SU0005250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FACILITY INSPECTION REPORT MUSCO FAMILY OLIVE COMPANY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY Table 1 18 May 2006 Soil Sample Analytical Results EC TDS Na Sample ID' Sample Location (.µmhos/cm) m /k (mg/kg) Soil sample by spring 5 (background) 1,800 4,300 3,200 'Affected soil in Spur North i 1A Field (darker color soil) 8,000 66,000 21,000 1B Lighter color soil 5,400 43,000 15,000 Sample prefix is "HA060518" 1 collected four water samples from various locations. Table 2 below summarizes the results of this sampling for pH, EC, TDS, chloride (Cl), Na, total organic carbon (TOC), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total nitrogen (Total N), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N)- Table 2 18 May 2006 Water Sample Analytical Results Sample ID': 4 2 .3 6 Sample Location: Spring above Drainage above Reservoir inlet of concrete 55 West Evaporation.South Test Units (background) bypass channel first sump sump pH pH units 8.8 10 9.3 9.1 EC umhos/cm 1,800 2,200 6,600 6,200 TDS mg1L 1,300 1,500 6,400 5,200 Cl mg/L 200 53 720 580 Na mg/L 280 420 1,600 1,500 TOC mg/L 4.8 13 440 460 COD mg/L 42 58 3,600 1,900 E Total—N mg/L 7.8 3.1 120 52 TKN mg/L 2.4 2.6 120 52 I NO3-N m /L 5.4 0.47 ND ND G Sample prefix is "HA060518" z Nondetect The review of the water quality data in Table 2 indicates the spring water (Sample 4) contains lower concentrations of COD, pH, EC, TDS, Na, Cl, TOC, and total nitrogen compared to samples collected from wastewater sumps (Samples 3 and 6). Also, the elevated pH and concentrations of waste constituents in Sample 2, collected from the drainage upstream of the concrete bypass channel, compared to the spring (Sample 2) indicates wastewater and/or wastewater-affected sediment had been discharged to the drainage way. This finding is consistent with my observations last March of significant wastewater and storm water runoff from 55 West Field sumps to the drainage way.