Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> Page 1 of 2 <br /> i <br /> Margaret Lagorio [EH] <br /> From: Margaret Lagorio [EH] <br /> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 9:45 AM <br /> To: 'William Little' <br /> Subject: RE: Tracy Marine <br /> Bill, <br /> I reviewed all the soil data before I wrote the letter. The soil sample results you attached are from the UST <br /> system removal and were collected in October-1996, over 12 years ago, things have probably changed. For <br /> instance, if you compare the L1 sample with B4 at 5 feet taken less than two years later there is a substantial <br /> reduction in contamination The only samples above groundwater are from the line and dispenser and the line <br /> sample is the only one that exceeds the SFBRWQCB ESL's. Since there are monitoring wells at the site we do <br /> not use the soil leaching numbers from the SFBRWQCB ESL's. We only look at gross contamination and direct <br /> exposure and require a soil gas evaluation. I looked at the Surfer table, if you use site specific information and <br /> specific tables the concentrations may be o.k_ The concentrations 1 compared were for Direct Exposure because <br /> they were the lowest for soil above 10 feet. The samples collected beneath the UST's are soil that is in water. <br /> Modeling and/or reasoning can be used to justify leaving this contaminated soil in place, if indeed it is still <br /> contaminated. My statement stands. At this time there is no justification for soil remediation. Demonstration <br /> through current sample results can be used as justifcation. Otherwise, compare soil samples after the UST <br /> removal samples with soil boring data and site specific information to model and/or reason that it has degraded <br /> and/or is not a risk, <br /> Margaret <br /> From: William Little [mailto:wlittle@advgeoenv.com] <br /> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 8:59 AM <br /> To: Margaret Lagorio [EH] <br /> Subject: Tracy Marine <br /> Margaret, <br /> Review of the soil data from the UST removal and soil boring demonstrates the need for soil <br /> remediation. <br /> Now your suggestion for additional/contemporary sampling may aide in accurately establishing <br /> the hydrocarbons/fuel additives concentrations on the site; however, no real remediation has been <br /> done and the interim ground water remediation work plan, stated the need for the plan for soil . <br /> remediation. <br /> Attached is the soil data and cross section, please review the data, and possible the UST removal <br /> report...this site was very hot during-the UST removal. <br /> William Little <br /> California Professional Geologist#7473 <br /> wlittle@advgeoenv.com <br /> 1(800) 511-9300 <br /> Advanced GcoEnvironmental Inc. <br /> 837 Shaw Road <br /> Stockton, Califorina, 95215 <br /> 1(209) 467-1118 facsimile <br /> 3/6/2009 <br />