Laserfiche WebLink
tMr Ronald Rowe <br /> November 3, 1998 <br /> Page 2 <br /> for HydroPunchTM sampling, well construction, well development, and well sampling were <br /> followed as stated In our work plan, dated March 4, 1998 <br /> Prior to drilling, well construction permits were obtained (see Attachment A) Permit No <br />' 16520 for the installation of the groundwater monitoring wells was approved by the County on <br /> August 7, 1998 In addition, borehole locations were cleared for utilities by utility providers <br />' Field observations did not indicate the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in any of the soil <br /> samples collected for lnthologncal identification In accordance with the workplan, no soil <br /> samples were collected for petroleum hydrocarbon analysis <br />' Borehole Drilling.g On August 10 through 12, 1998, a Brown and Caldwell geologist <br />' supervised the sampling, drilling, and construction of groundwater monitoring wells MW-2 <br /> through MW4 The borehole drilling and well construction was performed by Woodward <br /> Drilling, Inc (California C-57 License Number 710079) of Rio Vista, California, using a <br />' Brainard Kalman Model 81 drilling ng equipped with hollow stem augers <br /> Boreholes MW-2 through MW4 were drilled to a maximum of 80 feet below ground surface <br />' (bgs) Lnthology of each borehole was classified by sampling soil continuously using a 2-Inch <br /> diameter by 18-Inch long split-spoon sampler Three soil samples were collected from MW-2 <br /> borehole for physical properties (bulk density, total organic carbon, permeability, hydraulic <br /> conductivity, and particle size distribution) and submitted to PTS Laboratories In Santa Fe <br /> Springs, California Two samples were collected from the vadose zone, which Is representative <br /> of the two predominant lntholognes beneath the site silt and sand The other soli sample was <br /> collected from the saturated Interval, which Is representative of the sandy aquifer beneath the <br /> site Results from the physical property testing are Included as Attachment B <br />' Drill cuttings were stockpiled on site and sampled for petroleum hydrocarbons Laboratory <br /> results Indicated that petroleum hydrocarbons were not present In the stockpiled soil <br />' (Attachment C) <br /> HydroPunchTM Groundwater Sampling. HydroPunchTM groundwater samples were collected <br /> in each of the three boreholes prior to the construction of the wells HydropunchTM samples <br /> were to be analyzed In the field using an Immunoassay kit as a preliminary containment <br /> screening tool However, BC received damaged equipment that prevented the use of the kits <br />' Upon approval from Mr Rowe, who was on site, the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in the <br /> groundwater samples were evaluated for odors or the presence of an only-like sheen There was <br /> no apparent odor or sheen observed In any of the water samples Mr Rowe approved the <br />' primary well location of MW-3, based on these field observations <br /> In addition to field observations, HydroPunchTM groundwater samples were submitted to <br /> Acculabs, Inc , of Davis, California Acculabs, Inc Is certified by the State of California <br /> Use or disclosure of data continued on this sheet is subject to the restriction specified at the heginning of this <br /> document <br /> BCSAC0111600011627AWELLINST DOC <br />