Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> GeofogicafTechnks Inc. <br /> 2741 River Road <br /> Mo&do,Califamia 95351 <br /> (209)538-64241FaX#538-5852.. <br /> January 26,j 1998 <br /> i Project No'. 251.3 <br /> Project Name:„ McGranahan (Gawne Road) 4::w <br /> Mr. Michael D. McGranahan <br /> Trustee in Ba_nk_ruptcy . <br /> . <br /> Modesto, CA 95352. <br /> "z' . - r 4 tom.. � - <br /> Re: Project Status Report <br /> M' Former Moresco Property, 16865 Gawne Road, Stockton CA <br /> Dear Mr:McGranahan:: <br /> This letter follows our phone conversation of 1.January 22 regarding the remedial action project <br /> . for mitigating the gasoline contained in the soil at 16865 Gawne Road, Stockton, CA. <br /> By way of review, the original plan for addressing this site was to perform some type of fate and <br /> transport calculations to.estimate the risk of impact the chemicals present at this site would pose <br /> to human health and.the environment. These models often lead to the conclusion that either <br /> Active remediation or long term groundwater monitoring should be performed. <br /> Generally remediation for a residential site using well water for domestic use is far more actively <br /> pursued than for commercial or industrial areas. Since this is true of this site, and since there was <br /> ' known gasoline and MTBE present (thought at that time to be higher than we now know them to <br /> have been), it was decided to go straight to remediation, bypassing the fate and transport study. <br /> The goal of the remediation is to remove the contamination and lower the risk. <br /> To this end, a vapor extraction system was installed in early November 1997 and was activated <br /> on November 12, 1997. As the system operated through, December we noticed that the <br /> concentration of gasoline vapor in the extracted air started falling off by mid month. <br /> Adjustments were made to the system which brought only temporary increases in vapor <br /> concentration. Vapor extraction efficiency testing showed that the system was operating <br /> correctly. <br /> 4 <br /> By the first week in January .it became clear that there may not be as much contamination in the <br /> subsurface as originally thought. In light of the vapor extraction results, we decided to review <br /> assumptions used in the mass balance calculations performed in October 1996. Mass balance <br /> calculations are based on the following parameters: <br /> 1. soil density <br /> 2. porosity of the soil <br />