Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 3 <br /> the 08 April 2010 meeting and they were denied by me. Both need to be revised <br /> and resubmitted to GeoTracker." Can you please expand on what you was <br /> missing? <br /> . As for the quarterly reports, I will speak with Tom Ballard and Guy Roy about <br /> submitting. <br /> . As for the SRS and Walker Slough vs. McLeod Lake, I felt that McLeod Lake was a <br /> more significant sensitive receptor. <br /> . As for the "contaminant mass estimates, supported by calculations, for sorbed and <br /> dissolved TPH-gasoline, benzene, 1 ,2-DCA, TPH-diesel, and TPH-motor oil", I will <br /> check with Tom and Guy and have an answer for you. <br /> Great Day! <br /> Martin Wills, M.Sc. <br /> Project Manager <br /> Taber Consultants <br /> Office: (916) 371-1690 <br /> Fax: (916) 371-7265 <br /> Cell: (916) 402-4755 <br /> mwills@taberconsul-tants.com <br /> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and the document(s)accompanying this e-mail contain confidential information which is legally <br /> privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient named above.If you are not the intended recipient,you are <br /> hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution,or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail and its <br /> attachments,except its direct delivery to the intended recipient named above,is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, <br /> please notify us immediately by telephone. <br /> From: Vicki McCartney [EH] [mailto:vmccartney@sjcehd.com] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 3:47 PM <br /> To: Martin Wills <br /> Subject: California Tank Lines at 3105 South EI Dorado Street in Stockton <br /> Good afternoon Marty. <br /> I have reviewed the work plan titled Work Plan for Updated Human Health Risk Assessment, Natural <br /> Attenuation Analysis and Additional Site Investigation, dated 01 June 2010, in response to your voice <br /> message on 30 June 2010, asking if everything discussed during the 08 April 2010 meeting had been <br /> submitted in the work plan. The work plan seems to have addressed issues discussed during the meeting <br /> on 08 April 2010. <br /> One item that may not have been discussed during the meeting on 08 April 2010, was the need to submit <br /> previous quarterly groundwater reports that were denied by the San Joaquin County Environmental Health <br /> Department (EHD) because the reports had not been reviewed and submitted by a California-certified <br /> Professional Geologist. None of these reports has been resubmitted and this needs to be done. <br /> Although Site Investigation Results and Site Conceptual Model, dated 30 September 2008 and revised 01 <br /> June 2010, and Soil Vapor Survey Report, Human Health Risk Assessment, and Additional Site <br /> Investigation Work Plan, dated 25 January 2010 and revised 01 June, 2010, were uploaded to <br /> GeoTracker, they did not contain the revisions and information discussed during the 08 April 2010 meeting <br /> and they were denied by me. Both need to be revised and resubmitted to GeoTracker. <br /> I did review Sensitive Receptor Survey, dated 07 June 2010, and was wondering why Taber identified <br /> McLeod Lake as the closest surface water body and not the Walker Slough. <br /> In addition to the above, our department requested the submittal of contaminant mass estimates, <br /> supported by calculations, for sorbed and dissolved TPH-gasoline, benzene, 1,2-DCA, TPH-diesel, and <br /> 7/9/2010 <br />