FIELD DOCUMENTS_FILE 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (DIVISION OF HOM SHIP SERVICE Co., IHC.) W.J. HARRIS, JR. LID cr c0 et M et tt� N 2 O IV Conclusions and Recommendations Z Z 4 a p Based on the analytical findings and our judge- ment, there is mild contamination in- the ground just below where the tank was removed. The levels of 330ppm C) of gasoline contamination in the soil is above the � 100ppm levels allowable for the state and county for Q hydrocarbon contamination. C Initially our lab informed us that the levels Nfound in the samples were below allowable standards for soil in both hydrocarbon and solvent levels . Upon Zspeaking 'wi.th Mr_ Tait of Harlan, Miller, Tait Associates doh with regard to these results, we discussed the possibility LL that these Levels were in fact above the allowable levels Z for sample #1 ( Soil directly below the' tank) and- Sample N #3 (Groundwater Sample) . In response to this inquiry, H & H called the Dept . of Health Services for the San Joaquin Valley and showed them copies of the analytical findings for the site . The rz DOHS informed us that we had in fact misinterpreted the X results by thinking the levels in sample#1 were reported m in parts per billion when they were actually reported in C; parts per million. This reading of the results led to the W false reporting to Mrs . Hagen that the site had tested Z clean for contaminates . Sample #3 however was within ac- ceptable limits for the solvent levels in question. M With this in mind, H & H recommends that further z analytical testing be done in 1Ft . by 2Ft . levels within the excavated area to determine the quantity of contam-- U nated soil. If the amount is less than 25 tons , Dividend CD Development may choose to transport and dispose of the N soil at a Class I site, 1791 -9- December 11 , 1989