Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> s <br /> { April 24, 1989 <br /> 1 File No.1705-2 <br /> III. SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS <br /> Table 1 presents a summary of the test results for the recent set of soil and water sam- <br /> ples obtained from the site. The complete laboratory data package including QA/QC <br /> testing is contained in Appendix C. These results combined with previous analyses <br /> indicate that soils in the upper 40+ feet in borings from the site are essentially free of <br /> fuel contamination. <br /> IV.FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS <br /> From the data derived to date at the site, there are some significant findings and conclu- <br /> sions reached regarding the source and extent of the contamination on-site: <br /> o Soils at the former main fuel tank area did not exhibit contamination by <br /> hydrocarbons to a depth of approximately 40 feet. <br /> o It is unlikely that the main fuel tanks are responsible for the fuel contamina- <br /> tion in the groundwater since no indications of contaminants exist in the upper <br /> 40+ feet of soils. (nninor amount- 196 ppm of TPH-found in previous investiga- <br /> tions at 2 feet in TB-1) <br /> o Other potential. sources of fuel and solvent contamination were identified in <br /> the site vicinity but were not fully investigated. <br /> V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS/REMEDIATION <br /> The presence of the fuel constituents in groundwater,is weII above acceptable drinking <br /> water limits for benzene and possibly other organic compounds. These conditions can <br /> J be evaluated by drilling, sampling and monitoring additional monitoring wells over the <br /> long-term. The currently defined groundwater contamination situation as well as <br /> ' information regarding the nearby production wells, and other hydrogeologic data may <br /> require some investigation, based on the needs expressed by the San Joaquin County <br /> Health Dept. Additional wells in the site vicinity are expected to be needed if the extent <br /> I- of the fuel in groundwater is to be evaluated further. <br /> .3 <br />