Laserfiche WebLink
Vicki McCartney EH <br /> From: Vicki McCartney[EH] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 4:13 PM <br /> To: 'wlittle@advgeoenv.com' <br /> Subject: Response to denying Fourth Quarter 2005 Report for Ripon Farm Service <br /> Bill, <br /> In response to your telephone call today, I am listing below the necessary corrections for Quarterly Report- Fourth Quarter <br /> 2005 Ripon Farm Service: <br /> • Section 2.2 - Nitrate was included in the analyte list this quarter and should be mentioned in this section. <br /> • Section 3.1 -Depth to groundwater ranged from 22,47 feet(MW-3) to 26.28 (MW-7). <br /> • Section 4.0 mentions nothing about MTBE and TAME being detected in the off-site well, MW-8, and diesel and <br /> gasoline being detected at high concentrations in off-site well, MW-6. <br /> • Section 4.0- First Bullet-states that the groundwater flow direction varied from south to north across the site but this <br /> is not apparent when reviewing Figure 3; also, the hydraulic gradient was 0.007, etc. <br /> • Section 4.0-Second Bullet-states that dissolved petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations on-site and directly down <br /> gradient of the former UST area were below detection limits in the fourth quarter 2005, except for TPH-d. I do not see <br /> diesel detected in any on-site or down gradient wells during the fourth quarter 2005. Diesel was detected in MW-6, an <br /> off-site well, during the fourth quarter 2005. Also, it is stated that diesel was not detected in on-site samples for <br /> approximately two annual monitoring cycles; however, diesel was detected in MW-1 at 10,000 ug/L and in MW-4 at <br /> 12,000 ug/L during the August 2005 sampling event. So,the next statement that diesel was never reported greater <br /> than 1,000 ug/L does not apply. <br /> In addition to the above,when reviewing Figures 2, 3, and 4, there is an extra well between MW-8 and the domestic well at <br /> the Jimco Truck Plaza. Please remove this well. <br /> MTBE results could be included in Table 2 because one of the methods listed under Table 2 is 8260. <br /> Also the second paragraph under BACKGROUND states that the site is currently under assessment and remediation, <br /> utilizing five groundwater monitoring wells. There is no mention of the additional monitoring wells installed. <br /> I have a question concerning the laboratory results submitted by Cal Tech. MW-6 groundwater results have been reported <br /> for Method 82608 at a 1-50 dilution for three consecutive quarters; however, the reporting limits have not been raised to <br /> reflect this dilution. <br /> Bill,why haven't MW-9 and MW-10 been surveyed yet? These wells were installed in April 2005. <br /> Bill, please call me if you have any questions concerning the above. <br /> Vicki McCartney,Senior REHS <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Department <br /> 304 E.Weber Avenue <br /> Stockton,CA 95202-2708 <br /> Phone: (209)468-3456 <br /> Fax: (209)468-3433 <br /> E-mail: vmccartneyC& jcehd.com <br />