Laserfiche WebLink
F _ <br /> r = TAB 1 - CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED LATA <br /> FOR NO FURTHER ACTION REQUESTS AT UNDERGROUND TANK SITES <br /> Site Name and Location: Market Street Parking Garage, 134 South Sutter Street,Stockton,San Joaquin County <br /> No well survey completed. No evidence of <br /> N 1. Distance to production wells for municipal, domestic, agriculture, Industry groundwater contamination at this site. <br /> and other uses within 2000 feet of the site; <br /> 2. Site maps, to scale, of area impacted showing locations of farmer and existing tank systems, Soil Impact Is shown on <br /> scaled map in location of <br /> excavation contours and sample locations,boring and monitoring weft elevation contours, former gasolene UST. <br /> gradients, and nearby surface waters,buildings, streets, and subsurface utilities; <br /> 3 Figures depicting 1ltholo cross section treatment system diagrams, Cross sections provided for the Tank#4 <br /> 0 g p g gy( )' y g location,and overexcavation. <br /> I. <br /> 4. Stockpiled soil remaining on-site or off-site disposal(quantity), Approximately 20 cu.yards of soil excavated. Final <br /> 0 disposition of soil is unknown. <br /> 5. Monitoring wells remaining on-site, fate; No monitoring wells were Installed on-site. A monitoring well for 145 South <br /> Sutter was sampled and ND for contaminants. F „ <br /> FNAJ S. Tabulated results-of all groundwater elevations and depths to water, Groundwater reported between 30 and 70 feet bgs. <br /> 7.Tabulated results of all sampling and analyses: Initial soil sample reported 110 mg/Kg TPHd and no BTEX. Samples <br /> yDetection limits-for confirmation sampling <br /> collected after overexcavation were ND for all constituents. <br /> MYLead analyses <br /> 8. Concentration contours of contaminants found and those remaining in soil Solt contamination appears to have been <br /> aWgroundwater, and bott=-site and off-site: Isolated to the UST area. Overexcavatlon <br /> Y Lateral and Y Vertical extent of soil contamination sampling did not reveal contamination at <br /> Lateral and ❑ Vertical extent of groundwater contamination 13.5 to 14 feet bgs. <br /> 9.Zone of influence calculated and assumptions used for subsurface N/A <br /> remediation system and the zone of capture attained for the soil and <br /> groundwater remediation system; <br /> D10.Reports/information y❑Unauthorized Release Form a OMRs(Dates) <br /> EN Well and boring logs B PAR E] FRP Y❑Other(report name) UST removal and over-ex reports. 1969 <br /> FY11.Best Available Technology(BAT)used or an explanation for not using BAT; Limited overexcavation of visibly contaminated <br /> soil, <br /> AVA <br /> NA 12.Reasons why background wash's unattainable using BAT,• <br /> j13.Mass balance calculation of substance treated versus that remaining, 20 cubic yards of soil removed from tank { <br /> overexcavation. <br /> FNAJ 14.Assumptions, parameters, calculations and model used in risk WA <br /> assessments, and fate and transport modeling; <br /> Y� 15.Rationale why conditions remaining at site will not adversely No groundwater impact to nearby monitoring well. No <br /> impact water quality, health, or other beneficial uses;and reported soil impact at 14 feet bgs. <br /> N� 16,WET or TCLP results <br /> By: Comments: Soil contamination was removed below the UST by a limited overexcavation. Groundwater is reported at <br /> 30 to 70 feet below ground surface. There is no evidence of a water quality impact and a nearby monitoring well <br /> Date:/Zl thi was sampled an reported ND for contaminants. The former UST does not present a threat to water quality. Closure <br /> concurrence appears warranted. <br /> I <br />