Laserfiche WebLink
A � Page l of 2 <br /> f <br /> Frank Girardi [EH] <br /> From: William Little [wlittle@advgeoenv.com] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 3:59 PM <br /> To: Frank Girardi [EH]; Nuel Henderson' [EH] , <br /> Subject: Tracy Marine - Historical status <br /> Attachments: Tracy Marine Table-Figures.pdf; tracy marine ehd ltr 3-2-09.pdf <br /> Frank and Nuel, after reading the most recent Tracy Marine letter and remembering the historical track <br /> of the site for remediation, soil remediation was never performed and was proposed to be treated later. <br /> Just so we are on the same page , I have included an email from Margaret regarding the site. The most <br /> important point of the email is the tables (1_1 and D —were collected at 24 inches) with figures for the <br /> site. All I can say is powerful concentrations may still exist on the site, which will make the results of <br /> any soil vapor'survey and ESL comparison futile or less than favorable. <br /> feel the attached letter (last paragraph) may not represent the site properly for the date of the letter. <br /> William R. Little <br /> California Professional Geolo-ist 7473 <br /> Oregon Registered Geologist 62254 <br /> Washington Licensed Geologist 2775 <br /> Advanced GeoEnvironmental Inc. <br /> Stockton-S.mta Rosa-Montcrcy-UTca•Spokanc•Reno <br /> (800)511-9300 <br /> From: Margaret Lagorio [EH] [mailto:MLagorio@sjcehd.com] ' <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 I 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.tAt 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 [ma i Ito:wl ittle@advgeoenv.com] <br /> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 8:59 AM <br /> To: Margaret Lagorio [EH] <br /> 6/3/2010 <br />