Contaminant

The 100-F-50 stormwater diversion culvert confirmatory sampling results support a reclassification of this site to no action. The current site conditions achieve the remedial action objectives and the corresponding remedial action goals established in the Remaining Sites ROD. The results of confirmatory sampling show that residual contaminant concentrations do not preclude any future uses (as bounded by the rural-residential scenario) and allow for unrestricted use of shallow zone soils (Le., surface to 4.6 m [ 15 f?] deep). The results also demonstrate that residual contaminant concentrations are protective of groundwater and the Columbia River. Site contamination did not extend into the deep zone soils; therefore, institutional controls to prevent uncontrolled drilling or excavation into the deep zone are not required. The basis for reclassification is described in detail in the Remaining Sites VeriJication Package for the 100-F-50 Stormwater Runoff Culvert (attached). This report demonstrates that the 100-F-50 waste site meets the objectives for no action as established in the Remedial Design Report/Remedial Action Work Plan for the 100 Area (RDRIRAWP) (DOE-RL 2005b) and the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100-BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, The results of confirmatory sampling show that residual contaminant concentrations do not preclude any future uses (as bounded by the rural-residential and allow for unrestricted use of shallow zone soils (i.e., surface to 4.6 m [ 15 ft] deep). The results also demonstrate that residual contaminant concentrations are protective of groundwater and the Columbia River. Site contamination did not extend into the deep zone soils; therefore, institutional controls to prevent uncontrolled drilling or excavation into the deep zone are not required.

The analytical results indicated no elevated residual concentrations exceeding cleanup criteria, except bis(2-ethylhexy1)phthalate that exceeded its river protection remedial action goals. Results of vertical migration modeling predict that this constituent will not migrate to groundwater or to the Columbia River within 1,000 years, and its residual concentration is, therefore, protective of the Columbia River (BHI 2005). A summary of the evaluation of the confirmatory sampling results against the applicable criteria is presented in Table ES-1.
The results of confirmatory sampling are used to make reclassification decisions for the 100-F-50 site in accordance with the TPA-MP-14 (DOE-RL 2007) procedure. In accordance with this evaluation, the confirmatory sampling results support a reclassification of this site to no action. The current site conditions achieve the remedial action objectives and the corresponding remedial action goals established in the Remedial Design ReportLRemedial Action Work Plan for the 100 Area (DOE-RL 2005b) and the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100- Hanford Site,Benton County,Washington (Remaining Sites ROD) (EPA 1999). The results of confirmatory sampling show that residual contaminant concentrations do not preclude any future uses (as bounded by the rural-residential scenario) and allow for unrestricted use of shallow zone soils (Le., surface to 4.6 m [ 15 ft] deep). The results also demonstrate that residual contaminant concentrations are protective of groundwater and the Columbia River. Site contamination did not extend into the deep zone soils; therefore, institutional controls to prevent uncontrolled drilling or excavation into the deep zone are not required. None of the radionuclide COPCs are predicted to reach groundwater. All single COPC groundwater and river RAGs have therefore been attained.
Attain single COPC groundwater and river protection RAGs.
Attain national primary drinking water regulations:" 4 m r e d y r (betdgamma) dose rate to target receptor/organs. None of the radionuclide COPCs are predicted to reach groundwater within 1,000 years.
Meet drinking water standards for alpha emitters: the more stringent of 15 pCi/L MCL or 1/25th of the derived concentration guide from DOE Order 5400.5 .b

Yes
No alpha-emitting radionuclides were detected above background levels.

Remedial Action Goals
Attain individual nonradionuclide groundwater and river cleanup requirements.

Action
The residual concentration of bis(2ethylhexyl) phthalate exceeded its soil RAGS for river protection. However, vertical migration modeling predicts that this constituent will not reach groundwater (and, therefore, the Columbia River) within 1,000 yearsd Therefore, the residual concentration achieves the remedial action objectives for river protection. Soil cleanup levels were established in the Remaining Sites ROD (EPA 1999) based, in part, on a limited ecological risk assessment. Although not required by the Remaining Sites ROD, a comparison against ecological risk screening levels has been made for the 100-F-50 contaminants of potential concern. Screening levels were not exceeded for the site constituents, with the exceptions of boron, manganese, vanadium, and zinc. Exceedance of screening values does not necessarily indicate the existence of risk to ecological receptors. It is believed that the presence of these constituents does not pose a risk to ecological receptors because the concentrations of manganese, vanadium, and zinc are below site background levels, and boron concentrations are consistent with those seen elsewhere on the Hanford Site (no established background value is available for boron). A more complete quantitative ecological risk assessment will be presented in the baseline risk assessment for the river corridor portion of the Hanford Site and will be used as part of the final closeout decision for this site.

F P R O T~C T I V~N~S §
This report demonstrates that the 100-F-50 waste site meets the objectives for no action as established in the Remedial Design Report/Remedial Action Work Plan for the 100 Area (RDRIRAWP) (DOE-RL 2005b) and the Interim Action Record of Decision for the 100- BC-1, 100-BC-2, 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-FR-1, 100-FR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, 100-KR-1, 100-KR-2, 100-IU-2, 100-IU-6, and 200-CW-3 Operable Units, Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington (Remaining Sites ROD) (EPA 1999). The results of confirmatory sampling show that residual contaminant concentrations do not preclude any future uses (as bounded by the rural-residential scenario) and allow for unrestricted use of shallow zone soils (i.e., surface to 4.6 m [ 15 ft] deep). The results also demonstrate that residual contaminant concentrations are protective of groundwater and the Columbia River. Site contamination did not extend into the deep zone soils; therefore, institutional controls to prevent uncontrolled drilling or excavation into the deep zone are not required.
The 100-F-50 site, part of the 100-FR-2 Operable Unit, is a stormwater diversion culvert within the 100-F Area of the Hanford Site. The 100-F-50 site is located southeast of the 116-F-6 disposal trench, between two railroad grades ( Figure 1). The Washington State Plane coordinates are N 147257.6, E 580410.0.
The 100-F-50 site was identified during the 100-F Area orphan sites visit in June 2005 as a french drain and drain pipe located between two railroad grades; however, it has characteristics typical of a stormwater runoff culvert and is addressed as such throughout this document.
This site consists of a circular concrete basin and a steel culvert (pipe). The basin, approximately 1 m (3 ft) in diameter, collected surface water runoff that drained via a 36-can (14-in.) diameter steel diversion culvert under the south railroad grade and flowed down an embankment to the flat terrain below. The basin is partially filled with sediment, rocks, and vegetation; the steel culvert is partially filled with soil and rocks. See Appendix A for photographs of these features.
The history of the 100-F-50 site is not known, but it appears to be a typical stormwater drainage system that was installed to protect two railroad grades from washout and erosion due to snow and/or rain runoff and excessive pooling. One of the railroad tracks went to the 105-F Reactor, and the other was used to transport coal to the 184-F Powerhouse. Process knowledge indicates that cask car drainage and flushing were typically done at shipping or receiving areas with water mains and process sewers. No water piping sources were found on drawings depicting this area; therefore, rinsing processes and chemical dumping are not suspected at this site. Also, the topography of this area indicates downward sloping toward the basin, further suggesting that the purpose was to collect and divert runoff to prevent the railroad grades. The 100-F-50 waste site was evaluated to determine a No Action or Remedial Action decision in accordance with the RDWRAWP (DOE-RL 2005b), the Remaining Sites ROD (EPA 1999), and the 100 Area Remedial Action Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) (DOE-RL 2005a). This evaluation included investigation of the site by conducting confirmatory sampling. The following sections describe the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs), sample design, sampling activities, and sample results.

ontaminants of otential Concern
The COPCs for the 100-F-50 site were identified based on area topography and drainage. Based on evaluation of area topography, the contaminants of concern from the former 116-F-6 disposal trench site as listed in the Cleanup Verification Package for the 11 6-F-6 Liquid Waste Disposal Trench (BHI 2003) are added as COPCs and include hexavalent chromium, gamma-emitting radionuclides (cesium-137, cobalt-60, europium-152, europium-154), and strontium-90. Based on drainage, the following COPCs were added for the 100-F-50 site: the expanded list of inductively coupled plasma metals, mercury, semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, herbicides, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and alpha-and beta-emitting radionuclides.

Confirmatory Sa
Process knowledge and field observations were used to develop a site-specific sample design for the 100-F-50 site. The confirmatory sample design included focused sampling of surface and subsurface soil at the concrete collection basin and sampling at the base of the effluent end of the steel culvert (where it exits the embankment), as these areas are most likely to produce evidence of any contamination that may have accumulated due to pooling and surface runoff.

Confirmatory Sa
Confirmatory sampling at the 100-F-50 site was performed on November 19,2007, in accordance with the Work Instruction for Confirmatory Sampling of the 100-F-50 Storm Wafer Runoff Culvert (WCH 2007). Field screening for volatile organic compounds was conducted during the sampling; no elevated detections were noted in the logbook (WCH 2008). Table 1 provides a summary of confirmatory sampling activities at the 100-F-50 site; sample locations are shown in Figure 2.     (3) for aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, silicon, and sodium; therefore, these constituents are not considered site COPCs and are also not included in Table 2. Potassium-40, radium-226, radium-228, thorium-228, and thorium-232 were detected in samples collected at the site, but are not included in Table 2, as these isotopes are unrelated to the operational history of the site and were detected below background levels (based on an assumption of secular equilibrium, the background activities for radium-228 and thorium-228 are equal to the statistical background activity of 1.32 pCi/g for thorium-232 provided in DOE-RL 1996). The confirmatory sample analytical data are stored in the Environmental Restoration (ENRE) project-specific database for data evaluation prior to their archival in the Hanford Environmental Information System (HEIS) and are sumarized in Appendix B. --= not applicable RAG = remedial action goal BG = background RDL = required detection limit COPC = contaminant of potential concern RESRAD = RESiduaI RADioactivity (dose assessment model)

___----
' Activity corresponding to a single-radionuclide 15 mrerdyr exposure as calculated using the RESRAD model (DOE-RL 2005b Table 2 from confirmatory sampling at the 100-F-50 waste site indicates that residual concentrations of all site COPCs are below soil remedial action goals (RAGS), except for bis(2-ethylhexy1)phthalate. The residual concentration of this contaminant exceeds the soil RAG for the protection of the Columbia River. Data were not collected on the vertical extent of residual contamination, but RESidual RADioactivity (RESRAD) modeling predicts that compounds having a soil-partitioning coefficient (I&) greater than 14 mL/g will not migrate through the 5-m (16-ft) thick vadose zone between the shallow zone and groundwater at this site (BHI 2005). The I& for bis(2-ethylhexy1)phthalate is 1 10 mL/g. The only pathway for contamination to reach the Columbia River is via groundwater migration, so the contaminant concentration is also protective of the Columbia River.  Cesium-137, europium-152, and strontium-90 were detected in the confirmatory samples from the 100-F-50 site. Evaluation of RAG attainment for radionuclides was performed using the singleradionuclide dose-equivalence lookup values. The model used to develop these dose-equivalence lookup values is presented in the RDWRAWP (DOE-RL 2005b). Table 3 compares the maximum result (second column) for the COPC to direct exposure single radionuclide 15 mredyr dose-equivalence values and shows the sum of fractions evaluation. The third column presents the single radionuclide 15 rnredyr dose-equivalence activity, and the last column presents the result divided by the doseequivalence activity. As demonstrated by the summation of these fractions, the cumulative dose contributed by residual radionuclide populations is less than the 15 mredyr RAG. None of these radionuclides were predicted to migrate more than 3 m (10 ft) vertically in 1,000 years based on their respective soil-partitioning coefficients. Therefore, residual concentrations of these contaminants are predicted to be protective of groundwater and the Columbia River. Assessment of the risk requirements for the 100-F-50 waste site is determined by calculation of the hazard quotient and excess cancer risk values for nonradionuclides. These calculations are located in Appendix C.

Evaluation of the results listed in
The requirements include an individual hazard quotient of less than 1.0, a cumulative hazard quotient of less than 1.0, an individual contaninant carcinogenic risk of less than 1 x and a cumulative carcinogenic risk of less than 1 x lo? These risk values were not calculated for constituents that were not detected or were detected at concentrations below Hanford Site or Washington State background values. The results (Appendix C) indicate that all individual hazard quotients for noncarcinogenic constituents are less than 1.0. The cumulative hazard quotient for the noncarcinogenic constituents is 7.4 x All individual carcinogen risk values for carcinogenic constituents are less than 1 x lo? The cumulative carcinogenic risk value is 6.3 x Therefore, nonradionuclide risk requirements are met.
When using a statistical sampling approach, a RAG requirement for nonradionuclides is the WAC 173-340-740(7)(e) three-part test. However, this test is not applicable to the focused confirmatory sampling results because maximum detected concentrations are used as the compliance basis and evaluated individually against the cleanup criteria.

ASSESSMEN
A data quality assessment (DQA) was performed to compare the confirmatory sampling approach and resulting analytical data with the sampling and data quality requirements specified by the project objectives and performance specifications. The DQA for the 100-F-50 site established that the data are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support site verification decisions within specified error tolerances. All analytical data were found to be acceptable for decision-making purposes. The evaluation verified that the sample design was sufficient for the purpose of clean site verification. The detailed DQA is presented in Appendix D.

Y FOR NO AC
The 100-F-50 waste site has been evaluated in accordance with the Remaining Sites ROD (EPA 1999) and the RDWRAWP (DOE-RL 2005b). Confirmatory sampling was performed, and the analytical results indicate that the residual concentrations of COPCs at this site meet the remedial action objectives for direct exposure, groundwater protection, and river protection. In accordance with this evaluation, the confirmatory sampling results support a reclassification of the 100-F-50 waste site to no action. Site contamination did not extend into the deep zone soils; therefore, institutional controls to prevent uncontrolled drilling or excavation into the deep zone are not required.      Provide documentation to support the calculation of the hazard quotient (HQ) and carcinogenic (excess cancer) risk for the 100-F-50 waste site. In accordance with the remedial action goals (RAGS) in the remedial design repoi-tkemedial action work plan (RDR/RAWP) (DOE-RL 2005b), the following criteria must be met:

SOLUTION:
Generate an HQ for each noncarcinogenic constituent detected above background or required detection limitlpractical quantitation limit and compare it to the individual HQ of 4 . 0 (DOE-RL 200 5 b) .
Sum the HQs and compare this value to the cumulative HQ of 4 . 0 .
Generate an excess cancer risk value for each carcinogenic constituent detected above background or required detection limitlpractical quantitation limit and compare it to the excess cancer risk of <1 x lo-' (DOE-RL 2005b

METHODOLOGY:
Hazard quotient and carcinogenic risk calculations for the 100-F-50 waste site were conservatively calculated for the entire waste site using the highest of the focused results for each analyte (WCH 2008 The RPD is calculated when both the primary value and the duplicate value for a given analyte are above detection limits and are greater than 5 times the target detection limit (TDL). The TDL is a laboratory detection limit pre-determined for each analytical method and is listed in between the primary and duplicate results exceeds a control limit of 2 times the TDL, further assessment regarding the usability of the data is performed. This assessment is provided in the data quality assessment section of the RSVP.
For quality assurance/quality control (QNQC) duplicate RPD calculations, a value less than 30% indicates the data compare favorably. For regulatory splits, a threshold of 35% is used (EPA 1994). If the RPD is greater than 30% (or 35% for regulatory split data), further investigation regarding the usability of the data is performed. No split samples were collected for cleanup verification of the subject site. Additional discussion is provided in the data quality assessment section of the applicable RSVP (WCH ZOOS), as necessary.

SULTS:
1) List individual noncarcinogens and corresponding HQs >I .O: None 2) List the cumulative noncarcinogenic HQ >1.0: None 3) List individual carcinogens and con-esponding excess cancer risk >1 x 4) List the cumulative excess cancer risk for carcinogens >I x loa5: None.
None Table 1 shows the results of the hazard quotient and excess cancer risk calculations.
None of the RPDs calculated in the field duplicate pair for sample delivery group (SDC) K1026 are above the acceptance criteria (30%), with the exception of silicon. The RPD calculated for silicon in SDG K1026 was 45.0%. The evaluation of the Q N Q C duplicate RPD calculations is performed within the data quality assessment section of the RSVP (WCH 2008). Table 2  c ss A data quality assessment (DQA) was performed to compare the confirmatory sampling approach and resulting analytical data with the sampling and data requirements specified in the site-specific sample designs (WCH 2007, DOE-RL 2005a. This DQA was performed in accordance with site-specific data quality objectives found in the sampling and analysis plan (SAP) (DOE-RL 2005b).
To ensure quality data, the SAP data assurance requirements and the data validation procedures for chemical and radiochemical analysis (BHI 2000a(BHI , 2000b are used as appropriate. This review involves evaluation of the data to determine if they are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support the intended use (i.e., evaluate against cleanup criteria to support a No Action or Remedial Action decision). The DQA completes the data life cycle (i.e., planning, implementation, and assessment) that was initiated by the data quality objectives process (EPA 2000).
A review of the sample design (WCH 2007), the field logbook (WCH 2008), and applicable analytical data packages has been performed as part of this DQA. All samples were collected and analyzed per the sample design.
Gross alpha and gross beta were required analyses for all samples. Gross alpha and/or gross beta analyses are screening methods used to evaluate if additional isotopic analyses are required. Confirmatory sample data collected at the 100-F-50 waste site were provided by the laboratories in one sample delivery group (SDG): SDG K1026. In the analytical data set, SDG K1026 had an elevated result for gross beta for sample 516233. Elevated gross beta results lead to additional analyses for strontium, which was requested for this sample.
Usually, the isotopic analyses determine if specific Hanford Site-related contaminants are the source of the elevated gross alpha or gross beta results. However, in the analytical data set for 100-F-50, the data had inconsistent results between the gross beta and the strontium isotopic analyses. The strontium-90 results of 0.872 pCi/g and 0.800 pCi/g for the J16233 laboratory primary and duplicate are inconsistent with the elevated result of 36.6 pCi/g reported for the gross beta. It is possible that variability in the background levels is responsible for these results. In instances without a clear explanation of the data, the laboratory is asked to rerun samples. The 100-F-50 gross beta analyses were rerun for sample 516233, with results of 18.2 pCi/g and 20.6 pCi/g for the laboratory primary and duplicate.
Where two sets of data are created during the investigation of the elevated gross alphaheta results, an examination of both sets of data is made in comparison to the isotopic analyses. Because they are specific, the isotopic results are more reliable than the screening methods. The data set most consistent with the isotopic analysis is considered more reliable. If the second data set is determined to be more reliable, the first data set is excluded and the second data set is used for decision-making purposes. If an evaluation of the two data sets is inconclusive, then the first (original) data set is retained and used for decision-making purposes, while the second data set is excluded from the data set. Duplicated data are accepted or excluded in sets. Individual results from multiple data sets are not mixed to create a desired result. Examination of the data determined that the second data set is more reliable than the first data set, and is presented in Appendix B.
SDG K1026 was submitted for third-party validation. No major deficiencies were identified in the analytical data set. Minor deficiencies are discussed below.
Remaining Sites Verification Package for the 100-F-50 Stormwater Runoff Culvert D-1

26
This SDG comprises four field samples (J16231-516235), and one equipment blank (J16236). A field duplicate pair (J 16232/J16233) is included in this SDG. These samples were analyzed for inductively coupled plasma (ICP) metals, mercury, hexavalent chromium, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), pesticides, herbicides, gross alpha and gross beta by proportional counting, and by gamma spectroscopy. In addition, sample 516233 was analyzed for total strontium by beta counting. SDG K1026 was submitted for formal thirdparty validation. Minor deficiencies found in SDG K1026 are as follows: Reported analytical detection levels are compared against the required quantitation limits (RQLs) to ensure that laboratory detection levels meet the required criteria. In the radiochemical analysis, three analytes exceeded the RQL. The reported PQL is below the lowest remedial action goal (RAG). Under the Washington Closure Hanford (WCH) statement of work (SOW), no qualification is required.
All of the toxaphene data in SDG K1026 was qualified by third-party validation as estimated with "J" flags, due to lack of a matrix spike (MS), matrix spike duplicate (MSD), or lab control sample (LCS) analysis for the analyte. Estimated, or "J"-flagged, data are acceptable for decision-making purposes. Also, all toxaphene results exceeded the RQL. Under the WCH SOW, no ualification is required.
For the aroclor-1254 result in sample 516232, the LCS recovery was outside quality control (QC) limits at 139%, and a surrogate recovery was outside QC limits at 142%. Third-party validation qualified as useable for decision-making purposes.
, and assigned a "J" flag to, the aroclor-1254 result in sample J16232. Estimated data are In the pesticide analysis, the MS recovery for delta-BHC is out of acceptance criteria, at 52%. This analyte has been qualified by third-party validation as estimates with "J" flags for all samples in SDG K1026. Estimated, or "J"-flagged, data are useable for decision-making purposes.
In the ICP metals analysis, the calcium, sodium, and zinc results for sample J16236 (the equipment blank) are of similar magnitude as the method blank (MB) results, and are qualified by third-party validation as undetected estimates with "UJ" flags, due to MB contamination. The data are useable for decision-making purposes.
Also in the ICP metals analysis, the MS recoveries for three ICP metals (aluminum, iron, and silicon) are out of acceptance criteria. For these analytes, the spiking concentration is insignificant compared to the native concentration in the sample from which the MS was prepared. Therefore, the deficiency in the MS result is a reflection of the analytical variability of the native concentration rather than a measure of the recovery from the sample. To confirm quantitation, post digestion spikes (PDSs) and serial dilutions were prepared for all three analytes with acceptable results.
All petroleum hydrocarbon results were qualified by third-party validation as estimates with "J" flags due to the holding time being exceeded by less than twice the limit. The samples were taken on November 19,2007, and extracted on December 4,2007, exceeding the holding time requirement (14 days) by one day. Estimated data are useable for decision-making purposes.
All petroleum hydrocarbon results exceeded the RQL. The reported PQL is below the lowest RAG. Under the WCH SOW, no qualification is required, and these small exceedances were not qualified by third-party validation. The data are useable for decision-making purposes.
In the SVOC analysis, the common laboratory contaminants bis(2-ethylhexy1)phthalate is detected in the MB. Third-party validation raised the reported values for bis(2-ethylhexy1)phthalate for all samples to the required quantitation limit of 660 pg/kg and qualified them as undetected and flagged "U". The data are useable for decision-making purposes.
Thirty six SVOC results exceeded the RQL. The reported PQL is below the lowest RAG. Under the WCH SOW, no qualification is required.
RPD evaluations of main sample( s) versus the laboratory duplicate(s) are routinely performed and reported by the laboratory. Any deficiencies in those calculations are reported by SDG in the previous sections.
Field quality assurance/quality control (QNQC) measures are used to assess potential sources of error and cross contamination of samples that could bias results. Field QNQC samples, listed in the field logbook (VVCH 2008), are the 100-F-50 sample primary and duplicate (J16232/516233). The main and QNQC sample results are presented in Appendix B.
Field duplicate samples are collected to provide a relative measure of the degree of local heterogeneity in the sampling medium, unlike laboratory duplicates that are used to evaluate precision in the analytical process. The field duplicates are evaluated by comparison of the RPD of the duplicate samples for each contaminant of concern (COC). Only analytes with values above five times the detection limits for both the main and duplicate samples are compared. The RPD calculation brief in Appendix C provides details on duplicate pair evaluation and RPD calculation.
None of the RPD calculated for the field QA/QC sample radionuclide results exceeded the acceptance criteria of 30%. The data are useable for decision making purposes.
The RPD calculated for silicon was 45%, which exceeded the acceptance c iteria of 30%. An elevated RPD, such as this, in the analysis of environmental soil samples, is largely attributed to heterogeneities in the soil matrix and only in small part attributed to precision and accuracy issues at the laboratory. The data are useable for decision-making purposes.
RPDs for the remaining radionuclides and nonradionuclide anal ytes are not calculated because an evaluation of the data shows the analytes are not detected in both the main and duplicate sample at more than 5 times the target detection limit (TDL). RPDs of analytes detected at low concentrations (less than five times the detection limit) are not considered to be indicative of the analytical system performance. The data are useable for decision-making purposes.
A secondary check of the data variability is used when one or both of the samples being evaluated (main and duplicate) is less than five times the TDL, including undetected analytes. In these cases, a control limit of & 2 times the TDL is used (Appendix C) to indicate that a visual check of the data is required by the reviewer. For the 100-F-50 duplicate sample, the difference was less than 2 times the TDL (for all analytes with one or both of the samples less than 5 times the TDL), and did not require the visual check. However, a visual inspection of all of the data is also performed. No additional major or minor deficiencies are noted. The data are useable for decision-making purposes.
Y Limited, random, or sample matrix-specific influenced batch QC issues such as those discussed above, are a potential for any analysis. The number and types seen in these data sets are within expectations for the matrix types and analyses performed. The DQA review of the 100-F-50 confirmatory sampling data found that the analytical results are accurate within the standard errors associated with the analytical methods, sampling, and sample handling. The DQA review for the 100-F-50 waste site concludes that the data are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support the intended use. The confirmatory sample analytical data are stored in the Environmental Restoration (ENRE) project-specific database prior to being submitted for inclusion in the Hanford Environmental Information System (HEIS) database. The confirmatory sample analytical data are also summarized in Appendix B.