Laserfiche WebLink
TAB 1 -CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED DATA <br /> FOR NO FURTHER ACTION REQUESTS AT <br /> UNDERGROUND TANK SITES <br /> Site Name and Location: Stockton Golf and Country Club,3800 Country Club Boulevard,Stockton,San Joaquin County <br /> Y 1.Distance to production wells for�municipal,domestic,agriculture, A►well receptor survey completed In August 2000 did <br /> industry and other uses within 2000 feet of the site; not Identify any water supply wells within 2,000 feet of <br /> the site. <br /> 2. Site maps, to scale,of area impacted showing locations of former and existing tank systems, Three 1,000-gallon USTs <br /> excavation contours and sample locations,boring and monitoring well elevation contours, (gasoline,diesel,and oil and <br /> gradients,and nearby surface waters,buildings,streets,and subsurface utilities, gasoline)were removed In <br /> August 1990. <br /> 3.Figures depicting lithology(cross section), treatment system diagrams; Boring logs show clay to 10 feet,and sandy slit <br /> to 25 feet, the total depth explored. <br /> 4. Stockpiled soil disposed off-site(quantity); Approximately 8 cubic yards of soil was stockpiled and sampled <br /> during UST removal. Soils were likely returned to the tank pit <br /> 5.Monitoring wells remaining on-site,fate' Four monitoring wells remain on-site. The wells will be properly destroyed <br /> Y pending site closure. <br /> QY 6. Tabulated results of all groundwater elevations and depths to water; Groundwater levels varied from 3 to 8 feet below <br /> ground surface,and How Is to the northeast <br /> 0 7.Tabulated results of all sampling and analyses: Groundwater monitoring results for the Second Quarter 2001 are non- <br /> detect for all constituents Including MtBE and other fuel oxygenates at <br /> F1Detection limits for confirmation sampling acceptable detection limits. Soil samples collected during UST <br /> ©Lead analyses removal in August 1990 reported lead at<5 mg/kg. <br /> Y 8.Concentration contours of contaminants found and those remaining in soil <br /> and groundwater,and both on-site and off-site: The lateral and vertical extent soil and <br /> © Lateral and Y❑ Vertical extent of soil contamination groundwater contamination hass been <br /> defined. <br /> Lateral and Vertical extent of groundwater contamination <br /> 9.Zone of influence calculated and assumptions used for subsurface Based on the limited soil contamination, <br /> 0 remediation system and the zone of capture attained for the soil and and no groundwater contamination,site <br /> groundwater remediation system; remediation was not required. <br /> 0 10.Reports/information y❑ Unauthorized Release Form El QMRs(5100 to 2/01) <br /> 0 Boring logs PAR N❑ FRP F1 Other(Well Installation Report, 8/2000) <br /> 0 11.Best Available Technology(BAT)used or an explanation for not using BA T, The USTs were removed. The remaining <br /> contamination will naturally degrade. <br /> 12.Reasons why background wasris Soil and groundwater contamination remains In the tank pit area. The <br /> unattainable using BAT; remaining contamination Is limited/n extent,and does not present a <br /> significant threat to water quality. <br /> Y� 13.Mass balance calculation of substance The mass balance calculations show that approximately 70 pounds of <br /> treated versus that remaining; contaminated soil remains at the site. <br /> Based on the limited extent of contamination,a risk <br /> 14.Assumptions,parameters,calculations and model used in risk assessment was not required. <br /> assessments,and fate and transport modeling; <br /> fj15. Rationale why conditions remaining at site will not adversely Remaining contamination Is limited in extent <br /> impact water quality,health,or other beneficial uses;and Contamination will naturally degrade. <br /> By: Comments: The site is currently a golf course maintenance yard. Three USTs were removed in August 1990,and <br /> MH replaced with above ground storage tanks. Soil contamination was identified during tank removal activities,and five soil <br /> borings and four monitoring wells were installed. Soil contamination was identified at 10 to 25 feet in one boring. Four <br /> quarters of groundwater monitoring showed TPHd at a maximum of 4,100 pg4 in one monitoring event;however, <br /> Date: subsequent sampling did not confirm this detection. No water supply wells were identified within 2,000 feet of the site. <br /> 9/7/01 Based on the site investigation completed to date and the lack of groundwater contamination,Board staff concur with San <br /> Joaquin County's closure recommendation. <br />