My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FIELD DOCUMENTS
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
F
>
FYFFE
>
305
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0182171
>
FIELD DOCUMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/19/2020 1:51:33 PM
Creation date
5/19/2020 1:44:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
FIELD DOCUMENTS
RECORD_ID
PR0182171
PE
2954
FACILITY_ID
FA0004080
FACILITY_NAME
NAVCOMSTA
STREET_NUMBER
305
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
FYFFE
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
952035000
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
305 W FYFFE ST
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
TSok
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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
assess analytical precision, the laboratory will run laboratory duplicates, <br /> either matrix spiked or unspiked (laboratory duplicates are similar to <br /> field replicates [see below]). To collect sufficient aqueous sample <br /> volumes for these samples, the laboratory will ship the field team <br /> samplers a total of three identical bottles per sample or one larger bottle <br /> for each matrix spike/duplicate required. One volume represents the <br /> sample, one volume serves as a field replicate (split), and the third <br /> volume is for laboratory spiking. For soil samples, the laboratory will <br /> perform the matrix spike on a portion of soil immediately adjacent to <br /> the sample or to the duplicate soil sample in the brass tube or tube <br /> segment. <br /> Reporting QA/QC Procedures <br /> All project documents prepared for submittal to NCS and EFAWEST <br /> will undergo multiple reviews and QA/QC checks to ensure that all <br /> data are accurate and supportive of project objectives, and that <br /> interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are technically <br /> sound, defensible, and consistent with project goals. <br /> At a minimum, all documents for submittal to NCS and/or EFAWEST <br /> will undergo a review by a technical peer, a technical editor, the Project <br /> Manager, and the Principal-in-Charge. Larger documents may be <br /> reviewed more than once by each reviewer. Each reviewer is <br /> responsible for discussing his or her comments with the document <br /> author, and for ensuring that all the reviewer's comments are <br /> addressed by the document author or editor. Specific reviewer <br /> responsibilities are described below. <br /> Technical Peer <br /> The technical peer reviewer is responsible for an objective evaluation <br /> of the technical content and merit of the document. The technical peer <br /> reviewer is responsible for checking all data in the text, tables, and <br /> figures against original laboratory data, boring logs, field notes, and any <br /> other relevant sources. <br /> Technical Editor <br /> The technical editor is responsible for ensuring the use of correct <br /> grammar, spelling, and punctuation in the document. In addition, the <br /> technical editor is responsible for the overall document readability, <br /> consistency, appearance, and presentability. <br /> 5-5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.