Laserfiche WebLink
17ABLE 1 -CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED DATA <br /> FOR NO FURTHER ACTION REQUESTS AT UNDERGROUND TANK SITES <br /> Site Name and Location: Jiffy Lube, 1130 N. Main Street, Manteca, San Joaquin County <br /> N 1. Distance to production wells for municipal, domestic, agriculture, industry Groundwater was not impacted. <br /> and other uses within 2000 feet of the site; <br /> 2. Site maps, to scale, of area impacted showing locations of former and existing tank systems, In 1999, one1,000-gallon waste <br /> excavation co.Ontours and sample locations, boring and monitoring well elevation contours, oil tank was removed from the <br /> site. <br /> gradients, and nearby surface waters, buildings, streets, and subsurface utilities; <br /> 0 3. Figures depicting lithology(cross section), treatment system diagrams; None submitted. <br /> 0 4. Stockpiled soil remaining on-site or off-site disposal(quantity); The County states that excavated soil probably was returned to <br /> the tank pit. <br /> Q5. Monitoring wells remaining on-site, fate; No monitoring wells were installed. <br /> FY 1 6. Tabulated results of all groundwater elevations and.depths to water,' The highest groundwater elevation recorded was 10 feet <br /> in 1986;the lowest was 30 feet in 1993. Flow direction is <br /> towards the north. <br /> EYD 7. Tabulated results of all sampling and analyses: In May 1999, using EPA Method 8020,MTBE at 6.5 pg/kg was the only <br /> contaminant detected in soil 12 feet below the tank. Motor oil at 37,000 pg/kg <br /> ElDetection limits for confirmation sampling was detected in the soil stockpile. In December 1999,soil and water samples <br /> Lead analyses from beneath the tank were non-detect for analyzed constituents,including <br /> oxygenates. <br /> FE8. Concentration contours of contaminants found and those remaining in soil <br /> and groundwater, and both on-site and off-site: <br /> ❑N Lateral and ❑Y Vertical extent of soil contamination <br /> NA Lateral and NA Vertical extent of groundwater contamination <br /> 9. Zone of influence calculated and assumptions used for subsurface No remediation system was installed. <br /> remediation system and the zone of capture attained for the soil and <br /> groundwater remediation system; <br /> 10.Reports/information FlUnauthorized Release Form NA QMRs(Dates) <br /> 0 Welland boring logs P-N-] PAR NA FRP Other(report name) Summary of Geoprobe Results <br /> 11.Best Available Technology(BAT) used or an explanation for not using BAT,' The tank was removed from the site. <br /> 12.Reasons why background was/is unattainable using BAT, Contamination was not detected during the December 1999 <br /> investigation. <br /> NA 13.Mass balance calculation of substance treated versus that remaining; <br /> NA 14.Assumptions,parameters, calculations and model used in risk <br /> assessments, and fate and transport modeling; <br /> 15.Rationale why conditions remaining at site will not adversely Data show that groundwater at the site was not impacted. <br /> impact water quality, health, or other beneficial uses;and <br /> 16.WET or TCLP results <br /> By; � Comments: Because EPA Method 8020 was used to analyze initial soil samples, the MTBE detected during tank removal could <br /> have been a false positive. In December 1999,one soil boring was advanced in the center of the former tank pit to a depth of 24 <br /> Dat : feet. Soil and groundwater samples were collected from 14 feet bgs and analyzed for fuel oxygenates,PCBs, and 1,2-DCA, which <br /> all were non-detect. Based on the absence of groundwater contaminants,staff concurs with San Joaquin County closure <br /> l recommendation. <br /> r <br /> f <br />