Laserfiche WebLink
Wm. J. Hunter & Associates 2220 Loma Vista Dr. <br /> Registered Geologists Sacramento, CA 95825 <br /> °etroleum& Mineral Appraisers (916) 972-7941 <br /> r ', FAX (916) 972-1683 <br /> April 27, 1993 �PR <br /> Linda Turkatte, REHS ENVIRONMENTAL MEALTHPERMIT/SERVICES <br /> San Joaquin Co. PHS <br /> Environmental Health Division <br /> 445 No. San Joaquin Street <br /> Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> Ref: 2969 Loomis Road (Site Code 2015; ) Quarterly Report, <br /> monitoring well data <br /> Dear Ms. Turkatte, <br /> We have enclosed a copy of the field log, chain of custody form, <br /> and laboratory analysis of a water sample taken from MW 01 on <br /> March 17, 1993. Water level measurements were taken in MW 02 <br /> & #3, but water samples were not collected. The results of the <br /> laboratory anlysis reveals that all tested substances were below <br /> detection levels. <br /> We have also included an updated exhibit showing the direction of <br /> hydraulic gradients as indicated by the five water level measure- <br /> 41-111W ments taken to date. That data shows that the direction of flow <br /> is not stable; it has gone from a westerly direction in May & <br /> June of 1992, to a southerly direction in September, essentially <br /> due north in December, and to a southwesterly direction in March, <br /> 1993. The water table has risen over 2' since the December <br /> measurement. <br /> The reason for the wide variation in the hydraulic gradient is <br /> not .known, but until some consistency in direction is apparent, <br /> any decision concerning additional investigative work does not <br /> appear warranted at this time. <br /> We have reviewed your letter of April. 20 concerning additional <br /> water level measurements, and have arranged to have that work <br /> done on a monthly basis. Quarterly water sampling of MW 01 will <br /> continue as before. <br /> However, we have a problem with the statement at the end of the <br /> third paragraph. . . . "Groundwater sampling results indicating <br /> contamination will require a monitoring well in each downgradient <br /> direction identified for this site. " Depending on the transmiss- <br /> ivity of the aquifers, this could conceivably require a well each <br /> 30-degrees, (or closer, ) around the site of the removed UST' s. <br /> Considering the minor amount of contamination measured to date, <br /> this is an unacceptable condition to impose of our client. <br />