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 V,aW(circle) <br /> (,YES Preservation Temperature <br /> /1 f1(3� 2.1 -5.1 (°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#75051 <br /> Date of Validation: 11/04/10 <br /> Date of Analysis: 10/22/10 through 10/27/10 <br /> Date of Sampling: 10/21/10 <br /> Completed By: Alejandra Hernandez <br /> -- Circle/Highlight <br /> Signature: -- Yes or No <br /> 1. Was the analysis the one requested? ;' 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? r es 'No <br /> 5. Were Laboratory blanks performed, if so, were they below non-detect? A s 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 �xes�>No <br /> included in the laboratory batch sample? <br /> 8. In lieu of MS/ MSD, were surrogate spike (SS)/surrogate spike duplicate (SSD), or 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 \ 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 /> ) <br /> 11. Were Relative Percent Difference values within the acceptable range (i.e. ± 25%)? Yes�' 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.