Data Verification Report
for Package 87-01
Data Verifiers: Laura Kelley and Sandra Dover
Parsons ES
The following data validation summary report covers environmental soil samples collected from the Camp Stanley Storage Activity (RL83) on April 6, 2000. Samples from the following laboratory Sample Delivery Group (SDG) were analyzed for explosives:
| 00C-0087-01 |
|
|
Field quality control samples collected were an equipment blank; 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. Equipment blank (RL83-EB07) was analyzed and reported in SDG 00C-0087-02.
All samples were collected by Parsons Engineering Science (Parsons ES) and analyzed for explosives by DataChem Laboratories following procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP, version 3.0. Target analytes include: 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, 2-nitrotoluene, 3-nitrotoluene, 4-nitrotoluene, HMX, nitrobenzene, RDX and tetryl.
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; chain-of-custody forms and cooler or container information checklists. 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 sixteen (16) samples, including twelve (12) environmental soil samples, two soil field duplicate samples, and one set of matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples. The samples were collected on April 6, 2000 and analyzed for explosives.
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 times required by the method.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples, LCS sample, and surrogate spikes. Sample B4-SB17(6.0) was used as the MS/MSD sample for this SDG.
The 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 B4-SB17(6.0) was used as the MS/MSD sample for this SDG. There were two field duplicate pairs analyzed in this SDG. Samples B4-SB17(6.0) and B4-SB16(0.5) were collected in duplicate and analyzed as field duplicates.
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% 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 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 average of three injections for each initial calibration standard was used to establish the linearity check.
� All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met.
� All second source calibration verification criteria were met.
� Second column confirmation was not required since all sample results were non-detect.
� All MDLs were < 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 (RL83-EB07) was analyzed in a different SDG (00C-0087-02).
All data are considered usable and all flags are correct according to AFCEE QAPP, version 3.0.