Policy for the Evaluation and Approval of Production Analytical Laboratories
In Reply Refer To:
Mail Stop 412 April 16, 1998
OFFICE OF WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 98.03 (REVISED)
Subject: Policy for the Evaluation and Approval of Production Analytical
Laboratories
It is Water Resources Division (WRD) policy that production analytical
laboratories which provide chemical, radiochemical, and biological
analyses to the Division shall be regularly reviewed, evaluated, and
approved. The review process is a necessary prerequisite for: (1) storing
the data in a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data base that is open to the
public; and/or (2) publishing the data in a USGS District annual or other
data report.
The attachment to this memorandum updates the process--the requirements,
specifications, and procedures--that will be used to implement the
policy, beginning March 10, 1998.
During the remainder of fiscal year (FY) 1998, reviews of production
laboratories will be conducted at the request of a District, a national
program, or the Office of Water Quality (OWQ). The requesting office will
fund the cost of each laboratory review. In FYs 1999 and 2000, one half
of the remaining production laboratories will be reviewed each year.
Costs for these reviews will be paid by the office that uses or manages
the laboratory. The Branch of Quality Systems (BQS) will soon develop a
laboratory review schedule for FYs 1999 and 2000 so affected Districts
can modify Cooperative Agreements to cover the costs of specific reviews.
Beginning in FY 2001, all production laboratories will be reviewed on a
3-year cycle. The District or organizational unit responsible for use or
management of the laboratory will pay the cost. The scope, complexity,
and number of analyses performed for WRD by each laboratory will largely
determine whether the review: (1) can be successfully accomplished,
remotely, by examination of documents and telephone interviews, or (2)
must be conducted onsite by Division personnel. Remote reviews will be
used, wherever practical, to minimize costs.
The BQS will organize and conduct the laboratory review process. Under
the direction of OWQ, the BQS will develop and prioritize the list of
laboratories that need review, establish the schedule, arrange the
staffing of reviews, write the review reports, recommend approval or
disapproval, develop necessary remedial actions, and--for each
disapproved laboratory, work with the requesting WRD office to help
achieve approval. BQS will discuss recommendations for approval,
disapproval, and remedial actions with the OWQ. The OWQ will then send
the results of the review to the organizational unit responsible for use
or management of the laboratory.
Please join me in ensuring the successful implementation of this policy.
We must protect the quality and integrity of our data.
Janice R. Ward /s/
Acting Chief, Office of Water Quality
Attachments
Distribution: A, B, FO, PO
District Water-Quality Specialists
OWQ Staff
Regional Water-Quality Specialists
This memorandum supersedes WRD Memorandum No. 92.35.
- ------------------
Process for Evaluating and Approving Production Laboratories
Which Provide Chemical, Radiochemical, and Biological Data to the WRD
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to establish the process for evaluating
and approving production laboratories which provide chemical,
radiochemical, and biological analyses to the Water Resources Division
(WRD). This process is needed to ensure that analytical production data
are of known and acceptable quality. The quality of all laboratory
production data must be fully documented, defensible, and suitable to
meet the needs of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) programs and projects,
the public, and other users.
This process supports the intent of the "Strategic Plan for the U.S.
Geological Survey, 1996 to 2005." As described in this Plan (U.S.
Geological Survey, 1996, p. xii):
Together, the USGS and its partners will . . . collect and
distribute data of the highest possible quality [and] populate
USGS national data bases with increasingly large quantities of
reliable and timely data . . . .
Each production laboratory should be reviewed and approved before WRD
submits environmental samples to the laboratory. This will assure that
the laboratory is capable of producing data of known and acceptable
quality. Then, periodic checks and reviews are required to ensure that
data quality is appropriately maintained.
Responsibility for the Review Process
The Branch of Quality Systems (BQS) will organize and conduct the
production laboratory review process. Under the direction of Office of
Water Quality (OWQ), the BQS will:
o Develop and prioritize the list of laboratories to be
reviewed.
o Establish the review schedule.
o Arrange and participate in the staffing of reviews.
o Write the review reports.
o Recommend approval or disapproval.
o Develop necessary remedial actions.
o For each disapproved laboratory work, with the requesting WRD
office to help achieve approval.
BQS will discuss recommendations for approval, disapproval, and remedial
actions with the OWQ. The OWQ will then send the review results to the
office requesting use of or responsible for managing the laboratory. If
the office is a District, the Regional Hydrologist will be copied.
Scope
Laboratories affected by this review process include those providing
chemical, radiochemical, and biological analyses for production purposes
that will be: (1) stored in an USGS data base that is open to the public,
and/or (2) published in an USGS district annual or other data report.
The laboratory review process covers:
o The National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL).
o The Quality of Water Service Unit (QWSU).
o Production laboratories under contract to the NWQL.
o Production laboratories under contract or Cooperative
Agreements with Districts.
o Production (non-research) parts of District laboratories.
o Production parts of National Research Program (NRP)
laboratories.
Not covered by this process are laboratories whose sole purpose is to:
o Develop analytical techniques.
o Provide data for research purposes.
o Conduct screening analyses.
However, if a NRP or District research laboratory also provides routine
production data, that part of its effort is covered by the policy.
In 1996, the list of production laboratories used by the Division
included:
o The NWQL.
o The QWSU.
o 20 District and NRP laboratories.
o 55 Cooperator and contract laboratories.
If you are uncertain whether the policy requires your laboratory to be
reviewed, please contact the BQS, Laboratory Evaluation Project, at
303/236-1870 x303 or x313.
Schedule and Responsibility for Review Costs
1. Fiscal Years (FY) 1998-2000
For the remainder of FY 1998, reviews of production laboratories will be
conducted at the request of a District, a national program, or the OWQ.
The requesting office will fund the cost of each review. In FYs 1999 and
2000, one half of the remaining production laboratories will be reviewed
each year. Costs for these reviews will be paid by the office that uses
or manages the laboratory. The BQS will quickly develop a laboratory
review schedule for FYs 1999 and 2000 so affected Districts will have
time to modify Cooperative Agreements to pay the costs of specific
reviews.
2. Beginning FY 2001
Beginning in FY 2001, the complete list of production laboratories will
be reviewed on a 3-year cycle. The office that uses or manages the
laboratory will pay the cost for each review. The scope, complexity, and
number of WRD analyses performed for WRD by each laboratory will largely
determine whether a review: (1) can be successfully accomplished,
remotely, by examination of documents and telephone interviews, or (2)
must be conducted onsite by Division personnel. Remote reviews will be
used, wherever practical, to minimize costs.
Laboratory Review Criteria
The BQS will use the following criteria to evaluate each production
analytical laboratory:
1. Appropriate, Approved, and Published Methods
All production laboratories must use appropriate analytical methods
approved and published by one of the following sources: USGS, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), American Public Health
Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment
Federation (Standard Methods), or ASTM (formerly American Society for
Testing and Materials). The published documentation of an analytical
method must include the analytical techniques, chemical processes, and
expected data quality.
The analytical methods from the sources listed above include a wide range
of options. There typically are multiple analytical methods available for
any given analyte, each with its own precision, bias, matrix recovery,
and interferences. The method should be selected based on the specific
objectives and needs of the project. The requesting WRD office is
responsible to ensure that the method used is appropriate for the
specific environmental matrix and will meet the data-quality needs of the
project (see Attachment 1). If a WRD office or the production laboratory
requests a method that is not included in the listed sources, that office
is responsible for ensuring that the method is approved (based on
requirements specified in WRD Memorandum No. 82.28) before the produced
analytical data are stored in publicly-accessible data bases or published
in USGS district annual or other data reports. Similarly if a laboratory
has changed an approved and published method, the new method must be
approved according to the specifications in WRD Memorandum No. 82.28 and
then published. A method change is defined as any modification that the
laboratory expects will change the quality of produced data.
2. Documented Standard Operating Procedures
All analytical methods used by a production laboratory must have
documented standard operating procedures (SOPs) approved in accordance
with the procedures contained in the laboratory quality-assurance (QA)
plan. SOPs must contain detailed information not only on how to perform a
specific method, but also information related to the preparation of
reagents, standards, and reference materials.
Changes to SOPs must be fully documented. An SOP change is defined as any
modification to the analytical process that is not expected to change the
data quality. The implementation of changes to SOPs must follow the
process defined in the laboratory QA plan.
3. Approved QA Plan
All laboratories must have an approved QA plan that is supplied to WRD
customers upon request. The laboratory QA plan must provide internal
guidance and documentation that will ensure the laboratory is operating
under a standardized, rigorous QA program and is producing analytical
results of a known and acceptable quality. The laboratory QA plan must
describe QA activities, quality-control (QC) procedures and requirements,
QC performance acceptance criteria, and the required corrective actions
to be taken if the criteria are not met. Erdmann (1991a) and Taylor
(1987) describe the requirements, procedures, and technical information
that each production laboratory QA plan should contain.
4. Types and Amount of QC Data and Historical Performance
All production laboratories must document their QC procedures and provide
data to the WRD offices that allows for continuous tracking of the bias,
variability, and recovery over the expected range of environmental data.
QC information, such as QC charts, analysis of laboratory QC samples,
calibration records, and analyst bench logs should be maintained for at
least 5, and preferably 10 years and be available for review by WRD
customers. Laboratory QC data are to be fully documented, readily
available, and technically defensible.
All laboratories must maintain a file of initial performance data for
each method and any changes to the method. The file will contain any SOP
changes and all accompanying data that define data quality across such
changes. On a yearly basis, this file will be copied and sent to the
Chief, BQS. This file and all accompanying information will be reviewed
as part of each laboratory review.
During each review, the BQS will examine the types, amount, and quality
of the QC data over at least a three-year period to evaluate the quality
and consistency of operations.
5. Participation in the Standard Reference Sample Project
The Standard Reference Sample (SRS) Project of WRD conducts a semi-annual
round-robin intercomparison study to evaluate and document the analytical
performance of laboratories used by the Division and other outside
participating laboratories. Each production laboratory used by the
Division must analyze, at a minimum, the appropriate SRSs to cover the
constituents requested by the Division office.
Although the SRS Project presently covers only dissolved inorganic and
nutrient analytes, it is developing additional types of SRSs to cover
additional analytes and ranges of analytes. Examples of new samples may
include various organic SRSs and, also, inorganic SRSs that test a
laboratory's capability to measure presence/absence rather than
quantifiable results. As new SRSs become available, the SRS project will
notify each production laboratory and provide ordering instructions.
Acceptance criteria of SRS results are documented in Erdmann (1991b, p.
4) and Farrar (1997, p. 10). If the SRS result for one or more
constituents is considered unacceptable (poor rating), the BQS will
notify the appropriate WRD office. That office is then responsible to
obtain a written explanation of the potential problem and any necessary
corrective actions from the laboratory. This documentation will be
forwarded to BQS. If two successive unacceptable results are obtained for
any constituent (samples are at six-month intervals), the BQS will
notify the responsible office, the appropriate Regional Hydrologist, and
the OWQ that the laboratory has sustained unacceptable data for those
constituents. Until successful corrective action is achieved, data from
the laboratory cannot be stored in publicly-accessible USGS data bases
nor published in USGS district annual or other data reports.
The BQS will evaluate the results of other available performance
evaluation analyses (from other external certification processes) along
with the SRS results in reaching decisions for corrective action.
To enhance the data-review process, each future District review by OWQ
will evaluate SRS results from each production laboratory used by the
District.
6. Scientific Capability of Personnel
The BQS will evaluate the academic education, on-the-job training,
knowledge, capabilities, and competence of the production laboratory
personnel -- including the laboratory managers, supervisors, and those
preparing and analyzing the samples.
7. Laboratory Equipment
The BQS will evaluate whether the laboratory has the required preparatory
and analytical equipment to appropriately run each method that produces
USGS data.
Laboratory Evaluation Process
The laboratory evaluation process consists of two major activities:
1. Notification of Laboratory Use
Near the beginning of each fiscal year, each District or office will be
notified to provide BQS, by memorandum through the Regional Hydrologist,
the estimated use of individual production analytical laboratories for
the following fiscal year. This information will be due to the BQS within
the second month of each fiscal year. The BQS will compile the responses,
and by mid year, discuss and firm up the estimates with each office. The
BQS will use the refined information to prioritize laboratories for
review and to select those laboratories to be evaluated during the
following fiscal year. The BQS will notify the affected Districts and
offices about five months before the beginning of the fiscal year. Then,
BQS will work with the Districts/offices to schedule the actual dates for
each review.
The NWQL and the QWSU will be evaluated annually so notification about
their use is not required.
Attachment 2 contains the information that BQS will request concerning
use of production laboratories.
2. Reviews of Production Laboratories
The BQS will conduct the laboratory reviews using the protocols,
procedures, and guidelines presented in Erdmann (1991b).
Each review will include evaluation of the written documentation (see
Attachment 2 and below) and a conference call including BQS, the
requesting WRD office, and the production laboratory. The BQS will
determine the need for an on-site review based on:
o The scope, complexity, and number of analyses performed by the
laboratory for WRD.
o The completeness and clarity of the written documentation.
o Evaluation of the written documentation against the
laboratory-review criteria (see Laboratory Review Criteria).
Based on preliminary information or concerns, the District/office, the
Regional Hydrologist, or OWQ may request an on-site review of a specific
production laboratory before or during the initial BQS evaluation.
The laboratory review process consists of three steps:
Step 1. Review of Written Documentation.
The BQS will review and evaluate the following:
o Laboratory QA plan.
o List of constituents and estimated number of samples requested
by the WRD office.
o Length of time the laboratory has analyzed for the requested
constituents.
o List of analytical methods that will be used for the requested
constituents, the references for these methods, the
principles and analytical range of the methods, and
documentation of any modifications or changes to published
methods.
o Brief resumes of key laboratory managers and supervisors.
o Summary of education level, training, and capabilities of
personnel conducting the analyses.
o Description of relevant major instrumentation used in
providing the requested analytical services.
o Historical performance evaluation ratings for the SRS
intercomparison studies (if available).
o Analytical results from recent performance-evaluation sample
analyses from other external certification, evaluation, or
round-robin studies.
o Example copy of the laboratory analytical-results data and
laboratory QC data that are available and/or provided to the
WRD office.
If both the documentation and the performance evaluation results are in
order and acceptable, BQS will proceed to step 2. If important
documentation is missing or unacceptable, BQS will report this finding to
the requesting office and then work with that office and the laboratory
to rectify the situation.
If performance-evaluation data are unavailable, incomplete, or
unsatisfactory, BQS will send appropriate SRSs or arrange for other
performance evaluation samples to be sent to the laboratory. These SRSs
or other samples must be analyzed by the laboratory and the results
provided to and evaluated by the BQS, before step 1 can be completed.
Step 2. Conference Call.
Once the written documentation and the performance-evaluation results are
reviewed and accepted, BQS will arrange a conference call with
appropriate personnel in the requesting office and the production
laboratory. The purpose is to ensure that adequate technical and QA
practices are in place to define and document the quality of the
requested analyses. The discussion will include:
o Procedures used to handle documentation of laboratory records.
o Sample management.
o Sample analyses.
o The laboratory QA program.
o QC activities and information.
o Data management.
Examples of materials for review may be requested from the laboratory
during this call.
Following the conference call, if no serious problems or deficiencies are
found, the BQS will approve the laboratory as accepted by the WRD for the
specified analyses and methods.
In this case, results from this step will be documented and forwarded by
BQS to the OWQ. OWQ will forward the information to the requesting
office and Regional Hydrologist within two weeks following the review. In
cases where the laboratory is being requested to perform complex and/or a
large number of analyses for WRD, the BQS may request further remote
review or even an onsite review to protect the integrity of Division
data.
If the review discovers serious problems or deficiencies, the BQS will:
o Provide the District/office (copy to the Regional Hydrologist)
with specific suggestions on how to work with the laboratory
to correct the deficiencies. At this point, if the analyses
represent new work, the deficiencies must be corrected before
the office submits environmental samples to the laboratory. If
the laboratory is already analyzing Division environmental
samples, no additional results can be stored in publicly
accessible data bases or published in USGS district annual or
other data reports.
o Schedule an on-site laboratory review (see step 3).
Once BQS notes serious problems or deficiencies and recommends corrective
actions, the requesting WRD office is responsible for working with the
production laboratory to achieve resolution. BQS is available to assist
the WRD office and the laboratory. However, the requesting WRD office has
the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that corrective actions are
achievable and implemented by the laboratory.
Step 3. On-Site Technical Review.
BQS will determine the need for an onsite laboratory review based on
evaluation the written documentation, the described laboratory-review
criteria, and the performance-evaluation results. The primary
determinants are: (1) the scope, complexity, and number of analyses to be
performed for WRD, and (2) whether steps 1 and 2 identify serious
problems or deficiencies in the production laboratory and its performance
capabilities.
The objectives of an onsite review are: (1) to ensure that adequate
analytical and QC practices are in place and to determine--first
hand--how these are used to define and document the quality of the
environmental analyses; and (2) ensure that any documented problems and
deficiencies have been corrected and are likely to stay under control
over the duration of analysis for the WRD.
Each on-site review will include:
o Inspecting the laboratory facility and instrumentation.
o Meeting with selected laboratory personnel.
o Examining laboratory processes.
o Reviewing various laboratory records and documentation
associated with sample management, sample analysis, the QA
program, QC activities and information, and data management.
At a minimum, a technical expert representing BQS, assisted by a
technical representative from the WRD office, will conduct the on-site
review.
If no serious problems or deficiencies are noted, the BQS will approve
the laboratory as accepted by the WRD for the specific analyses and
methods.
If serious problems or deficiencies are found, BQS will provide the WRD
office with:
o Specific suggestions on what needs to be changed to remedy
identified problems and deficiencies.
o Suggestions on how to work with the laboratory to correct
deficiencies before submitting environmental samples for
analysis or entering additional analytical results into a
publicly-accessible data base or publishing the data in an
USGS district annual or other data report.
Results from this step (acceptance or non-acceptance) will be documented
with explanations by BQS and sent to the OWQ. The OWQ will forward the
information to the requesting WRD office and the Regional Hydrologist
within four weeks after the completion of the onsite review.
The WRD office requesting or using the laboratory must work with the
laboratory to ensure appropriate corrective actions are implemented. Then
the office must document to BQS what actions have been taken. BQS will
then re-evaluate the laboratory. If everything is acceptable, BQS will
approvethe laboratory as accepted by the WRD for the specific analyses
and methods. If the response is inadequate or unclear, BQS will conduct
additional review through further evaluation of data and documents,
conference calls, or another on-site review. The WRD office using the
laboratory has the responsibility to ensure that the corrective actions
are implemented by the laboratory.
If The Production Laboratory Refuses to Cooperate
If a laboratory requested by a WRD office declines to be reviewed, to
analyze submitted SRSs or other performance-evaluation samples, or to
make needed changes relative to identified problems or deficiencies, the
WRD office cannot use the laboratory.
Temporary Exemption from the Laboratory Evaluation Process
If a WRD office must begin sampling and using the analytical results from
a new laboratory before a technical review can be completed by BQS
(because of funding-agreement, data-collection, and other needs) the
Regional Hydrologist (or designee not from the requesting office) may
grant temporary approval based on available knowledge or information
about the laboratory. In this situation, the analytical results from the
production laboratory are considered provisional until BQS evaluates and
approves the laboratory to conduct specific analyses for WRD. To protect
the Division's scientific integrity and data quality, this practice
should seldomly be used.
The WRD office requesting this exception must provide the Regional
Hydrologist with as much of the information listed in Attachment 2 as
possible, so the competency of the laboratory can be briefly evaluated in
advance. The WRD office must also inform BQS that it has requested an
exception, along with a scheduled date for participating in the normal
approval process. BQS will attempt to honor schedules for reviewing
excepted laboratories. Temporary approvals granted by a Regional
Hydrologist may not exceed 9 months, and can be granted only once per
laboratory.
Because this approach is outside the normal technical-review process, a
statement of temporary approval by the Regional Hydrologist (or designee)
must be included in all USGS-sponsored data reports containing resultant
analytical data until final approval is granted. In addition, the
resultant data cannot be entered into a publicly-accessible USGS data
base.
Costs
Costs for each review will be funded on a fee-for-service basis. Charges
will include salary, travel, and other costs directly associated with
performing the reviews.
Reviews of the NWQL, the QWSU, and production parts of NRP and District
research laboratories will be funded by those laboratories and the costs
recovered through analytical charges to customers. Costs associated with
technical review of contractor and cooperator laboratories will be funded
by the WRD offices requesting use of the laboratories. Costs of reviewing
District production laboratories will be paid by the Districts.
Technical Support services provided by BQS will include staff support for:
o Managing the laboratory review process.
o Providing technical assistance to offices participating in the
process.
o Reporting and documenting the overall usage and performance of
production laboratories to the Division.
References Cited
Erdmann, D.E., 1991a, Quality assurance requirements for water-quality
laboratories providing analytical services for the Water Resources
Division of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 91-222, 8 p.
Erdmann, D.E., 1991b, Technical review of water-quality laboratories
providing analytical services for the Water Resources Division of the
U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
91-223, 19 p.
Farrar, J.W., 1997, Results of the U.S. Geological Survey's analytical
evaluation program for standard reference samples: T-147 (trace
constituents), T-149 (trace constituents), M-142 (major constituents),
N-53 (nutrient constituents), N-54 (nutrient constituents), P-28 (low
ionic strength constituents), GW-1 (ground-water constituents), and
Hg-24 (mercury) distributed in April 1997: U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 97-553, 184 p.
Keith, L.N., 1991, Environmental Sampling and Analysis--A Practical
Guide: Chelsea, Michigan, Lewis Publishers, Inc.
Shampine, W.J., Pope, L.M., and Coterie, M.T., 1992, Integrating quality
assurance in project work plans of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-162, 12 p.
Taylor, J.K., 1987, Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements: Chelsea,
Michigan, Lewis Publishing, Inc.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, Strategic plan for the U.S. Geological
Survey, 1996 to 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Office of the Director.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Project Specific Analytical Data Needs
Attachment 2: Production Laboratory-Use Information
- ---------------------
ATTACHMENT 1 -- Project Specific Analytical Data Needs
Division offices are responsible to secure appropriate analytical
services and to ensure that production laboratories implement appropriate
QA procedures that meet the objectives of each project. Laboratory QA
procedures and QC data related to the project should be referenced or
included in the project work plan or the QA project plan developed at the
outset of each project. The project chief and technical specialists then
evaluate the QC information generated under the plans to ensure the
ongoing suitability and quality of all data--including laboratory
analyses--to meet the stated data-quality objectives. Information about
integrating QA/QC in project work plans and QA plans for projects is
provided in Shampine and others, 1992, Keith (1991), and WRD Memorandum
No. 94.17. Each project should also consider using various types of
field-based QC samples (blanks, spikes, reference and replicate samples)
to help assess the performance of the analytical laboratories.
The BQS will assist District, Regional, and other WRD offices in
selection of analytical services and development of QA/QC plans. BQS will
either provide or arrange for assistance based on discussions with the
requestor. If requested, BQS will also review laboratory QC data for
specific projects.
- ---------------------------
ATTACHMENT 2 -- Production Laboratory-Use Information
WRD offices will be responsible for annually notifying the BQS about the
use of analytical production laboratories for obtaining chemical,
radiochemical and biological data that will be placed in
publicly-accessible data bases or published in data reports. Two types of
information are required: (1) general laboratory use; and (2) constituent
specific laboratory use. BQS will use both types to inventory production
laboratory use in the WRD, help prioritize and schedule the laboratory
reviews, and conduct preliminary screening of the laboratories. The BQS,
OWQ, and Regional Water-Quality Specialists will develop and implement a
ranking priority system based on the different types and categories of
laboratory-use information.
To assist the WRD offices in compiling the needed information, BQS will
develop a standardized information request that covers the following
items:
General Laboratory-Use Information:
1. Name and address of laboratory.
2. Type of samples that will be analyzed by the laboratory.
3. Estimated number of samples that will be analyzed in the fiscal
year.
4. Estimated cost of laboratory analytical work for the fiscal year.
5. List month/year and brief summary of findings of previous technical
reviews of laboratory by WRD.
6. List month/year and historical laboratory performance ratings for
SRS intercomparison studies.
7. List type, month/year, and results of any other
performance-evaluation studies.
8. Does the laboratory have a documented and complete QA plan and
standard operating procedures?
9. Does the WRD project using the laboratory include appropriate
laboratory QA and QC information in the project work plan or
project QA plan (see Attachment 1)?
10. The type and collection frequency of any field-based QC samples
being collected by the WRD project using the laboratory.
11. Brief resumes of key laboratory managers and supervisors.
Constituent-Specific Laboratory-Use Information
This information will need to be completed for each constituent or group
of constituents to be analyzed by the laboratory.
1. Constituent(s) to be analyzed.
2. Length of time (years) the laboratory has analyzed the
constituent(s).
3. Planned length of time (years) that the laboratory will be requested
to analyze constituent(s) for the WRD office.
4. List source or reference and the name for each analytical method to
be used for WRD work.
5. Type, model, and age of instruments used for each analysis.
6. Education level, training, and capabilities of personnel running
each method.
7. List month/year and summary of results for the latest SRS study for
the constituent(s).
------- End of Forwarded Message