[Home] [Master Table of Contents]

[Data Verification Reports]

RL83 Data Verification Summary Report

Data Verification Report for Package 32926

Data Verifiers: Michelle Wolfe & Tammy Chang - Parsons ES

Introduction

The following data verification summary report covers environmental soil samples and associated field quality control (QC) samples collected from the Camp Stanley (under RL83) on April 21, 2000. Samples in the following laboratory Sample Delivery Group (SDG) were analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs); volatile organic compounds (VOCs); and metals including barium, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury:

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.

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 32499

General

This SDG consisted of five (5) samples, including one (1) 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 April 21, 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

Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples; LCS samples; and surrogate spikes. Sample DD-SIFT4 (1-1.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG.

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

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

The 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 DD-SIFT4 (1-1.5�) was used as the MS/MSD sample in this SDG. Sample DD-SIFT4 (1-1.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample DD-SIFT4 (1-1.5�).

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

The results for the non-compliant analytes in the associated samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample was flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present. It is data verifiers� professional opinion that results of 2-nitroaniline did not require �M� flags due to the %RPD between MS and MSD was so close to the QC limit.

All 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.

The results for samples in this SDG were considered usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100.0% 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:

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 times required for the analysis.

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.

VOC SDG 32499

General

This SDG consisted of thirteen (13) samples, including five (5) confirmation environmental soil samples, two field duplicate soil samples, two sets of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples, one equipment blank sample and one trip blank sample. The samples were collected on April 21, 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

Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples; LCS samples; and surrogate spikes. Samples B20-SIFT6 (5-6�) and DD-SIFT4 (1-1.5�) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG.

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

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

The 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. Samples B20-SIFT6 (5-6�) and DD-SIFT4 (1-1.5�) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG. Sample B20-SIFT6 (5-6�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B20-SIFT6 (5-6�). Sample DD-SIFT4 (1.1.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample DD-SIFT4 (1-1.5�).

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

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

The 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.

The results for samples in this SDG were considered usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100.0% 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:

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 times required for the analysis.

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

Metals SDG 32499

General

This SDG consisted of thirty-three (33) samples, including twenty-five (25) confirmation environmental soil samples, three field duplicate soil samples, two sets of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples and one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on April 21, 2000 and analyzed for metals; barium, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc.

The barium, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (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

Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS samples. Samples B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) and DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG.

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

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

The LCS %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. Samples B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) and DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG. Sample B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�). Sample DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5�). Sample B24 SIFT9 (1.0-1.5') FD was the field duplicate of sample B24 SIFT9 (1.0-1.5').

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

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

All field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:

The copper, nickel and zinc results in the associated samples collected on the same day as the field duplicate pair were considered estimated and flagged �J�.

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:

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

The barium, copper, nickel and zinc results in the associated samples were considered estimated and flagged �J�. The diluted chromium results were less than the reporting limit. Therefore, the dilution test was not applicable for the chromium.

There were two method blanks, one equipment blank and several calibration blanks associated with the metal analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of any metals above the RL.

Mercury SDG 32499

General

This SDG consisted of thirty-three (33) samples, including twenty-five (25) confirmation environmental soil samples, three field duplicate soil samples, two sets of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples and one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on April 21, 2000 and analyzed for mercury.

The mercury analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7470A. 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

Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS samples. Samples B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) and DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG.

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

The mercury result in the associated samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample was flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.

The LCS %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. Samples B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) and DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG. Sample B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�). Sample DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5�). Sample B24 SIFT9 (1.0-1.5') FD was the field duplicate of sample B24 SIFT9 (1.0-1.5').

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

The mercury result in the associated samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample were flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.

The field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for as follows:

The positive mercury results in the associated samples collected on the same day as the field duplicate pair were considered estimated and flagged �J� and the non-detect results were considered unusable and flagged �R�.

Completeness

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

Three mercury results were considered unusable and flagged �R� due to non-compliant field duplicate RPDs. The completeness for this SDG is 90.6% 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:

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

There were three method blanks and one equipment blank and several calibration blanks associated with the mercury analyses in this SDG. All the blanks were free of any mercury above the RL.

Arsenic SDG 32499

General

This SDG consisted of thirty-three (33) samples, including twenty-five (25) confirmation environmental soil samples, three field duplicate soil samples, two sets of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples and one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on April 21, 2000 and analyzed for arsenic.

The arsenic analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 7060A. 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

Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS samples. Samples B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) and DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG.

The MS/MSD %Rs did not meet the acceptance criteria:

The arsenic result in the associated samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample was flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.

The LCS %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. Samples B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) and DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG. Sample B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�). Sample DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5�). Sample B24 SIFT9 (1.0-1.5') FD was the field duplicate of sample B24 SIFT9 (1.0-1.5').

The MS/MSD RPD was not within acceptance criteria:

The arsenic result in the associated samples from the same site as the MS/MSD sample was flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.

The field duplicate RPDs was within acceptance criteria except for as follows:

The positive arsenic result in the associated samples that were collected on the same day and with similar matrix as the field duplicate pair were considered estimated and flagged �J�.

Completeness

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

All the results were considered usable. The completeness for this SDG is 100.0% 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:

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 times required for the analysis.

The arsenic results in the associated samples were considered to be estimated and flagged �J�.

The arsenic results in the associated samples were considered to be estimated and flagged �J�.

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

Cadmium SDG 32499

General

This SDG consisted of thirty-three (33) samples, including twenty-five (25) confirmation environmental soil samples, three field duplicate soil samples, two sets of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples and one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on April 21, 2000 and analyzed for cadmium.

The cadmium analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 7131A. 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

Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS samples. Samples B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) and DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG.

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

The cadmium result in the associated samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample was flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.

The LCS %Rs were not within acceptance criteria:

No action was needed since the associated sample, RL83-EB08, did not contain cadmium.

Precision

Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD results; and the field duplicate analyte values. Samples B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) and DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG. Sample B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�). Sample DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5�). Sample B24 SIFT9 (1.0-1.5') FD was the field duplicate of sample B24 SIFT9 (1.0-1.5').

The MS/MSD RPD was not within acceptance criteria:

The cadmium result in the associated samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample was flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.

The 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:

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 times required for the analysis.

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

Lead SDG 32499

General

This SDG consisted of thirty-three (33) samples, including twenty-five (25) confirmation environmental soil samples, three field duplicate soil samples, two sets of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples and one equipment blank sample. The samples were collected on April 21, 2000 and analyzed for lead.

The lead analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (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

Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS samples. Samples B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) and DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG.

The MS/MSD %Rs were not within acceptance criteria:

The lead result in the associated samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample was flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.

The LCS %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. Samples B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) and DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5) were used as the MS/MSD samples in this SDG. Sample B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample B24-SIFT16 (2-2.5�). Sample DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5�) FD was the field duplicate of sample DD-SIFT6 (3-3.5�). Sample B24 SIFT9 (1.0-1.5') FD was the field duplicate of sample B24 SIFT9 (1.0-1.5').

The MS/MSD RPDs were not within acceptance criteria:

The lead result in the associated samples from the same site and with similar matrix as the MS/MSD sample was flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect was present.

The field duplicate RPD was within acceptance criteria except for as follows:

The lead result in the associated samples that were collected on the same day as the field duplicate pair were considered estimated and flagged �J�.

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:

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

The lead result in the associated samples was considered estimated and flagged �J�.

There were three method blanks, one equipment blank and several calibration blanks associated with the lead analyses in this SDG. The blanks were free of any lead above the RL.