Laserfiche WebLink
Jul <br /> r„ i)c A 4,r/ch`T! <br /> � �ERV <br /> July 3, 1989 <br /> Attn: Ron Valinoti <br /> San Joaquin Local Health District <br /> 1601 East Hazelton Ave. <br /> Stockton, CA 95205 <br /> RE: Letter dated June 23 , 1989, 1405 McHenry Ave. , Escalon <br /> Dear Mr. Valinoti: <br /> We have reviewed the above-referenced letter signed by you <br /> and have prepared the following response. <br /> Item 1. <br /> The workplan submitted December 30, 1988 for review, and <br /> approved without revision, indicated the types of analyses to <br /> be run on the soil samples collected. In Section 3 . 0 SCOPE <br /> OF WORK, item 2 , on page 3 it states: "Send soil samples to <br /> an approved analytical laboratory for analysis of the <br /> following; benzene, toluene, xylene, EDB, EDC and total <br /> purgeable hydrocarbons (gasoline or diesel) . Analytical <br /> methodology is included as Appendix B. " <br /> All soil samples collected from borings 8 and 9 were analyzed <br /> for the above mentioned constituents using the approved <br /> methodology. Samples were collected from 5, 10, 15 and 20 <br /> feet in each boring. The samples collected from 20 feet were <br /> the bottom hole samples and each was analyzed as specified in <br /> the workplan. Additional copies of the laboratory data have <br /> been attached to this letter. <br /> Item 2 . <br /> Diesel contamination was indeed found in samples collected <br /> from borings 8 and 9 . This was reported and commented on in <br /> Sections 4 . 0 FINDINGS, and 5. 0 CONCLUSIONS in the Preliminary <br /> Assessment Report. It was, and is, our opinion that these <br /> levels are relatively insignificant and pose no health or <br /> environmental hazards. Levels ranged from 4. 4 ppm to 1. 1 ppm <br /> in boring 8 and from 0. 7 ppm to non-detect in boring 9. The <br /> levels generally diminish with depth. <br /> Item 3. <br /> The laboratory data sheet for the Oil and Grease analysis on <br /> samples from boring 10 was erroneously ommitted from the <br /> report. A copy has been attached with this letter. <br /> A further concern of ours is your statement that "Due to the <br /> proximity of groundwater. . .a groundwater investigation is <br /> warranted. " Depth to groundwater in the site area, as <br />