Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNDERGROUND TANK FILE #2Winston H. Hickox Secretary for Environmental Protection California RegionalcentralWatervalleyQUalitY.Region Control Board . Robert Schneider, Chair Gray Davis Fresno Branch Office Governor Intemet Address: http:#www.swrcb.ca.gov/-rwqcb5 ' 1685 E Street, Fresno, California 93706-2020 Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910 11 December 2002 · ~./}o[~{ .c,,.~d ,,, 57 ~..~' Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836 Ce{ t~./~j,°''- ~ ('~ [O'Oe~ t ......... Mr.-.Dav. id .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 Third Quarter 2002 Progress Report (Report) dated 14 November 2002 and prepared by Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield' (CSE). The Report documents a groundwater monitoring event performed on 22 August 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 in groundwater samples collected from monitoring and soil vapor extraction (SVE) wells on-site. The lateral extent of impacted groundwater is undefined. A municipal well is approximately 1,000 feet downgradient of the site. We request that quarterly groundwater monitoring continue. Analysis for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) has not been performed. Analysis for lead scavenger compounds and to characterize inorganic water quality may be discontinued. A soil vapor extraction (SVE) system !s operating on-site. Installation of off-site monitoring wells is postponed until approval of a Traffic Control Workplan and encroachment permit by the California Department of Transportation. Summaries of the project, the Report, and our comments follow A summary of the_ '~f°5-~ ii-lncfud~d-i~-6u'r let{e~ d'~ted 19 J~uly~2~0i527- .... .................. Report Summary CSE conducted groundwater monitoring on 22 August 2002. DePth-to-groundwater ranged from 118.25 to 120.02 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 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 . California Environmental Protection Agency ~ Recycled Paper Mr. David Bird 2 11 December 2002 the lead Scavengers 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), and 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) by EPA Method 8260B. TPH-g was detected at 64,000, 53, and 12,000 micrograms per liter (gg/L) in the samples collected from MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3 respectively. Benzene was detected at 1,700and 63 ggFL in MW-1 and MW- 3, respectively, but was not detected in-MW-2. ~TPH-g concentrations remained within one order of magnitude in MW-1 and MW-3 compared to the previous monitoring event. TPH-g concentrations decreased by one order of magnitude in MW-2. MTBE was detected in MW- 1 at 290,000 gg/L by EPA Method 8021 and was confirmed at 61,000 [[g/L by EPA Method 8260B. MTBE was detected at 110 and 44,000 gg/L, respectively in MW-2 and MW-3 by EPA Method 8021 and was confirmed in these samples at 28 and 11,000 gg/L, respectively. MTBE concentrations detected by EPA Method 8260B MTBE concentrations detected in MW-2 decreased by one order of magnitude. TAME was detected at '11 and 3.7 gg/L in MW-1 and MW-3, respectively. Samples collected from MW-1 through MW-3 were also analyzed for general minerals, nitrate (as NO3) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 250 to 310 milligrams per Liter (mg/L). Specific conductance ranged from 480 to 550 mg/L. Bicarbonate was detected at 140 mg/L in all samples. Nitrate was detected from 1 to 38 mg/L. TKN was not detected. During the Fourth Quarter 2002, CSE will conduct quarterly groundwater monitoring, install three off- site monitoring wells, SVE remediation equipment, initiate SVE operation, and conduct a SVE pilot' test· Comments Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments: . Gasoline range petroleum constituentsl including MTBE, have migrated through the permeable ~ sandy/gravelly site soils and have beer detected in groundwater beneath the southern portion of the site.' (,~'"Ft~ ~h~g~~ 0.25 feet thick was meagured on groundwater in SVE well VWzld during - the~-~ " Thir~ Quarter 2002 monitoring event and the three previous events. MTBE was detected in VW-ld ..... atwe.ry-h, igh-maximum-concentrations-of-471,OO;OOO~andq7300;O00-~tg/L-dufing.the~ first~and~secon& ........ momtonng events, respectively. MTBE has been detected at concentrations up to 61,000 [tg/L in monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3. MTBE concentrations have remained within one order of magnitude of those detected during the previous monitoring event in two monitoring wells. The lateral extent of MTBE in soil and impacted groundwater are undefined. MTBE in groundwater may be transported greater distances away from the release p(~int 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 impac'ts to the municipal well. We understand that you began SVE remediation system operation during early'O~ otb~er 20-~and that stationary source compliance monitorin re uired b the · .~.~--- .... __~_ . . . g q Y San Joaqmn Valley Unified 3hr Pollution Control District's Authority to Construct permit was conducted on 10 October 2002. V:\UGT~ProjectsXJDW_files\2002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron GW 12-02.doc Mr. David 'Bird 11 December 2002 After SVE system startup, a pilot test should be conducted to determine extraction well airfloTM rates and the radius of influence (ROI) of the shallow, intermediate, and deep screened intervals. We approved a proposed SVE pilot test (vacuum influence test) by our letter dated 25 September 2001. We request that the final remediation design specifications and pilot test data be submitted by 19 March 2003. If design changes are not considered necessary, your consultant should so indicate. We concur with CSE that quarterly groundwater monitoring should be continued. Groundwater samples should be analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, and the volatile organic compounds..usually reported in a full EPA Method 8260 analysis (usually 63 to 67 compounds). The EPA Method 8260 analysis should also include BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME. ~_The EPA Metho&8260 ~OCs_ w~ere not included~as-analytes-.for-the Fh'st-and-Second-Quarter-2002- monitoring events. CSE indicated in the Second Quarter 2002 Progress Report that these (63 to 67) compounds would be analytes for the Third Quarter 2002 monitoring event. The analysis was not .performed during the Third Quarter 2002 event. We require this analysis to characterize chemicals of concern in groundwater beneath your site. You must perform this analysis during the First Quarter 2003 monitoring event if the analysis was not performed during the Fourth Quarter 2002 event. If your consultant is unable to perform this analysis, you are to contact this office prior to the next monitoring event or by 31 January 2003. Analysis for 1,2-DCA, and EDB may be discontinued since these analytes have not been detected during the last three monitoring events. Analysis for general minerals, nitrate, and TKN may also be discontinued' since these analyses have been performed twice. Please submit a groundwater monitoring report for the Third Quarter monitoring event by 31 January 2002. 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 indicates that they have 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). The Traffic Control Plan and encroachment permit must be approved prior to installation of the off-site monitoring wells. We request-that-you ~contact~this office-by ~31-January2002 to-~advi-s~-us-~vh~n-yO~-~xpect to receive' approval of the Traffic Control Plan. We will subsequently provide a new due date for a report of findings describing the monitoring well installations. 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. V:\UGT~Projects'dDW_files\2002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron GW 12-02.doc Mr. David Bird 4 11 December 2002 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. ne , City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enc Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure V:\UGTkProjectskJDW_files\2002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron GW 12-02.doc Central ronmental November 18, 2002 EnVir° t Consultant Mr. Ray Chopra California Department of Transportation 5156 North Blackstone Avenue Fresno, California 93710-6702 TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN FOR GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT AT THE SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION 2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA (CRWQCB-CVR CASE #~T15000836) 'Dear Mr. Chopra: In response to the State of California Department of Transportation (DOT) request, pertaining to a proposed right-of-way encroachment permit, Central Sierra Environmental, Inc. (CSE) has prepared the following traffic control plan, which outlines CSE's proposed methodology for the installation of three groundwater monitoring wells within the California DOT right-of-way of 23rd Street (State Highway 178) (see Figure I - Site Location Map). Two groundwater monitoring wells are to be installed within the sidewalk on the south side of 23rd Street and one groundwater monitoring well is to be installed within the sidewalk on the north side of 23rd Street. Monitoring well MW-4 will be installed in the sidewalk on the north side of 23rd Street and .10 feet east of "L" Street, monitoring well MW-5 will be installed in the sidewalk on the south side of 23rd Street and 10 feet east of "L" Street, and monitoring well MW-6 will be installed in the sidewalk on the south side of 23rd Street and 75 feet west of "L" Street (see Figure 2 - Plot Plan for the proposed monitoring well locations). The proposed groundwater monitoring wells are being required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region (CRWQCB- CVR), in its letter dated September 3, 2002, to further assess the downgradient limits of gasoline- containing groundwater discovered in association with the fueling facilities at the Downtown Chevron Service Station, which is previously located at the northwest corner of 23rd Street and "L" Street (see Attachment I for the CRWQCB-LR Correspondence). On behalf of the property owner of the Downtown Chevron Service Station, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC, CSE requests that California DOT.approve the encroachment permit request. SITE LOCATION AND CONTACT PERSONS The site is located at 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, Kern County, Califomia (see Figure I - 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 1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309 (661) 325-4862 -~ Fax (661) 325-5126, censenv@aol.com Mr. Ray Chopra California Department of Transportation November 18, 2002 - Page 2 northwestern 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 Ddve, 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. 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 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 Mr. Ray Chopra California Department of Transportation November 18, 2002 - Page 3 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 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. 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 bodng (SC-l) adjacent to the location of the product piping breach. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, ahd MTBE were detected in the soil sample collected from soil bodng 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 drilled dudng 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 Mr. Ray Chopra California Department of Transportation November 18, 2002 - Page 4 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 boring 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 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 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 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 (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 wa~ encountered. 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 s°il 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 Mr. Ray Chopra California Department of Transportation November 18, 2002 - Page 5 dUal-walled percussion, air rotary ddll fig 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 ddlling 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 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 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 TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 250 rog/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 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. 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/l. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well VW-ld. 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 with the condition that a VET work plan be provided to CRWQCB-CVR to determine the extraction well flow rates, and the ROI within the shallow, intermediate, and deep zones. In addition, the CRWQCB-CVR Mr. Ray ChOpra California Department of Transportation November 18, 2002 - Page 6 required full-time operation of the VES to be accomplished using a mobile treatment system, or the construction of a fixed treatment system connected to the vapor extraction wells by underground piping. HFA's CAP Addendum, dated August 13, 2001, recommended that upon installation of the vapor extractiOn well field and initiation of VES operations at the site, a VET will be performed to determine the extraction well flow rates and the ROI within the shallow, intermediate, and deep zones. The VET will be conducted using vapor extraction wells VW-ls, VW-li, and VW-ld as the extraction wells and vapor extraction wells VW-2, VW-3, and VW-4, as well as combination vapor extraction and groundwater monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3 as the observation wells. Step tests will be performed by extracting soil vapors at three different vacuums for a duration of 20 minutes or until vacuum pressures have stabilized. Selected vaCuum steps will be one-third of the maximum vacuum achieved by the blower. Flow rates and corresponding wellhead vacuums and subsurface vacuums will be monitored, and the data will be recorded on a VET recording log. The results of the test will be. summarized graphically and in tabular form, and the information will be utilized to calculate the ROI for various flow rates and the intrinsic soil permeability of the extracted zone. At the beginning and end of the step test, vapor samples will be collected in TedlarTM bags from the extraction well and analyzed by a California State-certified laboratory for TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBEo The results will be presented to the CRWQCB-CVP, as part of a quarterly progress report. The CRWQCB-CVR letter, dated September 25, 2001 approved implementation of the VET 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 2 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 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-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. 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 Mr. Ray Chopra California Department of Transportation November 18, 2002 - Page 7 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 bodng MW-l, reaching a maximum concentration of 10 mg/kg inthe 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 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 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. 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 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. Because Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC was unable to obtain an access agreement with the adjacent property owner to position a remediation equipment compound on that property, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC made arrangements for the remediation equipment compound to be located in the southeast corner of the service station property in the landscaped area to the east of the petroleum release. On May 13, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR ATC #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 has been constructed and wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW-'Ii, VW-ld, VW-2, VW-3, and VW-4 have been 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. On October 10, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR representatives conducted an inspection of the VES and observed source compliance vapor sampling. Mr. Ray Chopra California Department of Transportation November 18, 2002 - Page 8 The CRWQCB-CVRi 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 drilled to the south of the site (see Figure 2 for the proposed monitoring well location). GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN Three soil borings will be drilled and completed as groundwater monitoring wells to further assess the downgradient limits of hydrocarbon-containing groundwater (see Figure 2). It is anticipated that groundwater will be encountered at a depth of 114 fbg. Drilling will be accomplished with a truck- mounted, dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig. Soil samples will be collected at 15-foot intervals beginning at a depth of 15 fbg. The lowermost sleeve at each sample interval will be screened for total organic vapors with a portable photoionization detector. The middle sample sleeve will be immediately sealed with TeflonTM film, capped, security taped, labeled, and placed on ice for transport to a California State-Certified Laboratory for analysis. The three groundwater-monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with CRWQCB-CVR specifications, and monitoring well permits will be obtained from Kern County Department of Environmental Health Services (KCDEHS). The wells will be constructed in accordance with the State of California Department of Water Resources Water Well Standards, Bulletins 74-81 and 74-90, as well as KCDEHS regulations. The soil borings will be drilled to a depth 130 fbg. The wells will be cased with 30 feet of 2-inch slotted PVC casing and 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 grout will extend .from the surface downward to the 91-foot bentonite seal placed above the filter pack. Locking, watertight well covers will be set in concrete to protect and secure the wellheads (see Attachment 2 for the Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures and Attachment 3 for the Monitoring Well Construction Details). Following the installation of the groundwater monitoring wells, CSE will develop the wells by surging and bailing to remove drilling residues and to produce Iow-turbidity groundwater. Prior to sampling, the three proposed and the existing groundwater-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 (after 3 to 4 casing volumes of groundwater have been removed). All purged groundwater will be stored in covered, 55-gallon Department of Transportation Mr. Ray Chopra' Califomia Department of Transportation November 18, 2002 - Page 9 (DOT)-approved drums, and will be disposed of at an appropriate, off-site licensed disposal/recycling facility. 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 soil samples and groundwater samples will be analyzed for TPH as gasoline using EPA Method 8015 (M) and BTEX and MTBE using EPA Method 8021 with MTBE confirmed and quantified using EPA Method 8260. The three proposed monitoring wells will be surveyed relative to the existing monitoring wells and 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 each well to an accuracy of +0.01 foot. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN This document presents CSE's provisions for traffic control during the drilling of the three proposed monitoring wells. Monitoring well MW-4 is proposed to be positioned approximately 4 feet from the edge of the pavement within the sidewalk on the northern side of 23rd Street and monitoring wells MW-5 and MW-6 are proposed to be positioned approximately 4 feet from the edge of the pavement within the sidewalk on the southern side of 23rd Street (see Figure 2). Included with this document are vicinity and site maps. The following traffic control provisions will be performed in accordance with the California DOT Exhibit T-13 (see Attachment 4 for the California DOT Traffic Control Exhibits). Provisions for Pedestrians Where facilities exist, a minimum sidewalk or bike path width of 4 feet shall be maintained at all times for Safe passage through the work area. At no time shall pedestrians be diverted onto a portion of the street used for vehicular traffic. At locations where adjacent alternative walkways cannot be provided, appropriate signs and barricades shall be installed in advance of the closure at the limits of construction and at the nearest crosswalk or intersection to divert pedestrians across the street (see Attachment 4). Protection of Traffic Adequate provisions shall be made for the protection of the traveling public. Warning signs, lights, safety devices, and other measures required for the public safety shall conform to the requirements of the "Manual of Traffic Controls" issued by the State of California, DOT (see Attachment 4). Minimum Interference with Traffic All work shall be planned and carried out so that there will be the least possible inconvenience to the traveling public. The permittee will place properly attired tagger(s) to stop and warn conventional highway traffic. Traffic shall not be unreasonably delayed. Flagging procedures shall be in conformance with the Mr. Ray Chopra California Department of Transportation November 18, 2002 - Page 10 "Instructions to Flaggers" pamphlet and/or "Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones" issued by California DOT (see Attachment 4). Clean up Right-of-Way Upon completion of the work, all scraps, materials, etc., shall be entirely removed, and the right-of-way shall be left in as presentable a condition as existed before work started. As is indicated in the work plan for groundwater assessment, the surface completion of the monitoring wells will consist of locking, water- tight, traffic-rated well covers set in concrete to protect and secure the well heads (see Attachment 4). Central Sierra Environmental, Inc., trusts that you will find this Traffic Control Plan to your satisfaction. Copies of the Standard Encroachment Permit Application and Check Number 1660 in the amount of $320.00 are included as Attachments 5 and 6 of this Traffic Control Plan. On behalf of Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC, Central Sierra Environmental LLC, Inc., requests that the California DOT approve the encroachment permit request for performing the proposed investigation activities within the California DOT right-of-way. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mark R. Magargee at (661) 325-4862 or at e-mail address censenv@aol.com. Respectfully submitted, Consulting Hydrogeologist Central Sierra Environmental, LLC. MRM:jlt Enclosures: CC: Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Plot Plan Attachment 1 Attachment 2. Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 CRWQCB-CVR Correspondence Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures Well Construction Details California DOT Traffic Control Exhibits Standard Encroachment Permit Application Copy of CSE Check Number 1660 Mr. Tim Sullivan, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR Mr. Howard H. Wines, III, BFDESD ~ :: III/ fl ~ ....... ~'~,~.',204~ ""x"'>'.,,. -~?..~' ' ' .,.:';'-E~-:.~'T.~' ~ ';., / -;- ~ ', .-~.L~'k~[l~ I1~ ~o,~~' ~//' fi'~-- ,%~;~-~ ~,T~. ~-~ .......... :'":.\~^,~o~,~ -.-:;; ~?.:.."'" '~,, "' ~ :' C~, ;%~\'~ ~ ':.':; ........................ :;;;flBl~r~ll .,'-th ;;~';' '~0.''' ~ ~--~~ '~a ....... ,"=0 ,',~t,, ~:~ ~,~';,,.;,,~.~i% ~ ' . ~ ,, ". ~ *,' ~ ~ ~.~ " ,, '~. · uuuI - ~ : "~ ','[[~ ............. ' '; ~ ~-- ~ ..... -/ "~ ' ~ -- = * '"1 [ -- -- ~ '."~~ ~ ~?.,, .......... ~~ ~. ~,~ : ~ ::' ~T .:, ,~,s '-..~, ~ i :.~ ~ 'fi, iiI ~ '~" -' ~ :' -~. ~ . I~/ .' / 'b I,.11 ' ;, ~s :' '~-'~ ~ --" · '~ ' ~' " " ' I ' ~ - ....... ...~ .... ~ ~ .... ,,: . _, ~:~11 · e ~ .· ~L:~o.~,," .... : ~~: ~:~, ~ ':,~,~ . ~~3 IIL~" " ~~~~ ~A ~~~' ~ J~ I -. · '-~ ...... .- - ,z. ¢ .: ~.,~:~-: '~ ~.7.f~'~' : x.: .~ :ii ' II-~ 7 ~ /.~ X~~'-' -A'z; 7~..~-. ~ ,~-~ ~~ ~ - ~, ~ ~~~:::'.~ ~_ / /?J(~:' ,~~11:?.~ I ........... . ......... - .... 1~.~ ,.~~ ~~'~~~ '~ .~'::~.;;~ ~- ~ ~' ~'~ ~ ' /" ::'-.~- ~1 =1~ ~ - ~-I~i~;~~', Z.Z.? +' ~¥ SIT~ LOC~~~~: i'~ ~ : ..: ~ ' . , ~:~'I '.~': ~ :~ ' .... ~ ~~1~ ~x ~. ,9~ d: ,;?' OS'.". 0 I~o~ ' x~.' I / .*". ~ · ~ ~~i;"~.~:'" ~ ~' -""~ ' ~ ~y-' . - ,,, -~---~-~._- ~ ...... ~ = .. : ~ . ~ LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC o o.~ l .IL~ ~ DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE' STATION m m i i m m i i ~ , m/ 2317 "L" STREET o~ t.ooo ~.ooo m ~'~ i ..ooo ~ ~'~ ~ I ~ BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~ 0.S I ~LOMETER ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ FIGURE I - SITE LOCATION MAP USGS i CAR MINI MART WASH n MW-2 DISPENSER ISLANDS : /COMPOUND [ CANOPY ~ i / _ ~^sg,~N, UST SPLIT-CHAMBERED i ' ' · GAS ')LIN: UST EXPLORATORY : Mw-3 a-5 ~E.CH ,,,~_~ APPROACH SIDEWALK 23RD STREET SCALE IN FEET 0 '1,5 30 m r- 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 (~) VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN · .~ PROPOSED MONITORING WELL CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC REVISION DATE: OCTOBER 29, 2002 ATTACHMENT 1. CRWQCB-CVR CORRESPONDENCE Winston H. Hickox Secretary for · Environmental Protection California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Robert Schneider, Chair Fresno Branch Office Intemet Address: http'./Iwww, swrcb.ca, gov/-rwqcb5 · 3614 East Ashlan Avenue, Fresno, California 93726 Phone(559) 445-5116 · 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, California 93301 UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L " STREET, BAKERSFIE~, KERN COUN~ 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 0VITBE) 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 groundwater. 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 floTM 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 Recycled Paper Mr. David Bird - 2 - 3 September 20?2 Work Plan Summary . CSE proposes to install two monitoring wells.(MW4 and' MWs) in (downgradient) positions southeast of the site to further define the lateral extent of fu:st-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..MW4 and. MW5 will be installed in "L" Street near the northeast and southeast comers of 23ra 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 to the 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-surmnarized reports, we have the following comments: Gasoline range petroleum constituent~, 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-ld 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 defined. We appro~,e 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 23ra Street to further define the downgradient extent of impacted groundwater to the west. Please submit a mal>'~g.the proposed location of this 'additional well by 3 October 2002. ~'i.., ..?i The Second Quarter 2002 groundwater monitoring report is due by 1 October 2002. U:\UGT~DW_files~2002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron MWWP 8-02.doc ,Mr. David Bird - 3 .- 3 September 2002 MTBE may be transported in groundwater greater distances 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 1II, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield~4~,~o enclosure Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosureX,,o U:\UGTUDW_ _filesk2002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron MWWP 8-02.doc ATTACHMENT 2. 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. Ddlling 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 ddlling 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 ~ 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 matedal is encountered, the ddlling 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 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 s0il, 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 ddll 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 bodngs 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 cleadng an additional 4 feet is performed. If probing is met with refusal, then trained personnel advance a hand auger without excessive fome. 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 ddlling 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 dnse, 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. Cuffings 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 pertineht 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. Asoil boring log is completed for each soil bo~ing 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 penetra{ion 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 ddlling 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 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 matedal 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 Bodng 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 bddging 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 bodngs; · 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 ATTACHMENT 3. WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Client Name Project Name Site Address Date Completed Supervised by Sullivans Petroleum Company, LLC Downtown Chewon Service Station 2317 "L" Street~ Bakersfield~ Califomia Proposed Mark R. Ma(Jar(lee CHG. RG Well No. MW-4 thru MW-6 Auquifer Unconfined WELL COVER 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 permeab~ity 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 borehole 2ft~ Concrete 2 feet Cement Grout 91 feat · Bentonite chips 2 inches Schedua140 PVC 95 #3 Monterey Sand -114 fl~ lOO r~j 0.02 inch 0.5 inch 130 ro~ 8 inches 130 fbg BOTTOM WELL CAP CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC (661 325-4862 1400 Easton Drive, Building E, Suite 132 Bakersfield, California 93309 ATTACHMENT 4. CALIFORNIA DOT TRAFFIC CONTROL EXHIBITS ...... Conli 50' m~. IpiCln~ SHOULDER CLOSURE _.--:.. ---:~~ .-. ~o~., ' ' .~,_ ':::::: .=-~~~I LANE CLOSURE AT EXIT RAMP ~ c. LANE CLOSURE c. AT ENTRANCE RAMP S4CIN PANEL S~ZE IAI icj 30", 30" LEGEND TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM FOR LANE CLOSURE ON FREEWAYS AND EXPRESSWAYS MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS I T- I0 TYPICALLANECLOSURE '1. '1. I. TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM FOR LANE CLOSURE ON MULTILANE CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAYS MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS ~ TYPICAL LANE CLOSURE WITH REVERSIBLE CONTROL S # Ihe CI8 Io~ Il:IT s.~n m)uid Icao. wdhm "STALE H~H~Y ~HSIRU~ NEXT ~mal~ is ~ m Sec~ ~ d ~ J PIKe C~ "LANE I~.OSEO" lO When I ~ c~ "T~FFIC ~NIR~- WMT FOR PR~ ~R" s~ ' 'iii - ' I!.o.! !!!~1 cn IDIQci.4 ICI ~ beclen of ItMd ,see~e Ikmdl T% Md be~ Ikk~ I TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM FOR LANE CLOSURE ON TWO LANE CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAYS MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS ' I T- 13 TYPICAL RAMP CLOSURES NOTES; I, 4 BI.iCiCleS aha# c0~10~m Tlellic Co. Iron" I~ Types I, II m Ill ~ c~luftl ~lliq ~ INk In lieu ~ pia~ Ihe '*RAMP CLOSED" Signs. ~k ~ mange ~flay plates wllh the ~d "CLOSED" ml~ the ~1111~ ihla ~ I~1 I1~ Ii All le~l wmn~ I~ ~iaM~ I~1~ ~ ~ wdh IIigi i~ cai Ulld ~ mg~ Ii~ . . · . ~ .-~:'-~,' EXIT RAMP OR CONNECTOR ~c~ ® WITH AUXILIARY LANE . ® . ~--'- --- - --: -- WITH TURNING POCKETS ~ ~ WITHOLJT TURNING POCKETS DETAILS FOR RAMP CLOSURES MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS J' T- 14 PublL-,hed by Building Ne.wq, ~ 305~ C~ed~,nd Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90034 (213) 2Q2-7775 SIXTH EDITION n$1itute Of ~talion Engineers I Calilo~nia SeClion APPROVED AND ENDORSED BY American Public Wod~ s Associalion Southern C;~lilornia Chaplet / ./ IT Y RAFFIC NGINEERS .... Work Area Traffic Conlro~ Handbook Work Area 'Traffic Control Handbook PREFACE TO 1985 SIXTH EDITION Th,$ handbook ~s inlended Io se~,l al · ilal~da, rcl fo~ ~1~ gl *o~ a~eas ,n pubhc slreols b~ robes, ~nhol 8~ oiho; agorot re~e Tins co,non ~s m subslanhal conlorma~e wi~h S(ale ~ F~r~ and ,s enoo, seo by APWA, ITE and CTE, Nora,rig conla~ned in Ih~s ~and~k is lnlend~ Io eslablish or creale a legal stanra~¢ gl ¢onducI or 0uly Ioward Ihe public. The oJleria lot the '..,,n.s~e~ SO,ely for Ihe pul~SO Or ~lormaliO~ ~O TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Ir, lr O,.luC hot~ .................................................................... . 1 General Inlormahon ................................................................. 1 AuIhOhly ......................................................................... Re$~on$~bHdy ................................................................... P~-~nn"~9 ............................................ ~ ......................... 2 Temgorary TralhC Lanes .......................................................... 3 Csnlrol. Warning and Guidance Devices ,,., ............................ 4/8 ~ .~ '¢omonl SInpmgrMarkmg ..................................................... 8/9 O~,Qg,r,g gl Ezraval~on$ .......................................................... 9 ~ocr..$1r~nn Tralh¢ ........................................................... 9 IhL. 5 H,'lhO/3$ L~Onslruchon $~gns ......................................... , .............. 11/16 ','/ammg Signs ................................... . ...................... 17/19 ¢;eOul~lory $~gn$ ............................................................. 20/21 Oeh~ealors ................................................................... 22/23 Ba~r,cades ...................................................................... 24 ~alo 8ridging ............. ; ................................................. 25 In$~ruchonS Io Flagger$ ................................................... ?.8/27 h~nOr Work ................................................................... 28/29 ','/ork Area ~n Parking Lane or Shoulder ........................ 30 · v,'c~'. Area m Cenler gl Slreel ........ . ................................ 31 C:o;mg gl Righl Lane ..................................................... 32/33 ~lo;~ng o~ Loll Lane ..................................................... 34/35 '...~os~ng of Midole Lano ................................................... 36/37 ,.; r.,s,n0 gl HaH Roadway ................................................ 38/39 '.~os,nr.j.Ol LOCal Slreel .................................................... 40/41 · r:o~osman Conlrol ............................................... 42/43 ,','.:,~ ~e¥ond Inlersechon .......................................... 44/47 ,',?. ',',';Into InlerSechon ............................................. 48 1 -- INTRODUCTION Tho purpo.~ of this ~unnnl i~ tn sol, forth tho blmi¢ principh,s nn(I r~mnmend~l s~n(Innls ~ ~ oh~rvcd hy nil tlmse Imrform work in u public tLrooL to i)mvido s;tfu ;m(I efft~tivu wt~rk llre~% nmi ~ w~nl~ conL~J, J)ro~ct l~n(I exit(life vuhiculur i~lesLrian 2 __ GENERAL INFORMATION Propor tm~¢ ~ntml ~¢hni(lueS sh~ll ~ o~ectively iKili~,d I. I{~du¢o ~JdenL~, ~. ~linJmJ~o Injg~ Lo w~tko~ nmi Lhe public. R. I{odu¢o [IJlnla~o [e In'iv~to nmi publi¢ prnl~ly, includig~ 4, Minimizu Lil. I~ibiliLy o[ ~Jilim~ ~lmJ liLi~nLion ~Sin~ [roIII consL~cLion ~nu nccidonL~, " 5, ~mJuco con~usJon ~ moLorJsL~. fi. l{x~diLo Lnt[~ ~ow. ?. hnlJmVO public ml~Liuns. in order Lo m~ure driver un(lemtnndinK of tm¢~c (levice~ in work aro:m fL i~ n~e~JJr~ La ~L=mdnnlarixu Lbo [YI~ menL o~ ~iKns, b~rH~dce ~nd dcllnuuL.m. NnLi~nwidg ~L~mh~nls nrc ~eL ~urLh in ~eneml ~rm~ in [Ilo "M~mu:d nn Uni[n~ ConLrul Dcvice~ ~nr S[meL~ un(I Hi~hwnys" i)ubli~hml b~ [l~o U.S. I)opurLmenL ~ 'l'nm~lmmiLinn, Fudund I li~hwny Admini~LrnLhm. ~LaLe ~bmdanl~ lire established by h~,d deparLmunL~ i)urL~Liun nmi Iii~hwa~s und conLuin~ in mnnunl~ I)Ubli~hud hy ~uch 3 -- AUTHORITY No wm'k mn)' be performed in ~ny public H~ht-nf.w:~y withmlt I)ormi~iun from Lhe uuthurizin~ n~uncy. 'i'I~/I~c control rvquirvd h.y ~uch wnrk ~h,dl be in ~cconluncu with Lho pruvi.~ion.~ (,l' the lul. es~ edi[iun uf Lids q~unuul or (.he ~q:enc,v'.~ permit, 4 ~ RESPONSIBILITY Ail conLmcLnrs, permiLLees or nRrncies duinl4 work sLroeL~ or publi~ ril~hL-ul'-wn¥ I, (')bLain all noces.~r¥ permiLs, 2. Provide timely nutificntion to all .',ffvc~c(I a~vncics, inclu,I- ~ WOI'K'A;Oa ll'alllC {.;o~lll'Ol I'IBnQBooX woll( AI'On I faille ~O{llroD rI~'tQDOOK J Ii. Fire C. J)ul)artm~nL (d Public Work~. D. Jlu~ ,mi Transit Companies. :( ('~a)F(JJll;ILU tile wor'k with all affecLed u~encie8 Ihu Imblic. ,,,' I,y wFiLtcn ~)uticc. O( acce~ ]imJ~Lions made nucu~ary I,y thc 5. I.~t. II ami maintain required traffic control devices, ~;. Ih..vi,l~ ~a~m'~ whe~ required. ?. ached.lo and expedite [he work [o cause tho Io~L in- -,,,vcr'c,cv tn Lhe public. ~ ProviHe adequaLe saGhmard~ Gr workem and [he gene~) '~ .,N,~u,'e U,a~ ~.,:vey c/'ew~ and ~,~her employees working in ,,, .,l~.,,'~..t t. :~ traveled roadway wear flag~fng I,, l';~t,.,,I thc c-.struc[i.n site as rcq.ired [o insure Umt all ~,.., ~rt.. ;.'c, m Id;ice :md Opernting at ldl time~. II I.:c..~ve traffic control device~ when they are no longer 5- PLANNING Ar, .,,,,'k ~}mll he i)l:mne(I well ir/advance to keep traffic "h'tFi~C~.l,,ll% puhlic inconvenience ulid lost WOl'kinl~ time Lo 'l'h,,., r~'~l},msiblc ~hall visit the j.bsitu ... ,,r,. [,. I T,':dfic cun,li~inns. 2 [;,,q~n~ traffic controls. . :1 'F,.,Ffic hmo require~nents. I'r,,hlems oF access to t)riva[o property. Th(. type. number .mi I~a[ion or ~i~ns, b;.'ricadc~, light' .tli,J ,,thc,. [l'affic (levicc~ required For the work. ~,. Mcn.s ,,r mitiKa[in~ .ny .dvurue uffcc[ ul~n the blind or ,41,cf i.l~y~icully handicalq~Ud I~mOns. 6 m TEMPORARY TRAFFIC LANES 'reml)orar7 conLrol el' Lmffic in work nrea~ require~ the two- vi,~iol} .f adequate sLreeL space tu acc. mmcxlaLe thc traffic demands, particularly durinl~ tho pc:iN traffic hour~. Temporary tad'fie lane requirements for cm~structlon activities in arterial atreeta may be spoeifie<l on the permit, on the plan, or in thc contruct Sl)eeillcaLiona. The~ requiremenL~ constitute ;~ part of the work aLn'eemenl, anti mu~t be adhered Lo ~ rigidly uny otl~cr specificuLion, Mnin/emmce ncQviLle:~ in :n'Leri;d ~Lr(,eL~ .~h;lll bo' llhmn(,(I scheduled I~ minimia: Interference with tnDffic. ~r emerl~uncy situat, lo,ln, no malntenunce ~Lork shall encroach into ~:~oltraffie betwee~n th~~J t~ ~O0~.~. from '" o O',~.~n. unle ~ authorized, - ' - - "All [~es shall b~. a minimum of ten feel. width unlea.~ otherwise authorized. This ten-foot mhfimmn lane widLh is ea~ntiul {'or tho safe movement of.buses, trucks Lrailem. In addition, I.!3ne clcaran(,'e ~lmll be a minimum__ of ~ve frown :mo mn_~, ' itinn Ired two feet from ~Te rl~ .b.sqn~ The two-foot clearance at th-e'-~TRi is r~l d.e t. ['}~-['~ulelm¥ .f drivers to shy away front Clio curl} or nbstructicms bchhul thc curb, resulting in encro.'lchnlent into U.? a,lj'.lcent traffic lane, whereua, uchlitional clearance from lin open excuva. Lion. ia required b~cuulm thc open excavation ia recognized by tide driver aa ti greater problem. The five.foot clearance al~ reduces the am'eImrge from traffic loads on the nearest face of the excav:l. ti'on and provides the workeru with s reasonable space in which te w,}rk withouL the need Lo step into tile adjacent tr, dfie lane. SuiLable aurfaeillg must. be provided for the temporary traffic limes in work areas, When traffic is diverted from tide pavement, temporary surfacing shall be I)rovided and shall be in conformance with tho eurrelit aLandard $1)c, cificationa for such w.rk issued by tile authorizing llgency, Cun.~truction equilmienl, not I~ctively engaged in the work, employee vehicles and official vehicles of the agency shall not be parked in tho vicinity of tho work in aueh a manner :is t. further re.~trict or obstruct traffic flow, Vehicles and equipment in con. Lintmu.~ or froq,enL use ina.y bo operated or parked in the same tr:d'fi¢ lane a.~ tho work.obstruction Construction si}oil or mate. rial,~ may bo similarly stored in thi.,~ area nr on thc nearby park'. way or ahlewalk area, provided fi)ur feet of sidewalk is kept ch, ar for IDe(lusLri;lll use. TO i)revelK Lhe Sl~dl I);mk fronl IK'ClllL¥in.c: ~:reat n ~1):'¢0 aL iL~ base, tim b~)anls nuly bo ii.~e(I tn keep iL two fee[ frmn the edge of the excavation oil role aide and two feet from the edge of the Lraffie lane on the other. -- CONTROL, WARNING AND GUIDANCE DEVICES afro, cLive sy.~tum of w~,rnlng and guidance i~ I~rnvidml into ~i~ cnLu~nriu~: (I) Si~n~; (2) IJ:lrric.de~; (3) I,I) I li~h I.uv.I WIu'lJifl[ l)uvico~; (5)W~lrllJll~ Ei~hL~ llhnnhli~[iun; illilJ (ii) l"l~shJlig Arrow 7.1. SIGN TYPES Trnl'fic .~i~n.~ lire cln~ified inLo ~evel'ltl I'unctiomd groupings: C,,n~tr.~'~i,,n, Wnrnin~, Guide and IJe~l~tor~. Thc C(,n~L,'ucUnn (C) series, illu~L~d nn pnges 11 through :JrU tn hu u~d nnJy fnr consL~cLinn nr maillLennnce work on l? LJll'ml~h ILl, iii'it prim;trJly inLenllud Lilt I~rm~nenL I,nt dn have nlllJlicatinn fnr temlmmtr~ construction situations. 'rhi~ i~ :~1~,, [ruit .[ the guido (G) ~eries, Si~n~ in the '{1~) ~urk.~ :n'u ~huwn on pn~e~ 20 un(J 2l. 'l'l,~ H~e ,,f "J{~,~uJ:Km'y" ~iffns must ho apl)rOve(I bythe nuLhof ,~J,,~ ;,~vn~.y. When ruq,irml, ~11 ~uch ~i~ns will I)o i~rnvJdo(I, ,..t;'dk.,I uml nl;lJnL;dn{:d JJy the ~Oll[l'~Ctor or per~Jtteg. I.;xi~l mK "lh:kmhltm'y" ~i[n,~ witJli, or mlj~cent Lo the work ,nn.[ I,,, m:~hlhm..d hy tl.~ cnnLmcLor m' ImrmJtteo. l[ -~,~ ;.'v n,,L nlqn'Uln'iate for truf~c conditions Jn Lbo work *he :mihnrizmg n~uncy mnst bo nuti~e(I Lu de~rmine if siEni sh~ll Tun~l,,',,;,,y "N. I'nrklng" s;~ns sh~ll bo ins~llud nn(I rumovud 7.2. SIGN PLACEMENT 'l'h, ',,c;,[,,',n hi' I. he siKni~ as .~hnwn nn t. he Jllu.~Lrl~tJons nrc ,~',wh. IH,c< ;,nd acLmtJ Inc[lth~n.~ will dupoml upon ali~nmenL, gr'..Io, .... .;,~,,,,. ~,f ~trc'u[ inLorsc'¢tion.~ nnd pnstml speed limiL Sign.~ shnll '.~u .,h.I l,v ~'i.~iiJlu Ln .nculninK Lrui'lqc ;md Jl~ InounLud ~n JJ,~ Ln nbove thu J'endway. VerticuJ cleurnnce fl~r tml'fic i~ penniL~d ~MII ~ ~tven feat, "Adv~mcu ~lmll ~ h~at~ on tl~o dght hand side nf Lr~l~c Inner. On highwn?~, SUlq)lmncn~l ~dvm~ce warning ~ign~ tim dividur. All sign~ whicl~ mn'u Ln ~mvey thuir ~nu~.~u~ durin~ ~hnll ~ ruflec~n'ix~l or illmnim~Lcd. Nu ~ign~ ur ~Ulq~rLa ~hnll ~ur m~y comnmrcinl mlvurti~ing. Si~n~ nm'm~dly ~h~dl ~ ins~llml immedi,tely Imfln'e wnrk colBJnullce iullJ mtmL ~ ~tnove(I in.nu(lintuly n~ur wm'k is c(nn. I)l(tte. If nt uny time u ~iKn is nut ruqnired, iL ~hldl ~ ~'uvuru(I ur removed, 7-3. BARRICADES (See page 24) ll~n'ric~.luA ~orve the I'nll(*wing I)Url)o~(:~: I. '1'o ;llerl. tho I)ubli~ to the I".,¢L Lhat u imrLicuhn' m'u, closed to Ln~l'l'ic. 2. '1'o i,'ovenL drivera lill{J I)~(le~Lrians I'rum entering [lie ;ire;t. 3. 'l'o I~rutect. worker~. 4, To supl~ort ~ign.~ nmi wm'ninl~ lillhts. l{;u'ric;.les ~hall not be i)ln¢o¢l in a mnvinll lane .1' tral'fi¢ withn,t mivm~¢e wnrnlng, ~uch n.~ n hillh level wm'ni,[ duvice nmi pri:~Lu d{di,m~Lion. A ~in~lu ban'icnde ~l.dl m)t ~ I)lncml aim., Lhu. [ray,led w~. llarricado~ shell bo one o~ Lhroe [Ylm~: q'?l~ I, Tylm II nr II 1, The chamcLeHsLim of Uleso WI)eS m'u ~hown in the Lztble illnsLrnLions nn lingo 24. Thu 'l'~l)O I11 bnrrlcmlo i~ thu InJ'gusL type ~md is nm'mnlly (or clo~ing aLreeL~ ~o Lhrnugh L~f~e .mi fin' .Lher mn]m' nl,,'n, Liuns whure Lhe b~n'rlcn(lua muaL i'cmnin in i)lnce fur l)uri~,l~. Whun b:,'riumlo~ nr~ u~i Ln Linde , sLreeL, norln:dly slmnld he pineal ~ Lhem i~ no gnp Inrgo enough ~nr n vuhidu I)nS~, oX~Ol)L where ll~e~JiT Lo I,'ovJdu uLceRs ~or Iwul ~r~c' emergency vehiclca, Type III bmTiCnde~ Imve Lhu Mlowing ]. Prnvide I,r~e Rtlr~tce lirmm LhaL ¢Jm ho sOL, II realily hy nlqn'nuching 2. Prnvide n ~siLive b,rrier ,L the limiL~ n~ ti,, Wm'k 3, Ilnve g~ltLor ~L,biliL~ nnd nrc no: likely L,~ I)e blnwn Type I h~trriemles ahnuhl nnL b(, u~od where U.',v wnHhl h(, ~,n, (;nunLorud hy blind imdU~Ll'inns tlnlu~ hm'ixnnLnl ~iu Im~ nn, I,',,· vi(Iud n.L more Ch,n I~ inche~ from Lhu b. LLum n~'Lhu WO(K Afoa I f~llll¢ L;Olll~OI H~/NODOOI~ M:,rkin~.~ [nr b:n'ri~:14e ~:liL~ sh:lll bo ~lltern3Lc or~nge nnd white Thc ,',:~,r~, m'~a n~ ~l)iLc, nmi DJ'Urine ~hall ~ e~cLiv'~ly Thy ~,rud.min:m~ cnhw fin' auger bm'ricnde c~mp~m,nt~ ~hnll 7.4. DELINEATORS (See pages 22 and 23) I),,Im(,a[,n'~ nrc nmrkcrs which aid [lie driver in deLerminin~ ~,,c;~nm ;m,I ;,Ii,mm'aL n~ the tragic hum. T~pirM exlmqfle~ .,,.~VlmJl,lu ,luJhn,:lLnr~ nrv sl~own nn imKe~ 22 nnd ~{. J{~ day, ..rK.d ~v,.nu~ ,,~ Lllu deline~lnr is determined hy position, F,,, n,. [r~[~,,'e, ~ixe mid cnlnr, lJy night, [lie e~ecLivenes~ i~ ,mm.,I hv pn~Jl~nli nmi visibility, All delineaLol~ u~ed ~L night ,,~. ,'~.ner[ori~.ed :Hlequ;~Lely. DeHne~Lnrs ~re used: I 'l'n rh;mnel and diver[ h'a~c hi mJvJmcu o~ work zuue~, ~ To dvrme [l~e Lrnvelwn~ Lhrou~h Lieu work zone. ;II'~)HIHJ [Jig WHI'k .1. 'l'u (lefine cm'v~s :md Lh¢ edges or tho ru;.hvny on deLnul~. ,h'lme.tuv~. trnrfic stril)hl~, of nd~ud i)~lvemenL mm'kol~. Whei'e ~rnrfi¢ is diverted ~. [he leR or ~n exi~[in~ double yellow Imu. in[. n p;fin[ed medi:m, or h~[o ~[ Io~ [w'lt I~no. delino~m I)ulin~.;d,n'* sh;lll he ur n nl~turiM LhnL will wiLhs~nd impact with(nit apln'eci:sble d:unn[e Lo the device, tho sLrikin~ vehicle or I,.~sinW [r;d'fi~', Due vnnshluvaLi4)J~ ;dsn IliUm[ bu ~ivu~s L(~ Lhe ~,, p:l.->mW tr;tt'fir. I)evi~'os ~hich could roll h~Lo Lhu a(Ijn~,Ullt I;mu wh~,n hit shall nuL be used, .,. ,,I,t ;n~tumubile whuuls are cXmnl)les ur the types which nJ'e CHART A -- MiNH,IU~4 RECO~4MENDED DELINEATOR AND SIGN PLACEU 50 ~'~", 6~ ;I ~ ~1 I~ FI ~ Fl, / 7-5. HIGH LEVEL WARNING DEVICES (Flag Slandards) High level w,,mlng clevlce~ prnvi(le a(Ivnnco warning of a wor~ nren b.y being vi~ibl~ Lo n (IHvcr even when ~h~ .work ob~U'uc[ed fi'om view by vehicles nr eons[meLlon equipmenL lligh level warning devices ~h:dl t)c ;~L lethal ~1 feel. hiKl~ with lags, b:tse ur tl~ck ~nnuntin~ (Io~ignud Lo resist overtunfin~ bri~k wind~. Snn(Iba~ amy ~ used t, add woi~l~ tu the h~t~e nr le~. High level wnmin~ device~ ~h~dl bo equipped with ~ tl~u top tn accnmmmln~ nt le~t throe Rn~. I~h~k~ shall e,ted nf high visibility orange mn~rinl nmi equipped wiLl~ keeI) the ~abm extendml. ~urn on dirty BnCs ~hnll ~ imm~lintuly rel)h~ced. High level wm'nin~ device~ shall ~ u~ed n~ indicated on 26 through 4~, ~tt sU~t npl)roache~ Lo I~ntions where con~tr,e- tion or mnintemmce work i~ I~ein~ perfurmed within nr ira. mediately adj~tcent to a tm~¢ lane. 7-6. WARNING LIGHT.ILLUMINATION I~h~sh~ ~lm}l ~ u~(I nnly Lq ouL~ide the work ill;t'[! of [o In'n. vi(h~ =~dvnnco warning. Pht~her~ shall m~t he u~ed tn (nl~c, tn sclmn~ie nplmSln~ tn~f~c, nr t, delinenle the path that trtd~¢ I~ tn fi~llow. (Not intemlc~l tn prohibit the R~hors which nm unKn~ly ~pnced. intermnnecte(I q,enLinlly cycle(I). Fh~hin~ yellow li~hL~ u~c~l fi)r ~ulvnnce win'n. in~ mull be cleitrly distin~ish~tble h'om the I)rimm'y delineatiun m,l'~lmll ~ ~oon u~ve the nnrmal reR~tnH~d uniL~. 'WarninK li~h~ nm Imr~blc, lens directed, encln~d m,un[,d n~ ~ minimum height nr 3 ~eet tn the ~t~nm o~ tho len~. Th~ calm' n~ the Ii[hr emittc~l shall he yellnw. Th(.y may ~ u~(.d in ~hall bu in ~ccunlance with Lieu requiremun[~ of ANSI I).lU.l. WARNING LIGHTS Ty~ X Ty~ B Ty~ C Lowlnlen~lly High Inlenilly S~.ad~ Burn, Lens Size 7' d~a. 12' Oia. -- Lens Ditocl~al Fecal I ~ 2 I I or Flash Role ~t M~lo 55 IO 75 55 Io 75 Contlanl Flash Ou~ahon t~/, 8% ~nSlanl Minimum Ellocllve InloMIl~ . 4.0 Ca~elai 35 Ca~elal M~nimum Beam ~e Powo~ -- -- 2 Ca~los Hours el O~al~ Dusk Io Dawn 24 ~day ~ Io Dawn USW$ lO0 ~:)IJ~O~L~Io I~$1llgYI ~'t,Mll b't IO~ OI DOOk. l~/orK A~ea I I'ilIIIO I.,;onlroI H~rlo000~ Tyl~e A Iow inlcnsity /l:,shin;,, wl~rning lighL~ m'e must cam- m.~ll,y m.u~ed un s~pm'ate pm'~ble ~h;,I hr, m' sbu iN .ppr..chinC or mlj.ce~t to a h.~wdous area. Type Il high inlt, nNity ~il~hin~'war~tinK lighL~ are uormally ~,,,~'l~ .,~ [Iw~e ligh~ .n, effective in (luyli~ht us well l~ dark, ~ho',. ,,:'u ~l~,~KJle~l (o oHuJ'atu 2,l houm I)er (lay. T) i)~ C ~lc':ldy hum liuh~ lu-,,,,,~¢ ,,[ tiro h:~z:.,d, t,wchen and :~ti',;l~t',~ tui~u'~'iwy ~i:u;~ti,)n~ ur whell il flu~Ol' iN oH dllt~. They 7.7, FLASHING ARROW SIGNS (FAS) F'l:,~hh~: ;u'ruw siC'us (F^fi) nrc sign i):mels wiLha matrix nr ,.h,~'t,'~r li~hl.~, c;q~ahh..f Sequential re'row disl4a~,. Ail I:A3 shall ' vt th,., f;,llvwing rvqHil'gn)c, liL~: ~INIUUU NUUBER UINIUUU LEGI01U~ TIP[ ~INIUUU SiZE Of P~EL ~UP$ OIST~CE 36' , 72' 13 % mile 48', g6' 15 .I mils ~'.\',':,. ',, u ;~iLuJ1,1C'(I I,n slHq)lmnent, not rcl)J-',¢¢, ocher work area .~.,,~'r~, c,mLml duvicu.~. 'l't~uy i))'uvi(h; .'uhlition:d, high level, · .,,,u,,,L w,u',,,u~ or I;me c'lo.~urus. FAS .re efrucLive for nil hmo . i,,.,,,.,,~ ;m~l ~h.uhl hu c,,u.~idur{:d flu' all high Sl)e~(l xiLu:tLions. ,uuut ,lut;,il~ .r this mauu;d ;uld variud ~ neudud Lu nchJuvu Lbo' ,i,..u.u,I 8 ~ PAVEMENT STRIPING/MARKING· ch'cum.~hulces, the uso or p;ivemen~ SLl'iliinj~ nr may be justified Lo SUl)l)luluent duvicus usutl J);IYUmRIIL 5Ll'JlJJnK or I~Hl'kOl~ JJJ~{ I'Oq~Jl~(J ~0 InH~Ol' ¢nnstructJoll I)rojec~, re~tril)inK will ~ omdJciuu~: Work Area Tralli¢ Control HanOIxx)k I. When traffic Is Lo be diverted to the left, of an double yellow center'llne for two or more consecutive nil~hL~. ' 2; When the wm'k area is adjacent to an intersection and rosulL~ i,~ u trm~sition within the i.tm-~ection. 3. When the truce hmo ia cont,inuously obstn,ctcd rot. Innrc th:m one week on uny atreet whore traff~c volumes require two o,' more lanes i,i a slnKle direction. 4. In other unusual situatinns where I.r~ffic nmi phy.~ic;d conditions, such ~ speed or restricb3d visibility, require ~l)CCial LreitLmellL. The m~thorizi.~ ngency ~hall determine thn need fnr and extent IllU~t bO rolllov~l or Cereal by tho pol'mitLuO dl' qOlltnlCtOl'. The done b~ Lbo ¢onLl~¢Lor. 9 -- BRIDGING OF EXCAVATIONS (See page 25) Whenever nece~ary, trenches and excavations shall be bridged lo permit, nn unohstrueted Now or traffic. 1. Ilridkdng ~nusL ~ s~ured against displacement by using adjustable cloaL% nngles, bol~ or other devices. 2. Bri(l~ng shall be Ins~lled to operate with minimum noise. 3. ~he trench must be ndequutel~ shored, to support the bridg4ng and 4. gteel I)laLea used fur brid~n~ must (~xteml one f~t beynnd the edges of the t~nch, Temporary Imving materials (premix) shall be used to feather Lhu edger of the plates to minimize whuel imlmCt, MINIMUM THICKNESS WIDTH OF TRENCH OF STEEL PLATES $ .0 lt. % tach 1.5 It. ¥, k~h ~.0 II. % Inch 0,0 II. ! ~ 4.0 II. 1% ir~¢~l 10 ~ PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC When the work sma encrnaches upnn ~ sidewalk, walkway cr, sswulk area, special considerat, in. must be given tn I~.,,lestrian safety. Since the Ix.'dest,rian moves at a relatively slow ntte, minimum of advance warnin.~ i~ required. Ilowever, effort must bt made tu separate him fm,n the work are.',, Protective ban'icudea0 fencing, hnndndls mol bridges, tnb:ether with w.',rning ami guidance devices nmi signs, must be utili:e(I so th;it the ims.~agewuy for pedestrians, espe¢iulI.y blind uml othur I~h,vsically handicnpl~ed, ia ~ffe und well defined. Work Aroa Trallic Conlrol Handbook Work Aroa Tfallic Conlrol HDndbook whl(h :md fr(,e .f :~hrupt Ch.n~e.~ in k~ucle. Ob~trucLion~ w:,lkwny ,~hall bo Hluminatc, d durinK h~ur; o~ durkno~;. vc.'(ic~l oMar;race Lo ;my ob~Lruc[J.n within Lbo w~Hk- bU .~OVO~ ~L'oL. w;dk~ are el,.%,l ltv cnn~Lruc[ion, an alternate wnlkwny i.'ovhlml, pre~er:~hl~ within [he parkwag. Where i[ t. diver[ i~mh'~H'i;m~ inu) Lhe p;.'ki~g hmo n~ ~ ~LreeL, m' dulino:l(ion ~lmll bo prnvidod tn SOll:l~[~ w.lkw.y h'nm Lhe luljucenL ~raf~c Irma. AL .o l,,.,Ic~ri:ms be diver:cfi inCo n ~rLion oF ~ho ncreec used tm[F~c. Any deviatinn From :he above taus: have prior Hie authorizing ngency, k,c;,:inns WIIRI'~ ;.Ij;~ccnt ;IJLgrnaLe walkwnys cannaL be pro- ,q,I.'nl~riate ~iKn~ nnd barricados musL be ins~lled aL c.n~LrucLi~)n :md in ;tdvance ¢)~ tho cie)sure ,L Lira nuul'e~L 11 -- FLAG'GER CONTROL I'l;~:l,r.< nrc rc'quirvd: I Whcru ',wJrJ<ol's or ecluil)monl, inLormitLo.tly block n hiS(' ~ V,'hur~, ph,ns nr pm'miL ;dl~)w tho use or ono lane ~()r Lw() (Ii. ,,', ~,,,,~ ~ tr:~c (uno ~ugEcr is required M' eudl (lirecLion ..: ',Vhm'o tl~o surely o~ the public nnd/or workm's determines i'~:,~;~(.r~ mull J)c ~,,JovL~(J with c~u'e, Tll~,y shmHd bo alert, in. ', :,,~,, ,, nc;qL in ;HH~c,m'm)cC, huvu goal hearing and c~c~i~hL, , , ,,j,,h~,. ,,~ c.mm;mcli.~ Lbo Lravolin~ public. 'J'ho~ sJl(J~hJ bo -' ,~,,,,,,,,~ f;,~' u.m~h ~rnm thy ~w~rk Lu ~luw down m' ~L~I) ,,'~,~, Lht'y gllLOl' [Jig wurk Jlrou, · ,..,, mt,,,J ~ign n~ :l ~nggm. sh. II he placml ~ ~ar uimud o~ Lh~ :3,,~.~ .,~ i.'acticublo. (See I);~gos 12, 2G nmi ~.)" A II ~.,~vr~ sluHI bu pmvidod with nn orJtnEo jacket (or ve~L) ,i;,ytm., u~u ;md ;t rc~urLor{zed belt, a.(I suspe.cler h.rne~ fur ;,[ tachS, l)uring dayJighL h~ui'~, flag,em shull be O(lUil)l~d with ~,~n I,~,[,tlv. AL night, .Ra~gom si~ull use a red '!'1., h;mH >i~n:H~ :md uq.ipmenL L. J)o usoc] hy ~:l~gom tot cnn. :~,,Hm~ ;md dirucLing Lruf~c are shown in Lbo illu~LruLionR Oll It CONSTRUCTION SIGNS Cl Use when tral'Jic Is diverted to a temporary roadway or route, c2 ROAD CLOSED Use where road is closed Io throul~h and. local Irilli¢, C3A C3 ROAD CLOSED AHEAD LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY Use where delour is provided. Use plale to show distance, CS ROAD CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC C4A Use only where traflic is diverled Io an allernal'e roule. Available with /i/hi, Jell and verlical arrow. CONSTRUCTION SIGNS C/, C7  . ",'END '. C8 C14 lC35 CIO work Areo Traffic COnlroI-H~,r~dbook ......... 13 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS. Cl& Use who~e Iwo-.waY traffic must use Iho same lane, Provide flaggels, See CgA, ¢17 IRO.I,D,t~OR K,I FRONT END 25 SPEED LIMIT BACK To be placed only by Agency .aulhorizalJon. CI8 Use lot major conslrUCliO,-,. Use insleac~ ol Cl il no delour is I~ov~d~. Work Aroa Tralflc Conlrol Handbook Work Aroa Trollic Control Handbook 15 CONSTRUCTION' C20 C228 C25 ;,Iternate Legend: suavEY CR£W SI.GNS ¢2! ~ol lot use where two-way h'allic must use the same lane. (See C23 Use for minor con$1rucllon or maillleflarlce. C24 . CONSTRUCTION SIGNS C27 C3O Mounl on barricaclo in head on posillon at point gl cio'sure. FROI~T ¢28 Sign paddle lot flagging opefalions. U CONSTRUCTION 11000 'SIGNS SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SIGNS Accep~ble lt~GHT OF LEFIEltS Co~e S~ndaedSize ReducedWe Sanded R~lucedSEe ¢1 48'z48' 36'x3~ ¢3 60'x 30' ¢3~ 60' z 30' - C 5 (Rm oe U~ 48' ~ 18' . -- C )6 48'148' 36'z36' ~ ~ 7~z 7' 36' x36" Cig 48'x 36"x36' ~ 20 (Rm or U; 48' ~ aS' 36' ~ 36' : 22~ 30' z 30' 24' ~ 24' ':~ 30'z 3~ 24'x24' 5 ~.: ,' 24' 0,amerce 18' ~'. ~'~30' -- ',6 48' ~ 48' 36' = 36' Ir 6'.5'.4' -- 4'.5' -- 5' 5° 7' 3'.10' -- 4'.8".~ -- 8' 5' 7- 5' 6' 5' 7" 5' 5' 4' 5' 8' 6' 8' 7' 5' 5' -- 7' 5' ap~'opnala C29 sign.) ' :5:..~'( C~ Cl9, C?0an,~C2)s~gnsmaybeusodwilnlhe WARNING SIGNS WI W1 W$ ~ " Wi 140) ~M PH;' Wis WARNING SIGNS W33 W$& WS7 'Jso 3[ [[fc'~.,t closuro who,'o l~'allic ma)/turn righl or loll. WARNING SIGNS W$? WS6 TYPE L MAI[El · Use lo split traffic moving in the same dirKlion, TYPE N MARKEI ~ TYPE K MARtEll SPECIFICATIONS FOR WARNING SIGNS Acceptable HEIGHT 0F LE'TrERS Code Standard Size Reduced Size Standard Reduced Size WI (RI m' LI) 30' x 30' 24' x 24' -- W2 (RI or LI) 30' x 30' 24' x 24' -- -- W3 IRt ~ LI) 30' z 30' 24' x 24' -- -- W5 {iTt or LO 30' x 30' 24' x 24' -- W6 24' x 24' lS'z 18' WI5 36' x 36' 30' x 30, WI8 4~ x4~ 36' x 36' WI9 4~ x 4~ 36' x 36' 6' W33 3~ x 3~ 24' x 24' 5' W44 ,4~ x 42' 36' x ~' WS0 36' x 36' 3~ x 30' 6' 5' W56 36' x ]8' 24' x 12' -- -- W57 (RS or Lt) 36' x ]8' 24' x ]2' W58 3~ x 30' 24' x 24' -- . -- W59 36' x 36' 3~ x 30' Type E Marker ] 5' x 6' ~ Type L Ma~ker 8' x 24' -- -- -- Type H ~ker 18' x 18' -- -- -- REGULATORY SIGNS To be used only when di~ecled by the aulhorizing agency. RI0 R7 RIOA RI1A RI6 R17 ,,O[~ Ar0a lralllC L;orttrol nanoocx~ REGULATORY RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT R41 RIGHT TURN ONLY R42 LEFT TURN ONLY SIGNS TRAFFIC/ AHFAD/ PASS1 SPECIFICATIONS FOR REGULATORY SIGNS RiO (RI. or LI.) RIOA (Rt. or LI.) RIIA RI8 [RI. or Lt.) R40 R63 Accephble H[IGHT OF L[TT[IIS SbAdard Size Reduced Size Standard 'Reduced Size 36' x 45' 24' x 48' x 16" 36'z12' 5' 4' 18' x24' -- S' -- 36'x 36' -- 5' -- 36'x21' 5'* -- 30' x 30' 24'724' -- -- 30' x 30- 24' ~ 24" -- 36' x 36' 20' z 32' 4". 5" 4' 24' x 30' -- S' -- 30- x 36' -- 6" -- 30' x 36' 24' x 30' -- 6' -- i,,' DELINEATORS' SIGN STAHD 1 GUIDE POST TRAFFIC CONE FIXED DELINEATORS RUB~,ER GUIDE I~OSTS 2 4"Min. I'ORTAILE T PLASTIC TRAFFIC DELINEATORS BARRICADES TYPE I TYPE Ii TYPE III ,NO[[: Bollom el boltom rail on/ypes I1 and III barricades shall be a ,'mmmum el 4"'(~00mm) and.a maximum el 6, (JS0mm) I;om Ihe ground. Bl[ric~clc Chiracleristl¢~ 1'3 p I' I II III ~,.~ln el ~,~ I'.1;"' i',IZ' I'.IZ' !~i'~ '~ R~II Z' min. Z' mi.. Z* min. m'lnl 3' min. 3' min. S' min. NOTE WIDTH OF TRENCH f.O leel I,S feel 2.0/eel 3,0leel 4,0feel PREMIX STEEL PLATES ANGLE IRON TO SECURE PLATES MINIMUM THICKNESS OF STE[L PLATES I~ch ~ Inch ~/I Inch I lack PLATE BRIDGING worx ,~rofl I ramc uonlro! ~l~nUuoo~ Work A~'0n Trallic Conic'01 Handbook 27 INSTRUCTIONS TO FLAGGERS - NIGHT- TO SLOW TRAFFIC (Short up and o.).,,,n motion ~,ln e~lended I~ghl hand.) - DAY- TO SLOW TRAFFIC The ll~99er sJ'~ll lace b'aMi~ ~ Ihe ~,Jow ~le ~ 8 vefl~ al am's le~lh. F~ a~ emus, · s Iroe ha~ wire Ihe ~ TRAFFIC PROCEED The liagger shall sland parallel Io lbo Irallic movement, and eilher wijh parle ~ ~m ~er~ Ir~ view of the dr~er, ~ ~th s~ ~le he~ ahead with flee ~m. Never use a parle as a sig~l Io ~ve TO STOP TRAFFIC NoEl hand vertically with palm Ionvard, TRAFFIC P.ROCEED Never use a /lashlighl as a $~nal Io move while refloclorized J:~ll musl J:~ used al nighl and IlaShlighl wilh ii r~ lens SuD$1illJIc"'gl I0~ Ihe pitd(lle. i !I HIGH LEVEr WARNING DEVICE --DELINEATORS ~22B P;~ge 28 J MINOR WORK J (X~~. __ (-- ..... C 2~B · I '(~.4C110~'C23 TYPE IORll IWORK AREA IN PARKING LANE OR SHOULDER I ! ~ BARRICADES 1 O .IN EATql HIGH LEVEL WARNING DEVICE DELINEATORS C 22B P~ 28 HIGH LEVEL WARNING DEVICE -- ~22B ~AREA ')~------C 18 o~' C 23 WORK AREA IN CENTER OF STREET J U D I1 11 D D D fl 0 HIGH LEVEL WARNING DEVICE OR FL~SHING ARROW SIGN ~--C 20 C18 o~' C23-- CLOSING OF RIGHT LANE /7 i CLOSING OF LEFT LANE 20 ~'(.--C 18 or C 23 i CLOSING OF MIDDLE LANE LI C 18 o~' C 23 [Lt.} HIGH LEVEL WARNING DEVICE OR FI.~SHING ARROW SIGN Il [~cLosI TYPE I OR II BARRICADES FLASHERS OPTIONAL OR FLASHING ~ ARROW SIGN NG OF HALF- ROADWAY - I1 I! TYPE I OR II BARRICADES II · I III iBiARRICAOES ~ c2 'ROA~ CLOS~D- ~\~ ' y TO T.nU T~mC TYPE N MARKER C3A NOT_____E Access for authorized vehicles CLOSING OF LOCAL STREET Pedestrians ~hall not be dwefted- inlo a moving lane c! traff~'.. TYPE II BARRICADES BUTTED TOGETHER I I ; TYPE II BARRICADES '"" / ~ ' BUTTED TOGETHER '-'~'Jl ' ~1 fl i I ! I ! ! ! WALK CLOSED J USc_ CROSSWALK NOTES This $¥~lem will be used only when walkwi¥ cannoI be IDrovided behind curb. TYPE III BARRICADES FLASHERS OPTIONAL WALl( CLOSED USE CROSSWALK PEDESTRIAN CONTROL J ,SeeC.~ A ~ HIGH LEVEL P~ge 2B ~/.~' DEVICE OR , ~F ROW S~GN ~PE I OR II BARRICADES-- FLASHING ARROW OR HIGH'LEVEL' WARNING DEVICE -- ,~-. C22B -- / / WORK BEYOND INTERSECTION .~e Cha~ A P.~ge 28 C 18 o*' C :2.3 ~ c2o DELINEATORS'~ HICH LEVEL 'e-WARNING DEVICE ~ C 22B II TYPE II BARRICADES TEMPORARY STRIPING IF REQUIRED -.-_.... // R17 ~ . "~ TYPE I OR II . BARRICADES DELINEATORS ~ R 17 · // TEMPORARY STRIPING IF REQUIRED .... --... _TYPE II / BARRICAOES 2/ / HIGH LEVEL < .,.EATORS Acknowledgements MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS - 1978 EDITION Unilod Slales Deparlme'nl o1' Transpodahon Federal Highway Adminislralion ) MANUAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS - 1984 ~ FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE - WORK ZONES Slalo ol Calilornia - Deparlmenl of Transpodalion (CALTRANS) Published by Building News, Inc,, 3055 Overland Ave. Los Angeles, California 90034 -- (213)202,7775 For SaFe Al The Building News, Inc.~ Bookstore Al Above Localion; Or Send Prepaid Mail Orders To Building News, Inc., P;O, Box 3031, ~'erminal Annex, Los Angeles, California g0~51. COSTS 1 Io 9 copies, each .............................. 10 1o 49 copies, each .............................. 2.75 50 Io 99 copies, each .............................. 2.50 · 100 1o 199 copies, each ............................ 2.2.5 200 or more copies, each ......................... 2.00 Large Quantity Prices On Application Special Customized Covers Available. On Application For Mail Orders: Add 6%% Sales Tax, plus shipping charges of 751: lot the lirsl booklel and 15¢ for every booklel over one. ATTACHMENT 5. STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA · DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD ~ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION PART A TR-0100 (REV. 6/00) 1. COUNTY Page 1 Permission is requested to encroach on the State Highway Right of Way as follows: (Complete all items: NA if not applicable.) Application is not complete until all required attachments are included. Kern 4. ADDRESS OR STREET NAME 5. CITY 2317 "L" Street Bakersfield 6. CROSS STREET (Distance and direction ~om site) 23rd Street 8. WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY [] OWN FORCES [] CONTRACTOR 2. ROUTE178 13'POSTMILE 7. PORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY sidewalk 9. EST. ST,ART DATE 12-01-O2 EXCAVATION 11. MAX.130,DEPTH I2. AVG. DEPTH 13. AVG.8.WIDTH / PF-ESP 17. TYPE 18. DIAMETER PVC 2" 21. FULLY DESCRIBE WORK WITHIN STATE R/W (additional '10. EST. COMPLETION DATE 12-31-02 14. LENGTH 8" PERMIT NO. DIST/CO/RTF_JPM SIMPLEX STAMP DATE OF SIMPLEX STAMP 15. SURFACE TYPE 16. EST. COST IN STATE R/W concrete $15,000.00 19. VOLTAGE / PSIG 20. PRODUCT )ace on reverse side if needed): Attach complete plans (minimum 5 sets folded 8.5" X 11" [216 mm X 280 mm]) specs, calcs, maps, etc., if applicable. Ddll and install three monitoring wells. Complete borings with 30 feet of 2 inch diameter slotted PVC casing and 100 feet of PVC blank casing. Complete wells with traffic rated Well bOxes. Monitoring well MW-4 will be constructed in the sidewalk on the north side of 23rd Street, 10 feet east of "L" Street, monitoring well MW-5 will be constructed in the sidewalk on the south side of 23rd Street, 10 feet east of "L" Street, and monitoring well MW-6 will be constructed in the sidewalk on the south side of 23rd Street, 75 feet west of "L" Street. YOUR OWN REFERENCE NO. ~ullivans- Downtown Chevron at"L Has any other Caltrans Department reviewed your plans? [] YES [] NO (If "YES," bdefly describe in section #21, and attach site 22. IS any work being done on applicant's property? [] YES [] NO and grading plans.) 23.1s a city, county, or other agency involved in the environmental approval? [] YES (Check documentation type and attach approved copy) [] CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT [] N.D. [] EIR [] NO (Check the category below in section 23a, which describes the project) 23 a, [] FLAGS, SIGNS, BANNERS, [] CONSTRUCTION / MODIFICATION OF [] CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, OR DECORATIONS, PARADES AND SIGNALS OR ANY OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL RESURFACING OF A DRIVEWAY OR ROAD APPROACH CELEBRATIONS SYSTEMS AND DEVICES, INCLUDING ADDITION OR REPLACEMENT OF ROADWAY DEVICES OR [] DITCH PAVING ADDITION OF NEW ELEMENTS. [] MARKINGS (GLARE SCREEN, BARRIER, LIGHTING, STRIPING, [] FENCE [] PUBLIC UTILITY MODIFICATIONS, MARKERS, ETC.) EXTENTIONS, HOOKUPS [] MOVIE, TV FILMING [] MAILBOX [] SIDEWALKS/GUTTERS [] EROSION CONTROL [] REPAIR I MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING HIGHWAYS [] SURVEY [] NONE OF THE ABOVE (If project cannot be described in above catego~es, request application Part B from the Permit Office.) (if "YES," request application Part "B" from 23 b. Does this project cause a substantial change in)he significance of a historical resource? [] YES [] NO the Permit Office) 23 c. Is this project on an existing highway or street where the activity involves removal of a scenic resource including a stand of trees, a rock outcroppng or a historic building? [] YES [] NO (If"YES," request application Part "B" from the Permit Office) The undersigned agrees and understands that a permit can be denied or a bond required for non-payment of prior or present permit fees, that the work will be done in accordance with Caltrans rules and regulations subject to inspection and approval, and that permit fees may still be due when an application is wi'thdrswn or denied, and that a denial may be appealed inaccordance with California Streets and Highways Code, Section 67t.5. 24. ORGANIZATION OR APPLICANT NAME (Pdnt or Type) 25. BUSINESS PHONE Central sierra EnVironmental, LLC (661) 325-4862 26. ARCHITECT, ENGINEER OR PROJECT MANAGER NAME (Pn'nt or Type) 27. BUSINESS PHONE Mark'Magargee, CHG, RG (661) 325-4862 28. BUSINESS ADDRESS (Include City and Zip Code) 1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309 29. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 130. PRINT OR TYPE NAME 31.TITLE ' ~~ ~ Mark Magargee Hydrogelogist FM 9t 1403 M ~/ f/ ' 32. DATE 11-18-02 STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION TR-0100 (REV. 6/00) Page 2 21. Description of work (continued) FEE CALCULATION - FOR CALTRANS USE [] CASH ! CHECK [] CREDIT CARD [] EXEMPT PROJECT EA [] SET FEE [] AX DEFERRED BILLING (Utlity) (1) (2) CALCULATED BY REVIEW 1. FEE / DEPOSIT DATE 2. FEE / DEPOSIT DATE TOTAL FEE / DEPOSIT 1. HOURS @ L * $ $- 2. HOURS @ $_ * $ $ INSPECTION 1. FEE / DEPOSIT DATE 2. FEE / DEPOSIT DATE TOTAL FEE / DEPOSIT 1.__HOURS @ $ * $ $ 2. . HOURS @ $ * $ $ FIELD WORK HOURS @ $ · * $ $ $ CASH DEPOSIT IN LIEU OF BOND $- $ $ TOTAL COLLECTED $ $ $ CASHIER'S INITIALS · The current hourly rate is set annually by Headquarters Accounting. District Office staff do not have authority to modify this rate. DATE AMOUNT PERFORMANCE BOND [] ;$ DATE AMOUNT PAYMENT BOND [] $ AMOUNT '1LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIRED? [] YES [] NO $ 'i FM 91 1403 STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION Page 3 PART B I PERMIT "O. TR 0100 (REV. 6/00) INSTRUCTIONS · Part B is to be completed i[ the project does not involve a city~courtly~other agenCy, and the project could not be adequateJy described in Part A. · A Jl questions in Part B must be answered. Significant effects must be explained. This checldist is used to identifyphystcal, biological, social and economic factors which might be impacted by the proposed project. In many cases, the background studies performed in connection with this project dearly ~qdlt~e the project will not affect a pa~cular item. A "NO" answer in the first column documents this determination. Where there is a need for clarifying discussion ora "NO", pro~dde it in the remarks section following the checldist. · . Yourappllcatianwillbe~eviewedbyourEnvimmnentalUnit. TbeywilldeterminewbetheryotwprojectiscategoricallyexemptunderC£QAorwhether an environmental study must be made by Caltrans. If the latter, your cost could be significant. An environmental study will determine whether a Negative Declaration or Environmental impact Report will be ~qulred. The (ND) or (EIR) will then be prepared by Caltrans concurrently with processing your application. If an environmental study is required, you must provide sufficient information for this study as part of your application. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST Yes If Yes, is it or significant? ~fter making the necessary preliminary studies, answer the following questions: No Yes orNo PHYSICAL. Will the proposal (directly or indirectly): N ' 1. Change the topography or ground surface relief features? N 2. Destroy, cover, or modify any unique geological or physical features? Iq 3. Result in unstable earth surfaces or exposure of people or property to geological hazards? N 4. Result in or be affected by soil erosion or siltation (whether by water or wind)? Iq 5. Result in the increased use of fuel or energy in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? Iq 6. Result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? lq 7. Result in the substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? N 8. Violate any published Federal, State, or local standards pertaining to solid waste or litter control? N 9. Modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? N 10. Encroach upon a flood plain or result in, or be affected by, floodwaters or tidal waves? N 11. Adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater, or public water supply? lq 12. Result in the use of water in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? N 13. Affect wetlands or riparian vegetation? N 14. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State, or local water quality standards? Iq 15. Result in changes in air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any climatic conditions? N 16. Result in an increase in air pollutant emissions, adverse effects on or deterioration of ambient air quality? lq 17. Result in the creation of objectionable odors? N 18. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State, or local air standards or control plans? N 19. Result in an increase in noise levels or vibration for adjoining areas? N 20. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal design noise levels or State or local noise standards? N 21. Produce ne~w light, glare, or shadows? N BIOLOGICAL, Will the proposal (directly or indirectly): N 22. Change the diversity Of species, or number of any species, of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, N microflora, and aquatic plants? 23. Reduce the numbers of, or encroach upon, the critical habitat of any unique, rare or endangered N species of plants? 24. Introduce new species of plants in an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of N existing species? 25. Reduce acreage of any agricultural crop or commercial timber stand? N 26. Remove or deteriorate existing fish or wildlife habitat? N 27. Change the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? N 28. Reduce the numbers of, or encroach upon, the critical habitat of any unique, rare or N endangered species of animals? :M 91 1403 * See Remarks section (page 5) and Discuss Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measure. STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION Page4 'IR 0100 (REV. 6/00) PERMIT NO. Yes If Yes, is it ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST or significant? No Yes or No SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC. Will the proposal (directly or indirectly): N 30. Cause disruption of orderly planned development? N 31. Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans, policies, or goals, the Governor's N Urban Strategy, or the President's National Urban Policy (if NEPA project)? 32. Affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? N 33. Affect life styles, or neighborhood character or stability? N 34. Affect minority or other specific interest groups? N 35. Divide or disrupt an established community? N 36. Affect existing housing, require the displacement of people or create a demand for additional housing? N 37. Affect unemployment, industry or commerce, or require the displacement of businesses or farms? N 38. Affect property values or the local tax base? N 39. Affect any community facilities (including medical, educational, scientific, recreational, or religious N institutions, ceremonial sites or sacred shrines)? 40. Affect public utilities, or police, fire, emergency or other public services? N 41. Have substantial impact on existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or N movement of people and/or goods? 42. Affect vehicular movements or generate additional traffic? N 43. Affect or be affected by existing parking facilities or result in demand for new parking? N 44. Involve a substantial risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an N accident or upset conditions? 45. Result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?.. N 46. Affect public health, expose people to potential health hazards, or create a real or potential health ba?ard? N 47. Affect a significant archaeological or historic site, structure, object, or building? bi 48. Affect natural landmarks or man-made resources? N 49. Affect any scenic resources or result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or N aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 50. Result in substantial impacts associated with construction activities (e.g., noise, dust, temporary N drainage, traffic detours and temporary access, etc.)? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Yes or No 51. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife spedes, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below serf-sustaining levels, threaten to N o eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 52. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, envir°nmental .goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive NO period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 53. Does the project have environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects the effects of other current NO projects, and the effects of probable future projects. It includes the effects of other projects which interact . with this project and, together, are considerable. 54. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? N O FM 91 1403 * See Remarks section (page 5) and Discuss Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures. STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION Page 5 TR 0100 (REV. 6/00) PERMIT NO. REMARKS: Discuss all items where a "YES" response for "significant" is given. Discuss ways to mitigate any significant effects identified. Where features are incorporated into the project so that potential adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no significant environmental effects would occur, state what those mitigation measures are. (Additional sheets may be used) FM 91 1403 M ATTACHMENT 6. COPY OF CSE CHECK NUMBER 1660 CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 1400 Easton Drive #132 Bakersfield, CA 93309 661 325-4862 ·" ' · · SECURITY FEATURES: MICRO PRINT BORDERS - COLORED BRICK PATTERN - WATERMARK ON REVERSE SIDE - MISSING FEATURE INDICATES A COPY · ....... · Central ronmental November 14, 2002 Envir° r t Consultant Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC 1508 18th Street, Suite 222 Bakersfield, California, 93301 THIRD QUARTER 2002 PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION 2517 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA (CRWQCB-CVR CASE #5T15000836) Dear Mr. Sullivan: Central Sierra EnvirOnmental, LLC. (CSE) is pleased to present the following Third 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, Kern County, California (see Figure I - 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 northwestern 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 Cohtrol 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 November 14, 2002- 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 aroa 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 aro 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 aroa aro 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 Groat Valley geomorphic province. The Groat 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 aro derived predominantly from the Sierra Nevada to the east and aro 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 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 November 14, 2002- 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 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 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 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 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 w~s 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 November 14, 2002- 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. ^ 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 (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 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 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 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 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 welt. 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 n°t available to install central, shallow vapor extraction well VW-ls dudng this phase of investigation Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC November 14, 2002- 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 mg/kg was in the s°il 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 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 100 fbg. On March 14, 2001, a groundwater sample was collected from monitod'ng 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 IJg/l. 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). 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 with the condition that a VET work plan be provided to CRWQCB-CVR to determine the extraction well flow rates, and the ROI within the shallow, intermediate, and deep zones. In addition, the CRWQCB-CVR required full-time operation of the VES to be accomplished using a mobile treatment system, or the construction of a fixed treatment system connected to the vapor extraction wells by underground piping. HFA's CAP Addendum, dated August 13, 2001, recommended that upon installation of the vapor extraction well field and initiation of VES operations at the site, a VET will be performed to determine the extraction well flow rates and the ROI within the shallow, intermediate, and deep zones. The VET will be conducted using vapor extraction wells VW-ls, VW-li, and VW-ld as the extraction wells and vapor extraction wells VVV-2, VVV-3, and VW-4, as well' as combination vapor extraction and groundwater monitoring wells MW-l, MVV-2, and MW-3 as the observation wells. Step tests will be performed by extracting soil vapors at three different vacuums for a duration of 20 minutes or until vacuum pressures have stabilized. Selected vacuum steps will be one-third of the maximum vacuum achieved by the blower. Flow rates and corresponding wellhead vacuums and subsurface vacuums will be monitored, and the data will be recorded on a VET recording log. The results of the test will be summarized graphically and in tabular form, and the information will be utilized to calculate the ROI for vadous flow rates and the intrinsic soil permeability of the extracted zone. At the beginning and end of the step test, vapor samples will be Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC November 14, 2002- Page 6 collected in TedlarTM bags from the extraction well and analyzed by a California State-certified laboratory for TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE. The results will be presented to the CRWQCB-CVR as part of a quarterly progress report. The CRWQCB-CVR letter, dated September 25, 2001 approved implementation of the VET 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 2 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 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-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. 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 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 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). Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC November 14, 2002- Page 7 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 IJg/I, and 1,300,000 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). 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). Because Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC was unable to obtain an access agreement with the adjacent property owner to position a remediation equipment compound on that property, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC has made arrangements for the remediation equipment compound to be located in the southeast corner of the service station property in the landscaped area to the east of the petroleum release. 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. During the fourth quarter of 2002, VES operations were initiated during October 2002 and the VET will be conducted. In addition, 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 23r~ Street. THIRD QUARTER 2002 GOUNDWATER MONITORING On August 20 and August 22, 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. Before sampling, the-monitoring wells were checked for an immiscible layer and 0.25 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, Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC November 14, 2002- Page 8 temperature, and pH of the groundwater were constantly monitored and recorded on water sample logs. Purging continued until at least 3 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 Vvater 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 obtained on August 20, 2002 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 samples obtained on August 22, 2002 were analyzed for physical and chemical characteristics. QA/QC sampling included a trip blank, instrument blanks, spikes, and duplicates. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 118.25 to 120.02 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 and TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE were detected in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-3. TPH as gasoline and MTBE were detected in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring well MW-2. TPH as gasoline concentrations of 64,000 IJg/I, 53 pg/I, and 12,000 pg/I were detected in the groundwater samples collected from wells MW-l, MVV-2, and MW-3, respectively. Trace TAME concentrations were detected in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-3. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, 1,2-DCA, and EDB were not detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3 (see Figure 4 - TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater, Table 1, and Attachment 3 for the Laboratory Report). The groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3 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 and Attachment 3). Mr. Tim Sullivan -Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC November 14, 2002- Page 9 ACTIVITIES PLANNED FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2002 During the fourth quarter of 2002, the following activities will be completed: · Conduct groundwater monitoring and sampling; Installation of three off-site downgradient monitoring encroachment permit; · Initiate VES operations; and · Conduct VET wells, pending obtaining California DOT Central Sierra Environmental, LLC., trusts that you will find this Third 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. Magarge Consulting Hydrogeologist Holguin, Fahan & ^ssociates, Inc. MRM:jlt l::nclosures: Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 Plot Plan Figure 3 - Groundwater Elevation Contour Map Figure 4 - TPH as GasolinelBenzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater Table1 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Organic Compounds Table 2 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Physical and Chemical Characteristics List of Acronyms Attachment 1 Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, Sample Management Procedures Attachment 2 - Water Sample Logs Attachment3 - Laboratory Report cc: Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR Mr. Howard H. Wines, III, BFDESD POW~? .: ........................ ~'~ ~,,~ " o ~ ~: ,. , ~ 'o : ~ ~/ '~.' ~ ~ ~~ ,, ~: : ~ bump : o-~ ., ..,, .... ,. ~.~ ... ~ ' ' Z ao TH c; ~, 0 o I ..... : ::' ~ ,.::' ,:.' . ,' '. ' ~ ~ % . .. ~ .... ~ ~:4~~ ~/~, ~t______~: ". 2G ...... :' ~ ~ · ..~ , _ ..... ~ - bE6E~ SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC . ~.~ ~ ~ ~ DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 2317 "L" STREET "~ ~'~" ~'"~" ~ ~'~ ~ 4'~ ~ ~'"e ~ ~ ~ BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ FIGURE I - SITE LOCATION MAP USGS OIL~E 7.5 MINUTE SEINES G~DUNG~ J CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC CAR / MINI MART N UJ _J~ ~O DISPENSER ISLANDS ~ TRF_.AIMENI ~VES UNIT ; CANOPY , UJ ! GAS(~LINE~ UST ' DISPENSEIS, ISLANDS ~ o o E] ~ SPLIT-CHAMBERED GAS' )LIN 5 UST : EXPLOPJ~TORY Mw-:, B-5 T EN . APPROACH ' SIDEWALK 23~D SCALE IN FEET 0 15 30 MW-6 MW-5 LEGEND SULLIVAN PI-I ROLEUM COMPANY, LLC ~ SOIL BORING o FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION ~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA (~ VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN .~ PROPOSED MONITORING WELL CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC REVISION DATE: OCTOBER 29, 2002 CAR MINI MART n,' WASH D. 1:3 ~ N 286.12 ~ ~)284.2;~ = / / / I /Io / //~ISPENSE~ISLANDS ~ o Io/ / D ~,~ 20,000-GALLON ~"7 ......... / I- - lY I I' -- SPLIT-CHAMBERED  LOCATION ~ ' ! oe.o,~ // //PLANTER LOCATION  MW-4 APPROACH SIDEWA'K 23RD SCALE IN FEET 0 1§ :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 ~/GROUNDWATER ~ ELEVATION CONTOUR FIGURE 3 - GROUNDWATER ELEVATION  PROPOSED MONITORING WELL (FEET ABOVE MSL) CONTOUR MAP GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC REVISION DATE: OCTOBER 29, 2002 CAR MINI MART WASH Z Z~ o- 5301 ND 1 28 ; 100 1,000 u, ~ / / / / /~vw-'~a\ \ :. / / / ~ ~ - ------'~--~r~~ ~,ooo ' ! \ Io ~ / ~' GASqLINI~ UST / SCALE IN FEET MW-6 MW-5 SAMPLEO AUOUST ~0, 200~ LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC '~ SOIL BORING [] FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION ~" GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~ CONTOUR OF MTBE -~ PROPOSED MONITORING WELL / CONCENTRATONS (pg/I) FIGURE 4 - TPH AS GASOLINE/BENZENE/MTBE CONCENTF~TION IN GROUNDWATER #/#~# ¢ONCEm'~A'r~ONS ~N G~OUNDWATE~ CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC REVISION DATE: OCTOBER 29, 2002 TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA DEPTH TO FLOATING GROUND- WELL ID AND DATE GROUND- PRODUCT WATER TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL 1,2- ELEVATION* SAMPLED WATER THICKNESS ELEVATION GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME DCA EDB REF (feet-USL) (fb~l) (feet) (feet-USE) (t~1/I) (pg/I) (pg/I) (~/i/ (tJ~l/I) (pg/1) (pg/I) (pg/1) (pg/I) (pg/I) (pg/I) (pg/I) EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 6015 (M) 6021 8260 N/A CCR TiTLE 22 DRINKING WATER MCL ** I 11 1001 6801 1,7501 13 131 "1 "1 ** I ** [ *'1 ** N/A REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A VVV-ld 3-14-01 107.43 0.00 296.57 2,400 5,200 1,200 8,500 120,000 120,000 ND ND ND ND -- - A 404.00 11-26-01 115.15 0.25 288,85 5,300,000 72,000 660,000 120,000 800,000 4,100,000 4,100,000 ND ND ND ND .... B 3-28-02 114.54 0,25 289.46 1,400,000 11,000 46,000 ND 29,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 ND ND ND ND ND ND C 6-27-02 116.98 0.25 287.02 .................... D 8-20-02 119.48 0.25 284.52 ..................... E MW-1 11-26-01 114.96 0.00 289.33 67,000 530 3,200 ND 1,500 34,000 34,000 ND ND ND ND .... B 404.29 3-28-02 114.53 0.0( 289.76 48,000 580 1,000 150 780 49,000 49,000 ND ND ND ND ND ND C 6-27-02 117.31 0.00 286.98 21,000 ND ND 110 770 ND 29,000 ND ND ND 4.7 ND ND D 8-20-02 120.02 0.00 284,27 64,000 1,700 3,300 520 2,400 290,000 61,000 ND ND ND 11 ND ND E MW-2 11-26-01 113.20 0.00 291.17 280 25 76 6 21 2.4 2.4 ND ND ND ND .... B 404,37 3-28-02 113,30 0.00 291,07 1,300 65 430 17 170 38 38 ND ND ND ND ND ND C 6-27-02 115.66 0,00 288,71 350 32 110 10 68 500 170 ND ND ND ND ND ND D 8-20-02 118.25 0.00 286.12 53 ND 2.2 NDI 3.2 110 28 ND ND ND ND ND ND E MW-3 11-26-01 113.98 0.00 289,74 10,000 90 780 26~ 99 7,400 7,400 ND ND ND ND .... B 403.72 3-28-02 113,68 0.00 290.04 46,000 110 380 36 330 23,000 23,000 ND ND ND ND ND ND C 6-27-02 116.41 0.00 287.31 13,000 54 290 60 390 17,000 14,000 ND ND ND 3.7 ND ND D 8-20-02 118.86 0.00 284.86 12,000 63 44( 59 440 44,000 11,000 ND ND ND 3,7 ND ND E TRIP BLANK 8-20-02 N/A N/A N/AI - ND ND ND ND ND ......... E N/A = Not applicable. ND = No : Not analyzed. *Measured to the top of the well casing, **No CCR Title 22 MCL established. A = Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s (HFA's) report dated June 25, 2001. B = HFA's report dated February 19, 2002. C = HFA's report dated May 29, 2002. D = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's (CSE's) report dated September 10, 2002. E = CSE's current report. TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS DOINNTOWN 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) (fbg) (feet) (feat-MSL) (rog/I) (umhos/cm'~l(pH units) (rng/I) (m~Jl) (mg/t) (rngfl) (rog/I) (trig/I) (mg/~) (mg/t) (rng/I) (mg/I) (mg/1) 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-lcl I 404.00 3-28-02 114.54 0.25 289.4~ 617 951 7.38 93 82 2.1 120 21 44 5,1 ND NDI 350 0.8 A MW-1 3-28-02 114.53 0.00 ' 289.7e 424 664 7.12 46 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 A MW*2 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 291.07 382 576 7.21 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 66 38 71 17 37 11 ND ND 140 ND A MW-3 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 290.42! 382 576 7.21 31 · 74 46.3 66 12 39 3.8 ND ND 160 0.8 A 403.72 8-22-02 118.84 0.00 284.88 310 480 6.7 25 59 38 97 25 37 16 ND ND 140 ND A REF = Reoort reference. ~/A = Not aoolicable. ND = Not detected. *Measured to the top of the well casing. A = Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s, report dated May 29, 2002. B = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's current report. 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 IJg/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) 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 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. GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, AND SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES NOTIFICATIONS Pdor 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 electdc 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 pdor 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 pdor 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 dudng purging that the well screen has become bridged with sediment or the produced groundwater is ovedy 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 TeflonWa-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 ovedilled 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. 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 UQCTB" 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 tdp 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 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 thecooler lid. ATTACHMENT 2. WATEr~ SAMPLE LOGS WATER SAMPLE LOG CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: August 20, 2002 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron WELL NUMBER: MW-1 WELL DEPTH: 124.61' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2" WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90°F and clear OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: (e.g., floating lal'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 75 7.0 3168 4.0 75 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (pmhos/cm) (gallons) (°F) field (~ 8-20-02 820 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 120.02' 8-20-02 830 I 76.2 6.90 403 Tan Slight High 8-20-02 840 2 76.6 6.95 370 Tan Slight High 8-20-02 850 3 75.4 6.98 365 Tan Slight High 8-20-02 855 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 120.29' 8-20-02 900 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 120.55' TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 4.2 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 Tu'rbidity SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-1 - 900 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: August 20, 2002 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron WELL NUMBER: MW-2 WELL DEPTH: 125.15' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2" WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90°F and clear OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: (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 3167/1.41 4.0 75 7.0 3168 7.0 75 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (IJmhos/cm) (gallons) (°F) field (~ 8-20-02 0720. 3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 118.25' 8-20-02 0730 I 72.4 7.37 386 Tan/Orange None High 8-20-02 0740 2 72.6 7.33 389 Tan/Orange None High 8-20-02 0750 3 74.0 7.22 415 Tan/Orange None High 8-20-02 0755 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 118.28' 8-20-02 0800 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 118.34' TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3 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/Orange Color, High Turbidity SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-2 - 800 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: August 20, 2002 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron WELL NUMBER: MW-3 WELL DEPTH: 125' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2" WEATHER CONDITIONS: 95°F and clear OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: (e.g., floating lal'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 I 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 75 7.0 3168 7.0 75 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (pmhos/cm) (gallons) (°F) field ~ 8-20-02 0920 3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 118.86' 8-20-02 0930 1 78.2 6.75 378 Tan None High 8-20-02 0940 2 76.5 6.94 346 Tan None High 8-20-02 0950 3 74.8 6.87 360 Tan None High 8-20-02 0955 ~)EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I 118.94' 8-20-02 1000 [3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:I 119.19' TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 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 Color, High Turbidity SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-3 - 1000 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: August 20, 2002 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron WELL NUMBER: VW-ld WELL DEPTH: 125' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 4" WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90°F and clear OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: 3" floating product (e.g., floatin~ 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: 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 75 7.0 3168 7.0 75 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (pmhos/cm) (gallons) (°F) field @ 8/20~02 1020 3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 119.48' 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): 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, California (661) 325-4862 e Fax (661) 325-5126 WATER SAMPLE LOG CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: August 22, 2002 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron WELL NUMBER: MW-1 WELL DEPTH: 124.61' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2" WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90°F and clear OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: (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: IpH STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F 4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 75 7.0 3168 4.0 75 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVlTY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (pmhos/cm) (gallons) (°F) field {~ 8-22-02 0720 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 120.01' 8-22-02 0730 I 77.4 6.92 385 Tan Slight High 8-22-02 0740 2 76.6 6.97 380 Tan Slight High 8-22-02 0750 3 76.1 6.90 378 Tan Slight High 8-22-02 0755 3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I 120.25' 8-22-02 0800 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:t 120.42' TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 4.2 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-1 - 800 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: August 22, 2002 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron WELL NUMBER: MW-2 WELL DEPTH: 125.15' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2" WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90°F and clear OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: (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 75 7.0 3168 7.0 75 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (IJmhos/cm) (gallons) (°F) field (~ 8-22-02 0920 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 118.23' 8-22-02 0930 I 72.5 7.38 387 Tan/Orange None High 8-22-02 0940 2 72.1 7.34 391 Tan/Orange None High 8-22-02 0950 3 71.8 7.28 403 Tan/Orange None High 8-22-02 0955 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 118.21' 8-22-02 1000 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 118.32' TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 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 - 1000 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: August 22, 2002 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron WELL NUMBER: MW-3 WELL DEPTH: 125' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2" WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90°F and clear OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: (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 75 7.0 3168 7.0 75 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (pmhos/cm) (gallons) (°F) field (~ 8-22-02 0820 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 118.84' 8-22-02 0830 1 78.1 6.75 371 Tan None High 8-22-02 0840 2 77.4 6.82 362 Tan None High 8-22-02 0850 3 75.2 6.91 368 Tan None High 8-22-02 0855 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 118.95' 8-22-02 0900 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 119.08' TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 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 Color, High Turbidity SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-3 - 900 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 WINING ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY · ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING · SAMPLING SERVICES CONS'[RUCTION INSPECTION & MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT COVER SHEET REPORT DATE LABORATORY ID ATTENTION CLIENT ' September 16, 2002 ' 702-4160.1-4 CSE 1400 EASTIN SUITE 132 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309 INVOICE# 70204160 Report Amended October 21, 2002' 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. In accordance with your instructions, the samples submitted were analyzed for the components specified. The analytical results are enclosed on the following pages. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning the analyses or results. Thank you for letting us serve you. ew lc: Sullivan lc: Invoice to CSE ~_-ahl~a~ Sharma sarkari' Ph.l~ Director, Division of Chemistry Rev. I 8/94 (COVER) CORPORATE MODESTO VISAUA BAKERSFIELD MONTEREY SACRAMENTO 2527 Fresno Sffeel 4230 Kiernan Ave. #105 130 North KeLsey St.. #H6 3701 Pegasus Drive. #124 5010diz Avenue 5675 Powe~ Inn Roacl, Suite C Fresno. CA 93721o1804 Modesto, CA 95256-9'322 Visalia, CA 93291-9000 Bakersfield, CA 93308-6843 Sand City, CA 93955 Sacramento, CA 95824 (559) 268-7021 (209) 545-1050 (5,59) 651-8280 (661) 393-5088 (831) 392-1056 (916) 381-9477 Fax 268.7126 Fax 545-1147 Fax 651-8288 Fax 393-4643 Fax 392-1059 Fax 381.9478 REPORT DATE : September 16, 2002 LABORATORY ID : 702-4160.2 DATE SAMPLED : 08/20/02 at 0900 by T. Gluskoter DATE RECEIVED : 08/21/02 at 1000 from Client CLIENT : CSE ANALYZED BY : E. Scott REVIEWED BY : J. Ureno DATE PREPARED : 08/31/02 DATE ANALYZED : 08/31/02 CLIENT SAMPLE ID : MW-1 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 2 of 7 SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water CONSTITUENT RESULTS (ug/L) I DLR I METHOD (ug/L) Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range 290000 250 8021 1700 50 8021 3300 50 8021 520 50 8021 2400 50 8021 64000 2500 8015M ~reparat~on {B 1 EX & [PH-GA~ULINI:): 5030 ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) Preparation (TPH-DIE.51:L): ;f~310 ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes 5/96 (BTE)WVAT) REPORT DATE LABORATORY ID DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED CLIENT ANALYZED BY DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED CLIENT SAMPLE ID : September 16, 2002 : 702-4160.2 : 08~20~02 at 0900 by T. Gluskoter : 08/21/02 at 1000 from Client : CSE : M. Kimball : 08~28~02 : 08~28~02 : MW-1 METHOD: EPA 8260 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 6 of 7 REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water UNITS: I g/L Constituent Results DLR Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2.0 Ethyl reft-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.'0 Methy! tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 61000 500 Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) 11 2.0 Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 20 1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 1.0 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0 ~g/L: m~crograms per L~ter (parts per b~llion) ND: None Detected ULH: Detecbon L~m~t for Heport~ng purposes ug/Kg: micrograms per Kilogram (parts per billion) 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 : September 16, 2002 : 702-4160.1 : 08~20~02 at 0800 by T. Gluskoter : 08/21/02 at 1000 from Client : CSE : E. Scott : J. Ureno : 08/31/02 : 08~31/02 : MW-2 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE I of 7 SAMPLE TYPE · Ground Water CONSTITUENT Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Total Petrol'eum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range RESULTS DLR (ug/L) 110 2.5 ND 0.5 2.2 0.5 ND 0.5 3.2 0.5 53 50 METHOD 8021 8021 8021 8021 8021 8015M =reparabon (1::111:,~ & I PH-IS^~IJI. INI-): bi. J30 uglL: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) Preparalion ( I PH-UII=;51::L): ;5510 ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes Rev. ~3 5196 (BTEXWAT) REPORT DATE LABORATORY Id DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED CLIENT ANALYZED BY DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED CLIENT SAMPLE ID : September 16, 2002 : 702-4160.1 : 08~20~02 at 0800 by T. Gluskoter : 08/21/02 at 1000 from Client : CSE : M. Kimball : 08~28~02 : 08~25~02 : MW-2 METHOD: EPA 8260 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 5 of 7 REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water UNITS: pg/L Constituent Results DLR Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2.0 Ethyl teA-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0 Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 28 1.0 Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 2.0 Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 20 1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 1.0 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0 Jg/L: m~ograms per Liter (parts per bdllon) ug/Kg: micrograms per Kilogram (parts per billion) ND: None Detectecl DLH; Detection Limit for Reporting purposes mg/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 : September 16, 2002 : 702-4160.3 : 08/20/02 at 1000 by T. Gluskoter : 08/21/02 at 1000 from Client : CSE : E. Scott : J. Ureno : 08/31/02 : 08/31/02 : MW-3 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 3 of 7 SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water CONSTITUENT RESULTS · (ug/L) DLR I METHOD (ug/L) Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range 440OO 125 8021 63 25 8021 440 25 8021 59 25 8021 440 '25 8021 12000 2500 8015M ~reparatlon (l:l I I--x & TPH-GA$OLINE): 503U ug/L: mi~ograms per Liter (parts per billion) Preparabon ( 1 PH-UII::~SEL): 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 : September 16, 2002 : 702-4160.3 : 08~20~02 at 1000 by T. Gluskoter : 08/21/02 at 1000 from Client : CSE : M. Kimball : 08~28~02 : 08~28~02 : MW-3 METHOD: EPA 8260 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 7 of 7 REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water UNITS: pg/L Constituent Results DLR Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2.0 Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0 Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 11000 100 Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) 3.7 2.0 Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 20 1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 1.0 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)' ND 1.0 ~g/L: m~crograms per Liter (parts per ~dhon) ug/Kg: micrograms per Kilogram (parts per billion) ND: None Detected DLH: Dejection Limit tor Heportlng purposes rog/Kg: Milligrams per kilogram (ppm) Rev. 4 07/99(8260) REPORT DATE : September 16, 2002 LABORATORY ID : 702-4160.4 DATE SAMPLED : 08~20~02 at 0700 by T. Gluskoter DATE RECEIVED : 08/21/02 at 1000 from Client CLIENT : CSE ANALYZED BY : E. Scott, B. Beckham REVIEWED BY : J. Ureno · DATE PREPARED : 08/31/02 DATE ANALYZED : 08/31/02 CLIENT SAMPLE ID : BLANK THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 4 of 7 SAMPLE TYPE: Aqueous CONSTITUENT RESULTS (ug/L) DLR I METHOD (ug/L) Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range ND 2.5 8021 ND 0.5 8021 ND 0.5 8021 ND 0.5 8021 ND 0.5 8021 ND 50 8015M 'reparabon (BI EX & IPH-GASOLINE:): 5030 ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) Preparabon (] PH-IJII'-SEL): ;J~)10 ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes Rev. 3~ 5/96 (BTEXWAT) IIWIJ~iN6 EPA 8021 (MTBE/BTEX)&LABORATORY CONTRoLEPA 8015MsPiKE(TPH-Gasoline) L A 8 0 R A T 0 R ! [ $ , I N C . QUALITY CONTROL REPORT ret SN0/UOI~STO~qSAUA/~r RsrI£ LD/SN-~AS Analyzed By: Eric Scott Date of Extraction: 08/31102 Date of Analysis: 08131102 Twining Laboratories, Inc. Run ID Number: 083102 Sample Matrix: Aqueous OpIKe iU: ~O' luuu Constituent Method Blank Labor~tory Laboratory Laboratory :. Acceptable Laboratory 'Laboratory Relative Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Spike Percent Control Spike Control Spike Perccat (ug/L) Concentration Recovery Duplicate Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference Level (ug/L) Recovery (%) ReCOvery . Percent (%) (up/L)' (ug/L) Low High (%) Recovery (%) VITBFJBTEX Surrogate (4-Bmm~fluorobenzene) 0.00 25.0 21. I 22. l 80% 120% i 84.4 88.4 4.63 MethylTertiaryButyl Ether 0.00 100 94.7 100 80% 120% '94.7 100 5.44 Benzene 0.00 20.0 19.4 20.5 80% 120% 97.0 103 5.51, 'o!,.,~-~- 0.00 20.0 20.4 21.0 80% 120% 102 105 2.90 Ethyibenzene 0.00 20.0 20.4 21.5 80% 120% 102 108 5.25. }(ylenes. 0.00 60.0 61.8 62.5 80% 120% 103 104 1.13 rPH_Gasoline Surrogate (4-Bromofluombenzene) 0.00 25.0 24.6 23.3 80% 120% 98.4 93.2 5.43 rPH-Gasoline 0.00. 1000 1062 1072 80% 120% 106 107 0.94 EXPLANATIONS: ND Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR). Iug/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. I iNING ~LABORATORI[$, INC. Analyzed By: Michael Kimball Date of Extraction: 0812812002 Twining Laboratories, Inc. Run ID Number: 082802 EPA METHOD 8260 LABORA TORY CONTROL SPIKE QUALITY CONTROL REPORT Reviewed By: S Sharmasarkar Date of Analysis: 0812812002 Sample Matrix: Water S tike IDi WS 134 Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Spike Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent (ug/L) Concentration Recovery Duplicate Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference Level (ug/L) Recovery (%) Recovery Percent (%) (ug/L) (ug/L) Low High (%) Recovery (%) ,I-Dichloroethene 0.00 50.0 54.4 55.4 70% . 130% 109 111 1.82 Benzene 0.00 50.0. 52.5 52.5 70% 130% 105 105 0.00 rrichloroethene 0.00 50.0 49.4 49.9 70% 130% 98.8 99.8 1.01 toluene 0.00 50.0 55.4 55.5 70% 130% 111 111 0.180 Chlorobenzene 0.00 50.0 52.9 52.8 70% 130% 106 106 0.189 Surrogate: Dibromofluonnethane 0.00 50.0 53.7 51.5 86% 118% 107 103 4.18 Surrogate:Toluene-d8 0.00 50.0 53.4 52.9 86% 110% 107 106 0.941 Surrogate: Bromofluourobenzene 0.00 50.0 49.6 50.4 86% 115% 99.2 101 1.60 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 analyt6(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. tWINING iL A B 0 R A I 0 R I £ $ , I N C . Analyzed By: Michael Kimball Date of Extraction: 0812812002 Twining Laboratories, Inc. Run ID Number: 082802 Spike ID: WS 134 EPA METHOD 8260 MA TRIX SPIKE QUALITY CONTROL REPORT Reviewed By: S Sharmasarkar Date of Analysis: 0812812002 Sample Matrix: Water Sample: 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/L) Level (ug/L) Recovery Recovery Recovery , Percent Difference (ug/L) (ug/L) Range (o4) Recovery (%) (%) (%) l, I -Dichloroethene 0.000 50.0 49.2 49.1 70% 130% 98.4 98.2 0.203 Benzene 0.000 50.0 50.8 51.7 70% 130% 102 103 1.76 rrichloroethene 0.000 50.0 46.7 47.1 70% 130% 93.4 94.2 0.853 roluene 0.000 50.0 50.9 51.9 70% 130% 102 104 1.95 ~hlorobenzene 0.000 50.0 49.0 50.6 70% 130% 98.0 101 3.21 Surrogate: Dibromofluormethane 0.000 50.0 50.1 49.0 86% 118% 100 98.0 2.22 Surrogate: Toluene-d8 0.000 50.0 54.8 54.8 86% 110% 110 110 0.00 Surrogate: Bromofluourobenzene 0.000 50.0 48.8 47.3 86% 115% 97.6 94.6 3.12 : 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. 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 has a measurable effect on precise and accurate analyte detection and quantification. THE ' TWINIIIG CHAIN OF CUSTODY/ANALYSIS. REQUEST Ic°c#l '7oao L A B O R A T O fl I E S r I N C ,' 2527 FRESNO STRI~ET · .,,~,.~===ok~, CA 93721 · (559) 268-7021 FAX: (559) 268-0740 SUBMI'I-I'ER INFORMATION: -'~ ~'" RESULTS RE--ED TO: e. ( ) ~. ( ) ~. ( ) ~ ( ) ~ ( ) ~ ( ) ~T J OR BAC~RIOLOGICAL SAMPLE SOURCE SAMPLE STATUS REPO~S FOR: ~ PUBLIC SYS~M ~ RO~INE C0UN~: ~ FRESNO ~ KINGS ~ M~E~ ~ MERCED ~ ~RE ~ PRIVATE WELL Q REPOT ~ STATE DE~. 0F H~L~ SERVICES ~ 0~ER: ~ CONSTRUC~ON ~ OTHER PR~E~ S~G~RE: ~ ~ PR~ECT M~AGER: ~;IN~NALYSIS ~ RUSH ~ALYSlS, RESULTS NEEDED BY: KEY FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS SAMP~ ~PE SL - ~iF~lid ~ ANALYSIS REQUESTED DW - Ddnking Water SF - Sudace Water ~ - Waste Water - L A U S SAMPLE E SAMPLE ID DATE ~ME ~PE ao ( · RELINQUISHED BY COMPANY DATE TI~E REC~VED BY COMPANY THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY · ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING · SAMPLING SERVICES CONS'~RUCTION INSPECTION & MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT COVER SHEET REPORT DATE LABORATORY Id ATTENTION CLIENT · September 16, 2002 - 702-4216.1-3 'Sullivan 1508 18 St, Ste 722 Bakersfield, CA 93301 INVOICE# 70204216 Amended Report: October 21, 2002 RECEIVED 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. In accordance with your instructions, the samples submitted were analyzed for the components specified. The analytical results are enclosed on the following pages. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning the analyses or results. Thank you for letting us serve you. ew ~han'~'ar Sharma sark'ar, Ph.~ Director, Division of Chemistry Rev, '1 8/94 (COVER) CORPORATE MODESTO VISALJA BAKERSFIELD MONTEREY SACRAMENTO 2527 Fresno Street 4230 Kiernan Ave,, it 105 130 Norlh Kelsey St., #H6 3701 Pegasus Drive. it 124 501 Ortiz Avenue 5675 Powe~ Inn Road. Suite C Fresno, CA 93721.1804 Modesto, CA 95256-9322 ' V~alia. CA 93291.9000 Bakers-field, CA 93.308-6843 Sand C/b/, CA 93955 Sacramento. CA 95824 (559) 268-7021 (209) 545-1050 (559) 651-8280 (661)393-5088 (831) 392-1056 (916) 381-9477 Fax 268-7126 Fax 545-1147 Fax 651-8288 Fax 393-4643 Fax 392-1059 Fax 381-9478 REPORT DATE LABORATORY ID DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED CLIENT ANALYZED BY REVIEWED BY DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED CLIENT SAMPLE ID · September 16, 2002 · 702-4216.1 ' 08~22~02 at 0800 by Tim Gluskoter · 08~26~02 at 0940 from Client · CSE/Sullivan THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 1 of 6 · N. Tyler, S. Stasikonis, G. Barrett, J. Tangye, C. Fammatre · B. Coleman · 08~23~02 through 08~28~02 · 08~23~02 through 09~02~02 SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water · MW-1 Calcium (Ca) 76 ug/L 0.5 200.7 Magnesium (Mg) 23 ug/L 0.1 200.7 Sodium (Na) 37 ug/L 1 200.7 Potassium (K) 18 ug/L 1 200.7 Hydroxide (OH) ND ug/L 1 SM2320B Carbonate (CO3) ND ug/L I SM2320B Bicarb· (HCO3) 140 ug/L I SM2320B Chloride (CI) 30 ug/L 2 300.0 Sulfate (SO4) 51 ug/L 4 300.0 pH 6.6 pH N/A 150.1 EC 490 uS/cm 1 SM2510 TI'},~ ?fi0 uq/I 1N ,q~,~n ug/L: milligrams per Liter (parts per million) ug/L: miccograms per Liter (parts per billion) MBAS: Methylene Blue Active Substances REV. ~ 2/97 (DOCINOR~GENMIN) SM: Standard Methods, 18th Edition ND: None Detected uSlcm: mi=o Siemen per Centimeter ~ 25°C N/A: Not Applicable SI: Saturation Index DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes REPORT DATE: September 16, 2002 LABORATORY ID · 702-4216.1 DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED · 08~22~02 at 0800 by Tim Gluskoter · 08~23~02 at 0940 from Client CLIENT · CSE/Sullivan ANALYZED BY · N· Tyler, C. Fammatre REVIEWED BY' B. Coleman DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED · 08~23~02 through 08~27~02 · 08~23~02 through 08~27~02 ;LIENT SAMPLE ID · MW-1 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 4 of 6 SAMPLE TYPE ' Ground Water CONSTITUENT Nitrate (NO3) TKN 18 ug/L ND ug/L 2.0 300.0 '2.0 SM4500 ug/L: Milligrams per liter (parts per million). ND: None Detected. DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes Rev. ~ 8~94 (NITROGEN.INO) REPORT DATE LABORATORY ID DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED CLIENT ANALYZED BY REVIEWED BY DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED CLIENT SAMPLE ID · September 16, 2002 · 702-4216.3 · 08/22/02 at 1000 by Tim Gluskoter · 08/23/02 at 0940 from Client · CSE/Sullivan THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 3 of 6 · N. Tyler, S. Stasikonis,.G. Barrett, J. Tangye, C. Fammatre · B. Coleman · 08/23/02 through 08/28/02 · 08/23/02 through 09/03/02 SAMPLE · MW-2 TYPE: Ground Water GENERAL MINERAL IRESULTS I UNITS I DLR METHOD Calcium (Ca) 71 ug/L Magnesium (Mg) 17 ug/L Sodium (Na) 37 ug/L Potassium (K) 11 ug/L Hydroxide (OH) ND ug/L Carbonate (CO3) ND ug/L Bicarb. (HCO3) 140 ug/L Chloride (CI) 33 ug/L Sulfate (SO4) 66 ug/L pH 6.7 pH EC 550 uS/cm Tr3,~ ' 310 ug/I ug/L: milligrams per Liter (parts per million) ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) MBAS: Methylene Blue Active Substances REV, ~6 2/97 (DOClNOR~GENMIN) SM: Standard Methods, 18th Edition ND: None Detected uS/cra: micro Siemen per Centimeter (~ 25°C N/A: Not Applicable 0.5 2O0.7 0.1 200.7 1 200.7 I 200.7' 1 SM2320B 1 SM2320B 1 SM2320B 2 300.0 4 300.0 N/A 150.1 1 SM2510 10 SI: Saturation Index DLR; Detection Limit for Reporting purposes REPORT DATE LABORATORY ID DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED CLIENT ANALYZED BY REVIEWED BY DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED CLIENT SAMPLE ID · September 16, 2002 · 702-4216.3 · 08~23~02 at 1000 by Tim Gluskoter · 08~23~02 at 0940 from Client · CSE/Sullivan · N. Tyler, C. Fammatre · B. Coleman · 08/23/02 through 08/27/02 · 08~23~02 through 08~27~02 · MW-2 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 6 of 6 SAMPLE TYPE ' Ground Water CONSTITUENT Nitrate (NO3) TKN 38 ug/L ND ug/L 2.0 300.0 2.0 SM4500 ug/L: Milligrams per liter (parts per million). ND: None Detected. DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes Rev, ~ 8~94 (NITROGENINO) . REPORT DATE LABORATORY ID DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED CLIENT ANALYZED BY REVIEWED BY DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED CLIENT SAMPLE ID : September 16, 2002 : 702-4216.2 : 08/22/02 at 0900 by Tim Gluskoter : 08/23/02 at 0940 from Client : CSE/Sullivan : N. Tyler, S. Stasikonis, G. Barrett, J. Tangye, C. Fammatre : B. Coleman : 08~23~02 through 08~28~02 : 08~23~02 through 09~03~02 : MW-3 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 2 of 6 SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water Calcium (Ca) 97 ug/L 0.5 200.7 Magnesium (Mg) 25 ug/L 0.1 200.7 Sodium (Na) 37 ug/L I 200.7 Potassium (K) 16 ug/L I 200.7 Hydroxide (OH) ND ug/L 1 SM2320B Carbonate (CO3) ND ug/L 1 SM2320B Bicarb. (HCO3) 140 ug/L 1 SM2320B Chloride (CI) 25 ug/L 2 300.0 Sulfate (SO4) 59 ug/L 4 300.0 pH 6.7 pH N/A 150.1 EC 480 uS/cm I SM2510 TD.c; 31(~ iJ.n/I 10 RM?R4O ug/L: milligrams per Liter (parts per million) SM: Standard Methods, 18th Edition ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) MBAS: Methylene Blue Active Substances REV. ~ 2/97 (DOCINOR\GENMIN) SI: Saturation Index ND: None Detected uSIcm: micro Siemen per Centimeter ~ 25°C N/A: Not Applicable DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes REPORT DATE: September 16, 2002 LABORATORY ID DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED CLIENT ANALYZED BY : 702-4216.2 : 08~22~02 at 0900 by Tim Gluskoter : 08~23~02 at 0940 from Client : CSE/Sullivan : N. Tyler, C. Fammatre REVIEWED BY: B. Coleman DATE PREPARED : 08~23~02 through 08~27~02 DATE ANALYZED : 08123102 through 08~27~02 CLIENT SAMPLE ID : MW-3 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 5 of 6 SAMPLE TYPE : Ground Water CONSTITUENT UNITS Nitrate (NO3) TKN 38 ND ug/L ug/L 2.0 300.0 2.O SM4500 ug/L: Milligrams per liter (parts per million). ND: None Detected. DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes Rev. 2 8194 (NITROGEN. INO) THE TWINING LABORATORIES~ INC. CHAIN OF CUSTODY/ANALYSIS REQUEST Ic°c# I '7o~o~/~./~ 2527 FRESNO STREET · FRESNO, CA 93721 · (559) 268-7021 FAX: (559) 268-0740 SUBMrFrER INFORMATION: A3q'ENTION: _ CONTRACT # OR P.O. ADDRESS: ATTENTION: P. ( ) F,x( ) BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLE SOURCE I"-J PUBLIC SYSTEM J~J PRIVATE WELL (~ SURFACE WATER [~ CONSTRUCTION [~ OTHER SAMPLE INFORMATION: JSAMPLE STATUS ROUTINE II'-J R/IEPEAT .~OTHER ~/ROUTII~E ANALYSIS SL' Soil/Solid ST - Storm Water WW - Waste Water RUSH ANALYSIS, RESULTS NEEDED BY: KEY FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS SAMPLE TYPE BS - Biosolids ,,~'"~Ground Water DW - Drinking Water - -~SF - Surface Water REPORTS FOR: COUNTY: [~ FRESNO O KINGS [~ MADERA ~ MERCED I~ TUt. ARE [~ STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES ~ OTHER; PR~ECT: S,T~: ~.///~ ~ PR~ECT ~: ~~ PR~ECT MANAGER: ~ ~_~ SAMPLE ID DATE [,t/- / ~.ZZ.~z SAMPLE TYPE :OMMENTS: :ELINQUISHED BY COMPANY RECEIVED BY COMPANY .Central ironmental November 14, 2002 Enviro t. . .__ ConsUltant. Mr. David BaldWin San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Southern Region 2700 "M" Street, Suite 275 · Bakersfield, California 93301 SOURCE COMPLIANCE MONITORING FOR THE VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM AT THE SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION 2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA (ATC PERMIT #S-3267-2-0) Dear Mr. Baldwin: This report presents the results of Central Sierra environmental, LLC's (CSE's) source compliance monitoring as required by the AuthoritY to Construct (ATC)permit for the direct-fired thermal oxidation vapor extraction unit, which is being used for the mitigation of gasolineTcontaining soil associated with a release from the vehicle fueling facilities at the Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC, Downtown Chevron Service Station located at 2317 "L" street, Bakersfield, Kern CountY, Califomia. CSE has COnducted sampling of the influent and effluent concentrations of gasoline hydrocarbons and BTEX in accordance with Condition #5 of the ATC permit. This study indicates that the maximum concentration of VOC emissions and destruction efficiency of the sYstem complies with the ATC Conditions #4and #16. In addition, CSE has conducted weekly field monitoring of the influent and effluent VOC emissions using' a PID in accordance with Condition #10. This field monitoring also demonstrates compliance for maximum VOC emissions and system destruction efficiency in accordance with Conditions #4 and #16 (see Attachment 1 for the SJVUAPCD-SR ATC Permit). Therefore, CSE respectfully requests that the ATC permit status be upgraded to a PTO. 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 1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309· (661) 325-4862 - Fax (661) 325-5126, censenv@aol.com. Mr. David Baldwin SJVUAPCD-SR November 14, 2002 - Page 2 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. 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 (!.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, Geotogic Map of California, Bakersfield Sheet). At the subject site, surface deposits consist of Quaternary (recent) unconsolidated alluvium overlying Quaternary (Pleistocene) nonmadne 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 pement 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 dudng 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 o! groundwater at110 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 Mr. David Baldwin SJVUAPCD-SR 'November 14, 2002 - Page 3 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 is110 fbg, and the grOundwater gradient is to the southwest, away from the Kern River and toward the ancient Kern Lake bed (KCVVA, 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. PREVIOUS WORK During 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 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 bodngs. (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 dg where refusal was experienced due to the presence of a layer of cobbles. On September 26, 1999, soil bodng B-1 was deepened to a depth of 48 fbg using a torque-modified MobileTM B-53 hollow- stem auger ddil 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 Mr. David Baldwin SJVUAPCD-SR November 14, 2002 - Page 4 boulders. On September 26, .1999, soil borings B-4 and B-5 were also drilled at the site to 45 fog where ddlling 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 bodngs 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 {he 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 dudng 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 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 la;~erally 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. 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 (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 wouldbe 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. Or~ February I 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 VW-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 LAR was used because of the height of the canopy above the ddll location, and the dual-walled percussion, air rotary I_AR was required due to the requirement to ddll through cobbles and Mr. David Baldwin SJVUAPCD-SR November 14, 2002 - Page 5 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 110fbg. S°il samples were not collected while ddlling soil bodngs VVV-2 through VW-4 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 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 VVV-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 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 TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 250 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fog, decreasing to 5.7 rog/kg 'in the soil sample collected from 65 fog, 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 fog. However, benzene'was detected at a concentration of 9.3 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 100 fog. MTBE was detected in the four soil samples reaching a maximum concentration of 87 mglkg 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 VVV-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. 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~I 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 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 with Mr. David Baldwin SJVUAPCD-SR November 14, 2002 - Page 6' the condition that a VET work plan be provided to CRWQCB-CVR to determine the extraction well flow rates, and the ROI within the shallow, intermediate, and deep zones. In addition, the CRWQCB-CVR required full-time operation of the.VES to be accomplished using a mobile treatment system, or the construction of a fixed treatment system connected to the vapor extraction wells by underground-piping. HFA's cAp Addendum, dated August 13, 2001, recommended that upon installation of the vapor extraction well field and initiation of VES operations at the site, a VET will be performed to determine the extraction well flow rates and the ROI within the shallow, intermediate, and deep zones. The VET will be conducted using vapor extraction wells VW-ls, VW-li, and VW~ld as 'the extraction wells and vapor extraction wells .VVV-2, VVV-3, and VVV-4, as well as combination vapor extraction and groundwater monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3 as the observation wells. Step tests will be performed by extracting soil vapors at three different vacuums for'a duration of 20 minutes or until vacuum pressures have stabilized. Selected vacuum steps will be one-third of the maximum vacuum achieved by the blower. Flow rates and corresponding wellhead vacuums and subsurface vacuums will be monitored, and the data will be recorded on a VET recording log. The results of the test will be summarized graphically and in tabular form, and the information will be utilized to calculate the ROI for various flow rates and the intrinsic soil permeability of the extracted zone.' At the beginning and end of the step test, vapor samples will be collected in TedlarTM bags from the extraction well and analyzed by a California State-certified laboratory for TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE. The results will be presented to the CRWQCB-CVR as part of a quarterly progress report. The CRWQCB-CVR. letter, dated September 25, 2001 apprOved implementation of the VET work plan. From October 30, 2001 through November 2, 2001, HFA drilled five soil borings with three lateral soil bodngs (MW-1 through MW-3) drilled to 125 fog and completed as groundwater monitoring wells and the two central soil borings (VW-ls and VW-li) drilled to 35 fog 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 drilling soil borings MW-1 through MW-3, with groundwater encountered at 114 fbg. Soil samples were not collected while ddlling 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 fog. Therefore, soil borings 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 fbg. Soil bodngs'VW-ls and VW-li were drilled to 35 and 75 fog, respectively and installed as va,por extraction wells with 4-inch- diameter slotted PVC casing from 5 to 35 fog and 40 to 75 fog, respectively. Mr. David Baldwin SJVUAPCD-SR November 14, 2002 - Page 7 Benzene was detected in only the Soil sample collected from soil bodng 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 add MW-3. However, MTBE was detected in all 11 soil samples collected from soil b°fing MW-I', '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 MVV-2, reaching a maximum concentration of 0.17 mg/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 fbg. TBA was detected in 4 of the 11 soil samples collected from boring MVV-1, . reaching a maximum concentration of 10 mg/kg in the soil sample Collected at 10 fbg. On November 26, 200!, 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 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 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. 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 pg/I in the groundwater sample collected from well VVV~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. Because Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC was unable to obtain an access agreement with the adjacent property owner to poSition a remediation equipment compound on that property, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC made arrangements for the remediation equipment comPOund to be located in the southeast comer of the Service station property in the landscaped area to the east of the petroleum release. On May 13, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR ATC #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 constructed and wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW-li, VW-ld, VW-2, VVV-3, and VVV-4 have been connected by 2- inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation equipment compound. Mr. David'Baldwin SJVUAPCD-SR NovemlJer 14, 2002 -.Page 8 Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and natural gas services. On october 10, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR representatives conducted an inspection of the YES and 'observed source.compliance vapor Sampling. SOURCE STUDY Dudng the fourth quarter of 2002, full-time operation of the VES Was initiated. CSE has Operated the unit 24 hours per day since start-up with only short interruptions for periodic maintenance, draining of the knockout pot, and a few occurrences when the system was shut down. The concentration of the inlet was maintained between 6,500 and 4,500 ppmv. With the gradual decrease in the concentration of the vapor extracted from the subsurface, the unit has automatically introduced a flow of supplemental natural gas to maintain the temperature of the thermal oxidizer above the required set point of 1,400°F in compliance with Condition #15 of the ATC permit. Natural gas usage is averaging less than 0.1 MM Btu/hr, with the pilot flame consuming almost all of the natUral gas flow. The inlet soil vapor flow rate has been monitored in Condition #8 of the ATC permit and consistently ranges from 175 to 265 scfm. During the October 10, 2002, inspection, the inlet soil vapor flow rate was measured at 206 scfm on the flow gauge of the VES unit, which was confirmed using a portable potentiometer. SAMPLING METHODOLOGY On October 10, 2002, CSE personnel collected influent and effluent vapor samples in compliance with Condition #5 of the ATC permit. The source study consisted of obtaining vapor samples at the system influent and emission stack and submitting the samples for laboratory analyses. Vapor samples were collected using pre-cleaned, 3-liter TedlarTM bags. The bags were equipped with 0.25-inch TeflonTM tubing extensions for attachment to sampling ports on the VES piping. LABORATORY ANALYSIS Each vapor sample was analyzed by Zalco Laboratories, Inc., a California State-certified laboratory, for TPH as gasoline using EPA Method 8015 (M) and BTEX and MTBE using EPA MethOd 8020. ANALYTICAL RESULTS TPH as gasoline was detected in the influent sample at 5,500 ppmv, but was not detected in the effluent sample. Benzene was detected in the influent sample at 58 ppmv, but was not detected in the effluent sample. MTBE was detected in the influent sample at 1,900 ppmv and 0.31 ppmv in the effluent sample (see Table 1 - Summary of Source Compliance Monitoring Analytical Results and Attachment 2 for the Laboratory Report). Mr. David Baldwin SJVUAPCD-SR November 14, 2002 - Page 9 CONCLUSIONS Based on the vapor sampling and laboratory analytical results of the source study and the field monitoring since start-upl the source testing demonstrates compliance with Conditions ~ and #16 of the ATC permit since the control efficiency is greater than 95 percent, and the daily total vOc emissions do not exceed 29.4 pounds. CSE respectfully requests that the ATC permit status be upgraded to a PTO. The Services performed by cSE were' conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of its profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the State of California. No other warranty is expressed or implied. Thank yOu for this opportunity to have been of service. If You have any questions regarding this report or the information contained herein, please contact me at (661) 325-4862 or at e-mail address censenv(~aol.com; v Consulting Hydrogeologist ~,X,~ ~:;/1~ ~,,~,~.~/~' CMeRntM..~. It Sierra Envir°nmental' LLC ~ Enclosures: Figure 1 Site Location: Map Figure 2 - Plot Plan Table I - Summary of Source Compliance Monitoring Analytical Results Attachment 1 - ATC Permit #-S-3267-2-0 Attachment 2 Laboratory Report Mr. Tim Sullivan, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC Mr. Steve Enns, SJVUAPCD-SR Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR Mr. Howard H. Wines, III, BFDESD ~"~ :- - II ' ~==-~ ...... "',' -"~ ...... · ..-:: .... .~. ..... ,-. -. ,:, ~.. .... .. I] ::'. ....................... ::::IlI~LI ~11 .,:T~,,~~o>" ~" _~..-:~ ........ ~o_~ .%o ,-~ .... ~~,~.._~- . ~o~_.~_~ ........ ~- ,, ~:" .:,,";' ~ ( '~ ~'~ i: --~ ~ o ~ ,%~ ",'. ~ : ~) ~ /" · ~ ~ i "--~ ~ '. ....... ' ' o ~ · .';'~ ~ ~ :,I~: - . ~ ~ ~ - . ,...,.... ,, ~~;~, .~.~ ,:, . ,, . ,.~ o ~lb-:: --:~..--. ' ~~ '1 ~llf~:.~k' ---~FI! · I" ' ~tX~ .... '~"~'" ..... ~ I1:':'~ ......... ' ' Z '',,~?' ,, .-' ~ N .... ~' ' "/. ~:~%'' :, ,.:' ~%" ~ t ff~'.'x ~'": . .= ii.Iu= ~:_:: ~;-:-~~1 . -.. ........ Ii ,. .~o ~ ~1 : I" /~ I ~,'/ .:~" /~~ /1~11:~~~~~~~ . Do ~.~ .... ~ ~: · '- .... ' '~ ?~ ~1~ o, .... tutu i:.~ ~/x/:;' .... r: /~] '~//:~~E I~~%~~ ! '. -;~r ~, ~ t~ .?' ~~~LI~ , I-I I/rtl II, LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM GOMPANY, LLG o o.s 1 ~c~ ~ DOWNTOWN GHEVRON SERVIGE STATION I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I/ 2317 "L" STREET ~~.,,o ~.~ 3.~ ,.~ ~.~ FE~ ~ . BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA e ... ,.s ~ ~ou~ FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP us~ o~ ~.s ~,u~ sm~s ~"~~ CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL. LLC ,.'~ ~. CAR MINI MART ' WASH · uj LU T 0c DISPENSER ISLANDS n MW-2. n" TREATMENT ~COMPOUND CANOPY ~ ~) VW-2 ,~ ~VES UNIT · . ~SC-1 ,VW-,a - _ UJ .~-. r(~ v,,v_,~,~MW-', , _~ . ! J , T o +.~__.._',O.O00-~ALLON / : GASgLIN~ UST / m)~ ' 20,000--GALLON ,s ,SU~NOS o o.o / ,., SPLIT-CHAMBERED ! MW-3 F_XP,O~TOR¥ ~N- GABOL'Ni': UST (~ TRENCH LOCATION PLANTER // MW.4~_ ,APPROACH ,DEWAL 23RD $1REF:I SCALE IN FEEl 0 1§ 30. MW-~ . MW-5 m 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 (~) VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN .-~ pROpOSED MONITORING WELL ,~ CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC REVISION DATE: November 12, 2002 TABLE '1. SUMMARY OF SOURCE COMPLIANCE MONITORING 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 t 8015 (M) 8020 NIA . 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.1' N/A! DETECTION LIMITIl 10 58 290 ND ' 1,900 INFLUENT 10-10-02 I 0210153-1i 5,500 , 32 2201 A EFFLUENT , 10-10-02 I 0210153-2 . .......... ND NDI NDi NDI 0.311 A REF = Report'reference. NIA = Not applicable. ND = Not detected. A = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's, current report. ATTACHMENT 1. ATC PERMIT f/~-3267-2-0 AUGj26-02~ ~ON 02:36 PM S-JVAPCD-SO. REGION FAX:661 326 6985 PAGE 2 AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT PERMIT NO: S-3267-2-0 LEGAL OWNER OR OPERATOR: MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION: S, ULLIVAN PETROLEUM CO LLC 1.508 '18TH ST SUITE 222 BAKERSFIELD. CA 93301 2317 L ST BAKERSFIELD, CA 9330'1 ISSUANCE DATE: -' '~"' 00,13,',.::!. _- EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION: SOIL AND. GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION PROJECT SERVED By A BAKER FURNACE 300 THERMAL OXIDIZER WITH 0.1 MMBTU/HR BURNER. CONDITIONS t. No air contaminant shall· be discharged into thc atmosphere for a period or periods aggregating more than thrcc minutes in any one hour which is as dark as, or darker than, Rmgelrnann 1 or 20% opacity. [Dismct Rule 4101] 2. No air contaminant shall be released into the atmosphere Which causes a public nuisance. [District Rule 4102] 3. The soil remediation system shall bc maintained in proper Operating condition at all times. [District NSR Rule] 4.' Either the VOC cone-Gl efficiency shall not be less than 95%, or the total VOC emissions rotc shall not exceed 2 pounds itl any one day~ [District Rule 22(I 1 ] 5. Laboratory samples shall be taken at the initial inspection, under thc supervision of the APCD Inspector. Samples shall be taken from both the influem and thc effluent gas stream sampling ports. [District Rule 1081] 6. Sampling ports adequate fbr cxtracfion of'grab samples, measurement of gas flow rate, and use of an FID, PI1-') or other I)istrict-approvcd VOC detection device shall be pr6vided for both the influent and cf fluent gas streams. [District Rule 1081.1 7. I.aboratory samples shall be analyzed for TPtl and BTEX. [District Rule 1081] Measurcmcnts to determir, e t.hc influent and thc c.ff[uent gas flow rates shall be taken at the initial inspection. Flow rate calculations shall be submined :o thc l)isn'ict with thc laboratory san:pie analysis rcsuhs. [Dis-,nct Rule lOgli (.';ON~Di'I'IONS CONTINUE ON NFX-I' PAGE Th!~'is NOT a PERMIT TO OPERATE. Approve! cr denial of a PERMIT TO OPERATE will be made after an inspec~on to verify that the e(3uipment has :)eau constructed in accordance with the approved ·plans, specifications and COnditions of this Autnodb/to Construct. and to determine if the equiprner~ ,~an be operated in compliance With. all Rules and Regulations of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. YOU MUST NOTIFY THE DISTRICT I~OMPLIANcF_ DNISION AT (661) 326-$900 WHEN CONSTRUCTION OF THE EQUIPMENT IS COMPLETED. Unles,: construction commenced pursuant to Rule 2050. this Authority [o Construct shall expire and application shall be cancelled two years from the date of issuance. a~3~31icant is responsible ~ complying wdh ail taws. ordinances and re.qulation$ of all other governmental agencies which may pertain to the a~ov-. eqwp:nenL DAVID'L CROW, Executive Director / APCO SEYED SAORIEDIN, Director of Permit Services Southern Regio. nal Off'ic~ · 2700 M StroeL Suite 275 o Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370 . (661) 326-6900 o Fax (661) 326-6985 AUC--26-0 MON PM SJVAPCDz , FAX'661326 6985 PAGE 3 . Conditions. for S 3267 2 0 (continued) "x . . . pa,,.~ , ~t[::2 ... Inmal compl,~nce x~,tl, ~ Or.. crms,,on rate and control et~cmncy rcqmrcmcnts shall be demonstrated by thc re'it; the laboratow sample analys=s, l he results shall be submkted ro the Dislricl within 60 days of the test. [District 10. Ongoing compliance with VOC en::ssior: rate and control cffic~enc~ rcquircmcms si~ai[ bc demons~ated by sampling both the influcmt and the et'flucm~,,as.. ~[ruams. with an FID. PID. or other Disn'lcr-approve2 VOC detection device. [Dismct Rote 1081 ] [ I. Sampling t0.demonstmtc ongoing comvhancc shah be pcrt~nncd at least once per month. [Dis~ict Rule !2. Records of the cumulative mnmnu ~imc 'and :he me'asu:ed mt]ue,.t and effluent vOC c,nccntra[ions shall bc maimaincd..[Dismc: Ru~e 10.70~ 13. All records shall be retaincO Ibr a minimum of 2 year~, and shall bc made available lbr District inspection upon request. [Dismcr Rule 10701 't4. Operation of the soil rcm¢diation system shall nor cxcrcd 3 years ~Sthou[ phor Dis~ct approval. [Dis~icr Rule 4102] 15.. ~c minimum operating temperature for the combustion chamber or thc thermal oxidizer shall be maintained at or above i.400 de~ees F. [District Rule 2201] 16. The total VOC emission rate from' the soil remediation system sc~cd by the thernml oxidizer shall not exceed 29.4 pounds in any one day. [District NSR Rule] 17. Only liquified pe~oteum gas or natural gas shall be Used as auxiliau R~el for fl~e combustion of VOC~. [Dis~ct NSR Rule]. 18. The to~l NOX emission rate from the soil remediation svs[em served by the thermal/catalytic oxidizm shall not exceed 0.1 Ib~M8~. [Dis~ict Rule 2201]. 19. The total CO emission rare f?om' the soil rcmcdiation system se~ed by the [hc~al/catal~ic oxidizer shall not exceed · 0.021 lb~MBtu. [District Rule 2201 20. lhe the~al/catal~ic oxidizer shall ~ equipped with an opemtioaal temperature gauge to indicate the temperature of the combustion chamber. A conhnuously i'ecording device shall be utilized to indicate thc combustion cham~r te~crature'during operation. [District Rule 2201] 21. ~e soil remediation system shall not be operated unless the Combustion chamber is at or above minimum operating tempcratt~e. 'l~he system, shall automatically terminate operation it'thc tcmp¢ratt~e drops below the minimum operating tcmp~ature. [Dis~r ct Rule 2201] 22. ~e Air Pollution Consol Inspector shall bc notified in xwiting when thc thc~al incinerator will be modified to operate in catalytic oxidizer mode pr/or to thc modification. [Dis~ict Rule 2201 ] ATTACHMENT 2. LABORATORY REPORT ZAI_CO LARORATORIES, 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 Tlrpe: Gas/NGL/LPG Laboratory No: 0210153-1 Date Received: 10/10/02 Date Reported: '10/15/02 Contract'No. : Date Sampled : 10/10/02 Time Sampled : 14:09 Description: influent, 'Sullivan Petroleum Sampled by Tim Martin REPORT OF AlgALYTICAL 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 5500 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 . ppmv. 2.5 8020/1 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 ppmv 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 ~0rtez,-'£aborat~ Mana~-z/ ,~/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per million) ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion} umhos/cm : microm~os/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 detachment. ZAL'CO LABORATORIES, INI . 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 tert=Butyl Ether (MTBE) Benzene Toluene Ethytbenzene Total Xylenes TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 0.31 ND ND ND ND ND ppmv ppmv ppmv ppmv ppmv 0.1 so20/1 0.'1.8020/1 0.1 8020/1 0.18020/1 0.1 8020/1 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 C'or[ez, Lab0ratortManag~/ 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 detachment. Chain of Custody. Record Page. / of ./ ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. ' ,..~, ,, .'_/; /,~ (') ".eL! O J5 ~ ~'' 4309 Armour Ave. ProjectT',le '::~"~ II/~ ./',-" ~J/~, ," o,(.[/.//'/ Turnaround Time: z,~coLab# Bakersfield. California 93308 " I~ RUSH By:.__ ,,' (661) 395-0539 OExpedited (1 Week) FieldLog# '~ · Fax [661 ) 395-3069 Ice Chest # , Temperature,DC [~ Routine (2 Weeks) Work Order # Sample . Date T~e Ty~~ Legal sample Description ' Containers ~ ~ ~ o o IO~ Sampled Sampled S~ KW ael~ ~ Ty~* ~ ~ ~ ~ Remarks ~o.w~,? 2:0 ? ~ >-I~ T- ~ ' ~' ~X , 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 · * W-Water W~V-Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L. Liquid O-Other HaZardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at clients expense. **'* A-Acid, pH<2 (HCI,HNO3,H2SO4) S-NaOH+ZnAc C-Caustic, pH>I 0 (NaOH) White - Office Copy Yellow - Lab Copy Pink - Client Copy California l ional Water Quality C ntrol Board Central Valley Region Winston H. Hickox Robert Schneider, Chair Secretaryfbr Fresno Branch Office Environmental lnternet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5 Protection 3614 East Ashlan Avenue, Fresno, California 93726 Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910 Gray Davis Governor 16 July2002 RWQCB Case No. 5T15000836 Mr. David Bird Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC P.O. Box 5007 B-aE~?SF~ld, C~lifornia 93308 ...... NOTICE OF OVERDUE REPORT, UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE~ DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY You submitted Expanded Groundwater Assessment Report (Assessment Report) dated 19 February 2002 and prepared by Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. The Assessment Report indicated that methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), benzene, and other gasoline constituents were detected in all monitoring wells during the 26 November 2001 groundwater monitoring event. MTBE was detected at concentrations up to 5,300,000 micrograms per liter. By our letter dated 4 March 2002, we requested that you submit a work plan to define the lateral extent of impacted groundwater by 13 May 2002. As of the date of this letter, we have not received the work plan. The work plan is overdue. ( As the responsible party, you must implement corrective action in a timely manner. Continued failure to comply with our requests will result in enforcement actions and could jeopardize your access to the UST Cleanup Fund. Should you have questions regarding these matters, please contact me at (559) 445-5504 JOHN D. WHITING Associate Engineering Geologist RG No. 5951 cc: Ms. Barbara Rempel, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento ~. Mr. Howard Wines 1/I, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakers fiel~ Mr. Mark Magargee, Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Bakersfield California Environmental Protection Agency ~ Recycled Paper The .energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5 Winston H. Hickox ' Secretary for Environmental Protection California Re °nal Water Quality oontrol Central Valley Region Robert Schneider, Chair Fresno Branch Office Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/-rwqcb5 3614 East Ashlan Avenue, Fresno, California 93726 Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910 Board Gray Davis Governor 17 September 2002 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 Second Quarter 2002 Progress Report (Report) dated 10 September 2002 and prepared by Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). The Report documents a groundwater monitoring event performed on 27 June 2002. 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 soil vapor extraction (SVE) wells on- site. The lateral extent of impacted groundwater is undefined. A municipal well is approximately 1,000 feet downgradient of the site. We request that quarterly groundwater monitoring continue. We reiterate our request that remediation by SVE be expedited as soon as utilities are connected. Summaries of the project, the Report, and our comments follow. A summary of the project is included in our letter dated 19 July 2002. Report Summary CSE-conducted groundwater-monitoring on-27-June-2002, -Depth-tO-g~'oundwater ranged-from 1-! 5.61 -to ....... 117.31 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. Groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and MTBE by EPA Method 8021, and MTBE, tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA), di-isopropyl ether (DIPE), ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME), 1,2-dichlor. oethane (1,2-DCA), and 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) by EPA Method 8260B. TPH-g was detected at 21,000, 350, 13,000 micrograms per liter (I-tg/L)'by EPA Method 8260 in the samples collected from MW-I, MW-2, and MW-3 respectively. Benzene was detected at 32 and 64 gg/L in MW-2 and MW-3, respectively. TPH-g and benzene concentrations decreased compared to the previous monitoring event. MTBE was detected at 29,000, 170, and 14,000 gg/L in the samples California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper Mr. David Bird -2- 17 September 2002 collected from MW-i, MW~2; and MW-3, respectively. MTBE concentrations in MW-1 and MW-3 decreased compared to the previous monitoring event. TAME was detected at 4.7 and 3.7 in MW-1 and MW-3, respectively. '~ During the Third Quarter 2002, CSE will conduct quarterly groundwater monitoring, install two off-site monitoring wells, SVE remediation equipment, initiate SVE operation, and conduct a SVE pilot test. Comments BaSed on review of the above-summarized reports, 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. --~.`F~a-tin~g--p~etr-~eum-`pr-~duct~.25~fe.et-.thick~w.as~.measur¢d~n-gr~und~ater4n-S.-.V.E~w~--~.d~duri~ -.. the 26 November 2001 (initial), 28 March 2002 and 27 June 2002 monitoring events. MTBE has been detected in VW-Id at very high maximum concentrations of 4,100,000 and 1,300,000 gg/L during the first and second monitoring events, resPectively. MTBE has been detected at concentrations up to 49,000 gg/L in monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3. MTBE concentrations have decreased compared to the previous two quarters. The lateral extent of MTBE in soil and impacted grou~ndwater are undefined. MTBE may be transported in groundwater 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 reiterate our request of 4 March 2002 that you expedite soil remediation by SVE to minimize the migration and spread of gasoline and MTBE in site soils and groundwater and potential impacts to the municipal well. We understand that you have installed the SVE remediation system and that the system will be started after the supplemental fuel (natural gas) line has been connected and inspected. After SVE system startup, a pilot test should be conducted to determine extraction well airflow rates and the radius of influence (ROI) of the shallow, intermediate, and deep screened intervals. We previously approved a proposed SVE pilOt test (vacuum influence test) by our letter dated 25 September 2001. HFA indicated that they would su_~mrn~ize the results of the pilot test in a _quarterly. remediation status report. We request that the final remediation design specifications be included in the status report submitted by your new consultant. If no. design changes are necessary, your consultant should so indicate in the status report. We concur with CSE that quarterly groundwater monitoring should be continued. Groundwater samples should be analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, and the volatile organic compounds, usually reported in a full EPA Method 8260 analysis (usually 63 to 67 compounds). The EPA Method 8260 analysis should also include BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, TAME, 1,2-DCA, and EDB. The full range of EPA Method 8260 volatile organic compounds was not reported for the First and Second Quarter 2002 monitoring events. CSE indicates that these analyses will be performed during the Third Quarter 2002 monitoring event. Please submit a groundwater monitoring report for the Third Quarter monitOring event by 10 December 2002. U:\UGT~JDW_filesL2002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases'xDwntwn Chevron GW 9-02.doc ~David Bird -3- 17 September 2002 At least one sample collected from a monitoring well upgradient of the release and two samples collected from monitoring wells downgradient of the release were to have been analyzed for general minerals, nitrate, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen again during the Third Quarter 2002. CSE indicates that these analyses will be conducted during the Third Quarter 2002 monitoring event. The analyses we request are listed in the enclosed information sheet Guidelines for General Mineral Analysis. We approved the installation of off-site groundwater monitoring wells by our letter dated 3 September 20i32. A report of findings for the installations is due by 3 December 2002. SeCtions 2729 and 2729.1 for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the California Code of Regulation,s 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~ W~-' 'h-~iV~ -n~6t-fe-¢6iVe d~ the-re ....... '"'~ "~': ................... ' ..... ' qmred electromc ~lata suBmtss~ons"for'your-s~I~.. ...................... 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 Associate Engineering Geologist · R.G. No. 5951 Enclosures: CC'. Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals... Guidelines for General Minerals Analysis Mr. Howard Wines' III, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure's Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o 'enclosures Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosures U:\UGTUDW_filesk2002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield CaseskDwntWn Chevron GW 9-02.doc California Reg,onal Water Quality C ontrol Board ~._~~Central Valley Region Robert Schneider, Chair Winston H. Hickox Gray Davis Secretary for Fresno Branch Office Governor Environmental Intemet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5 Protection 3614 East Ashlan Avenue, Fresno, California 93726 Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910 16 September 2002 RWQCB Case No. 5T15000836 Mr. Jerry Moore Pacific Gas and Electric Company ........ ~4_! 0 i. _W.~ ib~j_e gP~a_d_ ......... . .... Bakersfield, California 93313 REQUEST TO EXPEDITE UTILITIES CONNECTION, UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELDi KERN COUNTY As per our telephone Conversation of 13 SePtember 2002, I request that Pacific Gas and Electric Company expedite connection of natural gas at the above-referenced site. Our agency has lead regulatory status' for the investigation and cleanup of groundwater at the site. Soil and groundwater has been impacted by a release from the underground storage tank system. Floating gasoline and very high concentrations of the fuel oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) have been detected in groundwater and are being'transported by the flow of groundwater toward a municipal well approximately 1,000 feet away. The extent Of impacted groundwater has not yet been determined. We have requested that the rdsponsible party expedite cleanup of contaminated soils to limit the spread of groundwater pollution. Gasoline vapor removed from the subsurface will be destroyed in a thermal/catalytic oxidizer Using natural gas as a supplemental fuel. Should you have questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (559) 445-5504 Associate Engineering Geologist R.G. No. 5951 CCi Ms. Barbara Rempel, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento Mr. Howard Wines llI, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield Mr. David Bird, Sullivan Petroleum, Company, LLC, Bakersfield Mr. Mark Magargee, Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Bakersfield Mr. Almador Ga.lvez, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Bakersfield California Environmental Protection Agency ~ Recycled Paper The energy challenge facing Califomia is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5 1 1 Centra ronmema :' EnViro t Consultant September 10, 2002 Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan PetroleUm Company, LLC 1508 18th Street, Suite 222 Bakersfield, California, 93301 SECOND 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 Second 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, Kern County, California (see Figure I - 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 northwestern 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., 3614 East Ashlan Avenue, Fresno, California, 93726, (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 September 10, 2002- Page 2 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND HYDROGEOLOGY The site is located at ar~ 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 Quatemary (Pleistocene) nonmanne 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 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 dudng 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 dvers, 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 shall°w as 20 fog 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 September 10, 2002- Page 3 PREVIOUS WORK During April 1999, product reconciliation records indicated a potential release in the product piping extending fi.om 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 pipin9. 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 pipin9: ' 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 211 ~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 inits 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 dudng 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 bodng B-1 was deepened to a depth of 48 fbg using a torque-modified MobileTM B-53 hollow- stem auger drill dg 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 was drilled adjacent to the potentia! 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 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 fbg) penetrated dudng the investigation. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. Mr. Tim Sullivan' Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC September 10, 2002- Page 4 TPH as gasoline and benzene were detected in the soil samples collected from the vertical-assessing soil bodng (B-l) to less than 22 fog 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 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 f°r 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 (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 I through 3, 2001, HFA advanced soil bodng 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 well~s. HFA performed the drilling and sampling of combination groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well V~V-ld on February 1 through 3, 2001, using a limited- access, dual-walled percussion, air rotary ddll dg, 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 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 drill dg with a normal height mask. Soil samples were collected at 50, '65, 80, and 100 fog while ddlling soil boring VVV-ld, with groundwater encountered at 110fbg. Soil samples were not collected while· drilling soil bodngs VVV-2 through VVV-4 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 VVV-ld. Groundwater was encountered in the soil bodng at 110 fog. Therefore, the soil boring was ddlled to 125 fog and completed as a monitoring well with slotted casing from 75to 125 fog to serve as a combination groundwater monitoring and vapor extraction well. Mr.' Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC September 10, 2002- Page 5 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 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 ara concentration of 250 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fog, decreasing to 5.7 rog/kg in the soil sample collected.from 65 fbg, 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 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 fog. MTBE was detected in the four soil samples reaching a maximum concentration of 87 mg/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 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 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 with the condition that a VET work plan be provided to CRWQCB-CVR to determine, the extraction well flow rates, and the ROI within the shallow, intermediate, and deep zones. In addition, the CRWQCB-CVR required full-time operation of the VES to be accomplished using a mobile treatment system, or the construction of a fixed treatment system connected to the vapor extractio'n wells by underground piping. HFA's CAP Addendum, dated August 13, 2001, recommended that upon installation of the vapor extraction well field and initiation of VES operations at the site, a VET will be performed to determine the extraction well flow rates and the ROI within the shallow, intermediate, and deep zones. The VET will be conducted using vapor extraCtion wells VW-ls, VVV-li, and VW-ld as the extraction wells and vapor extraction wells VVV-2, VVV-3, and VW-3,' as well as combination vapor extraction and groundwater. monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3 as the 'observation wells. Step tests will be performed by Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC September 10, 2002- Page 6 extracting soil vapors at three different vacuums for a duration of 20 minutes or until vacuum pressures have stabilized. Selected vacuum steps will be one-third of the maximum vacuum achieved by the blower. Flow 'rates and corresPonding wellhead vacuums and subsurface vacuums will be monitored, and the data will be recorded on a VET recording log. The results of the test will be summarized graphically and in tabular form, and the information will be utilized to calculate the ROI for various flow rates and the intrinsic soil permeability of the extracted zone. At the beginning and end of the step test, vapor samples will be collected in TedlarTM bags from the extraction well and analyzed by a California state-certified laboratory for TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE. The results will be presented to the CRWQCB-CVR as part of a quarterly progress report. The CRWQCBrCVR letter, dated September 25, 2001 approved implementation of the VET 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 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 drilling 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 ddlled 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. 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 bodng 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' 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 mglkg 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 Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC September 10, 2002- Page7 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 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 monit0dng wells (see Table 1). The groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and VVV-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). Because Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC was unable to obtain an access agreement with the adjacent property owner to position a remediation equipment compound on that property, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC has made .arrangements for the remediation equipment compound to be located in the southeast comer of the service station ProPerty in the landscaPed area to the east of the petroleum release. During the second quarter 2002, a SJVUAPCD-SR PTO was obtained for the installation and operation of a thermal oxidation 'VES, and CSE was contracted to perform the ongoing quarterly groundwater monitoring and progress reports. Dudng the third quarter of 2002, the remediation compound has been constructed and the vapor extraction wells VW-ls, W-li, VW-ld, VVV-2, VW-3, and VVV-4 have been connected by 2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping t° a collection manifold in the remediation equipment compound. Subsequently, the YES has been delivered to the site and will be connected to electrical and natural gas services. Initiation of VES operations is anticipated dudng the tl~ird quarter of 2002 and the VET will be conducted. In addition, 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 tw° off-site downgradient monitoring wells MW-4and MW-5 (see Figure 2 or the proposed monitoring well locations). Implementation is pending approval by the CRWQCB-CVR. Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC September 10, 2002- Page 8 SECOND QUARTER 2002 GOUNDWATER MONITORING On June 27, 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. Before sampling, the monitoring wells were checked for an immiscible layer, and 3 inches of PSH was observed in well VVV- 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 3 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 Well Purging and Groundwater Sampling 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 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. QA/QC sampling included a trip blank, instrument blanks, spikes, and duplicates. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 115.66 to 117.31 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 and TPH as gaSOline, benzene, and MTBE were detected in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3 reaching maximum concentrations of 21,000 pg/I, 64 pg/I, and 29,000 pg/I in the groundwater samples collected from wells MW-l, MW-3, and MW-l, respectively. Trace TAME concentrations were detected in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-3. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, 1,2-DCA, and EDB were not detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring Wells MVV-1 through MW-3 (see Figure 3 - TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater, Table 1, and Attachment 3 for the Laboratory Report). Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC September 10, 2002- Page 9 ACTIVITIES PLANNED FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2002 During the third quarter of-2002, the following actiVities will be completed: · Conduct groundwater .monitoring and sampling, including analysis characteristiCs for physical and chemical · Installation of two 'off-site downgradient monitoring wells, pending CRWQCB-CVR approval of · Expanded Groundwater Assessment WOrk Plan; · Installation of the underground piping and the treatment compound; · Initiate VES operations; and · Conduct VET. Central Sierra Environmental, LLC., trusts that you will find this SecondQuarter 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, Consulting Hydrogeologist Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. MRM:jlt Enclosures: Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Table 1 Site Location Map Groundwater Elevation Contour Map' TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Organic COmpounds Table2 Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Physical and Chemical Characteristics List of Acronyms Attachment I - Well Purging and Groundwater Sampling Procedures Attachment 2 - Water Sample Logs Attachment 3 - Laboratory Report Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR Mr. Howard H. wines, III, BFDESD '~'" :;;:::':"'":':::: '" t ~ . ,- .. . o~ -. .~.-. ........ .: we%~.;: . .... ~.:.::::::.~.~ ........... .- ..-Th, later · ~ 0 - .- .- .~- .,," 0 , . ~---~~,~2~_'~-' 40~ X'_~ .... ~--.~--- '' zl ~.-;.~.:v' ~ [ '. ~ REI NERY_IlglI "~=~ ~ .". ~ ' '~;~1/ ~ ~]l I ".: I V-. V', ~-s'l~ .. ,. ,,-~ --'a · ' ~ - ~ '. ," . ~~./~/~ ~' ~ - I I:;11 ~- · 3' · ~ 'o ~ - -'~, .' ~ ~ ./ - ,,s - ~ ~: ..: · l~ ',, . ~, ~Z.. , ~ ; ..... · '"NI-II ' I .' ' K'~ ,~ - ~Coun v museum '1~ · , - --',,.:11 I~, ,, ~~X~~ ~~1~ ' ' ~ ..... ~ ~v "~*'~ ' -~" "'-~"~' .... ~-I~ ~ "' ' .' "111 o:'"- // / L'?' ?:' ~~~~ 0 · ~ 3 .... U o ~. '~. ..'~. ~ ? ,,.? ,- [ :n~.u.~ ~ , -.::;~ '~' l~i~'.~~. / Z:' :.-.~~i~d LO~~~. . .:7 IIV~, .: X:'.,..::~ ~~E J! VII~L, ,.,~ ~,.:.~~ ~.~,:.:~ L All; ,," ~' ~ ~ ~~~~ ,:~..::.-~?.: 'u.:~......9¢' ~:'~ ~r~~l i . ,: ~...; ~ :~g~ ,~::.:~i ..~ i-.-. s'SC.. ".-' ~..,~': '; - . ....... " 2~ ~ ' .. ,~1 .... :~'.', ....... ~'~: I ...... .... .. ~~, ,; "~- ~----~.'~'.:; ~12._ i ,'J , ,:' :11 5Xt ' LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC . ~.~ 1 roLE ~ DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'I 2sl~"L" STREET o~ l.om zooo ~ ~.~ ~ ~.~o ~ s.,m ~E~ ~ ~ BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~ ' ~.s l ~UO~E~r FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP US~SO~L~UE~.,mn~ESEmESa~O~U~I CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL LLC .CAR MINI MART WASH uJ 287.02 APPROACH X SlDmALK ._ ~ ....... 23RD STREET SCALE IN FEET o 15 SIDEWALK GROUNDWATER LEVELS MEASURED JUNE 28, 2002 LEGEND ' SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC SOIL BORING D FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION GROUNDWATER MONITORING WE~ o TURBINE END 2317"L" STREET ' BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~/GROUNDWATER PROPOSED MONITORING WELL / LEGATION ~OUR FIGURE 2 -. GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (FEET ABOV~ MSL) CONTOUR MAP GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION CEN~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC CAR MINI MART ~, WASH LU 0.- Q LU ~ ...... 10 O00-GALLON :~ : ' MW-, ' ' EXPLORATORY I") -/ TRENCH ~ . / · SCALE IN FEET ~ 100 ~ 'o SAMPLED JUNE 28, 2002 rn LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC '~' SOIL BORING [:] FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION ~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET # "~ONTOUR OF M'I-BE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA "~ ! CONCENTRATONS (pg/I) FIGURE 3 - TPH AS GASOLINE/BENZENE/MTBE PROPOSEDMONITORING WELL CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER #/#/# CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER (pg,/I) CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC ~;~l~ll~kl n~Tl~. ~I:)TI::MRI::I~ Q ON?mO TABLE t, SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESUL~TS FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~ ~ference. N/A -- Not applic ible. ND = No' detected. -- = Not analyzed. *Measured to the top of the well casing. **No CCR Title 22 MCL establisl~ed. A = Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s (HFA's) repot1 dated June 25, 2001. B = HFA's report dated February 19, 2002. C = HFA's report dated May 29, 2002. D = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's current report. TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA SODIUM I POTASS'IUM' HYDROXIDE CARBONATE WELL ID DEPTH TO FLOATING GROUND- AND DATE GROUND- PRODUCT WATER iBICARBONATE TKN REF ELEVATION* SAMPLED WATER THICKNESS ELEVATION TDS EC pH CHLORIDE SULFATE NITRATE CALCIUM MAGNESIUM EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 160,1 9050 9040 300.0 6010 310.1 351,2 N/A · VARIES- SEE LABORATO...~RY REPORTS__.~ ~ ~_~ N/A REPORTING LIMIT ~ ~ .... VW-ld 21 44 5.1 ND ND 350 0.8 A 40400 3-28-02 114,54 0.25 289.48 617 951 7.38 93 '82 2.1 120 A MW-1 4.1 ND ND 200 0.71 404.29 3-28-02 114.53 0.00 289.78 424 664 7.12 46 68 40,4i 79 14 39 A MW-2 / 39 3.8 ND ND 161~ 0.8 404.37 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 291.07 382 576 7.21 31 74 46,3 66 12 r~l=l: = Rae~rt reference, q/A = Not ap;iicabie. ND = Not detected, : *Measured (o the top of the well casing.. A = Holguin, Fehan & Associates, Inc.'s, report dated May 29, 2002, AST BFDESD BCSD BTEX CAP CDMG CDWR CRWQCB-CVR CWSC DCA DIPE EDB EPA ETBE fbg KCDEHS KCWA LAR LLC LUFT MDBM rog/kg MPD MSL MTBE pH PID PSH PVC QA/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 District 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 .... . 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 dg 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 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. WELL PURGING AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING PROCEDURES WELL PURGING AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING PROCEDURES The regulatory agency with jurisdiction over the subject site is' notified 48 hours.prior to sampling. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Pdor to purging the monitoring wells, water level measurements are collected according to the following procedures: · All wells are checked for floating product with an acrylic bailer or oil/water interface meter. · 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). · All wells are monitored within a short time interval on the same day to obtain accurate measurements of the potentiometdc surface. · All measurements are reproduced to assure validity. PURGING PROCEDURES The monitoring wells are purged using either a submersible electric pump, bailer, hand pump, or bladder pump. A surge, block is used if it becomes apparent during pumping that the well screen has become bridged with sediment or the produced groundwater is overly turbid. During the purging process, groundWater is monitOred constantly 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. Purge water is stored on site in 55-gallon Department of Transportation-approved drums until water sample analytical results are received from the laboratory, or the water is treated and disposed of on site. If permanent pumPs are installed in the wells for groundwater remediation, the pumps are operated for at least 24 hours before sampling to ensure adequate purging. Well Purging and Groundwater Sampling Procedures Page 2 'SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES Measurements collected in the'field before sampling include water level, pH, conductivity, temperature, and turbidity (all. in conformance with the Environmental Protection Agency's publication "A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods"). Sampling is performed after the well recharges to at least 80 percent of hydrostatic water level. After purging and adequate recharge, 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. · For volatile organic analyses, groundwater samples are collected in chilled, 40-milliliter, VOA vials with. TeflonWa-lined caps. Hydrochloric acid preservative is added to all vials by the laboratory to lower sample pH to 2. Samples are held at a temperature of 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. ATTACHMENT 2. WATER sAMPLE LOGS WATER SAMPLE LOG CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: June 27, 2002 PROJECT NAME: -Downtown Chevron WELL NUMBER: MW-1 WELL DEPTH: 125' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2" WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90°F and clear OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: 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 METERi Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked COMMENTS: )H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F 4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 75 7.0 3168 4.0 75 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE' TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (IJmhos/cm) (gallons) '(°F) field @ 6~27~02 820 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 117.31' 6/27102 830 1 74.6 9..42 598 Brown Trace High 6127102 840 2 75.0 - 9.60 487 Tan Trace Medium 6/27/02 850 3 74.8 9.42 522 Tan Trace Medium 6/27/02 855 [3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: · 118.62' 6/27/02 855 i[~EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 117.31' TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 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,medium turbidity SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: ~ MW-1 - 900 DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC. 1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California (661) 325-4862 fax (661) 325-5126 ~WATERSAMPLE LOG CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: June 27, 2002 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron WELL NUMBER: MW-2 . WELL DEPTH: 125' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2" WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90°F and clear OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer (e.g., floating Iai '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: QA/QC METHOD OF PURGING WATER: 3H 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 75 7.0 3168 7.0 75 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR ~TURBIDITY! (pmhos/cm) (gallons) (°F) field (~ 6/27/02 1020 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 115.66' 6~27~02 1030 1'.5 '78.6 8.35 354 Brown None High 6/27102 1040 2.5 76.0 8.10 356 Tan None Medium 6~27~02 1050 3.5 75.2 7.91 348 Tan None Medium 6~27~02 1055 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I 117~43' 6/27/02 1100 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:I 115.66' TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 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,medium turbidity SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-2 - 1100 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: June 27, 2002 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron WELL NUMBER: MW-3 WELL DEPTH: 125' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2'.' WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90°F and clear OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer (e.g., floating Iai 'er, odor, color) QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer m ASSURANCE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: ElectroniCwater level meter PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES-. NEW OR CLEANED?: Cleaned METHOD OF CLEANING.BAILER / PUMP: QNQC METHOD OF PURGING WATER: ~H 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 75 7.0 3168. 7.0 75 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (pmhos/cm) (gallOns) (°F) field (iD 6/27/02 920 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 116.41' ~ 6/27/02 930 1.5 78.1 9.86 393 Brown None High 6/27/02 940 2.5 74.4 9.09 315 Brown- None High 6/27/02 950 3.5 75.1 8.85 302 Tan None Medium 6/27/02 955 ~)EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 118.02' 6/27/02 1000 E~EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 116.41' TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 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,medium turbidity SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: · MW-3 - 1000 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: June 27, 2002 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron WELL NUMBER.: VW-ld · . WELL DEPTH: 125' WELL CASING DIAMETER:. 4" WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90°F and clear OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: 3" floating product (e.g., floating Iai'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: QA/QC METHOD OF PURGING WATER: 3H METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCEMETER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked COMMENTS: 3H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F 4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 75 7.0 3168 7.0 75 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (pmhos/cm) (gallons) (°F) field ~ 6127102 1120 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 116.98' ~)EpTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: ~)EPTH 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, California (661) 325:4862 fax (661) 325-5126 A*I'I'ACHMENT 3. LABORATORY REPORT WINING ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY -ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING · SAMPLING SERVICES CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION & MATERIALS TESTING · PROJECT COVER SHEET REPORT DATE LABORATORY ID ATTENTION CLIENT · August 9, 2002 '702-3195.1-4 CSE 1400 Eastin 'Ste 132 Bakersfield, Ca. 93309 INVOICE# 70203195 i{ECEIVED 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. In accordance with your instructions, the samples submitted were analyzed for the components specified. The analytical results are enclosed on the following, pages. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning the analyses or results. Thank you for letting us serve you. WSW William E. Elliott Laboratory Director Rev. ~ ~94 (COVER) CORPORATE 2527 Fresno Slree! Fresno, CA 93721-1804 (559] 268-7021 Fax 268-7126 (209) s45-~ 06o Fax 546-1147 130 ~ Ketsey St, #H6 VisaJia, CA 93291-9000 (559) 651-8280 Fax 651-&c"'~8 BAKERSF~FI O 3701 Pegasus Drive. #124 Bakasf~ CA 933e8-6843 (651) 393-5088 Fax 393-4643 501 O~Z Avelue (831) 392-1056 Fax 392-1059 SACRAMENTO 5675 Powe~ Inn Fioad. Suite C Sacramemo, CA 95824 (916) 381-9477 Fax 381-9478 REPORT DATE LABORATORY ID DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED CLIENT ANALYZED BY REVIEWED BY DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED CLIENT SAMPLE ID. : August 9, 2002 : 702-3195.1 · ~36/27/02 at 0900 by T. Gluskoter · 06/28/02 at 1245 from Client : CSE : E. Scott : J. Ureno : 07/10/02 through 07/11/02 : 07/10/02 through 07/11/02 :MW-1 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 4 of 7 SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water CONSTITUENT Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes TPH-Gasoline Range I RESULTS I DLR ND 2.5 ND 0.5 ND 0.5 110 50 770 50 21OOO 5O00 METHOD 8021 8021 8021 8021 8021 '8015 Jrepa'abon (B 1 EX & [PH-GASL)LINE:): ,5030 pg/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) Preparation (TPH-BII::3P..L): 3510 ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Rep?ding purposes Rev. ~ 5FJ6 (8~AT) REPORT DATE LABORATORY ID DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED CLIENT ANALYZED BY DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED CLIENT SAMPLE ID : August 9, 2002 :'702-3195.1 : 06/27/02 at 0900 by T. Gluskoter : 06/28/02 at 1245 from Client : CSE : M. Kimball. ~ : 07/08/02 : 07/08/02 :MW-1 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 1 of 7 REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water METHOD: EPA 8260 UNITS: IJg/L Constituent Results DLR Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2.0 Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0 Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 29000 100 Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) 4.7 20 Tert- ButYl alcohol (TBA) ND 20 1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 1.0 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND .1.0 '*g/L: m~crograms pe~ L~ter (parts per b~lllon) ND: None Detected Ut.R; Detectmn Limit for Reporting purposes ug/Kg: micrograms per Kilogram (parts per billion)rog/Kg: Milligrams pet' 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 : August 9, 2002 : 702-3195.3 06/27/02 at 1100 by T. Gluskoter : 06/28/02 at 1245 from Client : CSE' : E. Scott : J. Ureno : 07/11/02 : 07/11/02 :MW-2 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 6 of 7 SAMPLE TYPE: Ground water CONSTITUENT I RESULTS I DLR · (!'.a./L'~ (t~g/L) 500 ' 2.5 32 0.5 110 0.5 10 0.5 68 0.5 350 50 .Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes TPH-Gasoline Range ~repafabon JUl ~ & TPH-GA:5(JLINE): pg/L: micrograms per Lil~ (paris per billion) Preparatmn {IPH-DIESEL): 3,510 ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes METHOD 8021 8021 8021 8021 8021 8015 Rev. :3 5/96 {BTEXWAT) REPORT DATE LABORATORY ID DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED · CLIENT ANALYZED BY DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED CLIENT SAMPLE ID : AUgust 9, 2002 :-702-3195.3 : 06/27/02 at 1100 by T. Gluskoter : 06/28/02 at 1245 from Client : CSE : M. Kimball : 07/09/02 : 07/09/02 :MW-2 METHOD: EPA 8260 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 3 of 7 REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water UNITS: pg/L Constituent Results DLR Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2.0 Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0 Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 170 1.0 Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 20 Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 20 1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 1.0 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0 ug/Kg: mi~ograms per Kilogram (parts per billion) rog/Kg: Milligrams per kilogram (ppm) ~porting purposes Rev. 4[ 07/99 i8260) REPORT DATE LABORATORY ID DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED CLIENT ANALYZED BY REVIEWED BY DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED CLIENT SAMPLE ID : August 9, 2002 : 702-3195.2 ~ 06/27/02 at 1000 by T. Gluskoter : 06/28/02. at 1245 from Client : CSE : E. Scott. : J. Ureno : 07/10/02 : 07/10/02 :MW - 3 THE 'I'~NINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 5 of 7 SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water CONSTITUENT Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene · Xylenes · TPH-Gasoline Range RESULTS I DLR (!J~/L) (F~/L) 17000 250 64 50 290 50 60 50 390 50 13000 5000- METHOD 8021 8021 8021 8021 8021 8015 reparahon (U I1:.)( & I FH-(,JA,5OLINI'-): pg/L: micrograms per Liter (pa~ts per billion) Preparation (1PH-DIESP_L): 3,51i3 ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit fo*' Reporting purposes Rev. __35/96 iBT~AI") REPORT DATE LABORATORY ID DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED CLIENT · August 9, 2002 :'702-3195.2 -' 06/27/02 at 1000 by T. Gluskoter · 06/28/02 at 1245 from Client · CSE THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 2 of 7 ANALYZED BY 'DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED CLIENT SAMPLEID ': M. Kimball : 07/09/02 : 07/09/02 :MW-3 REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water METHOD' EPA 8260 UNITS: pg/L- Constituent Results DLR Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2·0 Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0 Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 14000 100 Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) 3.7 20 ' Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA) ' ND 20 1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 1.0 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 1.0 ug/Kg: micrograms per Kilogram (parts per billion) mg/Kg: Mill.igrams per kilogram (ppm) ~porting purposes Rev. ,4 07~J9 (8260) REPORT DATE LABORATORY ID DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED CLIENT ANALYZED By REVIEWED BY DATE PREPARED DATE ANALYZED CLIENT SAMPLE ID · August 9, 2002 · '702-3195.4 i 06/27/02 at 0700 by T. Gluskoter · 06/28/02 at 1245 from Client · CSE - ' · E. Scott "J. Ureno · 07/10/02 · 07/10/02 · Blank THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC. PAGE 7 of 7 SAMPLE TYPE: Water CONSTITUENT Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes TpH-Gasoline Range RESULTS' I DLR (~,~/[) · (U.a/L) ND = 2.5 ND 0.5 ND 0.5 ND 0.5 ND 0.5 ND' 50 J. METHOD 8021- 802i 8021 8021 8021 8015 ~reparation I~u I ~ & TPHJ.:~A:5(JLINI:): 30,30 t~g/L: micrograms per Liter (pa,ts per billion) Preparation (T?H-DIES~.L): 3510 ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes Rev: ;3 5/96 (8TF_.XWAI') 'OF CU TODY/ANALYSlS ' ~--?~ -' ~.' ,":~4":?;;;~.~:~,~?"~" '~ "~?~, ~,':~ ~s~,.(F'~'-'.' :? I , FRESNO, CA 93721 · (559) 2~-702i F~- SUBM~HINFOR~TION: .. "' ' "'1 ' ' ' '"' ' ' / '' ~ ( ) ..-(% ) :': ~ ( ) ,..~. .. ,. P.O. BAC i =HiOLOGICAL SAMPLE SOURCE SAMPLE STATUS PUBLIC SYSTEM [~] ROUTINE PRIVATE WELL (~ REPEAT SURFACE WATER [~ OTHER ~] CONSTRUCTION (~ OTHER. SAMPLE INFORMATION: SIGNATURE: ?~ROUTINE ANALYSIS ~ (~ RUSH ANALYSIS, RESULTS NEEDED BY: KEY FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS SAMPLE TYPE ;IS - Biosolids GW - Ground Water 3W - Drinking Water SF - Surface Water SL - Soil/Solid ST - Storm Water WW - Waste Water REPORTS FOR: COUNW: [~] FRESNO [~ STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES (~ OTHER: PROJECT: PROJECT MANAGER: Q KINGS [-t MADERA' Q MERCED Q TULARE ANALYSIS REQUESTED SAMPLE SAMPLE ID DATE TYPE C'.ZT-oZ. ELINQUISHED BY COMPANY COMPANY .................. August9,2002 Central ' ' 'ronmental Enviro t ConsUltant Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC 1508 18th Street, Suite 222 Bakersfield, California, .93301 EXPANDED 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 groundwater asseSsment at the above-referenced site. CSE proposes to advance two soil borings to an approximate maximum depth of 130 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, TAME, EDB, and 1,2-DCA 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 '19; 20Q2, as a result of the discovery of gasoline-containing soil and groundwate~ 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. 1. ~ 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 two soil borings to an approximate maximum depth of 130 fbg, and complete them as groundwater monitoring wells; · analyze groundwater samples (including a travel blank) for TPH as gasoline, BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE,. TAME, EDB, and 1,2-DCA; 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 9, 2002 - Page 2 o prepare an Expanded 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 northwestern 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, 3614 East Ashlan Avenue, Fresno, California, 93726, (559)445-5504. SITE MAPS: Site maps are included as Figures 1 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 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 Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC August 9, 2002 - Page 3 '5. 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. TANK HISTORY: 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). IDENTIFICATION AND ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF MATERIAL RELEASED: hydrocarbons: the quantity released is unknown. Gasoline 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. Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC August 9, 2002 -. Page 4 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-l'at 5 fog (see Attachment 2 for a Summary of Previous Work). Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analytica! results, the BFDESD, in its letter dated June21, 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. (HFAi 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 drilled during this phase of soil investigation. On August 17, 1999, soil borings B-1 through B-3 were advanced to 20 fog 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 torquemodified 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 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 dudng drilling 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 daring 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 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 adsorbed-phase hydrocarbon-containing soils at' the site. Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC August 9, 2002 - Page 5 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) were 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 fbg, which was completed as a combination groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well, and soil bodngs VW-2 'through VW-4 to 45 fbg, which were completed as vapor extraction wells. HFA performed the drilling and sampling of combination groundwater monitodngNapor 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 fog while .drilling soil boring VVV-ld, with groundwater encountered at 110 fbg. Soil samples were not collected while drilling 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 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 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 fog 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 August 9, 2002 - Page 6 A TPH as gasoline concentration of 250 mg/kg was detected in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg, 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 fbg: However, a TPH as gasoline concentration of 2,300 mg/kg was detected 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 fog. MTBE was detected in the four soil.samples reaching a maximum concentration of 87 rog/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 a benzene concentration of 2,400 IJg/I and a MTBE 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 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 (VW-ls) would be installed as well as central, intermediate-zone vapor extraction well VW-li (see Figure 2 for the vapor extraction well locations). The CRWQCB-CVR's case review, letter, dated JulY 23, 2001, approved implementation of the expanded groundwater assessment plan and VES work plan with the condition that a VET work plan be provided to CRWQCB-CVR to determine the extraction well flow rates, and the ROI within the shallow, intermediate, and deep zones. In addition, the CRWQCB-CVR required full-time operation of the YES to be accomplished using a mobile treatment system, or the construction of a fixed treatment system connected to the vapor extraction wells by underground piping. . . HFA's CAP Addendum, dated August 13, 2001, recommended that upon installation of the vapor extraction well field and initiation of VES operations at the site, a VET will be perfOrmed to determine the extraction well flow rates and the ROI within the shallow, intermediate, and deep zones. The VET will be conducted using vapor extraction wells VW-ls, VW-li, and VW-ld as the extraCtion wells and vapor extraction, wells VW-2, VW-3, and VW-3, as well as combination vapor extraction and groundwater'monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and MW-3 as the observation wells. Step tests will be performed by extracting soil vapors at three different vacuums for a duration of 20 minutes or until Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC August 9, 2002 - Page 7 vacuum pressures have stabilized. Selected vacuum steps will be one-third of the maximum vacuum achieved by the blower. Flow rates and corresponding wellhead vacuums and subsurface vacuums will be. monitored, and the data will be recorded on a VET recording log. The results of the test will be summarized graphically.and in tabular form, and the information will be utilized to calculate the ROI for various flow rates and the intrinsic soil permeability of the extracted zone. At the beginning and end of the step test, vapor samples will be collected in Tedlar~ bags from the extraction well and analyzed by a California state-certified laboratory for TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE. The results will be presented to the CRWQCB-Cv.R as part of a quarterly progress report. The CRWQCB-CVR letter, dated September 25, 200! approved implementation of the VET 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 VVV-li) drilled to 35 fbg and 75 fbg, respectively, and completed as vapor extraction wells (see Figure 2 for the groundwater monitoring and vapor extraction well locations). Soil samples were collected at a 10-foot interval while drilling soil borings MVV-1 through MW-3, with groundwater encountered at 114 fbg. Soil samples were not collected while drilling ..soil bodngs VW-ls and VW-li due to their positioning in close proximity to previous soil bodngs 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-diameter slotted PVC casing from 75 to 125 fbg. Soil borings VW-ls and VVV-li were drilled to35 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. 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 MVV-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 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). Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC August 9, 2002 - Page 8 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 IJg/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 2). . 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 (see Figure 3 - Groundwater Elevation Contour Map). Three inches of PSHwas 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 tJg/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 Figure 4 - TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater and Table 1). The groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-I~, 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). Because Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC was unable to obtain an access agreement with the adjacent property owner to position a remediation equipment 'compound on that property, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC has made arrangements for the remediation equipment compound to be located in.the southeastern corner of the service station proPerty in the landscaped area to the east of the petroleum release. During the second quarter 2002, a SJVUAPCD-SR PTO was obtained for the installation and operation of a thermal oxidation VES, and CSE was Contracted to perform the ongoing quarterly groundwater monitoring and progress reports. Dudng the third quarter of 2002, the remediation compound will be constructed and the extraction wells VW-ls, W-1 i, VW-ld, VW-2, VW- 3, 'and' VW~4 will be' connected by 2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation equipment compound. Subsequently, the VES unit will be delivered to the site and connected to electrical and natural gas services. Initiation of VES operations is anticipated during the third quarter of 2002 and the VET will be conducted. In addition, 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." Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC August 9, 2002 - Page 9 o STRATEGY AND PROCEDURES FOR ASSESSING THE LATERAL EXTENT OF DIESEL- 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. HFA proposes to accomplish this by drilling two soil borings (MW-4 and MW-5) to a depth of approximately 130 fbg, completing the two 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 4 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, HFA will site the monitoring wells in safe locations. A total of two soil borings will be advanCed during this expanded site characterization. The soil borings will be drilled with a conventional dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig to an approximate maximum depth of 130 fbg. During the drilling 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, and. all data will be recorded on logs of exploratory bodngs. · Soil sampling will not be performed because these soil borings are being drilled outside of the known area of gasoline-containing soils (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. The wells will be drilled to a depth of approximately 130 fbg (15 feet below the groundwater surface) and installed with 30 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 3 feet above the slotted interval. Blank PVC casing packed in neat cement 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 low,turbidity groundwater. Prior to sampling, the proposed monitoring wells will be purged with a pro-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 Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC August 9, 2002 - Page 10 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 Teflon"" 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 propose.d 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 ~vells 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, ETBE, TAME, EDB, and 1,2-DCA using EPA Method 8260 (see Attachment 5 for the Well Purging and Groundwater Sampling Procedures). Upon com'pletion of the drilling and sampling activities and receipt of the laboratory report, HFA will provide an Expanded Groundwater Assessment Report that details the field activities, sample collection, analytical results, data analysis, conclusions, and HFA's recommendation for further assessment or remedial activities, if required. Certified laboratory reports and chain-Of-custody documents will be included.: 10. EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION 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. 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 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 ali on-site work. Site-specific information is provided on the · Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC August 9, 2002 - Page 11 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 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. Consulting Hydrogeologist Central Sierra Environmental, LLC. MRM.jt Enclosures: Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Table 1 Table 2 Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 · Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Site Location Map Plot Plan Groundwater Elevation Contour Map TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Compounds Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Chemical Characteristics - CRWQCB-CVR Correspondence - Summary of Previous Work Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures Monitoring Well Construction Details Well Purging and Groundwater Sampling Procedures Worker Health and Safety Plan Organic Physical and CC: Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR Mr. Howard Wines, BFDESD .' · LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LL~ o.s ~.~ ~ DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION ~,ooo 2,000 ~,ooo 4,000 s,o.o ~ ~ ~ ' r I ~ BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA O.S 1 ~LOM~ER ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FIGURE I - SITE LOCATION MAP USGS OIL~mGOSFORDT. 5 MINUTE SERIES OUAD~NOLE . CENT~L SI ERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC CAR MINI MART WASH LU '.-' MW-2 DISPENSI :R ISD~NDS B-4 .~I TREATMENT JCOMPOUND CANOPY ~ ,~ VW-2 / ~-VES UNIT C-1 DISPENSER ISLANDS i 20,000-GALLON SPLIT-CHAMBERED GAS :)LIN E UST MW-3 B-5 ~ '~ EXPLORATORY TRFNCH '/ MW-4 I LOCATION PLANTER 23RD 'STREET SCALE IN FEET 0 '15 30 SIDEWALK MW-5~ m LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC SOIL BORING · ~ FILL END · DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA VAPOR EXTRACTION WEEL FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN. PROPOSED MONITORING WELL CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC REVISION DATE: AUGUST 1, 2002 - CAR MINI MART n' T MW_2 . DISP~.R ISLANDS DISPENSEI~, ISJ~NDS ~ o I© ] a ~--20'000-GALLON ~ ,Y\ I / I ' ' SPLIT-CHAMBERED 290.04 ~ ~ ~ T.~ "~. EXPLORATORY 23RD STREET SCALE IN FEET 0 15 30 GROUNDWAYER LEVELS MEASURED MARCH 28, 2002 > LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC SOIL BORING.· ~ FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL ¥t..-llli. '/GROUNDWATER BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ELEVATION CONTOUR FIGURE 3 - GROUNDWATER ELEVATION PROPOSEB MONITORING WFLL (FEET ABO¥[ MSL) CONTOU~ MA~ GROUNDW^IER FLOW DIRECTION CENTRAL sIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC REVISION DATE: AUGUST 1,2002 ~'~' CAR MINI MART WASH LU -J Z LU "F n' MW 2 DISP_~ENSER ISLANDS. 1,300/65/38 I~ /' . LU / ,~ ~'~--./ ~ "~ ,~ /COMPOUND ~' 1 ' B-2 z ~ LU 1 400, .000/1' _L -"--r -- I-- / DISPENSER ISLANDS I[~ o I o [ [] ~ 20,000-GALLON · [- - ~- _ / I' i SPLIT-CHAMBERED " MW-3 . . ~ ~EN-Z GAS ;)Lit,, E MST B-5 t~ )~ EXPLORATORY TRENCH ~ MW-4 I 46,000110/23,000 LOCATION · PLANIER APPROACH k~. ' SIDEWALK 23RD STREET SCALE IN FEET 0 '15 30 S^UPLE~ MARC. 28. 2002 ~ .,g, LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC .,}Iii SOIL BORING · [3 'FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION ~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET ~ BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA CONTOUR OF MTBE (~) · VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL #  / CONCENTRATONS (pg/I) FIGURE 4 - TPH AS GASOLINE/BENZENE/MTBE PROPOSED MONITORING WELL CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER #1#1# CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER (pg/1) CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC REVISION DATE: AUGUST 1. 2002 TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS' DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA DEPTH TO FLOATING WATER WELL IDAND DATE GROUND- PRODUCT ELEVATIO TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL 1,2- 1,2o ELEVATION* SAMPLED WATER THICKNESS N GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME DCA DCA EDBiREF (feet-MSL) Ifb~) ' (feet) (feet-USL) (1~/I) - (1~1/I) (pg/I) (l~g/t) '(~g/I) (1~9/I) (l~gll)(t~g/I) (IJg/I) (l~g/I)(t~g/I)(~Jg/I) EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8260B N/A CCR TITLE 22 DRINKING WATER MCL ** I 11 1001 68ol 1,7501 131 *' I '* I '* t '* I *' I *' I *' N/A REPORTING LIMIT · VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A VW-ld 3-14-01 107.43 0.001 296.57 2,400 5,200 1,200 8,500, 120,000 ND ND ND ND ...... A 404.00 11-26-01 115.15 ' 0.25 288.85 5,300,000 72,000 660,000 120,000 800,000 4,100,000NDND ND ND ND ...... B_ 3-28-02 114.54 0.25 289.461,400,000 11,000 46,000 ND 29,000 1,300,000 ND ND ND ND MW-1 11-26-01 114.96 0.00 289.33 67,000 .530 3,200 ND 1,500 34,000 ND ND ND ND ....... B 404.29 3-28-02 114.53 0.00 289.76 48,000 580 1,000 150 780 49,000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND C MW-2 11-26-01 113.20 0.00 291.17 280 25 76 6 21 2.4 ND ND ND ND ...... B 404.37 3-28-02 113.30 0.00' 291.07 1,300 65 430 17 170 38 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND C MW~3 11-26-01 113.98 0.00 289.74 10,000 90 780 26 99 7,400 ND ND ND ND -- ' -- - B 403.72 3-28-02 113.68 0.00 290.04 46,000 110 380 36 330 23,000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND C TRIP BLANK 3-28-02 N/A N/A N/A -- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDI .ND ND ND C REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected. -- Not analyzed. 'MeaSured to the top of the well casing. **No CCR Title 22 MCL established. A = Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s (HFA's) report dated June 25, 2001, B = HFA's report dated February 19, 2002. C = HFA's report dated June 6, 2002 TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHYSICAL ~.ND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA DEPTH TO FLOATING GROUND- WELL ID AND DATE GROUND- PRODUCT · WATER ELEVATION* SAMPLED WATER THICKNESS ELEVATION TDS EC pH CHLORIDE SULFATE NITRATE CAI'CIUM MAGNESIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE CARBONATE BICARBONATE TKN REF (feet-MSL~ (~) (feet) (feet-MSL) (m~l (umhos/cm) (pH units; (m~/I) (rog/I) {m~/I) (m~'l) (m~/I) 6010 (rog/I) (rog/I) (rog/l) (rog/I) (rog/I) (rog/I) EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 160.11 9050 9040 300.0 310.1 3512 N/A REPORTING LIMIT VARIES - SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A V'VV-ld 404.00 3-28-02 114.54 0.25 289.46 617 951 7.38 93 82 2.1 i20 21 44 . 5.1 ND ND 350 0.8 A 404.29 3-28-02 114.53 0.00 289.76 424 664 7.12 46 68 40.4 79 14 39 4 1i ND ND 200 0.71 A MW-2 0.8 404.37 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 291.07 382 ' 576 7.21 31 74, 46.3 ' 66 121 39 3.8! ND ND 160i A ~eport reference. N/A = ot applicable. ND = Not detected. *Measured to the top of the well casing. A = Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s, report dated June 6, 2002 AST BFDESD BCSD BTEX CAP CDMG CDWR CRWQCB-CVR CWSC DCA DIPE EDB EPA ETBE 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/l' 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 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 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 dg 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. Hickox Secretary.for Environmental Protection California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Robert Schneider, Chair Fresno Branch Office lnternet Address: http:llwww.swrcb.ca.gov/-rwqcb5 3614 East Ashlan Avenue, Fresno, California 93726 Phone (559) 445-5116 - FAX (559) 445-5910 · Gray Davis Governor 19 July 2002 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 2002 Progress Report (Report) dated 6 June 2002 and prepared by Holguin, Fahah & Associates, Bakersfield (HFA). Th~ Report.docUments a groundwater monitoring · event performed on 28 March 2002. Petroleum product floating on groundwater and very high concentrations of gasoline constituents, including the fuel oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), have been detected in groundwater samples collected from monitoring and soil vapor extraction (SYE) wells on-site. The lateral extent of impacted groundwater is undefined. A municipal well is approximately 1,000 feet downgradient of the site. We request that quarterly groundwater monitoring ' continue. We reiterate our request that remediation by SVE be expedited. We also note that a work plan for lateral definition of impacted groundwater is overdue. Summaries of the project, the Report, 'and our comments follow. Summary of the Project 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. Gasoline is disPensed from six dispensers and is stored in one split-chambered 20,000-gallon underground storage tank (UST) and one 10,000-gallon UST in the southeast portion of the site. An examination of product reconciliation records for April 1999-suggested a potential fuel release of at least 400 gallons from Product piping connecting the premium grade UST to the southeastern dispenser. Investigation revealed cuts in the inner flexible and outer containment product piping. Subsequent assessment demonstrated that the release had impacted groundwater. Three groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-3) and six SVE wells (VW-ls, VW-Ii, VW-ld, VW-2, VW-3, 'and VW-4) have been installed. During the initial (26 November 2001) monitoring event, depth to groundwater ranged from 113.20 m 115.15 feet below the tops of the well casings (below TOC). HFA calculated groundwater flow to be toward the southeast with a slope of 0.029 feet per foot. California Water Service well #7 is California Environmental Protection Agency ~ Rec?cled Paper .avid Bird - 2 - 19 July 2002 approximately 1,000 feet east-southeast of the site. HFA' s investigation did not identify additional water wells within 2,500 feet, Floating petroleum product was observed on groundwater in VW l-d during the initial monitoring event. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) and MTBE concentrations up to 5,300,000 and '4,100,000 micrograms per liter (gg/L), respectively, were detected in groundwater samples collected during the initial monitoring event. The lateral extent of MTBE in soils and the lateral extent of impacted groundwater are undefined. SVE remediation is expected to begin during the Third Quarter 2002. A more detailed Project Summary is provided in our letter dated 4 March 200Z Report Summary HFA conduCted groundwater monitoring on 28 March 2002. Depth-to-groundwater ranged from 113.30 to 114.54 feet below TOC. Groundwater samples were collected from MW- 1 through MW-3 and VW-ld..Groundwater flow direction was calculated to be toward the southeast with a slope of 0.03 feet per foot. Floating petroleum product was measured at a thickness of 0.25 feet on groundwater in VW-ld. Groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA)', di-isopropyl ether (DIPE), ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME), 1,2-dichloroethane ( 1,2- DCA), and 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) by EPA Method 8260B. In addition, the samples were analyzed for, general minerals, nitrate, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). TPH-g was detected at 48,000, 1,300, 46,000, and 1,400,000 gg/L in the samples collected from MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, and VW-Id, respectively. Benzene was detected at 580, 65, 110, and 11,000 gg/L in MW-l, MW-2, MW-3, and VW-ld, respectively. MTBE was detected at 49,000, 38, 23,000, and 1,300,000 [toe/L, respectively. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, TAME, 1,2-DCA, and EDB were not detected in the groundwater samples. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 382 to 617 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Electrical conductivity ranged from 576 to 951 micromhos per centimeter ([tmhos/cm).. Nitrate (as NO3) was detected from 2.1 to 46.3 mg/L. TKN was detected from 0.71 to 0.8 mg/L. HFA will discontinue environmental consulting services at the site during the Second Quarter'2002. Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC (Sullivan) will contract with another'consultant to perform groundwater monitoring. Sullivan has contracted for the installation and operation of the SVE remediation system. SVE system startup is expected during the Third Qtiarter 2002. Comments Based on review of the above-summarized reports, 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 0.25 feet thick was measured on groundwater in SVE well VW-ld during the 26 November 2001 (first) and 28 March 2002 (second) monitoring events. MTBE and benzene were detected in groundwater samples at very high maximum concentrations of 4,100,000 and 1,300,000 gg/L U:\UGTODW_filesL2002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases~Dwmwn Chevron 7-02.doc .,..avid Bird 19 July 2002 during the first and second monitoring events, respectively. The lateral extent of MTBE in soil and impacted groundwater are undefined. MTBE may be transPorted in groundwater 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 reiterate our request of 4 March 2002 that you expedite soil remediation by SVE to minimize the migration and spread of gasoline and MTBE in site soils and groundwater and potential impactg to the municipal well. We understand that you will be contracting with new environmental consultants to install, operate, and maintain the SVE remediation system, and perform groundwater monitoring. We request that you provide a written time 'schedule for installation and startup of the SVE remediation system. Please submit the time schedule by 7 August 2002. After' SVE system startup, a pilot test should be conducted to determine extraction well airflow rates and the radius of influence (ROI) of the shallow, intermediate, and deep screened intervals. We previously approved a proposed SVE pilot test (vacuum influence test) by our letter dated 25 September 2001. HFA indicated that they would summarize the results of the pilot test in a quarterly remediation status report. We request that the final remediation design specifications be included in the status report submitted by your new consultant. If no design changes are necessary, your consultant should so indicate in the Status report. MTBE, benzene, and other gasoline constituents have been detecte~d in samples collected from all on-site monitoring wells. The lateral extent of impacted groundWater has not been defined: By our letter dated 4 March 2002, we requested that you sUbmit a work plan to define lateral extent by 13 May 2002. The work plan is overdue. The work plan should proPose monitoring well installations downgradient and cross gradient of the release point. We concur with HFA that quarterly groundwater monitoring should be continued. GroUndwater samples should be analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, and the volatile organic compounds usually reported in a full EPA Method 8260 analysis (usually 63 to 67 compounds). The EPA Method 8260 analysis should also include BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, TAME, 1,2-DCA, and EDB. The full range of EPA Method 8260 volatile organic compounds was not reported for the First Quarter 2002 monitoring event. Please insure that these compounds are included during the next monitoring event. Please submit a groundwater monitoring report for the first quarterly monitoring event by 10 September 2002. At least one sample collected from a monitoring well upgradient of the release and two samples collected from monitoring wells downgradient of the release should be analyzed for general minerals, nitrate, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen again during the Third Quarter 2002. We note that the analysis for general minerals did not include analyses for alkalinity, hardness, iron, and manganese. The analyses we request are listed in the enclosed information sheet Guidelines for General Mineral Analysis. Please insure that these analyses are performed during the next monitoring event. 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 U:\UGT~IDW_files~002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron 7-02.doc ;avid Bird - 4 - 19 July 2002 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 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 Assoc. Engineering Geologist RG No. 5951 Enclosures: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals... Guidelines for General Minerals Analysis CC: Mr. Howard Wines RI, City of BakerSfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosures Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosures Mr. Mark Magargee, Bakersfield, w/enclosures U:\UG'IMDW_flles~2002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Ca.ses\Dwntwn Chevron 7-02.doc Winston H. Hickox Secretary for Environmental Protection California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Robert Schneider, Chair Fresno Branch Office lntemet Address: http:llwww.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5 3614 East Ashlan Avenue, Fresno, California 93726 Phone (559) 445-5 ! 16 o FAX (559) 445-5910 Gray Davis 16 July 2002 RWQCB Case No. 5T15000836 Mr. David Bird Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC 1508 18th Street,. Suite 222 Bakersfield, California 93301 !'NOTICE OF OVERDUE REPORT, UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY You submitted Expanded Groundwater Assessment Report (Assessment Report) dated 19 February 2002 and prepared by Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. The Assessment Report indicated that methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), benzene, and other gasoline constituents were detected in all monitoring wells during the 26 November 2001 groundwater monitoring event..MTBE was detected at concentrations up to 5,300,000 micrograms per liter. By our letter dated 4 March 2002, we requested that you submit a work plan to define the lateral extent of impacted groundwater by 13 May 2002. As of the date of this letter, we have not received the work plan. The work plan is overdue. As the responsible party,.you must implement corrective action in a timely manner. Continued failure to comply with our requests will result in enforcement actions and could jeopardize your access to the UST Cleanup Fund. Should you have. questions regarding these matters, please contact me at (559) 445-5504 JOHN D. WHITING Associate Engineering Geologist RG No. 5951 cc: Ms. Barbara Rempel, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento Mr. Howard Wines 1II, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield Mr. Mark Magai-gee, Holguin, Fahan.& Associates, Bakersfield California Environmental Protection Agency ~ Rec3'cled Paper The energy challenge facing California is mai. Every Californian 'needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at http:llwww.swrcb.ca.govlrwqcb5 ATTACHMENT 2. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORK TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH SAMPLE ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF (fbg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) '(mg/kg) EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 IMI 8020/8260B N/A REPORTING LIMIT VARIES,SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A SC-1 5-10-99 I 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 0.018 ND ND 5.2 ........ B B-2 8-17-99 5 B-2-5 19,000 50 1.000 26C 1.400! 220 ........ B 8-17-99 15 B-2-15 4,6(30 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 0.3 150 811 740 3 ....... B B-4 9-26-99 10 B-4-10 ND ND ND NDi 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 NDI 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-1d-65 5.7 " ND ND ND ND 14 ........ C 2-1-01 80 ' VW-ld-80 ND ND ND ND ND 1.5 .... . .... C -- 2-2-01 100 VW-ld-100 2,300 . 9,3 2t0 41 260 871 ...... ,I' -- C TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL . SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH. SAMPLE ID GASOLINE BENZENE ToLuENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF (fbg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 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-I ~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 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-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 NDI' 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-l-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 0.0191 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 TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH SAMPLE ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF (fbg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) ' (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 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 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 ND ND NDJ ND ND ND ND ND ND D 11-1-01 60 MW-3-§0 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 11L1-01 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 NNDD ND ND ND D 11-1-01 110 MW-3-110 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND D. 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. 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 Pdor 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 pdor 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 (fbg) 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 bodngs located inside the cdtica! 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 approvesa 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 ouffitted 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 ddll string is decontaminated with a steam cleaner between each soil bodng (truck-mountedrigs). 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; · ddlling 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 bodng 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. 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 tdangle (3 inches per side). Thecompleted 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 bodng 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 ~ATTACHMENT 4. MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Client Name Project Name Site Address Date Completed Supervised by Sullivans Petroleum company, LLC BJ's Express Mart 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California Proposed Mark R. Maqar,qee CHG, RG Well No. MW-4 & MW-5 Auquifer Unconfined WELL COVER Elevation of refrence point -404 feet GROUND SURFACE TOP WELL CAP SURFACE SEAL depth to surface seal type of surface seal annular seal thickness type' of annular seal 2 fbq Concrete 2 feet Cement Grout ANNULAR SEAL Iow permeability seal thickness type of Iow permeability seal ;~ feet Bentonite .chips LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL. WELL CASING diameter of well casing type of well casing depth of top of gravel pack type of gravel pack 2 inches- Schedua140 PVC 95 fbq g3 M°ntere¥ Sand GRAVEL PACK depth of groundwater from refrence point depth of top screen screen slot size screen spacing size -1:14 fb,q 100 fbq 0.02 inch 0.5 inch depth of well 130 fb9 SCREEN diameter of borehole depth of borehole 8 inches 130 fbg BO'I-rOM WELL CAP CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC (661 325-4862 1400 Easton Drive, Building 'E, Suite 132 Bakersfield, California 93309 ATTACHMENT 5. WELL PURGING AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING PROCEDURES WELL PURGING AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING PROCEDURES The re§ulat°ry agency With jurisdiction over the subject site is notified 48 hours prior to sampling. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Pdor to purging the monitoring wells, water level measurements are collected according to the following procedures: · All wells are checked for floating product with an acrylic bailer or oil/water interface meter. · 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). · All wells are monitored within a short time interval on the same day to obtain accurate measurements of the potentiometfic surface. o. All measurements are reproduced to assure validity. PURGING PROCEDURES The monitoring wells are purged using ,.either a submersible electric pump, bailer, hand pump, or bladder · pump. A surge block is used if it becomes apparent dUring pumping that the well screen has become bridged with sediment or the produced groundwater is overly turbid. During the purging process, groundwater is monitored constantly 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. Purge water is stored on site in 55-gallon Department of Transportation-approved drums until water sample analytical rest~lts are r~ceived from the laboratory, or the water is treated and disposed of on site. If permanent pumps are installed in the wells for groundwater remediation, the pumps .are operated for at least 24 hours before sampling to ensure adequate purging. Well Purging and Groundwater Sampling prOcedures Page 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES Measurements collected in the field before sampling include water level, pH, conductivity, temperature,' and turbidity (all in conformance with the Environmental Protection Agency's publication "A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods"). Sampling is performed after the well.recharges to at least 80 percent of hYdrostatic water'.level. After purging .and ".adequate recharge, 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. For volatile organic analyses, groundWater samples are collected in chilled, 40-milliliter, VOA vials with Teflon~-Iined caps. Hydrochloric acid preservative is 'added to all vials by the laboratory to lower sample pH to 2. Samples are held at a temperature of 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. 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, California 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 twO monitoring wells to a depth of 120 ~ 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 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. PROJECT MANAGER - Pdmadly 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 THE PROJECT'S DURATION WILL BE:' Temp. range: 80-100°F' Humidity: 30-60% Ambient temp.: 90°F Potential for heat stress: High: X Medium: Low: ANTICIPATED PROTECTION LEVEL DURING THIS PROJECT* Level "D" *Will be upgraded or downgraded to fit situations as they adse. EMERGENCY INFORMATION: All emergency Calls: · 911 Closest hospital with emergency room: San Joaquin Community Hospital 2615 Eye Street, Bakersfield, California, (661) 395-3000 . Map Showing Route from Site to Hospital Attached? Yes: X No: - SAN SITE LOCATION 26th STREET NOT TO SCALE ANGELES 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 (CSE's) worker health and safety plan rot 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 industrial hygienist through consultation of the 'following documents: · Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 29 CFR 1910 - "Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, Final Ruling," March 1989; · NIOSH/OSHA/USC(G/EPA "Occupational Safety and Health (Guidance Manual for · Hazardous Waste Site Activities," October 1985; and · CSE's Corporate Health and Safety Program.' fhis 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 the Material Safety Data Sheet). Additionally, solvents such as 1,2-dichlorobenzene and 1,2-dichloroethane may also be used as cleaning solutions at service stations. The primary health risks associated with each of these chemicals ,are described below. ' Worker Health and Safety Plan Page 2 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 irritation 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'low 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 o~ 100 ppm or 435 mg/m3 has been ass!gned 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 coughin9, dizziness, and drowsiness. It may cause skin irritation. 1,2-Dichloroethane- A ~rLV of 200 ppm. No data is available concerning odor threshold. Acute vapor exposure can cause coughipg, 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. Potential Physical Hazards Trenching - Dangerously high fuel vapor levels will be monitored using an LEL meter· ]'he presence of underground utilities are als0 of concern, and Underground Service Alert will Worker Health and Safety Plan Page 3 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 'Un. derground Service Alert will be notified in advance of any drilling Work for identification of all underground utilities in the immediate area. Sampling - 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 US[ 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 b~. required utilizing full-face or ha!f-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 fuli-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 LEE 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 practices that minimize contact with potentia~ll~y 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 KernCounty LUFT guidance document. 6. EMPLOYEE ]RAINING 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 ir~cludes 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 aid 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). Worker Heall:h and Safety Plan Page 5 APPENDIX 1. MATERIAL .~ ;AFETY DATA SHEET I~o. 4,67 MATERIALoEN,u. SAFETYco : T,o.DATA SHEET (S 18) 377~ ~~ ~. D~Z~: A ubc~e b~ of ~dr~F~ for m~ctve' fuel SECTION I I. INGREDIE~S ~ ~DS z ~ZARD OATA ~h ~s, ~c~s, ~, armcLcs ~ ~X requir~cs f~ i ~Zic7. ~ ble~ ~C ~:~ wac ~CX~k requ~~. ~f~ Z~ ~ 85, ~ 0439.) SECTION I I I, P~SI~ D~c'~ihcX~ sc I om, ~c~, dq C ~39 Sp~/Xc gritty. ~/60 F - o.72~.76 ~ ~c ~ .- <240 tva~rat~ race Vapor d~Xcy (AL~I) ..... 3.~.O 'SoXubXXXty ~ ~ter '~ ~ "~p~r~ce ~d ~r: A ~, mbXXe XX~ ~th a c~r~cez~tlc SECTION IV. FIRE ~D E~SION ~TA XueffectLve co exc~ish fire, hcm ~cer ~r~ for c~li~ fire~~ d~ ~d ~b to pr~c prate ~c~e. Zc ~ i ~erM fire a~ ~S~ ~ard ~ ~ co ~eC ~ f~s. V~s cm f~ el~ ~rf~es, CX~ s~cu ~ f~b ~. ~ r~c vioZ~cly ~ch ~idizinS SEGTION V, REACTIVI~ ~TA .. nd ~ZJn8 c~dicl~o. Zt bs ~t ~erKo ~rd~o ~io is an O~ Chso ~ fl~bJ.e li~id. A mixture of ~lsoXine va~cs ~atr can be e~los~ve. ~ ts Lx~mcibAe vi~h ~2iztuK ~e~X~/~Cive degradaci~ c~ Field ~ ~ide ~ ~c~ZX7 hydrocarb~8. ~ ¢, ~.G.,.......,~~ GENIUM PUBLISHING No. SECTION VI. HEALTH HAZARD INFOR/SATION' fatal ~u~ conc. ire ~co~c~ pneuoouLI, or edema vhLcb con b4 fatal. FZRST AID: E~e ~nCacc: ~b t~Zy vi~ ~ yaCK for ~ ~. ~cl~ ~r ~el~. Skin ~ca~: Zfl~esc~u: ~ Mc i~ ~ci~, ~p~ric~ ~d. ~c' phys--. ~ek pr~c ~A~.nl fff~s~m~ for fur~er trfl~t, ob~att~ ~ .~rt. ,. ,, SECTION VII. SPILL, LEAK,,, .A~ DISPOSAL PROCURES disperse viers ~nd hoc all~ Co ~cer a~cr or surface racer. ~d residues and p~k up for disposal. Liquid 'SECTION VllI. SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORHATION Use senerol and 1oco1 e2dmusc mtllacion (~exploston-proof) to keep. vapors bell: requirements in the vorkplace, Respirators should be &v&i.LabXe t0r no~rouci bt e~ersency uso above the TLV. Avoid eye concicc b7 use of chen~ou! safet7 ~KXes ~d/or f~ ficff~eld ~re ~S is ~co~ble. ~r protecti~ ~oth~ a~ropT~te for ~ ~rk stc~ ~o m~tze s~ co--cc s~h as r~r G[~s ~ ~- ~o~ to ~ c~g~ ~XIy a~ b~ered. Ey~ash f~i~, IAM~ ~.'v~h~ faciliti~ s~Xd ~ ~e~ily acc~sibie ftovide sul~ble tra~in{ to t~s4 ~dli~ nd ~ ~th t~ ~erial. iCC Flmmable L/quid, Red Label. SECTION IX. SP,ECIAL PRECAUTIONS AND C01qU~NTS __ Store Ln c~osed containers '~n a ~1. d~. ~-~ttlac~ area Avoid direct s~lt~c. Stornge ~t ~tP~fl~r fir d. rnehod t~ ate otefer~d. indoor ~e of ~is mcat/al requfrCs e~C ventilact~ to r~ve yours. lAnKY.: F~mble Uau[d ~ T.D. ~. ~ 1203- DOT Classification~ FLA~iABLE LlO~IO SOb~CE(S) CODE. 2.4-9.3~- 17 HIS f APPROYALS: CRO industrial /and S&fet. y, NtDI CAL R(Vl[g: November 1981 GENIUM PUBLISHING GASOUNE CAS: 8006-61-9 8~lk l~dling TI.V-~VA, ~00 ppm (= ~00 q/m~ Slx. citic ~ 0.72 Io 4276 at 60'f loili~ point'* 39'C; 60'C (10% dgmlle~ ! IO'C I ?OoC tgO%~, 204'C Flash poinc - ~*F ¢10°0 ~nd ~U~e ~a~c~. · G,uoline is a fuel kx ~ m:ipcoc3lin& inken~ cam' 14% ammal~, and &% otefins. 1he mean bec~ene ~ was iound to be appmximax~ lq.. Becausa l~ is ~he mos~ sisnir~:am men~,ni~ in est~isldnS · 1tV? Othe' ~ Io be matics. ~CI,L'L~3~ ole6~:'-' A ~ ~ ~ ~ is s~r,-,,, 10,. ,d p~ines. They ~a ~ ~ in 4.10 mlnums.,u' 1he dvmhdd im knnmliam ndd msdc eflecl is gOO.lO(X) plan.4' ~ b,e~veefl S% and 6% a/the Imal. while benzene ca. isled a( oth~' h~gh boiling inssvdie~s (C. to C,, compoundsL Wins(~n H. Hickox Secretary ~br Environmental Protection California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Robert Schneider, Chair Fresno Branch Office · Intemet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb5 ~ 3614 East Ashlan Avenue, Fresno, California 93726 Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910 Gray Davis Governor 19 July 2002 Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836 Mr. David Bird Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC T5082 8th- Street/Suite '222-- Bakersfield, California 93301 UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 '%" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY. You submitted First Quarter 2002 Progress Report (Report) dated 6 June 2002 and prepared by Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Bakersfield (HFA). The Report documents a.groundwater monitoring event performed on 28 March 2002. Petroleum product floating on groundwater and very high concentrations Of gasoline constituents, including the fuel oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), have been detected in groundwater samples collected from monitoring and soil vapor extraction (SVE) wells on-site. The lateral extent of impacted groundwater is undefined. A municipal well is approximately 1,000 feet downgradient of the site. We request that quarterly groundwater monitoring continue. We reiterate our request that remediation by SVE be expedited. We also note that a work plan for lateral definition of impacted groundwater is overdue. Summaries of thb project, the Report, and our comments follow. Summary of the Project _B_y .a letter dated 28 June 2001, the City of Bakersfield Fire Department (CBFD) referred the subject cas6 to our agency for regulatory oversight. The site was reconstructed as a convenience store with retail fuel sales and reopened during early 1999. Gasoline is dispensed from six dispensers and is stored in one split-chambered 20,000-gallon underground storage tank (UST) and one 10,000-gallon UST in the southeast portion of the site. An examination of product reconc~hat~on records for April 1999 suggested a potential fuel release of at least 400 gallons from product piping connecting the premium grade UST to the southeastern dispenser. Investigation revealed cuts in the inner flexible and outer containment product piping. Subsequent assessment demonstrated that the release had impacted groundwater. Three groundwater monitoring wells (MW- 1 through MW-3) and six SVE wells (VW- 1 s, VW- li, VW- 1 d, VW-2, VW-3, and VW-4) have been installed. During the initial (26 November 2001) monitoring event, depth to groundwater ranged from 113.20 to 115.15 .feet below the tops of the well casings (below TOC). HFA calculated groundwater flow to be toward the southeast with a slope of 0.029 feet per foot. California Water Service well 4/7 is California Environmental Protection Agency ~ Recycled Paper Mr. David Bird - 2 - 19 July 2002 approximately 1,000 feet east-southeast of the site. HFA's investigation did not identify additional water wells within 2,500 feet. Floating petroleum product was observed on groundwater .in VWl-d during the initial monitoring event. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) and MTBE concentrations up to.5,300,000 and 4,100,000 micrograms per liter (gg/L), respectively, were detected in groundwater samples collected during the initial monitoring event. The lateral e:~tent of MTBE in soils and the lateral extent of impacted groundwater are undefined. SVE remediation is expected to begin during the Third Quarter 2002. A more detailed Project Summary is provided in our letter dated 4 March 2002. Report Summary HFA conducted groundwater monitoring on 28 March 2002. Depth-to-groundwater ranged from 113.30 t.0- 11__4.54 J~ee_t be!0_w,T©~.~Qr_9~_~d.w_a.[te_r_:~ .arn_ p_l~e~ s_were__cg_ll_e_ct_ed,fr.om_ _M_~W_ r_l=t~-o-ugh_~3=_a~., d:__ _~ VW-ld. Groundwater flow direction was calculated to be toward the southeast with a slope of 0.03 feet per foot. Floating petroleum product was measured at a thickness of 0.25 feet on groundwater in VW-ld. Groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA), di-isopropyl ether (DIPE), ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME), 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2- DCA), and 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) by EPA Method 8260B. In addition, the samples were analyzed for, general minerals, nitrate, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). TPH-g was detected at 48,000, 1,300, 46,000, and 1,400,000 gg/L in the samples collected from MW-I, MW-2, MW-3, and VW-ld, respectively. Benzene was detected at 580, 65, 110, and 11,000 gg/L in MW-i, MW-2, MW-3, and VW-ld, respectively. MTBE was detected at 49,000, 3'8, 23,000, and 1,300,000 [tg/L, respectively. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, TAME, 1,2-DCA, and EDB were not detected in the groundwater samples. Total dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 382 to 617 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Electrical conductivity ranged from 576 to 951 micromhos per centimeter (gmhos/cm). Nitrate (as NO3) was detected from 2.1 to 46.3 mg/L. TKN was detected from 0.71 to 0.8 mg/L. HFA will discontinue environmental consulting services at the site during the Second Quarter 2002. ....... S ulli-_v, an=Petroleum-Company,~LLC~(Sulli~van)~w~il.l~contract-w:~th-another- consultant-to-pcr-fon'n groundwater monitoring. Sullivan has contracted for the installation and operation of the SVE remediation system. SVE system st~tup is expected during the Third Quarter 2002. Comments Based on review of the above-summarized reports, 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 0.25 feet thick was measured on groundwater in SVE well VW-ld during the 26 November 2001 (first) and 28 March 2002 (second) monitoring events. MTBE and benzene were detected in groundwater samples at very high maximum concentrations of 4,100,000 and 1,300,000 gg/L U:\UGTLIDW_files\2002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron 7-02.doc Mr. David Bird - 3 - ~d6ring the first and second monitoring events, respectively. impacted groundwater are undefined. 19 July 2002 The lateral extent of MTBE in soil and MTBE may be transported in groundwater 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 reiterate our request of 4 March 2002 that you expedite soil remediation by SVE to minimize the migration and spread of gasoline and MTBE in site soils and groundwater and potential impacts to the municipal well. We understand that you will be contracting with new environmental consultants to install, operate, and maintain the SVE remediation system, and perform groundwater mgnitoring. We request that you provide a written time schedule for installation and startup of the SVE remediation system. Please submit the time schedule by 7 August 2002. -After~ SVE-,system startup~.a`pi~t~test~sh~u~d-be~c~nducted-t~determine.~extracti~n~w.e~-air~.w rates_and_. the radius of influence (ROI) of the shallow, intermediate, and deep screened intervals. We previously approved a proposed SVE pilot test (vacuum influence test) by our letter dated 25 September 2001. HFA indicated that they would summarize the results of the pilot test in a quarterly remediation stares report. We request that the final remediation design specifications be included in the status report submitted by your new consultant. If no design changes are necessary, your consultant should so indicate in the status report. MTBE, benzene, and other gasoline constituents have been detected in samples collected from all on-site monitoring wells. The lateral extent of impacted groundwater has not been defined. By our letter dated 4 March 2002, we requested that you submit a work plan to define lateral extent by 13 May 2002. The work plan is overdue. The work plan should propose monitoring well installations downgradient and cross gradient of the release point. We concur with HFA that quarterly groundwater monitoring should be continued. Groundwater samples should be analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, and the volatile organic compounds usually reported in a full EPA Method 8260 analysis (usually 63 to 67 compounds). The EPA Method 8260 analysis should also include BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, TAME, 1,2-DCA, and EDB. The full range of EPA Method 8260 volatile organic compounds was not reported for the First Quarter 2002 monitoring event. Please insure that these compounds are included during the next monitoring -event.-' 'Ptease-submit-a-gr0undwater-monitoring~report-for-t-he-first-qua~t~erly ~monito~ing~event~by ~10 ....... September 2002. At least one sample collected from a monitoring well upgradient of the releas© and two samples collected from monitoring wells downgradient of the release should be analyzed for general minerals, nitrate, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen again during the Third Quarter 2002. We note that the analysis for general minerals did not include analyses for alkalinity, hardness, iron, and manganese. The analyses we request are' listed in the enclosed information sheet Guidelines for General Mineral Analysis. Please insure that these analyses are performed during the next monitoring event. - 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 U:\UGTUDW_files\2002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron 7-02.doc Mr. David Bird - 4 ' 19 July 2002 Agencies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requi, rements.. As of the date of this letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. 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 Assoc. Engineering Geologist RG No. 5951 E__ncl__osures: -'_ . Re~uir-~d-~l?~tr~nic~De~iy-erable~E~r.mat~E~r~Lab~rat~r~y~.and~Si.te~Data~$ubmittal~s~ Guidelines for General Minerals Analysis 'os re cc: Mr. Howard Wines III, City of Bakersfield Fire Department? Bakersfield, w/o encl Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST'Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosures Mr. Mark Magargee, Bakersfield, w/enclosures U:\UGT~DW_files\2002 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Dwntwn Chevron 7-02.doc HOLGUIN, FAHAN The: site & ASSOCIATES, INc,' ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENt-' CONSULTANTS_ FIRST QUARTER 2002 PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION 2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA (CRWQCB-CVR CASE #5T15000836) Bear Mr: Sullivan: Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc: (HFA).is pleased to present the following First 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 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. - S TE LOCAnON AND CONTACT rE,SoNs is · located at 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield~ Kern County, California (see Figure 1 - SHe 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 s0bth of the-site, and San Joaquin Community HosPital is located 1,500 feet nqrthwest of.the'site_, i..The 'site is at an elevation of 404 feet above MSL, and the tp. pography is relatively-flat with a slight slope to the southwest. The site is located within the nbrthwestern 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 i~iping -.'(~ee Figure 2- Plot Plan). '[he property Owner contact is Mr. Tim Sullivan, President, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC,' 1'508 18th Street, Suite 222, Bakersfield, California, 93301, (661) 327-5008. The consultant contact is Mr. Mark R. Magargee, Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc., 2106 Spring Rose Drive, Bakersfield, California, 93312, (661 ) 587-1820. ENVIRONMENTAL: SCIENTISTS · GEOLOGISTS · ENGINEERS Contaminated Site Assessments · Phase I Audits · Site Remediation * Hazardous Waste Management · 143 South Figuetoa Street Ventura, California 93001 (805) 6524)219 (805) 652~0793 FAX :Mark_Fahan~hf~com Cypress, California 90630 (714) 236-1741 ~ (714) 236-1745 FAX - Franlc~Mummot o~ hfa.co m 871 CoRing Count, Suite C1003 East Cooley Drive, Suite 201 215 South Park Lane, Suite 1 Vacaville, California 95688 Colton, California 92324 Tempe, Arizona 85281 (707) 454-O156 (909) 422-8988 (800) 789-o219 · (~80) 505-3~32 (707) 454-0196 FAX (909) 422-8099 FAX (480) 505-3336 FAX John_H ancock(dj hfa. corn St eve_Ede.lman~hfa.co raTherc~a_Kalaghan~ hfa. corn www.hfa.com_ - "~ H°LGuIN" ~ AssoCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ' Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan petroleum Company, LLC' June 6, 2002 - Page 2 ' ' ' TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND HYDROGEOLOGY .. The site is lOcated at on elevation of 404 feet above MSL, and .the topography slopes. slightly to the :s0uthwest (see: Figure 1 ). The subject site is located on the eastern flank of the San Joaquin Valleyand west of the ~;outhern Sierra Nevada.~ ' Th.e surfac_e, 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 lake bed 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 Servic~' as Kimberlina - Urban Land - Cajun 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 Cajun loamy sand .with high permeability. : ~. :.. - Subsurface 'soils observed at nearby UST sites during the construction of water supply wells in , - - the area are chara-cterized 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. Ia_cared in the southern portion of the Great 'Valley geomorphic province. - The Great Valley is a north-south-trending valley, 400" miles lUng 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 7. Kern River. The subject site is located 1 mile south of the Kern River. The del~tJ~ tc~ 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 dept'hs as shallow as 20 fbg is known to be presentflanking the current course of the Kern River, but is not known to extend t~o the site KCWA, 2000). . "~" ~ ~ ENVIRONMENTAbMANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ...... -~.~ '.~';t: Th"e CWSC_?P_erates Well .#7, which is located ; ..... ':' -' :~ No additioncil active.water supply wells are located within: 2,500 feet of the Site. ~" ~ ..... ~ · PREVIOUS WORK . : ~:! .' During April .1999, PrOduct reconciliation reCords indicated:a pot'ential release in the product ' "/'. i. pipin0 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 pro~-uct piping was removed fr0ng 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 out~r flex containment piping.' Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan ~etroleum Compan'¥, LLC .~ June'& 2002 ~ Page 3 1,000' feet 1ea.s.'t-southeraSJ: of' fthe' ~ite. · 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 s0il boring location). ~PHas gas.aline, BTEX, and MTBE were detected in the soil sample collected from soil boring SC-l: at 5 fbg (see Attachment 1 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 limff~ of the gasoline-containing soil and an assessment of the potential for the release ~to impact '-:. ~ groundwater resources. 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. On August 17, 1999, soil borings B-1 lhrough B-3 were 'advanced to 20 fbg using HFA's 10-ton d!rectLpush sampling rig whe[e refusal was experienced due to the presence of a layer of cobbles. On September 26, 1999, soil boring B-1 Was deepened to 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 bdrings B-4 and B-5 were also drilled at the site to 45 fbg where : drilling refusal occurred. :'' FAHA~ & ASSOCIATES,, INc.: -- ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS' ~ -. ~ ~ ._ Mr. Tim Sullivan~ Sullivan Petro eum :Company, LLC : ~ June 6, 2002 - Page 41 SoiJ boring B-1 was drilled adjacent to the potential source area;' soil borings B-2 and B-3 Were drilled as~latecal-assessing soil borings located 15 ·feet: to .the east' and west, respectively, of th~_P_0_tentiai source area; and soil borings B-4 and B-5 were drille8 as !ateral-asse~sing soij borings advanced 35 feet to the northeast and southwest, respectively, "of the potential-source area. Soils encountered during drilling jnCluded wellzgraded s~]nds, _,-interbedded wifh a layer of cobbles from 18.5 fbg to 22.5 fbg and a second !ayer 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-a.ssessing s_°[I 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 laferally from the pOtential source area.'-Minor MTBE concentrations were also detected in the soil samples collected· from soil boridg~ B-1 through B-5 to the total depth of the soil borings (see Attachment1 ). The 'BFDESD, in. its letter dated December 29, 1999, required t. he preparation of a CAP to determine the appropriate remedial actions for .adsorbed~phase hydrocarbon-containing soils at the ~ite. HFA Prepared the requested CAP, dated April 12, 2000, which was sub. s_equently approved by the BFDESD for implementation. An RI/FS was conducted to assess the feasibility and cost effectiveness of mitigation tech'nologies. The results of the ,RI/FS analysis ¢vere that in-situ vapor extraction is. the technology that appears most Suitabie for this site. A'yapor. extractionwell field consisting Of. central, shallow-zone and deep-zone vapor extraction wells (VW-ls and VW-ld, respectivel;/)and'th~'ee lateral, shallow-zone vapor ext(action'wells (VW-2 .and VW-4) was proposed. " .In association with the construction of the cent[al, deep-zone vapor extraction'well (VW-ld), soil sampling and laboratory analysis would be performed to. assess· the vertical limits of gaso.line-c0ntaihing 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 fbg, which was completed asa 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 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 can~opyabove the drill location, and the ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS' Sullivan 'Petroleum Company, I~LC' · , ' .... June 6, 2002 ~ Page 5' dualLwalled percussion, air rotary LARwas required due ~t-o the requirement to drill through cobbleS-and b'oulders. The three lateral vapor extraction wells (VW-2 through VW-4) we~e 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 bor ng VW-ld, With groun'dwa'ter'encountered at 110 fbg. Soil samples were not collected while drilling soil. borings VW-2 through VW-4 due to their positioning in.¢l~)se proximity to previous soil borings drilled to sirhilar deptl~s. Soils encountered durin'g~ ~lrilling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to l foot in diameter. Field ~creening 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:i'n .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 fbg to 125 fbg to serve a~ 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 from5fbgto45fbg. 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 A TPH as gasoline concentration of 250 mg/kg was-detected in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg, decreasing to 5.7 mg/Ifg in the soil sample col'lected from 65 fbg, and was not detected in the soil samPle collected at 80 fbg. However, a TPH as gasoline concentration of.,2,300 mg/k.g was detected in the soil sample collected at 100fbg. Benzene was not de~tected 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 fo'u~ soil samples reaching a maximum of 87 mg/l~g in the soil ¢~ sample collectedl'at 100 fbg (see Attachment 1). On March 14, 2001, a groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well VW-ld. - The depth to gr0undwdter in the well was measured to be 107.43 ft-TOC. TPH as gasoline, BTEX,:.and MTBE were detected in the groundwater sample'collected from monitoring well VW-ld, with a dissolved-phase benzene concentration of 2,400 pg/I and a dissolved-phase : iMTBE concentration of 120,000 pg/I. Dissolved-phase TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME ~ ~oncentrations were not detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring. ~i' :~i~iwell VW-ld (see Table 1 -.Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Org~'ni¢ . Compounds)- Mr. Tim Sullivan sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC '- June 6, 2002- Page 6 .. ~ - =. :-. Ir~:c~r~Jer to furt;he.r dE neafe 'the-lateral limits of gasoline hydroca'rbon concentrations in soil ;" ~' 6nd'groundwater, HF~,'s Preiiminary Groundwater Assessment RepOrt, dated June 25,2001;: ~ . = ~./.- ~. -.-:- =_ - . . .: recommended that an expanded groundwater investigation be conducted and consist/~°._f_ '~'-':-!heihsta!lation of ihre_e, additionOI groundwater monitoring wells (MW-] through MW~3Jl - .(~e_e Eigci.re 2 for the monitori'ng well locations). In order to complete the vapor extraction. .~Well field insta at Dn~ .HFA recommended that ~he previously approoed central, shall°w-zone . va gn Well (.VW:ls) would be installed as well as central, intermediate-zone vapor ~ ~: :-:'=: ext?action well.' VWd:i (see .Figure 2 for the vapor extraction well locations). ........ .: :'.The CRWQCB-CVR's case revi'e~w letter, dated July 23,_-2001; appr:°ved implementation:df - the expapded groundwater assessment plan and VES work plan with the condition that. a ... VI~T work plan be provided!o the CRWQCB-CVR to deteCmine the bxtraction well flow rates ~nd the RO! within-the shallow, intermediate,' and-=~eep z_ogesl In addition, the ~i ' .;i_- .-: '-C~RWQCB-CVR-requiI:ed full-time operation of the VES to_be accomplished using a mobile ,-=. treatment system or the construction of a fixed treatment system connected to the vapor ----. extraction well~ by underground piping H,FA's CAP Addend0m, daf_ed August 13, 2001, recommended that upon installation of~the -' va" :tionwell'field and initiation of VES operations at the site, a VET ~voUld be -' -~':~ - perfoFmed to d_et.~'tmine the extraction well flow rates and the _ROI within the shallow, ~ intermediate, and deep zones~, The VET would be conducted using vapor extraction wells VW-ls, VW-li,'a .ndV_Wzld as the extraction wells and vapor extraction wells VW-2, VWz3, and " VW-3~ as well as ~ombination Vapor extraction and groundwater monitoring wells MW-l, · . _Mw-2, and MW-3:as the observation wells. Step tests WOuld be performed by extracting ...- soil vapors at three different vacuums for a duration af 20 minutes or until vacuum pressures ~ - stabilize. Selected vacuum steps would be one-third of the maximum vacuum achievedlby -'~ the blower. Flow rates and corresponding wellhead vacuums and subsurface vacuums .:would be monitorecL and the data would be.recorded on a VET recording log. The results of the test would be summarized graphically and in tabular form, and the information would be utilized to calculate the ROI for various flow rates and the intrinsic soil permeability of the extracted zone. At the beginning and end of the step test~ vapor samples would be collected in Tedlaff~ bags from the extraction well and analyzed by a California state-certified laboratory for TPH as gasoline, BTEX,.and MTBE~. The results would be presented to the CRWQCB-CVR as part of a quarterly progress report. The CRWQCB-CVR lette_r, dated September 25, 2001, approved implementatio'~ of the VET work plan. From October 30, 2001 through November 2, 2001, five soil boring.s were drilled during this phase of soil ihvestigation with three lateral soil borings (MW-1 through MW-3) drilled to' 125 ~bg and completed as groundwater monitoring wells and the two central soil borings ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ~ Mrl Tim Sullivan . Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC' June 6, 2002 - Rage 7 ':~ .~ (VW:ls and VW-li)drilled to 35 fbg and 75 fbg, respectively, and completed as vapor ..... extraction wells .(see Figure 2 for the groundwater monitoring and vapor extraction well Io~:ations).- Soil sample~ were collected at-lO-fooj' intervals while drilling soil borings MW-1 : ' ~ ' ' through. MW'-3; with g~oundWgter encountered at 114 [bg. Soil samples were not collected .___. while drilling soil borings. V~/-ls and VW-li due. to their positioning in close-proximity to. '~- Preyious soil .bo¢ings driJled:to similar depths. Soils encountered during drilling included '----; .......... well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foo~ in diameter. Field screening of the soil ..... i'~ i' ~:~ cuttings and soil samples indicated the presence Of VOCs using a PID to the'total depth of -- ~ ::~-~ ~ soil boringMW-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-diameter slottedpVc casing from 75 fbg to 125 fbg. S0il borings VW-ls and VW-li - - were drilled 'to 35 fbg and 75 fbg, respectively and installed as vapor extraction wells with --- 4~-inch-diameter slotted PVC casing from 5 fbg to 35 fbg and 40. fbg to 75 fbg, respectively. - Benzene was detected in only the ~oil 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 'sara'pies collected from soil boring MW-l, reaching a maximum of 84 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 70 fbg; in 3 of the 11 soil - samples co. ll~ct_ed f?0m soil boring MW-2, reaching a maximum 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 concentratio'n of 0.32 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 70 fbg. ~z_~ . : ~ TBA was det.eCted :in._ 4 of th'e 11 soil samples collected from soil boring MW=l, reaching a --. maximum of-10 mg~kg in the soil sample collected at 10 fbg (see Attachment 1). On Noveml~er 26, 2001, grOundwater samp!es were collected from monitoring well MW-1 throughMW-3and.VW-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measu~ed to range from 113.20 .to 115.15 ft-TOC, and the direction of groUndwater flow was determined to be to the southeast. Three inches of PSH was observed in well VW-1d. 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, respectively, in the groundwater sample collected from well VW-ld. :~- :__ TBA, DI.PE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected from the ~ four monitoring we. s (see Table 1). Because Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC was unable to obtain an access agreement With · the adjacent property owner to position a remed, iation equipment compound on that -. . · .: _- ~ ~ .... INC. ...... .../-~$SOCIATES' ~ ENVlFIONMENT^/ MANA~EME~ CONSOLTA~8 - _~ ~ ~. - Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan'Petroleum c°~Pany, LLC June 6,'2002 - Page 8 pr0.Perty, SullivanPetroleum Comp_any, LLC has made arrangements for the remediation equipment comPOund to be. located in-the-s~o0theastern corner of the service station propertY in the landscaped' afea to the east of the petroleum release. Vapor extraction wells VW-ls, VW£1il VW-ld, VW-2; VW-3, and VW-4 iwill be connected by 2-inch-diameter ' underground PVC piping t0 a Collection' manifold in (he remediation equipment compound.. ; "- -: "FIRST:QUARTER2002 GOUNDWATER MONITORING On_ Marcia:28; ;2002, groundwater samples were collected from monitoring well MW-I' through MW-3'andVW-ld. At the Same time, the depth t° groundwater was~measured to an accuracy of +0:O1 foot. Before sampling, the monitoring wells were checked for an-. - immiscible layer, and 3 inches of PSH was observed in well VW-ld. 'The wells were then purged prior to:extiacting 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 at least 7.8 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 levels (see Attachment 2 for the Well purging and groundwater sampling PrOcedures and Attachment 3 for the water sample logs). Disposable TeflonTM bailers Were used to sample the wellS.-The groundwater samples were in chilled VOA ~ials 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 g.uidance 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 toBC Laboratories, ilnCl for analysis. The groundwater samples were analyzed forTPH as gas'oline u~ing EPA MethOd 80'15 (M); BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, TAME, 1,2-DCA, and 1,2-DBE using EPA MethOd 8260B; iDB L~sing EPA Method 504:1'; pH using EPA Method 9040; TDS using EPA Method 160.1; EC using EPA Method 9050; calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium using EPA Meth'od6010; sulfate, chloride, and nitrate using EPA MeJhod 300.0; hydroxide, carbonate, and bicarbonate using EPA Method 310.1; andTKN using EPA Method 351.2. QA/QC sampling included a trip blank, instrument blanks, spikes, and duplicates. The depth to groundwater in the wells was 114.54 ft-TOC, and the direction of groundwater -' sootheast with -a horizontal gradient of measured to range from-113.30 to flow was determined to be to/ the 0.03 (3 feet per 1 O0 feet) ':~"~'~ I ASSOCIATES, INC. _ _E_NV_.IRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANI'S Mr. Tim Sullivan - 'Sullivan Petroleum Compi~nY, LLC- - ' June 6, 2002 - Page 9 ~ :_.i_. --' ". i (see Figure3;.Gr~)ondwater Elevation Contour. Map). TPH as gasolin_e, benzene, ond~TBE ...~_ .,::. ._ were detected ir~:'the., groundWater samples collected from all four monitoring wells ''' - .... ._._::;.~, reaching maximum 'concentrations. of 1,400,000 pS/I, 11,000--pg/I, and 1,300,000 pg/I,.' :': 'resPectively, in the groundWater sample collected from well VW.:ld. Dissolved-phase TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and"TAME concentrations were not. detected'in the groundwater sample.s ., collected from the f(~ur monitoring wells (see Figure 4 -TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE ' Concentrations in Groundwater,. Table '1, and m!achrhent 4. f~r. the laboratory report). The groundwater sampl6s collected from wells MW-1 ,~ MW-2, ahd'¥w-1 d were analyzed for -.phYsical and chemical characteristics. The results o:f'fh~ laboratory analysis indicated that -' the'ground,X, ater beneath the site is potable (see Table 2 ~ Summary of GroUndwater Sample Analgtical Re.suits for Physical and Chemical Characteristics and Attachment 4). ACTIVITIES PLANNED FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2002 ' Durihg the second quarter of 2002, the following activities will be completed: HFA Will discontinOe performing environmental donsulting services for the subject site. Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC will contract with a new-environmental consultant to perform ongoing groundwater monitoring and reporting 'activities; and ' Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC has contracted for the installation and operation 0f'a VES at the site: The YES will be permitted dUring the second quarter of 2002, and the installation of t.h.e underground.piping and the treatment compound will be initiated during, the secand quarter of 2002: VES start-up is anticipated-during the third quarter of 2002. Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum ComPany, LLC June 6, 2002 - Page-10 -- : Holguin, Fahan '& As's~c(~ites, inc. irusts that you will find this Fi~'st Quarter 2002 Progress Report -'i'! .... i~ ::~0nt. adt' Mr._. Mark Magargee · --- Mark-Maaaraee@hfa~com. .... ~. :.. . ~Respectfplly sub'mitted, .. :: ~-~ "~- ~' MarkR. Magargee, CliO, RG '- ~ Senior HYdrogeologist ..... Holguin, Fahan & Associates Inc. MRM:rri -- . :7. ?:: Enclosures: to your:satisfaction. If you have any questions at (661 or require additional information, please 391-0517 or" at e-mail address Figure 1 - Site Location Map Eigure 2 - Plot Plan Figure 3 - Groundwater Elevation Contou[ Map Figure 4 - TPH as: Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater Table 1 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Organic Com Table 2 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical 'Results for Physical and Chemical Characteristics List 6f:Acronyms Attach.merit 1 - Summary of Previous Work - Attachr ~nt 2 - Well Purging and Groundwater Sampling Procedures Attachment 3 - Water Sample Logs Attachm~,~nt 4 - Laboratory Report .... - -- . , cc: Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR -. - ' :'- ~'Mr. Howard -H.- Wines, III, BFDESD · :-- . _'.~ ._;;~'~ .... HOLGUiN, FAHAN & ASSoCI)i-TES; 'INC. MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS - ' Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company; LLC June 6, 2002 -'P~ige'l I :-J::-'--..lll/'/}ii, ;,, }.,'.~"': _. ~. '- ;q //' Ir .,'n,~ .... · :';':'::::.~:' ~" k/ '-'" ' ,;',';F:,: -.~ ~e 0~{. l: - ' '~ ......... I · -. '.'. --' ..... '' : ~:~ ~ ... ' ~~~;~ ~ ~ ~ . l',~¢ ,,,, -:.:. t.~ -. ..... ..,- .. . ~ .. ,, . ~ , ... . ..... flit .1:-- ~ ' ~%~' I~ 7~ ~ .-I I';11 .... , · . v. I1~ :;.'i e. :o. d' . - .... ' :. ' Wate o' ~ - " - '; ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' - ' ' ' '" ' ' - '; ' ' ~;" ' ~' "~l~l ' [ · t l .-.: ~. s' := ......... ~ ' : ' 0~ .... :..,~..':'- ; . ~ ' ,' ..J - -. ' /~""' ~ :l X ' m . ' - . -- ' ~~'- - ~ ....... ~ .- 6'- '.:'", ~ ' .' '% .-'~ ---~.~C , , ~ -,'~-. ~.'..'.", . '~:, : ~) I ~ . , ] ~. ..... . ~ , . ~ . '... ' ~ :~~ C~;~ }-~ ~~ ~,. ,~. ~i;, .- ... ;- ~ ~:.~--~ ~- -: .: ~ ,. ~ ~- ". · ' .... ~ " ' :' ' ' "'::' ' ~' ~ '~ ':'/ :' '~ '~ ' :~ :" ' ~,; "' ' '""':~m~ ~ [ ' . ~ --.' ., ' ~ : ..... .~,, .... . ' -¢~. "~ · ',' . . ~ . / '". ..... . //." ff:7~ ~ ~ · , ' .. ~ ;';=~ ~ '- - L~N0 . o - o.~ _ ~ M~L~ ~ DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SE~VIOE STATION --I~' I [ I I I I .-1 / o:~ '~ q,~o ' - z~ a.~' ' a,~ ' S,~FEET ii ~[' . '- 2317"L" STREET ~ H ~ ~ ~' '~ 1. ' BAKERSFIELD, GALIFORN{A . o-:: '. ' o.s ,~tLO~6~En~ ~ - ~ ' = F{GURE 1 - sITE LOCAT{ON MAP I~1 ASSOCIATES, iNC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC _ Jun. e 6, 2002- Pag~i_12 ~ -... '. M,N, MART. . ._ i i '--' :' 5"' .... :-'Oi ; : , .: .~ ._ -r¢~ - ..... 0 , ~ ~ M~-2 ~;~' DISPENSI ~R IS~NDS ~ ~,. :_. __ ". _ ~ B-4 .; ~ CANOPy ---> ~ iVW-2 ~. , _ ' ~~ V~-3 % ~ .. , DISPENSER IS~NDS[u o o ' VW-a -; -: ~ : MW-3 B-5 ~ ; ' P~NTER .. . ' APPROACH SIDEWALK ~ - '- 23RDSTREET . SCALE IN FEET ;~ 0 15 ~ : ' " ~ LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC "~ ·S.01L BORING' DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION ' "' 2317 "L" STREET ~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL D FILL END · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~ ~ VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL o TURBINE END FIGURE 2 - PLOT P~N HO~CU[N, FA~ & ASSOC~TES, :. ' * __ I~IEVlSION DATE: JUNE 6 2002: RRI , ASSOCIATES INC." ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ~ ' -' -' Mr. Tim Sullivan :; _Sullivan Petroleum'Company, LLC . : June 6, 2002 -Page 13 . ~-,~-~n . MINI MART ,~ uJ . : ~ : - - WASH n _ .: ..-.'~ _.' . '--'~';" ~1 '- -"':~- : '- . - ,-r DJ ." ~. ~ _ · ._ Ol ISLANDS ~O UJ · ' n' O rr' ,-,,, ~ ~ ,/.e~.0 a: n MW-2 a. · - ~, / ' EXPLORATORY ' y TREtICH CANO,V-----~ ~ ~ ~\~ ~~.~ 10,000-GA _LON GASOLINE UST ' ' : : "- ::~. i"::DISPENSE~I.,.,gf--ANDS '~.~ o, , --T~ 20,O0~).G,~,LEON .i~. I GASOUNE UST · ' 23RD STREET ~ :. - SCALE IN FEET : 0 15 30 LEGEND ' ' -. SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION ~.,,~.j 0'~'ROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR ... 2317 "L" STREET ,.,~-~ ' (FEETABOVE MSL) - - [] FILL END _ : .BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA · ~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL FIGURE 3- GROUNDWATER ELEVATON o TURBINE END. CONTOUR MAP - GROUNDWATERFLOW DIRECTION : ' HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. :~: . REVISION DATE: JUNE 6, 2002: RRI - . - :-~ - : ... :~:::_ .-." :_- . ..... ¥- . · : ~: .--'-'.: . - .. :._:._-: - :.~ ..: .~:: :-;'::: -:-_. ::' ::: .. ; _. -..:: -::-: .,::!:~.~:::..~ ,;::.::' :--.( :::; FAHAN~& _ ~I~[ AsSOcIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS :- Mr. Tim Sullivan St~llivan Petroleum Company, LLC June 6, 2002 - Pa[ie 14 - ~- ~4_ ' ~' W .- . · CAR MiNi MART n , . ~ -w~ DISPENSER IS~NDS 0 -V:~t; :~ 0 1,300/05/38~ ~ / ' CAN :' -/. I, ~ ' X LOCATION ' //7 I~' ~. _ " ~ - ' t [ I 1,400,000/11i~m71,~0;909~ ' ~ ~,oo,~/soo/4o,ooo _ *' t '~1 X :.lo~'"~D00,000 1 101,000-GALLON ..... '- - : ~ - /~ o I o ~/ 20,000-GALLON, - ' ; : ' - '., ~ I J~~PLIT-CHAMBERED, GASOLINE UST MW-3 : ~ : _~,000/110/23,000 - --_ .~ : ' ~ P~NTER APPROACH ' SIDEWALK - 23RD STREET : ' SCALE IN FEET -': : 0 15 -~;t. ~ : - LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION ~ ~' GROUNDWATER.MONITORING ~LL a FILL END 2317 "L" STREET : ~ -~coNTouR OF MTBE CONcENTR~TONS o .TURBINE END BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ./~ .: (~1) ~ _ FIGURE 4 - TPH AS GASOLIN~BENZEN~MTBE TPH AS GASOLIN~BENZEN~MTBE - CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER ~/~1~ · CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER (~) ~OLGU~, FA~N ~ ASSOC~TES, INC. REVISION DATE: JUNE 6, 2002: RRI '. ~'-'~: L~'- ' TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA WELL ID DEPTH TO FLOATING GROUND- ' ' ' AND DATE GROUND· PRODUCT WATER TPH AS , . ETHYL- TOTAL 1,2- 1,2- ELEVATION* SAMPLED WATER THICKNESS ELEVATION GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME DCA' DBE EDB REF '(feet-MSL) (fbg) (~eet) (feet-MSL) (Hg/I) (pgA) (pg/I) '(pgA) (pgA) (pg/i) (pgA) (pg/I) (pgA) (Hg/I) (pgA) (pgA) EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) I 8260B . .. 504.1 N/A CCR TITLE 22 DRINKING WATER MCL ** I 11 1001 6801 1,7501 131 ** I ** I ** '1 '** ** I **' ** N/A REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS , N/A VW-ld 3-14-01 107.43 0.00 296.571 -- 2,400 5,200 1,200 8,500 120,000NDND ND'NDNDND'~I--D~'' -- A MW-2 11-26-01 113.20 0.00 291.171 280 25 ...... 404.37 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 291.071 1,300 65 17 170 38 ND ND NDI ND ND .ND NDI C 403.72 3-28-02 113.68 0.00 290.04 46,000 3801 36 330 23,000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND C TRIP BLANK I 3-28-02 I N/A N/A N/AI -- I . NDI ND: ND ND ND NDI ND ', ND ' NDI, NDI ND C REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected. -- = Not analyzed. *Measured to the top of the well casing. **No CCR Title 22 MCL established. A = Hotguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s (HFA's) report dated June 25, 2001'. B = HFA's report dated February 19, 2002. C = HFA's Current report. ii. TABLE ~'. SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAI.~ RESULTS FOR PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERV1CE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ;, ~', ; ' DEPTHTO FLOATING I GROUND '~ '' !' ;'' { ' BICARBONAT WELLID ANDDATE I GROUND- 'PRODUCT WATER ELEVATION*SAMPLED WATER THICKNESS ELEVATIC~N TDS EC I~h : (~HLORID~ SULFATENITRATECALCIUMMAGNE~K~M SODIUM '~OTASSIUMHYD'RoXIDE CARBONA'i:E ' E ' TKN REF (feet-MSL) ~ (~) (f~et (f~t-aSL) (m~) (pmh~cm] (~ uni~), (m~) (m~) .(m~) (m~) (m~) (m~) (m~) ';" (m~) (m~) '"' '(~) ' ' (m~) ', ," , EPA~AL~IC~M~HOD ' 160.1 ~50 ~ 90~ ~ 300.0 6010 , 310.1 I 351.2 N/A ~ REPORTING UMIT ~ ~ 289.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,'w e n m ~ARIES;;EE LA~RAT~RY REPO;TS ' 1~ ~ :; ~'ld 93 ' ,, , ; ~.00 3-28-02 114.~ ' 0,25 ,'617 951 7. ' 82 2.1 ~1 5. ND ND ' ~ 3~ 0.8 A REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected. *Measured to the top of the well casing. A = Holguin. Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s current report. EDB EPA' ETBE fbg .ID ff-TOC KCWA LLC LUFT MDBM mg/kg MPD MSL MTBE PID PSH · ' QA/QC - RI/FS ROI : TAME I'BA -TDS TKN TPH URR UST VES VET - - 9aA _ VOC pg/I · : Mr. Tim Sullivan Sullivan Pet~'oleum Company, LLC June 6, 2002' Page 17 LIST OF AcRoNyMs 1,2-dichloroefhane 1,2-dibromoethane Bakersfield Fire Department Environmental Sewices Division - Bakersfie. ld Consolidated School District I~enzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes corrective action plan California Code of Regulations California Division of Mines and Geology Califorr~ia Regional Water Qualjt_y Control Board, Central Valley Region (5) California Water Services Company ' diisopropyl ether electrical conductivity ethylene'dibromide Environmental Protection Agency ethyl tediary butyl ether feet below grade identification feet below top of casing 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 dissolved solids Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen total petroleum hydrocarbons Unauthorized Release Report underground s}orage tank vapor extraction system vapor extraction test volatile organic analysis volatile organic compound microgram per liter ATTACHMENT 1. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORK TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ~ANALYTICAL RESULTS DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD,'CAUFORNIA SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH SAMPLE ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF (fbg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD I 8015 (M) 8020/8260B N/A REPORTING LIMIT I VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A SC-1 I 5'10'99 I 5 I SC-1-5 I 26,000 64 1,700 3201 2,9001 1,400 " I " I .... A S-1 8-17-99 10 B-1-10 6,500 28 230 85 430 76 ........ S 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 I 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 o- - ..... B 8-17-99 15 B-2-15 4,600 150 73 41'0 .... B B-3 8-17-99 5 B-3-5 6,ND3(;0 0.014 0.21 0.085 0.72 3.83 ........ B 8-17-99 15 B-3-15 0.3 150 81 740 ....... 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 NDI' ND ND 0.19 ........ B 9-26-99 30 B-4-30 ND ND 0.012 ND 0.023 3.5 ...... ' -o B 9-26-99 I 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 3.6 -- C VW-ld 2-1-01 50 VW-ld-50 250 ND 0.12 0,032 0.25 14 ...... 2-1-01 65 VW-1d-65 5.7 ND ND ND ND ........ C 1.5 C 2-1-01 80 VW-ld-80 ND ND ND ND ND 87 ........ 2-2-01 100 VW-ld-100 2,3001 9.3 210 41 260 ........ C TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CAUFORNIA SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH SAMPLE ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF (fbg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) ,(mg/kg) (mg/kg)' (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) '(mg/kg) (rog/kg) EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD I 8015 (M) 8020/8260B N/A REPORT,NG LiMiT I VAR,ES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A MW-1 11-1-01 10 MW-l-10 ND ND ND ND 0.068 0,0059 110-3 ND ND ND D 11-1-01 20 MW-l-20 ND ND ND ND ND 0,011 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 ND ND ND ND 0.16 ND ND ND ND D 11-2-01 50 MW-1-50 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-1-70 200 0.26 0,66 0.13 0,86 84 ND ND ND ND D 11-2-01 80 MW-1-80 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-l-110 1,2 · ND ND ND ND 1,51 0.2 NDND 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 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, CAMFORNIA SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH SAMPLE ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF (fbg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD I 8015 (U) I 8020/8260B N/A REPORTING LIMIT I 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 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 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 NDND ND NDI ND ND' ND ND ND D 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. . ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS' A~ACHMENT2. WELL PURGING AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING PROCEDURES WELL PURGING AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING pROCEDURES The regu atory agencY with jurisdiction over the subject site is notified 48 hours prior to sampling. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Prior to purging the monitoring wellsl water level measurements are collected according to the following procedures: · All wells are checked for floating product with an acrylic bailer or oil/water interface meter. · 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). · All wells are monitored within a short time .interval on the same day to obtain accurate measurements of the patentiometric surface. · All measurements are reproduced to assure validity. PURGING PROCEDURES The monitoring wells are purged using either a submersible electric pump, bailer, hand pump, or bladder pump. A surge block is used if it becomes apparent during pumping that the welt screen 'has become bridged with sediment or the produced groundwater is overly turbid. During the purging process, groundwater is monitored constantly 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. Purge water is stored on site in 55-gallon Department Of Transportation-approved drums until water sample analytical results are received from the laboratory, or the water is, treated and disposed of on site. If permanent pumps are installed in the wells for groundwater remediation, the Pumps are operated for at least 24 hours before sampling to ensure adequate purging. Well Purging and Groundwater Sampling Procedures Page 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES Measurements collected in the field before, sampling include water level, pH, conductivity, temperature, and turbidity (all in conformance with the Environmental Protection Agency's publication "A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods"). Sampling is performed after the well recharges to at least 80 percent of hydrostatic water level. After purging and adequate recharge, groundwater samples are collected as follows: · A l-liter Tefl°nTM bailer is lowered and partially submerged into the well water to collect a groundwater sample. FOr volatile organic analyses, groundwater samples are collected in chilled, 40-milliliter, VOA vials with TeflonTM-lined caps. Hydrochloric acid preservative is added to all vials by the laboratory to lower sample pH to 2. Samples are held at a temperature of 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. FAI~AN &- i_~ ' - ASSOCIATES,' INC. ' ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ATTACHMENT 3. WATER SAMPLE LOGS WATER SAMPLE LOG CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: Mamh 28, 2002 ' PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron WELL NUMBER: VW-ld WELL DEPTH: 125' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 4" WEATHER CONDITIONS: Cool, cloudy, calm OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: 3" floating product ~ (e.g., floating IaI'er, odor, color) QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer A SS U R A N C E 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: 3H METER: Hydac CALIBRATED: Yes SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hydac CALIBRATED: Checked COMMENTS: pH STD CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °C 4.0 3167/1.41 7.0 3168 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (pmhos/cm) ~ (gallons) (°C) field @ 3/28/02 0815 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 114.54' 3/28/02 1110 10 27.3 7.10 465 Clear Moderate Medium 3/28/02 1125 20 . 27.1 7.20 470 Clear Moderate Medium 3/28/02 1140 30 27.2 7.25 475 Clear Moderate Low 3/28/02 1155 40 27.3 7.25 · 475 Clear Moderate Low 3/28/02 1210 50 27.3 7.30 470 Clear Moderate Low 3/28/02 1215 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I 115.04' 3/28/02 1225 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER ATTIME OF SAMPLING:I 114.66' TOTAL DISCHARGE: 50 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 7.8 METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on site in 55-gallon drums AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: four VOA vials and two polys WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): clear, Iow turbidity SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: VW-ld DATA COLLECTED BY: M. Magargee HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. WATER SAMPLE LOG CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: Mamh 28, 2002 PROJECT NAME:' Downtown Chevron WELL NUMBER: MW-1 WELL DEPTH: 125' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2" WEATHER CONDITIONS: Cool, cloudy~ calm OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: (e.g., floating laI~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: QA/QC METHOD OF PURGING WATER: ' pH 'METER: Hydac CALIBRATED: Yes SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hydac CALIBRATED: Checked COMMENTS: 3H STD! CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °C 4.0. 3167/1.41 7.0 3168 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (pmhos/cm) (gallons) (°C) field @ 3/28/02 0810 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 114.53' 3/28/02 1015 5 27.1 7.30 470 Clear Trace Low 3/28/02 1025 10 27.0 7.25 475 Clear Trace Low 3/28/02 1035 15 27.1 7.35 475 Clear Trace Low 3/28/02 ~ 1045 20 27.2 7.30 470 Clear Trace Low 3/28/02 1047 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I 115.08' 3/28/02 1050 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER ATTIME OF SAMPLING:I 114.72' TOTAL DISCHARGE: 20 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: i2.2 METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored On site in 55-gallon drums AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: three VOA vials and two polys WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): clear, Iow turbidity SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-1 DATA COLLECTED BY: M. Magargee HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 'WATER SAMPLE LOG CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: March 28, 2002 PROJECT NAME: DoWntown Chevron WELL NUMBER: MW-2 WELL DEPTH: 125' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2" WEATHER CONDITIONS: Cool, cloudy, calm OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: (e.g., floating la!,er, odor, color) QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TefionTM bailer ' ASSURANCE 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: Hyda¢ CALIBRATED: Yes SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hyda¢ CALIBRATED: Checked COMMENTS: )H STD CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °C 4.0 3167/1.41 7.0 3168 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (IJmhos/cm) (~]allons) (°C) field @ 3/28/02 0800 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 113.30' 3/28/02 0835 5 26.8 7.15 465 Clear None Low 3/28/02 0845 10 27,1 · 7.25 470 Clear None Low 3/28/02 0850 15 27,0 7.25 465 Clear None Low 3/28/02 '0900 20 27.1 7.30 465 Clear None Low 3/28/02 0902 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I 114.52' 3/28/02 0905 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER ATTIME OF SAMPLING:I 113.98' TOTAL DISCHARGE: 20 ~lallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 10.4 METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on site in 55-gallon drums 'AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: four VOA vials and two polys WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): clear, Iow turbidity SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-2 DATA COLLECTED BY: M. Magar,qee HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. WATER SAMPLE LOG CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: Mamh 28, 2002 PROJECT NAME: DoWntown Chevron WELL NUMBER: MW-3 WELL DEPTH: 125' WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2" WEATHER CONDITIONS: Cool~ cloudy, calm OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: . (e.g., floating laI~er, odor, color) ' QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer AS S U R A N C E WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES-- NEW ORCLEANED?: Cleaned METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC METHOD OF PURGING WATER: pH METER: .Hydac CALIBRATED: Yes SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hydac CALIBRATED: Checked COMMENTS: pH STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °C 4.0 3167/1.41 7.0 3168 CONDUC- DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY (pmhos/cm) (~allons) (°C) field @ 3/28/02 0805 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER ATSTART OF PURGING: 113.68' 3/28/02 0920 5. 26.8 7.25 475 Clear None Low 3/28/02 0930 10 26.9 7.30 460 Clear None Low 3/28/02 0940 15 26.8 7.25 465 Clear None Low 3/28/02 0950 20 26.8 7.30 465 Clear None ' Low 3/28/02 0955 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I 114.32' 3/28/02 1000 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER ATTIME OF SAMPLING:I 113.94' TOTAL DISCHARGE: 20 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 11.1 METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on site in.55-~lallon drums AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: four VOA vials WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity).: clear, Iow turbidity SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-3 DATA COLLECTED BY: M. Magargee HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT 4. LABORATORY REPORT Laboratories, Inc. Purgeable Arom,.~tlcs and Total Petroleum HVdrocarbons HOLGUIN,. FAHAN & ASSOCIATES 2820 PEGASUS DR., ~2 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAGARGEE 805-391-0517 Date Reported: 04/12/2002 Date Received: 0'3/28/200:2 Laboratory No.: 02-03241-3 Project Number: DOWNTOWN CHEVRON Date Collected Sampling Location: SULLIVAN PETROLEUM'50 Date Extracted-8015M(g) Sample ID: MW-1 Date Analyzed-8015M(g) Sample Matrix: Water Sample Amount-8015M(g) Sample Collected By: MARK MAGARGEE Extraction Vol-8015M(g) Instrument ID-8015M(g) ,0.3/28/2002 04/05/2002 04/05/2002 .1 5 GV-V4 Constituents Gasoline Range Organics (C4 - C12) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (8015 Surrogate) Analysis Reporting Results Units ~sOOO. 102. % Practical Quantitatio~] Limit 3000. 70-130 TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015 Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020. Note: PQL's were raised due to,high concentration of target analytes requiring sample dilution. Chromatogram not typical of gasoline due to MTBE peak.. California D.~/~. Cert. #1186 Stuart G. Buttram Department Supervisor · ~sult list~ in this mpon are for the exclusive usc ofth~ submitting pa_~r, BC Laboratories..[nc. asst..,es no resl)oasibility t~.r report alteration, d,:tachm.mt or ihtrd 1,a Lab°ratories, Inc. Volatile Organic Analysis (EPA Method 8260) EOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES 2820 PEGASUS DR., ~2 BAKERSFIELD·, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAGARGEE 805-391-0517 Project Number: DOWNTOWN CHEVRON Sampling Location: SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 5091 Sample ID: MW-1 Sample Matrix: Water Sample Collected By: MARK MAGARGEE Date Reported Date Received Laboratory No. Date Collected; Date Extracted: Date ;~alyzed: 04/11/2002 03/28/2002 02-.03241-3 03/28/2002 {~ 10;50 04/05/2002 04/05/2002 Constituents Benzene 1,2-Dibromoethane 1,2-Dichloroethane Ethyl Benzene Toluene Total Xylenes t-Amyl methyl, ether t-Butyl alcohol Diisopropyl ether Ethyl-tLbutyl' ether Methyl-t-butylether Analysis Report,.n9 Results Units Practica]. Quantita. tJon Limit 580. ~g/L 30. None Detected ~g/L 30. None Detected ~g/L 30. 150. ~g/L '. 30. 1000. ~g/L 30. 780. ~g/L 50. None ~Detected ~g/L 50. None Detected ~g/L 3000. None Detected ~g/L 50. None Detected · ~g/L '50. 49000. ~g/L 300. Surroqates 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 Toluene-d8 4-Bromofluorobenzene Quality Control Data % Recovery Control Limits 98. 76-114 97. 88-110 89. 86-115 Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring sample dilution.. California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186 Stuart G. Buttram Department Supervisor suit lis~ed in this re.u~n ~lre fo: :t-,e exchmivc u:~e o,trhe submitting par~y, BC Lab<~ratories, Inc. ~ssur:~¢s no responsibility for repor~ ,~]lvra~ion, detachment or third Laboratories, Inc. Ethylenedibromide/Dibromochloropropane EDB/DBCP (EPA Method 504.1) HOLGUIN, FAf{AN & ASSOCIATES · 2820 PEGASUS DR., #2 BA/iERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAGARGEE 805-391-0517 ProjeCt Number: DOWNTOWN CHEVRON Sampling Location: SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 5091 Sample ID: MW-1 Sample Matrix: Water Sample Collected By: MARK MAGARGEE Date Reported Date Received Labors t oz~t No. Date Co[[lected: Date Ext~racted: Date /~lalyzedc ~%n'alyst: Dilution Used: 04/05/2002 03/28/2002 02-03241-3 03/28/20021 04/02/2002. 04/02/2002 LMK 1 Constituents Ethylenedibromide Analysis Results None Detected Reporting Unit s Practica]. QuantitatJx.n Limit 0.01 California D.~ert. Stuart G. Buttram Department Supervisor r~,,It ;,a~ed in this mm)tn ar~ for the exclus ye use ofth~ submitting party. BC i.ab,)rato~i~: in,:. a~st:rr,es no resp.~sibillty [or re~o~t ahcr ~ti.'m. d~ta~:hmcm or third o: r,,.:.., c~;.r.:.t; ~[,~'~ Laboratories,. Inc. WATER ANALYSIS (GENERAL CHEMISTRY) HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES 2820 PEGASUS DR., #2 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn=' MARK MA~AR~EE 805-391-0517 Project N~er~ DOWNTOWN CHEVRON Sampling Location= SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 5091 Sample'ID~ MW-1 Sampling Date/Time= 03/28/2002 ~ 10~50 Sample Collected By= MAR~MA~AR~EE Constituents Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Hydroxide Carbonate Bicarbonate Sulfate Chloride Nitrate as NO3 pH Electrical Conductivity ® 25 C Total Dissolved Solids ~ 180 C Total KJeldahl Nitrogen Results Units 79. mg/L 14. mg/L 39. mg/L 4.1 mg/L None Detected mg/L None Detected ~/L 200. mg/L ~. ag/L 46. mg/L 40.4 mg/L 7.12 pH Units 664. umhos/cm Date Reported: Date Recn~ived: Laboratory No.: o4/~9/20o2 o~/28/2oo2 o2~o324z-3 P. Q. L. Met.hod · 424. mg/L ~PA-.16C.1 0.71 mg/L 2 EPA-.~'SL.2 0.05 EPA-.60~ D. 0 S EPA-. [!. 5 EPA-. I. EPA-. !. 7 EPA-. 3. EPA-. :~. 8 EPA--2'i(?. %. EPA-: 0.5 EPA-..]~ 0.44 EPA-. ~: --. EPA-.90,1 1. EPA-- 20. 0. P.Q.L. ~ California D.O.H.S. Ce~186 Mama Atenc~o ~' Department Supervisor Practlcal Quantitation Limit (re,ers to the least ax,%ount of analyte quantifiable based on sample size used and analytical technique employect)'. ~ult liste,:l in this report are tbr the exclusivc us= ot'th~ submitting patty, BC Lab~atories, Inc. ~ssumt;s no respo~,sibility for ml~;~ alt¢~a[~,.~:., dc.achment or ~'1-,~.'t p.~r~.-' i:: .:q>~.t:t :.~,~-.. Laboratories, Inc. Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons HOLGUIN, FA~LZuN & ASSOCIATES 2820 PEGASUS DR., #2 BAKERSFIELD, CA .93308 Attn: MARK M~GARGEE 805-391-0517 Date Reported: Date Received: Laboratory No.: Project Number: Sampling Location: Sample ID: Sample Matrix: Sample Collected By: .DOWNTOWN CF~-ngRON Date Co].lected: SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 50 Date Extracted-8015M(g): MW-2 Date Analyzed-SOl5M(g): Water Sample Amount-8015M(g): M3~RK MAGARGEE Exuraction Vol-8015M(§): Instrument ID-8015M(g) : 0.{/12/2002 03/28/2002 02-03241-1 03/28/2002 04/05/20.02 04/05/2002 5 5 G'V-V4 C 9: 0 %~ Constituents Practical' ;%nalysis RePorting Quantitatic't] Results Units Limit Gasoline Range Organics (C4 a,a,a-Trlfluorotoluene (8015 Surrogate) 1300. #g/L 50. 1i5. % 70-130 TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015 Individual constituents by EPA ~ethod 5030/8020. Stuart G. Buttram Department Supervisor ~sult listed in this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party, BC L~boratories, [nc, assc~mes no responsibility fcr report altcra:ion, delachment or third~,a:: y Volatile Organic Analysis (EPA Method 8260)' BOLGUIN, FAHA/~ & ASSOCIATES 2820 PEGASUS DR., #2 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAGARGEE 805-391-0517 Date Reported: Date Received: Laboratory No.: Project Number: DOWNTOWN CHEVRON Sampling Location: SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 5091 Sample ID: ~ MW-2 Sample Matrix: Water Sample Collected By: MARK MAGA/~GEE Date Collected Date Extracted Date A~latyzed 04/il/2002 03/28/2002 02,.03241-1 '03/28/2002 04/03/2002 04/03/2002 Constituents Benzene 1,2-Dibromoethane 1,2-Dichloroethane Ethyl Benzene Toluene Total Xylenes t-Amyl methyl ether t-Butyl alcohol Diisopropyl ether Ethyl-t-butyl ether Met!lYl-t-butylether Analysis Results 65. None Detected None Detected 17. 430. 170. None Detected None Detected None Detected None Detected 38. Reportin9 Units ~9/L ~/L ~/L #g/L ~g/L ~9/h Practica] QuantitatJcn Limit 0.5 0.5 0.5 '0.5 5. 1. 1. 50. 1. 1. 0.5 Surroqates 1,2--Dichloroethane-d4 Toluene-d8 4-Bromofluorobenzene Quality Coutrol Data % Recovery Control Limits 99. 76-114 98. 88-110 99. 86-115 Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring sample dilution. California D.O.H.S. Cert. #1186 Stuart G. Buttram Department Supervi sot ~suh listed ir, this re.Den ~r¢ lb~' [he ¢xclus,~ve u~;¢ of the submittinI~ p,rty, BC L~boratories, [~¢. :~ssu:nes '~o respot~s[bility fcr leper[ alt.~'3 :ion. d(.'md~ment or tb.i?d [ ;,;~ :,::r;~(::~l ,, ~ Laboratories, Inc. Ethylenedibromide/DibromochloroPropane EDB/DBCP (EPA Method 504.1) HOLGUIN, FAHAN & AssoCIATES 2820 PEGASUS DR., #2 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAGARGEE 805-391-0517 Project Number: Sampling Location: Sample ID: Sample Matrix: SampleCollected By: DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 5091 MW-2 Water MARK MAGARGEE Date Reported Date Received Laboratory No. Date Collected: Date E~:racted: Date ~lalyzed: ~'knalyst: Dilution Used:' 04/05/2002 03/28/2002' 02-03241-.1 03/28/2002 ~.: 09:05 04/02/2002 0'4/02/2002 LMK 1 Constituents Ethylenedibromide 'Analysis Results NOne Detected Report :Lng Unit :~ Practical. QuantitatLcn Limit 0.~)1 California~. Cert. ~1186 Stuart G. Buttram Department Supervisor · n,,:;dt H,amt in lhi.~ renort are for thc exclusive use of the submitting part'y, BC I.ahoratories, Ir,~:. a~sumas no responsibility lbr report akera:io,l, detrchment or t aird I :-'~.'.' !nteU.}{~h,t:.c.h Laboratories, Inc. WATER ANALYSIS (GENERAL CHEMISTRY) '?, t,J,!: HOLGUIN, FA~A/q & ASSOCIATES 2820 PEGASUS DR., #2 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAGARGEE 805-391-0517 Project Number: DOWNTOWN CHEVRON .Sampling Location: SULLIVAN PETROLEU~I 5091 Sample ID: MW-2 Sampling Date/Time: 03/28/2002 @ 09:05 Sample Collected By: MARK MAGARGEE Date Rep.~rted: 04/16/2002 Date Received: 03/28/2002 Laboratory No.: 02.03241-1 constituents . Result s - Units P.Q.n. Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Hydroxide Carbonate Bicarbonate Sulfate Chloride Nitrate as NO3 pH Electrical Conductivity ~ 25 C Total Dissolved Solids @ 180 C Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Mol' hc:¢l 66. mg/L O. 0.~ 12. mg/L 0,05 EPA-. 39. mg/T. 0.5 E~'A 3,8 mg/L 1. Eg'A-.- None Detected mg/L :L. 7 E~>A-. None Detected m~/L 3. E~. 160. m~/L ~. 8 E'~A-. 74. m~/L :[. EgA-- 31. m~/L 0.5 46.3 m~/L 0.44 'EPA 7.21 pH Units --. EPA-. 576. umhos / cm 1. EPA-. 382. mg/L 20. EPA.. ~ 6(i, .' 1 0.8 mg/L 0.5 EPA- ?. r.~,- . 2 P,Q.L. = Practical Quantitation Limit (refers to t~te least amount ol] analyte quantifiable based on sample size used ~and analytic~l tect~tiqu,~ employe¢l) . Ca].ifornia D.O.H.S. Ce~186 Mama Atencio Department Supervisor listed in this r~.~rt are fo,' the exclusive u~,¢ ofthk submitting patty, BC L:tboratorit~s. In,:. r~ssu'~es no responsibility for rcl*a~! altcra~ ion. al:taut,mca! or thi~-d F:~L ,.., ~ ~,::~p, :~:,~ .~ BC · Laboratories, Inc. Purgeabl e Arcmatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons HOLGUIN, FAHAI~ & ASSOCIATES 2820 PEGASUS DR., #2 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAGARGEE 805~391-0517 Date Reported: Date Received: Labora~--o~-y No.: Project Number: SamPling Location: Sample ID: Sample Matrix: Sample Collected By: DOWNTOWN CHEVROI~ Date Colklected: SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 50 Date Extracted-8015M(g) i MW-3 Date 'Analyzed-8015M(g) : Water S ampile Amount- 8015M (g) : MARK MAGARGEE Extraction Vol-8015M(g) : Instrument ID-8015M(9)~, 03/28/2S02 02-03241-2 03/28/2oo2 04/05/200.2 04/05/2002 .1 5 GV-V4 Constituents Gasoline Range Organics (C4'- C12) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene {8015 Surrogate) Analysis Reporting. Results Units 46000. 95. Practica]. Quantitati¢,n Limit 3o0o. 70-130 TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015 Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020. Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentratlon of target analyt:es requiring sample dilution. Chromatogram not typical of gasoline d[~e to MTBE peak. California' D.O~. Cert. #1186 S~art G. Buttram Department Supervi sot / suit listed in this repoxt are for the exclusive use of the sul~nitting party, BC Laboratories, Inc, assu:ne~ no responsibility fc.r r~port alteration, d,~tachment or third Ira, .y Laboratories, Inc. Volatile Organic Analysis (EPA Method 8260)' HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES 2820 PEGASUS DR., ~2 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAC4%RGEE 805-391-0517 Project Number: DOWNTOWN CHEVRON Sampling Location: SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 5091 Sample ID: MW-3 Sample Matrix: Water Sample Collected By:MARKMAGARGEE Date Reported: Date Received: L~boratory No.: Date Collected: Date Extracted: Date ~ulatyzed': 04/11/2002 03/28/2002 02-0324.1-2 03/28/2002 ~.: 04/03/2002 04/03/2002 constituents Benzene 1,2~Dibromoethane 1,2-Dichloroethane Ethyl'Benzene Toluene Total Xylenes t-Amyl methyl ether t-Butyl alcohol DiisopropYl ether Ethyl-t-butyl ether Methyl-t-but¥1ether Analysis Results 110. None Detected' None Detected 36.' 380. 330. None Detected None Detected None Detected NOne Detected 23000. Reportin9 Units ~g/L ~g/L ~g/L ~g/L ~/L ~g/L x~/L ~/h Practica]. QuaI~ti~atJon Limit 30. 0.5 0.5 0.5 30. 50. 50. 3000. 50. 50. 300. Surroqates 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 Toluene-d8 4-Bromofluorobenzene' Quality 'Control Data % Recovery Control Limits 101. 76-114 95. 88-110 103. 86-115 Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of uarget analytes requiring sample, dilution. California D.O.H.S. Cert. #1186 Stuart G. Buttram Department Supervisor ~ult listed in ';his reoorl are for The exclusive use of the submitting party, BC Laborato,'ics, In,:. a.~surn~-s no responsibility for repot't a':tc~a"io~, d~tachmcnt or th(i'd [.~: :;,' ,c,"p:'::., ~ ~:' Laboratories, Inc. Ethylenedibr0mfde/DibromochIoropropane EDB/DBCP (EPA Method 504.1) P,i~Te HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES 2820'PEGASUS DR., #2 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAGARGEE 805-391-0517 Project Number: DOWNTOWN CHEVRON Sampling Location:- SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 5091 .Sample ID: MW-3 Sample Matrix: Water Sample Collected By: MARK MAGARGEE Date Reported: Date Received: Laboratory No.: Date Collected: Date Extracted: Date ~alyzed: Analyst: Dilution Used: 04/05/2002 03/28/2002 02-03241-2 03/28/2002 04/02/2002 04/02/2002 IMK 1 Constituents Ethylenedibromide Practical. Analysis Reporting Quantitat:.(:-n Results Units Limit None Detected ~g/L 0.01 California D.6.H.S. rt. #1186 StUart G. Buttram Department Supervisor r~.,~.Ir !it. led in this Teno~t are lbr the exch;sive usc ofthi: submitting party, BC [.aboratories, Inc. a.s:.umes no re~ponsibilixy ;or. Tcport akele{ion. ,tetachmcnt c,t tl,ird p 'ri:. into i>.:t:~:~ou. Laboratories, lng Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES 2820 PEGASUS.DR., ~2 BABLERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAGARGEE 805-391-0517 Project Number: Sampling Location: Sample ID: Sample Matrix: Sample Collected By: MARK MAGARGEE Date Reported: Date Received: La~oratory No.: DOWNTOWN CHEVRON Date Collected: SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 50 Date Extracted-8015M(g)j VW-1D Date Analyzed- 8015M (g) : Water Sample Amount-8015M (g) : Extraction Vol-80'15M(g) : Instrument ID-8015M(g): 04/12/2002 03/28/2002 02-03241-4 03/28/2002 ~', 04/08/2002 04/08/2002 .DO5 5 Constituents Gasoline Range Organics (C4 - C12) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene .(8015 Surrogate) Analysis Reportin9 Results Units 1400000. ~g/L' 106. % Practical Quantitat:'en Limit 50000. 70--130 TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015 Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020. Note: PQL's were raised due to high concent:rat~on of target analytes requiring sample dilution. Chromatogram not typical of gasoline due to MTBE peak. California D.~S. Cert. #1186 Stuart ~. Buttram Department Supervisor ault listed in this report are for the cxctusive usc ofth;~ submitting party, BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility t'cr report altcra:~on, d~::achmcnt or thi 'd [,a, L¥ i: [cEo~t~[io,:. Laboratories, Inc. Volatile Or~c-anic Analysis (EPA Method 8260) HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES 2820 PEGASUS DR., #2 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAGARGEE 805-391-0517 Date Reported: Date Received: Labora%ory No.: Project Number:' DOWNTOWN CHEVRON Sampling Location: SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 5091 Sample ID: V W-1D Sample Matrix: Water Sample Collected By: MARK MAGARGEE Date Collected: Date Extracted: Date ~alyzed: 04/11/2002 03/28/2002 02-03241-4 03/28/2002 04/05/2002 04/05/2002 Constituents Benzene'- 1,2-Dibromoethane' 1,2-Dichloroethane Ethyl Benzene' Toluene Total Xylenes t-Amyl.methyl ether t-Butyl alcohol Diis0propyl ether Ethyl-t-butyl ether Methyl-t-butylether Analysis Results Report lng Unit :3 11OOO. None Detected #g/L None Detected ~g/L None Detected Bg/L 46000. ~g/L 29000. ~g/L None~Detected ~g/L None Detected #g/L None Detected ~g/L None Detected ~g/L 13'00000. Mg/L Practica:. Quant it at:- Limit 5000. 5000. 5000. 5000. 5000. 10000. 10000. 500000. 10000. 100OO. 20000. Surroqates 1,2--Dichl0roethane-d4 Toluene-d8 4-Bromofluorobenzene ~ktality Control Data % Recovery Control Limits 93. 76~114 93. 88-110 91. 86-115 Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring sample dilution. California D.O.H.S. Cert. #1186 Stuart G. Buttram Department Supervisor ~suh lib:ted i~) this re~or~ are Ibr thc exclusive use of the submitting part),, BC labnratories. ]nc. ~.*s, ra~e.~ no zespons~ili~' f.r report alteration, d:tacitm~nt Laboratories, Inc.' Ethylenedibromide/Dibromochloropropane EDB/DBCP (EPA Method 504.t} HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES 2820 PEGASUS DR., #2 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAGARGEE 805-391-0517 Project Number: DOWNTOWN CHEVRON Sampling Location: SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 5091 Sample ID: VW-1D Sample Matrix:- Water .Sample Collected By: MARK MAGARGEE Date Reported: Date Received: Laboratory No.: 0,t/05/2002 03/'28/2002 02-.03241-4 Date Co[.lected: 03/28/2002 Date Extracted: 04/02/2002 Date ~lalyzed~ 04/02/2002 Analyst.: LMK Dilution Used: 1 Constituents Ethylenedibromide Practica].' Analysis Report:.n~ Quantitati¢,n Results Units Limit None Detected pg/L 0.01 Califo~ia D.O.H.S rt. %1186 Stuart G. Buttram Department Supervisor resait tisted in this report are lbr the exclusive use oft.he submitting party., BC l.a'~ratori~, h,c....a?,.,m~:s__no r~.l, onsibility .......... for rt..purl~ a!tcmtior%, , , d~;achment.., or ~'~ird [ a:d y i,,IcH:vet:.'1 i. :r. LaboratOries, WATER /~ALYS I S (GENERAL CHEMISTRY) HOLGUIN, FAI{AN & ASSOCIATES 2820 PEGASUS DR., #2 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAGARGEE 805-391-0517 Project Number: Sampling Location: Sample ID: Sampling Date/Time: Sample Collected By: DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 5091 VW-1D -03/28/2002 @ 12:25 MARK MAGARGEE Date Reported: Date Received: Laborato:fy No.: o4/'~/=oo~ 03/28/2002 02-03241-4 Constituents ~Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Hydroxide Carbonate Bicarbonate Sulfate Chloride Nitrate as NO3 pH Electrical Conductivity @ 25 C Total DiSsolved Solids ~ 180 C Total Kjeldaht Nitrogen Results Units 120.' mg/L 21. mg/L 44. mg/L 5.1 mg/L None Detected mg/L None Detected mg/L 350. m~/L 82. mg/L 93. mg/L 2.1 mg/L 7.38 pH Units 951. umhos/cm 617. mg/L 0.8 mg/L P.Q.L. Met hod 0.05 EPA-. ~, 0 I. 0.05 EPA--(,01 a 0.5 EPA 60'1 iL. EPA-- 60.1 :L. 7 EPA-- :~ 3.,.: 3. EPA- :: 16 5.8 EPA-- 2~ ] ,:: 1. EPA-:~ 0,:: 0.5 EPA--? 0,.' ~ 0.44 EPA--':~ 0,.:' --. EFA.- P 0d 1. EFA 40. EPA~-: 6~. [). 5 EPA-:;5 I P.Q.L. = Practical Quantitation Limit (refers to the least amount oJ! analyte qUantifiable based on sample size used and analytical =echnique employed). California D.O.H.S.~ C~~ Mama Atencio Department Supervisor :~uh li:~ted in this ~'¢porl .,re fbr the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC l,aboratori~, l~c assr.roes no responsibility fi,r rcporl alle:i'aho~h dctachmem om Ih re: 7~ ,.?: :, ~;re=, ,ila, :c'L . Laboratories, Inc. Volatile Organic Analysis (EPA Method 8260) HOLGUIN, FA/gAN & ASSOCIATES 2820 PEGASUS DR., #2 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 Attn: MARK MAGARGEE 805-391-0517 Project Number: Sampling Location: Sample ID:. Sample Matrix: Sample Collected By: DOWNTOWN CHEVRON 'SULLIVAN PETROLEUM 5091 TB-1 Blank Water MARK MAGARGEE Date Reported Date Received Laboratory No. Date Collected: Date Extracted: Date ~lalyzed: 04/11/2002 03/28/2002 02-03241-5Tf% 03/2'8/2002 04/04/2002 04/04/2002 Constituents Benzene 1,2-Dibromoethane 1,2-Dichloroethane Ethyl Benzene' Toluene Total Xylenes t-Amyl methyl ether t-Butyl alcohol DiisOpropyl ether Ethyl-t-butyl ether Methyl-t-butylether Analysxs Results None.Detected None Detected None Detected None'Detected None Detected None 'Detected None Detected None Detected None Detected None Detected None Detected Reporting Units ~g/L . ~g/L ~g/L ~g/~ ~g/L ~g/L ~g/L ~g/L 'Practica]. QuantitatJ_¢,I: Limit. 0.5 0.5 0.5. 0.5 0.5 1. 1. 50. 1. 1. 0.5 Surrogates 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 TOluene-d8 4-Bromofluorobenzene Quality Control Data % Recovery Control Limits 94. 76-114 92. 88-110 '91. 86-115 Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of zarget analytes requiring sample dilution. California D.o.H.s. Cert. #1186 Stuart G. Buttram Department Supervisor listed ir. this r~pon are for ;h~ exclusive use orthe submitting party, BC [.aboratories. Ir..:. assuw, e~s no respt)nsibilily k r re~a~, al~ma6on, detachment Or thi x! pa:.y }. !~:.n.',,t.h ~;~.~' CHAIN-OF-CUSTODYRECORD Pao~ / o~. ~ ~ie~,~ ~/~,~ Project Name Client ContacUPhon. No/ . Send report to: :~rI~CT CODE, .~,~;~/ __/~M~_.. ~ii~/.~/J,-o& .~1~. $4///~.%~M4~v~ ~ Z.7~OC)~ H01guin, Fahan & Ass0ciate6, inc. gnx~d~w, (e.g., aan'Mng k:cak~n, de~m, T~M Attn: Sam~ # Samp~cl Sample~,air, wal~ aoll ~ or MW #, etc.) ContaJnem,, TURNAROUND"rIME ~,~ - SPECIAL INSTRUCTI~S " ~//,'o: ~=,./z.. ,,,.~ A.t4-,,/e~ .............. - ,, ' ............. ,.'· - ; see reverse for re<~uir~ detection limits i CF"-' '~"" DIS~, '-'"~'""'""' ~ ' ' ' ='-','.~, '~--~_~.~.'h~..i ~ ,'~--'~ ~ .% ~, ,)~c~u, ~,.... ~ ~ ' SAMPLE RECEIPT ~ ~''"~" ""-"-"~'-" ' _~- ..... ~ I ~ ~ ~/~i~..~ ¥'? · ..... : ............... s.~.c,~. ~. [] '1-1 PRESERVATIVE ADDED? .......... ~etrlgeral~l al 4°C, Samples are ~spo~l ~o - ...~.,. ?V.~ '?.,.,.,. y' .- ~.:f / .,-.:~ ~ ~,.,,,,~ i~ ~ ~.~ ~. ~.,-. ~ ': ~ ~' ~' Delivered ~o HFA'8 refrigerator for te'mporn~ t ! ......... ,,","-'~, · I (i,-,i,Jais,) ......... ........................ ; ..............................i ~ ~,r,~~ Return sam~e($ycooler to: Holguin'. FaJ~ & Associates, Inc, · 2550 E~s:.m-~, Un;l #1, vent~ra~ C,~ §3003, (805) 650-/750 · FAX # (805) 650-6810