Laserfiche WebLink
The third comment indicated you would prefer that groundwater analytical results be reported in parts <br /> per biIIion rather than parts per million. This request for presentation of the data will be complied <br /> with in future reports. <br /> Item number four referred to the testing of groundwater by EPA methods 6011602 rather than the <br /> more analytically precise EPA method 624 (which utilizes mass spectrometry). We would like to point <br /> out that our "Workplan for Additional Site Assessment", which;was approved by your o ice, included <br /> provisions for testing by EPA method 624. We feel that your approval of the workplan as submitted <br /> is tantamount to approval of the contents which included the EPA method 624 testing. However,for <br /> all future work at the site, the alternative testing methods will be used. <br /> ' The fifth comment asks "why methylene chloride, 2-butanone and 4-methyl 2 pentanone were detected <br /> in groundwater". These compounds are not typically found tri gasoline type spills. Therefore, it is <br /> possible that they are derived from other, off-site sources. Furthermore, this data was obtained from <br /> a one-time,groundwater sampling and consistent,...reproducible-results-have-not.been„established. <br /> Finally, it is possible that these compounds are part of a regional contamination problem. <br /> In response to item six, a new site assessment workplan will be composed and submitted to your office <br /> by the specified date. This new investigation may require off-site assessment and appropriate permits <br /> must be obtained prior to drilling. <br /> Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss this matter further. <br /> Sincerely, + <br /> w <br /> Peter D' ico John Nicolich <br /> Manager Registered Geologist #5041 <br /> Environmental Affairs <br /> PD110 f <br /> cc. fogi Khanna, M.D., M.P.H. <br /> Michael Collins, EHS <br /> f <br />