Laserfiche WebLink
.. � <br /> California Laboratory SerVices~°� <br /> O3/11/S3 <br /> MAR 1 5 1993 ATTN. �ohapa�� <br /> � �� <br /> �NV}R O ���T�L ��A LT� <br /> San Joaquin CountvPub/kzHeobh8en/�c ~ <br /> ^ e PER[N(T/SE�ViCES <br /> Environmental Health Division <br /> PO Box 2009 <br /> Gtookton, Ca 85201 <br /> Dear Dale, <br /> In reference to: <br /> Project: Fred Clark <br /> AELC |[) No: L8678 <br /> Client: Wheeldmn &Amsmoistes <br /> Samples: Pump-1, 2-W 2-E, SP-i, SP-2 <br /> Received: 4/13/92 <br /> Reported: 4/3O/93 <br /> Per your request | have reviewed these data. The variance between the <br /> analytical results onSample 2-Wfor xylenes byEPA 8O2Oand EPA 824Dinitially seems <br /> exceptional. Considering the inherent inhomogeneity ofsoil samples, the fact that two <br /> separate soil extractions were performed and a dilution was performed on the EPA 8020 <br /> ano/yoia, the correspondence is not out of line. The main point here is that this sample <br /> contains considerable amounts ofgasoline. <br /> The second point you wished nne to address was the high Report Limit used with <br /> the EPA m8O15Diesel analytical report onSample #1. The raised Report Limit isdue to <br /> the 1:50 dilution which was performed on the sample prior to analysis. This dilution was <br /> required because of the high concentration of gasoline present, as demonstrated by the <br /> elevated BTXEcompounds. Without the dilution the gasoline components would have <br /> overwhelmed the detector and provided no results for either gasoline or diesel. The best <br /> that can be done in this circumstance is to perform the analysis on a diluted sample and <br /> report the results with the raised Report Limit. These results indicate that gasoline, and <br /> not diesel, isthe primary contaminant inthe sample. <br /> Please let me know if | can provide any other information for you. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> La�yA� 8�)oney. PhD <br /> Senior Project Manager <br />