SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

Air Analyses i `' ) Page 1 of 2 Vicki McCartney [EH] To: Bartonj@rb5s.swrcb.ca.gov Subject: FW: Air Analyses Jim, I am forwarding this e-mail from David Herzog at Shaw Environmental, Inc. concerning air data that you requested in an e-mail dated March 3, 2003. 1 have shown this e-mail to>Margaret Lagorio and Margaret concurs with David Herzog's statement in the second paragraph. Margaret has directed that the issue of analyzing air samples by Methods 8021, LUFT, and 8260B be handled by the Regional Board and not by San Joaquin County. I am still concerned about receiving soil gas results analyzed by Methods 8021, LUFT, and.8260B and would like clear direction from the Regional Board concerning these air analyses. Thank you, Jim. Vicki McCartney, EHS 304 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202-2708 Phone (209) 468-3456 Fax (209) 468-3433 vmccartney@sjcehd.com -----Original Message----- From: Herzog, David [mailto:David.Herzog@shawgrp.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 8:34 AM To: Vicki McCartney [EH] Subject: FW: Air Analyses Dear Ms. McCartney: In order to provide you with the requested information, I will need a letter on San Joaquin County department letterhead formally requesting the data along with an explanation why the data is needed to review the report we submitted. The lab has informed me that the information you requested has been archived. They will have to request that their archive company retrieve the boxes, ship them back to the lab, then the lab will have to search the boxes and copy of requested data, which the lab has informed me is extensive. The lab will charge us $40.00/hour to do this, which in the end could cost up to $500.00, plus the cost for my time spent on this matter. I will need the letter in order to apply to the UST Cleanup Fund for reimbursement. Also, my client and I would like an explanation, because we do not understand why this data is necessary for review of the assessment report we submitted. If the analytical methods we used are not acceptable to your department, that is an issue that should have been raised back when the work plan was accepted by your department, not after the work has been completed and the final report issued. No where in your departments work plan acceptance letter does it request analytical methods TO-3 or TO-14/15. The assessment report and analytical data should be acceptable as is. As stated in the report, we contend that because of the downgradient wells located on the adjacent property, the plume on the Arco site is delineated, or at the least if those adjacent wells are impacted, then we have the possibility of a comingled plume. If a comingled plume exists, then further assessment would have be a joint effort between the two sites, which returns to our conclusion that additional assessment by my client on an individual basis does not appear warranted. We believe that our interpretation is reasonable, and that we should 3/4/2003 I