Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Mary Meays 15 December 1995 <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Department Page 2 <br /> Because the split spoon with brass liners passed through the floating product layer both <br /> before and after sample collection, and because floating product adheres to the sampler <br /> and liners (and can be transferred to soil), samples collected from a below a floating <br /> product layer are not considered representative of true soil conditions. Therefore, soil <br /> samples from below the floating product layer were not submitted for analysis. <br /> PHS/EHD stopped by the site the day ater the completion of MW2A. All samples for <br /> analysis from this boring had been submitted to the laboratory the previous day. The <br /> unused samples were extruded from the brass liners into drums (hence, destroyed) after <br /> determination of which samples would be submitted for analysis. Therefore, it was not <br /> possible to submit samples from below the water table when the request was made a day <br /> later. <br /> Comment: Table 2 contained incorrect information according to the Sequoia Analytical's lab <br /> report. Please not that the 0.0091 mg/kg toluene was detected in the soil sample collected form <br /> MW2A at 45 feet and also it should be noted that this same sample's TPH-d analysis contained <br /> a footnote indicating that the 1.2 mg/kg was an unidentified hydrocarbon of <C13. A revision <br /> of Table 2 should be submitted. <br /> A revised copy of Table 2 is attached. <br /> Comment: Groundwater contamination was detected in the samples collected from the <br /> monitoring wells, MNV2A and MW8 (approximately 300 feet northeast of the site. Actually, <br /> free product was observed during the installation of MW2A and reported during the sampling <br /> of MW2A. <br /> Noted. <br /> Comment: Table 2 also contained reporting errors with regards to groundwater sample results. <br /> Actually, 3,300µg11 toluene was detected in the duplicate sample from MW2A and the 820 µg/l <br /> TPH-g detected in MW8 should be noted to be an unidentified hydrocarbon between the C6 - <br /> C8 range of hydrocarbons. <br /> A revised copy of Table 2 is attached. <br /> Comment: Also, note that the report failed to include field data sheets associated with he <br /> collection of groundwater samples. As PHS/EHD has indicated on numerous occasions, field <br /> data sheets should be submitted with all quarterly monitoring reports. Finally, the analytical <br /> results obtained from all groundwater monitoring events should be tabulated so that trends can <br /> L"OIECfS� IOQ\RF OMJU <br />