Laserfiche WebLink
August '17, 1988 <br /> Page 1 i <br /> Daniel L. Anderson <br /> ETS Environmental <br /> P.O. BOX 2242 <br /> Merced, CA 95340 <br /> Mr. David Carls <br /> Registered Sanitarian <br /> Environmental Health Division <br /> San Joaquin Local Health <br /> District ' <br /> 1601 E Hazelton Ave. � <br /> Stockton, CA 95201 <br /> Bpi <br /> Dear Mr. Carls : L ��T� <br /> OMV �' ES. <br /> Iii regards to your letter dated Aug 1s W�VAf ( � l am. responding <br /> to the! four important points and problems that were noted : <br /> Point 1 - The reasoning for the compositing of apparently <br /> non-contaminated soils- was made to minimize project <br /> laboratory analysis costs . Since the primary <br /> objective of this investigation was to determine <br /> the absence or presence of hydrocarbon contamination, <br /> the concern over contamination extent was irrelevant. <br /> Please note that in lieu of this fact, the final <br /> fifteen foot sample of each soil boring was sampled <br /> individually as noted in the site assesment page 1 . <br /> Point 2 - Your request for a description of the methodology <br /> used to determine that a small amount of hydro- <br /> carbon contamination was located at the ten foot <br /> level in soil boring 6 is included in the attached <br /> letter from California Water Labs dated August <br /> _ = 16, 1988. . Please ,no_te , that._California Water Labs is <br /> it a California Certified analytical laboratory <br /> capable of routinely handling this type of analysis . <br /> Point 3 - Point number three was concerned over the lack of <br /> ua sample from the five foot level in soil boring 6. <br /> Due to the presence of backfill material from the <br /> recent tank location (orientation) survey conducted <br /> ' by California Geological , Inc. no sample was <br /> retained by the sample spoon. In addition to the <br /> !! non-consolidated nature o- the .soil , what soil <br /> that did remain in the spoon container significant <br /> amounts of asphalt which would have negatively <br /> influenced the laboratory analysis . <br /> A �4 <br /> —,.+ems�....r.-w..�,-er>.. .►r-� � _� _ - _ _- - <br />