Laserfiche WebLink
.,.,�.,,� �` �.,�� ,fin.„� �'� w"e � .,s.'. .�, �",�,crr -s�y�' `,,�z� ` �'�� ���.;•� <' -�: '' ,.� �r,a'. �.sr. �`•�� �, ».. <br /> ' ' .,- 01 <br /> �{". + u.6=1 '^"zt _ �, ,;. �'a,,- - Ya� -,-� '� sµ''"^•.6--" :� .,.,_ wW Vi <br /> Project Number: SM-1754244.72 <br /> Consultant Proleot Number: 211331753289 <br /> Contract Plumber. N46CWCO244-9•X <br /> Faci!ity Number, 9-0342 <br /> wot> Order Plumber: 0003898 <br /> Report Issue gate. April 13,1990 <br /> QA Conformance Summary <br /> Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons <br /> as Gasoline in Soil <br /> EPA Method 8020/8015 <br /> 1.0 Blanks <br /> Five of 5target compounds were below detection limits in the reagent water blank and reagent <br /> methanol blank as shown in Tables 2a and 2b. <br /> 2,0 Indgpennent QC Check Samole <br /> The control limits were met for 4 out of 4 QC check compounds as shown In Table 3, <br /> 3.0 Surrogate QQmoound Recoveries <br /> Percent recovery limits were met for the surrogate compound(naphthalene)for all samples <br /> as shown to Table 4. <br /> 4.0 Matrix Solk-e-(MS) x Spike DuplicateMSD)Acc racy andr f f <br /> } 4.1 Percent recovery limits were met for 4 of 4 compounds In the MS and MSD as snown In Table <br /> 5. <br /> 4.2 Relative percent difference(RPD)criteria was met for 4 of 4 analytes in the MS and MSD as <br /> shown in Table 5. <br /> 5.0 Sample Handling <br /> 5.1 Sample handling and holding time criteria were met for all samples, <br /> 5.2 There were no exceptional conditions requiring dilution of samples. <br /> GTEL Concord,GR Page 4 0l e 011 <br /> DOO <br /> D003898.1>4CGTE L <br /> tog V Ie GM u IN r►t - <br /> il® r etoe AT01111. INC <br /> ii <br />