Laserfiche WebLink
0 0 <br /> California Regional Water Quality Control Board <br /> Central Valley � � a,vStWinston H.Hickox <br /> S,Bttller,Chair <br /> Secretaryfor a.Gray Davis <br /> Environmental Sacramento Main Office t/l�N•'` Governor <br /> Protection Internet Address: httpe A,Swwwswto,Californiao95827 _ - <br /> 3443 Roufier Road,Suite A,Sacramento,Cirnia 95827-3003 <br /> Phone(916)255-3000•FAX(916)255-3015 <br /> 27 July 2000 <br /> Mr. Jon Weiss <br /> Libbey-Owens-Ford Co. <br /> P. O. Box 128 <br /> Lathrop, CA 95330 <br /> SECOND QUARTER MONITORING RPEORT,DIESEL LINE SPILL, PILKINGTON <br /> LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD COMPANY, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> I have reviewed Condor Earth Technologies Inc.'s 31 May 2000 letter and the 13 July 2000 Second <br /> Quarter Groundwater Monitoring Report for the standby generator diesel supply line product recovery <br /> system and monitoring wells for the Pilkington Libbey-Owens-Ford(PLOF) facility in Lathrop. <br /> The 31 May letter responds to my comments on the October 1999 quarterly groundwater monitoring <br /> report for the site, and proposes to continue ongoing product measurement and skimming at recovery <br /> well (RW) 2. In addition, the letter proposes to sample monitoring well (MW) 2 for natural attenuation <br /> parameters. The monitoring report provides results of field observations and/or testing of the MWs and <br /> diesel product RWs for the second half of 2000. <br /> My comments on the letter and report are presented below. <br /> 1. The report shows that RW 2 and RW 3 had 2.48 feet and 0.05 foot of separate phase product (SPP), <br /> respectively. However, it is not clear if PLOF placed a skimmer in RW 2 as proposed in the May <br /> letter. The report should clarify if PLOF has placed a skimmer in RW 2. Furthermore, since SPP is <br /> being detected in RW 3, PLOF should consider using absorbent materials such as to remove SPP <br /> which may not be amenable to removal by a skimmer. <br /> 2. The letter proposes sampling for NA parameters in MWs 2 and 3 and RW 1, but the report does not <br /> show any NA data. The report should explain this discrepancy. NA parameters should be included in <br /> the next quarterly sampling. <br /> 3. The report shows that the groundwater flows to the east. If this flow direction persists, PLOF should <br /> install a well east of the water tower and south of MW-2 since there is no coverage in this area. <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> �a Recycled Paper <br />