ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0012660 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,.. lu ea„,u.era.a. wr.e The Arco AA/PM Facility is located south of the project site on the adjacent lot. � In this study, four soil borings were drilled, one of which was completed as a monitoring well. Laboratory analysls of soil samples collected from the four soil borings and a groundwater sample collected from the monitoring well indicated no presence of petroleum hydrocarbon constituents. It was therefore concluded by BCA that the AMIPH site was free of petrote hydrocarbon - contamination, i In April of Iger,BCA prepared a report entitled, nWay,Stockton, Evaluation SLady -' for his Brothers tion ECA dMarketrilled Street and Wilson Way,Stockton,borings nSe.e j In this investigation BCA drilled 3 test borings. Two of the 6orings ware Il sampled at depth,ranging from 2 to 20 feet. Although on-site organic vapor _ detector no presence the presence f organic material, laboratory analysis �f Indicated no presence of total petroleum o feet; the (TPA)co except for a Sample •- obtained w from Boring 1 from a depth of two rest; the sTPAhallow concentration For this sample was, ppm. BCA concluded that there was shelled contamination present e.11a bhe e excavatedeandcaerateditooreduce the recommended knhat level8 contaminated so m it was cater determined that BCA had conducted Its April IBM investigation without contacting or obtaining appropriate permits from the PubHe ic alth Services, Department in San Joaquin County Consequently, the initial site assessment had to be repeated, r On April 24,-1984, BCA presented the findings of their second investigation of - the Roek Brothers Property In report Litled, Report of Tockton, CalestlfBoring a.”and Me, Wall Installations, 102 South Wilson Way,Starni In this itarin9twells, plus an installed additionalthree of It bOrIng. Laboratory o,which oconver analysesewere J conducted on soil samples and groundwater samples collected from these new soil borings and monitoring wells- La7oratory analysis indicated very trace to non- - detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons 1n the soil samples L: collected. Groundwater sa ples(8allected from mons taring ells )MN) t and 3 showed trace or non-detectable levels of benzene,toluene,xs9 one 5 ethyl6enzene i., iBTXSE) and total petroleum by STPH)1 however, groundwater samples - taken from MW 2 Indicated the presence of both BTX&E and TPH. It was BLA's conclusion that ft was unlikely that the main fuel tanks previously removed from the site were responsible for the groundwater contamination found In MW 2 ever, no indications of contaminants existed in the upper 40 feet of sells. However, {� Coring logs Indicated hydrocarbon odor at various shallow depths 1n,ash of the monitoring well Curings. It also should 6e noted that In SEA's previous investigation conducted in April of 1982, suit contamination was detected at a depth of two feet In Boring I adjacent to the location of MW 2. I] The Inconsistencies In these previous reports prompted Neumiller and 9eardslee :. to contract with LH to conduct an additional site Investigatlon to verify the presence or absence of soil and/or groundwater cOutaminatimn. The locations of BCA's previous sail borings and monitoring wells are shown on Figure 2. It should also be noted that RCA's numbering of the monitoring wells was inconsistent throughout their Investigation. LH has attempted to interpret J -h-