Guidance for Preparing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)

Data ML005
Rev. # 0.0
Date: 11/00
Page 3 of 16
1. Purpose:
The purpose of this standard operating procedure is to ensure that all reviews of analyses
for metals in environmental samples are of similar quality. Raw data review is a very critical part
of the analytical process. A thorough review can prevent errors in reporting or shortcuts in
procedure on the part of the analyst. It is imperative that a thorough review be conducted because
some of the data may be used as evidence in court proceedings. Raw data review is also needed
to ensure that the acceptance criteria for the project have been met.
2. Applicability:
All data produced by the Region 11 laboratory must be reviewed before its release to the
client. Data produced in the analysis of metals must be reviewed by the procedure described
herein.
3. Procedure Summary:
3.1 There are three levels of data review. These are done by the analyst, a peer, and
the quality control (QC) coordinator. The analyst and peer do similar depth of
profile review, while the QC coordinator does an in-depth review, on an as-needed
basis. This would be done as a random spot-check, or selectively, as in the case of
a high profile survey. There are three types of review for the analyst and peer.
These are Package Overview, determining correctness of the reports and
completeness of the package (Section 5); Quality Control Review, determining the
quality of the data from the audits (Section 6); and Technical Review, determining
that the data are not compromised by matrix effects (Section 7). The QC
coordinator will do all of these, plus examine the electronic records.
3.2 A narrative prepared by the analyst is included with the data (Section 9). This
document contains a description of the samples, the purpose of the analysis
(acceptance criteria, if known), all operations with the samples, including
corrective actions taken in the process, the filenames and paths for all electronic
records pertaining to the analysis, and the result of the analyst’s QC review with
comments about the usability of the data.
3.3 Each reviewer is responsible for verifying each of the parts that are designated for
their review and for completing the checklist (Attachment 1) associated with the
data package.
QA/G-6 E-3
March 2001