Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Robert A. Evans <br /> January 20, 1989 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Table 2 compares analytical results of ground water samples collected <br /> from well OW-2 in January 1988 with those collected in November 1988. <br /> These results show all gasoline constituents were in lower <br /> concentrations at well OW-2 in November 1988 than in January 1988. <br /> This suggests that the gasoline is either degrading in place or <br /> migrating away from well OW-2. The nondetectable results of analyses <br /> performed on ground water samples collected from wells OW-5 and OW-6 <br /> (approximately 50 to 60 feet downgradient of well OW-2 and the former <br /> tank location) in November suggest that the gasoline is degrading in <br /> place, or that migration is very slow and the gasoline has not yet <br /> reached wells OW-5 and OW-6. Based on this information, PG&E does not <br /> feel it is necessary to install another well on our neighbor's <br /> property downgradient from well OW-5 and OW-6 as was previously <br /> considered. <br /> Unless future monitoring shows a substantial increase in gasoline <br /> hydrocarbon concentrations in wells OW-5 and/or OW-6, or analysis of <br /> future water level data suggests that a major change in ground water <br /> flow direction has occurred, PG&E proposes to conduct semiannual <br /> monitoring of wells OW-2, OW-5, and OW-6 to provide sufficient data to <br /> assess the impact of the gaoline hydrocarbons on the uppermost aquifer <br /> beneath the site. <br /> Please feel free to call either Mr. Robert C. Karfiol at 415/972-7095 <br /> or Mike Bennett at 209/443-5568 if you have any questions. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Ron Girard <br /> Attachments <br /> cc: ' Mr. Laurie Cottula <br /> San Joaquin County Local Health District <br />