Laserfiche WebLink
ontrol Board <br /> California Regional Water Quality C '� <br /> a <br /> Qm; Central Valley Region , ., � � ` � <br /> may . <br /> Robert Schneider,Chair C_ <br /> WinstonH.Hickox C Gray Davis <br /> Secretaryfor Sacramento Main Office _ Governor <br /> Environmental Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb5 <br /> Protection 3443 Routier Road,Suite A,Sacramento,California 95827-3003 <br /> Phone(916)255-3000•FAX(916)255-3015 <br /> s <br /> N - - <br /> O _ <br /> 17 June 2002 CJ1 <br /> Mr. Tracy Sizemore <br /> Phillips Petroleum Company <br /> 1338 Phillips Building <br /> Bartlesville, OK 74004 <br /> REVIEW OF EVALUATION OF AQUIFER PUMP TEST, FORMER BP TERMINAL <br /> #10013, STOCKTON, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> We have reviewed the 10 June 2002 Evaluation of Aquifer Pump Test(Report) submitted by <br /> URS Corporation on behalf of Phillips Petroleum Company(Phillips) for the former BP Oil Bulk <br /> Terminal No. 10013 at 3505 Navy Drive in Stockton(site). The Report discusses the <br /> installation, development, and sampling of monitoring well MW-14 and four observation wells, <br /> surveying activities, and the results of the step drawdown and constant rate aquifer tests <br /> conducted in April and May. <br /> We have the following comments on the Report: <br /> 1. The scope of work for the pump tests was presented in the 20 March 2002 Work Plan for <br /> 72-Hour Pump Test(Work Plan),which proposed conducting the constant rate test for 72 <br /> hours. The Report states the constant rate test was performed for only 34 hours based on <br /> the stabilization of the water level in the pumping well. Board staff does not object to <br /> deviating from the proposed scope of work based on field observations, provided that <br /> Board staff is informed of these decisions during the field activities. Furthermore, the <br /> Report should provide a more thorough discussion of the results which lead to the change <br /> in the scope of work, as opposed to relying on a table in Appendix D-3. <br /> 2. The Report states there was "noise in data"for well W-2. Phillips needs to provide a <br /> discussion describing what"noise in data"is, how it affected the results, and how this <br /> lead to the decision not to use the data. <br /> 3. The Report states that the radius of influence was out to monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, <br /> and MW-8, but does not list the distances of these wells from the pumping well or the <br /> radius of influence at the varying pumping rates. Board staff was unable to determine the <br /> distances of the pumping well to the observation wells from Figure 3-1, and the Report <br /> did not provide this information. <br /> 4. Board staff's 2 April 2002 conditional approval of the Work Plan requested that the <br /> Report"include a schedule for upcoming work and report submittals." The Report does <br /> not include recommendations, a proposal, or schedule for further work. <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> Qd Recycled Paper <br /> The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. <br /> For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs,see our Web-site at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb5 <br />