My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0005986
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
Y
>
YOSEMITE
>
1434
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545950
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0005986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2020 1:57:31 AM
Creation date
8/6/2020 10:53:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0005986
RECORD_ID
PR0545950
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0003739
FACILITY_NAME
Colonial Energy CE 40134 (DBA Power Mart)
STREET_NUMBER
1434
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
YOSEMITE
STREET_TYPE
Ave
City
Manteca
Zip
95337
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
1434 W Yosemite Ave
P_LOCATION
04
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
LSauers
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
�1 <br /> Site History <br /> Jackpot Food Mart,1434 W Yosemde Ave.Manteca,CA <br /> Time Oil Property No 04-167 <br /> requirement for quarterly status reporting, as well as the PHS/EHD's request for quarterly groundwater <br /> monitoring reporting and for the submittal of the FRP/CAP <br /> Groundwater Sampling Results-July 1994 <br /> On July 28, 1994, samples were collected from each of the groundwater monitoring wells at the subject <br /> site Prior to purging, the depth to groundwater in each well was measured by a representative of <br /> SEACOR Groundwater with a northeasterly flow was encountered at depths of 16 10 feet to 17 42 feet <br /> below ground surface After purging, each well was sampled with a new disposable bailer to prevent <br /> cross-contamination Analyses did not indicate the presence of gasoline or its constituents in samples <br /> collected from any of the groundwater monitoring wells sampled <br /> Based on the results of tree must repent sa..apling event, it did not appeal as though thf, concentrations <br /> and distribution of hydrocarbons in groundwater changed significantly since the previous sampling event <br /> While trace toluene concentrations appeared in W-6 during the December 1993 groundwater sampling <br /> event, no hydrocarbons were Indicated during the July sampling event <br /> Depth to groundwater decreased across the site by approximately one foot since the previous sampling <br /> event, and groundwater flow changed from east in December 1993 to northeast In July 1994 These <br /> changes may have been due to seasonal variations or local agricultural irrigation, however, not enough <br /> data has been collected to definitively determine the cause <br /> Summary of Findings Pertinent to Selection of Remediation System <br /> Based on data collected to date, it appears that the extent of hydrocarbon-impacted soil is well defined <br /> and remains limited to the area of the pump islands and north portion of the former tank bed <br /> Groundwater beneath the site does not appear to have been significantly impacted by hydrocarbons <br /> Solis at the site generally consist of fine to medium sands to a depth of approximately 15 feet This <br /> strata is underlain by a clay unit which is approximately 5 feet thick Fine to medium sand is present <br /> from a depth of 20 feet to the extent of each boring Groundwater has generally been encountered at <br /> depths of 16 to 17 feet below ground surface and flow direction has varied from east-southeast <br /> (November 1992) to east (December 1993) to northeast (July 1994) <br /> To evaluate remedial options, a vapor extraction pilot test was conducted at the subject site in December <br /> 1992 Results indicated that vapor extraction would be a feasible remedial alternative for remediating <br /> Impacted soils beneath the site <br /> Comparison of Remedial Alternatives <br /> SEACOR's "Problem Assessment Report" dated May 31, 1994, contained an evaluation of several <br /> remedial technologies for cleanup of Impacted soils in the vicinity of the former tank system soil <br /> excavation and disposal, soil excavation and on-site aeration, soil excavation and off-site aeration, and <br /> in-situ soil vapor extraction <br /> Based on the excellent results achieved during the vapor extraction pilot test and the low cost of <br /> installing and operating such a system, other remedial methods Involving excavation were not <br /> considered feasible for sod cleanup Vapor extraction is the least expensive option, it can achieve rapid <br /> results, and it will not disrupt the business currently in operation <br /> Selection of Remedial Technology <br /> Vapor extraction Is the proposed remedial technology to achieve cleanup of hydrocarbon-impacted sods <br /> . beneath the subject site It is estimated that 3 existing wells (W-1, W-2, and W-4) will be utilized for the <br /> Proposed vapor extraction system In addition, horizontal wells may be installed within the vapor <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.