Laserfiche WebLink
� x y43}qU Preservation Temperature <br /> 2.4-4.5( C) <br /> Stanter. <br /> Stantec Lab Validation Form-Soil and Water <br /> Matrix <br /> Project/Client: Tidewater Stockton <br /> Project No.: 211602258.400.779 <br /> Lab Work Order No.: Kiff#78189 <br /> Date of Validation: 08/23111 <br /> Date of Analysis: 07/21/11 through 07/27/11 <br /> Date of Sampling: 07/20/11 <br /> Completed By: Alejandra Hernandez <br /> Circle/Highlight <br /> Signature: Yes or No <br /> 1. Was the analysis the one requested? n <br /> 2. Do the sample number(s) on the chain-of-custody (COC) match the one(s) that " <br /> appear on the laboratory data sheet? <br /> 3. Were samples prepared (extracted,filtered, etc.) within EPA holding times? <br /> 4. Once preparedlextracted, were the samples analyzed within the EPA holding times? <br /> 5. Were Laboratory blanks performed, if so, were they below non-detect? �. <br /> 6. Are the units correct? (i.e., soil samples in mg/kg or jag/g, water samples mg/L, lag/L, <br /> and air samples in volume mg/m^3,etc.) <br /> 7. Were appropriate Matrix Spike (MS) and Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) samples <br /> included in the laboratory batch sample? <br /> 8. In lieu of MS/ MSD, were surrogate spike (SS)/surrogate spike duplicate (SSD), or <br /> laboratory control spike (LCS)/laboratory control spike duplicate (LCSD) samples <br /> included in the laboratory batch samples? <br /> 9. Were MS/ MSD (or SS/SSD) within the acceptable range of% recovery (i.e., approx <br /> 80-120%depending on analyte)? <br /> 10.Were MS/MSD (or SS/SSD) values used to calculate Relative Percent Difference <br /> (RPD)? <br /> 11. Were Relative Percent Difference values within the acceptable range (i.e. ± 25%)? <br /> If any answer is no, explain why and what corrective action was taken: <br /> Note: The method reporting limits (MRL)for 1,1,2-trichloroethane and chloroethane were raised in samples collected from well MW-18 due to the <br /> presence of an interfering compound. <br /> The MRL for chloromethane was raised in samples collected from wells MW-18,MW-59,and MW-70 due to the presence of an interfering compound. <br /> Groundwater samples collected from wells QCTB and QCEB-2-RG were analyzed by EPA Method 8260B using bottles that contained headspace <br /> bubbles greater than Y<inch in diameter. <br />