Laserfiche WebLink
r o <br /> FORMER SAFEWAY PROPERTY 2 24 September 1996 <br /> 1111 NAVY DRIVE,STOCKTON,SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> Water sample results were not submitted to us again until early 1994,when the three monitoring wells <br /> did not contain detectable contamination. Depth to water was approximately 30 feet. In July and <br /> November 1994, all three wells did contain diesel contamination at up to 670 and 510 ppb, respectively, <br /> while the depths to water were approximately 30 and 31 feet, respectively. We have received no reports, <br /> other than the closure report, since. <br /> In September 1995, a Phase I Audit of the site was conducted in preparation for sale of the property. <br /> Nine Hydropunch samples were collected. Six of the Hydropunch samples contained diesel at up to <br /> 1200 ppb. The Hydropunch samples containing diesel were widespread, indicating a very large plume. <br /> The consultants speculated that the diesel may have come from military activities or there may be offsite <br /> sources. At least one other nearby site also has diesel contamination. All samples contained various <br /> solvents,which appears to be part of a local solvent contamination plume detected at nearby sites as <br /> well. <br /> COMMENTS <br /> 1. Wells were first installed at the site in late 1987. However, quarterly monitoring reports were not <br /> submitted for all of 1988,three quarters of 1989, all of 1990,two quarters of 1991, all of 1992 and <br /> 1993, one quarter of 1994, all of 1995 and 1996. <br /> 2. Higher levels of contamination were generally detected in the Hydropunch samples than in the <br /> monitoring wells. Ground water contamination was not detected at this site until the water level <br /> dropped into the sandy layer. Perhaps, because the contamination resides primarily in the sandy <br /> layer, and the Hydropunch samplers have a small screen length/sample opening,the Hydropunch <br /> collects an undiluted and more accurate sample, unlike the monitoring wells with the longer <br /> screens. <br /> 3. The Hydropunch samples indicate that ground water contamination is more widespread than is <br /> indicated by the monitoring wells. <br /> 4. Ground water contamination is undefined and the investigation is incomplete. <br /> 5. The high levels of diesel contamination in ground water indicate that the source of the diesel has <br /> not been located and/or removed. <br /> REGIONAL BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMITTEE <br /> 1. Quarterly ground water monitoring must be instituted, and reports sent both to the Regional Board <br /> and the County. <br /> 2. The ground water investigation must continue at this site so that contamination is more accurately <br /> defined and the source located. Ideally, adjacent and nearby sites,which also have diesel and <br /> solvent contamination would work with Safeway to investigate the problem. <br /> 3. Part of the investigation should focus on the sandy layer between approximately 25 and 32 feet <br /> with installation of several wells screened only in the sandy zone. <br /> 4. Careful analysis of chromatograms may give clues to the age and source of the diesel <br /> contamination. <br />