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

TestAm erica Data Review/Verification Checklist 6/6/2010 9:22:18 AM
I ClO(INI rIf~)I~.TALr~~r~fiRADIOCHEMISTRY, First Level Review
Lot No., Due Date: J0E140464; 06/04/2010
CletSite: 127642; S00N063AOO HANFORD
QC $atch No., Method Test: 0137190; RGAMMA Gamma by GER
SDG, Matrix: J00790; SOIL
1. 1 :Is. them,Cc page complete; inldsall applicable analysis, dates, SOP numbers, anu revisions? Y o NI
nciae No N/Ac
2,1 Do the Summery/Detailed Reports Include a calculated reutfrec apelse nteQ ac heY N /
2.2 Are the OC appropriate for the analysis included in the batch? Y No N/A
2.3 is the Analytical batch Worksheet complete; inicludes as appropriate, volumes, count times, etc? Y No N/A
2.4 Doe the Worksheets include a Tracer Vial label for each sample? Yes NoN
3-1 Is the blank results, yield, and MDA within contract limits? Y 7 No N/A
t.... .. .. .. .- - -- -
:t jpjhajiCS result, yield, and VIDA within contract limits? Y 1 No N/A
reteVSMDrsults, yields, and MDA within contract limits? Yes No
' - Ar clduplicate result, yields, and MDAs within contract limits? Y7 No N/A
315 Are the sample yields and MOIAs within contract limits? Yes 114
9 v N/A
4.1 Were results calculated In the correct units? Y7 No N/A
4.2 Were analysis volumes entered correctly? - Y No N/A
4.3 Wore Yields entered correctly? Yes No
'4&14 We(d'spectra reviewed/meet contractual requirements? Y 7 No N/A
,T . . ~ c',
V re,~ counts reviewed for anomalies? Y No N/A
5Qqthr...
5.1..,Area Il nonconformances included and noted? Ye No N/A
Q ':Are'all 'Fequlredl terms filled out? Y7 No N/A
3-W Was~t e correct methodology used?
Yp No N/A
54. Was transcription checked? Y 7 No N/A
51.5 Were all calculations checked at a minimum frequency? Y No N/A
ti.6 Are worksheet entries complete and correct? Y No N/A
6.0Q Comments on any N o response:
NCMV 10-16058
Ietmeo I lhl Page 1
AS t4A06ALCv4.8.40
TestAmerica Page 34 of 64