Appendix A: Analytical Quality Assurance / Quality Control ... · appendix a, analytical quality...

PEBBLE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE DOCUMENT

2004 through 2008

APPENDIX A. ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE/

QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW

PPRREEPPAARREEDD BBYY::

SSHHAAWW AALLAASSKKAA,, IINNCC..

APPENDIX A, ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW

A-i 04/27/2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... vi

APPENDIX A. ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE/ QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW ................ 1

A.1 Analytical QA/QC Program Overview ......................................................................................... 1

A.1.1 Sample Collection Oversight ........................................................................................... 2

A.1.1.1 Field Sampling Plan Review ......................................................................... 2 A.1.1.2 Field Sample Management and Quality Control ........................................... 2 A.1.1.3 Field Audits ................................................................................................... 3

A.1.2 Laboratory Quality Program ............................................................................................ 3

A.1.3 Data Verification ............................................................................................................. 4

A.1.4 Data Validation ................................................................................................................ 5

A.1.5 Data Management ............................................................................................................ 6

A.2 Data Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 6

A.2.1 Definitions of Indicators .................................................................................................. 6

A.2.1.1 Precision ........................................................................................................ 6 A.2.1.2 Accuracy ........................................................................................................ 7 A.2.1.3 Representativeness ......................................................................................... 8 A.2.1.4 Comparability ................................................................................................ 8 A.2.1.5 Completeness ................................................................................................. 8 A.2.1.6 Sensitivity ...................................................................................................... 9 A.2.1.7 Total versus Dissolved Trace Elements ......................................................... 9 A.2.1.8 Cation/Anion Balance .................................................................................... 9

A.2.2 Water Quality ................................................................................................................ 10

A.2.2.1 Surface Water .............................................................................................. 11 A.2.2.2 Groundwater ................................................................................................ 22

A.2.3 Trace Elements .............................................................................................................. 28

A.2.3.1 Sediment ...................................................................................................... 28 A.2.3.2 Vegetation .................................................................................................... 33 A.2.3.3 Soil ............................................................................................................... 38 A.2.3.4 Fish and Mussel Tissues .............................................................................. 44 A.2.3.5 Surface Water—Seeps ................................................................................. 47

A.2.4 Marine Study ................................................................................................................. 54

A.2.4.1 Marine Fish and Bivalve Tissue .................................................................. 55 A.2.4.2 Marine Plant Tissue ..................................................................................... 57 A.2.4.3 Marine Sediment .......................................................................................... 59 A.2.4.4 Marine Water ............................................................................................... 62

A.3 Summary of Data Quality ........................................................................................................... 66

PEBBLE PROJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE DOCUMENT, 2004 THROUGH 2008

A-ii 04/27/2011

A.3.1 Water Quality ................................................................................................................ 66

A.3.1.1 Surface Water .............................................................................................. 66 A.3.1.2 Groundwater ................................................................................................ 67

A.3.2 Trace Elements .............................................................................................................. 68

A.3.2.1 Sediment ...................................................................................................... 68 A.3.2.2 Vegetation .................................................................................................... 69 A.3.2.3 Soil ............................................................................................................... 69 A.3.2.4 Fish and Mussel Tissues .............................................................................. 69

A.3.3 Marine Study ................................................................................................................. 70

A.3.3.1 Marine Tissues ............................................................................................. 70 A.3.3.2 Marine Sediment .......................................................................................... 70 A.3.3.3 Marine Water ............................................................................................... 70

A.4 References .................................................................................................................................. 71

A.5 Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... 72


A-iii 04/27/2011

LIST OF TABLES

Table A-1, Number of Environmental Samples Collected and Parameters Analyzed

Table A-2a, Summary of Parameters Analyzed for Each Sample Type

Table A-2b, Summary of Completeness Measure

Table A-3, Field Audit Summary

Table A-4a, Summary of Primary/QA Analytical Laboratories for Environmental Baseline Studies, April 2004 through May 2007

Table A-4b, Summary of Primary/QA Analytical Laboratories for Environmental Baseline Studies, June 2007 through December 2007

Table A-4c, Summary of Primary/QA Analytical Laboratories for Environmental Baseline Studies, January 2008 through December 2008

Table A-5a, 2006 Results for Blind Performance Evaluation of Water Samples

Table A-5b, 2007 Results for Blind Performance Evaluation of Water Samples

Table A-5c, 2008 Results for Blind Performance Evaluation of Freshwater Samples

Table A-6, 2008 Results for Blind Performance Evaluation of Water Samples – Ocean Water Matrix

Table A-7, Surface Water, Accuracy and Precision (Except Seeps)

Table A-8, Surface Water, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates

Table A-9, Surface Water, Laboratory Comparability (Except Seeps)

Table A-10, Summary of Sensitivity for Surface Water (Except Seeps)

Table A-11, Groundwater, Accuracy and Precision

Table A-12, Groundwater, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates

Table A-13, Groundwater Comparability

Table A-14, Summary of Sensitivity for Groundwater

Table A-15, Sediment, Accuracy and Precision

Table A-16, Sediment, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates

Table A-17, Sediment Comparability

Table A-18, Summary of Sensitivity for Sediment

Table A-19, Vegetation, Accuracy and Precision

Table A-20, Vegetation, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates

Table A-21, Vegetation Comparability

Table A-22, Summary of Sensitivity for Vegetation


A-iv 04/27/2011

Table A-23, Soil, Accuracy and Precision

Table A-24, Soil, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates

Table A-25a, 2006 Results for Blind Performance Evaluation of Soil Samples

Table A-25b, 2007 Results for Blind Performance Evaluation of Soil Samples

Table A-26, Soil Comparability

Table A-27, Summary of Sensitivity for Soil

Table A-28, Fish and Mussel Tissue, Accuracy and Precision

Table A-29, Fish and Mussel Tissue, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates

Table A-30, Fish and Mussel Tissue, Comparability

Table A-31, Summary of Sensitivity for Fish and Mussel Tissue

Table A-32, Surface Water, Accuracy and Precision (Seeps)

Table A-33, Surface Water, Laboratory Comparability (Seeps)

Table A-34, Summary of Sensitivity for Surface Water (Seeps)

Table A-35, Marine Plant, Fish, and Bivalve Tissue, Accuracy and Plant Tissue Precision

Table A-36, Marine Fish and Bivalve Tissue, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates

Table A-37, Marine Plant Tissue, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates

Table A-38, Summary of Sensitivity for Marine Fish and Bivalve Tissue

Table A-39, Marine Plant Tissue Comparability

Table A-40, Summary of Sensitivity for Marine Plant Tissue

Table A-41, Marine Sediment, Accuracy and Precision

Table A-42, Marine Sediment, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates

Table A-43, Marine Sediment, Comparability

Table A-44, Summary of Sensitivity for Marine Sediment

Table A-45, Marine Water, Accuracy and Precision

Table A-46, Marine Water, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates

Table A-47, Marine Water, Comparability

Table A-48, 2004 Marine Water, Summary of Results for Arsenic, Copper, Nickel and Selenium

Table A-49, Summary of Sensitivity for Marine Water

FIGURE

Figure A-1, Flow of Data for the Pebble Project


A-v 04/27/2011

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1, Control Charts

Control Charts A-1 through A-44, April 2004-December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

Control Charts A-45 through A-79, May 2004-November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

Control Charts A-80 through A-118, September 2004-October 2008 Groundwater

Control Charts A-119 through A-149, 2004-2007 Sediment

Control Charts A-150 through A-179, 2004-2007 Vegetation

Control Charts A-180 through A-214, 2004-2007 Soil

Control Charts A-215 through A-219, 2004-2005 Fish and Mussel Tissue

Control Charts A-220 through A-253, 2004-2008 Marine Sediment

Control Charts A-254 through A-260, 2008 Marine Vegetation

Control Charts A-261 through A-274, 2004-2008 Marine Water


A-vi 04/27/2011

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A2LA American Association for Laboratory Accreditation

AAC Alaska Administrative Code

ACZ ACZ Laboratories Inc.

ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Argon Argon, LLC

AVS acid volatile sulfide

BEESC Bristol Environmental & Engineering Services Corporation

BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes

°C degrees Celsius

CaCO3 calcium carbonate

CAS Columbia Analytical Services

CN cyanide

DQAR data quality assessment report

DQO data quality objective

DRO diesel-range organics

EDF electronic deliverable format

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)

ERA Environmental Resource Associates

FSP field sampling plan

GERG Geochemical and Environmental Research Group (Texas A&M University laboratory)

GRO gasoline-range organics

HDR HDR Alaska, Inc.

Hg mercury

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma/mass spectroscopy

ISO International Organization for Standardization

LCS laboratory control sample

LCSD laboratory control sample duplicate

LD laboratory duplicate

MDL method detection limit

meq/L milliequivalents per liter

mg/kg milligrams per kilogram

mg/L milligrams per liter

g/L micrograms per liter

m micron(s)


A-vii 04/27/2011

mhos/cm micromhos per centimeter

MRL method reporting limit

MS matrix spike

MSD matrix spike duplicate

MUR Method Update Rule

n number of samples

NA not applicable

NCA North Creek Analytical, Inc.

ND not detected

ng/L nanogram per liter

n-pairs number of primary and duplicate pairs

NQA National Quality Assurance Limited

NRCC National Research Council Canada

NS&T National Status and Trends

PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

%R percent recovery

PE performance evaluation

PSEP Puget Sound Estuary Program

QA quality assurance

QC quality control

QAPP quality assurance project plan

RPD relative percent difference

RRO residual-range organics

RSD relative standard deviation

RTC Resource Technology Corporation

SD standard deviation

SEM simultaneously extracted metals

SGS SGS North America, Inc.

Shaw Shaw Alaska, Inc.

SHC saturated hydrocarbon

SLR SLR Alaska

SM Standard Method

SOW statement of work

SRM standard reference material

STL Severn Trent Laboratories

SVOC semivolatile organic compound

TA TestAmerica, Inc.


A-viii 04/27/2011

TOC total organic carbon

TQ standard reference material for vegetation or aquatic animal tissue, as appropriate, with externally certified constituent concentrations

TSS total suspended solids

T vs D total versus dissolved

UCL upper control limit

UCM unresolved complex mixture

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOA volatile organics analysis

VOC volatile organic compound

WAD weak acid dissociable

WG groundwater

WS surface water

x average or mean


A-1 04/27/2011

APPENDIX A. ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE/ QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW

A.1 ANALYTICAL QA/QC PROGRAM OVERVIEW

For the Pebble Project, an analytical quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) program has been developed to govern the quality of chemistry data. This quality program was built in at the planning stages of the project in spring 2004. Shaw Alaska, Inc. (Shaw), is tasked with the development and maintenance of the QA/QC program.

The QA component of the program is a systematic process of verifying whether activities are meeting specified requirements. It strengthens the confidence in the data generated from various activities that help form the interpretations and conclusions made for baseline conditions. This strength is accomplished by establishing consistency and building in efficiencies that provide benefits throughout the project. The quality assurance project plan (QAPP), statements of work (SOWs), and work plans document the QA program and processes.

The QC component of the program is implemented through field and laboratory audits, peer review, data validation, and statistical analyses. These processes are based on a defined and documented set of criteria, which are accepted by industry and comply with relevant regulatory guidelines.

Tables A-1 and A-2a present summaries of the number of samples to be collected and the parameters to be analyzed for each sample type, respectively. The analytical QA/QC program is applied to environmental sample collection and analysis for the Pebble Project and includes the following:

Development of data quality objectives (DQOs).

Development of a QAPP.

Development and management of laboratory services.

Audit of field sampling and laboratory activities.

Evaluation and development of analytical methods.

Chemistry data management from sample collection to database.

Compliance with analytical regulatory requirements.

Management of multidisciplinary studies.

Validation of analytical chemistry data.

Chemistry consultation.

The analytical QA/QC program is critical to ensure that field procedures, laboratory analyses, and data deliverables meet technical and quality requirements stipulated by regulatory agencies and Pebble Partnership. The primary objectives of the program are to ensure that the quality of the analytical data is


A-2 04/27/2011

consistent among consultants collecting samples in the field and among laboratories and that the data meet specified DQOs. The program ensures that analytical QA/QC requirements are met for the water quality, trace elements, and marine chemistry data for the environmental baseline studies. This appendix includes a description of the analytical QA/QC program (Section A.1); an assessment of data collected from April 2004 through December 2008 for the water quality, trace elements, and marine studies (Section A.2); and a summary of and conclusions about the data quality (Section A.3).

A.1.1 SAMPLE COLLECTION OVERSIGHT

Oversight of sample collection included a review of field sampling plans (FSPs), sample management, and field audits. The following subsections further describe the sample collection oversight process.

A.1.1.1 Field Sampling Plan Review

FSPs are prepared by each consultant involved in the studies of water quality (Section A.2.2), trace elements (Section A.2.3), and the marine environment (Section A.2.4). These FSPs are reviewed before sample collection to ensure that sampling procedures are consistent among all consultants and sampling teams.

A.1.1.2 Field Sample Management and Quality Control

All samples collected in the field are received by Shaw personnel stationed in Iliamna. Samples are packaged and shipped to laboratories under chain-of-custody protocols within a day of sample collection. Sample volumes, containers, labels, and preservative are checked before packaging to ensure that all requirements have been met. Laboratories are notified of each shipment, and shipments are tracked to ensure samples arrive as scheduled.

Field QC samples are collected during the sampling to evaluate field sample handling, transportation, and analytical procedures, as well as total field and analytical variability. The field QC samples consist of field duplicate samples, trip blanks for low-level mercury (Hg) and volatile organics analyses (VOAs), equipment rinsate samples, and a blank sample of deionized water. Field duplicate samples are samples collected concurrently with project samples by using the same sampling equipment,methodology, and analyzed using the same or equivalent methods to indicate any contamination or imprecision introduced during the sampling process.

Low-level Hg and VOAs are constituents that, by their nature, can become airborne. Trip blanks are used to assess whether these airborne constituents are present, either from the natural environment surrounding the collection activities or emanating from collected samples, and possibly are cross-contaminating samples. Because the other constituents for which tests are conducted do not become airborne, trip blanks are not generated for them.

Trip blanks are samples of deionized water that accompany the laboratory-provided sample containers during shipment to and from the field and during sample collection and storage to indicate any contamination that may be introduced during transport and handling.

An equipment rinsate sample is an aliquot (portion) of deionized water that is exposed to the sampling equipment, such as pumps, tubing, and collection vessels, to detect possible contamination introduced by


A-3 04/27/2011

sampling equipment. A deionized water blank is used to indicate any artifacts that may have been present in the laboratory-provided water used for rinsing equipment.

A.1.1.3 Field Audits

Field audits are conducted as often as two times per year (winter and summer) for each field team involved in sample collection. Audits are based on field procedures presented in the FSPs and in the QAPP applicable for that year. The auditor travels to sampling sites with field teams, observes all field activities, and reviews field forms and logs for compliance with the FSP and the QAPP. A post-audit meeting is held in the field to address the results of the audit and any corrective actions.

Table A-3 summarizes the audits conducted for the project to date. One winter and one summer audit were conducted each year for studies of streams, seeps, and groundwater. Samples for Iliamna Lake stream sediment, terrestrial vegetation, soil, and fish from freshwater streams were collected in summer months. Therefore, no winter audits are shown for these field teams. Sampling protocols can be different and, in some cases, limited during winter months because of the challenges related to winter conditions in the field.

A.1.2 LABORATORY QUALITY PROGRAM

A large component of the quality program is management of laboratory services and laboratory data. Analytical requirements for laboratories are provided in a QAPP for each year of study. (Copies of the 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 QAPPs are provided in Appendix G of this environmental baseline document.) All field samples are analyzed by primary laboratories. Ten percent of the samples are collected in duplicate (field duplicate samples) or triplicate (field triplicate samples) for analysis by the primary and QA laboratories, respectively. Laboratory duplicate samples are identical to the field duplicate samples described in Section A.1.1.2, except their purpose is to assess reproducibility of field sampling protocols in combination with intra-laboratory precision. Field duplicate (QC) samples measure whether a laboratory is consistently performing within specifications outlined in the QA program. Field triplicate (QA) samples are submitted to a secondary independent laboratory as a relative measure of inter-laboratory precision. Field triplicate samples measure whether the QA program is effective and applicable. To be effective for quality control, field duplicate and triplicate samples are collected and analyzed in a manner identical to that for project samples.

Tables A-4a, A-4b, and A-4c list the primary and QA laboratories and their assigned media for the Pebble Project. The study dates are addressed as follows: Table A-4a, April 2004 through May 2007; Table A-4b, June 2007 through December 2007; and Table A-4c, January 2008 through December 2008. Primary and QA laboratory assignments changed in 2007 to accommodate available laboratory capacity, which was taxed by a larger than anticipated number of samples that year. Other assignment changes were based on laboratory specialties relative to sample collection for specific studies throughout the various years and the related testing needs.

QC samples consisting of laboratory control samples (LCSs), LCS duplicates (LCSDs), matrix spike (MS) samples, MS duplicate (MSD) samples, and laboratory duplicate (LD) samples (described above) have been incorporated into the analytical scheme to assess data quality. An LCS is a blank of laboratory water fortified with the constituents of interest. It is used to measure the efficiency of the analytical


A-4 04/27/2011

method used. MS samples of the sample matrix (soil, water, etc.) are fortified with the constituents of interest and are used to measure the effect of the matrix on the efficiency of the analytical method used.

In 2006, performance evaluation (PE) samples for water and soil were submitted to SGS North America, Inc. (SGS), and Columbia Analytical Services (CAS) as blind samples (Table A-5a). These samples were prepared by Environmental Resource Associates (ERA) specifically for the Pebble Project. ERA certifies the concentration of each parameter in the samples.

In 2007, PE samples for water and soil were submitted to SGS, CAS, ACZ Laboratories Inc. (ACZ), and North Creek Analytical, Inc. (NCA) of Portland, Oregon, as blind samples (Table A-5b). (NCA of Portland, Oregon, was later purchased by TestAmerica, Inc. [TA]. These samples were prepared by Resource Technology Corporation (RTC). RTC certifies the concentration of each parameter in the samples.

In 2008, PE samples for water were submitted to SGS and CAS (Table A-5c) and samples for ocean water were submitted to CAS and TA as blind samples (Table A-6). These samples were prepared by RTC. RTC certifies the concentration of each parameter in the samples.

In all PE studies, samples were submitted to the laboratories as “double blind” samples in containers and with labels that mimicked field samples. This process of submitting double blind PE samples prevented the laboratories from knowing the samples were actually PE samples. Results of the analyses of the PE samples are discussed in Section A.2.

Analysis methods are defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and are presented in the 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 QAPPs (provided in Appendix G). The target parameters, analytical methodology, and sample reporting limits for project samples are presented in the QAPPs. The data quality indicators of precision and accuracy in analysis were specified as DQOs in the QAPPs.

The number of parameters tested per sample and numbers of samples collected for the Pebble Project are extensive, and sample collection occurs at least 10 months of the year. A summary of the numbers of field samples collected and parameters analyzed during the last 4 years is presented in Table A-1. A summary of the parameters analyzed for each sample type is presented in Table A-2a.

A.1.3 DATA VERIFICATION

Data verification was performed to ensure the competency of the electronic data reported and archived. A complete cross-checking of laboratory identification numbers with field identification numbers was performed to ensure that analyses had been performed as specified by the chain-of-custody documentation. The laboratories supplied the analytical results in the electronic deliverable format (EDF), Version 1.2a, of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), North Pacific Division. Microsoft Access 2003 and Excel 2003 were used to extract data from the verified final EDF for generation of tabulated sampling results. The data verification process provides electronic data that meet the requirements for the chemistry database that has been developed for the Pebble Project.


A-5 04/27/2011

A.1.4 DATA VALIDATION

For environmental studies, the purpose of data validation is to establish the completeness and usability of the data. Data validation is done by comparing data to project QA/QC criteria and DQOs before they are used in the intended decision-making processes. The Pebble Project QAPPs for 2005 through 2008 (Appendix G) present in detail the QA/QC criteria and DQOs for analytical data for each laboratory involved. The QAPP is the quality standard against which the data are judged.

Shaw performed data assessment for a systematic and independent verification to determine method compliance and assess data quality. Sources for data assessment were sample results and QC sample summaries provided by the laboratory and data validation worksheets prepared by DESIT from the verified EDF. Data are validated by sample event because field and laboratory QA/QC is specific to each sampling event. For example, water quality samples from streams in the mine study area are collected monthly nine times per year. Therefore, nine such events per year are validated as separate sampling events.

Beginning with the January 2009 events for water quality sampling, Argon, LLC (Argon) assumed responsibility for data validation on the Pebble Project. That change affected the approach to handling anomalies of total versus dissolved (T vs D) metals that were evaluated for the 2004 through 2008 period. Both Shaw and Argon participated in the investigation and corrective action activities that occurred in 2009 and 2010. The corrective action included re-validation of select metals data for water samples collected during 2004 through 2008. The re-validation was performed by Argon because of the timing of this shift in validation responsibility.

Data validation was performed following EPA guidance documents (EPA, 1999, 2001, 2002) and professional judgment consistent with industry standards, in cases for which specific guidance was not available.

The data quality indicator of precision was calculated from the results of field duplicate samples, LCS/LCSDs, LD samples, and MS/MSD samples and was compared to the laboratory-established control limits, method-established control limits, and precision goals in the 2005 through 2008 QAPPs (Appendix G).

The data quality indicator of accuracy was calculated from the results of the percent recovery of parameter-spiked LCS/LCSDs and MS/MSD samples and was compared to the laboratory-established control limits, method-established control limits, and accuracy goals in the 2005 through 2008 QAPPs (Appendix G).

As a result of the data validation, data qualifier codes (flags) may be appended to the result database as described below:

U The parameter was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the reported sample quantitation limit. Detections below this limit are attributed to associated blank contamination.

UJ The parameter was analyzed, but was not detected. The reported quantitation limit is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.


A-6 04/27/2011

J The result is an estimated quantity. The associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the parameter in the sample.

J+ The result is an estimated quantity, but may be biased high.

J- The result is an estimated quantity, but may be biased low.

R The data are unusable. The sample results were rejected because of serious deficiencies in meeting QC criteria. The parameter may or may not be present in the sample.

Data quality assessment reports (DQARs) have been prepared for each sampling event and are available upon request. DQARs present the finding of the data validation and the usability of the data for the purposes of the Pebble Project.

A.1.5 DATA MANAGEMENT

Data management includes report tracking; receipt, archiving, and distribution of reports; verification of EDF reports; compilation of data from individual EDF reports into a single file for each sampling event; and transfer of validated data files to the Pebble Project database. Validated data are uploaded into a secure database and made accessible to Pebble Partnership and its consultants through an Internet-based application that permits viewing and downloading of the chemistry data. The data are managed by electronic means from sample collection through laboratory reporting and database uploads; no chemistry data are manually entered into the Shaw systems or the final database. This approach greatly reduces the potential for error in the final product. The data management design and process are crucial for protecting and maintaining the data for current and long-term use. Figure A-1 depicts the flow of data for the Pebble Project.

Data are managed and validated by event, as described in Section A.1.4 above. Section A.2 discusses data assessment by matrix (surface water, soil, sediment, etc.) and includes all sample events from April 2004 through December 2008.

A.2 DATA ASSESSMENT

The usability of the chemistry data was assessed by data validation, which occurred before data were electronically loaded into the Pebble Project database. Key indicators used to assess the data against expected DQOs defined in the project QAPPs (2005 through 2008, in Appendix G) are precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity. Total and dissolved trace elements and cation/anion balance also have specific DQOs for water quality.

A.2.1 DEFINITIONS OF INDICATORS

A.2.1.1 Precision

Precision is a qualitative measure of reproducibility among independent measurements under a given set of conditions. This characteristic is expressed as relative percent difference (RPD) and relates to laboratory duplicates, field duplicates, and field triplicate samples. RPDs are used during the analytical and data validation processes to determine the effectiveness of the methods implemented by the laboratories on a batch (i.e., real time) basis. RPDs are calculated as follows:


A-7 04/27/2011

measured concentrationtrue concentration

RPD = [(C1 – C2) * 100 [(C1 + C2) / 2]

Where:

RPD = relative percent difference

C1 = larger of the two observed values

C2 = smaller of the two observed values

Precision trends were evaluated by calculating a relative standard deviation (RSD) of RPDs generated from the results of LCS, LD, and field duplicate samples. RPDs involving sample results reported at values less than the method reporting limit (MRL) were included in the statistical calculations of the mean ( x ) and subsequent RSD of measurements. The RSD is used to assess trends that may occur between samples as a result of subtle process changes that may not manifest themselves in day-to-day QC assessments. Such unnoticed changes may indicate a trend toward a situation in which compliance with the QC specifications may become difficult.

RSD is calculated as follows:

RSD = (SD/ x ) x 100

Where:

RSD = relative standard deviation

SD = standard deviation

x = mean of replicate analysis

Field duplicate samples were included in the analytical scheme to assess overall sampling and analytical variability. This variability includes that resulting from sample matrix differences or matrix heterogeneity, sample handling procedures, and the analytical measurement system. Field precision was calculated as the RPD between results for primary and field duplicate samples. The RPD is calculated as the difference between results, divided by their average, and multiplied by 100 to express the final result as a percentage. A percent RSD of the RPDs was calculated to assess the precision of these values.

A.2.1.2 Accuracy

Accuracy measures the degree that a measured value agrees with a known or true value. This indicator is typically expressed as percent recovery (%R) and is applied to laboratory QC and PE sample results. Percent recovery is calculated as follows:

%R = * 100

Triplicate field (QA) samples were collected from the identical sample points designated for field duplicate samples and were submitted to the assigned QA laboratories. The intent of the triplicate sampling is to assess the accuracy of the primary laboratory. This comparison is accomplished by a quantitative comparison of data from the primary and QA laboratories through calculation of an RPD for the trace element and inorganic parameter values. The RPD of primary and field triplicate sample results was compared by standard control chart plotting of the RPD for those results. The chart parameters were established by calculating an upper control limit (UCL) established from the average RPD of primary and


A-8 04/27/2011

field duplicate results plus three times their SDs. The RPDs of primary and field triplicate sample results were plotted on the control chart to evaluate and ascertain whether the QA laboratory analysis was within the control limits established from the primary laboratory precision.

The control charts are provided in Attachment 1. The chart contents are as follows:

Control Charts A-1 through A-44, April 2004-December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps).

Control Charts A-45 through A-79, May 2004-November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps).

Control Charts A-80 through A-118, September 2004-October 2008 Groundwater.

Control Charts A-119 through A-149, 2004-2007 Sediment.

Control Charts A-150 through A-179, 2004-2007 Vegetation.


Control Charts A-215 through A-219, 2004-2005 Fish and Mussel Tissue.

Control Charts A-220 through A-253, 2004-2008 Marine Sediment.

Control Charts A-254 through A-260, 2008 Marine Vegetation.

Control Charts A-261 through A-274, 2004-2008 Marine Water.

A.2.1.3 Representativeness

Representativeness is a measure of how closely the measured results reflect the actual concentration or distribution of the chemical parameters in the environment. This measurement is accomplished by incorporating double-blind PE and field triplicate samples into the analytical process.

A.2.1.4 Comparability

Comparability is the level of confidence with which one data set can be compared with another. This objective is met by selecting field sampling methods and laboratory analytical methods that are comparable throughout the baseline environmental studies. Changing sampling techniques or laboratory methods within a laboratory or between laboratories during the study may compromise comparability. The field sampling methods employed by multiple sampling teams collecting samples of similar media also must be consistent. Maintaining comparability is a continual process, evaluated as conditions, methods, or techniques change or new people are introduced into the laboratory program.

A.2.1.5 Completeness

Completeness is a measure of the amount of data determined to be valid compared to the total amount of data acquired. The actual completeness can vary with the intrinsic nature of the samples or random events that preclude successful measurements. This indicator is expressed as percent completeness, which is assessed after data review and validation (Table A-2b).


A-9 04/27/2011

A.2.1.6 Sensitivity

Sensitivity is a comparison of the laboratory method detection limits (MDLs) and MRLs relative to the MRL goals tabulated in the project QAPPs (2005 through 2008, in Appendix G). The MRL goals are established with consideration given to the technology capabilities available to commercial laboratories as applicable to the required EPA-approved methodologies and benchmark criteria based on state and federal guidelines. Sample results reported greater than or equal to the MDL, but less than the MRL were flagged with a “J” during the validation process and are considered estimated values. This qualification informs the reviewer of a loss in accuracy and precision below the MRL and does not represent a laboratory data quality issue. Results reported with an “ND” (not detected) did not yield an analytical concentration greater than or equal to the MDL.

A.2.1.7 Total versus Dissolved Trace Elements

Total versus dissolved trace elements is a comparison of total metals—recovered from the water matrix in their collected forms and includes both non dissolved and dissolved metals—and dissolved metals. The dissolved form of the sample is created by filtering an unpreserved portion of the sample through a 0.45 micron (m) filter in the field shortly after sample collection. The T vs D fractions are compared primarily to monitor for consistency and representativeness in the sample-collection techniques. The total metal concentration should be greater than the dissolved for a given analyte as total represents both dissolved and non dissolved (i.e. total) portions. This evaluation also serves as a secondary check on laboratory sample-handling protocols (e.g., indication of bottle mix-up) and related potential effects on data quality. The criteria are as follows:

If both results are more than five times the MRL, the RPD between the two values must be less than or equal to 20 percent.

If one of the results is less than five times the MRL, the difference between the two values must be less than or equal to the MRL. If one of the results is less than the MDL, the MDL is used for the difference calculation.

If both results are below the MRL, the difference is accepted.

If more than 30 percent of the results for trace elements did not meet these criteria and sufficient sample volume was available, the total and dissolved fractions were re-analyzed.

A.2.1.8 Cation/Anion Balance

Cation/anion balance is a calculation of the total cation and the total anion content of a sample for filtered samples. (Cations are iron, aluminum, cadmium, calcium, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium, zinc, and acidity. Anions are bicarbonate alkalinity, chloride, fluoride, nitrate, and sulfate.) A comparison of the two values is performed under the criteria established in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Clesceri et al., 1998), Standard Method (SM) 1030E. This evaluation was performed at the laboratory before the final deliverables were reported and by Shaw during data validation. Balance calculations falling outside acceptance limits (summarized below) can be an indication of a sample bottle mix-up or a loss of accuracy, precision, or both.


A-10 04/27/2011

The cation and anion analyses describe a general condition of water quality. The water quality conditions are reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L) for anions and micrograms per liter (g/L) for cations, and are expressed in milliequivalents per liter (meq/L) for conducting the balance calculations. Anions are negatively charged, and cations are positively charged. Because water is by definition electrically neutral, ideally the cation and anion sums will balance; in other words, they are expected to be equivalent for a given sample. Random variation in different analyses may affect this equivalency; therefore, criteria for an acceptable difference between the sums are established according to the following method:

Anion Sum (meq/L)

Acceptable Difference

0-3.0 ±0.2 meq/L

3.0-10.0 ±2%

10.0-800 ±5%

If the acceptable difference criterion is not met, the individual analyses are evaluated to determine whether an error occurred in calculations and reporting or laboratory QC samples indicate the possibility of bias. Bottle labeling is also examined for accuracy. Re-analyses may occur depending on availability of sample volume and holding-time status. A holding time is a timeframe within which an analysis must be conducted in order to be considered valid, as stipulated by method, regulation, or both. A holding time is typically related to the date and time of sample collection.

Several troubleshooting approaches can be taken when an “acceptable difference” value is exceeded; for example, for alkalinity. Alkalinity can be a significant contributor to the anion sum. Some loss or gain of alkalinity will occur from the absorption or loss of carbon dioxide. Dissolved iron and manganese can be significant contributors to the cation sum and are potentially affected by exposure to oxygen. Consequently, filtering a portion of a sample for metals analysis is conducted as soon as possible after collection, as is cooling and the use of acid as a preservative.

The findings of the data assessment for each study are presented below.

A.2.2 WATER QUALITY

The development, operations, and waste disposal for mining operations can directly or indirectly expose surface water or groundwater to natural and man-made materials that could affect the characteristics of the water. The volume of available water may also be disrupted by its use in operations or by the nature of the disturbances and how they alter containments and pathways.

The natural range of water quality is being thoroughly characterized through environmental baseline studies as part of the permitting process. The baseline studies consider seasonal changes and geological features in the vicinity of the proposed mine.

The main objective of the surface water studies is to collect data on naturally occurring levels of water-quality parameters. Confidence in the data was assessed by evaluating the pool of data for the key quality indicators of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, sensitivity, total and dissolved metals, and cation/anion balance.


A-11 04/27/2011

A.2.2.1 Surface Water

The surface water studies for the Pebble Project study area include samples from streams, ponds, seeps, and lakes. Samples were collected by HDR Alaska, Inc. (HDR), in the mine study area and by Bristol Engineering & Environmental Services Corporation (BEESC) in the transportation corridor. Sample collection followed procedures outlined in FSPs developed each year.

Precision—Surface Water

Precision was calculated from the RSD in results of LCSs, LD samples, and field duplicate samples. Sample results reported at levels less than the MRL were included in the statistical calculations of the mean ( x ) and the SD of the measurements.

LCS analysis provides information on analytical variability or laboratory precision without influence from a field sample matrix. The laboratory uses in-house purified water for the LCSs. Surface water and groundwater samples can be batched together under a single LCS. A single set of calculations of the mean and SD of LCS data points represents both matrices. Laboratory accuracy and precision are displayed in Table A-7.

LCS results for trace elements exhibit excellent accuracy for all parameters as indicated by mean percent recoveries that were within DQOs for accuracy.

The RSD for one polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), six volatile organic compounds, and 19 semivolatile organic compounds exhibited a relatively higher variability, with RSD greater than 20 percent. The available data set is too limited to use this RSD information to form an accuracy statement for the organics analyses. Organic analyses were conducted on a limited basis to verify their absence from the environment. Because the organic parameters tabulated in the target lists in the 2005, 2006, and 2007 QAPPs (Appendix G) were not detected, sample concentration quantitations are not available as a basis for making accuracy statements.

Field duplicate samples were included in the analytical scheme to assess sampling and analytical variability. This variability includes that resulting from to sample matrix differences (heterogeneity), sample handling procedures, and the analytical measurement system at the primary laboratory (SGS). Field precision was calculated as the RPD between primary and field duplicate sample results. A percent RSD of the RPDs was calculated to assess the precision of these values.

For trace elements, total and dissolved, the Argon data validator evaluated a total of 394 primary-field duplicate sample pairs of surface water. For inorganic parameters, a total of 197 primary-field duplicate sample pairs of surface water were evaluated. Field teams collected 2,783 primary surface water samples for trace elements and 1,392 primary surface water samples for inorganic parameters, yielding a field duplicate frequency of 14 percent for this data set. Primary or field duplicate results that were reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating the mean and SD. Field-precision values for surface water are displayed in Table A-7, calculated as means of the duplicate results. Some parameters may have a higher count because of samples collected for testing of a subset of the full suite. The field-precision values for surface water are summarized as follows:


A-12 04/27/2011

Trace Elements: Trace elements in surface water exhibited an average RSD of 119 percent for their RPDs. Higher variability was observed for barium (152 percent), manganese (173 percent), silicon (176 percent), and sodium (155 percent).

Inorganic Parameters: An average RSD of 148 percent was calculated for the RPDs of inorganic parameters. Alkalinity (215 percent), chloride (225 percent), and specific conductance (266 percent) demonstrated higher variability.

Organic Parameters: Precision could not be calculated for the organic parameters because no target compounds were detected in the field duplicate pairs.

LD analyses were performed on the inorganic parameters, and MSD analyses were performed for the trace elements. The RPD values for the LDs generally exhibit lower variability than the RPD values for field duplicates. A percent RSD of the RPDs was calculated for each element and parameter to assess precision of the RPDs. Precision values for laboratory duplicates of surface water are shown in Table A-8 and are summarized below:

Trace Elements: An average RSD of 165 percent was calculated for trace elements, with five elements contributing to the high overall RSD: manganese, nickel, silver, thallium, and tin.

Inorganic Parameters: The inorganic parameters yielded an average RSD of 127 percent. This value is roughly equivalent to the precision for the field duplicates (147 percent). The thiocyanate RSD (171 percent) is largely due to the few detections found in the samples with values close to the MDL, for which small differences result in large RPDs. Data composing the sulfate RSD (149 percent), though not the largest of the inorganic parameters, demonstrate seasonal trends in concentrations that contributes to the variability. At times of lower sulfate concentrations, variability of apparently similar concentration values becomes more significant on a percentage basis.

Field triplicate samples from the identical sample points designated for field duplicates were collected and submitted to the QA laboratory (CAS). The intent of triplicate sampling is to assess the accuracy of the primary laboratory (SGS). This comparison is accomplished by a quantitative comparison of the data from the primary and QA laboratories through calculation of an RPD of the primary laboratory and QA laboratory sample results for the trace element and inorganic parameter values. These RPDs were plotted on control charts against an average ( x ) of the RPD results of primary pairs of field duplicate samples and a UCL based on the RPDs of the field duplicate data [UCL = x + (3 * SD)] (Charts A-1 through A-44 in Attachment 1). The data points displayed in these charts reflect QA laboratory results with the RPD from the primary-field triplicate sample pair listed to the right of each point.

These RPD calculations and the related control charts provide another means to assess the precision of the test methods as they are being employed by the laboratories and also the precision of the field sampling procedures. Two variables, field sampling and laboratory techniques, are being evaluated in one effort. A primary-field duplicate sample pair is analyzed by the one primary laboratory. Consideration of the measurement of this pair as precise demonstrates that the field sampling methods used for sampling and the method used for testing can yield precise results and are therefore appropriate. Verification of the precision for a primary-field duplicate sample pair also indicates that the field team and the laboratory are able to obtain precise results by implementing their methods. The methods are more rigorously tested by the addition of a third entity—a second laboratory. Obtaining good precision in the comparison of results


A-13 04/27/2011

between the two laboratories further supports the capacity of the field teams and laboratories to achieve reproducible or precise results by implementing their methods.

Charts are not available for weak acid dissociable (WAD) cyanide (CN), tin, and organic analysis because of a lack of detections in the primary sample, the field triplicate sample, or both.

The control charts exhibit excellent precision, which is demonstrated by more than one-third of the data points being at or below the average RPD. These results, statistically replicated between two laboratories, attest to the accuracy of the methods used for surface water matrices (streams, ponds, and lakes) as employed at the primary laboratory.

Tables A-7 and A-9 provide the mean RPDs of primary-field duplicate and primary-field triplicate sample pairs, respectively. The inorganic parameter results for chloride, fluoride, and total phosphorus show the highest percentage of RPDs for primary-field triplicate sample pairs above the RPD UCLs for the primary-field duplicate sample pairs:

Chloride exhibited variability—out of 214 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for 11 of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Fluoride exhibited variability—out of 69 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for 11of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Total phosphorus exhibited variability—out of 119 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for 14 of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

The trace element results for bismuth, boron, cadmium, and vanadium show the highest percentage of RPDs for primary-field triplicate sample pairs above the RPD UCLs for the primary-field duplicate sample pairs. These parameters were seldom detected in the samples, and when detected, were at low concentrations. The combination of a small number of detections at low concentrations results in high statistical variability with little difference in absolute concentrations. Those trace element results are summarized below:

Boron exhibited the highest variability—out of 59 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for17 of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Bismuth exhibited variability—out of five primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for one of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Cadmium exhibited variability—out of 17 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for two of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Vanadium exhibited variability—out of 135 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for 22 of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

For boron, bismuth, cadmium, and vanadium, the RPDs for more than 10 percent of primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated exceeded the UCLs.

For the surface water data set, the precision is acceptable overall. The results for sodium and chloride (Attachment 1, Charts A-41 and A-3, respectively) show high variability from the perspectives of laboratory testing and field sampling during the first 2 years of sample collection (April 2004 to May 2006). Variability also appears to be seasonal. These relationships indicate that both the field collection


A-14 04/27/2011

and laboratory procedures were introducing a measure of inconsistency. Concentrations reported for chloride should be considered estimates, with the maximum uncertainty equal to the RPD goal in the 2005 through 2008 QAPPs (20 percent; Appendix G).

Variability for nickel and selenium during the first 2 years of data collection (Attachment 1, Charts A-36 and A-38, respectively) is pronounced at the laboratory and is elevated for field precision, but not quite as high as that observed at the laboratory. An improvement in precision was observed for nickel in 2007 and 2008. Selenium pairs for 2007 and 2008 were not available for evaluation because of a lack of detections in either the primary or field duplicate samples or both.

Accuracy—Surface Water

Accuracy was calculated from the percent recoveries of LCS QC samples and PE sample analysis. Similar to the precision calculations, LCS results for surface water and groundwater are combined into one calculation scheme for determining the mean and the SD.

The mean LCS recoveries demonstrated excellent recoveries for all trace elements, inorganic parameters, and organic parameters relative to the DQOs given in the QAPPs (2005 through 2008, in Appendix G). Four semivolatile organic compounds each exhibited apparent low mean recoveries (Table A-7); however, with the exception of phenol, the values are within the DQOs, as shown below:

Compound

Mean Recovery (percent)

QAPP DQO (percent)

Benzoic acid 48.8 10-53 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 58.1 25-110 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 46.3 22-111 Phenol 54.6 15-41

These compounds are historically known in the testing industry as “poor responders,” meaning the extraction efficiency for the approved sample-preparation procedure is low and the sensitivity to the method-prescribed instrumentation also is low.

Assessment of MS and MSD sample accuracy occurred during data validation to determine effects on accuracy from matrix interferences. Individual project-specific samples were flagged to indicate a bias in the analysis of the particular parent sample used to generate the MS/MSD set.

PE samples in an aqueous matrix (water) were included in the analytical scheme during the 2006, 2007, and 2008 data-collection activities. The samples were submitted to the laboratories (blind) by using bottles and chain-of-custody records typical for the project to mask the identity of the PE samples and make them appear to be field samples.

In 2006, ERA prepared PE samples double blind for testing trace elements and inorganic parameters. ERA maintains accreditations for the National Quality Assurance Limited (NQA) USA International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001 and the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) Proficiency Testing Providers. The PE samples were purchased as whole samples; therefore, even though they were synthetic samples, they were prepared with water and had the appearance of field


A-15 04/27/2011

samples. The samples were submitted to the primary laboratory (SGS) and the QA laboratory (CAS) by using bottles and chain-of-custody records typical for the project to perpetuate the contrived appearance of real field samples so that any special treatment was precluded.

The 2006 PE surface water results are presented in Table A-5a and summarized below:

Trace Elements: The 2006 PE sample results (SGS) for two elements (cadmium and iron) were just below the certified acceptance limits for the study, and the CAS results contained two elements (beryllium and chromium) that had high results and one (lead) that was low. However, relative to ERA’s certified value, all results yielded recoveries that were within the DQOs of 85 to 115 percent in the 2005, 2006, and 2007 QAPPs (Appendix G), with the exception of the iron result for SGS (83 percent).

Inorganic Parameters: The 2006 PE results for several parameters were outside the certified acceptance limits; however, the reported values were close to the certified values, as demonstrated by the calculated percent of certified value, with the following exceptions:

– SGS reported substantially high results for fluoride (361 percent), sulfate (556 percent), and total phosphorus (278 percent) and did not detect nitrate.

– CAS reported two parameters with high results relative to the certified value: WAD CN (260 percent) and total phosphorus (290 percent) and did not detect alkalinity or acidity. It is suspected that an incorrect sample container was selected by the laboratory for the alkalinity and acidity testing as the PE samples were prepared to have alkalinity and acidity present.

Data assessment for accuracy demonstrates that the accuracy controls are stable within the laboratory because all LCS results are within the QAPP DQOs. The 2006 PE results for fluoride, sulfate, and total phosphorus exhibit a noticeably high bias. Considering that this apparent bias is from a single analysis, these particular outliers are not a significant cause for concern in terms of usability. Also, these parameters were acceptable in subsequent PE sample submittals, in both 2007 and 2008.

In 2007, RTC prepared and submitted PE samples double blind as follows: primary laboratory for surface water (SGS), primary laboratory for surface water seeps (ACZ), and QA laboratory for surface water and seeps (CAS). RTC maintains accreditations for A2LA Proficiency Testing Providers.

The 2007 PE surface water results are presented in Table A-5b and summarized below:

• Trace Elements: The 2007 PE sample results were acceptable at the primary laboratory (SGS) for surface water samples.

– The 2007 PE sample result for barium submitted to the primary laboratory (ACZ) for surface water seep samples was reported above the acceptance limits for the study at 200 percent relative to RTC’s certified value and exceeded the DQOs of 85 to 115 percent in the 2005, 2006, and 2007 QAPPs (Appendix G). Accuracy for surface water seep data is discussed in the subsection “Accuracy—Surface Water Seeps” in Section A.2.3.5.

– The 2007 PE sample result for silver submitted to the QA laboratory (CAS) was reported below the acceptance limits for the study. However, relative to RTC’s certified value, the


A-16 04/27/2011

result yielded a recovery that was within the DQOs of 85 to 115 percent in the 2005, 2006, and 2007 QAPPs (Appendix G).

• Inorganic Parameters: The 2007 PE result for total alkalinity submitted to the primary laboratory (SGS) was reported above the acceptance limits at 348 percent relative to RTC’s certified value.

In 2008, RTC prepared and submitted PE samples double blind to the primary laboratory for freshwater (SGS and CAS).

The 2008 PE results are presented in Table A-5c for freshwater and in Table A-6 for ocean water. The 2008 PE results for surface water are summarized below:

Water: The 2008 PE water sample results were acceptable at the primary laboratory (SGS) and QA laboratory (CAS) for surface water samples.

Ocean Water: The 2008 PE ocean water sample results were acceptable, except for one result at CAS. CAS reported total suspended solids (TSS) above the acceptance limit at 170 percent of the certified value.

Representativeness—Surface Water

Sampling techniques and sample-handling protocols (e.g., storage, preservation, and transportation) were developed, and documentation was established to demonstrate that protocols were consistently followed and that sample identification and integrity have been ensured. Field blanks and field duplicates were used to assess field and transport contamination and any variation in sampling techniques. The results were considered during data validation.

QC measures to monitor for systematic background contamination in the field and laboratory environments were water blanks generated in the field by using laboratory water and method blanks generated at the laboratory with each batch of samples prepared and analyzed. Such contamination could have a significant effect on accuracy of the data.

The data are considered acceptable and usable for project purposes. The significance of anomalies noted during data validation, including their overall impact on project data (if any), is briefly summarized in the subsections on completeness, sensitivity, and total and dissolved metals.

Comparability—Surface Water

The comparability objective was met by selecting field sampling and laboratory analytical methods that are comparable throughout the baseline environmental studies. Differences in methods or technologies may preclude data comparisons or generation of viable trending information.

The field sampling methods were evaluated to ensure comparability among sampling teams collecting samples of similar media. The methods were implemented as written for each sampling event, with any deviations necessary to accommodate unexpected field conditions documented in field notes.


A-17 04/27/2011

The laboratory analytical methods were evaluated to ensure comparability between the primary and QA laboratories. The methods selected were EPA-approved methods from the EPA water and wastewater manual (1983), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Clesceri et al, 1998), and Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Publication SW846 (EPA, 1996). The analytical methods used for parameters were as follows:

Trace elements (Al, Sb, As, Ba, Be, Bi, B, Cd, Ca, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg, Mn, Mo, Ni, K, Se, Na, Si, Ag, Tl, Sn, V, Zn) by EPA Method 200.8.

Trace elements (mercury) by EPA Methods 245.1 (in 2004) and 1631 (in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008).

Chloride, fluoride, and sulfate by EPA Method 300.0.

Nitrate/nitrite by EPA Method 353.2 and SM20 4500NO3-F.

Acidity by EPA Method 305.2 and SM20 2310B.

Alkalinity by SM20 2320B.

Ammonia by SM20 4500NH3-F and SM20 4500NH3-G.

Cation/anion balance by SM20 1030E.

Conductivity by SM20 2510B.

Hardness by SM20 2340B.

Total phosphorus by EPA Method 365.3 and SM20 4500P-B, E.

Ortho-phosphorus (May 2006 through December 2006 and January 2007 through April 2007) by EPA Method 365.2.

pH by EPA Method 150.1 and SM20 4500-H, B.

Total dissolved solids by SM20 2540C.

TSS by EPA Method 160.2 and SM20 2540D.

Thiocyanate by SM20 4500-CN M.

Total cyanide by SM20 4500-CN C, E and WAD CN by SM20 4500-CN I.

Volatile organic compounds by SW846 Method 8260B.

Semivolatile organic compounds by SW846 Method 8270C.

Pesticides/PCBs by SW846 Methods 8081/8082.

The use of EPA-approved and -published methodologies allows for distinct comparisons of data collected during multiple sampling events. The methods also provide a basis for using a QA laboratory to check the accuracy of the primary laboratory at a set frequency. Multiple methods are listed for some parameters because an EPA Method Update Rule (MUR) issued on April 13, 2007, effectively removed some methods from the EPA-approved list and added others. The laboratory technologies used on each parameter are comparable, as evaluated by each laboratory upon issuance of the EPA MUR and implementation of alternative methods approved and supported by the EPA.


A-18 04/27/2011

In consideration of the methods and technologies employed in the field and at the laboratories, the data set for the surface water studies is comparable.

Completeness—Surface Water

The completeness goal for surface water quality was 90 percent. For the April 2004 to December 2008 collection of surface water samples, the completeness level was met; completeness was calculated at 97.8 percent, which is based on 3,185 rejected results out of a total of 147,058 results for the surface water studies, not including seeps.

The nitrate/nitrite parameter constitutes 46 unusable results because of analyses occurring beyond the 48-hour holding time. This exceedence of holding times occurred because of a change in holding time pertaining to seep and stream water samples collected between April 2004 and September 2004. During the 2004 field season, the holding time for nitrate and nitrite analysis was set at 28 days. For the 2005 field season, this holding time was changed to 48 hours, and data from all of the previous seasons were reevaluated for the new criterion.

The parameter ortho-phosphorus also did not meet the individual completeness goal based on comparison of results to total phosphorus data. 101 of the 805 data points were rejected based on this evaluation during data validation.

The 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether parameter in 2007 Iliamna Lake surface water constitutes 16 of 72 unusable results. This parameter was mistakenly included in the target analyte list in the QAPP. The acid preservative in the sample container hydrolyzes this analyte, precluding the ability to measure the analyte in samples.

Barium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc constitute the majority of the rejected results at a count of 2,259. The rejected data are due to T vs D pairs that failed to meet validation criteria. This topic is discussed below in the subsection “Total and Dissolved Trace Elements—Surface Water.”

Sensitivity—Surface Water

The laboratory MDLs were compared to the MRL goals in the QAPPs (2005 through 2008, provided in Appendix G) as part of the validation process. Approximately 97 percent of the reported results for the trace elements and inorganic parameters have MDLs that meet the MRL goals for the surface water data set.

Three analytical methods are associated with the majority of the results in which MDLs were higher than the MRL goals:

• EPA Method 365.2 for total phosphorus as implemented by the primary laboratory (SGS) did not meet the MRL goal of 0.01 mg/L in 2004. The laboratory’s MDL was 0.031 mg/L; the MRL was 0.1 mg/L. A new instrument purchased by SGS and a related change to EPA Method 365.3 improved the sensitivity, and the MRL goal was met in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.

• Pesticides were a targeted parameter for a limited number of samples to establish a baseline. The analyses conducted at SGS for select pesticides did not meet the MRL goals for the 2004 and


A-19 04/27/2011

2005 sampling efforts. Pesticides were not detected in any samples. Table A-10 identifies the affected pesticides with the corresponding QAPP MRL goals.

• The exceedences of the MRL goals for trace elements were in some cases triggered by changes in the laboratory MRLs, as demonstrated by comparison of the MRL goals listed for each year in the surface water data summary table (Table A-10). SGS implemented some refinements in the overall protocol to improve sensitivity entering into the 2006 season. Boron sensitivity improved with a change in method that lowered the MRL, though it was still above the QAPP MRL goal. For beryllium, cadmium, lead, and vanadium, the MDL exceeded the MRL goal for several data points with ND results. The MDLs varied slightly with the method validation updates laboratories are required to perform at least annually. In each instance, they are close to the MRL goal (less than 1 g/L difference). Overall, for approximately three-quarters of the data points for which MDLs for trace elements exceed the MRL, positive detections in the samples were reported for those trace elements. Hence, sensitivity goals were met for the majority of the data.

Total and Dissolved Trace Elements—Surface Water

The project laboratory made an initial comparison of sample results to ensure that in all instances values for dissolved metals were less than the related values for total metals. Then, situations for which results for dissolved metal were greater than results for total metals were evaluated against criteria presented in Section 4.2 of the 2005 through 2008 QAPPs (Appendix G) and Section A.2.1.7 of this document.

This evaluation was performed at the laboratory before the final deliverables were reported and by Shaw and Argon during data validation. Anomalous results that did not pass the QAPP criteria also were reviewed for the possibility of a systematic problem.

Early on in the project, data completeness calculations lower than the project goal of 90 percent for select metals triggered an investigation into anomalous T vs D metal pairs. The investigation included groundwater and surface water from streams, seeps, Iliamna Lake, and small lakes in the Pebble Project study area and identified contamination influences affecting the field-filtering procedures used to prepare dissolved metal samples. Corrective measures instituted in these procedures, involving a change in the brand of filter used and instituting a new filtering procedure derived from a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study, resulted in a reduction of T vs D metal anomalies. A filtering procedure resulted from the USGS study and is documented in the National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (USGS, 2004). However, more recent calculations for comprehensive data completeness revealed select metals that were continuing to trend below the project completeness goal, again largely because of failing T vs D metals results. The specific metals were barium, copper, nickel, and zinc.

A follow-up investigation was conducted in 2009, this time reviewing the process flow for reporting, validation, and interpretation, and again comprehensively covering groundwater and surface water from streams, seeps, Iliamna Lake, and small lakes in the Pebble Project study area. The validation criteria for T vs D metals pairs are largely based on the relationship between three values, the sample result, the MDL, and the MRL. MDLs are experimentally determined and represent the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero. An MRL is considered the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be reported with 99 percent confidence in the accuracy of the result. In other words, it provides a concentration level at which quantitation is considered reliable and believed to not be significantly affected by background


A-20 04/27/2011

contamination during sampling or laboratory activities or random events. MRLs are calculated based on a factor, typically 3.18, applied to the MDL for all parameters. Two sources recommending the 3.18 factor are Analytical Detection Limit Guidance& Laboratory Guide for Determining Method Detection Limits (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1996) and “Definition and Procedure for the Determination of the Method Detection Limit,” Appendix B of Title 40, Part 136, of the Code of Federal Regulations (EPA, 1986).

Application of this factor to generate MRLs for all parameters assumes each parameter has similar levels of variabilities in its chemistry and background influences related to techniques, equipment, and the environment in which sample collection and testing procedures are conducted. An overall review of the QA/QC analytical program of the Pebble Project, including field quality control samples, specifically field equipment rinse blanks, T vs D metals results, and laboratory QC samples revealed a similarity in inherent analytical variability was not applicable for all metals. Specifically observed were detections just above the MRL in the field blanks and total and dissolved metal results that were within five times of the MRL, falling under T vs D metal Criterion 2 listed in Section A.2.1.7. These findings suggest that the MRLs for select metals are set too low to achieve reliable data—with 99 percent accuracy confidence—because of the variability introduced by background contamination, which was discretely observed (i.e., field blanks and T vs D results) during this comprehensive data investigation. Variability in the laboratory testing of these four metals (barium, copper, nickel, and zinc) at low concentrations is also a possibility, but definitive determination by experimentation of this aspect was not performed as part of the investigation.

Review of the data findings suggested that the MRLs for barium, copper, nickel, and zinc were established too low for achieving reliable data, given the sample collection and testing conditions. Exploration of published studies and documents was the next step in identifying industry-supported guidance that allowed for the possibility of dissimilar variabilities between parameters. The USACE document Shell for Analytical Chemistry Requirements (2001) specifies that the MRL “is established at a factor of five to ten times the MDL for the majority of target analytes, but no lower than three times the MDL for any target analyte.” The USACE document further states, “The appropriate factor applied to the MDL to establish the MQL [MRL] is based upon the acceptable amount of error the data user is willing to accept for the data generated.”

The resulting action item was to raise the MRLs for barium, copper, nickel, and zinc to levels 10 times their respective MDLs, as shown below:

Metal Original MRL

(µg/L)

Re-established MRL (µg/L)

Barium 0.05 0.25

Copper 0.1 0.5

Nickel 0.2 0.62

Zinc 1.0 3.1


A-21 04/27/2011

The elevated MRLs were effective with the October 2009 sampling events for laboratory testing and reporting, data validation, and reporting to the project database.

The trace elements cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were represented in more than 10 percent of surface water samples that did not meet the QAPP criteria.

Cobalt was identified as showing a systematic trend during the 2004 sampling season. Data were examined, and it was discovered that the majority of the anomalous cobalt results were in field-filtered sample volumes related to a particular brand of filter cartridge. A controlled experiment of the filter and tubing used in the field confirmed cobalt as a contaminant that was leaching from the filter. This brand of filter was removed from the process and replaced at the start of the 2005 sampling season by a brand of filter that did not exhibit contamination problems used by another sampling team. The change successfully terminated the trend of cobalt anomalies. Cobalt was not included in the MRL re-evaluation because the rejected data points, though large in number, are associated with an errant filter early on during field work.

Lead, nickel, and zinc exhibited repeated failures in the T vs D comparison during most of the 2005 sampling season and during the 2006 season up to May. Although the filters are believed to be the root of the problem, a protocol was devised and implemented in June 2006 to isolate the overall filtering procedure from other possible influences such as airborne contamination. The filtering process is conducted in a box constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and lined with plastic sheeting. All samples are filtered in this enclosure following a clean hands/dirty hands technique fashioned after USGS procedures for filtering. Another change was to replace the metal scissors dedicated for cutting tubing for the filtering process. Areas of pitting, scratches, and rust were noted on the scissors, and possibly were sources of contamination of the samples for these metals. These changes disrupted the trend of lead, nickel, and zinc anomalies for the remainder of the 2006, 2007, and 2008 data-collection activities.

Lead was also not included in the MRL re-evaluation because the rejected data points are sporadic. No consistent trend of rejected data has been observed for copper, nickel, and zinc. Barium was included in the re-evaluation because of a consistent trend of rejected data during 2007 and 2008. The cause of the barium contamination is uncertain, but is suspected to be related, in part, to the proximity of the original MRL to the MDL for this metal.

The corrective actions implemented for the subject metals were applied for all water studies involving total and dissolved metals testing.

Cation/Anion Balance—Surface Water

A comparison of the two cation and anion sums was performed according to the criteria established in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Clesceri et al., 1998), SM 1030E (summarized in Section A.2.1.8). This evaluation was performed at the laboratory before final deliverables were reported and by Shaw during data validation. The cation/anion balances for more than 99 percent of the sample collection points met the criteria.


A-22 04/27/2011

A.2.2.2 Groundwater

Groundwater samples in the mine study area were collected by CH2M Hill in 2004 and by SLR Alaska (SLR) in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Samples in the transportation corridor were collected by BEESC in 2004 and 2005. No groundwater samples were collected from the transportation corridor in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Precision—Groundwater

LCS analysis provides information only on analytical variability or laboratory precision without influence from a field sample matrix. The laboratory uses in-house purified water for the LCS. Surface water and groundwater samples can be batched together under a single LCS. A single set of calculations of the mean and SD of LCS data points represents both matrices. Laboratory accuracy and precision are displayed in Table A-11. The subsection “Precision—Surface Water” in Section A.2.2.1 discusses laboratory precision covering both matrices.

One hundred forty pairs of primary-field duplicate pairs of groundwater samples were evaluated for trace elements out of a total of 782 primary groundwater samples. This sample evaluation yielded a frequency of 17.9 percent for field duplicates for trace elements in this data set. Seventy pairs of primary-field duplicate pairs of groundwater samples were evaluated for inorganic parameters, with a total of 396 primary groundwater samples. This sample evaluation yielded a frequency of 17.7 percent for field duplicates for inorganic parameters in this data set.

Primary results reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating the mean and SD. Groundwater field precision is displayed in Table A-11 and results are summarized below:

• Trace Elements: barium (169 percent), boron (142 percent), manganese (150 percent), molybdenum (205 percent), nickel (142 percent), potassium (177 percent), and thallium (142 percent) exhibited increased variability, as indicated by their high RSD values; however, the average RSD for trace elements as a group was 118 percent.

• Inorganic Parameters: an average RSD of 144 percent was calculated for the inorganic parameters. The highest amounts of variability were observed for alkalinity (162 percent), chloride (193 percent), specific conductance (336 percent), and sulfate (213 percent).

Additionally, LD analyses were performed on the inorganic parameters, and MSD analyses were performed for the trace elements and organic parameters. The RPD values for the LDs generally exhibit lower variability relative to the RPD values for field duplicates. A percent RSD of the RPDs was calculated for each element and parameter to assess precision of the RPDs. Table A-12 summarizes groundwater precision from laboratory duplicates. Bismuth, cadmium, selenium, silver, and thallium were seldom detected in the samples, and when detected, were at low concentrations. The combination of a small number of detections at low concentrations resulted in high statistical variability with little difference in absolute concentrations. The results are summarized below:

• Trace Elements: An average RSD of 135 percent was calculated for trace elements, with the following elements contributing to the higher overall RSD: nickel (347 percent), silicon (243 percent), silver (252 percent), and thallium (232 percent).


A-23 04/27/2011

• Inorganic Parameters: The inorganic parameters yielded an average RSD of 128 percent. For the laboratory duplicates, alkalinity (163 percent), chloride (168 percent), total phosphorus (161 percent), and total dissolved solids (192 percent) demonstrate a higher variability than the other parameters.

Field triplicate samples from the same sample points designated for field duplicates were collected and submitted to the QA laboratory (CAS). The intent of the triplicate sampling was to assess the accuracy of the primary laboratory (SGS). This comparison is accomplished by a quantitative comparison of the data from the primary and QA laboratories through calculation of an RPD of the primary laboratory and QA laboratory sample results for the values for trace elements and inorganic parameters. These RPDs were plotted on control charts against an average ( x ) of the RPD results of primary-field duplicate sample pairs and a UCL based on the RPDs of the field duplicate data [UCL = x + (3 * SD)] (Charts A-80 through A-118 in Attachment 1). The data points displayed in these charts reflect QA laboratory results with the RPD from the primary-field triplicate sample pairs listed just to the right of each point.

These RPD calculations and the related control charts are another means, to assess the precision of the test methods as they are being employed by the laboratories and also the precision of the field sampling procedures. Two variables, field sampling and laboratory techniques, are being evaluated in one effort. A primary-field duplicate sample pair is analyzed by the one primary laboratory. Consideration of the measurement of this pair as precise demonstrates that the field sampling methods used for sampling and the method used for testing can yield precise results and are therefore appropriate. Verification of the precision for a primary-field duplicate sample pair also indicates that the field team and the laboratory are able to obtain precise results by implementing their methods. The methods are more rigorously tested by the addition of a third entity—a second laboratory. Obtaining good precision in the comparison of results between the two laboratories further supports the capacity of the field teams and laboratories to achieve reproducible or precise results by implementing their methods.

Charts are not available for three inorganic parameters—total cyanide, WAD CN, and nitrogen as ammonia—and for the trace elements bismuth and mercury because of a lack of detections in the primary sample, the triplicate sample, or both.

The control charts exhibit excellent precision, which is demonstrated by more than one-third of the data points being at or below the average RPD. These results, statistically replicated between two laboratories, attest to the accuracy of the methods used for groundwater matrices as employed at the primary laboratory.

The inorganic parameter results for total alkalinity, chloride, sulfate and thiocyanate show the highest percentage of RPDs for primary-field triplicate sample pairs above the RPD UCLs for the primary-field duplicate sample pairs. The control limits for total alkalinity, chloride, and sulfate are close to the project DQOs, and the exceedences are not significantly higher than the control limits. The variability exhibited by the high RPD for thiocyanate is largely due to the few detections found in the samples with values close to the MDL, for which small differences result in large RPDs. The results are summarized below:

Total alkalinity exhibited variability—out of 68 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for seven of those pairs exceeded the UCL.


A-24 04/27/2011

Chloride exhibited variability—out of 70 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for seven of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Sulfate exhibited variability—out of 70 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for nine of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Thiocyanate exhibited variability—out of four primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for two of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Thiocyanate exhibited the highest percentage (greater than 15 percent) of RPDs for primary-field triplicate sample pairs that exceeded the UCLs, largely because of the lack of detections in water samples at the site, resulting in a small data set for charting.

The trace element results for boron, iron, silver, and tin show the highest percentage of RPDs for primary-field triplicate sample pairs above the RPD UCLs for the primary-field duplicate sample pairs:

Boron exhibited variability—out of 38 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for nine of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Iron exhibited variability—out of 66 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for 17 of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Silver exhibited variability—out of seven primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for two of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Tin exhibited variability—out of five primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, two of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Silver and tin exhibited the highest percentage of RPDs for primary-field triplicate sample pairs above the RPD UCLs because of the limited number of pairs available for evaluation. Also, values for the detections in the available pairs were close to the MRL, a concentration level at which slight changes can affect statistical calculations assessing variability. Another factor appears to be a higher reporting limit for the QA laboratory for boron, iron, and tin. The factor difference of reporting limits between the two laboratories is not large, however, given that the low concentrations for these parameters in most monitoring well samples resulted in significant differences in this statistical evaluation.

More than 80 percent of the primary-to-triplicate sample RPDs for beryllium, boron, cadmium, and silver are above the average for the primary-to-field duplicate RPDs. The distribution of the primary laboratory results that are less than or greater than field triplicate results is almost as varied as the RPDs. Also, the results from each laboratory are close to their respective MRLs. This fact along with the distribution observations suggests that the differences for these four parameters are related to the low-concentration sample detections and related random statistical variation.

Aluminum, selenium, and thallium results show notable variability based on field duplicate results, with RPDs above 150 percent. The precision of the field triplicates for these trace elements is much better with the exception of one thallium RPD (119 percent) from the May 2005 event. Although not as dramatic, this inconsistency is also apparent with beryllium, tin, and silver; however, the number of primary-field triplicate sample pairs for these three elements is limited; therefore, the amount of data may not be sufficient to indicate a trend.


A-25 04/27/2011

The field triplicate data, which is derived from a third volume for a given location, and therefore having better precision, can be used to support a conclusion that some inconsistency in sampling may be occurring. However, because all other trace element RPDs for primary-field triplicate sample pairs show a good distribution around the average RPD of the RPDs for primary-field duplicate sample pairs, the data overall suggest consistency in sampling techniques.

Accuracy—Groundwater

Accuracy was calculated from the percent recovery for analysis of LCS QC samples and PE samples. Similar to the precision calculations, LCS results for surface water and groundwater are combined into one calculation scheme for determining the mean and SD. See the subsection “Accuracy—Surface Water” in Section A.2.2.1 for further discussions on accuracy and PE results covering both matrices. Table A-11 summarizes groundwater accuracy and precision.

Representativeness—Groundwater

Sampling techniques and sample-handling protocols (e.g., storage, preservation, and transportation) were developed, and documentation was established to demonstrate that protocols were consistently followed and that sample identification and integrity have been ensured. Field blanks and field duplicates were used to assess field and transport contamination and any variation in sampling techniques. The results were considered during data validation.

QC measures to monitor for systematic background contamination in the field and laboratory environments were water blanks generated in the field using laboratory water and method blanks generated at the laboratory with each batch of samples prepared and analyzed. Such contamination could have a significant impact on accuracy of the data.

Data are considered representative. The significance of anomalies noted during data validation, including their overall impact on project data (if any), is summarized in the following subsections on completeness, sensitivity, and total and dissolved metals.

Comparability—Groundwater

This objective was met by selecting field sampling methods and laboratory analytical methods that are comparable throughout the baseline environmental studies. Differences in methods or technologies may preclude making data comparisons or generating viable trending information.

Field sampling methods were evaluated (Table A-13) to ensure comparability among sampling teams collecting samples of similar media. The methods were implemented as written for each sampling event, with any deviations necessary to accommodate unexpected field conditions documented in field notes.



A-26 04/27/2011


Trace elements (mercury) by EPA Methods 245.1 (in 2004) and 1631 (in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008).






Cation/anion balance SM20 1030E.




Ortho-phosphorus (in May 2006 through December 2006 and January 2007 through April 2007) by EPA Method 365.2.






The use of EPA-approved and -published methodologies allows for distinct comparisons of data collected during multiple sampling events. The methods also provide a basis for using a QA laboratory to check the accuracy of the primary laboratory at a set frequency. Multiple methods are listed for some parameters because an EPA MUR issued on April 13, 2007, effectively removed some methods from the EPA-approved list and added others. The laboratory technologies used on each parameter are comparable, as evaluated by each laboratory upon issuance of the EPA MUR.

In consideration of the methods and technologies employed in the field and at the laboratories, the data set for the groundwater study is comparable.

Completeness—Groundwater

The completeness goal for the groundwater study was 90 percent. The actual completeness level for sample collection from April 2004 to December 2008 was greater than 99.1 percent, calculated from 366 rejected data points out of a total of 40,801.

One result for one parameter (nitrate/nitrite) required an unusable qualification (R flag) because of a holding-time exceedence. The parameter ortho-phosphorus also did not meet the individual completeness goal based on comparison of results to total phosphorus data; 37 of the 1,000 data points were rejected.


A-27 04/27/2011

Most other rejected data points are due to T vs D metals anomalies that did not pass data validation criteria, principally, lead, molybdenum, nickel, and zinc. The number of rejected points for the groundwater study is much smaller than for the surface water studies. However, these metals were included in an overall investigation of T vs D anomalies, which is discussed below in the subsection “Total and Dissolved Trace Elements—Groundwater.”

Sensitivity—Groundwater

Laboratory MDLs were compared to the MRL goals set forth in the QAPPs (2005 through 2008, in Appendix G) as part of the validation process. Approximately 93 percent of the reported results have MDLs that are less than or equal to the MRL goals for the groundwater data set.

Two analytical methods are associated with the majority of the results for which MDLs are higher than the MRL goals. These results are discussed below:

EPA Method 365.2 for total phosphorus as implemented by the primary laboratory (SGS) did not meet the MRL goal of 0.01 mg/L in 2004. The laboratory MDL was 0.031 mg/L; the MRL was 0.1 mg/L. A new instrument purchased by SGS and a related change to EPA Method 365.3 improved the sensitivity and subsequently the MRL goal was met for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Phosphorus results make up a minority of the MRL exceedences.

The exceedences of the MRL goals identified for trace elements by EPA Method 200.8 were in some cases triggered by changes in the laboratory MRLs, as demonstrated by comparison of the MRL goals listed for each year in the groundwater data summary in Table A-14. SGS implemented some refinements in the overall protocol to improve sensitivity at the beginning of the 2006 season. The trace element results are summarized below:

– Boron analysis in 2006 improved following a change in method that lowered the MRL, though it was still above the QAPP MRL goal. Boron analysis in 2007 and 2008 exhibited MDLs that were below the revised MRL goal of 0.005 mg/L set forth in the 2007 and 2008 QAPPs (Appendix G).

– Beryllium, cadmium, lead, and vanadium in 2005 and 2006 each had several data points with ND results for which the MDL exceeded the MRL goal. The MDLs varied slightly with the method validation updates laboratories are required to perform at least annually. In each instance, the MDLs are close in value to the MRL goal (less than 1 g/L difference). Beryllium, cadmium, lead, and vanadium analysis in 2007 and 2008 exhibited MDLs that were below the revised MRL goals set forth in the 2007 and 2008 QAPPs (Appendix G).

Overall, approximately three-quarters of the data points at which MDLs for trace elements exceed the MRL had positive detections in the samples for those trace elements. Consequently, the incidence of MRL exceedences does not translate into a substantial effect on sensitivity for the Pebble Project.

Total and Dissolved Trace Elements—Groundwater

An initial comparison of sample results for the Pebble Project was made at the project laboratory to ensure that the values for dissolved metals were less than the related values for total metals. Then situations for which results for dissolved metals were greater than results for total metals were evaluated


A-28 04/27/2011

against criteria presented in Section 4.2 of the project QAPPs (2004 through 2008, in Appendix G) and in Section A.2.1.7 of this appendix.

This evaluation was performed at the laboratory before the final deliverables were reported and by Shaw and Argon during data validation. Data points for the groundwater study are far fewer than those for the surface water studies; however, trace elements lead, molybdenum, nickel, and zinc account for the majority of the anomalous comparisons that do not meet QAPP criteria.

When associated laboratory method blank and field equipment rinsate contamination contributions were removed from an evaluation of results, the trace elements lead, molybdenum, and nickel exhibited the majority of results that did not meet the QAPP criteria.

The effect of the closed-system filtering process for groundwater study has resulted in far fewer numbers of rejected data for the groundwater study than for the surface water studies. The number of rejected points in the groundwater study does not in and of itself warrant corrective action; however, because of the frequency of rejected data observed in the surface water studies (see the subsection “Total and Dissolved Trace Elements—Surface Water”), action has been taken to address lead, nickel, and zinc. The corrective actions implemented for the subject metals were implemented for all water studies.

Molybdenum is not included in the aforementioned corrective action plan because the rejected data points have occurred sporadically, unlike the clear trends observed with lead, nickel, and zinc.

Cation/Anion Balance—Groundwater

The values for cations and anions were compared under the criteria established in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Clesceri et al., 1998), SM 1030E, as summarized in Section A.2.1.8. This evaluation was performed at the laboratory before the final deliverables were reported and by Shaw during data validation. The cation/anion balances for greater than 99 percent of the sample collection points met the criteria.

A.2.3 TRACE ELEMENTS

Trace element studies included the collection and analysis of samples of sediment, vegetation, soil, fish tissues (muscle and liver), bivalve (mussel) tissues, and surface water seeps. These baseline data will provide defensible documentation of the natural levels and of spatial and temporal variability of trace elements and anions in the varying matrices.

The usability of the trace elements data was assessed by data validation, and data qualifier codes (flags) were appended to the data, as appropriate. Key data quality indicators of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity were assessed against DQOs defined in the project QAPP to evaluate the precision and accuracy for the trace element studies.

A.2.3.1 Sediment

Samples of stream, pond, and lake sediment were collected during 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 for the trace elements studies. Samples were collected by the following consultants in accordance with their respective FSPs:


A-29 04/27/2011

• CH2M Hill during 2004 (July, August, September) in the mine study area.

• HDR during 2004 (June), 2005 (June, July, August, September, October), 2006 (June, July, August), and 2007 (June, August) in the mine study area and Iliamna Lake.

• BEESC during 2004 (July, August, September), 2005 (May, July, September), 2006 (August), and 2007 (September) in the transportation corridor.

Sediment samples were analyzed for trace elements and the following inorganic parameters: chloride, fluoride, sulfate, total cyanide, and nitrogen as ammonia. The organic parameters of gasoline-range organics (GRO), diesel-range organics (DRO), and residual-range organics (RRO) were analyzed in Iliamna Lake sediments during the 2005 data-collection activities.

SGS was designated the primary laboratory for sediment analysis in 2004, 2005 and 2006. ACZ was designated the primary laboratory for sediment analysis in 2007. This change in laboratory assignments was made to address a concern that a significant increase in sample load anticipated for 2007 may have exceeded the apparent available capacity at SGS. Available capacity at another laboratory was used to help ensure that regulatory sample holding times, the times within which analyses must occur relative to the sample collection times, were met for all testing.

Precision—Sediment

LCS analysis provides information on analytical variability or laboratory precision without effect from the sample matrix. SGS used a solid standard reference material (SRM) as the LCS matrix for both soil and sediment. Consequently, LCS results for sediment and soil samples were calculated together to ascertain the mean percent recovery and RSD for determining the analytical variability or precision. Sediment and soil sampling results, including individual RSD results for LCSs, are presented in Table A-15 and summarized below:

Trace Elements: Sediment and soil LCSs exhibited good precision as indicated by RSDs of less than 15 percent, with the exceptions of antimony at 22 percent, bismuth at 44 percent, and silver at 18 percent.

Inorganic Parameters: Sediment and soil LCSs exhibited excellent precision, as indicated by LCS RSDs of less than 15 percent.

Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds: Sediment and soil samples exhibited excellent precision for GRO, DRO, and RRO, as indicated by RSDs of 6 percent, 9 percent, and 10 percent, respectively.

Forty-one primary-field duplicate sample pairs of sediment were evaluated. Three hundred twenty-one primary sediment samples were collected, giving a field duplicate frequency of 12 percent for this data set. Results that were reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating the mean and SD. Field precision values for sediment are displayed in Table A-15 and summarized below:

• Trace Elements: Results for trace elements in sediment exhibited an average RSD of 97 percent. A higher variability in measurement was observed for potassium (122 percent) and silver (136 percent).


A-30 04/27/2011

• Inorganic Parameters: Results for inorganic parameters in sediment exhibited an average RSD of 92 percent. LD analysis also was performed on the inorganic parameters and is summarized in Table A-16.

Results for field triplicates were compared to results for primary samples and field duplicates. Field triplicate results that were reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating an RPD between results for primary samples and field triplicate samples. Control charts for the sediment sample parameters for trace elements are presented in Charts A-119 through A-149 in Attachment 1.

These RPD calculations and the related control charts are another means, a more rigorous means, to assess the precision of the test methods as they are being employed by the laboratories and also the precision of the field sampling procedures. Two variables, field sampling and laboratory techniques, are being evaluated in one effort. A primary-field duplicate sample pair is analyzed by the one primary laboratory. Consideration of the measurement of this pair as precise demonstrates that the field sampling methods used for sampling and the method used for testing can yield precise results and are therefore appropriate. Verification of the precision for a primary-field duplicate sample pair also indicates that the field team and the laboratory are able to obtain precise results by implementing their methods. The methods are more rigorously tested by the addition of a third entity—a second laboratory. Obtaining good precision in the comparison of results between the two laboratories further supports the capacity of the field teams and laboratories to achieve reproducible or precise results by implementing their methods.

Parameters for which at least 20 percent of the RPDs for field triplicate samples exceeded the UCLs are summarized below. Boron and cadmium RPD control limits are high due to the combination of a small number of detections at low concentrations resulting in high statistical variability with little difference in absolute concentrations. Exceedences of the UCLs are described below:

Trace Elements:

– Boron in three of eight sediment samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 86 percent RPD.

– Cadmium in seven of 22 sediment samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 87 percent RPD.

Inorganic Parameters:

– Chloride in six of 11 sediment samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 108 percent RPD.

– Sulfate in 11 of 32 sediment samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 121 percent RPD.

– Nitrogen as ammonia in 25 of 26 sediment samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 118 percent RPD.

For the sediment data set, the precision is largely within the acceptance criteria established in the 2005 through 2007 QAPPs (Appendix G). A relatively high variability in measurement was observed and noted for the trace elements manganese, molybdenum, potassium, and silver. The increased variability is not


A-31 04/27/2011

considered a data quality problem because it may be due to a random distribution of RPDs or to matrix heterogeneity.

Accuracy—Sediment

Accuracy was calculated from the percent recovery of laboratory-spiked parameters in analysis of LCSs and MS, MSD, and PE samples.

LCS results for sediment samples and soil samples were calculated together to ascertain the mean percent recovery. These data were combined because the laboratory uses a solid SRM as the LCS matrix for both soil and sediment samples. LCS results (Table A-15) exhibited excellent accuracy for trace elements, inorganics, and petroleum hydrocarbon compounds, as indicated by the mean percent recoveries that were within DQO accuracy goals for each parameter.

The accuracy of MS and MSD samples was assessed during data validation to ascertain any effects on accuracy from matrix interference. Individual project-specific sample results were flagged to indicate a bias in analysis, if applicable. MS results (2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007) for fluoride in sediment and soil samples exhibited low-biased recovery in analysis by EPA Method 300.0. Overall, the sediment and soil results of the primary laboratory (SGS) for fluoride are considered biased low.

PE samples in a solid matrix (soil) were included in the analytical scheme during the 2006 and 2007 data-collection activities. The applicability of PE sample results to a soil/sediment matrix are discussed in the subsection “Accuracy—Soil” in Section A.2.3.3.

Accuracy for sediment analysis is excellent and acceptable, as demonstrated by the matrix-specific LCS recoveries from SRM, blind PE sample recoveries within referenced control limits, and MS/MSD recoveries within the DQO accuracy goals established in the QAPP.

Representativeness—Sediment

Sampling techniques and sample-handling protocols (e.g., storage, preservation, and transportation) were developed, and documentation was established to demonstrate that protocols were followed and sample identification and integrity were ensured. Field blanks and field duplicates were used to assess field and transport contamination and any variation in sampling techniques. These results were assessed during data validation, with the subsequent qualifying of data as applicable.

Data are considered representative. Anomalies noted during data validation and issues related to sensitivity goals as noted in the subsection “Sensitivity—Sediment” in Section A.2.3.1 were insignificant in the overall effect on project data.

Comparability—Sediment

The DQO of comparability was met by selecting methods for field sampling and laboratory analysis that were comparable throughout the trace element studies. Field sampling methods were evaluated (Table A-17) throughout the trace element studies during QA field audits to ensure comparability among sampling teams collecting samples of similar media. The methods were implemented as written for each


A-32 04/27/2011

sampling event, with any deviations necessary to accommodate unexpected field conditions being documented in field notes.

The laboratory analytical methods were evaluated to ensure comparability between the primary (SGS and ACZ) and QA (CAS) laboratories. Analysis of sediment samples was conducted by using EPA-approved methods from the EPA water and wastewater manual (1983); Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Clesceri et al, 1998); Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Publication SW846 (EPA, 1996); and petroleum hydrocarbon methods of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) from Title 18, Chapter 75, of the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC). The analytical methods used for parameters were as follows:

Trace elements (Al, Sb, As, Ba, Be, Bi, B, Cd, Ca, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg, Mn, Hg, Mo, Ni, K, Se, Ag, Na, Tl, Sn, V and Zn) by EPA Methods 6010B and 6020.

Trace elements (mercury) by EPA Method 7471A.

Cyanide (total) by SM 4500CN-E.


Ammonia as nitrogen by SM 4500NH3.

Total organic carbon by EPA Method 415.1.

GRO by ADEC Method AK101.

DRO by ADEC Method AK102.

RRO by ADEC Method AK103.

The use of EPA-approved and -published methodologies allows for distinct comparisons of data collected during multiple sampling events. Laboratory methods have not changed during the study period (2004 through 2007). The use of consistent laboratory methods has resulted in comparable data between the primary and QA laboratories during the course of the study.

In consideration of the methods and technologies employed in the field and at the laboratories, the data set for the freshwater sediment study is comparable.

Completeness—Sediment

The completeness goal for sediment samples in the trace elements study was established in the 2005, 2006, and 2007 QAPPs (Appendix G) at 90 percent. Completeness was calculated from the amount of data determined to be valid after data validation in comparison to the total amount of data acquired. Rejected data were considered not valid.

Sediment samples collected during 2004 through 2005 met the completeness goal for all parameters analyzed. Completeness was 100 percent for all parameters, with the exception of fluoride and gasoline range organics (GRO). Two fluoride sediment samples (2004) in a total population of 306 fluoride sediment samples and one GRO in a total population of seven GRO sediment samples were rejected because of laboratory QC outliers that invalidated the usability of the results.


A-33 04/27/2011

Sensitivity—Sediment

Sample results reported as ND to the MDL were compared to the DQO MRL goal specified in the QAPPs (2005, 2006, and 2007, in Appendix G). A summary of sensitivity for sediment is presented in Table A-18.

Antimony, bismuth, boron, cadmium, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, silver and thallium were reported as ND for at least 10 percent of the sediment data set. At least 50 percent of bismuth, cadmium, molybdenum, and silver samples reported as ND also reported an MDL value that was greater than the MRL DQO for sensitivity.

MRL DQOs for sensitivity in the QAPPs were established at values considerably lower than the benchmark criteria given in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and ADEC documents referenced in the QAPP table. There is no significant effect on data quality or usability from the referenced parameters not meeting the MRL DQO for sensitivity.

A.2.3.2 Vegetation

Vegetation samples for the trace elements studies were collected during 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Samples were collected by consultants, in accordance with their respective FSPs, as follows:

CH2M Hill during August and September 2004 in the mine study area.

SLR during July and August 2005, July and August 2006, and July and August 2007 in the mine study area.

BEESC during August and September 2004, August 2006, and September 2007 in the transportation corridor.

Vegetation samples were analyzed for trace elements and the inorganic parameter total cyanide. The inorganic parameters of chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and nitrogen as ammonia were also analyzed in 2004.

Precision—Vegetation

CAS was designated the primary laboratory for vegetation analysis. LCS analysis provides information on the analytical variability or laboratory precision without any effect from sample matrices. CAS used an SRM (peach or apple leaves) certified for use as a vegetation matrix for inorganic parameters and used laboratory grade water for trace elements.

Individual RSD results for LCSs are presented in Table A-19 and summarized below:

Trace Elements: Vegetation LCSs exhibited excellent precision as indicated by RSD values of less than 12 percent.

Inorganic Parameters: RSDs for vegetation LCSs were less than or equal to 10 percent, with the exception of chloride at 45 percent RSD for analysis associated with samples collected during 2004.


A-34 04/27/2011

One hundred fifteen field duplicate sample pairs of vegetation were evaluated for trace elements and total cyanide. One thousand forty-eight primary vegetation samples were collected, giving a field duplicate frequency of 11 percent for this data set.

Twenty-three primary-field duplicate sample pairs of vegetation were evaluated for the inorganic parameters chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and nitrogen as ammonia. With a total of 250 primary vegetation samples collected for these inorganic parameters in 2004, the field duplicate frequency is 9.2 percent for this data set.

Results reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating mean and SD. Field precision for vegetation is displayed in Table A-19 and summarized below:

Trace Elements: Results for trace elements in vegetation exhibited an average RSD of 118 percent. Higher variability in measurement was observed for potassium (205 percent RSD).

Inorganic Parameters: Results for inorganic parameters in vegetation exhibited an average RSD of 99 percent.

LD analysis also was performed for the inorganic parameters and trace elements. Results are summarized in Table A-20. Trace elements in LD vegetation samples exhibited an average RSD of 117 percent, which is the RSD obtained from primary-field duplicate sample pairs. Inorganic parameters in LD vegetation samples exhibited an average RSD of 109 percent and were comparable with the RSD obtained from primary-field duplicate sample pairs.

Results for field triplicate (QA) samples were compared to results for primary samples and field duplicates. Field triplicate sample results reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating an RPD in the results for primary and field triplicate samples. Control charts for trace elements parameters for vegetation samples are presented in the Charts A-150 through A-179 in Attachment 1.

These RPD calculations and the related control charts are another means to assess the precision of the test methods as they are being employed by the laboratories and also the precision of the field sampling procedures. Two variables, field sampling and laboratory techniques, are being evaluated in one effort. A primary-field duplicate sample pair is analyzed by the one primary laboratory. Consideration of the measurement of this pair as precise demonstrates that the field sampling methods used for sampling and the method used for testing can yield precise results and are therefore appropriate. Verification of the precision for a primary-field duplicate sample pair also indicates that the field team and the laboratory are able to obtain precise results by implementing their methods. The methods are more rigorously tested by the addition of a third entity—a second laboratory. Obtaining good precision in the comparison of results between the two laboratories further supports the capacity of the field teams and laboratories to achieve reproducible or precise results by implementing their methods.

Parameters for which at least 20 percent of the field triplicate sample RPDs exceeded the UCL, as exhibited in their respective control charts, are summarized below:

Trace Elements:


A-35 04/27/2011

– Antimony in two of two vegetation field triplicate samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 126 percent RPD.

– Bismuth in one of one vegetation field triplicate sample evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 145 percent RPD.

– Boron in one of three vegetation field triplicate samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 43 percent RPD.

– Chromium in nine of 14 vegetation field triplicate samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 88 percent RPD.

– Lead in nine of 37 vegetation field triplicate samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 109 percent RPD.

– Mercury in four of 16 vegetation field triplicate samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 75 percent RPD.

– Nickel in 17 of 64 vegetation field triplicate samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 129 percent RPD.

– Silver in three of 12 vegetation field triplicate samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 120 percent RPD.

– Sodium in 19 of 63 vegetation field triplicate samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 56 percent RPD.

– Thallium in six of 22 vegetation field triplicate samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 89 percent RPD.

– Tin in one of two vegetation field triplicate samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 67 percent RPD.

– Vanadium in 13 of 41 vegetation field triplicate samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 97 percent RPD.

• Inorganic Parameters:

– Fluoride in 22 of 23 vegetation field triplicate samples (2004) evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 150 percent RPD.

– Nitrogen as ammonia in 14 of 21 vegetation field triplicate samples (2004) evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 102 percent RPD.

For the vegetation data set, the precision is considered acceptable. For antimony, bismuth, boron, chromium, mercury, silver, tin, and vanadium, variability demonstrated by the high control limits and varied distribution of the plotted points of the primary-QA laboratory RPD is largely due to very few detections in the samples and low concentrations when the parameters were detected. The combination of a small number of detections at low concentrations resulted in high statistical variability with little difference in absolute concentrations. The lead, nickel, sodium, and thallium charts exhibit similarly high variability, but also represent significantly more sample detections relative to other parameters.


A-36 04/27/2011

Accuracy—Vegetation

Accuracy was calculated from the percent recoveries of laboratory-spiked parameters in analysis of LCSs and the MS and MSD samples. CAS used a vegetation SRM as the LCS matrix for inorganic parameters and used laboratory-grade water for the trace elements.

Accuracy for vegetation tissue LCSs is displayed in Table A-19. LCS results exhibit excellent accuracy for all parameters, as indicated by mean percent recoveries that were within DQOs for accuracy.

The accuracy from MS and MSD samples was assessed during data validation to ascertain any effects from sample-matrix interference. Individual project samples subsequently were flagged to indicate bias in analysis, as necessary. MS and MSD results did not indicate an overall bias in recovery for trace elements or inorganic parameters.

Accuracy for vegetation analysis is excellent and acceptable, as demonstrated by recoveries within the SRM control limits and by recoveries for MS and MSD samples within the DQOs for accuracy established in the QAPP.

Representativeness—Vegetation

Sampling techniques and sample-handling protocols (e.g., storage, preservation, and transportation) were developed, and documentation was established to demonstrate that protocols were consistently followed and that sample identification and integrity were ensured. Field blanks and field duplicates were used to assess field and transport contamination and any variation in sampling techniques. These results were assessed during data validation, with the subsequent qualifying of data as applicable.

Data are considered representative. Anomalies noted during data validation and issues related to comparability, as noted in the following subsection (“Comparability—Vegetation”) were insignificant in the overall effect on project data, as were issues related to sensitivity goals, as noted below in the subsection “Sensitivity—Vegetation.”

Comparability—Vegetation

The DQO for comparability was met by selecting methods for field sampling and for laboratory analysis that were comparable throughout the trace elements studies. Field sampling methods were evaluated (Table A-21) throughout the trace elements studies during QA field audits to ensure comparability among sampling teams collecting samples of similar media. The methods were implemented as written for each sampling event, with any deviations necessary to accommodate unexpected field conditions being documented in field notes.

The analytical methods of individual laboratories were evaluated to ensure comparability between the primary laboratory (CAS) and the QA laboratory (TA). Analysis of vegetation samples was conducted by using EPA-approved methods from the water and wastewater manual (1983) and Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Publication SW846 (EPA, 1996). The analytical methods used for parameters were as follows:


A-37 04/27/2011

Trace elements (Al, Sb, As, Ba, Be, Bi, B, Cd, Ca, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg, Mn, Hg, Mo, Ni, K, Se, Ag, Na, Tl, Sn, V and Zn) by EPA Methods 6010B and 6020.


Cyanide (total) by EPA Methods 335.2 and 9012A (CAS 2005, 2006, 2007).

Vegetation samples also were analyzed for the following inorganic parameters in the 2004 studies:

Chloride and sulfate by EPA Method 300.0.

Fluoride by EPA Method 340.2 (CAS) and Method 300.0 (NCA).

Ammonia as nitrogen by EPA Method 350.1.

The use of EPA-approved and published methodologies allows for distinct comparisons of data collected during multiple sampling events. The methods also provide a basis for using a QA laboratory to check the accuracy of the primary laboratory at a set frequency.

Preparation of vegetation samples differed between laboratories for the 2004 and 2005 data-collection activities. The individual preparatory methods are briefly discussed below:

CAS: Vegetation tissue samples were prepared by the primary laboratory. The entire sample was homogenized (i.e., cut into approximately 1/4-inch pieces) at the laboratory before any subsampling for metals, mercury, and cyanide. A portion of the laboratory-homogenized sample (wet) was analyzed for mercury and cyanide. A separate portion was dried at 60 degrees Celsius (°C) and ground for the analysis of trace elements. Ten percent of the homogenized vegetation sample (wet) was split into primary, field duplicate (QC), and field triplicate (QA) samples and then stored frozen prior to analysis. CAS then shipped the triplicate homogenized (wet) sample to the QA laboratory (NCA) for analysis.

NCA: Vegetation tissue field triplicate samples (wet) were prepared by flash freezing with liquid nitrogen and then were homogenized and stored at -20°C prior to sample digestions and analysis. Results reported by NCA were converted to dry-weight basis by applying the percent solids results from the primary laboratory.

Disagreements between results from the primary laboratory and the QA laboratory in 2005 were evaluated during data validation procedures. As a result of inquiries to the laboratory to ascertain disagreement in data, field triplicate results for vegetation samples collected in July 2005 were rejected because of uncertainty about the exact basis of samples received and the specific samples analyzed. A limited volume was received for the field triplicate samples, hindering the ability to re-extract and re-analyze samples and confirm the reported results.

Preparation of the 2005 vegetation tissue by drying at CAS at 60°C in comparison to flash freezing the wet (as received) sample with liquid nitrogen at NCA may account for the variability in results between the primary and QA laboratories.

Efforts to improve data quality were initiated during the 2006 vegetation analysis to ensure better comparability among data sets. The primary laboratory (CAS) was instructed to thoroughly prepare and homogenize the vegetation samples and to send the field triplicate sample as an aliquot dried at 60°C and


A-38 04/27/2011

ground for analysis of trace elements. Comparability in the data sets improved in 2006 and 2007 for vegetation samples as a result of the primary laboratory thoroughly preparing, homogenizing, grinding, and sending a dried aliquot of the sample to the QA laboratory.

Overall, the comparability in data sets for vegetation samples is considered excellent. The different sample-preparation techniques between the primary and QA laboratories during 2004 and 2005 were considered insignificant, as demonstrated by the excellent precision obtained from comparison of results for primary and field triplicate samples.

Completeness—Vegetation

The completeness goal for vegetation samples in the trace elements study was established in the 2005, 2006, and 2007 QAPPs (Appendix G) at 90 percent. Completeness was calculated from the amount of data determined to be valid after data validation in comparison to the total amount of data acquired. Rejected data were considered not valid.

Vegetation samples were collected during August and September 2004, July and August 2005, July and August 2006, and July, August, and September 2007. Vegetation tissue samples met the completeness goal for all parameters analyzed. Completeness was 100 percent for all parameters.

Sensitivity—Vegetation

Sample results reported as ND to the MDL were compared to the MRL DQO in the QAPPs. A summary of sensitivity for vegetation is presented in Table A-22.

Trace elements antimony, arsenic, beryllium, bismuth, cadmium, chromium, mercury, selenium, silver, thallium, tin, and vanadium were reported as ND for at least 10 percent of the vegetation data set of 1,048 samples. Inorganic parameters fluoride and total cyanide were reported as ND for at least 10 percent of the vegetation data set. At least 50 percent of chromium samples reported as ND also reported an MDL value that was greater than the MRL DQO for sensitivity.

Benchmark criteria for vegetation samples for the environmental baseline studies were not established or referenced in the QAPP. The effects on data quality or usability from the referenced parameters not meeting the MRL DQOs for sensitivity could not be assessed.

A.2.3.3 Soil

Soil samples were collected during 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 for the trace element studies. Samples were collected by consultants in accordance with their respective FSPs as follows:

CH2M Hill during September 2004 in the mine study area.

SLR during July and August 2005, July and August 2006, and July 2007 in the mine study area.

BEESC during August and September 2004 and August 2006 in the transportation corridor.

Soil samples were analyzed for trace elements; the inorganic parameters chloride, fluoride, sulfate, total cyanide, and nitrogen as ammonia; and the organic parameters total organic carbon (TOC), DRO, and


A-39 04/27/2011

RRO. Petroleum hydrocarbon samples for DRO and RRO were not collected for the 2007 data-collection activities.

SGS was designated the primary laboratory for soil analysis in 2004, 2005, and 2006. STL was designated the primary laboratory for soil analysis in 2007.

Precision—Soil

LCS analysis provides information on the analytical variability or laboratory precision without any effect from sample matrices. SGS used a solid SRM as the LCS matrix for both soil and sediment. Consequently, LCS results for sediment samples and soil samples were calculated together to ascertain the mean percent recovery and RSD for determining the analytical variability or precision. Individual RSD results for LCSs are presented in Table A-23 and summarized below:

Trace Elements: LCSs for sediment and soil exhibited good precision, as indicated by RSD values less than 15 percent, with the exceptions of antimony at 22 percent, bismuth at 44 percent, and silver at 18 percent.

Inorganic Parameters: LCSs for sediment and soil exhibited excellent precision, as indicated by RSD values of less than 15 percent.

Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds: Sediment and soil samples exhibited excellent precision for DRO and RRO, with RSDs of 9 percent and 10 percent, respectively.

TOC: Sediment and soil samples exhibited excellent precision for TOC with a 10 percent RSD.

Thirty pairs of primary-field duplicate sample pairs for soil were evaluated. Two hundred eighty-one primary soil samples were collected, giving a field duplicate frequency of 11 percent for this data set. Results reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating mean and SD. Results for field precision for soil are presented in Table A-23 and summarized below:

Trace Elements: Results for trace elements in soil exhibited an average RSD of 108 percent. A higher variability in measurement was observed for bismuth (136 percent RSD), potassium (123 percent RSD), thallium (124 percent RSD), and vanadium (125 percent RSD).

Inorganic Parameters: Results for inorganic parameters in soil exhibited an average RSD of 82 percent. LD analysis also was performed for the inorganic parameters. Results are summarized in Table A-24.

Results for field triplicate samples were evaluated in comparison to results for primary samples and field duplicates. Field triplicate sample results reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating RPDs in results for primary samples and field triplicate samples. Control charts for parameters in surface-soil samples are presented in Charts A-180 through A-214 in Attachment 1.

These RPD calculations and the related control charts are another means to assess the precision of the test methods as they are being employed by the laboratories and also the precision of the field sampling procedures. Two variables, field sampling and laboratory techniques, are being evaluated in one effort. A


A-40 04/27/2011

primary-field duplicate sample pair is analyzed by the one primary laboratory. Consideration of the measurement of this pair as precise demonstrates that the field sampling methods used for sampling and the method used for testing can yield precise results and are therefore appropriate. Verification of the precision for a primary-field duplicate sample pair also indicates that the field team and the laboratory are able to obtain precise results by implementing their methods. The methods are more rigorously tested by the addition of a third entity—a second laboratory. Obtaining good precision in the comparison of results between the two laboratories further supports the capacity of the field teams and laboratories to achieve reproducible or precise results by implementing their methods.

Parameters for which at least 20 percent of the field triplicate sample RPDs exceeded the UCLs are summarized below:


– Cyanide in 10 of 12 soil samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 106 percent RPD.

– Fluoride in one of three soil samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 100 percent RPD.

– Sulfate in five of 12 soil samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 113 percent RPD.

– Nitrogen as ammonia in 16 of 17 soil samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 92 percent RPD.

Trace Elements:

– Antimony in four of 16 soil samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 63 percent RPD.

– Boron in two of seven soil samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 89 percent RPD.

– Cadmium in six of 15 soil samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 102 percent RPD.

– Mercury in four of 19 soil samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 108 percent RPD.

– Selenium in five of 17 soil samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 79 percent RPD.

– Silver in three of 14 soil samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 47 percent RPD.

– Sodium in three of 20 soil samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 70 percent RPD.

– Thallium in two of 16 soil samples evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 79 percent RPD.

For the soil data set, the precision is excellent overall. For, antimony, boron, cadmium, mercury, selenium, silver, sodium, and thallium, the variability demonstrated by the high control limits and small number of outliers among the plotted points of the primary-QA laboratory RPD is largely due to very few


A-41 04/27/2011

detections in the samples and low concentrations when the parameters were detected. The combination of a small number of detections among the primary and field duplicate samples and detections at low concentrations resulted in the high statistical variability with little difference in absolute concentrations.

Accuracy—Soil

Accuracy was calculated from the percent recoveries of laboratory-spiked parameters in analysis of LCSs and MS, MSD, and PE samples.

Results for soil and sediment LCSs were calculated together to ascertain the mean percent recovery. These data were combined because the laboratory used a solid SRM as the LCS matrix for both soil and sediment samples. LCS results exhibited excellent accuracy for all parameters, as indicated by mean percent recoveries that were within DQOs for accuracy.

The accuracy of MS and MSD samples was assessed during data validation to ascertain effects from the sample matrix. Individual project-specific samples were flagged to indicate bias in analysis, if applicable. Results are summarized below:

MS results (2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007) for fluoride in soil and sediment samples exhibited low-biased recovery in analysis by EPA Method 300.0. Overall, the soil and sediment results of the primary laboratory (SGS) for fluoride are considered biased low.

MS results (2005, 2006, and 2007) for total cyanide in soil samples exhibited low-biased recovery by SM4500CE-E. Overall, the soil results of the primary laboratory (SGS) for total cyanide are considered biased low.

PE samples in a solid matrix (soil) were included in the analytical scheme during the 2006 and 2007 data-collection activities. The samples were submitted to the laboratories (blind) by using bottles and chain-of-custody records typical for the project to mask the identity of the PE samples and make them appear to be field samples.

In 2006, ERA prepared and submitted PE samples blind to the primary laboratory (SGS) and QA laboratory (CAS) for analysis. ERA maintains accreditations for NQA USA ISO9001 and A2LA Proficiency Testing Providers.

In 2007, RTC prepared and submitted PE samples blind to the primary laboratory for soil (STL), primary laboratory for sediment (ACZ) and QA laboratory for soil and sediment (CAS) for analysis. RTC maintains accreditations for A2LA Proficiency Testing Providers.

The 2006 PE sample soil results are presented in Table A-25a and are summarized below:

Trace Elements: 2006 PE sample results for trace elements in soil exhibited excellent accuracy, as indicated by acceptable results within the performance acceptance limits at both the primary and QA laboratories.


– The 2006 PE results for fluoride slightly exceeded (were biased high) the upper performance acceptance limit for the QA laboratory. This result yielded a recovery of 143 percent relative


A-42 04/27/2011

to the fluoride value certified by ERA, which is above the QAPP DQO goal of 75 to 125 percent (2005 QAPP, in Appendix G).

– The 2006 PE result for TOC in soil/sediment at the QA laboratory was reported with a biased-low value relative to performance acceptance limits. This result yielded a recovery of 20 percent relative to the TOC value certified by ERA, which is below the QAPP DQO goal of 75 to 125 percent (2005 QAPP, in Appendix G).

The 2007 PE sample soil results are presented in Table A-25b and summarized below:

Trace Elements:

– The 2007 PE sample results for trace elements aluminum and potassium exceeded (were biased high) the upper performance acceptance limits at the primary laboratory for sediments (ACZ). Aluminum yielded a recovery of 191 percent relative to the aluminum value certified by RTC. Potassium yielded a recovery of 173 percent relative to the potassium value certified by RTC. These trace elements both exceeded the QAPP DQO accuracy goal of 80 to 120 percent (2007 QAPP, in Appendix G).


– The 2007 PE result for nitrogen as ammonia exceeded (biased high) the upper performance acceptance limit for the primary laboratory for soils (STL). This result yielded a recovery of 824 percent relative to the nitrogen as ammonia value certified by RTC, which is above the QAPP DQO goal of 75 to 125 percent (2007 QAPP, in Appendix G).

Overall, accuracy for soil and sediment analysis is excellent and acceptable, as demonstrated by SRM recoveries, blind PE sample recoveries within referenced control limits, and MS and MSD recoveries within the DQO for accuracy established in the QAPP. The following are general comments about accuracy based on evaluation of these QC parameters:

The 2007 analysis (by ACZ) of primary sediment samples for aluminum and potassium may be considered biased high values.

The 2007 analysis (by STL) of primary soil samples for nitrogen as ammonia may be considered biased high values.

Representativeness—Soil

Sampling techniques and sample-handling protocols (e.g., storage, preservation, and transportation) were developed, and documentation was established to demonstrate that protocols were consistently followed and that sample identification and integrity were ensured. Field blanks and field duplicates were used to assess field and transport contamination and any variation in sampling techniques. These results were assessed during data validation, with the subsequent qualifying of data as applicable.

Data are considered representative. Anomalies noted during data validation and issues related to sensitivity goals noted in the subsection “Sensitivity—Soil” below were insignificant in the overall effect on project data.


A-43 04/27/2011

Comparability—Soil

The DQO of comparability was met by selecting methods for field sampling and laboratory analysis that were comparable throughout the trace elements studies. Field sampling methods were evaluated (Table A-26) throughout the trace element studies during QA field audits to ensure comparability among sampling teams collecting samples of similar media. The methods were implemented as written for each sampling event, with any deviations necessary to accommodate unexpected field conditions documented in field notes.

The laboratory analytical methods were evaluated to ensure comparability between the primary and QA laboratories. Analysis of sediment samples was conducted by using EPA-approved methods from the EPA water and wastewater manual (1983); Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Clesceri et al, 1998); Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Publication SW846 (EPA, 1996); and ADEC petroleum hydrocarbon methods (18 AAC 75). The analytical methods used for parameters were as follows:

Trace elements (Al, Sb, As, Ba, Be, Bi, B, Cd, Ca, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg, Mn, Hg, Mo, Ni, K, Se, Ag, Na, Tl, Sn, V, and Zn) by EPA Methods 6010B and 6020.


Cyanide (total) by SM 4500CN-E (SGS) and 9012A (CAS).


Ammonia as nitrogen by SM 4500NH3 (SGS) and 350.1 (CAS).

TOC by EPA Methods 415.1 (SGS, in 2004), 9060 (SGS, in 2005), and SM D4129 (CAS).

DRO by ADEC Method AK102.

RRO by ADEC Method AK103.

The use of EPA-approved and -published methodologies allows for distinct comparisons of data collected during multiple sampling events. Laboratory methods have not changed substantially during the study period (2004 through 2007). The use of consistent laboratory methods has resulted in comparable data between the primary and QA laboratories during the course of the study.

In consideration of the methods and technologies employed in the field and at the laboratories, the data set for the trace element studies for soil is comparable.

Completeness—Soil

The completeness goal for soil samples in the trace elements study was established in the QAPP at 90 percent (2005, 2006, and 2007 QAPPs, in Appendix G). Completeness was calculated from the amount of data determined to be valid after data validation, compared to the total amount of data acquired. Rejected data were considered not valid.

Soil samples collected during 2004 through 2007 met the completeness goal for all parameters analyzed. Completeness was 100 percent for all parameters, with the exception of fluoride. One fluoride soil sample was rejected for a completeness of 99.6 percent.


A-44 04/27/2011

Sensitivity—Soil

Sample results reported as ND to the MDL were compared to the MRL DQOs in the QAPPs (2005, 2006, and 2007 QAPPs, in Appendix G). A summary of sensitivity is presented in Table A-27.

Antimony, bismuth, boron, cadmium, molybdenum, silver, thallium, and tin were reported as ND for at least 10 percent of the soil data set. For at least 50 percent of antimony, cadmium, molybdenum, silver, and tin samples reported as ND, an MDL value that was greater than the MRL sensitivity DQO was also reported.

MRL DQOs for sensitivity were established in the QAPP at values considerably lower than the benchmark soil criteria. Neither data quality nor usability is significantly affected by the referenced parameters not meeting the MRL DQOs for sensitivity.

A.2.3.4 Fish and Mussel Tissues

Samples of fish tissue and mussel tissue were collected in the mine study area during 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 for the trace element studies. Samples were collected by consultants in accordance with their respective FSPs, as described below:

HDR collected fish tissue during 2004 (August and September), 2005 (August), 2006 (August), 2007 (August), and 2008 (August and September) from rivers and streams in the mine study area.

HDR collected mussel tissue during 2005 (June, September, and October) and 2006 (September) at Iliamna Lake.

Fish tissue samples were analyzed for trace elements. Mussel tissue samples were analyzed for trace elements and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds for the 2005 data-collection activities.

Precision—Fish and Mussel Tissues

The primary laboratory (CAS) performed LCS analysis for trace elements and PAHs. LCS analysis provides information on only the analytical variability or laboratory precision without effects from the sample matrix.

Most of the LCSs for fish and mussel tissue at CAS were prepared using certified fish tissue SRM (National Research Council Canada [NRCC] catalog numbers Dorm-2 and NRCC Dolt-3). These reference materials did not contain mercury. LCS results were calculated together to ascertain the mean percent recovery and RSD to determine the analytical variability or precision. Individual RSD results for LCSs are presented in Table A-28 and summarized below:

Trace Elements: Tissue LCS results exhibited excellent precision, as demonstrated by RSDs for fish and mussel tissue at 10 percent or less, except for chromium (12 percent), lead (22 percent), and nickel (14 percent).

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Analysis of LCSs for PAH compounds was performed for Iliamna Lake mussel tissues. LCS exhibited excellent precision for PAH compounds, with all compounds having an RSD of 17 percent or less.


A-45 04/27/2011

Five batches of samples for the September 2008 event were processed with LCSs prepared by using laboratory water fortified with trace elements. All mercury LCSs were prepared in this manner. Excellent precision for this type of LCS was demonstrated with RSDs of 10 percent or less.

Five pairs of primary-field duplicate sample pairs for fish and mussel tissues were evaluated for trace elements. Eight hundred eleven primary fish and mussel tissues samples were collected, giving a field duplicate frequency of 0.6 percent for this data set. One primary-field duplicate sample pair was collected for organics. Eight primary fish and mussel tissue samples were collected, giving a field duplicate frequency of 12 percent. Results reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating mean and SD.

Field precision for mussel tissue is displayed in Table A-28. Primary-field duplicate and primary-field triplicate sample pairs of fish tissues were submitted for testing; however, in 2008, an evaluation by Pebble Partnership and Shaw of the dissection and homogenization procedures led to the conclusion that most of the field duplicate samples were actually laboratory duplicates analyzed at the same laboratory and most of the field triplicate fish samples were actually laboratory duplicates analyzed at a second laboratory. This conclusion was reached because all sample portions from the locations designated for a field triplicate sample were homogenized and then portions were meted out for the primary and field triplicate samples. Correctly done, the samples should have been divided up into primary and field triplicate samples before homogenization and should have been homogenized separately. A few select pairs were determined to have been processed correctly. The determination of which pairs were prepared correctly for this QA split was done by examination of preparation details documented on laboratory bench sheets. Argon performed this examination.

The corrective action subsequent to this conclusion was to reclassify the field triplicate samples to laboratory duplicates in the project database. This reclassification was accomplished by changing the QA designation to “LR” (laboratory replicate).

LD analysis also was performed for trace elements. Precision for LD samples of fish and mussel tissue is displayed in Table A-29.

Accuracy—Fish and Mussel Tissues

Accuracy was calculated from the percent recoveries of laboratory-spiked parameters in analysis of LCSs and the MS and MSD samples.

LCS fish and mussel samples at CAS were prepared by using a certified SRM (NRCC Dorm-2 and NRCC Dolt-3) for the parameters arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc. CAS prepared an aqueous-matrix LCS for the parameters antimony, beryllium, molybdenum, and thallium.

Accuracy for fish and mussel LCS is displayed in Table A-28. LCS results exhibited excellent accuracy for all parameters, as indicated by mean percent recoveries that were within DQOs for accuracy.

MS and MSD accuracy was assessed during the data validation to ascertain effects from sample matrix interference. Individual project-specific samples were flagged to indicate bias in analysis where


A-46 04/27/2011

necessary. MS and MSD results did not indicate an overall bias in recovery for the trace elements or PAH compounds.

Accuracy for analysis of fish and mussel tissue is excellent and acceptable, as demonstrated by matrix-specific SRM recoveries within referenced control limits and by LCS, MS, and MSD recoveries within the DQOs for accuracy established in the QAPP.

Representativeness—Fish and Mussel Tissues

Sampling techniques and sample-handling protocols (e.g., storage, preservation, and transportation) were developed, and documentation was established to demonstrate that protocols were consistently followed and sample identification and integrity were ensured. Tissue samples were frozen after sample collection to maintain the integrity of the tissue. Field blanks and field duplicates were used to assess field and transport contamination and any variation in sampling techniques. These results were assessed during data validation, with the subsequent qualifying of data as applicable.

All data for fish and mussel tissue are considered representative. Anomalies noted during data validation and issues related to comparability (as noted in the subsection “Comparability—Fish and Mussel Tissues”) and sensitivity goals (as noted in the subsection “Sensitivity—Fish and Mussel Tissues”) were insignificant in overall effect on project data.

Comparability—Fish and Mussel Tissues

The DQO of comparability was met by selecting methods for field sampling and laboratory analysis that were comparable throughout the trace element studies (Table A-30). Field sampling methods were evaluated during QA field audits to ensure comparability among sampling teams collecting fish and mussel tissues. The methods were implemented as written for each sampling event, with any deviations necessary to accommodate unexpected field conditions documented in field notes.

The individual laboratory analytical methods were evaluated to ensure comparability between the primary laboratory (CAS) and the QA laboratory (TA, formerly STL). Analysis of fish and mussel tissue was conducted by using EPA-approved methods from the EPA water and wastewater manual (1983) and Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Publication SW846 (EPA, 1996). The analytical methods used for parameters were as follows:

Trace elements (Sb, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Mo, Ni, Ag, Tl, and Zn) by EPA Methods 6010B and 6020.

Trace elements (mercury) by EPA Method 1631.

Trace elements (selenium) by EPA Methods 7740 (CAS) and 6020 (NCA).

PAH by EPA Method 8270C SIM (2005, Iliamna Lake).

Preparation of fish and mussel tissue samples was conducted by using guidelines detailed in the Puget Sound Estuary Program, referencing Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Metals in Puget Sound Marine Water, Sediment, and Tissue Samples (EPA, 1997).


A-47 04/27/2011

Field triplicate sample analyses were intended for both the mussel and fish tissues as a demonstration of field precision; however, ultimately, only the mussel tissue results are reported for this precision. The reason for the lack of field precision data for fish tissues is discussed above in the subsection “Precision—Fish and Mussel Tissues.” Comparability statements for the two laboratories reflect statements of laboratory precision only.

Sample preparation for fish and mussel tissue differed substantially between laboratories for the 2004 and 2005 data-collection activities. The differences in sample preparation introduced some variability in the laboratory duplicate results between the primary and QA/second laboratory. Laboratory preparatory methods are briefly explained below:

CAS (primary): Tissue samples were stored frozen at -20°C before analysis. Prior to digestion, samples were homogenized and then freeze-dried. Results were reported on a dry-weight basis.

NCA (QA): Tissue samples were prepared by EPA Method 3052, which is a microwave-assisted acid digestion, and were analyzed by EPA Method 6020. Results were converted to dry-weight basis by applying the CAS percent solids of a representative sample.

Efforts to improve data quality were initiated for the 2006 analysis of fish and mussel tissues to ensure better comparability in data sets. The primary laboratory (CAS) was instructed to thoroughly prepare, homogenize, and freeze-dry the tissue samples and to send the field triplicate sample as a freeze-dried aliquot for analysis for trace elements. Comparability in the data sets improved in 2006 and 2007 for fish tissue samples as a result of the primary laboratory thoroughly preparing, homogenizing, and freeze-drying the aliquot of the sample for the QA laboratory.

Completeness—Fish and Mussel Tissues

The completeness goal for fish and mussel tissue samples in the trace elements study was established in the QAPP at 90 percent (2005 through 2008 QAPPs, Appendix G). Completeness was calculated from the amount of data determined to be valid after data validation, compared to the total amount of data acquired. Rejected data were considered not valid.

Tissue samples met the completeness goal for all parameters analyzed. Completeness was 100 percent for all parameters.

Sensitivity—Fish and Mussel Tissues

Sample results reported as ND to the MDL were compared to the MRL DQOs goals in the QAPP. A summary of sensitivity for fish and mussel tissues is presented in Table A-31.

MRL DQOs for sensitivity established in the QAPP were met for fish and mussel tissue.

A.2.3.5 Surface Water—Seeps

Surface water samples from seep locations were collected by HDR in the mine study area. Sample collection followed procedures outlined in FSPs developed each year.


A-48 04/27/2011

Precision—Surface Water Seeps

Precision was calculated from the RSD in results of LCSs, LD samples, and field duplicate samples. Sample results reported at levels less than the MRL were included in the statistical calculations of the mean ( x ) and the SD of the measurements.

LCS analysis provides information on analytical variability or laboratory precision without influence from a field sample matrix. The laboratory uses in-house purified water for the LCS. Surface water and groundwater samples can be batched together under a single LCS. A single set of calculations of the mean and SD of LCS data points represents both matrices. Laboratory accuracy and precision are displayed in Table A-32.

LCS results for trace elements exhibit excellent accuracy for all parameters, as indicated by mean percent recoveries that were within DQOs for accuracy.

Field duplicate samples were included in the analytical scheme to assess sampling and analytical variability. This variability includes that resulting from sample matrix differences (heterogeneity), sample handling procedures, and the analytical measurement system. Field precision was calculated as the RPD between primary and field duplicate sample results. A percent RSD of the RPDs was calculated to assess the precision of these values.

For trace elements, total and dissolved, 394 primary-field duplicate sample pairs of surface water seep were evaluated. For inorganic parameters, 198 pairs were evaluated. The primary surface water seep samples collected included 1,654 samples for trace elements and 827 samples for inorganic parameters, yielding a field duplicate frequency of 24 percent for this data set. Primary results that were reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating the mean and SD. Field-precision values for surface water seeps are displayed in Table A-32 and are summarized below:

Trace Elements: Trace elements in surface water exhibited an average RSD of 101 percent for their RPDs. Higher variability was observed for iron (124 percent), magnesium (131 percent), manganese (130 percent), molybdenum (137 percent), potassium (139 percent), and selenium (125 percent).

Inorganic Parameters: An average RSD of 166 percent was calculated for the RPDs of inorganic parameters. Alkalinity (242 percent), chloride (195 percent), nitrate-nitrite (170 percent), pH (173 percent), specific conductance (491 percent), and sulfate (320 percent) demonstrated the highest amounts of variability. These parameters exhibited greater variability in comparison to surface water results.

Field triplicate samples from the identical sample points designated for field duplicates were collected and submitted to the QA laboratory (CAS). The intent of triplicate sampling is to assess the accuracy of the primary laboratory (SGS). This comparison is accomplished by a quantitative comparison of the data from the primary and QA laboratories through calculation of an RPD of the primary laboratory and QA laboratory sample results for the values for trace elements and inorganic parameters. These RPDs were plotted on control charts against an average ( x ) of the RPD results of primary-field duplicate sample pairs and a UCL based on the RPDs of the field duplicate data [UCL = x + (3 * SD)] (Charts A-45


A-49 04/27/2011

through A-79 in Attachment 1). The data points displayed in these charts reflect QA laboratory results with the RPD from the primary-field triplicate sample pairs listed to the right of each point.


Charts are not available for inorganic parameter cyanide, WAD CN, nitrogen as ammonia, thiocyanate, TSS, bismuth, and tin because of a lack of detections in the primary sample, the triplicate sample, or both.

The control charts exhibit excellent precision, which is demonstrated by more than one-third of the data points being at or below the average RPD. These results, statistically replicated between two laboratories, attest to the accuracy of the methods used for surface water seep matrices as employed at the primary laboratory. Exceptions exist, for example, in the cases of mercury and selenium, for which a limited number of detections resulted in a limited number of pairs for field duplicates and triplicates.

The inorganic parameters results for alkalinity, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and total phosphorus show the highest percentage of RPDs for primary-field triplicate sample pairs above the RPD UCLs for the primary-field duplicate sample pairs:

Total alkalinity exhibited variability—out of 69 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for five of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Chloride exhibited variability—out of 69 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for 21 of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

For fluoride, none of the RPDs for primary-field triplicate sample pairs exceeded the UCL.

Sulfate exhibited some variability—out of 72 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for only one of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Total phosphorus exhibited some variability—out of 45 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated; RPDs for only one of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

The trace element results for boron, cadmium, cobalt, iron, mercury, and silicon show the highest percentage of RPDs for primary-field triplicate sample pairs above the RPD UCLs for the primary-field duplicate sample pairs:

Boron exhibited variability—out of 52 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for six of those pairs exceeded the UCL.


A-50 04/27/2011

Cadmium exhibited variability—out of five primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for three of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Cobalt exhibited variability—out of 60 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for 33 of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Iron exhibited variability—out of 58 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for 17 of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Mercury exhibited variability—out of nine primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for one of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Silicon exhibited variability—out of 73 primary-field triplicate sample pairs evaluated, RPDs for six of those pairs exceeded the UCL.

Cadmium, cobalt, and iron exhibited the highest percentages of RPDs for primary-field triplicate sample pairs above the RPD UCLs. Boron, cadmium, mercury, and silicon were detected in few samples at low concentrations. Higher statistical variability is present at the low concentrations. That higher variability combined with the small number of detections did not result in a viable data set to make precision statements for these parameters.

Accuracy—Surface Water Seeps

Accuracy was calculated from the percent recoveries of LCS QC samples and PE sample analysis. Similar to the precision calculations, LCS results for surface water and groundwater are combined into one calculation scheme for determining the mean and the SD.

The mean LCS recoveries demonstrated excellent recoveries for all trace elements, inorganic parameters, and organic parameters relative to the DQOs given in the QAPPs (2005 through 2008, in Appendix G).

MS and MSD sample accuracy was assessed during data validation to determine effects on accuracy from matrix interferences. Individual project-specific samples were flagged to indicate a bias in the analysis of the particular parent sample used to generate the MS/MSD set.

PE samples in an aqueous matrix (water) were included in the analytical scheme during the 2006, 2007, and 2008 data-collection activities. The results, which are further discussed in the subsection “Accuracy—Surface Water” in Section A.2.2.1.

The 2007 PE sample result for barium submitted to the primary laboratory (ACZ) for surface water seep samples was reported above the acceptance limits for the study at 200 percent relative to the RTC certified value and exceeded the QAPP DQOs of 85 to 115 percent (2005 through 2008, in Appendix G).

In 2008, RTC prepared and submitted PE samples blind to the primary laboratories for surface water (SGS and CAS). RTC maintains accreditations for A2LA Proficiency Testing Providers.

The 2008 PE water sample results were acceptable at the primary laboratory (SGS) and quality assurance laboratory (CAS) for surface water samples. The 2008 PE freshwater results are presented in Table A-5c.

Data assessment for accuracy demonstrated that the accuracy controls are stable within the laboratory because all LCS results are within the QAPP DQOs. The PE results for fluoride, sulfate, and total


A-51 04/27/2011

phosphorus exhibit a noticeably high bias. Considering that this apparent bias is from a single analysis, these particular outliers are not a significant cause for concern in terms of usability.

Representativeness—Surface Water Seeps

Sampling techniques and sample-handling protocols (e.g., storage, preservation, and transportation) were developed, and documentation was established to demonstrate that protocols were consistently followed and that sample identification and integrity were ensured. Field blanks and field duplicates were used to assess field and transport contamination and any variation in sampling techniques. The results were considered during data validation.

QC measures to monitor for systematic background contamination in the field and laboratory environments were water blanks generated in the field by using laboratory water and method blanks generated at the laboratory with each batch of samples prepared and analyzed. Such contamination could have a significant effect on the accuracy of the data.

The data are considered acceptable and usable for project purposes. The significance of anomalies noted during data validation, including their overall impact on project data (if any), is briefly summarized in the subsections on completeness, sensitivity, and total and dissolved metals.

Comparability—Surface Water Seeps

The comparability objective was met by selecting field sampling and laboratory analytical methods that are comparable throughout the baseline environmental studies. Differences in methods or technologies may preclude making data comparisons or generating viable trending information.

The field sampling methods were evaluated (Table A-33) to ensure comparability among sampling teams collecting samples of similar media. The methods were implemented as written for each sampling event, with any deviations necessary to accommodate unexpected field conditions documented in field notes.



Trace elements (mercury) by EPA Methods 245.1 (in 2004) and 1631 (in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008).







A-52 04/27/2011

Cation/anion balance SM20 1030E.




Ortho-phosphorus (May 2006 through December 2006 and January 2007 through April 2007) by EPA Method 365.2.






The use of EPA-approved and -published methodologies allows for distinct comparisons of data collected during multiple sampling events. The methods also provide a basis for using a QA laboratory to check the accuracy of the primary laboratory at a set frequency. Multiple methods are listed for some parameters because an EPA MUR issued on April 13, 2007, effectively removed some methods from the EPA-approved list and added others. The laboratory technologies used on each parameter are comparable, as evaluated by each laboratory upon issuance of the EPA MUR.

In consideration of the methods and technologies employed in the field and at the laboratories, the data sets for the surface water studies are comparable.

Completeness—Surface Water Seeps

The completeness goal for surface water quality was 90 percent. The completeness level for the sample collection of surface water seeps from April 2004 to December 2008 was met, with completeness calculated at 98 percent, calculated from 941 rejected data points out of a total of 46,987.

The nitrate/nitrite parameter constitutes nine unusable results because of analyses occurring beyond the 48-hour holding time. This exceedence of holding times occurred because of a change in holding time pertaining to seep and stream water samples collected between April 2004 and September 2004. During the 2004 field season, the holding time for nitrate and nitrite analysis was set at 28 days. For the 2005 field season, this holding time was changed to 48 hours, and data from all of the previous seasons were reevaluated for the new criterion.

Most other rejected data points are due to T vs D metals anomalies that did not pass data validation criteria, principally barium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. The completeness goals for these individual metals were not met. The number of rejected points for surface water seeps is much smaller than those for other surface water studies. However, these metals were included into an overall investigation into T vs D anomalies. This topic is further discussed in Section A.2.2.1 in the subsection “Total and Dissolved Trace Elements—Surface Water Seeps.”


A-53 04/27/2011

The parameter ortho-phosphorus also did not meet the individual completeness goal based on comparison of results to total phosphorus data. Four of the 30 data points were rejected based on this evaluation during data validation.

Sensitivity—Surface Water Seeps

The laboratory MDLs were compared to the MRL goals in the QAPPs (2005 through 2008, in Appendix G) as part of the validation process. Approximately 94 percent of the reported results for the trace elements and inorganic parameters have MDLs that meet the MRL goals for the surface water data set. Four parameters—beryllium, boron, cadmium, and WAD cyanide—are associated with the majority of the results for which MDLs are higher than the MRL goals.

The exceedences of the MRL goals for trace elements were in some cases triggered by changes in the laboratory MRLs, as demonstrated by comparison of the MRL goals listed for each year in the summary table for surface water data, Table A-34. SGS implemented some refinements in the overall protocol to improve sensitivity entering into the 2006 season. Boron analysis improved following a change in method that lowered the MRL, though it was still above the QAPP MRL goal. For each of beryllium, cadmium, lead, and vanadium, the MDL exceeded the MRL goal for several data points with ND results. The MDLs varied slightly, with the method validation updates laboratories are required to perform at least annually. In each instance, they are close to the MRL goal (less than 1 g/L difference). Overall, for approximately three-quarters of the data points at which MDLs for trace elements exceed the MRL, positive detections were reported in the samples for those trace elements. Hence, sensitivity goals were met for the majority of the data.

Total and Dissolved Trace Elements—Surface Water Seeps

The project laboratory made an initial comparison of sample results to ensure that in all instances values for dissolved metals were less than the related values for total metals. Situations for which dissolved metal results were greater than results for total metals were evaluated against criteria presented in Section 4.2 of the project QAPPs (2005 through 2008, in Appendix G) and in Section A.2.1.7 of this appendix.

This evaluation was performed at the laboratory before the final deliverables were reported and by Shaw and Argon during data validation. Far fewer data points are available for seeps than for other surface water studies; however, trace elements copper, lead, nickel, and zinc account for the majority of the anomalous comparisons that do not meet QAPP criteria.

The number of rejected points in the seep study does not in and of itself warrant corrective action; however, because of the frequency of rejected data observed in the surface water studies (see discussion in the subsection “Total and Dissolved Trace Elements—Surface Water” of Section A.2.2.1), action has been taken to address copper, nickel, and zinc. The corrective actions implemented for the subject metals were implemented for all freshwater studies.

Cation/Anion Balance—Surface Water Seep

The two cation and anion sums were compared according to the criteria established in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Clesceri et al., 1998), SM 1030E (summarized in the


A-54 04/27/2011

subsection “Cation/Anion Balance—Surface Water” in Section A.2.2.1). This evaluation was performed at the laboratory before the final deliverables were reported and by Shaw during data validation. The cation/anion balances for more than 99 percent of the sample collection points met the criteria.

A.2.4 MARINE STUDY

Marine studies were conducted by BEESC, along with Pentec Environmental and RWJ Consulting under contract to BEESC, during 2004 (September) and 2005 (May, July, and August) in Cook Inlet for marine water, marine sediment, and marine fish and bivalve tissues. Marine studies in 2008 were conducted solely by Pentec Environmental for marine water, marine sediment, marine plant, and marine fish and bivalve tissues.

Samples were submitted to the designated primary and QA laboratories as follows:

Date Matrix Primary Laboratory

QA Laboratory

September 2004

marine water, marine sediment

SGS CAS

September 2004

marine fish and bivalve tissues

CAS none

May 2005 marine fish and bivalve tissues

CAS STL

July 2005 marine sediment SGS CAS

July 2005 marine fish and bivalve tissues

CAS STL

August 2005 marine fish and bivalve tissues

CAS none

May 2008 marine fish and bivalve tissues, marine plant, marine water

CAS TA (formerly STL)

June 2008 marine fish and bivalve tissues


July 2008 marine fish and bivalve tissues, marine plant, marine water, marine sediment


August 2008 marine fish and bivalve tissues


September 2008

marine fish and bivalve tissues, marine plant, marine water



A-55 04/27/2011

Fish and bivalve tissue samples were analyzed according to guidelines detailed in the Puget Sound Estuary Program, referencing Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Metals in Puget Sound Marine Water, Sediment, and Tissue Samples (EPA, 1997).

A.2.4.1 Marine Fish and Bivalve Tissue

Precision—Marine Fish and Bivalve Tissue

The primary laboratory (CAS) performed LCS analysis for trace elements. LCS analysis for fish and bivalve tissue at CAS was prepared by using certified fish tissue SRM (NRCC Dorm-2 and Dolt-3). LCS results were calculated together to ascertain the mean percent recovery and RSD to determine the analytical variability or precision.

Individual RSD results for tissue LCS are presented in Table A-35. LCS RSDs for trace elements in fish and bivalve tissues were 10 percent or less, with the exception of chromium at 11 percent, lead at 17 percent, nickel at 11 percent, and selenium at 14 percent, all of which are indicators of good precision. Historical data for Dolt-3 SRM have shown biased-high recoveries for lead and nickel in the SRM matrix, which contribute to the higher variability in measurement.

LD analysis for trace elements also was performed on tissues, and the RSDs are displayed in Tables A-36 and A-37.

Field precision for marine fish and bivalve tissue could not be determined because valid duplicates or triplicates were not submitted among the ninety-six samples submitted for testing. Pairs of primary-field triplicate samples were submitted for testing; however, in 2008, an evaluation by Argon, LLC and Shaw of the dissection and homogenization procedures led to the conclusion that field duplicate and triplicate samples were actually laboratory duplicates analyzed at a second laboratory. This conclusion was reached because, all sample portions from the locations designated for a field duplicate and triplicate samples were homogenized and then portions were meted out for the primary and field duplicate and triplicate samples. Correctly done, the samples should have been divided up into primary and field duplicate and triplicate samples before homogenization, then homogenized separately.

The corrective action subsequent to this conclusion was to reclassify the field triplicate samples to laboratory duplicates in the project database. This reclassification was accomplished by changing the QA designation to “LR” (laboratory replicate).

Accuracy—Marine Fish and Bivalve Tissue

Accuracy was calculated from the percent recoveries of laboratory-spiked parameters in analysis of LCSs and the MS and MSD samples.

Most of the LCSs for fish and mussel tissue at CAS were prepared by using certified fish tissue SRM (NRCC Dorm-2 and Dolt-3). These reference materials did not contain mercury. LCS results were calculated together to ascertain the mean percent recovery and RSD for determining the analytical variability or precision. Individual RSD results for LCSs are presented in Table A-35. LCS results exhibited excellent accuracy for all parameters, as indicated by mean percent recoveries that were within DQOs for accuracy.


A-56 04/27/2011

Eight batches of samples for the 2008 events were processed with LCSs prepared by using laboratory water fortified with trace elements. All mercury LCSs were prepared in this manner. Excellent precision for this type of LCS was demonstrated with RSDs of 10 percent or less.

The accuracy of MS and MSD samples was assessed during data validation to ascertain any effects from sample matrix interference. Individual project-specific samples were flagged to indicate bias in analysis, as necessary. MS and MSD results did not indicate an overall bias in recovery for the trace elements.

Accuracy for analysis of fish and bivalve tissue is excellent and acceptable, as demonstrated by matrix-specific SRM recoveries within referenced control limits and LCS, MS, and MSD recoveries within the DQOs for accuracy established in the QAPP (2005, in Appendix G).

Representativeness—Marine Fish and Bivalve Tissue

Tissue samples were frozen after sample collection to maintain integrity of the tissue matrix. Field blanks and field duplicates were used to assess field and transport contamination and any variation in sampling techniques. These results were assessed during data validation, with the subsequent qualifying of data where applicable.

Data for marine tissue are considered representative. Anomalies noted during data validation and issues related to comparability (as noted in the subsection immediately below) and to sensitivity goals (as noted in the subsection “Sensibility—Marine Fish and Bivalve Tissue” below) were insignificant in their overall effects on project data.

Comparability—Marine Fish and Bivalve Tissue

Field sampling methods described in the FSPs for the marine studies were evaluated before data collection. Comparability statements are based on a limited data set, as discussed in the subsection “Precision—Fish and Mussel Tissues” in Section A.2.3.4.

Individual laboratory analytical methods were evaluated to ensure comparability between the primary laboratories and QA laboratories. Analysis of samples was conducted by using guidelines detailed in the Puget Sound Estuary Program, referencing Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Metals in Puget Sound Marine Water, Sediment, and Tissue Samples (EPA, 1997).

Preparation of samples of fish and mussel tissue differed between laboratories, as discussed in the subsection “Comparability—Fish and Mussel Tissue” in Section A.2.3.4. No sample sets of primary, field duplicate, and field triplicate samples were evaluated; therefore, a conclusion about the comparability of the analysis of marine tissue at the laboratories could not be reached.

Completeness—Marine Fish and Bivalve Tissue

The completeness goal for the marine studies was established in the 2005 and 2008 QAPPs at 90 percent (Appendix G). Completeness was calculated from the amount of data determined to be valid after data validation, compared to the total amount of data acquired. Rejected data were considered not valid.

Marine tissue samples met the completeness goal for all trace elements analyzed. Completeness was 100 percent for all parameters.


A-57 04/27/2011

Sensitivity—Marine Fish and Bivalve Tissue

Sample results reported as ND to the MDL were compared to the MRL DQOs in the 2005 QAPP (Appendix G). Table A-38 presents a summary of sensitivity for marine tissue. MRL DQOs for sensitivity established in the QAPP were met for fish and bivalve tissue.

A.2.4.2 Marine Plant Tissue

Precision—Marine Plant Tissue

The primary laboratory (CAS) performed LCS analysis for trace elements. LCS analysis for plant tissue was prepared by using laboratory-grade water, a water quality (WQ) matrix, fortified with the targeted trace elements at known concentrations. This WQ matrix was also used as the LCS for select batches of marine fish and bivalve samples. All LCS samples of the WQ matrix type, regardless of association with a particular matrix type, were calculated together to ascertain the analytical variability or precision by calculation of the mean percent recovery and RSD.

Individual RSD results for the WQ matrix as an LCS are presented in Table A-35. The RSDs exhibit excellent precision, with RSDs of 10 percent or less.

LD analysis for trace elements also was performed on tissues, and the RSDs are displayed in Table A-37.

Four pairs of primary-field duplicate sample pairs for marine plant tissue were evaluated. Eight primary marine plant tissue samples were collected, giving a field duplicate frequency of 50 percent for this data set. Results reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating mean and SD. For trace elements in marine plant tissue, the RPDs between results for the primary and field triplicate samples are precise and comparable to the field precision reported between the results for the primary sample and the field duplicate sample.

Accuracy—Marine Plant Tissue

Accuracy was calculated from the percent recoveries of laboratory-spiked parameters in analysis of the LCSs and the MS and MSD samples.

LCS samples for plant tissue at CAS were prepared by using laboratory-grade water fortified with trace elements as the matrix (WQ matrix). This WQ matrix also was used as the LCS for select batches of marine fish and bivalve samples. All LCSs of the WQ matrix type, regardless of association with animal or plant tissue, were calculated together to ascertain the mean percent recovery. Individual mean percent recoveries and RSD results for the LCSs are presented in Table A-35. LCS results exhibited excellent accuracy for all parameters, as indicated by mean percent recoveries that were within DQOs for accuracy.

The accuracy of MS and MSD samples was assessed during data validation to ascertain any effects from sample matrix interference. Individual project-specific samples used as the parent samples for MS/MSD sets were flagged to indicate bias in analysis, as necessary. MS and MSD results did not indicate an overall bias in recovery for the trace elements.


A-58 04/27/2011

Accuracy for analysis of marine plant tissue is excellent and acceptable, as demonstrated by matrix-specific SRM recoveries within referenced control limits and LCS, MS, and MSD recoveries within the DQOs for accuracy established in the QAPP (2005 and 2008, in Appendix G).

Representativeness—Marine Plant Tissue

Tissue samples were frozen after sample collection to maintain integrity of the tissue matrix. Field blanks and field duplicates were used to assess field contamination and variation in sampling techniques. These results were assessed during data validation, with the subsequent qualifying of data if applicable.

Data for marine tissue are considered representative. No significant anomalies were noted during data validation.

Comparability—Marine Plant Tissue

Field sampling methods described in the FSPs for the marine studies were evaluated before data collection.

Individual laboratory analytical methods were evaluated to ensure comparability between the primary laboratories and QA laboratories. Analysis of samples was conducted by using EPA-approved methods from the EPA water and wastewater manual (1983) and Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Publication SW846 (EPA, 1996).

Preparation of plant tissue samples differed between laboratories, as discussed in the subsection “Comparability—Vegetation” in Section A.2.3.2. Individual RSD results for the field triplicate samples are presented in Table A-39. Only three sets of primary, field duplicate, and field triplicate samples were evaluated; therefore, a conclusion about the comparability of the marine tissue analysis at the laboratories could not be reached.

Completeness—Marine Plant Tissue

The completeness goal of 90 percent for the marine studies was established in the 2005 and 2008 QAPPs (Appendix G). Completeness was calculated from the amount of data determined valid to be after data validation, compared to the total amount of data acquired. Rejected data were considered not valid.

Marine plant tissue samples met the completeness goal for all trace elements analyzed. Completeness was 100 percent for all parameters.

Sensitivity—Marine Plant Tissue

Sample results reported as ND to the MDL were compared to the MRL DQOs in the 2008 QAPP (Appendix G). A summary of sensitivity for marine plant tissue is presented in Table A-40. MRL DQOs for sensitivity established in the QAPP were met for marine plant tissue.


A-59 04/27/2011

A.2.4.3 Marine Sediment

Precision—Marine Sediment

Forty-one marine sediment samples (2004 and 2005) were analyzed by SGS as the primary laboratory and 34 samples (2008) were analyzed by CAS as the primary laboratory. The following analyses were used to study parameters of interest in marine sediments:

Low-level mercury analysis with EPA Method 1631 by CAS as the primary laboratory.

Testing by SGS and CAS for the following:

– Trace elements as totals and simultaneously extracted metals (SEM).

– The inorganic parameters chloride, fluoride, sulfate, total cyanide, and nitrogen as ammonia.

– Total Kjeldahl nitrogen.

– The organic parameters GRO; DRO; RRO; TOC; and the volatile aromatic compounds benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (collectively referred to as BTEX).

PAH testing by the Geochemical and Environmental Research Group (GERG) laboratory of Texas A&M University in 2008.

LCS analysis provides information on analytical variability or laboratory precision without effects from sample matrix interference. SGS and CAS used a solid SRM as the LCS matrix for marine sediment. Individual RSD results for marine sediment LCSs are presented in Table A-41 and summarized below:

Trace Elements: LCS RSDs for sediment were less than 10 percent, except for boron (12 percent), iron (13 percent), and selenium (11 percent), and overall exhibited excellent precision.

Inorganic Parameters: LCSs for sediment were excellent, as indicated by RSD values of less than 15 percent.

Organic Parameters: LCSs for sediment exhibited excellent precision for all organic parameters with all RSDs less than or equal to 10 percent except for RRO at 14 percent, which is within the DQOs for this parameter.

LD analysis also was performed on the marine sediments for inorganic parameters. The RPDs are displayed in Table A-42. The RPD values for the LDs are similar to the RPD values for field duplicates. Results reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating the mean and SD. Field precision results for marine sediment are displayed in Table A-41 and summarized below:

Trace Elements: Trace elements in marine sediment exhibited an average field duplicate RSD of 85 percent.

Inorganic Parameters: Inorganic parameters in marine sediment exhibited an average RSD of 93 percent.

Organic Parameters: Field precision was not calculated for GRO, DRO, RRO, or BTEX in marine sediment because of ND results or associated blank contamination. TOC in marine


A-60 04/27/2011

sediment exhibited an RSD of 116 percent. PAH analytes exhibited an RSD of 149 percent or less.

Results for field triplicate samples were compared to results for primary samples and field duplicates. Field triplicate sample results reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating RPDs between the results for primary samples and field triplicate samples. Control charts for trace element parameters in marine sediment samples are presented in Charts A-220 through A-253 in Attachment 1.


Parameters for which at least 20 percent of the field triplicate sample RPDs exceeded the UCLs are summarized as follows:


– Nitrogen as ammonia in four of four field triplicate samples of marine sediment evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 42 percent RPD.

– Sulfate in one of four field triplicate samples of marine sediment evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 81 percent RPD.

Trace Elements:

– Cadmium in four of five field triplicate samples of marine sediment evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 29 percent RPD.

– Calcium in two of three field triplicate samples of marine sediment evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 18 percent RPD.

– Lead in four of 11 field triplicate samples of marine sediment evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 48 percent RPD.

– Selenium in five of six field triplicate samples of marine sediment evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 39 percent RPD.

– Sodium in one of four field triplicate samples of marine sediment evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 53 percent RPD.

– Thallium in one of three field triplicate samples of marine sediment evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 39 percent RPD.


A-61 04/27/2011

– Tin in four of four field triplicate samples of marine sediment evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 7 percent RPD

– Vanadium in one of four field triplicate samples of marine sediment evaluated exceeded the UCL established at 22 percent RPD.

Accuracy—Marine Sediment

Individual RSD results for marine sediment LCSs are presented in Table A-41. LCS results exhibited excellent accuracy for trace elements, inorganic parameters, and organic parameters, as indicated by mean percent recoveries that were within DQOs for accuracy for each analyte.

The accuracy for MS and MSD samples was assessed during data validation to ascertain any effects from matrix interference. Individual project-specific samples were flagged to indicate a bias in analysis, if necessary. MS and MSD results did not indicate an overall bias in recovery for the trace elements, inorganic parameters, or organic parameters.

Accuracy for analysis of marine sediment is excellent and acceptable, as demonstrated by LCS, MS, and MSD recoveries within the DQOs for accuracy established in the 2005 QAPP (Appendix G).

Representativeness—Marine Sediment

Field blanks and field duplicates were used to assess field and transport contamination and any variation in sampling techniques. These results were assessed during data validation, with the subsequent qualifying of data where applicable.

Data for marine sediment are considered representative. Anomalies noted during data validation and issues related to comparability (as noted in the subsection “Comparability—Marine Sediment” below) and to sensitivity goals (as noted in the subsection “Sensitivity—Marine Sediment” also below) were insignificant in their overall effects on project data.

Comparability—Marine Sediment


Individual laboratory analytical methods were evaluated (Table A-43) to ensure comparability between the primary laboratories and QA laboratories. Analysis of samples was conducted by using EPA-approved methods from the EPA water and wastewater manual (1983) and Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Publication SW846 (EPA, 1996) and by using guidelines detailed in the Puget Sound Estuary Program, referencing Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Metals in Puget Sound Marine Water, Sediment, and Tissue Samples (EPA, 1997).

A small number of primary-field triplicate sample pairs were eligible for this evaluation. Among the control charts for marine sediment (Charts A-220 through A-253), mercury is the only parameter that yielded a sufficient number of pairs, 24 eligible pairs, to make a comparability statement with any degree of confidence. Other pairs were eliminated because sample results reported as ND for either the primary sample, field triplicate sample, or both were removed from the population when calculating RPDs.


A-62 04/27/2011

Completeness—Marine Sediment

The completeness goal for the marine studies was established in the 2005 and 2008 QAPPs at 90 percent (Appendix G). Completeness was calculated from the amount of data determined to be valid after data validation, compared to the total amount of data acquired. Rejected data were considered not valid.

Marine sediment samples met the completeness goal for all parameters analyzed. Completeness was 100 percent for all parameters.

Sensitivity—Marine Sediment

Sample results reported as ND to the MDL were compared to the MRL DQOs in the 2005 and 2008 QAPPs (Appendix G). A summary of sensitivity for marine sediment is presented in Table A-44. Parameters for which at least 10 percent of ND results exhibited an MDL greater than the MRL DQO are summarized below:

MRLs for 15 of 37 marine sediment samples yielding ND results for fluoride exceeded the MRL DQO of 2 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).

MRLs for 15 of 25 marine sediment samples yielding ND results for cadmium-SEM exceeded the MRL DQO of 0.2 mg/kg.

MRLs for three of 25 marine sediment samples yielding ND results for lead-SEM exceeded the MRL DQO of 3 mg/kg.

MRLs for all 25 marine sediment samples yielded ND results for mercury-SEM that exceeded the MRL DQO of 0.01 mg/kg.

Marine sediment samples collected and analyzed for BTEX in 2004 met the 2004 MRL DQOs for sensitivity; however, the 2005 samples did not meet the lower 2005 sensitivity goals for the following parameters:

Benzene, toluene, and ethylbenzene in 7 of 32 marine sediment samples in 2005 were ND and exceeded the 2005 MRL DQO of 0.005 mg/kg.

Xylenes in 7 of 32 marine sediment samples in 2005 were ND and exceeded the 2005 MRL DQO of 0.002 mg/kg.

A.2.4.4 Marine Water

Precision—Marine Water

Marine water samples collected during 2004 were analyzed by SGS as the primary laboratory and those collected in 2008 were analyzed by CAS. Both laboratories performed LCS analyses for trace elements; the inorganic parameters chloride, fluoride, sulfate, total cyanide, and nitrogen as ammonia; TSS; and the organic parameters GRO, DRO, RRO, and BTEX. Individual LCS RSD results for marine water are presented in Table A-45 and summarized below:

Trace Elements: LCS RSDs for marine water exhibited excellent precision, with RSDs less than or equal to 11 percent.


A-63 04/27/2011

Inorganic Parameters: LCS results for marine water exhibited excellent precision at 4 percent or less, except for TSS with precision of 11 percent.

Organic Parameters: LCS results for marine water exhibited excellent precision for GRO, with 6 percent or less RSD.

Seventeen primary-field duplicate sample pairs of marine water were evaluated for trace elements; however, only one or two pairs were available for evaluation of inorganic and organic parameters. Twenty-six primary marine water samples were collected, giving a field duplicate frequency of 65 percent for trace elements and four or eight percent for the inorganic and organic parameters for this data set. Results reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating the mean and SD. Field precision for marine water is displayed in Table A-45 and summarized below:

Trace Elements: Results for trace elements in primary-field duplicate sample pairs for marine water exhibited an average RPD of 105 percent. A higher variability in measurement was observed for arsenic (180 percent RPD), manganese (121 percent RPD), and thallium (146 percent RPD).

Field triplicate samples of marine water were evaluated for trace elements; the inorganic parameters chloride, fluoride, sulfate, total cyanide, and nitrogen as ammonia; TSS; and the organic parameters GRO, DRO, RRO, and BTEX. Results reported as ND and flagged “U” during data validation (from associated blank contamination) were removed from the population when calculating the RPD between results for primary and field triplicate samples.

For trace elements in marine water collected in 2004, the RPDs between results for primary and field triplicate samples were considered imprecise and not comparable to the field precision reported for the RPDs between primary samples and field duplicates. The imprecision is attributable to issues related to representativeness and comparability for the primary marine water samples, as discussed below in the subsections “Representativeness—Marine Water” and “Comparability—Marine Water,” respectively.

For trace elements in marine water collected in 2008, the RPDs between results for primary and field triplicate samples demonstrate comparability. The control charts plotting the RPDs of the marine water pairs are included in Attachment 1 (Charts A-261 to A-274). The chart for boron presents the highest percentage of points above the UCL, six out of 24 points

As indicated in Table A-46, most inorganic and trace element parameters yielded acceptable precision. Boron (184 percent RPD) and lead (155 percent RPD) stand out as having high precision. Variability with boron in both field and laboratory measurements suggests that such variability is due to the chemistry of this element, as opposed to being an indication of performances of the laboratory and field sampling crews.

Accuracy—Marine Water

Individual RSD results for marine water LCSs are presented in Table A-45. LCS results exhibited excellent accuracy for trace elements and the inorganic and organic parameters as indicated by mean percent recoveries that were within DQOs for accuracy for each parameter.


A-64 04/27/2011

The accuracy for MS and MSD samples was assessed during data validation to ascertain effects on accuracy from matrix interference. Individual project-specific samples were flagged to indicate a bias in analysis, if necessary. MS and MSD results did not indicate an overall bias in recovery for the trace elements or for inorganic and organic parameters.

Accuracy for marine water analysis is excellent and acceptable, as demonstrated by LCS, MS, and MSD recoveries within the DQOs for accuracy established in the 2005 and 2008 QAPPs (Appendix G). However, the 2004 data are not accurate when compared to ambient concentrations of trace minerals in water from Puget Sound (see the subsection “Comparability—Marine Water” below for further discussion).

In 2008, RTC prepared and submitted PE samples blind to the primary laboratory for ocean water (CAS) and the quality assurance laboratory (TA). RTC maintains accreditations for A2LA Proficiency Testing Providers.

The 2008 PE marine water results are presented in Table A-6.

Marine Water: The 2008 PE marine water sample results were acceptable except for one result each at CAS and TA.

– CAS reported TSS above the acceptance limit at 170 percent of the certified value.

– TA reported cadmium below the acceptance limits at 38 percent of the certified value.

Representativeness—Marine Water

Field blanks and field duplicates were used to assess field and transport contamination and any variation in sampling techniques. These results were assessed during data validation, with the subsequent qualifying of data where applicable.

Data for marine water from the primary laboratory (SGS) are not considered representative of ambient concentrations of trace elements in marine water (see the subsection immediately below).

Comparability—Marine Water


Individual laboratory analytical methods were evaluated (Table A-47) to ensure comparability between the primary laboratories and QA laboratories. Analysis of samples was conducted by using EPA-approved methods from the EPA water and wastewater manual (1983) and Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Publication SW846 (EPA, 1996) and by using guidelines detailed in the Puget Sound Estuary Program, referencing Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Metals in Puget Sound Marine Water, Sediment, and Tissue Samples (EPA, 1997).

Results for primary samples, field duplicates, and field triplicates of marine water collected from Cook Inlet were compared to the criteria for comparability in the 2005 and 2008 QAPPs (Appendix G) during data validation. Results for primary marine water samples collected in 2004 exhibited major disagreement


A-65 04/27/2011

with field triplicate results for the trace elements arsenic, copper, nickel, and selenium. The individual methods of analysis at the primary and QA laboratories were further reviewed.

Preparation and extraction of 2004 marine water samples collected from Cook Inlet differed substantially between the primary (SGS) and QA (CAS) laboratories. The different procedures may explain some of the disagreements between the 2004 sample results from the primary laboratory and the QA laboratory. Laboratory preparatory methods are briefly explained below:

SGS (primary laboratory): Marine water samples were diluted before analysis to mitigate interference of calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium, which would saturate components of the instrument for inductively coupled plasma/mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) and increase the risk of potential carryover to other sample analyses.

CAS (QA laboratory): Marine water samples were prepared by using a reductive precipitation technique (tetrahydroborate). This method incorporates a chemical separation to remove interfering matrix components so that final analysis can be performed with ICP-MS. This technique is referenced in Appendix D of the EPA guidelines (1997) as an alternative method for the analysis of marine waters.

Results for 2004 marine water collected from Cook Inlet were compared to the summary of ambient concentrations of trace metals in water from Puget Sound in the EPA guidelines (1997), recognizing that the glacial silt in Cook Inlet waters does distinguish the project samples from Puget Sound waters. Results for the Pebble Project marine water and referenced values from the Puget Sound Estuary Program for arsenic, copper, nickel, and selenium are presented in Table A-48. Results for trace elements in the primary samples collected from Cook Inlet are significantly biased high in comparison to referenced values for water from the open ocean or Puget Sound locations. Field triplicate sample results are considered to be very comparable with the referenced values.

As a result of the evaluation of comparability described above, 2004 results from the primary laboratory for analysis of marine water are suspicious and are considered not representative of ambient concentrations of trace elements in seawater.

Subsequent analysis of water samples collected from Cook Inlet in 2008 were processed by using the reductive precipitation technique at both the primary laboratory (CAS) and QA laboratory (TA) to improve data quality and overall comparability. Argon, which performed the data validation, observed the improvement in comparability in the 2008 marine water data set.

Completeness—Marine Water

The completeness goal for the marine studies was established in the 2005 and 2008 QAPPs (Appendix G) at 90 percent. Completeness was calculated from the amount of data determined to be valid after data validation, compared to the total amount of data acquired. Rejected data were considered not valid.

Marine water samples combined from 2004 and 2008 sampling events met the overall completeness goal relative to the methods and criteria established in the QAPP at 96.1 percent completeness. Individual completeness figures for arsenic, copper, nickel, selenium, and zinc did not meet the completeness goal.


A-66 04/27/2011

Results for fluoride in the 2004 marine water sampling event were rejected because the technical 28-day holding time for fluoride analysis was not met.

Completeness for the metals was affected by results of the comparability review discussed above regarding the metals testing SGS conducted as the primary laboratory on 2004 marine water. See the subsection “Comparability—Marine Water” for additional information. Copper, nickel, selenium and zinc completeness results were also adversely affected as a result of data validation of 2008 marine water samples, which were tested by CAS as the primary laboratory. Qualifications were required because the T vs D metals results failed the validation criteria. Also, these metals were identified as contaminants in associated equipment rinse blanks.

Sensitivity—Marine Water

Sample results reported as ND to the MDL were compared to the MRL DQOs in the 2004 QAPP (Appendix G). A summary of sensitivity for marine water is presented in Table A-49. Results for the trace elements aluminum, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, iron, lead, manganese, selenium, silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc were ND and exceeded the 2004 MRL DQOs. SGS performed sample dilution to mitigate interferences from the saltwater brine matrix, and the dilution significantly elevated the MRLs above MRL DQOs.

A.3 SUMMARY OF DATA QUALITY

Data quality for water quality, trace elements, seeps, and the marine study is summarized below.

A.3.1 WATER QUALITY

Data quality for surface water and groundwater is thoroughly discussed in Section A.2.2. The information below summarizes those parameters that may have been affected by QA/QC results, sample-handling issues, or both.

A.3.1.1 Surface Water

The data quality for surface water is based on an assessment of QA/QC parameters. Results for the trace elements sodium and for the inorganic parameter alkalinity should be treated as estimates because of the level of variability observed in the accuracy, precision, and representativeness indicators.

The DQOs for precision (i.e., RPDs) in the QAPPs are guidelines for attempting to estimate the level of uncertainty in the concentrations for these test parameters. For the surface water data set, the precision is excellent overall. Manganese, nickel, silver, thallium, and tin show variability from the perspective of laboratory testing and field sampling. Variability for nickel in 2004 through 2006 was pronounced at the laboratory and elevated, although not quite as high, for field precision. An improvement in precision was observed during the 2007 field season for nickel.

Data assessment for accuracy demonstrates that the accuracy controls are stable within the laboratory because all LCS results are within the QAPP DQOs. The 2006 PE results for fluoride, sulfate, and total phosphorus exhibit a noticeably high bias. The 2007 PE result for barium was biased high. This result was reported by ACZ, which was only responsible for water samples from the seep study. Considering that the


A-67 04/27/2011

apparent bias is from a single analysis for these parameters, more weight should be given to the larger and statistically more significant LCS results. Consequently, these particular outliers are not considered to be a significant cause for concern in terms of data usability. However, sulfate data points are showing variation in the precision and accuracy measurements. Seasonal variations were observed in the sulfate concentrations, which should be considered when using the data. No bias was observed with the 2008 PE sample results.

Seven trace elements—barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc—were the source of three-quarters of the results that did not meet the QAPP criteria for T vs D metals. Lead, nickel, and zinc outliers alone represent half of the outliers, with nickel the highest contributor.

The issue with cobalt was identified as a systematic trend during the 2004 sampling season. Data were examined, and a controlled experiment that was conducted confirmed cobalt as a contaminant that was leaching from the inline water sample filters used for dissolved metal analyses. That particular brand of filter was removed from the process and replaced at the start of the 2005 sampling season by a brand of filter that was not exhibiting contamination concerns.

Lead, nickel, and zinc exhibited repeated failures in the T vs D comparison during most of the 2005 sampling season and during the 2006 season. Although the filters are suspected to be part of the problem, the cause has not been proven. It is possible that the filters are contributing lead, nickel, and zinc to the samples; however, one challenge is that the filter specifications and certifications are at sensitivity levels above those being reported by the testing laboratories. It is also possible that the ambient conditions where filtering is taking place is also contributing to the failures. An approach alternative to investigating the filters and the environment was the implementation of a revised filtering protocol at the beginning of the 2007 sampling season. This protocol was devised to isolate the overall filtering procedure from influences such as airborne and working surface contamination. This change did reduce, but not eliminate, the T vs D metals anomalies for these metals.

One possible future improvement to the filtering protocol is filtering the streams and seeps samples at the sampling locations instead of at the base camp. (Currently, groundwater samples are filtered at the sampling locations.) Another possibility is setting up a “clean room” at the base camp specifically for filtering; the critical element being a positive pressure air handling system with multiple filter phases. Arranging for filtering in the controlled environment of SGS, a fixed laboratory in Anchorage, in a timely fashion has not been possible because of the limited transportation options leaving Iliamna for Anchorage.

The parameter ortho-phosphorus did not meet the individual completeness goal based on comparison of results to total phosphorus during data validation. A discussion of the investigation concerning the validation of this parameter is presented in the technical memorandum Phosphorus Technical Memorandum, dated December 6, 2010.

A.3.1.2 Groundwater

All quality indicators discussed in Section A.2.2.2 reflect a high level of data acceptance and usability. The intra- and inter-laboratory statistics demonstrate variability for alkalinity, chloride, lead, molybdenum, nickel, and sulfate. Concentrations for those parameters should be used with some measure of uncertainty. Variability for some other trace elements and inorganic parameters is present, but does not


A-68 04/27/2011

indicate systematic trends influenced by both sample-collection and laboratory-testing protocols. Seasonal trends are apparent; for example, for sulfate. At times of the year when sulfate concentrations are low, variability in the analysis becomes more significant on a percentage basis.

Manganese and molybdenum demonstrate notable variability based on field duplicate results, with RPDs ranging from 0 to 148 percent. The precision of the LDs for these two trace elements is tight, which suggests that the variability is related to sampling. Comparison of the field triplicate data to the primary laboratory results supports this conclusion. The inconsistency in sampling will manifest itself more dramatically in sampling conducted during seasonal changes.

Variability for some metals, for example, bismuth, cadmium, selenium, silver and thallium, did show variability, but largely because of a small number of detections from the sample population that were low, close to the MDL.

The parameter ortho-phosphorus did not meet the individual completeness goal based on comparison of results to total phosphorus during data validation. A discussion of the investigation concerning the validation of this parameter is presented in the technical memorandum Phosphorus Technical Memorandum, dated December 6, 2010.

A.3.2 TRACE ELEMENTS

Data quality and usability for trace elements was assessed for sediment, vegetation, soil, fish tissue, and bivalve tissue.

A.3.2.1 Sediment

The data quality for sediment is excellent, as indicated by the assessment of the key data quality indicators of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity of measurement in analysis. Overall these indicators met the DQOs as specified in the QAPP, with the following conditions noted: the trace elements manganese, molybdenum, potassium, and silver were found to have exhibited a high variability in measurement during the assessment of precision from duplicate sample results. The increased variability is not considered a data quality problem, but rather may be due to a random distribution of RPDs, possibly related to matrix heterogeneity.

Aluminum and potassium results for sediments in 2007 may have a high bias, indicated by the high result reported by the primary laboratory for the PE sample that year. Repeated testing of the sample yielded a similar result.

The usability of the trace element data for sediment was assessed during data validation, and data qualifier codes (flags) were appended to the data as necessary. The data are considered valid as qualified and are acceptable for use.

Trace element data for sediment are considered representative and comparable.


A-69 04/27/2011

A.3.2.2 Vegetation

The data quality for vegetation is excellent, as indicated by the assessment of the key data quality indicators of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity of measurement in analysis. Overall these indicators met the DQOs as specified in the QAPP with the following conditions noted: the trace elements iron, magnesium, manganese, and potassium and the inorganic parameters chloride (2004 only) and fluoride were found to have exhibited a high variability in measurement during assessment of precision from duplicate sample results. The increased variability is not considered a data quality problem, but rather may be due to a random distribution of RPDs, possibly related to matrix heterogeneity.

The usability of the trace element data for vegetation was assessed during data validation, and data qualifier codes (flags) were appended to the data as necessary. The data are considered valid as qualified and are acceptable for use.

Trace element data for vegetation are considered representative and comparable.

A.3.2.3 Soil

The data quality for soil is excellent, as indicated by the assessment of the key data quality indicators of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity of measurement in analysis. Overall these indicators met the DQOs as specified in the QAPP, with the following conditions noted: the trace elements bismuth, potassium, and thallium were found to have exhibited a high variability in measurement during assessment of precision from duplicate sample results. The increased variability is not considered a data quality problem, but rather may be due to a random distribution of RPDs, possibly related to matrix heterogeneity. An additional comment for thallium is the limited number of sample detections, plus those detections were close to the MDL, which leaves a limited data set for statistical evaluations.

Nitrogen as ammonia in soils in 2007 may have a high bias, indicated by the high result reported by the primary laboratory for the PE sample that year.

The usability of the trace element data for soil was assessed during data validation, and data qualifier codes (flags) were appended to the data as necessary. The data are considered valid as qualified and are acceptable for use.

Trace element data for soil are considered representative and comparable.

A.3.2.4 Fish and Mussel Tissues

The data quality for fish and mussel tissue is excellent, as indicated by the assessment of the key data quality indicators of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity of measurement in analysis. Overall these indicators met the DQOs as specified in the QAPP, with the following conditions noted: the trace elements copper and zinc were found to have exhibited variability in measurement during assessment of precision from laboratory duplicate results, an indication of laboratory performance. The preparation of duplicates conducted at the laboratory of samples that had formerly been called field duplicates demonstrated variability for chromium, lead, and nickel. The difference between


A-70 04/27/2011

these two types of duplicates is that laboratory duplicates are created from one sample portion, whereas field duplicates are created by taking one portion from each of two sample portions.

Accuracy for analysis of fish and mussel tissue is excellent and acceptable, as indicated by the successful performance of known spiked matrices at the laboratory.

The usability of the trace element data for fish and mussel tissue was assessed during data validation, and data qualifier codes (flags) were appended to the data as necessary. The data are considered valid as qualified and are acceptable for use.

Trace elements data for fish and mussel are considered representative and comparable.

A.3.3 MARINE STUDY

Data quality and usability were assessed for the matrices of marine water, marine sediment, and marine fish and bivalve tissue.

A.3.3.1 Marine Tissues

The data quality for marine tissue is excellent as indicated by the assessment of the key data quality indicators of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity of measurement in analysis. Overall these indicators met the DQOs as specified in the QAPP.

The usability of the marine tissue data was assessed during data validation, and data qualifier codes (flags) were appended to the data as necessary. The data are considered valid as qualified and are acceptable for use. Trace elements data for marine tissues are considered representative and comparable.

A.3.3.2 Marine Sediment

The data quality for marine sediment is excellent, as indicted by the assessment of the key data quality indicators of precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity of measurement in analysis. Overall, these indicators met the DQOs as specified in the QAPP, with the following conditions noted: the trace elements cadmium, calcium, lead, selenium, and thallium were found to have exhibited variability in measurement during assessment of precision from duplicate sample results. The increased variability is not considered a data quality problem, but rather may be due to a random distribution of RPDs, possibly related to matrix heterogeneity, and to the small number of duplicate sample pairs available for evaluation.

The usability of the marine sediment data was assessed during data validation, and data qualifier codes (flags) were appended to the data as necessary. The data are considered valid as qualified and are acceptable for use.

Trace elements data for marine sediments are considered representative and comparable.

A.3.3.3 Marine Water

The data quality for marine water is acceptable, as indicated by the assessment of the key data quality indicators of precision, accuracy, completeness, and sensitivity of measurement in analysis. Overall these


A-71 04/27/2011

indicators met the DQOs as specified in the QAPP. However, the key data quality indicators of comparability and representativeness were not met for arsenic, copper, nickel, and selenium in the 2004 samples. The trace elements arsenic, copper, nickel, selenium, and zinc exhibited unacceptable variability in measurement noted during assessment of precision from the results for primary samples and field triplicate samples. The imprecision is attributable to comparability and representativeness issues for the primary marine water samples.

The usability of the marine water data was assessed during data validation, and data qualifier codes (flags) were appended to the data as necessary. Marine water data for 2004 from the primary laboratory are considered not representative of ambient concentrations of trace elements in seawater (see Table A-47 for a summary of the results for arsenic, copper, nickel, and selenium). Marine water data for 2008 are considered valid as qualified (as applicable) and are acceptable for use.

A.4 REFERENCES

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2003. Alaska Water Quality Criteria Manual for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances. May 15.

Clesceri, L.S., A.E. Greenberg, and A.D. Eaton. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th edition.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, Final. OSWER 9240.1-35, EPA 540/R-01/008. July.

———. 2001. Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Low Concentration Organic Data Review, Final. OSWER 9240.1-34, EPA 540/R-00/006. June.

———. 1999. Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. OSWER 9240.1-05A-P, PB99-963506, EPA 540/R-99/008. October.

———. 1997. Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Metals in Puget Sound Marine Water, Sediment, and Tissue Samples. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. April.

———. 1996. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods. Publication SW846. Third edition.

———. 1986. “Definition and Procedure for the Determination of the Method Detection Limit.” Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Part 136, Appendix B.

———. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020. Revised. March.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001. Shell for Analytical Chemistry Requirements. EM 200-1-3. February 1.


A-72 04/27/2011

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 9. Chapter A5, Processing of Water Samples, Version 2.2, with updates through February 2009. Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, and Iwastsubo, R.T., eds. http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A5/ (accessed August 2010).

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1996. Analytical Detection Limit Guidance& Laboratory Guide for Determining Method Detection Limits. Laboratory Certification Program. PUBL-TS-056-96. April.

A.5 GLOSSARY

Accuracy—a measure of the degree to which a measurement agrees with a known or true value. Accuracy is typically expressed as a percentage.

Aliquot—a measured portion.

Comparability—the level of confidence with which one data set can be qualitatively compared with another. The conditions and techniques under which each data set is generated are reviewed to determine whether a similar or the same result can be obtained by an alternative technique.

Completeness—an assessment of the number of usable data points compared to the total number of data points collected. Usability is determined during data validation that is independent of the entity that generated the data. Completeness is typically expressed as a percentage.

Diesel range organics—defined by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation as all hydrocarbon material containing anywhere from 10 to 24 carbon atoms as n-alkanes.

Double blind performance evaluation samples—samples fabricated by using the site matrix and fortified with known constituents of concern that are inserted within a shipment of regular field samples to the laboratory. The laboratory is not aware it is receiving a test sample, much less the concentration of constituents added to the matrix. These samples are a blind test of the accuracy of test methods as they are implemented by the laboratory.

Equipment rinsate sample—laboratory-purified water used to rinse field equipment that comes in contact with the sample. A rinse is conducted after each sampling location. The rinse is typically discarded; however, at a specific frequency (5 percent for this project), a rinsate is retained and submitted to the laboratory for testing. This quality control measure assesses the effectiveness of the rinse procedure for removing contaminants.

Field blank (deionized water blank).—a sample of the laboratory-purified used to decontaminate field equipment that is tested to verify that it is not a contamination source. The water is collected directly into sample containers without coming into contact with field equipment.

Field duplicate—a second portion of sample that is collected in addition to and immediately after the primary sample to assess the reproducibility of the field procedures.


A-73 04/27/2011

Field triplicate—a one third portion of a sample collected in addition to and immediately after the primary and duplicate samples to assess the reproducibility of the procedures of the primary laboratory. This triplicate sample is sent to a second laboratory, which is known as the quality assurance laboratory.

Gasoline range organics—defined by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation as all hydrocarbon material containing anywhere from six to nine carbon atoms as n-alkanes.

Inorganic parameter—an inorganic compound that is also known as a water-quality indicator. Examples are pH, conductivity, solids, chloride, nitrate, and sulfate.

Laboratory control sample—a sample in which a known amount of an element or parameter being tested is added to a purified matrix similar in nature to field samples being tested to assess the efficiency of the analytical method as it is employed by the laboratory. The results of this analysis are expressed as a percent recovery.

Laboratory duplicate—a laboratory sample consisting of one of separate portions of a sample taken from the sample container(s) filled in the field that is prepared and analyzed separately. The duplicate is a test of the precision or reproducibility of an analytical method as it is employed at the laboratory for a given sample matrix.

Matrix spike sample—a sample in which a known amount of an element or parameter being tested is added to a sample of the matrix collected in the field to assess the effect of the matrix, if any, on the efficiency of the analytical method as it is employed by the laboratory. The results of this analysis are expressed as a percent recovery.

Method blank—a sample in which a purified matrix similar in nature to field samples being tested is analyzed to assess the possibility of background contamination at the laboratory that may occur during storage, preparation, or analysis of samples.

Method detection limit—the lowest possible concentration at which an element or parameter can be detected with 99 percent confidence that it is truly present.

Method reporting limit—the lowest possible concentration at which the concentration of an element or parameter can be calculated with 99 percent confidence in the value.

Organic parameter—a carbon-based compound for which samples are analyzed (a targeted list for the Pebble Project environmental baseline studies is given in the Quality Assurance Project Plan). Sub-groups of this classification include volatile organics (solvents, petroleum-related compounds, and chlorinated and brominated products), semivolatile organics (heavier weight aromatic hydrocarbons, ethers, solvents, pesticides, and herbicides), pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls and petroleum hydrocarbons (gasoline-, diesel-, and residual-range organics).

Performance evaluation sample—a quality control sample prepared by a company independent of the laboratory to assess the level of accuracy and representativeness of the data being generated by the laboratory. This sample is a matrix (e.g., water, soil, animal tissue) similar to the matrix being tested by the laboratory for the project. A known amount of the element or parameter being tested is added to the matrix.


A-74 04/27/2011

Precision—a measure of reproducibility among independent measurements.

Quality assurance —a systematic process of verifying whether a product or protocol is meeting specified requirements that increase confidence in the product or outcome of a protocol. An effective QA program improves work processes by incorporating consistencies and efficiencies during the program development phase of a project.

Quality Assurance Project Plan—a document that outlines the quality assurance and quality control protocols for field and laboratory activities to be followed by all companies participating in these activities. The establishment of these protocols is intended to assure consistency and ultimate generation of data of known quality.

Quality control—a procedure or set of procedures to ensure a product or service meets a defined set of criteria, determined by a customer’s needs or the specifications of a regulatory entity.

Relative percent difference—a comparison of two values to assess the level of agreement between them, otherwise known as precision. The calculation is the absolute value of the difference between two values, divided by their average, and multiplied by 100.

Relative standard deviation—a statistical calculation for determining the precision of three or more values. The calculation is the standard deviation of the values, divided by their average, and multiplied by 100. The value is expressed as a percentage (percent relative standard deviation or percent recovery standard deviation).

Representativeness—a measure of how closely an outcome reflects the actual concentration or distribution of a constituent in the sample matrix. Representativeness is sometimes expressed by calculation of a relative percent difference, standard deviation, or percent relative standard deviation.

Residual range organics—defined by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation as all hydrocarbon material containing anywhere from 25 to 36 carbon atoms as n-alkanes.

Seep—groundwater that flows from a specific point in the ground. A seep is typically lower in volume and flow rate relative to a stream or river.

Sensitivity—a measure of the lowest possible concentration that can be reliably detected by a given method and/or piece of equipment. This lowest detectable concentration is referred to as the method detection limit. Sensitivity also refers to the lowest possible concentration at which a method and/or piece of equipment can reliably report a concentration. This quantitative value is referred to as the method reporting limit.

Standard reference material—a matrix (aqueous or solid) that is experimentally and statistically certified to contain a set list of elements and/or parameters. A standard reference material commonly is used for performance evaluation samples and laboratory control samples to assess accuracy in the laboratory.


A-75 04/27/2011

Trace elements—(a) when referring to analyses, naturally occurring elements (mostly metals) that are being tested for in various matrices. The list of elements being targeted for testing can vary depending on the matrix. (b) In Pebble Project documents, also a reference to the trace elements program, which is one component of the environmental baseline studies.

Transportation corridor—the possible area in which a road may be located to connect the mine study area to the port study area.

Trip blank—a purified matrix similar in nature to the matrix being tested, in the same container type and size, and having the same preservative (if any) as is being used for the subject test. This blank is prepared at the laboratory and included in the bottle kit prepared for the field sampling teams. This blank accompanies the empty sample containers to the field and stays with the samples during storage at the site and during transportation back to the laboratory. The intent is to monitor for the possibility of airborne contamination of the containers or samples and cross-contamination between samples.

Mine study area—area in the vicinity of the ore body where baseline environmental studies are being conducted.


TABLES


TABLE A-1

Number of Environmental Samples Collected and Parameters Analyzed

2004a 2005a,b 2006b 2007b 2008Surface Water Streams, Mine Study Area 341 491 422 734 559 2547 188,478Surface Water Seeps, Mine Study Area 24 62 145 477 119 827 61,198Soil, Mine Study Area 107 114 49 36 0 306 10,404Sediment, Mine Study Area 96 83 58 42 0 279 9,486Vegetation, Mine Study Area 102 252 217 284 0 855 23,940Aquatic Vegetation, Mine Study Area 0 3 58 43 0 104 2,912Groundwater, Mine Study Area 54 150 166 171 213 754 55,796Fish Tissue, Mine Study Area 299 290 60 83 64 796 11,144Lake Mussels, Mine Study Area 0 9 7 1 0 17 238Mammal Tissue, Mine Study Area 0 0 0 6 0 6 90Surface Water, Transportation Corridor 89 133 8 6 0 236 17,464Groundwater, Transportation Corridor 10 18 0 0 0 28 2,072Sediment, Transportation Corridor 48 64 7 7 0 126 4,284Vegetation, Transportation Corridor 194 0 63 60 0 317 8,876Soil, Transportation Corridor 25 0 9 0 0 34 1,156Marine Water 14 0 0 0 47 61 4514Marine Sediment 41 9 0 0 34 84 2,856Marine Fish 5 11 0 0 55 71 994Marine Mussels, Bivalves, Crabs, Snails 15 0 0 0 10 25 350Marine Vegetation 0 0 0 0 12 12 336Wetland Surface Water 36 168 204 1428Wetland Groundwater 19 6 25 175Wetland Soil 0 0 0 0 302 302 1208

Totals 1,464 1,689 1,324 2,124 1,415 8,014 409,399

Notes:All totals were generated in 2009 using the sample tables in the database.Trip blanks are excluded.a. These numbers replace counts used in the past

c. Analyte count is based on an approximate average number of analytes typically tested for each matrix. This is not an actual count per year.

Samples Analyzedper Year

Sample Type

Total Samples Analyzed

Total Parameters Analyzedc

b. Duplicate QA fish samples were changed to laboratory duplicates in late 2008, resulting in lower fish counts for the period of 2004 to 2008.


TABLE A-2aSummary of Parameters Analyzed for Each Sample Type

ParameterSurface Water Ground-water

Surface Soil Sediment Vegetation

Terrestrial Fish Tissue

Marine Fish Tissue

Terrestrial Bivalve Tissue

Marine Bivalve Tissue

Wet ChemistrypH 2004-2008 2004-2008 2007Specific Conductance 2004-2008 2004-2008Acidity 2004-2008 2004-2008Alkalinity 2004-2008 2004-2008Ammonia 2004-2008 2004-2008 2004-2007 2004-2007 2004AVS-SEMa 2006Chloride 2004-2008 2004-2008 2004-2007 2004-2007 2004Cyanide, total 2004-2008 2004-2008 2004-2007 2004-2007 2004-2007Cyanide, WAD 2004-2008 2004-2008Fluoride 2004-2008 2004-2008 2004-2007 2004-2007 2004Nitrite and Nitrate 2004-2008 2004-2008Orthophosphate 2006-2007 2006-2007Phosphorus 2004-2008 2004-2008Sulfate 2004-2008 2004-2008 2004-2007 2004-2007 2004Sulfur 2006Thiocyanate 2004-2008 2004-2008Total Dissolved Solids 2004-2008 2004-2008Total Suspended Solids 2004-2008 2004-2008MetalsMercury 2004-2008 2004-2008 2004-2007 2004-2007 2004-2007 2004-2008

2008 2005 2004, 2008

Metalsb 2004-2008 2004-2008 2004-2007 2004-2007 2004-2007 2004-2008 2004-2005, 2008

2005 2004, 2008

OrganicsSaturated Hydrocarbons 2008VOCs 2004-2007 2005 & 2007SVOCs 2004-2007 2005 & 2007 2008Dissolved Organic Carbonc 2004-2008 2008Total Organic Carbon 2007 2004-2007 2005 & 2007Fuels 2007 2004-2006 2005 & 2007Pesticides 2004-2005PCBs 2005 & 2007Notes:a. AVS-SEM = acid volatile sulfides-simultaneously extracted metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Zn)b. Al, Sb, As, Ba, Be, Bi, B, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg, Mn, Mo, Ni, K, Se, Si, Ag, Na, Tl, Sn, V, Zn Sb, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Ag, Tl, and Zn analyzed in fish and bivalve tissue.c. Dissolved organic carbon analyzed on streams samples.PAH = polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonSVOC = semivolatile organic compoundVOC = volatile organic compoundWAD = weak acid dissociable


Table A-10 Page 1 of 4

TABLE A-2b

AnalyteSurface Water

Ground-water Sediment Soil

Vege-tation

Fish and Mussel Tissue

Marine Fish and Bivalve

Marine Plant

TissueMarine

SedimentMarine Water

Inorganic ParametersAcidity, total 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Acid-Volatile Sulfide NA NA 100 NA NA NA NA NA 100 NA

Alkalinity, total 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Ammonia, as Nitrogen 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Chloride 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Total Cyanide 99.9 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Cyanide, weak acid dissociable 99.8 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Fluoride 99.8 100 99.3 99.6 100 NA NA NA 100 0Hardness, total 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Hardness, dissolved 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Ion Balance 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100 NA

Nitrogen, Nitrate 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite 97.9 99.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nitrogen, Nitrite 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

pH 100 100 NA 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Phosphorus, Total (as P) 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Phosphorus, Total as Orthophosphate 86.9 63 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Specific Conductance 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Sulfate 99.9 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Thiocyanate 99.8 99.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total Dissolved Solids 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total Lipids NA NA NA NA NA 100 100 NA NA NA

Total Solids 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA

Total Suspended Solids 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100

Summary of Completeness Measure

Completeness (%)





Vege-tation



Marine Plant

TissueMarine


Completeness (%)

MetalsAluminum, total 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Aluminum, dissolved 97.9 97.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Antimony, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Antimony, dissolved 96.4 95.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Arsenic, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 84.6Arsenic, dissolved 99.4 99.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 84.6Barium, total 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Barium, dissolved 89.4 99.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Beryllium, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Beryllium, dissolved 100 99.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 96.2Bismuth, total 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Bismuth, dissolved 99.5 99.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Boron, total 100 100 100 100 100 NA 100 100 100 NA

Boron, dissolved 98.4 97 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Cadmium, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Cadmium, dissolved 99.6 99.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 96.2Cadmium, SEM NA NA 100 NA NA NA NA NA 100 NA

Calcium, total 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Calcium, dissolved 98.3 99.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Chromium, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Chromium, dissolved 91.6 98.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92.3Cobalt, total 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Cobalt, dissolved 88.2 97.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Copper, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 84.6Copper, dissolved 80.2 96.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 80.8Copper, SEM NA NA 100 NA NA NA NA NA 100 NA

Iron, total 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Iron, dissolved 98.7 99.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Lead, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Lead, dissolved 80.1 92.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 96.2Lead, SEM NA NA 100 NA NA NA NA NA 100 NA

Magnesium, total 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Magnesium, dissolved 98 99.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100





Vege-tation



Marine Plant

TissueMarine


Completeness (%)

Metals (cont.)Manganese, total 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Manganese, dissolved 95.3 97.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Mercury, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Mercury, dissolved NA 99.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Mercury, methyl- NA NA NA NA NA 100 NA NA NA NA

Mercury, SEM NA NA 100 NA NA NA NA NA 100Molybdenum, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Molybdenum, dissolved 94.8 93.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Nickel, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 84.6Nickel, dissolved 66.5 93.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 84.6Nickel, SEM NA NA 100 NA NA NA NA NA 100 NA

Potassium, total 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Potassium, dissolved 97.4 98.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Selenium, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 80Selenium, dissolved 100 99.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75Silicon, total 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Silver, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Silver, dissolved 99.6 99.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Sodium, total 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Sodium, dissolved 98.3 98.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Thallium, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Thallium, dissolved 99.4 99.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Tin, total 100 100 100 100 100 NA 100 100 100 100Tin, dissolved 99.5 99.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Vanadium, total 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 100 100Vanadium, dissolved 99.4 98.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100Zinc, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Zinc, dissolved 75.7 91.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 84.6Zinc, SEM NA NA 100 NA NA NA NA NA 100 NA





Vege-tation



Marine Plant

TissueMarine


Completeness (%)

OrganicsDissolved Organic Carbon 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total Organic Carbon 100 NA NA NA NA NA 100 NA 100 NA

Diesel Range Organics 100 NA 100 100 NA NA 100 NA 100 100Gasoline Range Organics 100 NA 85.7 NA NA NA 100 NA 100 100Residual Range Organics 100 NA 100 100 NA NA 100 NA 100 110Pesticides 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAVolatile and Semivolatile Organic Compounds 100 NA 100 NA NA 100 100 NA 100 100Totals 97.9 99.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 96.1

Notes:a. Units for specific conductance are micromhos/centimeter (mmhos/cm).— = DQO not establishedNA = not applicable, parameter was not scheduled for analysisND = not detectedSEM = simultaneously extracted metals


TABLE A-3Field Audit Summary

2004

Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter SummerWater Quality Transportation

CorridorBEESC — streams x x x x

Mine Study Area HDR — streams x x x x x x xHDR — seeps x x x x x x xHDR — Iliamna Lake x xSLR — groundwater x x x x x xCH2M Hill — streams/seeps

x

Trace Elements Transportation Corridor

BEESC — veg/soil x x x

Mine Study Area SLR — veg/soil x x xHDR — fish tissues x x xHDR — Iliamna Lake x xCH2M Hill — vegetation/soil

x

2005 2006

Study Study Area Field Team

20082007


TABLE A-4a

Summary of Primary/QA Analytical Laboratories for Environmental Baseline Studies, April 2004 through May 2007

Primary Laboratory QA LaboratorySGS – Anchorage, AK

TA – Portland, ORSGS – Anchorage, AKCAS – Kelso, WA

CAS – Kelso, WA Vegetation CAS – Kelso, WA Mammal CAS – Kelso, WA Marine Water CAS – Kelso, WA TA - Portland, OR, and Tacoma, WAMarine Sediment CAS – Kelso, WA TA - Portland, OR, and Tacoma, WA

Texas A&M GERG – College Station, TX

Marine Fish/Mussels CAS – Kelso, WA TA - Tacoma, WATexas A&M GERG – College Station, TX

TA - Tacoma, WA

Notes:a. CN, CI, F, SO4, NH3, metals, Hg (2004-2006)b. Acid volatile sulfides—simultaneously extractable metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg)c. Total sulfurCAS = Columbia Analytical Services, Inc.GERG = Geochemical and Environmental Research GroupSGS = SGS North America, Inc.TA – Portland, OR = TestAmerica, Inc., formerly known as North Creek Analytical, Inc. (NCA)TA – Tacoma, WA = TestAmerica, Inc., formerly known as Severn Trent Laboratories (STL) WG = groundwaterWS = surface water

TA – Tacoma, WA

Soil/Sedimentb,c TA – Pittsburg, PA,b and Austin, TXc

Fish and Bivalve Tissue TA – Tacoma, WATA – Tacoma, WA

Soil/Sedimenta CAS – Kelso, WA

MediaWS and WG (all parameters except low-level Hg)

CAS – Kelso, WA

WS and WG (low-level Hg only) CAS – Kelso, WA


TABLE A-4b

Summary of Primary/QA Analytical Laboratories for Environmental Baseline Studies, June 2007 through December 2007

Primary Laboratory QA LaboratorySGS – Anchorage, AK

ACZ – Steamboat Springs, CO

TA – Portland, OR

ACZ – Steamboat Springs, CO

CAS – Kelso, WA

Vegetation CAS – Kelso, WA

Notes:a. CN, CI, F, SO4, NH3, metals, HgACZ = ACZ Laboratories, Inc CAS = Columbia Analytical Services, Inc.SGS = SGS North America, Inc.TA – Portland, OR = TestAmerica, Inc., formerly known as North Creek Analytical, Inc. (NCA)TA – Tacoma, WA = TestAmerica, Inc., formerly known as Severn Trent Laboratories (STL) WG = groundwaterWS = surface water

TA – Tacoma, WA

Soil CAS – Kelso, WA

Sedimenta TA – Tacoma, WA CAS – Kelso, WA

Fish and Bivalve Tissue TA – Tacoma, WA

WS and WG (low-level Hg only) CAS – Kelso, WA

MediaWS (excluding seeps) and WG (all parameters except low-level Hg)

CAS – Kelso, WA

WS (Seeps, all parameters except low-level Hg)

CAS – Kelso, WA


TABLE A-4c

Summary of Primary/QA Analytical Laboratories for Environmental Baseline Studies, January 2008 through December 2008

Primary Laboratory QA LaboratorySGS – Anchorage, AKSGS – Anchorage, AKCAS – Kelso, WA

Vegetation, Terrestrial CAS – Kelso, WA Marine Vegetation CAS – Kelso, WA Marine Water CAS – Kelso, WA TA - Tacoma, WAMarine Sediment CAS – Kelso, WA

Texas A&M GERG – College Marine Fish/Mussels CAS – Kelso, WA TA - Tacoma, WA

Texas A&M GERG – College

TA - Tacoma, WAMammal Tissue CAS – Kelso, WA TA - Tacoma, WA

Notes:CAS = Columbia Analytical Services, Inc.GERG = Geochemical and Environmental Research GroupSGS = SGS North America, Inc.TA – Tacoma, WA = TestAmerica, Inc., formerly known as Severn Trent Laboratories (STL) WG = groundwaterWS = surface water

MediaWS (seeps and no seeps) and WG CAS – Kelso, WA

TA - Tacoma, WATA - Tacoma, WA

TA - Tacoma, WA

Soil --Fish and Bivalve Tissue

TA - Tacoma, WA


Table A-5a Page 1 of 2

TABLE A-5a

2006 Results for Blind Performance Evaluation of Water Samples

Parameter

ERA Certified

Value UnitsSGS

Result

Difference from Certified

Value, SGSCAS

Result

Difference from Certified Value, CAS

NCA Result

Difference from

Certified Value, NCA

Inorganic ParametersTotal Dissolved Solids @ 180°C 37.0 mg/L 32.0 - 42.0 42.5 115% 52 141% NRTotal Suspended Solids 10.0 mg/L 8.27 - 10.8 10.3 103% 6.0 60% NRTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3 7.40 mg/L 6.70 - 8.10 7.0 95% ND, <0.8 <11% NRSpecific Conductance, @ 25°C 59.4 µmhos/cm 55.2 - 63.6 50 84% 64 108% NRChloride 11.2 mg/L 10.3 - 12.3 12.1 108% 11.2 100% NRFluoride 0.460 mg/L 0.420 - 0.512 1.66 361% 0.4 87% NRSulfate 1.82 mg/L 1.60 - 2.06 10.1 556% 1.7 94% NRAcidity as CaCO3 70.6 mg/L 66.0 - 73.6 67.5 96% ND, <2 <3% NRWAD Cyanide 0.050 mg/L 0.0365 - 0.0628 0.028 56% 0.13 260% NRTotal Cyanide 0.10 mg/L 0.0731 - 0.125 0.062 62% 0.13 130% NRThiocyanate 6.06 mg/L 4.24 - 7.88 6.0 99% 7.0 116% NRAmmonia as Nitrogen 0.613 mg/L 0.520 - 0.706 0.499 81% 0.63 103% NRNitrate as Nitrogen 0.719 mg/L 0.633 - 0.795 ND, <0.0310 <43% NR NRNitrate and Nitrite 0.719 mg/L 0.648 - 0.788 0.843 117% 0.64 89% NROrthophosphate 0.243 mg/L 0.214 - 0.272 0.290 119% NR NRTotal Phosphorus 0.131 mg/L 0.111 - 0.143 0.364 278% 0.38 290% NRMetals (Total)Aluminum 29.0 µg/L 25.8 - 32.6 28.9 100% 31.8 110% NRAntimony 22.1 µg/L 19.2 - 24.1 19.6 89% 19.8 90% NRArsenic 40.0 µg/L 34.1 - 40.8 34.2 86% 37.8 94% NRBarium 26.6 µg/L 24.7 - 29.0 25.5 96% 25.2 95% NRBeryllium 16.9 µg/L 15.5 - 18.1 16.6 99% 18.5 110% NRBoron 68.0 µg/L 60.5 - 74.5 67.2 99% 69.4 102% NRCadmium 25.4 µg/L 22.7 - 26.3 22.5 89% 23.2 92% NRChromium 12.4 µg/L 11.5 - 13.5 12.4 100% 13.7 110% NRCobalt 20.2 µg/L 18.4 - 21.9 19.2 95% 21.2 105% NRCopper 26.5 µg/L 24.0 - 29.4 27.0 102% 28.0 106% NRIron 15.0 µg/L 13.3 - 16.7 12.4 83% 15.2 101% NRLead 45.4 µg/L 41.7 - 49.8 42.9 95% 40.5 89% NRManganese 57.5 µg/L 54.0 - 64.0 59.3 103% 58.0 101% NR

Performance Acceptance Limit



Parameter

ERA Certified

Value UnitsSGS

Result


Value, SGSCAS

Result

Difference from Certified Value, CAS

NCA Result

Difference from

Certified Value, NCA


Molybdenum 21.9 µg/L 19.9 - 23.5 20.6 94% 21.3 97% NRNickel 11.0 µg/L 10.1 - 12.0 10.1 92% 11.5 105% NRSelenium 14.2 µg/L 12.4 - 15.7 13.0 92% 13.8 98% NRSilver 10.5 µg/L 9.40 - 11.6 10.1 96% 9.96 95% NRThallium 11.4 µg/L 10.0 - 12.8 10.5 92% 10.5 92% NRVanadium 25.9 µg/L 23.4 - 27.7 24.8 96% 26.2 101% NRZinc 26.4 µg/L 24.2 - 28.7 24.5 93% 28.2 107% NRCalcium 469 µg/L 403 - 535 463 99% 454 97% NRMagnesium 203 µg/L 175 - 231 208 102% 194 96% NRPotassium 304 µg/L 258 - 350 296 97% 298 98% NRSodium 356 µg/L 303 - 409 356 100% 349 98% NRTotal Mercury 13.9 ng/L 10.7 - 17.1 NA NA 12.8 92% 11.3 81%Notes:Bold = does not meet performance acceptance limitsCaCO3 = calcium carbonateµg/L = microgram per literµmhos/cm = micromhos per centimetermg/L = milligram per literng/L = nanogram per literNR = not requested


Table A-5b Page 1 of 2

TABLE A-5b

2007 Results for Blind Performance Evaluation of Water Samples

Parameter

RTC Certified

Value UnitsSGS

Result

Difference from

Certified Value, SGS

CAS Result

Difference from

Certified Value, CAS

ACZ Result

Difference from

Certified Value, ACZ

NCA Result

Difference from

Certified Value, TAa

Inorganic ParametersTotal Dissolved Solids @ 180°C 98.3 mg/L 83.6 - 113 88.8 90% 98 100% 100 102% NRTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3 13.3 mg/L 9.81 - 18.7 46.3 348% 10 75% 14 105% NRSpecific Conductance, @ 25°C 185.0 µmhos/cm 167 - 203 185 100% 187 101% 193 104% NRChloride 41.3 mg/L 34.8 - 48.4 38.7 94% 42.2 102% 39.2 95% NRFluoride 0.890 mg/L 0.656 - 1.12 0.828 93% 0.7 79% 1 112% NRSulfate 7.83 mg/L 5.25 - 10.2 7.39 94% 6.9 88% 8.7 111% NRWAD Cyanide 0.710 mg/L 0.444 - 0.977 0.75 106% 0.73 103% 0.77 108% NRTotal Cyanide 1.46 mg/L 0.981 - 1.93 1.6 110% 1.6 110% 1.28 88% NRTotal Organic Carbonb 16.7 mg/L 13.8 - 19.6 16.8 101% 16.9 101% 16.0 96% NRAmmonia as Nitrogen 0.100 mg/L 0.000 - 0.202 0.185 185% 0.029 29% NA NA NRAmmonia as Nitrogen 8.20 mg/L 6.04 - 10.3 NA NA NA NA 8.58 105% NRNitrate and Nitrite 1.390 mg/L 1.13 - 1.64 1.16 83% NA NA 1.39 100% NRTrace Elements (Total)Aluminum 47.7 µg/L 33.4 - 62.0 48.1 101% 55.7 117% 59 124% NRAntimony 0.800 µg/L 0.560 - 1.04 0.816 102% 0.873 109% ND, <2 <250% NRArsenic 0.49 µg/L 0.343 - 0.637 0.398 81% 0.57 116% ND, <0.5 <100% NRBarium 0.600 µg/L 0.420 - 0.780 0.616 103% 0.61 102% 1.2 200% NRBoron 29.9 µg/L 20.9 - 38.9 29.5 99% 36.9 123% 35.2 118% NRCalcium 1120 µg/L 784 - 1460 1150 103% 1140 102% 1200 107% NRChromium 6.22 µg/L 4.05 - 8.39 6.22 100% 6.25 100% 8.2 132% NRCopper 62.5 µg/L 53.3 - 71.9 61.6 99% 60.2 96% 64.2 103% NRIron 670 µg/L 590 - 759 662 99% 679 101% 740 110% NRLead 36.4 µg/L 30.9 - 41.9 35.8 98% 36.3 100% 39.6 109% NRMagnesium 661 µg/L 562 - 760 624 94% 633 96% 700 106% NRManganese 17.3 µg/L 14.7 - 19.9 17.4 101% 17.3 100% 18 104% NRMolybdenum 1.40 µg/L 0.980 - 1.82 1.35 96% 1.47 105% 1.8 129% NRNickel 10.1 µg/L 7.07 - 13.1 10.1 100% 10.0 99% 12 119% NRPotassium 292 µg/L 248 - 336 312 107% 324 111% ND, <300 <103% NRSilver 0.49 µg/L 0.343 - 0.637 0.408 83% 0.261 53% 0.51 104% NRSodium 918 µg/L 643 - 1190 894 97% 892 97% 1000 109% NRZinc 36.5 µg/L 25.5 - 47.5 34.7 95% 35.6 98% 40 110% NRTotal Mercury 0.15 ng/L 0.105 - 0.195 NR NR 0.118 79% NR 0.151 100.7%

Performance Acceptance

Limit



Parameter

RTC Certified

Value UnitsSGS

Result

Difference from

Certified Value, SGS

CAS Result

Difference from

Certified Value, CAS

ACZ Result

Difference from

Certified Value, ACZ

NCA Result

Difference from

Certified Value, TAa


LimitMetals (Dissolved)Aluminum 47.1 µg/L 39.9 - 54.3 46.0 98% 47.9 102% 52 110% NRAntimony 0.360 µg/L 0.252 - 0.468 0.387 108% 0.418 116% 33 9167% NRArsenic 0.390 µg/L 0.273 - 0.507 0.341 87% 0.42 108% ND, <0.5 <128% NRBarium 0.510 µg/L 0.357 - 0.663 0.453 89% 0.45 88% 1 196% NRBoron 30.3 µg/L 21.2 - 39.4 25.9 85% 30.4 100% 31.4 104% NRCalcium 1120 µg/L 952 - 1290 1110 99% 1140 102% 1200 107% NRChromium 6.01 µg/L 4.21 - 7.81 6.11 102% 5.94 99% 7.1 118% NRCopper 62.8 µg/L 53.6 - 72.2 59.7 95% 60.6 96% 62.1 99% NRIron 670 µg/L 590 - 759 643.0 96% 690.0 103% 680 101% NRLead 46.6 µg/L 39.6 - 53.6 44.5 95% 47.7 102% 47.1 101% NRMagnesium 661 µg/L 562 - 760 611 92% 627 95% 700 106% NRManganese 16.2 µg/L 13.8 - 18.6 16.1 99% 15.8 98% 16.2 100% NRMolybdenum 1.12 µg/L 0.784 - 1.46 1.07 96% 1.16 104% 1.2 107% NRNickel 19.4 µg/L 13.6 - 25.2 18.6 96% 18.2 94% 20 103% NRPotassium 294 µg/L 250 - 338 295.0 100% 308 105% ND, <300 <102% NRSilicon 3640 µg/L 3090 - 4190 3260 90% 3430 94% 3600 99% NRSilver 0.43 µg/L 0.301 - 0.559 0.410 95% 0.305 71% 0.44 102% NRSodium 917 µg/L 642 - 1190 860 94% 876 96% 900 98% NRZinc 65.8 µg/L 46.1 - 85.5 59.6 91% 62.5 95% 66 100% NR

Notes:a. Test America, Inc. (TA), of Portland, Oregon (formerly known as North Creek Analytical, Inc. [NCA])b. Total organic carbon for ACZ analyzed out of holding timeBold = does not meet performance acceptance limitsNA = not applicableND = not detected, MDL shownNR = not requested


Page A-5c Page 1 of 2

TABLE A-5c

2008 Results for Blind Performance Evaluation of Freshwater Samples

Parameter

RTC Certified

Value Units SGS Result


Value, SGSCAS

Result


Value, CASInorganic ParametersTotal Dissolved Solids @ 180°C 25.20 mg/L 17.6 - 32.8 20 79% 22 87%Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 13.00 mg/L 8.62 - 17.4 12.3 95% 13 100%Specific Conductance, @ 25°C 55.00 µmhos/cm 49.5 - 60.5 56.4 103% 57 104%Corrosivity (pH) 7.50 units 6.75 - 8.25 7.35 98% 7.85 105%Chloride 6.35 mg/L 3.97 - 8.72 6.41 101% 5.4 85%Sulfate 2.55 mg/L 0.799 - 4.29 2.08 82% 2.3 90%Thiocyanate 0.42 mg/L 0 - 0.546 0.37 88% ND, <0.1 <24%Total Cyanide 0.02 mg/L 0.0131 - 0.0192 0.014 70% 0.017 85%Total Organic Carbon 4.72 mg/L 3.68 - 5.76 4.31 91% 4.7 100%Ammonia as Nitrogen 6.82 mg/L 3.77 - 9.87 9.85 144% 6.74 99%Nitrate and Nitrite 1.06 mg/L 0.742 - 1.38 1.18 111% 0.99 93%Metals (Total)Aluminum 105.00 µg/L 88.8 - 121 115 110% 99 94%Arsenic 2.00 µg/L 1.40 - 2.60 2.35 118% 1.74 87%Barium 0.58 µg/L 0.406 - 0.754 0.588 101% 0.6 103%Chromium 1.98 µg/L 1.39 - 2.57 2.04 103% 1.92 97%Copper 1.01 µg/L 0 - 4.84 1.38 137% 1.38 137%Lead 1.10 µg/L 0.935 - 1.26 1.18 107% 1.09 99%Nickel 2.61 µg/L 1.83 - 3.39 2.62 100% 2.57 98%Silver 0.74 µg/L 0.518 - 0.962 0.848 115% 0.613 83%Zinc 6.05 µg/L 4.24 - 7.87 5.75 95% 6.3 104%Total Mercury 0.08 µg/L 0.0569 - 0.106 0.221 276% 0.0862 108%



Page A-5c Page 2 of 2

Parameter

RTC Certified

Value Units SGS Result


Value, SGSCAS

Result


Value, CASPerformance

Acceptance LimitMetals (Dissolved)Aluminum 105.00 µg/L 88.8 - 121 115 110% 96 91%Arsenic 1.98 µg/L 1.39 - 2.57 2.51 127% 1.86 94%Barium 0.71 µg/L 0.497 - 0.923 0.697 98% 0.71 100%Chromium 2.00 µg/L 1.40 - 2.60 2.07 104% 2.08 104%Copper 1.03 µg/L 0 - 4.86 1.38 134% 1.31 127%Lead 1.52 µg/L 1.29 - 1.75 1.52 100% 1.51 99%Nickel 4.10 µg/L 2.87 - 5.33 4.58 112% 4.42 108%Silver 0.45 µg/L 0.112 - 0.787 0.735 163% 0.388 86%Zinc 7.75 µg/L 5.42 - 10.1 8.78 113% 9.9 128%

Notes:Bold = does not meet performance acceptance limitsND = not detected, MDL shown


TABLE A-6

2008 Results for Blind Performance Evaluation of Water Samples - Ocean Water Matrix

Parameter

RTC Certified

Value Units

Test America Result


Value, TACAS

Result


Value, CASInorganic ParametersTotal Suspended Solids 20.00 mg/L 9.26 - 30.7 19 95% 34 170%Metals (Total)Aluminum 331.00 µg/L 280 - 382 331 100% 286 86%Arsenic 7.23 µg/L 5.06 - 9.40 8.4 116% 6.22 86%Barium 32.80 µg/L 23.0 - 42.6 33 101% 31.5 96%Boron 3190.00 µg/L 2230 - 4150 2800 88% 2690 84%Cadmium 4.19 µg/L 2.93 - 5.45 1.6 38% 3.1 74%Chromium 0.70 µg/L 0.490 - 0.910 0.60 86% 0.67 96%Copper 0.30 µg/L 0 - 4.06 2.8 933% 0.664 221%Iron 100.00 µg/L 70.8 - 130 130 130% 95.5 96%Lead 0.60 µg/L 0.330 - 0.870 0.86 143% 0.573 96%Manganese 12.70 µg/L 8.89 - 16.5 15 118% 12 94%Silver 0.20 µg/L 0 - 0.260 0.19 95% 0.243 122%Zinc 25.00 µg/L 17.5 - 32.5 27 108% 18.1 72%Total Mercury 3.8 ng/L 2.66 - 4.94 3.03 80% 4.38 115%Metals (Dissolved)Aluminum 331.00 µg/L 280 - 382 370 112% 295 89%Arsenic 7.23 µg/L 5.06 - 9.40 8.2 113% 6.54 90%Barium 32.80 µg/L 23.0 - 42.6 33 101% 32.1 98%Boron 3190.00 µg/L 2230 - 4150 2600 82% 2690 84%Cadmium 4.19 µg/L 2.93 - 5.45 3.6 86% 3.22 77%Chromium 0.70 µg/L 0.490 - 0.910 0.82 117% 0.82 117%Copper 0.30 µg/L 0 - 4.06 1 333% 0.663 221%Iron 100.00 µg/L 70.8 - 130 100 100% 97.4 97%Lead 0.60 µg/L 0.330 - 0.870 0.6 100% 0.517 86%Manganese 12.70 µg/L 8.89 - 16.5 15 118% 12 94%Silver 0.20 µg/L 0 - 0.260 0.094 47% 0.229 114%Zinc 25.00 µg/L 17.5 - 32.5 25 100% 28.1 112%

Notes:Bold = does not meet performance acceptance limits



Table A-7 1 of 5

TABLE A-7Surface Water, Accuracy and Precision (Except Seeps)

Analyte n

Mean LCS %

Recovery SD RSD n-pairs

Mean Field Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSD

Inorganic ParametersAcidity, total 140 100 3.7 4% 61 18 16.2 91%Alkalinity, total 507 100 5.4 5% 197 5.5 11.8 215%Ammonia, as Nitrogen 709 97 7.8 8% 25 41 44.2 108%Chloride 683 99 3.3 3% 219 5.1 11.5 225%Cyanide, total 625 99 11.8 12% 10 26 21.0 81%Cyanide, weak acid dissociable 599 98 10.8 11% 7 18 29.3 163%Fluoride 645 102 9.2 9% 111 15 19.9 132%Nitrogen as Nitrate-Nitrite 643 100 5.9 6% 142 34 41.2 121%pH 625 100 0.90 1% 198 1.6 1.9 119%Total Phosphorus 493 99 8.3 8% 126 27 29.4 110%Phosphorus, Total Orthophosphate 90 98 2.9 3% 16 28 25.0 90%Specific Conductance 553 100 3.5 4% 198 3.5 9.3 266%Sulfate 680 100 7.1 7% 219 7.3 23.1 316%Thiocyanate 412 99 3.9 4% 57 30 31.7 105%Total Dissolved Solids 490 107 11.2 10% 195 24 27.6 117%Total Suspended Solids 445 98 6.4 7% 162 27 27.1 99%MetalsAluminum 643 101 5.8 6% 352 18 22.4 125%Antimony 625 101 6.8 7% 190 25 33.6 137%Arsenic 620 100 4.5 5% 164 13 14.2 108%Barium 640 100 4.9 5% 384 6.9 10.5 152%Beryllium 620 100 5.7 6% 7 32 28.4 90%Bismuth 616 99 5.2 5% 11 40 41.6 105%Boron 615 100 7.6 8% 49 13 17.6 135%Cadmium 621 100 4.9 5% 15 22 26.1 119%Calcium 637 101 5.8 6% 410 5.3 6.4 121%Chromium 627 100 5.5 6% 214 25 25.1 100%Cobalt 623 100 5.1 5% 303 16 19.4 120%Copper 629 100 4.9 5% 322 21 26.5 124%Iron 630 103 5.6 5% 347 13 18.5 138%Lead 624 99 4.8 5% 55 62 53.8 87%Magnesium 636 101 5.7 6% 409 5.0 6.1 122%Manganese 620 100 4.9 5% 383 12 19.9 173%Mercury 871 98 18.2 19% 34 37 40.4 110%Molybdenum 620 99 6.2 6% 339 12 16.7 136%Nickel 621 100 5.2 5% 235 19 25.3 133%Potassium 635 101 5.4 5% 400 6.0 7.3 122%Selenium 623 99 5.2 5% 19 19 22.3 115%Silicon 507 102 6.2 6% 218 7.2 12.7 176%Silver 621 100 6.4 6% 6 53 44.4 83%Sodium 635 102 5.9 6% 408 5.6 8.7 155%Thallium 620 98 5.7 6% 11 32 32.3 101%Tin 618 99 7.3 7% 3 12 5.5 45%Vanadium 622 100 5.4 5% 120 16 14.8 90%Zinc 627 100 5.5 6% 194 30 31.8 107%

Laboratory Accuracy and Precisiona Field Precision


Table A-7 2 of 5

Analyte n

Mean LCS %




OrganicsDissolved Organic Carbon 9 99 3.8 4% 53 12 18.9 155%Total Organic Carbon 107 102 4.2 4% 3 3.0 2.6 87%Diesel Range Organics 20 98 8.0 8% NA NA NA NAGasoline Range Organics 32 98 9.3 9% — — — —Residual Range Organics 20 102 9.6 9% — — — —PesticidesAldrin 18 91 16.2 18% NA NA NA NAalpha-BHC 25 89 7.2 8% NA NA NA NAbeta-BHC 25 94 7.7 8% NA NA NA NAdelta-BHC 25 93 10.8 12% NA NA NA NAgamma-BHC (Lindane) 25 90 7.5 8% NA NA NA NAalpha-Chlordane 22 93 5.7 6% NA NA NA NAgamma-Chlordane 22 91 6.2 7% NA NA NA NA4,4'-DDD 25 92 9.4 10% NA NA NA NA4,4'-DDE 25 97 8.2 8% NA NA NA NA4,4'-DDT 25 95 11.7 12% NA NA NA NADieldrin 25 95 6.9 7% NA NA NA NAEndosulfan I 25 101 12.2 12% NA NA NA NAEndosulfan II 25 91 15.8 17% NA NA NA NAEndosulfan sulfate 25 88 14.7 17% NA NA NA NAEndrin 25 99 10.1 10% NA NA NA NAEndrin aldehyde 25 99 12.3 12% NA NA NA NAEndrin ketone 18 95 7.3 8% NA NA NA NAHeptachlor 25 89 9.5 11% NA NA NA NAHeptachlor epoxide 25 92 5.7 6% NA NA NA NAMethoxychlor 25 94 18.7 20% NA NA NA NAPolychlorinated BiphenylsPCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016) 16 139 39.7 29% NA NA NA NAPCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248) 2 91 4.9 5% NA NA NA NAPCB-1254 (Arcolor 1254) 3 106 7.8 7% NA NA NA NAPCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 16 91 5.1 6% NA NA NA NAVolatile Organic CompoundsAcetone 39 100 12.8 13% NA NA NA NAAcrylonitrile 10 103 3.9 4% NA NA NA NABromodichloromethane 39 104 7.4 7% NA NA NA NABromobenzene 39 101 6.5 6% NA NA NA NABromochloromethane 39 103 8.7 8% NA NA NA NABromomethane 39 103 20.2 20% NA NA NA NAn-Butylbenzene 39 104 6.7 6% NA NA NA NAsec-Butylbenzene 39 109 7.5 7% NA NA NA NAtert-Butylbenzene 39 105 7.9 8% NA NA NA NABenzene 39 103 7.3 7% 1 18 — —Toluene 39 99 4.8 5% 1 5.0 — —Carbon disulfide 39 100 11.2 11% NA NA NA NA2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 29 107 16.7 16% NA NA NA NAChlorobenzene 39 102 6.3 6% NA NA NA NA1-Chlorohexane 10 100 3.7 4% NA NA NA NA2-Chlorotoluene 39 104 6.1 6% NA NA NA NA


Table A-7 3 of 5

Analyte n

Mean LCS %




4-Chlorotoluene 39 104 6.4 6% NA NA NA NAChloroethane 39 98 9.7 10% NA NA NA NAChloromethane 39 92 11.5 13% NA NA NA NACarbon tetrachloride 39 105 9.9 9% NA NA NA NA4-Isopropyltoluene 39 102 7.6 7% NA NA NA NADibromochloromethane 39 104 6.5 6% NA NA NA NA1,2-Dibromoethane 31 103 4.2 4% NA NA NA NA1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 39 97 8.4 9% NA NA NA NADibromomethane 39 103 7.2 7% NA NA NA NADichlorodifluoromethane 31 97 14 15% NA NA NA NA1,1-Dichloroethane 39 102 7.4 7% NA NA NA NA1,2-Dichloroethane 39 104 6.7 6% NA NA NA NA1,2-Dichlorobenzene 70 82 20.4 25% NA NA NA NA1,3-Dichlorobenzene 70 83 22.2 27% NA NA NA NA1,4-Dichlorobenzene 70 84 23.6 28% NA NA NA NA1,1-Dichloroethene 39 104 7.8 7% NA NA NA NAcis-1,2-Dichloroethene 39 103 6.3 6% NA NA NA NAtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene 39 102 8.0 8% NA NA NA NA1,1-Dichloropropene 39 102 7.3 7% NA NA NA NAcis-1,3-Dichloropropene 39 106 5.7 5% NA NA NA NAtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene 39 104 8.0 8% NA NA NA NA1,2-Dichloropropane 39 103 7.1 7% NA NA NA NA1,3-Dichloropropane 39 102 4.2 4% NA NA NA NA2,2-Dichloropropane 39 108 18.1 17% NA NA NA NAtrans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 10 142 4.0 3% NA NA NA NAEthylbenzene 39 105 6.7 6% NA NA NA NATrichlorofluoromethane 39 100 9.9 10% NA NA NA NAHexachlorobutadiene 71 82 18.0 22% NA NA NA NA2-Hexanone 39 101 9.9 10% NA NA NA NAMethyl iodide 22 104 12.7 12% NA NA NA NAIsopropylbenzene 39 102 9.6 9% NA NA NA NA2-Butanone 39 103 11.9 11% NA NA NA NA4-Methyl-2-pentanone 39 104 7.4 7% NA NA NA NAMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 32 102 6.5 6% NA NA NA NAMethylene chloride 39 99 9.1 9% NA NA NA NANaphthalene 70 88 20.8 24% NA NA NA NAn-Propylbenzene 39 106 6.7 6% NA NA NA NA1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 39 101 7.7 8% NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene (PCE) 39 101 6.9 7% NA NA NA NAStyrene 39 105 6.7 6% NA NA NA NABromoform 39 104 8.8 8% NA NA NA NA1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 39 102 8.2 8% NA NA NA NA1,1,1-Trichloroethane 39 103 8.6 8% NA NA NA NA1,1,2-Trichloroethane 39 102 5.2 5% NA NA NA NA1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 39 99 8.6 9% NA NA NA NA1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 85 20.9 25% NA NA NA NATrichloroethene (TCE) 39 102 6.1 6% NA NA NA NAChloroform 39 102 7.8 8% NA NA NA NA1,2,3-Trichloropropane 39 102 8.0 8% NA NA NA NA1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 39 107 5.8 5% NA NA NA NA


Table A-7 4 of 5

Analyte n

Mean LCS %




1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 39 107 6.3 6% NA NA NA NAVinyl acetate 10 89 27.4 31% NA NA NA NAVinyl chloride 39 98 11.8 12% NA NA NA NAXylene, Isomers m & p 39 104 6.0 6% NA NA NA NAo-Xylene 39 104 7.2 7% NA NA NA NASemivolatile Organic CompoundsAcenaphthene 36 80 9.2 11% NA NA NA NAAcenaphthylene 36 81 9.7 12% NA NA NA NAAcetophenone 11 76 13.4 18% NA NA NA NAAniline 36 65 15.2 23% NA NA NA NAAnthracene 36 88 7.7 9% NA NA NA NAAzobenzene 27 87 8.7 10% NA NA NA NABenzyl butyl phthalate 36 94 9.9 10% NA NA NA NAbis-(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 36 74 11.2 15% NA NA NA NAbis-(2-Chloroethyl)ether 36 69 12.5 18% NA NA NA NAbis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 36 69 12.0 17% NA NA NA NAbis-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 36 91 8.6 9% NA NA NA NA4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 36 79 8.4 11% NA NA NA NABenzo(a)anthracene 36 91 7.8 9% NA NA NA NABenzoic acid 36 49 28.0 57% NA NA NA NABenzo(a)pyrene 36 91 8.9 10% NA NA NA NABenzo(b)fluoranthene 36 91 7.6 8% NA NA NA NABenzo(g,h,i)perylene 36 87 11.8 13% NA NA NA NABenzo(k)fluoranthene 36 91 9.1 10% NA NA NA NABenzyl alcohol 36 69 14.2 21% NA NA NA NA4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 36 79 10.8 14% NA NA NA NAChrysene 36 92 8.2 9% NA NA NA NA4-Chloroaniline 36 77 11.4 15% NA NA NA NA2-Chlorophenol 36 66 14.4 22% NA NA NA NA2-Chloronaphthalene 36 71 10.9 15% NA NA NA NA4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 36 83 7.3 9% NA NA NA NADibenzo(a,h)anthracene 36 92 9.6 11% NA NA NA NADibenzofuran 36 81 9.1 11% NA NA NA NA3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 36 81 16.5 20% NA NA NA NA2,4-Dichlorophenol 36 73 11.9 16% NA NA NA NA2,6-Dichlorophenol 5 61 6.6 11% NA NA NA NADiethyl phthalate 36 90 10.7 12% NA NA NA NA2,4-Dimethylphenol 36 70 10.4 15% NA NA NA NADimethyl phthalate 36 84 12.0 14% NA NA NA NA2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 36 91 13.7 15% NA NA NA NADi-n-butyl phthalate 36 90 10.5 12% NA NA NA NADi-n-octyl phthalate 36 94 10.2 11% NA NA NA NA2,4-Dinitrophenol 36 85 17.1 20% NA NA NA NA2,4-Dinitrotoluene 36 94 9.1 10% NA NA NA NA2,6-Dinitrotoluene 36 90 8.2 9% NA NA NA NAFluorene 36 85 8.2 10% NA NA NA NAFluoranthene 36 91 10.1 11% NA NA NA NAHexachlorobutadiene 71 82 18.0 22% NA NA NA NAHexachlorocyclopentadiene 36 46 16.6 36% NA NA NA NAHexachlorobenzene 36 85 7.7 9% NA NA NA NA


Table A-7 5 of 5

Analyte n

Mean LCS %




Hexachloroethane 36 62 15.4 25% NA NA NA NAIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 36 90 10.2 11% NA NA NA NAIsophorone 36 81 12.6 16% NA NA NA NA2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) 36 69 14.7 21% NA NA NA NA3-Methylphenol/4-Methylphenol Coelution 25 64 14.9 23% NA NA NA NA

2-Methylnaphthalene 36 74 12.6 17% NA NA NA NANaphthalene 70 88 20.8 24% NA NA NA NAn-Nitrosodimethylamine 36 58 23.1 40% NA NA NA NAn-Nitrosodiphenylamine 36 84 11.1 13% NA NA NA NAn-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 36 77 12.5 16% NA NA NA NA2-Nitroaniline 36 90 9.1 10% NA NA NA NA3-Nitroaniline 36 92 9.7 10% NA NA NA NA4-Nitroaniline 36 96 11.8 12% NA NA NA NANitrobenzene 36 72 12.5 18% NA NA NA NA2-Nitrophenol 36 71 12.1 17% NA NA NA NA4-Nitrophenol 36 66 27.6 42% NA NA NA NAPentachlorophenol 36 81 10.6 13% NA NA NA NAPhenanthrene 36 87 7.9 9% NA NA NA NAPhenol 36 55 24.5 45% NA NA NA NAPyrene 36 90 9.3 10% NA NA NA NA1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 85 20.9 25% NA NA NA NA2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 36 81 11.2 14% NA NA NA NA2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 36 78 11.5 15% NA NA NA NA1,2-Dichlorobenzene 70 82 20.4 25% NA NA NA NA1,3-Dichlorobenzene 70 83 22.2 27% NA NA NA NA1,4-Dichlorobenzene 70 84 23.6 28% NA NA NA NA

Notes:a. LCS accuracy and precision statistics based on surface water and groundwater data.— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsLCS = laboratory control samplen = number of samplesn-pairs = number of primary and duplicate pairsNA = not applicable, analyte was not detected in the sampleRPD = relative percent differenceRSD = relative standard deviationSD = standard deviation



TABLE A-8

Surface Water, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates

Analyte n-pairsMean Laboratory

Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSDInorganic ParametersAcidity, total 111 7.1 8.8 124%Alkalinity, total 306 2.4 4.0 171%Ammonia, as Nitrogen 44 30 31.6 105%Chloride 444 1.9 2.6 138%Total Cyanide 15 21 19.9 95%Cyanide, weak acid dissociable 13 25 26.5 106%Fluoride 230 14 16.9 125%Nitrogen as Nitrate-Nitrite 167 14 17.7 128%pH 375 0.5 0.7 136%Total Phosphorus 200 21 29.4 140%Phosphorus, Total as Orthophosphate 37 16 16.2 102%Specific Conductance 378 1.4 2.7 193%Sulfate 445 1.3 2.0 149%Thiocyanate 246 2.8 4.7 171%Total Dissolved Solids 304 9.8 10.8 111%Total Suspended Solids 193 21 23.0 108%Organics a

Dissolved Organic Carbon 48 1.9 1.5 81%Total Organic Carbon 2 4.5 3.5 79%Diesel Range Organics 1 5.0 — —Gasoline Range Organics 4 3.8 3.6 70%Residual Range Organics 1 5.0 — —MetalsAluminum 424 4.5 6.9 153%Antimony 401 3.5 6.8 199%Arsenic 406 3.3 6.3 190%Barium 445 3.5 6.1 177%Beryllium 399 3.6 6.4 175%Bismuth 383 3.1 4.7 151%Boron 406 3.3 3.5 106%Cadmium 388 2.8 2.8 101%Calcium 410 3.1 4.6 145%Chromium 413 4.1 7.6 184%Cobalt 410 3.6 6.6 185%Copper 431 3.5 6.5 186%Iron 423 3.3 4.5 137%Lead 395 3.2 6.2 193%Magnesium 409 2.9 2.9 100%Manganese 422 3.5 7.1 201%Mercury 350 3.5 4.2 121%Molybdenum 399 3.7 7.1 194%Nickel 401 4.1 10.7 261%Potassium 409 3.1 3.1 102%Selenium 412 3.1 3.2 104%Silicon 147 3.2 4.3 135%Silver 390 3.4 7.5 222%Sodium 408 3.1 3.5 113%




Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSDThallium 393 3.9 8.3 214%Tin 391 3.3 6.9 206%Vanadium 414 3.8 6.8 176%Zinc 414 3.5 6.3 182%Pesticides a

Aldrin 6 9.7 7.9 82%alpha-BHC 6 12 9.5 82%beta-BHC 6 9.7 7.9 82%delta-BHC 6 9.8 7.2 73%gamma-BHC (Lindane) 6 10 8.7 86%alpha-Chlordane 6 11 7.8 73%gamma-Chlordane 6 10 8.8 84%4,4'-DDD 6 9.7 7.7 80%4,4'-DDE 6 9.8 7.7 78%4,4'-DDT 6 9.0 7.5 83%Dieldrin 6 10 8.0 79%Endosulfan I 6 10 9.0 86%Endosulfan II 6 8.0 6.3 78%Endosulfan sulfate 6 8.2 7.0 86%Endrin 6 9.3 8.1 87%Endrin aldehyde 6 12 12.1 102%Endrin ketone 6 12 6.0 51%Heptachlor 6 11 8.8 83%Heptachlor epoxide 6 10 7.8 78%Methoxychlor 6 11 7.2 66%Polychlorinated Biphenyls a

PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016) 4 8.5 11.4 134%PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248) — — — —PCB-1254 (Arcolor 1254) — — — —PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 4 9.8 11.7 120%Volatile Organic Compounds a

Acetone 6 3.8 1.7 45%Acrylonitrile 3 4.3 2.1 48%Bromodichloromethane 6 1.5 1.4 92%Bromobenzene 6 2.2 2.1 99%Bromochloromethane 6 3.7 5.8 157%Bromomethane 6 6.2 2.8 45%n-Butylbenzene 6 3.3 2.7 80%sec-Butylbenzene 6 3.0 3.2 105%tert-Butylbenzene 6 2.3 3.4 145%Benzene 6 1.8 1.5 80%Toluene 6 3.0 3.7 123%Carbon disulfide 6 2.7 1.8 66%2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 1 68 — —Chlorobenzene 6 2.8 3.3 117%1-Chlorohexane 3 1.0 1.0 100%2-Chlorotoluene 6 2.3 3.0 129%4-Chlorotoluene 6 2.7 1.9 70%Chloroethane 6 2.0 1.7 84%Chloromethane 6 3.2 1.5 46%




Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSDCarbon tetrachloride 6 1.0 1.0 118%4-Isopropyltoluene 6 2.7 2.1 77%Dibromochloromethane 6 2.0 4.0 200%1,2-Dibromoethane 4 1.8 1.0 55%1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 6 3.7 3.9 106%Dibromomethane 6 3.3 6.7 202%Dichlorodifluoromethane 4 1.0 1.2 115%1,1-Dichloroethane 6 2.2 1.2 54%1,2-Dichloroethane 6 2.7 2.4 91%1,2-Dichlorobenzene 6 2.0 1.5 77%1,3-Dichlorobenzene 6 2.7 3.4 127%1,4-Dichlorobenzene 6 1.7 1.4 82%1,1-Dichloroethene 6 1.7 0.52 31%cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 6 1.2 1.2 100%trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 6 2.2 1.7 80%1,1-Dichloropropene 6 2.5 2.5 100%cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 6 1.7 1.0 62%trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 6 2.3 2.3 100%1,2-Dichloropropane 6 2.0 2.9 145%1,3-Dichloropropane 6 3.0 4.5 151%2,2-Dichloropropane 6 2.5 1.6 66%trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 3 2.7 2.1 78%Ethylbenzene 6 2.3 3.3 143%Trichlorofluoromethane 6 2.0 1.3 63%Hexachlorobutadiene 5 5.0 3.7 75%2-Hexanone 6 4.7 4.3 92%Methyl iodide 5 5.0 2.9 58%Isopropylbenzene 6 3.2 3.9 122%2-Butanone 6 4.0 4.1 104%4-Methyl-2-pentanone 6 4.8 5.3 111%Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 6 2.5 2.6 104%Methylene chloride 6 3.0 2.8 92%Naphthalene 6 4.7 3.4 73%n-Propylbenzene 6 2.5 1.9 75%1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 6 4.0 3.9 97%Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 6 2.8 3.8 133%Styrene 6 2.7 3.7 138%Bromoform 6 2.3 4.8 204%1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 6 3.8 4.5 118%1,1,1-Trichloroethane 6 2.0 2.7 134%1,1,2-Trichloroethane 6 2.2 3.9 179%1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 6 2.5 2.7 110%1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 6 4.7 4.3 92%Trichloroethene (TCE) 6 4.0 4.3 107%Chloroform 6 1.7 2.0 118%1,2,3-Trichloropropane 6 3.0 2.9 97%1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 6 2.0 1.8 89%1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 6 2.3 2.5 107%Vinyl acetate 3 2.7 3.8 142%




Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSDVinyl chloride 6 2.8 1.9 68%Xylene, Isomers m & p 6 2.7 3.7 138%o-Xylene 6 2.7 3.2 120%Semivolatile Organic Compounds a

Acenaphthene 7 7.7 4.4 57%Acenaphthylene 7 6.4 4.3 67%Acetophenone 2 12 7.8 62%Aniline 7 19 9.7 52%Anthracene 7 4.4 3.9 87%Azobenzene 7 6.6 3.6 55%Benzyl butyl phthalate 7 5.9 3.9 66%bis-(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 7 10 6.6 64%bis-(2-Chloroethyl)ether 7 11 5.2 46%bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 7 9.6 5.5 58%bis-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 7 5.7 5.2 91%4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 7 4.7 4.9 104%Benzo(a)anthracene 7 4.7 2.4 52%Benzoic acid 6 15 12.1 82%Benzo(a)pyrene 7 4.6 4.1 89%Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7 4.0 5.1 127%Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 7 5.4 3.0 56%Benzo(k)fluoranthene 7 5.7 4.8 83%Benzyl alcohol 7 14 5.6 41%4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 7 7.6 4.7 62%Chrysene 7 4.1 3.1 74%4-Chloroaniline 7 8.1 6.6 81%2-Chlorophenol 7 12 7.1 58%2-Chloronaphthalene 7 8.9 4.6 52%4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7 6.3 3.3 52%Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 7 3.9 4.3 111%Dibenzofuran 7 5.9 3.6 62%3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 7 6.0 2.3 38%2,4-Dichlorophenol 7 8.9 5.0 57%2,6-Dichlorophenol 1 17 — —Diethyl phthalate 7 6.1 5.4 88%2,4-Dimethylphenol 7 10 5.6 53%Dimethyl phthalate 7 5.7 5.2 91%2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 8 15 20.3 132%Di-n-butyl phthalate 7 4.6 6.3 79%Di-n-octyl phthalate 7 7.9 3.1 40%2,4-Dinitrophenol 6 22 33.6 152%2,4-Dinitrotoluene 7 6.0 4.7 79%2,6-Dinitrotoluene 7 6.9 4.5 65%Fluorene 7 6.0 3.7 6200%Fluoranthene 7 5.6 3.6 65%Hexachlorobutadiene 7 9.1 7.1 77%Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 8 46 64.2 140%Hexachlorobenzene 7 4.6 4.4 97%Hexachloroethane 7 9.6 6.5 68%Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 7 4.9 4.1 85%Isophorone 7 9.0 6.9 76%




Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSD2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) 7 12 5.7 46%3-Methylphenol/4-Methylphenol Coelution 7 13 3.0 24%2-Methylnaphthalene 7 9.3 5.0 53%Naphthalene 6 9.8 4.8 48%n-Nitrosodimethylamine 7 17 8.4 50%n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 7 4.0 3.8 96%n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 7 9.7 5.2 54%2-Nitroaniline 7 6.7 3.5 53%3-Nitroaniline 7 5.7 3.1 55%4-Nitroaniline 7 7.4 6.0 81%Nitrobenzene 7 9.3 4.9 53%2-Nitrophenol 7 11 5.0 47%4-Nitrophenol 7 11 11.1 98%Pentachlorophenol 10 21 16.8 81%Phenanthrene 7 4.1 3.4 83%Phenol 7 15 8.0 54%Pyrene 7 7.6 4.0 52%1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 6 9.7 5.8 60%2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 7 6.6 4.8 72%2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 7 6.6 5.0 76%1,2-Dichlorobenzene 6 8.8 7.8 88%1,3-Dichlorobenzene 6 9.7 9.7 101%1,4-Dichlorobenzene 6 8.3 9.5 114%

Notes:a. Data for surface water excluding seeps— = insufficient sample count to calculate statistics



TABLE A-9

Surface Water, Laboratory Comparability (Except Seeps)

Analyte n-pairs

Mean Field Triplicate RPD (%) SD RSD

Inorganic ParametersAcidity, total 48 39 35.9 91%Alkalinity, total 196 11 13.4 127%Ammonia, as Nitrogen 5 113 45.6 40%Chloride 214 16 13.0 82%Total Cyanide 4 20 23.1 115%Cyanide, weak acid dissociable 1 186 — —Fluoride 69 44 31.5 72%Nitrogen as Nitrate-Nitrite 130 56 44.0 79%pH 197 3.6 3.5 96%Total Phosphorus 119 55 44.3 81%Phosphorus, Total as Orthophosphate nc nc nc ncSpecific Conductance 197 25 44.3 175%Sulfate 216 11 18.6 168%Thiocyanate 8 93 44.7 48%Total Dissolved Solids 193 33 30.8 93%Total Suspended Solids 19 65 54.2 83%MetalsAluminum 342 25 24.5 99%Antimony 148 36 41.6 116%Arsenic 183 22 23.2 104%Barium 387 8.4 11.7 139%Beryllium 8 39 35.1 90%Bismuth 5 108 67.0 62%Boron 64 45 41.8 92%Cadmium 17 38 37.7 100%Calcium 409 7.4 6.3 85%Chromium 137 37 28.0 75%Cobalt 314 31 30.9 100%Copper 315 32 35.4 111%Iron 318 23 27.4 120%Lead 52 82 54.0 66%Magnesium 411 8.3 6.5 79%Manganese 372 15 22.5 152%Mercury 28 50 37.7 76%Molybdenum 345 17 21.1 123%Nickel 220 44 31.9 72%Potassium 314 9.6 10 103%Selenium 13 34 27.1 81%Silicon 210 10 12.3 122%Silver 10 72 43.4 61%Sodium 408 7.6 7.2 95%Thallium 4 47 46.4 98%Tin 2 121 73.5 61%Vanadium 135 32 27.1 86%Zinc 183 50 42.4 85%



Analyte n-pairs


OrganicsDissolved Organic Carbon 50 29 28.1 98%Total Organic Carbon 3 35 15.3 46%Diesel Range Organics NA NA NA NAGasoline Range Organics NA NA NA NAResidual Range Organics 0 — — —PesticidesAldrin NA NA NA NAalpha-BHC NA NA NA NAbeta-BHC NA NA NA NAdelta-BHC NA NA NA NAgamma-BHC (Lindane) NA NA NA NAalpha-Chlordane NA NA NA NAgamma-Chlordane NA NA NA NA4,4'-DDD NA NA NA NA4,4'-DDE NA NA NA NA4,4'-DDT NA NA NA NADieldrin NA NA NA NAEndosulfan I NA NA NA NAEndosulfan II NA NA NA NAEndosulfan sulfate NA NA NA NAEndrin NA NA NA NAEndrin aldehyde NA NA NA NAEndrin ketone nc nc nc ncHeptachlor NA NA NA NAHeptachlor epoxide NA NA NA NAMethoxychlor NA NA NA NAPolychlorinated BiphenylsPCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016) NA NA NA NAPCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248) NA NA NA NAPCB-1254 (Arcolor 1254) NA NA NA NAPCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) NA NA NA NAVolatile Organic CompoundsAcetone NA NA NA NAAcrylonitrile NA NA NA NABromodichloromethane NA NA NA NABromobenzene NA NA NA NABromochloromethane NA NA NA NABromomethane NA NA NA NAn-Butylbenzene NA NA NA NAsec-Butylbenzene NA NA NA NAtert-Butylbenzene NA NA NA NABenzene NA NA NA NAToluene 0 — — —Carbon disulfide NA NA NA NA2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether NA NA NA NAChlorobenzene NA NA NA NA1-Chlorohexane nc nc nc nc2-Chlorotoluene NA NA NA NA



Analyte n-pairs


4-Chlorotoluene NA NA NA NAChloroethane NA NA NA NAChloromethane NA NA NA NACarbon tetrachloride NA NA NA NA4-Isopropyltoluene NA NA NA NADibromochloromethane NA NA NA NA1,2-Dibromoethane NA NA NA NA1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane NA NA NA NADibromomethane NA NA NA NADichlorodifluoromethane NA NA NA NA1,1-Dichloroethane NA NA NA NA1,2-Dichloroethane NA NA NA NA1,2-Dichlorobenzene NA NA NA NA1,3-Dichlorobenzene NA NA NA NA1,4-Dichlorobenzene NA NA NA NA1,1-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NAcis-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NAtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA1,1-Dichloropropene NA NA NA NAcis-1,3-Dichloropropene NA NA NA NAtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene NA NA NA NA1,2-Dichloropropane NA NA NA NA1,3-Dichloropropane NA NA NA NA2,2-Dichloropropane NA NA NA NAtrans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene NA NA NA NAEthylbenzene NA NA NA NATrichlorofluoromethane NA NA NA NAHexachlorobutadiene NA NA NA NA2-Hexanone NA NA NA NAMethyl iodide NA NA NA NAIsopropylbenzene NA NA NA NA2-Butanone NA NA NA NA4-Methyl-2-pentanone NA NA NA NAMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) NA NA NA NAMethylene chloride NA NA NA NANaphthalene NA NA NA NAn-Propylbenzene NA NA NA NA1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane NA NA NA NATetrachloroethene (PCE) NA NA NA NAStyrene NA NA NA NABromoform NA NA NA NA1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane NA NA NA NA1,1,1-Trichloroethane NA NA NA NA1,1,2-Trichloroethane NA NA NA NA1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene NA NA NA NA1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene NA NA NA NATrichloroethene (TCE) 1 79 — —Chloroform NA NA NA NA1,2,3-Trichloropropane NA NA NA NA1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene NA NA NA NA



Analyte n-pairs


1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene NA NA NA NAVinyl acetate NA NA NA NAVinyl chloride NA NA NA NAXylene, Isomers m & p NA NA NA NAo-Xylene NA NA NA NASemivolatile Organic CompoundsAcenaphthene NA NA NA NAAcenaphthylene NA NA NA NAAcetophenone NA NA NA NAAniline NA NA NA NAAnthracene NA NA NA NAAzobenzene NA NA NA NABenzyl butyl phthalate NA NA NA NAbis-(2-Chloroethoxy)methane NA NA NA NAbis-(2-Chloroethyl)ether NA NA NA NAbis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether NA NA NA NAbis-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate NA NA NA NA4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether NA NA NA NABenzo(a)anthracene NA NA NA NABenzoic acid NA NA NA NABenzo(a)pyrene NA NA NA NABenzo(b)fluoranthene NA NA NA NABenzo(g,h,i)perylene NA NA NA NABenzo(k)fluoranthene NA NA NA NABenzyl alcohol NA NA NA NA4-Chloro-3-methylphenol NA NA NA NAChrysene NA NA NA NA4-Chloroaniline NA NA NA NA2-Chlorophenol NA NA NA NA2-Chloronaphthalene NA NA NA NA4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether NA NA NA NADibenzo(a,h)anthracene NA NA NA NADibenzofuran NA NA NA NA3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine NA NA NA NA2,4-Dichlorophenol NA NA NA NA2,6-Dichlorophenol NA NA NA NADiethyl phthalate NA NA NA NA2,4-Dimethylphenol NA NA NA NADimethyl phthalate NA NA NA NA2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol NA NA NA NADi-n-butyl phthalate NA NA NA NADi-n-octyl phthalate NA NA NA NA2,4-Dinitrophenol NA NA NA NA2,4-Dinitrotoluene NA NA NA NA2,6-Dinitrotoluene NA NA NA NAFluorene NA NA NA NAFluoranthene NA NA NA NAHexachlorobutadiene NA NA NA NAHexachlorocyclopentadiene NA NA NA NAHexachlorobenzene NA NA NA NA



Analyte n-pairs


Hexachloroethane NA NA NA NAIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene NA NA NA NAIsophorone NA NA NA NA2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) NA NA NA NA3-Methylphenol/4-Methylphenol Coelution NA NA NA NA2-Methylnaphthalene NA NA NA NANaphthalene NA NA NA NAn-Nitrosodimethylamine NA NA NA NAn-Nitrosodiphenylamine NA NA NA NAn-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine NA NA NA NA2-Nitroaniline NA NA NA NA3-Nitroaniline NA NA NA NA4-Nitroaniline NA NA NA NANitrobenzene NA NA NA NA2-Nitrophenol NA NA NA NA4-Nitrophenol NA NA NA NAPentachlorophenol NA NA NA NAPhenanthrene NA NA NA NAPhenol NA NA NA NAPyrene NA NA NA NA1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene NA NA NA NA2,4,5-Trichlorophenol NA NA NA NA2,4,6-Trichlorophenol NA NA NA NA1,2-Dichlorobenzene NA NA NA NA1,3-Dichlorobenzene NA NA NA NA1,4-Dichlorobenzene NA NA NA NA

Notes:— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsNA = not applicable, analyte was not detected in the samplenc = primary and triplicate pair not collected



TABLE A-10

No. of No. of ND Samples

Analyte

Total No. of

Samples

Samples with ND Results

for Which MDL Does Not Meet DQO 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inorganic ParametersAcidity, total 1787 1077 0 10 10 10 10 10Alkalinity, total 1723 27 0 10 10 10 10 10Ammonia, as Nitrogen 1788 1113 3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Chloride 1950 2 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1Total Cyanide 1785 1515 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.005Cyanide, weak acid dissociable 2094 1772 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.005Fluoride 1888 625 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite 1788 236 0 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Phosphorus, Total (as P) 1788 349 208 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01Phosphorus, Total as Orthophosphate 350 144 0 NA NA 0.2 — NASpecific Conductance 1788 0 0 2a 2a 2a 1a 1a

Sulfate 1950 7 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Thiocyanate 1788 1163 0 1 1 1 1 1Total Dissolved Solids 1818 12 0 10 10 10 10 10Total Suspended Solids 1788 220 1 5 5 5 5 0.5OrganicsDissolved Organic Carbon 542 14 0 NA NA NA 0.5 0.5Total Organic Carbon 31 0 0 NA NA NA 0.5 NADiesel Range Organics 37 37 0 NA NA NA NA —Gasoline Range Organics 37 25 0 NA NA NA NA —Residual Range Organics 37 12 0 NA NA NA NA —MetalsAluminum 3574 14 0 0.025 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002Antimony 3574 962 9 0.0002 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005Arsenic 3574 2160 7 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005Barium 3574 0 0 0.0003 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005Beryllium 3574 3447 611 0.00003 0.00002 0.00002 0.00005 0.00005Bismuth 3570 3284 9 0.005 0.0001 0.0001 0.00005 0.00005Boron 3574 2723 901 0.01 0.0005 0.0005 0.005 0.005Cadmium 3574 3099 604 0.0001 0.00002 0.00002 0.00005 0.00005Calcium 3736 1 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Chromium 3574 582 7 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002Cobalt 3574 177 2 0.0001 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002Copper 3574 8 5 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001Iron 3574 113 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Lead 3574 1407 277 0.0002 0.00002 0.00002 0.0001 0.0001Magnesium 3736 1 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

MRL DQOs (mg/L)

Summary of Sensitivity for Surface Water (Except Seeps)




Analyte

Total No. of

Samples



MRL DQOs (mg/L)

Manganese 3574 13 1 0.001 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005Mercury 1769 899 0 0.000005 0.000005 0.000005 0.000005 0.000005Molybdenum 3574 306 489 0.001 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005Nickel 3573 29 7 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002Potassium 3736 8 7 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Selenium 3574 3254 2 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001Silicon 1949 4 1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Silver 3574 3386 18 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002Sodium 3736 1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Thallium 3574 3321 16 0.00005 0.00001 0.00001 0.00002 0.00002Tin 3574 3438 5 0.001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002Vanadium 3574 2130 424 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.001 0.001Zinc 3574 66 5 0.0015 0.0005 0.0005 0.001 0.001Pesticides4,4'-DDD 52 52 46 0.000005 0.000005 NA NA NA4,4'-DDE 52 52 46 0.000005 0.000005 NA NA NA4,4'-DDT 52 52 46 0.000008 0.000008 NA NA NAAldrin 52 52 46 0.000005 0.000005 NA NA NAalpha-BHC 52 52 46 0.000005 0.000005 NA NA NAalpha-Chlordane 52 52 0 0.0001 0.0001 NA NA NAbeta-BHC 52 52 46 0.000007 0.000007 NA NA NAdelta-BHC 52 52 46 0.000005 0.000005 NA NA NADieldrin 52 52 46 0.000005 0.000005 NA NA NAEndosulfan I 52 52 46 0.000005 0.000005 NA NA NAEndosulfan II 52 52 46 0.000007 0.000007 NA NA NAEndosulfan sulfate 52 52 46 0.000006 0.000006 NA NA NAEndrin 52 52 46 0.000006 0.000006 NA NA NAEndrin aldehyde 52 52 46 0.000008 0.000008 NA NA NAEndrin ketone 52 52 0 — 0.00003 NA NA NAgamma-BHC (Lindane) 52 52 46 0.000005 0.000005 NA NA NAgamma-Chlordane 52 52 0 0.0001 0.0001 NA NA NAHeptachlor 52 52 46 0.000006 0.000006 NA NA NAHeptachlor epoxide 52 52 46 0.000006 0.000006 NA NA NAMethoxychlor 52 52 46 0.000007 0.000007 NA NA NAToxaphene 52 52 46 0.0001 0.0001 NA NA NA




Analyte

Total No. of

Samples



MRL DQOs (mg/L)

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016) 51 51 0 NA 0.0001 NA 0.0001 NAPCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248) 51 51 0 NA 0.0001 NA 0.0001 NAPCB-1254 (Arcolor 1254) 51 51 0 NA 0.0001 NA 0.0001 NAPCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260) 51 51 0 NA 0.0001 NA 0.0001 NAVolatile Organic Compounds1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 84 84 0 — 0.0005 NA 0.0005 NA1,1,1-Trichloroethane 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 84 84 0 — 0.0005 NA 0.0005 NA1,1,2-Trichloroethane 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,1-Dichloroethane 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,1-Dichloroethene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,1-Dichloropropene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,2,3-Trichloropropane 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 84 84 0 — 0.002 NA 0.002 NA1,2-Dibromoethane 53 53 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,2-Dichlorobenzene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,2-Dichloroethane 84 84 0 — 0.0005 NA 0.0005 NA1,2-Dichloropropane 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,3-Dichlorobenzene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1,3-Dichloropropane 84 84 0 — 0.0004 NA 0.0004 NA1,4-Dichlorobenzene 84 84 0 — 0.0005 NA 0.0005 NA2,2-Dichloropropane 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA1-Chlorohexane 17 17 0 — — NA — NA2-Butanone 84 81 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 84 84 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2-Chlorotoluene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA2-Hexanone 84 84 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA4-Chlorotoluene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA4-Isopropyltoluene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA4-Methyl-2-pentanone 84 84 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAAcetone 84 84 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAAcrylonitrile 17 17 0 — — NA — NABenzene 84 83 0 — 0.0004 NA 0.0004 NABromobenzene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NABromochloromethane 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NA




Analyte

Total No. of

Samples



MRL DQOs (mg/L)

Bromodichloromethane 84 84 0 — 0.0005 NA 0.0005 NABromoform 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NABromomethane 84 84 0 — 0.003 NA 0.003 NACarbon disulfide 84 83 0 — 0.002 NA 0.002 NACarbon tetrachloride 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAChlorobenzene 84 84 0 — 0.0005 NA 0.0005 NAChloroethane 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAChloroform 84 84 0 — 0.0004 NA 0.0004 NAChloromethane 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAcis-1,2-Dichloroethene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAcis-1,3-Dichloropropene 84 84 0 — 0.0005 NA 0.0005 NADibromochloromethane 84 84 0 — 0.0005 NA 0.0005 NADibromomethane 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NADichlorodifluoromethane 53 53 0 — — NA NA NAEthylbenzene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAHexachlorobutadiene 69 69 0 — 0.0006 NA — NAIsopropylbenzene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAMethyl iodide 69 69 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAMethylene chloride 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.005 NAMethyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 84 84 0 — 0.005 NA 0.005 NANaphthalene 84 82 0 — 0.001 NA 0.002 NAn-Butylbenzene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAn-Propylbenzene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAo-Xylene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAsec-Butylbenzene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAStyrene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAtert-Butylbenzene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NATetrachloroethene (PCE) 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAToluene 84 76 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAtrans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 17 17 0 — NA NA NA NATrichloroethene (TCE) 85 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NATrichlorofluoromethane 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAVinyl acetate 17 17 0 — NA NA NA NAVinyl chloride 84 84 0 — 0.001 NA 0.001 NAXylene, Isomers m & p 84 84 0 — 0.002 NA 0.002 NA




Analyte

Total No. of

Samples



MRL DQOs (mg/L)

Semivolatile Organic Compounds1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 67 67 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA1,2-Dichlorobenzene 67 67 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA1,3-Dichlorobenzene 67 67 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA1,4-Dichlorobenzene 67 67 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2,4-Dichlorophenol 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2,4-Dimethylphenol 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2,4-Dinitrophenol 83 83 0 — 0.07 NA 0.07 NA2,4-Dinitrotoluene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2,6-Dichlorophenol 15 15 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2,6-Dinitrotoluene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2-Chloronaphthalene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2-Chlorophenol 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 83 83 0 — 0.05 NA 0.05 NA2-Methylnaphthalene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2-Nitroaniline 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA2-Nitrophenol 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA3-Methylphenol/4-Methylphenol Coelution 83 83 0 — 0.02 NA 0.02 NA3-Nitroaniline 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA4-Chloroaniline 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA4-Nitroaniline 83 81 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA4-Nitrophenol 83 83 0 — 0.05 NA 0.05 NAAcenaphthene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAAcenaphthylene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAAcetophenone 46 46 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAAniline 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAAnthracene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAAzobenzene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NABenzo(a)anthracene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NABenzo(a)pyrene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NABenzo(b)fluoranthene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NABenzo(g,h,i)perylene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NABenzo(k)fluoranthene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA




Analyte

Total No. of

Samples



MRL DQOs (mg/L)

Benzoic acid 83 83 0 — 0.05 NA 0.05 NABenzyl alcohol 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NABenzyl butyl phthalate 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAbis-(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAbis-(2-Chloroethyl)ether 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAbis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAbis-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAChrysene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NADibenzo(a,h)anthracene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NADibenzofuran 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NADiethyl phthalate 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NADimethyl phthalate 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NADi-n-butyl phthalate 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NADi-n-octyl phthalate 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAFluoranthene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAFluorene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAHexachlorobenzene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAHexachlorobutadiene 82 82 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAHexachlorocyclopentadiene 83 83 0 — 0.03 NA 0.03 NAHexachloroethane 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAIsophorone 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NANaphthalene 67 67 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NANitrobenzene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAn-Nitrosodimethylamine 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAn-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAn-Nitrosodiphenylamine 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAPentachlorophenol 83 83 0 — 0.05 NA 0.05 NAPhenanthrene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAPhenol 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NAPyrene 83 83 0 — 0.01 NA 0.01 NA

Notes:a. Units for specific conductance are micromhos/centimeter (mmhos/cm).— = DQO not establishedNA = not applicable, parameter was not scheduled for analysisND = not detected


Table A-11 1 of 2

TABLE A-11

Groundwater, Accuracy and Precision

Analyte n

Mean LCS %



MetalsAluminum 643 101 5.8 6% 81 38 45.1 118%Antimony 625 101 6.8 7% 82 21 24.6 116%Arsenic 620 100 4.5 5% 56 9.9 11.5 115%Barium 640 100 4.9 5% 133 8.0 13.6 169%Beryllium 620 100 5.7 6% 10 21 19.2 92%Bismuth 616 99 5.2 5% 2 32 3.5 11%Boron 615 100 7.6 8% 27 16 23.3 142%Cadmium 621 100 4.9 5% 12 14 15.4 112%Calcium 637 101 5.8 6% 141 5.3 6.1 115%Chromium 627 100 5.5 6% 111 23 30.0 132%Cobalt 623 100 5.1 5% 109 16 18.7 116%Copper 629 100 4.9 5% 123 25 28.1 114%Iron 630 103 5.6 5% 75 29 33.9 115%Lead 624 99 4.8 5% 29 27 31.3 117%Magnesium 636 101 5.7 6% 141 4.7 4.5 95%Manganese 620 100 4.9 5% 123 21 31.3 150%Mercury 871 98 18.2 19% 4 36 38.8 109%Molybdenum 620 99 6.2 6% 122 14 29.4 205%Nickel 621 100 5.2 5% 123 15 21.2 142%Potassium 635 101 5.4 5% 142 6.3 11.1 177%Selenium 623 99 5.2 5% 14 32 40.5 127%Silicon 507 102 6.2 6% 72 4.7 4.9 103%Silver 621 100 6.4 6% 7 30 15.1 50%Sodium 635 102 5.9 6% 142 5.0 4.7 94%Thallium 620 98 5.7 6% 7 47 66.3 142%Tin 618 99 7.3 7% 8 31 22.1 71%Vanadium 622 100 5.4 5% 69 14 19.5 136%Zinc 627 100 5.5 6% 66 25 26.7 106%



Table A-11 2 of 2

Analyte n

Mean LCS %




Inorganic ParametersAcidity, total 140 100 3.7 4% 42 18 16.4 91%Alkalinity, total 507 100 5.4 5% 69 3.5 5.7 162%Ammonia, as Nitrogen 709 97 7.8 8% 5 3.0 4.0 133%Dissolved Organic Carbon 9 99 3.8 4% 1 16 — —Total Organic Carbon 107 102 4.2 4% nc nc nc ncChloride 683 99 3.3 3% 72 4.7 9.1 193%Cyanide, total 625 99 11.8 12% 2 3.5 5.0 141%Cyanide, weak acid dissociable 599 98 10.8 11% 1 44 — —Fluoride 645 102 9.2 9% 48 17 22.1 130%Nitrogen as Nitrate-Nitrite 643 100 5.9 6% 57 22 28.0 128%pH 625 100 0.90 0.9% 70 1.4 1.4 98%Total Phosphorus 493 99 8.3 8% 60 32 42.6 132% Orthophosphate 90 98 2.9 3% 4 17 14.7 85%Specific Conductance 553 100 3.5 4% 70 5.3 17.7 336%Sulfate 680 100 7.1 7% 72 2.6 5.6 213%Thiocyanate 412 99 3.9 4% 18 31 29.7 97%Total Dissolved Solids 490 107 11.2 10% 69 12 12.4 102%Total Suspended Solids 445 98 6.4 7% 27 45 50.4 112%

Notes:a. Laboratory accuracy and precision based on surface water and groundwater matrices.— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsnc = primary duplicate pair not collected


TABLE A-12

Groundwater, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates


Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSDMetalsAluminum 96 5.7 9.4 166%Antimony 95 3.2 3.7 115%Arsenic 95 3.1 3.1 102%Barium 94 3.2 2.8 85%Beryllium 91 3.6 3.0 83%Bismuth 89 2.8 2.4 86%Boron 95 3.1 2.7 88%Cadmium 90 2.9 3.0 102%Calcium 97 3.2 4.4 134%Chromium 95 3.1 2.8 88%Cobalt 95 3.7 5.7 157%Copper 94 2.9 2.8 97%Iron 93 3.8 3.9 101%Lead 92 3.4 6.6 193%Magnesium 94 2.6 2.5 96%Manganese 95 3.3 3.5 108%Mercury 154 3.1 4.7 153%Molybdenum 95 3.1 3.2 101%Nickel 94 4.9 17.0 347%Potassium 94 3.1 3.8 125%Selenium 95 3.1 2.7 89%Silicon 41 7.0 17.0 243%Silver 91 4.1 10.0 252%Sodium 95 3.2 4.3 136%Thallium 91 4.0 9.3 232%Tin 90 3.3 3.4 103%Vanadium 95 3.4 3.9 115%Zinc 94 3.1 3.0 95%Inorganic ParametersAcidity, total 49 6.2 7.9 128%Alkalinity, total 80 1.7 2.8 163%Ammonia, as Nitrogen 8 7.5 5.0 67%Dissolved Organic Carbon 7 1.4 0.79 55%Chloride 125 1.7 2.8 168%Cyanide, total 4 23 10.7 46%Cyanide, weak acid dissociable 0 — — —Fluoride 76 10 12.9 128%Nitrogen as Nitrate-Nitrite 37 19 29.1 156%pH 88 1.0 0.9 149%Total Phosphorus 68 15 23.3 161% Orthophosphate 18 16 16.4 101%Specific Conductance 93 1.8 2.8 152%Sulfate 125 1.1 1.4 127%Thiocyanate 76 2.6 3.4 130%Total Dissolved Solids 91 7.7 14.7 192%Total Suspended Solids 30 37 44.6 119%

Note:— = insufficient sample count to calculate statistics


TABLE A-13

Groundwater Comparability

Analyte n-pairsMean Field

Triplicate RPD (%) SD RSDMetalsAluminum 73 53 51.8 98%Antimony 62 24 27.0 114%Arsenic 65 19 21.2 112%Barium 133 11 16.0 149%Beryllium 12 42 30.4 73%Bismuth 0 — — —Boron 38 53 47.5 90%Cadmium 10 37 29.2 80%Calcium 139 6.7 7.3 109%Chromium 110 35 32.3 91%Cobalt 108 31 27.8 90%Copper 108 43 35.8 84%Iron 66 75 58.3 78%Lead 29 57 50.7 90%Magnesium 139 7.3 6.2 86%Manganese 124 31 41.0 131%Mercury 2 64 74.2 115%Molybdenum 121 16 26.8 172%Nickel 117 30 28.0 95%Potassium 113 11 13.0 123%Selenium 9 9.3 6.3 68%Silicon 70 8.0 5.5 69%Silver 7 54 28.8 53%Sodium 140 6.6 5.3 79%Thallium 4 37 55.0 150%Tin 5 87 56.9 66%Vanadium 76 27 27.0 99%Zinc 58 52 41.2 80%Inorganic ParametersAcidity, total 46 36 28.8 81%Alkalinity, total 68 7.8 8.4 108%Ammonia, as Nitrogen 0 — — —Dissolved Organic Carbon 2 70 6.4 9%Chloride 70 15 10.7 70%Cyanide, total 0 — — —Cyanide, weak acid dissociable 0 — — —Fluoride 32 35 28.2 80%Nitrogen as Nitrate-Nitrite 47 42 27.7 67%pH 70 4.4 4.5 101%Total Phosphorus 59 59 55.6 95% Orthophosphate 0 — — —Specific Conductance 70 35 57.0 165%Sulfate 70 10 10.4 102%Thiocyanate 4 124 45.3 37%Total Dissolved Solids 65 30 28.2 95%Total Suspended Solids 7 67 61.6 92%




TABLE A-14

Summary of Sensitivity for GroundwaterNo. of No. of ND Samples

Analyte

Total Number of Samples



MetalsAluminum 1121 16 1 0.025 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002Antimony 1121 242 3 0.0002 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005Arsenic 1121 499 3 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005Barium 1121 0 0 0.0003 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005Beryllium 1121 1010 242 0.00003 0.00002 0.00002 0.00005 0.00005Bismuth 1111 975 2 0.005 0.0001 0.0001 0.00005 0.00005Boron 1121 719 237 0.01 0.0005 0.0005 0.005 0.005Cadmium 1121 956 247 0.0001 0.00002 0.00002 0.00005 0.00005Calcium 1144 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Chromium 1121 103 2 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002Cobalt 1121 69 0 0.0001 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002Copper 1121 0 0 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001Iron 1121 230 1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Lead 1121 461 105 0.0002 0.00002 0.00002 0.0001 0.0001Magnesium 1144 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Manganese 1121 22 0 0.001 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005Mercury 1092 918 0 0.0002 0.0002 0.000005 0.000005 0.000005Molybdenum 1121 58 0 0.001 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005Nickel 1121 0 0 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002Potassium 1144 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Selenium 1121 912 3 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001Silicon 583 0 0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Silver 1121 1034 3 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002Sodium 1144 1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Thallium 1121 1006 4 0.00005 0.00001 0.00001 0.00002 0.00002Tin 1121 976 3 0.001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002Vanadium 1121 540 122 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.001 0.001Zinc 1121 86 1 0.0015 0.0005 0.0005 0.001 0.001

MRL DQOs (mg/L)




Analyte




MRL DQOs (mg/L)

Inorganic ParametersAcidity, total 560 130 0 10 10 10 10 10Alkalinity, total 560 18 0 10 10 10 10 10Ammonia, as Nitrogen 560 326 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Dissolved Organic Carbon 107 37 0 NA NA NA NA 0.5Chloride 583 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1Total Cyanide 560 491 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.005WAD Cyanide 688 623 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.005Fluoride 560 164 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite 560 87 0 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Total Phosphorus 560 40 23 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Orthophosphate 100 23 0 NA NA 0.2 — NASpecific Conductancea 560 0 0 2 2 2 1 1Sulfate 583 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1Thiocyanate 560 398 0 1 1 1 1 1Total Dissolved Solids 560 3 0 10 10 10 10 10Total Suspended Solids 560 269 0 5 5 5 5 0.5

Notes: a. Specific conductance units = µmhos/cm— = DQO not establishedNA = not applicable, parameter was not scheduled for analysis



TABLE A-15

Sediment, Accuracy and Precision

Analyte n

Mean LCS %



Inorganic ParametersAcid-Volatile Sulfide 8 85 2.9 3% 2 68 19.1 28%Ammonia, as Nitrogen 112 97 9.0 9% 39 29 30.0 103%Chloride 88 100 14.1 14% 34 34 25.0 75%Fluoride 103 106 14.3 14% 19 61 49.4 81%Sulfate 85 105 12.2 12% 40 34 28.8 82%Cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociablec 3 112 8.1 7% 3 68 39.0 58%Total Cyanide 160 99 12.8 13% 18 37 43.8 119%Total Solids 44 11 11.5 104%Metals Aluminum 103 102 11.1 11% 41 13 13.9 101%Antimony 104 98 21.1 22% 29 23 20.5 91%Arsenic 103 100 5.8 6% 40 22 20.8 94%Barium 105 103 7.1 7% 41 17 16.2 95%Beryllium 100 101 9.1 9% 37 15 16.3 105%Bismuth 74 107 47.2 44% 5 23 22.0 97%Boron 103 95 9.8 10% 17 23 21.1 91%Cadmium 103 100 6.6 7% 27 22 21.9 100%Cadmium-SEMc 6 102 3.5 3% 3 1.7 2.9 173%Calcium 102 102 7.9 8% 41 14 13.8 99%Chromium 102 102 8.5 8% 41 19 14.9 76%Cobalt 102 100 10.7 11% 41 15 15.7 107%Copper 103 102 6.5 6% 41 16 16.0 102%Copper-SEMc 6 100 1.0 1% 8 10 13.8 135%Iron 103 102 10.5 10% 40 14 12.5 86%Lead 103 99 8.4 8% 41 16 17.5 112%Lead-SEMc 6 101 2.8 3% 6 16 31.5 197%Magnesium 102 102 7.3 7% 41 14 12.9 94%Manganese 106 103 7.8 8% 41 15 18.6 121%Mercury 123 97 10.9 11% 13 57 42.5 75%Mercury-SEMc 7 96 10.0 10% NA NA NA NAMolybdenum 101 98 10.1 10% 27 19 21.8 116%Nickel 104 102 7.3 7% 41 16 15.5 95%Nickel-SEMc 6 100 4.0 4% 8 16 23.8 145%Potassium 102 102 6.6 6% 41 14 17.7 122%Selenium 103 101 8.8 9% 19 29 21.0 73%Silver 103 100 17.9 18% 16 19 25.5 136%Sodium 102 101 7.2 7% 39 13 11.8 89%Sulfurc 1 99 — — 8 20 22.5 110%Thallium 99 99 7.4 7% 23 30 28.7 97%Tin 99 100 14.0 14% 4 23 17.1 74%Vanadium 103 100 9.4 9% 41 17 13.7 82%Zinc 101 101 6.8 7% 40 12 11.5 96%Zinc-SEMc 6 102 2.2 2% 8 7.1 6.7 95%

Laboratory Accuracy and Precisiona Field Precisionb



Analyte n

Mean LCS %




Organics d Total Organic Carbon 28 101 10.4 10% 2 28 7.8 27%Gasoline-range Organics 9 102 6.2 6% nc nc nc ncDiesel-range Organics 20 92 8.6 9% nc nc nc ncResidual-range Organics 20 96 10.0 10% nc nc nc ncBenzene 2 103 4.2 4% nc nc nc ncEthylbenzene 2 102 2.8 3% nc nc nc nco-Xylene 2 100 2.8 3% nc nc nc ncToluene 2 98 4.9 5% nc nc nc ncXylene, Isomers m & p 2 101 4.2 4% nc nc nc nc1-Methylnaphthalene 2 78 12.0 15% nc nc nc nc2-Methylnaphthalene 2 74 11.3 15% nc nc nc ncAcenaphthene 2 80 14.8 19% nc nc nc ncAcenaphthylene 2 78 15.6 20% nc nc nc ncAnthracene 2 69 18.4 27% nc nc nc ncBenzo(a)anthracene 2 87 17.0 20% nc nc nc ncBenzo(a)pyrene 2 66 10.6 16% nc nc nc ncBenzo(b)fluoranthene 2 92 17.0 18% nc nc nc ncBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 2 94 24.7 26% nc nc nc ncBenzo(k)fluoranthene 2 89 24.0 27% nc nc nc ncChrysene 2 94 20.5 22% nc nc nc ncDibenzo(a,h)anthracene 2 94 30.4 32% nc nc nc ncFluoranthene 2 90 12.0 13% nc nc nc ncFluorene 2 82 19.1 23% nc nc nc ncIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2 94 29.0 31% nc nc nc ncNaphthalene 2 74 9.2 12% nc nc nc ncPhenanthrene 2 86 21.9 25% nc nc nc ncPyrene 2 91 12.7 14% nc nc nc nc

Notes:a. Laboratory accuracy and precision calculated from soil and sediment LCS datab. Field precision calculated from sediment field duplicate datac. LCS values from sediment data onlyd. VOCs/SVOCs reported only if enough data were present to calculate statisticsGray shaded cells = data not available, analyte not analyzed — = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsNA = not applicable, analyte was not detected in the samplenc = field duplicates not collected


TABLE A-16

Sediment, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates


Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSDInorganic ParametersAcid-Volatile Sulfide 1 89 — —Ammonia, as Nitrogen 47 21 21.8 103%Chloride 47 19 21.6 116%Fluoride 33 10 8.8 85%Sulfate 59 15 19.1 130%Cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociable 2 43 38.2 89%Total Cyanide 40 22 21.0 98%Total Organic Carbon 3 5 6.1 122%Total Solids 13 2 3.8 204%MetalsAluminum 64 30 39.6 133%Antimony 55 62 84.4 135%Arsenic 51 39 66.9 171%Barium 54 45 68.7 154%Beryllium 50 40 69.0 171%Bismuth 47 46 74.1 162%Boron 47 26 46.5 181%Cadmium 48 41 70.5 170%Cadmium-SEM 2 11 15.6 141%Calcium 59 35 52.2 149%Chromium 52 39 66.3 169%Cobalt 52 42 70.5 168%Copper 52 41 67.8 165%Copper-SEM 5 9.2 10.8 118%Iron 65 49 62.5 128%Lead 51 39 68.3 174%Lead-SEM 4 9.0 4.0 44%Magnesium 59 36 48.4 135%Manganese 61 48 64.0 134%Mercury 27 4.5 5.3 117%Mercury-SEM 0 NA NA NAMolybdenum 51 43 71.3 165%Nickel 51 39 67.3 173%Nickel-SEM 5 22 14.4 65%Potassium 53 37 58.7 159%Selenium 51 44 71.2 161%Silver 47 48 75.3 157%Sodium 54 43 63.7 150%Sulfur 4 4.0 6.7 167%Thallium 47 47 75.3 160%Tin 46 44 72.9 167%Vanadium 55 45 70.0 156%Zinc 51 40 67.0 167%Zinc-SEM 5 9.8 7.6 77%Notes:— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsNA = not applicable, analyte was not detected in the sample


TABLE A-17

Sediment Comparability


Triplicate RPD (%) SD RSDInorganic ParametersAcid-Volatile Sulfide 1 123 — —Ammonia, as Nitrogen 32 142 53.5 38%Chloride 11 105 47.6 45%Fluoride 2 97 102 105%Sulfate 26 99 57.3 58%Cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociable NA NA NA NATotal Cyanide 6 94 30.0 32%Total Solids 47 16 16.7 104%Metals Aluminum 33 22 15.2 69%Antimony 25 63 47.8 76%Arsenic 33 27 18.9 69%Barium 33 20 18.3 93%Beryllium 31 27 30.2 112%Bismuth 4 48 35.0 73%Boron 8 70 48.3 69%Cadmium 22 68 49.5 73%Cadmium-SEM 3 72 47.5 66%Calcium 33 23 19.7 87%Chromium 33 27 17.8 67%Cobalt 33 18 18.0 98%Copper 33 21 17.7 85%Copper-SEM 8 56 46.5 82%Iron 32 21 15.5 74%Lead 33 23 26.3 113%Lead-SEM 6 58 41.5 72%Magnesium 33 18 12.5 70%Manganese 33 20 16.6 82%Mercury 10 72 50.4 69%Mercury-SEM NA NA NA NAMolybdenum 22 33 33.7 102%Nickel 33 19 18.9 99%Nickel-SEM 8 73 39.5 54%Potassium 29 26 26.4 102%Selenium 13 71 55.3 78%Silver 15 45 48.1 107%Sodium 32 29 30.0 104%Sulfur 8 69 33.5 48%Thallium 22 45 44.9 100%Tin 1 7 — —Vanadium 33 28 17.0 61%Zinc 32 20 11.4 56%Zinc-SEM 8 63 48.6 77%Organics a Total Organic Carbon 2 7.5 4.9 66%

Notes:

— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsNA = not applicable, analyte was not detected in the sample

a. Organics data reported only if enough data were present to calculate statistics



TABLE A-18

Summary of Sensitivity for Sediment

Analyte

Total Number of Samples 2004 2005 2006 2007

Inorganic ParametersAcid-Volatile Sulfide 42 32 21 NA NA 0.5 NAChloride 306 44 1 1 1 1 10Fluoride 306 112 7 2 2 2 2.5Sulfate 306 6 0 2 2 2 2.5Cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociab 14 0 0 NA NA — NATotal Cyanide 317 130 33 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.025Total Solids 223 0 0 — — — —Nitrogen as Ammonia 318 18 18 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5MetalsAluminum 321 0 0 2 2 2 0.5Antimony 321 67 31 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.3Arsenic 321 9 8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3Barium 321 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Beryllium 321 16 16 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05Bismuth 321 234 123 — 0.05 0.05 50Boron 320 183 38 20 20 20 0.25Cadmium 321 69 68 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Cadmium-SEM 43 23 9 NA NA 0.2 NACalcium 321 0 0 10 10 10 100Chromium 321 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05Cobalt 321 2 2 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.025Copper 321 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.25Copper-SEM 43 0 0 NA NA 0.4 NAIron 321 1 0 4 4 4 10Lead 321 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Lead-SEM 43 16 13 NA NA 3 NAMagnesium 321 0 0 4 4 4 100Manganese 321 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.3Mercury 321 179 29 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.1Mercury-SEM 43 42 31 NA NA 10 NAMolybdenum 321 66 66 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.3Nickel 321 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3Nickel-SEM 43 4 4 NA NA 0.5 NAPotassium 321 2 1 400 400 400 100Selenium 321 84 5 1 1 1 0.05Silver 321 167 167 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.025Sodium 321 32 26 20 20 20 100Thallium 321 93 12 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05Tin 321 14 10 1 1 1 0.05Vanadium 321 1 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1Zinc 321 3 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 1

Zinc-SEM 43 0 0 NA NA 0.4 NA

OrganicsTotal Organic Carbona 45 0 0 NA 0.05 NA 0.05Diesel Range Organics 12 0 0 NA 40 NA 20Gasoline Range Organics 7 7 0 NA 5 NA 2.5

No. of Samples with ND Results

No. of ND Samples for Which MDL Does Not Meet DQO

MRL DQOs (mg/kg)



Analyte

Total Number of Samples 2004 2005 2006 2007


No. of ND Samples for Which MDL Does Not Meet DQO

MRL DQOs (mg/kg)

Residual Range Organics 12 0 0 NA 100 NA 100Benzene 6 6 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.013Ethylbenzene 6 6 4 NA 0.005 NA 0.025o-Xylene 6 6 5 NA 0.002 NA 0.05Toluene 6 6 5 NA 0.005 NA 0.05Xylene, Isomers m & p 6 6 5 NA 0.002 NA 0.051-Methylnaphthalene 6 6 0 NA — NA 0.0062-Methylnaphthalene 6 6 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Acenaphthene 6 6 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.005Acenaphthylene 6 5 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Anthracene 6 5 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Benzo(a)anthracene 6 5 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Benzo(a)pyrene 6 5 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6 5 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6 5 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6 5 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Chrysene 6 5 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 6 6 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Fluoranthene 6 5 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Fluorene 6 6 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 6 5 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Naphthalene 6 5 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Phenanthrene 6 5 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006Pyrene 6 5 0 NA 0.005 NA 0.006

Notes:a. The MRL unit reported for total organic carbon is percent.— = MRL DQO not establishedNA = not applicable, analyte not scheduled for analysis


TABLE A-19

Vegetation, Accuracy and Precision

Analyte n

Mean LCS %



Inorganic Parameters - TQChloride 13 95 43.3 45% 23 43 44.5 103%Fluoride 15 100 8.4 8% 20 27 41.2 154%Sulfate 12 102 10.4 10% 23 51 40.0 79%Total Cyanide 70 100 7.4 7% 19 68 45.6 67%Nitrogen as Ammonia NA NA NA NA 22 27 25.2 93%Total Solidsa NA NA NA NA 123 4.2 6.3 150%Inorganic Parameters - WQChloride 32 97 1.4 1% NA NA NA NAFluoride 4 101 0.5 0.5% NA NA NA NANitrogen as Ammonia 24 96 1.6 2% NA NA NA NASulfate 29 93 2.0 2% NA NA NA NA

Metals - WQ Aluminum 113 99 5.5 6% 115 20 24.6 123%Antimony 77 97 7.1 7% 62 33 31.0 94%Arsenic 76 101 5.0 5% 37 30 33.7 112%Barium 81 101 4.0 4% 115 12 14.4 120%Beryllium 74 101 5.9 6% 29 22 19.1 87%Bismuth 64 97 4.7 5% 12 32 37.9 118%Boron 81 100 4.9 5% 95 11 10.8 98%Cadmium 76 100 4.2 4% 89 20 19.8 99%Calcium 79 99 3.9 4% 115 6.0 6.7 112%Chromium 80 101 4.0 4% 27 21 22.6 108%Cobalt 76 101 5.2 5% 113 14 15.5 111%Copper 74 101 4.7 5% 115 15 24.4 163%Iron 81 101 11.1 11% 115 15 21.5 143%Lead 76 99 3.9 4% 105 26 27.6 106%Magnesium 81 97 4.1 4% 115 5.7 7.8 137%Manganese 82 99 4.5 5% 115 10 16.1 161%Mercury 76 102 7.4 7% 97 19 18.9 99%Molybdenum 76 102 3.9 4% 95 14 17.6 126%Nickel 74 100 4.7 5% 115 29 33.2 114%Potassium 80 99 4.4 4% 115 6.5 13.3 205%Selenium 75 101 7.4 7% 15 40 42.6 106%Silver 78 98 6.0 6% 31 28 30.7 110%Sodium 80 100 5.7 6% 113 14 14.0 100%Thallium 76 100 7.6 8% 50 22 22.3 101%Tin 72 100 4.2 4% 8 16 17.1 107%Vanadium 76 101 4.5 4% 98 26 23.6 91%Zinc 81 97 5.0 5% 115 9.0 10.3 114%

Notes:a. LCS not analyzed for total solids.— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsNA = not applicable

WQ = laboratory water fortified with known metal concentrations

Laboratory Accuracy and Precision Field Precision

TQ = standard reference material (SRM) for vegetation or aquatic animal tissue, as appropriate, with externally certified constituent concentrations


TABLE A-20

Vegetation, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates

Analyte nMean Laboratory

Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSDInorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 16 15 10.8 74%Chloride 17 3.5 4.0 114%Fluoride 15 14 16.1 118%Sulfate 17 6.2 6.3 101%Total Cyanide 16 38 53.3 139%Total Solids 97 4.2 9.2 220%MetalsAluminum 167 5.7 5.7 102%Antimony 33 32 28.7 90%Arsenic 16 12 23.7 194%Barium 62 3.5 3.9 111%Beryllium 13 5.5 6.8 123%Bismuth 16 58 41.7 71%Boron 53 9.2 12.6 137%Cadmium 47 11 13.5 126%Calcium 62 2.5 2.3 93%Chromium 21 20 26.6 133%Cobalt 62 5.3 6.8 128%Copper 62 3.6 3.7 105%Iron 62 4.8 6.9 144%Lead 61 14 22.2 158%Magnesium 62 1.9 1.9 95%Manganese 62 1.9 1.9 101%Mercury 56 16 16.6 102%Molybdenum 49 12 17.2 140%Nickel 62 5.4 6.1 113%Potassium 62 2.4 4.0 164%Selenium 8 23 30.5 135%Silver 15 20 21.3 109%Sodium 59 8.9 9.6 107%Thallium 28 29 47.0 161%Tin 3 27 5.8 21%Vanadium 52 22 19.8 92%Zinc 62 2.5 2.3 93%


TABLE A-21

Vegetation Comparability

Analyte n-pairs


Inorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 21 135 53.4 40%Chloride 22 37 40.3 109%Fluoride 22 188 23.5 13%Sulfate 22 84 49.0 58%Total Cyanide 6 71 59.3 84%Total Solids 90 9.1 23.5 258%Metals Aluminum 71 32 33.9 106%Antimony 11 93 72.3 78%Arsenic 16 86 52.9 62%Barium 105 27 22.7 84%Beryllium 1 46 — —Bismuth 3 199 0.6 0%Boron 3 32 33.6 105%Cadmium 47 46 50.5 110%Calcium 105 17 26.0 153%Chromium 14 97 52.5 54%Cobalt 72 31 26.9 87%Copper 105 23 25.0 109%Iron 100 24 28.4 118%Lead 37 64 52.5 82%Magnesium 105 15 22.8 152%Manganese 105 22 27.9 127%Mercury 16 63 44.5 71%Molybdenum 28 27 22.5 83%Nickel 64 47 46.6 99%Potassium 105 14 16.6 119%Selenium 5 45 50.4 112%Silver 12 81 63.0 78%Sodium 63 51 62.7 123%Thallium 22 77 74.0 96%Tin 2 54 53.7 99%Vanadium 41 74 54.1 73%Zinc 102 21 19.4 92%



TABLE A-22

Summary of Sensitivity for Vegetation

No. of ND Samples

Analyte

for Which MDL Does Not Meet DQO 2004 2005 2006 2007

Inorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 250 19 19 0.2 NA NA NAChloride 250 6 6 1 NA NA NAFluoride 250 43 0 2 NA NA NASulfate 250 1 1 2 NA NA NATotal Cyanide 1048 703 189 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5MetalsAluminum 1050 3 3 2 2 2 2Antimony 1048 381 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Arsenic 1048 726 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5Barium 1048 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Beryllium 1048 829 21 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Bismuth 1048 696 90 NA 0.05 0.05 0.02Boron 1048 70 0 20 20 20 20Cadmium 1048 159 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Calcium 1048 0 0 10 10 10 10Chromium 1030 606 415 0.2 0.2 0.2 2Cobalt 1048 4 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Copper 1048 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Iron 1048 0 0 4 4 4 4Lead 1048 14 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Magnesium 1048 0 0 4 4 4 4Manganese 1048 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 1Mercury 1048 137 19 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Molybdenum 1048 89 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Nickel 1048 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Potassium 1048 1 0 400 400 400 400Selenium 1030 847 0 1 1 1 1Silver 1048 580 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Sodium 1048 19 0 20 20 20 20Thallium 1048 507 21 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Tin 1030 317 1 10 10 10 10Vanadium 1048 107 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Zinc 1048 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Notes:NA = not applicable, analyte not scheduled for analysisND = not detected



MRL DQOs (mg/kg)


TABLE A-23

Soil, Accuracy and Precision

Analyte n

Mean LCS %



Inorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 112 97 9.0 9% 28 27 21.5 79%Chloride 88 100 14.1 14% 16 38 31.8 83%Fluoride 103 106 14.3 14% 6 30 23.4 77%pH 1 98 — — 3 2.7 3.1 115%Total Cyanide 160 99 12.8 13% 24 30 25.5 84%Total Solidsc NA NA NA NA 32 9.0 15.1 168%Sulfate 85 105 12.2 12% 24 31 27.4 89%MetalsAluminum 103 102 11.1 11% 30 22 33.0 152%Antimony 104 98 21.1 22% 19 17 15.5 93%Arsenic 103 100 5.8 6% 24 25 27.3 109%Barium 105 103 7.1 7% 30 17 18.1 107%Beryllium 100 101 9.1 9% 28 21 18.7 90%Bismuth 74 107 47.2 44% 8 8.0 11.2 140%Boron 103 95 9.8 10% 9 25 21.3 85%Cadmium 103 100 6.6 7% 17 27 25.4 96%Calcium 102 102 7.9 8% 30 18 20.7 118%Chromium 102 102 8.5 8% 27 18 20.5 117%Cobalt 102 100 10.7 11% 27 25 24.6 99%Copper 103 102 6.5 6% 30 20 19.0 97%Iron 103 102 10.5 10% 30 30 29.8 99%Lead 103 99 8.4 8% 30 17 18.7 112%Magnesium 102 102 7.3 7% 30 21 24.0 117%Manganese 106 103 7.8 8% 30 33 37.3 115%Mercury 123 97 10.8 11% 26 28 26.6 95%Molybdenum 101 98 10.1 10% 17 29 25.9 90%Nickel 104 102 7.3 7% 30 22 20.2 93%Potassium 102 102 6.6 6% 28 17 20.3 123%Selenium 103 101 8.8 9% 24 22 19.3 90%Silver 103 100 17.9 18% 13 13 11.5 91%Sodium 102 101 7.2 7% 25 16 18.1 112%Thallium 99 99 7.4 8% 17 17 20.8 124%Tin 99 100 14.0 14% 0 — — —Vanadium 103 100 9.4 9% 25 24 29.6 125%Zinc 101 101 6.8 7% 30 22 27.2 125%OrganicsTotal Organic Carbon 28 101 10.4 10% 12 31 35.4 115%Diesel Range Organics 20 92 8.6 9% 4 19 4.3 23%Residual Range Organics 20 96 10.0 10% 6 29 26.2 91%

Notes:a. Laboratory accuracy and precision calculated from soil and sediment LCS datab. Field precision calculated from soil field duplicate datac. LCS not analyzed for total solids— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsNA = not applicable



TABLE A-24

Soil, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates


Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSDInorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 28 20 15.4 78%Chloride 27 17 15.2 92%Fluoride 7 27 33.2 124%pH 2 0 0.0 —Sulfate 39 25 26.4 106%Total Cyanide 43 37 28.1 77%Total Solids 12 3.2 3.7 118%MetalsAluminum 34 36 33.3 92%Antimony 27 79 91.0 116%Arsenic 22 52 76.4 148%Barium 26 73 81.1 112%Beryllium 23 57 80.5 141%Bismuth 23 58 80.6 140%Boron 22 30 50.9 170%Cadmium 23 58 81.0 141%Calcium 31 64 67.2 105%Chromium 22 51 75.2 147%Cobalt 23 57 80.5 141%Copper 23 57 79.5 140%Iron 37 63 59.4 95%Lead 22 50 76.1 152%Magnesium 34 60 58.0 97%Manganese 33 70 66.0 94%Mercury 20 3.2 4.4 139%Molybdenum 23 57 81.4 143%Nickel 24 55 79.3 145%Potassium 24 59 74.8 127%Selenium 22 51 77.2 151%Silver 23 59 82.8 140%Sodium 25 61 75.4 124%Thallium 23 59 81.9 139%Tin 20 57 81.7 143%Vanadium 27 59 74.4 127%Zinc 24 54 74.5 138%OrganicsTotal Organic Carbon 4 18 12.5 71%Diesel Range Organics 3 1.7 2.9 173%Residual Range Organics 3 3.0 5.2 173%




TABLE A-25a

2006 Results for Blind Performance Evaluation of Soil Samples

ParameterERA Certified Value (mg/kg)

SGS Result

(mg/kg)

Difference from Certified Value,

SGS

CAS Result

(mg/kg)


Value, CAS

Boron 130 72.7 - 187 129 99% 138 106%Calcium 3640 2880 - 4400 NA NA 3710 102%Iron 14500 7340 - 21600 NA NA 14600 191%Magnesium 3000 2310 - 3690 NA NA 2890 96%Mercury 4180 2850 - 5520 3720 89% 3950 94%Potassium 2410 1720.0 - 3100 NA NA 2390 99%Sodium 574 319.0 - 829 NA NA 576 100%Tin 107 74.7 - 139 NA NA 112 105%

Aluminum 8270 4320.0 - 12200 6840 83% 7260 88%Antimony 56 D.L. - 153 49.6 89% 43.4 78%Arsenic 255 196.0 - 314 254 100% 262 103%Barium 469 370.0 - 568 439 94% 511 109%Beryllium 86 66.8 - 106 72.5 84% 91.2 106%Cadmium 119 94.7 - 143 99.6 84% 130 109%Calcium 3760 2980.0 - 4540 3240 86% NA NAChromium 71 55.7 - 87 68.1 96% 67.9 95%Cobalt 80 64.0 - 95 72.1 91% 83.4 105%Copper 96 77.6 - 115 92.6 96% 102 106%Iron 13200 6590.0 - 19900 13400 102% NA NALead 169 133.0 - 205 163 96% 174 103%Magnesium 2990 2230.0 - 3750 2700 90% NA NAManganese 364 292.0 - 436 332 91% 364 100%Molybdenum 80 60.9 - 98 76.5 96% 86.4 109%Nickel 101 82.0 - 120 84.0 83% 103.0 102%Potassium 2420 1670.0 - 3170 2160 89% NA NASelenium 171 129.0 - 213 180 105% 195 114%Silver 116 36.0 - 196 121 104% 125 108%Sodium 575 418.0 - 732 462 80% NA NAThallium 203 155.0 - 251 201 99% 208 102%


Limits (mg/kg) Metals by Method SW6010B, SW7471A

Metals by Method SW6020



ParameterERA Certified Value (mg/kg)

SGS Result

(mg/kg)

Difference from Certified Value,

SGS

CAS Result

(mg/kg)


Value, CAS


Limits (mg/kg) Tin 104 47.8 - 160 108 104% NA NAVanadium 134 101.0 - 166 140 104% 130 97%Zinc 202 159.0 - 244 177 88% 208 103%Anions and NutrientsTotal Cyanide 3.30 0.092 - 4.15 0.63 19.09% 3.5 106%Chloride 9.92 7.32 - 12.5 10.6 106.85% 7.6 77%Fluoride 4.48 3.43 - 5.53 3.91 87.28% 6.4 143%Sulfate 10.80 8.61 - 13.0 12.1 112.04% 11.8 109%Total Organic Carbon 0.838 0.424 - 1.25 1.06 126.49% 0.17 20%

Notes:Bold = does not meet performance acceptance limitsNA = not applicable



TABLE A-25b2007 Results for Blind Performance Evaluation of Soil Samples

ParameterRTC Certified Value (mg/kg)

ACZ Result

(mg/kg)


Value, ACZ

CAS Result

(mg/kg)


Value, CASSTL Result

(mg/kg)


Value, STL

Aluminum 9200 3950.0 - 14400 17600 191% 7140 78% - -Barium 83.0 50.9 - 115 103 124% 72 87% - -Bismuth 0.300 0.00 - 0.600 ND, <4 <1333% - - ND, <0.42 <140%Boron 8.60 0.00 - 24.3 - - 3.9 45% ND, <1.7 <20%Calcium 23500 16800 - 30200 23700 101% 24000 102% 22000 94%Iron 17100 10100 - 24100 19400 113% 16800 98% 15000 88%Magnesium 13600 10200 - 17000 14700 108% 13400 99% 12000 88%Manganese 184 140 - 228 199 108% 189 103% - -Mercury 0.221 0.0908 - 0.351 0.22 100% 0.224 101% 0.35 158%Potassium 2070 833 - 3310 3590 173% 1860 90% 1700 82%Sodium 401 186 - 616 380 95% 308 77% 420 105%Titanium 80 44.0 - 116 - - 98.1 123% 46 58%Zinc 69.9 42.6 - 97.2 - - 66.0 94% - -

Aluminum 9200 3950.0 - 14400 - - - - 7300 79%Antimony 0.360 0.198 - 0.522 ND, <1 <278% 0.21 58% 0.37 103%Arsenic 6.60 2.40 - 10.8 8.2 124% 5.47 83% 7.8 118%Barium 83.0 50.9 - 115 - - - - 96 116%Bismuth 0.300 0.00 - 0.600 - - 0.28 93% - -Beryllium 0.470 0.0500 - 0.890 0.69 147% 0.44 94% 0.48 102%Boron 8.60 0.00 - 24.3 22 256% - - - -Cadmium 0.520 0.193 - 0.847 0.54 104% 0.284 55% 0.50 96%Chromium 14.3 0.290 - 28.3 26.1 183% - - 18 126%Cobalt 6.04 4.66 - 7.42 6.85 113% - - 7.0 116%Copper 16.1 10.4 - 21.8 16.6 103% - - 16 99%Lead 15.0 9.78 - 20.2 16.8 112% 15.8 105% 15 100%Manganese 184 140 - 228 - - - - 200 109%Molybdenum 1.16 0.849 - 1.47 1 86% 0.92 79% 1.2 103%Nickel 17.5 12.5 - 22.5 19.5 111% 17.6 101% 20 114%Selenium 0.800 0 - 1.02 0.72 90% ND, <0.2 <25% 0.6 75%

Performance Acceptance Limits

(mg/kg) Metals by Method SW6010B, SW7471A

Metals by Method SW6020



ParameterRTC Certified Value (mg/kg)

ACZ Result

(mg/kg)


Value, ACZ

CAS Result

(mg/kg)


Value, CASSTL Result

(mg/kg)


Value, STL

Performance Acceptance Limits

(mg/kg) Silver 0.237 0.163 - 0.311 0.3 127% 0.19 80% 0.22 93%Thallium 1.00 0.00 - 5.00 1.0 100% - - 0.18 18%Vanadium 22.1 10.2 - 34.0 45.2 205% 22.4 101% 24 109%Zinc 69.9 42.6 - 97.2 76 109% - - 70 100%

Ammonia, as Nitrogen 17.0 5.78 - 28.2 13.3 78% 16.6 98% 140 824%Total Cyanide 6.04 3.32 - 8.76 6.9 114% 7.2 119% 4.9 81%Chloride 13.5 7.42 - 19.6 10 74% 14.0 104% 15 111%Fluoride 8.90 0.00 - 14.20 2 22% ND, <0.13 <1% 9.6 108%Sulfate 290.00 116.00 - 464.0 160 55% 348 120% 330 114%Notes:Bold = does not meet performance acceptance limitsNA = not applicableND = not detected, MDL shown

Anions and Nutrients


TABLE A-26

Soil Comparability

Analyte n-pairs


Inorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 17 181 32.0 18%Chloride 7 11 20.5 18%Fluoride 3 78 40.5 52%pH 3 4.3 4.9 115%Total Cyanide 12 136 48.8 36%Total Solids 27 8.0 11.5 144%Sulfate 12 99 49.1 50%MetalsAluminum 25 33 37.6 114%Antimony 16 42 31.5 76%Arsenic 21 39 37.7 96%Barium 25 31 33.2 106%Beryllium 23 25 22.8 93%Bismuth 7 22.0 34.0 154%Boron 7 64 31.9 50%Cadmium 15 79 48.9 61%Calcium 25 31 31.3 100%Chromium 23 38 32.4 86%Cobalt 23 39 42.0 109%Copper 25 34 29.5 87%Iron 25 42 39.6 95%Lead 25 31 30.2 98%Magnesium 25 31 31.3 101%Manganese 25 43 49.1 114%Mercury 19 67 50.7 76%Molybdenum 15 20 26.5 131%Nickel 25 37 33.2 89%Potassium 19 46 34.5 75%Selenium 17 63 45.8 72%Silver 14 31 36.4 118%Sodium 20 36 36.4 101%Thallium 16 31 36.8 118%Tin 0 — — —Vanadium 21 38 30.1 79%Zinc 25 39 37.4 97%OrganicsTotal Organic Carbon 9 56 41.3 74%Diesel Range Organics 3 49 27.7 57%Residual Range Organics 4 46 41.7 90%


Comparability


TABLE A-27

Summary of Sensitivity for Soil


Analyte



for Which MDL Does Not Meet DQO 2004 2005 2006 2007

Inorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 279 21 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5Chloride 279 91 10 1 1 1 10Fluoride 279 213 23 2 2 2 2.5pH 30 0 0 — — — —Sulfate 279 26 12 2 2 2 2.5Total Cyanide 281 40 29 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.025Total Solids 285 0 0 — — — —MetalsAluminum 281 0 0 2 2 2 0.5Antimony 281 43 37 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.3Arsenic 281 21 21 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3Barium 281 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Beryllium 281 27 26 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05Bismuth 280 166 64 — 0.05 0.05 50Boron 281 186 37 20 20 20 0.25Cadmium 281 114 114 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Calcium 281 0 0 10 10 10 100Chromium 281 3 3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05Cobalt 281 7 7 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.025Copper 281 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.25Iron 281 0 0 4 4 4 10Lead 281 1 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Magnesium 281 0 0 4 4 4 100Manganese 281 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.3Mercury 281 17 5 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.1Molybdenum 281 65 65 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.3Nickel 281 4 3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3Potassium 281 18 2 400 400 400 100Selenium 281 21 1 1 1 1 0.05Silver 281 151 151 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.025Sodium 281 24 24 20 20 20 100Thallium 281 81 26 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05Tin 281 50 40 1 1 1 0.05Vanadium 281 27 27 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1Zinc 281 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1OrganicsTotal Organic Carbon 176 0 0 0.05 0.05 NA 0.05Diesel Range Organics 32 0 0 20 20 NA NAResidual Range Organics 32 0 0 100 100 NA NA

Notes:— = DQO not establishedNA = not applicable since parameters not scheduled for analysisND = not detected

MRL DQOs (mg/kg)



TABLE A-28

Fish and Mussel Tissue, Accuracy and Precision

Analyte nMean LCS

% Recovery SD RSD n-pairs


Inorganic ParametersTotal Solidsa 5 12 5.9 48%Metals - TQAntimony 1 0 — —Arsenic 126 103 6.7 7% 5 44 30.5 70%Beryllium 1 15 — —Cadmium 74 104 6.4 6% 3 61 54.4 90%Chromium 45 101 12.4 12% NA NA NA NACopper 125 98 9.7 10% 5 55 52.4 95%Lead 118 95 21.2 22% 3 61 53.2 87%Mercury 25 105 8.9 9% 5 68 39.0 57%Methyl Mercury — — — — 3 87 17.2 20%Molybdenum 6 112 4.8 4% 1 2.0 — —Nickel 125 104 14.8 14% 5 60 30.3 50%Selenium 67 102 9.9 10% 4 44 36.6 83%Silver 62 101 7.1 7% 3 69 69.5 100%Thallium 1 0 — —Zinc 65 105 6.9 7% 1 5.0 — —Metals - WQAntimony 5 95 3.0 3%Arsenic 5 96 3.0 3%Beryllium 5 98 4.4 5%Cadmium 5 98 1.9 2%Chromium 5 95 3.6 4%Copper 5 92 2.7 3%Lead 5 88 8.3 9%Mercury 126 103 10 10%Molybdenum 5 98 3.1 3%Nickel 5 92 4.8 5%Selenium 5 88 5.2 6%Silver 5 99 1.9 2%Thallium 5 93 3.4 4%Zinc 5 95 1.9 2%Organics2-Methylnaphthalene 8 84 5.4 6% NA NA NA NAAcenaphthene 8 84 4.8 6% NA NA NA NAAcenaphthylene 8 84 5.6 7% NA NA NA NAAnthracene 8 87 6.1 7% NA NA NA NABenzo(a)anthracene 8 88 7.8 9% NA NA NA NABenzo(a)pyrene 8 92 9.5 10% NA NA NA NABenzo(b)fluoranthene 8 94 10.4 11% NA NA NA NABenzo(g,h,i)perylene 8 89 9.6 11% NA NA NA NABenzo(k)fluoranthene 8 91 8.7 10% NA NA NA NAChrysene 8 89 6.8 8% NA NA NA NA

Laboratory Accuracy and Precision

Field Precision



Analyte nMean LCS



Laboratory Accuracy and Precision

Field Precision

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 8 94 11.1 12% NA NA NA NADibenzofuran 8 86 5.4 6% NA NA NA NAFluoranthene 8 87 6.5 8% NA NA NA NAFluorene 8 85 4.6 5% NA NA NA NAIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 8 96 16.7 17% NA NA NA NANaphthalene 8 79 6.2 8% 1 41 — —Phenanthrene 8 85 3.5 4% 1 43 — —Pyrene 8 86 6.4 7% NA NA NA NATotal Lipidsa 1 8.0 — —

Notes:a. LCS not analyzed for lipids or total solidsGray shaded cells = data not available, analyte not analyzed— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsWQ = laboratory water fortified with known metal concentrations


TABLE A-29

Fish and Mussel Tissue, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates


Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSDInorganic ParametersTotal Solids 84 2.5 3.6 142%MetalsAntimony 6 14.2 11.7 83%Arsenic 66 12.4 15.5 125%Beryllium 8 19.8 23.6 119%Cadmium 55 13.2 11.2 85%Chromium 32 20.0 18.2 91%Copper 68 5.9 13.9 236%Lead 47 15.6 18.3 117%Mercury 2 20.0 18.4 92%Methyl mercury 3 5.7 5.0 88%Molybdenum 22 10.5 10.4 99%Nickel 66 12.2 17.3 141%Selenium 64 14.1 16.1 114%Silver 48 11.1 9.6 87%Thallium 38 8.0 10.1 127%Zinc 39 6.0 9.8 164%OrganicsTotal Lipids 5 8.2 10.6 129%


TABLE A-30

Fish and Mussel Tissue, Comparability

Analyte n-pairs


Inorganic ParametersTotal Solids 0 — — —MetalsAntimony 1 200 — —Arsenic 2 23 19.8 86%Beryllium 0 — — —Cadmium 2 38 29.0 76%Chromium 0 — — —Copper 5 35 22.7 65%Lead 2 115 35.4 31%Mercury 4 111 79.0 71%Methyl Mercury 4 74 60.3 81%Molybdenum 0 — — —Nickel 5 141 60.4 43%Selenium 5 29 20.4 70%Silver 2 41 5.7 14%Thallium 0 — — —Zinc 1 35 — —Organics2-Methylnaphthalene NA NA NA NAAcenaphthene NA NA NA NAAcenaphthylene NA NA NA NAAnthracene NA NA NA NABenzo(a)anthracene NA NA NA NABenzo(a)pyrene NA NA NA NABenzo(b)fluoranthene NA NA NA NABenzo(g,h,i)perylene NA NA NA NABenzo(k)fluoranthene NA NA NA NAChrysene NA NA NA NADibenzo(a,h)anthracene NA NA NA NADibenzofuran NA NA NA NAFluoranthene NA NA NA NAFluorene NA NA NA NAIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene NA NA NA NANaphthalene NA NA NA NAPhenanthrene NA NA NA NAPyrene NA NA NA NATotal Lipids 0 — — —

Notes:— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsNA = not applicable; analyte was not detected in the sample



TABLE A-31

Summary of Sensitivity for Fish and Mussel Tissue


Analyte



Inorganic ParametersTotal solids 798 0 — — — — — —MetalsAntimony 811 718 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Arsenic 811 12 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5Beryllium 508 459 0 NA 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Cadmium 811 201 21 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Chromium 508 204 2 NA 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5Copper 811 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Lead 811 171 2 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Mercury 817 1 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001Methyl Mercury 38 0 0 — NA NA NA NAMolybdenum 508 170 1 NA 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Nickel 811 51 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Selenium 811 36 0 1 1 1 1 1Silver 811 281 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Thallium 508 3 0 NA 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Zinc 508 0 0 NA 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5Organics2-Methylnaphthalene 8 3 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Acenaphthene 8 7 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Acenaphthylene 8 6 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Anthracene 8 7 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Benzo(a)anthracene 8 7 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Benzo(a)pyrene 8 7 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Benzo(b)fluoranthene 8 8 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 8 7 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Benzo(k)fluoranthene 8 8 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Chrysene 8 7 2 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 8 7 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005


MRL DQOs (mg/kg)




Analyte




MRL DQOs (mg/kg)

Dibenzofuran 8 5 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Fluoranthene 8 7 7 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Fluorene 8 4 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 8 8 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Naphthalene 8 3 2 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Phenanthrene 8 1 1 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Pyrene 8 7 6 NA 0.005 NA 0.005 0.005Total lipids 8 0 — — — — — —

Notes:— = DQO not establishedNA = not applicable, parameter not scheduled for analysis


TABLE A-32

Surface Water, Accuracy and Precision (Seeps)

Analyte nMean LCS %

Recovery SD RSD n-pairsMean Field

Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSDInorganic ParametersAcidity, total 140 100 3.7 4% 18 18 13.3 72%Alkalinity, total 507 100 5.4 5% 69 4.3 10.4 242%Ammonia, as Nitrogen 709 97 7.8 8% 5 35 13.6 39%Chloride 683 99 3.3 3% 73 3.8 7.4 195%Cyanide, total 625 99 11.8 12% NA NA NA NACyanide, weak acid dissociable 599 98 10.8 11% 2 0 0.0 — Fluoride 645 102 9.2 9% 30 23 25.2 109%Nitrogen as Nitrate-Nitrite 643 100 5.9 6% 68 24 40.8 170%pH 625 100 0.90 0.9% 73 1.5 2.6 173%Total Phosphorus 493 99 8.3 8% 45 27 33.1 121%Phosphorus, Total Orthophosphate 90 98 2.9 3% 8 19 14.2 76%Specific Conductance 553 100 3.5 4% 73 4.3 21.1 491%Sulfate 680 100 7.1 7% 72 7.9 25.3 320%Thiocyanate 412 99 3.9 4% 7 35 31.4 91%Total Dissolved Solids 490 107 11.2 10% 72 15 23.2 157%Total Suspended Solids 445 98 6.4 7% 18 68 43.6 64%MetalsAluminum 643 101 5.8 6% 90 36 34.1 95%Antimony 625 101 6.8 7% 43 21 19.6 95%Arsenic 620 100 4.5 5% 62 7.7 8.7 113%Barium 640 100 4.9 5% 121 10 11.3 110%Beryllium 620 100 5.7 6% 3 18 7.8 43%Bismuth 616 99 5.2 5% 4 23 19.6 84%Boron 615 100 7.6 8% 52 15 12.3 83%Cadmium 621 100 4.9 5% 5 6.4 3.9 61%Calcium 637 101 5.8 6% 143 4.1 3.8 93%Chromium 627 100 5.5 6% 75 23 23.3 100%Cobalt 623 100 5.1 5% 60 13 12.5 96%Copper 629 100 4.9 5% 50 27 31.4 115%Iron 630 103 5.6 5% 58 20 25.2 124%Lead 624 99 4.8 5% 9 55 37.4 68%Magnesium 636 101 5.7 6% 142 4.9 6.4 131%Manganese 620 100 4.9 5% 65 34 44.6 130%Mercury 871 98 18.2 19% 9 27 24.7 91%Molybdenum 620 99 6.2 6% 70 8.1 11.1 137%Nickel 621 100 5.2 5% 49 14.1 13.8 98%Potassium 635 101 5.4 5% 105 8.4 11.7 139%Selenium 623 99 5.2 5% 8 27 33.7 125%Silicon 507 102 6.2 6% 73 3.4 3.1 91%Silver 621 100 6.4 6% 1 104 — —Sodium 635 102 5.9 6% 144 3.9 3.9 100%Thallium 620 98 5.7 6% 5 64 58.6 91%Tin 618 99 7.3 7% 1 146 — —Vanadium 622 100 5.4 5% 55 12 14.0 118%Zinc 627 100 5.5 6% 39 38 36.8 96%

Notes:a. LCS accuracy and precision statistics based on surface water and groundwater data— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsNA = not applicable, analyte was not detected in the sample

Field PrecisionLaboratory Accuracy

and Precisiona


TABLE A-33

Surface Water, Laboratory Comparability (Seeps)


Triplicate RPD (%) SD RSDInorganic ParametersAcidity, total 17 36 44.5 122%Alkalinity, total 69 12 11.9 102%Ammonia, as Nitrogen 0 — — —Chloride 73 27 16.9 63%Total Cyanide 0 — — —Cyanide, weak acid dissociable 2 67 0.0 0%Fluoride 17 31 27.9 91%Nitrogen as Nitrate-Nitrite 66 34 40.1 117%pH 73 5.9 5.1 86%Total Phosphorus 41 51 40.1 79%Phosphorus, Total as Orthophosphate nc nc nc ncSpecific Conductance 73 14 23.9 176%Sulfate 73 15 22.2 148%Thiocyanate 0 — — —Total Dissolved Solids 71 33 29.3 88%Total Suspended Solids 1 8.0 — —MetalsAluminum 84 50 46.2 93%Antimony 36 28 25.0 91%Arsenic 66 12 13.1 110%Barium 124 14 15.6 112%Beryllium 3 14 5.9 41%Bismuth 0 — — —Boron 42 33 27.3 82%Cadmium 6 33 28.5 86%Calcium 145 5.7 4.8 84%Chromium 71 35 26.3 75%Cobalt 70 54 44.1 82%Copper 47 37 36.5 98%Iron 40 86 55.5 65%Lead 8 92 63.8 70%Magnesium 145 8.5 6.9 82%Manganese 57 44 43.2 99%Mercury 5 58 34.4 59%Molybdenum 76 12 12.2 99%Nickel 45 51 49.8 98%Potassium 106 13 12.8 108%Selenium 4 53 30.8 58%Silicon 73 6.2 4.1 67%Silver 2 90 47.4 52%Sodium 146 8.5 16.2 190%Thallium 2 12 8.5 71%Tin 1 140 — —Vanadium 63 24 22.8 95%Zinc 43 50 44.0 87%

Notes:a. Organics data for surface water, excluding seeps— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsnc = triplicate sample not collected



TABLE A-34


Analyte




Inorganic ParametersAcidity, total 650 439 1 10 10 10 10 10Alkalinity, total 650 51 0 10 10 10 20 10Ammonia, as Nitrogen 639 436 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1Chloride 650 1 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 3 0.1Total Cyanide 650 628 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.3 0.005Cyanide, weak acid dissociable 1140 1079 464 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.005Fluoride 650 336 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite 639 28 0 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Phosphorus, Total (as P) 639 198 16 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01Phosphorus, Total as Orthophosphate 107 40 0 NA NA 0.2 — NASpecific Conductance 650 0 0 2a 2a 2a 10a 1a

Sulfate 650 14 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 3 0.1Thiocyanate 639 577 0 1 1 1 0.5 1Total Dissolved Solids 650 5 0 10 10 10 20 10Total Suspended Solids 650 388 1 5 5 5 20 0.5MetalsAluminum 1300 9 0 0.025 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.002Antimony 1300 864 0 0.0002 0.00005 0.00005 0.002 0.00005Arsenic 1300 833 1 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.001 0.0005Barium 1300 0 0 0.0003 0.00005 0.00005 0.0005 0.00005Beryllium 1300 1219 204 0.00003 0.00002 0.00002 0.0005 0.00005Bismuth 1300 1197 0 0.005 0.0001 0.0001 0.2 0.00005Boron 1300 631 402 0.01 0.0005 0.0005 0.001 0.005Cadmium 1300 1185 207 0.0001 0.00002 0.00002 0.0005 0.00005Calcium 1300 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 1 0.05Chromium 1300 224 1 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0005 0.0002Cobalt 1300 566 0 0.0001 0.00002 0.00002 0.0003 0.00002Copper 1300 497 0 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.003 0.0001Iron 1300 567 1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02Lead 1300 847 74 0.0002 0.00002 0.00002 0.0005 0.0001

Summary of Sensitivity for Surface Water ( Seeps)

MRL DQOs (mg/L)




Analyte




MRL DQOs (mg/L)

Magnesium 1300 20 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 1 0.02Manganese 1300 459 9 0.001 0.00005 0.00005 0.003 0.00005Mercury 639 390 0 0.000005 0.000005 0.000005 0.000005 0.000005Molybdenum 1300 576 1 0.001 0.00005 0.00005 0.003 0.00005Nickel 1300 514 0 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.003 0.0002Potassium 1300 255 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 2 0.05Selenium 1300 1023 2 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0005 0.001Silicon 650 0 0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1Silver 1300 1234 3 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.0003 0.00002Sodium 1300 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 0.1Thallium 1300 1028 3 0.00005 0.00001 0.00001 0.0005 0.00002Tin 1300 1252 2 0.001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0002Vanadium 1300 697 147 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.001 0.001Zinc 1300 435 0 0.0015 0.0005 0.0005 0.01 0.001

Notes:a. Units for specific conductance are micromhos per centimeter (mmhos/cm)— = DQO not establishedNA = not applicable, analyte not scheduled for analysisND = not detected


TABLE A-35

Marine Plant, Fish, and Bivalve Tissue, Accuracy and Plant Tissue Precision

Analyte nMean LCS



Inorganic ParametersTotal Solids — — — — 2 14 6.4 44%Metals - TQ Matrix (Fish and Bivalve Tissue Only)Antimony 4 16 19.1 115%Arsenic 22 104 4.6 4% 4 23 25.4 111%Beryllium 0 NA NA NABoron 4 10 8.3 87%Cadmium 17 111 6.7 6% 4 21 23.7 113%Chromium 19 93 10.2 11% 4 77 71.9 93%Copper 22 96 7.5 8% 4 45 48.3 107%Lead 22 94 16.5 17% 4 32 32.8 103%Mercury 1 97 — — 4 89 57.0 64%Molybdenum 8 113 4.1 4% 4 9.0 5.8 64%Nickel 22 102 11.6 11% 4 20 19.8 101%Selenium 12 96 13.2 14% 0 NA NA NASilver 5 101 9.6 10% 4 58 47.8 82%Thallium 4 24 9.9 41%Tin 0 — — —Zinc 20 98 10.0 10% 4 35 30.7 88%Metals - WQ Matrix (Fish, Bivalve, and Vegetation Tissue Only)Antimony 8 101 4.3 4%Arsenic 8 104 5.5 5%Beryllium 8 100 4.8 5%Boron 7 102 7.0 7%Cadmium 8 104 4.4 4%Chromium 8 99 5.7 6%Copper 8 100 3.8 4%Lead 8 101 2.5 2%Mercury 28 106 8.9 8%Molybdenum 8 100 2.1 2%Nickel 8 99 3.8 4%Selenium 8 93 9.6 10%Silver 8 97 4.3 4%Thallium 8 101 3.6 4%Tin 6 102 3.6 4%Zinc 8 103 6.8 7%

Notes:a. Field precision RPD calculations are for marine plant tissue only.Gray shaded cells = data not available, analyte not analyzed— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsNA = not applicable, analyte was not detected in the sample

WQ = laboratory water fortified with known metal concentrations

Laboratory Accuracy and Precision Field Precisiona

TQ = standard reference material (SRM) for vegetation or aquatic animal tissue, as appropriate, with externally certified constituent concentrations


TABLE A-36

Marine Fish and Bivalve Tissue, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates

Analyte n-pairs

Mean Laboratory Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSD

Inorganic ParametersTotal Solids 14 0.9 1.3 137%MetalsAntimony 2 53 53.7 101%Arsenic 10 2.7 1.7 63%Beryllium 1 27 — —Boron 6 3.7 3.6 99%Cadmium 10 14 17.9 124%Chromium 6 14 13.3 94%Copper 10 8.3 13.2 159%Lead 8 6.1 7.0 115%Mercury 6 10 8.0 78%Molybdenum 6 9.2 5.0 55%Nickel 9 11 6.9 65%Selenium 10 15 12.6 86%Silver 6 6.2 5.7 93%Thallium 3 23 6.1 26%Tin 4 3.9 2.6 67%Zinc 8 5.2 4.7 90%



TABLE A-37

Marine Plant Tissue, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates


Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSDInorganic ParametersTotal Solids 3 3 3.5 115%MetalsAntimony 4 2.8 2.8 100%Arsenic 4 2.8 3.6 131%Beryllium 4 4.2 5.0 117%Boron 4 3.0 0.8 27%Cadmium 4 3.8 3.1 83%Chromium 4 2.8 2.2 81%Copper 4 3.5 4.5 129%Lead 4 4.2 4.6 108%Mercury 4 19 28.9 150%Molybdenum 4 3.2 3.6 111%Nickel 4 2.8 2.9 104%Selenium 4 5.0 5.4 107%Silver 4 3.2 2.9 88%Thallium 4 3.5 3.9 111%Tin 4 3.2 2.6 81%Zinc 4 4.2 4.3 101%


TABLE A-38

Summary of Sensitivity for Marine Fish and Bivalve Tissue

TotalNo. of

SamplesNo. of ND Samples

for Which MDL

AnalyteNumber of Samples

with ND Results

Does Not Meet DQO 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

MetalsAntimony 96 47 0 0.05 0.05 NA NA 0.05Arsenic 96 0 0 0.5 0.5 NA NA 0.5Beryllium 76 63 0 NA 0.02 NA NA 0.02Boron 65 12 0 NA NA NA NA 5Cadmium 96 19 0 0.02 0.02 NA NA 0.02Chromium 76 22 0 NA 0.5 NA NA 0.5Copper 96 0 0 0.1 0.1 NA NA 0.1Lead 96 1 0 0.02 0.02 NA NA 0.02Mercury 96 0 0 0.001 0.001 NA NA 0.001Molybdenum 76 11 0 NA 0.05 NA NA 0.05Nickel 96 6 0 0.2 0.2 NA NA 0.2Selenium 96 0 0 1 1 NA NA 1Silver 96 23 0 0.02 0.02 NA NA 0.02Thallium 76 29 0 NA 0.02 NA NA 0.02Tin 65 18 0 NA NA NA NA 5Zinc 76 0 0 NA 0.5 NA NA 0.5OrganicsLipid, Percent 10 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0.10%Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH), Total 10 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0.005

Notes:a. Lipid MRL DQOs reported in percent— = DQO not establishedNA = not applicable, analyte not scheduled for analysis

MRL DQOsa

(mg/kg)


TABLE A-39

Marine Plant Tissue Comparability

Analyte n-pairs


Inorganic ParametersTotal Solids 2 15 19.8 132%Metals - WQ MatrixAntimony 2 78 0 0%Arsenic 3 18 19.4 110%Beryllium 0 NA NA NABoron 3 32 26.4 81%Cadmium 3 17 10.0 60%Chromium 3 65 73.4 112%Copper 3 33 20.4 62%Lead 0 — — —Mercury 2 47 28.3 60%Molybdenum 0 — — —Nickel 3 15 19.2 128%Selenium 0 NA NA NASilver 0 — — —Thallium 0 — — —Tin 0 — — —Zinc 3 24 19.4 80%

Notes:— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsNA = not applicable, analyte was not detected in the sampleWQ = laboratory water fortified with known metal concentrations


TABLE A-40

Summary of Sensitivity for Marine Plant Tissue

Total Number

No. of Samples with ND

No. of ND Samplesfor Which MDL

Does NotMRL DQOs

(mg/kg)Analyte of Samples Results Meet DQO 2008

Inorganic parametersTotal Solids 8 0 0 —

MetalsAntimony 8 0 0 0.05Arsenic 8 0 0 0.5Beryllium 8 7 0 0.02Boron 8 0 0 5Cadmium 8 0 0 0.02Chromium 8 0 0 0.5Copper 8 0 0 0.1Lead 8 0 0 0.02Mercury 8 0 0 0.001Molybdenum 8 0 0 0.05Nickel 8 0 0 0.2Selenium 8 7 0 1Silver 8 0 0 0.02Thallium 8 0 0 0.02Tin 8 4 0 5Zinc 8 0 0 0.5

Note:— = DQO not established



TABLE A-41

Marine Sediment, Accuracy and Precision

Analyte nMean LCS %



Inorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 13 94 12.4 13% 4 18 8.2 47%Chloride 9 98 3.7 4% 4 22 24.5 114%Fluoride 10 97 4.6 5% 1 11 — —Sulfate 9 100 4.0 4% 4 26 18.2 69%Total Cyanide 13 103 12.6 12% 3 37 20.7 56%Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total 11 109 12.1 11% 4 14 6.9 51%Acid-Volatile Sulfide 5 94 5.8 6% 3 30 39.6 132%Total Solids 14 8.6 16.0 185%MetalsAluminum 11 98 8.0 8% 11 19 14.1 76%Antimony 11 100 8.4 8% 11 31 23.9 77%Arsenic 11 104 5.2 5% 11 35 47.6 135%Barium 11 104 4.1 4% 11 38 47.8 127%Beryliuma 7 103 6.6 6% 4 20 4.5 22%Bismutha 5 99 7.2 7% 3 19 10.5 56%Borona 7 99 12.1 12% 4 40 31.4 78%Cadmium 11 104 6.4 6% 7 9.4 6.5 69%Calciuma 7 98 6.8 7% 4 6.2 4.0 64%Chromium 11 102 6.2 6% 11 27 31.0 114%Cobalt 11 103 6.5 6% 11 24 24.1 100%Copper 11 104 5.1 5% 11 27 23.9 89%Iron 11 101 13.5 13% 11 18 16.1 91%Lead 11 104 6.1 6% 11 37 44.2 120%Magnesiuma 7 99 6.3 6% 4 5.8 4.6 80%Manganese 11 100 6.2 6% 11 12 10.2 84%Mercury 14 102 5.3 5% 24 48 59.0 123%Molybdenuma 7 102 8.0 8% 3 22 16.0 74%Nickel 11 104 5.9 6% 11 29 36.4 124%Potassiuma 7 104 3.2 3% 4 8.5 4.8 56%Selenium 11 107 11.5 11% 7 7.6 10.4 137%Silver 11 104 5.4 5% 8 15 7.7 52%Sodiuma 7 99 6.5 6% 4 19 11.5 61%Thalliuma 7 98 6.0 6% 3 22 5.8 27%Tin 11 101 5.4 5% 3 3.7 1.2 31%Vanadiuma 7 103 3.6 4% 4 5.8 5.4 94%Zinc 11 103 9.0 9% 11 31 39.2 126%Simultaneously Extracted MetalsCadmium-SEM 1 98 — — 0 — — —Copper-SEM 1 99 — — 3 36 50.0 138%Lead-SEM 1 101 — — 2 1.0 1.4 141%Mercury-SEM 1 88 — — 0 — — —Nickel-SEM 1 99 — — 2 6.0 0 0%Zinc-SEM 1 106 — — 3 31 43.3 140%OrganicsTotal Organic Carbon 12 106 5.7 5% 11 22 25.6 116%




TABLE A-41


Analyte nMean LCS %




Gasoline Range Organics 16 106 9.5 9% 1 17 — —Diesel Range Organics 11 96 9.2 10% 1 8.0 — —Residual Range Organics 11 94 13.0 14% 0 — — —Benzene 12 104 8.7 8% 0 NA NA NAEthylbenzene 12 100 2.9 3% 0 NA NA NAo-Xylene 12 104 3.7 4% 0 NA NA NAToluene 12 94 4.6 5% 0 NA NA NAXylene, Isomers m & p 12 102 2.3 2% 0 NA NA NA1-Methylnaphthalene 12 23 15.0 65%2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 6 27 18.7 70%Benzo(e)pyrene 5 19 18.8 101%Biphenyl 6 23 17.3 76%C1 - Naphthalenes 6 26 19.4 73%C10 as n-Decane 3 15 15.1 103%C11 as n-Undecane 5 20 11.5 58%C12 as n-Dodecane 2 22 24.0 109%C13 as n-Tridecane 6 19 16.4 87%C14 as n-Tetradecane 6 20 17.6 88%C17 as n-Heptadecane 3 15 16.8 114%C1-Chrysenes 4 14 12.6 88%C1-Dibenzothiophenes 4 21 21.8 103%C1-Fluorenes 4 22 13.6 63%C1-Phenanthrenes/Anthrace 5 21 17.2 82%C22 as n-Docosane 2 13 8.5 65%C24 as n-Tetracosane 4 8.5 5.2 61%C26 as n-Hexacosane 5 22 18.2 82%C28 as n-Octacosane 4 25 15.7 63%C2-Chrysenes 2 20 24.7 121%C2-Dibenzothiophenes 3 19 25.7 138%C2-Fluorenes 2 24 0.71 3%C2-Naphthalenes 6 24 20.4 83%C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthrace 5 18 13.7 76%C30 as n-Triacontane 4 20 19.6 98%C3-Fluorenes 2 25 17.0 68%C3-Naphthalenes 4 27 13.0 48%C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthrace 5 39 42.3 109%C4-Naphthalenes 2 40 36.1 91%D26 - C12 6 10 7.8 76%D42 - C20 6 13 6.9 53%D50 - C24 6 13 7.1 55%D62 - C30 6 14 8.4 58%Dibenzothiophene 5 23 18.0 77%Dotriacontane 2 24 19.1 81%Heneicosane 9 19 13.5 71%Hexacosane 4 8.5 3.0 35%1,6,7-trimethyl-naphthalene 5 21 23.1 110%



TABLE A-41


Analyte nMean LCS %




n-C31 5 21 8.3 39%Nonacosane 13 20 12.3 63%Perylene 5 14 12.1 85%Tetratriacontane 2 14 10.6 73%Total Alkanes 6 22 11.2 51%Total Resolved 6 29 10.7 37%Total UCM 6 36 31.3 88%Tritriacontane 5 26 25.3 97%PAHsPAH, Total 6 10 11.5 117%Total NS&T PAHs 6 13 11.5 86%Total PAHs 6 50 66.0 133%Total PAHs without Perylene 6 14 13.0 94%2-Methylnaphthalene 2 78 2.1 3% 9 52 56.9 109%Acenaphthene 3 74 4.0 5% 0 NA NA NAAcenaphthylene 2 76 0.71 0.9% 0 NA NA NAAnthracene 2 78 2.1 3% 0 NA NA NABenzo(a)anthracene 2 82 0.71 0.9% 4 15 13.0 87%Benzo(a)pyrene 3 87 2.5 3% 0 NA NA NABenzo(b)fluoranthene 2 88 2.1 2% 5 14 18.2 132%Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2 84 0.71 0.8% 2 26 0.71 3%Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2 88 3.5 4% 3 14 20.3 149%Chrysene 2 85 0 0% 5 20 14.1 71%Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 2 75 2.8 4% 0 NA NA NADibenzofuran 2 79 1.4 2% 0 — — —Fluoranthene 2 79 0 0% 5 15 12.8 83%Fluorene 2 76 1.4 2% 5 21 17.9 87%Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2 76 2.8 4% 0 NA NA NANaphthalene 2 73 1.4 2% 6 23 18.3 79%Phenanthrene 2 78 0.71 0.9% 9 58 60.5 127%Pyrene 3 90 5.5 6% 4 17 9.0 54%

Notes:a. Results for 2004 and 2005 onlyGray shaded cells = data not available, analyte not analyzed— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsNS&T = National Status and Trends UCM = unresolved complex mixture


TABLE A-42

Marine Sediment, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates


Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSDInorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 5 13 15.5 115%Chloride 8 42 39.9 95%Fluoride 3 22 12.2 55%Sulfate 8 42 29.7 71%Total Cyanide 4 36 31.2 86%Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total 5 21 23.0 109%Acid-Volatile Sulfide 2 7.0 4.2 61%Total Organic Carbon 7 4.6 3.2 70%Total Solids 9 1.0 1.7 166%MetalsAluminum 2 4.5 3.5 79%Antimony 1 9.0 — —Arsenic 1 4.0 — —Barium 1 5.0 — —Cadmium 1 3.0 — —Chromium 1 2.0 — —Cobalt 1 7.0 — —Copper 1 3.0 — —Iron 2 4.0 2.8 71%Lead 1 5.0 — —Manganese 1 5.0 — —Mercury 4 7.0 8.1 115%Nickel 1 4.0 — —Selenium 1 40 — —Silver 1 7.0 — —Tin 0 NA NA NAZinc 1 5.0 — —SEM MetalsCadmium-SEM 0 NA NA NACopper-SEM 3 5.7 3.1 54%Lead-SEM 2 5.5 4.9 90%Mercury-SEM 3 NA NA NANickel-SEM 3 6.7 2.9 43%Zinc-SEM 3 7.3 4.0 55%Sieve Clay 3 5.3 7.6 142%Sieve No. 10, Percent Passing 3 114 74.2 65%Sieve No. 140, Percent Passing 3 7.7 4.7 62%Sieve No. 20, Percent Passing 3 75 75.0 100%Sieve No. 230, Percent Passing 3 10 13.3 138%Sieve No. 4, Percent Passing 1 9.0 — —Sieve No. 40, Percent Passing 3 33 13.2 40%Sieve No. 60, Percent Passing 3 13 15.7 121%Silt 3 10 3.5 35%

Notes:— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsNA = not applicable, analyte was not detected in the sample



TABLE A-43

Marine Sediment, Comparability


Triplicate RPD (%) SD RSDInorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 4 84 39.9 47%Chloride 4 28 13.7 49%Fluoride 0 NA NA NASulfate 4 43 33.4 77%Total Cyanide 0 NA NA NANitrogen, Kjeldahl Total 3 42 24.7 59%Acid-Volatile Sulfide 2 32 28.3 88%Total Solids 36 9.2 14.9 162%MetalsAluminum 11 29 27.4 95%Antimony 9 60 48.3 81%Arsenic 11 41 33.8 83%Barium 11 41 49.6 120%Cadmium 6 48 32.4 68%Chromium 11 29 22.3 77%Cobalt 11 22 17.8 80%Copper 11 26 14.9 57%Iron 11 22 19.0 86%Lead 11 39 44.9 116%Manganese 11 15 11.0 76%Mercury 24 50 52.6 105%Nickel 11 34 28.4 83%Selenium 6 69 41.0 60%Silver 7 30 43.3 145%Tin 4 64 67.8 107%Zinc 11 37 23.8 64%Simultaneously Extracted MetalsCadmium-SEM 0 NA NA NACopper-SEM 3 51 64.4 127%Lead-SEM 2 28 0.71 2%Mercury-SEM 0 NA NA NANickel-SEM 2 26 5.7 22%Zinc-SEM 3 40 42.0 106%OrganicsTotal Organic Carbon 11 32 26.7 82%Gasoline Range Organics 0 — — —Diesel Range Organics 1 76 NA NAResidual Range Organics 4 42 44.4 106%Benzene 0 NA NA NAEthylbenzene 0 NA NA NAo-Xylene 0 NA NA NAToluene 0 NA NA NAXylene, Isomers m & p 0 NA NA NAPAHs2-Methylnaphthalene 0 NA NA NAAcenaphthene 0 NA NA NA




Triplicate RPD (%) SD RSDAcenaphthylene 0 NA NA NAAnthracene 0 NA NA NABenzo(a)anthracene 0 NA NA NABenzo(a)pyrene 0 NA NA NABenzo(b)fluoranthene 0 NA NA NABenzo(g,h,i)perylene 0 NA NA NABenzo(k)fluoranthene 0 NA NA NAChrysene 0 NA NA NADibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0 NA NA NAFluoranthene 0 NA NA NAFluorene 0 NA NA NAIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0 NA NA NANaphthalene 0 NA NA NAPhenanthrene 0 NA NA NAPyrene 0 NA NA NA




TABLE A-44

Summary of Sensitivity for Marine Sediment

No . of No. of ND Samples

Analyte




Inorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 37 0 0 0.2 0.2 NA NA NAChloride 37 0 0 1 1 NA NA NAFluoride 37 21 15 2 2 NA NA NASulfate 37 0 0 2 2 NA NA NATotal Cyanide 62 27 0 0.06 0.2 NA NA 0.2Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total 37 0 0 — — NA NA NAAcid-Volatile Sulfide 25 4 0.0 NA NA NA NA —Total Solids 79 0 0 NA NA NA NA —MetalsAluminum 62 0 0 2 2 NA NA 2Antimony 62 0 0 0.1 0.05 NA NA 0.05Arsenic 62 0 0 1.8 0.5 NA NA 0.5Barium 62 0 0 0.3 0.05 NA NA 0.05Cadmium 62 12 0 0.2 0.05 NA NA 0.05Chromium 62 0 0 0.4 0.2 NA NA 2Cobalt 62 0 0 0.5 0.02 NA NA 0.02Copper 62 0 0 0.6 0.1 NA NA 0.1Iron 62 0 0 10 4 NA NA 4Lead 62 0 0 0.2 0.05 NA NA 0.05Manganese 62 0 0 0.2 0.05 NA NA 0.1Mercurya 88 2 0 0.04 0.04 NA NA 0.02Nickel 62 0 0 0.2 0.2 NA NA 0.2Selenium 62 13 0 0.5 1 NA NA 1Silver 62 2 0 0.1 0.02 NA NA 0.02Tin 62 6 6 1 1 NA NA 1Zinc 62 0 0 1 0.5 NA NA 0.5AVS-SEM MetalsCadmium-SEM 25 25 15 NA NA NA NA 0.2Copper-SEM 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0.4Lead-SEM 25 3 3 NA NA NA NA 3Mercury-SEM 25 25 25 NA NA NA NA 0.01Nickel-SEM 25 1 1 NA NA NA NA 0.5Zinc-SEM 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0.4OrganicsTotal Organic Carbonb 62 0 0 0.05 0.05 NA NA 0.05SHC, Total 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0.3Gasoline Range Organics 32 23 0 2.5 5 NA NA NADiesel Range Organics 33 2 0 20 40 NA NA NAResidual Range Organics 33 0 0 20 100 NA NA NATotal Petroleum Hydrocarbons 25 0 0Benzene 32 32 7 0.013 0.005 NA NA NAToluene 32 32 7 0.05 0.005 NA NA NAEthylbenzene 32 32 7 0.025 0.005 NA NA NAXylene, Isomers m & p 32 32 7 0.05 0.002 NA NA NAo-Xylene 32 32 7 0.025 0.002 NA NA NA1-Methylnaphthalene 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —1-Methylphenanthrene 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —Benzo(e)pyrene 25 1 0 NA NA NA NA —Biphenyl 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —C1 - Naphthalenes 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —C10 as n-Decane 25 3 0 NA NA NA NA —

MRL DQOs (mg/kg)




Analyte




MRL DQOs (mg/kg)

C11 as n-Undecane 25 2 0 NA NA NA NA —C12 as n-Dodecane 25 5 0 NA NA NA NA —C13 as n-Tridecane 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —C14 as n-Tetradecane 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —C15 as n-Pentadecane 25 20 0 NA NA NA NA —C16 as n-Hexadecane 25 25 0 NA NA NA NA —C17 as n-Heptadecane 25 8 0 NA NA NA NA —C18 as n-Octadecane 25 25 0 NA NA NA NA —C1-Chrysenes 25 3 0 NA NA NA NA —C1-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes 25 16 0 NA NA NA NA —C1-Dibenzothiophenes 25 3 0 NA NA NA NA —C1-Fluorenes 25 4 0 NA NA NA NA —C1-Phenanthrenes/Anthrace 25 1 0 NA NA NA NA —C2-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes 25 19 0 NA NA NA NA —C20 as n-Eicosane 25 21 0 NA NA NA NA —C22 as n-Docosane 25 11 0 NA NA NA NA —C24 as n-Tetracosane 25 9 0 NA NA NA NA —C26 as n-Hexacosane 25 1 0 NA NA NA NA —C28 as n-Octacosane 25 8 0 NA NA NA NA —C2-Chrysenes 25 11 0 NA NA NA NA —C2-Dibenzothiophenes 25 10 0 NA NA NA NA —C2-Fluorenes 25 13 0 NA NA NA NA —C2-Naphthalenes 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthrace 25 1 0 NA NA NA NA —C3-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes 25 25 0 NA NA NA NA —C30 as n-Triacontane 25 6 0 NA NA NA NA —C3-Chrysenes 25 14 0 NA NA NA NA —C3-Dibenzothiophenes 25 20 0 NA NA NA NA —C3-Fluorenes 25 13 0 NA NA NA NA —C3-Naphthalenes 25 2 0 NA NA NA NA —C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthrace 25 2 0 NA NA NA NA —C4-Chrysenes 25 23 0 NA NA NA NA —C4-Naphthalenes 25 12 0 NA NA NA NA —C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthrace 25 12 0 NA NA NA NA —D26 - C12 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —D42 - C20 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —D50 - C24 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —D62 - C30 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —Dibenzothiophene 25 1 0 NA NA NA NA —Dotriacontane 25 17 0 NA NA NA NA —Heneicosane 25 10 0 NA NA NA NA —Heptacosane 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —Hexacosane 25 3 0 NA NA NA NA —1,6,7-trimethyl-naphthalene 25 1 0 NA NA NA NA —n-C31 25 1 0 NA NA NA NA —Nonacosane 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —Nonadecane 25 8 0 NA NA NA NA —Pentacosane 25 25 0 NA NA NA NA —Pentatriacontane 25 25 0 NA NA NA NA —Perylene 25 1 0 NA NA NA NA —Phytane 25 25 0 NA NA NA NA —Pristane 25 21 0 NA NA NA NA —Tetratriacontane 25 13 0 NA NA NA NA —Total Alkanes 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —




Analyte




MRL DQOs (mg/kg)

Total Resolved 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —Total UCM 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —Tritriacontane 25 1 0 NA NA NA NA —PAHsPAH, Total 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA 0.005Total NS&T PAHs 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —Total PAHs without Perylene 25 0 0 NA NA NA NA —2-Methylnaphthalene 32 1 0 NA NA NA NA —Acenaphthene 32 32 0 NA NA NA NA —Acenaphthylene 32 28 0 NA NA NA NA —Anthracene 32 21 0 NA NA NA NA —Benzo(a)anthracene 32 9 0 NA NA NA NA —Benzo(a)pyrene 32 25 0 NA NA NA NA —Benzo(b)fluoranthene 32 7 0 NA NA NA NA —Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 32 13 0 NA NA NA NA —Benzo(k)fluoranthene 32 18 0 NA NA NA NA —Chrysene 32 6 0 NA NA NA NA —Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 32 28 0 NA NA NA NA —Dibenzofuran 7 2 0 NA NA NA NA —Fluoranthene 32 5 0 NA NA NA NA —Fluorene 32 5 0 NA NA NA NA —Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 32 25 0 NA NA NA NA —Naphthalene 32 0 0 NA NA NA NA —Phenanthrene 32 1 0 NA NA NA NA —Pyrene 32 5 0 NA NA NA NA —

Notes:a. Mercury in marine sediments was analyzed by EPA Method 7471A and EPA Method 1631 (EPA, 2001b) for the September 2004 data-collection activities.

— = DQO not establishedNA = not applicable, analyte not scheduled for analysisSHC = saturated hydrocarbon

b. DQO unit for total organic carbon is percent.


TABLE A-45

Marine Water, Accuracy and Precision

Analyte nMean LCS



Inorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 13 99 3.5 4% 2 16 9.9 62%Chloride 6 97 3.2 3% 0 — — —Fluoride 6 101 4.0 4% 0 NA NA NASulfate 6 97 3.9 4% 1 8.0 — —Total Cyanide 3 107 4.6 4% 0 NA NA NATotal Suspended Solids 8 98 10.6 11% 17 54 45.5 84%Hardness NA NA NA NA 2 7.0 8.5 121%MetalsAluminum 18 103 6.4 6% 16 25 21.0 84%Antimony 20 100 2.6 3% 0 — — —Arsenic 19 99 2.9 3% 34 39 70.6 180%Barium 18 101 2.6 3% 34 33 29.0 89%Beryllium 18 89 9.8 11% 5 12 10.2 85%Boron 17 99 5.6 6% 34 5.1 6.1 118%Cadmium 19 100 2.9 3% 26 11 9.8 92%Chromium 19 99 3.8 4% 14 19 16.0 84%Cobalt 19 100 3.8 4% 26 33 35.8 109%Copper 19 102 4.0 4% 23 17 18.4 110%Iron 16 105 3.4 3% 26 20 22.3 112%Lead 19 97 3.9 4% 19 57 62.0 108%Manganese 18 101 3.6 4% 21 47 57.2 121%Mercury 26 98 10.8 11% 3 39 22.2 57%Nickel 19 101 3.2 3% 26 12 11.7 99%Selenium 18 97 10.1 10% 0 — — —Silver 19 100 2.7 3% 5 52 58.1 111%Thallium 19 96 4.3 5% 7 14 20.0 146%Tin 20 99 2.5 3% 0 NA NA NAVanadium 18 97 4.5 5% 0 NA NA NAZinc 19 102 3.9 4% 20 40 32.2 80%OrganicsGasoline Range Organics 4 108 6.4 6% 0 — — —Diesel Range Organics 3 90 4.0 5% 0 — — —Residual Range Organics 3 94 5.3 6% 1 103 — —Benzene 3 99 4.2 4% 0 NA NA NAEthylbenzene 3 100 0.6 0.6% 0 NA NA NAo-Xylene 3 96 2.0 2% 0 NA NA NAToluene 3 93 5.5 6% 0 NA NA NAXylene, Isomers m & p 3 99 1.7 2% 0 NA NA NA




TABLE A-46

Marine Water, Precision from Laboratory Duplicates


Duplicate RPD (%) SD RSDInorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 2 13 8.5 65%Chloride 1 3.0 — —Fluoride 0 R — —Sulfate 1 2.0 — —Total Cyanide 1 0 — —Total Suspended Solids 7 5.1 5.7 110%MetalsAluminum 12 1.5 1.3 88%Antimony 12 1.5 1.2 78%Arsenic 9 1.9 1.5 77%Barium 12 1.7 1.2 74%Beryllium 9 4.2 3.5 82%Bismuth 1 1.6 — —Boron 13 1.1 2.0 184%Cadmium 9 2.9 2.0 70%Calcium 1 1.6 — —Chromium 9 1.3 1.4 106%Cobalt 9 3.3 3.5 104%Copper 9 1 1.3 143%Iron 12 1.2 0.97 77%Lead 9 3.4 5.3 155%Magnesium 2 5.5 3.5 64%Manganese 12 1.5 1.0 67%Mercury 5 9.2 4.9 53%Molybdenum 1 1.0 — —Nickel 9 1.3 1.0 75%Potassium 1 6.0 — —Selenium 9 5.4 5.3 98%Silicon 1 2.0 — —Silver 9 1.6 1.9 121%Sodium 2 6.0 7.1 118%Thallium 9 2.3 2.4 103%Tin 12 2.5 0.91 36%Vanadium 12 1.7 1.6 93%Zinc 9 1.4 0.53 36%OrganicsGasoline Range Organics 1 7.3 — —Diesel Range Organics 2 18 0 0Residual Range Organics 2 18 0 0Benzene 1 1.8 — —Toluene 1 2.5 — —Ethylbenzene 1 2.0 — —Xylene, Isomers m & p 1 2.0 — —o-Xylene 1 2.0 — —

Notes:— = insufficient sample count to calculate statisticsR = usable data points not available to generate an RPD value


TABLE A-47

Marine Water, Comparability

Analyte n-pairs


Inorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 3 141 22.9 16%Chloride 1 29 — —Fluoride 0 NA NA NASulfate 1 75 — —Total Cyanide 0 NA NA NATotal Suspended Solids 17 107 43.8 41%MetalsAluminum 8 20 19.3 94%Antimony 0 — — —Arsenic 26 59 11.4 19%Barium 33 46 26.7 58%Beryllium 0 — — —Boron 33 16 11.9 76%Cadmium 0 — — —Chromium 6 70 22.9 33%Cobalt 7 62 35.2 56%Copper 7 39 47.7 123%Iron 8 25 24.0 95%Lead 3 37 22.3 61%Manganese 23 67 52.3 79%Mercury 4 60 23.7 39%Nickel 0 — — —Selenium 0 — — —Silver 3 186 12.9 7%Thallium 0 — — —Tin 0 — — —Vanadium 0 — — —Zinc 2 125 46.7 37%OrganicsDiesel Range Organics 0 — — —Residual Range Organics 0 — — —Benzene 0 NA NA NAEthylbenzene 0 NA NA NAo-Xylene 0 NA NA NAToluene 0 NA NA NAXylene, Isomers m & p 0 NA NA NA



Sample Type Location Sample Identification ParameterResult(µg/L)

MRL(µg/L) Dilution

Primary MPS1 083104MPS1MBW001 Arsenic 38.9J 40 20QC Duplicate MPS1 083104MPS1MBW201 Arsenic 58.6 40 20QA Triplicate MPS1 083104MPS1MBW302 Arsenic 1.27 0.67 1QA Triplicate MPS1 083104MPS1MBW301 Arsenic 1.2 0.67 1Primary MPS2 090104MPS2MBW001 Arsenic 62.2 40 20Primary MPS3 090104MPS3MBW001 Arsenic 46 40 20Primary MPS4 083104MPS4MBW001 Arsenic 50.8 40 20PSEP Reference Admiralty Island — Arsenic NR — —PSEP Reference Open Ocean Seawater — Arsenic 1.26 — —Primary MPS1 083104MPS1MBW001 Copper 16.9 16 20QC Duplicate MPS1 083104MPS1MBW201 Copper 21.6 16 20QA Triplicate MPS1 083104MPS1MBW302 Copper 0.854 0.133 1QA Triplicate MPS1 083104MPS1MBW301 Copper 0.511 0.133 1Primary MPS2 090104MPS2MBW001 Copper 25.3 16 20Primary MPS3 090104MPS3MBW001 Copper 20.8 16 20Primary MPS4 083104MPS4MBW001 Copper 22 16 20PSEP Reference Admiralty Island — Copper 0.19 — —PSEP Reference Open Ocean Seawater — Copper 0.228 — —Primary MPS1 083104MPS1MBW001 Nickel 32.9 16 20QC Duplicate MPS1 083104MPS1MBW201 Nickel 35.3 16 20QA Triplicate MPS1 083104MPS1MBW302 Nickel 0.63 0.27 1QA Triplicate MPS1 083104MPS1MBW301 Nickel 0.54 0.27 1Primary MPS2 090104MPS2MBW001 Nickel 40.1 16 20Primary MPS3 090104MPS3MBW001 Nickel 35.9 16 20Primary MPS4 083104MPS4MBW001 Nickel 34 16 20PSEP Reference Admiralty Island — Nickel 0.31 -- --PSEP Reference Open Ocean Seawater — Nickel 0.228 -- --Primary MPS1 083104MPS1MBW001 Selenium 154 80 20QC Duplicate MPS1 083104MPS1MBW201 Selenium 186 80 20QA Triplicate MPS1 083104MPS1MBW302 Selenium 0.3J 1 2QA Triplicate MPS1 083104MPS1MBW301 Selenium ND 1 2Primary MPS2 090104MPS2MBW001 Selenium 177 80 20Primary MPS3 090104MPS3MBW001 Selenium 143 80 20Primary MPS4 083104MPS4MBW001 Selenium 174 80 20PSEP Reference Admiralty Island — NR — — —PSEP Reference Open Ocean Seawater — NR — — —

Notes:— = not availableNR = not referenced in PSEP document (EPA, 1997)PSEP = Puget Sound Estuary Program (EPA, 1997)

TABLE A-48

2004 Marine Water, Summary of Results for Arsenic, Copper, Nickel, and Selenium


TABLE A-49

Summary of Sensitivity for Marine Water


Analyte




Inorganic ParametersAmmonia, as Nitrogen 26 6 0 0.1 NA NA NA 0.1Chloride 4 0 0 0.1 NA NA NA NAFluoride 4 4 4 0.1 NA NA NA NASulfate 4 0 0 0.1 NA NA NA NATotal Cyanide 4 4 0 0.005 NA NA NA 0.01Total Suspended Solids 26 0 0 5 NA NA NA 5Hardness 8 0 0 — — — — —MetalsAluminum 51 19 7 0.025 NA NA NA 0.05Antimony 51 33 33 0.001 NA NA NA 0.00005Arsenic 52 0 0 0.005 NA NA NA 0.0005Barium 51 0 0 0.003 NA NA NA 0.005Beryllium 52 19 8 0.004 NA NA NA 0.00002Boron 51 0 0 — NA NA NA 0.01Cadmium 52 8 8 0.0005 NA NA NA 0.0002Chromium 52 8 8 0.001 NA NA NA 0.0002Cobalt 52 7 0 0.004 NA NA NA 0.00002Copper 52 0 0 0.001 NA NA NA 0.0001Iron 51 6 6 0.25 NA NA NA 0.02Lead 52 8 8 0.0002 NA NA NA 0.00002Manganese 51 7 7 0.001 NA NA NA 0.005Mercury, low level 27 0 0 0.000005 NA NA NA 0.000005Nickel 52 0 0 0.002 NA NA NA 0.0002Potassium 8 0 0 0.5 NA NA NA NASelenium 40 28 0 0.001 NA NA NA 0.001Silver 52 17 8 0.00002 NA NA NA 0.00002Thallium 52 7 7 0.00005 NA NA NA 0.00002Tin 51 51 51 0.001 NA NA NA 0.0001Vanadium 51 45 8 0.0004 NA NA NA 0.01Zinc 52 8 8 0.0015 NA NA NA 0.0005OrganicsGasoline Range Organics 4 0 0 0.3 NA NA NA NADiesel Range Organics 4 0 0 0.1 NA NA NA NAResidual Range Organics 4 0 0 0.5 NA NA NA NAVOCs Benzene 4 4 0 0.0004 NA NA NA NAEthylbenzene 4 4 0 0.001 NA NA NA NAo-xylene 4 4 0 0.001 NA NA NA NAToluene 4 4 0 0.001 NA NA NA NAXylene, m&p 4 4 0 0.002 NA NA NA NA

Notes:— = DQO not establishedNA = not applicable, analyte not scheduled for analysis

MRL DQOs (mg/L)


FIGURES


Task Elements

Days to Completion

Goal

Collection of Samples 0

Submittal of Samples to Shaw Sample Custodian

Completed Sample Transfer Log to Shaw

Completed E-chain (Electronic Chain-of-Custody)

Shipment of Samples 2

Login of Samples 4

Cooler Receipt Form to Shaw

Resolution of Comments

Complete Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Login for Sampling Event

Status of SDG to Shaw 14

Analysis of Samples 21

SDG Electronic Deliverable Format (EDF) and Laboratory Hard Copy Results 30

SDG EDF Verification

Resolution of Comments

Validation Worksheets Prepared

Posted data for Validation 45

Hardcopy SDG Event & Validation Worksheets

Perform Validation

Apply Flags to Data 60

Post Validated Event to Database 65

Post Data Quality Assessment Report (DQAR) to Document Repository 70

FIGURE A-1 Flow of Data for the Pebble Project

Data Verification

Laboratory Analysis

Data Release

Data Validation

Sampling Event

APPENDIX A, ATTACHMENT 1, CONTROL CHARTS

ATTACHMENT 1

CONTROL CHARTS

Control Charts A-1 through A-44, April 2004-December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

Control Charts A-45 through A-79, May 2004-November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

Control Charts A-80 through A-118, September 2004-October 2008 Groundwater

Control Charts A-119 through A-149, 2004-2007 Sediment

Control Charts A-150 through A-179, 2004-2007 Vegetation


Control Charts A-215 through A-219, 2004-2005 Fish and Mussel Tissue

Control Charts A-220 through A-253, 2004-2008 Marine Sediment

Control Charts A-254 through A-260, 2008 Marine Vegetation

Control Charts A-261 through A-274, 2004-2008 Marine Water

APPENDIX A, ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW, ATTACHMENT 1, CONTROL CHARTS

62

49

22

61 61

7

50

22

67

22

157

46

13 1360

22 23

55

67

115

13

0

12

53

67

0

23

0

34

22

10 13

40

1715

39

66

81

47

116

130

3331

70

1913

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08

Relative Percent Differen

ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐1: Total Acidity Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


21

6

1399

2

8101013

3 3535

16

2

22

6

00

50

1 0

21

214

24

02

58

2 0

19

8

26

7

16

88

2

12

003620

753 3

17

0

15

43

1317

645

35

95

1111830

7

13

0047 7

3

11

0

21

49 11

57

1519

29

3

29

37

1820

02

110

21

0

75

13

22

3 3

48

0

22

35

0

9

0

17

8

14

3

950

11

0

14

24

27

9 71214

46

12

14

3944

22

89

23030

21

15

22610

3

14

42 023

9

28

279

124

21

3834

632

971110

44

151617

4

27

11

32

157 73

9523

48

9

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐2: Total Alkalinity Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


21

15141313

0

24

1412

21

8

1517

47

913

33

511

14

1

46

2722

41

127

141116151113

7

0

20

2934

28

22

35

1621

3025

14

34

16

22191722

45

13

7

1611

24

1212

21

272328

8

1819

7

141713

2725

11

24

10

2428

97

58

21

710

3 4

2220

0

2019

41

32

39

23

41

99

24

15

22

1317

8

0

1313

19

44

48138 8131412

2

21

12

21

15

2123

1415

252925

157

0

34

2823

33

48

20

8

1

12

39

18

22695

42

14

44

16

3

1053123

32

14

23

32

62

2126

74

10

142

1210

1

9116912

631

17

10

015 50

87 5003

43

19

131823

10

16

4 3

39

0

7

16

40

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐3: Chloride Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


40

0

40

00.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐4: Cyanide Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


17

1

25

0

11

56

1

17

01

21

37

2321

33

4648

32 34

3

15

62

106

53

23

12

33

42

63

3

82

36

20

50

19

52 10

19

69

101

10

58

27

4139

98

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Jun‐07

Jul‐0

7

Aug

‐07

Sep‐07

Oct‐07

Nov‐07

Dec‐07

Jan‐08

Feb‐08

Mar‐08

Apr‐08

May‐08

Jun‐08

Jul‐0

8

Aug

‐08

Sep‐08

Oct‐08

Nov‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐5: Dissolved Organic Carbon Control Chart for June 2007‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


35

10

64

4752

28

45

62

8679

120

64

23

154

69

80

2

39

62

37

11

293124

38

85

72

121

63

1316

35

6

25

12

34

69

36

141614

2

19

48564949

58

8

43

2633

1912

22

37

9499

45

9186

49

18

36

63

26

12

40

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐6: Fluoride Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


13

7 7

1413

19

10886

11121181211

222119211819161415

588995

15

81215

22

15

59

18

24

4

119131719

86

19

14

7

15236 64040

8468

0

857

222351473124

7

246812

4242524 337

67

5

13

0

15

5

11

40

6

1

77 810

56

1114

76335637 78

159

32

710

1

8

0

76910

3

12

4324

10

70

0

7

89

42

37

95811

2 1

976

037744 4555

620 1153 247

20

3547

1269

1

63

8

2242 31 15220.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐7: Hardness as CaCO3 Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


148

78

57

165

119

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐8: Nitrogen: Ammonia (as N) Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


12

25

107111

101

128

113

7076

29

113

44

93

38

13

0

14

43

5

15

403640

97

108

35

5353

148

118

160

29

128

4

59

79

31

72

5245

13

132

178

41

82

104102

23

3337

9

103

154

117

8

1821

8

37

3 17

58

2229

112021

129

71

7

60

34

19

40

108113

51

7263

85

57

40

51

173

162

117109

80

474047

373140

69

4

30

1720

34

1

135

31

75

225

32

913

24

39

25

170

24

79

62

34

6259

41

84

106

3232

44

65

78

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐9: Nitrogen: Nitrate‐Nitrite Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


12

67

5

10

0

4

2

0

5

10

5

2

87

4

1

4

7

9

5

8

1

8

5

2

11

22

01212

6

1

4

0

9

4

12

0

7

1

5

111

56

3

1

5

2

65

0

2

5

00

3

6

121

6

21

3

54

21

6

1

7

111 1

4

21

6

9

2

0

21

3

9

23

1211

4

12

1

7

2

11

1

3

8

11

6

01

9

5

2 2

0

4

7

4

1

3233

11

8

65

1

4

01112

4

233

1

4

17

7

3

8

6

0

6

11

1

23

21

343

76

2

5

011 12

4

0 0101

456

14

6

2

43

0

15

3

1

11

3 3

9

2

01

5

12

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐10: pH Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


92

141

122

169

154

141

100

128

7

67

15

74

19

6772

55

79

49

171165

30

138

119

81

16

57

310

3429

16

100

12

34

16

29

96

42

18

44

212011

67

18

3829

79

13

86

22

35

70

29

8677

29

57

40

92

1014

42

76

60

40

71

1013

40

2835

13

56

155

2525

61

40

61

8

30

73

8786

16

82

166

58

80

6

67

383833

50

2429

1413

124

37

57

15

252113

95

34

83

101

1311

180

100105

60

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐11: Phosphorus: Total (as P) Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


74

43

64

100107

4

118

127

45

29

10117157

140

96

153

71652

174

1712

181175

2471052

17102 0

61414

2

165

216612

0

12

043 0

1270

41

4

1613911701 21120

632 4

31

228

71

10 1217

5

272515

3529

29131928

62

92

2929

1315211311

2313241410

200200200

16231821161612

200

991086

18

31

1820

35

147

44

410142224136

22

36

166485

25

12462

1667172520

198199

18151416113 56072111312054106111121097 69 78

86

2

20934146

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐12: Specific Conductance Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


10115

21

5

25

7111017913202124

14

2

131415202634

21

5105

48

1041231044342 2

779 75011849513

03 1138661259181212109911615

39

13141716916

437 4

18

411

15

4

36

37

23

411

3431

175

16

4

121

161471036

18910

113 44 3304 63 1

53 407

109

711614

24

1 1118

20

2 511

252217

42

1012

1210

109

1

117310413

18

23

021

18

16

1618

183 121

14651383613

346 2641 3371791011156 64 7

0 36 31164 5

39

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐13: Sulfate Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


67

105

84

157

138

80

100

11

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐14: Thiocyanate Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


80

0

18

35

24

37

20

2

51

12

27

16

32

2219

1

106

43

158

18

7

57

105

52

29

1319

28

3940

61

812

22

40

6 717108

2319

236

39

2

14812

38

81

713

48

58

9

18

48

3

14

47

31

10

93

2

38

5251

5

65

22

4238

50

116

60

97

20

11

4037

4

2420

2

34

71513

138

27

0

27

63

3944

26

69

43

21

135

71

19

3

39

71

29

1011

124

6

2722

96

4

60

95

33

58

53

16

53

20182317

4143

1516

45

119

22

4

27

52

3332

14

60

7

28

72

86

14

86

17

39

1116

65

118

49

1914

35

9

4740

4

85

24

4439

26

16

153

64

7581

39

4

45

26

116

13

33

18

86

3025

4

69

26

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐15: Total Dissolved Solids Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


18

41

47

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0Jun‐07

Jul‐0

7

Aug

‐07

Sep‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐16: Total Organic Carbon Control Chart for June 2007‐September 2007 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


83

42

98

7

150

55

42

64

3

13

176168

2027

125

65

20

35

48

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐17: Total Suspended Solids Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


11

114

1411

2

28

73

31

11

2

53

7

39

17

41

31

7784

5 4

48

16

7

24

9

27

18

4

31

15

69

38

58

23

0

39

92

3037

9101012

43

15

34

86

2

31

70

676

18

110

14

4

26

37

66

65

18

37

25

403333

46

43

18

810

4239

90

1612

46

62

40

302

2732

116

1614191512

43

12101320

105

3

22

1210

3124

40

1512

1

2025

10

36

13

71

13

54

42

57

95

43

52

78

27

49613

41

1

19

7131192

23

15

45

32

799

40

111

610

31

5478

20

139

26

16

39

75

21

7

1522

44

56

128

52

14

2

17

8

2623

6111320

72

23

42

26

813

59

2930

2020

115

1698

21

6

26

104

30

11

19

0

22

11

33

110

69

36

2122

26

26

105

59

34

46

10

18

18

22

5

28

912

27

117

61110

27

1411

20

8

1715

42

2328

4 244

16

46

34

19

51

28

20252417191317

27

1257

31

55

85

120

37

212322

815202014

3032

149

0

22

2913

65

26

6

40

10

2118

82

3

46

23

10710

64

19

35

79

2624

5

70

32

43

105

1920

813

26

16

25

43

16

27

0

1311

44

141096

32

53

1815

14

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐18: Aluminum Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


192

166

187

88

147

48

62

23

3121322 19

45

10

3744

7

2516

32

18

1

66

44

8

109

8

26

47

94

10

186

116

1

44

5

43

29

78

148

5750

37

92

104

81121

69

92

15

1 415

1

54

13

53

86

22

3

36

2212

45

24

59

109

5

34

9 74 4

189

24

45

29

17

52

84

35

70

143

21320182215161661

211891415

28

37

7

40

693

213041

21172819

3

62

37

55

68

36

5

47

141179

34

2025

3 661251

172318

40

68

2429

6

19

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐19: Antimony Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


18

55

36

46

20

111422

1

161

12

54

83

26

42

151411

31

1824

10

21181822

12

28

15201623

3

2224

89

924

39

82

30

5

1916146

16

61417

5

31

1018

55

34

2221

5

28202723212230

0

18

8

3433

67

37

1711

2121

62

32

2

15

30

5

24

56

4

13

49

95

15

81

104

104

24

14106

27

1612734

4744

13

28

3

78

19

69116

13

4

1518

36

26

3

22

72

35

2532

0

23

4

2018

30

148

8106

33

11

157011

1919

56

272221

363833

7

1723282929

15949511

24

63

49

1212

24

932

53

350.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐20: Arsenic Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


9

117

1519

36

29

44

15

7

25

523

34

24

2

30

19

7410

366

113

4

1210

2

22

4001

20

003372

12810

303

21

11

18

910

26

771116

31

13 13842

12

28111317

84

25

1313

5

1481151

108

19

15

161114

24

1113

21

9395850

9516

17

3

12746

148201

97

29

6 75165555156363 174836144116

15

83

149

0

104 51

151812

3648

16

4

1154

11689551

14

5116135 7

14

2

1491095

117

523

32

6127

36

776

14

43373022

11 10

2

12

36

1410

37

23

234710

912

3322

17

4 323

11

3048101013

3

1161

811

14

111010

21

50

14

0

910

3

12

41013

31

861254

1414

1

37

314 51

131397

19

1

8

21

36511

16

25

13

344 561

11

132 0

833

15

621511744 52875

22

516

1519

105

21

111012215

1312

25

22

10

19

2221

25

551014

3

10

14321

1156610716 8264

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐21: Barium Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


76

1

26

55

100

30

1210

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐22: Beryllium Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


145

187

125

68

16

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐23: Bismuth Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


157

30

110

99

83

30

92

108

99

58

38

22

4

19

10

2214

635960

95

5954

28

133

107

145

31

133

38

110

44

29

76

52

71

59

98

8

74

14

49 1189

1

15

218 5

28

16

3535

26

10124

19

156

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐24: Boron Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


46

4

59

40

48

14

23

12

114

142

1211

322824

8

21

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐25: Cadmium Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


6

3

8

12

2123

13

9

13

6

17

14

18

1099

1414

7

121413

28

2321

11

8

13

181817

98

16

6

108

17

109

18

1315

6

10

19

10

28

6

28

2424

2725

12119

2022

1819

97

14

9

28

19

8

5

1

27

464

12119

12

1617

1

4

7

4222

10

1112

8

210

7

3

0

5

220

420

7

21

8

12

79

3

7

3

10

100

6

2

119

0022

64

9

4

12

0

5764

7

01

10

16

7

1

9

4

1246

0

13

7

11

3

18

12

33

86

11

6

13

3

12

7

24

9

1

25

13

433

11

1

4

1

1010

4

89

19

9

1

22

6

98

5

15

3

11

12

64

9

6

135

12

2

109

54

13

9

14

17

9

6 6

343

181819

8

4

7

4

8 8

45766

12

0

7

10

0

6

3

18

131

7

25

1

11

0

331

67

1

7

46

10865

12

464

10

3123

21

14

30

11

5

21

4

9

2

13

10

2

54

8

1

1011

54

1311

8

1

78

1

5

17

13

2

17

1086

10

40

43

01

75

13

2

976

33

66

1

5

9

4423

81012

6

2

88

5

1

4545 5

0

34

0123

17

1

12

15

575

17

4

1

9

3354

9

43

66

124

9

66

1

75

11

453223432

12

0

5

1

5

21

43224

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐26: Calcium Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


424846

22

46

36

21

56

86

2121

52

118

48

31

2122

35

1715

2729

5

12

3

31

69

112

27

81

15

66

16

4245

54

4743

21

5855

12

90

82

64

31

126121

11

91

80

87

22

5255

46

6965

75

13

98

55

19

4640

49

14

41

60

48

41

0

1712

38

8

56

20

30

11

24

14

43

23

7

14

55

82

24

93

6358

10

45

20

9

303136

3

47

7

0

29

80

38

81

17

38

4

2725

14

4147

117

48

3028

7

44

2218

92

1712

2

11

26

15

47

25

45

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐27: Chromium Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


66

5155

9

66

16

35

7

69

30

58

66

75

96

51

3632

44

79

41

84

70

42

84

29

51

108105105

2429

10

0

37

19

49

81

46

23

36

2530

116

69

97

50

138

122

114

91

31

51

113

85

110

48

124

142

29

82

4440

13

149

2

93

6

50

41

4

22

32

42

33

6

181816

7

16

58

16

35

16

393632

23

2

12

41

4

14

35

1715

57

36

13

4 31015822

171314

30

64

15

53

68

26

11

40

2518

3713

23

13

1893

25

6

1410

20

40

14

4

39

6

20

9

1

127

53

60

922

39

30

1516

5

30

4533

13

22

75

1

15

35

24

48

12

133

105

7674

60

1316

47

3841

18

41

49

32

53

67

26

57

2

2329

88

10

77

67

11

025

1512

0

23

138 9

231912

4

13

21

1113

42

32

9169

22

126

11

113

15

31

5 4

1619

92

2633

6

20

352821

91

49

34

4

18

54

3633

44

17

42

336

23

7

23

4

12

2124

4

43

52

139

1

21

4

1617

2

34

7

20

233

212020

4

56

4

47

8

21

57

1

39

19

11108

181511

1

31

12

36

2226

39

34

19

74

17

573

18

1014

60.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐28: Cobalt Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


16

39

915

26

13172228

151

23

32

46

1910

27

8

31

17

156

1

27

140

14

57

45

21

50

1

27

17

54

241519

291

2430

4

2128

5

21

0

19

38

1795 5

191317

1

84

47

3

13

62

75

16

50

6

16

4945

23

3126

3536

222224

35

15

3

15

34

113

7

27

8

52

1322

814

189

19

52

26

41

26

57

24

615

53

11151412

33

2329

17179

20

110

66

2022

42

0

19

61

1

3527

1711

1

13

161

15

3

127

11

22

91711

17

3232

1

3325

35

93

47

91

131923

4

14

31

14

28

13101410

98

23

46

11

292822

119

88

162

179

118136

56

35

123

34

37

2

26

77

18

52

62

18

42

59

7

75

11514

352830

18

71

62

712

143

910

38

85

812

1

20

6

49

23

5

133

13

33

23

128

68

9

115

19

87

1

88

9

67

14

35

20

52

31

56

81

98

32

106

73

57

29

40

48

311

3746

166

1211631110

58

73

12

121

56

13

163

105

14

43

27

156

43

32

61

50

28

94

51

18

40

4

17

6

31

915

81

13

23

85

32

67

49

23

40

17

34

54

25

105

28

52

67

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐29: Copper Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


1

57

573

46

51491311

37

5

27

59

16

2837

1811

18142019

78397 4387

22

553

21

107

56

12149

51

1218

13

231612

26

131

30

70

167

2026

12492 3

35

32

21

6

62

36

202117

58

2317

0

59

611149

5353

14

2521

40

2

12

39

242933

23

2

14

3

1315

41

1725

2

16

72

60

25

49

1

43

19

61

1261213

38

0

11

1

103

26

126

10

21

32

62

44

27

65

1413

3814

4102

26

45186

22

75514103

159135

174

35

5 8582

145

1716

41

106

2732

18

1

20

7972

20

68113

27

3

76

18

4

38

7 41 2277

1822

33

8

129

68

21

49

5

60

137

130

92

71

18

61

162121

9

50

20

51

171723

71411

2330

14

151511

37

16

1

141810651

4951

21138234

20

135

42

1

41

14

43

4

20

65 6

45

7977

41

20

75

105

22

56

3036

1521

2699107

65

3

22

1116

0

12

38

68

0

34

14

38

43

133

8

98

7

44

2219

80

16

610

46

20

1040.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐30: Iron Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


117

78

2

57

100

45

121

3

54

12

30

67

7

6168

135

49

19

167

48

99

82

123

86

8

126

112

131

61

103

45

109

32

67

181 180 176

155149

132

103

75

3

112

2

160

59

86

161

98

24

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐31: Lead Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


9

15

2

7

46

12

11

5

0

664

11

4

9

5

88

44

151715

9

53

13

32

64

7

10

4

7

12

4

18

3

21

2

665

16

2

10

6

10

1516

6464

20

31

9

1

14

9

211919

151416

27

5

1

30

25

3

64

111113

32

20

14

10

535

11

46

12

46

1

15

7

12

15

8

1414

1110

15

11

18

6

1

1111

21

8

12

1

45

13

865

88

19

12

5

1

1110

1

15

3

79

12

8

19

1012

6

15

10

5

98

18

9

4

1314

3

810

16

7

21

1314

10

0

4

9

14

11

532

17

5

17

13

864

10

15

21

4

11

8

12

1

20

11

5

22

7

2

20

4

29

3

22

568

42

7

45

9

0

12

11

1197

2

11

5

97

12

7

0

53

6

24

18

9108

42

7

14

9

1413

0

5

10

0

4

7666

46

5655

37

3

27

6

22

13

1

11

878

19

10

6

14

56

35

0

18

3

9

2

6

22

12

25

1614

46

9

4

1

21

18

686

10

2

12

9

5

8

1110

2

6

9

434

16

86

25

6

9

12

25

24

13

0

6

10

4

10

5

1

11

4

16

23

6

3

0

19

3

9

6

16

134

13

331

9

20

9

5

12

15

1

16

1

6

1

13

5 57

20

25

53

13

25

910

7

2

5

16

34 46

1

9

1

4

14

75424

7

0

10

15

1232

22

2

16

0

6535

123

9

4233

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐32: Magnesium Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


6

56

4

14611

60

3

26

12535

17127

22

1

52

28

3

3131

5

2216

5

17

815

2301

16

00

12

21

5

28

3101013

55

6 3345843

13

21811

136

20

3

43

138

714651 3172

38

0514

13136

1593

35

6473

12

68

3

74

15

38

2325

9323412

1

1412127711477

144

225

2016

614751

10

1

103

14

41

51

1014

44

1610

1

15

41

7

23

1191517

17012427

56

19

42

19

31

50

17

715

114

10

17

16913136

163

1822

5

27

373

22

46

7812

66

16

29

12

065

37

92

165241110

44

4

139169

32

1794

21

6 381

24

7912

3

1216

100

13

345

125

5

14751

26

10148138

21

3 646

26

389124113

201417

31

21

5446

158

17

8

18

3 00

9

01

101

21

3

1421

51

17

39431827264

40

86

139 711363112

13

131

37

10

71

62

57

78

610

29

13

12

2323

1111

52

9

19

1

14845830

16

1

41

57 7118

201416

7

17

2

78

74 5111013

080 3432 25

610.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐33: Manganese Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


1319

47

71

8375

62

7469

44

164

1

25

115

8

35

10

51

60

95

72

60

44

3

12

25

6

46

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐34: Mercury Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


12

23

62

535 43

14

2

65

151116

37

05

17

1

20

5

1918

425

14982

20

10813

31

5

18

11610912

5773 23

67

14

33

436

2216

138223

26

1321

1314

37

6

16

8

17

4

1612

27

64

49

71

18

8

34

18

44

1316

3026

1

16

589

78

38

31

8

20

5

95

1012

49

23

1

65

78

41

3036

21

4

19

90

6

71

15

1

17

105

11

31

60

24

92

79

5

2527

18

28

25

57

2318

10

124

42

14

23

2

62

39

48

1

42

20

65

45

5449

2929

2

1510

27

13

1

1412105991412

85

18

8

17

7934

17

998505143

50

18

3

12

4274840

99

3052

101

5

13

0

16

3

13

1

16

6

15121311

25

10128

45

82

131715

48

15

8

1423

18

115

062

14

71

13

55520

7

18

813

6

19

31

131013

3

13959612

23

511

4

11161116

6

27

66 72143262430432

22

35

104

1924

3

18

40

72

4

5253

14

7

15

70

6

78

44

88

22

5

22

6

28

35

4549

812

3773

13

949798

3

2120

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐35: Molybdenum Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


101

25

116

83

6

15

6

113

80

051

16

63

38

47

68

38

60

47

37

85

25

66

101

88

75

51

68

14

28

6063

6

42

71

51

6767

43

89

63

72

8779

68

86

61

80

61

113

83

25

47

60

7177

24

108

1010

42

60

29

83

31

10

22

8

18

138

1012

21

38

17

61

8

1710

2023

54

6

49

3236

17

26

125

31

11

27

13

51

31

1715

2824

3

19

35

63

5

29

64

88

109

26

42

96

3528

37

7

78

27

9

42

2634

1912

64

2230

21

70

7

4651

13

4

4650

77

23

48

99

116

103

81

112

86

126

86

77

113

15

162

0

29

48

67

81

57626567

28

57

40

20

67

4234

71

2

76

29

615850

64

20

4

15

44

4

52

41

14

23

1417

53

11

67

58

17

84

45

1517

7

44

15

59

43

1114

74

45

16

79

1

3427

37

13

4

4135

1716

92

57

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐36: Nickel Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


2

8

2

9

1818

11

434

161214

811

1

7547

14

4

93

12

36

22

910

16

8 810

22

681013

22

1

12

4113

11

2

9976

139

22331543

1618

24

5

31

141110

21

12

23

9

1

64

12

67106

1

26

912

6

15141612

1

9

3

1411

31445359

3

14

13 2

4534

12

44757

15

10

3

11101312

62

1516

28

21

1112

3

13

33622

10

3

41

23

8

13

69

16

38

19

36

2

69

21

789

247

12

34

19

84

108

13

20

5

25

6

17

7

18

10

2218

34311

12

77

14

24

267

1317

5

19

1187109

1412

21

12

4

10

32

27

240

62011

26

1411

4

16

1014

26

128

034

11

631

73485

111211

32

14

8

2

12

731

16

1

86

12

23

14

13

10

2428

5

0

15

21

9996

118773

11

18

13

4573

10

2

14

13

12

456

17

2

14

32

3

34

4696532014144

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐37: Potassium Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


1511 10

20

26

33

25

46

11

48

33

49

111

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐38: Selenium Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


3

9

36211

1010

23

1312151514

683

11

210

69

42

87348

25

71

57

14

241465016

00

74651064

15

8

161114

1

22

1517171619

8 101213

2

58

6

12

2

9

3

18

101

21

6

16

25

19

11

3

12

2

37

60

7

16

2

35

3

27

3

10

3 1303

13

72

11

31

1518

83

12

5

20

5101294

48

0

26

7

1311111110

19

125

12

18

9

24

49

10

55

7

15

51013

22

811

12

91114

2

84

20

14

6

1922

111314

65

14

1

11117

0520 04

1166610

12

1416

4142 1

7128 85 7

030 20 2

726300.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐39: Silicon Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


42

30

125124

25

107

60

116

71

15

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐40: Silver Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


2145

1010

66545

1714

10

10

15

5

0

13

66

16

7

1111

5413

12

5

108

129

5

13

7

18

0

17

354

8

14

4

10

5

1615

26

22

664

26

1

9

145

1215

6

11

6

25

13

61

57

1

7

14

653

1515

2

14

5656

12111112

89

2

9

5

9

14

6

12

3

18

9

34

11

20

0

755

13

46

119

3

10

4 32442

13

2

6463

8

22

133

9

58

24

10

6

1

7

3

19

799

14

77

34

18

11

24

2020

15

1088

17

52 1

1111

15

79

3

10

442

10

15

91113

811

1

1615

1

22

23

16

1

86

18

2

887

31

53

75

1342

18

2

13

21

19

11

1453

8

2

630

1716

98

0

64

12101113

58

43

8

31

5

1

59

3141

50

1

22

00112

7

0363

10811

56

1

56

14

35

14

16

8

4

14

42121

6

15

21

5

12

96

1235

9

1

8

1312

8

0

14

8

02

1917

2

8

0

10

311

64

12

1

656

14 4

29

107

2

121012

8118

13

753

7

225521455

10

1

753

8

3

12

17

0

24

5

14

52

9

32

7

3

7 6

2441

56

1

12

6

0

7

11

1

5

15

0112

13

710

2

141185 6443 42

9

10.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐41: Sodium Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


109

18

6

56

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐42: Thallium Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


5

67

11

37

23

814

41

8

15

33

2325

10

38

2421

29

80

51

16

3335

1117

51

4135

52

10

2120

12

69

5

15

6

78

5

15

43

99

1721

29

12

5

83

34

23

4

15

51

59

11

18

50

34

105

1823

59

41

15

31

39

24

79

31

22

4

76

53

72

8380

9

34

54

74

81

29

96

66

31

10

17

53

10

54

45

98

124

61

1116

9

72

22

53

2529

36

98 6510

2826

121

516

17

34

141414

5 4

11

2

17

8

74

1

32

69

25

34

62

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐43: Vanadium Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


4

4444

57

20

51

91

69

4145

11

43

5

7269

25

38

69

112

73

11

24

97

25

50

2

5148

27

195

108

8 12

45

117

59

20

3

47

2423

44

9

61

17

83

21

13

132

158149

179187

69

33

2129

151

122

7

19

33

60

17

5

93

536057

35

1719

87

83

72

141

9182

181

127

153

38 35

20

39

17

211

7885

157

22

53

70

33

84

6

112

14

3129

133

40

67

44

62

25

40

10

168

17 13

42 41

74

9

138

756470

45

61

37

59

29

9

23

51

77

103

465455

2030

105100

54

84

48

64

3233

10

36

6

49

2

504657

21

7

46

31

2

42

66

18

4036

18221319814

30

43

31

83

3 6

42

30

74

1

87

64

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Apr‐04

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07

Oct‐07

Dec‐07

Feb‐08

Apr‐08

Jun‐08

Aug

‐08

Oct‐08

Dec‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐44: Zinc Control Chart for April 2004‐December 2008 Surface Water (Except Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


149

22

40

22

34

64

1310

0

40

87

0

56

125

1

11

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐45: Total Acidity Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


13

4344

18

1

6

15

22

8

002

25

0

6

12

0

3

11

3

37

29

7

46

9

02

6

0

25

12

54

0

3

32

0

11

2

6

2

66

9

0

26

9

24

2119

35

29

5

32

42

38

11

19

36

11

7

10

5

41

24

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐46: Total Alkalinity Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


0

21 2121

32

11

22

11

16 1719

25

37

31

13

1814

19

25

13

19

41

30

1918

28

20

2925

86

605757

4040

46

60

4650

40

353535

40

25

40

4644

25

35

2529

353535

40

33292925

12

50

14

2

8

3

16

95

220.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐47: Chloride Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


510

49

15

8

86

39

62

34

21

96

2631

1111711

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐48: Fluoride Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


13

7

2

24

5

2

17

343

16

0

4 4

7

1

8

333

56

11

8

23

7

12223

4

0

12

4

6

23

7

9

7

3

15

13

99

56

87

1111

15

11

1

1011

15

3

8

26

11

6

1

87

3

0

5

34

78

2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐49: Hardness as CaCO3 Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


9

144

21

193

163

2318

26 22

48

817

21183

188

15

59

22171822

98

4233

1419

53

96

25

1112

40

1715161417

146

43

2520

2

179151115

103

1315

122

59

44

16 191223

4130

60

45

17

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐50: Nitrogen: Nitrate‐Nitrite Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


21

32

5

2

4

1

3

8

656

2

67

2

5

15

2

11

11

11

35

5

1

12

7

9

45

9

6

9

4

11

4

01

8

4

23

8

6

12

10

12

14

6

3

11

5

13

4

9

6

0

4

9

7

21 1

13

87

4

9

7

10.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐51: pH Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


172

67

77

33

1013

114

81

125

33

0

465058

0

83

16

6

6767

40

67

15

100

0

29

67

120

67

0

67

40

74

65

2927

91

12

46

74

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐52: Phosphorus: Total (as P) Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


3

177

1238 553

101714

181414

26

121519131410

141351273242 0303

11

21

07

21

3

13

331

53

25

1516

337461

18

85310698 53

666866

7126

14

10.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐53: Specific Conductance Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


19

17

180

121910

14 12

1 246 8

141011910

43 2411573

12131115

00

17

33

13181019179

222015

50

3540

25

712716

33

20

252935

18

7 581318171215

30

1710

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐54: Sulfate Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


4

22

105

25

126

6

39

5763

31

49

82

1717

27

504643

21

9

43

21

68

43

32

9

26

60

23

7

35

6257

26

86

109

37

6

59

13

3

24

40

50

49

22

0

8

16

56

8

120

63

46

8

7676

12

74

7

19

2

63

11

4

16

48

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐55: Total Dissolved Solids Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


1914 13

141

128

167

97

49

3131

51

36

134

12 11

29

51

6969

30

190

28

26

52

141320

27

40

101

8138

2315

3

50

5

83

2229

135140

33

22

60

3730

7

74

84

133

59

109

14

28

154

77

25

6511

82

4

1610

125

10

119

97

20

99

31

47

22

3436

7

39

23

43

126

10.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐56: Aluminum Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


2421

11

1822

15

48

1814

19

31 32

3

67

2

17

69

36

79

23

23

9394

49

11

44

2

15

32

8

181612

7

18

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐57: Antimony Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


5

1013

2

85

1416

7

18

30

7

24

30

24

16

4

1314

3

41

4610

15

39

84

19

03

107

1

12

6

14

95

1012

29

58

20

7

15

10

33

12

62

30

242219

5

13

34 30

62

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐58: Arsenic Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


3127

51

45

0

28

12

2

19

87

25

19 18

8

15

1

141212

1915

25

7

0

53

14

3757

1232

1176

1

21

5

1313

66443462

87

14

22

1

16

24

55

2

16

4

10711

19

9

2023

1069

24

9

256

0

11

32

17

1

3634

48

57

19

1

81

28

56

25

20

38

4339

3

21

16

70

63

51

22

40

30

1512

6

012348

10

7

17

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐59: Barium Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


1210

21

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐60: Beryllium Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


124

100

67

44

36

109

18

6

13

22

57

11

75

0

2622

15161212

30

22

131822

12

50

10

22

444036

27

44

25

14

32

19

2626

37

51

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐61: Boron Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


1818

39

23

12

88

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐62: Cadmium Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


18

8

26

13

5

1

33

15

6

22

6

34

11

19

13

5

2

5

77

1

5

7

3

6

9

3

0

4

12

2

8

3

5

1

7

4

13

54

8

012

9

222

0

3

6

2

0

3

0

23

56

9

2

15

787

21

8

2100

45

0

11

8

16

6

8

5

15

6

1

5

14

43

78

12

3

6

12

6

9

7

10

13

2

7

10

1

15

2

8

21

11

5

2

7

1

7

5

0

11

10

10

14

445

3

8

4

2

0100

45

9

5

23

8

11

8

2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐63: Calcium Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


46 46 48

10 10

3635

7

40

51

28

4339

99

39

20

79

19

58

25

4853

3

37

49

2018

40

2929

57

2420

2

29

82

38

11

2

30

52

14

46

34

70

22

4138

64

34

127123

67

30

51

13

2

36

1820

50

6 5

69

9

22

42

47

26

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐64: Chromium Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


36

162

5451

121

101

10

57

31

14

25

50

32

148

31

1724

58

15

33

25

7

19

7

75

1

57

71

16

27

54

116

24

5

76

20

3

65

108

49

120

146

108104

125

100

63

124

1110

67

1

4441

68

80

134129

61

123

135

2324

77

16

6557

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐65: Cobalt Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


36

4

66

75

12

4350

40

5660

10

25

9 9

97

65

10

85

29

50

136

32

19

34

23

2

10

3533

72

3

44

2

104

44

13

130

111

1915

6

23

148

10

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐66: Copper Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


7879

12

53

120

66

18

197

124

82

28

113

22

31

86

17

76

166

157

17

0

19

82

128

85

133

116

167

158

84

99

140

113

96

167

157165

149

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐67: Iron Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


115

169

45

32

67

23

196

86

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐68: Lead Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


9

56

14

2

13

9

13

1717

14

16

9

16

8

01

87

4

15

0

4

1

12

2

6

43

1

32

7

9

7

3

6

1

7

0

9

76

9

6

11

0

4

121

555

15

1

6

0

4

655

21

15

9

22

16

5

29

1011

3

7

5

22

28

6

1

27

0

22

11

5

7

19

65

1

11

13

6

878

19

2

8

3

12

9

13

15

4

15

20

1

1312

8

29

26

15

665

21

45

23

22

25

13

4

7

19

9

16

6

2

0

11

0

4

19

14

1

10

6

10

4

11

5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐69: Magnesium Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


149

58

146

1

96

56

118112

12

123

50

35

98

62

25

12

0

25

92

1

12

133

18

2

11

191514

32

85

27

51

3 611

18

53

147

544

58

38

67

3

99

90

8

42

23

12

87

105

65

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐70: Manganese Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


115

35

66

31

45

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐71: Mercury Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


21

15

6

11

2

9

31

0

41

58

31

15

5

14

7

36

19

5

24

69

25

13

74

8

1

11

7

18

1

12

6334

554

12

7

3699

2

9

21

857

0

14

18

2222

1719

8

2

17

6

37

3

10

28

3

810

26

68

20

55

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐72: Molybdenum Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


37

1712

382 0

33

9386

66

4

24

5861

19

70

71

51

13

55

76

50

1421

2

21

46

44

16

127

168

118

1

113

151

4

146141140

52

38

111

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐73: Nickel Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


18

9 9

488

14

25

12

25

1014

9

442

16

56

1

9 9744

15

8 9

3

1012

7

12

37

18

4564

19

2111 2

14

3

8

041

1114

26

320

8

37

30

14

47

53

19

4

13

1

16

7

1820

10

17

03

8

3

28

17

46

29

11

86

50

56

6

28

6

33

1210

4

15

10

1

2326

568

13

454

12

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐74: Potassium Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


46

14

67

86

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐75: Selenium Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


6 6

0

6

2

14

12

17

13

6

4 4

3

8

11

2

1

2

3

13

8

12

9

6

5

8

5

6

4

1

2

1

7

1

2

3

1

12

5

9

13

4

7

13

5

8

4

9

6

8

14

11

6

8

5

14

9

5

9

11

9

7

4

3

7

5

11

0

4

0

3

1

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐76: Silicon Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


17

739

0

1516121919

9123776

14 3261

65

18

278 5

96662

18

2

16

6721

19

8

201211

110812773353163 2

66915731130351332113

1718

61515167613158891115116151120

6

1712

21014

0

12

06

161254110358722111054

1013114 31

542

192

740283 67

16

60.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐77: Sodium Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


61

31

2

79

12

53

14 14

22

90

68

71

43

1418

2

15

22

14

21

15

71

37

13

42

6

76

22

33

153

89

22

31

548

64

33

20

74

2929

0

22

28

46

23

3127

6

17

6

11

20

66

120.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐78: Vanadium Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


29

16

114

175

103

77

121

110

463948

89

15

72

82

53

26 26

62

25

168

17

29

63

221811

23

145

2

50

19

3039

52

2510

2635

16

40

17

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0May‐04

Jul‐0

4

Sep‐04

Nov‐04

Jan‐05

Mar‐05

May‐05

Jul‐0

5

Sep‐05

Nov‐05

Jan‐06

Mar‐06

May‐06

Jul‐0

6

Sep‐06

Nov‐06

Jan‐07

Mar‐07

May‐07

Jul‐0

7

Sep‐07

Nov‐07

Jan‐08

Mar‐08

May‐08

Jul‐0

8

Sep‐08

Nov‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐79: Zinc Control Chart for May 2004‐November 2008 Surface Water (Seeps)

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


38

13

67

18

120

14 11

22

46

18

48

3

4036

1215

32

22

3436

135

61

1722

56

4

30

55

67

78

7

15 1513

61

35

67

22

10

68

2521

29

65

78

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐80: Total Acidity Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


0

24

11

22

18

0 0

8

20

5

10

21

0

29

0

16

2 2435

22

00

13

2

5 5

00

11

5

18

10

29

15

21

11

323

14

8

22

14

31

39

98

16

123

6

34

11

4644

1

6

12

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐81: Total Alkalinity Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


24

25

37

3433

36

1110

2

12

15

23

15 1616

9

6

29

10886

15

22

28

22

14

24

15

4

8

20

141211

3

12

6

1

18

21 20181819

2

21

911

6

0

4

1

25

15

22

25

18

10

38

9

37

18

66

2

5

19

52

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐82: Chloride Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


15

711

30

61

44

107

15

24

15

34

42

32 333232

2

36

26

0

3031

100

72

106

60

1413

3943

7

16

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐83: Fluoride Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


23

19

3

9

14

10

30

5

21

910

2

4

10

1

54

232

6

0

9

7

43

43

0

5

14

16

0 01

34

5

0

9

2

8

5

7

3434

0 00

4

1 12

11

0

8

123

10

23

6

3

11

6

1

20

65

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐84: Hardness as CaCO3 Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


25

87

13

50

37

4

17

545955

41

3

12

46

61

82

22

70

19

47

4

53

2125

35

49

36

67

52

77

50

24

49

18

43

6971

1

74

117

54

3734

87

54

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐85: Nitrogen: Nitrate‐Nitrite Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


2

7

14

111122

8

0 0

5

0 0

4

22

5

110

232

43

11

54

212

1

14

9

11

9

13

11 12

7

2

6

8

24

23

8

4

2 2

43

5

11

65

16

8

1011

6

3

65

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐86: pH Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


18

0

107

183

86

102

12

108

142137

4

33

2

40

22

67

11

195

42

2229

57

45

7

129

153

108

22

134

33

4648

129

5255

67

6

28

55

8

82

9

24

3

35

63

47 6

37

1

41

2

87

106

172161170

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐87: Total Phosphorus (as P) Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


171175175

311

169177

751510 12

143

5 170

15

3 6476 5

92

8

93

1355

1612166 7

1522

36

17112028

7131211 710

122

197

3133

198

169

0

62

23

5463 5423

198177

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐88: Specific Conductance Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


21

15

2

14

25

1917

21

66

2

1011

2 3

10

2

10 10

43

6

14

1

8

11

18

12

9

3

27

644

20

121412

9

0

4

1

4 4

14

22

3113

6

2223

7

42

57

14 14

1

5

0

32

7

10

4

111314

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐89: Sulfate Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


141

80

94

179

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐90: Thiocyanate Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


38

53

86

9

26

72

40

69

37

19

27

14

21

8

1

36

7

22

1013

17

89

36

1

20

49

3

2022

62

12

106

52

98

71

106

76

11

19

6

59

2832

43

0

2225

128

1

70

25

68

81

105

39

6

27

109

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐91: Total Dissolved Solids Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


187

33

92

155

7365

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐92: Total Suspended Solids Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


21

146

32

8

32

5

66

136

60

11

52

108

2922

183

5559

36

55

3441

174

0

32

19

48

18

171

51

13

163

32

52 50

12

26

158 155

3124

114

15

172

4

202719

53

5

22

6

45

16

59

5

32

130

23

34

8

31

68

128

30

4

50

6

26

10

33

170

13

78

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐93: Aluminum Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


57

829

56

1916

33

1216

64

12

0

20

1

22

41

7

33

6

19

38

89

33

10

28

87

11 1113

136

12

1

102

73

5

1611

4045

11

3 1

125 5

2117

4

31

8

63

1814

5

33

1

16

6 9

23

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐94: Antimony Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


17

33

11

28

2119

27

18

26

32

346108

1

20

2

21

1

20

1053

7

16 8

38

15

8

83

51

52

7

26

76

58

1

98

64

4

108

45

51

1

36

19

3

20

5

12

14

37

8

1

105

18

72

18

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐95: Arsenic Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


11

116

33

20

4

15

81296

15

74

17

5

98

6

16

24

7

27

7

1 2

15149

39

3

11

2 496

0

27

5

25

1

22

116

25

18

54

17

10

251

8

1

1512

16

70

1

7 87

1351

13

56446

19

13

37

15

1

8

01

725

8653

12

26

33

965

15

84

15

6 8661

14

724 4

1050

6983 1

52486

025

98

0

9

2

94

6

15

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐96: Barium Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


27

34

66

7680

98

23

17

25

40

4

13

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐97: Beryllium Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


149

75

31

48

22

147

1

89

18

39

68

7

31

84

124

76

67

124

90

121116

68

90

115119

911

3138

1

1214

24

109

30

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐98: Boron Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


20

8

17

57

40

59

42

89

52

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐99: Cadmium Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


27

19

2

8

15

11

56

10

31

4

28

12

4

28

36

78

0

12

45

10

22

0

4

65

1

4

2

10

5

1

7

11

66

8

4

99

14

1

10

6

9

7

3

9

3

5

2

23

12

16

20

1

4

9

13

5

0

2

44

7

1

9

6

21

11

4344

88

3

8

1

65

10

4

6

1

3

1

5

3

8

4

2

0

43

11210

3

9

1

544

78

12

4 4

12

5

3

01

3

6

3

10

5

3

11

7

5

34

322

37

55

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐100: Calcium Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


85

40

79

9588

5

92

44

1

19

146

0

17

494742

63

30

52

7

524451

37

113

15

26

72

57

38

16

37

4

51

5

79

18

61

57

43

28 262324

13

23

37

37

155

3

41

75

35

135

45

26

12

30

21

34

18

39

68

14

26

8189

15

29

11

70

58

19 21131412

22

76

2

41

56

5

25

36

6

15

4

13

374544

32

311

26

1621

6

16

2

16

106

12

148

26

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐101: Chromium Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


102

26

83

77

7068

8

73

23

74

92

11

4

56

272221

1015

22

39

5153

121210

97

20

61

13

3327

5

20

41

10

212024

576

13

6260

11

19

118

23

1418

35

1621

283338

85

120

10

28

15

39

15

34

43

2923

97

32

9

201815

34

4

52

27

7

15

4

21161721

49

35

87

51

89

4

40

22

3

60

33

9

25

4

20

124

83

0

11

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐102: Cobalt Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


51

2020

32

23

13

4

32

75

25 253238

19

5764

138

109

15

47

83

3326

47

58

40

77

1410

42

162127

48

1217

44

11

26

5

3132

19

4

15

165

65

50

165

50

14

33

107

63

19

80

52

32

17

73

47

19

134

37

4

50

10399

10

20

71

1

29

49

79

134

100

3734

58

14

49

76

36

9

2932

46

15

20147

29

2

4147

124

16

68

25

125

25

123

26

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐103: Copper Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


221916

185

3

108

21

8

24

54

118

57

136145

6

85

32

56

52

4

117

1

90

144

50

159152

27

69

1613

94

38

24

129

117

164

153

17

111

140134 133

86

63

80

104110

34

159

143

3

161

14

96

6

133

1

168

72

62

6

174

4

46

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐104: Iron Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


32

18

58

95

172

30

63

144

40

11

2529

77

14

3336

103

1511

90

7

73

2

157

92

157

2

42

12

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐105: Lead Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


34

0

11

5

8

15

12

9

30

14

6

1

18

16

33

2423

1819

5

1

10

4

6

1

5

13

2

21

14

3

6

2

7

4

65

888

1

98

11

19

8

5

9

18

8

3

6

4

88

21

0

6

8

3

1

11

0

5

9

78

1

13

432

78

5

15

89

2

14

7

4

10

6

89

6

3

676

1

54

2

0

8

1

25

4

21

26

6

456

4

9

1

4

2

6

00

15

4

0

3

12

6

0

13

0

6

2

11

6 6

27

33

1

22

8

5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐106: Magnesium Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


4

2217

4

25

9

31

93642

2317

104

17 1556

88

114 6

12

27

1514

44

18

62

14

0

87

514

96

177

139811

178

2

21

43

2314

163

2

18

161

29

1512

192

50

11165913

1

88

115

22

146

108

144

187

55

32

129

2229

80

34

21

62

101

9

29

61

42

2324

615

18117

37

57

14

68

1119

73

2031

71

71891

15

84

15

1

30

5

147

591

81

1020.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐107: Manganese Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


0152

17

47

21

1111117151011

1

19

413

2

125

4335

514

20

42

1

1218

36

30

117

1211

44

5

84

2531

4

71

31

074

20

91

2417111322

4

27

662

4742

0

11

17133139 86931

71220

31753839 6

1110812

2 1

24

3412

25

16

2

1341

121115

42

10 8

176

034

174

710.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐108: Molybdenum Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


53

37

1

91

69

50

94

2

1415

58

90

18

42

10

53

35

52

36

13

49

18

57

33

1312

65

36

1719

35

528

28

45

19

31

423740

4

1521

9

18

3

19

12

25

14

2

20

79

91

69

1

96

14

410

17

9131313

262024

10

61

2531

6

117

7

18

7101515

33

25

37

73

41

23

3

42

5957

86

10

39

88

1

47

4

31

19

171272

71

121

2831

73

133

27

37

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐109: Nickel Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


10

19

69

20

12

0

14

911

112

117

18

13

7910

78

2

8

3

8

3

19

68

31

88

22

4

1311

596

142

17

2

8

330

344

10

224

28

36

22

17

01

17

69610

441

13131014

47

17

86

35

8

13

1

128

14

812

5

18

7

16

44

911

2

129

17

7

18

5

1513

8

95

103

83

66

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐110: Potassium Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


411

191310

631

17

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐111: Selenium Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


12

19

9

67

0

8 88

23

26

11

10

2

6

1

11

9

6

11

8

1516

12

20

13

44

1

55

8

3

15

77

2

56

4

15

2

12

8

109

12

1

78

55

3

65

7

12

3

1

15

2

4

6

16

8

2

15

89

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐112: Silicon Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


97

71

38

46

76

11

41

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐113: Silver Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


4

9

2

12

77

1

14

6

11

32

1110

6

3

25

17

14

0

2

10

87

2

21

10

443

13

5

18

11

0

5

7

112

87

98

45

9

11

21

78

3

16

8

1

55

9

12

3

011

13

5

334

1

9

7

10

2

11

9

5

1

44

8

4544

1

32

14

6

43

7

4

11

14

3

9

11

9

6

1

5

3

0

6

4

0

45

0

76

8

3

1

88

2

6

45

121

3

9

2

11

2

6

2

9

7

1

18

10

12

5

15

10

5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐114: Sodium Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


119

5815

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐115: Thallium Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


53

118

166

20

77

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐116: Tin Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


49

25

0

12

6

1514

40

30

19

30

840

103

1611

65

104

5

53

13

40

51

7

62

47

19

138

12

112

18

3

31

18

43

24 22

9

19

5

24

711

65

16

1

69

21

59

80

35

76 78

2121

95

119

2122

9127

1391317

8

18

2830

24

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐117: Vanadium Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


4743

32

1410

64

158

21

57

32

138

2

146

5

99

89

49

19

6

43

83

7

85

10

1

57

5

71

2726

79

60

136

25

10125

27

50

102

4847

38

4

62

102

88

128

99

112

29

14

2925

36

81

68

34

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐118: Zinc Control Chart for September 2004‐October 2008 Groundwater

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


61

141

56

138

147

136

12

82

155

140

87

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐119: Chloride Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


116

105

81

137

62 65

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐120: Cyanide Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


168

181

163152

169

185

167

2633

7

171

194

144136

188189

55

134131

161170

72

9081

135

185

148

190189

171182

189

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐121: Nitrogen: Ammonia (as N) Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


13

161

87

146

31

109

163

70

175

149

65

163

60

14

110

130

113

35

183

127

191

65

3324

126

43

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐122: Sulfate Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


7

2

15

34

531

12

16

23

1921

36

16

7

1613

2

8

3

61

14

2

56

21

67

5

59

1111

3636

4444

11

7

14

9

2927

1212

110.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Jul‐0

5

Aug

‐05

Sep‐05

Oct‐05

Nov‐05

Dec‐05

Jan‐06

Feb‐06

Mar‐06

Apr‐06

May‐06

Jun‐06

Jul‐0

6

Aug

‐06

Sep‐06

Oct‐06

Nov‐06

Dec‐06

Jan‐07

Feb‐07

Mar‐07

Apr‐07

May‐07

Jun‐07

Jul‐0

7

Aug

‐07

Sep‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐123: Total Solids Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


41

16

78

2628

10

31

22

867

12

21

16

30

0

20

37

23

16

31

21

12

33

17

36

3

60

28

69

13

23

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐124: Aluminum Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


59

186

8476

82

35

73

189

17

3

48

64

5256

4

135

7265

148

25

56 59

49

71

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐125: Antimony Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


36

10

25

19

42

24

49

88

44

11

6

40

17

3030

4

44

30

1

51

24

39

51

12

17

2224

18

47 46

24

9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐126: Arsenic Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


40

27

7

2

2625

7

171518

1011

68

12

1

38

13

25

1410

3

20

26

16

32

21

3

9

92

64

19

13

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐127: Barium Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


2723

1923

137 4

83

161

97 4

30

11

36

60

5

33

19

2823

62

14

35

5

31

1923

71

24

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐128: Beryllium Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


31

94

55

13

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐129: Bismuth Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


141135

28 29

60

99

40

28

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐130: Boron Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


7767

3139

10 10

3635

192

49

97

138135129

73

91

15

3524

87

17

105

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐131: Cadmium Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


45

30

1213

2731

6

14

23

4

25

2

2320

1

24

10

2019

14

4

10

3 2

20

38

26

9

80

38

72

19

67

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐132: Calcium Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


8

1

25

42

6

2220

4647

3

17

51

23

47

2827

41

24

13

4

52

42

30

52

1

9

18

9

3128

35

9

69

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐133: Chromium Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


19

6

1516

1

14

21

2

54

83

10

18

5

2522

9

3

24

1

13

313130

40

63

0

19

0

47

27

2

11

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐134: Cobalt Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


19

10

19

3

16

7 66

73

19

47

252427

9

5

36

12

1

26

2220

50

11

1816

34

15

58

64

20

8

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐135: Copper Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


25

1

6

20

24

18

41

12

2

15

58

20

11

18

13

20

26

1820

24

19

8

46

51

42

36

26

61

9

43

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐136: Iron Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


49

41

5

13

25

18

777

71

5

12

23

7

2120

3

21

58

22

7

106

0

40

1

10

1 1

45

72

81

83

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐137: Lead Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


41

27

32 1

22

18

1011

7

18

4

10

42

9

19

16

1

7

19

25

29

26 25

1816

11

8

47

29

41

9

19

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐138: Magnesium Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


32

22

1

5

13

29 30

4

52

14

8

1

21

39

10

414

9

28

46

44

20

25

18

41

1

51

31

37

12

55

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐139: Manganese Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


175

34

69

143

35

71

38

16

66

78

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐140: Mercury Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


1520 21

4 24

2326

107

130

1

35

45

30

41

81

34

47

30

94

15

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐141: Molybdenum Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


16

0

26

10

2

6

2023

73

78

19

0

29

23

7

29

8

1

13

23

58

35

48

2

10

2

19

6

42

59

4 4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐142: Nickel Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


22

14

11

29

15

45

38

21

15

23

117

97

3510

33

9

45

1 2

24

42

24

14

35

56

111

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐143: Potassium Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


26 24

66

17

191

47

110

32

130124

102

2031

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐144: Selenium Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


91

180

33

22

34

3830

106

5

29

1

51

3643

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐145: Silver Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


33

8 7

2528

36 34

9

20

1

1216

43

29

45

39

4

40

18

27 7

22

59

29

20

5651

152

21

89

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐146: Sodium Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


38

54 52

77

0

33

197

96

22

5

8281

14 17

51

13

0

33

412

69

35

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐147: Thallium Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


29

15

41

59

33

46

12

22

30

38

4

43

47

62

19

8

48

33

2

16

21

41

27

1

21

31

12

5

35

30

54

3

27

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐148: Vanadium Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


39

25

21

14

9

17

10

16

19

4

17

28

25

1615

25

53

31

8

30

2526

22

1012 11

3

21

38

35

27

20.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0Jun‐04

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐149: Zinc Control Chart for June 2004‐August 2007 Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


12

221816

34

19

36

2418

36

45

7

146

5453

4

137

93

21

48

10.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

Aug

‐04

Sep‐04


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐150: Chloride Control Chart for 2004 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


175

5

7381

68

23

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐151: Cyanide Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


192195196

134

196189197199197193188

199199200199200200

119

140

200199 198

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Aug

‐04

Sep‐04


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐152: Fluoride Control Chart for 2004 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


96

176

23

184

8687

183

135

164

192186188

157

29

156163

63

92

159

178

128

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Aug

‐04

Sep‐04


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐153: Nitrogen: Ammonia (as N) Control Chart for 2004 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


96

176

23

184

8687

183

135

164

192186188

157

29

156163

63

92

159

178

128

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Aug

‐04

Sep‐04


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐154: Sulfate Control Chart for 2004 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


8

32

161520

57

25

7373

113115

31

5

80

93

2

46

93

64

4745

110

3

29

393337

9

17

0

14

33

143

7258

1316

86

37

9

51

18

64

0746

14171411

118

53

92

07

16

796431

11

57

42

54

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐155: Aluminum Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


193198

69

3022

106

181

11

130

24

63

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐156: Antimony Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


151

82

99

30

8

135

158

27

68

129

183

23

50

67

93

79

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐157: Arsenic Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


70

1

1820

13

33

74

1914

23

4853

13

24

3429

6

67

4446

34

65

4

52

75

45

58

3331262220

56

43

5

69

14

29

7

15

82

24

6

38

4545

242631

17

51

22272225

14

42

1215

8

69

5

14

22

6

33

26

7812

3

121415

4

20

13811

17

101

38

28

151923

35

3

120

63

15

6

19

4

16

1

8

22

95

16

75

23

40.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐158: Barium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


200199199

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐159: Bismuth Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


69

25

30.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐160: Boron Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


22

51

76

31

149

50

109

41

3

29

4452

9

36

0

36

16

512

47

34

75

9

31

53

25

52753

48

1

3036

31

170

188192192

55

77

94

77

7110.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐161: Cadmium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


1919

404

13

24

9

2217

36

25

3

2418

89

31

171067

44

21

39

9

59

32

3

201311

3

1313

4440

20

11411

20

4101718

9644

23

0

82

11

22332

15

1215

1812

571140

48

13

3263

149

140

2

22

3

1313

35

16

159157

10118101185

25

446921

9

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐162: Calcium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


35

95

2

68

16

111

131

142

111

155162

131137

57

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐163: Chromium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


62

26

15

85

105

1

83

72

42

13

49

18

10

20

13

2

1115

33

6

33

53

13

7

47

4

34

82

66

41

49

89

323740

3

9

43

21

8

15

24

11

51

63

15

38

23

12

26

110

59

3333

16

27

9

54

21

46

7

71

041

96

15

59

13

00.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐164: Cobalt Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


27

16

8139

25

13941

3932

2126

17

24

99

23

31

4

45

20 2226

16

83

26222329

55

37

14

36

101

3

66

59

30

21

2120

6

15

2

158

36

23

6

15

231915

23

10

29

19

8

18

5

17

60

1148

19

32

911437121016 14

16

19

56

2316

171

16

82

68

21

11913

24

73

8

42

2018

4

1511

2

11

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐165: Copper Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


13

45

14211521168

17

3

38

2528

17

6

38

16

43

9189

44

69

412

83

36

95

1

38

11

27

04

31

611

07

40

4

62

17

26

45

4

18

54

189

8462

53

16

27

52

12

25

42

10

24

6

30

162

54

30614

37

8

17

58

2727

754

52

1418

87

487

39

624

62

35862

16

40.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐166: Iron Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


2015

83

165

134

6266

93

148

106

118

103

46

18

184

58

02

74

5

20

32

126

61

9

114

57

15

61

47

10

19

29

13

4

123

142

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐167: Lead Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


158881

33

591511

36

16

1

98

32

22

2424

915

46

2

42

0

57

15

4

14

4

19

2

29

04

1719

14

14957

1811

8859

1

1147

19

2

15953

12

3

41

03

32

21

22594

44

511567 6

131

31777

32

5

142

114

108271013

4

29

39652

1310

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐168: Magnesium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


3937

11

36

10

211617

81519

58

17

6

33

12

42

146

2933

16

49

29

43

26

55

15

58

41265

37

7

24

79

34

22

1118

2

13

47

4

19

47

71081257477982

33

2

29

41017

29

4

16

26

49

88

22

131412

2221

7

164

32

716

16

37

5

104

174

454

18

065

43

15

25

284700.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐169: Manganese Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


168

6

28

74

49

130

29

636053

61

28

8

116

92

47

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐170: Mercury Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


98

4752

37

4651

26

4

36

29

1410

21

0

181818

109

3

50

10

26

2

40

13

62

10

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐171: Molybdenum Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


2935

138

8587

46

74

92

144

41

78

159

124

85

42

151

69

41

121

5

1615

68

112

7 8

19

4849

127911

33

60

10

28

4

35

23

39

12

3291316

6

32

9

184

9

22

7710

61

137

94

8

19

33

1811

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐172: Nickel Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


20

02

22

1

23

4

14

25

2711

23

83

41

17

7109

42

3

14

26

4

14

42

2926

33

17

38

2

65

14

3630

4

18

38117111214

5

18

53

12

27

149

04

21

6

16111117

43

10

221923

442

12

1

49

142205

94

13

14106

2115

25

128

59

1

16

44

118

2130

11

47

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐173: Potassium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


7 6

31

55

128

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐174: Selenium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


200200

3727

5142

27

63

50

139

80

60

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐175: Silver Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


710912

61

14

64

3

25

6

98

40

72

39

95

34

1282

20

65

42

2

75

5

116

4

15970

31

97

32

53

49

17

188

42

13

187

6

191183

14

172

140

5

191

175

56

442

161

1

21

164154

340.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐176: Sodium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


184186194188197195

15

58

22

45

67

15

83

58

4435 3733

1101414

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐177: Thallium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


30

21

117

141

6961

39

85

7

90

177

56

40

116

165

83

158

55

37

12 15

59

100

47

84

137

1721

126

5

176176

71

30

8

123

1822

142

32

55

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐178: Vanadium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


23

71061113

45

3

57

18

39

91

4

26

8

46

5

56

7

15

33

16

50

42

25

31

68

21

151419

4

16

55

11

55

3

11 13

20

26

1315

4439

3

1173

51

15

6611

1

99

2

13813

20

47

75

30

59611

3

12865

14

86

14

39

5

37

23

7

25

19

2

58

69

26

18202419

32

51014

8

2420

33

16

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05

Aug

‐05

Oct‐05

Dec‐05

Feb‐06

Apr‐06

Jun‐06

Aug

‐06

Oct‐06

Dec‐06

Feb‐07

Apr‐07

Jun‐07

Aug

‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐179: Zinc Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA_RPD


131124

84

123130

87

99

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐180: Chloride Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


47

58

143

109

170

157

181

194

119

187

164

109

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐181: Cyanide Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


125

5753

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐182: Fluoride Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


197196 192

178

195197191

197

185

198

145

199199

136

198194

80

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐183: Nitrogen: Ammonia (as N) Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


121

148143

43

95

167

59

75

173

46

77

44

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐184: Sulfate Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


10

86

141

30

3934

37

91

36

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐185: Total Organic Carbon Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


73

53

24

24

37

3

24

9

33

5

20 23

36

97

14

85

51

5

14

5

163

19

5

22

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐186: Aluminum Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


24

42

35

5

112

31

17

29

20

47

4

6668

9

91

67

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐187: Antimony Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


24

2

9

28

44

20

45

23

6

1314

100

27

103

132

22

20

80

60

70

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐188: Arsenic Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


70

49

26

5

4037

3

24

543

33

45

35

108

6

138

46

6

25

83

21

31

14

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐189: Barium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


62

30 29

4

14

34

7

1

26

19

13

1

62

79

8

56

23

108

53

34

21

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐190: Beryllium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


98

4

10811

3

20

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐191: Bismuth Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


64

56

104

16

104

64

41

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐192: Boron Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


90

4

2925

141

120

151

143

24

6466

29

95

103107

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐193: Cadmium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


49

1622

317

41

11

21

34

11

38

21

36

109

1

133

16

3132

13

1

424843

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐194: Calcium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


72

14

57

19

69

21

2

27

1318

11

31

96

31

122

90

2121

71

31

4547

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐195: Chromium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


43

9 12

26

107

19

3337

1174

74

110

38

170

64

33

15

2

22

34

43

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐196: Cobalt Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


40

11 11

20

44

90

25

1819

10

33

8 73

87

32

116

5460

2

34

4

52

3633

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐197: Copper Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


65

31

1611

121

56

610

19

32

11

27

84

7

106

11

131

93

18

47

52

1

75

50

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐198: Iron Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


60

31 31

1010

41

9

16

17

68

34

44

107

11

39

104

25

16

4

91

33

1519

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐199: Lead Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


72

36

14

1

66

96

261115

2

19 1821

100

32

7883

5

23

13

19 17

8

17

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐200: Magnesium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


85

19 22

4

8274

18 21

57

2

11

24

181

24

104

12

167

63

0

31

2

20

42

0

13

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐201: Manganese Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


64

9

80

43

133

163

105

90

12

383537

109

26

49

182

21

48

29

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐202: Mercury Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


0

81012

26

232

26

16

103

41

10

4

40

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐203: Molybdenum Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


3630

12

28

64

95

16

23

1095

20

40

8892

27

115

77

127

4

52

4439

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐204: Nickel Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


6661 60

1

2326

9

27

7

35

84

131

102

5659

6

22

4751

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐205: Potassium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


49

11

104

13

64

4

91

10099

77

55

4

183

78

51

32

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐206: Selenium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


69

60

13

28

21

4

135

27

2

41

106810

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐207: Silver Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


17

38

47

17

3

17

41

3027

13

2

103

1

45

3638

10

124

1

111

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐208: Sodium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


15

76

17

63

13

31

86

2

126

0

17

24

62

19

10.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐209: Thallium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


32

78

9

25

14

45

14

30

99

30

7678

5153

110

15

43

35

65

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐210: Vanadium Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


20

8

1618

8

114

32 30

38

19

36

20

44

69

85

55

146

91

65

6813

84

12

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐211: Zinc Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


18

56

72

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0Sep‐04

Oct‐04

Nov‐04

Dec‐04

Jan‐05

Feb‐05

Mar‐05

Apr‐05

May‐05

Jun‐05

Jul‐0

5

Aug

‐05

Sep‐05

Oct‐05

Nov‐05

Dec‐05

Jan‐06

Feb‐06

Mar‐06

Apr‐06

May‐06

Jun‐06

Jul‐0

6


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐212: Diesel Range Organics Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


95

12 11

67

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Sep‐04

Oct‐04

Nov‐04

Dec‐04

Jan‐05

Feb‐05

Mar‐05

Apr‐05

May‐05

Jun‐05

Jul‐0

5

Aug

‐05

Sep‐05

Oct‐05

Nov‐05

Dec‐05

Jan‐06

Feb‐06

Mar‐06

Apr‐06

May‐06

Jun‐06

Jul‐0

6


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐213: Residual Range Organics Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


10 02

5

1211

1 02

534

1

29

0

27

2

49

1112

1

14

0

19

320.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐214: Total Solids Control Chart for 2004‐2007 Soil

Average

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


62

3336

0

45

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐215: Copper Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Fish and Mussel Tissue

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


100

166175

40.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐216: Mercury Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Fish and Mussel Tissue

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


31

14

117

134

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

Aug

‐04


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐217: Methyl Mercury Control Chart for 2004 Fish and Mussel Tissue

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


176

193

125

169

43

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐218: Nickel Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Fish and Mussel Tissue

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


44

0

48

15

36

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐219: Selenium Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Fish and Mussel Tissue

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


8

3538

32

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐220: Chloride Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


117121

49 51

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐221: Nitrogen: Ammonia (as N) Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


21

69

35

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Aug

‐04


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐222: Nitrogen: Kjeldahl (Total) Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


3233

92

16

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐223: Sulfate Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


1

22

4

15

8

75

49

66

18

37

62

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐224: Total Organic Carbon Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


6

331211

10

1

10

65

46

2

7

113

6

21

44

7

2131 1

7

32

40

54

46

39

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐225: Total Organic Carbon Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


8

82

52

0

6

56

42

36

54

27

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐226: Aluminum Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


2

1620

125

37

106

125

37

72

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐227: Antimony Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


14

31

109

14 15

39

2726

49

23

102

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐228: Arsenic Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


58

148

5 2

51

22

47

2

118

47

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐229: Barium Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


4

30

16

42

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐230 : Beryllium Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


79

7

32

10.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐231: Boron Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


1

79

68

79

24

36

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐232: Cadmium Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


23

1111

20

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐233: Calcium Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


18

26

78

915

35

1719

40

57

30.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐234: Chromium Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


11

60

18

11

17

6

18

42

19

2

41

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐235: Cobalt Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


171921

14

0

26 2629

53

4341

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐236: Copper Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


1314

125

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

Jul‐0

8


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐237: SEM Copper Control Chart for 2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


17

7

71

1512

20

24

10

2

37

29

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐238: Iron Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


13

121

3

37

4

49

20

53

05

122

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐239: Lead Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


19

1

1110

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐240: Magnesium Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


6

41

11

19

15

1

22

13

2

13

17

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐241: Manganese Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


31

167814

78

56

9

111

34

45

8

26

61

116

52

29 32

17

41

173

150

183

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐242: Mercury Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


58

15

35

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐243: Molybdenum Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


1520

90

18

10

35

22

46

21

86

14

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐244: Nickel Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


20

6

3

10

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐245: Potassium Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


4954

147

77

32

53

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐246: Selenium Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


24

126

35

26

1411

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐247: Silver Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


69

27

4

13

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐248: Sodium Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


12

70

18

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐249: Thallium Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


164

38

15

37

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐250: Tin Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


4

13

31

7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0Aug

‐04

Oct‐04

Dec‐04

Feb‐05

Apr‐05

Jun‐05


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐251: Vanadium Control Chart for 2004‐2005 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


2531

80

5

14

44

32

24

53

76

28

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐252: Zinc Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


1219

88

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

Jul‐0

8


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐253: SEM Zinc Control Chart for 2008 Marine Sediment

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


40

85

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0May‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐254: Arsenic Control Chart for 2008 Marine Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


40

3

54

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0May‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐255: Boron Control Chart for 2008 Marine Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


27

7

16

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0May‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐256: Cadmium Control Chart for 2008 Marine Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


35

12

149

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0May‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐257: Chromium Control Chart for 2008 Marine Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


40

10

49

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0May‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐258: Copper Control Chart for 2008 Marine Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


37

62

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0May‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐259: Nickel Control Chart for 2008 Marine Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


37

2

34

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0May‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐260: Zinc Control Chart for 2008 Marine Vegetation

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


152157

115

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐261: Nitrogen: Ammonia (as N) Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


29

140

116106

148147

169

149155

129

101

89

113

81

69

3840

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐262: Total Suspended Solids Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


0

4949

77

1212

28

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐263: Aluminum Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


525664

5162

3939

656259 5757

79726975

60

3838

696663545160

73

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐264: Arsenic Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


52

6

4650

10

17

31

91

72

36

656461

98

61

84

47

87

4852

83

46

60

1013

53

13

39

2

53

30

6

37

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐265: Barium Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


9

1111

1413

2

33

111111

42

15

12

15

11

41

22

0

332

14

33

1212

10

39

9

20

121211

42

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐266: Boron Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


53

103

88

71

61

41

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐267: Chromium Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


35

61

127

70

82

27

34

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐268: Cobalt Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


36

109

9

1

104

1

12

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐269: Copper Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


8

6058

31

1518

40

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐270: Iron Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


48

11

51

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐271: Lead Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


23

46

0

29

132

4755

13

124

86

74

24

144

107

176

139

9

89

100

10

75

29

00.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐272: Manganese Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


84

54

30

73

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐273: Mercury Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD


197190

172

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0Aug

‐04

Dec‐04

Apr‐05

Aug

‐05

Dec‐05

Apr‐06

Aug

‐06

Dec‐06

Apr‐07

Aug

‐07

Dec‐07

Apr‐08

Aug

‐08


ce

Sampling Event Date

Chart A‐274: Silver Control Chart for 2004‐2008 Marine Water

AVERAGE

UCL

PR‐QA RPD

Appendix A: Analytical Quality Assurance / Quality Control ... · appendix a, analytical quality...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix A: Analytical Quality Assurance / Quality Control ... · appendix a, analytical quality...