SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

r 1 •"k n V� H V V _ F_ I Inc. Environmental and Engineering Group Post Office Box 576729 Modesto, CA 95357-6729 Office: (209) 579-8138 FAX: (209) 579-1652 Ms. Diane M. Hinson, REHS �'�� ate. May 18, 1995 San Joaquin County Public Health Services z , Environmental Health Division F°I�r� Post Office Box 388 Stockton, CA 95201-0388 RE: Langston's Arco - Site Code 1503 Dear Diane, In response to your departmental letter from Mr. Mike Infurna on May 4, 1995, I am directing my response to his supervisor, for reasons which I hope will be obvious. WHF received this letter by fax on May 12, 1995 from SEMCO, see Exhibit A attached. Mr. Infurna's letter addresses missing data from the quarterly monitoring report for the third quarter of 1994. He indicates there were missing field data sheets, laboratory data, etc. If the data was omitted from the September 1994 reporting period that was reported on November 15, 1994, why, then, is our client just now hearing about it in May, 1995? Further, why was WET not sent copies of the May correspondence? Upon review of all copies in WHF's files, all data seems to be in place. It is difficult to understand why Mr. Infurna's file copy is missing the data he indicated in his letter some five months later, see Exhibit B attached. The next issue is the analytical method detection limits. After the letter dated December 1, 1994, from Mr. Infizrna the laboratory changed the detection limits as requested which is obvious in the first quarter, 1995 report, dated April 14, 1995. As for the reporting values in our report, the results are tabularized and the units of measure are either identified in footnotes or are placed in the headings of the table. WHF does not see this as an issue and should have been notified by Mr. Infurna prior to writing his May 4, 1995 letter to Mr. Langston. Exhibit C is a letter from WHF to Mr. Inform addressing this matter. With regard to the quarterly monitoring schedule. WHF runs its quarterly schedule on the calendar year quarter. This schedule is the logical one for tracking and scheduling. The first report of 1995 had established the due dates for the remainder of the project. It is again difficult to understand why this is an issue from a regulatory standpoint. The earlier delay on the quarterly reporting stems from a request by this office to delay any further quarterly sampling work until after the excavation work has been completed. This request was verbally denied by Mr. Infurna in January after the fourth quarter had passed. This was unfortunate, but best efforts were made to provide data, as agreed