Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> r C5U5-Multi Campus Regional Center—Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring <br /> January 23,2003 <br /> Page 3 ` <br /> t Table 2 Groundwater Analytical Results (December 27,2002) 'll <br /> Sam le Number 3024-MWI 3024-MW2 3024-MW3 <br /> F Analyte Units <br /> Benzene <0.5 0.8 2.9 <br /> ! Toluene <0.5 2.5 2.2 <br /> Eth 1 benzene <0.5 1.1 1.3 <br /> Total xylenes <1.0 1.3 11 <br /> r TPH-G_ <50 210 v 610 r' <br /> TPH-D <50 <50 <50 <br /> TPH-K <250 <250 540 <br /> TPH-MO <500 <500 <500 <br /> MTBE <0.5 <0.5 75 <br /> Ethanol <20 <20 <200 <br /> Tertiary-butanol <5.0 <5.0 <50 <br /> Di-isopropyl ether <0.5 . <0.5 <5.0 <br /> Eth I terda -bu 1 ether <0.5 <0.5 <5.0 <br /> Tert-am 1 methyl ether <0.5 <0.5 <5.0 <br /> 1,2-dichloroethane <0.5 2.0 40 i <br /> 1,2-dibromoethane <0.5 <0.5 <5.0 <br /> Unit Conversions: Analytical <br /> µg(L.parts per billion(ppb) TPH-G=total petroleum hydrocarbons quantified as gasoline. <br /> TPH-K=total petroleum hydrocarbons quantified as kerosene <br /> MTBE=methyl tertiary-butyl ether <br /> SUMMARY AND PROPOSED FUTURE WORK <br /> i <br /> The current quarterly monitoring data indicate that groundwater conditions at the site have remained <br /> relatively static. The laboratory analytical results of the current monitoring are consistent with the <br /> ' historical laboratory analytical results. The current groundwater gradient direction(northeast) is similar to <br /> the gradient direction measured during ,the soil and groundwater investigation activities conducted on <br /> December 18, 2001 (slightly north of east). The groundwater gradient directions measured during the t <br /> s second and third quarter of 2002 (June 28 and September 11, 2002, respectively)-were both to the <br /> southeast. <br /> 4 <br /> { In a letter dated April 26, 2002, to Mr. Cliff Bailey of California State University Stanislaus, Rebecca <br /> Setliff of the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department requested that a work plan be <br /> submitted to further investigate the vertical and lateral extent of impacted groundwater, and to compare at <br /> 1 least two different, but feasible, remediation alternatives for mitigating contamination in the soil and <br /> { groundwater at the site. Condor submitted the Problem Assessment Work Plan (PAWP) dated January 23, <br /> 2003, to comply with Ms. Setliff s request. Condor anticipates that quarterly groundwater monitoring of <br /> MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 will continue, pending the results of the work described by the above <br /> referenced PAWP. The next groundwater sampling event is tentatively scheduled for March 2003. <br /> LIMITATIONS AND SIGNATURE <br /> Condor has endeavored to determine as much as practical about the site within our scope of services using <br /> accepted principles and professional practice at the time the work was performed. Condor's involvement <br /> j in the work performed for this report has been limited to collecting and recording system measurements <br /> and parameters; collecting and shipping samples; compiling field data and data provided by analytical <br /> laboratories; and interpreting field and laboratory data. Condor makes no representation as to the <br /> subsurface conditions at locations or times other than those sampled by our employees and reported in <br /> this document. Condor is not responsible for the accuracy and completeness of information collected and <br /> developed by others. <br /> 4 - <br /> I �al� CONDOR <br />