[Home]
[Well Installation Report Table of Contents]
Parsons ES
The following data verification summary report covers environmental soil samples and associated field quality control (QC) samples collected from the Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSSA) under DO23 during the period of January 19, 2001 through February 5, 2001. The samples were assigned to the following Sample Delivery Groups (SDGs) and were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals:
| 7907 | 7996 | 8019 |
The field quality control samples collected were trip 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. The trip blanks were analyzed for volatile organic compounds only. All other field quality control samples were analyzed for the same parameters as their associated samples.
One equipment blank sample was collected on February 2, 2001 in association with the samples in this report. The laboratory reported the equipment blank results in a separate report as SDG number 8131 (deliverable DO23-#5). The equipment blank was analyzed for metals only. A full discussion of the equipment blank sample can be found in the DVR that accompanies SDG 8131 (deliverable DO23-#5).
All samples were collected by Parsons Engineering Science (Parsons ES) and were analyzed by O'Brien & Gere Laboratories, Inc. 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. The information reviewed in the data packages included sample results, laboratory quality control results, case narratives, raw data, and the chain-of-custody (COC) 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 seventeen (17) samples, including nine (9) environmental soil samples, two (2) field duplicates, one matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) pair, one equipment blank and three trip blank samples. The samples were collected on January 19, 22, 29, 31, and February 1, 2, 3 and 5, 2001 and were analyzed for VOCs.
The VOC analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 8260B. Except where indicated in this report, all samples for these SDGs were analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the percent recovery (%R) obtained from the MS/MSD samples, LCS/LCSD samples, and the surrogate spikes. Sample MW4-LGR (0-3) was analyzed as the MS/MSD for these SDGs.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Sample ID | Analyte | MS %R | MSD%R | QC Criteria |
| MW4-LGR (0-3) | 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene chloroethane chloromethane isopropylbenzene | (72) (75) 136 155 62 | 62 64 (132) 137 48 | 65-147% 65-145% 55-135% 65-135% 65-135% |
( ) indicates the recovery met QC criteria.
The results for the non-compliant analytes in the samples from the same site and collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSD were flagged �M� to indicate a possible matrix effect was present.
All LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Date | Analyte | LCS %R | LCSD %R | QC Criteria |
| 2/5/01 | 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane | (108) | 111 | 62-108 |
| 2/15/01 | 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane chloromethane | 114 137 | NA NA | 62-108% 65-135% |
( ) indicates the recovery met QC criteria.
No corrective action was necessary for the LCS/LCSD pair analyzed on 2/5/01 because 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane was recovered above QC criteria in the LCSD and was not detected in any of the associated samples. The LCS analyzed on 2/15/01 was only associated with two samples, the MS and MSD of sample MW4-LGR (0-3). The chloromethane in both the MS and MSD was previously flagged �M� due to the failing MS/MSD recovery. The �M� flag supercedes the �J� flag in the AFCEE QAPP flag hierarchy, so no additional corrective action was necessary for this compound. The 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane results in the MS and MSD were flagged �J� as estimated due to the high recovery in the associated LCS.
All surrogate spike %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. Sample MW4-LGR (0-3) DUP was collected and analyzed as a field duplicate of sample MW4-LGR (0-3). Sample MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5) DUP was collected and analyzed as a field duplicate of sample MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5).
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 instrument performance check criteria were met.
� All initial calibration criteria were met.
� All initial and continuing calibration verification criteria were met except for the following:
| Date | Analyte | %D | QC Criteria | Associated Samples |
| 2/15/01 | bromomethane | 56.1 | � 10% | MW4-LRG (0-3) MS MW4-LGR (0-3) MSD |
The bromomethane results in the associated samples were considered unusable and flagged �R�.
� All second source verification criteria were met.
� All internal standard criteria were met for the continuing calibrations. One of the trip blank samples had three non-compliant internal standards. The SW846 Method 8260B (section 7.4.7) specifies that the continuing calibration internal standard areas be compared to the initial calibration internal standard data. However, there is no mention of checking the samples internal standard areas. Therefore no action was taken for the sample with non-compliant internal standards.
There were four method blanks, one equipment blank and three trip blanks associated with the VOC analyses in these SDGs. All blanks were free of any target VOCs at or above the reporting limit (RL) except for the following:
| Blank ID | Collected | Analyte | Conc. (mg/L) | RL (mg/L) | Associated Samples |
| TB-1 | 1/19/01 | Methylene chloride | 0.0054 | 0.005 | MW3-GR (0.5 - 1) MW3-GR (79.5 - 80) |
The methylene chloride results in the two associated samples were below the RL and flagged �F�. No corrective action was necessary 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.
Two volatile analytical results in these SDGs were determined to be unusable. The total number of volatile analytical results reported was 1,037 (seventeen samples with 61 analytes each). The completeness for this SDG is 99.8%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.
These SDGs consisted of thirteen (13) samples, including nine (9) environmental soil samples, two field duplicates and one MS/MSD pair. The samples were collected on January 19, 22, 31, and February 1, 2, 3 and 5, 2001 and were analyzed for a reduced list of ICP metals, including barium, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc.
The ICP metals analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 6010B. Except where indicated in this report, all samples in these SDGs were analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. Sample MW4-LGR (0-3) was analyzed as the MS/MSD for these SDGs.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Sample ID | Analyte | MS %R | MSD%R | QC Criteria |
| MW4-LGR (0-3) | nickel | 72 | 74 | 75-125 |
The nickel results in the samples from the same site and collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSD were flagged �M� to indicate a possible 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. Sample MW4-LGR (0-3) DUP was collected and analyzed as a field duplicate of sample MW4-LGR (0-3). Sample MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5) DUP was collected and analyzed as a field duplicate of sample MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5).
All MS/MSD RPDs were within acceptance criteria.
All field duplicate RPDs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Sample ID / Duplicate | Collected | Analyte | RPD | QC |
| MW4-LGR (0-3) / DUP | 2/2/01 | barium copper nickel | 41.8 33.3 24.0 | 20 20 20 |
| MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5) / DUP | 2/5/01 | barium nickel | 38.1 64.9 | 20 20 |
The barium, copper and nickel results in the soil samples collected on the same day as the non-compliant field duplicate pairs were considered estimated and flagged �J�. The �J� flag was not applied if the result was below the RL (flagged �F�) or previously flagged �M� (due to failing MS/MSD recoveries) because 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 laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during 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 interference check criteria were met.
� All dilution test criteria were met for barium, copper and zinc. The diluted results for chromium and nickel were less than the reporting limit, so the dilution test was not applicable for these metals
� All post digestion spike criteria were met.
There were numerous method and calibration blanks and one equipment blank (assigned to SDG 8131) associated with the metal analyses in these SDGs. All blanks were free of any target metals at or 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 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 thirteen (13) samples, including nine (9) environmental soil samples, two field duplicates and one MS/MSD pair. The samples were collected on January 19, 22, 31, and February 1, 2, 3 and 5, 2001 and were analyzed for arsenic.
The arsenic analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7060A. Except where indicated in this report, all samples for these SDGs were analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. Sample MW4-LGR (0-3) was analyzed as the MS/MSD for these SDGs.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Sample ID | Analyte | MS %R | MSD%R | QC Criteria |
| MW4-LGR (0-3) | arsenic | (94) | 58 | 74-120% |
( ) indicates the recovery met QC criteria.
The arsenic results in the samples from the same site and collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSD were flagged �M� to indicate a possible 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. Sample MW4-LGR (0-3) DUP was collected and analyzed as a field duplicate of sample MW4-LGR (0-3). Sample MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5) DUP was collected and analyzed as a field duplicate of sample MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5).
The MS/MSD RPD failed to meet acceptance criteria as follows:
| Sample ID | Analyte | RPD | QC Criteria |
| MW4-LGR (0-3) | arsenic | 24 | � 15% |
The arsenic results in all associated samples were previously flagged �M� due to the failing MSD recovery. Therefore, no additional corrective action was necessary.
Both field duplicate RPDs failed to meet acceptance criteria as follows:
| Sample ID / Duplicate | Collected | Analyte | RPD | QC Criteria |
| MW4-LGR (0-3) / DUP | 2/2/01 | arsenic | 24.9 | � 15% |
| MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5) / DUP | 2/5/01 | arsenic | 56.0 | � 15% |
The arsenic results in the soil samples collected on the same day as the non-compliant field duplicate pairs were considered estimated and flagged �J�. The �J� flag was not applied if the result was below the RL (flagged �F�) or previously flagged �M� (due to failing MS/MSD recoveries) because 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 laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during 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.
� The dilution test was not applicable because arsenic was below the reporting limit in the diluted analysis.
� All recovery test criteria were met.
There were numerous method and calibration blanks and one equipment blank (assigned to SDG 8131) associated with the arsenic analyses in these SDGs. All blanks were free of arsenic at or 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 thirteen (13) samples, including nine (9) environmental soil samples, two field duplicates and one MS/MSD pair. The samples were collected on January 19, 22, 31, and February 1, 2, 3 and 5, 2001 and were analyzed for cadmium.
The cadmium analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7131. Except where indicated in this report, all samples for these SDGs were analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. Sample MW4-LGR (0-3) was analyzed as the MS/MSD for these SDGs.
All MS/MSD %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Sample ID | Analyte | MS %R | MSD%R | QC Criteria |
| MW4-LGR (0-3) | cadmium | (93) | 75 | 80-122% |
( ) indicates the recovery met QC criteria.
The cadmium results in the samples from the same site and collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSD were flagged �M� to indicate a possible matrix effect (low bias) was present.
The LCS %R was within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations and the field duplicate analyte values. Sample MW4-LGR (0-3) DUP was collected and analyzed as a field duplicate of sample MW4-LGR (0-3). Sample MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5) DUP was collected and analyzed as a field duplicate of sample MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5).
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 laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during 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 criteria were met.
� All second source verification criteria were met.
� The dilution test was not applicable because the diluted cadmium result was below the reporting limit.
� All recovery test criteria were met.
There were numerous method and calibration blanks and one equipment blank (assigned to SDG 8131) associated with the cadmium analyses in these SDGs. All blanks were free of cadmium at or 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 cadmium results for the samples in these SDGs were considered usable. The completeness for the cadmium portion of these SDGs is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.
These SDGs consisted of thirteen (13) samples, including nine (9) environmental soil samples, two field duplicates and one MS/MSD pair. The samples were collected on January 19, 22, 31, and February 1, 2, 3 and 5, 2001 and were analyzed for lead.
The lead analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7421. Except where indicated in this report, all samples for these SDGs were analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. Sample MW4-LGR (0-3) was analyzed as the MS/MSD for these SDGs.
The MS/MSD %Rs failed to meet acceptance criteria as follows:
| Sample ID | Analyte | MS %R | MSD%R | QC Criteria |
| MW4-LGR (0-3) | lead | -80.7 | -170.6 | 74-124% |
The lead results in the samples from the same site and collected at a similar depth as the MS/MSD were flagged �M� to indicate a matrix effect (low bias) was present.
The LCS %R was within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations and the field duplicate values. Sample MW4-LGR (0-3) DUP was collected and analyzed as a field duplicate of sample MW4-LGR (0-3). Sample MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5) DUP was collected and analyzed as a field duplicate of sample MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5).
The MS/MSD RPD failed to meet acceptance criteria as follows:
| Sample ID | Analyte | RPD | QC Criteria |
| MW4-LGR (0-3) | lead | 33 | � 25% |
The lead results for all associated samples were previously flagged �M� due to the failing MS/MSD recoveries. Therefore, no additional corrective action was necessary.
Both field duplicate RPDs failed to meet acceptance criteria as follows:
| Sample ID / Duplicate | Collected | Analyte | RPD | QC Criteria |
| MW4-LGR (0-3) / DUP | 2/2/01 | lead | 48.2 | � 25% |
| MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5) / DUP | 2/5/01 | lead | 46.8 | � 25% |
The lead results in the soil samples collected on the same day as the non-compliant field duplicate pairs were considered estimated and flagged �J�. The �J� flag was not applied if the result was below the RL (flagged �F�) or previously flagged �M� (due to failing MS/MSD recoveries) because 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 laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during 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.
� The dilution test failed to meet acceptance criteria as follows:
| Sample ID | Analyte | %D | QC Criteria |
| MW3-GR (79.5-80.0) | lead | 18.7 | � 10% |
The lead results in the associated samples were considered estimated and flagged �J�. The �J� flag was not applied if the result was below the RL (flagged �F�) or previously flagged �M� (due to failing MS/MSD recoveries) because both the �F� flag and the �M� flag supercede the �J� flag in the AFCEE QAPP flag hierarchy.
� The recovery test failed to meet acceptance criteria as follows:
| Sample ID | Analyte | %R | QC Criteria |
| MW3-GR (79.5-80.0) | lead | -14.9 | 85-115% |
The lead results in the associated samples were previously flagged �J� due to the failing dilution test, so no additional corrective action was necessary.
There were numerous method and calibration blanks and one equipment blank (assigned to SDG 8131) associated with the lead analyses in these SDGs. All blanks were free of lead at or 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 thirteen (13) samples, including nine (9) environmental soil samples, two field duplicates and one MS/MSD pair. The samples were collected on January 19, 22, 31, and February 1, 2, 3 and 5, 2001 and were analyzed for mercury.
The mercury analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7471A. Except where indicated in this report, all samples for these SDGs were analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. Sample MW4-LGR (0-3) was analyzed as the MS/MSD for these SDGs.
All MS/MSD and LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations and the field duplicate values. Sample MW4-LGR (0-3) DUP was collected and analyzed as a field duplicate of sample MW4-LGR (0-3). Sample MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5) DUP was collected and analyzed as a field duplicate of sample MW4-LGR (319.5-320.5).
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 laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during 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 criteria were met.
� All second source verification criteria were met.
There were numerous method and calibration blanks and one equipment blank (assigned to SDG 8131) associated with the mercury analyses in these SDGs. All blanks were free of mercury at or 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%.
Data Verification by: Michelle Wolfe and Katherine LaPierre
Parsons ES
The following data verification summary report covers environmental soil and aqueous samples and associated field quality control (QC) samples collected from Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSSA) site DO23 on February 7, 2001. The samples were assigned to the following Sample Delivery Group (SDG) and were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals:
| 8040 | | |
The only field quality control sample collected in association with this SDG was one trip blank. 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. The trip blank was analyzed for volatile organic compounds only.
All samples were collected by Parsons Engineering Science (Parsons ES) and were analyzed by O'Brien & Gere Laboratories, Inc. 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. The information reviewed in the data packages included sample results, laboratory quality control results, case narratives, raw data, and the chain-of-custody (COC) form. The analyses and findings presented in this report are based on the reviewed information, and whether the guidelines in the AFCEE QAPP were met.
This SDG consisted of three (3) samples, including one environmental soil sample, one environmental water sample and one trip blank. The samples were collected on February 7, 2001 and were analyzed for VOCs.
The VOC analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 8260B. Except as indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the percent recovery (%R) obtained from the laboratory control spike (LCS) samples and surrogate spikes. There was no MS/MSD analyzed in association with this SDG.
All LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria except for the following:
| Date | Matrix | Analyte | LCS %R | QC Criteria |
| 2/15/01 | soil | 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane chloromethane | 114 137 | 62-108% 65-135% |
Both non-compliant analytes were recovered high in the LCS and were non-detect in the associated soil sample. Therefore, no corrective action was necessary.
All surrogate %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision could not be evaluated for this SDG because no duplicate analyses were performed.
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 this SDG 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 instrument check criteria were met.
� All initial calibration criteria were met.
� All initial and continuing calibration verification criteria were met except for the following:
| Date | Matrix | Analyte | %D | QC Criteria | Affected Sample |
| 2/15/01 | soil | bromomethane | 56.1 | � 20% | MW5-Rolloff |
The bromomethane result in the affected sample was considered unusable and flagged �R�.
� 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. All blanks were free of VOCs at or above the reporting limit (RL).
Completeness has been evaluated by comparing the total number of samples collected with the total number of samples with valid analytical data.
One bromomethane result in this SDG was determined to be unusable. The total number of volatile analytical results reported was 183 (three samples with 61 analytes each). The completeness for this SDG is 99.5%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.
This SDG consisted of one environmental soil sample. The sample was collected on February 7, 2001 and was analyzed for a reduced list of ICP metals, which included arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc.
The ICP metals analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 6010B. Except as indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the LCS sample. There was no MS/MSD analyzed in association with this SDG.
All LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision could not be evaluated for this SDG because no duplicate analyses were performed.
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 laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during analysis.
All samples in this SDG 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 interference check criteria were met.
� All serial dilution criteria were met.
� All post digestion spike criteria were met.
There was one method blank and numerous calibration blanks associated with the ICP metals analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of metals at or 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 ICP metals results for the samples in this SDG were considered usable. The completeness for the ICP metals portion of this SDG is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.
This SDG consisted of one environmental soil sample. The sample was collected on February 7, 2001 and was analyzed for mercury.
The mercury analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7471A. Except where indicated in this report, all samples were analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. The laboratory analyzed a MS/MSD on the sample from this SDG to fulfill the batch QC requirement.
All MS/MSD and LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations.
The MS/MSD RPD was 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 laboratory blanks for cross contamination of samples during analysis.
All samples in this SDG 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 was one method blank and numerous calibration blanks associated with the mercury analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of mercury at or 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 this SDG were considered usable. The completeness for the mercury portion of this SDG is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.
Data Verification by: Michelle Wolfe and Katherine LaPierre
Parsons ES
The following data verification summary report covers one equipment blank sample collected from Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSSA) under DO23 on February 2, 2001. The sample was assigned to the following sample delivery group (SDG) and was analyzed for metals:
| 8131 | | |
This equipment blank sample was collected in association with soil samples analyzed and reported under SDG numbers 7907, 7996, and 8019 (deliverable DO23-#3).
The sample was collected by Parsons Engineering Science (Parsons ES) and was analyzed by O'Brien & Gere Laboratories, Inc. 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. The information reviewed in the data packages included sample results, laboratory quality control results, case narratives, raw data, and the chain-of-custody (COC) form. The analyses and findings presented in this report are based on the reviewed information, and whether the guidelines in the AFCEE QAPP were met.
This SDG consisted of one equipment blank sample. The sample was collected on February 2, 2001 and was analyzed for a reduced list of ICP metals, which included barium, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc.
The ICP metals analyses were performed using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW846 Method 6010B. Except as indicated in this report, the sample was analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the percent recovery (%R) obtained from the LCS sample.
All LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision could not be evaluated for this SDG because no duplicate analyses were performed.
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.
The sample in this SDG was analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. The sample was 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 interference check criteria were met.
� The dilution test was not applicable because all results for the sample in this SDG were below the reporting limit (RL).
� All post digestion spike criteria were met.
There was one equipment blank, one method blank and numerous calibration blanks associated with the ICP metals analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of metals at or above the reporting limit (RL).
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 sample in this SDG were considered usable. The completeness for the ICP metals portion of this SDG is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.
This SDG consisted of one equipment blank sample. The sample was collected on February 2, 2001 and was analyzed for arsenic.
The arsenic analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7060A. Except as indicated in this report, the sample was analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. The laboratory analyzed a MS/MSD on the sample in this SDG to fulfill the batch QC requirement.
All MS/MSD and LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations.
The MS/MSD RPD was 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.
The sample in this SDG was analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. The sample was 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.
� The dilution test was not applicable because the arsenic result was below the RL.
� All recovery test criteria were met.
There was one equipment blank, one method blank and numerous calibration blanks associated with the arsenic analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of arsenic at or 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.
The arsenic result for the sample in this SDG was considered usable. The completeness for the arsenic portion of this SDG is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.
This SDG consisted of one equipment blank sample. The sample was collected on February 2, 2001 and was analyzed for cadmium.
The cadmium analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7131A. Except as indicated in this report, the sample was analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. The laboratory analyzed a MS/MSD on the sample in this SDG to fulfill the batch QC requirement.
All MS/MSD and LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations.
The MS/MSD RPD was 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.
The sample in this SDG was analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. The sample was prepared and analyzed within the holding time required by the method.
� All initial calibration criteria were met.
� All initial and continuing calibration criteria were met.
� All second source verification criteria were met.
� The dilution test was not applicable because the cadmium result was below the RL.
� All recovery test criteria were met.
There was one equipment blank, one method blank and numerous calibration blanks associated with the cadmium analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of cadmium at or 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.
The cadmium result for the sample in this SDG was considered usable. The completeness for the cadmium portion of this SDG is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.
This SDG consisted of one equipment blank sample. The sample was collected on February 2, 2001 and analyzed for lead.
The lead analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7421. Except as indicated in this report, the sample was analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the MS/MSD and LCS samples. The laboratory analyzed a MS/MSD on the sample in this SDG to fulfill the batch QC requirement.
All MS/MSD and LCS %Rs were within acceptance criteria.
Precision was evaluated using the RPD obtained from the MS/MSD concentrations.
The MS/MSD RPD was 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.
The sample in this SDG was analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. The sample was 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.
� The dilution test was not applicable because the lead result was below the RL.
� All recovery test criteria were met.
There was one equipment blank, one method blank and numerous calibration blanks associated with the lead analyses in this SDG. 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.
The lead result for the sample in this SDG was considered usable. The completeness for the lead portion of this SDG is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.
This SDG consisted of one equipment blank sample. The sample was collected on February 2, 2001 and was analyzed for mercury.
The mercury analyses were performed using USEPA SW846 Method 7470A. Except as indicated in this report, the sample was analyzed following the procedures and protocols outlined in the AFCEE QAPP.
Accuracy was evaluated using the %R obtained from the LCS sample.
The LCS %R was within acceptance criteria.
Precision could not be evaluated for this SDG because no duplicate analyses were performed.
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.
The sample in this SDG was analyzed following the COC and the analytical procedures described in the AFCEE QAPP. The sample was 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 was one equipment blank, one method blank and several calibration blanks associated with the mercury analyses in this SDG. All blanks were free of mercury at or 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.
The mercury result for the sample in this SDG was considered usable. The completeness for the mercury portion of this SDG is 100%, which meets the minimum acceptance criteria of 90%.