1. Sample -007-1 EFF #1 for E. coli (taken at 09:00) and received at lab at 16:48 per the C-O-C. This is past 6-hour hold time. NOTE: Time of analysis listed on report is 15:00, indicating that the sample was analyzed within hold time. This analysis time of 15:00 must be incorrect. (NOTE: no bench sheet for microanalysis is provided. Information from C-O-C is the reference.)
2. Units are not listed on the report.
3. Reference Test Method not listed on report for E. coli, TDS, Cyanide, Lead
4. Sample -007-6: Result for Lead is incorrect (it should be 14 not 15, transcription error from bench sheet).
5. Sample -007-2: Result for TDS is incorrect (it should be 3200 not 1600, see TDS error # 3). Also the TDS reporting limit for this sample does not reflect that a reduced sample volume was analyzed. Reporting limit should be 10 (not 5). This may be considered a moot point because the sample has a result greater than the RL.
6. Sample -007-5: Reporting limit for Cyanide is incorrect (it should be 0.08 not 0.01 based upon the low ICAL standard concentration of 0.04 and the dilution factor of 2). NOTE: stated Cyanide reporting limit is 0.01 for sample -007-3 and 0.05 for sample -007-7 (5x dilution from bench sheet). However, the low ICAL standard is 0.04. The SOP and other lab documentation must be reviewed to determine the lab policy for establishing reporting limits. Is the Cyanide reporting limit based upon the low ICAL standard, the MDL, a project specific requirement for this client for this particular project that was included in the lab quote, or some other basis?
7. Reference Test Method listed for Volatiles analysis is incorrect (EPA 8021). EPA 8260 requested on C-O-C.
8. Person signing for Lab President (WJC) may not have authorization to issue reports. QA Manual must be checked to see who has this authority.
9. Address of the laboratory is not printed on the report. It is not stated or implied where the samples were analyzed.
10. Sample -007-7: Result for Cyanide is incorrect (it should be 3.4 not 2.7, see Cyanide error # 10).
11. Sample -007-3: Result for Cyanide, 0.9, exceeded linear calibration range, sample result not flagged as estimated.
ISSUED CASE NARRATIVE
The following were NOT noted as being outside acceptance criteria for proper sample condition/storage:
1. Sample EFF #1 for E. coli received at lab past 6-hour hold time (per times on C-O-C).
2. Samples for Cyanide not properly preserved (pH not checked or was incorrect per C-O-C).
3. Samples not received at proper temperature (cooler temperature outside range per C-O-C).
4. Samples for TDS not properly stored in lab (stored on shelf, not in refrigerator as per C-O-C).
The following were NOT noted as being outside the requirements of the SOP or reference method:
5. TDS: oven temperature not within acceptance criteria.
6. TDS: the balance may have failed to give an accurate reading at low sample load.
7. TDS: the calculation of the final result is suspect due to the inaccurate initial weights of the empty dishes.
8. Cyanide: Calibration MAY have been performed using an expired standard solution. Further check of standards logbook is necessary.
9. Lead: Single point calibration performed, instrument not calibrated properly.
10. Lead: More than ten samples were analyzed between the initial and continuing calibration checks.
11. Lead: The batch was not concluded with a closing CCV to ensure that the instrument was still within calibration acceptance limits.
12. Lead: the calculation of the Method Blank result is suspect due to the incomplete record of the absorbance value.
The following were NOT noted as being outside QC sample acceptance criteria:
13. TDS: Method Blank result > acceptance criteria.
14. TDS: Lab Duplicate RPD > acceptance criteria (using correct sample results).
15. Cyanide: Method Blank result > acceptance criteria.
16. Cyanide: CCV1 fails acceptance criteria (using correct CCV true value and result).
17. Cyanide: No Matrix Spike sample analyzed in the batch.
18. Cyanide: Lab Duplicate RPD > acceptance criteria (using correct sample results).
19. Lead: No LCS analyzed in the batch.
20. Lead: No Lab Duplicate sample analyzed in the batch.
21. Lead: Insufficient number of Matrix Spike samples analyzed in the batch.
1. Sample EFF #1 sample for E. coli received at lab past 6 hour hold time
2. Sample EFF #1 CN pH not checked
3. Sample EFF #2 CN pH noted as < 2 (improper preservation, pH should be > 12)
4. Sample EFF #3 CN pH noted as < 2 (improper preservation, pH should be > 12)
5. Time of sample relinquishment by Sam Slippery not noted
6. Cooler temperature outside acceptance range
7. TDS samples stored on lab shelf (“no room in frig” per note by sample receipt person SS).
TDS ANALYSIS (wrong method cited at top of worksheet, it should be EPA 160.1, not 160.2)*
1. Method Blank = 6. Upper limit listed on bench sheet is < 5.
2. Sample 0225-111-4 exceeds sample weight limit of 200 mg as per SOP QC requirement (406 mg net weight recorded)
3. Sample 0301-007-2 EFF #1 final concentration incorrectly calculated. Reported 1601, result is really 3202. NOTE: only 50 mL of sample was analyzed.
4. Sample 0301-007-8 EFF #3 Lab Duplicate: Final concentration recorded as 548. It appears that the result was overwritten (original result was 748). A third weighing is recorded for this sample although the difference between the first and second weighing is only 0.2 mg. This satisfies the constant weight criteria of < 0.5 mg (listed on the bench sheet). The third weighing appears to have been entered at a later time and the final result overwritten. The RPD between the initial analysis (599) and the duplicate analysis (748) is 22%. This is outside the SOP QC requirement (20%). The RPD noted on the bench sheet is 8.9%, which is within the acceptance limit. This is calculated using 599 and 548.
5. Oven temperature not within SOP QC criteria.
6. Balance check incorrect. Balance not sensitive enough to detect change of 0.001 g in net weight.
7. The initial dish weight of 77 g for all samples is not accurate enough for the test. Reading must be to 0.0000 g for initial weights.
1. No documentation for pH check and Sulfide check (see notes on Chain-of-Custody concerning pH of samples)
2. Method Blank = 0.028. Upper limit listed on bench sheet is < 0.02
3. CCV-1: scratch out for TV=0.5 (changed to 0.4) and %R calculation (changed from 87% (OUT) to 108% (IN)), no initials and no date. NOTE: CCV2 TV=0.5 not scratched out by analyst, %R for CCV2 within limits.
4. NO Matrix Spike sample in batch per SOP QC requirement.
5. Lab Duplicate RPD calculated using the wrong samples (samples 0227-118-1 and 0227-118-2 were used for the calculation. Thus, it appears that the RPD QC requirement was met when in fact it was not: see below.
6. Sample 0227-118-2 has altered absorbance value (scratch out: changed from 0.234 to 0.334, concentration changed from 0.479 to 0.682 no initials and no date)
7. Sample 0227-118-2 Lab Duplicate has incorrect concentration (0.064 recorded but result is really 0.636). Thus, RPD for sample 0227-118-2 (0.479) and its Lab Duplicate (0.636) is 28.2% (outside acceptance limit of 20% per SOP QC requirement).
8. Sample 0301-007-3 EFF #1 Reported result (0.9) > highest ICAL standard (0.8). Sample was NOT diluted and reanalyzed.
9. Sample 0301-007-5 EFF #2 dilution factor of 2 is not noted (only 50 mL of sample was analyzed). Final RL not corrected for dilution.
10. Sample 0301-007-7 EFF #3 final concentration is incorrectly calculated. Reported 2.7, result is really 3.4.
11. Cyanide standard solution expiration date not noted (possibly expired). Further check of standards logbook is necessary.
1. Only a single point calibration was performed. SOP QC summary at bottom of bench sheet lists a requirement for r = 0.995. This implies that a calibration curve is to be performed. SOP must be checked to determine requirement for minimum number of calibration standards.
2. More than 10 samples analyzed between initial and continuing calibration checks. Check SOP to see if CCV must be analyzed after every 10 samples.
3. No closing CCV. Check SOP to see if closing CCV must be analyzed.
4. NO LCS analyzed in batch per SOP QC requirement. 21 total samples were analyzed.
5. NO Lab Duplicate analyzed in batch per SOP QC requirement. 21 total samples were analyzed.
6. Batch QC data scratched out (CCV and Matrix Spike result). Unable to tell if these QC samples meet SOP requirements. Other client data scratched out for confidentiality reasons.
7. Method Blank: all data not recorded for absorbance (“0” recorded; all three decimal places must be recorded as per other entries). A reading of 0.05 would result in a value of 2.0 mg/L. This potential result is greater than the SOP QC requirement of < 1.0 mg/L.
8. Incomplete documentation: Lamp and Wavelength not recorded. Initial and Secondary Reviews not recorded.
9. Only one Matrix Spike sample analyzed in batch. SOP QC indicates one MS per 10 samples. There were 21 samples analyzed in the batch.
Injection log - 091598 ICAL – Filename 0915002.d associated with a 10 ppb CCV. This file is used as a BFB tune standard in the data package.
10 ppb CCV at file 0915002.d renamed and used for the BFB tune standard. Note the multiple peaks on the chromatogram as well as the filename match from the injection log.
Response factor report for ICAL 091598. Points removed from the middle of the calibration. Also, many of the response factors (if recalculated from the raw data) will not match due to hand-entered numbers in the quantitation database – see item #4.
0.5 ppb ICAL standard – file 0915013.d – many of the compounds are missing from the quantitation report. This is due to the global detection limit being set too high in the quantitation report options. The manual integrations have only “after” chromatograms, no “before”. Signal to noise ratio is insufficient (less than 3:1) for two compounds - Dichlorofluoromethane and Bromomethane.
20 ppb ICAL standard – file 0915009.d - the manual integrations have only “after” chromatograms, no “before”.
50 ppb ICAL standard – file 0915010.d – there are no chromatograms for any of the manual integrations.
10 ppb CCV – file 1011002.d – there is an improper manual integration on continuing calibration compound (CCC) 1,2-Dichloropropane. The front of the peak was cut to reduce the area to bring the %D within the 20% limit in method 8260. Note that the %D with the integration is barely within limits at 19.6%.
Sample-1 – file 1011005.d – this is a print screen report. The footer is not at the bottom of the page. This could mean that something was changed on the report before it was printed (actually a “m” flag was removed). Also the print time at the bottom of the page does not match between the quant report and chromatogram – there is approximately a one hour difference. The area for surrogate Toluene-d8 is very low compared to the other samples, but the associated IS response is OK. The concentration and percent recovery were hand entered and the report screen-printed. Not only does the area not match the calculated concentration, but also the percent recovery would be 99.4% (based on a known of 25), not 98.4%.
Sample-3 – file 1011007.d – the dilution factor in the sample name and the multiplier have been scribbled through, with no initial and date.
Sample-4 – file 1011008.d – there is an improper manual integration on IS Pentafluorobenzene. The baseline has been extended to include area from the peak after it. (no obvious reason)
Sample-5 – file 1011009.d – the concentration for target compound Benzene is above the calibration range of 100 ppb (from the ICAL). The dilution factor in the sample name does not affect the reported concentration. Only the multiplier would affect the reported concentration, but in this case the multiplier is still 1.
Sample-7 – file 1011011.d – the manual integration on Freon 113 is done on the wrong peak (possibly to mask lab contamination). The retention time does not match the CCV. The Freon peak is actually the larger peak at R.T. 7.83 minutes. There also is not a “before” chromatogram for the integration.
Sample-3 MS – the quantitation report is a screen print. There is no footer on the bottom of the first page, and the footer is not at the bottom of the second page. This could have been done to mask a manual integration or other hand entry on the quantitation report (i.e. a clue to investigate further).