Laserfiche WebLink
150 <br />EDT Chocked <br />EDT Flagged , <br />cc Data Evaluation Checklist--GC/MS Analyses <br />Project ID: �'V . Method: g�0, <br />d is <br />Reviewer's Initials and Date Reviewed: OV 101 W'OL SDG Ob 229 1 <br />Review uestions <br />1. Were holding times met? 91U <br />Were sample preservation requirements met? <br />3. Was cooler receipt form completed? <br />4 Was method blank analyzed with each batch? Did the blank <br />meet QC criteria? <br />5. Were target analytes reported in field blank or rinsate <br />samples above the MDL? <br />G, Was a field duplicate analyzed? Were RPDs within project <br />specifications? <br />7, Was an LCS analyzed with each batch? Did recoveries meet <br />QC criteria? <br />S. Was an MS/MSD pair analyzed with each batch? Were <br />recoveries and RPDs within project specifications? <br />9. If an MS SD was not analyzed, was ap-S/LCS� <br />analyzed? Were recoveries and RPDs vkthi ct limits? <br />10. Were surrogate recoveries within project specifications? <br />Initial Calibration: <br />1 1 a. Were tune criteria met? <br />1 1 b. Were SPCC and CCC criteria met? <br />1 lc. Did all calibration analytes meet criteria? <br />1 id, Did the second source initial calibration verification meet <br />project criteria? <br />Continuing. Calibration: <br />Ila. Were tune criteria met? <br />12b, Were SPCC and CCC criteria met? <br />12c. Did all calibration analytes meet criteria? <br />13. Did internal standards meet criteria? <br />14. Was the case narrative complete? <br />Yes No NA Sam le (Analytes) <br />'� 1 L 1laS WVe <br />V, F <br />loJbbl �• . <br />15 <br />(Date/Initials) <br />Or <br />11 <br />