My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_APPENDICES
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
L
>
LINCOLN
>
55
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0009302
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_APPENDICES
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2020 6:55:41 PM
Creation date
2/13/2020 2:03:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
APPENDICES
RECORD_ID
PR0009302
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0004002
FACILITY_NAME
MORTON-ALCO
STREET_NUMBER
55
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
LINCOLN
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95203
APN
13737004
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
55 S LINCOLN ST
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
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.
/
753
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 /> 1.2—3.0 (°C) <br /> Stantec <br /> Stantec Lab Validation Form-Soil and Water <br /> Matrix <br /> Project/Client: Tidewater Stockton <br /> Project No.: 211402828.300.250 <br /> Lab Work Order No.: Kiff#75042 <br /> Date of Validation: 11/05/10 <br /> Date of Analysis: 10/21/10 through 10/28/10 <br /> Date of Sampling: 10/20/10 <br /> Completed By: Alejandra Hernandez <br /> Circle/Highlight <br /> Signature: __.__- --: � Yes or No <br /> 1. Was the analysis the one requested? Nes`',No <br /> 2. Do the sample number(s) on the chain-of-custody (COC) match the one(s) that (Yes 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? (Yes .)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 �g/ , water samples mg/L, pg/L, (Yes No <br /> i 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 ) <br /> 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., approxsi No <br /> 80-120% depending on analyte)? <br /> 10.Were MS/MSD (or SS/SSD) values used to calculate Relative Percent Difference ;yam No <br /> (RPD)? <br /> 11. Were Relative Percent Difference values within the acceptable range (i.e. ± 25%)? es )No <br /> If any answer is no, explain why and what corrective action was taken: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.