My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
E
>
EIGHT MILE
>
15135
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0518132
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 1:23:26 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 11:39:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0518132
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0013716
FACILITY_NAME
H & H MARINA
STREET_NUMBER
15135
STREET_NAME
EIGHT MILE
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95219
APN
06908021
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
15135 EIGHT MILE RD
P_LOCATION
01
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
291
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Gregory Torlai, Jr -4 - • 11 January 2008 <br /> H & H Marina <br /> 4 <br /> spill are identified, Bustez Enterprises, as the property owner of H & H, will be solely <br /> responsible for cleanup of the commingled plume. <br /> 2. Both the OES and SJEHD spill reports state that an unknown volume of gasoline was <br /> released to the ground. The SJEHD spill report states that about 200 gallons of gasoline <br /> were stolen. H & H needs to clarify how it was able to determine that 200 gallons of the <br /> release were lost to theft but unable to quantify volume lost to the ground. It seems <br /> apparent that the same methodology used to determine how much fuel was stolen could <br /> be used to determine how much was spilled to the ground. The amount of gasoline <br /> released to the ground surface could be important in tracking the progress of the cleanup. <br /> 3. Maximum concentrations of TPHg and BTEX in soil samples obtained from the excavation <br /> on 27 September 2007 were 170 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), 6.5 mg/kg, 16 mg/kg, <br /> 6.4 mg/kg, and 36 mg/kg, respectively. The hydrocarbon concentrations appeared to <br /> attenuate below 4.5 feet bgs. The pit was then backfilled with "clean fill' material brought <br /> in from off-site. However, laboratory analytical results of the Baker Tank sample obtained <br /> on 28 September 2007 show that groundwater contaminated with as much as 36,000 pg/L <br /> of TPHg and BTEX concentrations of 2,200 pg/L, 6,500 pg/L, 980 pg/L, and 4,300 pg/L, <br /> respectively, continued to flow and seep into the excavation. The groundwater that flowed <br /> back into the excavation likely caused the "clean" backfill to be contaminated. H & H has <br /> concluded that the cleanup activity is incomplete. Regional Water Board staff concur with <br /> this finding based on the observations of NAPL in MW-2, a well located adjacent to the <br /> excavation. By 29 February 2008, H & H Marina must submit a work plan to investigate <br /> and continue with the cleanup of the September 2007 gasoline release. <br /> 4. To address this residual contamination, H&H recommends an interim measure of <br /> continued pumping of the polluted groundwater from a sump area remaining from the <br /> 27 September excavation. It is not clear where this groundwater is being or will be <br /> discharged since the letter states that the Baker tank has been removed from the Site. <br /> H & H needs to clarify its procedure for storing and treating polluted groundwater pumped <br /> from the sump. <br /> 5. Regional Water Board staff cannot concur with the Optimization Report because the <br /> recommendations it presents do not enhance extraction of the plume. The groundwater <br /> monitoring data obtained on 7 September show that the AGT gasoline release has caused <br /> the highest fuel hydrocarbon concentrations to shift from MW-4 to MW-2, forming a larger <br /> commingled plume. Prior to the spill, groundwater monitoring data indicated that the <br /> extraction system was contributing to overall decreases in concentrations in MW-2 and <br /> MW-3, but concentrations in MW-4 remained elevated. At only 0.5 gpm of pumping from <br /> EW-1 , the pollutants in MW-4 are well outside the radius of influence of the extraction <br /> system. In the Third QMR, H & H recommended that Regional Water Board staff concur <br /> with the changes to the monitoring program proposed in the Optimization Report. The <br /> increased volume of polluted groundwater further demonstrates the necessity for <br /> optimization of the groundwater extraction system, which may require additional extraction <br /> well(s). While we do not necessarily disagree with the measures proposed in the <br /> Optimization Report, we do not concur that the proposed changes will optimize <br /> groundwater extraction and enhance Site cleanup. If H & H has decided that additional <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.