Laserfiche WebLink
Is Data V a (circle) Preservation <br /> Temperature <br /> YES ( Known) <br /> NO 1.2, 1.8 (°C) <br /> Stantec Lab Validation Form <br /> Project/Client: Stockton Parcel 2A <br /> Project No.: 185750217.712.9404 <br /> Lab Work Order No.: 1259724 <br /> Date of Validation: 03/22/16 <br /> Date of Analysis: 01/14 through 01/16 01/20 through 01/23 and 01/26/16 <br /> Date of Sampling: 01/11/16 through 01/13/16 <br /> Completed By: Tony Giglini <br /> Circle/Highlight <br /> Signature: Yes or No <br /> U <br /> LX�rfA'•Lc <br /> 1. Was the analysis the one requested? es No <br /> 2. Do the sample number(s) on the chain-of-custody (COC) match the ones) that appear on es No <br /> the laboratory data sheet? <br /> 3. Were samples prepared (extracted, filtered, etc.) within EPA holding times? es No <br /> 4. Once prepared/extracted,were the samples analyzed within the EPA holding times? Yes ;)4 <br /> 5. Were Laboratory blanks performed, if so,were they below non-detect? 1) Yes <br /> 6. Are the units correct? (i.e., soil samples in mg/kg or Ng/g,water samples mg/L, Ng/L, and air Yes No <br /> samples in volume mg/m3,etc.) <br /> 7. Were appropriate Matrix Spike (MS) and Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) samples included in Yes No <br /> the laboratory batch sample? <br /> 8. In lieu of MS/MSD,were surrogate spike (SS) or surrogate spike duplicate (SSD) samples Yes No <br /> included in the laboratory batch samples? <br /> 9. Were MS/MSD (or SS/SSD) within the acceptable range of%recovery (i.e., approx 80-120% Yes No <br /> depending on analyte)? 2) <br /> 10. Were MS/MSD (or SS/SSD) values used to calculate Relative Percent Difference (RPD)? Yes No <br /> 11. Were RPD values within the acceptable range (i.e.±25%)? 3) Yes No <br /> If any answer is no, explain why and what corrective action was taken: <br /> 1) For method blank 281359 and associated samples(MW-69 through MW-74 and 2A-MW-12 and QCEB-3FT)TPHDRO was detected slightly <br /> above the laboratory method reporting limit(0.064 mg/L)which could indicated that the data reported for these samples is bias low by 0.014 <br /> mg/L). However,TPHDRO is within historical ranges for these samples and the detection is not anticipated to compromise the reported data. <br /> 2) n-Oclacosane surrogate for TPH was outside of QC range for percent recovery in sample MW-17;lab indicates matrix interference. Reported <br /> values for TPH were consistent with historical data and other surrogates were in range.Data is not considered to be compromised. <br /> 3) The RPD was slightly out of QC range for TPH-DRO in batch 283672 and 283673. LCS/LCSD are within range thus reported data is n <br /> considered to be compromised. 10 <br />