Laserfiche WebLink
art i � <br /> .. ,Diamond Lurribe`r •.g '�' r,. ,ALL . .�_>;" . _"2'_s# : #3 �'r� '` 17 November'1994 <br /> Lodi <br /> mar".x Y '.,., .:a ,.�: <br /> In early 1994,1 correspondence-between'`Sari Joaquin County staff and representatives of Diamond I <br /> Lumber discussed thepossibility that the source of the lead, detected in the ground water <br /> samples, was silt.rather than-dissolved lead in the ground water. Therefore, San Joaquin County <br /> staff`requested that a boring be drilled-through the former tank pit and that`two more rounds'of <br /> ground water samples be collected. The ground water samples were to be filtered prior to lead <br /> analysis. <br /> -In April'1994, a,-boring was drilled through-the former tank pit.- Soil samples were collected for <br /> analysis from 15', 20', 25', 30', and 35'. BTEX and'TPHg were not detected: Soil samples <br /> contained up to 6.9 ppm lead. One round of ground water samples was collected for lead <br /> _anaIysis:l „ e_water-samples were filtered prior to lead analyses. BTEX, TPHg, and lead were-not <br /> Th <br /> detected. . - : , <br /> In May 1994, a second round of ground water samples was collected:`jTlie samples'Swere filtered <br /> prior to conducting the lead analyses. BTEX, TPHg, and lead were not detected. <br /> Soil samples containedlead as''did,unfiltefe—&grourid-watei samples. `However;when ground <br /> water samples;were filtered to remove'fine silt particles, lead:was not,detected. The soil and <br /> ground water results-indicate that the'lead occurred iriaturally'in the silt and was-not dissolved in <br /> �1._ ground water as:a result of-the gasoline contamination:yIle I <br /> a <br /> yr f .t 1 ti N 3I. [s F♦ 2�`. H 'r. F F�L ' <br /> Lf 4•:, .-.es3 a t: ° ".i2 <br /> •- .r y 1#i a .r : Ml J. <br /> ' 1 6 <br /> Jvrtl it -1. <br /> f �' �aA:.r' � .� - -� ..5.._ h":"'! w>' ,f�'„aC• _ :J-._ .a - ,� `s...K�x� ��;1�, C.4 y.,. r'3.rY w . <br /> 4 <br />