Laserfiche WebLink
PER444-4445 <br /> PAGE 2 (DRAFT) <br /> -Soil sample results from Shell ' s MW 4 at 29 . 5 feet bgs <br /> evidenced TPH as gasoline at 1. 1 ppm. <br /> -Soil sample results from Shell's MW 1, MW 2 , and MW 3 <br /> evidenced low levels of soil contamination but no samples <br /> were collected below 25 feet of ground surface. <br /> -Shell ' s four monitoring wells have evidenced low levels of <br /> groundwater contamination. <br /> -The highest soil contamination evidenced during the removal <br /> of Shell ' s tanks in June 1990 was in the area of the <br /> unleaded tank and the dispenser island (samples T2S and <br /> Tr-2A) . Shell does not have a monitoring well downgradient <br /> of these areas. <br /> -Prior to 1965 this area was undeveloped and primarily used <br /> for agricultural purposes. The groundwater level may have <br /> been lower at that time due to agricultural well pumping. <br /> -The local gradient has consistently paralleled the regional <br /> gradient in a northeasterly direction. <br /> -CVRWQCB made late revisions to Exxon' s request for an NPDES <br /> permit. one of these revisions was to conduct a preliminary <br /> test of the injection system and install groundwater <br /> monitoring points across Pershing Ave. Exxon stated with <br /> these revisions they would probably remove their NPDES <br /> permit request from the June CVRWQCB meeting agenda. <br /> -Groundwater levels are currently rising and Exxon hopes to <br /> be able to sample MW 8 in July 1992 . <br /> -CVRWQCB and PHS/EHD concurred that Shell may be required to <br /> install an additional monitoring well downgradient of the <br /> area with the highest soil. contamination. The soil below <br /> first water should be sampled and analyzed when this well is <br /> installed. <br /> After the above information was discussed, it was decided that <br /> Shell and Exxon should further research their site histories and <br /> provide this information in their next quarterly report. <br />