|
S-Ite History
<br /> goyett 1'etroieam(4i9 S. main St•,Manteca)
<br /> P age 2 of 10
<br /> Y
<br /> at depth intervals
<br /> les were collected from each baring ical results of the
<br /> feet for laboratory analyses.Laboratory analyt
<br /> feet, and 26-26.5 rboat ns were not detected at or above the laboratory
<br /> intervals far soil classification and three
<br /> soilsem a
<br /> of 16-16.5 feet,20-21.5 ipetroleum hydros
<br /> twelve sail san1plos indicated f the samples. advanced
<br /> of Sacramento, California,
<br /> reported detection limits in any the of 76 and 76.4 feet bgs,
<br /> in conjunction with VDI 1n-Situ Testing In CpT-1 at
<br /> leted to depths
<br /> 2001,WHF, land CPT-2 were comp o f clay were encountered
<br /> an
<br /> February 2' s at the site. CPT- were encountered at depths of
<br /> two CPT boring terminated due to refusal. Beds
<br /> of clay ort of their findings of
<br /> Both borings Were tenni feet bgs• In CPT-2� tted a rep
<br /> respectively• feet and 50.2 to 57.6 s WHF submi
<br /> depths of 20 to 24.1 and 62.7 to 669 feet bgs. Wong of the SJCF,"D.
<br /> 4 feet, 49.7 to 56.4 feet, 7,2001,to Nlr. Jeffrey well, MW_
<br /> 23.g to 26• monitoring
<br /> the CPT borings in a letter dated Fe completed a deep roximately `10.5 to
<br /> in conjunction with Frontier Drilling, s. Two soil samples were
<br /> April 25, 2401, WHF' he screened interval for the well was 7'feeatlbg .led ' app
<br /> On feet bgs T roximately analyses.None of the analytes
<br /> 9, to a depth of 50.5 depth was measured at app
<br /> 0.5 feet bgs. Groundwater deP n the soil samples collected from the borehole at
<br /> 5 borehole at depths of 43.5 fee�tec ed in fee
<br /> for" sample
<br /> plc'story m M`N 9 indicated that none
<br /> collected from the bo and MTBE} were d le 'ted from Were detected,
<br /> $TEX, TPKII roundwater satnp enatesladditives} ort Of
<br /> of concern{ analytical results of a g and selected gasoline oxyg the Final Rep
<br /> MW-9• Laboratory BTEX, TPl -G, WHF concluded that the '
<br /> of the analytes of conte$ , which was detected at a concentration 2 12�1, ended that
<br /> tion of M T ated June 29, recomm
<br /> not been identified and Yeast of
<br /> with the excep Groundwater CorttaminQtiha d
<br /> Lateral Extent h dr�rcarbon contamination had well be installed directl
<br /> Findings Petrol y one additional monitoring
<br /> source of the pcontinue,
<br /> undwater monitoring - n be taken at this site until the source was identified-
<br /> cum nd collect
<br /> quarterly �° and that no remedial actio water levels a
<br /> the fuel island, easure groundwater
<br /> resentative of Condor was OnsAte
<br /> forthethird quarter 200-
<br /> 2002, a rep ou h MW- silted,and MW-4 and MW-5
<br /> on September 26, wells MW-1 thr g
<br /> les at monitoring MW-5,and1V1W_6 were heavily
<br /> groundwater same wells MW-4, portion of the field activities.
<br /> event.Monitoring D was onsite to observe a Wells MWA,
<br /> monitoring Wong of the S3CBH monitoring
<br /> were dry.Mx•Jeffrey lied to MW-4 and MW-5
<br /> a Condor representative was onsite to
<br /> app the wells. The
<br /> The redevelopment procedure
<br /> water frond
<br /> At the request of the SJ September 27, 2002 and then bailing and we11-sorted
<br /> MW-5, and MW-6 on Sep potable water, to coarse-grained, well-rounded,
<br /> ell
<br /> consisted of flushing the wells with
<br /> from the wells consisted of medium tel, Based on Condor's field
<br /> f . i 'ficantly reduce the amount 5 of sediment inside x e to
<br /> sediment removed rnent activities failed to s g and MW_5 was not suss
<br /> The redevelop n7ent of 1,AW- ed and allowing the annular sand pack
<br /> sand. uently, redevelop a significant amount of the
<br /> casings C°nseq sof these wells are damagd by rernovixYg analyses from
<br /> observations, it appeared the casing petroleum
<br /> s MW-6 was successfully redevelop
<br /> to inside the casing • A groundwater sample was collected for laboratory
<br /> infiltrate roduct, sheen, or odors associated with p uarterly
<br /> 2002. No floating product,
<br /> during the third quarter 2002 q significant
<br /> sediment from September 1h the
<br /> Sell casing f the ,cells sampled led contained a sign
<br /> M W-6 an observed in any o onitoring wells samp collected at the
<br /> hydrocarbons were oundwater m oundwater samplesTPH-G� and
<br /> onitoring event. A11 of the gr es of concern (BTEX,
<br /> groundwater m an lyrical results far the gr
<br /> amount of suspended sediment. Laboratory re orted detection limits
<br /> 26 and 30, 2002, indicated eteci d at or above the Iabozat°MTBE was detected in the
<br /> site an September were d 6 and MW-8 a ,�
<br /> gasoline o� 41,
<br /> ygenatesiaddttrves) -�f n�f,� tiiN d4tWVlVl1 1F� L?S\
<br /> selected g les collected from M txr_a h1f�XT-'7, ^`� �A�xt� •• }Y
<br /> in the groundwater samples easurcments collected on
<br /> M�u_r _ Static water level m
<br /> r camnl?S r.nllertP.d frnri! MW_] and MW-7
<br /> gr",�ndwatP. r les collected from
<br /> ater samp ed a groundwater flow direction to the sauthlsauthwes .
<br /> groundwater general indicated
<br /> September 26,2002, g
<br />
|