ARCHIVED REPORTS (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Summary of Findings: All samples were analyzed according to the accompanying chains of custody. All analytical holding times were met. QC data were reviewed for laboratory and instrument precision and accuracy from LCS/LCSD recoveries and relative percent differences (RPDs) and MS/MSD sample recoveries and RPDs. All quality control elements were found to be within acceptable limits with the following exceptions: • The MS/MSD percent recoveries and RPD associated with the sulfate analysis of 1-11 were not meaningful because the concentration of chromium in the parent sample was greater than four times the concentration used for the spike. Therefore, the criteria were not evaluated. • The MS/MSD percent recoveries associated with the metals analysis of MW-301 were less than the lower control limit for chromium and iron. Both metals were detected in the sample and were qualified as estimated (J). Additionally the MS percent recovery was greater than the upper control limit for sulfate. Sulfate was detected in the sample and was qualified as estimated (J). • The MS/MSD percent recoveries associated with the metals analysis of 1-11 and 1-11 Dup were greater than the upper control limit for sulfate. Sulfate was detected in the sample and was qualified as estimated (J). Additionally, the percent recoveries and RPD were not meaningful for chromium because the concentration in the parent sample was greater than four times the concentration used for the spike. Therefore, this criterion was not evaluated. Field sampling precision was also evaluated by using the calculated RPD between results reported for the field duplicate pairs, which are listed above. All RPD results were found to be within the acceptable limits for precision for all methods with the following exception: • The field duplicate pair 1-11 and 1-11 Dup had an RPD that was greater than the control limit for TOC; the result was qualified as estimated (J) in the parent sample. No target analytes were detected in any method blank or field QC samples with the following exceptions: • Equipment Rinse and Field Blank, collected on October 12, 2011, had TOC detected at 0.2 mg/L and 0.1 mg/L, respectively. Additionally, sulfate was detected in Equipment Rinse at 0.8 mg/L. Sulfate was detected in all associated samples at concentrations that were greater than five times the blank concentration and was not qualified. TW-13 had TOC detected below the reporting limit and less than five times the blank result; the sample result was qualified as not detected at the reporting limit (U). The remaining samples had TOC detected at concentrations that were greater than five times the blank concentration and were not qualified. • Equipment Rinse and Field Blank, collected on October 13, 2011, had TOC detected at 0.1 mg/L 0.07 mg/L, respectively. TW-16 had TOC detected below the reporting limit and less than five times the blank result; the result was qualified as not detected at the reporting limit (U). The remaining samples had TOC detected at concentrations that were greater than five times the blank concentration and were not qualified. • Equipment Rinse and Field Blank, collected on October 17, 2011, had TOC detected at 0.2 mg/L. MW-447D, MW-447S, MW-448D and MW-448S had TOC detected below the reporting limit and less than five times the blank result; the result was qualified as not detected at the reporting limit(U). All data submitted for this project are of known and acceptable quality as qualified, based on laboratory- established control limits and the data quality objectives. These data are considered acceptable for their intended purposes. Page 2 of 5