Data Verification Report
for Package 32302
Data Verifiers: Michelle Wolfe & Tammy Chang
Parsons ES
The following data verification summary report covers environmental soil samples and associated field quality control (QC) sample collected from the Camp Stanley CSSA Site (for ITS rework) on March 24, 2000. The samples in the following laboratory Sample Delivery Group (SDG) were analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs):
| 32302 |
Field quality control sample collected was trip blank. The trip blank was analyzed for volatile organics only. 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 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 two (2) confirmation environmental soil samples. The samples were collected on March 24, 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 sample; and surrogate spikes. There was no MS/MSD analysis for this SDG.
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. There was no MS/MSD analysis for 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 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 laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during the 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.
There was one method blank associated with the SVOC analyses in this SDG. The blank was free of SVOCs above the RL.
This SDG consisted of seven (7) samples, including six (6) confirmation environmental soil samples and one trip blank sample. The samples were collected on March 24, 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. There was no MS/MSD analysis for this SDG.
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. There was no MS/MSD analysis for 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 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.
There were two method blanks and one trip blank associated with the VOC analyses in this SDG. The blanks were free of VOCs above the RL.