Laserfiche WebLink
Data Evaluation Checklist—Metals <br /> Location and Quarter: Method: k io 17+3-0 <br /> Reviewer's Initials and Date Reviewed: _ T1 u <br /> Review uestions Yes No Sample(Analytes)Affected/Comments Fla <br /> 1. Were holding times met? ✓ <br /> 2. Were sample preservation requirements met? ✓ <br /> 3. Was cooler receipt form completed? <br /> 4. Was method blank analyzed with each batch? Q/ <br /> 5. Were target analytes reported in the method blank below <br /> the MDL? If yes,evaluate low level determinations of k/ <br /> target analytes. j <br /> b. Were target analytes reported in the method blank above <br /> the MDL? <br /> 7. Were target analytes repoiited in field blank or rinsate <br /> samples above the MDL? <br /> 8. Was a field duplicate analyzed? Were RPDs within <br /> contract specifications? <br /> 9. Was an LCS analyzed with each batch? ✓ <br /> 10. Were LCS recoveries within contract specifications? ✓ <br /> 11. Was an MS/MSD pair analyzed with each batch? ✓ <br /> 12. Were MS/MSD recoveries and RPDs within contract �5 <br /> specifications? i" <br /> 13. Was a laboratory duplicate analyzed? Were RPDs with <br /> contract specifications? <br /> 14. Were calibration checks analyzed at the beginning of <br /> each run and after every 10 samples? Were recoveries V <br /> within project limits? p <br /> 15. Were lab comments included in report? If yes, <br /> summarize contents. <br /> L <br /> A5 > 6 <br />