OFFICIAL USE ONLY
U.S. Department of Energy
Consolidated Audit Program
Checklist 4
Data Quality for Radiochemistry Analyses
DoD/DOE QSM - Revision 5.0
Checklist Revision 4.2
October 2015
Use of this DOECAP checklist is authorized only if the user has satisfied the copyright restrictions associated with TNI-EL-V1-2009 and ISO 17025:2005. DOECAP does not control or restrict the use of copyrighted standards that have been incorporated into this checklist; however, TNI and ISO do restrict use of their standards.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
May be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C 552), exemption number and category: Exemption #4: Commercial Proprietary
Department of Energy review required before public release
Name/Org: Documents Originator/DOE Consolidated Audit Program
Date: TBD
Guidance (if applicable) Memo dated March 11, 2016 from George E. Detsis to Beth Pearson, Pro2Serve
Audit ID: / Date:OFFICIAL USE ONLY
OFFICIAL USE ONLYU.S. Department of Energy Consolidated Audit Program
Data Quality for Radiochemistry Analyses
/ DOECAP Checklist: 4Rev. 4.2Revision Date: October 2015 Page 1 of 16
Audit ID: Laboratory: Auditor:
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
OFFICIAL USE ONLYU.S. Department of Energy Consolidated Audit Program
Data Quality for Radiochemistry Analyses
/ DOECAP Checklist: 4Rev. 4.2Revision Date: October 2015 Page 1 of 16
Audit ID: Laboratory: Auditor:
Areas of Review During Audit
__SOPs
__Yield Monitors / __Sample Handling
__Batch Quality Control (QC) / __Gas Flow Proportional Counting
__Gamma Spectroscopy
__ Negative Activities
__MDA and DL
__Contamination Control / __Reagents, Standards and Water Quality
__Instrument Operation and Calibration
__Alpha Spectroscopy / __Liquid Scintillation Counting
__Radon (Lucas Cell)
__Reanalysis/Recount
__Performance Testing (PT) Programs
A = Acceptable
NO = Not Observed / U = Unsatisfactory
F = Finding / NA = Not Applicable
O = Observation
Referenced regulations are accessible at the following URLs:
NOTE:
- When audit findings are written against site-specific documents (i.e., SOPs, QA Plans, licenses, permits, etc.), a copy of the pertinent requirement text from that document must be attached to this checklist for retention in DOECAP files.
- Fully document all deviation from the LOI or the requirements of QSM Rev. 5.0 and TNI ELV1M6
- Refer to Page 67 for the record of revision.
- Refer to Errata Document 10-25 for interim changes to the QSM Rev.5.0 requirements
Item Number / Line of Inquiry / Status / Summary of Observations/Objective Evidence
Reviewed Audit Notes
1.0 / Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
1.1 / Where referenced methods are required, are they referenced to nationally accepted sources, such as EPA methods, DOE Methods Compendium, HASL 300 methods, etc., where applicable?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.4
1.2 / Have non-standardized methods that have been developed by the laboratory been appropriately documented before use?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.4
1.3 / Are all procedures being used by the laboratory documented?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.5.2
1.4 / Does the documentation include the quality system matrix type?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.5.2
1.5 / Is all supporting data retained by the laboratory?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.5.2
1.6 / Has the laboratory validated non-standard methods, laboratory-designed/developed methods, reference methods used outside their published scope, and amplifications and modifications of reference methods to confirm that the methods are fit for the intended use?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.5.1
1.7 / Has the validation of non-standardized methods been extensive enough to meet the needs of the given application and documentation is available?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.5.1
1.8 / Has the laboratory recorded the results obtained, the procedure used for the validation, and a statement as to whether the method is fit for the intended use? (The minimum requirements for method validation are given in TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Sections 1.5.2 – 1.5.5.)
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.5.1
1.0 / Where modifications to the published method have been made, changes are clearly described and documented.
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.5.1
1.10 / Do the laboratory SOPs document the formulas for calculating theCombined Standard Uncertainty (CSU) of a result, including both systematic and random error?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.4
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.5.4
ANSI N42.23, Sections 4.1.3.2 and A8
1.11 / Do all radiochemical measurements provide the uncertainty of each quantitative result at the 95% or 2 sigma confidence level?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.4
ANSI N42.23, Sections 4.1.3.2 and A8
1.12 / Are the results reported with the associated measurement uncertainty as a combined standard uncertainty (CSU)?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.4
ANSI N42.23, Sections 4.1.3.2 and A8
1.13 / In the case of a result having zero (0) counts, is the counting uncertainty is assumed to be the square root of one (1) count?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.4
1.14 / Do the laboratory SOPs specify acceptance criteria for QC samples?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.4
2.0 / Internal Tracers and Carriers
2.1 / Is each sample in a QC batch (including QC samples), spiked with a tracer or yield carrier, when applicable, that chemically mimics and does not interfere with the target analyte through radiochemical separations?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
2.2 / For those methods that employ a tracer or carrier for yield determination, does each sample result have an associated yield calculated and reported?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
2.3 / Is the tracer or carrier yield assessed against the specific acceptance criteria specified in the laboratory method SOP?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
2.4 / In the event of a failed tracer or carrier yield, are the corrective actions taken noted in the laboratory report to the client?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
2.5 / Are tracers or carriers are added at the very beginning of the sample preparation process, after subsampling but before any chemical treatment, to accurately trace any losses of analytes of interest early in the preparation process, unless otherwise specified by the method?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
ANSI N42.23, Section 5.27
2.6 / For solid samples, is the tracer added after grinding, sieving, etc., but prior to any muffling or dissolution?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
ANSI N42.23, Section 5.27
2.7 / Are radiometric results corrected for chemical yield using ‘indirect’ yield measurement techniques such as gravimetric measurement of added carriers or a second radiometric measurement of added tracer?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
2.8 / Does the chemical yield for each sample determined using an indirect yield measurement method, fall within the range 30% - 110% or as specified by the client?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
2.9 / Is the technique used for the carrier measurements sufficient to maintain relative uncertainties associated with the yield correction below 10% at the 2-sigma level?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.3 and d)
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
2.10 / Is the uncertainty associated with chemical yield corrections incorporated into the CSU of the associated sample results?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
2.11 / Is the tracer activity and sample count duration adequate to achieve relative uncertainties for the tracer measurement of less than 10% at the 2-sigma level?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
2.12 / Are sample results with yields below 30% considered quantitative and acceptable if:
• The relative uncertainty associated with the yield correction is less than 10% (2-sigma);
• Spectral resolution requirements are met and there are no indications of spectral interferences; and
•Detection limit requirements are met?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
2.13 / When the specified yield acceptance criteria are not met, are the specified corrective actions and contingencies followed?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.3 c) and d)
2.14 / Are the procedures for data reduction, such as use of linear regression, documented?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.4 a)
2.15 / Is each analytical result with its measurement uncertainty documented in a report that clearly explains the uncertainty?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.4 b)
2.16 / Does the report indicate whether the uncertainty is the combined standard uncertainty (“one sigma”) or an expanded uncertainty?
For expanded uncertainties, does the report indicate the coverage factor (k) and optionally the approximate level of confidence?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.4 b)
3.0 / Negative Activities
3.1 / All negative activities are reported as such.
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.4 d)
3.2 / Are negative results below -3 sigma (combined standard uncertainty) evaluated to determine whether the cause is random or systematic?
- If the cause is systematic, is the problem corrected?
- If the cause is random, is the problem addressed in the case narrative?
- Are recurrent problems with significant negative results investigated and is the resolution documented?
ANSI N42.23, Sections 5.2.8, 5.2, and A.5.2.3
4.0 / Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) and Decision Level (DL) Determination
4.1 / Does the laboratory determine the MDA for the method for each target analyte of concern in the quality system sample matrices?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.5.2.1a)
ANSI N42.23, Section A8
4.2 / Are all sample-processing steps of the analytical method included in the determination of the MDA?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.5.2.1a)
ANSI N42.23, Section A8
4.3 / Is the MDA initially determined for the analytes of interest in each method in a quality system matrix in which there are no target analytes and no interferences at levels that would impact the results?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.5.2.1b)
4.4 / Is the MDA determined each time there is a change in the method that affects how the test is performed, or when a change in instrumentation occurs that affects the analytical detection capability?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.5.2.1c)
4.5 / Do the SOPs document and incorporate equations to calculate the minimum detectable activity (or concentration) and the decision level?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.2.1e)
4.6 / Are the factors that affect the MDA (sample size, count duration, tracer chemical recovery, detector background, blank standard deviation, and detector efficiency) being optimized such that the sample MDAs are less than or equal to the required detection Reporting Limits (RLs)?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.2.1.1b)
4.7 / If the RLs are not achieved, is the cause being addressed in the case narrative?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.2.1.1b)
4.8 / If the sample and background count times are of the same duration, is the calculation defined in the QSM Rev. 5.0being used?
(See Appendix A for these equations)
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.2.1.1c)
4.9 / Otherwise, is the equation for the MDA appropriately modified to account for the difference in sample and background count times?
(See Appendix A for these equations)
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.2.1.1c)
4.10 / Has the implementation of blank populations for calculation of MDAs been documented and described in detail in a SOP?
(See Appendix A for these equations)
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.2.1.1c)
4.11 / The equations for MDA have the units of dpm/sample. If other units are used, is the appropriate conversion documented in the SOPs?
(See Appendix A for these equations)
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.2.1.1c)
4.12 / Are the aliquant sizes appropriate for the activity levels in the sample and large enough to generate data which meet the following criteria:
- The measurement uncertainty shall not be greater than 10% (1 sigma) of the sample activity.
- The MDA for the analysis shall be a maximum of 10% of the sample activity?
4.13 / If sample-specific MDAs are calculated and reported, is that clearly stated in the data package?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.2.1.1 d)iv)
4.14 / Are the laboratory procedures that incorporate the MDA equation consistent with the mandated method or regulation?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.5.2.1e)
5.0 / Contamination and Cross-Contamination Control
5.1 / Does the laboratory maintain a radiological control program that addresses analytical radiological control?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.7c)
5.2 / Does the program address the procedures for segregating samples with potentially widely varying levels of radioactivity?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.7d)
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.7c)
5.3 / Does the radiological control program explicitly define how low-level and high-level samples will be identified, segregated and processed in order to prevent sample cross-contamination?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.7c)
5.4 / Does the radiological control program include the measures taken to monitor and evaluate background activity or contamination on an ongoing basis?
TNI-EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.7c)
5.5 / There is effective separation between neighboring work areas when activities therein are incompatible.
TNI EL-V1M2-2009, Section 5.3.3
5.6 / Adequate measures are taken to ensure good housekeeping in the laboratory and to ensure that any contamination does not adversely affect data quality.
TNI EL-V1M2-2009, Section 5.3.5
Item
Number / Line of Inquiry / Status / Summary of Observations/Objectives Evidence
Reviewed Audit Notes
6.0 / Performance Testing (PT) Programs
6.1 / Can the laboratory demonstrate continued proficiency in either MAPEP or external performance testing programs?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 1, Section 3.2.1
6.2 / Does the laboratory document the cause(s) for failed PT results and develop corrective action(s) to address the causes within 21 calendar days from receipt of the results?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 1, Section 3.2.2
7.0 / Sample Handling
7.1 / Are samples that require thermal preservation considered acceptable if the arrival temperature of a representative sample container is either within 2°C of the required temperature or the method specified range?
TNI EL-V1M2-2009, Section 1.7.4a)
7.2 / For samples with a specified temperature of 4°C, are samples with a temperature ranging from just above the freezing temperature of water to 6°C acceptable?
TNI EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.4a)
7.3 / Does the laboratory procedures for checking chemical preservation using readily available techniques, such as pH or chlorine, prior to or during sample preparation or analysis?
TNI EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.4b)
Item
Number / Line of Inquiry / Status / Summary of Observations/Objectives EvidenceReviewed Audit Notes
8.0 / Batch Quality Control (QC)(For all Radiochemistry QC requirements, see QSM Rev. 5.0 Appendix B, Tables 16-19)
8.1 / Are all QC samples (method blanks, laboratory control samples, duplicates, and matrix spikes) processed along with and under the same conditions as the associated samples and include all steps of the preparation, counting and analytical procedures?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Sections 1.7.2
8.2 / Do all method QC samples follow the QSM Rev. 5.0 Appendix B requirements, as appropriate?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2
8.3 / Are the laboratory standards used to prepare LCS and matrix spikes from a source independent of the laboratory standards used for instrument calibration.
TNI EL-V1M6-2009,Section 1.7.2.2 f) and 1.7.2.3 a)vi)
8.4 / Are all QC samples counted for a sufficient time to meet the required detection limit (except in the case where the achieved MDA is calculated from the standard deviation of a blank population) in which case, the method blanks are counted for the same count time as the samples?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Sections 1.7.2.1d), 1.7.2.2j) and 1.7.2.3 a) xiii)
8.5 / Are the QC samples prepared with an aliquot size similar to that of the routine samples being analyzed?
TNI EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.1 c) and 1.7.2.2 i)
8.6 / Is the QC sample matrix the same as the field samples, as can be reasonably achieved, and is documented in the case narrative?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.1d), 1.7.2.2k)
8.7 / Negative Control – Method Blanks
8.7.1 / Are procedures in place to determine if a method blank result is significantly different from zero?
TNI EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.1 a)
8.7.2 / Are samples associated with a failed method blank reprocessed for analysis or the results reported with appropriate data qualifying codes?
TNI EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.1 a)
8.7.3 / Are method blanks analyzed at a minimum of one (1) per preparation batch, which shall be a maximum of twenty (20) field samples, for all radiochemical methods except gross alpha/beta in solid matrices and gamma-ray spectrometry?
TNI EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.1 b)
8.7.4 / Does the method blank consist of a quality system matrix that is similar to the associated samples and is known to be as free of the analytes of interest as possible?
TNI EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.1 c)
8.7.5 / Unless permitted by method or program, does the laboratory not subtract the method blank result from the sample results in the associated preparation or analytical batch?
TNI EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.2.1 c)
8.7.6 / Method Blank Acceptance Criteria
Does the laboratory use one method blank per preparatory batch? (MARLAP 18.4.1)
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.1 e)
8.7.7 / Does the laboratory use either the method blank acceptance criteria of |ZBlank |≤ 3 or in-house control limits of ±3 σ of the mean?
MARLAP, Chapter 18, Section 4.1
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.1e)
8.7.8 / Is the Method Blank MDA less than the Reporting Limit?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.1e)
8.7.9 / If the abovecriteria are not met, are corrective actions taken (e.g., recount, interferent cleanup, as appropriate), unless all sample results are greater than five times the blank activity?
If the criteria are still not met, are the samples reanalyzed?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.1e)
8.7.10 / Are the following method blank matrices used for all radiochemistry analyses;
• Distilled or deionized water, radon free;
• Characterized solid material representative of the sample matrix;
• Filters, physically and chemically identical filter media, analyte free (if supplied to the laboratory by customer)?
QSM Rev. 5.0, Module 6, Section 1.7.2.1f)
8.7.11 / Method Blank Data Acceptance / Rejection Criteria
Are samples reprocessed or is data appropriately qualified if:
• the absolute value of the activity of a targeted analyte in the blank exceeds three times its combined standard uncertainty, AND is greater than 1/10 of the activity measured in any sample; or
• the method blank result otherwise affects the sample results as per the method requirements or the project-specific measurement quality objectives?
TNI EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.3.1a)
8.7.12 / Are the acceptance criteria for samples associated with a failed method blank calculated in a manner that compensates for sample results based on differing aliquot sizes?
TNI EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.3.1b)
8.7.13 / When a blank result is determined to be significantly different from zero, is the cause investigated and are measures taken to minimize or eliminate the problem?
TNI EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.3.1c)
8.7.14 / Are samples associated with a failed blank evaluated as to the best corrective action for the samples (e.g., reprocessing or data qualifying codes)?
TNI EL-V1M6-2009, Section 1.7.3.1c)
8.7.15 / Are failed method blanks and associated corrective actions noted in the laboratory report to the client?