KSAAP_Appendix_F_-_DUAR.pdf

PDF 600 KB Posted Jun 21, 2018

Attached to: KSAAP Bldg. 1206 Remediation
Solicitation number: W912DQ18R3010
Issued by: Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Engineering District Kansas City

About this file

From the source

Appendix F Attachment

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Appendix_B.pdf	PDF	Jun 21, 2018
Appendix_E.pdf	PDF	Jun 21, 2018
Amended_SOW.pdf	PDF	Jun 21, 2018
Appendix_H_Geochem.pdf	PDF	Jun 21, 2018
Table_1_-_Submittals.pdf	PDF	Jun 21, 2018
1206_access.pdf	PDF	Jun 21, 2018
AppGKSAAP1206.pdf	PDF	Jun 21, 2018
Appendix_A.pdf	PDF	Jun 21, 2018
Amendment_2_Released.pdf	PDF	Jun 21, 2018
Appendix_G.pdf	PDF	Jun 21, 2018
Appendix_C.pdf	PDF	Jun 21, 2018
A.07.24_Amendment_0001.pdf	PDF	Jun 7, 2018
A.07.23Table_4_-_Soil_Excavation_Volumes_revised.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 25, 2018
A.07.23_Attachment_3_-_Assumptions.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 25, 2018
A.07.23_Solicitation_Figures_Combined.pdf	PDF	May 25, 2018
A.07.23_1c_DRAFT_Building_1206_Investigation_Report.pdf	PDF	May 25, 2018
A.07.23_Attachment_4_-_Schedule_Spec.PDF	PDF	May 25, 2018
A.07.23_Attachment_5_revised--RMS_Spec.pdf	PDF	May 25, 2018
A.07.23_1b_Final_Corrective_Measures.pdf	PDF	May 25, 2018
W912DQ18R3010_KSAAP_Bldg_1206.pdf	PDF	May 25, 2018
A.07.23_Attachment_2--KSAAP_1206_Item_Schedule.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 25, 2018
A.07.23_1a_Final_Remedial_Action_Report.pdf	PDF	May 25, 2018
A.07.23_1d_Building_1206_Construction_Drawings_(various_years).pdf	PDF	May 25, 2018
A.07.23_Table_1_-_Submittals.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 25, 2018

Show all 24

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

APPENDIX F

Data Usability Assessment Report

1200 Area Pre‐Design

Investigation of Building

1206 Work Summary

Parsons, Kansas i

Table of Contents

Section 1 Data Usability and Assessment Review .............................................................. 1‐1

1.1 Usability Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 1‐1

Section 2 Quality Assurance Objectives ............................................................................. 2‐1

Section 3 Summary of Field and Laboratory QA Activities .................................................. 3‐1

3.1	Deviations	from	Field	and	Laboratory	Procedures	....................................................................................	3‐1
3.2	Field	Quality	Assurance/Quality	Control	.......................................................................................................	3‐1
3.3	Laboratory	Quality	Assurance/Quality	Control	..........................................................................................	3‐1

3.3.1 Laboratory Methods .................................................................................................................................. 3‐2

Section 4 Data Validation Procedures ................................................................................ 4‐1

Section 5 Data Quality Indicators ....................................................................................... 5‐1

5.1	Precision	.......................................................................................................................................................................	5‐2
5.2	Accuracy	.....................................................................................................................................................................	5‐21

5.2.1	Blank	Contamination	...............................................................................................................................	5‐32
5.3	Representativeness	................................................................................................................................................	5‐34
5.4	Comparability	...........................................................................................................................................................	5‐35
5.5	Data	Completeness	.................................................................................................................................................	5‐35
5.6	Sensitivity	...................................................................................................................................................................	5‐36

Section 6 Assessment of Data Usability and Reconciliation with Work Plan Goals ............. 6‐1

List of Tables

Table

4‐1

Sample

Delivery

Group

and

Associated

Sample

Names

.............................................................

4‐1

Table

5‐1

DQIs

and

Corresponding

Parameters

..........................................................................................

5‐1

Table

5‐2

Field

Duplicate

Relative

Percent

Difference

Results

....................................................................

5‐4

Table

5‐3

Field

XRF

Screening

and

Building

Material

Samples

‐

Field

Duplicate

Results

................

5‐6

Table

5‐4

XRF

Overburden

Phase

Samples

‐

Field

Duplicate

Results

...................................................

5‐9

Table

5‐5

XRF

Overburden

Phase

Samples

‐

Field

Duplicate

Results

.................................................

5‐13

Table

5‐6

XRF

Concrete

Samples

‐

Field

Duplicate

Results

.........................................................................

5‐17

Table

5‐7

Field

XRF

Screening

and

Building

Material

Samples

‐

Calibration

Results

.................

5‐22

Table

5‐8

XRF

Overburden

Phase

Samples

‐

Calibration

Results

..........................................................

5‐24

Table

5‐9

XRF

Overburden

Phase

Samples

‐

Calibration

Results

..........................................................

5‐27

Table

5‐10

XRF

Concrete

Samples

‐

Calibration

Results

.................................................................................

5‐29

Table

5‐11

Field

XRF

Screening

Building

Material

Samples

‐

Blank

Results

.....................................

5‐32

Table

5‐12

XRF

Overburden

Phase

Samples

‐

Blank

Results

.....................................................................

5‐33

Table

5‐13

XRF

Overburden

Phase

Samples

‐

Blank

Results

.....................................................................

5‐33

Table

5‐14

XRF

Concrete

Samples

‐

Blank

Results

............................................................................................

5‐34

Table of Contents Data Usability Assessment Report ii

Attachment

Attachment A Data Validation Reports

1‐1

Section 1

Data Usability and Assessment Review

The

purpose

this

data

usability

and

assessment

review

(DUAR)

summarize

the

data

validation

performed

the

data

collected

the

KSAAP

Site

Parsons,

Kansas

and

determine

whether

the

sample

results

meet

the

data

quality

objectives

(DQOs)

outlined

Kansas

Army

Ammunition

Plant

(KSAAP)

Building

1206

Final

Quality

Assurance

Project

Plan

(QAPP)

(CDM

Smith2017).

Sampling activities were performed from September 2017 through November 2017.

RTI	Laboratories	of	Livonia,	Michigan	and	Eurofins,	Lancaster	Laboratories	Environmental	LLC	of
Lancaster,	Pennsylvania	analyzed	the	samples.	Screening‐level	analyses	were	completed	at	the
CDM	Smith	Denver	Treatability	Laboratory	(CDM	Smith	DTL).

Below

summary

the

validation

performed

the

samples

and

overall

assessment

the

data

quality

and

usability.

Level

Stage

validation

was

performed

accordance

with

the

specific

analytical

methods,

CDM

Smith’s

QAPP

(CDM

Smith

2017),

Department

Defense

Quality

Systems

Manual

(QSM

2017)

5.1

requirements

and

the

National

Functional

Guidelines

for

Inorganic

Superfund

Methods

Data

Review

(EPA

2017).

1.1 Usability Summary

Validation

was

conducted

CDM

Smith

validators

not

associated

with

the

collection

the

samples.

total

five

data

packages

were

reviewed

for

the

overburden,

concrete,

and

aqueous

leachate

samples

collected.

Samples

were

also

analyzed

for

chromium

with

field

portable

x‐ray

fluorescence

(XRF)

instrument

(Olympus

Delta)

using

CDM

Smith

Technical

Standard

Operating

Procedure

(TSOP)

1‐15.

XRF

data

was

collected

from

the

following:

building

materials

(concrete

slab

and

brick

wall)

under

pre‐

and

post‐cleaning

conditions;

concrete

and

brick

cores

collected

and

shipped

the

CDM

Smith

DTL;

and

overburden

collected

and

shipped

the

CDM

Smith

DTL.

Samples

were

collected

and

analyzed

accordance

with

the

applicable

QAPP

elements.

Deviations

were

encountered

during

the

field

investigations

for

both

the

field

work

and

the

laboratory

analyses.

Deviations

are

discussed

Section

and

the

Pre‐design

Investigation

Work

Summary.

Data

collected

during

sampling

investigations

and

validated

for

this

DUAR

are

usable

reported

with

the

data

validation

qualifiers

added.

sample

results

were

rejected.

Specific

details

are

provided

the

validation

reports

presented

Attachment

summary

the

validation

presented

below.

Section 1 Data Usability and Assessment Review

1‐2

This page intentionally left blank.

2‐1

Section 2

Quality Assurance Objectives

Quality

assurance

(QA)

objectives

for

measurement

data

are

expressed

terms

measurement

performance

data

quality

indicators,

precision,

accuracy,

representativeness,

comparability,

completeness,

and

sensitivity

(PARCCS).

objectives

provide

mechanism

for

ongoing

quality

control

(QC)

and

evaluating

and

measuring

data

quality

throughout

the

project.

review

the

collected

data

necessary

order

identify

data

measurement

objectives

established

the

QAPP

elements

have

been

met.

general,

the

following

data

measurement

objectives

were

considered:

Specification of analytical method and reporting detection limit requirements

Identification of the appropriate laboratory analytical QC requirements

Verification of appropriate levels of PARCCS criteria

Delineation of specific sample‐handling issues or other project‐specific issues

The

data

validation

review

and

data

assessment

compared

the

requirements

verifies

that

the

collected

data

are

sufficient

quality

support

their

intended

use.

Section 2 Quality Assurance Objectives

2‐2

This page intentionally left blank.

3‐1

Section 3

Summary of Field and Laboratory QA Activities

CDM

Smith

completed

sampling

activities

accordance

with

the

approved

project

specific

work

plan

(CDM

Smith

2017).

Sampling

details

are

provided

the

Pre‐design

Investigation

Work

Summary.

All

samples

were

received

intact

with

proper

chain

custody

documentation

the

laboratories.

Any

sample

discrepancies

are

discussed

the

individual

data

validation

reports

Appendix

All

sample

identification

was

accurately

documented

the

laboratory

verified

with

the

sampling

team.

The

elements

CDM

Smith’s

QAPP

(CDM

Smith

2017)

defined

the

procedures

followed

and

the

data

quality

requirements

for

field

sampling

events

and

analytical

procedures.

3.1 Deviations from Field and Laboratory Procedures

Deviations

from

field

procedures

were

encountered

during

these

sampling

investigations.

These

are

discussed

the

Pre‐design

Investigation

Work

Summary.

Field

and

analytical

deviations

were

addressed

appropriately

and

none

the

changes

had

adverse

impact

data

quality.

Sample

results

are

usable

for

project

decisions.

3.2 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Field

samples

such

matrix

spike/matrix

spike

duplicates

(MS/MSDs),

field

duplicates,

field

replicates

and

field

blanks

were

collected

the

frequencies

(five

percent)

defined

the

QAPP.

The

number

MS/MSDs,

field

duplicates,

field

replicates

(XRF)

and

field

blank

samples

collected

satisfies

the

minimum

requirements

one

per

ten

one

per

twenty

samples

described

the

QAPP.

Field	QA/QC	objectives	were	accomplished	through	the	use	of	appropriate	sampling	techniques
and	collection	of	the	required	QC	samples	at	the	required	frequencies.

3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Analytical

QA/QC

was

assessed

laboratory

checks,

method

blanks,

sample

custody

tracking,

sample

preservation,

adherence

holding

times,

laboratory

control

samples

(LCSs),

MS/MSDs,

sample

duplicates,

post

digestion

spikes,

calibrations

and

other

applicable

parameters.

The

laboratory

sample

results

met

project

requirements

for

majority

the

data.

Attachment

presents

the

data

validation

reports

with

specific

details

any

required

qualifications.

Section 3 Summary of Field and Laboratory QA Activities

3‐2

3.3.1 Laboratory Methods

The samples were analyzed using the following methods:

Hexavalent	Chromium	–	extraction	by	SW‐846	Method	3060	and	analysis	by	SW‐846
Method	7199

Hexavalent

Chromium

–

extraction

SW‐846

Method

3060

(modified

SOP

7‐12)

and

analysis

HACH

portable

spectrophotometer

(Power

Pillow

Method

8023)

Total Chromium – digestion by SW‐846 Method 3050 and analysis by SW‐846 Method 6020

Total Chromium – analysis by XRF (TSOP 1‐15)

All

the

methods

used

for

these

sampling

events

met

project

requirements

and

are

consistent

with

the

QAPP

listed

methods

and

provide

results

that

meet

the

required

data

quality.

4‐1

Section 4

Data Validation Procedures

Data

were

validated

CDM

Smith

data

validators

not

associated

with

the

sampling

activities

this

project.

The

data

validation

was

performed

accordance

with

the

Level

Stage

Validation

which

includes

verification

and

validation

based

completeness

and

compliance

checks

sample

receipt

conditions

and

both

sample‐related

and

instrument‐related

results.

The

Level

Stage

validation

was

performed

accordance

with

the

specific

analytical

methods,

CDM

Smith’s

QAPP

(CDM

Smith

2017),

Quality

Systems

Manual

(QSM)

5.1

requirements

and

the

National

Functional

Guidelines

for

Inorganic

Superfund

Methods

Data

Review

(EPA

2017).

Sample

delivery

groups

(SDGs)

and

associated

samples

are

presented

Table

4‐1

for

the

non‐XRF

samples.

Validation

reports

for

the

SDGs

were

prepared

and

are

presented

Attachment

Table 4‐1 Sample Delivery Group and Associated Sample Names

Laboratory

SDG

Sample Name Matrix Code Sample Date

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E85N25‐1.7‐2.0 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E85N25‐5.5‐6.2 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E90N35‐1.0‐3.0 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E90N35‐6.5‐7.1 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E103N18‐0.5‐1.0 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E103N18‐5.5‐6.0 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E120N10‐1.5‐3.5 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E120N10‐7.5‐8.0 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E125N18‐1.5‐2.1 Soil 9/28/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E125N18‐5.0‐5.6 Soil 9/28/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E150N30‐1.0‐1.5 Soil 9/28/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E150N30‐4.5‐5.2 Soil 9/28/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E151N9‐4.5‐5.0 Soil 9/28/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E151N9‐7.0‐7.8 Soil 9/28/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E163‐N7‐1.0‐1.5 Soil 9/28/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E163‐N7‐4.5‐5.1 Soil 9/28/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E60N20‐0.5‐1.0 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E88N9‐3.0‐3.5 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E110N30‐1.0‐4.0 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E125N18‐1.5‐2.1Q Soil 9/28/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐E90N35‐6.5‐7.1Q Soil 9/28/2017

RSU59 1206‐SO‐BLANK Soil 10/6/2017

RSU61 1206‐B‐E90H4 Solid 9/22/2017

RSU61 1206‐B‐E120H2 Solid 9/22/2017

Section 4 Data Validation Procedures

4‐2

Table 4‐1 Sample Delivery Group and Associated Sample Names

Laboratory

SDG

Sample Name Matrix Code Sample Date

RSU61 1206‐B‐E160H2 Solid 9/22/2017

RSU61 1206‐B‐E160H2Q Solid 9/22/2017

RSU61 1206‐CC‐E85N25‐Surface Solid 9/21/2017

RSU61 1206‐CC‐E110N27‐Surface Solid 9/21/2017

RSU61 1206‐CC‐E60N20‐Surface Solid 9/19/2017

RSU61 1206‐CC‐E88N9‐Surface Solid 9/15/2017

RSU61 1206‐CC‐E25N15‐Surface Solid 9/21/2017

RSU61 1206‐CC‐E50N50‐Surface Solid 9/19/2017

RSU61 1206‐CC‐E85N25‐SurfaceQ Solid 9/21/2017

RSU61 1206‐SO‐E85N25‐2.5‐3.0 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU61 1206‐SO‐E85N25‐3.5‐4.0 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU61 1206‐SO‐E90N35‐3.0‐3.5 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU61 1206‐SO‐E120N10‐3.5‐4.0 Soil 9/27/2017

RSU61 1206‐SO‐E150N30‐2.0‐2.5 Soil 9/28/2017

1710655 1206‐B‐E90H4 Solid 9/22/2017

1710655 1206‐B‐E120H2 Solid 9/22/2017

1710655 1206‐B‐E160H2 Solid 9/22/2017

1710655 1206‐B‐E160H2Q Solid 9/22/2017

1710655 1206‐CC‐E85N25‐Surface Solid 9/21/2017

1710655 1206‐CC‐E110N27‐Surface Solid 9/21/2017

1710655 1206‐CC‐E60N20‐Surface Solid 9/19/2017

1710655 1206‐CC‐E88N9‐Surface Solid 9/15/2017

1710655 1206‐CC‐E25N15‐Surface Solid 9/21/2017

1710655 1206‐CC‐E50N50‐Surface Solid 9/19/2017

1710655 1206‐CC‐E85N25‐Surface Solid 9/21/2017

RSU62 1206‐CC‐E50N50‐Leach Aqueous 10/19/2017

RSU62 1206‐CC‐E85N25‐Leach Aqueous 10/19/2017

RSU62 1206‐CC‐E85N25Q‐Leach Aqueous 10/19/2017

RSU62 1206‐CC‐E125N18‐Leach Aqueous 10/19/2017

RSU62 1206‐CC‐E140N20‐Leach Aqueous 10/19/2017

RSU62 1206‐CC‐E140N60‐Leach Aqueous 10/19/2017

RSU62 1206‐CC‐E150N50‐Leach Aqueous 10/19/2017

RSU62 1206‐CC‐Blank‐Leach Aqueous 10/19/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E61N10‐3.5‐4.0 Soil 11/10/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E72N18‐0.5‐1.0 Soil 11/8/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E72N18‐5.5‐6.0 Soil 11/8/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E72N32‐1.5‐2.0 Soil 11/8/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E72N25‐8.5‐9.0 Soil 11/7/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E83N38‐3.0‐3.5 Soil 11/8/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E83N38‐5.5‐6.0 Soil 11/8/2017

4‐3

Table 4‐1 Sample Delivery Group and Associated Sample Names

Laboratory

SDG

Sample Name Matrix Code Sample Date

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E83N53‐5.0‐5.3 Soil 11/10/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E90N20‐5.5‐5.9 Soil 11/9/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E90N38‐5.5‐5.7 Soil 11/7/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E98N30‐0.8‐1.5 Soil 11/7/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E110N10‐4.0‐4.5 Soil 11/9/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E125N32‐0.75‐1.0 Soil 11/7/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E135N5‐4.5‐4.9 Soil 11/9/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E135N50‐2.0‐2.5 Soil 11/10/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E138N32‐6.5‐7.0 Soil 11/7/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E138N37‐4.0‐4.5 Soil 11/8/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E150N5‐0.8‐1.5 Soil 11/9/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E150N38‐0.5‐2.1 Soil 11/7/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E150N38‐7.5‐8.0 Soil 11/7/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E170N50‐3.5‐4.0 Soil 11/10/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E173N3‐1.0‐1.5 Soil 11/9/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E178N20‐0.7‐1.5 Soil 11/10/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E150N38Q‐7.5‐8.0 Soil 11/7/2017

RSU64 1206‐SO‐E138N32Q‐6.5‐7.0 Soil 11/7/2017

4‐4

This page intentionally left blank.

5‐1

Section 5

Data Quality Indicators

Based

the

outcome

the

data

validation,

the

following

sections

evaluate

whether

the

quality

the

data

collected

during

this

sampling

event

achieves

the

data

quality

objectives

specified

the

QAPP.

Data

quality

and

usability

was

determined

based

various

quality

measures,

commonly

referred

data

quality

indicators

(DQIs)

–

precision,

accuracy,

representativeness,

comparability,

completeness,

and

sensitivity.

Data

quality

indicators

are

defined

the

following

sections.

parameters

evaluated

the

data

review/validation

and

the

corresponding

DQIs

are

summarized

Table

5‐1.

Table 5‐1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters

Data Quality Indicators QC Parameters Evaluation in Data Review/Validation

Precision Relative Percent Difference (RPD) values of:

1) LCS/LCS duplicate

2) MS/MSD

3) Field duplicates

4) Field replicates

5) Dual column confirmation

Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) values of:

1) Initial calibration verifications

Accuracy/Bias Percent Recovery (%R) or Percent Difference (%D) values of:

1) Initial calibration and continuing calibration verification

2) LCS/LCSD

3) MS/MSD

4) Surrogate spikes

5) Serial dilution (Inductively Coupled Plasma [ICP] metals)

6) ICP inter‐element interference check samples

7) Internal standards (%R and retention times)

8) Initial Calibration %D

Results of:

1) Instrument and calibration blanks

2) Method (preparation) blanks

3) Trip blanks

4) Equipment rinsate blanks

Representativeness Results of all blanks

Sample integrity (Chain‐of Custody and sample receipt forms)

Holding times

Compound identification (retention times, mass spectra, dual column confirmation)

Sample extract cleanup

Comparability Sample‐specific method reporting limits (MRLs)

Sample collection methods

Laboratory analytical methods

Section 5 Data Quality Indicators

5‐2

Table 5‐1 DQIs and Corresponding QC Parameters

Data Quality Indicators QC Parameters Evaluation in Data Review/Validation

Completeness Data qualifiers

Laboratory deliverables

Requested/reported valid results

Field sample collection (primary and QC samples)

Contract compliance (i.e., method and instrument QC within limits)

Sensitivity MRLs

Sample extract cleanup

Adequacy of sample dilution

5.1 Precision

Precision

quantitative

term

that

estimates

the

reproducibility

set

replicate

measurements

under

given

set

conditions.

defined

measurement

mutual

agreement

between

measurements

the

same

property

and

expressed

terms

RPD

between

duplicate

determinations.

RPD is calculated as follows:

RPD = absolute value [(C1‐C2)/{(C1+C2)/2)}] x 100%

Where:

C1	=	concentration	of	primary	sample
C2	=	concentration	of	duplicate	sample

Field

and

analytical

precision

was

determined

from

the

review

the

field

and

laboratory

duplicate

results.

The

sample

results

were

compared

calculating

their

RPDs.

The

field

duplicate

samples

were

collected

the

same

manner

the

original

samples

but

were

collected

separate,

individual

containers,

given

separate

sample

identifiers,

and

treated

individual

samples

the

laboratory.

For

field

and

laboratory

duplicate

RPD

validation,

percent

(%)

RPD

control

limits

for

each

method

are

identified

CDM

Smith’s

QAPP

(CDM

Smith

2017).

The

individual

validation

reports

Attachment

identify

any

sample

results

were

qualified

based

field

and

laboratory

duplicate

criteria.

Table

5‐2

shows

all

the

field

duplicates

for

the

non‐XRF

sampling

activities.

XRF

field

duplicate

tables

for

specific

areas

are

presented

Table

5‐3

through

Table

5‐6.

The

duplicate

XRF

measurements

test

the

inherent

variability

concentrations

within

sample,

while

the

replicate

intended

measure

the

variability

associated

with

use

the

instrument.

Duplicates

are

collected

measuring

the

concentration

different

locations

the

sample,

while

the

replicate

collected

measuring

the

concentration

the

same

location

(without

moving

the

instrument).

The following summarizes qualifications based on RPD criteria:

5‐3

Hexavalent

Chromium

–

All

field

duplicate

RPD

results

were

within

control

limits.

Laboratory

duplicate

RPDs

were

within

criteria

except

for

RPD

results

SDG

RSU64.

All

soil

sample

results

this

SDG

were

qualified

estimated

(J/UJ).

Total Chromium – All field duplicate and laboratory duplicate RPDs were within criteria.

Field

XRF

–

Some

the

XRF

chromium

results

were

qualified

estimated

(J/UJ)

based

field

and

replicate

duplicate

RPD

results.

5‐4

Table 5‐2 Field Duplicate Relative Percent Difference Results

Sample Identification

1206‐SO‐

E125N18‐1.5‐2.1

1206‐SO‐

E125N18‐1.5‐ 2.1Q

RPD

1206‐SO‐E90N35‐

6.5‐7.1

1206‐SO‐E90N35‐

6.5‐7.1Q

RPD

Sample Date 9/28/2017 9/28/2017 9/27/2018 9/28/2017

Analyte Units Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) mg/kg 82.5 80.4 2.58 16.8 24.9 ‐38.85

Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) µg/L ‐‐ ‐‐ NA ‐‐ ‐‐ NA

Chromium µg/kg ‐‐ ‐‐ NA ‐‐ ‐‐ NA

Sample Identification 1206‐B‐E160H2 1206‐B‐E160H2Q

RPD

1206‐CC‐E85N25‐

Surface

1206‐CC‐E85N25‐

SurfaceQ

RPD

Sample Date 9/22/2017 9/22/2017 9/21/2017 9/21/2017

Analyte Units Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) mg/kg 0.51 J 0.39 J 26.67 2,630 J 3,630 J ‐31.95

Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) µg/L ‐‐ ‐‐ NA ‐‐ ‐‐ NA

Chromium µg/kg 7,500 J 6,300 J 17.39 ‐‐ ‐‐ NA

Sample Identification 1206‐B‐E160H2 1206‐B‐E160H2Q

RPD

1206‐CC‐E85N25‐

Surface

1206‐CC‐E85N25‐

SurfaceQ

RPD

Sample Date 9/22/2017 9/22/2017 9/21/2017 9/21/2017

Analyte Units Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) mg/kg 0.51 J 0.39 J 26.67 2,630 J 3,630 J ‐31.95

Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) µg/L ‐‐ ‐‐ NA ‐‐ ‐‐ NA

Chromium µg/kg 7,500 J 6,300 J 17.39 ‐‐ ‐‐ NA

Sample Identification

1206‐CC‐

E85N25Q‐Leach

1206‐CC‐

E85N25Q‐Leach

RPD

1206‐SO‐E150N38‐

7.5‐8.0

1206‐SO‐

E150N38Q‐7.5‐8.0

RPD

Sample Date 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 11/7/2017 11/7/2017

Analyte Units Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) mg/kg ‐‐ ‐‐ NA 17.8 J 15.1 J 16.41

Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) µg/L 4,220 3,340 23.28 ‐‐ ‐‐ NA

Chromium µg/kg ‐‐ ‐‐ NA ‐‐ ‐‐ NA

Section 5 • Data Quality Indicators

5‐5

Sample Identification

1206‐SO‐

E138N32‐6.5‐7.0

1206‐SO‐

E138N32Q‐6.5‐ 7.0

RPD

Sample Date 11/7/2017 11/7/2017

Analyte Units Result Qual Result Qual

Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) mg/kg 1.8 J 1.3 J 32.26

Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds) µg/L ‐‐ ‐‐ NA

Chromium µg/kg ‐‐ ‐‐ NA

Notes:

Yellow

highlight

RPD

above

criteria

mg/kg

milligram

per

kilogram

µg/L

microgram

per

liter

µg/kg

microgram

per

kilogram

RPD

relative

percent

difference

not

applicable

Abs.

The

absolute

difference

between

the

two

results

less

than

the

RL.

qualification

required.

5‐6

Table 5‐3 Field XRF Screening and Building Material Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

Sample Depth

Cr (mg/kg)

Cr Qualifier

E20 N40 9/16/17

Surface 562

DUP Surface 877

REP Surface 884

RPD DUP (%)

RPD REP (%)

E60 N40 9/16/17

Surface 1216 J

DUP Surface 2453 J

REP Surface 2503

E120 N30 9/16/17

Surface 2119

DUP Surface 2826

REP Surface 2687

E140 N60 9/16/17

Surface 1037

DUP Surface 1071

REP Surface 1076

E170 N80 9/16/17

Surface 5009 J

DUP Surface 1173 J

REP Surface 1174

E160 9/16/17

4" Wall Height 252

DUP 4" Wall Height 177

REP 4" Wall Height 157

E10 N0 9/18/17

Surface 205

DUP Surface 298

REP Surface 301

E30 N0 9/18/17

Surface 491

DUP Surface 464

REP Surface 470

5‐7

Table 5‐3 Field XRF Screening and Building Material Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

Sample Depth

Cr (mg/kg)

Cr Qualifier

E50 N0 9/18/17

Surface 528

DUP Surface 844

REP Surface 860

E70 N0 9/18/17

Surface 225

DUP Surface 287

REP Surface 271

E90 N0 9/18/17

Surface 947

DUP Surface 1244

REP Surface 1265

E130 N80 9/18/17

Surface 488

DUP Surface 500

REP Surface 521

E140 N10 9/18/17

Surface 4307

DUP Surface 5727

REP Surface 5780

E150 N60 9/18/17

Surface 1439 J

DUP Surface 3609 J

REP Surface 3665

E160 N30 9/18/17

Surface 1198

DUP Surface 751

REP Surface 728

E170 N20 9/18/17

Surface 1163

DUP Surface 1288

REP Surface 1289

5‐8

Table 5‐3 Field XRF Screening and Building Material Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

Sample Depth

Cr (mg/kg)

Cr Qualifier

E140 H2 9/18/17

2"Wall Height 357 J

DUP 2"Wall Height 697 J

REP 2"Wall Height 895

E110 H2 9/18/17

2"Wall Height 501

DUP 2"Wall Height 615

REP 2"Wall Height 663

E60 H2 9/18/17

2"Wall Height 173

DUP 2"Wall Height 149

REP 2"Wall Height 166

E30 H4 9/18/17

4"Wall Height 94

DUP 4"Wall Height 95

REP 4"Wall Height 96

E0 H4 9/18/17

4"Wall Height 89

DUP 4"Wall Height 109

REP 4"Wall Height 109

Notes:

The

acceptance

limits

for

soil

sample

replicates

and

duplicates

less

than

equal

RPD.

RPDs

outside

acceptance

limits

are

highlighted

yellow

and

bolded.

chromium

Dup

field

duplicate

Rep

replicate

determination

mg/kg

milligram

per

kilogram

quality

control

RPD

relative

percent

difference

percent

Data

Validation

Qualifiers

The

result

estimated

quantity.

The

associated

numerical

value

the

approximate

concentration

the

analyte

the

sample.

5‐9

Table 5‐4 XRF Overburden Phase 1 Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

Sample Depth

Cr (mg/kg)

Cr Qualifier

E85 N25 10/3/17

5.5‐6.2 121

DUP 5.5‐6.2 121

REP 5.5‐6.2 114

E88 N9 10/3/17

5.0‐5.5 147

DUP 5.0‐5.5 161 J

REP 5.0‐5.5 410 J

E151 N9 10/3/17

1.0‐3.25 632

DUP 1.0‐3.25 603

REP 1.0‐3.25 604

E151 N9 10/3/17

5.5‐6.0 4868

DUP 5.5‐6.0 6395

REP 5.5‐6.0 5658

E150 N50 10/3/17

1.5‐2.0 53

DUP 1.5‐2.0 49

REP 1.5‐2.0 47

E163 N7 10/3/17

2.5‐3.0 109

DUP 2.5‐3.0 111

REP 2.5‐3.0 112

E140 N60 10/3/17

1.5‐2.0 91

DUP 1.5‐2.0 73

REP 1.5‐2.0 69

E140 N20 10/4/17

1.5‐2.0 50

DUP 1.5‐2.0 53

REP 1.5‐2.0 50

5‐10

Table 5‐4 XRF Overburden Phase 1 Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

Sample Depth

Cr (mg/kg)

Cr Qualifier

E60 N20 10/4/17

0.5‐1.0 157

DUP 0.5‐1.0 164

REP 0.5‐1.0 176

E60 N20 10/4/17

6.0‐6.8 78

DUP 6.0‐6.8 84

REP 6.0‐6.8 83

E90 N35 10/3/17

** 3.0‐3.5 1016

DUP 3.0‐3.5 1254

REP 3.0‐3.5 1195

E103 N18 10/4/17

** 0.5‐1.0 1200

DUP 0.5‐1.0 1398

REP 0.5‐1.0 1315

E60 N32 10/4/17

5.5‐6.0 62

DUP 5.5‐6.0 51

REP 5.5‐6.0 49

E50 N50 10/4/17

3.0‐3.5 57

DUP 3.0‐3.5 41

REP 3.0‐3.5 41

E25 N15 10/4/17

1.5‐2.0 46

DUP 1.5‐2.0 47

REP 1.5‐2.0 57

E25 N15 10/4/17

6.6‐7.1 69

DUP 6.6‐7.1 61

REP 6.6‐7.1 65

5‐11

Table 5‐4 XRF Overburden Phase 1 Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

Sample Depth

Cr (mg/kg)

Cr Qualifier

E150 N30 10/4/17

4.5‐5.2 409

DUP 4.5‐5.2 420

REP 4.5‐5.2 417

DPT‐SD 10/4/17

5.0‐5.4 66

DUP 5.0‐5.4 70

REP 5.0‐5.4 73

E170 N80 10/4/17

0.7‐1.5 57

DUP 0.7‐1.5 42

REP 0.7‐1.5 36

E170 N80 10/4/17

6.0‐6.5 97

DUP 6.0‐6.5 105

REP 6.0‐6.5 95

E110 N30 10/4/17

4.75‐5.00 68

DUP 4.75‐5.00 66

REP 4.75‐5.00 65

E120 N10 10/4/17

1.5‐3.5 1204

DUP 1.5‐3.5 1249

REP 1.5‐3.5 1250

E120 N10 10/4/17

5.6‐6.0 82

DUP 5.6‐6.0 97

REP 5.6‐6.0 99

E103 N18 10/4/17

3.0‐3.5 94

DUP 3.0‐3.5 79

REP 3.0‐3.5 85

5‐12

Table 5‐4 XRF Overburden Phase 1 Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

Sample Depth

Cr (mg/kg)

Cr Qualifier

DPT‐ND 10/4/17

2.0‐2.5 60

DUP 2.0‐2.5 61

REP 2.0‐2.5 64

DPT‐HD 10/4/17

2.5‐3.0 55

DUP 2.5‐3.0 63

REP 2.5‐3.0 58

DPT‐HD 10/4/17

6.0‐6.1 69

DUP 6.0‐6.1 65

REP 6.0‐6.1 67

DPT‐CD 10/4/17

** 6.0‐6.5 69

DUP 6.0‐6.5 69

REP 6.0‐6.5 76

Notes:

Result

the

average

results

taken

two

locations.

The

acceptance

limits

for

soil

sample

replicates

and

duplicates

less

than

equal

RPD.

RPDs

outside

acceptance

limits

are

highlighted

yellow

and

bolded.

chromium

Dup

field

duplicate

Rep

replicate

determination

mg/kg

milligram

per

kilogram

quality

control

RPD

relative

percent

difference

percent

Data

Validation

Qualifiers

The

result

estimated

quantity.

The

associated

numerical

value

the

approximate

concentration

the

analyte

the

sample.

5‐13

Table 5‐5 XRF Overburden Phase 2 Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

QC Sample Depth Cr

(mg/kg) Cr

Qualifier

E98 N30 11/8/17

4.5‐5.0 70

DUP 4.5‐5.0 81

REP 4.5‐5.0 80

RPD DUP (%) 15

RPD REP (%) 1

E125 N32 11/8/17

** 4.0‐4.5 104

DUP 4.0‐4.5 94

REP 4.0‐4.5 96

RPD DUP (%) 10

RPD REP (%) 2

E83 N30 11/8/17

** 5.0‐5.1 115

DUP 5.0‐5.1 110

REP 5.0‐5.1 113

RPD DUP (%) 4

RPD REP (%) 3

E90 N38 11/8/17

** 4.0‐4.5 79

DUP 4.0‐4.5 87

REP 4.0‐4.5 82

RPD DUP (%) 10

RPD REP (%) 6

E150 N38 11/8/17

** 6.5‐7.0 122

DUP 6.5‐7.0 131

REP 6.5‐7.0 129

RPD DUP (%) 8

RPD REP (%) 2

E138N32 11/8/17

** 4.5‐5.0 35

DUP 4.5‐5.0 33

REP 4.5‐5.0 36

RPD DUP (%) 4

RPD REP (%) 9

E138N32 11/8/17

** 7.0‐7.1 101

DUP 7.0‐7.1 96

REP 7.0‐7.1 95

RPD DUP (%) 5

RPD REP (%) 1

E72 N25 11/8/17

** 5.0‐5.5 74

DUP 5.0‐5.5 89

REP 5.0‐5.5 92

RPD DUP (%) 18

RPD REP (%) 3

5‐14

Table 5‐5 XRF Overburden Phase 2 Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

QC Sample Depth Cr

(mg/kg) Cr

Qualifier

E72 N25 11/8/17

** 9.0‐9.2 109

DUP 9.0‐9.2 111

REP 9.0‐9.2 101

RPD DUP (%) 2

RPD REP (%) 9

E138 N37 11/10/17

** 4.0‐4.5 147

DUP 4.0‐4.5 114

REP 4.0‐4.5 126

RPD DUP (%) 25

RPD REP (%) 10

E72 N18 11/10/17

** 2.5‐3.0 96

DUP 2.5‐3.0 76

REP 2.5‐3.0 82

RPD DUP (%) 23

RPD REP (%) 8

E83 N38 11/10/17

** 1.0‐2.5 326

DUP 1.0‐2.5 379

REP 1.0‐2.5 368

RPD DUP (%) 15

RPD REP (%) 3

E83N38 11/10/17

** 6.0‐6.3 156

DUP 6.0‐6.3 145

REP 6.0‐6.3 162

RPD DUP (%) 7

RPD REP (%) 11

E72 N32 11/10/17

** 5.0‐5.5 66

DUP 5.0‐5.5 54

REP 5.0‐5.5 73

RPD DUP (%) 20

RPD REP (%) 30

E83 N53 11/16/17

** 5.0‐5.3 119

DUP 5.0‐5.3 125

REP 5.0‐5.3 117

RPD DUP (%) 5

RPD REP (%) 7

E178 N20 11/16/17

** 0.7‐1.5 120

DUP 0.7‐1.5 89

REP 0.7‐1.5 97

RPD DUP (%) 30

RPD REP (%) 9

5‐15

Table 5‐5 XRF Overburden Phase 2 Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

QC Sample Depth Cr

(mg/kg) Cr

Qualifier

E173 N3 11/16/17

** 5.0‐5.5 109

DUP 5.0‐5.5 112

REP 5.0‐5.5 99

RPD DUP (%) 3

RPD REP (%) 12

E61 N10 11/16/17

** 1.0‐1.5 76

DUP 1.0‐1.5 71

REP 1.0‐1.5 74

RPD DUP (%) 7

RPD REP (%) 4

E61 N10 11/16/17

** 6.5‐7.0 98

DUP 6.5‐7.0 96

REP 6.5‐7.0 92

RPD DUP (%) 2

RPD REP (%) 4

E170 N50 11/16/17

** 4.0‐4.2 59

DUP 4.0‐4.2 49

REP 4.0‐4.2 44

RPD DUP (%) 18

RPD REP (%) 11

E135 N50 11/16/17

** 4.0‐4.5 61

DUP 4.0‐4.5 65

REP 4.0‐4.5 63

RPD DUP (%) 6

RPD REP (%) 3

E90 N20 11/16/17

** 3.5‐4.0 59

DUP 3.5‐4.0 58

REP 3.5‐4.0 59

RPD DUP (%) 2

RPD REP (%) 2

E150 N5 11/16/17

** 2.5‐3.0 70

DUP 2.5‐3.0 57

REP 2.5‐3.0 59

RPD DUP (%) 20

RPD REP (%) 3

E135 N5 11/16/17

** 3.5‐4.0 92

DUP 3.5‐4.0 115

REP 3.5‐4.0 130

RPD DUP (%) 22

RPD REP (%) 12

5‐16

Table 5‐5 XRF Overburden Phase 2 Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

QC Sample Depth Cr

(mg/kg) Cr

Qualifier

E65N53 11/16/17

** 2.0‐2.5 73

DUP 2.0‐2.5 70

REP 2.0‐2.5 64

RPD DUP (%) 4

RPD REP (%) 9

E173N3 11/16/17

** 1.0‐1.5 151

DUP 1.0‐1.5 205

REP 1.0‐1.5 164

RPD DUP (%) 31

RPD REP (%) 22

Notes:

Result

the

average

results

taken

two

locations.

The

acceptance

limits

for

soil

sample

replicates

and

duplicates

less

than

equal

RPD.

RPDs

outside

acceptance

limits

are

highlighted

yellow

and

bolded.

chromium

Dup

field

duplicate

Rep

replicate

determination

mg/kg

milligram

per

kilogram

quality

control

RPD

relative

percent

difference

percent

5‐17

Table 5‐6 XRF Concrete Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

Sample Depth

Cr (mg/kg)

Cr Qualifier

E140 N25 #1 9/26/17

6 ‐ 6 1/4" 20

DUP 6 ‐ 6 1/4" 29

REP 6 ‐ 6 1/4" 31

RPD DUP (%) 37

RPD REP (%) 7

E110 N27 #2 9/26/17

1/4" ‐ 1/2" 80 J

DUP 1/4" ‐ 1/2" 226 J

REP 1/4" ‐ 1/2" 215

RPD DUP (%) 95

RPD REP (%) 5

E125 N18 #1 9/26/17

2 ‐2 1/4" 17

DUP 2 ‐2 1/4" 15

REP 2 ‐2 1/4" 20

RPD DUP (%) 13

RPD REP (%) 29

E125 N18 #1 9/26/17

3 3/4 ‐ 4 " 623

DUP 3 3/4 ‐ 4 " 520

REP 3 3/4 ‐ 4 " 725

RPD DUP (%) 18

RPD REP (%) 33

E150 N30 #2 9/27/17

1 1/4 ‐ 1 1/2" 480

DUP 1 1/4 ‐ 1 1/2" 386

REP 1 1/4 ‐ 1 1/2" 320

RPD DUP (%) 22

RPD REP (%) 19

E120 N10 #2 Top 9/27/17

2 3/4 ‐ 3" 15 J

DUP 2 3/4 ‐ 3" 8 J

REP 2 3/4 ‐ 3" <7

RPD DUP (%) 61

RPD REP (%) NC

E120 N10 #2 Bottom 9/27/17

2 ‐ 2 1/4 " 17

DUP 2 ‐ 2 1/4 " <6

REP 2 ‐ 2 1/4 " 8

RPD DUP (%) NC

RPD REP (%) NC

E60 N20 #2 9/27/17

3 ‐ 3 1/4" <5.3

DUP 3 ‐ 3 1/4" <6

REP 3 ‐ 3 1/4" <5.5

RPD DUP (%) NC

RPD REP (%) NC

5‐18

Table 5‐6 XRF Concrete Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

Sample Depth

Cr (mg/kg)

Cr Qualifier

E151 N9 Mid 9/27/17

Surface 6126

DUP Surface 5199 J

REP Surface 2173 J

RPD DUP (%) 16

RPD REP (%) 82

E151 N9 Mid 9/27/17

2 1/4 ‐ 2 1/2" 46

DUP 2 1/4 ‐ 2 1/2" 37

REP 2 1/4 ‐ 2 1/2" 43

RPD DUP (%) 22

RPD REP (%) 15

E88 N9 #2 9/27/17

5 ‐ 5 1/4 " 14

DUP 5 ‐ 5 1/4 " 9

REP 5 ‐ 5 1/4 " 15

RPD DUP (%) 43

RPD REP (%) 50

E103 N18 #2 9/27/17

Surface 6554

DUP Surface 7005

REP Surface 7204

RPD DUP (%) 7

RPD REP (%) 3

E140 N60 9/27/17

1/2 ‐ 3/4" 57

DUP 1/2 ‐ 3/4" 36

REP 1/2 ‐ 3/4" 49

RPD DUP (%) 46

RPD REP (%) 32

E120 N60 9/27/17

3 ‐ 3 1/4" <7

DUP 3 ‐ 3 1/4" 11

REP 3 ‐ 3 1/4" <6

RPD DUP (%) NC

RPD REP (%) NC

E170 N80 #1 9/27/17

Surface 2407

DUP Surface 2523

REP Surface 2449

RPD DUP (%) 5

RPD REP (%) 3

E150 N50 9/28/17

Surface 17600

DUP Surface 17800

REP Surface 17900

RPD DUP (%) 1

RPD REP (%) 1

5‐19

Table 5‐6 XRF Concrete Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

Sample Depth

Cr (mg/kg)

Cr Qualifier

E50 N50 #1 9/28/17

Surface 141

DUP Surface 122

REP Surface 144

RPD DUP (%) 14

RPD REP (%) 17

E50 N50 #1 9/28/17

7 ‐ 7 1/4" 7 J

DUP 7 ‐ 7 1/4" 12 J

REP 7 ‐ 7 1/4" <5.8

RPD DUP (%) 53

RPD REP (%) NC

E60 N32 #1 Bot 9/28/17

Surface 64

DUP Surface 39

REP Surface 38

RPD DUP (%) 49

RPD REP (%) 3

E25 N15 #1 Bot 9/28/17

Surface 438

DUP Surface 390

REP Surface 388

RPD DUP (%) 12

RPD REP (%) 1

E163 N7 #2 9/28/17

1/4 ‐ 1/2" <7

DUP 1/4 ‐ 1/2" <7

REP 1/4 ‐ 1/2" <9

RPD DUP (%) NC

RPD REP (%) NC

E90 N35 #2 Bot 9/28/17

0 ‐ 1/4" <14

DUP 0 ‐ 1/4" <8

REP 0 ‐ 1/4" 8

RPD DUP (%) NC

RPD REP (%) NC

E90 N35 #2 Bot 9/28/17

7 ‐ 7 1/4" 12

DUP 7 ‐ 7 1/4" 12

REP 7 ‐ 7 1/4" 15

RPD DUP (%) 0

RPD REP (%) 22

E110 N30 Bot 9/28/17

1/2 ‐ 3/4" 12 J

DUP 1/2 ‐ 3/4" 7 J

REP 1/2 ‐ 3/4" <6

RPD DUP (%) 53

RPD REP (%) NC

5‐20

Table 5‐6 XRF Concrete Samples ‐ Field Duplicate Results

Sample Sample Date

Sample Depth

Cr (mg/kg)

Cr Qualifier

E110 N30 Bot 9/28/17

10 ‐ 10 1/4" 12 J

DUP 10 ‐ 10 1/4" 43 J

REP 10 ‐ 10 1/4" 31

RPD DUP (%) 113

RPD REP (%) 32

E85N25 #2 Chunk 1 9/28/17

1/2 ‐ 3/4" 2476

DUP 1/2 ‐ 3/4" 2775

REP 1/2 ‐ 3/4" 3092

RPD DUP (%) 11

RPD REP (%) 11

E85N25 #2 Chunk 2 9/28/17

1/4 ‐ 1/2" 789 J

DUP 1/4 ‐ 1/2" 1970 J

REP 1/4 ‐ 1/2" 1817

RPD DUP (%) 86

RPD REP (%) 8

Notes:

The

acceptance

limits

for

soil

sample

replicates

and

duplicates

less

than

equal

RPD.

RPDs

outside

acceptance

limits

are

highlighted

yellow

and

bolded.

chromium

Dup

field

duplicate

Rep

replicate

determination

not

calculated

mg/kg

milligram

per

kilogram

quality

control

RPD

relative

percent

difference

percent

Data

Validation

Qualifiers

The

result

estimated

quantity.

The

associated

numerical

value

the

approximate

concentration

the

analyte

the

sample.

5‐21

discernable

pattern

reason

for

the

exceedances

exists.

other

field

sampling

issues

were

identified

from

the

RPD

results

that

were

outside

criteria

and

the

exceedances

are

reasonable

for

this

type

sampling

activity.

5.2 Accuracy

Accuracy

the

degree

agreement

measurement

with

accepted

reference

true

value

and

measure

the

bias

system.

Accuracy

the

data

was

assessed

comparing

LCS

recovery,

calibration

recovery,

ICP

interferences,

and

performing

serial

dilution

checks

during

metals

analyses.

Accuracy

expressed

percent

recovery,

which

was

calculated

by:

Percent	Recovery	=	(Total	Analyte	Found	–	Analyte	Originally	Present)	x	100
						Analyte	Added

Analytical

accuracy

for

the

entire

data

collection

activity

difficult

measure

because

several

sources

error

exist.

Errors

can

introduced

any

the

following:

Sampling procedure

Field contamination

Sample preservation and handling

Sample matrix

Sample preparation

Analytical techniques

Accuracy

maintained

adhering

the

method

and

approved

field

and

analytical

standard

operating

procedures.

The

laboratories'

data

was

reviewed

for

accuracy

examining

the

reported

calibrations,

MS/MSD

recoveries

and

LCS/LCS

duplicate

recoveries.

The

individual

validation

reports

Attachment

identify

any

sample

results

were

qualified

based

accuracy

criteria.

Table

5‐7

through

Table

5‐10

present

the

XRF

calibration

results.

Below

summary

analytes

qualified

based

accuracy

criteria:

Hexavalent Chromium – All accuracy criteria was met for hexavalent chromium results.

Total Chromium – All accuracy criteria was met for total chromium results.

Field

XRF

–

Applicable

XRF

chromium

results

were

qualified

estimated

(J/UJ)

based

calibration

criteria.

5‐22

Table 5‐7 Field XRF of Screening and Building Material Samples ‐ Calibration Results

Date Sample ID Cr (mg/kg) Cr % R Qualifiers

9/16/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 100 99

9/16/2017 CRMP Till 4** 27.7 52 None1

9/16/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 98 97

9/16/2017 CRMP Till 4** 23 43 None1

9/16/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 92 91

9/16/2017 CRMP Till 4** 31 58 None1

9/16/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 99 98

9/16/2017 CRMP Till 4** 22 42 None1

9/16/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 91 90

9/16/2017 CRMP Till 4** 26 49 None1

9/16/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 95 94

9/16/2017 CRMP Till 4** 23 43 None1

9/16/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 97 96

9/16/2017 CRMP Till 4** 31 58 None1

9/16/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 95 94

9/16/2017 CRMP Till 4** 26 49 None1

9/17/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 93 92

9/17/2017 CRMP Till 4** 19 36 None1

9/17/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 91 90

9/17/2017 CRMP Till 4** 24 45 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 96 95

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 31 58 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 99 98

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 30 57 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 93 92

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 32 60 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 101 100

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 26 49 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 101 100

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 23 43 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 92 91

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 29 55 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 95 94

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 28 53 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 98 97

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 27 51 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 103 102

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 28 53 None1

5‐23

Table 5‐7 Field XRF of Screening and Building Material Samples ‐ Calibration Results

Date Sample ID Cr (mg/kg) Cr % R Qualifiers

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 106 105

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 26 49 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 98 97

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 26 49 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 101 100

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 27 51 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 97 96

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 25 47 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 95 94

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 31 58 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 91 90

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 30 57 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 96 95

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 26 49 None1

9/18/2017 USGS SAR‐M ** 97 96

9/18/2017 CRMP Till 4** 20 38 None1

Notes:

**Standard

CCRMP

Till

was

improperly

recorded

NIST

180‐601

during

field

analysis

and

Standard

USGS

SAR‐M

was

improperly

recorded

NIST

180‐673

Each

USGS

SAR‐

standard

recoveries

were

within

control

limits.

majority

the

NIST

2710

recoveries

were

outside

acceptable

criteria

however,

should

noted

that

the

USGS

SAR

‐M

standard

representative

the

range

concentrations

observed

the

site

and

considered

the

most

appropriate

standard

used

evaluating

site

data.

Since

USGS

SAR‐

standard

recoveries

were

within

control

limits,

qualification

was

required

for

the

associated

sample

results.

The

acceptance

limits

for

initial

and

continuing

calibration

standards

125

Recoveries

outside

acceptance

limits

are

highlighted

yellow

and

bolded.

Certified

value

CRMP

Till

mg/kg

Cr.

Certified

value

USGS

SAR

101

mg/kg

Cr.

Chromium

identification

mg/kg

milligram

per

kilogram

percent

recovery

NIST

National

Institute

Standards

and

Technology

USGS

SAR‐M

U.S.

Geological

Survey

Standard

Reference

material

5‐24

Table 5‐8 XRF Overburden Phase 1 Samples ‐ Calibration Results

Sample Date Sample ID Cr (mg/kg) Cr % R Qualifiers

10/3/2017 NIST 2710 29 126 None1

10/3/2017 USGS SAR‐M 101 100

10/3/2017 NIST 2710 31 135 None1

10/3/2017 USGS SAR‐M 101 100

10/3/2017 NIST 2710 36 157 None1

10/3/2017 USGS SAR‐M 95 94

10/3/2017 NIST 2710 30 130 None1

10/3/2017 USGS SAR‐M 95 94

10/3/2017 NIST 2710 26 113

10/3/2017 USGS SAR‐M 101 100

10/3/2017 NIST 2710 34 148 None1

10/3/2017 USGS SAR‐M 102 101

10/3/2017 NIST 2710 30 130 None1

10/3/2017 USGS SAR‐M 103 102

10/3/2017 NIST 2710 27 117

10/3/2017 USGS SAR‐M 97 96

10/3/2017 NIST 2710 34 148 None1

10/3/2017 USGS SAR‐M 102 101

10/3/2017 NIST 2710 34 148 None1

10/3/2017 USGS SAR‐M 102 101

10/3/2017 NIST 2710 28 122

10/3/2017 USGS SAR‐M 97 96

10/3/2017 NIST 2710 27 117

10/3/2017 USGS SAR‐M 95 94

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 29 126 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 102 101

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 34 148 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 104 103

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 37 161 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 100 99

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 35 152 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 105 104

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 29 126 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 100 99

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 31 135 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 98 97

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 28 122

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 102 101

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 41 178 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 96 95

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 33 143 None1

5‐25

Table 5‐8 XRF Overburden Phase 1 Samples ‐ Calibration Results

Sample Date Sample ID Cr (mg/kg) Cr % R Qualifiers

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 106 105

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 30 130 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 97 96

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 37 161 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 92 91

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 27 117

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 11 11 J

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 35 152 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 101 100

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 30 130 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 98 97

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 35 152 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 97 96

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 25 109

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 96 95

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 26 113

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 97 96

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 28 122

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 99 98

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 33 143 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 99 98

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 29 126 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 94 93

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 33 143 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 105 104

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 29 126 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 99 98

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 30 130 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 101 100

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 25 109

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 98 97

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 28 122

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 98 97

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 25 109

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 101 100

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 29 126 None1

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 96 95

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 25 109

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 92 91

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 23 100

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 98 97

5‐26

Table 5‐8 XRF Overburden Phase 1 Samples ‐ Calibration Results

Sample Date Sample ID Cr (mg/kg) Cr % R Qualifiers

10/4/2017 NIST 2710 21 91

10/4/2017 USGS SAR‐M 99 98

Notes:

USGS

SAR‐

standard

recoveries

were

within

control

limits

with

the

exception

one

recovery.

majority

the

NIST

2710

recoveries

were

outside

acceptable

criteria

however,

should

noted

that

the

USGS

SAR

‐M

standard

representative

the

range

concentrations

observed

the

site

and

considered

the

most

appropriate

standard

used

evaluating

site

data.

Since

USGS

SAR‐

standard

recoveries

were

within

control

limits

for

majority

the

results,

qualification

was

required

for

the

associated

sample

results

with

the

exception

the

samples

associated

with

the

one

USGS

SAR

‐

recovery

outside

criteria.

The

acceptance

limits

for

initial

and

continuing

calibration

standards

125

Recoveries

outside

acceptance

limits

are

highlighted

yellow

and

bolded.

Certified

value

NIST‐2710

mg/kg

Cr.

Certified

value

USGS

SAR‐M

101

mg/kg

Cr.

Chromium

identification

mg/kg

milligram

per

kilogram

percent

recovery

NIST

National

Institute

Standards

and

Technology

USGS

SAR‐M

U.S.

Geological

Survey

Standard

Reference

material

Data

Validation

Qualifiers

The

result

estimated

quantity.

The

associated

numerical

value

the

approximate

concentration

the

analyte

the

sample.

5‐27

Table 5‐9 XRF Overburden Phase 2 Samples ‐ Calibration Results

Sample Date Sample ID Cr (mg/kg) Cr % R Qualifiers

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 108 83

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 276 92

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 104 80

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 291 97

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 113 87

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 302 100

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 118 91

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 291 97

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 120 92

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 269 89

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 117 90

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 272 90

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 97 75

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 282 94

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 107 82

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 298 99

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 113 87

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 368 122

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 115 88

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 371 123

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 110 85

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 309 103

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 92 71 J

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 288 96

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 114 88

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 304 101

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 116 89

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 269 89

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 119 92

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 291 97

11/8/2017 NIST 2709 121 93

11/8/2017 NIST 2586 302 100

11/10/2017 NIST 2709 115 88

11/10/2017 NIST 2586 271 90

11/10/2017 NIST 2709 115 88

11/10/2017 NIST 2586 264 88

11/10/2017 NIST 2709 104 80

11/10/2017 NIST 2586 261 87

11/10/2017 NIST 2709 126 97

11/10/2017 NIST 2586 270 90

11/10/2017 NIST 2709 112 86

5‐28

Table 5‐9 XRF Overburden Phase 2 Samples ‐ Calibration Results

Sample Date Sample ID Cr (mg/kg) Cr % R Qualifiers

11/10/2017 NIST 2586 261 87

11/10/2017 NIST 2709 113 87

11/10/2017 NIST 2586 269 89

11/16/2017 NIST 2709 114 88

11/16/2017 NIST 2586 272 90

11/16/2017 NIST 2709 112 86

11/16/2017 NIST 2586 277 92

11/16/2017 NIST 2709 108 83

11/16/2017 NIST 2586 262 87

11/16/2017 NIST 2709 109 84

11/16/2017 NIST 2586 264 88

11/16/2017 NIST 2709 105 81

11/16/2017 NIST 2586 268 89

11/16/2017 NIST 2709 112 86

11/16/2017 NIST 2586 269 89

11/16/2017 NIST 2709 109 84

11/16/2017 NIST 2586 268 89

11/16/2017 NIST 2709 114 88

11/16/2017 NIST 2586 272 90

11/16/2017 NIST 2709 100 77

11/16/2017 NIST 2586 268 89

11/16/2017 NIST 2709 108 83

11/16/2017 NIST 2586 259 86

11/16/2017 NIST 2709 114 88

11/16/2017 NIST 2586 271 90

11/16/2017 NIST 2709 120 92

11/16/2017 NIST 2586 269 89

11/16/2017 NIST 2709 106 82

11/16/2017 NIST 2586 274 91

Notes:

The

acceptance

limits

for

initial

and

continuing

calibration

standards

125

Recoveries

outside

acceptance

limits

are

highlighted

yellow

and

bolded.

Certified

value

NIST‐2709

130

mg/kg

Cr.

Certified

value

NIST‐2586

301

mg/kg.

Chromium

identification

mg/kg

milligram

per

kilogram

NIST

National

Institute

Standards

and

Technology

percent

recovery

Data

Validation

Qualifiers

The

result

estimated

quantity.

The

associated

numerical

value

the

approximate

concentration

the

analyte

the

sample.

5‐29

Table 5‐10 XRF Concrete Samples ‐ Calibration Results

Date Sample ID Cr (mg/kg) Cr % R Qualifiers

9/26/2017 NIST 2710 36 157 None1

9/26/2017 NIST 2711 37 161 None1

9/26/2017 NIST 2710 29 126 None1

9/26/2017 USGS SAR‐M 94 93

9/26/2017 NIST 2710 32 139 None1

9/26/2017 USGS SAR‐M 96 95

9/26/2017 NIST 2710 29 126 None1

9/26/2017 USGS SAR‐M 98 97

9/26/2017 NIST 2710 29 126 None1

9/26/2017 USGS SAR‐M 86 85

9/26/2017 NIST 2710 26 113

9/26/2017 USGS SAR‐M 92 91

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 33 143 None1

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 87 86

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 34 148 None1

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 87 86

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 30 130

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 104 103

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 29 126 None1

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 100 99

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 24 104

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 96 95

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 23 100

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 97 96

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 17 74

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 98 97

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 36 157 None1

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 94 93

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 28 122

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 96 95

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 34 148 None1

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 101 100

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 28 122

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 97 96

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 27 117

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 104 103

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 31 135 None1

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 95 94

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 23 100

5‐30

Table 5‐10 XRF Concrete Samples ‐ Calibration Results

Date Sample ID Cr (mg/kg) Cr % R Qualifiers

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 89 88

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 23 100

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 87 86

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 33 143 None1

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 94 93

9/27/2017 NIST 2710 31 135 None1

9/27/2017 USGS SAR‐M 101 100

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 28 122

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 88 87

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 28 122

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 89 88

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 30 130 None1

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 90 89

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 28 122

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 104 103

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 34 148 None1

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 91 90

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 28 122

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 94 93

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 25 109

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 94 93

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 36 157 None1

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 95 94

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 28 122

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 92 91

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 24 104

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 88 87

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 25 109

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 89 88

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 34 148 None1

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 87 86

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 30 130 None1

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 97 96

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 27 117

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 95 94

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 30 130 None1

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 85 84

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 27 117

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 91 90

5‐31

Table 5‐10 XRF Concrete Samples ‐ Calibration Results

Date Sample ID Cr (mg/kg) Cr % R Qualifiers

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 28 122

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 91 90

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 25 109

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M 95 94

9/28/2017 NIST 2710 29 126 None1

9/28/2017 USGS SAR‐M…

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it.