ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0008506 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 1 auger flights were pulled, sand depth was monitored to avoid the ' possibility of bridging. After verifying that the sand pack was at 521 , (three feet above the top of the perforations, ) 1 1/2 buckets of bentonite pellets were poured on top of the sand & wetted with sufficient water to expand the material. The bentonite was located at 50 ' , 2' above the sand pack_ After pulling the augers, the annular space between the 2" PVC & the open hole was filled with 12 sacks of cement which was mixed on 1 location and placed in the annulus_ The completion operations were supervised by Mr. Hunter, & witnessed by Steven Sasson of the San Joaquin EHD. Mr. Hunter left the location at 1700; Mr. Sasson remained to witness the grouting of the well. A preformed ' vault and traffic cover were installed on the well, and the casing was secured with an expandable locking plug. Details of the well completion are shown on PLATE IX. ' On October 3, Del-Tech Geotechnical developed, purged, & sampled the well as instructed by WJH. A total of 9 gallons of water was ' purged from the well using a 1" stainless steel bailer. Water depth was measured at 53' , about 7' higher than indicated during placement of the well. It was noted that the water was quite turbid with a brown color, a heavy gasoline odor was noted and a PID meter recorded a reading of 718 ppm when the casing was opened. Water samples were obtained by use of a clean stainless steel bailer, and were transported undr chain of custody to FGL ' with instructions to test for BTEX & TPH--G. Refer to EXHIBIT D for details of that work. At the request of Mr. Sasson of the San Joaquin County EHD, a test for halogenated volatile organics, ' (EPA 601, ) was added to the chain by Mr_ Hunter via telephone. RESULTS OF LABO TOEY ANAYZSES OF SO L & WATER SAMPLES: ' TABLE VIII summarizes the results of the analyzses for the soil samples taken during placement of the well. BTEX & TPH-G were ' not detected in soil samples taken at 26' & 31' , but were present in all samples from 36' to 56' ; (that analysis was not run on the samples collected at 16' & 21 ' . ) The soil sample at 60' did not reveal any contamination, even though there was a definite petro- leum odor in the core Only about 3" of material was recovered, and this small amount of sample may have prevented an accurate measurement of constituents_ ' TPH as waste oil was present in soil samples at 16' & 21' , but were below detection limits in all samples below 21 ' . ' Copies of the laboratory sheets & chain of custody are included as EXHIBIT E. TABLE IX summarizes the laboratory results of the water samples 8