HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNDERGROUND TANK FILE #3 Central ironmental
Enviro t Consultant
August 29, 2003 J~ '
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California, 93301
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN ADDENDUM FOR THE
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
(CRWQCB-CVR CASE #5T15000836)
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC. (CSE) is pleased to present the following CAP Addendum for the
above-referenced site. This work was required by the CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated August 13, 2003,
as a result of the discovery of gasoline-containing soil and groundwater in and around the area of the
premium grade unleaded gasoline product pipeline extending to the southeastern MPD at the site (see
Attachment 1 for the CRWQCB-CVR Correspondence). 'A list of acronyms used in this report is attached.
SITE LOCATION AND CONTACT PERSONS
The site is located at 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, Kern County, California (see Figure I - Site Location
Map). The site is located within the commercial district, which flanks 23rd and 24th streets (see Figure 2 -
Site Vicinity Map). The BCSD operates the Downtown Elementary School, 1,250 feet south of the site and
San Joaquin Community Hospital is located 1,500 feet northwest of the site. The site is at an elevation of
404 feet above MSL, and the topography is relatively fiat with a slight slope to the southwest. The site is
located within the northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, MDBM. The site
is a newly constructed retail fuel sales facility and mini mart, which opened during the first quarter of 1999.
The subject site is the location of double-wailed ~STs and product piping (see Figure 3 - Plot Plan).
The property owner contact is Mr. Tim Sullivan, President, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC,
1508 18th Street, Suite 222, Bakersfield, California, 93301, (661) 327-5008. The consultant contact is Mr.
Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, LLC, 1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California,
93309, (661) 325-4862. The regulatory 'agency ~.ontact is Mr. John Whiting, California Regional Water
Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region, 1685 "E" Street, Fresno, California, 93706, (559) 445-5504.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309
(661) 3254862 - Fax (661) 325-5126, censenv@aol.com
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 29, 2003- Page 2
.TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The site is located at an elevation of 404 feet above MSL, and the topography slopes slightly to the
southwest (see Figure 1). The subject site is located on the eastern flank of the San Joaquin Valley and
west of the southern Sierra Nevada.
The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed primarily of unconsolidated Pleistocene (1.6 million to
11,000 years ago) and Recent (11,000 years ago to the present) alluvial sediments. Beneath the alluvial
sediments are older, predominantly lakebed deposits. These lie unconformably on Mio-Pliocene marine
sediments, which extend to a crystalline basement at 50,000 fbg (CDMG, 1965, Geologic Map of
California, Bakersfield Sheet).
At the subject site, surface deposits consist of Quaternary (recent) unconsolidated alluvium overlying
Quaternary (Pleistocene) nonmarine sediments. Geologic deposits in the study area include Pleistocene
alluvial sediments that form' a homocline dipping gently to the southwest. The deposits are alluvium
consisting of indurated and dissected fan deposits (CDMG, 1965). Surface soils are classified by the Soils
Conservation Services as Kimberlina - Urban Land - Cajon Complex and are characterized as 35 percent
Kimberlina fine, sandy loam with moderate permeability; 30 percent Urban land with impervious surfaces
and altered fills; and 20 percent Cajon loamy sand with high permeability. Subsurface soils observed at
nearby UST sites during the construction of water-supply wells in the area are characterized as
fine-grained to coarse-grained sands with significant intervals of grovels, cobbles, and boulders, and minor
intervals of thinly bedded silts and clays through the depth of groundwater at 110 fbg.
The site is located in the southern portion of the Great Valley geomorphic province.. The Great Valley is a
north-south-trending valley, 400 miles long by 50 miles wide, the southern portion of which is known as the
San Joaquin Valley. Surface water and groundwater in the. San Joaquin Valley are derived predominantly
from the Sierra Nevada to the east and are transported by five major rivers, the closest to the site being
the Kern River. The subject site is located 1 mile south of the Kern River.
The depth to the regional, unconfined aquifei' is ;i'10 fbg, and the groundwater gradient is to the southwest,
away from the Kern River and toward the ancient Kern Lake bed (KCWA, 2000, 1996 Water Supply
Report, July 2000). Perched groundwater at depths as shallow as 20 fbg is known to be present flanking
the current course of the Kern River, but is not known to extend to the site (KCWA, 2000).
CWSC operates Well #7, approximately'l,000 fe~t southeast of the site, and Well ~64-01, approximately
2,400 southeast of the site. Hydrocarbons have not been detected in water samples collected from
Well #7. However, MTBE has been detected in water samples collected from Well #64-01 and this well is
currently inactive. No additional active water supply wells are located within 2,500 feet of the site.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 29, 2003- Page 3
PREVIOUS WORK
During April 1999, product reconciliation records indicated a potential release in the product piping
extending from the premium UST to the southeastern MPD. However, the leak detection alarm-system
had not indicated a release. Subsequently, the MPD was shut off, and the inner flex product piping was
removed from the outer flex containment piping. A breach was observed in the inner flex product piping.
Therefore, Sullivan Petroleum filed a URR with the BFDESD. On April 30, 1999, the concrete above the
product piping was removed, and an exploratory trench was excavated, exposing the product piping.
A breach was also observed in the outer flex containment piping.
On May 10, 1999, A.J. Environmental, Inc. advanced a hand-augered soil boring (SC-l) adjacent to the
location of the product piping breach (see Figure 3 for the soil boring location). TPH as gasoline, BTEX,
and MTBE were detected in the soil sample collected from soil boring SC-1 at 5 fbg (see Attachment 2 for
a Summary of Previous Work). Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analytical results, the BFDESD,
in its letter dated June 21, 1999, required a preliminary assessment of the vertical and lateral limits of the
gasoline-containing soil and an assessment of the potential for the release to impact groundwater
resources. Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. (HFA) prepared a work plan, dated July 8, 1999, to perform
the requested work, which was subsequently approved for implementation by the BFDESD in its letter
dated July 21, 1999. HFA performed the drilling and sampling activities on August 17, 1999, and
September 26, 1999.
Five soil borings (B-1 through B-5) were drilled during this phase of soil investigation (see Figure 3 for the
soil boring locations). On August 17, 1999, soil bodngs B-1 through B-3 were advanced to 20 fbg using
HFA's 10-ton direct-push sampling rig where refusal was experienced due to the presence of a layer of
cobbles. On September 26, 1999, soil boring B-1 was deepened to a depth of 48 fbg using a MobileTM
B-53 hollow-stem auger drill rig operated by Melton Drilling Company of Bakersfield, California. Drilling
refusal was experienced at 48 fbg due to encountering a second layer of larger diameter cobbles and
occasional boulders. On September 26, 1999, soil borings B-4 and B-5 were also drilled at the site to 45
fbg where drilling refusal occurred.
Soil boring B-1 was drilled adjacent to the potential source area; soil borings B~2 and B-3 were drilled as
lateral-assessing soil borings located 15 feet to the east and west, respectively, of the potential source
area; and soil borings B-4 and B-5 were drilled as lateral-assessing soil borings advanced 25 feet to the
northeast and southwest, respectively, of the potential source area. Soils encountered during drilling
included well-graded sands, interbedded with a layer of cobbles from 18.5 to 22.5 fbg and a second layer
of larger diameter cobbles and occasional boulders from 37.5 fbg to the maximum depth (48 fbg)
penetrated during the investigation. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.
TPH as gasoline and benzene were detected in the soil samples collected from the vertical-assessing soil
boring (B-l) to less than 22 fbg and in the soil samples collected from the lateral-assessing soil borings
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 29, 2003- Page 4
(B-2 and B-3) less than 25 feet laterally from the potential source area. Minor MTBE concentrations were
also detected in the soil samples collected from soil borings B-1 through B-5 to the total depth of the soil
borings (see Attachment 2).
The BFDESD, in its letter dated December 29, 1999, required the preparation of a CAP to determine the
appropriate remedial actions for gasoline-containing soils at the site. HFA prepared the requested CAP,
dated April 12, 2000, which was subsequently approved by the BFDESD for implementation. An RI/FS
was conducted to assess the feasibility and cost effectiveness of mitigation technologies. The results of
the RI/FS analysis were that in-situ vapor extraction is the technology that appears most suitable for this
site. A vapor extraction well field consisting of central, shallow-zone and deep-zone vapor extraction wells
(VW-ls and VVV-ld, respectively) and three lateral, shallow-zone vapor extraction wells (VW-2 and VW-4)
was proposed (see Figure 3 for the vapor extraction well locations).
On February 1 through 3, 2001, HFA advanced soil boring VW-ld to 125 fbg, which was completed as a
combination groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well, and soil borings VW-2 through VW-4 to 45 fbg,
which were completed as vapor extraction wells. HFA performed the drilling and sampling of combination
groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well VW-ld on February 1 through 3, 2001, using a limited-
access, dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig, operated by West Hazmat, Inc., of Sacramento,
California. The LAR was used because of the height of the canopy above the drill location, and the
dual-walled percussion, air rotary LAR was required due to the requirement to drill through cobbles and
boulders. The three lateral vapor extraction wells (VW-2 through VW-4) were drilled with a conventional
dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig with a normal height mask. Soil samples were collected at 50,
65, 80, and 100 fbg while drilling soil boring VW-ld, with groundwater encountered at 110 fbg. Soil
samples were not collected while drilling soil. borings VW-2 through VW-4 due to their positioning in close
proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths.
Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in
diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a
PID to the total depth of soil boring VW-ld. Groundwater was encountered in the soil boring at 110 fbg.
Therefore, the soil boring was drilled to 12'5 fbg and completed as a monitoring well with slotted casing
from 75 to 125 fbg to serve as a combination groundwater monitoring and vapor extraction well.
Soil borings VW-2 through VW-4 were drilled to 45 fbg and completed as vapor extraction wells with
slotted casing from 5 to 45 fbg. Because the LAR was required to be used at another site, time was not
available to install central, shallow vapor extraction well VW-1 s during this phase of investigation
TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 250 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg,
decreasing to 5.7 mg/kg in the soil sample collected from 65 fbg, and was not detected in the soil sample
collected at 80 fbg. However, TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 2,300 rog/kg was in the
soil sample collected at 100 fbg. Benzene was not detected in the soil samples collected at 50, 65, and
80 fbg. However, benzene was detected at a concentration of 9.3 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 29, 2003- Page 5
100 fbg. MTBE was detected in the four soil samples reaching a maximum concentration of 87 mg/kg in
the soil sample collected at 100 fbg (see Attachment 2).
On March 14, 2001, a groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well VW-ld. The depth to
groundwater in the well was measured to be 107.43 feet below the top of the well casing.
TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring
well VW-ld, with benzene at a concentration of 2,400 IJg/I and MTBE at a concentration of 120,000 pg/I.
TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well
VVV-ld (see Table 1 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Organic Compounds).
In order to further delineate the lateral limits of gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in soil and
groundwater, HFA's Preliminary Groundwater Assessment Report, dated June 25, 2001, recommended
that an expanded groundwater investigation be conducted and consist of the installation of three additional
groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-3) (see Figure 3 for the monitoring well locations). In
order to complete the vapor extraction well field installation, HFA recommended that the previously
approved central, shallow-zone vapor extraction well (VVV-ls) would be installed as well as central,
intermediate-zone vapor extraction well VW-li. The CRWQCB-CVR's case review letter, dated
July 23, 2001, approved implementation of the expanded groundwater assessment plan and VES work
plan.
From October 30, 2001 through November 2, 2001, HFA drilled five soil borings with three lateral soil
borings (MW-1 through MW-3) drilled to 125 fbg and completed as groundwater monitoring wells and the
two central soi~ borings (VW-ls and VVV-li) drilled to 35 fbg and 75 fbg, respectively, and completed as
vapor extraction wells (see Figure 3 for the well locations). Soil samples were collected at a 10-foot
interval while drilling soil borings MW-1 through MW-3, with groundwater encountered at 114 fbg.
Soil samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VW-ls and VW-li due to their positioning in
close proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths. Soils encountered during drilling included
well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and
soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a PID to the total depth of soil boring MW-l, but not in
the soil samples collected from soil boringS-MW'-2 and MW-3. Groundwater was encountered in the soil
borings at 114 fbg. Therefore, soil borings MW-1 through MW-3 were drilled to 125 fbg and completed as
a monitoring well with 2-inch-cliameter slotted PVC casing from 75 to 125 fbg. Soil borings VW-ls and
VW-li were drilled to 35 and 75 fbg, respectively and installed as vapor extraction wells with 4-inch-
diameter slotted P¥C casing from 5 to 35 fbg and 40 to 75 fbg, respectively.
Benzene was detected in only the soil sample collected from soil boring MW-1 at 70 fbg, at a
concentration of 0.26 mg/kg. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in
the soil samples collected from soil borings MW-2 and MW-3. However, MTBE was detected in all 11 soil
samples collected from soil boring MW-l, reaching a maximum concentration of 84 rog/kg in the soil
sample collected at 70 fbg, in 3 of the 11 soil samples collected from soil boring MW-2, reaching a
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 29, 2003- Page 6
maximum concentration of 0.17 rog/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg, and in 6 of the 11 soil
samples collected from soil boring MW-3, reaching a maximum concentration of 0.32 rog/kg in the soil
sample collected at 70 fbg. TBA was detected in 4 of the 11 soil samples collected from boring MW-l,
reaching a maximum concentration of 10 rog/kg in the soil sample collected at 10 fbg (see Attachment 2).
On November 26, 2001, groundwater samples were collected from monitoring well MW-1 through MW-3
and VW-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.20 to 115.15 feet
below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the
southeast (see Figure 4 - Groundwater Elevation Contour Map). Three inches of PSH was observed in
well VW-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE were detected in the groundwater samples collected
from all four monitoring wells reaching maximum concentrations of 5,300,000 pg/I, 72,000 IJg/I, and
4,100,000 pg/I in the groundwater sample collected from well VW-ld. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were
not detected in the groundwater sample collected from the four monitoring wells (see Figure 5 - TPH as
Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater and Table 1).
On March 28, 2002, groundwater samples were again collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through
MW-3 and VW-ld. The groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and VW-ld
were analyzed for physical and chemical characteristics. The results of the laboratory analysis indicated
that the groundwater beneath the site is potable (see Table 2 - Summary of Groundwater Sample
Analytical Results for Physical and Chemical Characteristics).
On May 13, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR PTO #S-3267-2-0 was obtained for the installation and operation of a
thermal oxidation YES. During the third quarter of 2002, the remediation compound was been
constructed and the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW-li, VW-ld, VW-2, VW-3, and VW-4 were
connected by 2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation
equipment compound. Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and
natural gas services. VES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. On October 10, 2002, the
SJVUApCD-CR performed an inspection of the VES unit and observed that it was operating in
accordance with the conditions specified in the ATC.
The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 19, 2002, requested submission of a work plan to perform an
expanded groundwater assessment to assess the southeastern (downgradient) limits of gasoline-
containing groundwater at the site. CSE submitted an Expanded Groundwater Assessment Work Plan,
dated August 9, 2002, which proposed the installation of two off-site downgradient monitoring wells MW-4
and MW-5. -rhe CRWQCB-CVR, in its'letter dated September 3, 2002 approved implementation of the
work plan with the condition that an additional off-site monitoring well (MW-6) be constructed to the south
of the site (see Figure 3 for the monitoring well locations).
From April 10 through 20, 2003, CSE installed off-site groundwater monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6
to a depth of 140 fbg completed with 40 feet of 2-inCh diameter slotted PVC casing screened in the interval
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 29, 2003- Page 7
ranging in depth from 100 to 140 fbg. Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded sands,
pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in diameter. Groundwater was encountered while drilling at a depth of
approximately 120 fog. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were not detected in the soil samples collected
from soil borings MW-4 through MW-6 with the exception of TPH as gasoline and MTBE detected at
concentrations of 1.5 mg/kg and 1.6 mg/kg, respectively, in the soil samples collected at a depth of 120 fog
in soil boring MVV-5 and MTBE at a concentration of 0.28 rog/kg in the soil sample collected at a depth of
20 fbg in soil boring MW-6 (see Attachment 2).
On April 21, 2003 groundwater samples were collected from the three newly constructed wells.
TPH as gasoline was detected at concentrations of 14,000 pg/I, 47,000 IJg/I, and 17,000 IJg/I in the
groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, respectively. Benzene was
detected at concentrations of 830 IJg/I, 3,500 pg/I, and 15 IJg/I in the groundwater samples collected from
monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, respectively. MTBE was detected at concentrations of 31,000 IJg/I,
62,000 I~g/I, and 54,000 IJg/I in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through
MW-6, respectively. TBA, TAME, DIPE, ETBE, 1,2-DCA, and EDB were not detected in the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through MW~6 (see Table 1).
Based upon the laboratory analytical results, the CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 2, 2003, requested
submission of a work plan to perform an expanded groundwater assessment to assess the southeastern
(downgradient) limits of gasoline-containing groundwater at the site as well as the installation of a deeper
monitoring well to act as a "sentinel" between the petroleum release and CWSC Well No. 7. CSE's
Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan, dated July 11, 2003, proposed to drill three soil
borings (MW-7 through MW-9) to a depth of approximately 140 fbg and one soil boring (MW-5d) to a depth
of approximately 170 Fog, completing the four soil borings as groundwater monitoring wells (see Figure 2
for the proposed monitoring well locations). The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated August 13, 2003,.
approved implementation of the Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan, and requested
· submission of a CAP Addendum for the active remediation of the gasoline-containing groundwater.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 29, 2003- Page 8
FEASIBILITY STUDY
FEASIBLE GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES
Several potentially applicable remedial technologies for the recovery and treatment of hydrocarbon-
affected groundwater are described in this section. The advantages, disadvantages, limitations,
regulatory and econOmic concerns, and feasibility for each remediation alternative for
hydrocarbon-affected groundwater at this site are discussed. Potentially applicable technologies to
remove hydrocarbons and/or contain hydrocarbon migration include:
· Groundwater Pump-and-Treat
· In-Situ Bioremediation
· In-Situ Subsurface/~ir Sparging
· Dual-Phase Extraction
Groundwater Pump-And-Treat
Technology Description: GWPT generally consists of the extraction of hydrocarbon-affected groundwater
from wells using pneumatic or electric submersible pumps, aboveground treatment, and discharge of
treated effluent. The most common treatment process consists of pasSing recovered groundwater
through a series of activated carbon canisters. Recovered groundwater can also be treated using oil/water
separators (if PSH is also being recovered), air stripping, bioreactors, or other technologies, depending on
the nature and concentrations of constituents in the liquid to be treated. Water is then discharged to a
storm drain or another appropriate location in accordance with state or local permits obtained on a
site-specific basis.
Advantages: This technology is most effective at sites where dissolved-phase hydrocarbon concentrations
are Iow and/or the constituent of concern have a Iow coefficient, such as MTBE, which partitions into the
dissolved phase from soil more strongly than does BTEX. GWPT changes the hydraulic gradient in the
vicinity of the pumping wells and can be effective in limiting advective migration of hydrocarbons in
groundwater. GWPT enhances natural biodegr.a, dation by moving more fresh, oxygen-rich water through
the plume.
Disadvantages: GWPT has limited effectiveness in remediating constituents with high octanol-water
coefficients such as BTEX. If PSH is present and/or the soil source continues to provide dissolved-phase
hydrocarbons to groundwater, GWPT may continue for many years with little effect. Factors limiting
effectiveness of GWPT are: (1) hydroge01ogic factors, such as subsurface heterogeneity, aquifers of Iow
permeability, and presence of fractures; (2) chemical-related factors, such as a chemical's potential to
become either adsorbed onto, or lodged within, the soil or rock comprising the aquifer (octanol-water
coefficient); and (3) the high cost of discharge permitting and treatment.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 29, 2003- Page 9
Site Application: The pdmary contaminant is MTBE-containing groundwater and GWPT is considered to
be an effective technology for the remediation of MTBE-containing groundwater. However, GWPT is a
very expensive technology and is not considered to be the cost effective technology if other remediation
technologies (such as vapor extraction in combination with air sparging) are feasible given site
stratigraphic factors.
In-Situ Bioremediation
Technology Description: In-situ bioremediation is a process in which naturally occurring or introduced
bacteria "eat" hydrocarbon compound molecules. Bacterial colonies that develop in the vadose zone and
saturated zone are dependent upon fluid phases for the delivery of oxygen and nutrients. The bacteria
consume hydrocarbons and excrete nontoxic water and carbon dioxide, thereby actually destroying
(burning) the hydrocarbons. Numerous studies and case histories show that natural biodegradation of
hydrocarbons occurs in groundwater at virtually all sites. Depending on the relative rates of introduction of
hydrocarbons into the dissolved phase in groundwater from soil/PSH sources and consumption of
hydrocarbons via natural biodegradation, the net groundwater plume may be expanding, contracting, or
stable. Contracting plumes reflect effective "remediation by natural attenuation." MTBE does not
biodegrade as rapidly as BTEX under natural conditions. However, MTBE does biodegrade aerobically, if
adequate oxygen is present.
The limiting factor of the biodegradation rate for the large majority of BTEX'and MTBE plumes is oxygen
supply. In order to increase the biodegradation rate, the dissolved oxygen levels in groundwater can be
augmented through air sparging (using ambient air or pure oxygen), solid or liquid oxygen releasing
products (e.g., oRcTM), or other methods. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus should also be
present in sufficient concentrations for microbial growth and, if needed, can be introduced in the liquid
phase through iniection wells or trenches.
Advantages: Natural attenuation is typically the least expensive remedial technology but also takes the
longest time, especially in cases of continuing PSH and soil sources. Natural attenuation of groundwater
with active source cleanup (typically excavation, PSH removal, or vapor extraction) can be very effective
for gasoline releases. Enhanced bioremediation, using air sparging, oxygen releasing products, in-situ
electrolysis, or another method, depends on delivery of oxygen, nutrients, introduced bacteria, or other
materials into the contaminated zones, and therefore is most effective in permeable, homogeneous soils.
In-situ bioremediation is most applicable to sites in which the time frame for cleanup can be relatively long,
soils are coarse grained, and PSH is not present (to act as a continuing source).
Disadvantages: Natural attenuation takes a long time. Because impacted soils and LNAPL at the site will
act as continuing sources of hydrocarbons, cleanup will take much longer. Enhanced bioremediation can
speed up the process and is effective at sites with high permeability and/or unstratified soils.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 29, 2003- Page 10
Site Application: Natural .attenuation would take too long at this site given the proximity of downgradient
water supply wells. Enhanced bioremediation is not considered to be the cost effective technology for the
remediation of BTEX-containing groundwater, if other remediation technologies (such as vapor extraction
in combination with air sparging) are feasible given site stratigraphic factors.
In-Situ Air Sparging
Technology Description: Air sparging involves the injection of air into the saturated zone below the areas
of contamination. The contaminants dissolved in groundwater and adsorbed onto soil particles are
stripped into the vapor phase. In-situ air sparging takes advantage of high Henry's Law Constants of
hydrocarbon constituents, which are more easily recovered in the vapor phase than in the liquid phase.
In-situ air sparging requires simultaneous operation of a VES to recover vapors transported from the
saturated zone to the vadose zone by air sparging.
Advantages: In-situ air sparging is most effective in unstratified, permeable soils (e.g., sand), especially at
sites where permeable soils extend from the saturated zone (to facilitate air injection into groundwater)
into the vadose zone (to facilitate capture of the off-gas generated from sparging). A major advantage of
air sparging is that it actively remediates groundwater removing (pumping) groundwater. Additionally, air.
sparging enhances biodegradation by adding oxygen to the groundwater.
Disadvantages: This technology relies on moving air through a water-saturated, porous medium. Vertical
air channeling occurs even in the most homogenous soils and is worse in heterogeneous or stratified
soils. This technology could increase the spreading of the dissolved-phase hydrocarbons, and may also
increase the biofouling potential of the site. A large number of wells are typically required to accomplish
air sparging and collect the hydrocarbon off-gas.
Site Application: Given the subsurface stratigraphy of well graded sands and gravels, and the large
amount of LNAPL in the vadose zone, capillary fringe, and upper portion of the saturated zone, AS is both
a feasible and cost effective remedial technology for the site. AS in combination with the operating SVE
will enhance the removal of the PSH and effectively mitigate the MTBE-containing groundwater through
enhancement of biodegradation from the increased oxygen in the groundwater as well as the stripping of
MTBE from the groundwater and removal of YapS)r-phase MTBE by the SVE,
High-Vacuum, Dual-Phase Extraction
Technology Description: DPE involves simultaneous extraction of vapor and liquid (including PSH and
water). Vapor is removed in the same manner as for vapor extraction, and liquid is removed using either
a stinger (air entrainment in vapor flow), or a submersible pump. Pumps are used in situations of rapid
well recharge, deep groundwater, and/or large drawdown. As the groundwater is removed, the water table
beneath the site is lowered and hydrocarbon-affected soil in the capillary fringe and uppermost portion of
the saturated zone is exposed. The exposed capillary-fringe soil may then be remediated by the
high-vacuum vapor extraction part of the system. The vaporized hydrocarbons are typically treated by
thermal or catalytic oxidation, or other appropriate treatment technologies. DPE is typically operated using
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 29, 2002,- Page 11
a high-vacuum, liquid-ring pump to remove vapor and liquid from the subsurface. High vacuums enhance
liquid and vapor removal rates, especially in lower permeability soils.
DPE can be deployed using a mobile unit or installed system. Mobile DPE is designed to operate on a
periodic basis with individual DPE events of one day to one week. Mobile DPE is effective for sites with
Iow concentrations ("polishing"), interim or emergency remedial action, and cleanup of wells in streets
(where installed piping may be difficult). Installed systems are more appropriate for general site
remediation and Iow-permeabi!ity soil conditions (where cleanup is slower).
Advantages: DPE is similar to SVE but includes liquid removal. Therefore, DPE is applicable to sites for
which SVE is a feasible option and dewatering of the capillary zone is advantageous, PSH is present, soils
have Iow permeability, and/or water removal is advantageous to address high concentrations of dissolved-
phase constituents. For situations in which high-vacuum SYE is chosen (e.g. Iow permeability) and
groundwater is involved, simultaneous liquid removal is typically needed just to prevent water in the wells
from rising under the high vacuums and blocking slotted screen in the vadose zone above the water table.
DPE is generally the most aggressive in-situ technology for removal of gasoline constituents from soil and
groundwater.
Disadvantages: DPE is relatively expensive due to equipment costs, treatment of vapor and liquid phases,
and permitting for both air and water discharges. Additionally, equipment can be noisy and may not be
suited for operation near residential areas, schools, hospitals, and other sensitive areas.
Site Application: High-vacuum DPE is potentially applicable to this site. SVE is being shown to be feasible
for this site, and LNAPL removal is effectively addressed by DPE, with the DPE reducing disposal costs
through the thermal destruction of the LNAPL.
RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
While GWPT is feasible at the site to remediate the MTBE-containing groundwater, GWPT is not the cost
effective technology to address the LNAPL and dissolved-phase due to the high cost of disposal.
Bioremediation can be ruled out due to [he need for cleanup in a reasonable time period given the
proximity of downgradient water supply wells. Air sparging in combination with the operating SVE and
DPE appear to be feasible and are cost effective methods to remove the LNAPL and dissolved-phase at
the site. CSE recommends the installation of a fixed air sparging system to remove the LNAPL and
dissolved-phase from the capillary fringe and upper portion of the saturated zone at the site. Because the
off-site impacts extend beneath State Highway 1~8 and other downgradient private properties, access will
not be available for connection to the on-site fixed-based system at these off-site locations. Therefore,
CSE recommends periodic overpurging of the off-site monitoring wells with dispose of the produced fluids
to mitigate the off-site groundwater impact.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 29, 2003- Page 12
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
AIR SPARGING
Previous soils investigations at the site indicated that the unconfined groundwater zone encountered at a
depth of approximately 115 fbg consists of highly permeable sand and gravel sediments, which supports
an initial assumption of a 45° radial aeration expansion cone within at least the upper 10 feet of the
aquifer. Therefore, for the initial design of the AS parameters, CSE will use an ROI of 20 feet, and air will
be injected from a series of sparge points spaced on 40-foot centers with the installation of four proposed
air sparge wells (SW-1 through ~SW-4) (see Figures 3 through 5 for the proposed air sparge well
locations). Each air sparge point will consist of a 2-inch-diameter by 5-foot-long, 0.02-inch slotted casing
packed in No. 3 sand. The screened interval will be positioned from 10 to 15 feet below the top of
groundwater at a depth of approximately 125 to 130 fbg. A 2-inch-diameter conductor will be used to
connect the air sparge point to the surface, and a 5-foot-long section of blank casing will be positioned at
the bottom of the well to serve as a sediment trap (rathole) (see Attachment 3 for the Soil Boring and Well
Construction Procedures and Attachment 4 for the Air Sparge Well Construction Details). Laboratory
analysis of soil samples collected during drilling will be performed for waste profiling only because the
wells are positioned within an area that has previously undergone extensive sampling and laboratory
analysis. To generate an ROI of 20 feet, it is estimated that an injection pressure rate of 90 ins-water will
be required, and a rio,,.: rate of approximately 5 scfm will result.
The air sparge wells will be connected to a manifold via undergroUnd high-pressure hoses. A two-cycle,
~,~..~-~,~ compressor ,A,i~.... supply the . v.,~..~ ,,~,,, ,ir,~,~ air ~,.~ the manifold system (see Figure '~,. !njected ~ir ,A,~.......~,~
through the saturated and ~pilla~ zones where it will strip dissolved-phase and adsorbed-phase VOCs.
m~e VOC-laden ~ ,,,~ h~ ~mov~d ~ ,h~ ,,~ ~,~ ~,~ *~ated ,,ia the ~,~ ~/~
AIR SPARGING SYSTEM MONITORING
During the operation of the remediation systems, the following tasks wi!! be pedormed to eva!uate and
~u,,, ,uut~ tu ,,~ effectiveness u~ ~h~ GWq'S:
monitoring of the groundwater in the perimeter wells; and
continued ~,,,~,~,l,, mnni~nrlng ~nc{
completion of the active soil and ground~
REMEDIATION SYSTEM PROGRESS REPORTING
Quarterly groundwater monitoring and'sampling of all existing groundwater...~....~....=,~,,,i*~,,in,, ,,,,~!~..~ .~ .... .....~ be
performed during the remediation process. Groundwater samples will be collected and analyzed for
TPH as gasoline using EPA method 8015 (M), and BTEX and MTBE using EPA Method 802! with MTBE
confirmed and quantified using EPA Method 8260. Quarterly progress reports will be prepared which
summarize the groundwater monitoring activities and operations of the VES and AS units.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 29, 2003- Page 13
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC, trusts that you will find this CAP Addendum to your satisfaction. If you
have any questions or require additiona! information, p!ease contact Mr. Mark R. Magargee at
(661) 325-4862 or at e-mail address censenv@aol.com
MRM:jlt
Enclosures:
Respectfully submitted,
Consulting Hydrogeologist
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC *'
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 3 Plot Plan
Figure 4 - Groundwater Elevation Contour Map
Figure 5 - TPH as GasolinelBenzenelMTBE Concentrations in Groundwater
Table1 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Organic
Compounds
Table 2 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Ana!ytica! Results for Physical and
Chemical Characteristics
List of Acronyms
Attachment 1
,Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
CRWQCB-CVR Correspondence
Summary of Previous Work
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Air Sparge We!! Construction Details
cc: Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR
Mr. Howard H. Wines, Ill, BFDESD
40~
:'. oI :, .o.d.. ,,
/ ;
SITE LOCATION
IIII
LEGEND
0 O.S 1 I~tc
I I;', t I I I I I I P i
o ~,ooo ~.ooe 3.0oo 4.ooo 5,oo0 FEET
k:~ L--t F-~ I , 1 I I
Q__ (]-'~ I KILOMETER
i
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY.· LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
F-
W
LU
MW-9
24th STREET
ESTIMATED LIMIT OF
GASOLINE CONTAINING
GROUNDWATER
;TREET
22nd STREET aw-~
LEGEND
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
REVISION DATE: AUGUST 5, 2003:jlt
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 - SITE VICINITY MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
CAR MINI MART
MW-2 DISPENSI :R ISLANDS n-O
uJ
~" , GAS~LINI~ UST MW-4
I~, ~ 20,O00-GALLON
EXPLORATORY ~ ~ GAS ')LII~ -' UST
PLANTER
APPROACH SIDEWALK
23RD STREET
SCALE IN FEET
o 1§ 30
MW-6 MW-5
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL [] FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
SOIL BORING o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
PROPOSED AIR SPARGE WELL
FIGURE 3 - PLOT PLAN
VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL
VES PIPING CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: JUNE 4, 2003:j1!
WAS. ~ ."
z
/
-- ILl
,_ ~ ~ _~___~__ < .
/ ', / J~ /2t' ~
~ i~ ~ /~ ~ ~ ~r-ls~ ~ / ~ ~
~ I T ~ - ~ "~~i 1 ~1~ ~ PROPOSED
~ ~ ~~ ' '~ ~7~'Sb-~.~t /
~ ' ~ ~' I~~'''~" ~_~o,o~o. /
~ '~ / ~~ : ~,.~ / ~w~
~ DISPENSE~ IS~NDS ]a olo / a ~ ~5~LON
, . /
APPROACH ~ SIDEWAL~ / ~
~.~ ~ / /
23RD 81R[E '
' '9 0 0 15
SI~LK ~ ~ea , 2~7 93
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
VAPOR ~CTION WELL D FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
VES PIPING o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
PROPOSED AIR SPARGE WELL ~. GROUNDWATER FLOW BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CO.OUR~ DIRECTION FIGURE 4 - GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
(FE~ ABOVE MSL) CONTOUR MAP
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
ANOMOLOUS DATA POINT NOT USED FOR CO~OURING DUE
TO PRESENCE OF FREE PRODUCT CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE:AUGUST 28, 2003:CLM
CAR MINI MART ac
WASH I--LU 'J~'
/
~ ILl
---- --_~. w
/_ 2,90016.71920 --~ ~-- ' ~ ~'
100 -',, _~r / ." .]~'--~,__.._. .
,/ / /? /7
/ 1 ,.000 /'~.,~' ~,J ~ V~N 2 ~ '"~Q~IPOUND ~
/C^NOPV---. ~o,00o' ~ ~ ,~' ~ ~' ~VESU'~ ~ ~ '
~ ~ / , , / -- I "ro~ -~ . _ M~-I~ AIR SP~GE UNIT
~ I ~~~; ~s~u.~.s~ ~w~
' DISPENSE~NDSI.o lo / a ~ _20.000~LON
i ~ S .3 SPLIT-CHAMBERED
, w-3 ~ ~.~TO.~/ ~' -
, ~ ~ sW~ ~ENCH /
~ SC~E IN FEET
0 15 30
MW-5
~7, O~ l ~ l ~,O00 47,O001~,~ l $~,O 0
-
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY. LLC
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
VAPOR E~CTION ~LL o FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
VES PIPING o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
PROPOSED AIR SPARGE WELL BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
TPH AS GASOLIN~ENZEN~BE FIGURE 5 - TPH AS GASOLIN~BENZEN~MTBE
CONCE~RATIONS IN GROUNDWATER (p~) ND NOT DETECTED CONCENT~TION IN GROUNDWATER
MTBE CONCENTRATON CO.OUR (p~)
CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL. LLC
REVISION DATE:AUGUST 28. 2003:CLM
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF GROUNDiNATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR OR(~ANIC COMPOUNDS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
WELLIDAND DATE GROUND-PRODUCT WATER TPHAS ETHYL- TOTAL ETHYL- TOTAL 1,2- IFLOURO~E ISOPROPYL ~SOPROPYLT NAPN- N-PROPYL TRIMETHYL TRIMETHYL OTHER
CCRTI~..E22DRINKlNOWATERMCL ** I ~1 ldoI .oI 1,7~I ~3 ti ~o~1 ~ol 1,7~1 iai "1 "1 "1 "1 "1 "/ " I " I I I I I *' I "
TABLE 2.
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
WELL ID DEPTH TO FLOATING GROUND-
AND DATE GROUND- PRODUCT WATER
ELEVATION' SAMPLED WATER THICKNESS ELEVATION TDS EC pH CHLORIDE SULFATE NITRATE CALCIUM MAGNESIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE CARBONATE BICARBONATE TKN REF
(feet-MSL) (fog) (feet) (feet-MSL) (rog/I) (umhos/cm) (pH units) (m~) (mgm) (mg,'l) (mg.~) (rog/I) (mg.~) (rog/l) (rog/I) (m~) (mg/~) (rog/i)
EPA ANALY-rICAL METHOD 160.1 9050 9040 300.0 6010 310.1 351.2 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES - SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
VW-ld
404.00 3-28-02 114,54 0.25 289.46 617 951 7.38 93 82 2.1 120 21 44 5,1 ND ND 350 0.8 A
MW-1 3-28-02 114.53 0.00 289.76 424 664 7.12 46 61~ 40.4 7g 14 39 4.t ND ND 200 0.71 A
404.29 8-22-02 120.02 0.00 284.27 25(: 490 6.6 30 51 18 76 23 37 18 ND ND 140 ND B
MW-2 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 291.07 382~ 576 7.21 31 74 4.6.3 66 '12 39 3.8 ND ND 160 0.8 A
404.37 8-22-02 118.72 0.00 285.65 310~ 5,50 6.7 33 66 38 71 17 37 11 ND ND 140 ND B
MW-3 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 290.42 38; 576 7.21 31 74 46.3 66 12 39 3.8 ND ND 160 0.8 A
40372 8-22-02 118,84 0.00 284,88 31C 480 6.7 25 59 38 97 25 37 16 ND ND 140 ND B
REF = RePort reference. ~/A = No[ applicable. ND = ',/or detected, ,~
*Measured to the top of the well casing. ·
A = Hciguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s, report dated May 29, 2002.
B = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's report dated November 14, 2002.
AST
BFDESD
BCSD
BTEX
CAP
CDMG
CDWR
CRWQCB-CVR
CWSC
DCA
DIPE
DOT
EDB
EPA
ETBE
fbg
KCDEHS
KCWA
LAR
LLC
LUFT
MDBM
mg/kg
MPD
MSL
MTBE
pH
PID
PSH
PVC
QNQC
' RI/FS
ROI
TAME
TBA
TPH
URR
USA
UST
VES
VOA
VOC
Pg/!
LIST OF ACRONYMS
aboveground storage tank
Bakemfield Fire Department Environmental Services Division
Bakersfield Consolidated School District
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes
corrective action plan
California Division of Mines and Geology
California Department of Water Resources
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (5)
California Water Services Company
dichloroethane
diisopropyl ether
Department of Transportation
ethylene dibromide
Environmental Protection Agency
ethyl tertiary butyl ether
feet below grade
Kern County Department of Environmental Health Services
Kern County Water Agency
limited access rig
limited liabi!ity corporation
leaking underground fuel tank
Mount Diablo Base and Meridian
milligram per kilogram
multiple product dispenser
mean sea level
methyl tertiary butyl ether
hydrogen potential
photoionization detector
phase-separated hydrocarbons
polyvinyl chloride
quality assurance/quality control
remedial investigation/feasibility study
radius of influence
tertiary amyl methyl ether
tertiary butyl alcohol
total petroleum hydrocarbons
Unauthorized Release Report
Underground Service Alert
underground storage tank
vapor extraction system
volatile organic analysis
volatile organic compound
microgram per liter
ATTACHMENT 1.
CRWQCB-CVR CORRESPONDENCE
Winston H. Hickox
Secrera~' for
Environmental
Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Office
Interact Address: http'dlwww.swrcb.ca.govl~rwqcb5
1685 E Street. Fresno, California 93706-2020
Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910
Gray Davis
13 August 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. David Bird
S ullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You submitted Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan At The Stdlivan Petroleum
Company (Work Plan) dated 5 August 2003 and prepared by Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield
(CSE). The Work Plan proposes to install three shallow monitoring wells and one deep off-site
monitoring well to determine the extent of gasoline constituents in groundwater at the above referenced
site. We approve the monitoring well placements and construction proposed in the Work Plan. The
deep monitoring well should be constructed to allow use as a groundwater extraction point. We request
that you expedite monitoring well installation and submit a corrective action plan (CAP) addendum for
groundwater remediation. A summary of the Work Plan and our comments follow.
Work Plan Summary
CSE proposes to install monitoring well MW-8 at the intersection of 22na and "M" Streets,
approximately 600 feet southeast of the site.to determine the downgradient extent of impacted
groundwater. MW-7 and MW-8 will be installed at the intersection of 23rd and "M" Streets, and at the
intersection of 22"d and "L" Streets, respectively, to determine the lateral extent of impacted
groundwater east and south of the site, respectively. MW-7 through MW-9 will be standard construction
two-inch diameter wells screened from approximately 100 to 140 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Depth-to-groundwater was measured at approxinlately 115 feet during the April 2003 monitoring event.
Deep monitoring well MW-5d will be installed near shallow well MW-5 at the southeast corner of 23ra
and."L" Streets to determine the vertical extent of impacted groundwater. MW-5 is approximately 150
feet downgradient of the release point. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), benzene, and
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) concentrations of 47,000, 3,500, and 62,000 micrograms per liter
(gg/L) were detected in MW'-5 during the April 2003 monitoring event. MW-Sd will be a standard-
construction two-inch well screened from 160 to 170 feet bgs.
California Environmental Protection Agency
0 Re<ycled Paper
Mr. David Bird - 2 - 13 August 2003' '
CSE will begin work 45 days after the Regional Board accepts the Work Plan and the necessary permits
have been secured. CSE will submit an Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report
approximately 60 days after fieldwork.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
We conditionally approve the proposed shallow and deep monitoring well placements and construction.
Please submit a well installation report by 15 December 2003.
Since deep well MW-5d is to be placed nearest the head of the plume in an area of high pollutant
concentrations, we request that MW-5d be completed as a potential groundwater extraction point.
MW-5 should be constructed as a four-inch well with a subsurface piping connection.
The proposed wells should be included in the monitoring network. Quarterly groundwater monitoring
should be continued. Groundwater samples should be analyzed for TPHg, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA), di-isopropyl ether (D[PE), ethyl
tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME).
Our letter dated 2 July 2003 emphasized that your site is a serious threat to water resources. We
indicated that you will need to design, install, and operate a groundwater remediation system to prevent
the .spread of impacted groundwater and remove the high petroleum constituent concentrations by the
"pump and treat" method. We also requested that you submit a Corrective Action Plan Addendum for
the remediation system by 2 September 2003.
Sections 2729 and 2729. l for Underground Storage Tanks were added.to the California Code of
Regulations requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Reqt,ired Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Agendies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP files).
V:~UGT~ProjectsUDW_filesk2003 Corm.spondence\Ci~y o[ B,dccrstidd C~ses~)owntown Chc'vron MW WP 8-03.do¢
Mr. David Bird 3
13 August 2003
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
JOHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals...
cc:
Mr. Howard Wines DI, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclq~,ure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure'x,o
File: UST/Kem/Chevron Station/2317 L Street, Bakersfield/ST 15000836
V:\UG'I~rojectsLIDW_file.,~LlO0.1 Corm.,~pondence\C'ity of Bakersfield Cases~)own~own Chevron MW WP 8-03.doc
A'I'I'ACHMENT 2.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORK
CAR MINI MART r-r'
WASH LU ¥'
<
30__ ND/ND/ND
50__ ND/ND/O. 17
6O _ __ ND/ND/0.063
90--- ND/ND/ND ~ ILl
~10--- ND/N~/~O MW.2 DISPENSFR ~$LAND$
0 ~ 230/ND/3.6 '~ --~ 10 ND/ND/0.023
Q.
CANOPY ~ .
/~ ~ 100 -- -- 2,300/9.3/87 U_j~ 40 ND/ND/3.7
/ / / / ~ VW'IdSG'I
~o- ~-- NO/NO/NO ~ ~ _'--~, .~' ~*~ ~5 J--4 600/0.85/2
ASQLIf 30__ ND/ND/0:OOS MW..4
8o- - ND/ND/0.3! ~ ~ - SPLIT-C ~ - -- ND/ND/I.S 20 ---- ND/ND/ND
9o-- - ND/ND/O.O8! GAS, )LI 70 2~0/0.26/84
'1~) _ _ NI)/ND/0.029 1~.-3 80-- ND./ND/0.49 40 - --NDIND/ND
lie-- - ND/ND/ND B-5 10 -_ 6,$00./28/76
%1~ ~ IS -- 7,e~o/Z6/ss 90-- ND/ND/1.8 60 ----ND/ND/ND
~ .~ ] IX) ND~ND~0.77 80 -- -- ND/ND/ND
zo----ND/N~/0.]S 30- ~D/~D/3'] J [ "'-
APPROACH 30 -- --ND/ND/L3 ALK 35 - ~' ND/ND/Z.6
40 -- ~ND/0.]2/! ! 40 -- ~ ND/ND/3.2
45~' ND/0.0062/5.2
23RD STREET
20- -ND/ND/0.28 SCALE IN FEET
-. 402 -ND/ND/ND
60- -ND/ND/ND 0 15 30
80. -4~D/ND/ND
MW-6 100- -ND/ND/ND MW-5
20
<
,
cl 100- - ND/ND/ND uJ
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
SOIL BORING 2317 "L" STREET
#/#/# ND NOT DETECTED BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL (IJg/I) FIGURE 3 - TPH AS GASOLINE/BENZENE/MTBE
DEPTH OF SAMPLE (fbg) CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL
ND NOT DETECTED CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: AUGUST 5, 2003:jif
FIGURE 5 - INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT TPH CONCENTRATIONS
E
0
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
lO
0.1
------- TPH In
.......... ;~TPH Out
0 5 10 15
Cumulative Operating Weeks
20
FIGURE 6 - CUMULATIVE EXTRACTION CURVE
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0 5 10 15
Cumulative Operating Weeks
20
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fbg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/k~l) (m~l/k~) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
SC-1 5-10-99 5 SC-1-5 26,000 64 1,700 320 2,900 1,400 .......... A
B-1 8-17-99 10 B-1-10 6,500 28 230 85 430 76 .......... B
8-17-99 15 B-1-15 7,000 26 250 94 430 85 .......... B
9-26-99 22 B-1-22 ND ND ND ND ND 0.48 .......... B
9-26-99 25 B-1-25 "ND ND ND ND ND 0.33 .......... B
9-26-99 30 B-1-30 ND ND 0.041 ND 0.094 3.1 .......... B
9-26-99 35 B-1-35 'ND ND 0.011 ND ND 2.6 .......... B
9-26-99 40 B-1-40 ND ND 0.0099 ND 0.022 3.2 .......... B
9-26-99 45 B-1-45 ND 0,0062 0.010 ND ND 5.2 .......... B
B-2 8-17-99 5 B-2-5 ' 19,000 50 1,000 260 1,400 220 .......... B
8-17-99 15 B-2-15 4;600 0.82 150 73 410 2 .......... B
B-3 8-17-99 5 B-3-5 ND 0.014 0.21 0,085 0,72 3,8 .......... B
8-17-99 15 B-3-15 6,300 0.3 150 81 740 3 .......... B
B-4 9-26-99 10 B-4-10 ND ND ND ND ND 0.023 .......... B
9-26-99 20 B-4-20 ND ND ND ND ND 0.19 .......... B
9-26-99 30 B-4-30 ND ND 0.012 ND 0.023 3.5 .......... B
9-26-99 40 B-4-40 ND ND 0.0065 ND ND 3.7 .......... B
B-5 9-26-99 10 B-5-10 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... B
9-26-99 20 B-5-20 ND ND, ND ND ND 0.'15 .......... B
9-26-99 30 B-5-30 ND ND 0.007 ND ND 1.3 .......... B
- 9-26-99 40 B-5-40 ND 0.12 0,51 0.032 0.16 11 .......... B
VW-ld 2-1-01 50 VW-ld-50 250, ND 0.12 0.032 0.25 3.6 .......... C
---2-1-01 65 VW-ld-65 5.7 ND ND ND ND 14 .......... C
2-1'01 80 VW-ld'§0 'ND ND ND ND ND 1.5 .......... C
2-2'01 100 VVV-ld-100 2,300 9.3 210 41 260 87 .......... C
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fb~ll (m~l/k~ll (m~l/k~l (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS NI,A,..
MW-1 11-1-01 10 MW-l-10 ND ND ND ND 0.068 0.0059 -- 10 ND ND ND D
11-1-01 20 MW-1-20 ND ND NDND ND 0.011 -- 1.3 ND ND ND D
11-1-01 30 MW- 1-30 ND ND ND ND ND 0.005 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 40 MW-l-40 ~ ND ND ND ND ND 0.16 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 50 MW-l-50 "ND ND ND ND ND 0.068 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 60 MW- 1-60 ND ND ND ND ND 1.5 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 70 MW-l-70 ~.00 0.26 0.66 0.13 0.86 84 -- ND ND ND~ ND D
11-2-01 80 MW-l-80 ND ND ND ND ND 0.49 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 90 Mw-i-90 ND ND ND ND ND 1.8 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 100 MW-l-100 ND ND ND ND ND 0.77 -- 0.36 ND ND ND D
11-2-01 110 MW-1-110 1.2 ND ND ND ND 1.5 -- 0.2 ND ND ND D
MW-2 10-31-01 10 MW-2-10 ND ND ND' ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 20 MW-2-20 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 30 MW-2-30 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 40 MW-2-40 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 50 MW-2-50 ND ND ND ND ND 0.17 -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 60 MW-2-60 ND ND ND ND ND 0.063 -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 70 MW-2-70 ND ND ND ND ND 0.019 -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 80 MW-2-80 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 90 MW-2-90 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND I~
10-31-01 100 MW-2-100 ! ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 110 MW-2-110 ND NDI ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTI~ ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fb~lI (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)i (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
MW-3 11-1-01 10 MW-3-10 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 20 MW-3-20 ND NDI ND NDI ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 30 MW-3-30 ND ND: ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 40 MW-3-40 ND ND ND ND ND 0.014 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 50 MW-3-50 "ND NDi ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 60 MW-3-60 ND ND ND ND ND 0.06 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 70 MW-3oT0 ND ND ND NDI ND 0.32 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 80 MW-3-80 ND ND, ND ND ND 0.31 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 90 MW-3-90 ND NDI ND NDI NE) 0.081 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 100 MW-3-100 ND ND ND ND ND 0.029 -- ND ,ND ND ND D
11-1-01 110 MW-3-110 ND NDI ND ND' ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
MW-4 4-14-03 20 MW-5-20 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 40 MW-5-40 ND , ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 60 MW-5-60 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 80 MW-5-80 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 100 MW-5-100 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 120 MW-5-120 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E'
MW-5 4-15-03 20 MW-5-20 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-15-03 40 MW-5-40 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E'
4-15-03 60 MW-5-00 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
--4-15-03 80 MW-5-80 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
--4-15-03 100 MW-5-100 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
'-'-4-15-03 120 MW-5-120 1.5 ND ND ND ND 1.3 1.6 ........ E'
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fbi) (mg/kg) (m~i/k~) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (m~//kg) (mg/kg) ,(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
MW-6 4-16-03 20 MW-6-20 NDJ ND ND ND ND 0.062 0.28 ........ E
4-16-03 40 MW-6-40 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-16-03 60 MW-6-60 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-16-03 80 MW-6-80 ND NDj ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-16-03 100 MW-6-100 "ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-16-03 120 MW-6-120 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not'detected. -- = Not analyzed.
A = A.J. Environmental, Inc.'s, report dated May 1999.
B = Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s (HFA's) report dated November 17, 1999.
C = HFA's report dated June 25, 2001.
D = HFA's report dated February 19, 2002.
E = Central Sierrra Environmenta! (CSE's) current report.
TABLE 3.
SUMMARY OF VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED SAMPLE ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE
(ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) REF
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020 N/~
DETECTION LIMIT 10 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 N/A
INFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-1 5,500! 58 290 32 220 1,900 A
EFFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.31 A
INFLUENT 12-12-02 0212180-1 8,600 110 320 44 260 2,200 A
INFLUENT 2-21-03 0302259-1 11,000 120 190 100 290 1,400 B
EFFLUENT 2-21-03 0302259-2 ND ND ND ND ND ND B
INFLUENT 6-25-03 0306310-1 3,800 16 150 34 201 480 C
REF = RePort reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected.
A = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's (CSE's), report dated March 3, 2003.
B = CSE's, repod dated April 13, 2003.
C = CSE's, current report.
TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF VES MONITORING DATA
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative CumulativeOufet Inlet Dilution ! Field Reduction Cumulative Lbs. CumulativeCumulative
Date Calendar OperatingOperatingOperatingOperating Temper- Flow MW-I V*ls V-li V-ld V-2 V-3 V-4 Air TPH In Field TPHEfficiency Total Lbs. Lbs. Destroyed Lbs. Gallons
MonitoredDays Hours Hours Days Weeks a[ure (°F (scfm)(valve) (valve)' (vary·) (valve) {valve) (valve (valve(valve) I (ppmv) i Out (ppmv (>90%) ExtractedExtractedper event Destroyed Extracted
10-8-02 1 ,0 0 0 0 1,450 175 · · · PO · · · PO 4,50010 100% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
10-10-02 2 15 15 I 0 1,470 205 · · · PO · · · PO 5,50010 100% 187.01 187.01 267,22 267.22 29
10-15.02 7 62 77 3 0 1,4,~5.. 235 · · · PO · · · PO 5,77510 100% 1,106.68 1,293.68 1,329.61 1,596.83 202
10-18-02 10 39 116 5 1 1,470 250 · · · PO · · · Po 5,92010 100% 837.91 2,t31.59 912.14 2,508.96 333
10-24-02 16 25 193 8 1 1,460 230 · · · PO · · · PO 6,53010 100% 555.23 3,905.18 593.45 4,255.31 610, ,,
10-30-02 22 75 268 11 2 1,450 215 · · · PO · · · PO 5,74510 100% 1,783.26 5,688.44 1,719.11 5,974.42 889
11-1-02 24 26 294 12 2 1,465 235 · · · PO · · · PO 6,950I 10 100% 596,9t 6,285.35 671.23 6,645.66 982
11-6.02 29 63 357 15 2 1,440 205 · PO · O · · · PO 7,120 10 100% 1,628.94 7,914.29 1,45~.55 8,099.21 1,237
11-8.02 31 29 386 t6 2 t,485 240 · PO · O · · · PO 7,280 10 100% 670:11 8,584.39 800.97 8,900.19 1,341
1t-12.02 35 52 438 18 3 1,450 265 · PO · O · · · I~? 7,445 10 100% 1,438.3310,022.721,621.84 10,522.03 1,566
11-15-02 38 39 477 20 3 1,455 220 · Po · 0 · · · PO 7,535 10 t 00% t ,218. t I 1 t ,240.83 t ,022.0411,644.07 t ,756
11-18-02 41 37 514 21 3 1,490 215 · PO · 0 · · · PO 7,680 10 100% 971.00 12,211.83965.85 12,509.91 1,908
11-21-02 44 40 554 23 3 1,470 230 · PO · 0 · · · PO 7,825 10 100% 1,045.6113,257.451,136.13 13,648.04 2,071
t 1-25-02 48 53 6o7 25 4 1,435 205 · PO® 0 · · · PO 8,060 10 100% 1,{~I0.08 14,767.531,384.52 15,032.58 2,307
11-30-02 53 62 669 28 4 1,450 225 · PO · 0 · · · Po 8,175 10 100% 1,621.7816,359.311,803.05 15,835.51 ,2,58t
12-3-02 56 0 669 28 4 1,465 240 · PO® 0 · · · Po 8,320 10 100% 0,00 16,389.31 0.00 16,835.61 2,561
12-6-02 59 39 708 30 4 1,440 ' 210 · Po · 0 · · · Po 8,455 10 100% 1,232.8517,622.16 1,094.65 17,930.47 2,753
12-10-02 63 52 760 32 5 1,485 195 · PO · 0 · · · PO 8,525 10 1oo% 1,461.6719,083.83 1,366.77 19,297.24 2,962
12-12-02 65 26 788 33 $ 1,460 £ 238 · PO · 0 · · · PO 8,600 10 100% 736.88 19,820.71 894.74 20,191.98 3,097 ,.
12-16-02 69 50 ' 838 35" 5 1,450 220 · PO · O · · · PO 8,475 10 100% 1,599.7421,420.45 1,474.90 21,665.98 3,347
12-19-02 72 41 879 37 5 1.465 215 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,135 10 100% 1,210.2022,630.65 1,133.76 22,799.74 3,536
12-24-02 77 64 943 39 6 1,466 235 Po PO · O · · · PO 7,955 10 100% 1,772.1024,402.75 t,891.55 24,$91,29 3,813
12-26-02 79 27 970 40 8 1,465 255 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,550 10 100% 799.07 25,201.62 821.76 25,513.07 3,938
t2-30-02 83 52 '~,022 43 8 1,460 240 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,230 10 100% 1,5B4.9026,786.72 1,426.35 25,939.42 ,4,185
1-4-03 88 61 1,083 45 6 1,465 235 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,465 10 100% 1,675.6828,462.41 1,691.69 28,631.11 4,447
1-7-03 91 40 1,123 47 7 1,470 245 PO PO · O · · · PO 7.615 10 100% 1,110.8929,573.29 1,179.78 29,810.89 4,621
1-9-03 93 26 1,149 48 7 1,485 250 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,750 10 100% 767.93 30,341.22 796.40 30,607.29 4,741
1-14-03 98 65 t,214 51 7 1,460 225 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,025 10 100% 1,993.7332,334.95 1,855.56 32,462.85 5,052
1-17-03 101 38 1,252 52 ? t,455 230 PO PO · O · · · PO 6,450 10 100% 1,086.2333,421.t9 ,,, 1,167,70 33,630.58 5,222
1-20-03 104 40 1,292 54 8 1,490 215 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,795 10 100% 1,230.7134,651.90 1,195.96 34,826.52 5,414
1-23-03 107 42 1,334 56 6 1,470 235 PO PO · 0 · · · PO 9,230 10 100% 1,257.2935,909.19 1,440.56 36,267.08 5,611
1-27-03 111 49 1,383 58 8 1,435 205 PO PO · 0 · · · PO 9,630 10 100% 1,682.5937,591.78 1,529.69 37,796.77 5,874
1-30-03 114 39 1.422 59 8 1,450 240 PO PO · 0 · · · PO ,9,875 10 100% 1,218.8738,810.65 1,461.70 39,258.47 6,064
2-3-03 118 52 1,474 61 9 ' 1,465 265 PO PO · 0 · · · PO 10,080 t0 t00% 1,951.0340,761.68 2,196.88 41,455.14 6,369 ,
2-7-03 122 49 1,523 63 9 1,440 220 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,345 10 100% 2,072.1242,833.79 1,763.65 43,218.79 6,693
2-10-03 125 38 1,561 .... 65 9 1,485 215 PO PO · O · · ·- PO t0,530 10 100% 1,369.1444,202.94 1,360.57 44,579.36 6,907
2-14-03 129 51 1,612 67 10 1,460 230 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,646 10 100% 1,827.8946,030.82 1,974.79 46.554.15 7,192
2-17-03 132 37 1,649 69 10 1,450 205 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,870 10 100% 1,434.1347,464,95 1,303.97 47,858. t37,416
2-21-03 136 54 1,703 71 10 1,465 225 PO PO · O · · · PO 11,000 10 100% 1,904.9749,369.92 2,1 t3.7.849,971.91 7,714
2-25-03 t40 0 1,703 71 10 1,455 240 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,750 10 t00% 0.00 49,369.92 0.00 49,971.9t 7,714
2-28-03 143 39 1,742 73 10 1,465 210 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,685 t0 100% 1,592.9350,962.85 1,384.00 51,355.90 7,963
3-4-03 147 50 1,792 75 11 1,475 200 PO PO PO O · · · PO 10,650 10 100% 1,776.1352,738.99 1,684.31 53,040.22 8,240
3-7-03 t50 42 1,834 76 11 1,485 235 PO PO PO O · · · PO 10,580 10 100% 1,416.2554,155.24 1,651.50 54,691.71 8,462
3-11-03 154 49 1,883 76 11 1,490 220 PO PO PO 0 · · · PO 10,535 10 t00% 1,928.6956,083.93 1,796.08 56,487.79 8,763
3-14-03 157 41 1,924 80 11 1,480 215 PO PO · 0 PO · · PO 10,475 10 100% 1,504.3657,588.29 1,460.31 57,948.10 8,998
3-18-03 161 50 1,974 62 12 1,485 235 PO PO · 0 PO · · PO 10,4t5 10 100% 1,752.6859,370.98 1,935.38 59,883.47 9,277
3-21-03 1~ 39 2,013 84 12 1,475 255 PO PO · O PO · · PO 10,380 10 100% 1,511.1460,562.111,632.57 61,516.04 9,513
3-24-03 t67 40 2,053 86 12 1,480 245 PO PO · O · PO · PO 10,335 10 t00% 1,676.1462,558.25t,601.78 63,117.82 9,775
3-28-03 171 49 2,102 88 13 1,470 250 PO PO · O · PO · PO 10,290 10 t00% 1,964.2064,522.451,993.50 65,11t.32 10,082
3-31-03 17~4 41 2,143 89 13 1,465 240 PO PO · O · PO · PO 10,275 10 100% 1,659.7566,192.191,598.97 65,710.26 10,343
Open = O
Partially open = PO
ATTACHMENT 3.
SOIL BORING AND WELL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
CENTRAL SIERRA.ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC'S STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR
SOIL BORING AND WELL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
PRE-DRILLING PROTOCOL
Prior to the start of drilling, necessary permits, site access agreements, and/or encroachment permits are
obtained. "As-built" drawings are obtained if possible. At least 48 hours prior to drilling, Underground
Service Alert or an equivalent utility notification service is notified. A geophysical survey may be
conducted to locate subsurface utilities. Site plans and/or "as-built" drawings are compared to actual
conditions observed at the site. The property owner/retailer is interviewed to gain information about
locations of former UST systems (including dispensers, product lines, and vent lines). A visual inspection
is made of the locations of the existing UST system, and scars and patches in pavement are noted. The
emergency shut-off switch is located for safety purposes. The critical zone, which is defined as 10 feet
from any part of the UST system, is identified, and any proposed drilling locations within the critical zone
may be subject to special hole clearance techniques. Drilling locations within the critical zone are avoided
if possible. Notifications are made at least 2 weeks in advance of drilling to the property owner, client
representative, on-site facility manager, regulatory agency, and/or other appropriate parties.
A site-speCific, worker health and safety plan for the site is available on site at all times during drilling
activities. Prior to commencing drilling, a health and safety meeting is held among all on-site personnel
involved in the drilling operation, including subcontractors and visitors, and is documented with a health
and safety, meeting sign-in form. A traffic control plan is developed prior to the start of any drilling
activities for both on-site and off-site drilling operations. The emergency shut-off switch for the service
station is located prior to the start of the drilling activities. A fire extinguisher and "No Smoking" signs (and
Proposition 65 signs in California) are present at the site prior to the start of the drilling activities.
The first drilling location is the one located furthest from any suspected underground improvements in
order to determine the natural subsurface conditions, to be able to better recognize fill conditions, and to
prevent cross contamination. For monitoring wells, a 2 x 2-foot square or 2-foot diameter circle is the
minimum removal. For soil borings and push-type samplers, the minimum pavement removal is 8-inches.
When pea gravel, sand, or other non-indigen(~us material is encountered, the drilling location will be
abandoned unless the absence of subsurface facilities can be demonstrated and client approval to
proceed is obtained. If hole clearance activities are conducted prior to the actual day of drilling, the
clearance holes are covered with plates and/or backfilled.
The minimum hole clearance depths are'4 feet b~low grade (fbg) outside the critical zone and 8 Fog within
the critical zone and are conducted as follows:
0 to 4 fbg: The area to be cleared exceeds the diameter of the largest tool to be advanced and is
sufficiently large enough to allow for visual inspection of any obstructions encountered. The first 1 to 2
feet is delineated by hand digging to remove the soil, then the delineated area is probed to ensure that
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 2
no obstructions exist anywhere near the potential path of the drill auger or push-type sampler.
Probing is extended laterally as far as possible. Hand augering or post-hole digging then proceeds,
but only to the depth that has been probed. If subsurface characteristics prohibit effective probing, a
hand auger is carefully advanced past the point of probing. In this case, sufficient hand augering or
post-hole digging is performed to remove all the soil in the area to be delineated. For soil borings
located outside of the critical zone, an attempt should be made to probe an additional 4 feet.
4 to 8 fbg: For the soil borings located inside the critical zone, probing and hand clearing an additional
4 feet is performed. If probing is met with refusal, then trained personnel advance a hand auger
without excessive force.
An alternate or additional subsurface clearance procedures may also be employed, as required by clients,
permit conditions, and/or anticipated subsurface conditions (for example, near major utility corridors or in
hard soils). Alternate clearance techniques may include performing a geophysical investigation or using
an air knife or water knife. If subsurface conditions prevent adequate subsurface clearance, the drilling
operation is ceased until the client approves a procedure for proceeding in writing.
If any portion of the UST system is encountered, or if there is any possibility that it has been encountered,
the work ceases, and the client is notified immediately. If there is reason to believe that the product
system has been damaged, the emergency shut-off switch is activated. The client will decide if additional
uncovering by hand is required. If it is confirmed that the UST system has been encountered, tightness
tests are performed. The hole is backfilled only with client approval.
DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Soil boring are drilled using one of the following methods:
Manual drilling: Manual drilling utilizes a 2-inch-OD, hand auger manufactured by
Xitech Industries, Art's Manufacturing Company, or similar equipment. Soil samples are collected
with a drive sampler, which is outfitted with 1.5-inch by 3-inch steel or brass sleeves. The specific
equipment used is noted on a soil boring'log.
Truck-mounted, powered drilling: Truck-mounted, powered drilling utilizes hollow-stem flight auger
drilling, air rotary drilling, or percussion hammer drilling, or similar technologies. Soil samples are
collected in steel or brass sleeves with a California-modified, split-spoon sampler or, for specific
projects, a continuous sampler. The specific equipment used is noted on a soil boring log.
Direct push sampling: Direct push sampling utilizes Geoprobes®, cone penetrometer testing rigs,
or similar technologies. Soil samples are collected with a drive sampler, which is outfitted with
steel or brass sleeves. The specific equipment used is noted on a soil boring log.
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 3
Before each soil sampling episode, the sampling equipment is decontaminated using a non-phosphate
soap wash, a tap-water rinse, and a deionized water rinse. The drill string is decontaminated with a steam
cleaner between each soil boring (truck-mounted rigs).
Soil samples that are collected in steel or brass sleeves are covered with aluminum foil or TeflonTM tape
followed by plastic caps. If EPA Method 5035 is required, then 5 to 20 grams of soil is extracted from the
sample and placed in methanol-preserved containers supplied by the laboratory, or sub samples are
collected using Encore~ samplers. During the drilling process, soil samples, and cuttings are field
screened for VOCs using a' photoionization detector calibrated to 100 parts per million by volume
isobutylene. Any soil staining or discoloration is visually identified. Soils are classified according to the
Unified Soil Classification System. Specific geologic and hydrogeologic information collected includes
grading, plasticity, density, stiffness, mineral composition, moisture content, soil structure, grain size,
degree of rounding, and other features that could affect contaminant transport. All data is recorded on a
soil boring log under the supervision of a geologist registered in the state in which the site is located. The
samples are labeled, sealed, recorded on a chain-of-custody record, and chilled to 4°C in accordance with
the procedures outlined in the California State Water Resources Control Board's Leaking Underground
Fuel Tank Field Manual and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Site Characterization Manual. Sample preservation, handling, and transportation
procedures are.consistent with Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's quality assurance/quality control
procedures. The samples are transported in a chilled container to a state-certified, hazardous waste
testing laboratory.
Cuttings from the soil borings are stored in 55-gallon, Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved
drums, roll-off bins, or other appropriate containers, as approved by the client. Each container is labeled
with the number of the soil boring(s) from which the waste was derived, the date the waste was generated,
and other pertinent information. The drums are stored at the site of generation until sample laboratory
analytical results are obtained, at which time the soil is disposed of appropriately.
A soil boring log is completed for each soil boring and'includes the following minimum information:
· date of drilling;
· location of soil boring; '
· project name and location;
· soil sample names and depths;
· soil descriptions and classifications;~
· standard penet~'ation counts (rigs);
· photoionization detector readings;
· drilling equipment;
· soil boring diameter;
· sampling equipment;
REVISED 3~29~02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 4
· depth to groundwater in soil boring;
· name of person performing logging;
· name of supervising registered geologist; and
· name of drilling company (rigs and direct push).
SOIL BORING COMPLETION PROCEDURES
All soil borings are either propedy abandoned or completed as a well.
Abandonment
Each soil boring that is not completed as a well is backfilled with bentonite grout, neat cement, concrete,
or bentonite chips with a permeability less than that of the surrounding soils, and/or soil cuttings,
depending on local regulatory requirements or client instructions. Grout is placed by the tremie method.
'-Backfilling is performed carefully to avoid bridging. The type of backfill material is noted on the soil boring
log.
Well Installation
Wells are designed according to applicable state and local regulations as well as project needs. Details of
the well design and construction are recorded on the soil boring log and include the following minimum
information (in addition to the items noted above for soil borings):
· detailed drawing of well;
· type of well (groundwater, vadose, or air sparging);
· casing diameter and material;
· screen slot size;
· well depth and screen length (+1 foot);
· filter pack material, size, and placement depths;
· annular seal material and placement depths;
· ' surface seal design/construction;
· well location (_+5. feet); and
· well development procedures. "
G'roundwater monitoring wells are generally designed with 30 feet of slotted casing centered on the water
table, unless site conditions, project needs, or local regulations dictate a different well design. The sand
pack is placed at least two feet above the top of the screen, and at least 3 feet of Iow permeability seal
material is placed between the sand pack and th8 surface seal. The sand pack and Iow permeability seal
material are placed in the annular space from the bottom up using the tremie method. When drilling in
asphalt, a 24-inch round cut is made for the well pad. When drilling on concrete, a 2 x 2-foot square is
sawcut. The well cover is traffic-rated and has a white lid with a black triangle painted on it (3 inches per
side) or a black lid with a white triangle (3 inches per side). The completed well pad should is concrete of
matching color 'with the existing surface. The well number is labeled on the outside of the well box/pad
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 5
and the inside of the well box. The number on the outside is painted on with a stencil, stamped, or
attached to the well with a metal plate. The number on the inside is written on the well cap with waterproof
ink. The casing has a notch or indication on its north side indicating a unique measuring/surveying point.
Well development is conducted by simple pumping if bridging of the screen does not occur. If bridging
occurs, well surging is conducted for adequate well production. Well surging is created by the use of
surge blocks, bailers, or pumps, whichever method is most appropriate for the well use. Only formation
water is used for surging the well. Well development continues until non-turbid groundwater is produced
or turbidity stabilizes. All purged groundwater is held on site in covered 55-gallon DOT-approved drums or
other appropriate containers until water sample analytical results are received.
The elevation of the north side of the top of well casing (or other appropriate reference point from which
the depth to groundwater can be measured) is surveyed to an accuracy of +0.01 foot. All measurements
are reproduced to assure validity. Surveying is performed by a state-licensed surveyor if required by state
or local regulations. In the State of California, wells are surveyed in accordance with AB2886.
DATA REDUCTION
The data compiled from the soil borings is summarized and analyzed. A narrative summary of the soil
characteristics is also presented. The soil boring logs are checked for the following information:
· correlation of stratigraphic units among borings;
· identification of zones of potentially high hydraulic conductivity;
· identification of the confining layer;
· indication of unusual/unpredicted geologic features (fault zones, fracture traces, facies changes,
solution channels, buried stream deposits, cross-cutting structures, pinchout zones, etc.); and
· continuity of petrographic features such as sorting, grain-size distribution, cementation, etc.
Soil boring/well locations are plotted on a properly scaled map. If appropriate, soil stratigraphy of the site
is presented in a scaled cross section. Specific features that may impact contaminant migration, e.g.,
fault zones or impermeable layers, are discussed in narrative form and supplemented with graphical
presentations as deemed appropriate.
REVISED 3/29/02
AT'I'ACHMENT 4.
AIR SPARGE WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
AIR SPARGE WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC.
Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
Proposed
Mark R. Maq~rRee CHG, RG
Well No. SW-1 thru SW-4
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
-- WELL CASING
GROUNDWATER,,
SCREEN
BOTTOM WELL CAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862
Elevation of refrence point -404 feet
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top of gravel pack
type of gravel pack
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
depth of bottom of screen
depth of well
diameter of borehole
depth of borehole
2 fbq
Concrete
2 feet
Cement Grout
111 feet
Bentonite chips
2 inches
Schedua140 PVC
-115 fbg
122 fb~]
#3 Sand
125 fb,q
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
130 fbg
135 fb.g
8 5/8 inches
135 fbq
1400 Easton Drive, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
· -' Centra ronmenta
. Enviro t Consultant
~/e ~Ust'22, 2003
Mr. lim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfl'~ld California, 93301 .
SECOND QUARTER 2003 PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM cOMPANY, LLC, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
(CRWQCB-CVR CASE #5T15000836)
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC. (CSE) is pleased to present the following Second Quarter 2003
Progress Report for the above-referenced site. This work was required by the CRWQCB-CVR as a result
of the discovery of gasoline-containing soil and groundwater in and-around the area of the premium grade
unleaded gasoline product pipeline extending to the southeastern MPD at the site. A list of acronyms
used in this report is attached.
SITE LOCATION AND CONTACT PERSONS
The site is located at 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, Kern County, California (see Figure 1 - Site Location
Map). The site is located within the commercial district, which flanks 23rd and 24th streets. The BCSD
operates the Downtown Elementary School, 1,250 feet south of the site and San Joaquin Community
Hospital is located 1,500 feet northwest of the site. The site is at an elevation of 404 feet above MSL, and
the topography is relatively flat with a slight slope to the southwest. The site is located within the
northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, MDBM. The site is a newly
constructed retail fuel sales facility and mini mart, which opened during the first quarter of 1999.
The subject site is the location of double-walled USTs and product piping (see Figure 2 - Plot Plan).
The property owner contact is Mr. Tim Sullivan, President, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC,
1508 18th Street, Suite 222, Bakersfield, California, 93301, (661) 327-5008. The consultant contact is Mr.
Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, LLC, 1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California,
93309, (661) 325-4862. The regulatory agency contact is Mr. John Whiting, California Regional Water
Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region, 16~_85 "E" Street, Fresno, California, 93706, (559) 445-5504.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309
(661) 325-4862 - Fax (661) 325-5126, censenv@aol.com
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 22, 2003- Page 2
TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The site is located at an elevation of 404 feet above MSL, and the topography slopes slightly to the
southwest (see Figure 1). The subject site is located on the eastern flank of the San Joaquin Valley and
west of the southern Sierra Nevada.
The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed primarily of unconsolidated Pleistocene (1.6 million to
1~1,000 years ago) and Recent (11,000 years ago to the present) alluvial sediments. Beneath the al'luvial
sediments are older, predominantly lakebed deposits. These lie unconformably on Mio-Pliocene marine
sediments, which extend to a crystalline basement at 50,000 fbg (CDMG, 1965, Geologic Map of
California, Bakersfield Sheet).
At the subject site, surface deposits consist of Quaternary (recent) unconsolidated alluvium overlying
Quaternary (Pleistocene) nonmarine sediments. Geologic deposits in the study area include Pleistocene
alluvial sediments that form a homocline dipping gently to the southwest. The deposits are alluvium
consisting of indurated and dissected fan deposits (CDMG, 1965). Surface soils are classified by the Soils
Conservation Services as Kimberlina - Urban Land -' Cajon Complex and are characterized as 35 percent
Kimberlina fine, sandy Ioam with moderate permeability; 30 percent Urban land with impervious surfaces
and altered fills; and 20 percent Cajon loamy sand with high permeability. Subsurface soils observed at
nearby UST sites during the construction of water supply wells in the area are characterized as
fine-grained to coarse-grained sands with significant interVals of gravels, cobbles, and boulders, and minor
intervals of thinly bedded silts and clays through the depth of groundwater at 110 fbg.
The site is located in the southem portion of the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley is a
north-south-trending valley, 400 miles long by 50 miles wide, the southern portion of which is known as the
San Joaquin Valley. Surface water and groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley are derived predominantly
from the Sierra Nevada to the east and are transported by five major rivers, the closest to the site being
the Kern River. The subject site is located 1 mile south of the Kern River.
The depth to the regional, unconfined aquifer is 110 fbg, and the groundwater gradient is to the southwest,
away from the Kern River and toward the ancient Kern Lake bed (KCWA, 2000, 1996 Water Supply
Report, July 2000). Perched groundwater at depths as shallow as 20 fbg is known to be present flanking
the current course of the Kern River, but is not known to extend to the site (KCWA, 2000).
CWSC operates Well #7, approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the site, and Well #64-01, approximately
2,400 southeast of the site. Hydrocarbons have not been detected in water samples collected from
Well #7. However, MTBE has been detected in water samples collected from Well ~o4-01 and this well is
currently inactive. No additional active water supplY wells are located within 2,500 feet of the site.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 22, 2003- Page 3
PREVIOUS WORK
During April 1999, product reconciliation records indicated a potential release in the product piping
extending from the premium UST to the southeastern MPD. However, the leak detection alarm system
had not indicated a release. Subsequently, the MPD was shut off, and the inner flex product piping was
removed from the outer flex containment piping. A breach was observed in the inner flex product piping.
Therefore, Sullivan Petroleum filed a URR with the BFDESD. On April 30, 1999, the concrete above the
product piping was removed, and an exploratory trench was excavated, exposing the product piping.
A breach was also observed in' the outer flex containment piping.
On May 10, 1999, A.J. Environmental, Inc. advanced a hand-augered soil boring (SC-l) adjacent to the
location of the product piping breach (see Figure 2 for the soil boring location). TPH as gasoline, BTEX,
and MTBE were detected in the soil sample collected from soil boring SC-1 at 5 fbg. Based on the soil
sampling and laboratory analytical results, the BFDESD, in its letter dated June 21, 1999, required a
preliminary assessment of the vertical and lateral limits of the gasoline-containing soil andan assessment
of the potential for the release to impact groundwater resources. Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. (HFA)
prepared a work plan, dated July 8, 1999, to perform the requested work, which was subsequently
approved for implementation by the BFDESD in its letter dated July 21, 1999. HFA performed the ddlling
and sampling activities on August 17, 1999, and September 26, 1999.
Five soil bodngs (B-1 through B-5) were drilled during this phase of soil investigation (see Figure 2 for the
soil boring locations). On August 17, 1999, soil borings B-1 through B-3 were advanced to 20 fbg using
HFA's 10-ton direct-push sampling dg where refusal was experienced due to the presence of a layer of
cobbles. On September 26, 1999, soil boring B-1 was deepened to a depth of 48 fbg using a MobileTM
B-53 hollow-stem auger drill rig operated by Melton Drilling Company of Bakersfield, California. Drilling
refusal was experienced at 48 fbg due to encountering a second layer of larger diameter cobbles and
occasional boulders. On September 26, 1999, soil borings B-4 and' B-5 were also drilled at the site to 45
fbg where drilling refusal occurred.
Soil bodng B-1 wa~ drilled adjacent to the potential source area; soil bodngs B-2 and B-3 were drilled as
lateral-assessing soil borings located 15 feet to the east and west, respectively, of the potential source
area; and soil borings B-4 and B-5 were drilled as lateral-assessing soil borings advanced 25 feet to the
northeast and southwest, respectively, of the potential source area. Soils encountered dudng ddlling
included well-graded sands, interbedded with a layer of cobbles from 18.5 to 22.5 fbg and a second layer
of larger diameter cobbles and occasional boulders from 37.5 fbg to the maximum depth (48 fbg)
penetrated dudng the investigation. Groundwater was not encountered dudng drilling.
TPH as gasoline and benzene were detected in the soil samples collected from the vertical-assessing soil
bodng (B-l) to less than 22 fbg and in the soil samples collected from the lateral-assessing soil borings
(B-2 and B-3) less than 25 feet laterally from the potential source area. Minor MTBE concentrations were
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 22, 2003- Page 4
also detected in the soil samples collected from soil borings B-1 through B-5 to the total depth of the soil
borings.
The BFDESD, in its letter dated December 29, 1999, required the preparation of a CAP to determine the ·
appropriate remedial actions for gasoline-containing soils at the site. HFA prepared the requested CAP,
dated April 12, 2000, which was subsequently approved by the BFDESD for implementation. An RI/FS
was conducted to assess the feasibility and cost effectiveness of mitigation technologies. The results of
the RI/FS analysis were that in-situ vapor extraction is the technology that appears most suitable for this
site. A vapor extraction well field consisting of central, shallow-zone and deep-zone vapor extraction wells
(VW-ls and VW-ld, respectively) and three lateral, shallow-zone vapor extraction wells (VW-2 and VW-4)
was proposed (see Figure 2 for the vapor extraction well locations).
On February 1 through 3, 2001, HFA advanced soil boring VVV-ld to 125 fog, which was completed as a
combination groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well, and soil borings VVV-2 through VW-4 to 45 fog,
which were completed as vapor extraction wells. HFA performed the drilling and sampling of combination
groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well VVV-ld on February I through 3, 2001, using a limited-
access, dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig, operated by West Hazmat, Inc., of Sacramento,
Califomia. The I_AR was used because of the height of the canopy above the drill location, and the
dual-walled percussion, air rotary LAR was required due to the requirement to ddll through cobbles and
boulders. The three lateral vapor extraction wells (VW-2 through VW-4) were drilled with a conventional
dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig with a normal height mask. Soil samples were collected at 50,
65, 80, and 100 fog while drilling soil boring VW-ld, with groundwater encountered at 110 fbg. Soil
samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VW-2 through VW-4 due to their positioning in close
proximity to previoUs soil borings ddlled to similar depths.
Soils encountered during ddlling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in
diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a
PID to the total depth of soil boring VW-ld. Groundwater was encountered in the soil boring at 110 fog.
Therefore, the soil boring was drilled to 125 fog and completed as a monitoring well with slotted casing
from 75 to 125 fbg to serve as a combination groundwater monitoring and vapor extraction well.
Soil bodngs VVV-2 through VVV-4 were drilled to 45 fog and completed as vapor extraction wells with
slotted casing from 5 to 45 fog. Because the LAR was required to be used at another site, time was not
available to install central, shallow vapor extraction well VW-ls dudng this phase of investigation
TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 250 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fog,
decreasing to 5.7 mg/kg in the soil sample collected from 65 fog, and was not detected in the soil sample
collected at 80 fog. However, TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 2,300 mg/kg was in the
soil sample collected at 100 fog. Benzene was not detected in the soil samples collected at 50, 65, and
80 fbg. However, benzene was detected at a concentration of 9.3 rog/kg in the soil sample collected at
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 22, 2003- Page 5
100 fbg. MTBE was detected in the four soil samples reaching a maximum concentration of 87 mg/kg in
the soil sample collected at 100 fbg.
On March 14, 2001, a groundwater sample was' collected from monitoring well VW-ld. The depth to
groundwater in the well was measured to be 107.43 feet below the top of the well casing.
TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring
well VW-ld, with benzene at a concentration of 2,400 pg/I and MTBE at a concentration of 120,000 IJg/I.
TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well
VW-ld (see Table 1 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Organic Compounds 2).
In order to further delineate the lateral limits of-gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in soil and
groundwater, HFA's Preliminary Groundwater Assessment Report, dated June 25, 2001, recommended
that an expanded groundwater investigation be conducted and consist of the installation of three additional
groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-3) (see Figure 2 for the monitoring well locations). In
order to complete the vapor extraction .well field installation, HFA recommended that the previously
approved central, shallow-zone vapor extraction well (VW-ls) would be installed as well as central,
intermediate-zone vapor extraction well VW-li. The CRWQCB-CVR's case review letter, dated
July 23, 2001, approved implementation of the expanded groundwater assessment plan and VES work
plan.
From October 30, 2001 through November 2, 2001, HFA drilled five soil borings with three lateral soil
borings (MW-1 through MW-3) drilled to 125 fbg and completed as groundwater monitoring wells and the
two central soil borings (VVV-ls and VVV-li) drilled to 35 fbg and 75 fbg, respectively, and completed as
vapor extraction wells (see Figure 2 for the well locations). Soil samples were collected at a 10-foot
interval while ddlling soil bodngs MW-1 through MW-3, with groundwater encountered at 114 fbg.
Soil samples were not collected while drilling, soil borings VVV-ls and VW-li due to their positioning in
close proximity to previous soil borings ddlled to similar depths. Soils encountered during drilling included
well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and
soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a PID to the total depth of soil boring MW-l, but not in
the soil samples collected from soil borings MW-2 and MW-3. Groundwater was encountered in the soil
bodngs at 114 fbg. Therefore, soil borings MW-1 through MW-3 were drilled to 125 fbg and completed as
a monitoring well with 2-inch-diameter slotted PVC casing from 75 to 125 fbg~ Soil borings VW-ls and
VW-li were drilled to 35 and 75 fbg, respectively and installed as vapor extraction wells with 4-inch-
diameter slotted PVC casing from 5 to 35 fbg and 40 to 75 tbg, respectively.
Benzene was detected in only the soil sample collected from soil boring .MW-1 at 70 fbg, at a
concentration of 0.26 mg/kg. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in
the soil samples collected from soil bodngs MW-2 and MW-3. However, MTBE was detected in all 11 soil
samples collected from soil bodng MW-l, reaching a maximum concentration of 84 mg/kg in the soil
sample collected at 70 fbg, in 3 of the 11 soil samples collected from soil boring MW-2, reaching a
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 22, 2003- Page 6
maximum concentration of 0.17 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50fbg, and in 6 of the 11 soil -
samples collected from soil boring MW-3, reaching a maximum concentration of 0.32 mg/kg in the soil
sample collected at 70 fbg. TBA was detected in 4 of the 11 soil samples collected from boring MW-l,
reaching a maximum concentration of 10 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 10 fbg.
On November 26, 2001, groundwater samples were collected from monitoring well MW-1 through MW-3
and VVV-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.20 to 115.15 feet
below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the
southeast. Three inches of pSH was observed in well VVV-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE
were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching maximum
concentrations of 5,300,000 IJg/I, 72,000 pg/I, and 4,100,000 IJg/I in the groundwater sample collected
from well VW-ld. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected
from the four monitoring wells (see Table 1).
On March 28, 2002, groundwater samples were again collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through
MW-3 and VW-ld. ' The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.30 to
114.54 feet below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to
the southeast. Three inches of PSH was observed in well VW-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE
were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching maximum
concentrations of 1,400,000 pg/I, 11,000 pg/I, and 1,300,000 pg/I in the groundwater sample collected
from well VW-ld. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected
from the four monitoring wells (see Table 1). The groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells
MW-l, MW-2, and VW-ld were analyzed for physical and chemical characteristics. The results of the
laboratory analysis indicated that the groundwater beneath the site is potable (see Table 2 - Summary of
Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Physical and Chemical Characteristics).
On May 13, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR PTO #S-3267-2-0 was obtained for the installation and operation of a
thermal oxidation VES. During the third quarter of 2002, the remediation compound was been
constructed and the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW-li, VW-1 d, VW-2, VW-3, and VW-4 were
connected by 2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation
equipment compound. Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and
natural gas services. VES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. On October 10, 2002, the
SJVUAPCD-CR performed an inspection of the YES unit and observed that it was operating in
accordance with the conditions specified in the ATC.
The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 19, 2002, requested submission of a work plan to perform an
expanded groundwater assessment to assess the southeastern (downgradient) limits of gasoline-
containing groundwater at the site. CSE submitted an Expanded Groundwater Assessment Work Plan,
dated August 9, 2002, which proposed the installation of two off-site downgradient monitoring wells MW-4
and MW-5. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated September 3, 2002 approved implementation of the
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 22, 2003- Page 7
work plan with the condition that an additional off-site monitoring well (MW-6) be constructed to the south
of the site (see Figure 2 for the monitoring well locations).
From April 10 through 20, 2003, CSE installed off-site groundwater monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6
to a depth of 140 fbg completed with 40 feet of 2-inch diameter slotted PVC casing screened in the interval
ranging in depth from 100 to 140 fbg. Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded sands,
pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in diameter. Groundwater was encountered while drilling at a depth of
approximately 120 fbg. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were not detected in the soil samples collected
from soil borings MW-4 through MW-6 with the exception of TPH as gasoline and MTBE detected at
concentrations of 1.5 rog/kg and 1.6 rog/kg, respectively, in the soil samples collected at a depth of 120 Fog
in soil boring MVV-5 and MTBE at a concentration of 0.28 rog/kg in the soil sample collected at a depth of
20 fbg in soil boring MW-6.
On April 21, 2003 groundwater samples were collected from the three ~newly constructed wells.
TPH as gasoline was detected at concentrations of 14,000 pg/I, 47,000 IJg/I, and 17,000 IJgll in the
groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, respectively. Benzene was
detected at concentrations of 830 IJg/I, 3,500 pg/I, and 15 pg/I in the groundwater samples collected from
monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, respectively. MTBE was detected at concentrations of 31,000 IJg/I,
62,000 pg/I, and 54,000 pg/I in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through
MW-6, respectively. TBA, TAME, DIPE, ETBE, 1,2-DCA, and EDB were not detected in the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6 (see Table 1).
Based upon the laboratory analytical results, the CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 2, 2003, requested
submission of a work plan to perform an expanded groundwater assessment to assess the southeastern
(downgradient) limits of gasoline-containing groundwater at the site as well as the installation of a deeper
monitoring well to act as a "sentinel" between the petroleum release and CWSC Well No. 7. CSE's
Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan, dated July 11, 2003, proposed to drill three soil
borings (MW-7 through MW-9) to a depth of approximately 140 Fog and one soil boring (MW-5d) to'a depth
of approximately 170 fbg, completing the four soil borings as groundwater monitoring wells (see Figure 2
for the proposed monitoring well locations). Implementation is pending CRWQCB-CVR approval of the
work plan.
SECOND QUARTER 2003 GOUNDWATER MONITORING
On April 21, 2003 the depth to groundwater within the previously existing and newly constructed
monitoring wells was measured to an accuracy of +0.01 foot. At the same time the top of casing of the
newly installed monitoring wells were surveyed relative to the existing monitoring wells and a permanent
structure. Before sampling, the monitoring wells were checked for an immiscible layer and 0.13 feet of
PSH was observed in well VVV-ld. Monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-6 were then purged prior to
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 22, 2003- Page 8
extracting samples representative of the in-situ groundwater. During the purging process, the
conductivity, temperature, and pH of the groundwater were monitored and recorded on water sample logs.
Purging continued until a minimum of 2.0 casing volumes were produced and the measured parameters
had stabilized. Groundwater samples were collected after the wells had recharged to greater than 80
percent of their initial static water levels (see Attachment 1 for the Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling,
Sample Management Procedures and Attachment 2 for the Water Sample Logs).
Disposable TeflonTM bailers were used to sample the wells. All groundwater samples were placed in
chilled VOA vials containing hydrochloric acid as a preservative, labeled, sealed, and recorded on a chain-
of-custody record in accordanCe with .the procedures outlined in the CRVVQCB-CVR LUFT guidance
document. The groundwater samples contained no visible, suspended matter, and no headspace was
observed in any of the vials. The samples were then placed in a container filled with Blue-IceTM for cooling
purposes and transported to The Twining, Inc., a California State-certified laboratory, for analysis. QA/QC
sampling included a trip blank, instrument blanks, sPikes, and duplicates.
The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from approximately 112 to 114 feet below
the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the southeast,
with a horizontal gradient of 0.015 (1.5 feet per 100 feet) (see Figure 3 - Groundwater Elevation Contour
Map). The groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH as gasoline using EPA Method 8015 (M), BTEX
and MTBE using EPA Method 8020, and MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, TAME, 1,2-DCA, EDB, and full scan
of VOC's using EPA Method 8260. A PSH thickness of 0.13 feet was observed in well VVV-ld. TPH as
gasoline was detected at-concentrations of 59,000 pg/I, 2,900 pg/I, 7,600 pg/I, 14,000 pg/I, 47,000 pg/I,
and 17,000 pg/I in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-6,
respectively. Benzene was detected at concentrations of 2,500 pg/I, 6.7 pg/I, 12 IJg/I, 830 pg/I, 3,500 pg/I,
and 15 pg/I in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through MW~6,
respectively. MTBE was detected at concentrations of 59,000 pg/I, 920 pg/I, 10,000 pg/I, 31,000 pg/I,
62,000 pg/I, and 54,000 pg/I in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through
MW-6, respectively. TBA, TAME, DIPE, ETBE, 1,2-DCA, and EDB were not detected in the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-6. Acetone was detected at a concentration of
4,600 mg/I in the groundwater sample collected form monitoring well MW-1. Naphthalene was detected at
concentrations of 120 mg/I and 200 mg/I in the groundwater samPles collected from monitoring wells MW-
4 and MW-5 (see Figure 4 - TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater, Table 1,
and Attachment 3 for the Laboratory Report for Groundwater).
REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2002
CSE prepared an SJVUAPCD ATC permit application for the installation of a thermal/catalytic oxidation
system. On May. 13, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR PTO #S-3267-2-0 was obtained for the installation and
operation of a thermal oxidation VES. During the third quarter of 2002, the remediation compound was
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 22, 2003- Page 9
been constructed and the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW-li, VVV-ld, VW-2, VVV-3, and VVV-4
were connected by 2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation
equipment compound. Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and
natural gas services. VES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. The VES unit has operated 24
hours per day since start-up, with only short periods of inactivity for maintenance, draining Of the knockout
pot, and a few occurrences when the system has shut down, as well as the unit being shut down 72 hours
prior to the Second Quarter 2003 groundwater monitoring event and restarted after completion of the
sample collection. On October 10, 2002, the SJVUAPCD~CR performed an inspection of the VES unit
and observed that it was operating in accordance with the conditions specified in the ATC.
On June 25, 2003 vapor sampling of the influent stream of the oxidizer was conducted. TPH as gasoline
was detected in the influent vapor sample at a concentration of 3,800 ppmv. Benzene was detected in the
influent vapor sample at a concentration of 16 ppmv. MTBE was detected in the influent vapor sample at
a cOncentration of 480 ppmv (see Table 3 - Summary of Vapor Sample Analytical Results and Attachment
4 for the Laboratory Reports for Vapor).
Inlet vapor concentrations ranged from 3,800 and 10,125 ppmv during the second quarter of 2003
(see Figure 5- Influent and Effluent TPH Concentrations and Table 4 - Summary of VES Monitoring
Data). The inlet soil vapor flow rate has been maintained near the maximum stated in the ATC permit and
consistently ranges from 195 to 255 scfm. It is estimated that the mass of gasoline hydrocarbons
extracted from the subsurface since startup is approximately 95,185 pounds, which is equivalent to
approximately 14,873 gallons of gasoline (see Figure 6 - Cumulative Extraction Curve and Table 4).
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 22, 2003- Page 10
ACTIVITIES PLANNED FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2003
During the Third Quarter of 2003, the following activities will be completed:
· Conduct groundwater monitoring and sampling;
· Continue VES operations; and
· Conduct expanded off-site groundwater assessment, pending CRWQCB-CVR approval of work plan.
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC., trusts that you Will find this Second Quarter 2003 Progress Report to
your satisfaction. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
Mr. Mark Magargee at (661) 325-4862 or at e-mail address censenv@aol.com.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark R. Magargee, CHG;RG
Consulting Hydrogeologist
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC
MRM/clm:jlt
Enclosures:
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 Plot Plan
Figure 3 ; Groundwater Elevation Contour Map
Figure 4 - TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater
Figure 5 - Influent and Effluent TPH concentrations
Figure 6 - Cumulative Extraction Curve
Table1 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results
Compounds
Table2 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for
Chemical Characteristics
Table 3 - Summary of Vapor Sample Analytical Results
Table 4 - Summary of VES Monitoring Data
List of Acronyms
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
for Organic
Physical and
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, Sample Management Procedures
Water Sample Logs
Laboratory Report for Groundwater
Laboratory Report for Vapor
CC:
Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR
Mr. Howard H. Wines, III, BFDESD
~ . -~ ' "204' '- "~ -~" ".-- ~:~' ~, ~ ~' : '"~-'~
· ill ~:=~
' ' ' ' "' ' - .... ' ' 1~ " * ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ .
· o o~.-~.~lll I"-.,; ......
o '"" :t~11 ':h'.
:. o°~., .... ).?,.r~o ~'.1~ '~' ...... ,, '
· '- ' ~ ,.~ .......
' '. il ' Iu
.,.. , ~. ,. · ..~
~ ' ' ~ 'X "~* ~ ~ ''~ -.~' '"':'} '"".~
....... J ~ All//'~' "~ ;:
~~~:-/~ ~~,- ..
..~::..- , .~ ~'.
Sc / /' - ·
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
o o.~ ~ .~u ~ DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
f I I ~ t I * ~ ~ I" ~/ 2317"L" STREET
oema ~,o~ ~ ~ ~,a ~ 4.~o ~ 5'~ ~ I ~ BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
~ o.~ ~ mCOME~R FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATIOH MAP
u~s ~ 7.~ mN~ ~m~S O~O--GC~I CENTBL SIERB ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
CAR M,N, MART
. I-- TREATMENT
VW-= "~ /COMPOUND
[ ~ GAS(~LIN~ UST . MW-4
DISPENSE~ ISLANDS ~.: _20,000~:~ALLONsPLiT. CHAMBERED ~
GAS 3LIN E UST
MW-3 EXPLORATORY
LOCATION
APPROACH SIDEWALK .
23RD STREET
SCALE IN FEET
0 15 30
MW-6 MW-5
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL n FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
o TURBINE END · 2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: JUNE 4, 2003:jlt
CAR M^RT
WASH
/
~ ~ , m AS )LIN: UST 2 .16
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL ~ FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION ~OUR ~ GROUNDWATER FLOW BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
(FE~ ABOVE MSL)~ DIRE~ION FIGURE 3 - GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP
ANOMOLOUS DATA POI~ NOT USED FOR ~OURING DUE
TO PRESENCE OF FREE PRODU~ CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: JUNE 4, 2003:jlt
CAR MINI MART
I WASH ~ ,.~
z
J j ~ L~ATI
P SIDEWALK
~__~~~ o .. ~o
MW-6 MW-5
5. .
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
~ GROUNDWATER MONiTORiNG WELL ~ RLL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
o TURBINE END 2317"L" STREET
~/e/e TPH AS GASOUN~BENZEN~BE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
CONCE~RATIONS ~N GROUNDWATER (p~) FIGURE 4 - TPH AS GASOLIN~BENZEN~MTBE
~ ~BE CONCE~RATON CONTOUR (p~) ND NOT DETE~ED CONCENT~TION IN GROUNDWATER
/ CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: JUNE 4, 2003:jlt
FIGURE 5 - INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT TPH CONCENTRATIONS
100,000
10,000
1,000
~0
0.1
TPH I0~---~
'=~TPH
5 10 15
Cumulative Operating Weeks
2O
FIGURE 6 - CUMULATIVE EXTRACTION CURVE
100,000
80,000
6O, OO0
40,000
20,000
0 5 10 15
Cumulative Operating Weeks
20
TAI~LE 1.
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION~ BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
WELL iD AHD DATE GROUND- PROOUCT((~[) WATER TPHA$ ETHYL- TOTAL ETHYL- TOTAL $.2- IFLOUROME I$OPROPYL [SOPROPYLT NAPH- N-PROPYL TRIMETNYL TRJMETHYL OTHER
ELEVATION' BAMPt. ED WATE.~ THICKNESS ELEVATION GASOCINB IBENZ~NE TOCUENE BENZENE XYLENEB MTEE BENZENE TO~.UENE BENZENE XYLENES MT'BE T'BA DIPE E*I~E TAME DCA EDB THANE BENZENE OCUENE THALENE 8ENZ£NE BENZE[NE SENZENE VDCS REFi
TABLE 2.
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
WELL ID DEPTH TO FLOATING GROUND-
AND DATE GROUND- PRODUCT WATER
ELEVATION* SAMPLED WATER THICKNESS ELEVATION TDS EC pH CHLORIDE SULFATE NITRATE CALCIUM MAGNESIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE CARBONATE BICARBONATE TAN REF
(feet-MSL) (rog) (feet). (feet-MSL) (rog/I) (umhoUcm) (pHunits) (mg/I) (rog/I) (mg/I) (mg/I} (mg/I) (mg/I) (rog/I) (rog/I) (mg/1) (rog/I) (mg/I)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 160.1 9050 9040 300.0 6010 310.1 351.2 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES - SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
VW-ld
404.00 3-28-02 114.54 0.25 289.46 617 951 7.38 93 82 2.1 120 21 44 5,1 ND ND 350 0,8 A
MW-I 3-28-02 114.53 0.00 289.76 424 664 7.12 46 68 40.4 79 14 39 4.t ND ND 200 0.71 A
404.29 8-22-02 120,02 0.00 284.27 250 490 B.8 30 51 18 76 23 37 18 ND ND 140 ND B
MW-2 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 291,07 382 576 7.2'[i 31~ 74 46.3 66 12 39 3.8 ND ND 160 0.8 A
404.37 8-22-02 118,72 0.00 285.65 310 550 6.7 33 86 38 71 17 37 11 ND ND 140 ND B
MW-3 3-28-02 113,30 0.00 290.42 382 576 7.21 31'l 74 46.3 66 12, 39 3.8 ND ND 160 0.8 A_
403,72 8-22-02 118.84 0-00 284,88 310 480 6.7 251 59 38 97 25 37 16 ND ND 1401 ND B
REF = Reoert reference. JlA = Not ei3~liceble. ND = ,lot detected,
*Measured to the top of the well casing.
A = Holguin, Fahen & Associates, Inc.'s, report dated May 29, 2002.
B = Centrat Sierra Environmental, LLC'e report dated November 14, 2002.
TABLE 3.
SUMMARY OF VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED SAMPLE ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE
(ppmv) (ppmv)' (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) REFi
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020 N/A
DETECTION LIMIT 10 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 N/A
INFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-1 5,500 58 290 32 220 1,900 A
EFFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.31 A
INFLUENT 12-12-02 0212180-1 8,600 110 320i 44 260 2,200 A
INFLUENT 2-21-03 0302259-1 11,000 120 190' 100 290 1,400 B
'EFFLUENT 2-21-03 0302259-2 ND ND ND ND ND ND B
INFLUENT 6-25-03 0306310-1 3,800 16 150 34 201 480 C
REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected.
A = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's (CSE's), report dated March 3, 2003.
B = CSE's, report dated Apdl 13, 2003.
C = CSE's, current report.
TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF VES MONITORING DATA
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Outlet Inlet Dilution Field Reductior~ Cumulative Lbs. CumulativeCumulative
Date Calendar OperatingOperatingOperatingOperatingTemper-Flow MW-1 V-ls V-Ii V-Id V-2 V-3 V-4 Air TPH InField TPHEfl~ciency Total Lbs. Lbs. DestroyedLbs. G~.llor~s
Mor~itorad I Days Hours Hours Days Weeks atura ('FI (sc{m)(valve) (valve) (valve) (valve) (vaNe)(valve (valve(valve)(ppmv)Out (ppmvl (>90%) Extracted Extractedper event[;)estroyed E. xf~'acted
10-8-02 1 0 0 0 0 1,450 175 · · · PO · · · PO 4,500 10 100% 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0
10-10-022 15 15 1 0 1,470 205 · · · PO · · · PO 5,500 10 100% 187.01 187.01 267.22 267.22 29
10-15-027 62 77 3 0 1,455 235 · · · PO · · · PO 5,775 10 100% 1,106.681,293.68 1,329.61 1 ~596.83 202
10-15-0210 39 116 5 1 1,470 250 · · · PO · · · PO 5,920 10 t00% 837.91 2,131.59 912.14 2,508.96 333
10-22-0214 52 168 7 1 1,435 225 · · · PO · · · PO 6,235 10 100% 1,218.363,349.95 1.152.90 3,661.86 523
10-24-0216 25 193 6 1 1,460 230 · · · PO · · · PO 6.530 10 100% 555.23 3,905.18 593.45 4,255.31 610
10-30-02 22 75 268 11 2 1,450 2t5 · · · PO · · · PO 6,745 10 100% 1,783.26 5,688.44 1,719.11 5,974.42 889
11-1-02 24 26 294 12 2 1,465 235 · · · PO · · · PO 6,950 10 t00% 596.91 6,285,35 671.23 6,645.66 982
1t-6-02 29 63 357 15 2 1,440 205 · PO · O · · · PO 7,120 10 100% 1,628.947,914.29 1,453.55 8,099.21 1,237
11-8-02 31 29 356 16 2 1,485 240 · PO · O · · · PO 7,280 10 100% 670.11 8,584.39 800.97 8,900.19 1,341
11.12.02 35 52 438 18 3 1,460 265 · PO · O · · · PO 7,445 10 100% 1,438.3310,022.721,621.84 10,522.03 1,56,6
11-15-02 38 39 477 20 3 1,455 220 · PO · O · · · PO 7,535 10 t00% 1,216.1111,240.831,022.04 11,544.07 1,756
11-18-02 41 37 514 21 3 %490 215 · PO · O · · · PO 7,680 10 100% 971.00 12,211.83965.85 12,509.91 1,908
11-21-02 44 40 554 23 3 1,470 230 · PO · O · · · PO 7,825 10 100% 1,045.6113,257.451,138.13 13,648.04 2,071
'11-25-02 '48 53 607 25 4 1,435 205 · PO · O · · · PO 8,060 10 100% 1,510.0814,767,531,384.52 15.032,56 2,307
11.30-02 53 62 669 28 4 1,450 225 · PO · O · · · PO 8,175 10 100% 1,621.7816,389.311,803.05 16,835.61 2,561
12-3-02 56 0 669 28 4 1.465 240 · PO · O · · · PO 8,320 10 100% 0.00 16,389.310.00 16,835.61 2,561
12-8-02 59 39 708 30 4 1,440 210 · PO · O · · · PO 8,455 10 100% 1,232.8517.622.161,094.86 17,930.47 2,753
12-10-02 63 52 760 32 5 1,485 195 · PO · O · · · PO 8,525 10 100% 1.461,6719,083.831,366.77 19,297,24 2,982
12-12-02 65 28 788 33 5 1.460 235 · PO · O · · · PO 8,600 10 100% 736.88 19,820.71894.74 20,191.98 3,097
12-16-02 69 50 835 35 5 1,450 220 · PO · O · · · PO 8,475 10 100% 1,599.7421,420.451,474.00 21,665.98 3,347
12.19.02 72 41 879 37 5 1,465 215 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,135 10 100% 1,210.2022,530,651,133.76 22,799.74 3.536
12-24-02 77 64 943 39 6 1,455 235 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,955 10 100% 1.772.1024,402.751,891.55 24,691.29 3,813
12-26-02 79 27 970 40 6 1,465 255 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,550 10 100% 799.07 25,201.82821,78 25,513.07 3,938
12-30-02 53, 52 1,022 43 6 1,460 240 PO PO · O . · · · PO 7,230 10 100% 1,584.9026,765.721,426.35 26,939,42 4,185
1-4-03 88 61 1,083 45 6 1,465 235 PO PO · O · · · PO 7.465 10 100% 1,675.6828,462.411,691.69 28,631.11 4,447
1-7-03 91 40 1,123 47 7 1,470 245 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,615 10 100% 1.110.8929,573.29t,179.78 29,810.89 4,621
1-9-03 93 26 1,149 48 7 1,485 250 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,750 10 100% 767.93 30,341.22796.40 30,607.29 4,741
1-14-03 95 65 1.2t4 51 7 1.460 225 PO PO' · O · · · PO 8,025 10 100% 1,993.7332,334,951,855.56 32,462.85 5,052
1-17-03 101 38 1.252 52 7 1,455 230 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,450 10 100% 1.086.2333,421.191,167.70 33,630.56 5,222
1-20-03 104 40 1,292 54 8 1,490 215 PO PO · 0 · · · PO 8,795 10 100% 1,230.7134,651.901,195.96 34,528.52 5,414
1-23-03 107 42 1,334 56 8 1.470 235 PO PO · ' O · · · PO 9,230 10 100% 1,257.2935,909.191,440.56 36,267.08 5,611
1-27-03 1tl 49 1.353 58 8 1,435 205 PO PO · O · · · PO 9,630 10 100% 1,682.5937,591.781,529.69 37,766.77 5,574
1-30-03 114 39 1,422 59 8 1,450 240 PO PO · O · · · PO 9,875 10 100% 1.218.8738,810.651,461.70 39,258.47 6,064
2-3-03 118 52 1,474 61 9 1,465 255 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,080 10 100% 1,951.0340,761.682,196.68 41.455.14 6,369
2-7-03 122 49 1,523 63 9 1,440 220 PO PO · O · · · PO t0,345 10 100% 2,072.1242,833.791,763.65 43,218.79 6,693
2-10-03 125 38 1,561 65 9 1,465 215 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,530 10 100% 1,369.1444,202.941,360.57 44,579.36 6,907
2-14-03 129 51 1,612 67 10 1,460 230 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,645 10 100% 1,827.8946,030.821,974.79 46,554.15 7,192
2-17-03 132 37 1,649 69 10 1,450 205 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,870 10 100% 1,434.1347,464.951,30397 47,858.13 7.416
2-21-03 136 54 1,703 71 10 3,465 225 PO PO · O · · · PO 11,000 10 100% 1,904.9749,369.922,113.78 49,971.91 7,714
2-25-03 140 0 1,703 71 10 1.455 240 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,750 10 100% 0.00 49,369.920.00 49,971.91 7,71.4
2-28-03 143 39 1.742 73 10 1,465 210 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,685 10 100% 1,592.9350,962.851,384.00 51,355.90 7,953
3-4-03 147 50 1,792 75 11' 1,475 200 PO PO PO 0 · · · PO 10,650 10 100% 1,776.1352,738.99t,684.31 53,040.22 8,240
33.;71.0033150 42 1,834 76 11 1,4~,5 235 PO PO PO O · · · PO 10,580 10 '100% 1,416.2554,155.241,651.50 54,691.71 8,462
154 49 1,883 78 11 1,490 220 PO PO PO 0 · · · PO 10,535 t0 100% 1,928.6955,083.931,796.08 56,487.79 8,763
3-14-03 157 41 1,924 80 11 1,480 215 PO PO · 0 PO · · PO 10,475 10 100% 1,504.3557,555.291,460.31 57,948.10 8,998
3-18-03 161 50 1,974 82 12 1,485 235 PO PO · O PO · · PO 10,415 10 100% 1,782,5859,370.981,935.38 59,883.47 9,277
3-21-03 164 39 2,013 84 12 1,475 255 PO PO · O PO · · PO 10,380 10 100% 1,511.1460.552.111,632.57 61,516.04 9,513
3-24-03 167 40 2,053 86 12 1,480 245 PO PO · 0 · PO · PO 10,335 10 100% 1,676.1462,558.251,601.78 63,117.82 9,775
3-28-03 171 49 2,102 88 13 1,470 250 PO PO · 0 · PO · PO 10,290 10 100% 1,964.2064,522.451,993.50 65,111.32 10,082
TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF VES MONITORING DATA
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Cumulative: Cumulative Cumulative CumulativeOutJet inlet Dilution' Field Reduction Cumulative Lbs. CumulativeCumulative
13ate Calendar OperatingOperating- OperatingOperating Temper- Flew MW-1 V-ls V-li V-ld V-2 V-3 v-4 Air TPH In Field TPE Efficiency Total Lbs. Lbs. Des~oyed Lbs. Gallons
Monitored Days Hours Hours Days Weeks ,ature ('F) (scfm) (valve) (vaNe) (valve) (valve) (valve) (valve i (valve(valve)(ppmv)Out (ppmv (>90%) Ex,acted Extractedper eventDes~'oyed Exti'acted
3-31-03 174 41 2,143 89 13 1,465 240 PO PO · O · PO · PO 10,275 10 100% 1,669.7566,192.191,598.97 66,710.28 10,343
4-3-03 177 38 2,161 91 13 1,485 235 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 10,125 10 100% 1,483.5067,675.701,429.89 68,140.17 10,574
4-7-03 181 54 2,235 93 13 1,470 225 PO PO PO O ~ · PO PO 9,975 10 100% 2.034.0869,709.781,916.62 70,056,80 10,892
4-10-03 164 40 2,275 65 t4 1,455 220 PO PO PO O. · · PO PO 9,935 10 100% 1,421.2471,131.021,382.60 71,439.39 11,114
4-14-03 188 51 2,326 97 14 1,435 215 PO PO · O PO · · PO 9,855 10 100% 1.764.7172,895.731.708.86 73,148,25 11,390
4-17-03 191 37 2,363 96 14 1,450 230 PO PO · O PO · · PO 9,780 10 100% 1,241.1174,136.841,316.16 74,464.40 11,584
4-21-03 195 11 2,374 96 14 1,465 205 PO PO · O PO · · PO 6,655 10 100% 391.72 74,528.55344,29 74,808.70 11,645
4-24-03 168 42 2,416 101 14 1,440 225 PO PO · O · PO · PO 9,480 10 100% 1,316.0475,644.591.416.65 76.225.35 11,851
4-25-03 2O2 53 2,469 103 t5 1,485 240 PO PO · O · PO · PO 9,225 10 100% 1,789.6977,634.281,855,52 78.080.87 12,130
5-1o03 205 36 2,507 104 15 1,460 210 PO PO · O · PO · PO 8,950 10 100% 1,33t.6178.966.191,129.32 79,2t0.19 12,338
5-6-03 210 63 2,570 107 15 1,450 195 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 8,780 10 100% t,874.5480,840.731,705.49 50,915.68 12,631
5-9-03 213 41 2.611 109 16 1,465 235 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 8,445 10 100% 1,111.2881,952.011,286.52 82,202.19 12,605
5-13-03 217 49 2,660 111 16 1,455 220 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 8,110 10 100% 1,539.4983,491.501,382.23 83,584.42 13,046
5-16-03 220 40 2,700 113 16 1,465 215 PO PO PO O PO · · PO 7,825 10 t00% 1,129.8484,621.331,063.90 84,648.32 13,222
5-20-03 224 46 2,749 115 16 1,460 235 PO PO · O PO · · PO 7,255 10 100% 1,305.0685,926.391,320.61 85,968.94 13,426
5-23-03 227 4t 2,790 116 17 1,465 255 PO PO · O PO · · · PO 6,785 10 100% 1,106.6387,033.021,121.26 57,090.20 13,599
5-26-03 230 42 2,832 118 17 1,470 240 PO PO · O · PO · PO 6,235 10 100% 1,150.4188,183.43993.27 88,083.47 13,779
5-29-03 233 35 2,870 120 17 1,485 235 PO PO · O · PO · PO 5,890 10 100% 900,21 69,083.64831.1,~ 88,914.65 13,919
5-30-03 234 16 2,886 120 17 1,460 245 PO PO · O · PO · PO 5,450 10 100% 350.60 89,434.24337.56 89,252.21 13,974
6-3-03 238 51 2,937 122 t7 1.455 250 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 5,035 10 100% 1,078.0690,512.30~1,014.1690,266.37 14,143
6-6-03 240 29 2,966 124 16 1,490 225 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 4,855 10 100% 577.90 91,O90.20500.41 90,766.78 14,233
6-9-03 244 50 3,016 126 15 1,470 230 PO PO PO O · · Po Po 4,615 10 100% 864.68 91,954.88838,26 91,605.04 14,366
6-12-03 247 37 3.053 127 18 1,435 215 PO PO PO O PO · · PO 4,430 10 100% 621.75 92,576.62556.55 92.161.59 14,465
6-16-03 251 52 3,105 129 18 1,450 240 PO PO PO 0 PO · · PO 4,225 10 100% 784.07 93,360.70632.64 92,994.23 14,588
6-19-03 254 42 3,147 131 19 1,465 245 PO PO · O PO · · PO 4,075 10 100% 674.22 94,034,91662.10 93,656.33 14,693
6-23-03 258 50 3,197 133 19 1,460 230 Po Po · O ' · PO · PO 3.950 10 100% 790.27 94,825.18717.19 94,373.52 14,816
6-25-03 260 25 3,222 134 19 t,470 235 Po PO · O · PO · PO 3,800 t0 100% 359.56 95,184.75352.44 94,725.96 14,873
Open = O
C~osed = ·
Par~ally open = PO
AST
BFDESD
BCSD
BTEX
CAP
CDMG
CDWR
CRWQCB-CVR
CWSC
DCA
DIPE
DOT
EDB
EPA
ETBE
fbg
KCDEHS
KCWA
LAR
LLC
LUFT
MDBM
mg/kg
MPD
MSL
MTBE
pH
PID
PSH
PVC
QNQC
RI/FS
ROI
TAME
TBA
TPH
URR
USA
UST
VES
VOA
VOC
I~g/I
LIST OFACRONYMS
aboveground storage tank
Bakersfield Fire Department Environmental Services Division
Bakersfield Consolidated School District
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes
corrective action plan
California Division of Mines and Geology
California Department of Water Resources
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (5)
California Water Services Company
dichloroethane
diisopropyl ether
Department of Transportation
ethylene dibromide
Environmental Protection Agency
ethyl tertiary butyl ether
feet below grade
Kern County Department of Environmental Health Services
Kern County Water Agency
limited access rig
limited liability corporation
leaking underground fuel tank
Mount Diablo Base and Meridian
milligram per kilogram
multiple product dispenser
mean sea level
methyl tertiary butyl ether
hydrogen potential
photoionization detector
phase-separated hydrocarbons
polyvinyl chloride
quality assuranCe/quality control
remedial investigation/feasibility study
· radius of influence
tertiary amyl methyl ether
tertiary butyl alcohol
total petroleum hydrocarbons
Unauthorized Release Report
Underground Service Alert
underground storage tank
vapor extraction system
- volatile organic analysis
volatile organic compound
microgram per liter
ATTACHMENT 1.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, AND SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
NOTIFICATIONS
Prior to performing any field work, the client, regulatory agency, and property owner/manager with
jurisdiction over the subject site are notified. Notifications are made a minimum of 48 hours prior to
sampling, or as required by the client or regulator.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Prior to performing purge or no-purge sampling, water level measurements are collected according to the
following procedures:
· All wells are checked for phase-separated hydrocarbons with an acrylic bailer or oil/water interface
meter.
· To avoid cross contamination, water levels are measured starting with the historically "cleanest" wells
and proceeding to the historically "dirtiest."
Water levels within each well are measured to an accuracy of +0.01 foot using an electric measuring
device and are referenced to the surveyed datum (well cover or top of casing). When measuring to
top of casing, measurements are made to the notched (or otherwise marked) point on casing. If no
marking is visible, the measurement is made to the northem side of the casing.
· If possible, all wells are gauged within a short time interval on the same day to obtain accurate
measurements of the potentiometric surface.
· All measurements are reproduced to assure validity, and measuring equipment is decontaminated
between wells.
PHASE-SEPARATED HYDROCARBON
If phase-separated hydrocarbon (PSH) is encountered, its thickness in the well and the depth to the
interface between the PSH and the water in the well are measured using one or both of the following
methods:
· an electronic oil-water interface meter is used to measure the depths to the top of the PSH and to the
top of the water, and/or
· an electronic water level meter is used to measure the depth to the top of the water and a clear bailer
is used to measure the PSH thickness.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 2
The potentiometeric surface elevation is calculated as:
TOC - DTW + 0.74PT
Where TOC = top-of-casing elevation, DTW = depth to water (interface), and PT -- PSH thickness.
If PSH thickness is less than 0.02 foot, and the well is planned for purging prior to sample collection, the
well is purged and sampled in accordance with the sample collection section of this SOP. If the PSH
thickness is 0.02 foot or greater, the PSH is bailed from the well, and left onsite in a labeled and sealed
container. No sample is collected for analysis from wells having a PSH thickness of greater than 0.02
foot.
NO-PURGE SAMPLING
Well purging is not conducted prior to sampling if purging is not needed to meet technical and/or
regulatory project requirements. Following collection of water level measurements, wells that are not
purged are sampled according to the protocol in the sample collection section of this SOP.
PURGING PROCEDURES
Well purging is conducted prior to sampling if purging is needed to meet technical and/or' regulatory
project requirements. If purging is conducted, the monitoring wells are purged using a vacuum truck,
submersible electric pump, bailer, hand pump, or bladder pump, as appropriate for site conditions. A
surge block may be used if it becomes apparent during purging that the well screen has become bridged
with sediment or the produced groundwater is overly turbid.
During the purging process, groundwater is monitored for temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, odor,
and color.- These parameters are recorded on-a water sample log. Purging continues until all stagnant
water within the wells is replaced by flesh formation water, as indicated by removal of a minimum number
of well volumes and/or stabilization of the above-outlined parameters. Sampling is performed after the
well recharges to at least 80 percent of hydrostatic.
Purge water is stored on site in Department of Transportation-approved, 55-gallon drums until water
sample analytical results are received from the laboratory. If active groundwater treatment is occurring at
the site, purge water may be disposed of through the treatment system, or the purge water may be
transported off site as non-hazardous waste to an approved off-site disposal facility.
If permanent pumps are installed in the wells for groundwater remediation, purging may be accomplished
by operating the pumps for at least 24 hours before sampling to ensure adequate purging.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 3
SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES
Groundwater samples are collected as follows:
A l-liter TeflonTM bailer is lowered and partially submerged into the well water to collect a groundwater
sample.
If visible PSH is present in the sample bailer, PSH thickness is recorded on the field log, and no
sample is collected for laboratory analysis.
For volatile organic analyses, groundwater samples are collected in chilled, 40-milliliter, VOA vials
having Teflon~-Iined caps. Hydrochloric acid preservative is added to all vials by the laboratory to
lower sample pH to 2. Samples are held at 2 to 4°Cwhile in the field and in transit to the laboratory.
Other appropriate containers, preservatives, and holding protocols are used for non-volatile analyses.
VOA vials are filled completely so that no headspace or air bubbles are present within the vial. Care is
taken so that the vials are not overfilled and the preservative is not I°st.
Sample containers are immediately labeled and sealed after collection to prevent confusion. For VOA
vials, the label is placed to overlap the edge of the cap as a custody seal, unless a separate custody
seal is being used.
Samples are stored in a cooler while on site and in transport to the laboratory or office. The cooler
has sufficient ice to maintain appropriate temperature prior to collecting .samples. The VOA vials are
kept cool both prior to and after filling. Hot or warm containers are not used when volatile compounds
are the target analytes.
DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES
Decontamination of monitoring and sampling equipment is performed prior to all monitoring and sampling
activities. Decontamination procedures utilize a three-step process as described below:
The initial decontamination is performed using a non-phosphate soap, such as Simple Green or
Alconox, in tap water in a 5-gallon bucket. A soft-bristle bottlebrush is used to thoroughly clean the
inside and outside of the equipment.
· A second 5-gallon bucket of tap water is used as a first rinse.
· A third 5-gallon bucket of deionized water is used as a final rinse.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 4
· The brush is Used in the first bucket only;.it does not travel from bucket to bucket with the equipment.
This minimizes any transport of the contaminants that should stay in the first bucket.
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
At a minimum, a trip blank and a temperature blank are maintained for QA/QC purposes.
A trip blank sample (TRIP) is kept with any samples being analyzed for VOCs. This is a sample of
clean water that is supplied by the laboratory and is transported to and from the field and to the
laboratory with the field samples. The designation "QCTRIPBK" or "QCTB" is used for sample name
on the field label. Samplers record the date that the TRIP is taken to the field for sampling, not the
date that the TRIP was prepared by the laboratory on the chain-of-custody (COC). One TRIP per
cooler per day is collected.
Unused trip blank samples are stored at the consulting office in a cooler dedicated to this purpose.
The trip blank cooler is not refrigerated, but is kept in a clean location away from possible VOC
contaminants.
Temperature blank sample containers are supplied by the laboratory and kept in a cooler used to
transport samples. The temperature blank is placed in the cooler prior to going to the field and kept
there until the cooler is delivered to the laboratory.
COMPLETION OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY
· A separate COC is completed for each day of sampling. If samples are collected on separate days for
the same site, a separate COC is completed for each sampling day, and the COC is always kept with
the samples. If samples are shipped off site for laborator~ analysis, individual coolers with separate
COCs are sent for each day/cooler shipped.
All fields/spaces on the COC are filled out completely, and all persons having control of the samples
sign the COC to show transfer of sample control between individuals. At times when the field sampler
is not delivering samples directly to the laboratory, the samples may be turned over to a sample
manager for shipping. In this instance, the sample manager takes custody of the samples, and both
the sampler and sample manager sign and date the COC to clearly show custody transfer.
· · The COC is placed inside the cooler, and a custody seal is placed on the outside of the cooler prior to
shipping. Tl~e receiving laboratory indicates if the cooler was received with the custody seal intact.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 5
· If samples are sent to the laboratory Via UPS, FEDEX, etc., this is indicated on the COC, and the
sample manager indicates the date and time custody seal is placed on cooler for delivery to the
shipping agent (shipping agent does not sign the COC).
· For trip blanks, the COC indicates the date the TRIP was taken to the field for sampling, not the date
the TRIP was prepared by the laboratory, which may appear on the VOA label.
· New electronic deliverable format (EDF) requirements of California AB2886 mandate that COCs and
laboratory reports maintain consistent and unique names between sites (Global ID) and sample
location/well names (Field Point ID). This information must be consistent with the initial information
supplied to Geotracker, and for each subsequent quarterly sampling event.
SAMPLE HANDLING
Refrigerator Storage and Temperature Log
Samples may be stored in a refrigerator at the consulting office prior to transport to the laboratory.
Refrigerator storage is maintained under the following conditions:
· Refrigerators used for sample storage are dedicated for that usage only (no food or other
materials are stored in sample refrigerators).
· Refrigerators can be locked from the outside by a sample manager, and only the sample manager
has access to samples while in storage.
· Refrigerators are maintained at temperatures between 2 to 4'C, and are adjusted daily depending
on thermometer readings.
· Each refrigerator contains a dedicated, reliable thermometer. The thermometer is designed for
use in a refrigerator and is fixed/secured to the inside of the unit. The thermometer range is
specific for measuring temperatures in the 2 to 4'C range.
· A temperature log is kept on the outside of the refrigerator in a lightweight, three-ring binder, or
similar logbook. Temperatures are recorded daily or when the refrigerator is open for sample
management:
· Completed COCs are kept with the samples stored in the refrigerators. The COCs may be held
on a clipboard outside the refrigerator, or may be placed inside the cooler if the entire cooler is
placed inside the refrigerator.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 6
· If a cooler is placed in the refrigerator, the cooler lid remains open to insure that samples are
maintained at the refrigerator temperature.
Cooler Packing
The sample coolers are packed as directed by .the receiving laboratory. Standard procedures for cooler
packing include:
The cooler contains enough ice to maintain the required temperature of 2 to 4°C (roughly 20 percent
of the volume of the cooler). ·
· Water ice (not dry ice or ice packs) is used for shipping.
· The ice is placed above and below the samples in at least two sealable plastic bags. This requires
that the packing/divider material is removed and replaced.
The COC is placed in the cooler in a sealed plastic bag, and the cooler lid is taped closed to secure it
for transport and to minimize loss of temperature. A custody seal is placed vertically across the seam
of the cooler lid.
ATTACHMENT 2.
WATER SAMPLE LOGS
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum ~ompany, LLC DATE: April 21,2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-1
WELL DEPTH: 124.75'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 52° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor.
(e.g., floating la fer, odor, color)
QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: 3H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 4.0 48°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR q'URBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field (~
4-21-03 1220 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 1i4.03'
4-21-03 1230 1.5 74.7 7.35 766 brown none high
4-21-03 1240 2.5 72.2 7.14 761 brown none high
4-21-03 1250 3.5 73.1 6.94 733 brown none high
4-21-03 1250 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 114.57'
4-21-03 1300 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 114.03'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: . 2.0
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-cjallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): brown color, high turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-1
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 e, Fax (661) 325.-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: April 21,2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-2
WELL DEPTH: 123.96'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 52° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor.
(e.g., floating la ,er, odor, color)
QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 7.0 48°
I CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TiVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(IJmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field @
4-21-03 1420 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 112.64'
4-21-03 1430 2 71.7 6.95 1,070 tan/orange none / high
4-21-03 1440 4 71.2 6.85 1,115 tan/orange noneI high
4-21-03 1450 6 70.8 6.77 1,121 tan/orange none high
4-21-03 1450 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I 113.02'
4-21-03 1500 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:I 112.64'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 6 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 3.3
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): tan/orange color, high turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-2
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Ddve, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 ~ Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: April 21,2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-3
WELL DEPTH: 124.25'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 52° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor.
(e.g., floating la/er, odor, colo0
QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: pH STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 7.0 48°
I coNDuc-I
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(l~mhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field ~
4-21L03 1320 ~)EPTH TO .GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 113.39'
4-21-03 1330 1.5 70.9 6.43 537 tan none I high
4-21-03 1340 2.5 69.7 6.97 550 tan noneI high
4-21-03 1350 3.5 68.4 7.02 539 tan none high
I
I
4-21-03 1350 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 114.69'
4-21-03 1400 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 113.39'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.0
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): tan color, high turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-3
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 4, Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: April 21, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-4
WELL DEPTH: 131.05'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 52° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor.
(e.g., floating laver, odor, color)
QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: 3H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 7.0 48°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field @
4-21-03 1120 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 116.14'
4-21-03 1130 2.5 74.9 7.13 652 tan none high
4-21-03 1140 4.5 73.4 7.11 658 tan none high
4-21-03 1150 6.5 73.1 7.08 662 tan none high
4-21-03 1150 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 117.92'
4-21-03 1200 ::)EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 116.14'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 6.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.7
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): tan color, high turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-4
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Ddve, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: April 21,2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-5
WELL DEPTH: 134.32'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 52° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor.
(e.g., floating la,,~er, odor, color)
QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 7.0 48°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field @
4-21-03 1020 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 118.03'
4-21-03 1030 2.5 69.3 6.68 922 tan none high
4-21-03 1040 4.5 68.5 6.53 862 tan none high
4-21-03 1050 6.5 68.1 6.61 853 tan none high
4-21-03 1050 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 119.44'
4-21-03 1100 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 118.03'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 6.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.4
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): tan color, high turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-5
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC' DATE: April 21, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-6
WELL DEPTH: 130.21'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 52* and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor.
(e.g., floating la fer, odor, color)
QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METI~IOD: Teflon T~ bailer
ASSURANCE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATEDi Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4,0 3167/1.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 7.0 48°
CONDOC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. · pH TIVlTY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F') field @
4-21-03 920 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 115.55'
4-21-03 930 2 66.7 6.83 1,126 tan none high
4-21-03 940 4 68.0 6.57 1,081 tan none high
4-21-03I 950 6 67.7 6.39 1,097 tan none high
4-21-03 950 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I 116.82'
4-21-03 1000 ;)EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:I 115.55'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 6 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.5
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): tan color, high turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-6
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter '"
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Ddve, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sulli'~an Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: Apdl 21, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: VW-ld
WELL DEPTH: 125'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 4"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 52° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: 0.13' floating produCt
(e.g., floating la,, fer, odor, color),
QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINEs / BAILER ROPES- NEW OR CLEANED?: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QAJQC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: 3H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 7.0 48°
CoNOUC- " t
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(l~mhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field (~
4-21-03 1210 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 112.87'
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:{ ..
TOTAL DISCHARGE: CASING VOLUMES REMOVED:
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER:
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): 0.13' of free prodUct - no sample collected
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS:
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Ddve, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
ATTACHMENT 3.
LABORATORY REPORT FOR GROUNDWATER
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY · ENVIRONMFN FAL SEFIVlCES
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING - SAMPLING SSFIVIC[:S
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION & MATERIALS TEStINg.;
'PROJECT COVER SHEET
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
ATTENTION
CLIENT
· May 6, 2003
· 703-1970.1-7
INVOICE# 70301970
Report Amended August 13, 2003
Tim Sullivan
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Please find enclosed the analytical results of your samples. In accordance with your
instructions, the samples were analyzed for the components specified.
The Twining Laboratories is accredited by the State of California Department of
Health Services for the analysis of Drinking Water, Wastewater and Hazardous
Waste under Certificate No. 1371.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding the
analyses or results. Thank you for allowing us to serve your analytical needs.
Ut, elw
INVOICE- CLIENT
1C 'INVOICE TO CSE
Ronald J.
Director, Division of Chemistry
Rev. 2 09/02 (COVER)
CORPORATE MODESTO VISALIA BAKERSFIELD MONTEREY SACRAMENTO
(,650) 268-7(~1 (200) 342-2061 (550) 651-8280 (0(31) ~ · (831) 302-1056 (916) 381-':3477
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.4
: 04-21-03 at 1300 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 05-02-03
: 05-02-03 "
: MW-1
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 4 of 19
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(pg/L)
DLR I METHOD
(IJg/L)
Methyl teA-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene -
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- GasOline Range
17000 250 8021
2500 50 8021
7000 50 8021
1800 50 8021
120O0 50 8021
59000 5000 8015
SURROGATE*
RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 94.9
TPH-GAS 97.8
ACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOUNE): 5030
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit fo~ Reporting puq3oses
Rev. 3~ .5~J6 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.4
: 04-21-03 at 1300 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: C. Fammatre
: 04-30-03
: 04-30-03
: MW-1
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 11 of 19
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 100
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 200
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 100
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 200
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) -59000 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 200
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 2000
Surrogates Recovery %- Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 94.1 86-118
Toluene ds 99.5 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 101 86-115
ug,'L: mi~ograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected OLR: Detection Limit loc Reporting purposes
Rev. 4.~_O7/99(8260)
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC.
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
May 6, 2003
703-1970.4
04/21/03 at 1300 by Tim Gluskoter
04/23/03 at 1230 from Gary Wheeler
C. Fammatre
J. Ureno
MW-1
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 1~, of 19
EPA 8260
DATE ANALYZED '04130/03
UNIT&.~ug/L
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
I RESULTS
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB)
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-HEXANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK)
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
ALLYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE -
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROPRENE
cis-I,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4600
ND
ND
ND
ND
2200
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND No~e detected. PQL Practical quantitation limit.
Rev. ~O 10/97 (8260.ENV)
PQL I CONSTITUENT
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1000
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
cis-I,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
METHACRYLONITRILE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL IODIDE ·
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE BROMIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NAPHTHALENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
PROPIONITRILE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
Irans-I,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
trans-I,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-I-4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
SURROGATE: DIBROMOFLUOROMETHANE
SURROGATE: TOLUENE-D8
SURROGATE: BROMOFLUOROBENZENE
iRESULTS (ppb) I PQL (ppb)
ND 100
N D 100
ND 100
1800 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
N D 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
N D 100
N D 100
ND 100
ND 100
260 100
N D 100
NO 100
N D 1000
ND 100
N D 100
10000 100
ND 100
N D 1 O0
ND . 100
N D 100
ND 100
ND 100
N D 100
8800 100
94.1 66-118%
99.5 86-110%
101 86-115%
ppb Parts per billion. D Diluted out. * Exceeds QC limits,
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.6
: 04-21-03 at 1500 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 05~02~03
: 05-02-03
: MW-2
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 6 of 19
SAMPLE TYPE ' Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(pg/L)
I DLR [ METHOD
(IJg/L)
Methyl teK-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
1600 250 8021
6.7 0.5 8021
0.55 0.5 8021
ND O.5 8021
3.9 0.5 8021
2900 5000 8015
SURROGATE* % RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 90.5
JACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
TPH-GAS 93.5
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
ug/L: micrograms pa' Liter (parts per t~illion)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detedion Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 3 5/96 (BTF_XVVAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.6
: 04-21-03 at 1500 by Tim Gluskoter
·: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: C. Fammatre
: 04-30-03.
: 04-30-03
: MW-2
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 13 of 19
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2: DCA) ND 10
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 20
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 10
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 20
Methyl ted-butyl ether (MTBE) 920 10
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 20
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 200
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane '94.1 86-118
Toluene ds 98.1 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 102 86-115
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts p~ billion)
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~ 07/99 (8260
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC.
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
May 6, 2003
703-1970.6
04/21/03 at 1500 by Tim Gluskoter
04/23/03 at 1230 from Gary Wheeler
C. Fammatre
J. Ureno .
MV~-2
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE !.9 of 19
EPA 8260-
DATE ANALYZED .~4/30/03
U N',!~:ug/L
SAMPLE TYPE: Grob'~n'd Water
CONSTITUENT
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1.2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB)
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-HEXANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK)
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
ALLYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROPRENE
cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
RESULTS (ppb) I PQL
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND ,10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 100
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10 ·
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
I CONSTITUENT
cis-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
METHACRYLONITRILE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL IODIDE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE BROMIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NAPHTHALENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
PROPIONITRILE
,STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
trans-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-I-4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
SURROGATE: DIBROMOFLUOROMETHANE
SURROGATE: TOLUENE-D8
SURROGATE: BROMOFLUOROBENZENE
RESULTS Ippb) I PQL (ppb) ,
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
' ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 100
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
94.1 86-118%
98.1 86-110%
102 86-115%
ND None detected, PQL Practical quantitation limit, ppb Parts per bitlion, D Diluted out. ' Exceeds QC limits.
Rev. (3 10/97 (8260,ENV)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED'
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.5
: 04-21-03 at 1400 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 05-02-03
: 05-02-03
: MW-3
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 5 of 19
SAMPLE TYPE ' Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(pg/L)
I DLR I METHOD
(pg/L)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
8300 250 8021
12 0.5 8021
4.2 0.5 8021
2.9 0.5 8021
20 0.5 8021
7600 5000 8015
SURROGATE*
I%RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 89.8
TP H-GAS 88.1
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
ugA.: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. __3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REP~ · May 6, 2003
LA! '-ID · 703-1970.5
DATE SAMPL. · 04-21-03 at 1400 by Tim Gluskoter
DATE RECEIV!, · 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
CLIENT ' CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
ANALYZED BY
· C. Fammatre
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
· 04-30-03
· 04-30-03
CLIENT SAMPLE ID ' MW-3
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 12 of 19
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
U NITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 100
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 200
1.2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 100
Ethyl ted-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 200
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 10000 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 200
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 2000
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 94.4 86-118
Toluene d8 102 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 102 86-115
uoJL: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 4 07/g~ (8260)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.5
: 04-21-03 at 1400 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: C. Fammatre
:' 04-30-03
: 04-30-03
: MW-3
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 12 of 19
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 100
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 200
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 100
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 200
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 10000 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 200
Tert- ButTI alcohol (TBA) ND 2000
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 94.4 86-118
Toluene d8 102 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 102 86-115
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 4.~ 07/99 (8260)
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC.
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
May 6, 2003
703-1970.5
04/21/03 at 1400 by Tim Gluskoter
04/23/03 at 1230 from Gary Wheeler
C. Fammatre
J. Ureno
MW-3
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 18 of 19
EPA_.8260
DATE ANALYZED :.~4~,0/03
U t,','iTs'~I~/L
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground,Water
I RESULTS(ppb! I- pQL(ppb)
CONSTITUENT
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB)
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-HEXANONE
4-METHYL-2oPENTANONE (MIBK)
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
ALLYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROPRENE
cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
RESULTS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PQL I CONSTITUENT
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1000
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100,
100
100
100
cis-I,3-DICHLO,ROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
METHACRYLONITRILE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL IODIDE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE BROMIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NAPHTHALENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
PROPIONITRILE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
trans-I,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
trans-I,3-DiCHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1-4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
SURROGATE: DIBROMOFLUOROMETHANE
SURROGATE: TOLUENE-D8
SURROGATE: BROMOFLUOROBENZENE
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
N D 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
N D 100
N D 100
N D 100
ND 100
N D 100
ND 100
N D 100
ND 1000
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
N D 100
N D 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
200 100
94.4 86-118%
102 86-110%
102 86-115%
ND None detected. PQL Practical quantitation limit, ppb Parts per billion. D Diluted out. ' Exceeds QC lim!ts.
Rev. 0_. 10/97 (8260. ENV)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.3
: 04-21-03 at 1200 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 05-02-03
: 05-02-03
: MW-4
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 3 of 19
SAMPLE TYPE ' Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(pg/L)
DLR I METHOD
(pg/L)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
13000 250 8021
830 50 8021
150 50 8021
1.9 0.5 8021
720 50 8021
14000 5000 8015
SURROGATE*
I%RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 90.3
TPH-GAS 93.5
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
ugJL: mio'ograms per Liter (parts per hillion)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit f~ Reporting purposes
Rev. ~3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REPOR~ DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
METHOD:
May 6, 2003
703-1970.3
04-21-03 at 1200 by Tim Gluskoter
04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
C. Fammatre
04-30-03
04-30-03..
MW-4
EPA 8260
THE 'tWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 10 of 19
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 100
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 200
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 100
Ethyl reft-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 200
Methyl tert-bubjl ether (MTBE) 31000 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 200
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 2000
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 91.8 86-118
Toluene d8 98.6 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 100 86-115 ·
ug/L: mic.,'ograms per Liter (parts per billiOn) ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev, ~4 07/99 (8260)
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, I N'C .
CONSTITUENT
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
May 6, 2003
703-1970.3
04/21/03 at 1200 by Tim Gluskoter
04/23/03 at 1230 from Gary Wheeler
C. Fammatre
J. Ureno
MW-4
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-3'RICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDS)
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-HEXANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK)
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
ALLYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROPRENE
cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
RESULTS {ppbI I PQL J CONSTITUENT
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
N D 100
ND 100
ND 100
N D 100
ND 100
ND 100
N D 100
N D 100
ND 100
N D 100
N D 100
ND 1000
ND 100
ND 100
N D 100
N D 100
74O 100
ND 100
N D 100
ND 100
ND '100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 1,6 of 19
EPA.,~8260
DATE ANALYZED: 0:~,0/03
UNI,~L
SAMPLE TYPE'
cis-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
METHACRYLONITRILE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL IODIDE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE BROMIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NAPHTHALENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
poDtCHLOROBENZENE
PROPIONITRILE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
trans-I,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
trans-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1-4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
SURROGATE: DIBROMOFLUOROMETHANE
SURROGATE: TOLUENE-D8
SURROGATE: BROMOFLUOROBENZENE
ND ~' 100
: ' 100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1000
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
86-118%
86-110%
86-115%
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
120
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2OO
ND
ND
800
100
ND No~e detected. PQL Practical quantitation limit.
Rev. O 10/97 (8260.ENV)
ppb Parts per billion. D Diluted out,
· Exceeds QC limits.
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.2
: 04-21-03 at 1100 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 05-02-03
: 05-02-03
: MW-5
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 2 of 19
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(l~g/L)
{ DLR I METHOD
(IJg/L)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
17000 250 8021
3500 50 8021
8100 50 8021
1200 50 8021
6400 50 8021
47000 5000 8015
SURROGATE* I % RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 93.5
TPH-GAS 109
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
ug/L: micrograms per Liter.(parts per billion)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit fo~ Reporting purposes
Rev. ~3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED.
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.2
: 04-21-03 at 1100 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: C. Fammatre
: 04-30-03
: 04-30-03
: MW-5
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 9 of 19
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 100
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE)' ND 200
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 100
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 200
Methyl tert-butyl ether"(MTBE) 62000 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 200
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 2000
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 89.9 86-118
Toluene da 98.5 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 103 86-115
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 4~ 07/99 (8260)
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC.
CONSTITUENT
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,4.-TRICHLOROBENZEN E
1,2,-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB)
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-HEXANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK)
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
ALLYI; CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMODICHI,.OROMETHANE .
BROMOFORM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROPRENE
cis-1,2-DICH.LOROETHYLENE
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
ANALYZED BY
'REVIEWED BY
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
May 6, 2003
RESULTS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3600
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
(ppb) I
703-1970.2
04/21/03 at 1100 by Tim Gluskoter
04/23/03 at 1230 from Gary Wheeler
C. Fammatre
J. Ureno
MW-5
PQL I CONSTITUENT
cis-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
METHACRYLONITRILE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL IODIDE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE BROMIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NAPHTHALENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
PROPIONITRILE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
trans-I,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1-4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
SURROGATE: DIBROMOFLUOROMETHANE
SURROGATE: TOLUENE-D8
SURROGATE: BROMOFLUOROBENZENE
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1000
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE ~ of 19
EP&,8260-
DATE ANALYZED: 0~0/03
UNIT .S~g/L
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
I RESULTS (ppb/ I PQL (ppb)
N D 100
ND 100
ND 100
1100 100
N D 100
N D 100
N D 100
ND 100
N D 100
N D 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
200 100
N D 100
ND 100
ND 1000
ND 100
ND 100
13000 100
N D 100
N D 100
ND 100
N D 100
ND 100
N D 100
ND 100
5200 100
89.9 86-118%
98.5 86-110%
103 86-115%
ND None detected, pQL Practical quantitation limit, ppb Parts per billion. D Diluted out. ' Exceeds OC limits.
Rev, 0 10/97 (8260,ENV)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
;LIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.1
: 04-21-03 at 1000 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 05-02-03
: 05-02-03
: MW-6
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 1 of 19
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(pg/L)
I DLR I METHOD
(pg/L)
Methyl teA-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
17000 250 8021
15 0.5 8021
3.8 0.5 8021
3.8 50 8021
430 50 8021
17000 5000 8015
SURROGATE* ] % RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 89.5
TPH-GAS 89.3
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation {BTE.Y, & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
ug/L: micreg, rag~$ per Liter (pm'ts per billion)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
NO: None Oetected
OLR: Oetectien Limit for Reporting i;x~3oses
Rev.
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.1
: 04-21-03 at 1000 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: C. Fammatre
: 04-30-03
: 04-30-03
: MW-6
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 8 of 19
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE:-Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2 - DCA) ND 100
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) .... ND 200
~..
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 100
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND I' 200
Methyl ted-butyl ether (MTBE) 54000 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 200
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) · ND 2000
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 92.5 86-118
Toluene de 96.9 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 102 86-115
ug.q-: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) NO: None 0erected OLR: Detection Limit f~r Reporting pu~oses
Rev. ~4 07/99
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC.
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
May 6, 2003
703-1970.1
04/21/03 at 1000 by Tim Gluskoter
04/23/03 at 1230 from Gary Wheeler
C. Fammatre
J. Ureno
MW-6
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 1~4 of 19
EP,~, 826O
DATE ANALYZED: 04~30/03
UNITS'~g/L
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2.4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1.2.-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB)
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-HEXANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK)
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
ALLYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROPRENE
cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
RESULTS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
29O
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
(ppb/) PQL J CONSTITUENT
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1.00
100
1000
100
.100
100
100
100
lO0
100
100
100
100
lO0
lO0
lO0
lO0
100
cis-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHAN E
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
METHACRYLONITRILE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL IODIDE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE BROMIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NAPHTHALENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
PROPIONITRILE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
trans-1,2~DICHLOROETHYLENE
trans-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-I-4-DICHLORO-2~BUTENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE.
XYLENE
SURROGATE: DIBROMOFLUOROMETHANE
SURROGATE: TOLUENE-D8
SURROGATE: BROMOFLUOROBENZENE
RESULTS (ppb)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
510
92.5'
96.9'
102
PQL (ppb)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1000
100
lO0
100
100
lO0
100
100
100
100
100
100
86-118%
86-110%
86-115%
ND None detected, PQL Practical quantitation limit, ppb Paris per billion. D Diluted out. · Exceeds QC limits.
Rev. ~0 10/97 (8260.ENV)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.7
: 04-21-03 at 0700 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 05-02-03
: 05-02-03
: BLANK
THE T~VlNING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 7 of 19
SAMPLE TYPE ' Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(pg/L)
I DLR I METHOD
(l~g/L)
Methyl teK-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
ND 2.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
SURROGATE*
I%RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 93.3
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 3 5/96 (BTF..XWAT)
tWININ
~LABORAIORI£S, I .
FR£ $NO /~OD£ S T O /VISAUA/BAK£RSFI£LD /$~LIN~.S
Analyzed By: Eric Scott
Date of Extraction: 05102/03
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Run ID Number: TL08050203
8pike ID: WS.t000
EPA 8021 (MTBE/BTEX) & EPA 8015M (TPH.Gasoline)
LABORA TORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed by: J. Ureno
Date of Analysis: 05/07J03
Sample Matrix: Aqueous
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent
(ug/L) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (ug/L) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(ug/L) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(u~/L) (%)
MTBE./B~EXSurrogate'i4-Bromofl'~orobe~zene) 0.00 " 25,0 24.3 25.2 80% 120% 97.2 101 3.64
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 0.00 60 56.3 57.7 80% 120% 93.8 96.2 2.46
Benzene 0.00 20.0 19.6 19.6 80% 120% 98.0 98,0 0
Toluene 0.00 20.0 17.2 17.3 80% 120% 86.0 86.5 0.58
Ethylbcnzene 0.00 20.0 19.2 19.4 80% 120% ! 96.0 97.0 1.04
Xylcnes 0,00 60.0 57.5 58.2 80% 120% 95.8 97.0 1.21
TPH_Gasoiinc Sunogate (4.Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 25.0 27.2 27.8 80% 120% 109 111 2.18
TPH-Gasoline 0.00 1000 817 812 80% 120% 81.7 81.2 0.61
ND Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
(ug/L) micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
Method Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analy~es or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment,
the reagents or equpiment,
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water), The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements,
FRE,$NO/~ODCSTO/VIS~,U*./BAKrRSrI£LD/$AUN~,S
Analyzed By: Chris Fammatre
Date of Extraction: 04~30~2003
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch Number: TL07043003
Spike ID: ws 15o
EPA METHOD 8260
LABORA TORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: Joseph Ureno
Date of Analysis: 04~30~2003
Sample Matrix: Water
Constituent Method Biank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Accept'able Laboratory L~boratory"' Relative
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control SpikeI Control Spike Percent
(ug/L) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (ug/L) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(ug/L) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(u~/L) (%)
I,I-Dichlorocthcn'c 0.00 50.0 '~3.8 41.1 70% 130% 87.6 82.2 6.36
Benzene 0.00 50.0 43.6 42.2 70% 130% 87.2 84.4r 3.26
Trichloroethene 0.00 50.0 46.2 43.9 70% 130% 92.4 87.8 5.11
Toluene 0.00 50.0 46.1 45.2 70% 130% 92.2 90.4 1.97
Chlorobcnzene 0.00 50.0 44.6 43.3 70% 130% 89.2 86.6 2.96
Surrogate: Dibromofluormethane 0.00 50.0 46.9 46.5 86% 118% 93.8 93.0 0.857
Surrogatc:Toluenc..d8 0.00 50.0 48,9 49.0 86% 110% 97.8 98.0 0.204
Surrogate: Bromofluourobcnzcnc 0.00 50.0 51.3 51.8 86% 115% 103 104 0.970
EXPLANATIONS:
ND Non-Detectable; thc target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
ug/L micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
Method Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory
environment, the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whethe~
thc methodology is controlled andtb, c laborator7 is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
~nalyzed By: Chris Fammatre
)ate of Extraction: 0413012003
'wining Laboratories, Inc. Batch Number: TL07043003
ID: WS 150
Constituent Matrix Sample
Concentration
(u~/~)
EPA METHOD 8260
MA TRIX SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: Joseph Ureno
Date of Analysis: 0413012003
Sample Matrix: Water :Sample: TAP WATER
,l-Dichlorocthenc
enzene
richloroe~ene
olucnc
Matrix Spike Matrix Spike Matrix Spike
Concentration Recovery Duplicate
Level (ug/L) Recovery
(u~L) (u~.)
0.000 50.0 42.2 41,7
0,000 50.0 43,5 43,1
0.000 50.0 45.4 '45,0
0.000 50.0 . 44.9 44.5
hlorobeazene 0,000 50,0 43.6 43.9
~9/ogate: Dibromofluormethane 0.000 -50.0 46.6 45,7
arrogate: Toluene-d8 ' 0.000 50.0 49.6 49.3
n'rogate: Bromofluourobenzene 0.000 50.0 52.5 53.0
Acceptable Matrix Spike Matrix Spike
Percent Percent Duplicate Percent
Recovery Recovery Percent
Range (%) Recovery (%)
(%) (%)
Low High
84.4 83.4 1.19
87.0 86.2 0.924
90.8 90.0 0,885
89.8 89.0 0,895
87.2 87.8 0.686
93.2 91.4 1.95
99.2 98.6
105 106
~LPLANATIONS:
D
aL'ix Sample:
a~x Spike:
Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
Thc matrix sample is the sample chosen for use in the matrix spike analyses.
A matrix spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into the sample noted above. The matrix spike sample is
analyzed exactly like a regular sample, and its purpose is to determine whether thc sample matrix has a'measurable
effect on precise and accurate analytc detection and quantification,
T0:661 5~5 51P6 P.~
_=o-=?~ ~0:36 FROM:
IHING
CHAIN OF CUSTODY/ANALYSIS REQUEST Icocci
L-7_e~'o/q 70, l..
2527 FRESNO STREET · FRESNO. CA 93721 - (55g) 268-7021 FAX: (559) 268-0740
R,~.3ULT5 ~ I=~..D TO:
~:~ES~
[~ SI'ATE OEFT. OF HEALTH SERVICES (~ OTHER:
PROdECr:
P~oJ~c'r ~,:
PROJECT MANAGER;
SL- Soil/S~lid
ST - Storm Water
WW - Waste Water
{ "~ RUSH ANALYSTS, RESULTS NEEDED BY;
~.= - 3r~3~ OW - O~nd Water
~*-,~' - .glUing Water SF - Sud~ Water
SAMPLE iD DATE[ TIME TYPE
ATTACHMENT 4.
LABORATORY REPORT FOR VAPOR
ZALC O I_AF ORATORIE S, INI .
Analytical ~ Consulting Services
4309 Armour Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93308
(661) 395-0539
FAX (661) 395-3069
July 03, 2003
Mark Magargee
Central Sierra Envirmm~ental
1400 Easton Drive Bldg.E Ste 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309
TEL: (661) 325-4862
'FAX
RE: Air Samples
Dear Mark .Magargee:
Order No.: 0306310
Zalco Laboratories, Inc. received 1 sample on 6/25/2003 1:55:00 PM for the analyses presented
the following report.
We appreciate your business and look forward to serving you in the future. Please feel free to
call our office if you have any questions regarding these test results.
sincerely,
This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is ~ot responsible for report alteration or detachment.
ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC.
Analytical and Consulting Services
4309 Armour Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93308
CLIENT:
Lab Order:
Lab ID:
Client Sample ID:
Cen~alSierra Environmental
03O631O
0306310-001A
Influent-Sullivan Petroleum
Analyses Method Result
BTEX & MTBE
Benzene SWS020A 16
Ethylbenzene SWS020A 34
m,p-Xylene SW8020A 130
Methyl ted-butyl ether SWS020A 480
o-Xylene SWS020A 71
Toluene SW8020A 150
Xylenes, Total SW8020A 201
GASOLINE RANGE HYDROCARBONS
Gasoline Range Hydrocarbons SWS015M
38OO
Units
PPMV
PPMV
PPMV
PPMV
PPMV
PPMV
PPMV
PPMV
Date:
Project:
Collection Date:
Matrix:
DLR
(661) 395-0539
FAX (661) 395-3069
03-Jul-03
Air Samples
6/25/2003 12:30:00 PM
AIR
Date ,Analyzed Qual.
2.5 612512003
2.5 6/25/2003
2.5 6/25/2003
2.5 6/25/2003
2.5 6~25~2003
2.5 6/25/2003
6~25/2003
250 6/25/2003
Qnalifiers /
Abbreviations:
ND - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit
d o Analyte detected below quantitation limits
B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank
° - Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level
H - Hold Time Exceeded
S - Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits
R - RPD outside accepted recovery limits
E - Value above quantitation range
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting
Page I of 1
ZALCO LABORATORIES INC CHAIN OF CUSTODY, ID#I " *'- ~ : O I Page L
4309 Armour Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93308 (661) 395-0539 FAX (661) 395-3069 www. zalcolabs, com Zaico Lab #~ (r~ _
· 1103 East Clark Avenue, Suite A, Santa Maria, CA 93455 (805) 938-5341 Fax (805) 938-5892 Client PO #
REPORT INFO INVOICE INFO QUOTE ID:
Client:~_/"l.~'~ :,. Invoice To: Same as Client,,~ #
, , '. " COMMENTS:
Address:/~0 O: ~r~t~ Pl. ~'[~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2. I Address: OF Turnaround Time:
Ci~tatp, Zip:¢ '; / City, State Zip: Routine (10 working days) O
AEe.t,o":~;¢'~.:; ¢~ AEention: · ~N ")'X:~ Rush By. working days
Phone:. ..- % Phone: ~..
~a~' . ~ax: ~~ -- 8epo~ Drinkin~ Wator on Stato
, I ~'~.~ Form? Yes ~
o p,Oam-'e :.. Sample R j~'~i~_ ,-..k~ Send Copy to State of CA?
· Description Da~e Time Tyne' S ~ Yes ~
Z,: L.
Samples are discarded 30 days after results unless other *Sample Type Key: AQ-Aqueous; BS-Biosolid; DW-Drinking Water; GW-Ground Water; G-Gas;
arrangements are made. Hazardous samples will be returned to client LPG-Liquid Petroleum Gas; eL-Oil; O-Other; P-Petroleum; S-Soil/Solid;
or djsposed"of at the client's expense. ST-Storm Water; WW:Wastewater
Winston H. Hickox
Secretary
Envirtmmental
Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Office
lnternet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb5
1685 E Street, Fresno, California 93706-2020
Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910
Gray Davis
Governor
13 August 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. David Bird ....
S ullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L " STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You submitted Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan At The Sullivan Petroleum
Company (Work Plan) dated 5 August 2003 and prepared by C~ntral Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield
(CSE). The Work Plan proposes to install three shallow monitoring Wells and one deep off-site
monitoring well to determine the extent of gasoline constituents in groundwater at the above, referenced
site. We approve the monitoring well placements and construction proposed in the Work Plan. The
deep monitoring well should be constructed to allow use as a groundwater extraction point. We request
that you expedite monitoring well installation and submit a corrective action plan (CAP) addendum for
groundwater remediation. A summary of the Work Plan and our comments follow.
Work Plan Summarv
CSE proposes to install monitoring well MW-8 at the intersection of 22nd and "M" Streets,
approximately 600 feet sOutheast of 'the site 'to 'determine-the downgradient extent of impacted
groundwater. MW-7 and MW-8 will be installed at the intersection of 23rd and "M" Streets, and at the
intersection of 22'~d and "L" Streets, respectively, to determine the lateral extent of impacted
groundwater east and south of the site, respectively. MW-7 through MW-9 will be standard construction
two-inch diameter wells screened from approximately 100 to 140 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Depth-to-groundwater was measured at approximately 115 feet during the April 2003 monitoring event.
Deep monitoring well MW-5d will be installed near shallow well MW-5 at the southeast corner of 23rd
and "L" Streets to determine the vertical extent of impacted groundwater. MW-5 is approximately 150
feet d0wngradient of the release point. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), benzene, and
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) concentrations of 47,000, 3,500, and 62,000 micrograms per liter
(gg/L) were detected in MW-5 during the April 2003 monitoring event. MW-5d will be a standard-
construction two-inch well screened from 160 to 170 feet bgs.
California Environmental Protection Agency
~ Recycled Paper
Mr. David Bird - 2 -
13 August 2003
CSE will begin work 45 days after the Regional Board accepts the Work Plan and the necessary permits
have been secured. CSE will submit an Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report
approximately 60 days after fieldwork.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
.,
We conditionally approve the proposed shallow and deep monitoring well placements and construction.
Please submit a well installation report by 15 December 2003.
Since deep well MW-5d is to'be placed nearest the head of [he plume in an area o~f_h_~g~ p~oll_gutant _
conce~i~)ffs, we request ~h-aT igI~W-~T~ b-~ c~p-Teet~-d- ~ ~~-~i 'grOUndwater extraction point.
MW-5 should be constructed as a four-inch well with a subsurface piping connection.
The proposed wells should be included in the monitoring network. Quarterly groundwater monitoring
should be continued. Groundwater samples should be analyzed for TPHg, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA), di-isopropyl ether (DIPE), ethyl
tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME).
Our letter dated 2 July 2003 emphasized that your site is a serious threat to water resources. We
indicated that you will need tO design, install, and operate a groundwater remediation system to prevent
the spread of impacted groundwater and remove the high petroleum constituent concentrations by the
"pump and treat" method. We also requested that you submit a Con'ective Action Plan Addendum for
the remediation system by 2 September 2003.
Sections 2729 and 2729.1 for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the California Code of
Regulations requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Required Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Age~,cies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundw~er sa_mp.!le_anal.yticaLdata_(_v, arious-fi.le-names-)r-wed, l. head-hod-zont-at-and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP files).
V:\UGT~Project~q\JDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Downtown Chevron MW WP 8-03.doc
Mr. David Bird
- 3 - 13 August 2003
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
JOHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure:
CC:
Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals...
Mr. Howard Wines m, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosur~
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File: UST/Kern/Chevron Station/2317 L Street, Bakersfield/5T15000836
v :\UGT\Projects\JDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Downtown Chevron MW WP 8-03 .doc
August'5,2003
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Central
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California, 93301
lronmental
Consultant
EXPANDED oFF-SITE GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN AT THE
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
(CRWQCB-CVR CASE #5T15000836)
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
The following work plan outlines Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's (CSE's) proposed methodology for
conducting an expanded off-site groundwater assessment at the above-referenced site. CSE proposes to
advance three soil bOrings to an approximate depth of 140 fbg and one soil boring to an approximate
depth of 170 fbg; complete the soil borings as groundwater monitoring wells; and analyze groundwater
samples (including a travel blank) for TPH as gasoline, BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME
during this phase of site assessment. This work is being required by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (5) (CRWQCB-CVR), in its letter dated July 2, 2003, as a
result of the discovery of gasoline-containing soil and groundwater in and around the area of the premium
grade unleaded gasoline product pipeline extending to the southeastern MPD at the site (see Attachment
'1 for a copy of the CRWQCB-CVR CorrespOndence). A list of acronyms used in this work plan is
attached.
PuRPosE AND SCOPE: The purpose of this work plan is to outline the methodology to be followed
for the assessment of the diesel-containing groundwater at the subject site. The proposed scope of
work for this project includes the following major tasks:
· develop a work plan and worker health and safety plan for the expanded groundwater assessment
at the Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC, Downtown Chevron Service Station;
· advance four soil borings to an approximate depth of 140 fbg and one soil boring to an
approximate depth of 170 fbg, and complete them as groundwater monitoring wells;
· analyze groundwater samples (including a travel blank) for TPH as gasoline, BTEX, MTBE, TBA,.
DIPE, ETBE, and TAME; and
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309
(661) 3254862 ~ Fax (661) 325-5126, censenv@aol.com
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
' August 5. 2003 - Page. 2
· prepare an Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report 'documenting the drilling
activities, sample results, data analysis, conclusions, and recommendations for any further action
that may be necessary.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is located at 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, Kern County, California (see
Figure 1 - Site Location Map). The site is located within the commercial district, which flanks 23rd and
24th streets. The BCSD operates the Downtown Elementary School, 1,250 feet south of the site and
San Joaquin Community Hospital is located 1,500 feet northwest of the site. The site is at an
elevation of 404 feet above MSL, and the topography is relatively fiat with a slight slope to the
southwest The site is located within the northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 29 South,
Range 28 East, MDBM. The site is a newly constructed retail fuel sales facility and mini mart, which
opened during the first quarter of 1999. The subject site is the location of double-walled USTs and
product piping (see Figure 2 - Plot Plan).
The property owner contact is Mr. Tim Sullivan, President, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC,
1508 18th Street, Suite 222, Bakersfield, California, 93301, (661) 327-5008. The consultant contact is
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, LLC, 1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield,
California, 93309, (661) 325-4862. The regulatory agency contact is Mr. John Whiting, California
Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region, 1685 "E~ Street, Fresno, California,
93706, (559) 445-5504.
SITE MAPS: Site maps are included as Figures I and 2.
TopOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND HYDROGEOLOGY: The site is located at an elevation of 404 feet
above MSL, and the topography slopes slightly to the southwest (see .Figure 1). The subject site is
located on the eastern flank of the San Joaquin Valley and west of the southern Sierra Nevada.
'The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed primarily of unconsolidated Pleistocene (1.6
million to 11,000 years ago) and Recent (11,000 years ago to the present) alluvial sediments.
Beneath the alluvial sediments are older, predominantly lakebed deposits. These lie unconformably
on Mio-Pliocene marine sediments, which extend to a crystalline basement at 50,000 fbg (CDMG,
1965, Geologic Map of Califomia, Bakersfield Sheet).
At the subject site, surface deposits consist of Quaternary (recent) unconsolidated alluvium overlying
Quaternary (Pleistocene) nonmarine sediments. Geologic deposits in the study area include
Pleistocene alluvial sediments that form a homocline dipping gently to the southwest. The deposits
are alluvium consisting of indurated and dissected fan deposits (CDMG, 1965). Surface soils are
classified by the Soils Conservation Services as Kimberlina - Urban Land - Cajon Complex and are
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 5, 2003 - Page 3
characterized as 35 percent Kimberlina fine, sandy loam with moderate permeability; 30 percent
Urban land with impervious surfaces and altered fills; and 20 percent Cajon loamy sand with high
permeability. Subsurface soils observed at nearby UST sites during the construction of water supply
wells in the area are characterized as fine-grained to coarse-grained sands with signifiCant intervals of
gravels, cobbles, and boulders, and minor intervals of thinly bedded silts and clays through the depth
of groundwater at 110 fbg.
The site is located in the southern portion of the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley
is a north-south-trending valley, 400 miles long by 50 miles wide, the southern portion of which is
known as the San Joaquin Valley. Surface water and groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley are
dedved predominantly from the Sierra Nevada to the east and are transported by five major dvers, the
closest to the site being the' Kem River. The subject site is located 1 mile south of the Kem River.
The depth to the regional, unconfined aquifer is 110 fbg, and the groundwater gradient is to the
southwest, away from the Kern River and toward the ancient Kern Lake bed (KCWA, 2000, 1996
Water Supply Report, July 2000). Perched groundwater-at depths as shallow as 20 fbg is known to be
present flanking the current course of the Kem River, but is not known to extend to the site (KCWA,
2000).
CWSC operates Well #7, approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the site, and Well ~64-01,
approximately 2,400 southeast of the site. Hydrocarbons have not been detected in water samples
collected from Well #7. However, MTBE has been detected in water samples collected from
Well ~::)4-01 and this well is currently inactive. No additional active water supply wells are located
within 2,500 feet of the site.
TANK HISTORY: The site is retail fuel sales facility and mini mart, which opened during the first
quarter of 1999. The subject site is the location of double-walled USTs and product piping (see Figure
2).
IDENTIFICATION AND ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF MATERIAL RELEASED:
hydrocarbons: the quantity released is unknown.
Gasoline
PREVIOUS WORK: Dudng April 1999, product reconciliation records indicated a potential release in
the product piping extending from the premium UST to the southeastem MPD. However, the leak
detection alarm system had not indicated a release. Subsequently, the MPD was shut off, and the
inner flex product piping was removed from the outer flex containment piping. A breach was observed
in the inner flex product piping. Therefore, Sullivan Petroleum filed a URR with the BFDESD. On
April 30, 1999, the concrete above the product piping was removed, and an exploratory trench was
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 5, 2003 - Page 4
excavated, exposing the product piping. A breach was also observed in the outer flex containment
piping.
On May 10, 1999, A.J. Environmental, Inc. advanced a hand-augered soil bodng (SC-l) adjacent to
the location of the product piping breach (see. Figure 3 for the soil boring location). TPH as gasoline,
BTEX, and MTBE were detected in the soil sample collected from soil boring SC-1 at 5 fbg
(see Attachment 2 for a Summary of Previous Work). Based on the soil sampling and laboratory
analytical results, the BFDESD, in its letter dated June 21, 1999, required a preliminary assessment of
the vertical and lateral limits of the gasoline-containing soil and an assessment of the potential for the
release to impact groundwater resources. Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. (HFA) prepared a work
plan, dated July 8, 1999, to perform the requested work, which was subsequently approved for
implementation by the BFDESD in its letter dated July 21, 1999. HFA performed the drilling and.
sampling activities on August 17, 1999, and September 26, 1999.
Five soil borings (B-1 through B-5) were drilled during this phase of soil investigation (see Figure 3 for '
the soil bodng locations). On August 17, 1999, soil borings B-1 through B-3 were advanced to 20 fbg
using HFA's 10-ton direct-push sampling rig where refusal was experienced due to the presence of a
layer of cobbles. On September 26, 1999, soil boring B-1 was deepened to a depth of 48 fbg using a
MobileTM B-53 hollow-stem auger drill rig operated by Melton Drilling Company of Bakersfield,
California. Drilling refusal was experienced at 48 fbg due to encountering a second layer of larger
diameter cobbles and occasional boulders. On September 26, 1999, soil bodngs B-4 and B-5 were
also drilled at the site to 45 fbg where drilling refusal occurred.
Soil bodng B-1 was drilled adjacent to the potential source area; soil borings B-2 and B-3 were drilled
as lateral-assessing s0il borings located 15 feet to the east arid west, respectively, of the potential
source area; and soil borings B-4' and B,5 were ddlled as lateral-assessing soil borings advanced
25 feet to the northeast and southwest, respectively, of the potential source area. Soils encountered
during drilling included well-graded sands, interbedded with a layer of cobbles from 18.5 to 22.5 fbg
and a second layer of larger diameter cobbles and occasional boulders from 37.5 fbg to the maximum
depth (48 fi)g) penetrated during the investigation. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.
TPH as gasoline and benzene were detected in the soil samples collected from the vertical-assessing
soil boring (B-l) to less than 22 fi)g and in the soil samples collected from the lateral-assessing soil
bodngs (B-2 and B-3) less than 25 feet laterally from the potential source area. Minor MTBE
concentrations were also detected in the soil samples collected from soil bodngs B-1 through B-5 to
the total depth of the soil borings (see Attachment 2).
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 5, 2003 - Page 5
The BFDESD, in its letter dated December 29, 1999, required the preparation of a CAP to determine
the appropriate remedial actions for gasoline-containing soils at the site. HFA prepared the requested
CAP, dated April 12, 2000, which was subsequently approved by the BFDESD for implementation. An
RI/FS was conducted to assess the feasibility and cost effectiveness of mitigation technologies. The
results of the' RI/FS analysis were that in-situ vapor extraction is the technology that appears most
suitable for this site. A vapor extraction well field consisting of central, shallow-zone and deep-zone
vapor extraction wells (VW-ls and VW-ld, respectively) and three lateral, shallow-zone vapor
extraction wells (VVV-2 and VW-4) was proposed (see Figure 2 for the vapor extraction well locations).
On February 1 through 3, 2001, HFA advanced soil boring VW-ld to 125 fbg, which was completed as
a combination groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well, and soil borings VVV-2 through VVV-4 to
45 fbg, which were completed as vapor extraction wells. HFA performed the drilling and sampling of
combination groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well VW-ld on February 1 through 3, 2001,
using a limited-access, dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig, operated by West Hazmat, Inc., of
Sacramento, California. The I_AR was used because of the height of the canopy above the drill
location, and the dual-walled percussion, air rotary I_AR was required due to the requirement to ddll
through cobbles and boulders. The three lateral vapor extraction wells (VW-2 through VVV-4) were
drilled with a conventional 'dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig with a normal height mask.
Soil samples were collected at 50, 65, 80, and 100 fbg while drilling soil bOring VW-ld, with
groundwater encountered at 110 fbg. Soil samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VW-2
through VVV-4 due to their positioning in close proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar
depths.
Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to I foot in
diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using
a PlO to the total depth of soil boring VW-ld. Groundwater was encountered in the soil boring at
110 fbg. Therefore, the soil boring was drilled to 125 fbg and completed as a monitoring well with
slotted casing from 75 to 125 fbg to serve as a combination groundwater monitoring and vapor
extraction well. Soil borings VW-2 through VW-4 were drilled to 45 fbg and completed as vapor
extraction wells with slotted casing from 5 to 45 fbg. Because the I_AR was required to be used at
another site, time was not available to install central, shallow vapor extraction well VVV-ls during this
phase of investigation
TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 250 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg,
decreasing to 5.7 mg/kg in the soil sample collected from 65 fbg, and was not detected in the soil
sample collected at 80 fbg. However, TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of
2,300 mg/kg was in the soil sample collected at 100 fbg. Benzene was not' detected in the soil
samples collected at 50, 65, and 80 fbg. However, benzene was detected at a concentration of
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 5, 2003 - Page 6
9.3 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 100 fbg. MTBE was detected in the four soil samples
reaching a maximum concentration of 87 mg!kg in the soil sample collected at 100 fbg
(see Attachment 2).
On March 14, 2001, a groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well VVV-ld. The depth to
groundwater in the well was measured to be 107.43 feet below the top of the well casing.
TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE ~vere detected in the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well VW-ld, with benzene at a concentration of 2,400 pg/I and MTBE at a concentration of
120,000 pg/I. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected
from monitoring well VW-1 d (see Attachment 2).
In order to further delineate the lateral limits of gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in soil and
groundwater, HFA's Preliminanj Groundwater Assessment Report, dated June 25, 2~001,
recommended that an expanded groundwater investigation be conducted and consist of the
installation of three additional groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-3) (see Figure 3 for
the monitoring well locations). In order to complete the vapor extraction well field installation, HFA
recommended that the previously approved central, shallow-zone vapor extraction well (VW-ls) would
be installed as well as central, intermediate-zone vapor extraction well VW-li. The CRWQCB-CVR's
case review letter, dated July 23, 2001, approved implementation of the expanded groundwater
assessment plan and VES work plan.
From October 30, 2001 through November 2, 2001, HFA drilled five soil borings with three lateral soil
borings (MW-1 through MW-3) drilled to 125 fbg and completed as groundwater monitoring wells and
the two central soil borings (VW-ls and VW-li)'drilled to 35 fbg and 75 fbg, respectively, and
completed as vapor extraction wells (see Figure 3 for the well locations). Soil samples Were collected
at a 10-foot interval while drilling soil borings MW-1 through MW-3, with groundwater encountered at
114 fbg. Soil samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VW-ls and VW-li due to their
positioning in close proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths. Soils encountered
during drilling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to I foot in diameter. Field
screening of the soil cuttings and soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a PID to the total
depth of soil boring MW-l, but not in the soil samples collected from soil borings MW-2 and MW-3.
Groundwater was encountered in the soil bodngs at 114 fbg. Therefore, soil borings MW-1 through
MW-3 were drilled to 125 fbg and completed as a monitoring well with 2-inch-diameter slotted PVC
casing from 75 to 125 fbg. Soil bodngs VW-ls and VW-li were drilled to 35 and 75 fbg, respectively
and installed as vapor extraction wells with 4-inch-diameter slotted PVC casing from 5 to 35 fbg and
40 to 75 fbg, respectively.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 5, 2003 - Page 7
Benzene was detected in only the soil sample collected from soil boring .MW-1 at 70 fbg, at a
concentration of 0.26 rog/kg. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not
detected in the soil samples collected from soil borings MW-2 and MW-3. However, MTBE was
detected in all 11 soil samples collected from soil boring MW-l, reaching a maximum concentration of
84 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 70 fbg, in 3 of the 11 soil samples collected from soil boring
MW-2, reaching a maximum concentration of 0.17 rog/kg in the soil sample collected at 5Qfbg, and in
6 of the 11 soil samples collected from soil boring MW-3, reaching a maximum concentration of 0.32
mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 70 fbg. TBA was detected in 4 of the 11 soil samples collected
from boring MW-l, reaching a maximum concentration of 10 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 10
fbg (see Attachment 2).
On November 26, 2001, groundwater samples were collected from monitoring well MW-1 through
MW-3 and VW-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.20 to
115.15 feet below the top of the well casing and the direction of grOundwater flow was determined to
be to the southeast. Three inches of PSH was observed in well VW-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene,
and MTBE were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching
maximum concentrations of 5,300,000 Pg/I, 72,000 Fg/I, and 4,100,000 IJg/I in the groundwater
sample collected from well VW-ld. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the
groundwater sample COllected from the four monitoring wells (see Attachment 2).
On March 28, 2002, groundwater samples were again collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through
MW-3 and VW-1d. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.30 to
114.54 feet below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to
be to the southeast. Three inches of PSH was observed in well VW-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene,
and MTBE were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching
maximum concentrations of 1,400,000 pg/I, 11,000 pg/I, and 1,300,000 pg/I in the groundwater
sample collected from well VW-ld. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the
groundwater sample collected from the four monitoring wells. The groundwater samples collected
from monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and VW-ld were analyzed for physical and chemical
characteristics. The results of the laboratory analysis indicated that the groundwater beneath the site
is potable (see Attachment 2).
On May 13, 2.002, SJVUAPCD-SR PTO #S-3267-2-0 was obtained for the installation and operation of
a thermal oxidation VES. Dudng the third quarter of 2002, the remediation compound was been
constructed and the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW-li, VW-ld, VW-2, VW-3, and VW-4
were connected by 2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the
remediation equipment compound. Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to
electrical and natural gas services. VES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. On October
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 5, 2003 - Page 8
10, 2002, the SJVUAPCD-CR performed an inspection of the VES unit and observed that it was
operating in accordance with the conditions specified in the ATC.
The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 19, 2002, requested submission of a Work plan to perform
an expanded groundwater assessment to assess the southeastem (downgradient) limits of gasoline-
containing groundwater at the site. CSE submitted an Expanded Groundwater Assessment Work
Plan, dated August 9, 2002, which proposed the installation of two off-site downgradient monitoring
wells MW-4 and MW-5. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated September 3, 2002 approved
implementation of the work plan with the condition that an additional off-site monitoring well (MW-6)
be constructed to the south of the site.
From Apdl 10 through 20, 2003, CSE installed off-site groundwater monitoring wells MW-4 through
MW-6 to a depth of 140 fbg completed with 40 feet of 2-inch diameter slotted PVC casing screened in
the interval ranging in depth from 100 to 140 fbg. Soils encountered during drilling included
well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in diameter. Groundwater was enCOuntered
while ddlling at .a depth of approximately 120 fog. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were not
detected in the soil samples collected from soil bodngs MW-4 through MW-6 with the exception of
TPH as gasoline and MTBE detected at concentrations of 1.5 mg/kg and 1.6 mg/kg, respectively, in
the soil samples collected at a depth of 120 fog in soil bodng MW-5 and MTBE at a concentration of
0.28 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at a depth of 20 fog in soil boring MW-6 (see Attachment 2).
On April 25, 2003 the depth to groundwater within the previously existing and newly constructed
monitoring wells was measured and groundwater samples were collected. The depth to groundwater
in the wells was measured to range from approximately 112 to 114 'feet below the top of the well
casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the southeast, with a horizontal
gradient of 0.015. Three inches of PSH was observed in well VW-ld. TPH as gasoline was detected
at concentrations of 59,000 IJg/I, 2,900 pg/I, 7,600 pg/I, 14,000 IJg/I, 14,000 pg/I, 47,000 pg/I, and
14,000 pg/I were detected in the groundwater samples collected from wells MW-l, MW-2, MW-3,
MW-4, MW-5, and MW-6 respectively. Benzene was detected at concentrations of 2,500 IJg/I,
6.7 IJg/I, 12 pg/I, 830 IJg/I, 3,500 IJg/I, and 15 pg/I were detected in the groundwater samples collected
from wells MW-l, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, .and. MW-6, respectively. MTBE was detected at
concentrations of 59,000vpg/I, 920 IJg/I, 10,000 IJg/I, 31,000 pg/I, 62,000 IJg/I, and 54,000 pg/I were
detected in the groundwater samples collected from wells MW-l, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, and
MW-6 respectively. TBA, TAME, DIPE, ETBE, 1,2-DCA, and EDB were not detected in the
groundwater sample collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-6 (see Attachment 2).
Based upon the laboratory 'analytical results,, the CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 2, 2003,
requested submission of a work plan to perform an expanded groundwater assessment to assess the
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 5, 2003 - Page 9
southeastern (downgradient) limits of gasoline-containing groundwater at the site as well as the
installation of a deeper monitoring well to act as a "sentinel" between the petroleum release and
CWSC Well No. 7. The following presents CSE's Expanded Off-Site 'Groundwater Assessment Work
Plan.
STRATEGY AND PROCEDURES FOR ASSESSING THE VERTICAL AND LATERAL EXTENT OF
GASOLINE-CONTAINING GROUNDWATER: The intent of this work plan is to present the
methodologies to be used to assess the southeastern (downgradient) extent of gasoline-containing
groundwater at the site. CSE proposes to accomplish this by drilling four soil borings (MW-7 through
MW-9) to a depth of approximately 140 fbg and one soil boring (MW-5d) to a depth of approximately
170 fbg, completing the four soil borings as groundwater monitoring wells, and analyzing groundwater
samples (including a travel blank) for TPH as gasoline, BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, TAME,
EDB, and 1,2-DCA (see Figure 2 for the proposed monitoring well locations).
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED: Prior to any intrusive methods being conducted at
the site, Underground Service Alert of Northern California will be utilized to map out the underground
structures. Based on the clearances obtained, CSE will site the monitoring wells in safe locations.
A total of four soil borings will be advanced during this expanded site characterization. The soil
borings will be drilled with a conventional dual-walled pemussionl air rotary drill dg, with soil borings
MW-7 through MW-9 drilled to an approximate depth of 140 fbg and soil boring MW-5d drilled to an
approximate depth of 170 fbg. Dudng the"ddlling process,, soil cuttings, will be field-screened for
VOCs using a PID calibrated to 100 ppmv isobutylene, and observations will be made for the visual
identification of any soil staining or discoloration. Soils will be classified according to the Unified Soil
Classification System by an experienced environmental geologist under the direct supervision of a
state of California registered geologist, arid all data will be recorded on logs of exploratory borings.
Because these soil borings are being drilled outside of the known area of gasoline-containing soils,
soil sampling will be performed at an interval of 40 feet for the purpose of characterizing the drill
cuttings for appropriate disposition (see Attachment 3 for the Soil Boring and Well Construction
Procedures).
The groundwater monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with the State of California
Department of Water Resources Water Well Standards, Bulletins 74-81 and 74-90, as well as
CRWQCB-CVR regulations. Wells MW-7 through MW-9 will be drilled to a depth of approximately
140 fbg and installed with 40 feet of slotted PVC casing and well MW-5d will be drilled to a depth of
approximately 170 fbg and installed with 10 feet of slotted PVC casing. The monitoring wells will be
constructed with 2-inch-diameter PVC casing and the appropriate filter pack sand installed from the
bottom of the soil boring to 5 feet above the slotted interval. Blank PVC casing packed in neat cement
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 5, 2003 - Page 10
grout will extend from the surface downward to the 3-fOot bentonite seal placed above the filter pack.
Locking, water-tight well covers will be set in concrete to protect and secure the wellheads (see
AttaChment 4 for the Monitoring Well Construction Details).
Following installation, the monitoring wells will be developed by surging and bailing to remove drilling
residues and to produce Iow-turbidity groundwaterl Prior to sampling, the proposed monitoring wells
will be purged with a pre-cleaned bailer in order to remove stagnant water in the wells.
During purging, key parameters including temperature, conductivity, and pH will be measured with a
portable electronic meter and recorded. The purging will continue until the monitored parameters
stabilize (usually after 3 casing volumes of groundwater have been removed). Following purging,
groundwater samples will be collected with pre-cleaned TeflonTM bailers and discharged with a non-
aerating, bottom-emptying device into sterilized glass containers, capped with TeflonTM septa, labeled,
and chilled in an ice chest for transport. The proposed monitoring wells will be surveyed relative to a
permanent structure, and from a designated point on the northern side of the top of the well casing,
the groundwater level will be measured in the wells to an accuracy of ±0.01 foot. The groundwater
samples will be analyzed for TpH as gasoline using EPA Method 8015 (M); and BTEX, MTBE, TBA,
DIPE, E'rBE, and TAME using EPA Method 8260 (see Attachment 5 for the Groundwater Monitoring,
Sampling, Sample Management Procedures).
Upon completion of the drilling and sampling activities and receipt of the laboratory report, CSE will
provide an Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report that details the field activities, sample
collection, analytical results, data analysis, conclusions, and CSE's recommendation for further
assessment or remedial activities, if required. Certified laboratory reports and chain-of-custody
documents will be included.
10.~EQUIPMENT DECONYANIlNATION PROCEDURES: Sampling equipment will be decontaminated
using a non-phosphate, soap and water wash; a tap water rinse; and a distilled, deionized water rinse.
The drill auger will be decontaminated in a similar manner between sampling locations.
11.
WASTE DISPOSAL PROCEDURES: All drill cuttings, sample spoils, and development and purge
water that exhibit discoloration, odors, or elevated field-screening readings will be segregated and
containerized in 55-gallon, Department of Transportation-approved drums pending laboratory
analytical results. If contaminated, the waste will be hauled off site to an appropriate licensed facility
for disposal or recycling. If uncontaminated, soil cuttings will be spread as grading fill at the site.
12. EMERGENCY OR INTERIM CLEANUP: Not applicable.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
August 5, 2003 - Page 11
13. WORK SCHEDULE: Work will begin within 45 days subsequent to the acceptance of this work plan
by the CRWQCB-CVR- issuance of monitoring well permits by the KCDEHS, and issuance of right-
of-way encroachment permits by the City of Bakersfield Department of Public Works.
The CRWQCB-CVR will be notified at least 48 hours before any on-site work commences.
An Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report will be submitted to the CRWQCB-CVR
approximately 60 days after commencement of the work.
14. SITE SAFETY PLAN: A Worker health and safety plan developed by CSE for UST site investigations
outlines the procedures for conducting all on-site work. Site-specific information is provided on the
cover page of the worker health and safety Plan (see Attachment 6 for the Worker Health and Safety
Plan).
All work will be conducted in accordance with all regulatory requirements as defined by the State Water
Resources Control Board's LUFT Field Manual and the CRWQCB-CVR guidance documents.
Central Sierra Environmental,. LLC., trusts that you will find this Expanded Off-Site Groundwater
Assessment Work Plan to your satisfaction: If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact Mr. Mark R. Magargee at (661) 325-4862 or at e-mail address censenv@aol.com.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark--R. Magargee
Consulting Hydrogeologist
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC.
MRM:jlt
Enclosures:
Figure 1
Figure 2
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
- Site Location Map
- Site Vicinity Map
- CRWQCB-CVR Correspondence
- Summary of Previous Work
- Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
- Monitoring Well Construction Details
- Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, Sample Management Procedures
- 'Worker Health and Safety Plan
CC:
Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR
Mr. Howard Wines, BFDESD
26 ' , ct
fl[
miI
SITE
Il c,::
LEGEND
' SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
' DOWNTOWN cHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
, 24th STREET
ESTIMATED LIMIT OF
GASOLINE CONTAINING
GROUNDWATER
MW-9
22nd STREET
MW-7 .
I--
UJ
UJ
LEGEND
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
REVISION DATE: AUGUST 5, 2003:jlt
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 - SITE VICINITY MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
AST
BFDESD
BCSD
BTF_X
CAP
CDMG
CDWR
CRWQCB-CVR
CWSC
DCA
DIPE
DOT
EDB
EPA
ETBE
rog
KCDEHS
KCWA
I_AR
LLC
LUF-~
MDBM
rog/kg
MPD
MSL
MTBE
pH
PID
PSH
PVC
QA/QC
RIIFS
ROI
TAME
TBA
TPH
URR
USA
UST
VES
VOA
VOC
LIST OF ACRONYMS
aboveground storage tank
Bakersfield Fire Department Environmental Services Division
Bakersfield Consolidated School District
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes
corrective action plan
California Division of Mines and GeOlogy
California Department of Water Resources
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Cenlrai Valley Region. (5)
California Water Services Company
dichloroethane
diisopropyl ether
Department of Transportation
ethylene dibromide
Environmental Protection Agency
ethyl tertiary butyl ether
feet below grade
Kem County Department of Environmental Health Services
Kern County Water Agency
limited access rig
limited liability corporation
leaking underground fuel tank
Mount Diablo Base and Meridian
milligram per kilogram
multiple product dispenser
mean sea level
methyl tertiary butyl ether
hydrogen potential
photoionization detector
phase-separated hydrocarbons
polyvinyl chlodde
quality assurance/quality control
remedial investigation/feasibility study
radius of influence
tertiary amyl methyl ether
tertiary butyl alcohol
total petroleum hydrocarbons
Unauthorized Release Report
Underground Service Alert
underground storage tank
vapor exlraction system
volatile organic analysis
volatile organic compound
microgram per liter
ATTACHMENT 1.
CRWQCB-CVR CORRESPONDENCE
Winston H. Hickox
Secretary ].r
Environmental
Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
- Fresno Branch Office
Interact Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb5
168~ E Street. Fresno, California 93706-2020
Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910
Gray Davis
Governor
2 July 2003
Regionai Board Case No. 5T 15000836
Mr. David Bird
Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DO}VNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You submitted Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report for the Sullivan Petrolet,n Company (Report)
dated 6 June 2003 and prepared by Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). The Report
documents off-site monitoring well installations and a groundwater monitoring event performed during
April 2003. Petroleum product floating on groundwater and high concentrations of gasoline
constituents, including the fuel oxygenate met. hyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) continue to be detected
beneath the source area this quarter. Initial sampling of new monitoring wells confirms that high
concentrations of MTBE have. migrated off-site. A relatively large.plume of gasoline constituents,
including MTBE, is migrating off-site toward a municipal well and may be the source of impact to
another municipal well. The extent of impacted groundwater is undefined. We consider this release to
be a serious threat to water resources in the area. We request that you expedite additional investigation
to determine the lateral and vertical'extent of impacted groundwater and submit a corrective action plan
(CAP) addendum for groundwater remediation. Quarterly groundwater monitoring should continue.
Analysis of groundwater samples fc~r volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was not performed during the
First Quarter 2003 event and was not included in the Report. This analysis should be included during
the next quarterly monitoring event. We request that you submit a monitoring and SVE system
performance report for the Second Quarter 2003. A summary of the Report and our comments follow.
A summary of the project is included in our letter dated. 19 July 2002.
Report Summary
Monitoring Well Installations
CSE drilled borings MW-4 through MW-6 to a depth of 140feet below ground surface (bgs) from 10 to
20 April 2003. The borings were converted into standard-construction 2-inch diameter monitoring wells
screened from 100 to 140 feet bgs. MW-4 was installed in the sidewalk along the east side of L Street,
east of the site. MW-5 was installed in the sidewalk at the southeast comer of the intersection of L and
' 23rd Streets, southeast of the release point. MW-6 was installed in the sidewalk along the south side of
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
Mr. David Bird - 2 - 2 July 2003
23~a Street, south of the site. Groundwater was encountered in the borings at approximately 120 feet bgs.
Soil samples were collected from the borings at 20-foot intervals beginning at 20 feet bgs. CSE logged
soils encountered as well-graded sand and well-graded sand and gravel. The samples were analyzed for
total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) by EPA Method 8015M and benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), and MTBE by EPA Method 8021. MTBE detections were confirmed by
EPA Method 8260. TPH-g and MTBE were detected at 1.5 and 1.6 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg),
respectively, from NDV-5 at 120 feet bgs. MTBE was also detected at 0.028 mg/kg in MW-6 at 20 feet
bgs.
Groundwater Monitoring
CSE conducted groundwater monitoring on 21 April 2003. Depth-to-groundwater ranged from 112.64
to I 18.03 feet below the tops of the casings (below TOC). Groundwater samples were collected from
monitoring wells MW-1 through lVl%V-6. Floating gasoline 0.13 feet thick was measured in soil vapor
extraction (SVE) well VW-ld. Groundwater flow direction was calculated to be toward the southeast
with a water table slope of 0.015 feet per foot.
Groundwater elevation rose approximately 0.5 feet since the 24 February 2003 monitoring event.
Floating gasoline thickness in VW-Id, groundwater flow direction, and water table slope across the
monitoring network were consistent with the 24 February 2003 monitoring event.
Groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, BTEX and MTBE by EPA
Method 802 i. The samples were also analyzed for the fuel oxygenates MTBE, tertiary butyl alcohol
(TBA), di-isopropyl ether (DIPE), ethyl tertiary butyl ethel (ETBE), and tertiary amyl methyl ether
(TAME), and the lead scavengers 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), and 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) by EPA
Method 8260.
TPH-g was detected at 59,000, 2,900, and 7,600 micrograms per liter (gg/L), respectively, in the samples
collected from on-site monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3. Benzene was detected at 2,500, 6.7,
and 12 gg/L, respectively, in these samples. TPH-g concentrations detected in MW-1 remained within
one order of magnitude compared to the 24 February 2003 event, increased by two orders of magnitude
in MW-2, and remained within one order of magnitude in MW-3.
MTBE was detected in on-site monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3 at 17,000, 1,600, and 8,300 lag/L,
respectively, by EpA Method 8021 and was confirmed at 59,000, 920, and 10,000 la~,w'L, respectively by
EPA Method 8260. MTBE concentrations detected by EPA Method 8260 in MW-1 remained within
one order of magnitude of concentrations detected during the last monitoring event and increased by one
order of magnitude in MW-2 and MWr3.
High TPH-g, BTEX, and MTBE-concentrations were also detected in off-site monitoring wells MW-4
through MW-6. TPH-g was detected at 14,000, 47,000, and 17,000 gg/L, respe, ctively in MW-4 through
MW-6. Benzene was detected at 830, 3,500, and 15 p.g/L, respectively, in these wells. MTBE was
detected at 13,000, 13,000, and 17,000 I. tg/L, respectively, and was confirmed at 31,000, 62,000, and
54,000 gown,_., respectively, by EPA Method 8260. Other analytes were not detected by EPA Method
8260.
V:kUGT~Project.~kJDW_file.q~003 Con'~pondence\City of Bakersfield C~s~\Dwntwn Chevron MWinstalI-GW 6-03.doc
Mr. David Bird
- 3 - 2 July 2003
CSE concludes that Regional Board Staff will probably require additional assessment of the
downgradient extent of impacted groundwater.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
Gasoline range petroleum constituents, including MTBE, have migrated through the permeable
sandy/gravelly site soils to groundwater beneath the southern portion of the site. Floating petroleum
product has been observed in SVE well YW-ld during the last seven monitoring events. Product
thickness and TPH-g, BTEX, and MTBE concentrations detected in groundwater beneath the release
have not Significantly attenuated since monitoring began on 14 March 2001. TPH-g concentrations
ranging from 14,000 to 47,000 gg/L and MTBE concentrations ranging from 31,000 to 62,000 gg/L
were detected' in new downgradient monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6 during the 21 April 2003
monitoring event.. This new data indicates that a relatively large plume of impacted groundwater extends
southeast at least 200 feet from the release point with a width of at least 250 feet. The lateral extent and
constituent concentration distributions are unknown.
We need to emphasize that the release from your site presents a serious threat to water resources in the.._
area. MTBE in groundwater may be transported greater distances away from the release point than other
gasoline constituents due to its relatively high solubility and low adsorption to soils. The impacted
groundwater appears to be flowing in a highly transmissive aquifer toward California Water Service
Company (CWS) Well Station #7, approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the site. The Bakersfield Fire
Department, Environmental Services Division (BFD) has informed CWS of the release. CWS has
monitored Well Station #7 for volatile compounds quarterly since October 2000. Gasoline constituents,
including MTBE, have not been detected. MTBE has been detected at up to 12.3 gg/L in samples
collected from CWS well station #64-01, approximately 2,400 feet sOutheast of the site. Well 64-01 has
been placed on inactive status. The release from your site is a potential source for this impact.
It will be necessary for you to design, install, and operate a groundwater remediation system to prevent
· the spread of impacted groundwater and remove the high petroleum'constituent concentrations ("pump
and treat" method). You are to submit an addendum for groundwater remediation to the CAP dated
12 April 2000 by 2 September 2003.
We also request that you continue to investigate the extent of impacted groundwater. You are to submit
a work plan proposing additional shallow downgradient monitoring well installations and at least one
deep "sentinel" well to assess the vertical extent of impaCted groundwater in a location between the
release and Well Station #7. The CAP addendum should provide as complete design specifications as
possible for groundwater remediation even though the full extent of impacted groundwater has not been
determined. Your consultant will need to determine the feasibility for access to off-site groundwater
extraction and treatment facilities. Please submit the work plan by 2 September 2003.
We previously requested that you expedite soil remediation to-minimize the migration and spread of
gasoline'and MTBE in groundwater and potential impacts to Well Station #7. CSE has operated an SVE
soil remediation system on-site since 8 October 2002. Based on data included in the First Quarter 2003,
Progress Report For The Sullivan Petroleum Company dated 13 April 2003, and prepared by CSE, the
system influent vapor concentrations and hydrocarbon removal rates have remained relatively high
V:\UGTh°rojecmUDW_file.nL2003 Correspondence\City of Bakerxfield Cnnes~Dwntwn Chevron MWinstall-GW 6-03.doc
Mr. David Bird - 4 -
2 July 2003
through 31 March 2003. We requested that remediation continue in thermal mode by our letter dated 30
April 2003.
Quarterly groundwater monitoring should be continued. Groundwater samples should be analyzed for
TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, and BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME by EPA Method
8260. By our letter dated 11 December 2003 we requested that you include analysis for the VOCs
usually reported in a full EPA Method 8260 analysis (usually 63 to 67 compounds) one additional
quarter. You did not conduct this analysis during the First Quarter 2003 monitoring event. We reiterate
our request that you conduct this analysis.
By our letter dated 11 December 2002, we indicated that analysis for 1,2-DCA and EDB could be
discontinued. We note that these analytes were reported for the First Quarter 2003 monitoring event.
We have no objection to reporting 1,2-DCA and EDB provided that this does not result in increased
COSt.
Please submit a groundwater monitoring report for the First Quarter 2003 monitoring event by 4 August
2003. ·
Sections 2729 and 2729. i for Underground Storage Tanks were_added to the California Code of
RegulatiOns requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Req~dred Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Agencies explaining how to obtain' information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the requiredelectronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP files).
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
JOHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals...
CC:
Mr. Howard Wines 111, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o encl'os~e
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure""
File: us'r/Kern/Chevron Station/2317 L Street, Bakersfi¢ld/5T15000836
V:\UGT~rojectsUDW_file.q~003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Case..s\Dwntwn Chevron MWinsmlI-GW 6-03.doc
ATTACHMENT 2.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORK
& CAR MINI IVlART
WASH
~0~-- ~ ~-2 DISPENSER ISLANDS O
CANOPY ~ 65- --5.7~/14 ~ 20 - -- ~D/O.]9
_ ~/o~2 DiSPENSE~ ISLANDS
APPROACH ~ - -~/t~ ALK 35 ~-- ND~.6
45 --~ ND/O.~5.2
23RD STREET
~- ~D~D~28 SG~E IN FEET
40- ~D~D~D
~- ~D~D~D MW-5
LEGEND SULLIVAN P~ROLEUM COMPLY. LLC
DOWNTOWN
CH~RON
SERVICE
STATION
GR~NDWA~R M~ORING ~ D FILL END
SOIL BORING o ~INE END 2317 "L' STRE~
ND NOT D~CTED BAKERSFIE~, CALIFORNIA
~1~1~ CONCE~~ IN SO~L (~¢) FIGURE 3 - TPH AS GASOLIN~BE~EN~M~E
DE~ OF ~P~ (~) CONCENT~TIONS IN SOIL
ND NOT D~ECTED CENT~L SlER~ ENVIRONMENT~, ~C
REV1SION DATE: JUNE 4, 2003:jtt
~ CAR MINI MART
WASH uJ
_J
N
APPROACH '
23RD STREE~ . ~
' ' .~~ ~200 0 0~SC~ I" FEET
GROUNDWATER ~VELS M~SURED APRIL 21, 2003 .
~GEND SULLIV~ P~ROLEUM COMPANY. LLC
GROUNDWA~ M~ffORING ~LL ~ FI~ END DOW~OWN CH~RON SERVICE STATION
o TU~INE END 2317 'L' STRE~
GROUNDWATER
~A~ON ~OUR GROUNDWATER ~OW* B~ERSFIE~. C~IFORNIA
(FE~ ~VE ~L) DIRE~ION FIGURE 4 - GROUNDWATER EL~ATION
GR~NDWA~R EL~ATION CO,OUR MAP
~MOLOUS DATA ~1~ ~T USED FOR ~OURING DUE
TO PRES~CE OF FREE PRODUCT CEN~ SlER~ E~IRONMENT~. ~C
REVISION DATE: JUNE 4. 2003:jlt
CAR MINI MART
WASH
SC~
0 15
MW~
2003
~GEND SULLIVAN P~ROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
~OUNDWATER M~ffORING ~L D FI~ END DOWNTO~ CH~RON SERVICE STATION
~ ~INE END 2317 'L' STRE~
G~OUN~N~E BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA
~NCE~T~ONS ~N GROUNDWA~R ~) FIGURE 5 - TPH ~ G~OLIN~BEN~N~BE
~NC~TON CO.OUR ~) ND NOT D~C~ CONCE~TION IN GROUNDWATER
,'
CENT~L SlER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, ~C
REVISION DATE: JUNE 4, 2003:jlt
FIGURE 5 - INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT TPH CONCENTRATIONS
100,000
10,000
.-
O
o
10
0.1
I . TPH In I
- ' TPH Out
0 I 2 3 4 5 6
Cumulative Operating Weeks
FIGURE 6 - CUMULATIVE. EXTRACTION CURVE
30,000
25,000
'~ 20,000
-~ ~s.ooo
0
-!
(~ 10,000
5,000
0
0 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cumulative Operating Weeks
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(f]3~) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)l(mg/kg) (rog/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 NIA
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
SC-1 5-10~99 5 SC-1-5 26,000 64 1,700 3201 '2,900 1,400 ...... ., .... A
'B-1 8-17-99 10 B-1-10 6,500 28 230 85! 430 76 .......... B
~'g' 15 B-1-15 7~00"-0 '26 . ~5~ 94i 430 85 -- 'r ....... B
--~'26-99 22 B-1-22 ND N-[~ ND '~ID, I~ 0.48 .. __ .: ...... B
'9-26-99 30 B-1~30 ND ND 0,041 ND 0,094 3._1 ...... _ - -. B
--9-26-99 3~ 'B-1-35 ND ND 0,01--~i ND, --~q-I~ 2.6 ...... _ ,--. .. B
'9-26-99 40 B-1-40 ND 'N-~ 0.0099~ ND' 0,022 3-;2' - ......... B
9-26-99 45 B-1-45 ND 0,006:~' 0,018 ND N-~ "5.2 .......... B
B-2 8-17-99 5. B-2-5 19,000 50 1,000, 260 1,400 '220 .......... B
8.17-99 15 'B-2---15 ,4,600 0,82 150' "7-3 ' 410 2 .......... B
B-3 8-17-99 5 B-3-5 ND 0,014 0,21 0,085~ "0.72 3.8 .......... B
8-17-99 15 B-3-15 61300 . 0.3 150; 81 740 3 .......... B
B~I 9-26-99 10 B-4-10 ND ND NDi ND ND 0.023 .......... B
9-26-99 '2~ B-4-20 ' ND ND ND ND ND 0.~__~ .......... B
9-26-99 30 B~-30 ND ND 0,012~ ND! 0,023 3.5 .......... .. a
B-5 9.26-99 10 B-5-10 ND ND ND ND ND ND .... ;.-, ;- -- B~
9.-~6-~99 20 B-5-20 ND __N--D ND, ND' ND _ 0,15 .. _ ........ B
9-26-99 30 B-5-30 ND ND 0.007 ND ND 1.3 .......... .,. B
--~-26-99 .... 40 B-5-40 ' ND 0.12 0,51 0,0~2 0.16 11 -. ....... , .., B
VW-ld 2-1-01 50 VVV-ld.50 250 ND 0,12 0.032, 0.25 3,6 --' ........ C.
-- 2-1-01 80 VW-ld-80 ND ND ND ND ND ~,5 ........... C
---2-2-01 100 VVV-ld-100 2!300 9.3 210 41 260 87 ........ ,-- C
TABLE 1,
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
· DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID. GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE ×YLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fbi) (mg/kg). (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) .(rog/kg) (mg/kg)
EPA ANALYtiCAL METHOD 8015 (U) 8020/8260B 8260 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
MW-1 11-1-01 10 MW-l-10 ND ND ND ND 0.068 0.0059 -- 10 ND ND ND D
11-1-01 20 MW-1.20 ND ND ND ND ~-D 0.011 .. 1.3 ND Nb ND D
11-1-01 30 MW-l-30 ND ~'b NI~ ND 'ND 0.005 .. ' ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 4~ MW-l-40 ND ND N~ __N-D ND 0.16 -- ND ND ND__ ND D
11-2-01 50 MW-l-50 ND ND ND ND ND 0.06--8 -. ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 6~- MW-l-60 N[~ ND ND ND ND 1,5 .. 'I~D ND -~'b ND D
11-2-01 70 MW-l-70 200 0.2-6 0.66 0.13 0,86 8~, -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2--01 80 MW-l-80 ND NL) ND N~ Nb 0.49 -. ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 90 MW-l-90 ND ND! ND N~ - ND 1.8 -- ND ND Nb ND D
11-2-01 100 MW-l-100 ND N--D ND ND ND 0.77 -- 0.36 .... ND ND ND_ D
11-2-01 110 'MW-1-110 1.~ ND ND ND ND 1.5 -. 0.2 ND ND ND D
MW-2 10-31;01 10 MW-2-10 ND ND ND ND ND ND -. ND ND ND ND D
10.31-01 20 MW-2-20 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 30 MW-2-30 N[~ ND ND N-~ N--~ ND -. N~ ND ND Nb D"'
-~0-31-01 40 MW-2-40 NE~ ND ND ND ND ND .. ND ND ND ND D
10-31'-01 50 MW-2-50 ND ND ND ND ND 0.17 -- ND ND ND ND D
- 10.31-01 60 MW-2-60 ND ND! ND ND ND 0.063 -. ND ND ND ND D ....
'-~-31-01 70 MW-2-70 ND ND ND ND ' I;,ID 0.019 -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 80 MW-2-80 ND N-~-- ND ND ND ND -. ND ND ND ND D__
'-10-31-01 90 MW-2-90 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND N[~ ND ND D
10'.31-01 100 MW-2-100 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D_
1~)-31-01 t10 MW-2-11~' Nb ND N-~ I~-~ ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS'
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(f!3~) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg), (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD I 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 - N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS ,., N/A
MW-3 11-1-01 10 MW-3-10 ND NDI ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 20 i MW-3-20 ND NS ND ND ND ND .. ND ND '-ND ND
11-1-01 :~0 MW-3'30 ND ND ~JD" I~D ND ND -- . .N-~ ND ND .... N_D~
11-1-0~ 40 MW-3-40 -'ND ND ND ND NB- 0.~14 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1'-0~ 50 MW-3-50 ND ND ND ND .... ND ND -- ND ND ' N~ ND D
11-1-01 60 MW-3-60 ND ND' ND --"ED- "ND - 0.0-----~----~- .... ~j-D" ND -~'~3 -ND -'-D- ....
1;t-1-01 70 MW-3-70 N~) ND1- ND' '' ND 'ND 0.32 -- ND N__D 'ND___ND D
11-1-01 80 MW-3-80 ND ND ND i ND ND 0.31 -- _N~3 ND ND ND" D
11-1-01 90 MW-3-90 ND -'ND '' ND ND ND o.os~- -. kiD 'ND ND N~i D
11-1-01 100 MW-3-100 ND ND ND ND ND 0.029 '- -- ND ND "ND., ."ND D
11-1-01 110 MW-3-110 "N~ ND ND ND' ND ND .. ND NDI ND ND D
MW-4 4-14-03 20 MW-5-20 ND ND ND ND -ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 40 MW-5-40 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ........ E
4-14-03 60 MW-S-60 ND ND ND N~ ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 80 MW-5-80 "ND ND ND NDJ ,ND ND .......... E..
4-14-03 100 ,.I MW-5-100 ND ND ND ND ND ND ........... E
4-14-03 120 ' MW-5-120 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... - E---'
MW-5 4-15-03 20 MW-5-20 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- - ..... -- E
ND ....
4.15-03 40 MW-5-40 ND ND ND ! N-D I~D ...... E
4-15-03 '60 MW-5-60 ND NI~ ND ND N-D--- "ND .......... E"
4-15-03 80 MW-5-80 ND ND ND -N-~ N~~ ND .......... E
4-¥5-03 100 MW-5-100 N~) N~ - ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-15-03 120 MW-5-120 1.5 ND N~) N~) ND 1.3 1.6 .... , .... E
TABLE 1,
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE i SAMPLE ! TPHAS' ! ETHYL- ! TOTAL MTBE ! i
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID t GASOLINE BENZENE ITOLUENE BENZENE i XYLENES MTBE TEA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fbc.:j).. !I (m~//k~/) (m~/!kg) i (rog/kg) .(mg/kg) i (mg/k~],)' .. (mg/kg) j (mg/kg) (mg/kg) ! (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
EPA ANALY~'ICAL METHOD I 8015 (M) 8020/8260B I 8260 N/A
REP(~RTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REP.ORTS ' ' . ' ' . "~' N/A
MW-6 4-16-03 20 ,~ MW-6-20 ND NDJ ND NDI ND 0.0621 0,28 --I .... I -- E
--4-'T1-~,]6~ ...... --4-~-'--1-~'gg1~]~4-~)- ............... hi5 ............... Ni:Jl .............. iqO ............... gJ'lbl ............. N'D ...... ND1 ....... --':- .......... ::' ..... I .... L: ............ :-. .... [ ........ -: ........... E--
--';l~'1'6[0~- ........ ~---J--lgl-~/;~[~ ............... J',i-O' ............. ="'"ND L' ............ I~ .............. I~D'I ................ ND' ........ ~51 ....... ':: ........... :~"'-'-! ....... ~': ....... ] ..... -:[ ..... I ...... ;[ ..... E-'-
-'-4%~'6'~0~ ........ §O----I--~'W~-eL-~C) .............. -ND ............... ~ib-F ........... i~'6 ............. -N'5~i ................. Nib- ....... N'~]I ..... :: .......... ::-"' ]----z ..... ! .... :~-'--'l"-:'-;:: .... E--
-~:~¥6~-' '~"~f)-T~W-:6~."~'-o-o- ........ :-'-N'b .......... -r4'b,,~ ....... '~'b' ........ 7-~'bT .......... -~ ...... i,,ii~-[---':': ....... ---:--[.i--:: ......... ::'--~' ...... '::--i'-'E-
--~:~-~ ...... ~--r~,w:~:'~-'~-,T---;--'-~,s-T-: ........ ~'i ........ -f~)- .............. ~-~ ............... ~ .... ~)~r ....... :: ....... -:: ...... :: ...... ?-r--=-'-"-I-' ~-
REF = Report reference, N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected. -- = Not analyzed.
A = A,J. Environmental, Inc.'s, report dated May '1999.
B = Holguln, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s (HFA's) report dated November 17, 1999.
C = HFA's report dated June 2,5, 200'1,
D = HFA'~ report dated February 19, 2002.
E = Central Slerrra Environmental (CSE's) current report,
TABLE 1.
~UMMAR¥ OF OROUNDWATER 8AMPLE ANALYTICAL RE,Ut. TI FOR OR~A~II¢ COMPOUNDS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON ~ERV~C! ~TATION. BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIA
TABLE 3.
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIP,ORNIA
WELL ID DEPTH TO FLOATING GROUND- I I ]
AND DATE GROUND- PRODUCT WATER
ELEVATION' SAMPLED WATER THICKNESS ELEVATION TDS EC pH CHLORIDE SULFATE NITRATE I CALCIUM MAGNESIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE CARBONATE BICARBONATE TKN REP'
{feet-MSL) (rog) (feet) {feet-MSL) (mg,'l) (umhos/cm) {pHunlts) (mB/l) (m~) (mB/I) I (mB,'1) (rog/I) (mB/I) (mB/l) (mgfl) (mB/l) (mB/l) (mB/I)
EPA ANALY'TICAL METHOD 160,1 ~050 9040 300.0 j 8010 310,1 351.2 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES- SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
VW-ld 951
404.00 3.28.02 114.54 0.25 289.46 817 7.38 93 82 2.1 120 21 44 5.1 ND ND 350 0.8 A
MW-I 3-28.02 11453 0.00 289.78 424 684 7.12 48 68 40.4 79 14 39 4.1 ND ND 200 0.71 A
404.29 8-22.02 120.02 0.00 284.27 250 490 8.6: 30 51 18 76 23 37 18 ND NO 140 NO S
MW-2 3-28,02 113,30 0.00 291.07 382~ 578 7.21J 31 74 48.3 68 12 39 3,8 ND , NO 180 0.8 A
· 66 39 3.8 ND ND 180 0.8 A
MW-3 3-28.02 113.30 0.00 290.42 382 576 7.21 74 483 12 __
403.72 8.22.02 I i8184 0.00 284.88; 310 480 8.7j 25 ~g 38 25 37 .ND ND 140 ND B
REF - Rel:~rl reference, l/A J Not el~l)llceble. ND · ',lot detected.
°Mealured to the top of the well casing.
A · Ho4guln, Fahan & Al~4X',l~tel, Inc.'l, rend dated May 29, 2002.
B = Central $1enl Environmental, LLC'J report dated November 14, 2002,
TABLE 3.
:SUMMARY OF VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED SAMPLE SD' GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE
(ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv)' (pprnv) REF
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M.) 8020 N/A
DETECTION LIMIT 10, 0.1! 0.i 0.1 0.1 0.1 N/A
INFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-1 5,500! '' 58 290 32 220 1,900 A
EFFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.31 A
. ..INFLUi=-NT 12-12-02 0212180-1 8,6001 '110 320 44! 260! 2,200i' A
REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected.
A = Central SiesTa Environmental, LLC's, current reporL
TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF VE$ MONITORIN43 DATA
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
367 16 2 ~,440 205 ~ PO , ? 0 · · , · ~ 7,120 I0 I~ S.421 047.9~4 291,453 ~SI,~ ~t 1.237 ,,,
Pi~Jidy ~. PO
ATTACHMENT 3.
SOIL BORING AND WELL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC'S STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR
SOIL BORING AND WELL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
PRE-DRILLING PROTOCOL
Prior to the start of drilling, necessary permits, site access agreements, and/or encroachment permits are
obtained. "As-built" drawings are obtained if possible. At least 48 hours pr[or to drilling, Underground
Service Alert or an equivalent utility notification service is notified. A geophysical survey may be
conducted to locate subsurface utilities. Site plans and/or "as-built" drawings are compared to actual
conditions observed at the site. The property owner/retailer is interviewed to gain information about
locations of former UST systems (including dispensers, product lines, and vent lines). A visual inspection
is made of the locations of the existing UST system, and scars and patches in pavement are noted. The
emergency shut-off switch is located for safety purposes. The critical zone, which is defined as 10 feet
from any part of the UST system, is identified, and any proposed drilling locations within the critical zone
may be subject to special hole clearance techniques. Drilling locations within the critical zone are avoided
if possible. Notifications are made at least 2 weeks in advance of drilling to the property owner, client
~epresentative, on-site facility manager, regulatory agency, and/or other appropriate parties.
A site-specific, worker health and safety plan for the site is available on site at all times during drilling
activities. Prior to commencing drilling, a health and safety meeting is held among all on-site personnel
involved in the drilling operation, including subcontractors and visitors, and is documented with a health
and safety meeting sign-in form. A traffic control plan is developed prior to the start of any drilling
activities for both on-site and off-site drilling operations.. The emergency shut-off switch for the service
station is located prior to the start of the drilling activities. A fire extinguisher and "No Smoking" signs (and
Proposition 65 signs in California) are present at the site prior to the start of the drilling activities.
The first drilling locatiOn is the one located furthest from any suspected underground improvements in
order to determine the natural subsurface con,ditions, to be able to better recognize fill conditions, and to
prevent cross contamination. For monitoring wells, a 2 x 2-foot square or 2-foot diameter circle is the
minimum removal. For soil borings and push-type samplers, the minimum pavement removal is.8-inches.
When pea gravel, sand, or other non-indigenous material is encountered, the drilling location will be
abandoned unless the absence of subsurface facilities can be demonstrated and client approval to
proceed is obtained. If hole clearance activities are conducted prior to the actual day of drilling, the
clearance holes are covered with plates and/or backfilled.
The minimum hole clearance depths are 4 feet below grade (fbg) outside the critical zone and 8 fbg within
the critical zone and are conducted as follows:
0 to4 fbg: The area to be cleared exceeds the diameter of the largest tool to be advanced and is
sufficiently large enough to allow for visual inspection of any obstructions encountered. The first 1 to 2
feet is delineated by hand digging to remove the soil, then the delineated area is probed to ensure that
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction procedures
Page 2
no obstructions exist anywhere near the potential path of the drill auger or push-type sampler.
Probing is extended laterally as far a~ possible. Hand augering or post-hole digging then proceeds,
but only to the depth that has been probed. If subsurface characteristics prohibit effective probing, a
hand auger is carefully advanced past the point of'probing. In this case, sufficient hand augering or
post-hole digging is performed to remove all the soil in the area to be delineated. For soil borings
located outside of the critical zone, an attempt should be made to probe an additional 4 feet.
4 to 8 fbg: For the soil borings located' inside the critical zone, probing and hand clearing an additional
4 feet is performed. If Probing'is met with refusal, then trained personnel advance a hand auger
without excessive force.
An alternate or additional subsurface clearance procedures may also be employed, as required by clients,
permit conditions, and/or anticipated subsurface conditions (for example, near major utility corridors or in
hard soils). Alternate clearance techniques may include performing a geophysical investigation or using
an air knife or water knife. If subsurface conditions prevent adequate subsurface clearance, the drilling
operation is ceased until the client approves a procedure for proceeding in writing.
If any portion of the UST system is encountered, or if there is any possibility that it has been encountered,
the work ceases, and the client is notified immediately. If there is reason to believe that the product
system has been damaged, the emergency shut-off switch is activated. The client will decide if additional
uncovering by hand is required. If it is confirmed that the UST system has been encountered, tightness
tests are performed. The hole is backfilled only with client approval.
DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Soil boring are drilled using one of the following methods:
Manual drilling: Manual drilling utilizes a 2-inch-OD, hand auger manufactured by
Xitech Industries, Art's Manufacturing Company, or similar equipment. Soil samples are collected
with a drive sampler, which is outfitted with 1.5-inch by 3-inch steel or brass sleeves. The specific
equipment used is noted on a soil boring log.
Truck-mounted, powered drilling: Truck-mounted, powered drilling utilizes hollow-stem flight auger
drilling, air rotary drilling, or percussion hammer drilling, or similar technologies. Soil samples are
collected in steel or brass sleeves with a California-modified, split-spoon sampler or, for specific
projects, a continuous sampler. The specific equipment used is noted on a soil boring log.
Direct push sampling: Direct push sampling utilizes Geoprobes®, cone penetrometer testing rigs,
or similar technologies. Soil samples are collected with a drive sampler, which is outfitted with
steel or brass sleeves. The specific equipment used is noted on a soil boring log.
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 3
Before each soil sampling episode, the sampling equipment is decontaminated using a non-phosphate
soap wash, a tap-water rinse, and a dei0nized water rinse. The drill string is decontaminated with a steam
cleaner between each soil boring (truck-mounted rigs).
Soil samples that are collected in steel or brass sleeves are covered with aluminum foil or TeflonTM tape
followed by plastic caps. If EPA Method 5035 is requi~'ed, then 5 to 20 grams of soil is extracted from the
sample and placed in methanol-preserved containers supplied by the laboratory, or sub samples are
collected using Encore~) samplers. During the drilling process, soil samples and cuttings are field
screened for VOCs using a' photoionization detector calibrated to 100 parts per million by volume
isobutylene. Any soil staining or discoloration is visually identified. Soils are classified according to the
Unified Soil Classification System. Specific geologic and hydrogeologic information collected includes
grading, plasticity, density, stiffness, mineral composition, moisture content, soil structure, grain size,
degree of rounding, and other features that could affect contaminant transport. All data is recorded on a
soil boring log under the supervision of a geologist registered in thestate in which the site is located. The
samples are labeled, sealed, recorded on a chain-of-custody record, and chilled to 4°C in accordance with
the procedures outlined in the California State Water Resources Control Board's Leaking Underground
Fuel Tank Field Manual and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Site Characterization Manual. Sample preservation, handling, and transportation
procedures are consistent with Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's quality assurance/quality control
procedures. The samples are transported in a chilled Container to a state-certified, hazardous waste
testing laboratory.
Cuttings from the soil borings are stored in 55-gallon, Department' of Transportation (DOT)-approved
drums, roll-off bins, or other appropriate containers, as approved by the. client. Each container is labeled
with the number of the soil boring(s) from which the waste was derived, the date the waste was generated,
and other pertinent information. The drums are stored at the site of generation until sample laboratory
analytical results are obtained, at which time the soil is disposed of appropriately.
A soil boring log is completed for each soil boring and includes the following minimum information:
· date of drilling;
· location of soil boring;
· project name and location;
· soil sample names and depths;
· soil descriptions and classifications;
· standard penetration counts (rigs);
· photoionization detector readings;
drilling equipment;
· soil boring diameter;
· sampling equipment;
REVISED 3~29~02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 4
· depth to groundwater in soil boring;
· name of person performing logging;
· name of supervising registered geologist; and
· name of drilling company (rigs and direct push).'
SOIL BORING COMPLETION PROCEDURES
All soil borings are either properly abandoned or completed as a well.
Abandonment
Each soil boring that is not completed as a well is backfilled with bentonite grout, neat cement, concrete,
or bentonite chips with a permeability less than that of the surrounding soils, and/or soil cuttings,
depending on local regulatory requirements or client instructions. Grout is placed by the tremie method.
Backfilling is performed carefully to avoid bridging. The type of backfill material is noted on the soil boring
log.
Well Installation
Wells are designed according to applicable state and local regulations as well as project needs. Details of
the well design and construction are recorded on the soil boring log and include the following minimum
information (in addition to the items noted above for soil borings):
· detailed drawing of well;
· type of well (groundwater, vadose, or air sparging);
· casing diameter and material;
· screen slot size;
· well depth and screen length (_+1 foot);
· filter pack material, size, and placement depths;
· annular seal material and placement depth,s;
· surface seal design/construction;
· well location (_+5 feet); and
· well development procedures.
Groundwater monitoring wells are generally designed with 30 feet of slotted casing centered on the water
table, unless site conditions, project needs, or lOcal regulations dictate a different well design. The sand
pack is placed at least two feet above the top of the screen, and at least 3 feet of Iow permeability seal
material is placed between the sand pack and the surface seal. The sand pack and Iow permeability seal
material are placed in the annular space from the bottom up using the tremie method. When drilling in
asphalt, a 24-inch round cut is made for the well pad. When drilling on concrete, a 2 x 2-foot square is
sawcut. The well cover is traffic-rated and has a white lid with a black triangle painted on it (3 inches per
side) or a black lid with a white triangle (3 inches per side). The completed well pad should is concrete of
matching color with the existing surface. The well number is labeled on the outside of the well box/pad
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 5
and the inside of the well box. The number on the outside is painted on with a stencil, stamped, or
attached to the well with a metal plate. The number on the inside is written on the well cap with waterproof
ink. The casing has a notch or indication on its north side indicating a unique measuring/surveying point.
Well development is conducted by simple pumping if bridging of the screen does not occur. If bridging
occurs, well surging is conducted for adequate well production. Well surging is created by the use of
surge blocks, bailers, or pumps, whichever method is most appropriate for the well use. Only formation
water is used for surging the well. Well development continues until non-turbid groundwater is produced
or turbidity stabilizes. All purged groundwater is held on site in covered 55-gallon DOT-approved drums or
other appropriate containers until water sample analytical results are received.
The elevation of the north side of the top of well casing (or other appropriate reference point from which
the depth to groundwatei- can be measured) is surveyed to an accuracy of +0.01 foot. All measurements
are reproduced to assure validity. Surveying is performed by a state-licensed surveyor if required by state
or local regulations. In the State of California, wells are surveyed in accordance with AB2886.
DATA REDUCTION
The data Compiled from the soil borings is summarized and analyzed~ A narrative summary of the soil
characteristics is also presented. The soil boring logs are checked for the following information:
correlation of stratigraphic units among borings;
identification of zoneS of potentially high hydraulic conductivity;
identification of the confining layer;
indication of unusual/unpredicted geologic features (fault zones, fracture traces, facies changes,
solution channels, buried stream deposits, cross-cutting structures, pinchout zones, etc.); and
continuity of petrographic features such as sorting, grain-size distribution, cementation, etc.
Soil boring/well locations are plotted on a properly scaled map. If appropriate, soil stratigraphy of the site
is presented in a scaled cross sectionl Specific features that may impact contaminant migration, e.g.,
fault zones or impermeable layers, are discussed in narrative form and supplemented with graphical
3resentations as deemed appropriate.
REVISED 3~29/02
ATTACHMENT 4.
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
Sullivans Petroleum Company, LLC
Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
Proposed
Mark R. MaRarqee CHG, RG
Well No.
MW-7 through MW-9
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
WELL CASING
GRAVEL PACK
GROUNDWATER
SCREEN
BOTTOM WELL CAP
Elevation of refrence point
-404 feet
depth to surface seal 2 fb,q
type of surface seal · Concrete
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability-seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth of top of gravel pack
· type of gravel pack
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
90 feet
Cement Grout
3 feet
Bentonite chips
2 inches
Schedua140 PVC
95 fb,q
#3 Monterey Sand
~ 5fbq
100 fb,q
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
depth of well 140 fb~l
diameter of borehole
depth of borehole
8 inches
140 fbg
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862
1400 Easton Drive, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
Sullivans Petroleum Compan¥~ LLC
DoWntown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
Proposed
Mark R. Ma,qar,qee CHGI RG
Well No. MW-5d
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
-- ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
WELL CASING
GRAVEL PACK
SCREEN
Elevation of refrence point
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth of top of gravel pack
type of gravel pack
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
depth of well
diameter of borehole
depth of b°rehole
-404 feet
2 fbq
Concrete
150 feet
Cement Grout
3 feet
Bentonite chips
2 inches
Schedua140 PVC
155 fbg
#3 Monterey Sand
~115 fbq
160 fb§
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
170 fbg
8 inches
170 fbg
BOTTOM WELL caP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862
1400 Easton Drive, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
ATTACHMENT 5.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, AND SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
NOTIFICATIONS
Prior to performing any field work, the client, regulatory agency, and property owner/manager with
jurisdiction over the subject site are notified. Notifications are made a minimum of 48 hours prior to
sampling, or as required by the client or regulator.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Prior to performing purge or no-purge sampling, water level measurements are collected according to the
following procedures:
· All wells are checked for phase-separated hydrocarbons with an acrylic bailer or oil/water interface
meter.
· To avoid cross contamination, water levels are measured starting with the historically "cleanest" wells
and proceeding to the historically "dirtiest."
Water levels within each well are measured to an accuracy of _+0.01 foot using an electric measuring
device and are referenced to the surveyed datum (well cover or top of casing). When measuring to
top of casing, measurements are made to the notched (or otherwise marked) point on casing. If no
marking is visible, the measurement is made to the northern side of the casing.
· If possible, all wells are gauged within a short time interval on the same day to obtain accurate
measurements of the potentiometric surface. -'
· All measurements are reproduced to assure validity, and measuring equipment is decontaminated
between wells.
PHASE-SEPARATED HYDROCARBON
If phase-separated hydrocarbon (PSH) is encountered, its thickness in the well and the depth to the
interface between the PSH and the water in the well are measured using one or both of the following
methods:
· an electronic oil-water interface meter is used to measure the depths to the top of the PSH and to the
top of the water, and/or
· an electronic water level meter is used to measure the depth to the top of the water and a clear bailer '
is used to measure the PSH thickness.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sar~ple Management Procedures
Page 2
The potentiometeric surface elevation is calculated as:
TOC - DTW + 0.74PT
Where TOC = top-of-casing elevation, DTW = depth to water (interface), and PT = PSH thickness.
If PSH thickness is less than 0.02 foot, and the well is planned for purging prior to sample collection, the
well is purged and sampled in accordance with the sample collection section of this SOP. If the PSH
thickness is 0.02 foot or greater, the PSH .is bailed from the well, and left onsite in a labeled and sealed
container. No sample, is collected for analysis from wells having a PSH thickness of greater than 0.02
foot.
NO-PURGE SAMPLING
Well purging is not conducted prior to sampling if purging is not needed to meet technical and/or
regulatory project requirements. Following collection of water level measurements, wells that are not
purged are sampled according to the protocol in the sample collection section of this SOP.
PURGING PROCEDURES
Well purging is conducted prior to sampling if purging is needed to meet technical and/or regulatory
project requirements. If purging i~ conducted, the monitoring wells are purged using a vacuum truck,
submersible electric pump, bailer, hand pump, or bladder pump, as appropriate for site conditions. A
surge block may be used if it becomes apparent during purging that the Well screen has become bridged
with sediment or the produced groundwater is overly turbid.
During the purging process,' groundwater is monitored for temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, odor,
and color. These parameters are recorded on a water'sample log. Purging continues until all stagnant
water within the wells is replaced by fresh formation water, as indicated by removal of a minimum number
of well volumes and/Or stabilization of the above-outlined parameters. Sampling is performed after the
well recharges to at least 80 percent of hydrostatic.
Purge water is stored on site in Department of Transportation-approved, 55-gallon drums until water
sample analytical results are received from the laboratory. If active groundwater treatment is occurring at
the site, purge water may be disposed of through the treatment system, or the purge water may be
transported off site as non-hazardous waste to an approved off-site disposal facility.-
If permanent pumps are installed in the wells for groundwater remediation, purging may be accomplished
by operating the pumps for at least 24 hours before sampling to ensure adequate purging.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 3
SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES
Groundwater samples are collected as follows:
· A l-liter Teflon TM bailer is lowered and partially submerged into the well water to collect a groundwater
sample.
· If visible PSH is present in the sample bailer, PSH thickness is recorded on the field log, and no
sample is collected for laboratory analysis.
For volatile organic analyses, groundwater samples are collected in chilled, 40-milliliter, VOA vials
having TeflonT~Llined caps. Hydrochloric acid preservative is added to all vials by the laboratory to
lower sample pH to 2. Samples are held at 2 to 4°C while in the field and in transit to the laboratory.
Other appropriate containers, preservatives, and holding protocols are used for non-volatile analyses.
· VOA vials are filled comPletely so that no headspace or air bubbles are present within the vial. Care is
taken so that the vials are not over-filled and the preservative is not lost.
Sample containers are immediately labeled and sealed after collection to prevent confusion. For VOA
vials, the label is placed to overlap the edge of the cap as a custody seal, unless a separate custody
seal is being used.
Samples are stored in a cooler while On site and in transport to the laboratory or office. The cooler
has sufficient ice to maintain appropriate temperature prior to collecting samples. The VOA vials are
kept cool both prior to and after filling. Hot or warm containers are not used.when volatile compounds
are the target analytes.
DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES
Decontamination of monitoring and sampling equipment is performed prior to all monitoring and sampling
activities. Decontamination procedures utilize a three-step process as described below:
The initial decontamination is performed using a non-phosphate soap, such as Simple Green or
Alconox, in tap water in a 5ogallon bucket. A soft-bristle bottlebrush is used to thoroughly clean the
inside and outside of the equipment.
second 5-gallon bucket of tap water is used as a first rinse.
· A third 5-gallon bucket of deionized water is used as a final rinse.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and sample Management Procedures
Page 4
· The brush is used in the first bucket only; it does not travel from bucket to bucket with the equipment.
This minimizes any transport of the contaminants that should stay in the first bucket.
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
At a minimum, a trip blank and a temperature blank are maintained for QNQC purposes.
A trip blank sample (TRIP) is kept with any samples being analyzed for VOCs. This is a sample of
clean water that is supplied by the laboratory and is transported to and from the field and to the
laboratory with the field samples. The designation "QCTRIPBK" or "QCTB" is used for sample name
on the field label. Samplers record the date that the TRIP is taken to the field for sampling, not the
date that the TRIP was prepared by the laboratory on the chain-of-custody (COC). One TRIP per
cooler per day is collected.
Unused trip blank samples are stored at the consulting office in a cooler dedicated to this purpose.
The trip blank cooler is not refrigerated, but is kept in a clean location away from possible VOC
contaminants.
Temperature blank sample containers are supplied by the laboratory and kept in a cooler used to
transport samples. The temperature blank is placed in the cooler prior to going to the field and kept
there until the cooler is delivered to the laboratory.
COMPLETION OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY
· A separate COC is completed for each day of sampling. If samples are collected on separate days for
the same site, a separate COC is completed for each sampling day, and the COC is always kept with
the samples. If samples are shipped off ~ite for laboratory analysis, individual coolers with separate
COCs are sent for each day/cooler shipped.
All fields/spaces on the COC are filled out completely, and all persons having control of the samples
sign the COC to show transfer of sample control between individuals. At times when the field sampler
is not delivering samples directly to the laboratory, the samples may be turned over to a sample
manager for shipping. In this instance, the sample manager takes custody of the samples, and both
the sampler and sample manager sign and date the COC to clearly show custody transfer.
· The COC is placed inside the cooler, and a custody seal is Placed on the outside of the cooler prior to
shipping. The receiving laboratory indicates if the cooler was received with the custody seal intact.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and sample Management Procedures
Page 5
If samples are sent to the laboratory via UPS, FEDEX, etc., this is indicated on the COC, and the
sample manager indicates the date and time custody seal is placed on cooler for delivery to the
shipping agent (shipping agent does not sign the COC).
· For trip blanks, the COC indicates the date the TRIP was taken to the field for sampling, not the date
the TRIP was prepared by the laboratory, which may appear on the VOA label.
New electronic deliverable format (EDF) requirements of California AB2886 mandate that COCs and
laboratory reports maintain consistent and unique names between sites (Global ID) and sample
location/well names (Field Point ID). This information must be .consistent with the initial information
supplied to Geotracker, and for each subsequent quarterly sampling event.
SAMPLE HANDLING
Refrigerator Storage and Temperature Log
Samples may be stored in a refrigerator at the consulting office prior to transport to the laboratory.
Refrigerator storage is maintained under the following conditions:
· Refrigerators used for sample storage are dedicated for that usage only (no food or other
materials are stored in sample refrigerators).
· Refrigerators can be locked from the outside by a sample manager, and only the sample manager
has access to samples while in storage.
· Refrigerators are maintained at temperatures between 2 to 4'C, and are adjusted daily depending
on thermometer readings.
· Each refrigerator contains a dedicated, reliable thermometer. The thermometer is designed for
use in a refrigerator and is fixed/secured to the inside of the unit. The thermometer range is
specific for measuring temperatures in the 2 to 4°C range.
A temperature log is kept on the outside of the refrigerator in a lightweight, three-ring binder, or
similar logbook. Temperatures are recorded daily or when the refrigerator is open for sample
management.
Completed COCs are kept with the samples stored in the refrigerators. The COCs may be held
on a clipboard outside the. refrigerator, or may be placed inside the cooler if the entire cooler is
placed inside the refrigerator.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 6
· If a cooler is placed in the refrigerator, the cooler lid remains open to inSure that samples are
maintained at the refrigerator temperature.
Cooler Packing
The sample coolers are packed as directed by the receiving laboratory.
packing include:
Standard procedures for cooler
· The cooler contains enough ice to maintain the required temperature of 2 to 4°C (roughly 20 percent
of the volume of the cooler).
· Water ice (not dry ice or ice packs) is used for shipping.
· The ice is placed above and below the samples in at least two sealable plastic bags. This requires
that the packing/divider material is removed and replaced.
The COC is placed in the cooler in a sealed plastic bag, and the cooler lid is taped closed to secure it
for transport and to minimize loss of temperature. A custody seal is placed vertically across the seam
of the cooler lid.
ATTACHMENT 6.
WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK INVESTIGATIONS
SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Site Address: 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, Califomia
Name of Business Occupying Site: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
Owner Contact: Mr. Tim Sullivan Owner Tel. #:
(661) 327-5008
CRWQCB-CVR Contact: 'Mr. John Whiting Tel. #: (559) 445-5504
FIELD ACTIVITIES AND GOALS OF THIS INVESTIGATION:
Drill four monitoring wells to assess gasoline hydrocarbons in groundwater.
KNOWN HAZARDS AT THE SITE INCLUDE:
Gasoline hydrocarbons
KEY PERSONNEL AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
NAME
RESPONSIBILITIES
Mark R. Magargee, CHG, RG
(661) 325-4862
SITE SAFETY OFFICER Primarily responsible for site safety,
response operations, and protection of the public. Responsible for
work site inspections to identify particular hazards and define site
security.
Mark R. Magargee, CHG, RG
(661) 325-4862
PROJECT MANAGER - Primarily responsible for site characterization.
The project manager delineates authority, coordinates activities and
functions, and directs activities related to mitigative efforts of cleanup
contractors.
Mark R. Magargee, CHG, RG
(661) 325-4862
SITE INVESTIGATIVE PERSONNEL - Responsible for actual field
work including sampling, monitoring, equipment use, and other related
tasks as defined by the project manager.
ANTICIPATED WEATHER CONDITIONS FOR THIS AREA DURING
WILL BE:
Temp. range: 80-100°F Humidity: 30-60%
Potential for heat stress: High: X Medium:
ANTICIPATED PROTECTION LEVEL DURING THIS PROJECT*
Level "D" *Will be upgraded or downgraded to ffi situations as they adse.
EMERGENCY
INFORMATION:
All emergency calls: 911
Closest hospital with emergency room:
2615 Eye Street, Bakersfield, California, (661) 395-3000
Map Showing Route from Site to Hospital Attached?
THE PROJECT'S DURATION
Ambient temp.: '90°F
Low:
San Joaquin Community Hospital
Yes: X No:
SAN
SITE LOCATION
NOT TO SCALE
~IGELES
SAN
SULLIVANS PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
HOSPITAL MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FOR
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITE INVESTIGATIONS
This document outlines Central Sierra Environmental, LLC.'s (CSE's) worker health and safety plan for its
employees to be used at Kern County UST site investigations. Site-specific information is provided on the
cover page to this document.
This worker health and safety plan was developed by CSE's through consultation of the following
documents:
OSHA 29 CFR 1910 - "Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, Final Ruling," Mamh
1989;
· NIOSHIOSHAIUSCGIEPA "Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste
.Site Activities," October 1985; and
· CSE's Corporate Health and Safety Program.
This worker health and safety plan is divided into the following categories:
1. Job Hazard Assessment;
2. Exposure Monitoring Plan;
3. Personal Protective Equipment;
4. Work Zones and Security Measures;
5. Decontamination and Disposal;
6. Employee Training; and
7. Emergency Procedures.
1. JOB HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Immediate tasks at any leaking UST site include an evaluation of any present or potential threat to public
safety. Questions need to be answered regarding the dangers of significant vapor exposures and
potential explosion hazards.
Potential Chemical Hazards
The chemical components of gasoline that are the most dangerous to site workers are the volatile
aromatics, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and potentially, organic lead (see Appendix 1 for
Material Safety Data Sheet). Additionally, solvents such as 1,2-dichlorobenzene and 1,2-dichloroethane
Worker Health and Safety Plan
Page 2
may also be used as cleaning solutions at service stations. The primary health risks associated with each
of these chemicals are described below.
Gasoline - Suspected human carcinogen. A TLV of 300 ppm or 900 mg/m3 has been assigned to
gasoline. This value of 300 ppm was assigned based on an average of 3 percent benzene (10 ppm TLV)
in gasoline. Low-level inhalation exposure to gasoline can cause irrita[ion to the eyes, nose, and
respiratory system; headache; and nausea.
Benzene - Suspected human carcinogen. A TLV of 10 ppm or 30 mg/m3 has been assigned to benzene.
Benzene has a Iow odor threshold limit of 1.4 ppm. Low-level inhalation exposure' to benzene can cause
irritation to the eyes, nose, and respiratory system; headache, and nausea.
Toluene - A TLV OF 100 ppm or 375 mg/m3 has been assigned to toluene. Toluene has a Iow odor
threshold limit of 2.1 ppm. Low-level inhalation exposure to toluene can cause fatigue, weakness,
confusion, and euphoria.
Ethylbenzene - A TLV of 100 ppm or 435 mg/m3 has been assigned to ethylbenzene. Ethylbenzene has a
Iow odor threshold limit of 2 ppm. Low-level inhalation exposure to ethylbenzene can cause irritation to
the eyes. and mucous membranes.
Xylene - A TLV or 100 ppm or 435 mg/m3 has been assigned to xylene. No Iow odor threshold limit has
been established for xylene. Low-level inhalation exposure to xylene can cause dizziness, excitement,
and drowsiness.
1,2-Dichlorobenzene - A TLV of 50 ppm or 306 mg/m3 has been assigned to 1,2-dichlorobenzene. 1,2-
dichlorobenzene has a Iow odor threshold limit of 4.0 ppm. Acute vapor exposure can cause coughing,
dizziness, and drowsiness. It may cause skin irritation.
1,2-Dichloroethane - A TLV of 200 ppm. No data is available concerning odor threshold. Acute vapor
exposure can cause coughing, dizziness, drowsiness, and skin irritation.
Tetraethyl Lead - A TLV of 0.1 mg/m3 has been assigned to tetraethyl lead. Tetraethyl .lead is a colorless
or red-dyed liquid at atmospheric conditions. No data is available concerning odor threshold. Acute vapor
exposure can cause insomnia, delirium,' coma, and skin irritation.
Worker Health and Safety Plan
Page 3
Potential Physical Hazards
Trenchin,q - Dangerously high fuel vapor levels will be monitored using an LEL meter. The presence of
underground utilities are also of concern, and UndergrOund Service Alert will be notified in advance of any
trenching work for identification of all underground utilities in the immediate area.
Drilling - Dangerously high fuel vapor levels will be monitored using an LEL meter. The presence of
.underground utilities are also of concern, and Underground Service Alert will be notified in advance of any
drilling work for identification of all underground utilities in the immediate area.
Samplinc~ - Use of personal protective equipment will minimize the potential for exposure of personnel
conducting site investigation activities.
Heat stress will be monitored by each individual and controlled through regular work breaks as outlined in
the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' TLV's for heat stress conditions.
2. EXPOSURE MONITORING PLAN
Potential exposure hazards found at UST sites primarily include toxic airborne vapors from leaking USTs.
The most dangerous airborne vapor likely to be encountered during a UST investigation is benzene.
Gasoline vapor concentration levels will be monitored in the breathing zone with a PID calibrated to
benzene. When the action level of 150 ppm (one half the TLV of gasoline) is detected in the breathing
zone, respiratory protection will be required utilizing full-face or half-face respirators with organic vapor
cartridges.
Monitoring for combustible gases will also be performed using an LEL meter when vapor concentrations
above 2,000 ppm are detected with the PID. The action level is 35 percent of the LEL for gasoline vapors
or 4,500 ppm. If this level is attained or exceeded, the work party will be IMMEDIATELY withdrawn.
3. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
The level of protection during the site investigation will usually be level "D." Level D protective equipment
includes coveralls, safety boots, safety glasses, gloves, and hard hats if drilling or trenching operations are
in progress.
Upgrading the protection level would be based on airborne benzene concentration levels equal to or
exceeding the action level. An upgrade to level "C" protection would be required if the action level is
equaled or exceeded. Additional equipment required for level C would be a full-face or half-face air
purifying canister-equipped respirator and TyvekTM suits with taped arm and leg seals.
Worker Health and Safety Plan
Page 4
If the action level is met or exceeded (35 percent) for the LEL, work will cease until the vapor level is
measured to be below 20 percent of the LEL.
A fire extinguisher will be maintained on site. Decisions for workers' safety are based on a continual
evaluation of existing or changing conditions.
4. WORK ZONES AND SECURITY MEASURES
To facilitate a minimum exposure to dangerous toxic vapors and/or physical hazards, only authorized
persons will be allowed on the job site. Work zones will be defined by CSE staff who will also be
responsible for maintaining security within these zones. Only the minimum number of personnel
necessary for the UST investigation will be present in the work zone.
5. DECONTAMINATION AND DISPOSAL
CSE's standard operating procedures establish ~oractices that minimize contact' with potentially
contaminated materials. Decontamination procedures are utilized if there is suspected or known
contamination of equipment, supplies, instruments or any personnel surfaces. Soap and water will be
utilized to remove contaminants from personnel surfaces as well as equipment and instruments.
Contaminated wash water will be disposed of in accordance with procedures outlined in the Kern County
LUFT guidance document.
6. EMPLOYEE TRAINING
All CSE employees working on the site will have had, at a minimum, the required 40-hour OSHA Training
for Hazardous Waste Site Activities (29 CFR 1910, 120), which includes training in the use of personal
protective equipment. Individualized respirator fit testing is required of all CSE employees working at the
site.
7. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
CSE employees are trained in emergency first aid, and emergency first ai(J provisions will be brought to
the site. In the event of overt personnel exposure (i.e., skin contact, inhalation, or ingestion), the victim
will be transPorted to and treated at the closest hospital (see Hospital Map). ---
APPENDIX 1.
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
~ NO.
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
AUTOI~OTXV£
114S ~T~YN STREET
~te ~to~r 1981
"sEcTION 1, ~TERI~ IDENTIFi~TI~
D~X~: A ~t~e b~ of ~dr~~ f~ m~tive fuel
SECTION !I, INGREDIE~S'~ ~DS z '~ ~ZARD DATA
D~ciihci~ lc I o~~, dq C ;39 Sp~/ic Sra~cy, ~/60 F - 0~7Z~.76
~ ~C ~ ~240 tva~ra~ race
Vapor d~iCy (~1) :~ 3.~.0
~p~r~ce nd ~r: A ~, mblle lt~ '~cb 8 c~r~cer~c~c ~or
~ECTION IV. FIRE ~D E~SI~ ~TA ~ov~n
-45 F~--J 53~53"F J X ~ voim 1.4 7.6
~d ~b ~o proc pre~e ~e. tr is a ~er~ fi~ ~ ~im ~ard
~ ~ to bat ~ lbs. Vm ~ f~aX~ mrf~es,
Ci~ s~cu ~ f~ ~. ~ r~t viol~cly ~th ~idizi~ ~encs.
Firef~h~rs s~ ~r N~~ b~th~ ~arat~ ~ full p~tecci~ ~othiM
SECTION Y. R~CTIVI~TA
;~is Is a stable Mttt~X In c~d ~tale~g at r~ t~rat~e ~er M~X storqe
nd h~lins c~ditfno. It bs ~t ~t~o ~rd~ ~l~ri~t~.
e~los/ve. It in i~ac/ble rich ~1z~8 oSflts. -
~l~L~tlve de&radat~ c~ yield ~ mtde ~ ~rc~17
hydrocarb~.
~ ¢, ~,.,r,..,.~..,,,~ GENIUM PUBLISHING
NO. &67
Skin Coucac~: Itemove cootJminated cXorh~-!, tboh affected arms uith mo~p and ucer.
Xnlmleciou: lusove to fresh ~tr. Lestors btTJchtng and mdm~JLtst~r ozTgeu J~ umedad.
Ingestion: Do not induce vom~cim~, Ampf. ratLom hmFdo Comtm~t physl~'.L~n.
Seek proupt u~d/CLl ussintm~ce for £urcher treatment.
SECTION VI I. SPILL, ~AK, A~ DISPOSAL PR~ES
vide ad~te v~c~a~. CXeIn~ ~rml r~re p~tection
tact ~ v~r ~mcXou. Z[ · ~ or spiXl
disperse veers and to protect ~ Ict~cL~ ~
hoc aXX~ co ~cer s~er or surface va~r. ~d ~~t ~d co sM~ spS~ or
restduo ~ p~ ~ for
'~ spray~ ~to n tnc~Fi~r, foX~~iX, State, ~ ~1 repht~.
SECTIO# Vlll, SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORIqATION
USe sahara! and X0caX exhaust ventilation ~x~loston-l, roof) to keep vapors bel~ rte' TI.'
requirements in the ~oricplace. ~apirmtors mhouXd be available for nonroutine bT
emergency use dave tl~ TLV.
Avoid eye contact by use of chettc~tl safeL7 goggXes and/or f~ulX fecesh~eXd vhere spliml~
Lng ts possibXo. U~sr procecttve clothin~ approprinte for the uork sttu~C~_ou Co
mLqtmtze skin con, ct much as rubber gloves and boots. CLodttuf to be clanged diiXy
and lJundered.
Eyevash fmmcains, IhMrs and 'vuh~ng facilities shouXd be reodlly accessible
Provide suicible treiJ~ng co those hJndlL~ and vot~tnS ~Xth this --teriaX.
SECTION IX. SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS AND COFP~NTS
Store ~n clo~ad co, to,nets In m ~l, d~, wll-~ttlmt~ area ~ fr~ ~ o~
bat, t~iti~ ~,mtr~g ~d/g~ Ktl.' ?mtect ~t~Nts fr~ ~ysi~ ~e.
Avoid direct smiter. Storage mt mt req~r~ts of ~ ~ss ~ tt~.
~tdoor or det~ e~roge prefer~d. ~ smki~ La i~u o~ me. Fret e~c
electric spl~ ~ ~e e~l~i~r~f electrical se~c~..(~t mt c~t.)
indoor ~e of ~ll referral requfrem e~t veutttatt~ to tee va~rs.
TCC FZaubXe ~qu~. bd bbel. IARH.: fl/blt ~auld ~ T.D. ~. ~ 1203.
DOT Cl-sstficatton~ FLANSAB~ LXO~ZD
DATA SOUICE{S)
GENIUM PUBLISHING
GASOUNE
CAS: ~X)6-6 I-9
II is nolt~ ~ Ihe concentralio~ ol aromalG in Ifle vapo~
was much Jess than in Ihe Ik:luid, which, on Ihe aver·se' ccmiams
14% amma~ t~. Runion. however, a~cmed 24% ~o 27%
ok.~m camera d ~he vapm. on ~he od~.r hand. was about the same
as dud o~ · Iypical p~oline,' o~ even diehdy hiehe~.':'
eve. br ~he agemio~ invehed. ~ Iml~ b.md~e d ~i~. ~n
a · mivem or e~me~ ~nm m~onvm~k'd), whe,~ mos~ od' h~e liquid
impoud ~ c~ 4~. European ~ mpomdly ,my roman up
pmem~ ee convmkm d ppm m me'mi k ~ The iden-
unidenermJ S% m corem o~ C, hl~x~. ~h~ ~
molecular weil~ weuld be 72.S. Thence, ae 25'C and 76 ~on,
Winston H. Hick0x
Secretary.[hr
Environmental
Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Office
lnternet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb5
168~ E Street, Fresno, California 93706-2020
Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910
Gray Davis
Governor
2 July 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. David Bird '
Sulliyan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You submitted Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report for the Sullivan Petroleum Company (Report)
dated 6 June 2003 and prepared by Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). The Report
documents off-site monitoring well installations and a groundwater monitoring event performed during
April 2003. Petroleum product floating on groundwater and high concentrations of gasoline
constituents, including the fuel oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) continue to be detected
beneath the source area this quarter. Initial sampling of new monitoring wells confirms that high
concentrations of MTBE have migrated off-site. A relatively large plume of gasoline constituents,
including MTBE, is migrating off-site toward a municipal well and may be the source of impact to
another municipal well. The extent of impacted groundwater is undefined. We consider this release to
be a serious threat to water resources in the area. We request that you expedite additional investigation
to determine the lateral and vertical extent of impacted groundwater and submit a corrective action plan
(CAP) addendum for groundwater remediation. Quarterly groundwater monitoring should continue.
Analysis of groundwater samples f6r volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was not performed during the
First Quarter 2003 event and was not included in the Report. This analysis should be included during
the next quarterly monitoring event. We request that you submit a monitoring and SVE system
performance report for the Second Quarter 2003. A summary of the Report and our comments follow.
A summary of the project is included in our letter dated 19 July 2002.
Report Summary
Monitoring Well Installations
CSE drilled borings MW-4 through MW-6 to a depth of 140 feet below ground surface (bgs) from 10 to
20 April 2003. The borings were converted into standard-~onstruction 2-inch diameter monitoring wells
screened from 100 to 140 feet bgs. MW-4 was installed in the sidewalk along the east side of L Street,
east of the site. MW-5 was installed in the sidewalk at the southeast corner of the intersection of L and
23rd Streets, southeast of the release point. MW-6 was installed in the sidewalk along the south side of
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
Mr. David Bird - 2 - 2 July 2003
23rd Street, south of the site. Groundwater was encountered in the borings at approximately 120 feet bgs.
Soil samples were collected from the borings at 20-foot intervals beginning at 20 feet bgs. CSE logged
soils encountered as well-graded sand and well-graded sand and gravel. The samples were analyzed for
total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) by EPA Method 8015M and benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), and MTBE by EPA Method 8021. MTBE detections were confirmed by
EPA Method 8260. TPH-g and MTBE were detected at 1.5 and 1.6 milligrams per kilogram (rog/kg),
respectively, from MW-5 at 120 feet bgs. MTBE was also detected at 0.028 mg/kg in MW-6 at 20 feet
bgs.
Groundwater Monitoring
CSE conducted groundwater monitoring on 21 April 2003. D_ep~h_.-t_92o-gr9undwater range___d fro_m_l.! 2_.6_4
to 1T8.0~-fCe--i-~ib~ops of the casings (below TOC).. Groundwater samples were collected from
monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-6. Floating gasoline 0.13 feet thick was measured in soil vapor
extraction (SVE) well VW-id. Groundwater flow direction was calculated to be toward the southeast
with a water table slope of 0.015 feet per foot.
Groundwater elevation rose approximately 0.5 feet since the 24 February 2003 monitoring event.
Floating gasoline thickness in VW-Id, groundwater flow direction, and water table slope across the
monitoring network were consistent with the 24 February 2003 monitoring event.
Groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, BTEX and MTBE by EPA
Method 8021. The samples were also analyzed for the fuel oxygenates MTBE, tertiary butyl alcohol
(TBA), di-isopropyl ether (DIPE), ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary amyl methyl ether
(TAME), and the lead scavengers 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), and 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) by EPA
Method 8260.
TPH-g was detected at 59,000, 2,900, and 7,600 micrograms per liter (gg/L), respectively, in the samples
collected from on-site monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3. Benzene was detected at 2,500, 6.7,
and 12 gg/L, respectively, in these samples. TPH-g concentrations detected in MW-1 remained within
one order of magnitude compared to the 24 February 2003 event, increased by two orders of magnitude
in MW-2, and.remained-within one-order'of magnitude, in-MXV_-3
MTBE was detected in on-site monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3 at 17,000, 1,600, and 8,300 gg/L,
respectively, by EPA Method 8021 and was confirmed at 59,000, 920, and 10,000 gg/L, respectively by
EPA Method 8260. MTBE concentrations detected by EPA Method 8260 in MW-1 re. mained within
one order of magnitude of concentrations detected during the last monitoring event and increased by one
order of magnitude in MW-2 and MWz3.
High TPH-g, BTEX, and MTBE.concentrations were also detected in off-site monitoring wells MW-4
through MW-6. TPH-g was detected at 14,000, 47,000, and 17,000 gg/L, respectively in MW-4 through
MW-6. Benzene was detected at 830, 3,500, and 15 gg/L, respectively, in these wells. MTBE was
detected at 13,000, 13,000, and 17,000 gg/L, respectively, and was confirmed at 31,000, 62,000, and
54,000 gg/L, respectively, by EPA Method 8260. Other analytes were not detected by EPA Method
8260.
V:\UGTXProjectsUDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron MWinstall-GW 6-03.doc
Mr. David Bird - 3 - 2 July 2003
CSE concludes that Regional Board Staff will probably require additional assessment of the
downgradient extent of impacted groundwater.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
Gasoline range petroleum constituents, including MTBE, have migrated through the permeable
sandy/gravelly site soils to groundwater beneath the southern portion of the site. Floating petroleum
product has been observed in SVE well VW-1 d during the last seven monitoring events. Product
thickness and TPH-g, BTEX, and MTBE concentrations detected in groundwater beneath the release
have not significantly attenuated since monitoring began on 14 March 2001. TPH-g concentrations
ranging from 14,000 to ~4.7,00Ogg/L~andMTBE concentrations ranging-from 31,000 to 62,000 gg/L
were detected in new downgradient monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6 during the 21 April 2003
monitoring event. This new data indicates that a relatively large plume of impacted groundwater extends
southeast at least 200 feet from the release point with a width of at least 250 feet. The lateral extent and
constituent concentration distributions are unknown.
We need to emphasize that the release from your site presents a serious threat to water resources in the
area. MTBE in groundwater may be transported greater distances away from the release point than other
gasoline constituents due to its relatively high solubility and low adsorption to soils. The impacted
groundwater appears to be flowing in a highly transmissive aquifer toward California Water Service
Company (CWS) Well Station #7, approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the site. The Bakersfield Fire
Department, Environmental Services Division (BFD) has informed CWS of the release. CWS has
monitored Well Station #7 for volatile compounds quarterly since October 2000. Gasoline constituents,
including MTBE, have not been detected. MTBE has been detected at up to 12.3 gg/L in samples
collected from CWS well station #64-01, approximately 2,400 feet southeast of the site. Well 64-01 has
been placed on inactive status. The release from your site is a potential source for this impact..
It will be necessary for you to design, install, and operate a groundwater remediation system to prevent
the spread of impacted groundwater and remove the high petroleum constituent concentrations ("pump
and treat" method). You are to submit an addendum for groundwater remediation to the CAP dated
12 April 2000 by 2 September 2003.
We also request that you continue to investigate the extent of impacted groundwater. You are to submit
a work plan proposing additional shallow downgradient monitoring well installations and at least one
deep "sentinel" well to assess the vertical extent of impacted groundwater in a location between the
release and Well Station #7. The CAP addendum should provide as complete design specifications as
possible for groundwater remediation even though the full extent of impacted groUndwater has not been
determined. Your consultant will need to determine the feasibility for access to off-site groundwater
extraction and treatment facilities. Please submit the work plan by 2 September 2003.
We previously requested that you expedite soil remediation to minimize the migration and spread of
gasoline and MTBE in groundwater and potential impacis ~to Well Station #7. CSE has operated an SVE
soil remediation system on-site since 8 October 2002. Based on data included in the First Quarter 2003,
Progress Report For The Sullivan Petroleum Company dated 13 April 2003, and prepared by CSE, the
system influent vapor concentrations and hydrocarbon removal rates have remained relatively high
V:\UGT~PrqjectsUDW_files\2003 Con'espondenceXCity of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron MWinstall-GW 6-03.doc
Mr. David Bird - 4 -
2 July 2003
.through 31 March 2003. We requested that remediation continue in thermal mode by our letter dated 30
April 2003.
Quarterly groundwater monitoring should be continued. Groundwater samples should be analyzed for
TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, and BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME by EPA Method
8260. By our letter dated 11 December 2003 we requested that you include analysis for the VOCs
usually reported in a full EPA Method 8260 analysis (usually 63 to 67 compounds) one additional
quarter. You did not conduct this analysis during the First Qum'ter 2003 monitoring event. We reiterate
our request that you conduct this analysis.
By our letter dated 11 December 2002, we indicated that analysis for 1,2-DCA and EDB could be
discontinued. We note that these analytes were reported for the First Quarter 2003 monitoring event.
We have no o__bj~e~t!on t_ o_r~po[tipg ~,~CA _a._n.~_E~p£oy_i~.e_d_.~th_atlhis~does not_ result in.increased .....
cost.
Please submit a groundwater monitoring report for the First Quarter 2003 monitoring event by 4 August
2003.
Sections 2729 and 2729.1 for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the Californ~ a Code of
Regulations requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically: Enclosed is our letter
Required Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Agencies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP files).
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
JOHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals...
cc:
Mr. Howard Wines ]2I, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclo
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File: UST/Kern/Chevron Station/2317 L Street, Bakersfield/5T15000836
V:\UGTXProjectsLtDW_files\2003 Con'espondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron MWinstall-GW 6-03.doc
June 6,2003
Central . ironmental
EnViro t Consultant
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company,' LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California, 93301
OFF-SITE GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
(CRWQCB-CVR CASE #5T15000836)
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC.' (CSE) is pleased to present the following Off-Site Groundwater
Assessment Report for the above-referenced site. The monitoring well construction and groundwater
sampling activities were conducted to further delineate the limits of gasoline-containing groundwater at
the site. This work was required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley
Region (5) (CRWQCB-CVR), in its letter dated September 3, 2002, as a result of the discovery of
gasoline hydrocarbons in the soil in and around the area of the former USTs and dispensers at the site
(see Attachment I for a copy of the CRWQCB-CVR Correspondence). A list of acronyms used in this
report is attached.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located at 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, Kern County, California (see Figure rl - Site Location
Map). The site is located within the commercial district, which flanks 23rd and 24th streets. The BCsD
operates the Downtown Elementary School, 1,250.. feet south of the site and San Joaquin Community
Hospital is located 1,500 feet northwest of the site. The site is at an elevation of 404 feet above MSL,
and the topography is relatively flat with a slight slope to the southwest. The site is located within the
northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, MDBM. The site is a newly
constructed retail fuel sales facility and mini mart, which opened during the first quarter of 1999.
The subject site is the location of double-walled USTs and product piping (see Figure 2 - Plot Plan).
The property owner contact is Mr. Tim Sullivan, President, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC,
1508 18th Street, Suite 222, Bakersfield, California, 93301, (661) 327-5008. The consultant contact is
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, LLC, 1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield,
California, 93309, (661) 325-4862. The regulatory agency contact is' Mr. John Whiting, California
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309
(661) 325-4862 - Fax (661) 325-5126, censenv@aol.com
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
June 6, 2003 - Page 2
Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region, 1685 "E" street, Fresno, California,
93706, (559) 445-5504.
BACKGROUND
TOPOGRAPHY
The site is located at an elevation of 404 feet above MSL, and the topography slopes slightly to the
southwest (see FigUre 1). The subject site is located on the eastern flank of the San Joaquin Valley and
west of the southern Sierra Nevada.
GEOLOGY
The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed primarily'of unconsolidated Pleistocene (1.6 million to
11,000 years ago) and Recent (11,000 years ago to the present) alluvial sediments. Beneath the alluvial
sediments are older, predominantly lakebed deposits. These lie unconformably on Mio-Pliocene marine
sediments, which extend to a crystalline basement at 50,000 fog (CDMG, 1965, Geologic Map of
Calif°mia, Bakersfield Sheet).
At the subject site, surface deposits consist of Quaternary (recent) unconsolidated alluvium overlying
Quaternary (Pleistocene) nonmarine sedimentsl Geologic deposits in the study area include Pleistocene
alluvial sediments that form a homocline dipping gently to the southwest. The deposits are alluvium
consisting of indurated and dissected fan deposits (CDMG, 1965). Surface soils are classified by the
Soils Conservation Services as Kimbedina - Urban Land - Cajon Complex and are characterized as
35 percent Kimberlina fine, sandy loam' with moderate permeability; 30 percent Urban land with
impervious surfaces and altered fills; and 20 percent Cajon loamy sand with high permeability.
Subsurface soils observed at nearby UST sites during the construction of water supply wells in the area
are characterized as fine-grained to coarse-grained sands with significant intervals of gravels, cobbles,
and boulders, and minor intervals of thinly bedded silts and clays through the depth of groundwater at
110 fbg.
HYDROGEOLOGY
The site is located in the southern portion of the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley is a
north-south-trending valley, 400 miles long by 50 miles wide, the southern portion of which is known as
the San Joaquin Valley. Surface water and groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley are derived
predominantly from the Sierra Nevada to the east and are transported by five major dyers, the closest to
the site being the Kern River. The subject site is located I mile south of the Kern River.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
June 6, 2003 - Page 3
The depth to the regional, unconfined aquifer is 110 fbg, and the groundwater gradient is to the
southwest, away from the Kern River and toWard the ancient Kern Lake bed (KCWA, 2000, 1996 Water
SupplY Report, July 2000). Perched groundwater at depths as shallow as 20 fbg is known to be present
flanking the current course of the Kern River, but is not known to extend to the site (KCWA, 2000),
WATER WELLS
CWSC operates Well #7 1,000 feet east-southeast of the site. No additional active water supply wells are
located within 2,500 feet of the site.
PREVIOUS WORK
Dudng April 1999, product reconciliation records-indicated a potential release in the product piping
extending from the premium UST to the southeastern MPD. However, the leak detection alarm system
had not indicated a release. Subsequently, the MPD was shut off, and the inner flex product piping was
removed from the outer flex containment piping. A breach was observed in the inner flex product piping.
Therefore, Sullivan Petroleum filed a URR with the BFDESD. On.April 30, 1999, the concrete above the
product piping was removed, and an exploratory trench was excavated, exposing the product piping.
A breach was also observed in the outer flex containment piping.
On May 10, 1999, A.J. Environmental, Inc. advanced a hand-augered soil boring (SC-l) adjacent to the
location of the product piping breach (see Figure 2 for the soil boring location). TPH as gasoline, BTEX,
and MTBE were detected in the soil sample collected from soil boring SC-1 at 5 fbg
(see Table 1 - Summary of Soil Sample Analytical Results). Based on the soil sampling and laboratory
analytical results, the BFDESD, in its letter dated June 21, 1999, required a preliminary assessment of
the vertical and lateral limits of the gasoline-containing soil and an assessment of the potential for the
release to impact groundwater resources. Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. (HFA) prepared a work
plan, dated July 8, 1999, to perform the requested work, which was subsequently approved for
implementation by the BFDESD in its letter dated July 21, 1999. HFA performed the drilling and sampling
activities on August 17, 1999, and September 26, 1999.
Five soil bodngs (B-1 through B-5) were ddlled dudng this phase of soil investigation (see Figure 2 for the
soil boring locations). On August 17, 1999, soil borings B-1 through B-3 were advanced to 20 fbg using
HFA's 10-ton direct-push sampling dg where refusal was experienced due to .the presence of a layer of
cobbles. On September 26, 1999, soil boring B-1 was deepened to a depth of 48 fbg using a torque-
modified MobileTM B-53 hollow-stem auger ddll rig operated by Melton Drilling Company of Bakersfield,
California. Drilling refusal was experienced at 48 fbg due to encountering a second layer of larger
diameter cobbles and occasional boulders. On September 26, 1999, soil borings B-4 and B-5 were also
ddlled at the site to 45 ~g where drilling refusal occurred.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
June 6, 2003 - Page 4
SOil bodng B-1 was drilled adjacent to the potential source area; soil bodngs B-2 and B-3 were drilled as
lateral-assessing soil borings loCated 15 feet to the east and west, respectively, of the potential source
area; and soil borings B-4 and B-5 were drilled as. lateral-assessing soil bodngs advanced 25 feet to the
northeast and southwest, respectively, of the potential source area. Soils encountered during drilling
included well-graded sands, interbedded with a layer of cobbles from 18.5 to 22.5 fbg and a second layer
of larger diameter cobbles and occasional boulders from 37.5 tog to the maximum depth (48 log)
penetrated during the investigation. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.
TPH as gasoline and benzene were detected in the soil samples collected from the vertical-assessing soil
boring (B-l) to less than 22 log and in the soil samples collected from the lateral-assessing soil bodngs
(B-2 and B-3) less than 25 feet laterally from the potential source area. Minor MTBE concentrations were
also detected in the soil samples collected from soil borings B-1 through B-5 to the total depth of the soil
bodngs (see Table 1 ).
The BFDESD, in its letter dated December 29, 1999, required the preparation of a CAP to determine the
appropriate remedial actions for gasoline-COntaining soils at the site. HFA prepared the requested CAP,
dated April i2, 2000, which was subsequently approved by the BFDESD for implementation. An. RI/FS
was conducted to assess the feasibility and cost effectiveness of mitigation technologies. The results of
the RI/FS analysis were that in-situ vapor extraction is the technology that appears most suitable for this
site. A vapor extraction well field consisting of central, shallow-zone and deep-zone vapor extraction
wells (VW-ls and VW-ld, respectively) and three lateral, shallow-zone vapor extraction wells (VW-2 and
VW-4) was proposed (see Figure 2 for the vapor extraction well locations).
On February I through 3, 2001, HFA advanced soil boring VW-ld to 125 fbg, which was completed as a
combination groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well, and soil borings VW-2 through VW-4 to 45 fbg,
which were completed as vapor extraction wells. HFA performed the drilling and sampling of combination
groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well VW-ld on February I through 3, 2001, using a limited-
access, dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill dg, operated by West Hazmat, Inc., of Sacramento,
California. The LAR was used because of the height of the canopy above the drill location, and the
dual-walled percussion, air rotary LAR was required due to the requirement to drill through cobbles and
boulders. The three lateral vapor extraction wells (VVV-2 through VVV-4) were 'drilled with a conventional
dual-walled percussion, air rotary ddll dg with a normal height mask. Soil samples were collected at 50,
65, 80, and 100 log while ddlling soil boring VW-ld, with groundwater encountered at 110 log.
Soil samples were not collected while ddlling soil bodngs VW-2 through VW-4 due to their positioning in
close proximity to previous soil bodngs ddlled to similar depths.
Soils encountered dudng drilling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to I foot in
diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and soil 'samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
June 6, 2003 - Page 5
PID to the total depth of soil boring VW-ld. Groundwater was encountered in the soil boring at 110 fbg.
Therefore, the soil boring was drilled to 125 fbg and completed as a m°nitodng well with slotted casing
from 75 to 125 fbg to serve as a combination groundwater monitoring and vapor extraction well.
Soil borings VVV-2 through VVV-4 were. drilled to 45 fbg and completed as vapor extraction wells with
slotted casing from 5 to 45 fbg. Because the LAR was required to be used at another site, time was not
available to install central, shallow vapor extraction well VW-ls during this phase of investigation
TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 250 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg,
decreasing to 5.7 mg/kg in the soil sample collected from 65 fl0g, and was not detected in the soil' Sample
collected at 80 fbg. However, TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 2,300 mg/kg was in
the soil sample collected at 100 .fbg. Benzene was not detected in the soil samples collected at 50, 65,
and 80 fbg. However, benzene was detected at a concentration of 9.3 mg/kg in the soil sample collected
at 100 fbg. MTBE was detected in the four soil samples reaching a maximum cOncentration of 87 rog/kg
in the soil sample collected at i 00 fbg (see Table 1).
On March 14, 2001, a groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well VW-ld. The depth to
groundwater in the well was measured to be 107.43 feet below the top of the well casing.
TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring
well VVV-ld, with benzene at a concentration of 2,400 pg/I and MTBE at a concentration of 120,000 pg/I.
TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring
well VW-ld (see .Table 2 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Organic Compounds).
In order to further delineate the lateral limits of gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in soil and
groundwater, HFA's Preliminary Groundwater Assessment Report, dated June 25,' 2001, recommended
that an expanded groundwater investigation be conducted and consist of the installation of three
additional groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-3) (see Figure 2 for the monitoring well
locations). In order to complete the vapor extraction well field installation, HFA recommended that the
previously approved central, shallow-Zone vapor extraction well (VW-ls) would be installed as well as
central, intermediate-zone vapor extraction well VW-li. The CRWQCB-CVR's case review letter, dated
July 23, 2001, approved implementation of the expanded groundwater assessment plan and VES work
plan.
From October 30, 2001 through November 2, 2001, HFA drilled five soil bodngs with three lateral soil
borings (MW-1 through MW-3) drilled to 125 fbg and completed as groundwater monitoring wells and the
two central soil bodngs (VW-ls and VW-li) ddlled to 35 fbg and 75 fbg, respectively, and completed as
vapor extraction wells (see Figure 2 for the well locations). Soil samples were collected at a 10-foot
interval while ddlling soil bodngs MW-1 through MW-3, with groundwater encountered at 114 fbg.
Soil samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VW-ls and VVV-li due to their positioning in
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
June 6, 2003 - Page 6
close proximity to previous soil borings'drilled to similar depths. Soils encountered dudng ddlling included
well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles Up to 1 foot in diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and
soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a PID to the total depth of soil bodng MW-l, but not in
the soil samples collected from soil borings MW-2 and MW-3. Groundwater was encountered in the soil
borings at 114 fog. Therefore, soil bodngs MW-1 through MW-3 were drilled to 125 fog and completed as
a monitoring well with 2-inch-diameter slotted PVC casing from 75 to 125 fog. Soil borings VVV-ls and
VVV-li were drilled to 35 and 75 fbg, respectively and installed as vapor extraction wells with 4-inch-
diameter slotted PVC casing from 5 to 35 fog.and 40 to 75 fog, respectively.
Benzene was detected in only the soil sample collected from soil bodng MW-1 at 70 fog, at a
concentration of 0.26 mg/kg. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in
the soil samples collected from soil bodngs MW-2 and MW-3. However, MTBE was detected in all 11 soil
samples collected from soil bodng MW-l, reaching a maximum concentration of 84 rog/kg in the soil
sample collected at 70 fog, in 3 of the 11 soil samples collected from soil bodng MW-2, reaching a
maximum concentration of 0.17 rog/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fog, and in 6 of the 11 soil
samples collected from soil boring MW-3, reaching a maximum concentration of 0.32 rog/kg in the soil
sample collected 'at 70 fog..TBA was detected in 4 of the 11 soil samples collected from boring MW-l,
reaching a maximum concentration of 10 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 10 fog (see Table 1).
On November 26, 2001, groundwater samples were collected from monitoring well MW-1 through MW-3
and VW-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.20 to 115.15 feet
below the top of the well casing and the 'direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the
southeast. Three inches of PSH was obServed in well VW-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE
were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching maximum
concentrations of 5,300,000 pg/I, 72,000 pg/I, and 4,100,000 I~g/I in the groundwater sample collected
from well VW-ld. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected
from thefour monit0dng wells (see Table 2).
On March 28, 2002, groundwater samples were again collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through
MW-3 and VVV-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.30 to
114.54 feet below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be
to the southeast. Three inches of PSH was observed in well VW-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and
MTBE were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching
maximum concentrations of 1,400,000 pg/I, 11,000 pg/I, and 1,300,000 pg/I in the groundwater sample
collected from Well VW-ld. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample
collected from the foUr monitoring wells (see Table 2). The groundwater samples collected from
monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and VW-ld were analyzed for physical and chemical characteristics.
The results of the laboratory analysis indicated that the groundwater beneath' the site is potable
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
June 6, 2003 - Page 7
(see Table 3 - Summary of Groundwater sample Analytical Results for Physical and Chemical
Characteristics).
On May 13, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR PTO ~,S-3267-2-0 was obtained for the installation and operation of a
thermal oxidation VES. During the third quarter of 2002, the remediation compound was been
constructed and the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW-li, VW-ld, VW-2, VW-3, and VW-4 were
connected by 2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation
equipment compound. Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and
natural gas services. VES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. On October 10, 2002, the
SJVUAPCD-CR performed an inspection of the VES unit and observed that it was operating in
accordance with the conditions specified in the ATC.
The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 19, 2002, requested submission, of a work plan to perform an
expanded groundwater assessment to assess the southeastern (downgradient) limits of gasoline-
containing groundwater at the site. CSE submitted an Expanded Groundwater Assessment Work Plan,
dated August 9, 2002, which proposed the installation of two off-site downgradient m°nitodng wells MW-4
and MW-5. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated September 3, 2002 approved implementation of the
work plan with the condition that an additional off-site monitoring well (MW-6) be constrUcted to the south
of the site (See Attachment 1). From Apdl 10 through 20, 2003, CSE installed off-Site groundwater
monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6 and the initial groundwater sampling was conducted on
April 25, 2003. The results of these off-site groundwater investigation activities are presented in this
report.
OFF-SITE GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT
The objective of this phase of investigation was to further delineate the off-site downgradient limits of
gasoline-containing groundwater resulting from the release of hydrocarbons from the product piping at the
site. CSE accomplished this through the drilling and installation of three additional monitoring wells
(MW-4 through MW-6) at the site (see Figure 2 for the monitoring well locations). Prior to conducting the
assessment, underground utilities such as water, electrical, and sewer were mapped by Underground
Service Alert (USA) of Northern California. Based upon the USA clearance~ the monitoring well was
positioned in a safe location. Prior to constructing the monitoring wells, Monitoring Well Permit Numbers
MW4655-16, MW4656-16, and MW4657-16 were obtained .from the Kern County Department of
Environmental Health Services (KCDEHS) (see Attachment 3 for the Monitoring Well Permits). Because
the wellS were positioned within the right-of-way of State Highway 178, State of California Department of
Transportation (DOT) Encroachment Permit 'Number 0602-6SV 0894 was obtained (see Attachment 4 for
the California DOT Encroachment Permits).
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
June 6, 2003 - Page 8
SOIL INVESTIGATION AND'SAMPLING RESULTS
From April 10 through 20, 2003, CSE ddlled soil borings MW-4 through MW-6 to a depth of 140 fog using
a Schram T3 air rotary percussion hammer, operated by West Hazmat' Company of Anaheim, California
(see Attachment 5 for the Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures). Undisturbed soil samples were
collected at 20-foot intervals and were analyzed for TPH as gasoline using EPA Method 8015 (M), BTEX
and MTBE using EPA Method 8021, with MTBE confirmed an quantified using EPA Method 8260. Soils
encountered during ddlling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in diameter.
Groundwater was encountered while drilling at a depth of approximately 120 fbg (see Attachment 6 for
the Logs of Exploratory Borings). TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MT. BE were not detected in .the soil
'samples collected from soil borings MW-4 through MW-6 with the exception of TPH as gasoline and
MTBE detected at concentrations of 1.5 rog/kg and 1.6 mg/kg, respectively, in the soil samples collected
at a depth of 120 fog in soil boring MW-5 and MTBE at a concentration of 0.28 'mglkg in the soil sample
collected at a depth of 20 fbg in soil boring MW-6 (see Figure 3-TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE
Concentrations in Soil, Table 1, and Attachment 7 for the Laboratory Report for Soil).
GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION AND SAMPLING RESULTS
Since groundwater was encountered in the soil borings at a depth of approximately 120 fl~, the wells
were ddlled to a depth of 140 fog and completed with 40 feet of 2-inch diameter slotted PVC casing
screened in the interval ranging in depth from 100 to 140 fog to accommodate the large groundwater
table variations observed between wet and dry years (see Attachments 5 and 6). Pdor to the initial
sampling of monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, the wells were developed by bailing until non-turbid
groundwater was produced.
On April 25, 2003 the depth to groundwater within the previously existing and newly constructed
monitoring wells was measured to an accuracy of +0.01 foot. At the same time the top of casing of the
newlY installed monitoring wells were surveyed relative to the existing monitoring wells and a permanent
structure. Before sampling, the monitoring wells were checked for an immiscible layer and 0.25 feet of
PSH was observed in well VW-ld. Monitoring wells MW~I through MW-6 were then purged prior to
extracting samples representative of the in-situ groundwater. During the purging process, the
conductivity, temperature, and pH of the groundwater were monitored and recorded on water sample
logs. Purging continued until a minimum of 2 casing volumes were produced and the measured
parameters had stabilized. Groundwater samples were collected after the wells had recharged to greater
than 80 percent of their initial static water levels (see Attachment 8 for the Groundwater Monitoring,
Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures and Attachment 9 for the Water Sample Logs).
Disposable TeflonTM bailers were used to sample the wells. All groundwater samples were placed in
chilled VOA vials containing hydrochloric acid as a preservative, labeled, sealed, and recorded on a
chain-of-custody record in accordance with the procedures outlined in the CRWQCB-CVR LUFT
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
June 6, 2003 - Page 9
guidance document. The groundwater samples contained no visible, susPended matter, and no
headspace was observed in any of the vials. The samples were then placed in a container filled with
Blue-IceTM for cooling purposes and transported to The Twining, Inc., a California State-certified
laboratory, for analysis. QA/QC sampling included a trip blank, instrument blanks, spikes, and dUplicates.
The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from approximately 112 to 114 feet below
the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the southeast,
with a horizontal gradient of 0.015 (1.5 feet per 100 feet) (see Figure 4 - Groundwater Elevation Contour
Map). The groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH as gasoline using EPA method 8015 (M), BTEX
and MTBE using EPA method 8020, and MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, TAME, 1,2-DCA, and EDB using
EPA Method 8260, Three inches of PSH was observed in well VVV-ld. TPH as gasoline was detected at
concentrations of 59,000 pg/I, ·2,900 pg/I, 7,600 pg/I, 14,000 I~g/I, 14,000 pg/I, 47,000 pg/I, and
14,000 I~g/I were detected in the groundwater samples collected from wells MW-l, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4,
MW-51 and MW-6 respectively. Benzene was detected at concentrations of 2,500 pg/I, 6.7 pg/I, 12 pg/I,
830 pg/I, 3,500 pg/I, and 15 pg/I were detected in the groundwater samples collected from wells MW-l,
MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, and MW-6, respectively. MTBE was detected at concentrations of
59,000 pg/I, 920 pg/I, 10,000 pg/I, 31,000 pg/I, 62,000 lag/I, and 54,000. pg/I were detected in the
groundwater samples collected from wells MW-l, .MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, and MW-6 respectively.
TBA, TAME, DIPE, ETBE, 1,2-DCA, and EDB'were not detected in the groundwater sample collected
from monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-6 (see Figure 5 - TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE
Concentrations in Groundwater, Table 2, and Attachment 10 for the Laboratory Report for Groundwater).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the laboratory analytical results of the groundwater samples collected the recently installed
off-site monitoring wells, the CRWQCB-CVR will likely require additional assessment of the downgradient
limits of gasoline concentrations in the groundwater to the southeast of the site.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
June 6, 2003 - Page 10
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC. trusts that you will find this Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report
to your satisfaction. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Mark
Magargee at (661) 325-4862 or at e-mail address censenv@aol.com.
Respectfully submitted,
Central'sierra Envir°nmental' LLc' ~,.~W~
MRM/jlt ·
Enclosures:
Figure 1 -
Figure 2 -
Figure 3 -
Figure 4 -
Figure 5 -
Table 1 -
Table 2 -
Table 3 -
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
Attachment 10
Site Location Map
Plot Plan
TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Soil
Groundwater Elevation Contour Map
TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater
Summary of Soil Sample Analytical Results
Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Organic
Constituents
Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Inorganic
Constituents
CRWQCB-CVR Correspondence
Summary of Previous Work
KCDEHS Monitoring Well Permits
California DOT Encroachment Permit
Soil Bodng and Well Construction Procedures
Logs of Exploratory Borings
- Laboratory Report for Soil
-Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management
Procedures
- Water Sample Logs
- Laboratory Report for Groundwater
CC:
Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR
Mr. Howard H. Wines, III, BFDESD
Sum~'.:i q~.
I -- ?. ,I ..
'~c,
SITE LOCATION
· DOD,
LEGEND
t
i
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE I - SITE LOCATION MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
~,-~ ~( CAR MINI MART o::
~- WASH uJ
LM
O
o_ MW-2 DISPENSr R iSLANDS n. I-- .
UJ
E-
· · TREATMENI
(~, ~ .VES UNIT
i~ "~ GAS(~LINI~ UST MW-4
., , 20,000-GALLON
DISPENSE ISLANDS _, ~ SPLIT-CHAMBERED
GAS~ ;)LIN -- UST
M~N-3 _..: EXPLORATORY
· TRENCH
~ ~ LOCATION
APPROACH SIDEWALK ~
23RD STRF:ET
SCALE IN FEET
0 15 30
MW-~
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL [3 FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
~ SOIL BORING o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN
(~) VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL
. _ - - VES PIPING CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: JUNE 4, 2003:jif
CAR MINI MART
. WASH ~
<
- ~ ~/o.~3
/ / / / ~d~-~ ~ ~ ·
-- ~/o,32 DISPENSER ISLANDS . ~ ' , T ~0- _ ~/0'~
-- ~ B-5 lO - - 6,5~/28/76 ~- -- ~/0.49
23RD STREET
20-- "ND/NDI0.28 SC~E IN FEET
40- -ND/ND/ND
60- ~D/ND~D 0 15 30
80- ~DIND~D
MW-6 100- ~D/ND~D MW-5
< ~ - -ND/ND/ND
~ 80 - - ND/ND/ND
O 1~ - . ND/ND/ND
~ 120 - . 1.5/ND/1.6
LEGEND ' SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL D FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
SOIL BORING o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
~/~/~ ND NOT DETECTED BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
CONCE~RATIONS IN SOIL (p~) FIGURE 3 -TPH AS GASOLIN~BENZEN~MTBE
DE~H OF SAMPLE (~) CONCENT~TIONS IN SOIL
ND NOT D~ECTED 'CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: JUNE 4, 2003:jlt
~1,~ WAsHCAR MINI MART uJ~
i--
.J
/ ~ / GAS )LIN = UST ~ 289 16 /
~ MW-3 · ~LO~TORY / ' / . ~' /
TRENCH .
APPROACH ' '
.
' 289.
TREE
23RD
~OUNDWA TER LEVELS MEASURE. AP~,~ ~2003 ~ ~
· ~
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEU~ ~O~PANY. LLC
GROUNDWATER ~ONITORIN~ WELL ~ FILL END DOWNTOWN CH~RON SERVICE STATION
o TURBINE END 2~17 "L" STREET
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION CO.OUR ~ GROUNDWATER FLOW BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
(FE~ ABOVE ~SL)~ DIRECTION FIGURE 4 - GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
ANO~OLOUS DATA POINT NOT USED FOR CO~OURING DUE
TO PRESENCE OF FREE PRODUCT CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: JUNE 4, 2003:jlt
· WASH
~ N
Ltl
Z ·
' ' '/~ ~ GAS(~LINI~ UST MW-4
[ r \ ~ GAS~ )LIN: UST 14,0001 8301 31,000
I ~ IW-3 ~ EXPLORATORY / '
SCALE IN FEET
0 15 30
· /7,000 1 TS 154,000
SAMPLED MAY 18, 2003
UJ
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL o FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
#/#/# TPH AS GASOLINEJBENZENE/MTBE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
CONCE~ATIONS
IN
GROUNDWATER
(P~;) FIGURE 5 - TPH AS GASOLINE/BENZENE/MTBE
# /MTBE CONCENTRATON CONTOUR (pgA) ND NOT DETECTED CONCENTRATION iN GROUNDWATER
/ CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: JUNE 4, 2003:jlt
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS · ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fb~j) (mcj/kg) (mg/k9) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (U) 8020/8260B 8260 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
SC-1 5-10-99 5 SC-1-5 26,000 64 1,700 320 2,900 1,400 ......... .-- A
B-1 8-17-99 10 B-1-10 6,500 28 230 85 430 76 .......... B
8-i7-99 15 B-1-15 7,000 26 25-~ 94 430 85 -- ~ ..... B
- 9-26-99 22 Bol-22 ND ND ND ND ND 0.48 .......... B
9-26~99 25 B-1-25 ND ND ND ND ND 0.33 .......... B
---9-26-99 30 B-1-30 ND ND 0.041 ND 0.094 3.1 .......... B
- 9-26-99 35 B-1-35 ND ND 0.011 ND ND 2.6 .... ...... B
9-26-99 40 B-1-40 ND ND 0.0099 ND 0.022 3.2 ......... B
9-26-99 45 B-1-45 ND 0.0062 0.018 ND ND 5.2 ...... -- B
B-2 ' 8-17-99 5 B-2-5 19,000 50 1,000 260 1,400 220 .......... B
--8-17-99 15 B-2-15 4,600 0.82 150 73 410 2 .......... B
B-3 8-17-99 5 B-3-5 ND 0.014 0.21 0.085 0.72 3.8 .......... B
8-17-99 '15 B-3-15 6,300 0.3 150 81 740 3 .......... B
B-4 9-26-g9 10 B~-10 ND ND ND ND NDI 0.023 .......... B
-- 9-26-99 20 B~-20 ND ND ND ND ND 0.19 .......... B
9-26-99 30 B~-30 ND ND 0.012 N-Di 0.0231 3.5 .......... B
- 9-26-99 40 B~-40 ND ND 0.0065 ND ND 3.7 .......... B
B-5 9-26-99 10 -B-5-10 ND ND ND ND[ NDI ND .......... B
--9-26-99 20 B-5-20 ND ND ND ND ND 0.15 .......... B
--9-26-99 30 B-5-30 ND ND 0.007 ND ND 1.3 .......... B
-~-26-99 40 B-5-40 ND 0.12 0.51 0.032 0.16 11 ........... B
VVV-ld 2-1-01 50 VVV-ld-50 250 ND 0.12 0.032 0.25 3.6 .......... C
2-1-01 65 VW-ld-65 5.7 ND ND ND' ND 14 .......... C
~2-1-01 80 VVV-ld-80 ND ND ND ND ND !.5 .......... C
--2-2-01 100 VW-ld-100 2,300 9.3 210 411 2601 87 .......... C
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fb~ll (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (U) 8020/8260B 8260 ' N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
MW-1 11-1-01 10 MW-l-10 ND ND ND ND 0.068 0.0059 -- 10 ND ,ND ND D
11-1-01 20 ' MW-l-20 ND ND ND ND ND 0.011 -- 1.3 ND ND ND D
11-1-01 30 MW-l-30 ND ND ND ND ND 0.005 -- . ND ND ND' ND D
- 11-2-01 40 MW-l-40 ND NDI NDI . ND ND 0.16 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 50 MW-l-50 ND ND ND ND ND 0.068 ' . ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 60 MW-l-60 ND ND ND ND ND 1.5 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 70 MW-l-70 200 0.26 0.66 0.13 0.86 84 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 80 MW-l-80 ND ND ND ND ND 0.49 -- ND ND 'ND ND D
- 11-2-01 90 MW-1-90 ND ND ND ND ND 1.8 '-- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 100 MW-l-100 ND ND ND ND ND 0.77 -- 0.36 ND ND ND D
11-2-01 110 MW-1-110 1.2 ND ND ND ND 1.5 -- 0.2 ND ND ND D
MW.2 10-31-01 10 MW-2-10 ND ND ND ND ND~ ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31'01 20 MW-2-20 ND ND ND ND NDi ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 30 MW-2-30 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 40 MW-2-40 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D.
10-31-01 50 MW-2-50 ND ND ND ND ND 0.17 -- ND ND ND ND D
10-3'1-01 60 MW-2-60 ND ND ND ND ND 0.063 -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 70 MW-2-70 ND ND ND ND ND 0.019 -- ND ND · ND ND D
10-31-01 80 MW-2-80 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 90 MW-2-90 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 100 MW-2-100 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 110 MW-2-110 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
TABLE .1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
/fbi) (m~/k~l) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
MW-3 11-1-01 10 MW-3-10 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 20 MW-3-20 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 30 MW-3-30 ~D ND ND ND ND ND . -- . ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 40 MW-3-40 ND ND ND ND ND 0.014 .-- ND ND ND ND D
- 11-1-01 50 MVV-3-50 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 60 MW-3-60 ND ND ND ND ND 0,06 · -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 70 MW-3-70 ND ND ND ND ND 0.32 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 80 MW-3-80 ND ND ND ND ND 0.31 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 90 MW-3-90 ND ND ND ND ND 0.081 -- ND ND · ND ND D
11-1-01 100 MW-3-100 ND ND ND ND . ND 0.029 -- ND ND ND~ ND D
11-1-01 110 MW-3-110 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
MW-4 4-14-03 20 MW-5-20 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ........ E
4-14-03 40 MW-5-40 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 60 MW-§-60 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E ·
4-14-03 . 80 MW-5-80 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 100 MW-5-100 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 120 MW-5-120 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
MW-5 4-15-03 20 MW-5-20 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-15-03 40 MW-5-40 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-15-03 60 MW-5-60 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
--4-15-03 80 MW-5-80 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-15-03 100 MVV-5-100 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4~-15-03 120 MW-5-120 1.5 ND ND ND ND 1.'3 1.6 ........ E .....
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS .
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE ] SAMPLE TPH AS I ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(it)g) I (m~/k~lI (m~/k~l/ ~ (mg/k9) (mg/kg) i (mg/kg) (mg/kg) i (mg/kg) (mg/kg)~ (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (U) 8020/8260B I 8260 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS 0.062 N/A
MW~6 4-16-03 20 ! MW-6-20 ND NDt ND ......... NDI ND ..... 0,28 " I .... i " E
---4-1--~--~-- 40 | MW-6-40 ND NDi ND NDI ND ND .... I ......1 E
4-16~03 60! MW-6-60 ND ~' ND ND~ ND ND -- · ....... - -- E
4-16-03 80 MW-6-80 ND ~)-j- ND NDi ND N-~)~ .... .--~ .. i E
--~4;~ 6.--~3- .... 100 MW-6-100 ~ ND ND i ND L'.- Z -.~ --
4-16-03 120 [MW-6-120 ND] ND ND'! ND ~D --~---[ .... 7'---'-'i --- ....... -~!-' ...... , -~-~ ....
REF -' Report reference. N/A = Not.applicable. ND = Not detected. -- = Not analyzed.
A = A.J. Environmental, Inc.'s, report dated May 1999.
B = Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s (HFA's) report dated November 17, 1999.
C = HFA's report dated June 25, 2001.
D = HFA's report dated February 19, 2002.
E = Central Sierrra Environmental (CSE's) current report.
TABLE 2.
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, ~AKERSF~ELD, CALIFORNIA
WELL 10 ANDi DATE ETHYL-
SANIPLEOI DEPTH TO FLOATING ~ I 1 2 DICHLORODi P' i 1,2.4
ELEVATION GASOLINE BENZENE MTBE EIENZENE TOLUENE I BENZENE MTBE VOC$ REF
ELEVATION'
EPA ANALY*r CAL METHOD 8015 M 8021 8260 ~ ~ I NN//AA
REP RT G L M T ' ~ VARiES-SEE LAEORATORY REPORTS , N/A
· 4040O [~1.2,~.0 ----T~[ ~-- 0~_~.~_ 28a~__I~_S~.30~_.~O] 7~0om _~9_o~0].~0_~_0o~_,~__~O~_0~q_.LSj._0o~~ :. .. = -~L :.--- .... -~_ ~'~4~._CX2~.j__P.ND_~_N~. NqL-_N_0~_.~-=.I_-~-~__--------F '--' ..L--~- ....... c.---H-~- ................. ~ -- ~--
~i:~>~2~__."~i~..~--:O~l--- 2~4~- - - ~ - J. "--L - -L-- - -L - .-~---J' --J--- I --J--~--~--:------I----~- - -~---:-~-------"---~---~-----" '------~----~
-r~.3~T--'T~:~,~ -~!'~ii---'~7~_:---:-.:~-:'-'--:--]':~Z.]:'-:--IT__-~T.~_Z': : ~----:-L ----'------:---------.-~L--~I-:--J--:--~--:-"~--~--~-----.q---" ~ -- ...... "-----~- ..... --- ..... ~----~--~-----~-~
Mw.~
40437
F6-27-o2~ 15~[ o.bo~' 288.71L~ 350 32 11ol _]t0~ ..... ~8/ .~5~o.]~____- - -L__.------ --~ 170~L--J~-~'-L--~D-~-.N,~--~ - "~J----..--:----------'--' ...... ~ .... --- ....... ":--~ ........ -----"- ,"~~-~
~.72
-~'E.6~--~:,i~-----~'~,--F---~i1-' ~300o ~ 20o[ ~j_ 3m~_ ~7,0o01 -- _~__~__._-_~ __-. 4----~-~O-j~N-= -~-~L---"--~L--.~2-~" ~----------4- -~--~----- .... "~, :---. ---- ------~---'---'-----.--
-~-~---[:.--~[a' ..... ~Z-~ ------~-]~:.---a~------~:~-~ -----~--'~T~T- T------.----: Y--:---L_--: ....... ~____.mo_~ ?_~ _a~__7 _. NO _ ?_~D= - ~.4---:~=~----.-:--=~:--:--~ ::-~.~- ---- -~- ----~-~fi--~:~ --~-
MW-5 ........ I ~7~ ' 470O0 35~3 800 20O' 8400 70OO I I 62[:X]0 ND ND ND ND ND NDI ..... ~ - - - I - H
TRIPBLANKI 4-21-03] N/At NIAI N/Al - NDI NDI N0t HDi NDJ - I - I I - I - I - I - ! - I I - I -' i ' ,-,-
TABLE 3.
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
WELL ID DEPTH TO FLOATING GROUND-
AND DATE GROUND- PRODUCT WATER
ELEVATION' SAMPLED WATER THICKNESS ELEVATION TDS EC pH CHLORIDE SULFATE NITRATE CALCIUM MAGNESIUM SODIUM POTA$SIUMI -IYDROXIDE! CARBONATE BICARBONATE TKN REF
(feet-MSL) (fl:)~) (feetI (feet-MSL) (rog/I) (umhos/cm) (pHunits) (rog/l) (mg/1) (mg/t) (mg/I) (rog/I) (rog/I) (rog/I) (rog/I) (rog/I) (rog/I) (rog/I)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 180.1 9050 9040 300.0 6010 310.1 351.2 N/A;
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES - SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
404.00 3-28-02 114.54 0.25 289.46 617 951 7.38 93 82 2.1 ' t20 21 44 5.1 ND ND 350 0.8 A
MW-I 3-28-02 114.53 0.00 289.76 424 664 7.12 48 68 40.4 79 14 39 4.1 ND ND 200 0.71 A
404.29 8-22-02 120.02 0.00 284.27 250 490 6.6 30 51 18 76 23 37 18 ND ND 140 ND B
MW-2 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 291,07 382 578 7.21 31 74 46.3 86 t2 39 3.8 ND ND 160 0.8 a
404.37 8-22-02 118.72 0.00 285.65 310 55(~ 6.7 33 66 38i 71 17 37 11 ND ND 140 ND B
MW-3 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 290.42 382 578 7.21 31 74 46.3 66 12 39 3.8 ND ND 160 0.8 A
403.72 8-22-02 118.84 0.00 284.88 310 48(~ 6.7 25 59 381 97 25 37 16 ND ND 140 ND B
REF = Reoort reference. ,I/A = Not ao,~licable. ND = qot detected.
'Measured to the top of the well casing. ·
A = Holgu~, Fehan 8. Associates, Ine.'s, report dated May 2g, 2002.
B = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's report dated November 14, 2002.
AST
BFDESD
BCSD
BTEX
CAP
CDMG
CDWR
CRWQCB-CVR
CWSC
DCA
DIPE
DOT
EDB
EPA
ETBE
fbg
KCDEHS
KCWA
LAR
LLC
LUF-r
MDBM
rog/kg
MPD
MSL
MTBE
pH
PID
PSH
PVC
Q~QC
RI/FS
ROI
TAME
TBA
TPH
URR
USA
UST
VES
VOA
VOC
pg/I
LIST OF ACRONYMS
aboveground storage tank
Bakersfield Fire Department Environmental Services Division
Bakersfield Consolidated School Distdct
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xYlenes
corrective action plan
Califomia Division of Mines and Geology
California Department of Water Resources
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. (5)
California Water Services Company
dichloroethane
diisopropyl ether
Department of Transportation
ethylene dibromide
Environmental Protection Agency
ethyl tertiary butyl ether
feet below grade
Kern County Department of Environmental Health Services
Kern County Water Agency
limited access fig
limited liability corporation
leaking underground fuel tank
Mount Diablo Base and Meddian
milligram per kilogram
multiple product dispenser
mean sea level
methyl tertiary butyl ether
hydrogen potential
photoionization detector
phase-separated hydrocarbons
polyvinyl chlodde
quality assurance/quality control
remedial investigation/feasibility study
radius of influence
tertiary amyl methyl ether
tertiary butyl alcohol
total petroleum hydrocarbons
Unauthorized Release Report
Underground Service Alert
underground storage tank
vapor extraction system
volatile organic analysis
volatile organic compound
microgram per liter
ATTACHMENT 1;
CRWQCB-CVR CORRESPONDENCE
Winston H. Hick°x
Secretory for
Environmental
Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Re.gion
Robert Schneider, Chair.
Fresno Branch Office
Interact Addreas: htlp;J/www.s'wrcb.c,a, gov/~rwqcb5 .
3614 Eazt Azhlan Avenue, Fresno, California 93726 . .
Phone (559) 445-5!16 · FAX (559) 445-5910
Gray Davis
Governor
3 September 2002
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. DaVid Bird
Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, Califomia 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You submitted Expanded Groundwater Assessment Work Plan At The Sullivan Petroleum Company,
LLC Downtown Chevron Service Station (Work Plan) dated 9 August 2002 and prepared by Central
Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). · The Work Plan proposes the installation of two additional
groundWater monitoring wells to determine the lateral extent of impacted groundwater off-site. We
approve the proposed monitoring well installations. We request that you install one additional
monitoring well south of the site. Petroleum product floating on groundwater and high concentrations of
gasoline constituents, including the fuel oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) have been
detected in groundwater samples collected from monitoring and SVE wells on-site. We request that you
expedite the remediation of impacted soils to prevent the spread of impacted groundwhter. We approve
the proposed installation and operation of the SVE remediation system by our letter dated 23 July 2001
and subsequent letters. Summaries of the project, the Work Plan, and our comments follow.
Proiect Summary
By a letter dated 28 June 2001, the City of Bakersfield Fire Department (CBFD) referred the subject case
to our agency for regulatory oversight. The site was reconstructed as a convenience store with retail fuel
sales and reopened during early 1999. Product reconciliation records for April 1999 indicated a potential
release. A cut in product piping was discovered at two locations. Subsequent investigation has detected
petroleum product floating on the water table and gasoline-range hydrocarbons (TPH-g) at
concentrations up to 5,300,000 micrograms per liter (gg/L) and MTBE concentrations up to 4,100,000
gg/L in groundwater beneath the site. The lateral extent of impacted groundwater has not been defined.
Depth-to-groundwater during two monitoring events has ranged from. approximately .113 to 115 feet
below ground surface (bgs). Calculated groundwater flow direction during these events has been toward.
the southwest with a slope of approximately 0.03 feet per foot. California Water Service Company well
007-07, a municipal well, is approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the site. A'detailed Project Summary
is included in our letter dated 4 March 2002.
California Environmental Protection Agency
~n~ Recycled Paper
Mi,. David Bird - 2 -
3 September 20(Jr..2 .
Work Plan Summary
CSE prOPoses to install two monitoring wells.(MW4 and MW5) in (downgradient) positions southeast
of the site to further define the lateral extent of first-encountered groundwater impacted by petroleum
hydrocarbons. MW4 and MW5 will be standard-construction 2-inch diameter monitoring wells screened
from 100 to 130 feet bgs. MXV4 and MW5 will be'installed in "L" Street near the northeast and
southeast comers of 23~ and "L" Streets, respectively. The monitoring wells will be installed using a
dual-wall percussion air rotary drilling rig.
Soil cuttings will be logged and field-screened for vOlatile organic compounds (VOCs) with a
photoionization meter (PID). Soil samples will not be collected.
MW4 and MW5 will be developed, surveyed, and added tothe existing monitoring network.
Groundwater samples will be analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA), di-isopropyl ether (DIPE),
ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME), ethylene dibromide (EDB), and
1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) by EPA Method 8260.
CSE will begin work within 45 days after Work Plan approval by the Regional Board, issuance of
monitoring well permits by the Kern County Environmental .Health Services Division, and encroachment
permits by the City of Bakersfield Department of Public Works. An Expanded Groundwater
Assessment Report will be submitted to the Regional Board approximately 60 days after the work is
completed.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized reports, we have the following comments:
Gasoline range petroleum constituen{s, including MTBE, have migrated through the permeable
sandy/gravelly site soils and have been detected in groundwater beneath the southern portion of the site.
Floating petroleum product 0.25 feet thick was measured on groundwater in SVE well VW-1 d during
the 26 November 2001 and 28 March 2002 monitoring events. MTBE and benzene have been detected
in groundwater samples at very high maximum concentrations of 4,100,000 and 72,000 gg/L,
respectively. The lateral extent of impacted groundwater has not been del'med.
We approve the installation of monitoring wells MW4 and MW5. Please submit a report of findings
documenting the installations by 3 December 2002.
Concentrations of TPH-g, benzene, and MTBE up to 46,000, 110, and 23,000 gg/L, respectively, have
been detected in existing well MW3, 85 feet west-southwest of the release point, and crossgradient to
groundwater flow. We request that one additional downgradient monitoring well be installed south of
the site along the south side of 23rd Street to further define the downgradient extent of impacted
groundwater to the west. Please submit a map~"~gthe proposed location of this 'additional well by
3 October 2002. ' ·
The Second Quarter 2002 groundwater monitoring report is due by 1 October 2002.
U:\UGIMDW_fiI~L2002 Corre*pondcnceg2ity of Bakersfield Caxes~)wntwn Chevron MWWP ll-02.doc
David Bird - 3 ~- ·
3 September 2002
MTBE may be transpOrted in grOundwater greater dis'tances;away from the release point than other
gasoline constituents due to its relatively high solubility and. low adsorption to soils. We reiterate our
requests of 4 March and 19 July 2002 that you expedite soil remediation to minimize the.. migration and
spread of gaSoline and MTBE in site soils and groundwater and potential impacts to.the :downgradient ·
municipal well.. We understand that you are currently installing the soil vapor extraction (SVE)
remediation system. Please contact this office at least five days prior to SVE system startup.
You need to be aware that Sections 2729 and 2729.1 for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the
California Code of RegulatiOns requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed
is our letter (Required ElectrOnic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to
Regulating Agencies) explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements'. As of the
date of this letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site.
We request that you contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you have any questions
regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
JOHN D. WHITING
Associate Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals...
cc: Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Howard Wines 111, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield,-~/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure~
U:\UG'IMDW_files't2002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases'tDwntwn Chevron MWWP 8-02.doc
A'I-I'ACHMENT 2.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORK
FIGURE 5 - INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT TPH CONCENTRATIONS
100.000
10.000
1,000
100
10
0.1
..... ~'TPH Out
0 I 2 3 4 5 6
Cumulative Operating Weeks
FIGURE 6 - CUMULATIVE EXTRACTION CURVE
30,000
/
/
/
/
/
25,000
20.00o
15,000
10,000
5,000
I 2 3 4 5 6
Cumulative Operating Weeks
7
TABLE 3.
SUMMARY OF VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE TPHAS ETHYL. TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED SAMPLE ID' GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE
(ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv)' . (ppmv) REF
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020 N/A
DETECTION LIMIT 10 0~1 0.1 0.1; 0.1 0.1 N/A
INFLUE'NT 10-10-02 0210153-1 ,,5,,500 58 290 32 220 1,900 A
EFFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.31 A
'INFLUENT 12-12-02 0212180-'1 8,600 110 32,0 ,, 44 260 ,2,2,00J A
REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected.
A = Central Sierra Environmental, I_LC's, current report.
TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF VES MONITORINg3 DATA
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSPIELDo CALIFORNIA
1~1~ ~0 30 lle 6 t 1.470 2~ · · · ~ e e I ~ ~.~ i0 1~ a37.Ot 2 131.59 812,14 2,~.~ 333
1~2 t4 ~2 tea. 7 I 1.435 225 e · · ~ e e · ~ e,235 JO ~ 1.21~.~ 334995 1,152.~ 3,~1,~ 523
1~2~ le 2~ t03 6 I t,4~ ~ · I · ~ e · · ~ 6,5~ t0 1~ ~5523 3.~5.t8 593.45 4,255.31
11~02 ~ ~3 367 1,,~ 2 1.440 ~0~ 4 PO I O · · · ~ 7,t2~ 10 1~ 1+e21 ~47.~t4.29 1,453 ~ ~,0~.21 t.237
11-12-~ 36 6~ 4~ l& 3 1,~ 285 · PO · O · · · ~ 7.445 10 1~ 1.431.3310.02272 1,e21,~ 10.622.~
t2-1~ 83 62 7~ 32 5 1,466 I~ e PO · 0 · I · ~ 8,525 10 1~, ,.1.~i87 1&~3.a3 1.~,77 1&~7,24
1~1~2 72 41 170 37 5 1,~5 215 PO ~ 4 0 · 4 t ~ 8,135 10 1~% ~,210,20 22. e~ 051.i33.7622.7~,7,4
12-2~02 77 84 ~3 39 ,., 8 1.455 }35 PO PO ~ 0 · · · ~ 7,655 10 ,1~ 1,772,10 24,402.751,891.J524,861,~,,3,813
12-2~2 79 27 etd 40 8 1.~5 256 Po po e 0 t · · ~ 7,5~ 10 1~ 79907 25,~1.62 ,a21.7a 25,513.07
r- ~ BOREHOLE
~ PROJECT: ~.~'~/~v' ~r%'~_~ ~' ~ '~'~ ~MPLETDN DETAIL
DESCRIPTION AND SOIL C~S~IFICATION' ~' , ~ ~ ~ ~RING ~ SPARGE
-- ~; POINT
NA~E: ~~, gradal~/¢~d~, ~. a~u~l~,
~x~mum s~ze [grave~). ~nslslenw. m~s~re. ~m.
~~~.~ ~;~ ' . .~ __
-
~-- __ __ · --
S~MPLER ~pE: ~~~~ -',, L~GED B~~~-~ '
~~ -0~, , ,
~ ~~ ~ LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING ~~/
~ ~SOC~TES, ~C.
;^'~MP~ CLIE,~: ~*Z,,j',~,'j,,,~a..~' ~t~,.~.t, BOREHOLE --
i 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~RING ~ SPARGE
;, ~ DESCRIP~ON AND ~IL C~SSIFICATION m POINT
: NAME: ~r~eFs~n~, gradat~/pl~d~, ~. angu~rl~, ' '
maximum size (grave~). ~n~/~slsten~. modem, ~. s~n
-- ~~ ~ ~, ~ , . _
~LER WPE: ~'~ ~~ LO~O aY: ~~~
TOTAL ~OR~N~ O~PTH: /~" ~PROVE9 aY: ~~~~
~ ~~ ~ LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING ~~~
~ ~soc~Es, ~c.
SAMPLE
CLIENT: '
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION AND ~IL C~SSIFICATION
NA~E: ~Fs~, gmdat~p~s~d~, ~1~, angu~rl~,
ma=mum s~ze (gravek),
BOREHOLE .
COMPLETION DETAIL
J~WELL ~GW I~VW
BORING ~-~ SPARGE
~ POINT
LING METHOD:
PE:
DEPTH: -~-'
DEP~o WATER: /!
~[~~__~J...~.~_C~TES, INC.
DRILLED:
LOGGED BY:
APPROVED BY:
DRILLED BY:
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
ATTACHMENT 3.
KCDEHS MONITORING WELL PERMITS
~ERN C~UNTY
I~NVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SEKVICES DEPARTMENT
2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 300
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
Telephone: (661) 862-8700
Fax: (661) 862-8701
This application is to:
Application Date: '~/
No. of Wells/Borings:
PTO No.:
Well No(s).: ~4 tO
APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR MONITORING WELLS
~onstruct VI Modify [] Destroy
Type of well/boring [] Groundwater
!-I Cathodic Protection lq Test Hole 13Ofher mo~?h~cC~,~ (,deC[
Cross Street ,,9,.3 ~ 5¥r".~..c.t- [ Vhone[b~')t,,,x~?- '5,o }hone
State ~ Zip ?~ 3of
(fi,k,!) 3~--'t-Soo~
Phone.
CONTRACToR's INFORMATION "Il
Environmental ContractorGmly'a~ ~' ~.(~'~.~ ~..'"~t/[(, ,
!City ~'~ ~-U"5 I~ -~J d State ~_.ffq Zip
Drilling Contractor
License # and Type
City ~'l,x~.;14,4. State C.~c Zip '~ ~.~05
Drillinl~ Method
Proposed start date: q -' I q - ~ -~ Depth to groundwater:
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION:
1. Well site approval is required before beginning any work related to well constructi°n. It is unlawful to continue work past the
stage at which an inspection is required unless inspection is waived or completed.
2. Other required inspections include: conductor casing, all annular seals, and final construction features.
3. A phone call to the Department office is required on the morning of the day that work is to commence and 24 hours before the
placement of any seals or plugs.
4. Construction under this Permit is subject to any instructions by Department representatives.
5. All wells constructed of PVC located at a contaminated site where degradation may occur must be destroyed after two years
or prove no degradation is occurring or has occurred. '~
6. Any misrepresentation or noncompliance with required Permit Conditions or Ordinance will result in issuance of a "STOP
WORK ORDER."
7. A copy of the Department of Water Resources Driller's Report' as well as copies of logs, water quality analyses, and as-builts
of wells must be submitted to the Environmental Health Services Department within 14 days after completion of the work.
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT FOR DESTRUCTION:
1. A well destruction application must be filed with this Department ifa well is being destroyed that is not in conjunction with
a test hole permit.
2. Destruction procedures must be followed as per UT-50.
3. Placement of the seal must be witnessed by a representative of this Department. Twenty-four-hour advanced notice is required
for an appointment.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
THIS APPLICATION BECOMES A PERMIT WHEN APPROVED
WELL CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION
WF_,fJ- DEPTH ,, I ~1. 0 ~¢-~-t - ""7
GROUND ELEVATION (IF KNOWN) .
BOREHOLE DIAMETER
CASING-INSIDE DIAMETER
CASING MATERIAL & GAUGE
SCREEN MATERIAL & GAUGE
TYPE OF BENTONITE PLUG & DEPTH
FILTER PACK MATERIAL & SIZE
SCREEN SLOT SIZE & LENGTH
SEALANT PLACEMENT METHOD
, LOCKING WELL CAP
FACILITY PLOT PLAN Provide a description of the facility to be monitored, including: location of tanks, proposed monitoring
and placement, nearest street or intersection, location of any water wells or surface water within 500-
foot radius of facility; please attach.
ZONE OF INFLUENCE Information on zone of influence, such as mathematical calculations or field test data, may be required
VADOSE ZONE WELLS upon review of the application.
WELL DESTRUCTION INFORMATION
WELL DEPTH
CASING MATERIAL
SEALANT MATERIAL
SEALANT PLACEMENT METHOD
DESCRIBE DESTRUCTION PROCEDURE:
! have read and agree to comply with the general conditions noted. This permit mtat be signed by either the c ~ctorNb°r owner.4892
Owner'n Rion:~f,,~. · ]~f~_ Cnfltraemr's Signature u u s ~
Work Order #
THIS APPLICATION BECOMES A PERMIT WHEN APPROVED
HMS6
A'I-I'ACHMENT 4.
CALIFORNIA DOT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
' ST,~TE'~JF CALIFORNIA · DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
TR-0120(REV. 2/98)
In compliance with' (Check one):
Your application of March21, 2003
0
0
Utility Notice No.
Agreement No.
Your Reference No.
TO:
of
of
Sullivan Petroleum Company
1508 18m Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, Ca. 93301
Attn: Tim Sullivan
Phone: (661)327-5008
I
Permit No.
0603-6DP-0176
{~sUCo/Rte/PM(KP)
061KER/1781 1.64(2.64)
Date
March 25, 2003
Fee Paid ~ Deposit
$ 80.00 I $ 0.00
Pedormance Bond Amount (1) Payment Bond Amount (2)
$ NIA $ NIA
Bond Company
Bond Number (1) . Bond Number (2)
And subject to the following, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to:
, PERMITTEE
Enter upon State Highway right-of-way of 23"~ Street (Hwy. -178 EB) at intersection with "L" Street to install
three (3) monitoring wells in at locations per the provisions of the original permit #0602-6SV-0894 and all riders
thereto, a copy of which is attached & made part of this permit.
NOTIFICATION: Permittee shall notify the Department's Representative, two (2) working days prior to initial
start or restart of work under this permit.
Caltrans Permits Field Engineer ZALDY ALORA (661) 395-2576
AUTHORIZED CONTRACTORS:
West Hazmat Drilling (714)939-6850 Bob Nix
Any contractor(s) and subcontractor(s), if not named on this permit, or on Permittee's Approved Contractor's list are
required to apply for and obtain a separate Caltrans encroachment permit prior to starting work in the State right-of-way.
The following attachments are also included as pa~t of this permit
(Check applicable):
[] Yes C-] No General Provisions
FI Yes [] NO Utility Maintenance Provisions
[] Yes [~ No Special Provisions
[~ Yes E~] No A Cai-OSHA permit required prior to beginning work;
# IF ANY EXCAVATION EXCEEDS 1.52 m (5')IN DEPTH.
In addition to fee, the permittee will be billed
actual costs for:.
O Yes C~ No Review
[~ Yes O No Inspection
[~ Yes r-] No Field Work
(If any Caltrans effort expended)
Yes ~] No The information in the environmental documentation has been reviewed and is considered prior to approval of this
This permit is void unless the work is complete before December 31, 2004 (Completion date of Permit f~0602-6SV-0894)
This permit is to be strictly construed and no other work other than specifically mentioned is hereby authorized.
No project work shall be commenced until all other necessary permits and environmental clearances have been obtained.
APPROVED:
RSC (1), (0)
cc: DO, RSA, STM (2)
Permit File fK)602-6SV-O894
Mark Magargee (Central Sierra Environmental LLC)
Attach: T-11, PERMIT 0602-6SV-0894
Ray Chopra P.E,, Permit Engineer (661)334-3900
FM 91 143~
J. Mike Leonardo, Direr:tot. District 6- Central Region
STATE OF CALIFORNIA · DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
~:~TR-0120 ~EV. 2/98)
In compliance with (Check one):
[Your application of November 21, 2002
--] Utility Notice No.
--] Agreement No.
--] Your Reference No.
TO:
of
of
Sullivan Petroleum Company
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, Ca. 93301
Attn: Tim Sullivan
Phone: (661)327-5008
And subject to the following, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to:
Permit No.
0602-6SV-0894
Dist/Co/Rte/PM
O6/KER/1781 1.64(2.64)
Oate
November 26, 2002
Fee Paid Deposit
$ 240.00 $ 80.00 (AX)
Performance Bond Amount (1) payment Bond Amount (2)
$ NIA $ N/A
Bond Company
Bond Number (1) Bond Number (2)
,PERMITTEE
Enter upon State Highway right-of-way of 23rd Street (Hwy. -178 EB) at intersection with "L" Street to
install three(3) monitoring wells in at locations as per the attached & approved plan. Permittee shall be
responsible to remove these monitoring wells after completion of the survey as per Caltrans Standards.
NOTIFICATION: Permittee shall notify the Department's Representative, two (2) working days prior to initial start or
restart of work under this permit.
PermitteelContractor is required to have a pre job meeting with Caltrans Permits Field Engineer to discuss the
required Traffic Control System.
Caltrans Permits Field Engineer ZALDY ALORA (661)395-2576
The following attachments are also included as part of this permit
(Check applicable):
~] Yes [] No General Provisions
[] Yes [~ No Utility Maintenance Provisions
[] Yes [~ No Special Provisions
[~ Yes [~ No A Cai-OSHA permit required prior to beginning work;
# IF ANY EXCAVATION EXCEEDS 1.52 m (5') IN DEPTH.
In addition to fee, the permittee will be billed
actual costs for:.
[--] Yes [] No Review
~] Yes r-~ No Inspection
[~3 Yes r-'] No Field Work
(If any Caltrans effort expended)
[] Yes
[~ No The information in the environmental documentation has been reviewed and is considered prior to approval of this
permit.
This permit is void unless the work is complete before December 31, 2004
This permit is to be strictly construed and no other work other than specifically mentioned is hereby authorized.
No project work shall be commenced until all other necessary permits and environmental clearances have been obtained.
RSC (3) (0)
cc: DO, RSA, STM
John Whiting (California Regional Water Quality Board)' ·
Mark Magargee (Central Sierra Environmental LLC)
Attach: T-11, TR-0163, Plan, Lane Closure Data Form
Ray Chopra P.E., Permit Engineer (661)334-3900
FM 91 1436
APPROVED:
Mike Leonardo, Director, District 6 - Central Re,lion
BY: 0~' '
Kevin L. Br
I of 3
P. ERMITTEE: Sullivan Petroleum comPany
PE. RMIT.~: 0602-6SV-0894
DATE: I~vember 26, 2002
CONTRACTORS:
Melton Drilling (661)589-0521 Carl
Any contractor(s) and subcontractor(s), if not named on this permit, or on the Permittee's Approved Contractor's list are
required to apply for and obtain a separate Caltrans encroachment permit prior to starting work in the State right-of-way.
GENERAL PROVISIONS: The work included in this permit shall be accomplished in strict accordance with all items of
the attached "Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit General Provisions TR-0045 (REV 06100)".
CONSTRUCTION SIGNS: Permittee shall install and maintain construction zone signs whenever work is being
performed within the State right-of-way.
TRAFFIC CONTROL HOURS & LANE CLOSURE: Whenever there is work within 0.914 m (3') (35 MPH zone) of a
traffic lane but not on.a traffic lane, the Permittee shall close the lane by placing appropriate advance signs, flag trees,
reflective cones and furnish all necessary safety devices including flagmen and flashing arrow boards, to properly
protect and direct highway traffic. Whenever there is work within 1.828 m (6') (over 45 MPH zone) of a traffic lane but
not on a traffic lane, the permittee shall close the lane by placing appropriate advance signs, flag trees, reflective cones
and furnish all necessary safety devices including flagmen and flashing arrow boards, to properly protect and direct
traffic. At no time will the width of an existing lane be reduced to less than 3.048 m (10') without written approval from
Caltrans.
All work in right of way including WOrk requiring traffic control shall be conducted between 9:00 AM and 3:00
PM Monday through Friday, or as otherwise authorized by a Rider to original Permit.
The full width of the traveled way shall be opened for Use by public traffic on Saturdays, Sundays and designated legal
holidays, after 3:00 p.m. on Fridays and the day preceding designated legal holidays, and when construction operations
are not actively in progress. Designated legal holidays are: January 1st, the third Monday in January, the third Monday
in February, the last Monday in May, July 4th, the first Monday in September, the second Monday' in October, November
11th, Thanksgiving Day and the day after and December 25th. When a designated holiday falls on a Sunday, the
following Monday shall be a designated legal holiday. When November 11th falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday
shall be a designated legal holiday.
Lane and shoulder closures shall conform to the attached Department Of Transportation Standard Plan No. T-11
~Traffic Control System for Lane Closure on Multi Lane Conventional Highways" and/or the applicable
provisions in the "Manual of Traffic Controls for construction and Maintenance Work Zones", dated 1996.
Notification of temporary lane closures or traffic detours shall be faxed WEEKLY into the District Traffic Management
Center (TMC), at (559) 445-5990, telephone (559) 445-6166. Notification shall be submitted by 4:00 PM the
Wednesday prior to the proposed closure or detour, but in no case shall the notification be given less than five days prior
to these events
CONCRETE: All concrete within the State Highway right of way shall be as specified in Section 90 of the Caltrans
Standard Specifications, Class "A". Concrete shall not be poured until forms have been inspected and accepted by
Caltrans Permits Engineer. All concrete shall be saw cut. Removal within eight feet of an expansion joint shall cause
removal to the expansion joint.
EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL: Excavation and Backfill not specifically covered by these provisions shall be governed
by applicable provisions of Section 19 "Earthwork" of Caltrans Standard Specifications dated July 1999. Prior to placing
successive structural layers, each layer shall be graded and compacted, and shall meet the grading tolerance specified
by the appropriate provision of Caltrans Standard Specifications dated July 1999.
Sufficient water shall be mixed with backfill material to ensure compliance with compaction requirements. At locations
where an existing water supply is not available, a water truck with sufficient capacity shall be on the site and in use at all
times that backfill is being performed.
Ponding and or jetting of the backfill are strictly prohibited.
Materials generated from excavation shall be placed at locations to cause the least amount of obstruction to traffic.
Excavated material, not to be used for backfill, shall be removed from the R/W at the end of each working period or as
directed by the Distdct Permit Engineer or his representatives.
2 of 3
PERMITTEE: Sullivan Petroleum Company
~ERt~II'I[-#: 0602-6SV-0894
DATE:'~vember 26, 2002
MISCELLANEOUS: All cost incurred for work within State right of way pursuant to this Encroachment permit shall be
borne by the Permittee, and the Permittee hereby waives all claims for indemnification or contribution from the State for
such work. .
All Personnel working within the right of way shall wear the required orange vest jacket or shirt.
NO WORK SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED ON, OVER OR NEAR THE HIGHWAY TRAVELED WAYS OR
SHOULDERS DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER CONDITIONS WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE DISTRICT PERMIT
ENGINEER, OR HIS REPRESENTATIVES.
Permission is also granted to park vehicles temporarily within the right-of-way, outside the shoulders, while
fieldwork is in progress. However at no time shall the vehicles/equipment be parked at any position near the
traveled way, which could cause a traffic or potential traffic problem. Permittee's operation shall also conform to
all applicable portions of the California Vehicle Code.
Excavation of holes within the shoulder for locating and/or placing points shall be filled immediately after use with
material equal in kind, quality and thickness as that excavated and compacted to grade of surrounding area. No
open excavation shall be permitted during hours of darkness.
Equipment and Work shall be left in a clean and well-groomed condition as direCted by Caltrans Engineer or Inspector.
Location markers are to be placed near the right Of way as possible. Any work not covered by plan or conditions of this
permit shall be completed in accordance with current Caltrans Standards as directed by Caltrans Field Representative.
The Well Head shall be protected by a flush traffic rated cover.
DAMAGES: Any damages to private or public facilities shall be immediately reported to Caltrans representative and
repaired or replaced to Caltrans Standards and/or then facility owner requirement, at the expense of the Permittee.
The Permittee shall be responsible for locating and protecting all underground facilities that may be in the work areas.
Before any excavation, the Permittee shall call USA UNDERGROUND ALERT Ph: 1-800-642-2444.
CALTRANS DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE TO USA.
CONFLICT WITH STATE CONTRACTS: If this work comes in conflict with work in progress under State Construction
Contract and both operations cannot be accomplished at the same time, the State Construction Contract work shall take
precedence. State Contractor shall have access to the work-site at all times.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROVISIONS: Permittee shall fully conform to the requirements of the Caltrans
Statewide NPDES Storm Water Permit, Order No. 99-06-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003 adopted by the State Water
Resources Control Board on July 15, 1999. The Permittee shall also conform to the requirements of the General
NPDES Permit for Construction Activities and any subsequent General Permit in effect at the time of issuance of this
encroachment Permit. These Permits regulate storm water & non-storm water discharges associated with year round
construction or special event encroachment activities.
CONDITION: Beginning work on this permit constitutes full agreement and acceptance of all conditions mentioned
above.
FAILURE TO PROPERLY PROVIDE SIGNS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL IN ACCORDANCE WITH.CALTRANS
STANDARDS AND ADHERE TO ALL REQUIREMENTS IN THIS PERMIT SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR
REVOCATION OF THIS PERMIT AND/OR DENIAL OF FUTURE PERMITS.
3 of 3
APPROACH
MINI MART
DISPENS
~R ISLANDS
DISPENSEI~ ISLANDS
B-5
PLANTER
EXPLORATORY
TRENCH
LOCATION
SIDEWALK
TREATMENT
UNIT
G^SqLI.~ UST
__20,0(X)--GALLON
SPLIT-CHAMBErED
GA~~UST
23RD STREET
for
I
/
SIDEWALK
LEGEND
~ .-._ SOIL BORING n
~ ..~'_~ ~-~:~OUNDWATER MONITORING WEU. o
FILL END
TURBINE END
SCALE IN FEET
0 15 30
MW-5
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 %' STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN .
CENTRAL sIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, I.LC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT GENERAL PROVISIONS
TR-004$ (REV. 6/2000)
1. AUTHORITY: The Department's authority to issue encroachment permits is
provided under, Div. 1, Chpt. 3, Art. 1, Sect. 660 to 734 of the Streets and
Highways Code.
2. REVOCATION: Encroachment permits are revocable on five days notice
unless otherwise stated on the permit and except as provided by Iaw for public
corporations, franchise holders, and utilities. These General Provisions and the
Encroachment Permit Utility Provisions 'are subject to modification or abrogation
at any time. Pcrmittees' joint use agreements, franchise rights, reserved rights or
any other agreements for operating purposes in State highway right of way are
exceptions to this revocation.
3. DENIAL FOR NONPAYMENT OF FEES: Failure to pay permit fees when
due can result in rejection of future applications and denial of permits.
4. ASSIGNMENT: No party other than the permittee or permittee's authorized
agent is allowed to work under this permit.
5. ACCEPTANCE OF PROVISIONS: Permittee understands and agrees to
accept these General Provisions and all attachments to this permit, for any work to
be performed under this permit
6. BEGINNING OF WORK: When traffic is not impacted (sec Number 35), the
permittee shall notify the Department's representative, two (2) days before the
intent to start permitted work. Permittee shall 'notify the Department's
Representative if the work is to be interrupted for a period of five (5) days or more,
unless otherwise agreed upon. All work shall be performed on weekdays during
regular work hours, excluding holidays, unless otherwise specified in this permit.
7. STANDARDS OF CONSTRUCTION: All work performed within highway
right of way shall conform to recognized construction standards and current
Department Standard Specifications, Department Standard Plans High and Low
Risk Facility Specifications, and Utility Special Provisions.' Where reference is
made to "Contractor and Engineer," these are amended to be read as "Permittee
and Department representative."
8. PLAN CHANGES: Changes to plans, specifications, and permit provisions arc
not allowed without prior approval from thc State representative.
9. INSPECTION AND APPROVAL: All xvork is subject to monitoring and
inspection. Upon completion of work, pcrmittce shall request a final inspection for
acceptance and approval by the Department. The local agency permittee shall not
give final construction approval to its contractor until final acceptance and approval
by the Department is obtained.
10. PERMIT AT WORKSITE: Pcrmittee shall keep the permit package or a copy
thereof, at the work site and show it upon request to any Department representative
or law enforcement officer. If the permit package is not kept and made available at
the work site, the work shall be suspended.
ILCONFLICTING ENCROACHMENTS: Permittce shall yield start of work to
ongoing, prior authorized, work adjacent to or within the limits of thc project site.
When existing encroachments conflict with new work, the permittee' shall bear all
cost for rearrangements, (e.g., relocation, alteration, removal, etc.).
12. PERMITS FROM OTHER AGENCIES: This permit is invalidated if the
permittce has not obtained all permits nccessa~ and required by law, from the
Public Utilities Commission' of the State of California (PUC), California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cai-OSHA), or any other public
agency having jurisdiction.
13. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY: A safe minimum passageway
of 4' (i.21 meter) shall be maintained through the work area at existing pedestrian
or bicycle facilities. At no time shall pedestrians bc diverted onto a portion of the
street used for vehicular traffic. At locations where safe alternate passageways
cannot be provided, appropriate signs and barricades shall be installed at the limits
of construction arid in advance of the limits of construction at the nearest crosswalk
or intersection to detour pedestrians to facilities across thc street.
14. PUBLIC TRAFFIC CONTROL: As required by law, thc permittee shall
provide traffic control protection warning signs, lights, safety devices, etc, and
take all other measures necessary for traveling public's safety. Day and night time
lane closures shall comply with the Manuals of Traffic Controls, Standard Plans,
and Standard Specifications for traffic control systems. These General Provisions
are not intended to impose upon the permittce, by third parties, any duty or
standard of care, greater than or different from, as required by law.
15. MINIMUM INTERFERENCE WITH TRAFFIC: Permittee shall plan and
conduct work so as to create the least possible inconvenience to the traveling
public; traffic shall not be unreasonably delayed. On conventional highways,
permittee shall place properly attired tagger(s) to stop or warn the traveling public
in compliance with the Manual of Traffic Controls and
Instructions to Flaggers Pamphlet.
16. STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS: Equipment and material
storage in State right of way shall comply with Standard Specifications, Standard
Plans, and Special Provisions. Whenever the permittee places an obstacle within
12' (3.63 m) of the ~'aveled way, the permittce shall place temporary railing (Type
K).
17. CARE OF DRAINAGE: Permittee shall provide alternate drainage for any
work interfering with an existing drainage facility in compliance with the Standard
Specifications, Standard Plans and/or as directed by the Department's
representative.
18. RESTORATION AND REPAIRS IN RIGHT OF WAY: Permittee is
responsible for restoration and repair of State highway right of way resulting from
permitted work (State Streets and Highways Code, Sections 670 et. seq.).
19. RIGHT OF WAY CLEAN UP: Upon completion of work, permittee shall
remove and dispose of all scraps, brush, timber, materials, etc. off the right of way.
The aesthetics of the highway shall be as it was before work started.
20. COST OF WORK: Unless stated in the permit, or a separate written
agreement, the permit~ee shall bear all costs incurred for work within the State right
of way and waives all claims for indemnification or contribution from the State.
21. ACTUAL COST BILLING: When specified in the permit, the Department
will bill the permittee actual costs at the currently set hourly rate for encroachment
permits.
22. AS-BUILT PLANS: When required, permittce shall submit one (1) set of as-
built plans within thirty (30) days aRer completion and approval of work in
compliance with requirements listed as follows:
1. Upon completion of the work provided herein, the permittee shall send one
vellum or paper set of As-Built plans, to the State representative. Mylar or
paper sepia plans are not acceptable.
2. All changes in the work will be shown on the plans, as issued with the
permit, including changes approved by Encroachment Permit Rider.
3. The plans are to be stamped or otherwise noted AS-BUILT by the
permittee's representative, who was responsible for overseeing the work.
Any original plan that was approved with a State stamp, or Caltrans
representative signature, shall be used for producing the As-Built plans.
4. If As-Built plans include signing or striping, the dates of signing or striping
removal, relocation, or installation shall be shown on the plans when
required as 'a condition of the permit. When the construction plans show
signing and striping for staged construction on separate sheets, the sheet for
each stage shall show the removal, relocation .or installation dates of the
appropriate staged striping and signing
5. As-Built plans shall contain the Permit Number, County, Route, Post Mile,
and Kilometer Position on. each sheet.
6. Disclaimer statement of any kind that differ from the obligations and
protections provided by Sections 6735 through 6735.6 of the California
Business and Professions Code, shall not be included on the As-Built plans.
Such statements constitute non-compliance with Encroachment Permit
requirements, and may result in the Department of Transportation retaining
Performance Bonds or deposits until proper plans are submitted. Failure to
comply may also result in denial of future permits, or a prov!sion requiting a
public agency to supply additional bonding.
23. PERMITS FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY: When work in the right of
way is within an area under a Joint Use Agr~:ement (JUA) or a Consent to Common
Use Agreement (CCUA), a fee exempt permit is issued to the permittee for the
purpose of providing a notice and'record of work. The Permittee's prior rights shall
be preserved without the intention of creating new or different rights or obligations.
"Notice 'and Record Purposes Only" shall be stamped across the face of the permit
24. BONDING: The permittee shall file bond(s), in advance, in the amount set by
the Department. Failure to maintain bond(s) in full force and effect will result in
the Department stopping of all work and revoking permit(s). Bonds are not
required of public corporations or privately owned utilities, unless permittee failed
to comply' with the provision and conditions under a prior permit The surety
company is responsible for any latent defects as provided in California Code of
TYPICAL LAN~ CLOSURE
(Rtl C20
See Note ID
SIGN PANEL~ SIZE (MIn)
TABLE I
.., o-~o ' 3~ ~ e ?.~"
,40'~5 9e 9 J~
'~v'er 80 See Note 9 ~ , ,
TRAFFIO OONTSOL SYSTEM
FOR LANE CLOSURE ON
MULTILANE CONVENTIONAL
HIOHWlY8
NO SCALE
T11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT UNDERGROUND UTILITY PROVISIONS
TR - 0163 (Rev. 0412002) '
Highway and Freeway encasemenl requirements for Tr.~nsverse crossings of Utility installations, installed by the following
methods. The pavement or roadway shall not be open-cut unless specifically allowed under a "UT" permit. Utility installations
shall not be insialled inside of culverts or drainage structures.
The installation of Uncased High Pressure Natural Gas pipelines is allowed, when in compliance with TR-0158 Special
Provisions, "Exception to Policy" for Uncased High Pressure Natural Gas Pipelines.
Encasement Requirements for Transverse Crossings
Bore and Jack Directional Drilling Trenching
Facility Type Frwy/Expwy Conventional Frwy/Expwy Conventional Frwy/Expwy Conventional
High Risk (Section 605) Encase Encase ' 'Encase Encase Encase Encase
Low Risk (Section 605) Encase Encase Encase Encase Encase Optional
Exempt Facilities (Section 605) Encase Encase Optional Optional Optional Optional
Pressurized Fluids Encase Encase Encase Encase Encase Encase
Natural Gas Lines Minimum Optional Optional Encase Encase Optional Optional
7.5' Depth (Appendix H)
Gravity Flows Encase Encase Encase Encase Optional Optional
Note: "Optional" means at the option of the Districl Permit Engineer.
UG !. CASINGS: E.
Casings' should be steel conduit with a minimum inside diameter
sufficiently larger than the outside diameter of the pipe or ducts to
accommodate placement and removal. The casing can be either
new or used steel pipe, or an approved connector system. Used
pipe shall be pre-approved by the Department's engineer or
representative before installation.
When the method of Horizontal Directional Drilling is used to
place casing, the use of High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE)
as casing is acceptable. Provided, that the use of a steel casing
pipe could not conform to the bends of the proposed radii and in
conjunction with the approval of Headquarters Office of
Encroachment Permits.
All pipes 6" (152 mm) or larger in diameter, or placement
of multiple pipes or ducts, regardless of diameters, shall
require encasement.
B. Minimum wall thickness for steel pipe casing for different
lengths and diameters of pipes are as follows:
Minimum Wall Thickness ·
Casing Pipe Up to 46 m Over 46 m
(Diameter) (Length) (Length)
6" to 28" 1/4" !/4"
(152 mm to 711 nun) (6mm) (6mm)
30" to 38"' 3/8" I/2"
(762 mm to 965 mm) (10 mm) (13 mm)
40" to 60" 1/2" 3/4"
( 102 mm to ! 524 mm) (13 mm) (20 mm) I
62" to 72". 3/4" 3/4"
(1575 mm to 1829 mm) (20 mm) (20 mm)
C. Spiral welded casing is authorized provided the casing is
new and the weld is smooth.
D. The ends of the casing shall be plugged with ungrouted
bricks or other suitable material approved by the
Department's' representative.
4
When required by thc Department's representative, the
permittee shall at his expense, pressure grout the area
between the pavement and the casing from within the
casing in order to fill any voids caused by the work covered
under this permit. The increments for grout holes inside the
pipe shall be 8' (2.43 m) staggered and located 224/2
· degrees from vertical axis of the casing. Pressure shall not
exceed 5 psig (34.47 kPa) for a duration sufficient to fill all
voids.
The installation of multiple casings shall be installed with
a minimum of i-1/2 diameter clearance between casings,
but not less than ! 8" (457 mm). The clearance between
casings crossing freeways shall be two (2) diameters
minimum, but not less than 24" (610 mm).
G. The casings placed within freeway fight-of-way shall
extend to the access control lines.
Ho
,Wing cuners, if used, shall be a maximum of 1" (25 mm)
larger than the casing. Voids caused by the use of wing
cutters shall be grouted in accordance with "E" above.
I. A band welded to the leading edge of the casing should be
placed square to the alignment. The band should not be
placed on the bottom edge. Flaring the lead section on
bores over 100' (30.48 m) shall not be permitted.
J. All casing lengths shall equal to the auger length.
Ko
The casings within conventional highways shall extend 5'
(1.52 m) beyond the back of cugo or edge of PaVement, or
to the right of way line if less. Where PCC cross-gutter
exists, the casing shall extend at least 5' (1.52 m) beyond
the back of the cross-gutter, or to the right of way line if
less.
Bore and receiving pits shall be:
A. Located at'least 10' (3.04 m) or more from the edge of · pavement on conventional highways in rural a~eas.
B. Located 5' (1.52 m) behind the concrete curb or AC dike
on conventional highways in urban areas.
C. Located 5' (I.52 m) outside the toe of slope of
embankment areas.
by the Department. Temporary Pavement patches' shall be
placed and maintained in a smooth riding plane free of humps
and/or depressions.
UG 10. DAMAGE TO TREE ROOTs:
No tree roots over 3~' (76 mm) will be cut within the tree drip
line when trenching or oiher underground work is necessary
adjacent to roadside trees. The roots that are 3" (76 mm) or
more in diameter inside the tree drip line shall be lunneled
under and wrapped in burlap and kept moist until the trench is
refilled. Trenching machines may not be used under trees if the
trunk or limbs will be damaged by their use.
If the trees involved are close together and of such size that it is
impractical to protect all 'roots over 3" (76 mm) in diameter, or
when roots are less than 4" (102 mm) in diameter, outside tree
drip line, special arrangements may be made whereby pruning
of the tree tops to balance the root loss can be done by the
permittee under the close supervision of the District Landscape
Specialist or District Tree Maintenance Supervisor. Manholes
shall not be installed within 20' (6.09 m) of any trunk.
UG ! 1. PIPES ALONG ROADWAY:
Pipes and conduits paralleling the pavement shall be located as
shown on the plans or located outside of pavement as close as
possible to the right-of-way line.
UG 12. BORROW AND'tVASTE:
Borrow and waste will be allowed within the work limits only
as specified in the permit.
UG 13. MARKERS:
The permittee shall not place any marker~ that create a safety
hazard for the traveling public or departmental employees.
UG 14. CATHODIC PROTECTION:
The permitlee shall perform stray current interference tests on
underground utilities under cathodic protection. The permittee
shall notify the Department prior to the tests. The permittee
shall perform any necessary corrective measures and advise the
Department.
UG 15. TIE~BACKS:
Tie-backs shall be placed for the sole purpose of
supporting shoring and/or soldier piles placed outside
State highway rights-of-way to facilitate permiuee's
excavation.
B. Tiebacks shall be disconnected from the shoring and/or
soldier piles one (1) year prior to releasing the bond.
UG 16. INSTALLATION BY OPEN CUT METHOD:
When the permit authorizes installation by the open cut method
no more than one lane of the highway pavement shall be open-
cut at any one time. Any exceptions shall be in writing by the
Department's representative. ARer the pipe is placed in the
-open section, the t~ench is to be backfilled in accordance with
specifications, temporary repairs made to the surfacing and that
portion opened to traffic before the pavement is cut for the next
section.
If, at the end of the working day, backfilling operations have
· not been properly completed, steel plate bridging shall be
required to make the entire highway facility available to the
traveling public in accordance with the Steel Plate Bridging
SPecial Provisions (TR-0157)
UG 17. PAVEMENT REMOVAL: "
PCC pavement lobe removed shall be saw cut at a minimum
depth of 4" (102 mm) to provide a neat and straight pavement
break along both sides &the trench. AC pavement shall be saw
cut to the full depth.
Where the edge of the trench is within 2' (0.60 m) of existing
curb and gutter or pavement edge, the asphalt concrete
pavement between the trench and the curb or pavement edge
shall be removed.
UG 18. MAINTAIN ACCESS:
Where facilities exist (sidewalks, bike paths), a minimum width
of 4' (I.21 m) shall be maintained at all times for safe
pedestrian and bicyclist passage through the work area.
UG 19. SIDES OF OPEN-CUT TRENCHES:
Sides of open cut trenches in paved areas shall be kept as
nearly vertical as possible. Trenches shall not be more the 2'
(0.60 m) wider than the outside diameter of the pipe to be laid
therein, plus the necessary width to accommodate shoring.
UG 20. EXCAVATION UNDER FACILITIES:
Where it is necessary to excavate under existing curb and
gutter, or underground facilities, the void shall be backfilled
with tWo (2) sack cement-sand slurry.
UG 21. PERMANENT REPAIRS TO PCC PAVEMENT:
Repairs to PCC pavement shall be made of Portland Cement
Concrete containing a minimum of 298.46 kg (658 lbs. or 7
sack) of cement per cubic yard (0.91 cubic meter). ' Replaced
PCC pavement shall equal existing pavement thickness. 'The
concrete shall be satisfactorily cured and protected from
disturbance for not less than forty-eight (48) hours. Where
necessary to open the area to traffic, no more than two (2%)
percent by weight of calcium chloride may be added to the mix
and the road opened to traffic after six (6) hours.
UG 22. REMOVAL OF PCC SIDEWALKS OR CURBS:
Concrete sidewalks or curbs shall be saw cut to the nearest
score marks and replaced equal in dimension to that removed
with score marks matching existing sidewalk or curb.
UG 23. SPOILS:
No earth or construction materials shall be dragged or scraped
across the highway pavement, and no excavated earth shall be
placed or allowed to remain at a location where it may be
tracked on the highway traveled way, or any public or private
approach by the perminee's construction equipment, or by
traffic entering or leaving the highway traveled way. Any
excavated earth or mud so tracked onto the highway pavement
or public or private approach shall be immediately removed by
thc permittee.
6
Transportation Management Center
Contact Number- (559) 445-6166 FAX - (559) 445-5990
Email ' D6 TMC@dot.ca.qov
Lane Closure Data Reporting Form
Division
Supervisor
Office Phone
F,a×
County
BeRin PM'.'
End PM
[] Construction
[] Maintenance
[] Permits
[] Contractor
Cell Phone
Field Phone
Ca, Si. n I
[] FRE
[]TUL []KIN []KER
I Se.qin Location
J End Location
[] MAD
Route
Est. Traffic Delay
[] 0 min [] 1 hr
[] 15 min i-"] 2 hr
[] 30 min [] 3 hr
[] 45 min [] 4 hr
~--J 5 hr
check one'
Construction Proiect EA
Type of Work
Direction
[]NB
[] EB
[] WB
check one
Date From
Start Day
Date To
End,DaY.
Lane No's
[] Lane 1
[] Lane 2
[] Lane 3
[] Lane 4
[] No Lane
Direction
[] EB
check one
' optional
Lane No's
[] Lane 1
[] Lane 2
[] Lane 3
[] Lane 4
[] No Lane
Type of Closure
[] Connector
[] Full Closure
[] Lane Closure
[] Moving Closure
[] One-Way Closure
[] Ramp Closure'
[] Shoulder
check one
I
[] SUN [] MON
L
[] SUN [] MON
Time From
[] TUE [] WED
JTim~ To
[] TUE [] WED
[] THU [] FRI
I J
[] THU .~"1 FRI
[] SAT
[]SAT
Additional Remarks
Date/Time Entered
Page 2 of 2
Traffic Manual
III
TRAFFIC CONTROLS
II
TYpical Application 5-33
Lane Closure on Divided Highway
5-149
-- 1-1996
-~ I,oA~ W0RKI
150 m ·(Optional)
i' 30 m (Optional)
Interim White
Edge Line
(Optional)
Long-Term (*) Optional
Short-Term
~ LROAD WORK]
J (Optional)
150 m
Trailer or Truck
Flashing Arrow Sign
Truck-Mounted
Crash Cushion
(Optional)
Buffer Space
L
I t.'3 L (Optional)
A
A or
5-~0
1o1~61
TRAFFIC CONTROLS'
Lane Closure ~with Barrier
1. Additional advance warning may be necessary.
Traffic Manual
2. The use of a barrier should be based on the need determined by an engineering analysis.
3. The layout of the barrier should prevent vehicles from impacting the ends of the 'barrier. To accomplish
this, the taper and end should be treated as given in chapter 9 of the ASSHTO Roadside Design Guide
(RDG) orthe Caltrans Standard Plans. Example treatments are connecting to an existing barrier, attaching
a crashworthy terminal such as a crash cushion, or flaring away to the edge of the clear zone.
4. An interim white edge line should be installed from the start of the taper t6 a point beyond the work zone,
rejoining the permanent edge line.
5. The barrier shall not be placed along the merging taper. The lane shall first be closed using channelizing
devices and pa~ ement markings. The barrier is then placed on a flare beginning beyond the downstream
end of the mero_ino_ taper.
6. Refer'to Caltrans Standard Plans for barriers.
Suggested Advance
Warning Sign Spacing
Distance Between
Road Type Signs
in Meters (Feet)
Urban40 kn~h
(25 mph) or less 60 (200)
Urban-50 krn,h
(30 mph) or more 100 (350)
Rural 150 (500)
Expw,//Fwy 300 (1000)
Note: These are suggested distances for
Ad',tance Warning Signs, adequate sight
distances and proximity to other roadway
features may dictate the needforadjustments
when placed.
Length of
Longitudinal
Buffer Space (L)
Speed in Length in
knV'n (mph) meters (feet)
30 (20) 10 (35)
40 (25) 16 (55)
50 (30) 26 (85)
60 (35) 36 {120)
65 (40) 52 (170)
70 (45) 68 (220)
80 (50) 85 (280)
90 (55) 102 (335)
100 (60) 126 (415)
110 (65) 148 (485)
ATTACHMENT 5.
SOIL BORING AND WELL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC'S STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR
SOIL BORING AND WELL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES'
PRE'DRILLING PROTOCOL
Prior to the start of drilling, necessary permits, site access agreements, and/or encroachment permits are
obtained. "As-built" drawings are obtained if possible. ~At least 48 hours prior to drilling, Underground
Service Alert or an equivalent utility notification service is notified. A geophysical survey may be'
conducted to locate subsurface utilities. Site plans and/or "as-built" drawings are compared to actual
conditions observed at the site. The property owner/retailer is interviewed to gain information about
locations of former UST systems (including dispensers, product lines, and vent lines. A visual inspection
is made of the locations of the existing UST system, and scars and patches in pavement are noted. The
emergency shut-off switch is located for safety purposes. The critical zone, which is defined as 10 feet
from any part of the UST system, is identified, and any proposed drilling locations within the critical zone
may be subject to special hole clearance techniques. Drilling locations within the critical zone are avoided
if possible. Notifications are made at least 2 weeks in advance of drilling to the property owner, client
representative, on-site facility manager, regulatory agency, and/or other appropriate parties.
A site-specific, worker health and safety plan for the site is available on site at all times during drilling
activities. Prior to commencing drilling, a health and safety meeting is held among all on-site personnel
involved in the drilling operation, including subcontractors.and visitors, and is documented with a health
and safety meeting sign-in form. A traffic control plan is developed prior to the start of any drilling
activities for both on-site and off-site drilling operations. The emergency shut-off switch for the service
station is located prior to the start of the drilling activities. A fire extinguisher and "No Smoking" signs (and
Proposition 65 signs in California) are present at the site prior to the start of the drilling activities.
The first drilling location is the one located furthest from any suspected underground improvements in
order to determine the natural subsurface conditions, to be able to better recognize fill conditions, and to
prevent cross contamination. For monitoring wells, a 2 x 2-foot square or 2-foot diameter circle is the
minimum removal. For soil borings and push-type samplers, the minimum pavement removal is 8-inches.
When pea gravel, sand, or other non-indigenous material is encountered, the drilling location will be
abandoned unless the absence of subsurface facilities can be demonstrated and client approval to
proceed is obtained. If hole clearance activities are conducted prior to the actual day of drilling, the
clearance holes are covered with plates and/or backfilled.
The minimum hole clearance depths are 4 feet below grade (Fog) outside the critical zone and 8 fbg within
the critical zone and are conducted as follows:
0 to 4 fbg: The area to be cleared exceeds the diameter of the largest tool to be advanced and is
sufficiently large enough to allow for visual inspection of any obstructions encountered. The first 1 to 2
feet is delineated by hand digging to remove the soil, then the delineated area is probed to ensure that
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 2
no obstructions exist anywhere near the potential path of the drill auger or push-type sampler.
Probing is extended laterally as far as possible. Hand augering or post-hole digging then proceeds,
but only to the depth that has been probed. If subsurface characteristics prohibit effective probing, a
hand auger is carefully advanced past the point of probing. In this case, sufficient hand augering or
post-hole digging is performed to remove all the soil in the area to be delineated. For soil borings
located outside of the critical zone, an attempt should be made to probe an additional 4 feet.
4 to 8 fbg: For the soil borings located inside the critical zone, probing and hand clearing.an additional
4 feet is performed. If probing is met with refusal, then trained Personnel advance a hand auger
without excessive force.
An alternate or additional subsurface clearance procedures may also be employed, as required by clients,
permit conditions, and/or anticipated subsurface conditions (for example, near major uti!ity corridors or in
hard soils). Alternate clearance techniques may include performing a geophysical investigation or using
an air knife or water knife. If subsurface conditions prevent adequate subsurface clearance, the drilling
operation is ceased until the client approves a procedure for proceeding in writing.
If any portion of the UST system is encountered, or if there is any possibility that it has been encountered,
the work ceases, and the client is notified immediately. If there is reason to believe that the product
system has been damaged, the emergency shut-off switch is activated. The client will decide if additional
uncovering by hand is required. If.it is confirmed that the UST system has been encountered, tightness
tests are performed. The hole is backfilled only with client approval.
DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES
' Soil boring are drilled using one of the following methods:
Manual drilling: Manual drilling ·utilizes a 2-inch-OD, hand auger manufactured by
Xitech Industries, Art's Manufacturing Company, or similar equipment. Soil samples are collected
with a drive sampler, which is outfitted with 1.5-inch by 3-inch steel or brass sleeves. The specific
equipment used is noted on a soil boring log.
Truck-mounted, powered drilling: Truck-mounted, powered drilling utilizes hollow-stem flight auger
drilling, air rotary drilling, or percussion hammer drilling, or similar technologies. Soil samples are
collected in steel or brass sleeves with a California-modified, split-spoon sampler or, for specific
projects, a continuous sampler. The specific equipment used is noted on a soil boring log.
Direct push sampling: Direct push sampling utilizes Geoprobes®, cone penetrometer testing rigs,
or similar technologies. Soil samples are collected with a drive sampler, which is outfitted with
steel or brass sleeves. The specific equipment used is noted on a soil boring log.
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's'Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 3
Before each soil sampling episode, the sampling equipment is 'decontaminated using a non-phosphate
soap wash, a tap-water rinse, and a deionized water rinse. The drill string is decontaminated with a steam
cleaner between each soil boring (truck-mounted rigs).
Soil samples that are collected'in steel or brass sleeves are covered with aluminum foil or TeflonTM tape
followed by plastic caps. If EPA Method 5035 is required, then 5 to 20 grams of soil is extracted from the
sample and placed in methanol-preserved containers supplied by the laboratory, or sub samples are
collected using Encore~ samplers. During the drilling process, soil samples and cuttings are field
screened for VOCs using a' photoionization detector calibrated to 100 parts per million by volume
isobutylene. Any soil staining or discoloration is visually identified. SOils are classified according to the
Unified Soil ClasSification System. Specific geologic and hydrogeologic information collected includes
grading, plasticity, density, stiffness, mineral composition, moisture content, soil structure, grain size,
degree of rounding, and other features that could affect contaminant transport. All data is recorded on a
soil boring log under the supervision of a geologist registered in the state in which the site is located. The
samples are labeled, sealed, recorded on a chain-of-custody record, and chilled to 4°C in accordance with
the procedures outlined in the California State Water Resources Control Board's Leaking Underground
Fuel Tank Field Manual and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Site Characterization Manual. Sample preservation, handling, and transportation
procedures are consistent with Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's quality assurance/quality control
procedures. The samples are transported in a chilled container to a state-certified, hazardous waste
testing laboratory.
Cuttings from the soil borings are stored in 55-gallon, Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved
drums, roll-off bins, or other appropriate containers, as approved by the client. Each container is labeled
with the number of the soil boring(s) from which the waste was derived, the date the waste was generated,
and other pertinent information. The drums are stored at the site of generation until sample laboratory
analytical results are obtained, at which time the soil is disposed of appropriately.
A soil boring log is completed for each soil boring and includes the following minimum information:
· date of drilling;
· location of soil boring;
· project name and location;
· soil sample names and depths;
· soil descriptions and classifications;
· standard penetration counts (rigs);
· photoionization detector readings;
· drilling equipment;
· soil boring diameter;
· sampling equipment;
REVISED 3~29~02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 4
· depth to groundwater in soil boring;
· name of person performing Ioggingl
· name of supervising registered geologist; and
· name of drilling company (rigs and direct push).
SOIL BORING COMPLETION PROCEDURES
All soil borings are either properly abandoned or completed as a well.
Abandonment
Each soil boring that is not completed asa well is backfilled with bentonite grout, neat cement, concrete,
or bentonite chips with a permeability less than that of the surrounding soils, and/or soil cuttings,
depending on local regulatory requirements or client instructions. Grout is placed by the tremie method.
Backfilling is performed carefully to avoid bridging. The type of backfill material is noted on the soil boring
log. ' '
Well Installation
Wells are designed according to applicable state and local regulations as well as project needs. Details of
the well design and construction are recorded on the soil boring log and include the following minimum
information (in addition to the items noted above for soil borings):
· detailed drawing of well;
· type of well (groundwater, vadose, or air sparging);
· casing diameter and material;
· screen slot size;
· well depth and screen length (+_1 foot);
· filter pack material, size, and placement depths;
· annular seal material and placement depths;
· surface seal design/construction;
· well location (+_5 feet); and
· well development procedures.
Groundwater monitoring wells are generally designed with 30 feet of slotted casing centered on the water
table, unless site conditions, project needs, or local regulations dictate a different well design. The sand
pack is placed at least two feet above the top of the screen, and at least 3 feet of Iow permeability seal
material is placed between the sand pack and the surface seal. The sand pack and Iow permeability seal
material are placed in the annular space from the bottom up using the tremie method. When drilling in
asphalt, a 24-inch round cut is made for the well pad. When drilling on concrete, a 2 x 2ofoot square is
sawcut. The well cover is traffic-rated and has a white lid with a black triangle painted on it (3 inches per
side) or a black lid with a white triangle (3 inches per side). The completed well pad should is concrete of
matching color with the existing surface. The well number is labeled on the outside of the well box/pad
REVISED 3/29102
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 5
and the inside of the well box. The number On the outside is' painted on with a stencil, stamped, or
attached to the well with a metal plate. The number on the inside is written on the well caP with waterproof
ink. The casing has a notch or indication on its north side indicating a unique measuring/surveying point.
Well development is conducted by simple pumping if bridging of the screen does not occur. If bridging
occurs, well surging is conducted for adequate well production. Well surging is created by the use of
surge blocks, bailers, or pumps, whichever method is most appropriate for the we~l use. Only formation
water is used for surging the well. Well development continues until non-turbid groundwater is produced
or turbidity stabilizes. All purged groundwater is held on site in coVered 55-gallon DOT-approved drums or
other appropriate containers until water sample analytical results are received.
The elevation of the north side of the top of well casing (or other appropriate reference point from which
the depth to groundwater can be measured) is surveyed to an accuracy of +0.01 foot. All measurements
are reproduced to assure validity. Surveying is performed by a state-licensed surveyor if required by state
or local regulations. In the State of California, Wells are surveyed in accordance with AB2886.
DATA REDUCTION
The data compiled from the soil borings is summarized and analyzed. A narrative summary of the soil
characteristics is also presented. The soil boring logs are checked for the following information:
· correlation of stratigraphic units among borings;
· identification of zones of potentially high hydraulic conductivity;
· identification of the confining layer;
· indication of unusual/unpredicted geologic features (fault zones, fracture traces, facies changes,
solution channels, buried stream deposits, cross-cutting structures, pinchout zones, etc.); and
· continuity of petrographic features such as sorting, grain-size distribution, cementation, etc.
Soil boring/well locations are plotted on a properly scaled map. If appropriate, soil stratigraphy of the site
is presented in a scaled cross section. Specific features that may impact contaminant migration, e.g.,
fault zones or impermeable layers, are discussed in narrative form and supplemented with graphical
presentations as deemed approPriate.
REVISED 3/29102
ATI'ACHMENT 6.
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Central Sierra Environmental LOG OF BORING MW--4
1400 Easton Ddve, Suite 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309 ~ (Page I of 3)
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC Date Completed : 4/14/2003 Surface Elev. : 404 rog
2317 "L" Street Hole Diameter : 8 in.
Bakersfield, California Ddlling Method : H.S.A.
Downtown Chevron Service Station Sampling Method : CA Mod. Sampler
Company Rep. : M. Magargee
I.
~ Sample
~ Well: MW-4
o
Depth -~ ~) ¢~ . PID
in co
r,.) <(~3 o~ (ppmv)
Feet DESCRIPTION ~ (~ -
0
' ;: WELL CONSTRUCTION
SILTY SAND, 0/75/25, tan, dry, loose, no
2: stain, no odor. ~ -
· ::- ~- ~ -2 Date Compl. : 4114/2003
"':I;;~ i Hole Diameter : 8 inch
4-- SM
~ ~ -~:: Diameter : 2 inch
- :.'
8 - WELL GRADED SAND AND GRAVEL, '.'- .;~
:: ,,: WELL SCREEN.
- 30/70/0, cobbles to 2 inches in diameter, -.-.
10--: white, dry, loose, no stain, no odor.
-' ~: ?-' Matedal : PVC
:&~ Diameter : 8 inch
Joints : threaded
Opening
: 0.02 slot
'"'':' SAND PACK : #3 sand
- ?.I i~i ANNULUS SEAl' bentonite chips
' 1/8 inch in diameter, tan, dry, loose, no '-'-'";
38- WELL GRADED SAND AND GRAVEL, -"i
40-- dry, loose, no stain, no odor. "
48-- WELL GRADED SAND, 5~95~0, cobbles to
50 i 1/8 inch in diameter, tan, dry, loose, no SW
stain, no odor. '-'-': ~
Central Sierra Environmental LOG OF BORING MW-4
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132
Bakersfield~ CA 93309 , (Page 2 of 3)
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC Date Completed : 4114/2003 Surfac~. Elev. : 404 fog
2317 "L" Street Hole Diameter : 8 in.
Bakersfield, California Ddlling Method : H.S.A.
DoWntown Chevron Service Station Sampling Method : CA Med. Sampler
Company Rep. : M Magargee
~IB Sample
~ Well: MW-4
Depth -r ~ (~ PID
Feet in DESCRIPTION U3 O ~ E~ ~o (ppmv)
50-~ ..... : .':': -'--' ' ~ WELL CONSTRUCTION
· - Date Compl. : 4/14/2003
- ::: :: Diameter : 2 inch
58- SW
;~ Opening : 0.02 slot
?( ~- i ANNULUS SEAl' bentonite chips
66'* WELL GRADED SAND AND GRAVEL, ....
- 30/70/0, cobbles to 1 inch in diameter, - ~. ;'.i~i .~.
- white, dry, loose, no stain, no odor. '-?
74-
76- '(. :.'
82-
WELL GRADED SAND, 5/95/0, cobbles to
96-
- 1/8 inch in diameter, tan, dry, loose, no~'-'~:..::::. .-.: ,.*.:
100 , v-;-,
Central Sierra Environmental. LOG OF BORING MW'4
1400 Easton Ddve, Suite 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309 ~ (Page 3 of 3)
' ' Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC Date completed' : 4114/2003 Surface Elev. : 404 rog
2317 "L" Street Hole Diameter : s in.
Bakersfield, California Ddlling Method : H.S.A.
Downtown Chevron Service Station Sampling Method : CA Mod. Sampler
Company Rep. : M. Magargee
~ Sample
¢: Well: MW-4
Depth (3 3:: e) 0~ PID
u30 ~~::~1 ~o ppmv)
Feet
DESCRIPTION
: ;..!i:'; I ~ -'~ ' WELL CONST~UC'nON
1022 ...: ::* Date Compl. : 411412003
- .'-"*.'- !!-7, Hole Diameter : 8 inch
104-: SW --;:!!! i:~'i!' ?!i Drill. Method : HSA
- ;..!i:" ii':! - :''~ Company Rep. : M. Magargee
· ' ' :~i _- ::.'i! I Diameter : 2 inch
108J WELL GRADED sAND AND GRAVEL, '
~' i Joints : threaded
- 25/7510, cobbles to 1/2 inch in diameter, :-': ': ~ ':~' ' ?i:~ ·
' ? ! WELL SCREEN
110- tan, moist, loose, no stain, no odor. '-'- ':: i'i! i'!!i- 1 lO Material : PVC
,,*' Joints : threaded
112- '-?*." !:i! [!.'!!: Opening : 0.02 slot
114- '.?-.*; i :'? - ,~'J: SAND PACK : #3 sanri
.....
i 16-: WELL GRADED SAND, 10/90/0, cobbles to ..,:;:: : :'.:!
' 1/8 inch in diameter, tan, moist to wet,
118-: Ioose, nostain, noodor. -.':'"'""' :
126- :.;-:::.,
SW ".'::"
128 } .::!
130-:_ ;~.:{:- ~.:~
.- ..-:: ~. ~,¥:; - ~.:}
132: : ..:.. !~..'i - ~-:i
· . ~.:; - f.?
134: ' "' "' i~::':'-'
,.-. ~-.'., !~ - ~...;
:.'.::i
136: ". -',
140 ~ " :":[!: ' ~1~-140
144-
146-
148-.'
150-
Central Sierra Environmental LOG OF BORING MW-5
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309 , (Page I of 3)
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC Date Completed : 4/14/2003 Surface Elev. : 404 fbg
2317 "L" Street Hole Diameter : 8 in.
Bakersfield, California Ddlling Method : H.S.A.
Downtown Chevron Service Station Sampling Method : CA MOd. Sampler
Company Rep~ : M. Magargee
~1 Sample
'E Well: MW-5
O
Depth '~ ~ 8 PID
0 ~ (ppmv)
Feet- DESCRIPTION co o
0
' SILTY SAND, 0/75/25, tan, dry, loose, no
--
2_ stain, no odor. :.: .... ~ -2 Date Compl. : 4/15/2003
4- SM
; :.~ ;~ - WELL CASING
8 :. ..': , ~ ~; Joints : threaded
' WELL GRADED SAND AND GRAVEL, '"-~,.. i~' "'~ I WELL SCREEN
10:1_ 30/70/0 cobb es to 2 inches n d ameter -.*.
~ , , .I Material : PVC
-~ tan, dry, loose, no stain, no odor. "" I Diameter : 2 in.
~ ~*~,; ,~ , Joints :threaded
12-. *-" -;.' ~.', , ' Opening : 0.02 slot
'"~,~" ;'; ~ ~ ANNULUS SEAL bentonite chips
28_q WELL GRADED SAND, 20180120, cobbles *"'
to 1/8 inch in diameter, tan, dry, loose, no ...-- .. ~ ~
' stain, no odor. ..::-
38-- WELL GRADED SAND AND GRAVEL,
- 25/75/0, cobbles to 1 inch in diameter,
40- white, dry, loose, no stain, no odor.
WELL GRADED SAND, 5/95/0, cobbles to
48-~. 1/8inch in diameter, tan, dry, loose, no SW ':": ':' ..~,'"*' ?. L
Central Sierra Environmental LOG OF BORING MW-5
1400 Easton Ddve, Suite 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309 , (Page 2 of 3)
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC Date Completed : 4114/2003 Surface Elev. : 404
2317 "L" Street Hole Diameter : 8 in.
Bakersfield, California Ddlling Method : H.S.A.'
Downtown Chevron Service Station Sampling Method .: CA M°d. Sampler
Company Rep. : M. Magargee
~ Sample
~ Well: MW-5
Depth
O ~: E ~ (ppmv)
Feet DESCRIPTION _~ ~' ~ -
O u) ·co
50-- ..... ' ::-': ~ -.~' WELL CONSTRUCTION
52-- ;.:~-': , Date Compl. : 4/15/2003
,54--_ ;..!~:-: ?, ,.;, i Company Rep. : M. Magargee
58% SW ::.-::: Diameter : 2 in.
· '.:*.'. I WELL SCREEN
' Material : PVC
- ' "" ::; Joints : threaded
' ,,'- Ii?i-- ANNULUS SEAl.: bentonite chips
66-' WELL GRADED SAND AND GRAVEL, ..;.
- 30/70/0, cobbles to 2 inches in diameter, --':
· ., m )9146156 0
88-.
96_~ WELL GRADED SAND, 5195/0, cobbles to ;.:
1/8 inch in diameter, tan, dry, loose, no -";':: ?!!
Central Sierra Environmental LOG OF BORING MW-5
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309 ' (Page :3 of 3)
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC Date Completed : 4/14/2003 Sun'ace Elev. : 404
2317 "L" Street Hole Diameter : 8 in.
Bakersfield, California 'Drilling Method : H.S.A.
Downtown Chevron Service Station Sampling Method : CA Mod. Sampler
Company Rep. : M. Magargee
I~1 Sample
~ Well: MW-5
Depth 'T' ~ O
in (o 13. -- O PID ]
O <( ~' ~ (ppmv)
Feet DESCRIPTION .~ o"' (o~ m-°~
100-
° WELLCONSTRUCT,O.
'"'-:-:' . ~-? - ~,:-: . WELL CASING
= WELL GRADED SAND AND GRAVEL, ": ;~ :'~:'-?i;': Joints : threaded
I08~
. 30/70/0, cobbles to 1/2 inch in diameter, '-'. ;.'
110-' tan, moist, loose, no stain, no odor.. ;.i! ~.'.' .:~.:. 2.? ; WELL SCREEN
112--
'"' --~?! I Opening : 0.02 slot
116-- WELL GRADED SAND, 1019010, cobbles to ~..:.:. -: :-]
- 1/8 inch in diameter, tan, moist to wet, .-'."'.'. --. :
118: loose, no stain, no odor. :": ::: !'~::- ''''~::j
134- -"'-'.- ¥.:i ~-:i
140 -'"" ~ ~-14o
142-
144-
146-
148-
Central Sierra Environmental LOG OF BORING MW-6
~ 1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132 ·
Bakersfield, CA 93309 (Page 1 of 3)
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC Date Completed : 4116/2003 Surface Elev. : 404 fog
2317 "L" Street Hole Diameter : 8 in.
Bakersfield, California Ddlling Method : H.S.A.
Downtown Chevron Service Station Sampling Method : CA Mod. Sampler
Company Rep. : M. Magargee
~ Sample
~ Well: MW-6
Depth · e o
in (o Q. _ ¢,.) PID
O <( ~' · (ppmv)
Feet DESCRIPTION ~) o: ,. _o
0 - SILTY SAND, 0/75/25, tan, dry, loose, no ·
· .Y ;i :-.~ -- '- WELL CONSTRUCTION
2- stain, no odor. ~..: :.:
_ ~? !.: ~ ~ ~ -2 Date Compl. : 4/16/2003
. · ~ Hole Diameter : 8 in.
4--- SM *'*~ !! ~ ' Drill. Method : HSA
_ ..~:-:~.. i?., "; Company Rep. : M. Magargee
~" :~ ~'" ! !! WELL CASING
- .~ .;i ~'.! ;% · , Material : PVC
: !! ~ ~,j~. ? : Diameter : 2 in.
-- ' :"'" 'L~:' Joints : threaded
8 WELL GRADED SAND AND GRAVEL, '.-. .:
~,;~ii~! ~'~ WELL SCREEN
- 40/60/0, cobbles to 2 inches in diameter, '-'-
10-_ tan, dry, loose, no stain, no odor. ~: ~': ~' i Material : PVC
'"'
~:~ .; i Joints : threaded
12-_ '.'- ~.'i i~ r Opening : 0.02 slot
'-".~.'i SAND PACK : #3 sand
14-;
c,~ ;~ ~: ANNULUS SEAl' bentonite chips
16-
20- "'"' I 30/35/43 0
'"' ,
22- I-;:
24-
26- :~:-
28- WELL GRADED SAND, 15/85/0, cobbles to :'.::::.v'
' 1/8 inch in diameter, tan, dry, loose, no .....
stain, no odor. :.-::.: ~ -
30-
32~ SW .---:--. .~; ~; ;
)":?
36: ;'?":'"
'- WELL GRADED SAND AND GRAVEL, '"' ''~
": ": i! '~'"~
38-_ 30/70/0, cobbles to 2 inches in diameter, '-'- ::
40---- white, dry, loose, no stain, no odor. -.-.
42- SW/GW
- ;;..!
46-~ :*'* "'
I'
- "
48': WELL GRADED SAND, 10/90/0, cobbles to
_~1/8 inch in diameter, tan, dry, loose, no SW . .-
50 stain, no odor.
Central Sierra Environmental LOG OF BORING MW-6
1400 .Easton Drive, Suite 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309 , (Page 2 of 3)
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC Date Completed : 4/1612003 Surface Elev. : 404 fog
2317 "L" Street Hole Diameter : 8 in.
Bakersfield, California Ddlling Method : H.S.A.
Downtown Chevron Service station . Sampling Method : CAMod. Sampler
Company Rep. : M. Magargee
~ Sample
'E Well: MW-6
Depth ~r ~ O PID
in O ~ ~ o ~ (ppmv)
Feet DESCRIPTION
50- ....] :---
52- :.-:.: Date Compl. : 4/16/2003
- ':'.:.'.'J ' ,:~ Hole Diameter : 8 in.
· .':::: ;,' ~!~ Drill. Method : HSA
54- ...:::: ~: 'i" Company Rep. : M. Magargee
56- ' '.?.:.'.' . Material : PVC
' ":': ':~; ';~ I Diameter : 2 in.
58- SW i:i}i,i '% i ~:,' i Joints :threaded
: :'~ "~ WELL SCREEN
' ":.!.:.· :' ;:~ Matedal :PVC
·::: ' ' Joints : threaded
62-
· '.":' ,? ? SAND PACK : #3 sand
66- WELL GRADED SAND AND GRAVEL,
ANNULUS
SEAl'
bentonite
chips
- 40/60/0, cobbles to 3 inches in diameter,
68- white, dry, loose, no stain, no odor. .'.; ;.~ [~:~: .
70- '"
72 -- : -.:'
74--:
80-
82-
88 - ~: I
..
92-
94- ":' :"
96-
100- '":!: :' - -~00
Central Sierra Environmental LOG OF BORING MW-6
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309
(Page 3 of 3)
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC Date Completed : 4/16/2003 Surface Elev. : 404 fog
2317 "L" Street Hole Diameter : 8 in.
Bakersfield, California Drilling Method : HS.A. .
Downtown Chevron Service Station Sampling Method : CA Med. Sampler
Company Rep. : M. Magargee
~ Sample
'E Well: MWL6
Depth -r e (~ PID
in
C) ~ E ~:- (ppmv)
Feet DESCRIPTION ~~ ~ _o
I
102-_ : ::.; Date Compl. : 4/16/2003
104- SW :.':::: , ~ Drill. Method : HSA j
'106-- WELL CASING
..... Joints : threaded
WELL GRADED SAND AND GRAVEL,
108-' - 40/60/0, cobbles to 1 inch in diameter, tan,
SW/GW ;... ,.: Diameter :2 in.
- .:...:: _ ~ Opening : 0.02 slot
114- ::.:! ,~ .~.:':!':' _- ~.:~ ~!.:~ ~ SAND PACK : ~3 sand
':"-.':: ~.::: i ANNULUS SEAL: bentonite chips
1/8 inch in diameter, tan, wet, loose, no 'i ::i:'i' :
stain, no odor. v-:.
126-
134_- .-.-...'.
136- :"::: -
: '.:-::.'
- I
142-~
146-~ _ i
~48-~
A'I-I'ACHMENT 7.
LABORATORY REPORT FOR SOIL
tWINING
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY · ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING · SAMPLING SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION & MATERI'ALS TESTING
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
ATTENTION
CLIENT
PROJECT COVER SHEET
· April 30, 2003
· 703-1860.1-6
· Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company
'1508 18th Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
INVOICE# 70301860
R£C EIYED
Please find enclosed the analytical results of your samples. In accordance with your
instructions, the samples were analyzed for the components specified.
The Twining Laboratories is acCredited by the State of California Department of
Health Services for the analysis of Drinking Water, WasteWater and Hazardous
Waste under Certificate No. 1371.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding the
analyses or results. Thank you for allowing us to serve your analytical needs.
Ijt INVOICE- CLIENT
1C :INVOICE TO CSE
Shankar Sharma sarkar, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Chemistry
Rev. --2 09/02 (COVER)
CORPORATE
2527 Fresno Steer
Fresno, CA 93721-1804
(.5~) 268-7(~1
Fax 268-7126
MOOESTO
5253 Jerusalem C(x~ Suite E
Mcxtestcx CA 95356-9322
(209) 342-206~
VISAUA
130 No~h K~ey SL, ~6
v'~l~a, CA 93291-9000
{559) 651-82~0
Fax 651-8288
BAKERSFIELD
3651Fegasus Drive, #117
(661) 393-5o88
Fax 393-4643
MONTEREY
501 Orfiz~
Sand C~,, CA 93955
¢31) 382-1o56
SACRAMENTO
5675 Power Inn Road, Suite C
(916) 381-9477
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED'
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: April 30, 2003
: 703-1860.1
: 04-14-03 at 1015 by Mark Magargee
: 04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
: E. Scoff
: C. Fammatre
: 04-28-03
: 04-28-03
: MW-4-20
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 1 of 6
SAMPLE TYPE · Soil
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS I DLR
(mg/kg) (rog/kg)
METHOD
Methyl tea-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
ND 0.05 8021
ND 0.005 8021
.ND '0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 1.0 8015M
SURROGATE* 1% RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 81.8
TPH-GAS 99.5
IACCEPTABLE % RECOVERY
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
rog/kg: Milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
Preparation (TPH-DIESEL): 3510
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~ 5~6 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED'
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: April 30, 2003
: 703-1860.2
: 04-14-03 at 1045 by Mark Magargee
: 04-16-03 at .1700 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 04-28-03
: 04-28-03
: MW-4-40 '
THE TwINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 2 of 6
SAMPLE TYPE' Soil
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(mg/kg)
I DLR I METHOD
(mg/kg)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Ranqe
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.05
· 0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
1.0
8021
8021
8021
8021
8021
8015M
SURROGATE* 1% RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 82.7
TPH-GAS ' 79.0
IACCEPTABLE % RECOVERY
70-13O%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
mg/kg: Milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene-
Preparation (TPH-DIESEL
ND: None Detected
: 3510
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~3 5/96 (BT~AT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
cLIENT SAMPLE ID
April 30, 2003
703-1860.3
04-14-03 at 1100 by Mark Magargee
04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
E. Scott
C. Fammatre
04-28-03
04-28-03
MW-4-60
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 3 of 6
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(rog/kg)
DLR
(mg/kg)
METHOD
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
TOluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Ranqe
ND 0.05 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 1.0 8015M
SURROGATE* I % RECOVERY
BTEYJMTBE 91.4
IACCEPTABLE % RECOVERY
70-130%
TPH-GAS 83.4
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-C.,ASOLINE): 5030
reg.'kg: Milligrams per kilogcam {parts pe~' million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
Preparation (TPH-DIESEL): 3510
NO: None Oetected OLR: Detection Limit for Reporting pucposes
Rev. :3 .5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
April 30, 2003
703-1860.4
04-14-03 at 1115 by Mark Magargee
04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler '
CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
E. Scott
C. Fammatre
04-28-03.
04-28-03
MW-4-80
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 4 of 6
SAMPLE TYPE- Soil
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(mg~g)
I DLR I METHOD
(mg/kg)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Ranqe
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.05
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
1.0
8021
8021
8021
8021
8021
8015M
SURROGATE* 1% RECOVERY ] ACCEPTABLE % RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 83.3 70-130%
TPH-GAS 78.7 70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
rog/kg: Milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
Preparation (TPH-DIESEL): 3510
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: April 30, 2003
: 703-1860.5
: 04-14-03 at 1130 by Mark Magargee
: 04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
: CSE/SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 04-28-03
: 04-28-03
: MW-4-100
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 5 of 6
SAMPLE TYPE' Soil
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS DLR METHOD
(rog/kg) (mg/kg)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Ranqe
.ND 0.05 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 1.0 8015M
SURROGATE*
I%RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE '81.1
TPH-GAS 78.7
IACCEPTABLE % RECOVERY
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BT£X & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
rog/kg: Milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
Preparation (TPH-DIESEL): 3510
NE): None Oetecterl (~LR: Detectio. ~.imit for Rep~tincJ purposes
Rev. ~3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE :
LABORATORY ID :
DATE SAMPLED ·
DATE RECEIVED ·
CLIENT :
ANALYZED BY :
REVIEWED BY :
DATE PREPARED ·
DATE ANALYZED :
CLIENT SAMPLE ID :
April 30, 2003
703-1860.6
04-14-03 at 1300 by Mark Magargee
04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
E. Scott
C. Fammatre
04-28-03
04-28-03
MW-4-120
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 6 of 6
SAMPLE TYPE' Soil
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(mg/kg)
I DLR I METHOD
(mg/kg)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Ranqe
ND 0.05 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 1.0 8015M
SURROGATE*
RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 82.8
TPH-GAS 80.3
IACCEPTABLE % RECOVERY
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
rog/kg: Milligrams per kilogram (pacts per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
Preparation (TPH-DIESEL): 3510
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 3 5/g6 (BTEXWAT)
flINING
JLA8 0 RATOR I £ $. INC.
FRESHO/~OD£STO/VlSAUA/8~KE. RSrS£LO/$ALIHA$
Analyzed By: Eric
Date of Extraction: 04/2g/03
Twining Labo~torles, Inc. Batch ID Number: TL08042803
EPA 8021 (MTBE/BTEX) & EPA 8015M (TPH-Gasoline)
LABORA TORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: J. Ureno
Date of Analysis :04~29~03
Sample Matrix: SOIL
S tike ID: WS-1000
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent
(rog/kg) Concentration Recovery Spike IRecovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (mg/kg) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(rog/kg) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(rog/kg) (%)
MTBE/BTEX Surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 0.0625 0.0520 ' 0.0514 · 80% 120% 83.2 82.2 1.16
MethYl Tertiary Butyl Ether 0.00 0.100 0.095 0.0950 80% 120% 95.0 95.0 0
Benzene 0.00 0.0500 0.0480 0.0510 80% 120% 96.0 102 6.06
Toluene 0.00 0.0500 0.0470 0.0500 80% 120% 94.0 100 6.19
Ethi, lbenzene 0.00 0.0500 0.0550 0.0560 80% 120% 110 112 1.80
Xylenes 0.00 0.150 0.142 0.150 80% 120% 94.7 100 5.48
TPH_Gasoline Surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 0.0625 0.0503 0.0506 .... 80% 120% 80.5 ' 81.0 0.59
TPH-Gasoline 0.00 2.50 2.38 2.33 80% 120% 95.3 93.2 2.25
EXPLANATIONS:
ND Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
rng/kg milligrams per kilogram, parts per million (ppm) concentration units.
dethod Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment,
the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
THE
: ........ - CHAIN/OF.CUSTODY/ANALYSISREOU'EST::Ic-°-~_:.::__:-.~.::::_:.~..?-.;.-_ - ---, . -" ---- ' - --
· ' ' · '.-:~'" I '7oZo/8~;o, l ':'.".,
TWINING"-'
-'.' LAB'ORATO, R,IES, INC. 2527 FRESNO STREET · FRESNO, CA93721 · (559) 268-7021 FAX:(559) 268-0740 -. ' ' ~ ~ ': ~, .:.:.;.:..',. .:.'.~:-. :--. .'
PUBLIC SYSTEM. ~ ROUTINE · C0U~: ~ FRESNO
PRIVATE WELL ~ REPOT
SURFACE WATER Q O~ER Q ST*~ 0~P~. 0~.~L~ SERWCES Q 0~R: ,
qO~STRUCT~ON ~ OTHER ..... P"~E~=- ' --
RUSH ~ALYSIS, RESULTS NEEDED BY:
BS - Bio.lids KEY FOR CHEMICAL A"LYSIS 'AMPLE "P' GW- Ground Water sT-SL - ~i~Solidsto~ Water~ ~'~":~ ~, ..:'.-" 'z
SAMPLE
SAMPLE ID DATE ~ME ~PE ~.
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY · ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING · SAMPI~ING SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION 8, MATERIALS TESTING
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
PROJECT COVER SHEET
· May 6, 2003
'703-1859.1-6
ATTENTION 'Tim Sullivan
CLIENT Sullivan Petroleum Company
1508 18th Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
INVOICE# 70301859
Please find enclosed the analytical results of your samples. In accordance with your
instructions, the samples were analyzed for the components specified.
The Twining Laboratories is accredited by the State of California Department of
Health Services for the analysis of Drinking Water, Wastewater and Hazardous
Waste under Certificate No. 1371.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding the
analyses or results. Thank you for allowing us to serve your analytical needs.
Ijt INVOICE- CLIENT
1C :INVOICE TO CSE
S~ankar Sharma sarkar, .Ph.D.
Director, Division of Chemistry
Rev. :2 09/02 (COVER)
CORPORATE
2527 Fresno S~ee{
Fresno. CA 93721-1804
(559) 268-7021
r-ax 268-7126
MODESTO
5253 Jemsalem Court, Su~ E
Mo3esto, CA 95,356-9322
(2o9) 342-2o61
Fax 579-1480
VISALIA
13:) Nod~ Ketsey St., #H6'
Vivaria, CA 93291-9000
Fax 651 ~
BAKERSFIELD
3651Pe~ I:~, #117
BakersCa~d. CA 93308-6843
(66q 383-s0~
Fax 393-4643
MONTEREY
501 Ortiz A~'~e
(831)392-1056
SACRAMENTO
5675 Power Inn Road, Suite C
Sacramento, CA 95824
(916) 381-9477
Fax 381 -c~478
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
· May 6, 2003
· 703-1859.1
· 04-15-03 by Mark Magargee
· 04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 1 of 7
· CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
' E. Scott
· C. Fammatre
· : 04-28-03
· 04-28-03
SAMPLE TYPE' Soil
· MW-5-20
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(rog/kg)
DLR
(rog/kg)
METHOD
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND 0.05 8021
Benzene ND 0.005 8021
Toluene ND 0.005 8021
Ethylbenzene ND 0.005 8021
Xylenes ND 0.005 8021
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons-Gasoline Range ND 1.0 8015
SURROGATE*
I%RECOVERY
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
BTEX/MTBE 90.9 70-130%
TPH-GAS 82.5 70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
'4- Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None. Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~3 5/96 (BT~AT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY.
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1859.2
: 04-15-03 by Mark Magargee
: 04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler '
: CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 04-28-03
: 04-28-03
: MW-5-40
THE TVVINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 2 of 7
SAMPLE TYPE' Soil
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS I . DLR
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
IMETHOD
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
EthylbenZene
XYlenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
ND 0.05 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 1.0 8015
SURROGATE*
I%RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 84.2
TPH-GAS 79.0
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
mg/kg: milligrams per kilog~'am (parts per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1859.3
: 04-15-03 by Mark Magargee
: 04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 04-28-03
: 04-28-03
: MW-5-60
CONSTITUENT
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 3 of 7
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
RESULTS I DLR I METHOD
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) ·
Methyl teA-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
ND 0105 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 1.0 8015
SURROGATE*
I%RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 81.9
TPH-GAS '78.1
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
rog/kg: milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ;3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1859.4
· 04-15-03 by' Mark Magargee
' 04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
: CSE/SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 04-28-03
: 04-28-03
: MW-5-80
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 4 of 7
SAMPLE TYPE' Soil
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(mg/kg)
I DLR I METHOD
(rog/kg)
Methyl tea-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
ND 0.05 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 1.0 8015
SURROGATE* I % RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 87.4
TPH-GAS 83.0
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-C..~ASCILINE): 5030
rngikg: milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 3~ 5/96 (BTF_XVVA'I-)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1859.5
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 5 of 7
: 04-15-03 by Mark Magargee
: 04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
: CSE i SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 04-29-03
: 04-29-03 ·
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
: MW-5-100
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS I DLR
(rog/kg) (rog!kg)
METHOD
Methyl teK-butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
ND 0.05 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 1.0 8015
SURROGATE* 1% RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 87.9
TPH-GAS 83.6
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
70-130%
Preparatio. (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 3~ 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED.
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
· May 6, 2003
· 703-1859.6
· 04-15-03 by Mark Magargee
· 04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 6 of 7
· CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
· E. Scott
· C. Fammatre
· 04-29-03
· 04-29-03
SAMPLE TYPE' Soil
· MW-5-120
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(mg/kg)
I DLR I METHOD
(mg/kg)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene · ·
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
1.3 1.25 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
1.5 1.0 8015
SURROGATE* 1% RECOVERY i ACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
BTEX/MTBE 81.5 70-130%
TPH-GAS 78.0 70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
rog/kg: milligrams per kilogram {pads per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev.':3 5196 {BTF_XWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY '
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID : MW-5-120
METHOD' EPA 8260
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1859.6
: 04-15-03 by Mark Magargee
: 04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
: C. Fammatre
: 04-28-03
: 04-28-03
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INc.
PAGE 7 of 7
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
UNITS: mg/kg
Constituent
Results DLR
Methyl teK-butyl ether (MTBE)
1.6 I .01
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 99.2 86-118
Toluene da 94.9 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 110 86-115
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
rog/Kg: Milligrams per kilogram (ppm)
Rev..~4 07199 (8260)
WINING
~I~A B 0 R A T 0 R E S . I N C .
rR£S.O/~OD£STO/V~SAUA/BAKr~n£U~/S~UN~S
Analyzed By: Chris Fammatre
Date of Extraction: 04~28~2003
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch ID Number: TL07042803
Spike ID: W$150
EPA METHOD 8260
LABORATORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: Joseph Ureno
Date of Analysis: 04128/2003
Sample Matrix: SOIL
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative
Concentration' Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent
(ug/Kg) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (ug/Kg) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(ug/Kg) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(ug/Kg) (%)
l,l-Dichloroethene 0.00 50.0 49.8 52.4 70% 130% 100 105 5.09
Benzene 0.00 50.0 49.0 50.5 70% 130% 98.0 101 3.02
Trichloroethene 0.00 50.0 46.7 47.5 70% 130% 93.4 95.0 1.70
Toluene 0.00 50.0 55.3 54.9 · 70% 130% 111 '110 0.726
Chlorobenzene 0.00 50.0 51.2 51.4 70% 130% 102 103 0.390
Surrogate: Dibromofluormethane 0.00 50.0 48.2 49.7 86% 118% 96.4 99.4 3.06
Surrogate: Toluene-da 0.00 50.0 48.1 48.0 86% 110% 96.2 96.0 0.208
Surrogate: Bromofluour0benzene 0.00 50.0 49.3 52.1 86% 115% 98.6 104 5.52
EXPLANATIONS:
ND' Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
ag/Kg micrograms per Kilogram, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
Method Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory
environment, the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s} into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample,.and its purpose is to determine whethel
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
WINING
~L A I~ 0 R A T 0 R I £ $ , ~ C .
rRESNO/MOO£$TO~n/ISAUA/BAK£RSrI£LO/$~JNAS
Analyzed By: Chris Fammatre
Date of Extraction:
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch ID Number: TL07042803
SpIke lO: WS,l.~O ,, , .
Constituent
i Matrix Sample { Matrix Spike
Concentration [ Concentration
(ug/Kg) ] Level
(ug~g)
l,l-Dichloroethcne 0.000 50.0
Benzene 0.000 50.0
Tdchloroethcnc 0.000 50.0
Matrix Spike
Recovery
(ug/Kg)
EPA METHOD 8260
MA TRIX SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: Joseph Ureno
Date of Analysis: 04128/2003
Sample Matrix: SOIL
Matrix Spike
Duplicate
Recovery
Toluene 0.000 50.0
Chlorobenzene 0.000 50.0
5unogate: Dibromofluormethane
Acceptable
Percent
Recovery
Range
(%)
Low High
5 .urmgate: Toluene-d8
~ ,un'ogate: Bromofluourobenzene
Matrix Spike
Percent
Recovery
(%)
~XPLANATIoNS:
51.1 49.8 102
47.1 48.4 94:2
43.8 43.1 87.6
48.6 48.2 97.2
46.8 47.2 93.6
0.000 50.0 47.7 46.7 95.4 ·
0.000 50.0 48.5 48.0 97.0
0.000 50.0 53.2 52.7 106
tap water
Matrix Spike Relative
Duplicate ' Percent
Percent Difference
Recovery (%)
(%)
99.6 2.58
96.8 2.72
86.2 1.61
96.4 0.826
94.4 0.851
93.4 2.12
96.0 1.04
105 0.944
qD
elatrix Sample:
~latrix Spike:
· Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
micrograms per Kilogram, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
The matrix sample is the sample chosen for use in the matrix spike analyses.
A matrix spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into the sample noted above. The matrix spike sample is'
analyzed exactly like a regular sample, and its purpose is to determine whether the sample matrix has a measurable
effect on precise and accurate analyte detection and quantification.
WINING
~I~.A B 0 R A T 0 R I E $ , N C
FR£SNO/I~OD£$TO/VISAIJA/BAK£~FIELD/SAUNA$
Analyzed By: Eric Scott
Date of Extraction: 04/29/03
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch ID Number: TL06042803
)ike ID: WS-IO00
EPA 8021 (MTBEIBTEX) & EPA 8015M (TPH-Gasoline)
LABORATORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: J. Ureno
Date of Analysis :04129/05
Sample Matrix: SOIL
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent
(mg/kg) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate. Difference
Level (rog/kg) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(rog/kg) RecoverY Low High (%) Recovery
(m,~/~g) . (%)
MTBE/BTEX Surrogate (4.Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 0.0625 0.0520 0.0514 80% 120% 83.2 82.2 I. ] 6
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 0.00 0. 100 0.095 0,0950 80% 120% 95.0 95.0 0
Benzene 0.00 , 0.0500 0.0480 0.0510 80% 120% 96.0 102 6.06
?oluene 0.00 0.0500 0.0470 0.0500 80% 120% 94.0 100 6.19
Ethylbenzene 0.00 0.0500 0.0550 0.0560 80% 120% 110 112 1.80
Xylenes 0.00 0.150 0.142 0.150 80% 120% 94.7 100 5.48
TPH_Gasoline Surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 0.0625 0.0503 0.0506 80% 120% 80.5 81.0 ' 0.59
['PH-Gasoline 0.00 2.50 2.38 2.33 80% 120% 95.3 93.2 2.25
EXPLANA'~'IONS:
ND Non. Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
rog/kg milligrams per kilogram, parts per million (ppm) concentration units.
Method Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment,
the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilledwater). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to dete. rmine whether
the methodology is controlled and the laboratorY is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
....' WilIIIIG -......... :-CHAIN OF. CUSTODY/ANALYSIS
' .~ ., . '.
,L A B 0 R A T O Iq I E $, I N C. -' ~fi27. FRESNO STREET ~ FRESNO, CA 93721 · (559) 268-7021 FAX: (fifi9) 268-0740.
BA~RIOLOGICAL SAMPLE SOURCE SAMPLE STATUS REPO~ FOR:
PUBLIC SYSTEM Q ROUTINE · - coup: Q FRESNO ~ KINGS Q ~DERA ~ MERCED Q ~RE
PR~ATE WELL ~ REPOT
~ STATE DEP~ 0F H~L~ SERVICES
SURFACE WATER ~ O~ER ....
~SAMPLE INFORMA~0N: SITE:- --
PR~EOT MANAGER:
RUSH ~YSIS, RESULTS NEEDED BY:
~Y FOR CHEMICAL A~LYSIS SAMPLE ~PE SL - ~iF~lid . ~ ANALYSIS REQUE~D ' - '
- Bio.lids GW - Ground Water ST - Sto~ Water ~ ~
DW - D~nking Water SF - Sudace Water ~. Waste Water
SAMPLE
SAMPLE ID DATE ~ME ~PE
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY · ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING - SAMPLING SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION & MATERIALS TESTING
PROJECT COVER SHEET
REPORT DATE'
LABORATORY ID
ATTENTION
CLIENT
· May 5, 2003
· 703-1858.1-6
· Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company
1508 18~h Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, CA 93301
INVOICE# 70301858
Please find enclosed the analytical results of your samples. In acCordance with your
instructions, the samples were analyzed for the components specified.
The Twining Laboratories is accredited, by the State of California Department of
Health Services for the analysis of Drinking Water, Wastewater and Hazardous
Waste under Certificate No. 1371.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding the
analyses or results. Thank you for allowing us to serve your analytical needs.
Ijt INVOICE- CLIENT
1C :INVOICE TO CSE
Shankar S'l=[arma sarkar, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Chemistry
Rev. --2 09/02 (COVER)
CORPORATE
· 2527 Fresr~ $~'ee{
(559) 268-7a21
Fax 268-7126
MODESTO
5253 Jerusala~ Courl, Sui~ E
(2o9) 342-2065
VISALIA
130 No~h Kelsey S[, ~'--{6
V'~!Ja, CA 93291-9000
(559) 651-8280
BAKERSFIELD
3651 Pe~,_-_~ (3dye, #157
(651) 393-5o~
MONTEREY
501 Olliz A~,~ue
Sand C~y, CA 93965
(831) 392-1056
Fax 392-1059
SACRAMENTO
5675 Power Inn Road, S~e C
Saccat~efllo, CA 95~24
(916) 3m-~477
Fax 381-947'8
REPORT DATE :
LABORATORY ID :
DATE SAMPLED :
DATE RECEIVED :
CLIENT :
ANALYZED BY :
REVIEWED BY :
DATE PREPARED :
DATE ANALYZED :
CLIENT SAMPLE ID :
May 5, 2003
703-1858.1 '
04-16-03 at 0915 by Mark Magargee
04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
E. Scott
C. Fammatre
O4-29-O3 ·
O4-29-O3
MW-6-20
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 1 of 7
SAMPLE TYPE' Soil
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(mg/kg)
I DLR I METHOD ·
(mg/kg)
Methyl teK-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene '
· Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
0.062
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.05
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
1.0
8021
8021
8021
8021
8021
8015
SURROGATE* 1% RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 88.0
IACCEPTABLE % RECOVERY
70-130%
TPH-GAS 77.8
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
moJ~g: mi{ligr~ms per kilogram (parts per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
OLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~ 5~6 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
· May 5,2003
'703-1858.1
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 7 of 7
· 04-16-03 at 0915 by Mark Magargee
· 04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
· CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM cOMPANY
ANALYZED BY
· C. Fammatre
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
· 04-28-03
' 04-28-03
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
CLIENT SAMPLE ID ' MW-6-20
METHOD: EPA 8260
UNITS: mg/kg
Constituent Results DLR
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) J .028 J 0.001
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 104 86-118
Toluene da 96.3 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 109 86-115
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
rog/Kg: Milligrams per kilogram (ppm)
Rev. 4~ 07/99 (8260)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY Id
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
:.May 5, 2003
: 703-1858.2
: 04-16-03 at 0930 by Mark Magargee
:04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / suLLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 04-29-03
: 04-29-03
: MW-6-40
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 2 of 7
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS [ DLR
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
IMETHOD
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyibenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- GasOline Range
ND 0.05 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 1.0 8015
SURROGATE*
I%RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 80.8
TPH-GAS 78.4
IACCEPTABLE % RECOVERY
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (RTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
rog/kg: milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~3 5/96 {BTF_~WAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 5, 2003
: 703-1858.3
: 04-16-03 at 0945 by Mark Magargee
: 04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
: CSE/SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 04-29-03
: 04-29-03
: MW-6 -60
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 3 of 7
SAMPLE TYPE'.Soil
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS I DLR I METHOD
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
ND 0.05
ND 0.005
ND 0.005
ND 0.005
ND 0.005
ND 1.0
8021
8021
8021
8021
8021
8015
SURROGATE* 1% RECOVERY
BTEXJMTBE 86.6
TPH-GAS 81.1
IACCEPTABLE % RECOVERY
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram (pads per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. :3 5/96 (BTF. XWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 5, 2003
: 703-1858.4
: 04-16-03 by Mark Magargee
: 04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 04-29-03
: 04-29-03
: MW-6-80
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 4 of 7
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
CoNsTITUENT
RESULTS
(mg/kg)
DLR
(mg/kg)
IMETHOD
Methyl teA-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
ND 0.05 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 1.0 8015
SURROGATE*
BTEX/MTBE
TPH-GAS
J%RECOVERY
80.6
78.3
IACCEPTABLE % RECOVERY
70-130%
70-130%
Preparalion (BTEX 8, TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
rog/kg: milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) .
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Re~, ~3 5/96 (BT~'VVAT)
REPORT 'DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
· : May 5, 2003
: 703-1858.5
· 04'16-03 by Mark Magargee
: 04:16-03 at 1700 from G. wheeler
: CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 04-29-03
: 04-29-03
: MW-6-100
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.'
PAGE 5 of 7
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS I DLR I METHOD
(mg/kg) · (rog/kg)
Methyl teK-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
ND 0.05 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 1.0 8015
SURROGATE*
RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 81.8
TPH-GAS 78.7
IACCEPTABLE % RECOVERY
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
mgfkg: milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. :3 5~96 (BTEXVVAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 5, 2003
: 703-1858.6
: 04-16-03 by Mark Magargee
: 04-16-03 at 1700 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 04-29-03
: 04-29-03
: MW-6-120
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 6 of 7
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(mg/kg)
DLR I METHOD
(rog/kg)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
ND 0.05 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 0.005 8021
ND 1.0 8015
SURROGATE* 1% RECOVERY
BTEXJMTBE 86.1
TPH-GAS 78.2
IACCEPTABLE % RECOVERY
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
rog/kg: milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~ 5/96 (BTE. XWAT)
'tWINING
WlL A B 0 R A T 0 R I £ S , N C .
r;£s~lo/uoo£ STO/VlSAUA/i~,K£RS rI£LD/S~Ui~IA$
Analyzed By: Eric Scott
Date of Extraction: 04129103
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch ID Number: TL05042803
S )ike ID: WS-1000
EPA 8021 (MTBE/BTEX) & EPA 8015M (TPH-Gasoline)
LABORATORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: J. Ureno
Date of Analysis :04129103
Sample Matrix: SOIL
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike 'Control Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent
(mg/kg) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (mg/kg) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(rog/kg) Recovery Low High · (%) Recovery
(m~dkg) (%)
MTBE/BTEX Surrogate (4-Br0mofluorobenzene) 0.00 0.0625 0.0520 0.0514 80% 120% 83.2 82.2 1.16
:Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether '0.00 0.100 0.095 0.0950 80% 120% 95.0 95.0 0
Benzene 0.00 0.0500 0.0480 0.0510 80% 120% 96.0 i02 6.06
roluene 0.00 0.0500 0.0470 0.0500 80% 120% 94.0 100 6.19
Ethylbenzene, 0.00 0.0500 0.0550 0.0560 80% 120% I10 112 1.80
~:ylenes 0.00 0.150 0.142 0.150 80% 120% 94.7 100 5.48
TPH_Gasoline Surrogate (4.Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 0.0625 0.0503 0.0506 80% 120% 80.5 81.0 0.59
TPH-Gasoline 0.00 2.50 2.38 2.33 80% 120% 95.3 93.2 2.25
EXPLANATIONS:
qD Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram, parts per million (ppm) concentration units.
Method Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment,
the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analYte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is t° determine whether
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
r~£S~IO/MOI~[S?O/VlS/,UA/BAK£RSr~[LD/$XUNAS
Analyzed By: Chris Fammatre
Date of Extraction: 0412812003
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch ID Number: TL07042803
Spike ID: WS 150
EPA METHOD 8260
LABORA TORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: Joseph Ureno
Date of Analysis: 04/2812003
Sample Matrix: SOIL
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent
(ug/Kg) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (ug/Kg) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(ug/Kg) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(ug/Kg) (%)
1, l-Dichloroethene 0.00 50.0 49.8 52.4 70% 130% 100 105 5.09
Benzene 0.00 50.0 49.0 50.5 70% 130% 98.0 101 3.02
Trichloroethene 0.00 50.0 46.7 47.5 70% 130% 93.4 95.0 1.70
['oluene 0.00 50.0 55.3 54.9 70% 130% 111 110 0.726
Ehlorobenzene 0.00 50.0 51.2 51.4 70%' 130% 102 103 0.390
Surrogate: Dibromofluormethane 0.00 50.0 48.2 49.7 86% 118% 96.4 99.4 3.06
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 0.00 50.0 48.1 48.0 86% 110% 96.2 96.0 0.208
Surrogate: Bromofluourobenzene 0.00 50.0 49.3 52.1 86% 115% 98.6 104 5.52
~XPLANATIONS:
ND Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR)..
ag/Kg micrograms per Kilogram, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
Method Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory
environment, the reagents or equplment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whethe!
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise .and accurate measurements.
WlNING
~~m?dLA B 0 R A T 0 R I E S , INC.
Analyzed By: Chris Fammatre
Date of Extraction: 04/2812003
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch ID Number: TL07042803
tike ID: WS
EPA METHOD 8260
MA TRIX SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: Joseph Ureno
Date of Analysis: 04~28~2003
Sample Matrix: SOiL tap water
Constituent Matrix Sample Matrix Spike Matrix Spike !Matrix Spike Acceptable Matrix Spike Matrix Spike Relative
Concentration'Concentration Recovery Duplicate Percent Percent Duplicate Percent
(ug/Kg) Level (ug/Kg) Recovery Recovery Recovery Percent Difference
(ug/Kg) (ug/Kg) Range (%) Recovery (%)
(%) (%)
Low High
l,l-Dichloroethene 0.000 50.0 51.1 49.8 70% 130% 102 99.6 2.58
~enzene 0.000 50.0 47.1 48.4 70% 130% 94.2 96.8 2.72
Trichloroethene 0.000 50.0 43.8 43.1 70% 130% 87.6 86.2 1.61
Toluene 0.000 50.0 48.6 48.2 70% 130% 97.2 96.4 0.826
Chlorobenzene 0.000 50.0 46.8 47.2 70% 130% 93.6 94.4 0.851
Surrogate: Dibromofluormethane 0.000 50.0 47.7 46.7 86% 118% 95.4 93.4 2.12
surrogate: Toluene-dS 0.000 50.0 48.5 48.0 86% 110% 97.0 96.0 1.04
~urrogate: Bmmofluourobenzene 0.000 50.0 53.2 52.7 86% 115% 106 105 0.944
EXPLANATIONS:
NID Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
ag/Kg micrograms per Kilogram, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
Matrix Sample: The matrix sample is the sample chosen for use in the matrix spike analyses.
Matrix Spike: A matrix spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into the sample noted above. The matrix spike sample is
analyzed exactly like a regular sample, and its purpose is to determine whether the sample matrix hasa measurable
effect on precise and accurate analyte detection and quantification.
2527 FRESNO STREET · FRESNO. CA 93721 'o (559) 268-7021 FAX: (559) 268-0740
· ..LABORATORIE$~ INC.
I
~ ' - CO~T e OR RO. - .-
BA~RIOLOGICAL SAMPLE SOURCE SAMPLE STATUS REPO~S FOR:
PUBLIC SYSTEM ~ RO~INE . C0~N~: ~ FRESNO
PRIVATE WELL ~ REPOT
~ STA~ DE~. 0F H~L~ SERVICES ~ 0~ER:
SURFACE WATER ~ OTHER
CONSTRUCTION ~ OTHER PR~E~:
~~ ~ ~~ ~. PR~ECT ~:
s,~~ ~ PR~ECT MANAGER.
ROU~NE AN~YSIS ~
RUSH ANALYSIS, RESU[IS NEEDED BY: ',
- Bio. lids GW - Ground Water ST - Sto~ Water ~ ': /
DW - Ddn~ng Water SF -' Surface Water ~ - Waste Water "11~
SAMPLE z~ j'
SAMPLE ID DATE ~ME ~PE ~
A'I-I'ACHMENT 8.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, AND SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, AND SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
NOTIFICATIONS
Prior to performing any field work, the client, regulatory agency, and property owner/manager with
jUrisdiction over the subject site are notified. Notifications are made a minimum of 48 hours prior to
sampling, or as required by the client or regulator.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Prior to performing purge or no-purge samPling, water level measurements are collected according to the
following procedures:
· All wells are checked for phase-separated hydrocarbons with an acrylic bailer or oil/water interface
meter.
· To avoid cross contamination, water levels are measured starting with the hiStorically "cleanest" wells
and proceeding to the historically "dirtiest."
Water levels within each well are measured to an accuracy of +0:01 foot using an electric measuring
device and are referenced to the surveyed datum (well cover or top of casing). When measuring to
top of casing, measurements are made to the notched (or otherwise marked) point on casing. If no
marking is visible, the measurement is made to the northern side of the casing.
· If possible, all wells are gauged within a short time interval on the same day to obtain accurate
measurements of the potentiometric surface.'
· All measurements are reproduced to assure validity, and measuring equipment is decontaminated
between wells.
PHASE-SEPARATED HYDROCARBON
If phase-separated hydrocarbon (PSH) is encountered, its thickness in the well and the depth to the
interface between the PSH and the water in the well are measured using one or both of the following
methods:
· an electronic oil-water interface meter is used to measure the depths to the top of the PSH and to the
top of the water, and/or
· an electronic water level meter is used to measure the depth to the top of the water and a clear bailer
is used to measure the PSH thickness.
le Management Procedures
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Samp . Page 2
The potentiometeric surface elevation is calculated as:
' TOC- 'O-t'W + 0.74PT ·
Where TOC = top-of-casing elevation, DTW = depth to water (interface}, andPT = PSH thickness:
tf PSH thickness is less than 0.02 foot, and the well is planned for purging prior to sample collection, the
well is purged and sampled in accordance with the sample c°llecfi°n section of this SOP. If the PSH
thickness is 0.02 f°ot or greater, the pSH is bailed'from the well, and left onsite in a labeled and sealed
container. NO sample is collected for analysis from wells having a PSH thickness of greater than 0.02
foot. .
meet technical and/or
No-PURGE SAMPLING
Welt purging is not conducted prior to sampling if purging is not needed to
regulatory project requirementS. Following collection of water level measurements, wells that are not
purged are sampled according to the Pr°tocol in the sample collection section of this SOP.
· and/or regulatory
pURGING PROCEDURES
Welt purging is conducted prior to sampling if purging is needed to meet technical
the monitoring wells are purged using a vacuum truck,
projec q ........
· t re uirements. If purging is conducted, the well screen has become bridged
submersible eiecmu ~,u,,,~.,
surge block may be used if it becomes apparent during purging that
with sediment or the produced groundwater is overly turbid·
During the purging process, groundwater is monitored for temPerature' pH, conductivity, turbidity, odor,
and color. These parameters are recorded on a water sample tog. Purging continues unfit alt stagnant
water within the wells is replaced by fresh formation water, as indicated by removal of a minimum number
of welt volumes and/or stabilization of the above-outlined Parameters' Sampling is performed after the
. · until· water
well recharges to at least 80 percent of hydrostatic, ato · If active groundwater treatment is occurring at
purge water is stored on site. in Department of Transp°rtation-approved' 55-gallon drums
........ ults are received from the lab~ ~ ,reatment system, or the purge water may be
sample anatytlca~ ~o a be disposed of through the ._ .. _~.. '~i~n°saI facility.
the site, purge water m. y ..... aous waste to an approved on ~ -,~-
transported off site as
If permanent pumps are installed in the welts for groundwater remediafion, purging may be accomplished
by operating the pumps for at least 24 hours before sampling to ensure adequate purging·
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 3
SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDUREs
Groundwater samples are collected as follows:
· A l-liter TeflonTM bailer is lowered and partially submerged into the well water to collect a groundwater
sample.
· If visible PSH is present in the sample bailer, PSH thickness is recorded on the field log, and no
sample is collected for laboratory analysis.
For volatile organic analyses, groundwater samples are collected in chilled, 40-milliliter, VOA vials
having TeflonT~-Iined caps. Hydrochloric acid preservative is added to all vials by the laboratory to
lower sample pH to 2. Samples are held at 2 to 4°C while in the field and in transit to the laboratory.
Other appropriate containers, preservatives, and holding protocols are used for non-volatile analyses.
· · VOA vials are filled cOmpletely so that no headspace or air bubbles are present within the vial. Care is
taken so that the vials are not overfilled and the preservative is not lost.
sample containers are immediately labeled and sealed after collection to prevent confusion. For VOA
vials, the label is placed to overlap the edge of the cap as a custody seal, unless a separate custOdy
seal is being used.
Samples are stored in a cooler while on site and in transport to the laboratory or office. The cooler
has sufficient ice to maintain appropriate temperature pdor to collecting samples. The VOA vials are
kept cool both prior to and after filling. Hot or warm containers are not used when volatile compounds
are the target analytes.
DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES
Decontamination of monitoring and sampling equipment is performed pdor to all monitoring and sampling
activities. Decontamination procedures utilize a three-step process as described below!
The initial decontamination is performed using a non-phosphate soap, such as Simple Green or
Alconox, in tap water in a 5-gallon bucket. A soft-bristle bottlebrush is used to thoroughly clean the
inside and outside of the equipment.
· A second 5-gallon bucket of tap water is used as a first dnse.
· A third 5-gallon bucket of deionized water is used as a final dnse.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 4
· The brush is used in the first bucket only; it does not travel from bucket to bucket with the equipment.
This minimizes any transport of the contaminants that should stay in the first bucket.
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
At a minimum, a trip blank and a temperature blank are maintained for QA/QC purposes.
Atdp blank sample (TRIP) is kept with any samples being analyzed for VOCs. This is a sample of
clean water that is supplied by the laboratory and is transported to and from the field and to the
laboratory with the field samples. The designation "QCTRIPBK" or "QCTB" is used for sample name
on the field label. Samplers record the date that the TRIP is taken to the field for sampling, not the
date that the TRIP was prepared by the laboratory on the chain-of-custody (COC). One TRIP per
cooler per day is collected.
Unused tdp blank samples are stored at the consulting office in a cooler dedicated to this purpose.
The trip blank cooler is not refrigerated, but is kept in a clean location away from possible VOC
contaminants.
Temperature blank sample containers are supplied by the laboratory and kept in a cooler used to
transport samples. The temperature blank is placed in the cooler prior to going to the field and kept
there until the cooler is delivered to the laboratory.
COMPLETION OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY
· A separate COC is completed for each day of~ sampling. If samples are collected on separate days for
the same site, a separate COC is completed for each sampling day, and the COC is always.kept with
the samples. If samples are shipped off site for laboratory analysis, individual coolers with separate
COCs are sent for each day/cooler shipped.
All fields/spaces on the COC are filled out completely, and all persons having control of the samples
sign the COC to show transfer of sample control between individuals. At times when the field sampler
is not delivering samples directly to the laboratory, the samples may be turned over to a sample
manager for shipping. In this instance, the sample manager takes' custody of the samples, and both
the sampler and sample manager sign and date the COC to clearly show custody transfer.
· The COC is placed inside the cooler, and a custody seal is placed on the outside of the cooler prior to
shipping. The receiving laboratory indicates if the cooler was received with the custody seal intact.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 5
· If samples are sent to the laboratory via UPS, FEDEX, etc., this is indicated on the COC, and the
sample manager indicates the date and time custody'seal is placed on cooler for delivery to the
shipping agent (shipping agent does not sign the COC).
· . For trip blanks, the COC indicates the date the TRIP was taken to the field for sampling, not the date
the TRIP was prepared by the laboratory, which may appear on the VOA label.
New electronic deliverable format (EDF) requirements of California AB2886 mandate that COCs and
laboratory reports, maintain consistent and unique names between sites (Global ID) and Sample
location/well names (Field Point ID). This information must be consistent with the initial information
supplied to Geotracker, and for each subsequent quarterly sampling event.
SAMPLE HANDLING
Refrigerator Storage and Temperature Log
Samples may be stored in a refrigerator at the consulting office prior to transport to the laboratory.
Refrigerator storage is maintained under the following conditions:
Refrigerators used for sample storage are dedicated for that usage only (no food or other
materials are stored in sample refrigerators).
· Refrigerators can be locked from the outside by a sample manager, and only the sample manager
has access to samples while in storage.
· Refrigerators are maintained at temperatures between 2 to 4'C, and are adjusted daily depending
on thermometer readings.
Each refrigerator contains a dedicated, reliable thermometer. The thermometer is designed for
use in a refrigerator and is fixed/secured to the inside of the unit. The thermometer range is
specific for measuring temperatures in the 2 to 4°C range.
A temperature log is kept on the outside of the refrigerator in a lightweight, three-ring binder, or
similar logbook. Temperatures are recorded daily or when the refrigerator is open for sample
management.
Completed COCs are kept with the samples stored in the refrigerators. The COCs may be held
on a clipboard outside the refrigerator, or may be placed inside the cooler if the entire cooler is
placed inside the refrigerator.
GroUndwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures · . Page 6
If a cooler is placed in the refrigerator, the cooler lid remains open to insure that samples are
maintained at the refrigerator temperature.
Cooler Packing
The sample coolers are packed as directed by the receiving laboratory. Standard procedures for cooler
packing include:
· The cooler contains enough ice to maintain the required temperature of 2 to 4°C (roughly 20 percent
of the volume of the cooler).
· Water ice (not dry ice or ice packs) is used for shipping.
· The ice is plaCed above and below the samples in at least two sealable plastic bags.. This requires
that the packing/divider material is removed and replaced.
The COC is placed in the cooler in a sealed plastic bag, and the cooler lid is taped closed to secure it
for transport and to minimize loss of temperature. A custody seal is placed vertically across the seam
of the cooler lid.
ATI'ACHMENT 9.
WATER SAMPLE LOGS
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: April 21,2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: VW-ld
WELL DEPTH: 125'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 4"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 52° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: 0.13' floating product
(e.g., floatin~l layer, odor, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCE.I WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: EleCtronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES-- NEW OR CLEANED?: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD.I CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 7.0 48°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field (~
4-21-03 1210 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 112.87'
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATi::R AT END OF PURGING: I
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:
I
TOTAL DISCHARGE: CASING VOLUMES REMOVED:
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER:
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): 0.13' of free product - no sample collected
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS:
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: · Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: April 21, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-1
WELL DEPTH: 124.75'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 52° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: N--o floating .layer, no odor.
(e.g., floating layer, odor,, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter '
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: 3H STD- CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 316711.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 4.0 48°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH. TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field (~
4-21-03 1220 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 114.03'
4-21-03 1230 1.5 74.7 7.35 766 brown none high
4-21-03 1240 2.5 72.2 7.14 761 brown 'none high
4-21-03 1250 3.5 73.1 6.94 733 brown none hig h.
4-21-03 1250 ,DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 114.57'
4-21-03 1300 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 114.03'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.0
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): brown color, high turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-1
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter ' ~
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Ddve, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: April 21,2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-2
WELL DEPTH: 123.96'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 52° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor.
(e.g., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES ! BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
.!
COMMENTS: )H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 7.0 48°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(IJmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field (~
4-21-03 1420 [3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 112.64'
4-21-03 1430 2 71.7 6.95 1,070 tan/orange none high
4-21-03 1440 4 71.2 6.85 1,115 tan/orange none high
4-21-03 1450 6 70.8 6.77 1,121 tan/orange none high
4-21-03 1450 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I 113.02'
4-21-03 1500 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:I 112.64'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 6 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 3.3
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g.; color, turbidity): tan/orange color, high turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-2
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 ~, Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: April 21, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-3
WELL DEPTH: 124.25'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 52° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor.
(e.g., floatincj layer, odor, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD. CALIBRATION STD. 'FIELD TEMP °F
, 4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 7.0 48°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm) '
(gallons) (°F) field (~
4-21-03 1320 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 113.39'
4-21-03 1330 1.5 70.9 6.43 537 tan none high
4-21-03 1340 2.5 69.7 6.97 550 tan none high
4-21-03 1350 3.5 68.4 7.02 539 tan none high
4-21-03 1350 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I · 114.69'
4-21-03 1400 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:I 113.39'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.0
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): tan color, high turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-3
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: April 21, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-4
WELL DEPTH: 131.05'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 52° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTSi No floating layer, no odor.
(e.g., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QNQC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: 3H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 7.0 48°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field (~
4-21-03 1120 :)EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 116.14'
4-21-03 1130 2.5 74.9 7.13 652 tan none high
4-21-03 1140 4.5 73.4 7.11 658 tan none high
4-21-03 1150 6.5 73.1 7.08 662 tan none high
4-21-03 1150 3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 117.92'
4~21-03 1200 E:)EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 116.14'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 6.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.7
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): tan color, high turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-4
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661 ) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: April 21, 2003
PROJECT NAMEi. Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER:. MW-5
WELL DEPTH: 134.32'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 52° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor.
(e.g., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY ] WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD.! CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 7.0 48°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field ~
4-21-03 1020 ~)EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 118.03'
4-21-03 1030 2.5 69.3 6.68 922 tan none high
4-21-03 1040 4.5 68.5 6.53 862 · tan 'none high
4-21-03 1050 6.5 68.1 6.61 853 tan none high
4-21-03 1050 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I 119.44'
4-21-03 1100 [3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:I 118.03'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 6.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.4
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): tan color, high turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-5
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: April 21, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Cl~evron
WELL NUMBER: MW-6
WELL DEPTH: 130.21'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: '520 and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: N° floating layer, no odor.
(e.g., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTMbailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QNQC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: DH STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 48°
7.0 3168 7.0 48°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR ;TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) fie. id. @
'4-21-03 920 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 115.55'
4-21-03 930 2 66.7 6.83 1,126 tan none high
4-21-03 940 4 68.0 6.57 1,081 tan none high
'4.21.03 950 6 67.7 6.39 1,097 tan none high
4-21-03 950 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 116.82'
4-21-03 1000 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING! 115.55'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 6 gallons . CASING VOLUMES REMQVED: 2.5
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): tan color, high turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-6
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC,
' 1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 ~ Fax (661) 325-5126
ATTACHMENT 10.
LABORATORY REPORT FOR GROUNDWATER
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY · ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING -SAMPLING SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION & MATERIALS TESTING
PROJECT COVER SHEET
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
ATTENTION
CLIENT
· May 6, 2003
· 703-1970.1-7
Tim Sullivan
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, CA 93301
INVOICE# 70301970
RECEiYEO
Please find enclosed the analytical results of your samples. In accordance with your
instructions, the samples were analyzed for the components specified.'
The Twining Laboratories is accredited by the State of California Department of
Health Services for the analysis of Drinking Water, Wastewater and Hazardous
Waste under Certificate No. 1371.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding the
analyses or results. Thank you for allowing us to serve your analytical needs.
Ijt INVOICE- CLIENT
1C :INVOICE TO CSE
a~nk~ar Sharma sark~ar,
Directorl Division of Chemistry
Rev. :2 09/02 (COVER)
CORPORATE MODESTO VISALIA BAKERSFIELD MONTEREY SACRAMENTO
2527 Fresr~ Slreet 5253 Jerusalem Court, Suite E 130 Nodh ~ St, ,W-t6 3651 Pegasus Drive, #117 5010r~z A,,mr~ue 5675 Powe~ Inn Road, Suite C
(559) 268-7021 (209) 342-2061 (559) 651.~;~0 (661) 393-5088 (831) 392-1056 (916) 381-9477
Fax 26~7126 Fax 5-/9-1480 Fax 6514~288 Fax 3934643 Fax 392-1059 Fax 381~J478
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1980~4
· 04-21-03 at 1300 by Tim Gluskoter
"04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: E. 'Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 05-02-03
: 05-02-03
: MW-1
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 4 of 13
sAMpLE
TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
IRESULTS
'' (pg/L)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene .
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
17000
2500
7000
1800
12000
59000
250
5O
5O
5O
5O
5000
8021
8021
8021
802!
8021
8015
SURROGATE*
RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 94.9
TPH-GAS 97.8
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
ug/L.: micrograms per Liter (pa~ts per billion)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev..~3 5/96 (STEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.4
: 04-21-03 at 1300 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23,03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: C. Fammatre
: 04-30-03
: 04-30-03
: MW-1
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 11 of 13
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
· SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 100
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 200
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 100
Ethyl reft-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 200
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 59000 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 200
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 2000
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 94.1 86-i 18
Toluene ds 99.5 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 101 86-115
ug/L: mic~'ocjram$ pe~' Liter (parts per
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for R~l;x~ting purposes
Rev. ~4 07/99 (a26o)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
· : May 6, 2003
: 703-1980.6
: 04-21-03 at 1500 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN ·
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 05-02-03
: 05-02-03
: MW-2
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 6 of 13
SAMPLE TYPE :Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(IJg/L)
'[ DLR I METHOD
(pg/L)
Methyl teA-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons-Gasoline Range
1600 250 8021
6.7 0.5 8021
0.55 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
3.9 0.5 8021
2900 5000 8015
SURROGATE' 1% RECOVERY I ACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
BTEXJMTBE 90.5 70-130%
TPH-GAS 93.5 70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~ ~ (8TEXWA'r)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.6
: 04-21-03 at 1500 by Tim Gluskoter' ·
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: C. Fammatre
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE iD
: 04-30-03
: 04-30-03
: MW-2
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 13 of 13
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) . ND 10
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 20
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 10
Ethyl teK-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 20
Methyl reft-butyl ether (MTBE) 920 10
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 20
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 200
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluommethane 94.1 86-118
Toluene ds 98.1 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 102 86-115
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
NO: None Detected OLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 4__07/99
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
May 6, 2003
703-1980.5
04-21-03 at 1400 by Tim Gluskoter
04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
E. Scott
C. Fammatre
05-02-03
05-02-03
MW-3
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 5 of 13
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(l~g/L)
I DLR I METHOD
(IJg/L)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
8300 250 8021
12 0.5 8021
4.2 0.5 8021
2.9 0.5 8021
20 0.5 8021
7600 5000 8015
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
SURROGATE*
RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 89.8
TPH-GAS 88.1
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
ug/L: micrograms per Liter {parts per billion)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~ 5/96 (BTE.XVVAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
May 6, 2003
703-1970.5
04-21-03 at 1400 by Tim Gluskoter
04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
C. 'Fammatre
04-30-03
04-30-03
MW-3
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 12 of 13
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 100
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 200
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 100
Ethyl reft-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 200
Methyl teA-butyl ether (MTBE) 10000 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 200
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 2000
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 94.4 86-118
Toluene d8 102 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 102 86-115
ug/L: micxograrns p~r Liter (pads per billion)
NE): None Detected DLR: Oetecti*~rt I.imit for Reporting purposes
Rev.~407/99(8260)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
· May 6, 2003
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC,
PAGE 3 of 13
SAMPLE TYPE· Ground Water
703-1980.3
04-21-03 at 1200 by Tim Gluskoter
04-23~03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
E. Scott'
C. Fammatre
05-02-03
05-02-03
MW-4
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(IJg/L)
Methyl teK-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
13000 250 8021
830 5O 8021
150 50 8021
1.9 0.5 8021
720 50 8021
14000 5000 8015
SURROGATE*
RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 90.3
TPH-GAS 93.5
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. :3 5/96 (8TF_XWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID'
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.3
: 04-21-03 at 1200 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
· : C. Fammatre
: 04-30-03
: 04-30-03
: MW-4
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 10 of 13
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND I 100
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE)
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ' ~'['~ .'.
Ethyl. tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND ~ 230
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 31000 .... ~ 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ' -,
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) , ..;;._ ....... ~ .... ~_: .....
'~ .... ",' RecoVery Limits
Surroqates Rec.~ ,,., ~
Dib romofl uoromethane 91.8 86-118
Toluene dB 98.6 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 100 86-115
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 4~ 07/99 (8260)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1980.2
· 04-21-03 at 1100 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 05-02-03
: 05-02-03
: MW-5
THE 'rWlNING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 2 of 13
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(pg/L)
DLR METHOD
(pg/L)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
' Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
17000 250 8021
3500 50 8021
8100 5O 8021
1200 5O 8021
6400 5O 8021
47000 5000 8015
SURROGATE* 1% RECOVERY
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
BTEX/MTBE 93.5
TPH-GAS 109
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED.
DATE RECEIVED
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.2
: 04-21-03 at 1100 by Tim Gluskoter
·: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
· CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
' C. Fammatre
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
· 04-30-03
· 04-30-03
CLIENT SAMPLE ID · MW-5
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 9 of 13
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS' ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 100
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 200
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 100
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 200
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 62000 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 200
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 2000
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 89.9 86-118
Toluene d8 98.5 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 103 86-115
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 4, 07/99 (8260)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
· May 6, 2003
: 703-1980.1
: 04-21-03 at 1000 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 05-02-03
: 05-02-03
: MW-6
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 1 of 13
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(IJg/L)
DLR I METHOD
(pg/L)
Methyl teA-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
17000 250 8021
15 0.5 8021
3.8 0.5 8021
3.8 50 8021
430 50' 8021
17000 5000 8015
SURROGATE*
RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 89.5
TPH-GAS 89.3
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
~: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Oe~ection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1970.1
· 04-21-03 at 1000 byTim Gluskoter
· 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: C. Fammatre
: 04-30-03
: 04-30-03
: MW-6
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 8 of 13
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 100
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 200
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 100
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 200
Methyl teA-butyl ether (MTBE) 54000 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 200
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 2000
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 92.5 86-118
Toluene d8 96.9 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 102 86-115
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
NO: None Oetected OLR: Oetectio¢~ Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 4~ 07/99 (8260)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: May 6, 2003
: 703-1980:7
: 04-21-03 at 0700 by Tim Gluskoter
: 04-23-03 at 1230 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / TIM SULLIVAN
: E. Scott
: C. Fammatre
: 05-02-03
: 05-02-03
: BLANK
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 7 of 13
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(pg/L)
DLR I METHOD
(l~g/L)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
ND
ND
ND
ND
.ND
2.5 8021
0.5 8021
0.5 8021
0.5 8021
0.5 8021
SURROGATE*
I%RECOVERY
BTEX/MTBE 93.3
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030
ugJL: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
*4-13romofluorobenzene
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Lim!t for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
tWINING
~~rl~A 6 0 R A T 0 R I £ S , I N C .
FR£ SNO/14ODE STO/VISAUA/BAK£RSrI£ LD/$~.INA$
Analyzed By: Eric Scott
Date of Extraction: 05/02/03
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Run ID Number: TL08050203
$~p, ike ID: W$-1000
EPA 8021 (MTBEIBTEX) & EPA 8015M (TPH-Gasoline)
LABORA TORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed by: J. ureno
Date of Analysis: 05102/03'
Sample Matrix: Aqueous
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike! Control Spike Percent
(ug/L) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate r Difference
Level (ug/L) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)'
(ug/L) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(ug/L) (%)
/~TBE/BTE~ surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 25.0 24.3 251'~ 80% 120% 97.2 101 3.64
l~lethyl Tertiary Butyl Ethe~ 0.00 60 56.3 57.7 80% 120% 93.8 96.2 2.46
Benzene 0.00 20.0 19.6 19.6 80% 120% 98~0 98.0 0
Toluene 0.00 20.0 ·17.2 17,3 80% 120% 86,0 86.5 0.58
Ethylbenzene 0.00 20.0 19.2 19.4 80% 120% 96.0 97.0 1.04
Xylenes 0.00 60.0 57.5 58.2 80% 120% 95.8 97.0 1.21
TPH_Gasoline Surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 25.0 27.2 27.8 80% 120% 109 111 2.18
TPH-Gas01ine 0.00 1000 817 812 80% 120% 81.7 81.2 0.61
EXPLANATIONS:
ND Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
(ug/L) micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
vlethod Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment,
the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether '
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
WINING
JiI~A B 0 R A T 0 R i~ £ S , I N C .
Analyzed By: Chris Fammatre
Date of Extraction: 0413012003
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch Number: TL07043003
Spike ID: WS 160
EPA METHOD 8260
LABORA TORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: Joseph Ureno
Date of Analysis: 04130/2003
Sample Matrix: Water
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative
I Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent
(ug/L) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (ug/L) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(ug/L) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(u~/L) (%)
1,1-Dichloroethene~ 0.00 '50.0 43.8 ' 41.1 70% 130% 87.6 82.2 6.36
Benzene 0.00 50.0 43.6 42,2 70% 130% 87.2 84.4 3.26
Trichloroethene 0.00 50.0 46.2 43.9 70% 130% 92.4 87.8 5.11
Toluene 0.00 50,0 46.1 45.2 70% 130% 92.2 90.4 1.97
Chlorobenz~ne 0.00 50.0 44.6 43.3 70% 130% 89.2 86.6 2.96
Surrogate: Dibromofluormethane 0.00 50.0 46.9 46.5 86% 118% 93.8 93.0 0.857
surr(~gate: Toluene-d'8 0.00 50.0 48.9 49.0 86% 110% 97.8 98.0 0.204
Surrogate: Bromofluourobenzene 0.00 50.0 51.3 51.8 86% 115% 103 104 0.970
EXPLANATIONS: ' ' "'
ND Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
ug/L micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
Method Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory
environment, the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whethe~
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
WININ
~LABORATORI[$, INC.
FREStlO/iWODESTO/VISAU&/BAK£ RSH£ LD/$ALItlAS
~nalyzed By: Chris Fammatre
:)ate of Extraction: 04~30~2003
twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch Number: TL07043003
~pike ID: WS 160
EPA METHOD 8260
MA TRIX SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: Joseph Ureno
Date of Analysis: 0413012003
Sample Matrix: Water Sample: TAP WATER
Constituent
, l-Dichloroethene
Matrix Sample
Concentration
un'ogate: Dibromofluormethane
0.000
Matrix Spike
Concentration
Level
(ug/L)
50.0
Matrix Spike
Recovery
42.2
Matrix Spike
Duplicate
Recovery
(ug/L)
41.7
43.1
lenzene 0.000 50.0 43.5
'richloroethene 0.000 50.0 45.4 45.0
'oluene 0.000 50.0 44.9 44.5
'.hlorobenzene 0.000 50.0 43.6 43.9
0.000 50.0 46.6 45.7
urrogate: Toluene-d8 ' 0.000 50.0 49.6 49.3
urrogate: Bromofluourobenzene 0.000 50.0 52.5 53.0
Acceptable
Percent
Recovery
Range
(%)
Low High
Matrix Spike
Percent
Recovery
(%)
70%ol I 84.4
70% 1 13°%187.0'
70% I 130% I 90.8
70%l 130%{ 89.8
70% I 130%1 87.2
86%] 1t8%] 93.2
86%1110%I 99.2
86%1115%I a05
Matrix Spike] Relative
I
Duplicate { PercentI
Percent [ DifferenceI
Recovery{ (%) {
(%) [
83.4 1.19
86.2- 0.924 [
90.0 0.885I
89.0 I °'8951
87.8 I 0; 9v
91.4
98,6 [ o.~o7/
106 [ 0.948
XPLANATIONS:
D
latrix Sample:
[atrix Spike:
Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
The matrix sample is the sample chosen for use in the matrix spike analyses.
A matrix spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into the sample noted above. The matrix spike sample is
analyzed exactly like a regular sample, and its purpose is to determine whether the sample matrix has a measurable
effect on precise and accurate analyte detection and quantification.
10:36 FROM:
}jjlING
· ) R..~.;r 0 B.~ · 6, ~N.c.
,~MITTER INFORMATION;
T0:661 3~5 51H6 P.00H
CHAIN OF CUSTODY/ANALYSIS REQUEST Ic°c# '-
L'"'7_~...~o lq 70,
2527 FRESNO STREET · FRESNO. CA 93721 - (559) 268-7021 FAX: (559) 268-0740
SEND INVOICE TO;~ ..,.,-- . ...' ,.. P,F~ULI'$ flF=.LF~--~D ~TO:
,,,~ss:. /.s/, "~..///-~'./4'..,/
~ ~.~Fo,.omcA. S^M~E Sou.cs
j SAMPLE STATUS
ROUTINE
REPEAT
OTHER
SURFACE WATER
C_O_.SmUCT__~_. g._OmER
RUSH ~LYSIS. RESULTS NEEDED BY:
~Y '0~ CHE~CAL A~YSlS S~P~ ~'E
SL- S0il/,S~[id
ST- Storm Water
~ I Waste Water
REPORTS FOR:
COUNTY: [~J FRESNO J~J KINGS J~J MAOERA J~J MERCED
J~} STATE DEFT. OF HEALTH SERVICES J~ OTHER:
PROdECT:
PROJECT MANAGER;
~ TULARE
REQUESTED
.....
:' : SAMPLE
SAMPLE ID DATE TIME TYPE
,~ r~ q./,-4~ /t /~ ~
r4 -q ,I . j ,
,:. ',.-~, ..... ,,,~?,IED ElY COMPANY gATE TIME REC~.¥ED.. BY , COMPANY
.... -~ '-~.--~> I Z'-'_.~,o~
Cen~al;Sierra Environmental
Env~rg~nt~l Management Consultant
1400 Easti~n Drive, State 132 ·
Bake~CA 93309
Central~.S~erra Environmental ·
Envlro~~!~anagement.., .~-.~ Consultant
1400 EastorflDH~e, Suite 132
Bakersfi~'i~d,~'C~A~--~:~':~93309
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18~ Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
Mr. John Whiting
CRWQCB
1685 "E" Street
Fresno, California 93706
Cerifff~ierra Environmental '
E~tal Management Consultant
1400 ~efi Drive, Suite 132
B~'~"f~CA 93309
Mr..Howard Wines
BFDESD
1715 Chester Ave., Suite 300
Bakersfield, California 93301
Winston H. Hickox
Sec'retary~/br
Environmental
Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Office
Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb5
t685 E Street, Fresno, California 93706-2020
Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-59t0
30 April 2003
Gray Davis
Governor
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. David Bird
Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You submitted First Quarter 2003 Progress Report (Report) dated 13 April 2003 and prepared by
Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). The Report documents a groundwater monitoring
event performed on 24 February 2003 and summarizes soil vapor extraction (SVE) remediation system
performance from startup on 8 October 2002 until 31 March 2003. The SVE system .continues to
remove hydrocarbons from subsurface soils at a steady, relatively high rate. Petroleum product floating
on groundwater and high concentrations of gasoline constituents, including the fuel oxygenate methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), continue to be detected beneath the source area this quarter. CSE recently
installed three off-site monitoring wells to determine the lateral extent of impacted groundwater. We
request that SVE system operation and quarterly groundwater monitoring continue. The new off-site
wells should be added to the monitoring network beginning with the Second Quarter 2003 event.
Analysis of groundwater samples for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was no~ performed during the
First Quarter 2003 event. This analysis should be included during the Second Quarter 2003 event. We
request that you submit a report documenting off-site monitoring well installations-and the Second
Quarter 2003 groundwater monitoring and SVE system performance report. Summaries of the Report
and our comments follow. A summary of the project is included in our letter dated 19 July 2002.
Report Summary
Groundwater Monitoring
CSE conducted groundwater monitoring on 24 February 2003. Depth-to-groundwater ranged from
113. t9 to 114.73 feet below the tops of the casings (below TOC). Groundwater samples were collected
fi'om monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3. Floating gasoline 0.17 feet thick was measured in SVE
well VW-Id. Groundwater flow direction was calculated to be toward the southeast with a slope of
0.016 feet per foot.
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
Mr. David Bird 2 30 April 2003
Groundwater elevation rose approximately 3 feet since the 3 December 2002 monitoring event. Floating
gasoline thickness in VW-ld and groundwater flow direction and water table slope acrogs the
monitoring network was consistent with the 3 December 2002 monitoring event.
Groundwater samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) by EPA
Method 8015M, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and MTBE bY EPA Method 8021.
The samples were also analyzed for the fuel oxygenates MTBE, tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA), di-
isopropyl ether (DIPE), ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME), and
the lead scavengers 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), and 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) by EPA Method
8260B.
TPH-g was detected at 33,000, 74, and 1,700 micrograms per liter (gg/L) in the samples collected from
M._.W-~I., .M~W__-2,_and. M_W-:_3_respecti.vely.--B enzene~vcas-.detected-at 4 ~-700 and-0:-5-7-~g/L-in--MW- t and~
MW-2, respectively. TPH-g concentrations detected in MW-1 remained within one order of magnitude
compared to the previous monitoring event, decreased by two o~ders of magnitude in MW-2, and
remained within one order of magnitude in MW-3.
MTBE was detected in MW-t and MW-2 at 15,000 and 90 gg/L, respectively, by EPA Method 8021 and
was confirmed at 43,000, 60, and 3,400 gg/L in MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3, respectively, by EPA
Method 8260B. MTBE concentrations detected by EPA Method 8260B in MW-1 remained within one
order of magnitude of concentrations detected during the last monitoring event but decreased by three
orders of magnitude in MW-2 and remained within one order of magnitude in MW-3. TBA was not '
detected. TBA was detected in MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3 at 470, 1,500, and 34 pg/L, resPectively
during the previous event. TAME was detected at 35 ~g/L in MW-1. TAME was detected in MW-2 at
3.38 gg/L during the previous event.
Remediation System Performance
CSE began operating the SVE system on 8 October 2002. The system has operated continuously during
the First Quarter 2003 except for short periods of planned inactivity during maintenance, draining the
knockout pot, and for approximately 72 hours prior to groundwater monitoring events.
The SV-E system-operated durlil~e First Quarter 2003 ifi-~fi-e~a-i-m~-d-e '~it~-~easured o~idizer
temperatures ranging from 1435 to 1490 degrees Fahrenheit and inlet airflow rates from 200 to 265
standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). SVE well V-id (deep interval) was operated partially open from
system startup until 6 November 2002 and has been operated fully open.thereafter. SVE well V-Is
(shallow interval) has been operated partially open since 6 November 2002. SVE well V-I{
(intermediate interval) was operated open from 4 to 11 March 2003. SVE well V-2 was operated open
· from
14 to 21 March 2003. SVE well V-3 was operated open from 24 to 31 March 2003. Monitoring and
SVE well MW-1 has been operated partially open since 19 December 2002.
CSE collected influent vapor samples from the thermal oxidizer on 21 February 2003. The samples
were analyzed for TPH-g by the GASLUFT method and for BTEX and MTBE by EPA Method 8020.
TPH-g was detected in these samples at 11,000 parts per million by x~olume (ppmv). Benzene was
detected at 120 ppmv. MTBE was detected at 1,400 ppmv. Influent vapor samples have increased from
5,500 ppmv to 11,000 ppmv on 21 February 2003.
V:\UGTSPrqiectsUDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron GW-SVE2 4-03.doc
Mr. David Bird 3 30 April 2003
Field influent volatile organic vapor measurements generally increased from 4,500 ppmv on 8 October
2002 to 8,600 ppmv on 12 December 2002 and decreased to 7,230 ppmv on 30 December 2002. Vapor
measurements again increased to 11,000 ppmv on 21 February 2003 and slightly decr'~ased thereafter to
31 March 2003. Field influent vapor measurements have exceeded 10,000 ppmv since 3 February 2003.
CSE calculates that 66,192 cumulative pounds (10,343 gallons) of hydrocarbons have been removed
since SVE system startup. CSE calculated that 26,786 pounds (4,185 gallons) of hydrocarbons had been
removed by the end of the Fourth Quarter 2002 (by 30 December 2002).
During the First Quarter 2003, CSE will conduct qumlerly grgundwater monitoring, install three off-site
monitoring wells, subrnit an off:site groundwater assessment report, and continue SVE system operation.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized, report, we have the following comments:
Gasoline range petroleum constituents, including MTBE, have migrated through the permeable
sandy/gravelly site soils and have been detected in groundwater beneath the southern portion of the site.
Floating petroleum product has been detected in SVE well VW-I d during the initial five monitoring
events. Floating petroleum product thickness and TPH-g, BTEX, and MTBE concentrations in
groundwater beneath the release were nearly constant compared to those detected last quarter.
MTBE in groundwater may be transported greater distances away from the release point than other
gasoline constituents due to its relatively high solubility and low adsorption to soils. A municipal water
supply well is approximately 1,000 feet downgradient of the site. We have previously requested that you
expedite soil remediation to minimize the migration and spread of gasoline and MTBE in groundwater
and potential impacts to the municipal well. An SVE remediation system has operated on-site since
8 October 2002. Based on data included in the report, SVE system influent vapor concentrations and
hydrocarbon removal rates have remained relatively high. The cumulative weight of removed
hydrocarbons continues to increase at a steady rate. We request that remediation continue in thermal
mode.
The lateral extent of MTBE in impacted groundwater is undefined. CSE i_r~s.talled three off-site
groundwater monitoring wells during 14 to 16 April 2003. We approved the installation of the off-site
groundwater monitoring wells by our letter dated 3 September 2002. We request that you submit a
report of findings for the monitoring well installations by 21 July 2003. The off-site monitoring wells
should be included in the monitoring network beginning with the Second Quarter 2003 monitoring
event.
Groundwater monitoring should be continued. Groundwater samples should be analyzed for TPH-g by
EPA Method 8015M, and BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME by EPA Method 8260. By
our letter dated 11 December 2003 we requested that you include analysis for the VOCs usually reported
in a full EPA Method 8260 analysis (usually 63 to 67 compounds) one additional quarter. You did not
conduct this analysis during the First Quarter 2003 monitoring event. We reiterate our request that you
conduct this analysis.
By our letter dated 11 December 2002, we indicated that analysis for 1,2-DCA and EDB could be
discontinued. We note that these analytes were reported for the First Quarter 2003 monitoring event.
V:\UGT~PrqiectsUDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chewon GW-SVE2 4-03.doc
Mr. David Bird - 4 - 30 April 2003
We have no objection to reporting 1,2-DCA and EDB provided that this does not result in increased
COSt.
Please submit a groundwater monitoring report for the First Quarter 2003 monitoring event by 4 August
2003.
Sections 2729 and 2729.1 for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the California Code of
Regulations requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Required Electronic Deliverable Format~br Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Agencies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
_ verticaLpositioning-data (GEO--X-Y-and-GEO:Z-files-);-depth-to=waterxneasurements' (GEO_WELL -
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP files).
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals...
CC:
Mr. Howard Wines III, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosurext
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacrmnento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File: UST/Kern/Chevron Station/2317 L Street, Bakersfield/5T15000836
V:\UGTxProjectskIDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of BakersfieLd Cases\Dwntwn Chevron GW-SVE2 4~()3.doc
· April 13, 2003
Central ir°nmental
Enviro t Consultant
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California, 93301
FIRST QUARTER 2003 PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE
SU[.'LIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
· 2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
(CRWQCB-CVR CASE #5T15000836)
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC. (CSE) is pleased to present the following First Quarter 2003 Progress
· Report for the above-referenced site. This work was required by the CRWQCB-CVR as a result of the
discovery of gasoline-containing soil and groundwater in and around the area of the premium grade
unleaded gasoline product pipeline extending to the southeastern MPD at the site. A list of acronyms
used in this report is attached.
SITE LOCATION AND CONTACT PERSONS
The site is located at 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, Kern County, California (see Figure 1 - Site Location
Map). The site is located within the commercial district, which flanks 23rd and 24th streets. The BCSD
operates the Downtown Elementary School, 1,250 feet south of the site and San Joaquin Community
Hospital is located 1,500 feet northwest of the site. The site is at an elevation of 404 feet above MSL, and
the topography is relatively flat with a slight slope to the southwest. The site is located within the
northwest quarter of Section 30, Township ·29 South, Range 28 East, MDBM. The site is a newly
constructed retail fuel sales facility and mini mart, which opened during the first quarter of 1999.
The subject site is the location of double-walled USTs and product piping (see Figure 2 - Plot Plan).
The property owner contact is Mr. Tim Sullivan, President, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC,
1508 18th Street, Suite 222, Bakersfield, California, 93301, (661) 327-5008. The consultant contact is
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, LLC, 1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield,
California, 93309, (661) 325-4862. The regulatory agency contact is Mr. John Whiting, California Regional
Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region, 1685 "E" Street, Fresno, California, 93706, (559)
445-5504.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309
(661) 325-4862 - Fax (661) 325-5126, censenv@aol.com
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
April 13, 2003- Page 2
TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The site is located at an elevation of 404 feet above MSLi and the topography slopes slightly to the
southwest (see Figure '1). The subject site is located on the eastern flank of the San Joaquin Valley and
west of the southern Sierra Nevada.
The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is Composed primarily of unconsolidated Pleistocene (1.6 million to
11,000 years ago) and Recent (11,000 years ago to the present) alluvial sediments. Beneath the alluvial
sediments are older, predominantly lakebed deposits. These lie unconformably on Mio-Pliocene marine
sediments, which extend to a crystalline basement at 50,000 fbg (CDMG, 1965, Geologic Map of
California, Bakersfield Sheet).
At the subject site, surface deposits consist of Quaternary (recent) unconsolidated alluvium overlying
Quaternary (Pleistocene) nonmarine sediments. Geologic deposits in the study area include Pleistocene
alluvial sediments that form a homocline dipping gently to the southwest. The deposits are alluvium
consisting of indurated and dissected fan deposits (CDMG, 1965). Surface soils are classified by the Soils
Conservation Services as Kimberlina - Urban Land - Cajon Complex and are characterized as 35 percent
Kimberlina fine, sandy loam with moderate permeability; 30 percent Urban land with impervious surfaces
and altered fills; and 20 percent Cajon loamy sand with high permeability. Subsurface soils observed at
nearby UST sites during the construction of water supply wells in the area are characterized as
fine-grained to coarse-grained sands with significant intervals of gravels, cobbles, and boulders, and minor
intervals of thinly bedded silts and clays through the depth of groundwater at 110 fog.
The site is located in the southern portion of the Groat Valley geomorphic province. The Groat Valley is a
north-south-trendin9 valley, 400 miles long by 50 miles wide, the southern portion of which is known as the
San Joaquin Valley, Surface water and groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley aro derived predominantly
from the Sierra Nevada to the east and are transported by five major rivers, the closest to the site being
the Kern River. The subject site is located I mile south of the Kern River.
The depth to the regional, unconfined aquifer is 110 fog, and the groundwater gradient is to the southwest,
away from the Kern River and toward the ancient Kern Lake bed (KCWA, 2000, 1996 Water Supply
Report, July 2000). Perched groundwater at depths as shallow as 20 fbg is known to be present flanking
the current course of the Kern River, but is not known to extend to the site (KCWA, 2000).
CWSC operates Well #7 1,000 feet east-southeast of the site. No additional active water supply wells are
located within 2,500 feet of the site.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
April 13, 2003- Page 3
PREVIOUS WORK
During April 1999, product reconciliation records indicated a potential release in the product piping
extending from the premium UST to the southeastern MPD. However, the leak detection alarm system
had not indicated a release. Subsequently, the MPD was shut off, and the inner flex product piping was
removed from the outer flex containment piping. A breach was observed in the inner flex product piping.
Therefore, Sullivan Petroleum filed a URR with the BFDESD. On April 30, 1999, the concrete above the
product piping was removed,, and an exploratory trench was excavated, exposing the product piping.
A breach was also observed in the outer flex containment piping.
On May 10, 1999, A.J. Environmental, Inc. advanced a hand-augered soil boring (SC-l) adjacent to the
location of the product piping breach. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were detected in the soil
sample collected from soil boring SC-1 at 5 fbg. Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analytical
results, the BFDESD, in-its letter dated June 21, 1999, required a preliminary assessment of the vertical
and lateral limits of the gasoline-containing soil and an assessment of the potential for the release to
impact groundwater resources. Holguin, Fahan& Associates, Inc. (HFA) prepared a work.plan, dated July
8, 1999, to perform the requested work, which was subsequently approved for implementation by the
BFDESD in its letter dated July 21, 1999. HFA performed the ddlling and sampling activities on August
17, 1999, and September 26, 1999.
Five soil borings (B-1 through B-5) were drilled during this phase of soil investigation.
On August 17, 1999, soil borings B-1 through B-3 were advanced to 20 fbg using HFA's 10-ton direct-push
sampling rig where refusal was experienced due to the presence of a layer of cobbles. On September 26,
1999, soil boring B-1 was deepened to a depth of 48 fbg using a torque-modified MobileTM B-53 hollow-
stem auger drill rig operated by Melton Drilling Company of Bakersfield, California. Drilling refusal was
experienced at 48 fbg due to encountering a second layer of larger diameter cobbles and occasional
boulders. On September 26, 1999, soil borings B-4 and B-5 were also drilled at the site to 45 fbg where
drilling refusal occurred.
Soil boring B-1 was drilled adjacent to the potential source area; soil borings B-2 and B-3 were drilled as
lateral-assessing soil borings located 15 feet to the east and west, respectively, of the potential source
area; and soil borings B-4 and B-5 were drilled as lateral-assessing soil borings advanced 25 feet to the
northeast and southwest, respectively, of the potential source area. Soils encountered during drilling
included well-graded sands, interbedded with a layer of cobbles from 18.5 to 22.5 fbg and a second layer
of larger diameter cobbles and occasional boulders from 37.5 fbg to the maximum depth (48 fbg)
penetrated during the investigation. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.
TPH as gasoline and benzene were detected in the soil samples collected from the vertical-assessing soil
boring (B-l) to less than 22 fbg and in the soil samples collected from the lateral-assessing soil borings
(B-2 and B-3) less than 25 feet laterally from the potential source area. Minor MTBE concentrations were
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
April 13, 2003- Page 4
also detected in the soil samples collected from soil borings B-1 through B-5 to the total depth of the soil
borings.
The BFDESD, in its letter dated December 29, 1999, required the preparation of a CAP to determine the
appropriate remedial actions for adsorbed-phase hydrocarbon-containing soils at the site. HFA prepared
the requested CAP, dated April 12, 2000, which was subsequently approved by the BFDESD for
implementation. An RI/FS was conducted to assess the feasibility and cost effectiveness of mitigation
technologies. The results of the RI/FS analysis were that in-situ vapor extraction is the technology that
appears most suitable for this site. A vapor extraction Well field consisting of central, shallow-zone and
deep-zone vapor extraction wells (VW-ls and VW-ld, respectively) and three lateral, shallow-zone vapor
extraction wells (VW-2 and VW-4) was proposed.
In association with the construction of the central, deep-zone vapor extraction well (VVV-ld), soil sampling.
and laboratory analysis Would be performed to assess the vertical limits of gasoline-containing soil and the
potential for the release to impact grOundwater resources, and 'the well construction details would be
modified dependant on the depth of the boring and whether groundwater was encountered.
On February I thrOugh 3, 2001, HFA advanced soil bodng VW-ld to 125 fbg, which was completed as a
combination groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well, and soil bori'ngs VW-2 through VW-4 to 45 fbg,
which were completed as vapor extraction wells. HFA perfOrmed the ddlling and sampling of combination
groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well VW-ld on February I through 3, 2001, using a limited-
access, dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig, operated by West Hazmat, Inc., of Sacramento,
California. The LAR was used because of the height of the canopy above the drill location, and the
dual-walled percussion, air rotary LAR was required due to the requirement to drill through cobbles and
boulders. The three lateral vapor extraction wells (VW-2 thrOugh VW-4) were drilled with a conventional
dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill dg with a normal height mask. Soil samples were collected at 50,
65, 80, and 100 fbg while drilling soil boring VW-ld, with groundwater encountered at 110 fbg. Soil
samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VW-2 through VW-4 due to their positioning in close
proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths.
Soils encountered dudng drilling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in
diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a
PID to the total depth of soil boring VW-ld. GrOundwater was encountered in the soil boring at 110 fbg.
Therefore, the soil boring was drilled to 125 fbg and completed as a monitoring well with slotted casing
from 75 to 125 fbg to serve as a combination groundwater monitoring and vapor extraction well.
Soil borings VW-2 through VW-4 were drilled to 45 fbg and completed as vapor extraction wells with
slotted casing from 5 to 45 fbg. Because the LAR was required to be used at another site, time was not
available to install central, shallow vapor extraction well VW-ls during this phase of investigation
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
April 13, 2003- Page 5
TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 250 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg,
decreasing to 5.7 mg/kg in the soil sample collected from 65 fbg, and was not detected in the soil sample
collected at 80 fbg. However, TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 2,300 rog/kg was in the
soil sample collected at 100 fbg. Benzene was not detected in the soil samples collected at 50, 65, and
80 fbg. However, benzene was detected at a concentration of 9.3 rog/kg in the soil sample collected at
100 fbg. MTBE was detected in the four soil samples reaching a maximum concentration of 87 rog/kg in
the soil sample collected at 100 fbg.
On March 14, 2001, a groundwater sample was collected' from monitOring well VW-ld. The depth to
groundwater in the well was measured to be 107.43 feet below the top of the well casing.
TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring
well VW-ld, with benzene at a concentration of 2,400 pg/I and MTBE at a concentration of 120,000 pg/I.
TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well
VW-ld (see Table I - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Organic Compounds).
In order to further delineate the lateral limits of gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in soil and
groundwater, HFA's Preliminary Groundwater Assessment Report, dated June 25, 2001, recommended
that an expanded groundwater investigation be conducted and consist of the installation of three additional
groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-3) (see Figure 2 for the monitoring well locations). In
order to complete the vapor extraction well field installation, HFA recommended that the previously
approved central, shallow-zone vapor extraction well (VVV-ls) would be installed as well as central,
intermediate-zone vapor extraction well VVV-li. The CRWQCB-CVR's case review letter, dated July 23,
2001, approved implementation of the expanded groundwater assessment plan and VES work plan.
From October 30, 2001 through November 2, 2001, HFA drilled five soil borings with three lateral soil
borings (MW-1 through MW-3) ddlled to 125 fbg and completed as groundwater monitoring wells and the
two central soil borings (VW-ls and VVV-li) drilled to 35 fbg and 75 fbg, respectively, and completed as
vapor extraction wells (see Figure 2 for the well locations). Soil samples were collected at a 10-foot
interval while ddlling soil borings MW-1 through MW-3, with groundwater encountered at 114 fbg.
Soil samples were not collected while drilling soil bodngs VVV-ls and VVV-li due to their positioning in
close proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths. Soils encountered during drilling included
well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and
soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a PID to the total depth of soil boring MW-l, but not in
the soil samples collected from soil borings MW-2 and MW-3. Groundwater was encountered in the soil
borings at 114 fbg. Therefore, soil bodngs MW-1 through MW-3 were drilled to 125 fbg and completed as
a monitoring well with 2-inch-diameter slotted PVC casing from 75 to 125 fbg. Soil borings VW-ls and
VW-li were drilled to 35 and 75 fbg, respectively and installed as vapor extraction wells with 4-inch-
diameter slotted PVC casing from 5 to 35 fbg and 40 to 75 fbg, respectively.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
April 13, 2003- Page 6
Benzene was detected:in only the soil sample collected from soil boring MW-1 at 70 fbg, at a
concentration of 0.26 mg/kg. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in
the soil samples collected from soil borings MW-2 and MW-3. However, MTBE was detected in all 11 soil
samples collected from soil boring MW-l, reaching a maximum concentration of 84 mg/kg in the soil
sample collected at 70 fbg, in 3 of the 11 soil .samples collected from soil boring MW-2, reaching a
maximum concentration of 0.17 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg, and in 6 of the 11 soil
samples collected from Soil boring MW-3, reaching a maximum concentration of 0.32 mg/kg in the soil
sample collected at 70 fbg. TBA was detected in 4 of the 11 soil samples collected from boring MW-l,
reaching a maximum concentration of 10 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 10 fbg.
On November 26, 2001, groundwater samples were collected from monitoring well MW-1 through MW-3
and VW-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.20 to 115.15 feet
below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the
southeast. Three inches' of PSH was observed in well VVV-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE
were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching maximum
concentrations of 5,300,000 pg/I, 72,000 i~g/I, and 4,100,000 IJg/I in the groundwater sample collected
from well VW-ld. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected
from the four monitoring wells (see Table 1).
On March 28, 2002, groundwater samples were again collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-
3 and VW-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.30 to 114.54 feet
below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the
southeast. Three inches of PSH was observed in well VVV-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE
were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching maximum
concentrations of 1,400,000 pg/I, 11,000 pg/I, and 1,300,000 I~g/I in the groundwater sample collected
from well VW-ld. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected
from the four monitoring wells (see Table 1). The groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells
MW-l, MW-2, and VW-ld were analyzed for physical and chemical characteristics. The results of the
laboratory analysis indicated that the groundwater beneath the site is potable (see Table 2 - Summary of
Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Physical and Chemical Characteristics).
On May 13, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR PTO #S-3267-2-0 was obtained for the installation and operation of a
thermal oxidation VES. During the third quarter of 2002, the remediation compound was been
constructed and the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW-li, VW-ld, VW-2, VVV-3, and VVV-4 were
connected by 2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation
equipment compound. Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and
natural gas services. VES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. The CRWQCB-CVR requested
a groundwater monitoring plan during operation of the VES. CSE turns off the VES 72 hours prior to each
quarterly groundwater monitoring event to permit groundwater condition to equilibrate. The monitoring
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
April 13, 2003- Page 7
wells are then purged prior to collecting the groundwater samples. The VES unit is then re-started for
continual operations until 72 hours prior to the next quarterly monitoring event.
The CRWQCBCVR, in its letter dated July 19, 2002, requested submission of a work plan to perform an
expanded groundwater assessment to assess the southeastern (downgradient) limits of gasoline-
containing groundwater at the site. CSE submitted an Expanded Groundwater Assessment'Work Plan,
dated August 9, 2002, which proposed the installation of two off-site downgradient monitoring wells MW-4
and MW-5 (see Figure 2 for the proposed monitoring well locations). The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter
dated September 3, 2002 approved implementation of the work plan with the condition 'that an additional
monitoring Well (MW-6) be constructed to the south of the site (see Figure 2 for the proposed monitoring
well location). During the first quarter of 2003 a California DOT encroachment permit was obtained to
locate the wells in the sidewalks on the north and south sides of 23rd Street (State Highway 178). During
the second, quarter of 2003 the monitoring wells will .be constructed and CSE will submit an Off-Site
Groundwater Assessment Report.
FIRST QUARTER 2003 GOUNDWATER MONITORING
On February 24, 2003, groundwater samples were collected from the monitoring wells. At the same time,
the depth to groUndwater was measured to an accuracy of _+0.01 foot. The VES was turned off 72 hours
prior to'the first quarter 2003 monitoring event and was turned on after completion of the sampling.
Before sampling, the monitoring wells were checked for an immiscible layer and 0.17 feet of PSH was
observed in well VW-ld. Monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3 were then purged prior to extracting
samples representative of the in-situ groundwater. During the purging process, the conductivity,
temperature, and pH of the groundwater were constantly monitored and recorded on water sample logs.
Purging continued until at least 2.0 casing volumes of groundwater had been removed and the monitored
parameters had stabilized. Groundwater samples were collected after the wells had recharged to greater
than 80 percent of their initial static water level (see Attachment 1 for the Groundwater Monitoring,
Sampling, Sample Management Procedures and Attachment 2 for the Water Sample Logs).
Disposable TeflonTM bailers were used to sample the wells. The groundwater samples were placed in
chilled VOA vials containing hydrochloric acid as a preservative, labeled, sealed, and recorded on a chain-
of-custody record in accordance with the procedures outlined in the CRWQCB-CVR LUFT guidance
document. The groundwater samples contained no visible suspended matter, and no headspace was
observed in any of the vials. The groundwater samples were placed in a container filled with Blue-IceTM
for.cooling purposes and submitted to Twining Laboratories, Inc., for analysis. The groundwater samples
were analyzed for the following organic compounds: TPH as gasoline using EPA Method 8015 (M); BTEX
and MTBE using EPA Method 8021; and MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, TAME, 1,2-DCA, and EDB using EPA
Method 8260. QNQC sampling included a trip blank, instrument blanks, spikes, and duplicates.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
April 13, 2003- Page 8
The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from approximately 113 to 115 feet below
the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the southeast,
with a horizontal gradient of 0.016 (1.6 feet per 100 feet) (see Figure 3 - Groundwater Elevation Contour
Map). Two inches of PSH was Observed in well VVV-ld. TPH as gasoline was detected at concentrations
of 33,000 pg/I, 74 IJg/I, and 1,700 pg/I were detected in the groundwater samples collected from wells
MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3, respectively. Benzene was detected at concentratiOns of 1,700 IJg/I and
0.57 pg/I were detected in the groundwater samples collected from wells MW-land MW-2, respectively.
MTBE was detected at concentrations of 43,000 pg/I, 60 pg/I, and 3,400 pg/I were detected in the
groundwater samples collected from wells MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3, respectively. TAME was detected at
concentrations of 35 IJg/I in the groundwater samples collected from well MW-1. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, 1,2-
DCA, and EDB were not detected in the groundwater samples collected from the three monitoring wells
(see Figure 4 TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater, Table 1, and
Attachment 3 for the Laboratory Report for Groundwater).
REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2002
CSE prepared an SJVUAPCD ATC permit application for the installation of a thermal/catalytic oxidation
system. On May 13, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR PTO #S-3267-2-0 was obtained for the installation and
operation of a thermal oxidation VES. Dudng the third quarter of 2002, the remediation compound was
been constructed and the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VVV-ls, VVV-li, VW-ld, VVV-2, VVV-3, and VVV-4
were connected by 2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation
equipment compound. Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and
natural gas services. VES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. The VES unit has operated 24
hours per day since start-up, with only short periods of inactivity for maintenance, draining of the knockout
pot, and a few occurrences when the system has shut down, as well as the unit being shut down 72 hours
prior to the First Quarter 2003 groundwater monitoring event and restarted after completion of the sample
collection. On October 10, 2002, the SJVUAPCD-CR performed an inspection of the VES unit and
observed that it was operating in accordance with the conditions specified in the ATC.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
April 13, 2003- Page 9
On February 21, 2003 vapor sampling of the influent and effluent streams of the oxidizer was conducted.
TPH as gasoline was detected in the influent vapor sample at a concentration of 11,000 ppmv and was
not detected in the sample collected from the effluent stream. Benzene was detected in the influent vapor
sample at a concentration of 120 ppmv and was not detected in the sample collected from the effluent
stream. MTBE was detected in the influent vapor sample at a concentration of 1,400 ppmv and was not
detected in the sample collected from the effluent stream (see Table 3 - Summary of Vapor Sample
Analytical Results and Attachment 4 for the Laboratory Reports for Vapor).
Inlet vapor concentrations ranged from 7,465 and 11,000 ppmv dUring the first quarter of 2003
(see Figure 5- Influent and Effluent TPH Concentrations and Table 4 - Summary of VES Monitoring
Data). The inlet soil vapor flow rate has been maintained near the maximum stated in the ATC permit and
consistently ranges from 200 to 265 scfm. It is estimated that the mass of gasoline hydrocarbons
extracted from the subsurface since startup is approximately 66,192 pounds, which is equivalent to
approximately 10,343 gallons of gasoline (see Figure 6 - Cumulative Extraction Curve and Table 4).
ACTIVITIES PLANNED FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2003
During the Second Quarter of 2003, the following activities will be completed:
· Conduct groundwater monitoring and sampling;
· Continue VES operations.
· Install three off-site downgradient monitoring wells, and
· Submit Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
April 13, 2003- Page 10
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC., .trusts that you will find this First Quarter 2003 Progress Report to your
satisfaction. If you have any questions or require additional information, please .contact
Mr. Mark Magargee at (661) 325-4862 or at e-mail address censenv@aol.com.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark R. Magargee, CHG,(-RG ~' II [ '~,,"~..~~/ I il
Consulting Hydrogeologist . ~1 t .~O~,47~Z/_,~./ /i
MRM/smm:j!t
Enclosures:,
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 Plot Plan
Figure 3 - Groundwater Elevation Contour Map
Figure 4' - TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater
Figure 5 - Influent and Effluent TPH concentrations
Figure 6 - Cumulative Extraction Curve
Table1 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for
Compounds
Table 2 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results
Chemical Characteristics
Table 3 - Summary of Vapor Sample Analytical Results
Table 4 - Summary of VES Monitoring Data
List of Acronyms
Attachment 1 Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, Sample Management Procedures
Attachment 2 Water Sample Logs
Attachment 3 Laboratory Report for Groundwater
Attachment 4 Laboratory Report for Vapor
Organic
for Physical and
cc: Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR
Mr. Howard H. Wines, Ill, BFDESD
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEU~ COMPANY, LLC
0 O.S ~ ~ILEt DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
0 0.5 ~ KILOM~ER
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FIGURE I - SITE LOCATION MAP
USGS OI~OSFORDT.5 ~INUTE 5ERIES QgAD~NGLE CENT~L SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
CAR MINI MART n,
~' WASH '~'
LU
Z
uJ 'T'
Q.
n MW-2 DISPENSER ISLANDS pr .
· ~Z TREATMENT
· ' I VW~ O_~ /COMPOUND
CANOPY----~ ~(~). ~..~_ ~-VES UNIT
· _,SC-1 - B-
GAS ]LIN E UST
' EXPLORATORY '
~ ~ LOCATIONv ,~'.-,* ,/ ,
APPROACH SIDEWALK
23RD STREET
SCALE IN FEET
0 15 30
MW-6 MW-5
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
~' SOIL BORING [] FILL END
DOWNTOWN
CHEVRON
SERVICE
STATION
~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
~ PROPOSED MONITORING WELL FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN
(~) V.~J~OR EXTRACTION WELL
. . - - VES PIPING CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: JANUARY 24, 2003
CAR MINI MART
WASH LU
. .~.~
. Mw.2 ..~SPENSE. R ~f_ANDS /
~ / / TRENCH
APPROACH
23RD STREET
SCALE IN FEET
0 15 30
MW-6 MW-5
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
SOIL BORING o FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
~ / GROUNDWATER BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
ELEVATION CONTOUR
PROPOSED MONITORING WELL / (FE~ ABOVE MSL) FIGURE 3 - GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
~ CONTOUR MAP
ANOMOLOUS DATA POINT NOT ~ GROUNDWATER FLOW
USED FOR CONTOURING DUE~ DIRECTION '
TO PRESENCE OF FREE PRODUCT CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: APRIL 13, 2003:jif
CAR MINi MART
.~. WASH ~ 5
--J UJ
n tD
-z ,
U.I -I-
o ~
/ / ~o,ooo~ '~ ~ ~ ¢ k
~,ooo I ~
/,~oo/ / / // /~./~X _ . 5
100 / ' ;/ %~ ,~oo~oo /'~ ~ ~
r ~ 33,000 / ~ 700 / 4 O0
23RD
~100 ~
0 ~5 30
MW-~ MW-5
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY LLC
~ SOIL BORING D FILL END
DOWNTOWN
CHEVRON
SERVICE
STATION
~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD,
CALIFORNIA
~ ~CONTOUR OF MTBE
PROPOSED MONITORING WELL / CONCENTRATONS (pC) FIGURE 4 TPH AS GASOLINE/BENZENE/MTBE
~/ CONCENT~TION IN GROUNDWATER
ff/~/ff CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER (H~)
CENTRAL SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: JaNuarY 24, 2003
FIGURE 5 - INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT TPH CONCENTRATIONS
E
O
c)
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Cumulative Operating Weeks
14
FIGURE 6 - CUMULATIVE EXTRACTION CURVE
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 ' 12 14
Cumulative Operating Weeks
1,2- ISOPRO~YL ISOPROPYL N-PROPYL TRIMETHYL TRtMETHYL OTHER
ETHYL- TOTAL ETHYL-
TPH AS
WELL ID AND DATE GROUND- PRODUCT WATER TOTAL FLOUROMET
EENZENE VOCS REF:
BENZENE OLUENE NAPHTHALENE BENZENE DENZENE
TOLUENE MTBE MTBE TBA D[PE ETEE EOB HANE
BENZ~NE TOLUENE BEN23ENE XYLENEE
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (MI 8021 62~0 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIeS-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
VW-td 3-14-01107.43 00~ 29~,57 3,400 5.200 I,L~008,500120.000- 130,CO0 NO NE ND ND .... A
3-2~-02 114r54 0.25 28946 1.400,~ I 1,000 46,00O ND 29,000 1,3C~,000 -- 1,300,000 ND NE ND ND ND ND -- - C
6-27-02 11698 0 25 26702......... D
12-3-02 11641 0,25 2~759...... F
4O4.29 ~-28-63 11453 0.0~ 2~9.7645,00~ 0001,0~0 100 750 49.00O -- 46,000ND NC ND ND ND ND -- - C
6-27432 11731 00(3 2~6.6621,000 ND ND 110 77O ND -- 2g,C~0 NO NC ND 47 ND NO .... D
2,00O 9,4OO 1,80~ 6.30C g~ 4,50O 38,C<30 470 NE ND 37 ND ND 33 59 210 13C 1,B00 43~ ND F
2-24-03 114.73 000 289.56 33r000 lr700 3400 1140011 i(X30 15r000 43~000NO NO NC:)35 ND ND 3259 210 13C 1,800 43C ND G
6-27-02 11641 000 257.31 13,0~ 6~ 30O 6O 39O 17,000 -- - 14,000 NDI ND ND 37 NO NC -- D
12-3-02 1170~ 000 28667 2.10C15 46 77 54 3.400 57 IE 071 61,9 4110O 3a ND ND NO ND NC 190 ND ND ND NE 26 087 NDF
2-24-03 113.55 0.O0 289.771,70C NC ND NO ND 1,700 -- 3,4OO NC ND NO NO ND NE 190 NDi ND ND NO 26 087 ND C3
TRIP DL.a, NK 2.24-03 N/A N/A N/A -* NC NO ND ND ND ...... G
TABLE 2.
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHySIcAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
i DEPTH TO FLOATING GROUND.
WELL ID AND DATE GROUND- PRODUCT WATER
ELEVATION'I SAMPLEDI WATER THICKNESS ELEVATION TDS EC pH CHLORIDE SULFATE N[TRA.TE CALCIUM MAGNESIUM SODiUN POTASS{UM HYDROXIDE CARBONATE B{CARBONATE TKN REF
(feet-MSL) I (fbg} (feet} (feet-MSL} (m~/I} (umhc~/¢m) (pHunits) (rog/l) (rog,'1) (ml~} (rog/I) (mg4} (rog,,1} Ira[g/I} (rog/I) (m~l) (mg/I) (rog/l)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 160. t 9050 9040 300.0 6010 310,1 351.2 N./A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES - SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
VVV-ld
404.00 3-28-02 114.541 0,251 289.46 617i 951 7.38 93 82 2.1 120 211 44 5,1 ND ND 350 0.8 A
MW-1 3-28-02 114.53 0.00 289.76 424 664 7.12 46 68 40.4 79 14 39 4.1 ND ND 200 0.71 A
40429 8-22-02 120,021 0.00 284.27 250 490 6.6 30 51 18 76 23 37 18 ND ND ' 140 ND B
MW-2 3-28-02 113.30 0,00 291.07 382 576 7.21 31 74 46.3 66 12j 39 3,8 ND ND 160 0.8 A
404.37 8-22-02 118.72 0.00 285.65 310 550 6.7 33 66 381 71 171 37 11 ND ND 140 ND B
MW-3 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 290,42 382 576 7.2t 31 74 46.3 66 12 39 3.8 ND ND 160 0.8 A
403.72 8-22-02 118.~1 0.O0 264.55 31C 450' 6.7 25 59 38 9725 37 16 ND ND 140 ND B
REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable, ND = Not detected.
'Measured to the top of the well casing.
A = Holguin, Fahen & Associates. Inc?e, report dated May 29, 2002.
B = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's report dated November 14, 2002.
TABLE 3.
SUMMARY OF VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL i
SOURCE SAMPLED SAMPLE ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE
(ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) REF
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020 N/A
DETECTION LIMIT 10 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 N/A
INFLUENT 10-10-02 02i0153-1 5,5001 58 290 32 220 1,900 A
EFFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-2 ND! ND ND ND ND 0.31 A
INFLUENT 12-12-02 0212180-1 8,600 110 320 44 260 2,200 A
INFLUENT 2-21-03 0302259-1 11,000 120 190 100 290 1,400 B
EFFLUENT 2-21-03 0302259-2 ND ND ND ND ND ND B
REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected.
A = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's (CSE's), report dated March 3, 2003.
B = CSE's, current report.
TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF VES MONITORING DATA
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Oamulalive Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative ~ Oul~st I~,let Dilution Field Reduction Cumulative Lbs. CumulativeCumulative
Date Calendar Operating OperatingOperatingOpera(ingTemper- Flow MW-1 V. leV-Ii V.ld V-2 V-3 V-4 .Air TPH InField TPH Ef~c{er,,cy Total Lbs. Lbs. DestroyedLbs. Gallons
Monitored Days Hours I-~ours Days Weeks at~re(*F'~ (~'fm)(valve) (valve) (valve) (valve) (valve) (valve (valve(valve)(ppmv)Out(ppmv(>90%) Extracted Extractedper event~[royed Ex.acted
10-8-02 1 0 0 0 0 1,450 175 · · · PO · · · PO 4,500 10 '100% 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
10-10-022 15 15 1 0 1,470 ';'05 · · · PO · · · PO 5,500 10 100% 187.01 187.01 267.22 267.22 29
10-15-027 62 77 3 0 1,455 235 · · · PO · · · Po 5,775 10 100% t,106.681,293.68 1,329.61 1,596.83 202
10-18-0210 36 116 5 1 1,470 250 · · · PO · · · PO 5,920 10 100% 837.91 2,131.59 912.14 2,508.96 333
10-22-0214 52 168 7 1 1,435 225 · · · PO · · · PO 6,235 10 100% 1,218.363,349.95 1,152.90 3,661.86 523
10-24-0216 25 193 5 1 1,450 230 · · · PO · · · PO 6,530 10 100% 555.23 3,905.18 593.45 4,255,31 610
10-30-0222 75 268 11 2 %450 215 · · · PO · · · PO 6,745 10 100% 1,783.265,688.44 1.719.tl 5,974.42 889
11-1-02 24 26 294 12. 2 1,465 235 · · · PO · · · PO 6,950 '10 100% 596.91 6,285.35 671.23 6,645.66 982
tl-6-02 29 63 357 15 2 1,440 205 · PO · 0 · · · PO 7,120 10 100% %628.94 7,914.29 1,453.55 8,099.21 1,237
11-6-02 31. 29 386 16 2 t,485 240 · PO · 0 · · · PO 7,280 10 100% 670.11 8,5,~.39 800.97 8,900.19 1,341
11-12-0235 52 438 16 3 1,460 265 · PO · 0 · · · PO 7,445 10 100% 1.438.3310,022.721,621J54 10,522.03 1,555
11-15-0238 39 477 20 3 1,455 220 · PO · 0 · · · PO 7,535 10 100% 1,218,1111,24O.831,022,04 11,544.07 1,756
11-18-0241 37 514 21 3 1,490 215 · PO · 0 · · · PO 7,680 10 100% 971.00 12,211.83965,85 12,509.91 %908
11-21-0244 40 554 23 3 1,470 230 · PO · 0 · · · PO 7,825 10 100% 1,045.6113,257.451,138. t313,648.04 2,071 .....
11-25-0245 53 607 25 4 1,435 205 · PO · 0 · · · PO 8,060 10 100% 1.510.0814,767.531,3~.,52 15,032.55 2,307
11-30-0253 62 669 28 4 1,450 225 · PO · 0 · · · PO 8,175 10 100% 1,621.7816,389.311,803.05 16,835,61 2,561
12-3-02 56 0 669 28 4 1,465 240 · PO · O' · · · PO 8,320 10 100% 0.00 16,389.310.00 16,835.61 2,561.
12-6-02 59 39 708 30 4 1,440 210 · PO · O · · · PO 8,455 10 100% 1,232.8517,622.161,094.86 17,930.47 2,753
12-10-0263 52 760 32 5 1,485 195 · PO · O · · · PO 6,525 10 100% 1,461.6719,083.831,366.77 19.297.24 2,982.,
12-12-0265 28 788 33 5 1,460 235 · PO · O · · · PO 8,600 10 100% 736.88 19,520.71894.74 20,191.98 3,097
12-16-0269 50 838 35 5 1,450 220 · PO · O · · · PO 8,475 10 100% 1,599.7421,420.451,474.00 21,665.98 3,347
12-19-0272 41 879 37 5 1,465 215 PO PO · 0 · · · PO 8.135 10 100% 1,210,2022,630.651,!33.~6 22,,799.743.536
12-24-0277 64 943 39 6 1,455 235 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,955 10 100% 1,772.1024,402.751,691.55 24,691.29 3,813
12-26-0279 27 970 40 6 1,465 255 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,550 10 100% 799.07 25,201.82821.78 25,513.07 3,938
12-30-0283 52 1,022 43 6 1,460 240 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,23Q 10 100% 1,584.9026,756.721,426.35 26,939.42 4,185, ,
1-4-03 86 61 1,083 45 5 1,465 235 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,465 10 100% 1,675.6828,462.411,691.69 28,631.11 4,447,
1-7-03 91 40 1,t23 47 7 1,470 245 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,615 10 100% 1,110.8929,573.291,179.78 29,810.89 4,621
1~9-03 93 26 1,149 48 7 1,485 250 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,750 10 100% 767.93 30,341.22796,40 30,607.29 4,741
1-14-03 98 65 1,214 51 7 1,460 225 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,025 10 100% 1,993.7332,334.951,855.56 32,462.85 5,052 ,,,
t-'~7-03101 38 1,252 52 7 1,455 230 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,450 10 100% 1,065.2333,42%19 1,167.70 33,630.56 5,222
t-20-03 104 40 %292 54 8 1,490 215 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,795 10 100% 1,230.7134,651.901,175.96 34,825.52 5,414
1-23.03 107 42 1,334 56 8 1,470 235 PO PO · O · · · PO 9,230 10 100% 1,257.2935,909.191,440.56 36,267.08 5,611
%27-03 111 49 1,383 58 8 1,435 205 PO PO · 0 · · · PO 9,630 10 100% 1,682.5937,591.781,529.69 37,796.77 5,874
1-30-03 114 39 1.422 59 8 1.450 24O PO PO · 0 · · · PO 9,575 10 100% 1,218.8738,810.651,451.70 39,258.47 6,064
2-3-03 118 52 1,474 61 9 1,466 265 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,08010 100% 1,95,1.03 40,761.682,155.65 41,455.14 6,369
2-7-03 122 49 1,523 63 9 1,440 220 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,34510 100% 2,072.1242,833.791,763.65 43,215.79 6,693
~-10-03 125 38 1,561 65 9 1,485 2t5 PO PO . · O · · · PO 10,53010 100% 1,369.1444,202.941,360.97 44,579.36 6,907
2-14-03 129 51 1,612 67 10 1,460 230 PO PO · 0 · · · PO 10,64510 100% 1,827.8946.030.8.~ 1.9.74.7946,554.15 7,192
2-17-03 132 37 1,649 69 10 1,450 205 PO PO · 0 · · · PO 10.87010 100% 1.43413 47.464.951,303.97 47,858.13 7,416,
2-21-03 t36 54 1,703 71 10 1,465 225 PO PO · 0 · · · PO 11,00010 100% 1,904.9749,3.~9,92 2,!13.78 49,671.91 7,714
2-25-03 140 0 1,703 71 10 %455 240 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,75010 100% 0.00 49,369.920.00 49,971.91 7,714
2-26-03 143 39 t,742 73 10 1,465 210 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,68510 100% 1,592.9350,962,851,384.00 51,355.90 7,653
3-4.03 147 50 1,792 75 11 1,475 20O PO PO PO O · · · PO 10,65010 100% 1,776.1352,738,991,684.31 53,040,22 8,240.
3-7-03 150~ 42 1,834 76 11 1,485 235 PO PO PO 0 · · · PO 10.58010 100% 1,416.2554.155,241,651.50 54,691.71 8,462
3-11-03 1~_.~ 49 1,883 78 11 1,490 22O PO PO PO 0 · · · PO 10,53510 100% %928.69 56,083.931,796.08 56.48779 8,763
3-14-03 157 41 %924 80 11 1,480 215 PO PO · 0 PO · · PO 10,47510 100% 1,504.3657,568.291,460.31 57,948.10 8,998
3-18-03 161 50 1.974 62 12 1,485 235 PO PO · 0 PO · · PO 10,41510 100% 1,752.6859,370.98%935.38 59,883.47 9,277
3-21-03 164 39 2,013 84 12 1,475 255 PO PO · 0 PO · · PO 10,38010 100% 1,511.1460,~82.111.632.57 61,5~6.04 9,513
3-24-03 167~ 40 2,053 86 12 1,480 245 PO PO · 0 · PO · PO 10.33510 100% 1,576.1462,55825 1.601.78 63.117.82 9,775
3-28-03 J 171 49 2,102 88 13 1,470 250 PO PO · 0 · PO · PO 10,29010 100%% 1,9~4.2064,522.45~,993 50 65,11132 10,082
3-31-03 - 174 41 2,143 89 13 1,465 240 PO PO · 0 · PO · PO 10,275 10 100% 1,669.7566,192.191,59~,.9766,710.28 10,343
Open = 0
Partially open = PO
AST
BFDESD
BCSD
BTEX
CAP
CDMG
CDWR
CRWQCB-CVR
CWSC
DCA
DIPE
DOT
EDB
EPA
ETBE
fbg.
KCDEHS
KCWA
LAR
LLC
LUFT
MDBM
mg/kg
MPD
MSL
MTBE
pH
PID
PSH
PVC
QNQC
RI/FS
ROI
TAME
TBA
TPH
URR
USA
UST
VES
VOA
VOC
pg/I
LIST OF ACRONYMS'
aboveground storage tank
Bakersfield Fire Department Environmental Services Division
Bakersfield Consolidated School District
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xyienes
corrective action plan
California Division of Mines and Geology
California Department of Water Resources
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (5)
California Water Services Company
dichloroethane
diisopropyl ether
Department of Transportation
ethylene dibromide
Environmental Protection Agency
~thyl tertiary butyl ether
feet below grade
Kern County Department of Environmental Health Services
Kern County Water Agency
limited access rig
limited liability corporation
leaking underground fuel tank
Mount Diablo Base and Meridian
milligram per kilogram
multiple product dispenser
mean sea level
methyl tertiary butyl ether
hydrogen potential
photoionization detector
phase-separated hydrocarbons
polyvinyl chloride
quality assurance/quality control
remedial investigation/feasibility study
radius of influence
tertiary amyl methyl ether
tertiary butyl alcohol
total petroleum hydrocarbons
Unauthorized Release Report
Underground Service Alert
underground storage tank
vapor extraction system
volatile organic analysis
volatile organic compound
microgram per liter
ATTACHMENT 1.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, AND SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
NOTIFICATIONS
Prior to performing any field work, the client, regulatory agency, and property owner/manager with
jurisdiction over the subject site are notified. Notifications are made a minimum of 48 hours prior to
sampling, or as required by the client.or regulator.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Prior to performing purge or no-purge sampling, water level measurements are collected according to the
following procedures:
· All wells are checked for phase-separated hydrocarbons with an acrylic bailer or oil/water interface
meter.
To avoid cross contamination, water levels are measured starting with the historically "cleanest" wells
and proceeding to the historically "dirtiest."
Water levels within each well are measured to an accuracy of +0.01 foot using an electric measuring
device and are referenced to the surveyed datum (well cover or top of casing). When measuring to
top of casing, measurements are made to the notched (or otherwise marked) point on casing. If no
marking is visible, the measurement is made to the northern side of the casing.
· If possible, all wells are gauged within a short time interval on the same day to obtain accurate
measurements of the potentiometric surface.
· All measurements are reproduced to assure validity, and measuring equipment is decontaminated
between wells.
PHASE-SEPARATED HYDROCARBON
If phase-separated hydrocarbon (PSH) is encountered, its thickness in the well and the depth to the
interface between the PSH and the water in the well are measured using one or both of the following
methods:
· an electronic oil-water interface meter is used to measure the depths to the top of the PSH and to the
top of the water, and/or
· an electronic water level meter is used to measure the depth to the top of the water and a clear bailer
is used to measure the PSH thickness.
Groundwater Monitoring, sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 2
The potentiometeric surface elevation is calculated as:
TOC - DTW + 0.74PT
Where TOC = top-of-casing elevation, DTW = depth to water (interface), and PT = PSH thickness.
If PSH thickness is'less than 0.02 foot, and the well is planned for purging prior to sample collection, the
well is purged and sampled in accordance with the sample collection section of this SOP. If the PSH
thickness is 0.02 foot or greater, the PSH is bailed from the well, and left onsite in a labeled and sealed
container. No sample is collected for analysis from wells having a PSH thickness of greater than 0.02
foot.
NO-PURGE SAMPLING
Well purging is not conducted prior to sampling if purging is not needed to meet technical and/or
regulatory project requirements. Following collection of water level measurements, wells that are not
purged are sampled according to the protocol in the sample collection section of this SOP.
PURGING PROCEDURES
Well purging is conducted prior to sampling if purging is needed to meet technical and/or regulatory
project requirements. If purging is conducted, the monitoring wells are purged using a vacuum truck,
submersible electric pump, bailer, hand pump, or bladder pump, as appropriate for site conditionS. A
surge block may be used if it becomes apparent during purging that the well screen' has become bridged
.with sediment or the produced groundwater is overly turbid.
During the purging process, groundwater is monitored for temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, odor,
and color. These parameters are recorded on a water sample log. Purging continues until all stagnant
water within the wells is replaced by fresh formation water, as indicated by removal of a minimum number
of well .Volumes and/or stabilization of the above-outlined parameters. Sampling is performed after the
well recharges to at least 80 percent of hydrostatic.
Purge water is stored on site in Department of Transportation-approved, 55-gallon drums until water
sample analytical results are received from the laboratory. If active groundwater treatment is occurring at
the site, purge water may be disposed of through the treatment system, or the purge water may be
transported off site aS non-hazardous waste to an approved off-site disposal facility.
If permanent pumps are installed in the wells for groundwater remediation, purging may be accomplished
by operating the pumps for at least 24 hours before sampling to ensure adequate purging.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 3
SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES
Groundwater samples are collected as follows:
· A l-liter TeflonTM bailer is lowered and partially .submerged into the well water to collect a groundwater
sample.
If visible PSH is present in the sample bailer, PSH thickness is recorded on the field log, and no
sample is collected for laboratory analysis.
For volatile organic analyses, groundwater samples are collected in chilled, 40-milliliter, VOA vials
having Teflonm-lined caps. Hydrochloric acid preservative is added to all vials by the laboratory to
lower sample pH to 2. Samples are held at 2 to 4°C while in the field and in transit to the laboratory.
Other appropriate containers, preservatives, and holding protocols are used for non-volatile analyses.
· VOA vials are filled completely so that no headspace or air bubbles are present within the vial. Care is
taken so that the vials are not overfilled and the preservative is not lost.
Sample containers are immediately labeled and sealed after collection to prevent confusion. For VOA
vials, the label is placed to overlap the edge of the cap as a custody seal, unless a separate custody
seal is being used.
Samples are stored in a cooler while on site and in transport to the laboratory or office. The cooler
has sufficient ice to maintain appropriate temperature prior to collecting samples. The VOA vials are
kept cool both prior to and after filling. Hot or warm containers are not used when volatile compounds
are the target analytes.
DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES
Decontamination of monitoring and sampling equipment is performed prior to all monitoring and sampling
activities. Decontamination procedures utilize a three-step process as described below:
The initial decontamination is performed using a non-phosphate soap, such as Simple Green or
Alconox, in tap water in a 5-gallon bucket. A soft-bristle bottlebrush is used to thoroughly clean the
inside and outside of the equipment.
· A second 5-gailon bucket of tap water is used as a first rinse.
· A third 5-cjallon bucket of deionized water is used as a final rinse.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 4
· The brush is used in the first bucket only; it does not travel from bucket to bucket with the equipment.
This minimizes any transport of the contaminants that should stay in the first bucket.
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
At a minimum, a trip blank and a temperature blank are maintained for QNQC purposes.
A trip blank sample (TRIP) is kept with any samples being analyzed for VOCs. This is a sample of
clean water that is supplied by the laboratory and is transported to and from the field and to the
laboratory with the field samples. The designation "QCTRIPBK" or "QCTB" is used for sample name
on the field label. Samplers record the date that the TRIP is taken to the field for sampling, not the
date that the TRIP was prepared by the laboratory on the chain-of-custody (COC). One TRIP per
cooler per day is coll(~cted.
Unused trip blank samples are stored at the consulting office in a cooler dediCated to this purpose.
The trip blank cooler is not refrigerated, but is kept in a clean location away from possible VOC
contaminants.
Temperature blank sample containers are supplied by the laboratory and kept in a cooler used to
transport samples. The temperature blank is placed in the cooler prior to going to the field and kept
there until the cooler is delivered to the laboratory.
COMPLETION OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY
· · A separate COC is completed for each day of sampling. If samples are collected on separate days for
the same site, a separate COC is Completed for each sampling day, and the COC is always kept with
the samples. If samples are shipped off site for laboratory analysis, individual coolers with separate
COCs are sent for each day/cooler shipped.
All fields/spaces on the COC are filled out completely, and all persons having control of the samples
sign the COC to show transfer of sample control between individuals. At times when the field sampler
is not delivering samples directly to the laboratory, the samples may be turned over to a sample
manager for shipping. In this instance, the sample manager takes custody of the samples, and both
the sampler and sample manager sign and date the COC to clearly show custody transfer.
· The COC is placed inside the cooler, and a custody seal is placed on the outside of the cooler prior to
shipping. The receiving laboratory indicates if the cooler was received with the custody seal intact.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 5
If samples are sent to the laboratory via UPS, FEDEX, etc., this is indicated on the COC, and the
sample manager indicates the date and time custody seal is placed on cooler for delivery to the
shipping agent (shipping agent does not sign the COC).
· For trip blanks, the COC indicates the date the TRIP was taken to the field for sampling, not the date
the TRIP was prepared by the laboratory, which may appear on the VOA label.
· New electronic deliverable format (EDF) requirements of California AB2886 mandate that COCs and
laboratory reports maintain consistent and unique names between sites (Global ID) and sample
location/well names (Field Point ID). This information must be consistent with the initial information
supplied to Geotracker, and for each subsequent quarterly sampling event.
SAMPLE HANDLING
Refrigerator Storage and Temperature Log
Samples may be stored in a refrigerator at the consulting office prior to transport to the laboratory.
Refrigerator storage is maintained under the following conditions:
· Refrigerators used for sample storage are dedicated for that usage only (no food or other
materials are stored in sample refrigerators).
· Refrigerators can be locked from the outside by a sample manager, and only the sample manager
has access to samples while in storage.
Refrigerators are maintained at temperatures between 2 to 4'C, and are adjusted daily depending
on thermometer readings.
Each refrigerator contains a dedicated, reliable thermometer. The thermometer is designed for
use in a refrigerator and is fixed/secured to the inside of the unit. The thermometer range is
specific for measuring temperatures in the 2 to 4°C range.
A temperature log is kept on the outside of the refrigerator in a lightweight, three-ring binder, or
similar logbook. Temperatures are recorded daily or when the refrigerator is open for sample
management.
Completed COCs are kept with the samples stored in the refrigerators. The COCs may be held
on a clipboard outside the refrigerator, or may be placed inside the cooler if the entire cooler is
placed inside the refrigerator.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 6
If a cooler is placed in the refrigerator, the cooler lid remains open to insure that samples are
maintained at the refrigerator temperature.
Cooler Packing
The sample coolers are packed as directed by the receiving laboratory. Standard procedures for cooler
packing include:
· The cooler contains enough ice to maintain the required temperature of 2 to 4°C (roughly 20 percent
of the volume of the cooler).
· Water i(~e (not dry ice or ice packs) is used for shipping.
· The ice is placed ab~)ve and below the samples in at least two sealable plastic bags. This requires
that the packing/divider matedal is removed and replaced,
· The COC is placed in the cooler in a sealed plastic bag, and the cooler lid is taped closed to secure it
for transport and to minimize loss of temperature. A custody seal is placed vertically across the seam
of the cooler lid.
ATTACHMENT 2.
WATER.SAMPLE LOGS
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: February 24, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-1
WELL DEPTH: 124.95'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 65° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, slight odor
(e.g., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC'CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 67
7.0 3168 4.0 67
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(i~mhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field @
2-24-03 1520 ~)EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 114.73'
2-24-03 1530 1.5 68.9 7.42 702 Gray Slight High
2-24-03 1540 2.5 69.2 7.33 684 Gray Slight High
2-24-03 1550 3.5 69.5 7.29 692 Gray Slight High
2-24-03 1555 ~)EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 115.02'
2-24-03 1600 3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 114.73'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.1
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): Gray Color, High Turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-1 - 16:00
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 ~ Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: February 24, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-2
WELL DEPTH: 125.18'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 65° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor
(e.g., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC~CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: pH STD, CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 67
7.0 3168 7.0 67
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY 'COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field @
2-24-03 1320 3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 113.19'
2-24-03 1330 2 74.6 8.30 969 Tan/Orange None High
2-24-03 1340 4 73.8 7.99 934 Tan/Orange None High
2-24-03 1350 6 72.9 7.87 884 Tan/Orange None High
2-24-03 1355 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 113.46'
2~24-03 1400 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 113.19'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 6 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 3.1
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): Tan/Orange Color, High Turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-2 - 14:00
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661 ) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
'CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: February 24, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-3
WELL DEPTH: 124.39'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: · 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 65° and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: 'No floating layer, no odor
(e.g., floating layer, od. or, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD. 'CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 67
7.0 3168 7.0 67
CONDUC- .
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field (~
2-24-03 1420 3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 113.95'
2-24-03 1430 1.5 72.2 7.43 613 Tan None High
2-24-03 1440 2.5 70.9 7.36 521 Tan None High
_2-24-03 1450 3.5 71.3 7.26 545 Tan None . High
2-24-03 1455 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 114.33'
2-24-03 1500 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF'SAMPLING: 113.95'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.0
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: .. stored on site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): Tan Color, High Turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-3 - 15:00
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
... (661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: February 24, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: VW-ld
WELL DEPTH: 125'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 4"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 65°F and cloudy
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: 2" floating product, no floating layer
(e.g., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES-- NEW OR CLEANED?: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC'CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 67
7.0 3168 7.0 67
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE' TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
('gallons) (°F) field (~
2-24-03 )EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 113.25'
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING:
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:
TOTAL DISCHARGE: CASING VOLUMES REMOVED:
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER:
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): 2" of free product - no sample collected
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS:
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive,' Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
ATTACHMENT 3. '
LABORATORY REPORT .FOR GROUNDWATER
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
ATTENTION
CLIENT
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC.
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY · ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING · SAMPLING SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION .& MATERIALS TESTING
PROJECT COVER SHEET
· March 12, 2003
· 703-0920.1-4
Sullivans
1508 18 Street Suite 722
Bakersfield, CA 93301
INVOICE# 70300920
RECEIVED
3. ~,a3
Please find enclosed the analytical results of your samples. In accordance with your
instructions, the samples were analyzed for the components specified.
The Twining Laboratories is accredited by the State of California Department of
Health Services for the analysis of Drinking Water, Wastewater and Hazardous
Waste under Certificate No. 1371.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding the
analyses or results. Thank you for .allowing us to serve your analytical needs.
Ijt INVOICE- CLIENT
1C :INVOICE TO CSE
Shankar Sharma sarkar, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Chemist~j
Rev. 2,..~_09102 (COVER)
CORPORATE
2527 Resin S~eet
Fresno. CA 93721-1804
(5,59) 26~7021
Fax 268-7126
MODES~O
4230 K3eman A~.., #105
~, CA 95256-9322
(209) 545-1050
Fax 545-1147
VISALIA
133 No~h KeLsey ~, ~
visa]ia. CA 93291-9000
(559) 651.828o
Fax 651-8288
BAKERSFIELD
3701 Pegasus Dd~e, #124
Bakemfie~, C~ 93308-6843
(661) 393-5O88
MONTEREY
501 Orliz Averue
(83~) 392-m56
SACRAMENTO
5675 Eower Inn Road, Suite C
Sacrarnen~ CA 95824
(916) 381-~1.77
Fax 381-9478
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: March 12, 2003
: 703-0920.3
· 02-24-03 at 1600 by Tim GlUskoter
: 02-26-03 at 1315 from G. Wheeler
: CSE/.SULLIVANS
: E. Scott
: J. Ureno
: '03-10-03
: 03-10-03
: MW-1
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 3 of 7
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(pg/L)
I DLR I METHOD
(l~g/L)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
15000 250 8021
1700 50 8021
3400 50 8021
1400 50 8021
11000 50 8021
33000 5000 8015
~reparation (B I EX & 1PH-GA$OLIN[::): 5030
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~ 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
· March 12, 2003 '
· 703-0920.3
· 02-24-03 at 1600 by Tim Gluskoter
· 02-26-03 at 1315 from G. Wheeler
· CSE / SULLIVANS
' C. Fammatre
'03-02-03
· 03-02-03
· MW-1
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 7 of 7
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
METHOD: EPA 8260
UNITS' ug/L
Constituent ReSults DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 1.0
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0
Ethyl reft-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 43000 200
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) 35 2.0
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 20
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 84.8 86-118
Toluene da 97.6 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 101 86-115
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~4 07/99 (8260)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: March 12, 2003
: 703-0920.1
: 02-24-03 at 1400 by Tim Gluskoter
: 02-26-03 at 1315 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / SULLIVANS
: E. Scott
: J. Ureno
: 03-10-03
: 03-10-03
: MW-2
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 1 of 7
SAMPLE TYPE ' Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(pg/L)
I DLR I METHOD
(rig/L)
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
90 2.5 8021
0.57 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
74 50 8015
· ~reparabon (El I,'r-~ & IPH*GASOLINE): 5030
ug/L: micxograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. :3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY Id
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: March 12, 2003
: 703-0920.1
· 02-24-03 at 1400 by Tim
Giuskoter
: 02-26-03 at 1315 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / SULLIVANS
: C. Fammatre
: 03-02-03
: 03-02-03
: MW-2
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 5 of 7
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) · ND 1.0
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 60 1.0
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 2.0
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) .. ND 20
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 88.0 86-118
Toluene ds 94.7 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 103 86-115
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per bitlion) ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~4 07/99 (8260)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: March 12, 2003
: 703-0920.2
: 02-24-03 at 1500 by Tim Gluskoter
: 02-26-03 at 1315 from G. Wheeler
: CSE / SULLIVANS
: E. Scott
: J. Ureno
: 03-10-03
: 03-10-03
: MW-3
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC,
PAGE 2 of 7
SAMPLE TYPE - Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS I DLR
(IJg/L) (pg/L)
METHOD
MethYl teK-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
1700 25 8021
ND 5 8021
ND 5 8021
ND 5 8021
ND 5 8021'
1700 500 8015
~reparation (BTFc. X & l P~-GASOLINE): 5030
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (paris per billion)
ND: None Delected
DLR: Detection Limit for Repotting purposes
Rev. ~ 5Y96 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID '
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
· March 12, 2003
· 703-0920.2
' 02-24-03 at 1500 by Tim Gluskoter
· 02-26-03 at 1315 from G. Wheeler
· CSE / SULLIVANS
' C. Fammatre
· 03-02-03
' 03-02-03
· MW-3
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 6 of 7
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
METHOD: EPA 8260 UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ' ' ND 1.0
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE). 3400 20
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 2.0
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 20
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 87.3 ' 86-118
Toluene d8 98.3 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 101 86-115
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected DLR: Delectio~ Limit for Reporting pu~oses
Rev. ~4 07/'99 (8260)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
_' March 12,2003
'7O3-O920.4
· 02-24-03 at0700 by Tim Gluskoter
· 02-26-03 at1315from G. Wheeler
' CSE / SULLIVANS
· E. ScoE
· J. Ureno
'03-03~03
'03-O3-O3
· BLANK
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 4 of 7
SAMPLE TYPE - Aqueous
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS '
(IJg/L)
DLR I METHOD
(IJg/L)
Methylte~-Bu~lEther(MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
ND 2.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
~reparahon (BYF-.X & IPH:GASOLtNE): 5030
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. :35/96 (8TEXVVAT)
t INING
WJ~A B 0 RAT 0 R I £ S , INC.
Analyzed By: Chris Fammetre
Date of Extraction: 03/02/2003
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch Number: TL07030203
Spike ID: WS 150
EPA METHOD 8260
LABORATORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
ReViewed By: Joseph Umno
Date of Analysis: 03102/2003
Sample Matrix: Water
Constituent l~lethod Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent
(ug/L) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (ug/L) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(ug/L) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(ug/L) (%)
l,l-Diohloroethene 0.00 50.0 46.6 42.8 70% 130% 93.2 85.6 '8.50
Benzene 0.00 50.0 49.8 46.1 70% 130% 99.6 92.2 7.72
Trichloroethene 0,00 50,0 53,7 49,4 70% 130% 107 98,8. 8,34
Toluene 0,00 50,0 50,3 47,8 70%i 130% 101 95.6 5.10
Chlorobenzene 0.00 50,0 50,5 48,2 70% 130% 10! 96,4 4,66
Surrogate: Dibmmoflunrmathane 0,00 50,0 43,9 44,4 86% 118% 87,8 88,8 · 1,13
Surrogate:Toluene-rig 0.00 50.0 48.0 48.5 86% 110% 96.0 97.0 1.04
Surrogate: Bmmofluourobenzene 0.00 50.0 50.8 51.5 86% 115% 102 103 1.37
EXPLANATIONS:
ND Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
ug/L micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
Method Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory
env/ronment~ the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively i~ert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whethe~
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
WININ$
JLABORATORIFS, IHC.
Analyzed By: Eric Scott
Date of Extraction: 03/10/03
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Run ID Number: TL08031003
tike ID: W$-1000
EPA 8021 (MTBE/BTEX) & EPA 8015M (TPH-Gasoline)
LABORA TORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed by: J. Ureno
Date of Analysis: 05/10/03
Sample Matrix: Aqueous
Constituent Method Blank Laboraiory Laboratory LaboratOry Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative'
Concentration Control Spike , Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike! Control Spike Percent
(ug/L) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (ug/L) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(ug/L) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(ugh) (%)
MTBEJBTEX Surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0,00 '25.0 25.0 23.8 80°)'~'120% -99.9 95.2'~ 4.8
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 0,00 100 103 102 80% 120% 103 102 1.0
Benzene 0.00 20.0 20.7 20.8 80% 120% 104 104 0.5
Toluene 0,00 20.0 20.7 19.9 80% 120% 104 99.5 3.9
Ethylbenzene 0,00 20.0 18.3 18.4 80% 120% 91.5 92.0 0.5
×ylenes 0.00 60.0 60.6 60.7 80% 120% 101 10I 0.2
TPH_Gasoline Surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0,00 25.0 27.2 26.1 80% 120% 109 104 4.1
rPH-Oasoline 0.00 1000 873 888 80% 120% 87.3 88.8 1.7
~PLANATIONS: Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR). ' .
(ur/L) micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
Method Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment,
the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or '
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
4 iNING
WLABORATORIE S, INC.
i~Rr SNO/~dOD[$TO/VISAUA/BAKERSFI£LD/$ALINA$
Analyzed By: Eric Scott
Date of Extraction: 03/01/03
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Run ID Number: TL08030103
'Spike ID: WS-1000
EPA 8021 (MTBE/BTEX) & EPA 8015M (TPH-Gasoline)
LABORATORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed by: J. Ureno
Date of Analysis: 03/01/03
Sample Matrix: Aqueous
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative.
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent
(ug/L) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (ug/L) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(ug/L) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(u~JL) (%)
MTBEJBTEX Surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 25.0 25.6 24.9 80% 120% 102 99.6 2.77
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 0.00 100 114 114 80% 120°/o~ 114 114 0'
Benzene 0.00 20.0 19.7 20.5 80% t20% 98.5 103 3.98
Toluene 0.00 20.0 19.0 20.6 80% 120% 95.0 103 8.08
Ethylbenzene 0.00 20.0 19.9 21.4 80% 120% 99.5 107 7.26
Xylenes 0.00 60.0 61.1 63.9 80% 120% 102 107 4.48
TPH_Gasoline Surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 25.0 26.1 '" 24.4 80% 120% 104 97.6 6.73
rPH-Gasoline 0.00 1000 918 912 80% 120% 91.8 91.2 0.66
EXPLANATIONS:
ND Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
i(ug/L) micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
jMethod Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment,
the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
· A B O R'A T O R I E $, I N C. 2527 FRESNO STREET · FRESNO, CA 93721 · (559) 268-7021 FAX: (559) 268-0740
,UBMi! I EH INFORMATION:
EPORT TO~~
.lq'F_NFI'ION:
.( )
~( )
ATTENTION:
ATTENTION:
P. ( ) ,,. ( )
"~ ( ) ,~,,x ( )
CONTRACT # OR P.O.
BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLE SOURCE SAMPLE STATUS
-) PUBLIC SYSTEM [~ ROUTINE
F-I PRIVATE WELL [~ REPEAT
~-I SURFACE WATER [~ OTHER
r-'l CONSTRUCTION [~ OTHER
SAMPLE INFORMATION:
~4PLE BY (PRINT NAML=)~.
~RR uOsL~ E ANALYSIS
H ANALYSIS, RESULTS NEEDED BY:
KEY FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS SAMPLE TYPE
BS - Biosolids GW - Ground Water
DW - Drinking Water - . . SF - Surface Water
SL- Soil/Solid
ST - Storm Water
VVW - Waste Water
REPORTS FOR:
COUNTY: [~] FRESNO [~ KINGS [~ MN)ERA [~] MERCED [~ TULARE
~ STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES [~ OTHER:
PROJECT:
SITE: -~-~
PROJECT MANAGER:
ANALYSIS REQUESTED
SAMPLE ID
DATE
.11
Il
I/
SAMPLE
TYPE
(I. A8 USE- BOTTLES)
,-c.a ,~ ?
R~-LINQUISHED BY
COMPANY
tDATE TIME
·
/I
RECEIVED BY COMPANY
ATTACHMENT 4.
LABORATORY REPORT FOR VAPOR
ZALOO LABORATORIES, INC.
Analytioal ~ Oonsulting Servioes
4309 Armour Avenue
Bakersfield. California 93308
(661) 395-0539
FAX (661) 395-3069
Central Sierra Environmental
1400 EastOn Drive Btdg.E Ste 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Attention: Mark Magargee
Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG
Laboratory No: 0302259-1
Date Received: 02/21/03
Date Reported: 02/27/03
Contract No. :
Date Sampled : 02/21/03
Time Sampled : 08:00
Description:
Influent, Project Name: Sullivan Petroleum DoWntown Chevron
Sampled by Tim Martin
REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Constituents
Results Units DLR Method/Ref
BTXEM in Gas
Methyl tert-Butyl ~ther
Benzen~
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO
(MTBE)
1400 ppmv 2.5 8020/1
120 ppmv 2.5 8020/1
190 ppmv 2.5 8020/1
100 ppmv 2.5 8020/1
290 ppmv 2.5 8020/1
11000 ppmv 250 GASLUFT/8
cc:
knalyzed : 02/21/03
Method Reference
1. EPA SW-846. 1994 3rd Edition
8. DOHS LUFT Manual
~' ~t Cortez, La~ora~o~y/~anager~',
mg/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per million)
ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
u~os/cm : micro~hos/cm at 25 C
n~nhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C
ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable
NSS : Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis
DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes
This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only ~o the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment.
ZALCO LARORATORIES, INI .
Analytical & (~onsuIting Services
4309 Armour Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93308
(661) 395-0539
FAX (661) 395-3069
Central Sierra Environmental
1400 Easton Drive Bldg. E Ste 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Attention: Mark Magargee
Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG
Laboratory No:
· Date Received:
Date Reported:
Contract No. :
Date Sampled :
Time Sampled :
0302259-2
02/21/03
02/27/03
02/21/03
08:00
Description:
Effluent, project Name: Sullivan Petroleum Downtown/ Chevron
Sampled by Tim Martin
REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Constituent s
Results
Units
DLR Method/Ref
BTXEM in Gas
Methyl tert-Butyl E~her
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO
(MTBE)
ppmv 0.1 8020/1
ppmv 0.1 8020/1
ppmv 0.1 8020/1
ppmv 0.1 8020/1
ppmv 0.1 8020/1
ppmv 10 GASLUFT/8
CC:
Analyzed : 02/21/03
Method Reference
1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition
8. DOHS LUFT Manual
R~ert cortez, ~,~borato/y Manager/
m~/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per million}
ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C
mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C
ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable
NSS : Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis
DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes
This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zatco is not responsible for report alteration or cletochmen~.
h. ~ Record
Cain of Custody
ZA~LCO LABORATORIEs' INC'
Bakersfield, California 9;3308 ...... . ORUSH By:
(B6~) 395-0539 ~'"~"~ .... ~"'~"'-'~ ''~ f'"'""~'~ ;;~¥"~ 0 Expedited (1 Week)
Fax (661 ) 395-3069 ice Chest # , Temperature,°C (~ Routine (2 Weeks) Work Order #
Page / of/
Field Log #
Address [~ FAX #
ID~ Sampled ~ Sampled ~Kw Bel~ Legal Sample Description ~ Ty~* i ~ Remarks
NOTE: Samples are discarded 30 days after results are repoded unless other arrangements are made,
Ha.z~rdous samples will be returned to client or dispo~ of at clients expensa,
* G-Glass P.Plastic M-Metal T-Tedlar V.VOA
** W-Water WW-Wastewater S.Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid O-Other
*** A-Acid, pH<2 (HCI,HNO.~,HpSO4)- S-NaOH+ZnAc C.Caustic, pH>10 (NaOH)
Winston H. Itickox
Secretaryfbr
Environmental
Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Office
Intcrnet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb5
1685 E Street, Fresno, California 93706-2020
Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910
Gray Davis
10 April 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. David Bird
Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You Submitted Fourth Quarter 2002 Progress Report (Report) dated 3 March 2003 and prepared by
Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). The Report documents a groundwater monitoring
event performed on 3 December 2002 and summarizes soil vapor extraction (SVE) remediation system
performance from startup on 8 October 2003 until 30 December 2002. Petroleum product floating on
groundwater and high concentrations of gasoline constituents, including the fuel oxygenate methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), continue to be detected. The lateral extent of impacted groundwater is
undefined. We request that SVE system operation and quarterly groundwater monitoring continue.
Analysis of groundwater samples for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) should be performed for one
additional quarter. We request that you submit a report documenting off-site monitoring well
installations. A report documenting the approved SVE pilot test and final remediation design is
overdue. Summaries of the project and the Report, and our comments follow. A summary of the
project is included in our letter dated 19 July 2002.
Report Sununary
Groundwater Monitoring
CSE conducted groundwater monitoring on 3 December 2002. Depth-to-groundwater ranged from
116.26 to 1 t8.04 feet below the tops of the casings (below TOC). Groundwater samples were collected
from MW-1 through MW-3. Floating gasoline 0.25 feet thick was measured in SVE well VW-ld.
GrOundwater flow direction was calculated to be toward the southeast with a slope of 0.016 feet per foot.
Floating gasoline thickness in VW-1 d remained constant compared to the last monitoring event.
Groundwater samples were analYzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) by EPA
Method 8015M, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xy!enes (BTEX) and MTBE by EPA Method 8021.
The samples were also analyzed for a total of 69 analytes including BTEX, the fuel oxygenates MTBE,
tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA), di-isopropyl ether (DIPE), ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary
California Environmental Protection Agency
~ Recycled Paper
Mr. David Bird 2
10 April 2003
amyl methyl ether (TAME), and the lead scavengers 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), and 1,2-
dibromoethane (EDB) by EPA Method 8260B.
TPH-g was detected at 57,000, 5,400, and 2,100 micrograms per liter (gg/L) in the samples collected
from MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3 respectively. Benzene was detected at 2,000, 140, and 19 gg/L in
MW-1 through MW-3, respectively. TPH-g concentrations detected in MW-1 remained within one order
.of magnitude in MW- 1 compared to the previous monitoring event, increased by two orders of
magnitude in MW-2, and decreased by one order of magnitude in MW-3. MTBE was detected in
MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3 at 290,000, 5,100, and 3,400 gg/L, respectively, by EPA Method 8021 and
was confirmed at 38,000, 16,000, and 4,100 gg/L, respectively, in these wells by EPA Method 8260B.
MTBE concentrations detected by EPA Method 8260B in MW-1 remained within One order of
magnitude of concentrations detected during the last monitoring event but increased by three orders of
magnitude in MW-2 and decreased by one order of magnitude in MW-3. TBA was detected in MW-l,
MW-2~-and M--W-3~at-47.0, &500, and-3&gg/_L,_respecti.v, ely.. _TAME _was.d~te_ct~ed_in MV~7~i_. gnct__M_.W-2._
at 27, and 3.38 [tg/L, respectively. Dichlorodifluoromethane, naphthalene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene and
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene were also detected by EPA Method 8260B.
Remediation System Performance
CSE began operating the SVE system on 8 October 2002. The system has operated continuously during
the Fourth Quarter 2002 except for short period of planned inactivity during maintenance, draining the
knockout pot, and for approximately 72 hours prior to groundwater monitoring events.
The SVE system operated during the Fourth Quarter 2002 in thermal mode with measured oxidizer
temperatures ranging from 1435 to 1490 degrees Fahrenheit and inlet airflow rates from 175 to 265
standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). SVE well V-Id (deep interval) was operated partially open from
system startup until 6 November 2002 and fully open thereafter. SVE well V-Is (shallow interval) was
operated partially open since 6 November 2002. Monitoring and SVE well MW-1 was. operated partially
open since 19 December 2002.
CSE collected influent vapor samples i¥om the thermal oxidizer on 10 October and 12 December 2002.
The samples were analyzed for TPH-g by the GASLUFT method and for BTEX and MTBE by EPA
Method 8020. TPH-g was detected in these samples at 5,500 and 8,600 parts per million by volume .....
(Fp-mv): Befiz~e-9,/itg-d~t¥~t-ed z~t 58- ~nd 110--~nSv,Yespectively. MTBE wa~-d~t-e-c-t~d--~ i,900 and
2,200 ppmv, respectively. Field volatile organic vapor measurements generally increased from 4,500
ppmv on 8 October 2002 to 8,600 ppmv on 12 December 2002 and decreased to 7,230 ppmv on 30
December 2002.
CSE calculates that 26,788 cumulative pounds 4,185 gallons) of hydrocarbons were removed during the
Fourth Quarter 2002.
During the First Quarter 2003, CSE will conduct quarterly groundwater monitoring, install three off-site
monitoring wells, and continue SVE system operation.
V:\UGT~ProjectsLlDW_files\2003 Con'espondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron GW-SVE 4-03.doc
Mr. David Bird 3 10 April 2003
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
Gasoline range petroleum constituents, including MTBE, have migrated through the permeable
sandy/gravelly site soils and have been detected in groundwater beneath the southern portion of the site.
Floating petroleum product has been detected in SVE well VW-ld during the initial five monitoring
events. MTBE has been detected at concentrations up to 38,000 [tg/L in monitoring wells MW-1
~hrough MW-3 this quarter. The lateral extent of MTBE in impacted groundwater is undefined.
MTBE in groundwater may be transported greater distances away from the release point than other
gasoline constituents due to its relatively high solubility and low adsorption to soils. A municipal water
supply well is approximately 1,000 feet downgradient of the site. We have prev)pusly requested that you
expedite soil remediation to.-minimize the migration-and slSr~ad"0f-gas~)hne and MTBE in groundwater
and potential impacts to the municipal well. An SVE remediation system has operated on-site since
8 October 2002. We request that remediation continue.
We concur with CSE that quarterly groundwater monitoring should be continued. Groundwater samples
should be analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, and BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and
TAME by EPA Method 8260. We request that you include analysis for the VOCs usually reported in a
full EPA Method 8260 analysis (usually 63 to 67 compounds) one additional quarter.
Please submit a groundwater monitoring report for the First Quarter 2003 monitoring event by 5 May
2003.
We approved the proposed SVE pilot test (vacuum influence test) by our letter dated 25 September
2001. We requested by our letter dated 11 December 2002 that the final remediation design
'specifications and pilot test data be submitted by 19 March 2003. We also indicated that if design
changes are not considered necessary, your consultant should so indicate in writing. As of the date of
this letter we have not received this information, which is overdue.
We approved the installation of off-site groundwater monitoring wells by our letter dated 3 September
2002. A report of findings for the installations was due by 3 December 2002. CSE submitted an
encroachment permit and Traffic Control Plan for Groundwater Assessment At The Sullivan Petroleum
Company, LLC, Downtown Chevron Service Station (Traffic Control Plan) dated 18 November 2002 to
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). We requested that you contact us when you
received the encroachment permit prior to our determination of submission deadline. You contacted us
on 9 April 2003. We request that you submit a report of findings for the monitoring well installations by
10 July 2003.
Sections 2729 and 2729.1 for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the California Code of
Regulations requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Required Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Agencies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
V:\UGT~ProjectskJDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron GW-SVE 4-03.doc
Mr. David Bird - 4 - 10 April 2003
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and'GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP files).
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
JOHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
.... En6lb'gbre: ' R~quiFed Electronic-Deliverable-Format-For.Laboratory and-Site .Data Submittals ....
CC:
Mr. Howard Wines IH, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure'X~
Ms. Barb,'u'a Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File: UST/Kern/Chevron Station//5T15000836
V:\UGTxProjectsUDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron GW-SVE 4-03.doc
Central ironmental
arch 3, 2OO3 EnviroI Consultant
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California, 93301
FOURTH QUARTER 2002 PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
(CRWQCB-CVR CASE #5T15000836)
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC. (CSE) is pleased to present the following Fourth Quarter 2002
Progress Report for the above-referenced site. This work was required by the CRWQCB-CVR as a result
of the discovery of gasoline-containing soil and groundwater in and around the area of the premium grade
unleaded gasoline product pipeline extending to the southeastern MPD at the site. A list of acronyms
used in this report is attached.
SITE LOCATION AND cONTACT PERSONS
The site is located at 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, Kem County, California (see Figure 1 - Site Location
Map). The site is located within the commercial district, which flanks 23rd and 24th streets. The BCSD
operates the Downtown Elementary School, 1,250 feet south of the site and San Joaquin Community
Hospital is located 1,500 feet northwest of the site. The site is at an'elevation of 404 feet above MSL, and
the topography is relatively flat with a slight slope to the southwest. The site is located within the
northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, MDBM. The site is a newly
'constructed retail fuel sales facility and mini mart, which opened dudng the first-quarter of 1999.
The subject site is the location of double-walled USTs and product piping (see Figure 2 - Plot Plan).
The property owner contact is Mr. Tim Sullivan, President, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC,
1508 18th Street, Suite 222, Bakersfield, California, 93301, (661) 327-5008. The consultant contact is
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, LLC, 1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield,
California, 93309, (661) 325-4862. The regulatory agency contact is Mr. John Whiting, California Regional
Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region, 1685 "E" Street, Fresno, California, 93706, (559)
445-5504.
1400 Easton DriVe, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309
(661) 325-4862 ~ Fax (661) 325-5126, censenv@aol.com
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
March 3, 2003- Page 2
TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND HYDROGEOLOGY
'The site is located at an elevation of 404 feet above MSL, and the topography slopes slightly to the
southwest (see Figure 1). The subject site is located on the eastern flank of the San Joaquin Valley and
west of the southern Sierra Nevada.
The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed primarily of unconsolidated Pleistocene (1.6 million to
11,000 years ago) and Recent (11,000 years ago to the present) alluvial sediments. Beneath the alluvial
sediments are older, predominantly lakebed deposits. These lie unconformably on Mio-Pliocene marine
sediments, which extend to a crystalline basement at 50,000 fbg (CDMG, 1965, Geologic Map of
California, Bakersfield Sheet).
At the subject site, surface deposits consist of Quatemary (recent) unconsolidated alluvium overlying
Quaternary (Pleistocene) nonmarine sediments. Geologic deposits, in the study area include Pleistocene
alluvial sediments that form a homocline dipping gently to the southwest. The deposits are alluvium
consisting of indurated and dissected fan deposits (CDMG, 1965). Surface soils are classified by the Soils
Conservation Services as Kimberlina - Urban Land - Cajon Complex and are characterized as 35 percent
Kimberlina fine, sandy loam with moderate permeability; 30 percent Urban land with impervious surfaces
· and altered fills; and 20 percent Cajon loamy sand with high permeability. Subsurface soils observed at
nearby UST sites during the construction of water supply wells in the area are characterized as
fine-grained to coarse-grained sands with significant intervals of gravels, cobbles, and boulders, and minor
intervals of thinly bedded silts and clays through the depth of groundwater at 110 fbg.
The site is located in the southern portion of the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley is a
north-south-trending valley, 400 miles long by 50 miles wide, the southern portion of which is known as the
San Joaquin Valley. Surface water and groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley are derived predominantly
from the Sierra Nevada to the east and are transported by five major rivers, the Closest to the site being
the Kern River. The subject site is located 1 mile south of the Kern River.
The depth to the regional, unconfined aquifer is 110 fbg, and the groundwater gradient is to the southwest,
away from the Kern River and toward the ancient Kern Lake bed (KCWA, 2000, 1996 Water Supply
Report, July 2000). Perched groundwater at depths as shallow as 20 fbg is known to be present flanking
the current course of the Kern River, but is not known to extend to the site (KCWA, 2000).
CWSC operates Well #7 1,000 feet east-southeast of the site. No additional active water supply wells are
located within 2,500 feet of the site.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
March 3, 2003- Page 3
PREVIOUS WORK
During April 1999, product reconciliation records indicated a potential release in the product piping
extending from the premium UST to the southeastern MPD. However, the leak detection alarm system
had not indicated a release. Subsequently, the MPD was shut off, and the inner flex product piping was
removed from the outer flex containment piping. A breach was observed in the inner flex product piping.
· Therefore, Sullivan Petroleum filed a URR with the BFDESD. On April 30, 1999, the concrete above the
product piping was removed, and an exploratory trench was excavated, exposing the product piping.
A breach was also observed in the outer flex containment piping.
On May 10, 1999, A.J. Environmental, Inc. advanced a hand-augered soil boring (SC-l) adjacent to the
location of the product piping breach. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were detected in the soil
sample collected from soil boring SC-1 at 5 fbg. Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analytical
results, the BFDESD, in its letter dated June 21, 1999, required a preliminary assessment of the vertical
and lateral limits of the gasoline-containing soil and an assessment of the potential for the release to
impact groundwater resources. Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. (HFA) prepared a work plan, dated July
8, 1999, to perform the requested work, which was subsequently approved for implementation by the
BFDESD in its letter dated July 21, 1999. HFA performed the drilling and sampling activities on August
17, 1999, and September 26, 1999.
Five soil borings (B-1 through B-5) were ddlled during this phase of soil investigation.
On August 17, 1999, soil borings B-1 through B-3 were advanced.to 20 fbg using HFA's 10-ton direct-push
sampling rig where refusal was experienced due to the presence of a layer of cobbles. On September 26,
1999, soil boring B-1 was deepened to a depth of 48 fog using a torque-modified MobileTM B-53 hollow-
stem auger drill rig operated by Melton Drilling Company of Bakersfield, California. Drilling refusal was
experienced at 48 fog due to encoUntering a second layer of larger diameter cobbles and occasional
boulders. On September 26, 1999, soil borings B-4 and B-5 were also drilled at the site to 45 fbg where
drilling refusal occurred.
Soil boring B-1 was drilled adjacent to the potential source area; soil borings B-2 and B-3 were ddlled as
lateral-assessing soil bodngs located 15 feet to the east and west, respectively, of the potential source
area; and, soil bodngs B-4 and B-5 were drilled as lateral-assessing soil borings advanced 25 feet to the
northeast and southwest, respectively, of the potential source area. Soils encountered during ddlling
included well-graded sands, interbedded with a layer of cobbles from 18.5 to 22.5 fog and a second layer
of larger diameter cobbles and occasional boulders from 37.5 fbg to the maximum depth (48 fbg)
penetrated during the investigation. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.
TpH as gasoline and benzene were detected in the soil samples collected from the vertical-assessing soil
boring (B-l) to less than 22 fog and in the soil samples collected from the lateral-assessing soil bodngs
(B-2 and B-3) less than 25 feet laterally from the potential source area. Minor MTBE concentrations were
Mr. Tim SUllivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
March 3, 2003- Page 4
also detected in the soil samples collected from soil borings B-1 through B-5 to the total depth of the soil
borings.
The BFDESD, in its letter dated December 29, 1999, required the preparation of a CAP to determine the
appropriate remedial actions for adsorbed-phase hydrocarbon-containing soils at the site. HFA prepared
the requested CAP, dated April 12, 2000, which was subsequently approved by the BFDESD for
implementation. An RI/FS was conducted to assess the feasibility and cost effectiveness of mitigation
technologies. The results of the RI/FS analysis were that in-situ vapor extraction is the technology that
appears most suitable for this site. A vapor extraction well field consisting of central, shallow-zone and
deep-zone vapor extraction wells (VW-ls and VVV-ld, respectively) and three lateral, shallow-zone vapor
extraction wells (VVV-2 and VW-4) was proposed.
In association with the construction of the central, deep-zone vapor extraction well (VW-ld), soil sampling
and laboratory analysis would be performed to assess the vertical limits of gasoline-containing soil and the
potential' for the release to impact groundwater resources, and the well construction details would be
modified dependant on the depth of the boring and whether groundwater was encountered.
On February 1 through 3, 2001, HFA advanced soil boring VW-ld to 125 fog, which was completed as a
combination groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well, and soil borings VVV-2 through VVV-4 to 45 fog,
which were completed as vapor extraction wells. HFA performed the drilling and sampling of combination
groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well VW-ld on February 1 through 3, 2001, using a limited-
access, dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig, operated by West Hazmat, Inc., of Sacramento,
California. The I_AR was used because of the height of the canopy above the drill location, and the
dual-walled percussion, air rotary. I_AR was required due to the requirement to ddll through cobbles and
boulders. The three lateral vapor extraction wells (VW-2 through VW-4) were drilled with a conventional
dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill dg with a normal height mask. Soil samples were coll,ected at 50,
65, 80, and 100 fog while drilling soil bodng VW-ld, with groundwater encountered at 110fbg. Soil
samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VVV-2 through VW-4 due to their positioning in close
proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths.
Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in
diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a
PID to the total depth of soil bodng VVV-ld. Groundwater was encountered in the soil boring at 110 fbg.
Therefore, the soil boring was drilled to 125 fog and completed as a monitoring well with slotted casing
from 75 to 125 fog to serve as a combination groundwater monitoring and vapor extraction well.
Soil borings VVV-2 through VW-4 were drilled to 45 fog and completed as vapor extraction wells with
slotted casing from 5 to 45 fbg. Because the I_AR was required to be used at another site, time was not
available to install central, shallow vapor extraction well VW-ls during this phase of investigation
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
March 3, 2003- Page 5
TPH as gasoline was detected ata concentration of 250 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg,
decreasing to 5.7 mg/kg in the soil sample collected from 65 fbg, and was not detected in the soil sample
collected at 80 fbg. However, TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentratiOn of 2,300 mg/kg was in the
soil sample collected at 100 fog. Benzene was not detected in the soil samples collected at 50, 65, and
80 fog. However, benzene was detected at a concentration of 9.3 rog/kg in the soil samPle collected at
100 fog. MTBE was detected in the four soil samples reaching a maximum concentration of 87 rog/kg in''~
the soil sample collected at 100 fog.
On March 14, 2001, a groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well VW-ld. The depth to
groundwater in the .well was measured to be 107.43 feet below the top of the well casing.
TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring
well VVV-ld, with benzene at a concentration of 2,400 pg/I and MTBE at a concentration of 120,000 pg/I.
TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well
VVV-ld (see Table 1 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Organic Compounds).
In order to further delineate the lateral limits of gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in soil and
groundwater, HFA's Preliminary Groundwater Assessment Report, dated June 25, 2001, recommended
that an expanded groundwater investigation be conducted and consist of the installation of three additional
groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-3) (see Figure 2 for the monitoring well locations). In
order to complete the vapor extraction well field installation, HFA recommended that the previously
approved central, shallow-zone vapor extraction well (VVV-ls) would be installed as well as central,
intermediate-zone vapor extraction well VVV-li. The CRWQCB-CVR's case review letter, dated July 23,
2001, approved implementation of the expanded groundwater assessment plan and VES work plan.
From October 30, 2001 through November 2, 2001, HFA drilled five soil bodngs with three lateral soil
borings (MW-1 through MW-3) drilled to 125 fog and completed as groundwater monitoring wells'and the
two central soil borings (VVV-ls and VVV-li) drilled to 35 fog and 75 fog, respectively, and completed as
vapor extraction wells (see Figure 2 for the well locations). Soil samples were collected at a 10-foot
interval while dali!lng soil borings MW-1 through MW-3, with groundwater encountered at 114 fog.
Soil samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VW-ls and VW-li due to their positioning in
close proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths. Soils encountered during drilling included
well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to I foot in diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and
soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using 'a PID to the total depth of soil bodng MW-l, but not in
the soil samples collected from soil borings MW-2 and MW-3. Groundwater was encountered in the soil
borings at 114 fog. Therefore, soil borings MW:I through MW-3 were drilled to 125 fbg and completed as
a monitoring well with 2-inch-diameter slotted PVC casing from 75 to 125 fog. Soil borings VW-ls and
VW-li were drilled to 35 and 75 fbg, respectively and installed as vapor extraction wells with 4-inch-
diameter slotted PVC casing from 5 to 35 fog and 40 to 75 fog, respectively.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
March 3, 2003- Page 6
Benzene was detected, in only the soil sample collected from soil boring MW-I at 70 fbg, at a
concentration of 0.26 mg/kg. TPH as gasoline, BTEXi TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in
the soil samples collected from soil borings MW-2 and MW-3. HoWever, MTBE was detected in all 11 soil
samples collected from soil boring MW-l, reaching a maximum concentration of 84 rog/kg in the soil
sample collected at 70 fbg, in 3 of the 11 soil samples collected from soil boring MW-2, reaching a
maximum concentration of 0.17 rog/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg, and in 6 of the 11 soil
samples collected from soil bodng MW-3, reaching a maximum concentration of 0.32 rog/kg in the soil
sample collected at 70 fbg. TBA was detected in 4 of the 11 soil samples collected from boring MW-l,
reaching a maximum concentration of 10 rog/kg in the soil sample collected at 10 fbg.
On November 26, 2001, groundwater samples were collected from monitoring well MW-1 through MW-3
and VW-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.20 to 115.15 feet
below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be .to the
southeast. Three inches of PSH was observed in well VVV~ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE
were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching maximum
concentrations of 5,300,000 pg/I, 72,000 pg/I, and 4,100,000 pg/I in the groundwater sample collected
from well VW-ld. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected
from the four monitoring wells (see Table 1).
On March 28, 2002, groundwater samples were again collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-
3 and VW-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.30 to 114.54 feet
below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the
southeast. Three inches of PSH was observed in well VW-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE
Were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching maximum
concentrations of 1,400,000 IJg/I, 11,000 pg/I, and 1,300,000 pgJl in the groundwater sample collected
from well VW-ld. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected
from the four monitoring wells (see Table 1). The groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells
MW-l, MW-2, and VW-ld were analyzed for physical and chemical characteristics. The results of the
laboratory analysis indicated that the groundwater beneath the site is potable (see Table 2 - Summary of
Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Physical and Chemical Characteristics).
On May 13, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR PTO #S-3267-2-0 was obtained for the installation and operation of a
thermal oxidation VES. During the third quarter of 2002, the remediation compound was been
constructed and the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW~li, VW-ld, VVV-2, VW-3, and VW-4 were
connected by 2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation
equipment compound. Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and
natural gas services. VES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. The CRWQCB-CVR requested
a groundwater monitoring plan dudng operation of the VES. CSE tums off the VES 72 hours prior to each
quarterly groundwater monitoring event to permit groundwater condition to equilibrate. The monitoring
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
March 3, 2003- Page 7
wells are then purged prior to collecting the groundwater samples. The VES unit is then re-started for
continual operations until 72 hours pdor to the 'next quarterly monitoring event.
The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 19, 2002, requested submission of a work plan to perform an
expanded groundwater assessment to assess the southeastern (downgradient) limits of gasoline~
containing groundwater at the site. CSE submitted an Expanded Groundwater Assessment Work Plan,
dated August 9, 2002, which proposed the installation of two off-site downgradient monitoring wells MW-4
and MW-5 (see Figure 2 for the proposed monitoring well locations). The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter
dated September 3, 2002 approved implementation of the work plan with the condition that an additional
monitoring well (MW-6) be constructed to the south of the site (see Figure 2 for the proposed monitoring
well location). Implementation is pending obtaining a California DOT encroachment permit to locate the
wells in the sidewalks on the north and south sides of 23rd Street.
FOURTH QUARTER 2002 GOUNDWATER MONITORING
On December 3, 2002, groundwater samples were collected from monitoring well MW-1 through MW-3.
At the same time, the depth to groundwater was measured to an accuracy of +0.01 foot. The VES was
turned off 72 hours prior to the second quarter 2002 monitoring event and was turned on after completion
of the sampling. Before sampling, the monitoring wells were checked for an immiscible layer and 0.25
feet of PSH was observed in well VW-ld. Monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3 were then purged prior
to extracting samples representative of the in~situ groundwater. Dudng the purging process, the
· conductivity, temperature, and pH of the groundwater were constantly monitored and recorded on water
sample logs. Purging continued until at least 2.1 casing volumes of groundwater had been removed and
the monitored parameters had stabilized. Groundwater samples were collected after the wells had
recharged to greater than 80 percent of their initial static water level (see Attachment I for the
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, Sample Management Procedures and Attachment 2 for the Water
Sample Logs).
Disposable TeflonTM bailers were used to sample the wells. The groundwater samples were placed in
chilled VOA vials containing hydrochloric acid as a preservative, labeled, sealed, and recorded on a chain-
of-custody record in accordance with the procedures outlined in the CRWQCB-CVR LUFT guidance
document The groundwater samples contained no visible suspended matter, and no headspace was
observed in any of the vials. The groundwater samples were placed in a container filled with Blue-IceTM
for cooling purposes and submitted to Twining Laboratories, Inc., for analysis. The groundwater samples
were analyzed for the following organic compounds: TPH as gasoline using EPA Method 8015 (M); BTEX
and MTBE using EPA Method 8021; and MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, TAME, 1,2-DCA, and EDB using
EPA Method 8260. The groundwater were also analyzed for a full scan volatile organic compounds using
Method 8260B. QA/QC sampling included a trip blank, instrument blanks, spikes, and duplicates.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
March 3, 2003- Page 8
The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from approximately 116 to 118 feet below
the top of the well casing and the 'direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the southeast,
with a horizontal gradient of 0.016 (1.6 feet per 100 feet) (See Figure 3 - Groundwater Elevation Contour
Map). Three inches of PSH was observed in well VW-ld. TPH as gasoline was detected at
concentrations of 57,000 IJg/I, 5,400 IJg/I, and 2,100 IJg/I were detected in the groundwater samples
collected from wells MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3, respectively. Benzene was detected at concentrations of
2,000 IJg/I, 140 IJg/I, and 19 pg/I were detected in the groundwater samples collected from wells MW-l,
MW-2, and MW-3, respectively. MTBE was detected at concentrations of 38,000 IJg/I, 16,000 IJg/I, and
4,100 pg/I were detected in the groundwater samples collected from wells MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3,
respectively. TBA was detected at concentrations of 470 IJg/I, 1,500 IJg/I, and 34 IJg/I were detected in the
groundwater samples collected from wells MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3, respectively. TAME was detected at
concentrations of 27 I~g/I and 3.38 IJg/I were detected in the groundwater samples collected from
monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-2. Isopropylbenzene, n-propylbenzene, 1,2,4 tfimethylbenzene, 1,3,5
trimethylbenzene, p-isopropyltoluene, dichlorodiflouromethane, and naphthalene were also detected in the
groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3 (see Figure4- TPH as
Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater, Table 1, and Attachment 3 for the Laboratory
Report for Groundwater).
REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2002
CSE prepared an SJVUAPCD ATC permit application for the installation of a thermal/catalytic oxidation
system. On May 13, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR PTO #S-3267-2-0 was obtained for the installation and
operation of a thermal oxidation VES.' Dudng the third quarter of 2002, the remediation compound was
been constructed and the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW-li, VVV-ld, VW-2, VVV-3, and VW-4
were connected by 2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation
equipment compound. Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and
natural gas services. VES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. The VES unit has operated 24
hours per day since start-up, with only short periods of inactivity for maintenance, draining of the knockout
pot, and a few occurrences when the system has shut down, as well as the unit being shut down 72 hours
prior to the fourth quarter 2002 groundwater monitoring event and restarted after completion of the sample
collection. On October 10, 2002, the SJVUAPCD-CR performed an inspection of the YES unit and
observed that it was operating in accordance with the conditions specified in the ATC.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
March 3, 2003- Page 9
On October 10, 2002 vapor sampling of the influent and effluent streams of the oxidizer was conducted
and on December 12, 2002 vapor sampling of the influent stream of the oxidizer was conducted. TPH as
gasoline was detected in the influent vapor sample collected on October 10, 2002 at a concentration of
5,500 ppmv and was not detected in the sample collected from the effluent stream. TPH as gasoline was
detected in the influent vapor sample collected on December 12, 2002 at a concentration of 8,600 ppmv.
Benzene was detected in. the influent vapor sample collected on October 10, 2002 at a concentration of 58
ppmv and was not detected in the sample collected from the effluent stream. Benzene was detected in
the influent vapor sample collected on December 12, 2002 at a concentration of 110 ppmv. MTBE was
detected in the influent vapor sample collected on October 10, 2002 at a concentration of 1,900 ppmv and
was detected in the sample collected from the effluent stream at a concentration of 0.31 ppmv. MTBE
was detected in the influent vapor sample collected on December 12, 2002 at a concentration of 2,200
ppmv (see Table 3 - Summary'of Vapor Sample Analytical Results and Attachment 4 for the Laboratory
Reports for Vapor).
Inlet vapor concentrations ranged from 4,500 and '8,600 ppmv during the fourth quarter of 2002
(see Figure 5- Infiuent and Effluent TPH Concentrations and Table 4 - Summary of VES Monitoring
Data). The inlet soil vapor flow rate has been maintained near the maximum stated in the ATC permit and
consistently ranges from 175 to 265 scfm. It is estimated that the mass of gasoline hydrocarbons
extracted from the subsurface since startup is approximately 26,787 pounds, which is equivalent to
approximately 4,185 gallons of gasoline (see Figure 6 - Cumulative Extraction Curve and Table 4).
ACTIVITIES PLANNED FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2003
During the First Quarter of 2003, the following activities will be completed:
· Conduct groundwater monitoring and sampling;
Install three off-site downgradient monitoring wells, and
· Continue VES operations.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
March 3, 2003- Page 10
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC., trusts that you will find this Fourth Quarter 2002 Progress Report to
your satisfaction. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
Mr. Mark Magargee at (661) 325-4862 or at e-mail address censenv@aol.com.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark R. Magargee, CHG,~'RG ~/ ·
Consulting Hydrogeologist
Holguin, Fahan & Associates', inc.
MRM/smm:jlt
Enclosures: Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 Plot Plan
Figure 3 - Groundwater Elevation Contour Map
Figure 4 - TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater
Figure 5 - Influent and Effluent TPH concentrations
Figure 6 - Cumulative Extraction Curve
Table1 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results
Compounds
Table 2 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for
Chemical Characteristics
Table 3 - Summary of Vapor Sample Analytical Results
Table 4 - Summary of VES Monitoring Data
List of Acronyms
Attachment 1 -
Attachment 2 -
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
for Organic
Physical and
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, Sample Management Procedures
Water Sample Logs
Laboratory Report for Groundwater
Laboratory Report for Vapor
cc: Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR
Mr. Howard H. Wines, III, BFDESD
~o~.' . . ~ l f.l~--7~;;~ ~ . ~ ............. :::¥,,~o~, .... :~t>.": ~., '~',,: :,, ~:;;~.: tu~=
· o " :' ,.~ -~ ~"' ~ ~ · ~.~ "~ ,, '~' ~ · ~B8, j. ~ ~ r.~ ,.~ ~ :
~:~I~U .. .... '"'--=~ ~:~'~ ~ ~ · , ~ - ...... : ~.,
~~.':lL- ~ ' '~~ ..... : ~., I ~~ :. , · ,~'~ ~ I~ i
. ' I1~;~ ~~:'~. ~ '~-'~~1 ~,o , ',,~-:'~'
: >' ~!~'~- J. X::' ,~:"-'~~i~ LOeb--::-r~'~=l~ .... I
. · * . ~ ,: '; 0 ': .: . ~ ~..Id~ .l ~
,. , ~ ..,.-~ ~ .. , ~ : .,. ~..-~[~
~:~ .,,~, -~. _~ ..
~~... ~
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY. LLC
o ~.~ . ~.,~ ~ DOWNTOWN CH~RON SERVICE STATION
m m r , m [ m ~ , ~ mm 2317 "L" STREET
o~ ~'0~ ='= , ='~ m <Goo m s.~ FE~ ~ N BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA
~ 0.5 1 ~LOME~R
~ ~ ~ ~ H FIGURE I - SITE LOCATION MAP
USGS ~L~LE 7,~ BIN~E SE~E~ Q~D~NGE m
CENT~L
SIER~
ENVIRON
MENTAL,
LLC
CAR MINI MART
WASH uJ
5
DISPENSER ISLANDS
MW-2
, / / · / / / / · i Z_ TREATMENT
DISPENSEk ISLANDS I~ o {o / n ~ 20,000--GALLON
I I [ j ' ' SPLIT-CHAMBERED
~ ~ ~ GAS :)LIN r- UST
MW-3 EXPLORATORY
,aENC.
LOCATION
23RD STREET
SCALE IN FEET
0 15 30
MW-6 MW-5
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
SOIL BORING [3 FILL END
DOWNTOWN
CHEVRON
SERVICE
STATION
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
PROPOSED MONITORING WELL FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN
VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL
VES PIPING CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: JANUARY 24, 2003
CAR MINI MART n-
WASH
'
MW2 / DI.~ENSER IsLAN
·
~ D~S~EN~R~S I ~ o [~ / ~_20,~O~ON
/ t I / / j' SPLIT~MBERED
APPROACH
23RD STREET
SCALE IN FEET
MW~ MW-5
GROUNDWATER L~ELS MEASURED DECEMBER 3, 2002
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
SOIL BORING D FILL END
DOWNTOWN
CHEVRON
SERVICE
STATION
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
~~ / GROUNDWATER BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
ELEVATION CO~OUR
PROPOSED MONITORING WELL ~ (FE~ A~VE MSL) FIGURE 3- GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
ANOMOLOUS DATA POI~ NOT%. GROUNDWATER FLOW CO~OUR MAP
USED FOR CO~OURING DUE ~ DIRECTION
TO PRESENCE OF FREE PRODU~ CENT~L-SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: JANUARY 24, 2003
c . .
CPd~(,. ipy~ ' ._.)
~ ~ % ! ~ I0 ~--~__IO,O0~ALLON / /= /
23RD STREET
SC~E IN FEET
0 15
MW~ MW-5
_
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
~ SOIL BORING ~ FILL END DOWNTOWN CH~RON SERVICE STATION
~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
~ ~O~OUR OF ~BE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
~ PROPOSED MONITORING WELL / CONCE~TONS (p~) FIGURE 4 TPH AS GASOLIN~BENZEN~MTBE
/
CONCENT~TION IN GROUNDWATER
~/~/~ CONCE~RATIONS IN GROUNDWATER (p~)
CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
m
REVISION DATE: JANUARY 24, 2003
FIGURE 5 - INFLUEN'I' AND EFFLUENT TPH CONCENTRATIONS
E
100,000
10,'000
100
10
0.1
' TPH In
~TPH Out I
0 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cumulative Operating Weeks
FIGURE 6 - CUMULATIVE EXTRACTION CURVE
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
I 2 3 4 5 6
Cumulative Operating Weeks
TABLE 1,
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
DEPTH
TO
FLOATING
GROUND-
DIDHLORODI
WELLID AND DATE GROUND- PRODUCT WATER FLOUROMET ISOPROPYL I5OPROP~T N-PROPYL
BENZENE BENZENE VOCS REF
TOLUENE BENZENE ~ENES MTB~ TSA DIPE ETBE TAME DCA EDB HANE ~ENZENE OLUENE N~HT~LENE BE~ENE
BENZENE
~SOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE
REPORTING LIMIT ~ ..... N/A
TABLE 2.
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
· DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
; DEPTH TO FLOATING GROUND.
WELL ID ANC DATE GROUND- PRODUCT WATER
ELEVATION* : SAMPLED WATER THICKNE~ ELEVATION TDS EC pH CHLORIDE SULFATE i NITRATE CALCIUM MAGNESIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE CARBONATE BICARBONATE TKN REF,
(feet-MSL) (f~) (feet) (feet-MSL) (m9/I) (umhos/cm1 (pHunlta) (mg/II (m~[l/I) (m~l) (rog/I) (mg/I) (rog/i) (m~lll) Im~l/I) (m~l/I) (mg/I) (rog/l)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 160.1 905,,0 ,9040 300,0 6010 I 310.1 351,2 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES - SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
VW-Id
404.00 3-28-02 1t4.54 0.251 289.46 817 951 7.38 93 82 2.1 120 21 44 5.1 ND ND 350 0.8 A
MW-t 3-28-02 114.63 0.00 289.76 424 664 7.12 48 68 40.4 79 14 39 4.t ND ND 200 0.71 A
404.29 ~-22-02 120.02 0.00: 284.27 250 ' 490 66 30 51 18 76 23 37 18 ND ND J40 ND B
MW-2 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 2~i,07 382 576 7,21 31 74 46.3 66 t2 39 3.8 ND ND t60 0.8 A
404.37 6-22-02 118,72 0.00 286.65 310 550 6,7 33 · 66 38 7'~ 17 37 11 ND_i ND 140 ND B
MW-3 3-26-02 113.30 ' ' 0.00 290.42 382 576 7.21 31 74 48.3 66 12 39 3.8 NDI ND t60 0.8 A
403,72 6-22.-02 118.84 0,001 284,88 310 480 6.7 25 §9 38 97 25 37 16 ND! ND 140 ND S
I~'~,F = Report reference, ~A = Not aD~J~ca~Je. ND= otdetected.
*Measured to me top of the well casing.
A = Holgutn, Fahan & Associates, Inc,'s~ report dated May 29, 2002,
S = Centrat Sierra Environmental, LLC's report dated November 14, 2002.
TABLE 3.
SUMMARY OF VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED SAMPLE ID' GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE '
(ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (p@mv) (ppmvI REF
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 IM) 8020 N/A
DETECTION LIMIT 10 0.1 0.1 0.1! 0.1 0.1 N/A
INFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-1 5,500 58 290 32 220 1,900 A
EFFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.31 A
INFLUENT 12-12-02 0212180-1 8,600 110 320 44 260 2,200 A
REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected.
A = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's, current report.
TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF VES MONITORING DATA
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Curt~lattva Cumulative Cumulative Cure,afire Out~ ~ ~l~ Field Re~i~ ~tve L~. C~a~va C~laliva
Date Ca~ ~fl~ ~mti~ ~fl~ ~ti~ T~ F~ ~-1~ V-Il V-ti V-td V-2 V-3 V-4 Nr TPHInFia~ ~H Effi~l~yT~alLbl, ~s, ~oyld Lbs,
1~1~ 2 lB Iff 1 0 1,470 ~5 · · · ~ · · · ~ 5,5~ t0 100% 187,01 187,01 267.22 267.22
1~1~2 10 39 116 6 I 1,470 2~ · · · ~ · · · ~ 5,9~ 10 1~ 83791 2,131,59912,14 2,~S,~
1~22~2 14 62 t88 7 I 1~4~ ~5 · · · ~ · e · ~ 8,235 10 1~ 1,218.~8 3,349.95,1,152,~ 3,~1.~ 523
t~02 22 75 288 1t 2 1,4~ 215 e ~ · ~ · · ~ ~ 6,74S 10 1~ 1,78~.28 5,~.44 t,719.11 5,974.42
t1-1-02 24 28 294 12 2 1,465 235 · · · ~ · · · ~ ~ 8,9~ t0 10~ ~9t 8,285,3587t.23 6,845.~ 982
11~02 29 63 ~57 15 2 1,4~ 2q~ · PO · O · · · ~ ~ 7,120 10 1~ 1,828.94 7,914.291,453.~ 8,0~.2t 1,237
11-~02 31 29 ~8 le 2 1.4~ 240 · PO · 0 · · · ~ 7,2~ 10 100~ 670.11 8,584.39~.97 ~,9~.Ie 1,341
11-21-02 44 40 654 23 3 1,470 2~ · ~ · O · · · ~ 7,825 10 10~ 1,~5.6113,257,45 1,1~.13 13,~8.~ 2,071
11-2~ 48 53 607 25 4 1,435 ~5 · PO · O · · · ~ 8,0~ 10 I~ 1,510.~14,707,53 1,~4.52 15,032.~ 2,~7
11-~ ~ 62 OO~ 26 4 1,4~ ~5 · PO · O · · · ~ 6,175 10 1~ 1,621.78 16,369.31 1,~3.05 16,835101 2,~1
12~2 59 39 708 30 4 1,4~ 210 · PO t O · I I ~ 8,4~5 10 1~ 1,232,~5 17,622,16 1,~4.~ 17,9~,47 2,753
t2-1~ 83 52 780 32 5 1,485 1~ I PO I 0 t · · ~ 8,525 10 1~ 1,~1,871e,~3,a31,3M,77 19,29724 2,982
12-12-02 ~S 28 788 33 ~ 1,4~ 235 · ~ · 0 · · · ~ 8,~ 10 1~% 7~,~ 19,820.71 894.74 ~191~ 3,~7
12-1~02 89 50 838 35 6 1,4~ 2~ · ~ ~ O ~ · · ~ B,475 10 10~ 1,5~,7421,4~,451,474.~ 21,~,98 3,~7
12-1~02 72 41 879 37 5 1,~ 2t5 PO ~ ~ O · · · ~ 6,135 10 1~% 1,210.20 22,8~.651,133,76 ~7~.74 3,5~
12-2~02 77 ~ 943 39 8 1,455 235 PO PO ~ O · · · ~ 7,955 10 1~ 1,772,10 24,402.75 1,~1.55 ~4~891.~ 3,613
12-2~2 79 27 970 40 ~ 1,~5 255 PO PO · O · e · ~ 7,5~ 10 1~ 79907 25,~t.82821.78 25,513.07
t2-~02 83 62 1,022 43 8 t,4~ 2~ PO ~ · O · · - · ~ 7,2~ 10 1~ 1,~.~ 28,7~.721,4~.35 26 g~.42 4,1~
Open · 0
CIo~cl = ·
Pmrtliiy c~)en = PO
AST
BFDESD
BCSD
BTEX
CAP
CDMG
CDWR
CRWQCB-CVR
CWSC
DCA
DIPE
DOT
EDB
EPA
ETBE
fbg
KCDEHS
KCWA
LAR
LLC
LUFT
MDBM'
rog/kg
MPD
MSL
MTBE
pH
PID
PSH
PVC
QNQC
RI/FS
ROI
TAME
TBA
TPH
URR
USA
UST
VES
VOA
VOC
tJg/I
LIST OF ACRONYMS
aboveground storage tank
Bakersfield Fire Department Environmental services Division
Bakersfield Consolidated School District '
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes
corrective action plan
California Division of Mines and Geology
California Department of Water Resources
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (5)
Califomia Water Services Company
dichloroethane
diisopropyl ether
Department of Transportation
ethylene dibromide
Environmental Protection Agency
ethyl tertiary butyl ether
feet below grade
Kern'County Department of Environmental Health Services
Kem County Water Agency
limited access rig
limited liability corporation
leaking underground fuel tank
Mount Diablo Base and Meridian
milligram per kilogram
multiple product dispenser
mean sea level
methyl tertiary butyl ether.
hydrogen potential
photoionization detector
phase-separated hydrocarbons
polyvinyl chloride
quality assurance/quality control
remedial investigatiOn/feasibility study
radius of influence
tertiary amyl methyl ether
tertiary butyl alcohol
total petroleum hydrocarbons
Unauthorized Release Report
Underground Service Alert
underground storage tank
vapor extraction system
volatile organic analysis
volatile organic compound
microgram per liter
ATTACHMENT t.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, AND SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
NOTIFICATIONS
Prior to performing any field work, the client, regulatory agency, and property, owner/manager with
jurisdiction over the subject site are notified. Notifications are made a minimum of 48 hours prior to
sampling, or as required by the client or regulator.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
.Prior to performing purge or no-purge sampling, water level measurements are collected according to the
following procedures:
· . Ali wells are checked for phase-separated hydrocarbons with an acrylic bailer or oil/water interface
meter.
To avoid cross contamination, water levels are measured starting with the historically "cleanest" wells
and proceeding to the historically "dirtiest."
Water levels within each well are measured to an accuracy of _+0.01 foot using an electric measuring
device and are referenced to the surveyed datum (well cover or top of casing). When measuring to
top of casing, measurements are made to the notched (or otherwise 'marked) point on casing. If no
marking is visible, the measurement is made to the northern side of the casing.
'o If possible, all Wells are gauged within a' short time interval on the same day to obtain accurate
measurements of the potentiometric surface.
· All measurements, are reproduced to assure validity, and measuring equipment is decontaminated
between wells.
PHASE-SEPARATED HYDROCARBON
If phase-separated hydrocarbon (PSH) is encountered, its thickness in the well and the depth to the
interface between the PSH and the water in the well are measured using one or both of the following
methods:
· an electronic oil-water interface meter is used to measure the depths to the top of the PSH and to the
top of the water, and/or
· an electronic water level meter is used to measure the depth to the top of the water and a clear bailer
is used to measure the PSH thickness.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 2
The potentiometeric surface elevation is calculated as:
TOC - DTW + 0174PT
Where TOC = top-of-casing elevation, DTW = depth to water (interface), and PT = PSH thickness.
If PSH thickness is less than 0.02 foot, and the well is planned for purging prior to sample collection, the
well is purged and sampled in accordance with the sample collection section of this SOP. If the PSH
thickness is 0.02 foot or greater, the PSH is bailed from the well, and left onsite in a labeled and sealed
container. No sample is collected for analysis from wells having a PSH thickness of greater than 0.02
foot.
NO-PURGE SAMPLING
Well purging is not conducted prior to sampling if purging is not needed to meet technical and/or
regulatory project requirements. Following collection of water level measurements, wells that are not
purged are sampled according to the protocol in the sample collection section of this SOP. '
PURGING PROCEDURES
Well purging is conducted prior to sampling if purging is needed to meet technical and/or regulatory
project requirements. If purging is conducted, the monitoring wells are purged using a vacuum truck,
submersible electric pump, bailer, hand pump, or bladder pump, as appropriate for site conditions. A
surge block may be used if it becomes apparent during purging that the well screen has become bridged
with sediment or the produced groundwater is overly turbid.
During the purging process, groundwater is monitored for temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, odor,
and color. These parameters are recorded on a water sample log. Purging continues until all stagnant
water within the wells is replaced by fresh formation water, as indicated by removal of a minimum number
of well volumes and/or stabilization of the above-outlined parameters. Sampling is performed after the
well recharges to at least 80 percent of hydrostatic.
Purge water is stored on site in Department of Transportation-approved, 55-gallon drums until water
sample analytical results are received from the laboratory. If active groundwater treatment is occurring at
the site, purge water may be disposed of through the treatment system, or the purge water may be
transported off site as non-hazardous waste to an approved off-site disposal facility.
If permanent pumps are'installed in the wells for groundwater remediation, purging may be accomplished
by. operating the pumps for at least 24 hours before sampling to ensure adequate purging.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 3
SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES
Groundwater samples are collected as follows:
· A l-liter Teflon TM bailer is lowered and partially submerged into the well water to collect a groundwater
sample.
· If visible PSH is present in the sample bailer, PSH thickness is recorded on the field log, and no
sample is collected for laboratory analysis.
· For volatile organic analyses, groundwater samples are collected in chilled, 40-milliliter, VOA vials
having Teflon~-Iined caps. Hydrochloric acid preservative is added to all vials by the laboratory to
lower sample pH to 2. Samples are held at 2 to 4°C while in the field and in transit to the laboratory.
Other appropriate containers, preservatives, and holding protocols are used for non-volatile analyses.
· VOA vials are filled completely so that no headspace or air bubbles are present within the vial. Care is
taken so that the vials are not overfilled and the preservative is not lost.
· Sample containers are immediately labeled and sealed after collection to prevent confusion. For VOA
vials, the label is placed to overlap the edge of the cap as a custody seal, unless a separate custody
seal is being used.
Samples are stored in a cooler while on site and in transport to the laboratory or office. The cooler
has sufficient ice to maintain appropriate temperature prior to collecting samples. The VOA vials are
kept cool both prior to and after filling. Hot or warm containers are not used when volatile compounds
are the target analytes.
DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES
Decontamination of monitoring and sampling equipment is performed prior to all monitoring and sampling
activities. Decontamination procedures utilize a three-step process as described below:
· The initial decontamination is performed using a non-phosphate soap, such as Simple Green or
Alconox, in tap water in a 5-gallon bucket. A soft-bristle bottlebrush is used to thoroughly clean the
inside and outside of the equipment.
· A second 5-gallon bucket of tap water is used as a first rinse.
· A third 5-gallon bucket of deionized water is used as a final rinse.
Groundwater Monitoring, sampling, and sample Management Procedures
Page 4
The brush is used in the first bucket only; it does not travel from bucket to bucket with the equipment.
This minimizes any transport of the contaminants that should stay in the first bucket.
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
At a minimum, a trip blank and a temperature blank are maintained for QA/QC purposes.
A trip blank sample (TRIP) is kept with any samples being analyzed for VOCs. This is a sample of
clean water that is supplied by the laboratory and is transported to and from the field and to the
laboratory with the field samples. The designation "QCTRIPBK" or "QCTB" is used for sample name
on the field label. Samplers record the date that the TRIP is taken to the field for sampling, not .the
date that the TRIP was prepared by the laboratory on the chain-of-custody (COC). One TRIP per
cooler per day is collected.
Unused trip blank samples are stored at the consulting office in a cooler dedicated to this purpose.
The trip blank cooler is not refrigerated, but is kept in a clean location away from possible VOC
contaminants.
Temperature blank sample containers are supplied by the laboratory and kept in a cooler used to
transport samples. The temperature blank is placed in the cooler prior to going to the field and kept
there until the cooler is delivered to the laboratory.
COMPLETION OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY
· A separate COC is completed for each day of sampling. If samples are collected on separate days for
the same site, a separate COC is completed for each sampling day, and the COC is always kept with
the samples. If samples are shipped off site for laboratory analysis, individual coolers with separate
COCs are sent for each day/cooler shipped.
All fields/spaces on the COC are filled out completely, and all persons having control of the samples
sign the COC to show transfer of sample control between individuals. At times when the field sampler
is not delivering samples directly to the laboratory, the samples may be turned over to a samPle
manager for shipping. In this instance, the sample manager takes custody of the samples, and both
the sampler and sample manager sign and date the COC to clearly show custody transfer.
· The COC is placed inside the cooler, and a custody seal is placed on the outside of the cooler prior to
shipping. The receiving laboratory indicates if the cooler was received with the custody seal intact.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 5
If samples are sent to the laboratory via UPS, FEDEX, etc., this is indicated on the COC, and the
sample manager indicates the date and time custody seal is placed on cooler for delivery to the
shipping agent (shipping agent does not sign the COC).
· For trip blanks, the COC indicates the date the TRIP was taken to the field for sampling, not the date
theTRIP was prepared by the laboratory, which may appear on the VOA label.
New electronic deliverable format (EDF) requirements of California AB2886 mandate that COCs and
laboratory reports maintain consistent and unique names between sites (Global ID) and sample
location/well names (Field Point ID). This information must be consistent with the initial information
supplied to Geotracker, and for each subsequent quarterly sampling event.
SAMPLE HANDLING
Refrigerator Storage and Temperature Log
Samples may be stored in a refrigerator at the consulting office prior to transport to the laboratory.
Refrigerator storage is maintained under the following conditions:
· Refrigerators used for sample storage are dedicated for that usage only (no food or other
materials are stored in sample refrigerators).
· Refrigerators can be locked from the outside by a sample manager, and only the samPle manager
has access to samples while in storage,
Refrigerators are maintained at temperatures between 2 to 4'C, and are adjusted daily depending
on thermometer readings.
Each refrigerator contains a dedicated, reliable thermometer. The thermometer is designed for
use in a refrigerator and .is fixed/secured to the inside of the unit. The thermometer range is
specific for measuring temperatures in the 2 to 4°C range.
A temperature log is kept on the outside of the refrigerator in a lightweight, three-ring binder; or
similar logbook. Temperatures are recorded daily or when the refrigerator is open for sample
management.
Completed COCs are kept with the samples stored in the refrigerators. The COCs may be held
on a clipboard outside the refrigerator, or may be placed inside the cooler if the entire cooler is
placed inside the refrigerator.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 6
· If a cooler is Placed in the refrigerator, the cooler lid remains open to insure that samples are
maintained at the refrigerator temperature.
Cooler Packing
The sample coolers are packed as directed by the receiving laboratory.
packing include:
Standard procedures for cooler
· The cooler contains enough ice to maintain the required temperature of 2 to 4°C (roughly 20 percent
of the volume of the cooler).
· Water ice (not dry ice or ice packs) is used for shipping.
· The ice is placed above and below the samples in at least two sealable plastic bags. This requires
that the packing/divider material is removed and replaced.
The COC is placed in the cooler in a sealed plastic bag, and the cooler lid is taped closed to secure it
for transport and to minimize loss of temperature. A custody seal is placed vertically across the seam
of the cooler lid.
ATTACHMENT 2.
WATER SAMPLE LOGS
WATER SAMPLE LOG'
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: December 3, 2002
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-1
WELL DEPTH: 124.61'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 67°Fand clear
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, slight odor
(e.g., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
AssURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QNQC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H S~D. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 65
7.0 3168 4.0 65
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) · (°F) field @
12-03-02 1120 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 118.04'
12-03-02 1130 1 73.0 '7.16 591 Tan Slight High'
12-03-02 1140 2 72.8 7.12 554 Tan Slight High
12-03-02 1150 3 . 74.0 7.05 548 Tan Slight High
12-03-02 1155 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 118.57'
12-03-02 1200 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 118.31'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 3
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on site in 55-<jallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): Tan Color, High Turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-I - 12:00
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: December 3, 2002
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-2
WELL DEPTH: 125.15'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 67°F and clear
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor
(e.g., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QNQC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: ~H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 65
7.0 3168 7.0 65
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhoslcm)
(gallons) (°F) field ~
12-03-02 1220 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 116.26'
12-03-02 1230 1 75.6 6.73 683 Tan/Orange None High
12-03-02 1240 2 74.4 6.64 876 Tan/Orange None High
12-03-02 1250 .3 73.9 6.61 738 Tan/Orange None High
12-03-02 1255 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 116.56'
12-03-02 1300 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 116.39'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.1
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): Tan/Orange Color, High Turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-2 - 13:00
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: December 3, 2002
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-3
WELL DEPTH: 125'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 67°F and clear
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor
(e.g., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 65
7.0 3168 7.0 65
[ CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field (~
12-03-02 1020 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 117.05'
12-03-02 1030 1 75.2 7.78. 438 Tan None High
12-03-02 1040 2 72.3 7.34 440 Tan None High
12-03-02 1050 3 72.8 7.19 443 Tan None High
12-03~02 1055 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 117.28'
12-03-02 1100 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 117.15'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED:. 2.5
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): Tan Color, High Turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-3 - 1100
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325 .~.862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: December 3, 2002
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: VW-ld
WELL DEPTH: 125'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 4"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 67°F and clear
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: 3" floating product, no floating layer
(e.g., floating la),er, odor, color)
QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES- NEW OR CLEANED?: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QNQC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: pH STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 65
7.0 3168 7.0 65
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field
12-03-02 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 116.41'
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING:
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:
TOTAL DISCHARGE: CASING VOLUMES REMOVED:
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER:
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS
FILLED:
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): 3" of free product - no sample collected
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS:
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, Califomia
(661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
ATTACHMENT 3.
LABORATORY REPORT FOR GROUNDWATER
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES. INC.
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING · SAMPLING SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION & MATERIALS TESTING
PROJECT COVER SHEET
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
ATTENTION
CLIENT
· December 17, 2002
· 702-6166.1-4
Sullivan
1508 18th St., Ste. 222
Bakersfield, CA 93301
INVOICE# 70206166
RECEIVED
Please find enclosed the analytical results of yOur samples. In accordance with your
instructions, the samples submitted were analyzed for the components specified.
The Twining Laboratories is accredited by the State of California Department of
Health Services for the analysis of Drinking Water, Wastewater and Hazardous
Waste under Certificate No. 1371.
Please contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding the analyses or
results. Thank you for allowing us to serve your analytical needs.
~ elw 1C Invoice- CSE
~h'Zahkar Sharma sarkar, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Chemistry
Rev. ~ 8/94 (COVER)
CORPORATE MODESTO VISAUA BAKERSRELO MONTEREY SACRAMENTO
2527' Fresno S~ee! 4LY"j0 Kiernan Ave,. # 105 130 Nor¢ Kersey St.. #H6 3701 Pegasus E)rme. # 124 ,501 OrlJz Avenue 5675 Power Inn Road. Suite C
Fresno. CA 93721-1804 Modesto. CA 95256.9322 ~,salia. CA93291-9(X30 Ba.ke~f~-;~. CA 93308-6843 Sated C~. CA93955 Sacramento, CA 95824
(5,.59) L¥38-7021 (209) 545-1050 (559) 651-~::'80 (661) 3935088 (831) 392-1056 (916) 381-9477
Fax 268-7126 Fax 545-1147 Fax 651 ~-----------------~ Fax 393-z16,L3 Fax 392-1059 Fax 381-9~78
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
December 17, 2002
702-6166.2
12/03/02 at 1200 by Tim Gluskoter
12/04/02 at 1445 from Gary Wheeler
CSE / Sullivan
E. Scott
J. Ureno
12/12~02
12/12/02
MW-1
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 2 of 10'
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS I DLR
(IJg/L) (pg/L)
METHOD
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
TPH-Gasoline Range
9400 250 8021
2000 50 8021
11000 50 8021
1700 50 8021
13000 50 8021
57000 5000 8015
~repara[ion (B]Fr_.~ & [PH-GASOLINE): 5030
pg/L: micrograms per Liter (parts 3er billion)
Preparabon {TPH-DIESEL): 3510
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 3 5/96 (13?EXVVA'r)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: December 17, 2002
: 702-6166.2
: 12/03/02 at 1200 by Tim Gluskoter
: 12/04/02 at 1445 from Gary Wheeler
: CSE / Sullivan
: M. Kimball
: 12/08/02
: 12/08/02
: MW-1
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 6 of 10
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2.0
Ethyl ted-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 38000 1.0
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) 27 2.0
Tert- Butyl alcohol'(TBA) 470 20
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 1.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 97.5 86-118
Toluene d8 104 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 106 86-115
ug/L: mio'ograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ug/Kg: micrograms per Kilogram(parts per billion)
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
rog/Kg: Milligrams per kilogram (ppm)
Rev. 4.~ 07/99 (8260)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY Id
: December 17, 2002
: 702-6166.2
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
: 12/03/02 at 1200 by Tim Gluskoter
: 12/04/02 at 1445 from Gary Wheeler
: CSE / Sullivan
· M. Kimball
: J. Ureno
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
:12/0852
:12/0852
CLIENT SAMPLE ID : MW-1
Analysis: VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
METHOD: EPA 8260B
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 9 of 10
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: pglL
COMPOUND
Acetone ·
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
2-Butanone (MEK)
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
2-Chlorotoluene
4-Chlorotoluene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane (12DCA)
1,1-Dichloroethene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1,1-Dichloropropene
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
IPQL I RESULT
2.50 ND
250 1800
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
1.00 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
ZOO ND
0.50 ND
0.5 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 32
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Di-isopropyl ether (DIPE)
Ethylbenzene
Ethyl ted-butyl ether (ETBE)
Hexachlorobutadiene
2-Hexanone
iso-Propyl benzene
p4sopropyltoluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Methylene chloride
Methyl ted-butyl ether (MTBE)
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Styrene
tert-Amy methyl ether (TAME)
tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA)
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,2,3-Trichlombenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1-Tdchloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chlodde
o-Xylene
m+p-Xylenes
0.50 ND
0.5 ND
250 960
0.5 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 59
0.50 5.0
0.50 ND
1.00 ND
250 38000
0.50 210
0.50 130
0.50 ND
0.5 27
50 470
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
250 6300
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
250 1800
250 430
0.50 ND
250 2200
250 2300
Dibro~ofluoromethane
Toluene Da
Bromofluorobenzene
97.5 86o118
104 88-110
106 86-115
Rev1 04/02 (8260 VOC Oil)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: December 17, 2002
:702-6166.3
: 12/03/02 at 1300 by Tim Gluskoter
: 12/04/02 at 1445 from Gary Wheeler
: CSE / Sullivan
: E. Scott ·
: J. Ureno '
: 12/12/02
: 12/12/02
: MW-2
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 3 of 10
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS I DLR
(pg/L) (IJg/L)
METHOD
Methyl tertoButyl Ether
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
TPH-Gasoline Range
5100 62.5 8021
140 12.5 8021
16 12.5 8021.
24 12.5 8021
280 12.5 8021
5400 1250 8015
~reparatJon (B [P-.X & TPH-GA$C)LINE:)'; 5030
pgA.: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
Preparation ( ! PH-DII:$EL): 35113
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev..3 5/96,[BTEXVVA'I')
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
'. December 17, 2002
: 702-6166.3.
: 12/03/02 at 1300 by Tim Gluskoter
: 12/04/02 at 1445 from Gary Wheeler
: CSE / Sullivan
: M. Kimball
: 12/08/02
: 12/08/02
: MW-2
METHOD: EPA 8260
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 7 of 10
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2.0
Ethyl ted-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 16000 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) 3.38 2.0
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) 1500 20
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 1.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
Dibromofluoromethane 97.1 86-118
Toluene d" 100 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 110 86-115
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ug/Kg: micrograms per Kilogram (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
rog/Kg: Milligrams per kilogram (ppm)
Rev. 4~ 07/99 (8260)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
: December 17, 2002
: 702:6166.3
· 12/03/02 at 1300 by Tim Gluskoter
· 12/04/02 at 1445 from Gary Wheeler
CLIENT : CSE / Sullivan
ANALYZED BY : M. Kimball
REVIEWED BY : J. Ureno
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
:12/08~2
:12/08~2
CLIENT SAMPLE ID : MW-2
Analysis: VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
METHOD: EPA 8260B
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 10 of 10
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: pglL
COMPOUND
Acetone
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromedichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
2-Butanone (MEK)
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
2-Chlorotoluene
4-Chlorotoluene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane ·
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane (12DCA)
1,1-Dichloroethene
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2~Dichloropropane
i 1,3-Dichloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1,1-Dichlompmpene
cis-l,3-Dichlompropene
2.50 ND
0.50 ;100
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
1,00 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 · ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 . ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
2.00 ND
0.50 ND
0.5 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 64
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
0.50 ND
COMPOUND
I PQL I RESULT
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.50 ND
Di-isoproPyl ether (DIPE) 0.5 ND
Ethylbenzene 0.50 3.5
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) 0.5 ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.50 ND
2-Hexanone 0.50 ND
iso-Propyl benzene 0.50 ND
p-lsopropyltoluene 0.50 ND
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 0.50 ND
Methylene chloride 1.00 ND
Methyl reft-butyl ether (MTBE) 50 16000
Naphthalene 0.50 1.4
n-Propylbenzene 0.50 N D
Styrene 0.50 ND
teA-Amy methyl ether (TAME) 0.5 3.3
tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA) 50 1500
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.50 N D
1,1,2,2oTetrachloroethane 0.50 ND
Tetrachloroethene 0.50 ND
Toluene 0.50 5.4
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.50 ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.50 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.50 N D
1,1~2-Tdchloroethane 0.50 ND
Trichloroethene 0.50 ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.50 ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.50 N D
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.50 27
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.50 18
Vinyl chloride 0.50 ND
o-Xylene 0.50 37
m+p-Xylenes 0.50 68
~ Dibro~ofluoromethane 97.1 86-1'18
~ Toluene D8 100 88-110
~ Bromofluorobenzene 110 86-115
Rev_l 04/02 (8260 VOC Oil)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: December 17, 2002
· 702-6166.1
: 12~03~02 at 1100 by Tim Gluskoter
: 12/04/02 at 1445 from Gary Wheeler
: CSE / Sullivan
: E. ScOtt
: J. Ureno
: 12/12/02
: 12/12~02
: MW-3
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 1 of'10
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
TPH-Gasoline Range
RESULTS
(pg/L)
DLR
(pg/L)
METHOD
3400 25 8021
19 5 8021
46 5 8021
7.7 5 8021
54 5 8021
2100 500 8015
~reparahon (BTEX & TPH-GA$OLINE): 5030
pg/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
Preparation (TPH*DIESEL): 3510
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~3 5/96 (BTEXVVAT)
REPORT DATE · December 17, 2002 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
LABORATORY ID · 702-6166.1 PAGE 5 of 10
DATE SAMPLED · 12/03/02 at 1100 by Tim Gluskoter
DATE RECEIVED · 12/04/02 at 1445 from Gary Wheeler
CLIENT ' CSE / Sullivan
ANALYZED· BY ' M Kimball REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
DATE PREPARED · 12108/02
DATE ANALYZED -' 12108/02 SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CLIENT SAMPLE ID · MW-3
METHOD: EPA 8260 UNITS: ug/L
Constituent Results DLR
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2.0
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0
Methyl teK-butyl ether (MTBE) 4100 50
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 2.0
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) 34 20
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 1.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0
Surrogates Recovery % Recovery Limits
D br0mo,uorometha.e ' ' 104 6-i 8
Toluene d8 104 88-110
Bromofluorobenzene 106 86-115
ug/L: micograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ug/Kg: micrograms per Kilogram (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
rog/Kg: Milligrams per kilogram (ppm)
Rev. _~4 07~9 (8260)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: December 17, 2002
: 702-6166.1
: 12/03/02 at 1100 by Tim Gluskoter
: 12/04/02 at 1445 from Gary Wheeler
: CSE / Sullivan
: M. Kimball
: J. Ureno
: 12/08/02
: 12/08/02
: MW-3
AnalySis: VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
METHOD: EPA 8260B
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 8 of 10
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: pg/L
COMPOUND I PQL I RESULT I COMPOUND I PQL I RESULT
Acetone 2.50 ND trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.50 ND
Benzene 0.50 5.7 Di-isopmpyl ether (DIPE) 0.5 ND
Bromobenzene 0.50 ND Ethylbenzene 0.50 0.71
Bromochloromethane 0.50 ND Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) 0.5 ND
Bromodichloromethane 0.50 ND Hexachlorobutadiene 0.50 ND
Bromoform 0.50 ND 2-Hexanone 0.50 ND
Bromomethane 0.50 ND iso-Propyl benzene 0.50 ND
2-Butanone (MEK) 1.00 ND p-lsopropyltoluene 0.50 ND
n-Butylbenzene 0.50 ND 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 0.50 ND
sec-Butylbenzene 0.50 ND Methylene chloride 1.00 ND
tert-Butylbenzene 0.50 ND Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 25 4100
Carbon disulfide 0.50 ND Naphthalene 0.50 ND
Carbon tetrachlodde 0.50 ND n-Pmpylbenzene 0.50 ND
Chlorobenzene 0.50 ND Styrene 0.50 ND
Chloroethane 0.50 ND tert-Amy methyl ether (TAME) 0.5 1.2
Chloroform 0.50 ND tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA) 50 ND
Chloromethane 0.50 ND 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.50 ND
2-Chlorotoluene Q50 ND 1,1,2,2-Tetrachlomethane 0.50 ND
4-Chlorotoluene 0.50 ND Tetrachlomethene 0.50 ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 2.00 ND Toluene 0.50 16
Dibromochloromethane 0.50 ND 1,2,3-Tdchlombenzene 0.50 ND
1,2-Dibromoethane 0.5 ND 1,2,4-Trichlombenzene 0.50 ND
Dibromomethane 0.50 ND 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.50 ND
1,2-Dichlombenzene 0.50 ND 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.50 ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.50 ND Trichloroethene 0.50 ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.50 ND Trichlomfluoromethane 0.50 ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.50 190 1,2,3-Trichlompropane 0.50 ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 0.50 ND 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.50 2.6
1,2-Dichloroethane (12DCA) 0.50 ND 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.50 0.87
1,1-Dichloroethene 0.50 ND Vinyl chloride 0.50 ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.50 ND o-Xylene 0.50 6.9
trans-1,2-Dichlomethene 0.50 ND m+p-Xylenes 0.50 55
1,2-Dichlompropane 0.50 ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 0.50 ND Il Su~uga[~ ' %~,~u C..~{~
2,2-Dichloropropane 0.50 ND ~1Dibromofluoromethane 104 86-118
1,1-Dichloropropene 0.50 ND ~1 Toluene Ds 104 86-110
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene 0.50 ND ~ Bromofluombenzene 106 86-115
Rev1 04102 (8260 VOC Oil)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: December 17, 2002
: 702-6166.4
: 12/03/02 at 0800 by Tim Gluskoter
.' 12/04/02 at 1445 from Gary Wheeler
: CSE / Sullivan
: E. Scott
: J. Ureno
: 12/11/02
: 12/11/02
: BLANK
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 4 of 10
SAMPLE TYPE: Aqueous
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
(IJg/L)
METHOD ·
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
ND 2.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
~reparatiort (BTEX & TPH-GA$OLINE.): 5030
pg/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
Preparation (TPH-DIESEL): 3510
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
WiNIN$
JLABORATORIES, INC.
FRESNO/MODESTO/VISAUA/BAKERSrI£LD/SAUNAS
Analyzed By: Erie Scott
Date of Extraction: 12/12/02
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Run ID Number: TL05121102
$ ~ike ID:
EPA 8021 (MTBEIBTEX) & EPA 8015M (TPH-(3asoline)
LABORA TORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed by: J. Ureno
Date of Analysis: 12/12/02
Sample Matrix: Aqueous
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable LabOratory Laboratory Relative
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent
(ug/L) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (ug/L) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(ug/L) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(ug/L) (%)
MTBE/BTEX Surrogate(4-BromofluOrobenzene) 0.00 25.0 23.0 24.5 80% 120% 92.0 98.0 6.32
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 0.00 100 91.1 92.3 80% 120% 91.1 92.3 1.31
~enzene 0.00 20.0 19.9 20.5 80% 120% 99.5 103 2.97
Toluene 0.00 20.0 20.1 19.8 80% 120% 101 99.0' 1.50
Ethylbenzene 0.00 20.0 19.2 20.9 80% 120% 96.0 105 8.48
Xylenes 0.00 60.0 58.8 61.1 80% 120% 98.0 102 3.84
TPH_Gasoline Surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 25.0 26.9 26.3 80% 120% 108 105 2.26
TPH-Gasoline 0.00 1000 983 990 80% 120% 98.3 99.0 0.71
EXPLANATIONS:
qD Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
(ug/L) micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
VIeth0d Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment,
the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
WINING
~LASORATORIES, INC.
FR£SNO/MOD~.STO/VISAUA/BAK£RSfff. LD/$ALIHA$
Analyzed By: Michael Kimball
3ate of Extraction: 12/08/2002
twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch Number: TL07120802
3pike ID: WS 150
Constituent Matrix Sample
Concentration
,l-Dichloroethene 0.000
ienzene 0.000
'richloroethene 0.000
'oluene 0.000
~hlorobenzene 0.000
:urrogate: Dibromofluormethane
:urrogate: Toluene.-d8
0.000
0,000
0.000
Matrix Spike
Concentration
Level
(u~.)
50.0
50.0
Matrix Spike
Recovery
(uz~)
56.2
50.6
,urrogate: Bromofluourobenzene
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
48.3
50.4
48.4
56.0
52.2
54.5
EPA METHOD 8260
MA TRIX SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: Joseph Ureno
Date of Analysis: 12/08/2002
Sample Matrix: Water Sample: TAP WATER
Acceptable
Percent
Recovery
Range
(%)
Low High
70% 130%
70% 130%I
70% 130%
70%1 130%I
70% { 13o%I
86%1118%]
86%1110%I
186%1115%
Matrix Spike
Duplicate
Recovery
53.5
49.7.
46.8
49.6
48.0
52.8
51.2
;XPLANATIONS:
ID
4atrix Sample:
4atrix Spike:
53.9 '
Matrix Spike
Percent
Recovery
(%)
Matrix Spike
Duplicate
Percent
Recovery
(%)
107
Relative
Percent
Difference
(%)
4.92
Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
The matrix sample is the sample chosen for use in the matrix spike analyses.
A matrix spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into the sample noted above. The matrix spike sample is
analyzed exactly like a regular sample, and its purpose is to determine whether the sample matrix has a measurable
effect on precise and accurate analyte detection and quantification.
112
101 99.4 1.79
96.6 93.6 3.15
101 99.2 1.60
96.8 96.0 0.830
112 106 5.88
104 102 1.93
109 108 1.11
WININ6
~LA B ORA T O R i,[ S , INC.
~Analyzed By: Michael Kimball
Date of Extraction: 12/08/2002
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch Number: TL07120802
Spike ID: WS 150
EPA METHOD 8260
LABORATORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: Joseph Ureno
Date of Analysis: ~2/08/2002
Sample Matrix: Water
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent
(ug/L) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (ug/L) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(ug/L) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(u~JL) (%)
l,l-Dichloroethene 0.00 50.0 58.8 57.4 70% 130% 118 115 2.41
lenzene 0.00 50.0 54.2 53.4 70% 130% 108 107 1.49
Trichloroethene 0.00 50.0 50.9 49.8 70% 130% 102 100 2.18
Toluene 0.00 50.0 52.7 53.0 70% 130% 105 106 0.568
Chlorobenzene 0.00 50.0 50.9 50.7 70% 130% 102 101 0.394
Surrogate: Dibromofluormethane 0.00 50.0 '52.0 52.7 86% 118% 104 105 1.34
~urrogate: Toluene-dS 0.00 50.0 51.7 51.3 86% 110% 103 103 0.777
$urrogate: Bromofluourobenzene 0.00 50.0 55.1 55.0 86% 115% ' 110 110 0.182
EXPLANATIONS:
ND 'Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
ag/L micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
dethod Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interfe{ences are present in the laboratory
environment, the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whethel
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
' dNING- CHAIN OF CUSTODY/ANALYSIS REQUEST
2527 FRESNO STREET · FRESNO, CA 93721 · (559) 268-7021 FAX: (559) 268-0740
SUBMITTER INFORMATION:
RESULTS RELEASED TO:
ADDRESS:
AT'rENTION: ATTENTION: ATTENTION:
.. ( ) ,. ( ) ,, ( )
~..x ( ) ~..x ( ) ~..x ( )
CONTRACT ~ OR P.O.
ISAMPLE STATUS
C3 ROUTINE
Q REPEAT
C~ OTHER
· BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLE SOURCE
PUBUC SYSTEM
PRIVATE WELL
SURFACE WATER
[~] CONSTRUCTION [~] OTHER
SAMPLE INFORMATION:
KEY FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS SAMPLE TYPE
BS - Biosolids GW - Ground Water
DW - Drinking Water SF = Surface Water
REPORTS FOR:
COUNTY: [:3 FRESNO I~ KINGS [~] MADERA
[~ STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES [:3 OTHER:
PROJECT:
SITE: .~,~'/,~/:f,,/,,,,~ ~'V"' .~'
PROJECT #: C,~"(/~ ~'/
PROJECT MANAGER:
SL - Soil/Solid
ST - Storm Water
WW - Waste Water
~ MERCED
C3 TULA~E
REQUESTED
SAMPLE ID
DATE
SAMPLE
TYPE
uSE- aomzs)
COMMENTS:.
RELINQUISHED BY
'COMPANY
iRECEIVED BY
COMPANY
Central Sierra Environmental
1400 Easton Drive Bldg. E Ste 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309
ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC.
Analytical ~ Consulting Seevices
4309 Armour Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93308
Attention: Mark Magargee
Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG
(661) 395-0'539
FAX (661) 395-3069
Laboratory No:
Date Received:
Date Reported:
Contract No. :
Date Sampled :
Time Sampled :
0210153-1
10/10/02
10/~5/02
10/10/02
14:09
Description:
Influent, Sullivan Petroleum
Sampled by Tim Martin
REPORT OFANALYTICAL RESULTS
Constituents
Results Units
DLR Method/Ref
· BTXEM in Gas
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
· Total Xylenes
TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO
(MTBE)
1900
58
290
32
220
55O0
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
2.5 8020/1
2.5 8020/1
2.5 8020/1
2.5 8020/1
2.5 8020/1
ppmv 250 GASLUFT/8
cc:
Analyzed : 10/11/02
Method Reference
1. EPA SW~846. 1994 3rd Edition
8. DOHS LUFT Manual
JMM
~%- Rob~/rt a~r[ez-,-'£abor~t~/~ Mana~ez/
mg/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per million~
ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C
mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C
ND : None Detected N/A : Not AppliCable
NSS : Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis
DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes
This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detechment.
ATTACHMENT 4.
LABORATORY REPORT FOR VAPOR
ZALCO I_AE)ORATORIF:S, INC.
Analytical ~ Consulting Servioes
4309 Armour Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93308
(661) 395-0539
FAX (661) 395-3069
Central Sierra Environmental
1400 Easton Drive Bldg. E Ste 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Attention: Mark Magargee
Sample Type: 'Gas/NGL/LPG
Laboratory No:
Date Received:
Date Reported:
Contract No. :
Date Sampled :
Time Sampled :
DeScription:
Influent, Sullivan Petroleum
Sampled by Tim Martin
REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Constituents
Results
Units
0210153-1
10/10/02
10/15/02
10/10/02
14:09
DLR
Method/Ref
BTXEM in Gas
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO
(MTBE)
1900
58
290
32
220
5500
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
ppmv
2.5 8020/1
2.5 8020/1
2.5 8020/1
2.5 8020/1
2.5 8020/1
250 GASLUFT/8
CC:
Analyzed : 10/11/02
Method Reference
1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition
8. DO}{S LUFT Mal~ual
JMM
f~ Robert C0r~ez,-'~,abor~to~ Mana~e~/
mg/b : milligrams per Liter (parts per million.~
ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion?
umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C
mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C
ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable
MSS : Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis
DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes
This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment.
ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC.
Analytical & Consulting Services
4309 Armour Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93308
(661) 395-0539
FAX (661) 395-3069
Central Sierra Environmental
1400 Easton Drive Bldg.E Ste 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Attention: Mark Magargee
Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG
Laboratory No: 0210153-2
Date Received: 10/10/02
Date Reported: 10/15/02
Contract No. :
Date Sampled : 10/10/02
Time Sampled : 14:09
Description:
Effluent, Sullivan Petroleum
Sampled by Tim Martin
REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Constituents
Results Units DLR Method/Ref
BTXEM in Gas
Methyl reft-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
0.31 ppmv 0.1 8020/1
ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1
ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1
ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1
ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1
TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO
ND ppmv 10 GASLUFT/8
CC:
Analyzed : 10/11/02 JMM
Method Reference
1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition
8. DOHS LUFT Manual
~%- Ro~rt ~or~ez, La~ra~0r/Mana~/
mg/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per million}
ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
umhos/cm : micromho$/cm at 25 C
mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C
ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable
N$S : Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis.
DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes
This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested: Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment.
"2~!5~
Chain ofCustody~Record Page / of '/
ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. ,-~ '--
4309 Armour Ave. pr~T, le-~h~"~ ~[I~ ~' h ~' ' '('l-'~
Bakersfield, California 93308 0 RUSH By:.__
(861} 395~539 0 ~pedited (1 Week) F~e~d L~*
Fax (661) 39~3069 Ice Chest ~ , Temperature,~ ~ Routine (2 Weeks) wo~ Order ~
Ci~..~taje, Zip . / Repo. A.entio~ . M~ ; ~ ~
Sample Dam ~.0 T,~" LegaISample Description Containers ~ ~ ~ ~ o
ID~ Sampled Sampled ~ KW Below ~ Ty~' ~ ~ ~ 8 Remarks
·
NOTE: Samples are discarded 30 days after results are reported unless other arrangements are made, KEY; * G-Glass P-Plastic M-Metal T.Tedlar V-VOA
I-~za~dous samp es w I be returned lo client or disposed of at clienfs expense. ** W.Water WW-Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid O-Other
Whit~e - Off[ce Copy Yellow - Lab Copy Pink - Client Copy *** A-Acid, pH<2 (HCI,HNO3,H2SO4) S-NaOH+ZnAc C-Caustic, pH>10 (NaOH)
ZAL( O LABORATORIES, INC;..
Analytical & Consulting Services
4309 Armour Avenue
· Bakersfield, California 93308
(661) 395-05~)9
FAX (661) 395-3069
Central Sierra Environmental
1400 Easton Drive Bldg.E Ste 132
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Attention: Mark Magargee
Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG
Laboratory No: 0212180-1
Date Received: 12/12/02
Date RepOrted: 12/17/02
Contract No.
Date Sampled : 12/12/02
Time Sampled : 14:05
Description:
Influent, Project Name:Sullivan Pet.
Sampled by Tim Martin
REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Cons t ituent s
Results
Units
DLR Method/Ref
BTXEM in Gas
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Benzene
Toluene.
Ethylbenzene.
Total Xylenes
TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO
(MTBE)
2200
110
320
44
260
860O
ppmv 2.5 8020/1
ppmv 2.5 8020/1
ppmv 22.5 8020/1
ppmv 2.5 8020/1
ppmv 2.5 8020/1
ppmv 250 GASLUFT/8
cc:
Analyzed : 12/12/02
Method Reference
1. EPA SW-846. 1994' 3rd Edition
8. DOHS LUFT Manual
JMM ·
Robert Cort~z, ~aboratory Manager
~/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per million)
ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion!
u~%hos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C
mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C
ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable
NSS : Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis
DLR : Detectioa Limit for Reporting Purposes
This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment.
ZALC0 LABORATORIES, INC.
430@ Armour Ave.
Bakersfield, California 93308
(661) 395~)539
Fax (601) 395-3069
Chain of Custody Record
,<; . 4.x Z-
_~.,./,/!, ,.. ,.,
Turnaround Time:
Pro~ect T~le I~ RUSH By:__
OExpedited (1 Week)
Ice Chest # , Temperature,°C [~ Routine (2 Weeks) work Order #
Field Log #
Company Name
O F~
Results
Ci~, S'ate, ZiP '' ' I Repo~ A. ention
~ample '" Date ~me Ty~" Legal Sample Description Containers
IDJ Sampled Sainted S~ KW Bel~ J Ty~'
NOTE: Samples are discarded 30 days ~al~er results are reporled unles~ other arrangements a~e made. KEY' * G-Glass P-Plastic M-Metal T-Tedlar V-VOA
Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client's expense. ~' W-Water WW-Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid O-Othe~
w~;t~ _ r3~,-~ r, .... ¥~llnw - I ~h (~.nr~/ Pink' - Client ~,nr)v ***' A-Acid, pH<2 (HCI,HNO3,H2SO4) S-NaOH+ZnAc C-Caustic, pH>lo (NaOH)