My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE_2005-2006
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
T
>
TURNPIKE
>
3504
>
4400 - Solid Waste Program
>
PR0515730
>
CORRESPONDENCE_2005-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/6/2026 8:44:26 AM
Creation date
6/27/2024 2:23:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
4400 - Solid Waste Program
File Section
CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
2005-2006
RECORD_ID
PR0515730
PE
4430 - SOLID WASTE CIA SITE
FACILITY_ID
FA0012310
FACILITY_NAME
WORLD ENTERPRISES
STREET_NUMBER
3504
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
TURNPIKE
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95206
APN
17517018
CURRENT_STATUS
Active, billable
SITE_LOCATION
S TURNPIKE RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\cfield
Supplemental fields
Site Address
3504 S TURNPIKE RD STOCKTON 95206
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.
/
382
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
EDT Checked (Date/initials) <br /> EDT Flagged <br /> Data Evaluation Checklist—GC/MS Analyses <br /> Project 1D: <br /> ti( —iA rmts-65 <br /> Method: l~)24ti <br /> Reviewer's Initials and Date Reviewed: o-, bb <br /> SDG: D hr 27,l <br /> Review QuQ,,stions Yes No NA Sam le (Anal tes) AffectedJComments Fla <br /> 1. Were holding times met? l 23 d2 <br /> Were sample preservation requirements met? f <br /> 3. Was cooler receipt form completed? <br /> 4. Was method blank analyzed with each batch?Did the blank <br /> meet QC criteria? <br /> 5. Were target analytes reported in field blank or rinsate <br /> samples above the MDL? L/ <br /> 6. Was a field duplicate analyzed?Were R.PDs within project <br /> specifications? <br /> 7. Was an LCS analyzed with each batch?Did recoveries meet <br /> QC criteria? <br /> 8. Was an MS/MSD pair analyzed with each batch?Were <br /> recoveries and RPDs within project specifications? ` V <br /> 9. If an MS/MSD was not analyzed, was an CS/LCS <br /> analyzed? Were recoveries and RPDs within project limits'? ✓ <br /> ft <br /> . Were surrogate recoveries within project specifications? ✓ <br /> Initial Calibration: <br /> a. Were tune criteria met? <br /> b. Were SPCC and,CCC criteria met? <br /> I lc. Did all calibration analytcs meet criteria? <br /> 1 id. Did the second source initial calibration verification meet <br /> project criteria? <br /> Continuine Calibratjgn: <br /> 12a. Were tune criteria met? <br /> 12b. Were SPCC and CCC criteria met? <br /> 12c, Did all calibration analytes meet criteria? <br /> 13, Did internal standards meet criteria? <br /> 14. Was the case narrative complete? <br /> h1t �G '�Vtcr <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.