Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 4 <br /> Vicki McCartney [EH] <br /> From: Vicki McCartney [EH] <br /> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:32 PM <br /> To: 'jbarton@waterboards.ca.gov' <br /> Subject: FW: Requested Jimco Truck Plaza Report <br /> Jim, <br /> am forwarding a chromatogram for a groundwater sample collected from monitoring well MW-1 at the Jimco <br /> Truck Plaza site in Ripon, California, along with chromatograms I requested from McCampbell Analytical, Inc. for <br /> the instrument method blank, motor oil standard, overlay of the sample with the diesel standard, and an <br /> instrument blank. The first attachment is the chromatogram for the sample (file 11170513.D)analyzed on <br /> November 17, 2005, at 5:16 pm. The second chromatogram is for the method blank associated with this sample <br /> (file 11150521.D)analyzed on November 16, 2005 at 12:14 am. As you can see, this method blank was analyzed <br /> 41 hours prior to analyzing the sample. The third chromatogram is for motor oil. I believe this chromatogram is <br /> taken from running a curve on this instrument on April 26, 2005 (seven months prior to analyzing this sample). <br /> The fourth attachment shows the sample chromatogram overlaid by the diesel continuing calibration standard <br /> chromatogram (file 11170501.D). It appears tome that the sample fingerprint matches the diesel fingerprint quite <br /> well. The last attachment is an instrument blank(file 11170505.D analyzed eight positions prior to analyzing the <br /> sample. The consulting firm would like to stop analyzing groundwater samples collected from MW-1 for motor oil <br /> since the sample chromatogram appears to match the diesel standard. My concern is that I do not have a current <br /> motor oil standard chromatogram to compare with the sample chromatogram. The laboratory spokesperson <br /> stated in a different e-mail that the GC-FID instrument is very stable as verified by the diesel CCV and no major <br /> maintenance has been performed on the instrument since April 2005. This statement was in response to my <br /> concern about whether the column had been cut or any maintenance done on the instrument that would cause a <br /> retention time shift. Should I accept that there is no motor oil found in the groundwater sample without <br /> comparing the sample chromatogram to a current motor oil chromatogram? Please present this question <br /> to your chemist. <br /> Unrelated to the above, I need guidance when requesting that a responsible party assess the threat of vapor <br /> intuition in a building. Exactly what must be done to evaluate this threat? Must air samples be collected? If so, <br /> how many and must the air samples be collected in a summa canister and sent to an air lab and analyzed by air <br /> methods as opposed to using water methods? <br /> Thank you, Jim. <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: vmccartney@sjcehd.com <br /> -----Original Message----- <br /> From: Wilken, Brandon [mailto:BWilken@cambria-env.com] <br /> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 11:37 AM <br /> To: Vicki McCartney [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: Requested Jimco Truck Plaza Report <br /> Hello Vicki, <br /> Here's what the lab gave me: Attached is the method blank chromatogram associated with this diesel batch <br /> as well as instrument blank from the GC from which this sample was analyzed. We do not run a daily <br /> 2/16/2006 <br />