HomeMy WebLinkAboutMITIGATION COUNTY OF KERN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES I~:~?'?BILLING:DATE ,
STREET.
SUITE
3OO
J ~ 2 - 2 ? - g 0
BAKERSFIELD, CAUFORNIA 93301
Invoice #MF-t37-90
I ' AMOUNT ENCLOSED
CHARGES PAST DUE ARE SUBJECT TO PENALTY
EVERETT & .RUTH HOOVF.~
6105 DESERT !tiLLS J 'DUEDATE
SAKERSFI 'Z. LD, CA 93305
I
DETACH HERE
~ 1 PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION TO INSURE CORRECT PAYMENT IDENTIFICATION r--- DETACH HE
t
PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO THE COUNTY OF KERN
SE.~,D PAYMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS TO AVOID 50% PENALTY
12-27-9~ Oversite for Dry ~,~ell Connaminaticn Cleanup
10 hours at $50 00 per hour $500 ~O
Locatzon. Hoover Properties
3302 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, CA
APN: 332-110-09-00--9- C
!NVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ~N cou~ O.D~ coo~ &~,~ ~s. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
]700 *M" STRE~. ~ffE 3~ ~~t~)~N~'~'~.~,~o, TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ~5,~o oo
~AKER~IELD, ~ 93301 ~ ~ ~ ~'' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~,l
RUTH & EVERETT HOOVER
6105 DESERT HILLS
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305
RE: HOOVER PROPERTIES
3302 GULF STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
APN: 332-110-09-00-9 C
03/07/90 LETTER TO R.P. REGARDING DRY WELL PIT.
06/04/90 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JUDGE HOOVER
REGARDING WORKPLAN FOR CLEANUP.
06/05/90 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH NEIL KITCHEN
REGARDING WORKPLAN PROPOSAL - ROBERT CREWSON,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTOR HAS NOT SUBMITTED.
06/29/90 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH ROBERT CREWSON
REGARDING PROPOSED WORKPLAN FOR INVESTIGATION
AND CLEANUP.
07/06/90 REVIEWED SITE CHARACTERIZATION WORKPLAN
PROPOSAL.
07/17/90 LETTER TO R.P. - OKAY TO PROCEED WITH
INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE
CONTAMINATION.
08/07/90 ON SITE INSPECTION DURING BORING OPERATIONS.
09/28/90 REVIEW OF REPORTS - SITE CHARACTERIZATION.
10/01/90 LETTER TO R.P. OUTLINING CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.
12/03/90 INSPECTION OF EXCAVATION - PROCEED WITH
CEMENTING - RETURNED 4:40 pm TO INSPECT POUR -
BUSINESS CLOSED.
12/04/90 INSPECTED CEMENT POUR - HOLE FILLED & CAPPED -
AWAITING MANIFEST FOR MATTER EXCAVATED BEFORE
CLOSING FILE.
1'2/18/90 LETTER OF 12/17/90 MAGNOLIA ENV. AND COPY OF
M~
ROBERT A. CREWDSON, Ph.D.
Engineering Geosciences
....~-'"' P.O. Box 9577
Bakersfield, CA 93389
GARY J. WICKS 2700 M Street, Suite 300
Agency Director B,,kerlfiMd. CA 93301
(805) 851-3~02 .,~.~.~..~... Telephone (805) 861.3638
STEVE McCALLEY .~,~?,. c~?.:. Telecopier (805) 051-3429
m,,to, R ESOU RC E ~-.ENT AG ENCY
D EPART~~MENTAL
' '~-~.-:.;'~ 2~;~
March 7, 1990
Ruth Hoover
6105 Desert Hills
Bakersfield, CA 93309
SUBJECT: Hoover Properties
3302 Gulf St., Bakersfield, CA 93308
APN: 332-110-09-00-9C
Dear Mrs. Hoover:
During a soil contamination clean-up action at "Power Machinery Center" on
3818 Pierce Rd., Bakersfield, CA.excavation revealed evidence the contamination had
migrated from the adjacent property referenced above.
Our Department will require a further investigation to determine the extent
of soil contamination. As owner you may wish to contact Mr. Robert Power, Oxnard,
California, (805) 485-0577, who is the present tenant at 3818 Pierce Rd, or Luft
Environmental Consulting (805) 399-5838 for further particulars. In any event, our
Department will require a response from you within 30 days delineating actions to
resolve this matter. Enclosed for your information is handbook UT-35 describing
requirements for soil contamination.
If you have any questions you may contact me at (805) 861-3636.
Sincerely,
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Hazardous Materials Mana§ement Program
FD:cd
darling\hoover
MAGNOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
/rtl
December 17, 1990
Department of Environmental Health Services
2700 M Street, Suite 300
Bakersfield, California 93301
Attn: Flora Darling
Subject: Dry Well Closure
3302 Gulf Street, Bakersfield, CA
Dear Ms. Darling;
Pursuant to your request, please find enclosed a copy of the
manifest made in connection with the above described project.
The dry well is now closed in accordance with the Department's
corrective action notification dated October 1, 1990. Your
cooperation and guidance in this matter is greatly appreciated. All
parties concerned are pleased that the subject dry well is closed
and that the contaminated material is removed.and.safely disposed.
Happy holidays!
3302 GULF STREET
California~ealth and Welfare A~-.,ncy See Instructions on Back nf Page 6 Department of Health Services
=roved OMB No. 2050--0039 (E 's 9-31 .,m,.. and I t of :.m... Toxic Substances Control Division
,nnt or type. (Form designed fo. .e on c. ..,...,ch typewriter). Sacramento, Californi
UNIFORM HAZARDOUS 'lT. Generator's US EPA ID No. __ Manifest ~ 2. Page1 I Information in the shaded area8
/
Oocumant No.
I
WASTE MANIFEST I(~l~'l~.l ~1~"1¥l~ 1~7 I~1 ~171 3l?1z- o, / ia not required by Federal law.
3. Generator's Name and Mailing Address A. State Manifest. Document Number - '.',2;~"~. ' -
· ;: ~ ~?,~'*:,~'~ . r~ . '.~.~.~:~.~,.,,i.., ?~.'~ ' '."~
5. Transporter 1 Company Name 8. US EPA ID Number C. Stale 'rransporte¢'l ID
7. Transporter 2 Company Name 8, US EPA ID Number E; State Tranaporter's ID _,~ ~'. ;:;, ~-.. ',:',c
I I I I I I I I I I I i i~-T,...Port.e. Pho..
9, [~eeignated Facility Name and :.~jte Address 10. US EPA ID Number G State Fac ity'l ID :' ?~. '~;-:~.-...~.~., ,; ?i?~, ;;~- :~ C..'
3 t,,9. I $
H. Facility's Phone .,..~i ?,'~; ",;:~,d.~7',:z.~-;~:'~";-,'.:', ;--'~ .
'" .~u.-'-~-.~ ~ ' ~'~'~:'.:'~:O:~*'~:~;;f/~::?:?~?~?~:Y:~.-
· 12. Containers t3. Totaluitfn4- ' FW'~'!~J':~:':'I'-
Type Quantity Wt/V°ll <.,')~:: Wasfee~.//'.7°'{i',: '
Y
,. State ;.: ,:::':, .':¥, .' .
EPA/other
:. State..~..;:'~.:-..~::~. ,.
:. State .... ;k',,
. * EPA I Other *..:'~.:~, :: ~-.
,, Additional Daacriplions for Materials Listed Above ....., , : ,-.' .,:. F- -, t. ,. :::.,.- ,.. .. ~.., .. -:..; J K. Handling C.,~dea for Wa$1es Listed Above
.. ,,. . _-:"':-:" ': ::( -.,~,: '.' ~-"'t::';':'~?: :if~' %:%'i'? '~: ' "'~ ~.. ~" ":"?!? .... :. :'¥ '" '7 ':--.'?::1 c. · - .... ~t ':"I d ' .,' ~'~ ~." ':: 7.<s.?
5. Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information ~ ' --' --
·
~ENERATOR'S CERTIFI~A"rlON: I hereby declare that the conlents et this consignment ars fully and accurately described above by proper shipping name '
and are clsssitied, packed, marked, and labeled, and are in all respects in proper condition for transport by highway according to applicable international and
national government regulations.
If I am a large quantity generator, I certify that I have a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated to the degree I have determined
to be economically practicable and that I have selected the practicable method of treatment, storage, or disposal currently available to me which minimizes the
present and future threat to human health and the environment; OR, if I am a small quantity generator, I have made a good faith effort to minimize my waste
generation and select the best waste management method that is available to me and that I can afford.
r int aa)/Ty p e d/~a m e _..,/. [4~ldpd~~~ MonthDayYesr
7. Transporter I Acknowledgement of Receipt of Materials
· rint)¥ / Typed Name __. I Signature ~ ~&_~,.~.~.~... ~.... / MonthDayYear
.% Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of'Materials ~ - ' ~' ,' ,
-tinted/Typed Name ' ' I Signature Month Day Year
I
~. Discrepancy Indication Space
o, Facility Owner or Operator Certification of receipt of hazardous materials covered by this manifest except as noted in Item 19.
· 'inted/Typed Name -' ' J Signature" .. , Month . Day Year
(t/88) Do Not Write Below This Line
...... -~2 White: TSDF SENDS THIS COPY TO DOHS WITHIN 30 DAYS
~revious editions are obsolete.
To.. P.O. Box 3000. Sacramento. CA 95812
RANDALL L. ABBOTT 2700 M Street, Suite 300
Agency Director Bakersfield. CA 93301
(805) 861-3502 Telephone (805) 861-3636
Telecopier (805) 861-3429
STEVE Mc CALLEY
Oirecttw RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES
October 1, 1990
Everett Hoover
Hoover Properties
3309_ Gulf Street
Bakersfield, CA 93308
SUBJECT: Dry Well Investigation
3302 Gulf Street, Bakersfield, CA
Dear Mr. Hoover:
Our Department has reviewed the soil analyses investigative reports
submitted by Sierra Scientific September 9_7, 1990, for the above-
referenced site.
The fo]lowing corrective actions are required. The dry well shall
be abandoned in the following manner wit'hin 60 days of receipt of
this letter.
1. Remove contents in the dry well.
a. Pump liquids to containment barrels.
b. Excavate sludge and contain in barrels.
2.Disconnect any piping that may be present.
3. Dispose of the dry well contents at a permitted hazardous
waste treatment/storage/disposal facility, and furnish
copies of the manifest to this Department.
4. Fill the dry well with cement and bring to grade. Slope
the surface to prevent pooling of water.
5. Notify this office when the above items have been
completed.
If you have any questions, contact me at (805) 861-3636, ext. 569.
~~~Since'r~~~, Flora Darling, R.E.H.S.
Hazardous Materials Speciai'ist
Hazardous Materials Management Program
FD: 3g
SIRRA SCIENTIFIC SERVICES
?.~.5 IIa~i A~,~o ~r. Bakersfield, Ca. 933~ (805)
10 August, 1990
Ms. Flora Darling
Kern Co. Dept. Environmental Health Services
2700 #M" Street, Suite 300
Bakersfield, Ca. 93301
re: Hoover Property;
Phase 1, Sampling.
Dear Flora,
Thank you very much for your responsiveness to our schedule change
earlier this week. Your willingness to come to the field on short
notice allowed us to get our sampling done ahead of some otherwise
unavoidable delaFs.
I will be out of town during the week of 13 August, 1990 but I hope
that the laboratory analyses will be completed about the time I
return. I will report the results on behalf of the client as soon
as is practicable.
Thanks again for your recent helpfulness.
Sincerely yours,
Robert A'.~ Crewdson, Ph.D.
SITE CHARACTERIZATION WORK PLAN
3302 GULF ST, BAKERSFIELD
I. SITE DESC. IPTION
A. Site Location
The site is located at 3302 Gulf St, one block east of Pierce
Rd. in Bakersfield, Ca. The property runs approximately 375 ft
long (east-west along Gulf St) and is approximately 200 ft
deep (north- south) covering approximately 75,000 sq it, or
1.72 acres.
B. Site Description
The property contains 5 buildings including one office
building and four high- ceiling garages/storage buildings, for
a total of approximately 8500 sq ft of floor space. The
majority of the fence- enclosed property consists of
currently- unused, dirt- surface, contiguous open space. There
are no- nor has there ever- been any underground tanks on the
property.
C. Site Background
The property is currently leased and occupied by Magnolia
Environmental Corp. They occupy the office building and some
of the garages where they store, repair and manufacture mobile
soil- remediation equipment. They do not use or store
hazardous materials on site.
The property is owned by Hoover Properties, a holding company
owned by Mr. Everett Hoover and Mrs. Ruth Hoover. Based on an
interview with Everett Hoover, the chronology of the property
use is as follows:
1. The site was purchased around 1954, as an addition to the
adjacent property which is currently used by Power Machinery
Co. (3818 Pierce Rd.), and which was purchased by the Hoovers
around 1944. The prior use of the property was described as
undeveloped and unused except for a squatter's residence.
2. The property in the 1940's and 1950's was used by the
Hoover Drilling Co. for the operation of the drilling company
and for the storage and maintenance of rigs.
3. The dry well and cement pad was installed in the late
1960's for use as a disposal point for wash water and waste
fluids.
4. Everett Hoover opened a fiberglass business in 1967 and
operated it as Hoover Plastic Structure Co. in one of the
existing garages until 1980.
5. The drilling company ceased operations in 1979 and
shortly thereafter the property was leased out to Calico
Trucking Co. Calico occupied the property until 1987 and left
the property with significant oil and grease residues in the
garages, ground surface, and dry well area in the northwest
corner of the property. These residues were subsequently
cleaned up by Hoover Properties using a state-certified, non-
toxic, biodegradable product that broke up the grease for easy
removal. The grease residues and cleaning product are known to
have entered the dry well during the cleaning process.
6. For a short period of time, the Montgomery Drilling Co.
also occupied the property for the purpose of drilling rig
refabrication, although the time period was not established.
7. The current occupants, Magnolia Environmental, came to
the property in 1989.
D. Site Geology and Hydrogeology
DRAFT
The site is underlain by up to 2000 ft of non- marine,
unconsolidated, interbedded clay, silt, sand and conglomerate
of the Pliocene- Pleistocene Kern River Formation. (Dale, et
al, 1966). These sediments were deposited in alluvial fans by
streams and rivers flowing westward from the Sierra Nevada
foothills.
The California Water Service Co. (CWSC) maintains well No.
151-01 near the east end of Orin Way, the next street south of
Gulf St. along Pierce Rd. The well is 1250 ft south- southeast
of the dry well site and both geologic and electric logs are
available for the well (Figure 2.). At that location, the top
24 ft of silty sand and sandy clay are underlain by at least
170 ft of sand and gravel. Allowing for lateral facies
changes, the geology under the current site is considered to
be equivalent.
The E- logs indicate that at the time of logging (July, 1970)
the groundwater was at a depth of about 120 ft below surface.
The most recent (May, 1990) static water level test from the
well gave a standing water depth of 147 ft below surface.
Another CWSC well, 191-01, located east of 151-01 and between
Sillect Dr. and the Kern River bed, had a standing water level
in May, 1990 of 89 ft below surface.
These depths are somewhat greater than that indicated by the
water- depth contours on the Kern County Water Agency 1989
Report on Water Conditions Map of Depth to Water in Wells, for
Improvement District No. 4. The existence of nearby water
spreading areas and the proximity of the site to the Kern
river bed limit the accuracy of such contours between widely-
spaced control points in an area of rapid lateral changes in
depth to groundwater. We believe at this point that the
occurrence of groundwater under this site is unlikely at
depths shallower than 70 ft, given the referenced well control
and the continued local drought conditions.
The local groundwater quality is excellent based on the Kern
County Water Agency Water Supply Report 1988, and it should be
since it is probably percolated into the shallow strata
directly from the waters of the Kern River. A recent analysis
of groundwater (January, 1989) from CWSC well 151-01 confirms
this with low Total Dissolved Solids (203 mg/1) and a hardness
of 93 mg/1 (as CaCO3), referred to as "soft to moderately-
hard", according to EPA criteria (EPA, Quality Criteria for
Water, 1976). In addition, analyses for 13 Heavy Metals showed
analytical concentrations to be less than one tenth the MCL
for every metal.
II. SOIL SAMPLING PLAN DRAFT
A. Introduction
This recommended work program includes several tasks as
outlined and described below.
A. Sample and analyse soil below bottom of dry well.
B. Review results of analyses.
C. Drill and sample boreholes.
D. Analyse borehole samples based on initial analyses.
E. Interpret results and write descriptive report.
F. Submit report to client.
G. Submit report to KCEHD.
As you are aware, this work was prompted, in part, by the
results of an assessment on an adjacent property during a tank
removal. The assessment concluded that the subsurface
contaminants appeared to continue under- and have migrated
from a source on- this property.
Assuming that the dry well is the source location for possible
underlying/surrounding contamination, the work program is
intended to answer the following questions:
1. What contaminants are present?
2. What are the lateral and depth extents of contamination?
3. How much contamination is present?
4. What remedial responses, if any, are recommended?
The work program is designed to answer all of these questions
with an acceptable minimum amount of sample collection and
analysis.
The first step is to analyse the residues below the dry well
for a range of contaminants to determine which of them do- and
do not- need to be tested for in the subsurface. This step
provides for a diligent attempt to identify all known or
suspected contaminants by testing the site of most probable
occurrence and most probable greatest concentration. This step
also reduces potential expenditures by eliminating analyses
from the rest of the program which would otherwise have been
performed on the subsurface samples. The recommended analyses
include tests for aromatic hydrocarbons by EPA methods for
BTEX-TPH, tests for non- volatile hydrocarbons collectively
described as oil/grease, and tests for the Heavy Metals by the
appropriate ICP and AA methods.
The second step is to map the lateral and depth extents of the
contaminants which are known to be present from the first
step. The most common and accepted method to map contaminants
is to collect soil samples at selected depths in several
boreholes located around the dry well site. The lateral
boundary between contaminated and uncontaminated soil is
delimited by mapping the contaminant c or&T~&~r~'- over s
grid or along lines of such boreholes.
The depth extent of contamination is determined by drilling
each borehole until uncontaminated soils are encountered
underlying the contaminated soils, that is, drilling to
encounter the base of contamination.
The third step is to determine the amount of contamination in
samples collected from boreholes which are drilled within the
zone of contamination. Each analysis provides an estimate of
the concentration of a contaminant at the sample location. If
the zone of contamination has been adequately sampled, then
the distribution and total amount of contamination can be
evaluated.
The next step is the most important step and involves the
interpretation and effective reporting of the results. The
primary purpose of the assessment is to determine the threat
to human safety and to the environment, if any, from the
nature and extent of the contamination. The state of
California has defined "threshold" contaminant levels for many
types of contamination, and any location at which these levels
are exceeded must be considered for remedial action. These
threshold levels are quite stringent and the concentrations of
even small contaminant releases are likely to exceed the
limits. However, local agencies have some flexibility in
reviewing the specific circumstances of a site assessment on
an individual basis to determine if, and to what extent a
remediation is required. It is the primary responsibility of
the consultant to provide an accurate discussion of the
assessment including both the primary data and any specific
conditions or special knowledge that may contribute to a
better understanding of the site assessment.
The final report is submitted to the client in a form that is
normally acceptable for subsequent submission to the KCEHD.
This format includes background information and procedural
formats and protocols that the agency requires. The Kern
County protocol requires a feasibility study of remedial
alternatives~ followed by a remedial action plan.
B. Work Program
1. Dry well sampling and analysis
The soil at a depth of 2-5 ft below the bottom of the dry well
will be sampled according to the protocol in Appendix 1. The
sample will be analysed for the following constituents:
a. Oil & Grease
b. BTEX-TPH
c. Heavy Metals DRAFT
2. Soil boring and sampling
Four soil borings (BH1- BH4) will be drilled and sampled. The
first boring (BH1) will be as close as possible to the dry
well. The subsequent three boreholes (BH2-BH4) will be drilled
at 7ft, 14ft, and 21 ft offsets from the first location, as
practicable, to define the radial- lateral distribution of
contaminants.
We recommend that the four boreholes be drilled along a single
east- west line through the location of the dry well (Figure
4). The reported contamination on the adjacent Power Machinery
Co. property is approximately 25-40 ft to the west of the dry
well. The fourth borehole (BH4) at the 21 ft offset will be
closest to the property line and thus closest to the reported
contamination on the adjacent property. This borehole, the
boreholes at the smaller offsets and at the dry well site will
provide samples along a vertical plane through any existing
soil- contaminant plume near the dry well and extending toward
the property to the west. By conditions of symmetry, we expect
that the lateral plume dispersion in other directions to be
roughly equivalent.
The first borehole (BH1), located nearest the dry well, will
have 3 samples collected at depths of 20, 40, and 60 ft. The
greatest depth of contamination is likely to be at this
location, and these 3 sample depths plus the initial sample at
about 10 ft depth, will provide a good depth profile at this
location.
The offset boreholes BH2 and BH4 will have 3 samples collected
in each borehole at depths of 15, 30, and 50 ft. The offset
borehole BH3 will have samples collected at depths of 10, 20,
and 40 ft. These sample depths are staggered between adjacent
holes to provide a better sample grid at depth along the
vertical plane of sampling (see Figure 4).
The borehole samples will be field- tested and preserved
according the protocol in Appendix 2. This includes initial
screening by OVA or HNu, and other standard observations of
color, odor, staining, petrophysical properties, etc. The
samples will be preserved to eliminate loss of material and
volatile constituents by sealing and storing on dry ice, or
equivalent. Holding times will be observed and all samples
will be delivered to a state- certified lab for the analyses
indicated.
DRAFT
RE~ .~:E MANAGEMENT
RANDALL L. ABBOTT ~
Director STYE McC~, R~S, DIRE~OR
WOJ.~ J. ~. A~'O
T~ J~ES, AICP. DIHE('I'OH
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
July 17, 1990
Everett Hoover
c/o Magnolia Corporation
3302 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, CA g3308
Subject: Location: 3302 Gulf Street, Bakersfield, CA
Known As: Hoover Properties
APN: '332-110-og-oo-gc
Dear Mr. Hoover:
Our Department has reviewed the site characterization workplan submitted by
Sierra Scientific Services for the above referenced site.
At this time Phase One of the work plan should be initiated with the following
modifications:
1. Dry well soil sampling should begin at the bottom of the well
as it now exists and at intervals of one feet, five feet, ten
feet, and fifteen feet depth.
2. Soil samples are to be analyzed by a state certified laboratory
for the following:
a. Oil and Grease
b. BTXE, TPH
c. Chlorinated Hydro Carbons
d. Heavy Metals
Since the depths of soil sampling analyses are shallow, it may be accomplished
by hand augering.
Upon receipt and interpretation of the laboratory reports, furt'her work may
be required to adequately assess the extent of contamination.
2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 300 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 861-3636
RECYCLED PAPER FAX:(805) 861-3429
Everett Hoover
July 17, 1990
Page 2
Please instruct your environmental contractor to notify this office 48 hours
prior to comencing work.
If you have any questions contact me at (805) 861-3636 extension 549.
Sincerely,
cc: Sierra Scientific Services
\hoover.ltr
2446 Hasti Acres Dr. Bakersfield, Ca. 93309 (805) 831-5121
6 July, 1990
Ms. Flora Darling
Kern County Resource Management Agency
Department of Environmenta! Health Services
2700 M Street, 3rd Floor
Bakersfield, Ca 93301
re: Site Characterization Work Plan
3302 Gulf St., Bakersfield, Ca.
Dear Flora,
On behalf of Hoover Properties, Inc., the owners of the captioned
property, Sierra Scientific is submitting the enclosed Site
Characterization Work Plan for your review and approval.
Subject to the availability of our contractor's drilling rigs, we
are prepared to begin work upon approval.
If you have any questions regarding the Work Plan, please contact
me at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
Robert,/A. Crewdson, Ph.D.
cc: Everett Hoover
SCIENTIFIC
SIERRA SERVICES
~45 H~tl Ac~s D,.. Bakersfield, Ca. 93309-06 (805)O31-51g~ ~-$~?$
29 3une, 1990
~s. Flora Darling
Cern County resource Management Agency
]epartment of Environmental Health Services
!700 M Street, 3rd Floor
~akersfield Ca 93301
re: Site Characterization Work Plan
3309 Gulf St. Bakersfield, Ca.
)ear Flora,
~n behalf of the owners of the captioned property, Sierra
:cientific is preparing a Site Characterization Work Plan for
.ubmission to your agency. According to Mr. Nell Kitchen who called
.e this morning you expressed your concern to him today over the ,
ack to date of a submitted Work Plan.
was retained by the client 10 days ago on June 19, 1990. Since
hen, I have been collecting background information on the
roperty, and specifically, have been waiting for the eminent
elease of the most recent Kern County Water Agency Water Supply
~port. I have recently tried to reach you by telephone to give you
rogress reports, and have been unable to reach you. But since you
ad not responded to my messages, I was unaware of your level of
)ncern.
am enclosing a DRAFT version of work in progress for your review.
%e research on the site and the elements of the work program are
~cluded but the supporting text and figures such as location maps
~d field protocols are still in preparation and are not included.
~e purpose of the Work Plan is to determine the nature and extent
: SOIL contamination associated with a dry well on the captioned
'operty. Recent work on an adjacent property uncovered
· drocarbon- contaminated soil to depths of about 2 ft that was
terpreted to have come from this property. The Work Plan will
clude initial sample analyses to determine the nature of existing
ntaminants, followed by drilling and sampling to determine the
rtical and lateral extent of contamination.
hope the enclosures and a delivery schedule of next week for the
apleted proposal will prove acceptable to you. If you have any
estionS~venience.COncerning the Work Plan, please contact me at your
lcerely yours,
, Ph. D.
Neil Kitchen
APR
RECEIV[P
March 30, 1990
Flora Darl
Resource Management Agency
Dept. Of Environment Health Services
APN: 332-110-09-00-9C
Dear Ms. Darling:
As we have discussed on the phone, I am trying to handle this
matter for my family, the owners of the property at 3302 Gulf
Street.
I have examined what I believe to be your concern. This
location on the property is an old 'dry well' which was probably
first created in the early sixties. The owners of the property,
Hoover Drilling Company, were engaged in oilfield drilling
operations and the dry well was employed within the context of
equipment maintainence. Hoover Drilling Co. ceased to operate in
about 1980. The current renters of the property, Magnolia
Enterprises do not use the well nor is it ever intended to be used
again.
We have engaged Sierra Scientific Services and Mr Nell Kitchen
of Magnolia Environmental Services to assist us in complying with
your directions. We plan to evacuate the well with suction
equipment and fill it so as to discontinue any further activity
there. Naturally, we need to conduct these activities with some
guidance from your department. /~~~-
Therefore, please contact ~? K~_c~p_~__~.~Zg~.~.9 ~6 advise him
of a good date for you to send representatives to assist us in
performing this clean up. We are ready to work entirely within your
schedule and hope that complete cooperation between all concerned
will make this project fast and simple. Since this represents my
first dealings with your agency, please advise me if there is
something else I should be doing. You may cont~ me at 861-2411.
Sincerely, ~~_
FrankR-o6ver
cc. Neil Kitchen
GARY J, WICKS 2700 M Street, Suite 300
Agency Director Bak®rsfleld. CA 93.101
(6OS) 861-3S02 . .,..~..~/.~..;;~.... Telephone (80S) 861.3638
STEVE McCALLEY ~,,~.:.:~ Telecopler (805) 051-3429
DEPART ~~ MENTAL
March 7, 1990
Ruth Hoover
6105 Desert Hills
Bakersfield, CA 93309
SUBJECT: Hoover Properties
3302 Gulf St., Bakersfield, CA 93308
APN: 332-110-09-00-9C
Dear Mrs. Hoover:
During a soil contamination clean-up action at "Power Machinery Center" on
3818 Pierce Rd., Bakersfield, CA.excavation revealed evidence the contamination had
migrated from the adjacent property referenced above.
Our Department will require a further investigation to determine the extent
of soil contamination. As owner you may wish to contact Mr. Robert Power, Oxnard,
California, (805) 485-0577, who is the present tenant at 3818 Pierce Rd, or Luft
Environmental Consulting (805) 39g-5838 for further particulars. In any event, our
Department will require a response from you within 30 days delineating actions to
resolve this matter. Enclosed for your information is handbook UT-35 describing
requirements for soil contamination.
If you have any questions you may contact me at (805) 861-3636.
Sincerely, /~ ~ '
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Hazardous Materials Management Program
FD:cd
darling\hoover
SITE CHARACTERIZATION WORK PLAN PROPOSAL
3302 GULF ST, BAKERSFIELD, CA.
6 JULY, 1990
Submitted on behalf of
Hoover Properties, Inc.
Submitted by
Sierra Scientific Services
2609 Highland Ct.
Bakersfield, Ca 93306
805-871-3793
Prepared by
Robert A. Crewdson, Ph.D.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY OUTLINE 1
I. SITE DESCRIPTION 2
A. Site Location 2
B. Site Description 2
C. Site Background 2
D. Geology and Hydrogeology 3
II. PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT 4
A. Work to Date 4
B. Present Status 4
III. SOIL SAMPLING PLAN 6
A. Introduction and Rationale 6
B. Proposed Work Program 7
1. Dry Well Sampling and Analysis 7
2. Soil Boring and Sampling 7
3. Site Characterization Report 8
4. Subcontractors 9
5. Work Schedule 9
REFERENCES 10
FIGURES
1. Location Map.
2. Site Map.
3. Borehole and Sample- Location Map & Cross Section.
APPENDICES
1. California Water Service Co. Water Well 151-01 Completion-,
Lithologic-, and Electric- Logs.
2. Soil Sampling Protocol.
3. Soil Boring Protocol.
4. In-Field Health and Safety Protocols for Soil Boring and
Sampling Operations.
5. Resume, Robert A. Crewdson, Ph.D.
ii
SUHHARY OUTLINE
PROPOSED WORK PLAN
3302 GULF ST, BAKERSFIELD.
PURPOSE
To determine the nature and extent of suspected soil
contamination due to the flow of oil- bearing wash water over
the ground surface and into a dry well.
PROPOSAL
a. Analyse a soil sample to determine contaminant types.
b. Drill and sample 4 soil borings to determine the extent
of contamination along both flow paths.
TYPE OF SITE
1.7 acre commercial property containing a dry well embedded in
a 20 by 32 ft cement slab. Slab and dry well were used as a
site to wash and service vehicles and equipment.
OPERATIONS
The property was placed in service in the 1950's for the
storage and maintenance of drilling rigs. The dry well was
installed in the late 1960's. Heavy usage occurred in 1980's
by a trucking company. Thick accumulations of surficial
oil/grease were washed up in 1989.
CURRENT STATUS
The site is no longer used for vehicle maintenance. Cement
slab and dry well are no longer used for washing or fluid
disposal purposes.
GEOLOGY
Unconsolidated sand, silt, and gravel deposits.
GROUNDWATER
The site is in proximity to Kern River bed (currently dry) and
to nearby infiltration ponds where recharge takes place.
Nearby municipal water wells have standing water levels
between 80 and 120 ft depth. Recent wellwater analyses
indicate that groundwater is high quality potable water. Depth
to water is highly variable and unknown under this site.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The site characterization is estimated to take 4 weeks from
the beginning of the field work to report completion.
PROPOSED SITE CHARACTERIZATION WORK PLAN
3302 GULF ST, BAKERSFIELD
I. SITE DESCRIPTION
A. Site Location
The site is located at 3302 Gulf St, one block east of Pierce Rd.
in Bakersfield, Ca. (Figure 1.). The property runs approximately
375 ft long (east-west along Gulf St) and is approximately 200 ft
deep (north- south) covering approx- imately 75,000 sq ft, or 1.72
acres.
B. Site Description
The property contains 5 buildings including one office building and
four high- ceiling garages/storage buildings, for a total of
approximately 8500 sq ft of floor space. The majority of the fence-
enclosed property consists of currently- unused, dirt- surface,
contiguous open space. There are no- nor has there ever- been any
underground tanks on the property. (Figure 2.).
C. Site Background
The property is currently leased and occupied by Magnolia
Environmental Corp. They occupy the office building and some of the
garages where they store, repair and manufacture mobile soil-
remediation equipment. They do not use or store hazardous materials
on site.
The property is owned by Hoover Properties, a holding company owned
by Mr. Everett Hoover and Mrs. Ruth Hoover. Based on an interview
with Everett Hoover, the chronology of the property use is as
follows:
1. The site was purchased around 1954, as an addition to the
adjacent property which is currently used by Power Machinery
Co. (3818 Pierce Rd.), and which was purchased by the Hoovers
around 1944. The prior use of the property was described as
undeveloped and unused except for a squatter's residence.
2. The property in the 1940's and 1950's was used by the
Hoover Drilling Co. for the operation of the drilling company
and for the storage and maintenance of rigs.
3. The dry well and cement pad was installed in the late
1960's for use as a'disposal point for wash water and waste
fluids.
4. Everett Hoover opened a fiberglass business in 1967 and
operated it as Hoover Plastic Structure Co. in one of the
existing garages until 1980.
2
5. The drilling company ceased operations in 1979 and
shortly thereafter the property was leased out to Calico
Trucking Co. Calico occupied the property until 1987 and left
the property with significant oil and grease residues in the
garages, ground surface, and dry well area in the northwest
corner of the property. These residues were subsequently
cleaned up by Hoover Properties using a state-certified, non-
toxic, biodegradable product that broke up the grease for easy
removal. The grease residues and cleaning product are known to
have entered the dry well during the cleaning process.
6. For a short period of time, the Montgomery Drilling Co.
also occupied the property for the purpose of drilling rig
refabrication, although the time period was not established.
7. The current occupants, Magnolia Environmental, came to
the property in 1989.
D. Site Geology and Hydrogeology
The site is underlain by up to 2000 ft of non- marine,
unconsolidated, interbedded clay, silt, sand and conglomerate of
the Pliocene- Pleistocene Kern River Formation. (Dale, et al,
1966). These sediments were deposited in alluvial fans by streams
and rivers flowing westward from the Sierra Nevada foothills.
The California Water Service Co. (CWSC) maintains well No. 151-01
near the east end of Orin Way (Figure 1.), the next street south of
Gulf St. along Pierce Rd. The well is 1250 ft south- southeast of
the dry well site and both geologic and electric logs are available
for the well (Appendix 1.). At that location, the top 24 ft of
silty sand and sandy clay are underlain by at least 170 ft of sand
and gravel. Allowing for lateral facies changes, the geology under
the current site is considered to be equivalent.
The E- logs indicate that at the time of logging (July, 1970) the
groundwater was at a depth of about 120 ft below surface. The most
recent (May, 1990) static water level test from the well gave a
standing water depth of 147 ft below surface. Another CWSC well,
191-01, located east of 151-01 and between Sillect Dr. and the Kern
River bed, had a standing water level in May, 1990 of 89 ft below
surface.
These depths are somewhat greater than that indicated by the water-
depth contours on the Kern County Water Agency 1989 Report on Water
Conditions Map of Depth to Water in Wells, for Improvement District
No. 4. The existence of nearby water spreading areas and the
proximity of the site to the Kern river bed limit the accuracy of
such contours between widely- spaced control points in an area of
rapid lateral changes in depth to groundwater. We believe at this
point that the occurrence of groundwater under this site is
unlikely at depths shallower than 70 ft, given the referenced well
control and the continued local drought conditions.
The local groundwater quality is excellent based on the Kern County
Water Agency Water Supply Report 1988, and it should be since it is
probably percolated into the shallow strata directly from the
waters of the Kern River. A recent analysis of groundwater
(January, 1989) from CWSC well 151-01 confirms this with low Total
Dissolved Solids (203 mg/1) and a hardness of 93 mg/1 (as CaCO3),
referred to as "soft to moderately- hard", according to EPA
criteria (EPA, Quality Criteria for Water, 1976). In addition,
analyses for 13 Heavy Metals showed analytical concentrations to be
less than one tenth the MCL for every metal.
II. PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT
A. Work to Date
In April, 1989 the Power Machinery Center voluntarily removed an
underground storage tank from the property west of- and adjacent
to- this site. The soil samples collected during tank excavation
and removal were contaminated with oil and lead, and a subsequent
site assessment by Luft Environmental Consulting resulted in an
excavation and disposal of about 54 cubic yards of soil.
Our summary of Luft's findings and conclusions regarding the tank
site are as follows:
1. Samples from a depth of 10 ft from two boreholes straddling
the tank site were contaminated with 2900 and 4300 ppm oil/grease,
but samples from 15 ft were uncontaminated (Luft, 1989);
2. During remedial excavation near the property line, surface
soils to a depth of about 2 ft were observed to be contaminated
with hydrocarbons that appeared to have migrated along the ground
surface from the adjacent property (this site). "Obvious
hydrocarbon discoloration was observed in the tank removal backfill
area", and subsequent analysis confirmed the presence of 64,000 ppm
oil/grease contamination. (Luft, 1990).
3. Luft observed that the two occurrences of contamination (1.
the former tank location and 2. the onsite migration contamination)
"...did not appear to have been. continuous..." (Luft, 1990). A soil
sample from an intermediate zone, about 3- 4 ft deep yielded a
laboratory analysis of only 75 ppm oil/grease, seeming to
substantiate this conclusion.
B. Present Status
Since the completion of the remedial work on the adjacent (Power
Machinery Center) property, the tank site excavation has been
filled and returned to horizontal grade, and a 6 ft- high cement
block wall has been constructed along the property line between
4
that site and this one. In addition, the owners of the Gulf St.
property have cleaned up the surficial oil and grease residues that
were observed by Luft during the tank site remedial excavation.
Prior to this cleanup, the surficial oil and grease residues
reportedly covered the cement floor in the western half of the
north garage and the exterior cement- covered ground surface
between the north and west garages, where the dry well is located.
That occurrence of surficial oil and grease is no longer present,
but it is the recognized type of occurrence which in the past may
have been a source of environmental contamination. To the extent
that these spills were limited to the cement- covered areas, they
posed no threat to the underlying soil and groundwater. Neither oil
and grease nor fuels or water are expected to have penetrated
through the cement, which is not noticeably cracked. In order for
subsurface contamination to have occurred, any spills or wash water
would have had to have flowed off of the cement onto open ground-,
or have entered the dry well- to have reached porous soil.
Luft's observations, if we read them correctly, indicate that the
near- surface soil contamination was in the backfill soil (at least
in- part) and thus must post- date the tank removal of April, 1989.
This observation is consistent with Mr. Everett Hoover's statement
that the (substantial) residues were emulsified and washed away
sometime in the past year (1989). If the two are related, then it
appears that the shallow contamination described by Luft was the
result of a recent event of short duration and of limited volume.
The surface contamination seems to be limited to shallow depths (0-
2 ft below surface) and limited to the vicinity of the edge of the
cement slab. Luft's observation (noted above) appears to be
supported that the tank site contamination is unrelated to the
surface- soil contamination.
One purpose of this site characterization is to confirm Whether or
not the reported shallow soil contamination on the western edge of
the cement slab is of limited depth and extent, as suggested. We
don't think, with the present information, that the soil
contamination was the result of the migration of free product.
There is nothing to indicate that any major spill of free product
ever occurred, but as is more likely, the oil accumulated as a
dirty sludge during the routine (perhaps sloppy) operation of a
vehicle- oriented business. We suspect that the distribution of
soil contamination on the edge of the cement slab is limited to the
spread of wash water as the emulsified oil and grease was washed
off with a hose. The surface penetration of oil and grease would
probably have been even less than the existing 2 ft maximum depth,
were it not for the mobilizing and "wetting" effects of the
detergent that was used during cleanup.
A second purpose of this site characterization is to determine the
5
nature and extent of soil contamination due to the probable loss of
fluids from the dry well. The potential contamination associated
with this dry well is untested at this point and, in our opinion,
is the primary focus for the site characterization. Unlike the
shallow "oil stain" event on the edge of the cement slab, the dry
well may have been a conduit for a continuing, if intermittant,
flow of liquids and solids from wash water and other sources.
The drilling and sampling program is primarily designed to test for
an infiltration plume resulting from dry well fluid losses. Any
solid contaminants would essentially be restricted to some form of
liquid transport. Any liquids in the dry well would percolate
downward subject to the limitng effects of capillary retention,
relative permeability, chemical reactions, and flow barriers. The
borehole and sample- depth spacings are designed to test for a
plume with a reasonable lateral spread and depth of penetration.
III. SOIL SAMPLING PLAN
A. Introduction and Rationale
This recommended work program includes several tasks as outlined
and described below.
A Sample and analyse soil below bottom of dry well.
B Review results of analyses.
C Drill and sample boreholes.
D Analyse borehole samples based on initial analyses.
E Interpret results and write descriptive report.
F Submit report to client.
G Submit report to KCEHD.
Assuming that the dry well is the source location for possible
underlying/surrounding contamination, the work program is intended
to answer the following questions:
1. What contaminants are present?
2. What are the lateral and depth extents of contamination?
3. How much contamination is present?
4. What additional work or remedial responses, if any, are
recommended?
The work program is designed to answer all of these questions with
an acceptable minimum amount of sample collection and analysis.
The first step is to analyse the residues below the dry well to
determine whether or not any contaminants in addition to oil/grease
are present and need to be tested for in the subsurface. The
recommended analyses include tests for aromatic and chlorinated
hydrocarbons by EPA methods 8010/8020, tests for non- volatile
hydrocarbons collectively described as oil/grease, and tests for
the Heavy Metals by the appropriate ICP and AA methods.. In
addition, two or three samples may be analysed for physical
properties to help in interpretation.
The second step is to collect soil samples at selected depths in
several boreholes located around the dry well site to map the
lateral and depth extents of the contamination. The borehole
locations and sample depths are selected to provide sufficient
density to map spatial variations without collecting unnecessary
detail for plume definition. The number of boreholes and their
depths are selected to provide sufficiently large coverage to
either delineate a small to moderate -size plume or at least
delineate enough of a larger plume that the scope additional work
can be estimated.
The third step is to determine the amount of contamination in
samples collected from boreholes which are drilled within the zone
of contamination. In addition to field screening, laboratory
analysis provides selective and accurate contaminant concentrations
at the sample locations. If the zone of contamination has been
adequately sampled, then the distribution and total amount of
contamination can be evaluated.
The primary purpose of the assessment is to determine the threat to
human safety and to the environment, if any, from the nature and
extent of the contamination. The state of California has defined
"threshold" contaminant levels for many types of contamination, and
any location at which these levels are exceeded must be considered
for remedial action. The decision criteria for this site
characterization follows the guidelines of the Ca. LUFT Manual.
Sierra Scientific's responsibility is to provide an accurate
discussion of the assessment including both the primary data and
any specific conditions or special knowledge that may contribute to
a better understanding of the site assessment.
B. Proposed Work Program
~-~ 1. Dry well sampling and analysis
The soil at a depth of 2-5 ft below the bottom of the dry well will
be sampled according to the protocol in Appendix 2. The sample will
be analysed for the following constituents:
a. Oil & Grease
~ b. Aromatic and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
~ c. Heavy Metals
2 Soil'or-~-~-n~and sampling ~--- _~
Four soil borings (BH1- BH4) will be drilled and sampled according
to protocols in Appendices 2 and 3. The first boring (BH1) will be
as close as possible to the dry well. The subsequent three
boreholes (BH2-BH4) will be drilled at 7ft, 14ft, and 21 ft offsets
7
from the first location, as practicable, to define the radial-
lateral distribution of contaminants.
We recommend that the four boreholes be drilled along a single
east- west line through the location of the dry well (Figure 4).
The reported soil- excavation site on the adjacent Power Machinery
Co. property is approximately 25-40 ft to the west of the dry well.
The fourth borehole (BH4) at the 21 ft offset will be closest to
the property line and thus closest to the reported contamination on
the adjacent property. This borehole, the boreholes at the smaller
offsets and at the dry well site will provide samples along a
vertical plane through any existing soil- contaminant plume near
the dry well and extending toward the property to the west. By
conditions of symmetry, we expect that the lateral plume extent in
other directions to be roughly equivalent.
The first borehole (BH1), located nearest the dry well, will have
4 samples collected at depths of 20, 30, 40, and 50 ft. The
gr.eatest depth of contamination is likely to be at this location,
and these 4 sample depths plus the initial sample at about 10 ft
depth, will provide a good depth profile at this location. The
offset boreholes will also be sampled at 10 ft intervals as
follows: BH2 at 5, 15, and 25 ft; BH3 at 10 and 20
5 and 15 ft. These sample depths are staggered between adjacent
holes to provide a better sample grid at depth along the verticaJ~_~
plane of sampling (see Figure 4).
The borehole samples will be field- tested and preserved according
the protocol in Appendix 2. This includes initial screening by OVA
or HNu, and other standard observations of color, odor, staining,
petrophysical properties, etc. The samples will be preserved to
eliminate loss of material and volatile constituents by sealing and
storing on dry ice, or equivalent. Holding times will be observed
and all samples will be delivered to a st~te- certified lab for the
The borehole samples will be analysed for oil/grease and those
additional contaminants deemed necessary based on the initial soil
analysis. In addition, two or three samples may be analysed for
petrophysical properties including:
a. Grain Size and Density
b. Porosity
c. Permeability
d. Moisture Content
3. Site Characterization Report
Sierra Scientific will prepare a descriptive report which discusses
the results of the site characterization. The discussion will
include methods, results, interpretations, conclusions and
recommendations and will be supported by appropriate figures,
tables, and copies of analytical results. The final report is
8
submitted to the client in a form that is normally acceptable for
subsequent submission to the KCEHD. This format includes
background information' and procedural formats and protocols that
the agency requires. The Kern County protocol requires a
feasibility study of remedial alternatives, followed by a remedial
action plan.
4. Subcontractors
Subject to final availability, agreement, and approval, our
selection of subcontractors is as follows:
Laboratory: BC Labs
Driller: Melton Drilling Co.
5. Project Schedule
The in- field work program will be performed within 30 days of
approval by the KCDEHS. The field program is estimated to take 2-
3 days, and subsequent laboratory analyses will take approximately
two weeks. Upon receipt of analyses, the completion of the work
program and report will require about one week. The report will be
submitted to the client and subsequently to the KCDEHS
approximately one month after the field program is begun.
REFERENCES
Dale, R.H., French, J.J., and Gordon, G.V., 1966, Groundwater
Geology and Hydrology of the Kern River Alluvial- Fan Area,
California, USGS, Water Resources Division.
Luft, Karl W., October 20, 1989, Site Characterization Plan, Power
Machinery Center, Permanent Closure of Underground tank, Luft
Environmental Consulting.
Luft, Karl W., February 27, 1990, Power Machinery Center, Site
Remediation, Luft Environmental Consulting.
Pyle, Stuart T. and Ribble, George E., May 1987, Water Supply
Report 1986, Kern County Water Agency.
?yle, Stuart T., February, 1990, 1989 Report on Water Conditions,
Improvement District No. 4., Kern County Water Agency.
10
III
N
SITE LOCATION
(3302 GULF ST.)
CWSC-151.
(ORIN WY.) CWSC-192
(SILLECT AVE.) KCDEHS
LEGEND
· WATER WELL
CW'SC-151
0.5 0 .5 !.0 mlle~
'- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' FIGURE 1
SCALE LOCATION MAP
SIERRA SCIENTIFIC SERVICES.
I I1!
DETAIL MAP ,.
z
TANK I
EXCAVATION
SITE
~ ~/ WEST GARAGE
GULF STREET
,ooj
LEGEND
~ CEMENT SLAB FIGURE 2
~ BUILDING SITE MAP
$$02 GUI.J: STREET
SIERRA SCIENTIFIC SERVICES.
II
NORTH GARAGE
I/ .... "'\ A'
A ~ eiB2 eB1 'OBHI
I
} TANK
I EXCAVATION J
[ SITE / WEST GARAGE
w~ PLAN VIEW
~ A'
A B~, al B
!
2000
~.aoo
VERTICAL SECTION -~o'
~o' ?' . . . ? ~o'
SC,~.E VERTICJ~. & HORIZONT,~I. 1:1
LEGEND
BOREHOLE
PROPOSED SAMPLE FIGURE 3
PROPOSED BOREHOLE
ppm OIL/GREASE PROPOSED BOREHOLE-LOCATION MAP
AND CROSS SECTION
SIERRA SCIENTIFIC SERVICES.
APPENDIX 1.
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. WATER WELL 151-01
( CWSC- 151)
COMPLETION-,LITHOLOGIC-, AND ELECTRIC- LOGS.
COLUMN & SUCTION
, Size TPI L. ~7 Taper ~7 Joint l.ength
280 COL~ ~~ ~ Butt ~
Size ~I L. ~ Ta~r ~ Joint ~th I
~ ~ ~ap~r ~ ~o~t L.~t~ I 20' I
S~~ ~ ..~ Butt ~
Size ~I La ~ Taper ~ Joint Leith ~ .JO'
BO~L ASS~LY
~ o' s~.~o,~ o. ~, ~ ~, ~u 1
~ OF
,
ilO' Column l;xt.nston 3-21-77 Est. 0203 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO
· NGINEERIN~ O~PA~T MENT
. . , Baker s~t el d DISTRICT
~ , 5TATION N0. ~5~-o~
.......... ~
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ~
....... ~ ~: ~4 & ORELAND
", ,,~,,-,6 ,/-/o,// z~~ ENGINEERING - SURVBYING
~ov 2o] i~,~ 1206 CALIFORNIA AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIF. 93304-.[
.............................................................. P~. ~7-8~6~ ...........................
, , , __--.- .... -- ....
£LEVAT~ON: ~0~ F~ET . . C~.
fN(~INIININ~
TYPE WELL: G~VEL ENVELOPE CONVENTIONAL PRESS. ROTARY METMO~ ~AK~RSF~LD 'DI~ICT
.DE~TH: B~S FEET ' '
DRILLED BY: LYLE WILLIAMS STA I 5 --01
HOURS DEVELOPING: 88 HOIJI;:E
COND'JCTOR CASING: 30" x 2';' x 1/4"
INNER CASING: 16" x 525' x ~/16"_ I
'"' '('~ T.~C,~
13.3 SQUARE liICtlES PER LINEAL FOOT .........
TYPE: HORIZONTAL LOUVER .... t ,,
LOC~TION: ~90 Fl' ~o 50~ FT
TELESCOPIC JOINTS: NONE
NOTE: CONCRETE i{,qAL TO i'IL'GRAVELiEED PIPE TO 1gL'
fEMENT I G~UT SEAL
/
5 TOP SOIL ~,
SILT flAND ~
, I -- 3d Id '13AVt:1'3 I-I.LIM "1¥3S .I. flOl::l'3 .I. N31n133 -,i --
0
0
~11~ _
lllllllllilllllf~llllllllllllllllllllllll~q.~.L~ '
~11111f11111111..t1!.111!111111111 IllllllllllllF~ll~ii. iHIIlllll II.~i~ll.l I1
0
I1
,111111111ill IIIIIIIIIIIILI-LIIIIIIIII~IIIII~TIIlXF~IIIIiilII ~II'III~PI'H-H'
tl
:~llll.14,Jllll IIIIIIIII~I-T'~II I'1~11111111111111 l~lll,llll~,?,l~..lll/lll.llll
,,44.1AC. INIi'IIIIIIIIIIIII~'IIIII ~1~1111~'111111111111111 III1,~l. llLI/,.l'~iil.ll'i:lt'
114,111[~.ll.W.J.J.4.4~l~llllllll~']llllllllllllllll IIIl-l-ki_~ i!_1~1'11'illll
II I I I II I III' I I I ~I I I'I
CRLZFORNZR WRTER SERVZCE CO~PRL'Y
P.O. BOX LL$O S~-~ &OSE~ CR gSlO~
TZTLE ~ CHE~ZC~L]L-~LY~ES
Date of Report: 01/30/89 Lab Sample ID )iu~ber: 21/,92
Laboratory
Name:
)iiae of s.=pter: s,~pler £mptwed
CoLLected: 01/16/89 11:/,0 I SampLe eec'd at Lab: 01/17/89 A.#. I Were )ioLdlng TimeiL'/ Ob~ervecr~ YES
Salapte
Na~e: Bakersfield I ~tm N~r: 15-003
Des~r~ptJm of Sa~t$~ Point: Saute tap at ~ett dSs~harQe
~/~r of Sa~t~ S~nce: ~ett 151-01 I Stat$~ N~r~
Date a~ T~ of Saute ~ater T~ I User ID
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Y Y N ~ 0 0 T T T T G/S
)iCL REPORTING UHITS Constituent T Storet Code Analy~el Reauttl
Analyzing Agency (Laboratory) 28
mg/L Total Hardness (as CaC03) 900 93
mg/L Catcium (Ca) 916 30
mg/L )iagnesium (Ng) 927 5
mg/L Sodi~ (Na) 9~9 23
mg/L Potassium (K) 937 2.3
Totat Cations meq/L Value: 3.18
mg/L Totat Atkaltnlty (as CaC03) /.10 81
mg/L Hydroxide (OH) 71830 Less Than 0.1
mg/L Carbonate (C05) /*/*5 0.2
mg/L Bicarbonate (HC03) /*/*0 98
* mg/L + Sut fate (SO~) 9/*5 ~8
* mcJ/L + Chtoride (Ct) 9&O 33
45 mg/L Nitrate (NO3) 71850 2
1./,-2.4 mg/L Fluoride (F) Temp. Depend. 951 0:11
Total Anions meq/L VaLue: 3.16
Std Units pH (Laboratory) I I /*03 7.50
** L~ho/cm + Specific Conductance (E.C.)I I 95 310
TOt.' ~t§c,~l .es/due
*** mg/L + at ~ (TDS) 70300 203
UNITS Apparent Co,or (Unfiltered) 81 Less Than 1
TON Odor Threshold at 60 deg. C 86
NTU Lab. Turbidity 82079 0.55
/'~"' 0.5 mg/L + MBAS 38260 Less Than 0,0~
* 250-500-600 ** 900-1600-2200 *** 500-1000-1500
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY Page 2 of 2
P.O. BOX 1150 SAN JOSE, CA 95108 ID %= 21492
TITLE 22 CHEMICAL ANALYSES
$YSTEll NA~E AND NUI~BER Bakersfield ~etl 151-01
* THE FOLLOWING CONSTITUENTS ARE REPORTED IN UG/L *
N~L REPORTING UNITS CONSTITUENT T STORE~ COOE ANALYSIS RE~IJLTS
50 ug/L Arsenic (As) '1002 Less Than
.... i'000 ug/L 8ariu~ (Ba) .... 1007 LIII Than 100
10 ug/L Cadmium (Cd) 1027 Less Than 1
50 Ug/L Chcm~(um (To~aL Cc) 103/~ Less Than
1000 ug/L+ ~oppec (Cu) 'lOaz " Less Than 50
]00 ug/L+ Iron (Fei 10~5 Less Than 50
50 ug/L Lea~ (~b)' " 1051 Less Then
50 ug/L+ Hanganese (Hn) 1055 Less Than 30
2 ug/L Hercury (Hg) 71900 Less'Than" 1
10 ug/L Selenium (Se) 11&7 Less Than 5
50 ug/L Silver (Ag) 1077 Less Than 10
5000 ug/L Zinc (Zn) 1092 Less Than 50
1000 ug/L Atum"lnum (At) Less than 20
ORGANIC CHENICALS
~'.Z ug/L Endr"in 3~0 '"
& ug/L Lindane 39340
100 ug/L ' ~t~oxychtor 39480
5 ug/L Toxaphene 39400
100 ug/L 2,&-O 39730
10 ug/L 2,4,5-TP Sitvex 39045
O~te ORGANIC Analyses Cc~p~eted 736~Z
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
NTU Field Turb(dity 82078
C Source Temperature 10 18
Langelfer Index Source Temp. 7181~; -0.60
Lange[ier Index at 60 deg. C 71813
Std. Unl'ts FlUid pH ' 00400
Aggressi'venes~ index 82383
mg/L Si t Ica 00955 26
mg/L Phosl~ate 00650 O. 09
mg/L I od i de 71865 O. 023
Al~sorpt Ion Ratio ' 00931 1.31
Asbestos 81855
+ Indicates Secondary Drinking ~ater Standards
APPENDIX 2.
SOIL SAMPLING PROTOCOL.
1. The sampler will consist of a 6 inch- long, 2-3/8 inch-
diameter, stainless steel or brass, thin- walled tube.
2. Prior to sample collection, each sample tube will be washed
with a detergent- water solution and rinsed with tap water.
3a. Sampling from trenches or soil surfaces will be done by:
1. removing one inch of soil from the sample location;
2. pounding the sample tube completely into the soil;
3. retrieving sampler and preventing headspace;
4. quickly inspecting for appearance, composition, and
contaminants.
3b. Sampling from HSA boreholes will be done by:
1. inserting 3 sample tubes in a split- spoon sampler;
2. driving the sampler into the hole- bottom by the calibrated
hammer- blow method;
3. retrieving sampler, parting the tubes with knife/ spatula;
4. quickly inspecting for appearance, composition, and
contaminants.
4. Preparing sample will be done by:
1. covering both tube ends with aluminum foil;
2. capping both ends with polyethylene caps;
3. taping caps onto tubes and labelling tube;
5. storing on dry ice until delivery to lab.
5. Documenting sample will be done by:
1. keeping a field notebook of data and procedures including
date, time, location, sample number, observations, data;
2. filling out a chain of custody document.
6. Appropriate laboratory analytical methods will be requested as
follows:
Oil/Grease EPA 413.1, 413.2
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (BTEX) EPA 8020
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons EPA 8010
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) EPA 418.1
Heavy Metals EPA 6010/7000 series
Total Organic Halogens (TPH) EPA 9020
7a. In- field QA/QC consists of:
a. observing proper sampling protocols;
b. oversampling to achieve 10% duplication;
c. background sampling, as programmed.
7b. Laboratory QA/QC consists of internal control- spike and
calibration tests.
APPENDIX 3.
SOIL BORING PROTOCOL.
1. Drilling equipment will consist of a truck- mounted Hollow-
Stem Auger (HSA) drill and associated drilling- related tools and
supplies, including 8- inch O.D.- or equivalent- auger rods, split-
spoon samplers, steam cleaner, and tools.
2. Prior to drilling, personnel will have a safety meeting.
3. Prior to drilling each borehole, augers and samplers will be
steam- cleaned, as necessary.
4. Spud and drill borehole, stopping for sampling, as programmed.
5. Log cuttings and monitor conditions, as programmed.
6. Complete hole or terminate according to program.
7. Abandon hole with 5 ft bentonite plug at bottom and backfill
with cuttings. If surface location is exposed to
potentially significant fluids influx, backfill with 5 ft
bentonite plug at surface. If a thick impermeable zone is
penetrated that is exposed to infiltration or perching,
backfill across interval with a 5 ft bentonite plug.
8. If unexpected water is encountered, collect water and
saturated- soil samples.
9. It the water table is encountered prior to completing the
program, the borehole will be abandoned after samples are
collected.
10. Restore surface conditions to pre- drilling condition.
APPENDIX 4.
IN- FIELD HEALTH AND SAFETY PROTOCOLS
FOR SOIL BORING AND SAMPLING OPERATIONS
1. All onsite personnel will have a daily safety meeting and will
be advised of the in- field health and safety procedures.
Contract personnel will be advised to follow all of their own
company's health and safety procedures.
2. On- site personnel are required to wear hard hats, steel- toed
boots, and protective eyewear and clothing when Working around
drilling rigs or other equipment.
3. Twin- cartridge respirators (half- masks) are available onsite
for each person, and additional equipment and supplies will be
available as conditions require.
3. Smoking and/or the use of alcohol or drugs are not permitted
on the job site for safety reasons.
4. Working under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medications
that may impair a worker's performance is not permitted for
safety reasons.
5. A list of emergency response personnel, hospitals, and fire
and police stations with telephone numbers and addresses will
be present at the job site.
6. Air quality monitoring equipment will be installed on site
when conditions require.
APPENDIX 5.
RESUME
ROBERT A. CREWDSON, PH.D.
ROBERT A. CRBN])SON, Ph.D.
EDUCATION:
B.Sc. Geophysical Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 1971
M.Sc. Geology, Colorado School of Mines, 1974
Ph.D. Geophysics, Colorado School of Mines, 1976
._ CAREER SU~Y:
Dr. Crewdson has 16 years of project management experience in the geosclences and
is an expert in subsurface fluid behavior. Over ten years of his career to date
has been in the management of exploration programs (and related environmental
problems) for geothermal, petroleum, and mineral resources. His scientific
background includes a broad exposure to many technologies for subsurface
investigations. For the last five years he has worked in the environmental
business where science and transferable technologies can be applied to solve
problems, improve quality, and save money over conventional procedures,
especially in soils and groundwater assessments and remediations.
PROFBSSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
1988-Present Owner and Manager, Sierra Scientific Services
Provide scientific and business consulting services as before
(1984-1987). Primary emphasis includes geothermal and minerals
exploration, subsurface fluid studies, environmental project
management, and seismic risk analysis.
1987-1988 Manager, Engineering Geosciences, WZI, Inc.
Hired to build and manage a newly created environmental
division servicing primarily government programs; assumed the
position of Manager of Site Assessments: then assumed broader
technical responsibilities under the current title.
1984-1987 Owner and Manager, Sierra Scientific Services
Provided scientific and business consulting services including
project management, geosciences and drilling services, data
processing, integrated interpretation, economic investment and
risk analysis. Primary emphasis included resource exploration
in geothermal, minerals, and oil/gas industries.
1977-1984 Exploration ManaKer, Occidental Geothermal Co.
Responsible for planning, administration, technical content
and project management of the exploration program for the
geothermal energy division. He managed budget and personnel
for exploration projects integrating property acquisitions,
joint ventures, exploration, drilling, and environmental
baseline studies in over 20 projects in eight western states.
1972-1976 Senior Geophysicist, Group 7, Geothermal Kinetics, Inc.
Managed logistics and data interpretation of non- seismic
geophysical surveys including gravity, magnetics, resistivity,
electromagnetics, and geothermics, in geothermal exploration.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED ENVIRONHENTAL PROJECTS
A SWAT (solid waste assessment test) on an automobile- shredder waste dumpsite
containing heavy- metal and other contamination, Bakersfield, Ca, 1990.
A monitoring and flow- modelling study of coalescing CHC contaminant plumes from
5 adjacent sources to determine the amounts and durations of leakages from
each property, Visalia, Ca, 1988-89.
A site assessment and subsequent remediation of an abandoned laboratory found to
contain Mercury contamination, Bakersfield, Ca, 1988.
A site assessment and subsequent remediation of an industrial wastewater sump
found to contain various heavy metals, Bakersfield, Ca, 1988.
A site assessment and monitoring program of a 200,000 gallon fre~- floating
gasoline plume in Santa Monlca, Ca, 1987-88.
Numerous site assessments of LUFT and dry well contaminant plumes, 1987-90, Ca.
A channel loss and vadose-zone infiltration rate study on a 100- million bbl/yr
gathering/disposal system to determine the wastewater fate and potential
impacts on downgradient aquifers, West Side San Joaquin Valley, Ca, 1987.
A reservoir study of the correlation between mass loss and ground subsidence in
petroleum and geothermal fields, 1980.
A geophysical study of the induced seismicity at the Geysers Geothermal Area,
Sonoma County, California, 1979.
A r~sk analysis of potential groundwater withdrawal in the Island Park, Idaho
area and the effects on the springs and geysers of Yellowstone National
Park, Wyoming, 1978.
A geochemical study of Mercury vapor in soils; transport mechanisms, specific
retention, statistical variation, and environmental distribution; 50,000
samples in eight geologic provinces in seven western states, 1977-1982.
An engineering study of the onset of seismicity at the Cabin Creek pumped-
storage hydroelectric facility, Central Colorado, 1971.
LIST OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
regarding Kern County DEHS Contractor Experience Criteria:
1. Knowledge of Drilling and Sampling Procedures
a. Borings & Mon. wells: over 200 holes from 50 to 4,000 ft deep.
a. Surface- soil samples: over 52,000 samples collected and analysed.
b. Borehole soil samples: over 500 samples collected and analysed.
c. Groundwater samples: over 1,000 samples collected and analysed.
2. Knowledge of Contaminant Transport Mechanisms
a. Formal education included course work on the transport and geochemical
behavior of metals and hydrocarbons in groundwater, soils, rocks.
b. Fourteen years experience in investigatlng fluid and vadose transport
systems, especially metals and gases in hydrologic regimes.
c. Computer Flow modelling of transport processes.
3. Knowledge of Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances
a. Sierra Sclentlfic maintains regulatory documents on file.
b. Sierra Scientific prepares and performs all procedures according to
lead agency standards and protocols.
4. Knowledge of Risk Assessments
a. Groundwater Risk Analysis and Downstream Receptor Impact by:
1. Infiltration Rate Studies on the W. Side, So. San Joaquin Valley.
2. Saturation- dependent Hydrocarbon flow- threshold studies on
Bakersfield area soils.
3. Flow modelling the dispersion of chlorinated hydrocarbons in
groundwater under the Visalia Industrial Park.
b. Onsite Health and Safety Risk Analysis by:
1. Measuring and flow modelling the degassing of chlorinated
hydrocarbons in shallow soils into the atmosphere in the
Visalia Industrial Park.
2. Measuring and modelling the airborne concentration of mercury
vapors in enclosed spaces from spilled free- mercury.
3. Short courses in Risk Assessment.
5. Knowledge of Remedial Actions
a. Personal experlence includes:
1. Soil excavation and removal
2. Soil aeration
3. Soll fixative stabilization
4. Groundwater free- product removal
5. Groundwater GAC remediation
6. Airstream catalytic H2S removal
7. Facility mercury decontamination
b. Coursework and Secondary experience includes: 1. Soil bioremediation
2. Soil heap- leach metal extraction
3. Soil fluidized- bed volatilization
DESCRIPTION OF PROFESSIONAL F~PERIF~NCE
GEOLOGICAL field mapping:
Experience includes structural and stratlgraphlc field mapping in
the Rocky Mountain Province of Colorado, the Basin and Range
Province of Nevada, the Sierra Nevada and Gabilan ranges in
California. Experience also includes duties as wellsite geologist in
._ geothermal and petroleum exploration, in auger drilling for
'environmental site assessments, and in underground mapping in mine
tunnels. Geological work includes field mapping over 100 sq.mi.
GEOPHYSICAL field surveys:
Major experience includes gravity, magnetic, galvanic resistivity,
electromagnetic, and geothermal gradient surveys. This includes
responsibility for logistical planning, field operations, data
reduction, and interpretation. Other hands-on experience includes
reflection seismic, microseismic (earthquake) monitoring, radar, and
airborne thermal imaging. Geophysical work includes over I00 field
surveys in 30 or more areas in 10 states and 3 countries.
GEOCHEMICAL field surveys:
Major experience includes soil mercury surveys, spring and aquifer
geochemical surveys, and contaminant sampling for hydrocarbons and
metals in soils and groundwater. Sampling work includes an estimated
50,000 soil samples and over 1,000 water samples.
DRILLING programs:
Major experience includes supervising the drilling, completion,
logging, and interpretation of over 100 exploratory drillholes to
depths between 30Oft and 4,000ft. Other experience includes the same
for over 100 soil borings and groundwater monitoring wells to depths
between 35ft and 200ft.
OPERATIONS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT:
Management includes division responsibility for exploration projects
with annual budgets of 3.5 to 7.5 million dollars, responsibility
for as many as 4 project managers, 9 staff, 5 field crews, and 3
drilling rigs in over 20 locations in 8 western states; project
management of a dozen environmental site assessments and many
smaller field- and investigative- operations in southern California.
Operational experience as an OXY division exploration manager
includes the negotiation of two joint- venture operating agreements;
preparation of bids for six, multi- million- dollar Federal lease
sales; preparation and execution of over 20 contracts; preparation
of annual SBU's, budgets, and 5- year strategic plans; presentation
of quarterly corporate project reviews; preparation of five
government proposals.
EI~JCATION:
Formal education includes the following completed coursework:
Coursework Under~rad sem-hr Grad sem-hr
Geophysics/Engineering 61 30
Geology 25 34
Math/Physics/Chemistry 48
_ The ENGINEERING courses included Statics, Dynamics, Mechanics, Strength of
Materials, Plane Surveying, and Computer Science.
The GEOPHYSICES COURSES include Seismic Exploration, Gravity and Magnetics,
Electrical Methods of Exploration, Earthquake Seismology, Physics of the Earth,
Physics of Extended Media, Potential Theory, Information Theory, Tensor Analysis,
Linear Systems Analysis, and Geothermal Exploration.
The GEOLOGY courses include Physical Geology, Structural Geology, Historical
Geology, Stratigraphy, Mineralogy, Optical Mineralogy, Petrology, Tectonite
Analysis, Hydrothermal Ore Deposits, and Geochemical Exploration.
ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL COURSES:
Me~hods andTechniques in Geothermal Exploration, 1979, Geothermal Resources
Council Short Course, Reno, Nv.
Gecchemical Techniques in Geothermal E×ploration, 1981, Geothermal Resources
Council Short Course, Reno, Nv.
Calderas and Geothermal Energy, 1983, The Yellowstone Institute, Yellowstone
N.P., Wyoming.
Open- Hole Well Logging, 1982 & 1984, Schlumberger Inc. Short Course,
Bakersfield, Ca.
Fundamentals of Core Analysis, 1985, Core Lab Inc. Short Course, Bakersfield,
Ca.
Plate Tectonics and the structure of Sedimentary Basins, 1982, Dr. John Dewey,
Bakersfield, Ca.
Economic Risk analysis in Petroleum Exploration, Dr. Paul Newendorp,
Bakersfield, Ca.
Professional Management, 1982, in- house training program, Occidental Petroleum
Corp., Bakersfield, Ca.
Groundwater Treatment Technologies, 1987, U.C. Davis Extension Short Course, Dr.
Evan K. Nyer, U.C.L.A., Los Angeles, Ca.
The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials, 1988, Dr. James Dragun, Hazmacon
Short Course, Anaheim, Ca.
Liability, Hazardous Waste, and Real Estate, 1988, U.C. Davis Extension Short
Course, Davis, Ca.
Environmental Risks in Real Estate Transactions, 1988, Waste Control Services
Inc. Seminar, Bakersfield, Ca.
REFERENCES
Mr. Dan Pasquini, President and CEO
Fortune Petroleum, Inc.
30101Agoura Ct.
A~oura Hills, Ca 91301
818-991-0526
M~. Herbert R. Benham, President
Berrenda Mesa Farming Co.
2012 17th St
Bakersfield, Ca 93301
805- 324-7444
Mr. Charles C. Horace, Executive Vice President (retired)
Occidental Exploration and Production Co.
(parent Co. of Oxy Geothermal, Inc)
Bakersfield, Ca. 93309
805-324-3911
Dr. John Rundle, Project Manager
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, N.M. 87185
505-844-8158
Mr. Trent R. Rosenlieb, Manager
Thorne Environmental. Inc.
4560 California Avenue
Bakersfield, Ca. 93309
805-326-0492
Mr. Charles R. Chapman, Project Manager
Ralph M. Parsons, Inc.
Pasadena, Ca
818-440-3785
SITE CHARACT~IZATION
3302 GULF ST, BAKERSFIELD, CA.
20 September, 1990
Submitted to
Kern County Department of Environmental Health Services
2700 M Street
Bakersfield, Ca 93301
on behalf of
Hoover Properties, Inc.
Submitted by
Sierra ScientiEic Services
2609 Highland Ct.
Bakersfield, Ca 93306
805-871-3793
Prepared by
Robert A. Crewdson, Ph.D.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY OUTLINE 1
INTRODUCTION 2
I. SITE DESCRIPTION 3
A. Site Location 3
B. Site Description 3
C. Site Background 3
D. Geology and Hydrogeology 4
II. SITE ASSESSMENT 5
A. Prior Work 5
B. Current Work 6
III. DISCUSSION 7
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8
REFERENCES 10
FIGURES
1. Location Map.
2. Site Map.
3. Borehole and Sample- Location Map & Cross Section.
4. Oil and grease Contamination Map and Cross Section.
5. TPH Contamination Map and Cross Section.
6. Contamination Anomaly Map and Cross Section.
TABLES
1. Analytical Results of Heavy Metal Analysis.
2. Analytical Results of Hydrocarbon Analysis.
3. Hydrocarbon Permissable Exposure Levels.
APPENDICES
1. Dry Well Abandonment Program.
2. Borehole Log, Field Notes, C.O.C. Documents, Lab Analyses.
ii
SUMMARY OUTLINE
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
3302 GULF ST, BAKERSFIELD.
PURPOSE
To determine the nature and extent of suspected soil
contamination.due to the flow of oil- bearing wash water over
the ground surface and into a dry well.
WORK PROGRAM
a. Analyse a soil samples to determine contaminant types.
b. Drill and sample adjacent to dry well to determine the
extent of subsurface contamination.
TYPE OF SITE
1.7 acre commercial property containing a dry well embedded in
a 20 by 32 ft cement slab. Slab and dry well were used as a
site to wash and service vehicles and equipment.
SITE HISTORY
The property was placed in service in the 1950's for the
storage and maintenance of drilling rigs. The dry well was
installed in the late 1960's. Heavy usage occurred in 1980's
by a trucking company. Thick accumulations of surficial
oil/grease were washed up in 1989. The cement slab and dry
well are no longer used for washing or fluid disposal.
GEOLOGY
Unconsolidated sand, silt, and gravel deposits.
GROUNDWATER
The site is in proximity to Kern River bed (currently dry) and
to nearby infiltration ponds where recharge takes place.
Nearby municipal water wells have standing water levels
between 80 and 150 ft depth. Recent wellwater analyses
indicate that groundwater is good quality potable water. Depth
to water is unknown under this site._ ~c~Bo%~---
RESULTS
The soil sample analyses showed the presence of oil and
grease, Xylenes, Toluene, and small amounts of 4 chlorinated
hydrocarbons (2 dichlorobenzenes, TCE, PCE). Most of the
hydrocarbons are contained in the dry well sludge and only
small amounts have migrated into the subsurface. The base of
contamination is approximately 15 ft deep. Analysis indicates
there is no heavy metal contamination.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Clean out and abandon dry well.
i i
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a site characterization to
evaluate the nature and extent of suspected soil contamination
around and under a dry well site on a commercial property at 3302
Gulf St., Bakersfield. This report was prepared in accordance with
the Kern County Department of Environmental Health Services
Handbook UT- 35, and includes information that was previously
reported in the Work Program proposal.
The field program consisted of sampling the dry well contents,
drilling a single borehole adjacent to the dry well and collecting
borehole soil samples at depths of 10, 15, and 20 ft below ground
level. The samples were analysed for Heavy Metals, Oil and Grease,
aromatic hydrocarbons including BTEX-TPH, and other volatile
organics including chlorinated hydrocarbons.
2
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
3302 GULF ST, BAKERSFIELD
I. SITE DESCRIPTION
A. Site Location
The site is located at 3302 Gulf St, one block east of Pierce Rd.
in Bakersfield, Ca. (Figure 1.). The property runs approximately
375 ft long (east-west along Gulf St) and is approximately 200 ft
deep (north- south) covering approx- imately 75,000 sq ft, or 1.72
acres.
B. Site Description
The property contains 5 buildings including one office building and
four high- ceiling garages/storage buildings, for a total of
approximately 8500 sq ft of floor space. The majority of the fence-
enclosed property consists of currently- unused, dirt- surface,
contiguous open space. There are no- nor has there ever- been any
underground tanks on the property. (Figure 2.).
C. Site Background
The property is currently leased and occupied by Magnolia
Environmental Corp. They occupy the office building and some of the
garages where they store, repair and manufacture mobile soil-
remediation equipment. They do not use or store hazardous materials
on site.
The property is owned by Hoover Properties, a holding company owned
By Mr. Everett Hoover and Mrs. Ruth Hoover. Based on an interview
with Everett Hoover, the chronology of the property use is as
follows:
1. The site was purchased around 1954, as an addition to the
adjacent property which.is currently used By Power Machinery
Co. (3818 Pierce Rd.), and which was purchased By the Hoovers
around 1944. The prior use of the property was described as
undeveloped and unused except for a squatter's residence.
2. The property in the 1940's and 1950's was used By the
Hoover Drilling ¢o. for the operation of the drilling company
and for the storage and maintenance of rigs.
3. The dry well and cement pad were-installed in the late
1960's for use as a disposal point for wash water and waste
fluids.
4. Everett Hoover opened a fiberglass Business in 1967 and
operated it as Hoover Plastic StructUre Co. in one of the
3
existing garages until 1980.
5. The drilling company ceased operations in 1979 and
shortly thereafter the property was leased out to Calico
Trucking Co. Calico occupied the property until 1987 and left
the property with significant oil and grease residues in the
garages, ground surface, and dry well area in the northwest
corner of the property. These residues were subsequently
cleaned up by Hoover Properties using a state-certified, non-
toxic, biodegradable product that broke up the grease for easy
removal. The grease residues and cleaning product are known to
have entered the dry well during the cleaning process.
6. For a short period of time, the Montgomery Drilling Co.
also occupied the property for the purpose of drilling rig
refabrication, although the time period was not established.
7. The current occupants, Magnolia Environmental, came to
the property in 1989.
D. Site Geology and Hydrogeology
The site is underlain by up to 2000 ft of non- marine,
unconsolidated, interbedded clay, silt, sand and conglomerate of
the Pliocene- Pleistocene Kern River Formation. (Dale, et al,
1966). These sediments were deposited in alluvial fans by streams
and rivers flowing westward from the Sierra Nevada foothills.
The California Water Service Co. (CWSC) maintains well No. 151-01
near the east end of Orin Way (Figure 1.), the next street south of
Gulf St. along Pierce Rd. The well is 1250 ft south- southeast of.
the dry well site and both geologic and electric logs are available
for the well (Appendix 1.). At that location, the top 24 ft of
silty sand and sandy clay are underlain by at least 170 ft of sand
and gravel. Allowing for lateral facies changes, the geology under
the current site is considered to be equivalent.
The E- logs indicate that at the time of logging (July, 1970) the
groundwater was at a depth of about 120 ft below surface. The most
recent (May, 1990) static water level test from the well gave a
standing water depth of 147 ft below surface. Another CWSC well,
191-01, located east of 151-01 and between Sillect Dr. and the Kern
River bed, had a standing water level in May, 1990 of 89 ft below
surface.-~--
These depths are somewhat greater than that indicated by the water-
depth contours on the Kern County Water Agency 1989 Report on Water
Conditions Map of Depth to Water in Wells, for Improvement District
No. 4~ The existence of nearby water spreading areas and the
proximity of the site t° the Kern river bed limit the accuracy of
such contours between widely- spaced control points in an area of
rapid lateral changes in depth to groundwater. We believe at this
point that the occurrence of groundwater under this site is
unlikely at depths shallower than 70 ft, given the referenced well
control and the continued local drought conditions.
The local groundwater quality is excellent based on the Kern County.
Water Agency Water Supply Report 1988, and it should be since it is
probably percolated int6 the shallow strata directly from the
waters of the Kern River. A recent analysis of groundwater
(January, 1989) from CWSC well 151-01 confirms this with low Total
Dissolved Solids (203 mg/1) and a hardness of 93 mg/1 (as CaCO3),
referred to as "soft to moderately- hard", according to EPA
criteria (EPA, Quality Criteria for Water, 1976). In addition,
analyses for 13 Heavy Metals showed analytical concentrations to be
less than one tenth the MCL for every metal.
II. SITE ASSESSMENT
A. Prior Work
In April, 1989 the Power Machinery Center voluntarily removed an
underground storage tank from the property west of- and adjacent
to- this site. The soil samples collected during tank excavation
and removal were contaminated with oil and lead, and a subsequent
site assessment by Luft Environmental Consulting resulted in an
excavation and disposal of about 54 cubic yards of soil.
Our summary of Luft's findings and conclusions regarding the tank
site are as follows:
1. During tank removal in April, 1989 soil samples collected
at 2 ft and 6 ft depths below the tank contained 16,113 and
3381 ppm oil/grease respectively.
2. Samples collected in October, 1989 from two boreholes
straddling the tank site were contaminated with 2900 and 4300
ppm oil/grease at a depth of 10 ft, but samples from 15 ft
were uncontaminated (Luft, 1989);
3. During remedial excavation near the property line in
February, 1990 surface soils including tank site backfill were
observed to be contaminated to a depth of about 2 ft with
hydrocarbons. They appeared to have migrated along the ground
surface from the adjacent property (this site) where oily
residues were observed on and near the cement slab. "Obvious
hydrocarbon discoloration was observed in the tank removal
backfill area", and subsequent analysis confirmed the presence
of 64,000 ppm oil/grease contamination. (Luft, 1990).
4. Luft observed that the two occurrences of contamination (1.
under the tank and 2. in the surface soils) "...did not appear
to have been continuous..." (Luft, 1990). A soil sample from
5
an intermediate zone, about 3- 4 ft deep yielded a laboratory
analysis of only 75 ppm oil/grease, seeming to substantiate
this conclusion.
The surface contamination reported by Luft seems to have been
limited to shallow depths (0- 2 ft below surface) and limited to
the vicinity of the edge of the cement slab. Luft's observations
(items 3 & 4, above), if we read them correctly, indicate that the
near- surface soil contamination was in the backfill soil (at least
in- part) and thus must post- date the tank removal of April, 1989.
A statement by Mr. Everett ~oover confirms that (substantial)
residues were emulsified and washed away sometime during 1989. We
conclude that the shallow contamination described by Luff was the
result of the cleanup activity described by Hoover. And we
therefor agree with Luft's observation (noted above) that the
surface- soil contamination appears to be of limited extent and
unrelated to the deeper tank site contamination. ~~
Since the completion of the remedial work on the adjacent (Power
Machinery Center) property, the tank site excavation has been
filled and returned to horizontal grade, and a 6 ft- high cement
block wall has been constructed along the property line between
that site and this one. In addition, the owners of the Gulf St.
property have cleaned up the surficial oil and grease residues that
were observed by Luff during the tank site remedial excavation and
there is no surficial evidence for any remaining shallow
contamination as described by Luft.
B. Current Work
A field program of drilling and sampling was performed on 7 August,
1990. After a safety meeting was held with the drilling personnel,
the borehole was spudded in the concrete slab about 3 ft to the
north of the dry well. The concrete slab is about 3 in thick and
was discovered to directly overlie a 4 ft thick layer of water-
soaked, oil- stained gravel fill. The soil boring penetrated
through the gravel layer and into the underlying soil which
consisted of slightly moist, coarse-grained granitic sand to a
depth of 20 ft. There was no field evidence that the borehole was
approaching groundwater.
.The man- made gravel layer consists of a well-sorted, very coarse
gravel (1.25-2.5 in) and was probably used to collect runoff as a
vehicle wash area prior to the installation of the overlying slab
and dry well. The size and lateral extent of the gravel fill is
unknown, but may be large enough to have had a vehicle positioned
fully over it. Based on visual inspection of the gravel in the top
part of the borehole it may contain i:i0% oily residues by volume.
The cement slab and dry well were installed in the late sixties as
a vehicle- wash area and disposal point, probably as an improvement
over the gravel bed. The slab could have been cleaned and
maintained more easily than the gravel, and the wash residue would
have been collected in the dry well rather than accumulating on the
gravel. The cement slab prevented further accumulation in the
gravel and the dry well localized the collection of residues to one
small volume. The slab has also provided an impermeable barrier to
the downward infiltration of surface water from the time it was
installed in the late 1960's. The persistence of the oil residues
in the underlying gravel indicates that the residues are relatively
immobile and that other flushing mechag~sms ~ave been ineffective.
The cement- lined dry well is centrally located in the cement slab
and extends at least 3 ft into the gravel bed with another 1-2 ft
of gravel below the ~ing. The subsurface entry point
for surface water is. -~_~_i_~_R_~_~p Near the base of the gravel layer,
and the top of any Water infiltration and contaminant transport
plume will begin at this depth.
The dry well contained water-soaked, black, oily residues standing
18 inches below ground level and 16 inches thick According to
sample analyses (Table 2), the dry well residues were composed of
oil/grease (16%),~Xylenes (104 ppm),~Toluene (9 ppm), 4 chlorinated
hydrocarbons (<1 ppm), and miscellaneous solids including sand,
vegetal material and other debris (84%). No other constituents,
neither Benzene, Ethyl Benzene nor 24 other hydrocarbons were
detected in the samples.
Soil samples were collected at depths of 10-, 15-, and 20- ft below
ground level and analysed for hydrocarbons and heavy metals (Tables
1 and 2). Although the dry well residues cannot spread laterally
from the dry well to. any great extent, any water which percolates
out the bottom of the dry well will carry dissolved and suspended
residue constituents downward into the underlying soils (Figures 4
and 5).
There were no detectable hydrocarbons at a depth of 20 ft. At a
depth of 15 ft, oil/grease was present at a concentration of only
28 ppm. No other hydrocarbons were present. At a depth of 10 ft,
oil/grease was present (8273 ppm) and all but one of the other
constituents found in the dry well residues were also found to be
present in small concentrations (1 to 79 ppb). There was no heavy
metal contamination: 11 of 17 metals were reported below detection
threshold and the other 6 were below their respective natural soils
background levels.
III. DISCUSSION
The oil/grease and small amounts of solvent- related compounds that
were detected in the dry well area are consistent with the
historical use of the facility. The gravel bed and dry well have
served their intended purpose of accumulating and trapping the
7
residues from equipment maintenance and washing. The dry well is
less than half full and contains about 5 cubic ft of oily residue.
The amount of residues in the gravel is estimated to be up to 10%
by volume, although the size and lateral extent of the gravel is
unknown.
The shallow borehole soil samples contained contaminants that were
the same compounds as in the dry well residue, indicating that the
dry well (and probably the gravel layer) is the source of the
underlying contamination. The base of contamination is just below
a depth of 15 ft, where the only detectable contaminant was
oil/grease at 28 ppm. The soil was uncontaminated at a depth of 20
ft.
The soil boring, which was positioned next to the dry well,
penetrated the mQst probable location of the greatest depth of
contamination. The lateral spread of contaminants flushed out of
the dry well is considered to not exceed a few feet, since in the
absence of recognized perching layers, the intermittant percolation
in the unsaturated zone beneath the dry well can only be vertically
downward, except for capillary effects. And since the gravel layer
has been sheltered by the cement slab from the percolation of
surface water for over 30 years, little evidence of downward
migration of the accumulated residues is expected.
Subject to confirmation, the cross section in figure 6 shows'our
concept of the extent of the recognized soil contamination. Based
on the contaminant concentrations, over 98% of the soil
contamination occurs within a 5-6 ft thickness of soil below the
gravel layer and dry well. The remaining (less than) 2% is found
between the depths of 11-20 ft where the bulk average concentration
for the interval is less than 140 ppm oil/grease, and no other
hydrocarbons were detected.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results to date, we conclude the following. First,
there is no recognized threat to onsite'health and safety. There
is no direct access to the contaminants beneath the cement slab and
the dry well remains covered with a steel plate. The oil/grease is
generically considered to be non- toxic and exposure standards are
not established. The other hydrocarbons occur in small
concentrations, none are acutely toxic, and all soil concentrations
are less than the 8-hr time weighted average airborne exposure
limits for each respective compound (Table 3).
Second, the contaminants are resistant to transport in the
environment. The most obvious fact is that even after more than
thirty years of activity in the dry well area, significant
contamination has penetrated only a few feet below the bottom of
the gravel layer and dry well. The contributing factors include
8
the immobility of oil/grease and the absence of flushing mechanisms
because of the protective effect of the cement slab. The current
data do not indicate whether or not there is any active contaminant
migration at this time.
Third, the threat to groundwater has not been established. From
the results of preliminary studies, as reported in the Work Program
Proposal and repeated above, the current depths to groundwater in
two water wells located between this site and the Kern River bed
are 89 and 147 ft below ground level. If these depths are
representative of the water table depth under the site, then we
would conclude that such a threat does not exist.
Fourth, if the contaminants are left where they are, they will
degrade naturally. If they continue to be protected from any
flushing mechanisms, then they will remain essentially immobile
except for diffusion.
At this time, we recommend that the property owners have the
residues in the dry well removed, and have the dry well abandoned.
A suggested abandonment program is included in Appendix 1.
9
REFERENCES
Dale, R.H., French, J.J., and Gordon, G.V., 1966, Groundwater
Geology and Hydrology of the Kern River Alluvial- Fan Area,
California, USGS, Water Resources Division.
Luft, Karl W., October 20, 1989, Site Characterization Plan, Power
Machinery Center, Permanent Closure of Underground tank, Luft
Environmental Consulting.
Luft, Karl W., February 27, 1990, Power Machinery Center, Site
Remediation, Luft Environmental Consulting.
Pyle, Stuart T. and Ribble, George E., May 1987, Water Supply
Report 1986, Kern County Water Agency.
Pyle, Stuart T., February, 1990, 1989 Report on Water Conditions,
Improvement District No. 4., Kern County Water Agency.
10
N
SITE LOCATION
(3302 GULF ST.)
CWSC-151.
(ORIN WY.) CWSC-192
(SILLECT AVE.) KCDEHS
LEGEND
· WATER WELL
CWSC~151
0.5 0 .5 1.0 miles
, , , , , , , , FIGURE 1
SCALE LOCATION MAP
SIERRA SCIENTIFIC SERVICES.
N
DETAIL MAP
uJ NOI:~'H ~E
EXCAVAIION
SITE
J ~ WEST GARAGE
GULF STREET
LEGEND
~ CEMENT SLAB FIGURE 2
· [:~ BUILDING SITE MAP
3302 GULF STREET
SIERRA SCIENTIFIC SERVICES.
\
liB2 IB1 OBH2
TANK
EXCAVATION
SITE ~ WEST GARAGE
w~u~ PLAN VIEW
A'
,1 B II .... ~,;... ~F~ ... ~,, ...... ~
/
/
VERTICAL SECTION
,~'.... ~'.,. ,? ,o'
!
SC.,ALE VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL I: 1
LEGEND
· SAMPLE
· BOREHOLE
~ PROPOSED SAMPLE
o P~POS~O SO.HOLE FIGURE.
?5 p~ O~L/G~SE PROPOSED BOREHO~.,I_~CATIOH' MAI~
AND ~SS SECTI. ON
S~EP~R~ ~C
CEMENT SLAB ~, ~
BH1 ·
/~ -\ 0 DRY WELL ~
!
TANK A
EXCAVATIO~
sr~ PLAN VIEW
A 'A' ~t_
· ~ooo /40,05?
VERTICAL SECTION
/o .5 o /0
SCALE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL 1:1.
LEGEND
· BOREHOLE
m SA~m.E FIGURE 4.
z.8 ~,, O~UG~E~S~ OIL & GREASE CONTAMINATION
MAP AND CROSS SECTION
SIERRA SC'IEN'TIFIC SERVICF_.S.
CEMENT SLAB ~
BH 1
/- --. 0 DRY WELL ~
/
A I ~'A.,~ A
I EX~V,~TIO~
I srm
~ PLAN VIEW
VERTICAL SECTION
SCALE VERTICAL AND HORIZOHTAL 1:1.
LEGEND
· BOREHOt. E
· S~UPLE FIGURE 5.
/ p_q ~a, nm TPH CONTAMINATION
'MAP AND CROSS SECTION
$1~3tltA SCIENTIFIC SERVlCUaS.
CEMENT SLAB
/.~- -...\
*~.~ ~
EXCAVATION ~
x.._ ...~ PLAN VIEW
. PRE-SLAB, OIL-SOAKED GRAVEL.
' Gl
SURFACE SFqLLAGE.
~ - .
VERTICAL SECTION
/o 5 o /o ~c~.
SCALE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL 1:1.
COHTOURSAT O, .1, 1, 10 ('11300) PPMOIL/GREASE.
FIGURE 6.
CONTAMINATION ANOMALY
MAP AND CROSS SECTION
SIERRA SCIENTIFIC SERVICES.
TABLE 1. Analytti results of heavy metal analys~s.
Sample No: Composite [l~kgrotmd
Bo~hol=: 1 [and Referenoo Data.
Dopth (ft): 10,15,20
Antimony Sb 7.0 ND 0 150 500 15
Arsenic As 0.7 4.1 5 12 500 5
Barium Ba 0.7 22.4 300 800 10000 100
Beryllium Be 0.7 ND I 5 75 0.75
Cadmium Cd 0.7 ND 0 I 100 1
Chromium Cr 0.7 6.21 10 70 2500 560
Cobalt Co 3.5 ND I 10 8000 80
Copper Cu 0.7 9 10 30 2500 25
Lead Pb 3.5 ND 15 30 1000 5
Mercury Hg 0.2 ND 0.03 0.1 20 0.2
Molybdenum Mo 3.5 ND 0 8 3500 350
Nickel NI 3.5 ND 10 23 2000 20
Selenium Se 0.7 ND 0.1 0.7 100 1
Silver Ag 0.7 ND 0 0.2 500 5
Thallium Ti 7.0 ND NA NA 700 7
Vanadium Va 0.7 13.4 24 95 2400 24
Zinc Zn 0.7 17.2 25 70 5000 250
Value~ in ,,,g/kg, e~cpt whum noted. PQL: Practi~ Quantitation
BACKGROUND: Rang~ of avzragz valu~ a~ reported in USGS PP 574-F.
Table 2. Analytit Results of Hydrocarbon Analy m.
Sample No: 103B 110A 115B 120B
Borcholc: I 1 I 1
Depth (ft): 3 10 15 20
PQI./ Sludg~ Soft Soil Soil
Constituent Units MRL Analysis Analysis Analysis Amdysis
Oil & Grease mg/kg 20 160059 8273 28 ND
Benzene u g/kg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
Bromodichloromethane uglkg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
Bromoform u g/kg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
Bromomethane uglkg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
Carbon tetrachloride uglkg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
Chlorobenzene ug/kg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
Chloroethane ug/kg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether uglkg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
Chloroform uglkg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
Chloromethane uglkg 0.$ ND ND ND ND
Dlbromochloromethane ug/kg 0.5 ND / ND ND ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene uglkg 0.5 120 u/3.7 ND ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene u g/kg 0.5 ND ~. I ND ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene uglkg 0.5 230 9 ND ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane uglkg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
1,1-DC^ uglkg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
1,2-DCA uglkg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
1,1-DCE ug/kg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
t-1,2-DCE uglkg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
1,2-diohloropropane uglkg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
c-1,3-dichloropropene uglkg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
t-l,3-dichloropropene uglkg 0.6 ND ND ND ND
Ethyl Benzene ug/kg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
1,1,2,2-PC^ ug/kg 0.5 ND ~ND ND ND
PCE uglkg 0.5 530 ~ 1.1 ND ND
Toluene uglkg 0.5 9100 ..J 4.9 ND ND
1,1,1-TCE uglkg 0.$ ND ND ND ND
1,1,2-TCA uglkg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
TCE ug/kg 0.5 100 ND ND ND
Trichlorofluoromethane uglkg 0.5 ND ND ND ND
Vinyl Chloride ug/kg 0.$ ND \ ND ND ND
o-Xylene ug/kg 0.6 16000 1'J 30 ND ND
m & p Xylenes uglkg 0.5 98000 - 79 ND ND
Oil & Grease: EPA 413.1. PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit.
Hydrocarbons: EPA S01018020. MRL= Minimum Recording Level. ( fo~ c~:::lge. MR[-100)_
TABLE ~. Hydrocarbon issibl¢ exposure levels.
Soil OSHA NIOSH
Conmituc~ Coati.on Piti, R]~ IDHI.
1,2 DCB 0.0037 50 - 1700
1,4 DCB 0.009 75 - 1000
PCE 0.0011 100 - -
Toluene 0.0049 200 100 2000
TCE nd 100 - -
pmo Xylenes 0.109 100 100 1000
Oil mist 8273 - - na
other familiar substances for IDHL comparison.
Ammonia S00
Carbon Monoxide 1500
Carbon Dioxide 50000
Chlorine 30
Coal Tar Naptha (benzene) 10000
Napthalene 500
SulfUr Dioxide 100
PEt.: OSHA 8-~ time- w=isbted av,~ras= for l~'=fi~;ibt=
IDLE.: l~aedhtei), DaaSe~'oas to Life or l-leaJtb
d~ $CP oaiy for ti= pt~x== of mR~irator ;r. Jecti~
APPENDIX 1.
DRY WELL ABANDONMENT PROTOCOL
1. Remove the contents of the dry well, which are estimated to be
about 5 cu. ft of material.
2. Dessicate, if necessary, by open- air drying in an aeration
container to remove water. Obtain permits as necessary.
2. Store the dry well contents for later treatment/disposal in an
enclosed, labelled, inert container.
3. Backfill and pack the dry well with clean fill dirt.
4. Place a 3-in thick cement plug at the top of the dry well,
level with the surrounding cement slab.
APPENDIX 2.
Borehole Log, Field Notes, C.O.C. Documents, Lab Analyses.
BOREHOLE SAMPHNG SIERRA S~IENTIFIC SERVICES
Project: /'/' ~ ~"~ .~A° .~'~ ~' ,, ' ................. "' '
Dopth LJl.h- S~mplc Blow OVA Back- l'im~ Co,~,~,.~ts
DESCRIPTION (fl). ology No. Coum f'dl
,
L:'
~-/z,,,.,.,-,-, <. 9~.,~h' g-~-. -,
~-,'t,,,~ , ,.. ,
.//.../o,~, ~/.,~..A,.. -'-''
.... g~_.,
- Tb ~ ~ ~
_
~Uo ~ Y. _
CHAIN ~)F CUSTODY DOCENT SIERRA SCI IITIFIC SERVICES
S~ple '~te
No. ID- N~r Coll~ ~T~ of ~y~g
/
~OM: (~nd ~port & Invoi~ To:) ~INQUIS~D to ~ ~b BY:
805-871-3793
TO: BC ~mtofi~ ~~D at ~ ~b BY:
~ker~d. ~ 93308 , . ,,.
805-327~9 i I ~ ~
LABORATORIES, INC. --"'""' LABORATORIES, INC.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORHIA 93308 PHONE 32~4911 Il00 PIERCE HO., BAKERSFIELO, CALIFORNIA 93309 PHONE 32~49~
SIERRA SCIENTIFIC SERVICES Date Reported: 08/13/90 Page 2
SIERRA SCIENTIFIC SERVICES Data Reported: 08/13/90 Paqe I 2609 HIGHLAND CT. Date Received: 08/08/90
2609 HIGHLAND CT. Date Received= 08/08/90 BAKERSFIELD. CA 93306 Labozator¥ No.= 6929-1
B~KERSFIELD, CA 93306 Laboratory No.= 6929-1 Attn. t ROBERT ALAN C. 805-871-3793
Attn.~ ROBERT ALAN C. 805-871-3793
Sample Description; HOOVER PROPERTY= COHPOSITE OF SAMPLE #IIOB, IiSA& 120A~ 8/7/90 Sample Description= HOOVER PROPERTY= COHPOSITE OF SA]4PLE ~IlOB, lISA & 120A, 8/~/90
TOTAL CONTAmINAnTS
(Title 22~ &rtlcle II, California Admlniatrat£ve Code)
Hathod
Constituents Semele Results P.O.L. Units Hethod ~.
Antimony None Detected ?.0 m~/kg 6010 I Reaulator¥ Criteg~s
~rsen£c 4.10 0°7 mE/kg $060 I Constituent! STLC, m~/L TTLCo ma/kB
Barium 22.4 0.9 mE/kg 6010 1
Beryllium None Detected 0.7 mE/kg 6010 I ~ntimony 1S. 500.
Cadmium Rone Detected 0.~ mE/kg 6010 I &rsenlc 5.0 500.
Chromium 5.2~ 0.? mE/kg 6010 I Barium 100. 10000.
Cobalt None Detected 3,5 mE/kg 6010 I Beryllium 0.75 75.
Copper 9.00 0,7 mE/kg 6010 I Cadmium 1.0 100.
Lead Rani Detected 3,5 mE/kg 6010 1 ChrOmium and/or Ct(III) compounds 560. 2500.
Hercury None Detected 0.15 mE/kg 7471 1 Cobalt 80. 8000.
Rolybdenum None Detected 3.5 m~/kg 6010 1 Copper 2S. 2500.
Nickel None Detected 3.5 mE/kg 6010 1 Lead 5.0 1000.
Selenium None Detected 0.7 mg/kg 7940 1 Nercury 0.2 20.
Sliver None Detected 0.7 mE/kg 6010 1 Holybdenum 350. 3500.
Thallium None Detected 7.0 mE/kg 6010 1 Nickel 20. 2000.
Vanadium 13.4 0.? mE/kg 6010 ! Selenium 1.O 100.
ZLnc 17.2 0.7 rag/kg 6010 1 811var S.0 $00.
?hallium 7.0 900.
Vanadium 24. 2400.
Zinc 250. 5000.
Comments ~ll constituents reported above are in mE/kg (unless othe~lse stated) on
an as receLved (wet) sample basis. Results reported represent totals
(TTLC) aa sample subjected to appropriate techn£clues to determine total leve:
P.O.L. - Practical Quantl~atlon Limit (refers to the leaa~ amount of analyte deLectab:
baaed on sample size used and &n&ly~£cel technique employed.
N.D. - None Detected (Constituent, if present~ would be less than the method ~
I.$. - Insufficient Sample
S~C - Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration
TTI~C - ?oral Threshold Limit Concentration
R~FKRKNCES=
(1) "Tilt Methods fOr Evalu&tLng Solid Waltel", SW 846, JUly, 1982.
(2) ~"Hethoda fo~ Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes', EPA-600, 14-79-020.
(See Last Page for Commentl~ Definitlonl~ Regulatory crltlril~ and Referencel)
LABORATORIES, INC. LABORATORIES, INO.
4tM PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911 41~ PIERCE RO., BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327,491
Purgeable Organic Analysis
Sierra Scientific Services Date of
2609 Highland Ct, Report: 22-Aug-90
Bakersfield, CA 93306 Lab %: 6929-5
Attention: Purgeable Organic Analysis (Continued)
Sample Description: Hoover Propery Lab #: 6929-5
10] B ? Aug 90 Sample Description: Hoover Propery
103 B ? Aug 90
Test Method: EPA Method 8010/8020 Type of Sample: Sludge
As Received Basis
Date Sample Date Analysis Minimum~
Date
Sample
Collected: Received @ Lab: Completed: Reporting Analysis Reporting
07-Aug-90 07-Aug-90 22-Aug-90 Constituent Units Results Level
Minimum 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/kg none detected 100
Reporting Analysis Reporting Tetrachloroethene ug/kg 530 100
Constituent Units Results Level Toluene ug/kg 9,100 100
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/kg none detected 100
Benzene ug/kg none detected 100 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/kg none detected 100
Sromodichloromethane ug/kg none detected 100 Trichloroethene ug/kg 100 100
Bromoform ug/kg none detected 100 Trichlorofluoromethane ug/kg none detected 100
Bromomethane ug/kg none detected 100 Vinyl Chloride ug/kg none detected 100
Carbon tetrachloride ug/kg none detected 100 o-Xylene ug/kg 16,000 100
Chlorobenzene ug/kg none detected 100 m & p-Xylenes ug/kg 98 000 100
Chloroethane ug/kg none detected 100 '
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether ug/kg none detected 100
.Chloroform ug/kg none detected 100
Chloromethane ug/kg none detected 100
Dlbromochloromethane ug/kg none detected 100
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene ug/kg 120 100 Comments:
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ug/kg none detected 100
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/kg 230 100
Dichlorodifluoromethane ug/kg none detected 100
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/kg none detected 100
1,2-Dlchloroethane ug/kg none detected 100 California D.O.M.S. Cert. %1186
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/kg none detected 100
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene ug/kg none detected 100
1,2-Dichloropropane ug/kg none detected 100
cis-l,3-Dlchloropropene ug/kg none detected 100
trans-l,3-Dlchloropropene ug/kg none detected 100
Ethyl Benzene ug/kg none detected 100
Analyst
LABORATORIES, INC. LABORATORIES, INC.
41~ PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93309 PHONE 32~4911 41~ PIERCE RD.. BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93309 PHONE 327-4g~
Purgeable Organic Analysis
Sierra Scientific Services Date of
2609 Highland Ct. Report: 22-Aug-90
Bakersfield, CA 93306 Lab ~: 6929-2
Attention: Purgeable Organic Analysis (Continued)
Sample Description: Hoover Propery Lab #: 6929-2
110 B ? Aug 90 Sample Description: Hoover Propery
110 B ? Aug 90
Test Method: EPA Method 8010/8020 Type of Sample: Soil
As Received Basis
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis Minimum
Collected: Received @ Lab: Completed: Reporting Analysis Reporting
07-Aug-90 07-Aug-90 22-Adg-90 Constituent Units Results Level
Minimum 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Reporting Analysis Reporting Tetrachloroethene ug/kg 1.1 0.5
Constituent Units Results Level Toluene ug/kg 4.9 0.5
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Benzene ug/kg none detected 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Bromodichloromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5 Trichloroethene ug/kg none detected 0.5
Bromoform ug/kg none detected 0.5 Trichlorofluoromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Bromomethane ug/kg none detected 0.5 Vinyl Chloride ug/kg none detected 0.5
Carbon tetrachloride ug/kg none detected 0.5 o-Xylene ug/kg 30 0.5
Chlorobenzene ug/kg none detected 0.5 m & p-Xylenes ug/kg 79 0.5
Chloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether ug/kg none detected 0.5
Chloroform ug/kg none detected 0.5
Chloromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Dibromochloromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/kg 3.7 0.5 Comments:
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ug/kg 1.0 0.5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/kg 9.0 0.5
Dichlorodifluoromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
l,l-Oichloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
1,2-Dichloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5 California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/kg none detected 0.5 ~
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene ug/kg none detected 0.5
·
1,2-Dichloropropane ug/kg none detected 0.5
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene ug/kg none detected 0.5
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene ug/kg none detected 0.5
Ethyl Benzene ug/kg none detected 0.5
~. ~.-E~Fi~~ Analyst
DRATORIES INC. LABORATORIES, INO.
41~ERCERD.. BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIAg33~ PHONE3274g$1 41~ PIERCE RD.. BAKERSFIELO. CALIFOR~Ag3308 PHONE327-49
Purqeable Organic Analysis
Sierra Scientific Services Date of
2609 Highland Ct. Report: 22-Aug-90
Bakersfield, CA 93306
Attention: Lab #: 6929-3
Purgeable Organic Analysis (Continued)
Sample Description: Hoover Propery Lab #: 6929-3
115 B 7 Aug 90 Sample Description: Hoover Propery
115 B 7 Aug 90
Test Method: EPA Method 8010/8020 Type of Sample: Soil
As Received Basis
Sample Date Analysis Minimum~
Date
Sample
Date
Collected: Received @ Lab: Completed: Reporting Analysis Reporting~
0?-Aug-90 07-Aug-90 22-Aug-90 Constituent Units Results Level
Minimum 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Reporting Analysis Reporting Tetrachloroethene ug/kg none detected 0.5
Constituent Units Results Level Toluene ug/kg none detected 0.5
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/kg none detected · 0.5
Benzene ug/kg none detected 0.5 l,l,2-Trichloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Bromodichloromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5 Trichloroethene ug/kg none detected 0.5
Bromoform ug/kg none detected 0.5 Trichlorofluoromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Bromomethane ug/kg none detected 0.5 Vinyl Chloride ug/kg none detected 0.5
Carbon tetrachloride ug/kg none detected 0.5 o-Xylene ug/kg none detected 0.5
Chlorobenzene ug/kg none detected 0.5 m & p-Xylenes ug/kg none detected 0.5
Chloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether ug/kg none detected 0.5
ChlorofozlU ug/kg none detected 0.5
Chloromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Dibromochloromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/kg none detected 0.5 Comments:
1,3-DIchlorobenzene ug/kg none detected 0.5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/kg none detected 0.5
Dichlorodifluoromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
1,2-Dichloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5 California D.O.H.S. Cert. #1186
l,l-Dlchloroethene ug/kg none detected 0.5
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene ug/kg none detected 0.5
1,2-Dichloropropane ug/kg none detected 0.5
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene ug/kg none detected 0.5
trans-l,3-Dlchloropropene ug/kg none detected 0.5
Ethyl Benzene ug/kg none detected 0.5
LABORATORIES, INC. LABORATORIES, INC.
41~ PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 32~4911 41~ PIERCE RD.. BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4%
Purgeable Organic Analysis
Sierra Scientific Services Date of
2609 Highland Ct. Report: 22-Aug-90
Bakersfield, CA 93306 Lab 7: 6929-4
Attention: Purgeable Organic Analysis (Continued)
Sample Description: Hoover Propery Lab ~: 6929-4
120 B 7 Aug 90 Sample Description: Hoover Propery
120 B 7 Aug 90
Test Method: EPA Method 8010/8020 Type of Sample: Soil
As Received Basis
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received @ Lab: Completed: Reporting Analysis Reporting
07-Aug-90 07-Aug-90 22-Aug-90 Constituent Units Results Level
Minimum 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Reporting Analysis Reporting Tetrachloroethene ug/kg none detected 0.5
Constituent Units Results Level Toluene ug/kg none detected 0.5
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Benzene ug/kg none detected 0.5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Bromodichloromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5 Trichloroethene ug/kg none detected 0.5
Bromoform ug/kg none detected 0.5 Trichlorofluoromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Bromomethane ug/kg none detected 0.5 Vinyl Chloride ug/kg none detected 0.5
Carbon tetrachloride ug/kg none detected 0.5 o-Xylene ug/kg none detected 0.5
Chlorobenzene ug/kg none detected 0.5 m & p-Xylenes ug/kg none detected 0.5
Chloroethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether ug/kg none detected 0.5
Chloroform ug/kg none detected 0.5
Chloromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
Dibromochloromethane ug/kg none detected 0.5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/kg none detected 0.5 Comments:
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ug/kg none detected 0.5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/kg none detected 0 5
Dichlorodifluoromethane ug/kg none detected 0 5
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/kg none detected 0 5
1,2-Dichloroethane ug/kg none detected 0 5 California D.O.H.S. Cert. #1186
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/kg none detected 0 5
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene ug/kg none detected 0 5
1,2-Dichloropropane ug/kg none detected 0 5
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene ug/kg none detected 0.5
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene ug/kg none detected 0.5
Ethyl Benzene ug/kg none detected 0.5
. LABORATORIES, INC. LABORATORIES, INC.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSRELD, CALIFORNIA ~3301 PHONE ~r/'-4ell ~'t'T~(X~i~ ~ .L ~,.~N. ~. C~M. ENO,.
4t0~ FIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA e3308 PHONE 327-49
SIERRA SCIENTIFIC $~]~VICES Date Reported: 08/15/90 Page 1 SIERRA SCIENTIFIC SER";IC~ Date .~eported: 08/15/90 Page t
2609 HIGHLAND CT. Date Received: 08/08/90 2609 }{IG~E~UND CT. Date Received: 08/08/90
BAKERSFIELD. CA 93306 Laboratol~ No.: 6929-5 BAKERSFIELD. CA 93306. .'x~borator,! ,No.; 6929-2
Attn.: ROBERT ALAN C. 805-871-3793 Attn.: ROBERT ALAN C. 805-871-3793
Sample Description: HOOVER P~OPI~TY: SAJ~LE #IO3B, 8/7/90 Sample Description: HOOVF]~ PROPERTY: SAMPIJ~ t;llOA. 8/7/90
(Title 22. Article II. California Administrattv~ Code) (Tlt]e 22. Article II. California Adminlstrativ~ Code}
Method Method
Constituents Sample Results P.Q.L. 13nits Method Ref. Constituents Sample Results P.q.L. Units
0tl & G~ 160059. 20. mr3/k~ 413.! 2 0t! & G~-~u~e 8723. 20. mr:3/~ 413.!
Cu~tlt~mt~ ~l'r_~, m/~ ~, m/~q Cor~tttus~t~ ST[g, m~/L TTT~, m/k~
Cc~r~nt: All amstltumts reported above ~re in R/i~; (unless o~mt~ ~at~) ~ ~t: All mtt~ts ~ng ~ a ~ ~ (~1~ o~mi~ stat~o~
LABORATORIES, INC. .LABORATORIES, INC.
4100 ~ERCE RD.. ~KE~FIELD, ~UFORNIA 633~ PHONE 3~1 41~ PI~ ~., ~KERSFIELO. ~LIF~A 9330~ ~ONE 327-~'
SI~ ~I~IFIC S~IC~ ~te ~rt~: O8/15/90 P~ 1 S1~ ~I~IFIC S~VIC~ ~te Re~rt~: 08/15,90 Pa~
2~ HI~ ~. ~te ~l~: 08/08/90 2609 1~I~ ~. ~te ~ei~: ~/08/90
~FI~. CA 933~ ~rato~ ~.: 6929-3 ~FI~. CA ~3306 ~rato~ ~.: 6929-4
Attn,: ~B~ ~ C. 805-871-3~93 Att~.: ~ ~ C. 805--8~-3793
~e ~rJptJon: R~ ~O~: ~ ~llSB. 8/7/90 ~]e ~scrJptton: ~ ~: ~ ~120B, 8/?/90
~t~ ~t~
~tt~ts ~le R~lts P.Q.L. ~lts ~t~ bf, ~mtt~ts ~le ~lts P.Q.L~ ~tts
Ot! & Grease 28. 20° rag/kg 413.1 2 Oil & Grease Nor~ Detected :20. h'm:j/kg 413.1
Regulatory Criteria Reoulator~ Criteria
C~nstit~e~ts S'II, C, ~i, ,/L llll::t .~/1~I C~r~tit~le~ts Sl$C, n~/L TT~C, nl/i~
Coronet: All calsttt~ents reported alx~e are ill
~ ~ ~1~ (~t) ~le ~. ~ts ~ ~t to~ ~ ~ ~1~ (~t) ~le ~. ~ts ~ ~t
(~1 ~ ~le ~J~ to ~,~tate
P.Q.L. - ~t~ ~ttatlm LMt (mfm ~ ~ 1~ ~t of ~e ~t~le P.Q.L. - ~l/ ~tltatt~ r.!-~t (mf~ to ~ l~t ~t of ~e ~t~
~ m ~le s~ ~ ~ ~1~1~ t~ ~1~. ~ m ~le s~ ~ ~ ~1~1 t~ ~1~.
N.D. - ~ ~ (~l~t, if ~t, ~d~ l~ ~ ~ mt P.Q.L.). N.D. - ~ ~ (~l~t, if ~t, ~d ~ 1~ ~ ~ m~ P.C
~ - ~l~le ~ld L~t ~tlm ~ - ~l~le ~ld L~t ~t~
(1) "~ ~ f~ ~t~ ~lld ~t~", ~ ~6, ~y, 1962. (1) "~ ~ for ~t~ ~ltd ~t~". ~ ~6, ~y, 1~2.
J. J. ~1~ ~: ~' ~1~
..................................... ~ ............. T ............................... T .................. ~ ........ ' ...........................
: , . . , :'... , :.'