Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> I� <br /> cfmerican EnvirCoEnsFmORental Netwk Inc. <br /> - ,, EN <br /> January 113.1 .19,98 <br /> Roy F. -Weston, Inc. <br /> 2300 Clayton Rd. , Suite 1580 <br /> Concord, .CA 94520 <br /> Attn: Scott Emerson-Price <br /> In regards to your project 11514.005.001,; AEN received 15 samples <br /> on October 14, 1997. You asked about the raised reporting limits <br /> for the gasoline and EPA 8020 compounds on a single sample, <br /> SB-45.5. As I mentioned the sample was originally' analyzed <br /> undiluted and no hydrocarbons or. aromatic `'compounds were detected. <br /> However,. due to .the nature of the sample and the purge and trap <br /> extraction technique the internal, standard':used had a low .recovery; <br /> this caused the surrogate to appear to belabove the control limit. i <br /> It is AEN's policy to . reanalyze soilsamples, even non-detect <br /> samples, when the internal standard or the surrogate standard <br /> indicates a matr:ix, interference. The sample was reanalyzed at a <br /> ten fold -dilution to minimize the matrix' effect on the internal <br /> standard and the surrogate added to the sample. Again the sample <br /> was non-detect and this time the surrogate; was within laboratory <br /> control limits. <br /> I am i-ncluding the chromatograms for both analyses and the BTEX <br /> standard as well. The surrogate area count for the original <br /> analyses is about the same as that for the, BTEX standard; however, <br /> the internal standard is about half what it should be. "The sample <br /> did purge and any hydrocarbons would have'. been detected. <br /> If you have any questions please call -me (5'10') 930-9090. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> American Environmental Network <br /> William Svoboda <br /> `Project Manager <br /> C-,IfYnericazn Environmental. Network, Inc. <br />