My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0012861
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CHARTER
>
441
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0544208
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0012861
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2019 6:15:48 PM
Creation date
3/1/2019 4:44:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0012861
RECORD_ID
PR0544208
PE
2957
FACILITY_ID
FA0003628
FACILITY_NAME
ARCO STATION #2168*
STREET_NUMBER
441
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
CHARTER
STREET_TYPE
WAY
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95206
APN
14707607
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
441 W CHARTER WAY
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
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.
/
248
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
2I (p$ MARCOBIVARCO Site Number Sample Collection Date(s): <br /> i Reviewer; L(Yl C Senior Reviener: <br /> JAB 'ZIS-/0� <br /> Data Review Checklist for Methods E ? <br /> Item <br /> Yes No NIA Notes <br /> �., 1. Do the dates sampled and sample IDs agree with <br /> COC? <br /> 2- Were the samples received in the appropriate <br /> condition? Is this documented? <br /> 3. Are all report forms present for samples listed on <br /> ` COC? v <br /> 4. is the case narrative present and complete? <br /> r� <br /> 5. Do the analytes reported agree with the analyte <br /> list requested on the COC? <br /> 6- Do the reporting limits(RLs)meet the ✓ <br /> specifications of the QAPP? <br /> 7. Are the RLs adjusted for dilutions/sample <br /> le <br /> J mp <br /> size/percent moisture, if applicable? <br /> 8. Have the holding times been met? <br /> r <br /> 9. Are the reporting units correct and consistent? <br /> v <br /> 10. Did the laboratory prepare and analyze at least <br /> one method blank/preparation batch? <br /> I I. Are the method blank results below RLs? <br /> �— 12. Were the samples spiked with surrogates? v <br /> r <br /> 13. Were the laboratory surrogate recovery criteria <br /> met for each sample? <br /> 14. Did the laboratory prepare and analyze at least <br /> r one set of MSIMSDslpreparation batch? <br /> 15. Were the laboratory MS/MSD criteria met? N PS , N Q W I <br /> 16. Did the laboratory prepare and analyze at least J <br /> I <br /> one LCS/preparation batch? <br /> 17. Were the laboratory LCS/LCSD criteria met? 4t �tQ f N 1 KA 18. Did the laboratory prepare and analyze at least <br /> one lab duplicate/preparation batch(if no MSD)? `l <br /> 19.' Were the lab duplicate RPD criteria met? <br /> Y <br /> 20. Were equipment blanks collected? <br /> ✓ I <br /> 21. Are the equipment blank results below RLs? <br /> 22. Were field duplicates collected? <br /> 23. Were field duplicate RPD criteria met? <br /> 24. Based on the data provided,are there any G f <br /> additional QC issues? .l <br /> 25. Do the data tables match the hardcopy report? <br /> 1:\BP-ARCO1ChentistrylCilecklists and TernplateslDQ1 Checklist Generic-Air.Aqueous. Soil dor <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.