SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

TABLE 1 CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED DATA FOR NO FURTHER ACTION REQUESTS AT UNDERGROUND TANK SITES Site Nasse and Location: 3133 Ad Art Road, Stockton,San Joaquin County Y 1. Distance to production wells for municipal,domestic, agriculture, A receptor survey was not completed. The nearest industry and other uses within 2000 feet of the site; well Is an on-site well about 300 feet north of the fanner USTs. 2.Site maps, to scale, of area impacted showing locations of former and existing tank systems, Two USTs were removed In Y excavation contours and sample locations,boring and monitoring well elevation contours, September 1998. Site maps gradients, and nearby surface waters,buildings,streets, and subsurface utilities; provided. 0 3. Figures depicting lithology(cross section), treatment system diagrams; Boring logs show predominantly slit and clay. 4. Stodquiled soil remaining on-site or off-site disposal(quantity); Approximately 100 cubic yards of soil was spread out on-site and used for asphalt base. 5. Monitoring wells remaining on-site, fate; Monitoring wells were not installed. 6. Tabulated results of ail groundwater elevations and depths to water;— bepth fo water Vs-estlma-term at 50 feel`with-an easterly flow. Groundwater was not encountered 0 Z Tabulated results of all sampling and analyses: Maximum soli results In mg/kg show TPHg at 1,800, TPHd at 3,800,benzene at<0.3,toluene at<0.3,ethyl benzene at 1.0,and xylenes at YCJ Detection limits far confirmation sampling 3.2. MISE and other oxygenates were less than reporting limits by ©Lead analyses FPA Method 82605. No Indication of lead analysis. Y a Concentration contours of contaminants found and those remaining in soil Lateral and vertical extent of soil and groundwater,and both on-site and off-site: contamination Is defined. Groundwater Y❑ Lateral and Y❑ Vertical extent of soil contamination water was not encountered. ElLateral and El Vertical extent of groundwater contamination 9.Zone of influence calculated and assumptions used for subsurface A remedlation system was not operated at remediation system and the zone of capture attained for the soil and this site. groundwater remediation system; 10.Reports/Information El Unauthorized Release Form OMRs Y❑ Boring logs ❑ PAR N❑ FRP E] Other(PIER, May 2000) Y 11.BestAvailable Technology(BAT)used or an explanation for not using BAT; Remove USTs,natural attenuation. 12.Reasons why background waslis umthski ble using BAT; TPHg and TPHd constituents remain in on-site soils. 13.Mass balance calculation of substance treated versus that remaining; A mass balance was not presented. 14.Assumptions,parameters,calculations and model'used in risk A risk assessment was not completed assessments,and fate and transport modeling; 15. Rationale why conditions remaining at site will not adversely Remaining contamination Is limited to the dispenser FTJ impact water quality,health,or other beneficial uses;and area. Contamination will naturally attenuate. By. Comments: Two USTs(one 4,000-gallon diesel and one 550-gallon waste oil)were removed from the site in September 1998. A piping leak from the USTs to a dispenser resulted in soil contamination. Three geoprobe borings were completed to 30 feet bgs in Apri12000,and TPHg, TPHd, TPHmo,ethyl benzene, and xylenes were identified in one boring at i0 feet, Contamination was not identified below 10 feet,and soil samples collected from the other two borings Date: were non detect for all constituents. WE and other oxygenates were not detected using EPA Method 8260B. The on- I site well north of the former USTs Is reportedly used for irrigation only. City water is supplied. The site is paved with asphalt, which should limit the leaching of contaminants. Based on the limited extent of site contamination,and the absence of fuel oxygenates, Board staff concurs with San Joaquin County's closure recommendation.