SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

' l.E 1 -CHECKLIST:OF REQUIRED DATA FOR NO FURTHER ACTION REQUESTS AT UNDERGROUND TANK SITES �. Site Name and Location: Fowle'r's Auto Body, 405 N. Edison Street, Stockton, San Joaquin County Because contaminants were not detected during N 1. Distance to production wells for municipal, domestic, agriculture, industry and other uses within 2000 feet of the site; the soil and groundwater assessment a receptor survey was not conducted.. In 9999, two tanks(10,500 and 2. Site maps, to scale, of area impacted showing locations of former'and existing tank systems, 1,800-gallon)were removed excavation co.Ontours and sample locations, boring-and monitoring well elevation contours, . from the site. The contents of gradients, and nearby surface:wafers, buildings, streets, and"subsurface utilities; the tanks were unknown. 0 3. Figures depicting lithology(cross section), treatment system diagrams; { F 4. Stockpiled soil remaining on-site or off-site disposal(quantity); tank cavity.Approximately 200 cubic yards of soil were backtiiied into the tank cavi N No monitoring wells were installed. 5. Monitoring wells remaining on-site, fate; El 6. Tabulated results of all groundwater elevations and depths to wafer,' Groundwater elevation varies from 10 to 20 feet bgs, with a northerly flaw direction."' r 7.Tabulated results of all sampling and analyses: in April 2000, elevated levels of TPN(purgeable)and TPN oil,and low concentrations bf ethyl benzene were defected in soil when the tanks were Detection limits for confirmation sampling removed.'i�Two soil borings were advanced at the site in August 2000. One Lead analyses M t, boring was angled under the tank excavation. Solt and groundwater samples �Y from the borings were non-detect for analyzed constituents,including fuel , oxygenates. 8. Concentration contours of contaminants found and those remaining in soil and groundwater, and both on-site and off-site: "` f �N Lateral and ❑Y Vertical extent of soil contamination Lateral and NA Vertical extent of groundwater contamination 9. Zone of influence calculated and assumptions used for subsurface No rerr ediation system was installed. f remediation system and the zone of capture attained for the soil and groundwater remediation system; ,. 0 10.Reports/information 0 Unauthorized Release Form FNA1 QMRs(Dates) Y ❑ PAR FRP NA Well and boring logs ❑ Y Other(report name)r Limited Soil& Groundwater Assessment FYI 11.Best Available Technology{BAT} used or an explanation for not using BAT; The tanks were removed from the site. 12.Reasons why background was/is unattainable using BAT Minor contamination possibly remains in soil. 13.Mass balance calculation of substance treated versus that remaining; None submitted. 0 14.Assumptions, parameters,,;calculations and model used in risk 1 assessments, and fate and transport modeling; 15.Rationale why conditions remaining at site will not adversely Data shows that groundwater at the site was not impacted. impact water quality, health, or other beneficial uses,and 0 16.WET or TCLP results By: Comments: From the remarks in the closure summary, it appears that the tanks were taken out of service in the 1970s. The property owner states that he was unaware of the tanks when he purchased the property. When the tanks were removed in Date April 2000, TPN as high as 12,000 mg/kg and low concentrations of ethyl benzene were detected in soil samples. Toluene at 61 pg11 were detected in a grab groundwater sample from the,pit. In August 2000, two soil borings were advanced around the tank ](' re excavation. Soil and water samples from the borings wenstaff on-detect. Based on the absence of groundwater contaminants, sta concurs with San Joaquin County closure recommendation. r