My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0012540
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
A
>
ALPINE
>
1235
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0543389
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0012540
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2018 7:40:55 PM
Creation date
11/1/2018 11:13:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0012540
FileName_PostFix
XR0012540
RECORD_ID
PR0543389
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0004512
FACILITY_NAME
MAJOR STATIONS
STREET_NUMBER
1235
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
ALPINE
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95204
APN
11533055
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
1235 E ALPINE AVE
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
WNg
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
274
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
r <br /> r �{ <br /> ON 01 - <br /> ,W- U <br /> Y <br /> r <br /> 5 <br /> 4 <br /> ;4 <br /> Y <br /> ward-Ctyde <br /> rpt Cons4iftan$3 <br /> 3.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QVALITY CONTROL <br /> h.7 " <br /> �~5 <br /> Travel/equipment blanks a^d blind duplicatzs were used to provide quality assurance and <br /> control. The analytical results for the blanks were below the detection limits of the TFH and <br /> mJ BTEX analyses. The analytical..results fir the December 31, 1991 blind duplicate sample <br /> (MW-23) were within twenty percent for each of the analytical parameters [(TFH (18%), <br /> benzene(15%)and ethylbenzene(0%)]of the original sample(MW-3). The field duplicate <br /> precision, ex}aessed as relative percent diffe'mnce (RPD), exceeded thirty percent for two <br /> compounds (toluene and total xylenes),. Since these rompciuitds were not found in one <br /> ¢„ sample in the duplicate pair, the detection limit can,be considered a maximum concentration i <br /> f which could be present in the samples. Toluene was found at 1.7 ppb, which .isover five <br /> Y-E . �F <br /> times the detection limit. Total xylenes were found at 1.8 ppb, which is twice the detection :.r. <br /> Imo. limit. Although the RPDs fcr toluene and total xylenes are relatively high, the validity of <br /> RPD as a quality control measurements decreases as concentrations approach the detection. <br /> limit, thus increasing the margin of error. The data is therefore not considered invalidated <br /> by Iow readings of these compounds in one sample of the sample pair. A Iack of detection s <br /> of these compounds in either the equipment blank or the method blank further suggests that ` <br /> laboratory or field contamination did not cause the difference reported results for the ! <br /> duplicate pair. The detection limit for each analysis is shown on the analytical report <br /> w (Appendix B): The chemical data assessed by the above review are considered adequate and ` z. <br /> Y <br /> valid for their intended use. <br /> r, x <br /> I,,✓ r ; b <br /> z <br /> %J41 91002369/MA 0Rt,(ART.QRP'r 02--:492 3-4 r <br /> 4' <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.