|
4 WLE 1 -CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED DATA
<br /> FOR NO FURTHER ACTION REQUESTS AT UNDERGROUND TANK SITES
<br /> Site Name and Location: Islamic Center of Stockton, 1130 S. Pilgrim St., Stockton, San Joaquin County(RB 9391156)
<br /> Y 1. Distance to production wells for municipal, domestic, The report did not discuss'production wells or other
<br /> agriculture, industry and other uses within 2000 feet of the site. 'potential sensitive receptors;however, Geotracker shows
<br /> only one public supply well(300'south)within 2000'of
<br /> the Site.
<br /> Y 2. Site maps, to scale, of area impacted showing locations of One 4,000-gallon heating oil UST and associated piping,
<br /> any former and existing tank systems, excavation contours and were removed 5104.
<br /> sample locations, boring and monitoring well elevation
<br /> contours, gradients, and nearby surface waters, buildings,
<br /> streets, and subsurface utilities;
<br /> Y 3. Figures depicting lithology(cross section), treatment system Site lithology consists of clay, silt,and sand to 55 ft., the
<br /> diagrams; total depth investigated.
<br /> Y1 4. Stockpiled soll remaining on-site or off-site disposal(quantity); The report stated 5 cubic yards of soil was excavated
<br /> and transported to Forward Landfill in Manteca.
<br /> N 5. Monitoring wells remaining on-site, fate; No monitoring wells were installed
<br /> 6. Tabulated results of all groundwater Depth to groundwater was approximately 45 ft.bgs. Groundwater flow
<br /> elevations acrd de the to water,t-,
<br /> -
<br /> __ - —_ direction was not discussed in the report.
<br /> 7. Tabulated results of all sampling In 5104, the confirmation soil sample(16'bgs)maximum concentration from the
<br /> and analyses: UST removal was TPH as heating oil, 14,000 mg/kg. In 6108, the after soil borings
<br /> (located 10'and 15'laterally from the confirmation soil sample location)sample
<br /> 0 Detection limits for confirmation results were all ND. In 6-08,a grab groundwater sample(from soil boring located
<br /> sampling 15'laterally from confirmation soil sample)result was also ND.
<br /> N❑ 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 report.
<br /> 0 Lateral and 0 Vertical extent of soil contamination .
<br /> PN Latera!and R Vertical extent of groundwa ter contamination
<br /> 9. Zone of influence calculated and assumptions used for subsurface remediation An engineered remediation was not
<br /> system and the zone of capture attained for the soil and groundwater remediation required by the lead agency.
<br /> system;
<br /> 10.Reports 1 information E Unauthorized Release Form 0 QMRs
<br /> �Y Well and boring logs QY PAR FRP ❑N Other
<br /> . r
<br /> Y 11.Best Available Technology(BAT) used or an explanation for not using Removal of UST, soil excavation, and natural
<br /> BAT,' I attenuation.
<br /> Y 12. Reasons why background waslis unattainable Minor residual soil contamination remains on-site.
<br /> BAT,-
<br /> N 13.Mass baiarlce calculation o substance ties a -Initial mass�nd-�treeted mass.wers-not-calculated=by-the-consultant— ---
<br /> versus that remaining,,
<br /> 7Y14. Assumptions,parameters, calculations and Confirmation soil sample results from the UST removal show
<br /> model used in risk assessments, and fate and Region 2 ESLs were exceeded for gross contamination and worker
<br /> transport modeling; exposure to residual fuels, but at 16'b s,it presents no threat.
<br /> Y 15, Rationale why conditions remaining at site will Soil contamination is reportedly limited in extent and at a depth
<br /> not adversely impact water quality, health, or other (16'bgs)where worker exposure is highly unlikely. Land use(in the
<br /> beneficial uses;and mixed commercial/industrial area is not expected to change in the
<br /> foreseeable future.
<br /> By: JLB Comments:One 4,000-g6llon heating oil UST and associated piping were removed 5104 from the subject site.
<br /> in 5104, the confirmation soil sample(16'bgs)maximum concentration from the UST removal was TPN as
<br /> Date: heating oil, 14,000 mgikg. In 6108, the after soil borings(located 10'and 15'laterally from the confirmation
<br /> 5/5/2009 soil sample location)sample results were all ND. In 6-08, a grab groundwater sample(from soil boring
<br /> located 15'laterally from confirmation soil sample)result was also ND. Minor residual soil contamination
<br /> remains on-site at 16'bgs. Based upon the limited extent of contamination reported in soil, no impacts to
<br /> groundwater, no foreseeable changes in land use in the mixed commerciallindustrial area, and minimal
<br /> threat of exposure to residual soil contamination, the Regional Board staff concur with San Joaquin
<br /> County's Closure Recommendation.
<br />
|