Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300 .0 ( Ion Chromatography )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Numbers or Range: Data Reviewer signature: Date:

Instructions: Complete thi s 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: Requirements with a * are project requirements not specific to

EPA Method 300.0.



### 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

cop ied from SOW) 3

Results Summary for Each Sample and Blank 1, 2, 3

Quality Control Sample Results 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Instrument Performance Check Solution

Results 3

Laboratory Fortified Matrix (LFM) Results 2, 3

Standard Curve Results 3

Continuing Calibration Data 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300.0 (1993) Page 2 of 5

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

Chromatograms for Each Sample, Blank, and

Standard 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 ana lysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300.0 (1993) Page 3 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METHOD 300 .0 REQUIREMENT Reviewer

Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION B . SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

**•** Signatures?

**•** Completed?

**•** Sample ID numbers checked?

**•** Preservations? Temp? Volume?

**•** Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record:

**•** Date received?

**•** Lab ID number checked?

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

numbers?

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

**•** Sample conditions ?

**•** Sample hold tim e ?

**•** Any anomalies reported by lab?



### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs:

**•** Standard expiration date:

**•** Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

**•** Sample process or run date:

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate col lected and analyzed as part of the sampling episode? Indicate the relative percent difference.



### SECTION D

- 1 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Calibration

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were calibrations, QC samples

, and samples included in a

batc h of 20 samples?

2. Standard Curve: Were at least three standards within the standard range and one blank used to create a calibration curve? (300.0/10.2)

What were the concentrations of the three calibration

standar ds used by lab?Steam Study Data Review Checklist Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300.0 (1993) Page 4 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METHOD 300 .0 REQUIREMENT Reviewer

Comment Criterion

met

Y N


### SECTION D

- 2 . QC INFORMATION

– Blanks /Duplicates

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank : Was a laboratory

reagent blank analyzed with each batch of samples ?

Were all of the target compounds or interfering compounds < Reporting Limit (RL)? 1

Note any contamina tion reported. If no , was analysis st o p p ed and contamination

eliminated? (300.0/9.3.1)

2. Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB): Was an LFB analyzed with every sample batch and was the percent recovery of all analytes within 90

- 110% ? Were replicate LFBs analyzed at least quarterly to determine precision? (300 .0/9.3.2 /9.4.8 )

What were the concentrations of all analytes in the LFB reported by the lab?

What were the % recoveries of all the analytes?



### SECTION D

- 3 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Performance

1. Ion Chromatographic Parameters: Were parameters equal to those presented in Tables 1A and

1B of EPA Method 300.0 established for the ion chromatography column? (300.0/10.1)

2. Initial Demonstration of Performance, Quality Control Sample (QCS) data enclosed? : W as a QCS sample analyzed and w as the percent recovery within ± 10% of the stated values? (300.0/9.2.3)

I ndicate the true and reported value s of the QCS an d the percent recovery.

1 Note: EPA method 300.0 requires that the LRB be less than the Method Detection Limit (MDL). However, this method is written for drinking water analysis. Because chloride and sulfide levels in FGD

wastewater will be appreciably higher than in drinking water, TestAmerica will only consider the LRB contaminated if analytes are higher than the reporting limit.Steam Study Data Review Checklist Chloride and Sulfate EPA Method 300.0 (1993) Page 5 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### EPA METHOD 300 .0 REQUIREMENT Reviewer

Comment Criterion

met

Y N

3. Instrument Performance Check Solution: Was an instrument performance check solution (IPC) and calibration blank analyzed immediately after daily calibration, following every ten samples, and at the

concl usion of the sample run?

Did all results for the IPC solution and calibration blank verify that the instrument was within ±10% of calibration? (300.0/9.3.4) What were results reported for the IPC and the

percent recovery ?

4. Laboratory Fortified Sample Ma trix (LFM) : Was a known amount of analyte ( ≥4 times MDL) added to at least 10% of samples and was the percent recovery

within 80

- 120% (Method A) or 75

- 125% (Method B) ? (300.0/9.4) What were the % recoveries for all analytes?

5. Continuing Calibration Verification : W as the calibration curve verified at the beginning of each day, after every 20 samples

, and whenever the anion eluent was changed? Was the retention time or response for each analyte

within ± 10 % of the expected value ?

Note: If the above criteria fail , the continuing calibration verification analysis can be repeated using

fresh standards and if these results are within ± 10% of the expected value it is not necessary to recreate

the calibration cu rve. (300 .0 / 10 .4)

What were the results reported for the CCV and what was the percent recovery ?



### SECTION E . DETAILED RAW DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Calculation : Was the concentration in samples determined using the standard curve and were values

rep orted in mg/L? (300.0/12.0)

2. Dilution: If a result was greater than the highest
standard used to calculate the calibration curve, was the sample diluted and reanalyzed? (300.0/12.2)

3. Sample Results Reporting: Were only results

between the lowest and highest standards reported? ( 300.0 /12.2)