Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 )

Ion chromatography

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number s or Range: Data Reviewer

signature: Date:

Instructions : Complete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment”

section for each criterion not (“N”) met.

Note: Requirement s with a * are project requirements not specific to

EPA Method 218.6

. Note: Requirements with a ** are requirements specific to 200.8 and

were added to this checklist because Frontier desires to use an

ICP

- MS detector rather than a UV detector after ion

ch romatography.

Note: Requirements with a *** are changes to method 218.6 the

laboratory had to make because they are using an ICP

- MS

detector rather than a UV detector.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level

Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed

- Ex

Airbills) 1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab

Sample No., and Analytical Batch 1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample

Receipt Checklist) 1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page

copied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and

Blank 1, 2, 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 )

Page 2 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level

Required Present Comments

Quality Control Sample Results 2, 3

Calibration Curve Results 3

Initial Calibration Verification Results 3

Continuing Calibration Verification

Results 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Sample

Matrix/Laboratory Fortified Sample

Matrix Duplica te Results 2, 3

Data for All Masses Monitored (if

reported) 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work

Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 )

Page 3 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 218.6 R EQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N



### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

**•** Signatures?

**•** Completed?

**•** Sample ID numbers checked?

**•** Preservations? pH? Volume?

**•** Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

**•** Date received?

**•** Lab ID number checked?

**•** Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

**•** Preservation checked by lab? pH? Temp?

Volume?

**•** Sample c onditions ?

**•** Sample hold time ?

**•** Any anomalies reported by lab ?



### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION/EXTRACT HANDLING

INFO RMATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

**•** Standard expiration date:

**•** Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

**•** Sample extraction date :

**•** Sample process or run date:

Note: Sample Analysis: Were samples analyzed as

soon as possible after sample co llection?

How much time had elapsed between sample

collection and analysis?

Note: It is recommended that samples be analyzed

within 24 hours of collection although it is only

required for samples to be analyzed within 28 days.

(218.6/8.3) (40 CFR 136 Tab le II)

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected

and analyzed as part of the sampling episode?

Indicate the relative percent difference.Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 )

Page 4 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 218.6 R EQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N



### SECTION D

- 1 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Calibration

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were

calibrations, QC samples and samples included in a

batch of 20 samples?

2. *** Calibration curve : Were at least three

calibration standards used to create a calibration

curve with a coefficient of correlation (r) ≥ 0. 99 5 ?

(218.6/11.4)

What were the concentration s of the 3 calibration

standards used by lab?

3. **Initial Calibration Verification: Was an

Instrument Performance Check (IPC) solution

(midpoint calibration standard) and an initial

calibration blank (ICB) analyzed immediately after

calibration ?

Did the IPC solution differ from the true value by

more than ± 10 % ?

What was the true IPC solution concentration and

reported result?

Was the concentration of Cr(VI) in the initial

calibration blank less than the MDL? (218.6/9.3.4)

Was any contamination noted in the ICB?



### SECTION D

- 2 . QC INFORMATION

– Blanks

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank : Wa s at least one

l aboratory reagent blank prepare d and analyzed with

each set of samples ?

Did the laboratory reagent blank contain Cr(VI) at a

concentration less than the MDL ? ( 218.6 /9. 3 .1 )

Note any contamination reported.

2. Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB) : Was at least

one LFB prepared and analyzed with each set of

samples?

*** Was the percent recovery of the laboratory

reagent blank within 80

- 12 0 % ? (218.6/9. 3 .3 )

What were the concentrations of all analytes in the

L FB reported by the lab?

What were the % recover ies of all the analytes?Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 )

Page 5 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 218.6 R EQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N



### Se ction D

- 3. QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Performance

1. Quality Control Sample (QCS) data enclosed? :

Was a secondary source QCS analyzed and was the

concentration within ±10% of the QCS value?

(218.6/9.3.5)

I ndicate the true and reported value of the QCS

, and

the percent recovery

. 2. Continuing Calibration Verification: Was an

Instrument Performance Check (IPC) solution

(midpoint calibration standard) and a continuing

calibration blank (CCB) analyzed after every 10

samples?

*** Did the values differ from the t rue value by more

than ± 10%?

What were results reported for CCV?

Was the concentration of Cr(VI) in the continuing

calibration blank less than the MDL? (218.6/9.3.4)

Note any contamination reported.

3. *** Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFM) :

Was a known amount of analyte added to at least

10% of samples and was the percent recovery within

80

- 12 0 % ? (218.6/9.4)

What were the % recoveries for all analytes?

4. **Laboratory Fortified Sample M atrix Duplicate

(LFMD): Was an LFMD analyzed at a frequency of

10% of samples?

Was the percent recovery within 80

- 120%?

What was the percent recovery?

Was the RPD less than 2 5 %? (200.8/9.4.2

- 9.4.4)

What was the RPD for all analytes?

5. **Interferences : Was the mass to charge ratio of 48

(32S160+), 81Br

- , and 35Cl

- monitored to identify

possible spectral or chromatographic interferences?

To avoid spectral interferences was the appropriate

reaction gas utilized in the dynamic reaction cell?



### SECTION E . DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Dilution : If th e concentration of Cr(VI) in a sample

was above the range of the calibration curve

, was the

sample diluted and reanalyzed? ( 218.6/11.5 )

Were samples with concentrations above or equal to

90% of the upper limi t of the LDR diluted and

reanalyzed? (218.6/9.2.3)Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium EPA Method 218.6 ( 1994 )

Page 6 of 6

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METH OD 218.6 R EQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

2. Sample Reporting: Was the sample concentration

calculated from the calibration curve and reported in

μg/L?