Laserfiche WebLink
revision/response and a final review by my management, since .we do not wish to enter the <br /> CCS into the public file until the items are resolved. The following comparisons are <br /> based on my review of the case documents in our file; <br /> The consultant says the USTs contained gasoline, based on receipt of the County <br /> correspondence from the tank pull . The CCS says both tanks contained diesel (page 1) . <br /> The quarterly reports show 1,2-DCA detected in groundwater has been reduced from a maximum <br /> 200 ug/L (MW-2, 2/02) to non-detect; while EDB has been reduced from 21 ug/L (MW-1, 2/02) <br /> to non-detect. These two gasoline constituents (1,2-DCA and EDB) were not listed in the <br /> CCS Maximum Documented Contaminant Concentrations table (page 2) . <br /> The quarterly reports show maximum groundwater concentrations were TPHg, 60mg/L; toluene <br /> 11 mg/L; and xylenes, 37 mg/L (MW-1, 3/05.) . The quarterly report maximum concentrations <br /> are higher than the maximum concentrations listed in the CCS Maximum Documented <br /> Contaminant Concentrations table (page 2) . <br /> The CCS Chronology states the consultant addressed risks due to exceedance of the ESLs for <br /> TPHd gross contamination and direct exposure, which is contained in the May 2009 <br /> confirmation soil boring report. The CCS Additional Comments, Data, etc. (page 2) states <br /> the ESL;s were exceeded for TPHd gross contamination. <br /> Thanks. <br /> Jim Barton <br /> James L.L. Barton, P.C. <br /> Engineering Geologist <br /> California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, 11020 Sun Center <br /> Drive, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 office (916) <br /> 464-4615 <br /> fax (916) 464-4704 <br /> 2 <br />