ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0008954 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

purged and sampled the well as detailed on EXHIBIT S. The samples were again delivered to FGL Environmental with instructions to test for BTEX & TPH--G. The results of those analyzes, summarized on TABLE VIZ, show that the sample was below detection liLmits for tested constituents_ Copies of the laboratory reports & chain of custody are included as EXHIBIT P. SRY OF RESULTS OF THE WORK DONE ON THE SITE: 1 . The UST has been removed and properly disposed of. 2. All contaminated soil has been removed from the site of the removed tank, and filled with clean pea gravel. 3. The removed spoil has been transported to an approved disposal facility, and the site restored to it' s original condition. 4. Laboratory analysis of soil samples taken from the excavation & the monitoring well were below detection limits for all tested substances. 5. Groundwater samples taken after completion of the well were below detection limits when first tested on 11/21/1994 & again on 1/23/1995. CONCLUSIONS: 1 . Based upon the results of all of the work done at this location as detailed in this report, all contaminated soil has been removed from the site. 2. Groundwater has not been impacted by leakage from the removed UST. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The results of laboratory analyzes show that the contained spoil & purge water presently being stored on site are not contaminated and can be disposed of without further treatment. 2. The monitoring well should be destroyed by a licensed contractor as directed by, and under the supervision of, a representative of the San Joaquin County EHD_ 3. After completion of the destruction of the well, it is requested that site closure be approved, and proper documentation be provided to Riverside Cement Co. & other responsible government agencies. 7