COMPLIANCE INFO_PRE 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to regulations (the specific regulations were not cited by you). AEMC disagrees with both of these statements. All soil sampling and monitoring well construction specifications for both San Joaquin County and the State of California were strictly adhered to. In your 22 August 1989 phone conversation with AEMC personnel, you explained that soil sampling was done improperly during well installation because soil samples were not submitted for laboratory analyses. During the 20 September 1988 meeting between the personnel from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and AEMC, _ AEMC inquired whether field observation of soil samples collected during monitoring well construction would be sufficient. Since we are dealing with #6 fuel which is a sticky, tar-like substance, the CVRWQCB agreed that visual observation of the soil would be sufficient. This is in accordance with California Administrative Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 16, Article 4, Section 2641, "Monitoring Alternatives," part (c), which gives the local agency the right to make this decision. In your 22 August 1989 phone conversation with AEMC personnel, you stated that the monitoring wells installed by AEMC at Gold Bond Building Products were not screened at the proper intervals. AEMC is assuming that is what you mean by your 29 August 1989 correspondence to Gold Bond Building Products that states that the monitoring wells were not constructed "according to regulations." Corrections have been made to the monitoring well boring logs from the Hydrogeologic Assessment and Tank Monitoring Plan for Gold Bond Building Products, and are included in Appendix B. Hopefully, these will clear up any misunderstanding concerning monitoring well design. The monitoring wells could not be designed as specifically outlined in the original workplan, since the depth to groundwater was greater than originally anticipated, and groundwater occurs under confined conditions (3). „ ,m., Page 6