Laserfiche WebLink
March 3 , 1993 <br /> MAR 12 ll"13 <br /> Mr. Michael J. Infurna, Jr. ENV I R01-14 i"A It-JI)TAL <br /> _S <br /> Environmental Health Division PERNIU,/SER­V!1 Cir <br /> San Joaquin county <br /> P.O. Box 2009 <br /> Stockton, CA 95201 <br /> Re: 140 W. Harding Way (Yellow Submarine) UST site: <br /> 1. Ground water elevations <br /> 2. Is additional work really needed at this site? <br /> —3. Workplan attached <br /> Dear Mr. Infurna: <br /> Corrected ground water elevations <br /> Since you spoke with Deborah the other day, I have rechecked all <br /> the ground water elevations that have been submitted by WHF for <br /> this site. You are right: serious errors have been made by WHF in <br /> their reporting of data. The table on the next page summarizes the <br /> correct heads--provided the reported depths to water are correct. <br /> The current gradient is apparently to the NE, as it was said to be <br /> when measurements were first taken. <br /> I find no reason to mistrust the original survey, but am concerned <br /> about the absence of field notes from 119/91. 1' We are attempting to <br /> recover these and will forward them to you when and if we receive <br /> them. <br /> It is interesting that Table 1 and Figure 1 in the October 28 , 1992 <br /> report are in error, yet correct ground water elevations are <br /> subsequently provided, without explanation, in Figure 5 of the <br /> November 24, 1992 report. The 10/28/92 error (interchanging the <br /> well elevations for MW2 and MW3) was repeated in the February 17, <br /> 1993 report. I found no evidence of identical data being <br /> resubmitted. <br /> Is additional work really needed at this site? <br /> Our letter of February 8, 1993 outlined several reasons why we <br /> think no additional work is needed at this site. The attached work <br /> plan expands on the themes of that letter. You may wish to read <br /> Section 3 of the workplan prior to making further decisions about <br /> this site. As we show, the sediments from the 30-40 ft. level of <br /> MW4 could not generate a TCLP leachate in excess of ground water <br /> standards. You may, after reviewing this workplan, conclude that <br /> an additional monitoring well or borings are not necessary. <br /> Also enclosed are some xeroxed papers from a recent conference on <br />