Laserfiche WebLink
Work Plan for UGT Investigations -2- 7 November 1991 <br /> DDRW, Sharpe Site <br /> Preliminary Evaluation and Investigation of Underground Tank Sites be used <br /> instead of the LUFT Manual for the investigation and cleanup of UGTs. <br /> Page 2-2. Table 2-1 summarizes the current status of UGTs at the site. Two tanks <br /> are reported as never used. It is unclear whether or not these tanks had <br /> been filled with fuel . If the tanks have been filled with fuel , the tanks <br /> have the potential to leak and therefore may be regulated by the State. <br /> Page 2-4. Table 2-2 indicates that the B series tanks are not regulated. It needs <br /> to be clarified that if a tank has been filled, then the tank may be <br /> regulated. In addition, this Table appears to be contradictory to Table <br /> 2-1 which indicates that active tanks are regulated. The discrepancies <br /> between the Tables needs to be clarified. <br /> Pages 2-4, Tables 2-2, 2-3, 2-4 and 2-5 are very useful . These Tables summarize the <br /> 2-6, 2-8, previous data for each of the UGTs at the site. My review was expedited <br /> 2-10 because the Plan contained these Tables. ESE should be commended for <br /> presenting this information in tabular form. We should encouraged ESE to <br /> continue to present technical data in tables and other graphical forms. <br /> However, these Tables could be improved by adding a column which provides <br /> the depth of the soils samples, if available, for which the concentration <br /> data are presented. Without the depths of the soil samples, it is not <br /> possible to evaluate whether or not the cleanup levels established in the <br /> Plan are acceptable or to provide recommendations for the cleanups of the <br /> individual tank sites. <br /> Page 2-4. Many of the tanks (D-2, D-3, D-4, D-7 D-20, D-24, D-25, D-35, D-36, D-37, <br /> and D-38) , listed in Table 2-2 as removed, have no analytical results for <br /> soil samples from the tank excavations. The majority of these tanks were <br /> removed prior to 1990. For the tanks with no data, Sharpe should contact <br /> the San Joaquin County to verify whether or not the County has any <br /> additional data. If there are no data at the County, Sharpe may <br /> ultimately be required to demonstrate that these removed tanks did not <br /> leak. <br /> Page 2-6. Table 2-3 lists those tanks which meet the LUFT Manual Guidelines. Many <br /> of the tanks had low concentrations of either diesel , gasoline or benzene, <br /> toluene and xylene (BTX) . Several of these tanks (D-8, D-10, D-17, D-21, <br /> D-28, D-29, D-30, D-31 , D-32, D-33, D-41, D-45 and D-48) , had <br /> concentrations of these contaminants which may pose a threat to water <br /> quality if left in-place. Because the depth of these soil samples were <br /> not provided in the Table, it is not possible to determine whether these <br /> concentrations are acceptable clean-up levels for these tank excavations. <br /> If Sharpe wants to perform a "clean closure" (i .e. , cleanup to background <br /> concentrations) for the above listed tanks, then these tanks may need to <br /> be further remediated. <br /> In addition, three of the tanks (D-30, D-32 and D-41) appear to have <br /> elevated concentrations of diesel , gasoline and/or BTX's. The sample from <br /> D-30 had 74 mg/kg of diesel , the sample from D-32 had 93 mg/kg of diesel <br /> and 0.23 mg/kg of BTX and the sample from D-41 had 45 mg/kg of diesel , <br /> 0.15 mg/kg of gasoline and 0.08 mg/kg of BTX. Depending on the depth of <br />