first quarter 2006 groundwater monitoring ......groundwater from the monitoring wells was placed in...

CFI GWM January 2006

FIRST QUARTER 2006

GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT CONSOLIDATED FILM INDUSTRIES, LLC 959 SEWARD STREET HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for: Consolidated FiIm Industries, LLC Site Address: Consolidated Film Industries, LLC 959 Seward Street Hollywood, CA 90038 Mailing Address:

Consolidated Film Industries, LLC 2233 North Ontario, Burbank, California 91504-3120

Prepared by Professional Service Industries, Inc. Long Beach, California 90815 (562) 597-3977

May 10, 2006 559-5G009

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTSSTATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION ...................iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SITE HISTORY 1

2.0 GROUNDWATER MONITORING ............................................................................ 3 2.1 WATER LEVELS AND HYDRAULIC GRADIENT DETERMINATION................... 3 2.2 PURGING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES ....................................................... 3 2.3 ANALYTICAL METHODS AND RESULTS............................................................ 4

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 6

4.0 REFERENCES..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2: SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 3: GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP FIGURE 4: PCE CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION MAP FIGURE 5 : OTHER CONTAMINANT CONCETNRATION MAP LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: HISTORICAL MONITORING WELL FIELD DATA TABLE 2: GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL FIELD DATA TABLE 3: GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: PSI STANDARD FIELD PROCEDURES APPENDIX B: GROUNDWATER PURGING AND SAMPLING LOGS APPENDIX C: LABORATORY REPORTS AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORDS APPENDIX D: HISTORIC GROUNDWATER RESULTS

iii

TABLE 1: GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS -MW-1 TABLE 2: GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS -MW-2 TABLE 3: GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS -MW-3 TABLE 4: GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS -MW-4 TABLE 5: GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS -MW-5 TABLE 6: GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS -MW-6 TABLE 7: GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS -MW-7 TABLE 8: GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS -MW-8

iv

STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION Information provided in this report for Professional Service Industries, Inc. Project Number 559-5G009 is intended exclusively for Consolidated Film Industries, LLC, and for the evaluation of selected contaminants as they pertain to the site at the time the data were collected. The professional services provided have been performed in accordance with practices generally accepted by other geologists, hydrologists, hydrogeologists, engineers, and environmental scientists practicing in this field. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. PSI is not an insurer and makes no guarantee or warranty that the services supplied will avert or mitigate occurrences, or the consequences of occurrences, that the services are designed to prevent or ameliorate. All calculations have been based on available data. This report is issued with the understanding that CFI is responsible for ensuring that the information contained in this report is brought to the attention of the appropriate regulatory agency. An engineer who is registered in the State of California and whose signature and license number appears below has reviewed this report. ________________________ _________________________ Moises Delgadillo Nick Norocea, PE # C 54452 Staff Geologist Senior Project Manager

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) was retained by Consolidated Film Industries, LLC (CFI) to conduct groundwater monitoring at the CFI facility located at 959 Seward Street in Hollywood, California (Figure 1). The purpose of the groundwater-monitoring event described in this report was to determine the present concentrations and distribution of halogenated volatile organic compounds (HVOCs) in the groundwater beneath the site as requested by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region (CRWQCB) in their letter dated August 13, 2004. A health and safety plan was prepared by PSI's project health and safety officer and reviewed by all field personnel prior to commencement of purging and sampling activities. On March 30, April 8 and April 13 2006, PSI collected samples from eleven groundwater-monitoring wells (MW-3, MW-4, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8, MW-9, MW-10, MW-14, MW-15, MW-16 and MW-17). Well locations are shown on Figure 2. The monitoring wells were inspected prior to development. The depth-to-water distance was measured using an interface probe. Groundwater measurements were also conducted in wells MW-2, MW1-12, and MW-13, however these wells could not be accessed with a bailer and therefore they were not sampled. These three wells are 1-inch diameter temporary wells installed in December 2005. Wells MW-1, MW-5 were destroyed during construction activities conducted at the Site. The following presents a brief site history. 1.1 SITE HISTORY Regulatory History A detailed regulatory history was presented in the April 2005 RAP. The following presents a brief summary. The CRWQCB became the lead agency, and a series of regulatory correspondence during late 1980’s and early 1990’s document the request that the property owner assess the origin and extent of chlorinated hydrocarbons at the site. A follow-on request was made by the CRWQCB in its letter dated August 13, 2004. In November 2004, the CRWQCB included the Site into the Self-Monitoring and Self-Directed Remediation Program to expedite the implementation of environmental activities and Site remediation. The site was included in Cost Recovery Program in November 2005.

1

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Groundwater Impact History In 1987, groundwater monitoring wells MW1 and MW2 were installed in the vicinity of an abandoned 2500 gallon diesel UST as part of a UST compliance program, and soil and groundwater samples were collected and analyzed. The analytical results revealed groundwater chlorinated hydrocarbons beneath the Site. These two monitoring wells have been used since that time to monitor groundwater on site. During construction activities conducted at e the site between March and September 2005 monitoring well MW-1 was destroyed.

Additional groundwater monitoring wells MW-3 through MW-8 were installed between 1988 and 1991 to determine the nature and extent of the HVOC’s impact to the groundwater. The groundwater monitoring data from 1988 through 2005 is presented in Tables 1 through 8 (Appendix D). Two additional groundwater-monitoring wells, MW-10 and MW-11, were installed between January and February 2005 to determine the nature and extent of the HVOC’s impact to the groundwater. Eight additional groundwater-monitoring wells, MW-9 and MW-12 through MW-18, were installed in December 2005 and January 2006 to further delineate the extent of the HVOC impact to groundwater. A groundwater monitoring program was implemented at the Site from October 1987 through April 1992. The historic groundwater monitoring data was presented in the Site Investigation Work Plan, Appendix A, in Tables 1 through 8 prepared by PSI and dated November 15, 2004 (the November 2004 Work Plan). The monitoring program resumed in October 2003 and an additional groundwater monitoring session was conducted in March 2004. In a letter dated August 13, 2004, the CRWQCB requested that groundwater monitoring at the site be conducted quarterly instead semi-annually. Therefore, groundwater monitoring sessions were conducted for fourth quarter 2004 and first quarter 2005 and were presented in the Groundwater Monitoring Reports dated January 12, 2005 and May 16, 2005, respectively. These groundwater monitoring reports were submitted to the CRWQCB. The fourth quarter 2005 groundwater monitoring session was conducted in December 2005 and January 2006 to include the data from the additional monitoring wells MW-9 and MW-12 through MW-18, installed as part of the additional groundwater assessment conducted during December 2005 and January 2006.

2

2.0 GROUNDWATER MONITORING

2.1 WATER LEVELS AND HYDRAULIC GRADIENT DETERMINATION Fourteen monitoring wells were inspected prior to commencement of purging and sampling activities. Depth to groundwater was measured to 0.01-foot accuracy from the top of the well casings in all fourteen wells prior to purging and sampling. Water levels were measured using an electronic oil/water interface probe. Groundwater elevations were calculated for each well by subtracting the depth-to-water measurement from the surveyed casing elevations. All well elevations are referenced to mean sea level (msl). Information regarding the date and time of sampling, total well depth, depth to groundwater and approximate purge volume for each well is presented in Table 1. The Table lists well identifications, casing elevations, groundwater depths, groundwater elevations, and analytical results. This information was used to prepare a groundwater elevation map (Figure 3). The groundwater elevation map indicates a south-southwesterly flow direction with an average approximate hydraulic gradient of 0.0078 foot/foot. Tables 1 through 8 (Appendix D) were developed based on the historical data corroborated by ESCI and includes PSI’s analytical results for October 2003, March and December 2005, April 2006. 2.2 PURGING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES After groundwater levels were measured, PSI purged and sampled the eleven wells at the site. PSI personnel using a dedicated pump and a disposable bailer conducted purging activities. The pump was lowered approximately two feet from the bottom of each well. The pump was decontaminated between wells. A new bailer was used to develop and sample each well. The sound probe used to measure the water depth was also decontaminated between wells using a detergent solution and a deionized water rinse. During purging, groundwater was monitored for pH, temperature, electrical conductivity, and turbidity. To ensure the collection of representative samples the parameters were recorded until they have stabilized for at least three consecutive readings. To the extent possible, the samples were collected when turbidity was low as 10 NTU. Purging and sampling procedures were conducted in accordance with PSI Standard Operating Procedures for Purging and Sampling of Monitoring Wells (Appendix A). Purged groundwater from the monitoring wells was placed in 55-gallon drums, supplied by PSI, and left on site for disposal by CFI. Groundwater samples were collected from the wells by lowering a disposable bailer approximately 2-feet into the water column. The bailer was recovered, and the water decanted into the appropriate laboratory-supplied glassware. The containers were

3

sealed, labeled, then promptly placed into a chilled cooler and maintained at approximately 4 degrees centigrade until delivery to the laboratory for analysis. Copies of groundwater sampling logs are in Appendix B. Chain-of-custody protocol was followed throughout field and laboratory procedures. 2.3 ANALYTICAL METHODS AND RESULTS The groundwater samples were submitted to Centrum Analytical Laboratories, Inc. of Riverside, California, a State of California-certified hazardous materials testing laboratory. Selected samples were analyzed for the following constituents: • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) using USEPA Method 8260. The concentrations for constituents which indicated values higher than non-detect, are presented in Figure 4. The laboratory report and chain-of-custody records are in Appendix C. Compounds detected during this groundwater-sampling event are summarized as follows. The detected compound concentrations were compared with previous monitoring session results for a better understanding of the most recent trend contaminant behavior. Groundwater analytical results for this session are summarized in Table 3 for easy reference. Historic groundwater analytical results are summarized in Tables 1 through 8. Data Evaluation Chloroform concentrations decreased in comparison with last monitoring session. Chloroform was detected in samples collected from four of the wells sampled. Chloroform in these wells ranged from 0.7µg/L to 2.4 µg/L in MW-14 and MW-17 respectively. None of the samples showed chloroform concentrations exceeding the Maximum Concentrations Levels (MCL’s) of 100µg/L promulgated by the CRWQCB. Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected in nine of the wells. The PCE concentrations detected in March and April 2006 were in general similar with the concentrations detected in December 2005 and January 2006. Concentrations of PCE were detected in wells MW-3, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8, MW-9, MW-10, MW-15, MW-16, and MW-17 and ranged from 0.7µg/L to 380µg/L. The PCE concentrations did not exceed the MCL for PCE in eight out of eleven monitoring wells sampled. The PCE concentrations detected in MW-7, MW-10 and MW-16 went were 380µg/L, 38µg/L and 190 µg/L, respectively. The PCE concentrations in wells MW-7, MW-10, and MW-16 are higher than 5µg/L which is the MCL for PCE. Trichloroethene (TCE) was detected only in samples collected from MW-7, MW-10, MW-16 and MW-17. The TCE concentrations detected in March and April 2006 were similar with the samples collected in December 2005 and January 2006. The TCE

4

concentrations in MW-7 and MW-16 were 13µg/L and 39µg/L, respectively. These concentrations are higher than the MCL level for TCE. The TCE concentrations in wells MW-3, MW-6, MW-8, MW-9, MW-14 and MW-15 and MW-17 were below the MCL. The TCE concentrations in wells MW-7 and MW-16 are higher than 5 µg/L the MCL for TCE. 1, 1-Dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) was detected in four sampling well, MW-7, MW-10, MW-16 and MW-17. The concentration in MW-7 was 48µg/L. The concentration in MW-10 was 2.3µg/L. The concentrations of 1, 1-DCE in MW-16 and MW-17 are 64µg/L and 0.8µg/L respectively. All 1, 1-DCE concentration levels were well below the MCL of 130 µg/L. In comparison with the last sampling event the 1,1 DCE concentrations have slightly increased. 1, 1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) was detected in two wells, MW-7 and MW-16. The concentration in MW-7 was 8.2µg/L and in MW-10 was 27µg/L. All other 1,1 DCA samples were non-detect. The 1,1- DCA concentrations in wells MW-7 and MW-16 are higher than the MCL of 5.0µg/L. Concentrations of 1, 1, 1 Trichloroethane (1, 1, 1-TCA) were detected in the samples collected from MW-7 and MW-16. The concentration in MW-7 was 35 µg/L. The concentration in MW-16 was 11 µg/L. All other samples analyzed indicated non-detect values. All 1, 1, 1-TCA concentrations were well below the MCL of 200µg/L. Cis-1, 2-Dichloroethene (cis-1, 2-DCE) was detected in one samples collected from MW-16. The concentration in MW-16 was 5.1 µg/L. All other samples indicated non-detect values. The cis-1, 2-DCE concentrations in well MW-16 is higher than the MCL of 1.0µg/L. No 1, 2-Dichloroethane (1, 2-DCA) were detected in any of the samples collected. from MW-2, MW-13 and MW-18 in January 2006. The 1, 2-DCA concentrations in all the wells are lower than the MCL of 0.5 µg/L. A low concentration of Vinyl Chloride was detected in the samples collected from MW-16. The concentration of Vinyl Chloride in MW-16 is 1.2 µg/L. The vinyl chloride concentration in MW-16 is higher than the MCL of 0.5 µg/L. No concentrations of Acetone, Benzene, tert-butanol (TBA), 2-Butanone (MEK), 4-methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK), Chloromethane, Toluene and Styrene were detected in any of the wells. No other constituents were detected in any of the samples collected in March and April 2006

5

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following presents PSI’s conclusions based upon review of historical and current analytical data:

• The groundwater direction and gradient have remained relatively constant during this monitoring period. Slight modifications to the groundwater gradient could be attributed to rain water infiltration since the site surface has been exposed.

• A comparison of historical groundwater data to the recent groundwater

monitoring results indicates a small variation of HVOC concentrations in the groundwater data during this monitoring session. The trend of a gradual increase in HVOC concentrations in the groundwater appears to have been changed and a slight general decrease in HVOC concentrations was noted this session.

• The groundwater has been impacted at the Site with chlorinated hydrocarbons

such as: PCE and its breakdown products, TCE, and 1,1 DCE and TCA and its breakdown product, DCA. The plume appears to follow the areas of elevated concentrations detected in the soil beneath Buildings 1, 2 and 3 extending slightly to the south past the property line on Barton Avenue. Based on the groundwater monitoring data, only monitoring wells MW-16, MW-7, and MW-10 exceed the Drinking Water Standards for the constituents of concern with highest concentration of PCE encountered in MW-7 (380 µg/L).

• During this groundwater monitoring session, the PCE concentration was highest

in the sample collected from MW-7 (380 µg/L). This well is located down gradient from MW-10 which recorded a concentration of 38µg/L. Furthermore, the PCE concentration in MW-16 located off site in Barton Way and down gradient from MW-7 has increased form 130µg/L to 190µg/L. This data corroborated with the decrease in PCE concentrations in MW-10 from 400µg/L to 38µg/L suggest that further down gradient plume migration is occurring.

• PCE, TCE and 1,1-DCA, continue to be the constituents of concern. These

constituents exceeded their respective MCL’s of 5 µg/L, 5 µg/L and 0.5µg/L in wells MW-7, MW-10 and MW-16.

• All 1, 1-DCE, 1, 1-TCA, and 1, 2-DCA concentrations detected in all the wells

during this monitoring session were below the MCL of 130 µg/L, 200µg/L and 0.5 µg/L, respectively.

6

• No concentrations of Acetone, Benzene, tert-butanol (TBA), 2-Butanone (MEK), 4-methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK), Chloromethane, Toluene and Styrene were detected in any of the monitoring wells during this session.

• None of the samples showed chloroform concentrations exceeding the Maximum

Concentrations Levels (MCL’s) of 100µg/L promulgated by the CRWQCB.

4.0 REFERENCES RWQCB, 1996. Letter to CFI regarding report reviews and requirements for soil

cleanup, dated August 12, 1996. RWQCB File No. 111.1033. Dames and Moore, (1994), “Periodic Sampling and Analysis Program,” September 29, 1995.

7

FIGURES

3960 Gilman Street Long Beach, CA 90815 562/597-3977 Fax 562/597-8459

Consolidated Film Industries 959 Seward Street Hollywood, California PROJECT NO: 562-6G002

Figure 1: Site Location Map Map: Hollywood, California Quadrangle 7.5’ USGS Topographic Map Scale: 1: 16,000

TABLES

APPENDIX A PSI STANDARD FIELD PROCEDURES

PSI PROCEDURES FOR MONITORING WELL SAMPLING The following paragraphs describe PSI procedures for collecting water samples from a developed groundwater monitoring well. 1. Depth to groundwater from the established reference point (usually the top of the

north side of the well casing, as indicated by a permanent marking) shall be measured to the nearest 0.01 foot for each well in the sampling program. This may be accomplished with an electronic well sounder or a steel or fiberglass tape with a small amount of chalk or water-finding paste. If free hydrocarbon product is suspected, a clear bailer or interface probe shall be used to determine the thickness of the hydrocarbon phase. Depth to groundwater, thickness of floating product and the time of the measurements are recorded in the field notes. All measurement equipment (i.e., well sounders, steel tapes, and interface probes) shall be decontaminated with a specific detergent and rinsed in distilled water between each well.

2. To assure that representative water samples are collected, the well shall be

purged until the pH, temperature, and electrical conductivity measurements have stabilized so that water sampled is in equilibrium with the aquifer. Stabilization means less than 10 micromhos per centimeter (mhos/cm) (equivalent to microSiemens per centimeter [S/cm]) specific conductivity, less than 1-degree change in temperature and 0.1 pH units over three consecutive measurements. Generally, a minimum of three casing volumes of groundwater is purged prior to sampling. If the well is being purged by hand bailing, a minimum of three measurements is required, one after each casing volume has been purged. If purging is conducted by pump or vacuum truck, measurements shall be made at least as frequently as every 20 gallons or 15 minutes, whichever is more frequent.

3. One well volume can be calculated by the equation: V = 3.14 x r2 x (d1-d2) x 7.481

where: r = the radius of the well in feet d1 = depth of the well in feet d2 = depth to water in feet V = one well volume

4. After purging, the well shall be allowed to recharge for a minimum of 15 minutes

before sampling. If the well is bailed or pumped dry, water samples shall be collected after 80% of the original well volume has recovered.

5. Groundwater samples are obtained with a bottom-filling Teflon, glass, stainless-steel, or disposable polyethylene bailer, as appropriate for the laboratory analyses to be performed. The bailer shall be lowered on new nylon line, which is discarded after the sampling of each well. The bailer line shall be managed in such a way that it does not come into contact with the ground before entering the well. The bailer shall be lowered gently into the water column, so as to minimize disturbance and volatilization of any constituents of the groundwater, and withdrawn in a similar fashion.

6. The groundwater shall be collected in 40-ml glass vials and 1 liter amber jars with

Teflon-lined lids. The sample shall be transferred from the bailer to the vial in a manner that minimizes volatilization and exposure to air. The sample vials shall then be labeled, placed in resealable plastic bags, and placed on ice or equivalent medium sufficient to maintain a sample temperature of approximately 4 degrees centigrade until the samples are received at a certified hazardous waste laboratory.

7. All samples shall be recorded on a chain-of-custody record that travels with the

samples to enable trackability. 8. Cross-contamination of the water samples may be avoided by decontaminating

the bailer with non-phosphate detergent and water, rinsing with tap water, and rinsing with deionized water before each water sample is collected.

9. Trip blanks shall be prepared to check for cross-contamination during sampling,

shipment, and laboratory analysis. A minimum of one trip blank shall be prepared for 20 samples collected or less. For greater than 20 samples, at least 5% of the samples shall consist of trip blanks.

10. Monitoring and sampling of wells shall proceed from the least contaminated to

most contaminated well to minimize the possibility of cross-contamination.

APPENDIX B GROUNDWATER PURGING AND SAMPLING LOGS

APPENDIX C LABORATORY REPORTS AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORDS

APPENDIX D HISTORIC GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS

SUMMARY TABLES FOR HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING

CONDUCTED AT THE

CONSOLIDATED FILM INDUSTRIES FACILITY

LOCATED AT 959 N. SEWARD STREET, HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA Available groundwater sampling data from CFI and RWQCB files reviewed by ESCI for the eight (8) monitoring wells located at the CFI facility have been summarized in Tables 1 – 8, corresponding to groundwater monitoring wells MW1 – MW8 from 1987 to 1992. Additional pertinent information related to the sampling has been included as a “Note” following each of the tables, and is referenced numerically in the table itself under the “Notes” column. Additional groundwater sampling data obtained by PSI for groundwater monitoring wells MW-1 to MW-8 in October 2003, March 2004 and December 2004. Results for the detected VOCs are reported in the body of the table, and the results of other chemical constituents detected, such as TPH, are indicated in the notes section following each table. Laboratory data reviewed by ESCI was reported in microgram per liter, abbreviated as “ug/L” and is reported as such in the tables, unless otherwise indicated. The following are abbreviations used in the Summary Tables: Abbreviations used for chemical compounds: 1,1-DCA = 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,2-DCA = 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-DCE = 1,1-Dichloroethene cis 1,2-DCE = cis 1,2-Dichloroethene trans 1,2-DCE= trans 1,2- Dichloroethene 1,1,1-TCA = 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-TCA = 1,1,2-Trichloroethane TCE = Trichloroethene PCE = Tetrachloroethene VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds TPH-D = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as diesel TPH-G = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes ug/L = micrograms per liter ND = not detected above laboratory detection limit NA = not analyzed MW = monitoring well (e.g., MW2) It should also be noted that blank reporting spaces for certain chemical constituents are present in the tables. Where no supporting laboratory data was available and it was unknown as to whether or what particular chemical constituents in the sample were analyzed, the reporting space was left blank. The Summary Tables appear on the following pages.

TABLE 1. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS – MW-1

Notes Date Sampled

Acetone

Chloro-

form

1,1-DCA

1,2-DCA

1,1-DCE

cis 1,2-

DCE

Trans 1,2-

DCE

Methylene Chloride

1,1,1-TCA

1,1,2-TCA

TCE PCE

1 10-22-87 ND ND 49.0 ND 2,700 ND ND 27,700 38 155 2 5-28-88 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 6-26-88 5,590 3 7-19-88 5,160 3 8-6-88 5,370 4 9-17-88 ND ND 87.0 ND 535 ND ND 2,580 ND 44.0 3 11-9-88 3,000 3 12-17-88 1,840 3 12-17-88 2,130 5 1-3-89 2,120 3 3-18-89 2,600 3 4-21-89 2,950 6 8-21-89 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,290 ND ND 7 1-12-90 ND ND 93.0 ND 80.0 ND ND 421 ND 24.0 8 8-7-90 ND 11.0 82.0 3.9 217 ND ND 278 ND 18.0 9 10-16-90 ND 5.4 61.0 2.4 156 2.5 ND 243 ND 32.0 10 11-19-90 551 ND ND ND 17.0 ND 792 83.0 ND 24.0 11 5-7-91 ND 4.7 69.0 3.1 102 ND ND 191 ND 34.0 12 6-12-91 ND 10 56.0 ND 215 14.0 ND 307 ND 26.0 13 10-2-03 ND ND 0.7 ND 3.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.6 13 3-09-04 ND ND ND ND 1.6 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 25 13 12-16-04 ND ND ND ND 4.0 ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 18

NOTES – TABLE 1:

1. LARWQCB records indicate that Board personnel apparently obtained split samples of groundwater collected from MW1 and MW2 by GEOSEC on 10-22-87. The split samples were analyzed by the California Department of Health Services Southern California Laboratory (SWQIS Lab ID No. 5091) for VOCs (EPA Method No. 624). The GEOSEC samples were analyzed only for TPH and BTEX (EPA Method Nos. 8015M and 8020, respectively), and reported as ND, as summarized in the GeoSec report dated 11-16-87.

2. GeoSec installed MW3, MW4 and MW5 on May 23 and 24, 1998, and obtained groundwater samples from MW2,

MW3, MW4 and MW5. MW1 was apparently not sampled at this time according to the GeoSec report dated June 8, 1998.

3. “Non-chain of custody” sample. This data was contained in a CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test

Report – 1988-1991” and was apparently not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. Corresponding laboratory data was not found for this result, and only the result for 1,1,1-TCA was indicated in the CFI document. Where no supporting laboratory data was available and it was unknown as to whether or what particular chemical constituents in the sample were analyzed, the reporting space has been left blank.


Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated September 28, 1988 corresponds to these data. Ethylbenzene and xylenes were also reported by the laboratory in this sample at concentrations of 4.8 ug/l and 1.7 ug/l, respectively.


Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. Corresponding laboratory data was not found for this result, and only the result for 1,1,1-TCA was indicated. Where no supporting laboratory data was available and

it was unknown as to whether a particular chemical constituent in the sample was analyzed, the reporting space has been left blank. This data is, however, referenced in a CFI letter to the LARWQCB dated January 25, 1989.


Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated August 22, 1989 corresponds to this data. All compounds were reported as ND with the exception of 1,1,1-TCA.

7. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated January 15, 1990 corresponds to this

data. However, this data is not contained in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB.

8. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated August 8, 1990 corresponds to this data.

However, this data is not contained in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB.

9. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated October 18, 1990 corresponds to this


10. As reported in the GeoSec report dated December 10, 1990 for sampling conducted on November 19, 1990. In addition

to VOCs, TPH (EPA Method No. 8015) was reported at 289 ug/l in the groundwater sample collected from MW1.

11. As summarized in the GeoSec report dated June 11, 1991 related to the installation of groundwater monitoring wells MW6, MW7 and MW8 on April 23 1991, and groundwater sampling conducted on May 7, 1991.

12. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated June 13, 1991 corresponds to this data.

However, this data is not contained in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. The sample was also analyzed using EPA Method No. 8015M for diesel, and was reported as ND.

13. Groundwater monitoring conducted by PSI.

TABLE 2: GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS – MW-2

Notes Date Sampled Acetone Chloroform

1,1-DCA

1,2-DCA

1,1-DCE

cis 1,2-

DCE

trans 1,2-

DCE

Methylene chloride

1,1,1- TCA

1,1,2-TCA

TCE PCE

1 10-22-87 ND 64 ND 630 ND ND ND 5,700 ND ND 67

2 10-27-87 3,400

3 5-28-88 ND 300 ND 1,780 6.2 3.0 ND 14,200 83 13 390

2 6-26-88 10,500

2 7-19-88 5,190

2 8-6-88 19,500

4 9-17-88 7.8 117 70 6,225 ND ND ND 24,320 49 ND 222

2 11-9-88 9,100

2 12-17-88 13,000

2 12-17-88 17,800

5 1-3-89 11,200

2 2-22-89 4,800

2 3-18-89 6,450

2 3-31-89 5,395

2 4-21-89 26,800

6 4-29-89 ND 77.0 29 2,170 ND ND ND 14,300 ND ND 142

7 5-8-89 (XP-1) ND 108 ND 2,447 ND ND ND 14,850 ND ND 135

7 5-8-89 (XP-2) ND 99 44 2,587 ND ND ND 18,000 ND ND 141

8 5-20-89 ND 133 48 3,020 ND ND ND 13,300 ND ND 92

9 8-18-89 ND ND ND 1,400 ND ND ND 20,400 ND ND 235

9 8-18-89 ND ND ND 1,300 ND ND ND 13,300 ND ND 152

9 8-18-89 ND ND 91.0 1,500 ND ND ND 13,300 ND ND 165

10 11-2-89 ND ND ND 942 ND ND ND 6,450 ND ND 116

11 12-14-89 ND ND ND 182 ND ND ND 1,010 ND ND

12 1-12-90 ND ND ND 155 ND ND ND 1,180 ND ND 42.0

13 4-4-90 ND 31.0 ND 405 ND ND 134 2,240 ND 38 168

14 6-26-90 ND 10.0 ND 136 ND ND ND 380 ND ND 29.0

14 6-26-90 ND 26.0 ND 180 ND ND ND 314 ND ND 23.0

15 8-8-90 ND 37.0 ND 343 ND ND ND 703 ND ND 31.0

16 10-16-90 5.4 63.0 2.4 1,486 2.5 ND ND 6,960 ND ND 154

17 10-22-90 ND 78.0 ND 1,320 ND ND ND 5,260 ND ND 197

18 11-19-90 ND 39.0 ND 328 ND ND 76 687 ND ND 63.0

19 2-7-91 ND 21.0 ND 149 ND ND ND 253 ND ND 19.0

20 2-22-91 ND 12.0 ND 98.0 ND ND ND 296 ND ND 12.0

21 3-5-91 ND 15.0 ND 124 ND ND ND 252 ND ND 16.0

22 5-7-91 ND 82.0 ND 208 ND ND ND 336 ND ND 27.0

23 6-12-91 ND 29.0 ND 186 ND ND ND 180 ND ND 18.0

24 6-21-91 ND 12.0 ND 164 ND ND ND 239 ND ND 16.0

25 1-30-92 ND 22.0 ND 301 ND ND ND 508 ND ND 30.0

26 4-2-92 ND 6.29 ND 47.9 ND ND ND 93.6 ND ND 5.18

27 10-02-03 ND ND 5.9 1.8 130 ND ND ND 3.8 2.0 0.7 31

27 3-09-04 ND ND 2.2 0.8 48 ND ND ND 1.1 1.0 0.6 19

27 12-16-04 ND ND 2.4 1.2 49 ND ND ND 1.4 1.2 0.5 17

NOTES – TABLE 2:

1. LARWQCB records indicate that Board personnel apparently obtained split samples of groundwater collected from MW1 and MW2 by GEOSEC on 10-22-87. The split samples were analyzed by the California Department of Health Services Southern California Laboratory (SWQIS Lab ID No. 5091) for VOCs (EPA Method No. 624). The GEOSEC samples were analyzed only for TPH and BTEX (EPA Method Nos. 8015M and 8020, respectively), and reported as ND, as summarized in the GeoSec report dated 11-16-87.


Report – 1988-1991” and was apparently not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. Corresponding laboratory data was not found for this result, and only the result for 1,1,1-TCA was indicated in the CFI document. Where no supporting laboratory data was available and it was unknown as to whether or what particular chemical constituents in the sample were analyzed, the reporting space has been left blank.

3. As summarized in a GeoSec report dated June 8, 1988.


Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated September 28, 1988 corresponds to these data.


Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. Corresponding laboratory data was not found for this result, and only the result for 1,1,1-TCA was indicated. Where no supporting laboratory data was available and it was unknown as to whether a particular chemical constituent in the sample was analyzed, the reporting space has been left blank. This data is, however, referenced in a CFI letter to the LARWQCB dated January 25, 1989.


Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated May 2, 1989 corresponds to these data.


Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated May 9, 1989 corresponds to these data. The CFI document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” indicates that two groundwater samples denoted as “XP-1” and “XP-2” were both apparently collected from MW2.


Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated May 24, 1989 corresponds to these data.

9. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated August 22, 1989 corresponds to this

data and indicates that 3 samples were collected from MW2. However, this data is not contained in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB.

10. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated November 3, 1989 corresponds to this

data. However, this data is not contained in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. The Weck report also contains analytical results for a “Sample B” which is not reported here, since it is unknown as to what “Sample B” refers.

11. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated December 15, 1989 corresponds to this

data. However, this data is not contained in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. The Weck report also contains analytical results for a “Well B” which is not reported here, since it is unknown as to what “Well B” refers.

12. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated January 15, 1989 corresponds to this


13. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated April 5, 1990 corresponds to this data.

However, this data is not contained in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. The Weck report also contains analytical results for a “B1 Sample” which is not reported here, since it is unknown as to what “B1 Sample” refers.


However, this data is not contained in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. The Weck report indicates that two groundwater samples were collected from MW2 on this date.

15. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated August 8, 1990 corresponds to this data. However, this data is not contained in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB.





18. As reported in the GeoSec report dated December 10, 1990 for sampling conducted on November 19, 1990. In

addition to VOCs, TPH (EPA Method No. 8015) was reported at 750 ug/l in the groundwater sample collected from MW2.

19. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated February 7, 1991 corresponds to this


20. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated February 26, 1991 corresponds to this


21. As reported in the GeoSec letter dated March 12, 1991. The groundwater sample was also analyzed for TPH-D and

TPH-G (EPA Method No. 8015M), and was reported as ND.

22. As summarized in the GeoSec report dated June 11, 1991 report related to the installation of groundwater monitoring wells MW6, MW7 and MW8 on April 23 1991, and groundwater sampling on May 7, 1991. The groundwater sample was also analyzed for TPH-G and TPH-D (EPA Method No. 8015), and was reported as ND for these compounds.


However, this data is not contained in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. The sample was also analyzed using EPA Method No. 8015M for diesel, and was reported as ND.

24. As summarized in the GeoSec report dated June 24, 1991 for sampling conducted on June 21, 1991 for MW2 and

MW7.

25. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated January 31, 1992 corresponds to this data. However, this data is not contained in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. The sample was also analyzed for TPH-D (EPA Method No. 8015M), and was reported as ND.

26. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated April 6, 1992 corresponds to this data.

However, this data is not contained in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. The sample was also analyzed for TPH-D (EPA Method No. 8015M), and was reported as ND.


TABLE 3 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS – MW-3


1,1 DCA

1,2 DCA

1,1 DCE

Cis 1,2-

DCE

Trans 1,2-

DCE

MethyleneChloride

1,1,1-TCA

1,1,2-TCA TCE PCE

1 5-28-88 ND ND ND ND ND ND

2 11-19-90 ND ND ND 136 11.0 20.0

3 5-7-91 ND ND ND ND ND 2.0

4 10-01-03 ND 1.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.7

4 3-12-04 ND 0.7 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.9

4 12-16-04 ND 1.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Notes:

1. MW3 was installed on May 23, 1988, sampled on May 28, 1988, and the groundwater sample analyzed for

VOCs (EPA Method 8240). The GeoSec report dated June 8, 1988 indicates all compounds were reported as ND for the groundwater sample collected from this well.

2. As summarized in the GeoSec report dated December 10, 1990 for sampling conducted on November 19, 1990. 3. As summarized in the GeoSec report dated June 11, 1991related to the installation of groundwater monitoring

wells MW6, MW7 and MW8 on April 23 1991, and groundwater sampling conducted on May 7, 1991. The groundwater sample was also analyzed for TPH-G and TPH-D (EPA Method No. 8015), and was reported as ND for these compounds.


TABLE 4

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS – MW-4


1,1- DCA

1,2-DCA

1,1-DCE

Cis 1,2-

DCE

Trans 1,2-

DCE

Methylene chloride

1,1,1- TCA

1,2- DCA

TCE PCE

1 5-28-88 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2 11-19-90 ND ND ND 23 ND ND ND

3 5-7-91 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


4 3-09-04 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


Notes:

1. MW4 was installed on May 23, 1988, sampled on May 28, 1988, and the groundwater sample analyzed for VOCs (EPA Method No. 8240). The analytical results are summarized in the GeoSec report dated June 8, 1988.

2. As reported in the GeoSec report dated December 10, 1990 for sampling conducted on November 19, 1990.

3. As summarized in the GeoSec report dated June 11, 1991 report related to the installation of groundwater

monitoring wells MW6, MW7 and MW8 on April 23 1991, and groundwater sampling conducted on May 7, 1991. The groundwater sample was also analyzed for TPH-G and TPH-D (EPA Method No. 8015), and was reported as ND for these compounds.




1,1-DCA

1,2-DCA

1,1-DCE

Cis 1,2-

DCE

Trans 1,2-

DCE

Methylene chloride

1,1,1- TCA

1,1,2- TCA TCE PCE

1 5-28-88 ND ND ND ND ND ND 2 11-19-90 ND ND 1.4 24 4.4 ND 3 5-7-91 ND ND ND ND 0.52 0.70 4 10-02-03 ND 2.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.6 4 3-12-04 ND 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.7 4 12-16-04 ND 3.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.5

Notes: 1. MW5 was installed on May 23, 1988, sampled on May 28, 1988 and the groundwater sample analyzed using

EPA Method 8240. The GeoSec report dated June 8, 1988 indicates all compounds were reported as ND for the groundwater sample collected from this well.

2. As reported in the GeoSec report dated December 10, 1990 for sampling conducted on November 19, 1990. 3. As summarized in the GeoSec report dated June 11, 1991related to the installation of groundwater monitoring

wells MW6, MW7 and MW8 on April 23 1991, and groundwater sampling conducted on May 7, 1991. The groundwater sample was also analyzed for TPH-G and TPH-D (EPA Method No. 8015), and was reported as ND for these compounds.




1,1 DCA

1,2 DCA

1,1 DCE

Cis 1,2-

DCE

Trans 1,2-

DCE

Meth yleneChloride

1,1,1- TCA

1,1,2-TCA TCE PCE

1 5-7-91 0.51 ND ND ND 3.1 2 10-01-03 .1 ND ND ND ND ND ND D D D 1.4 ND 2 N N N2 3-09-04 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND D 2.2 ND 2. ND ND N2 ND 2.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.5 12-16-04

Not

es:

1. As summarized in the GeoSec report dated June 11, 1991 related to the installation of groundwater monitoring wells MW6, MW7 and MW8 on April 23 1991, and groundwater sampling conducted on May 7, 1991. The groundwater sample was also analyzed for TPH-G and TPH-D (EPA Method No. 8015), and

2.

TABLE 7 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS – MW-7

toluene and total xylenes were reported at concentrations of 0.92 ppb and 0.6 ppb, respectively.

Groundwater monitoring conducted by PSI.


1,1-DCA

1,2-DCA

1,1-DCE

Cis 1,2-

DCE

Trans 1,2-

DCE

Methylene chloride

1,1,1- TCA

1,1,2 TCA TCE PCE

1 5-7-91 16.0 19.0 ND 217 817 17.0 2 6-12-91 5.0 9. 9 N D 256 528 13.0 3 6-21-91 23 ND ND 194 592 14.0 4 1-30-92 ND ND ND 76.0 344 ND 5 10-01-03 ND 1 ND ND ND N 1.4 ND ND 1.9 .0 ND D 1.5 5 3-12-04 ND ND ND ND ND N 1.6 ND ND 0.7 ND D 1.3 5 12-16-04 ND 1.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND N D 0.8

Notes:

1. As summarized in the GeoSec report dated June 11, 1991 related to the installation of groundwater monitoring wells MW6, MW7 and MW8 on April 23 1991, and groundwater sampling conducted on May 7, 1991. The groundwater sample was also analyzed for TPH-G and TPH-D (EPA Method No. 8015), and

2.

ned in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report – 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. The sample was also analyzed for TPH-D (EPA Method No. 8015M) and was reported as ND.

was reported as ND for these compounds.

“Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated June 13, 1991 corresponds to this data. However, this data is not contai

3.

4. “Non-chain of custody” sample. A report from Weck Laboratories, Inc. dated January 30, 1992

– 1988-1991” and was not formally submitted to the LARWQCB. The sample was also analyzed for TPH-D (EPA Method No. 8015M) and was reported as ND.

5.

ABLE 8: GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS – MW-8

As summarized in the GeoSec report dated June 24, 1991 for groundwater sampling conducted on June 21, 1991 for MW2 and MW7.

corresponds to this data. However, this data is not contained in the CFI hand-written document titled “Groundwater Test Report


T


1,1 DCA

1,2 DCA

1,1 DCE

Cis 1,2-

DCE

Trans 1,2-

DCE

Methylene Chloride

1,1,1 TCA

1,1,2- TCA TCE PCE

1 5-7-91 0.83 3.4 ND ND ND ND 2 10 3 -02-0 ND 2.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.2 2 3-09-04 ND 1.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND N D ND ND 1.2 2 1 N ND ND N ND ND 2-16-04 D 2.0 ND ND ND D ND 1.1

Notes:

1. As su d in eoSec report Ju , 1 rep lated t insta o r monitoring wells MW6, MW7 and MW8 on April 23 1991, and groundwater sampling conducted on May 7, 1991. The groundwater sample was also analyzed for TPH-G and TPH-D (EPA Method No. 8015), and was reported as ND for these compounds.

2.

mmarize the G dated ne 11 991 ort re o the llation f groundwate


first quarter 2006 groundwater monitoring ......groundwater from the monitoring wells was placed in...

Documents