SAF-RC- 107 100-H Remaining Sites Burial Grounds ... - Hanford Site

TestAmerica Data Review/Verification Checklist 6/6/2010 12:04:07 IPM
?I C~ LLAOLR IN LWARONMINTmAL Tr.STM,, RADIOCHEMISTRY, First Level Review
Lot No., Due Date: J0E140464; 06/04/2010
Client, Site: 127642; SOON063AOO HANFORD
QC Batch No., Method Test: 0137198; RPUISO Pulso by ALP
SDG, Matrix: J00790; SOIL
ills theOG:,NoN/
I h.IQCpage complete; includes all applicable analysis, dates, SOP numbers, and revisions?~ YeNo N/A
20 -2qG, Mch --
2.11 Do the Summary/Detailed Reports Include a calculated result for each sample listed on the 0C Batch SheY NoNI
22Aro the 00 appropriate for the analysis Included in the batch? Y~ No NIA
2.3 I s thne A nalIyt ical B6atch Workshi et co mp 'lee; -in cl udes-as a pp ropriaje, , vo u m a s,- cou'nt timne s, etco? Y No N/A
2'..4 Does the Worksheets include a Tracer Vialf label for each sample Y~ No N/A
30- Is th blank rsuls,yiladMAwticorctimsY NN/
tI he, lank result, yield, and MDA within contract limits? Yv No N/A
h"II/II results, yields, and -MbA wit'hin contract 1lirrnts? Yes No
I r t0duplicate result, yields, and MDAs within contract limits? Yp No N/A
3. qr the 'sample yields and MDAs within contract limits? Y ep No N/A
4,11 Were results calculated in the correct units? YepNo N/A
4.2 Were analysis volumes entered correctly? Yo No N/A
2 - . . .V .- - , ,- ,
4.3 Were Yields entered correctly? - Yes No
4 A4 Were spectra reviewed/meet contractual requirements? Ye No N/A
--we-
~W re raw counts reviewed for anomalies? Y 7 No N/A
1 re- ai noncontormances included and
i~dforYes
noted? YsN
No N/A
-ZAeArequired frm's oNo..........
Yile
5.3 ag the correct methodology used? Yeg No N/A
.5 rnscription checked? Y No N/A
Were all calculations checked at a minimum frequency? . . Yp No N/A
SAre-worksheet entres complete and corect Y$ No N/A
Oonns omm on any No response:
'4. Lv.84
TestAmerica Page 30 of 64