Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> CALIFORNIA GEOPHYSICAL GROUP, INC. <br /> O Box 691 , Poway, CA 92074 Tel (619) 486-1323 <br /> FAX (619) 486-2329 <br /> r/'R <br /> Sept 6, 1992 <br /> AgeC <br /> ~ f i <br /> 4 Pub] it cit-alth Service: ` Via; " ' � . <br /> t Seri It-laquin County OCT Q 9 1992 <br /> F 0 Box 2009 <br /> # StockLun, Ga 95907 ENVIRONVEWAL HEALTH <br /> PERM I /S�RT07S <br /> RE Quarterly Report July 1992 <br /> Ga.scc nervi ce Stati on <br /> 749 E Charter Way <br /> Stockton, Ca <br /> Site # 1060 <br /> The site vas sampled on July 23, 1992 and the laboratory <br /> arialys i 1 of the water samples was done by Shervood Labs of <br /> llzlmar, California The eater table measurements, samplinp, <br /> parameters, and chain of custody are attached <br /> Tablo 11, s Ls the history of the vatcr analysis taken au thy: <br /> site since Jan. 26, 1990 Table II is the history of Lhe Mater <br /> table meaourements, and Table ISI list the history of Hydraulic <br /> 4 Gradients Attached is one water table elevation plot showing <br /> the approximate groundwater gradient <br /> The grater samples were obtained by using a pre-cleaned teflon <br /> bailer and new section of rope This was performed after the <br /> measured field parameters had stabilized during the purging <br /> ` operation See protocols Water samples were placed in <br /> appropriate glass containers with teflon-dined lids <br />� FINDINGS <br /> 7 Over the past three months the water table has dropped about <br /> 1 4 feet and the hydraulic gradient has shifted 40 degrees to <br /> the east The gradient has flattened to at least 50% of its <br /> previous slope <br /> The Groundwater contamination has decreased substantially in <br /> well 4 and slightly in well 6 The contamination in well 5 has <br /> remained about the same No free product was found in any of <br /> the wells <br /> The statistical evaluation indicates the the minimum contour <br /> interval should be 0 43 feet to eliminate random variations at <br /> this site Unfortunately the total difference in elevation at <br /> the site is only 0. 08 feet This means the true gradient may <br /> be in error because of the flat gradient However, we have <br />! reported the gradient according the the 3 point solution since <br /> this is all the information we have to work with <br />