Laserfiche WebLink
Nuel Henderson [EH ] <br /> From : Jim Barton [jbarton@waterboards .ca .gov] <br /> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:33 PM <br /> To : Mike Infurna [EH] ; Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Cc : Margaret Lagorio [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: Canepa's Car Wash, 6230 Pacific Avenue, Stockton, SanJoaquin County <br /> My mistake , Mike . This one was cc ' d to Nuel . Thanks for the correction . Will respond to <br /> your question tomorrow . <br /> Jim <br /> > > > "Mike Infurna [EH] " <MInfurna@sjcehd . com> 2 / 17 / 2009 2 : 55 PM > > > <br /> Jim , <br /> This doesn ' t ring any bells for me and the site you referrenced ( Canepa , 6230 Pacific ) is <br /> NOT my site . <br /> Please check your emails to see who at EHD was interested in this site . <br /> I do remember asking you about a second release at an old Thrifty site in. Stockton . <br /> ConocoPhillips operated a UST site on a former Thrifty Oil <br /> ( TOC ) site at 7647 Pacific Ave , Stockton . In their QMRs , TOC has been constantly stating <br /> that the ratio of benzene andother chemicals now showing up in the gw are from the time <br /> CP operated the site and TOC wants me to issue a UAR . 1 . 1 think this is the site I emailed <br /> you about . <br /> - - - - -Original Message - - - - - <br /> From : Jim Barton [mailto : jbarton@waterboards . ca . gov] <br /> Sent : Tuesday , February 17 , 2009 2 : 35 PM <br /> TO : Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> Cc : James Munch ; Leticia Valadez <br /> Subject : Canepa ' s Car Wash , 6230 Pacific Avenue , Stockton , San JoaquinCounty <br /> Hi Mike , <br /> Previously you asked the Regional Board to review the report Evaluation of Analytical <br /> Data , to provide a second opinion whether the data represent a second release at the site . <br /> Our chemist has evaluated the data and finds that the data supplied is valid data based on <br /> the original lab ' s QA/ QC parameters . The report ' s interpretation by another lab is that <br /> the butane and pentane constituents of the gasoline found in more recent data should have <br /> degraded to non - detect after a release in 1993 , hence there must be a new release from the <br /> replacement (post 1993 ) USTs . Basically the consultant and the lab are asking you to <br /> agree that there has been a new release with only their report ' s recommendation . <br /> This goes counter to the investigation practice of looking at multiple lines of evidence <br /> to prove a conclusion . In discussion with my Senior , if it were our case , we would ask <br /> for additional lines of evidence to support their conclusion . We would require inventory <br /> reconciliation reports , alarm reports for tank and piping sensors , OES spill reports for <br /> surface spills at the dispensers or elsewhere on the site , and since this is a car wash , <br /> copies of tank pressure tests for the USTs and the wash water tanks . An Enhanced Leak <br /> Detection test , if done , could show if there is a leaking UST . So the bottom line is that <br /> this report is a start , and we recommend you ask for additional evidence for a new <br /> release . Since they are ultimately asking for another $ 1 , 500 , 000 from the State , it <br /> should be the least that they can do . Thanks for your inquiry . <br /> 1 <br /> j Jim Barton <br /> 1 <br /> Tames L . L . Barton , P . G . <br /> agineering Geologist. <br /> 1 lifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region , 11020 Sun Center <br /> ve , Suite 200 , Rancho Cordova , CA 95670 office ( 916 ) <br /> - 4615 <br /> ( 916 ) 464 - 4704 <br /> t 1 <br /> f <br />