Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> 1 <br /> • The excavation of the UST B area TPHd was effectively removed as well as I'5,331 pounds 1. <br /> of TPHg and 17 pounds of benzene. The excavation activities removed approximately ' <br /> 2,025 pounds of TPHd and 492 pounds of Oil and Grease from the Bunker location. f <br /> • Mass calculations show there is no significant impacted soil remaining in the location of the S <br /> former UST A, that there are approximately 168 pounds of TPHg and 0.2 pounds of <br /> benzene bound to soil in the area near UST B, and that there are approximately 91 pounds <br /> of TPHd and 375 pounds of Oil and Grease bound to soil in the area near the Bunker. <br /> • A groundwater sourced vapor risk assessment from the UST A, UST B, and Bunker <br /> locations indicated that there is no risk to human health or the environment from <br /> groundwater sourced vapor intrusion. <br /> • A soil sourced vapor risk assessment of the UST A and Bunker locations indicate there is <br /> no risk to human health or the environment from soil sourced vapor intrusion. A risk�. <br /> assessment from the UST B location indicates an incremental risk from vapor intrusion of <br /> 3.0E-05 (within acceptable range of 10-4 and 10-6) and a hazard quotient of 4:2E-01 (within <br /> the acceptable range of<1). , <br /> e <br /> 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> Based on the remediation activities and risk assessment, Ground Zero recommends that San !i <br /> Joaquin County Environmental Health Department provide a "no further action required letter" <br /> and close the subject site as soon as the monitoring well can be properly destroyed. I� <br /> Ground. Zero recommends that a well destruction workplan be prepared, a well destruction l <br /> permit be obtained from the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department, and MW- <br /> BR be destroyed per San Joaquin County well destruction standards. <br /> a <br /> g i <br /> j <br /> i. <br /> 3 <br /> f <br /> d' <br /> l _ J <br />