Laserfiche WebLink
Project Number: SFB-175.0204.72 <br /> Consultant Project Number: i600a250 pa4 <br /> Contract Number, N46CWCO244-9-X <br /> k <br /> FaciEi*j Number 0-6155 <br /> .? Work Grder Numb ^10176 <br /> Report issue Da% tober 10,1990 <br /> €0 <br /> a QA Conformance Summary <br /> I ` Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons <br /> as Gasoline in SO <br /> f r- RPA Method 8020/8015 <br /> r {' <br /> s, s 1.0 6tanks <br /> S.. <br /> I{ <br /> Five of5 target compounds were below detection limits in the reagent water blank and reagent <br /> . methanol blank as shown in Tables 2a and 2b. <br /> f rr <br /> 2.0 Independent QC Check Sam le <br /> The control limits were met for 4 out of 4 QC check compounds as shown In Table 3. <br /> i . <br /> i.. 3.0 Surrogate Compound Reggver€es <br /> F Percent recovery limits were met for the surrogate compound(naphthalene)for all samples <br /> as shown in Table 4. <br /> I <br /> xJ � <br /> 4.0 M trix ik M n Matrix Spike-D If t MSS Accurac nd Preciglon <br /> i..3 4.1 Percent recovery limits were met for 4 of 4 compounds in the MS and MSD as shown in Table <br /> 5 <br /> �m <br /> 4.2 Relative percent difference(RPD)criteria was met for 4 of 4 analytes in the MS and NISD as <br /> r>,3 shown in Table 5. <br /> € 5.0 Sample Handlino . <br /> 5.1 Sample handling and holding time criteria were met for all samples. <br /> j4 °~ 5.2 There were no exceptional conditions requiring dilution of samples. <br /> L-; <br /> I ; <br /> E <br /> t <br /> G7EL Concord,CA Page 3 of 7 <br /> 0010176.000 <br /> `ATE <br /> EtI Vt 40 NMEN r At - <br /> to E09ATO41ES. INC <br />