Data Verification Report
for Packages 5045, 5075, and 5090
Data Verification by: Michelle Wolfe and Katherine LaPierre
Parsons ES
The following data verification summary report covers environmental soil samples and field quality control (QC) samples collected from the Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSSA) under ITS rework on March 20, 21 and 22, 2000. Sample in the following laboratory Sample Delivery Groups (SDGs) were analyzed for metals:
| 5045 | 5075 | 5090 |
Field quality control samples collected were equipment blanks, matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD), and field duplicates. 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 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 O'Brien & Gere Laboratories, Inc. (OBG) following the 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 narratives; raw data; and chain-of-custody forms. The analyses and findings presented in this report are based on the reviewed information and whether the guidelines in the AFCEE QAPP were met.
These SDGs consisted of forty-one (41) samples, including thirty-one (31) environmental soil samples, four field duplicates, two sets of MS/MSD samples and two equipment blanks. The samples were collected on March 20, 21 and 22, 2000 and were analyzed for a reduced list of ICP metals. Most samples were analyzed for barium, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc. Ten of the forty-one samples were analyzed for chromium only.
The ICP metals analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 6010B. Except as indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
It should be noted that many of the soil samples in these SDGs were analyzed at a 5X dilution due to the high concentration of calcium present.
Accuracy was evaluated using the percent recovery (%R) obtained from the MS/MSD and laboratory control spike (LCS) samples. Samples RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) and RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) were analyzed as MS/MSD samples for these SDGs.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Parent Sample ID | Analyte | MS %R | MSD %R | QC Criteria |
| RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) | Barium | 30 | 63 | 75-125% |
| Nickel | 74 | (77) | 75-125% |
( ) indicates the %R met QC criteria.
The barium and nickel results in the samples from site B33 collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSD were flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect (low bias) was present.
All LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations and the field duplicate analyte values. The following samples were collected and analyzed as field duplicates:
| Parent Sample ID | Field Duplicate ID |
| RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) | RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) FD |
| RW-B27-SB01 (10.5-11) | RW-B27-SB01 (10.5-11) FD |
RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) | RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) FD |
| RW-B19-SB05 (17.5-18) | RW-B19-SB05 (17.5-18) FD |
All MS/MSD RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
All field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Parent Sample / Duplicate | Collected | Analyte | RPD | QC Criteria |
| RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) / FD | 3/20/00 | Barium | 21.1 | <20% |
| RW-B27-SB01 (10.5-11) / FD | 3/20/00 | Barium | 36.1 | <20% |
| Zinc | 49.1 | |||
| RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) / FD | 3/21/00 | Barium | 44.7 | <20% |
The barium and zinc results for all samples collected on the same sampling date as the non-compliant field duplicate pairs were considered estimated and flagged �J� if detected above the RL. The �J� flag was not applied if the result was below the RL (flagged �F�) or if the result was previously flagged �M� due to the failing MS/MSD since both the �F� flag and the �M� flag supercede the �J� flag in the AFCEE QAPP flag hierarchy.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions. Representativeness has been evaluated by:
Comparing the COC 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 or analysis.
All samples in these SDGs were analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required by the method.
All initial calibration criteria were met.
All initial and continuing calibration verification criteria were met.
All second source verification criteria were met.
All dilution test criteria were met.
All post digestion spike addition criteria were met.
There were five method blanks, two equipment blanks and numerous calibration blanks associated with the ICP metals analyses in these SDGs. All blanks were free of target metals above the RL except for the following:
| Blank ID | Collected | Analyte | Conc. (mg/L) | RL (mg/L) |
| RW-RL17-EB14 | 3/21/00 | Zinc | 0.022 | 0.01 |
The zinc results for all samples collected the same day as the non-compliant equipment blank were flagged �B� if above the RL to indicate contamination was present. Samples were not flagged if the result was below the RL because the �F� flag supercedes the �B� flag in the AFCEE QAPP flag hierarchy.
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
All ICP metals results for the samples in these SDGs were considered usable. The completeness for the ICP metals portion of these SDGs is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.
These SDGs consisted of thirty-one (31) samples, including twenty-two (22) environmental soil samples, three field duplicates, two sets of MS/MSD samples and two equipment blanks. The samples were collected on March 20, 21 and 22, 2000 and were analyzed for arsenic.
The arsenic analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7060A. Except as indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
It should be noted that several samples in these SDGs were analyzed at a dilution based on the ICP screening results. This is an approved variance for the OBG laboratory.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. Samples RW-B33-SB02(4-4.5) and RW-B27-SS03(0-0.5) were analyzed as MS/MSD samples for these SDGs.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Parent Sample ID | Analyte | MS %R | MSD %R | QC Criteria |
| RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) | Arsenic | 125 | 123 | 74-120% |
The arsenic results in the samples from site B27 collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSD were flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect (high bias) was present.
All LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations and the field duplicate analyte values. The following samples were collected and analyzed as field duplicates:
| Parent Sample ID | Field Duplicate ID |
| RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) | RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) FD |
| RW-B27-SB01 (10.5-11) | RW-B27-SB01 (10.5-11) FD |
| RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) | RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) FD |
| RW-B19-SB05 (17.5-18) | RW-B19-SB05 (17.5-18) FD |
All MS/MSD RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
All field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Parent Sample / Duplicate | Collected | Analyte | RPD | QC Criteria |
| RW-B27-SB01 (10.5-11) / FD | 3/20/00 | Arsenic | 31.5 | <15% |
The arsenic results for all samples collected on the same sampling date as the non-compliant field duplicate pair were considered estimated and flagged �J� if detected above the RL. The �J� flag was not applied if the result was below the RL (flagged �F�) or if the result was previously flagged �M� due to the failing MS/MSD since both the �F� flag and the �M� flag supercede the �J� flag in the AFCEE QAPP flag hierarchy.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions. Representativeness has been evaluated by:
Comparing the COC 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 or analysis.
All samples in these SDGs were analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required by the method.
All initial calibration criteria were met.
All initial and continuing calibration verification criteria were met.
All second source verification criteria were met.
All dilution test criteria were met.
All recovery test criteria were met.
There were five method blanks, two equipment blanks and numerous calibration blanks associated with the arsenic analyses in these SDGs. All blanks were free of any arsenic above the RL.
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
All arsenic results for the samples in these SDGs were considered usable. The completeness for the arsenic portion of these SDGs is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.
These SDGs consisted of thirty-one (31) samples, including twenty-two (22) environmental soil samples, three field duplicates, two sets of MS/MSD samples and two equipment blanks. The samples were collected on March 20, 21 and 22, 2000 and were analyzed for cadmium.
The cadmium analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7131A. Except as indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
It should be noted that several samples in these SDGs were analyzed at a dilution based on the ICP screening results. This is an approved variance for the OBG laboratory.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. Samples RW-B33-SB02(4-4.5) and RW-B27-SS03(0-0.5) were analyzed as MS/MSD samples for these SDGs.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Parent Sample ID | Analyte | MS %R | MSD %R | QC Criteria |
| RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) | Cadmium | 40 | 45 | 80-122% |
The cadmium results for the samples from site B33 collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSD were flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect (low bias) was present.
All LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations and the field duplicate analyte values. The following samples were collected and analyzed as field duplicates:
| Parent Sample ID | Field Duplicate ID |
| RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) | RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) FD |
| RW-B27-SB01 (10.5-11) | RW-B27-SB01 (10.5-11) FD |
| RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) | RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) FD |
| RW-B19-SB05 (17.5-18) | RW-B19-SB05 (17.5-18) FD |
All MS/MSD RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
All field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Parent Sample / Duplicate | Collected | Analyte | RPD | QC Criteria |
| RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) / FD | 3/20/00 | Cadmium | 43.5 | <15% |
The cadmium results for all samples collected on the same sampling date as the non-compliant field duplicate pair were considered estimated and flagged �J� if detected above the RL. The �J� flag was not applied if the result was below the RL (flagged �F�) or if the result was previously flagged �M� due to the failing MS/MSD since both the �F� flag and the �M� flag supercede the �J� flag in the AFCEE QAPP flag hierarchy. The associated sample results for cadmium were considered unusable and flagged �R� if non-detect.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions. Representativeness has been evaluated by:
Comparing the COC 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 or analysis.
All samples in these SDGs were analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required by the method.
All initial calibration criteria were met.
All initial and continuing calibration verification criteria were met.
All second source verification criteria were met.
All dilution test criteria were met.
All recovery test criteria were met.
There were five method blanks, two equipment blanks and numerous calibration blanks associated with the cadmium analyses in these SDGs. All blanks were free of any cadmium above the RL.
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
Three of the twenty-seven cadmium results were rejected due to the failing field duplicate RPD. The completeness for the cadmium portion of these SDGs is 88.9%, which does not meet the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.
These SDGs consisted of thirty-one (31) samples, including twenty-two (22) environmental soil samples, three field duplicates, two sets of MS/MSD samples and two equipment blanks. The samples were collected on March 20, 21 and 22, 2000 and were analyzed for lead.
The lead analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7421. Except as indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
It should be noted that several samples in these SDGs were analyzed at a dilution based on the ICP screening results. This is an approved variance for the OBG laboratory.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. Samples RW-B33-SB02(4-4.5) and RW-B27-SS03(0-0.5) were analyzed as MS/MSD samples for these SDGs.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Parent Sample ID | Analyte | MS %R | MSD %R | QC Criteria |
| RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) | Lead | (113) | 131 | 74-124% |
| RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) | Lead | -31.0 | -42.7 | 74-124% |
( ) indicates the %R met QC criteria.
The lead results in the samples from site B33 and B27 collected at a similar depth as the non-compliant MS/MSDs were flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect (high bias for site B27 and low bias for site B33) was present.
All LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations and the field duplicate analyte values. The following samples were collected and analyzed as field duplicates:
| Parent Sample ID | Field Duplicate ID |
| RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) | RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) FD |
| RW-B27-SB01 (10.5-11) | RW-B27-SB01 (10.5-11) FD |
| RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) | RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) FD |
| RW-B19-SB05 (17.5-18) | RW-B19-SB05 (17.5-18) FD |
All MS/MSD and field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions. Representativeness has been evaluated by:
Comparing the COC 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 or analysis.
All samples in these SDGs were analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required by the method.
All initial calibration criteria were
All initial and continuing calibration verification criteria were met.
All second source verification criteria were met.
All dilution test criteria were met.
All recovery test criteria were met.
There were five method blanks, two equipment blanks and numerous calibration blanks associated with the lead analyses in these SDGs. All blanks were free of any lead above the RL.
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
All lead results for the samples in these SDGs were considered usable. The completeness for the lead portion of these SDGs is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.
These SDGs consisted of twenty-nine (29) samples, including twenty-two (22) environmental soil samples, three field duplicates, one set of MS/MSD samples and two equipment blanks. The samples were collected on March 20, 21 and 22, 2000 and were analyzed for mercury.
The mercury analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7471A for soils and 7470A for waters. Except as indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R results for the MS/MSD samples and LCS sample. Sample RW-B27-SS03(0-0.5) was analyzed as the MS/MSD for these SDGs. The MS/MSD requested for sample RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) was not analyzed due to lab error. The laboratory analyzed an additional MS/MSD on a sample from a subsequent SDG to maintain the QC sample count.
All MS/MSD and LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria. Terrific
Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations and the field duplicate analyte values. The following samples were collected and analyzed as field duplicates:
| Parent Sample ID | Field Duplicate ID |
| RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) | RW-B33-SB02 (4-4.5) FD |
| RW-B27-SB01 (10.5-11) | RW-B27-SB01 (10.5-11) FD |
| RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) | RW-B27-SS03 (0-0.5) FD |
| RW-B19-SB05 (17.5-18) | RW-B19-SB05 (17.5-18) FD |
All MS/MSD and field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents actual site conditions. Representativeness has been evaluated by:
Comparing the COC 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 or analysis.
All samples in these SDGs were analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. All samples were prepared and analyzed within the holding time required by the method.
All initial calibration criteria were met.
All initial and continuing calibration verification criteria were met.
All second source verification criteria were met.
There were five method blanks, two equipment blanks and numerous calibration blanks associated with the mercury analyses in these SDGs. All blanks were free of any mercury above the RL.
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
All mercury results for the samples in these SDGs were considered usable. The completeness for the mercury portion of these SDGs is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.