Laserfiche WebLink
MEMORANDUM <br /> CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL VALLEY REGION <br /> ,143 loutfer Road 5uile 1 Phone (916) ;000 <br /> lacrainento C 1 95827-?098 C 1UNE;T 8-191- WO <br /> a <br /> TO Gordon L Boggs FROM Elizabeth A Thaver <br /> UGT Program Coordinator Associate Engineer <br /> DATE 9 December 1994 SIGNATURE S" �,t-C� Ll <br /> t <br /> SUBJECT REVISED MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, GEWEKE, .16 SOUTH <br /> CHEROKEE LANE, LODI, SAN JOAQ UIN COUNTY <br /> I <br /> Geweke submitted the quarterly report on 20 October 1994 as required in C&A No 93-701 The <br /> I report contained the first analytical results from the site after full-scale inoculation, which <br /> occurred on 16 August 1994 On 12 October 1994, the draft Revised Monitoring and Reporting <br /> Program (RMRP) was sent out for comment and on 31 October 1994, Geweke submitted their <br /> suggested changes by fax The following comments on the quarterly report and Geweke's <br /> suggested changes are reflected in the final RMRP <br /> Comments on Ground Water Contamination <br /> Geweke had previously requested that lead and EDB analyses be deleted from the ground water <br /> monitoring You and I agreed, and Geweke dropped them from future monitoring However, on <br /> review of the recent quarterly report, MW14 has had consistent EDB contamination Therefore, <br /> EDB monitoring of MW14 should be reinstated <br />' Lead was detected on several occasions, at concentrations below the MCL of 50 µg/l, in a number <br /> of wells The highest concentration was 21 µg/l I recommend that lead be dropped from <br /> monitoring program <br /> DCA has consistently been detected in EW1, MW13, and MW14 and has been detected on several <br />' occasions in MW7, MW8, and MW9 Chloroform was recently detected in MW7, MW14, and <br /> EW1 Geweke requested to delete monitoring of halogenates solvents from wells MW6, MW10, <br /> MW11, and MW12 because none has never been detected in those wells I concur with MW6 and <br /> I MW10 because they are upgradient MW11 and MW12 are both downgradient I think at least <br /> one of these wells should continue to be monitored, I recommend MW12 HVOC's will continue <br /> to be monitored in the other monitoring wells <br /> IIt appears that the plume may be spreading Concentrations in MW6, upgradient, have increased <br /> for the last 3 quarters, from 80 to 1100 ppb TPHg and MW6 had benzene, at 22 ppb, for the first <br /> time MW10, a crossgradient well, has shown contamination for the last 4 quarters Previously it <br /> had several quarters of ND MW11, downgradient, has also had contamination for the last 4 <br /> quarters Previously it had several quarters of ND Ground water extraction for plume control <br /> appears necessary <br />