS03 58-SS01 58-SS02 58-SS03 58-SS100 |
The 3,3-dichlorobenzidine result in the affected samples was considered to be unusable and flagged “R”.
· 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 method blank was free of SVOCs above the RL.
This SDG consisted of one equipment blank sample. The sample was collected on January 14, 2000 and analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs).
SVOC analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 8270C. This sample was analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP. The sample was prepared and analyzed within the holding times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples; LCS sample; and surrogate spikes. There was no MS/MSD analysis in this SDG.
The LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
LCS - water
| Analyte | LCS %R | QC |
| 4-chloroaniline | 148 | 45-136 |
No action was needed since the 4-chloroaniline result in the associated sample was nondetect.
The surrogate %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) calculated based on MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. There was no MS/MSD analysis in this SDG. There were no field duplicates analyzed in this SDG.
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 to be usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100% compared to the minimum acceptance limit of 90%.
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
· Examining laboratory blank for cross contamination of samples the analysis.
This sample was analyzed following the chain-of-custody (COC) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. The sample was prepared and analyzed within the holding times required for the analysis.
· All instrument performance check criteria were met.
· All initial calibration criteria were met.
· All second source verification criteria were met.
· All internal standard criteria were met.
There was one method blank and one equipment blank associated with the SVOC analyses in this SDG. The blanks were free of SVOCs above the RL.