Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 2 <br /> Vicki McCartney [EH] <br /> From: Francini, Catherine [Catherine.Francini@stantec.com] <br /> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 3:51 PM <br /> To: Vicki McCartney [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: 3212 North California Street, Stockton <br /> Hi Vicki, <br /> We have researched the bullet points you emailed us regarding the No Further Action Request submitted for 3212 <br /> North California Street, Stockton. The report has been re-submitted and the responses below are in blue... <br /> Please let me know if you have any additional comments or questions. <br /> Regards, <br /> Catherine <br /> From: Vicki McCartney [EH] [mailto:vmccartney@sjcehd.com] <br /> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 20118:56 AM <br /> To: Francini, Catherine <br /> Subject: 3212 North California Street, Stockton <br /> Good morning, Catherine. <br /> am responding to your voice mail that you left yesterday concerning denial in GeoTracker of No Further Action <br /> Request at the ARCO Service Station No. 2186 located at 3212 North California Street in Stockton. You do not <br /> have to resubmit the report to me. Please make the corrections and upload the revised document and I will <br /> download the information from GeoTracker. Based on previous reports submitted for this site with soil analytical <br /> data, before submitting the soil analytical tables, please make the following corrections to your soil analytical <br /> tables: <br /> . There is no soil data for BH-4/MW-8 at 50 and 97 feet below surface grade (bsg) so remove this <br /> information from the table. <br /> Correct, URS in their assessment report did mention that the soil sample was collected at the above mentioned <br /> depth, but lab and soil tables showed soil samples were not collected from BH-4/MW-8. Soil samples were <br /> collected from BH-3 at 50 and 97 ft bgs; BH-4 was just converted to MW-8 and GW samples collected. Soil Table <br /> has been revised. Soil Isocons are affected and have been revised in the re-submitted report; however mass <br /> calculations are not affected. Verified with Lab. <br /> Most of the TBA soil results are off by at least a factor of 10; instead of<1.0 mg/kg, the results should be <br /> <10 mg/kg. <br /> Correct, verified with lab; however only those results which were ND are affected (i.e. <1.0 should be <10, error <br /> goes back to when the Stantec/Secor tables were made from the lab reports. One of the TBA samples was off by <br /> 2 order of magnitude. Soil Table has been revised in the re-submitted report. Soil Isocons are not affected. <br /> . Instead of the ethanol results reported at< 1.050, the results should be <150 mg/kg. <br /> Correct, verified with lab; however only those results which were ND are affected (i.e. <1.050 should be <150, <br /> error goes back to when the Stantec/Secor tables were made from the lab reports. However, some of the results <br /> which are listed on the soil tables for ethanol were not: even analyzed, mainly PL-2 through PL-5 and D-1 through <br /> D-6. This information has been confirmed with older reports and labs. We have taken out these concentrations <br /> from the soil table and revised in the re-submitted report. Soil Isocons are not affected. <br /> • Most of the dispenser samples (D-1 through D-6)were collected on 6/17/1999, not 6/24/1999. <br /> Correct, verified with lab; however D-7/8 sample was collected on 6/25/99, Soil Table has been revised in the re- <br /> 9/19/2011 <br />