HomeMy WebLinkAboutHAZARDOUS WASTEJOB 85238
Augus~ 1985
FIGURE 1
(Sc(lie: I% 200')
OUR JOB 85238
WORK PLAN
ASSESSMENT OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
VALLEY PERFORATING COMPANY
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
BSK
Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.
Wesley I. Braun, CE John R Hedlev, CE
Robertl) Sk,~gg~,Cfi Johnt½ Moore. CE
Hu'4o Kevorkian. CE John .xA .'M~nnev.
August 28, 1985
Carl Seely
Valley Perforating Company
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, California 93308
lame~ G. Sutton, CE
tloward O. Barlow. Ch
[)onR Poindexter. CE
]ohnH Kirk, CEG
ThomasE Vahistrom. Ch
OUR JOB 85238
SUBJECT:
Work Plan
Assessment of Soil Contamination
Valley Perforating Company
Bakersfield, California
Dear Mr. Seely:
At your request, we have prepared the following Work Plan for the
assessment of soil contamination resulting from the disposal of
industrial liquid waste in an unlined pond.
This Work Plan is submitted for your review and distribution to
the Kern County Department of Health. With your authorization,
we will be happy to forward copies of the plan to Dan Schultz and
Ken Schmidt. Following your review and concurrence of the plan
by Kern County, we will provide you an estimate of charges for
carrying out the approved work scope in the plan and submitting
the report for the assessment of soil contamination.
~'~e appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance on this study.
Please call the undersigned if you have questions.
Sincerely,
HK:lk
Distribution:
BSK & Associates
PrinciFF~l Geotechnical Engineer
Valley Perforating Company (2 copies)
Attn: Carl Seely
Soil Enumeering · Fnqineermkl Geoim:v - Engineermq Laboratories * Chemmal Laboratories
X Fresno, Cahfornla n '~?0(:,
._ .~3_, fl
Visalia, Cahforma ~ ~'
"_' Bakersfield. Cahforma93304
*' Pleasanmn, (]ahform.~ q4~t,
1'414 S:arm,] au', Sm,et fel~.phone {2091 4tiS-F, 310
~9tll 5o Moonev Bird,P() Box 3236 (209/732-8857
117 "V 5trm, t relephont, (805} ~27-0671
5~2n-G Snnoma []n~e Telephone ~41 ~)
WORK PLAN
ASSESSMENT OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
VALLEY PERFORATING COMPANY
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
The Valley Perforating Company in Bakersfield is a manufacturing
facility specializing in the slotting and perforating of pipes
and various types of casings for the oil industry. Cutting oil
is used to lubricate and cool the saw blades used for the
process. The oil is recycled and recirculated throughout the
process. Oil coating remaining on the pipe walls is removed by
steam cleaning. In past practices, some of the wash residues
were discharged in an unlined drainage sump situated in the rear
of the facility.
The manufacturing facility was constructed some 20 years ago and
purchased by the present owners in 1970.
Analytical testing performed by the B.C. Laboratories in response
to the request of the Kern County Department of Health indicates
the presence of lead and hydrocarbon in the near-surface of the
pond bottom. As assessment of the potential for soil and
groundwater contamination resulting from liquid waste disposal
has been requested by Kern County. This work plan addresses soil
contamination only. Dr. Kenneth D. Schmidt, Groundwater Quality
Consultant in Fresno, will address groundwater quality aspects
in a separate report.
A Vicinity Map derived from a recent aerial photograph of the
area is included in Figure 1.
BSK
Page 2
WORK PLAN
The Work Plan presented herein is designed to provide an
assessment of the potential for soil and groundwater
contamination resulting from the discharge of liquid waste 'into
an unlined drainage pond and to define the general extent of
contamination.
Hsdrdgeologic Settin9
The Valley Perforating Company facility overlies the Kern River
Alluvial Fan. The sediments consist mainly of a younger alluvium
of unconsolidated sand, gravel, silt and some clay typical of
recent channel deposits. Groundwater at the site is first
encountered at a depth of 19 feet below existing ground surface
(see Boring Log B1, Figure 3). This upper body of water is
identified as a perched layer likely resulting from recharge
activities on the Kern River southeast of the site and, to a
lesser extent, irrigation water transport in the Calloway Canal
to the north of the site. The water table, as indicated by maps
prepared by the Kern Water Agency Water Supply Report (1985), is
at a depth of approximately 70 feet.
In the immediate area of the site the water table grad'ient
generally falls rapidly to the southeast.
Soil Conditions
A preliminary boring drilled in the vicinity of the pond (see
Site Plan, Figure 2) indicates a thick and nearly continuous
sequence of firm to moderately loose sandy soils with occasional
silt lenses. The uppermost 13 feet contain significant amounts
of silt. Below 13 feet, and to the maximum exploration depth of
30 feet, the soils grade to moderately clean sand with some
gravel and silt lenses.
As indicated earlier, water was encountered at a depth of 19
feet. Based on this preliminary data, the zone of least
permeability overlying perched water, appears to be between
depths of 7 to 13 feet.
BSK
Ya rd ~
20' Grid ,]
Typical /
i.
Ig
C
IA
A
30'
qx is ting
Storage
Pond
(Bottom: -9')
20' Grid, J.~.~
Typical .
D
TE
{9B-I
( Drilled
8-24-85)
LEGEND
B-2~Boring B-2
A ~ Sampling
Hole "A"
JOB 85238
August, 1985
FIGURE 2
ting
Fence
(Not to Scale)
SITE PLAN
FIELD INVESTIGATION
LAYOUT FOR BORINGS AND
SAMPLING HOLES
Valley Perforating Company
Bakersfield, California
8-24-85 B-1
DATE' HB LOG DESIGNATION
LOGGED BY;
ELEVATION: Groundwater Encountered at 19', Groundwater at 19' after drilling joe: F85238
WATER LEVEL: 8" Hollow Stem Auger 3
EQUIPMENT: FIGURE'
i- z o c~ o~ >'
~ ~ ~ u SOIL OR ROCK DESCRiPTiON NOTES
r~ Z~ m
SI/ SILTY SAND & GRAVEL: brown; dry;
GM ag_gr_e§a_ile base.
J -. SM SILTY SAND: dark brown; damp;
~~ petroleum odor; fine to medium.
2.5 34 SM/ FINE SAND: brown; damp; slight
SP petroleum odor to depth of 2';
trace of silt.
SM SILTY SAND: dark brown; moist;
ML seams of sandy silt.
2.5 25
i0_
SP FINE TO MEDIUM SAND: reddish brown;
damp; with occasional pockets of
dark brown silt.
2.5 30
SP FINE TO MEDIUM SAND: brownish gray;
moist changing to wet at 19' occasional
gravel.
20_
2.5 34
25 (continued)
THE LOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
AT THE DATES AND LOCATIONS INDICATED, AND IT ( 2 ) 14Oi~ HAMMER- ~O INCH ORO~. BiSK
IS NOT wARRANTEB THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE
8-;'4-85 B-1 (continued}
DATE: HB LOG DESIGNATION
LOGGED BY:
ELEVATION: Groundwater Encountered at 19' Groundwater at 19' after drilling F85238
' JOB'
WATER LEVEL: 8" Hollow Stem Auger 3
EQUIPMENT: FIGURE:
~ ~ ~ z ,.
~' z "' u~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ SOIL OR ROCK DESCRIPTION NOTES
~25 SP FINE TO MEDIUM SAND: brownish gray;
moist changing to wet at 19' occasional
~ gravel.
30
Caving below 19 feet. Backfilled with cement
Boring
grout to surface. Terminated
at 30'
35- _
~0- -
%5- _
SO
THE LOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
AT THE DATES AND LOCATIONS INDICATED, AND
~S NOT WARRANTE~ THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE
Page
Waste Characterization
Products presently used in the milling and perforating process
for pipe and.casing include cutting and lubricating oil and
thinner. The thinner contains mainly parafin-based solvent with
minimal aromatics stabilizer. Soluble and cutting oils contain
biodegradable soaps, oils and glycol, mineral oils and small
amounts of chlorinated parafin. Material information bulletins
for the thinner and chemical compositions for the soluble oils
and cutting oils are shown on pages 6 through 8.
Analytical testing was peformed by the B.C. Laboratories on soils
extracts for specimens obtained in the sump near-surface and at
shallow depths below the base of the sump. The tests were
performed over the period of January through June 1985. More
recently, lead content determinations were also made on soil and
gravel stockpiles within the sump area. Test data is shown in
Figures 4 through 9. The tests include metal analyses,
base-neutrals, acids and purgeable priority pollutants and lead
content determinations using both TTLC and STLC extraction
procedures, in accordance with the California Assessment Manual.
Constituents of significance as regards soil contamination
include the following:
- Lead
- Hydrocarbons
Both TTLC and STLC concentrations indicate the presence of lead ~
in the sump near-surface in concentrations deemed haz~_~ar~ The
concentration of hydrocarbons in soils also exceeds the Kern
County Action Level of 1000 ppm by a factor of 10. A~n levels
for lead in soils are 1000 ppm and 5 ppm for the TTLC and STLC
extraction methods, respectively.
Contaminant Migration in Soils
Contaminants present in the soils at the bottom of the sump were
transported by runoff from surface wash water and rain. The
contaminants were removed in the greater part by the near-surface
soils. The removal process for inorganic and organic
constituents and the mobility of these elements in soils are
influenced by numerous physical, chemical and biochemical
processes. Soil characteristics of primary influence on the
processes include the following:
Texture
Cation Exchange Capacity
pH
Oxygen Content
Organic Content
BSK
Page 4
Soil particle size, distribution and grading (texture) and the
corresponding available pore space have major influence on
permeability. With the more impervious clay and silt mixtures,
the slow rate of water passage through the soil mass allows
greater contact time and enhancement of the various removal
procedures.
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) refers to the negative charge
present on soil particles. Except for arsenic, metals are
positively charged, and this includes lead. Soils with high CEC,
therefore, have the ability to detain the larger quantities of
positively charged ions (contaminants) from liquid waste. The
ion exchange reaction between positively charged ions (cations)
and negatively charged soil particles delays migration and allows
increased contact time for the various processes which attenuate
migration of ions. These processes include the physical,
chemical and biochemical activities described earlier which more
permanently inhibit ion migration or mobility. High CEC soils
are the silt and clay mixtures.
Ion migration in soils is significantly influenced by pH and pH
changes. In well buffered calcareous soils (soils with calcium
carbonate and high pH), most heavy metals, including arsenic,
will form relatively insoluble precipitates resistant to
leaching. Conversely, in acid soils (low pH) or poorly buffered
soils which become acidified due to acidic leachate, the
precipitates will not form or previous precipitated ions may
dissolve and become mobile and available for leaching.
Sandy soils with little or no calcareous materials can be easily
acidified by leaching or contact with acidifying materials and,
therefore, most vulnerable to the effects of pH changes.
Acidifying materials include the nitrogenous fertilizers and
decomposing organic wastes which release organic acids. Soils
with a pH greater than 7 are generally effective in controlling
metal migration.
Oxygen content in soils affects the migration of metals in soils.
When micro organisms are present in significant quantity, oxygen
influences the type of organisms that will thrive and their
biochemical reaction which will create organic compounds and the
release of mineral elements.
Aerobic (oxidizing) conditions favor attenuation of contaminants
while anaerobic (reducing) conditions accelerate migration of
contaminants. Water logging in low permeability soils or under
sump storage conditions would create temporary anaerobic
conditions and contaminant migration. Minimal runoff which
soaks into sandy soils would create opposite conditions
BSK
Page 5
particulary with the frequent wetting and drying of intermittent
runoff applications.
Soil organic.content has a decelerating influence on contaminent
mobility. Organic matter increases cation exchange capacity and
favors the Detention/Retention mechanics of metals. Moreover,
insoluble precipitates are formed through the biochemical
processing of soil micro organisms and metals. In the presence
of hmmic acids (acidic soils) the formation of highly mobile
chelated metals bound into organic complexes can occur.
In the case of the soils underlying the sump, the materials are
generally coarse textured, highly buffered, of low to moderate
CEC, inorganic and mostly present under aerobic conditions. Lead
mobility in the soil column is expected to be low to very low and
within a depth of a few feet. The presence of hydrocarbons in
concentrations in excess of the 1000 ppm action level remains
undetermined at this time. Attenuation of hydrocarbons with
increased depth is expected to be moderately rapid.
BSK
Page 6
=Material Information Bulletin
&Toxicology
Warning Statement- Na[ne
HARMFUL OR FATAL IF SWALLOWED $¢~TW~.B~.T. t~.'rReZ, gUt~ CO.
DANGER! Thinner 350
COMBUSTIBLE
Paraffins (incl. naphthenes) 98%
Aromatics
C8+ 2%
Benzene <0.1%
!
Exposure The suggested Threshold Limit Value is 125 ppm (parts of vapor per million parts
Standard of air) for a daily 8-hour exposure. No OSHA exposure standard ha.~ been estab-
lished for this material.
Eye This material is not expected to be a primary eye irritant. However, minor irrit,~tion
Irritation may be noted following contact. (See note below.)
Skin This material is not expected to be a primary skin irritant. However, minor irritation
Irritation · may be noted following prolonged or frequently repeated contact. Prolonged or
frequently repeated skin contact may cause the skin to become dry' or cracked from
the defatting action of the material. (See note below.)
Systemic This material is not expected to bc toxic by ingestion or by skin contact. However, if
Effects . the material is swallowed and aspirated, into the lungs, chemical pneumonitis may
result.
Prolonged exposure to high vapor concentrations of this material may cause sligns and
symptoms of central nervous system depression such as headache, dizziness, loss of
appetite, weakness, and loss of coordination. Affected persons normally experience
complete recovery when removed from the exposure area.
Note: We have no laboratory data on this material. These conclusions are derived from
the results of laboratory tests on similar materials.
Note 0isclaimer 0f Warranty. Page 4
(Approved by U.S. Department of Labor. "Euentially similar
to Form OSHA 20. M,tari~l Salety Data Sheet''~,
REV. No. 93 - 6/'78
e 7
Stability
(thermal. light, etc.)
Incompatibility
(materials to avoid)
Hazardous Decomposition
Products
Hazardous
Polymerization
Stable Conditions
to Avoid
Un~table
Environmental
Impact
Precautions if Material
is Released or Spilled
Waste Disposal
Methods
Certain geographical areas have air pollution restrictions concernin§ the use of
aromatic solvents in work situations where the solvent would be released to the
atmosphere. Air pollution re§ulations should be studied to determine if this
material is re§ulated in that area where it is to be used.
Eliminate all open flames in vicinity of spill or released vapors. Ctean op spills as
soon as possible, observing precautions in Section D. Absorb large spills with
absorbent clay, diatomaceous earth or other suitable material. A fire or vapor ha
hazard may exist since these cleanup materials will only absorb liquid; they will
not absorb vapor.
Place all contaminated materials in disposable containers and bury in an approved
dumping area.
Handling and
Storing
READ AND OBSERVE ALL PRECAUTIONS ON PRODUCT LABEL.
Contains petroleum naphtha.
Keep away from heat or open flame.
KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.
-- 93
· ? Page 8
To: Valley Perforating
Bakersfield, California
DATE: November l, 1984
FRON: Arthur C. Withrow Co.
Los Angeles, California
WITHROW 310 SOLUBLE OIL
Potassium Fatty Acid Soap
Sodium Sulfonate
Potassium Tall Oil Soap
Diethylene Glycol
1 - 35
10 - 15%
2 - 5%
1 - 2%
Refined Napthenic Mineral Oil-- 80 - 90~
WITHROW 136 CUTTING OIL
Refined Napthenic Mineral Oil-- 85 - 95%
Lard Oil 3 - 6%
Sulfurized Fatty Ester 1 - 2%
Chlorinated Paraffin 4 - 6%
CHEMICAL AI&4L Ye~
PETROLEUM
Valley Perforating
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, California
Attn: Mr. Carl Ceseely
FIGURE 4
LABORATORI
J. J. EGUN, REG. CHEM. lNG, il.
INC.
MAIN OFFICE: 4100 PIERCE ROAD, BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93308 PHONE 327-4911
933O8
Date Reported:
Date Received:
Laboratory No.:
1/4/85
12/11/84
16804
EXTFU~CT CONTAMINANTS ANALYZED ACCORDING TO
CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT MANUAL FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION
Sample Description: Sump Soil Sample
Total Metals, mg/kg
Arsenic 0.81
Cadmium (-) 0.25
Chromium (-) 0.5
Lead 46.6
Selenium (-) 0.10
Mercury (-) 0.02
Silver (-) 0.5
Antimony (-) 2.5
Barium (-) 5.00
Beryllium (-) 0.25
Cobalt (-) 0.5
Copper 1.92
Molybdenum (-) 0.5
Nickel (-) 0.5
Thallium (-) 2.5
\lanadium (-) 2.5
Zinc 12.0
Comment:
All metals reported above are in mg/kg on an as received (wet)
sample basis. These results are based on extracting sample
according to California Assessment Manual using a 48-hour
extraction. ~Results reported are soluble levels.
(-) refers to "less than".
B C LABORATORIES, INC.
BY
~.HEt~.GAL AIIAL I~t~
Valley Perforating
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, Califor. nia
Attn: Hr. Carl Cessely
93308
FIGURE
L BORATORIES
J. J. EGI, IN, REG. CHEM. ENGI.
MAIN OFFICE: 4100 PIERCE ROAD, BAKERSFIELD, CA. g3308 PHONE 327-4911
Date Reported: 1/14/85
Date Received: 12/11/84
Laboratory No.: 16804
Sample Des~ript ion:
Parameter
Sump Soil
Sample
mg/kg
Purgeable Priority Pollutants
Extraction 12/20/84:
Acroelein
Acrylonitrile
Other purgeable priority
pollutants
(-)
(-)
(-)
0.2
Semi-Quantified Results*
C -H _ Unsaturated hydrocarbons
1 2u
CR~i& Unsaturated hydrocarbons
CZH;~ Unsaturated hydrocarbons
~ieU?:~;;:ted hydr°carb°ns
10.
0.9
10.
20.
1.
* Quantification based upon comparison of total ion
that of the nearest internal standard.
count
of the
compound with
(-) refers to "less than".
B C LABO.~RATORI ES ,, INC.
jl~j. L;~glln/
C#E~ ;~AL AI~AL Y~I~
PETflOLEUM
Valley Perforating
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, California
Attn: Hr. Carl Ceseely
93308
FIGURE 6
LABORATORIES
J. J. EGtlN, lEG. CHEM. ENGIL
MAIN OFFICE: 4100 PIERCE ROAD, BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Date Reported: 1/14/85
Date Received: 12/I1/8q
Laboratory No.: 1680q
Sample Description: Sump Soil Sample
Parameter
B/N,A Ext. Priority Pollutants
Extraction: 12/20/84
Date Analyzed: I/2/85
2,4-OinitrophenoI (-) 15.
2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (-) 25.
4-Nitrophenoi (-) 15.
Benzidine (-) 20.
Oibut¥1phthalate (-) 25.
Dimethylphthalate (-) 15.
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (-) 20.
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (-) 40.
Phenanthrene 5.
Other B/N,A Ext. priority pollutants (-) 5.
Semi-quantified Results*
14 Saturated HydrocarbOns 100.
16 Saturated Hydrocarbons 80.
21 Saturated Hydrocarbons 80.
~aSaturated Hydrocarbons 50.
I Hydrocarbon Matrix (C10-C28) I0000.
mg/kg
* Quantification based upon comparison of total ion count of the compound
with that of the nearest internal standard.
(-) refers to "less than".
)RATOR I ES
B C LAB.( , INC.
RATORI
J. J. IGLNI, BIG. CNIIII. INOI.
FIGURE 7
INC.
MAIN OFFICE: 4100 PIERCE ROAD. BAKERSFIELD. CA. 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Valley Perforating'
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, California
53308
Date Reported:
Date Received:
Laboratory No.:
6/18/85
5/17/85
760~ to 7615
Sample Description
TTLC STLC
Total Lead CAM Lead
II @ 2' Soil 52.7 2.05
It'@ 5' Soil 29.q 5.02
~i @ 8' Soil * *
12 @ 2-1/2' 5oil :9.66 1.30
12 @ 5' Soll 22.3 0.58
12 @ 9' SOl1 (-) 1.00 (-) 1.00
Surface Haterlal North End
Co~nposite- ~AMP~P- Iq,.l
Surface Haterial South End
Compos ite - 5^*~i~P- Ha ~
3680. 250.
760. 56.8
Total Lead reported in mg/kg on an as received basis. Results reported represent
totals as .sample digested in stroog acid to effect solubility of element.
CAH Lead results reported in mg/liter on a filtrate basis.
qB-hour leachate test.
Unable to obtain uncontaminated sample for analysis.
(-} refers to'"less than".
Results from CA~
B C LABORATORIES, INC.
J.~d. I~z~lin ~'
FIGURE 8
c#t utc t
tY/'ROttY¥
RATORIES
J. J. EGI, IN, REG. CHEM. ENG4.
MAIN OFFICE: 4100 PIERCE ROAD, BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Valley Perforating
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, California
93308
Date Reported:
Date Received:
Laboratory No.:
8/7/85
8/2/85
12721, 12721A
Sample Description:
Samples of material removed from yard and piled in sump
North Pile: Total Lead (TTLC Value):
South Pile: Total Lead (TTLC Value):
1404 mg/kg
1015 mg/kg
Comment:
Extract contaminants reported above in mg/kg on an as received
basis. Values reported represent totals as samples were digested
in strong acid to effect solubility.
LABORATORIES, ~INC~
a. '~J. B'glin '~
Valley Perforating
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, California
93308
FIGURE 9
LABORATORI
J. J. EGLIN. REG. CHEM. ENGI.
INC.
MAIN OFFICE: 4100 PIERCE ROAD, BAKERSFIELD, CA. g3308 PHONE 327-4911
Date Reported:
Date Received:
Laboratory No.:
8/7/85
8/l/85
12855, 12856,
12857
'Sample Description
Total Lead, ppm
Metal Chips from operations
25.9
Soluble oil currently used
<5.00
Cutting oil currently used
<5.00
Comment:
Ail extract contaminants reported in ppm on an as received basis.
Results reported represent totals as sample digested in strong
acid to effect solubility of element.
B C LABORATORIES, INC.
J~3. ~glin ~
Page 9
Field Investigation
The field investigation would consist of drilling and obtaining
intact samples of soils from various locations and depths for the
purpose of determinating lead and total hydrocarbon contents.
Migration and deposition of lead and hydrocarbons from liquid
waste to soil solids has likely occured vertically beneath the
pond and laterally away from the pond. Figure 2 illustrates the
prop6sed pattern of boring locations and sampling points. Two
types of exploratory and sampling holes are proposed:
Borings, (B2, B3)
Sampling Holes, (A through I)
The borings would be drilled at the bottom of the pond and would
be extended to perched groundwater at a depth of approximately 10
feet below pond bottom. Detailed soil classification, as
described in the "Drilling and Sampling" section of this Work
Plan, would be provided. Intact soil specimens in each of the
two borings would be obtained at the following depths below pond
bottom surface:
0 to 1/2 foot
i to 1-1/2 feet
2 to 2-1/2 feet
3 to 3-1/2 feet
4 to 4-1/2 feet
6 to 6-1/2 feet
8 to 8-1/2 feet
10 to 10-1/2 feet
Sample preparation, documentation and preservation would be
carried out in accordance with the procedures detailed in the
"Drilling and Sampling" s'ection.
The sampling holes would serve to obtain intact soil specimens
for the assessment of the lateral migration of contaminants from
the pond. Sampling of soils above the elevation of the high
water mark in the pond (3 feet ± below surface) would ~ccordingly
not be performed. Moreover, because of the sandy native soils,
the saturation line for liquids percolating from the pond is
expected to fall rapidly away from the pond perimeter. Sampling
depths accordingly would be as follows:
BSK
Page 10
Sampling Holes
A,B,C,D:
4 to 4-1/2 feet
5 to 5-1/2 feet
6 to 6-1/2 feet
8 to 8-1/2 feet
10 to 10-1/2 feet
Sampling Holes
E,F,G,H,I:
6 to 6-1/2 feet
8 to 8-1/2 feet
10 to 10-1/2 feet
Borings and sampling holes would be drilled with an 8-inch Hollow
Stem Auger and backfilled in accordance with the procedures
outlined in the "Drilling and Sampling" section. The removal of
soil stockpiles in the pond and construction of a temporary
access ramp to the pond bottom would be necessary for drill rig
access to boring locations.
Anal~%ical'Testing..Program
The laboratory analytical testing program would consist of
determining lead and total hydrocarbons content of soils
specimens. The B.C. Laboratories in Bakersfield would provide
all analytical testing for this study.
Lead content determinations would be made using the Waste
Extraction Test (WET) in accordance with the California
Assessment Manual (CAM) procedure which requires a 48-hour
extraction in a citrate or mildy acidic solution (pH=5).
Total hydrocarbons content would be obtained by Standard Method
503E, 15th Edition. This method also corresponds to EPA Method
418.1, Petroleum Hydrocarbon, Total Recoverable, as modified to
use gravimetric separation and funnel extraction.
Intact soil specimens obtained at the locations and depths
described in the Field Investigation section would be tested in
the following two phases:
BSK
Page 11
Phase 1:
Borings B2 and B3 - Samples from depths of
0 to 1/2, 1 to 1-1/2, 2 to 2-1/2 and 3 to 3-1/2
feet.
Sampling Holes A,B,C,D - Samples from depths of 4
to 4-1/2, 5 to 5-1/2, 6 to 6-1/2 feet.
Sampling Holes E,F,G,H,I - Samples from depths
of 6 to 6-1/2 feet.
Phase 2:
Depending on the findings of the first phase, a
portion or all of the remaining samples would be
tested.
Schedule
Following Work Plan review and concurrence by the Kern County
Department of Health, drilling would be initiated within one week
of the notice to proceed by the owner. Approximately 3 days
would be required to complete the field investigation and
backfill drill holes and sampling holes. Depending on the
results of the analytical tests, keeping in mind that the testing
would be performed in phases, 4 to 6 weeks are anticipated to
complete the laboratory analytical testing. The preparation of
the Report of Findings and Assessment of Contamination would
require an additional 2 weeks from the completion of the
laboratory testing.
In summary, 8 to 10 weeks from notice to proceed should be
anticipated for the completion of the study.
BSK
Page 12
ENGINEERING TEAM
The BSK Team would comprise Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists,
Geohydrologists, and Chemists. Members of the team possess
specialized experience in numerous facets of site exploration and
contamination assessment, have intimate knowledge of subsurface
conditions in the Bakersfield area, the subject site and of the
Regional Hydrogeology and have worked with the State and Local
Agency representatives responsible for the management and
enforcement of waste discharge requirements.
Basic field exploration and sampling services for the project
would be carried out under the management of John Moore from the
BSK-Bakersfield Offices and Laboratories. The actual work
performed from this office, in addition to project management,
would include the following:
- Drilling, Exploration and Testing
- Sampling and preservation of soil specimens.
- Working relationship and.liaison with Kern County
Department of Health Services.
The BSK-Fresno Offices and Laboratories would provide technical
support supervision and coordination and the following tasks:
- Data gathering, review of historical background.
- Geotechnical engineering.
- Working relationship and liaison with the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board staff in Fresno, as
required.
Project responsibility, qualifications, and experience for each
of the key individuals for the team are presented below. An
organizational chart is also provided on Page 15.
Hugo Kevorkian, CE: Principal-in-Charge and Technical Advisor
John Moore, CE: Project Manager
John Minney, CE: Principal Geotechnical Engineer
John Kirk, RG, CEG: Senior Geohydrologist - Principal Writer
BSK
Page 13
~U~O Kevorkian would serve as the Principal-in-Charge and
Technical Advisor and Reviewe~. He would also provide the
liaison and working relationship with the staff of the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in Fresno, if
required. Mr. Kevorkian has over 20 years of experience in the
practice of geotechnical engineering in California. The last 8
years have been particularly related to contamination assessment
of soil and groundwater. In 1976 he served as consultant to the
City'of Mountain View of the geotechnical and groundwater
contamination aspects of the 600 acre Shoreline Regional Park
Landfill and provided analyses and remedial alternatives to
groundwater intrusion into landfill cells, groundwater
contamination of major and secondary aquifers and methane
recovery well design modifications for the control of groundwater
intrusion. Currently, he is the reviewing principal on several
hazardous liquid waste and solid waste management projects in
California, including several liquid waste disposal sites in
Bakersfield California.
John Moore (BSK) would serve as the Project Manager. Mr. Moore
is a principal of BSK and the general manager of the Bakersfield
offices and laboratories. He has 14 years of experience in
Engineering and has had project level responsibility for major
construction in California and Nevada. The projects have
included waste treatment and disposal facilities, waterworks and
solid waste. He is currently involved with the investigation and
project team management for several liquid waste disposal sites
in Bakersfield, including the clean-up of a soil-contaminated
industrial site.
John M. Minney would serve as the Principal Geotechnical
Engineer. He has 14 years of experience in the field of
geotechnical engineering. While employed by Woodward-Clyde, he
had responsibility for major commercial and industrial projects
throughout the central, eastern and some of the western states.
In the past 5 years, he has been in responsible charge for
several public and private waste disposal facilities in
California where contamination of soils and groundwater has been
the primary issue. Mr. Minney's participation in the project
would include engineering supervision for the exploration and
field sampling phases and coordination of other technical
activities within the BSK offices.
BSI<
Page 14
John Kirk would be the Senior Engineering Geologist responsible
for the preparation of the Report of Findings and Assessment of
Contamination. Mr. Kirk is a Certified Engineering Geologist and
Licensed Geologist in the State of California. He has 15 years
of experience related to engineering geology particularly with
regards to contamination and soil/water chemistry. His recent
and current hazardous waste projects include the Refinery
Services site, Kern Oil and Refineries Company. Reichhold
Chemicals, Candlewick Yarn Company, and Westlands Water District.
Analstical Laboratories: The B.C Laboratories in Bakersfield
would provide the necessary analytical testing for the Project.
The laboratories are certified by the State of California for
performing the various tests anticipated for the study.
BSI<
Page 15
IValley Perforating CompanyI
Project Mana.qer
John Moore, CE
BSK-Bakersfield
Technical Advisory
Committee
Hugo Kevorkian, P.I.C., CE
Analytical Laboratories
B.C. Laboratories, Bakersfield
Dan Schultz
Report of Findings
Assessment of Soil Contamination
Geotechnical-
Geology/
Hydrogeology:
John Minney, CE
John Kirk,
REG,CEG
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Page 16
DRILLING AND SAMPLING
EQUIPMENT
Drilling Equipment:
Drilling equipment shall consist of Truck Mounted or Track
Mounted Rotary Drill Rigs with hydraulic feed and equipped
with 8-inch diameter continuous flight hollow stem augers with
retractable center plugs and 'rotary wash boring pump and tools.
Drill rigs suitable for the purpose include:
Truck-Mounted Mobile B-53
Truck-Mounted Mobile B-50
Track-Mounted Mobile B-50
Truck-Mounted CME-75
Where feasible drilling shall proceed without the use of drilling
fluid and additives. If drilling fluids and additives become
necessary they shall conform to the materials and supplies
specifications in this section.
In view of the limited depths (15 to 20 feet) proposed for the
sampling of soils and determination of the presence of lead and
hydrocarbons in soils, hollow stem augers should likely prove
satisfactory. A truck-mounted Mobile B-50 or B-53 is proposed for
the task.
The drill rig shall be cleaned of debris before entering the site
and shall be free of hydraulic and motor oil as is feasible.
Augers, drill rods, drill bits, plugs and samplers shall be
cleaned in accordance with the equipment cleaning procedures
described in this section.
Sampling Equipment:
Sampling equipment for obtaining soil specimens from various
depths within the borings shall include a split barrel drive
sampler made of steel and containing thin-wall stainless steel
liners with 2.50-inch inside diameter and 6.00-inch length.
BS](
Page 17
Safety Equipment:
Safety equipment shall include but not be. limited to the
following:
Gloves, Safety Glasses, Hard Hats, a First-Aid Kit,
Disposable Tyvek Coveralls, Nalgene Gloves.
Respirators shall be available as described in the Health and
Safety Plan.
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
Water:
The source of water to be used in drilling, grouting, purging or
equipment washing shall be a public or private well with potable
water, in current usage and preferably drawing water from the
same formation underlying the site.
Bentonite:
Bentonite shall be the only additive intended for drilling mud
and grout seal. The bentonite may be in the powder or pellet
form. The following data shall be documented for the sources of
bentonite.
Brand Name
Manufacturer
Product Description
Manufacturer's Intended Use
Grout:
Grout used for boring backfill, shall be composed of Portland
Cement (Types I through V). A maximum of 10 gallons of potable
water per 94-pound bag of cement shall be used. Neither
additives nor bore hole cuttings shall be mixed with the grout.
DRILLING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Drilling Procedures:
Drilling in unconsolidated materials shall be performed with the
drilling equipment described in Section 1. A Geologist or
Geotechnical Engineer shall be present and responsible for
locating bore holes, monitoring of drilling operations,
preparation of bore hole logs, recording of groundwater data, and
logging and labelling soil samples.
BSK
Page 18
Prior to drilling at each location, the immediate area shall be
cleared of foreign materials and obstructions to preclude foreign
materials from entering the bore holes or interfering with
drilling operations. Surface runoff shall be diverted from the
bore hole area.
Drilling operations shall be in accordance with current standard
practices and at the direction of the Geologist and Geotechnical
Engineer.
Prior to beginning each boring, augers shall be cleaned as
follows:
Remove soils from the equipment with a shovel and place
spoils in a location provided by the owner.
Remove remaining soils adhering to the auger with a
wire brush.
Wash augers and equipment with steam cleaner, high
pressure hot water cleaner or potable water, from an
approved source.
Place cleaned augers on a plastic sheeting to protect
equipment from ground contact.
Sampling Procedures:
Soil samples shall be collected intact in stainless steel liners.
The samples in the liners shall first be capped with teflon or
alluminum foil, then with a tightly fitting plastic cap and
finally sealed with an adhesive tape. Each sample shall receive
an adhesive-backed label. Boring designation, depth of sampling
and initials of individual preparing the sample shall be recorded
on the label with a waterproof marker.
Samples shall be obtained at the depths described in the Field
Exploration and Sampling section. Prior to each sampling, the
sampling equipment and components shall be cleaned by the following
procedures:
Detergent wash followed by, potable water rinse
followed by methanol or ethanol solution rinse followed
by, distilled or deionized water rinse.
BSI(
Page 19
Bore Hole Logging:
The boring logs for each bore hole shall be prepared by the
Geologist or. Geotechnical Engineer as drilling and sampling
progresses. The logs shall be prepared on Standard BSK Forms
(see attachment). The following information shall be routinely
entered into the log.
PARAMETER EXAMPLE
Soil Classification
Unified Soil Classification
Symbol
Secondary Component
Description
Color
Moisture Content
Plasticity
Consistency
Firmness (Non-cohesive Soils)
Texture, Fabric, Bedding
Depositional Environment
Sandy CLAY
CL
Fine SAND
Brown-Red
Dry, Moist, Wet
Low Plasticity
Stiff
Loose
Stratified, Cemented
Alluvium
The log shall also incorporate the following site conditions,
drill rig and sampling information:
Date of start and finish bore hole.
Drilling equipment.
Sampling depth.
Sampling method (pushed or driven).
Additives and fluids used in drilling.
Depth to groundwater where first encountered, if
feasible.
Depth to groundwater at termination of drilling, if
feasible.
Sampler penetration resistance, in blows per foot.
Sampler recovery in percent of total sample
penetration.
Sampler type.
Special problems and their resolutions.
Names of drill crew members.
Name of geologist or engineer.
Estimates of depths for soil type boundary - lithology.
Type and weight of hammer and height of drop.
When drilling fluid is used; pumping pressure, fluid.
Losses or gains and intervals where they occur.
Boring designation and general location.
BSK
Page 20
Final typed logs shall be prepared from the original field logs of
borings.
Backfilling Bore Holes:
Unless destined to receive well casings for the construction of
piezometers or monitoring wells, each bore hole shall be
backfilled with cement grout from the bottom of the bore hole to
the .~unface.
Clean-Up:
Drill cuttings and excess soil sampling material shall be
stockpiled or stored on the property at a location designated by
the owner~
Contaminated disposable clothing shall be stored in a protected
canister and eventually disposed in an acceptable disposal site.
BSK
Page 21
HEALTH AND SAFETY
BACKGROUND
The Valley Perforating Company, in the process of slotting and
perforating steel pipes produces wastewater. This wastewater is
disposed of in an unlined pond. Based on preliminary tests by
others, substances that may be a source of exposure to drill crews
inclOd~:
Lead
Hydrocarbons
The following assumptions can be made about materials encountered
during drilling:
1)
2)
They may contain constituents in hazardous concentrations.
If present, the constituents will be encountered during the
drilling and sampling phases. The potential for significant
airborne contamination is low to very low.
EMERGENCY CONTACTS AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Kern County Department
of Health Services:
(805) 861-3636
California Highway Patrol
Call Operator (0)
Ask for Zenith 1-2000
CHEMTREC
(24 Hour Assistance in
Case of Chemical or
Hazardous Material Emergency)
(800) 424-9300
TOXLINE
(Source of Information
and Assistance in Hazardous
Waste Exposure Emergencies)
(301) 496-1131
General Procedures:
BSK Employees working on this project must comply with the
procedures set forth in this Health and Safety Plan and with
safety procedures discussed by the Health and Safety Officer
(HSO) prior to start of work. It is virtually impossible to
anticipate all conditions on the site and health hazards
beforehand. Field crews must accordingly exercise common sense
BSK
Page 22
and good judgement in their comportment on the job and in the
approach used in a given situation. This plan contains rules,
guidelines and working procedures appropriate to the tasks at
hand. Field'crews shall follow the Health and Safety procedures
in this plan. Should there be questions, advice and direction
should be sought from the Health and Safety Officer (HSO).
Medical Screening:
BSK Personnel working on the Valley Perforating Company Project,
during field exploration and testing must maintain the BSK medical
screening program and undergo a medical evaluation on a six-month
interval. The purpose of the medical examination is to monitor
personnel health status for evidence of project adverse health
effects and for personnel suitability for future work assignments of
similiar activity.
Health and Safety Officer(HSO)
The Health and Safety Officer for this project shall be
John Kirk. The HSO is given the authority for the following actions:
Require health and safety precautions prior to site
entry by BSK Personnel.
Require BSK Employee to obtain immediate medical
attention.
- Deny access to the site or any portion of the site.
Order the immediate evacuations of BSK Employees from
any area of the site.
Emergency Action:
If an emergency involving actual of suspected personal injury
occurs, the HSO will follow these steps:
Remove the exposed or injured person(s) from the
immediate danger.
Render First Aid, if necessary.
personnel.
Decontaminate affected
Obtain paramedic service or ambulance transport to
local hospital. This procedure should be followed even
if there is no visible injury.
BSK
Page 23
Other personnel on site should be evacuated to a safe
distance until the HSO determines that it is safe for
work to resume. If there is any doubt regarding the
condition of the area, advice of knowledgeable personnel
should be sought. (See emergency contacts and telephone
numbers).
A written report of the incident must be forwarded to
the Project Manager, or HSO designee, within
twenty-four hours following the incident.
Personnel Protection:
The nature of the work is such that potentially hazardous
conditions could be encountered. It is not possible to
anticipate the required protective equipment for unforeseen but
remote conditions. The potential for airborne contamination is low
to very low. Unless field conditions change, Level "D" protection is
considered adequate for the Valley Perforating Company Project.
Splashing, immersion and unexpected inhalation of chemicals are not
anticipated.
Items specified below should provide the range of protection
anticipated for the working conditions and standby equipment
(respirators) for unanticipated Level "C" protection.
Gloves:
- Inner:
surgical type (vinyl disposable)
- Outer: Chemical protective, neoprene or nitrile.
Protective Clothing:
- Tyvek, Saranek-coated, zippered coveralls.
Footwear:
- Disposable shoe covers, PVC.
Eye Protection:
- Safety Glasses with sideshields.
- Goggles.
- Hard Hat with attachable face shield.
- Medical Oxygen.
BSI(
Page 24
Respirators:
Half-mask air-purifying chemical cartridge respirator
with an organic vapor cartridge(s) and dust, fume and
mist filter(s), including pesticide respirators which
meet these requirements.
Individuals working in soils potentially contaminated with
chemicals in hazardous concentrations should wear disposable shoe
covers over boots. These covers should be taped in place,
replaced any time they are damaged, and at the beginning of each
new workday. Covers should be disposed of with disposable
clothing, as directed by the HSO. Boots should be washed each
day and properly stored. At the conclusion of work, boots should
be washed and plastic bagged. Boot covers should be disposed at
the conclusion of field investigation activities.
As directed by the HSO, individuals observing field work,
sampling, or performing activities peripheral to drilling and
working in soil should wear ~e~9~opren~loves, face shields and
protective clothing while perfof~in--~-~'fie activities.
At the end of the day, outer protective clothing should be
removed and stored in impervious bags. Disposable clothing
should be disposed as directed by the HSO.
The HSO will ensure that appropriate protective clothing and
equipment is in use during field activities.
Safets. Equipment
The HSO will have certain safety items immediately available
on-site. These items include:
First Aid Kit, including compresses, splints, gauze,
triangular bandages, gauze roller bandage, tape, eye
dressing packet, emetics.
Supply of clean water.
Portable eyewash facilities or equipment.
Masking or fiber tape.
Indelible marking pens.
Plastic bags for contaminated equipment and clothing.
BSK
Page 25
- Soap or waterless hand cleaner and towels.
- Medical Oxygen for resuscitation purposes.
Fire extinguisher (alcohol foam, dry chemical or carbon
dioxide).
Decontamination
The ~HS~ will make arrangements with Valley Perforating Company staff
for a temporary decontamination station at the work site. Soap rinse
water and wash pan should be available. Waste generated from
decontamination shall remain on the site and properly disposed by the
owner.
Tools and sampling equipment decontamination shall conform to
the procedures outlined in the "Drilling and Sampling" sections.
When using methanol, the OSHA permissible exposure unit of
200 ppm/8 hours should be followed.
Methanol may be absorbed in small quantities on paper towels and
allowed to evaporate outdoors. Larger quantities may be disposed
by absorbing in vermiculite, dry sand, earth or similiar material
and disposing in an approved disposal site.
Health and Safety Training
Field personnel shall receive health and safety training in the
following topics:'
Hazardous Substances in the Field:
Types and concentrations of hazardous substances known
or suspected at the site.
Determination of which routes of exposure to avoid for
the waste being sampled and the proper sampling and
protective equipment to be utilized.
Physiological and behavioral warning signs of acute
toxicity.
Role of the Site Health and Safety Officer.
- Authority of the HSO.
Responsibility of each individual to obey the HSO.
BSK
Page 26
Identifying and Avoiding Hazards:
- Monitoring equipment.
- Use of common sense.
- Specific problems on site which should be avoided.
-, Maintenance of personnel communication and visibility.
Use of Apparel and Safety Equipment:
- Respiratory protection: selection, fit, donning and
use.
-Personnel protective equipment.
- Limitations of clothing and equipment
- Personal hygiene.
- Decontamination of clothing and equipment.
- Disposal of contaminated clothing and equipment.
Prohibited Activities:
- Appropriate conduct of personnel during hazardous waste
site operations.
- Emergency procedures and services.
Refer to the emergency contacts and telephone numbers for
emergency procedures in the field.
First Aid
The HSO or designated field personnel shall be familiar with
first aid and CPR Topics and Procedures.
BSK
Page 27
Mitigation of Contamination
The HSO shall enforce procedures to mitigate potential
contamination during field activities. These procedures should
include the following:
Decontamination of sampling equipment, other equipment
and tools.
Disposition of decontamination solutions and any other
materials used on sampling and drilling equipment.
- Disposition of wastes and protective clothing.
Minimization of dust generated from operations by water
spraying of surfaces if this procedure is compatible
with obtaining sample of specified quality.
Minimization of personnel exposures through the
placement of crew members upwind.
Page 28
FIELD DOCUMENTATION AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Information ~pertinent to field activities must be recorded in the
following forms to provide proper documentation:
Log Books
Sample Tags or Gummed Label
Photographs
Chain-of-Custody Records
The staff must keep detailed records of field activities.
Records must be permanent, and written in waterproof ink. A
Document Coordinator must be appointed for each project. The
coordinator has the responsibility and custody of all records for
the project.
Log Book
The field log book must consist of a bound book with consecutively
numbered pages. The book must be used to enter information
pertinent to field activities and must include the following:
Date and time of entry and sample collection.
Nature of work and purpose of sampling.
Name of individual providing sampling.
Name of waste generator.
Type of waste and description of sample.
Waste components, if known.
Number, type and size of samples.
Description of sampling point.
Sample identification number.
Field measurement data (pH, Conductivity,
Temperature, etc.).
Miscellaneous field observations and records
of photographs.
Log book entries must be initialled and dated by the individual.
Photographs
Photographs must be numbered and individually documented in the
log book. Documentation should include the following:
Date and time when photograph was taken.
Photographer's signature of log book.
Entry, if other than individual preparing
the documentation and sampling.
General direction faced in taking photograph
and description of subject.
Site location and description.
Photograph sequence and roll designation numbers.
BSI(
Page 29
Photographs must preferably be taken with lenses capable of
duplicating naked-eye perspective. High telephoto and wide-angle
distortion should be avoided.
Sample Tags and Labels
Sample tags and labels must be filled out with waterproof ink.
Labels must be affixed to the sample container. If tags are
use~, the tag string must be secured to the sample container with
a tape seal. The label must include the following information:
Date and time'of collection.
Sample number or identification.
Label sequence number.
Place of collection.
Preservatives used, if any.
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY
A chain of possession and custody of samples collected,
transferred, stored, analyzed or destroyed must be maintained.
The primary objective of the procedure is to create an accurate
written record which traces the possession and handling of
samples from sampling to its introduction as evidence in the
event of litigation. A sample is in someone's custody if one of
the following conditions are met:
The sample is in the person's physical possession.
The sample is in the person's view after being in his
physical possession.
The sample is in the person's physical possession and then
locked-up so that it cannot be tampered with, or the
sample is in a secured area, restricted to authorized
personnel.
Sample Collection, Handling and Identification
The number of 'individuals involved in the collection, handling
and documentation of samples should be kept to a minimum.
Accordingly, the document coordinator should also be the Field
Custodian who is charged with the responsibility of collecting,
documenting and transporting samples to the point of shipment or
to the laboratory.
Sample Transfer
The samples must be placed in transportation cases along with the
Chain-of-Custody Record Forms, pertinent field records and
analyses requests. The transportation case must be sealed or
locked. Individual samples should be sealed at the cap in a way
that provides detection of tampering.
BSK
Page 30
When samples are composited over a time period, unsealed samples
can be transferred from one crew to the next. The transferring
crew lists the samples and a member of the receiving crew signs
the list. The receiving crew either transfers the samples to
another crew or delivers them to a laboratory person, who signs
for the samples.
Tran~sfer of Custody and Shipment
The person transferring the samples must sign and date the
Chain-of-Custody Form (see attachment). Custody transfer must
account for each sample or group of samples. Every person in the
chain of possession must similarly follow the same documentation
procedures. Receipts for mailed packages sent by common carrier
must be retained as a part of the permanent chain-of-custody
documentation.
BSI<
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Page
PROJECT
Station
!Number
Sample
nation
['S~'MPLERS ~S~gnature)
Sample Type
Grab.
No. of
Containers
Analysis
Required
Relinquished by:
Relinquished by:
Relinquished by:
Dispatched by:
ignature
(Signature)
(Signature)
('Signature)
Method of Shipment:
Received by:
Received by:
Received b~:
D'at'e/Ti'me'
;ignature)
(Signature)
(Signature)
Received for Laboratory by:
Date/Time
Date/time
Date/Time
Date/Time
Distribution:
O~i~. - A'c~ompany Shipment
BSI<.
Page
32
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS CHEMICAL LAt3ORATORIES
1414Stamslaus o' Fresno. California 93706
(209) 485-8310
Client [ Date
Lab. No. Sample ID
Initials Time
Anatyze for
Perservative: None CuSO,/H~PO,
HzSO~. HNO~ NaOH ZnAcz
ATTACHMENT 2
SANPLE LABEL AND TAGS
BSK
APPENDIX "A"
RESUMES
BSK
HUGO KEVORKIAN - Principal Engineer
EDUCATION:
B.A~, 1962, Civil Engineering
REGISTRATION:
1966, Professional Engineer - California
1977, Quality Control Engineer - California
1972, Professional Engineer - Nevada
SUMMARY
Mr. Kevorkian provides a role as Project Manager, coordinating work
activities, performing liaison between BSK & Associates and participating
consulting firms, and providing report evaluations and performance review
internal to BSK staff. Mr. Kevorkian is the Managing Partner for the branches
of geotechnicat engineering, ground water seepage and contaminant monitoring,
solid waste engineering and field instrumentation and monitoring, solid waste
engineering and field instrumentation and monitoring. Job assignments have
embraced widely varied projects in California and Nevada for City, County,
State and Federal Agencies, and private industry. Projects have included
solid and liquid hazardous waste site investigations, leachate migration,
ground water contamination, feasibility studies for remedial measures, and
site clean-up and restoration. He has an established working relationship
with the engineering staff and management of the California Water Quality
Control Board and Department of Health Services. Mr. Kevorkian has managed
geotechnicai and waste disposal projects in central and southern San Joaquin
Valley Counties.
BSK
JOHN B. MOORE, JR. - Project Manager
EDUCATION:
B.S., 1972, Civil Engineering
REGISTRATION:
1974, Professional Engineer - California
1977, Quality Control Engineer - California
SU~+.ZARY
Mr. Moore provides expertise as Project Engineer for major construction
projects in California and Nevada, including waste treatment and disposal
facilities, waterworks, and solid waste landfills. Mr. Moore has been
responsible for overseeing Title II projects at the China Lake Naval Weapons
Center, California, and has provided the engineering services for the
Construction Support Services at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Irwin
base. He is currently involved with a site selection study for the proposed
Kern County solid-waste landfill. The study includes design details for
landfill cover, monitoring well placement and design, drainage studies, and an
operations manual. Mr. Moore served as a Construction Supervisor for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineer, Viet Nam.
BSK
JOHN M. MINNEY - Geotechnical Engineer
EDUCATION:
B.S., 1975, Civil Engineering
M.S., 1979, Geotechnica! Engineering
REGISTRATION:
1980, Professional Engineer - California
1980, Professional Engineer - Missouri
SUMMARY:
Mr. Minney has provided geotechnical engineering and waste management services
for projects throughout Central and Southern California, including sewage
disposal facilities, solid waste disposal siting and closure plans, hazardous
waste preliminary investigations and planned removal studies. He has
performed numerous studies for ground water monitoring, seepage, and solute
transport. He has designed passive systems for the control of leachate
plumes, including bentonite slurry trench cut-off walls and grout curtains.
He has designed and implemented methane and vapor control systems for the
control of gases beneath landfills. His most~recent work includes the
design and implementation of a hydrodynamic system for the control of leachate
emanating from a landfill by using a system of well points to control water
table elevations and ground water flow directions.
BSK
JOHN H. KI~K - Geohydrologist
EDUCATION:
REGISTRATION:
B.A., 1971, Geology
M.A., 1974, Geophysics, Geohydrology
1976, Professional Geologist, California
1977, Engineering Geologist, California
SUMMARY:
Mr. Kirk serves as the Principal Investigator of major ground water studies
including resource development, water quality, toxic contamination, toxic
movement in the vadose zone, aquifer testing and storage analyses.
Coordinates and supervises field investigations for geohydrologicai and
hazardous waste studies. Designs field installations for water and soil
sampling, including monitoring well installation, piezometer nests, drill-crew
supervision, water and soil sample quality control. Responsible for the
developmen5 and implementation of computer models of ground water flow (finite
element and finite difference) and solute transport in 2- and 3-dimensions.
Mr. Kirk provides geophysical testing services in conjunction with
geohydrological and toxic waste site investigations, including seismic,
magnetic, electrical, and gravity methods. He has developed and implemented
data reduction and interpretation computer programs for analysis of complex
geologic settings. Mr. Kirk provides feasibility studies for alternative
measures at hazardous waste sites and establishes clean-up activities for soil
and ground water.
BSK
JOB 85238
REPORT OF FINDINGS
SITE CLEAN-UP
VALLEY PERFORATING COMPANY
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
BSK
& Associates
gS]< & Associates
Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.
Wesley I Braun, CE JohnR. Hedlev. CE
Robert D. Skaggs. CE John B Moore. CE
Hugo Kevorkian. CE John M Minnev, CE
February 26, 1986
JamesG Sutton, CE
Howard D. Barlow. CE
Don R. Poindexter. CE
John H. Kirk, CEG
Thomas E Vahlstrom, Ch
Our Job 85238
Jerry Reynolds
Valley Perforating ComPany
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, California 93308
SUBJECT:
Report of Findings
Site Clean-up
Valley Perforating Company
Bakersfield, California
Dear Mr. Reynolds:
Submitted in this report are our findings and conclusions for the
assessment of soil contamination at the subject site, in
Bakersfield, California.
The resultS of our field exploration and analytical testing
program for soils indicate the following:
Volatile organic compounds (EPA 601, EPA 602) were not
detected in measurable concentrations in any of the 27 soil
samples obtained from around and beneath the pond. The
absence of organic compounds, in spite of earlier
measurements of large hydrocarbon concentrations in
pond-bottom soils, is likely the product of evaporation and
migration of the volatile component of petroleum compounds,
while the more stable mineral component which is mainly
affected by slow biodegradation, remains in the soil
structure and accounts for the hydrocarbon readings,
discoloration and odoriferous character.
Twenty-seven soil samples obtained from around and beneath
the pond were tested for the presence of 17 trace metals.
Only Arsenic, Chromium, Lead, Barium and Vanadium had
concentrations of significance. These concentrations did
not exceed the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board (CRWQCB) "designated levels" and therefore, by CRWQCB
definition, conform to water quality goals and are deemed to
not have the potential for groundwater degradation.
Soil Engineering · Engineering Geology * Engineering Laboratories * Chemical Laboratories
.~ Fresno, Califorma 93706
~ Visalia, California 93278
,-'i Bakersfield, California 93304
~ Pleasanton, California 94569
1414 Stamslaus Street Telephone 1209} 485-8310
3901 So. Moonev Blvd., PO, Box 3236 (209) 732-6857
117 "V" Street · Telephone (805) 327-0671
$729-G Sonoma Drive · Telephone (415) 462-4000
Report of Findings
Site Clean-up
Valley Perforating Company
Our Job 85238
February 26, 1986
Page 2
These findings and conclusions do not apply to the contaminated
soil stockpiles in the pond nor do they apply to the uppermost
two (2) feet-of soils in the pond bottom. Tests performed
earlier by the BC Laboratories indicated that the lead
concentration alone exceeded water quality goals and groundwater
degradation criteria.
The potential presence of some volatile organic compounds in
groundwater, as a product of the migration process described
above, has not been investigated. Dr. Kenneth Schmidt, we
understand, will provide the groundwater analyses.
Please call if you have any questions.
with you
HK/JHK: 1 k
Enclosures
Distribution:
We are prepared to meet
if you~er clarifications.
f~~. '~,% Respectfully submitted,
,~-~;::,.~ BSK & Associates
["Io 163~.o ' i,
~dtP &- ¢m. ~¢ ,< '":"/ Hugo Keforkian
~¢z~tV,V~:;;:....:~" CE 16350
Dr. Kenneth Schmidt (1 copy)
Kern County Health Department (1 copy)
California Regional Water
Quality Control Board (1 copy)
Valley Perforating (2 copies)
BSK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
SOIL CONDITIONS
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
FIELD EXPLORATION
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL TESTING
PURGEABLE ORGANICS
QUALITY CONTROL OUTLINE
ANALYTICAL DATA INTERPRETATION
LIMITATIONS
Page
1
3
4
5
8
9
9
11
44
APPENDIX
APPENDIX "A"
APPENDIX "B"
APPENDIX "C"
- Analytical Test Data
(BC Laboratories)
- Chain of Custody Records
- Quality Control and Safety
Documents
- Work Plan
- Correspondence
ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
FIGURES 4-11
- Vicinity Map
- Geologic Cross-Section A-A'
- Test Hole Location Map
- Boring Logs
TABLE
TABLES 1-26
- Comparisons of DHS & CRWQCB
Hazardous & Designation Levels
for Soil Constituents vs.
Laboratory Test Data
BSK
& Associates
REPORT OF FINDINGS
ASSESSMENT OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
VALLEY PERFORATING COMPANY
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
This report presents our findings and conclusions for the
assessment of soil contamination at the site of Valley
Perforating Company, in Bakersfield, California. Work scope,
purposes and objectives of this report are based on a Work Plan
prepared by BSK & Associates, dated August 28, 1985 (See
Appendix "B"), and the various written and oral modifications and
directives issued by the Kern County Health Department, as
indicated in the correspondence contained in Appendix "C".
Description of Facility and Operations
Valley Perforating Company manufactures slotted and perforated
well pipe for various oil industry usages. The facility was
constructed some 20 years ago and was purchased by the present
owners in 1970. New and used pipe is used for the stock
material. Pipe cutting is performed with saw blades. The saw
blades are cooled and lubricated with cutting oil. According to
Valley Perforating Company, approximately 50 gallons per month of
soluble oil were used during the period of March 1984 to May
1985. This has been replaced by Acculube. Additionally,
approximately 500 to 750 gallons per month of Withrow 136 cuttin9
oil is used. The cutting oil is recycled and recirculated
throughout the process. Oil coating remaining on the pipe walls,
and any materials on the used stock material are removed by
pressure steam cleaning. The wastewater from the steam cleaning
process formerly drained across the property to an unlined
dna image sump situated near the rear of the facility. BSa<
& Associat~
Page 2
We have been informed by the owners that the wastewater generated
by the steam cleaning operation is currently contained over
concrete-lined aprons and diverted to a 12,000 gallon above
ground tank for temporary storage and off-site disposal. The
steam cleaner water travels over concrete to an 18 inch diameter,
two foot deep pit. It is then pumped into the above ground tank.
During the period of our field investigation, wastewater was not
entering the unlined sump and the bottom of the sump was dry.
Site Location and Description
The site is located at the end of. Gulf Street, east of Pierce
Road, and occupies approximately 3.5 acres of a rectangular piece
of land which measures approximately 250 x 600 feet. The
property is located in a commercial/industrial section of
Bakersfield. The neighborhood also contains scattered housing.
The propert'y to the east is currently vacant. Figure 1, Vicinity
Map, shows the location of Valley Perforating Company,
surrounding properties, and the unlined drainage sump.
Much of the property is used for pipe storage; the manufacturing
operation occupies about one-fifth of the property. The ground
is generally level.
The drainage sump measures approximately 30 x 50 feet, and is
approximately eight feet deep. Soil scraped from the surrounding
land has been placed in the southern end of the pond. At the
time of the field exploration, the pond walls were discolored
below the water line. The water line was approximately 2 feet
below top of ground surface.
BSK
& Associates
Page 3
SOIL CONDITIONS
The dominant geologic feature controlling sedimentary deposition
at the site is the Kern River. The site lies within the flood
plain of the River, and sediments at the site comprise Younger
Alluvium (see the Geologic Map, Plate 1). Our test holes drilled
for this project show a sequence of interbedded sand, silty sand,
sandy silt, and.silty clay. An approximate bedding sequence
includes an eight to nine foot thick silty sand surface layer
(probable flood-plain origin) which overlies an older, apparently
partially eroded silt layer which likely tapers from a few inches
at a location between Test Holes A and RH-1 to five feet or more
in other locations. Although dominantly a sandy silt, the layer
partially grades to a silty sand. The upper surface of the silt
layer was encountered at a depth of approximately eight feet, and
has apparently been eroded and removed in its northern portion,
likely to an offsite location. The silt appears to have its
origin as swamp and overflow land from the Kern River and may.
correlate with a northward extension of Buena Vista/Kern Lake or
shallow marshy tributary areas. The marshland appears to have
been created as a backwater effect from the blockage of the
northward flow of water by the Kern River Alluvial Fan. The
lowest continuous layer encountered is a sand layer of (probable)
significant thickness. The sand is similar to that exposed
throughout this part of Kern County and may correlate with an
areally extensive deposit of sands and gravels.
Below the pond bottom area is an irregular sequence of soils
which show a complex deposition/erosion pattern (see Figure 2 for
a schematic cross-section of the subsurface soil conditions).
The soils below the silt layer observed below the pond show a
limited coherent layering pattern, and it is evident that these
BSK
& Associates
· Page 4
extensive soil deposits have become locally eroded and removed.
These fine-grained soils probably have little significance to the
project, as their limited areal extent would provide little if
any additional barrier to the subsurface flow of wastewater.
An E-log for a well located approximately one mile south of the
Site shows that the sand and gravel extends to a depth of
approximately 140 feet and that weakly consolidated Pliocene
continental deposits occur at a depth of approximately 200 feet.
Consolidated or crystalline bedrock occurs at a great depth below
the site. (Borings Logs B, B2, B3, A, B, C, D and RH1 are shown
in Figures 4 through 11. A Test Hole Location Plan is shown in
Figure 3.)
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 19 feet
in Test Hole B-1 during our preliminary site characterization, in
August 1985. Indication of groundwater were encountered at 17
feet in several of the test holes drilled during our February
1986 field investigation.
This investigation was directed towards an appraisal of soil
conditions and potential soil contamination in the vicinity of
the drainage pond. Additional assessments regarding groundwater
conditions are beyond the scope of this report.
BSK
JOB 85238
February, 1986
FIGURE 2
410
North
Distant Test Hole
(1500' From Site)
South
410
400
SILI'Y SAND.
380
37O
SILTY SAND
SILT SILTY SAND
· ' "' '"" "': : '"~,.,n,,~"n'."' ' ''
l'lll
I.Illl'1
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A'
400
390
38O
370
Horizontal Scale: 1'= 20'
Vertical Scale: 1'= 10'
SI(.
Page 5
FIELD EXPLORATION
Test Hole Drilling and Soil Sampling
Field exploration included a preliminary site appraisal, test
h'ole drilling, soil sampling, sample handling and packaging
protocols, elevation surveys, test hole grouting, and site
restoration.
Our initial field work began with a preliminary field appraisal
of site and soil conditions on August 24, 1985. Our preliminary
appraisal included drilling a single test hole (Test Hole B-l) to
a depth of 30 feet. Information obtained from our preliminary
work was incorporated in our Work Plan issued on August 28, 1985.
Additional field work began on January 2, 1986, with the drilling
of an additional seven test holes at locations shown on the Test
Hole Location Plan, Figure 3, and the Aerial Photograph of the
site, Figure 1. The drilling was performed with a truck mounted
Mobile B-50 drill rig using eight-inch hollow-stem auger.
Drilling fluids and other additives to the drilling process were
consequently unnecessary to advance the hole and obtain soil
samples. The drill rig was thoroughly steam cleaned prior to
entering the project site. The drill crew consisted of a driller
and drillers helper. Field supervision was under the control of
a geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist who provided
field logs of borings, recording of field conditions, soil sample
handling and preservation, and controlled the field equipment
cleaning process.
Prior to drilling at each location, the immediate area was
cleared of foreign materials and obstructions to preclude foreign
materials from entering the bore hole. Prior to beginning each
BSK
& Associates
· 8&S~P..8 80b
~Sgr , ~'~ r.u ld e,::l
(~e£ .v~L~) bno~
9Dag'~
('0£="~ :~oa)
'08
-qsq¢
A
A
;(±8.aO& .vgi~)
· ~, b.i'zO '0~
;fA. Iq MOITADOJ 3~IOH TSMT
MOZTADITEMVMI GJ~qI q
fiMA 8DMIMO~ 3{0~ TUOYA~I
8~20H DMIJqMA2
~-a, gnt=oa~S-8
8niiqm~2 ~ ~
"A" 9IoH
mo33o~ bnoq ~s
DATE' LOG DESIGNATION
LOGGED BY: HB
ELEVATION' 406.5
WATER LEVEL: Groundwater Encountered at iD'/at 19' After'Drilling JOB: F85238
EOUIPMENT: 8" Hollow Stem Auger, Mobile B-50 FIGURE: 4
~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o SOIL OR R~K DESCRIPTION NOTES
~M aggregate base.
SM Silty SAND: dark brown; damp; petroleum
~ odor; fine to medium.
-12.5 34
' SM/ SAND: brown; damp; fine; slight
~p petroleum odor to depth of 2'', trace of
silt.
~M/ Silty SAND: dark brown; moist; seam of
~L sandy SILT.
~.5 25
~p SAND: reddish brown; damp; with fine to
medium occasiohal pockets of dark
15- brown SILT.
.5 30
SP SAND: brownish grey; moist changing to
wet at 19'; fine to medium;
occasional gravel.
Groundwater
~O_ Encountered-
~.5 34 at 19' at
Time of
Drilling/
At 19' Afte~
Drilling _
25 (Continued)
THE LOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ( i ) S&MPLER' INSIDE
AT THE 0ATES AND LOCATIONS INDICATED, AN0 IT
~S NOT WARRANTE~ THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE
DATE' 8-24-85 LOG DESIGNATION B-~ (Cont'd)
LOGGED BY; HB
ELEVATION' 406.5
WATER LEVEL: Groundwater Encountered at 19'/ at 19' After Drilling JO8:F85238
8" Hollow Stem Auger, Mobile B-50
EQUIPMENT: FIGURE: 4
~ ~ ~ SOIL OR R~K DESCRIPTION
NOTES
- -
25 S? SAND: brownish grey; f±ne to medium;
moist changing to wet at 19';
occas'±onal gravel.
3~
Cauing below 19' Backfilled with Bor±ng
cement grout to surface. Terminated
at 30'
3~ -
~5- -
5O
THE LOGS.SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ( i
AT THE' DATES ~ND L~ATIONS INDICATED, AND IT ( 2
IS NOT WARRANTEG THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE
...................................... {
DATE' -03-86 LOG DESIGNATION B-2
LOGGED BY: TWL
ELEVATION: ~06.8 1
WATER LEVEL;' No Groundwater Encountered at Time of Drilling JOB F85238
EQUIPMENT: 8" Hollow Stem Auger, Mobile B-50 FIGURE: ,~
~ mu ~ m ~ ~ o SOIL OR R~K DESCRIPTION NOTES
SM S±~ty SAND: da~k yellowish brown; fine; ~o~ing
color grades to yellowish brown below Drilled on
3' 45 Slant.
Depths showr
Correspond
to Equiva-
~ lent Vertic~
2.5 37
§ -- SM Silty SAND: dark grey; fine to medium; Distance. _
micaceous; with strong odor.
Odor decreasing at-10'
2.5 30
Thin layer of dark olive brown Silty
~ CLAY with oily odor.
2.5 81
No
Groundwater
15- Encountere~
Silty CLAY: yellow-brown; slight odor. at Time of
CL
Drilling
2.5 81 SM Silty SAND: yellow-brown; micaceous;
fine.
Terminated
at 17'
20- -
THE tOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ( I | $~MI~LER IN$10£ Ol~li.
AT THE DATES AND LOCATIONS INDICATED, ANO IT (2) ~4011~ H&IIII~ER-~O INCH OR'O~. ~l~J~
IS NOT WARRANTED THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE ........................
D ,TE' ]--02-86 LOG DESIGNATION
LOGGED BY: TWL
ELEVATION' 406.48
wATER LEVEL: No Groundwater Encountered at Time of Drilling JO8:F85238
EQUIPMENT: 8"' Hollow Stem Auger, Mobile B-50 FIGURE: 6
· z~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ SOIL OR R~K DESCRIPTION NOTES
SM Silty SAND: yellowish brown; fine. Boring .
Drilled on
45 Slant.
Depths
shown
Correspond
to Equiva-
2.5 38 With some odor at 4 5' lent
Vertical
Distance. ~
SM Silty SAND: dark grey to grey; fine to .
medium; micaceous; strong odor.
2.5 116
IO- Less odor. --
2.5 123 A thin layer of Sandy SiLT noted at 13'
with olive grey color and strong odor.
No
Less odor. Groundwater
I~ -- Encountered_
at Time of
Drilling
2.5 72 SAND: yellowish brown; fine to medium;
wet.
Terminated
at 17'
gO_ --
THE LOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS { ~ ! S~a~LER ~S~OE O~a.
AT THE DATES AND LOCATIONS INDICATED, ANO IT 12 ) ~,,Io~ ~E~-~ ~CN D~. ~~
IS NOT wARRANTED THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE
DATE: 12-24-85 LOG DESIGNATION A
LOGGED BY: TWL
ELEVATION' 406.72
WATER LEVEL: Groundwater Encountered at i7' at Time of Drilling JoB:F85238
EQUIPMENT: 8" Hollow Stem Au Mob =- B-50 F~URE: 7
~ :z o~ g ~
~ ~ o o SOIL OR R~K DESCRIPTION NOTES
6" G~A~E~ and AS?~A~T
~ SH Si[t~ SAND: yellowish brow~ ~o d~rE
yellowish brown; damp to moist; loose
- to med±um dense.
2.5 39
5 --
A layer of Silty fine SAND or Sandy
S[~ noted-at 6~ to 7~
M~ Sand7 S[~T: dar~ yellowish brown; loose
IO to medium dense with traces of mica
and fine ~ravel.
2.5 29
Groundwater
Encountered
SW SAND: yellowish brown; fine to medium at 17' at
-i2.5 54
with some coarse sand and fine gravel. Time of
/~ Drilling --
-2.5 62
Terminated
at
20_
THE LOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ( ~ ! s4~aeLl[~ ~s~o£ o~'~.
AT THE DATES AND LOCATIONS INDICATED, AND IT
iS NOT WARRANTE~ THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE ............................
OATE; _ 2-24-8S LOG DESIGNATION "
LOGGED BY: TWL
ELEVATION: 406.8i
WATER LEVEL: No Groundwater Encountered at Time of Drilling joB:F85238
EQUIPMENT: 8" Hollow Au Mobile B-50 FIGURE' 8
~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SOIL OR R~K DESCRIPTION NOTES
FILL~ 6",.GRAVEL: reddish brown Sandy SILT
SM Silty SAND: yellowish brown; damp to
moist; fine; medium dense.
2.5 31
~ Thin layer of SAND noted at 6'
SM/ Silty SAND/Sandy SILT: dark yellowish
ML brown; moist; with some mica.
2.5 i7
No
Groundwater.
Encountered
~ Grades to light brown to yellowish at Time of .
brown Sandy SILT with odor below 13.5' Drilling
2.5 39
~2.5 52
C~ Silty CL~¥: oli~ w±~h ~trom~ odor.
~ SW SAND: yellowish brown.
~erminated
at
20~ -
t -
THE LOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
AT THE DATES AND LOCATIONS INDICATED, AND IT
IS NOT wARRANTED THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE
DATE' 2-23-85 LOG DESIGNATION C
LOGGED BY: TWL
ELEVATION: 406
WATER LEVEL: No Groundwater Encountered at Time of Drilling JOB:F85238
EQUIPMENT' 8" Ho ]3-50 FIGURE: 9
~ SOIL OR R~K DESCRIPTION NOTES
FILI 3" ]3ase GRAVEL and 1' reddish brow~
~Sand¥ SILT,
_ SM Silty SAND: yellowish brown to dark
yellowish brown; damp to moist; loose.
2.5~ 13
ML Sandy SILT: dark yellowish brown; moist; .
loose.
2.5 10
SP SAND: yellowish brown; damp to moist; No -
micaceous; medium dense. Groundwater
Encountered'
at Time of
15- ML Sandy SILT: ~iscolor and with odor. Drilling --
!.5 31 SW SAND: yellowish brown' medium dense;
micaceous. Terminated
at 16'
gO_ -
25
THE LOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
AT THE DATES AND LOCATIONS INDICATED, AND IT
IS NOT 'wARRANTED THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE
~ ........ ~ ............ ~.,~ .~ ~,,~ .......... (
ATE: 2-23-8S LOG DESIGNATION D
LOGGED BY: '['[4[,
ELEVATION: 40 6. 6 6
WATER LEVEL: No Groundwater Encountered at Time of Drilling JOB:F85238
EQUIPMENT' 8" Hollow Stem Au B-50 FIGURE: l0
m z m m ~ ~ ~ ~ SOIL OR R~K DESCRIPTION NOTES
FILL Reddish brown; Sandy SILT.
, SM Silty SAND: yellowish brown'; damp to
moist; loose to medium dense.
2.5 13
5 --
2.5 18
ML
, Sandy SILT: dark, yellowish brown; ,
moist; loose,
~ .5 14
~ NO '
Groundwater
SP SAND: yellowish brown; medium dense; ,
~ Encountered
2 51 24 micaceous.
· at T±me o~
Drill±rig
~.5 23
Terminated
at 16' '
20- -
25
THE LOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
AT THE DATES AND LOCATIONS INDICATED, AND iT
IS NOT wARRANTEG THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE
°ATE' 2-23-85 LOG DESIGNATION R.-1
LOGGED BY'TWL
ELEVATION' 5.06.07
WATER LEVEL: Groundwater Encountered at 13.5' at Time of Drilling JOB:F85238
EQUIPMENT: 8" Hollow Stem Au MobileB-50 FIGURE: 11
~ ~ ~ o SOIL OR R~K DESCRIPTt0N NOTES
SM Silty SAND: yellowish brown to dark Boring
yellowish brown; damp; fine; dense. Location:
1500' North;
- of Pit.
2.5 30
SW
SAND: light yellowish brown; moist; _
IO- fine to medium.
~.5 56 Groundwate~
Encountere~
Grades to micaceous and wet below 12' a't 13.5'
~ at Time of .
-~ Drilling
15 - --
1.4' 19 I With thin layers of medium to coarse
SAND. Terminated
at 16'
~O_
THE LOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS { ~ ) SAU.LER ~NS,O£ 0,Au.
AT THE DATES AND LOCATIONS INDICATED, AND IT (2 I ~0,~ H~'~'~E~-~O ~c~ O~. ~~
~S NOT WARRANTEC THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE ,~ ~ ..~ ..... ..,,~ ~,,~=~
Page 6
boring, the drill rig and auger were cleaned using a combination
steam cleaner and high pressure hot water cleaner, using clean
water from an off-site source. Drilling equipment was cleaned in
an area on the site regularly used for steam cleaning of Valley
Perforating equipment, and which had a provision for drainage to
their wastewater collection system.
Samples of soil were obtained at one to five foot intervals,
depending on observations of soil conditions during the drilling
process. Samples were collected intact, in an undisturbed
condition in stainless steel liners. The samples were capped
with teflon, then with a pressure fitted plastic cap and then
sealed with an adhesive tape. Each of the samples Were labeled
with an adhesive-backed label including boring designation, depth
of sample, and initials of the individual preparing the sample.
Prior to each sampling, the sampling equipment was cleaned with a
detergent wash, followed by a distilled water rinse, followed by
an acetone rinse, followed by a further distilled water rinse~.
The samples were placed in an ice chest for the short storage
time required for the field work. Upon completion of the daily
field work, the samples collected were hand delivered to B.C.
Laboratories, located two blocks from the site. The samples
included requisite chain-of-custody protocols which included a
description of the sample, sample location and depth, time, date,
and name of individual performing the sampling work. The
receiving laboratory signed the forms, indicating receipt of the
samples. At no time were the samples out of the direct
observation of the field personnel until final delivery to B.C.
Laboratories. Two persons, Dr. Tso-Wang Lin, BSK & Associates
Geotechnical Engineer, and John Kirk, BSK & Associates
Engineering Geologist, were soley responsible for obtaining,
preserving, handling, and delivering the samples and maintaining
records of field work and sample documentation. Soil samples
BSK
& Associates.-
Page. 7
were not composited or otherwise combined. Copies of
chain-of-custody forms are attached to this report. Clari Binder
and John Harris, with the County of Kern Health Department, were
present January 2, 1986 to observe field activities.
Health and Safety
As indicated in our Work Plan, a Health and Safety Plan was
established for work at this site. The plan included a
preliminary assessment of materials which could be encountered
during our field investigation. BSK & Associates employees had
been provided with a medical evaluation prior to entering the
site, and once again upon project completion, the purpose being
to access an individuals exposure to hazardous materials at this
site.
BSK & Associates personnel working on the site used a combination
of Level "C" and Level "D" protective clothing, including:
Gloves:
- Chemical protective neoprene
Protective Clothing:
- Tyvek, Saranek-coated, zippered overalls
Footwear:
- Disposable neoprene boots
Respirators:
- Half-mask air-purifying chemical cartridge respirator
with an organic vapor cartridge and dust, fume and mist
filters
- Dust, fume and mist face masks
BSK
R,
Page 8
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL'TESTING
Test Methods: Laboratory testing was performed by the B C
Laboratories, in Bakersfield, California. Analytical procedures
for the various tests presented in this report were performed in
accordance with approved EPA methods. Methods for the various
analytical tests are listed below:
EPA Metals
Element Method Reference
Antimony 7040 1
Arsenic 7061 1
Barium 7080 1
Beryllium 210.1 2
Cadmium 213.1 2
Chromium 7190 1
Cobalt 219.1 2
Copper 220.1 2
Lead 7421 1
Mercury 7471 1
Molybdenum 246.1 2
Nickel 7520 1
Selenium 7741 1
Silver 7760 1
Thallium 279.1 2
Vanadium 286.1 2
Zinc 289.1 2.
BSK
& Associates.
Page 9
PURGEABLE ORGANICS
Element Method Reference
Organic Constituents
Listed in EPA 5020
Test Series 8010
601 and 602 8020
Reference 1
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste",
SW 846, July, 1982
Reference 2
"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes", EPA-600-14-79-020
QualitS Control: An outline of the Quality Control procedures
employed in the laboratory is presented below. A more detailed
description is contained in "B C Laboratories Incorporated,
Laboratory Quality Control Manual, Laboratory Safety Manual and
Related Information," in Appendix "A".
QUALITY CONTROL OUTLINE
A. Sample Reception
Document customer name, address, number of samples,
date submitted, type analysis requested, chain of
custody, adress report mailed to, billing information,
etc.
BSK
& Associate~,
Page 10
Fill in appropriate worksheet, deliver sample(s) to
proper department, notify department head.
B. Sample Analysis
Review procedures for analysis with department head.
a. Appropriate digestions, dilutions, procedure
modifications, instrumentation.
2. Observe Quality Control
As a minimum:
a. One in ten samples analyzed in duplicate.
b. One in ten samples spiked with a known amount of
analyte to determine percent recovery in procedure.
For varied matrices more spiking required to verify
quality procedures.
c. Analyze control sample from start to finish (if
available for specific type of analysis).
d. For digestion analyze a blank with appropriate
amounts of acid, reagents, etc.
e. Record quality control results on control charts.
f. Ascertain results within guidelines.
g. Record results on worksheet and submit to
supervisor for approval.
(1) Submit report for typing.
C. Reporting Results
1. Mail a minimum of two copies of report to client.
2. File a copy for B C Laboratories, Inc. records.
Return chain of custody record with report.
BSK
Page 11
ANALYTICAL DATA INTERPRETATION
The analytical testing of soils requested by the State Department
of Health Services (DOHS) and Kern County Health Department (KHD)
in the letters of October 2, 1985 and October 22, 1985,
respectively, consisted of the following programs:
Complete Metal Scans
Volatile Organics in Accordance with EPA Test Series
601 and 602
As indicated in the analytical testing section, the tests were
conducted by the BC Laboratories in Bakersfield. Test data as
submitted by the laboratory, are enclosed in Appendix "A". The
following interpretation of data is made:
Volatile Organics: All 27 samples tested for volatile organics
of the EPA 601 and 602 series produced non-detectable
concentrations. Detection limits of 0.50 parts per million
(gm/gm) were used in the test. The absence of volatile organics
is however contrasted by earlier measurements of significant
total hydrocarbons (BC Laboratories, 12/11/84) in concentrations
of 10,000 mg/kg in the near-surface of the sump bottom and the
frequent odor and oily indication in the soils underlying the
sump. An explanation of this occurrence is in the time-dependent
volatilization and migration of volatile compounds in petroleum
products contained in relatively shallow, non-saturated soils
while the more stable mineral component, which is mainly affected
by slow biodegradation, remains in the soil structure and imparts
a visible and odoriferous character. Similar conditions have
been observed in the case of an unlined sump used for the storage
of waste oil (Refinery Services, 1985). In this instance the
BSK
Page 12
volatilization phase likely occurred in part as a result of open-
atmosphere past usage of organic compounds. The absence of
volatile compounds in the sump subsurface further suggests that
present usage of products with volatile organics and disposal to
the sump is not practiced. As indicated by Valley Perforating
Company, soluble oil was used only during the period of March to
May 1985. The soluble oil has been replaced with non-soluble
A'cculube.
Metals: Twenty-seven soil samples were tested for trace metals.
The tests were performed on samples obtained from depth intervals
of approximately 5, 10 and 15 feet below ground surface around
the sump area (Sample Holes A, B, and C) and depths of 3, 5, 10,
12 and 16 feet below ground surface in the Sump Area.
The tests were conducted in accordance with the California
Assessment Manual (CAM) by a process of total digestion and
determination of total concentration, (TTLC). Of the 17 metals
tested by this method, only arsenic, chromium, lead, barium and
vanadium produced TTLC concentrations slightly in excess of the
CAM Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC). Other metals
were below the STLC concentrations and therefore considered
neither "Hazardous" nor "Designated" as defined by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQB). These metal
concentrations, therefore, are deemed to not have the potential
for groundwater degradation. Comparisons of DHS and CRWQCB
"Hazardous" and "Designated" levels for soil metal constituents,
with the results of laboratory analyses, are presented for each
of the 29 soil specimens in Tables I through 26. Comparisons
against background concentrations for soil specimens obtained at
similar depths, in a boring drilled at some 1500 feet away from
the sump area, are also shown in the tables. These comparisons
are summarized below and suggest that elevated levels of arsenic,
chromium, lead, barium and vanadium exist beneath and around the
sump area. Elevated metal concentrations in ratios of 3.4 to
1.56 are present beneath the sump. These ratios decrease to 2.3
to 1.6 in the area within 40 feet of the center of the sump.
BSK
~, Associaies
Page 13
Two composite samples of soils obtained by representatives of BC
Laboratories from the surface of the pond bottom were tested at
an earlier date (6/18/85) and reported TTLC and STLC values of
3680, 760 mg/kg and 250, 56.8 mg/kg, respectively. These tests
were not duplicated in the sampling and analytical program.
METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS
BACKGROUND VS. SITE SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
ARSENIC
(TTL¢) Concentrations: mg/k9
Ratio of
Site Site Average Background Average Elevated
Location Level
Pond Bottom
(PB2, PB3)
Borings B2, B3
6.96 2.60 2.6.8
Borings
A, B, C, D.
5.97 2.60 2.30
CHROMIUM
(TTLC) Concentrations: mg/k9
Site
Location
Site Average
Background Average
Ratio of
Elevated
Level
Pond Bottom
(PB2, PB3)
Borings B2, B3
Borings
A, B, C, D.
33.6
17.5
9.95
9.95
3.38
1.75
BSK
&'A-s~ociates
Page 14
LEAD
(TTLC) Concentrations: mg/kg
Site
Location
Site Average
Background Average
Ratio of
Elevated
Level
Pond Bottom
(PB 2, PB3)
Borings B2, B3.
Borings
A, B, C, D.
14.17 4.15
6.64 4.15
3.41
1.60
BARIUM
(TTLC) Concentrations: m~/k~
Site
Location
Site Average
Background Average
Ratio of
Elevated
Level
Pond Bottom
(PB2, PB3)
Borings B2,B3
Borings
A, B, C, D.
130.7
139.8
83.5
83.7
1.56
1.67.
BSK
& Associates
Page 15
VANADIUM
(TTLC) Concentrations: m~/kg
Site
Location
Site Average
Background Average
Ratio of
Elevated
Level
Pond Bottom
(PB2, PB3)
Borings B2, B3
Borings
A, B, C, D.
33.00 20.36 1.62
33.79 20.36 1.66
Notes:
Pond Bottom (PB2, PB3) and Borings B2 and B3:
Borings A, B, C, D:
Background:
10 Samples
16 Samples
3 Sampl es
As indicated earlier, only trace metals in soils TTLC were
obtained in the laboratory for the 29 specimens and the majority
of the tests indicated values below STLC, therefore negating the
necessity for further testing. For the five metals with TTLC
above STLC, a method developed by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) provides a means of determining
BSK
& Associates
Page 16
whether these metals, based on TTLC, are in concentrations deemed
to have the potential for groundwater degradation.~1}' ' Appendix
1V together with the Guidance Document provide derivative values
for total metals "Designated levels" in a solid. These values
are tabulated in Column (6) of Tables i through 26. For example,
the total concentration of lead in soil for the "Designated
l'evel" classification is 500 mg/kg. TTLC of lead below this
value is deemed to not have the potential for degradation of
groundwater. A comparison of Columns i and 6 indicates that all
five of the metals; arsenic, chromium, lead, barium and vanadium,
are present in the pond subsurface and immediate vicinity in
concentrations well below "Designated levels", and would not
therefore be considered to be of concern. Water Quality goals
extractable concentrations are accordingly not exceeded in any of
the tests for metal concentrations.
.The derivation of total concentration "Designated levels" shown
in Column 6 is obtained by applying several factors to the
concentrations obtained by means of the Waste Extraction Test.
(WET) shown in Column 5. These factors include the following:
(1)
Appendix IV, Guidance Document, California Regional Water
Quality Central Board, Central Valley Region. "Waste
Classification and Clean-up Level Determination",
by Jon Marshack, November 21, 1985.
BSK
Page 17
A bioavailability multiplication factor of 100 for
inorganic constituents
An environmental attenuation multiplication factor of
100 (except for copper, zinc and cyanide which are
assigned a value of 1000) based on constituent mobility
in soils
A division factor of 10 to convert mg/1 of extract to
mg/kg of waste.
In most cases, according to the factors described above, WET
concentrations (Column 5) multiplied by 1000 provide the
"Designated Level" concentrations in Column 6.
In conclusion, except for the pond bottom uppermost two feet of
soils and Soil stockpiles which by earlier tests indicated the
presence of lead in hazardous level concentrations (in excess of
TTLC and STLC), remaining soils beneath the site and sump do .not
have metal concentrations in excess of the CRWQCB "Designated
leve.ls", meet water quality goals, and by CRWQCB definition, are
deemed to not have the potential for groundwater degradation.
BSK
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA
Metals
Test
Specimen
Concentration
Background
Concentration
Arsenic
Cadmium
Ch romi um
Lead
Selenium
Me rc u ry
Silver
Antimony
Ba ri um
Beryl 1 i um
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thal 1 ium
Vanadium
Zinc
Total
(TTLC)
(1)
Units:
mg/Kg
-2 O0
-0 50
17 40
9 13
-0 50
-0 05
-0 50
-5 O0
135
0 43
10 0
14 8
-2 O0
8 70
-5 O0
30.90
97.40
Total
(TTLC)
(2)
Units:
mg/L
3.80
-0.50
14.40
5.20
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
137
0.31
6.00
10.60
-2.00
7.10
-5.00
32.10
53.80
HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
DHS
Threshold Limit
For Hazardous
Soluble
(STLC)
(3)
CRWQCB
Designated Levels
Concentrations To Protect Groundwater
Wastes Soluble Total
Total From a Solid In a
(TTLC) (WET) Solid
(4) (5) (6)
Units:
mg/Kg
Units: Units:
mg/L mg/L
5 5OO
I 100
5 500
5 1000
1 100
0.2 20
5 500
15 5OO
100 10,000
0.75 75
80 8000
25 2500
350 3500
20 2000
7 700
24 240O
250 5000
0.5
0.1
0 5
0 5
0 1
0 02
0 5
I 46
10
0.00068
100
0.134
0.130
5O0
Units:
mg/Kg
5OO
100
5OO
5OO
100
2O
5OO
1460
10,000
0.068
100,000
134
130
500,000
*
RH 1 at
5-6 Feet
TABLE 1
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE B2 DEPTH 4-5 Feet
CONSTITUENTS
LABORATORY TEST DATA
Test
Specimen Background
Thre
HAZARDOUS
& DESIGNATED
DHS
shold Limit Concentrations
LEVELS FOR SOILS
To
CRWQCB
Designated Levels
Protect Groundwater
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration Concentration
Total Total
(TTLC) (TTLC)
(1) (2)
Units: Units:
rog/Kg mg/L
2.11 -2.00
-0.50 -0.50
15.00 6.8O
22.2 4.20
-0.50 -0.50
-0.05 -0.05
-0.50 -0.50
-5.00 -5.00
97.70 43.80
0.33 -0.20
7.39 2.40
13.60 3.60
-2.OO -2.O0
7.92 3.60
-5.00 -5.00
25.50 9.80
82.70 20.00
For Hazardous Wastes
Soluble Total
(STLC) (TTLC)
(3) (4)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
5 500
I 100
5 500
5 1000
1 100
0.2 20
5 500
15 500
100 10,000
0.75 75
80 8000
25 2500
350 3500
20 2000
7 700
24 2400
250 5000
Soluble Total
From a Solid In a
(WET) Solid
(5) (6)
Units: Units:
mg/L mg/Kg
0.5 500
0.1 100
0.5 500
0.5 500
0.1 100
0.02 20
0.5 5O0
1.46 1460
10 10,000
0.00068 0.068
100 100,000
0.134 134
0.130 130
500 500,000
RH1 at 9-10
Feet
TABLE 2
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONS'TITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE B2 DEPTH 9-10 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metals
Test
Specimen
Concentration
Background
Concentration
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwa
For Hazardous Wastes Soluble Tota
Total
(TTLC)
(1)
Units:
mg/Kg
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper 18
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
29.50
-0.50
21.80
20.7
-O.50
0.07
-0.50
-5.00
182
0.72
11.80
.50
-2.00
12.00
-5.00
57.70
82.80
Total
(TTLC)
(2)
Units:
mg/L
-2.00
-0.50
8.64
3.04
.-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.O0
69.80
0.26
4.00
6.24
-2.00
4.00
-5.00
19.20
38.40
Soluble Total From a Solid In a
(STLC) (TTLC) (WET) Sol i
(3) (4) .(5) (6)
Units: Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L mg/L
5 500 0.5
I 100 0.1
5 500 0.5
5 1000 0.5
i 100 0.1
0.2 20 0.02
5 500 0.5
15 500 1.46
100 10,000 10
0.75 75 0.00068
80 8000 --
25 2500 100
350 3500 --
20 2000 0.134
7 700 0.130
24 2400 --
250 5000 500
ter
l
Units:
mg/Kg
5OO
lO0
5OO
5OO
100
20
5OO
1460
10,000
0.068
100,000
134
130
500,000
RH1 at 15-16 Feet
I'ABLE 3
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE 82 DEPTH 12-13 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metals
Test ,
Specimen Background
Concentration Concentration
Total Total
(TTLC) (TTLC)
(1) (2)
~rsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
[4ercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
12.
17.
10.
-0o
=0,
-0.
-5,
14
0
9
11
-2
10
-5
22
44
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwater
For Hazardous Wastes Soluble Total
Soluble Total From a Solid In a
(STLC) (TTLC) (WET) Solid
(3) (4) .. (~) (6)
Units: Units: Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L mg/L mg/Kg
5 500 0.5 500
1 100 0.1 100
5 500 0.5 500
5 IOO0 0.5 5O0
I 100 0.1 100
0.2 20 0.02 20
5 5O0 O.5 5O0
15 500 1.46 1460
100 10',000 10 10,000
0.75 75 0.00068 0.068
80 8000 ....
25 2500 100 100,000
350 3500 ....
20 2000 0.134 134
7 700 0.130 130
24 2400 ....
250 5000 500 500,000
O0 -2.00
50 -0.50
50 8.64
4O 3.04
50 -0.50
05 -0.05
50 -0.50
O0 -5.OO
5 69.80
70 0.26
34 4.00
40 6.24
O0 -2.00
50 4.00
O0 -5.00
60 19.20
80 38.40
RH1
at 15-16 Feet
TABLE 4
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE B2 DEPTH 16-17 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Test
Specimen Background
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwater
Meta 1 s
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Sliver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration Concentration
Total Total
(TTLC) (TTLC)
(1) (2)
Units: Units:
rog/Kg mg/L
-2.00 3.80
-0.50 -0.50
16.60 14.40
9.98 5.20
-0.50 -0.50
-0.05 -0.05
-0.50 -0.5O
-5.OO -5.0O
99.80 137
-0.20 0.31
7.60 6.00
15.20 10.60
-2.0O -2.OO
9.03 7.10
-5.00 -5.00
30.90 32.10
58.40 53.80
For Hazardous
Soluble
(STLC)
(3)
Wastes Soluble Total
Total From a Solid In a
(TTLC) (WET) Solid
(4) (5) (6)
Units: Units: Units:
mg/L mg/L mg/Kg
500 0.5 500
100 0.1 100
500 0.5 500
1000 0.5 500
100 0.1 100
20 0.02 20
500 0.5 500
500 1.46 1460
10,000 10 10,000
75 0.00068 0.068
8000 ....
2500 100 100,000
3500 ....
2000 0.134 134
700 0.130 130
2400 ....
5000 500 500,000
Units:
mg/Kg
5
1
5
5
1
0.2
5
15
100
0.75
8O
25
350
20
7
24
250
RH1 at 5-6 Feet
TABLE 5
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE B3 DEPTH 4-5 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metals
Test
Specimen
Concentration
*
Background
Concentration
DHS
Threshold Limit Concentrations
For Hazardous Wastes
CRWQCB
Designated Levels
To Protect Groundwater
Soluble Total
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Total
(TTLC)
Units:
rog/Kg
7.93
-0.50
25 60
23 20
-0 50
-0 05
-0 50
-5 O0
216
0.62
11.40
19.60
-2.00
125
-5.00
47.40
89.30
Total
(TTLC)
(2)
Units:
mg/L
-2.00
-0.50
6.80
4.20
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
43.80
-0.20
2.40
3.60
-2.00
3.60
-5.00
9.80
20.00
Sol ubl e Tota 1
(STLC) (TTLC)
(3) (4)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
5 5OO
I 100
5 500
5 1000
1 100
0.2 20
5 500
15 500
100 10,000
0.75 75
80 8000
25 2500
350 3500
20 2000
7 700
24 2400
250 5000
From a Solid
(WET)
(5)
Units:
mg/L
0 5
0 1
0 5
0 5
0 1
0 O2
0 5
1 46
10
0.00068
lO0
0.134
0.130
5OO
In a
Solid
(6)
Units:
mg/Kg
500
100
500
500
100
20
500
1460
10,000
0.068
100,000
134
130
500,000
RH1 at 9-10 Feet
I'ABLE 6
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE ~3 DEPTH 8-9 ~eet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
14ercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Test ,
Specimen Background
Threshold
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwa
Concentration Concentration
Total Total
(TTLC) (TTLC)
(1) (2)
Units: Units:
rog/Kg mg/L
2.00 -2.00
-0.50 -0.50
8.00 8.64
4.84 3.04
-0.50 -0.50
-0.05 -0.05
-0.50 -0.50
-5'.00 -5.00
58.40 69.80
-0.20 0.26
4.84 4.00
6.51 6.24
-2.00 -2.00
3.72 4.00
-5.0O -5.OO
20.80 19.20
32.90 38.40
For Hazardous Wastes Soluble Tota
Soluble Total From a Solid In a
(STLC) (TTLC) (WET) Sol i
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Units: Units: Units:
mg/K§ mg/L mg/L
5 500 0.5
1 100 0.1
5 500 0.5
5 1000 0.5
i 100 0.1
0.2 20 0.02
5 500 O.5
15 500 1.46
100 10,000 10
0.75 75 0.00068
80 8000 --
25 25O0 100
350 3500 --
20 2000 0.134
7 70O 0.130
24 2400 --
250 5000 500
ter
1
Units:
mg/Kg
5OO
lO0
5OO
50O
100
2O
5O0
1460
10,000
0.068
100,000
134
130
500,000
RH 1 at
15-16
Feet
I'ABLE 7
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE 83 DEPTH 12-13 Beet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metals
Test ,
Specimen Background
Concentration Concentration
Total Total
(TTLC) (TTLC)
(1) (2)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
-2.00
-0.50
3.36
-2.00
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
37.10
-0 20
2 35
2 52
-2 O0
1 85
-5 O0
8.57
15.60
-2.00
-0.50
8.64
3.04
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
69.80
0.26
4.00
6.24
-2.00
4.00
-5.00
19.20
38.40
T h re
F
S
(
CRWQC8
DHS Designated Levels
shold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwater
or Hazardous Wastes Soluble Total
oluble Total From a Solid In a
STLC) (TTLC) (WET) Solid
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Units: Units: Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L mg/L mg/Kg
5 5OO O.5 5OO
I 100 0.1 100
5 5O0 0.5 5OO
5 1000 0.5 500
i 100 0.1 100
0.2 20 0.02 20
5 500 0.5 500
15 500 1.46 1460
100 10,000 10 10,000
0.75 75 0.00068 0.068
80 8000 ....
25 2500 100 100,000
350 3500 ....
20 2000 0.134 134
7 700 0.130 130
24 2400 ....
250 5000 500 500,000
RHI
at 15-16 Feet
TABLE 8
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE 83 DEPTH 16-17 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA tlAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
lqercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryl 1 ium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Test
Specimen
Concentration
Background
Concentration
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwater
For Hazardous Wastes Soluble Total
Total
(TTLC)
(1)
Units:
rog/Kg
5.47
-0.50
18.00
6.19
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
164
0.33
7.83
10.90
-2.00
8.91
-5.00
36.80
72.80
Total S
(TTLC) (
(2)
Units:
mg/L
3.80
-0.50
14.40
5.20
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
137
0.31
6.00
10.60
-2.00
7.10
-5.00
32.10
53.80
oluble Total From a Solid In a
STLC) (TTLC) (WET) Sol id
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Units: Units: Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L mg/L mg/Kg
5 5OO
1 100
5 500
5 1000
I 100
0.2 2O
5 500
15 500
100 10,000
0.75 75
80 8000
25 2500
350 3500
20 2000
7 700
24 2400
250 5000
0.5
0.1
0 5
0 5
0 1
0 02
0 5
1 46
10
0.00068
100
0.134
0.130
500
500
100
5OO
500
100
2O
5OO
1460
10,000
0.068
100,000
134
130
500,000
*
RH 1 at
5-6 Feet
TABLE 9
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE A DEPTH 4-5 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Ch romi um
lead
Selenium
Me rcu ry
Silver
Antimony
Bar i um
Beryl 1 ium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Test ,
Specimen Background
Concentration Concentration
Total Total
(TTLC) (TTLC)
(1) (2)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
3.20 -2.00
-0.50 -0.50
22.60 6.80
7.70 4.20
-0.50 -0.50
-0.05 -0.05
-0.50 -0.50
-5.00 -5.00
154 43.80
0.53 -0.20
7.20 2.40
15.20 3.60
-2.00 -2.00
10.40 3.60
-5.O0 -5.O0
37.80 9.80
69.30 20.00
DHS
Threshold Limit
For Hazardous
Desig
Concentrations To Prot
Wastes Solubl
Soluble Total From a
(STLC) (TTLC) (WET
(3) (4) (5)
Units: Units: Uni
mg/Kg mg/L mg/
5 500 0.5
1 100 0.1
5 500 0.5
5 1000 O.5
1 100 0.1
0.2 20 0.0
5 500 0.5
15 500 1.4
100 iO,OO0 10
0.75 75' 0.0
80 8000 --
25 2500 100
350 3500 --
20 2O0O 0.1
7 700 0.1
24 2400 --
250 5000 500
CRWQCB
nated Levels
ect Groundwater
e Total
Solid In a
) Solid
(6)
ts: Units:
L mg/Kg
50O
100
500
50O
100
2 20
50O
6 1460
10,000
O068 0.O68
100,000
34 134
30 130
500,00O
*
RH 1 at
9-10 Feet
TABLE 10
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE A DEPTH 10-11 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metals
Test
Specimen
Concentration
Background
Concentration
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwater
For Hazardous Wastes Soluble Total
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Total
(TTLC)
(1)
Units
mg/Kg
3.84
-0.50
8.26
3.46
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
42.80
-0.20
3.26
4.42
-2.00
3.26
-5.00
21.90
26.90
Total
(TTLC)
(2)
Units:
mg/L
-2.00
-0.50
8.64
3.04
-0.50
-O.05
-0.50
-5.00
69.80
0.26
4.00
6.24
-2.00
4.00
-5.00
19.20
38.40
oluble Total From a Solid In a
STLC) (TTLC) (WET) Solid
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Units: Units: Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L mg/L mg/Kg
5 500 0~5 500
I 100 0.1 100
5 5O0 O.5 5O0
5 10.00 0.5 500
I 100 0.1 100
0.2 20 0.02 20
5 500 0.5 500
15 500 1.46 1460
100 10,000 10 10,000
0.75 75 0.00068 0.068
80 8000 ....
25 2500 100 100,000
350 3500 ....
20 2000 0.134 134
7 700 0.130 130
24 2400 ....
250 5000 500 500,000
RH 1 at
15-16
Feet
TABLE 11
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE A DEPTH 13-14 Feet
CONSTITUENTS
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Test
Specimen
Concentration
Background
Concentration
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwater
For Hazardous Wastes Soluble Total
Total
(TTLC)
(1)
Units
mg/Kg
-2.00
-0.50
7.57
2.13
-0.50
-O.O5
-0.50
-5.00
41.60
-0.20
2.52
3.30
-2.00
2.91
-5.00
13.80
34.50
Total
(TTLC)
(2)
Units:
mg/L
-2.00
-0.50
8.64
3.04
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
69.80
0.26
4.00
6.24
-2.00
4.00
-5.00
19.20
38.40
Soluble Total
(STLC) (TTLC)
(3) (4)
Uni ts: Uni ts:
mg/Kg mg/L
5 5OO
i 100
5 500
5 1000
1 lO0
0.2 20
5 500
15 500
100 10,000
0.75 75
80 8000
25 2500
350 3500
20 2000
7 700
24 24O0
250 5000
From a Sol id
(WET)
(5)
Units:
mg/L
0 5
0 1
0 5
0 5
0 1
0 O2
0 5
1.46
10
0.00068
100
0.134
0.130
500
In a
Solid
(6)
Units:
mg/Kg
50O
100
50O
50O
100
20
5OO
1460
10,000
0.068
100,000
134
130
500,000
RH1
at 15-16 Feet
I'ABL E 12
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE A DEPTH 15-16 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA tlAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Test ,
Specimen Background
Concentration Concentration
Total Total
(TTLC) (TTLC)
(1) (2)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
5.34
-0.50
17.60
5.52
-0.50
-0.O5
-0.50
-5.00
134
0.36
6.23
10.30
-2.00
8.19
-5.00
37.90
63.50
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwater
For Hazardous Wastes Soluble Total
Soluble Total From a Solid In a
(STLC) (TTLC) (WET) Solid
(6)
3.80
-0.50
14.40
5.20
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
137
0.31
6.00
10.60
-2.00
7.10
-5.00
32.10
53.80
(3) (4) (5)
Units: Units: Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L mg/L mg/Kg
5 5OO 0.5 500-
I 100 0.1 100
5 500 0.5 500
5 1000 0.5 500
i lO0 0.1 100
O.2 2O 0.02 20
5 500 0.5 500
15 500 1.46 1460
100 10,000 10 10,000
0.75 75 0.00068 0.068
80 8000 ....
25 2500 100 100,000
350 3500 ....
20 2000 0.134 134
7 700 0.130 130
24 2400 ....
250 5000 500 500,000
RH1 at 5-6
Feet
TABLE 13
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE B
DEPTH 5-6 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA IIAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metals
Test ,
Specimen Background
Concentration Concentration
DHS De
Threshold Limit Concentrations To P
For Hazardous Wastes Sol
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
An t i mony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Total Total
(TTLC) (TTLC)
[1.) (2)
Units: Units:
rog/Kg mg/L
3.44
-0.50
21.70
5.70
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
132
0.46
7.10
13.40
-2.00
9.29
-5.00
49.20
63.80
-2 O0
-0 50
6 80
4 20
-0 50
-0 05
-0 50
-5 O0
43.80
-0.20
2.40
3.60
-2.00
3.60
-5.00
9.80
20.00
Soluble Total Fro
(STLC) (TTLC) (
(3) (4)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
5 5OO
1 100
5 500
5 iOO0
I 100
0.2 20
5 500
15 500
100 10,000
0.75 75
80 8000
25 2500
350 3500
20 2000
7 700
24 2400
250 5000
CRWQCB
signated Levels
rotect Groundwater
uble Total
m a Solid In a
WET) Solid
(5) , (6)
Uni
mg/
0 5
0 1
0 5
0 5
0 1
0 0
0 5
1.4
10
0.0
100
0.1
0.1
500
ts: Units:
L mg/Kg
2
6
0068
34
30
500
100
500
500
100
20
500
1460
10,000
0.068
100,000
134
130
500,000
*
RH1 at 9-10
Feet
I'ABLE 14
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE B DEPTH lO-ii'Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Test
Specimen Background
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwater
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Hercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration
Total
(TTLC)
(1)
Units:
rog/Kg
11.64
-0 50
9 12
6 21
-0 50
-0 05
-0 50
-5 O0
55.10
-0.20
2.72
4.27
-2.00
3.49
-5.00
25.40
27.90
Concentration For Hazardous Was
Total Soluble To
(TTLC) (STLC) (l
(2) (3) (
Units:
mg/L
-2.00
-0.50
8.64
3.04
tes
tal
TLC)
4)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
5 50O
1 100
5 500
5 1000
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
69.80
0.26
4.00
6.24
-2.00
4.00
-5.00
19.20
38.40
1 100
0.2 20
5 500
15 500
100 10,000
0.75 75
80 8000
25 2500
350 3500
20 2000
7 700
24 2400
250 5000
Solubl
From a
(WET
(5)
Uni
rog/
0.5
0 1
0 5
0 5
0 1
0 0
0 5
1 4
10
0,0
100
0.134
0.130
500
e Total
Solid In a
) Solid
(6)
ts: Units:
L mg/Kg
5OO
100
5O0
50O
lO0
2 20
5O0
6 1460
10,000
0068 0.068
100,000
134
130
500,000
RH1 at 15-16 Feet
I'ABLE 15
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE B DEPTH 14-15 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA tlAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metals
Test
Specimen
Concentration
*
Background
Concentration
DHS
Threshold Limit Concentrations
For Hazardous Wastes
Total
(TTLC)
(1)
Units:
mg/Kg
.qrsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper 14
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
11.00
-0.50
23.70
15.20
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
146
0.80
9.52
.20
-2.00
10.80
-5.00
21.70
55.20
Total
(TTLC)
(2)
Units:
mg/L
-2.00
-0.50
8.64
3.04
-0.50
-O.O5
-0.50
-5.00
69.80
0.26
4.00
6.24
-2.00
4.00
-5.00
19.20
38.40
Soluble Total
(STLC) (TTLC)
(3) (4)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg m§/L
5 500
1 100
5 500
5 1000
I 100
0.2 20
5 500
15 500
100 10,000
0.75 75
80 80O0
25 2500
350 3500
20 2000
7 700
24 2400
250 5000
CRWQCB
Designated Levels
To Protect Groundwater
Soluble Total
From a Solid In a
(WET) Solid
(5) (6)
Units: Units:
mg/L mg/Kg
0.5 500
0.1 100
0.5 500
0.5 500
0.1 100
0.02 20
0.5 500
1.46 1460
10 10,000
0.00068 0.068
100 100,000
0.134. 134
0.130 130
500 500,000
RH1 at 15-16 Feet
TABLE 16
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS'. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE 5 DEPTH 16-17 Feet
CONSTITUENTS
Metals
LABORATORY TEST DATA
Test ,
Specimen Background
Concentration Concentration
Total Total
(TTLC) (TTLC)
(!) (2)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOILS
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwater
For Hazardous Wastes Soluble Total
Soluble Total From a Solid In a
(STLC) (TTLC) (WET) Solid
(3) (4) (5) (6) ._
Units: Units:
mg/L mg/Kg
0.5 500
0.1 100
0.5 5O0.
0.5 500
0.1 100
0.02 20
0.5 500
1.46 1460
10 10,000
0.00068 0.068
100 100,000
0.134 134
0.130 130
5OO 500,000
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper 11
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
7.04 3.80
-0.50 -0.50
19.50 14.40
8.99 5.20
-0.50 -0.50
-0.05 -0.05
-0.50 -0.50
-5.00 -5.00
141 137
0.46 0.31
6.69 6.00
.60 10.60
-2.00 -2.00
8.98 7.10
-5.00 -5.00
42.60 32.10
72.70 53.80
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
5 5OO
I 100
5 500
5 1000
1 100
0.2 2O
5 500
15 500
100 10,000
0.75 75
80 8000
25 2500
350 3500
20 2000
7 7O0
24 2400
250 5000
RH1 at 5-6 Feet
TABLE 17
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE C DEPTH 5-6 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Meta] s
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Test
Specimen
Concentration
*
Background
Concentration
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwater
For Hazardous Wastes Soluble Total
Total
(TTLC)
(.1),
Units
mg/Kg
6.95
-0.50
26.40
9.24
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
179
6.78
9.39
19.20
-2.00
12.60
-5.00
49..30
81.60
Total
(TTLC)
(2)
Units:
mg/L
-2.00
-0.50
6.80
4.20
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
43.80
-0.20
2.40
3.60
-2.00
3.60
-5.00
9.80
20.00
Soluble Total From a Solid In a
(STLC) (TTLC) (WET) Solid
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Units: Units: Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L mg/L mg/Kg
5 5OO O.5 5OO
1 100 0.1 100
5 500 0.5 500
5 1000 0.5 500
I 100 0.1 100
0.2 20 0.02 20
5 5O0 O.5 50O
15 500 1.46 1460
100 10,000 10 10,000
0.75 75 0.00068 0.068
80 8000 ....
25 2500 100 100,000
350 3500 ....
20 2000 0.134 134
7 700 0.130 130
24 2400 ....
250 5000 500 500,000
*
RH 1 at
9-10 Feet
I'ABLE 18
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE C DEPTH 10-11 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Test
Specimen Background
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwa
Meta 1 s
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration Conce
Total To
(TTLC) (T
(1) (
ntration F
tal S
TLC) (
2)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
11.10
-0.50
16.80
11.40
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
236
0.76
6.49
11.90
-2.00
9.52
-5.00
12.70
37.80
-2.00
-0.50
8.64
3.04
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
69.80
0.26
4.00
6.24
-2.00
4.00
-5.00
19.20
38.40
or Hazardous Wastes Soluble Tota
oluble Total From a Solid In a
STLC) (TTLC) (WET) Sol i
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Units: Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L mg/L
5 500 0.5
1 100 0.1
5 500 0.5
5 1000 0.5
i 100 0.1
0.2 20 0.02
5 500 0.5
15 500 1.46
100 lO,000 10
0.75 75 0.00068
80 8000 --
25 2500 100
350 3500 --
20 2000 0.134
7 700 0.130
24 2400 --
250 5000 500
ter
1
Units:
mg/Kg
500
100
5O0
500
100
20
5O0
1460
10,000
0.068
100,000
134
130
500,000
RH 1 at
15-16 Feet'
I'ABLE 19
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE C DEPTH 15-16 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Test
Specimen Background
CRWQCB
DHS Designate~ Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwa
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Hercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration
Total
(TTLC)
(1)
Units:
rog/Kg
3.76
-0.50
15.60
4.51
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
141
0.28
5.83
8.84
-2.00
6.77
-5.00,
33.80
57.30
Concentration F
Total S
(TTLC) (
(2)
Units:
mg/L
or Hazardous Wastes Soluble Tota
oluble Total From a Solid In a
STLC) (TTLC) (WET) Sol i
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Units: Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L mg/L
5 500 0.5
1 100 0.1
5 500 0.5
5 1000 0.5
i 100 0.1
0.2 20 0.02
5 500 0.5
15 500 1.46
100 10,000 10
0.75 75 0.00068
80 8000 --
25 2500 100
350 350O --
20 2000 0.134
7 700 0.130
24 2400 --
250 5000 500
ter
Units:
mg/Kg
5OO
lO0
5OO
5OO
100
20
5OO
1460
10,000
0.068
100,000
134
130
500,000
Not Available
TABLE 20
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE D DEPTH 3-4 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metal s
Test ,
Specimen Background
Concentration Concentration
Total Total
(TTLC) (TTLC)
(1) (2)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper 12
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
3.75
-0.50
20.90
6.96
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
179
0.28
8.46
.00
-2.00
8.27
-5.00
44.70
73.50
3 80
-0 50
14 40
5 20
-0 50
-0 05
-0 50
-5.00
137
0.31
6.00
10.60
-2.00
7.10
-5.00
32.10
53.80
DHS De
Threshold Limit Concentrations To P
For Hazardous Wastes Sol
Soluble Tota] Fro
(STLC) (TTLC) (
(3) (4)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
5 5OO
1 100
5 500
5 1000
I 100
0.2 20
5 500
15 500
100 10,
0.75 75
80 8000
25 2500
350 3500
20 2000
7 700
24 2400
250 5000
000
CRWQCB
signated Levels
rotect Groundwater
uble Total
m a Solid In a
WET) Solid
(5) (6) ..
Units: Units:
mg/L mg/Kg
0.5 500
0.1 100
0.5 500
0.5 500
0.1 100
0.02 20
0.5 500
1.46 1460
10 10,000
0.00068 0.068
100 100,000
0.134 134
0.130 130
500 500,000
RH1 at 5-6 Feet
TABLE 21
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL £ON~TITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE D DEPTH 5-6 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Test ,
Specimen Background
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwa
Meta 1 s
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration Concentration
Total Total
(TTLC) (TTLC)
(1) (2)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
5.04 -2.00
-0.5O -O.5O
21.30 6.80
4.20 4.20
-0.50 -0.50
-0.05 -0.05
-0.50 -0.50
-5.00 -5.00
247 43.80
0.50 -0.20
7.73 2.40
15.00 3.60
-2.00 -2.00
10.20 3.60
-5.00 -5.00
39.60 9.80
79.80 20.00
For Hazardous Wastes
Soluble Total
(STLC) (TTLC)
(3) (4)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
5 5OO
I 100
5. 500
5 1000
I 100
0.2 20
5 500
15 500
100 10,000
0.75 75
80 8000
25 2500
350 3500
20 2000
7 700
24 2400
250 5000
Soluble Tota
From a Solid In a
(WET) Soli
(5) (6)
Units:
mg/L
0.5
0 1
0 5
0 5
0 1
0 02
0 5
1 46
10
0.00068
100
0.134
0.130
50O
ter
1
Units:
mg/Kg
500
100
500
5OO
100
2O
500
1460
10,000
0.068
100,000
134
130
500,000
RH1 at 9-10
Feet
TABLE 22
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE D DEPTH 10-11 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metal s
Test
Specimen
Concentration
Background
Concentration
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Lev
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groun
For Hazardous Wastes Soluble T
Total
(TTLC)
(])
Units:
mg/Kg
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper 9
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
8.50
-0.50
15.30
4.25
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
149
0.36
7.48
.01
-2.00
6.80
-5.00
34.70
51.20
Total
(TTLC)
(2)
Units:
mg/L
-2.O0
-0.50
8.64
3.04
-0.50
-0.05
-0.50
-5.00
69.80
0.26
4.00
6.24
-2.00
4.00
-5.00
19.20
38.40
Soluble Total From a Solid
(STLC) (TTLC) (WET)
(3) (4) (5)
Units: Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L mg/L
5 500 0.5
1 100 0.1
5 500 0.5
5 1000 0.5
I 100 0.1
0.2 20 0.02
5 500 0.5
15 500 1.46
100 10,000 10
0.75 75 0.00068
80 8000 --
25 2500 100
350 3500 --
20 2000 0.134
7 700 0.130
24 2400 --
25O 5O0O 5O0
els
dwater
otal
n a
olid
(6)
Units:
mg/Kg
5OO
lO0
5OO
5OO
100
2O
5OO
1460
10,000
0.068
100,000
134
130
500,000
*
RH1 at 15-16 Feet
TABLE 23
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE D DEPTH 13-14 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Meta I s
Test ,
Specimen Background
Concentration Concentration
Total Total
(TTLC) (TTLC)
(1) (2)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
3.44 -2.00
-0.50 -0.50
15.10 8.64
4.64 3.04
-0.50 -0.50
-0.05 -0.05
-0.5O -O.5O
-5.00 -5.00
95.50 69.80
0.31 0.26
5.85 4.00
10.00 6.24
-2.00 -2.00
6.19 4.00
-5.00 -5.00
38.70 19.20
55.40 38.40
DHS
Threshold Limit Concentrations
For Hazardous Wastes
S'oluble Total
(STLC) (TTLC)
(3) (4)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
5 5OO
I 100
5 500
5 1000
I 100
0.2 20
5 500
15 500
100 10,000
0.75 75
80 8000
25 250O
350 3500
20 2000
7 700
24 2400
250 5000
CRWQCB
Designated Levels
To Protect Groundwater
Soluble Total
From a Solid In a
(WET) Solid
(5) (6)
Units: Units:
mg/L mg/Kg
0.5 500
0.1 lO0
0.5 500
0.5 500
0.1 100
0.02 20
0.5 500
1.46 1460
i0 10,000
0.00068 0.068
100 100,000
0.134 134
0.130 130
500 500,000
*
RH1 at 15-16 Feet
TABLE 24
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE D
DEPTH 15-16 Feet
CONSTITUENTS LABORATORY TEST DATA HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Hercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Test ,
Specimen Background
Concentration Concentration
Total Total
(TTLC) (TTLC)
(1) (2)
Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L
3.86
-0,50
24.30
11.10
-O.50
-O.O5
-0.50
5.00
172
0.62
12.50
22.50
-2.00
12.80
-5.00
42.50
74.5O
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwater
For Hazardous Wastes Soluble Total
Soluble Total From a Solid In a
(STLC) (TTLC) (WET) Solid
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Units: Units: Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L mg/L mg/Kg
5 500 0.5 500
1 lO0 0.1 lO0
5 5OO 0.5 5OO
5 1000 0.5 500
1 lO0 0.1 100
O.2 2O O.02 2O
5 5OO 0.5 5OO
15 500 1.46 1460
100 10,000 10 10,000
0.75 75 0.00068 0.068
80 8000 ....
25 2500 100 100,000
350 3500 ....
20 2000 0.134 134
7. 700 0.130 130
24 2400 ....
250 5000 500 500,000
Not Available
TABLE 25
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE PB2 DEPTH 3 Feet
CONSTITUENTS
Metal s
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Silver
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Te
Spe
Conce
To
(T
(
m
LABORATORY TEST DATA
st ,
cimen Background
ntration Concentration
tal Total
TLC) (TTLC)
1) (2)
nits: Units:
g/Kg mg/L
6.24
0.50
3.60
8.10
0.50
0.05
0.50
5.00
164
0.59
1.50
9.70
2.00
2.00
5.00
3.20
8.00
HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED LEVELS FOR SOILS
CRWQCB
DHS Designated Levels
Threshold Limit Concentrations To Protect Groundwater
For Hazardous Wastes Soluble Total
Soluble Total From a Solid In a
(STLC) (TTLC) (WET) Solid
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Units: Units: · Units: Units:
mg/Kg mg/L mg/L mg/Kg
5 500 0.5 500
I ]00 0.1 100
5 500 0.5 500
5 1000 0.5 500
1 100 0.1 100
0.2 20 0.02 20
5 500 0.5 50O
15 500 1.46 1460
100 10,000 10 10,000
0.75 75 0.00068 0.068
80 8000 ....
25 2500 100 100,000
350 3500 ....
20 2000 0.134 134
7 700 0.130 130
24 2400 ....
250 5000 500 500,000
Not Available
I'ABLE 26
COMPARISONS OF DHS & CRWQCB HAZARDOUS & DESIGNATED
LEVELS FOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS VS. LABORATORY TEST DATA
SAMPLE PB3 DEPTH 3 Yeet
Page 44
LIMITATIONS
The findings and conclusions presented in this report are based
on the data obtained from the test borings and sampling performed
at the locations shown on the plans, and the analytical testing
performed by the B.C. Laboratories in Bakersfield, California.
The report does not reflect variations which may exist between
borings and sampling points. These variations cannot be
anticipated nor can they be entirely accounted for in spite of
exhaustive additional testing.
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally
accepted engineering practice for the area, based on the
guidelines of local jurisdictions. No warranties, either
expressed or implied, are made.
BSK & Associates
BSK
& Associates
APPENDIX "C"
CORRESPONDENCE
BSK
& Associates
Associates
Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.
Wesley I. Braun, CE
Robert [.2.. Ska~4s CF
Hu~4o Kevorkian. CF
IohnR Hedh'v. CE
Iol~n B. Moore. CE
John M Minnev, C£
lames G Sutton. C['
Howard D. ffarlow. Ck
DonR Poindexter. CE
Iohnft Kirk. C[:G
rhomasE Vahlstrom. Ch
December 11, 1985
Jerry Reynolds
Valley Perforating Company
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, California 93308
SUBJECT:
Site Clean-up
Valley Perforating Company
Bakersfield, California
Our Job 85238
Dear Mr. Reynolds:
Ms. Clari Binder, with the Kern County Department of Health, has
verbally informed us that our October 28, 1985 response to the
County's Work Plan Request for Amendment of August 28, 1985 was
approved with the exception of Item 3.
This Item requires that certain additional organic chemical tests
be performed on the soil samples. Enclosed is our proposal for
the scope of services requested at this point in time for the
characterization phase. Depending on the results of this phase
of investigation, additional work could be required by State and
County Agencies. The Kern County Agency has agreed however to
initially limit the scope of work until test results can be
obtained and evaluated.
Should this Proposal meet with your approval, we would ask that
you sign the enclosed agreement and return it to this office so
that vie can schedule the field work.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service.
you have any questions.
Please call if
HK:lk
Sincerely,
BSK & Associates
Hu go~'Ke,y'o rk i an
Sod En;4ineermg * Enqineermg (]eolo~4v · En~meenng Laboratorm¢ · Chemical Laboratories
Fresno,, Cahforma 93?06
Visalia, Califorma 93278
-' Bakersfield, California 93304
Pleasanton, Califorma 94566
1414 Stanislaus Street Telephone (209) 485-8310
3901 So Moone¥ Bird. P O. 8ox 3236 (209) 732-8857
117 -V" Street Telephone (805) 327-0671
5729-G Sonoma Drive * Telephone (41S~
Associates
Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.
Wesley I. Brdun. C[
Robert D. Ska~.',. CE
HLu4O Kevorkian, CE
IohnR H(,dhw.
Iohn ii. Moore. CI:
I'ohn .k~ M, inmw, CE
lam~'s G
Howard D. Ihlrlnw. Ct
DonR Poind~xter, C[
IohnH K~rk, CEC
[homa,~ E. VahRtrom, Ch
October 28, 1985
Our Job 85238
.Richard Casagrande, R.S.
Environmental Health Specialist IV
Hazardous Materials Program Management
Kern County Health DePartment
1700 Flower Street
Bakersfield, California 93305
SUBJECT:
Site Clean-up
Valley Perforating Company
Bakersfield, California
Dear Mr. Casagrande:
At the request of Mr. Jerry Reynolds with the Valley Perforating
Company, we have prepared the following.response to your request
for amendment to our Work Plan of August 28, 1985. Our response
is keyed to the item numbers of your letter of October 22, 1985.
ITEH I
Background samples can be obtained. Sampling depths of 3, 5 and
10 feet from natural ground surface are proposed. Direct
comparisons to the tests required for the Valley Perforating Site
would be provided.
Access and right-of-entry to private property may be a problem,
however. Your assistance in this matter may be required.
Perhaps this could be done on Kern County or City of Bakersfield
public right-of-way. Another difficulty with the selection of
site for background sampling is in finding an area unaffected by
past oil-industry-related activities. Tile general vicinity of
the Valley Perforating Company Site has a long history of
industrial activity related to oil extraction and production.
Sod [nL~meerlnL~ * J: ngm(,ermq (;~,oJog,,' - J: ngmeer~ng J.aboratorw.~ * Chemical Laborator,~s
F~esno. Cahtorma 93706
-- Visalia. Cahiorma 93278
BakersiieJd, Californ,a 93304
Pleasanton, Caliimma 945bb
1414 St.midaus Street Telephono j209} 48;,83 Ill
3901 So Moonev Bl~.d. PO. Box 323b (209) 732-~8S7
* 117 "V" Street Telephone (8051 327-0671
5729-G Sonoma Dr)ye · T~l.nhnno (41 ~) 4~.a~
Site Clean-up
Valley Perforating Company
Bakersfield, California
Our Job 85238
October 29, 1985
Page 2
ITEM 2
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 19 feet below ground
surface. This corresponds to a depth of approximately 10 feet
below bottom of sump. In order to avoid the potential for
introducing contaminants into groundwater during drilling and
sampling operations, we strongly recommend that drilling
penetration and sampling be stopped several feet above
groundwater. In this instance, sampling depths of 2 and 7 feet
.'below bottom of sump are recommended. Should the 7 foot samples
indicate significant contamination, slant-drilling from the top
of the natural ground surface to groundwater beneath the sump
could be performed at a later stage. The latter approach does
not eliminate contamination risks but reduces the potential to a
lower risk level. In either case, the holes would be filled with
a cement grout at completion of drilling and sampling.
ITEM 3
The requirement for EPA Test Methods 601 and 602 and complete
metal scan for all soil samples is a significant departure from
previously discussed concerns of lead contamination. If the
decision to include these tests is based on the data contained in
the material information bulletin for "Schwebel Petroleum
Company Incorporated Thinner 350", included in our Work Plan,
reconsideration is recom'mended in 1.ight. of the owner's statement
that such material is not used on the premises and that the
bulletin was included in error (see letter of October 15, 19.85
attached).
ITEM 4
The additional two test holes requested on the east side of the
sump present a number of difficulties:
The property owner, according to Mr. Reynolds, is not
likely to cooperate in view of past dealings.
The area contains high-pressure oil transmission lines
and a risk exists in damage and significant disturbance
to the flow of oil. Approval from the respective oil
companies would also be required.
In the best of circumstances, considerable delays will
be experienced in obtaining the necessary approvals and
coordinating the work.
BSK
Site Clean-up
Valley Perforating Company
Bakersfield, California
Our Job 85238
October 29, 1985
Page 3
Our recommendation, for this phase of investigation, is to not
drill on the east side for the following reasons:
The site is relatively featureless. Soils within~ the
upper 20 feet are uniform and consist mainly of silty
sand and fine sand.
The distance between borings from the east to west side
of the sump is not likely to exceed 60 feet. Little
difference in soil stratification is expected within
this distance.
Lateral spreading of liquid stored in the sump would
have occurred uniformly in all directions. Conditions
on the east side should accordingly be similiar to
those on the west side. Findings for tests performed
on the west side should provide an adequate
representation of conditions on the east side. At the
completion of work on the west side, a reassessment of
the necessity for drilling on the east side can always
be made at that time. This approach would eliminate
excessive delays in the assessment of contamination and
implementation of clean-up work.
ITEM 5
Sample Holes E through I would be deleted at this stage of work.
ITEM 6
Samples would be collected at the indicated depths of 5, 10, and
15 feet in Test Holes A, B, C, and D.
ITEM 7
Teflon would.be used to provide the closure of sample ends~before
capping. Acetone~would be used for equipment cleaning.
ITEM ,8
Neoprene Safety Boots would be included in the site safety
program.
ITEM 9
The owner has been apprised of the requirements for subsequent
studies for alternative corrective action and clean-up plan.
BSI<
Site Clean-up
Valley Perforating Company
Bakersfield, California
Our Job 85238'
October 29, 1985
Page 4
This submittal represents our proposed amendment to our Work
Plan. At your request, we are prepared to meet with you and
discuss these items in more detail.
Respectively submitted,
BSK & Associates
HK:lk H e
cc: Jerry Reynolds, Valley Perforating Company
John B. Moore, BSK & Associates, Bakersfield
BSK
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, California 93308-4988
Telephone (805) 324-4964
October 15, 1985
BSK & ASSOCIATES
1414 Stanislaus Street
Fresno CA 93706
ATTN: Hugh Kevorkian
RE : Work Plan, Valley Perforating Co., Job #85238
Dear Mr. Kevorkian
Schwebel Petroleum Co. Inc., Material Information
Bulletin on Thinner 350, was placed in the report
in error.
We do not use a thinner in our operations at Valley
Perforatinq Company.
Sincerely
Carl P. Seely
Secretary
CPS/].h.
-" 1700 Flower Street
Bakerstleid. California 93305
- Telephone (805) 861-3636
October 22, 1985
KERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
HEALTH OFFICER
Leon M Hebertson, M.D,
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Vernon S. Relchard
Mr. Jerry Reynolds
Valley Perforating Co.
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, CA. 93308
Subject- BSK Work Plan for Site Clean up
Dear Mr. Reynolds'
This department has been asked to respond to the Work Plan presented to your company
by BSK. That work Plan was recently submitted to the Regional Water Quality Contro!
Board, (RWQCB) the Department of Health Services (DOHS), and this office for review.
This letter is a combined effort of recommendations recieved from the DOHS and the
RWQCB as well as this department's. You will be receiving a separate letter from the
RWQCB which will'address that agency's concerns. You will be expected to incorporate
those instructions with those you receive in this letter.
The major areas of concern that this department and the DOHS has regarding your site
cleanup work plan are as~follows·
1. A background sample should be taken from off site of the Valley Perforating;s
property.
Ground water in this area has been determined to be 19 feet as reported by
the BSK drilling iog. Both samples from the sump should begin at 3 feet
from the surface and continue at 5 feet intervals until ground water is reached.
All samples are to be analysed for volatile organics according to EPA test
methods 601 and 602. A complete metal scan must also be included in the
ana~ sis. ,
4. Two additional test holes should be placed on the east side of the sump
opposite sample test holes B and C.
At this time, there does not appear to be a need for sample holes E through
I. These may be required at a later date should samples A through D indicate
potential contamination.
Samples should be collected at 5, 10 and 15 feet depths from test holes A,
B, C and D. Ground water samples will be taken during the groundwater study,
therefore, are not necessary at this time.
DISTRICT OFFICES
Delano . Lamont . Lake Isabella . Molave . flldoecr®at . Shaft~,
Page Two
Jerry Reynolds
BSK Work Plan
7. Samples should be sealed with Teflon rather than aluminum foil before being
capped, equipment should be cleaned beween samples and rinsed with acetone.
e
Site safety during the execution of the Work Plan is the responsiblity of
the Safety Engineer and or the Industrial Hygienist. Proper attire and
equipment use is expected. Please note that neoprene safety boots should
be included.
After the charactization of the site has been completed, a Feasibility
Study needs to be developed. This must include alternatives for corrective
action as well as a recommended cleanup plan.
Please submit an ammended work plan to Bruce Butterfield of the DOHS, Scott Smith
of the RWQCB, and this office for review. If you have any questions regarding this
letter, please contact Clari Binder at (805) 861-3636.
Sincerely, ~--~.
'Richard Casagrande, R.S~
Environmental Health Specialist IV
Hazardous Materials Program Managment
RC:CB:re
CC:
Scott Smith, RWQCB
Tom Kovac, DOHS
Hugo Kevorkian, BSK & Associates
S~ATE OF CALIFORNIA~HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SECTION
FRESNO DISTRICT OFFICE
5545 EAST SHIELDS AVENUE
FRESNO, CA 93727
October 3, 19~,5
Kern County Health Depar~m_n~
17OO Flower Street
Bakersfield, California 93305
Attention: Clare Binder
As net your request, we have conducted a review of information as contained in
the above-referenced document. %'le have developed the following comments.
The locations of Boreholes B-2 and B-~ are appropriate as proposed·
However, the depths of' the borings, should be advanced to at ~e_s ~ = ~ the
groundwater table, which a previous boring }]as shown to be at about a
20-foot depth. Soil samples shculd be collected at the 3, 5, 1C, 15,
and 20 fcot depths. Samnles of the grcundwater should be collected
from both borings.
Sample holes A, ~, C, and D should also be advanced to the groundwater
table. Soil samples should be collected from the 5, 10, 15 and 20
foot depths.
Two sample holes should be placed'on the east side of the pond,
opposite to sample holes B snd C. Soil samples for these borin.gs
should also be collected from the 5, 10, 15, and 20 foot depths.
;',"e do not anticipate the need at this ooint for proposed sample holes
E +hroug~ I. However if the cost of collecting and analyzing soil
samples from these proposed borings'is only incremental to the total
cost of the work plan, then the additional information obtained may be
cost effective. If borings F, G and H are installed, there must be 3
other borings on the east side of the nond to comoliment the
contamination characterization effort.
All samo!es need to be analyzed for a com?].ete heavy metal scan and
volatile organics according to EPA test methods 601 and 60~.
In order to achieve cost containment, composite sampling may be
conducted. The ccmpositing should be performed only between samo!es
collected at equivalent soil depths and each composite should not
consist of more than three discrete samole components· If composite
sampling is conducted, a !:ortion of each soil sample collected should
be preserved should more specific site characterization analytical
testing be required at a later date.
If contamination of the perched groundwater is established, the
direction of the 'groundwater gradient and an evaluation of the
continuity of the perched ecuifer with lower groundwater zones must be
determined.
-2-
Site safety during the execution of the Work Plan is the
responsibility of thc Sa~e~y Engineer and/or Industrial Hygienist.
Samples should not be capped with aluminum foil a~d cleaning of the
equipment between sampling should be done with hexane or acetone.
After characterization of the site has been completed, a Feasibility
Study needs to be developed in which alternatives for corrective
action are discussed, and a recommended cleanup.plan is presented.
~P!ease contact me should you require a clarification on any of the above items.
cerely,
Thomas W. Kovac, P. E.
Associate Management Engineer
cc: Sco~t Smith,
Regicna! Water Ouality Control Board
Fresno
· ~SK & Associates
1&14 Stanislaus Street
Fresno, California ~.~o
Att'n: Hugo Kevorkian
Tony Landis, P. E.
TSCD, Site I~itigation
Sacramento
Mail a copy of the completed form to:
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
CUPA Inspector:
Address:
The following facility is storing "petroleum" in a single storage tank greater than 660 gallons or in
multiple storage tanks with a cumulative storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons. "Petroleum"
means crude oil, or any fraction thereof, which is liquid at 60 degrees Fahrenheit temperature and 14.7
pounds per square inch absolute pressure. This includes petroleum based substances comprised of a
complex blend of hydrocarbons, such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuels, residual fuel oils, lubricants, some
petroleum solvents, and used oils. An example of a substance that is not "petroleum" is liquid propane
gas (LPG). Note: The backside of this form identifies storage tanks and facilities exempt from the state
.4boveground Petroleum Storage ~let SPCC requirement.
Facility Name: kffl, t_c.C- ~ ~C-.(KCoe../xT,~oG C.O. :
Facility Address: ~'2..0 ( ~_~-LJ~.F %~'-
Contact: '--~'~-P"'~ c~-~'~"~°c'c~ Phone:( 5o6l ) 37.4-4 64
:;:.:i~!:,~:;:~5Tli.~ owner'Or, operato~.~as:u~;,ware:Of:ighe AbovegroundpetrO!eum Storage';A~t.. A::.COP~/:~ith~??~iii]
· ..~..:i!s{~e!~.at~r:R~s~cesi~on~r~i Board;'Abov~grOund TankProg~am brochul%iv{as: ~6~aai!i~i!i%ii~!]
[.,... '/i':1 ;:i i.i'the, oWner~r.~er~tor;=i i i :'...:.i:.' ' ;:{= ! i?,! i:~}!ii{:in
cc: Carol Julian
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Clean Water Programs
P.O. Box 944212
Sacramento, CA 94244-2120
SWRCB, CWP Form AGT-! (06/28/99)
The Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA), Health and Safety Code (H&SC), Section 25270.2(k), defines
"storage tank" as any aboveground tank or container used for the storage of petroleum. "Storage tank" does not
include any of the following:
-'] (1) A pressure vessel or boiler which is subject to Part 6 of Division 5 of the Labor Code.
(2) A storage tank containing hazardous waste, as defined in subdivision (g) of Section
25316, if the person owning or operating the storage tank has been issued a hazardous waste
facilities permit for the storage tank by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.
(3) An aboveground oil production tank which is subject to Section 3106 of the Public
Resources Code (Division of Oil and Gas).
.(4) Oil-filled electrical equipment, including, but not limited to, transformers, circuit
breakers, or' capacitors, if the oil-filled electrical equipment meets either of the following
conditions:
(A) The equipment contains less than 10,000 gallons of dielectxic fluid, or
(B) The equipment contains 10,000 gallons or more of dielectric fluid with PCB
levels less than 50 ppm. The appropriate containment or diversionary structures or equipment.
are employed to prevent discharged oil from reaching a navigable wa~er course, and the
electrical equipment is visually inspected in accordance with the usual routine maintenance
procedures of the owner or operator. ~
If you checked any one of the four boxes above, then the facility is not subject to
the state AP,gA registration, fee or SPCC plan requirements.
Additionally, H&SC Section 25270.5(d) specifically does no__!t require an SPCC plan for the following facilities:
Farms, nurseries, and logging or constxucfion sites, which do not have a single tank
exceeding 20,000 gallons and which have a cumulative storage capacity no greater than
100,000 gallons.
However, these facilities are still required to pay a fee and register their tank(s)
with the ,gtate Water Resources Control Board.
Comment:
COORRECTION tNOTICE
BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT N_.
930
Cor. Ho
Sub Div. . Blk. Lot
You are hereby required to make the following corrections
at the above location:
Comple.tion pate
Date ~/_~~_~
for Corrections.
Inspector
326-3979
CORRECTION NOTICE
BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT N_?. 930
~ea.on R~O / (~uc.r
Sub Div. Blk. Lot
You are hereby required to make the following corrections
at the above location:
Cot, No
Completion Date for Corrections
Date ~/~"-/':7 9 ~~ /-'~f'
InspectOr
326-3979
'CORRECTI'ON NOTICE
BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT
Sub giv Blk. Lot
You are hereby required to make the following corrections
at the above location:
Cot. No
Completion ,Date for Corrections ~/~/~?c:~ .'
Inspector
326-3979
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD--
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE:
3614 EAST ASHLAN AVENUE
FRESNO, CA 93726
PHONE: {209) 445-5116
FAX: {20,9.) 445-5910
14 April 1992
Mr. C. Michael Dover
Valley Perforating Company
32Q1 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, CA 93308-4988
VALLEY PERFORATING COHPANY, KERN COUNTY
Following receipt of your 28 January 1992 letter, we have reviewed all available
information regarding the assessment work conducted at the site and have
concluded that the Company's past operations have had minimal, if any, impact on
beneficial uses of water in the area and that the surface impoundment has been
clean closed to prevent future water quality problems from occurring. The
attached memorandum contains our review of the available information.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and propose no further action at
this time. If you have any questions, please telephone Jim Stites at (209) 488-
4396 or me at (209) 488-4392.
F. SCOTT NEVINS
Senior Engineer
JNS:jns/fmc
cc'.~'"~Kern County Environmental Health Department, Bakersfield
Mr. Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates, Fresno
MEMORANDUMs)
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
3614 East ~.hl~n Awnue Phone: (209) 445-5116
Fremo, CA 93726 ATSS Phone.: 8421-5116
TO:
F. Scott Nevins
Senior Engineer
FROM: James Stites
Staff Engineer
DATE: 14 April 1992
SIGNATURE:
SUBJECT: VALLEY PERFORATING COHPANY, KERN COUNTY
Following receipt of Valley Perforating Company's 28 January 1992 letter, I have
reviewed all available information regarding the potential impact of the Company's past
disposai operations on the underlying ground water. My observations are as follows:
The facility is located in an industrial area of Bakersfield. Several businesses
relating to manufacturing and metal processing exist adjacent to and nearby the
property.
e
The Company's surface impoundment was found subject to the TPCA in February 1989
because of hazardous levels of lead in the soils.
e
The Company has conducted a HAR, ceased discharge, and clean closed the
impoundment, thus satisfying the requirements of-the TPCA.
e
Ground water gradients at the site shift significantly and are dependent not only
on ground water withdrawal, but also on recharge from the Kern River just south
of the facility.
0
The underlying ground water is of excellent quality, with beneficial uses of
municipal and domestic supply, agricultural supply, and industrial process supply.
Samples of ground water at the site indicate low levels (varying from non-
detectable to slightly above and slightly below action levels) of
trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, cis-l,2-dichloroethylene, and 1,2-
dichloroethane in ground water.
Analyses of samples of the Company's processing fluids show no concentrations of
the contaminants found in ground water.
Soil samples collected and analyzed from 8 bore holes located within and/or
adjacent to the impoundment show no concentrations of the contaminants found in
ground water.
CONCLUSIONS
The assessment work conducted at the site over the last 7 years has not demonstrated
that Valley Perforating has affected the underlying ground water.
Reviewed by:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD--
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE:
3614 EAST ASHLAN AVENUE
FRESNO, CA 93726
PHONE: (209) 445-5116
FAX: (209) 445-5910
26 December 1991
Mr. C. Michael Dover
Valley Perforating Company
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, CA 93308-4988
REPORT REVIEW, VALLEY PERFORATING COMPANY, KERN COUNTY
We have reviewed a report dated 30 August 1391 that was submitted by Kenneth D.
Schmidt and Associates regarding ground water characterization at the site. Our
comments are provided in the attached memorandum. The memorandum indicates that
additional work 'is needed to define the boundaries of the plume of degradation.
Prior to 31 January 1992, please provide us with a technical report that contains
a work plan and time schedule to determine the vertical and lateral extent of
ground water degradation at the facility. The work plan should also include a
description of a sampling method to be used that will provide reliable data and
a description of QA/QC procedures.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please telephone Jim Stites at
(209) 488-4396.
F. Scott Nevins
Senior Engineer
JNS:jns/cjs
Enclosure
cc: ?Kern County Environmental Health Department, Bakersfield
Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates, Fresno
MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
3614 East Ashlan Avenue Phone: (209) 445-5116
Fresno, CA 93726 ATSS Phone: 8-421-5116
TO: F. SCOTT NEVINS
Senior Engineer
FROM: JAMES STITES
Staff Engineer
DATE: 26 December 1991
SUBJECT: REPORT £EVIE't/, VALLEY PERFOtZATZNGCO., KERE COLINTY
I have reviewed a report that was submitted by Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates on
behalf df Valley Perforating. Work included in the report attempts to address our lg
June 1991 memorandum whereupon we requested Valley Perforating to determine the
vertical and lateral extent of ground water degradation that has occurred as a result
of previous discharge operations to a former on-site surface impoundment.
Previous investigative work performed at the facility indicates that ground water in
the vicinity of the surface impoundment has been affected by several organic
contaminants including TCE, PCE, cis-l,2-dichloroethylene and 1,2-dichloroethane.
These contaminants have been detected in ground water in the vicinity of the former
impoundment at concentrations up to 38 times the advisory level (Primary MCL). Other
organic contaminants, including ethylbenzene, toluene, trans-l,2,-dichloroethylene,
1,1-dichloroethane, and 1,1-dichloroethylene have also been detected in ground water,
however not at concentrations over advisory levels.
In an attempt to determine the extent of ground water degradation previously detected,
information provided in the report indicates that three additional monitoring wells
have been installed along the northern and eastern boundaries of the property.
Gradient measurements provided in the report indicate that ground water flow is toward
the southwest. As such, the new monitoring wells appear to be hydraulically cross-
gradient to the former impoundment. The new wells provide some information about the
lateral extent of the ground water degradation at the site. Additional information is
still needed, however, in the downgradient direction.
Construction details of the monitoring wells are included in the report and appear to
be appropriate.
The ground water analyses included in the report appear to be appropriate for the
contaminants of concern at the facility. The analyses indicate that tetrachloroethene
was detected in MW-3 (downgradient) and MW-5 (cross-gradient) at 0.6 ug/1. No organic
contaminants were detected in the other monitoring wells.
The report indicates that each well was pumped with a submersible pump for two hours
prior to sampling. This type of sampling raises uncertainty regarding whether or not
the samples provide an accurate indication of organic contaminants in ground water.
Excess sampling.agitation can lead to volatilization of organics, and purging large
volumes of water can affect local ground water gradients and result in ground water
samples that may not accurately represent downgradient conditions.
Results of trip blanks, lab blanks and spiked samples were included in the report and
appear to be adequate.
VALLEY PERFORATING CO.
KERN COUNTY
-2-
26 December 1991
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The analyses of the samples from MW-3 an MW-5 suggest that these wells may be near the
outer boundaries of the plume in a lateral direction. However, the information
provided to us on the method of sample collection (excessive well purging) raises
questions about whether or not this is the proper conclusion to draw from this
information.
Additional work is still needed to define the vertical and lateral extent of the plume
of degraded ground water at the facility.
JNS:jns/cjs
CALIFORNIA36~4s^~CENTRALFRESNO`PHONE:J~A~U~NEAST{209)CAASHLAN93726WATERSHEDVALLEY4~s~$~ ~6REGiONALAvENuEREGiONBRANcHWATERoFFiCE. QUALITY CONTROL BOAR D--~. ~
19 dune 1991
Mr. C. Michael Dover
Valley Perforating Company
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, CA ~
WORK-PLAN REVIEW~PERFORATING COMPANY~.~KERN COUNTY
We have reviewed a work plan that was submitted by Kenneth D. Schmidt and
Associates in regard to characterizing ground water degradation that has occurred
at the subject facility. Our comments are provided in the attached memorandum.
Provided the comment in Item No. 2 of the Conclusion of the attached memorandum
is appropriately addressed in the conduct of the work and in the report, we have
no objection to the implementation of the work. Prior to ! September 1991,
please provide us with a technical report that contains the results of this phase
of the investigation. The report must also contain awork plan and time schedule
for determining the lateral and vertical extent of groundwater degradation
resulting from the impoundment operations.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please telephone Jim Stites of
this office at (209) 488-4396.
F. Scott Nevins
Senior Engineer
JNS:jns/cjs
Enclosure
CC:
Department of Health Services, Fresno
Kern County Environmental Health Department, Bakersfield
Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates, Fresno
MEMORANDUI
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
3614 East Ashlan Avenue Phone: (209) 445-5116
Fr~no, CA 93726 ATSS Phone: 8-421-5116
TO: F. SCOTT NEVINS
Senior Engineer
DATE: 19 June 1991
SUBJECT:
FROM: JAMES STITES
Staff Engineer
SIGNATURE:
WORK PLAN REVIEW, VALLEY PERFORATING COMPANY, KERN COUNTY
I have reviewed a work plan that was submitted by Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates in
response to our memorandum dated 22 March 1991. In that memorandum, we requested the
Discharger to provide us with a work plan and time schedule to conduct work to
determine the vertical and lateral extent of ground water degradation that has occurred
as a result of previous disposal to an unlined on-site surface impoundment.
Four monitoring wells have been previously installed in the vicinity of the backfilled
surface impoundment. Ground water samples obtained from these wells have shown organic
contaminants at concentrations up to 38 times the appropriate advisory level.
Proposed in the work plan is the installation of three additional on-site monitoring
wells. One monitoring well will be placed along the northern boundary of the facility.
The second well will be placed along the western boundary of the facility and the third
well will be placed in the northwest corner. The locations proposed for these wells
could be useful in checking for possible contaminants from other sources. None of the
wells, however, appear to be located downgradient from the former surface impoundment.
As such, the work proposed does not appear to be appropriate to identify the boundary
of the contaminant plume from the former surface impoundment.
The design proposed in the work plan for the additional monitoring wells appears to be
similar to the four existing on-site wells. The wells will be drilled to about 50 feet
deep and will be screened for 25 feet, with approximately 20 feet of the screened
interval below the water table'. Well installation and construction details, includi~ng
a cross sectional schematic diagram, are provided in the work plan and appear to be
adequate.
The work plan indicates that a submersible pump will be used for pumping the monitoring
wells prioff to sampling. The work plan, however, does not specify how ground water
samples will be collected. The method of sample collection for volatile organics is
important to ensure minimal loss of volatiles. Excessive pumping of the well during
sampling could lead to an accelerated loss of volatile organic compounds.
The work plan indicates that samples obtained from all seven monitoring wells (four
already in place and. the three proposed wells) will be analyzed for organic
constituents, inorganic constituents and other parameters such as pH, electrical
conductivity and water levels. The analytical method proposed in the work plan (Method
601) appears to be appropriate for detection of organic constituents previously found
in the ground water near the surface impoundment.
QA/QC procedures are discussed in the work plan and include analyzing a blank sample
for volatile halocarbons and maintaining sample chain-of-custody documentation. The
VALLEY PERFORATING COMPANY
KERN COUNTY
-2-
work plan, however, does not indicate whether or not trip blanks or equipment blanks
will be collected and analyzed, nor does it discuss laboratory QA/QC procedures.
The work plan indicates that approximately 90 days would be required to accomplish this
phase of the investigative work and submit a technical report to us. This time
schedule is acceptable.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the proposed work could provide some insight into water quality
conditions upgradient from the surface impoundment, no work has yet been proposed
to define the boundaries of the plume of degradation down gradient from the
surface impoundment.
e
Reco~nended EPA procedures should be used and documented in the technical report,
for all sampling, sample preservation, chain of custody, chemical analyses, use
of split and spiked samples and use of trip blanks.
JNS:jns/cjs
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD--
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE:
3614 EAST ASHLAN AVENUE
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93?26
PHONE: (209) 445-5116
26 January 1990
Mr. Jerry Reynolds
Valley Perforating Company
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, CA 93308
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor.
REVISED WORK PLAN FOR THE.HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT, VALLEY
PERFORATING COMPANY, BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
We have reviewed your report, dated 28 August 1989, regarding the
hydrogeologic assessment work plan for the subject facility. Enclosed
is a memo containing our comments.
We approve your work plan, provided it is modified to address the
enclosed comments. You need to provide us with your rationale for
placing a group of three monitoring wells on the northwest corner of
the inactive pond or to relocate monitoring wells around the pond
before you start drilling. We are willing to meet with you and your
consultants to discuss the monitoring well locations.
Please notify us several days in advance of the date you will be
installing monitoring wells so that we can schedule a site visit to
observe your procedures and collect duplicate samples.
Thank you for your cooperation concerning this matter. Should you have
any questions, please telephone Jong Hah at (209) 445-5170.
~JOHN M. NOONAN
Senior Engineer
JYH:cjs
Enclosure
cc: Richard Haberman, State Department of Health Services, Fresno
Chris Burger, Kern County Health Department, Bakersfield
Kurt Hallock, Reish & Luftman (Attorney at Law), Los Angeles
Memorandum
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD eCENTRAL VALLEY REGION
3614 E. Ashlan SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH Telephone: (209) 445-5116
Fresno, CA 93726-6905 State Lease Line: 421-5116
TO: John M. Noonon FROM:
Senior Engineer
JOng Y. Han
Staff Geologist
DATE: 26 January 1990 SIGNATURE.~~_~
SUBJECT: REVISED HAR WORK PLAN FOR VALLEY PERFORATING COMPANY,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
I have reviewed the revised work plan for a Hydrogeologic Assessment
Report (HAR), dated 28 August 1989, for Valley Perforating Company
(hereafter Valley). The revised work plan was prepared by Kenneth D.
Schmidt and Associates. The revisions were prepared in response to a
letter, dated 1 August 1989, from the Regional Board. In the letter,
Regional Board staff commented on six different items from Valley's
previous work plan for preparing a HAR and requested Valley to submit
a revised work plan for developing the information to be included in
the geotechnical report.
It is proposed within the submitted revised HAR work plan to conduct
the following.work items:
Install four ground water monitoring wells around'the inactive pond
(three downgradient and one upgradient). The wells will be drilled
to extend about 20 feet below the water table. Drill cuttings will
be logged and any unusual smells or discoloration will be noted and
be reported.
Collect water samples from each monitoring well and analyze them
for volatile organic chemicals (EPA Methods 601, 602, and 625),
metals (arsenic, chromium, and lead) and others.
o
Drill cuttings will be monitored with an organic vapor analyzer and
the readings will be recorded on the drilling log. If evidence of
contamination is encountered during drilling of the monitoring
wells, soil samples will be collected and tested for metals and
volatile organics.
Depth to water in each well will be measured, and the elevations
of the measuring points will be determined by survey.
I find the proposed work plan to be acceptable except for the following
item:
According to the submitted work plan, the ground water flow direction
is to the northwest. Data from a site 500 feet west of Valley
indicates that shallow ground water is flowing to the southwest (see
REVISED HAR WORK PLAN FOR
VALLEY PERFORATING COMPANY,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
-2-
attached figure). No data or references were provided to support
Valley's statement on the direction of ground water movement. A
rationale for placing three monitoring wells northwest of the inactive
pond must be provided. If these wells do not adequately define the
direction of ground water flow and ground water conditions upgradient
and downgradient of the site, then additional monitoring wells will be
required.
I have no objection to Valley implementing their work plan proposal,
provided they incorporate a response to the above comment in their
proposal.
JYH:cjs
EOF
AT._ CAL,~:O~NIA
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor
CALIFORhlIA REGIONAL WAI'ER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD--
CENTP L VALL REGION
SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE:
3614 EAST ASHLAN AVENUE
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93726
PHONE: (209) 445-5116
1 August 1989
Environmental Health Div.
Kern County Health Oel~L
Mr. Jerry Reynolds
Valley.Perforating Company
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, CA 93308
VALLEY PERFORATING COMPANY, BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
We have reviewed your report, dated 5 April 1989, regarding the ground
water investigation work plan for the subject facility. Enclosed is
a memo containing our comments.
Because of the uncertainty of the ground water conditions under your
inactive pond, you need to install at a minimum one upgradient and
three downgradient monitoring wells. You may need to install
monitoring wells in the water table aquifer, if the perched water
aquifer can not.be shown to be continuous and/or is degraded.
Prior to 31 August 1989, please provide us with a revised work plan
for developing the information to be included in the geotechnical
report. The work plan should be prepared under the direction of a
registered engineer or engineering geologist and should reflect all
the comments contained in the attached memorandum. The work plan
should provide sufficient detail to allow us to determine the adequacy
of the proposed study and should include a time schedule for conducting
the study and submitting the report.
Thank you for your cooperation concerning this matter. Should you have
any questions, please telephone Jong Han at (209) 445-5170.
JYH:cjs
Enclosure
cc: Richard Casagrande, Kern County Health Department, Bakersfield
Richard Haberman, State Department of Health Services, Fresno
Kurt Hallock, Reish & Luftman (Attorney at Law), Los Angeles
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD o CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
3614 E. Ashlan SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH Telephone: (209) 445-5116
Fresno, CA 93726-6905 State Lease Line: 421-5116
TO: John M. Noonan FROM:
Senior Engineer
Jong Y. Han
Staff Geologist
DATE:
SUBJECT:
1 August 1989 SIGNATURE:///~/'/~/~:"'.//~/'/~"
REVIEW OF PROPOSED HAR WORK PLAN FOR VALLEY PERFORATING
COMPANY, BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
I-have reviewed the work'plan for a Hydrogeologic Assessment Report
(HAR) dated 5 April 1989, which was submitted by Kenneth D. Schmidt
and Associates for Valley Perforating Company (hereafter Valley). The
report was prepared in response to a request from the Regional Board
staff. In a letter dated 2 February 1989, the Regional Board staff
stated that Valley's inactive pond is subject to the Toxic Pits Cleanup
Act (TPCA) of '1984 and requested that Valley submit a HAR and pay
appropriate TPCA fees.
It is proposed within the submitted HAR work plan to conduct the
following work items at the site:
Install three ground water monitoring wells around the inactive
pond (two downgradient and one upgradient). Each well will be
drilled to a depth of about 40 feet. The perforated casing will
extend from about five feet above the water table to the bottom of
the well.
Collect water samples from each monitoring well and analyze them
for metals and volatile organic chemicals (EPA Methods 601 and
602).
Collect and report the locations and construction details of the
area water wells, and test some of the wells for possible pollution
from Valley's pond.
I have the following six comments on the proposed work plan:
According to the results of the previous investigations (two
reports dated September 9, 1985 and February 26, 1986 from Valley)
a total of eight soil borings were drilled under and around the
pond during 1985 and 1986. Seven of the borings were drilled down
to a depth of 16 feet or 17 feet, and one boring was drilled to a
depth of 30 feet. Three of the eight borings encountered a wet
zone between 13.5 and 19 feet deep. The reports did not describe
the amount of moisture they found in the wet zones. According to
the ground water level maps in the Water Supply Reports of 1986,
REVIEW OF PROPOSED HAR WORK PLAN
FOR VALLEY PERFORATING COMPANY,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
-2-
1987, and 1988 (published by Kern County Water Agency), Valley is
located close to but outside of, an area with a continuous perched
ground water body.
There is little site specific information on the existence of
perched ground water under Valley. If Valley cannot demonstrate
that the perched water under Valley is continuous and has not been
degraded, then additional monitoring wells will be required in the
water table aquifer.
According to the submitted work plan, the ground water flow
direction is to the northwest. No data or references were provided
to support their statement on the direction of ground water
movement. At a minimum, Valley should install one upgradient and
three downgradient monitoring wells. The monitoring wells should
be placed near the pond area to provide early detection of
contaminant leakage.
The ground water flow direction should be determined through water
level measurement of all the monitoring wells at least bimonthly
for a one year period.
If evidence of contamination is encountered during drilling of the
monitoring wells, soil samples should be collected and tested for
metals and volatile organics. The drilling log should indicate if
the cuttings exhibit any unusual smells and/or discoloration.
Cuttings should be monitored with an organic vapor analyzer and the
readings recorded on the drilling log.
In addition to EPA Methods 601 and 602, ground water should be
tested for base/neutral organic compounds (EP% Method 625).
The work plan contains a proposal for analyzing ground water for
metals. The metals to be analyzed for and EPA Methods to be used
are not listed. These should be provided.
JYH:cjs
Telephone (805) 324-4964 ~¥ 1 ~. 1989
MAY 12, 1989
ENVIRO N M E NTAL HEALTH
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTRO. L BOARD
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
3614 EAST ASHLAN AVE.
FRESNO CA 93726
ATTN: MR. JOHN M. NOONAN
DEAR MR. NOONAN:
THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO UPDATE YOU ON OUR CLEAN
CLOSURE PLAN. AFTER REVIEWING THE RESULTS OF TESTS TAKEN BY
BC LABORATORIES INC. AND THE CRWQCB, WE PLAN TO BACKFILL THE
UNUSED POND IN QUESTION.
ALTHOUGH IT WAS ESTIMATED BY BSK REPORT THAT ONLY 2' (TWO)
FEET OF SOIL WAS CONTAMINATED AND NEEDED REMOVAL, OUR
DETERMINATION TO OBTAIN A CLEAN CLOSURE PROMPTED US TO
REMOVE 8' (EIGHT) FEET FROM THE BOTTOM AND 11' (ELEVEN) FEET
FROM EACH END AS WELL AS 16' (SIXTEEN) FEET IN TOTAL WIDTH.
THE TESTS RESULTS (SEE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY REPORTS) VERIFY
THAT THE PRESENT POND NOW PASSES THE NECESSARY STANDARDS.
IN MY CONVERSATION MAY 11, 1989 WITH MR. JON HON, HE RELAYED
YOUR CONCURRENCE ON THE BACKFILL.
PLEASE NOTE THAT WE WILL BEGIN MONDAY, MAY 15, 1989, AS
OUTLINED IN OUR PREVIOUS LETTER DATED APRIL 27, 1989.
SINCERELY
,/~"~" /
1]. MICHAEL DOVER
VICE PRESIDENT
CMD/lh
ENC: 1
CC: MS. DIANE M. COMI, REISH & LUFTMAN (ATTORNEYS AT LAW), LOS ANGELES
.-MR. 'RICHARD CASAGRANDE, KERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BAKERSFIELD
MR. RICHARD HABERMAN, STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, FRESNO
~--
OFFICE HEt. IORANDUt4
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WAIER QUAL[TY CONTROL BOARD
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
IFORHATiON
;CEIVED FROM:
r:
)W RECE[VED=
FIELD
EJS, 11. og lO:il Al',! F'03
OFFI CE MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
JBJECT:
1FORI4ATION
ECEIVED FROM:
)W RECEIVED: TELEPHONE
V~AL- ''~ .RITTEN FIELO
CLient:
Address:
Attn:
TTLC
TOTAL EXTRACT CONTAMINANTS BY ACID DIGESTION
Sub-Lab No:
VALLEY PERFORATING Date Rcd:
3201 GULF STREET
BAKERSFIELO, CA 93308
MIKE DOVER Phone: 324-4964
3449 - 1
05-08-89
Desc: #1 SURFACE TO 6" ON WESTSIDE SOUTH END, 5/8/89 SAHPLED BY: GLENN PELLETT
Rush Sample?
Constituents
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
.... Due ===> 05-12-89 <=== Chain of Custody Receieved? Y
Instr Reading
_Results P.Q.L. Units__ Plus Dilution ._Method__
O' ~"~'?' mg/kg 7061
6010"
6010 ....
Split Samples for the Following Tests:
CHROMATOGRAPHY WORK:
BTX (diesel)
EPA 8240
Ref
1
1
1
Analyst Run Date Run Time
==================================================== USE - ANALYSTS=======================================================
Metal Digestion: Original ~, 0 I Duplicate I,~ 0 Spike ~, ~ Oup Spike J, 0~_
Approved and Submitted for Typing by: Analysts: ./~c.~,~- ~
END OF WORKSHEET
CLient:
Address:
Attn:
Desc:
Rush Sample?
Constituents
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
TTLC
TOTAL EXTRACT CONTAMINANTS BY ACID DIGESTION
Sub-Lab No:
VALLEY PERFORATING Date Rcd:
3201 GULF STREET
BAKERSFIELO, CA 93308
MIKE DOVER Phone: 324-4964
#2 6" TO 12" EASTSIDE NORTNEND, 5/8/89 SAMPLED BY: GLENN PELLETT
Due ===> 05-12-89 <=== Chain of Custody Receieved?
lnstr Reading
_Results P.Q.L. Units~ PLus Dilution
3449 - 2
05-08-89
Y
Method
7061
6010
6010
Ref Analyst
1
1
1
Run Date Run Time
Split Samples for the Following Tests:
CHROMATOGRAPHY ~40RK:
8TX (diesel)
EPA 8240
==================================================== USE - ANALYSTS=======================================================
Metal Digestion: Original [, 0 '~
Approved and Submitted for Typing by:
END OF WORKSHEET
Duplicate Spike
AnaLysts:
Dup Spike
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield. California 93308-4988
Telephone (,80~, ,;/.-a964
.APRIL 27, t989
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
3614 E. ASHLAND AVE.
FRESNO CA 93726
ATTN: MR. JOHN M. flOONAN'
THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM YOU OF OUR PLANS FOR A COMPLETE SITE
CLEAN-UP AT OUR COMPANY. AS WAS DISCUSSED IN OUR PREVIOUS LETTER (MARCH 2, 1989)
THE BSK REPORT (P. i7) IDENTIFIED THE CONTAMINATED SOIL AS THE UPPERMOST 2' OF
~ ~HE:~ SOILS
POND BOTTOM AND APPROXIMATELY 1' OF SIDEWALL qO!L. THE REMOVAL OF ~ "~
WILL BE COMPLETED AS OUTLINED BELOW.
OATE COMPLETED
-/',, ,':~- ~ 7 /.,,~'~.,..,-
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
POND BOTTOM SOILS HAVE BEEN TAKEN (2' CORE SAMPLE)
AND TESTED BY BC LABORATORIES. TESTS WERE THE
MODIFIED EPA METHOD 8080, EPA METHOD 8240, AND
TOTAL CONTAMINANTS, TITLE 22, ARTICLE 11. (ENCLOSURES
PACKET A)
SUMP SOILS TESTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY PETROLEUM
WASTE, INC. THE NUMBER 2518-800-N HAS BEEN ASSIGNED
AS OUR WASTE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. (ENCLOSURES
PACKET B)
ALL AMERICA TREHCHING HAS BEEN SECURED TO EXCAVATE,
LOAD AND TRANSPORT APPROXIMATELY 75 CUBIC YARDS
OF OUR PETROLEUM CONTAMINATED SOILS TO PWI. (ENCLOSURE
PACKET C)
AFTER THE EXCAVATION PROCESS SITE CORE SAMPLES
WILL ,AGAIN BE TAKEN AND TESTED BY BC LABS. MR.
JONG HAM WILL BE CONTACTED TO INSPECT THE SITE
BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE BACKFILL SOILS ARE PLACED.
ALL AMERICA TRENCHING WILL INSTALL SUITABLE BACKFILL
MATERIAL NECESSARY TO BRING THE AFFECTED AREA BACK
TO MATCH THE EXISTING GRADE.
THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND OTHER
APPROPRIATE AGENCIES WILL BE CONTACTED AT COMPLETION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
CHARLES M. DOVER
VICE-PRESIDENT
VALLEY PERFORATING CO.
ENC: 3
CMD/lh
CC: MS. DIANE M. COMI, REISH & LUFTMAN (ATTORNEYS AT LAW),
LOS ANGELES
~×MR. RICHARD CASAGRANDE, KERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
BAKERSFIELD
MR. RICHARD HABERMAN, STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES,
FRESNO
LABORATORIES, IFIC.
J. J. EGLIN. lEG, CHE~. ENGII.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, ¢~LIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Pol¥chlorinated Biphenyis
Valley Perforating
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield CA 93308
Sample Description:Valley Peforating Sump
Test Method:
Date. Sample
Collected:
3/9/89
Modified EPA Method 8080
Date Sample
Received @ Lab:
3/9/89
PCB - 1016
PCB - 1221
~ - 1232
~ - 1242
~ - 1248
~ - 1254
PCB - 1260
Matrix Spike Lab ¢:
1955-!
Reporting
Pg/g
pg/g
~g/g
~g/g
~gl'g
pg/g
% Recover/: 89,5
Date of
Report:3/31/89
Lab ¢: 1734-1
Type of Sample:SOIL
Date Analysis
Completed:
3131/89
Ana!¥sis
Results
Minim~n
Reporting
Level
none detected
none detected
none detec+~=d
none demected
none detected
none detected
none detected
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Con~nents:
Analyst
C~E~I£A/ A~VAL Y$/$
LABORATORIES, IFIC.
3..I. '~LIIq, REG. CHEJ~. EN~II.
4100 PIERCE RI)., B~KERSFIELC), ¢~LIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Volatile Organic Analysis
(8240)
Valley Perforating
3201 Gulf Street
~_~_kersfieid, CA 93308
Attention: ..Mike Dover
Sen.~!e Description:
Valley Perforating Sump
Date of
Report: 14-Mar-89
Lab ~: 1734-!
Test Method: ~A Method 8240
?Mpe of Sample: Soil
Da+~e S.~mpie
Collected:
09-Mar-89
Constituent
Benzene
Brc~_~odichl orCmethane
Brcmoform
Brc~_ mometb~ne
C~arbon tetraclnloride
I~b_lorobenzene
2-Chicrcet~hylvinyt ether
C~%20rofcrm
b~m!oromet,~e
!, !-Dicb,] orv~thane
i, 2-Dic,h2oroethane
!, l-Dic,hiorcethene
tr.mns- 1,2- Dichloroethene
1,2-Dic,hlcro. prcpane
cis-!, 3-Dic.hiorcpropene
trans-I, 3-Dic:mlorcpropene
i, 4-Diflucrcbenzene
Etb~! Benzene
Date Sample
Received ~ Lab:
10-Mar-89
Reporting
Units
Date Analysis
Completed:
13-Mar-89
Analysis
Results
Minimum
Reporting
Level
none detected
none detected
none detec~ted
none detected
none de~-cted
none detected
none detected
none de+~cted
none detected
none detected
none detected
none de~cted
none de+~cted
none detec~d
none deta~cted
none detected
none de*~cted
none detected
10.80
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5 O0
5 O0
5 O0
5 O0
5 O0
5 O0
5 O0
5 O0
5.00
5. O0
5.00
5. O0
5.00
5. O0
C#£¥1~Al A~AL )'SIS
LABORATORIES, Ir-lc.
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCI~ RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308
PHONE 327-4911
Volatile Organic Analysis (Continued)
Lab ~: 1734-!
Sample Description: Valley Perforating Sump
Red-offing Analysis
Constituen~ Chits Results
Methylene chi cride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorcethane
Tetrachlorcethene
Toluene
1, !, l-Tric~hlorcethane
1,1,2-Trichlcrcethane
Tricb2oroethene
Tric~h!orofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
o-] ~{ylene
p-Xy!ene
m-Xylene
ug/kg none deZected
ug/kg none detected
ug/kg none detected
~ 12.25
~ none de~
~ none de~
~ none de~c~
~ none de~
~ none de~
~/~ 958.00
~ 212.00
Minimum
Reporting
Level
5. O0
5 O0
5 O0
5 O0
5 O0
5 O0
5 O0
5.00
5. O0
5.00
5.00
5. O0
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
Chemist
Date Rec'd: :5 / , ':".' BC CtlAIN OF CUSTODY NO. L- :. ii ,
Client: 'Sampler: san~ple Type: Analysis Requested:
m: - --~' ,c -_ Nan,e: Water Other: u, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~z - · Soil (specify) ~ w ~
~mores'~i%~.q~'~' Q,.~}t)~'''4 Addrcss:C~ ~ Q~ ~(~ ~ ~[ Sludge ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~
Attn: ~ / . . Oil ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~
Lab ~ Description:, Other 'I'csts _
~elinquished By: Date: Time: Received By: Date: Time: Comments: ....
· }'-i ', ' ; " n~..~', ,,. ,, '
--?'') ( :,.~ !'/ · ,': .:., ,,, , ,
¥clh)w: IiC l.ab Copy
LABORATORIES, Ir-lC.
..I.J. E~LIN, RE~. CHET~.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~3308 PHONE 327~491
VALLEY PERFORATING
3201 GULF STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308
Attn.: MIKE 324-4964
Date Reported: 04/10/89
Date Received: 03/14/89
Laboratory No.: 1734-1AD
Page 1
Sample Description: VALLEY PERFORATING SUMP, SAMPLED BY DAVID RITTENHOUSE, 3-14-89
Constituents
Cyanides
Sulfides
TOTAL CONTAMINANTS
(Title 22, Article II, California Administrative Code)
Method
Sample Results 'P.Q.L. Units Method
None Detected 1.0 mg/kg 9010
None Detected 1.0 mg/kg 9030
Ref.
1
1
(See Last Page for Comments, Definitions, Regulatory Criteria, and References)
Constituents
Requlatory Criteria
STLC, mq/L TTLC, mq/kq
Comment:
Ail constituents reported above are in mg/kg (unless otherwise stated) on
an as received (wet) sample basis. Results reported represent totals
(TTLC) as sample subjected to appropriate techniques to determine total levels.
P.Q.L. =
N. D. =
I.S. =
Practical Quantitation Limit (refers to the least amount of analyte detectable
based on sample size used and analytical technique employed.
None Detected (Constituent, if present, would be less than the method P.Q.L.).
Insufficient Sample
STLC
TTLC
= Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration
= Total Threshold Limit Concentration
REFERENCES:
(!) "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes", SW 846, July, 1982.
(2) _"Methods.~or.~Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes", EPA-600, 14-79-020.
~s Comoany Road Rt. 1, Box 25 Taft, CA 93268 (805) 763-4171
COMPLETION ASSISTANCE FOR THE WASTE INFORMATION FORM (WIF)
NOTE: All blanks on the Corm must be addressed.
When completinq the WIF form, please note the followinq:
GENERATOR INFORMATION
(Name, Address, etc.)
Ail blanks must be completed.
EPA identification number must be assigned to the generating
facility. (If this facility does not have an EPA ID number, contact
'the appropriate agency allocating these numbers).
Company contact should be that person within the Companv who is
familiar with the project.
WASTE STREAM NAME
- The name the facility has assigned to the waste,
number if applicable.
include EPA waste
FREQUENCY
- Indicate if continuous or intermittent and estimated volume of job.
DESCRIBE THE PROCESSING GENERATING WASTE
- Please describe explicitly; description must correlate with waste
properties and components of waste stream. (! or 2 word descriptions
are inadequate).
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
- Please complete for all waste characteristics; indicate pH and, if
waste is a liquid, flashpoint.
WASTE COMPOSITION
- Complete 8A if lab work has been completed by outside lab: also attach
lab analysis.
- Leave blank if PWI is to do the lab work.
ITEMS 8B - 12
- Must be completed by the generator. If the generator has questions
that can not be answered, he/she can contact 3ohn Farmer at (805)
763-4171, or Mark Campbell at (~05) 762-7341.
SIGNATURE (ITEM 14~
- All WIF's sent to PWI MUST be signed by the generator - not agents of
unless otherwise authorized.
SAMPLING PROCEDURE FORM
- All. information must be completed.
TO BE USED FOR SOME OILFIELD WASTE,
REFINERY WASTES AND WASTE OIL CONTAMINATED WASTE STREAMS.
2500 Lokem Road Box 787 Buttonwillow, CA 93206 (805) 762°7372
April 17, 1989
Mike Dover
Valley Perforating
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, CA 93308
RE: Wash wastes sump solids
Dear Mr. Dover:
This letter is to inform you Petroleum Waste, Inc. has the
appropriate permits for and will accept the waste identified above.
Should any significant changes occur in this specific waste stream
from the time the test data and/or predisposal samples were
submitted, please contact Marianna Buoni or myself prior to
shipping.
We have assigned the following Waste Identification Number to this
waste:
2518-800-N
This number must be written on the manifest accompaning each load of
waste. If California Hazardous, place this ID number in Section 15
of the California Hazardous Waste Manifest.
Very truly yours,
Mark Campbell
MC:pm
cc: Chris O'Harra
PETROLEUM WASTE, INC.
WASTE INFORMATION FORM (WIF)
GENERAL DIRECTIONS: In order for Petroleum Waste, Inc. to determine
whether we can lawfully and safety dispose of your waste, certain
information about your waste is necessary. Information will be
confidential. Leave no blanks, if not applicable, indicate as "NA". For
any responses, use additional paper. We suggest the generator maintain a
copy of the completed form on file. Required procedures for waste
analysis are those in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods", U.S. EPA, SW 846; "Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater", 15th edition, California Department
of Health Services' procedures for waste analysis. Test methods other
than these may be utilized with prior approval from Petroleum Waste, Inc.
A SAMPLING PROCEDURE FORM MUST accompany the completed WIF, to document
that a representative sample was collected for testing. If the waste is a
spent catalyst, include a copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet.
THIS FORM AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHOULD BE RETURNED TO:
Petroleum Waste, Inc. - Rt. 1, Box 25 - Taft, CA 93268.
1. Generating Facility Name: V~II~ ~-~~,~j
US EPA ID#:
Address: 3~[ ~_~t~ ~$~+, ~__-~k~~;~, ~-~. ~F
Phone Number: (~) ~q- qe~q
Company Contact:
Name: ~ i ~= [iD~W~-~'
4. Frequency: Continuous: Intermittent
5. Description of Process Producing Waste: ~F ~-~v~,~
Waste Characteristics:
A. Number of Phases: Single ~ Double__ Triple__
B. Physical Description: Solid XX Sludge Liquid
C. Percent: I~ Solids Water __Oil'
D. Specific Gravity ~A
E. Are Free Liquids Present (paint filter test)? Yes
Powder
or No
7. Waste Parameters: pH:
F!ashpoint (closed cup)
Waste Composition (Hazardous Components):
A. Toxic Metals: Concentration (ppm)
Total Extractable' Total
Arsenic Mercury
Barium Nickel
Cadmium Selenium
Chromium Silver
(Total) Thallium
Chromium Vanadium
(Hexavalent) Zinc
Copper Organic Lead
Lead
· Indicate reference for extraction method:
Extractable'
PETROLEUM WASTE, INC.
PAGE 2
WASTE INFORMATION FORM (WIF)
Reactive Constituents:
Cyanide (total) ~ ppm Sulfide (total)~ ppm
~ ppm Total Organic Halogens ~ Dpm
'
Is this waste produced in the manufacture of pesticide/herbicide
products? Yes__ No ~
Does this waste contain pesticide/herbicide products: Yes__ No ~
Halogenated organic compounds: Yes__ No--J~
Non-halogenated organic solvents:
(i.e. toluene, hexane, acetone?) or
similar compounds, (i.e. petroleum
naptha, gasoline?) Yes ~ No
If yes, please list compounds and concentrations on a separate
sheet and attach to this form.
Does the process generating this waste use:
?
Halogenated organic compounds Yes No ~/
Non-halogenated organic solvents,
or similar such compounds Yes__ No %/
If yes, please explain on a separate sheet and attach to this
form.
List any other hazardous ~o~.stituents not mentioned above and
concentrations: ~m__ ~~' ~ ~'~~
10. WasTe Composition (General components, must total 100%):
Component % or ppm Component
11. Please enclose a copy of the lab report includinq test methods used
to analyze for constituents in Sections ? - 9.
12. Please answer the following regarding this waste material:
Yes No
USEPA (RCRA) Hazardous Waste? ~--
State Extremely Hazardous
Waste? ~
Reactive Waste, as in 40 CFR
261.23 (not including cyanide/
sulfide wastes) /
Does this waste contain organic lead compounds,
Yes No.
Forbidden Class A Explosive ~
Is this waste a restricted
waste as defined in CAC,
Title 22, Div. 4, Chapter 30, ~
Article 15, Section 66900?
(i.e. tetraethly
lead) __ W/
14. I certify that the information contained in this and all attached
documents is ~and accurate..~.~y~~' ~/~ /;/~ /-~
' Signature Title '~ / · e
15. Comments:
PETROLEUM WASTE, INC., ROUTE 1, BOX 25
TAFT, CA 93268
SAMPLING PROCEDURE FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: In order for Petroleum Waste, Inc. to meet its requirements
for acceptance of waste, information on the sampling procedure is
necessary for the staff to evaluate the representativeness of sample(s)
collected for analysis. Please complete this form after collecting a
sample of waste.
Recommended procedures for collecting a representative sample are found in~
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, U.S.
EPA, SW 846". Equivalent methods may also be used.
Address: '5~ol ~vl~ 5+, (Name)
Generator Contract: I
Sampler Name :~, U ~
:_
( Name )
2. D~te a time of sample collection:
(City, ~tate)
Phone: ~3-
Signature: ~~/, ~
(Name)
Description'of sample collection point:
4. Sampling method: ~ / CctV_
5. Reference for Sampling Method:
6. Amount of sample collected:
7. Type of container(s): ~
Method(s) of preservation:
Chain of Possession:
By:
By:
PWI Receipt:
By:
PWI Review
Satisfactory Yes
Time:
Dates:
Dates:
Dates:
Date:
No
Date:
Comment:
to
to
to
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD--
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE:
3614 EAST ASHLAN AVENUE
FRESNO, CA 93726
PHONE: (209) 445-5116
,/3 /~/~.GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor
26 September 1990
Mr. Mike Dover
ra in9 Company~'--~
~1 ........ Gulf Street _
'~)~k-~sfield, CA 93308
REPORT OF INSPECTION
Enclosed for your information is a copy of an inspection report for your inactive
pond closure procedures.
If you have any questions concerning this inspection report, please telephone me
at (209) 445-5170.
JYH:jyh/fmc
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Jim Parsons, State Water Resources Control Board,
Sacramento
~vKern County Environmental Health Department, Bakersfield
INSPECTION REPORT
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
- CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
WDS NUMBER: 5D152136N0!
DISCHARGER:
FACILITY NAME:
VWT.I_~y PEP, FQRATING COHPANY VWI-L~ ~TXNGC. XI~IPANY
3201 GULF STREET 3201 GULF STREET
BAKERSFIELD ,CA 93308 BAKERSFIELD ,CA 93308
CONTACT: MIKE DOVE~ CONTACT: MIKE DOVE~
PHON~: 8053244964 PHONE: 805324496~
Form Printed -> 09/24/9C
STAFF: JYH
ORDERS: LAST INSPECTIONS:
ORDER NUMBER DATE ADOPTED TYPE DATE TYPE VIOLATION?
890508 A1 N
900508 BI N
INSPECTION TYPE:
[ ] 1. "A" TYPE CO~[PLIANCE (SAMPLING)
IX] 2. "B" TYPE C(IMPLIANCE (NO SAMPLING)
[ ] 3. NON-COMPLIANCE FOLLON-UP
[ ] 4. ENFORCEMENT FOLLO~-UP
[ ] 5. C(IMPLAINT
[ ] 6. PP.E-REQUIRI!I~NT
[ ] 7. MISCELI.A_NEOUS
Y Y M M D D
Mr. 'Mi ko Dover
CONTACT:
PROGRAM CCl~ONENT
TASK NUMBER:
INSPECTOR'S INITIALS
Three of the four scheduled monitoring wells were installed
INSPECTION SUPI~Y (100 character limit):
by the date of inspection. Ground water samples wi]] be collected later.
ADDITIONAL CCt~ENTS: See attached sheet.
MONITORING PROGRAM REVIEW: N/A
Was Dischar&er in VIOLATION at time of inspection? YES [ ] NO ~ ] PENDING SAMPLE RESULTS +[ ] NOT APPLICABLE [ ]
Reviewed By:
.3-14 W I
(If yes, you MUST attach a completed violation input form. )
DATA ENTRY DATE:
Additional Comments:
I inspected the site to observe the backfilled inactive pond, andmonitoring well
installation procedures. The inactive pond was excavated and backfilled with
clean fill dirt in the sunmmr of 198g. Three (MW-l, 2, and 3) of the four
scheduled monitoring wells were installed by the date of my inspection. Ground
water was encountered in all the three monitoring wells at approximately 28 feet
depth from ground surface. The depths of the three monitoring wells are
approximately 50 feet. During my observation of the soil borings for the
monitoring well installations, I did not see any contaminated soils and/or
polluted perched ground water. Mike Dover, Vice President of Valley Perforating
Company, informed me that monitoring wells were scheduled to be developed and to
be sampled on g May lg90, by Mr. Jan Alfson, a geologist with Kenneth D. Schmidt
and Associates.
Cont. L±c. No.
TO;
Valley Perforating
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, C6 93308-4988
Attn: Mr. Mike Dover
1~1 TOLLHOUSE RD., NO.3
CLOVIS, CA ~812
C209) z 9-7229
Fax No. (209) 299-0940
Date March 23, 1989
Propasai No.
Phone (805) 324:4964
PROJECT:
Site remediation
Bakersfield, CA.
SCOPE OF WO~Kz
at
SPECIFICATIONS:As per E.P.A.,
3201 Gulf Street, DOHS and Kern County
Environmental Health Depar:
merit regulations.
WE PROPOS,E TO FURNISH LABOR AND MATERIAL IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AS
FOLLOWS;
1.) Excavate, load and transport approximately seventy-f'ive (75)
cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil to Petroleum
Waste, Inc., Buttonwillow, CA. for proper disposal.
2.) Ail excavation of soils to be monitered by John Minney,
Consulting Engineer on behalf on Owner.
3.) After contamination has been disposed of, Contractor will
furnish and install suitable backfill material necessary to
bring affected area to match existing grade.
4.) If perimeter fence is to be moved during remediation, such
movement is to be done by others and is not the responsibility
of Contractor.
FOR THE TOTAL SUM OF .................................................... $_1F),?75: rlr~
CONDITIONS:
It is underslood and agreed that we shall not be held liable for any loss, damage or delays occasioned by fire, strikes,
or material stolen after delivery upon premises, lockouts, acts of God, or the public enemy, accidents, boycotts, material short-
ages, disturbect labor conditions, ctelayed delivery of materials fram Seller's suppliers, force majeure, inclement weather, floods,
freight embargoes, causes incident to national emergencies, war, or other causes beyond the reasonable control of Seller,
whether of l~o or different character, or other causes beyond his co~trol. Prices quoted in this contract are based upon present
prices and upon condition that fha proposal will be accepted within thirty days. Also general conditions which are standard for
· specialty conlractors in the construction Industry.
Payments to be made
to the value of.
upon completion of work
one-hundred
amount of contract to be paid within ~ h i r ty ( 30 .')
.per cent (100
as work progresses
~ % ) of all work completed. The entire
days after completion.
THIS PROPOSAL IS SUBMITTED IN DUPLICATE. THE RETURN TO US OF ONE COPY WITH YOUR SIGNATURE SHALL CONSTI-
TUTE A CONTILACT.
SUBMITTED,
ALL AMERICA TRENCHING
ACCEPTED, VALLEY PERFORATING
,,/~/ /.'
STATE OF CALl FORNIA
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor~
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
SAN JOAQUIN WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE:
3614 EAST ASHLAN AVENUE
FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93726
PHONE: (209) 445-5116
2 February 1989
e
Jerry Reynolds, President
Valley Perforating Co.
3201 Gulf Street
Bakersfield, CA 93308
VALLEY PERFORATING COMPANY, REPORT OF INSPECTION
Enclosed for your information is a copy of a report of inspection
of the Valley Perforating Company in Bakersfield. You were present
during the inspection.
Two soil samples from the unlined pond bottom were analyzed by BC
Laboratories in May 1985. High levels of total lead (760 and 3,680
mg/kg) and soluble lead (56.8 and 250 mg/1) were found (for the
test result's see Figure 7 in the BSK and Associates' work plan
dated 28 August 1985). The concentration of total lead exceeded
the TTLC value of 1,000 mg/kg in one sample, and the concentration
of soluble lead exceeded the STLC value of 5 mg/1 in both samples;
we conclude that the pond contained hazardous waste after 1 January
1985. The pond is open to precipitation. According to the BSK
& Associates' report, dated 26 February 1986, the water line in the
pond was approximately 2 feet below ground surface during December
1985. In accordance with Section 25208.4, Title 22, California
Code of Regulations, a pond containing hazardous waste in contact
with free liquids after 1 January 1985, is subject to the Toxic Pit
Cleanup Act of 1984. We, therefore, have determined that your
inactive pond is subject to the Toxic Pit Cleanup Act (TPCA) of
1984.
Since your inactive unlined pond is a toxic pit, you are
responsible for two fees: an initial fee of $1,500 ; and an annual
fee of $3,000. Your check for the total amount of $4,500 should
be made payable to the State Water Resources Control Board, and
submitted to this office. THIS LETTER IS THE OFFICIAL NOTICE OF
FEES DUE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 25208.3 (c) OF THE HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE. IF YOUR FEE IS NOT PAID WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT
OF THIS NOTICE, A PENALTY OF 1 PERCENT PER DAY, UP TO 100 PERCENT
OF THE TOTAL FEE WILL BE ASSESSED. The fees are to cover the
costs incurred by the State and Regional Boards in carrying out
their responsibilities under the TPCA. Such responsibilities
include reviewing hydrogeological assessment reports, and
conducting inspections. Records are kept for each facility; and
VALLEY PERFORATING CO.
-2-
2 FEBRUARY 1989
if the actual costs for your facility exceed the fees collected,
the State Board will bill you for the balance. If actual costs are
less than fees collected, the State Board will refund the excess
fees collected.
It is also necessary that you submit a hydrogeological assessment
report (HAR) to this office. A check list of each item to be
included in the HAR is enclosed for your convenience. Prior to 6
March 1989, please provide us a work plan for developing the
information to be included in the HAR. The work plan should
provide sufficient detail to allow us to determine the adequacy of
the proposed study and should include a time schedule for
conducting the study and submitting the report(s). The work plan
and all reports should be prepared and signed by a registered
engineer or engineering geologist who is responsible for the
content of the submittal.
Thank you for your cooperation concerning this matter. Should you
have any questions, please telephone Jong Han at (209) 445-6126.
..---y, : I .,. .
JOHN M. NOONAN
.-~enior Engineer
JYH
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Richard Casagrande, Kern County Health Department,
Bakersfield
Mr. Richard Haberman, State Department of Health Services,
Fresno
Mr. Kurt Hallock, Reish & Luftman (Attorneys at Law),
Los Angeles
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WAT
NUMBER: 5D152156N01
D I SCHARGER:
VALLEY PERFORATING COMPANY
3201 GULF STREET
BAKERSFIELD ,CA 93308
CONTACT: MIKE DOVER
PHONE: 8053244964
OUALITY CONTROL BOARD
INSPECTION REPORT
FACILITY NAME:
VALLEY PERFORATING CONPANY
3201 GULF STREET
BAKERSFIELD ,CA 93308
CONTACT: MIKE DOVER
PHONE: 8053244964
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
STAFF: JYH
ORDERS:
ORDER NUMBER DATE AOOPTED TYPE
LAST INSPECTIONS:
DATE TYPE VIOLATION?
INSPECTION TypE:
[ ] 1. "A" TYPE COMPLIANCE (SAMPLING)
[ ] 2. "B" TYPE COMPLIANCE (NO SAMPLZNG)
[ ] 3. NONrCOMPLIANCE FOLLO~-UP
[ ] 4. ENFORCEMENT FOLLOt,f-UP
[ ] 5. COMPLAINT
[ ] 6. PRE-REOUIREMENT
[ ] ?. MISCELLANEOUS
PROGRAM COMPONENT
(three digit task nurber)
TASK NO: 112-09
881121
INSPECTION DATE: I--I--I--I__1__1--1
Y Y M N D D
Mr. Jerry Reynolds
CONTACT: ·
and Mr. Mike Dover
INSPECTOR'S INITIALS
INSPECTION SUMMARY (100 character limit): Facility is subject to the Toxic Pit Cleanup Act.
Valley must pay fees and submit a hydrogeologic Assessment Report. The pond should be
closed properly.
ADDITIONAL COHHENTS: Inspection Report follows
~DR REVIEt,/: MONITORING PROGRAM REVIEW:
Uas there a VIOLATION discovered during this inspection? YES [ ] NO [ ] PENDING SAMPLE RESULTS [ ] NOT APPLICABLE [ ]
eviewed By:
(If yes, you MUST attach a compteted viotation input.form.)
VALLEY PERFORATING CO. -2-
INSPECTION REPORT
PREINSPECTION FILE REVIEW
Valley Perforating Company (hereafter Valley) is located at the
end of Gulf Street, east of Pierce Road in northwest Bakersfield.
Valley manufactures slotted well pipe for various oil industry
usages. Valley began operations in the early 1960's and was
purchased by the present owner in 1970. Pipe is cut with saws.
The saw blades are cooled and lubricated with cutting oil. Oil
and cuttings remaining on the pipe walls are removed by pressure
steam cleaning. In addition to cutting oil, Valley used thinner,
and lubricating oil in their milling and perforating process. A
review of the Regional Board case file for Valley indicates that
from 1964 the plant discharged waste water from the steam cleaning
process to an unlined drainage sump located behind the main
building. The drainage sump measures approximately 30 X 50 feet
and is about eight feet deep.
Two soil samples from the unlined pond bottom were analyzed by BC
Laboratories in May 1985. High levels of total lead (760 and 3,680
mg/kg) and soluble lead (56.8 and 250 mg/1) were found (for the
test results, see Figure 7 in the BSK and Associates' work plan
dated 28 August 1985). The date the two soil samples were
collected was not specified in the report, but since the samples
were received on 17 May 1985, we assume that the samples were
collected after 1 January 1985. The concentration of total lead
exceeded the TTLC value of 1,000 mg/kg in one sample, and the
concentration of soluble lead exceeded the STLC value of 5 mg/1 in
both samples; we conclude that the pond contained hazardous waste
after 1 January 1985. The pond is open to precipitation.
According to the BSK & Associates' report (page 2), dated 26
February 1986, the water line in the pond was approximately 2 feet
below top of ground surface during December 1985. In accordance
with Section 25208.4, Title 22, California Code of Regulations, a
pond containing hazardous waste in contact with free liquids after
1 January 1985, is subject to the Toxic Pit Cleanup Act of 1984.
In a letter dated 11 February 1985, the Kern County Health
Department indicated that an additional soil sample had been
collected. The soil sample results are presented in Figure 4 of
BSK & Associates' work plan dated 28 August 1985. The sample was
received by BC Laboratories on 11 December 1984. The concentration
of soluble lead was found to be 46.6 mg/1. This sample result
exceeded the STLC value of 5 mg/1 as listed in the California Code
of Regulations, Title 22.
VALLEY PERFORATING CO.
-3-
Valley retained BSK & Associates to establish a work plan and
conduct a site investigation. On 24 August 1985, a single test
hole (B-i) was drilled about 60 feet southwest of the pond. B-1
was drilled to a depth of 30 feet. Petroleum odor was detected in
the top two feet of soil. Perched ground water was encountered 19
feet below existing ground level. The water table is at a depth
of approximately 55 feet. The soil at the site consists of fine
to medium grained sand with occasional lenses of silt. The soils
from surface to 13 feet depth contain significant amounts of silt.
Between 13 and 30 feet, the soils grade to moderately clean sand
with some gravel and silt lenses.
In a letter dated 22 October 1985, the Regional Board recommended
that Valley analyze all soil samples for a full range of heavy
metals and volatile organic chemicals. The Regional Board also
recommended that ground water be evaluated for leakage of heavy
metals and volatile organic chemicals from the pond.
During December 1985, and January 1986, Valley drilled seven soil
borings in the pond area. The borings ranged from 16 to 17 feet
in depth. A sketch showing the location of the borings is attached
(plate 1). Borings B-2 and B-3 were drilled on a 45 degree slant
under the pond bottom. According to drilling logs, strong
petroleum odor was noted between 5 and 10 feet in Boring B-2 and
at 13 feet in Boring B-3.
Boring R H-1 was drilled approximately 1,500 feet north of the pond.
Boring RH-1 was drilled to establish background. Boring A was
drilled about 20 feet north of the pond. Borings B and C were
drilled 10 feet west of the pond. According to drilling logs
strong petroleum odor and discoloration were noticed at about 15
feet in both borings B and C. Boring D was drilled about 15 feet
south of the pond.
During December 1985, and January 1986, 27 soil samples were
collected from the soil borings. The soil samples were tested for
volatile organics using EPA test methods 8010 and 8020. All the
test results showed below detection limits of 0.50 mg/kg. Soil
samples were also analyzed for 17 metals. The test results
indicated elevated concentrations of arsenic, chromium, lead,
barium, and vanadium in soils under the disposal pond. The
chemical analysis results of arsenic, chromium, and lead for soil
samples from different depths are listed in attached table 1. Up
to 29.5 mg/kg of arsenic, 26.4 mg/kg of chromium, and 23.2 mg/kg
of lead were found in soil samples from the soil borings. Ground
water was encountered between 17 and 19 feet in borings RH-1, A,
and B-1. No ground water samples were collected for chemical
analysis.
VALLEY PERFORATING CO. -4-
INSPECTION
On 21 November 1988, Robert Turner and I inspected Valley. We were
accompanied by Mr. Jerry Reynolds, owner of Valley, Mr. Mike Dover,
vice president of Valley, and Mr. Sam Hayward, Valley's consultant
for waste water. Mr. Reynolds informed us that Valley ceased
discharging waste to the pond in December 1984. Mr. Reynolds also
informed us that the waste water generated by the steam cleaning
operation is currently stored in two 12,000 gallon above ground
tanks and disposed offsite. At the time of our inspection, waste
water was not entering the unlined pond and the bottom of the pond
was dry. The pond walls and bottoms were discolored from previous
discharges. Soil scraped from the surrounding land had been placed
in the southern end of the pond. During this inspection, we
collected a ground water sample from Valley's on-site water supply
well which is west of the main building. According to the
information available from Valley's case file, the well is
approximately 160 feet deep, and the standing water level was 54
feet deep from ground surface during August 1988. I delivered
the water sample to Twining Laboratories on 22 November 1988 to be
analyzed for volatile organics using EPA test methods 601 and 602.
The analysis results indicate that all constituents tested for are
below detection limits. The chemical analysis results are
attached.
DISCUSSIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
The discharge to the surface impoundment ceased in December 1984.
The soil near the pond is contaminated with metals. Ground water
was not tested for contaminants. The surface impoundment has been
abandoned without proper closure.
The pond contained hazardous waste in contact with free liquid
after 1 January 1985. Therefore, the pond is subject to the Toxic
Pit Cleanup Act (TPCA) of 1984. The TPCA requires following items;
1. Pay fees established by the State Water Resources Control Board.
The fees are to cover the cost incurred by the State and Regional
Boards in carrying out their responsibilities under the TPCA.
2. Submit a hydrogeological assessment report (HAR) to the Regional
Board. A check list of each item to be included in the HAR is
enclosed. Work completed to date may be used for the HAR; however,
that work must be clearly referenced or be resubmitted with the
HAR.
VALLEY PERFORATING CO.
-5-
3. The inactive pond should be closed properly. Valley should
establish and submit a pond closure plan. Closure and monitoring
shall be in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title
23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15 requirements.
JYH