[Data Verification Report Index]
Data Verifiers: Michelle Wolfe & Tammy Chang
Parsons
The following data verification summary report covers environmental soil samples and associated field quality control (QC) samples collected from the Camp Stanley CSSA Site (for ITS rework) on March 13, 2000. The samples in the following laboratory Sample Delivery Group (SDG) were analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs):
| 32207 |
|
|
Field quality control samples collected were trip blank; equipment 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 Engineering Science (Parsons ES). 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 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.
This SDG consisted of fifteen (15) samples, including ten (10) confirmation environmental soil samples, two field duplicate soil samples, one set of matrix spike/matrix spike samples and one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on March 13, 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 RW-B30-SS01 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample for this SDG.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample RW-B30-SS01 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | MS %R | MSD %R | QC |
| 2,4-dinitrophenol benzoic acid | 22.4 12.9 | - 14.7 | 25-161 25-172 |
- The %R was compliant.
The 2,4-dinitrophenol and benzoic acid results in samples from site B30 with 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 was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample RW-B30-SS01 (0.0-0.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample for this SDG. Sample RW-B30-SS01 (0.5-5.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample RW-B29-SB04 (4.5-5.5�).
All MS/MSD and 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 usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100.0% 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; and
� Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during sample collection or analysis.
All samples in this SDG were analyzed following chain-of-custody forms (COCs) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding times 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:
Sample | Internal Standard | %R | QC |
| RW-B30-SB01 (0.5-1.0�) | perylene-d12 | 48.6 | 50-200 |
No action was taken for the internal standard outliers since SW846 Method 8270C only specifies that the internal standard of the continuing calibration be checked and does not mention the internal standards of the samples. AFCEE specified that no action was to be taken for the internal standard outliers for the samples.
There were two method blanks and one equipment blank associated with the SVOC analyses in this SDG. The blanks were free of SVOCs above the RL.
This SDG consisted of twenty-five (25) samples, including fourteen (14) confirmation environmental soil samples, three field duplicate soil samples, two sets of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples, two equipment blank samples and two trip blank samples. The samples were collected on March 13, 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. Samples RW-B30-SB03 (9.0-9.5�) and RW-B30-SS02 (0.0-0.5�) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
Sample RW-B30-SS02 (0.0-0.5�)
Analyte | MS %R | MSD %R | QC |
| 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene | 51.9 57.4 | 63.0 63.0 | 65-147 65-147 |
The 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene results in samples from site B30 with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample were flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.
All LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:
LCS � 3/15/00 - soil
Analyte | LCS %R | QC |
| chloromethane | 148 | 65-135 |
No action was needed since the chloromethane result in samples of this analytical batch was already flagged �R� due to non-compliant second source %Ds.
All surrogates %R were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. Samples RW-B30-SB03 (9.0-9.5�) and RW-B30-SS02 (0.0-0.5�) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG. Sample RW-B30-SB03 (9.0-9.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample RW-B30-SB03 (9.0-9.5�). Sample RW-B30-SS02 (0.0-0.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample RW-B30-SS02 (0.0-0.5�). Sample RW-B31-SB01 (4.5-5.0�) FD was the field duplicate of sample RW-B31-SB01 (4.5-5.0�).
All MS/MSD and 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.
Six chloromethane results in the samples in this SDG were considered to be unusable and flagged �R� due to non-compliant second source calibration %Ds. The completeness for this SDG is 99.6% 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; and
� Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during sample collection or analysis.
All samples in this SDG were analyzed following chain-of-custody forms (COCs) and analytical procedures described in the AFCEE. All samples were prepared and analyzed with the holding times 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 except for as follows:
Date | Analyte | %D | Affected Samples |
| 3/15/00 | chloromethane | -48 | RW-B30-SS03 (0.0-0.5�) RW-B30-SB03 (2.5-3.0�) RW-B30-SB01 (0.5-1.0�) RW-B30-SS01 (0.0-0.5�) RW-B30-SB01 (4.5-5.0�) RW-B30-SB01 (12.5-13.0�) |
Laboratory stopped the analysis as soon as the excursion was discovered and recalibrate the instrument. The recalibration for the second source was acceptable. However, due to the sample volume and holding time issues, these samples were not reanalyzed within holding times. The chloromethane result in the affected samples was considered unusable and flagged �R�.
� All internal standard criteria were met.
There were four method blanks, two equipment blanks and two trip blanks associated with the VOC analyses in this SDG. The blanks were free of VOCs above the RL.