|
: f
<br /> BLE 1 -CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED DATAQ
<br /> FOR NO FURTHER ACTION REQUESTS AT UNDERGROUND TANK SiTES
<br /> Site Name and Location: T& T Trucking Inc., 11396 N.Hwy. 99, Lodi, San Joaquin County(RB#390882)
<br /> 1. Distance to production wells for municipal, domestic, agriculture, A 2003 sensitive receptor survey reported thirty five
<br /> y (35)water supply wells(nearest downgradient were
<br /> industry and other uses within 2000 feet of the site. 120'north[destroyed 11-021 and 180'north[ND])
<br /> within 2,000'of the Site. The wells are not threatened
<br /> b this release.
<br /> Y 2. Site maps, to scale, of area impacted showing locations of any former In 3-95, one 4,000-gallon gasoline USTs was
<br /> and existing tank systems, excavation contours and sample locations, removed: In 5-99, one 10,000-gallon diesel UST
<br /> boring and monitoring well elevation contours, gradients, and nearby was removed. One 550-gallon UST(farm tank)
<br /> surface wafers, buildings, streets, and subsurface utilities; was removed without overs! ht or date recorded.
<br /> Site lithology consists of clay, silt,and sand to
<br /> Y 3. Figures depicting lithology(cross section), treatment system diagrams; 130', the foto!depth investigated.
<br /> y 4. Stockpiled soil remaining on-site or off-site disposal approximately 300 y of excavated soil was transported to
<br /> Forward Landfill in Manteca.
<br /> uantit ;
<br /> y 5. Monitoring wells remaining on-site, Four(4)monitoring wells(MW-1 through MW-4)and eight(8)remediation wells
<br /> (ASW-1 through ASW-5,and VEW-1 through VEW-3)will be properly destroyed.
<br /> a e;
<br /> b. Tabulated results of a!!groundwater Depth fo groundwater varied from 61'bgs to 83'bgs. Groundwater flow direction
<br /> elevations and depths to water, varied from southwest to southeast at a gradient of 0.001 ft/ft to 0.007 ft/ft.
<br /> 7. Tabulated results of all sampling All data adequately tabularized in various reports,including closure report.
<br /> and analyses:
<br /> Detection limits for confirmation
<br /> sampling
<br /> QN 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 off-site: contamination is described in the
<br /> available reports.
<br /> DLateral and ' Vertical extent of soil contamination
<br /> MY Lateral and MYVertiGal extent of groundwater contamination
<br /> 71 9. Zone of influence calculated and assumptions used for subsurface remediation Over-excavation,air sparging(AS)and
<br /> system and the zone of capture attained for the soil and groundwater remediation soil vapor extraction(SVE)were the
<br /> s stem; engineered remediation.
<br /> 10.Reports/information [Y Unauthorized Release Form QY QMRs(48) 12-95 to 3-11
<br /> 0 Well and boring logs 0 PAR 0 FRP ny Other Closure Report(9-11)
<br /> Y 11.Best Available Technology(BAT) used or an explanation for not using USTs removal, over-excavation,AS/SVE,and
<br /> BAT; I natural attenuation
<br /> Y 12. Reasons why background.wasls unattainable Residual soil contamination remains on-site.
<br /> BA T;
<br /> y 13.Mass balance calculation of substance treated Consultant estimated approximately 6,437 lbs of TPN removed from
<br /> versus that remainin ; soil by SVE. No TPH remains in groundwater(all ND).
<br /> Y 14. Assumptions, parameters, calculations and Soil vapor was not measured, due to depth of contaminants(18.5'bgs)
<br /> model used in risk assessments, and fate and and impacted soil distance to buildings(50'). Soil results)failed ESLs
<br /> transport modeling; for commercial direct contact(benzene)at 18.5'bgs,below typical
<br /> worker depth. Consultant states site does not represent a significant
<br /> risk.
<br /> Y 15. Rationale why conditions remaining at site will Soil contamination reportedly is limited in extent. Groundwater has
<br /> not adversely impact water quality, health, or other reached WQGs. Land use(commercial)is not expected to change in
<br /> beneficial uses;and the foreseeable future.
<br /> By: JLB Comments:In 3-95, one 4,000-gallon gasoline USTs was removed;in 5-99, one 10,000-gallon diesel UST was
<br /> removed;and one 550-gallon UST(farm tank)was removed without oversight or date recorded at the subject
<br /> Date: site. Residual soil contamination remains on-site. Based upon the limited extent of contamination reported
<br /> 6/21/2012 in soil,groundwater reached WQGs, no foreseeable changes in future land use(commercial), and minimal
<br /> risks from soil vapor and soil,.Regional Board staff concur with San Joaquin County's Closure
<br />
|