Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> Problem Assessment Wcrk Plan <br />{ CSUS—Multi-Campus Regimiat Center <br /> January 23,2DD3 <br /> Page-2- <br /> H <br /> analytical results of the soil samples collected from beneath the former location of TK10, however, <br /> indicated the presence of diesel range petroleum hydrocarbons. <br /> In a letter dated April 28, 2000, the SJCEHD requested the submittal of a work plag to investigate the <br /> lateral and vertical extent of contamination at the site. At the request of CSUS, Condor subsequently <br /> f. prepared and submitted the Work Plan for Soil and Groundwater Sampling by Direct Push (Geoprobe), <br /> dated June 21, 2000. In a letter dated July 7, 2000, Ms. Carol Oz of the SJCEHD approved the work plan <br /> (with modifications) and requested that the work be conducted within 90 days and that a report of findings <br /> be submitted within 60 days of work completion. <br /> On December 28 and 29, 2000 Condor conducted a limited soil and groundwater investigation utilizing <br /> Geoprobe® direct push technology at the site. Condor prepared the Preliminary Investigation and <br /> Evaluation Report (PIER), dated February 7, 2001, describing the results of the ',work. Laboratory <br /> analytical results of the soil and groundwater samples and field observations indicated that petroleum <br /> hydrocarbons were present in site soil and groundwater down to the approximate total depth of the F <br /> investigation (36 feet below grade). Based on the results of the investigation, Condor recarr>mendI the <br /> installation of three CPT borings to investigate the site geology, three direct push borings to collect soil <br /> samples, and three Hydropunch borings to collect discrete groundwater samples at depths to be determined <br /> by the results of the CPT borings. The purpose of the borings was to continue with evaluation of the <br /> vertical and horizontal distribution of petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil and groundwater at the site. <br /> Condor also recommended the installation of three groundwater monitor wells to establish the groundwater f <br /> gradient and to monitor the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in site groundwater. In addition, <br /> Condor recommended the completion of a sensitive receptor survey within a radius of 2;000 feet of the site <br /> to investigate the potential for receptors that may be impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons in the <br /> ;groundwater. <br /> E <br /> } <br />} "1n a letter dated April 4, 2001 to Mr. Cliff Bailey of CSUS, Ms. Dot Lofstrom of the SJCEHD concurred <br />{ 'with the recommendations contained in the PIER. At the request of Mr. David Rosso for the Trustees':of the <br /> !California State University, Condor prepared the Work Plan - Additional Soil, `and Groundwater <br /> -Investigation, dated October 5, 2001. The proposed work included the installation of CPT borings, direct <br /> Tush borings, and monitor wells, and the completion of a sensitive receptor survey to identify potential <br /> 'sensitive receptors within a 2,000-foot radius of the site. The work plan was approved by Ms. Rebecca <br /> Setliff of the SJCEHD in a letter dated November 14, 2001 to Mr. Cliff Bailey of CSUS. <br /> f <br /> €:The approved work was conducted in November and December 2001. Findings of the work were described <br /> :'in the Additional Soil and Groundwater Investigation and Monitor Well Installation Report, dated <br /> January 11, 2002, prepared by Condor. Results of the work indicated that site soil contamination was fully <br /> investigated but that groundwater contamination was not. Groundwater contamination was present down to <br /> "the total depth of the investigation(approximately 81 feet below the ground surface) and was present at the <br /> ;;lateral bounds of the area investigated, particularly to the east, in the direction of the groundwater gradient <br /> ;:indicated by the initial monitoring event. The sensitive receptor survey indicated the presence of several <br /> ;potential receptors,but no wells within close proximity to the site that had not been previously destroyed. <br /> j The January 11, 2002 report recommended quarterly groundwater monitoring, additional lateral and <br /> E y <br /> ':vertical groundwater characterization, and soil over-excavation. The soil aver-excavation was a suggested k <br /> remedial alternative that was most likely to result in rapid mitigation of site contamination- In a letter dated { <br /> April 26, 2002 to Mr. Bailey of CSUS, Ms. Setliff of the SJCEHD agreed with,the monitoring and <br /> �r;► <br /> i CONDOR <br /> 1 <br />