HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNDERGROUND TANK FILE #4December 15, 2003
FIRE CHIEF
!-~CN --RAZE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
2101 "H" Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
VOICE (661) 326-3941
FAX (661) 395-1349
SUPPRESSION SERVICES
2101 "H" Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
VOICE (661) 326-3941
FAX (661) 395-1349
I~REVENTION SERVICES
FIRE SAFEI~f StRVlCES · ENVIRONMENTAL SERVlCES
~' 1715 Chester Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
,; VOICE (661) 326-3979
FAX (661) 326-0576
PUBLIC EDUCATION
1715 Chester Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
VOICE (661) 326-3696
FAX (661) 326-0576
FIRE INVESTIGATfON
1715 Chester Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
VOICE (661) 326-3951
FAX (661) 326-0576
TRAINING DIVISION
5642 Victor Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93308
VOICE (661) 399-4697
FAX (661) 399-5783
CERTIFIED MAIL
Ms. Brenda Everide
Chevron Downtown Food Mart
2317 L Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
& SCHEDULE FOR COMPLIANCE
Dear Sir or Madam,
Our records indicate that your annual maintenance certification on your leak
detection system was past due 11-26-03.
You are currently in violation of Section 2641(J) of the California Code of
Regulations.
"Equipment and devices used to monitor underground storage tanks shall be
installed, calibrated, operated and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's
instructions, including routine maintenance and service checks at least once per
calendar year for operability and running condition."
You are hereby notified that you have fifteen (15) days, November 19, 2003, to
either perform or submit your annual certification to this office. Failure to
comply will result in revocation of your permit to operate your underground
storage system.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 661-326-3190.
Sincerely yours,
Ralph E. Huey
Director of Prevention Services
Steve Underwood
Fire Inspector/Environmental Code Enforcement Officer
Office of Environmental Services
SBU/db
alifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Winston H. Hickox .... Gray Davis
Secretary.Iht Fresno Branch Office Governor
Enviromnental Internet Address: http://www.swmb.ca.gov/~rwqcb5
Protection 1685 E Street, Fresno, California 93706-2020
- Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910
29 October 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
-Mr: Dhvid 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 2003 Progress Report (Report) dated 20 October 2003 and prepared by
Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). The Report documents a groundwater monitoring
event performed on 6 August 2003 and summarizes soil vapor extraction (SVE) remediation system
performance from startup on 8 October 2002 until 29 August 2003. Although influent concentrations
decreased during the third quarter, the SVE system continues to remove hydrocarbons from subsurface
soil at a high rate. High concentrations of gasoline constituents, including the fuel oxygenate methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) continue to be detected in off-site monitoring wells. A large plume of
impacted groundwater extends an undetermined distance toward a municipal well. We request that SVE
system operation and quarterly groundwater monitoring continue with a reduced analytical program and
that you install additional off-site monitoring wells. We also request that you complete installations
necessary to conduct an air sparging (AS) pilot test and an aquifer test and conduct these tests.
.... _Summaries of the Report_____and our comments follow.
Report Summary
Groundwater Monitoring
CSE conducted the third qumter 2003 groundwater monitoring event on 6 August 2003. Depth to
groundwater ranged from 112.33 to 117.51 feet below the tops of the casings. Groundwater flow
direction was calculated to be toward the southeast wi, th a water table slope of 0.015 feet per foot. cSE
measured 0.08 feet of floating petroleum product in soil vapor extraction well VW-Id. 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 fuel
oxygenates MTBE, diisopropyl ether (DIPE), ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), tertiary amyl methyl
ether (TAME), and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA), and the lead scavenger 1,2-dichioroethane (1,2-DCA)
by EPA Method 8260B. The samples were also analyzed for 63 analytes by EPA Method 8260B.
California Environmental Protection Agency
~'~ Rec'ycled Paper
Mr. David Bird 2 29 October 2"00~3.}~ ~
TPH-g was detected in on-site monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-3 at 190,000 and 81 micrograms per
liter (gg/L), respectively and in off-site wells MW-4, through MW-6 at concentrations ranging from 200
to 45,000 gg/L. Benzene was detected in MW-1 and MW-3 at 2,100 and 0.85 gg/L and in off-site wells
MW-4 through MW-6 at concentrations ranging from 4.6 to 4,400 gg/L. MTBE was detected in MW-1
and MW-3 at 14,000, and 31 gg/L, respectively, and at concentrations ranging from 230 to 87,000 gg/L.
DIPE, ETBE, TAME, TBA, and 1,2-DCA were not detected in the samples. Dichlorodifluoromethane
was detected in samples from MW-2, MW-3, and MW-6 at concentrations from 35 to 85 gg/L.
Remediation System Performance
CSE b~_e. gg_n~p~e¢_t, ing_the_S_V_E_system-on-8-October-2002, qzhe-s-ystem-has-operate'd--c~i~u-gljC~-dBfi~g'-
the third quarter 2003 except for short periods of planned inactivity during maintenance, draining the
knockout pot, and for approximately 72 hours prior to groundwater monitoring events.
The SVE system operated during the third quarter 2003 in thermal mode with measured oxidizer
temperatures ranging from 1435 to 1490 degrees Fahrenheit and inlet airflow rates from 205 to 270
standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). Deep SVE well V-id was operated open during the second
quarter. SVE wells MW-1 and shallow SVE well V-IS were operated partially open. The other SVE
wells Were operated during alternative three-week or four-week periods. The air dilution valve remained
partially open during the second quarter.
Influent TPH-g concentrations decreased from 3,810 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at the
beginning of the third quarter (30 June 2003) to 3,415 ppmv at the end of the quarter 29 September
2003). CSE calculated that approximately 15,000 pounds of hydrocarbons were extracted during the
third quarter 2003 and that approximately 31,000 pounds were extracted during the second quarter 2003.
Since SVE operation began, a calculated cumulative total of approximately 111,140 pounds were
removed.
During the fourth quarter 2003, CSE will conduct quarterly groundwater monitoring, continue SVE
system operation, install additional off-site monitoring wells, install on-site AS and groundwater
e~-tr ac t-ion-w eH s;-and- p er form~an--AS-pftot--sturly-a~-d-an~ a~a-q~f~
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
A relatively large plume of groundwater impacted with TPH-g, benzene, and MTBE extends an
undetermined distance southeast of the site. MTBE concentrations up to 87,000 gg/L were detected'in
off-site monitoring wells MW-4 through MW~6 during the 6 August 2003 event. The release from your
site is a serious threat to water resources in the area. A municipal water supply well is approximately
1,000 feet downgradient of the site.
We have previously requested that you expedite soil remediation to minimize the migration and spread
of gasoline and MTBE in groundwater and potential impacts to the municipal well. An SVE
remediation system has operated on-site since 8 October 2002. Based on data included in the report,
V:\UGTXProjects\JDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Downtown Chevron GW 10-03.doc
~.. _~M~David Bird
- 3 - 29 October 2003
SVE system influent vapor concentrations decreased during the second quarter, but hydrocarbon removal
rates have remained relatively high. We request that remediation continue in thermal mode.
Continue groundwater monitoring on a quarterly schedule. Groundwater samples should be analyzed for
TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, and BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME by EPA Method
8260. By our letter dated 11 December 2003 we requested that you include analysis for the VOCs
usually reported in a full EPA Method 8260 analysis (usual'ly 63 to 67 compounds) one additional
quarter. You conducted this analysis during the second and third quarters 2003. This analysis may be
discontinued. Please submit a groundwater monitoring and SVE progress report for the fourth quarter
2003 monitoring event by 2 February 2004.
-~The lateral'extent of imPacted groundwater is undefined. By our letter dated 13' August, We approved
the installation of the additional off-site monitoring wells proposed in CSE' s Expanded Off:Site
Assessment Work Plan dated 5 August 2003. CSE has informed us that they will install the off-site
monitoring wells during late November 2003.
At the meeting on 18 September 2003, Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC, CSE, and Regional Board
representatives agreed that an air sparging (AS) system could be operated concurrent with groundwater
pump and treat (GPT). We request that you evaluate both AS and GPT prior to final remediation system
design. You submitted Amendment To The Corrective Action Plan Addendum For The Sullivan
Petroleum Company, LLC... (Amendment) dated 24 September 2003 and prepared by CSE. The
Amendment proposes AS system installation and operation, groundwater extraction well installation,
and aquifer test procedures.
By our letter dated 8 October 2003, we indicated that the proposed AS system was inadequate to treat the
entire area of impacted groundwater. However, we conditionally approved the AS system for pilot
testing. We requested that you submit a brief Addendum proposing pilot test procedures and a system to
.monitor the AS effectiveness by 10 November 2003. You are to submit an AS system installation
report and pilot test data by 18 February 2004. We also conditionally approved the proposed
groundwater extraction well and aquifer test. We approved the installation of groundwater extraction
well EW-1 and the proposed aquifer test. We requested that you install EW-1 by 31 December 2003
...... aWd-g~ib'fnit aqui'fe~'~te-st-/esVli-s and th~ final GPT s~st~m design by 18 F~bruary'2004'. ' ' '
Sections 2729 and 2729.1 for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the California Code of
Regulations requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Required Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Agencies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP files).
V:\UGTXProjects\JDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Downtown Chew'on GW 10-03.doc
Mr. David Bird - 4 -
29 October 2~05 .~
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals...
·
cc: Mr. Howard Wines 1II, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o encl
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File: UST/Kern/Chevron Station/2317 L Street, Bakersfieldl5T15000836
V:\UGTXPrc~jects\JDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Downtown Chevron GW 10-03.doc
Central
October 28, 2003
ironmental
Consultant
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California, 93301
AIR SPARGING PILOT STUDY WORK PLAN FOR
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 Air Sparging (AS) Pilot Study
Work Plan for the above-referenced site. Site investigation and remediation activities are being conducted
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. The
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (5) (CRWQB-CVR), in its letter
dated October 8, 2003, requested submittal of a work plan for the evaluation of the effectiveness of.the
proposed AS in conjunction with the ongoing soil vapor extraction (SVE) (see Attachment 1 for a copy of
the CRWQCB-CVR Correspondence). In conjunction with the AS Pilot Study, this work plan includes a
proposal to install two additional groundwater monitoring wells to be positioned immediately dOwngradient
of the operating remediation systems at the site. A list of acronyms used in this report is attached.
SITE LOCATION AND CONTACT PERSONS
The site is located at 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, Kern County, California (see Figure 1 - Site Location
Map). The site is located within the commercial district, which flanks 23rd and 24th streets (see Figure 2 -
Site Vicinity Map). The BCSD operates the Downtown Elementary School, 1,250 feet south of the site and
San Joaquin community Hospital is located 1,500 feet northwest of the site. The site is at an elevation of
404 feet above MSL, and the topography is relatively fiat with a slight slope 'to the southwest. The site is
located within the northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, MDBM. The site
is a newly constructed retail fuel sales facility and mini mart;, which opened during the first quarter of 1999.
The subject site is the location of double-walled USTs and product piping (see Figure 3 - Plot Plan).
The property owner contact is Mr. Tim Sullivan, President, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC,
1508 18th Street, Suite 222, Bakersfield, California, 93301, (661) 327-5008. The consultant contact is Mr.
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
October 28, 2003- Page 2
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 southem 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
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, 1.996 Water Supply
Report, July 2000). Perched groundwater at depths as shallow 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).
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 28, 2003- Page 3
CWSC operates Well #7, approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the site, and Well ~mo4-01, approximately
2,400 southeast of the site. Hydrocarbons have not been detected in water samples collected from
Well #7. However, MTBE has been detected in water samples collected from Well ~:)4-01 and this well is
currently inactive. No additional active water supply wells are located within 2;500 feet of the site.
PREVIOUS WORK
During April 1999, product reconciliation records indicated a potential release in the product piping
extending from the premium UST to the southeastern MPD. However, the leak detection alarm system
had not indicated a release. Subsequently, the MPD was shut off, and the inner flex product piping was
removed from the outer flex containment piping. A breach was observed in the inner flex product piping.
Therefore, Sullivan Petroleum filed a URR with the BFDESD. On April 30, 1999, the cOncrete above the
product piping was removed, and an exploratory trench was excavated, exposing the product piping.
A breach was also observed in the outer flex containment piping.
On May 10, 1999, A.J. Environmental, Inc. advanced a hand-augered soil boring (SC-l) adjacent to the
location of the product piping breach (see Figure 3 for the soil boring locations). TPH aS gasoline, BTEX,
and MTBE were detected in the soil sample collected from soil boring SC-1 at5 fbg (see Attachment 2 for
a Summary of Previous Work). Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analytical results, the BFDESD,
in its letter dated June 21, 1999, required a preliminary assessment of the vertical and lateral limits of the
gasoline-containing soil and an assessment of the potential for the release to impact groundwater
resources. Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. (HFA) prepared a work plan, dated July 8, 1999, to perform
the requested work, which was subsequently approved for implementation by the BFDESD in its letter
dated July 21, 1999. HFA performed the drilling and sampling activities on August 17, 1999, and
September 26, 1999.
Five soil borings (B-1 through B-5) were drilled during this phase of soil investigation (see Figure 3 for the
soil boring locations). On August 17, 1999, soil borings B-1 through B-3 were advanced to 20 fbg using
HFA's 10-ton direct-push sampling rig where refusal was experienced due to the presence of a layer of
cobbles. On September 26, 1999, soil boring B-1 was deepened to a depth of 48 fbg using a MobileTM
B-53 hollow-stem auger drill rig operated by Melton Drilling Company of Bakersfield, California.
Drilling refusal was experienced at 48 fbg due to encountering a second layer of larger diameter'cobbles
and occasional boulders. On September 26, 1999, soil borings B-4 and B-5 were also drilled at the site to
45 fbg where drilling refusal occurred.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 28, 2003- Page 4
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 lateralrassessing 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 (see Attachment 2).
The BFDESD, in its letter dated December 29, 1999, required the preparation of a CAP to determine the
appropriate remedial actions for gasoline-containing soils at the site. HF^ 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
(VVV-ls and VW-ld, respectively) and three lateral, shallow-zone vapor extraction wells (VVV-2 and VW-4)
was proposed (see Figure 3 for the vapor extraction well locations). '
'On February I through 3, 2001, HFA advanced soil boring VVV-ld to 125 fbg, which was completed as a
combination groundwater monitOring/vapor extraction Well, and soil borings VVV-2 through VW-4 to 45 fbg,
which were completed as vapor extraction wells. HF^ performed the drilling and sampling of combination
groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well VW-ld on February 1 through 3, '2001, using a limited-
access, dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig, operated by West Hazmat, Inc., of Sacramento,
California. The I_AR was used because of the height of the canopy above the drill location, and the
dual-walled percussion, air rotary I_AR was required due to the requirement to drill through cobbles and
boulders. The three lateral vapor extraction wel~s (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 VVV-ld, with groundwater encountered at 110 fbg. Soil
samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VVV-2 through VVV-4 due to their positioning in close
proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths.
Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in
diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 28, 2003- Page 5
PID to the total depth of soil boring VW-ld. Groundwater was encountered in the soil boring at 110 fbg.
Therefore, the soil boring was drilled to 125 fbg and completed as a 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 VVV-4 were drilled to 45 fbg and completed as vapor extraction wells with
slotted casing from 5 to 45 fbg. Because the LAR was required to be used at another site, time was not
available to install central, shallow vapor extraction well VVV-ls during this phase of investigation
TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 250 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg,
decreasing to 5.7 mg/kg in the soil sample collected from 65 fbg, and was not detected in the soil sample
collected at 80 fbg. However, TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 2,300 mg/kg was in the
soil sample collected at 100 fbg. Benzene was not detected in the soil samples collected at 50, 65, and
80 fbg. However, benzene was detected at a concentration of 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 'i 00 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, arid MTBE were detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring
well VW-ld, with benzene at aconcentration of 2,400 I~g/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 Attachment 2).
In order to further delineate the lateral limits of gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in soil and
groundwater, HFA's Preliminary Groundwater Assessment Report, dated June 25, 2001, recommended
that an expanded groundwater investigation be conducted and consist of the installation of three additional
groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-3) (see Figure 3 for the monitoring well locations). In
order to complete the Vapor extraction well field installation, HFA recommended that the previously
approved central, shallow-zone vapor extraction well (VVV-ls) would be installed as well as central,
intermediate-zone vapor extraction well VVV-li. The CRWQCB-CVR's case review letter, dated
July 23, 2001, approved implementation of the exPanded groundwater assessment plan and VES work
plan.
From October 30, 2001 through November 2, 2001, HFA drilled five soil borings with three lateral soil
borings (MW-1 through MW-3) drilled to 125 fbg and completed as groundwater monitoring wells and the
two central soil borings (VVV-ls and VW-li) drilled to 35 fbg and 75 fbg, respectively, and completed as
vapor extraction wells (see Figure 3 for the well locations). Soil samples were collected at a 10-foot
interval while drilling soil borings MVV-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
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 28, 2003- Page 6
close proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths. Soils encountered dudng drilling included
well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to I foot in diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and
soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a 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 rog/kg. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in
the soil samples collected from soil borings MW-2 and MW-3. However, MTBE was detected in all 11 soil
samples collected from soil boring MW-l, reaching a maximum concentration of 84 mg/kg in the soil
sample collected at 70 fbg, in 3 of the 11 soil samples collected from soil boring MW-2, reaching a
maximum concentration of 0.17 rog/kg in the soil sample collected at 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 (see Attachment 2).
On November 26, 2001, groundwater samples were collected from monitoring well MW-1 through MW-3
and VW-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.20 to 115.15 feet
below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the
southeast. Three inches of PSH was observed in well VW-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE
were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching maximum
concentrations of 5,300,000 pg/I, 72,000 IJg/I, and 4,100,000 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 (see Attachment 2).
On March 28, 2002, groundwater samples were again collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through
MW-3 and VW-ld. The groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and VW-ld
were analyzed for physical and chemical characteristics. The results of the laboratory analysis indicated
that the groundwater beneath the site is potable (see Attachment 2).
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 constructed and
the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW-li, VW-ld, VW-2, VVV-3, and VVV-4 were connected by
2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation equipment
compound. Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and natural gas
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 28, 2003- Page 7
services. VES oPerations were initiated on October 8, 2002. On October 10, 2002, the SJVUAPCD-CR
performed an inspection of the VES unit and observed that it was operating in accordance with the
conditions specified in the ATC.
The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 19, 2002, requested submission of a work plan to perf(~rm an
expanded groundwater assessment to assess the southeastern (downgradient) limits of
gasoline-containing groundwater at the site. CSE submitted an Expanded Groundwater Assessment
Work Plan, dated August 9, 2002, which proposed the installation of two off-site downgradient monitoring
wells MW-4 and MW-5. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated September 3, 2002 approved
implementation of the work plan with the condition that an additiOnal off-site monitoring well (MW-6) be
constructed to the south of the site (see Figure 3 for the monitoring well locations).
From April 10 through 20, 2003, CSE installed off-site groundwater monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6
to a depth of 140 fbg completed with 40 feet of 2-inch diameter slotted PVC casing screened in the
interval ranging in depth from 100 to 140 fbg. Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded
sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in diameter. Groundwater was encountered while drilling at a
depth of approximately 120 fbg. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were not detected in the soil
samples collected from soil borings MW-4 through MW-6 with the exception of TPH as gasoline and
MTBE detected at concentrations of 1.5 mg/kg and 1.6 mg/kg, respectively, in the soil samples collected
at a depth of 120 fbg in soil boring MW-5 and MTBE at a concentration of 0.28 mg/kg in the soil sample
collected at a depth of 20 fbg in soil boring MW-6 (see Attachment 2).
On April 21, 2003 groundwater samples were collected from the three newly constructed wells.
TPH as gasoline was detected at concentrations of 14,000 pg/I, 47,000 ~g/I, and 17,000 I~g/I in the
groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, respectively. Benzene was
detected at concentrations of 830 IJg/I, 3,500 pg/I, and 15 IJg/I in the groundwater samples collected from
monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, respectively. MTBE was detected at concentrations of 31,000 pg/I,
62,000 pg/I, and 54,000 IJg/I in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through
MW-6, respectively. TBA, TAME, DIPE, ETBE, 1,2-DCA, and EDB were not detected in the groundwater
sample 'collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6 (see Attachment 2).
Based upon the laboratory analytical results, the CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 2, 2003,
requested submission of a work plan to perform an expanded groundwater assessment to assess the
southeastern (downgradient) limits of gasoline-containing groundwater at the site as well as the installation
of a deeper monitoring well to act as a "sentinel" between the petroleum release and CWSC Well No. 7.
CSE's Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan, dated July 11, 2003, proposed to drill
three soil borings (MW-7 through MW-9) to a depth of approximately 140 fbg and one soil boring (MW-5d)
to a depth of approximately 170 fbg, completing the four soil borings as groundwater monitoring wells (see
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 28, 2003- Page 8
Figure 2 for the proposed monitoring well locations). The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated
August 13, 2003, approved implementation of the Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work
Plan, and requested submission of a CAP Addendum for the active remediation of the gasoline-containing
groundwater.
CSE's CAP Addendum, dated August 29, 2003, recommended the installation of a fixed air sparging (AS)
system in conjunction with the operating SVE to remove the LNAPL and dissolved-phase from the
capillary fringe and upper portiOn of the saturated zone at the site, and. periodic overpurging of the off-site
monitoring wells to mitigate the off-site groundwater impact (see Figure 3 for the proposed air sparging
well locations). The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated September 3, 2003, did not approve
implementation of the CAP Addendum, and requested submittal of a work plan for the installation and
operation of a fixed GWPT to remediate the MTBE-containing groundwater. A meeting with the RP,
consultant, and CRWQCB-CVR personnel was held on September 18, 2003, where it was discussed that
the proposed combination SVE and AS would be integrated with a GWPT to provide for both Cost effective
hydrocarbon removal as well as hydraulic control.
CSE's Amendment to the CAP Addendum, dated September 24, 2003, proposed the installation of the on-
site AS; installation of an on-site groundwater extraction well (EW-1); performance of an aquifer test to
determine the optimum well field, well construction details and pumping rates; installation of additional
groundwater extraction wells, if required; and the installation of a GWPT system to provide hydraulic
control and hydrocarbon removal simultaneous with the SVE and AS (see Figure 3 for the proposed
groundwater extraction well location). The integrated use of the SVE and AS will remove the bulk of the
hydrocarbons from the vadose and saturated zones, while the GWPT will provide hydraulic control and
additional removal of MTBE from the groundwater. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated
October 8, 2003, conditionally approved implementation of the Amendment to the CAP Addendum, with
the condition that an Air Sparging Pilot Study Work Plan be submitted to monitor the effectiveness of the
proposed AS system, and that the work plan include additional groundwater monitoring points to
determine the appropriate final design of the air sparging well field (see Attachment 1). The following
presents the requested Air Sparging Pilot Study Work Plan, which includes a proposal to install two
additional groundwater monitoring wells (MW-10 and MW-11) to be positioned immediately downgradient
of the operating remediation systems at the site (see Figures 2 and 3 for the proposed groundwater
monitoring well locations).
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 28, 2003- Page 9
AIR SPARGING PILOT STUDY WORK PLAN
CSE's Amendment to the CAP Addendum, dated September 24, 2003, proposed the installation of a pilot
scale well field consisting of four air sparge wells (SW-1 through SW-4) (see Figure 3 for the proposed air
sparge well locations). Each air sparge point will consist of a 2-inch-diameter by 5-foot-long, 0.02-inch
slotted casing packed in No. 3 sand. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated October8, 2003,
recommended that the screened interval be deepened by 5 feet. Therefore, the screened interval will be
positioned from 15 to 20 feet below the top of groundwater at a depth of approximately 130 to 135 fbg. A
2-inch-diameter conductor will be used to connect the air sparge point to the surface, and a 5-foot-long
section of blank casing will be positioned at the bottom of the well to serve as a sediment trap (rathole)
(see Attachment 3 for the Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures and Attachment 4 for the Air
Sparge Well Construction Details).
In order to provide groundwater monitoring points immediately downgradient of the' operating remediation
systems, CSE proposes to install two additional groundwater monitoring wells (MW-10 and MW-10) (see
Figures 2 and 3 for the proposed groundwater monitoring well locations). The monitoring wells will be
drilled to a depth of approximately 140 fbg and installed with 40 feet of 2-inch-diameter slotted PVC casing
and the appropriate filter pack sand installed from the bottom of the soil boring to 5 feet above the slotted
interval. Blank PVC casing packed in neat cement 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 3 and Attachment 5 for the Monitoring Well
Construction Details).
Prior to any intrusive methods being conducted at the site, Underground Service Alert of Northern
California will be utilized to map out the underground structures. Based on the clearances obtained, CSE
will site the air sparging and groundwater monitoring wells in safe locations. The soil borings will be drilled
with a conventional dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig. The air sparging and 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.
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 borings. Following installation, the air sparging and
groundwater monitoring wells will be developed by surging and bailing to remove drilling residues and to'
produce Iow-turbidity groundwater. The proposed air sparging and groundwater monitoring wells will be
surveyed relative to a permanent structure, and from a designated point on the northern side of the top of
the well casing, the groundwater level will be measured in the wells to an accuracy of _+0.01 foot. The
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 28, 2003- Page 10
selected soil and groundwater samples will be analyzed for TPH as gasoline using EPA Method 8015 (M);
and BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME using EPA Method 8260.
Upon installation of the air sparging and additional groundwater monitoring wells, and prior to installation
of the full-scale AS, an air sparge test will be conducted. The central air sparge well (SVV-1) will be used
as an injection well, and the three lateral air sparge wells (SW-2 through SW-4), as well as groundwater
monitoring wells MW-l, MW-10, and MW-11, will be used to monitor groundwater elevation, dissolved
oxygen concentrations, and VOC concentrations, which are indicators of the effective ROI. The results of
the air sparge test will be used to make 'adjustments in the well spacing and screen length for the
full-scale air sparge well field.
An 8.5-scfm, 125-psi air compressor will be used for air sparging in the injection well. The sparging
operation will begin when stable subsurface pressures and vapor concentrations are recorded at the
monitoring points. The air sparge flow rates and pressures will be varied, and the vapor concentration~
and subsurface pressures at the monitoring points will be monitored. Groundwater levels will be
monitored before, during, and after the test in the groundwater monitoring and air sparge wells at the site.
Variations in the groundwater elevation for each monitoring point will be plotted according to the radial
distance from the injection well and used to provide an indication of the effective ROI of the injection well.
During the test, soil vapors will be monitored for VOCs using a Thomas Model 2107 vapor sampling
pump, and VOCs of the vapors will be monitored using a PID. The PID will be calibrated to a 100-ppmv
hexane standard prior to commencing the test. Readings taken with the PID will provide a relative
.indication of VOCs within the vapor .stream, which would indicate the effect of the air sparging.
All constituents will be monitored until stable flow conditions are achieved (see Attachment 6 for the air
sparge test procedures).. Upon completion of the air sparging test, CSE will prepare an Air Sparging
Remedial Investigation Report which will summarize the results of the air sparge test, and provide CSE's
conclusions and recommendations for the installation of additional air sparging wells, potential
modifications to the air sparging well construction details, and the capacity of the full scale system air
compressor.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 28, 2003- Page 11
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC, trusts that you will find this Air Sparging Pilot Study Work Plan to your
satisfaction. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
Mr: Mark R. Magargee at (661) 325-4862 or at e-mail address censenv@aol.com.
Respectfully submitted,
Consulting Hydrogeologist i Ii
_Ce_ntral Sierra Environmental, LLC ~~ ~z..'-~//
MRM:jlt
Enclosures: Figure I Site Location Map
Figure 2 Plot Plan
List of Acronyms
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
CRWQCB-CVR Correspondence
Summary of Previous Wok
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Air Sparge Well Construction Details
Monitoring Well Construction Details
Air Sparge Test Procedures
cc: Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR
Mr. Howard H. Wines, III, BFDESD
IIII
Ball Park
mm
{300 O0~m*
.~... - OOO'm
;
II
SITE LOCATION
LEGEND
0.5 1 MILE
I I t I { } I I I
,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FEET
0.5 I KILOMETER
USGS OILD~L.E 7.5 MINUTE SERJES QUADRANGLE
t
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE I - SITE LOCATION MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
24th STREET
ESTIMATED LIMIT OF
GASOLINE CONTAINING
GROUNDWATER
MW-7 -~
22nd STREET ~'-~
LEGEND
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER ExTRACTION WELL
REVISION DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003:jlt
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 - SITE VICINITY MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
I
I
I
23RD STREET
MW~
SIDEWALK l~
MW-5 MW-Sd
LEGEND
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL
SOIL BORING
VES PIPING
D FILL END
o TURBINE END
-~ PROPOSED GROUNDWATER
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WELL LOCATION
PROPOSED AIR SPARGE WELL LOCATION
REViSiON DATE:OCTOBER 28, 2003:
SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 3 - PLOt PLAN
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
AST
BFDESD
BCSD
BTEX
CAP
CDMG
CDWR
CRWQCB-CVR
CWSC
DCA
DIPE
DOT
EDB
EPA
ETBE
fbg
KCDEHS
KCWA
LAR
LLC
LUFT
MDBM
mg/kg
MPD
MSL
MTBE
pH
PID
PSH
PVC
QA/QC
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, Centra! Valley Region (5)
California Water Services Company
dichloroethane
diisopropyl ether
Department of Transportation
ethylene dibromide
Environmental Protection Agency
ethyl tertiary butyl ether
-feet below grade
Kern County Department of Environmental Health Services
Kern County Water Agency
limited access rig
limited liability corporation
leaking underground fuel tank
Mount Diablo Base and Meridian
milligram per kilogram
multiple product dispenser
mean sea level
methyl tertiary butyl ether
hydrogen potential
photoionization detector
phase-separated hydrocarbons
polyvinyl chloride
quality assurance/quality control
remedial investigation/feasibility study
radius of 'influence
tertiary amyl methyl ether
tertiary butyl alcohol
total petroleum hydrocarbons
Unauthorized Release Report
Underground Service Alert
underground storage tank
vapor extraction system
volatile organic analysis
volatile organic compound
microgram per liter
ATTACHMENT 1.
CRWQCB-CVR CORRESPONDENCE
Winston H. Hickox
Secreta~. for
Environmental
Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Office
lntemet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb5
1685 E Street, Fresno, California 93706-2020
Phone (559) 445-5116 * FAX (559) 445-5910
Gray Davis
Governor
8 October 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. Timothy P. Sullivan, Pi:esident
Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN CO UNTY
You submitted Amendment To The Corrective Action Plan Addendtm~ For The Sullivan Petroleum
Company, LLC... (Amendment) dated 24 September 2003 and prepared by Central Sierra
Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). We requested that you submit the Amendment by our letter dated
5 September 2003 and at a meeting with Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC (Sullivan's) and CSE on
18 September 2003. At the meeting all parties agreed that an air sparging (AS) system could be operated
concurrent with groundwater pump and treat (GPT). We request that you evaluate both AS and GPT
prior to final remediation system design. The Amendment proposes AS system installation and
operation, groundwater extraction well installation, and aquifer test procedures. The proposed AS
system is inadequate to treat the entire area of impacted groundwater. However, we conditionally
approve the proposed AS system for pilot testing. Submit a brief Addendum proposing pilot test
procedures and a system to monitor the AS effectiveness. We also conditionally approve the proposed
groundwater extraction well and aquifer test. Submit a report summarizing extraction well installation,
the aquifer test; and GPT system design. A summary of the Amendment and our comments follow.
Amendment Summary
CSE proposes AS system operation ~oncurrent with the operating SVE system to remove gasoline
constituents from the vadose and saturated zones. CSE also proposes GPT to provide hydraulic control
and remove gasoline constituents, especially methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), from the saturated
zone.
CSE will install four air AS wells (SW-1 through SW-4) in positions around the release point and at
distances of approximately 40 feet apart. CSE assumes a radius of sparge influence (ROI) of 20 feet
based on a 45-degree cone of aeration from a sparge points approximately 10 to 15 feet below the water
table (125 to 130 feet below ground surface (bgs) in sand and gravel. SW-1 through SW-4 will be
installed as standard-construction sparge wells using a five-foot section of 2-inch 0.020-inch slotted
PVC casing and a 5-foot blank section at the well bottom as a sediment trap. The wells will be
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
Mr. Timothy P. Sullivan
2 8 October 2003
connected to a manifold bY underground piping. CSE estimates that an injection pressure of 90 inches
of water will be necessary and will be provided by a dedicated two-cycle oil-less compressor.
CSE will install groundwater extraction well EW-1 approximately 30 feet downgradient of the release
point. EW-'I will be constructed as a 6-inch diameter well screened from 100 to 140 feet bgs with 0.02-
inch slotted PVC casing and a 10-foot section of blank casing as a sediment trap.
CSE wilt conduct an aquifer test to determine aquifer characteristics and provide data for the final pump
and treat remediation system design. Groundwater wil[be extracted at EW-1 and monitoring wells VW-
1D and MW-1 through MW-6 .will be used as observation wells. Test equipment includes pressure
transducers and a multichannel data logger, an electric downhole pump, and water level indicators.
Pumpage will be temporarily stored in a 4,000-gallon capacity tank prior profiling and disposal.
CSE will conduct a 1-hour trend test to establish a baseline and identify outside influences affecting the
test.
A step-drawdown test will be used to select pumping rate. EW-1 will be pumped at three successively
higher rates for at least 15 minutes each.
Following the step-drawdown test, EW-1 will be pumped at a constant-rate for 3 to 6 hours (180 to 360
minutes) followed by a 2-hour recovery test.
CSE will determine extraction well field design based on aquifer test results. Submersible pumps will
be installed in the extraction wells and connected to a collection manifold by underground piping.
Pollutants will be removed from extracted groundwater by an air stripper with a capacity based
combined well field flow rate design. A maximum flow rate of up to 20 gallons per minute is
anticipated. Air stripper effluent will be pumped thr0ugh.a carbon filtration treatment system consisting
Of three 1,000-pound capacity granular activated carbon (GAC) vessels. Treated effluent will be
discharged into the City of Bakersfield sewer or storm drain under appropriate perrhits. Effluent airflow
from the air stripper will be connected to the soil vapor extraction (SVE) system collection manifold for
destruction by the thermal/catalytic oxidizer.
CSE will submit quarterly groundwater and remediation system monitoring reports.
Comments
Based on. review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
During a meeting on 18 September 2003, we emphasized the severity of the groundwater impact caused
by the UST system release from your site and the close down~adient proximi~ty of California Water
Service Company wells No.7 and 64. We reiterated our request that you capture and treat the
groundwater plume using GPT. All parties agreed that GPT would be implemented based on the results
of aquifer testing and that AS could also be conducted. We requested that you submit a work plan for
installation of a ~oundwater extraction well and an aquifer test. We proposed'that remedial options be
reevaluated prior to final GPT system deployment.
Our review of the proposed AS system indicates that the system is inadequate to remediate impacted.
groundwater. Four AS wells installed in the southeast comer of the site will sparge only a small central
V:\UGT~Prqjec~sLIDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Ca.xes\Downtown Chevron ExtractWell WP 9-03.doc
Mr. Timothy P. Sullivan
3 8 October 2003
section at the head of the plume. We anticipate that offset double lines of AS wells installed across the
entire plume width along both 23rd and "L" Streets would be required. The present UST system and
canopy limit AS installation in the immediate release area. We request that you install and operate the
proposed AS wells SW-1 through SW-4 as a pilot test system.
The existing monitoring network is inadequate to evaluate the AS pilot test system since no monitoring
wells exist in close proximity to the system downgradient and cross gradient. We request that you
submit a work plan to complete the monitoring system and proposing pilot test procedures. Submit the
work plan by 10 November 2003.
We note that the sparging points will be installed 10 to 15 feet below the water table. CSE assumes an
ROI of 20 feet based on a 45-degree cone of aeration. Based on this model, the ROI would be less than
20 feet. We request that you install the sparge points at least 15 to 20 feet below the water table to have
a better chance of achieving the assumed ROI. Based on conventional AS system design, the top of the
sparge well screen would be placed 5 feet below the bottom of the polluted groundwater. However, the
depth of polluted groundwater is unknown at this site.
Contract us by 10 December 2003 to provide a progress update concerning the pilot test. Submit a
system installation report and pilot test data by 18 February 2004.
We approve the installation of groundwater extraction well EW-I and the proposed aqui'fer test. Install
EW- 1 by 31 December 2003. Submit the results of the aquifer test and the final GPT system design by
18 February 2004.
Water levels in the pumping and observation wells should be measured several days prior to the test to
account for variability. We do not recommend that the test be conducted after a period of heavy rainfall.
The step-drawdown test should be performed by pumping at each rate for at least one hour or until water
levels have stabilized. Water levels should be allowed to recover for at least one hour or until
stabilization prior to the step and constant-rate tests.
The constant-rate test may require more than 3 to 6 hours. However, we recognize that test duration will
be influenced by time and logistics constraints. We recommend that time-versus-drawdown plots' be
prepared on a semi-log scale during the test and that the test continue until a well-defined straight-line
trend is plotted.
Sections 2729 and 2729.1 for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the California Code of
Regulations requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Required Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating '
Agencies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic Submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP files).
V:\UGTXProjectsXJDW_files\2003 Co~Tespondence\City of Bakersfield CasesXDowmown Chevron ExtractWell WP 9-03.doc
Mr. Timothy P. Sullivan
- 4 - 8 October 2003
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
JOHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals...
CC:
Mr. Howard Wines III, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File: UST/Kern/Chevron Station/2317 L Street, Bakersfield/5T15000836
V:\UGT~PrqjectsX3DW_files\2003 Con'espondence\Cily of Bakersfield Ca.ses\Dowmown Chevron ExtramWell WP 9-03.doc
A'I-I'ACHMENT 2~
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORK
CAR MINI MART
"' N
]o- _ N~/ND/~
20 ND/ND/ND
50. -- ND/ND/O.17
60. -- ND/ND/O.063
; ND/ND/ND
rio - -- ND/ND/ND liMN-2 DISPENSI :R ISLANDS I--
~ UJ
CANOPY----~ 6s - --5.?/ND/Iq I~ ~ :20 - -- ND/ND/O.]9
to--- ND/ND/ND J B-3
I Z0--_ ND/ND/ND __~'
70---- ND/ND/0.32 DISPENSE ISLANDS 13 0 0 ,., SO-
ND/ND/0.e81 ' GASpLI 60 ND/ND/1.5 20 -- -- ND/ND/ND
100--
70- -- 200/0.26/84 40 - --ND/ND/NO
] -- ND/ND/0.0Z9 MW-3 Se-- ND/ND/O.49
110-- ND/ND/ND B.-5 10 -,.- 6,500/28/76 ~ ! 90-- ND/ND/1.8 60 - --ND/ND/ND
]o - --ND~ ~EI zS - - ~/o33 120 - - NDIND~D
20 '--NDe/0.15
APPROACH ~ ~,--~/l.S 'ALK
45 - - ~/0.~2/5.2
23RD STRE~
SCALE IN FEET
20- ~DINDI0.28 0 15 30
40- ~DIND/ND
60-- ~D~D/ND
~ - ~D/ND/ND
MW-6 100 - ~D~DIND MW-5
LEGEND SULLIVAN P~ROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL a FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
~ SOIL BORING o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
ND NOT D~E~ED BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
CONCE~RATIONS IN SOIL (p~) FIGURE 3 - TPH AS GASOLIN~BENZEN~MTBE
~ DE~H OF SAMPLE (~g) ' CONCENT~TIONS IN SOIL
ND NOT D~E~ED CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: October 19, 2003;jif
CAR MINI MART
WASH
Io
. ~. '~-/ ~.S~L..~usT ~ MW~
~ 1- -I- /
..~~ , ~ I
J '
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY. LLC
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL a FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION CO.OUR GROUNDWATER FLOW BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA
(FE~ ABOVE MSL) DIRE~ION FIGURE 4- GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP
CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL. LLC
REVISION DATE: October 19, 2003;Jlt
CAR MINI MART ~ ~,
N
CANOPY~ ~
t ~ ~ % I I I ~ SPLIT~MBE~D
~ ~ ~ [ ~~ GAS~LIN: UST 24,~ 1850137,0~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ENC~
APPROACH
SAMPLED AUGUST 6, 2003 ,
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL u FILL END DOW~OWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
¢/¢/¢ TPH AS GASOLIN~ENZENB~BE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
CONCE~RATIONS IN GROUNDWATER (pC) FIGURE 5 - TPH AS GASOLINE/BENZENE/MTBE
¢/MTBE CONCE~RATON CONTOUR (pg~) ND NOT DETECTED CONCENT~TION IN GROUNDWATER
/ CENT~L SlER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: October 19, 2003;jlt
FIGURE 6 - INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT TPH CONCENTRATIONS
E
C:
O
(_3
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
TPH In
I TPH OutI
10
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Cumulative Operating Weeks
FIGURE 7 - CUMULATIVE EXTRACTION CURVE
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0
5 10 15 20 25
Cumulative Operating Weeks
30
TABLE 3.
SUMMARY OF VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED SAMPLE ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE
(ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) REF
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020 N/A
DE_IECTION LIMIT 10 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 N/A
INFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-1 5,500 58 290 32 220 1,900 A
EFFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.31 A
INFLUENT 12-12-02 0212180-1 8,600 110 320 44 260 2,200 A
INFLUENT 2-21-03 0302259-1 11,000 120 190 100 290 1,400 B
EFFLUENT 2-21-03 0302259-2 ND ND ND ND ND ND B
INFLUENT 6-25-03 0306310-1 3,800 16 150 34 201 480 C
REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected.
A = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's (CSE's), repod dated March 3, 2003.
B = CSE's, repod dated April 13, 2003.
C = CSE's, report dated August 22, 2003.
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fbg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (m~l/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
SC-1 5-10-99 5 SC-1-5 26,000 64 1,700 320 2,900 1,400 .......... . A
B-1 ' 8-17-99 10 B-1-10 6,500 . 28 230 85 430 76 .......... B
8-17-99 15 B-1-15 7,000 26 250 94 430 85 .......... B
9-26-99 22 B-1-22 ND ND ND ND ND 0.48 .......... B
9-26-99 25 B-1-25 ND ND ND ND ND 0.33 .......... B
9-26-99 30 B-1-30 ND ND~ 0.041 ND 0.094 3.1 .......... B
9.26-99 35 B-1-35 ND ' ND 0.011 ND ND 2.6 .......... B
9~26-99 40 B-1-40 ND ND 0.0099 ND 0.022 3.2 -- - ....... B
9-26-99 45 B-1-45 ND 0.0062 0.018 ND ND 5.2 .......... B
B-2 8-17-99 5 B-2-5 19,000 50 1,000 260 1,400 220 .......... B
8-17-99 15 B-2-15 4,600 0.82 150 73 410 2 .......... B
B-3 8-17-99 5 B-3-5 ND 0.014 0.21 0.085 0.72 3.8 .......... B
8-17-99 15 B-3-15 6,300 0.3 150 81 740 3 .......... B
B-4 9-26-99 10 B-4-10 ND ND ND ND ND 0.023 .......... B
9-26-99 20 B-4-20 ND ND ND ND ND 0.19 .......... B
9-26-99 30 B-4-30 ND ND 0.012 ND 0.023 3.5 .......... B
9-26-99 40 B-4-40 ND ND 0.0065 ND ND 3.7 .......... B
B-5 9-26-99 10 B-5-10 ND 'ND ND ND ND ND .......... B
9-26-99 20 B-5-20 ND ND ND ND ND 0.15 .......... B
9-26-99 30 B-5-30 ND ND 0.007 ND ND 1.3 .......... B
9-26-99 40 B-5-40 ND 0.12 0.51 0.032 0.16 11 .......... B
VW-ld 2-1-01 50 VW-ld-50 250 ND 0.12 0.032 0.25 3.6 .......... C
- 2-1-01 65 VW-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 9.3 210 41 260 87 --. ........ C
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE ,TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fbg) Im~/k~) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) '(mg/kg)! (rog/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 N/A..
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
MW-1 11-1-01 10 MW-l-10 ND ND ND ND 0.068 0.0059 -- 10 ND ND ND D
~ 11-1-01 20 MW-l-20 ND ND ND ND ND 0.011 -- 1.3 ND ND ND D
11-1-01 30 MW-1-30 ND ND ND ND ND 0.005 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 40 MW-l-40 ND ND ND ND ND 0.16 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 50 MW-l-50 ND ND ND ND ND 0.068 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 60 MW-l-60 ND ND ND ND ND 1.5 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 70 MW-l-70 200 0.26 0,66 0.13 0.86 84 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 80 MW-1-80 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 0.019 -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 80 MW-2-80 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 90 MW-2-90 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND! ND D
10-31-01 100 MW-2-100 ND ND ND ND ND ND --' ND ND ND ND D
10-31-01 110 MW-2-110 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fb~lI (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
MVV-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 o- 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 ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND ND D
MW-4 4-14-03 20 MW-5-20 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
~4-14-03 40 MW-5-40 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 60 MW-5-60 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 80 MW-5-80 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 100 MW-5-100 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 120 MW-5-120 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
MW-5 4-15-03 20 MW-5-20 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-15-03 40 MW-5-40 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-15-03 60 MW-5-60 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-15-03 80 MW-5-80 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-15-03 100 MW-5-100 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
- 4-15-03 120 MW-5-120 1,5 ND ND ND ND 1,3 1.6 ........ E
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE' BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(~fb~) (m~l/k~) (m~/k~) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg)i (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
MW-6 4-16-03 20 MW-6-20 ND ND ND ND ND 0.062 0.28 . - ....... E
4-16-03 40 MW-6-40 ND ND ND ND ND ND ........... E
4-16-03 60 MW-6-60 ND ND ND ND ND~ ND .......... E
4-16-03 80 MW-6-80 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-16-03 100 MW-6-100 ND ND ND ND ND NE) .......... E
4-16-03 120 MWo6-120 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected. -- = Not analyzed.
A = A.J. Environmental, inc.'s, report dated May 1999.
B = Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s (HFA's) report dated November 17, 1999.
C = HFA's report dated June 25, 2001.
D = HFA's report dated February 19, 2002.
E = Central Sierrra Environmental (CSE's) report dated August 5, 2003
TABLE I.
~UMMARY OF GROUNDWATER IBN~IPLE ~J~N, YTICAL. REBULT~ FOR ORGANIC COMI=OUI~D8
DOWftTOWN CHEVI~ON ~ERVlCE ~TATION, BAKER~IrlELD, CALIFORNIA
CC~r,'n-*~lU~Ow~,m~mC I ~1 ~co] 6soI ~,75oI ~3 31 ~ool .5ol ~,75oI ~31 ., ) "1 ,,l ..i .,i ,, I I I I - I I .. I ., I .,
6-~.7-O2~5~ 0~ ~7~ ~ ~ ~10 ~0 ~ ~ ~70 NC ND N~ ND:NO ND - -
TABLE 2.
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
WELL ID ' DEPTH TO FLOATING GROUND*
AND (]ATE GROUND- PRODUCT WATER
ELEVATION* SAMPLED WATER !THICKNESS ELEVATION TbS EC pH CHLORIDE SULFATE NITRATE CALCIUM MAGNESIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE CARBONATE BICARBONATE TKN REF
~feet'MSL/ (f~/ (feetI , (feet-MSL) (mg~)l (umhos/cm)i (pH units) (rog/l) (rog/l) (mg/'l) (mg/I) (rog/I) (rog/I) (mg/~) (mg/~) (mg/~) (rog/l) (m9/~)
EPA ANALYTICAL METH,OD 160.1 9050 9040 300.0 6010 310.1 351~2 N/A
REPORTING LIM(T VARIES - SEE LABORATORY REPORTS
VW-ld
404.00 3-28-02 114~54 0.25 289.46 617 951! 7.38 93 82 2.1~ 120 21 44 5.11 ND , ND, 35(: 0.8 A
MW*I 3-28~02 114.53 0.00 289.76 424 66~ 7.12 48 68 40.4 79 14 3~ 4.1 ND ND~ 20c 0.71 A
404,29 ~-22-0~ 120.02 0.00 284.27 25C 49~ 6.6 30 51 1,8 76 23 37 18~ ND NC 14{; ND B
MW-2 3*28-02 113.30 0.00 291.07 382 57~ 7.21 31 74 46.3 66 12 3S 3.8 ND NE 16C!' 0.8 A
404.37 8-22-02 118.72 0.00 285.65 31C 55(: 6.7 '33 66 36 71 17 37 11, ND NE 1,4(~ ND B
MW-3 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 290.42 382 57(~ 7.21 31 74 463 66 12 3~ 3.6' ND NE 160 0.8 A
403.72 8-22-02 118.84 0.00 284.88 31(~ 48(:, 6.7 25 5§ 38 97 25 37 ~61 ND .... NC 140 ND B
F~EF = Retort reference. ,~/A = Not aoolicebte, ND = Not detected.
*Measured to the top of the we([ casing.
A = Holguln, Fahan & Associates, inc.'e, report dated May 29, 2002,
B = Central Sierra Env{ronmente{, LLC'$ report dated November 14, 2002.
TABLE 3.
SUMMARY OF VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED SAMPLE ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE
(ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (pPmv) REF
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020 N/A
DETECTION LIMIT 10 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1' N/A
INFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-1 5,500 58 290 32 220 1,900 A
EFFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.31 A
INFLUENT 12-12-02 0212180-1 8,600 110 320 44 260 2,200 A'
INFLUENT 2-21-03 0302259-1 11,000 120 190 100 290 1,400 B
EFFLUENT 2-21-03 0302259-2 ND ND ND ND ND ND B
INFLUENT 6-25-03 0306310.1 3,800 16 150 34 201 480 C
REF = Repod reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected.
A = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's (CSE's), report dated March 3, 2003.
B = CSE's, repod dated April 13, 2003.
C = CSE's, repod dated August 22, 2003.
TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF VES MONITORING DATA
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Cumulative C~mulative Cumulative Cumulative Outlet Inlet Dilutior~ Field Reducf~on Cumulative Lbs. QJmUlatlveCumulatlv®
C-ate Calendar Operating operatingOperatingOperating Temper- Flow MW-I V-ls V-ti V-Id V-2 V*3 V-4 Air TPH InFteld TPH Efficiency Total Lbs. Lbs. DestroyedLbs. Gallons
Monitored Days Hours Hours Days Weeks ature (°F) (scfm)(valva) i (valve) (valve) (valve) (valve) (valve i (valve(valve)(ppmv)Out (ppmv] (>90%) Extracled Extractedper eventDestroyed Extracted
10-8-02 I 0 0 0 0 1,450 175 s · · PO · · · PO 4,500 10 100% 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
10-10-022 15 15 1 0 1,470 205 · · · PO · · · PO 5,500 10 100% 187.01 187,01 267.22 267.22 29
10-15-027 62 77 3 0 1,455 235 · · · PO · · · PO 5,775 10 100% 1,106.681,293.68 1,329.61 1.596.83 202
10-18-0210 39 1t6 5 1 1,470 250 · · · PO · · · PO 5,920 10 100% 837.91 2,131.59 912.14 2,508.96 333
10-22-0214 52 168 · 7 I 1,435 225 · · · PO · · · PO 6,235 10 100% 1,218.363,349.95 1,152.90 3,651.86 523
10-24-0216 25 193 8 1 1,460 230 · · · PO · · · PO 6,530 10 100% 555.23 3,905.18 593.45 4,255.31 610
10-30-0222 75 268 11 2 1,450 215 · · · PO · · · PO 6,745 10 100% t,783.265,688.44 1,719.1t 5,974.42 889
11-1-02 24 26 294 t2 2 t,465 235 · · · PO · · · PO 6,950 10 100% 596.91 6,285.35 671.23 6,645.66 982
11-6-02 29 63 357 15 2 1,440 205 · PO · O · · · PO 7,120 10 100% 1,628.947,914.29 1,453.55 8,099.21 1,237
11-8-02 31 29 386 t6 2 1,485 240 · PO · O · · · PO 7,280 10 100% 670.11 8,584.39 800.97 8,900.19 1,341
11-t2-0235 52 438 18 3 1,460 265 · PO · O · · · PO 7,445 10 100% 1,438~3310,022.721,621.84 10,522.03 1,566
t 1 ~15-02 38 39 477 20 3 1,455 220 · PO · O · · · PO 7,535 10 100% 1,218.1111,240.831,022.04 11,544.07 1,756
11-18-0241 37 514 21 3 1,490 215 · PO .· , O · · · PO 7,680 10 100% 971.00 12,211.83965.85 12,509.91 1,908
11-2t-0244 40 554 23 3 1,470 230 · PO · O · · · PO 7,825 10 100% ~ 1,045.6113,257.451,t38.13 13,648,04 2,071
11-25-0248 53 607 25 4 1,435 205 · PO [ · O · · · PO 8,060 10 100% 1,510.0814,767,531,384.52 15,032.56 2,307
11-30-0253 62 669 28 4 1,450 225 · PO · O · · · · PO 8,175 10 100% 1,621.78' 16,389.311,603.05 16,835,61 2,561
12-3-02 56 0 669 28 4 1,465 240 · PO · O · · · PO 8,320 10 100% 0.00 16,389,3t0.00 16,835.61 2,561
12-6-02 59 39 708 30 4 t,440 210 · PO · O · · · PO 8,455 10 100% 1,232.8517,622,t6t,094.86 17,930.47 2,753
12-10-0263 52 760 32 5 1,485 195 · PO · O · · · PO 8,525 10 100% 1,46t.6719,083.831,366,77 19,297.24 2,982
12-12-0265 28 788 33 5 1,460 235 · PO · O · · · PO 8,600 10 100% 736,88 19,820.71894.74 20,191.96 3,097
12-16-0269 50 838 35 5 1,450 220 · PO · O · · · PO 8,475 10 100% 1,599.7421,420.451,474.00 21,665.98 3,347
t2-19-0272 41 879 37 5 t,465 215 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,135 10 100% 1,210.2022,630.651,133.76 22,799.74 3,536
12-24-0277 64 943 39 6 1,455 235 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,955 10 100% 1,772.1024,402.751,691.55 24,691.29 3,813
12-26o0279 27 970 40 6 1,465 255 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,550 10 100% 799,07 25,201.8282t.78 25,513.07 3,938
12-30-0283 52 1,022 43 5 1,460 240 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,230 10 100% 1,584.9026,786.721,426.35 26,939.42 4,185
1-4-03 88 61 1,083 45 6 1,465 235 PO PO · O · · · PO 'Z,46510 100% 1,675.6828,462.411,691.69 28,631,11 4,447
1-7-03 91 '40 1,123 47 7 1,470 245 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,615 10 100% 1,110.8929,573.291.179.78 29,8t0.89 4,621
1-9-03 93 26 1,149 48 7 1,485 250 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,750 10 100% 767.93 30,341.22796.40 30,607.29 4,741
1-14-03 98 65 1,214 51 7 1,460 225 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,025 10 t00% 1,993.7332,334.951,855.56 32,462.85 5,052
1-t7-03 101 35 1,252 52 · 7 1,455 230 Po PO · O · · · PO 8,450 10 t00% 1,086.2333,421.191,t57.70 33,630.56 5,222
1-20-03 t04 40 1,292 54 8 1,490 215 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,795 10 100% 1,230.7134,651.901,t95,96 34,826.52 5,4t4
1-23-03 107 42 1,334 56 8 1,470 235 PO PO · O · · · PO 9,230 10 100% 1,257.2935,909.191,440,56 36,267.08 5,61t
1-27-03 111 49 1,383 58 8 1,435 205 PO PO · O · · · PO 9,630 10 100% 1,682.5937,591.781,529.69 37,796.77 6,874
1-30-03 114 39 1,422 59 8 1,450 240 PO PO · O · · · PO 9,875 10 100% 1,218.8738,810,651,461.70 39,258.47 6,064
2-3-03 118 52 1,474 6t 9 1,465 265 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,08010 100% 1,951.0340,761.682,196.68 41,455.14 6,369
2-7-03 122 49 1,523 63 9 1,440 220 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,34510 100% 2,072,1242,833.791,763.65 43,218.79 6,693
2-10-03 125 38 1,551 65 9 1,485 215 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,53010 100% 1,369.1444,202.941,350.57 ' 44,579.36 6,907
2-14-03 129 51 1,612 67 10 1,460 230 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,64510 100% 1,827.8946,030.821,974.79 46,554:15 7,192
2-17-03 132 37 1,649 69 t0 1,450 205 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,87010 100% 1,434.1347,464.951,303.97 47,858.13 7,416
2-21-03 136 54 1,703 71 10 1,465 225 PO PO · O · · · PO 11,00010 100% 1,904.9749,369.922,113.78 49,971.91 7,714
2-25-03 140 0 1,703 71 10 1,455 240 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,75010 t00% 0.00 49,369.920.00 49,971.91 7,714
2-28-03 143 39 1,742 73 10 1,465 210 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,68510 100% 1,592.9350,952.851,384.00 51,356.90 7,953
3-4-03 147 50 1,792 75 11 1,475 200 PO PO PO O · · · PO 10,65010 100% 1,776.1352,738.991,684.31 53,040.22 8,240
3-7-03 150 42 1,834 76 11 1,485 235 PO PO PO O · · · PO 10,58010 100% 1,416,2554,155.241,651.50 54,691.7t 8,462
3-11-03 154 49 1,883 78 11 1,490 220 PO PO PO O · · · PO 10,53510 100% 1,928.6955,083.931,796.08 56,467.79 8,763
3-14-03 157 41 1,924 60 11 1,480 215 PO PO · O PO · · PO 10,47510 100% 1,504.3657,588.291,460.31 57,948.10 8,998
3-18-03 161 50 1,974 52 12 1,485 235 PO PO · O PO · · PO 10,41510 100% 1,782.6859,370.981,935.38 59,863.47 9,277
3-21-03 164 39 2,013 84 12 1,475 255 PO PO · O PO · · PO 10,38010 100% 1,511.1460,882.111,632.57 61,5t6.04 9,513
3-24-03 16~ 40 2,053 89 12 1,480 245 PO PO · O · PO · PO 10,33510 100% 1~676.1462,558,251,601.78 63,~{t7.829,775
3-28-03 171 49 2,102 88 13 1,470 250 PO PO · O · PO · PO 10,29010 t00% t,964.2064,522.451,993.50 65,1tl.32 10,052
3-31-03 174 41 2,143 89 13 1,465 240 Po PO · O · PO · PO 10,27510 100% 1,669.7566,192.191,598,97 66,7t0.28 10,343
4-3-03 t77 38 2,181 91 13' 1,485 235 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 10,12510 100% 1,483.5067,675.701,429.89 68,140,17 10,574
4-7-03 181 54 2,235 93 . 13 1,470 225 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 9,975 . 10 100% 2,034.0869,709.781,91.,~.62 70,056.80 10,8~2
4-10-03 184 40 2,275 65 14 1,455 220 PO Po PO O · · PO PO 9,935 10 100% 1,421.2471,131.021,382.50 71,439.39 1t,114
TABLE 4,
SUMMARY OF YES MONITORING DATA
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative cumulative OufJet Inlet Dilution Field Reduction cumulative Lbs, cumulativeCumulative
Date Calendar Operating OperatingOperatingOperatingTemper- Flow MW-1 V-Is V-li V-ld V-2 V-3 V-4 Air TPHIn Field TPH Efficiency TotalLbs. Lbs. DestroyedLbs. Gallons
Monitored Days Hours Hours Days Weeks ature (°F) (scfm)(valve) (valve) (valve) (valve) (valve) (valve (valve(valve)(ppmv)Out(ppmvI (>90%) Extracted Extractedper eventDestroyed Extracted
4-14-03 188 51 2,326 97 14 1,435 215 PO PO · O PO · · PO 9,855 10 100% 1,764,7172,895.73t,708.86 73,148.26 tl,390
4-17-03 .,191 37 2,363 98 14 1,450 230 PO Po · O PO · · PO 9,780 10 100% 1,241.1174,138.841,316.19 74,464.40 11,584
4-21-03 195 11 2,374 99 14 1,465 205 PO PO · O PO · · PO 9,655 10 100% 391.72 74,628.55344.29 74,808.70 11,645
4-24-03 · 198 42 2,416 101 14 1,440 225 PO PO · O · PO · PO 9,480 10 100% 1,316.0475,844.59t,416.65 76,225.35 11,851
4-28-03 202 53 2,469 103 15 1,455 240 PO PO · O · PO · PO 9,225 10 100% 1,789.6977,634.281,855.52 75,080.87 12,130
5-1-03 205 38 2,507 104 15 1,460 210 PO PO · O · PO · PO 8,950 10 100% 1,331.9178,966.191,129.32 79,210.19 12,338
5-6-03 210 63 2,570 107 15 1,450 195 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 8,780 10 100% 1,874.5480,840,731,705.49 80,915.88 12,63t
5-9-03 213 41 2,611 109 16 1,465 235 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 8,445 10 100% 1,111.2881,952.011,286.52 82,202,19 12,805
5-13-03 217 49 2,660 111 16 1,455 220 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 8,110 10 t00% 1,539.4983,491.50t,382.23 83,584.42 13,046
5-16-03 220 40 2,700 113 16 1,465 215 PO PO PO O PO · · PO 7,625 10 100% 1,129.8484,621.331,083.90 84,648.32 13,222
5-20-03 224 49 2,749 115 16 1,460 235 PO PO · O PO · · PO 7,255 10 100% 1,305.0685,926.391,320.61 85,968.94 t3,426
6-23-03 227 41 2,790 116 17 1,465 255 PO PO · O PO · · PO 6,755 t0 100% 1,106.6357,033.021,121.26 87,090.20 13,599
5-26-03 230 42 2,832 118 17 1,470 240 PO PO · O · PO · PO 6,235 t0 100% 1,150.4188,183.43993.27 88,083.47 13,779
5-29-03 233 38 2,870 120 17 1,485 235 PO PO · O · PO · PO 5,890 10 100% 900.21 89,083.64831.18 88,914.65 13,919
5-30-03 234 16 2,886 120 17 1,460 245 PO PO · O · PO · PO 5,450 10 100% 350.60 89,434.24337.56 89,252.2t t3,974
6-3-03 238 51 2,937 122 17 1,455 250 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 5,035 t0 100% 1,078.0690,512.301,014.t6 90,266.37 t4,143
6-5-03 240 29 2,966 124 18 1,490 225 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 4,865 10 100% 577.90 91,090.20500.41 90,766.78 14,233
6-9-03 244 50 3,016 126 18 1,470 230 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 4,615 10 100% 864.68 91,954.88838.26 91,605.04 14,368
6-12-03 247 37 3,053 127 18 1,435 215 PO PO PO O PO · · PO 4,430 10 100% 621.78 92,576.62556.55 92,161.59 t4,465
6-16-03 251 52 3,105 129 18 1,450 240 PO PO PO O PO · · PO 4,225 10 100% 784.07 93,360.70832.64 92,994.23 14,588
6-19-03 254 42 3,147 131 19 1,465 245 PO PO · O PO · · PO 4,075 10 100% 674.22 94,034,91662.10 93,656.33 '14,693
6-23-03 258 50 3,197 133 19 1,460 230 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,950 10 100% 790.27 94,825.18717.19 94,373.52 14,816
6-25-03 260 25 3,222 134 19 1,470 235 PO PO· O · PO · PO 3,800 10 100% 359.56 95,184.75 352.44 94,725.96 14,873
6-30-03 265 64 3,286 137 20 1,475 240 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,810 10 100% 904.78 96,089.53 923.88 95,649.84 15,014
7-2-03 267 27 3,313 138 20 1,460 225 PO PO · O · · PO PO 3,835 10 100% 390.85 96,480.38 367.80 96,017.64 15,075
7-tl-03 276 113 3,426 143 20 1,450 220 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 3,795 10 100% 1,543.61 98,023.99 1,489,3697,507.01 15,316
7-15-03 28O 50 3,476 145 21 1,465 215 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 3,765 10 100% 660.87 98,684.87 638.92 98,145.93 15,420
7-18-03 283 37 3,513 t46 21 t,440 235 PO PO PO O PO · · PO 3,730 10 100% 474.15 99,159.02 511.98 98,657.91 15,494
7-22-03 287 51 3,564 149 21 1,485 255 PO PO PO O PO · · PO 3,705 10 100% 707.72 99,866.73 760.62 99,418.53 15,604
7-25-03 290 42 3,606 150 21 1,460 240 PO PO · O PO · · PO 3,980 10 100% 628.19 100,494.92 585,55 100,004.05 15,702
7-29-03 294 50 3,656 152 22 1,455 235 PO PO · O PO PO · PO 3,655 t0 100% 699.10 101,194.02 677.91 100,681.99 15,812
8-1-03 297 40 3,696 154 22 1,490 245 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,680 10 100% 543.91 101,737.93 569.29 101,251.28 15,897
8-4-03 300 39 3,735 156 22 1,470 250 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,720 10 100% 556.66 = 102,294.59 572,56 101,823.83 15,984
8-7-03 303 0 3,735 156 22 1,435 225 PO PO PO O · PO PO PO 3,685 10 10O~/o O.00 t02,294.69 0.00 101,823.83 15,984
8-11-03 307 49 3,784 158 23 1,450 230 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 3,635 10 100% 643.17 102,937.77 646.64 102,470.48 16,084
8.14.03 310 4O 3,824 159 23 1,465 210 PO PO PO O PO · PO PO 3,620 10 100% 529.42 t03,467, t9479.97 102,950.45 16,167
8-18-03 3t4 53 3,877 162 23 1,440 235 PO PO PO O PO · PO PO 3,595 t0 100% 637.85 i 104,105.04 706.75 103,657.20 16,266
8-21-03 317 38 3,915 163 23 1,485 205 PO PO · O PO · · PO 3,560 10 100% 508.23 104,613.27 437.71 104,094.91 16,346
8-25-03 32t 51 3,966 165 24 1,460 240 PO PO · O PO PO · PO 3,525 10 100% 589.23 105,202.50 680.99 104,775.90 16,438
8-28-03 324 37 4,003 167 24 1,450 270 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,590 10 100% 495.55 t05,698.05 566.10 105,342,00 16,515
9-1-03 328 52 ' 4,055 169 24 1,465 220 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,630 10 100% 797.95 106,496.00 665,49 105,997.49 16,640
9-5-03 332 50 4,105 t71 24 1,455 215 PO PO PO O · PO PO PO 3,655 10 100% 632,14 107,128.13 620.20 106,617,70 16,739
9-8-03 335 41 4,146 173 25 1,465 230 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 3,595 10 100% 510.06 107,638.t9 535,t0 107,152.80 16,818
9-11-03 335 37 4,183 174 25 1,460 245 PO PO PO O PO · PO PO 3,520 10 100% 484.33 108,122.62 503,63 107,656.42 16,894
9-15-03 342 52 4,235 176 25 1,465 250 PO PO PO O PO · PO PO 3,480 10 100% 709.94 108,832.47 714.02 t08,370.44 17,005
9-19-03 346 54 4,289 179 26 1,470 235 PO PO · O PO · · PO 3,455 10 t00% 743.75 109,576.21 691.95 109,062.41 17,121
9-22-03 349 38 4,327 180 26 1,485 215 PO PO® O PO PO · PO 3,430 10 100% 488.44 110,064.65442.25 109,504.68 17,198
9-26-03 353 51 4,378 182 26 1,460 240 .PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,420 10 100% 595.41 110,660.06660.65 110,165.31 17,291
9-29-03 356~ 37 4,415 184 25 1,470 225 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,415 10 100% 480.79 111,140.85448.67 110,6t3.98 17,366
Open = O
C~osed =·
Partially open = PO
ATFACHMENT 3.
SOIL BORING AND WELL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC'S STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR
SOIL BORING AND WELL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
PRE-DRILLING PROTOCOL
Prior to the start of drilling, necessary permits, site access agreements, and/or encroachment permits are
obtained. "As-built" 'drawings are obtained if possible. At least 48 hours prior to drilling, Underground
Service Alert or an equivalent utility notification service is notified. A geophysical survey may be
conducted to locate subsurface utilities. Site plans and/or "as-built" drawings are compared to actual
conditions observed at the site. The property owner/retailer is interviewed .to gain information about
locations of former UST systems (including dispensers, product lines, and vent lines). A visual inspection
is made of the locations of the existing UST system, and scars and patches in pavement are noted. The
emergency shut-off switch is located for safety purposes. The critical zone, which is defined as 10 feet
from any part of the UST system, is identified, and any proposed drilling locations within the critical zone
may be subject to special hole clearance techniques. Drilling locations within the critical zone are avoided
if possible. Notifications are made at least 2 weeks in advance of drilling to the property owner, client
representative, on-site facility manager, regulatory agency, and/or other appropriate parties.
A site-specific, worker health and safety plan for the site is available on site at all times during drilling
activities. Prior to commencing drilling, a health and safety meeting is held among all on-site personnel
involved in the drilling operation, including subcontractors and visitors, and is documented with a health
and safety meeting sign-in form. A traffic control plan is developed prior to the start of any drilling
activities for both on-site and off-site drilling opera[ions. 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 stad 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 borings located inside the critical zone, probing and hand clearing an additional
4 feet is performed. If probing is met with refusal, then trained personnel advance a hand auger
without excessive force.
An alternate or additional subsurface clearance procedures may also be employed, as required by clients,
permit conditions, and/or anticipated subsurface conditions (for example, near major utility corridors or in
hard soils). Alternate clearance techniques may include performing a geophysical investigation or using
an air knife or water knife. If subsurface conditions prevent adequate subsurface clearance, the drilling
operation is ceased until the client approves a procedure for proceeding in writing.
If any portion of the UST system is encountered, or if there is any possibility that it has been encountered,
the work ceases, and the client is notified immediately. If there is reason to believe that the product
system has been damaged, the emergency shut-off switch is activated. The client will decide if additional
uncovering by hand is required. If it is confirmed that the UST system has been encountered, tightness
tests are performed. The hole is backfilled only with client approval.
DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Soil boring are drilled using one of the following methods:
Manual drilling: Manual drilling Utilizes a 2-inch-OD, hand auger manufactured by
Xitech Industries, Art's Manufacturing Company, or simila~ equipment. Soil samples are collected
with a drive sampler, which is outfitted with 1.5-inch by 3-inch steel or brass sleeves. The specific
equipment used is noted on a soil boring log.
Truck-mounted, powered drilling: Truck-mounted, powered drilling utilizes hollow-stem flight auger
drilling, air rotary drilling, or percussion hammer drilling, or similar technologies. Soil samples are
collected in steel or brass sleeves with a California-modified, split-spoon sampler or, for specific
projects, a continuous sampler. The specific equipment used is noted on a Soil boring log.
Direct push sampling: Direct Push sampling utilizes Geoprobes®, cone penetrometer testing rigs,
or similar technologies. Soil samples are collected with a drive sampler, which is outfitted with
steel or brass sleeves. The sPecific equipment used is noted on a soil boring log.
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 3
Before each soil sampling episode, the sampling equipment is decontaminated using a non-phosphate
soap wash, a tap-water rinse, and a deionized water rinse. The drill string is decontaminated with a steam
cleaner between each soil boring (truck-mounted rigs).
Soil' samples that are collected in steel or brass sleeves are covered with aluminum foil or TeflonTM tape
followed by plastic caps. If EPA Method 5035 is required, then 5 to 20 grams of soil is extracted from the
sample and placed in methanol-preserved containers supplied by the laboratory, or sub samples are
collected using Encore~ samplers. During the drilling process, soil samples and cuttings are field
screened for VOCs using a' photoionization detector calibrated to 100 parts per million by volume
isobutylene. Any soil staining or discoloration is visually identified. Soils are classified according to the
Unified Soil Classification System. Specific geologic and hydrogeologic information collected includes
grading, plasticity, density, stiffness, mineral composition, moisture content, soil structure, grain size,
degree of rounding, and other features that could affect contaminant transport. All data is recorded on a
soil boring log under the supervision of a geologist registered in the state in which the site is located. The
samples are labeled, sealed, recorded on a chain-of-custody record, and chilled to 4°C in accordance with
the procedures outlined in the California State Water Resources Control Board's Leaking Underground
Fuel Tank Field Manual and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Site Characterization Manual. Sample preservation, handling, and transportation
procedures are consistent with Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's quality assurance/quality control
procedures. The samples are transported in a chilled container to a state-certified, hazardous waste
testing laboratory.
Cuttings from the soil borings are stored in 55-gallon, Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved
drums, roll-off bins, or other appropriate containers, as approved by the client. Each container is labeled
with the number of the soil boring(s) from which the waste was derived, the date the waste was generated,
and other pertinent information; The drums are stored at the site of generation until sample laboratory
analytical results are obtained, at which time the soil is disposed of appropriately.
A soil boring log is completed for each soil boring and includes the following minimum information:
· date of drilling;
· location of soil boring;
· project name and location;
· soil .sample names and depths;
· soil descriptions and classifications;
· standard penetration counts (rigs);
· photoionization detector readings;
· drilling equipment;
· soil boring diameter;
· sampling equipment;
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 4
· depth to groundwater in soil boring;
· name of person perfOrming logging;
· name of supervising registered geologist; and
· name of drilling company (rigs and direct push).
SOIL BORING COMPLETION PROCEDURES
All soil borings are either propedy abandoned or completed as a well.
Abandonment
Each soil boring that is not completed as a well is backfilled with bentonite grout, neat cement, concrete,
or bentonite chips with a permeability less than 'that of the surrounding soils, and/or soil cuttings,
depending on local regulatory requirements or client instructions. Grout is placed by the tremie method.
Backfilling is performed carefully to avoid bridging. The type of backfill material is noted on the soil boring
log:
Well Installation
Wells are designed according to applicable state and local regulations as well as project needs. Details of
the well design and Construction are recorded on the soil boring log and include the following minimum
information (in addition to the items noted above for soil borings):
· detailed drawing of well;
· type of well (groundwater, vadose, or air sparging);
·. casing diameter and material;
· screen slot size;
· well depth and screen length (+1 foot);
· filter pack material, size, and placement depths;
· annular seal material and placement depths;
· surface seal deSign/construction;
· well location (±5 feet); and
· well development procedures.
Groundwater monitoring wells are generally designed with 30 feet of slotted casing centered on the water
table, unless site conditions, project needs, or local regulations dictate a different well design. The sand
pack is placed at least two feet above the top of the screen, and at least 3 feet of Iow permeability seal
material is placed between the sand pack and the surface seal. The sand pack and Iow permeability seal
material are placed in the annular space from the bottom up using the tremie method. When drilling in
asphalt, a 24-inch round cut is made for the well pad. When drilling on concrete, a 2 x 2-foot square is
sawcut. The well cover is traffic-rated and has a white lid with a black triangle painted on it (3 inches per
side) or a black lid with a white triangle (3 inches per side). The completed well pad should is concrete of
matching color with the existing surface. The well number is labeled on the outside of the well box/pad
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 5
and the inside of the well box. The number on the outside is painted on with a stencil, stamped, or
attached to the well with a metal plate. The number on the inside is written on the well cap with waterproof
ink. The casing has a notch or indication on its north side indicating a unique measuring/surveying point.
Well development is conducted by simple pumping if bridging of the screen does not occur. If bridging
occurs, well surging-is conducted for adequate well production. Well surging is created by the use of
surge blocks, bailers, or pumps, whichever method is most appropriate for the well use. Only formation
water is used for surging the well. Well development continues until non-turbid groundwater is produced
or turbidity stabilizes. All purged groundwater is held on site in covered 55-gallon DOT-approved drums or
other appropriate containers until water sample analytical results are received.
The elevation of the north side of the top of well casing (or other appropriate reference point from which
the depth to groundwater can be measured) is surveyed to an accuracy of _+0.01 foot. All measurements
are reproduced to assure validity. Surveying is performed by a state-licensed surveyor if required by state
or local regulations. In the State of California, wells are surveyed in accordance with AB2886.
DATA REDUCTION
The data compiled from the Soil borings is summarized and analyzed. A narrative summary of the soil
characteristics is also presented. The soil boring logs are checked for the following information:
· correlation of stratigraphic units among borings;
· identification of zones of potentially high hydraulic conductivity;
· identification of the confining layer;
· indication of unusual/unpredicted geologic features (fault zones, fracture traces, facies changes,
solution channels, buried stream deposits, cross-cutting structures, pinchout zones, etc.); and
· continuity of petrographic features such as sorting, grain-size distribution, cementation, etc.
Soil boring/well locations are plotted on a properly scaled map. If appropriate, soil stratigraphy of the site
is presented in a scaled cross section. Specific features that may impact contaminant migration, e.g.,
fault zones or impermeable layers, are discussed in narrative form and supplemented with graphical
presentations as deemed appropriate.
REVISED 3/29/02
ATTACHMENT 4.
AIR SPARGE WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
AIR SPARGE WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
.S..u!livan Petroleum Company, LLC.
.,Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, B~kersfleld, California
Proposed
Mark R. Maqar.qee CHG, RG
Well No. SW-1 thru SW-4
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
-- TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
WELL CASING
GROUNDWATER
SCREEN
Elevation of refrence point
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well Casing
type of well casing
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top of grovel pack
type of gravel pack
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
depth of bottom of screen
depth of well
diameter of borehole
depth of borehole
~404feet
2 fo.cj
Concrete
2 feet
Cement Grout
123 feet
Bentonite chips
2 inches
Schedua140 PVC
-115 t1:)9
127 ft~
#3 Sand
130 fbg
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
135 fba
140~j
8 5/8 inches
140 lt)q
Bo'FrOM WELL CAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862
1400 Easton Drive, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
ATTACHMENT 5.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Sullivans Petroleum Company, LLC
Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
Proposed
Mark R. Ma,qarqee CHG, RG
Well No.
MW-10 and MW-11
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY sEAL
WELL CASING.
GRAVEL PaCK
SCREEN
Elevation of refrence point
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth of top of gravel pack
type of grovel pack
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
-404feet
Concrete
, 90 f~et ,
Cement Grout
3 feet
Bentonite chips
2 inches
Schedua140 PVC
95 ~bq
#3 Monterey Sand
-115 fbg,
100 fbcJ,,
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
depth of well 140 fb~
diameter of bomhole
depth of borehole
8 inches
' 140 fbg
BO'Fi'OM WELL CAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862
1400 Easton Drive, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, Califomia 93309
ATTACHMENT 6.
AIR SPARGE TEST PROCEDURES
AIR SPARGE TEST PROCEDURES
TABLE 1.1
AIR SPARGE TEST EQUIPMENT
MONITORING EQUIPMENT CONSTITUENT(S) MEASURED EFFECTIVE RANGE
Thermo Environmental I - 2,000 ppmv
Instruments, Inc., OVM PID volatile organic content (as hexane)
Dwyer Magnahelic(D 0 - 0.25 ins-water
Series 2000 0 - 1.0 ins-water
Differential Pressure Gages subsurface pressure 0 - 2.5 psi
Well Wizard Electronic 0 - 200 ft
Water Level Meter not applicable (0.01-foot accuracy)
8.5 scfm capacity at 3 hp
Air Compressor or Equivalent not applicable and 125 psig
Dissolved Oxygen Meter dissolved oxygen levels not applicable
Thomas Model 2107
Vapor Sampling Pump not applicable not applicable
PID = Photoionization detector.
AIR SPARGING
An 8.5-scfm, 125-psi air compressor will be used for air sparging in wells. The sparging operation will
begin when stable subsurface pressures and vapor concentrations are recorded at the monitoring points.
The air sparge flow rates and pressures will be varied, and the dissolved oxygen, vapor concentrations,
and subsurface pressures at the monitoring points will be monitoredl
SOIL VAPOR CONCENTRATION CALCULATION
During the test, soil vapors will be monitored for VOCs using a Thomas Model 2107 vapor sampling
pump, and VOCs of the vapors will be monitored using a PID. The PID will be calibrated to a 100-ppmv
hexane standard prior to commencing the test. Readings taken with the PID will provide a relative
indication of VOCs within the vapor stream, which will indicate the effect of the air sparging. All
constituents will be monitored until stable flow conditions are achieved.
GROUNDWATER LEVELS
Groundwater levels will be monitored before, during, and after the test in the groundwater monitoring and
air sparge wells at the site.
Central ironmental
october 22, 2003 ~
Mr. Robert Wilson
city of 'Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN FOR GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT AT THE
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC., DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA (CRWQCB-CVR CASE #5T15000836)
Dear Mr. Wilson:
In response to the City of Bakersfield Department of Public Work's (BDPW's) 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 four
groundwater monitoring wells within the DWPW right-of-way of L and M Streets (see Figure 1 - Site
.Location Map). Monitoring well MW-7 will be installed in the sidewalk on the west side of "M" Street, 40
feet south of 23rd Street. Monitoring well MW-8 will be installed in the earthen shoulder on the west side
of "M" Street, 40 feet north of 22nd Street. Monitoring well MW-9 will be installed in the parking lane on
the west side of "L" Street, 40 feet north of 22nd Street. Monitoring well MW-11 will be installed in the
sidewalk on the west side of "L" Street, 40 feet north of 23rd Street (see Figure 2 - Site Vicinity Map and
Figure 3 - 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 letters dated August 13, September 2, September 5, and October 8, 2003, 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 located at the northwest corner of
23rd Street and "L" Street (see Attachment 1 for the CRWQCB-LR Correspondence). On behalf of the
property owner of the Downtown Chevron Service Station, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC, CSE
requests that BDPW approve the encroachment permit request. Because construction of the monitoring
wells will require temporary partial diversion of the south-bound lanes of "L" and "M" Streets, Sullivan's
Petroleum will contract with Flashco, Inc. of Bakersfield, California to provide traffic control during all well
drilling and construction, activities. On behalf of the ddlling contractor, West Hazmat Drilling Company of
Fontana, California, CSE requests that BDPW approve the open street permit request for the temporary
partial lane diversions.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309
(661) 325-4862 - Fax (661) 325-5126, censenv@aol.com
Mr. Robert Wilson
City of Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
October 22, 2003 - Page 2
SITE LOCATION AND CONTACT PERSONS
The site is located at 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, Kern County, California (see Figure I - Site Location
Map). The site is located within the commercial district, which flanks 23rd and 24th streets (see Figure 2).
The BCSD operates the Downtown Elementary School, 1,250 feet south of the site and San Joaquin
Community Hospital is located 1,500 feet northwest of the site. The site is at an elevation of 404 feet
above MSL, and the topography is relatively fiat with a slight slope to the southwest. The site is located
within the northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, MDBM. The site is a
newly constructed retail fuel sales facility and mini mart, which opened during the first quarter of 1999.
The subject site is the location of double-walled USTs and product piping (see Figure 3).
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 Ouatemary (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 permeabili~, 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, and during the construction of water supply wells in the area are characterized as
Mr. Robert Wilson
City of Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
October 22, 2003 - Page 3
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 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 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). Pemhed groundwater at depths as shallow as 20 fbg is known to be present flanking
the current course of the Kern River, but is not known to extend to the site (KCWA, 2000).
CWSC operates Well #7, approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the site, and Well #64-01, approximately
2,400 southeast of the site. Hydrocarbons have not been detected in water samples collected from
Well #7. However, MTBE has been detected in water samples collected from Well ~64-01 and this well is
currently inactive. No additional active water supply wells aro located Within 2,500 feat 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 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 Apdl 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.
Mr. Robert Wilson
City of Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
October 22, 2003 - Page 4
Five soil borings (B-1 through B-5) were ddlled during this phase of soil investigation.
On August 17, 1999, soil bodngs B-1 through B-3 were advanced to 20 fbg using HFA's 10-ton direct-push
sampling fig where refusal was experienced due to the presence of a layer of cobbles. On September 26,
1999, soil boring B-1 was deepened to a depth of 48 fbg using a MobileTM B-53 hollow-stem auger ddll dg
operated by Melton Drilling Company of Bakersfield, California. Ddlling 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 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 bodngs B-4 and B-5 were ddlled as lateral-assessing soil bodngs advanced 25 feet to the
northeast and southwest, respectively, of the potential source area. Soils encountered dudng ddlling
included well-graded sands, interbedded with a layer of cobbles from 18.5 to 22.5 ftxj 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
boring (B-l) to less than 22 fog and in the soil samples collected from the lateral-assessing soil bodngs
(B-2 and B-3) less than 25 feet laterally from the potential source area. Minor MTBE concentrations were
also detected in the soil samples collected from soil borings B-1 through B-5 to the total depth of the soil
borings.
The BFDESD, in its letter dated December 29, 1999, required the preparation of a CAP to determine the
appropriate remedial actions for gasoline-containing soils at the site. HFA prepared the requested CAP,
dated Apdl 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 RIlFS analysis were that in-situ vapor extraction is the technology that appears most suitable for this
site. A vapor extraction well field consisting of central, shallow-zone and deep-zone vapor extraction wells
(VW-ls and VVV-ld,. respectively) and three lateral, shallow-zone vapor extraction wells (VW-2 and VW-4)
was proposed (see Figure 3 for the vapor extraction well locations).
On February 1 through 3, 2001, HFA advanced soil bodng 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
groundvrater monitoring/vapor extraction well VW-ld on February 1 through 3, 2001, using a limited-
access, dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill dg, operated by West Hazmat, Inc., of Sacramento,
California. The I_AR was used because of the height of the canopy above the ddll location, and the
dual-walled percussion, air rotary LAR was 'required due to the requirement to drill through cobbles and
Mr. Robert Wilson
City of Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
October 22, 2003 - Page 5
boulders. The three lateral vapor extractiOn wells (VW-2 through VW-4) were ddlled with a conventional
dual-walled percussion, air rotary ddll rig with a normal height mast. Soil samples were collected at 50,
65, 80, and 100 fbg while ddlling soil boring VW-ld, with groundwater encountered at 110 fi)g. Soil
samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VW-2 through VW-4 due to their positioning in close
proximity to previous soil bodngs ddlled to similar depths.
Soils encountered dudng drilling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in
diameter. Field screening of the soil cuffings 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 bodng at 110 fi)g.
Therefore, the soil bodng was ddlled 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 bodngs VW-2 through VW-4 were ddlled 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 dudng this phase of investigation
TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 250 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg, in
VW-ld, decreasing to 5.7 mg/kg in the soil sample collected from 65 fi)g, and was not detected in the soil
sample collected at 80 fbg. However~ TPHas gasoline was detected at a concentration of 2,300 mg/kg 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 rog. MTBE was detected in the four soil samples reaching a maximum concentration of 87 rog/kg
in the soil sample collected at 100 fbg.
On March 14, 2001, a groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well VW-ld. The depth to
groundwater in the well was measured to be 107.43 feet below the top of the Well casing.
TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring
well VW-ld, with benzene at a concentration of 2,400 pg/I and MTBE at a concentration of 120,000 pg/I.
TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were not detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well
VW-ld.
In order to further delineate the lateral limits of gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in soil and
groundwater, HFA's Preliminary Groundwater Assessment Report, dated June 25, 2001, recommended
that an expanded groundwater investigation be conducted and consist of the installation of three additional
groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-3) (see Figure 3 for the monitoring well locations). In
order to complete the vapor extraction well field installation, HFA recommended that the previously
approved .central, shallow-zone vapor extraction well (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.
Mr. Robert Wilson
City of Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
October 22, 2003 - Page 6
From October 30, 2001 through November 2, 2001, HFA ddlled frye 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) ddlled to 35 fog and 75 fbg, respectively, and completed as
vapor extraction wells (see Figure 3 for the well locations). Soil samples were collected at a 10-foot
interval while ddlling soil borings MW-1 through MW-3, with groundwater encountered at 114 fbg.
Soil samples were not collected while ddlling 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 I foot in diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and
soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a PiD to the total depth of soil bodng MW-l, but not in
the soil samples collected from soil bodngs MW-2 and MW-3. Groundwater was encountered in the soil
bodngs at 114 fbg. Therefore, soil bodngs 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 bodngs MW-2 and MW-3. However, MTBE was detected in all 11 soil
samples collected from soil bodng MW-l, reaching a maximum concentration of 84 mg/kg in the soil
sample collected at 70 fog, 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 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 rog/kg in the soil sample collected at 10 fbg.
On November 26, 2001, groundwater samples were collected from monitoring well MW-1 through MW-3
and VW-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.20 to 115.15 feet
below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the
southeast. Three inches of PSH was observed in well VW-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE
were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching maximum
concentrations of 5,300,000 pg/I, 72,000 IJg/l, and 4,100,000 pg/1 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 groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and VW-ld
were analyzed for physical and chemical characteristics. The results of the laboratory analysis indicated
that the groundwater beneath the site is potable.
Mr. Robert Wilson
City of Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
October 22, 2003 - Page 7
On May 13, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR PTO #S-3267-2-0 was obtained for the installation and operation of a
thermal oxidation VES. Dudng the third quarter of 2002, the remediation compound was constructed and
the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW-li, VW-ld, VW-2, VW-3, and V1/V-4 were connected by
2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation equipment
compound. Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and natural gas
services. VES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. On October 10, 2002, the SJVUAPCD-CR
performed an inspection of the VES unit and observed that it was operating in accordance with the
conditions specified in the ATC.
The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 19, 2002, requested submission of a work plan to perform an
expanded groundwater assessment to assess the southeastern (downgradient) limits of
gasoline-containing groundwater at the site. CSE submitted an Expanded Groundwater Assessment
Work Plan, dated August 9, 2002, which proposed the installation of two off-site downgradient monitoring
wells MW-4 and MW-5. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated September 3, 2002 approved
implementation of the work plan with the condition that an additional off-site monitoring well (MW-6) be
constructed to the south of the site (see Figure 3 for the monitoring well locations).
From April 10 through 20, 2003, CSE installed off-site groundwater monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6
to a depth of 140 fog completed with 40 feet of 2-inch diameter slotted PVC casing screened in the
interval ranging in depth from 100 to 140 fbg. Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded
sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to I foot in diameter. Groundwater was encountered while drilling at a
'depth of approximately 120 fbg. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were not detected in the soil
samples collected from soil borings MW-4 through MW-6 with the exception of TPH as gasoline and
MTBE detected at concentrations of 1.5 mg/kg and 1.6 rog/kg, respectively, in the soil samples collected
at a depth of 120 fog in soil bering MW-5 and MTBE at a concentration of 0.28 mg/kg in the soil sample
collected at a depth of 20 fog in soil bodng MW-6.
On Apdl 21, 2003 groundwater samples were collected from the three newly constructed wells.
TPH as gasoline was detected at concentrations of 14,000 IJg/I, 47,000 IJg/l, and 17,000 pg/I in the
groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, respectively.. Benzene was
detected at concentrations of 830 t~g/I, 3,500 pg/I, and 15 IJg/I in the groundwater samples collected from
monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, respectively. MTBE was detected at concentrations of 31,000 IJg/l,
62,000 iJg/1, and 54,000 IJg/I in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through
MW-6, respectively. TBA, TAME, DIPE, ETBE, 1,2-DCA, and EDB were not detected in the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring wells MW-.4 through MW-6.
Based upon the laboratory analytical results, the CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 2, 2003,
requested submission of a work plan to perform an expanded groundwater assessment to assess the
Mr. Robert Wilson
City of Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
October 22, 2003 - Page 8
southeastem (downgradient) limits of gasoline-containing groundwater at the site as well as the installation
of a deeper monitoring well to act as a asentinel" between the petroleum release and CWSC Well No. 7.
CSE's Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan, dated July 11, 2003, proposed to ddll
three soil bodngs (MW-7 through MW-9) to a depth of approximately 140 fbg and one soil bodng (MW-5d)
to a depth of approximately 170 fbg, completing the four soil borings as groundwater monitoring wells (see
Figure 2 for the proposed monitoring Well locations). The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated August 13,
2003, approved implementation of the Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan, and
requested submission of a CAP Addendum for the active remediation of the gasoline-containing
groundwater (see Attachment 1).
CSE's CAP Addendum, dated August 29, 2003, recommended the installation of a fixed air sparging (AS)
system in conjunction with the operating SVE to remove the LNAPL and dissolved-phase from the
capillary fringe and upper portion of the saturated zone at the site, and periodic overpurging of the off-site
monitoring wells to mitigate the off-site groundwater impact (see Figure 3 for the proposed air sparging
well locations). The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated September 5, 2003, did not approve
implementation of the CAP Addendum, and requested submittal of a work plan for the installation and
operation of a fixed GWPT to remediate the MTBE-containing groundwater (see Attachment1). A meeting
with the RP, consultant, and- CRWQCB-CVR personnel was held on September 18, 2003, where it was
discussed that the proposed combination SVE and AS would be integrated with a GWPT to provide for
both cost effective hydrocarbon removal as well as hydraulic control.
CSE's Amendment to the CAP Addendum, dated September 24, 2003, proposed the installation of the on-
site AS; installation of an on-site groundwater extraction well (EW-1); performance of an aquifer test to
determine the optimum well field, well construction details and pumping rates; installation of additional
groundwater extraction wells, if required; and the Installation of a GWPT system to provide hydraulic
control and hydrOcarbon removal simultaneous with the SVE and AS (see Figure 3 for the proposed
groundwater extraction well location). The integrated use of the SVE and AS will remove the bulk of the
hydrocarbons from the vadose and saturated zones, while the GWPT will provide hydraulic control and
additional removal of MTBE from the groundwater. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated
October 8, 2003, conditionally approved implementation of-the Amendment to the CAP Addendum, with
the condition that an Air Sparging Pilot Study Work Plan be submitted to monitor the effectiveness of the
proposed AS system, and that the work plan include additional groundwater monitoring points to
determine the appropriate final design of the air sparging well field (see Attachment 1). CSE's Air
Sparging Pilot Study Work Plan, proposed to install two additional groundwater monitoring wells (MW-10
and MW-11) to be positioned immediately downgradient of the operating remediation systems at the site
(see Figures 2 and 3 for the proposed groundwater monitoring well locations).
GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN
Mr. Robert Wilson
City of Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
October 22, 2003 - Page 9
Six groundwater monitoring wells (MW-7 through MW-11) will be drilled to a 'depth of 140 fog; one
groundwater monitoring well will be ddlled to a depth of 170' fbg, four air sparge wells will be ddlled to a
depth of 140 fbg; and one groundwater extraction well will be ddlled to a depth of 150 fbg (see Figures 2
and 3 for the proposed well locations). Groundwater monitoring wells MW-Sd and MW-10 will be ddlled
on the south and north sides of 23rd Street (State Highway 178) under an encroachment permit with
California DOT; groundwater monitoring wells MW-7 and MW-8 will be drilled on the west side of M Street
under an encroachment permit with the City of Bakersfield Department of Public Works (BDPW);
groundwater monitoring wells MW-9 and MW-11 will be ddlled on the west side of L Street under an
encroachment permit with BDPW; and air sparge wells SW-1 through SW-4 and groundwater extraction
well EW-1 will be drilled on the subject service station property.
Drilling will be accomplished with a truck-mounted, dual-walled percussion, air rotary ddll rig. Soil samples
will be collected at 20-foot intervals beginning at a depth of 20 fbcj. The lowermost sleeve at each sample
interval will be screened for total organic vapors with a portable photOionizafion 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 well will be installed in accordance with CRWQCB-CVR specifications, and 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. Wells MW-7 through MW-11 will
be drilled to a depth of approximately 140 fbg and installed with 40 feet of 2-inch diameter slotted PVC
casing; well MW-5d will be ddlled to a depth of approximately 170 fbg and installed with 10 feet of 2-inch
diameter slotted PVC casing, air sparge wells SW-1 through SW-4 will be ddlled to a depth of
approximately 140 fbg and installed with 5 feet of 2-inch diameter slotted PVC casing; and groundwater
extraction well EW-1 will be ddlled to a depth of approximately 150 fbg and installed with 40 feet of 6-inch
diameter slotted PVC casing. Blank PVC casing packed in neat cement grout will extend from the surface
dOWnward to the 3-foot bentonite seals placed above the filter pack. Locking, water-tight well covers will-
be set in COncrete to protect and secure the wellheads (see Attachment 2 for the Soil Bodng 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 ddlling 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. Robert Wilson
City of Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
October 22, 2003 - Page 10
(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 ddlling of the proposed monitoring
wells. Monitoring well MW-7 will be installed in the sidewalk on the west side of 'M" Street~ 40 feet south
of 23rd Street. Monitoring well MW-8 will be installed in the earthen shoulder on the west side of
"M" Street, 40 feet north of 22nd Street. Monitoring well MW-9 will be installed in the parking lane on the
west side of "L" Street, 40 feet north of 22nd Street. Monitoring well MW-11 will be installed in the
sidewalk on the west side of 'L" Street, 40 feet north of 23rd Street (see Figures 2 and 3). 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 Califomia, DOT (see Attachment 4).
Minimum Interference with Traffic
Mr. Robert Wilson
City of Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
October 22, 2003 - Page 11
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 flagger(s) to stop and warn conventional highway
traffic. Traffic shall not be unreasonably delayed. Flagging procedures shall be in conformance with the
"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 2373 in the amount of
$275.00 are included as Attachments 5 and 6 of this Traffic Control Plan.
Mr. Robert Wilson
City of Bakersfield
Department of Public Works
October 22, 2003 - Page 12
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 (6..61) 325-4862 or at e-mail address censenv@aol.com.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark R. Magargee, CHG, RG
Consulting Hydrogeologist
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC.
MRM:jlt
Enck)sures:
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Plot Plan
Attachment I -
Attachment 2 -
Attachment 3 -
Attachment 4 -
Attachment 5 -
Attachment 6 -
CRWQCB-CVR Correspondence
Soil Bodng and Well Construction Procedures
Well Construction Details
California DOT Traffic Control Exhibits
Standard Encroachment Permit Application
Copy of CSE Check Number 2373
Mr. Tim Sullivan, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR
Mr. Howard H. Wines, III, BFDESD
?'"':: ....... Alt/ I~1 · /~,'~:,:~ ~< . ~ ....... ~w~,, .._~~ ....... . ~ ..... ~. a,,, t(;'~ U ~
· --~:---~~'-.. '~-'' ~~..,'*~'-/' ', ~/4 : ~' '~' ' ': ',, ~' / ~ ~
.- ~ ................ ~:/ ?, ;;,:- r::- ,, -: ,,~ -..,. ( [ -, ,
'- ~ 1-- :~.1~ :-~" "' ": ~ .~' ~ :, ~ -'~ ~'~1 ..... : ,'b. v ,~L ~
~ ..:' · 'o · ~ ~ ' .... ;[ .... - ',,': ~ ' I ':~
· '' ' ~' '~ ~ · " ' ":~X~ ~
- -. II · Iu- , z~.:::_; :: _X~_ --i~~ r" ~ '~, ', --
~ --- ~ I~1~/~~. /~ ~.~" /"- '~?~[~ITE LOOATION~~t ~ ~'~ ~ ~
, '--
.... ~.- ~ ..... _ ~ ~
~ ~ ~_.~...~- I ~1 2._,~ . : _ ,
? ~-"'/';: i
~.-- ~,[. ~ ~ ~ . ., ,
~,"~/nL"b';'/~' ~ ~l I
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
~ , i ~ i i i ~ I ~ 'J 2317 "L" STREET
~ ~'~- ,.~ z~. 3.~1 ~.~o.~ ~'~ ~l N BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FIGURE 1- SITE LOCATION MAP
u~ ~ r.s m~ ~m~ a~o~o~ CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRON MENTAL, LLC
24th STREET
ESTIMATED LIMIT OF
GASOLINE CONTAINING
LU
MW-9
22~~ndSTREET e
LEGEND
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WEU.
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION ~LL
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 't.' STREET
.... BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 - SITE VICINITY MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, U.C
I
I
I
23RD STREET
MW..6
SIDEWALK
LEGEND
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL
SOIL BORING
[] FILL END
o TURBINE END
-(~ PROPOSED GROUNDWATER
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
VES PIPING
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WELL LOCATION
PROPOSED AIR SPARGE WELL LOCATION
REVISION DATE:OCTOBER 20, 2003: jlt
SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 3 - PLOT PLAN
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
ATTACHMENT t.
CRWQCB-CVR CORRESPONDENCE
Sent By: HP LaserJet 3100;
5594455910; 0ct-9-03 9:05A~;
Page 2
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
I i I Ill i , .. iii i i
Fresno Branch 01~ce ' -
Iutr...,'nct .Axldm&,~: h~p'Jl',,mvw..~gn'ch.ca.gov/-twqcb5
t68.< £ Street. Frc.~o, California 93706-2020
P.h.O~ (S§~.I) 445-5 ! 16. FA~ (559) 445-59 tO
Gray Davis
C;overn~r
October 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. Thnothy P. Sullivan, President
Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18~h Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 933(31
UNDERGROUND TANK RELF~tSI:,; DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
¥ot, submitted Amendment To The Corrective Action Plan Addendum For The Sullivan Petroleum
Company, LLC... (Amendment) dated 24 September 2003 and prepared by Cenrra.! Sierra
Environmental. Bakersfield (CSE). We requested that you submit the Amendment by our letter dated
5 September 2003 and at a meeting with Sullivan's Petroleum Company, Ll..C (Sullivan's) and CSE on
18 September 2003. At the meeting all parties agreed that an air sparging (AS) system could be operated
concurrent with groundwater pump and treat (Gl:ri). We request that you evaluate both AS and GlYr
prior to final'remediation syxtem design. The Amendment proposes AS system installation and
operation, groundwater extraction well installation, and aquifer test procedures. The proposed AS
system is inadequate to treat the entire area of impacted groundwater. However, we conditionally
approve the proposed AS system for pilot testing. Submit a brief Addendum proposing pilot test
procedures and a system to motxitor the AS effectiveness. We also conditionally approve the proposed
~oundwater extraction well and aquifer test. Submit a report sunu'nafizing extraction well installation,
the aquifer tcst, and GPT system design. A summary of the Amendment and our comments follow.
Amendment Summary
CSE proposes AS system operation concurrent with the operating SVE system to remove gasoline
constituents from the vadose and saturated zones. CSE also proposes GPT to provide hydraulic control
and remove gasoline constituents, especially methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), from the saturated
ZOne.
CSE will install four air AS wells (SW:I through SW-4) in positions around the release point and at
distances of approximately 40 feet apart_ CSE assumes a radius of sparse influence (ROI) of 20 fee.t
based on a 45-degree cone of aeration from a sparse points approximately 10 to 15 feet below, the wa~er
table (125 to 130 feet below ground surface (bgs) in sand and gravel. SW-I through sW-4 will be
installed as standard-construction spargc wells using a five-foot section of 2-inch 0.020-inch slotted
PVC ca~ing and a 5-foot blank: section at the well bottom as a sediment trap. The wells wiU be
California Environmental Protection Agency
J~cc~.-t~d
Sent By: HP taaerJet 3100; 5594455910; 0ct-9-03 9:06A~; Page 3/6
Mr. Timothy P. Sullivan - 2 - "' g October 2003
connected to a m,'mifold by underground piping. CSE estimates that an injection pressure of 90 inches
of water will be necessary and will be provided by a dedicated two-cycle oil-less compressor.
CSE will in,saLt groundwater e~traction well EW-1 approximately 30 feet downgradieat of the r~leas¢
point. EW-1 will be constructed as a 6-inch diameter well .screened from 100 to 140 feet bgs with 0.02-
inch slotted PVC casing and a lO-foot section of blank casing as a sediment trap.
CSE will conduct an aquifer test to dctermine aquifer characteristics and provide data for the final pump
and treat remediation system design. Groundwater will be extract=d at EW-I and monitoring wells VW-
1D and MW-I through MW-6 will be used as observation wells. Test equipment includes pressure
transducers and a multichannel data logger, an electric downhole pump, and water level indicators.
Pumvage will be temporarily stored in a 4,00(~-gallon capacity tank prior profiling and disposal.
CSE will conduct a 1-hour trend test to establish a baseline and identify outside influences affecting the
les t.
A step-drawdown test will be used to select pumping rate. EW-! will be pumped at three successively
higher rates fin' at least ! 5 minutes each.
Following the step-drawdown test~ EW-I will be pumped at a constant-rate for 3 to 6 hours (180 to 360
minutes) followed by a 2-hour recovery test.
(tS E will determine extraction well field design based on aquifer tc~t results. Submersible pumps will
be installed itu thc extraction wcll. s and connected to a collection manifold by underground piping.
Pollutants will be removed from extracted groundwater by an ab.' stripper with a capacity based
combined well'field flow rate design. A maximum flow rate of up to 20 g[dlons per minute is
anticipated. Air stripper effluent will bc pumped through a carbon filtration treatment system consisting
of thre~ 1,O00-pound capacity granular activated carbon (GAC) vessels. Treated effluent will be
discharged into thc City of Bakersfield sewer or storm drain under appropriate permits. Effluent a/rflow
fi'om the air stripper will be connected to the soil vapur extraction (SVE) system collection manifold for
destruction by the thermal/cat~dytic oxidizer.
CSE will submit quarterly groundwater and remediation system monitoring reports,
,,C,'9mments
Ba.,;ed on review of the above-summari2ed report, we have thc following comments:
During a meeting on 18 September 2003, we emphasized the ~evefity of the groundwater impact cau.~ed
by the UST system release from your site and the close downgradient proximity of California Water
Service'Company wells No,7 and 64. We reiterated our request that you capture and. treat the
groundwater plume using GPT. All parties agreed that GPT would be implemented based on the results
of aquifer testing and that AS could also be conducted. We requested that you submit a wod{ plan for
installation of a groundwater extraction well and an aquifer test. We proposed that remedial options be
reevaluated prior to final GPT system deployment.
Our review of the Proposed/kS system indicates that the system i., inadequate to remediate impacted
groundwater. Four AS wells installed in the southeast comer of the site will sparse 0nly a small central
V:lUGl'h°ra.|ecr.~JDW_fileq'2003 Cotre.~pondeace~City af Bak~sfl~ld Ca.~/Oownrown C~vr0n Extmc~Well WP 9-O:kdoc
Sent By: HP LaserJet 3100; ' 5594455910; 0ct-9-03 9:06AM; Page
.Mr. Timothy P. Sullivan
-3-
8 October 2003
section at the head of thc'plume. Wc anticipate that offset double lines of AS wells installed across the
entire plume width along both 23rd and "L" Streets would be required. The present UST system and '
canopy limit AS installation in the inu. nediate release area. We request that you install and operate the
proposed AS wells SW-1 through SW-4 a.s a pilot test system.
The existing monitoring network is inadequate to evaluate the AS pilot test system since n9 monitoring
wells exist in close proxisnity to the system dewngradient and cross gradient. We request that you
submit a work plan to complete the monitoring system and proposing pilot test procedures. Submit thc
work plan by 10 November 2003.
We note that d~e sparging points will be installed 10 to 15 feet below the water table. CSE assumes an
ROI of 20 feet based on a 45-degree cone of aeration. Based on this model, the ROi would be less thinz
20 feet. We request that you install the sparge points at least 15 to 20 feet below the water table to have
a bcttcr chance of aclficving the assumed ROI. Based on conventional AS system design, the top of the
spat'ge well screen would be placed 5 feet below the bottom of the polluted groundwater. However, the
depth of polluted grmmdwater is unknown at th/s site.
Contract us by 10 December 2003 to provide a progress update concerning tt~e pilot test. Submit a
system installation report and pilot test data by 18 February 2004.
Wc approve thc installation of groundwater extraction weLl EW-1 and the proposed aquifer test. Install
EW-I hy 31. December 2{103. Submit the results of the aquifer test find the final G!V'r system design by
February 201M.
Water levels in thc pumping and observation wells should be measured several days prior to the test to
account for variability. We do not recommend that the test be conducted after a period of heavy rainfall.
The step-drawdo~vn test should be performed by pumping at each rate for at least one lurer or unti{ water
levels have stabilized. Water levels should be allowed to recover for at least one hour or until.-
stabilization prior to the step and constant-rate tests.
The constant-rate test may require more than 3 to 6 hours. However, we recognize that test duration will
be influenced by time and logistics constraints. We recommend that time-versus-drawdown plots be
prepared on a semi-log scale during the test and that the test continue until a well-del'reed straight-line
trend is plotted.
Sections 2729 and 2729. i for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the California (:ode of
Regulations requiring you to submit m~alytical and site data electronically. Enclosed iq our letter
Required Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data St¢bmitm[~ ~o RegMating
Agencies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z foes), depth-to-water measurcmentq (OEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEe_MAP files).
VAUGT~I:~ojcctsX, JDW .filc~".2O03 Curmspomlcncc~Ci~j of Bnke4sfleid C~sesXl)uwatuwn Clmvmz~ Extr~&Wdl WP 9-03.duc
Sent By: HP LaserJet 3100; 5594455910; 0ct-9-03 9:07A~; Page 5/6
Timothy P. Sullivan - 4 -
8 October 2003
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. It' 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 D¢livcrable Format For Laboratory and Sire Data 5ttbmirttzlx...
CC:
Nh'. Howard Wines I'!I, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SW'RCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargce, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File UST/~'em/Che,~rr.n Station/23 ! 7 L Street, Bt,ke~.~t'~ldlSTlSOt~t'136
V:~.U~"yh~roj~c~JBWJl~lO03 Co~,,.~l~l~c~..ity af llak~-r, fi~J (2nlea~?n Chevron Ex'trae. tWnll WP ~-0~.do~
SEP-0B-2003 11:44
Sullivan Petroloum
P.02
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Wlnsto~ H. Hickox ,, Gray
Sec'rela~, for Fresno BI'IH~h Office Go~e. rnor
E/tvlrom,w.tal Inlcrart Address: hRp://www.swrcb.ca, gnv/-rwqch5
Protection 1685 E SLr~k Fn:anu, California 93706-2020
Phone (559) 4~5.5 ! I6 · FAX (559) ~A5-5910
5 September 2003
Regional Board Ca.~e No. 5T 15000836
Mr. David Bird
Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18t~ Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 '%" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You subnxitted Corrective Action Plan Addendum (CAP Addendum) dated 29 August 2003 and preparcd
by Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). The CAP evaluates remedial alternatives and
proposes on-s itc air spargmg (AS) and overpurging of monitoring wells off-site to remediate polluted
groundwater resulting from an on-site underground storage tank (UST) system release. We requested
that you submit a CAP Addendum for groundwater by our letter dated 2 July 2003. We do not approve
the CA.P Addendum. Our letter requested that you design a remediation system to prevent the spread of
impacted groundwater and remove the high petroleum constituent concentrations by the "pump and.
treat" method. We consider this method necessazY due [o the high methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
concentrations present on-site and off-site and the proximity of two municipal wells. We request that
you submit a work plan proposing a "pump and treat system" and provide more information concerning
off-site access. A summary of thc: CAP Addendum and our comments follow.
Work Plan Summary
CSE evaluated the feasibility of groundwater pump and tx'eat, in-situ bioremediation, in-sim subsurface
mr sparging, and dual phaSe extraction. CSE did not consider in-sku bioremediation to be feasible or
cost effective. Pump and treat was considered to be feasible, but not cost effective. In-sku air sparging
,and dual phase extraction were considered feasible and cost effective. CSE recommends in-sim air
sparging on-site ia combination with the operatiog soil vapor extraction (SVE) system to remove
floating petroleum product and dissolved phase ga.~oline consftuents from the capillary fringe and upper
saturated zone. Fixed remediation systems and piping is not feasible since off-site access beneath State
Highway 178 and otb. er properties will not be available. Therefore, CSE recommends remediation of
impacted groundwater off-site by periodic overpurging of the monitoring wells.
CSE proposes to install four AS wells (SW-I through SW4) to a depth 10 to 15 feet below the water
tame (I 25 to 130 feet below ground surface (bgs)). Five-foot sections of 2-inch diameter casing with
0.020-inch s{ots will be utilized as sparge points. Five-foot sections of bl',mk casing will be installed
California Environmental .Protection Agency
~ Rt¢)~:l*d Pap~r
SEP-0B-2003 11:44 Sal I ivan Petroleum P.03
Mr. David Bird - 2 - 5 September 2003
beneath the sparge points ,as sediment traps. CSE assumes a design radius of sparging influence (ROI)
of 20 feet using an injection pressure of 90 inches of water (ins-ware0 and a flow rate of 5 standard
cubic feet per minute (scfm). The air sparge wells will be connected to a manifold and compressor by
underground hoses..
CSE will monitor and evaluate system effectiveness during operation, conduct qua~xefly groundwater
monitoring for one year after soil and groundwater remediation is completed. CSE will submit quarterly
momtoring ,-md remediation system progress reports.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the tbllowing comments:
Our letter dated 2 Inly 2003 indicated that you would need to design, i. nstall, and operate a groundwater
remediation system to prevent the spread of impacted groundwater ,md remove the high petroleum
constituent concentrations by the "pump and treat" method. The CAP Addendum does not propose such
a system. We do not approve the CAP Addendum.
Our letter emphasized that the gasoline release tYom your site is a serious threat to water resources in the
area. MTBE in groundwater may be la'ansported greater distances away/'rom the release point tha~ other
gasoline constituents due to its relatively high solubility and low adsorption to soils. Floating gasoline
has persisted in on-site monitoring well MW- I and MTBE concentrations from 31,003 to 62,000 .ug/I_,
were detected in the recently installed off-site wells M'W-4 through MW-6 during the 21 April 2003
monitoring event. The extent of impacted ~oundwater'is undefined. MTBE and other gmsoline
constituents arc being transported in a highly transmissJ, ve aquifer toward California Water Service
Company (CWS) Well Station #7, approximately 1,000 away from the site. Gasoline constituents,
including MTBE, have not been detected in #7. However, M'IBE has been detected at up to 12.3 l~g/L
in samples collected from CWS well station g64-01, approximately 2,400 feet southeast or'the site,
causing this well to be placed on inactive status. The release from your site is a potential source for this
impact. We do not consider the proposed system adequate to prevent MTBE from reaching CWS #7.
We recognize that the "pump and treat" method may be costly and requires implementation ,and
permitting of w;[stewater discharge. However, we consider the potenti',fl threat caused by the release to
w~wrant this method. Continuous pumping of groundwater will create a hydroIogic barrier for migration
of impacted groundwater away from the source. Air sparging ,and/or periodic pumping of groundwater
do not provide the same level of control that is provided by continuous groundwater pumping. A
remediation system that combines sparging ,and periodic pumping with. a pump and treat system could be
considered.
The CAP Addendum states that access for connection of off-site rcmcdiation facilities will not be
available. The CAP addendum does not indicate that CSE has attempted, unsuccessfully, to gain access.
We request that CSE contact us by 25 September 2003 with additional, information concerning their
attempts to gain access. Our reconnaissance revealed several properties suitable for off-site groundwater
extraction and treatment facilities -south of State Highway 178.
We request that you submit a work plaa for "pump ~d treat" groundwater remediation b}' 15 October
2003. Groundwater extraction points should be proposed both on-site and off-site. If your consultant
· V AU(3'lAProjccmU OW_fi lc,,~?.UO3 Corm.npend~r~ce~::iry of R~da--'~field Ca.'~r~wnmwn Chcvron G"WCA P 943.doc
SEP-08-2003 tt:45 Sullivan Petroleum P.04
Mr. David Bi_rd - 3 - 5 September 2003
h,~ determined that off-site access or wastewater discharge is not feasible, we request that they contact
us by 25 September'2003.
Sections 2729 ,and 2729. I for Underground Storage Tank's were added to the California Code of
Regulations requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Reqt~ired Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data SubmittaL~ to Regulating
Agencies explaining l~ow to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
.letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample an',flytical data (various frie names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z fries), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site n~aps (GEO_MAP files).
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have ,any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact mc at (559) 445-5504.
JOHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 59.51
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory oatd Site Data Submittals...
CC;
Mr. Howard Wines ff[, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Centra~ Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File: UST/Kcrn/Chevnm Station/2317 L Stte~, Bakersfield/ST15000836
¥:\UOTLmmj~mU OW_l'desL2003 Co~mspm,~ly of Balccrmfleld Cas~%Dowulown Clayton OWCAP 9-03.~
Winston H. Hickox
Secretary for
Environmental
Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Office
latemct Address: http:#www.swrcb.ca.govl~rwqcb5
1685 E Street, Fresno, California 93706-2020
Phone (559) 445-5 [ 16 · FAX (559) 4~5-5910
Gray Davis
Governor
2 September 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T 15000836
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 2003 Progress Report (Report) dated 22 August 2003 and 'prepared by
Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). The Report documents a groundwater monitoring
event performed on 21 April 2003 and summarizes soil vapor extraction (SVE) remediation system
performance from startup on 8 October 2002 until 25 June 2003. Although influent concentrations
decreased during the second quarter, the SVE system continues to i'emove hydrocarbons from subsurface
soil at a steady, relatively high rate. Ihe initial sampling of new off-site wells indicates that a relatively
large plume of gasoline constituents, including the fuel oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
extends an undetermined distance toward a municip,al well. We request that SVE system operation and
quarterly groundwater monitoring continue with a reduced analytical program. We reiterate our request
that you submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for groundwater and an installation report for additional
off-site monitoring wells. Summaries of the Report and our comments follow.
Report Summary
Groundwater Monitoring
CSE conducted the second quarter 2003 groundwater monitoring event on 21 April 2003. Results of the
monitoring event were previously summarized in CSE's Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report dated
6 June 2003. Groundwater flow direction was calculated to be toward the southeast with a water table
slope of 0.015 feet per foot. CSE measured 0.13 feet of floating petroleum product in soil vapor
extraction well VW-ld. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g), benzene, and MTBE
concentrations up to 2,500 and 59,000 micrograms per liter (g*w'L) were detected in samples from on-site
monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3. TPH-g, benzene, and MTBE concentrations up to 47,000,
3,500, and 62,000 }.tg/L were detected in newly installed off-site wells MW-4 through MW-6.
California Environmental Protection Agency . .
~ Rto~c~d P~per
Mr. David Bird - 2 - 2 September 2003
Remediation System Performance
CSE began operating the SVE system on 8 October 2002. The system has operated continuously during
the second quarter 2003 except for short periods of planned inactivity during maintenance, draining the
knockout pot, and for approximately 72 hours prior to groundwater monitoring events.
The SVE system operated during the second quarter 2003 in thermal mode with measured oxidizer
temperatures ranging from 1435 to 1490 degrees Fahrenheit and inlet airflow rates from 205 to 255
standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). SVE well V-ld was operated open during the second quarter.
SVE wells MW-I and V-1S were operated partially open. The other SVE wells were operated during
alternative three-week periods. The air dilution valve remained partially open during the second quarter.
Field influent TPH-g measurements decreased from 10,125 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at the
beginning of the second quarter to 3,800 ppmv at the end of the quarter. CSE calculated that
approximately 31,000 pounds of hydrocarbons were removed during the second quarter 2003. Since
SVE operation began, a calculated cumulative total of approximately 94,700 pounds were removed.
During the third quarter 2003, CSE will conduct quarterly groundwater monitoring, continue SVE
system operation, and install additional off-site monitoring wells.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
Monitoring data from new monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6 indicate that a relatively large plume
of impacted groundwater with TPH-g, benzene, and MTBE concentrations extends an undetermined
distance southeast of the site. MTBE in groundwater may be transported greater distances away from
the release point than other gasoline constituents due 'to its high solubility and relatively low adsorption.
The release from your site is a serious threat to water resources in the area. A municipal water supply
well is approximately 1,000 feet downgradient of the site.
We have previously requested that You expedite soil remediation to minimize the migration and spread
of gasoline and MTBE in groundwater and potential impacts to the municipal well. An SVE
remediation system has operated on-site since 8 October 2002. Based on data included in the report,
SVE system influent vapor concentrations decreased during the second quarter, but hydrocarbon removal
rates have remained relatively high. The cumulative weight of removed hydrocarbons continues to
increase at a steady rate. We request that remediation continue in thermal mode.
Groundwater monitoring should be continued on a quarterly schedule. Groundwater samples should be
analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, and BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME by
EPA Method 8260. By our letter dated 11 December 2003 we requested that you include analysis for the
VOCs usually reported in a full EPA Method 8260 analysis (usually 63 to 67 compounds) one additional
quarter. You conducted this analysis during the second quarter. This analysis may be discontinued.
Please submit a groundwater monitoring and SVE progress report for the third quarter 2003 monitoring
event by :3 November 2003.
Mr. David Bird
-3-
2 September 2003
The lateral extent of impacted groundwater is undefined. By our letter dated 13 August, we approved
the installation of the additional off-site monitoring wells proposed in CSE's Expanded Off-Site
Assessment Work Plan dated 5 August 2003. We requested that you submit a well installation report by
IS December 2003. We also requested by our letter dated 2 July 2003 that you submit a Corrective
Action Plan for groundwater remediation by 2 September 2003.
Sections 2729 and 2729. l for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the California Code of'
Regulations requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Required Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Sire Data Submittals to Regulating
Agencies explaining how-to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP files).
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
JOHN D. WHIThNG
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format Fbi Laboratory and Sire Darn Subraittals...
CC:
Mr. Howard Wines III, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File: UST/Kern/Chevr0n Station/2317 L Street, Bakersfield/ST15000836
V~U'G'I%P~ject~IJOW'_flIgs~?.003 Corr~imnde. m:e[Ci~' of Bai~fle.,ld Ca.~low~ttown C~won GW 8-0:~.doc
Winston H. Hickox
Secreta~. ]'t~r
Envir.ntnentttl
Protet'tit~n
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central 'Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Office
Interact Address: httpJIwww.swrcb.ca, gov/-rwqcb5
1685 EStreeL Fresno. California 93706-2020
Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910
Gray Davis
13 August 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. David Bird
Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18m Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROU~VD TANK RELEASE, DOWN~'OWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN CO UNTY
You submitted Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan At The Stdlivan Petroleum
Company (Work Plan) dated 5 August 2003 and prepared by Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield
(CSE)..The Work Plan proposes to install three shallow monitoring wells and one deep off-site
monitorin~ well to determine the extent of gasoline constituents in groundwater at the above referenced
site. We approve the monitoring well placements and construction proposed in the Work Plan. The
deep monitoring well should be constructed to allow use as a groundwater extraction point. We request
that you expedite monitoring well installation and submit a corrective action plan (CAP) addendum for
groundwater remediation. A summary of the Work Plan and our comments follow.
Work Plan Summary
CSE proposes to install monitoring well MW-8 at the intersection of 22na and "M" Streets,
approximately 600 feet southeast of the site to determine the downgradient extent of impacted
groundwater. MW-7 and MW-8 will be installed at the intersection of 23'~ and "M" Streets, and at the
intersection of 22"a and "L" Streets, respectively, to determine the lateral extent of impacted
groundwater east and south of the site, respectively. MW-7 through MW-9 will bestandard construction
two-inch diameter wells screened from approximately 100 to 140 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Depth-to-groundwater was measured at approximately 115 feet during the April 2003 monitoring event.
Deep monitoring well MW-5d will be installed near shallow well MW-5 at the southeast comer of 23~
and "L" Streets to determine the vertical extent of impacted groundwater. MW-5 is approximately 150
feet downgradient of the release point. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), benzene, and
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) concentrations of 47,000, 3,500, and 62,000 micrograms per liter
(g.g/L) were detected in MW-5 during the April 2003 monitoring event. MW-Sd will be a standard-
construction two-inch well screened from 160 to 170 feet bgs.
California Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. David Bird - 2 -
13 August 2003''.
CSE will begin work 45 days after the Regional Board accepts the Work Plan and the necessary permits
have been secured. CSE will submit an Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report
approximately 60 days after fieldwork.
Comments.
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
We conditionally approve the.proposed shallow and'deep monitoring well placements and construction.
Please submit a well installation report by 15 December 2003.
Since deep well MW-5d is to be placed nearest the head of the plume in an area of high pollutant
concentrations, we request that MW-5d be completed as a potential groundwater extraction point.
MW-5 should be constructed as a four-inch well with a subsurface piping connection.
The proposed wells should be included in the monitoring network. Quarterly groundwater monitoring
should be continued. Groundwater samples should be analyzed for TPHg, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), MT'BE, tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA), di-isopropyl ether (DIPE), ethyl
tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME).
Our letter dated 2 July 2003 emphasized that your site is a serious threat to water resources. We
indicated that you will need to design, install, and operate a groundwater remediati0n system to prevent
the spread of impacted groundwater and remove the high petroleum constituent concentrations by the
"pump and treat" method. We also requested that you submit a Corrective Action Plan Addendum for
the remediation system by 2 September 2003.
Sections 2729 and 2729.1 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
Reqtdred Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Agencies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (OEO_WELL
files), and site maps (OEO_MAP files).
V:~U~jecu~DW_flle~12003 'Cem~pomle~c~Cie/of Ba~enfleld Casee~Oowntown C:bevmn MW WP 8-03.doc
,~.Mr. David Bird - 3 - 13 August 2003
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
JOHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals...
cc:
Mr. Howard Wines Ill, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclo,~ure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure'No
File: UST/Kern/Chevron Statiort~_317 L Street. Bakersfield/5TlS000836
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
Pdor to the start of drilling, necessary permits, site access agreements, and/or encroachment permits are
obtained. "As-builf' drawings are obtained if possible. At least 48 hours pdor 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 owneflretailer 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 ale 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 ddlling locations within the cdtical zone
may be subject to special hole clearance techniques. Ddlling locations within the cdtical zone are avoided
if possible. Notifications are made at least 2 weeks in advance of ddlling 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. Pdor 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 pdor to the start of any ddlling
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 pdor 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 (fog) outside the critical zone and 8 fbg within
the cdtical 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 I to 2
feet is delineated by hand digging to remove the s0il, then the delineated area is probed to ensure that
REVISED 3129/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Bodng 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, tn 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 bodngs located inside the cdtical 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 altemate 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 ddlling
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 bodng log.
Truck-mounted, powered drilling: Truck-mounted, powered ddlling 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 ,~ith a ddve sampler, which is outfitted with
steel or brass sleeves. The specific equipment used is noted on a soil bodng log.
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Bodng 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 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-preserYed containers supplied by the laboratory, or sub samples are
collected using Encore4D samplers. During the ddlling process, soil samples and cuttings are field
screened for ¥OCs using a photoionizabon 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 structur~ 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 bodngs are stored in 55-gallon, Department of Transportation (DOT)-app_rqved
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 bodng log is completed for each soil boring and includes the following minimum information:
· date of drilling;
· location of soil bodng;'
· project name and location;
· soil sample names and depths;
· soil descriptions and classifications;
· standard Penetra{ion counts (rigs);
· photoionization detector readings;
· ddlling equipment;
· soil bodng diameter;,
· sampling equipment;
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Bodng and Well Construction Procedures
Page 4
· depth to groundwater in soil bodng;
· name of person performing logging;
· name of supervising registered geologist; and
· name of drilling company (rigs and direct push).
SOIL BQRING COMPLETION PROCEDURES
All soil borings are either propedy abandoned or completed as a well.
Abandonment
Each soil boring that is not completed as a well is backfilled with bentonite grout, neat cement, concrete,
or bentonite chips with a permeability less than that of the surrounding soils, and/or soil cuttings,
depending on local regulatory requirements or client instructions. Grout is placed by the tremie method.
Backfilling. is performed carefully to avoid bridging. The type of backfill material is noted on the soil bodng
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 b~rings):
· detailed drawing of well;
· bjpe 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. Th~ 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 ddlling in
aSphalt, a 24-inch round cut is made for the well pad. When ddlling 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 3/29102
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 5
and the inside of the well box. The number on the outside is painted on with a stencil, stamped, or
attached to the well with a metal plate. The number on the inside is written on the well cap with waterproof
ink. The casing has a notch or indication on its north side indicating a unique measuring/surveying point.
Well development is conducted by simple pumping if bridging of the screen does not occur. If bridging
occurs, well surging is conducted for adequate well production. Well surging is created by the use of
surge blocks, bailers, or pumps, whichever methed is most appropriate 'for the well use. Only formation
water is used for surging the well. Well development continues until non-turbid groundwater is produced
or tUrbidity stabilizes. All purged groundwater is held on site in covered 55-gallon DOT-approved drums or
other appropriate containers until water sample analytical results are received.
The elevation of the north side of the top of well casing (or other appropriate reference point from which
the depth to groundwater can be measured) is surveyed to an accuracy of ~0.01 foot. All measurements
are reproduced to assure validity. Surveying is performed by a state-licensed surveyor if required by state
or local regulations. In the State of California, Wells are surveyed in accordance with AB2886. -
DATA REDUCTION
The data compiled from the soil borings is summarized and analyzed. A'narrative summary of the soil'
characteristics is also presented. The soil boring logs are checked for the following information:
· correlation of stratigraphic units among borings;
- identification of zones of potentially high hydraulic conductivity;
· identification of the confining layer,
· indication of unusual/unpredicted geologic features (fault zones, fracture traces, facies changes,
solution channels, buried stream deposits, cross-cutting structures, pinchout zones, etc.); and
· continuity of petrographic features such as sorting, grain-size distribution, cementation, etc.
Soil boring/well locations are plotted on a properly scaled map. If appropriate, soil stratigraphy of the site
is presented in a scaled cross section. Specific features that may impact contaminant migration, e.g.,
fault zones or impermeable layers, are discussed in narrative form and supplemented with graphical
presentations as deemed appropriate.
REVISED 3/29/02
ATTACHMENT 3.
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Sullivans Petroleum Company, LLC
Downtown CheVron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
Proposed
Mark R. Maqar,qee CHG, RG
Well No. MW-5d
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
WELL CASING
GRAVEL PACK
SCREEN
Elevation of refrence point -
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth of top of gravel pack
type of gravel pack
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
depth of well
diameter of borehole
depth of borehole
-404 feet
2 fbq
Concrete
150 f~et
Cement Grout
3 feet
Bentonite chips
2 inches
Schedua140 PVC
155 fbq
#3 Monterey Sand
-115 fbq
160 ftc.
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
170 fbg _
8 inches
170 ft~
BOTTOM WELL CAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862
1400 Easton Drive, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address '
Date Completed
Supervised by
Sullivans Petroleum Company, LLC
Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
Proposed
Mark R. M.aqar.qee CHG, RG
Well No.
MW-7 through. MW;9
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
WELL CASING
GRAVEL PACK
SCREEN
Elevation of refrence point
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth o~ 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 bbrehole
~404 feet
2 toq
Concrete
~)Q feet'
Cement Grout
3 feet
Bentonite chips
2 inches
Schedua140 PVC
95 fbq.
#3 Monterey Sand
-115 fbg
100 tog
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
140 tog _ _
8 inches
140 fl~
BO'I-rOM WELL CAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862
1400 Easton Ddve, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Sullivans Petroleum Company, LLC
Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street~ Bakerslield, California
Proposed
Mark R, M~aaraee CHG, R(~
Well No.
MW-10 and MW-11
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
suRFAcE SEAL
-- ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
-- WELL CASING
GRAVEL PACK
SCREEN
Elevation of refrence point
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth of top of gravel pack
type of gravel pack
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
depth Of well
diameter of borehole
depth of bomhole
-404 feet
2 fbq
Concrete
~0
Cement Grout
3 feet
Bentonite Chips
2 inches
Schedual 40 PVC
95 fbq
#3 Monterey Sand
-115 fbq
100 fbg
Q02 inch
0.5 inch
140 tl~l
8 inches
140 fb,cj
BOTTOM WELL CAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862,
1400 Easton Drive, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
AIR SPAR(GE WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC.
Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
ProPosed
Mark R. Ma,qar.qee CHG, RG
Well No. SW-1 thru SW-4
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
WELL CASING
GROUNDWATER
SCREEN
Elevation of refrence point
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
· type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top of gravel pack
type of gravel pack
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
depth of bottom of screen
depth of well
diameter of borehole
depth of borehole
-404 feet
2 fbq
Concrete
2 f~t,
Cement Grout
123 feel;
Bentonite chips
2 inches
Schedua140 PVC
-115 fbg
127 t'b~
#3 Sand
130 fbg
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
135 ~q
140 fbg
8 5/8 inches
140 fl~l, _
BO'I-rOM WELL CAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862
1400 Easton Ddve, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
SuperviSed by
GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC.
Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
Proposed
· Mark R. MaRarRee CHG, RG
Well No.
EW-1
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
WELL CASING
GROUNDWATER
.SCREEN
Elevation of refrence point
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top of gravel pack
type of gravel pack
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen sparing size
depth of bottom of screen
depth of well
diameter of borehole
depth of borehole
-404 feet
2 fbq
Concrete
90
Gement Grout
3 feet
Bentonite chips
6 inches
Schedua140 PVC
-115 fbg
95 rog ._
#3 Sand
100 fbg
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
140 fl~
150 rog
12 inches
150 ltxl
'BO'I-rOM WELL CAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862
1400 Easton Ddve, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
ATTACHMENT 4.
CALIFORNIA DOT TRAFFIC CONTROL EXHIBITS
--'i -' '"
AT EXIT RAMP ~ "* LANE CLOSURE
Wolk l/il
AT ENTRANCE RAMP
5aG,N PA~IEL SiZE I)~n I LEGEND
TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM FOR LANE CLOSURE
ON FREEWAY~ AND EXPRESSWAYS
MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS [ T-lO:
TYPICAL LANE CLOSURE
TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM FOR LANE CLOSURE
ON MULTILANE CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAYS
MISCELLANEOU,~ DETAILS _ I ' T-'II
TYPICAL LANE CLOSURE WITH REVERSIBLE CONTROL
lag
JlA
ell IOIQcl4 ' Ici
LILIM
TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM FOR LANE CLOSURE
ON TWO LANE CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAYS
MISCELLANEOUS DET^IL$ J-' ]'-'i3
TYPICAL RAMP CLOSURES
EXIT RAMP OR CONNECTOR
.
,k,,,,, O~ect,an,.~ t,iv~ (~} '~'"~. 24' ~
' .... · . ~ ".:=~ .....4-'"
ENTRANCE RAMP -(L .....=..,,._~'~
~..,~ ,~ ENTRANCE RAMP ~ ~
~:_ ~ ~THOm TURNING ~K~5
DETAILS FOR RAMP CLOSURES
MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS [ T- 14 ~
/.
C °
P~bl/.~hed by Building ~ews, ir, c., 305I Oved~nd Avenu ·
Lo:~Angeles, CA~0034 (212) 202-T7TS
SIXTH E01TION
TAY
FFIC
~i~,~NGINE [iRS
Work Area Trallic Co~lrol Han<lbook ~
Work Area Traffic Control Handbook
PREFACE TO lg85 SIXTH EDITION
..<anon m,lh~,c.~ Gl ~nllill~l,On. i~ Ina uso OI I~ &i~nl, li~h{I, and
t
TABLE 'OF CONTENTS
PAGI
Genmnl Inlorm~l~o~l ...............................................................
Agll3Ohly .......................................................................... 1
~ e S £)O~'lSIbdlly ................................................................ 1/~
T~.mDol-'3ry Tralhc LarleS .......................................................... 3
C3nl~ol. Warning and Gu,dance Devices ............................... 418
F- ..).(om,~nl $1rlplng/l',tal'klng ..................................................... 8/9
Dr;og,ng al EzcavohOnS .......................................................... g
.D ~o¢.SIn,ln T~alhc ........................................................... §
¢;ag,.3o~ Conical .......................................................... 10
COn$,~¢hOn $,gn$ ....................................... ; .............. I 1/16
;','a ming $~gns ........................................................ 17/19
r4eq~lalOr¥
. Oel'nealo~$ .................................................................... 22/23
In$1tu¢l,On$ Io Flagger$ ................................................... 26/2?
MmO~ WOrk .................................................................... 28/29
'?/oH, Area m Parking Lane or Shoulder ........................ 30
W~rk Area m
CI0~,ng 0l Fhgrll Lane ..................................................... 32/33
~l.q5,ng Of LeU Line ..................................................... 34/3,5
;-,os*ne al M;dole Lane ................................................... 36/37
,,, o$,r,('J al HSU Roaoway .... ~ ........................................... 38/39
':,¢,5,ng al LOCal $1reel ......... ~. ......................................... 40/41 ·
rq~OOSInan Genital ........................................... 42/43
.....:.,t, J3¢yond Inl{rse(:h0n ........................................... 44/47
,',?, ,'/dr~ln InlorSeChOn ............................................. 48
1 -- INTRODUCTION
?ho purpos~ nr thla ~n~mnnl i~ tn set forth the b:!.~i¢ principh'~
IllllJ rccmnmcmlml ~nJlnnl~ ~ ~ nh~rvcll h~ nil thane wh,,
i~rform work In a public ALrooL tn i)mvi(Io R:lfu rani eRtctiv[, wnrk
~r(~, nn(I ~ w~n~ conL~l~ I)ro~ct ~m(I exle(llte vehlculur
i~Klu~triun tmrRc.
2 -- GENERAl.. INFORMATION
I'ruper traffic control Lechniques shall bo effEctivEly ntili;~.'d
I. Ituduce ncddenL,~,
2. klinJmJ~e InJur), to wnrkers nmi Lhe public.
R. I{eduee d:m~=ge tn I.'iv~te nn,I public prnle~t.y, inHn,li.n~
(lillllll~e LO Lh¢ cunaLrucLlun projcc~ nn(J C()ll~tl'~lctlult eq.iplnent.
4. Idinl,nlxu the I~..~ibilit¥ of claims :m(I latin'ariel! .~r'i.~inR
l'rOlll consh'ucLion ~m; ncci(Icn~.~.
5. Reduce confusion L~ motori~L~.
(;. I,:xp~(liLe tmrl3e Row.
'/. hal)rove I)uhllc ml-',tluns.
In order Lo Iz.~.,~uru driver undcmtnmlin~ ~1' trnrfic device~ in
w~rk nrmm [L J~ llo~e~,ttr¥ Ln at:m(Innlurixc~ the tYlX~ lJlilJ
mon~ of ~igns, burricadea omi d¢lineut,m. Hntionwi,le
~re ~ct furLh in ge,~eml I, erm~ in Lieu "M;mu;tl mt Unifnrm Tr:d'r~c
Control Devlcea far StroeL~ und Hi~hw.'t¥~" i)ubli.~hed b)' the U.S.
~f I nm.~l)n~tmn, I"mlt, r:d I li~hwny ^dmini.~tr.lt.i.n.
I)epurtment " '
,~t;ite aLnmlanl,~ nrc e~Lnbliahed by Inc~,l dellUrtmunt~ of trnn.~.
I)orLutiun nmi htghwa.y~ and contained in nmnunl.~ i)ubli.~hud' h)'
ouch
3 ~ AUTHORITY
No wm'k may be i~rfomed in any public ri,~h[.nf.w~l¥ withm,[
pormi.,k~iun from Lhe authorizing llj~{llC)'. 'J'l'~lJ'J'l¢ control re'(Inir~'d
h.v ~uch wnrk ~hnll be in ~cconl-',ncu wiLh Lbo pruvi.~ion.~ ~)~ Lhu
IuLesL mlitiun ul' Lllis rlJ-',nuul or Lhe ngenc,v'.~ I)~r,niL.
4 --:RESPONSIBILITY
All contr.~ctnr3, i)ermittees nr ngencies (luin~ work i~; puhli¢
~trecL~ ur public rlght-uf-wny .~hnlh
I. ()brain all neces.~ry permit.~.
~. Provide Limely nuti~caltion to all uffc. ctcd n.c:vncies, inclml.
o.
WOrK Area Ilalll¢ Gol'llrol
II. I"h%,
(L l)k'l)m'tmmlt .f J'~d~lic Worka,
I). Ih,~ .mi ~'r.,sit C. mlmnieL
:l ~'-,.'dhmte the wnrk with all af[ected ugonciel
~ht,
· I I./,.'m ~'c'.p:mts .f :tb.tLing prnl~urtieR, either
,,,' h,¥ writtk,. ,~utit'e, of u~'ce~ Ihni~tions mode nucu~:u'y
hy the
~,. h,~t;dl mid re;ti,Kid, required traffic tuntrul
~:. Pr.vide ~.ggm'R whe~l required,
T. %ched.le :md expedite the work to cuuse the leal in-
,',,,wt..ienrv tn the public,
~ Prn~'hlu udequate s:tfuh~nrd~ ~ur worke~ imtl the genernl
;,uhhC
', A~..l'c ti.iL ~t.~v~), crown .ntl .thor emi)Ingots working in
,,~ ..ll,,,'u.t b~ :1 [l':lvuled rm. lw[W wm~r fl:~gh~nK g:~rmenL~
I- I*:~tr.I H~[' ~',m~trucCi.. ~i[e .~ ruquirml [u i.~ure Lh[~L all
II I:~.m.ve :ruffi~' co.trul devicea when Lhex arc no Ion~cr
5 -- PLANNING
Alt ~x,,,'k shnll he i,l:mn~,,I 'well ih ndv,~nce to keep
, :t 'l'~,,fl~r hme rt'quirmnunts.
~; I'r,,Idem~ of i~ct'e~ to privote property.
...I ,,thvr tri~fflc devicea r~'quired ~ur the w.rk.
'6 -- TEMPORARY TRAFFIC LANES
'q'emlx~rnr7 ¢o.trol ul' Lm~ffle i, work nre:~ requlr~ tl~. prm
viaim~ ,~ ml~u,~ It~cL apace tu ,ccummalate the traffic
demands, p:t~iculurly (lu~n~ the I~.k tm~c hour.
Teml~ traffic I~ne ~(lulreme.~ fur cn.structhm nt'ti¥itiu~
in a~rinl ~tr~ may ~ I~i~l on the I~it, o. the Id;m, or
in the contract ii~l~mUona, The~ requircme~m~ constitute
pn~ of the work ak~me~lt and m~t ~ mlher~l ~ M ~5~dly :~
u.y other ~l~CJ~cutJon.
ichalul~l b) mlnhn~ In~rfe~n~ with tnl~c. ~u,'
emerg~n~ 8Jtu;itJoil~L fie mnlnLcilunce ~grk ~hnll t, it(ri);~ch intn
All tem~m~ tmffi~hmes shall ~ a mlnJmum~f tell feet
whlLh unl~ uLhu~J~ auLho~l. 'rhia ~e.-/.ut mimmmn
width ia ea~ntlul for tho ~fe movement of.buse~, t~ek~
Lr;lilum, In mhJiUo., ~nu clcnrnn~u ah~dl ~ n minimum uf five re. ut
~rmn :m nlJun ~~.niJ" Lwu leer"' ~r~m ~~
~y .f d~vem to ~hy .w.y frnm the eurh or
I~ehiJ.I th~ curb, reaulting in e~cr,~;ichmtmt iht,) tim
tr:t[~le lune, where., uthlitionnl clenm.ee from :m ol~n exeuv..
tlm~ ia roquJr~l ~¢uu~ the ulen e.Nt'.vatio,~ i~ ret'egni:ed by the
driver aR ti ~enter problem, The Rve.fm~t ele,ranee nl~ r~luee~
the aurcl,~rgn from t~e I~1~ on the ne.rest ~nce of the exc:tvn.
ti0n and provldea the worke~ with a ~n~onnble ~l)nCe i. which to
w.rk wltlmuL the n~l b~ ~tej~ i.to the ml~.cent tnff~ hmo.
~ui~ble surfneinff mt~t ~ prnvided fnr the teml~r~
hmea in work ~rm~a. When tra[~c ia dlve~l frum the
Imvement, tem~ra~ ~urfneln~ Rhnll be provided nnd Rh. II be in
eu.f. rm=mc, with tho current ~bmd.rd alK. Cificatiun~ fur ~uc'h
w.rk iMu~d by the autho~zing
C~n~t~c'tin. eq.]pment .ut .rtively eng;~ged i~ the w~rk.
employee vehicle~ ami .ffici~d vehicle3 of the ~gency ~h~ll not be
Imrked in the vici.ity ~f the work i. ~ueh a mnm~er .~ t. furth~'r
restrict ur eb~t~ct t~ffic flow. Vehiclea ami eq.il.nent in con.
tim~ ~u~ nr ~req.u~K .~e m=~y be Ol~mted nr p:~rk~l i~ th~,
'
tr.f~c' hmo ~ U~e w.rk obRt~ction, Co.~t~ctio. ~l~il or
h31.~ in:~y ~ ~imilnrly ~r~l in thiR z~re. or o. the ~enrb~
w;~ or ~hlewnlk nre:~, l~rovldml f. ur feet of ~idewnlk i~ kept ~'h,~r
fur ped~Lri;.i use, '1'o i~reve~L the ~l~il b;mk ~rm~ {~'r.lLVi.~
gru:lt n ~l):lce aL i~ ~l~e. ~ b~lnnll m.y I~ ii,cfi Lo kuep it two
fuel fr.m the mine of the excnvi~Li.n mi role aide nmi two fu~,t h'o~n
thu edge of the tmf~e hum on the other.
7 .-. CONTROL, WARNING AND
GUIDANCE DEVICES
1'l., m,,.,[ uffc,¢Livn ,qy.~[em of w~rnln~, nmi ~/dnnce
.~hr,.~J, IIH' i~l'~,/~rJy jcl:mural u~lt~(~ .[ ~,.d.nl devious, ultJ.
f,,rmly Id.el.II .mi wvll m;&/J~t~ih)ud, Simj)liciLy
h:m, li,,,,,k ami U, the m~mual coverin~ wliruiug ~igna, ligh~ ami
I,uhl~l,.ll h~ Jill. Ihqi~rLmuiiL iff [t~l~t~[il)ll
-lilh' iii which [lie I~1 il(lei)till~ ll~g~c~ Jl
Jh'virr~ fall Jute aJX c;iJegNl'ie~: (I) Sign~: (2) Ihtrriel. les: (3)
Ik. hm,;~Jm'~: (,I)Ili~h I.ewfl WmqHng l)evice~: (5) Warnlu~ LighL~
-- III.mhl;~[iuu; mid 0;) I"laalliug Arrew
7-1. SION TYPES
'l'rafl~¢ ~i~:nx nrc da~il~ed into ~evend funcLiomd groul)ing~:
(:.uatrurti,m, Warniug, guide ami I{ehmlaLor~,
'l'lle C:,m~trucUnn (~) ierieR, illuALm~d nn pnge~ Il LhrmlgJi J~,
;.l~;..vut I. Olu atruet, q'hu Wnrning (W) ~eriea~ Ahnwll nn pager
IT :hr.ugh 15, ;u'i~ i)J'imaril~ InLemled fiJr I~rmanei)L
h.t d,, h.ve ~lq)lie. Lit)n h~r [eml~mr~ cnn~LmcLinn ~iLuaLion~.
'rhi~ l~ :da. trudt iJf Lhe Guide (C) ~erica, ~lglla in the
Iii) ~vri~.~ .re ~huwn on pngea 2U omi 21.
The u~ .f "lh,gul. Lm'y" RignR ritual he ;iPl)roved b~ the ~uLhof
,~.,~ .~v.r,y. When rU,l.ired, oil ~uch ~ign~ will I)e prnvided,
,~.t;'dk-,J omi mai~LaiJ~(~d hy Lh~ umlLructor or
I.:~l.lg "lh:kmla,tm'y" aigJ~a wiLhiu or mlj.cen[ [o the work
.,u~t I., re:md.iraqi hy [h~ emi[me[or nr I~rmi[[~o. If
~hv :mll,nrix. mg ~gut~cy nm~L be notified Lu de~rmi~e iL ~i~ns shulJ
,htr,cLod hy the :~uLhurixm~
7.2. SIGN PLACEMENT
'I'iH",~'h[IS',ll nf-the .~i~:j~.~ n.s ~hnwn nn the illu.~trl~tion.s nrc
,.',,,*h'h,.t.~ ..I,I :~etlml I.¢:~th)n.~ will del)Omi upon alignment, gr:.lo,
.... · ,,t,,,,. ,,( ~trcut iuLer~ection~ nmi pn~Lml ~l~Cd lilniL. ~ign~ ~hnll
Jabove tho ron4wa¥. Vmt. ic~l cleurnnee f.r Ail.mn wlmre I~ede~tri:m
kmffic i.~ i)enniLLml Almll bc N~vcn feeL. "Adwmc~ W~nlJnK" ~ig~l~
~hMl ~ h~uL~ mi Lho HghL bund aide n[ LnlffJc hmo~, Ou dividu(I
highways, aUlq)lemeJl~l udvui~ce wurnillg ~ig~l~ ~hull I~ I)la~eil im
Lhe divider,
~ur llll~ culnfllercild luJvurLi~iug.
¢llllllnL'llCO ItitlJ mtlnL ~ ~Jniive(I iJmnediately ~lRur w.rk i~ Clllit.
ph~te. If .L uny time u aign is HuL ruquired, iL ah.il ~ c. vvrcd
ur removed.
7.3. BARRICADES (See page 24}
Ih.'ric~J(luA Aorve Lbo f. ll.winl~
I, 'ro ~lerL Lhe public Lo Lhe [ucL Lh~[ U lmJ~icuhlr ;u'['a
2, '1'. I)revenL (IHvem n~(I I~(lesLria~ h'um enLeri~ Lhe
~. q'n protect wor~em.
4, 're ~upl~ Aign~ ILn(I warning likht~.
mir.nee wllrni~lg, ~uch i~q It high level wm'ni.~ device nmi
priatu (luli~lm~Lion. A-lluRle barricade lludl lUlL ~' I)hlcml ;IJl)ll(,
LJle. Lr3veJcci Wn~,
III, 'J'he chanlcteHstlm O~ these types m'c ailown iii Lbo tJtbJo [llJlJ
iJhJ,~Lr;iLion~ .n lingo
for cloRJnK aLrce~ tl~ LhrmlRh tlqff~c mid [.r uther Iltllj~)l'
ti~ns where the b~u'Hcadc~ mull rem~lill in place fur
Whuu b:irrica(leR Itr~ u~l Ln ch)~c Il ~treet, norln:llly tlm.y
shmll(I he pineal ~ tJlCl~ J~ no RJJll hlrgo eh.ugh fJ)r n vehicle
I~:~R~, except where i~e~u~ t. provide access for I~ul traf~c
emerKe.c~ veldcle~,
'l'~pe I11 bmticndeR h.ve the fullowi~g udvnnL~gex:
I. lh'nvide h~rge ~urface ~re:~ that can he soeu re:.lily hy
.iq~r.udHng t~f~c.
Z. '~r. vido a~ ~ltive barrier at the limiL~ nf tim wm'k
Type ] harricmle~ ~hnuhl nnt bi, u~,4 where tl.,.v wmdd I.,
vi{l~{l n.t mute th~m I; i~che~ from thu b.ttum nf the
'l'hv ~..:.'~. nrpn nf white ,nd orunge 3h,II ~ effectively re~ec.
.,Intr ~*.'m,r hlunt;firntiun will not bu hnpr/nted on the
7.4. DELINEATORS (See pages 2g an~
IIt'hncnt.r~ nra nmrker~ which nM the driver in ~letermining the
~,,t';~tn,n :n.I :Hi~m).,~iL n[ the tJ';i~fic I:tJIo. ]'vi)it;ti e~jtntl)lus
..'~uldnidu dul;nl.nt.ra nru ~hown d)ll ])R~S ~2 nmi ~1, lt,V (Jny, the
.'ffuv~wv.v~ n~ the IIHine~lnr'i.~ Iletermined hy ImSiLion,
I 'l'n rh;mn(,I nnd divert tr;If5u ill ~nlv:lnCu ()f wur~
'J To dv~ne Ul~, h'avelwny UH'uugh the work ~,one.'
:{ Tn duNne :~ rh:m~e in tile I)usitiun o~ the oxi~(ing
lin hi'tara;il ~truot~. nlil)o~in~ Lnl[Ne ~h:lll bo Rel)nl~lLe(I hy
.h'lh~t';.tuj'~. tr;iffik' ~tril)ing, ur nli~u(I i)nveineJJL InnJ'ko~, Where
tr,~N; i~ ~liverted tn the le~t ~,~ an exlating ~luuble yellow can:er.
hnu. ira. n I~ninied medinn, ur in~o. lea :urn lane. delinou~m ~hnll
br .tilixvd buyuml :he wm'k ;e'en ~u return :n~f~¢ {o nurmal
I3ulin~.nl.rx ~hnll he ufn mntuH;d thn~ will wi~hx~nd iml)~cL
,,'uhnnt :qq,r('cinble d;nn;~ge tu U~e device. U~e aLrildng vehicle ur
.Hy fl,' ..~;~bility ;~g;~in~t knnckdnwn N'nm wind nr :urbuluncu
I;m~. td~vn hit ~h;dl nu: bo u~ud.
.~lul;d nr ~¥u.dun Im.~{~ mnunted in ¢nnrrute.filled b,ckeL~ nr
.,n nhl ;m(umubile wh~.ul~ are uxnml)lea uf ~lle {Yl)US whidl lu'o
/ UJt(,,IUI~ A~COUUEHDED DELINEATOR AND SIGN PLACEUE
7.5. HIGH LEVEL WARNING DEVICES (Flag Standards)
tligh level wandng (IovlceA prnvi(le allvnnce wnrning ot' a wnrk
nren h.v I)uilJg visible tn ii th~vur even when the .wm'k nru:~
ub~t]'ucte(I N'om view by vehicles nr consL~cLio~ equil)me~t.
Iligh level whining (levire~ ~h:dl he nt I(m~L ~ [oe~ high with
I~g~, b:l~u ur h~ck In()unting (leRignu(I tn re~i~t overturning
bri~ winds. ~nnclbng~ n~ny ~ used t. ndd woi~h~ tu the ~;~e
le~. Ili~h level wnn~ing (levice~ ~hnll bo equipped with u y.~e
the tnp tn .ccnmm~ln~ nt leJ~xt throe fl;l~. I"l.Lm ~h. II 1~ Nd~t'i.
cnLe~l n~ high visibility omn~e ~nn~rinl nmi e(lUil)l)Ud with aL;l~
keel) the fluE~ exten(l~l. Turn on dirty tings Ahnll ~ imm~lintuly
High level wnrnln~ (levice.~ ~ll:lll ~ u.~ed n.~ imlicnted on
21; thrnugh 4R, nt ~t~t nl)l)rnache~ Lo I~ntinn~ where
tiun or m.intemmce work ia heing i)erfurmed within m'
modiutely u(Ijncent tua traffic hme. .
7.6. WARNING LIGHT.ILLUMINATION
I~l;l~h~'~3 ~hnll ~ u~(I nnl~ LU ou~i(l~ the work nf't'n ur t. I.'n.
vi(h~ n(IvnJ~ee wnrning. FIn~her~ ~hnll nnL he n~e(I In
{rnf~c, tn ~el)nnlle npl~)aln~ trnf~c, -r h) dellnenle the pnth
Lhnt trnffiu I~ h) N)lh)w. (Not intomlc~l tn I)ruhihit the
fln~hers which nm unifn~l~ Al)nCc(I, intermnne~te(I nnd
quentinll~ cycle(I), I:hahing yellow light~ tl~c~l fl)r iulvnnee
ing nm~t bu cluz~rl~ (llAtin~ishnble N'nm the I)rlmnry clelinenLi.n
nnd ~lmll ~ aeon u~ve the nnrmal i'ofl~Lnl~7~(I uniL~.
'Wurning li~h~ n~ Imr~ble, len~ ilirecte(I; encln~d
m.unt~d ntn nlininlum height nf :l feet to the ~ttnm i)f th(, lun~.
The cnlm' n~ the light emitLc~l 8hall he yellnw, q'h(,~ tony ~ ns(.d in
~,itlmr n ~tumly h.rn .r fln~hing Iiu~lu. II~u'ricml~ wnrning light~
~hull bu iii .ccuJ~lunce with the requiJ'emun~ of ANSI ILIII. I.
WARNING LIGHTS
T¥~ A Tyj~ 6 TyM C
Lowlni. MII}r High Inl,nlll~ SI,ad?/,Burn
Lens Si:, 7' d,a. I?' O;i, --
Lo~s Dilocl~al FAtal I a 2 I I Of 2
Flash Role ~r M~io 55 I0 75 55 I0 75 Conslanl
~nimum EUocIIvI Ihlonlh~ : 4.0 Cl~llll 35 Ca~elal --
M,n[mum ~oam ~e Powo~ -- -- 2 Ca~IOS
Houri OI O~al~ Dusk Io Dawn 24 ~day ~ lo O~wn
Type A I.u' inlen.~ily /lashhl~ wnrnlnK lighg~ m'o mux~ cnm.
Type Ii high inlen~ily ~n~hJng wnrnin~ llgh~ m'e llormnlly
u,,rl.~ .,~.~ IlIo.~O liK/I[~ Iir(, effPetJve in daylight u.~ w~ll ~ (lurk,
'h~...,l~v ,,( Ihe tr. vrlr,I w;,y .. d,dour curvc~, lane CJl;tll~a~ hmo
.,:dr,Ah',~ rlJierCl'llry .~'iLu:lt~,)ll~ ur whelk Ii ~ag~el' i.~ un IIuL~, They
~,'l,t iii pi;WV llllll hlll'ilill~ [i'UIII ~UJI~O[ [0 ~uJH'i~e.
7.7. FLASH{NG ARROW SIGNS (FAS)
~'h,~h;,,~ ;u'ruw .~i~n.~ (J:AA) nrc ,~i~n i)nnel.~ wi[ll n nl;iLi'ix nF
,'h,¥[rw li~h{~, calmhk, .~ ~uquenLhd nrrow disl4ny~.. All FA5 ~hJdl
MIHIUUU NUUBER UINIUUU LECIOLU~
48'. 66' 15 .I milo
'n~(fi~' ~*,mtn,I duvk'[.~. They In'uvhlu ndditiomd, hiKh level, nd.
· .,,.r,.,I w..'mn~ of hmo du~urv~. I"A~ ~u'u effucUve ~ur MI hmo
I,,r,[,,n ,,f J*'A~ xh.uhl be n~ ahuwn in the trnffie control pinto.
8 -- PAVEMENT STRIPING/MARKING
U,hh'l rurl;,ill cJrcum~t;ulce.% the u.~e of p:lvement .~tr~j)ing
JvJnl?d i)ri'J,~lt, ijilyVl~lij ~jl,JliJll~ or I~lll'k~13 lire I'OqUJl~JJ
the ~ullowing c,mli[Jun~:
Work A~ea Tfallic COAUOI HanObook
]. When tra~c Iz Lo I~ diverted Lo the Iort of ,.tn existing
double yellow centerlJne for two m' mm'e conRecutive niglJLq. '
2. When the work nren is mU;icont to nn inte~tlon
resulL~ iu u tl~lti~n within the in,election.
3. When the t~lc J~lne I~ continunu~iy nbs,mitred [or mnre
th;m one week on uny lt~et where traffic volumes require two
more lanes iii a IlnKJe dir~tlon.
4, In other unusual ~ituntinns where Lrn~c nmi physical
comlition~, luch ~ ~ or res,riced visibillty, require
trontmollt,
Tho nuthorixin~ ngmiey ~hnll d~termine tim need fro' ~n,l ~xton{
n[ atriping rem.v.I m.I ~at,'il,inK. WIn.n teml~n.'r i,nw'mvm
atriping or mnrke~ a~ provided, the existing stripin~ or mnrke~
mu~t bo rem.v~l nr enve~l by the permittue m' eonm~etm'. The
in~t. INtlon o~ t~ml~n~r~ ah'il4ng or pavement marge~ will
done by [he conU~ctor.
9 ~ BRIDGING OF EXCAVATIONS
(See page 25)
Whenever ncce.~ary, trenchc$ and excavations si,all be bridged
I)O,'mit nn unohstructell I~ow of
l, llri(Ik, ing InLl~t be .~emn'e(I nl~ninst (li.~l)lncement by u~ing
ndju~tnblu cleat,, nngles, bol~ or other devices.
2, ~riJl~ng ~hnll be In~lle(I to operate with minimum nni~e,
3, Tho trench must be ndequutel~ shored, to support the
4, Steel i)InLoR used fur hrid~n~ nlu.~t i~teml one ~t hoynml
[ho edge~ of the trench, Teml)orar~ Imving mnteHnls
~hnll be u~ed t. fen,her the e(Ige~ o~ the plates tu minimize
wh~,el imlmCt.
MINIMUM THICKNESS
WIDTH OF TRENCH OF STEEL PLATES
1.0 II. %
3,011. I inch
10 ~ PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
Whell tho work Area encrnache.~ upnn A .~idewnlk, w~lkwny .r
c,'.s,~wulk uteri, a~clnl considernLinll must be ~iven tn I~,deatrian
safety. Since the I~destrinn moves AL n relatively Alow milo, =
nfinhnum or luJvance wa~in~ i. re(lUh'ed. Ilowever, effort must
be ~nade tu ~el)a~te hi~n from the work nreu,
Protective bnn~cuilea, fencing, h~mlntils ,l~d hri,lge~, in,ether
with wurning ami kmhlnnce devices nnd aign~, mu.~t I~ utili,ed ~o
th.t tho im~qgeWUy for I~de~trinn.% especiully blind ami otht. r
ph~slcall~ h;mdicnpl~d, Is ~tfe und well defined.
10
Work Aroa TraUic Conlrol Hanclbook
· Walk~'hV.~ iii ¢,Jl.~truciiJ,i nrell.q .~hull be Jn~inL~h)ed ,t le,~t fnur
,, ~l/,;~, II~. ~'h/kwny .~l~a/l bo iJluJninatu(I ~hJrill~ h~ur~ o/durkno~.
tr:,y ~hnll be ~even fueL,
IYh,,re ~¥:llk.~ are eh,.(ed h.~ cml~lrue~ion, an alterm~te walkway
.h:,ll he l.'ovlded, preferhhly within tile parkway. Where
'"'""";'~T t,, divert I)e,h,.~tri.~l~ lull) the imrking hme nf It ~treet,
h,,',',~'.,Ih~K ha' ~l~,lhlmtti.~, ~h:tJl bo i~r.vi~le~l tn Rel):t~Le
I,,',l~-I,'];,,I ~'hJk~'~l.y [rhm tJl~ n4~ucenL traffic )nne. AL ,]o ti~nu
· I,.~U i..~le~t,'i:mR he Hivet'te~l ittton ~t'tiot~ nf the ;erect used for
¥..,,,e.mr t,':~fRt'. AlLY devi.tim~ from the n~ve mu~t have prior
· ,I.l*rn~:~l ~f the authorizing agency.
· %% It,~.tlnn~ where alii:[cent ;alternate walkwnyn cannot be pro-
'..,1~.,I..,I,I.'hprinte ~ign.~ and barricades must be ln~lled at the
',,-,;- ,,f t'-~tructi~n :tn~l in :.lvtmce tff the cl.~ure uL the neurone
..... %..dk .,' i,~tc,'sectiu,, tu divert I~etle~t,'iul,a acrus~ the street.
11 -- FLAGGER'CONTROL
I'l.ggt'r.t :;l'e required:
I %Vher~ whrkerR or equipment'intermitte]~tly black n
~ ~Vhk. r~, phm~ nr p~,'mit :dl.w the uxe of one hmo f.r tw~
~,.,t,,.,~ .f tl':tf~e (uno flugger is required fur ouch directlnn
: %~'here the ;ufety of the'p~d~lie anti/or wol'ker~ determine~
I'~;,~(.t..J~t I)u ~,.l~utuil with ~;ll'e. ~Jiuy Rh~tlJlJ bo illort, in.
,.,i.,h, .... f c.,mi,:m(Ih~g the tr:tveli[ig public. They shouhl b~
· ' ,t,,,.,,.,~ f:.' t.~).ugh fr.m thu w.rk tu aluw duwn .r ~tUl~ vehiclt,~
,,.(,,,, Iht.:( e,lter the x~'urk .reu.
:~.,g~u, .,~ I.':ttticable. (See i~;tgei IZ, ~G nmi ~,)'
;~11 fl,,~R~,rs ~h. II be prnvided with nil ~rltnge j=ckut (or vest)
,h,.vtm.. u~[, .n~l ii reflurtorized belt a~id su~pemler I..'ne~ fur
;,I mRht. IJuri~l~ H:Lvlight huur~, flag,em shull be mlUipl~d with
.,g. I,a,~,ll~'. i~t ~li~ht, .flugge~ shull use a red light.
'l'l., h:.~.l ~iglt~l~ .mi [,q.il~ment t. J)o uselJ h~ a:igge~ far cnn.
tr,,llmR ..~1 Hirecti~l~ traffic are ahown in the illu~trationR
Work Aroa Trnllic Conlrol HanOl:x:x:~K
CONSTRUCTION SIGNS
CI
Use when Irallic Is diverled Io
a temporary roadway or route,
C]
ROAD CLOSED
AHEAD
LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY
Use whe/e delour Is provided.
Use plale Ia shof. w di$1ance.
C~
C2
IcRLO0S AEDDl
Use 'where road is
clc~ed Io Ihrou~h
and local Iralhc.
C3A
ROAD CLOSED
TO
THRU TRAFFIC
C4A
Use only where Ira/lit is
dive(led Io an allernal'¢
roule, kviillble with lighl,
rtl{ and vertical irlow.
· .v..~ ~.ve ~o,.~ ~uil~f~l r'ldf'l(.JL-~OOK V'~UtF, ,~.fO0 liafll¢ [.~O/~lfOi ~G/'~(X)G~, ....... '1:3 ...... ' ............
CONSTRUCTION SIGNS
¢7
¢1
CIO
CONSTRUCTION SIGNS
¢17
RO~C).VORI~1
FRONT
IIACK
To be placed only
Agency aulho,'iz&tion.
Cl8 Clf
Uso lei major CO~lflJclio,'t Use inslead el CI il
no delout iS
Work A;o~ Tralflc Conlrol Handbook Work A~oa Traffic Conl;ol H~ndbook 15
CONSTRUCTION
'-,llernale I. egend:
$UR¥£¥ CR[W
SIGNS
(::21
flol IOf Use where Iwo-way
Iflflic musl use the same
lane, (See
Us~ ~or minor
conslrucllon
mlinlenance.
C24
CONSTRUCTION SIGNS
C3O
(;27
Mounl on OarricaOo
in head 'on posil~on
al poinl of closure.
J,SignpaOcl~elorusein I I BACK
Jllaooi~o oP"alion',u
CONSTRUCTION SIGNS
WARNING SIGNS
/1000rT/ '~'
SPECIFICATIONS FOR ,
CONSTRUCTION SIGNS
Accl.ohble liFJG,HT OF LETTFJ:i$
· ' '-'.:~ '": Cj~. CIg. C?OandC?l ssgnsmoybeusc, dwiltllhe
W6
WII
sign}
WARNING
SIGNS
W$7
'JSe .'11 $1te~.q ¢10$uio wholo Italli¢ may Iu~n fighl or la/I,
I
WI8
W44
WSO
WS8
T)'pc
WARNING
TYP[ L MAEKER
TYPE N MARKER
SIGNS
Use i(~ split Irellic
movln~ in the same
direction,
SPECIFICATIONS FOR
WARNING SIGNS
Acceplable HEIGHT 0~' LLrTT[RS
Code Standard SIze Reduced Size Standa/d Reduced Size
WI (RI (x LI)
W2 IRI or LI)
W3 IRI (x LI)
W5 (RI or LO
WiS
(RI or LI)
K
L
3C~ x 30" 24' z 24'
30' x 30' 24' x 24" -- --
30' x 30~ 24" x 24"
30" x 3~ 24' z 74'
24°x24° 18'x 18° 12'.dV2' cJ' .--3'
3G' x 3G' 30' x 30' S' 4'.
4~" z 4?° 36' x 36° 6' $'
42"' x 42'" 36' x 36° 6'
3~ x 3Ct' 24° x 24' 5' .4~
.42' x 42° 56° x 36°
36' x 36' 3(7' x 30' 6
36° x 18' 24° x 12' -- --
3;°x!8° 24Oxl~° _ _
3Ct' x 30' ~4° z 24' ~ --
36' x 36° 3~ x 30' --
l$'x6' -- -- --
8'x24' -- _ _
18'x 18' -- -- --
,.Ofl( AfOa IfalllC I,;;OflllOI rtanuLx~l~
REGULATORY SIGNS
To t)c U;cd only when di~e¢lcd by thc aulho~'J~in~ ~gen~y.
/17
RIO
RI7
REGULATORY SIGNS
RIGHT LANE
MUST
TURN RIGHT
it40
TR^rncJ
AHrADJ
R41
RIGHT
TURN
ONLY
TURN '
ONLY
SPECIFICATIONS FOR
REGULATORY SIGNS
, Acclpbble H[IGHT Of L[TT[RS
36' x 45' ~4' x 30' 8'
48' x 16" 36': lZ' 5' 4'
18' x 24' -- 5' --
3G': 3~' -- 5' --
36': 21' ·-- 5" --
30' x 30' 74';?4" -- --
30' x 30' 24' ~ ~4' --
36' x 36' Z0' x 32' 4', 5" 4'
30' x 36' -- 6' --
3~ x 36' --
24' z 30' -- 6' --
it
DELINEATORS'
SIGN STAND
24' K4L~.
GUIDE POST
TiiAFHC CONE
DELINEATORS
GUIDE POSTS
FIXED
PO){TAILE
24'Min~
PLASTIC TR,i,F,rlC DELII4E,~TOI~S
BARRICADES
TYPE I TYPE !1
TYPE III
HOT[: Bollorn ol bollom tail on lypes II and III ba,icade$ shall be a
mJmmum ol 4"(100mm) 3ncl a maximum ol 6' (I50mm) Irom Ihe
Founcl.
1ABL£
Barrir4dc Chzr:cterhtlcs
I II III
I',l ~'" I'.ll' l'.lt'
min. Z' mia. l' min.
#011 ~. I' ll;,lll all ~II ¥llqll Il II,Ilk Il loll It .~' el Jill.
PREMIX
/
STEEL PLATES
ANGLE IRON TO SECURE PLATES
NOTE
WIDTH OF TRENCH
1,0
7.0 le~l
~,0 I~el
MINIMUM THICXHESS
OF ST[EL
I~(k
I~ JAil
I I~lk
I PLAT,E BRIDGING
21i WOl'll Al'Off Ihllll~: I.,OrlllOI rhlllUl,lOlJA Well( Alo~ Tfalfic C.o~'tlfOI Ha/sclDOOA 2 !
INSTRUCTIONS TO FLAGGERS
:=~..~ .--.. ~.~ .....
/ ITPICAL APPROACH '!'O WORK AREA
,z
high speed silUalions
'" 'Prepare Io Stop' (C35) should
also I~o usocl.
- NIGHT-
TO SLOW
TRAFFIC
ISnon up and
~.lr~ e,lended
- DAY-
TO SLOW TTIAFFlC
The Ilagger ~ la¢~ VotiVe ~ herd
Ihe sJow pattie in I verlicaJ
al arm's lenglh. Fo~ added emi:Au, is.
the flagge¢ may slowly rlise a~ k)wer
~s free ha~ with the i~lm ~.
TRAFFIC PROCEED
The Itaggu ~all $1u~l parallel lo
Ihe Ilalli¢ movemenl, a~ ~lher with
pa~lo ~ um ~ot~ I~ view
el Ihe d~er, ~ ~lh s~ ~le
ahead with Iree urn. Never use a
TO STOP
TRAFFIC
Hold ham
verlically
wi~ palm
Io~'~ard,
TRAFFIC
PROCEED
Never use a
Io move
Irarli¢.
bell mull be used el nighl and
tl~l It/~1 SUDSlilUled 10r I~e pad<:lle.
-- CHART A ~
UIHIMUU RECOMMENDED DEUNE~TOR A~O SIGH PLACEMEHT
HIGH L ~
JMINOR WORK J
._.~( __. C .221q
' I (~"lCllor C23 TYPE IORII
WORK AREA IN PARKING LANE OR SHOULDER I J BARRICADES
/ C18 orC~ ~
~ ~ --.~A Page za
~'~A P~e 2'~
DELINEATOR
See C~.~
Pa~;.e 2~ I
TYPE I OR II
__HIGH LEVEL
WARNING DEVICE
C 22B
WORK
AREA
HIGH LEVEL
WARNING DEVICE
C 22B --
DELINEATORS
WORK AREA IN CENTER OF STREET J
~"--'C lB o~, C 2:3
HIGH LEYEL
WARNING
DEVICE OR
FL~SHING ARROVi
SIGN
22B
RIGHT LANE
L/
CLOSING OF LEFT LANE
C ZO
CLOSING OFMIOOLE LANE
~eeCJ~a~lA Paff 21
C 18 o,,' 'C 23
HIGH LEVEL u
WARNING DEVICE
OR FLASHING
ARROw SIGN
1
1
1
~ TYPE I OR II
BARRICADES
FLASHERS OPTIONAL
[WARNING DE-VICI
OR FL.a, SHING
~ ~.ow~,~.
TYPE N MARKER C3A
II
TYPE I OR II E~O, RICADES
II
II
II
II
Ill
iB~RRICADES _
u
C2 'ROAD CLOSED'
OR ROAD CLOSED '
TO THRU T~FFIC
NOTE
Access ~or
authorized vehicles
CLOSING OF LOCAL STREET
I)tdest~[an$ ~,%all r~ot be d,v~'t~d-
~nto · rno,,~ng lane c.I trzll~o
TYPE II BARfllCAOES __
BUTTED TOGETHER
It !
I
!
I
I
I
WALK CLOSED
CROSSWALK
NOr ES
TYPE III BARRICAOES
FLASHERS OPTIONAL
__ HIGH LEVEL
- DEVICE OR FLASHING
ARROW SIGN
TYPE I OR II BARRIC^OES
i '-'
I C22R
/
/
FLASHING ARROW SIGN
OR HIGI~'LEVEL '
WARNING DEVICE --
/ C22B --
WORK BEYOND INTERSECTION
c 2o
I J li~~~ HIGH LEVEL WARNING DEVICE
J 22B
J DELINEATORS,
HIGH LEVEL.
WARNING DEVICE
J J SeeCh~A
WORK BEYOND INTERSECTIOI~I P~e:a
HIGH LEVEL ,,'
WARNING DEVICE OR,
3 ARROW StGt
c 20 IRt.)
t
DEL
HIGH LEVEL
,e.. WARNING DEVICE
~ C 22B
II
-- TYPE II
BARRICADES
I
TEMPORARY STRIPING IF REQUIRED
...._.. // RI7
/ R 17 .-l~~
GE LINEATORS :
TEMPORARY STRIPING IF REOU!RED--., ..,...
HIGH LEVEL DELINEATORS
//WAflNING/ --
DEVICE ~(
c
/
R 17 .----e,
/ .
WORK WITHIN
INTERSECTIO,N
Acknowledgements
MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS - 1978
UnilOd Slales Oel:)artme'nl of Transi3odahon
Highway Adminl$1~allon )
MANUAL OF: TRAFFIC CONTROL~ - 1~J84
FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAIHTENANCE - WORK ZONES
SIBIo oJ' Cnlilornin - DeD~rlmenl o! Trnn~¢orlalion (CALTRANSI
Published by Building News, Inc., 3055 Overland Ave.
Los Angeles, Calilornia 90034 - (213) 202.7775
For Sale Al The Building News, In¢.~ Bookslote Al
Above Localion; Or Send Prepaid Mail Orders To
Building News, Inc., P.O. Box 3031, ;~'erminal Annex.
Los Angeles, Calilornla
COSTS
I lo 9 copies, each .............................. $3.00
10 lo 49 copies, each .............................. 2.75
.50 Io 99 copies, each .............................. 2.,50
· I00 Io 199 copies, each ............................ 2.25
200 or more copies, each ......................... 2.00
Large Quantity Prices On Application
Special Customized Covers Available On ,application
For Mail Ordors: Add $'h% Sales Tax, plus shipping charges Of
75¢ lot Ihe lirsl booklel and 15¢ for every booklel over one.
A'FI'ACHMENT 5.
STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
;; " '" '~':~ ANNE× i~T#; 66t 324 7483; MAY-7-03 l:50P~; PA~E 7/7
APPLICATION FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
TO THE CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA:
~l~uant to the pro .vlsi .c~_o.f Chapter 12..20 of thc Bak_c.rsfi¢ld Mtmicip.al. Code;' kc undcrsi~tcd applies For a permit to
erect, usc aha mnmmm an cncroacp, ment on pubhc property or right-of-way as thereto defined.
· F-?,!. =a..-ac of applicant and complete address including phone number:.
2. Nature or d~scription of thc encroachment for which this application is made:..
3. Location oft]~ proposed eacroachmcnt:
-: ?re'od o£timc for which thc encroachment is to bc maintain~l: ,~'~,o ~ct ~ T/~ ~ ~ ~'
Atapli'~t agrees that if this application is granrz, d, .ap,olicant shall i~dcnmif7, defend a~d hold ham~css CiW, its officers,
agents and ouploy~s asainst any and ali liability, clasms, actions~ causes of action or demands, v,.hataocver against them,
or any of them, before administrative, 9uasi-judicial, or judicial tribunats of any kind ~hatso,~,-er, ai'ismg .out of,
co,'mectcd with, or causod by applicant's plac, cment, er,~tion, usc (by applicant or an)' oth~ person Or entity) or
.",.,~.:ntcnance of said encroachment. Th~ applicant Further agrees to maimain thc aforesaid encroachment during the life
vt .-.aid c~¢roachmmt or tmfil such time that this permit is revoked.
Applicant furthc-r agrees that .upon the expiration of the permit for which this application is made, if grante. A,'or
· .-he r~vgc~ there-of by th~ Csty engineer, applicctn~ will at,his o',~ cost and Cxl~n,se remove the ,~,s~tfi frgm the public..
..-,. r.._=,-o-o-o-o-o-o-~_ =~Z~' or nsht of way where th~ same is 1 .ogated, an.d r¢$tor.c said public p .rppc-rty or ri .g, ht of wa3 to thc c0ndJt[oa
:'...z~.?:y ~ '.eat m which tt was htr'ore the placing, eroct~on, maintenance or e~s-tence of sa~d encroachment.
.:.-?..':c;.t:~t ~urthcr agrees to obtain ami keep all liability insurance rezluired by the City EnEineer in full force and effcc!
96-,'tt-axvevcr lo~8 tile encroachment remains. Applicant shall furmsh the City Risk Man~gcr with a Certificate of
~sar-:mce evidencing su~cie .nt co_ve.._~:ge for bodily injury or property damage liability or both and required endorsem~ts
e-,{dencing the insuranc~ rcquirod. The .type(s) and amount(s) of insurance coverage is:
Applicant aeknowle, iges the fi&l~t ofth~ City Engineer, pursuan~cipal C~e C~pter 12.20 to revoke
S~~ (.O~cr or Rcpre~mUvc)
EXPIRE
Signature of City Engineer
I--
IJJ
UJ
n~
I--
MW-9
LEGEND
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WELL
REVISION DATE: SEPTEMBER 23. 2003:jif
24th STREET
ESTIMATED LIMIT OF
GASOLINE CONTAINING
GROUNDWATER
MW-7 ~
I--
W
UJ
22nd STREET
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STA'~FtON
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 - SITE VICINITY MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
I
I
23RD STREET
SIDEWALK
LEGEND
~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL a FILL END
(~) VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL o TURBINE END
SOIL BORING
PROPOSED
GROUNDWATER
~ MONITORING VVELL LOCATION
- ' ° ' VES PIPING
'~ PROPOSED GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WELL LOCATION
PROPOSED AIR: SPARGE WELL LOCATION
REVISION DATE:OCTOBER 20. 2003: ~t
SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY. LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 'L' STREET
BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 3 - PLOT PLAN
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
ATTACHMENT 6.
(':.~p¥ I"JF ~.RF ~HF:~K HI IMRFR
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
1400 Easton Drive #132
Bakersfield, CA 93309
661 325-4862
DATE TO THE ORDER OF
- tO-3-~--O:~ C_.,,~.--.,, o.r,- ~,~,C..,.~,~
REMll-rANCE ADVICE
90-3702/1211
2373
CHECK
DOLLARS AMOUNT
Bakersfield, CA 93309
o,~ ao~~
Central
October 21,2003
Mr. Ray Chopra
California Department of Transportation
5156 North Blackstone Avenue
Fresno, California 93710-6702
'lronmental
Consultant
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 two
groundwater monitoring wells within the California DOT right-of-way of 23rd Street (State Highway 178)
(see Figure 1 - Site Location Map). Monitoring well MW-5d will be installed in the earthen shoulder on
the south side of 23rd Street, 40 feet east of "L" Street. Monitoring well MW-10 will be installed in the
sidewalk on the north side of 23rd Street, 70 feet west of "L" Street (see Figure 2 - Site Vicinity Map and
Figure 3 - 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 letters dated August 13, September 2, September 5, and October 8, 2003, 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 1 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.
Because construction of the monitoring well will require temporary closure alternately of the Number 1
(left-most) east-bound lane and the Number 3 (right-most) east-bound lane of 23rd Street, Sullivan
Petroleum will contract with Flashco, Inc. of Bakersfield, California to provide traffic control during all
well ddlling and construction activities.
SITE LOCATION AND CONTACT PERSONS
The site is located at 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, Kem County, California (see Figure I - Site Location
Map). The site is located within the commercial district, which flanks 23rd and 24th streets
(see Figure 2). The BCSD operates the Downtown Elementary School, 1,250 feet south of the site and
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309
(661) 3254862 ~ Fax (661) 325-5126, censenv@aol.com
Mr. Ray Chopra
California Department of Transportation
October 21, 2003 - Page 2
within the northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, MDBM. The site is.a
newly constructed retail fuel sales facility and mini mart, which opened during the first quarter of 1999.
The subject site is the location of double-walled USTs and product piping (see Figure 3).
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 (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) 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 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.
Mr. Ray Chopra
California Department of Transportation
October 21, 2003 - Page 3
The site is located in the southern portion of the Great 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 1 mile south of the Kern River.
The depth to the regional, unconfined aquifer is 110 fbg, and the groundwater gradient is to the southwest,
away from the Kern River and toward the ancient Kern Lake bed (KCWA, 2000, 1996 Water Supply
Report, July 2000). Perched groundwater at depths as shallow as 20 fbg is known to be present flanking
the current course of the Kern River, but is not known to extend to the site (KCWA, 2000).
CWSC operates Well #7, approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the site, and Well #64-01, approximately
2,400 southeast of the site. Hydrocarbons have not been detected in water samples collected from
Well #7. However, MTBE has been detected in water samples collected from Well #64-01 and this well is
currently inactive. No additional active water supply wells aro 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 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
Mr. Ray Chopra
California Department of Transportation
October 21, 2003 - Page 4
sampling rig where refusal was experienced due to the presence of a layer of cobbles. On September 26,
1999, soil boring B-1 was deepened to a depth of 48 fbg using a MobileTM B-53 hollow-stem auger drill rig
operated by Melton Drilling Company of Bakersfield, California. Drilling refusal was experienced at 48 rog
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 rog where drilling refusal occurred.
Soil boring B-1 was drilled adjacent to the potential source area; soil borings B-2 and B-3 were drilled as
lateral-assessing soil borings located 15 feet to the east and west, respectively, of the potential source
area; and soil borings B-4 and B-5 were drilled as lateral-assessing soil borings advanced 25 feet to the
northeast and southwest, respectively, of the potential source area. Soils encountered during drilling
included well-graded sands, interbedded with a layer of cobbles from 18.5 to 22.5 fbg and a second layer
of larger diameter cobbles and occasional boulders from 37.5 fbg to the maximum depth (48 fbg)
penetrated during the investigation. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.
TPH as gasoline and benzene were detected in the soil samples collected from the vertical-assessing soil
boring (B-l) to less than 22 rog 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 gasoline-containing soils at the site. HFA prepared the requested CAP,
dated April 12, 2000, which was subsequently approved by the BFDESD for implementation. An RI/FS
was conducted to assess the feasibility and cost effectiveness of mitigation technologies. The results of
the RI/FS analysis were that in-situ vapor extraction is the technology that appears most suitable for this
site. A vapor extraction well field consisting of central, shallow-zone and deep-zone vapor extraction wells
(VW-ls and VW-ld, respectively) and three lateral, shallow-zone vapor extraction wells (VVV-2 and VVV-4)
was proposed (see Figure 3 for the vapor extraction well locations).
On February I through 3, 2001, HFA advanced soil boring VVV-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 rog,
which were completed as vapor extraction wells. HFA performed the drilling and sampling of combination
groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well VVV-ld on February 1 through 3, 2001, using a limited-
access, dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig, operated by West Hazmat, Inc., of Sacramento,
California. The I_AR was used because of the height of the canopy above the drill location, and the
dual-walled percussion, air rotary I_AR was required due to the requirement to 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 drilling soil boring VW-ld, with groundwater encountered at 110 rog. Soil
Mr. Ray Chopra
California Department of Transportation
October 21, 2003 - Page 5
samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VVV-2 through VVV-4 due to their positioning in close
proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths.
Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 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 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg,
decreasing to 5.7 mg/kg in the soil sample collected from 65 fbg, and was not detected in the soil sample
collected at 80 fbg. However, TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 2,300 mg/kg was in the
soil sample collected at 100 fbg. Benzene was not detected in the soil samples collected at 50, 65, and
80 fbg. However, benzene was detected at a concentration of 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 IJg/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 3 for the monitoring well locations). In
order to complete the vapor extraction well field installation, HF^ recommended that the previously
approved central, shallow-zone vapor extraction well (VVV-ls) would be installed as well as central,
intermediate-zone vapor extraction well VW-li. The' CRWQCB-CVR's case review letter, dated
July 23, 2001, approved implementation of the expanded groundwater assessment plan and VES work
plan.
From October 30, 2001 through November 2, 2001, HFA drilled five soil borings with three lateral soil
borings (MW-1 through MW-3) drilled to 125 fbg and completed as groundwater monitoring wells and the
Mr. Ray Chopra
California Department of Transportation
October 21, 2003 - Page 6
two central soil borings (VW-ls and VW-li) ddlled to 35 fbg and 75 fbg, respectively, and completed as
vapor extraction wells (see Figure 3 for the well locations). Soil samples were collected at a 10-foot
interval while drilling soil borings MW-1 through MW-3, with groundwater encountered at 114 fbg.
Soil samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VW-ls and VW-li due to their positioning in
close proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths. Soils encountered during drilling included
well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and
soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a PID to the total depth of soil boring MW-l, but not in
the soil samples collected from soil borings MW-2 and MW~3. Groundwater was encountered in the soil
borings at 114 fbg. Therefore, soil borings MW-1 through MW-3 were drilled to 125 fbg and completed as
a monitoring well with 2-inch-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 rog/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg, and in 6 of the 11 soil
samples collected from soil boring MW-3, reaching a maximum concentration of 0.32 mg/kg in the soil
sample collected at 70 fbg. TBA was detected in 4 of the 11 soil samples collected from boring MW-l,
reaching a maximum concentration of 10 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 10 fbg.
On November 26, 2001, groundwater samples were collected from monitoring well MW-1 through MW-3
and VVV-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.20 to 115.15 feet
below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the
southeast. Three inches of PSH was observed in well VVV-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE
were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching maximum
concentrations of 5,300,000 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
MVV-3 and VVV-ld. The groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and VW-ld
were analyzed for physical and chemical characteristics. The results of the laboratory analysis indicated
that the groundwater beneath the site is potable.
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 constructed and
Mr. Ray Chopra
California Department of Transportation
October 21, 2003 - Page 7
the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW-li, VW-ld, VW-2, VW-3, and VW-4 were connected by
2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation equipment
compound. Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and natural gas
services. VES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. On October 10, 2002, the SJVUAPCD-CR
performed an inspection of the VES unit and observed that it was operating in accordance with the
conditions specified in the ATC.
The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 19, 2002, requested submission of a work plan to perform an
expanded groundwater assessment to assess the southeastern (downgradient) limits of
gasoline-containing groundwater at the site. CSE submitted an Expanded Groundwater Assessment
Work Plan, dated August 9, 2002, which proposed the installation of two off-site downgradient monitoring
wells MW-4 and MW-5. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated September 3, 2002 approved
implementation of the work plan with the condition that an additional off-site monitoring well (MW-6) be
constructed to the south of the site (see Figure 3 for the monitoring well locations).
From April 10 through 20, 2003, CSE installed off-site groundwater monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6
to a depth of 140 fbg completed with 40 feet of 2-inch diameter slotted PVC casing screened in the
interval ranging in depth from 100 to 140 fbg. Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded
sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1.foot in diameter. Groundwater was encountered while drilling at a
depth of approximately 120 fl0g. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE Were not detected in the soil
samples collected from soil borings MW-4 through MW-6 with the exception of TPH as gasoline and
MTBE detected at concentrations of 1.5 mg/kg and 1.6 mg/kg, respectively, in the soil samples collected
at a depth of 120 fbg in soil boring MW-5 and MTBE at a concentration of 0.28 mg/kg in the soil sample
collected at a depth of 20 fbg in soil boring MW-6.
On April 21, 2003 groundwater samples were collected from the three newly constructed wells.
TPH as gasoline was detected at concentrations of 14,000 lag/I, 47,000 lag/I, and 17,000 lag/I in the
groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, respectively. Benzene was
detected at concentrations of 830 lag/l, 3,500 lag/I, and 15 lag/I in the groundwater samples collected from
monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6,' respectively. MTBE was detected at concentrations of 31,000 lag/I,
62,000 lag/I, and 54,000 lag/I in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through
MW-6, respectively. TBA, TAME, DIPE, ETBE, 1,2-DCA, and EDB were not detected in the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6.
Based upon the laboratory analytical results, the CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 2, 2003,
requested submission of a work plan to perform an expanded groundwater assessment to assess the
southeastern (downgradient) limits of gasoline-containing groundwater at the site as well as the installation
of a deeper monitoring well to act as a "sentinel" between the petroleum release and CWSC Well No. 7.
CSE's Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan, dated July 11, 2003, proposed to drill
Mr. Ray Chopra
California Department of Transportation
October 21, 2003 - Page 8
three soil borings (MW-7 through MW-9) to a depth of approximately 140 fbg and one soil boring (MW-5d)
to a depth of approximately 170 fbg, completing the four soil borings as groundwater monitoring wells (see
Figure 2 for the proposed monitoring well locations). The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated August 13,
2003, approved implementation of the Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan, and
requested submission of a CAP Addendum for the active remediation of the gasoline-containing
groundwater (see Attachment 1).
CSE's CAP Addendum, dated August 29, 2003, recommended the installation of a fixed air sparging (AS)
system in conjunction with the operating SVE to remove the LNAPL and dissolved-phase from the
capillary fringe and upper portion of the saturated zone at the site, and pedodic overpurging of the off-site
monitoring wells to mitigate the off-site groundwater impact (see Figure 3 for the proposed air sparging
well locations). The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated September 5, 2003, did not approve
implementation of the CAP Addendum, and requested submittal of a work plan for the installation and
operation of a fixed GWPT to remediate the MTBE-containing groundwater (see Attachment1). A meeting
with the RP, consultant, and CRWQCB-CVR personnel was held on September 18, 2003, where it was
discussed that the proposed combination SVE and AS would be integrated with a GWPT to provide for
both cost effective hydrocarbon removal as well as hydraulic control.
CSE's Amendment to the CAP Addendum, dated September 24, 2003, proposed the installation of the on-
site AS; installation of an on-site groundwater extraction well (EW-1); performance of an aquifer test to
determine the optimum well field, well construction details and pumping rates; installation of additional
groundwater extraction wells, if required; and the installation of a GWPT system to provide hydraulic
control and' hydrocarbon removal simultaneous with the SVE and AS (see Figure 3 for the proposed
groundwater extraction well location). The integrated use of the SVE and AS will remove the bulk of the
hydrocarbons from the vadose and saturated zones, while the GWPT will provide hydraulic control and
additional removal of MTBE from the groundwater. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated
October 8, 2003, conditionally approved implementation of the Amendment to the CAP Addendum, with
the condition that an Air Sparging Pilot Study Work Plan be submitted to monitor the effectiveness of the
proposed AS system, and that the work plan include additional groundwater monitoring points to
determine the appropriate final design of the air sparging well field (see Attachment 1). CSE's Air
Sparging Pilot Study Work Plan, proposed to install two additional groundwater monitoring wells (MW-10
and MW-11) to be positioned immediately downgradient of the operating remediation systems at the site
(see Figures 2 and 3 for the proposed groundwater monitoring well locations).
GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN
Six groundwater monitoring wells (MW-7 through MW-11) will be drilled to a depth of 140 fbg; one
groundwater monitoring well will be drilled to a depth of 170 fbg, four air sparge wells will be drilled to a
Mr. Ray Chopra
California Department of Transportation
.... October 21, 2003 - Page 9
depth of 140 fbg; and one groundwater extraction well will be drilled to a depth of 150 fbg (see Figures 2
and 3 for the proposed well locations). Groundwater monitoring wells MW-5d and MW-10 will be drilled
on the south and north sides of 23rd Street (State Highway 178) under an encroachment permit with
California DOT; groundwater monitoring wells MW-7 and MW-8 will be drilled on the west side of M Street
under an encroachment permit with the City of Bakersfield Department of Public Works (BDPW);
groundwater monitoring wells MVV-9 and MVV-11 will be drilled on the west side of L Street under an
encroachment permit with BDPW; and air sparge wells SW-1 through SW-4 and groundwater extraction
well EVV-1 will be drilled on the subject service station property.
Drilling will be accomplished with a truck-mounted, dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig. Soil samples
will be collected at 20-foot intervals beginning at a depth of 20 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 will be installed in accordance with CRWQCB-CVR specifications, and 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. Wells MVV-7 through MW-11 will
be drilled to a depth of approximately 140 fbg and installed with 40 feet of 2-inch diameter slotted PVC
casing; well MW-5d will be drilled to a depth of approximately 170 fbg and installed with 10 feet of 2-inch
diameter slotted PVC casing, air sparge wells SW-1 through SW-4 will be drilled to a depth of
approximately 140 fbg and installed with 5 feet of 2-inch diameter slotted PVC casing; and groundwater
extraction well EW-1 will be drilled to a depth of approximately 150 fbg and installed with 40 feet of 6-inch
diameter slotted PVC casing. Blank PVC casing 'packed in neat cement grout will extend from the surface
downward to the 3-foot bentonite seals placed above the filter pack. Locking, water-tight 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
(DOT)-approved drums, and will be disposed of at an appropriate, off-site licensed disposal/recycling
facility.
Mr. Ray Chopra
California Department of Transportation
October 21, 2003 - Page 10
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 proposed monitoring
wells. Monitoring well MW-5d is proposed to be positioned approximately 8 feet from the edge of the
pavement within the earthen shoulder on the southern side of 23rd Street, 40 feet east of L Street and
monitoring well MW-10 is proposed to be positioned approximately 6 feet from the edge of the pavement
within the sidewalk on the northern side of 23rd Street, 70 feet west of L Street (see Figures 2 and 3).
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 flagger(s) to stop and warn conventional highway
traffic. Traffic shall not be unreasonably delayed. Flagging procedures shall be in conformance with the
"Instructions to Flaggers" pamphlet and/or "Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance
Work Zones" issued by California DOT (see Attachment 4).
Mr. Ray Chopra
Califomia Department of Transportation
October 21, 2003 - Page 11
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 2376 in the amount of
$320.00 are included as Attachments 5 and 6 of this Traffic Control Plan.
Mr. Ray Chopra
California Department of Transportation
October 21, 2003 - Page 12
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,
Mark R. Mag~
Consulting Hydrogeologist
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC.
MRM:jlt
Enclosures:
Figure 1
Figure 2
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Site Location Map
Plot Plan
- 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 2376
Mr. Tim Sullivan, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR
Mr. Howard H. Wines, III, BFDESD
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY. LLC
o.s ~.,~ ~ DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
~,~ I ~LOMETER FIGURE I - SITE LOCATION MAP
USGS ~L~E 7.5 MINCE SEINES Q~D~NG~I ~ CENT~L S IER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
CAN OPY-~-~.
APPROACH
MINI MART
~ DISPE~ISLANDS
B-3
DISPENSE~ ISLANDS
EXPLORATORY
B-5 ~/_-4TRENCH
~( LOCATION
MW-lO PLANTER
SIDEWALK
TREA~ENT
PROPOSED
GASOLINE UST
SPET-CHAMBERED
GASOLINE UST
23RD STREET
MW-6
SIDEWALK
LEGEND
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL
SOIL BORING
YES PIPING
[] FILL END
o TURBINE END
-~ PROPOSED GROUNDWATER
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WELL LOCATION
PROPOSED AIR SPARGE WELL LOCATION
REVISION DATE:OCTOBER 20, 2003: jlt
SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
ATTACHMENT 1.
CRWQCB-CVR CORRESPONDENCE
,'Sent By: HP Laser Jet 3100;
5594455910; 0ct-9-03 9:05AMi
Page 2
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Office'
h~tcn',..~ Addre~,~: http'Jl~vw.swmh.ca.gov/~twqcb5
16~15 E Street. Fcesno, California 93706-202.0
Phone ($59) adS-$116 * FAJ{ (559) n45-59 [0
.Gray Davis
October 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. Thnothy P. Sullivan, President
Sullivan's Pen'oleum Company, LLC
1508. 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 9330 [
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DO WNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L " STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You submitted Amendment To The Corrective Action Plan Addendum For The Sullivan Petroleum
Company, LLC... (Amendment) dated 24 September 2003 and prepared by Centr,-'d Sierra
Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). We requested that you submit the Amendment by our letter dated
5 September 2003 and at a mccting with Sullivan's Petrolemn Company, LLC (Sullivan's) and CSE on
18 September 2003. At the meeting all parties agreed that an air sparging (AS) system could be operated
concun-ent with groundwater pump and treat (GF'r). We request that you evaluate both AS and GVr
prior to final remediation sy.qtem design. The Amendment proposes AS systcm in.st',.dlation and
operation, grmmdwater extraction well installation, and aquifer test procedures. The proposed AS
system is inadequate to treat the entire area of impacted groundwater. However, we conditionally
approve the proposed AS system for pilot testing. Submit a brief Addendum proposing pilot test
procedures and a system to monitor the AS effectiveness. Wc also conditionally approve the proposed
groundwater extraction well and aquifer test. Submit a report summarizing extraction well installation,
the aquifer test, and GPT system design. A summary of the Amendment and our comments follow.
Amendment Summary
CSE proposes AS system operation concurrent with the operating SVE system to remove gasoline
constituents from the vadose and saturated zones. CSE also proposes GPT to provide hydraulic control
and remove gasoline constituents, especially methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), from the saturated
zone.
CSE will install four air AS wells (SW4 through SW-4) in positions ai-ound the release point and at
distances of approximately 40 feet apart. CSE assumes a radius of sparge influence (ROI) of 20 fee[
based on a 45-degree cone of aeration from a sparge points approximately 10 to I5 feet below, the water
table (125 to 130 feet below ground surface (bgs) in sand and gravel. SW-I through sW-4 will be
installed as standard-construction sparge wells using a five-foot section of 2-inch 0.020-inch slotted
PVC ca~ing and a 5-foot blank section at the well bottom as a sediment trap. The wells will be
California Environmental Protection Agency
· ~ Reryc't~d Paper
Sent ~y: HP LaserJet 3100; 5594455910; Oct-g-03 g:O6AM; . Page 316
Mr. Timothy P. Sullivan
- 2 - 8 October 2003
connected to a m,'mifotd by underground piping. CSE estimates that an injection pressure of 90 inches
of water will be necessary and will be provided by a dedicated two-cycle oil-less compressor.
CSE will install groundwater extraction well EW-1 approximately 30 feet downgradient of thc release
point. EW-1 will be constructed as a 6-inch diameter well .~crecned from 100 to 140 feet bgs with O.02-
tach slotted PVC casing and a lC-foot section of blank ca~ing as a sediment trap.
CSE will conduct an aquifer test to determine aquifer chm'acterisfics and provide data for the final pump
and treat remediation system design. Groundwater will be extracted at EW-1 and monitoring wells VW-
1D and MW-I through MW-6 will be used as observation wells. Test equipment includes pressure
transducers and a multichannel data logger, an electric downhole pump, and water level inchcators.
Pumpage will be, temporarily stored in a 4,000-gallon capacity tank prior profiling and disposal.
CSE will conduct a 1-hour trend test to establish a baseline and identify outside influences affecting the
te,~ t.
A step-drawdown test will be ased to select pumpJ, ng rate. EW-1 will be pumped at three successively
higher rates f()r at least 15 minutes each.
Following The step-drawdown test, EW-I will be pumped at a constant-rate ~br 3 to 6 hours (180 to 360
minutes) followed by a 2-hour recovery test.
CSE will determine extraction well field design based on aquifer test results. Submersible pumps will
he i. nsta/led in thc extraction wells and connected to a collection manifold by underground piping,
Pollutants will be removed from extracted groundwater by an air stripper with a capacity based
combined well field flow rate design. A maximum flow rate of up to 20 gallons per minute is
anticipated. Att stripper effiuent will be pumpe~ through a c~trbo~l filrxation treatment system consisting
of ti'ti'er l,tK)O-pound capacity granular activated c',u'bon (GAC) vessels. Treated effluent will be
discharged into thc City of Bakersfield sewer or storm drain under appropriate permits. Effluent a/rflow
from the air stripper will be connected to the soiJ vapor extraction (SVE) aystem collection manifold for
destruction by the thermal/cat~dytic oxidizer.
CSE will submit quarterly groundwater and remedtation system monitoring reports.
Commellt5
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have thc following comments:
Duri. nga meeting on 18 September 2003, we emphasized ~e ~evefity of the groundwater impact cau.~ed
by tl~e UST system release from your site and the close downgradient proximity of Califomia War. er
Service Company wells No.7 and 64. We reiterated our request that you capture and treat the
groundwater plume using OPT. Ail parties agreed that GPT would be implemented based on the results
of aquifer testing and that AS could also be conducted. We requested that you submit a work plan for
installation of a groundwater extraction well and an aquifer test. We proposed that remedial options be
reevaluated prior to final GPT system deployment.
Our review of the proposed AS system indicates that the system is inadequate to remecliam impacted.
groundwater. Four Afl wells installed in the southeast comer of the site will sparge 0~y a small central
V::UGT~PmjectsklDW_file.~',2003 Con'e~pondenc~\Cit:y of Bak~ld Caa,~..~o,~nlnwn Ch,l'~ron E~c~'acrW~.ll WP 943.do~
· Sent By: HP LaserJet 3100; 5594455910; 0ct-9-03 9:06AM; Page 4/6
Mr. Timothy P, Sullivan
3 8 October 2003
section at the head of the plume. We anticipate that offset double lines of AS wells installed across the
entire plume width along both 23~a and "L" Streets would be required. The present UST system and '
canopy limit AS installation in the inmaediate release area. We request that you install and operate the
proposed AS wells SW-I through $W-4 ns a pilot test system.
The existing monitoring network is inadequate to ev',duate the AS pilot test system since n9 monitoring
wells exist in close proximity to the system downgradient and cross gradient. We request that yon
submit a work plan to complete the monitoring system and proposing pilot test procedures. Submit thc
work plan by 10 November 2003,
We note that the sparging points will be installed 10 to 15 feet below the water table. CSE assumes an
ROI of 20 feet based on a 45-degree cone of aeration. Baxed on this model, the ROI would be less th,-m
20 feet. We request that you install the sparge points at least 15 to 20 feet below the water table to have
a better chax~ce of achieving thc assumed ROI. Based on conventional AS system design, the top of the
spat'ge well screen would be placed 5 feet below the bottom of lhe polluted groundwater. However, the
depth of po[luted groundwater is unknown at this site.
Contract us by 10 December 200'3 to provide a progress update concerning ti~e pilot test. Submit a
system installation aport and pilot test data by 18 February 2004.
Wc approve thc installation of groundwater extraction well EW-I and the proposed aquifer test. Install
EW, 1 by 31. December 2{103. Submit thc results o~'the aquifer test find the final GlYr system design by
18 February 2004.
Water levels in thc. pumping ru~d observation wells should be measured severat days prior to the test u)
account for variability. We do not recommend that the test be conducted a~'ter a period of heavy rainfall.
The step-drawd{~wn test should be peffornmd by pumping at each rate for at least otto hour or until water
levels have ~tabilized. Water levels should be allowed to recover for at least one hour or until
stabilization prior to the step and constant-rate tests.
The constant-rate test may require more than 3 to 6 hours. However, we recognize that test duration will
be influenced by time and logistics constraints. We recommend that timc-versus-drawdown plots be
prepared on a semi-log scale during the test and that the test continue until a well-def'med straight-line
trend is plotted.
Sections 2729 and 2729. l for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the California (:ode of
Regulations requixing you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Required. Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data S,(bmitta[? to Regulating
Agencies explaining how to obtain 'information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z Fries), depth-to-water measurements (OEiO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEe_MAP files).
'Sent By: HP LaserJet. 3100; 5594455910; 0ct-9-03 9:07AM; Page 5/6
{vD:. Timmhy P, Sullivan
- 4 - 80ctoher 2003
We request that you or yeur consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork, it' you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
JOHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Elicit}sure: Required Electronic Dc, llvcrabte Format For Laboratory and Sire Data St~bmirtal$...
Mr. Howard Wines '[1~, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Clemmp Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, vd enclosure
File L~STlKern/Che~ren Stalion.t2317 L Street, 10akelsfi=ld/ST150tYd836
V:~.UCiT~'o.~ec~JOWj1.lc,~\2OO3 Cen'c~p~tdence\City of B~:er~field Ca~csU:)awmo.wn Chevron Ex~r4ctWall WP 9-U3.doc
SEP-08-2003 11:44
Sullivan Petco]eum
P.02
0 California RegionalcentralWatervalleyQU.alityll g, on Control Board
Robert Schue~d~r, Chair
Winston H. Flickox ..... Gray Davis
Secrcta~'far Fresno Branch Office Govtrnnr
Eltvlromnental lnt,-rra:t Address: http://www, awrcb.ca, govl-r~qch5
Prnteatinn 1685 E Stnx:t. t'¥canu, California 93706-Z020
Phol~ (559) 445.5[ 16 · FAX (559) 445-5910
5 September 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. David Bird
Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18m Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 23 I7 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You subn'dtted Corrective Action Plan Addendum (CAP Addendum) dated 29 August 2003 and prepared
by Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). The CAP evaluates remedial alternatives and
proposes on-site air sparging (AS) and overpurging of monitoring wells off-site to remediate POlluted
groundwater resulting from an on-site underground storage tank (UST) system release. We requested
that you submit a CAP Addendum for groundwater by our letter dated 2 July 2003. We do not approve
the CAP Addendum. Our letter requested that you design a remediation system to prevent thc spread of
impacted groundwater and remove the high petroleum constituent concentrations by the "pump and.
treat" method. We consider this method necessary due to the high methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
concentrations present on-site and off-site and the proximity of two municipal wells. We request that
you submit a work plan proposing a "pump ,and treat system" and provide more information concerning
off-site access. A summary of the CAP Addendum and our comments follow.
Work Plan Summary
CSE evaluated the feasibility of groundwater pump and treat, in-situ bioremediation, in-situ subsurface
air sparging, and dual phase extraction. CSE did not consider in-sku bioremediation to be feasible or
cost effective. Pump and treat was considered to be feasible, but not cost effective. In-situ air sparging
~md dual phase extraction were considered feasible and cost effective. CSE recommends in-situ ah'
sparging on-site in combination with the operatiog soil vapor extraction (SVE) system to remove
floating petroleum product and dissolved phase gasoline constituents from the capillary fringe and upper
saturated zone. Fixed remediation systems and piping is not feasible since off-site access beneath State
Highway 178 and other properties will not be available. Therefore, CSE recommends remediation of
impacted groundwater off-site by periodic overpurging of the monitoring wells.
CSE proposes to install four AS wells (SW-I through SW4) to a depth 10 to 15 feet below the water
table (125 to 130 feet below ground surface (bgs)). Five-foot sections o~ 2-inch diameter casing with
0.020-inch slots will be utilized a.s sparge points. Five-foot sections of blank casing will be installed
California Environmental .Protection Agency
~n~ Re¢3rltd Papar
SEP-08-2003 11:44 Sul I ivan Petroleum P.03
Mr. David Bird - 2 - 5 September 2003
beneath the sparge points ,as sediment traps. CSE assumes a design radius of sparging influence (ROI)
of 20 feet using ,an injection pressure of 90 inches of water (ins-water) and a flow rate of :5 standard
cubic feet per minute (scfm). Thc air sparge wells will be connected to a manifold and compressor by
underground hoses.
CSE will monitor and evaluate system effectiveness during operation, conduct quarterly groundwater
monitoring for one year after soil and groundwater remediation is completed. CSE will subnfit quarterly
monitoring and remediation system progress reports.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the tbllowing comments:
Our letter dated 2 Inly 2003 indicated that you would need to design, install, and operate a groundwater
remediation system to prevent the spread of impacted groundwater ,and remove the high petroleum
constituent concentrations by the "pump and treat" method. The CAP Addendum does not propose such
a system. We do not approve the CAP Addendum.
Our letter emphasized that the gasoline release fi'om your site is a serious threat to water resources in the
area. MTBE in groundwater may be transported greater distances away from the release point than other
gasoline constituents due to its relatively high solubility and low adsorption to soils. Floating gasoline
has persisted in on-site monitoring well MW'-I and MTBE concentrations from 31,000 to 62,000 ggFL
were detected in the recently installed off-site wells MW4 through M3At-6 during the 21 April 2003
monitoring event. The extent of impacted groundwater is undefined. MTBE and other g&soline
constituents are being transported in a highly transmissive aquifer toward California Water Service
Company (CWS) Well Station #7, approximately 1,000 away from the site. Gasoline constituents,
including MTBE, have not been detected in #7. However, MTBE has been detected at up to 12.3 gg/L
in samples collected from CWS well station #64-01, approximately 2,400 feet southeast of the site,
causing this well to be placed on inactive status. The release from your site is a potential source for this
impact. We do not consider the proposed system adequate to prevent. MTBE t'rom reaching CWS #7.
We recognize that the "pump and treat" method may be costly and requires implementation ,and
permitting of wa.stewater discharge. 'However, we consider the potential threat caused by the release to
wzcr'rant this method. Continuous pumping of groundwater will create a hydrologic barrier for migration
of impacted groundwater away from the source. Air sparging ~d/or periodic pumping of groundwater
do not provide the same level of control that is provided by continuous groundwater pumping. A
remediation system that combines sp~ging ,and periodic pumping with a pump and treat system could be
considered.
The CAP Addendum states that access for connection of off-site rcmcdiation facilities will not be
available. The CAP addendum does not indicate that CSE has attempted, unsuccessfully, to gain access.
We request that CSE contact us by 25 September 2003 with additional information concerning their
attempts to gain access. Our reconnaissance revealed several properties suitable for off-site groundwater
extraction and tt'eatmertt facilities south of State Highway 178.
'We request that you submit a work plan for "pump and treat" groundwater remediation by 15 October
2003. Groundwater extraction points should be proposed both on-site and off-site. If your consultant
· V:[UO"P. Projc. cm~JOW_fil¢q~003 Corm.npond~nce\City of Flakcr~field Can,,n~l'~wntown Chevron GWCAP 94)3.doc
SEP-08-2003 11:45 Sullivan Petroleum P.04
Mr. David Bird - 3 - 5 September 2003
h,xs determined that oft-site access or wastewater discharge is not feasible, we request that they contact
us by 25 September 2003.
Sections 2729 ~md 2729. I for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the California Code of
Regulations requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Required Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Agencies explaining bow to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
.letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic subtnittals
shoutd include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various [tie names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP files).
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have ,'my questions regarding this correspondence, please contact mc at (559) 445-5504.
J'OHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory a~ul Site Data Submittals...
CC:
Mr. Howard Wines Il!, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barb~a Rempel. SWRCB, UST Cie~mup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File: UST/Kcm/Chcvron Station/2317 L Street, Bakersfi¢ld/5T15000836
V:%UGlhProj~JOWJ'des~003 Cc~ms~J,c~C/O' of Bakor~tield Cn.'~s~I)ow~lown Cl~ovmn GWCAP
Winston H. Hickox
Secretary for
Environmental
Protection
California
Regional Water Quality
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Office
Interact Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/-rwqcb5
1685 E Street, Fresno. California 93706-2020
Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-59 t0
Control Board
Gray Davis
2 September 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. David Bird
Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18tt~ Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You submitted Second Quarter 2003 Progress Report (Report) dated 22 August 2003 and prepared by
Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). The Report documents a groundwater monitoring
event performed on 21 April 2003 and summarizes soil vapor extraction (SVE) remediation system
performance from startup on 8 October 2002 until 25 June 2003. Although influent concentrations
decreased during the second quarter, the SVE system continues to remove hydrocarbons from subsurface
soil at a steady, relatively high rate. The initial sampling of new off-site wells indicates that a relatively
large plume of gasoline constituents, including the fuel oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
extends an undetermined distance toward a municipal well. We request that SVE system operation and
quarterly groundwater monitoring continue with a reduced analytical program. We reiterate our request
that you submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for groundwater and an installation report for additional
off-site monitoring wells. Summaries of the Report and our comments follow.
Report Sumr~arv
Groundwater Monitoring
CSE conducted the second quarter 2003 groundwater monitoring event on 21 April 2003. Results of the
monitoring event were previously summarized in CSE.'s Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report dated
6 June 2003. Groundwater flow direction was calculated to be toward the southeast with a water table
slope of 0.015 feet per foot. CSE measured 0.13 feet of floating petroleum product in soil vapor
extraction well VW-ld. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g), benzene, and MTBE
concentrations up to 2,500 and 59,000 micrograms per liter (g~_.) were detected in samples from on-site
monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3. TPH-g, benzene, and MTBE concentrations up to 47,000,
3,500, and 62,000 godL were detected in newly installed off-site wells MW-4 through MW-6.
California Environmental Protection Agency . .
0 geO~.led l~aptr
Mr. David Bird - 2 -
2 September 2003
Remediation System Performance
CSE began operating the SVE system on 8 October 2002. The system has operated continuously during
the second quarter 2003 except for short periods of planned inactivity during maintenance, draining the
knockout pot, and for approximately 72 hours prior to groundwater monitoring events.
The SVE system operated during the second quarter 2003 in thermal mode with measured oxidizer
temperatures ranging from 1435 to 1490 degrees Fahrenheit and inlet airflow rates from 205 to 255
standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). SVE well V-id was operated open during the second quarter.
SVE wells MW-1 and V-IS were operated partially open. The other SVE wells were operated during
alternative three-week periods. The air dilution valve remained partially open during the second quarter.
Field influent TPH-g measurements decreased from 10,125 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at the
beginning of the second quarter to 3,800 ppmv at the end of the quarter. CSE calculated that
approximately 31,000 pounds of hydrocarbons were removed during the second quarter 2003. Since
SVE operation began, a calculated cumulative total of approximately 94,700 pounds were removed.
During the third quarter 2003, CSE will conduct quarterly groundwater monitoring, continue SVE
system operation, and install additional off-site monitoring wells.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
Monitoring data from new monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6 indicate that a relatively large plume
of impacted groundwater with TPH-g, benzene, and MTBE concentrations extends an undetermined
distance southeast of the site. MTBE in groundwater may be transported greater distances away from
the release point than other gasoline constituents due to its high solubility and relatively low adsorption.
The release from your site is a serious threat to water resources in the area. A municipal water supply
well is approximately 1,000 feet downgradient of the site.
We have previously requested that you expedite soil remediation to minimize the migration and spread
of gasoline and MTBE in groundwater and potential impacts to the municipal well. An SVE
remediation system has operated on-site since 8 October 2002. Based on data included in the report,
SVE system influent vapor concentrations decreased during the second quarter, but hydrocarbon removal
rates have remained relatively high. The cumulative weight of removed hydrocarbons continues to
increase at a steady rate. We request that remediation'cOntinue in thermal mode.
Groundwater monitoring should be continued on a quarterly schedule. Groundwater samples should be
analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, and BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME by
EPA Method 8260. By our letter dated 11 December 2003 we requested that you include analysis for the
VOCs usually reported in a full EPA Method 8260 analysis (usually 63 to 67 compounds) one additional
quarter. You conducted this analysis during the second quarter. This analysis may be discontinued.
Please submit a groundwater monitoring and SVE progress report for the third quarter 2003 monitoring
event by 3 November 2003.
Mr. David Bird ' - 3 -
2 September 2003
The lateral extent of impacted groundwater is undefined. By our letter dated 13 August, we approved
the installation of the additional off-site monitoring wells proposed in CSE's Expanded Off-Site
Assessment Work Plan dated 5 August 2003. We requested that you submit a well installation report by
15 December 2003. We also requested by our letter dated 2 July 2003 that you submit a Corrective
Action Plan for groundwat6r remediation by 2 September 2003.
Sections 2729 and 2729. l for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the California Code of
Regulations requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Required Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Agencies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (OEO_WELL
files), and site maps (OEO_MAP flies).
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork.
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
JOHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
If you
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals...
CC:
Mr. Howard Wines l]l, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File: UST/Kern/Chevron Station/2317 L Street, Bakersfield/ST15000836
V:[U~jects~JDW_flles~2003 Corre~pondenco[Clty of Bakersfield C. ases~Downtown Chevron OW 8-03.doe
Winston H. Hickox
Secretary.for
Envir, nmental
Protectitm
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Office
Internet Address: http:t/www.swrcb.ca.gov/-rwqcb5
1685 E Street, Fresno, California 93706-2020
Phone (559} 445-5[ t6 · FAX (559) 445-5910
Gray Davis
Governor
13 August 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. David Bird
Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You submitted Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan At The Sullivan Petroleum
Company (Work Plan) dated 5 August 2003 and prepared by Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield
(CSE). The Work Plan proposes to install three shallow monitoring wells and one deep off-site
monitoring well to determine the extent of gasoline constituents in groundwater at the above referenced
site. We approve the monitoring well placements and construction proposed in the Work Plan. The
deep monitoring well should be constructed to allow use as a groundwater extraction point. We request
that you expedite monitoring well installation and submit a corrective action plan (CAP) addendum for
groundwater remediation. A summary of the Work Plan and our comments follow.
Work Plan Summary
CSE proposes to install monitoring well MW-8 at the intersection of 22nd and "M" Streets,
approximately 600 feet southeast of the site to determine the downgradient extent of impacted
groundwater. MW-7 and MW-8 will be installed at the intersection of 23*'~ and "M" Streets, and at the
intersection of 22~d and "L" Streets, respectively, to determine the lateral extent of impacted
groundwater east and south of the site, respectively. MW-7 through MW-9 will be standard construction
two-inch diameter wells screened from approximately.100 to 140 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Depth-to-groundwater was measured at approximately 115 feet during the April 2003 monitoring event.
Deep monitoring well MW-5d will be installed near shallow well MW-5 at the southeast corner of 23a
and "L" Streets to determine the vertical extent of impacted groundwater. MW-5 is approximately 150
feet downgradient of the release point. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), benzene, and
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) concentrations of 47,000, 3,500, and 62,000 micrograms per liter
(gg/L) were detected in MW-5 during the April 2003 monitoring event. MW-5d will ben standard-
construction two-inch well screened from 160 to 170 feet bgs.
California Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. David Bird - 2 - 13 August 2003' '
CSE will begin work 45 days after the Regional Board accepts the Work Plan and the necessary permits
have been secured. CSE will submit an Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report
approximately 60 days after fieldwork.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
We conditionally approve the proposed shallow and deep monitoring well placements and construction.
Please submit a well installation report by 15 December 2003.
Since deep well MW-5d is to be placed nearest the head of the plume in an area of high pollutant
concentrations, we request that MW-5d be completed as a potential groundwater extraction point.
MW-5 should be constructed as a four-inch well with a subsurface piping connection.
The proposed wells should be included in the monitoring network. Quarterly groundwater monitoring
should be continued. Groundwater samples should be analyzed for TPHg, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA), di-isopropyl ether (DIPE), ethyl
tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME).
Our letter dated 2 July 2003 emphasized that your site is a serious threat to water resources. We
indicated that you will need to design, install, and operate a groundwater remediation system to prevent
the spread of impacted groundwater and remove the high petroleum constituent concentrations by the
"pump and treat" method. We also requested that you submit a Corrective Action Plan Addendum for
the remediation system by 2 September 2003.
Sections 2729 and 2729. t 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 Forraat for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Agendies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP files).
V:~UG'~Project~UDW. flle~003 Con~,~pondence\Ci~y of Bakersfield Cas~)owntown Che~won MW W~ 8-03.doc
Mr:.David Bird
- 3 - 13 August.,2003
Werequest ttiat you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwo~. If you
have any questig~s?regardin~g this gorrespondence, please contact me at (559) 445~550~.
Engining. Geologist
RiG...No:
For Laboratory and Sit} Data ~'' '
':t~:~ ~ .:..=~;':~!i2'~'~:'~¢s m, ci~.~:;of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersheld, w/o eeiC~;!.¥.-u~-e~ "
/);'N:,B'¢g~a Re~BpeI,., SWR1ZB, UST Cte..an~p Fund, Sacrameh{0', w/o encl S~irel;':''';I . ~'.~
,~:. ,Mr: .~¢Srk. Mag~,e, £e!l'tral Sierra ErlWironmental, Bakersfield, w/enclos~.::.~'~ ~''
: ~e. t, ~T/,~ec~>~Cheag~.:0,t:.atat on/23:I"7 L Street Bak.'.drSfield/STi 500083.6~:
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 s stem-and scam::~a~3cLpatchesjn-pavement~are-noted~-~-T~he
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 I~cations within the cdtical zone are avoided
if possible. Notifications are made'at least 2 weeks in advance of ddlling 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 pdor 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 backfllled.
The minimum hole clearance depths are 4 feet below grade (fog) outside the cdtical zone and 8 fl0g within
the cdtical 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 I 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 Bodng 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 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 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 inve,stigation or using
an air knife or water knife. If subsurface (~0nditions 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 ddve 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-p, hosphate
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 photoionizatJon detector calibrated to 100 parts per million by volume
isobutylene. Any soil staining or discoloration is visually identified. Soils are classified according to the
· ' ~-. ' ' - ---~'~'""'; i~ -- - · --'~ -
-~:Unlfie~So~ ...... ass~ficatioP,_~tem ~. ..... fic-geoiog._ _~~~ .ferma~ ...................
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-cjallon, 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 bodng 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 bodng;
· 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 propedy abandoned or completed as a well.
Abandonment
Each soil boring that is not completed as a well is backfilled with bentonite grout, neat cement, concrete,.
...... o,~e~::~li~s-w,u~-a=permeaSiht~les~--th~n that bf th~sb-h~0uhdihg'-Stills, -and~or S0il Cu~r~s~~'-
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 (:t: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. Th~ 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 ddlling on concrete, a 2 x 2-foot square is
sawcut. The well cover is traffic-rated and has a white lid with a black tdangle 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 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 bodngs is summarized and analyzed. A narrative summary of the soil
characteristics is also presented. The soil boring logs are checked for the following information:
· correlation of stratigraphic units among borings;
· identification of zones of potentially high hydraulic conductivity;
· identification of the confining layer;
· indication of unusual/unpredicted geologic features (fault zones, fracture traces, facies changes,
solution channels, buded stream deposits, cross-cutting structures, pinchout zones, etc.); and
· continuity of petrographic features such as sorting, grain-size distribution, cementation, etc.
Soil boring/well locations are plotted on a properly scaled map. If appropriate, soil stratigraphy of the site
is presented in a scaled cross section. Specific features that may impact contaminant migration, e.g.,
fault zones or impermeable layers, are discussed in narrative form and supplemented with graphical
presentations as deemed appropriate.
REVISED 3/29102
ATTACHMENT 3.
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
Sullivans Petroleum Company, LLC
Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
Proposed
Mark R. MaRarqee CHG, RG
Well No. MW-5d
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
WELL CASING
GRAVEL PACK
SCREEN
Elevation of refrence point
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth of top of gravel pack
type of gravel pack
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
depth of well
diameter of borehole
depth of borehole
-404 feet
2 fbq
Concrete
150 f~et
Cement Grout
3 feet
Bentonite chips
2 inches
Schedua140 PVC
155 fbq
#3 Monterey Sand
-115 fbq
160 fb,q
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
170 fbcj
8 inches
170 fl~
BO'I-rOM WELL CAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862
1400 Easton Drive, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Sullivans Petroleum Company, LLC
Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
Proposed
Mark R, Maqarqee CHG, RG
Well No.
MW-lO and MW-11
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
WELL CASING
GRAVEL PACK
GROUNDWATER
SCREEN
BOTTOM WELL CAP
Elevation of refrence point
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth, of top of gravel pack
type of gravel pack
depth o1' groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
depth of well
diameter of borehole
depth of borehole
~404 feet
2 fbq
Concrete
90 feel;
Cement Grout
3 feet
Bentonite chips
2 inches
Schedua140 PVC
95 fbq
#3 Monterey Sand
-115 fbq
100 fbg
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
140 flg~]
8 inches
140 fb~]
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862
1400 Easton Drive, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
AIR SPARGE WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC.
Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
Proposed
Mark R. MaqarRee CHG, RG
Well No. SW-1 thru SW-4
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
~ LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
~ WELL CASING
GROUNDWATER
SCREEN
BOTTOM WELL CAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 3254862
Elevation of refrence point -404 feet
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top of gravel pack
type of gravel pack
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
depth of bottom of screen
depth of well
diameter of borehole
depth of borehole
2 fb.q
Concrete
2 feet
Cement Grout
123 feet
Bentonite chips
2 inches
Schedua140 PVC
-115 fb.g
127 rog
#3 Sand
130 fbg
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
135 roa
140 rog
8 5/8 inches
140 fl~
1400 Easton Drive, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
GROUNDWATER.EXTRACTION WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC.
Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
...Proposed
Mark R. Maqar,qee CHG, RG
Well No.
EW-1
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
WELL CASING
GROUNDWATER
SCREEN
BOTTOM WELL CAP
Elevation of refrence point
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top of gravel pack
type of gravel pack
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
depth of bottom of screen
depth of well
diameter of borehole
depth of borehole
-404 feet
2 fb,q
Concrete
90 feet
Cement Grout
3 feet
Bentonite chips
6 inches
Schedua140 PVC
-115 fbg
95 fbg
#3 Sand
100 fbg
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
140 fl;)q
150 fbg
12 inches
150 ~
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862
1400 Easton Ddve, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
ATTACHMENT 4.
CALIFORNIA DOT TRAFFIC CONTROL EXHIBITS
· * * ' ' T ' '
SHOULDER CLOSURE
AT ENTRANCE RAMP
i~l
I¢1
TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM FOR LANE CLOSURE
ON FREEWAYS AND EXPRESSWAYS
MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS I ,,T: lO
TYPICAL LANE CLOSURE
tfGflO
TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM FOR LANE CLOSURE
ON MULTILANE CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAYS
MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS ] ' T' i ~
TYPICAL LANE CLOSURE WITH REVERSIBLE CONTROL
/ icl
,I
t ~l,,ice C~ "LANE CA.O$(O" ig~ q,-,
"IRAFflC 17.0~IRO[- w~dl FOR
·
IIII I
TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM FOR LANE CLOSURE
ON TWO LANE CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAYS
MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS F T- 13
TYPICAL RAMP CLOSURES
Clt
(,.,..,~. /~_ ,~..,~.
~ ~ EXIT RAMP OR CONNECTOR
.~. ~} '~' ~,. ~)
,,,
RAMP
NOTES:
~ ~ ~1~ ~ hiv~ I~) ~"a 24' ~
....... .~ ..,,~ ,q ENTRANCE RAMP '~,
DETAILS FOR RAMP CLOSURES
MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS I, T-14 ,
· /
/·
SIXTH EOITION
APPROVED AND ENOOFISED B Y
F~sStute Ot
~ath>n Englne¢~s American Public W~ks
IT Y
RAFFIC
NGINEERS
Work Area Trallic Control Handbook
Work Area Traffic Control Handbook
PREFACE TO 1985 SIXTH EDITION
enOo, seo by APWA. 17[ and CTE.
Naming ¢onla~ned m Ih~i hind=i il Inlend~ Io eSl~blis~ o~ cteale a legal
SO,ell lot I~o put.Se el inlOt~aho~ InO guiUan~.
?
9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
In,oOuCi~on ......... : ....................................................... .
Gen¢litl Inlormahon ............................................................... 1
Aulrlotd)' I
ReSDOns~bddy ................................................................. 1/2
P:3~n'~0 ....... '
TemDo~'.:31'y Ttalhc Lanes .......................................................... 3
CbnltOl. Warning and Gmdance Devices ...............................
~- 5Y~,m~,nl $1rlpmg,'t4ai'kln~ ..................................................... §/~
Dr;Og,r.g el Ezcav,3hOnS ..........................................................
D ooesln,'ln TralhC ...........................................................
;*:aOOO~ COnlloI .......................................................... 10
COn$1~uCl~On $~gns ........................................ . .............. I 1/1~
· ,'la,c. ng S~gns ....................................................... 17119
~equ~a~ory Signs ............................................................. 20/21
Oehnealo~s
..................................................................... 22/23
I]amcades ...................................................................... 24
Plalo 8ridging ............................................................... 25
In$.u¢liOnS IO Flaggers ...................................................
t,fl~0~ WOrk .............. 28/2g
;°/oil Area in Parking Lane or Shoulde~ ........................ 30
~','o,~, Area m Cenler O1 Sl~eel ........................................ 31
C~o;,ng el R~gnl Lane ..................................................... 32/33
?,ca,ag o! LeU Lane ..................................................... 34135
'_h3$~ng el iVhdole Lane ................................................... 36/37
.., .'.,$,n0 el Mall Roaoway ................................................ 38139
'. ~Gs,n~ el LoCal $1teel .................................................. 40/4! .
rq~o0$1nan ConlrOI . .......................................... 42/43
.',..:.fi ~e¥ond Inl{l'$eehon .......................................... 44/47
,°,:,', ,';;Ir~m Inlo~Sechon ............................................. 48
1 ,-- INTRODUCTION-
']'he purlm~ Ar Lhl~ ~mmtm) ii Ln sec forth the ba.~i¢ princildeS
llllll rccmnmcnd~l .~n(Innl~ ~ ~ nh~rved hy nil thane win,
I~rrorm work in a public ~LreeC tn limvide ~:tfe and e~t~tivu wnrk
ltre~% nmi ~ w~m, conL~l, i)ro~c[ nmi eXl~dite velfieulur nmi
I~le~Lriun Lmrfie.
2 -- GENERAL INFORMATION
Proper traffic conLrol I.ochniques shall I~ efrectively utilir, t.d
I. l{educe ncchlenL~.
2. Minimize Injury l.o wnrkers and tho public,
.2. Reduce damage tn In'ivnte nmi public iwnpc.'l't¥, inch.li.n~
dalll;ige Lo the conaLructton projvct nmi cmlstru¢l, ien equipment.
4. Minhnir. u Lhe po..~,dbiliLy of cl.'tiros and liLi~aLion arisin~
frolll ¢onstrucLion ~on~
5. Reduce conl'usion t~ moLorisL~.
{;. Expedite Lmffi~ flow.
7. Improve Imhll¢ relal, iun,,~.
In order l.o a&~uru driver unden~tandinll or traffic devlee.~ in
work nre:t.~ il. I~ neee~ary l.n ~l.:lmhmluriz(? tho tYl~ alul Idncr.
merit of .~iKns, barricuiIca und delin~at,r~. Nntionwlde ~L'm&~rds
,re ~et forl.h in general Cerln~ In l.hu "M:tnu;d nn Unifilrm Tn,flit'
Conl.rul Devieea for 81, rce¢ un(I Highways" published by the U.S.
I)elmrtment. of'l'nm.qpnrb~tinn, Federal I lil;hw;ly ^dministrnt.i.n.
St;,I.e ~t,nllanl.~ nrc enh'~bli.,dmd by h~nl del).',rl.menl.~ nr tran.~.
purtutiun mid highways mid contained in nmmiH.~ Imbli.'q~ud hy
~ueh
3 -- AUTHORITY
No wm'k may L~ performed in any public H~ht.nf. way witlmnt
Imrmi.~,;iun from the uuLhudzin~ n~uncy. 'l'n~rfic mntr,I r~.q,irvd
hy nuch wnrk nhnll ~ in ~cconlaneu with the provisions ()r thu
lutesL e(litiun o~ this qlanual or [he ngency'~ I~rmiL
4 ~ RESPONSIBILITY
All contrael.nrs, i~ermitl, ees or ngencies doing work in imhli¢
street.~ ur public right-~r-wny .,dmlh
I. Obtain all nece.s.~'~r¥ permits.
2. l'rovide ti~nely nutificntion to ull .',rrccml ,,~vncie.,, inclu,I-
WOCK A[Oa II'alllC [;Ol~tl'OI Harl0DO01~
m~ tilt' [nlhnHng dClmrtJnents and public tt=n~i[ companies:
I1, I,'iru
D. Jlu~ and ~h'nnsit Coml)nnios.
:( ('nnrdinntv tho wnl'k with all affected ugenc[es nmi
thy
.I Inf, n'm ~'c~UmnLs ~ff abuLLin~ .prnpurLies, ~,iLher orally
hy thy 5, In~[Mt ~md re;detain required traf~c cuntrul devicc~,
~;. Iq.uvh[~ ~;~'~ when
HHhhc
,, A~.rc U.~[ ~.,'vey crew~ and .[her employees workinK in
~ ,.qlnr,,,I fin'
II S~vm.ve traffic con[tel devices whelt [he~ ~re no Ion~cr
5 -- PLANNING
Al: ~,,,,'k .~hnll lie pllmned well in; advance to keels trnfflc
.,h-tr, n'tnm~, puhlic inconvenience and lusL wot'kinE Lime Lo n
Tc:fffie c~nditmns.
" ~:,~-tmff traffic cnntrols.
'~'t..(l~¢ I:me r~,,luirements.
I'hy-sc;d fi. uterus.
V,.~l,ility restricti,n~.
I'r,,hlemS of acccss to private property.
Tht. type. number nn,I I~:ttion of signs, b;n'ricudcs, ligh~
.ii,ti -Utvr tr;fffi[' devices required fur [l~e wm'k.
q. Nk. nns nf mitigating any ;sdvurs~ uffcct ul~n thc blind or
.,lhvr I.hy~icullY h:mtlic;tl~l~ud I
V'ffOtK AfOD I faille ~onlfol
6 ~ TEMPORARY TRAFFIC LANES
q'empornry control uf tnttq'ic in work nrea~ requir~ the ln'n-
visine cfi ;ulcqu;t~ street space tu :~c,:nmmodate tho trufl5¢
demands, Imrticularly during the I~:tk tralT, c hours.
Teml~rary tn~ffic lane r~tlulremcnts fur cmsstructlon nctivitk, s
in arttri.al strt~t~ may be specifi~l ~n the Ix~rmit, on the phs, or
in the contract H~"~lficnl4ona. The~ requiremcnL't constitute
part of the work aL're, mr.'lit anti mil:it b~ adhered Lo ,.ts rigidly :ts
uny other spccificuQon.
hlnintenstnce activities in mt4~rinl sLrt,eLa shall L~ Id:mm'd :sod
schc~lulcd t4, mlnim~ In~rfo~n~ with t~ff~c.
cmerg~ siCu;tLIons~ n~g)alntcnu~ich into
All tem~ t~-hmes sh~ll ~ a mm,mum nf tan feet
width unlu~ utlsc~i~ authod~,l. 'riffs t%n.t,,ot ~iuimum'fane
width is es~ntia[ for tho ~[e movement of.buses, tmckg and
trailc~. In addiUon, Dne clearance shall ~ a minimum of five fu,.t
~c~ff dfivu~ to shy ;w ~y from the curb or nbatructinns
behind the curD, resulting ia encroachnsent into tim
tr:,ffie lune. where,, udditionM clea~ssce from :m olin excuva.
ti~,s is rcqulr~l ~euu~ the Olmn excavation is recognized by the
driver as a ~eater problem. The five.fm~t clearance al~
the surcharge from traffic I~da on the nearest face uf the exenvn.
ti'on anti providea the workem with a ~asonable space in whi¢ll to
work without the n~l h~ step into the adjacent tnsffie lane.
Sui~ble surfaeinK must ~ provided for Use teml~rY
lanes in work areas. When traffic i~ tlive~t~/ frum the existing
pavement, tem~ra~ surfacing shall be provided and shall be
eunfi~rm:mcn with the current a~,mlard Sl~'eifieation.s for such
wnrk issued by the auQ~od:ing ltffuncy.
Construction equipment eel actively ~.ng:~ed in the wnrk,
employee vehicles end nfficial vehicles o¢ Usc ;sgency shall not be
parked in the vidnity of the work in Ruth u mamser as tn further
restrict or obst~ct traffic flow. Vehicles and equipment in con.
stintmus nr rreqnun[ ,se may be ol¢~tte¢l or Isark~l in thc.
traffic hmo ma the work obstruction. Cons[ruction SlMI or m:ste-
data may ~ similarly ~r~l in this :tre;t or o~ Lbo nearby
w;ty or shlcwalk area. provided fi,ur feet of ,idewalk is kept ch':,r
h~r pcdustri;m use. Tu prevent the Sl~fil b;mk from ¢~'¢Ul~Yinff too
grc.:t[ a ~p:s¢o at i~ ~s~. ~ bnnnls nmy I~ nsed tn kvep it two
f~c; frum thc ml~c of thc cxcavati,m o,~ n,,c side and two fcc[ fro,n
thc c, lgc of thc traffic hme on the other.
7- CONTROL, WARNING AND
GUIDANCE DEVICES
Thr ,,,,,.~L uffecLivn .~y.~h..m o/' w~,rnlnr, ami guidnnct ia I)rnvide,I
:h,',,n~h Il., In',,I,m'ly iJh.med u~g(t .( ~..hn~l devicu~, uni.
I',,rn,ly i,l:,c~,d :,n,I well m:,intninud. Simplicity i~ the kuynntu tn
cl'A.rliv~ne.~.~. I':~eex.~ivu MiCii~, b:,rricndos, dulin~ub~ emi lighL~
,.,ly r,,n6~Mu the driver.
All c,,ntrnl, w~rnin~ :.hi L~Hd:,nce duvice~ ~lmll co,ffurm Lo thi~
l,:,n,lh,,,,l~ :md Ln U~e mnnu. I covering w~rnlng signs, ligh~ and
,h't'h'r. /,,r ..~P ill i~ur/nrm;mL.~ .~ w.rk ul~ll highwt{ys, l~ m;~y he
I,nl,li~l..H I,y H.. H,q~urLmun: ~ Lranslmr~Cinn ur highway; of U~o
-l;,t,. in whwh Um I~al ndol)Ling ~guncy i~ I~u~d.
Ih. vi,.u~ ~:,ll i~,:(, ~ix c:t~ugm'iua: (I) Signs; (~) Ih,rricmles; (:l)
l lvhn,..tm'~: (,I) I li~h I.uv,~l Wnrning l)uvice~: (5) W;~rnin~ LighL~
-- IIh, min;,Liun; ;n.I (d) I"lu~hing Arrow Signs,
7.1. SIGN TYPES
T,.:,rAc ~it:n.,4 :irt ¢l;,.~ified inLo ~ever,I run~Lion:d groupings:
C-n~tr~,cti,n,, W:~rni~g, Guide and ItekmtaLor~.
The (:.n~truction (C) series, illuRLm~d on pnge~ Il Lhrm~gh
:,r~. tn he i~J nlJly far ¢on~t~eLinn nr m:lillLunan:o wnrk nn nr
;,Ij;,r~.~ ~,, thu ~Lr~t. ~'hu Wnrning (W) serle~, ahnwn An
IT Uu'nu~h HI. ;,'It Iwim;~rily inLendud fnr I~rnmnenL in~lhlLlun
hnt dh' hnve nludicntinn fnr :omlmmry ¢nnsL~cLinn xiLunLion~.
'l'hi~ t~ :~1>,, Lrue n~ Lhe ~uido (G) ~erie~. ~ign~ in Lhe
il:) ~uriuN :n'u xhuwn on pnges 2~ end 21.
'!'l,u ,~ nf "lh,gul;,bn'y' signs muRL ho :Uqn'oved by Lhe nuLhof
,~.,c :,~.~,~'~. When rU, luire,I, ell such signn will he provided,
,,,.t;',ll~-,I end nt;dn~,inml hy Lhe conCrucLor or permiLLuu.
I.:x,~,ng "lh:kqd,tory" ~ignR wiUHn or adj;~cenL Lo :lie work
,,,,t-L I., m:,inhdm~l hy Lh,~ ¢nnO~eLor nr l~rmiLL~o. I~ (~xixLin~
.i~.n~ ;,re .,,t npin'nln'i:Ke [or tru[~¢ ¢nndiLiune in :lie work
~hu :,hi hnri;.ing n~uncy nmxL bo nu:i~ed {u de~rmine iF si~n~ shell
Tc. nq,,,r:.'y "Nh Pnrklng" xigns shall bo ins~llud ired rumovu(I
.~. ,hr,.'c~ud hy the ;,uthurizinE n~ency.
7.2. SlO[4 PLACEMENT
Th, ',,,.;4,~,n nf I, he ~i~nx n.~ ~hnwn nn (.hQ HJu.~Lr~H,)on~ nrc
,:,,,,h.h,,u~ ,m,I ncttml h,c:~tinn~ will del)end upon a~i~nmnnt, kr:t(Io,
.... .,,t,,,,. ,,f ~treut in:erRcction~ nmi pn~:e,I ~l~Cd limiL. ~ign~ ~hnll
:.,,~..,n,i hu vi.~ii,Iv L,, iilIL'UJIliII~ LI'~f~C ;lllil he Ini)unCe(I Mn :is Ln
nbove Lhu rnndwa¥. Vcll. ic~l clturnnce I'nr Ai$,,m~, where i~cdc;',tri:m
Ln~ffic i~ pennitLed ~hnl) tx: N:vtn feeL. "Adv:l,lcu
.'droll be hx:aLed oil Lht ril~hL h-,nd si(It hi' Lt'nll3¢ hines. O,i ,livi(lucl
hi~4hw.y.~, ~uiudenienLal udvu,~¢e wurning ~i~n~ ~hull Ix., i)l:;ce, I ,,n
the divider,
All ,~i~n,~ whidl nru Ln c~mvoy Lhuir muxx:,~u~ durin~ d:n'knt,.~.~
shnll be ~uAecan'i~l or ilhnnin:~Lc, d. Nu ~i~n~ ur .~UlU~Jr{.~ .~h:dl
~,'-,r nny co,nmtrcinl mlvurLi.~in~,
.qi~nx nm'm~dly ~h:~ll ~ in.~ll~l i~nmodinL~ly
Hh~Le. I~ :~ any Limt ~ zion is nuL required, iL ~hnll ~ covered
7.3. BARRICADES (See page 24)
ll:n'ricndus Rorvt Lhe I'.lh,wing I)Urlm~:~:
I, 'l'n :dtrl. Lho public Lo t. he I'ucL Lh~L u imrticul:,r m'en
clo.~cd Lo
2. 'J'n I)l'OVtllL (Irivtrl~ {~ll(rJw)(l~Lrinn~ i'rum tnL~rilt~ Lll~ ;n'~;i.
L{. q'n lirotecL worktre.,
4. ']'o support ~ign.~ amd w;n'ning Ill, hts.
Ih~,'ric:,les slmll n.L be i)lncod in ~ mnving Inne hi' trnr~c withn,~t
I,ri:,Lu d~dinel~U.n. A lln~lu b:lrricmle ~hnll noL
Uic. :rnvelcd
IInrricado~ shnll be one of throe tyl~: Tylm I. Tylm
Ill, The chunlcCeH~LIm oF Lllese :ypes m'u ~hown
illn~rnUon~ nn lingo 24.
Tile Type Ill hnrricndo i~ the I:n'~cst type :md
For clo~inK ~rcuL~ (,~ On'nn~h b~trF~e nmi Fro' nther mnjm'
Liens where ~he bm'rlcmlc~ mull rcm;dh in plncc Fur cxtun,h.,I
When b:n'ricndo~ nr~ u~l tn ch)~u :t sLreeL norln:dly
~l.nmhl he I)lnc~l ~ Lhem Is no K:tl) InrKo enough Fnr n vehicle ~,
H:~s~, ox~oI)t where n~e~n~ tn ln'OVidU ucccss For
umer~cncy vehiclc~,
Type III bn~zicn(Ics hnvo the rullowin~
1. Provide h,r~e ~ur[:tco Itro:ls (1~ cm ho seen re:.lily hy
;,iU)rnuchha~
2, Prnvido n ~siLivo b:,rrior nC the limiL~ nC th(, w(H'k ;Iri';h
:L Ilnv~ g~'n[er nLl~biliLy nmi nrc noL likely [,, bu bh,w'n river.
q'ylm I hnrricmlen ~hnuhl nnL b~' u~¢.d where th~,y wn.hl h~. ,'n.
cnun[eruH hy blind I~dC~MLrinns IIItl~ hnriznnLnl Cie I;nm nn' I.',;.
vidcd nnL inure Lhnn I; inche~ ~i'onl Lhu b.[Lun~ nF Lhe bnrl'iC:,,lu.
~l:ll'kilt~.~ h,r b:.'ric:llle r:Jil.~ .~h:dl he :dLernnte oran,~e Imll white
,/rq,t'~ *'I"IH~K d.w.w:.'dly tu the h~A .~ .n ,,glu ,~ ~ (legrt~u~,
'l'he ~'~d.'u :.'P:g n[ white .nd orange shall ~ e[Cec~ively rc~ec.
., I.u,. I~wm,r hlu. U~ra~Jun will .o~ be hnl)rin{ed on Lite rellec-
7.4. DELINEATORS (See pages 22 and 23)
Ih,lm(.nh.'~ ;ire nlarkCl',R which hid tile driver in determining the
..'~epl;d,lu dul;m,:~[m'~ are ~hown iHI imge~ 22 nmi ~1. II.y
· 'f(~'VtlV~'llV~ ~[ LIle dolinenlnr'i~ ileLermined hy imsiLion,
,m,..d hv im~idnn nmi visibiliLy, All deline~Lom u~ed a~ ni~hL must
,,~. ,'~.fleetorized :.luqu:~Lely. beline~L.r~ are used:
I '1',~ rh:mnel ami diverL tnfffic i~ mJvnncu eft wurk zones.
~ To dv~n~ Uw h'nvelwny thruu~h Lhu wurk ~one.
;II'IIilIUJ LII~ wHl'k
,I. 'J'u IJo~IlU ClII'VU~ HIIll tho c'd~us ur tho ru:uJway
,h'li~e~tur~, traffic, ~t)'ilfin~, ur n~itud i).veJnm~L murkm~, Where
tr;fffic i~ diverted t() U~e lei[ (,f ~n exl~Lin~ duuble yellow cenLor-
hne, inl. n p:dnted mmli:m, m' in[o ~l le~ [urn lane, dolinog~m ~lmll
by utilizud buyund Lhe wm'k nrcn tu )'eLurn Lnl/Sc Lo uurmal
I)ulim.;m..~ ~hall h~ u~ n ma~rial LhnL will wiLh~nd iml)~CL
wlth.m :,l:l)r(,ci.ble dmn:t~e Lu Lhe device, Lhe sLrikin~ vehicle
IH'4dHb~L~'d, ~ ,
~ -- CHART A --
/ ~iNU,iUU R[COI~UENOED DELINEATOR AND SIGN PLACE~I
2~ FI 3~ FL 70 Fl. ~ Fi, J
7-5. HIGH LEVEL WARNING DEVICES (Flag Slandards)
High level w,~ndnl¢ devlee~ pr.vide advnneo w:,rnin~ o( a w~rk
nren hy l~,in~ visible tn n driver even when Lhe wm'k nr~:,
ub~trtJcted fi'mn view by vehiclo~ nr const~ction equil)nmut.
IliKh level wnmlnK devlce~ ~h:dl t)e :l~ I(,:,~L ~1 feel high wiH~
In~s, b:mu ur h~ek mtiuntin~ (leniRned ~n refill overLurlfinK
hri~k wiml.~. Snndbn~ nmy ~ used L. ndcl weight Lu Lbo h.~e
Io~. Illth Iovul wnmin~ (levice~ ~hall be equipped wiLh u y.k~
Lhu ~np ~. ;tcc.mmmtn~ nL ImmL throu fl:~. l:lnk~ shnll I~ f:lhri.
c:Ked .~ high visibility omnRe mn~rinl ~ml equil)l)ed wiLJl gL;lys
keep Lhe ~%m exLemimi. ~urn on dirLy a~l~s ghall ~ immmli~tely
I'glJl;lcod,
I'liKh level wnJ'nJng (levice~ gllalJ ~ tl~Od :1~ iliilicliJell 011
21) thrnugh 4R, ill ~Ll~t nl)l)roache~ to I~ntinns where co.~truc'.
tiun o)' m;d. Lennnce work i~ I)eiug per(ut'meal wRhin m'
me(liuCel~ u(Ij.cenL Lo a LmFRc llme.
7.6, WARNING LIGHT.ILLUMINATION
IZl;l~hm~ slutll ~ u~(I nuly U) ouL~i(lu Lhe work ;u'e:l ur t() I)rn·
vide :ulv:mco wm'ning, Flnsl~er~ ~h. II ui~t he used t(I chimnelizc
lr;fffic, h) Sclmnlle ()plmJInff trlsffic, .r t() dcline, le the pnth
Lh.t truffle I~ h) fldhsw. (Not intemlc~l to Isruhihit the use
flashers which m~ unifomty ~l)nCe(I, in~ermnne~ted nmi
quenLi;dly ¢yde(I). lahahing yellow liffht~ u~t~l fi)r mlvnnee wm'n.
lng mu~{ b~ du,rl~ (ll~tin~ish,ble fi'om the I)rimm'~ delinentlun
tm(I glm[I ~ goon u~vo Lho nnrmnl refl~tm~(I uniL~.
'Warning ligh~ n~ Imr~ble, lens directed, encln~d nmi
m.unLud .L. minimum helghL nr :1 feel (n the ~LL.m ()f th(, leu~.
9'hu CcH(H' .f Lite li~hC emiLtml shMI he .yellnw. 9'h~,y m;~y ~ us~,d in
.iLImr n slun,ly Jlurll I)r NJlgJlillff lll(~le. IIHI'I'iVIIIIP WJmI'JIJlI~ Ii,Ids
silull be in ;iccuixluncc with thu requi,'emun~ of ANSI I).l(I.I,
WARNING LIGHTS
Typ~ X Type B Typ4, C
,,, Lowlnl~nl, lljt,, HIc~jh Inl~nl, lljt $1eicl~t Burn
Lens Size 7' d~a. 12' Oia. --
'~' ~,der
Lofts Dilocl~al ~iCOl I ~ 2 I I or 2
Flas~ Role ~t M~lo SS Io 75 55 lo 75 Conslanl
Minimum Ellocllve Inlonsll~ 4.0 Ca~elas · 35 CI~OIII --
H~u~ ol 0~1~ Dusk lo D~wn ~4 ~d~y ~ lo D~wn
*Un<ICl C O,~,n
USeS I, Ou
WOrK A/ca Ifalh¢ L;OrllloI HartoDoo~
T)'pe // I,n' irdensity 13.shim,, w,rnlnK JlghL~ ,re most rom.
'ryl~e Il high inh, n~i(y ~z~shln~ warning IighL~
~,,,rl~ .'~ lhe~e light~ m'~, effective in duyligh: uR wull ~ durk,
I1,~'( .:'u de~l~m.I h~ opul'~te g,I hou~ per
T~ I~ C ~h'.dy hum li~ht~ ~re i.temlml :u be
H,', .,.,.e ,,f fi,'u h.t:.'d, t,.'che~ m~d ~m'e,~ ~h. II he
· .:d r,,Ih.,, vl[,~'rg~,nt'y .-itu;lO,ms ur whell Il ~uggel' is un duly. 'l'huy
..~,l,t i. i,I;~ce ;md hm'ni.g h'um ~un~oL :o ~um'i~e,
7.7. FLASHING ARROW SIGNS (FAS)
F'l:,~lfi.g :.'ruw .~ig,l.~ (I;AR) nrc sign i).nel~ wiU~ n nmtrix nf
,'h't'~rw li~hl~, c:qmhh' .~ 5~'qucnfi;d arrow displays,. All I:A5 slmll
MINIMUM NUMBER MINIMUM LEGIOIU~
TIP[ WINIUUM SIZE OF P~EL ~UPS DIST~CE
36' ~ 72' 13 % mile
48' ~ ~6' 15 ,I mile
~'.',~ ',,v ::,tvmlcd tn .~UlqllclnonL, not repluc¢, other work area
','.,ff~c ~.,,mr.I device.~. They I.'uvids~ i.hlitiun:d, high level, .d-
. .,,,,.,.,I ~¥..',,,,~g of h,,,e c'lusur~. I~A~ life effucLive fur nil hmo
, ~,,.,,,',.~ ;.,,I ~h.uhl hu c.n~hlured fi~r {dl high ~l~ee{I aitu.Liun~.
I.,,c:,t.,~J ,,f FAS si.mid be ns ~lmwn in the tr;fffie control pltlcu.
8 -- PAVEMENT STRIPING/MARKING
Umh.~ c~.l't;dn circum~hmce.% tho ll.~e of p:lvemont strilfin~ Ar
In
the fullowing
Work Area Tralii¢ Conlrol
I. When traf~c Is to be tlivorted Lo the loft of an
double yellow ccntorlh~e for two m' more cm~ecuCive ~fi~hL~, '
g. When the wm'k nrea is ndjacont to an inten~tlon
rosulL~ in u tl~l~itiun within Li~e il~[m~ction,
3, When [he L~c hme is conLinunusly obstnlctcil for
[h:m one week on uny ~[me[ where Lrurfic volumes rmluh'e [we or
more lanes in a aln~Je dir~Lion.
4. In nthor unusuaJ ,~i[un[inns where Lrnf~c nmi physic:d
conditions, such ~ ~ or restric~(I visibility, requh'e H~ecinl
Ll'C~LtnlcllL.
The IttllhOriT. Jli~ R~liCy ~h. II iJrtermine tile neet{ fnr and
nr ~[rilfi.g rem.v.I .mi ma[rilfi~g. WI... [mnl~m.'y
~[ril)i~tK nr m~rkem ~m pmvidml, Lhe ~xis[ing sLrilfin~ or
IltU~[ bO rOIIHW~J ~r cnve~l by [l~e pormi[teo nr eommctm'. The
i.at.llation of [mnj~llu'~ stripin~ or pavemen[ murke~ will
done by [he
9 ~ BRIDGING OF EXCAVATIONS
(See page 25)
Whenever nece~ary, [renches nnd e~cavations si~all be bridged
Lo pm'miL nn m~olm[rueted Row o~
ml]usLnblu cloaL% nngles, bol~ or oLher devices,
g. Brid~n[ shnll be Ins~lled to operaLe with minimum
3. The trench musL be ndequuLel~ shored, to support the
4, SLool phlLe~ used ~ul' I~rid~ng must i~[eml one f~[ heynml
Llle ellgc~ o~ [lie Lrench, Tempol'nry p.villg m;itcfinls (l~remix)
shnll bu used [ii Centhor Lieu edges o[ the pla[es [u lllinimize
MINIMUM THICKNESS
WIDTH OF TRENCH OF STEEL PLATES
I .o II. ~,~ ~h
1.5 ii. ¥, ~
2.o Ii. %
3,0 Il. I
4.0 IL t % ~
10 -- PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
When the work ar~,~ cncroache.~ upnn a sidew~flk, walkwny nr
cr.sswulk area, s~cinl consideratim~ must be ~ivcn to I~.de~trian
s;ffety. Since the I~destrian moves nt~ relntively xlow mtn. a
minimum or.~lvance wa~in~ is required. IIowever~ effort must
bc made to Sel)~te hi~n fmin the work ;~rea,
Protective b.n~cude~, fencing, hamlntils .nd hri~lgoA, tn~ether
with wurldng ~ml h~ldnncc rlcvicc~ nn(I si~n~, mu~t I~ utilized ~n
that the Im~qgeway for Imdestrian~, especiuUy blind ami othur
I)h~sicall~ handical)l~d, is ~fe und well defined.
Work Afoa Traffic Conl~ol HnndboOk WOrk Aroa Tr,31fic Conlfol HandbOOk
· V/:dkw:,y.~ h) cnn,~[ructh,n nren.~ .~hutl be mainL~Jncd
,, H I"n lhu w:dkwny shall bo iJlumina[ud durinK h~ur~ o~ durkno~..
q.nn,mn v(~l'HcM cJoar;mce Lo inly ob.~LrucLJnn wiLhin Lhe wnlk-
w:,y ~hnll bu ~evon
Wh,,re wn/k~ uJ'e cln.~c,,I I).~ cnnstJ'.ction, ~n ~ltern;ite wnlkwny
· il:iii 1,¢ i..ovhled, i,refer:~hly within the pnrkwny. Where it
n,.r,...:,ry tn divurt poHPstri;ms intn the i~;n'kinK Imm ~f n ~tFeet,
h,,','~c:.lh~K nr dulinentinn ~hnll bo i~rovilled tn Selmmte
u,',lr-~rmn wnlkwny N'nm the ndjucent tragic Inne. At no time
.h.dJ i,,.,lo~tri:ms he diverted into ~ ~rtion n~ the ~treet u~ed ~or
v,,,.cm:., er:fiNe.. Any devintinn from the u~ve mu~t huve prior
,q,ln'n~ nl nf the authorizinE ~ency.
'..,IP, l..q,ln'nHrint¢ ~i~n~ and bnrricades taus[ be
11 -- FLAGGER CONTROL
I'ku4~,.r.¢ :.'~ requirud;
I Wheru wnrl<ors or oquipmon[ in[ormi[[oHUy bbck
t,~('
~ Whur(, ))hm~ nr p~rmiL :llh)w Lhe u~'u[ one I:lno F()r Lwn iii.
~,.,tn,n~ n~ [J';ffNc (uno flu~ur is roquJrud ~uJ' euch (lirocLion
' r.,FF,(')
~ ',vh~ro tho ~u~oty u~ ~l~u i).blic nnd/or work~Fs (leLerminos
I']:~cc.r~ mus[ hu sHeu. tud with c:u'e, Thuy ~hnuhl bo =dor[, in.
', ~,.~,, '. ncH[ 'in ;Uq~(,nrc, ncc, huvu ~n~l hourJnK and eyesight,
· . ,....,~H,. ,,[ c,mm.;mdin~ [1~o [r:~volin~ public. They ~lmuhl
:~.,~Uw .,~ In'ncLicablo. (Seu I)nEo~ 12, 2~ nnd
All fl.,~urs ~h;dl bu IH'nvNIod wiLh nit ur;mEe jncku[ (oJ'
;,( Hi~ht. I)uFinE d:tyliKhL huurs, Na~[em shull be e(lUil)l~d wiLh
.,~l, i,a,hllu. A[ ni~hL, .~u~om shull use a red JighL
TI.. h:m,I >i~nnlx :uHI vqnilnnenL In I)o u~o(I hy N:l~em Car cnn.
[r,,Ihn~ :md diruc[ing [i'ufNc are shown in Lhe illu~CruLions on
CONSTRUCTION SIGNS
C1
Use when Irallic Is diverled Io
a temporary roadway m' route.
C2
ROAD
CLOSED
Use where ~oad is
clo~ed IQ th/ouFh
and Io~al Nalhc.
C3A
C3
IROAD CLOSED
AHEAD
LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY
Use whe~'e detour Is provided.
Use plale to show distance,
C$
ROAD CLOSED
TO
THRU TRAFFIC
C4A
Use only where I~allic is
divefled IQ an alte~'nare
Joule. Available wilh ~i~hl.
lei{ ind ve~'lical Irlow.
CONSTRUCTION S.IGNS
CA
C?
DETOU
cio
C9
C14
C36
wo~ Al'oO IralllC CO,'111'OI I-larx3DooK ...... 1,3
CONSTRUCTION SIGNS
Cl&
Use where two-way I;alfic
taus1 USe Ihe same lane.
Pro¥ide IlaggeJ$, See CgA.
C17
6ACK
To be placed only by
Agency aulho~zation.
C18
Use Io/ major co,'LstnJCliO,'L
CI?
Use inslead el Cl il
nO dalour Js provided.
Work A~o.~ Traffic Conlro! Handtx~ok Work Aroa Traffic Conlrol HnndbOOk 15
CONSTRUCTION
C22B
C25
SIGNS
C21
I~'allic mull use Ihe same lane. (See CI6)
C23
Use [or mlnot
conslrucllon or
C24
CONSTRUCTION SIGNS
C27
C30
Mounl on bardca0o
in head on posihon
al poinl ol closure.
C28
i Sign paddJe Jot use in
flagging operations.
CONSTRUCTION
I OoO T
SIGNS
5PF. CIFJCATiONS FOR
CONSTRUCTION SIGNS
·...' .:: ;, .; ¢ ~ a. CIg. C20 and C ? I s,gns may be used wiln Ihe appropnale C29 sign )
WARNING SIGNS
WI
W2
W& (,tO)
,MPH~
WARNING
SIGNS
WS7
Uso ,'~1
WARNING
SIGNS
SPECIFICATIONS FOR
WARNING SIGNS
Acceptable H[IGHf Of tEllERS
30' z 30' 24' x 24' -- --
3(7' x 30' 24' z 24' -- --
,tO' z 30' 24' z 24' -- --
30, x 30, 24' z 24' -- --
24' x 24' lS'z 18' ]2'.4b' 9'.3'
36' x 36' 30' z 30' 5' 4'
42' x 42' 36' x 36'
42' x 42' 36' z 36° 6'
30, x 30' 24° x 24' S' .4'
.42. z 42' 36' x 36' --
36' x 36' 3(r x 30' 6' 5'
36' z 18' 24' x 12' -- --
3G'x 18' 24'z 12' -- --
30' x 30' 24' x 24' -- --
36' z 36' 30' z 30'
IS'x6' -- -- --
8'x24° _ _ _
lS'z 18' -- -- --
R?
REGULATORY' SIGNS
To De used only when direcled by
RIO
RIOA
I~IIA
Ri&
ooOrX AtOa If;illlC I.;0131101 n;~ftiJL,~vJ~,
REGULATORY SIGNS
RIGHT LANE
MUST
TURN RIGHT,
,
TRAFFICI
AH£ADJ
R41
RIGHT
TURN
ONLY
LEFT
TURN
ONLY
NOT
PASS
SPECIFICATIONS
REGULATORY
36' z45' 24' z 30'
RIO (~t. or Ll.) 48'xl~
RIOA
~ll 36'x 36'
RI6 30' z 30' ~4"x~4'
RIB (~1, or LI.) 3~' x 36' 20' x 32'
R40 24' x 3~
R41 30' x 36'
R42
~63 24' x 30' --
FOR
SIGNS
H[IGHT OF L[TT[RS
Standard Reduced Size
5' 4'
4'. S" 4'
DELINEATORS'
SIGN STAND
"
GUIDE POST
24'
TRAFFIC (;ON[
DELINEATORS
RUIIER GUIDE POSTS
24'Min.
FIXED
PORTAILE
PLASTIC: TRAFFIC DELINEATORS
BARRICADES
TYPE
TYPE II
TYPE III
HOT[: Bollom ol bollom rail on (yp¢$ II and
m,n,mum ol 4"(100mm) 3nd a maximum ol 6' (}50mm) Irom
ground,
8;rri~d~ Ch~ra¢l~ri$11c~
II III
ml~. Z' min.
min. S' min.
STEEL PLATES
ANGLE IRON TO SECURE PLATES
NOTE
WIDTH OF TRENCH
1,0
1.~ /eel
2.0
3.0 'eel
4,O
MINIMUM THICKNESS
OF STEEL PLATES
~/I InCh
Work Arorl i r~lllc ~..onllol nallu~JK WOrk Aro~ Tralhc Colllt01 H3r~d~(x)k 2 !
INSTRUCTIONS TO FLAGGERS
'r YP~CAL APPROACH TO WORK AREA
J/Nolo: F~)r high speed silualions
'Prepare to Slop' (C36) should
also Do u$od.
/
- NIGHT-
TO SLOW
TRAFFIC
(Shorl up and
~.tn e~lended
f,ghl baRB.}
- DAY-
TO SLOW TRAFFIC
The IL~er sJ'~JI lace traffic
Ihe ~w ~le h ~ vefl~
II 3~'s le~lh. F~ I~ emus,
I~ Ila~ may s~y ~se
~s I~oe ha~ wil~ Ihe
TRAFFIC PROCEED
The I~er s~all slued parallel lo
the Irallic movemenl, and ~lhel with
p~le ~ arm ~e;~ Ir~ view
of tho dr~or, ~ ~lh S~ ~le he~
ahead with I~ee ~m. Never usa a
TO STOP
TRAFFIC
Hokl hancl
vertically
with patm
TRAFFIC
P,ROCEEO
Never use a
aS a sk2nal
to move
Irallic.
A wh;le relloc:lorlzed bell musl be used al nighl and
a Ilashtighl with a red )eRS SU0Slilul~l for the pacJdle.
-- CHART A --
MIHIMUM RECOMMENDED DEUNE~TOR AND SIGN PLACEMENT
C 22E1~
HIGH
C 22B~,-
~DELINEATOR$
.See Ch~ x
Pa~e 2~
D BR.~
i
HIGH
WARNING DEVICE
~:22B
MINOR WORK J
--DELINEATORS
C 22B
WORY,
AREA
Sea O,.~ ~, P~e2S
DELINEATORS.Se~ C~vi A
TYPE I OR II
BARRICADES
HIGH LEVEL
WARNING DEVICE
WORK AREA
HIGH LEVEL
WARNING DEVICE
C22B
DELINEATORS
S~ C.~d A
WORK AREA IN CENTER OF STREET
t-"'--C 18 or C 23
TYPE I OR. II
BARRICADES
FLASHERS OPTIONAL
C18 o~' c23__
r'l [CLO$1NGOFRIGHTLANE
AREA
LEVEL
WARNING
DEVICE OR
FLASHING ARRO
SIGN
2o
//
J CLOSING OF LEFT LANE j
C20
).(---C 18 or C 23
CLOSING OF MIDDLE LANE
C 18 o,r 'C
C22B
TYPE I OR II
BARRICADES
FLASHERS OPTIONAL
TYPE I OR II BARRICADES
II
' D CLOSED'
TYPE N MARKER C3A
N O_...~_T E
Access for
authorized vehicles
CLOSING OF LOCAL STREET
Ptdczlri~n$ th~ll not be dwer ltd-
Jnlo · mov;ng I~ne cl
TYPE II BARRICADES
BUTTED TOGETHER
n,
TYPE il BARRICADES
BUTTED TOGETHER/. ;/ ~[
· ·
i
I
i
!
!
I
I
: m
':/
WALl< CLOSED
CROSSWALK
NOTES
Th;$ $¥$1~m w;ll be u$~J only
when walkw&¥ CannoI be provided
behind curb.
!
I
I
I
33 TYPE III BARRICA
. r- 18 o, C 23
Z
- CLOSED
WALK
.... USE
CROSSWALK
J PEDESTRIAN CONTROL J
__ HIGH LEVEL
DEVICE OR FLASHING,-
ARROW SIGN
TYPE I OR II BARRICADES--
i '-'
228
C 2~.B ~
FLASHING ARROW SIGN
OR HIGI~'LEVEL
WARNING DEVICE
~ C22B --
/
/
WORK BEYOND INTERSECTION
.s ~
~e C.t~ A P,~,ge 28
/
~ c2o
t8 o, C 23
DELI EATORS
HIGH LEVELWARNING OEVICI[
TYPE I OR II BARRICADES
HIGH LEVEL
WARNING DEVICE
WORK BEYOND INTERSECTIOI~I
S~eC~IA
P39e ,~B
18 {Rt.)
HIGH LEVEL
WARNING DEVICE OF
FLASHING ARROW SI(~
?~-C 20 IRt. Ia,
C 18 or (::/2
HIGH LEVEL
~) ~-.WARNING DEVICE
C22B
DELINEATORS
T£MPO. RARY STRIPING IF REOUIRED
//"'" \
~ TYPE I On II ,..~ DELINEATORS--Il'IL
TEMPORARY STRIPING IF REQUIRED ~ ~ ~
TYPE II
HIGH LEVEL DELINEATORS
Acknowledgements
MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES FOR STREETS AND HIGHWA'YS - 1978 EOITION
Unilod Slates Oeparlme'nl Gl Transpodahon
Federal
Highway Adminish'alion
MANUAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS - f9~4
FOR COHSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE - WORK ZONES
StaiD Gl Calilornia - Deparlmenl Gl Transporlalion (CALTRANS)
Published by Building News, Inc., 3055 Overland Ave.
Los Angeles, California 90034 - (213)1202.7775
For Sale 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, Calilomia 90351.
COSTS
1 Io 9 copies, each .............................. '$3.00
10 Io 49 copies, each .............................. 2.75
50 Io 99 copies, each .............................. 2.50
'100 Io 199 copies, each ............................ 2.25
200 or more copies, each ......................... 2.00
Large Quant/III Prices On AppllcaUon
Special Customized Covers Available On ,4ppllcatlon
For Mail Ordors: Add 6%% Sales Tax, plus shipping charges Gl
75{: lot lhe lirsI 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: (CompleteMlitems:NAi£notappllcable.)
Application is not complete until all required attachments are included.
Kern
4. ADDRESS OR STREET NAME
2317 "L" Street
6. CROSS STREET (Distance and direction from site
23rd Street
8. WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY
[] OWN FORCES [] CONTRACTOR
Ill. MAX. DEPTH {t2. AVG. DEPTH
EXCAVATION{ 170' [
117. TYPE
PIPES I PVC
2. ROUTE178 j 3. POSTMILE
: S. CiTY
Bakersfield
7. PORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY
sidewalk
9. EST. START DATE
10-27-03
13. AVG. WIDTH
8"
18. DIAMETER
2"
10. EST. COMPLETION
DATE 11-26-03
14. LENGTH
8"
19. VOLTAGE / PSIG
FOR CALTRANS USE
PERMIT NO.
DIST/CO/RTE/PM
SIMPLEX STAMP
DATE OF SIMPLEX STAMP
15. SURFACE T~fPE
concrete
20. PRODUCT
16. EST. COST IN STATE RAN
$15,000.00
21. FULLY DESCRIBE WORK WITHIN STATE RNV (additional ~ }ace on reverse side If needed): Attach complete plans (minimum 5
sets folded 8.5" X 11" [216 mm X 280 mm]) specs, calcs, maps, etc., if applicable.
Central Sierra Environmental will drill and install two monitoring wells MW-5d and MW-10. West Hazmat Drilling will
perform the drilling operations.
MW-5d will be completed with 10 feet of 2 inch diameter slotted PVC casing and 160 feet of PVC blank casing. MW-5d
will be located on the south side of 23rd Street, 8 feet south of the curb in the earthen shoulder, and 40 feet east of 'L"
Street.
MW- 10 will be completed with 40 feet of 2 inch diameter slotted PVC casing and 100 feet of blank casing. MW-10 will
be located in the sidewalk on the north side of 23rd Street, 70 feet west of "L" Street.
Both wells will be covered with traffic rated well boxes.
West Hazmat Drilling, license #C57-554979, contact person to be Bob Nix, Jr. at (714) 939-6850.
YOUR OWN REFERENCE NO. ;~i,~$ns. Chawmown Chevm~ a'L Has any other CaRrans 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. IS a city, county, or other agency Involved in the environmental approval?
[~] YES (Check documentation lype and attach approved copy) [-'] CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT [] N.D. [] EIR
[] NO (Check the categoq/ 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. INCLUOING
[] DITCH PAVING ADDITION OF NEW ELEMENTS. [] ADDITION OR REPLACEMENT OF ROADWAY DEVICES OR
MARKINGS (GLARE SCREEN, BARRIER, LIGHTING, STRIPING,
[] FENCE [] PUBLIC UTILITY MODIF(ICATIONS. MARKERS, ETC.)
EXTENTIONS. HOOKUPS [] MOVIE, TV FILMING
[] MAILSOX
[] SIDEWALKS / GUTTERS [] EROSION CONTROL
[] REPAIR I MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING HIGHWAYS [] SURVEY
[] NONE OF THE ABOVE (If project cannot be desc~bed in above categories, request application Part B from the Permit Of tree.)
(If "YES," request application Part 'B' from
23 b. Does this project cause a substantial change in the signifmance 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 outccoppng 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 Calbans rules and regulations subject to
inspection and approval, and that permit fees may still be due when an application is withdrawn or denied, and that
a denial may be appealed in accordance with California Streets and Highways Code, Section 671.5.
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 (Pdntor Type) 27. BUSINESS PHONE
Mark Magargee, CHG, RG (661) 325-4862
28. BUSINESS ADDRESS (Include City and Zip Code)
1400 Easton Ddve, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309
29. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 30. PRINT OR TYPE NAME
,O'~%...¢.,~. ~v ~'~:t~t~_~._~,_j Mark Magargee
FM91 1403M . (~/ {7
31.TITLE
Hydrogelogist
32. DATE
10-21-03
STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
TR-0100 (REV. 6/00)
Page2
21. Description of work (continued)
FEE CALCULATION - FOR CALTRANS USE
[] CASH / CHECK [] CREOIT CARO [] EXEMPT PROJECT EA
[] SET FEE [] AX DEFERRED BILLING (UUity)
CALCULATED BY (1 ) (2)
REVIEW 1. FEE I DEPOSIT DATE 2. FEE / DEPOSIT DATE TOTAL FEE / DEPOSIT
1.__ HOURS (~ $.~ * $ $
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 houdy rate is set annually by Headquarters Accounting. District Office staff do not have authodly to modify this cate.
DATE AMOUNT
PERFORMANCE BOND []
$
DATE AMOUNT
PAYMENT BOND []
$
AMOUNT
LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIRED? [] YES [] NO
$
FM gl 1403
STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION Page 3
PART B f PERMn'.O.
TR 0100 (REV. 6/00)
INSTRUCTIONS
, Part B is to be completed lithe project does not involve a city/co[mO/other agency, and the project could not be adequately described In Part A.
· All questions in Part B must be answered. $i~§cant effects must be explained. This checldlst ts used to identi6, physiol, biological, social and
economic factors which might be impacted by the pmpased project, tn many cases, the background studies pen%treed in connection with this project
dearly indicate the project will not affect a particular item. A "NO" answer In the first coluran documents this determination. Where there is a need
for clarifying discussion ora "NO", provide it in the remark section following the checklist.
Yourapplication willbereviewedbyour Environmental Unit. Theywill determine whetheryourprojecttscategericallyexempt underCEQA orwhether
an environmental study mast be made by Caltrans. ff the latter, your cost could be slgr~qcant. An environmental study will determine whether a
Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report will be required. The (ND) or (EIR) will then be prepared by Caltrans concurrently with
processing your application, ff an enviconmental study is required, you must provide sullkient information for this study as part of your application.
ENVIRONMENT/~L SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST Yes ~Yes, isit
or significant?
After making the necessary preliminary studies, answer the following questions: No Yes orNo
PHYSICAL. Will the proposal (directly or indirectly): N
I. Change the topography or ground surface relief features? N
2. Destroy. cover, or modify any unique geological or physical features? N
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)? N
5. Result in the increased use of fuel or energy in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? N
6. Result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? N
7. Result in the substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? N
8. Violate any publishe.d Federal, State, or local standards pertaining to solid waste or litter control? N
9. M~dify 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
t 1. Adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater, or public water supply? N
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? N
15. Result in changes in air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any climatic conditions? Fl
16. Res'ult in an increase in air pollutant emissions, adverse effects on or deterioration ofambient air quality? N
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 n~ise standards? N
21. Produce new light, glare, or shadows? N
BIOLOGICAL. Will the proposal (directly or indirectly): N
22. Change the diversity ofspecies, or number ofany 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
species of plants? N
24. Introduce new species of plants in an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? N
25. Reduce acreage of any agricultural crop or commercial timber stand? N
26. Remove or deteriorate existing fmh 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 flae numbers of. or encroach upon. the critical habitat of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals? N
m 9~ uo~ * See Remarks section (page 5) and Discuss Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measure.
STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION Page 4
TR 0100 (REV. 6/00)
I PERMIT NO.
Yes ffYes, 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
Urban Strategy, or the President's National Urban Policy (if NEPA project)? N
32. Affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? s
33. Affect life styles, or neighborhood character or stability? Iq
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? lq
39. Affect any community facilities (including medical, educational, scientific, recreational, or religious
institutions, ceremonial sites or sacred shrines)? N
40. Affect public utilities, or police, fu'e. emergency or other public services? N
41. Have substantial impact on existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods? N
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
accident or upset conditions? N
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 hazard? N
47. Affect a significant archaeological or historic site. structure, object, or building? N
48. Affect natural landmarks or man-made resources? ,
49. Affect any'scenic resources or result in the obstruction ofany scenic vista or view open to the public, or
aesthetically offensive site open to public v. iew? N
50. Result in substantial impacts associated with construction activities (e.g.. noise, dust. temporary N
drainage, traffic detours and temporary access, etc.)7
MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Yes or No
51. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or N 0
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 oflong-term, environmental
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 ofan 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
Fid 9~ 1403 * See Remarks section (page 5) and Discuss Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures.
ATTACHMENT 6.
COPY OF CSE CHECK NUMBER 2376
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)
Fid 91 1403 M
Page 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA · DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
PART A
TR-0100 (REV. 6/00)
COUNTY
Permission is requested to encroach on the State Highway Pdght 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
2317 "L" Street
6. CROSS STREET (Distance and direction from site)
23rd Street
2. ROUTE178 ]3. POSTMILE
S. CITY
Bakersfield
7. PORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY
sidewalk
FOR CALTRANS USE
i PERMIT NO.
DIST/CO/RTE/PM
SIMPLEX STAMP
6. WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY 9. EST. ST.N:{T OATE
[] OWN FORCES [] CONTRACTOR 10-27-03
[11. MAX. DEPTH 112. AVG. DEPTH
EXCAVATION 170'
117. TYPE
PIPES I PVC
13. AVG. WIDTH
8"
18. DIAMETER
2"
10. EST. COMPLE'~ON
DATE 11-26-03
14. LENGTH
8"
19. VOLTAGE / PS G
DATE OF SIMPLEX STAMP
15. SURFACE TYPE 116. EST. COST IN STATE RAN
concrete I $15,000.00
20. PRODUCT
21. FULLY DESCRIBE WORK WITHIN STATE R/W (additional space 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.
Central Sierra Environmental will drill and install two monitoring wells MW-5d and MW-10. West Hazmat Drilling will
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
1400 Easton Drive #132
Bakersfield, CA 93309
661 325-4862
REMITTANCE ADVICE
' 123769°-37°2/1211
CHECK
AMOUNT
""00 2 :~ ?¢,,' m: & 2 & & ~ ?0 2 ?~-'
0f "YES." request application Part 'B" from
23 b. Does this project cause a substantial change in the significance of a histodcel resource? [] YES [] NO the Permit Office)
23 ¢. 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 withdrawn or denied, and that
a denial may be appealed in accordance with California Streets and Highways Code, Section 67f.5.
24. ORGANIZATION OR APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) ] 25. BUSINESS PHONE
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC ] (661) 325-4862
28. ARCHITECT, ENGINEER OR PROJECT MANAGER NAME (Pdnt or Type) {27. BUSINESS PHONE
Mark Magargee, CHG, RG [ (661) 325-4862
26. BUSINESS ADDRESS (Include Cffy and ZJp Code)
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309
29. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 130. PRINT OR TYPE NAME
~"'-=,,~, ~, ~'~'~Z,~.~e~.-/[ Mark Magargee
FM 91 1403 M ~,/ ~'
31 .TITLE
Hydrogelogist
32, DATE
10-21-03
Central
Environ
October 20, 2003
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California, 93301
:. iro ental
Consultant
THIRD QUARTER 2003 PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
(CRWOCB-CVR CASE #5T15000836)
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC. (CSE) is pleased to present the following Third Quarter 2003 Progress
Report for the above-referenced site. This work was required by the CRWQCB-CVR as a result of the
discovery of gasoline-containing soil and groundwater in and around the area of the premium grade
unleaded gasoline product pipeline extending to the southeastern MPD at the site. A list of acronyms
used in this report is attached.
SITE LOCATION AND CONTACT PERSONS
The site is located at 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, Kern County, California (see Figure I - Site Location
Map). The site is located within the commercial district, which flanks 23rd and 24th streets (see Figure 2 -
Site Vicinity Map). The BCSD operates the Downtown Elementary School, 1,250 feet south of the site and
San Joaquin Community Hospital is located 1,500 feet northwest of the site. The site is at an elevation of
404 feet above MSL, and the topography is relatively flat with a slight slOpe to the southwest. The site is
located within the northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, MDBM. The site
is a newly constructed retail fuel sales facility and mini mart, which opened during the first quarter of 1999.
The subject site is the location of double-walled USTs and product piping (see Figure 3 - Plot Plan).
The property owner contact is Mr. Tim Sullivan, President, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC,
1508 18th Street, Suite 222, Bakersfield, California, 93301, (661) 327-5008. The consultant contact is Mr.
Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, LLC, 1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California,
93309, (661) 325-4862. The regulatory agency contact is Mr. John Whiting, California Regional Water
Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region, 1685 "E" Street, Fresno, California, .93706, (559) 445-5504.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309
(661') 325-4862 ~ Fax (661)325-5126, censenv@a01.corn
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 20, 2003- Page 2
TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The site is located at an elevation of 404 feet above MSL, and the topography slopes slightly to the
southwest (see Figure 1). The subject site is located on the eastern flank of the San Joaquin Valley and
west of the southern Sierra Nevada.
The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed pdmadly 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) 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 Kimbedina - Urban Land - Cajon Complex and are characterized as 35 percent
Kimberlina fine, sandy loam with moderate permeability; 30'percent Urban land with impervious surfaces
and altered fills; and 20 percent Cajon loamy sand with high permeability. Subsurface soils observed at
nearby UST sites during the construction of water supply wells in the area are characterized as
fine-grained to coarse-grained sands with significant intervals of gravels, cobbles, and boulders, and minor
intervals of thinly bedded silts and clays through the depth of groundwater at 110 fbg.
The site is located in the southem portion of the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley is a
north-south-trending valley, 400 miles long by 50 miles wide, the southern portion of which is known as the
San Joaquin Valley. Surface water and groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley are derived predominantly
from the Sierra Nevada to the east and are transported by five major rivers, the closest to the site being
the Kern River. The subject site is located 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, approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the site, and Well #64-01, approximately
2,400 southeast of the site. Hydrocarbons have not been detected in water .samples collected from
Well #7. However, MTBE has been detected in water samples collected from Well ~4-01 and this well is
currently inactive. No additional active water supply wells are located within 2,500 feet of the site.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 20, 2003- Page 3
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 wa.~ 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-auge~re_d 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 fog. 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. HF^ 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 HF^'s 10-ton direct-push
sampling rig where refusal was experienced due to the presence of a layer of cobbles. On September 26,
1999, soil boring B-1 was deepened to a depth of 48 fbg using a MobileTM B-53 hollow-stem auger drill rig
operated by Melton Drilling Company of Bakersfield, California. Drilling refusal was experienced at 48 fbg
due to encountering a second layer of larger diameter cobbles and occasional boulders. On September
26, 1999, soil borings B-4 and B-5 were also drilled at the site to 45 fog 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 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 the potential source area. Soils encountered during 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 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
¢-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
October 20, 2003- Page 4
also detected in the soil samples collected fr~)~h soil borings B-1 through B-5 to the total depth of the soil
borings.
The BFDESD, in its letter dated December 29, 1999, required the preparation of a CAP to determine the
appropriate remedial actions for gaSoline-containing soils at the site. HFA prepared the requested CAP,
dated April 12, 2000, which was subsequently approved by~t.h~.:...BFDESD for implementation. An RI/FS
was conducted to assess the feasibility and cost effectiveness of mitigation technologies. The results of
the RI/FS analysis were that in-situ vapor extraction is the technology that appears most suitable for this
site. A vapor extraction well field consisting of central, shallow-zone and deep-zone vapor extraction wells
(VW-ls and VW-ld, respectively) and three lateral, shallow-zone vapor extraction wells (VW-2 and VW-4)
was proposed (see Figure 3 for the vapor extraction well locations).
On February I through 3, 2001, HFA advanced soil boring VW-ld to 125 fbg, which was completed as a
combination groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well, and soil borings VW-2 through VW-4 to 45 fbg,
which were completed as vapor extraction wells. HFA performed the drilling and sampling of combination
groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well VVV-ld on February I through 3, 2001, using a limited-
access, dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig, operated by West Hazmat, Inc., of Sacramento,
California. The LAR was used because of the height of the canopy above the drill location, and the
dual-walled percussion, air rotary LAR was required due to the requirement to drill, through cobbles and
boulders. The three lateral vapor extraction wells (VVV-2 through 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 VVV-ld, with groundwater encountered at 110 fbg. Soil
samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VW-2 through VW-4 due to their positioning in close
proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths.
Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in
diameter. Field screening of the soil cuttings and soil samples indicated the presence of VOCs using a
PID to the total depth of soil boring VW-ld. Groundwater was encountered in the soil boring at 110 fbg.
Therefore, the soil boring was drilled to 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 VVV-4 were drilled to 45 fbg and completed as vapor extraction wells with
slotted casing from 5 to 45 fbg. Because the I_AR was required to be used at another site, time was not
available to install central, shallow vapor extraction well VVV-ls during this phase of investigation
TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 250 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 50 fbg,
decreasing to 5.7 mg/kg in the soil sample collected from 65 fbg, and was not detected in the soil sample
collected at 80 fbg. However, TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 2,300 mg/kg was in the
soil sample collected at 100 fbg. Benzene was not detected in the soil samples collected at 50, 65, and
80 fbg. However, benzene was detected at a concentration of 9.3 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 20, 2003- Page 5
100 fbg. MTBE was detected in the four soil s~amples 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 gro.u~dwater 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
VVV-ld (see Table 1 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Organic Compounds).
In order to further delineate the lateral limits of gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in soil and
groundwater, HFA's Preliminary Groundwater Assessment Report, dated June 25, 2001, recommended
that an expanded groundwater investigation be conducted and consist of the installation of three additional
groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MVV-3) (see Figure 3 for the monitoring well locations). In
order to complete the vapor extraction well field installation, HFA recommended that the previously
approved central, shallow-zone vapor extraction well (VVV-ls) would be installed as well as central,
intermediate-zone vapor extraction well VVV-li. The CRWQCB-CVR's case review letter, dated
July 23, 2001, approved implementation of the expanded groundwater assessment plan and VES work
plan.
From October 30, 2001 through November 2, 2001, HFA drilled five soil borings with three lateral soil
borings (MW-1 through MW-3) drilled to 125 fbg and completed as groundwater monitoring wells and the
two central soil bdrings (VW-ls and VW-li) drilled to 35 fbg and 75 fbg, respectively, and completed as
vapor extraction wells (see Figure 3 for the well locations). Soil samples were collected at a 10-foot
interval while drilling soil borings MW-1 through MW-3, with groundwater encountered at 114 fbg.
Soil samples were not collected while drilling soil borings VW-ls and VW-li due to their positioning in
close proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths. Soils encountered during drilling included
well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 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 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
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 20, 2003- Page 6
maximum concentration of 0.17 mg/kg in tl~e' 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 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at 10 fbg.
On November 26, 2001, groundwater samples were collected, ~om monitoring well MW-1 through MW-3
and VVV-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.20 to 115.15 feet
below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the
southeast. Three inches of PSH was observed in well VVV-ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE
were detected in the groundwater samples collected from all four monitoring wells reaching maximum
concentrations of 5,300,000 IJg/I, 72,000 pg/I, and 4,100,000 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 groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MVV-1, 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).
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 constructed and
the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VW-ls, VVV-li, VVV-ld, VVV-2, VW-3, and VVV-4 were connected by
2-inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation equipment
compound. Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and natural gas
services. VES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. On October 10, 2002, the SJVUAPCD-CR
performed an inspection of the VES unit and observed that it was operating in accordance with the
conditions specified in the ATC.
The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 19, 2002, requested submission of a work plan to perform an
expanded groundwater assessment to assess the southeastern (downgradient) limits of gasoline-
containing groundwater at the site. CSE submitted an Expanded Groundwater Assessment Work Plan,
dated August 9, 2002, which proposed the installation of two off-site downgradient monitoring wells MW-4
and MW-5. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated September 3, 2002 approved implementation of the
work plan with the condition that an additional off-site monitoring well (MW-6) be constructed to the south
of the site (see Figure 3 for the monitoring well locations).
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 20, 2003- Page 7
From April 10 through 20, 2003, CSE installe~l'~3ff-site groundwater monitoring wells MW-4 thrOugh MW-6
to a depth of 140 fbg completed with 40 feet of 2-inch diameter slotted PVC casing screened in the
interval'ranging in depth from 100 to 140 fbg. Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded
sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in diameter. Groundwater was encountered while drilling at a
depth of approximately 120 fbg. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were not detected in the soil
samPles collected from soil borings MW-4 through MW-6 ~..the exception of TPH as gasoline and
MTBE detected at concentrations of 1.5 mg/kg and 1.6 mg/kg, respectively, in the soil samples collected
at a depth of 120 fbg in soil boring MW-5 and MTBE at a concentration of 0.28 mg/kg in the soil sample
collected at a depth of 20 fbg in soil boring MW-6.
On April 21, 2003 groundwater samples were collected from the three newly constructed wells.
TPH as gasoline was detected at concentrations of 14,000 pg/I, 47,000 pg/I, and 17,000 IJg/I in the
groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, respectively. Benzene was
detected at concentrations ,of 830 pg/I, 3,500 IJg/I, and 15 pg/I in the groundwater samples collected from
monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, respectively. MTBE was detected at concentrations of 31,000 pg/I,
62,000 pg/I, and 54,000 pg/I in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through
MW-6, respectively. TBA, TAME, DIPE, ETBE, 1,2-DCA, and EDB were not detected in the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6 (see Table 1).
Based upon the laboratory analytical results, the CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 2, 2003,
requested submission of a work plan to perform an expanded groundwater assessment to assess the
southeastern (downgradient) limits of gasoline-containing groundwater at the site as well as the installation
of a deeper monitoring well to act as a "sentinel" between the petroleum release and CWSC Well No. 7.
CSE's Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan, dated July 11, 2003, proposed to drill
three soil bodngs (MW-7 through MW-9) to a depth of approximately 140 fbg and one soil boring (MW-5d)
to a depth of approximately 170 fbg, completing the four soil borings as groundwater monitoring wells (see
Figure 2 for the proposed monitoring well locations). The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated
August 13, 2003., approved implementation of the Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work
Plan, and requested submission of a CAP Addendum for the active remediation of the gasoline-containing
groundwater.
CSE's CAP Addendum, dated August 29, 2003, recommended the installation of a fixed air sparging (AS)
system in conjunction with the operating SVE to remove the LNAPL and dissolved-phase from the
capillary fringe and upper portion of the saturated zone at the site, and periodic overpurging of the off-site
monitoring wells to mitigate the off-site groundwater impact (see Figure 3 for the proposed air sparging
well locations). The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated September 3, 2003, did not approve
implementation of the CAP Addendum, and requested submittal of a work plan for the installation and
operation of a fixed GWPT to remediate the MTBE-containing groundwater. A meeting with the RP,
consultant, and CRWQCB-CVR personnel was held on September 18, 2003, where it was discussed that
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 20, 2003- Page 8
the proposed combination SVE and AS would' ~e integrated with a GWPT to provide for both.cost effective
hydrocarbon removal as well as hydraulic control.
CSE's Amendment to the CAP Addendum, dated September 24, 2003, proposed the installation of the on-
site AS; installation of an on-site groundwater extraction well (EW-1); performance of an aquifer test to
determine the optimum well field, well construction details ~a,.r?~..pumping rates; installation of additional
groundwater extraction wells, if required; and the installation of a GWPT system to provide hydraulic
control and hydrocarbon removal simultaneous with the SVE and AS (see Figure 3 for the proposed
groundwater extraction well location). The integrated use of the SVE and AS will remove the bulk of the
hydrocarbons from the vadose and saturated zones, while the GWPT will provide hydraulic control and
additional removal of MTBE from the groundwater. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated
October 8, 2003, conditionally approved implementation of the Amendment to the CAP Addendum, with
the condition that an Air Sparging Pilot Study Work Plan be submitted to monitor the effectiveness of the
proposed AS system, and that the work plan include additional groundwater monitoring POints to
determine the appropriate final design of the air sparging well field. CSE is currently preparing the
requested Air Sparging Pilot Study Work Plan.
THIRD QUARTER 2003 GOUNDWATER MONITORING
On August 6, 2003 the depth to groundwater within the monitoring wells was measured to an accuracy of
_+0.01 foot. Before sampling, the monitoring wells were checked for an immiscible layer and 0.08 feet of
PSH was observed in well VW-ld. Monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-6 were then purged prior to
extracting samples representative of the in-situ groundwater. During the purging process, the
conductivity, temperature, and pH of the groundwater were monitored and recorded on water sample logs.
Purging continued until a minimum of 2.0 casing volumes were produced and the measured parameters
had stabilized. Groundwater samples were collected after the wells had recharged to greater than 80
percent of their initial static water levels (see Attachment 1 for the Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling,
Sample Management Procedures and Attachment 2 for the Water Sample Logs).
Disposable TeflonTM bailers were used to sample the wells. All groundwater samples were placed in
chilled VOA vials containing hydrochloric acid as a preservative, labeled, sealed, and recorded on a chain-
of-custody record in accordance with the procedures outlined in the CRWQCB-CVR LUFT guidance
document. The groundwater samples contained no visible, suspended matter, and no headspace was
observed in any of the vials. The samples were then placed in a container filled with Blue-IceTM for cooling
purposes and transported to The Twining, Inc., a California State-certified laboratory, for analysis. QNQC
sampling included a trip blank, instrument blanks, spikes, and duplicates.
The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from approximately 112 to 117 fbg and the
direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the southeast, with a gradient of 0.015 (1.5 feet per
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 20, 2003- Page 9
100 feet) (see Figure 4 - Groundwater Elevation Contour Map). The groundwater samples were analyzed
for TPH as gasoline using EPA Method 8015 (M), BTEX and MTBE using EPA Method 8021, and full scan
of VOC's using EPA Method 8260. TPH as gasoline was detected at 190,000 pg/I, 81 pg/I, 24,000 pg/l,
45,000 pg/I, and 200 pg/I in the groundwater samples coilected from monitoring wells MW-l, and MW-3
through MW-6, respectively. Benzene was detected at 2,100 pg/I, 0.85 pg/I, 850 pg/I, 4,400 pg/I, and 4.6
pg/I in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-l, and MW-3 through MW-6,
respectively. MTBE was detected at 14,000 pg/I, 31 pg/l, 37,000 pg/i, 87,000 pg/I, and 230 pg/I in the
groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-I, and MW-3 through MW-6, respectively.
Dichlorodifluoromethane was detected at 35 pg/I, 85 pg/l, and 37 pg/1 in the groundwater samples
collected from monitoring wells MW-2, MW-3, and MW-6, respectively (see Figure 5 - TPH as
Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater, Table 1, and Attachment 3 for the Laboratory
Report for Groundwater).
REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2002
CSE prepared an SJVUAPCD ATC permit application for the installation of a thermal/catalytic oxidation
system. On May 13, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR PTO #.S-3267-2-0 was obtained for the installation and
operation of a thermal oxidation VES. During the second quarter of 2002, the remediation compound was
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. YES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. The VES unit has operated
24 hours per day since start-up, with only short periods of inactivity for maintenance, draining of the
knockout pot, and a few occurrences when the system has shut down, as well as the unit being shut down
72 hours prior to the second quarter 2003 groundwater monitoring event and restarted after completion of
the sample collection. On October 10, 2002, the SJVUAPCD-CR performed an inspection of the VES unit
and observed that it was operating in accordance with the conditions specified in the ATC.
Inlet vapor concentrations ranged from 3,415 and 3,835 ppmv during the third quarter of 2003
(see Figure 6 - Influent and Effluent TPH Concentrations, Table 3 - Summary of Vapor Sample Analytical
Results, and Table 4 - Summary of YES Monitoring Date). The inlet soil vapor flow rate has been
maintained near the maximum stated in the ATC permit and consistently ranges from 205 to 270 scfm. It
is estimated that the mass of gasoline hydrocarbons, extracted from the subsurface since startup is
approximately 111,141 pounds, which is equivalent to approximately 17,366 gallons of gasoline (see
Figure 7 - Cumulative Extraction Curve and Table 4).
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
October 20, 2003- Page 10
ACTIVITIES PLANNED FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER 2003
During the fourth quarter 2003, the following activities will be completed:
Conduct groundwater monitoring and sampling;
· Continue VES operations;
· Conduct expanded off-site groundwater assessment, pending California DOT and City of Bakersfield
issuance of encroachment permits;
· Submit air sparging pilot study work plan;
· Install on-site air sparging and groundwater extraction wells;
· Perform aquifer test; and
· Perform air sparging pilot study.
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC., trusts that you will find this Third Quarter 2003 Progress Report to
your satisfaction. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
or at
Mr. Mark Magargee at (661) 325-4862 ~ss censenv@aol.com.
' ~a'~r, ~e~Respectfully submi ~ed,
. g g ,e, C~ R~ !i I~:?~' ~ ~1
Consulting Hydrogeologist il
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC
MRM/smm:jlt ~ ~
Enclosures: Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 3 Plot Plan
Figure 4 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map
Figure 5 TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater
Figure 6 Influent and Effluent TPH concentrations
Figure 7 Cumulative Extraction Curve
Table1 Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for
Compounds
Table 2 Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Physical and
Chemical Characteristics
Table 3 Summary of Vapor Sample Analytical Results
Table 4 Summary of VES Monitoring Data
List of Acronyms
Attachment 1 -
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Organic
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, Sample Management Procedures
Water Sample Logs
Laboratory Report for Groundwater
cc: Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR
Mr. Howard H. Wines, III, BFDESD
-,25
11
: I, I1:
ii
G~
SITE LOCATION
!
I!
LEGEND
0 0.5 I MILE
I I I I I I I I 'l I I
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FEET
0 0.5 I KILOMETER
USGS OILDALE/GOSFORDT.5 MINUTE SERIES QUADRANGLE
i
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD~ CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
24th STREET
ESTIMATED LIMIT OF
GASOLINE CONTAINING
GROUNDWATER
MW-g
22nd STREET Mw
LEGEND
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WELL
REVISION DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003:jif
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 - SITE VICINITY MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
I
I
I
''c°~°uNo
.~VE$ UNIT
GASOLINE UST
20.000-GALLON
SPLIT-CHAMBERED
GASOLINE UST
MW~
23RD STREET
MW.-6
SIDEWALK
MW-5
SOIL BORING
LEGEND
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL
- - ' ' VES PIPING
RI~VIsION DATE:OCTOBER 20, 2003: {It
[] FILL END
o TURBINE END
-~ PROPOSED GROUNDWATER
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WELL LOCATION'
PROPOSED AIR SPARGE WELL LOCATION
SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 3 - PLOT PLAN
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
-1
n MW-2 PENS~R ISLANDS
I 2,.o, ~9~.o , ' /
I
I ' ' '~O
23RD STREET ~~.~.~_~0.
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL [3 FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
. / GROUNDWATER
~.'~' ELEVATION CONTOUR ~ GROUNDWATER FLOW BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
'~ (FEET ABOVE MSL)~k DIRECTION FIGURE 4 - GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
.,,'W'~.,..# GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: October 19, 2003;jlt ~
CAR MINI MART ac
n '- ' MW-2 DISP . ISLANDS
I I r I -- ~ ~ ' / GASgLIN[~ UST ~MW-,4
ay, t-3 \ \ \ EXPLORATO.~/ , -
SAMPLED AUGUST 6, 2003
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
~ GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL ~ FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
o TURBINE ENO 2317 "L" STREET ·
#/#1# TPH AS GASOLINE/BENZENE/MTBE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER (~g/I) FIGURE 5 - TPH AS GASOLINE/BENZENE/MTBE
~ CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER
# MTBE CONCENTRATON CONTOUR (pg/I) ND NOT DETECTED
/ CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: October 19, 2003:jlt
FIGURE 6 - INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT TPH CONCENTRATIONS
E
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
10
TPH In
..... TPH Out
5 10 15 2O 25
Cumulative Operating Weeks
3O
FIGURE 7 - CUMULATIVE EXTRACTION CURVE
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
5 10 15 20 25
Cumulative Operating Weeks
3O
TABLE 1.
SUMMARy OF GROUNDWATER 8AMPLE ANALYTICAL RE6ULT8 FOR ORGANIC COMPOUND8
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNLA
TABLE 2,
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
WELL ID DEPTH TO FLOATING GROUND-
AND DATE GROUND- PRODUCT WATER
ELEVATION* SAMPLED WATER THICKNESS ELEVATION TDS EC pH CHLORIDE SULFATE NITRATE CALCIUM MAGNESIUM SODIUM POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE CARBONATE BICARBONATE TKN REF
(feet-MSL) (fbg) (feet) (feet-MSL) (mg/~) (umhos/cm) (pH units) (rog/I) (mg/]) (rog/I) (mg/I) (rog/I) (rog/I) (mg/I) (m~l/I) (rog/I) (rog/I) (mg/I)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 160.1 9050 9040 300.0 6010 310.1 351.2 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES - SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
VW-ld
404.00 3-28-02 114.54 0.25 289.4{~ 617 951 7.38 93 82 2.1 120 21 44 5.1 ND ND 350 0.8 A
MW-1 3-28-02 114,53 0.00 289,7~ 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 6.61 30! 51 18 76 23 37 18 ND ND 140 ND B
MW-2 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 291.07 382 576 7.21 31 74 46.3 66 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 B
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 0,00 284.88 310 460 6.? 2~ 59 38 97 25 37 16 ND ND 140 ND /B
REF = Reoort reference. 4lA = Not applicable. ND = ~ot detected,
*Measured to the top of the well casing.
A = Holg~in, Fshan & Associates, inc.'s, report dated May 29, 2002.
B = Central Siena Environmental, LLC's report dated November 14, 2002.
' TABLE 3.
SUMMARY OF VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, B~KERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED SAMPLE ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE
(ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) REF
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020 N/A
DETECTION LIMIT 10 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 N/A
INFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-1 5,500 58 290 32 220 1,900 A
EFFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.31 A
INFLUENT 12-12-02 0212180-1 8,600 110 320 44 260 2,200 A
INFLUENT 2-21~03 0302259-1 11,000 120 190 100 290 1,400 B
EFFLUENT 2-21-03 0302259-2 ND ND ND ND ND ND B
I NFLUENT 6-25-03 0306310-1 3,800 16 150 34 201 480 C
REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected.
A = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's (CSE's), report dated March 3, 2003.
B = CSE's, report dated April 13, 2003.
C = CSE's, current report.
TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF VES MONITORING DATA
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
[~ate Calendar OperatingOperatingOperatingOperating Temper- Flow MW-1 V-ls V-li V-ld V-2 V-3 V-4 Air TPH InField TPHEfficiency Total Lbs. Lbs. DestroyedLbs. Gallons
MonitoredDays Hours Hours Days Weel(s ature(°F) (scfm)(valve) (valve) (valve) (valve) (valve) (valve (valve(valve)(ppmv)Out(ppmv~, (>90%) ExtractedExtractedper eventDestroyed E. xt~acted
10-22-02 14 52 168 7 I 1,435 225 · · · PO · · · PO 6,235 10 100% t,218.36 3,349.95 1,152.90 3,661.86 523
10-24-02 16 25 193 8 1 1,460 230 · · · PO · · · PO 6,530 10 100% 555.23 3.905.18 593.45 4,255.31 610
10-30-02 22 75 268 11 2 1.450 215 · · · PO · · · PO 6,745 10 100% 1.783.26 5,688.44 1,719.tl 5,974.42 889
11-1-02 24 26 294 12 2 1,465 235 · · · PO· · · PO 6,950 10 100% 596.91 6,285.35 571.23 6,645.66 982
11-6-02 29 63 357 15 2 1,440 205 · PO · O · · · PO 7,120 10 100% 1,628.947,914.29 1,453.55 8,099.21 1,237
11-8-02 31 29 366 16 2 1,485 240 · PO · 0 · · · PO 7,280 10 100% 670.11 6,584.39 800.97 8,900.19 1,341
11-15-02 36 39 477 20 3 1,455 220 · PO · 0 · · · PO 7,535 10 100% 1,218.1111,240.831.022.04 11,544.07 1.756
11-18-02 41 37 514 21 3 1,490 215 · PO · O · ·· PO 7,680 10 100% 971.00 12,211.83 96585 12,509.91 1,908
11-21-02 44 40 554 23 3 1,470 230 · PO · O · · · PO 7,825 10 100% 1,045,6113,257.451,138.13 13,648,04 2,071
11-26-02 45 53 607 25 4 1,435 205 · PO · O · · · PO 8,060 10 100% 1,510.0814,767.531,384.52 15,032.55 2.307
11-30-02 53 62 669 26 4 1,450 225 · PO · O · · · PO 8,175 10 100% 1,621.7816,389.311,803.05 16,835.61 2,561
12-3-02 56 0 669 ,Z8 4 1,465 240 · PO · O · · · PO 6,320 10 100% 0.00 16,389.310.00 16,835.61 2,561
12-6-02 59 39 708 30 4 1,440 210 · PO · O ·· · PO 8.455 10 100% 1,232.8517,622.161,094.86 17,930.47 2,753
2,~82
12-16-02 69 50 638 35 5 1,450 220 · PO · O · · · PO 8,475 10 100% 1,599.7421,420.451,474.00 21,665.98 3,347
12-19-02 72 41 879 37 5 1,465 215 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,135 10 100% 1.210.2022,630.651,133.76 22,799.74 3,536
12-24-02 77 64 943 39 6 1,455 235 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,955 10 100% 1,772.1024,402.751,891.55 24,691.29 3,813
12-25-02 79 27 970 40 6 1,465 255 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,550 10 100% 799.07 25,201.82821.78 25,513.07 3.938
12-30-02 63 52 1,022 43 6 1,460 Z40 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,230 10 100% 1,5~4.9026,786.721,426.35 26,939.42 4,185
1-4-03 88 61 1,083 45 6 1,465 235 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,465 10 100% 1,675.6828,462.411,691.69 28,631.11 4,447
1-7-03 91 4O 1,123 47 7 1,470 245 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,615 10 100% 1,110.8929,573.29~ 1,179.78 29,810.89 4,621
1-14-03 98 65 1,214 51 7 1,460 225 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,025 10 100% 1,993,7332,334,9,~~ 1,855.56 32,462.85 5,052
1-t7-03 10t 38 1,252 52 7 1,455 230 PO PO · O ·· · PO 8,450 10 100% 1,086.2333,421.191,167.70 33,630.56 5,222
1-20-03104 40 1,292 54 6 1,490 215 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,795 19 100% 1,230.7134,651.901,195.96 34,826.52 5,414
1-23-03107 42 1,334 56 8 1,470 235 PO PO · O · · · PO 9.230 10 100% 1,257.2935.909.191,440.56 36,267.08 5,611
1-27-03111 49 1,383 58 8 1,435 205 PO PO · O · · · PO 9,630 10 100% 1,682.5937,591.781,529.69 37,796.77 5,874
1-30-03114 39 1,422 59 8 1,450 240 PO PO · O · · · PO 9,875 10 100% 1.218.8738,810.651,461.70 39,258.47 6,064
2-3-03 t18 52 1,474 61 9 1,465 265 PO PO · O · · · PO 10.080 10 100% 1,951.0340,761.682,196.58 41,455.14 6,369
2-7-03 122 49 1,523 63 9 1,440 220 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,345 10 100% 2,072.1242,833.791,763.65 43,218.79 6,693
2-10-03' 125 36 1,561 65 9 1,485 215 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,530 10 100% 1,369.1444,202.941,360.57 44,579.36 6,907
2-14-03129 51 1,612 67 10 1,460 230 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,645 10 100% 1,827.5946,030.821~974.79 46,554.15 7,162
2-25-03140 0 1,703 71 10 1.455 240 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,750 10 100% 0.00 49,366.920.00 46,971,91 7,714
2-28-03 143 39 1,742 73 10 1.465 2t0 PO PO · O ·· · PO 10,685 10 100% 1,592.9350,962.551,384.00 51.355.90 7,963
3-7-03 150 42 1,634 76 11 1,485 235 PO PO PO O · · · PO 10,580 10 100% 1,416.2554,185.241,651.60 54,691.71 8,462
3-11-03 154~ 49 1,883 78 11 1,490 220 PO PO PO O · · · PO 10,535 10 100% 1,928.6956,053.931,796.08 56,487.79 8,763
3-14-03 157 41 1,924 80 11 1,480 215 PO PO · 0 PO · · PO 10,475 10 100% 1,504.3657,588.291,460.31 57,948.10 8.998
3-t8-03 161 50 1,974 82 12 1,485 235 PO PO · O PO · · PO 10,415 10 100% 1,782.6859,370.981,935.36 59,883.47 9,277
TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF VES MONITORING DATA
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
C~muJative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Outlet Inlet Cilution Field Reduc~on Cumulative Lbs. CumutativeCumulative
Date Calendar OperatingOperatingOperatingOperating Temper-Flow MW*I V-ls V-li V-ld V-2 V-3 V-4 Air TPH InField TPH Efficiency Total Lbs. Lbs. DesffoyedLbs. Gallons
Monitored Days Hours Hours Days Week. s ature(°Fl (scfm)(valve) (valve) (valve) (valve) (valve) (valve (valve(valve)(ppmv)Out(ppmv(>90%) Extracted Extractedper eventDestroyed Extracted
4-14-03 188 51 2,326 97 t4 1,435 215 PO PO · O PO · · PO 9,855 10 100% 1,764.7172,895.731,705.86 73,148.25 11,390
4-17-03 191 37 2,363 98 14 1,450 230 PO PO · O PO · · PO 9,780 10 100% 1,24t.ll74,t36.841,316.16 74,464.40 11,584
4-21-03 195 11 2,374 99 14 1,465 205 PO PO · O PO · · PO 9,655 10 100% 391.72 74,528.55344.29 74,808.70 11,645
4-24-03 198 42 2,416 101 14 1,440 225 PO PO · O, · PO · PO 9,460 10 100% 1,316.0475,844.591,416.65 76,225.35 11,851
4-28-03 202 53 2,469 103 15 1,485 240 PO PO · O · PO · PO 9,225 10 100% 1,789.6977,634.281,855.52 78,080.87 12,130
5-1-03 205 38 2,507 104 15 1,460 210 PO PO · O · PO · PO 8,950 10 100% 1,331.9178,966.191,129.32 79,210.19 12,338
5-6-03 210 63 2,570 107 15 1,450 195 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 8,780 10 100% 1,874.5480,840.731,705.49 60,915.58 12,631
5-9-03 213 41 2,611 109 16 1,465 235 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 8,445 10 100% 1,111.2881,952.011,286.52 82,202.19 12,805
5-13-03 217 49 2,660 111 16 1,455 220 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 8,110 10 100% 1,539.4983,491.501,382.23 83,584.42 13,046
5-16-03 220 40 2,7O0 113 16 1,465 215 PO PO PO O PO · · PO 7,825 t0 100% 1,129.8484,621.331,063.90 84,648.32 13,222
5-20-03 224 49 2,749 115 16 1,460 235 PO PO · O PO · · PO 7,255 10 100% 1,305.0685,926.391,320.61 85,968,94 13,425
5-23-03 227 41 2,790 116 17 1,465 255 PO PO · O PO · · PO 6,785 10 100% 1,106.6387,033.021,121.26 87,090.20 13,599
5-26-03 230 42 2,832 118 17 1,470 240 PO PO · O · PO · PO 6,235 10 100% 1,150.4188,183.43993.27 88,083.47 13,779
5-29-03 233 38 2,870 120 17 1,485 235 PO PO · O · PO · PO 5,890 10 100% 900.21 89,083.64831.18 88,914.65 13,919
5-30-03 234 16 2,686 120 17 1,460 245 PO PO · O · PO · PO 5,450 10 100% 350.60 89,434.24337.56 89,252.21 13,974
6-3-03 238 51 2,937 122 17 1,455 250 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 5,035 10 100% 1,078.0690,512.301,014.16 90,266.37 14,143
6-5-03 240 29 2,966 124 18 1,490 225 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 4,855 10 100% 577.90 91,090.20500.41 90,766.78 14,233
6-9-03 244 50 3,016 126 18 1,470 230 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 4,6t9 t0 '100% 864.68 91,954.88838.26 91,605.04 t4,368
6-12-03 247 37 3,053 127 18 1,435 215 PO PO PO O PO · · PO 4,430 10 100% 621.75 92,576.62556.55 92,t61.59 14~65
6-16-03 251 52 3,105 129 18 1,450 240 PO PO PO O PO · · PO 4,225 10 100% 784.07 93,360.70832.64 92,994.23 14,586
6-19-03 254 42 3,147 131 19 1,465 245 PO PO · O PO · · PO 4,075 10 100% 674.22 94,034.91662.10 93,656.33 14,693
6-23-03 258 50 3,197 133 19 1,460 230 PO PO · 0 · PO · PO 3,950 10 100% 760.27 94,625.15717.19 94,373,52 14,816
6-25-03 260 25 3,222 134 19 1,470 235 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,800 10 100% 359.56 95,184.75352.44 94,725.96 14,873
6-30-03 265 64 3,286 137 20 1,475 240 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,810 10 100% 904.78 96,089.53923.88 95,649.84 15,014
7-2-03 267 27 3,313 138 20 1.460 225 PO PO · 0 · · PO PO 3,835 10 t00% 390.85 96,480.38367.80 96,017.64 15,075
7-11-03 276 113 3,426 143 20 1,450 220 PO PO PO 0 · · PO PO 3,795 10 t00% 1,543.6198,023.991,489.36 97,507.01 15,316
7-15-03 280 50 3,476 145 21 1,465 215 PO PO PO 0 · · PO PO 3,765 10 t00% 660.87 98,684.8'~ 638.92 98,145.93 15,420
7-18-03 263 37 3,513 146 21 1,440 235 PO PO PO 0 PO · · PO 3,730 10 100% 474.15 99,159.0,~ 511.98 98,657.91 15,494
7-22-03 287 51 3,564 149 21 1,485 255 PO PO PO 0 PO · · PO 3,705 10 100% 707.72 99,866.73; 760.62 99,418.53 15,604
7-25-03 29O 42 3,606 150 21 1,460 24O PO PO · 0 PO · · PO 3,680 10 100% 628.19 100,494.92 585.55 100,004.0815,702
7-29-03 294' 50 3,656 152 22 1,455 235 PO PO · O PO PO · PO 3,655 10 100% 699.10 101,194.02 677.91 100,681.9915,812
8-1-03 297 40 3,696 154 22 1,490 245 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,680 10 100% 543.91 101,737.93 569.29 101,251.2815,897
84.-03 300 39 3,735 156 22 1,470 250 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,720 10 t00% 556.66 102,294.59 572.56 101,823.83t5,954
8-7-03 303 0 3,735 156 22 t,435 225 PO PO PO O · PO PO PO 3,685 10 100% 0.00 102,294.59 0.00 101,823.83 ! 15,984
8-11-03 307 49 3,784 158 23 1,450 230 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 3,635 10 100% 643.17 102,937.77 646.64 102,470.48t6,084
8-14-03 310 40 3,824 159 23 1,465 210 PO PO PO O PO · PO PO 3,620 10 t00% 529.42 103,467.19 479.97 103,950.45 ' 16,167
8-18-03 314 53 3.877 162 23 1,440 235 PO PO PO O PO · PO PO 3,595 10 100% 637.85 104,105.04 706.75 103,657.2016,266
8-21-03 317 38 3,915 163 23 1,485 205 PO PO · O PO · · PO 3,560 10 t00% 506.23 104,613.27437.71 104,094.9t 16,346
8-25-03 321 51 3,966 165 24 1,460 240 PO PO · O PO PO · PO 3,525 10 t00% 559.23 105,202.50680.99 104,775.9016,438
8-28-03 324 37 4,003 187 24 1,450 270 PO PO · O · ' PO · PO 3,590 10 100% 495.55 105,696.05586.10 105,342.0016,515
9-1'-03 328 52 4,055 169 24 1,465 220 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,630 10 100% 797.95 106,496.00655.49 105,997.49 i 16,640
9-5-03 332 50 4,105 171 24 1,455 215 PO PO PO O · PO PO PO 3,655 10 t00% 632.14 107,128.13620.20 106,617.70 I 16,739
9-8-03 335 41 4,146 173 25 1,465 230 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 3,595 10 t00% 510.05 107,638.19535.10 107,152.80. 16,818
9-11-03 338 37 4,183 174 25 1,460 245 PO PO PO O PO · PO PO 3,520 10 100% 484.33 108,122.52503.63 107,656.42 I 16,894
9-15-03 342 52 4,235 176 25 1,465 250 PO PO PO O PO · PO PO 3,480 10 100% 709.94 105,832.47714.02 108,370.4417,005
6-19-03 .346 54 4,289 179 26 1,470 235 PO PO · O PO · · PO 3,455 10 100% 743.75 109,576.21691.96 109,062.4117,121
9-22-03 349 38 4,327 180 26 1,485 215 PO PO · O PO PO · PO 3,430 10 100% 488.44 110,064.65442.25 109,504.6617,196
9-26-03 353 51 4,375 182 26 1,460 240 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,420 10 t00% 595.41 110,660.06660.65 110,165.3117,291
9-29-03 356 37 4,415 184 26 1,470 225 PO PO · O · PO · PO 3,415 10 t00% 480.79 11t,140.85448.67 1t0,6t3.9817,366
Open = O
C4 esed = ·
Part~a~lly open TM PO
ATTACHMENT 1.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
GROUNDWATER MONITORING, SAMPLING, AND SAMPLE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
NOTIFICATIONS
Prior to performing any field work, the client, regulatory agency, and property owner/manager with
jurisdiction over the subject site are notified. Notifications,. .a..r.~.. made a minimum of 48 hours prior to
sampling, or as required by the client or regulator.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Prior to performing purge or no-purge sampling, water level measurements are collected according to the
following procedures:
· All wells are checked for phase-separated hydrocarbons with an acrylic, bailer or oil/water interface
meter.
· To avoid cross contamination, water levels are measured starting with the historically "cleanest" wells
and proceeding to the historically "dirtiest."
Water levels within each well are measured to an accuracy of +0.01 foot using an electric measuring
device and are referenced to the surveyed datum (well cover or top of casing). When measuring to
top of casing, measurements are made to the notched (or otherwise marked) point on casing. If no
marking is visible, the measurement is made to the northern side of the casing.
If possible, all wells are gauged within a short time interval on the same day to obtain accurate
measurements of the potentiometric surface.
· All measurements are reproduced to assure validity, and measuring equipment is decontaminated
between wells.
PHASE-SEPARATED HYDROCARBON
If phase-separated hydrocarbon (PSH) is encountered, its thickness in the well and the depth to the
interface between the PSH and the water in the well are measured using one or both of the following
methods:
· an electronic oil-water interface meter is used to measure the depths to the top of the PSH and to the
top of the water, and/or
· an electronic water level meter is used to measure the depth to the top of the water and a Clear bailer
is used to measure the PSH thickness.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 2
The potentiometeric surface elevation is calculated as:
TOC - DTW + 0.74PT
Where TOC -- top-of-casing elevation, DTw -- depth to water (interface), and PT = PSH thickness.
If PSH thickness is less than 0.02 foot, and the well is' planned for purging prior to sample collection, the
well is purged and sampled in accordance with the sample collection section of this SOP. If the PSH
thickness is 0.02 foot or greater, the PSH is bailed from the well, and left onsite in a labeled and sealed
container. No sample is collected for analysis from wells having a PSH thickness of greater than 0.02
foot.
NO-PURGE SAMPLING
Well purging is not conducted prior to sampling if purging is not needed to meet technical and/or
regulatory project requirements. Following collection of water level measurements,, wells that are not
purged are sampled according to the protocol in the sample collection section of this SOP.
PURGING PROCEDURES
Well purging is conducted prior to sampling if purging is needed to meet technical and/or regulatory
project requirements. If purging is conducted, the monitOring wells are purged using a vacuum truck,
submersible electric pump, bailer, hand pump, or bladder pump, as appropriate for site conditions. A
surge block may be used if it becomes apparent during purging that the well screen has become bridged
with sediment or the produced groundwater is overly turbid.
During the purging process, groundwater is monitored for temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, odor,
and color. These parameters are recorded on a water sample log. Purging continues until all stagnant
water within the wells is replaced by fresh formation water, as indicated by removal of a minimum number
of wetl 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~to the well water to collect a groundwater
~,, e'~lt..
sample.
· If visible PSH is present in the sample bailer, PSH thickness is recorded on the field log, and no
sample is collected for laboratory analysis.
For volatile organic analyses, groundwater samples are collected in chilled, 40-milliliter, VOA vials
having Teflon~-Iined caps. Hydrochloric acid preservative is added to all vials by the laboratory to
lower sample pH to 2. Samples are held at 2 to 4°C while in the field and in transit to the laboratory.
Other appropriate containers, preservatives, and holding protocols are used for non-volatile analyses.'
· VOA vials are filled completely so that no headspace or air bubbles are present within the vial. Care is
taken so that the vials are not overfilled and the preservative is not lost.
Sample containers are immediately labeled and sealed after collection to prevent confusion. For VOA
vials, the label is placed to overlap the edge of the cap as a custody seal, unless a separate custody
seal is being used.
Samples are stored in a cooler while on site and in transport to the laboratory or office. The cooler
has sufficient ice to maintain appropriate temperature prior to collecting samples. The VOA vials are
kept cool both prior to and after filling. Hot or warm containers are not used when volatile compounds
are the target analytes.
DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES
Decontamination of monitoring and sampling equipment is performed prior to all monitoring and sampling
activities. Decontamination procedures utilize a three-Step process as described below:
The initial decontamination is performed using a non-phosphate soap, such as Simple Green or
Alconox, in tap water in a 5-gallon bucket. A soft-bristle bottlebrush is used to thoroughly clean the
inside and outside of the equipment.
· A second 5-gallon bucket of tap water is used as a first rinse.
· A third 5-gallon bucket of deionized water is used as a final rinse.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 4
· The brush is used in the first bucket only; it does not travel from bucket to bucket with the equipment.
This minimizes any transport of the contaminants that should stay in the first bucket.
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
At a minimum, a trip blank and a temperature blank are maintained for QA/QC purposes.
A trip blank sample (TRIP) is kept with any samples being analyzed for VOCs. This is a sample of
clean water that is supplied by the laboratory and is transported to and from the field and to the
laboratory with the field samples. The designation "QCTRIPBK" or "QCTB" is used for sample name
on the field label. Samplers record the date that the TRIP is taken to the field for sampling, not the
date that the TRIP was prepared by the laboratory on the chain-of-custody (COC). One TRIP per
cooler per day is collected.
Unused trip blank samples are stored at the consulting office in a cooler dedicated to this purpose.
The trip blank cooler is not refrigerated, but is kept in a clean location away from possible VOC
contaminants.
Temperature blank sample containers are supplied by the laboratory and kept in a cooler used to
transport samples. The temperature blank is placed in the cooler prior to going to the field and kept
there until the cooler is delivered to the laboratory.
COMPLETION OF cHAIN OF CUSTODY
· A separate COC is completed for each day of sampling. If samples are collected on separate days for
the same site, a separate COC is completed for each sampling day, and the COC is always kept with
the samples. If samples are shipped off site for laboratory analysis, individual coolers with separate
COCs are sent for each day/cooler shipped.
All fields/spaces on the COC are filled out completely, and all persons having control of the samples
sign the COC to show transfer of sample control between individuals. At times when the field sampler
is not delivering samples directly to the laboratory, the samples may be turned over to a sample
manager for shipping. In this instance, the sample manager takes custody of the samples, and both
the sampler and sample manager sign and date the COC to clearly show custody transfer.
· The COC is placed inside the cooler, and a custody seal is placed on the outside of the cooler prior to
shipping. The receiving laboratory indicates if the cooler was received with the custody seal intact.
Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Sample Management Procedures
Page 5
If samples are sent to the laboratory via UPS, FEDEX, etc., this is indicated on the COC, and the
sample manager indicates the date and time custody seal is placed on cooler for delivery to the
shipping agent (shipping agent does not sign the COC).
For trip blanks, the COC indicates the date the TRIP was t~ken 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. I~boratory. Standard procedures for cooler
packing include:
· The cooler contains enough ice to maintain the required temperature of 2 to 4°C (roughly 20 percent
of the volume of the cooler).
· Water ice (not dry ice or ice packs) is used for shipping.
· The ice is placed above and below the samples in at least two sealable plastic bags. This requires
that the packing/divider material is removed and replaced.
The COC is placed in the cooler in a sealed plastic bag, and the cooler lid is taped closed to secure it
for transport and to minimize loss of temperature. A custody seal is placed vertically across the seam
of the cooler lid.
ATTACHMENT 2.
WATER SAMPLE LOGS
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: August 6, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: VW-ld
WELL DEPTH: 125'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 4"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90° and sunny
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: 0.08' floating product
(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: QNQC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 80°
7.0 3168 7.0 80°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field
8-6-03 1500 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 112.59'
:)EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING:
3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:
TOTAL DISCHARGE: CASING VOLUMES REMOVED:
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER:
AMOUNTAND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED:
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): 0.08' of free product - no sample collected
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS:
DATA COLLECTED BY: Tim Gluskoter
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325~4862 · Fax (661/ 325-5126
WATER SAMPLE LOG
CLIENT NAME: Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC DATE: August 6, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-1
WELL DEPTH: 124.75'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90° and Sunny
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, Iow odo~.-~..
(e.g., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QNQC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 80°
7.0 3168 4.0 80°
DISCHARGE CONDUC-
DATE TIME TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(l~mhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field @
8-6-03 1145 ~)EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 113.75'
8-6-03 1150 1.5 82.7 7.07 811 Gray Low Medium
8-6-03 1200 2.5 79.9 7.06 828 Gray Low Medium
8-6-03 1210 3.5 79.4 7.02 834 Gray Low Medium
8-6-03 1220 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 114.48'
8-6-03 1230 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 113.86'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.0
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): Gray Color, Medium Turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-1
DATA COLLECTED BY: Flynn O'Neill
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 6, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-2
WELL DEPTH: 123.98'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90° and Sunny
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, Iow odo,~.,.~..
(e.cj., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 80°
7.0 3168 7.0 80°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(IJmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field (~
8-6-03 1400 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 112.33'
8-6-03 1410 2 78.1 7.10 600 Tan Low Medium
8-6-03 1420 4 77.9 7.05 597 Tan Low Medium
8-6-03 1430 6 77.5 7.00 596 Tan Low Medium
8-6-03 1440 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I 113.01'
8-6-03 1450 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:I 112.49'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 6 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 3.2
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, Medium Turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: .MW-2
DATA COLLECTED BY: Fl~'nn O'Neill
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 6, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-3
WELL DEPTH: 124.25'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90° and Sunny
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor,
(e.g., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCE WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: )H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 80°
7.0 3168 7.0 80°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVlTY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(IJmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field @
8-6-03 1245 :3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 113.12'
8-6-03 1255 1.5 77.9 7.40 444 Gray None Medium
8-6-03 1310 2.5 77.4 7.33 439 Gray None Medium
8-6-03 1320 3.5 77.2 7.29 437 Gray None Medium
8-6-03 1330 3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 114.10'
8-6-03 1340 [3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 113.25'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 3.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.0
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): Gray Color, Medium Turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: -MW-3
DATA COLLECTED BY: Flynn O'Neill
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 6, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-4
WELL DEPTH: 131.05'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90° and Sunny
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, Iow odo£.,.~,..
(e.g., floatin9 layer, odor, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: ~H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 80°
7.0 3168 7.0 80°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(pmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field @
8-6-03 1030 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 116.73'
8-6-03 1040 2.5 89.3 7.04 637 Gray/Brown Low Medium
8-6-03 1050 4.5 86.9 6.78 615 Gray/Brown Low Medium
8-6-03 1100 6.5 82.7 6.75 620 Gray/Brown Low Medium
8-6-03 1110 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: ' 117.81'
8-6-03 1120 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 116.89'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 6.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.7
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): Gray/Brown Color, Medium Turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-4
DATA COLLECTED BY: Flynn O'Neill
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 6, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-5
WELL DEPTH: 134.33'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90° and Sunny
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, Iow odo~.,...'r,..
(e.g., floating layer, odor, color)
QUALITY I WATER SAMPLING METHOD: TeflonTM bailer
ASSURANCEI WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD: Electronic water level meter
PUMP LINES / BAILER ROPES: Cleaned
METHOD OF CLEANING BAILER / PUMP: QA/QC
METHOD OF PURGING WATER:
pH METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Yes
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE METER: Hanna CALIBRATED: Checked
COMMENTS: ~H STD. CALIBRATION STD. FIELD TEMP °F
4.0 3167/1.41 4.0 80°
7.0 3168 7.0 80°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR YURBIDITY
(t~mhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field @
8-6-03 915 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 117.51'
8-6-03 930 2.5 80.8 7.34 700 Gray Low Medium
8-6-03 940 4.5 80.0 6.97 724 Gray Low Medium
8-6-03 950 6.5 79.8 6.93 714 Gray Low Medium
8-6-03 1000 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: I 119.42'
8-6-03 1015 3EPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING:I 117.66'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 6.5 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.4
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): Gray Color, Medium Turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-5
DATA COLLECTED BY: Flynn O'Neill
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 6, 2003
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Chevron
WELL NUMBER: MW-6
WELL DEPTH: 130.21'
WELL CASING DIAMETER: 2"
WEATHER CONDITIONS: 90° and Sunny
OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS: No floating layer, no odor,,.-.,.
(e.g., floatincj 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 90°
7.0 3168 7.0 90°
CONDUC-
DATE TIME DISCHARGE TEMP. pH TIVITY COLOR ODOR TURBIDITY
(IJmhos/cm)
(gallons) (°F) field (~
8-6-03 800 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT START OF PURGING: 115.21'
8-6-03 810 2 79.3 7.54 721 Tan · None Medium
8-6-03 820 4 78.6 7.43 713 Tan None Medium
8-6-03 830 6 78.4 7.24 705 Tan None Medium
8-6-03 845 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT END OF PURGING: 116.10'
8-6-03 900 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AT TIME OF SAMPLING: 115.38'
TOTAL DISCHARGE: 6 gallons CASING VOLUMES REMOVED: 2.5
METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF DISCHARGED WATER: stored on-site in 55-gallon drums
AMOUNT AND SIZE OF SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED: Four VOA vials.
WATER SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (e.g., color, turbidity): Tan Color, Medium Turbidity
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: MW-6
DATA COLLECTED BY: Flynn O'Neill
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California
(661) 325-4862 · Fax (661) 325-5126
ATTACHMENT 3.
LABORATORY REPORT FOR GROUNDWATER
1G:23 FROM:
5592680?40
T0:661 325 S126
TWINING
L ,~ I~ O R A T O R I E S , I N C .
ANALYTICAL C~Ei~IiSTRY - EI~VIRONMENTAL
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES - SAMPLING SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION & MATERIALS
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY DIVISION
PROJECT COVER SHEET
P.002/021
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
· August 20, 2003
' 703-4128.1-7
INVOICE # 70304128
Report Amended October 20, 2003
ATTENTION
CLIENT
' Mr. David Bird
Sullivan's Petroleum
1508 18"~ St., Ste. 222
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Please find enclosed the analytical results of your Samples. In accordance with your
instructions, the samples were analyzed for the components specified.
The Twining Laboratories is accredited by the State of California Department of
Health Services for the analysis of Drinking Water, Wastewater and Hazardous
Waste under Certificate No. 1371.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments regardin9 the
analyses or results. Thank you for allowing us to serve your analytical needs.
elw
Invoice - Client
1C :Invoice to CSE
Director of Analytical Chemistry
Rev. 4..~.o~o3 lau (COVER)
CORPORATE MODES'FO VISALIA BAKEI~SFIELD MOhrI'£RE¥ SACRAMENTO
ZSZ7 Frmno Slrc~ 3Z~ Jerusalem CouP, Sui~ E 130 No~ ~b~ S~et, ~HG 3~1 Pegas~ DHve, ~117 ~10tt~ Avenue 5~5 Power Inn Road. ~uilc
Fr~no. CA 9372J-1804. MQd~t~ ~ 9~322 Vballa, (ZA 93291-~ HaarleM, CA 933[1~-6~ ~-d Ci~, C~ 9395~53 ~acram~t~ CA ~82~2313
(559)~702t (Z~Jg)M~61 (559)651~Z80 .- (~i)39~5088 (~1)'39Z-1~6 ' .
Fax ~40 Fax 579-1480 Fax 651-82~ Fa~ 393.~d3 ' Fa~ ~71~6 I~n~ 38l.~7G
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY Id
- DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
"'CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
· August 20, 2003
· 703-4128.4
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 4 of 13
· 08~06~03 at 1230 by Flynn O'Neill °
· 08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheeler
· CSE / Silluvan's Petroleum
· E. Scott, F. Baguinguito
· J. Ureno
· 08/10/03
' 08/10/03
'MW1
SAMPLE TYPE · Ground Water
UNITS: Fg/L: Micrograms per liter (ppb)
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
DLR I METHOD
Methyl teK-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
64000 1250 8021
2100 25O 8021
19000 250 8021
5200 25O 8021
44000 250 8021
190000 25000 8015
SURROGATE* I % RECOVERY
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
BTEX/MTBE 96.8 70-130%
TPH-GAS 98.3 70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE) · 5030 Preparation (TPH-DIESEL) · 3510
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
Rev. ~3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
0CT-20-2003 16:27 FROM:
5592680740
T0:661 525 5126
P.019x021
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: October 20.2.003
: 703-4128,4
· 08~06~03 at 1230 by Flynn O'Neill ..
' 08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheel~r...~.
: CSE / Sullivan's Petroleum
'. C. Fammatre
: 08/13103
: 08/13/03
:MW1
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC,
PAGE 17 of 19
REVIEWED BY'. J, Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
METHOD: EPA 8260B UNITS: ug/L
ILead ScaVengers Results .......... DL-R'~---
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 200
i Fuel OxyRenates Results DLR
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 400
'Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 400
Methyl reft-butyl ether (MTBE) 14000 200
Ter~-Amyt methyl ether (TAME) ND 400
Tert- ButTI alcohol (TBA) .... . ND ~., 4000
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND; None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. 4.~ O7109
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC.
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
'DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
August 20, 2003
703-4128.4
08/06~03 at 1230 by Flynn O'Neill
08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheeler
C. Fammatre
J. Ureno
MW 1
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC..
PAGE 11 of 13
EPA 8260.
D, ATE ANALYZED ' 08/13/03
UNITS: ug/L ;-
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
I~2,-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2rDIBROMOETHANE (EDB)
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-HEXANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK)
ACETONE
ACET, ONITRILE
ACROLEIN
':ACRYLONITRILE
ALLYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
'CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLO'ROPRENE
cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
RESULTS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
310
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
{PPbl I
PQL I CONSTITUENT
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
2OO
2OO
2OO
2000
2OO
200
20O
2OO
2OO
2OO
2OO
2OO
2OO
2OO
2OO
2OO
2OO
2OO
2OO
cis-I,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
METHACRYLONITRILE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL IODIDE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE BROMIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NAPHTHALENE
o-DICHLORORENZENE
p-'DICHLOROBENZENE
PROPIONITRILE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
trans-I,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
trans-I,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1-4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRI(~HLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
SURROGATE: DIBROMOFLUOROMETHANE
SURROGATE: TOLUENE-D8
SURROGATE: BROMOFLUOROBENZENE
I RESULTS (ppb> I PQL(ppb)
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
1200 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND . 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
y ND 200
~> ND 2000
ND 200
ND 200
6200 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
ND 200
8300 200
85.1 86-118%
101 86-110%
102 86-115%
ND None detecled. PQL Practical quantitation limit.
Rev, ~ ,1.0/97 (8260. ENV)
ppb Parts per billion. D Diluted out. * Exceeds QC limits.
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
"CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: August 20, 2003
: 703-4128.6
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 6 of 13
: 06/06/03 at 1450 by Flynn O'Neill
: 08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheeler
: CSE / Silluvan's Petroleum ,-'r~*-,
: E. Scott, F. Baguinguito
: J. Ureno
: 08/09/03
: 08~09~03
: MW2
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: IJg/L: Micrograms per liter (ppb)
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
DLR
METHOD
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
ND 2.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
0.76 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
0.75 0.5 8021
N D 50 8015
SURROGATE*
I%RECOVERY
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
BTEX/MTBE 89,4 70-130%
TPH-GAS 93.7 70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE) :5030 Preparation (TPH-DIESEL): 3510
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
*4-Bromofiuorobenzene
Rev. 3-- 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
0CT-20-2003 16:27 FROM:
559P680740
T0:661 325 51P6
P. 021x021
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DA'rE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: October 20, 2003
: 703-.4128.6
· 08/06/03 at 1450 by Flynn O'Neill
· 08/08/03 at 1330 from Gap/Wheeler.:'..~
: CSE / Sullivan's Petroleum
: C. Fammatre
: 08/13/03
: 08/13/03
:MW2
METHOD: EPA 8260B
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 19 of 19
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: uglL
Lead Scaven,clem - R~sults DLI~
1,2.-Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 1.0
F__ue! Ox,/.(lenates Results DLR
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2,0
Ethyl reft-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0
Methyl reft-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 1.0
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 2.0
_T__ert- I~u~l alcohol (TBA). ND 20
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~4 07/99 (0260,)
THE
'TWINING
LABORATORIES', lNG.
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
August 20, 2003
703-4128.6
08/06/03 at 1450 by Flynn O'Neill
08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheeler
C. Fammatre
J. Ureno
MW 2
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC..
PAGE 13 of 13
EPA 8260,
~DATE ANALYZED ' 08/13/03
UNITS: ug/L ,,
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB)
I~2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2~DICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-HEXANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK)
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
ALLYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROPRENE
'ciso1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
J RESULTS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
kiD
kiD
kiD
kiD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PQL I CONSTITUENT
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
10
10
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
cis-1,3~DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
METHACRYLONITRILE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL IODIDE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE BROMIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NAPHTHALENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
PROPIONITRILE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
trans-I,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
transol,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-I-4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
SURROGATE: DIBROMOFLUOROMETHANE
SURROGATE: TOLUENE-D8
SURROGATE: BROMOFLUOROBENZENE
RESULTS (ppb) I PQL (ppbI
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
35 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
~,~, ND 10
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
86.2 86-118%
99.9 86-110%
99.6 86-115%
ND None detected, POL Practical quantitafion limit, ppb Parts per billion D Diluted out. ' Exceeds QC limits.
Rev, __0 10/97 (8260. ENV)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
"CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: August 20, 2003
: 703-4128.5
:08/06/03 at 1340 by Flynn O'Neill
· 08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheeler
: CSE / Silluvan's Petroleum
: E. Scott, Fo Baguinguito
: J. Ureno
: 08/09/03
: 08/09/03
:MW3
THE 'FWlNING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 5 of 13
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: pg/L: Micrograms per liter (ppb)
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
I DLR I METHOD
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
76 2.5 8021
0.85 0.5 8021
1.8 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
2.1 0.5 8021
81 50 8015
SURROGATE* 1% RECOVERY
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
BTEX/MTBE 92.8 70-130%
TPH-GAS 90.1 70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030 Preparation (TPH-DIESEL): 3510
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
Rev. 3 5196 (BTEXWAT)
OCT-80-P003 16:87 FROM:
5598680?40
T0:661 3~5 51~6
P. 020x021
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID.
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: October 20, 2003
: 703-4128.5
· 08/06/03 at 1340 by Flynn O'Neill
· 08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheele~
: CSE / Sullivan's Petroleum
: C. Fammatre
: 08/13/03
: 08/13/03
:MW3
METHOD: EPA 8260B
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 18 of 19
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
UNITS: ug/L
Lead Scavengers Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 ~ DCA) ND 1.0
'Fuel Oxv,qenates Resutts DLR
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2.0
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0
Methyl teK-butyl ether (MTBE) 31 1,0
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 2.0
Tert- ButTI alcohol .(TBA) N_D... 20
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected
OLR; Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev. ~ 07/99 (8260)
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC,
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
August 20, 2003
703-4128.5
08~06/03 at 1340 by Flynn O'Neill
08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheeler
C. Fammatre
J. Ureno
MW 3
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC,
PAGE 12 of 13
EPA 8260-
DATE ANALYZED ' 08/13/03
UNITS: ug/L·
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE ,
1,2,-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB)
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROpANE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-HEXANONE
4oMETHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK)
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
ALLYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM ~
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROPRENE
cis-I,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
I RESULTS/ppb) I
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PQL I CONSTITUENT
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
10
10
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
cis-I,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
METHACRYLONITRILE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL IODIDE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE BROMIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NAPHTHALENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
PROPIONITRILE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
trans-I,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
trans-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1-4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
SURROGATE: DIBROMOFLUOROMETHANE
SURROGATE: TOLUENE-D8
SURROGATE: BROMOFLUOROBENZENE
RESULTS (ppb) I PQL (ppb)
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
85 1.0
ND 1,0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1,0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND ; 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
~ ND 1.0
~'~ ND 10
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
87.3 86-118%
101 86-110%
102 86-115%
ND None detected, pQL'Practical quantitation limit, ppb Paris per billion. D Diluted out. * Exceeds QC limits.
Rev. O 10197 (8260.ENV)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY Id
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
"CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: August 20, 2003
: 703-4128.3
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 3 of 13
: 08/06/03 at 1120 by Flynn O'Neill
: 08108/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheeler
: CSE / Silluvan's Petroleum
: E. Scott, F. Baguinguito
: J. Ureno
: 08/09/03 through 08110/03
: 08/09/03 through 08/10/03
:MW4
SAMPLE TYPE: GroundWater
UNITS: pg/L: Micrograms per liter (ppb)
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
DLR
METHOD
Methyl ted-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
1900O 250 8021
850 50 8021
100 50 8021
1.9 0.5 8021
670 50 8021
24000 5000 8015
SURROGATE*
I%RECOVERY
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
BTEX/MTBE 90.2 70-130%
TPH-GAS 88.6 70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030 Preparation (TPH-DIESEL): 3510
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
Rev. --3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
0CT-20-2003 16:27 FROM:
5592680?40 T0:661 325 5126 P.O18x021
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
October 20, 2003 THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC,
703-4128.3 PAGE '16 of 19
08/06/03 at 1120 by Flynn O'Neill
08/06103 at 1330 from Gary Wheele. r.r~.'
CSE / Sullivan's Petroleum
ANALYZED BY
· C. Fammatre
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
DATE PREPARED · 08/13103
DATE ANALYZED · 08/13103 SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CLIENT SAMPLE ID - MW 4
METHOD: EPA 8260B UNITS: ug/L
Lead Scavengers Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1, 2 ~ DCA) ND 100
Fuel Oxyqenates Results DLR
Diisopropyl etl~er (DIPE) ND 200
Ethyl tert-butyi ether (ETBE) ND 200
Methyl left-butyl ether (MTBE) 37000 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 200
Tert- Butyl alcohol (TBA~r ,.... ,.....,,.. . .... ND 2000
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND; None Detected
DLR: Detection Umit for Reporting purposes
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC.
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
August 20, 2003
703-4128.3
08/06/03 at 1120 by Flynn O'Neill
08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheeler
C. Fammatre ~
J. Ureno
MW 4
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC..
PAGE 10 of 13
EPA 8260,
E)ATE ANALYZED ' 08/13/03
UNITS: ug/L.
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
!,I,I-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 ,.1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1'-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1,DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
! ,2. ,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB)
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-HEXANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK)
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ACROLEIN
'ACRYLONITRILE
ALLYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROPRENE
cis-1,2-DICH..L. 0ROETHYLENE
J RESULTS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
62O
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
IPPbl I
PQL I CONSTITUENT
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1000
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
ci$-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
METHACRYLONITRILE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL IODIDE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE BROMIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NAPHTHALENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
PROPIONITRILE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
trans-I,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS- 1-4-DICHLORO-2-BUTEN E
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
SURROGATE: DIBROMOFLUOROMETHANE
SURROGATE: TOLUENE-D8
SURROGATE: BROMOFLUOROBENZENE
RESULTS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
(ppb) I PQL (ppb)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
. 100
100
lO0
100
lO0
100
1000
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
86-118%
86-110%
86-115%
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
450
85.3
101
101
ND None detected. PQL Practical quantitation limit.
Re~'. ~0 10/97 (8260.ENV)
ppb Parts per billion,
D Diluted out. ' Exceeds QC limits.
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
"CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
· August 20, 2003
· 703-4128.2
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 2 of 13
· 08/06/03 at 1015 by Flynn O'Neill
· 08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheeler
' CSE / Silluvan's Petroleum
· E· Scott, F. Baguinguito
· J. Ureno
· 08/10/03
· 08/10/03
'MW5
SAMPLE TYPE · Ground Water
UNITS: l~g/L: Micrograms per liter (ppb)
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
I DLR
I METHOD
Methyl reft-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
24000 250 8021
4400 50 8021
2100 50 8021
200 50 8021
4000 50 8021
45000 5000 8015
SURROGATE*
I%RECOVERY
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
BTEXJMTBE 98.6 70-130%
TPH-GAS 93.7 70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE) · 5030 Preparation (TPH-DIESEL) ' 3510
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
*4~Bromofluorobenzene
Rev. ~ 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: October 20, 2003
: 703-4128.:~
· 08/06/03 at 1015 by Flynn O'Neill
· 08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheele~r.~.~
: CSE / Sullivan's Petroleum
: C. Fammatre
: 08/13/03
: 08/13/03
;MW5
METHOD: EPA 8260B
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC,
PAGE '15 of 19
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Wate~
UNITS: uglL
Lead Scavengers Results DLR
1,2-Dichloroethane (1.2 - DCA) ND 100
Fuel Oxyqenates Results DLR
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 200
Ethyl reft-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 200
Methyl left-butyl ether (MTBE) 87000 100
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 2,00
Tert- Butyl alcohol_(TBA) .... ..,,, ..... ND 2000
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion)
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
Rev.
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC.
'REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
August 20, 2003
703-4128.2
08/06/03 at 1015 by Flynn O'Neill
08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheeler
C. Fammatre
J. Ureno
MW 5
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC..
PAGE 9 of 13
EPA 8266.
[;)ATE ANALYZED · 08/13/03
UNITS: ug/L.
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
I RESULTS (ppb) I
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE .
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1~DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB)
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-HEXANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK)
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
ALLYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
. BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETH^NE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROPRENE
cis-I,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5200
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PQL I CONSTITUENT
100
100
100
100
100
100
ioo
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1000
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
cis-I,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
METHACRYLONITRILE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL IODIDE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE BROMIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NAPHTHALENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
PROPIONITRILE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
trans-I,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1-4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
SURROGATE: DIBROMOFLUOROMETHANE
SURROGATE: TOLUENE-D8
SURROGATE: BROMOFLUOROBENZENE
RESULTS (ppb) I PQL (ppb)
ND 100
N D 100
N D 100
150 100
ND 100
N D 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND : 100
N D 100
ND 100
N D 1 O0
ND 100
~, ND 100
~. ND 1000
N D 100
N D 100
2100 100
ND 100
N D 100
ND 100
ND 100
N D 100
ND 100
ND 100
2700 100
84.8 86-118%
100 86-110%
104 86-115%
ND None detected, PQL Practical quantitation limit, ppb Pads per billion, D Diluted out. ' Exceeds QC limits.
'Rev~ 0 10197 (8260.ENV)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
"CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
· August 20, 2003
· 703-4128.1
THE TVVINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 1 of 13
· 08/06/03 at 0900 by Flynn O'Neill
· 08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheeler
· CSE / Silluvan's Petroleum
· E. Scott, F. Baguinguito
· J. Ureno
· 08/10/03
· 08/10/03
'MW6
SAMPLE TYPE · Ground Water
UNITS: pg/L: Micrograms per liter (ppb)
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS
DLR I METHOD
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline Range
190 2.5 8021
4.6 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
ND 0.5 8021
3.3 0.5 8021
200 50 8015
SURROGATE*
RECOVERY
ACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
BTEX/MTBE 96.2 70ol 30%
TPH-GAS 91.4 70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE) · 5030 Preparation (TPH-DIESEL) · 3510
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
*4-Bromofluorobenzene
Rev. --3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY. ID
· October 20, 2003
· 703-4128.1
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 14 of 19
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
' 08/06/03 at 0900 by Flynn O'Neill
· 08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheele, r,¢-.,,,
CLIENT
· CSE / Sullivan's Petroleum
ANALYZED BY
DAT~ PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
' C. Fammatre
· 08/13/03
' 08/13/03
REVIEWED BY: J. Ureno
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CLIENT SAMPLE ID - MW 6
METHOD: EPA 8260B UNITS: ug/L
Lead Scavengers Results DLR
1,2.Dichloroethane (1, 2 - DCA) ND 1,0
Fuel Oxv_..q.enates Results DLR
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 2.0
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 2.0
Methyl reft-butyl ether (MTBE) 230 1.0
Tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 2.0
Tel't- Bub/I alcohol (TBA) . .N...D 20
ug/L: micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) ·
ND: None Detected
DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
THE
TWINING
LABORATORIES, INC
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
August 20, 2003
703-4128.1
08/06/03 at 0900 by Flynn O'Neill
08/08/03 at 1330 from Gary Wheeler
C. Fammatre
J. Ureno
MW 6
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 8 of 13
EPA 826d'.
~DATE ANALYZED ' 08/13/03
UNITS: ug/L
SAMPLE TYPE: Ground Water
CONSTITUENT
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1 ,I-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB)
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
2-HEXANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK)
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
ALLYL CHLORIDE
BENZENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROPRENE
cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
RESULTS (ppb) J PQL
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 10
ND 1.0
3.0 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
J CONSTITUENT
cis-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
m-DICHLOROBENZENE
METHACRYLONITRILE
METHYL BROMIDE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL IODIDE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE BROMIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NAPHTHALENE
o-DICHLOROBENZENE
p-DICHLOROBENZENE
PROPIONITRILE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
trans-I,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
trans-I,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1-4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
SURROGATE: DIBROMOFLUOROMETHANE
SURROGATE: TOLUENE-D8
SURROGATE: BROMOFLUOROBENZENE
RESULTS (ppb) J PQL (ppb)
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
37 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1o0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND . 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1,0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
86.3 86-118%
103 86-110%
99.9 86-115%
ND None detected, pQL Practical quantitation limit.
Rev. 0_. 10197 (8260.ENV)
ppb Parts per billion.
D Diluted out. · Exceeds QC limils,
REPORT DATE
LABORATORY ID
DATE SAMPLED
DATE RECEIVED
"CLIENT
ANALYZED BY
REVIEWED BY
DATE PREPARED
DATE ANALYZED
CLIENT SAMPLE ID
: August 20, 2003
: 703-4128.7
THE TWINING LABORATORIES, INC.
PAGE 7 of 13
: 08~06~03 at 0700 by Flynn O'Neill
: 08~08~03 at 1330 from Gary Wheeler
: CSE / Silluvan's Petroleum
: E. Scott, F. Baguinguito
: J. Ureno
: 08~08/03
: 08/08/03
:TB
SAMPLE TYPE: Aqueous
UNITS: pg/L: Micrograms per liter (ppb)
CONSTITUENT
RESULTS I DLR I METHOD
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND 2.5 8021
Benzene ND 0.5 8021
Toluene ND 0.5 8021
Ethyl benzene N D 0.5 8021
Xylenes ND 0.5 8021
SURROGATE* 1% RECOVERY
BTEXJMTBE 94.5
IACCEPTABLE RECOVERY LIMITS
70-130%
Preparation (BTEX & TPH-GASOLINE): 5030 Preparation (TPH-DIESEL): 3510
ND: None Detected DLR: Detection Limit for Reporting purposes
*4-Bromofluoi'obenzene
Rev. 3 5/96 (BTEXWAT)
WINING
JJ~ A B 0 R A T 0 R I E S , I N C .
FR£SNO/MODJ:STO/VlSALIA/BAK£RSFIELD/SALINAS
Analyzed By: Chris Fammatre
Date of Extraction: 08/13/2003
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch Number: TL00081305
$ tike ID: W$181
EPA METHOD 8260
LABORA TORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed By: Joseph Ureno
Date of Analysis: 08/13/2003
Sample Matrix: Water
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike! Control Percent i Control Spike l Control Spike Percent
(ug/L) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (ug/L) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(ug/L) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(u~=/L) (%)
l,l-Dichloroethene 0.00 50.0 37.0 40.6 70% 130% 74.0 81.2 9.28
~enzene 0.00 50.0 43.8 43.5 70% 130% 87.6 87.0 0.687
l'richloroethene 0.00 50.0 46.3 47.6 70% 130% 92.6 95.2 2.77
?oluene 0.00 50.0 43.4 42.9 70% 130% 86.8 85.8 1.16
~hlorobenzene 0.00 50.0 42.9 42.9 70%1 130% 85.8 85.8 ~. 0.000
Surrogate: Dibromofluormethane 0.00 50.0 43.5 43.8 86% 118% 87 88 ? 0.687
Surrogate; Toluene-d8 0.00 50.0 5 ! .3 49.4 86% I 10% 103 99 3.77
Surrogate: Bromofluourobenzene 0.00 50.0 49.8 48.6 86% 115% 100 97 2.44
EXPLANATIONS:
ND Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
,glL micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
Method Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory
environment, the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whethez
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
WlNIN$
~L A B 0 I~ A T 0 R I £ S , I N C .
FlJrSHO/IdOD[STO/VISAUA/BAK£RSFI[LD/$ALINA$
Analyzed By: Ghris Fammatre
Date of Extraction: 08/13/2003
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Batch Number: TL00081303
EPA METHOD 8260
MA TRIX SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed Blt: Joseph Ureno
Date of Analysis: 08113~2003
Sample Matrix: Water Sample: TAP WATER
Spike,ID: WS 161
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 (%) Recovery (%)
(%) (%)
Low High
I, l-Dichloroethene 0.000 50.0 41.5 42.6 70% 130% 83.0 85.2 2.62
Benzene 0.000 50.0 46.8 46.3 70% 130% 93.6 92.6 1.07
Trichloroethene 0.000 50.0 49.4 49.3 70% 130% 98.8 98.6 0.203
Toluene 0.000 50.0 45.2 45.5 70% 130% 90.4 91.0 0.662
Chlorobenzene 0.000 50.0 46.1 45.9 70% 130% 92.2 91.8 0.435
Surrogate: Dibromofluormethane 0.000 50.0 43.8 43.4 86% 118% 88 87 0.917
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 0.000 50.0 49.8 50.1 86% 110% 100 100 0.601
Surrogate: Bromofluourobenzene 0.000 50.0 51.2 50.4 86% 115% 102 101 I'.~7
EXPLANATIONS:
ND Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
ag/L. micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
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.
tWINING
~L A '2 0 R A T 0 R I £ S . I H C .
rRESNO/MOD~STO/VISI~UA/BAK£RSFI£LD/SAMNAS
Analyzed By: Eric Scott
Date of Extraction: 08~08~03
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Run ID Number: TL08080803
Spike ID: WS-1000
EPA 8021 (MTBE/BTEX) & EPA 8015M (TPH-Gasoline)
LABORATORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed by: J. Ureno
Date of Analysis: 08~08~03
Sample Matrix: Aqueous
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent
(ug/L) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (ug/L) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(ug/L) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(ug/L) (%)
MTBE/BTEX Surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 25.0 24.0 25.9 80% 120°/o 96.0 104 7.62
'Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 0.00 100 90.1 91.7 80% 120% 90.1 91.7 1.76
Benzene 0.00 20.0 19.9 20.3 80% 120% 99.5 102 1.99
Toluene 0.00 20.0 19.6 20.0 80% 120% 98.0 100 2.02
Ethylbenzene 0.00 20.0 20.8 21.7 80% 120% 104 ,i~ 109 4.24
Xylenes 0.00 60.0 59.4 60.7 80% 120% 99.0 ~ 101 2.16
TPH_Gasoline Surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 25.0 26.5 26.3 80% 120% 106 105 0.76
/PH-Gasoline 0.00 1000 927 926 80% 120% 92.7 92.6 0.11
EXPLANATIONS:
ND Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
(ug/L) micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
vlethod Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analTtes or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment,
the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
WINING
WLA B 0 R A T 0 R I E S , INC.
FR£$NO/~OD~STO/WSAUA/gAKER$~'~£LD/$ALh~AS
Analyzed Byi Eric Scott
Date of Extraction: 08/10/03
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Run ID Number: TL08080803
Spike ID: WS-1000
EPA 8021 (MTBEIBTEX) & EPA 8015M (TPH-Gasoline)
LABORA TORY CONTROL SPIKE
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
Reviewed by: J. Ureno
Date of Analysis: 08/10/03
Sample Matrix: Aqueous
Constituent Method Blank Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Acceptable Laboratory Laboratory Relative
Concentration Control Spike Control Spike Control Percent Control Spike Control Spike Percent
(ug/L) Concentration Recovery Spike Recovery Range Percent Duplicate Difference
Level (ug/L) Duplicate (%) Recovery Percent (%)
(ug/L) Recovery Low High (%) Recovery
(ug/L) (%) .
MTBE/BTEX Surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 25.0 24.1 24.7 80% 120% 96.4 98.8 2.46
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 0.00 100 100 98.0 80% 120% 100 98.0 2.02
Benzene 0.00 20.0 19.8 20.1 80%1 120% 99.0 101 1.50
Toluene 0.00 20.0 18.1 18.2 80% 120% 90.5 , 91.0 0.55
Ethylbenzene 0.00 20.0 20.9 21.1 80% 120% 105 ~n 106 0.95
Xylenes 0.00 60.0 56.7 58.7 80% 120% 94.5 ~ 97.8 3.47
TPH Gasoline Surrogate (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 0.00 25.0 25.8 25.0 80'/oi 120% 103 100 3.15
TPH-Gasoline 0.00 1000 885 857 80% 120% 88.5 85.7 3.21
EXPLANATIONS:
',ID Non-Detectable; the target analyte was not found above the detectable limit for reporting purposes (DLR).
(ug/L) micrograms per liter, parts per billion (ppb) concentration units.
vlethod Blank: The method blank is used to determine if method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment,
the reagents or equpiment.
Laboratory Control Spike: A laboratory control spike is generated by adding the target analyte(s) into a relatively inert matrix (sodium sulfate or
· distilled water). The laboratory control sample is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether
the methodology is controlled and the laboratory is capable of making precise and accurate measurements.
....... CUSTODY/ANALYSIS ,REQUEST.,.,,
..?,,::.:.~,: ~i:~?~:~ii?::i.;i:i-:~i~ ~:::;?¥' ;:': :-. '"r /,/i~' :'.'~' :;~:..'~ ~:::~: :'. ' :~ .. 'i::':'::~?i :::i:':~ i:~ ':;
2527 FRESNO ;TREET · FRESNO, CA 93721 -. (559) 268-7021 FAX: (559) 268-0740
A~ENTI~: A~T~N: ~
BAC~RIOLOGICAL SAMPLE SOURCE SAMPLE STATUS REPORTS FOR:
~ PUBLIC SYSTEM ~ ROUTINE C0UN~: ~ FRESNO ~ KINGS ~ MADERA ~ MERCED ~ TU~RE
~ PRIVATE WELL ~ REPOT
Q STATE DEPT. 0F H~LTH SERVICES Q OTHER:
~ SURFACE WATER ~ OTHER
~ CONSTRUCTION ~ OTHER PROJE~:
SAMPLE INFORMA~ON: SITE:
S~PLE aY [Pm~ N~~ O~/~ PROJECT
SIGNATURE: ~ ~~ PROJECT MANAGER:
~ ROUTINE ANALYSIS
~ RUSH ANALYSIS, RESULTS NEEDED BY:
KEY FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS SAMPLE ~PE SL ' SelF'lid h I_~I~NALYSiS REQUESTED
DW - Drinking Water SF - Sudace Water ~ - Waste Water
A
u SAMPLE
S
E SAMPLE ID DATE ~ME ~PE 80~ES)
COUUENTS: F~ ~.~ ~Y ~ O
RELINQUISHED BY COMPANY DATE TIME RECEIVED BY COMPANY
California Regional Water Quality Control Board O
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Winston H. Hickox~ Gray Davis
Secreta~.[br ~ Fresno Branch Office Governor
Environmental , lnternet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb5
Protecti~m 1685 E Street, Fresno, California 93706-2020
;. Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-59t0
8 OctOber 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. Timothy P. Sullivan, President
Sulhvan's Petroleum Company, LLC - -
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 '%" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You submitted Amendment To The Corrective Action Plan Addendum For The Sullivan Petroleum
Company, LLC... (Amendment) dated 24 September 2003 and prepared by Central Sierra
Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). We requested that you submit the Amendment by our letter dated
5 September 2003 and at a meeting with Sullivan's Petroleum Company, LLC (Sullivan's) and CSE on
18 September 2003. At the meeting all parties agreed that an air sparging (AS) system could be operated
concurrent with groundwater pump and treat (GPT). We request that you evaluate both AS and GPT
prior to final remediation system design. The Amendment proposes AS system installation and
operation, groundwater extraction well installation, and aquifer test procedures. The proposed AS
system is inadequate to treat the entire ~ea of impacted groundwater. However, we conditionally
approve the proposed AS system for pilot testing. Submit a brief Addendum proposing pilot test
procedures and a system to monitor the AS effectiveness. We also conditionally approve the proposed
groundwater extraction well and aquifer test. Submit a report summarizing extraction well installation,
the aquifer test, and GPT system design. A summary of the Amendment and our comments follow.
Amendment Summary
CSE proposes AS system operation concurrent with the operating SVE system to remove gasoline
constituents from the vadose and saturated zones. CSE also proposes GPT to provide hydraulic control
and remove gasoline constituents, especially methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), from the saturated
zone.
CSE will install four air AS wells (SW-1 through SW-4) in positions around the release point and at
distances of approximately 40 feet apart. CSE assumes a radius of sparge influence (ROI) of 20 feet
based on a 45-degree cone of aeration from a sparge points approximately 10 to 15 feet below the water
table (125 to 130 feet below ground surface (bgs) in sand and gravel. SW-1 through SW-4 will be
installed as standard-construction sparge wells using a five-foo~ section of 2-inch 0.020-inch slotted
PVC casing and a 5-foot blank section at the well bottom as a sediment trap. The wells will be
California Environmental Protection Agency
~ Recycled Paper
Mr. Timothy P. Sullivan - 2 - ~ '8 October 2003
connected to a manifold by underground piping. CSE estimates that an injection pressure'Qf 90 inches
of water will be necessary and will be provided by a dedicated two-cycle oil-less compressoR,:
CSE will install groundwater extraction well EW-1 approximately 30 feet downgradient of the,release
point. EW-1 will be constructed as a 6-inch diameter well screened from 100 to 140 feet bgs wi'th 0.02-
inch slotted PVC casing and a 10-foot section of blank casing as a sediment trap. ,,
CSE will conduct an aquifer test to determine aquifer characteristics and provide data for the final pumt~
and treat remediation system design. Groundwater will be extracted at EW-1 and monitoring wells VW-
1D and MW-1 through MW-6 will be used as observation wells. Test equipment includes pressure
transducers and a multichannel data logger, an electric downhole pump, and water level indicators.
Pumpage will be temporarily stored in a 4,000-gallon capacity tank prior profiling and disposal.
CSE will c~.onduct~a 1-hour trend test .t2est_ab_lish_a_b. aseline, and_identify_outside-i.n-flu~, nc~s-af--feet-i.n.g-the--
test.
A step-drawdown test will be used to select pumping rate. EW-1 will be pumped at three successively
higher rates for at least 15 minutes each.
Following the step-drawdown test, EW-1 will be pumped at a constant-rate for 3 to 6 hours (180 to 360
minutes) followed by a 2-hour recovery test.
CSE will determine extraction well field design based on aquifer test results. Submersible pumps will
be installed in the extraction wells and connected to a collection manifold by underground piping.
Pollutants will be removed from extracted groundwater by an air stripper with a capacity based
combined well field flow rate design. A maximum flow rate of up to 20 gallons per minute is
anticipated. Air stripper effluent will be pumped through a carbon filtration treatment system consisting
of three 1,000-pound capacity granular activated carbon (GAC) vessels. Treated effluent will be
discharged into the City of Bakersfield sewer or storm drain under appropriate permits. Effluent airflow
from the air stripper will be connected to the soil vapor extraction (SVE) system collection manifold for
destruction by the thermal/catalytic oxidizer.
CSE will submit quarterly groundwater and remediation system monitoring reports.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
During a meeting on 18 September 2003, we emphasized the severity of the groundwater impact caused
by the UST system release from your site and the close downgradient proximity of California Water
Service Company wells No.7 and 64. We reiterated our request that you capture and treat the
groundwater plume using GPT. All parties agreed that GPT would be implemented based on the results
of aquifer testing and that AS could also be conducted. We requested that you submit a work plan for
installation of a groundwater extraction well and an aquifer test. We proposed that remedial options be
reevaluated prior to final GPT system deployment.
Our review of the proposed AS system indicates that the system is inadequate to remediate impacted
groundwater. Four AS wells installed in the southeast corner of the site will sparge only a small central
V:\UGTXPrqjectsUDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Downtown Chew'on ExrractWell WP 9-03,doc
Mr. Timothy?. Sullivan - 3 - 8 October 2003
/,
section a,t/the-head of the plume. We anticipate that offset double lines of AS wells installed across the
entire plume width along both 23~'d and "L" Stre4ts would be required. The present UST system and
canopy limit AS installation in the immediate release area. We request that you install and operate the
propt)sed AS wells SW-1 through SW-4 as a pilot test system.
/
/
The existing monitoring network is inadequate to evaluate the AS pilot test system since no monitoring
wells exist in close proximity to the system downgradient and cross gradient. We request that you
submit a work plan to complete the monitoring system and proposing pilot test procedures. Submit the
work plan by 10 November 2003.
We note that the sparging points will be installed 10 to 15 feet below the water table. CSE assumes an
ROI of 20 feet based on a 45-degree cone of aeration. Based on this model, the ROI would be less than
...... 20-feet. Werequest that you install the sparge points at least 15 to 20 feet below the water table to have
a better chance of achieving the assumed ROI. Based on conventional AS system design, the top of the
sparge well screen would be placed 5 feet below the bottom of the polluted groundwater. However, the
depth of polluted groundwater is unknown at this site.
Contract us by 10 December 2003 to provide a progress update concerning the pilot test. Submit a
system installation report and pilot test data by 18 February 2004.
We approve the installation of groundwater extraction well EW-1 and the proposed aquifer test. Install
EW- l by 31 December 2003. Submit the results of the aquifer test and the final GPT system design by
18 February 2004.
Water levels in the pumping and observation wells should be measured several days prior to the test to
account for variability. We do not recommend that the test be conducted after a period of heavy' rainfall.
The step-drawdown test should be performed by pumping at each rate for at least one hour or until water
levels have stabilized. Water levels should be allowed to recover for at least one hour or until
stabilization prior to the step and constant-rate tests.
The constant-rate test may require more than 3 to 6 hours. However, we recognize that test duration will
be influenced by time and logistics constraints. We recommend that time-versus-drawdown plots be
prepared on a semi-log scale during the test and that the test continue until a well-defined straight-line
trend is plotted.
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./bt Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Agencies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP files).
V:\UGTXProjects\JDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bake,'sfield Cases\Downtown Chewon ExtractWell WP 9-03.doc
Mr. Timothy P. Sullivan
- 4 - 8 October 2003
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldw~rk. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504. x~
JOHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals...
CC:
Mr. Howard Wines III, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File: UST/Kern/Chevron Station/2317 L Street, Bakersfielct/5T15000836
V:\UGTXProjects\JDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Downtown Chevron ExtractWell WP 9-03.doc
Central ronmental
september 24, 200 Envir° t Consultant
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California, 93301
AMENDMENT TO THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN ADDENDUM FOR THE
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
(CRWQCB-CVR CASE #5T15000836)
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC. (CSE) is pleased to present the following Amendment to the CAP
Addendum for the above-referenced sitel This work was required by the CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter
dated September 3, 2003, as a result of the discovery of gasoline-containing soil and groundwater in and
around the area of the premium grade unleaded gasoline product pipeline extending to the southeastern
MPD at the site (see Attachment 1 for the CRWQCB-CVR Correspondence). A list of acronyms used in
this report is attached.
SITE LOCATION AND CONTACT PERSONS
The site is located at 2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, Kern County, Califomia (see Figure 1 - Site Location
Map). The site is located within the commercial district, which flanks 23rd and 24th streets (see Figure 2 -
Site Vicinity Map). 'The BCSD operates the Downtown Elementary School, 1,250 feet south of the site and
San Joaquin Community Hospital is located 1,500 feet northwest of the site. The site is at an elevation of
404 feet above MSL, and the topography is relatively fiat with a slight slope to the southwest. The site is
located within the northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 29' South, Range 28 East, MDBM. The site
is a newly constructed retail fuel sales facility and mini mart, which opened during the first quarter of 1999.
The subject site is the location of double-walled USTs and product piping (see Figure 3 - Plot Plan).
The property owner contact is Mr. Tim Sullivan, President, Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC,
1508 18th Street, Suite 222, Bakersfield, California, 93301, (661) 327-5008. The consultant contact is Mr.
Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental,. LLC, 1400 Ea'ston Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California,
93309, (661) 325-4862. The regulatory agency contact is Mr.' John Whiting, California Regional Water
Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region, 1685 "E" Street, Fresno, California, 93706, (559) 445-5504.
1400 Easton Drive, Suite 132, Bakersfield, California 93309
(661) 325-4862 - Fax (661) 325-5126, censenv@aol.com
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
September 24, 2003- Page 2
TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The site is located at an elevation of 404 feet above MSL, and the topography slopes slightly to the
southwest (see Figure 1). The subject site is located on the eastern flank of the San Joaquin Valley and
west of the southern Sierra Nevada.
The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed primarily of unconsolidated Pleistocene (1.6 million to
11,000 years ago)' and Recent (11,000 years ago to the present) alluvial sediments. Beneath the alluvial
sediments are older, predominantly lakebed deposits. T.hese 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) 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 percent
Kimbedina 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). Pemhed groundwater at depths as shallow as 20 fbg is known to be present flanking
the current course of the Kern River, but is not known to extend to the site (KCWA, 2000).
CWSC operates Well #7, approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the site, and Well #64-01, approximately
2,400 southeast of the site. Hydrocarbons have not been detected in water samples collected from
Well #7. However, MTBE has been detected in water samples collected from Well ~4-01 and this well is
currently inactive. No additional active water supply wells are located within 2,500 feet of the site.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
September 24, 2003- Page 3
PREVIOUS WORK
During April 1999, product reconciliation records indicated a potential release in the product piping
extending from the premium UST to the southeastern MPD. However, the leak detection alarm system
had not indicated a release. Subsequently, the MPD was shut off, and the inner flex product piping was
removed from the outer flex containment piping. A breach was observed in the inner flex product piping.
Therefore, Sullivan Petroleum filed a URR with the BFDESD. On April 30, 1999, the concrete above the
product piping was removed, and an exploratory trench was excavated, exposing the product piping.
A breach was also observed in the outer flex containment piping.
On May 10, 1999, A.J. Environmental, Inc. advanced a'hand-augered soil boring (SC-l) adjacent to the
location of the product piping breach (see Figure 3 for the soil boring location). TPH as gasoline, BTEX,
and MTBE were detected in the soil sample collected from soil boring SC-1 at 5 fog (see Attachment 2 for
a Summary of Previous Work). Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analytical results, the BFDESD,
in its letter dated June 21, 1999, required a preliminary assessment of the vertical and lateral limits of the
gasoline-containing soil and an assessment of the potential for the release to impact groundwater
resources. Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. (HFA) prepared a work plan, dated July 8, 1999, to perform
the requested work, which was subsequently approved for implementation by the BFDESD in its letter
dated July 21, 1999. HFA performed the ddlling 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 (see Figure 3 for the
soil boring locations). On August 17, 1999, soil borings B-1 through B-3 were advanced to 20' fbg using
HFA's 10-ton direct-push sampling rig where refusal was experienced due to the presence of a layer of
cobbles. On September 26, 1999, soil boring B-1 was deepened to a depth of 48 fog using a MobileTM
B-53 hollow-stem auger drill rig operated by Melton Drilling Company of Bakersfield, California. Drilling
refusal was experienced at 48 fog due to encountering a seCOnd layer of larger diameter cobbles and
occasional boulders. On September 26, 1999, soil borings B-4 and B-5 were also ddlled 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 tog and a second layer
of larger diameter cobbles and occasional boulders from 37.5 fog to the maximum depth (48 fbg)
penetrated during the investigation. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.
TPH as gasoline and benzene were detected in the soil samples collected from the vertical-assessing, soil
boring (B-l) to less than 22 fog and in the soil samples collected from the lateral-assessing soil borings
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
September 24, 2003- Page 4
(B-2 and B-3) less than 25 feet laterally from the potential source area. Minor MTBE concentrations were
also detected in the soil samples collected from soil borings B-1 through B-5 to the total depth of the soil
borings (see Attachment 2).
The BFDESD, in its letter dated December 29, 1999, required the preparation of a CAP to determine the
appropriate remedial actions for gasoline-containing soils at the site. HFA prepared the requested CAP,
dated April 12, 2000, which was subsequently approved by the BFDESD for implementation. An RI/FS
was conducted to assess the feasibility and cost effectiveness of mitigation technologies. The results of
the RI/FS analysis were that in-situ vapor extraction is th.e 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-1 s and VW-ld, respectively) and three lateral, shall~)w-zone vapor extraction wells (VVV-2 and VW-4)
was proposed (see Figure 3 for the vapor extraction well locations).
On February I through 3, 2001, HFA advanced soil boring VW-ld to 125 fbg, which was completed as a
combination groundwater monitoring/vapor extraction well, and soil borings VVV-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 I_AR 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 drill through cobbles and
boulders. The three lateral vapor extraction wells (VVV-2 through VW-4) were drilled with a conventional
dual-walled percussion, air rotary ddll 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 VVV-2 through VVV-4 due to their positioning in close
proximity to previous soil borings drilled to similar depths.
Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 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 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 flog 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 fbg,
decreasing to 5.7 mg/kg in the soil sample collected from 65 flog, and was not detected in the soil sample
collected at 80 flog. However, TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 2,300 mg/kg was in the
soil sample collected at 100 flog. Benzene was not detected in the soil samples collected at 50, 65, and
80 flog. However, benzene was detected at a concentration of 9.3 mg/kg in the soil sample collected at
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
September 24, 2003- Page 5
100 fbg. MTBE was detected in the four soil samples reaching a maximum concentration of 87 rog/kg in
the soil sample collected at 100 fbg (see Attachment 2).
On March 14, 2001, a groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well VW-ld. The depth to
groundwater in the well was measured to be 107.43 feet below the top of the well casing.
TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were detected in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring
well VW-ld, with benzene at a concentration of 2,400 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 (see Table 1 - Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for Organic Compounds).
In order to further delineate the lateral limits of gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in soil and
groundwater, HFA's Preliminary Groundwater Assessment Report, dated June 25, 2001, recommended
that an expanded groundwater investigation be conducted and consist of the installation of three additional
groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-3) (see' Figure 3 for the monitoring'well locations). In
order to complete the vapor extraction well field installation, HFA recommended that the previously
approved central, shallow-zone vapor extraction well (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 implemer~tation of the expanded groundwater assessment plan and VES work
plan.
From October 30, 2001 through November 2, 2001,'HFA drilled five soil bodngs with three lateral soil
borings (MW-1 through MW-3) drilled to 125 fbg and completed as groundwater monitoring wells and the
two central soil borings (VW-ls and VVV-li) drilled to 35 fbg and 75 fog, respectively, and completed as
vapor extraction wells (see Figure 3 for the well locations). Soil samples were collected at a 10-foot
interval while drilling soil borings MW-1 through MW-3, with groundwater encountered at 114 fbg.
Soil samples were not collected while 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 MVV-1, 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 MVV-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 VVV-ls and
VVV-li were ddlled 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 MVV-2 and MVV-3. However, MTBE was detected in all 11 soil
samples collected from soil boring MW-l, reaching a'maximum concentration of 84 rog/kg in the soil
sample collected .at 70 fbg, in 3 of the 11 soil samples collected from soil boring MW-2, reaching a
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
September 24, 2003- Page 6
maximum concentration of 0.17 mglkg 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 (see Attachment 2).
On November 26, 2001, groundwater samples were collected from monitoring well MW-1 through MW-3
and VW-ld. The depth to groundwater in the wells was measured to range from 113.20 to 115.15 feet
below the top of the well casing and the direction of groundwater flow was determined to be to the
southeast (see Figure 4 - Groundwater Elevation Contour Map). Three inches of PSH was observed in
well VW~ld. TPH as gasoline, benzene, and MTBE wer~ detected in the groundwater samples collected
from all four monitoring wells reaching maximum concentrations of 5,300,000 IJg/I, '72,000 pg/I, and
4,100,000 IJg/I in the groundwater sample collected from well VVV-ld. TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME were
not detected in the groundwater sample collected from the four monitoring wells (see Figure 5 - TPH as
Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater and Table 1 ).
On March 28, 2002, groundwater samples were again collected from monitoring wells MW-1 through
MW-3 and VW-ld. The groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-l, MW-2, and VW-ld
were analyzed for physical and chemical characteristics. The results of the laboratory analysis indicated
that the groundwater beneath the site is potable (see Table 2 - Summary of Groundwater Sample
Analytical Results for Physical and Chemical Characteristics).
On May 13, 2002, SJVUAPCD-SR PTO #S-3267-2-0 was obtained for the installation and operation of a
thermal oxidation VES. During the third quarter of 2002, the remediation compound was constructed and
the vapor extraction wells MW-l, VW-ls, VW-li, VW-ld, VW-2, VW-3, and VW-4 were connected by 2-
inch-diameter underground PVC piping to a collection manifold in the remediation equipment compound.
Subsequently, the VES was delivered to the site and connected to electrical and natural gas services.
VES operations were initiated on October 8, 2002. On October 10, 2002, the SJVUAPCD-CR performed
an inspection of the VES unit and observed that it was operating in accordance with the conditions
specified in the ATC.
The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 19, 2002, requested submission of a work plan to perform an
expanded groundwater assessment to assess the southeastern (downgradient) limits of gasoline-
containing groundwater at the site. CSE submitted an Expanded Groundwater Assessment Work Plan,
dated August 9, 2002, which proposed the installation of two off-site downgradient monitoring wells MW-4
and MW-5. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated September 3, 2002 approved implementation of the
work plan with the condition that an additional off-site monitoring well (MW-6) be constructed to the south
of the site (see Figure 3 for the monitoring well locations).
From April 10 through 20, 2003, CSE installed off-site groundwater monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6
to a depth of 140 fbg completed with 40 feet of 2-inch diameter slotted PVC casing screened in the
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
September 24, 2003- Page 7
interval ranging in depth' from 100 to 140 fbg. Soils encountered during drilling included well-graded
sands, pebbles, and cobbles up to 1 foot in diameter. Groundwater was encountered while drilling at a
depth of approximately 120 fbg. TPH as gasoline, BTEX, and MTBE were not detected in the soil
samples collected from soil borings MW-4 through MW-6 with the exception of TPH as gasoline and
MTBE detected at concentrations of 1.5 mg/kg and 1.6 rog/kg, respectively, in the soil samples collected
at a depth of 120 fbg in soil boring MW-5 and MTBE at a concentration of 0.28 mg/kg in the soil sample
collected at a depth of 20 fbg in soil boring MW-6 (see Attachment 2).
On April 21, 2003 groundwater samples were collected from the three newly constructed wells.
TPH as gasoline was detected at concentrations of 141000 pg/I, 47,000 pg/I, and 17,000 pg/I in the
groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, respectively. Benzene was
detected at concentrations of 830 pg/I, 3,500 pg/I, and 15 IJg/I in the groundwater samples collected from
monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6, respectively. MTBE was detected at concentrations of 31,000 pg/I,
62,000 IJg/I, and 54,000 pg/I in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through
MW-6, respectively. TBA, TAME, DIPE, ETBE, 1,2-DCA, and EDB were not detected in the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6 (see Table 1).
Based upon the laboratory analytical results, the CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated July 2, 2003,
requested submission of a work plan to perform an expanded groundwater assessment to assess the
southeastern (downgradient) limits of gasoline-containing groundwater at the site as well as the installation
of a deeper monitoring well to act as a "sentinel" between the petroleum release and CWSC Well No. 7.
CSE's Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work Plan, dated July 11, 2003, proposed to drill
three soil borings (MW-7 through MW-9) to a depth of approximately 140 fbg and one soil boring '(MW-5d)
to a depth of approximately .170 fbg, completing the four soil borings as groundwater monitoring wells (see
Figure 2 for the proposed monitoring well locations). The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated
August 13, 2003, approved implementation of the Expanded Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Work
Plan, and requested submission of a CAP Addendum for the active remediation of the gasoline-containing
groundwater.
CSE's CAP Addendum, dated August 29', 2003, recommended the installation of a fixed air sparging (AS)
system in conjunction with the operating SVE to remove the LNAPL and dissolved-phase from the
capillary fringe and upper portion of the saturated zone at the site, and periodic overpurging of the off-site
monitoring wells to mitigate the off-site groundwater impact. The CRWQCB-CVR, in its letter dated
September 3, 2003, did not approve implementation of the CAP Addendum, and requested submittal of a
work plan for the installation and operation of a fixed GWPT to remediate the MTBE-containing
groundwater. A meeting with the RP, consultant, and CRWQCB-CVR personnel was held on
September 18, 2003, where it was discussed that the proposed combination SVE and AS would be
integrated with a GWPT to provide for both cost effective hydrocarbon removal as well as hydraulic
control. The following presents an amendment to the August 29, 2003 CAP Addendum, that proposes
installation of the on-site AS; installation of an on-site groundwater extraction well; performance of an
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum COmpany, LLC
September 24, 2003- Page B
aquifer test to determine the optimUm well field, well construction details and pumping rates; installation of
additional groundwater extraction wells, if required; and the installation of a GWPT system to provide
hydraulic control and hydrocarbon removal simultaneous with the SVE and AS.
AMENDMENT OT THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN ADDENDUM
AIR SPARGING SYSTEM
Sparge Well Installation ..
Previous soils investigations at the site indicate that the unconfined groundwater zone encountered at a
depth of approximately 115 fog consists of highly permeable sand and gravel sediments, which supports
an initial assumption of a 45° radial aeration expansion cone within at least the upper 10 feet of the
aquifer. 'Therefore, for the initial design of the AS parameters, CSE will use an ROI of 20 feet, and air will
be injected from a series of sparge points spaced on 40~foot centers with the installation of four proposed
air sparge wells (SW-1 through SW-4) (see Figures 3 through 5 for the proposed air sparge well
locations). Each air sparge point will consist of a 2-inch-diameter by 5-foot-long, 0.02-inch slotted casing
packed in No. 3 sand. The screened interval will be positioned from 10 to 15 feet below the top of
groundwater at a depth of approximately 125 to 130 fog. A 2-inch-diameter conductor will be used to
connect the air sparge point to the surface, and a 5-foot-long section of blank casing will be positioned at
the bottom of the well to serve as a sediment trap (rathole) (see Attachment 3 for the Soil Boring and Well
Construction Procedures and Attachment 4 for the Air Sparge Well Construction Details). Laboratory
analysis of soil samples collected during drilling will be performed for waste profiling only because the
wells are positioned within an area that has previously undergone extensive sampling and laboratory
analysis.
Air Sparging Operations
To generate an ROI of 20 feet, it is estimated that an injection pressure rate of 90 ins-water will be
required, and a flow rate of approximately 5 scfm will result. The air sparge wells will be connected to a
manifold via underground high-pressure hoses. A two-cycle, oil-less compressor will supply the required
air to the manifold system (see Figure 3). Injected air will rise through the saturated and capillary zones
where it will strip dissolved-phase and adsorbed-phase VOCs. The VOC-laden air will be removed from
the vadose zone and treated via the proposed VES.
GROUNDWATER PUMP AND TREAT SYSTEM
Groundwater Extraction Well Installation
CSE's proposes to install a groundwater extraction well (EW-1) positioned immediately downgradient of
the petroleum release (see Figures 3 through 5 for the groundwater extraction well location). CSE will
then perform an aquifer test to determine the optimum groundwater extraction well field, adjust the
extraction well construction details, and assess the pumping rates for the individual extraction wells, as
well as the overall flow of extracted water to be treated through the GWPT system..
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
September 24, 2003- Page 9
Groundwater extraction well EW-1 will be ddlled with a dual-walled percussion, air rotary drill rig, to a
depth of 150 fbg and installed with 40 feet of 6-inch diameter 0.02 inch slotted PVC casing and a
10-foot-long section of blank casing will be positioned at the bottom of the well to serve as a sediment trap
(rathole). The monitoring well will be constructed with a filter pack of #3 sand installed from the bottom of
the soil bodng to 5 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. A locking,
water-tight well covers will be set' in concrete to protect and secure the wellhead. Following installation,
the monitoring well will be developed by surging and bailing to remove drilling residues and to produce
Iow-turbidity groundwater (see Attachment 5 for the Groundwater Extraction Well Construction Details).
Aquifer Testing
Upon installation of gn3undwater extraction well EW-1, CSE will conduct an aquifer test using the newly
constructed groundwater extraction 'well as the extraction well, and groundwater monitoring wells VW-ld,
and MW-1 through MW-6 as the observation wells to obtain estimates of transmissivity,, hydraulic
conductivity, and storativity. The equipment used to conduct the test will include an In-situ HermitTM
SE1000C multi-channel data logger (Hermit data logger) and associated pressure transducers, a
Grundfos Environmental Redi-FIo2 submersible groundwater pump, and various electronic water level
meters. Extracted groundwater will be pumped into a 4,000-gallon holding tank for proper disposal upon
profiling. The aquifer test will consist of a 1-hour trend test to determine ambient site conditions and to
identify any external disturbances to the groundwater system; a 1-hour step-drawdown test to determine
an optimum pumping rate for the pumped well; a 3-hour to 6-hour, constant-rate pumping test; and a
2-hour recovery test to determine transmissivity and storafivity of the saturated zone (see Attachment 6 for
the Aquifer Test Procedures).
.Trend Test
The purpose of the trend test is to monitor aquifer conditions in order to establish a baseline and
determine if any outside influences on water levels will affect the aquifer test. The trend test will be
conducted by monitoring groundwater elevations within groundwater monitoring wells VW-ld and MW-1
through MW-6, and groundwater extraction well EW-1 at 5-minute intervals for a duration of 1 hour (see
Attachment 6).
Step-Drawdown Test
The purpose of the step-drawdown test is to select an appropriate pumping rate for a constant-rate
pumping test and to determine wall capacity. The test will be conducted by pumping water from
groundwater extraction well EW-1 at various rates and 'monitoring the flow rate and water levels
throughout the test (see Attachment 6).
Constant-Rate Pumping Test
A constant-rate pumping test will be conducted by pumping water from groundwater extraction well EW-1
at the constant rate determined by the step-drawdown test for a duration of 3 to 6 hours.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
September 24, 2003- Page 10
Groundwater levels will be measured in the pumping well (EW-1) and the observation wells (VW-ld and
MW-1 through MW-6) (see Attachment 6).
Recovery Test
After groundwater extraction is completed at the end of the constant-rate pump test, water level recovery
data will be collected from groundwater monitoring wells VW-ld and MW-1 through MW-6, and
groundwater extraction well EW-1 for approximately 2 hours. This recovery data will be analyzed for
aquifer properties if needed (see Attachment 6).
Groundwater Pump and Treat System-Operations
Based upon the results of the aquifer test, CSE may recommend the installation of additional groundwater
extraction wells and modifications to the well construction details. Upon completion of the groundwater.
extraction well field, 4-inch diameter submersible pumps will be placed in each groundwater extraction
well at a depth and flow rate to be determined by the aquifer test. The submersible pumps will be
connected through underground piping to a collection manifold in the treatment compound.
The connection manifold will be connected to an air stripper whose capacity Will be based on the individual
well flow rates and the number of extraction wells as determined from the results of the aquifer test. It is
estimated that the overall GWPT system will produce a maximum of 20 gpm. The discharge water from
the air stripper will be pumped through a carbon filtration treatment system using three 1,000-pound
aqueous carbon filters in series. The treated effluent water will be discharged to the sewer or storm drain
under an appropriate City of Bakersfield or NPDES permit. The effluent airflow from the stripper will be
connected to the SVE collection manifold and will pass through the VES unit under the existing PTO.
The integrated use of the SVE and AS will remove the bulk of the hydrocarbons from the vadose and
saturated zones, while the GWPT will provide hydraulic control and additional removal of MTBE from the
groundwater.
REMEDIATION SYSTEM PROGRESS REPORTING
Quarterly groundwater monitoring and sampling of all existing groundwater monitoring wells will be
performed during the remediation process. Groundwater samples will be collected and analyzed for
TPH as gasoline using EPA method 8015 (M), and BTEX and MTBE using EPA Method 8021 with MTBE
confirmed and quantified using EPA Method 8260. Quarterly progress reports will be prepared which
summarize the groundwater monitoring activities and operations of the VES, AS, and GWPT units.
Mr. Tim Sullivan
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC
September 24, 2003- Page 11
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC, trusts that you will find this Amendment to the CAP Addendum 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.
RespectfullyM ~ R:~~.'~~ submitted,
a . Magargee, CHG RG -
Consulting Hydrogeologist
Central Sierra Environmental, LLC
MRM:jlt
Enclosures:
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 3 Plot Plan
Figure 4 - Groundwater Elevation Contour Map
Figure 5 - TPH as Gasoline/Benzene/MTBE Concentrations in Groundwater
Table1 Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for
Compounds
Table2 Summary of Groundwater Sample Analytical Results for
Chemical Characteristics
List of Acronyms
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
CRWQCB-CVR Correspondence
Summary of Previous Work
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Air Sparge Well Construction Details
Groundwater Extraction Well Construction Details
Aquifer Testing Procedures
Organic
Physical and
cc: Mr. John Whiting, CRWQCB-CVR
Mr. Howard H. Wines, III, BFDESD
. {.": .' . ." -
lift
?' 24.,'
SITE LOCATION
LEGEND
i
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 'L' STREET
BAKERSFIELD; 'CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
MW-9
LEGEND
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WELL
REVISION DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2003:Jlt
24th STREET
ESTIMATED LIMIT OF
GASOLINE CONTAINING
GROUNDWATER
MW-7
22nd STREET
SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 - SITE VICINITY MAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
I CAR MINI MART ac
WASH ,,, v
DISPENSER ISLANDS O
CANOPY~ , (~ ~ TREATMENT
" DISPENSE~ ~-~~ GAS~LIN~ UST
3 - - 8W~ EXPLO~TORY ~ ~ ~ ' GAS )LIN ~ UST
~ P~TER J
23~
SCALE IN FEET
0 15 30
MW-6
LEGEND . SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
SOIL BORING D FILL END
o TURBINE END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
PROPOSED AIR SPARGE WELL LOCATION 2317 "L" STREET
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER E~CTION WELL LOCATION BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
V~OR E~CTION WELL FIGURE 3 - PLOT P~N
VES PIPING
CENT~L SIER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE: AUGUST 29. 2003:clm
CAR MART
WASR <5
/
MW-2
~ I T / % 29f.1~,. m~'] ~. AIR SPARGE UNIT
~ ~~,-"L~ ~ ~ /
/ "~- I .w.3 [-'~ / -~',~41~¢~u"~ ~us~ / Mw4
23RD SIRE
SCALE IN FEET
"- ~ *~.0 0 5 30 /
GROUNDWATER LEVELS MEASURED APRIL 2f, 2003 ~ '
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
VAPOR E~CTION WELL ~ FILL END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
VES PIPING o TURBINE END 2317 "L" STREET
PROPOSED AIR SPARGE WELL LOCATION BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER E~CTION WELL LOCATION
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR % GROUNDWATER FLOW FIGURE 4 - GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
(FE~ABOVE MSL)~ DIRECTION CO.OUR MAP
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
ANOMOLOUS DATA POI~ NOT USED FOR ~OURING DUE
TO PRESENCE OF FREE PRODUCT CENT~L SlER~ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
REVISION DATE:AUGUST 28, 2003:CLM
CAR MINI MART
:/ /
/~.o~ ,o,ooo ~'
~P~ SIDEWALK '
SC[E IN FEET
MW~ MW-5
~ ~ ~,ooo ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~,o~ ~ ~,~oo ~ ~,o~
LEGEND SULLIVAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
vEsVAPORpIPINGE~CTION WELL Do TURBINEFILL END END DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2317 "L" STREET
PROPOSED AIR SPARGE WELL LOCATION BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER E~CTION WELL LOCATION FIGURE 5 - TPH AS GASOLINE/BENZEN~MTBE
TPH AS GASOLIN~ENZEN~BE CONCENT~TION IN GROUNDWATER
CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER (pgA)
BE ~NCENTRATON CONTOUR (p~l) ND NOT DETECTED
CENTRAL
SlER~
ENVIRONMENTAL,
LLC
REVISION DATE:AUGUST 28, 2003:CLM
TABLE t,
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL REBULTB FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERV1CE STATION. BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
2-24~ 1f4.~ 0.~I ~.~ ~,~ t,~ 3.~ 1~4~ t1,~ 16,~ - - 43,~ NC ~ ND ~ ND ND ~; ~ 210 1~ 1,~ 4~ ND G
· 27~2 ftS.M 0~ ~.71 ~ = tt0 10 ~ ~ - - t70NC ND NO ~ ND NDI O
TABLE 2.
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
WELL ID DEPTH TO FLOATING GROUND-
AND DATE GROUND- PRODUCT WATER
ELEVATION* SAMPLED WATER THICKNESS ELEVATION TDS EC pH CHLORIDE SULFATE NITRATE: CALCIUM MAGNESIUM SODIUM POTASSIUI~ HYDROXIDE CARBONATE BICARBONATE TEN REF
(feet-MSL) (fog) (feet) (feet-MSL) (m~) (umhos/cm) {pHunits) (rog/l) (rog/l) (rog/I) (mg/I) (m~) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (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
404.00 3-28-02 114.54 0.25 289.46 617 95t 7,38 93 82 2.1 120 21 44 5.1 ND ND 350 0.81 A
MW-1 3-28-02 114.53 0.00 289.7EI 424 664 7.12 46 68 40.4 79 14 38 4.1 ND ND 200 0.71 A
, 404.29 8-22-02 120.02 0.00 284.27 250 49(: 6.6 30 51 18 76 23 37 18 ND ND 140 ND B
MW-2 3-28,02 113.30 0.00 291.07 382 57E 7.21 31 74 46.3 66 12 38 3.8 ND ND 160 0.8 A
404.37 8-22,02 118,72 0.00 285.6,~ 310 55C 6,7 33 66 38 71 17 37 11 ND ND 140 N[~ B
MW-3 3-28-02 113.30 0.00 290.42 382 57E 7.21 31 74 46.3 66 12 39 3.8 ND ND 160 0.8 A
403.72 8-22-02 118,84 0,00 284.8E 310 48C 6.7 25 59 38 97 25 37 16 ND ND 140 NB B
REF = Reoort reference. ~/A = Not ac~iicable. ND = ',lot detected.
*Measured 1o the lop of the well casing.
A = Holguln, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'e, report dated May 29, 2002.
B = Central Siena Environmental, LLC's report dated November 14, 2002.
AST
BFDESD
BCSD
BTEX
CAP
CDMG
CDWR
CRWQCB-CVR
CWSC
DCA
DIPE
DOT
EDB
EPA
ETBE
fbg
KCDEHS
KCWA
LAR
LLC
LUFT
MDBM
mg/kg
MPD
MSL
MTBE
pH
PID
PSH
PVC
QNQC
RI/FS
ROI
TAME
'TBA
TPH
URR
USA
UST
VES
VOA
VOC
pg/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 Comp,ahy
dichloroethane
diisopropyl ether
Department of Transportation
ethylene dibromide
Environmental Protection Agency.
ethyl tertiary butyl ether
feet .below grade
Kern County Department of Environmental Health Services
Kern County Water Agency
limited access rig
limited liability corporation
leaking underground fuel tank
Mount Diablo Base and Meridian
milligram per kilogram
multiple product dispenser
mean sea level
methyl tertiary butyl ether
hydrogen potential
photoionization detector
phase-separated hydrocarbons
polyvinyl chloride
quality assurance/quality control
remedial investigation/feasibility study
radius of influence
tertiary amyl methyl ether
tertiary butyl alcohol
total petroleum hydrocarbons
Unauthorized Release Report
Underground Service Alert
underground storage tank
vapor extraction system
volatile organic analysis
volatile organic compound
microgram per liter
ATTACHMENT 1.
CRWQCB-CVR CORRESPONDENCE
5%~P-08-2003 11:44 Sullivan P~trol~um P.O~
Wtmtm~ FI. ltickox
$~crrtary /ar
Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Ofllee
htcriu:t Addrm,x: http:llv~ww.~ancb, ca.gnv/..r~vqcb5
J 685 E $~ t'-r~nu. Catif~mlu 93706-2~20
Pl~or~ (559) 4a5,5116 · FAX ($59) 4~5-$910
Gray Dsvls
Gov~.rnor
5 September 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. David Biyd
Sullivan's Petroleum. Company, LLC
1508 18m Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You submitted Corrective Action Plan Addendum (CAP Addendum) dated 29 August 2003 and prepared
by Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). The CAP evaluates remedial alternatives and
proposes on-site -air sparging (AS) and overpurging of monitoring wcl/s off-site to remediate polluted
groundwater resulting from an on-site underground storage tank (UST) system release. We requested
that you submit a CAP Addendum for groundwater by our letter dated 2 July 2003. We do not approve
the C.4~P Addendum. Our letter requested that you design a remediation system to prevent the spread of
impacted groundwater and remove the high petroleum constituent concentrations by the "pump and.
treat" method. We consider this method necessary due to the high methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
concentrations present on-site and off-site and the proximity of two municipal wells. We reqUest that
you submit a work plan proposing a "pump and treat system" and provide more information concerning
off-site access. A summary of the CAP Addendum and our comments follow.
Work Plan Summary
CSE evaluated the feasibility of groundwater pump and treat, in-sim bioremediation, in-situ subsurface
air sparging, and dual phase extraction. CSE did not consider in-situ bioremediation to be feasible or
cost effective. Pump and treat was considered to be feasible, but not cost effective. In-sku air sparging
and dual phase extractiOn were considered feasible and cost effective. CSE recommends in-situ nix
sparging on-site in combination with the.operating soil vapor extraction (SVE) system to remove
floating petroleum product and dissolved phase g~.soline constituents from the capillary fringe and upper
saturated zone. Fixed remediation systems and piping is not feasible since oft-site access beneath State
Highway 178 and other properties will not be available. Therefore, CSE recommends remediafion of
impacted groundwater off-site by periodic overpurging of the monitoring wel Is..
CSE proposes to install four AS wells (SW-I through SW-4) to a depth 10 to 15 feet below the water
table (I25 to 130 feet below ground surface (bgs)). Five-foot sections of 2-inch diameter ca~ing with
0.020-inch s.lots Mil be utilized a.s sparge points. Five-foot sections oi' bl',mk casing will be installed
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
SEP-08-2003 11:44 . Sullivan Petroleum P.03
Mr. David Bird - 2 - 5 September 2003
beneath the sparge points as sediment traps. CSE assumes a design radius of sparging influence (ROI)
of 20 feet using aa injection pressure of 90 inches of water (ins-water) and a flow rate of 5 standard
cubic feet per minute (scfm). The air sparge wells will be connected to a manifold and compressor by
underground hoses..
CSE will monitor and evaluate system effectiveness during operation, conduct quarterly groundwater
monitoring fo,' one year after soil and groundwater remediation is completed. CSE will submit quarterly
morfitoring and remediation system progress reports.
ConlnleIlt~ .-
Based on review of the above-summarized report, wE have the to]lowing comments:
Our letter dated 2 July 2003 indicated that you would need to design, install, and operate a groundwater
remediation system to prevent the spread of impacted groundwater ,'md remove the high petroleum
constituent concentrations by the "pump and treat" method. The CAP Addendum does not propose such
a system. We do not approve the CAP Addendum.
Our letter emphasized that the gasoline release from your site is a serious threat to water resources in the
area. MTBE in groundwater may be u'ansported greater distances away from the release point than other
gasoline constituents due to its .relatively high solubility and low adsorption to soils. Floating gasoline
h~ persisted in-on-site monitoring well MW-I and MTBE concentrations from 31,000 to 62,000 gg/L
were detected in the recently installed off-site wells MW--4 through MW-6 during the 21 April 2003
monitoring event. The extent of impacted'~oundWater is undefined. MTBE and other gmgoline
constituents are being transported in a highly transmissive aquifer toward California Water Service
Company (CWS) Well Station #7, approximately 1,000 away from the site. Gasoline constituents,
including MTBE, have not been detected in #7. However, MTBE has been detected at up to 12.3 gg/L
in samples collected from CWS well station #64-01, approximately 2,400 feet southeast of the site,
causing this well to be placed on inactive status. The release from your site is a potential source for this
impact. We do not consider the proposed system adequate to prevent MTBE from reaching CWS #7.
We recognize that the "pump and treat" method may be costly and requires implementation ,and
permitting of w~tstewater discharge. 'However, we consider the potential threat caused by the release to
warrant this method. Continuous pumping of groundwater will create a hydrologic barrier for migration
of impacted groundwater away from the source. Air sparging ,and/or periodic pumping of groundwater
do not provide the same level of control that is provided by continuous groundwater pumping. A
remediation system that combines sp~ging ~d periodic pumping w~th a pump and treat system could be
considered.
The CAP Addendum states that access for connection of off-site remcdiation facilities will not be
available. The CAP addendum does not indicate that CSE has attempted, unsuccessfully, to gain access.
We request that CSE contact us by 25 September 2003 with additional information concerning their
attempts to gain access. Our reconnaissance revealed several properties suitable for off-site groundwater
extraction and U'eatment facilities south of State Highway 178.
We request that you submit a work plan for "pump ~d treat" groundwater remediation by 15 October
2003. Groundwater extraction points should be proposed both on-site and off-site. If your consultant
· V:\UGTWroject~'dDW_filc~k2003 Cormqpondenee\City of Flakcrxfield Ca.qe~W)owntown Chevron GWCAP 94)3.doc
SEP-08-2003 11:46 Sullivan Petroleum P.O¢
Mr. David Bird - 3 - 5 September 2003
has determined that oft-site access or wastewater discharge is not feasible, we request that they contact
us by 25 September 2003.
Sections 2729 ,'md 2729. I for Underground Storage Tank_q 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 bow to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we .have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic sub~mttals
shoutd include soil or groandwater sample analytical data (variotrq ~e names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z fries), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_M. AP files). ~.
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact mc at (559) 445-5504.
IOHN D. WHITiNG
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Etlclosure:
Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory a, td Site Data Submittals...
CC:
Mr. Howard Wines lit, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. M~xrk Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File: US't'/Kcm/Chevron Statiotff2317 L Stxcet, Bakemficld/ST150(10836
¥:\UGT~Pmjcct~klOW_filesx2003 Ccnrc.qpondcnce\C. iiy of B,akcmficld CascskDo~ntown Clmvmn GWCAP 9-03.doc
ATTACHMENT 2.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORK
CAR MINI MART
WASH uj
-J LU
20 -- ~
70 - _ ND~/~t9
~ MW-2 DISPENSER ISLANDS
=
CANOPY ~ 65 - -5.7~/14 ~ 20 -~ ~D/~19
70-- -- ~/032 DISPENSE ISLANDS 50_
APPROACH 30 - -~/~3 ALK 35 ---- ~.6
23RD STRE~
20 N~ND~O.28 SC~E IN FEET
80 ~DIND/ND MW-5
~GEND SULLN~ P~ROLEUM COMPLY, LLC
~ GROUNDWATER MON~ORING ~LL DOW~OWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
~ ~IL BORING 2317 'L' STREET
~ ~1~1~ ND NOT D~EC~D B~ERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
CONCE~ONS IN ~IL ~) -' FIGURE 3 - TPH AS GASOLIN~BE~N~E
' e~ DE~ OF SAMP~ (~) CONCEPTIONS IN SOIL
ND ~T ~ED CEN~ SIE~ ENVIRONMEnt, LLC
REVISION DATE: AUGUST 5. 2003:jlt
FIGURE 5 - INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT TPH CONCENTRATIONS
E
0
o
100,000
10,000
1,000
lO0
10
0.1
-- - TPH In I
. ~TPH Out
0 5 10 15
Cumulative Operating Weeks
20
FIGURE 6 - CUMULATIVE EXTRACTION CURVE
'{ 00,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0 5 10 15
Cumulative Operating Weeks
20
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH. ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fbg) (m~l/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/k9) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg)! (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 N/A
REPOI~TING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
SC-1 5-10-99 5 SC-1-5 26,000 64 1,700 320 2,900 1,400 .......... A
B-1 8-17-99 10 B-1-10 6,500 28 230 85 430 76 .......... B
8-17-99 15 B-1-15 7,000 26 250 94 430 85 .......... B
9-26-99 22 B-1-22 ND ND ND ND ND 0.48 .......... B
9-26-99 25 B-1-25 "NDi ND ND ND ND 0.33 .......... B
9-26-99 30 B-1-30 "' ND~ ND. 0.041~ ' ND 0.094 3.1 ........... B
9-26-99 35 B-1-35 'ND! ND 0.011' ND ND 2.6 .......... B
9-26-99 40 B-1.-40 ND ND 0.0099 ND 0.022 3.2 .......... B
9-26-99 45 B-1-45 ND 0.0062 0.018 ND ND 5.2 ............ B
B-2 8-17-99 5 B-2-5 19,000 50 1,000 260 1,400 ' 220~ .......... B
8-17-99 15 B-2-15 4,600 0.82 150 73 410 2 .......... B
B-3 8-17-99 5 B-3-5 ND 0.014 0.21 0,085 0.72 3.8 .......... B
8-17-99 15 B-3-15 6,300 0.3 150 81 740 3 .......... B
B-4 9-26-99 10 B-4-10 ND ND ND ND ND 0.023 -r ........ 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-4r40 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 11i .......... B
' VW-ld 2-1-01 50 VW-ld-50 250 ND 0.12 0.032 0.25 3.6 .......... C
-- 2-1-01 65 VW-ld-65 5.7 ND ND ND ND 14 .......... C
- 2-1-01 80 VW-ld-80 'ND ND ND ND ND 1.5 .......... C
--2-2-01 100 VW-ld-100 2,300 9,3 · 210 41 260 87 .......... C
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE .TAME REF
{fbg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg). (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg), (rog/kg) (rog/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) .... 8020/8260B 8260 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS , N/A
MW-1 11-1-01 10 MW-l-10 ND ND ND ND 0.068 0.0059 -- 10 ND ND ND D
11-1-01 20 MW-l-20 ND ND ND ND ND 0.011 -- 1,3 ND ND ND. D'
11-1-01 30 MW-l-30 ND ND ND ND ND 0.005 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 40 MW-I-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 0.0§8 .. ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 §0 MW.I.§0 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 NDJ D
11-2-01 80 ' MW- 1-80 ND ND ND ND ND 0.49 -- ND ND ND ND D
11-2-0t 90 MW-1-90 ND ND ND ND ND 1.8 , --.. ND ND ND ND D
11-2-01 100 MW-l-lO0 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 1.5 -- 0.2 ND ND , ND D
MW-2 10-31-01 10 MW-2-10 NDI 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 NS 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
10-31-0t 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 ANALY'rlCAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPEE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- T~TAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINEr BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fb~lI (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 .N/A
.... REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
MW-3 11-1-01 10 MW-3-10 ND ''ND NDI ~D ND ND ;- ND, ND i~DD ND D
11-1-0'i 20 MW.3-20 ' ' 'ND ND ND ' ~D 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 0.061 -- 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 I ND 0.31 -. ND ND ND ND D
11-1-01 90 MW-3-90 ND ND ' ND ND ND 0.081 .... ND "~D ND' ND D
11-1-01 100' MW-3-100 ND ND ND ND ND '0.029 -. ND ND NDI ND D
11-1-01 110 MW-3-110 ND ND ND ND ND ND -- ND ND ND; ND D
MW-4 4-14-03 20 MW.5-20 ND .ND ND NDI ND 'NDI .......... E
- 4-14-03 40 MW-5-40 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 60 MW-5-60 ND 'ND ND ND 'ND ND ..' ' .- ' '-- -- ' ' -- E'
4-14-03 80 MW-5-80 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-14-03 lbo MW-5-100 ND ND ND ND ND ND ........... '"'E
4-14-03 120 MW-5~.120 ND ND ND ND' ND ND .......... E
MW-5 4-15-03 20 MW-5-20 ND ND ND ND= ND ND .......... E
4-15-03 40 MW-5-40 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-15-03 60 MW-5-60 ND · ND ND ND ND ND .-. . - ....... E
4-15-.03 80 MW-5-80 ND ND' ND ND ND ND ...... . . . . -- -- E
4-15-03 100 MW-5-100 ND ND ND: ND ND ND ....... ,-,,, -- E
4-15-03 120 MW-5~120 1.5 ND, ND ND ND 1.3 1.6 ...... , . -- E
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED DEPTH ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE MTBE TBA DIPE ETBE TAME REF
(fbg) (m~]/kg) (mg/k~) (me/kg) (mg/k~) (me/kg) (mg/k~l) (m~/k~))i (m~/kg) (mg/kg)l (me/kg) (me/kg)
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M) 8020/8260B 8260 N/A
REPORTING LIMIT VARIES-SEE LABORATORY REPORTS N/A
MW-6 4-16-03 20 MW-6-20 ND ND ND ND ND 0.062 0.28 ........ E
'-' 4-16-03 40 MW-6-40 "' ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-16-03 60 MW-6-60 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-16-03 80 MW-6-80 ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
.... 4-16-0'3 100 MW-6-100 "ND ND ND ND ND ND .......... E
4-16-03 120 MW-6-!..2. 0 .... ND ND ND ND ND ND ........ , -- E
REF = Report reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not'detected. -- = Not analyzed.
A = A.J. Environmental, Inc.'s, report dated May 1999.
B = Holguln, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s (HFA's) report dated November 17, 1999.
C = HFA's report dated June 25, 2001. :
· D = HFA's report dated February 19, 2002.
-E = Central Slerrra Environmental (CSE's) current report.
TABLE 3.
SUMMARY OF VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE DATE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
SOURCE SAMPLED SAMPLE ID GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES MTBE
(ppmv) (ppmv) .. (ppmv) (ppmv/ (ppmv) (ppmv) REF
EPA ANALYTICAL METHOD 8015 (M)10 8020 N/A
DETECTION LIMIT 0:1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 N/A
INFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-1 5,500 58 290 32 220 1,900 A
EFFLUENT 10-10-02 0210153-2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.31 A
INFLU ENT 12-12-02 0212180-1 8,600i 110 320 44 260 2,200 A
INFLUENT 2-21-03 0302259-1 11,000 120 190 100 290 1,400 B
EFFLUENT 2-21-03 0302259-2 ND ND ND ND ND NDI B
INFLUENT 6-25-03 0306310-1 3,800 16 150 34 201 480 C
REF = Repod reference. N/A = Not applicable. ND = Not detected.
A = Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's (CSE's), report dated March 3, 2003.
B = CSE's, report dated April 13, 2003.
C = CSE's, current report.
TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF YES MONITORING DATA
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Outer Inlet Dilution Field ReducfJon Cumulative Lbs. CumulativeCumulative
Date Calendar OperatingOperatingOperatingoperatingTemper- Flow MW-I V-ts V-ti V-Id V-2 V-3 V-4 Air TPH InField TP~ Efficiency To,iai Lbs. Lbs. DesfroyedLbs. Ga/Ions
Monitored [~ays Hours Hours Days Weeks ature('F) (scrm)(valve) (vaTve) (valve) (valve) (valve) (valve (valve(valve)(ppmv)Out(ppmv (>90%) ExtractedExtractedper eventDesl~'oyedExtracted
10.8-02 1 0 0 0 0 1,450 175 · · · PO · · · PO 4,500 10 100% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
10-10-02 2 15 15 I 0 1,470 205 · · · PO · · · PO 5,500 10 100% 187.0t 187.01 267.22 267.22 29
10-15-02 7 62 77 3 0 1,455 235 · · · PO · · · PO 5,775 10 100% 1,106.68 1,293.68 1,329.61 1,596.83 202
10-t 8-02 10 39 116 5 1 1,470 250 · · · PO · · · PO 5,920 10 100% 837.91 2,131.59 912.14 2,608.96 333
10-22-02 14 52 168 7 1 1,435 225 · · · PO · · · PO 6,235 10 100% 1,218.36 3,349.95 1,152.90 3,661.86 523
10-24-02 16 25 193 8 I 1,460 230 · · · PO · · · PO 6,530 10 100% 555.23 3,905.18 593.45 4,255,31 6t0
10-30-02 22 75 268 11 2 1,450 2t5 · · · PO · · · PO 6,745 10 100% 1,783.28 5,688.44 1,7t9.11 5,974.42 889
11-1-02 24 26 294 12 2 1,465 235 · · · PO · · · PO 6,980 10 10O% 596.91 6,285.35 671.23 6,645.66 982
11-6-02 29 63 357 15 2 1,440 205 · PO · O · · · PO 7,120 10 100% 1,628.94 7,914.29 1,453.55 8,099.21 1,237
11-8.02 31 29 386 16 2 1,485 240 · PO · 0 ·' · · PO 7.280 10 100% 670.11 8.584.39 800.97 8,900.19 1,341
11-12-02 35 52 438 18 3 1,480 265 · PO · O · · · PO 7,445 10 100% t,438.3310.022.721.62t.84 10,522.03 1,569
11-15-02 38 39 477 20 3 1,455 220 · PO · O · · · PO 7,535 10 100% t,218.1111,240.831,022.04 11,544.07 1,756
11-18-02 41 37 514 21 3 1,490 215 · PO · O · · · PO 7,680 10 100% 971.00 12,211.83965.85 12,509.91 1,908
1t-21-02 44 40 554 23 3 1,470 238 · PO · O · · · PO 7,828 10 100% t,045.6113,257.451,138.13 13,648.04 2,071
11-25-02 48 , 53 607 25 4 t.435 205 · PO · O · · · PO 8,060 10 100% t,510.0814,767.831,384.52 15,032,56 2,307
11-30-02 53 62 669 28 4 1,450 225 · PO · O · · · PO 8,175 10 100% 1,621.7816,389.311,803.05 16,835;61 2,561
12-3-02 66 0 669 28 4 t,465 240 · PO · O · · · PO 8,320 10 100% 0,00 16,389.310.00 16,836.61 2,561
12-6-02 59 39 708 30 4 1,440 210 · PO · O · · · PO 8,455 10 100% 1,232.8517,622.161,094.89 17,930.47 2.753
12-10-02 63 52 760 32 5 1,485 195 · PO · O · · · PO 8,525 10 100% 1,461.6719,083.831,366.77 19,297.24 2,982
12-12-02 65 28 788 33 5 1,460 235 · PO · 0 · · · PO 8,600 10 100% 736.88 19,820.71894,74 20,191,98 3,097
12-16-02 69 50 838 35 5 1,450 220 · PO · 0 · · · PO 8,475 10 100% t,599.7421,420.451,474.00 21,665.98 3,347
12-19-02 72 41 879 37 5 1.465 215 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,t39 t0 t00% t,210.2022,630.691,133.76 22,799.74 3,636
12-24-O2 77 ~4 943 39 6 1,455 235 Po ;'o · o · · · Po 7,955 to 100% 1.772.1024,402.751,891.55 24,691.29 3,813
12-26-02 79 27 970 40 6 1,465 255 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,550 10 100% 799.07 25,201,62821.76 25,513.07 3,938
12-30-02 83 52 1,022 43 6 1,460 240 PO PO · O · · · PO 7,230 10 100% 1~58~.9026,786,721,426.35 26.939.42 4,185
1-4-03 88 61 1,083 45 6 1,465 235 PO PO · O : · · PO 7,465 lb 100% t,575.6828,462.411,691.69 28,63t.ll 4,447
1-7-03 91 40 1,123 47 7 1,470 245 PO PO · O · · PO 7,6t5 10 100% t,110.8929,573.291,179.78 29,8t0.89 4,621
1-9-03 93 26 1,149 46 7 1,485 250 PO PO · O · · · Po 7,750 10 100% 767.93 30,34~.22796.40 30,607.29 4,741
1-14-03 96 65 1,214 51 7 1,460 225 PO PO · 0 · · · PO 6,025 10 100% t,993.7332,334.951,855.56 32,462.85 5,052
1-17-03 101 38 1,252 52 7 1,455 230 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,450 10 100% t,086.2333,421.191,167.70 33,630.56 5,222
1-20-03 t04 40 1,292 54 8 1,490 215 PO PO · O · · · PO 8,795 10 100% t,230.7134,651.901,195.96 34,826.52 5,414
1-23-03 107 42 1,334 56 8 1,470 235 PO PO · O · · · PO 9,230 10 100% t,257.2935,909.191,440.56 36,267.08 5,611
1-27-03 111 49 1,383 58 8 1,435 205 PO PO · 0 · · · PO 9,630 10 100% t,682.59. 37,591.781,529.69 37,796,77 5,874
1-30-03 114 39 1,422 59 8 1,450 240 PO PO · O · · · PO 9,875 10 100% 1,218.8738,810.651,461.70 39,258.47 6,064
2-3-03 118 52 1,474 61 9 1,465 265 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,080 10 100% 1,951.0340,761.682,196.68 41,465.14 6,369
2-7-03 122 49 1,523 63 9 1,440 220 PO PO · O · · · PO 10,345 10 100% 2,072.1242,833.791,763.65 43,216,79 6,693
2-1o-o3 '125 38 1,561 65 9 1,485 216 PO PO · O · · · PO t0,530 10 t00% t,369.1444,202.94t,360.57 44,879.36 6.907
2-14-03 129 51 1,612 67 10 1,450 230 Po PO · 0 · · · PO 10,645 1o 100% t,827.8946,030.821,974.79 46,554.15 7,192
2-17-03 132 37 1,649 69 10 1,450 205 PO PO. · O · · · PO 10,570 10 100% 1,434.1347,464.951,303.97 47,858.13 7,416
2-21-03 t36 54 1,703 71 10 1,465 225 PO PO · O · · · PO 11,000 10 .100% 4,904,9749,369.922,113.78 49.971.91 7,714
2-25-03 140 0 1,703 71 ,10 1,456 240 Po PO · 0 · · · PO 10.790 t0 t00% 0.00 49,369.920.00 49,97'1.91 7,7t4
2-28-03 143 39 1,742 73 10 1,465 210 PO PO · o · · · PO 1o,685 10 100% 1,592.935,0,962.85 1,384.00 61,355.90 7,963
3-4-03 147 50 1,792 75 11 1,475 200 PO PO PO O · · · PO 10,650 10 100% 1,776.1352,738,991,684.31 53,040,22 8,240
3-7-03 f50 42 1,834 76 tl 1,485 235 PO PO PO 0 · · · PO 10,580 10 100% 1,416.2554,155.241,651.50 54,691,71 8,462
3-11-o3 154 49 1,883 78 11 1,490 220 PO po PO O · · · Po t0,535 t0 100% t,928.6956.083.93t,796.08 66,487.79 8,763
3-14-03 157 41 1,924 60 11 1,480 215 PO PO · 0 PO · · PO 10,475 lO 10o% 1,504.3557,588.291,46o.31 57,946.10 8,998
3-18-03 16~'~ 50 1,974 82 12 1,485 235 PO PO · O PO · · PO 10,415 10 100% 1,782.6859,370,981,935.38 59,883,47 9,277
3-21-03 t64 39 2,013 84 12 t,475 255 PO PO · O PO · · PO 10,380 10 100% 1,511.1460,882.111,632.57 61,516.04 9,513
3-24-03 167 40 2,053 86 12 1,48o 245 PO PO · o · PO · PO t0,335 10 10o% 1,676.1462,858.251,901.78 63,,117.82 9,776
3-28-03 171 49 2,102 88 13 1,470 250 PO PO · 0 · PO · PO 10,290 10 100% 1,954.2o64,522.451,993.50 65,111.32 10,082
TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF VES MONITORING DATA
DOWNTOWN CHEVRON SERVICE STATION, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
C4Jmulatlve Cumulative Cum,Jlatlve Cumulative Ou§et Inlet Dilution /:ield RedtJc'~on Cumulative Lbs. Cut'mJfatlve Cumulative
Date Carendar Operating i OperatingOperatingOperatingTemper- /:iowMW-1 V*ls V-ti V-td V-2 V-3 V-4 Air TPH InField TPH Efficiency Total Lbs. Lbs. DestroyedLbs. Gallons
Monltore(~J _ Days HoLIrs Hours Days Weeks ature(°F', (scfm)(valve) (valve) (valve) (valve) (valve} (valve (va{va(valve)(ppmv)Out(ppmv (~'90%) F_x-~ctedExtractedper eventDestroyed Extracted
3-31-03 174 41 2.143 89 13 1,465 240 PO PO · O · PO · PO 10.275 10 100% 1,669.7566,192.191,598.9766,710,28 10,343
4-3-03 177 38 2,18t 91 13 1,485 235 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 10,125 10 t00% 1,483.5067,675.70t,429,8968,140.17 10,574
4-7-03 181 54 2,235 93 13 t,470 225 PO PO PC, O · · PO PO 9,975 10 100% 2,034.0869,709.78 ~ t,916,62, 70,086.80 t0,892
4-10-03 184 40 2,275 95 14 t,455 220 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 9,935 10 100% 1,42t,2471,,131,02 t,382.6071,439.39 11,114
4-14-03 188 51 2,326 97 14 1,435 215 PO PO · O PO · · PO 9,855 10 100% 1,764.7172,895.73t,708.8673,148.25 11,390
4-17-03 19t 37 2,363 98 14 t.450 230 PO PO · O PO · · PO 9,780 10 100% 1,241.1174,136.841,316.1874,464,40 11,884
4-21-03 195 11 2,374 99 14 t,465 205 PO PO · O PO · · PO 9,655 10 t00% 391.72. 74,528.55344.29 74,808.70 11,645
4-24-03, 198 42 2,416 101 14 t,440 225 PO PO · O · PO · PO 9,480 10 I00% 1,316.0475,844.591,416.65, 76,225.35 11,651
4-25.03 202 53 2,469 103 18 1.485 240 PO PO · O · PO · P'O 9,225 10 100% 1,789.6977,634.281,855,5275,080.87 12,130
5-1.03 205 38 2,507 104 15 t,480 210 PO PO · O · PO · PO 8,950 10 100% 1,33t.9t78,966.19t,129.32 ,, 79,210.19 12,338
5-6-03 2t0 63 2,570 107 15 1,4.50 195 PO PO PC) O · · PO PO 8,780 10 t00% 1,874.5480,840.73t,705.4980,915.68 12,63t
5-9-03 213 41 2,611 109 16 t,465 235 PO PO PO O · · PO PO 8,445 10 t00% 1,11t,2881,952.011,286.5252,202.19 12,805
5-13-O3 2t7 49 2,660 111 16 t,455 220 po,, Po Po 0 · · PO PO 8,110 10 100% 1,539.4983,491.50t,362.2383,584.42 13,046, ,,
5-16.03 220 40 2,700 113 16 t,465 215 PO Po po ' 0 PO · · PO 7,825 10 100% 1,129.6484,521.33t,063,9084,648.32 13,222
5-20-03 224 49 2,749 115 16 1,460 235 PO Po · 0 PO · · PO 7,285 10 t00% 1,305.0685,926.39t,320.91,88,968.94 13,426
5-23-03 227 41 2,790 118 17 1,485 255 PO PO · 0 PO · · PO 6,785 10 100% 1,106.6387,033.021,121.2687,090.20 13,599
5-28.03 230 42 2,832 118 17 1,470 240 PO PO · 0 · PO · PO 6,235 10 t00% 1,15.0.41 88,183.43993.27 88,083.47 13,779
5-29-03 233 35 2,870 120 17 t,488 236 Po PO · 0 · pc) · po 5,890 t0 100% 900.2t 89,083.64,83.1,.18 88,914.65 t3,9t9
5-30-03 234 16 2,886 120 17 t,460 245 PO Po · 0 · PO · Po ,5,450 10 t00% 350.60 89,434.24337.56 89,252.21 13,974
6-3-03 238 51 2,937 122 17 1,455 250 PO PO PO 0 · · PO PO 5,035 10 I00% 1,078.0590,512.301,014.16 ~0,266.37 14,143
6-5.03 240 29 2,966 124 18 1,490 225 PO PO PO 0 · · PO PO 4,855 10 t00% 577.90 91,090.20 500,41 90,76~.78 14,233
6.9-03 244 50 3,019 126 18 t,470 230 PO Po PO 0 · · po PO 4,61.8,.10 t00% 864.68 91,954.88 836,26 91,605.04 14,388
6-12-03 247 37 3,053 127 18 1,435 215 PO PO PO 0 PO · · Po 4,430 10 t00% 621.75 92,576,62 656,65 92,161.59 14,468,
5-16-03 251 52 3,105 129 18 1,450 240 PO PO PO 0 PO · · PO 4,225 10 t00% 784.07 93,360.70 832.64 92,994~23 14.58~
6-19-03 254 42 3,147 131 19 t,465 245 PO po · 0 PO · · Po 4,075 10 100% ~74~22 94,034.91 662.10 93,656.33 14,693
6-23.03 288 50 3,t97 133 19 t,460 230 PO PO · 0 · PO · Po 3,950 1'0 t00% 790.27 * 94.825.18717,19 94,373.52 14,8t6
6-25.03 260 25 3,222 134 19 t,470 235 PO Po · 0 · PO · Po 3,800 10 100% 359.56 95,184.75 352.44 94,725,96 14,873
open = O
~osed = ·
Parlial{y open = PO
ATTACHMENT 3.
SOIL BORING AND WELL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC'S'STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR
SOIL BORING AND WELL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
PRE-DRILLING PROTOCOL
Prior to the start of drilling, necessary permits, site access agreements, and/or encroachment permits are
obtained. "As-built" drawings are obtained if possible. At least 48 hours prior to drilling, Underground
Service Alert or an equivalent utility notification service is notified. A geophysical survey may be
conducted to locate subsurface utilities. Site plans and/or "as-built" drawings are compared to actual
conditions observed at the's~te. 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, add scars and patches in pavement are noted. The
emergency shut-off switch is located for safety purposes. The critical zone, which is defined as 10 feet
from any part of the UST system, is identified, and any proposed drilling locations within the critical zone
may be subject to special hole clearance techniques. Drilling locations within the critical zone are avoided
if possible. Notifications are made at least 2 weeks in advance of drilling to the property owner, client
representative, on-site facility manager, regulatory agency, and/or other appropriate parties.
A site-specific, worker health and safety plan for the site is available on site at all times during drilling
activities. Prior to commencing drilling, a .health and safety meeting is held among all on-site personnel
involved in the drilling operation, including subcontractors and visitors, and is documented with a health
and safety meeting sign-in form. A traffic control plan is developed prior to the start of any drilling
activities for both on-site and off-site drilling operations. The emergency shut-off sWitch for the service
station is located prior to the start of the drilling activities. A fire extinguisher and "No Smoking" signs (and
Proposition 65 signs in California) are present at the site prior to the start of the drilling activities.
The first drilling location is the one located furthest from any suspected underground improvements in
order to determine the natural subsurface conditions, to be able to better recognize fill conditions, and to
prevent cross contamination. For monitoring wells, a 2 x 2-foot square or 2-foot diameter circle is the
minimum removal. For soil borings and push-type samplers, the minimum pavement removal is 8-inches.
When pea gravel, sand, or other non-indigenOus material is encountered, the drilling location will be
abandoned unless the absence of subsurface facilities can be demonstrated and client approval to
proceed is obtained. If hole clearance activities are conducted pdor to the actual day of drilling, the
clearance holes are covered with plates and/or backfilled.
The minimum hole clearance depths are 4 feet b~low grade (fbg) outside the critical zone and 8 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 3/29102
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 2
no obstructions exist anywhere near the potential path of the drill auger or push-type sampler.
Probing is extended'laterally as far as possible. Hand augering or post-hole digging then proceeds,
but only to the depth that has been probed. If subsurface characteristics prohibit effective probing, a
hand auger is carefully advanced past the point of probing. In this case, sufficient hand augering or
Post-hole digging is performed to remove all the soil in the area to be delineated. For soil borings
located outside of the critical zone, an attempt should be made to probe an additional 4 feet.
4 to 8 fbg: For the soil borings located inside the critical zone, probing and hand clearing an additional
4 feet is performed. If 'probing is met with refusal, then trained personnel advance a hand auger
without excessive force.
An altemate 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). Altemate 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 thero is any possibility that it has been encountered,
the work ceases, and the client is notified immediately. If there is reason to believe that the product
system has been damaged, the emergency shut-off switch is activated. The client will decide if additional
uncovering by hand is required. If it is confirmed that the UST system has been encountered, tightness
tests are performed. The hole is backfilled only with client approval.
DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Soil boring are drilled using one of the following methods:
Manual drilling: Manual drilling utilizes a 2-inch-OD, hand auger manufactured by
Xitech Industries, Art's Manufacturing Company, or similar equipment. Soil samples are collected
with a drive sampler, which is outfitted with 1.5-inch by 3-inch steel or brass sleeves. The Specific
equipment used is noted on a soil borind'log.
Truck-mounted, powered drilling: Truck-mounted, powered ddlling 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 bodng log.
Direct push sampling: Direct push sampling utilizes Geoprobes®, cone 'penetrometer testing rigs,
or similar technologies. Soil samples are collected with a drive sampler, which is outfitted with
steel or brass sleeves. The specific equipment used is noted on a soil boring log.
REVISED 3/29/02.
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Boring and Well Construction Procedures
Page 3
Before each soil sampling episode, the sampling equipment is decontaminated using a non-phosphate
soap wash, a tap-water rinse, and a deionized water rinse. The drill string is decontaminated with a steam
cleaner between each soil boring (truck-mounted rigs).
Soil samples that are collected in steel or brass sleeves are covered with aluminum foil or TeflonTM tape
followed by plastic caps. If EPA Method 5035 is required, then 5 to 20 grams of soil is extracted from the
sample and placed in methanol-preserved containers supplied bY the laboratory, or sub samples are
collected using Encore(E) samplers. During the drilling process, soil samples and cuttings are field
screened for VOCs using .a photoionization detector calibrated to 100 pads per million by volume
isobutylene. Any soil staining or discoloration is visu~ally 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 transpodation
procedures are consistent with Central Sierra Environmental, LLC's quality' assurance/quality control
procedures. The samples are transported in a chilled container to a Staie-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) fro[~ which the waste was derived, the date the waste was generated,
and other pertinent information. The drums are stored at the site of generation until sample laboratory
analytical results are obtained,-at which time the soil is disposed of appropriately.
A soil boring'log is completed for each soil boring and'includes the following minimum information:
· date of drilling;
· location of soil boring;
· project name and location;
· soil sample names and depths;
· soil descriptions and classifications;
· standard penetration counts (rigs);
· photoionization detector readings;
· drilling equipment;
· soil boring diameter;
· sampling equipment;
REVISED 3/29/02
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Soil Bodng and Well Construction Procedures
Page 4
· depth to groundwater in soil boring;
· name of person performing logging;
· name of supervising registered geologist; and
· name of drilling company (rigs and direct push).
SOIL BORING COMPLETION PROCEDURES
All soil borings are either properly abandoned or completed as a well.
Abandonment
Each soil boring that is not comPleted as a well is backfilled with bentonite grout, neat cement, concrete,
or bentonite chips with a permeability less than that of the surrounding soils, and/or soil cuttings,
depending on local regulatory requirements or client instructions. Grout is placed by the tremie method.
Backfilling is performed carefully to avoid bridging. The type of backfill material is noted on the soil boring
log.
Well Installation
Wells are designed according to applicable state and local regulations as well as project needs. Details of
the well design and construction are recorded on the soil boring log and include the following minimum
information (in addition to the items noted above for soil borings):
o..detailed drawing of well;
· type of well (groundwater, vadose, or air sparging);
· casing diameter and material;
o 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 th(~ 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 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 analytic, al results are received.
The elevation of the north side of the top of well casing (or other appropriate reference point from which
the depth to groundwater can be measured) is surveyed to an accuracy of ±0.01 foot. All measurements
are reproduced to assure validity. Surveying is performed by a state-licensed surveyor if required by state
or local regulations. In the State of California, wells are surveyed in' accordance with AB2886.
DATA REDUCTION
The data compiled from the soil borings is summarized and analyzed. A narrative summary of the soil
characteristics is also presented. The soil boring logs are checked for the following information:
· correlation of stratigraphic units among borings;'
· identification of zones of potentially high hydraulic conductivity;
· identification of the confining layer;
· indication of unusual/unpredicted geologic features (fault zones, fracture traces, facies changes,
solution channels, buried stream deposits, cross-cutting structures, pinchout zones, etc.); and
· continuity of petrographic features such as sorting, grain-size distribution, cementation, etc.
Soil boring/well locations are plotted on a properly scaled map. If appropriate, soil stratigraphy of the site
is presented in a scaled cross section. Specific features that may impact contaminant migration, e.g.,
fault zones or impermeable layers, are discussed in narrative form and supplemented with graphical
presentations as deemed appropriate.
REVISED 3/29/02
ATTACHMENT 4.
AIR SPARGE WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
AIR SPARGE WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC.
Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
Proposed
.Mark R. Maqar,qee CHG, RG
Well No. SW-1 thru SW-4
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
-- WELL CASING
GROUNDWATER
SCREEN
Elevation of refrence point
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top of gravel pack
type of gravel pack
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
depth of bottom of screen
' depth of well
diameter of borehole
depth of borehole
-404 feet
2 fb.q
Concrete
2
Cement Grout
111 f~.~t
Bentonite chips
2 inches
SChedua140 PVC
~115 fbcj
122 fbg
#3 Sand
125 t'bg
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
130 fha
135 fbg
8 5/8 inches
135 fbq
BOTTOM WELL CAP
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862
1400 Easton Drive, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
ATI'ACHMENT 5.
GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Client Name
Project Name
Site Address
Date Completed
Supervised by
Sullivan Petroleum Company, LLC.
Downtown Chevron Service Station
2317 "L" Street, Bakersfield, California
Proposed
Mark R. Ma,qarqee CHG, RG
Well No. EW-1
Auquifer Unconfined
WELL COVER
GROUND SURFACE
TOP WELL CAP
SURFACE SEAL
ANNULAR SEAL
LOW PERMEABILITY SEAL
WELL CASING
GROUNDWATER
.SCREEN
BOTTOM WELL CAP
Elevation of refrence point
depth to surface seal
type of surface seal
annular seal thickness
type of annular seal
Iow permeability seal thickness
type of Iow permeability seal
diameter of well casing
type of well casing
depth of groundwater
from refrence point
depth of top of gravel pack
type of gravel pack
depth of top screen
screen slot size
screen spacing size
depth of bottom of screen
depth of well
diameter of borehole
depth of borehole
-404 feet
2 fb,q
Concrete
90 f~et
Cement Grout
3 feet
Bentonite chips
6 inches
SChedua140 PVC
~115 rog
95 rog
#3 Sand
lOO ro9
0.02 inch
0.5 inch
140 fo~
150 fog
12 inches
150 ro,q
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
(661) 325-4862 '
1400 Easton Drive, Building E, Suite 132
Bakersfield, California 93309
ATTACHMENT 6.
AQUIFER TESTING PROCEDURES
CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC'S STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
FOR AQUIFER TESTS
PLANNING THE AQUIFER TEST
Pdor to conducting the test, available project information is reviewed:
· to determine the appropriate type of test to perform (pumping test versus slug test);
· to determine which wells should be pumped and observed;
· to estimate the likely pumping rate and pumping equipment requirements;
· to estimate the pumping duration requim~l to achieve adequate drawdown in the observation
wells; and
· to estimate the quantity and quality of waste water that will be produced during the test and
design a waste water disposal plan.
These objectives are accomplished by:
· developing a conceptual model of the aqUifer (confined or unconfined, regional or perched
groundwater, aquifer thickness, and aquifer homogeneity);
· estimating aquifer properties based on soil descriptions and other available data;
· estimating a pumping rate based onthe estimated aquifer properties and well recharge rates
obtained from well purging records;
· estimating whether observation well drawdown is likely based on estimated aquifer
properties, pumping rate, and/or distances to observation wells; and
· estimating the duration of the test and, using the anticipated pumping rate, the quantity of
water that will be produced.
The information outlined above is also used to choose appropriate pumping equipment to
achieve the required flow rates, determine whether to attempt a constant-rate pumping test or
conduct slug tests, choose an appropriate extraction and observation well configuration for
aquifer testing, and determine whether installation of new extraction and/or observation wells are
needed.
REVISED 1/6/03
CSE's Standard Operating Procedures for
Aquifer Tests
Page 2
There are two basic types of aquifer tests: pumping tests and slug tests. Pumping tests measure
potentiometdc surface changes in the aquifer due to pumping from an extraction well. Slug tests
measure the rate of flow of water into or out of a well in response to rapidly raising or Iowen~ng
the water level in the well. Slug test results are not as useful as pump test results because slug
tests depend on well construction as well as aquifer properties. In addition, aquifer tests are
conducted to obtain design parameters for pump-and-treat remediation systems. If a slug test is
contemplated for a site because the wells cannot yield a sustainable pumping rate, the site is
probably not amenable to pump-and-treat.
PUMPING TEST PROCEDURES
Equipment
The equipment used to conduct the aquifer test includes a Grundfos Environmental Redi-flow
submersible groundwater pump or equivalent, and an In Situ Hermit Data Logger and associated
pressure transducers or equivalent. Ancillary equipment includes a calibrated flow gauge and
electronic water level meters.
Initial Water Level Survey
Pdor to the aquifer test, the depth to water is measured to an accuracy of 0.01 foot in all wells at
the site. The data are used to construct a groundwater elevation contour map, from which
estimates of natural groundwater flow direction and gradient are obtained.
Trend Test
A trend test is conducted to identi~ any background variations in water levels.
Groundwater levels are logged at 1-minute intervals for at least 1 hour in the wellS that have
pressure transducers. If background variations are present, the trend test data is used to remove
the effect of such vadati0ns on time-drawdown measurements recorded during the aquifer test.
Step-Drawdown Test
A step-drawdown test is conducted to determine an appropriate pumping rate for the constant-
rate pumping test. The step-drawdown test is conducted by pumping a monitoring or extraction
well at three or more successively higher rates for a duration of at least 15 minutes each, or until
the pumping well water level stabilizes. Water levels within an observation well are also
monitored dudng the steP-drawdown test. Pumping rates are generally set at one-third,
two-thirds, and maximum pump capacity. If the aquifer is Iow yielding and the well pumps dry at
the lowest possible pumping rate, slug tests are conducted instead of a pumping test.
Otherwise, the step-drawdown test data are used to choose an optimum pumping rate for the
constant-rate pumping test.
CSE's Standa[d Operating Procedures for
Aquifer Tests
Page 3
Constant-Rate Pumping Test
After water levels have recovered from the step~lrawclown test, a constant-rate pumping test is
conducted by pumping water from the chosen pumping well at a constant rate.
Groundwater levels are recorded in the observation well(s) and possibly the pumping well
(depending on the setup) using the data logger and downhole pressure transducers.
The duration of the test is at least 3 hours, and may be continued to obtain adequate drawdowns
in the observation wells. The test is terminated if it is clear that observation well drawdown will
not occur.
At the end of the constant-rate pumping test, th6 pump is shut off and a recovery test is
conducted by monitoring water levels as they approach initial (static) conditions.
SLUG TESTS
Slug tests are conducted by lowering or raising the water level in the well, and monitoring the
water level recovery over time. Rising-head slug tests are performed by pumping or bailing at
least one well volume from the well casing and surrounding gravel pack, and recording the rate
of water level rise using pressure transducers and a data logger or a standard water level meter.
Falling-head tests (conducted only in wells that are screened below the water table) are
performed by adding water or a solid ~slug' to the well casing, and recording the water level drop
over time.
Slug test data from a rising head test are used to estimate a sustainable pumping rate. The rate
of water level rise is measured, and the volume of water entering the well during the rise can be
calculated from the diameters of the casing and the well bore, and the porosity of the gravel pack
between the casing and the well bore. The resulting well recha[ge rate is the maximum
sustainable pumping rate. The actual sustainable pumping rate will be less than this value due
to long-term drawdown in the [ormation.
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
All produced groundwater is pumped into on site in 55-gallon drums, a polyethylene tank, or a
Baker tank, depending on the quantity. Water is removed by a vacuum truck within 2 to 3 days
after the day of the aquifer test and shipped to an appropriately licensed disposal or recycling
facility. If an appropriate groundwater treatment system for wastewater disposal is available, it is
used.
DATA REDUCTION ·
The aquifer test data are used to determine aquifer transmissivity (or hydraulic conductivity) and
storativity, well capacity, average linear groundwater flow velocity, capture zone of a pumping
well, and well efficiency. The aquifer properties of transmissivity (or hydraulic conductivity) and
storativity are determined using published methods or commercially available software.
CSE°s Standard Operating Procedures for
Aquifer Tests
Page 4
Well capacity is calculated to determine optimal pumping rates for remediation system design.
Specific capacity is defined as the pumping rate divided by stabilized drawdown within a well and
has units of gpm/ft.
Average linear groundwater flow velocity is calculated by:
v = Ki/ne
where~
v = average linear velocity
K = hydraulic conductivity
i = hydraulic gradient
ne = effective porosity for flow
K is obtained from the aquifer test results, i is determined from water level gauging, and ne is
determined from the literature value for the soil types at the site.
The capture zone is the area of-art aquifer containing water that will enter a pumping well after
pumping from that well for a specified length of time. The capture zone of an extraction well is
calculated or modeled using the sustainable pumping rate and average linear velocity using
published methods or commercially available soft, ware.
Well efficiency is the drawdown in the formation divided by the drawdown in the well times
100 percent. A 100-percent efficient well has the same drawdown inside and outside the well.
A real well (less than 100 percent efficient) has greater drawdown inside than outside the well.
If a constant-rate pumping test is completed, the transmissivity and storativity determined from
the test are used to calculate the drawdown outside the well, and observed water levels are used
for the drawdown in the well.
Winston H. Hickox
SecretaryJbr
Environmental
Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Office
Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/-rwqcb5
1685 E Street, Fresno, California 93706-2020
Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910
Gray Davis
G(mernor
5 September 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. David Bird
Sulhvan sPetroleum Company, LLC. _.
1508 18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 "L" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You submitted Corrective Action Plan Addendum (CAP Addendum) dated 29 August 2003 and prepared
by Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). The CAP evaluates remedial alternatives and
proposes on-site air sparging (AS) and overpurging of monitoring wells off-site to remediate polluted
groundwater resulting froman on-site underground storage tank (UST) system release. We requested
that you submit a CAP Addendum for groundwater by our letter dated 2 July 2003. We do not approve
the CAP Addendum. Our letter requested that you design a remediation system to prevent the spread of
impacted groundwater and remove the high petroleum constituent concentrations by the "pump and .
treat" method. We consider this method necessary due to the high methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
concentrations present on-site and off-site and the proximity of two municipal wells. We request that
you submit a work plan proposing a "pump and treat system" and provide more information concerning
off-site access. A summary of the CAP Addendum and our comments follow.
Work Plan Summary
CSE evaluated the feasibility of groundwater pump and treat, inositu bioremediation, in-situ subsurface
air sparging, and dual phase extraction. CSE did not consider in-situ bioremediation to be feasible or
cost effective..Pump and treat was considered to be feasible, but not cost effective. In-situ air sparging
and dual phase extraction were considered feasible and cost effective. CSE recommends in-situ air
sparging on-site in combination with the operating soil vapor extraction (SVE) system to remove
floating petroleum product and dissolved phase gasoline constituents from the capillary fringe and upper
'saturated zone. Fixed remediation systems and piping is not feasible since off-site access beneath State
Highway. 178 and other properties will not be available. Therefore, CSE recommends remediation of
impacted groundwater off-site by periodic overpurging of the monitoring wells.
CSE proposes to install four AS wells (SW-1 through SW-4) to a depth 10 to 15 feet below the water
table (125 to 130 feet below ground surface (bgs)). Five-foot sections of 2-inch diameter casing with
0.020-inch slots will be utilized as sparge points. Five-foot sections of blank casing will be installed
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
Mr. David Bird 2
5 September 2003
beneath the sparge points as sediment traps. CSE assumes a design radius of sparging influence (ROI)
of 20 feet using an injection pressure of 90 inches of water (ins-water) and a flow rate of 5 standard
cubic feet per minute (scfm). The air sparge wells will be connected to a manifold and compressor by
underground hoses.
CSE will monitor and evaluate system effectiveness during operation, conduct quarterly groundwater
monitoring for one year after soil and groundwater remediation is completed. CSE will submit quarterly
monitoring and remediation system progress reports.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
0~~ 2 July 2003 indicated that you would need to design, install, and operate a groundwater
remediation system to prevent the spread of impacted groundwater and remove the high petroleum
constituent concentrations by the "pump and treat" method. The CAP Addendum does not propose such
a system. We do not approve the CAP Addendum.
Our letter emphasized that the gasoline release from your site is a serious threat to water resources in the
area. MTBE in groundwater may be transported greater distances away from the release point than other
gasoline constituents due to its relatively high solubility and low adsorption to soils. Floating gasoline
has persisted in on-site monitoring well MW-1 and MTBE concentrations from 31,000 to 62,000 gg/L
were detected in the recently installed off-site wells MW-4 through MW-6 during the 21 April 2003
monitoring event. The extent of impacted groundwater is undefined. MTBE and other gasoline
constituents are being transported in a highly transmissive aquifer toward California Water Service
Company (CWS) Well Station #7, approximately 1,000 away from the site. Gasoline constituents,
including MTBE, have not been detected in #7. However, MTBE has been detected at up to 12.3 gg/L
in samples collected from CWS well station #64-01, approximately 2,400 feet southeast of the site,
causing this well to be placed on inactive status. The release from your site is a potential source for this
impact. We do not consider the proposed system adequate to prevent MTBE from reaching CWS #7.
We recognize that the "pump and treat" method may be costly and requiff~s implement. _. _ation and
permittin-ffof-wa~ste-w'ate--v-disc-Un~owever, we consider the potential threat caused by the release to
warrant this method. Continuous pumping of groundwater will create a hydrologic barrier for migration
of impacted groundwater away from the source. Air sparging and/or periodic pumping of groundwater
do not provide the same level of control that is provided by continuous groundwater pumping. A
remediation System that combines sparging and periodic pumping with a pump and treat system could be
considered.
The CAP Addendum states that access for connection of off-site remediation facilities will not be
available. The CAP addendum does not indicate that CSE has attempted, unsuccessfully, to gain access.
We request that CSE contact us by 25 September 2003 with additional information concerning their
attempts to gain access. Our reconnaissance revealed several properties suitable for off-site groundwater
extraction and treatment facilities south of State Highway 178.
We request that you submit a work plan for "pump and treat" groundwater remediation by 15 October
2003. Groundwater extraction points should be proposed both on-site and off-site. If your consultant
V:\UGT~Projects\JDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Downtown Chevron GWCAP 9-03.doc
· Mr. David Bird
-3-
5 September 2003
has determined that off-site access or wastewater discharge is not feasible, we request that. they contact'
us by 25 September 2003.
Sections 2729 and 2729.1 for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the California Code of
Regulations requiring you to submit analytical and site. data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Required Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Agencies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files); depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP ill.es).
We request that you o_r. your consultant contact this office at le.ast five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence,'please contact me at (559) 445,5504.
JOHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals...
cc:
Mr. Howard Wines III, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barbara Rempel~ SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
File: UST/Kern/Chevron Station/2317 L Street, Bakersfield/5T15000836
V:\UGTXProjects~JDW_files\2003 Con'espondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Downtown Chewon GWCAP 9-03.doc
Winston H. Hickox
Secretary.~br
Environmental
Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Robert Schneider, Chair
Fresno Branch Office
Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb5
1685 E Street, Fresno, California 93706-2020
Phone (559) 445-5116 · FAX (559) 445-5910
Gray Davis
Governor
2 September 2003
Regional Board Case No. 5T15000836
Mr. David Bird
Sullivan's Petroleum C6mpany, LLC
1508 ~18th Street, Suite 222
Bakersfield, California 93301
UNDERGROUND TANK RELEASE, DOWNTOWN CHEVRON STATION, 2317 '%" STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
You submitted Second Quarter 2003 Progress Report (Report) dated 22 August 2003 and prepared by
Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield (CSE). The Report documents a groundwater monitoring
event performed on 21 April 2003 and summarizes soil vapor extraction (SVE) remediation system
performance from startup on 8 October 2002 until 25 June 2003. Although influent concentrations
decreased during the second quarter, the SVE system continues to remove hydrocarbons from subsurface
soil at a steady, relatively high rate. The initial sampling of new off-site wells indicates that a relatively
large plume of gasoline constituents, including the fuel oxygenate me[hyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
extends an undetermined distance toward a municipal well..We request that SVE system operation and
quarterly groundwater monitoring continue with a reduced analytical program. We reiterate our request
that you submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for groundwater and an installation report for additional
off-site monitoring wells. Summaries of the Report and our comments follow.
Report Summary
Groundwater Monitoring
CSE conducted the second quarter 2003 groundwater monitoring event on 21 April 2003. Results of the
monitoring event were previously summarized in CSE's Off-Site Groundwater Assessment Report dated.
6 June 2003. Groundwater flow direction was calculated to be toward the southeast with a water table
slope of 0.015 feet per foot. CSE measured 0.13 feet of floating petroleum product in soil vapor
extraction well VW-1 d. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g), benzene, and MTBE
concentrations up to 2,500 and 59,000 micrograms per liter (gg/L) were detected in samples from on-site
monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3. TPH-g, benzene, and MTBE concentrations, up to 47,000,
3,500, and 62,000 gg/L were detected in newly installed off-site wells MW-4 through MW-6.
California Environmental Protection Agency
~ Recycled Paper
Mr. David Bird - 2 -
2 September 2003
Remediation System Performance
CSE began operating the SVE system on 8 October 2002. The system has operated continuously during
the second quarter 2003 except for short periods of planned inactivity during maintenance, draining the
knockout pot, and for approximately 72 hours prior to groundwater monitoring events.
The SVE system operated during the second quarter 2003 in thermal mode with measured oxidizer
temperatures ranging from1435 to 1490 degrees Fahrenheit and inlet airflow rates from 205 to 255
standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). SVE well V-ld was operated open during the second quarter.
SVE wells MW-1 and V-1S were operated partially open. The other SVE wells were operated during
alternative three-week periods. The air dilution valve remained partially open during the second quarter.
Field influent TPH-g measurements decreased from 10,125 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at the
begmmng-of the-se'cond-quarter~to-3~800-ppr~g,' at-rl'ie ~h=d o--6f tlSe quarter. CSE calculated that
approximately 31,000 pounds of hydrocarbons were removed during the second quarter 2003. Since
SVE operation began, a calculated cumulative total of approximately 94,700 pounds were removed.
During the third quarter 2003, CSE will conduct quarterly groundwater monitoring, continue SVE
system operation, and install additional off-site monitoring wells.
Comments
Based on review of the above-summarized report, we have the following comments:
Monitoring data from new monitoring wells MW-4 through MW-6 indicate that a relatively large plume
of impacted groundwater with TPH-g, benzene, and MTBE concentrations extends an undetermined'
distance southeast of the site. MTBE in groundwater may be transported greater distances away from
the release point than other gasoline constituents due to its high solubility and relatively low adsorption.
The release from your site is a serious threat to water resources in the area. 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 p_ote_p_ntial impacts to the municipal well. An SVE
re~T-dlatmn system has operated on-sxte since 8 October 2002. Based on data included in the report,
SVE system influent vapor concentrations decreased during the second quarter, but hydrocarbon removal
rates have remained relatively high. The cumulative weight of removed hydrocarbons continues to
increase at a steady rate. We request that remediation continue in thermal mode.
Groundwater monitoring should be continued on a quarterly schedule. Groundwater samples should be
analyzed for TPH-g by EPA Method 8015M, and BTEX, MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE, and TAME by
EPA Method 8260. By our letter dated 11 December 2003 we requested that you include analysis for the
VOCs usually reported in a full EPA Method 8260 analysis (usually 63 to 67 compounds) one additional
quarter. You conducted this analysis during the second quarter. This analysis may be discontinued.
Please submit a groundwater monitoring and SVE progress report for the third quarter 2003 monitoring
event by 3 November 2003.
V:\UGTXProjects\JDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Cases\Downtown Chevron GW 8-03.doc
Mr. David Bird 3
2 September 2003
The lateral extent of impacted groundwater is undefined. By our letter dated 13 August, we approved
the installation of the additional off-site monitoring wells proposed in CSE' s Expanded Off-Site
Assessment Work Plan dated 5 August 2003. We requested that you submit a well installation report by
15 December 2003. We also requested by our letter dated 2 July 2003' that you submit a Corrective
Action Plan for groundwater remediation by 2 September 2003.
Sections 2729 and 2729.1 for Underground Storage Tanks were added to the California Code of
Regulations requiring you to submit analytical and site data electronically. Enclosed is our letter
Required Electronic Deliverable Format for Laboratory and Site Data Submittals to Regulating
Agencies explaining how to obtain information to implement the requirements. As of the date of this
letter, we have not received the required electronic data submissions for your site. Electronic submittals
should include soil or groundwater sample analytical data (various file names), wellhead horizontal and
vertical positioning data (GEO_XY and GEO_Z files), depth-to-water measurements (GEO_WELL
files), and site maps (GEO_MAP files).
We request that you or your consultant contact this office at least five days prior to fieldwork. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (559) 445-5504.
/
JOHN D. WHITING
Engineering Geologist
R.G. No. 5951
Enclosure: Required Electronic Deliverable Format For Laboratory and Site Data Submittals...
CCi
Mr. Howard Wines 15I, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Bakersfield, w/o enclosure
Ms. Barbara Rempel, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento, w/o enclosure
Mr. Mark Magargee, Central Sierra Environmental, Bakersfield, w/enclosure
Fi!e: UST/Kern/Chevron Station/2317 L Street, Bake_rs~eld/5Tl.5000836 . .
V:\UGT~Projects'dDW_files\2003 Correspondence\City of Bakersfield Co. qes\Downtown Chevron GW 8-03.doc