Laserfiche WebLink
#4 "In violation of the Regional Board' s requirement relating <br /> to monitoring wells and possibly some requirements of the Depart- <br /> ment of Health Services" <br /> RESPONSE <br /> We have responded to the Regional Board' s comment pertaining <br /> to monitoring wells in Appendix B. It is not clear what Mr. <br /> Baier is referring to when he discusses the Regional Board' s <br /> requirement relating to monitoring wells. The only requirement <br /> that we are aware of is that monitoring well #8, which was acci- <br /> dentally destroyed by a farmer, must be replaced as soon as site <br /> access conditions permit. We intend to accomplish this within <br /> the immediate future. His further reference to some requirements <br /> of the Regional Board or the Department of Health Services is not <br /> clear; it would be nice if he could back up unsubstantiated <br /> statements of new requirements with a reference. <br /> Pages 5-9: These pages are all misleading calculations <br /> based upon an incorrect permeability requirement. <br /> On page 10, Mr. Baier discusses the alleged disappearance of <br /> six feet of fluid, and the pumping of 450 barrels of water. <br /> These calculations are based on typographical errors in the <br /> monitoring reports, which have subsequently been corrected by a <br /> letter from Beta Associates to the Regional Water Quality Control <br /> Board. <br /> -5- <br />