My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
COMPLIANCE INFO
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
W
>
WEBER
>
448
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0009038
>
COMPLIANCE INFO
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2021 6:01:31 PM
Creation date
5/20/2021 2:19:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
COMPLIANCE INFO
RECORD_ID
PR0009038
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0004035
FACILITY_NAME
STOCKTON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
STREET_NUMBER
448
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
WEBER
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95203
APN
13726005
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
448 W WEBER AVE
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\dsedra
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.
/
1874
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
Is Data Valid?(circle) <br /> YES , Preservation Temperature <br /> rte-1 NO . -0.6-0.0 (°C) <br /> StaStantec Lab Validation Form-Soil and Water <br /> Matrix <br /> Project/Client: Tidewater Stockton <br /> Project No.: 185750217 <br /> Lab Work Order No.: Kiff#88688 <br /> Date of Validation: 10/16/14 <br /> Date of Analysis: 7/14/14 through 7/21/14 <br /> Date of Sampling: 7/8/14 through 7/10/14 <br /> Completed By: Tony Giglini <br /> Circle/Highlight <br /> Yes or No <br /> Signature: <br /> 1. Was the analysis the one requested? es No <br /> 2. Do the sample number(s) on the chain-of-custody (COC) match the one(s) that es No <br /> appear on the laboratory data sheet? <br /> 3. Were samples prepared (extracted, filtered, etc.) within EPA holding times? Yes No <br /> 4. Once prepared/extracted, were the samples analyzed within the EPA holding times? es No <br /> 5. Were Laboratory blanks performed, if so, were they below non-detect? Yes No <br /> 6. Are the units correct? (i.e., soil samples in mg/kg or pg/g, water samples mg/L, pg/L, Yes No <br /> and air samples in volume mg/m"3,etc.) <br /> 7. Were appropriate Matrix Spike (MS) and Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) samples es No <br /> included in the laboratory batch sample? <br /> 8. In lieu of MS/ MSD, were surrogate spike (SS)/surrogate spike duplicate (SSD), or es No <br /> laboratory control spike (LCS)/laboratory control spike duplicate (LCSD) samples <br /> included in the laboratory batch samples? <br /> 9. Were MS/ MSD (or SS/SSD) within the acceptable range of% recovery (i.e., approx Yes No <br /> 80-120% depending on analyte)? <br /> 10.Were MS/MSD (or SS/SSD) values used to calculate Relative Percent Difference Yes No <br /> (RPD)? <br /> es No <br /> 11. Were Relative Percent Difference values within the acceptable range (i.e. ± 25%)? <br /> If any answer is no, explain why and what corrective action was taken: <br /> There were no observed validation issues or qualifiers with this report. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.