ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0007945 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

URSDATA VALIDATION MEMO 8801 Folsom Boulevard,#200 Dames & Moore Sacramento,CA 95826 Telephone-(916)387-8800 1 ax-(916)387-0802 TO Jack Kernp INFO: ' FROM Sacramento QA/QC Group FILE 15884-019-044 DATE July 19, 2000 SITE American Forest Products ' SUBJECT Summary of Data Validation for STL Project GOE270170 This report surnmarizes the findings of the Completeness Check for STL project GOE270170 This ' includes eight water samples DMW-4, DMW-7, DMW-70, DMW-3, DMW-2, DMW-5, DMW-6, and DMW-1 Samples DMW-7 and DMW-70 represent a field duplicate pair The samples were collected May 26, 2000, as part of the American Forest Products Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring project and were analyzed for TPD-diesel, with Northwest Clean-Up, (EPA 8015m) at Severn Trent Laboratories in West Sacramento, California The laboratory report was received on July 12, 2000 ' The data were reviewed in accordance with analytical methods outlined in EPA SW-846 The data were evaluated based on the following parameters ' ✓ Data Completeness ✓ Holding Times and Preservation ✓ Blanks ✓ System Monitoring Compounds (Surrogates) ✓ Laboratory Control Samples ✓ Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates ✓ Field Duplicates ' ✓ Compound Identification and Quantification The following presents an overview of the Completeness Check 0 All analyses were performed as per the chain-of-custody records Holding times were met for the original extraction and analysis of these samples However, re-extraction of these samples, due to low LCS recoveries in the original analysis, was performed beyond the holding time for aqueous samples These results should be considered as estimated due to holding time exceedences i The method blank was free of contamination + The surrogate, o-terphenyl, is appropriate to this method The surrogate recovery for sample DMW-6 (46%) was below acceptance limits indicating a low bias Results for this sample should be considered as estimated All other surrogate recoveries were within acceptable limits • The LCS recoveries in the original analysis were low The LCS recoveries were within acceptable limits for the second analysis However, sample results were not confirmed as detections of unknown hydrocarbons were present in the second analysis Therefore, results from the second analysis should be utilized • There were no significant differences between the field duplicate pair, DMW-7 and DMW-70 • No assessment of matrix effects can be made since an MS/MSD analysis was not reported with this data set A 1Sacva108 765