ARCHIVED REPORTS (4) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Summary of Findings: All samples were analyzed according to the accompanying chains of custody and 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 associated with the analysis of MW-302 were greater than the upper control limit for sulfate; the result was qualified as estimated (J) in the parent sample. • The MS/MSD percent recoveries and RPDs associated with the metals analysis of EW-1 and MW-205 (S-7) were not meaningful for manganese and chromium, respectively. The concentration of manganese and chromium in the parent samples was greater than four times the concentration used for the spike. Therefore, the criteria were not evaluated. • The MS/MSD percent recoveries and RPD associated with the analysis of MW-322 Dup were not meaningful for sulfate. The concentration of sulfate in the parent sample was greater than four times the concentration used for the spike. Therefore, the criteria were 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 MW-322 and MW-322 Dup had RPDs that were greater than the control limit for arsenic and TOC; the results were 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 January 24, 2012 were associated with the analysis of three samples and had TOC detected at 0.8 and 0.7 mg/L, respectively. TW-17 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). TW-16 and TW-16 Dup had TOC detected at concentrations that were greater than the reporting limit, but less than five times the blank concentration, and were qualified as estimated (J). • One method blank associated with the analysis of nineteen samples collected January 24, 2012 had 7.0 mg/L of TDS detected. QC sample Equipment Rinse had TDS detected below the reporting limit and less than five times the blank result; the samples results was qualified as not detected at the reporting limit (U). The remaining samples had TDS detected at concentrations that were greater than five times the method blank result, so no data were qualified. • Equipment Rinse and Field Blank collected on January 25, 2012 were associated with the analysis of two samples and had TOC detected at 0.2 and 0.3 mg/L, respectively. Additionally, Equipment Rinse had 5.0 mg/L of TDS detected and 0.47 mg/L of sulfate detected. All three constituents were detected in the associated samples at concentrations that were greater than five times the blank concentration and were not qualified. • Equipment Rinse and Field Blank collected on January 26, 2012 were associated with the analysis of five samples had 0.3 mg/L TOC detected. MW-447D, MW-447S, MW-448D, and MW- 447D Dup had TOC detected below the reporting limit and less than five times the blank result; the sample results were qualified as not detected at the reporting limit (U). MW-448S had TOC detected at a concentration that was greater than the reporting limit, but less than five times the blank concentration, and was qualified as estimated (J). Page 2 of 5