Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Margaret Lagorio EH <br /> From: Woodruff, John [JxWf@pge.com] ° <br /> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:05 PM <br /> To: Margaret Lagorio [EH] <br /> E Cc: Brunswick, Betsy M <br /> Subject: RE: Status of Stockton SC Report Review <br /> Hi Margaret, <br /> .i <br /> You are correct in noticing that the Lab that analyzed the nine March 2004 confirmation <br /> soil samples (Torrent Labs) used lower MDLs for some of'ithe analyses than the Lab that <br /> j analyzed the five October 2003 initial soil samples (Mc&mpbell Analytical) . PG&E is R <br /> hopeful that the Board will not find the lower MDLs problematic as explained below. <br /> s � <br /> The single October 2003 diesel detection was 140 ppm, and the March 2004 MDLs ranged from t <br /> 5-8. 6 ppm. These MDLs seem appropriate for the October12003detection. <br /> 3� <br />- The single October 2003 gasoline detection was 2.4 ppm, ,pand the March 2004 MDL was 0.1 <br /> ppm. This MDL seems appropriate for the October 2003 detection. ' <br /> i 1 , <br /> i <br />�. The October 2003 MTBE detections were 0.0055 and 1.5 ppm, and the March 2004 MDL was 0.01 <br /> ppm. This MDL exceeded the October 2003 detection of O:i0055; but is less than the other 1 <br /> j detection of 1.5 ppm. PG&E believes that the 0.01 ppm MDL is nonetheless appropriate } <br /> because the ESL of MTBE is 0.023 ppm (Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for <br /> Commercial/Industrial Land Use Only for Shallow Soils with Drinking Water. <br /> The October 2003 PCE detections were 0.0055 and 0.0079 ppm, and the March 2004 MDL was <br /> 0.01 ppm. This MDL exceeded the October 2003 detections. PG&E believes that the 0.01 ppm <br /> MDL is nonetheless appropriate because the ESL of PCE is 0.25 ppm (Environmental Screening <br /> Level (ESL) for Commercial/Industrial Land Use Only for �Shallcw Soils with Drinking Water. p <br /> Thank you for thoughtfully reviewing the report, and requesting NFA concurrence from the 1 <br /> Regional Board. <br />� k <br /> Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. <br /> i <br /> ****John <br /> -----Original Message----- <br /> From: Margaret Lagorio [EH] [mailto:MLagorio@sjcehd.com]1 <br /> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:56 AM <br /> To: Woodruff, John <br /> Subject: RE: Status of Stockton SC Report Review <br /> ;j <br /> I left you a voice mail message. Will request concurrerie from Regional Board. Since <br /> detection limits were higher than amounts originally found in. the soil there may be a <br /> problem. !I <br /> Margaret } <br /> -----Original Message----- '•F f <br /> From: Woodruff, John [mailto:JxWf@pge.com] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 10:30 AM <br /> To: Margaret Lagorio [EH] ! <br /> Cc: Brunswick, Betsy M <br /> Subject: Status of Stockton SC Report Review <br /> Hi Margaret, <br /> I just left a message on your voicemail inquiring about the status of your review of the <br /> PG&E March 2004 soil investigation report at the Stockton Service Center waste oil tank <br /> piping, diesel dispenser, and one of the gasoline dispensers.. As you recall, all soil <br /> 1 r` <br /> . f <br />