| OCR Text |
Show ARC0963/SAMP_RES.RPT.16 07 /31/96 AWAL in Salt Lake City, Utah performed the analyses of the verification samples and equipment decontamination wipe samples. A narrative regarding the results of all QC checks performed during the analyses of these samples is provided in Appendix A. This narrative indicates the QC protocol below was followed on all sample sets submitted throughout the project: • Initial calibration blanks and continuing calibration blanks were run, and the results were less than the reporting detection limits. • Initial calibration verifications and continuing calibration verifications were run, and the results were within the control limits. • Interference check standards were run, and the results were within the control lim~ts. • Laboratory control samples were run, and the results were within the control limits. Calibration and QC requirements published in EPA SW-846 were followed. AWAL followed and conformed to the QA/QC requirements set forth by the Data Quality Objectives for each method. AWAL reported no anomalies during_the analyses and QC checks for these data. 4.4 DATA ASSESSMENT The assessment of the data for its suitability for use is based upon review of the data validation results. The data assessment is subjective in that problems identified during the validation process are considered as to their effect on the sample results. Assessment of validation results for each category of data reviewed are discussed below. The data entry into the notebooks was clear, all QC sample data were clearly identified, and data transfer to the Paradox database was complete and accurate. The notebooks were complete with the exception of QC data results (OV and CV samples) during the period of August 28 and September 15, 1995, although these data were present on separate forms and were submitted for review immediately. Deficiencies were not noted regarding completeness within the field notebooks to qualify any data as rejected. XRF results of QAl data QC sample analyses were reviewed. The SAP required that QC samples include OV and CV samples. Analysis frequencies for these samples were not stated in the SAP. OV and CV samples were analyzed prior to analyses of field samples each day, and CV samples were also analyzed at a 10 percent frequency during XRF operation. Review of OV sample results indicated up to 34 percent of iron readings out of instrument guideline parameters. Per discussions with the field lab supervisor and NT Technologies technical personnel, the appropriate corrective action was performed following these readings, and the OV results were classified as acceptable. The percent recoveries of all CV XRF results as compared to the NIST 2711 true value results were within the SAP required ±20 percent control limits, with the exception of two samples. These two samples were initial values prior to re-analysis of the CV standard. The re-analysis of the CV standard in each 16 |
