|
ULE 1 -CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED DATA
<br /> FOR NO FURTHER ACTION REQUESTS AT UNDERGROUND TANK SITES
<br /> Site Name and Location: Fast and Easy Mart No. 38, 244 West Harding Way, Stockton, San Joaquin County(RB 11391030)
<br /> Y 1. Distance to production wells for municipal, domestic, Four supply Wells are located within 2,000'of the site:
<br /> agriculture, industry and other uses within 2000 feet of the site. one 800"to the south, one 1,325'to the northwest, one
<br /> 1,625't o the north and one 1,825'to the northwest.None
<br /> of the above wells are threatened by the release.
<br /> Y 2. Site maps, to scale, of area impacted showing locations of any former I� Two!10,000-gallon gasoline USTs were removed
<br /> and existing tank systems, excavation contours and sample locations, 9198,and new USTs were installed 12198.
<br /> I boring and monitoring well elevation contours, gradients, and nearby
<br /> surface waters, buildings, streets, and subsurface utilities; �!
<br /> Y 3. Figures depicting lithology(cross section), treatment system Site lith'ology consists of sand,silt, and clay to 115', the
<br /> diagrams; total depth of the investigation.
<br /> �YD 4. Stockpiled soil remaining on-site or oft-site disposal (quantity); I approximately 250 y of over-excavated soil was
<br /> trans orted to Forward Landfill in Manteca
<br /> :Y::] 5. Monitoring wells remaining on-site, fate; Three monitoring wells(MW-1 through MW-3)will be properly abandoned.
<br /> ij,
<br /> B. Tabulated results of ail groundwater Depth to groundwater varied from 22'to 29'bgs. Groundwater gradient I
<br /> elevations and depths to water; varies from 0.001 ft/ft to 0.01 1'ft/ft and flow direction was towards the
<br /> northeast. Ii I
<br /> -7.-Tabulated results of al�ling„i AlLdata adequatelt tabularized in various reports, including closure report.
<br /> and analyses:
<br /> 0 Detection limits for confirmation
<br /> sampling
<br /> 1 ❑N Lead analyses '
<br /> 8. Concentration contours of contaminants found and those remaining in soil and ' The extent of the identified
<br /> groundwater, and both on-site and oft-site: contamination is described in the
<br /> reports.
<br /> El Lateral and �Vertical extent of soil contamination Ik
<br /> Lateral and F1 Vertical extent of groundwater contamination
<br />!!! 9. Zone of influence calculated and assumptions used for subsurface remediation ij An engineered remediation was not
<br /> system and the zone of capture attained for the soil and groundwater remediation required by the lead agency.
<br /> k
<br /> system; ii .I
<br /> 10.Reports 1 information 1E Unauthorized Release Form 0 QMRs 4103 to 6110 F
<br />' ❑yWell and boring logs 0 PAR � FRP � Other Closure Report(12110) k
<br />`
<br /> _YYJ 11.Best Available Technology(BAT)used or an explanation for not using ;k USTs removal,soil over-excavation and
<br />! BAT; iE natural attenuation.
<br /> UY 12. Reasons why background wasrs Residual soil contamination remains on-site.
<br /> ttainable using BAT �f r
<br /> I
<br /> Y 13.Mass balance calculation of substance The consultant estimated 560 lbs. of TPH remain in soil.
<br /> treated versus that remaining; k
<br /> Y _14. Assumptions,parameters, calculations Groundwater has reached water` quality goals.Limited soil contamination
<br /> - w _-�ti_� ,�.
<br /> and model used in tisk assessments, and fate will not likely cause vapor intrusion orpose a significant threat-to human,
<br /> and transport modeling; health or the environment
<br /> Y 15. Rationale why conditions remaining at site TPHg failed the commercial ESLs for direct contact and gross
<br /> will not adversely impact water quality, health, contamination, and benzene foi direct contact,in the US Ts pit;however;..
<br /> or other beneficial uses;and soil contamination reportedly is limited in extent at 10'bgs, which is
<br /> below typical worker depth. Land use(commercial)is not expected to
<br /> change in the foreseeable future.
<br /> 8y: JLS IA Comments Two 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs were removed;9/98, and new USTs were installed 12/98 at the .
<br /> `� subject site.Minor residual soil contamination remains on-site. Based upon 22 monitoring events showing
<br /> Date: declining gasoline concentrations to below WQGs, the limited extent of contamination reported in soil, no
<br /> 7/18/2011 foreseeable changes in land use,and minimal risks from soil and soil vapor,Regional Board staff concur
<br /> with San Joaquin County's Closure Recommendation. �I
<br />
|