Laserfiche WebLink
_Y " -ir 2` ,'.'1�� .:-� ,� %3" �, µii w;:� ,' � }}�., .?�i3..* wd'[4. 3- u'����„I�w'"`�°�'���- �.°,a,•�'x"���"'Y-,��'�"-- �1�.�.=s. -�. u" <br /> 'k, .�+x�.� � .�..^i>n. `:�^sM` 4������ z:' °F+�.:.`' .�"'�' " a t�x��`_'3:•".'� •'"�,�� �y ,��'K.�,... � ��,,,,.e.. <br /> Robed Number SF&17540204.72 <br /> Confuttant Rord Fktmber. 203175-Mi <br /> Carrsad Number. F14WN=44-9+X <br /> Facey Number, OOS57 <br /> KbrirdderNumber 11004127 <br /> Aoport issue Data: 1pii 10,1880 <br /> QA Conformance Summary <br /> Purgeable Aromatics In Sols <br /> MODIFIED EPA METHOD:,;20 <br /> 1.0 <br /> Fourof 4 targot compoundswere belowdetection Jmrts in the reagent water biankand reagent <br /> methanol blank as shown in Tables 2a and 2b. <br /> 2.0 IndapgWent QC ChaQk Samote <br /> The control limits were mel for 4 out of 4 QC check compounds as shown In Table 3. <br /> } <br /> 3.0 Surroaale ComQQU Recoverles <br /> Percent recovery limits were met for the surrogate compound(naphthalene)for all samples <br /> as shown In Table 4. <br /> 4.0 Matrix Spike!M.,%j r1 Matrimc$ ik i t M Accurary arxj P +eision <br /> 4.1 Percent recovery limits were met for 4 of 4 compounds In the MS and MSD as shown In Table <br /> S. <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 HaDQIna <br /> 5.1 Sample handling and holding time criteria were met for all samples. <br /> 5.2 There were no exceptional conditions requiring dflullon of samples. <br /> t . <br /> GTEL Conoord,GA Page 2 of 8 <br /> 12GWTEL <br /> D064127.lJOC <br /> rMv��Ok114NrAl <br /> to/ORAIOOIM INC <br />