FIELD DOCUMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f f No Further Action Request 640 N.San Joaquin Street,Stockton,CA October 9,2002 Page 8 5.7 SITE RECONNAISSANCE A site reconnaissance within a 500-foot radius of the site was conducted on foot and via automobile. The study area generally consists of older homes, apartments, commercial buildings, and lots. One potential sensitive receptor (R1 in'Figure 7, Appendix A)was identified within the 500-foot radius. The property is approximately 500 feet north of the site. No wells, either documented by DWR or undocumented, were identified within the 500-foot radius during the site reconnaissance. A water well on the siteproperty was previously identified by Condor personnel. There are no DWR records for this well. The well was properly destroyed on August 26,2002. 6.0 APPENDIX B NO FURTHER ACTION REQUEST Condor completed Table I - Checklist of Required Data For No.Further Action Requests at Underground Tank Sites found in Appendix B of the Tri-Regional Board Staff Recommendations for Preliminary Investigation and Evaluation of Underground Tank Sites No Further Action Requests. The completed checklist is included in Appendix E. Individual items on the checklist are discussed below. 1. The well nearest the site is a destroyed water well:located at 640 N, San Joaquin Street (the site). Other wells identified during the sensitive receptor survey for the site are described .in Section 5.1.. 2. Site maps are included in Appendix A. 3. Cross-section diagrams are included in Appendix A. 4. No stockpiled soil remains on-site or off-site. No soil was excavated and removed from the UST site. 5. No monitorisig wells are located at the site. 6. Groundwater was encountered in boring B-3 at a depth of approximately 36 feet bgs. A groundwater sample was collected using the "grab" method. Groundwater was not permitted to stabilize for a more accurate depth to water measurement before the boring was backfilled with neat cement. 7. All soil and groundwater sample analyses are presented in Tables A through G,Appendix B. 8. Concentration contours of contaminants in soil are shown in Figure 4, Appendix A. Based on the assumption that groundwater has not been adversely impacted due to a petroleum hydrocarbon release from the on-site UST (TK-1), no concentration contours of contaminants in groundwater are presented. 9. No soil or groundwater remediation systems have been installed at the site. 10. There are no records describing incidents or reports documenting any unauthorized release associated with the site, A list of reports is presented in the checklist(Appendix E). 11. Best Available Technology (BAT) has not been used because remediation of the contaminated soil at the.site has not been attempted. 12. Not applicable because :BAT was not used. A �a CONDOR