04_AECOM_Environmental Report_Final

Eurofins Knoxville Particulate Matter Determination Data Review/Narrative Checklist Method: SW-846 Method 0050 by SOP KNOX-WG-0006, Rev. 14 Batch Number: 89964 | Job Number(s): | 37968 Analyst Name: SFB/TMB | Method Citation fms OMSB OMS! OM17 OM201A CCTN-039 Dother Drying Filters D Ambient 105°C 0 160°C. O Other. Temperature Probe & Nozzle Rinses OD Ambient 4 105°C 0 160°C C Other Review items Section 1: Calibration A Y | .N | IfNo, why is data reportable? 1. Was the daily balance calibration check performed and recorded in the x x balance calibration check log hook? 2. Was the balance zero and calibration checked with three weights that 4 bracket the range to he measured immediately prior to use? 3. Was balance calibration checked with a bracketing weight above the x x highest sample weight once per 10 samples and at end of weighing 0 Another weight was used.( grams} session? 4. Was balance zero checked per 10 samples and at end of weighing session? 2nd y 5. Was the balance tared before each weighing? x 6. Was the balance ID documented? >| ><] ><! >< 7._ If used, was the oven ID documented? x Section 2: Tare Weight Procedure 1. Were filters and/or beakers weighed in FilterTracl¥? x 2. Was a TALS job created for tracking the tared filters and their weights? * 3. Was tare weight data uploaded to TALS? | ><| >< | >< 4, Were all sample weights performed in duplicate (at least)? 4 Section 3: Sample Procedure 5. Were all special project requirements met? (Review all Backlog Comments and Project Documents.) 6. Were sample |Ds verified? (Review Filter [D, Job Numbers and Client {0s on sample labels.) 7. Was tare weight data entered directly from TALS? Jf no, scan documents for tare weights. 8. Were all sample weights performed in duplicate (at least}? [re] | |r 9. Was the average of the last two weights used? >< |><|>«| ><) x] xX ). Calculations checked for error? Sample 37848-4-1 (Weight 1 + Weight 2) /2 = 83543739 x Gross Weight Averqge — Tare Weight Average = 0.001659 Section 4: TALS Reporting 41. Was Equipment ID entered? x 2. Is the correct analyst name recorded? x 3. Does analytical date time match last weighing sequence in FilterTraclv? nd 4. Did FilterTraclV correctly upload data to TALS? x 5. Were applicable documents scanned and added? x 6. Are all non-conformances documented? x NCM No.: NCM No.: x [5893(M5)] _

n FilterTraclv? nd 4. Did FilterTraclV correctly upload data to TALS? x 5. Were applicable documents scanned and added? x 6. Are all non-conformances documented? x NCM No.: NCM No.: x [5893(M5)] _ (6053(201A)] _[18822(5A}] _ [23035(039)] _ [Other] | ><) ><! >K | >« | ><] ><) 7. Was appropriate narrative NCM added? 8. Final report acceptable? (Results, units, analysis dates are correct. Flags and/or errors were addressed.) Pad 1*t Level Reviewer: SFB Date: 8/46/2024 2"4 Level Reviewer: OCW | Date: 8/20/24. Comments: Comments: Page 83 of 88 WC197R3, 99/08/2894 /2024 12:21:54 PM