ARCHIVED REPORTS (2) - 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 TW-15, TW-15 Dup, MW-321 (I- 9), and MW-321 (1-9) Duplicate were greater than the upper control limit for sulfate. Sulfate was detected in the samples and was qualified as estimated (J). • The MS/MSD percent recoveries and RPD associated with the analysis of MW-448D were not meaningful for sulfate. The concentration of sulfate in the parent samples 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-321 (1-9) and MW-321 (1-9) Duplicate had RPDs that were greater than the control limit for iron and manganese; the results were qualified as estimated (J) in the both samples. No target analytes were detected in any method blank or field QC samples with the following exceptions: • Equipment Rinse and Field Blank collected on April 10, 2013 were associated with the analysis of ten samples and had TOC detected 0.3 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Four samples had TOC detected below the reporting limit and less than five times the blank result, and were qualified as not detected (U) at the reporting limit. Three samples had TOC detected above the reporting limit, but less than five times the blank concentration, and were qualified as estimated (J). • Equipment Rinse and Field Blank collected on April 11, 2013 were associated with the analysis of seven samples TOC detected at 0.6 and 0.3 mg/L, respectively. Two associated sample had TOC detected below the reporting limit and less than five times the blank result; the sample results were qualified as not detected (U) at the reporting limit. Three samples had TOC detected at a concentration that was greater than the reporting limit, but less than five times the blank concentration, and were qualified as estimated (J). • Equipment Rinse and Field Blank collected on April 12, 2013 were associated with the analysis of sevem samples had TOC detected at 0.3 and 0.4 mg/L, respectively. Two samples had TOC detected below the reporting limit and less than five times the blank result; the sample results were qualified as not detected (U) at the reporting limit. Two samples had TOC detected at a concentration that was greater than the reporting limit, but less than five times the blank concentration, and were qualified as estimated (J). 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 4