Laserfiche WebLink
-a?.>, :. <br /> ,fir„ > - - - -:.z <br /> WN' <br /> VA <br /> r ..� e• 1' �. <br /> Coca-Cola Enterprises- West <br /> —~ USTEC Job No. 90054.03 <br /> nitorsurrounding the scrSTEC <br /> eened interval. The vacuum gauge measurements were MO <br /> hour for eb hUhours <br /> personnel before the test started,immediately after startup,and every g <br /> ll equipment used in the test was decontaminated at the <br /> or until all readings were stabilized. A <br /> 4 ' completion of the pilot test. <br /> 3 One of the vapor extraction wells was connected to the skid mounted blower for each of the four <br /> !x! <br /> r extraction wells and the three groundwater monitoring well <br /> VES tests. The remaining vapo <br /> r were fitted with slip caps which were sealed onto the well casing pipe. Tubing(3/8 inch)was <br /> W. inserted into a drill hole in the tip of the slip caps and sealed. The system connections were <br /> checked for leaks prior to the start of the pilot test using soapy water. Vacuum pressure gauges j <br /> F were attached to tubing to measure the pressure response. <br /> } <br /> Each vapor extraction well was screened at different intervals, allowing a partial overlap in <br /> screening depths,to determine the influence of vacuum pressure at discrete intervals within the <br /> F`7 <br /> rvals far VEW-1,VEW-2,VEW-3 <br /> variable strata. The screened inte ,and VEW-4 were 25 to 45 feet <br /> 1 - below ground surface(bgs),8 to 28 feet bgs,8 to 68 feet bgs,and 43 to 68 feet bgs,respectively. <br /> tes <br /> j The VES pilot test results are plotted on Figures 4 through 7G Analysis <br /> d uysi[o dist npes of 12.5lots x39, <br /> vacuum pressures of 0.5 inches of water or greater were measure <br /> p <br /> 92,and 94.5 feet from the test wells VEW-1,VEW-2,VEW-3,and VEW-4, respectively. <br /> %ro <br /> t"4 <br /> i 3.0 ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT <br /> t + <br /> t The contamination assessment was approved by the San Joaquin County Public Health Services <br /> I t on February 17,1991. Their approval was contingent upon addressing five separate comments. <br /> The comments and the USTEC response to each comment is as follows: <br /> f <br /> Comment'1) The chain of custody copies included in the report are not signed <br /> by an employee of the lab and do not indicate the condition of the <br /> r samples when received. <br /> 6 <br /> E <br /> 1 l <br /> ASV � <br />