ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0009585 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CE • T OCT a 7 2002 EWRUNMENI HEALTH CONDOR EARTH TECHNOLOGIES INC. PERMIT/SERVICES October 2, 2002 188 Frank West Circle / Suite I Stockton, CA 95206 ttJJ (209) 234-0518 Jeffrey C F Wong FAX (209) 234-0538 San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department 304 E Weber Avenue, Third Floor Stockton, California 95202 Re- Groundwater Monitoring Well Destruction Canepa's Car Wash, 6230 Pacific Avenue,Stockton, CA �1• Site Code: 1225; Condor Project No. 1707 ear Mr Wong redrJ lA V4 Condor Earth Technologies, Inc (Condor) recommends the proper destruction of MW-8 and MW-10 at the above referenced site Condor also recommends reducing the groundwater monitoring frequency for site monitor wells MW-5, MW-6 and MW-7 from quarterly to annually Groundwater samples were t� recently collected trom the nine soil vapor extraction (SVE) wells located at the site as per your request The results of the SVE well groundwater samples were included in the Third Quarter 2002 Groundwater Monitoring Report, dated August 19, 2002 To continue monitoring of groundwater representative of 0414conditions in the vicinity of the SVE wells, Condor recommends quarterly collection and analysis of a groundwater sample from SVE well SV-4 Condor proposes the proper destruction of site monitor well MW-8 based on historical groundwater analytical results and because it is on land that is scheduled for development A building will be constructed in the location of MW-8 Because historical analytical results for groundwater samples Q�:? collected from MW-8 have been below the laboratory reported detection limits for the past eight years, ((I� t/ Condor does not recommend replacement of the well r I Site monitor well MW-10 was installed one year ago to monitor shallow groundwater in the northwest j1Urt1U11 U1 111e Site, I]nnGU Uli lilt annuipated aioundttiater gradient rebtIlLhig front "gouiii�watri' mo,"rAding formerly believed to be present Subsequent resurveying of the site monitor well elevations has indicated that there is no groundwater mounding at the site and that MW-10 is actually located to an up to cross- gradient position Four quarterly monitoring events indicate that groundwater samples collected from MW-10 do not contain any of the analytes tested at or above the laboratory reported detection limits ince site monitor wells MW-6 and MW-7 are located more directly up-gradient at the site than i5 MW 0 and based on the historical laboratory analytical results, Condor recommends the proper destruction of W-10 Condor proposes annual instead of quarterly monitoring of site monitor well MW-5 based on its location and historical groundwater laboratory analytical results Laboratory analytical results of groundwater samples collected from MW-5 indicate that all analytes have been below the laboratory reported detection limits for theyears ast 1eight with only s � p g � a few exceptions Site monitor well MW-4 iciEened in the same interval as MW-5 and is located between the contamination source area and MW 5 3 herefore MW-4 is monitoring the northeast extent of the groundwater plume and frequent monitoring of MW 5 is ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGICAL 0 ENGINEERING GEOTECHNICAL http//www condorearth com /