Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> 4.2 Laboratory Results <br /> As in the previous two sampling events, no petroleum hydrocarbons <br /> were detected in any of the samples. The laboratory report and <br /> chain of custody are presented in Appendix A. <br /> 5.0 CONCLUSIONS <br /> Diesel, gasoline, benzene, and toluene were detected in soil and/or <br /> water samples in June 1992, but concentrations in groundwater <br /> decreased in September and December 1992 , and no hydrocarbons have <br /> been detected in the three sampling events of 1993 . There is <br /> presently no evidence of residual groundwater contamination, and it <br /> appears that the original groundwater contamination at this site <br /> was relatively minor. <br /> Geological Audit and the Bank of Stockton are currently awaiting <br /> receipt of communication from San Joaquin County PHS/EHD regarding <br /> the meeting that was held on October 12 , 1993 in the PHS/EHD <br /> offices to discuss the status of the site. GeoAudit will have no <br />. recommendations for further investigation of this site until after <br /> the Bank of Stockton has had an opportunity to review the <br /> forthcoming PHS/EHD meeting summary. <br /> 6. 0 LIMITATIONS <br /> Our professional services were performed using that degree of care <br /> and skill ordinarily exercised by environmental consultants <br /> practicing in this or similar localities. The findings were based <br /> upon analytical results provided by an independent laboratory. <br /> Evaluations of the geologic/hydrogeologic conditions at the site <br /> for the purpose of this investigation are made from a limited <br /> number of available data points (i .e. monitoring wells) and <br /> subsurface conditions may vary away from these data points. No <br /> other warranty is made as to the professional recommendations <br /> contained in this report. <br /> i <br /> I <br />