Laserfiche WebLink
Wm. J. Hunter & Associates 2220 Loma Vista Dr <br /> Registered Geologists Sacramento, CA 95825 <br /> /'*etroleum& Mineral Appraisers (916) 972-7941 <br /> FAX (916) 972-1683 <br /> May 12, 1992 <br /> Michael J. Infurna, REHs MAY 1 8 9S92j <br /> San Joaquin Co. PHS <br /> Environmental Health Division LIVV1R01NN'-,,-, <br /> 445 No. San Joaquin Street PERM;E r`v4, ` LlJ <br /> Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> Ref : IB755 Tom Paine Road, Tracy, CA <br /> Dear Mr. Infurna; <br /> I am enclosing copies of the laboratory results of the water <br /> samples taken an April 2, 1992, using Hydropunch II equipment. I <br /> have also attached a site map showing the hydropunch locations <br /> and sample results. <br /> Based on the results of the investigative work performed to date, <br /> including the hydropunch sampling , the following comments and <br /> conclusions are offered for your information. <br /> 1. Samples of the groundwater from Hydropunch locations HP-2, <br /> HP-3, & HP--4 did not contain any contamination. We did not get <br /> • any water entry in HP-1 , and were unable to sample at that <br /> location. <br /> 2. The water sample from HP-5, (see map, ) revealed the presence <br /> of only Toluene and TPH-G. <br /> 3. The water sample from HP--6, in the field to the north of the <br /> removed UST site, contained measureable amounts of all tested <br /> substances. <br /> 4. The water sample taken from the auger hole that was made <br /> during the work performed on Nov. 21 , 1991 was apparently <br /> contaminated during sampling; confirmation testing in the area <br /> did not reveal any BTEX or TPH-G. <br /> 5. The approximate limits of water contamination as shown on the <br /> attached exhibit, (from a previous report, ) appears to be more <br /> restricted than originally thought, and is believed to fairly <br /> well delineated by the investigative work done to date. <br /> 6. Water levels had lowered +ram 2' to about 6 since the work <br /> done in January, 1992, indicating either the effects of recent <br /> rainfall , the influence of tidal forces, or both. <br /> CONCLUSI©NS: <br /> • 1. The presence of contaminants in only three water samples, <br /> I <br /> 1 <br />