My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE_2007
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
T
>
TURNPIKE
>
3504
>
4400 - Solid Waste Program
>
PR0515730
>
CORRESPONDENCE_2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2024 3:17:12 PM
Creation date
7/3/2020 10:37:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
4400 - Solid Waste Program
File Section
CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
2007
RECORD_ID
PR0515730
PE
4430 - SOLID WASTE CIA SITE
FACILITY_ID
FA0012310
FACILITY_NAME
WORLD ENTERPRISES
STREET_NUMBER
3504
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
TURNPIKE
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95206
APN
17517018
CURRENT_STATUS
Active, billable
SITE_LOCATION
S TURNPIKE RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\cfield
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\SW\SW_4430_PR0515730_0 S TURNPIKE_2007.tif
Site Address
3504 S TURNPIKE RD STOCKTON 95206
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.
/
354
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
d <br /> Z <br /> EDTd (Date/Initials) <br /> ED � 3gged <br /> Data Evaluation Checklist—GC/MS Analyses <br /> Project ID: nsJ P <br /> Method: <br /> Reviewer's Initials and Datc Reviewed: 1 �� 'p <br /> SDG: _ d 111/0 <br /> Review uestions Yes No NA <br /> 1• Were holding times met? �a1� ��laa _ V/ Sam le (Anal tes) Affected/Comments Fla <br /> Were sample preservation requirements met? <br /> 3. Was cooler receipt form completed? V <br /> 4. Was method blank analyzed with each batch?Did the blank <br /> meet QC criteria? <br /> S. Were target analytes reported in field blank or rinsate <br /> samples above the MDL? N� <br /> 6. Was a field duplicate analyzed?Were RPDs within project <br /> specifications? V/ <br /> 7. Was an LCS analyzed with each batch?Did recoveries meet <br /> QC criteria? <br /> 8. Was an MS/MSD pair analyzed with each batch?Were <br /> recoveries and BPDs within project specifications? <br /> 9. If an MS/MSD was not analyzed, was a LCS/L CSD <br /> analyzed?Were recoveries and RPDs wi in project-rfmits? <br /> 10. Were surrogate recoveries within project specifications? ✓ <br /> Initial Calibration: <br /> I I a. Were tune criteria met? <br /> 1 I b. Were SPCC and CCC criteria met? <br /> 1 1 c. Did all calibration analytes meet criteria? <br /> I Id. Did the second source initial calibration verification meet <br /> project criteria? <br /> Continuing Calibration: <br /> Ila. Were tune criteria met? <br /> 12b. Were SPCC and CCC criteria met? <br /> 12c. Did all calibration analytes meet criteria? <br /> 13. Did internal standards meet criteria? <br /> 14. Was the case narrative complete? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.