Laserfiche WebLink
Vicki McCartney [EH] <br /> From: Vicki McCartney[EH] <br /> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 11:59 AM <br /> To: 'Jim Barton' <br /> Subject: RE: TO methods question <br /> Jim, <br /> On June 23, 2009, I denied the EDF for soil gas samples collected at 23987 North Highway <br /> 99, Acampo, in GeoTracker, stating that the methods used to analyze the soil gas samples <br /> were modified 8260 and 8015, not T03 and TO15. Also TPH was reported as aviation gasoline <br /> by the lab, not gasoline as reported in GeoTracker. On that same day I denied Soil Vapor <br /> Investigation Report (submitted for this same site) in GeoTracker because of a number of <br /> problems with results reported in the tables, along with other minor problems. If you <br /> have noticed, TPH-AV.Gasoline was reported at high concentrations for soil gas samples V6, <br /> V7, and V8. Our department will not be closing this site until these results have been <br /> addressed. Nuel has not had an opportunity to review the report so I can not comment on <br /> what our department will recommend based on these high concentrations detected in soil gas <br /> samples. <br /> I have not forwarded the email from Jennifer Miller at Air Toxics to you for the following <br /> reason. I sent Jennifer an email this morning asking if she minded my forwarding her <br /> email dated June 23, 2009, to you. Jennifer has not replied yet. I do not think it is <br /> appropriate to forward Jennifer's email without her permission. <br /> I'm not sure that I understand the third question you listed below. What Jennifer stated <br /> in her email was that it is not appropriate that a lab is reporting QC that is generated <br /> from liquid-based calibration (for TO methods) . Jennifer assumes that this was done due <br /> to the ug/L units reported. Jennifer went on to say that the method associated should be <br /> called modified 8015 or 8260. (I hope I can forward Jennifer's email to you so you can <br /> better understand her response. ) <br /> Vicki McCartney, Senior REHS <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Department <br /> 600 East Main Street <br /> Stockton, California 95202 <br /> Phone: (209) 468-9852 <br /> Fax: (209) 468-3433 <br /> Email: vmccartney@sjcehd.com <br /> -----original Message----- <br /> From: Jim Barton [mailto:jbarton@waterboards.ca.gov] <br /> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 11:04 AM <br /> To: Vicki McCartney [EH] ; Leticia Valadez <br /> Subject: RE: TO methods question <br /> Hi Vicki, <br /> per our discussion yesterday and my quick review of the data package today, the data shows <br /> that Cal Tech analyzed vapor samples V1 through V8 by TO methods TO-3 and TO-15, per the <br /> Chain of Custody (COC) lab request submitted by the consultant for TPHg and BTEX/MTBE <br /> analyses. Isopropyl alcohol (IPA) was the leak tracer analyses for each vapor sample, and <br /> although no analysis was specified in the COC, the data sheets say it was also analyzed by <br /> TO-15. The data sheets show the MS/MSD results were run on 8015M water samples on the <br /> same date as the TO-3 and TO-15 samples. <br /> So the questions as I see them are: <br /> 1) whether the MS/MSD data shows the lab did not actually do TO-3 and TO-15, but instead <br /> did do 8260B/8015M modified for soil vapor for V1 through V8 (the data sheets would be <br /> incorrect for analyses) , <br /> 1 <br />