COMPLIANCE INFO_PRE 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

approximately 130° Fahrenheit before it will flow. (See Appendix A for specifics on #6 fuel properties.) To reach groundwater at this site, this sticky, tar-like #6 fuel would have to migrate vertically downward through over 17 feet of extremely dense, fine-grained silts and clays. That is a very unlikely scenario. (See Figure 1 for a cross-sectional diagram of the #6 fuel tank area.) It is possible, however, that dissolved constituents from the #6 fuel could reach groundwater. These dissolved constituents (Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Polynuclear Aromatics) are what AEMC's proposed groundwater monitoring program is designed to detect. A small leak in the #6 fuel tank, because of the sticky, tar-like nature of #6 fuel, would quickly congeal and seal itself. A large leak, although not a direct threat to groundwater, would be obvious, and corrective action would immediately follow. In your 29 August 1989 correspondence to Gold Bond Building Products, you suggested that if an appropriate vadose zone monitoring system could be implemented, then perhaps a variance would not be required. You also stated that because groundwater at the site is not as shallow as previously anticipated, it may now be possible to directly monitor the vadose zone. This is a definite misunderstanding. AEMC's Underground Tank Monitoring Plan for Gold Bond Building Products of 3 December 1986, revised 22 August 1988, and presented to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board states on page 3 that, "#6 fuel oil exhibits a high boiling point and low vapor pressure, rendering vadose zone or vapor wells ineffective for leak detection." You also stated this in the opening paragraph of your 29 August 1989 correspondence. It was never AEMC's contention that vadose zone monitoring would not be implemented due to shallow groundwater. Rather, AEMC contended that shallow groundwater would merely expedite the detection of a leak into the vadose zone. »�> Page 2