Draft Data Validation Plan Review Form Page 29
ADVERTISEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29Draft Data Validation PRF-Tier II
Date: March 2, 2004
Page 29
Revision: 4.0
3.0
Cold Vapor AA Method for Mercury Data Review
3.11
Was a CCB analyzed immediately after every initial and
continuing calibration verification?
Was the CCB
analyzed at 10% or every two hours, whichever is more
frequent during the run?
Action: If a CCB was not analyzed with the correct frequency, note
any discrepancies. If no blank was analyzed, qualify all positive
data in the next sample batch as “J.” All non-detected data is
acceptable. If results of the blank were above the detection limit,
use the Tier I Data Validation Manual for qualification.
3.12
Was the CCB analyzed after the last CCV and after the
last analytical sample of the run?
Note: Results for the CCB must not exceed the Reporting
Limit for mercury.
Action: If high blank results are reported, note any discrepancies.
If no blank was analyzed, qualify all positive data in the next
sample batch as “J.” All non-detected data is acceptable. If results
of the blank were above the detection limit, use the Tier I Data
Validation Manual for qualification.
3.13
Optional question for Contract Lab Program (CLP) data
Was a low-level solution (CRA) prepared at the
Reporting Detection Limit (RDL) or at the Instrument
Detection Limit (IDL), whichever is greater, and was the
CRA analyzed at the beginning of each sample analysis
run, but not before the Initial Calibration Verification (CLP
only)?
Action: Note any discrepancies, and use professional judgement
along with other QA/QC information to qualify data.
3.14
Optional question for CLP data
Analysis of the CRA standard for Mercury is required for
both the manual and cold vapor methods. Were the
results and percent recovered reported?
Note: There are no specific acceptance criteria established by
EPA for Mercury at this time.
Action: Note any discrepancies, and use professional judgement
along with other QA/QC information to qualify data.
3.15
If the lab failed to supply adequate calibration
information, was the lab contacted and the necessary
information requested?
3.16
If the lab was contacted and the information was not
available, did the Tier II Data Validator use professional
judgement to assess the data?
3.17
Were samples with concentrations greater than the
highest calibration standard diluted and re-analyzed?
Action: Qualify all positive results as “J.” All non-detected data are
acceptable.
3.18
Does the lab data include the dilution factor used?
Action: If not present, request the information from the facility.
ADVERTISEMENT
0 votes
Related Articles
Related forms
Noaa Subcontracting Plan Review Form - National Oceanic And Atmosphering Administration - U.s. Department Of Commerce
Legal
Related Categories
Parent category: Business