[Home] [Master Table of Contents]
The following data verification summary report covers environmental soil samples and associated field quality control (QC) samples collected from the Camp Stanley CSSA Site B20 (for ITS rework) on March 29, 2000. Samples from the following laboratory Sample Delivery Group (SDG) were analyzed for explosives:
| 00C-0078-01 |
|
|
Field quality control samples collected were equipment blanks; matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD); and field duplicates. All field quality control samples were analyzed for the same parameters as their associated samples.
All samples were collected by Parsons Engineering Science (Parsons ES) and analyzed by DataChem Laboratories 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 includes 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.
Explosives SDG 00C-0078-01
This SDG consisted of six (6) samples, including two (2) environmental soil samples, one soil field duplicate sample, one equipment blank and one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples. The samples were collected on March 29, 2000 and analyzed for explosives. The equipment blank was analyzed in a separate analytical batch and the results were reported in a different data package.
The explosives analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 8330. All samples for this SDG were analyzed following the procedures in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples collected were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples, LCS sample, and surrogate spikes. Sample RW-B20-SB04(21.0) was analyzed as the MS/MSD sample for this SDG.
All MS/MSD, LCS, and surrogate spike %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) results obtained from MS/MSD values and the field duplicate values. Sample RW-B20-SB04(21.0) was analyzed as the MS/MSD sample for this SDG. There was one field duplicate pair analyzed in this SDG. Sample RW-B20-SB04(21.0) was collected and analyzed as a duplicate.
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 soil results were considered usable. The completeness for the soil samples in 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; and | |
| Examining field and laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during collection and 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 time required for the analysis.
| All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met. | |
| All second source calibration criteria were met. | |
| Second column confirmation was not required since all sample results were non-detect. | |
| All MDLs were less than one-half the reporting limit for all compounds. |
There was one method blank and one equipment blank associated with the explosive analyses in this SDG. Both blanks were free of any target compounds above the RL.
The equipment blank (RW-RL17-EB19) was analyzed in a different analytical batch and the results were reported in a separate data package. The 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene result in RW-RL17-EB19 was rejected based on the low recovery in the associated LCS. The rejected result will be accounted for in the % Complete value calculated for the equipment blank data package. No action was necessary for the soil samples in this SDG since all LCS recoveries associated with the soil analyses were acceptable. The equipment blank analysis indicated the presence of five target compounds between the MDL and RL. All of the detected compounds were flagged F to indicate values between the MDL and RL. No confirmation analysis was required for these compounds since all concentrations were below the RL. Initial analysis of the equipment blank indicated one target above the RL (1,3-Dinitrobenzene). A confirmation analysis was performed which proved the initial result to be a false positive. All compounds were non-detect in the associated soil samples.