Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> 10 <br /> Evaluation of the laboratory reports included looking at: <br /> • The number and type of laboratory qualifiers; <br /> t.,..».r <br /> • The Relative Percent Differences(RPDs) reported by the laboratory in their second <br /> column runs; and <br /> • The laboratory reporting limits for COCs. <br /> The laboratory data generated for this project is valid and reliable because it meets the criteria for <br /> acceptability presented below: <br /> QA/QC Sampling Frequency <br /> The sampling frequency for QA/QC samples met the frequency proposed in <br /> the RDIP. <br /> Rinsate and Field Blanks <br /> A rinsate and a field blank sample were collected on the first day of sampling (23 March 2004). <br /> Neither the field blank.(FB-1-2004-03-23) or the rinsate blank (RB-1-12004-03-23) contained <br /> TPHd or arsenic above the laboratory reporting limits (Table 9). Because this was the only day <br /> when reusable sampling equipment was used, no other rinsate'or field blank samples were <br /> collected for the project. <br /> Trip Blanks <br /> Six trip blanks were collected during the project, and none contained TPHg or VOCs above the <br /> laboratory reporting limits (Table 9). <br /> Field Duplicate.Samples <br /> The project goal for the field duplicates pairs is a RPD of 50 percent or less. Duplicate samples <br /> were collected adjacent to the parent samples (co-located) at the 20 locations identified on <br /> Table 8. Twelve duplicate pairs were collected for TPH analyses, and all samples contained <br /> 4 <br /> 25971025.DGD 18 11 August 2005 <br /> 5 <br />