SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

WLE 1 -CHECKLIST OF REQUIRE Di DATA r FOR NO FURTHER ACTION REQUESTS AT UNDERGROUND TANK SITES Site Name and Location: Bulk Transportation, 3032 S. El Dorado St, Stockton San Joaquin County(RB#391141) Y 1. Distance to production wells for municipal, domestic, Since there was no evidence of groundwater ination;a sensitive receptor survey for wells was agriculture, industry and other uses within 2000 feet of the site. contamnot re wired by the lead regulatory agency: Y 2. Site maps, to scale, of area impacted showing locations of In October 2002, one 12,000-gallon diesel UST and 7 ! any former and existing tank systems, excavation contours and associated piping were removed. The site is currently a sample locations, boring and monitoring well elevation truck terminal. contours, gradients, and nearby surface waters, buildings, streets, and subsurface utilities, a? Y 3. Figures depicting litholo Site lithology consists of silt and sand to 16', the total g p g gy(cross section), treatment system ., diagrams; depth investigated. Y 4. Stockpiled soil remaining on-site or off-site disposal(quantity); Approximately 110 ydJ of soil was over-excavated and aerated onsite. Confirmation tank pit and stockpile soil samples were non-detect for petroleum hydrocarbons. F Clean soil was backfilled into the excavation. No monitoring wells were installed for this soil only case. N 5. Monitoring wells remaining on-site, fate; .�. Depth to groundwater varies from 30'bgs to 45'bgs in nearby 6. Tabulated results of al!groundwater ., eleva io71s an cle s o�wa er - - ' -ing-wells,-where-gr-oundwater_flows_towar-dsYthe_east - - 7. Tabulated results of all sampling All data adequately tabularized in'various reports, including closure report. and analyses: Y❑ Detection limits for confirmation sampling []N Lead analyses LyJ 8. Concentration contours of contaminants found and those remaining in sdil and The extent of the identified groundwater, and both on-site and off-site: contamination is shown in applicable reports. I' FXLateral and Vertical extent of soil contamination ! Lateral and Vertical extent of groundwater contamination 9. Zone of influence calculated and assumptions used for subsurface remediation Over-excavation of the tank pit was the system and the zone of capture attained for the soil and groundwater remediation required engineered remediation. system; i 10.Reports/information �]Y Unauthorized Release Form ❑N QMRs Well and boring logs PAR ❑N FRP 0 Other Site Conceptual Model and Closure Report(revised 10/09 Y I 11.Best Available Technology(BAT) used or an explanation for notUST removal, over-excavation, aeration, and natural using BAT,' attenuation. 12. Reasons why background warms Background(non-detect for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil) was N ttainable_usin _BA-T-,, -achieved. i[ ` Y i3.Mass balance calculation of substance treated The consultant estimates original mass of TPHd excavated as versus that remaining; 144 pounds in soil, anal reports no residual mass remains in soil. 7Y14. Assumptions, parameters, calculations and The regulatory agency]required a second round of confirmation soil model used in risk assessments, and fate and sampling of the aerated soil stockpile,after the 2007 sampling revealed transport modeling; residual TPHd. The 2009 soil results were non-detect for TPHd. The consultant concluded that no risk existed from contact, inhalation or in estion of TPHd since there was no contamination present in soil. Y 15. Rationale why conditions remaining at site Soil contamination reportedly is non-existent. Land use(commercial)is will not adversely impact water quality, health, or not expected to change in the foreseeable future. other beneficial uses;and By: JL�g Comments:In October 2002, one 12,000-gallon diesel UST and associated piping were removed from the subject site, which is currently a truck terminal.Approximately 110 yd'of soil was over-excavated and Date: aerated onsite. Confirmation tank pit soil samples were noir-detect for petroleum hydrocarbons. Clean soil 4/19/2010 was backfilled into the excavation. In 2009,aerated soil confirmation samples were non-detect. Based upon no reported contamination remaining in soil, no foreseeable changes in land use,and no reported threats from soil vapor intrusion and gross contamination, Regional Board staff concur with San Joaquin County's Closure Recommendation. i 1