SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

TAB- - CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED *A FOR NO FURTHER ACTION REQUESTS AT UNDERGROUND TANK SITES Site Name and Location: Koppel Stockton Terminal, 2025 West Hazelton Ave., Stockton, San Joaquin County FE1. Distance to production wells for municipal, domestic, agriculture, 1200 feet to domestic well, screened at 70-90 feet bgs industry and other uses within 2000 feet of the site; 1500 feet to industrial wash water well screened 198- 270 feet bgs. 2. Site maps, to scale, of area impacted showing locations of former and existing tank systems, 0 excavation contours and sample locations, boring and monitoring well elevation contours, Site map provided. gradients, and nearby surface waters, buildings, streets, and subsurface utilities; 773. Figures depicting lithology(cross section), treatment system diagrams; Boring logs show discontinuous beds of sand, silt and clay. Stiff low permeability clay found consistently at 55'-65'bgs. 0 4. Stockpiled soil remaining on-site or off-site disposal(quantity), Excavated soil was replaced in the excavation. 0 5. Monitoring wells remaining on-site, fate; 12 monitoring wells and 3 piezometers remain in service monitoring an on- going nitrate remediation program 171 6. Tabulated results of all groundwater elevations and depths to water, Depth to water is reported be:veen 4 and 12 ft bgs (-0.9 ft to-7.0 ft MSL) M 7. Tabulated results of all sampling and analyses: Maximum results in soil showed TPHd at 62 mg/kg in 1989. In March 2000, TPHd was found at 3.9 mg/kg at 6'bgs. No TPHg, BTEX or Detection limits for confirmation sampling oxygenates were detected. Lead was not analyzed for. Fuel products N� Lead analyses were not detected in groundwater. 8. Concentration contours of contaminants found and those remaining in soil Concentration contours are not applicable. and groundwater, and both on-site and off-site: ❑ Lateral and F Vertical extent of soil contamination ❑ Lateral and FN Vertical extent of groundwater contamination FA Zone of influence calculated and assumptions used for subsurface A remediation system was not operated remediation system and the zone of capture attained for the soil and this site for petroleum. Nitrate/ammoniumm groundwater remediation system; contamination is being remediated by phyto-remediation. 10.Reports/information N❑ Unauthorized Release Form E QMRs 0 Boring logs PAR El FRP ❑ Other ❑ 11.Best Available Technology(BAT) used or an explanation for not using BAT, Remove USTs. 12.Reasons why background was/is Biodegradation is occuring in soil, groundwater background has been met unattainable using BAT, ❑N 13.Mass balance calculation of substance A mass balance was not made. treated versus that remaining; N 14.Assumptions,parameters, calculations and model used in risk A risk assessment was not completed. ❑ assessments, and fate and transport modeling; 15. Rationale why conditions remaining at site will not adversely TPHd in soil show biodegradation. Concentration ET impact water quality, health, or other beneficial uses;and remaining is below the cleanup goal of 100,ug/1 TPHd for groundwater quality protection. Csamples Comments: Two USTs were removed in September 1989. Soil samples obtained in 1989 showed 62 mg/kg TPHd. Soil obtained in year 2000 show 3.9 mg/kg TPHd. A nearby groundwater monitoring well shows ndetection /orany fuel products or oxygenates. The site is a fertilizer distribution facility that is undergoing remediation for nitrate and ammonium in soil and groundwater. A semi-annual groundwater monitoring program is being followed. Petroleum constituents are not part of the monitoring program.