Laserfiche WebLink
- --, - - _... .._------ • • Page 2 of 2 <br /> Mr. Youssefi and Ms. Hardy 15 April 2011 <br /> 601 E. Main Street, Stockton, CA <br /> The former UST pit is fairly close to the apartment building and there is little room to advance soil <br /> borings between the two locations; if possible, please provide a description of the north wall and <br /> floor of the excavation with the presence or absence of stained or odoriferous soil noted. A lack of <br /> field evidence of impacted soil there will add support to the AGE conclusion regarding extent of <br /> impacted soil. <br /> Although contaminant vapor concentrations determined through use of a photo-ionization detector <br /> (PID) are not truly quantitative, greater reliance may be placed on the 'non-detects' obtained <br /> during field work if it can be shown that the instrument was properly calibrated at the time of use; <br /> please provide the calibration records for the instrument(s) to the EHD. <br /> Documentation of the final disposition of the 'hot pile' is important for determination of that the site <br /> is a low-risk site. The soil and groundwater data obtained so far pertains primarily to site <br /> conditions prior to the catastrophic release that occurred just prior to the time of the UST removal. <br /> The prompt removal of the free product and the immediately impacted soil at the time of the UST <br /> removal probably prevented that release from impacting additional soil or groundwater; however, if <br /> the free product-impacted soil in the 'hot pile' was returned to the excavation, there may be <br /> unassessed potential for impacting additional soil and groundwater. Provide the documentation for <br /> the final disposition of the 'hot pile' soil to the EHD. If the soil was returned to the excavation, your <br /> consultant must make a technical demonstration that additional soil and/or groundwater will not be <br /> impacted and that there is no additional vapor intrusion or human health hazard created. <br /> In CSR, it was noted that some contaminant concentrations in soil exceeded the ESLs; provide the <br /> specific EL% exceeded, the potential hazard indicated by the exceeded ESL, and the specific <br /> mitigating factors for each specific hazard. Also identify the nearest sensitive receptors that may <br /> be impacted by your unauthorized release. <br /> Please include your responses to the above noted concerns in a No Further Action Report <br /> (NFAR). Please review Section 6.6 of the Tri-Regional Board Staff Recommendations for <br /> Preliminary Investigation and Evaluation of Underground Storage Tank Sites, dated April 16, 2004 <br /> and ensure that the NFAR you submit includes all of the items listed in this section. <br /> Questions regarding this letter should be directed to Michael Infurna, minfurnagsicehd.com or <br /> by phoning 09)468-3454 <br /> ��V <br /> Michael J. Infurna Jr., RENS <br /> Nuel C. Henderson Jr., PG <br /> Senior Registered Environmental Health Specialist Engineering Geologist <br /> c: Mr. James L. Barton, CVRWQCB <br /> Mr. Mark Owens, SW RCB <br /> Mr. Robert Marty, AGE—837 Shaw Rd., Stockton, CA 95215 <br /> CSR Comment Letter 0411 <br />