SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE FILE 2

Home Browse Search

Page 1 of 2 Vicki McCartney [EH] From: Vicki McCartney [EH] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 10:08 AM To: 'Tom Ballard' Subject: RE: Cal Tank site Attachments: Letter 7-21-10.pdf Good morning, Tom. A copy of the letter sent by our department, dated July 21 st, is appended for your review. You should receive the letter by Monday and I have uploaded the letter today to GeoTracker. The letter addresses the need to submit mass calculations and gives a timeline to submit this information that allows data for the two proposed soil borings north and south of MW-4 to be included. I really do not like to deny anything in GeoTracker because it makes a lot more work for me. Please make sure the revisions are correct before uploading the reports to GeoTracker. As for previously denied quarterly reports from 2005 through 2007, you can report these as three annual reports separated by year. If you decide to do this, please include a cover letter that explains that these quarterly reports had been submitted and denied since they had not been reviewed by a Professional Geologist or Civil Engineer. Some of the problems I identified when reviewing quarterly reports for 2005 through 2007 were missing chain-of- custodies, incorrect groundwater flow directions, and analytical results reported that differed from the lab reports. Please send me an email whenever you upload these reports so that I know when to review them on GeoTracker. Thank you, Tom. Vicki McCartney, Senior REHS San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department 600 East Main Street Stockton,California 95202 Phone: (209)468-9852 Fax: (209)468-3433 Email: vmccartney(ci>sjcehd.com From: Tom Ballard [mailto:TBallard@taberconsultants.com] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:05 PM To: Vicki McCartney [EH] Subject: Cal Tank site Vicki: I am looking over the revisions to the reports on the Cal Tank site and will re-submit them once I go over them to make sure they are the correct versions this time and that everything has been addressed. As far as the mass calculations go, we had anticipated to do that in the site investigation report after the next round of investigation. Since we will be developing new data, we did not want to have to revise the mass calculations after the new data was available. The quarterly monitoring reports which were rejected were Q2, Q3 & Q4 of2005, all of 2006 and all of 2007. At one point we had discussed producing three annual reports separated by year and including all the data. I would then do a review and certify the reports at that point. That was just one suggestion. The other possibility is the issue a cover letter for each report certifying that I have reviewed all the data, procedures, etc. and sign/stamp that. In any case, I will need to review all the data so it will be whatever �i�zr�ni n