My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CHEROKEE
>
2235
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0544496
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2019 11:46:08 AM
Creation date
5/28/2019 11:38:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0544496
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0005409
FACILITY_NAME
LARGINS SERVICE
STREET_NUMBER
2235
STREET_NAME
CHEROKEE
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205
APN
11924017
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
2235 CHEROKEE RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY �+ <br /> t PETE WILSON. GVW. <br /> DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES AUG 7 sn <br /> ENVIRONl�1TAL LAI�RATORY ACCREDITATION PROGRAM <br /> F .01 <br /> 2151 BERKELEY WAY, Annex 2 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH <br /> BkRKELEY, CA 94704 PERMIT/SFRVICIES <br /> (415) 540-2800 <br /> August 1, 1991 <br /> Ms. Letitia Resch <br /> Environmental Health Division <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> P.O. Box 2009 <br /> Stockton, CA 95201 <br /> Dear Ms. Resch: <br /> This letter is in reply to your concerns on the data submitted by McLaren <br /> Analytical Laboratory on sample # 40431 date 12/31/89. Based on the information <br /> in the report, it appears this sample is different from the other samples that <br /> were taken from the same site. <br /> The laboratory's comment, "1:1000 dilution required due to heavy late eluting <br /> matrix interference", was not supported by any, data supplied. for our review. <br /> This comment may be true, that is one of the laboratory practices used to reduce <br /> interference in a sample. The result is then corrected for the dilution factor, <br /> which results in a higher reporting limit. <br /> The laboratory can set a reporting limit at which it can reliabl)E quantitate, but <br /> that limit should meet the regulatory agency's requirements. If the laboratory <br /> cannot meet the laboratory's method detection or quantitation limits, then there <br /> should be scientifically sound reasons for not meeting those limits. Because <br /> dilution raises the method detection and quantitation limits, it should be the <br /> method of last resort in eliminating interference in a sample, except when the <br /> method detection limit is low enough that the result will still be below the <br /> regulatory limit. <br /> I hope that this clarifies the issues involved. If you have further questions, <br /> please call me at the above number. <br /> Sincerely,, <br /> at'ja, �Q/ , 4,c( <br /> Aida S. Dente <br /> Public Health Chemist II <br /> Environmental Laboratory <br /> Accreditation Program <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.