FINAL SITE INSPECTION REPORT

665666667668669670671672673674675676677678679680681682683684685686687688689690691692693694695696697698699SSWP. Analytical results are provided in Appendix F. Samples were analyzed for metals usingEPA SW-846 Method 6020A and explosives using EPA SW-846 Method 8330A.3.5 Laboratory Analysis and Data Quality ReviewLaboratory analysis was performed by GPL Laboratories of Frederick, Maryland, using methodsdefined in the SSWP. Analytical results are provided in Appendix F.The data review process presented in this report compares sample results to pre-establishedcriteria referenced in the Sampling and Analysis Plan (Shaw, 2006a, Appendix E) to confirm thatthe data are of acceptable technical quality. GPL Laboratories, LLLP (GPL) provided Shaw witha Level 4 data package including CLP-Like summary forms, Staged Electronic DataDeliverables (SEDD) Stage 2b (version Draft 5.0), and Automated Data Review (ADR)compatible A1, A2, & A3 files for all sample delivery groups (SDGs).Shaw conducted a data assessment on all samples collected in support of this SI. One-hundredpercent of the analytical data have been reviewed and validation qualifiers assigned based onEPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) National Functional Guidelines for Organic DataReview, October 1999 and EPA CLP National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review,October 2004. ADR software Version 8.1 was used to assist in the data validation process for allareas with the exception of initial calibration blanks (ICB) / continuing calibration blanks (CCB),interference check standards, internal standards, serial dilutions, and second-columnconfirmation which were assessed manually. Data were evaluated against specific criteria toverify the achievement of all precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness,comparability, and sensitivity goals established to meet the project DQOs.The overall quality of the data collected is discussed in the Analytical Data QA/QC Report(Appendix G). Results of the analyses as discussed in the Analytical Data QA/QC Report areindicative of the media analyzed with the exception of some molybdenum and mercury analyses.A number of the soil and sediment samples were qualified as U not detected due to continuingcalibration blank contamination and a number of the mercury analyses in the soil backgroundsamples were qualified as U not detected due to method blank contamination. No data werequalified R as unusable. Overall, the data reflect expected conditions and they are fully usablefor their intended purpose.3.6 Screening ValuesThe following subsections describe development of background and screening values for this SI.3.6.1 Background DataTen background soil samples were collected from the Boardman AFR area during the SI andanalyzed for metals. Background sample locations are shown on Figure 3-2. The selection ofthe soil background locations was aided by Visual Sampling Plan (VSP) (PNNL, 2005). VSP isBoardman AFR Final SI Report.doc 3-6 Contract No. W912DY-04-D-0010 Delivery Order No. 003September 2007