The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUNDERGROUND TANK-C-4/15/99 D~SION ~~~us ~^z~m~s 'TIME cHARGED '~ BUSINESS/DEAPRTMENT NAME: ADDRESS: ./~-'c_) / PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT NUMBER: t2 T/ F~o ~ toc'~c,, DATE: NAME: CHGD: COMMENTS: PROJECT COMPLETION: DATE: BUSINESS/DEAPRTMENT NAME: ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT NUMBER: /'7_ S-/ TIME DATE: NAME: CHGD: COMMENTS: PROJECT COMPLETION: DATE: ._ TIME CHARGED. BUSINESS/DEAPRTMENT NAME: ~-~"J ADDRESS: t Co I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT NUMBER: TIME DATE: NAME: CHGD: COMMENTS: ",/~f~f~r' ,, ir.,,,, L.~_~_ r~.~+ '4, ~. , :/:,,~; ~ 4r~.. ~-~,~.~-' :.-~ . ';:. :':: .... /I '7 6 ~ f l¢ ~.~ ~/cuT PROJECT COMPLETION: DATE: BACK ~ J CALL SEE YOU AGAIN . . . PM ~ O.o ' ' ' PHnN~V~'r..CALL ~ RETURNED WANTS~ ~LLC~L ~ CALL SEE YOU AGA N / plie8 Vapor-Technolo , ic. ~ 700889 REA ~71 lira Zaben Opera rions 4540 CaJi[ornia A~e.~ Sui*e 500 Bakers[lei& CaIi[ornia' 93309 Telephone: 805-328-4616 Digital Pager: 805-636-2640 April 15, 1999 Raymond L. Graham 2928 Morse Court Bakersfield, CA 93305 RE: Request for Closure, UST site at .1_501 East 19th S~treet Dear Mr. Graham: FIRE CHIEF RON FRAZE This is to inform you that this department has reviewed the result of the Site ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES . Assessment Report and General Health Risk Analysis dated January 1999 and 2101 'H' Street Bakersfield. CA 93301 March 31, 1999 associated with the underground tank removal at 1501 E. 19th Street. VOICE (805) 326-3941 FAX (805) 395-1349 Based upon the information provided, this department has determined that SUPPRESSION SERVICES appropriate response actions have been completed, that acceptable rcmediation 2101 'H' Street practices wcrc implemented, and that, at this time, no further investigation, remedial Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (805) 326-3941 or removal action or monitoring is required at the above stated address. FAX (805) 395-1349 Nothing in this determination shall constitute or be construed as a PREVENTION SERVICES satisfaction or release from liability for any' conditions or claims arising as a result of 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 past, current, or future operations at this location. Nothing in this determination is VOICE (805) 326-3951 FAX (805) 326-0576 intended or shall be construed to limit the rights of any parties with respect to claims ~ arising out of or relating to deposit or disposal at any other location of substances I, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES removed from the site. Nothing in this determination is intended or shall be 1715 Chester Ave. construed to limit or preclude the Regional 'Water Quality Control Board or any I;- Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (805) 326-3979 other agency from taking any further enforcement actions. FAX (805) 326-0576 This letter does not relieve the tank owner of any responsibilities mandated TRAINING DIVISION 5642 Victor Ave. under the California Health and Safety Code and California Water Code if existing, Bakersfield, CA 93308 additional, or previously unidentified contamination at the site causes or threatens to VOICE (805) 399-4697 FAX (805) 399-5763 cause pollution or nuisance or is found to pose a threat to public health or water quality. Changes in land use may require further assessment and mitigation. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (661) 326-3979. Sincerely, Office of Environmental Services cc: Y. Pan, RWQCB S:~USTI:ORMS\UST.L8 D April 15, 1999 Mary L. Graham 2928 Morse Court Bakersfield, CA 93305 RE: Request for Closure, UST Site at 1501 East 19th Street Dear Ms. Graham: FIRE CHIEF RON FRAZE This is to inform you that this department has reviewed the result of the Site ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES' Assessment Report and General Health Risk Analysis dated January 1999 and 2101 'H' Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 March 31, 1999 associated with the underground tank removal at 1501 E. 19'h Street. VOICE (805) 326-3941 FAX (805) 395-1349 Based upon the information provided, this department has determined that SUPPRESSION SERVICES appropriate response actions have been completed, that acceptable remediation 2101 'H' Street practices were implemented, and that, at this time, no further investigation, remedial Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (805) 326-3941 or removal action or monitoring is required at the above stated address. FAX (805) 395-1349 Nothing in this determination shall constitute or be construed as a PREVENTION SERVICES satisfaction or release from liability for any conditions or claims arising as a result of 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 past, current, or future operations at this location'. Nothing in this determination is VOICE (805) 326-3951 FAX (805~ 326-0576 intended or shall be construed to limit the rights of any parties with respect to claims arising out of or relating to deposit or disposal at any other location of substances ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES removed from the site. Nothing in this determination is intended or shall be 1715 Chester ^ve. construed to limit or preclude the Regional Water Quality Control Board or any Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (805) 326-3979 other agency from taking any further enforcement actions. FAX (805) 326-0576 This letter does not relieve the tank owner of any responsibilities mandated TRAINING DIVISION 5642 Victor Ave. under the Califomia Health and Safety Code and California Water Code if existing, Bakersfield, CA 93308 additional, or previously unidentified contamination at the site causes or threatens to VOICE (805) 399-4697 FAX (805) 399-5763 cause pollution or nuisance or is found to pose a threat to public health or water quality. Changes in land use may require further assessment and mitigation. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (661) 326-3979. Sincerely, Office of Environmental Services cc: Y. Pan, RWQCB S:\USTFORMS\UST.L8 Sample Letter (2): List of Landowners Form Date: 4/8/99~ City of Bakersfield Fire Department Office 'of Environmental Services c/o Ralph E. Huey, Director 1715 Chester Avenue, Suite 300 [ ~.~X/~%O~.~,' ~~' Bakersfield, CA 93301 ~S~a_n a ~ C__e. gi~e_O~List 9f~ Rec~0 _F_ee__Ti~t[e.Qw~n~s .f_o. x,~ .. Site name -' 1501 g. 19th Street, Bakersfield, ~'~..~3305 Site address Fill out item I if there are multiple site landowners. If you are the sole site lando~vner, skip item 1 and fill out item 2. 1. In accordance with section 25297.15(a) of Chapter 6.7 of the Health & Safety Code, I, Raymond L. Graham , Name of primaQ' responsible party certify that the following is a complete list of current record fee title owners and their mailing addresses for the above site: Raymond L. Graham 2928 Morse Court Bakersfield, CA~ 93308 Mary L. ,Graham 2928 Morse Court Bakersfield, CA 93308 2. In accordance with section 25297. ! 5(a) of Ch. 6.7 of the Health & Safety Code, I, Name of primary responsible party certify that I am the sole landowner for the above site. Raymond L. Graham Name of primam3 responsible pa~y Sample Letter (3) Notice of Proposed Action Submitted to Local Agency Date: 4/8/99 City of Bakersfield Fire Department Office of Environmental Services c/o Ralph E. Huey, Director 1715 Chester Avenue, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93301 _ RE:_Notice of._Prop, osed_Actioo_S.ubmitt_ed~t~o_Loc~al~Agen~cyfo£ San ~oaquin _Roofing Co_. , Inc. Site name 1501 E. 197H STREET, BAKERSFIELD, C3. 93305 Site address In accordance with section 25297.15(a) of Ch. 6.7 of the Health & Safety Code, I, Raymond T,. C, raham , certify that I have notified all Name of prima~ responsible party responsible landowners of the enclosed proposed action. Check space for applicable action(s): cleanup proposal (corrective action plan) X site closure proposal X local agency intention to make a determination that no further action is required. × local agency intention to issue a closure letter. Sincerely, ~imary responsi e party " ' Raymond L. Graham Name of primary responsible party CC.' (Names and addresses of all record fee title owners) March 31, .1999 Mr. Raymond Graham FraE C.~EF San Joaquin Roofing Co., Inc. RON FRAZE 1501 East 19'" Street ......... Bakersfield, CA 93305 2101 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 9330'1 VOICE (805) 326-3941 RE: New Landowner Notification and Participation Requirements FAX (805) 395-1349 SUPPRESSION SERVICES Dear Mr. Graham: 2101 "H" Street Bakersfield, C,~ 93301 VOICE (805)326-3941 This letter is to inform you of new legislative requirements FAX (805) 395-1349 pertaining to cleanup and closure of sites where an unauthorized release of PREVENTION SERVICES hazardous substance, including petroleum, has occurred from an 1715 Chester Ave. 'Bakersfield. CA 93301 underground storage tank (UST). Section 25297.15(al of Ch. 6.7 of the VOICE (805) 326-3951 Health & Safety Code requires the primary or active responsible party to FAX (805) 326-0576 notify all current record owners of fee title to the site of: l) a site cleanup ENVIRONMENTAL sERvICES Proposal, 2) a,site closure proposal, 3) a local .agency intention to make a 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield. CA 93301 . determination that no further action is required, and 4) a local agency VOICE (805) 326-3979 intention to issue a closure letter. Section 25297.15(b) requires the local ' FAX (805).326-0576 . agency to take all responsible steps to accommodate responsible TRAIN'ING DIVISION · landowners' participation in the cleanup or site closure .process and to '5642 Victor Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93308 consider their input and recommendations. VOICE (805) 3994697 FAX (805) 399-5763 For purposes of implementing these sections, you have been ..................... identified as tlie-primar-y-or-aet-i.v.e-responsible party:- Please~provide-to this agency, within twenty calendar days of receipt of this notice, a complete mailing list of all current record owners of fee title to the site. You may use the enclosed list of landowners form. (sample letter 2) to comply with this requirement. 'If the list of current record owners of fee title to the sit.e changes, you must notify the local agency of the change within 20 calendar days from when you are notified of the change. If you are the sole landowner, please indi.cate that on the landowner list form. The following notice requirements do not apply to responsible parties who are the sole landowner for the site. In accordance 'with Section 25297.15(a) of Ch 6.7 of the Health & SafetyfCode, you must certify to the local agency that all current record owners' of fee title to the site have been informed of the proposed action before the lo~al agency may do any of the following: : 1) conSider a cleanup proposal (corrective action plan) 2) cons{der a site closure proposal 3) make a determination that no further action is required 4) is'sue a closure letter You may use the enclosed notice of proposed action form (sample letter 3) to comply with this requirement. Before a_pp_ro~vi_Eng a cl_eanup_. proposal isr-git~-cloTgr~~ prolSO~lT~d~ierFn'-ining that no further action is required, or issuing a closure letter, the local agency will take all reasonable steps necessary to accommodate responsible landowner participation in the cleanup and site closure process and will consider all input and recommendations from any responsible landowner. Sincerely, Ralph E. Huey, Director Office of Environmental Services REH/dm enclosures cc: S. Underwood March 31, 1999 Mr. Raymond Graham FIRE CHIEF San Joaquin Roofing Co., Inc. RON FRAZE 1501 East 19th Street ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Bakersfield, CA 93 3 05 2101 'H' Street Bakorsflold. CA 93301 VOICE (805) 326-3941 RE: New Landowner Notification and Participation Requirements FAX (805) 395-1349 SUPPRESSION SERVICES Dear Mr. Graham: 2101 'H' Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 vOiCE (805)326-3941 This letter is to inform you of new legislative requirements · FAX (805) 395-1349 pertaining to cleanup and closure of sites where an unauthorized release of PREVENTION SERVICES hazardous substance, including petroleum, has occurred from an 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 underground storage tank (UST). Section 25297.15(a) of Ch. 6.7 of the VOICE (005) 326-3951 Health & Safety Code requires the primary or active responsible party to FAX (805) 326-0576 notify all current record owners of fee title to the site of: 1) a site cleanup ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES proposal, 2) a site closure proposal, 3) a local agency intention to make a 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 determination that no further action is required, and 4) a local agency VOICE (005) 326-3979 intention to issue a closure letter. Section 25297.15(b) requires the local FAX (805) 326-0576 agency to take all responsible steps to accommodate responsible TRAINING DIVISION landowners' participation in the cleanup or site closure process and to 5642 Victor Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93308 consider their input and recommendations. VOICE (005) 399-4697 FAX (805) 399-5763 For purposes of implementing these sections, you have been identified as the primary or active responsible party. Please provide to this agency, within twenty calendar days of receipt of this notice, a complete mailing list of all current record owners of fee title to the site. You may use the enclosed list of landowners form (sample letter 2) to comply with this requirement. If the list of current record owners of fee title to the site changes, you must notify the local agency of the change within 20 calendar days from when you are notified of the change. If you are the sole landowner, please indicate that on the landowner list form. The following notice requirements do not apply to responsible parties who are the sole landowner for the site. In accordance with Section 25297.15(a) of Ch 6.7 of the Health & Safety Code, you must certify to the local agency that all current record owners of fee title to the site have been informed of the proposed action before the local agency may do any of the following: I) consider a cleanup proposal (corrective action plan) 2) consider a site closure proposal 3) make a determination that no further action is required 4) issue a closure letter You may use the enclosed notice of proposed action form (sample letter 3) to comply with this requirement. Before approving a cleanup proposal or site closure proposal, determining that no further action is required, or issuing a closure letter, the local agency will take all reasonable steps necessary to accommodate responsible landowner participation in the cleanup and site closure process and will consider all input and recommendations from any responsible landowner. Sincerely, Ralph E. Huey, Director Office of Environmental Services REH/dm enclosures cc: S. Underwood S:\USTFORMS\UST. L4 Sample Letter (2): List of Landowners Form Date: City of Bakersfield Fire Department Office of Environmental Services c/o Ralph E. Huey, Director 1715 Chester Avenue, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Certified List of Record Fee Title Owners for Site name Site address Fill out item 1 if there are multiple site landowners. If you are the sole site landowner, skip item 1 and fill out item 2. 1. In accordance with section 25297.15(a) of Chapter 6.7 of the Health & Safety Code, I, Name of primary responsible party certify that the following is a complete list of current record fee title owners and their mailing addresses for the above site: 2. In accordance with section 25297.15(a) of Ch. 6.7 of the Health & Safety Code, I, Name of primary responsible party certify that I am the sole landowner for the above site. Sincerely, Signature of primary responsible party Name of primary responsible party Sample Letter (3) Notice of Proposed Action Submitted to Local Agency Date: City of Bakersfield Fire Department Office of Environmental Services c/o Ralph E. Huey, Director 1715 Chester Avenue, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Notice of Proposed Action Submitted to Local Agency for Site name Site address In accordance with section 25297.15(a) of Ch. 6.7 of the Health & Safety Code, I, , certify that I have notified ali Name of primary responsible party responsible landowners of the enclosed proposed action. Check space for applicable action(s): cleanup proposal (corrective action plan) site closure proposal local agency intention to make a determination that no further action is required. __ local agency intention to issue a closure letter. Sincerely, Signature of primary responsible party Name of primary responsible party CC: (Names and addresses of all record fee title owners) - October 6, 1998 FIRE CHIEF RON FRAZE Mr. Robert J. Becker, R.G. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 2101 'H' Street SoilsEngineering,Inc. Bakemfield, CA 93301 4700 District Blvd. vOICE (805) 326-3941 FAX (805) 395-1349 Bakersfield, CA 93313 SUPPRESSION SERVICES 2101 "H' Street RE: San Joaquin Roofing Company, 1501 E. 19th Street Bakemfield, CA 93301 VOICE (805) 326-3941 FAX (805) 395-1349 Dear Mr. Becker: PREVENTION SERVICES 1715 Chester Ave. I have reviewed the 2"~ Quarter 1998 Status Report and proposal for Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (805) 326-3951 3 confirmation soil borings. FAX (805) 326-0576 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES This is to notify you that the work plan for the above stated address 1715 Chester Ave. is satisfactory. Please give this office 5 working days notice prior to the Bakersfield. CA 93301 VOICE (805) 326-3979 commencement of work. FAX (805) 326-0576 TRAINING DIVISION Please be advised that any work done that is not performed under 5642 Victor Ave. direct oversight by this office will not be accepted, unless previously Bakersfield, CA 93308 VOICE (805) 3994697 approved. FAX (805) 399-5763 If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Specialist HHW/dlm cc: R. Graham RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location: ' ! ~ I ~ ~' ~ ID# . Business Name:' ~ ~'~ ~' ~ Conta~ N~e: ~o~' ~~ ~ ~' ~ ~ Busings Phone: ~% ~ - ~ F~: Insp~or's N~e: ~ Time of C~l: Date': /~z~ Time: / ~ ~ Min: /~ Type of C~I: In.ming [ ] Outgoing ~ Returned ~ Content of C~l: ~ ,~~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ - ~~ ~~ Actions Required: ~ ~-J" ~ ' Time Required to Complete Activity # Min: Cal/EPA July 18, 1997 ~',./ /'~/t Pete Wilson State Water Mr. Raymond Graham Resources San Joaquin Roofing Co. Inc. Control Board 1501 19th St. E Bakersfield, CA 93305 Division of Clean Water .... -Programs ..... PRE-APPROVAL OF CORRECTIVE ACTION COSTS, CLAIM NO. 10536, SITE ADDRESS: 1501 19TH ST E, BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA I have reviewed your request, received On July 7, 1997, for pre-approval of corrective action costs; I will place 94244-2120 these documents in your file for future reference. I have included a copy of the "Cost Pre-Approval Request" form; please use this form in the future for requesting pre-approval of corrective actions costs. 2014T Street, . Suite 130 - Sacramento, CA With the following provisions, the ~otal cost pre-approved as eligible for reimbursement for completing the May · 95814 9, 1997, Soils Engineering workplan approved by the Bakersfield Fire Department, Environmental Services in (916) 227-4374 FAX (916) 227-4530 their June 3, 1997 letter; is $55,150; see the table below for a breakdown of costs. (The total amount approved for reimbursement through Request No. 1 for work at your site that has been directed and approved by the World Wide Web Bakersfield Fire Department is $9,643.) htip://www.swrcb.ca. gov/~cwphome/ fundhome.htm Be aware that this pre-approval does not constitute a decision on reimbursement: all reasonable and necessary corrective action costs for work directed and approved by the will be eligible for reimbursement per the terms of your Letter of Commitment at costs consistent with those pre-approved in this letter. ~Ill future costs for corrective action must be approved in writing by Fund staff. Future costs for corrective action must meet the requirements of Article 11, Chapter 16, Underground Storage Tank Regulations. · COST PRE-APPROVAL BREAKDOWN '- Task ' ' Amount Pre- Co-'-ffi-ffi~-~ts. Approved Permitting 1,800 Installation and start-up of SVE 10,100 Provide a detailed breakdown of costs. Lump sum system invoices will not be reimbursed. Monthly operation, maintenance 31,500 Six months of operation including rental of SVE unit and unit rental $3,100/month. Provide subcontractor invoices when submitting for reimbursement. Lump sum invoices will not be reimbursed Project management/quarterly 3,000 Provide a detailed breakdown of costs. Lump sum reports invoices will not be reimbursed. Confirmation borings 3,750 Reporting 2,500 Provide a detailed breakdown of costs. Lump sum invoices will not be reimbursed. Abandonment of vapor extraction 2,500 Provide a detailed breakdown of costs. Lump sum wells invoices will not be reimbursed · TOTAL PRE-APPROVED -$55,150 Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of California's water resources, and Recycled J>aPer . ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations. Mr. Raymond Graham San Joaquin Roofing Co. Inc.. -2- ThE actual COSTS and scope of work performed must be consistent with the pre-approval for it to remain valid. · The work products must be acceptable to the Regional Board. · It is my opinion that it is unnecessary to obtain three bids for this scope of work; the Fund's three bid requirement is waived for this scope of work. ·If a different scope of work becomes necessary, then you must request pre-approval of costs for the new scope of work. · Although I have referred tO the Soils Engineering proposal in my pre-approval above, please be aware that you will be entering into a private contract: the State of California cannot compel you to sign any specific contract. This letter pre-approves the costs as presentedin the proposal dated May 12, 1997 by Soils Engineeringfor conducting the work approved by the Bakersfield Fire Department, Environmental Services for implementing the May 9, 1997, Soils Engineering workplan. I also want to remind you that the Fund's regulations require that you obtain at least three bids, or a bid waiver from Fund staff, from qualified firms for all necessary corrective hction work. The legislation governing the Fund requires that the Fund assist you in Procuring contractor and consultant services for corrective action. If you need assistance in contracting for corrective action services, don't hesitate to call me. Please remember that it is still necessary to submit the actual costs of the work as explained in the Reimbursement Request Instructions to confirm that the costs are consistent with this pre-approval before you will be reimbursed. To make this easier, insure that your consultant prepares his invoices to match the format of the original estimate, and provides reasonable explanations for any changes made in the scope of work or increases in the costs. When the invoices are submitted you must include copies of alh · subcontractor invoices, · applicable correspondence from.the. Please call if you have any questions; I can be reached at (916) 227-4374. Sincerely, ORiGiNAL o~'~,,x.., ~¥ Martin Clark, Water Resource Control Engineer Technical Review Unit Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Enclosure ./ cc: Mr. Howard H. Wines Bakersfield Fire Department, Environmental Services 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of California's water resources, and . '. ~ Jiecycled Pqper . ensure their pr, oper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations. BAKERSFIELD FIRE' DEPARTMENT F~ECH~EF June 3. 1997 mCtEL R. Km.¥ ADMINIStrATIVE SERVICES 2101 "H' Street Bakersfield, GA 93301 N'I r. Bol) Becket (805) 326-3941 FAX (805) 395-1349 Soils Engineering, Inc. 4700 District Bird SUPI~.SSION SERVICES Bakersfield. Ca 93313 2101 *H' Street BakersfielO, CA 93301 (805) 326-3941 FAX(805)395-1349 . RE: Remedial Action Workplan £or 1501 East 19'h Street. ~EVEN~ONSE~WCES Dear Mr. J~,eckerl 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805)326-3951 'rllis iS IO noti6v you that the workplan tbr the above stated address is FAX (805) 3260576 salist~ctorv. Please give this office 5 working days notice prior to the commencement ENVfl~)NMENTAI. SEI~/ICES O 171,5 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 c~)326-3979 Please be advised that any work done that is not perTonncd ~nder direct FAX (805) 326-0576 overs ght Iw fhis office will not be accepted, unless previously approved 5642 ¥ictor Street ~m,rs~,l~. c^ 93000 I1~ v°u-' have any.. questions, please call me at {805) _~.~6-o97c). (805) 399-~597 FAX (~) 399-S76~ Sincerely, Howard H. Wines. Ill Hazardous Materials Technician l-il-IW,;dhv~ cc': R. Graham · L BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT June 10, 1997 FI~ C,~EF Mr. Ray Graham MICHAELR. KELLY San Joaquin Roofing Co.. 1501 East 19'h Street ADMINIS~..A11VE SERVICES Bakersfield, C A 93305 2101 'H' Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805) 326-3941 ' · 3.' .~t~i . FAX (805)395-1349 RE' Vapor Extraction Test Report & Remedial Action Plan for~~l,--9~~i SUn,~SS~ON SE~C~S Dear M r. Graham: 2101 'H' Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 . (805) 326-3941 FAXrmS)3*S-I:U9 Our records indicate that your former underground storage tank site is currently subject to Corrective Action Requirements under Article I 1 of Title 23 California Code of Regulations PRE~NIION SERVICES concerning leaking underground tanks. 171,5 Chester Avo. Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805) 326-3951 Accordinulv, pursuant to Section 2722(b) of Article 1 1 you are hereby directed to begin the FAX (805) 326-0576 ~ - ' necessary work at your site within 90 calendar days from the date of this letter. Tile required ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES work shall include: 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805)326-3979 Installation of thermal oxidizer vapor extraction system capable of extracting 200 cfm of FAX (805) 32643576 volatile hydrocarbons from the five extraction Wells already installed on site. The termal T~AININO DIVISION oxidizer unit shall not be placed within 10 tieet of any building. 5642 Victor Street Bakersfield, CA 93308 (805) 399-4697 Please be axvare that, pursuant to Section 2722(c) of Article I 1, you are required to have an tAX (805)399-57~ approved workplan on file with this office prior to initiation of any corrective action work. In addition, you are to provide ongoing status reports of all activities involving the progress of this case to this office every, 90 days. If you have any questions regarding the provisions of this letter, please call me at 326-3979. Sincerely, Howard H. Winesl lll Hazardous Materials Technician l-IHW/dlm SOILS ENGINEEriNG, INC. Total number of pages is ~ ., including this sheet. Telecopy Number: ~ff~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Copy of Fax transmitted by re~lar mail also: If you do not receive all the pages, please call back as soon as possible, (805) 831-5100 Messages: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~.~~ ' Respect~lly sub~tted, ~ )~ SO~S ENG~E~G, ~C. 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. ° BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA93313 ° PHONE(805) 831-5100 ° FAX:(805) 831-2111 I thermal'oxidizer will be enclosed in a fenced compound for security. Permits will be The · obtained from the local Building Department, and San J0aquin Valley Unified Air Pollution I Control District (SJVUAPCD). See Plates 5 & 6 for the. proposed VES location, piping layout, , and Vapor Extraction System schematic, i 4.3 System Operation , During normal~ operation, the extraction bloWer will process the vapor stream through the combustion burner and out of the stack. An LEL and.oxygen sensor will monitor the vapor I stream and add dilution air, if required, to maintain a safe influent concentration. Supplemental natural gas or propane will be used to maintain the proper combustion temperature. Combustion I temperatures will be monitored automatically. The system will be designed to operate continuously 24 hours per day. The remediation system will be monitored per the authority to "'I operate permit. 4.4 Sampling Plan 1 !~ I Influent'and effluent air samples will be collected as required by the SJVUAPCD permit guidelines. Typically, samples will be collected every day for the first week and weekly for the first month and bi-monthly thereafter. Air samples will also be collected from the influent and I I effluent stream along with periodically from each extraction well. Samples will be collected in one liter Tedlar bags and analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (as hexane) at a State certified analytical laboratory. PID readings will also be' used to monitor influent, effluent and I well concentrations. I 4.5 Remediation Completion Verification Based on the influent vapor concentrations from the extraction wells, a determination will be made whether to collect soil samples to verify cleanup of the soil. Depending on the projected influent decline curve, a de_cisio, will be made when 5-1a,quent concentrations are less than 0.50 g~~ time, a Work ela"-'~ will be submitted to the Kern CountY Department ~ E/E.n~v~u:offmenta! Health Services (KCDEHS)~~. al. The plan will most likely propose ..th'~-dx/lling of two to three soil borinb~ in tl,e tormer plume location. Samples will be retrieved from several selected intervals for analysis. If the soil sample concentrations are all below the sj fl8132/sjvetrap 7 I ~ILS ENGINEERING, INC. I I minimum cleanup levels, closure of the site will be recommended. If soil concentrations are found to be above the cleanup levels, a Risk Assessment may be proposed to determine if · I continued remediation is needed. I 4.._.~.6 Work Phases Schedule An Authority to Construct (ATC) permit application will be submitted to the SJVUAPCD. I After receiving the ATC permit, all applicable building and fire permits will be obtained. Construction of the system will then'be initiated. Construction of the system is expected to take Ione to two weeks. Upon approval of all inspections, full operation of the system will begin. When infl~ions iIldiq,~ that remediation is.complete, a work plan will be I s~DEHS for ~of confirmation borings. After completion of the i?e6nf'~ring anti tamp'ri'fig phase, a report will be submitted recommending closure of ithe site or continued operation of the system. When site closure is approved, the equipment will be removed and the wells abandoned in a method approved by the County. I 5.0 LIMITATIONS This was prepared in accordance with generally accepted standards of environmental report geological practice in California at the time it was prepared. The investigations were conducted I solely for the purpose of evaluating environmental conditions of the soil and groundwater with respect to hydrocarbon product. No soil engineering or geotechnical references are implied or i should be inferred. Evaluation of the geologic conditions at the site for the purpose of these investigations is made from a limited number of observation points. Subsurface conditions may vary away from the data points available. · Additional work, including further subsurface I investigation, can reduce the inherent uncertainties associated with these types of investigations. I 6.0 REFERENCES "A Practical Approach to the Design,-Operation, and Monitoring of In Situ Soil-Venting I Systems", P.C. Johnson, et al., Spring 1990, Ground Water Monitoring Review. I I i sjr/8132/sjvetrap 8 805-831-2111 SOILS ENGINEERING 926 P01 MAY 29 '9? 12:58 SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. .~r~mao~: /~,-d' ~,~s rRo~: 27~/~ ~ec ~ ef Total number of pages is ~ ., including t~s sheet. TelecopyNumber: ~2~- ~f~ ~ Copy of F~ transmitted by re~lar mail ~so: ~ If you do not receive ali the pages, please call back ~ soon as possible, (805) 831-5100 Messages: ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ Respect~lly sub~tted, ~ ;~ SO~S ~G~E~G, ~C. ' 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. ° BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93313 ' PHONE (805) 831-5100 ° FAX: (805) 831-2111 805-831-211i SOILS ENGINEERING 926 P03 MAY 29 '97 12:59 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. below the minimum cleanup levels, closure of the site will be recommended. If soil concentrations are found to be above the cleanup levels, a Risk Assessment may be proposed to determine ff continued remediation is needed. ,Work Phases Schedule An Authority to Construct (ATC) permit application will be submitted to the SJ'VUAPCD. After receiving the ATC permit, all applicable building and fire permits will be obtained. Construction of the system will then be initiated. Construction of the system is expected to take one to two weeks. Upon approval of all inspections, full operation of the system will begin. When influent vapor concentrations indicate that remediation is complete, a work. plan will be submitted to the BFDES for the drilling of conftrmation borings. After completion of the confirmation boring and sampling phase, a report will be submitted recommending closure of the site or continued operation of the system. When site closure is approved, the equipment will be removed and the wells abandoned in a method apprgved by the BFDES. 5,0 LIMITATIONS This report, was prepared in accordance with generally accepted standards of environmental geological practice in California at the time it was prepared. The investigations were conducted solely for the purpose of evaluating environmental conditions of the soil and groundwater with reSPect to hydrocarbon product. No soil .engineering or geotechnical references are implied or should be inferred. Evaluation of the geologic conditions at the site for the purpose of these investigations is made from a limited number of observation points. Subsurface conditions may vary away from the data points available. Additional work, including further subsurface investigation, can reduce the inherent uncertainties associated with these types of investigations. 6.0 REFERENCES "A Practical Approach to the Design, Operation, and Monitoring of In Situ Soil-Venting Systems", P.C. Johnson, et al., Spring 1990, Ground Water Monitoring Review. ajrlS137.tsjvetrap 8 805-831-2111 SOILS ENGINEERING 926 P02 MAY 29 '97 12:59 SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. The thermal oxidizer will be enclosed in a fenced cOmpound for security. Permits will be obtained from the local Building Department, and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD). See Plates 5 & 6 for the proposed VES location, piping layout, and Vapor Extraction System schematic, System Operation During no~mal operation, the extraction blower will process the vapor stream through the combustion burner and out of the stack.. An LEL and oxygen sensor will monitor the vapor. stream and add dilution air, ff required, to maintain a safe influent concentration. Supplemental natural gas or propane will be used to maintain the proper combustion temperature. Combustion temperatures will be monitored automatically. The system will be designed to operate continuously 24 hours per day. The remediation system Will be monitored per the authority to operate permit. 4.4 Saml/ltnt, Plan lnfluent and effluent air samples will be collected as required by the SJVUAPCD permit guidelines. Typically, samples will be collected every day for the first week and weekly for the first month and bi-monthly thereafter. Air samples will also be collected from the influent and effluent stream along with periodically from each extraction well. Samples will be collected in one liter Tedlar bags and analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (as hexane) at a State certified analytical laboratory. PID readings will also be used to monitor influent, effluent and well concentrations. 4.5 Remedlation-Comlfletlon ..Verification Based on the influent vapor concentrations from the extraction wells, a determination will be made whether to collect soil samples to verify cleanup of the soil. Depending on the projected influent decline curve, a decision will be made when influent concentrations are less than 0.50 gg/cc (140 ppmv). At that time, a Work Plan will be submitted to the Bakersfield Fire Department Office of Environmental Services (BFDES) for approval. The plan will most likely propose the dd/ling of two to three soil borings in the former plume location. Samples will be retrieved from several selected intervals for analysis. If the soil sample concentrations are all sic/8 ! 32/ajve~p 7 RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Contact N~e: ~ ~ Busings Phone: 'F~: InSp~or's N~e: TimeofC~l: Date: ~/ /~7 Time: ~ Min: . Type of C~I: Incoming ~ Outgoing [ ] Returned [ ] Time Required to Complete Activity Cf Min: · -~.~ L,--"- B.A K E R S F' I E L D FIRE DEPARTMENT May 16, 1997 FIRE CHIEF MICHAEL R. KELLY ADMINISTIM~11VE SERVICES 2101 'H' Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805) 326-3941 .. FAX (805) 395-1349 M r. Robert Becker Soils Engineering, Inc. SUPPRESSION SERVICES 4700 'District Blvd 2101 'H' Street BakersflelcI, CA93301 Bakerslield, CA 93313 (805) 326-3941 FAX (8[k5) 395-1349 -~ ' ,h RE: Vapor Extraction Test Report tbr San Joaquin Roofing I_~_O_l_East:J.q'-_Str_eet._~ PIIEVENIION SERVICES · 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 Deal' M r. Becker: (805) 326-3951 FAX (805) 326-0576 I have reviewed tile above referenced report, and betbre i can comment on mw~,UE~SERVICES its content, it will first be necessaD,r that you. properly reference the Bakersfield 1715Chester Ave. Fire Departsnent Office.of Envir0nmel~tal Services as the regulatory agency in this Bakersfield, CA, 93301 (805) a26-a979 case as apposed to the' Kern Countv Department of Health Services on pages 7 'and FAX (805) 326-0576 " 8 of tile report, TRAINING DIVISION 5642 Victor Street Please submit an errata pa,2e or amended report at your earliest Bakersfield, CA 93308 ~ (805) 399-4697 COllVelliellce. FAX (805) 399-5763 Sincerely, · . .Howard H. Wines, II! 'Hazardous Materials lechnician Office of Environmental Services HHW/dlm ,! ,t/I ~: "~: i.:..~ :C._..:_ .i Cai/EPA t, ~ w~, ~ : Governor ;ti' i: [tqgR 1 0 i.9~97 ~ij State Water i~ · ' Resources ' ~. Cont~lBoard M~chS, 1997 :.~:~Z~ ~ ~i~ion of Clean Water P~grams ~. How~d W~es M~g ~: r.o. ~ ~:~: CiW of B~ersfield F~c Dep~cnt S~to, CA ~:~:~:o 171~ Chester Avenue, ~rd Floor B~ers~eld, CA 9~01 2014 T S~e~ Sui~ 1~0 S~to, CA ~s~o De~ ~. W~cs: ~ (~) ::7~0 ~E~G~O~ STOOGE T~ CLE~P F~D P~OG~; LIST OF World Wide Web: ~:,~.~.~ POSS~LE CLOSED SITES gov/~hom~ Please ~cate below, at ~e ~t of ~e site ad&ess, whe~cr ~e sites have received clos~e ~om ~o~ Claim No. Site address Closure granted? 11591 101 19th Street, Bakersfield 10391 1414 E. California Ave, Bakersfield 10536 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield 9910 300 Baker Street, Bakersfield 8443 601 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield 802 601 Eureka Street, Bakersfield If you would like to fax your request, our fax number is (916) 227-4530. Sincerely, ~ ~k, Ahalyst Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund cc: Nancy Camacho,. Closure Unit-USTCF Recycled Paper Our mission is to preserw and enhance the quality of California's water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations. B.A K E R S F I E L D FIRE DEPARTMENT March 11, 1997 RRE CHIEF MICHAEL R. KELLY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 2101 'H' Street Bakersfield, CA93301 Robert J. Becker, R.G. (805) 326-3941 FAX (805) 395-13~9 Soils Engineering, Inc. 4700 District Blvd. SUPPRESSION SERVICES Bakersfield, CA 93313 2101 'H' Street ~akersfield, CA 93301 (805) 326-3941 FAX(80S)39S-m9 KE: Vapor Extraction Test Work Plan at'Il501 E. 19th-s~ PREVENTION SERVICES Dear Mr. Becker: 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805) 326-3951 FAXES05)326-0,576 This is to notify you that the work plan for the above stated address is satisfactory. Please give this office 5 working days notice prior to the commencement ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES of work. 1715 Chester Ave, Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805) 326-3979 Please be advised that any work done that is not performed Under direct FAX (805) 326-0576 oversight by this office will not be accepted, unless previously approved. TRAINING DIVISION 5642 Victor Street If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Bakersfield, CA 93308 (805) 399-4697 FAX (805) 399-5763 Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Technician HHW/dlm cc: R. Graham SOilS ENGINEERING, INC. February 14, 1997 Mr. Thomas Goff Ii' Sari Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 2700 M S~eet, Suite 275 B~ersfield, California. 93301 Re: Vapor Ex,action Test Exemption San Joaquin Roofing 1501 E. 19th S~eet B~ersfield, C~ifornia Dear Mr. Goff, Soils Engineering, Inc. (SEI) is requesting a Portable Emissions Unit Exemption per Rule 202, Exemptions, subsection III. K.2, to conduct a vapor extraction test (VET).at. the, above-referenced site'(see Plate 1 for [0cation map). The VET will be conducted within .a. 48rhour. p~riod '. and is tentatively scheduled'for the first week in March, 1997 after.installing the .Sv, apo. r,.. extr.act, iPn' we!ls. SEI.~'ani:l'Oth'ers have' conducted subsurface environmental investigations :at the .subject facility. Gasoline impacted soil has been assessed and vapor extraCtion of the vadose plume has been recommended by SEI and others (see Plate 2 for a Pl0t Plan). The purpose of this vapor extraction pilot test will be to: - Determine 'the radius of influence of the vapor extraction wells at varying vacuum flow rates. - Determine vapor recovery rates at varying vacuum flow rates. - ~- Evaluate. the-effectiveness-of inlet wells. - Collect air samples'to evaluate hydrocarbon concentrations at varying flow rates. - Estimate time for cleanup. - Evaluate options for the vapor extraction treatment system. The pilot study will consist of extracting vapors from one of five vapor extraction wells using a regenerative'blower (capable of 150 SCFM @ 5-inches of Hg). The blower will be connected in series to four granular activated carbon (GAC) drums to eliminate, hyd.rocarbon vapors, in the effluent stream (see Plate 3). Flow rates will be measured using, pitot tubes and magnehelic gauges. In order to determine radius of influences for each vapor extraction well, static well-head pressure drops. Will be monitored at neighboring inle~t wells.. A photoionizotion detector .or.an O.rganic Vapor Ahalyzer will be on-site to monitor effluent air emissions. Total hydroca~bon concentrations in the effluent stream will not exceed 0.05 lb/hr. Air samples will be collected periodically to'determine 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. ° .BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93313 ° PHONE (805) 831-5100 ° FaX: (805) 831-2111 -SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. extracted hydrocarbon concentrations. The data collected will be used to apply for the APCD Authority to Construct permit. The results of the VET, including the test duration, measured data, and analytical analysis will be submitted to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and the City Of Bakersfield Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact SEI at (805) 831-5100. Sincerely, , ~' - . ~ No. 5075 Environmental Division Manager Enclosures: Location Map _ _ _ Plot Plan Vapor Extraction System Diagram cc: Mr. Ray Graham, San Joaquin Roofing ' Mr. Howard Wines, City Of Bakersfield Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division 34TH!~ ~- ~ ~ ~o~ ~s&~ ST I ERNA" COLLEGE ST =I /18TH Slrl ~ ,,r.~ c~,,~, ~ s~s- -I*' , E ~ ' ~,. -~6~ E " I] CALiFORniA .... ~ ' ~ .' -~/~---,~-~- ~_ __ _~ .1 .... ,,,,, ~ I~ ~ ~-.~ ~.[ srl ~ ~ <[ E = 10TH ~RCUS O . ~ ~, ~ ~,--~--~~--~--~z .... ~--~ ..... L.::'~e~ :. '.:'gl I ; ~ .~1 ~1 ~<~x , xl.:..:.: z ~ ............ SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 1501 EAST 19TH STREET 4700 District Blvd. BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~1 / Bakersfield, CA 93313 Location Map Project Number: EAST 19TH STREET i.. X R X ;; ;; X X X X ;; X X ',; X X ',; ',; X - / ' \,. [3-2 - ~ ' ~ · I ~ Estimated Extent O~ I-- ~ ~ '~ U) lc :~ ~/'//'~ ~ ~ ~ ' Hydrocarbon Plume z B-5 : [3-1 Boring Location :: · and Number 4: ~ Proposed :: Single Zone Proposed VEW Dual Zone SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 DATE: 2-13-97 PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA PROPOSED VAPOR EXTRACTION WELLS PLATE VENT Magnehelic Vacuum · Gauge Gauge . Vapor ~tt,.: .] [ ] r-- Phase :] r ' · Carbon i Manometer Manometer :ilii: " Displacement ~ & Blower, 100 SCFM -- ~ Per/orated ---- == ~~ Intervals __=- (Vapor Extraction Wells) Test Well PLATE San Joaquin Roofing SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 1501 East 19th Street 4700 District Blvd. BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Bakersfield, CA 93313 VAPOR EXTRACTION TEST UNIT PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 ~.~~~_ Governor State Water Resources Control Board February 10, 1997 Division of Clean Water Programs SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING CO INC Mailing Aaaress: RAYMOND G~H~ P.O. Box 9~212 1501 19TH ST E Sacr~ento, CA 94244-2120 B~RSFIELD, CA 93305 Suite 130 (805) 324-1424 Fax Via Fax/U.S. Mail Sacr~ento, CA 95814 ' (916) 2274307 Dear Mr. Ray Graham: F~ (916) 227~530 Woria wia~ we~: I have recently reviewed a cost ~st~ate pre-approval regard~g your cla~ g010536 hRp://~.swrcb.ca. gov/~cwphome/ site address, 1501 19TH ST E, B~RSFIELD, with your request dated 12/12/96. ~ndhome.htm Based on submitted work scope, SVE test for $13,900.00, preapproval has been granted. This decision was based on the previous pre-approval request dated 4/10/96, approving a SVE system. You should note ~at ~e Re~bursement' Request (~)' inst~ctiom do not allow for a "lump sum" ~pe invoice submittal. Standard t~e and materials presentation accompa~ed with subcontractor invoices, work descriptions and materials lists will be required. Consultant/contractor should submit invoices that are consistent in fo~at wi~ the pre-approved cost est~ate for t~ely re~bursement. If you can co,elate the actual billing to ~e bid/est~ate, I should be able to do the same. When u~orseen changes or additiom occur, an expla~tion must accompany the ~ or those costs may not be reimbursed. Additionally, all work perfo~ed must ~e ~pp?ved ~e~ore ......... ' ~co~encement-and accepted-upon ~6~letion by the lead agency to be eligible for re~bursement. Please make sure ~e consultant/contractor has the appropriate licenses to perfo~ ~e work proposed. Fund s~ff may not consider const~ction charges or costs by U~icemed firms as eligible. If the responsible party is interested in proposing another alternative the Fund would be happy to review bids for this. Upon conversation with Howard Wines, Bakersfield Fire Department, we agreed that a more cost-effective alternative which would contain the contamination could be proposed. If the claimant wished to do this the Fund could review bids for 'capping the site with asphalt to minimize rainwater infiltration or some: other contaminant containment measure. Recycled Paper Our mission is to preserve and enhance the ituality of California's water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and fitture generations. Furthermore, recent legislative changes have occurred to assist responsible parties with UST sites. Per Senate Bill 562, Chapter 611, Sec 25299.39.2(b), enacted 1/1/97: "Any owner or operator that has a tank case who believes that the owner's or operator's corrective action plan for the site has been satisfactorily implemented, but where closure has not been granted, may petition the Fund manager for a review of the case." · . - :.: ......... P~e~appr~va~/..bid~review~.wi~ensure~y~ur-e~mp~ia~nee~wit~h~t.he-Fund`'.s~t~ee~bid requirement and reasonable cost. Please be sure to use the enclosed USTCF cost pre- approval form and include your phone number (FAX if available), mailing address, site address and claim #010536 on all correspondence. Please call if you have any questions, I can be reached at (916) 227-4322. Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Ismael Jacobo, Water Resources Control Engineer Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund cc: Howard H. Wines, III, Haz-Mat Technician Bakersfield Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301 Recycled Paper Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of California's water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations. RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location: "/~-0 ' ID# Business Name: Conta~ N~e: ~ ~~ ~,/~ ~'~'~ / Business Phone: ~ ~ ~ - ~/~ F~: Inspe~or's N~e: Time of C~I: Dine': .. Type of Call: Incoming [ ] Outgoing tr~ Returned [ ] Time Required to Complete Activity Cf Min: /S''~'+~/~-'~ TO RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location: / ~ t ~--~ I~ ~4 ID# Business Name: ~ ~ ~,~c~u, ~ ~,~ ~ Business Phone: ~t~. ~7 '- 4~ F~: " Insp~or's N~e: ~ Time of C~l: Date: ~/?/~ Time: ~ ~ · Min: ~a Type of Call: Incoming [ ] Outgoing-~ Returned ~ Content of Call: '~'E~-~ ~, ~ ~' ~ S ,~E ~ '~ 5 ~ ~' Time Required to Complete Activity #..Min: I b ~ Cal/EPA Il}Et j 3 1996 Pe~Wil~on - . ~o~ernor State Water '. Resources ' i Control Board " RAYMOND GRAHAM ' ~' Division of SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING CO INC' · · ,' Programs BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 P.O. Box 944212 - · S~m~nto, CA UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND, CLAIM NO. 010536, FOR "94244-2120 SITE ADDRESS: 1501 19TH ST E, BAKERSFIELD 2014 T Street, suit, 130 The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) is able to issue, pursuant to Sacramento, CA '95814 applicable regulations, the enclosed Letter of Commitment (LOC) in an amount not to .' (916)227,4307 exceed.S70,000. This LOC is based upon our review of the corrective action costs you FAX (916) 2274530 reported to have incurred to date. The LOC may be modified by the State Board. World Wide Web: http://www.swrcb.ca~ , gov/~,,~,home . It is very important that you read the terms and conditions in the LoC. The State fundhome.htm Board will take ateps to withdraw this LOC after 90 calendar days from the date of this letter unless you proceed with due diligence with your cleanup effort. -- NOTE: You must also submit your first reimbursement request for the costs that you reported to have incurred within. 90 calendar days from the date of this letter or submit a written· explanation'as to the status of the cleanup and when a reimbursement request can _ .._ ........ b.--e-~expe~cted.~-Eailure=to-submit~a-request*or=an=app~'oved:explanation~maY--'result~in,th-e .......... : ~ removal of committed funds. Claims filed with the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund' far exceed the'funding available and it is important that you make use of the funding that·has been committed to your cleanup in a timely manner. You are reminded that you must comply with all regulatory agency time schedules and · requirements and you must obtain three bids for any required corrective action. Only corrective action costs required by the regulatory agency to protect human health, safety and the environment can be claimed for reimbursement. Unless waived in writing, you are required to obtain preapproval of costs for all future corrective action work (form enclosed). If you have any questions on obtaining preapproval of your costs or the three bid requirement, please call Steve Marquez, our engineer assigned to claims in your Region, at (916) 227-0746. Failure to obtain preapproval or-your future costs may result in the costs not being reimbursed. ~ ~l~' R-e-cycled Paper Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of California's water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and fu!ure generations. . DEC g 4-]996" / SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING CO INC · ~/~ page 2 '- /- The following documents needed to submit your reimbursement request are enclosed: , · "Reimbursement Request Instructions'' package. 'Retain this package for future ~i '" .~ reimbursement requests. These instructions must be followed.when, seeking .__~.~' ~--' ...... ', - reimbursement for corrective acuon costs incurred after January 1, 1988. Included i · . in the instruction Package are samples of completed reimbursement request forms and spreadsheets. _o "Bid Summary Sheet" to list information on bids received which must be completed and returned. I · "Certification of Non-Recovery From Other Sources" which must be returned I · 'beforeany reimbursements can be made. · "Reimbursement Request" forms which youmust use to request reimbursement of COsts incurred. ·"Spreadsheet" forms which you must use in conjunction with your reimbursement request. °"Claimant Data Record" (Std. Form 204) which must be completed and returned with your first reimbursement request. We continuously review the status of all active claims. If you do not submit a ~,' ' reimbursement request or fail to proceed with'due diligence~w_ith the cleanup_.~ _we_wSll-take .... -:--~-'~-~ ' steps to w~tl~draw your EOC:' ' if you have any questions regarding the enclosed documents, please contact Pamela " Rarick at (916)'227-2784. . Sincerely, (~Dave Deaner, Manager UST Cleanup Fund Program Enclosures · - cc: Mr. Howard Wines City of Bakersfield Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue, 3rd Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 ~ '.1¢7 ' RecycledPaper . . · Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality ofCalifornia'~water resourc'es, and · ' ' - '~ .' - . . : . ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations. ' - - .. - ".' c.a~/z~r~q. - NoVember 1 2,. 1 996 · -.. .-P,,e wi~.~o. State Water ,- Resources Control Board Ray Graham ..- - ::' San Joaquin Roofing Company,: Inc'.. .-. ,i Divisionof .. . .1.501 East 19th street' -.. -. '. · Clean'Water ' Bakersfield, CA' 93350 '." ' - :i. 'Programs ...... ' , ..'-'M,ilinnAa~: Dear Mr'..Gi'aham: '.' · P.O. Box 944212 · ' Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND PROGRAM, CLAIM NO. ~01'4'TStrect, "10536;' SITE ADDRESS:' 1501'.19TH ST E., BAKERSFIELD, CA Suite 130 · Sacramento, CA 95814 I have.completed my detailed review of your application and I am ready to (916) [Phone#] - ' · , . '. · ' '- . . . ,. '__:..-_E_AX (916) 227-4530 prepare'your Eetter of Commitment {LOC). The LOC sets.aside funds to World Wide Web: · ' http://www.swrcb.ca,storage tanks. The LOCs are issued as funding becomes'available. gov/-~cwpho .me/ fundhome.htrh Please c6mplete the attached forms and return them to me within fifteen (15) days from the date of this letter. If you have qUestions,, please call. me at (91 6) 227-2784.' Sincerely;. '- :pamela Rarick, Claim. Analyst-' RegiOn 5 .Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Program CC: Mr. Howard Wines " " City of Bakersfield Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue, 3rd Floor .Bakersfield, CA 93301 ' ':: ":' 'ensure their pro.peP allocatio~ and eJ~iaient u.¥efor the benefit of present ~tndfi~ture generattons. · · . '; -- .,.';..., ._:. - .. -. : -. , . ... · .. . : BAKERS-FIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT October 31, 1996 FIRE CHIEF MICHAEL R. KELLY ADMINISTRA~VE SERVICES 2101 'H' Street Ray Graham Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805) 32&3941 San Joaquin Roofing Co. FAX (805) 395-1349 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield Ca 93305 SUPPRESSION SERVICES 2101 'H' Street Bokersfield, CA93301 RE: Remediation of gasoline contaminated soil at ~_0~l~-E.-;-__l:gthr-_St0 (8O5) 326-3941 FAX (8O5) 395-1349 Dear Mr. Graham: PREVENTION SERVICES · · 1715 Chester Ave, Bakersfield, CA93301 The intent of this letter is to inform you of the necessary deadlines for (8O5) 326-3951 FAX(805) 326-0576 work required at the property described above. As a responsible party for a leaking underground tank, you were previously sent a letter from this office E~W~O~M~.r^LSE.WCES on July 19, 1996 approving the required work necessary to remediate the 1715 Chester Ave, Bakersfield. CA93301 contamination. We are now requesting that this work, as previously (805) 326-3979 FAX (805)32~3576 indicated, be done in a timely manner. TRAINING DIVISION If yOU have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me 5642 Victor Street Bakersfield, CA 93308 immediatelyat 805-326-3979. (805) 399-4697 FAX (805) 399-5763 Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Technician HHW/dlm Applied Vapor Technology, lnc, 4540 California Avenue, Suite 500 ~ Bakersfield. CA 93309 Phone 805-328-4616 -- Fax $05-832-~024 Mr.SB~RCB Steveclean_Up Marquez Fund PO Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 RE: San Joaquin Roofing soil remediation project claim #010556 Dear Mr. Steve Marquez, In pursuant to your concerns about bioremediation, I have put together the accompanying letters of closure on projects employing in-situ bioremdiation. I am currently involved in a project located in Lodi, CA where in-situ bioremediation is employed. Ibis has been an ongeing project since the summer of 1994. Approximately 30,000 cubic yards of soil along with underground water was co~taminatcd with gasoline and it's components. The lead agency on this project is the Public He~dth Services San Joaquin Count', Hariin Knoll, Senior REHS. Bioremediation is an approved scope of corrective action which is lmbl~sl~ed in the CCR, Ti[le Chapter 16, Underground Storage Tank Regulations. Also, pre:~ented to the State Water Resources Control Bom'd is information on a study performed by Lawrence Livermo,'e Nat!onal Laboratory on passive bioremediation. There are two schools of thought wherea.a, one raeH~od can b~ classified as biostimulation and the other is bioaugmentation. The later involves the addition o[ certain pre-selected bacteria to tl~e soil This process is done to ensure that the proper degraders are presen*, to perform the rapid breakdown of target contaminants. The other concern about the San Joaquin Roofing PrOject was the ae..~ount o~' menies bid for bioremediation compared to vapor extraction. The vapor extraction bid at $78,000 and biort..mediation at S75,000. Since we are the low bidder and will save the Slate money, bio should be ti}e rem.~diatim~ method of choice. Bioremediation has in the past been tagged with a stigma. Most often nutrients in large quantities were used to sthnulate the indigenous species of organisms. Often Times because o? the amount o[ nutrients used made the HCO contamination a moot point. When done correctly bioremediation is a safe and natural method of treatment. Biological treatment degrades hazardous materials into water, carbon dioxide, and biemass. SubsmTace microorganisms have been using petroleum hydrocarbons as a food source long before man began using them as an energy source. If you have an)' questions or require further information please call me. Sincerely, Jim Zaben cc: Mr. Howard Wines CiD' of Bakersfield Fire Department HazMat Division THORPE OIL/FORD CONSTRUCTION P 0 BOX 357 ............................ RE: THORPE OIl/FORD CONSTRUCTION IN REI'LY REFER TO: 2195 · I W TURNER RD LODI CA 95241 , This letter confirms the completion of site tnvestlgatio,~ ?nd i'emedial action Bt the 8b~'e site. With the provision that the information provided to t!:i~ agency was accurate and representative. of existing conditions, it is our position fha: ~o fu:-ther action ia i'equired at this time. Please be advised that this letter does not relieve you of '~.y liabi!!Jy under ~h¢ California 14ealth and Safety Code or Water Code for P$$h Nor does it relieve you of the ros~nsibility to dean up evisting, ~dditiona! or previously unidentified conditions ~t the site which caus~ or threaten to e~use ~llution or nuisance or o~emis~ p~ a fl~r~at to water quality or public healtl~. Additionally, b~ advised that changes in the present or p~%,osed u~:~ of the site may require further site characterization and mitigation actMty: It b ~he proper~y.owncr's rasponsiMlity to notify this agency of any changes in report ~;onte,~t~ f~tur¢ contamination flndin~ or $it¢ usage. If you hav~ any questions regarding this matter, pleme eontazt Hat}in ~ol], Senior REHS, at (209) 4653442, Jog Khan~a, M~M.P.It, Health Offic~ / ~ d ff ~ffvironmental Health Division ' LAC~IK:lb c: · CVRWOCB !~EP-- 1 ~'~-- 96 WED I ~, : 40 C HEM I CAL CALIFORNIA REG~O~L WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD NOR~ COAST REGION I~' ~ Ledbette~ Vino Farms, Inc. 1377 East Lodi Avenue todi, CA 95240 Dear Hr. Ledbet~e~: Subject: Case Closure - Vino Farms Vineyard, E~ o~ ~!ve,- Road, Geys~rville, iA Case No. INSO$9! This letter .conf~rms the completion of site investigation ~;~d remedial action for the former aboveground storage tan~ located at the ~bove described location. Th~nK you for your cooperation throughout '~his i~)vesiigatlon. Your willingness &nd promptness in responding to ouP inquiries conce~'~iqg ~he release from the former ~boveground stormge tank are greatly appreciated. B~sed on the available in¢ormation and with the pr~sion that the information provided to this agency Was accurate anO representer.ye oK site conditions, no further action related, to the aboveQround tank release i~ FequireU. Furthermore, all work' conducted in accordance with GeF~eral Waste ~ischarge Requirements Order No. g2-$6 has been completed, li~erefo~, ~rder No. 92-66 is rescinded. Please con~act our office if you have any questibF,~' ra~a~-~tn9 this matter. ~$incerelY~7~'~/ - i)enjamln 0. Kef Executive Officer BDK:WT£:bp\vino6.wp Roy Davis, Vino Farms, Inc., 10651Castside R~:ad, Healdsburg, CA 9544B Richard Thorpe, Jim lhorp~ Dil, Inc., 35] ~. ~eck~ Road, P O. Box 357, Cedi, CA 95241 John Buck, Advanced Environmental Concepts, lnc., 4400 Ashe Road #206, ~akersfield, CA 9331) Robert Sw.if~, $¢EHD Steven Adams, $CF$, 2)00 County Ce~te~ OK., Santa qosa, CA 95403 Mike RoDinson, Chemical Spectaltie~ I'nteKnational, P.O. Bo~ 738, Cameron Pa~k, CA 95682-O73B Bu.g..s -i b elneath Ih.e runway Bioaugmentation, proves to be the best choice" to clean up jet fuel beneath airport tarmac: By Jack Roberts and Andrew Mytinger ,! · ~ n-si~ bioau§memation above sea ]eve].. 'J~e ~'ou~d.- . ....'[~e responsible party, a tenant at -.. ~ a~d biove~tLq§ were su~'~ace Js Qat a~d slopes toward the airport' c.~ose a proposal ~'om · ¢omb~ed to"- the Los An§e]es River, located Bio,earnest ~nc., '~e Critter Co., · su¢cess~lzLly t~eat a ]ar§e ]et A ~e! approxLmate]y 5 ]d]omete~s' to the (BT]) o~ San Die§o, CAUL; [o clean plume beneath.tlie runway at the south, up the site with a combination of ~ Van Nuys Airport in southern .. Tile San Fernando Valley is an in situ bioaugmentation and .. ,'" -" ' ' alluvial groundwater bioventing. BTI's proposal was50 basin bounded by the percent less expensive than other San Gabriel and Santa . proposal.s, and had a projected Monica Mountains. The schedule of 12 months, vs. three to maximum depth'of five years for vapor extraction, The alluvium in the valley tenant also felt the plan would is 300 meters. The minimally disrupt ongoing airport eastern part of the operations. They rejected any plan valley is underlain by that called for excavatiOn due to coarse-grained.sand the expense and disruption to and gravel deposits, airport activities. while the western The site is a deep water area with portion is underlain by depth to groundwater exceeding fine-grained clay and 75 meters. silt. Sediments beneath The fueling facility is located the airport site consist adjacent to a major runway.in a of fine-grained sand secure area with restricted and silt in interfingered personnel access. Land use layers and lenses to 40 surrounding the site is strictly for ': meters below ground aircraft storage,'maintenance and ~-"'~'~r- surface, flight operations. The tarmac Pipeline and extends at least 300 meters in all - underground storage directions. tank leaks released an ' GroUndwater was not affected, estimated 133,000 liters and the site was co..nsideredlow of Jet A fuel into about risk. Target action levels were 9880 cubic meters of 'calculated from California's soil beneath the tarmac. ' Leaking Underground Fuel Tank California. The site is in the Total petroleum hydrocarbon (LUFT) Manual Leaching Potential · ' C~ntral. portion .of tl~e San: (TPH) concentrations in the'soil .-: Analysis;?and from California ~ Fernando Valley, about 240 meters varied-up to 24,000 ppm. .Regional Water Quality Control' . ........ Board interim-guidelines. Based On- . Jack Roberts is president of Biotreatment Inc., San Diego, Calif. site conditions, 10,000 ppm of Jet A -. Andrew Mytinger is the bioremediation specialist for ProBioS ' . was determined to be acceptable Inc., of San Diego, Calif. action level. The remediation goal i'i 6 'M~y 1996 Soil & Groundwater Cleanup · ' - ..~__ ..-"-hyd~ocaxb0ns atacce]erat~4:l' rateS?:' -~'%:/ .. :~'~-'.i':~d:~:'"'] ,,-. .-:.-...'. . given to Pr~)BioS for,analysis., i~. .. -' -:"~ ~': '-, '.'. .... - '. .-....- Indigenous microbial::a6tivity in ;e ,' ,.: ~, ; -.'.,. -, '. -'....'i. '' ' . . :.: .' -. :. '. -'.'. :_- -'.-. ,'.'-.' .'." ' .. ~: ~ ,-.'.....'.. .... ..:'.....H;i...O. ... .... ....................... the sample was recorded by a. ::;':; :'"'"' '~, '::':::..(:~ ::'""'"""--.'"~ ' ' "";'"'-' ' .............. ... ~ Nutrients, trace minerals, oxygen ; ""'"'"'"'.- .- "'".."'"..-...-.."'" "'" levels, pH and moistur~ were ':. ;'-' ." ' ':' '" '"'"'"" .:determined and analyzed. These · . :, -. :::! ._-.....,.. ... , .-.. · -.-...'-;. '..'-.-..-.-..'..'..- '-, .. data, along with site assessment ..... ~;:/: '.'.-'- ' -' ..... '.'?.!":? '''~ analyticals on the contamination, ] ,-E~at~d Sites- .... Investigation....~. :.. ,:~::~:~.~. The bioinocul~nt consisted of ';? . ............ ' ..... :.- ......... ...~ products manufactured in Seattle, Wash., by tntra Coa ss Inc., Area_ ¥:~:i'ii( ~ incorporating microbes in a Boringsl....,.. ........ d..~.,~ solution for matrix enhancement. .. :d~::,..~....-':~O';:~:!-.~,~ Oil Breaker is a microbial solution product for petroleum · i' '":.'~- hydrocarbon remediafion that. allows water and hydrocarbon molecules to merge. ·When this " integration occurs, the surface area ":'~ ~""* for microbial activity increases, [ .. "": ~'":~?~ '~*~'~-":'~::'" - and the hydrocarbon becomes was to reduce the levels below the liters. Two areas contained immediately available as a food · ' target action levels and continue elevated hydrocarbon source for the bacteria. Oil Breaker remediation until the degradation concentrations--one area enhances the percolation rate of curve, flattened out. surrounding the hydrant pipeline' the soil, adjusts matrix pH, buffers The site has four underground leak, and another beneath the substances toxic to the bacteria tanks: two 76,000 liter Jet A tanks, northwest comer of the fuel tanks, and increases oil and water one 76,000 liter aviation gasoline Highest detected hydrocarbon interfaces. (AVGAS) tank, and a 7600 liter concentrations near the pipeline The Oil Breaker, UC40 microbes,. waste oil tank. The 76,000 liter leak were 24,000 ppm. The main along with water soluble nutrients AVGAS tank is connected to a plume covered an area 36 by 13 and oxygenated water were dispenser island by a fiberglass · meters, as deep as 27 meters. The combined in c~culated ratios and pipeline. The tanks were upgraded second plume, under the tank gravity fed into the matrix in in 1995, and the hydrant supply ' farm area,.was approximately 14 multiple applications. The lines removed, meters in diameter and extended · application method must take into In August of !992, a site to over 20 meters below grade, account soft conditions, investigation discovered BTI joined forces with another permeability changes, moisture contamination in the soil beneath. San Diego company, ProBioS. Inc;, content and natural barriers that the tank farm. In 1993, additional to provide microbial products and might inhibit even distribution of investigations were performed to technical support for the the inoculate. The quantity of "assess the cause of a product bioaugmentation project. ProBioS inoculant entering each zone was .· · TM shortfall recorded at over 133,000 is a distributor of UC-40 monitored to ensure uniform Soil & Groundwater Cleanup Moy 1996 7 · .. e~t Sample Actual Reading ~Arithout additio~i~l inoculations, future remediation .. 25'000 7- ' ' .O Average of 10 Samples would be mucl~!~10wer~ Options for_continued..: "' ;~'-?'? ' ' ' 20.000 ' ' 'f'l-IighestSampleDegradationCurve mitigati°nwer6.("' "' ' ' · - .-- A,,~-~ of l0 Smp~ · Continue tO':'m~intain and morfitiSr.the existing ".. ~ · t '-." //- ~S~A~o~ ~ ~.- ~5,°°9. I~<.~.-.. ..., ... ~/_~. --. ':, .:. ~: . .. . .. biosystem. The bioremediation proceSs'depends.on ':':' . i .:.':.' · -'.:.- ....... ma ten= .eaf' ,proper eO!o i' '.;.. Umen s," ~-i!0~0i): ' :"<.'.~ .... ~'": ;' :f;';'i.'-~5.'~;~...*.'-,.'?.;.,9,.-'.;~?:?~'"'.7....'.-'[.'"'-51~;.'..' -. micr°°rganismS-'~J',and hydr°carb°.ns~'ilA~'th'e!!'!i'i'?~': .z!:*.i' "/'-'"' ' . ~.--4~.'~'' ~ 'difficult to maii!tain the degradation Components in`...· ' ' :~-~.,,o,..'~a~, ....... ....~.,..,~=.,~;..~=~,~=~,~:,,:~,~,~.,.-.,:.,~;~,.=~ ......... i~,: existing baaeria metabolizing the-hydrocarbons> but · .~-_-'..aa',?~?.':*is~:-~?,h -,~?~*~'!~ -"~ ........ ', ,-~;:~ .-ag~:--'a:'--'_ '~->.'.~;4!' the process slows down. Continued.maintenance would not significantly.improve the conditions at ihat distribution throughout the plume. A proprietary' Point. . biocatalyst, supplied by BTI, provided oxygenated ° Reinoculate to try to. redUCe TPH levels even Water for the degradatiOn process. After 30 days, further, but the cost vs. benefit ofr6inoculation did not additional oxygen was provided through a bioventing seem to be justified at this site. "' system. ° Close the site with no further action, Which Progress throughout the.project was monitored requires a determination that contamination levels against baseline comparisons in three areas: by- Pose a minimal risk to public health and the products of metabolism, microbial activity and environment. Termination of remediation activity does contamination concentrations, not mean that bioremediation stops. Passive Changes in carbon dioxide levels are good indicators of microbial activity. Increased CO= occurs during . periods of highest consumption. As degradation continues, CO= production drops in relation to the diminishing number of hydrocarbons available. Carbon dioxide levels increased from a baseline of 2 percent to 6 percent after inoculation. After four months, the levels stabilized at 4 percent. ProBio$ used a microscope with custom optics and video capability to create a visual record of microbial activity. Before inoculation, a baseline record was - created of the indigenous bacterial activity. It showed moderate activity, with no visual signs of degradation. ~'~~'"~:. ;:21 . After the initial solution applications, the augmented ~~)'iii'}ii'i~~ ?[/'f- ' P°Pulati°n was seen t° be well established in the matrix. Compared to the baseline record, the "' augmented population appeared to be dense and ~~}!~)~]~ Itl ~ .. highly active. Reproduction was occurring and there bioremediation continues at the site. was visual evidence of degradation. ProBioS and BTI Site closure depends on current or projected site use, used this information to formulate treatment attaining acceptable levels of contamination, and procedures t° match changing conditions in the demonstrating low risk factors. It recognizes that 100 subsurface, percent elimination of in situ contamination is The TPH le;eels from the site assessment served as the unlikely, and uses target action levels based on land baseline for contamination concentrations. Each use, public contact and possible migration to drinking. month, soil samples weretaken every 3 meters, at water. Closure of this site was based on target action depths tO30 meters, using a CME 75 drill rig. Samples levels from the LUFI' Manual Leaching Potential were sent to a ·state certified lab for analysis. The Analysis and state Regional Water Quality. Control sampling was supervised by a registered geologist, Board interim guidelines for soil. and the analytical results of the EPA Method 8015 test Based on the fact that the reme~iation effort has were plotted. The mean TPH values in the so{l were removed over 80 percent of the contamination, and reduced by an average of 80 percent over a 90 day . that remaining levels are 75 to 80 percent below target period, at which time monitoring showed that the 'action levels, the lead ?egulatory igency closed the site. degradation rate had leveled off at 2000 to 2500 ppm~ Bioaugmentation can provide a cost effective option 75 percent below action levels. Even the highest TPH· as a proven technology.! levels were 25 Percent below action levels. It was Writ, ~n 68~ apPai'ent that as the degradation curve had leveled Off, ~ May 1996 Soil & ~rounclwc~l~t Cl~cmup , . September 9, 1996 Cai/EPA Pete Wilson Ray Graham Governor State Water San Joaquin. Roofing Company, Inc. Resources 1501 East 19th Street Control Board Bakersfield, CA 93350 ;$~P I 9 ~996 Division of Re: Claim 10536 pre-approval HAZ. MAT. DIV. clean water Programs Dear Mr. Graham: Mailing Address: P.O. Box 944212 Per your letter, dated April 18, 1996; and conversation with Howard Wines, IH of the Sacramento, CA '94244-2120 City of Bakersfield Fire Department on August27, 1996, the pre-approval of in-sim I bioremediation costs has been denied. The bid and proposed scope of wOrk from Smith Sacramento: CA effective remedial method. The pre-approval of costs, dated April 10, 1996, given by this 95814 :.. (916) 227-0746 office remains valid. FAX (916) 227-4530 World Wide Web: http://www.swrcb.ca. gov/-cwphome/ Sincerely, fundhome.htm I Steve Marquez Water Resources Control Engineer. cc: Howard Wines, III, City of BakerSfield Fire Department, 1715 Chester Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93301 :" Recycled Paper Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of California's water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future geherations. -i- 0~/1~,/~ 11:25 U~T CLEANUP FUN]) ~ 885 326 8576 NO. ~ ~1 ' September 9, 1996 - Pc[e Wilson Ca~EP~ RaY Graham San Joaquin Roofing Company, Inc. State Water R~sourc,s 1501 East 19th S~re~t Control ~oard Bakersfield, CA 93350 Division of Re: Claim 10536 pre-approval Clean Wat,r Programs De~ Mr. Grahm: Mailing Addm,: ' ~,o, ~o~ ~-~ Per your letter, dated April 18, 1996, ~d conversation with Hewed Wines, III of the Satiate, CA ~a~4~-~ n0 City o f B~ersfield Fire Department on August 27, 1996, the pre-approval of in-situ bioremediation costs has been denied. The bid a~d proposed scope of work ~om S~th 2014 T suite t~o Environmental, dated Oct°bet.4, 1995, appc~s to be the most cost ~d ~eatment- Sucr~ento, CA effective remedial method. The pre-approval of costs, dated April 10, 1996, given by ~is 95814 ' (¢1~) 2~7-07~0 o~ce remains 9alid. FAX (916) 2274530 World Wide Web: h~p://www.swrcb.ca. ~ndhome.htm Steve M~quez Wmer Resources Con~ol Engineer cc: Hewed Wines, III, City of B~ers!ield Fire Dep~men't, 1715 Chester Ave., B~ersfield, CA 93301 I#of · Post-It® Fax Note 7671 ~,~e~. Co. Our mi,'~lon i,~ to at~d enhance the quality ofCafi, fornia'~' water resource.Y, and Recycled ~a~r RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location: ?~-~) / ~ ( ~ ID#~ Contact Name: ~--"r'~e_ /1//~rf~ - Business Phone: ~/~ / gz7 - o748 F~: Inspemor's Name: Time of Call' Date: ~/zT/~ Time: Type of Call: Incoming [ ] Outgoing Content of Call: ~~ C'~~ ~ Time Required to Complete A~ivi~ ~ Min: ~ ~' · SUPER~ND ~NNOVA~ ~" TECHNOLOGY Demonstration Bulletin ' . . . ,.. ~ ~...., .:,..~ , ~'~ ...... ... '~...'~--' .. .. Augmented In Situ Subsu~a~ Bio~medlation Pro.ss~ .. ' ' '.' - '~ ' - ~' .... ~ .~~elin~m m~, ~ever, ~~~ ~e H-10 du~ b p~ on-~e ~d ~v~mund ~ p~ "-demon~n ~ BlO~'s bbmm~i=~n p~. .. . . ., L'mm~in~ leveb in ~i~ (4 to ~ fe~ BLS) from ~e U~id . _ ._.~-.-~...,. ~;~... . ,. .. analyaJe for hydrocm,,t~ns from .... apen bcaehalaa mmugl~-~:.eJgdffit~.d.~.ll:clmltant~i~,.~-~om:, d~lion~..' :'!.?.;:~~ I ...... ~.~,~-'~-~ .,.~'-z:~mm,.....-:~--~.~-.:,~,.., ...~:, BIO-REM submil~m:l w~ e~um~ ~ ~e S~ P~ ~ ~m~ ~ ~me ~'~ ~~~~ ~ o) ~il ~~ I~eb to m~n ~veb ~ one ~, -'~ ~. ~'!~ ~ ~~ · r~ ~m~, ~ ~ mom~ ~er ~n. D~ ~..~,~ ~ ~ ~' ~10 ~ im 1~ ~~ -' n ~me s~, were us~to e~umeme p~ ~ ..~d~~~i~~ ~d~s were d~ i~ fo~ d~ i~e~ from fo~ f~ B~ . ~ ~~ ~-~ ~e~ ~ ~e~-fl~ f~ BLS. NI ~pl~ w~e ~ f~ ~en~ '.* ~'1~ a ~~'~ e~ inM~ by ~luene, m~ene, ~ ~n~ ~m~ S~ ~1) '~~n ~ ~' S~ P~, i~ ~ ~n~ mm ~ U~e~mu~ Fuel T~ M~ ~. ~r: ,:~-~, ~.~ ~. .... .-: ~..., * .~? :~ ~ :;'.'/-:.'~.'.~ ..... * ' ' .... "'*- ':: ..... ..'~ ~n ~ ~ ~b in ~ s~;mer ~e thru the BI~R~ p~ ~ u~u~ ~ ~ **~ ~r . · . ,,, ~ - ;~& ~.~_ . .. '., ~:, . .. . . ; .. ~p~ :'.~ ~ ~; ........ ~.:** . . . were s~n~ h~her ~ the ~e~m le~b ~ 1~ ~ ~ ':'U.~ ~A*~ R~ ~in~ ~,~q]. ]*.~. *..' -- be~n~ ~ 1~ ~ for ~P~:' F~e~m, ~il ~m '?~ W~.~ ~ ~ D~ .: ..... .*'.-: ..... ~~.[~... , ~ ~e mm~n m ~e p~ e~ ~ ~e p~ R~' '~:~,'~ ~1 ,--]'~ '.' :' ;, .. ' · ':...'- . . . -.. ~ · .. -: .... ..... ~ .;..~...;/_;~:~ -';.:~,;:2::;:~:~~~ ,m-~ · ' ' :.'-'-'~::~'~*$wq';:N "'~:'.:', ~' ~'. ::-.-~.. .... · · . T~ 1. F~e~ D~n of ~ene ~ ~H ~ ~,~~ ~ ~ ' " --":~'-.'.~ · 'T~'~-~...~ ~ ~...~, . _ ~, -~ -' :' .. .. ~. ..,.-..%~.~:~ -, ~ .... . _ ~/~- ~ '.:~&~.,'~'.. . , ..: . -. ; '"~m~l .. * '" ,;::~.~;;'~ ' Number ~ ~p~ : ~ ~1~ '.-1~1,~ .~,~10~' ::'~1~,~1~,~ : _:... One Momh ~ 3 ::::.~:~ :;:.~'(~..:';:'~.'.~,.?~..' '" ~'~'"j~;. S ~me Mom~ ~ 3 :: ..... ~. :~',~:~ ~.'. ..... ~ 6 -.- T~ R~le P~m ~~ ~) -~ .... '. .. Number ~ S~pl~ <1~ · ' '.' 1~1,~. -. -. '. '. · . . ~;~- .. ~ . . .- . · . -...... ~.:,:~-~::: · . . . .. ' . B~l~e ~ , _..~ ~,~.~ ~._... _...~>~ : . · .. OneMomh ~ " . .:.: ~ :":~.~:.'~:'~.;'-~' :'~f~,'.17 ' ' ~ · -~' ~ U~h. ,.-'.-- ...... = .... :- .... :'.' ~'~"':.'~-~~,~.'~~: .-?: ?-~-.' ............ '_--. ............. ...... '.W~.:.,.-~;.;"~ .-*-...-..~ ,.p~ ;,~- -: .:~..- .:,:. '.}..:. .. · . · ... -' . '- ~ .=~ ..... . ..... -: ~. - _ ~imn~ P~bn ~ . I ~GE~.P~O " ~er ~r ~nme~ R~e~ I~o~n '"~'. ~ ~/I ....":.~ k~" . . ~,-~[~" ~:.. - . -. -. ¢.,~&('.Ld ,,~ .~ ~ . / - '" :?' -... · '.-,~ ' ' -' ' '" ' '~ '~' Pen~rP~eUse ':-'-'.,.....'. -.-'-":t~.:'?~,~' ,~' -:"-~-:.;-;,.-,~ . "'''~ .~ ' ' '": ":' '" ~ ' ' ...... '":.." ' ' ....~'~ 000~62;85 u,,B/n;~,; "-~:.- ff.- '' '"' .-"~:"-'"~ · ';:~'~ B;;~ P;tts -- ,. :'"';:'. "-,~- '~'-':"":-'-.- :'.~- ~:~"~ 2700 ~ St~ :.. ..... '";"~" .... "; ' '~" -~:~- ~,.~ S~T?; 300 . · . . . ~;~...-,' . .. ~ . ,'-~.~ - .. :~.:: .~..~.. .~.~L.; .. · ... ~.',~;,.~,-e~~ -~ .......' . .'.. -:~. .....,..;... ~,~.. .:.;,,~. ., .... ~ ~7~~. - '. · ... ..... b=~.,~. ~: ~?: " . . :~".;_.;?.,-~7'9~7-.:~'~'.",., ' ' .. ,,' .' , . '-.~: ,.,..,..~.:...~~:. -~ '.- UP-TO-DATE WAYS TO ASSESS WHEN BIOREMEDIATION WORKS I(obert S. Kerr Environmental Research ~borato~ .' ~en do~ in sim ~e current practice for panitioning ofcontaminmu ~ter when a~e bioremediation work? ~d, ch~acterizing sites does not .. to immob~e ph~, d~ution remediation c~? how cm you reliably predict adequately define the in ground ~ter ~d vol- To overcome ~ese proN success? ~ operation~ amount ofcontmination atRkation. ~erefore, if lems, the approprNte equiva- definition for judging succ~ subject to bioremediation, performmce monitoring ~ lent ofexperimen~ contmh of in situ bioremediadon at ~ a r~ult, laborato~ smdi= limited to the concentrations is a detfiled ~mcter~tion field sc~e is ~at'it meet which ~timate ~e re- ofnutrien~ md electrofi of~e site, the flow of r~ulato~ gofls for ground quiremenu at field sc~e for accepto~, it ~nnot ensure remedifl flui& and '~e fl~ wirer qufli~ in a timely electron acceptors md ~at ~e biologi~ procm ofamendmenm ~s f~hion md at a predictable minerfl nutrienu for bim d~elop~ in the laborato~ ch~acteri~tion ~Io~ an cost. Fur~er, in situ bi~ remediafion, and ~e time ~ r~ponsible for contami- ~msment of the influence of remediation is judged by iu required for remediation, nmt removfl at ~ll-s~e partitioning, d~ution or capaci~ to continue to meet have much uncert~n~ when field conditions. ~per- volatili~tion on remediation regulato~ gofls for water extrapolated to field s~e. Inimentfl controls are muflly and provides a b~h for qu~iw a~er the active ph~e contr~ to laborato~, studies,unavfilable during ~ll-scfle evfluating the relative con- of remediation is complete. ~e ~tent of remediadon implementation of in sim tribufion of bioremediation. ~ere ~e ~o factors to a~eved at field sc~e is bioremediation be~me ~e Wells have tr~itionflly addre~ N judging suttee., influenced by dilution of, technolo~ is applied been used to c~acterNe First bioremediation, par- compounds ofre~lato~ uniformly to the contami- sit~. Ground water mon- ticul~ly innovative bi~ concern in circulated water hated '~m So, how do you itoring wells flone ~nnot remediation that us~ an and p~itioning be~een ~ow whe~er it w~ ~e ~timate the to~ contain- electron acceptor other ~m ~ter md the r~idufl o~. biologi~ proc~ developed inant m~s subject to re- o~ge~, cm remove ~e Part of the problem wi~ in ~e laborato~ or some- mediation wi~in m order of compounds ofregulato~ ~e trmsfer oflaborato~ thNg else &at reduced magnitude. Most plum~ of concern from ~e subsurface r~e~ch to the field is ~at contminmt concentrations? or.nit contamination in while l~ving signifimt ~ere ~e different levels of ~d, how do you ~ow ground water originate from amounu ofoily-ph~e inqui~ in ~e laborato~ and whe~er or not fiaturfl spilN of refined petroleum hydroc~bom. Second, the in ~e field. ~borato~ bi~egm~tion will prevent hydro.bom, ~ch ~ ~olNe, ~tent ofw~ering of studies de~ wi~ biochemi~ ~e regeneration of a plume or ~orinat~ ~en~, su~ ~ r~idu~ o~y-ph~e materifl or ph~iologi~ proc~sm ofcon~inated ground trichloroe~ylene. and the hydrologic envi- ~ appropriate conuols to ronment of ~e r~idufl ~ve emure ~at only one mech- a strong influence on ~e an~m is r~pomible for ~e potentifl for ground water phenomena under study. contmination a~er active However, durNg field-s~e remediation ce~. ~ implementation ofbioreme- importan~ i~ue for deter- diation technology, s~erfl mining short-term succ~s procm~ operate con- and long-term protection is currently. ~ey may involv~ one oflaboratoff studies s~ald~tincr m~han~ for vers~ actufl field conditions, biologi~ d~tmction of~e ~e problem posed is that contminant, ~ well ~ The folio~ving article was extracted from UNDERGROUND TANK TECHNOLOGY UPDATE, Volume 8, Number 6, December' 1994, published by the Department of Engineering Professional Development, College of Engineering, UniversitT of Wisconsin. Landtreating optimization guidelines Remediators have successfully landtreated, or landfarmed, petroleum-contaminated soils for several years. (For Petroleum comprehensive definitions of bioremediation terms, see Pope and Matthews (1993).) The degree of success depends on the attention and planning given to the project Polars (NSO) Hy(trocarbons (HC) (Huesemann, 1994a). A typical landtreating procedure would consist of · sampling and site assessment · Saturates Aromatics · determining contaminant levels and characteristics Asphaltenes · estimating biodegradation potential Resins Alkanes Cyclics Mononuclear PNAs · estimating soil bacterial numbers · designing the basic landtreatment unit Straight Branched · adjusting the soil pH · adjusting the soil moisture content Figure 5. Compounds in petroleum (from Huesemann, 1994a). · adding nutrient fertilizer · adding bulking agents · tilling and irrigating · monitoring and site closure ~ Mono-aromatics Before remediators begin landtreatment, they need to take representative soil samples and apply the appropriate ~ Straight-chain alkanes statistical procedures to determine soil contaminant concentrations (Huesemann, 1994b). The process and ~,, factors that control land treatment are similar to those of ,~-~" Branched alkanes biopiles and biocells (see related article 'New York state's genedc biopile/biocell" in this issue). Saturated cyclics Relative biodegradability of petroleum (naphthenes) contaminants Petroleum products are composed of many different compounds that do not all degrade at the same rate ~ Polynuciear aromatics (Figures 5 and 6). Because of their high water solubility, ,, benzene and alkyl benzenes are easily biodegradable. The biodegradability of straight-chain or n-alkanes and branched ~ Polars alkanes or iso-alkanes depends on · carbon chain length (molecular weight); Iow molecular weight hydrocarbons are more easily biodegraded Figure 6. Relative bio(legradation potential (from Huesemann, ~ 994a ). · degree of branching; the higher-branched molecules can be resistant to biodegradation The biodegradation half-lives of naphthalenes, PNAs (pelynuclear aromatics) and polarized molecules increase witll an increasing number of dngs. Compounds with more than four dngs may not degrade Quickly enough in a landtreating scenario. · the amount of soil organic N References · the rate at which organic N recycles internally (mineral- Huesemann, M.H., 'Guidelines for Lan0treating Petroleum izaticn versus immobilization) Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soils," Journal of Soil. According to Pope and Matthews (1993), 'Reseamh and Contamination, September, 1994a: Michael Huesemann field experience indicate that C/N ratios may vary widely = works at Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratory, P.O. Box depending on the type of carbonaceous materials present.' 999, R~chland, Washington 99352. Remediators can also add fertilizer by using a fixed C:N:P Huesemann, M.H., 'Guidelines for the Development of (weight) ratio and periodically monitoring the soil N and P Effective Statistical Soil Sampling Strategies for Environ- levels (adding fertilizer when needed). . mental Applications," 1994b, in Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soils and Groundwater, Volume 4, edited by E.J. Calabrese Huesemann says: 'Most commercial fertilizers are well and P.T. Kostecki, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. suited for stimulating biodegradation." He gives fairly - . ~. comprehensive details in his paper (1994a) on this topic. Pope, D.F. and J.E. Matthews, 'Environmental' Regutations and Technology: Bioremediation Using the Land Treatment Oxygen: an essential element Concept,' 1993, EPA/600/R-93/164, report developed at the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Pope and Matthews (1993) believe that 'in many remedia- EPA, ODR, Ada, Oklahoma 74820. tion situations the essential problem is the balance between UTTU thanks Michael Huesemann, Battelle-Pacific Northwest water and oxygen: the more water, the less oxygen, and Laboratory, for his help on this article. vice versa. In the soil environment, the oxygen supply and the water supply to microorganisms are essentially inverse- ly related, since the pore space in soil is occupied by either air or water.' They found that biodegradation rate 'is more closely correlated to the rate at which oxygen and electron acceptor can be transported to the system" than to the number of micro, organisms. Bulking agents Bulking agents such as straw, mulch, wood chips, saw dust and cotton hulls hetp aerate the soil and provide for better drainage of excess water. Tilling and irrigation Pedodic rototilling and irrigation help mix and aerate the soil. Tilling more frequently than every 2 to 4 weeks may damage soil structure and speed soil water evaporation. Monitoring To maintain optimal biodegradation conditions, remediators should monitor the following: O & G, TPH, moisture, ammonia nitrogen, nitrale n~trogen and pH. Huesemann (1994a) recommends that'during the course of a land treatment project, remedlators should use the same sampling strategy, analytical methods and laboratories to eliminate data variability. Other parameters that remediators may monitor include · total heterotroph or hydrocarbon degrader microbia.~ counts · temperature and rainfall · air emissions of volatile hydrocarbons · other parameters designated by the appropriate regulatory agencies ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT KERN COUNTY Office Memorandum February 24, 1995 TO: Dan Starkey, HMS III FROM: Brian Pitts, HMS II ,~.~, SUBJECT: BIOREMEDIATION PROPOSAL FOR SHOCKLEY' S EXXON SUBMITTED BY PACIFIC RIM ENVIRONMENTAL Per your request I reviewed the subject proposal. I restricted my comments primarily to issues not already addressed in your margin notes. My comments are as follows: Section 2.5 Groundwater Data Comments in this section state that the gradient is "approximately 0.003 feet/ foot" (sic) and that a groundwater trough exists under the property. I am unable to determine where this number came from. Even so, the surface is essentially flat over the area in question. I do not think that the regional or local gradient turns or swirls at this spot. Rather, variations are most likely attributable to measurement deviation or error. Section 4.1 Definition of Plume Comments in this section state that the plume boundary "has not yet been determined." The map on Appendix A.3 defines the plume as a right-sided rectangle. It seems premature to set a remediation grid before defining the plume. Their inoculant-well spacing indicates a small radius of influence suggesting that such a determination could be critical. Section 4.2 The H-10 P~oduct This section des'cribes their bacteria as "microaerophilic" 9seudomonas and bacillus that have an ability to flourish in iow oxygen environment's. First, according to the micro book in our library and my recollection from microbiology, true microaerophilic bacteria will only grow in a narrow range of low-oxygen environments. Second, Bacillus are classified as either "strict aerobes" or "fa6ul.tative anaerobes," not micraerophiles. Third, Pseudomonas are classified as mostly "strict aerobes" with some species capable of denitrification in an anaerobic environment. Their descriptions of their bacteria appears different than what is in standard literature. Pseudomonas are well known for their ability to digest hydrocarbons and they are commonly found in soil. I am not sure how their innoculation is superior to standard augmentation where nutrients and oxygen are flushed through a system. This section states that their "proprietary micronutrients are able to work in-situ underground in less than two ppm dissolved oxygen." The statement is irrelevant. Oxygen levels are significant to the bacteria, not the "micronutrients." This section states that their bacteria does not cause "slime problem" and are "able to easily function in all soil types, specifically those soils characterized as problematic soils i.e. tight clay." The "slime problem" statement is unsubstantiated. A problem seen in tests is that bacteria bloom around well screens because of the oxygen/nutrient rich environment, creating an organic barrier. The statement regarding functioning in all soil types is absurd. On a microscopic scale, capillary attraction is extremely strong. This results in liquid and hydrocarbons permeating tight soils and electrochemically or mechanically adhering .to fine grains. When a tight formation is saturated, capillary attraction is minimized and the mechanism of chemical movement is based upon diffusion caused by concentration gradients - an extremely slow process. Bacteria can be effectively sealed out of a soil saturated with water or hydrocarbons. If bacteria does take hold it may quickly die off because the nutrients cannot diffuse inward fast enough to support them and their waste products cannot diffuse outward fast enough to keep them from poisoning .themselves. This .section describes a technique for creating a bloom prior to soil inoculation. The micronutrients are consumed by the bacteria prior to inoculation. Therefore there are no chemicals placed into the soil/water. This appears to be a rationale for getting around the regional board's past objections to putting chemicals into the groundwater. I have heard of other bioremediation proposals run into problems from the board for this reason. Section 4.7 Install Infiltrat4on P~obes and Inoculate .Contam4nated So~] and Water. Statements in this section indicate that they plan on introducing a two-thousand gallon slug of ~water, micronutrients, and bacteria above the contaminated zone. The placement will create a "bio- screen" which will prevent offsite migration of contaminant. This suggests that the material will filter downward while the bacteria consumes hydrocarbons in their paths. First, I have not seen any published literature showing that this works. Second, the moving wave of hydrocarbon-consuming bacteria will probably move in stringers and not a wave. Third, the bio-screen effect is speculative. CONCT,USION AND RRCOMMRNDATION The proposal appears to defy methodology and practices reported in peer-reviewed, published literature. Our role in reviewing proposals is to select a cost-effective technology with the highest likelihood of success. At our level of understanding of this method, it does not appear to have a high likelihood of success especially when compared to sparging and vapor extraction. In fact, the November 1993 SITE Demonstration Bulletin states that their method was unsuccessful. I recommend that we require Pacific Rim Environmental to supply peer-reviewed citations or documents that describe that their specific methodology works. Additionally, they should provide a list of sites in California where their technique has proven successful. This will give us an opportunity to learn more about their technique and expectations of success. cc: file pitts\memo\PACRIM February 24, 1995 STEVE McCALLEY. R.E.H.S. ~ 2700 "M" Street, Suite 300 DIRECTOR V Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805) 861-3636 (805) 861-3429 FAX .- April 10, 1995 Shockley's Exxon Service Station 1210 Rounds Street Delano, CA 93215 SUBJECT: In-Sim Bioremediation, Remedial Workplan Coy Shockley's Exxon 2340 High Street, Delano, CA Permit No.: 490008 Ladies and Gentlemen: This Department has reviewed the remedial action workplan prepared by Pacific Rim Environmental, submitted on January 12, 1995. We have reviewed information received and spoken with representatives from the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Section, and the Fresno Regional Water Quality Control. Board about the proposed augmented in-sim subsurface bioremediation process. This Department, along with those mentioned above, ha~edetermined that the proposed methodology is not a cost-effective cleanup technology and therefore it may not be fully reimbursed through the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Program, if unsuccessful. We believe that bioremediation is not the most appropriate remeitial method for gasoline degradatibn and that other remediation options for gasoline degradation, such as soil vapor extraction and groundwater air sparging, are effective and proven remedial technologies. This Depadment recommends that you solicit other consultants' bids/opinions on remediation methods. You may also want to review the previous bids received and resubmit a proposal that considers the results of the feasibility test that indicated in-sim vapor extraction combined with groundwater sparging as an appropriate cleanup technology for this site. If you have any questions or wish to discuss these fundings, please contact me at (805) 861-3636, Extension 8757. Sincerely, Steve Mc. Calley, D~ector By: //Dan Starkey, R.E.H.S. "Ha?ardous Materials Specialist III Hazardous Materials Management Program DS:ch cc: Pacific Rim 3101 Sillect Avenue, Suite 105 Bakersfield, CA 93308 File statkey~shocidey.let STATE OF CALIFORNIA - Environmental Pro Agency PETE WILSON, Govemor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION ~'~- 3614 E. Ashlan Avenue /(.i~,~ ~ol/ Fresno, CA 93726 PHONE: (209) 445-5116 FAX: (2(}9) 445-5910 Mr. Dan Starkey ._. 29 March 1995 Kern County Environmental Health Department ....... ~ ................. 2700 M Street, Suite 300 ' Bakersfield, CA 93301 UNDERGROUND TANK LEAK AT SHOCKLEY'S EXXON SERVICE STATION, 2340 HIGH STREET, DELANO, KERN COUNTY We reviewed the Remedial Work Plan (work plan) dated 12 January 1995. The work plan was prepared by Pacific Rim Environmental (Pacific Rim) and submitted on behalf of Coy and June Shockley. The following is a brief history of the site and summary of the work plan, followed by our comments. The site contains three 8,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) that are currently used to store diesel. However, prior to 1991, two of the USTs were used to store leaded and unleaded gasoline. In 1981 a pipeline from the USTs ruptured and approximately 2,800 gallons of gasoline were released. In April of 1989 the site experienced an additional and separate release of approximately 200 gallons of diesel from a product line. Soil samples were collected from seven locations along the entire length of the diesel product line. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-d) were detected at 3,604 and 16,424 mg/kg six feet below ground surface (bgs) at two locations. TPH-d was not detected at the remaining five locations. As a result of the diesel release, Kern County Environmental Health Department requested a site characterization be conducted to assess the vertical and lateral extent of diesel impacted soil. On 15 November 1990 AquaGeosciences, Inc., (AGI) drilled three soil borings to assess the extent of degradation. The highest concentrations of petroleum constituents were detected at a depth of 40 feet bgs in TH-1 and TH-2. No petroleum hydrocarbons were noted in boring TH-3. On 28 November 1990 a fourth boring (TH-4) was drilled to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil. TH-4 was terminated upon encountering ground water at a depth of 50 feet bgs. The analytical results of a soil sample collected near ground water did not detect TPH-d, but did detect low concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (collectively abbreviated as BTEX). On 27 February 1991 AGI installed one monitoring well (MW-l) to a depth of 65 feet bgs. Ground water was encountered at 52 feet bgs. Soil from the boring for MW-1 contained TPH-d at a maximum concentration of 100 mg/kg and total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) at a maximum concentration of 40 mg/kg. A ground water sample was collected from MW-1 on 4 April 1991 and analyzed for BTEX, TPH-g, and TPH-d. Benzene was detected at 540 ug/!, TPH-d at 550 ug/1, and TPH-g at 2,300 ug/1. Mr. Dan Starkey -2- 29 March 1995 In September 1992 two additional monitoring wells (MWs) were installed. All three MWs were sampled on 21 September 1992. TPH-d was nondetect in all three MWs. BTEX and TPH-g were found at significant levels in all three MWs. Two additional MWs were installed in March 1993 in the presumed downgradient direction. Ground water samples were collected from all five MWs on 2 April 1993 and 28 June 1993. TPH-d has been consistently nondetect in all five MWs since the initial hit in MW-1. BTEX and TPH-g results have varied significantly between rounds of sampling with all MWs containing benzene above the water quality objective at least once. MW-l, MW-2, and MW-4 have all had TPH-g above 1,000 ug/l. The work plan indicates that extent of the hydrocarbon plume has not yet been determined. Nevertheless, Pacific Rim proposes to treat the "precisely" defined area of 37 feet by 37 feet 'to a depth of 54 feet using augmented in-situ bioremediation. The augmentation consists of the addition of Bio-Rem's H-10 blend of bacteria and micronutrients. The bacteria in the blend are purported to have the ability to flourish in low oxygen environments. The work plan indicates that to verify the extent of the contaminant plume, approximately ten verification borings Will be advanced at the site. The verification borings will proceed from the area of known contamination outward. The outermost borings will be determined as they prove to be free of contamination. If contamination extends off-site, Pacific Rim will submit an addendum for 'off-site borings. Two of the borings will be converted to MWs at locations northeast and south of the underground tanks. Several of the other borings will be converted into temporary vapor monitoring points to monitor the progress of bioremediation. Any free product accumulations greater than one inch in MWs will be removed by a bailer or peristaltic pump. 'Free product of lesser thickness will be removed by absorbent socks. Once free product, if an~,, is removed and before inoculation of the H-10 blend, quarterly sampling of MWs will begin to obtain background data. Ground water monitoring will continue until site closure is obtained. Infiltration probes will be drilled on 10-foot centers to just above the zone of soil contamination. Each probe will be filled with approximately 200' gallons of the H- 10 blend and sealed with cement-bentonite grout in one continuous operation. Infiltration probes will first be drilled on the periphery of the contaminated area, beginning with the downgradient side. Progress of bioremediation will be monitored by taking monthly readings of the volatile organic compounds that collect in the headspace of the temporary vapor monitoring points and MWs. Quarterly progress reports will be submitted. When two consecutive readings reflect concentrations less than site-specific action levels, a work plan for collecting confirmation samples will be submitted. At least one confirmation sample will be collected for every hundred cubic yards of treated soil. In addition, one confirmation ground water Mr. Dan Starkey -3- 29 March 1995 sample will be collected from each MW. The results of the confirmation sampling will be contained in a request for closure. Based on our review of the work plan, we have the following comments and concerns: · As indicated in the work plan, the extent of soil and ground water degradation has not been defined. The work plan proposes to install a minimum of ten verification soil borings and two MWs tO define the extent of soil and ground water degradation. We concur with the conceptual approach presented to define the extent of soil and ground water degradation before remediation begins. (Complete definition will also assist in the evaluation of varying remedial options, e.g., soil vapor extraction with air sparging versus augmented bioremediation.) · Verification soil borings to define the extent of soil degradation should all be drilled to ground water (this may be what was proposed, but it was not clear). · The work plan proposes additional MWs to the northeast and south of the underground tanks. MWs to the north/northwest of MW-4 and west of the underground tanks are also needed to further define the extent of ground water degradation. In addition, quarterly ground water monitoring should include measurement of ground water elevations and determination of ground water gradient and contours. · Although the majority of soil degradation and all of the ground water degradation is from gasoline, diesel has been identified as a constituent of concern in soils. Therefore, all soil samples should also be analyzed for TPH-d. (Diesel soil degradation should also be considered as part of the evaluation of remediation methods.) · The work plan proposes augmented in-situ bioremediation for remediation of soil and ground water at the site. Augmentation consists of the addition of Bio-Rem's H-10 blend of bacteria and micronutrients. The bacteria in the blend are purported to have the ability to flourish in low oxygen environments. Thus, no oxygen replenishment in the subsurface is proposed. We have several reservations about the proposed remediation method, as follows: - In general, it is our belief that bioremediation is not the most appropriate remedial method for gasoline degradation and that other remediation methods for gasoline degradation such as soil vapor extraction and ground water air sparging have much better track records for being effective. In particular, we have not seen effective results with the use of Bio-Rem's H-10 blend of bacteria and micronutrients where oxygen replenishment is not used. Enclosed is a copy of an EPA Demonstration Bulletin that describes a site where Bio-Rem's H-10 product was used. The bulletin indicates that the product was unsuccessful in reducing target contaminants in the soil to the project cleanup levels. Mr. Dan Starkey -4- 29 March 1995 We also question Whether monitoring static vapors in temporary vapor monitoring points and MWs will adequately monitor the progress of bioremediation. To adequately monitor the progress of bioremediation, a much more thorough monitoring program would be required. A thorough monitoring program should endeavor to determine that 1) the desired hydrocarbon consuming bacteria are present and flourishing, and 2) bacteria are moving through the subsurface and reaching all contaminated areas, including ground water. We also have serious doubts about the ability of the proposed remediation method to remediate ground water. · The work plan's appendix included a copy of the Remediation Feasibility Report, dated July 'i993. and prepared by AquaGeosciences, Inc. The conclusion in the Remediation Feasibility Report was that soil degradation could best be remediated by soil vapor extraction and that ground water degradation could best by remediated by air sparging. These are both remedial methods that we believe are very appropriate for remediation of gasoline degradation. · We recommend that the responsible parties be encouraged to solicit other consultant's bids/opinions on remediation methods. This will allow the responsible parties to make a more informed decision concerning a remediation strategy. Lastly, it is our understanding that use of a remediation method that has been discouraged by regulatory agencies may not be fully reimbursed for costs by the UST Cleanup Fund, if unsuccessful. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the work plan. Should you.have questions .. regarding this matter, please contact Russell Walls of this office at (209) 445-6192. ./'/JOHN M. NOONAN ~" Senior Engineer RCE No. 35206 RWW:rww Enclosure (all parties) cc: Ms. Lydia Bracco, SWRCB, UST Cleanup Fund, Sacramento Mr. and Mrs. Coy and June Shockley, Shockley's Exxon Service Station, Delano Mr. Taimi Barty, Pacific Rim Environmental, San Francisco Mr. Philip Goalwin, AquaGeosciences, Inc., Bakersfield MP, R-02-19'E~ 16:::)6 FIR US EPFI RREL STDD TO 82894455910 P.la2 En~memal P~ EPA SUPER NO NOVAT 'TECHNOLOGY Domonstration Bulletin Augmented In Situ Subsurface Bioremedlation Processr BIO-REM, In~. Teohnology Description: BIO-REM's technology Is an in.situ aviatkm fuels, and other wastes containing pcdyaromafi¢ hydro- subsurface bioremediation proces~ for the t~eatment of hydrocar- carbons, pentachloropheno~, tr~chloeoethene, and o'JchJom~Jlene. ben. conl~min~ed so~s. BIO-REM uses a proprietmy product, BIO-REM claims that over two hundred hydrocarbon compounds "H-lO', of mic~oaerophilic microorganisms and n~ic~onutrients, in have been identified as being amenable to their treatment pro- co,unction with minor components of surface tension depres- cass. sants and penetrants used to enhance int~'eduction into the pore spaces of the soil. The H-10 slurry does not contain hydrogen Demonstration Activities: The BIO-REM in ~u prcx:ess was peroxide or any o~her oxygenating compounds. The BIO-REM tested at the torture' L.jquid Fuels Storage Alee on WJllia,q~ process was demon~rated on JP-4 0et fuel hydrocarbons) con- Force Base near Phoenfic Arizona. So~s at t~e 0.9 acre site ate' ta. minated soils at Williams Air Force Base, Arizona between Ma)' contaminated with hydrocarbons derived from JP-4 jet fuel as a 1992 and June 1993. result of leaking underground storage tardca and pipelines. The tanks and pipelines were removed, however, significant hydro- BIO-REM claims that the mic~oaerophilic bacteria require minimal carbon contamination exists in the sell from approximstely four oxygen, to Survive and u'dlize hydrocarbons as electron accepters, test below land surface (BLS) to the groundwater table at Therefore, subsurface oxygen concentration is not a limiting fac- proximately 225 feet below surface. tor since the microorganisms can exist and propagate uc,:lar very k)w oxygen tensions. They state that no additional sources of DIe-REM. through a sub-contract arrangement, was retained by oxygen nor additional nutrient treatments are necessary during the U.S..N'my Corps of Engineers to remediate soil at the site the course of the remediation, from four feet to twenty-five feet below land surtace. The EPA SITE Demonstration Program was invited to participate kt the The H-lO slurry is prepared o~-~e and above-ground and placed demonstration of BIO-REM's bloremediation process. directly into borings and/or walls previously drilled into the con- taminant plume. BIO-REM claimed that their in ~u process would reduce organic contaminant levels in soils (4 to 25 feet BLS) from the liquid According to BIO-REM. implementation of the technology con. Fuels Storage Area to less than the following project,pectic sists of the following steps: clean-up levels: 1. Definition and characterization of the contaminant plume CONTAMINANT CLEAN-UP LEVELS including the geology, hydrogeology, and gradient of the s~te, and the dlmensione of the contaminant plume. TRPH ° 100 rog/Kg Benzene 0.130 rog/Kg Toluene 200 rog/Kg 2. Determination of application methodology. In permeable Ethybenzene 68 rog/Kg so)is, borings and wells dn~ed into the contaminant Xylenes 44 rog/Kg plume are sufficienL Soils cortta[ni~g f;ne sand~ and clays may aJso require lancing. ' Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons In order to deliver the PL10 slurry (mioroaerophi~c bacteria and 3. Initi~izetion and propagation of H-10, and placement micronutriente) to the sub-surface soil, 316 bodngs were dnt'led (inoculation) of the batch solution into the contaminant to a depth of thirteen f~et BLS across the site. The bor~ were plume. The batch solution is placed into the contaminant placed on ten foot centers in areas of Iow to moderate contami- plume by the application methods described in Step 2. nation, and on five foot centers in areas of high sub-surface The quantify of culture and batch solution plac~cl into the contaminant plume is determined by a proprietary formula, contamin~orc The H-10 slurry was prepazed above-ground in tanks using groundwater from the site. Approximately 100,000 and is based on the type ~ level of contaminalion, gallons of the H-10 slurry were placed into the sub-surface through the network of borings. BIO-REM claimed that the pro. Waste Applicability: According to BiO-REM, a wide range of cass would require approximately six months to achieve the site- hydrocarbon contaminants can be treated by their bloremediation specific remediaJ goals and that no additions/ amendments or process. Typical contaminants include gasoline, diesel, JP series oxygen sources would be necessary. As a means of monitoring ~ Printed on Recycled Pape~ 1501 East 19th Street .o Bakersfield, CA 93305 (805) 324-2044 · FAX (805) 324-1424 License #627276 Where quality really counts! April 18, 1996 Mr. George Lockwood State Water Resources Control Board Division Of Clean Water Programs 2014 T Street, Suite 130 P.O. Box 944212 "~"~',. Sacramento, California 94244-2120 /~y. ., '..~ Subject: Remediation Bid Summary ..... :~..~-,. ':',:~ San Jeaquin Roofing, Claim"~010536 ~""~.~,._, 1501E. 19th Street B~kE. rsfield, California 93305 Mr. Lockwood: San Joaquin Roofing has received another bid, which is lower than Smith Environmental Technologies Corp. and more cost'effective in the long run. Applied Vapor Technology, Inc. has sent to us a bid of only $75,000.00 At this time, San Joaquin Roofing would like to request the pre-approval be granted to Applied Vapor Technology, Inc. instead of Smith Environmental 'Technologies, Corp. We have enclosed all the information on Applied Vapor Technology, Inc. and their method of operation and price list. See attched. If you have any questions concerning this letter please contact San Joaquin Roofing at (805) 324-2044. /\.-? = ...... t Ray Granam · STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PETE vvIL~oN, STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DIVISION OF CLEAN WATER PROGRAMS 2014 T STREET, SUITE 130 P.O. BOX 944212 ' SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94244-2120 916)227-4307 916} 227-4530 (FAX) April 10, 1996 SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING CO INC RAYMOND GRAHAM 1501 19TH ST E BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 (805) 324-1424 Fax Via Fax/ll.S. Mail I)ear Mr. Graham: I have recently reviewed your request lbr a Pre-Approval/Three Bid Reviexv regarding claim · #010536, tbr the site address of 1501 19TH ST E, BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305. Based on the submitted site investigation work scope prepared by your consultant, Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation, report dated June 26, 1995, pre-approval has been granted. The costs contained in the low bid appears to be reasonable. These bids will be placed in your file. You should note that the Reimbursement Request (RR) instructions do not allow tbr a "lump sum" type invoice submittal. Standard time and materials presentation accompanied with subcontractor invoices, work descriptions and materials lists will be required. Consultant/contractor should submit invoices that are consistent in tbrmat with the pre-approved cost estimate tbr timely reimbursement. Ifyo. u can correlate the actual billing to the bid/estimate, I should be able to do the same. When unlbrseen changes or additions occur, an explanation must accompany the RR or those cosls may not be reimbursed. Additionally all work pertbrmed must be approved betbre commencement and accepted upon completion by the lead agency to be eligible lbr reimbursement. Please make sure the consultant/contractor has the appropriate licenses to per/btm the work proposed. Fund staff'may not consider construction charges or costs by Unlicensed firlnS as eligible. Be sure to use thc USTCI'~ pre-approval l'Orln and include a phone number (FAX if available), mailing address, site address and your Claim #010536 Oll all correspondence. Please call if you have any questions, I can bc reached al (()1()) 227-4424. Sincerely, (.ieorge Lockwood Ih~dcrground Storage Tank (.'lcanup Fund APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF 'CONTAMINATION PLUME ' lrdTl' EAST 19th STREET A A' SCALE !-2 Perforation lS-20 ~ with 113 20 fbag. I-1 Per~orat~n 1r~30 ffleg with TD :30 ftleg. linch = 10 feet FIGURE 1-1 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND BID SUMMARY SHEET The following information and attachments must be submitted before any reimbursement requests covering work performed after December 2, 1991 can be approved. You must attach bid invitations, bids received, work agreements or contracts and other available supporting document a t ion....~_--.~ Claiman~~/,.~~-0.,' J ~c. Claim No. 010536 Signals ~ ._/~_(~//( .~,~_~ ~'-_~'~ Date 4-19-96 I. Selected Bid: Give complete information on the firm you selected. Name and Address Applied Vapor Techn0]0§y, Inc. Date of bid: 4-17-96 of Firm: 4540 Ca]if0rnia Avenue, Ste.500 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Bid Amount:S?5,000.00 Contact Person: Jim Zaben Telephone: (805)328-4616 II. Other' Bids: Provide information on other bids received. Name and Address Smith 5nvir0nmenta] Techn0]0§ies C0r~Date of bid: 10/4/95 of Firm: 6313 $chirra Court Bakersfield, CA 93313 Bid Amount: $ 77,505.00 Name and Address Date of bid: of Firm: Bid Amount:$ III. Justification for not obtaining bids or for obtaining fewer than three bids, if applicable (check box and provide details): ( )First $10,000 of ( )Contracted for ( )Local Agency ( )Other eligible costs work prior to force account December 2, 1991 (provide contract) Details (attach extra sheet if needed): llV. Justification for not accepting lowest bid, if applicable (Provide details, attach extra sheet if needed) '" San Joaquin Roofing Co.,Inc. has been granted the pre-approval wi%h Smith Environ- mental Technologies Corp. which was the lowest reasonable bid. However, Applied Vapor Technology, Inc. has also given us a bid which is lower than Smith Environ- '] Mental Technologies Corp. Applied Vapor Technology Inc. has assured us that, in il USTCF-BIDS (MEW 8/92) 1501 East 19th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93305 (805) 324-2044 · FAX (805) 324-1424 License #627276 Where quality really counts! # IV. PAGE -2- the long run, their method is more of an efficient and cost effective way, which is in full compliance with the desires of the EPA. San Joaquin Roofing Co.,Inc. requests that the pre-approval-be granted with Applied Vapor Technology Inc. instead of Smith Environmental Technology Corp. since Applied Vapor Tech- nology, Inc. is how the lowest bidder and has more of a cost effective method. 1 San Joafl#ln Reefing SIll:ET TASK I:.,";'i'M.>,.TE D COST Installation of 6 muti.'fiJnction inoculation ,,,,'ells $20.296.64 Soil analysis 4 quarter.~ $25.040 Drilling permits $500.00 Labor / Report generation 'S2616.10 Inocuhm~ SI 1,1470.00 Prqject Management $5.378.00 Prepare Remedial Action Plan $2.O00.00 Closure rcporl $5.200.00 Abandomnem of o xv,:l Is $2.()99.20 EsTimated Grand 'l'olal $75.000.(~() Applied Vapor Tecimology, Inc. .. 4540 Cali/bmia Avenue, St¢. 50o Bakerslield. CA. 93309 805-328-4616 805-832-9024 ,. : April ] 7, 1996 · ::: ConflflenlJa! Pall,21 I ATTACHMENT A - COST ESTIMATE SHEET SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 East 19th Streel Baker~lield, California 93305 Company: Smilh Environmenlal Technologies Corporalion Address: 1500 S. Union Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 Telephone: (805) 835.7700 Conlacl Name: Tim Reed Tasks Estimated Cost Inilial Tasks Review pasl feporls $0.00 Prepare Remedial Aclion Plan $ ! ,270.00 Installation el 5 soil vapor extraction wells Io 50 leal below grad~ - · (includes permillio, g and soil di._~spos.:d~___ $8,500.00 Vapor Exlraclion Pile! Tesl $3,400.00 Permilling el air p011ulion conlrol equ!pmen! $1,685.00 Building permils $500.00 Inslallalion and sla,'l-up el syslem (includes labor, piping maleri~ls, electrical, gas line, IostJn(~) $11.590.00 MonlhlY Tasks [~enlal of thermal oxidizer or GAC unil $2,000.00 Fu~l or ca,ben disposal and re~eneram)n $3.300.00 Labor $700.00 Monthly lOlal $6.400.00 Tolal 6 monlh operation costs (eslimaled luna ol 5VES operalion is 6 rnonlhs) $38,400.00 Pr_ojec! Man~go~!]_op_~Quarlorly Slalus }~eporls $960.00 Con/irmalion boring (3 lo 50 leel) ~(mcludes_ jgemmlir~g. .............. and soil disposal) ......................... $4,750.00 Closure report ........................... $3,200.00 Abandonmenl el 5 vapor' cxlraClion wells ......... $3,250.00 ' Estimated· Grand Total $77,505;00 l '- ~ 0?/24/96 14:02 UST CLEANUP FUND -~ 80S S26 05?6 N0.624 D02 ,--' State ~f California ,,i Memorandum TO: Mr. Howard Winos BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT FROM : Pamela Rarick, Analysl~/~ UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD SUBJECT : Claims Review Listed below are two claims tl~at I would like to review at 'your office for permit, corrective actiorl compliance, etc. I have tentatively scheduled my review for Thursday, August 15, 1996. Please let me know if you are available on this day for any questions I may have 'regarding compliance. Thank you for your assistance and if you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 227-2784. Claim No. Site Name Site Address 9910 ~ Saint Vincent De Paul Store 300 Baker St., Bakersfield 10536 · San Joaquin Roofing Co. 1501 E. 19th St,, Bakersfield / P.01 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTR~ BOARD OtVI$1QN OF eLP. A,N WATEI~ PROG~[Alvts /Zo14 T STREET, 3UITE 150 / P,O. BOX 94421Z / ~,AC~,~MENT0, ~;ALtFORNIA ,4244.2.1:[9 ~/. ,' April 1,0, 1996 SAN' JOAQUIN ROOFING CO ,RAYMOND GRAHAM 1501 19TI-I ST E BAKERSFIELD. CA 9330,~ ($05) 324-1424 Fax Dear Mr. Graham' l llave receatly reviewed your request tbr a PrC-Al,q~roval/Tl'u'e¢ Bid I~ev~cw regm'diug claim g010536, fi)t the site address ot' 150~ 19'['1..1 S'I.' E, BAKERSFIEIJ.k ~".4 933O5. Based on the submitted site investigation work ~cope prepared by ?ur consultant, Smith Enviro~'~uental Technologies Corporation, report dated .IUU~- ,:.6, 1995, preTapproval has been granted. Thc costs contained iu d~e Iow bid appears t.o be reasonable These bids wilt be l'laced in your file. You should note ~at the R.eimbursement Request (RR) insmlctions ,io nol allow .tbra "lump Standard time and materials prcsentati'on a.cc('),npanied witl~ sum" type invoice submittal. ' subcoatraetq~r itwoices, work descript'im~s and materials lists will be required. Consultanffcontractm' should submit invoices ;hat are consistent in k~q~iat 'witll ;he pre-approved mst eatimate foi 6re.ely reimbursement. Il' you can correlale the aetUa~ billing to the bi~esl, imate, ! should be able Io do tl~e same, When tmlbrseen changes or additions occur, an onpl~ation must accompany the RRm' lhose costs may not be rei. mbur:~ed, Additionally all work performed must be approved heft)re commencement and accepted upon completion by the lead agency to be eligible for .reimlyur8cment..t'lease make sure lhe consultant/contractor has the appropliate licenses to perlbrm, the work proposed. Fund st~'f may ~o'~ consider constmcthm ch~ges or costs by Unlicensed firms as'eligible. Be sm-e to use die USTCF pre-approval form and include a phone number (FAX if available),. mailing address, site address and your Claim ~010536 on all correst~tmdence. Please call if you have m'~y questions, 1 can be reached a~ ¢916) Sincerely.~ r) '"~ ~') George Lockwood~~ ~6C.~ ::. Undersround Storage 'l'a~ Clemmp Fund RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location: ./'~_~-O ( ~ lC/ ~ ID# Business Name: ~-~A-~5 ~z~.u,,-.~ ~,.~ Conta~ Name: ~~ ~~oop - ~Cg ~ ~ ~.~ Busings Phone: ~ (~ ~ ~? -'~~ F~: Insp~or's Name: ~'~ Time of C~I: Date: ~/~/~ Time: 1/:~ ~ Min: /O Type of Call: Incoming ~ Outgoing [ ] Returned Content of Call: & ~ (~)o ~s ~-~'Y-~'J~ r,~/ ~ Time Required to Complete Activity # Min: STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND BID SUMMARY SHEET The following information and attachments must be submitted before any reimbursement requests covering work performed after December 2, 1991 can be approved. You must attach bid invitations, bids received, work agreements or contracts and other available supporting documenter ion. Ciaima~t,~.~ ,..~_/~, ~----~-"Y Claim N°' 010536N0vember 8, 1995 S gnat~ / ~ ._.. Date I. Selected Bid: Give complete information on the firm you selected. Name and Address Smith Envir0nmenta] lechn010gies C0rPDate of bid: 10/4/95 of Firm: 6313 Schirra Court Bakersfield, CA 93313 Bid Amount:S77,505.00' Contact Person: Tim Reed Telephone: (805 ~35-7700 Il. Other Bids: Provide information on other bids received. Name and Address Krazan & Associates, Inc Date of bid: 10/6/95 of Firm: 215 West Dakota Ave C]0vis, CA 93612 Bid Amount:$ 72,013.63 to $85,193.63 Name and Address Ge0matrix Consultants, Inc. Date of bid: 10/27/95 of Firm: 2444 Main Street, Suite 215 Fresno, CA 93721-2734 Bid Amount:$ 99,300.00 III. Justification for not obtaining bids or for obtaining fewer than three bids, if applicable (check box and provide details): ( )First $10,000 of ( )Contracted for ( )Local Agency ( )Other eligible costs work prior to force account December 2, 1991 (provide contract) Details (attach extra sheet if needed): IIV. Justification for not accepting lowest bid, if applicable (Provide details, attach extra l~eEe~tv if ne~-d~dJ' , San Joaquin Roofing Cd.,Inc. selected .Sm' ironmen~a~ ~ecnnologies Corp. because,~! we have been dealing with this Company from the beginning when our Tank was removed. We also have a good professional workmanship with them. We did not choose Krazan & Associates bid beacuse it fluctuates from $72,013 to $85,193.63 and was not a USTCF-BIDS (b~EW 8/92) Cqoa, t~m ~oq-ms Comp.~, 1501 East 19th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93305 (805) 324-2044 · FAX (805) 324-1424 License #627276 Where quality really counts!. IV. PAGE -2- definite bid as Smith Environmental Technologies Corp. for'S77,505.00. San Joaquin Roofing Company, Inc. selected Smith Environmental Technologies for these reasons which were listed. August 30, 1995 Subject: Request for Proposal. Soil Remediation San Joaquin Roofing 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, California This Request for Proposal is'submitted at the request of San Joaquin .Roofing Company and is supported with the following proposed scope of work to be performed at the above referenced site (Plate 1, Location Map) to remediate gasoline impacted soil. BACKGROUND ~ The site is located on the southeast corner of E. 19th street and Brown 'Street, as shown on the Location May, Plate 1. A. 1,000 gallon UST, which was used to supply gasoline to San Joaquin's fleet of trucks, was located east of the office building and on the outside of the fenced 'yard (Plate 2). A'di. spenser was located within the fenced yard. It is not known when the UST Was installed and it is our understanding that San 'Joaquin discontinued use approximately 3 years ago. The property is actively, used by. San Joaquin and partially paved with asphalt. ~ On February 23, 1995, RLW Equipment Company of Bakersfield, California excavated and removed the UST from the site. The. UST excavation -.~. measured approximately 15 feet by 15 feet. The depth of the excavation is not known but is estimated to be 10 feet below grade. The excavation was backfilled following .the UST removal. Soil samples collected from the base of the excavation indicated petrOleum impacted soil remained .in the excavation. Following review of-the analytical data the Bakersfield Fire- Department (BFD) requested that the vertical and lateral extent of petroleum hydrocarbons be assessed. The assessment work was performed by Smith Environmental Technologies Inc., May 25 through 31, 1995 in compliance with the BFD, the designated Oversight agency. Findings revealed a plume of gasoline- impacted soil located under the former UST which extended from approximately'10 feet to 50 feet below grade and at a 40 foot radius from the UST. The borings extended to 75 feet below grade and did not encounter groundwater. Groundwater is anticipated to be approximately 210 feet below grade. The BFD is requiring that San Joaquin mitigate the contamination plume to acceptable levels. SCOPE OF WORK Based the present understanding of the site, the folio'wing scope of work is proposed: · Review previous Assessment Reports to familiarize yourself with the project. · Prepare a Remedial Action Plan using DEHS Site Characterization and Remediation document UT-35, revised October 1994. · Install a minimum of five vapor extraction/air inlet wells at the site with. perforated intervals designed to facilitate the removal of the hydrocarbon plume. 'The wells should be installed in 'accordance with DEHS Handbook UT-35 and UT-50. Costs are to inclUde permitting .of wells and disposal of soil and water .generated during well installations. · Perform a vapor extraction test to determine the radius of influence of the VEW's and the number of VEW's needed to-effectively remove the gasoline from the soil beneath the site. Collect air samples to be analyzed for gasoline constituents to 'determine the estimated length of the project and to confirm the appropriate size of equipment needed. Submit a vapor extraction pilot study report to the BFD and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD) with conclusions and recommendations for the treatment system .... · Apply for an Authority To Construct permit with the APCD. Obtain building permits for plumbing and electrical work prior to .installation. · Install, operate and maintain the vapor extraction system for the period of time necessary to complete the remediation. For this bid process an estimated 6 months of operation is assumed and thermal oxidation or carbon adsorption as appropriate remedial technologies. All aspects of the APCD permit must be adhered to, including sampling schedule. · Prepare quarterly progress reports for the BFD and the APCD. · At the end of the vapor extraction project, drill a minimum of three 50 foot confirmation borings, and analyze up to 6 soil samples from each boring for TPHg and BTEX. Prepare a final closure report, summarizing the remediation project and the results of the confirmation borings. Costs to include permitting of wells and disposal of soil and water generated from. borings: QUALIFICATIONS Prospective consultants mus. t be agreeable to or meet the following specifications: '1. The consultant must have at least five years experience conducting underground storage tank corrective action work in California. A statement of qualifications attesting to such experience must accompany any bid submitted. 2. The consultant .must employ qualified persons to perfOrm the work described above, including a~licensed geologist and other tech'nical ~ professionals, that possess all necessary licenses to operate within the State of California and the jurisdiction of Kern County. A list of qualified .persons who will perform the work must accompany any bid submitted. 3. The consultant must carry out the described work in a timely, professional, safe and legal manner and maintain necessary records .._~ and other safeguards to ensure that reported sample results are accurate. All work must be performed in a manner acceptable to the BFD. 4.' The consultant must provide at least three references, of previous ~.... clients for whom the consultant has performed similar work within the past five years. 5. The consultant must 'maintain general liability insurance in the amount of $500,0'00.00 and prOfessional errors and omissions liability insurance in the amount of $500,000.00 for the life of the project. San Joaquin shall not be responsible for the cost of any associated premiums. Consultant shall be responsible for any third party claims .related to the execution of work described herein, with the exception of claims filed' by' San Joaquin employees. Proof of such insurance shall be furnished to San Joaquin prior to 'the start of work. 6. Work shall be performed in a manner which will not require the cessation of business at the site unless absolutely necessary or dictated by the BFD. 7. Consultant shall provide a copy of consultant's standard services agreement and a completed schedule of charges (AttaChment A) with 'any bid submitted. The schedule of charges shall include (1) hourly rates for personnel classifications employed by consultant, (2) unit charges for 'common supplies and equipment used in corrective action work, and (3) multipliers used when charging any other direct expenses (i.e. subcontractors). 8. Consultant shall not be Paid for work beyond this scope of work without an approved change order for conducting this additional work. 9. Consultant understands that San Joaquin reserves tile right to reject any or all bids without notice or cause. San Joaquin retains the right to solicit and accept additional bids as necessary in its judgment. All bids are due two weeks from receipt of the bid package. 9..Consultant understands that San Joaquin intends to seek reimbursement for the subject wOrk from the Underground Storage "~ Tank Cleanup Fund administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, and will agree to respond to any reasonable inquiry from that agency 'regarding any claim submitted by San Joaquin.. 10. Consultant understands San Joaquin will contact references and otherwise conduct an investigation to determine to the satisfaction of San .Joaquin that consultant has the technical and financial capabilities to perform tile requested work and has established goodwill with other clients and regulatory agencies. INVOICES AND PAYMENT Consultant shall submit detailed invoices monthly' to San Joaquin. for payment. Invoices shall specify the actual costs incurred during the billing period. Invoices for consulting .services Shall i'eference the specific task for which the costs were incurred. In addition, the invoices should include when the services were performed, a breakdown for direct labor, indirect costs, travel, equipment, material and supplies, and subcontract work. San Joaquin understands that it is responsible for paying invoices from the consultant when they are due, regardless of whether or not the work is reimbursed by the SB 2004. Cleanup Fund.~ CONTENTS OF BID Responsive bids shall include all of the following items: (1) the informatiOn requested in Section C "Scope of Work," (2) a statement of qualifications for the firm, (3) a list of qualified persons who will perform the work, (4) at least three references, (5) the consultant's standard services agreement and schedule of charges. All bids shall be directed to the following, address' Mr. Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing Company 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, CA 93305 Al/ bids are due two weeks from receipt of the bid package. Enclosures: Site Characterization Report, June 26, 1995 Letter from Bakersfield Fire Department dated July 19, 1995 A'I-rACHMENT A - COST ESTIMATE SHEET SAN JOAQUIN ROORNG COMPANY 1501 East lgth Street Bakersfield, California 93305 C'ompany: Address: Telephone: Contact Name: · Tasks Estimated Cost Initial Tasks ' " ' Review past reports Prepare Remedial Action Plan Installation o! 5 soil vapor extraction wells to 50 leet below grade (includes permitting and soil disposal) Vapor Extraction Pilot Test Permitting of air pollution control equipment Building permits Installation and start-up o! system (includes labor, piping materials, electrical, gas line, testing) Monthly Tasks Rental or' thermal oxidizer or GAC unit Fuel or carbon disposal and regeneration Labor Laboratory analysis Monthly total Total 6 month operation costs ...... (estimated time of SVES operation is 6 months) Project Management/Quarterly Status Reports Completion Tasks Conlirmation boring (3 to 50 feet) -.. (includes permitting and soil disposal) Closure report Abandonment of 5 vapor extraction wells Estimated Grand Total T- ............. ~.' ...... :~eWat, er-Tanks ....... ,. · .... ...-... . . ,,.,, .... ~ ~--, , ..~ ,., ,?;,,..?.~:t ". ' ) ' .(' '?1~ :,.:' Flail · : Water 4,'14 2S.. -.. ._.~ ,... ' '-~l .... 1 ?' ..... ,_ ....... ~J ..... [ :' ,bo ....... ~.. ' Scale 1 inch ~ 2,000 fl From USGS 7.5 minule t~gr~hic m~s of Oildafe, Oil Cenler, Oosford, and ~monl ~ SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE 8~H 1501 EAST 19TI, STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA E~ME~AL TEC~IES C~ON Project Number: 8635 Location Map East 1 9th Street Office Area Gate : x x x B-3 Former Underground Storage Tank Location B-4 Former Dispenser Locatio 19,5 feet Shop Area B-1 EXPLANATION Boring Location and Number Fence 10 2O 3O 4O 5O Scale 1 inch = 25 feet 'PROJECT NUMBER: 8635 E NVI RON M~NT~d.. TEC HNOLOG IE~ CO Rpo RATION . SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST '19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA PLOT PLAN I!-" ~ ~ S ' }] Ftlel~. .g,.! FErY S~I~'TCt~S 0 (tEl:lCk' OF E~'VIROt~5~!~'N'E~ I. auly 19, 1995 Mr. Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, CA 93303 RE: Results of site characterization of the property located at 1501 East 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. Dear Mr. Graham, This office has reviewed the site characterization report submitted by you for the property located at the above stated address. Laboratory results reveal petroleum hydrocarbons are present in the soil at levels exceeding limits allowable by state guidelines. The San Joaquln Roofing Company is hereby notified that mitigation of the contamination plume to acceptable levels is required by this office. This office accepts option 2, listed in the site characterzation study, vapor extraction as the most practical~ method for accomplishing a reduction in the hydrocarbon levels detected at the site. However, if you, or your consultant have an alternate me.thod you wish.to employ you may submit a request to this office for review and approval. Please...respond within twenty (20) working days from receipt_of this letter as to your intention regarding this matter and a time table for carrying them out. If you have'any, questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Technician HHW/dlm CL ~ o.~ BAKERSFIELD · FIRE SAFETY SERVICES & OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1715 CHESTER AVE. · BAKERSFIELD, CA · 93301 V/(_,U~,~ R.E. HUEY R.B. TOBIAS, HAZ-MAT COORDINATOR FIRE MARSHAL (805) 326-3970 [805) 326-3951 July 19, 1995 Mr. Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, CA 93303 RE: Results of site characterization of the property located at 1501 East 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. Dear Mr. Graham, This office has reviewed the site characterization report submitted- by you for the property located at the above stated address. Laboratory results reveal petroleum hydrocarbons are present in'the soil at levels exceeding limits allowable by state guidelines. The San Joaquin Roofing Company is hereby notified that mitigation of the contamination plume to acceptable levels is required by this office. This office accepts option 2, listed in the site characterzation study, vapor extraction as the most practical method for accomplishing a reduction in the hydrocarbon levels detected at.the site. However, if you, or your consultant have an alternate method you wish to employ you may submit a request to this office for review and approval. Please respond within twenty (20) working days from receipt of this letter as to your intention regarding this matter and a time table for carrying them out. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely, / Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Technician HHW/dlm ~-~:--"~:'; ATTACHMENT A - COST ESTIMATE SHEET -- SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 Company: Smith Environmental Technologie~ Corporation Address: 1500 S. Union Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 Telephone: (805) 835-7700 Contact Name: Tim Reed Tasks- Estimated Cost Initial Tasks Review past reports $0.00 Prepare Remedial Action Plan $1,270.00 Installation of 5 soil vapor extraction wells to 50 feet below grade (includes permitting and soil disposal) $8,500.00 Vapor Extraction Pilot Test $3,400.00 Permitting of air pollution control equipment $1,685.00 Building permits $500.00 Installation and start-up of system (includes labor, piping materials, electrical, gas line, testing) $11,590.00 Monthly Tasks Rental of thermal oxidizer or GAC unit $2,000.00 Fuel or carbon disposal and regeneration $3,300.00 Labor $700.00 Laboratory analysis $400.00 Monthly total $6,400.00 Total 6 month operation costs (estimated time ol SVES operation is 6 months) $38,400.00 Project Management/Quarterly Status Reports $960.00 Completion Tasks Confirmation boring (3 to 50 feet) (includes permitting and soil disposal) $4,750.00 Closure report $3,200.00 Abandonment of 5 vapor extraction wells $3,250.00 Estimated Grand Total $77,505.00 ENV~RONMENT^L TECHNOLOGIES CORPO~ATION October 4, 1995 Mr. Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 Subject: Proposal for Soil Remediation at San Joaquin Roofing 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 Dear Mr. Graham: Smith Environmental Technologies, Inc. (Smith Environmental) is pleased to present this proposal for the soil remediation for San Joaquin Roofing Company at the yard at 1501 East 19th Street in Bakersfield, California. Project Understanding The site is located on the southeast corner of East 19th Street and Brown Street, as shown on the Location Map, Plate 1. A 1,000 gallon UST, which was used to supply gasoline to San Joaquin's fleet of trucks, was located east of the office building and on the outside of the fenced yard (Plate 2). A dispenser was located within the fenced yard. It is not known when the UST was installed and it is our understanding that San Joaquin discontinued use approximately 3 years ago. The property is actively used by San Joaquin Roofing and is' partially paved with asphalt. On February 23, 1995, RLW Equipment Company of Bakersfield, Califo~-nia excavated and removed the UST from the site. The UST excavation measured approximately 15 feet by 15 feet. The depth of the excavation is not known but is estimated to be 10 feet below grade. The excavation was-backfilled following the UST removal. Soil samples collected from the base of the excavation indicated petroleum impacted soil remained in the excavation. Following review of the 1500 Souih Union Avenue · Bakersfield, CA 93307 · (805) 835-7700 · fax (805) 835-7717 SIV H analytical data, the Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD) requested that the vertical and lateral extent of petroleum hydrocarbons be assessed. In May 1995, Smith Environmental advanced four soil borings to assess the areal extent of petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil. Findings revealed a plume of petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) impacted soil under the former UST and extending to approximately 10 to 50 feet below grade and approximately 40 foot radially away from the former UST location. The impacted soil occurs primarily in a silty sand to sandy silt unit from 20 to 50 feet below grade. Scope of Work Smith Environmental will accomplish clean-up of the site by soil vapor extraction. This includes conducting a soil vapor extraction test to evaluate the area of influence and the appropriate size of the equipment, required. Using this information, Smith Environmental will prepare a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for approval by the BFD. The RAP will include results of the soil vapor extraction pilot test, a detailed description of the remediation system, well layout, target clean-up concentrations for TPHg and the constituents benzene, toluene, ethyibenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX), and a sampling and analysis plan to monitor effectiveness of the soil vapor extraction system (SVES). Upon approval of the RAP, Smith Environmental will secure the permits, install, and test the SVES. Smith Environmental will operate the SVES, collect air samples to determine the effectiveness, and prepare quarterly reports for submission to the BFD. "For the purpose of this proposal a six month operation time is assumed and that adequate amperage is currently available at the site. When the data indicate that adequate removal of the petroleum hydrocarbons has occurred, confirmation borings will be advanced and soil samples will be collected to assess the remaining concentrations of TPHg and BTEX. Smith Environmental will submit a final report to the BFD recommending site closure when target concentrations have been achieved. The proposed work will be conducted in compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations. A site specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) will be prepared for all phases of the project and will comply with 29 CFR 1910.120. The following tasks describe the work required to complete the Scope of Work. SM' i'H Task I - Soil Vapor Ext'raction Pilot Test · Contact Underground Services Alert (USA) to located subsurface utilities within the public right-of-way. Obtain appropriate drilling permits. · Contract with a drilling company to advance a minimum of five eight-inch diameter soil borings to approximately 50 feet below grade. Plate 2 presents the proposed boring locations. Drilling will be observed by a State of California Registered Geologist or a field geologist under the direct supervision of a registered geologist. The field geologist will log the soil encountered using the Unified Soil Classification System. · Collect soil samples at a minimum of one sample every 5 feet and at obvious changes in soil type. Samples will be collected using a California-modified, split-spoon sampler lined with three 6-inch long brass or stainless steel tubes. Samples will be field screened with field instruments (PID or FID) to evaluate relative concentrations of volatile organic chemicals. · Convert the borings to soil vapor extraction wells. The wells will be constructed using 2- inch diameter schedule 40 PVC and will be screened in the zone(s) with the higl~est relative volatile organic chemical concentrations as indicated by the PID or FID field instrument. · Conduct a soil vapor pilot extraction test 'to evaluate the effectiveness of vapor extraction remediation techniques on the removal of volatile organic chemicals from the soil vapor plume, to size the equipment needed, and to establish volatile organic concentration at the piezometer locations during the operation of the test. Air samples will be collected at the beginning, middle, and end of the extraction test. The test will run until equilibrium conditions are reached at soil well locations. Equilibrium conditions will be measured using manometers placed on the soil wells and PID or FID readings. Air samples will be analyzed by Smith Environmental for total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations. SM' i'H Task 2 - Remedial Action Plan · Submit a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to the BFD for approval. Task 3 - Soil Vapor Extraction System · Obtain all permits to build, construct, and operate the SVES · 'Install subsurface piping, blower, treatment system (thermal oxidizer or granulated activated carbon), and monitoring system. Hookup to onsite electricity, it is assumed that sufficient amperage is currently available at the site. · Collect air samples at the start-up of the system and thereafter per permit requirements. Task 4 - Quarterly Progress Reports · Collect and analyze air samples from the soil vapor wells at a minimum of one per month. · Prepare Quarterly Progress Reports for BFD. The report will include the amount of TPHg removed, operating parameters of the SVES, and work to be completed in the next quarter. Task 5 - Remedial Action Report · Advance three eight-inch diameter confirmation soil borings to approximately 50 feet below grade. Collect soil samples at a minimum of one sample every 5 feet and at obvious changes in soil type. Samples will be collected using a California-modified, split-spoon sampler lined with three 6-inch long brass or stainless steel tubes. Drilling will be observed by a State of California Registered Geologist or a field geologist under the direct supervision of a registered geologist. The field geologist will log the soil encountered using the Unified Soil Classification System. · Samples will be field screened with field insiruments (PlD or FID) to evaluate relative concentrations of volatile organic chemicals. Select soil samples will be submitted to a California Department of Health Services certified laboratory' for analysis. · Prepare final Remedial Action Report describing the project, the TPHg and BTEX concentrations remaining in the soil, and recommendations. Task 6 - Site Closure · Pressure grout the soil vapor extraction wells to restore the subsurface to a permeability less than the native material. · Prepare letter report for BFD documenting well destruction. Smith Environmental will perform the Scope of Work for an estimated cost of $77,.505.00 (see the enclosed Attachment A). It is Smith Environmental's estimate that the work should 'commence within 10 days from the receipt of an executed contract. We have enclosed a copy for your files along with an Environmental Services Agreement, a 1995 Rate Schedule and a Statement of Qualifications. This quote is valid for sixty days from the above date. Sincerely, SMITH ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Timothy C. Reed, R.G. 5999 Technical Services Manager Attach: Attachment A - Cost Estimate Sheet Environmental Services Agreement Rate Schedule Statement of Qualifications SCHEDULE OF FEES The following Schedule of Fees is provided to our clients for their use in project cost planning and analysis. Our fees are payable upon project completion, upon issuance of a final report, or on monthly statements. Prepayment for large contracts are usually prorated during contract negotiations, and may, in some instances, be precluded in lieu of a specified payment schedule. BASIS OF TIME STRAIGHT TIME: Monday through Friday,. 8 hours per day between 7i00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. OVERTIME: After 8 hours a day or 40 hours a weeks PREMIUM TIME: Alllday Sunday and National HolidaYs SUBSISTENCE: Per Man/Day - $75.00 Automobiles and pickup trucks charged at $ 0.35 per mile. Materials and subcontracted equipment and tasks are charged·at cost plus 15%. Materials and special equipment are in addition· 'to the above hourly rates. Fees required by Governmental agencies are to be paid at cost due at procurement. Rates subject to change within 10 days notice. Invoices are due and payable upon presentation. After 30 days, a finance charge at the maximum rate allowable by law is charged. Actual attorney fees and all other costs and ·expenses which :may be incurred for 'nonpayment of obligation are' an additional charge due and payable. All terms and conditions of Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation (Smith Envh'onmental) standard project contract are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Other services are given by current quote to include engineering geologic ... service, other laboratory testing and computer modeling. " All services are available to be reviewed for quantity discount pricing. SM H TECHNICAL PERSONNEL RATE/HR Salaried Project Sponsor . $ 105.00 · Senior/Registered Engineer $ 90.00 Senior/Registered Geologist $ 90.00 Certified Industrial Hygienist $ 90.00 Associate Engineer/Geologist $ 75.00 Project Manager $ 70.00 Staff Engineer $ 65.00 Staff Hydrogeologist $ 65.00 Staff Geologist $ 65.00 Emergency Response Coordinator $ 65.00 Environmental Scientist $ 62.00 Chemist $ 62.00 Health & Safety Officer $ 60.00 Administrative Support Strait Time Over Time Draftsperson $ 45.00 $ 55.00 Project Cost Accountant '. $ 37.00 $ 45.00 Secretary $ 35.00 $ 43.00 Hourly-Hazmat. Foreman $ 65.00 $ 79.00 Equipment Operator $ 40.00 $ 53.00 Technician II $ 50.00 $ 60.00 Technician I $ 45.00 $ 52.00 Warehouseman $ 45.00 $ 52.00 EQUIPMENT/SERVICES UL 142 Portable Storage Tanks (500 gallon) $ 10.00/day Well Development/Purge Pumps $ 50.00/day ' (bladder gas .drive, submers!ble) Air Stripper Rental $ 500.00/month Solinist Water Level Meter $ 20.00/day Thenn/Catox Rental (200 SCFM) $1,500.00/month Therm/Catox Rental (300 SCFM) $ 2,000.00/month Vapor Extraction Test Unit $ 500/day Air Sparge Test Unit $ 750/day YSI TLC 3000 $ 40.00/day OVA/108 or 125 $ 45.00/day HNU PID $ 50.00/day PhotOvac 10S Portable Gas Chromatograph $ 2500.00/month Interface Detector oil/water $ 25.00/day DOT - Approved Drums $ 35.00/each Data Logger $ 100/day Transducers $ 25/day each MONITORING WELLS (the following are typical Costs) Hollow-Stem Auger Rig (B-53) $ i40.00/hr Mobilization $ 150.00 Demobilization : $ 150.00 Decon Trailer (with Drilling Rig) $ 0.00 Steamcleaner (with Drilling Rig) $ 0.00 Travel/Standby · $ 125.00/hr Well Head (12") $ 75.00/ea Bentonite $ 7.75/501b bag Bentonite Pellets $ 31.00/bkt Brass Sample Tubes $ 6.00lea Glass Sample Jm's $ 2.16/each Ce~nent $ 7.50/sack Ring Caps $ 1.04/ea LABORATORY (typical prices) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons due to Gasoline $ 65.00/sample Total Petroleum HYdrocarbons due to Diesel Fuel $ 65.00/sample Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Oil) $ 45.00/sample Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons with Lead $ 90.00/sample CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT RATES/HR Minimum Vacumn Truck w/operator $ 70.00/hr 4 hr Backhoe w/operator $ 75.00/hr 4 hr Backhoe w/breaker $ 85.00/hr 4 hr Dump Truck (6 yards) $ 50.00/hr 4 hr Excavator (220) $75.00/hr 4 hr Mini-Excavator $ 55.00/hr 4 hr · Mini-Excavator w/breaker $ 70.00/hr 4 hr Loader (1/3 yard) $ 30.00/hr 4 hr wacker Compactor $ 70.00/day 1 day Water Truck $ 250.00/day 4 hr Generator-120 v:/240v $30.00/day -- ' Sawcutting . $ 2.10/ft. -- Demo-hammer' $ 65.00/day -- Air Compressor $ 80.00/day --- Cement Mixer $175.00/day -- Steam Cleaner (3,000 p.s.i) $125.00/day -- Transfer Pumps $ 50.00/day -- SM' i'H ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGREEMENT DATED: October 4. 1995 BETWEEN: SMITH ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. "SMITH" AND: Mr. Ray Grahmn San Joaquin Roofing 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 SMITH agrees to provide environmental services to Customer and Customer agrees to purchase such services from SMITH on tile following terms and conditions: 1. DEFINITIONS. 1.1. SMITH. "SMITH" means SMITH and its officers, directors, employees, agents, subcontractors and its affiliates, divisions and subsidiaries. 1.2. Customer. '"Customer" means Customer, its affiliates, divisions and subsidiaries, if ally, and its officers, directors, employees, agents and subcontractors. 1.3. Hazardous Substance. "Hazardous substance" shall include any and all substances defined or identified as hazardous substances under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and other applicable Federal and state regulations as of the date of this Agreement, and petroleum (including crude oil and any of its fractions) but shall not include high level radioactive materials as defined by the Atomic Energy Act or materials or substances designed or produced for use as explosives. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED~ 2.1. Statement of Services. "Statement of Services" is a detailed description of the services to be performed and includes an estimated performance schedule, cost estimate and schedule of rates. The Statemet~t of Services ;.s incorporated into this agreement as "Attachment A". 2.2. Extra Work. Change Order. Should it become necessary, either the Customer or SMITH, can suggest that the State~ne~t of Services be modified, including changes in sequence or schedulingl If such a suggestion is made, then SMITH will: ' 1) Pi'ovide a written estimate of the cost increase or decrease due to the change and 2) Recalculate the completion date and the impact the proposed change will have on existing governmental permits, waste disposal agreements, and other relationships that are directly related to the project. Page 1 - Environmental Services Agreement October 4, 1995 2.2.1. If the Customer elects to make the change, the Customer will issue a written "Change Order" for the work. If the Customer so instructs, in writing, SMITH will suspend work on that portion of the project affected by the proposed change, pending the final decision to proceed with the change. This Change Order will be an amend~nent to the Statement of Services and will include all necessary changes in sequence, scheduling and cost structure. If SMITH has been instructed by Customer to suspend work in accordance with this paragraph, SMITH will not commence the work on that po,rtion Of the project affected until a written Change Order has been 3. TIMELY PERFORMANCE. SMITH understands that time is of the essence and agrees to commence and complete the services to be performed hereunder promptly, consistent with the time limits specified in the Statement of Services, after being directed by Customer to do SO. 4. TERM: TERMINATION. 4.1. Term. The effective date of this Agreement is the date shown in the title. The agreement will continue in effect until the project described in the statement of Services is' completed and accepted by the Customer, or until terminated by operation of this agreement. 4.2. Termination. This agreement maY be terminated with or without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. 4.3. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon forty-eight (48) hours written notice should the. other party fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms through no fault of the. party initiating the termination, provided the party initiating the termination notice has given the other party notice of the deficiency and allowed that party a reasonable period of time to cure same before notice of termination is issued. 4.4. In the event of termination not the fault of SMITH, Customer shall .compensate SMITH for all services and work performed prior to termination as well as its charges for demobilization in accordance with SMITH's standard charges. 4.5. Upon termination of this Agreement, SMITH will prepare a final invoice for all 'services performed to the date of termination, and Customer will pay such invoice pursuant to the terms of Section 4 below. If such termination is at the request of Customer, Customer will reimburse SMITH for any reasonable costs SMITH incurs to effect the termination. 4.6. SMITH and/or Customer ~nay suspend or terminate this agreement if any one of the following conditions exist:' 4.7. In the event of a Force Majeure, as described in Section 11.7, takes place and said event continues' for a period which under the circumstances makes it unreasonable to continue this project, then either SMITH and/or Customer may terminate this agreement by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other of'the intent to'terminate. In addition to the payment for services performed, SMITH 'will be reasonably compensated for its expenses to secure the hazardous materials involved in this project from public exposure. Page 2 - Environmental Services Agreement October 4, 1995 SM' 'H .-. 5. PAYMENT. 5.1. Service Charges. -Customer will pay SMITH for all services provided under this Agreement as set forth in the Statement'of Services. 5.2. Governmental Requirements. Customer acknowledges that services that may be provided by SMITH under this Agreement are governed and regulated by certain state, federal and local laws and the regulations and other requirements of various government agencies with .jurisdiction over environmental tnatters (collectively referred to as "governmental requirements"). To the extent that'any governmental requirement increases the scope of the services to be rendered and the expenses associated with such services, the parties shall proceed with a modification of the Statement of Services pursuant to Section 2.2.. 5.3. Invoicing and Records. SMITH will invoice Customer monthly for all current charges and expenses. SMITH will maintain accurate records of all labor, materials, supplies and other items provided to Customer under this Agree~nent for purposes of verifying expenses incurred by SMITH in connection with its.provision of services to Customer. SMITH will make such records available to Customer during business hours at SMITH's main office in Portland, Oregon for two years after conclusion of the services to which such records relate, upon 72 hours written request for records. Customer agrees to pay any and all costs associated with a request for reproduction of such records. ' 5.4. Payment. Customer shall pay the full amount of all invoiced charges and expenses to SMITH within 30 days after Customer's receipt of an invoice. If Customer fails to make any payment when due, SMITH may assess a late charge of 2 percent per month (or the maximum rate permitted by law, whichever is less) on the unpaid balance until paid. 6. HANDLING OF HAZARDOUS'SUBSTANCES. 6.1. General. In its perforniance of this Agreement, SMITH may handle certain hazardous substances. Customer acknowledges that, as between SMITH and Customer, Customer shall be deemed to have exclusive title to'all hazardous substances and any contaminated real or personal property in existence prior ~o and involved in this Agreement. Customer further acknowledges that SMITH: (a) is not, has not been and will not be the generator (as that term is defined by law)of any hazardous substance; (b) has not taken and will not take title to or otherwise own any hazardous substance; tu~d '(c) is not, has nOt been and will not be in possession or control .of any hazardous substance, except as Customer's agent. 6.2. Selection of Facility: Transport. If performance of this Agreement requires the treatment or disposal of any hazardous substance, SMITH will transport the substance, or cause the substance to be transported, only to a dispOsal or treatment facility selected by Customer. Any transportation undertaken or arranged by SMITH under this Agreement is undertaken or arranged by SMITH solely as Customer's .agent' and under Customer's direction. Page 3 - Environmental Services Agreement October 4, 1995 SM"I'H 6.2.1. Transportation Permits. Customer hereby designates SMITH as CUstomer's agent for the purpose of obtaining all permits and authorizations required in connection with the transportation of hazardous substances to the disposal and/or treatment facility selected by Customer. 6.3. Generator Numbers. If any hazardous subsiance is designated by any governmental authority as a "Hazardous Waste" (or any similar designation) then,'as a condition precedent to SMITH's performance under this Agreement with respect to such substance, Customer shall provide SMITH with Customer's EPA identification number and any other identification or authorization required by law or assigned to Customer by any governmental authority for such substance. If Customer does not have an EPA identification number or other required identification or authorization, SMITH will assist Customer in obtaining the same. 7. CONTRACTUAL WARRANTIES AND LIMITS OF LIABILITY. 7.1. Services Warranty and Limitation. SMITH warrants that its provision of all services under this Agreement will conform to the standards of care, skill and diligence normally observed by professionals in the provision of similar services as of the time SMITH provides such services. 'THIS WARRANTY IS IN LIEU OF, AND EXCLUDES, ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, STANDARDS AND GUARANTEES, WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, ARISING BY OPERATION OF LAW'OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND ANY WARRANTY OF ANY EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, PROCESS OR SYSTEM EMPLOYED OR PROVIDED BY SMITH. Customer's sole remedy and SMITH's sole liability for breach of the warranty set' forth in this Section shall be the reperformance of the services in question to the extent necessary to cure the breach'. Such remedy will be available to Customer only if Custome~ reports the breach to SMITH within a reasonable period of time after discovery of the breach and in any event not later than one year' after completion of the service in question or termination of this Agreement, Whichever is earlier: In no event will SMITH's obligation to reperform services exceed in cost $1,000,000 Or 'the compensation actually paid to SMITH by Customer pursuant to this Agreement, whichever is less. 7.2. Performance Liens. Upon submission.of the final statement or invoice for the services performed, SMITH shall warrant that there are no amounts owed by it or by any of its tier subcontractors which could become the basis for a lien against Customer's property. Further, in consideration of the final payment due SMITH under this Agreement, SMITH hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Customer harmless against any lien arising out of or resulting in any way from SMITH's or its subcontractor's performance of this Agreement. 8. ' INDEMNIFICATION. .... 8.1. SMITH agrees to indemnify, defend and-hold harmless Customer, its directors, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, cost or expenses including reasonable attorneys fees and causes of action for bodily injury to or death of'any person or destruction of or damage to any proPerty that occurred as a result of the negligence or intentional acts of SMITH, its agents, employees or subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement, or,' any of its employees or agents to observe or comply with any of SMITH's duties and obligations under this .Agreement except to the extent such liabilities, claims, demands and causes of action occurred as'a result of Customer's failure to comply'with and fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, or, as a result of the negligence or intentional acts of the Customer. Page 4 - Environmental Services Agreement' October 4, 1995 8.2. Customer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless SMITH, its · directors, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, cost or expenses including reasonable attorneys fees and causes of action for bodily injury to or death of any person or destruction of or damag.e to any property that occurred as a result of the negligence or intentional acts of Customer, its agents, employee or subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement, or, failure of Customer or any of its employees or agents to observe or comply with any of Customer's duties and obligations under this Agreement except to the extent such liabilities, claims, demands'and causes of action occurred as a result of SMITH's t~ailure to comply with and fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, or, as a result, of the negligence or intentional acts of SMITH. , .. 8.3.· Customer shall indemnify and hold harmless SMITH, its directors, officers, employees, agents and subcontractors against any and all liabilities, costs or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, for claims, demands and/or Causes of action asserted and/or filed by third persOns not parties to this Agreement, arising out of or as a result of: (i) damages caused by hazardous site conditions which existed on site or extendedfrom the site prior to SMITH's entry to commence hazardous material clean-up operations; and/or (ii) the performance of services on the site by SMITH or its subcontractors under the terms of this agreement, except to the extent that · such liabilities, claims, demands, causes o~' action,: Costs and expenses are caused by the fault or negligence of SMITH, its directors, officers, agents, employees or subcontractors. 8.4. Where both SMITH and Customer's negligence contributed to the liability producing ·situation, each party shall be responsible for any resultant damages in proportion to its relative degree of fault. 9. · LIMITS OF LIABILITY. 9.1. Consequential Damages. Neither party, shall be liable to the other for any indirect, special, or consequential damages, including but not limited to loss of profit or products whether such liability is based, or claimed to be based, upon any negligent act or omission of a · party or its personnel; or whether such liability is based, or claimed to be based, upon any breach of a party's obligations, under this,Agreement. 9.2 Hazardous SubstanceS. SMITH shall not be liable to Customer (or any person claiming through Customer) in any·amount for any personal injury, illness, death or property damage caused in whole or in part by a hazardous substance or any other substance regulated by law, handled by SMITH in the performance of this Agreement, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence of SMITH. Customer hereby releases SMITH from any and all such 10. INSURANCE. " SMITH shall at its own cost and expense procure and keep in force and effect the ' - insurance listed below with insurance carrier(s) acceptable to Customer. Before commencing any work, SMITH shall fumish Customer with Certificates of Insurance attested by a duly authorized representative of the insurance carrier(s) evidencing that the insurance required hereunder is in force and effect and that such insurance will not be canceled or materially changed without giving · to Customer at least 30 days prior written notice. In the 'event SMITH fails to furnish Customer with acceptable Certificates of Insurance before the time named, in this Agreement for commencing work, Customer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. Page 5 - Enviromnental Services Agree~nent October 4, 1995 .SM' i'H (a) Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance: SMITH and all subcontractors retained by or through SMITH, and all their employees; workmen, 'agents, and servants shall comply with all requirements of the worker's or workmen's compensation laws of the state or states or other governmental authority in which SMITH or any subcontractor retained by or through SMITH is performing any .work hereunder. In addition, SMITH shall carry Employer's Liability Insurance covering all operations and work hereunder in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. (b) General Liability Insurance and Auto~nobile Liability Insurance to protect against any and all claims for damages to persons or property which may arise Out of the operations under this Agreement: (1) General Liability insurance shall be on' an occurrence form and shall include coverage for acts of Contractor, Subcontractors, and anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them. Such insurance shall include blanket contractual coverage, products and completed operations, and broad form property damage and all other standard coverages usually afforded by a commercial general liability policy. The amount shall be $1,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage. Such insurance shall name Customer as 'additional insured; (2) Automobile Liability insurance on all motor vehicles owned, hired, or non-owned, which may be used or connected with any of the work hereunder. The amount shall be $1,000,000 combined single limit for.bodily injury and property damage. (c) Contractors Pollution Legal Liability providing coverage on claims made policy form for bodily.inj, ury and property damage arising out of the gradual, sudden and accidental emission of pollutants with limits of $1,000;000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 aggregate. Customer will be named as additional insured, but only as respects the operations and negligence of SMITH. : 11. MISCELLANEOUS. · · 11.1. Independent Contractor.' Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, including but not limited to Section 2,' SMITH is not Customer's employee and shall be considered an independent contractor for all 'purposes .of this Agreement and otherwise. SMITH will not be deemed liable for Customer's selection of any parties contracted by Customer for any purpose or for the acts or omissions of such parties. 11.2. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned by either SMITH or Customer without the written consent Of the other party; provided, however, that SMITH may without Customer's consent enter into anY subconti:act(s) f°r the performance of its obligations under this Agreement as SMITH deems necessary or desirable'. 11.3. Modification. This Agreement may not be modified except by an agreement in writing signed by both SMITH and Customer. 11.4. Attomeysl Fees. 'If any suit Or action is.instituted to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the party not prevailing in such action or suit shall pay to the prevailing party such sums as the court ~nay adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees at trial or on appeal of such action, in addition to all other sums provided by: law. Page 6 - 'Environmental Services 'Agreement: October 4, 1995 ! 1.5..Compliance with Law. 11.5.1 .' SMITH. In its provision of services under this Agreement, SMITH will comply with all applicable laws in effect at the time that such services are performed and will comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, and all valid rules and regulations of federal and state agencies regarding nondiscrimination in emPloyment practices, to the extent that such rules and regulations apply to employment at th.e.!og..atigns, covered by this Agreement. 11.5.2. ' Customer. Customer'will at its solecost and expense comply with all laws relevant to the subject matter of this Agreement, including all laws applicable to hazardous substances. : .... 11.6. Permits. Access and Cooperation. Customer will at its sole cost and expense obtain and maintain all governmental permits and approvals (to the extent that such permits and approvals can be obtained solely by Customer), and any permission to enter onto the property of any third parties, as may be required in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and will otherwise fully cooperate with SMITH in!'the performance of this Agree~nent. 11.7. Force Majeure. Neither CUstomer nor SMITH shall be considered in default in the performance of its'obligations under this Agreement, except obligations to make payments pursuant to Sections 5~7~8 and 9, to t,lle extent.that the performance of any such obligation is prevented or delayed: by acts of God, a public enemy, restraint of the government (other than governmental requirements as described in Section 5.2.), strikes or any causes of any nature that could not with reasonable diligence'be controlled or prevented by the party whose performance is prevented or delayed.: In the event' that any governmental requirement, as defined in Section 4.3, or any force majeure'event described in this Section delays or increases the time required for SMITH's performance under this Agreement, . the time for such performance will be extended for as long as is reasonably necessary in light of such force majeure event. In the event that the cost of SMITH's performance of this 'Agreement is increased by any force majeure event described in this Section, Customer will pay all increased costs reasonably resulting from such force majeure event unless this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 4.7. 11.8 Notices. All.notices required under this Agreement shall be given in writing to SMITH to: : · . ~ Timothy C: Reed ' : District Technical Services Manager ..... smith Environmental TechnOlogies Corporation 1500 S. Union'Avenue Bakersfield, California :. and to Customer at: Mr. Ray Graham ' ' "' San Joaquin Roofing ~ 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 Page.7 - Environmental Services Agreement October 4, 1995 All such notices shall be personally delivered or sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be deemed given when received and shall be deemed received when personally delivered or 48 hours after they are postmarked, if sent by mail. 11.9. 'Integration. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Customer and SMITH relating to the subject matter of the Agreement and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings.. : 11.10. Severability. If in any judicial proceeding a court shall refuse to entbrce all the provisions of this Agreement, the scope of any unenforceable provision shall be deemed modified and diminished to the extent necessary to render such provision valid and enforceable. In any event, the validity or enforceability of any such provision shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, 'and .this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such provision had not been included. ~' .. 11.11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed under the laws of the State of Oregon. 11.12. Waiver. Any waiver with respect to the provisions of this Agreement shall not be effective unless in writing and signed by the party against whom it is asserted. No such waiver shall constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach or default. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto.haveentered into this Agreement effective as of the day and year established herein. ~' By: Title: Date: SMITH ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION By: Timothy C. Reed Title: District Technical SerVices Manager ., Date: October 4, 1995 : Page 8 - Environmental Services' Agreement:. .. October 4, 1995 ATTACHMENT A Date: October 4, 1995 Client: Mr. Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 ProjeCt Manager: Timothy C. Reed San Joaquin Roofing (Client) agrees to have Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation (SMITH) perform the work described in the attached proposal or scope of work document dfited October 4, 1995. A .summary of the scope of work, schedule of work, and cost estimate are outlined below. PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK Task 1 · Perform a Soil Vapor Extraction Pilot Test Task 2 · preP,me a Remedial Action Plan Task 3 · Construct and Install a Soil Vapor Extraction System · Operate Syste~n for Six Months Task 4 · Prepare Quarterly Reports. Task 5 .. ' · Drill and Sample Conf'm'nation Borings · Prepare Remedial Action Report Task 6 · Abandon Wells and Close Site Schedule of Work: Work to begin within 10 days of the receipt of a signed agreement. Total Estimated Cost: $77,505.00 Page 9 -.Environmental Services Agreement October 4, 1995 SM' i'H STA TEMENT..OF QUALIFICATIONS ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation (SMITH), is a full-service environmental company, with five offices in California and other offices located nationwide. SMITH's California offices are located in Torrance, Bakersfield, Alameda, Escalon and Pleasanton. We have the necessary equipment and trained professionals to complete complex projects efficiently and at low cost. Our services include: 1. Technical Services SMITH Technical Services Department is experienced in contmninant investigations at private, public, industrial, military, and waste disposal facilities, involving petroleum, solvents, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals contaminants. Our state-registered geologists are experienced in a wide variety of investigatory methods such as soil gas sampling, groundwater and vadose zone monitoring well installation, use of tracer chemicals, and shallow groundwater probe sampling. They also employ subsurface contaminant fate and transport models where appropriate to support investigations:and ·risk assessments. SMITH's hydrogeologists are experienced in aquifer testing and· groundwater modeling using the latest software applications. 2. Engineering The SMITH En·gineering Department has experienced civil, chemical, mechanical, and process engineers to develop site-specific, environmentally sound approaches to handle virtually any contaminant. This department supplies~ both engineering consulting and site-specific remediation equipment. They prepare hazardous waste site closure plans, remedial action plans (site mitigation plans), waste minimization and resource recovery strategies, and waste classification strategies. They provide engineering support to the Field Service department on soils and construction engineering. 3. Remediation Services SMITH offers a combination of remediation services with SMITH's Remediation Services Department. In addition to the professionals listed above, SMITH has a complete group of field technicians, fully trained and experienced in hazardous materials operations. This department includes drilling services that install numerous borings and monitoring wells each year. It also includes a full range of field technicians from heav~ equipment operators to safety specialists. All our field personnel are OSHA/SARA !trained~ t'o: ensure that the job is done safely and with tniaimum impact to the environment. 4. Advantages t° the Client The SMITH team has over 1200 experienced professionals to provide· expertise in environmental investigations. SMITH's capabilities provides these advantages to the client: -Experience and knowledge to provide innovative solutions to environmental problems. SM' i'H - Wide range of services to respond to any environmental need, from regulatory compliance through complete site inves.tigation and remediation and construction of treatment equipment. - Quicker response and lower overall cost than most "consultant" finns, because the majority of our specialities are available under one roof. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE Riedel Environmental Services Inc. (SMITH), has a wide variety of professionals in the environmental field to provide the best service possible. The principal assigned to the project team will have the experience and expertise to complete the scope of work in an efficient and professional manner. Other professionals (engineers, geologists, technicians) with in SMITH and SMITH will be part of the supporting cast providing technical knowledge in their respected areas of expertise. The following are a few of the projects that SMITH has completed or are currently involved in that represents are experience in subsurface investigations, and soil and groundwater remediation. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, ABANDONED OIL REFINERY AND TANK YARD; MAJOR OIL COMPANY, OILDALE, CALIFORNIA SMITH conducted an air and shallow soil investigation at an abandoned tank farm and refinery in Oildale, CA. between October, 1991 and February, 1992. This'project involved: Conducting an air screening survey near the surface with an Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) and a Hnu to detect hydrocarbon hot spots in 167 suspect areas over the 200 acre site - Performing a Vapor Flux Chamber Sampling at 40 suspect areas to calculate hydrocarbon emission flux to be used in a Health Risk Assessment Analysis - Supervising trenching of 167 suspect areas, which included sampling, drawing cross- sections and interpreting data collected Drilling approximately 150 soil borings to assess the vertical and lateral extent of hydrocarbon contamination discovered during the trenching operation Performed EPA 41'8.'! analysis' of' 0vet'2000 s'oil samples by SMITH's Mobile Laboratory " Graphic representation of over 230' trench cross-sectiOns and 150 boring logs - Involved in data interpretation and report writing. ABANDONMENT OF OIL FIELD, BRENTWOOD, CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT AND REMOVAL OF HYDROCARBON IMPACTED SOIL The scope of work conducted by SMITH at this location involved: (1) the drilling of multiple soil borings within an oil field scheduled for abandonment for the purpose of evaluating the soil and groundwater conditions surroUnding and beneath former oil wells and crude oil tank locations; (2) collecting and submitting soil Samples for chemical analysis and interpreting analytical data collected from each boring location; (3) presenting conclusions and recommendations for each oil well or tank area investigated to the client; (4) removing approximately: 4000 cubic yards of oil impacted soil from an area surrounding a former crude oil storage tank location; (5) collecting soil samples within a large (50 by 60 foot) 20 foot deep excavation to conf'u'm re~noval of hydrocm'bon impacted soil and; (6) presenting a Remedial Action Report to the client with all procedures, analytical data and conclusions and recommendations for the site included. CALTRANS MAINTENANCE SITE, BAKER, CALIFORNIA SOIL REMEDIATION SMITH is nearing completion of:a vapOr extraction project at this site. The work that was conducted at this site include the following: 1) Design of a soil vapor extraction system Using GAC to adsorb the hydrocarbon vapors extracted. 2) Permitting of remediation system through the air pollution control district in San Bernadino County and other applicable agencies. 3) lnsufllation of the permitted system which included drilling and installing vapor extraction wells, trenching and installing piping, asphalting and enclosing the system. 4) Maintaining the remediation system for a period of 12 months which included weekly air sample collection and analyses. A PLC system let SMITH monitor the everyday operation of the system and notifies SMITH of any malfunctions. 5) Submitting monthly and quarterly pi'Ogress reports 'to regulatory agencies and to CalTrans. 6) Acheived closure of the site.' i' · '. MALIBU GRAND PRIX, NORTHRIDGE, CA. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION SMITH has just completed a soil and groundwater remediation project at this site. Work included: 1) The removal of all UST tanks and assessment of the soil and groundwater beneath the tanks. 2) Installation of multiple groundwater and vapor extraction wells for remediation purposes. 3) Vapor extraction and aquifer testing of site conditions 4) Permitting, design and installation of remediation system 5) Operation and ~naintenance of remediation system fOr 18 months. 6) Submitting monthly and qfiarterly reports to regulatory agencies and the client 7) Acheived closure of the site. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION CONTEL AUTOVON~ TOPAZ LAKE~ NEVADA SMITH has conducted site assessment work and deep groundwater well installations at this facility defining a vadose and groundwater plume at this site. A total of 16 monitoring wells have been installedat this site to depths ranging from 90 to 150 feet in fractured meta-sediments. Aquifer tests were Conducted on.the wells to determine the effectiveness and to design a pump and treat system. Pump and treatment of diesel impacted groundwater is continuing at the site with an estimated 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel recovered to date. Monthly progress reports have been prepared discussing the remediation activities taking place a't the site. An injection permit has been granted by the NDEP to inject treated water into two of the groundwater wells at the edge of the site to enhance the overall production rate. ~' ' .' INSURANCE SMITH is insured for $5,000,000 in Comprehensive General Liability, which covers personal injury liability, property damage liability, and contractual liability. SMITH also maintains Worker's Compensation Insurance and has Professional Liability Insurance (errors and omissions) in the amount of $5,000,000. Proof of insurance certificates will be provided on request. Project 'No. P95-459 Page No. 6 COST ESTIMATE A cost estimate for the work to be performed as outlined in the RFP is presented on Attachment I and summarized below. The costs for implementing the soil remediation ranges from $72,013.63 to $85,193.63. The range in costs is primarily related to the two remediation treatment methodology options. ESTIMATED CHARGES Soil Remediation San Joaquin Roofing Company 1501 19th Street Bakersfield, California Item/Description Cost Ranges Labor (Office and Field) $25,320.00 to $25,320.00 Equipment/Materials/Permits $44,533.63 to $57,713.63 Chemical Analyses (Soil and Soil Vapor) $2,160.00 .to $2,160.00 Grand Total' $72,013.63 to $85,193.63 The cost estimate stated above was based on the proposed methodology. Factors such as ·additional work/testing required by the regulatory agencies are beyond our control and may also be reflected in our billing. All billings by our firm would be on a "time and materials" basis at the unit rates shown above. Any billing that reflects a total project cost greater than the total projec, t would be approved prior to the completion of the work. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Offices Serving the Western United States P95-459.PRO ACHMENT A - COST ESTIMATE SHEET SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 Company:- ~,'~-~J ~/,~'$5"OC,/~ "r'&~. Address: ~1~ ~ ~KO~ I Telephone: ~ ~Oe) ,~+~- ~ ~ Contact Name: ~THo~ ~. ~o~J Tasks Estimated Cost Initial Tasks Prepare Remedi~ A~ion Plan Installation of 5 soil vapor extraction wells to 50 feet below grade (includes permiUing and soil disposal) Vapor Extraction Pilot Test Permitting of air pollution control equipment Building permits . Installation and sta~-up of system (includes labor, piping mat6rials, electrical, gas line, testing) /~10?O,~ MOnthly Tasks Rental of thermal oxidizer or GAC unit ~ ~ ~o. ~ , Fuel or carbon disposal and regeneration Labor ~boratory analysis Monthly total Total 6 month operation costs (estimated time Of SVES operation is 6 months) ~ ~ ~' ~ '" Project Managemen~Oua~erly Status Repo~s (~ ~,~[~ ~ ~/ ~ ~'~ Completion Tasks Confirmation boring (3 to 50 leer) (includes permitting and soil disposal) Closure repo~ · Abandonment of 5 vapor extraction wells Estimated Grand Total Page No. 1 Attachment 1 COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPOSAL P95-459 San Joaquin Roofing 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, California UNIT RATE AMOUNT TASK f.PREPARE REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN Labor Registered Geologist 2 $75.00 $150.00 Project Geologist 12 $70.00 $840.00 Project Engineer 4 $75.00 $300,00 Typing 4 $30.00 $120.00 Graphics ' 6 $30.00 $180.00 Subtotal: $1,590.00 Task 1 Total: $1,590.00 TASK 2-PERMI7TING Phase One-WeE Installation and SVE Pilot Test Labor Project Geologist 6 $70,00 $420.00 Typing 2 $30.00 $60,00 Subtotal: $480.00 Materials and Equipment (Permit Fees) SJVUAPCD 1 $60.00 $60.00 Subtotal: $60.00 Phase Two.Install SVE Treatment System Labor Project Geologist' 8 $70.00 $560.00 Typing 4 $30.00 $120.00 Subtotal: $680.00 Materials and Equipment (Permit Fees) SJVUAPCD 1 $300.00 $300.00 City of Bakersfield construction permit (incl. w/Task 6) N/A N/A Subtotal: $300.00 Task 2 Total: $1,520.00 Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States PO5-459.XLS Page No. 2 TASK 3-DRILL TWO 25-ft AND THREE 40-ft . SVE WELLS Labor Project Geologist 4 $70.00 $280.00 Field Geologist 30 $65.00 $1,950.00 Subtotal: $2,230.00 Materials and Equipment Mobilization 1 $250.00 $250.00 B61 HDX Drill Rig (w/two operators) 30 $115.00 $3,450.00 Photoionization Detector 3 $75.00 $225.00' Steam Cleaner 3 $100.00 $300.00 PVC Sch 40 WeJJ Casing, 2"x10' 8 $12.98 $103.84 PVC Sch 40 Well Casing, 2"x5' 3 $8.63 $25.89 PVC Sch 40 Well Screen, 2"x10' 5 $22.03 $110.15 PVC Sch 40 Well Screen, 2"x5' 5 $14.87 $74.35 PVC Sch 40 Well Plugs (2" diam.) 5 $5.46 $27.30 Well Vault 5 $41.40 $207.00 Locking Cap Assembly 5 $20.70 $103.50 Master Lock 5 $9.00 $45.00 3/8 in. Bentonite Pellets (5 Gal) 5 $32.20 $161.00 Bentonite Powder 4 $7.00 $28.00 #16 Washed Sand (100 lbs) 32 $8.05 $257.60 Six Sack Sand Slurry (yrd) 1.5 $120.00 $180.00 Grout pumper 1 $120.00 $120.00 DOT 17H Drum 10 $30.00 $300.00 DOT 17E Drum with liner 1 $39.00 $39.00 Subtotal: $6,007.63 Task 3 Total: $8,237.63 TASK 4.DISPOSAL OF CUT-rINGS AND DECONTAMINATION FLUIDS (RINSA TE) . Labor Project Geologist 4 $70.00 $280.00 Environmental Technician 6 $50.00 $300.00 Subtotal: $580.00 Materials and Equipment Transport and recycling soil (4 cubic Yards) 4 $230.00 $920.00 Transport and recycling rinsate (100 gallons) 100. $1.00 $100.00 Subtotal: $1,020.00 Task 4 Total: $1,600.00 Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Westem United States pgS-45g. XLS Page No. 3 TASK 5-THREE DAY SVE PILOT TEST Labor Environmental Technician 24 $50.00 $1,200.00 Field Geologist 4 $65.00 $260.00 Subtotal: $1,460.00 Materials and Equipment Portable SVE testing system (3 days) 3' $789.00 $2,367.00 Subtotal: $2,367.00 Chemical Analyses Soil vapor samples (Methods 8020 and 8015M) 3 $130.00 $390.00 Subtotal: $390.00 Task 5 Total: $4,217.00 TASK 6-INSTALLATION OF SVE TREATMENT S YS TEM OPTION ONE- Internal Combustion Engine w~ Catalytic Oxidizer 'Labor Project Geologist 6 $70.00 $420.00 Field Geologist 10 $65.00 $650.00 Environmental Technician 10 $50.00 $500.00 Subtotal: $1,$70.00 Materials and Equipment-monthly costs System mobilization (costs paid directly by client) 1 $500.00 $500.00 System rental-6 months (costs paid directly by client) 6 $4,280.00 $25,680.00 Subtotal: $26,180.00 Operations and Maintenance-monthly costs Labor Project Geologist 4 $70.00 $280.00 Environmental Technician 16 $50.00 $800.00 Subtotal: $~,080.00 6 MonthTotal $6,480.00 . Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States PgS-4Sg. XLS Page No. 4 Materials and Equipment Natural gas utilities-monthly costs (paid directly by client) 6 $1,000.00 $6,000.00 Subtotal: $6,000.00 Analytical Soil vaPor samples (Method 8020/8015M) 6 $130.00 $780.00 Subtotal: $780.00 Construction of SVE System Fencing, traffic posts, trenching, piping and hardware, 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 building materials, construction permits, subcontract labor (cost plus 15 percent) Subtotal: $10,000.00 Total for Option One: $51,010.00 OPTION TWO-Activated Charcoal Adsorbtion Labor Project Geologist 6 $70.00 $420.00 Field Geologist 10 $65.00 $650.00 Environmental Technician 10 $50.00 $500.00 Subtotal: $1,570.00 Materials and Equipment-monthly costs System mobilization (costs paid directly by client) 1 $500.00 $500.00 System rental-6 months (costs paid directly by client) 6 $2,000.00 $12,000.00 Subtotal: $12,500.00 Operations and Maintenance-monthly costs Labor Project Geologist 4 $70.00 $280.00 Environmental Technician 16 $50.00 $800.00 Subtotal: $1,080.00 6 MonthTotal $6,480.00 Materials and Equipment Electrical utilities-monthly costs 6 $750.00 $4,500.00 Subtotal: $4,500.00 Activated charcoal change out and disposal 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 Subtotal: $2,000.00 Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Westem United States Page No. 5 Analytical · Soil vapor samples (Method 8020/801 SM) 6 $130.00 $780.00 Subtotal: $780.00 Construction of SVE System Fencing, traffic'posts, trenching, piping and hardWare, 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 building materials, construction permits, subcontract labor (cost plus 15 ;)ercent) Subtotal: $10,000.00 Total for Option Two: $37,830.00 Task 6 Total: $37,830.00 to $51,010.00 TASK 7-VERIFICATION SAMPLING-THREE 50-FOOT DEEP SOIL BORINGS, WELL ABONDONMENT Labor Project Geologist 6 $70.00 $420.00 Field Geologist 36 $65.00 $2,340.00 Subtotal: $2,760.00 Materials and Equipment Mobilization I $150.00 $150.00 B61 HDX Drill Rig (w/two operators) 36 $115.00 $4,.140.00 Photoionization Detector 2 $100.00 $200.00 Steam Cleaner 2 $100.00 $200.00 Brass Sleeves (w/caps etc.) 18 $5.00 $90.00 DOT 17H Drum 6 $3O.00 $180.00 DOT 17E Drum with liner 1 $39.00 $39.00 Six Sack Sand Slurry (yrd) 5.5 $120.00 $660.00 Grout pumper 1 $120.00 $120.00 Subtotal: $5,779.00 Chemical Analyses Soil samples (Method 8020/8015M) 18 $55.00 $990.00 Subtotal: $990.00 Task 7 Total: $9,529.00 Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States ,gs-4sg xLs Page No. 6 TASK 8-MEETINGS AND REPORTING Labor Quarterly Progress Reports to BFD and SJVUAPCD Project Geologist 16 $70.00 $1,120.'00 Typing' 8 $30.00 $240.00 Subtotal: $1,360.00 Meetings Project Geologist (assume two meetings) 4 $70.00 $280.00 Subtotal: $280.00 SVE Pilot Test Report Registered Geologist 4 $75.00 $300.00 Project Geologist 24 $70.00 $1,680.00 Project Engineer 10 $75.00 $750.00 Typing 4 $30.00 $120.00 Graphics 6 $30.00 $180.00 Subtotal: $3,030.00 Final Technical Summary Report Registered Geologist 4 $75.00 $300.00 Project Geologist 30 $70.00 $2,100.00 Typing 6 $30.00 $180.00 Graphics 8 $30.00 $240.00 Subtotal: $2,820.00 Task 8 Total: $7,490.00 LABOR: $25,320.00 CHEMICAL ANALYSES: $2,160.00 MATERIALS and EQUIPMENT: $44,533.63 to $57,713.63 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST w/Option One: $85,193.63 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST wi Option Two: $72,013.63 Krazan and Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States P95-459.XLs Project No. P95-459 Page No. 7 ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Soil Remediation San Joaquin Roofing Company· 1501 19th Street Bakersfield, California Week Description of Work Week 0 Receipt of Letter of Authorization Week· 1-2 prepare RAP Week 3-4 Bakersfield Fire Department review of CAP Week 5 Secure necessary regulatory agency permits Week 5-6 Install SVE Wells Week 7 SVE pilot test Week 8 Analytical results of SVE pilot test Samples Week 13 Prepare pilot test report Week 14-15 Bakersfield Fire Department review of pilot test report Week 16 Install long-term SVE SystemI Note that further schedule items will depend on duration of SVE operation. PROJECT STAFFING The proposed manager for this project is Mr. Art Morrill, a California Registered·Geologist. Mr. Morrill has eleven years of environmental consulting experience, and has worked in the San Joaquin Valley for the past five years. The project will also be managed by Mr. Bruce E. Myers, a California Registered · Geologist who is Krazan's Remediation Services Manager. Both Mr. Morrill and Mr. Myers have extensive experience related to characterization and remediation of sites contaminated with petroleum constituents and are very familiar with the USTCF program.· Additional details regarding Mr. Morrill's and Mr. Myers' relevant professional experience are presented on the resumes within the enclosed Statement of Qualifications. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Offices Serving the Western United States P95-459.PRO & A S S OC I AT E S , I.N C. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING · ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINFERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND NSPFCTION October 6, 1995 Proposal No. P95-459 Mr. Ray Graham : San Joaquin Roofing Company 1501 East 19th Street · Bakersfield, California 93305 RE-'- Proposal/Cost Estimate Soil Remediation San Joaquin Roofing Company 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, California Dear Mr. Graham: Krazan & Associates, Inc., (Krazan) appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal/cost estimate for conducting soil remediation at the subject project site. Soils at the subject site have been impacted by unauthorized releases of gasoline petroleum hydrocarbons. The proposed scope of work to be performed is outlined in the August 30, 1995, Request for Proposal (RFP) letter. Krazan also reviewed a June 26, '1995, report entitled "Underground Storage Tank Assessment, 1501 East 19th Street, Bakersfield, California." prepared by Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation (Smith). The contents of this proposal include a Statement of Qualifications, including three references for whom Krazan has conducted similar work, a statement regarding the qualifications of the professionals who 'will manage the project, a schedule of fees, a detailed description of the scope of services to be provided, an accurate estimate of the costs to complete the outlined scope of work presented on Attachment I and summarized on a Cost Estimate Sheet (CES) - Attachment A, which accompanied the RFP, and a standard services agreement.. Our experience indicates-that it is beneficial' for any property owner participating in the state Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF) progra~n to obtain pre-approval of the proposed scope and cost estimates from the USTCF before commencing with any investigation and/or corrective actions. · Therefore, we understand that the proposed project schedule may vary depending on the time required for the USTCF to review and comment on proposals/cost estimates. 215 West Dakota Avenue · Clovis, California 93612 · (209) 348-2200 · FAX (209) 348-2201 Offices Serving the Western United States P95-459. PRO ~ Project No. P95-459 .Page No. 2 PURPOSE In accordance with a July 19, 1995, letter sent to the San Joaquin Roofing Company by the City of'Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD), the purpose of the proposed project is to remediate soils at the subject site to levels acceptable to the BFD. It is our understanding that the target cleanup goals (acceptable levels) will be established during discussions with the BFD. According to the RFP, the proposed cleanup methodology will consist of soil vapor extraction (SVE), and the extracted vapor (effluent) would be treated by either thermal oxidation or carbon adsorption. In accordance with statements within the RFP, the estimated duration of the treatment program is six months. For the purposes of this proposal, Krazan has assumed that the treatment program and related activities will occur within a six month time frame. It is possible that the treatment program may extend beyond six months. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services, as outlined in the RFP, and Krazan's comments related to specific scope items, are' summarized below. · Task 1-PreParation of a Remedial Action Plan for Submittal to the BFD Krazan would prepare a remedial action plan (RAP) to address specific details of the proposed SVE system. The RAP would include a proposed SVE pilot test. Findings from the SVE pilot test would be summarized in a report to the BFD and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SSVUAPCD), which will include conclusions and recommendations for long-term operation of the SVE system. · Task 2,Securing of Appropriate Permits required from any Governmental Agency to Install and Operate the SVE System There a~e two phases of permitting that will be required before the SVE system can be placed into long-term operation. The first phase relates to the construction of five SVE wells and the SVE pilot test. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Offices Serving the Western United States P95-459. PRO Project No. P95-459 - Page No. 3 Reasonably accurate estimated costs for securing phase one permits from the BFD and the' SJVUAPCD are included on Attachment 1 and summarized on the CES. The second phase of permitting will occur after the SVE pilot test has been performed, the data is evaluated, and the SVE pilot test is submitted to the BFD and the SJVUAPCD. Permitting for a long- term SVE system will include, but may not be limited to, a construction permit from. the City of Bakersfield, a permit from the Pacific .Gas & Electric Company, and a revised Permit to Construct/Authority to Operate from the SJVUAPCD. The costs for the permit from the SJVUAPCD will be related to design criteria of the final SVE treatment system (i.e., horsepower rating), and on the concentration of soil vapor inffluent. In accordance with the RFP, the findings from the pilot study will be summarized in a report. This report will also address final details regarding treatment system equipment and design, and corresponding revisions to the conceptual site model. Therefore, until the SVE pilot test is completed, the final SVE system design and the related costs for system construction and permitting will not be known with certainty. However, for the purposes of this proposal, the costs to secure permits required for system operation have been estimated (Attachment 1). Please note that these cost estimates are intended to be very general, and will be subject to revision once the data from the SVE pilot test has been evaluated. · Task 3-Drilling and Construction of SVE Wells Based on results and findings summarized in Smith's June 26, 1995 report, Krazan proposes to remediate the impacted soils with two 25-foot deep (shallow zone) and three 40-foot deep (deep zone) SVE wells. The 25-foot deep wells would be screened from 15 to 25 feet below ground surface (bgs), and the 40-foot deep wells would screened from 25 to 40 feet bgs. This approach was discussed during an October 5,. 1995, telephone conversation with Mr. Howard Wines of the BFD, when Mr. Wines indicated his preliminary verbal approval of this proposed SVE well design. · Task 4- Disposal of Drill Cuttings (Soil) and Decontamination Rinsate Cost estimates for disposal of waste materials are based on the assumption that approximately four cubic yards of soil and I00 gallons of fluid containing detectable concentrations of petroleum constituents will be generated during the drilling of the SVE wells and the verification soil borings. Our experience indicates that coordinated transport and disposal of waste materials at a state-approved recycling facility limits future property owner liability, and is cost effective and logistically less complex relative .to on-site KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Offices Serving the Western United States P95-459. PRO Project No. P95-459 Page No. 4 aeration. The one-time expense of transport and disposal is generally more efficient than regulatory agency interaction associated with controlled on-site aeration and the related costs of periodic inspection, sampling, management~ reporting, and eventual transport of waste material. 'The final costs related to waste material disposal will depend on the volume of waste materials generated during the field activity. · Task 5- Conduct a Three Day SVE Pilot Test Cost estimates for performing.the SVE pilot test, including the SJVUAPCD permit, are presented in Attachment I. SVE pilot tests which extend beyond three days require a Permit to Construct from the SJVUAPCD. At this time, it appears that a three day test would be sufficient to determine the radius of influence and the number of SVE wells which may be needed to effectively remove the petroleum hydrocarbons from the soil beneath the site. The SVE pilot test may require three days and the chemical analysis of three soil vapor samples. It is possible that the SJVUAPCD may require analysis of additional soil vapor samples. The assumption that there will be a need for a three day pilot test is conservative, and it is possible that less time will be necessary to determine lateral and vertical air flow characteristics and pathways. Findings from the SVE pilot test would be summarized in a report to the BFD, and would include recommendation related to treating effluent using an internal combustion engine with catalytic oxidation (thermal oxidation) or activated carbon adsorption. · Task 6- Installation of SVE Treatment System Equipment As mentioned above, the appropriate SVE treatment methodology will be identified following completion of SVE pilot test. However, for the purposes of this proposal, cost estimates related to the installation of systems using an internal combustion engine with catalytic oxidation or activated carbon adsorption are presented in Attachment 1. These cost estima4es are intended to be very general guidelines for costs' that may be incurred if these methodologies are used for soil remediation at the subject site. It is reasonable to expect that costs related to remedial equipment installation and testing will vary from those presented in Attachment I once the SVE pilot test has been completed. For example, it is possible that the most cost effective approach would be to use catalytic oxidation for approximately two months followed by activated carbon adsorption for the remaining four months. There are several systems which incorporate various options within one system unit. 'Accurate cost estimates for the selected treatment system will be presented following preparation of the RAP addendum. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Offices Serving the Western United States P95-459. PRO Project No. P95-459 Page No. 5 Additional costs associated with this task include those related to treatment system enclosures, fencing, traffic safety posts, trenching, and pavement replacements. Estimates for these items are included on Attachment 1. Please note that these costs are intended to be very general and will be subject to revision once a SVE treatment technology has been identified. The costs related to remedial system operation and maintenance (O&M) are directly associated with the type of treatment methodology which is deemed appropriate for the subject site (i.e., activated carbon adsorption, internal combustion, catalYtic oxidation, thermal incineration, etc.). As noted above, final system design will be recommended folloWing completion of the SVE pilot test. However, ranges of estimated costs for monthly O&M associated with two different potential treatment methodologies, an internal combustion engine with catalytic oxidation, and activated carbon adsorption are presented in Attachment 1. These potential methodologies were chosen based on the assumption that effluent concentrations will be relatively low. The assumption regarding effluent concentrations are based on review of soil sample analyses presented in the RAP. It may be necessary to assess the concentration of lead in the. soil-vapor influent in order to evaluate the effects that lead may have on related treatment · systems. Please note that these cost estimates are intended to be very general, and will be subject to revision once data from the SVE pilot test have been evaluated. · Task 7- Soil Remediation Verification Sampling Cost estimates for conducting the soil remediation verification sampling as requested in the RFP are presented in Attachment 1. These costs include field work, disposal of cuttings and rinsate, and reporting. In addition, costs for analysis of 18 soil samples for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), and total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-G) are included as part of this task. · Task 8- Meetings and Quarterly Progress Reports to the BFD and SJVUAPCD Cost estimates for progress reports and meetings are presented in Attachment 1. The estimates, using Krazan's hourly labor rates, are based on the anticipated need for two quarterly reports and two meetings. The final costs related to these activities will vary depending on the number and duration of reports and meetings. Cost' estimates related to technical reports are based on the anticipation of preparation of the SVE pilot test report and a final technical summary report to be submitted to the BFD. Final costs related to technical reports will vary depending on the number of technical reports required by the pertinent agencies. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Offices Serving the Western United States P95-459. PRO Project No. P95-459 Page No. 8 GENERAL CONDITIONS I' Disposal of any potentially hazardous waste is the client's responsibility. During Krazan field (york, excess drilling returns will be generated, and rinsate from the decontamination of drilling and/or sampling equipment will also be generated. The excess drilling returns will be placed upon and covered by plastic sheeting, or temporarily contained in DOT 17H drums. The rinsate will be placed in DOT 17H drums. The client is the "generator" of any waste material generated during the course of our services unless specifically stated otherwise in this proposal. In any case Krazan, its owners, principals, andlor employees are not the "generator" of any waste material related to this project, and are therefore not responsible in any way for its proper disposal or safekeeping. If, during the course of our services, any additional services are deemed appropriate, the client would be notified so that the scope of work at the subject site and our agreement could be modified accordingly. Krazan & Associates, Inc. reserves the right to progress bill monthly. All billings are due and payable within 30 days from the date of billing. All "past due" balances will accrue a penalty of 18% annually (1.5 % per month). The proposed scope of work assumes the site will be fully accessible to the appropriate personnel and equipment at the time of field services. Costs incurred in making locations accessible will be charged at our fee schedule rates. The RFP did not request that additional soil samples be collected for analysis of petroleum hydrocarbons, nor estimated costs to dismantle the SVE system. Therefore, estimated costs related to these services are not included in our proposal. Krazan is prepared tO discuss the estimated costs related to additional soil sampling and SVE system dismantling if San Joaquin Roofing Company is interested in considering incorporation of these activities. Unit costs for analysis of BTEX and TPH-G are included on Attachment I. BIDDING REQUIREMENTS Krazan has reviewed the section of the August 30, 1995, RFP letter and will be able to comply with the listed requirements. Krazan generally includes a 15 percent surcharge on subcontractor invoices submitted for payment to Krazan. We recommend that San Joaquin Roofing Company contract directly with firms which rent the SVE extraction system, thereby lowering the costs associated'with that portion KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Offices Serving the Western United States P95-459. PRO Project No. P95-459 Page No. 9 of the proposed project. Krazan is prepared to recommend a qualified SVE system contractor to the San Joaquin Roofing Company. ,, CLOSING We could initiate our services within approximately 5 days upon receiving written authorization indicating your approval of this Proposal/Cost Estimate. Please indicated your acceptance by returning a signed copy of the attached Agreement for Professional Environmental Engineering Services. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the San Joaquin Roofing Company. If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact our office at (209) 348-2200. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Arthur H. Morrill Project Geologist AHM/cmc Attachments KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Offices Serving the Western United States P95-459. PRO PLEASE RETURN TO KRAZA ~[ ASSOCIATES, INC. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES THE AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is made by and between KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC., hereinafter referred to as K&A, and MR. RAY GRAHAM OF SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY, hereinafter referred to as CLIENT. This AGREEMENT between the parties consists of these TERMS, the attached PROPOSAL letter by K&A, dated October 6, 1995, and any exhibits or attachments noted in the PROPOSAL. Together, these elements will constitute the entire AGREEMENT superseding any and ali prior negotiations, correspondence, or agreements either written or oral. Any changes to this AGREEMENT must be mutually agreed to in writing. This agreement was developed to be fair and reasonable to both parties. The CLIENT should understand when signing that modern construction creates risks which are not entirely eliminated through the services of K&A. Therefore, in signing this agreement the CLIENT understands that K&A is not providing a warranty.or assurance as to the performance of the project. SCOPE OF BASIC SERVICES The Scope of K&A's basic services shall consist of those tasks enumerated in the attached PROPOSAL. The scope of work outlined in the PROPOSAL represents a minimum program at this time. As the results of a records search, or site walkover or sampling/testing become known, other tests and/or sampling may be recommended to the CLIENT for written approval as Additional Services. In general, an increased frequency of sampling and testing will improve the opinion reached in K&A's report. Because geologic and soil formations are inherently random, variable, and indeterminate in nature, the' professional services rendered by K&A, and opinions provided with respect to such services under this AGREEMENT (including opinions regarding potential cleanup costs), are not guaranteed to be a representation of actual site conditions, or contamination, or costs, which are also subject to change with time as a result of natural or man-made processes. STANDARD OF CARE The CLIENT recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those observed at locations where borings, surveys, or explorations are made, and that site conditions may change with time. Data, interpretations, and recommendations by K&A will be based solely on information available to K&A. K&A is responsible for the data, interpretations, and recommendations, but will not be responsible for other part/es' interpretations or use of the information developed. Services performed by K&A under this AGREEMENT are expected by the CLIENT to be conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical/environmental engineering profession practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions in the locality of the project. Under no circumstances is any warranty, expressed or implied, made in connection with providing geotechnical/environmental engineering services. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLIENT The CLIENT shall provide all information in its possession, custody, or control which relates to the site, its present and prior uses, or to activities at the site which may bear upon the services of K&A under this AGREEMENT, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) a legal description of the site, including boundary lines and a site plan; (ii) historical information as to the prior owners of the site; (iii) identification of the location of utilities, underground tanks, and other structures and the routing thereof at the. site, including available plans of the site; (iv) a description of activities which were conducted at the site at any time by the CLIENT or by any person or entity which would relate to'the services provided by K&A; and (v) identification, by name, quantity, location, and date, of any releases or handling of hazardous substances. CLIENT will grant or obtain free access to the site for ali equipment and personnel necessary for K&A.to perform the work set forth in this AGREEMENT. The CLIENT will notify any and all possessors of the project site that CLIENT has granted K&A free access to the site. K&A will take reasonable precautions to minimize damage to the site, but it is understood by CLIENT that, in the normal course of work, some .damage may occur and the correction of such damage is not part of this AGREEMENT unless so specified in the PROPOSAL. The CLIENT is responsible for accurately delineating the locations of all subterranean structures and utilities. K&A will take responsible precautions to avoid known subterranean structures, and the CLIENT waives any claim against K&A, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold K&A harmless from any claim or liability for injury or loss, including costs of defense, arising from damage done to subterranean structures and utilities not identified or accurately located. Agreement Page 2 SAMPLE DISPOSAL K&A will dispose of all remaining soil and rock samples in its possession 60 days after submission of report covering those samples. Further storage or transfer of samples can be made at CLIENT's .expense upon CLIENT's prior written request. At any time K&A may request in writing that CLIENT ri~move contaminated samples, cuttings, and other hazardous substances that may be generated by the project from the project site. CLIENT shall promptly comply with such requests, and pay for the removal and lawful disposal of such samples, cuttings, or other hazardous substances. REMEDIAL ACTION/MONITORING The CLIENT understands that an environmental assessment report presents preliminary recommendations for remedial action based on assumptions made about the subsurface conditions. In order for K&A to validate its assumptions, K&A needs to be present during remedial action. Therefore, this AGREEMENT is to include pre'remedial action plan review and remedial action monitoring services by K&A, if remedial action will be part of the project. If for some reason K&A is not allowed to provide pre-remedial action plan review and remedial action monitoring services, K&A will assume no liability for the accuracy of its preliminary assumptions. For remedial action monitoring services that may be outlined in a subsequent proposal from K&A, K&A will report observations and professional opinions to the 'CLIENT. No action of K&A or K&A's representative can be construed as altering any AGREEMENT between the CLIENT and others. K&A will report any observed environmentally related work to the CLIENT which, in K&A's professional opinion, does not conform with plans and specifications. K&A has no right to reject or stop work of any agent of the CLIENT. Such rights are reserved solely for the CLIENT. Furthermore, K&A's presence on site does not in any way guarantee the completion or quality and performance of the work of any party retained by the CLIENT to provide field or remedial action related services. K&A will not be responsible for and will not have control or charge of specific means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of remedial action selected by any agent or agreement of the CLIENT, or safety precautions and programs incident thereto. BILLING AND PAYMENT CLIENT will pay K&A the lump sum amount indicated in the PROPOSAL or, if no lump sum amount is indicated, in accordance with K&A's Fee Schedule rates as included in the PROPOSAL and its attachments. Invoices will be submitted to CLIENT by K&A, and will be due and payable upon presentation. If CLIENT objects to all or any portion of any invoice, CLIENT will so notify K&A in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days of the invoice date, identify the cause of disagreement, and pay when due that portion of the invoice not in dispute. The parties will immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion of the invoice. In the absence of written notification described above, the balance as stated on the invoice will be paid. Invoices are delinquent if payment has not been received within thirty (30) days from date of invoice. An administrative fee of 1.5% per month will be included for invoices over 30 days, excepting any portion of the invoiced amount in dispute and resolved in favor of CLIENT. All time spent and expenses incurred (including any attorney's fees) in connection with collection of any delinquent amount will be paid by the CLIENT to K&A per K&A's current fee schedule. In the event CLIENT fails to pay K&A within sixty (60) days after invoices are rendered, CLIENT agrees that K&A will have the right to consider the failure to pay K&A's invoice as a breach of this AGREEMENT and K&A will have the right to stop all current work and withhold letters, reports, or any verbal consultation until the invoice is paid in full. All invoices will be formatted as shown on the attached example provided on EXHIBIT 1. If the CLIENT requests back-up data or changes to the format of the standard invoice, an administrative fee of $100 per invoice may be charged plus $1 per copy of back-up data. TERMINATION This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party seven (7) days after written notice in the event of any breach of any provision of this AGREEMENT or in the event of substantial failure of performance by the other party, or if the CLIENT suspends the work for more than three (3) months. In the event of termination, K&A will be paid for services performed prior to the date of termination plus reasonable termination expenses, including the cost of completing analyses, records and reports necessary to document job status at the time of termination. RISK ALLOCATION The CLIENT recognizes that the fees charged by K&A and other design professionals commonly include an allowance for risks they assume as a consequence Of their agreeing to provide services on their clients' behalf. One of these risks stems from K&A's potential for human error and, in order to reduce the amount allowed for purposes of funding that risk on this project, the CLIENT agrees to limit K&A's liability to the CLIENT and all Remedial Action Contractbrs arising from K&A's professional acts. errors or omissions, such that the total aggregate liability of K&A to all those named shall not exceed $50,000 or K&A's total fee for services rendered on this project, whichever is greater. If the CLIENT is not willing to limit liability as indicated above, an increase in the limit of liability of $1,000,000 can be accommodated for a surcharge to K&A's fee. These additional limits are annual aggregates in accordance with K&A's KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Offices Serving the Western United States P95-459. PRO Agreement Page 3 professional liability insurance coverage. The surcharge to K&A's fee to provide $1,000,000 aggregate limit is 10%. This surcharge will be added to each monthly invoice if this option is elected. The client will notify K&A if this provision is elected. The CLIENT agrees to indemnify K&A for all liabilities in excess of the monetary limits selected. Limitations on liability and indemnities in this AGREEMENT are business undersiandings between the parties and shall apply to all the different theories of recovery, including breach of contract or warranty, tort (including negligence), strict or statutory liability, or any other cause of action, except for willful misconduct or gross negligence. Parties means the CLIENT and K&A and their officers, employees, agents, affiliates and subcontractors. The parties also agree that the CLIENT will not seek damages in excess of the limitations indirectly through suits with other parties who may join K&A as a third-party defendant. Both CLIENT and K&A agree that they will not be liable to each other, under any circumstances, for special, consequential, or punitive damages arising out of or related to this AGREEMENT. UNANTICIPATED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CLIENT warrants that a reasonable effort to inform K&A of known or suspected hazardous materials on or near the p~:oject site has been made. Hazardous materials may exist at a site where there is no reason to believe they could or should be present. K&A and CLIENT agree that the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials constitutes a changed condition mandating a reneg0tiation of the scope of work or termination of services. K&A and CLIENT also agree that the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials may make it necessary for K&A to take immediate measures to protect health and safety. CLIENT agrees to compensate K&A for any equipment decontamination or other costs incident to the discovery of unanticipated hazardous waste. K&A agrees to notify CLIENT when unanticipated hazardous materials or suspected hazardous materials are encountered. CLIENT agrees to make any disclosures required by law to the appropriate governing agencies. CLIENT also agrees to hold K&A harmless for any and all consequences of disclosures made by K&A which are required by governing law. In the event the project site is not owned by CLIENT, CLIENT recognizes that it is the CLIENT's responsibility to inform the property owner of the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials or suspected hazardous materials. Notwithstanding any other provision of the AGREEMENT. CLIENT waives any claim against K&A, and to the maximum extent permitted by law, agrees to defend, indemnify, and save K&A harmless from any claim, liability, and/or defense costs for injury or loss arising from K&A's discovery of unanticipated or suspected hazardous materials including any costs created by delay of the project and any cost associated with possible reduction of the property's value. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RISKS CLIENT recognizes that, while necessary for remedial investigations, commonly used exploration methods, such as drilling borings or excavating trenches, involve an inherent risk. These exploration methods may penetrate through an aquifer of contaminated fluid and serve as a connecting passageway between the contaminated aquifer and an uncontaminated aquifer or groundwater, inducing cross-contamination. While back-filling with grout or by other means, according to a state of practice design, is intended to provide a seal against such passageway, it is recognized that such a seal may be imperfect and there is an inherent risk of drilling borings, excavating trenches or implementing other methods of exploration in connection with a contaminated site. CLIENT recognizes that the state of practice, particularly with respect to contaminated site and waste conditions, is changing and evolving. For example, the long-term effect of chemicals on soil or manufactured or constructed liner systems is not well-established or known at this time. While K&A is required to perform in reasonable accordance with the standards in effect at the time the services are performed, it is recognized that those standards may subsequently change because of improvements in the state of practice. CLIENT recognizes that projects, such as contaminated waste sites and sanitary landfill sites, may not perform as anticipated by CLIENT, even if the services are performed in accordance with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other professional consultants under similar circumstances. It is also recognized that a satisfactorily designed, constructed and maintained monitoring system may assist in the early detection of environmental changes. Unless it is specially included in the services, K&A shat[ not perform such monitoring. It is recognized that certain governmental regulations relating to hazardous waste sites purport to require achievement of results which cannot by accomplished in an absolute sense (e.g., the construction of entirely impermeable liners). K&A shall be obligated to use due professional care to comply with the regulations but does not guarantee results. On projects relating to efforts to ascertain the presence or absence of hazardous substances or underground tanks, the level of effort may range from very limited observation and inquiry to extensive investigation and testing. The level of uncertainty with respect to opinions reached on such projects will vary, depending on the extent of the investigation, but some level of uncertainty will exist in every project. CLIENT recognizes that K&A's failure to detect the presence of hazardous materials at a site~ even though hazardous materials may be assumed or expected to exist through thc usc of appropriate and mutually agreed upon sampling techniques, does not guarantee that hazardous materials do not exist at the site. Similarly, CLIENT recognizes that K&A's subsurface explorations may not encounter hazardous materials at a site, which may later be affected by hazardous materials due to natural phenomena or KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Offices Serving the Western United States Pg$-459. PRO Agreement Page 4 human intervention. CLIENT agrees to waive any claim against K&A and agrees to defend, indemnify, and save K&A harmless from claims or liability for injury or loss arising from K&A's failure to detect the presence of hazardous materials through techniques commonly employed for the purpose. Ail laboratory and field equipment contaminated in performing K&A's services will be cleaned at CLIENT's expense. Contaminated consumables will be disposed of and replaced at CLIENT's expense. Equipment (including tools) which cannot be reasonably decontaminated shall become the property and responsibility of CLIENT. All such equipment shall be delivered to CLIENT or disposed of in a manner similar to that indicated for hazardous samples. CLIENT agrees to pay the fair market value of any such equipment which cannot reasonably be decontaminated. DISPUTE RESOLUTION All claims, disputes, and other matters in controversy between K&A and CLIENT arising out of or in any way related to this AGREEMENT will be submitted to 'alternative dispute resolution' (ADR) such as mediation, before and as a condition precedent to other remedies provided by law. If a dispute of law arises related to the services provided under this AGREEMENT and that dispute requires litigation instead of ADR as provided above, then: (1) the claim will be brought and tried in judicial jurisdiction of the court of the county where K&A's principal place of business is located and CLIENT waives the right to remove the action to any other county or judicial jurisdiction, and 2) the prevailing party will be entitled to recovery of all reasonable costs incurred, including staff time, court costs, attorney's fees, and other claim related expenses. GOVERNING LAW AND SURVIVAL The law of the State of California will govern the validity of these TERMS, their interpretation and performance. If any of the provisions contained in this AGREEMENT are held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining provisions will not be impaired. Limitations of liability and indemnities will survive termination of this AGREEMENT for any cause. The Parties have read the forgoing, understand completely the terms and willingly enter into this AGREEMENT which will ben'omc effective on the date signed by the CLIENT below. CLIENT KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. By By Arthur H. Morrill Title Title Project Geologist Date Date October 6, 1995 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Offices Serving the Western United States P95-459.PRO (7/1995) · Fee Schedule Page No. 2 COMPANY PROFILE I Krazan & Associates isa professional ~onsulting firm specializing in environmental studies, - environmental chemical analysis, geotechnical engineering, laboratory testing, construction testing and i inspection, and contract drilling services. Environmental studies are directed towards assessing and remediating petroleum, hydrocarbon, i heavy metal, herbicide, and pesticide-related contamination in soils, groundwater, and air. Krazan & ~ Associates services lending institutions, major oil companies, private industry, utility companies, and i g overnmental agencies in their specific environmental needs. Environmental studies include soil and groundwater investigations, as well as complex sampling and monitoring programs. Geotechnical Engineering services include soils engineering and site selection. Site selection I services provide evaluation of the regional geologic framework, analysis of the engineering properties of the on-site soils, determination of the slope stability, and assessment of the effects of shallow groundwater on development. Construction testing and inspection services provide quality control for new construction. Services i include both field and laboratory functions utilizing certified inspectors. All personnel are in constant radio 'contact with our regional offices for immediate support and scheduling. Contract drilling is provided to other professional firms requiring state-of-the-art specialty drilling and sampling services for both Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental studies. Offices Serving the Western United States (7/1995) Fee Schedule Page No. 3 TERMS OF PAYMENT AND cHARGES Terms of Payment Invoices shall be deemed delinquent if not paid within 30 days of the invoice date and will be subject to a late payment charge of 1.5% per month as liquidated damages for additional credit and collection i expenses incurred by Krazan & Associates, Inc. Charges Minimum Charges Hourly field services have a 2 hour minimum charge. Hourly office services have a one hour minimum " charge. Regular Time Charges Regular time charges are Monday through Friday, between 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Other arrangements available upon preapproval. Time and One-Half Charges Time and one-half charges will be rendered on weekdays for services extending beyond regular time, 8-12 hours of total service that day. Saturday services are commonly available at time and one-half charges. Double Time Charges Services rendered on Holidays, Sunday, in excess of 8 hours on Saturday, or in excess of 12 hours on weekdays, will be charged at double the normal rate. Travel Time and Mileage Charges Projects in excess of 20 miles from our local offices are subject to travel time and mileage charges. Miscellaneous and Subcontractor Charges Miscellaneous or unusual charges, such as parking, mailing, shipping, etc., and/or subcontractor charges, such as backhoe fees, will be charged to the client at cost plus 15 %. Offices Serving the Western United States '(7/1995) Fee Schedule Page No. 4 Subsistence On remote jobs or projects, subsistence, when not furnishe_d, will be an additional charge. t" Cancellation Late cancellation may be subject to reasonable charges if personnel can not be appropriately reassigned or if remobilization is required. Insurance Krazan & Associates, Inc. carries in excess of all insurance required by law. Additional costs of extra insurance certificates, co-insurance endorsements or additional insurance will be charged to the client at cost plus !5 5{;. ,. Supervisor Charges "' Supervisor charges are above and beyond unit rates quoted. Offices Serving the Western United States (7/1995) Fee Schedule Page No. 5 GENERAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL. & T'ECHNICAL_ SERVICES Professional Principal Engineer ............................................... $115.00/hr. Registered. Engineer .................................... : ........... 75.00/hr. Registered Geologist .............................. · ................. 75.00/hr. Certified Asbestos Inspector/Manager .................................... 70100/hr. Project Engineer ................................................... 70.00/hr. IJ Project Geologist .................................................. 70.00/hr. Chemist ........................................................ ~ 70.00/hr. Environmental Specialist ............................................. 70.00/hr. Project Administration & Analysis ...................................... 70.00/hr. Field Engineer ................................................... 65.00/hr. ~ Field Geologist ................................................... 65.00~hr. Expert Witness Testimony · Consultation, Preparation for Court, Expert Witness ......................... $145.00/hr. Court Appearance/Deposition ......................................... By Quote Stand-By at Office (Waiting to be Called to Court) ............................ By Quote · .'~' Technical Engineering Technician ............................................ $47.00/hr. Environmental Technician ............................................ 47.00/hr. Clerical Clerical & Drafting ............................................... $30.00/hr. Offices Serving the Western United States (7/1995) Fee Schedule Page No. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ~bestos Consultation and Analysis Survey Buildings for Asbestos ........................................ $70.00/hr. Asbestos Technician 70.00/hr. Analyze for Asbestos per EPA (PLM) Procedures ' 15.00/sample Monitor On-Site per OSHA Standards .................................... By Quote Consult for Asbestos Abatement ' By Quote Wells Groundwater Monitoring Well Installations ................................. By Quote Groundwater Extraction Well .......................................... By Quote Vapor Monitoring Well Installation ...................................... By Quote Vapor Point Installation ............................................. By Quote Vapor Extraction Well .............................................. By 'Quote Environmental Drilling, Exploration, Travel Light Duty Drilling (continuous flight auger by Mobile Drill Minuteman or Giddings) $90.00/hr. Drilling (continuous flight, hollow stem auger or rotary wash, w/2 operators) SIMCO 2800S Drill Rig (truck mounted) ............................ 115.00/hr. CME 45 Drill Rig (truck mounted) ' 115.00/hr. CME 55 Drill Rig (truck mounted) ' 115.00/hr. Mobile Drill B-61 Drill Rig (truck mounted) .......... . ............... 115.00/hr. Mobile Drill B-61/HDX Drill Rig (truck mounted) ' 115.00/hr. Mileage (support vehicles) ..................................... 00.30/mi. Mileage (drill rig) ........................................... 00.60/mi. Other Equipment & Services Rates Sample Container Charge: Stainless Steel Tube (including caps, Teflon/aluminum foil, labels, etc.) ......... $5.00/ea. 6~ Brass Sleeves (including caps, Teflon/aluminum foil, labels, etc.) ........... 4.00/ea. VOA Vials .................................................... na 1 Liter Sample Bottles ............................................. na Personal Protective Equipment ............. . ............................ By Quote Hydropunch II Screen/Points/Seals .................................... $40/sample Offices Serving the Western United States (7/1995) Fee Schedule Page No. 7 Other Equipment & Services Rates (eon't) Steam Cleaner or Pressure Washer ..................................... 100.00/day I Magnetic Cable Locator ............................................ 25.00/day ,- Photoionization Detector ............................................ 75.00/day ~,, Free Product Recovery Emergency Response Equipment ........................ By Quote : Hermit 2000 Datalogger Aquifer Testing Equipment · By Quote Magnetometer ..................................................... By Quote ~ Electromagnetometer ............................................... By Quote i Clean-up/Remedial Equipment ......................................... By Quote i Analytical Chemistry: ; Analysis Method Price BTEX 8020 $60.00 TPH-Gasoline 8015M $60.00 BTEX/TPH-Gasoline 8020/8015M $60.00 TPH-Diesel 8015M $60.00 TRPH 418.1 $55.00 Halogenated Volatile Organics 8010/601 $130.00 Industrial Solvents 8015M $170.00 Organ0chlorine Pesticides & PCBs 8080 $110.00 Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 8120 $170.00 Organophosphorus Pesticides 8140/614 $170.00 Chlorinated Herbicides 8150 $200.00 Purgeable Organics 8240/624 $295.00 Extractable Organics 8270/625 $485.00 TTLC (17 Metals without Chromium 6+) Title 22 $285.00 STLC Title 22, WET $110.00 Lead LUFF $65.00 Organic Oil and Grease 413.1 $70.00 EDB & DBCP 504 $130.00 Offices Serving the Western United States (7/1995) Fee Schedule Page No. 8 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Soils - Foundations - Geology Exploratory Drilling, Sampling, and Travel Light Duty Drilling (continUous flight auger by Mobile Drill Minuteman or Giddings, operator only) ~ ................ · ............ $90.00/hr. Drilling (continuous flight, hollow stem auger or rotary wash, w/2 operators) SIMCO 2800S Drill Rig (truck mounted) ............................ 115.00/hr. CME 45 Drill Rig (truck mounted) ................................ 115.00/hr. CME 55 Drill Rig (truck mounted) ................................ 115.00/hr. Mobile Drill B-61 (truck mounted) ................................ '115.00/hr. Mobile Drill B-61/HDX Drill Rig (truck mounted) ..................... 115.00/hr. Mileage (support vehicles) ..................................... 00.30/mi. !, Mileage (drill rig) ........................................... 00.60/mi. '.! Laboratory Tests Sieve Analysis, Coarse, ASTM C 136 ................................... $70.00/ea. Fine (including wash), ASTM C 137, C 177 ............................... 70.00/ea. Hydrometer Ana/ysis., ASTM. D 422 ..................................... 70.00/ea. Specific Gravity, Bulk SSD, Coarse, ASTM C 127, C 117 ...................... 50.00/ea. Fine, ASTM C 128 ............................................... 60.00/ea. Atterberg Limits, ASTM D 4318 ....................................... 80.00/ea. Moisture-Density Relations of Soils, ASTM D 698, D 1557, State 216 .............. 120.00/ea. Consolidation Test ASTM D 2435 ..................................... 135.00/ea. '\ Triaxial Compression Test, ASTM D 2850 Undrained ..................................... 180.O0/ea. Unconsolidated, Consolidated, Undrained ...................................... 250.00/ea. Consolidated, Undrained with Pore Pressure ......................... 400.00/ea. Unconfined Compression Test, ASTM D 2166 .............................. 50.00/ea. Expansion Index, UBC-29-2 ......................................... 125.00/ea. Direct Shear Test, ASTM D 3080 Unconsolidated, Undrained, 1 point ............................... 135.00/ea. Consolidated, Undrained, 1 point .................................. 60.00/ea. Consolidated, Drained, 1 point ................................... 85.00/ea. Offices Serving the Western United States Fee Schedule Page No. 9 .?. Permeability, Constant Falling Head, ^STM 2434 .................... · ...... $135.00/ea. .., Index Tests not Listed .................... ~ ......................... By Quote " Sulfate Content ' 30.O0/ea. '"R~ (Resistance) Value, Cal. 301, ASTM D 2844~ . .......................... 165.00/ea. "R~ (Resistance) Value, Lime Treated or Requiring Recombining ................. 165.00/ea. Bearing Ratio, ASTM D 1883 ......................... , .............. 300.00/ea. Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D 1195, D 1196 ................................ By Quote . I Offices Serving the Western United States · .. ~ __~___. ATTACHMENT A- COST ESTIMATE SHEET ~'-' SAN JOAQUIN 'ROOFING COMPANY 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 Company: Geomatrix Consultants, Inc_~. Address: 2444 Hain Street, Suite 215 Fresno, CA 93721-2734 Telephone: 209-264-2535 Contact Name: Ms. Veen Chee FoonK Tasks Estimated Cost Initial Tasks Review past reports $1 ~ 000 Prepare Remedial Action Plan $4 ~ 000 Installation of 5 soil vapor extraction wells to 50 teat below grade $ 7 ~ 000 (includes permitting and soil disposal) : Vapor Extraction Pilot Test $.3,000 Permitting of air pollution control equipment $2,000 Building permits $1,000 Installation and start-up of system $3,000 (includes labor, piping materials, electrical, gas line, testing) Monthly Tasks Rental of thermal oxidizer or GAC unit $4,500/mo. Fuel or carbon disposal and regeneration $ 850/mo. Labor $3,700/mo. Laboratory anaJyms 0 Monthly total Sq. 050/mo. Total 6 month operation costs (estimated time of SVES operation is 6 months) $54,300 Project Management/Quarterly Status Reports $9,000 Completion Tasks Conlirmation boring (3 to 50 feet) (includes permitting and soil disposal) $9,000 Closure report $2,000 Abandonment oi' 5 vapor extraction wells $4,000 Estimated Grand Total $99,300 '~ ~ ~OMATRIX CONSULTANTS, ~ 1995 SCHEDULE OF CHARGES GEOMATIqlX The Schedule of Charges applies to all services provided by and/or through Geomatrix Consultants. Charges for our services are divided into three categories: Personnel, Outside Services, and Equipment Rental/Reimbursables. A new schedule of charges is issued at the beginning of each year. The schedule of charges may also be revised during the year, as conditions require. Changes will not be made within a calendar year on a project in progress without prior authorization. PERSONNEL: Personnel charges are for technical work, including technical typing, editing, and graphics involved in the preparation of reports and correspondence and for the time associated with production of such documents. Direct charges are not made for secretarial service, office management, accounting, and maintenance, because these items are included in overhead. Personnel category ,charge rates for Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., in 1995 are as follows: Personnel Category Hourly Rate · Principal Engineer/Scientist $115 - 175 Senior Engineer/Scientist II 115 Senior Engineer/Scientist I 100 Project Engineer/Scientist II 90 Project Engineer/Scientist I .80 Staff Engineer/Scientist II 73 Staff Engineer/Scientist I 65 Senior Technician 63 Field Technician 56 CAD Designer 70 Graphic Artist 60 Project Assistant 50 Technical Editor 50 Technical Typist 42 Production Assistant 32 Time spent in travel in the interest of the client will be charged at hourly rates, except that no more than 8 hours of travel time will be charged in any day. When it is necessary for an employee to be away from the office overnight, actual costs, or a negotiated rate, will be charged for living expenses. A multiplier of 1.15' will be applied to all personnel expenses. Charges for expert witness services will be at the hourly rates shown. However, for depositions and for court appearances, the rate is $200.00 per hour. There will be a 4-hour minimum per-day charge for depositions and an 8-hour minimum per-day charge for court appearances. Special accounting services will be billed at the Production Assistant rate. OUTSIDE SERVICES: Outside services will be charged at cost plus 15 percent. Common outside items to which this 1.15 multiplier applies include: drilling services, outside laboratory testing, equipment rental, printing and photographic work, special insurance, outside consultants, travel and transportation, vehicle usage, and long-distance communications. EQUIPMENT RENTAL/REIMBURSABLES: Soil sampler, sample tubes, and vehicle $15.00/hour Automobile (travel time plus hours on site) 8.00/hour Truck (travel time plus hours on site) 13.00/hour Truck w/water sampling equipment/water quality trailer 350.00 - 500.00/day Photocopies 0.15/sheet Geographic Information System (GIS) use 35.00/hour In-house computer use 20.00/hour CAD Workstation use 15.00/hour Facsimile copies . 1.00/page Rates for engineering and scientific field equipment (such as instrumentation equipment, water and soil sampling equipment, and geology equipment) may be obtained on request. INVOICES: Invoices will be rendered monthly, either as a final or partial billing, and will be payable upon receipt. An additional late payment charge of 1 IA % per month or the maximum charge allowed by law, whichever is less, will be payable on accounts not paid within 30 days from billing date. I'~,cumem: C:XWP.~I~ADMIN~FCIRM~$CIIEDULE. ~i Oivic Center Square ~ 2444 Main Street. Suite 215 Fresno. California 9;372 ~ -2734 (209] 264-2535 · FAX [209) 264-~431 GEOMATRIX 27 October 1995 Project 95PC427 'Mr.. Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 Subject: Soil Remediation 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, California Dear Mr. Graham: Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to San Joaquin Roofing Company (SJRC) for the preparation and implementation of a remedial action plan at 1501 East 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. This proposal has been prepared in response to your 12 October 1995 Request For Proposal (RFP). Geomatrix has extensive experience in the remediation and closure of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites. We have obtained or are obtaining closures of leaking fuel storage tank sites for our clients in various areas of the Central Valley, including Kern County, Tulare C0unt~, Kings County, and Merced County. In addition, we have working knowledge of the geology and hydrogeology of the area based on our past project experiences in Kern County. - Our remediation approach, proposed scope of services, project personnel and references, preliminary schedule, and preliminary cost estimate are described in this letter. Remediation Approach In the RFP, Smith Environmental Technologies, Inc. indicated that a minimum of five 50-foot deep vapor extraction wells should be installed at the site for soil remediation. Based on oUr review of the 26 June 1995 "Underground Storage Tank Site Assessment" report b7 Smith, we propose that only two soil gas extraction wells be installed in the vicinity of th~ former tank area. Analytical results presented in the report indicate that the lateral extent of soil affected by petroleum hydrocarbons is limited to an area of approximately 30-foot radius from the former tank location. The vertical extent of soil affected by high petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations appears to be limited to a depth between approximately 15 and 35 feet below ground surface (bgs). Our past experience with similar projects suggests that a minimum radius of influence between 30 and 60 feet can be achieved with a soil gas extraction well. Based on the SJRC site information and 6ur past experience, we believe that two extraction wells constructed to 30 feet bgs will be sufficient for remediation of the limited extent of affected soil at the former tank area. Geornatrix Consultants, Inc. Engineers, Geologists, and Environmental Scientists GIEOMATI~I X Mr. Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing 27 October 1995 Page 2 Since the reported petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in some soil samples collected in the former tank area were greater than 10,000 milligrams per kilogram, we anticipate that it will be very costly to use carbon adsorption units to treat the extracted soil gas. We propose that an internal combustion engine be used as the treatment unit for the extracted soil gas. Geomatrix has several mobile soil gas extraction systems (SGES) equipped with internal combustion engines. We have an existing permit issued by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Bakersfield, for a similar system being operated at a site in Tulare County. We anticipate that it will a similar process to apply for a permit from the APCD for a system to be operated at the SJRC site. Scope of Services Geomatrix will provide the services described below. · Review the reports of previous site assessments provided by SJRC. · Prepare a remedial action plan (RAP) for submittal to the Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD); in the RAP, we will also describe the proposed management of residuals (soil cuttings) derived from field activities. · ARer receipt of approval for the RAP from the BFD, we will obtain drilling permits and install two soil gas extraction wells to 30 feet bgs in the vicinity of the former tank area. · Apply for an Authority To Construct (ATC) the SGES from the APCD. Arrange for the gas company to extend the gas service line to the proposed SGES location. · Al~er receipt of the ATC, we will install the SGES, conduct extraction testing of the two wells, and collect soil gas samples in accordance with the ATC. · Conduct monitoring of the SGES once a week in accordance with the ATC for an estimated 6 months period. · Prepare two quarterly reports summarizing the SGES monitoring data for submittal to the BFD and Al'CD. We will propose to the BFD for installation of confirmation soil borings and subsequently site closure when the SGES data indicate that the petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations have been reduced to asymptotic levels. GEQMATIqlX Mr. Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing 27 October 1995 Page 3 · AFter receipt of approval for the closure plan from the BFD, we will install three confirmation soil borings to approximately 30 feet bgs in the vicinity of the former tank area, prepare a -'closure report, and abandon the existing soil gas extraction wells. Project Personnel and References Ms. Veen Chee Foong, P.E., a Geomatrix Project Engineer, will be managing the project under the direction of Mr. Timothy G. Souther, R.E.A., a Geomatrix Principal Environmental Scientist. The resumes for these personnel are attached. Both Ms. Foong and Mr. Souther have more than 5 years of professional experience, including projects involving assessment, remediation design, remediation operation and monitoring, and site closure. A Statement of Qualification (SOQ) for our firm is enclosed. References for similar projecis are: Mr. Clifford Walker, Jr. J. R. Simpiot Company Post Office Box 298, Lathrop, California 95330 (209) 858-251 l Mr. Don Culbertson Chevron Pipe Line Company Post Office Box 5059, San Ramon, California 94583 (510) 842-6930 Mr. James Waldron Chevron U.S.A. Production Company Post Office Box 1392, Bakersfield, California 93302 (805) 395-6439 Preliminary Schedule · Geomatrix will prepare the draft RAP for SJRC's review and comment within 4 weeks after receipt of SJRC authorization to proceed. Within I week after receipt of' SJRC's comments, Geomatfix will finalize the RAP and send three copies to SJRC for SJRC's submittal to the BFD. Geomatrix will implement the remediation within 2 weeks after receipt of approval from the BFD. GEOMATI:~IX Mr.. Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing · 27 October 1995 Page 4 Preliminary Cost Estimate The completed Cost Estimate Sheet is attached. The estimated total is approximately $100,000. The proposed scope of services will be provided on a time and material basis in accordance with the attached Schedule of Charges and Conditions. Geomatrix is pleased to be of service to San Joaquin Roofing Company. Please call if you have questions. Sincerely yours, GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS, INC. -/ Veen Chee Fo Timothy G. Souther, R.E.A. Project Engineer Principal Environmental Scientist Attachments: Resumes, Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. Cost Estimate Sheet Geomatrix 1995 Schedule of Charges and Conditions Enclosure: Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., SOQ do~nnenc ['~0 C:\WPSI~DATA~PROI~OSAL~SP~427 CONDITIONS:. Geomatrix will not be liable for damage or injury arising from damage to subterranean structures (pipes, tanks, telephone cables, etc.) which are not called to its attention and COiTectl~'. shown on the plans furnished to it in connection with Geomatrix's work. Client will furnish right-of-entry and equipment access for Geomatrix to make borings, surveys, and/or explorations. While Oeomatrix will operate with reasonable care not to damage pwperty and plants, the cost of repairing any damage not reasonably avoidable is not included in the fee unless otherwise stated. Geomatrix's services shall be performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other professional consultants performing comparable services under comparable circumstances at the time services are performed under this Agreement. No other representations to Client, express or implied, and no warranty or guarantee not expressly stated herein are included or intended in this Agreement. No statements contained in any report, opinion, document, or otherwise, whether prepared prior to, at the same time, or subsequent, to this Agreement, constitute any warranty or guarantee by. Geomatrix as to the services performed under this Agreement. C-eomatrix shall, to the fullest extent permitted bi law, indemnify, defend and hold harmless Client, its affiliates and their respective directors, officers, employees and agents from all claims and actions, losses and attorneys' fees ('Losses') arising from C-eomatrix's negligence or intentional misconduct in the ~fformance of services pursuant to this Agreement, but only to the extent Geomatrix's negligence or intentional misconduct caused such Losses. Client shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, defend and hold harmless G-eomatrix, its affiliates and their respective directors, officers, employees, agents - and subcontractors from and against all Losses either (a) arising from Client's negligence or intentional misconduct or Co) based On, or arising out of, damages or injuries to persons or properly caused by, or arising out of, any hazardous and/or toxic substances present at the site. To the fullest extent permitted by law and notwithstanding anything in the preceding paragraph to the contrary, the total cumulative liability of Geomatrix and its affiliates 'and their respective directors, officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors to Client and all third parties with respect to services performed or to be performed pursuant 'to this Agreement, whether for breach of contract, warranty, indemnity, contribution, tort, design defect, or otherwise, shall not exceed 100% of the gwss compensati6n actually received by Geomatrix under this Agreement or $50,000, whichever is greater; provided however, for any damage caused by acts or omissions other than professional negligence, such liability shall not exceed the available coverage under C-eomatrix's commercial general and' automobile liability insurance coverage. Neither part~ shalt be liable to the other party for special, incidental, Consequential, or penal losses or damages, even if the parties have been advised of the possibility of such damages. The foregoing limitations shall apply to ail actions of any character, whether in law or equity and whether sounding in contract, indemnity, contribution, warranty, tort, design defect, or otherwise. Client shall notify its contractors and their subcontractors of the foregoing limitations of liability and obtain, for the benefit of Geomatrix, their agreement to the foregoing limitations of liability. Client shall have the right to use the materials resulting from Geomatrix's efforts on the project (the 'Materials') only for purposes expressly contemplated in this Agreement. The Materials shall not be used by Client for other pwjects, for additions to the subject project, for any portions of the project following any termination of Geomatrix, or for completion of the project by others (unless C-eomatrix is in material breach of this Agreement), except by agreement in writing. Client agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless C-eomatrix against ali losses resulting from any use of the Materials not expressly authorized by this Agreement. In the event of any dispute, action, or proceeding between Client and Geomatrix arising from this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. Any action by Client against Geomatrix relating to services hereunder shall be brought not later than one year following the earlier of termination or completion of Geomatrix's services. In the event of a civil acti°n between the Client and Geomatrix, the parties knowingly and willingly waive, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any right to a trial of such action by a jury. C-eomatrix and Client intend to submit disputes to alternative dispute resolution procedures. In the event of a dispute between Geomatrix and Client arising in connection with this Agreement, Geomatrix and Client shall make good faith efforts to agree on an alternative dispute resolution procedure to resolve the dispute. The cost of such procedure (excluding each party's attorneys' fees and expenses) shall be divided equally among the parties to the dispute. All provisions, under the heading 'CONDITIONS' shall survive termination or completion of this Agreement. ~ CAW P~ I'~ADM I N~ FO~M SISC H ED U LE,~I OEOMATRIX CAPABILITIES AND QUALIFICATIONS Geomatrix provides high-quality services in three practice areas: (I) environmental 'sciences and engineering, (2) geotechnical engineering, and (3) earthquake-related services. This combination of practice areas allows us to offer a comprehensive range of services to our clients. The following sections describe the capabilities in our environmental practice related to leaking underground storage tanks. Statements of Qualifications for our geotechnical engineering and earthquake-related services are available on request. Geomatrix has completed environmental assignments for industrial, manufacturing, agricultural, and municipal clientsl The firm has broad experience in planning and executing environmental projects, including: · assessment and closure of storage tanks · site characterization · remedial design · remedial construction · site assessment for property transactions · environmental compliance and facility audits. The following sections provide a more detailed description of each of these capabilities. Assessment and Closure of Storage Tanks Geomatrix has assessed aboveground and underground tank conditions for a variety of applications and industries. We have located tank using geophysical methods, tested tank integrity, established tank compliance programs, removed tanks, assessed soil quality, assessed groundwater quality, and obtained.tank site closure. Tanks have ranged from 10-gallon fuel oil sumps to tank farms composed of up to 20,000-gallon-capacity tanks. We have charactexized soil beneath tanks for gasoline, solvents, industrial chemicals, kerosene, aviation fuel, 'dieSel, fuel oil, waste oil, crude oil, and other hydrocarbon compounds. Geomatrix also manages the remediation of hydrocarbon and solvent spills at tank sites, using innovative technologies where appropriate. Soil remediation ranges from excavation and bioremediation to in situ soil fixation or soil vapor extraction. Groundwater remediation methods have included product skimming, passive bioremediation, enhanced bioremediation, and groundwater extraction/treatment. Geomatrix manages efforts from feasibility evaluation through design, permitting, construction, and operation. i,II! MARg~'rg~q.~OST-I~EN.SOQ (11-93) 3 GEOMATRIX I }~::'i~P~:.::c~u~::~bf t~:;:S~:::;~:~?'~~?~~?t~."i~e~Or '~m' ~ fl~r: of .:t~:: . ;: i~~?~ :. ~ ; ~ ; i~l~ ::~lling:s~n T :sOil:"~n gs::.'~.' .:;i~l~fOr~l ':.:~~?.?':;(':'::' ??.':;~ ~;:': ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '::. ?:~/C:'?::~::~:~.:: '::':::'~:,: 'i:' .'.'.~L:::'/': ~' '"'":::'::'::? :::: .::?~..ii': ~.:' 7.:':'; ': ::~:. ':~'~::: :i:(:.:.;::.:::ii:':'::~'::::::~ ~:~.i75~::i::i :~:. ~}}.~~~;of t~..:~rgm~:~l:t~:;.'~:~~d.:~M..'~tion p~gr~fo~:.'. .~"~l~.f~inti~:(-~pm~:;~g~oq:(:!~er~n:~:~th ..~~:.~:~~n~:~~;~i~e?:~?;?~:~.::~.:;::::?:::??:::::....~.:::.?~:~:~.;.~:~:~:~.~.:.:~.~;~}~::~:~:~:.:i~.:~:~:~;~:~:?.~.~.:???:i~~.: ~UST-nE~.SOQ ¢~ ~-93) 4 ~us'r-ar~.soQo~-93) 5 GEOMATRIX S/te Otaracter/za~on Geomatrix characterizes sites to assess for the presence, nature, and distribution of chemicals in soil and groundwater. We begin a site characterization with an investigation of site history and review of existing information regarding current site conditions. If additional site investigation appears to be needed, we work with our client to develop a field program that considers the technical, regulatory, and financial aspects of the project, and addresses the clients concerns and goals for the site. The field program may include evaluating the geologic and hydrogeologie setting of the site, performing reconnaissance soil and groundwater quality surveys, installing monitoring wells, and performing aquifer and plume characterization studies. During field programs, our professional staff collect soil and water samples for physical and/or chemical testing. Our sampling experience covers a wide range of media--rock, soil, sediments, surface water, groundwater, biota, and air--and a variety of investigative methods. Methods include installing borings, conducting continuous-core drilling and sampling, and sampling cone penetration testing, installing water and soil gas sampling probes, and special techniques for sampling wetlands soils. We design monitoring networks for evaluating soil, vadose zone, and groundwater quality; evaluating the performance of groundwater pumping and drainage systems; and assessing hydraulic gradients within an aquifer. Monitoring networks range in complexity from conventional wells, for water-level measurement and water quality sampling in the saturated zone, to devices for measuring liquids and gases in the unsaturated zone. Geomatrix has pioneered new field techniques in our site characterization studies. Our use of innovative data collection methods has provided our clients with substantial cost and time savings. Typically, Geomatrix staff utilize various screening methods to define the lateral and vertical extent of chemicals in the subsurface before installing a .monitoring well network. This approach results in a minimum number of monitoring wells, reducing both the short-term costs of characterization and the long-term costs of monitoring. I3EOMATRIX Geomatrix designs remediation schemes that provide cost-effective solutions to meeting cleanup goals. Our first step in evaluating alternatives for site remediation is to understand. the needs and goals of our client, including technical, financial, regulatory, and strategic considerations. We then identify feasible remedial alternatives that can achieve cleanup goals, and often use a net present value approach to evaluate the short- and long-term costs of each alternative. We evaluate regulatory requirements and long-term liability implications, and we work with our client to select the most appropriate and cost-effective remedy. We structure our evaluation to facilitate efficient decision-making and design processes. Our evaluations generally include the 'following steps: · identify remediation goals and strategy based on client needs and regulatory requirements · develop criteria for selecting'remeclial alternatives · identify feasible alternatives; perform cost-benefit analyses · recommend best remediation alternative based on all factors · design remediation system · prepare detailed cost estimates and schedule. Geomatrix creatively applies both innovative and established remedial technologies to solve simple to complex environmental projects. We have broad experience in designing these technologies, which include: chemical mass removal using techniques such as groundwater extraction and treatment, free-phase product removal, and vapor extraction and treatment; .soil excavation and disposal; engineered containment systems such as slurry cutoff walls, geotextiles, and caps; and in situ and ex-situ treatment techniques such as chemical fixation, bioremediation, and bioventing. We have broad experience in designing remedial solutions using .these technologies to fit a wide variety of site conditions and sizes and remedial objectives. We are able to design innovative remedial technologies, such as in situ permeable treatment walls, when creative solutions will meet the project and client's goals more effectively than existing technologies. Geomatrix consistently achieves remediation goals by developing remedial designs that utilize the most appropriate technologies for specific site conditions. Ge°matrix provides construction services for implementing the selected remedial design. We can construct the remedial system acting as the general contractor, or provide construction management and support services. We have performed construction management for a wide variety of projects, including soil excavation, on-site treatment, and disposal; engineered containment systems, including slurry walls and caps; pilot-scale and large-scale groundwater and vapor treatment plants; and removal of underground and aboveground storage tanks. We implement remodiafion programs that usc innovative and emerging technologies such as bioventing, soil fixation, and in situ bioremediafion. We have designed and are patenting a state-of-thc-art, portable, combustion-engine-driven vapor extraction system that quickly and cost-effectively removes organic vapors and free-phase product from sites containing petroleum hydrocarbons.' Our professional staff can implement and oversee all aspects of construction, including the following: · permitting i~:': · preparation of construction plans and specifications, and contract documents · bid ~valuafion and recommendations for qualified contractors · implementation oversight · system startup and monitoring · operations and maintenance · preparation of implementation reports !.~$: * regulatory agency interfacing/approval process --35~) · community relations support. · -:' ~ Geomatrix successfully controls remediafion costs through efficient planning and organization, ';~ :~. effective contractor negotiation and conlJacting processes, and quality assurance/control .. ,...?..~ GEOMATRIX programs during construCtion monitoring. We optimize system operations by closely tracking performance and developing improvement programs for our treatment systems. Once remediafion is complete, we prepare the appropriate documentation that demonstrates we have met remediation goals and work closely with regulatory agencies to obtain final site closure. · .:.!~~d~! ~iopme~:~rojecti! !::i i:::: Wtthln-. extre~ !'time :"constraints ;' ia' to ? airi ntananant. r'. soz:::?.:::: ':.):?:.:: :::::':.ili:.?" ?' ) Site ,4~se~ for Property Transactions The objective of site assessments for property transactions is to identify possible impacts to soil or groundwater resulting from past and current activities at the site or from activities at nearby properties. Geomatrix's approach to performing environmental assessments for property transactions depends on past and proposed uses of the site and nearby properties, and the level of risk acceptable to the parties of the transaction. An environmental assessment for property transfer generally is conducted in two phases to give the client flexibility in controlling the scope of work and project costs. Phase I typically involves site research, gathering information by: (1) researching publicly available records, maps, and aerial photographs to trace prior and current uses of the site and adjacent properties; (2) reviewing records at federal, state, and local regulatory agencies to obtain information regarding the site and adjacent properties; (3) evaluating the site's geologic and hydrogeologic setting from published and publicly available records; and (4) performing a plant and site reconnaissance and interviewing site personnel. Phase II, if necessary, involves field and laboratory programs to address any concerns raised in the first phase of work. The field program may consist of conducting soil gas surveys, collecting soil samples, conducting reconnaissance groundwater sampling and chemical analysis, or installing groundwater monitoring wells. The second phase generally is not intended to fully define the extent of identified chemicals, but to assess whether chemicals are present and the possible environmental impacts on the site. Geomatrix is familiar with the many different aspects of environmental assessments and work closely with our client to ensure that their concerns, including lending institution requirements, due diligence requirements, and accelerated schedules for job completion, are met. In addition, we are familiar with the standards of practice as defined by ASTM, and, where appropriate, incorporate these standards into our assessments. Often the results of the ~L~XZ'V-.~OSa'XL~Um-B~.SOQ 0 ~-~3) 9 GEOMATRIX environmental assessment are needed to develop potential remediation scenarios and cost projections. The extensive experience of Geomatrix staff in remedial investigation, design and construction management allows us to quickly develop defendable remedial cost projections. :!:'~~:!~~}~g:::~i! ~': :200'~?;~ngfonner and 'oper~ng::s~ions. :?i:~?~i!!~::~r!~re::t~/JOO.~i!;i~.:tY~i::~OperattOns had; .;..~~!::.~:~ew of regulatorY. ~umen~i::' allOwed'us: to prO~qde agre~ t° address: the ' identified environmental liabilities/:. /:'. './...'. 'i i.l i..'. :"!'i .: ":i)i::..i:! Environmental Compliance and Facility Audits Geomatrix has worked extensively on environmental and regulatory compliance projects involving local, regional, state, and federal regulations. Our facility audits include a site inspection and review of regulatory and facility environmental files to evaluate potential areas of non-compliance and, where appropriate, provide recommendations for alternative operating methods that will reduce environmentally-related expenditures. Regulatory compliance is an integral element of all of our Work. Our services in this area include application of regulations related to: · Resoume Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permits and waste disposal · RCRA Corrective Action · National Contingency Plan site characterization and cleanup ._ · Aboveground and underground storage tanks · Industrial hygiene surveys · Federal Clean Air Act and local Air Quality Districts · Air Toxic 'Hot Spots' emission inventories and risk assessments · Permit-by-Rule (California) · Proposition 65 · Ha~rd communication programs required by OSHA · Federal and state Community Right-to-Know requirements for hazardous materials · Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) plans · Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans · National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits ~uu~'lxso~'ryt,~us'r-a~.so~ 0 t-~) l 0 I~EOMATRIX · U.S. Army Corps of Engineer~ permitting (wetlands) Geo~ staff research and review and rules to abreast of waste routinely regulations handlin~ practic, m and environmmtal compliance requirements and to promote effective regulatory interaction. Our staff also regularly attend pertinent seminars and conferences where regulatory compliance i~um are addressed. ~s~s~u~usT-sa~.soQ (~.~) 11 OEC]MATRIX GEOMATRIX STAFF Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. has managed h~is of projects involving field investigations, remedial alternatives, studies and design, and construction management. Project work has included: underground tank removal, retrofit, and replacement; removal, cleanup and disposal of hazardous waste, PCBs, and lead and hydrocarbon contaminated soil. Our staff is very familiar with the applicable state, federal, and local laws and regulations governing underground storage tank projects. The team of professionals we have assembled for this project is extremely well qualified. Capable ~id Diverse - Geomatrix has gathered professionals with diverse, backgrounds from industry, regulato~ agencies, and academia in .thc fields of hydrogeology, environmental engineering, toxicology, air chemistry, chemical engineering, hydrology, geotechnical engineering, and civil engineering. Responsive - Circumstances linked with environmental problems frequently require immediate and thorough attention, as well as confidentiality. We are committed to our clients' needs, and pride ourselves on working with our clients to balance project costs and regulatory requirements. Professiomll - Geomatrix staff are committed to maintaining the highest professional standards in serving our clients. On all Geomatrix projects, we strive to provide accurate technical information and to. develop cost-effective and practical solutions. We carefully manage projects to (insure timely delivery of submittals, close coordination with client personnel, and conformance to budget requirements and the authorized scope of work. Experienced - Our staff are able to integrate quickly the knowledge gained from our comprehensive experience with new, project-specific data. Aware of a number of possible approaches, we enter a new project with both an historical and scientific perspective and an open mind to discover the most effective solution. Innovative and Practical - Many of Geomatrix,s professionals have held university positions, delivered lectur~ and seminars within their specialty, or participated in research projects. Continued interaction with the academic community keeps them abreast of recently developed technologies, thc results of significant studies, and new theories advanced by research colleagues. Remaining on the leading edge of the evolving knowledge within environmental disciplines allows our staff to provide high-quality expertise to our clients maintaining a close working relationship with our clients allows 'us to apply these services in a practical manner, focussing on our clients needs and concerns. Skilled in R~gulatory Inter~ction - Our staff have extensive experience in conducting and documenting formal decision-making processes-important ingredients in regulatory interaction. Our well-developed communication and organizational skills, combined with our knowledge and in-depth analyses, support the development of effective, practical, economic, and timely solutions. ,~:._ sC~U~r~n~usT-s~.sc~ o ]-9~) 12 CORPORATE PROGRAMS Geomatrix is organized to provide services as an "Expert Team"--a collaborative, mulfidisciplinary re,m~rce composed of engineers and scientists. Once a project has been ~alua~ ~:1 ~at'fing needs identified, a project ~ is develol~l and l~l by a ~enior or prin~il~l firm 'm~ml~'. The project team, including a project director, project manager, and technical mvi~, is .~elected to work closely with tl~ cliemt, ~ the strategy for the project, review the implementation, and ensure that the project remains on ~hedule and within budget. The team members are assembled from either a single office or multiple offices, depending upon' the project si2e and areas of expertise needed. ~ A~rtmce and Technical Review Geomatrix maintains a formal program of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) ~~g to ~u ~,~t~ of our t~h~i~ and suppo, se~i~. The prog~ in¢lud~ ,~t~ management, filing, tran~orting and auditing procedure~ for file~, rumple te~fing QA/QC proc~ure~, and auditing procedure~. A copy of Gcomatrix'~ Protocols, which discusse~ our field melhod~ and .~'npling QA/QC program in mor~ detail, is available on request. I The C~omatrix Corporate Health and Safety Program consist~ of several component program~ - that include a hazardous waste site operation training and medical monitoring'program, a lummt communication program, and an inju~ and illne&q prevention program. A more , detailed d~a'iption of Gcomatrix's Corporate Health and Safety Program is available on CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNDERGROUND STOOGE TANKS CONTAINING P~OLEUM A, I am required Io demonslrile Financial Responsibgi~ in the required nmounls ns I~cified in ~clion 2807. Chaplet 18, Div. 3. Title 2~. ~R: ~ 5~,~ dollars ~r ~currence ~ 1 miflion dollars nunutl n~resale or AND or ~ I mi~ion dollars ~r ~currence ~ 2 mi~ion dollars annual a~reBale fl. San ~Jn R~nq Co. ,~nc. hereby ce~ifles f~t ~ ~ in compliance w/th the require~n~ of ~fMn 280~ R~/e 3. C~pfer 18. D~Mn 3. ~R/e 23. Ca/~orn~ C~e of Regu/afMns. - ~ ~n~ ~ to de~tmfe ~/resins/billy as required by ~cfMn 2807are as fo//o~: S~ ~T S~ UST C]~n~ Fund N/A ~or Pe~ S~ ~T Fund P.0. Box ~2~2 ~T Savanna, ~ '~2~-2~ Fund & $995,~' Fund Con~J~s Chle~ F1~1a] San ~in R~tng Co. ,~nc. N/A ~o~ Per Ann~] ~S ~S Ag~a~ "Note: -ff you are using the State F~nd as any part of your demonstration of financial responsibility, y~-u/ ~xec~tloh ~d submission ~ ' of this cer~fication also certifies that you are in compliance with all conditions for participation in the Fund. D. F,~u~ Name ] Fac~Jly Address SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY, INC. I 1501 E. 19TH ST. ,Bakersfield, CA 93305 FaaUil~Nme I F~d~hy Addrms I Fadfl I'/Nme J Faz~Lhy Address Familia/Name I Fac~U~/~Jdrc~ gute i Name m~d '~de of T~mk Owner ~ 11/20/95 . T~ E~rds - Wi~ss The Chief Financial Officer or ~e owner or operator must sign, uno'penalty of perjury, a letter . worded EXACTLY as follows or you may complete the letter by filling in tile blanks with appropriate information: · LEWFER FROM CItIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER I am the Chief Financial Officer for SAN JOAQUIN R00VING .COMPANY, INC. (~usincss name, business sddress, and correspondence address of owner or operalor) 1501 E. 19TH STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 I' This letter is in support of the use of the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund to demonstrate financial responsibility for taking corrective action anti/or compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage caused by an unauthorized release of petroleum in the amount of at least $ 5,000 per occurrence and $ 5,000 annual aggregate coverage.- ........ (Dollar Amount) .... (Dollar Amount) Underground storage tanks at tile following facilities are assured by this letterJ SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING, CO.,INC. 1501 E. 19TH STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 (Name and address of each facility where tanks for which financial responsibility is being demonstrated is Ioca~cd.) 1. Amount of annual aggregate coverage being assured by this letter ...................................................... $ 5',000 2. Total tangible assets ............................................. $ 354,087 3. Total liabilities ................................................... $ 133,B~6 4. Tangible net worth (subtract line 3 from line 2. Line 4 must be at least I0 times line 1) ..................... $ 220,231 I hereby certify that the wording of this letter is identical to tile wording specified ill subsection 2808.1(d)(1), Chapter 18, Division 3, Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations. i- declare .under penali~, of pe-~jury that the fo/egoing is role and correct to 0ie- be~t-or-hry- · knowledge anti belief; Executed at BAKERSFIELD, CA (Place O~' Execution) Raymond Graham (Printed Name) Vice President (Title). RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location: (' ~-'''<:~) Business Name: Conta~ Name: Business Phone: F~: InsPe~or's Name: Time of C~l: Date: ~/~/~ ~ Time: · Min: Type of Call: Incoming~ Outgoing [ ] Returned [ ] Content of Call: ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~. ~/r,_ ~.., ~.~ ~,~.~ ~ Actions Required: Time Required to Complete Activity # Min: 'SM'TH ENVIRON~I£NTAL TECHNOLOGIES CORF~R^TfON UNDERGROUND.STORAGE TANK SITE ASSESSMENT '1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 I I 150i) South Union Avenue · :Bakersfield, CA 93307 · (805) 835-7700. · . fax (805) 835-7717 I ' ' Engineering ." Consuhing · Remediation. · Construction · · ._ . 1-800-334-0004 - For 24-Hour Emergency Response ' ;' SM' H ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATrON ." . .. ~ June 26, 1995 -. 'ii Mr:.Ray Graham ..- I I San Joaquin Roofing ,- 1501 East 19th Street · !' 'l Bakersfield, California 933(~5 . I Subject: Undergr(~und Storage Tank Site Asses. sment : ~ ' 1501 East 19th St.reet I ' Bakersfield, California .. ..' Dear Mr. Graham: · ..' Smith Environmental'Technol0gies Corporation (Smith Environmental) presents the results " of the stibsurface investigation performed for San Joaquin Roofing Company (San Joaquin) at I -- 1501 East~19th Street in Bakersfield.,~California' (site). The investigation was performed in .': ... .response-to a request from the City of Bakersfield Fire Departmen. t, Fire Safety Control and Hazardous Materials DiviSion (BFD)'to evaluate the lateral .and vertical extent of soil I contamination resulting.from use of an underground. Storage· tank (UST). On May 11, 1995, ... smith` Environmental .submitted a wOrk plan to perform the,evaluation. The work plan was accepted by .BFD on Mhy .22, 1995'.- ... SITE DESCRIPTION . I The site is located on the southeast corner of East 19th Street and Brown Street, as shown on the Location Map, Plate i A 1,000 gallon UST, which was used to supply gasoline t° San '-Joaquin's fleet of trucks, was located east of the office building and on. the outside of'the I fenced-yard (Plate 2). A dispenser was-located within, the fenced yard. It is not known when ~'the. UST was'installed, and it is our understanding that San Joaquin discontinued use approximately three years ago... I SITE BACKGROUND " .1 On February 23, 1995, RLW Equipment Company of Bakersfield, California excavated and '~I removed the UST from the site..The UST excavation measured approximately 15 feet by 15 feet. The depth .of the excavation is not known but is estimated, to be ten feet below 'grade. The excavation was backfilled following the UST removal. Soil samples collected from the I base of the petroleum 'impacted soil remained in the excavation. excavation indicated Following .review of the-analytical data the BFD requested that the vertical and lateral extent " ... of.petroleum hydrocarbons be assessed. 1500 South Union Avenue' · Bakersfield, CA .93307 · (805) 835-7700 · fax (805) 835-7717 .... · -. Engineering · Consulting · Remediation .. Construction - · ' . ~ i · .'~: : 1-800-334-0004 'o F, or~. 24-Hour Emergency ,Resp°nse.- . ~ · Mr. Ray Graham ~ San Joaquin Roofing June 26, 1995 I ·REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY The site is situated in the Improvement District No. 4 of the Kern County Water Agency. I -' The' depth to groundwater near the site was reported, in the 1991 Report of Water Conditions by the Kern County Water Agency, to be approximately 210 feet. The groundwater flow direction was ito the southwest. ·" I SCOPE OF WORK I Smith Environmental contracted with Melton Drilling Company of Bakersfield, California to advance two borings at the site (Plate 2). On May 26, 1995, Borings B-1 and B-2, located in . . the foot print of the UST and adjacent to the dispenser, respectively, were advanced to 75 feet I below' grade. Because of contamination found in these two borings, Smith Environmental, Utilizing Smith Environmental personnel and drilling rig, advanced three additional borings (Borings B-3, B-4, and B-5) on May 31, 1995. Boring B-3, located approximately 15 feet east i of Boring B-l, was advanced to 35 feet below grade; drilling was stopped because the soil · type and contamination were similar to those encountered in Borings B-1 and B-2. Borings B-4 and B-5, located aPproximately 40 feet east and south' of Boring B-1 to encompass the I contamination, were advanced to 70 feet below grade. Borings advanced at ~he site used Mobile B-53 drilling rigs .equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers. Soil samples were collected at five foot intervals.using a California- I modified.split-spoon sampler lined with three six-inch .long brass or stainless steel tubes. The middle tube.'from each boring was used to evaluate the relative concentrations of volatile organlc 'chemicals with a photo ionization detector (PID). The soil sample in the last tube I was sealed with a Teflon sheeting, a plastic dap and tape, labeled and placed into an ice chilled cooler. Based on lithology and PID readings select soil samples were submitted to 'the laboratory for analysis. Borings B-1 and B-2 were backfilled with bentonite chips on May I-. 26, 1995.' Borings B-3, B-4, and B-5 were backfilled with a cement mix on June 1, 1995.~ Groundwater was not encountered in the borings. Mr. Howard Wines, III from the BFD -witnessed portions of the field work conducted on May 26 and 31, 1995. I SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS I Soil samples were classified in the field using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The subsurface soil encountered consisted of approximately 13 to 20 feet of gravelly to silty sand'overlying approximately nine feet .of sand. This sand unit overlies approximately 35 feet Iof silty sand to sandy silt with lenses of sand and gravelly silty sand scattered throughout. The silty sand unit is underlain by a dense gravelly 'clayey sand of unknown thickness. Plates 3 and 4 are geologic cross sections of the subsurface soil encountered. Attachment A i provides the boring logs. MACIici/8635 ' I .. Mr. Ray Graham .. · . .. San Joaquin Roofing . .- - ' June 26, 1995 '1 SOIL SAMPLING ~ "' The ra'tionale 'for the selection of the soil samples submitted from each' boring to the , i'~1-- laboratOry was: . Borings B-1 and B-2 I · ,15 foot sample from approximately 5 feet below the base of the UST excavation ~l · 30 foot, .40 foot, and 55 foot samples from the permeable silty sand, with visual or PID evidence of impact I · 70' foot and 75 foot samples from the less permeable' gravelly clayey sand with no visual or PID evidence of impact i Boring B-3 · 20 foot sample from the permeable silty sand with no visual or PID evidence of impact I · 35 foot sample from the permeable silty or sand with visual PID evidence of impact Borings B-4 and B-5 · 15 foot and 30 foot samples from the permeable silty sand with no Visual or'PID evidence of impact I · 40 ·foot sample from the pem~eable silty sand with visual and PID evidence of impact I · 55.foot, 65 foot, and 70 foot ~samples from the less permeable gravelly clayey sand .. \ The soil samples were submitted to Zalco Laboratories of Bakersfield, California, a California I Department of Health ·Services certified laboratory. The samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) using the Department of Health Services Leaking Underground Fuel Tank method. The constituents benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, Iand total xylenes (BTEX) were analyzed using EPA method 8020. The soil sample with the highest TPHg and BTEX concentrations (Boring B-1 at 15 feet below grade) was also analyzed for total lead using EPA method 6010. I ANALYTICAL RESULTS I Boring B-1 indicate that~the petroleum impacted soil. occurs primarily from ten feet below grade to 40 feet below ·grade. The TPHg concentrations in the soil samples collected at 15 feet and 30 feet below grade were 60,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg or parts per million, ppm) to 59,000 Cg/Kg, respectively. The BTEX concentrations in the soil sampleS collected from 15 feet and 30 feet below grade were also elevated. The benzene concentrations were 650 rog/Kg and 590 mg/Kg, respectively. The toluene concentrations were 6,100 mg/Kg and 3,900 mg/Kg, respectively. The ethyl benzene concentrations were 1,100 mg/Kg and 730 MACIIci/8635 : Mr. Ray Graham .. San Joaquin Roofing · ... June 26, 1995 I ' SM"i'H .' respectively. Total lead.concentrations in the soil sample collected from 15 feet below grade was 52 mg/Kg. : .. The TPHg concentrations-in Boring B-l's soil' samples collected at 40 feet, 55 feet, 70 feet, and' 75 feet wem below th~' laboratory minimum reporting limit. The benzene concentrations I range from 0.012 rog/Kg 'to 0.054 mg/Kg. The toluene concentrations range from 0.006 mg/Kg .- to 0.2 mg/Kg: The ethyl benzene concentratio, ns range from below the laboratory minimum reporting limit to 0.018 mg/Kg. The. total xYlenes concentrations ra.nge from 0.008 mg/Kg to 0.27 rog/Kg. Boring B-2; located adjacent to the dispenser, indicate that the petroleum impacted s0il I occurs primarily from 30-feet below grade to 40 feet below grade. The'TPHg and BTEX concentrations in the soil Sample ·collected from' 15 feet below grade were below the laboratory, minimum reporting limit. The .TPHg concentrations in the soil samples collected at i 30 feet wa~'7,300 mg/Kg. The. BTEX concentrations in the 30 foot soil sample were also elevated. The benzene concentration was 3.4.mg/Kg. The toluene cOncentration was 130 mg/Kg. The ethyl benzene concentration was 56 mg/Kg. The total xylenes concentration was i 420.mg/Kg. ' · . _ The '-TPHg.concentrations in Boring B-Ts soil samples collected at 40 feet, 55 feet, 70 feet, and 75 feet Were belOw the laboratory minimum reporting limit. The benzen, e concentrations · range from 0.008 mg/Kg to 0;029 mg/Kg. The toluene concentrations range from below the laboratory minimum reporting limit to 0.086 mg/Kg. ~ The ethyl benzene concentrations range from below the laboratory minimum reporting limit to 0.005 mg/Kg. The total xylenes I concentrations from 0.005 mg/Kg to 0.062 rog/Kg. range Boring B-3, located ·approximately 15 feet east of Boring B-l, .indicate that the petroleum i " impacted soil occurs in the same zone as found in Borings B-1 and B-2. The TPHg and BTEX concentrations in the soil sample collected from 20 feet below grade were below the laboratory minimum reporting limit. The TPHg cOncentrations 'in the soil samples collected at I 35 feet was 11,000 mg/Kg: The BTEX concentrations in the 30'.foot soil sample were also elevated. The benzene concentration was 37 mg/Kg. The toluene concentration was 640 mg/Kg. The ethyl benzene concentration was '150 m~Kg..The total xylenes concentration - · was 1,300 mg/Kg. The boring was not advanced farther than 35 feet because lithology and PID concentrations indicated that the subsurface conditions were similar to those encountered in Borings B-1 and B-2. I Borings B-4 and B-5, located approximately 40 feet east and south, respectively of Boring B- '1 to encompass the contamination, indicate that the minor amounts of petroleum impacted soil i occurs between approximately 35 feet to 45 feet below grade. The TPHg and BTEX Concentrations in the soil samples from Borings B-4 and B-5 coll'ected from 15 feet below grade and .30 feet below grade were beloW the laboratory minimum reporting limit. The TPHg i concen'trations in the soil samples collected from 40 feet, 55 feet, 65 feet and 70 feet below grade were below the laboratory' minimum reporting limit. Th'e benzene concentrfitions ranged-from below the laboratory minimum reportint~ limi't to.0.090 rog/Kg. The toluene .. concentrations ranged from below the laboratory minimum reporting limit to 0.19 mg/Kg. The MACIIcff8635 ~iI-- "' ~ Mr. Ray Graham ': ' San Joaquin Roofing · "- .- June 26, 1995 I . ethyl .benzene concentrat~ions ranged from below the laboratory. minimum reporting limit to 0.022 mg/Kg. The total xylenes concentrations ranged from below the laboratory, minimum I reporting limit to 0.27 mg/Kg. - .. ... Table 1 presents the' amilytical results; Attachment B ·presents the laboratory certified analytic·al reports and the chain,of-custody documentation. Plates 3 and 4 are geologic Gross sections of the subsurface soils encountered and an approximation of the extent of the area contaminated. I CONCLUSIONS '. The analytical results· and lithology indicate that the source of petroleum impacted soil was' I the UST because no soil contamination was found in the upper 15 feet of Boring B-2 located il adjacent to the removed fuel dispenser. The UST was removed in February .1995 and had not been Used for three years,' therefore the source has been eliminated. The areal extent of I petroleum impacted soil appears to extend from approximately ten feet below grade in Boring B-l, tapering to 45 to 50 feet below grade in Boring B-4, located approximately 30 feet east of the removed UST~ and tapering to 40 to 50 feet below grade in Boring B-5 located I~ ! approximately 35 feet south'of the removed UST. Because of the uniform subsurface materials encountered during this investigation, Smith Environmental assumes .the area impacted is symmetrical around the UST excavation. I .RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the concentrations of TPHg and BTEX found in the subsurface soil, Smith IEnvironmental provides three remedial action options: 1) No Action, 2) Vapor Extraction, and 3) In-Place Bioremediation. A brief description of and feasibility evaluation for each option is presented. -No Action Smith Environmental evaluated the no action alternative using the criteria · presented in the Site Characterization and Remediation, Attachment A, UT-35 by County of I Kern, Department of Health Services, Hazardous Materials Program (October 1994). In order for this alternative to be considered by the BFD, the contamination should not be within '15 feet of a building, a building with a basement, or subsurface utilities which could act as I migration conduits; the depth to groundwater should be.greater than 25 feet below the deepest detected contamination; the concentration of TPHg should be less than 1,000 mg/Kg; the concentratiOn of benzene should less than 1 mg/Kg; and concentration of toluene, ethyl I benzene, and total xylenes should each be less than 50 mg/Kg. At the site, the contamination lies within 15 feet of a building which does not have a I basement and there are no subsurface utilities which could act as migration conduits. The depth to groundwater is greater than 200 feet (1991 Report of Water Conditions by the Kern County Water Agency).. The maximum TPHg alid BTEX concentrations exceed the i recOmmended concentrations (see Table 1). The concentrations will decrease following 'removal of the UST, that acted as the source because'of natural biodegradation of the TPHg and BTEX. MACIIci/8635 , I Mr. Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing June 26, 1995 Vanor Extraction - Removes the TPHg and BTEX by volatizing the components and by enl{ancing the natural biodegradation by increasing the~flow of air through the subsurface '~ "l soils. ' The' contaminants TPHg. and BTEX are'responsive to vapor' extraction and the site's subsurface s°il, characterized as sandy silt to silty sand, is porous allowing sufficient air flow for. volatilization to occur. The areal extent of contamination is confined and the area has been defined. The option would require .the installation of vaPor wells that would allow the introduction of air into the contaminated'zone. Tests would be performed to determine the I zone of 'influence of'the vapor extraction wells. An air pumP would supply a continuous, · ' measur.ed flow of air. The San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District requires that the petroleum;saturated air. be treated prior· to.discharge ~to the atmosphere.' Air treatment I systems include carbon or thermal oxidation. Effectiveness of the option is evaluated by periodic sampling of the air stream prior to treatment and soil sampling when air sampling indicates that the TPHg and BTEX have been removed. In-Place Bioremediation - Removes the.TPHg and BTEX by enhancing existing microbes by adding vital nutrients through shallow wells (l_e. ss than 15 feet). The Contaminants TpHg and BTEX are responsive to. biodegradatio.n. The areal extent of contamination is confined and the area has been defined. The option would require the installation of wells that would allow the introduction of nutrient enriched water into the I "Tests would be performed to evaluate the permeability of the soils and contaminated zone. the rate that the enriched water could be introduced without displacing the contaminants. A holding tank would provide a continuous, measured flow of enriched water. Effectiveness of - the option is evaluated by soil sampling. Document Distribution Smith Environmental recommends that two signed copies of this report be sent to: I Mr. Howard Wines, III '. Hazardous Materials:Technician City .of Bakersfield Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue· Bakersfield, California 99301 · '1 LIMITATIONS This report was prePared in accordance with generally accepted standards of environmental geological practice in Calffornia at the time it was prepared.· The investigations were conducted solely for the purpose of evaluating environmental conditions of the soil and groundwater with respect to hydrocarbon produCt. No soil engineering or geotechnical i " references are implied or should be inferred. Evaluation of the geologic conditions at the site for the purpose of these investigations is.made from a limited number of observation points. SubsUrface conditions may vary away from the data points available. Additional work, MACHci/8635 : . .I . . .- .Mr. Ray Graham . San Joaquin Roofing " June 26, 1995 I including further substirface investigation, can reduce the inherent uncertainties ass0cia~ed · .- with these types of !nvestigations. · I ~ smith Environmental appreciates the opportunity to work with San Joaquin Roofing. If you have any 'questions please contact our office. ' : ' "' : Sincerely, ' Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation ,- I Eve Huggins ~ .. : .. Project Geologist '- Tim Reed, R.G..5999 I :' · Technical Service~ 'Manager Enclosures:. Plate 1 - Location Map I -' Plate 2 - Plot Plan Plate 3 - Cross Section A-A Plate 4 - Cross. Section B-B I. Table t -.Analytical Results-Soils " '~ : Attachment A - Boring Logs Attachment B _ Laboratory Certified Analytical Reports and Chain-of Custody Documents I · , MACIIci/8635 I I SM"I'H B .. I' PLATES ! I ! ! ! ,! i I ! ! I i' .,' ~ ,~ { ' , .~ i.;,,1~? . I " I; I BM 4,hl4 I I,, 2,, I I I r ..... ; ...... '----l(---,lC- -m ~--~--.==_.~...~. m.. ,,__,~ . . ',' umo,', '"'-t~' $'d~'~] ..... . I t~'~-.~('-~---~ ~' i " I ~-z{{ { --I i-I-i:t " · :' .-~ ~.~' .......... ~_2_ - ............... ~ ...... I ~¢~1~ 1 irlch = ~,000 f~ From U$~$ 7.$ minm~ lopo~mphi¢ map~ ol Oildal~, Oil O~n'~r, ~o$1o~d, and Lamon~ 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Project Number: 8635. Location Map ATTACHMENT A . Boring Logs '.. I i MAC!Ici/8635 {: ANALYSES SAMPLE I : '' Lab Field--~z BORING tPhg · o '~ > '~ ~ ? SOIL DESCRIPTION ABANDONMENT Benzene P.I.D. ~- ku ~ o O- ~-- Z -- · -J t~ Z o ppm ppm ~ c~ - ~ -, . - · -- FILL 20 3 -- 3- ~ B1:5 SP GRAVELLY SAND TO SILTY SAND. BroWn · orange, poorly sorted, subround to subang:Qlar, I soft, loose. ~:.. -- '6 --10 ' ' .... " 160 8 - -- 13 ALLUVIUM · ' _ 250 30 -- -- 38 -- -- B1-15 SANDY SILT. Moderate brown; fine grained, I -- poorly sorted, stiff, compact, damp. Lenses of -~ -- 12 -- -- clean sand. o 100 16 __ __ ~ -- ~" B1-20 SM O - .~ :10 . ~ -- 150 10 -- --~ SANDY SILT. Olive brown, medium sized sand I ~ -- 14 -- -- B1-25 grains, subangular to subround, stiff, loose, .,.~ ~ -- damp. i ~ 150 14 m -- m __~ B1-30 9 I SILTY SAND. Orange brown,'fide to very fine -- 20 9 -- ~ -B1-35 -- -12 -- -- grained, moderately well sorted, subangular, '-- ·moist, stiff, loose, moist. · -- ' : .6 --40 SM I -- -- --~ B1-40 25O 1 2 __ 150 22 -- ~ B1-45 SILTY SAND WITH TRACE OF GRAVEL. Grey ~ 50 __ __ Sp green, fine grained, poorly sorted, hard, loose. i _ Occasional sand lenses. 50 LOGGED BY: Huggins DIAMETER OF BORING: 8 inch · DATE DRILLED: 25 May 1995 WATER ENC.OUNTERED AT: Not encountered I TOTAL DEPTH: .~ 75 feet SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split spoon . DRILLING COMPANY: Melton Drilling DRILLER: Randy I SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING cOMPANY PLATE 1501 East 19th Street .i ~:h: '.:.'. ·· - ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Bakersfield, California .~. ~..--.: ,.'~. · .:J PROJECT NUMBER: 8570.3002 " LOG OF BORING. BH1 pa'g~!~'Pf 2 I ,......~:'~ ,:-.-':, " .': .' .:::i,:: - ! . . . . ANALYSES SAMPLE · Lab Field z '' 0 BORING TPHg o ~ > ~ ~ ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION ,_. ABANDONMENT Benzene P.I.D. ~- "' ~ ~o d I. -' ' Q- .I-- Z -- ' -J LU Z o ~ · - ~.. ppm 'ppm m I . 50' __.. 50 24 __ __~. SANDY SILT WITH TRACE CLAY. Strong -- 28 -- -- orange brown, fine to medium grained, poorly .... _~ · -- 44 -- -- sorted, subangular, hard, compact, damp. 'I ~) 100 28 · ~ -- 75-- ~ SP -: 14 --60 SILTY SAND WITH TRACE.OF CLAY. Strong ~ . -- 20 '-~ / Orange brown, fine grained, poorly sorted stiff '~ -- conpact, damp. Stringers of impacted soil· I ------ ' · .... visible greenish grey in color. ~a i0 16 ~ ---- 5 45 17 --70 GRAVELL~ CLAYEY SAND, Stron'--g orange -- 31 -- ~ - ' brown~ fine to coarse grained, poorly sorted, ~ I -- -- ' SP subangular, stiff, compact,damp. Some CaCo3. .10 10 I. ~ .. depth Boring backfilledW~th ddlled Total 75 feet. . _ bentonite chips May 31, 1995. · '"~'~;'::: I '-- 100 LOGGED BY: Huggins DIAMETER OF BORING: 8 inch DATE DRILLED: 25 May 1995 WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered I TOTAL DEPTH: 75 feet SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split spoon DRILLING COMPANY: Melton Drilling DRILLER: Randy ! S/~~} -~li~ ~AN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE ' i 150'1 EaSt 19th Street I . ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES C ORPORATIO N Bakersfield, California PROJECT NUMBER: 8635 LOG OF BORING BH1 page 2 of 2 i, . ANALYSES · . SAMPLE '" Lab. 'Field · .. v "'"' "'" '~, SOIL DESCRIPTION BORI TPHg ABANDONMENT Benzene P.I.D. ~ ~" "' ~ o o .. · Q- F- Z -- '' · '," ppm ppm m Q - ~ = ! o ,ALLUVIUM -- 3 ~ B2-5 SILTY SAND. Strong orange broWn, fine grained, -- ' moderately sorted, subangular, soft, loose, I -- moist. 0 7 --10 -- 8 -- ~ 'B2-10 SAND. Grey brown, medium grained, well -- sorted, angular, soft, loose, dry, clean. -- 12- ~ B2-15 .~ _ 11 '-- -- o 0 21 --20 - .~ -- 21 -- I B2-20 SILTY SAND. Orange brown, fine grained, I - . ~ .... poorly sorted, sub~.ngular, stiff, loose, damp. '~ 0 13 I ~ __. 18 I B2-25 ~ -- 13-- -- ~ 165 18 --30 -- I m -- 43- ~ B2-30 145 8 SAND. Fine to medium grained, moderate sorting, I 18 -- ~ B2-35 · subasngular, stiff, loose, dry. I 150 18 --40 -- 21 -- -- I B2-40 SILTY SAND. Grey, fine grained, subangular to -- subrounded, stiff, compact, damp. I 145 28 __ · -- 45 -- --i B2-45 ' SILTY SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL. Grey -- brown, fine grained, poorly sorted, angular to I -- 50 subangular, stiff, compact,damp. · LOGGED BY: Huggi. ns DIAMETER OF BORING: 8 inch DATE DRILLED: 25 May 1995 WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered I .TOTAL DEPTH: 75 feet SAMPLING METHOD: Modifiedsplit spoon DRILLING COMPANY: Melton Drilling DRILLER:' Randy I ~ SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE .8 ~r~ ~ 1501 East 19th Street · - ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIESCORpORATION Bakersfield, California PROJECT NUMBER: 8570.3002 LOG OF BORING DH2 page'?f 2 ::' I !~ ANALYSES SAMPLE ' ~OFI ."TPHg ' Oo ~ ~ '~ ~ ? soIL- DE$C, FHPTION ^B^NDONME~T Benzene P.I.D. ~o ~- 0:,,, ~ ~'o ~o' ppm ppm m ~ . - -.=~ I -- · 35 14. __,. I B2-50 SI'LTY SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL. ~ -- 26 -- 40 Generally as abover color change to siren! . brown tO orange brown, some CaCO3. " I - · ~' 18 o __ 32t -- .o .' -- 54 18~. ~ B2-60 · ~ 28 · =- CLAYEY SILTY SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL. ~' -- 0 50:--' I B2:65 Strong orange brown, medium grained, poody i m _ sorted, subangular, hard, dense, CaCO3 · -- · occurring in vertical fractures. · -- 0 18 t '~ B2-70 I -- 15 m m Total depth drilled 75 feet. Bsring Backfilled with -- b~nto.nite chiops May ~71, 1995. ~80 - ~90 - LOGGED BY: Huggins DIAMETER OF BORING: 8 inch DATE DRILLED: 25 May 1995 WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered I TOTAL DEPTH: '/5 feet SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split spoon DRILLING COMPANY: Melton Drilling DRILLER: Randy I . '.'.. ~ - SAN JOAOUIN ROOFING COMPANY pl_~li:/ 1501 East 19th I E N¥1RONMENTAL T£CHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Bakersfield, California " PROJECT NUMBER: 8635 LOG OF BORING BH2 page 2 of 2 ' ANALYSES : SAMPLE Lab Field z ~-- :'. .~ d~ . tP,.,g "o ~ > = ~ ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION ABANDONMENT Benzene P.'I.D. ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · W ~ o ~ ~ ~ Z o ~ ' ' ppm ppm ~ ~ -- _ ~ = 0 -- ~ '~' ALLUVIUM ~.: - _ 9 -- --~ GRAVELLY SAND. Grey brown,.coarse · -- 15 grained, well scaled, subangular, stiff, loose. - 10 --10 ,' · 8 SlL~ SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL. Olive brow . ~ 25 -- -- ~ fine grained, moderately well scaled, subangular, _ 50 _ _ damp. 10 --20 SlL~ SAND. Grey brown, medium grained,, pood) . ~ 28 -- -- scaled, subangular, stiff, compact, damp. 8 6 --30 -- SAND. Medium grained, well scaled, subangular ~ 12 -- ~ to subrounded, stiff, loose, damp. _ 28 _ -- SIL~ SAND. Grey brown, medium grained, 10 moderat~soded, subangular, s~loose, da~. _ 17 ~ Total depth drilled 35 feet. Boring backfilled w~h _ 20 _ _ cement June 1, 1995. 50 DATE DRILLED: 31 May 1995- WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered TOTAL DEPTH: 35 feet .. SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split spoon DRILLING COMPANY: SMTH. Envlronmental DRILLER: M. Voris ' S~¢t ~ SANJOAQUINROOFINGOOMPAN~ PLATE ' ' 1501 East 19th Street :'.";'~'.,'. · '' ENVlRONME~AL TEOHNO[~IES CORPO~TION B~kersfield, California PROJECT NUMBER: 8570.3002 LOG OF BORING BH3 p~g~ ~ o~ ~ ANALYSES SAMPLE . . ~ m _j rr E BORING · ' TPHg o > ca ,,, '9, SOIL DESCRIPTION· ABANDONMENT Benzene P.I.D. ~ rr ~ >' W · LU ~ o · --J LU Z o ppm.- ppm m ca - ~ -- ALLUVIUM _ 10 SILTY GRAVELLY sAND. Orange grey brown, _-- _--I coarse grained, subrounded, soft, loose, damp. 13 -- ' SIL'FY SAND. Olive brown, medium to fine 4 10 -- grained, poorly sorted, subangular to subrounded, _-- 18 -- ~ soft, compact, damp. 85. 15 --20 - 25_ 140 10 SILTY SAND. Olive broWn mottled with orange -- 20 --' ~ brown, medium to fine grained, subangular, stiff, I Z 25 _ _ loose. · -- 25 8 SILTY SAND. Light grey brown, fine to medium i _ 45 12 -- ~l grained, moderate sorting, subrounded, stiff, · -- 28 -- -- loose. Some lenses of clean medium grained -- sand. -- 8 I 30 23 --40 ~ 0 CLAYEY SANDY SILT. Olive brown, tiao grained, -- 25Z Z~ poorly sorted, stiff, loose, damp. 50 LOGGED BY: Huggins DIAMETER OF BORING: 8 inch DATE DRILLED: 31 May 1995 WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered i TOTAL DEPTH: 70 feet SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split spoon · ~ DRILLING COMPANY: SMTH Environmental 'DRILLER: M. Voris ~ ~ 5ol ~ast ~ @th Stro0t "J.~ ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGIESCORPORATION Bakersfield, California PROJECT NUMBER: 8570.3002 ' · LOG OF BORING BH4 - · page 1 of 2 "ANALYSES SAMPLE.'; " Lab Field- z ~-' , o BORING "TPHg · o° ~' > "~ ' ~ '? soIL DESCRIPTION ABANDONMENT Benzene P.I.D. ~ ~' ~ o d m _J LU Z Z '~, ~ pp'm ppm '~ c) -- ~ -- · m ~ 45 '10-~' I ' -- 28 .... SANDY SILT WITH TRACE OF GRAVEL. -- 50 -- -- Orange brown', fine to medium grained, poody 30 7 sorted, stiff, compact, damp. _ 22 m ~ .; CaCO3 appearing. ' ~ ',50 m ~ m ~ .10~ _ · .20 20 _60 3o 10 CLAYEY 'SILTY SAND WITH TRACE OF -- -- ~ GRAVEL. Orange brown, fine to medium grained, I ..... poorly sorted, subangular, stiff, compact, damp. '.. · 16 ~ CaCO3 disseminated throughout. . 0 25 --70 -- -- 20-- -- ~' I -- m .,. _ ._ --80 - I _-- m .. _ _90 _ I - m -- 100 LOGGED BY: Huggins " DIAMETER OF BORING: 8 inch DATE DRILLED: 31 May 1995 , WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered TOTAL DEPTH: 70 feet . SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split spoon DRILLING COMPANY: SMTH Environmental DRILLER: M. Voris " SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY pLATE 1501~ East 19th Street .. 'm ENVIRONMENTAL.TECHNOLOGIESCORPORATION Bakersfield, California ' ' PROJECT NUMBER: 8635 ' 'LOG OF BORING BH4 page 2 of.2 ! ANALYSES SAMPLE Lab Field z .=-. 0 BORING TPHg o '~ >. ca ,, ? 'i, SOiL DESCRIPTION ABANDONMENT Benzene P.I.D. ~ uJ ~ ~o d " ' -J LU Z o ppm ppm ca n - I. o -- ALLUVIUM ! - -- 17-- ~ SANDY SILT TO SILTY SAND. Yellow to grey - '" 29-- -- brown, Fine to coarse grained, poorly sorted, -- subangular, soft, loose, damp. I 8 --10 -- 0 0 .. ~ 11m --I I ' m 15 14--20 ~ SAND. Yellow brown, medium ot coarse grained, _ 0 20 ~ '~ poorly sorted, subangular, soft, loose. Some ! - _ 24_ m iron oxide staining. 0 i ~ 25 · 10--30 ~ SILTY SAND. Yellow brown, fine to medium i _ 0 20-- ~ grained, poody sorted, subangular, soft, loose. ~ 30_ ~ Some iron oxide staining. 0 8 I ~ 20-- ~ SILTY SAND. Olive brown, medium to fine _ 23_ m grained, poorly sorted, subangular, soft, loose. .... Impacted soil greenish grey. i 14 --40 _ 40 24-- _ I - 5O LOGGED BY: Huggins DIAMETER OF BORING: 8 inch " DATE DRILLED: 31 May 1995 WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered I TOTAL DEPTH: 70 feet SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split spoon . DRILLING COMPANY: SMTH Environmental DRILLER: M. Voris {~ SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE I ~~ TH 1501 East 19th Street ~vlaouu~mat ~c.uoco~l[s con~oaa~ON Bakersfield, California P~OJECTNU~E~: asTo.aoo~ 1 -ANALYSES -SAMPLE ...... Lab Field z . ~. ,., ~ ~. .;....c '~? . . ~ ~ . nc E '~ " ..'i.~' 0 ~ " ',~ W >., m :..~ ~ > "'" " '~, SOIL DESCRIPTION · · ' BORING TPHg o. -r rr = >, ~ .. ABANDONMENT Benzene P.I.D. ~O ~' w ~ o d I '' i~. I- Z -- · " ' ~' -J W Z o ' 'ppm '"'" ~ - = -' ppm 1I. '- -- ~ SILTY SAND. Strong orange brown, medium to i~ --: 50 m _ t, -- - ' 50 --- -- fine grained, poorly sorted, subangular, stiff, ' '- : m compact, damp. m ~ 35 18 . _ 40 ~ cac03 disseminated throug0ut. · ~ 50~ ~ m - _ '" 12 '125~5 --601~ Cac03 and manganese oxide disseminated -- . 30'-- -- througout. Occasional sand pockets. 9 i5 -- '. 21 ~. ~ SILTYSAND WITH TRACES OF GRAVEL. -- 32 ~ ~ Yellow brown, medium sized grains, moderately m z . well sorted, subangular, stiff, compact. 8 70 -- . ."T _: --80 - "-I. _: ,, m .. m ,. _ -90_- I - m - 100 LOGGED BY: Huggins DIAMETER OF BORING: 8 inch DATE DRILLED: 31 May 1995· WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered · m TOTAL DEPTH: 70 feet . : SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split·spoon · ,DRILLING COMPANY: SMTH Environmental DRILLER: M. Voris @ SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANYPLATE -m ' 1501 East 19th Street. · PROJECT NUMBER: 8635. LOG OF BORING BH5 pa~e 2 of 2 m · · .~ . . ... 'l ATTACHMENT B ' Laboratory Certified Analytical R.eports and Chain-of-Custody Documents -! ! ! i 1 I ., MACIIci/8635 I 1 East 19.th Stt'eet I Office Area A Gate : .... .~, ...... ~B · Former Underground Storage Tank Location Former Dis 3enser.Location 195 feet Shop Area I B.~ -- Boring Location and Number .... Fence ,A A' ~~ Geologic Cross Section Location 0 10 20 "30 · 40 50 Scale 1 inch = 25 feet I DATE: 5-8-95 'PROJECT NUMBER: 8635 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLO~, lES CORPORATION -SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA PLOT PLAN PLATE 2 · . B-1 B-3 B-4 I '",¢~.";~,"'~,.~,;.q · UST Excavation, 10 - ' ..,, · I Extent of Plume, TB~Hg <10 rog/Kg TBPHg 59,000650 ~g/Kg ?~__. . approximate <0.005 ' - 1,1oo ~ . <0,005 x 9,800 ~: x <o.oo5 20 '/ T 'o.o15 C~ ' - ~ ............. ~ .................................. E <o.oos · Silty Sand ' ':: TPHg 60,000 rog/Kg ' '"":::... TPHg <10 rog/Kg · B 590 .. B' <O.OO5 ~ T 3,900 ~ ..... T <0.005 30 ~ E ', 730 '" . E <0.005 : . X 5,900 '"'" ' ...... X <0.005 ..'.. ' TPHg 11,000 mg/Kg ............ [ 15o 0 10 TP}-tg <~0 m§tK§ X 1,~00 B0.054 ' ' ............... I 40 ~ T 0.2 .... x o.~? ............ . .... 1 inch = 10 ~eet ::i TPH§ < 10 : B 0.056. ' ........ Vertical and Horizontal ::. T 0.090 ~ "::i! ................ : ............ ;... X 0.11 ..? i' TPHg <10 rog/Kg TPHg <10 rog/Kg . EXPLANATION B 0.048 ~j] ~ B 0.049 ~ T 0.022 Silty ,Sand ' T 0.007 E 0.007 E' <0.005 UST Excavation, I X 0.051 - X 0:072 approximate· 60 -- ("""'~. Extent of Plume, approximate <100.012 mg/Kg ',, '.E 0.011 ' I~. x~. '~. ",,&. '~. ."rr <o.oo5 I~.~...~,,',.' ~ Silty Sand 70 T~PH~ t.",'.'~?,':','.X:"e', <10 mg/Kg k N.E <0.005 o.o16 k' ~x 0.007 ~. N.."~' · ~ O.OLO ..L' ~:%,,,.',,%.~.'~.',~.~.".~",,,~',,,,~.N,."' ~ Gravelly Silty Sand <0.005 x o.o14 m w/CaCO3 . I ® . San Joaquin Roofing Company PLATE S~] H '" ' 1'~01 F:ast J~thStrOOtBakersfield, California 3 PROJECT NUMBER:. 8637 Cross Section A - A' page 1 of I B-1 B-2 B-5 . : ....,..,.. ~,..,.,?..,.,,,...:..,.,..,....:/ , .',,':,~,":,,",~,".'-;-,~,':,~,':,~,,~,,~,~,,~,,~,'::,,,~,; , . UST Excavation,. · - .""~, ,':~, ,': '~ ,:',~!~ .':,~¢,~ .":,~ ,~ ."'~.¢.' ~¢.' ~,~ ' approximate i 1.0 -- " "" """ "'"'~ ':',f· lappr°xlmate ' I TPHg 5~000 mg/Kg ' . '. '::~,. I I - B 650 TPHg <10 rog/Kg I~;~ TPHg <10 rog/Kg T. 6,100 K2'I ' ' B <0.005 ~i!i!~ B <0.005 · E 1,100 I1~ ' ~'"~T <0.005 ~~;~ <0.005 ~' · 'i 20 ~: ~ 3~u %:.i::iiiiTPHo 7,3 g g ============================================== i · ' .... :"",...... Silty Sand I TPHg <10 rog/Kg TPHa <10 me/Kc "TPHg <10 ..... ~g/Kg i .40 --~i E 0.018 E 0'005 I1~ E 0.022 ? X 0.27 ' X 0'062 - - X .0.27 · · ' ' '!. Vertical and Horizontal .I 50 --' - - ' ' Silty Sand - - ' · - I TPHg <10' rog/Kg ?Hg <1,,0~,~ mg/i9 TPHg <10 mg/Kg B 0.048 I~1 . O v.vu~ t-~ B <0 005 T 0.022 ~ ' T 0.006 ~ '- T <0.005 . E 0.007 ' E <0.005 ' E <0.005 I~l · . X 0.051 · X ·0.016 · X 0.010 I . . , .. . - EXPLANATION ~lBPHg <lo0006mg/Kg-- .~ .", .',.'X~%.,,~ ~ UST Excavation I ......... <01005 .......... : x o.o45. -- w/Gaco3 S ~4-':I" '1501 East 19th Street I ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION · PROJECT NUMBER:· 770176.06 Cross Section B - B' ' page 1 of 1 I '" ,. TABLE I zI I "-I ' Table 1 Analytical Results.- Soil : San Joaquin R~oting "l' 1501 East 19th Street - poring Depth} in l~et I SamPle Date '1 TPH as gasolineI BenzeneI Toluene[ Ethyl Benzene[ Xylenes, totalI Lead, total[ '" ' 15~ 5/26/95" 59000 650 6100 1100 9800 52 i · 30 5/26/95 60000 590 3900 730 5900 NA~ '40 5/26/95 <10 0.054 · 0.2 0.018 0.27 NA 55 5/26/95 · <10 0.048 0.022 0.007 0.051 ' NA 70 5/26/95 <10 0.012 0.006 <0.005 0.008 NA I : 75 5/26/95 <10 '0.016 0.010 <0.005 0.014 NA I 15 '5/26/95 .<10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA 30 5/26/95 7300 3.4 130 56 420 NA 40 5/26/95 <10 0.029 ' 0.086 0.005 0.062 NA ~,. 55 5/26/95 <10 0.009 0.006 <0.005 0.016 NA ' I 70 .5/26/95 <10 0.008 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 NA 75 5/26/95 <10 0.011 0.036 0.005 0.045 NA I B-3 '20 5/31/95' <10 <0.005 0.015 <0.005 0.11 NA 35 5/31/95 11000 37 640 150 1300 NA I B-4 15 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA 30 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA I 40 - 5/31/95 <I0 0.056 0.090 0.013 0.11 NA 55 .. 5/31/95 <10 0.049 0.007 <0.005 0.072 NA 65 5/31/95 , <10 0.090 0.005 0.011 0.054 NA 70 5/31/95 <10 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 0.007 NA B-5 15 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA I 30' 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 '<0.005 <0.005 NA 40 5/31/95 <10 0.068 0.19 0.022 0.27 NA 55 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.010 NA i . - 65 5/31/95 <10 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 NA 70 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA Notes: I All units 'are rog/Kg or parts per million, ppm. 1 NA = Not analyzed I i ANALSOIL.XLS, 6/23/95 ... ' Page I I ZALC ORATORI'ES, 4309 Armour Avenue (8051'395~539 . Bakersfield, California' 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 Smith Environmental Services, Inc. Laboratory No: 44129-1 1500 South Union Date Received: 6-1-95 I Bakersfield, CA Date.Reported: 6-12-95 9'3307 Attention: Tim Reed .. Sample: Brown Solid (type i) I Sample Description: Project #8635, San Joaquin Roofing,. 1501 19th Avenue, B1-15 Sampled by Eve Huggins on 5-26-95 at 0845 hours m CAM -.Title 22 Chapter 30, Article Total Extractable mConcentration Concentration MRL Method/ TTLC/STLC .(TC) mg/kg WET, (EC) mg/1 TC/EC Reference :'.m Lead, Pb' 1000/5.0 52 2.5/0.05 6010/1 mTTLC - Total Threshold Limit Concentration, mg/kg STLC - Soluble Threshold Limit Concent'ration, mg/1 in extract WET Waste Extraction Test: pH 5.0 Solution, 0.2 M Citrate Buffer Deionized water for Chromium (VI) ' I Orqanic Constituents. m§/kq MRL Method/Reference IVolatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons Benzene 650 63 80!0/1 Toluene. 6100 250 8010/1 mEthyl Benzene 1100 250 8010/1 Xylenes 9800 250 8010/1 Date Analyzed: 6-7-95 m Total petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline 59000 . 5000 DOHS Luft Manual Date Analyzed: 6-7-95 m MRL : Minimum Reporting Level Method References: m1. EpA.sw-846, 1986 3rd Edition ~ Jim Etherton' ' i JE/lb' ./ Lab Operations Manager Th,s reporl is Jo~nished lot lhe exclus,ve'use al ou~ Customer and applies only Io th~ samples lesled. Zolco is not ~esponsible Jo~ iepo, oltefolion o~ delochmer' I Anal~rcical ~ (Z]onsulting Sepvices . · w 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395qZ)539 - Bakersfield, California 93308 ' FAX (805) 395-3069 Smith 'Environmental Services, inc. Labora~tory No: 44129-2 1500 South Union Date Received: 6-1-95 m Bakersfield., CA 93307' . Date Reported: 6-12-95 Attention: Tim Reed. ~ i _ Sample: -Soil m Sample 'Description: Project #8635, San Joaquin Roofing, 1501 19th Avenue, B1-30 Sampled by Eve Huggins on 5-26-95 at 0900 hours I Organic Constituents mq/kq MRL mVolatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons Benzene 590 63 Toluene 3900 63 mEthyl.Benzene" 730 63 Xylenes 5900 63 Method: EPA 8020 IDate Analyzed: .6~6-95 mTotal Petroleum Hydrocarbons · -as Gasoline 60000 1300 I M ethod: DOHS Luft Manual Date Analyzed: 6-6-95 mMRL = Minimum Reporting Level m m. JE/ID This ~'epocl is (urnished [o,' lhe exclusive use 9~ ou';' Cuslomer ond oppl~es only Io lhe somples lested. Zolco ~s not I'espons~ble ~o~' repc~rl, oJlel.ol~on c: de!~chrr,~T. _' 4309 Armour Avenue -' ' (8051 395~539 Bakersfield, California 93308 '- ~. FAX (805) 395-3069 Smith Environmental Services, inc. Laboratory No:' 44129 " I. 1500 South Union .Date Received: 6-1-95 Bakersfield, CA 93307 Date Reported: .6-12-95 . Attention: Tim Reed Sample: Soil " ISample.Description: Pro3ect.#8635, San doaquin Roofin§, ~501 19th ^¥enue 44129-3 B1-40; Sampled a.t 0915 hours 44129-4 B1-55; Sampled at 1000 hours I ~ 44129-5 B1-70; Sampled at 1050 hours .. , Sampled'by Eve Huggins oh 5-26-95 " i -3 -4 -5 Organic Constituents mq/kq mq/kq -.mg/k§ MRL IVolatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons ·0.005 Benzene . 0.054 0.048 0.012 Toluene 0.20 0.022 '0.006 IEthyl Benzene 0.018 0.007 < 0.005 Xylenes 0.27 0.051 0.008 Met. hod: EPA 8020 .- i Date.Analyzed: 6-5-95 ITotal Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline <.10 < 10 < 10 10 I' Method' DOHS Luft Manual .' Date Analyzed: 6-5-95 .. IMRL : Minimum Reporting Level -. ,'" Jim Etherton ' · B ~' Lab Operat.~ons Manager. . ' · JE/1 b ... ' This ~epofl is tumished |ol lhe exclusive use ot ou~ /ustornel ond opphes only Io ihe somples lesled. Zolco is not lesponsibie |ol reporl'oltelolion o~ deioc~rnen~ ! . " ' ' .... Z LC oRAT " !:L-.:,J Analy't::;ical ~ Oonsul~ing Senvioes I ' 4309 Armour Avenue ' ' . (805) 395-0539 .: - i Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX'(805) 395-3069. I ' .. Smith Environmental Services, Inc. " Laboratory No:. 44129 m . 1500~south-Union .. Date Received: 6-1~95 ''. Bakersfield, CA 9330'7 Date'Reported: 6-12-95 Attention: Tim Reed m' Sample: Soil· m sample·DesCription: Project #8635, San Joaquln Rooting, 1501 19th Avenue, .. -" 44129-6 B1-75; Sampled.at 1'105 hours '. ' .. .. 44129-7 B2-15; Sam·pled at 1335 hours ... -m Sampled by Eve Huggins on 5-26-95 Organic Constituents mg/kg mq/kq MRL Volatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons '0.005 I Benzene' 0.016 <.0.005 · . Toluene 0.010 < 0.005 '·Ethyl.. Benzene < 0.005 < 0..005 Xylenes .0.014 < 0.005 m ~' Method: EPA 8020 :' Date Analyzed: -6-5-95 m Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons . . . as Gasoline. .. < 10 < 10 10 m Method: DOHS Luft Manual " · Date Analyzed: 6-5-95 m MRL'= Min.imm Reporting Level m //// Jim Etherton . ~ - Lab Operations Manager ' m . JE/1 b This ;eporJ is furnished for lhe exclus,ve'use o( ou!' Cuslomef and applies only lo th~ s6mples tested. Zolco is nol ;espons~ble [o~ report oherotion or d6~ochm.em. :'. ' · .... C BORAToRIEs, I . I 4309 Armoor Avenue . (8051 395~539 .' Bakersfield, California 93308 ' FAX (805) 395-3069 '- Smith Environmental Services, Inc. Laboratory No: 44129-8 1500 Sbuth Union Date Received: 6-1-95 i Bakersfield, CA -93307 Date.Reported: .6-12-95 Attention: Tim Reed i SamPle: Soil I Sample Description:-Project' #8635, San'Joaqu. in Roofing,'1501 19th Avenue, B2-30 Sampled by Eve Huggins on 5-26~95 at 1350 hours I organic Constituents mg/kg MRL I Volatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons 3.1 Benzene 3.4 ~ Toluene 130 i. . Ethyl Benzene 56 ..Xylenes 420 i Method: EPA 8020 Date Analyzed: 6-6-95 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ' I as Gasoline 7300 500 Method: DOHS Luft .Manual I Date AnalYzed: 6-8-95 I MR[ = Minimum Reporting Level '1 I . ton · · i ' Lab Operations Manager J'E/1 b . Th,s report is fur~ished fo~ the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only lo lhe samples tested. Zolcb is not responsible to~ repot1 oherohon or detochmeq' I' ' ' - .'. Analyt:ical ~ Consulting Services .... i· ' 4309 Armour Avenue. (805) 395-0539 I' · . ' Bakersfield, California 93308 · - FAX (805) 395-3069 Smith Environmental 'Services, Inc. ' .. Laboratory NO: ·44129· 'l 1500 South'Union' ..... Date Received: 6-1-95 . Bakersf.ield, CA 93307 Date Reported: 6-12-95 Attention: .Tim Reed· Sample: Soil · - " I Sample Description: Project.#8635, San ~oaqui-n Roofing, 1501 19th Avenue .. 44129-9 B2-40; Sampled at 1410 hours 44129:10 B2-55; Sampled at 144p hours I 44129~11 B2-70; Sampled at 1520 hours -Sampled by E.ve. Huggins on 5-26-95 I -. · -9 -10 -11 Orqanic'¢onstituents mg/kg m§/kq mq/kq MRL- I Volatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons . 0.005 Benzene ·. 0.029 0.009 0.008 Toluene 0.086 0.006 .< 0.005 I Ethyl Benzene 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Xylenes 0.062 0.016 0.005 Method: EPA 8020 I ' 6-5-95 .6-6-95 6-6-95 Date Analyze·d: I Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline < 10 < 10 < 10 10 1" ·Method: DOHS Luft'Manual Date Analyzed: 6-5-95 6-6-95 6-6-95 MRL = Minimum Reporting Level I JE/1 b ' ' ' · This reood ,s t'u~nishec~ for the exclusive use o~ (~ur [uslomer ~ncl oDolies only ~o lhe snrnnles lested. Zolco is nol ~esoonsi~le. {~ reDorl oherohon o~ deto¢hme~'I -I Z i(' '"AL' B[] RATO R IES, .I k~] Analycical~.ConsulCing Sepvioes-. '-I 4309 Armour Avenue . (~O5) 395~539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 · Smith Environmental Services, Inc. Laboratory No: 441'29 i 1:500 ~outh Union Date Received: 6-1-95. · Bakersfield, CA 93307 ·Date Reported: 6-12-95 Attention: Tim Reed .. I Sample: Soil ' ~ 'B Sampl.e Description: Project #8635, San Joaquin Roofing, 1501 19th Avenue 44129-12 B2-75; Sampled on 5-26-95 at 1535 hours : 44129-13 B3-20; Sampled on 5-31-95 at 0907 hours i Sampled by Eve Huggins ! - · ~' " -12 -13 Orqanic Constituents mq/kq m§/k§ MRk Volatile Aromatic Hydrogarbons 0:005 I Benzene 0.011 < 0.005 loluene ' 0.036 0.015 Ethyl Benzene 0.005 .< 0.005 i Xylenes 0.045 '0.11 ~' Method: EPA 80'20 ' Date Analyzed: ~ 6-7-95 6-6-95 i. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline < 10 < 10 10 · ~1 Method: DOHS Luft Manual Date Analyzed~ 6-7-95 6-6-95 · . MRL = Minimum Reporti'ng Level ! '- Operations Manager _', 'Th~s repo~l !s.fu.r'msl~ec~ {ol' the exclusive us~ of ou~ Customer and ooalies only lb lhe somol~.s-l~sled Zolcn ,s nnt leqnnnqlhJ~ J'nt' r~nnrJ nJ~ntinr~ n, r~tachrne'; .... '"'ii[)y. ZALQ B'ORATORIEs, IN .. AnalYt;ical & Consulting SenviCes I" 4309 Armour Avenue [805] 395~539 . · .. Bakersfield, California 93308 EAX (805) 395~3069 ' Smi.th Environmental Services, Inc. Laboratory No: .44129-14 I'1500 South UniOn Date.Received: 6-1-95 Bakersfield, CA 93307 Date ·Reported: '6-12-95 iAttention: Tim Reed ".Sample: Soil " · I Sample Description' Project #8635, San Joaquin Roofing, 1501 19th Avenue, B3L35 Sampled by Eve Huggins on 5-31-95 at 0943 hours ! iOrqanic Constituents mq/kq MRk Volatile ^romatic Hydrocarbons 25 Benzene 37 TolUene 640 ! Ethyl Benzene 150 Xylenes 1300 IMethod: EPA 8020 Dat'e Analyzed: 6-7-95 iTotal Pet'roleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline .. 11000 500 " Method: DOHS Luft Manual .. IDate-Analyzed: '6-t-95 IMRL = Minimum Reporting Level I .' ..~,,./'. J'~m Etherton I' JE/1 b . .. , ' ." Lab Operations Manager . ., This ~eDo,t ~s furnished :[ol' the exclusive use O[ our Customer ond o[:)ol~es only to lhe s0moles tested. Zolco is not resoons~ble tot renor~ ~llter~hon O~ delcch,'r.e-~ 'I ZALC BORATORIES, I '-' inalylsical & 13onsulcing Services 4309 Armour Avenue' "' (805) 395~539 _ ) Bakersfield, C~lifornia 93308 · . FAX (805) 395-3069 ,.., ... ~ .~ I · Smith Env-ironmental Services,. Inc. ,.. Laboratory No: 44129 I 1500 SOut'h Union Date Received: 6-1-95 ' 'Bakersfield, CA 93307 Date_Reported: 6-12-95 -I .Attention: TimReed Sample: Soil ' I Sample Description: Project'#8635, San Joaquin'Roofing, 1501 19th'Avenue '44129-15 B4-15; Sampled at 1012 hours 44129-i6 B4-3Ol.Sampled at 1039 hours I 44129-17 B4-40;'Sampled at 1104 hours Sampled by Eve Huggins on 5-31-95 ~ '-15' -16 -17 Organic Constituents mq/kq mg/kq mq/kq MRL I Volatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons 0.005 Benzene < 0.005 < 0.005 0.056 Toluene -< 0.005 < 0.005 0.090 I Ethyl Benzene. " <'0.005 < 0.005 0.013 , Xylenes ,L. ~ 0.0.05 < 0.005 0.11 .. Method: EPA 8020 I 'Date 6-6-95 Analyzed: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons I as Gasoline < 10 < 10 .< 10 10 Method: DOHS Luft Manual Date Analyzed: 6-6-95 i MR'L = Minimum Reporting Level '~-' .. · ~,:..Y~Jim Etherton I, .. ~..-"' Lab Operations Manager " "1 aE/lb '. .... .. Th~ i'~nnd i~ t,,,'ni~c~ ~n, th~ .~rl,mlv~ ,,~ n~ hi,, (~,~fnm~, nnr~ nnnli~c nnl~ In ~h~ cn~qnl~ l~.tm4 ?nlm i~ nn! ,m~nnn~l~ ~n, ~nn,t mlin,nhnn n~ rletochmer'. ~ ~naly~ical ~ ConsolCin9 Semvices I': . 4309 Armour Avenue ' -' (805) 395~539 ~." Bakersfield, California 93308 .' ' 'F~ (805) 395-3069 Smith .Environmental ,Services, Inc. Laboratory No: 44129-". i 1500 South Union Date Received:' 6-1-95 Bakersfi61. d,..CA 93307 Date Reported: 6-12-9.5 Attention: Tim Reed I Sample:-So!l I Sample Description: Project #8635, San Joaquin Roofing, .1501 19th Avenue 44129~18 B4-50; Sampled at 1135 hours ... 44129-19 B4-65; Sampled at 1225 hours "· 44129-20 B4-70;'Sampled at 1243. hours '~ ..... Sampled by Eve Huggins on 5-31-95 · -18 -19 -20. Organic Constituents mg/kq, mq/kq 'mq/kq MRL Ii Volatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons 0.005 Benzene 0.049 0.090 0.006 TolUene 0.007 0.005 < 0.005 i Ethyl Benzene < 0.005 0.011 < 0.005 ' Xylenes 0.072 0..054 0.007 Method: EPA 8020 I Date Analyzed: 6-6-95.. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons I as Gasoline < 10 < 10 < 10 10' Method: DOHS Luft Manual I Date Analyzed: 6-6-.95. · i MRL : Minimum Reporting Level . ! .. ' herton' · I' -dE/Ih ~//'~ Lab Operations Manager This ~epo~ is |umished for lhe exclusive use o{ oul Cusiombr and oDolies only to the somnJ~ t~led ZoJcn ,q.nnt ,~qnnnq,hJ~ in,' r~nnd nb~rnt;~n ~, 4~tnrh'm~qt I~" 1~~ ZAL BoRATORIEEE;, IN . -~ Analytical & C.c~nsulcing senvices " 4369 A~mour Avenue "' (8Q5) 395:0539 · ........ .~ . . FAX (805) 395-3069 Bakersfield,-Califor'nia 93308 Smi'th"Environmental Service~, Inc' Laboratory No: 44129 1500 South Union Date Received:, 6-1-95 m 93307 Date Reported: 6-12-95 Bakersfield, CA ._ Attention: Tim .Reed m sample SOil -.. m Sample Description: Projec't'#8635, San Joaquin Roofing, 1501 19th Avenue 44129-21 B5-15; Sampled at 1409 hours 44129-22 B5-30;. 'Sampled at '1423 hours 44129-23 B5-40; Sampled at 1500."hours " m ' m Sampled by Eve Huggins on 5-31-95 m , :: _21. _22 _23 Organic ',Constituent's m§/kq 'm§/kq mq/kq MRL m Volatile Aromatic' Hydrocarbons 0.005 .i:,~. 'Benzene < 0.005 < 0.005 0.068 Toluene < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 Ethyl Benzene < 0.005 < 0.005 0.022 m -. 0.005 0..005 0.27 xy.1 enes < < Method: EPA 8020 '. .' m l Date Analyzed: .. 6-6-95 ' 6-7-95 6-7-95 i Total: Petroleum Hydrocarbons i I -m .,. as Gasoline ' . < 10 < 10 < 10 10 'Method: DOHS Luft Manual m' Date Analyzed: 6-6-95 6-7-95 6-7-95 m MRL : Minimum Reporting Level ! /~ Jim Etherton ~ · Lab Operations Manager . I.. JE/1 b .' Thi~ lepo~l is fuinished ~o~ lhe exclusive use o~ ou~ [uslomer and applies only ~o lhe ~ompies tesled. Zolco ~s not responsib[e {o~ reoon alteration o~ delochme .~ .4309 Armour Avenue (8051 395~539 Bakersfield, California 93308 .' '- FAX (805) 395-3069 ... smith Environmental Services, inc. .Laboratory No: 4'4129 i 1500 South Union Date Received: 6-1.-95 Bakersfield, CA 93307-".' ... Date Reported:- 6-12-95 .Attention: Tim Reed ~ " · Sample: Soil. .. I Sample Description: Project #8635, San Joaquin Roofing,' 1'501 19th Avenue 44129'-24 B5-50;' Sampled at 1530 hours 44129-'25 B5-65;. Sampled .at 1641 hours I - 44129-26 B5-.70; Sampled at 1651 .hours .S~mpled by Eve Huggins:on 5-31-95~' " ' -24 -25 ' -26 organic ConStituents mq/kq mq/kg mq/kq MRL I .. .. Vglatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons 0.005 ' Benzene .< 0.005 0.006 < 0.005 Toluene. < 0-.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 i Ethyl. Benzene < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Xylenes 0.010 0.005 <-0.005 -" Method: EPA 8020 -... Date Analyzed: 6-7-95 Total PetroleUm Hydrocarbons I as'Gasoline .< 10 < 10 . < 10 10 Method: DOHS Luft' Manual " i ~" Dat'e Analyzed: 6-7-95. MRL : Minimum Reporting Level I I ~ Lab Operations M. ana§er Th,s ?porn is furnished fo: Ihe exclusive use otpu~ Cuslom~r ond'opplies'6nl~ ~o lhe somples tesled. Zolco is nol responsible to, repot1 ohe~olion o, delochme~ '"' zALc RATORIES, I . ~!:i~N;~.. ' Analy't~ical a C°nsUldag Senvices 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395~539 ;i Bakersfield., California 93308 FAX(805) 395-3069 Smith Environmental Services, Inc. Laboratory No: 44129-27 I~ m 1500 South Union "- Date Received: 6-1-95 .". Bakersfield, CA' 93307 Date Reported: 6-12-95 Attention: Tim Reed m ·Sample: Soil mSample Description:' Project #8635, San Joaquin Roofing, 1501 19th Avenue, · Stock Pile 1 ~ampled by Eve Huggi.ns on.5-31-95 at 1739 hours ~. . Organic~Constituents mq/kq MRL mVolatile Aromatic Hydnocarbons 0.025 .'Benzene < .0.025 Toluene 0.23 I Ethyl Benzene 0.13 i.- Xylenes 1.2 Method: EPA 8020 m Date' Analyzed: 6-8-95 Total PetrolEum Hydrocarbons m as Gasoline < 10 10 Method: DOHS Luft'Manual mDate Analyzed: 6L8-95 mMRL = Minimum Rep°rfing Level /x~ JimE.therton ' . · y/" Lab Operations Manager - This ~epo~l ~s furnished'for the exclusive use of ou~ Customer ond opplies only to the samples listed. Zolco is not ;es~onsi~le for reoo~ okerohon o* ddocnme':. , lii/ CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD AND ANALYSIS REQUEST. S (SlG "':,, t.u , '" ' ' ' ' '~ ' ' O SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION - DATE TIME ~ ~ PRES. ~ .~ ° ~ USED ' o -- . ~ EMARK~ INQUI~HED BY: DATE TIME REC IVE BY ~BORATORY: PLEASE SEND RESULTS TO: RELINQUI2HED ~Y~ D~T TIME RECEIVED BY: RELINQUISHED BY: DATE TIME ~EI:tY:.' REQUESTED TURNARO~D TIME: RELINQUISHED BY: DATE TI.ME~~IV~D BY ~BORAT~RY: RECEIPT CONDITION: PROJECT MANAGER: CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD AND ANALYSIS REQUEST : '" PROJECTNO. PROJECTNAME/S~TE ~ 6. SAMP'LE~S -- , (SIGN) / m SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION DATE TIME ~ < PREs. Q O m REL~OU~SHEO BY: ' D~IE TIME RECEIVED BY: ~ORATORY: . ' PLEASE SEND RESULIS T~:' . RELINQUISHED BY: DATE TIME REOEI~~ REQUESTED TURNAROUND TIME: ' RELINPU.I.~HED BY: , ~ATE TIME VED BY ~BOp~ORY: RECEIPT CONDITION: PROJECT MANAGER; '~[ RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location: ~ .CO t ~ /c~ ~ ID# Business Name: Contact Name: '~"~;'~ ~-~-~' Business Phone:~"5%'-' - ') '~o0 FAX: InspeCtor's Name: Time of Calli Date: ~'/~//< ~ Time: !,~oo # Min: Type of Call: Incoming [ ] 'Outgoing content.of cal : Actions Required: 'Time,Required to Complete. Activity # Min: CITY. of BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT ~._. FIRE SAFETY CONTROL & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISIONS %, ~ ,.-, 1715 CHESTER AVE. · BAKERSFIELD, CA · 99301 R.E. HUEY R.B, ToBIAs, HAZ-MAT COORDINATOR FIRE MARSHAL (805) 326-3979 (805) 326~3951 May 22, 1995 Robert Becker Smith Environmental 1500 South Union Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 RE: Site Characterization Workplan for San Joaquin Roofing, 1501 East 19th Street, Bakersfield. Dear Mr. Becker: This is to notify you that the workplan for the above stated address is satisfactory. Please give this office 5 working days notice prior to the commencement of work. Please be advised that any work done that is not performed under direct over sight by this office will not be accepted, unless previously approved. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Technician HHW/dlm cc: R. Graham I -- - - ' ' ENVlRONME _NTALT~CHNOLOGIES CORPORATION .... . . . _ :- :.._._ ...... _. · :_ .... . 1 g 1995 i:-' ~' May-11, 1995 ~ ...... - Mr.' Howard 'H. 'wines,. III I ' _-' -City-6f'Bfikersfield Fire Department - .., I_ . . ' '- q'/13"----unester-- Avenue .... .. ~ _ . . _Bakersfield, CA .9.9301.. _. - ....... , -. ': _- ' - - - - - Re: Talk'Site Assessment Work Plan -'- .-. · - _ . --":- -- - - San Joauuin Roofin~ Comoanv ' ' -' .... . .... -:- - ' 1501 E.' 19th Street' . . . - _. --- ~-'-lsalcersnem,--'-- '- ual~torma" ' ' ' ..._ __ -- Dear'M4-..'Wines, . . -- --.-.. 1.0 INTROD~UcTION ..- --- Riedel. Env. i.ro~nmenta! Services, a division of Smith Environmental Technoiogies Corporation -- , .... - .- (sMTH)-presents this w9rk plan t°-evalfi~te~the extent to which petroleum pr~)ducts and/or related I..... ,. constituents' may be found in the' soil beneath, and near the' former underground stqrage tank ' - ~---'- (UST) lo~ated-at t50t E 19th St. in 'Bakersfield, c~diforni-a (site). The proPosed Work is to be i :. performed fOr .the. San' Joaquin Roofing 'Company (San Joaquin)'in compliance with guidelines .of - "- t'h~ .City of Bakersfield' Fire Dep~trtmenL-Fire Safety Control & Hazardous' M~tei-ials Divisions. (BD) ' - '2.0_ SITE LOCATION-- ' ' ' The site. is -located 'on the southeast cornerof E. 19th Street and:Brown Street, as shown on the ._ Location Map, Plat~ 1. The UST, which supplied gasoline to san J°aqui'n's fleet of trucks, was ' - -- ' ' located within. _ the property boundary and Outside the fenced yard. A'dispenser island was located ' - i - - within the'fen-ced yard. It is not know how 10ng.the UST was in operation or when the dispenser - i .... '-was rem0{,ed... Currently the area'over the former UST and dispenser island'is dirt'~ovCr-ed. Plate 2 pr_ovides a Plot Plan. ... .1500 South Uni°nAven. ue · Bakersfield, C~ 93307 - (805~ 83_5-7700 · 7fax (805) 835-7717 - ' '~ ~_'' Engineering ' Consulting · Remediation · Constru~tio_n-~ : " · 1-800-334-0004 ';':For~41Hour Emergency. Respon~i:" -'- .~ . ....r. owar es, . .- .- _ ~. -. -- City of Bakersfield Fire Departmefit- __ . ._. _ May 11~ 1995 " . . ~ ~ [- _ ' '. On FebrUary 23, 1995,-RLW Equipment Company of Bakersfield, CalifOrnia excavated and ' removed One 1.1000-gal!on'UST from the ~ite. 'The' UST-e~cavation measured fippr°ximately 15- . . 'feet by 15. feet: The depth of the excayation is not known but is.estimated-.to be 10 feet below grade. The excavation was backfilled following the UST removal. Soil Samples collected from 2 feet and 6 feet below the base of the' excavation were analyzed for '- total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) using modified EPA method 8015, the r Constituents benzene, toluene,' ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) using EPA me[hOd 8020,' ~' and total lead using EPA method 3050/7420. The TPHg coricentrations Were 10,000'milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg Or parts per million, Ppm) and 1,800 mg/Kg at 2 feet and 6 feet, respectively. ..~-- -' ' Benzene concentrations were 72 mg/Kg and 5.7 nfg/Kg, respectively. 'Toluene concentrations .w.ere 680 mg/Kg and 170 rog/Kg, respectively. Ethylbenzene concentrations were 420-rog/Kg and_' "" 59 mg/Kg,.respectively. Total xylenes concentrations-were 1,90Omg/Kg and 380 mg/Kg, -- respectiVely. 'Total lead concentrations were 50 mg/Kg and 23 mg/Kg, respectively. 'FolloWing -review of the analytical data the BFD requested (let.ter dated March 9, 199.5)'thai the Vertical and- I~. ' --- lateral-extent of. Petroleum hydrocarbons be assessed. This work plan was prepared according to all federal, state and local requi~:ements and follows the · Tri-Regional Board Staff Recommendations for Preliminary Evaluation and Investigation of _ .... Underground Tank Sites (January. 1991).. . 4.0 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY - - "' · The site is Sitdated in the ImProvement District No~'4 of the Kern County Water Agency.' The .... depth to groUndwater near the Site was reported, in the 1991 Report of-Water Conditions by the - Kern County Water Agency, to'be approximately 210 feet. The groundwater flow direction was ,' -': ' to the southwest. --- - .... Mr. Howard Wines,-~I. . - - - ~ .' __City .of~ Bakersfield Fire Department , . ....... ' ' May 11~ 1995 ........... ._ ' . -t'age '~ .. . - - ._ '' 5.0 OBJECTIVES-AND SCOPE OF WORK ' _..It is the objective of this. proposed in~estigati0n to evaluate and report the presence, concentration, -- _vertical and a~eal extent of petroleum hydrocarbon imPacted soil in the vicinity of the former UST . a.nd dis.?nser island, and provide recommendations for the site. i~ ' .~ 'i. ' "' I- - The scope oi~ wOrk includes: : ·" - ' -~ ".o - Contacting Underground Services Alert (USA) to locate subsurface utilities within- ~ _ ~ - the public right-of-way. - - ' ',:i, ~ ' :. · 'COntracting with aticensed drilling company to advance three 6-inch di~tmeter · . _. borings t°. apprOximately 3.0 feet below grade. The first-boring will be located -:" . ,within the former UST ekcavation, the second boring-will be within-ten feet' of the ' - .UST' excavation, and the third'will be .approx!mately 15 feet from the-UST .... "~: ~. :.- .excti~/ation-and_ near- the- former dispensei- island. Additional borings, may be .. advanced if.s_oil.Contamination is found. T_he borings would-be located to assess ~ the lateral-and vertical Extent of s0il contamination. Drillingwill be Observed by a ' ' _ state of California Registered Geologist or a field geologist under the supervision .- '- 6~- a ~gistered geologist. The' field geologist 'will log the s0il encountered using the~ - Uflified soil Classification System. "~-' ~ .-· ' Collecting soil samples at a'mihimum of every 5~feet and at obvious changes-in soft. - .. '- . type.~ Soil_~amples. will be'collected using a_ California-modified, split'spoon -- __ samI~ler eqtiipped with three 6-inch brass or stainless steel liners. Samples selected _ for analysis Will be sealed with a teflon lined plastic c~_ap and tape.-' The samples will -.' be labeled and placed into an-ice'chilled Cooler until they are'delivered to the laboratory ::..7- .. ~.: Screeni. ng samples 'using afield photo ionizaii0n detector (pID) to evalu~t~ relative ~-~ -- ~ i' ' --: -- -.concentra~tions o_f petroie, um.hydroc..a?bons:., ~ -_ ' -' -. . ........... · Mr. Howard Wines} III .... "- "- . _. City of Bakersfield Fire Depaftn3eht .... . .. ' .... . "rvtay't't, 1995 . ..~. ' - - ._ .- - - - ~ ___ . . Page 4 - ' _.' .- - . . .. Submitting s~le~t S~il samples fqr.analysis at a Ca!ifomia certifi_ed laboratory for '- analysis Of TPHg, BTEx;-and total leadl~ Chain of Custody Records will-be .~-.initiated by the geologist in:the field and will accompany the samples to the. _. :- laooratory. .r -- _ ... · -- Baclc~ll!ng-the boiings ~i. ila a cement'l~efit°nite grout mixture. · - - · Preparing a/epOrt describing proCedures, methods, results, interpretations, ' conclusions and recommendations. . · 6.0 .HEALTH AND SAFETY ' - .' ~' ~.~ All.. SMITH employees that Will work at the' site received the Health and SafetY training required by · -' OSHA for hazardous white, site opera, fions (29 CFR 1910.120). Petroleum and gasoline fuel- '' '_ ..'-_. -_ · constituents are the identified hazardous su. bstances at this site. Highl_y volatile compbnents, such_ . ..... _..as benze~ie, pose the gre~atest health hazard. ·Because of the outdoor location .and the intermittent- . : nature of drilling operations, it is not considered likely that personnel will bd expOsed to elevated .... levels of hydrocarbon val~ors fo; any length of time. Under these conditions personnel will work _ '. under-"Class D" protection. SMTH will use a PID to monitor ambient concentrations of organic "vapors. Personnel will have access to air-pUrifying respirators (APR) with organic vapor canisters , that can be donned if conditions warrant. -The detailed sffe specific Health and Safety Plan, will.be distributed to and adhered to'by all SMTH _ -- " personnel, subcontractors, and ~11 site visitors. A "tailgate" safety meeting ·will be held at the site - ' prior to Commencing oPerat'ions 'during which all site hazards and the Health and Safety Plan will. __he reviewkd._ __ __ - -' -- --' - '" __~2 - . '-" ~ t --"- - .. _ . " ·" ": : - .:. -·.- : . -, .: .... :..:~ - ~. . ._ .- . ._._ ~-_-_:.- -. I.:" ":::- ....... -' "-'""'- '- .... : COUNTY OF Ba~flel& CA 9330t (805) 86t.3636 Mrs. Robinson ' 2323 East Hills Drive # 6 Bakersfield, CA 93306 Dear. Mrs. Robinson: It has come to the attention of the Kern County. Environmental Health Department that there has been a change of operator for the facility at 1501E. 19th Street., Bakersfield, California 93305. Along with notification of change of operator, a copy of a written agreelnent between the owner and operator needs to be.sent to this office pursuant to Section 8.48.150 of Kern County Ordinance Code, Division 8. Enclosed please find an Information Sheet with· a Sample agreement and a copy of Section 8.48.480 of Kern County Ordinance Code, Division 8. Please enter into a. written contract with your new operato~ and'Provide him with a copy of Section 8.48.480. Upon completion of the written contract and within 30 days please send a copy to my attention. Thank you for your prompt attention to this .matter. If you should have any questions, I can be reached at (805) 861-3636.. Sincerely, Turonda Crumpler, R.E.ff.S. Environmental Health Specialist I Hazardous Materials Management Program TC:cd cc: Ray Graham ....... · ........................ · ....... - .............. (crumpler\robinson.let) 4-26-04 Pr. 3 IEXCERPT FROM KERN COUN'I~' ORDINAA~E CODE # G-3941] Div. 8 . ~ . ~y opera:or of an ~der- gro~d s=orage ~ank shall be ~iable' for a =i~l of no= less =h~. fi~e__h~dred dollars_ .($5.00) or..~re --~::~ ............ ~'-=h~ five =housand ~ollars ($5,.00'0) per ~Y for =he following: A. Operagas ~ ~dergro~d s=orage =~ has no= been issued a ~. F~ls =o ~:o= =he ~de.rgro~d s=orage C. F~ls =o ~inEain record, as :eq~red by uhis Di~sion or =he =e~ of a ~ 'required b7 ~ap=ar 17~ E. F~ls Lo properl7 close an ~ ~7 o~er of ~ ~dergro~d suorage c~nk ~hall be Iiable for a ci~l pe~lcy of ~ess ~ five h~dred dollars ($500) or ~re ~ fiv~ ~ :housed dollars ($5,000) per ~y for ~7 of.cbc follow- A. F~lure ~o ob~a~ a pe~: as specifie~ by =his Di~sion; B. Failure =o repair ~ ~dergro~d ~a~ ~ accor~ce wi~ =he provtsio~ of .=his Dt~sion; C. lmproper abando~n= or ~proper closur~ of ~7 ~dergro~d =an~ sub3ec: ~o ~he pro~sio~ of =kis D~sion~ D. ~o~ng faille =o =aka reasonable ~d necessa'~ s=eps =o assure, c~li~ca wt~ =h~ Division- by ~e opera=or of ~ ~dergro~d ~.~.~0 ~y person who falsifies any. ~:ormng records req~red b7 ~is Di~sion, or ~ow- · ~gly fails =o report ~ ~aurhorized release, upon conic=ion, be p~ished by a fine of no= less five =housand dollars ($5,000) or more =h~ =~ thousand dollars '($10,000), or b7 ~riso~en= ~ ~e ao~=7 jail for nor :o ~ceed.one 7ear, or by bo~ =ha~ fine and =he co~= shall consider all r~levan= ~cluding, bur nor liml=ed =o, =he ex:an= of ha~ or po=eh=iai ha~ caused by ~e ~olacion, =he.~=ure of =he v~ola~ion 'and =he per~od of =line over whi~ ~= occurred, =he frequency of pas~ viola=ions, ~d correc=ive ac=ion, if any, =aken by =he. person ~o holds =he pe~= -?~, ' -- Information Sheet -- .- A~reement Between Owner and Operator · ChaPter 12 of Kern Count¥~ Ordinance Code #G-394i consists o~ the fo[~n~ ~ Sec=ion 3912.12.01. ~e opera,mr of the gro~d s~orage :acili~y small monitor ~he facili~y .............. . - '~g ~e ~c~o4' specified' om ~. pe~: fo= ~e-- ...... facili:y. Reco=~ s~ll be ke~c ~ s~f~Cie~ 'de~ail v ~o e~ble ~e Pe=nning 6u:hori=y ~o decade :~ opera,or h~ ~der:ak~ all ~cor~ng~mm='.~_=!~:ies To Opera=e, .en:a~ ~:o a ~=en con~ra~ ~ ~he' :~ ~ se~ for~ ~ :he pe~~d provide che opera- ' .......... -~- .. ~ -.~ ~or ~h a-cop~ of ~ap~az '15. .~mr shall no~if~ ............... ~ ' '" .... ~ ~i'C~ :he Pe~c:~ Au~hori~~y chan~e of . operator. ~..,. ~1. ' ~ '- The operator listed in our records for the~:permit~ facility in this packet . .... .... .,_. ~,,~ I~ the operator ~s d~ferent than the o~n~li~ted on the per.it, provide a eopg o~ the required ~ri~ten a~re~~~ the Per~ittin~ ~uthorit~ ~ithin 30 d'ags. ~n example ' IS sho~n be~o~%~: ~~'- ~ written Co'~ ~~~ated ac have entered into this ~' w "¥'~' ' a w ' ~C~en contr ct ich , the operaCo~ of same, . Co f'g~lll a ~equl~ement of my Permit to Opecate, ~ · have P~vided the operator with'a copy o~ the Permit ~o Operate ~ and Chapter 15 o~ the O~dinance. ' ' ~ ~, ' , 'operator of underground storage ~anks ~~ / ~' located at ' have received from .-' '~:. f::~ , owner.of same, a copy of Permit to Operate , .'..~ .~ t and Chapter 15 of the Ordinance describing fines and .%.. '?, · . · ~ penalties for non-compliance. Z have read and understand my responsibilities under this Permit and agree to do the following= -- monitor ~he under.ground tanks as specified ~n the Permit ~o Operate. -- maintain appropriate records as required by the Permit to Operate. -- implement all reporting procedures as required by .......... the..~ecmi}.~. Operate. '~ . -- p~operly close the underground 't~nks as ~equired by Permit to Operate. owner operator date date COUNTY OF KE E~virom~e~ml Health Services Department e 300 Bnkersfleld, CA 93301 '(805) 861.3636 · 861-3429 Fnx N--bet Mrs. Robinson 2323 East Hills Drive # 6 -Bakersfield, CA 93306 Dear Mrs. Robinson: It has come to the attention of the Kern County Environmental Health Department that there has been a change of operator for the facility at 1501E. 19th Street., Bakersfield, California 93305. Along with notification of change of operator, a copy of a written agreement between the owner and operator needs to be sent to this office pursuant to Section 8.48.150 of Kern County Ordinance Code, Division 8. Enclosed please find an-Information Sheet with a sample agreement and a copy of Section 8.48.480 of Kern County Ordinance Code, Division 8. Please enter into a written contract, with your new operator and provide him with a copy of Section 8.48.480. Upon completion of the written contract and within 30 days please send a copy to my attention. Thank. you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you should have any questions, I can be reached at (805) 861-3636. Sincerely, Turonda Crumpler, R.E.H.S. Environmental Health Specialist I Hazardous Materials Management Program TC:cd ..... : Cc: .... Ray-G'raham ........................ (crumpler\robinson.let) 4-26-04' -- Information Sheet -- A~reement Between Owner and Operator -"'-- ~-- -"'---~ Kern County Ordinance Code ~G-3941 consists of the fo~n~sections: Co e.~ble ~e Pe~cu~ng Auchor/~ Co ~e ~ operator h~ ~der:~ all ~:o=~~cies :eq~red by ~e ?e=c To ~eraca. __~ ~ ' i To Operace, encmr ~o a ~ ~omc=~ -' operaco= ~i~ :eq~res ~raco: ~cor ~e c~ ~ sec fo:~ ~ ~e ~d ~ae ~ opera- . copy of ~pce~5.~r s~ll noc~ operacor. The ~¢ermtor listed in our records f~lit~ in this packet i~: than I~ ~he operator is different the l~ted on the perait, provide a eop~ o~ the required written agre~n~~_ J.o the Permitting Authority .within 30 days. An example contract. ' ~ , ownec of undetgroun · storage Ca ~ ~ill a =equiremenC of my Pacini: to Opera~e, have'~'~vi~ad the opera,or wi~n a copy of ~he ~rmi~ ~o Operate and Chapter.15 of ~he Ordinance. , ope;a~or of underground s~otage :anks .oca~ad a= have received from , owner of same, a copy of PetroL: ~o Operate ~ and Chapter 15 of the Ordinance describing fines and penalties ~o~ non-compl ~anca. I have ~ead and responsiDil~les under :his Pe~ and agree ~o 40 -- mon~o~ ~he underground :an~s as specl~ied ~n :~e Peml~ ~o Ope~a:e. -- maintain appropria~a records as required Permi~ to Operate. --~mplemen: all repoc~ing procedures'as required ~he Permi~ ~o ...... -;-~f~pefl'y ~16Se' ~a underground tanks as required b~ .................. Permit ~o operate. : $1~ned owner operator date date 'Div. A A~y opera:or of an under- ground ~:ora§e rank %ail-be liable for a civil penal:7 of no: ._less than five hundred dollars ($500)._.or more.,. .......... :hen five thousand dollars ($5,000)'per'daY for any of ..... the following: A. Opera=es an underground s=orase rank which. has not been issued a permit; B. Fails :o moni:or the underground s:orage rank, as required b7 the C. Fails to main:sin records', as required, b7 :his Division or :he terms of a perm:L:; .................... D. --Falls-'-:'o..-report ah unauuhorized--reIease':~ ................... as required by Chapter 17; £. Fails to properl7 close an underground storage tank, as required bI Chap:er 5.. ~ _ An7 owner of an underground storage rank ~all be iiable for a civil penal:7 of no: less :hen five hundred dollars ($300) or more :hen five' :hous~nd ~ollars ($5,000) per d~y for any of :he follow- ing: A. Failure to obtain a permi: as specifie~ b7 'this DivisiOn; B. Failure :o repair an underground tank in accorfl~nce wich :he provisions of :his Division; C. Improper abandomen: or improper closure of any underground t~n~ sub]et: :o :he prOvtsiona of · this Division; D. Knotting failure to rake reasonable and necessar7 s:epi :o assure compliance wiCh :his Division by :he opera:or of an under&round rank. monitor=rig recor=s required by this Division, or know~ ingl7 fails :o repot: an unau:horized release, shall., upon convic'=ion, be punished by a fine of no: less :hen · five :housand dollars ($5,000) or more than ten :housand dollars ($10,.000), or b7 Lmprisonmen: 'in :he :sun=7 jail for nsc =o exceed one 7ear, or by bo:h :ha: fine and impr is onmen=. ct' ~nai peni~cies imposed pursuan: :o chis Chap:er. the court shall consider all relevant cir¢,,m-:ances, including, but not .Limi:ed to, :he ex:eh: of harm or poten:ia.1 harm caused by :he viola:ion, :he ne:ute of · :he viola:ion and :he period of rime over which i: occurred, :he frequency of past viola:ions, and :he corrective ac:ion, if any, :aken by :he person who holds :he .permi:. · . SM'TH ..... - ' Mr. HoWard Wines, III.. ' City.of Bakersfield Fire Department -- May 11,. 1995- ' . - - Page 5 - ' ...... " · " " . '7.'0- PROPOSED WORK SCHEDULE ~ is anticipated tha~ drilling, and sampling can commence, within five working dg~.ys'after receiving - - - 'verbal authorization of this work-Plan and that fieid activities can be. COmpleted in approximately ". two.working days. The analytical laboratory reports should be received ten days after the field ,-': · .. _ wOrk.and the report of findings should be compl6ted'within the following two weeks. ..... Please phone (805) 835-7700 if you-have any questions. --Very truly Yours ., ~. ..... P~oject Geologist ~ra-"/~" --- -'~,, ;__~ ~ke~.r' . ~ ~'~~No. SOZ6~;REN .. --- :. ~/~, - Registered Geologist # 5076 ' - · '~O~,cal,lFO~_~e- '- " '-'-,~,& ,I - ...... -- ~encl. Plate 1, Location Map; Plate.2, Plot Plan Water 4,3/1 ~'~ ..... .' 'l__ · '. II '.' · .~.- .... : ' _ .. o~ _j~t_ A.-J. ~lz .. .~ ~ .... --" ~0 ~J'" ~ , ~ ~t~- ~ ~ ......... , .......... .~' j ~--lJJ -Ii · Scale 1 inch = 2,000 ~ From USGS 7.5 mince t~ogr~hic m~s of Oildale, Oil cente~, ~d, and ~ont ~ SAN JOAQUIN ROOF~G COMPANY PLA~ 8~~ 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Project Number: 8635' Location Map EAST 19TH STREET X X X X X X OFFICE X -- FORMER UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (~ FORMER DISPENSER "~x-, DiRT~ SHOP AREA X X X X X X X X X X Not to scale X× Fence Proposed boring location 5-8-95 qUMBER: 8635 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA PLOT PLAN PLATE 2 RECORD' OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION. Business Name: ~J · ~3-,~, ,,J ~Jo~/~ ~G Busings Phone: F~: Insp~or's N~e: mimeofC~l~ D~e: ~/4~ Time: ~ /~-- ~ Uin: Type of C~I: Incoming ~ Outgoing [ ] Returned Content.of C~l: ~~ PL~ .*~C-,~ P~C~c-o. Actions ReqUired: Time Required to Complete Activity # Min: B A K ~. R $ F I ]~ L D Cover Sheet CALII=ORNIA Bakersfield Fire Dept. HaZardous Materials Division 1715 Chester'Ave. · Bakersfield, CA 93301 FAX No. (805) 326-0576 · Bus No. (805) 326-3979 Today's Date ~74//~;~'- Time No. of Pages .' .. ':. ::::~..'::: ..::?... . .:. ::..:.... ::. ............:.:...:... Bake'mfield Fire Dept. · .... Hazardous Materals DiVisiOn :, ':'"'~'" ::.. , . ... · ' .........:.:::.::.:...:.. :..:.: ====================================== ..... UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE (LEAK) / CONTAMINATION SITEREPORT REPRESENTING ~ OWNE~PE~TOR ~ REGION~BOARD ~MPANYOR~ENCYNAME ~ L~ALAGENCY ~ OTHER ADDRESS ' ~RE~ C~ STA~ ZIP FACIU~ N~E (IF ~PLICABL~ OPE~TOR [ PHONE L~AL AGENCY AGENCY N~E ~NT~T PERSON PHONE PHONE REG~N~ BOARD (1) NAME QUANTI~ LOST (~LLONS) ~ UNKNOWN DA~ DI~VERED ~ HOW DlS~VER~ ~ INVENTORY ~NIR~ ~ SU~URFACE ~ONITORINO ~ NUIS~CE CONDmONS 0.I ~.j ODj ~ ~ TANK~ST ~ TANKRE.OVAL .~ OTHER .~ D.~ DI~.ARGE .E~N .~HOD USED TO STOP DISC~,GE (CHECK ~L ~*T APPLY) ~ REPAIR TANK ~ CLOSE TANK & FILL IN P~CE ~ CHANGE PR~EDURE ~ CHECK ONE ONLY ~ UNDERMINED ~ SOIL ONLY ~ G~UNDWATER ~ DRINKING WATER - (CHECK ONLY. IF WATER WELLS HA~ AC~ALLY BEEN AFFEC~D) CHECK ONE ONLY ~ ~ NO ACTION TArN ~ PR~IMINARY S~ A~E~MENT ~RKP~N SUBM~ED ~ POLLUTION CHA~C~RI~TION ~ ~ ~ LE~ BEING ~NFIRMED ~ PR~IMINARY SI~ A~E~M~T UNDERWAY ~ p~T CLE~UP MONITORING IN PROGRE~ ' ~ REMED~TION P~N ~ CASE CLUED (CLE~UP ~MPLE~D OR UNNECESSAR~ ~ CLE~UP UNDERWAY CHECK APPROPRIATE ACTION(S) ~ EXCAVA~ & DISUSE (ED) ~ REMOVE FREE PRODUCT (FP) ~ ENH~CED BIO DEG~DATION (1~ ~ ~ C~ SI~ (CD) ~ E~AVATE & TREAT (E~ ~ PUMP & TREAT GROUNDWA~R (O~ ~ REP~CE SUPPLY (RS) 0 '~ '~NTAINMENT BARRIER (CB) ~ NO ACT~N REQUIRED (HA) ~ TREA~ENT AT H~P (HU) ~ VENT ~IL ~S) ~ VACUUM EXT~CT ~ ~ OTHER (O~ CITY of BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE SAFETY CONTROL & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISIONS 1715 CHESTER AVE. · BAKERSFIELD, CA · 99301 R,E. HUEY R.B. TOBIAS, HAZ-MAT COORDINATOR FIRE MARSHAL [805) 326-3979 (805) 326-3951 March 9, 1995 Mr. Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing Co. 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, CA 93305 RE: Laboratory results from preliminary site assessment conducted at the San Joaquin Roofing Company, 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. (Permit BR-0113) Dear Mr. Graham: Upon review of the recently submitted laboratory results from your facility, this office has determined that the extent of the contamination plume, associated with the gasoline tank previously located on your property, has not been adequately defined. This office requires (in accordance with Chapter 6.7 of the California Health and Safety Code'and Chapter 16, Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations) that further assessment be done to define the vertical and horizontal extent of the contamination plume. Please submit a work plan for further assessment, to this office, with in 30 days from receipt of this l'etter. The work plan should follow guidelines found in: ADDendix A - Reports, Tri - Regional Board Staff Recommendations for Preliminary Evaluation and Investigation of Underground Tank Sites; January 22, 1991. Additionally, be advised that oversight cost for this project will be billed to you at a rate of $62.00 per hour. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Technician HHW/dlm S MC Laboratory, Inc. Analytical Chemistry Cert. ificate ~1049 client Name: RLW Equipment Company Address : 20'80 So. Union Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 Att'ention : Bud McNabb Date samples collected: 2-23-95 Date analysis completed: 2-24-95 Date samples received : 2-24-95 Date of report : .2-27-95 Project Name: San Joaquin Roofing Inc. Project. No. : BR0113 P.O. Number : 6334 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: '~ 215 ID: ~1 1K gas ~ 2' ug/g DLR,ug/g Benzene 72 0. 005 Ethylbenzene 420 0. 005 Toluene 680 0. 005 Xylenes 1900 0. 005 TPH (Gasoline) ~ 10000 1.0 ~ 216' ID: ~2 1K gas ® 6' ug/g DLR,ug/g Benzene 5.7 0. 005 Ethylbenzene 59 0. 005 Toluene 170 0. 005 Xylenes 380 0' 005 TPH (Gasoline) 1800 1.0 Matrix Type : Soil Method of Analysis for BTEX : 'EPA 8020 'Method of Analysis for TPH (Gasoline) : 8015M TPH : Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons DLR : Detection Limit for RePorting ug/g : microgram per gram ( ppm) ND : None Detected Analytical Chemist 211 Aviation Street · Shafter Airport. · Shafter, CA93263 '(805) 393-3597 · FAX (805) 393-3623 Matrix ~plke ~u~nary Sheet metn~xl: EPA 8020/8015M Sample Spiked: Lab # 221 Code 2 Set. 17 ~amples 215 - 221 Date: 2-24-95' Spike Data Analyst Comer Chromatogram # 830 ~% 8306 uG uG/G uG/G Amount Net Spike Spike Amount in Amotmt Recovery Amount 'Conc. 'Recovered Sample Recovered % Benzene 0.210 0.105 0.10'4 0.0 0.104 .99 Toluene 0.207 0.i04 0.107 0.0 0.107 103 Ethylbenzene 0..208 0.104 0.107 0.0 0.107 103 I I 0 102 0 107 0 0 0 107 105 .~p~/~ 1 e n e .205 ~ .... m-Xylene 0.206 I"0.106 0.114 0.0 0.114 108 : 'IPB 0.292 0.146 0.156 0.0 0.156 107 Gasoline~. ,I 38 19. 23 0.0 23 121 Duplicate Spike Data Chromatogram # Amount Net Rel. Spike Spike Amount in Amount Recovery % Diff. Amount Conc. Recovered Sample Recovered % (RPD) ~ ~5uL of B-11 (1:25) standard solution. gra'~ of sample were spiked. uL of G-115 (1:10) standard solution. Client : RLW Equipment ComPany Address: 2080 So. Union Avnue BsJ~erfield, CA 93307 Attention: Bud McNabb Date Samples Received : 2-24-95 Date Analysis completed: 3-01-95 Date of Report : 3-01-95 Project Name : San Joaquin Roofing,Inc. Project Number: BR0113 P.O. Number : 6334 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: Total Lead Sample # ID ug/g ~DL,ug,g 215 #1 1K gas 2' 50 5.0 216' #2 1K gas 6' 23 5.0 P~trix Type: Soil Method of Analysis: 3050/7420 MDL = Minimum Detection Level ug/g = microgram per gram ND = None Detected Stan Comer, M.Sc. Analtyical Chemist 211 Aviation Street · Shafter Airport · Shafter, CA93263 (805) 393-3597 · FAX (805) 393-3623 ,~atrlx 3pzRe ~Summary Sheet Met?ted' EPA 3050/?420 Sample Spiked: Lab # 191 & Code ~ 5et 2 ~amples 191,192, 215-218 Date: 2-28-95 Spike Data Analyst Comer Chromatogram # ~uG u~/G 'uG/G Amount.Net Spike Spike Amount in Amotmt Recovery Amount Conc. Recovered Sample Recovered % Pb ~'191MS 50 16 25 9.0 16 100 ~2 i'7MS 50 .16 16 0.0 16 100 uG/mL uG/mL Duplicate Spike Data Chromatogram # ~ uG~/G uG/G Amount Net Itel. Spike Spike Amount in Amount Recovery % Diff. Amount Conc. Recovered Sample Recovered % (RPD) Pb ~I191MSD 50 16 25 12 13 81 21 ~ uG/mL uG/mL QC Check 50 43 86 50 uL ,gl SPEX PLPB-2x standard solution. 3.1 ~ams of sample were spiked. Reagent. blank spike. CI-L~IN OF CUSTODY ~.ECOtq2D Client: ~ Project Name: Project N~er: . Project Location: Billing.: ~ SMC Laboratory, 211 AVIATION STREET SHAFTER, CA 93263 "[nC. m=~=~oo=: (805) 393-3597 FAX: (805) 393-3623 Nc. t ~ate I Time I · Samo!e Tvoe: Descrioticn Preservation Me=nods ~ Ana!vsis R=s~ "=~-o~ ...... 4/5-- .inquished =y:' ~ Company: Date: Company: Date: Re!in_cuished 3y: Company: Date: R .... red By: Company: Date: Sheet of WEIGHMAS'TER CERTIFICATE THIS IS TO CERTIFY [hat the following described commodit was weighed, measured, or counted by a weighmaster, v,'hcs'e ~ignature is on this certificate, who is a recognized authority of accuracy, as prescribed by Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 12700) of Division 5 of the California BusineSs and Professions Code, administered by the Division of Measurement Standards of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. WEIGHMASTER CERTIFICATE TRUCK SCALE * * * * I N T A K E * * Purchased From: T. i CKET ~ = T~'-'oo i G6 GOLDEn4. . STATE hbiAL~ ,,b,~,,~, .... -' ': PD ~Z RO CNT R[I WGT RI! EXT COM~IODITY Ge'O% .~R= NET A[O REASOf4 TANKS 7700A E, 900B 800 800 0 0 .00 TOTALS ...... &qr.'..0 ;-]00 or, r, ,'~ l l,':-' OTC.. PltTH .co-,,:,c~ r--~ in uc/cd¢'.45 NET TONS GROSS WEIGHHASTER: RUTH HER~iA~4DEZ TARE WE.oHMA¢,=F ',Time in 13:46 i gate Out" ...... CUSTOMER S[~TUR[ ...................................................................... ', T~mB But t o: -J.J A=SC~LE !. B=SCALE.c C=SCALE U O-~u~L~ ~ M=MANUAL WEIGHT CD ALL WEIGHTS NOT o, ECiFiE[~ ~!f~E !N POUNDS ,5'tote oi Colifornio---Environmenfal Prote<:fion Agency "For . .r~'"~":..~;.~..O.~,~OMB No. 2050-0039 (Expires 9-J0-94) See Instructions on back of page 6. Deportment of Tc, xic 5ubda~ces Control Pleo~se pr~i_n.t or type. Form ~tes/gned for use on elite (12-pitch) Sac. ramento, Cafllorn~a ~ UNIFORM HAZARDOUS ! ,rO~or's US EPA ID NO. Manliest Doc'dmenf ~.. Page ]' Information in I~--'I© h: not required by Federal law. WASTE MANIFEST ' [OFOll IOIO k? I'? Ir'/ I (c ! of I 3. Genergtor's Name and Mailing A~,,dress,. 4. Generator's Phone (~/'6 · ) ~ '.? V "~'"' ~' ~ 5. Tronspo~er ] Company Name 6. US EPA ID Number ~ 7. Tronspo~er 2 Company Name 8. US EPA ID Number U 9. Designated Focili~ Name gnd,~i~ Address I0. US EPA ID Number dL ~ Z 1. US DOT ~scrlpfion (including Proper Sh;pping Nome, Hazard C ess, end ID Number) ~ 12. Conlo;ners 13. Total 14. No. Type Quanli~ WI/Vol N b. 0 .. 16. GENERATOR'g CERTIFICATION: I hereby declare that ~e con~enh of the conlig,}~ent ore fully and accurately described above by proper sMpplng name and are clas6fied, packed, marked, and labeled, and are in ail r~s~c~ in proper condition f~r transport by highway a~cordlng to applicable ~edera~, ttate and in~ernafiono[ lows. ff I om e [~r~e quanfi~ generator, I ce~ify th;~ I have o program in p]oce to reduce ~e volume and tox~d~ o[ waste generated to the degree I have determined ~o be economlce, ffy practicable and that ~ have selected the prac~cable me~od of ~reatment, storage, or disposal currently available to me which mi~imlze~ the present and ~uture 'wpst~re~ ..... to humang .... heo~ht me~od ~ land ~e environment;liable t ..... OR, if Idth~lam a small .... fiord.quan~ gener~or, I hove made a good /a/th effort to minimize m[v waste genera~on and select the best . ~ 17. Trons~er 1 Acknowledgement o~ R~egpt of M~erials N AX Prln~d/Typed- ~)~ . ~ame -- J S;gnat ...... : ../ ~n~ Day Year s ~c~ .~'~r'r~":';~ ' ..,.,: .'~. . o 18. Transpo~er 2 Acknowledge~nt ot Receipt of ~oterial~ ~ - PFin~d/Typed Nome ~ Signo~re Mont~ ~ .j Day Year . 19. ~screpancy Indication Spoce F A C I I 20. Foci[iW ~ner or Operator Ce~ficofio~ of receipt of hazardous mbterials covered by this manifest except as noted in Item 19. T Printed/Typed Name · [ Signa~re Month Day Year Y DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS ~INE. GOLDEN STATE METALS, INC. TANK DISPOSAL FORM Bakersfield, California 93387 Date ' ,19 Phone (805) 327-3559 · Fax (805) 327-,5749 Contractor's i ., Scrap Metals, Processing & Recycling License No. ' Contractor's Phone No. DESTINATION~ G.S.M. - 2000 E. BRUNDAGE LANE · BAKERSFIELD, CA 9338~' -' 250 .14 2000 .97 ESlDUALS PRESENT (REJECT) 3ooo 5000 2.42 TENT .................................................................................... 7500 3.28 DISPOSAL FEE .......................................................................................................... : 9000 3.82 12000 4,93 TOIAL · CERTIFICATE OF TANK DISPOSAL / DESTRUCTION ~"' ~)~(~ ~'~~,, T~IS~S~ CERTIFY THE RECEIPT AND ACCEPTANCE 0E THE TANK(S)AS SPECIFIED ABOVE.~ D',~S ~YED ~A SC R~EC.Y~I~G PU RPOS E~ .~. . . ALL MATERIAL SPECIFIED W~ BE~OMPLETELY AUTHORIZED REP. ~ ~ ~ ' ' WHITE-- Contractor CoDv · YELLOW-- ~le CoDy · PINK ~ Perm~t LSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT DOUS MATERIAL DIVISION 2130 G Street, ' Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805) 326-39?9' TAN~ REMOVAL INSPECTION FORM FACILITY .%~ ~, ;~ ~~. a~ss ~ot ~, ,~ O~ER ~ ~a~a~ PE~IT TO OPE~TE~ CONT~CTO~ ~6~ CONTACT PERSON ,~ ~e~%~ ~BO~TORY <~ % OF S~PLES ~ TEST METHODOLOGY ~.~5~, ~ PRELI~NARY ASSESSMENT CO. ~A)~% CONTACT PERSON CO= RECIEPT / LEL% ~ O~% 9 PLOT PLAN.' CONDITION OF TANKS CONDITION OF PIPING CONDITION OF SOIL COMMENTS DATE INSPECTORS NAME SIGNATURE RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Business Phone: ,~- ~~ F~: Type of C~I: 'Incoming [ ] Outgoing [~' ' Rmurn~ [ ] Time Required to complete Activity # Min: RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location: ~/~"O / '~ ~ ~ ID# I~'! Business Name: ~,~ -.~'o~,~'~. ,~, ~.~';, ,* _~ Contact Name:' '/<~/, ~.r-~,~,~ ~ Business Phone: ~ ?~-~ -- ?--~ FAX: InspeCtor's Name: Time of Call: Date: !0/~0//~'~ Time: Id; ¢-c # Min: Type of Call: - Incoming [ ] Outgoing '[~. Returned [ ] Time Required to Complete Activity # Min: CITY of BAKERSFIELD "WE CARE" FIRE.DEPARTMENT 1715 CHESTER AVENUE M. R. KELLY BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRECHIEF June 24, 1994 326-3911 Mr. Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing C1-5-01--E~--1-9'th~_S~t-f~_e~-~t~" Bakersfield,. CA 93305 'Dear Mr. Graham: It has come to our attention that you currently own property located, at 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA which contains UndergrOund storage tank(s). Our records reveal that the tank(s) 'have been out of service for more than ninety (90) days. Per 79.116(c) of the Uniform fire Code these tanks must be properly removed. Please make the necessary arrangements to properly remove these tanks by October 1., 1994. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Technician HHW/ed BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION Date Co'm pleted~,c~j~~ Business Name: ~ .~_~~q ~-E~,~..~ L~, Location: /,~.~3/ ~/~ ~'Y Business Identification No. 215-000 ~/~/ ~op of Business plan) Number'of Tanks: / Type: Containment: Lines: ,, " '" " Contact Information. Owner: ~/ ~~~ Emergency Contacts:' Adequate Inadequate Monitoring Program [] [] Records Maintenance .Testing Inventory Reconciliation Response Plan Emergency Plan . Violations: r'r~_~, ~.C--:~m. )-)~. ~-~ }-.~ ,'~ 0.c,m'~r~ U~?4L All Items OK Correction Needed -Business Owner .~,...'~-{'~ '~'~,~ ~ Bakersfield Fire Dept~" ~.-;:" ~~ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION ~~~ ~ ~ 2130 G Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301 ~.//~ . . (805)326-397~ . - '. '." ./_ ROUND TANK QUESTIONNAIRE FAClLI~/SITE No. OF TANKS 'i DBA OR FACILI~ NAME NAME OF OPERATOR Sa~ 3oaqui~ Roo~i~g. Compa~, ~c. Ra~mo~d ADDRE~ N~REST CRO~ STRE~ PARCEL No.(OPTIONAL) ~50~ ~. 19t~ St:eet ~o~ Street ~1~ NAME STATE ZIP CODE ~a~e~s~ield CA 9~S05 ~ BOX TO INDiCATE ~CORPORA~ON ~INDIVlDUAL OPARTNERSHIP OLOCALAGENCYDIS~IC~ ~OOUN~AGENCY O STATE AGENCY OFEDE~LAGENCY ~PE OF BUSINE~ O 1 GAS STATION . ~ 2 DISTRIBUTOR KERN COUN~ PERMIT EMERGENCY CONTACT PERSON (PRIMAR~ EMERGENCY CONTACT PERSON (SECONDAR~ optional DAYS: NAME (~ST, FIRS~ PHONE ~. WITH AR~ CODE DAYS: NAME (~ST, FI~ PHONE No. WITH AR~ CODE Graham Ray 805/324-2044 NIGHTS: NAME (~ST, FIRS~ PHONE ~. WITH AR~ CODE NIGH~: NAME (~ST. FI~ PHONE No. WITH AR~ CODE ~Taham Ray 805/393-6589 II. PROPER~ OWNER INFORMATION (MUST BE COMPLETED) NAME ~O~ ~ O~ ~ ~. ~~ CAREOFADDRE~IN~RMATION MAILING OR STRE~ ADDRESS ~ BOX ~INDIVIDUAL ' ~ LOCAL AGENCY ~STATE AGENCY Z50Z ~'. Z9~h S~Tee~ TO~ND~CA~ QPA,m[,SH~P QCOUNWAGmCY Q~D~LAGmCY CIW NAME STATE ZIP CODE PHONE ~. WITH AREA CODE ~ Ba~eTsE~eZd CA ~. 9~305 805/3Z4-~044 " III.TANKOWNER INFORMATION (MUST BE COMPLETED) NAME CARE OF ADDRE~ INFORMATION S~ Jo~qu~ ~oo~ Compa~7, [~c. MAILING OR STREET ADDRESS ~ BOX ~ [NDWIDUAL ~ LOCAL AGENCY ~ STATE AGENCY CIW NAME STATE ZIP CODE PHONE No. WITH AREA CODE ~3~eTsf~eZd CA 95305 805/3Z4-Z044 OWNER'S DATE VOLUME PRODUCT IN TANK No. INSTALLED STORED SERVICE None .Unknown 1,000 gal. gasoline ~N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N DO¥OU'HAVE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBI[IIY? Y/N IYPE '~.Liab'ility .- qPremises ~.~-~-' 'Fill one segment for· each tank, unless al~anks and Piping are ¢ ~- constructed of same materials, ~style an ._c~_ pe, then only fill one segment out. please identify tanks by owner ID #. I. TANK DESCRIPTION COMPLETE ALL ITEMS -- sPECIFY IF UNKNOWN A. OWNER'S TANK I. D. # .' '- None B. MANUFAC'r!JRED BY: ' :,Unknown · C. DATE INSTALLED (MO/DAY/YEAR) " , Unknown D. TANK CAPACITY IN GALLONS'. 1; 00 0" g a"~ III. TANK CONSTRUCTION MARK ONE ITEM ONLY IN BOXES A, B, ANDC, ANDALLTHATAPPLIESINBOXD A. OF [] , DOUBLE WALL . [] 3 S,.NGLE WA" W,TH tX'ER,OR L,NER UNKNOWN SYSTEM ~2 SINGLE WALL [] 4 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (VAULTED TANK) · [] 99 OTHER .~ 1 BARESTEEL '[] 2 STAINLESS STEEL [] 3 FIBERGLASS [] 4 STEELCLAD W/ FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC B. TANK ' · MATERIAL' 5 CONCRETE [] S POLYVINYL CHLORIDE E~/_7 ALUMINUM [] 8 100% METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP (PrimaryTank) [] 9 BRONZE [] 10 GALVANIZED STEEL~] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER [] 1 "UBBER. L,NED [] 2 AL~D L'"ING --~[]" EPOX~ UNING []. ,, PHENOL'C LINING C, INTERIOR [] 5 GLASS LINING [] 6 UNLINED ~lr 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER LINING IS LINING MATERIAL COMPATIBLE WITH 100% METHANOL ? YES.__ NO__ D. CORROSION []' I POLYETH~'LENE WRAP [] 2 COATING :"~ [] 3 vINYL WRAP ' [] 4 FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC PROTECTION ~--~'-15 CATHOD~c PROTECTION~ 91 NONE ....... [~SS UNKNOWN - fl 9g OTHER IV, PIPING INFORMATION CmCLE A IFABOVEGROUNDOR U IFUNDERGROUNO, BOTH IF APPLICABLE " A. SYSTEM TYPE j~r~ SUCTION . A I,I 2 PRESSURE .A U 3 GRAVITY A U 99 OTHER' B. CONSTRUCTION ~ ~ SINGLE WALL A U'2 DOUBLE WALL A U 3 LINED'TRENCH A~ 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER C, MATERIAL AND .~n BARESTEEL A U 2 STAINLESS STEEL A U 3 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE(PVC)A U 4 FIBERGLASS PIPE CORROSION A U 5 ALUMINUM A U 6 CONCRETE A U 7 STEEL W/ COATING A U 8 100% METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP PROTECTION A U 9 GALVANIZED STEEL A U 10 CATHODIC PROTECTION A~95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER _ j~ D. LEAK DETECTION ~ 1 AUTOMATIC L~NE LEAK DETECTOR [] 2 LINE TIGHTNESS TESTING [] 3 INTERSTITIALMoNiTORiNG ~ OTHER V. TANK LEAK DETECTION TANK TESTING' . '7 INTERSTITIAL MONITORING [] 91 NONE [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER .... I. TANK DESCRIPTION COMPLETE .~L~. ITEMS -- SPECIFY'IF UNKNOWN A. OWNER'S TANK I. O. # B. MANUFACTURED BY: C. DATE INSTALLED (MO/DAY/YEAR) D. TANK CAPACITY IN GALLONS: .' . - · I II1. TANK CONSTRUCTION MARK ONE ITEM ONLY IN BOXES A, B,'ANDC, ANOALLTHATAPPLIES,!NBOXD A. TYPE OF [-~' 1 DOUBLE WALL [] 3 SINGLE WALL WITH EXTERIOR LINER [] 95 UNKNOWN SYSTEM ~ 2 SINGLE WALL [] 4. SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (VAULTED TANK) [] 99 OTHER B. TANK MATERIAL [] 5 CONCRETE ' [] 6 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE [] 7 ALUMINUM [] 8 100% METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP (PrimaryTank) [] 9 BRONZE [] 10 GALVANIZED STEEL [~' 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER [] 1 RUBBER L~NEO [] 2 AL~o L,NI.G [] ~ EPO~ L,NING []., PHENOL,C LINING C. INTERIOR ~-~ 5 GLASS LINING [] 6 UNLINED [~"'95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER LINING IS LINING MATERIAL COMPATIBLE WITH 100% METHANOL ? YES__ NO__ D. CORROSION [] I POLYETHYLENE WRAP [] 2 COATING [] 3 VINYL WRAP .[] 4 FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC PROTECTION [] 5 CATHODIC PROTECTION [~] 91 NONE ~'~'95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER IV. PIPING INFORMATION CmCL~ A IFABOVEGROUNDOR U IFUNDERGROUNO, BOTH IF APPLICABLE A. SYSTEMTYPE A U 1 SUCTION A U 2 PRESSURE A U 3 GRAVITY A U 99 OTHER B. CONSTRUCTION A U 1 SINGLE WALL A U 2 DOUBLE WALL A U 3 LINED TRENCH A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER A U 1 BARE STEEL A U 2 STAINLESS STEEL A U 3 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC)A U 4 FIBERGLASS PiPE C, MATERIAL AND CORROSION A U 5 ALUMINUM A U 6 CONCRETE A U 7 STEEL W/ COATING A U 8 100'/o METHANOL COMPATtBLEWtFRP 'r PROTECTION A U 9 GALVANIZED STEEL A U 10' CATHODIC PROTECTION A U 95 UNKNOWN A U' 99 OTHER D, LEAK DETECTION [] 1 AUTOMATIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR [] 2 LINET~GHTNESSTESTING [] 3 INTERSTITIAL MONiTORING [] 99 OTHER Vi TANK LEAK DETECTION [ ~ ~ v,SUAL C~CK [] ~ ,NVENTOR¥ RECONC,L.AT,ON ~] 3 VAPO~ ~,ON,TOR~NG [] .~' ^UTOMA'r,C TANK GAUG,NG [] ~ GROUND. WATER MON~TO.~N~ ~' ~ ~' I. TANK DESCRIPTION COMPLETE ,~ SPECIFY IF UNKNOWN ·A. OWNER'S TANK L D. # S. MANUFACTURED C. DATE INSTALLED (MO/DAY/YEAR) .' D. TANK CAPACITY IN GALLONS: II1. TANK CONSTRUCTION MARKONE~TEMONLY~NSOXESA. B. ANOC. ANOALLTHATAPPUES~NSOXD I A'. TYPE OF [] 1 DOUBLE WALL · [] 3 SINGLE WALL WITH EXTERIOR LINER [] 95 UNKNOWN SYSTEM [~}'2 SINGLE WALL [] 4 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (VAULT~DTANK) [] 99 OTHER [: -,B. TANK ['~ ,1. BARE STEEL [] 2 STAINLESS STEEL [] 3 FIBERGLASS · [] ~, STEEL CLAD W/FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC '= MATERIAL [] 5 CONCRETE [] 6 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE [] 7 ALUMINUM [] 8 100% METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP ": (PrimaryTank) []:9 BRONZE [] 10 GALVANIZED STEEL [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER []' i RU"B~R LINED []'2 ALKYD LINING .... [] 3 EPOXY LINING [] 4 PHENOLIC LINING. .-. ~ C.-INTERIOR [] .5 GLASS LINING [] 6 UNLINED [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER UNING .... .... IS LINING MATERIAL COMPATIBLE WITH 100% METHANOL ? YES ~ NO__ D. CORROSION ?' [] I POLYETHYLENE WRAP [] 2 COATING ': ': . ..'"'~.[~] 3' VINYL WRAP [] 4 FIBERGLASS ·REINFORCED PLASTIC PROTECTION [] 5:?.C. ATHODIC PROTECTION'[] gl-.'NONE ,:~:..-~ .... ;,.T~r~ 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER ..... "-IV. PIPING INFORMATION CIRCLE A IFABOVEGROUNDOR U IF UNDERGROUND. SOTH IF APPLICABLE ' ~';'~ ~ '-:"~::~ ' : ........ . A. SYSTEM TYPE A U 1 SUCTION .... ~:. ..... A U 2 PRESSURE A U 3 GRAVITY A U 99 OTHER '. B. CONSTRUCTION 'A U 1 SINGLE WALL .- A U 2 DOUBLE WALL A U 3 LINED TRENCH A U g5 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER · C. MATERIAL AND A' U 1 BARESTEEL ":~,~,A U 2 STAINLESS STEEL A U 3 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE(PVC)A U 4 FIBERGLASS PIPE CORROSION A" U' 5 ALUMINUM ' A': U '.:6 -CONCRETE . L:.,~ ~.~:'.-A' U. 7. STEELWI COATING .. A U 8 lOnG METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP PROTECTION 'A U g GALVANIZED'STEEL "A U' 10 CATHODIC PROTECTION. 'A U 95 UNKNOWN ''A U g9 OTHER "i'.'.: · .- O. ~EAK DETECTION [] 1 AUTOMATIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR [] 2 LINETIGHTNESSTESTING [] 3 INTERSTITIAL [] 99 OTHER MONITORING V. TANK LEAK DETECTION ' ' ' · [] ' VISUAL CHECK [] 2 INVENTORY RECONCILIATION [] 3 VAPOR MONITORING [] 4 AUTOMATIC TANK GAUGING E~ 5 GROUND WATER MONITORING [] 6 TANK TESTING [] 7 INTERSTITIAL MONITORING [] 91 NONE : [] 95 UNI~IOWN [] 99 OTHER I. TANK DESCRIPTION COMPLETE ALL ITEMS - SPECIFY IF UNKNOWN A. OWNER'S TANK L D. # B. MANUFAC'I:URED BY: C. DATE INSTALLED (MO/DAY/YEAR) D. TANK CAPACI'PF IN GALLONS: /11. TANK CONSTRUCTION MARK ONE ITE~ ONLY IN BOXES A, B. ANDC, ANDALLTHATAPPLIESINBOXD A. TYPE OF [] 1 DOUBLE WALL [] 3 SINGLE WALL WITH EXTERIOR LINER [] 95 UNKNOWN SYSTEM' ~ ~ SINGLE WALL [] 4 SECONDARY CONTAINI~IENT (VAULTED TANK) [] 99 OTHER B.' TANK [] .1 BARESTEEL [] 2 STAINLESS STEEL [] 3 FIBERGLASS [] 4 STEELCLAD WI FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC ~AT£RIAL [~ 5 CONCRETE [] 6 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE [] 7 ALUMINUM [] 8 100% METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP (P~'JmaryTa,k) [] 9 BRONZE [] ,0 GALVAN'ZEO STEEL '[] g5 UNKNOWN [] gg OTHER [] 1 RUBBER LINED [] 2 ALKYD LINING' [] 3 EPOXY LINING [] 4 PHENOLIC LINING C. INTERIOR [] 5 GLASS LINING ' [] 6 UNLINED [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER LINING IS LINING MATERIAL COMPATIBLE WITH 100% METHANOL ? YES__ NO__ D. CORROSION [] 1 POLYETHYLENE WRAP [] 2 COATING [] 3 VINYL WRAP [] 4 FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC PROTECTION [] 5 CATHODIC PROTECT'tON [] 9~ NONE [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER IV. PIPING INFORMATION C~RCLE A IFABOVEGROUNDOR U IF UNDERGROUND, BOTH IF APPLICABLE A. SYSTEM TYPE A U 1 SUCTION A U 2 PRESSURE A IJ 3 GRAVITY A U 99 OTHER B. CONSTRUCTION A U I SINGLE WALL A U 2 DOUBLE WALL A U 3 LINED TRENCH A IJ 95 .UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER C. MATERIAL AND A U 1 BARE STEEL A U 2 STAINLESS STEEL A U 3 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC)A U 4 FIBERGLASS PIPE CORROSION A U 5 ALUMINUM A IJ 6 CONCRETE A U 7 STEEL Wl COATING A U 8 100% METHANOL COMPATISLEW/FRP PROTECTION A U 9 GALVANIZED STEEL ~ U 10 CATHODIC PROTECTION A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER D. LEAK DETECTION ~ 1 AUTOMATIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR [] 2 LINE TIGHTNESS TESTING [] 3 INTERSTITIAL ~IONITORING [] 99 OTHER V. TANK LEAK DETECTION , ,S.AL OHECK INVENTORY RECONCILIATION [] VAPOR ONITORING []. AUTO AT,C TANK AUGING [] ROUNDWA R MONITOR,N° [] 6 TANK TESTING [] 7 INTERSTITIAL MONITORtNG [] 91 NONE [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER I, Elizabeth C. Robinson, owner of undergroUnd storage tank located· at 1501 E.- 19th Street, Bakersfield, dA have entered into this written contract with Ray Graham, the operator-of same, to fulfill a requirement of my Permit t~ Operate, ~150052C - 89. I have provided the operator with a copy of the Permit to Operate and Chapter 15 of the Ordinance.~ I, Ray Graham, operator of underground storage tank located at 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA have received from Elizabeth C. Robinson,. owner of'same, a copy Df Permit to Operate ~150052C - 89 and Chapter 15 of the Ordinance descri- bing fines and penalties for non-compliance. I have read and understand my responsibilities under this Permit and agree to do the following: -- monitor the underground'tank as specified in the Permit to Operate. -- maintain appropriate records as required by the Permit to Operate -- implement all reporting procedures as required by the Permit to Operate -- properly close the underground %~as req~_r~d Permit t6 Operate. // / ,~ by' ............... ENVII:"JONMENTAL J,-'i EAL?H .... 1501 East 19th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93305 (805) 324-2044 · License .,~518414 Where quality really counts! -.- December 14, 1988 -t 1700 Flower Street Bakersfield, California. 93305 Re: Permit/Invoice ~ Attention: Amy Green ~150052C Underground Storage 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, CA' There has been a change of.ownership and responsibility· to operate the underground storage facility tank at 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. Please make the following change: From: M.L. RobinSon Robinson Roofin~ Company .. 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, CA 93305 To: Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing Co. 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield~ CA 93305~' Ray Graham Owner RG/cr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. . Enclosure · DEC 16 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTF/ i KERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTM i 1700 FLOWER STREET I BILLING DATE : BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~9,3305 ~ J ! 1 / 1 '7' / 8 8 : (805) 861-3636 /"~7.,-// f~/~..Iz~.~..," i . J AMOUNT DUE I 'i 100.00 !.. ~_ PERMIT/INVOICE #150059-C-89 .-- r ...... : ...... -_. :=.:-: ROBINSON,-M. L'~ '" ' cHARGES PAST DUE ,ARE SUBJECT TO PENALTY ROBINSON ROOFING COMPANY' 1501 E. lgTH STREET J ':- DUEDATE · BAKERSFIELD. CA 93305 J 12/17/88 · L .~ / Kern' -county 'Heal th Department ................................. 1700 Flower Street t , '-. , . DATE INVOICE AMOUNT 9~2672. ~ SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING CO. ' · · Permit ~150C52C-E9 1222 '. ::." ,BO, E. ,9THSmEET Robznson Roofinq Co. 6 2 80.." BAKERSFIELD. CA 93305 , , (805) 324-2044 " t .., PAY ONE HUNDRED AND 00/100 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * nOL~ARS CHECK NO. . DATE ...................... . ...... T.O..THE .ORDER OF ................. o1~[~ ~mSs'~"~°~cm'$ .AvA~[. DISCOUNT. . CHECK AMOUN~ -. COMMUNITY FIRST BANK 1st & Chester Of, lice ' ' P.O. BOX 6008 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 'to: ~ay ~ranam -- San Joaquin Roofing Co. · - 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, CA 93305 Ray Graham Owner RG/cr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. . Enclosure . ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTF; 1501 East 10th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93305 (805) 324-2044 · License ~-518414 Where quality really counts! December 14, 1988 Kern County Health Department 17.00 Flower Street Bakersfield, California 93305 Re: Permit/Invoice Attention: Amy Green ~I50052C Underground Storage " 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, CA There has been a change of ownership and responsibility to operate the underground storage facility tank at 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. Please make the following change: From: M.L. Robinson Robinson Roofing comPany 1501 E. '19th Street Bakersfield, CA 93305 To: Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing Co. 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, CA 93305 Ray Graham Owner RG/cr Enclosure " . ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTh; " FILE CONTENTS INVENTORY : Facility .~(---- ,?-7/~' ~(.--i. ~' f.~ ~'~ ' ~Permit to Operate ~ /~_~,~ .... ' .... ~- / __ ~.~. Date ~Construction Permit ~ 'Date ~Permit to abandon~ No. of Tanks Date ~Amended Permit Conditions Perm i.t _Appl ica t ign _FO_r_9, Tank.~Sheets.,_._.Flow .Chart ..... :. ...... . ....... ~'~":':--'"'-c-':~'Application to Abandon ' tanks(s) ' ' ' Date ~Annual Report Forms SCopy of Written Contract Between Owner & O?erator [~ Inspect ion Reports. Da te Date Date [~Correspondence - Mailed Date Da te Date []Unauthorized Release Reports [~ Aba ndonment/C1 osu r e Reports. []Sampling/Lab Reports [-]MVF Compliance Check (New Construction Checklist) · ~-]STD Compliance Check (New Construction Checklist) [-]MVF Plan Check (New Construction) [~STD Plan Check (New Construct'ion) [-]MVF Plan Check (Existing Faci,lity) ~qSTD Plan Check (Existing Facility). ~"Incomplete Application" Form [-]Permit Application Checklist []Permit Instructions [~Discarded ~Tightness Test Results Date Date Da te ~Monitoring Well Construction Data/Permits [~Enviro.nmental Sensitivity Data: []Groundwater Drilling, Boring Logs [2]Location of Water Wells [-]Statement of Underground Conduits []Plot Plan Featuring All Environmentally Sensitive Data [~Photos [~Construction Drawings Location: [~Half sheet showing date received and tally of inspection .time, etc ~]Mi scel laneous ~?oo F~o,,ar s,ree~ ,-RN COUNTY HI~ALTH DEPARTM HEALTH OFFICER. Bakersfield, California 93305 Leon M Hebertson, M.D. '" '. ";i' .ii. ?'.i::'::, ~:' * *' Telephone(805) 861-3636 .' ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION . :,-...'....* .~.:' '....... -.:';~ ~?:'.'.{..:.:'.';;~'!:;?!f~!?~--.':~'"./'}-*' : .' ~ .' ;~ · DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ' :... .... , ~.~.~~,~ . Vernon S. Retchard I NT'ERI M P_ERWII T '/'~~~, PERMI T~ 1 5 0 0 5 2'C · . TO O.PE RAT E : . ... '/~~~ '.:(i.:? .....:...'.::... · '".- · '.-., ." .'l. ..-""'"' I~~/~'~))~1 .':?'~;~ s s u ~- r~ .;. :::~!::.'-r~:7~ ~-;" : "" ' "" '"::"~ ' ...... '/%1~'~~'.:/':'i''~'.× ~ ~ ~ ~' ~:"'.~~ ~,' ~c_. ;~ .ROBINSON ROOFING COMPANY ...... · .... ~',z~.-~'~-. ::~_:~;~.;~.;,~ROBINSON, ..M ..... ~.~..,..,.~.:~.~-:~_~: ~:.i:..:~ './L2?t~"'"'-'~1501' ~E ":""IgTfl STREET '~z:::':'~"::~":?f~'~"r4":;:'~J:~:'7i '~?"~?z':~"::4501 E s"19T~ STREET '.. '." '/- """ ...... . 'F';?'. '" ........... ": 2 "".??' >:':'F":":' ' _ .;.:'"'e~.': ?': '2" [ [".l'i..'_."" [ ............ 2: [T":::'.":~'[~:i[~-;.['~j": i:t?~.~[~.:?'~-.~':~ ..... ~."'?..'..~.i'"[': .:.:/q['??~.?~. ' :':-." '. ..:? .-.::~ ~.:.:..::?~:,.[~.;..'.:_..;::AUT~ORITY MUST BE ~ET DURING T~E .TER~...0F,.,THIS ; :-:"%'~: .... -.~q?:: ':~?,:'l~'-~[~';i~.,. :: .... .',; ...... '." "' ,' .... ?' .... ~-". ~ ~';% ~r 2': .~';-..:~'?.:(.3, z.(.t-::R;z..':?~:,::.~- NON--TRANSFERABLE '** ~"'POST ON 'PRE~I SES "¥'- Division or ~,nvironmental,. He~ ~.. Application 1700 Flower Street, Bake~ A 93305 ( APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO OPERATE UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES STORAGE FACILI.TY ',, Type of Application (check): i' ~Ne--~ Facility [~Modification of Facility ~]Existing Facility [~Transfer of Ownership l' A. ~ergency 24-Hour Contact (name, area code, phone): Days Robinson Roofing.805/324-2838. ' Nights Sa~me Facility Name Robinson Roofin~ Com_Dany No. of Tanks .... 7%yl~e of Business (check):. _~]Gasoline Station ~Other (describe) RoofinK Company ....... Is'Tank(s~"L°cat~d on an Agricultural Farm? [2lYes ~-]No'-' · IS Tank(s) Used Primarily for Agricultural Purposes?. ~Yes [~No Facility. Address 1501 E. 19th St. ,Bakersfield Nearest Cross St. Brown Street . T R SEC (Rural Locations (~ly.). Owner M.L. Robinson Contact Perso~ M. L. Robinson Address 1~501 E. 19th St.,Bakersfield zip 93305 Telephone 805/324-2838 Operator ~ne. Contact Person Address Zip Telephone Water to Facility Provided by California Water Service D~pth to' Groundwater U~-hown Soil C~aracteristics' at Facility Unknown Basis for Soil Type and Groundwater Depth Determinations Based on ·lack of knowledge C. Contractor CA Contractor's. License No. Addr ess Zip Te lepho~ Proposed Startin~ Date Proposed C~pletion Date Worker's Ccmpensatio~ Certification ~ Insurer D. If This Permit Is For Modification Of An Existing Facility, Briefly Describe Modifications Proposed E. Tank(s) Store (check all that apply): Tank ! Wast_._..~e Product Motor Vehicle. Unleaded Regular ~remium Diesel Wast~_ Fuel F. Chemical C~mposit:ion of Materials Stored (not necessary for motor Vehicle fuels) Tank t .Chemical Stored (non-commercial name) CAS ! (if kno~m) Chemical Previously Stored ( if different) G. Transfer of' Ownership Date of ~-~nsfer Previous Owner Previous Facility Name I, accept fully all obligations of Permit No. issued to · I understand that the Permittirg Authority may review and 'modify or terminate the transfer of the Permit to Operate this uqdergro~d storage facility upon receiving this completed form. ................ 2~nis form"has been c~npleted under penalt~y'-'°f per jury and'to the"best-of my.'knowl'edg~ ...... is correct _ Signature r~../-//~ ~ ~--/n' -~.d~,&~---, Title ' ) ~/;c~.~ Date /, ~___/ .~. "' TANK' ~" (FILL OUT SEPARATE FO~ EACh SECTION, CHE~K ALL APPRO, ,{IATC BO~E~ ,~. 1. Tank is: []Vaulted" []-]Non-Vaulted ~uble-Wall ~Si~le~all Car~n Steel ~S~inless Steel ~l~inyl C~oride ~Fi~rglass~l~ Steel Fi~rglass-Reinforc~ Plastic ~Concrete ~in~ ~Bronze Other (de~ri~) 3. Priory .Contai~nt ' , ~ ~te Install~ .~ic~ess (Inches) Ca,city (~11o~) - ~nufacturer ~: 4. Tank Secondary Contai~ent ' - ....... ~ ' ~Other' (de~ri~): ~nufacturer: ~terial Thic~ess (Inches) Ca.city (Gals.) 5. Taflk Interior Lini~ ~Other (de~ri~): 6. Tank Corrosion Protection ~Tar or ~p~lt ~k~ ~No~ ~Other (de~ri~): Cath~ic Protection: ~ne.-~pres~ ~rr~nt S~t~ ~crificial ~ ~t~ ~ri~ System & Equi~ent: " 7. Leak ~tection, ~nitori~, .and Interception a. Ta~: ~Vis~l (vault~ {anks only) ~Gro~ter ~nitori~' ~ll(s) ~Vadose Zone ~nitori~ ~ll(s) ~U~ Wi~ut ~ner U-~'wi~ C~tible Liner Directi~ Flow ~ Monitori~ ~l(s)* Va~r ~t~tor* ~ Li~id ~vel ~n~r" ~Cond~tivit~ ~ Pressure Sen~r in ~ular S~ce of ~ubxe Wall Tank ~ Liquid ~tri~al & Ins~ction Fr~ U-T~, Monitori~ ~11 or ~ily ~i~ & I~entory Reconci'liation ~ri~ic Tigh~e~ Testi~ ~None ~o~ ~her b. Pipit:' ~Fl~RestriCti~ ~ak ~tector(s) for Pressuriz~ Pipit" ~nitori~ ~p with ~ce~y ~ ~al~ ~crete~ ~ce~y 8. Tank Tightness ~s 'mis ~a~ ~en Tigh~ess ~st~? ~Yes ~'~ ~kno~ ' ~te of ~st Tightne~ Test Results of Test _ Test ~e ~sti~ C~ny . 9. Tank Re~i r ~te(s) of ~ir(s) 10. ~erfill Protection ~rator Fills~ Controls, & Visually Monitors ~vel ~Ta~ Fl~t Ga~e ~Fl~t Vent Valves ~Auto Shut- Off Controls Other: List ~ & ~el For ~e ~ices Thickne~ (inches) Di~eter Manufacturer _ ~e~sure ~S~tion ~Gravity ~proxi~te ~ of Pi~ b. Undergro~ pipi~ Corrosion Prot~ti~ : ~Polye~yle~ Wrap OElectrical' Isolati~ OVinyl Wrap OTar or ~Unkno~ ~None ~her (de~ri~): c. Undergrou~ Pipit, Seco~ary Contat~ent: ~l~Wall ~S~thetic Liner ~st~ ~ne ~kno~ ~Other (de~ri~): KERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTME[ 1700 FLOWER STREET BILLING DATE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 933.05 (805) 861-2231 J AMOUNT DUE , I 50 O,~..-~--' AMOUNT ENCLOSED , · '- - CHARGES PAST DUE 'ARE SUBJECT TO PENALTY- DETACH H~RE PLEASE RETURN THIS' PORTION TO INSURE CORRECT PAYMENT IDENTIFICATION DETACH HE sE.,,~c~. ,.osT..,~ DESCRI PTI ON AMOUNT DATE ..... '.---'", ' ' . ...... '- .-:..m....~... - ;):i..::;' ''?-'J''''~ T',.~..,:' ,-.- --~ ...... ' ). ~. I '-_ .: ',...=~ ~ . ' ' ' '; · ' ~N. .":,-'-'-~' · :-"' "- .. ~ .... i'-' KERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT ~c,,o~ ~o, ~...,,,, .... ~.~ ..................................................... ...................................................................................... , TOTAL AMOUNT DUE j ~-, ' ,-"-'- BAKERSFLEL~_D CALIFORNIA 93305 ......................................................... ~'/~'~ Incomplete information on first page of application entitled "Application £o~ Permit to Operate Underground Storage Facility'. The information requi~ed.is noted in red on emclosed copy. Incomplete info~mation on second page(s) of application - "Tank Sheet!. The znformatzon ~equlred is noted in red on enclosed copy. Plot plan lacking or incomplete. 'Refer to ins%ruction sheet enclosed. jiiJ ... Other: .............. ..... "'~ ENVIRONM~'~rFAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPA. R~.NT ...~. 2700 "M" .STREET, SUITE 300,~-B-AKERSFIELD, CA.93301 i .- (805)861-~,3636 .-.: UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE STORAGE FACILITY :~ INSPECTION REPORT :~ PERMIT~ ~50052~ TIME I~...J2J~"T~N'E-OUT /~,'~ NUMBER OF TANKs: .... I ' OWNERS NA~E:NRS. ROBINSON C/O SAN JOA~U[N ROOF. ' .... ':"' '.'.' ''- " ' -. b. ~tandard' Inventory Control ~ Modified Inventory Control f. Vadose Zone ~onitoPing ) SECONDARY CONTAINMENT MONZTORiNG: . ' a. Pressurized :,- Suction {~' TIGHTNESS TESING .- ~ 0 ~ NEW CONSTRUCTION/MODIFICATIONS ' '~ ? CLOSURE/ABANDONMENT ~ ~L~ UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE ~0 ' g..MAINTENANCE, GENERAL SAFETY, AND OPERATING CONDITION OF FACILITY COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... ~ ................................ Remedial Action - Workplan I This workplan details the remedial action proposed for San ... Joaquin Roofing Co. at 1501 E. 19th Bakersfield, CA. :::' ' I Applied Vapor Technology, Inc. ;5 4540 California Avenue, Ste. 500 Bakersfield, CA. 93309 " 805-328-4616 805-832-9024 :' June 1 O, 1996 '" Table of Contents Part 0 Background ........................................................................................ Page Part ~ Executive Summai~ ............................................................................... ]'age Part · Introduction ........................................................................................... Page 38 Statement of Proble~Need ........................................................................... Page Sb Project Scope and Objectives ........................................................................ Page Port · Asti0n Pl0n ............................................................................................. Page il0 Activity One .. .......................................................... ' .......................................... Page illl Activity Two ..................................................................................................... Page Part · Health and Safety Plan ................................................................ ........... Page AppondiOGS ........................................................................................................... Page 20 This workplan details the remedial action proposed tbr San Joaquin Roofing located at 1501 E. 19th, Bakersfield CA. 93301. The remedial action plan will be by the means ofetuhanced i bioremediation. · The former underground storage tank facility at the subject property consisted of one underground gasoline tank and associated fuel dispenser..\ leak detection program was implemented and petroleum hydrocarbons were delected in soil samples during the investigation. Ground water was determined to be a~ 200 feet and appeared not to be impacted by the hydrocarbons. · Tanks were removed in FebruaD~ 23,1995. Elevaled concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were encountered in the soil samples obtained Ii'om below the removed tank. No ground water samples were obtained due to 'the fact that it was determined that the migration of the hydrocarbon contaminant did not exceed 75 feet. · On Mav 26,1995 five soil borings were drilled to determine the extent and levels of the contamination. On the basis of the results it was determined that the contamination levels were an average of 20,000 kg/mg and approximately 1000 cubic yards are I~ impacted. · Based on these findings, the Department of Envirom,.~ental Health, and the California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Clean Water Programs, agreed that the petroleum hydrocarbons has been assessed completely. [na letter dated April 10, 1996, indicated that a proposal lbr soil remediation is required i- · To meet the objective, we propose a treatment bv means of enhanced bioremediation. Based on the average total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentration of " -~ approximately 20,000 mg/kg, the degradation proce:gs shall take a minimun~ of 12 ( months. Bioremediation is the process of applying cultivated microorganisms (bacteria)to digesl and metabolize hydrocarbon contamination into non hazardous materials. Thc bacteria are capable of utilizing carbon from organic compounds that carry out biochemical oxidation's resulting in the degradation of organic compounds (carbon dio×ide, ~vater~ and biomass) the desired end result, contmmated sods. Our enhanced b~orcmedmt~on process ~s anaerobic (in-situ) bioremediation when contamination is under buildings, roadways, or where business will continue to operate. Bioremediation is no way a remedy for all hazardous contamination problems. It is however, an effective, positive tool which can substantially reduce the x, olume of soil and sludge now being transported off-site to area landfills, II oftbrs the tbllowing benefits: · 3d~ effective means to solve the generator's hydrocarbon contaminated soil. · Frees the generator of the long tem~ liabilily associaled with lhe off:site transportation and disposal options now available to him. ·. Most importantly, it achieves the desired treatmem and site remediation goals in an efficiem and the most cost effective way which is in i~all compliance with the desires of the EPA. i~i'~ We understand that you have approxinlately 1000 cubic yards of hydrocarbon contamination at levels averaging 20,000 rog/kg. On the basis of the five soil borings it has ,. been determined that the contamination plume is in a stmth easterly position from the existing office. Based on the geographic setting of establishment it can also be determined that the contamination migrated under the building and towards 19th street. Studies have shown strains of microorganisms are capable of moving ten feet across and ten feet down within a period'ofa few weeks. Typical designs for inoculation wells will be five feet within the plume's perimeter and on ten foot centers fi)tm each other. The size of the plume, characterized by a geologist, or engineer, determines the number of inoculation wells. If there is an error in the plume characterization once the bacterium has been inoculated it eventually migrate throughout plume. will the I~ Statement of Problems/Need · Based on the site assessment performed on June 26. 1995 soil sampling results indicated i that the contaminant levels were found to be above acceptable levels. The highest levels · were found in B1 - 30' (60,000 rog/kg TPHg) and B3 - 35' ( 11,000 rog;kg TPHe.). During the initial tank removal, the highest [evels were recorded 15' below the taS,tk at BI- 15' (59,000 rog/kg TPH). · On the basis of the aforementioned infom~ation and ihe fiict that San Joaquin Roofing shall remain operable during the remediation process, in-situ bioremediation was chosen primarily based on cost. When analyzing the cost associated with vapor extraction, the cost simply enforces the enhanced bioremediation method. Excavation and disposal is ' not a consideration due the fact that the structural inte~ity of the office may be jeopardize during the excavation Process. ~ Project Scope and Objectives Based on data obtained by San Joaquin Roofing, at the subject site approximately five multi-function bio/monitoring wells be installed. Approximately 750 gallons ora microbial consortia will be inoculated in the late log phase ofgrox~h after their population levels reach 1 x l 0~4 t/mi. The minimum gallons is based on currem irdbmaation on the total cubic yards. The estimated time for the remediation process will be a minimmn of 12 months. The following represents a time line of the estimated completion ofttfis project: week 0 5 17 29 41 52 64 76 .......... Permitting *** System design *** Remediation *************************************************** Monitoring * , · · The number of people working on the project will be a drilling subcontractor, registered geologist, registered engineer, microbiologist, regisiered environmental assessor, two to three contract labors. · .411 monitoring of microbial progress will be perforated by a microbiologist, lab analysis monitoring TPH degradation will be performed bx' a State certified lab. · ,411 report generation will be on a quarterly basis once the result of TPH degradation and microbial analysis becomes available. · Note the time line for remediation. This indicates that bioremediation will continue to proceed as long as there is contamination even after monitoring has stopped. ,~, i' i- t:. Other possible approach are No Action. For the No Action approach to be considered the contamination shall not be within 15 feet of the building, a basement, or subsurface untilites which could act as migration conduits; the depth of grou. ndwater should be greater than 25 feet below the deepest contamination; the concentration should be less than 1,000 ma/kg; the concentration of benzene should be less than 1 ma/kg; and the concentration of toluene, ethyl benzene, and total x3,1enes should be less than 50ma/kg At the site, the contamination lies within 15 tket of the building and the maximum THPg and the BTEX concentrations exceed the reconm~ended concentrations. However, there is no basement nor is there an5.' subsurface utilities which could act as a conduit for the contaminant and the depth to groundwater is at 200 feec Bioremediation, it is a biological remedy. It restores naturally occurring indigenous tnicrobial life and many other higher forms of life such as insects, plants and animals. In the environment the rate of degradation depends on the type and amount of microbial population. Other factors include the soil matrix and chemistry, the type. levels and volume of contamination, and last but not least, a specialist to evaluate all the data. Often engineers, biochemists, geologists and other professional sciences performing bioremediation to degrade hydrocarbons are not adequately trained. It is a proven technology and should be executed by a professional microbiologist. You can be assured that the bacteria used are not pathogenic, or secondmT pathogens~ which can and do cause health problems. 1.2 ii · Approximately five mulit-function bio/n~onitoring.qnoculation wells shall be drilled into ' the plume to approximately to total depth of the plume. A two pound nondiscrete soil sample composed of more than one x~:ill be required tbr analysis on the soil chemistry, I: matrix and bacteriology. Results of the bacteriology tests in conjunction with mass : balance equations, will detemfine the amount and the type of nutrients required, if any. Each '~vell will be inoculated with approximately 150 gallons of bacteria in the late log phase of grov~h after their population levels reach 10~4 ~/ml. · In-situ bioremediation is not unique to the envirmm~ental industD~ and it is noi the effective in some circumstances. However, if you need to continue operations without obstacles than "in-situ" bioremediation is the method of choice. Once the equipment to drill and inoculate the wells are gone business can pertbrm as nom~al u'hile hydrocarbon degradation functions without interruptions. ~ Activity One I' :' Drill and install 6 multi-function inoculation wells. Obtain two pound nondiscrete soil sample composed of more than one for soil analysis. Obtain drilling permits, and contact Underground Selwices ?klert (USA) to locate subsurface utilities within the public right-of-way. (drilling will be obsep,~ed by a State Registered Geologist). Complete the 6 multi-function wells with two inch slotted liner _in the zone of contamination. Inoculate each of the five wells with the microbial consortia. Activity Two Monitor the degradation and microbial progress of the contaminated soil each quarter m~til forth quarter of project. Generate report from the subsequent information obtained fi'om the atbrementioned analysis. Site closure, pressure grout the multi-function wells to restore the subsurthce to a permeability less than the native material. Project: Kern Valley Farms Street address: Weed Patch Hwy., Mettler, CA Site Description: Date: May 11, 1996 Area affected: Proximal, inunediate area around contanfination Surrounding area: Primarily commercial Topography: Flat Additional information: N/A On-site organization and Coordination Prqject Team Leader: Jim Zaben Field Team leaders: Backhoe and excavation crews Local Lead Agency: Water quality Project Managemem: Applied Vapor Technology, Inc. 4540 Calilbrnia Avenue. Suite 500 Bakersfield, CA. 93309 :1 A. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) -- NA B. Site History NA at this time. C. Proposed Work Plan 'Based on the site assessment activities completed,, the project will include the excavated soil, the excavation of soil for the placement of the grid system and drill cuttings collected into 55 gallon drums during the Phase II Site Assesment. Based on the average total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) of approximately ? rog/kg, the remediation process should be a minimum I months. Once the site has dropped to acceptable levels, a site closure can be obtained. D. Facility Map -- Enclosed t?:.: E. Vqind Direction Indicator {- Currently we do not believe there will be a need of a wind indicator. A nfinimal amount of ;.' soil and drill cuttings will be placed onto the grid system and in the event we need to keep ,~: the dust from being air bom, water will be used for suppression. F. Excavation and Soil Placement The proposed excavation will be approximately a fifteen by twenty fbot hole at a depth of twelve inches. All hea',T equipment used shall follow proper procedures in making safety issues of the highest priority. All equipment used for thc excavation and the placement of the soil will be decontanfinated prior to leaving the area· The heat and steam proceess will include a portable vapor generator, electricity and water equipment. Only qualified personnel will be involved with the application of the heat and steam. G. Hazardous Materials The primaD~ hazard of each are identified as follows: Certain components of gasoline (BTE &X) are known or suspected carcinogens. The tbllowing additional hazards are expected on site: Movement of heavy equipmen'~.. The following substance(s) or hazards are known or suspected to be on site: Substance(s) involved Concentration 1. Gasoline compounds '? mg/kg (maximum) 2. Benzene ? rog/kg (tnaximum) 3. Toluene ? reg./kg (maximun0 4. Ethyl benzene ? rog/kg (maximum) 5. Xylene ? rog/kg (maximum) : 6. Diesel. ? rog/kg (maximum) The primaw hazards of each are identified as folloxvs: 1. Gasoline compounds - components of gasoline are colorless liquids with strong aromatic petroleum hydrocarbon - like orders. They are flammable and have low solubility in water. Exposure to these materials in excess ofrecotmnended exposures limits can cause nfild eye, and throat irritation and can produce a narcotic effect on the.central nervous system Symptoms of exposure at these concentrations include headache, nausea, drowsiness, dizziness, and the loss of coordination. 2. BTX&E - common additives to gasoline, these comp,3nents are colorless liquids with strong aromatic petroleum hydrocarbon - like orders. They are flammable and have low solubility' in water. Exposure to these materials in excess of recommended exposures limits can cause nfild eye, and throat irritation and can produce a narcotic effect on the central nervous system. Symptoms of exposure at these concentrations include headache, nausea, i' ~,: drowsiness, dizziness, and the loss of coordination. These components, particularly benzene ' ~ are known or suspected carcinogens. 3. Diesel compounds - components of diesel are colorless liquids with strong aromatic petroleum hydrocarbon - like orders. They are flammable and have low solubility in water. Exposure to these materials in excess of recommended exposures limits can cause mild eye, and throat irritation and can produce a narcotic effect on the central nervous system Symptoms of exposure at these concentrations include headache, nausea, drowsiness. dizziness, and the loss of coordination.. Be aware of the following additional potential hazards expected on site: movement of heavy equipment (drilling rig). H. Personal Protective Equipment Based on the evaluation of potential hazards, the following levels of personal protection have been designated for the applicable work area or tasks: Location Job Function Levels of Protection Exclusion zone excavation/remediation D Reduction zone Samples and boriags D Support zone Suppoa functions D Specific protective equipment for each level of protection used is as follows: Level D - hard hat, steel-toed shoes, half hced respirator (if necessa~'), gloves. No changes of the specified levels of protection shall be made without the approval of the project team leader or the site safety officer. I. Chemical Hazards Analysis Emergency medical information for substances present: Exposure Symptoms Gasoline compounds - if the exposed has difficulty breathing - move to a vapor free at'ea. Administer oxygen or artificial respiration until medical assistance can be rendered. For ingestion, DO NOT induce vomiting, seek medical assistance inunediately. For skin contact wash with soap and water. If product comes in contact eyes, flush with large quantities of water for at least 15 minutes and seek medical attention i~mnediately. BTX&E - if the exposed has difficulty breathing - move to a vapor free area. Administer o)¢,gen or artificial respiration until medical assistance can be rendered. For ingestion, DO NOT induce vomiting, seek medical assistance immediately. For skin contact wash with soap and water. If product comes in contact eyes, flush with large quantities of water tbr at least 15 minutes and seek medical attention irmnediately. J. Miscellaneous Health and Safety Risks Moving Equipment All moving equipment shall be operated in such a mariner that no Safety Risks become all issue. All heavy equipment shall remain on stable grog. md at all times and shall keep all wheels, outriggers, legs, placed firmly on the ground surlM, e..~ter each day (if applicable) shall be parked in a sate place away from potential dangers. While stored on site, all excavation equipment shall have movable parts parked firmly en the ground as applicable. Fires Fire ex~tinguishers will be available on-site in support areas and it', all vehicles or heax?' equipment. Fire extinguishers will be 20 lb..4aBC rated. ,MI perso]mel will be instructed to sun, on the local fire department should a fire occur Small Fires In the event of a small fire at the site, the following actio~s shall be taken: 1. evacuate all urmecessary personnel from the area. 2. Attempt to extinguish the fire using portable fire ex-tinguishers or by smothering. '"":.. ::: .:~.~:~';. ~.":~:::~::'):.i~.; :' '.?:~:' :~:f' ?: f~i:::: ~?':"~i:~:::. ':ili~i' i;.:COnfidentiat::i :.~::/f :".: i:' .?.i:':?::?..i'..¥. ?iii: .:~ii:~::::i'.':~:::'::.:. i:.:~:~: 3. Request emergency response assistance (ambulance, fire department, hospital, poison control center as appropriate for any injuries or exposures to hazardous chemicals which may occur during suppression of the fires. 4. Notify. Applied Vapor Technology Project Manager and the Health and Safety Coordinator. 5. Notify the Owner's representative. Large Fires In the event of a large fire, or small fire that cannot be extinguished, the lbllowing actions will be taken: 1. Evacuate all persomael from the area, preferably to an upwind location. 2. Notify the local fire departmem and other emergency response agencies. 3. Noti~, the Applied Vapor Technology Project Manager and the Health and Safety Coordinator. 4. Noti~' the Owner's representative. Fire Explosion The risk of fire explosion during the site activities is present, though nfinimal. Toluene is considered flammable and is a known contaminant on-site. The lower explosive limits (LEL) for benzene, toluene, x34ene, and eythl benzene are 1.3 to 1.4 percent. 1.2 percent, and 1.1 percent, respectively. Their flash points are 12'~ F. 40(' F. and 810 F, respectively. For added safety smoking will not be allowed on the site except in desigmted areas (to be determined). NO Smoking signs will be prominently displayed at numerous locations. A portable combustible gas monitor may be utilized to mc,nitor LEL. All work will cease if the percent LEL reaches 20 percent. Ox3'gen Deficiency It is not expected that an o.'~'gen-depleted atmosphere will be encountered during the site activities. Whenever the risk of encountered ox3~gen-depleted atmosphere does occur. precautions will be taken to ensure the safety of all employees. Confined space entD~ will not be allowed at any time during the project. Biological Hazards !. [ It is not anticipated that poisonous plants or hazardous animals will be encountered during the site activities. Safet)r Hazards The principal safety hazards are those associated with drilling, well completion and the movement of the drill rig. These will be minimized by controlling vehicle movement to avoid collisions. Back up alarms will be in good working order fbr warning devices. All equipment shall have appropriate guards in place. Heat/Cold Stress Wearing personal protective equipment while conducting site operations puts the individual worker at risk of developing heat related disorders, i.e.., heat stress. Monitoring will.be performed to avoid heat stress, using both oral temperatures and radial pulse rate for all workers engaged in heavy labor at ambient temperatures over 70© F. K..Mr Monitoring Based on the drilling and in-situ bioremediation, as pla~med in the field, the Ibllowing instruments shall be used on the site as needed: ~ Organic Vapor Analyzer - as needed Combustible Gas Monitor - as needed ~ Oxygen Monitor- as needed Colorimetric tubes- as needed L. Decontamination Procedures Equipment used for excavation and placement of the soil, other heaw equip~nent that has come into contact with the contaminated soil during the remediation activities and non-disposable personnel protective equipment used in the Exclusion Zone will be decontaminated prior to leaving the Exclusion Zone. A separate contmnination reduction area will be established for drilling an other equipment in order to prevent contamination of the personnel decontamination area. Sampling equipment and other non-disposable equipment should be kept clean in disposable protective covers. Dippers, scoops and similar devices fbr solid samples may be placed in plastic bags tbr later decontamination or directly into 5 5 gallon drums for offsite disposal (as necessary). Disposable equipment, including respirators cartridges~ must be placed in heax..x/plastic bags or directly into 55 gallon drums for offsite disposal. Used decontamination solutions will be stored in 55 gallon drums. Personnel .All field personnel exiting from the well drilling Exclusion Zone must pass through a personnel contamination reducing corridor (CRC). Decontamination of personnel involved in an5' trenching activity will not be required. .~s a minimum, all personnel exiting the Exclusion Zone will remove all protective clothing and wash their hands and face with soap and water. This is done prior to eating lunch and or i'. taking a break in break areas where eating and or smoking may take place. il' ~' Removal of protective equipmeta in a specific order will be done in an effort to nfinimize · : contamination spread and potential repeat occurrences. Emergency Decontamination In the event that a seriously injured person is suspected' of being contaminated, the SSo or other site worker will wrap the individual in clean plastic sheeting t prevent contamination the ambulance. Less severely injured individuals will have their protective clothing removed prior to transportation to the hospital. M. Emergency Response Plan First ,4fid Measures Emergency response procedures have been developed for the e.'.araordinarv events that could occur during field operations. These events include accidents and;or injuries, chemical exposures, spills and fires. In general, the following actions shall be implemented in the event of an emergency: i First aid or other appropriate initial action will be administered bx.' those closest to the i accident/event. This assistance will be coordinated by the' designated Site Safety Officer and ~ will be conducted so that those rendering assistance are not placed in a situation of ~. unacceptable risk. The primary concern is to 'avoid placing a greater number of persotmel in ~:. jeopardy. The project manager, field super,4sor and health and safety coordinator will be [' i notified inm~ediately. They will in turn notify the client representative. i!'i ,4al accident/incident report will be completed by the uninjured indMdual or witness and ~.:: site supervisor. The accident report will then be forwarded to tile project manager. Upon .., reviewing and commenting on the accident / incident, the form will be forwarded to Applied ri!; Vapor Technology and the safety coordinator who in turn will investigate and make comments on the accident / incident. Any necessary changes to the operation will be made to prevent the same accident; incident or near miss situation from occumng in the fi~ture. Accidents and Injuries The following response procedures should not be considered i~fflexible. Every accident presents a unique event that must be dealt with be trained persotmel working in a calm, controlled mmmer. In the event of an accident/unusual event, the prime consideration is to provide tile appropriate initial response to assist those in jeopard)' without placing additional persmmel at risk. Accident/Injury in Contaminated .~ea If a person is a contaminated area is injured, American Red Cross first aide procedures will be followed. Depending on the severity of the injuD', emergency medical response may be sought. If the person can be moved, the.,,,' will be taken to the edge of the exclusion zone (on a stretcher, if needed) where contaminated clothing will be removed (if possible), emergency first aid administered and trark~ported to a local emergency medical facility awaited. Accident / Injury in Non-Contaminated ,~ea For an accident / injury, in a non-contaminated hazardous area. the procedures above should be followed with the exception that the injured individual should not be moved and the removal of contaminated clothing would not be necessary Emergency Medical Care The nearest medical facility with emergency services is ': The route to the hospital is on the attached map. : Agency/Facility Phone Contact ~._ Police 911 .... ,. Fire 911 .... ? ~: .4a~bulance 911 ..... ~ Department of Environmental Health 861-3636 Lidia Von Svdow Applied Vapor Tech. 328-4616 Jim Zaben Calpi 589-5648 Pat Mulhoffer N. Qualifications Applied Vapor Technology's Site Safety Officer is Jim Zaben. His Qualifications are as tbllows: 40 HR OSHA Hazardous Waste Workers Training Certificate Certified. Hazardous Transportation Certificate Costs TASK ESTMATED COST Installation of 6 muti/function inoculation wells $20,296.64 Soil analysis/4 quarters $25.040.00 Drilling permits $500.00 Labor / Report generation $2616.10 Inoculum $11.870.00 Project Management $5,378.00 Prepare Ren~edial Action Plan $2,000.00. Closure report $5,200.00 Abandonment of 6 wells $2,099.26 Estimated Grand Total $75,000.00 The following are whats included in the appendices section: · :' Cost estimate sheet · :. Information about Bioremediation · :' Route to the hospital · :' Topo map of site location · :' C~ty map of site loaction · :' Plot plan of well design · :' MSDS Sheet COST ESTIMATE SHEET TASK ESTMATED COST Installation of 6 muti/function inoculation wells $20.296.64 Soil analysis/4 quarters $25,040.00 Drilling permits $500.00 Labor / Report generation $2616.10 Inoculum $11.870.00 Project Management $5,378.00 Prepare Remedial Action Plan $2,000.00 Closure report $5,200.00 Abandonment of 6 ~k~ells $2,099.26 Estimated Gland Total $75,000.00 '- I 3' ediatio Iorem n: , ,Z,n ternative to ' . nclneratton By R.B. Grubbs and Dwiffht L. Navis Bioremediation seems to have jumped implemen~al. Byoptingforbioremediation, the soil at the site, exclusively. These out of science fiction a~d into today's a generator can reduce i~s liability and cos~. bacuma are stimulated by me introduction hcadline~. News coverage of several major of nutrients into the mil mass, enhancing oil spills in the last two years has increased On-sim treatmentalleviates thecostand the biological growm. The other memod the nation's interest in natural cleanup liability associated with removal and can be classified as bioaugmen~a,ion. metho~.Biore'mediafionisbeingde~cfibed u'ansportafion of contaminated soils to Bioaugmentation involve~ the addition of as tomorrow's treatment of choice for another facility or landfill. Bioremediation certain pre-selected bacteria to the soil. handimg hazardous wastes. Tbe good news is an economical option. Thecostpertonof This proceas is done m ensure fi.at the is that bioremediation has been used · bioremediation of contamiruued soil will proper "degraders" are present ~o perform succe.~sfullyformanyyears, andprovidesa normallyrangebetween$15and$?0. Also, ~erapidbrcakdownofmrgetconmmmants. viable option to incineration, malmenancecosrsofbioremediation is very low, because only a few piccas of equipment Thc methods o f biostimulation arc based Essentially, bioremediation 'is the can brealc down or need constant rcpmr and on the assumption that every type of' process by which living organisms are used upkeep. The bacleria work for frec, aslong organism needed to accomplish thc to decontaminate a polluted system, as there is food, which we consider complete breakdown of hazardous 'Typically, thc organisms of choice arc hazardous compounds, ioeat. This concept compoundsarcnormaUyprcscntinfl~csoil bacteria. Bacteria are simple, single-ceUed pugs a new meaning into the phrase and in sufficient numbers ~o be effcctivc~ organisms. Although simple as one unit, "Working for Peanuts," changing it to Therefore, to assure safisfactory treatment, bacteria taken as a whole are thc most "Working for Polynuclear Aromatics." all ~hat is required is a derailed treatability diverse group of organisms in the world, study to determine thc ideal environment Bacteria are capable of surviving in every Bioremediafion is a safe and natural needed for the indigenous bacteria. Of these environment on F. an~. Some strains can method of treatment. Biological ueatment tests are positive, thc environmental live in such extreme conditions as hot, degrade~ h,7~rdous materials to water, conditions required can be practically sulfur springs and gte Dead Sca. It is no carbon dioxide, and bacterial cell material, obtained. These studies are normally ~- wonder that these organisms can survive on without producing other side effects and expensive and time-consuming. polluted soils and water, with minimalenergy utilization. The public is more amenable to natural solutions ~an Another drawback of ihe feasibility is Bacteria are the prime work horses in incincrationorburyingofhazardouswa, si&s. thatwhatgocsoninconLroUedcnvironmcnts bioremediafion, but other organisms can be - a lab, a bucket of soil, or a greenhouse - is ,.. employed. Different funl[i show promise as Finally, bioremediation offers not what goes on in a natural setting. What degmflersofDDTandothertoxicpesficides, predictability. Where applicable, a is important is what happens out in thc Wa~crhyacinthshavcbeenutilizedinwater bioremediafion program can bo designed ficld. BacteriadonotbchavclikecbemicaLs; ii. systems to remove uace organics and trace that will give a definite timetable for they are alive and dynamic. Very little is I: me~ds. Some genetically altered plants remediation. The program can be designed knownabou~theecologyofmicroorganisms i~ couldbeplan~.xlinficldsofconmminafion to give predictable results, which allows in thc soil. Consequently, consistently to degrade pollutants, one to devise a program with known costs, succe~ful field work is f~ more valuable Degradation cam be complete with no more than a few la~oramry studies that barely Bioremediation offers several liability, begin u~ uncover the inmnscly complex and advan~agesandbenefitsoverothertrcaunent rich interactions mat occur ~tween soil !' methods. Therearefivepfimaryadvantages Bioremediation can be segmented into microorganisms of all kinds. to choosing hioremediation. This natural two schools of though~. One method can be processcanbedoneonsite,ataneconomical classified as biostimulauon. This memod It is also very hard W define wha~ is cost, and b~ quickly and predictably uses naturally occumng bacteria present in indigen~ous to each site. The few Environmental Waste Management Magazine/October 1990 !: microbioiogists who have studied bacterial ofenzymes needed to break down both the Troublesome soils include clay and soils ecology claim that almost every soil pr/mary and secondary substrates. A withhighminerallevels, like those found in .organism has,at one timeoranother, existed secondarysubswatedoes notinduceenzyme desert regions. The troublesome soils need in nearly every environment on Earth. production; pfimarysubstrates are needed special care, such as amendments or Bacterial populations are very dynamic, for the biodegradation of these pollutants sufficientmechanicalmanipulationtobreak These are shuffled around by forces of as secondary metabolites. The enzymes are up the soils. A successful bioremediation weather and animals, anddie back to very inducedby the primary substrates, project is dependent on a good low levels, only to blossom by the billions Secondary subsu-ates can now be degraded understanding of soils, soil problems and under near ideal conditions. The by the same enzymes that degrade the effective soil treatments. "indigenous" populations are constantly primary substrates. The primary subsumte changing due to these and other forces can be another hazardous substance or any Additional environmental concerns Indigenous populations will not always other organic compound found in the soil. include appropriate water levels, sufficient serve as a reliable pool ofhnT~_rdous waste In many instances, otherorganiccompounds levels of readily accessible sources of degraders. Taking a chance on the local donotneedtobeaddedasprimarysubstrates nitrogenandphosphorous, neutralpHlevels bacterial gang can berisky, hence the need unlessthe, soilisdepietedoforganicmatter, and warm temperatures. All of these aru for the extensive treatability studies, or if the bacteria strains used are highly needed to keep the bacteria working at an SPeCific and do not compete well under the effective rate of degradation. A more sophisticated approach to . site's naturally occurring or stimulated biostimulation is the detailed laboratory conditions. The final concern is "how clean i.~ evaluation of bacterial strains at the site to clean?" Bioremediation is an effective- find the strain or strains that best degrade The final route of degradation is co- remediationtool, butundersomeconditions the contaminants. These strains are then metabolism. This method is similar to itcannoteffectivelydegradecontamination grown, by a patch process, in large quantities secondary substrate utilization. The to low levels, such as low parts per billion on the site. The cultured strains are added difference is that the bacteria can use the. and the elusive nondetectable. back to the soil during stimulation. One secondary substrate as an energy or carbon shortcoming to this batch process is that source. During co-metabolism, however, Reasonable standards must be set so the each batch will vary. This doe's not lend thesubstrate(hazardouscompounds)cannot public's and the environment's health is iiself well to predictable remediation, be utilized by the bacteria. Through co- maintained. These standards, however, metabolism the enzymes produced by the should not be set to such low standards that Bioaugmentation is the controlled bacteria can cause panial breakdown of the ] .it falls below the capabilities of reasonable addition of spec/ally formulated bacterial contaminants. The co-metabolized cleanup methods or the remediation cost culturestoassistbacteriapresentin thesoil, remnants of the hazardous compounds are becomes prohibitive. Some places in This method will not be successful unless then in a form that other bacteria can utilize California and in other states have set such the environment is controlled so the as substrates, stringent cleanup standards that few, ifany, conditionscreatedproducesuitablegrowth, technologies can be employed in an Degradation of contaminants can proceed t You can see from this sketch of economical manner. These unattainable by three routes, as primary metabolites, biodegradation that the process at the standards stifle cleanup, which is not in the secondary metabolites, or by co- bacterial level is complex. Usually a public interest. We have to look at all metabolism, consortium of different bacteria is needed technologies available uxlay and set the for completedegradation, especially when standards on attainable cleanup levels. A primary me~abolite is viewed by ~he cometabolism plays an important role. These sumdards should be based on risk bacteria as a readily degraded substance Although a consortium is required, not just standards, not on capricious levels that a~ and can be used by the bacteria as both an any group of bacteria will do. The idea of impossible to clean up. with current energyandcarbonsource, two vital bacterial adding sludge or horse manure to a technologies or which will bankrupt most requirements for survival. Primary bioremediation site, or the "sour mash" institutions. subswateswillinducethebacteriatoproduce technique may not be effective, nor will it enzymesdesignedtodegradethoseprimary producepredictableresults. What is needed About the Authors substrates. Enzymesatebiologicalca~ysts is a defined consonium ofbacteria that will R.B. Grubbs is the President of, and that perform specific ~asks needed to break predictably degrade certain types of Dwight L. Naris the technical sales down hazardous compounds. Usually contaminants at a known rate, representative with Solmar Corporation, in simple poUutants are degraded as primmT Orange, CA. · metabolites. Once the appropriate bacteria are located, then the environment must be More complex h~='~rdous materials are manipulatedtoalloweffectivegrowth. Soil viewed by the bacteria as secondary types play a major role in bioremediation. subsuates, Whenever exposed to more The bacteria need surface area and access complex pollutants, the bacteria need a to nutrients, water, and oxygen to function pr/mary substrate to induce the production effectively. Porous soils work the best. I Environmental Waste Management Magazine/October 1990 APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION PLUME b 1501 EAST 19th STREET ' ~ A A' I I=~l=Nr) SCALE · I-2 Perforation 15-20 fbsg with TO 20 frog. 1-3 Perforation 1~ lb.g wlttt TD 30 fb~g. lin~t - 10feet FIGURE 1-1 Material Safety Data Sheet Waco Environmental 1805 Glencairn Court Bakersfield, CA 93309 (805) 834-2979 6/28/90 Section 1: IDENTIFICATION Product Name: Bioremediation Microbes Synonyms: Bacteria, Microorganisms, Bioremediators Composition:- Living soil microorganisms growing in a nutrient rich broth of protein, protein digest and carbohydrates. Hazard Rating Codes: N/A Section 2: PRODUCT AND COMPONENT HAZARD DATA Bioremediation Microbes are common non pathogenic beneficial soil microorganisms, bacteria, living and growing in a broth culture (a food source) and do not present safety or handling problems. Section 3: PHYSICAL DATA Appearance: Light to dark brown liquid Melting Point: N / A Vapor Pressure: N/A Evaporation Rate: N/A (N-Butyl Acetate =I) Spedfic Gravity: 1 (Water = 1) Pounds per Gallon: 8.34 Solubility in water: Colloidal Suspension of living bacteria Volatile fraction by weight: N/A Total destruction of microbes: 212°F for 15 minutes 180°F for 60 minutes Section 4: FtRE AND EXPLOSION DATA Flash Point: N/A, non combustible Extinguishing Material: N/A Special Fire Fighting Procedures: N/A Unusual Fire and Explosion Hazards: N/A, non combustible Section 5: REACTIVITY DATA Stability: Stable Incompatibility: None known Hazardous decomposition products: None known Hazardous polymerization: Will not occur Conditions to avoid: None known Section 6: TOXICITY AND HEALTH HAZARD DATA :,- · Bioremediation Microbes are a combination of non-pathogenic soil bacteria and :i present no toxicity or health problems when handled as directed. As with any ~. bacteria, avoid contact with eyes and excessive contact with the skin. Washing with soap and water is usually sufficient after contact. Contact: Inhalation: N / A m Skin: May irritate skin Eye: May irritate eyes ~-: First Aid: Unlikely to be necessary ·: Inhalation: N/A Skin: Wash with soap and water i~ Eyes: Flush with copious amounts of fresh water - ~ Section 7: VENTILATION AND PERSONAL PROTECTION ~i Respiration Protection: None required I.-~.~ '. Ventilation: Adequate [:~: · Special: Usually none '-";'~: Mechanical: None required t~: Other: None required Protective Gloves: May be worn if desired Eye Protection: Protective glasses, goggles or face shield Other Protective Equipment: None required ' Section 8: SPECIAL STORAGE AND HANDLING PRECAUTIONS . Do not freeze; freezing may kill the microbes. ,- Do not store over ll0°F for prolonged periods. ..~ Do not combine with strong acids, alkalis, or bleaches. After 48 hours at room temperature or above must be refrigerated. Section 9: SPILL, LEAK, AND DISPOSAL DATA In case of spill, wash down with water into sewers or into the soil. Clean area with any common disinfectant. Used containers shall be disposed of according to local, State and Federal laws. The information contained herein is furnished without warranty of any kind. Users should consider this data only as a supplement to other information they might have or have access to and must make independent determinations of the suitability and completeness of information from all sources to assure proper use and disposal, and the health and safety of employees and customers. 805-831-~a.'ill SOILS ENGINEERING 380 PO1 MAR 31 '99 14:28 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. ATTENTION: OF~''Oz 07L ~/'" ~' o~: Total number of pages is / ~., including t~s she~. Copy ofF~ tr~s~tted by re~lar mail flso: If you do not reeeivg all the pages, please call b~ck as ~oon as possible, (805) 831-5100 ~speet~lly sub~tted, )~ (~55~. ' so~s E~O~~o, ~c. 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. ° BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA93313 " PHONE (805) 831-5100 ° FAX: (805) 831-2111 805-831-2111 SOILS ENGINEERING 380 P02 MAR 31 '99 14:28 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. March 31, 1999 97-8132 City Of Bakerafield Fire Department Office of Environmental Services 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Attn.: Mr. Ralph Huey RE: Request For Closure/General Health Risk Assessment Analysis San Joaquin Roofing Company, Inc. 1501 E. 19th St., Bakersfield, California Mr. Huey: Soils Engineering, Inc. (SEI) has prepared this Request for Closure/General Health Risk Assessment Analysis for the San Joaquin Roofing site following initial comments from the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Office of Environmental Services (BFDES) on the 4th Quarter Status Report dated lanuary 4, 1999 in which closure for the site was requested (see Plate 1 for Location Map). Remedial Background Vapor extraction was conducted at the site from. February, 1998 through 'the end of July, 1998 resulting in the removal of an estimated 7,299 pounds of gasoline vapors from the ground. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. as gasoline (TPHg) concentrations decreased significantly from the initial influent air samples collected (10,000 ppm) during the start of the vapor extraction system operation to 182 ppm at the end of extraction (Table 1). To evaluate the residual hy6rocarbon concentrations ia the soil, SEI conducted 3 soil borings on December 2, 1998 within the former hydrocarbon plume. Soil bO~:iiigCB~I~ was placed approximately 8 feet northwest of well VW- 1 (near center of former UST) and drilled to a depth of 45 feet below ground surface (bgs.), 'boring CB-2 was placed approximately 14' east-northeast of VW-1 (near assessment boring B-2), and boring CB-3 was placed 15' south of VW-1 (near assessment boring B-3), both drilled to 40 feet bgs. (see Plate 2 for Plot Plan). A California registered geologist supervised' the drilling process. Soil samples were collected at 5 .foot intervats and evaluated in the field for petroleum hydrocarbons. (staining and odor), soil type and photo-ionization detector (PID) readings. A soil sample from each sampling interval was sealed, labeled and placed in an iced cooler. Selected soil samples were analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) and TPHg utilizing EPA Methods 8020 and 8015m, respectively. 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. ° BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA93313 · PHONE (805) 831-5100 ° FAX: (805) 831-2111 805-831-2111 SOILS ENGINEERING 380 P03 MAR 31 '99 14:28 SOILS ENGINEERING', INC. Request For Closure~General Health Risk Assesstnent File No. 97-8132 ~ San Joaquin Roofing Co. March 31, 1999 Page 2 Bakersfield. CA ................ .Petroleum impacted sail was fkst encountered at a depth of 20 feet in boring CB-1 and CB-2 and was not evident in boring CB-3. Slight to moderate petroleum odor was encountered in borings CB-1 and CB-2 to a depth of approximately 40 feet. The highest photo-ionization detector (PID) readings were in boring CB-1 at 30 feet. The .petroleum staining and odor decreased significantly by'a depth of 35 feet in soil borings CB-1 and CB-2. The analytical results of the sail samples indicate a significant reduction in total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the soil from the initial site assessment, borings conducted in May, 1995 to the present (highest values: 60,000 ppm TPHg to 2,500 ppm TPHg). The only benzene concentration reported was 0.012 ppm at 40 .~eet in boring CB-2 compared to 650 ppm in May, 1995. See attached Tables 2 & 3 for analytical results. Remedial Conclusions Based on field observations and analytical testing it appears that the majority of the petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil have been removed by the vapor extraction system. No significant BTEX concentrations were reported in any of the soil samples analyzed from the confirmation soil borings. TPHg concentrations over 100 ppm were limited to only two silty zones at depths of 20 & 30 feet in boring CB- 1, Cross-section A-A' and B' show the remaining TPHg plume over 100 ppm, with no benzene over 1 ppm (Plates 3A & 3B). General Health Risk Assessment Analysis In order to justify leaving the'remaining residual petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil, SEI has prepared the foUowing general health risk assessment analysis. Highest benzene concentrations remaimg = <3 ppm @ 20'in CB-1 Highest TPHg concentration remaining = 2,500 ppm @ 20' in CB- 1 Depth to groundwater = 210' (Kern county Water Agency ID4, 2/98) Depth. to groundwater from base of remaining TPHg plume = 210'-'35'= 175 Nearest public groundwater well = ~A of a mile to the NW (California Water Service). Based on this information an assumption can be made that the threat of an elevated cancer risk for occupants of the site are less than I in 1 million, since the concentration of benzene remaining in the soil is <3 ppm and a 20 foot zone of silty non-contaminated soil is present between the remaining TPHg plume 'and the surface. Concentrations of toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes in the soil are all very low and do not pose a threat to the environment. 805-831-2111 SOILS ENGINEERING 380 P04 MAR 31 "99 14:29 SOILS' £NGI NEERING.' INC. Request For Closure/General Health Risk Assessment File No. 97-8]32 San Joaquin Roofing Co. March 3I. 1999 ' [lakersfield~ ..CA. Pa~e 3 The elevated TPHg concentrations left in conf'krmatior~ boring CB-1 are predominately within the silty zones and are less likely to migrate deeper. Based on this and the depth to groundwater (175') from the base of the residual TPHg plume (35') and no benzene concentrations, the threat to groundwater beneath the site is minimal (see Plate 4 for Depth to Water Map). In addition, the nearest public water supply well is over ~ of a mile away from the site and it is highly unlikely that the remaining TPHg plume would ever migrate into the public water supply system. See Plate I for approximate well locations. The remaining residual petroleum hydrocarbons will continue to bio-degrade over time, further decreasing the possible threat to the environment. Recommendations SEI recommends no further vapor extraction take place and requests the closure of this site. Schedule of Work Once closure is approved by the BFDES the 5 vapor extraction wells will be abandoned by filling them with a concrete slurry and removing the top 5 feet of casing. · If you have any questions or require additional information concerning this letter, pease feel free to call SEI at (805) 831-5100. Sincerely, Robert $. Becker, R.G. 'i Encl.:' Table 1 VES Data Sheet .t .~,~., ~ - Table 2, Analytk:al Results Conftrmation Borings Table 3, Historical Analytical Results Plate 1, Location Map & Well Locations Plate 2, Plot Plan Plate 3A & 3B, Cross-Sections A-A' & B-B' Plate 4, Depth To Water Map Table 1 'VAPOR EXTRACTION PERFORMANCE DATA San Joaquin Roofing 1501 E, 19th S~'eet. Bakersfield, California ,,,D, ATI] 'lime Run ~ Influent LEL ~fl. tn.iL $a~ca: Temp. SegF ss,u=, TIm~ cum lbs mml lbs .l~,day ppmv u~/cc % Hon~ ,we ~ scala ~ cnw. s'r^cl v,,m.,, ugm/c~ ppmv Ii-Feb-98 1:30 14124.00 A 29 29 704 IO000 35.6 24.3~ I 130 220 1502 28 A '23-Feb-98 11:00 14141,00 B 391 362 511 4526 16.1 11; 17 130 1 220 1479 30 B 27-Feb-98 5:00 14174,00 C 785 394 287 3700 13.2 9! 33 1.2.5 121g 147t 28 C 2.Mar-98 11:15 1&241.O0 D I425 640 229 3000 10.7 9 67 12,O '214 1475 29 D 4-Mar-98. 1:30 I,~292.00 F 1795 370 174 2364 8.,/ 17 51 1.45 203 1485 50 F 0.0 0.01 0.00 20,-Mat-98 11:i5 14296.00 G 1821 26 153 2364 8.4 21 4 1.45 203 804 1475 50 G 23-Mm'-98 12;20 14369.00 I 2256 435 143 2000 7.1 15.3 73 1.45 205 804 1475 50 I I-Apr-98 1;00 1,~565.O0 L 3310 1054 129 1900 6.8 14.1 196 1.65 207 804 1465 50 L. 6-Apr-98 t:00 14684.00 M 3912 602 121 1750 6.2 13.4 119 1.55 208 ~ 1444 50 1M l!-May,98 9:00 14779.00 N 4336 424 107 1500 5.3 I5.9 95 1.65 206 804 11431 50 N 3(PID) 18-May-98 I:30 14952.00 O 4932 596 83 1048 $.? 7.8 173 1.75 203 804 11426 50 O 0.0 0.01 29~May-98 10:00: 14954.00 P 4954 22 263 10013 3.6 12.4 2 1.70 204 1804 1441 50 P I(PID) 2-lun-91t 11:40 15051.00 Q 5393 439 109 940 33 85 97 1.75 203 1350 t426 50 Q 3 (PID) 16-Iun-98 I:00 15218.00 R 6226 833 120 1200 4.3 12.5 16'/' 1.75 200 ~350 I435 50 R 5(P ID) 26-1on-98 11:30 1.5457.00 $ 6971 745 75 137 0.5 10.8 239 1.75 203 350 1428 50 $ 0.0 1.20 0.00 13-Jul-98 3:40 15700.00 T 7139 168 17 160 0.6 13.9 243 1.75 197 35,0 I430 50 T 15(PID) 27-Ju1-98 2:30 15900.00 U 7299 159 19 15~ 0.6 7 200 1.75 195 350 1443 50 U [O. OI F O3 IT1 z m Table 2 TABLE 2 CURRENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS 1501 E. 19th St. Bakersfield, CA, Samples Collected December 2, 1998 SOIL SAMPLES Concentrations in m~/l(g (parts.per million) ' Sample"Humber ] Dat®. I Benzene r Toluene ['Ethylben'e~eI Xylenes JTP. Hgi CB1 ~20' 12/2/98 <3 <3 4.~" 79 2,500 CB1-25' 12/2/98 <0,005 0,011 0.0054 0.024 2 CB1-30' 12/2/98 <2 21 24 180 1200 CB1-40' 1 2/2/98 <0.005 <0,005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 CB1-45' 1 2/2/98 <0.005 <0,005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 CB2-20' 1 2/2/98 <0.005 <0,005 0,0084 0.059 50 CB2-30' 1 2/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0,005 <0,01 44 CB2-40' 12/2/98 0.012 0,064 0,018 0.084 <1 CB3-20' 12/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 CB3-30' 12/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 CB3-40' 12/2/98 <0,005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 TPHg = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline Page I TABLE 3 HistOrical Analytical Results San Joaquin Rooting 1501 E~iSt 19th Street 15 5/26195 59000 650 6 !00 1100 9800 52 30 5/26195 60000 590 3900" 730 ' ' 5900 NAt 40 5/26195 <I0 0.054 0.2' 0,018 .... 0.27 NA 55 5t26/95 <10 0.048' 0.022 0.007 0.051 NA 70 ~r~'i5/95 " <10. O.o!z ' 0.006 <0.005 0.008 75 5/26/95 <.10, 0.016, 0.010' <0,005 0.014 ' NA 15 5/26/95 <I0 <12,005 <0,005 <0,005 <0,005 NA ... 30 5/26195 7300 3.4 130 56 420 NA 40 .... 5/26195 <I0 0.029 0.086 0,005 .... 0.062 NA 55 5/26/95 <10 0,009, 0.006" <0,005 ' 0.016' NA , 70 5/26/95 <10 0,008 <0,005 <0,005 '0.005 NA 75 5/26/95 ' <10 0.0I I 0,036 0,005' 0.045 NA 20 .. 5/31/95 <10 <0.OO5 0.015 <0.005 0. l I NA ... 35 .. 5/31/95 11000 37 640 150 1300 NA , 15 5/31/95 :<10 <0.005 <0,005 <0.005 <0.005 N^' 30 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0,005 ' <0.005 <0.005 NA 40 513i/95 <i0 0.056 0,090 0,013 0.11 NA .. 55.. 5/31/95 <I 0 0.049 0.00:7 <0.005 ' 0.0~2 NA 65 . . 5231/95 .. <[0 ..0-090 0.005 0.011 0.054 NA , 70 5/31/95 <I0 0.006 <0,005 <0.005 0.'007 15 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.00~ <0.005 <0.005 NA 30 5131195 , <10 <0.1305 <0.005 <0,005 <0.005 . NA 40 .. 5/31/95 . , <10 0.068 0.19 0.05.2 0127' HA 55 5/31195 , <10 <0,005 ' ' <0,005 <0,005 0,010 NA 65 5/31/95 <lO' 0,006' <0,005 <0.o05 0,005 NA 70 5/31/95 <'i0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <o'1005 NA · ~otes: All units are rog/Kg or parts per million, ppm- INA -- Not analyzed Page 1 805-831-2111 SOILS ENGINEERING 380 P08 MAR 31 '.99 14:30. ~ , '!~ z ERNAR SAN JoAQ~ ROOF~C; COW~A.N¥ PLATE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. ls0i EAST I~)TH STREET 4700 District Blvd. BAKERS1F[ELD, CAL[FO]~NI'A ~ Bakersfield, CA 93313 .... ,,.. , ProJect Number: Location ~Jap Business EAST 19TH STREET YEW-2 Cross ection _Lin B ..~ G ~ ......................... Then~al Oxidizer (VES) ~ Gas ~'{ B4 1 · O~ Line ~ EXPLANAIION ~ ! i~ch = 20 leet ) O Assessment Boring ~ O Contimmtion ~3oring 'c! ~ VEW c , '...~ Single Zone V~ SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. DATE: 5.28-98 PRO.rECT NUMBER: ~,1, 32. 47OO District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA PLOT PLAN~ PLATE. 2 805-851-2111 SOILS ENGINEERING 380 PlO MAR 51 '99 14:31 West East A A' YEW-1 VEW-3 CB-1 ' R1 CB-2 B3 134 .- -J ~ l ~.~ UST E~avation, ~.~,~[ approximate /5'~/ Stay 20 -- <0.005 S0 Current E~ent of TPHg Over 100 ppm No 13enzeneOver 1T~PmY~ Original E~ant of / ' Plumo 30 -- ' 2000+ <2 Si~ 900~ ~.00$ I . . TPHg ~er 100 ' ppm & Benzene !.2~ 44 ~ over I ppm Sandy SiR 100 ./~ 0 10 40 -- ~.~5 ~.~5 I inch = 10 feet <1 ~.~5 Si~y Sand VeAi~l and Horizontal ~1 ' ' 50 ~ EXP~TIO~ Boring PID ~Benzene 60 -- Readin.~phg inppm ~mppm ~ Sand and ~ Sand 70 m ~ Silty S~nd ~ Silt 47~ District Blvd. ' 1501 East 19th Street 3A Bakemfleld, CA 9~13 Bakersfield, Cal~ornla PROJECT NUMBER: 97~.132 .... Cross Section A-- A' page 1 otl 805-831-2111 SOILS ENGINEERING 380 Pll MAR 31 '99 14:32 North South B B' B, CB-3 B-2 B-5 CB-1 -.1 , ~ , .~.-.---,~,~-~,., .... I ~..~.~ ......... ~ UST E~avatio~, ~ .'5)~)~}~)~ .'} .'~ .';.'~ .'~ -~ ~'~ approximate [~[~ $tRy Sand 10 - · ~-- Current E~ent of Plume No Benzene Over I p~~--'6 ~ ~~,~ ~...~ Original E~ent of Plume ~o - ~ooo+ ~ ~' ~ ~..s' ~/~"~ '~°° .~m. { ~ Benzene >1 ppm ':':~':+:"'~'?'2' ~~'~ ~ ~ ~- · ~ ........ ........... .;:. .............. ~~_. ¥,:,~,:~,,:~ ........ ~.~:~,=~¥.:.=~ Ve~! and Honzont I ~::::~::~.~:~::.~ 10 ~ ,~ ~:~.:~:.,::~:~...~¥..~, .... ~,:,:~,:~.:~ ..... 50-- EXPLANATION Boring 60- PlO IBi-['Benzene Reading-[TPHg ' Inppmlin ppm ~Sand 70 -- ~ Silty Sand San Joaquin Roofing Company PLATE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. 1501 East 19th Street f'~ ~ Bakersfield, CA 93313 Bakersfield, California ~' PROJECT NUMBER: 97-8132 Cross Section B - B' page, of 805-831-2111 SOILS ENGINEERING 380 P12 MAR 31 '99 14:32 R 28E ~ , Kern County Wot. er Agency JO 2g ~8 27 [ 26 25 ,.30 , , '. IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 I I ..... ~ ........ ~ ......... ]-- I ' ' 8okersfield, Coliforn[o " ' ' DEPTH TO WATER 4 I I 6 ' IN WELLS SEPTEMBER 1997 7 LEGEND ID4 BOUNDARY ~ 29 CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 or 100 FEET (005) 324-2044 ' FAX (805) 3~4;'f~ · '.. '", '"" Raymond Graham ............................. , . '. '" ' Sample Letter (2): List of La~d~w~r~ ~'"~1~ . '. "'.. .... Date: 4/8/99 '".": ' City of Bakersfield Fire Depart'n'~e~.~.i. " . ,"". ' Office of Environmental Services'...' :. '.~ . c/o Ralph E, Huey~ Director . .' '" ":'"'.'" :'::'. 17'[5 Chester Avenue, Suite 3(.1(] ' ... "..5 ....- ' Bakersfield, CA 93301 ..-.. .. ~ ~' ..5~TtlB~ .... ,' . . '.' '~01 E. 19~h Sgree%','.~a'~..~s.:fiold, C~ 933[)5 ...: .. .' I and fill out item 2. ' ' .." . '. 1. In accordance with se'cti0~'~ 25.'g97.15(a).ofChapter 6.7 .~'>f t~h.c~'!;.~¢};~i~h & Sere'fy C.q~de; )..~.' .' :'.'. ccrti.t~ that ~e follow, i~!g'~s ,~.:.C.0mplere list ofcu~e~t recc~d.~.i"~:t¢}'ti~:[e owners and t.t~e'~-. ... mailing addresses fbr the ab~,c s'~:e; '"'.'. ~' .. ... .':" ..:. .'..3.} :., .2. In accordance with secfiori "~:".'97 '1 $(a) of Ch. 6,7 of'the }~,~,%~l~i~"i.':& Safct:y C.(~de, l. .' '. certify that '[ am the sole.[antto.waer .'(br the above si.to. ..:...... .'. '.. Sin . "'... .... ..' .. /,/~~ . . ... ~ --~-~, '. . :. ..._._.~. Name of primary responsi~li~?.?2a'~ }}.~'". .. P.02 Samplc Letter (3) Notice of Proposed .Actld!"~: SiJbmittcd to Local Agency . .Uate: "', ...... C:~ty of'Bakersfield Fire I)epa~,tment. ".. · . Office of Environmental Services .' .... . ' ... '~. c/o Ralph E. Huey, Dkector .":.' "'. 1715 Chester Avenue, Suite 300 ... " '.' .... Bakersfield, CA 93301 ....: . .. .' '.'.. · .. RE: Notice of Proposed Action Sub~5~i'u. ed l:o .L;ocal Agency ~)r .S;:~.~::~ .:' ~:;'oaqu i n ROO :~ i n.~A' .<'.c-,' .? :'.'...r~'x:~,', . . .- ........ ~-....:7..,~ ...... .. ' Sit{'.. nmm: ·. ,.. 1501 E. 19TH STREEt, "BA.[.E.RG~'IE~D, CA 93305 ' .'..' .".'.. . . . .' ~,.-- ............ · . .'~,........:....:r,.....: ............................ . .......... ~ .... . .,. , ; . $i~e address .' ..' tn accordance wi~ section 25297. R~ymond T,.. Graham: ....... . ....................... , ce~i:i:~, tJ~2;~.~:"':~ ')':rove i'lotified aft ' ....'.'.. Name of primary reapo~sib~c~ responsible landowners of the en:cio's~?d:. . . .pr°p°sed action. Cl~ec'~ .~Pa~.:'~:,;'"l';c:,r... applicable, act~or~!,.;.): ' · '" __ cleanup proposal (corrective ~:lct':.t:~:, [)Jal~)' .. " X site closure proposal ' ' ' .. ' .. X local agency intention to ma.ke.';4.~.¢tcrmination that no fu.rtber'~.~i:..i'~.,..:m ....... is required. " ..." :..... . . :..'.. ~ local agency intention to'~ss u'c a'ci'os.m~e 'letter. '.' . .. '. S'ncerely, '. .' ~ --/~ )~ . ..." · . .' ' ~ ....... · . . ..' ~.. j,./,.. ... ........ > · . , .......... ... ':Razmond , ~... ~r.a]:~l¢.,.:.......: '" Name of primary respo.~ C¢; (Names and addresses o't'all record I'~ t~i,> o,,,..m:r:~} . . ... FIlIE . .' :' '"" M. arclt 3 t~.. 9i:~:', .... ." ': ",'. F~a~ cme~ ~ Sa~ Joaqu¢i:~ R.~)Dt]i" g'.C'o...Inc. '. ': "' :..':: ...". RON Frq~S I " '" ' ' } 1501 ~a8~.t.9't' .~[l.'eei '.'. '"'-, .' · ..~:.','.." 21ol 'H' Street : " ,: " ' Bek~rsfle~, CA 93301 ' . ' : VOICE(805) 3~6-3~ ' ' ' '"" :"' '" ' "' ' ' · ~ (805) a95-134* g~: 'New, [~.::[l(li:~W'lre~ Nol:Ji:catiol3 and .[~a'l:[~'d..}D:{.t:"[or.}, Requirerr.~er~t's '. ' ...'.".' '. 2101 "H" Stmet ,- 8ekersf~ld, C~ 93301 - . ,.' VOtCE (soS) 3ZS-3941 .... "" ~x(eos) os,-J=~e This. e'rt'~.r., =[s :'o'inJ~m~ you of:new..ie:i~i:4"iative reqLtiremrnr:. · ' = ..'.:..-.' pertaining .t'4'>' < I:-m'm p. and closure o~' s'i'te s. W{~¢?[~.-.::m. . una uther izod ~aE~,,~o~ s[aVtC~S hazardo.us sub'stz~ncc;, i~cluding petroleuin~ "~'~;,~. :~.:.~;cu.i'red from 1715 Cheater Ave. ' " ' ' ·, ..'. '.. ,'.. 8ok~fl*ld, CA 03301 mlderg'ro'u)']c. '~,mrag¢.. tank (UST). Sec[i;>li 2)?::::>':.! 5(a) of Ch. 6.7.):>l'd')c . ......... vo~cgs~x ~sos)t~o;),:4~a o~,~___.____~'~°s~ Health &. Sat:)t¥'. ., ~'..:ode..'requires the primary...o~: .~{:":~,.i ~,e. respo]'~siblc. ~' rt,..,v ~. :' .. ". "." '" notit~ all t;tll.-l?~t rd:cord owners circe tit.l~t't:{.d.~he"site of: I) a site cI¢n.m__;c.. .. [$~aoa~[a~ aaav~cas proposa. ~) a :,i.~.~{ e it')sure proposal, 3)' a Ioc}i.~ '~: ........ ~ '" Bakersfield, CA 93301 determination .i.baI'. l~o '[kirtl']er action [s'.r'cqt[.[,].~}.i:.{: ;:'~.ad 4) a local agency :...': .' .......... ~O~CE~aX (ao~)is°*),za~,z~a2~**T* intenti0~'to i:~s,~,~c a c,t0s'are lerter. Sectio']'j. 2':5~19'":".'! 5(b) requires die l-<~d:.(;. " ':' agency to.'t'ak< ~.:,'tl responsible steps to ac:c.<mi.~:?~.,<~ai, e rcsponsi.ble .... ' .'. v~N,~ ~v,s~o. Iandow~ers' [)::~rficipadon 'in the cleanup 0r >~i~,e'c-~tlre Process and.¥~:~ " . 5~2 victor~av~.. . - .. ' . . ' '. · · . · ~,a~J~, c~ ~,o, consider [heir. :?~]?.t[[ and recommendafioJ~:::. '... ' ".......' ', . VOICE (805) 399~697 '. . "~ . .. F~X(~)3~SIO3 . ' '.: :. .".'., . '"': . .' , 1::'<::: [m.(p.osCs o C imp lement[:~g these ,:4:~'<:,~:'i'.,,',::s,. y0 u h~iv.c' .'bee~:. .:: :... 'identiI:ed 'a:: the.orima~v or active responsibi'~'.F>cm'.v .Please pmvMc. ~<"; .. :. .. · tMs age:ney, .,v ~.l': fl.'twenty calendar day.s 0i":',:?<":k':: 0f this IIOI~.CC, ~,~ ." complete mai.ling' .list (')~'a.ll current record 0W.i.¢l:'.??:'~f. fee title to th<.: .sit:... · . .... :'.. You may use 'd:<:.cuel. osed list of -' ' ~''', '"'::"" '. ':'.'" - , ..... '.',' landowu{:ts ~:.~:m:~ample letter ~).:~... .. -' comply w{t'h it:fits, requirement, lfthe l. ist' 6J:'o:..~'.,,'y~..,::i: record owuers'o'{' i:'c · ,.'' ::". :.'. title t() tl~e.sii:e"~:har:.'ge~,' you must not'iI~, t. hc: .l:~'~,~'~},..~.'?i[g.er~cy of the ch~ing~':. ... ".:... within 20 ca/en, dur'.. :tavs .... f~'om when you are ~ ':':,._ <;'': '~,'~ :)l" the chan~e. '.. ': ,'~'Ig.J :.~' :~:~ . - · , I.["'V(>.. l"~t~'~::'l.'}" C .,o.le landowner, pleas(:.. . .... "'"' "' ' Ii:~L~,:;&{'c that on the., . landowuer l~t fbrm. 'l"he t~llowi, ng n0tic~: i'~<:.j~:r.~';:-<:meuts do t]<.~t appt ¥ ~.., ..... responsible par:.ie.s who are the so}e' !:mdown.c;'.:~.J::.'::.,d:c site. .'" :. '.. ......... , ....~ 4 ~' . (~' . ~, . .. "" . '--~?:'~ . Sat~ty C.o'dc.,'.votf must certil~, to the Ioc. ai',:t:~.~mcy that all curren't .... c.~.:, ..~ '.. ... '. oyvnej'5, of:.t'¢c'6de 'to tlxe si(e 'have bee;] .:~4'd:'¢,;i'?ied'o'fTthe protsoscd'~.tct~' ~'~. ' ' ~" '.. 4).' i;~sue a closure lette~: '~' Ym~ ma~. t, se'the enclosed notice 0t"6iSO.posed action Drt~t t'sm'~'i~¢l¢.: ':1 letter'.3) ~<~'~xm~p'ly with this requj.reme.nt'~ ').%:!:~}}t'e'.approvj~g a. c{ca=iau[:-'.'. ' .: .~ . reason a b I'c' s ~gps n ec.essary to accomm'o{.[:~tt¢ .'?~ponsib fe . ~': I pa~ici, patio'r~ 'm thc cleanup and site· cios0~5i..)'~f<:.cess and wi ti c~msi.dc? .~t~." }' '} ..' '}..'1.~ input am" rco;~.rmne~dations from ally t:C.~O'rem;;¢:t, ie.landowncr. '. . ',~' '.-. I' Cc: 8. {..J[l(l<crWooc[ '. ... ''. ' ~'..' :~., ' "i .:" : '" ... ..', ~ .:' .' ' .: j.'l' . , .... i',~.':' ! . SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 2nd QUARTER 1998 STATUS REPORT San Joaquin Roofing Company 1501 E. 19th Street Prepared For: ...... : ..... 1501 E. th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 Prepared By: Soils Engineering, Inc. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA. 93313 September, 1998 I' - 4700 DISTRiCT BLVD. · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA93313 · PHONE(805) 831-5100 ° FAX:(805) 831-2111 soILs ENGINEERING, INC.' September 21, 1998 i · City Of Bakersfield Fire Department · Office Of Environmental Services ·1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Attn.: Mr..Howard Wines RE: 2nd Quarter 1998 Status Report I San Joaquin Roofing Company, Inc. 1501 E. 1.9th St., Bakersfield, California I Mr. Wines: i Soils Engineering, Inc. (SEI) has prepared this 2nd Quarter Status Report for remedial activities performed at the San Joaquin Roofing site (see Plate 1 for Location Map). This. report describes the field work conducted to operate and maintain the vapor extraction I system this quarter and includes; analytical reports from air samples Collected monthly from the system with conclusions and recommendations for the site. I Operation & Maintenance of Vapor Extraction System Vapor extraction continued at the site from April through the end of July, 1998 resul.ting in the removal of an estimated 7,299 pounds of gasoline vapors to date. Air samples were I- collected from the influent and effluent ports of the system on a monthly basis in Tedlar bags and analyzed for TPHg and BTEX at Zalco Laboratories. SEI collected flow rates, temperature and PID readings periodically from the system to ensure proper operation. I The system was periodically pulsed ensure (shut-down) to maximum hydrocarbon recovery as well as utilizing the outer vapor extraction wells as air-inlets. The vapor extraction data is presented in Table 1. Influent TPHg concentrations decreased I significantly during the last 2 months of VES operation from 1.048 ppm to 1 ppm as 82 shown on the Influent Concentration Chart attached. Based on this reduction in influent concentrations the thermal oxidizer was removed on July 30, 1998. Conclusions & Recommendations I Based on field observations and analytical testing at appears that the majority of the petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil has been removed by the vapor extraction system. I ' 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA93313 '° PHONE (805) 831-5100 , FAx.: (805) 831-21'11 · SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. . SEI recommends that confirmation soil borings be conducted to evaluate the remaining · petrOleum hydrocarbons in the soil. ' SEI Proposes to conduct 3 Confirmation soil borings within the' hydrocarbon plume area as shown on Plate 2 to a. depth of 50 feet. Soil.. samples will be collected at 5 foot intervals and selected soil samples (12) analyzed for TPHg and BTEX. A report will be prepared describing field activities with analytical resUlts, conclusions and recommendations for the site. Schedule Of Work Following your approval, the confirmation borings will be conducted within 2 weeks with a prepared within 1 week after the receipt of analytical results. report If you have any questions or require additional information concerning this Status Report, please me at (805) feel freeto call 831-5100. Sincerely, ' Soils Engineering, Inc. Robert J. Becker, R.G. Environmental Division Manager Encl.: Table 1 VES Data Sheet Plate 1, Location Map Plate 2, Plot Plan Hydrocarbons Removed Over time Chart Influent Concentrations Over time Chart Analytical Reports . I : Table 1 VAPOR EXTRACTION PERFORMANCE DATA San Joaquin Roofing .. 1501 E, 19th Street Bakersfield, California Bold Italic = Lab Analysis Data DATE Time Run Influent LEL Intl. Intl. Stack Temp. de§ F System Stack TPItg Time cum lbs total lbs lbs/day ppmv ug/cc % Hours "wc CFM SCFM INLE'I CAT. STAC Vacuum ugnl/cc ppmv lbs/hr "H20 18-Feb-98 1:30 14124.00 A 29 29 704 10000 35.6 24.3 1 1.30 220 1502 28 A 23-Feb-98 11:00 14141.00 B 391 362 511 4526 16.1 11 17 1.30 220 1479 30 B 27-Feb-98 5:00 14174.00 C 785 394 287 3700 13.2 9 33 1.25 218 1471 28 C 2-Mar-98 11:15 14241.00 D 1425 640 229 3000 10.7 9 67 1.30 214 1475 29 D 4-Mar-98 1:30 14292.00 F 1795 370 174 2364 8.4 17 51 1.45 203 1485 50 F 0.0 0.01 0.00 20-Mar-98 11:15 14296.00 G 1821 26 153 2364 8.4 21 4 1.45 203 804 1475 50 G 23-Mar-98 12;20 14369.00 I 2256 435 143 2000 7.1 15.3 73 1.45 205 804 1475 50 I 1-Apr-98 1;00 14565.00 L 3310 1054 129 1900 6.8 14.1 196 1.65 207 804 1465 50 L 6-Apr-98 1:00 14684.00 M 3912 602 121 1750 6.2 13.4 119 1.55 208 804 1444 50 M Il-May-98 9:00 14779.00 N 4336 424 107 1500 5.3 15.9 95 1.65 206 804 1431 50 N !3(PID) 18-May-98 1:30 14952.00 O 4932 596 83 1048 3.7 7.8 173 1.75 203 804 1426 50 O 0.0 0.00 0.00 29-May-98 10:00 14954.00 P 4954 22 263 1000 3.6 12.4 2 1.70 204 804 1441 50 P I(PID) 2-Jun-98 11:40 15051.00 Q 5393 439 109 940 '3.3 8.5 97 1.75 203 350 1426 50 Q 3(PID) 16-Jun-98 1:00 15218.00 R 6226 833 120 1200 4.3 12.5 167 1.75 200 350 1435 50 R 5(PID) 26-Jun-98 11:30! 15457.00 S 6971 745 75 137 0.5 10.8 239 1.75 203 350 1428 50 S 0.0 1.20 0.00 13-Jul-98 3:40 15700.00 T 7139 168 17 160 0.6 13.9 243 1.75 197 350 1430 50 T 5(PID) 27-Jul-98 2:30 15900.00 U 7299 159 19 182 0.6 7 200 1.75 195 350 1445 50 U 0.0 0.00 0.00 I m ~ 4ROw 8 m ~ ~--m~ J . ...... ~ m~ r~o sr 241H / F~ . --_.::~::.? ~ ~ ~ : ~ /18TH S~ ,~ ..." k .~ ~ s~ I j, ' . ~ . ...::~- . ,,~,~.,~iA ,~ ,~ ~ ~ =. ....... ..} . --~/~------~-~-- ~- :~ -- ~, - H~NL~ ~'~ ' ~"'~ " -':' ' m i~l m , ~ . ~ (v _ _ _~_~ ~ .... .. ~. ~ L.. ~ ~ ~ ., .-.. ~l I z ~ ~ E z , ~,~ -~ ~ ~- --~ sr . ~ --T ----- . . . 8TH ~ STI , ..... ,., 'T, = *'O--AC/~I~P ~~lV , ~>...:. ::,, :.. ~ F.-~ [ - ~ ~ ~ . ,:. .... .:*~. _ :..- za~,:/~ ,I ~5~.':'::';:':.:....:.~.v: 'l~.':.'..., .' ,~-~- _ ST = ~/ ~ IV~~o/~xv Cs~f ~ x .~u~t u ~ $ ~l~ ~ ~ ' · ~7 srl 4THq ~1 ~]~, ~..'-:..: :...~.'..f..::T:.;:.'. VIRGINIA ,~AV ~[ ~*~! m~ ~ ~ · ~ 5)~ .;~.~:'~' , ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ I "-~ '~, .--~_~J~l il E 3RD ~_~ ~ . GRAHAM ST , / ~ O ~ · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m~/~/~/~ / I t ~ ~t~ s = ~ j ',~ , m > TEXAs sT m / · / '.:' '.,"?". · t _~= ua < - I ~ ~ E BRUNDAG[ t~s LN :~.." ~ ....... ~ '~ "~ ' , AV "~e DANIELS ~ ~b ~ ~+)~ ~ ~NNON AV m · UbLLE T R E BELL r~ ~ ' <' ~-- O m - z ~ *.~,c-c, , ..... Al Ie LE~+~ ~ ~]TER t ~ ~ E' 8EU~ TEn> , ....... 1 ~ '.":,"..'...'.-.:.'.'.' -~' ~ =t ~/ ~ -m:-'= .... I m SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. SAn JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE lS01 EAST 19TH STREET 4'/00 District BlYd. BA~rSFmI~D, CAt,n~ornga ,'m Bakersfield, CA 93313 1 - Project Number: Location Map I Business EAST 19TH STREET VEW-2 ~/~////////////////~ : e ~ Gate L~ationOf Gas 2 :: ........................................... ~ Thermal Oxidizer (VES) ~ 0 10 20 i :~ ~Proposed ~Confirmation Borings , ~ VEW Single Zone VEW Dual Zone SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield,'CA 93313 DATE: 5-28-98 PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIEORNIA PLOT PLAN PLATE 2 Plate 3 TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EXTRACTED vs. TIME. 8OOO 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 18- 23- 27- Feb-98 Feb-98 Feb-98 2-Mar- 4-Mar- 20- 23- 98 98 Mar-98 Mar-98 1-Apr- 6-Apr- 11- 18- 29- 2-Jun- 98 98 May-98 May-98 May-98 98 SAMPLE DATE 16- 26- 13-Jul- 27-Jul- Jun-98 Jun-98 98 98 12000 INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS vs. TIME 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 18- 23- 27- Feb-98 Feb~98 Feb-98 2-Mar- 4-Mar- 20- 23- 98 98 Mar-98 Mar-98 1-Apr- 6-Apr- 11- 18- 29- 98 98 May-98 May-98 May-98 SAMPLE DATE 2-Jun- 16-Jun-26-Jun- 13-Jul- 27-Jul- 98 98 98 98 98 4309 Armour Avenue {805) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 I Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 9805226-1 4700 District Blvd. Date Received: 05/18/98 I Bakersfield CA 93313 Date Reported: 05/20/98 PO Number: Attention: Bob Becker .. 0 I Date Printed: 05/21/98 Voia[ile Organic Cornpounds (VOC) by Gas Chromatography: Test Code: 1645 I References: ASTM E-260-73, Practice for Packed-column Chromatography; (GC) ASTM D-1945-81, Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by GC I ASTM D-3588-89, Method for Calculating (Btu and Gravity) of ...Fuels SBCAPCD Rule 331 SJVUAPCD Rule 4403 KCAPCD Rule 1173 MDAQMD Rule 1102 I TOG: Total Organic Gas (Hydrogen/Carbon Compounds) 'ROC: Reactive Organic Compounds (TOG - Exempt Compounds) "' I Component Mol% .ppm vol. TOG, ppmv ROC, ppmv. ROC, ppmv. (less Cl) (less C1+C2) Oxygen 0.00 0.0 .: I Nitrogen 0.00 0.0 Air (02 + N2) 0.00' 0.0 Hydrogen 0.00 0.0 I Helium 0.00 0.0 Carbon Dioxide 0.00 0.0 (H2S *) 0.00 0.0 I Methane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 ...... Ethane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Propane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 IsoButane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 ':_. .-' 7.'. N-Butane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0:5 < 0.5 < 0.5 I N-Pentane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0,5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Hexanes+ 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 · Totals 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.0[ 0.0I Desqdption lab no: 9805226-1 i S JR Project: STACK-2 Sample Notes: Sampled 5-18-98 13:40 hrs. I L~J~r'oratory Operations Manager I This report is fumisheal for the excl~Ne use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. "ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC,.' I ~k~ Analytioal~ConsultingServioes 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395-0539 ~-~?~,~,,~'~'~ '~z~J Baker~eld, Cali~rnia 9330B . FAX (805) 395-3069 Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 9805226-1 4700 District Blvd Date Received 05/18/98 Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported 05/22/98 Contract No. Attention: Bob Becker Date Sampled 05/18/98 · Time Sampled 13:40 Sample T~e: Gas/NGL Description: Stack-2 Sampled by B. Becker · ORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXE in Gas ." Benzene · · ~ID . PPMV 1.0. - 8020 /1 ,.' Ethylbenzene ND'·' · PPMV 1.0 8020 /1· ~ Toluen~ ND PPMV 1.0 80·2·0 /1 m and p-Xylenes ' ND i~ .. PPMV - ' 1.0 8020 /1 .... o-Xylene ND PPMV . 1.0 8020 /!' . /m Etherton, Lab Operations ~ana~er ~ethod Re£erence 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 27. CFR 40:60.45 ug/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per billion) ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes This report is fumished for the exclusive use of our Customer and apPlles'only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for repo~ alteration or detachment. I ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. ~ ~ Anal~6ical & Consulting Services I ~~ 4309 Armour Avenue · (805) 395-0539 ~.~,~ ...... ....... ~'~"~, Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 I Soils Engineering Laboratory No 9805226 2 4700 District Blvd. Date Received: 05/18/98 I - Date Reported: 05/20/98 Bakersfield CA -- PO Number: Attention: Bob Becker ' 0 I · Date Printed: 05/21/98 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) by Gas Chromatography: Test Code: 1645 . I References: ASTM E-260-73, Practice for Packed-column Chromatography; (GC) ASTM D-1945-81, Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by GC I · ' ASTM D-3588-89, Method for Calculating (Btu and Gravity) of ...Fuels B SBCAPCD Rule 331 SJVUAPCD Rule 4403 ' KCAPCD Rule 1173 MDAQMD Rule 1102 ' · ~ TOG: Total Organic Gas (Hydrogen/CarbOn Compounds) B ROC: Reactive Organic Compounds (TOG - Exempt Compounds) ' I Component Mol% vol. TOG, ROC, ROC, · ppm ppmv ppmv. ppmv. ~ . (less C1) (less C1+C2)' Oxygen 0.00 · 0.0 . .. . ~ Nitrogen 0.00 0.0 ' ' iiii' iii' '" · (H2S *)' 0.00 0.0 ' , ' - ~ Methane 0.07 691.9 691.9 ' -" · Ethane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 .".'::,'.'. · Propane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - "!'.r'v'.' '. , IsoButane' - 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 '. · N-Butane 0.00 .< 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 IsoPentane 0.00 5.3 .. 5.3 5.3 5.3 ~ N-Pentane 0.00 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 · Hexanes+ 0.10 1037.7 1037.7 1037.7 1037.7 I Totals I 0.17 I 1739.8] 1739.81 1047.81 1047.8I Description lab no: 9805226-2 · S JR Project: INFL.-2 · Sample Notes: · Sampled 5-18-98 13:45 hrs. · . · Laboratory Operations Manager I This report is f~mished for the exdusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for reporl alteration or detachment. ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. Analytical Consulting Services ~ ~1~ 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395-0539 ~~~ Bakersfield. California 93308 · FAX (805) 395-3069 Soils Engineering ' Laboratory No: 9805226-2 4700 District Blvd Date Received: 05/18/98 Bakersfield~ CA 93313 ' Date Reported: 05/22/98 Contract No. : Attention: Bob Becker Date Sampled : 05/t8/98 Time Sampled : 13:45 I Sample Type: Ga~/NGL ' . · Description: in~l-2 ' Sampled by B. Becker ORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXE in Gas " Benzene 39.2 .. PPMV 1.0 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 64.8 PPMV 20 8020 /1 Toluene 267 PPMV 20 8020 /1 m and p-Xylenes 294 PPMV 20 8020 /1 o-Xylene 98.~8 PPMV 20 8020 /1 Date Analyzed: 05/20/98 Lab Operations Manager Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 27. CFR 40:'60.45 ug/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per billion) ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes ~is m~ ~ ~mished for the exclusive u~ ~ ~r Customer a~ appli~ oh~ ~ Ihe ~mpl~ tested. Zalco is not r~ponsible for re~ a~erafion or dela~me~. I ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. . ~ Analytioal & Consulting Servioes I '~~ 4309 Armour Avenue . (805) 395'0539 ~~ ....... ~'~'~ Bakersfield. California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 I Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 9806382-001 4700 District Blvd. Date Received: 06/26/98 I Bakersfield ~ CA 93313 Date Reported: 07/01/98 PO Number: Attention: Bob Becker S JR 8132 I Date Printed: 07/02/98 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) by Gas Chromatography: Test Code' 16,-t5 I References: ASTM E-260-73, Practice for Packed-column Chromatography; (GC) · - ' ASTM D-1945-81, Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by GC I ASTM D-3588-89, Method for Calculating (Btu and Gravity) of ...Fuels SBCAPCD Rule 331 SJVUAPCD Rule 4403 KCAPCD Rule 1173 MDAQMD Rule 1102 I ' TOG: Total Organic Gas (Hydrogen/Carbon Compounds) ROC: Reactive Organic Compounds (TOG - Exempt CompOunds) I Component Mol% ppm vol. TOG, ppmv ROC, ppmv. ROC, ppmv. . (less Cl) (less c1+c2) Oxygen 0.00 0.0 I Nitrogen 0.00 0.0 Air (02 + N2) 0.00 0.0 .. Hydrogen 0.00 0.0 .-. -::. .. I Helium 0.00 '0.0 ., · ' '. Carbon Dioxide 0.00' 0.0 ...;. "' · (H2S *) 0.00 0.0 ..." I Methane 0.00 1.2 1.2 '. .... Ethane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 ', ':'-'. Propane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 I IsoButane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 . N-Butane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 ... IsoPentane 0.00 < 0.5 ,, < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 . I N-Pentane · 0.00 - < 0.5 · < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Hexanes+ 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 I Totals I 0.00 I 1.211.21 0.01 0.01 Description lab no: 9806382-001 I EFF Sample Notesi Sample Date 6-26-98 / 11:25 I Lab, e'ratory Operations Manager / I ' This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer' and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. · I ~ ~ ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. ~ ~ Analytical & Consulting Services I ~k'~4309 Armour Avenue (805,395-0539' i~_.~.~_~ ....... ~ Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 I Soils Engineering Laboratory No' 9807352-1 4700 District Blvd. . Date Received: 07/27/98 I Bakersfield CA 93313 Date Reported: 08/06/98 -- PO Number: Attention: Bob Becker S JR 8132 I Date Printed: 08/07/98 Volatile Organic Compounas (VOC) by Gas t.,hromatography:" · Test Code: 1645 I References: ASTM E-260-73, Practice for Packed-column chromatography; (GC) ' ASTM D-1945-81, Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by GC ~ ASTM D-3588-89, Method for Calculating (Btu and Gravity) of ...Fuels · SBCAPCD Rule 331 SJVUAPCD Rule 4403 KCAPCD Rule 1173 MDAQMD Rule 1102 ' ~ ' . ' TOG: Total Organic Gas (Hydrogen/Carbon Compounds) · ROC: Reactive Organic Compounds (TOG - Exempt Compounds) ~ Component Mol% ppm vol. TOG, ppmv ROC, ppmv. ROC, ppmv. · (less Cl ) (less Cl +C2) Oxygen 0.00 0.0 ~ Nitrogen 0.00 0.0 . · Air (02 + N2). 0.00 0.0 · .. HYdrogen 0.00 0.0 ' ~ Helium 0.00 0.0 · Carbon Dioxide 0.00 ' 0.0 (H2S *) 0.00 0.0 ~ Methane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 · Ethane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Propane - 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 ~ IsoButane 0.00 < 0.5 ' < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 ' · N-Butane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5' IsoPentane ' 0.00 < 0.5 . < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 · N-Pentane 0.00 < 0.5 ' < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 · Hexanes+ 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 I Totals ! 0.00 I 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Description ' lab no: 9807352-1 · Effluent · Sample Notes:' . Sample Date 7-27-98 / 15:05 lc I /~ab'oratory Operations Manager · This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only fo the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. I ~ ~ ZALCO LABORATORIES, ' INC. ~ ~ Analytical & Consulting Services I ~~ 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395-0539 I~.~.~'~,,~, Bakersfield, California 93308 · FAX (805) 395-3069 Soils Engineering ' · Laboratory No: 9806382-C00Z 4700 District Blvd. Date Received: 06/26/98 I Bakersfield CA 93313 Date Reported:· 07/01/98 PO Number: Attention: Bob Becker S JR 8132 I Date Printed:07/02/98 i Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) by Gas Chromatography: Test Code: 1645 References: . ASTM E-260-73, Practice for Packed-column Chromatography; (GC) ASTM D-1945-81, Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by GC I ASTM D-3588-89, Method for Calculating (Btu and Gravity) of ...Fuels SBCAPCD Rule 331 SJVUAPCD Rule 4403 KCAPCD Rule 1173 MDAQMD Rule 1102 I TOG: Total Organic Gas (Hydrogen/Carbon Compounds) ROC: Reactive Organic Compounds (TOG - Exempt Compounds) " I Component Mol% vol. TOG, ROC, ROC, ppm ppmv ppmv. ppmv (less C1) (leSs C1+C2) Oxygen 0.00 0.0 '"" I Nitrogen 0.00 0.0 Air (02 + N2) 0.00 0.0 .. _ Hydrogen 0.00 0.0 I Helium 0.00 0.0 m Carbon Dioxide 0.00 0.0 _ (H2S *) 0.00 0.0 ..~ · Methane· 0.00 9.4 9.4 _ Propane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 . I IsoButane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5-. < 0.5.. 0.5 m N-Butane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 IsoPentane 0.00 2.0 -- 2.0 2.0 2.0 I N-Pentane · 0.00 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 Hexanes+ 0.01 109.6 109.6 109.6 109.6 I Totals J 0.01 I 136.8J 136.8J 127.4J 113.2J Description lab no: 9806382-C002 I INF . m Sample Notes: Sample Date 6-26-98 / 11:30 I 's report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration of detachment. I ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. Analytical.& Consulting Services I · 4309 Armour Avenue' (805) 395-0539 ~ .... -- Bakersfield, California 93308 I Soils Engineering Laboratow No: 9807352-2 4700 District Blvd. . Date Received: 07/27/98 I Bakersfield CA 93313 Date Reported: 08/06/98 PO Number: Attention: Bob Becker S JR 8132 I Date Printed: 08/07/98 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) by Gas ChromatograPhy: Test Code: 1645 I References: ASTM E-260-73, Practice for Packed-column Chromatography; (GC) ' ASTM D-1945-81, Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by GC ~ ASTM D-3588-89, Method for Calculating (Btu and Gravity) of ...Fuels · SBCAPCD Rule 331 sJVUAPCD Rule 4403 KCAPCD Rule 1173 MDAQMD Rule 1102 ~ . TOG: Total Organic Gas (Hydrogen/Carbon Compounds) · ROC: Reactive Organic Compounds (TOG - Exempt Compounds) ~ Component Mol% ppm vol. TOG, ppmv ROG, ppmv. ROC, ppmv. · (less Cl) (less C1+C2) Oxygen 0.00 0.0 ~ Nitrogen 0.00. 0.0 · Air (02 + N2) . 0.00 0.0 Hydrogen 0.00 0.0 ~ Helium 0.00 0.0 · Carbon Dioxide 0.00 0.0 · (H2S *) 0.00 0.0 · Methane 0.00 2.0 2.0 · Ethane 0.00 1.2 1.2 1.2 Propane '0.00' < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 ". · IsoButane' 0,00 · < 0,5 < 0,5 < 0,5 < 0,5 . · N-Butane 0,00 < 0.5 < 0,5 < 0,5 < 0,5 IsoPentane 0,00 2,1 . 2,1 2,1 2,1 · N-Pentane 0,00 2,1 ' 2,1 2,1 2,1 · Hexanes+ 0.02 175,3 175,3 175,3 175,3 I Totals I 0.02 I 182.61 182-6l 18°-61 179.4 Description lab no: 9807352-2 · Influent . . . · Sample Notes: Sample Date 7-27-98 / 15:05 100c ~/ La~oCatory Operations Manager / "1 This report is furnished for the exdusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for repod alteration or detachment. SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I I 4~' QUARTER 1998 STATUS REPORT For :l ' I San Joaquin Roofing Company 1501 E. 19ta Street I in Bakersfield, California I ' Prepared For: "- ~: I San Joaquin Roofing Company '~ '~::'':~ ,,''~': i.'. 1501 E. 19th Street ..: :'..:.:::.i :i' .' '.'... Bakersfield, California, 93305 "¥'.i.?...~'. ~... .. ' ';=' '~"'i;: ' ' ' I . File No. 97-8132 " I '- i Prepared By: Soils Engineering, Inc. I 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA. 93313 I January, 1999 I 4700DISTRICT.BLVD. · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA93313 ° PHONE(805) 831-5100 ° FAX:(805) 831-2111 I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. January 4, 1999 97-8132 City Of Bakersfield Fire Department I Office of Environmental Services 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301. Attn.: Mr. Howard Wines I RE:' Quarter 1998 Status Report 4th San J0aquin Roofing Company, Inc. i 1501 E. 19th St., Bakersfield, California Mr. Wines: I Soils Engineering, Inc. (SEI) has prepared this '4th Quarter Status Report for remedial'~ activities performed at the San Joaquin Roofing site (see Plate 1 for Location Map). This Ireport describes the field work conducted to evaluate the residual petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil beneath the site following the vapor extraction project, with conclusions and recommendations for the site. I 'Operation & Maintenance of Vapor Extraction System Vapor extraction was conducted at the site from February, 1998 through the end of July, I 1998 resulting in the removal of an estimated 7,299 pounds of gasoline vapors. The vapor extraction data is presented in Table 1. Influent TPHg concentrations decreased significantly during the last 2 months of vapor extraction system operation from 1048 ppm I to 182 as shown on the Influent 'Concentration Chart attached. Based on this ppm reduction in influent concentrations the thermal oxidizer was removed on July 30, 1998.' I In the Quarter 1998 Status Report September 21, 1998, proposed 2nd dated SEI to 3 soil borings within the hydrocarbon plume to'evaluate the present hydrocarbon concentrations within the soil. The City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Office of I Environmental Services (BFDES) approved the plan to conduct the conf'u-mation borings in a letter dated October 6, 1998. SEI conducted the 3 soil borings on December 2, 1998 I in accordance with the approved plan. Confirmation Soil Borings I Underground Service Alert (USA) was contacted to identify utility locations 48 hours prior to c°nducting the drilling. SEI utilized an SEI owned and operated hollow-stem auger drill rig to advance a total of 3 soil borings to depths ranging from 40 to 45 feet I 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. · °. BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93313 · PHONE (805) 831-5100 ° FAX: (805) 831-2111 I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I 4th Quarter 1998 Status Report File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing Co. January 4, 1999 Bakersfield. CA. Pa£e 2 I below ground surface (bgs) at locations shown on the attached Plot Plan (Plate 2). Soil boring CB-1 was placed approximately 8 feet northwest of well VW-1 (near center of I former UST) and drilled to a depth of 45 feet bgs., boring CB-2 was placed approximately 14' east-northeast of VW-1 (near assessment boring B-2), and boring CB-3 was placed 15' south of vW-1 (near assessment boring B-3), both drilled to 40 feet bgs.. A I California registered geologist supervised the drilling process. Soil samples were collected at 5 foot intervals and evaluated in the field for petroleum hydrocarbons (staining and odor), soil type and photo-ionization detector (PID) readings. A soil sample from each I sampling interval was sealed, labeled and placed in an iced cooler. The soil borings were abandOned with soil cuttings. I Analytical Testing The soil samples were transported to BC Laboratories, Inc. in Bakersfield, CA. along with I a Chain of Custody document. Selected soil samples were analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) utilizing EPA Methods 8020 and 8015m, respectively. RESULTS I Soil Characteristics Soil encountered in the 3 soil borings conducted at the site in general consisted of i interbedded silty sand (SM), poorly graded fine grained sand (SP) and sandy Silt (ML). Petroleum impacted soil was fu'st encountered at a depth of 20 feet in boring CB-1 and i CB-2 and was not evident in boring CB-3. Slight to moderate petroleum odor was . · encountered in borings CB-1 and CB-2 to a depth of approximately 40 feet. The highest photo-ionization detector (PID) readings were in boring CB-1 at 30 feet. The petroleum I staining and odor decreased significantly by a depth of 35 feet in soil borings CB-1 and CB-2. I Groundwater was not encountered in the boringS. See attached boring logs (Appendix A) and cross-sections A-A' and B-B' (Plate 3A & I 3B) for more detail. Analytical Results of Soil Samples I A total of 11 soil samples were analyzed for TPHg and BTEX. The analytical results of the soil samples are presented on Table. 2. The results indicate a significant reduction in petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil from the initial site assessment borings' conducted in I 1995 Table 3 for Historical Analytical Results and cross-sections for former May, (see plume extent). The highest TPHg concentration reported was 2500 parts per million I (ppm) at 20 feet .in boring CB-1 and the only benzene concentration reported was 0.012 I - SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I 4'h Quarter 1998 Status Report File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing Co. January 4, 1999 · Bakersfield. CA. Pa£e 3 I . ppm at 40 feet in boring CB-2. No TPHg or 'BTEX were reported in the 40 and 45 foot samples from CB-1 and in all 3 samples from boring CB-3. i See attached analytical reports in Appendix B. I Conclusions & Recommendations Based on field observations and analytical testing it appears that the majority of the petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil has been removed by the vapor extraction system. No I significant BTEX concentrations were reported in any of the soil samples analyzed. TPHg concentrations over 1,00 ppm were limited to 20 to' 35 feet in boring CB-1. Cross- section A-A' and B-B show the remaining TPHg plume over 100 ppm, with no benzene I over 1 ppm. The remaining minor residual petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil will continue to degrade over time. I Based on only non-hazardous concentrations of gasoline constituents remaining in the soil beneath and adjacent to the former UST, SEI recommends no further vapor extraction take place and requests the clOsure of this site. I Schedule of Work . Once closure is approved by the BFDES the 5 vapor extraction wells will be abandoned I by ffiling them with a concrete slurry and removing the top 5 feet of casin_g. 'If you have any questions or require additional information concerning this Status RepOrt, please feel free to call SEI at (805) 831-5100. I Sincerely, · Soils Engineering, Inc. · . . Environmental i~i~'~i~ Manager oJvCt, l.i~ I Encl.: Table 1 VES Data Sheet Table 2, Analytical Results Conf'u'mation Borings Table 3, Historical Analytical Results I Plate 1, Location Map Plate 2, Plot Plan Plate 3A & 3B, Cross-Sections A-A' & B-B' I Influent Concentrations Over time Chart Appendix A, Boring Logs I I Appendix B, Analytical Reports I ' Table 1 VAPOR EXTRACTION PERFORMANCE DATA San Joaquin Roofing 1501 E, 19th Street Bakersfield, California Bold Italic = Lab Analysis Data DATE Time Run Influent LEL Intl. Intl.'Stack · Temp. de ~ F sy~m Stack TPHg Time cum lb: total lbs lbs/day Ppmv u~/cc % Hour~ -we CFM SCI:M ~qLE~ CAT. STAC Vacuum u~m/cc ppmv lbs/hr · H20 18-Feb-98 1:30 14124.00 A' 29 29 704 10000 3.$.6 24.3 I 1.30 220 1502 28 A 23-Feb-98 11:00 14141.00 B 391 362 511 4526 16.1 11 17 1.30 220 1479 30 B 27-Feb-98 5:00 14174.00 C 785 394 287 3700 13.2 9 33 1.25 218 1471 28 C 2-Mar-98 11:15 14241.00 D 1425 640 229 3000 10.7 9 67 1.30 214 1475 29 D 4-Mar-98 1:30 14292.00 F 1795 370 174 2364 8.4 17 51 1.45 203 1485 50 F 0.0 0.01 0.00 20-Mar-98 11:15 14296.00 G 1821 26 153 2364. 8.4, 21 4 1.45 203 804 1475 50 G 23-Mar-98 12;20 14369.00 I 2256 435 143 2000 7.1 15.3 73 1.45 205 804 1475 50 I 1-Apr-98 1;00 14565.00 L 3310 1054 129 1900 6.8 14.1 196 1.65 207 804 1465 50 L 6-Apr-98 1:00 14684.00 M 3912 602 121 1750 6.2 13.4 119 1.55 208 804 1444 50 M Il-May-98 9:00 14779.00 N 4336 424 1071 15001 5.3 15.9 95 1.65 206 804 1431 50 N 3(PID} 18-May-98 1:30 14952.00 O 4932 596 83~ 1048 3.7' 7.8 173 1.75 203 804 1426 50 O 0.0 0.00 0.00 29-May-98 I0:00 14954.00 P 4954 22 263 I000 3.6 12.4 2 1.70 204 804 1441 50 P I(PID) 2-Jua-98 11:40 15051.00 Q 5393 439 109 940 3.3 8.5 97 1.75 203 350 1426 50 Q 3(PID) 16-Jun-98 1:00 15218.00 R 6226 833 120 1200 4.3 12.5 167 1.75 200 350 1435 50 R 5(PID) 26-Jun-98 11:30 15457.00 S 6971 745 75 137 0.5 10.~ 239 1.75 203 350 1428 50 S 0.0 1.20 0.00 '13-Jul-98 3:40 15700.00 T 7139 168 17 160 0.6 13.9 ~243 1.75 '197 350 1430 50 T 5 (PID) 27-Jul-98 2:30 15900.00 U 7299 159 19 182 0.6 :7 200 1.75 195 350 1445i 50 U 0.0 0.00 0.00 I INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS vS. TIME 12000 1OOO0 4000 2OOO 0 18- 23- 27- Feb-98 Feb-98 Feb-.98 2-Mar- 4-Mar- 98 98' 20- 23- Mar- 'Mar- 98 98 1-Apr- 6-Apr- 11- 98 98 May- 98 SAMPLE DATE I Influent I 18- 29- 2:Jun- May- May- 98 98 98 16- 26- 13-Jul-'27-Jul- Jun-98 Jun-98 98 98 I Table 2 TABLE 2 I CURRENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS 1501 E. 19th St. i Bakersfield, CA. Samples Collected December 2, 1998 I SOIL SAMPLES Concentrations in mg/kg (parts per million) sample NUmber. I Date' I BenZene.[.Toluene IEthylbenenel Xylenes ITPHg{ CB1-20' 12/2/98 <3 . <3 4.2 79 2,500 I CB1-25' 12/2/98 <0.005 0.011 0.0054 0.024 2 CB1-30' 1 2/2/98 <2 21 24 180 1200 CB1-40' 1 2/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 .· CB1-45' 12/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 · CB2-20' 12/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 0.0084 0.059 50 CB2-30' 12/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 44 I CB2-40' 12/2/98 0.012 0.064 0.018 0.084 <1 CB3-20" 12/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 CB3-30' 12/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 CB3-40' 12/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 TPHg = Total Petroleum HydrOCarbons as gasoline I I '1 Page1 TABLE 3 Historical Analytical Results San Joaquin Rooting I 1501 East 19th Street. I lB°ring Depth, in t~et [ Sample Date I TPHas gasoline[ BenzeneI Toluene Ethyl. Benzene[ Xylenes, to!al{ Lead, total[ B-I 15 5/26/95 59000 650 6100 1100 · 9800 52 I 30 5~26~95 60000 590 3900 730 5900 NA~ 40 5/26/95 <10 0.054 0.2 0.018 0.27 NA 55 5/26/95 <10 0.048 0.022 0.007 0.051 NA I 70 5/26195 <t0 0.012 0~006 <0.005 0.008 NA 75 5/26/95 <10 0.016 0.010 <0.005 0.014 NA I 15 5/26/95 ~<I0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA 30 5/26195 7300 3.4 130 56 420 NA 40 5/26/95 <10 0,029 0.086 0.005 0.062 NA I 55 5/26/95 <10 0.009 0.006 <0.005 0.016 - NA 70 ' 5/26195 '<10 0.008 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 NA 75 5/26/95 <10 0.011 0.036 0.005 0.045 NA ! B-3 20 5/31/95 <!0 <0.005 0.015 <0.005 0.11 35 '5131/95 11{)00 37 640 150 ! 3{)0 15 5/31/95 <I0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0:005 NA I 30 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA 40 5/31/95 <10 0.056 0.090 0.013 0.11 NA 55 5/31/95 <10 0.049 0.007 <0.005 0.072 NA 65 5/31/95 . <I0 0.090 0.005 0.011 0.054 NA I 70 5/31/95 <10 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 0.007 NA B-5 I 15 5131195 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 30 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA 40 5/31/95 <10 0,068 0.19 0.022 0.27 NA 55 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.010 ' NA I /95 <10 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 NA 65 5/3 1 70 5/31/95 <I0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 HA I · Notes: All units are rog/Kg or parts per million, ppm. 1 NA = Not analyzed ! I I " Page I m r~o sr 24TH ~ ~T~ CE~ER ~ ST :' 8TH ST , mm%t ~ ~ ~ I .... ', . ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ t +-~ ...... ~+ ~ ---- I S~N JO~Qm ROOF~G CO~Y PLA~ m caumaccnmau, 1SO1 EAST 19~ ST~ET SOILS INO, / I Bakersfield, CA.93313 L~fion Project Numar: Business EAST 19TH STREET VEW-2 Cross-section ~ne B-(I').- < Gate I ,I, Gas ...... Thermal Oxidizer. (VES) 1' Gas Line . EXPLANATION :: 1 inch = 20 feet 0 Assessment Boring :: ~Confirmation ~orin~ :: ~ VEW :: Single Zone q ~ VEW DUal Zone SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 DATE: 5-28-98 PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA PLOT PLAN PLATE 2 I West East A A' VEW-1 VEW-3 I CB-1 B1 CB-2 B3 B4 ,.~.".~."-;."-;.".' .,,.~.,,.~.,...,.~,: UST Excavation, ~{¢~ ~'.~]['.,approximate I 1 0 - / ../." I Silty 20 - <o.oo5 I Current Extent of Plume TPHg Over 100 ppm I N° Benzene Ovei 1~ ,.~,~.~ Original Extent of P I u me 30 -- = 2000+~ <0,005 '"~,.~ ! TPHg Over 100 ~ 44 "\ ppm & Benzene ~ over 1 ppm 0 10 ?:~:?:~?~ .................. I inch = 10 feet ~"' <1 .Silty Sand Vertical and Horizontal I50-- EXPLANATION Boring I PlD l~Benzene Readin~-"[Tphg I 60 -- in ppmI in ppm. .- ~ Sand and'Grovel I ~ Sand 70 -- [~ Silty Sand I si, I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. San Joaquin Roofing Company PLATE 4700 District Blvd. 1501 East 19th Street 3A I Bakersfield, CA 93313 Bakersfield, California i PROJECT NUMBER: 97'8132 Cross Section A - A' page 1 of 1 I I North South B' B CB-1 B-.1 CB-3 B'i2 B-~5 ~',,'.,-,--,.-,,-,--.,?,~,~,',, ,,~ · ,~,~, · r..~ ..'.~ .,'.~ ..':..,':...'.~ ..'.~ .,'.~..;..~ ..'.~; ,. :..,'.~..~ I -~.~,':.~.':~."'.~.~.~',~'..~..~.~.~ '.~.~'.~.;'.~.,~__ UST Excavation ~, ,,, ,., ,,, ,,, ,,, ,,, ,, ,.,,~_-, ,.', ,.-,, ,,_', ,.',,.~ aporoxlmate 10 -- . .............. " ..................... -.-,~' '-" Silty Sand I' d :1~ <O.OOfi ,/,~~~ _Silty San r <1 I Current Extent of Plum~" TPHg Over 100 ppm ~,~n,~aa~<o.ou5 ~ .... .....,.~.~3 ~ " No Benzene Over ? pp~ ~~'l-~-I~--- ~~~ Original ~ { >'U~U+ I '~ -- Illl .... ' ~'-~. I::l~n:~n~a >1 nnm · "~ '"'~",--~[:~:~:~;..~.:.;::::::: :.:.::: ::::~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.. ~ ...... ~ ..... ~.~ ~" : [:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .......................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:: Vertical and Horizontal i 50- I I::X~I_^~^TIO~ 60 -- Boring I PID I~Benzene Reading-rTPHg in ppm I in ppm ~ Sand I 70 -- D Silty Sand I I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. San Joaquin Roofing Company PLATE 4700 District Blvd. 1501 East 19th Street 3B I Bakersfield, CA 93313 Bakersfield, California PROJECT NUMBER: 97-8132 Cross Section B - B' page1 of 1 SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. Appendix A Boring Logs ANALYSES -SAMPLE Lab Field z ~ .~ ._~ BORING TPHg o ----" > m '~ '? SOIL DESCRIPTION ABANDONMENT Benzene P.I.D. ~- ,,, ::) O~o o' -J LU Z o ppm ppm rn r~ -- _ ~ -, o Z 1.6. 400 11 ~ i CB1-25 ML Sandy Silt - Dk Yelsh brown, firm, moist, si ~ 1200 2000+ 14 ~ ~ ~B~-30 SM Silty Sand. - mod yolsh brown, fine tovery fine -- <2 21 ~ -- grained, moist, dense, mod-strg odor. ~ -- 100 15-- --~ CB1-35 ML/ SandySilt/SiltySand-medyelshbrn, firm, vfngr, ~ 16 -- -- SM moist, v sli odor. ' ":i:::::~:~: ND 180 22 --40 CB1-40 .............. SP Sand - It yelsh brn, fn-med gr, damp, v dense, tr --_ ND 23 -- ' 1 gravel, v sli odor. -- ND 26 -- -- - crs grained, well graded, dense, v sli odor. 50 LOGGED BY: RJB DIAMETER OF BORING: 8 Inch DATE DRILLED: 12/2/98 WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered TOTAL DEPTH: 45 feet SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split spoon DRILLING COMPANY: sEI DRILLER: Leo SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE 4700 District Blvd. 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, CA 93313 Bakersfield, California PROJECT NUMBER: ~8.-8132 LOG OF BORING CB1 page .1 of 2 ANALYSES SAMPLE Lab Field BORING TPHg _~ m '~ ? SOIL DESCRIPTION ABANDONMENT Benzene P.I.D. 'n ~ ::) o d ppm ppm ND 12 Z ~ dense, moist, sit odor, no stng -- 13 -- -- plast, mod odor, tr stng ==================================================================================== -- RD 16 ~ CB2-30 ~i SM Silty Sand. mod ¥olsh brown, fine to ¥o~ fine i!i!i!i}i}i}i}i?!ii!ii!ii~ii~i!i!i}i}i}i}}iiii?~iiii~i ND 35 21 --40 CB2-40 . i SM Silty Sand.- mod yelsh brown, fine to very fine --_ ND 28 -- ~ ~ grained, moist, v dense, v slJ odor. z 50 LOGGED BY: RJB DIAMETER OF BORING: 8 inch DATE DRILLED: 1P__/P__/Se WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered TOTAL DEPTH: 40 feet SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split spoon DRILLING COMPANY: SEI DRILLER: Leo ENGINEERING, SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE SOILS INC. 4700 District Blvd. 1501 East 1Sth Street Bakersfield,.CA 93313 Bakersfield, California pROJECT NUMBER: ~18-8132 LOG OF BORING CB2 page 1 Of I · ANALYSES SAMPLE BORING TPHg .~ ' ~; '?,,~ SOIL DESCRIPTION I ABANDONMENT Benzene P.I.D. O, . ppm ppm ,~ _ I 0 ~;:.:.:.:.::.~: ................................................... ND 19 ii~ii~ ! grained, moist, v dense, no odor. .:.:.q::.j · ::.. I ~i~i~i~i~i~i~ ND 40 19 --40 CB3-40 ~ SM Silty Sand. - mod yelsh brOwn, fine to very fine · _-- ND 27 -- --~ grained, moist, v dense, no odor. -- 35-- I - ---__ I -- $0 LOGGED BY: RdB DIAMETER OF: BORING: 8 inch i DATE DRILLED: 12/2/98 WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered TOTAL DEPTH: 40 feet SAMPLING METHOD: ModEled split spoon DRILLING COMPANY: SEI DRILLER: Leo I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 'SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE 4700 District Blvd. 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, CA 93313 I Bakersfield, California PROJECT NUMBER: 98-8132 LOG OF BORING CB3 page 1 of 2 I SOILS. ENGINEERING, INC. i Appendix B ~ I Analytical Reports 1 1 ~ kq · ZALCO LABORATORIES, iNC. Chain of CustodY Record~ ; Page { o~ / 4309 Armour Ave. ' :' ..... "":'; i · ,Turnaround'Time: Bakersfield. California 93308 Project'l-ltle .. "."/~. i~ ' ';' '":: ~t Zalco Lab # ,'. -?, :: . . :.ORUSH By:. , ~ ' ::" '- Field Log # [805} 395-0539 :.. .... .. :,,: ,'-:1:3 Expedited (1 Week) . · O... Fax (805) 395-3069 ~ ',ceChest# .Tempera~ure.~C :" .'.!~'.Boutine (2'Weeks) ~)orkOrder#: ~ ~__ Company Name (.' i }'~ ' ' ~ .~%/~' . Results Address .:.~ '~) " Sample Dine ~me TY~ ' =; ~nt~nerss~ . ~{: ':~ o ID~ Sampled' Sampled . # .~'~ ~' i' ~. ~ ~ 8 Rem~ks / ' ..~.'~o 5. CSt ?o. ? :"" " ': ": .,, ' . ..... ~ .... ...~; .,~ .. ... .... 1o:oo (~ /- :o ': .~. . ,' : :.. .:~'-"¢:: ' ' ' :Y '(~ qo .... '"~: ": .... '":" /0 o I- :'7' '~ .. :.'f~: :~ , -.. I '12'1~ , 6 G Z- Jo .'"" ':"~ :':" ':" ' t ..12;~o , C~7 qo~ " ' ~ .: -i I: 2o ~ J- 7o~ '": :~" NOTE: Saml~es are discarded 30 days after results are repealed unless other arrangements m'e made. KEY: * G-Glass P-Plastic M.Metal T-Tedlar '~ ~ V-VOA ' Hazardous saml:~es will be returned to client et disp(~ed of al cilenl's expense. ~ W-Water ~ WW-Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid O-Other ........ r- .... ,., ......... ' ','. '" ...... r';ol, t'~;~,,~ ,"'~,r~,, ~'* A-Acid. DH<2 (HCI.HNO .H .qO.~ .q-NnOH~.?nAc C~.(tn, mtic. Dec-ZS-9$ 09:15am From-BC Labs 8053271918 T-571 P.OZ/1Z F"661 ~BORATORIES Purgeable Aromacic~ To:a~ ~e~role~ ~d~oca~bons SOILS ~NGI~ZRING Da~e Rep.or~ed: 12/18/98 4700 DIS~I~ BO~V~ Da~e Received: 12/02/98 A~tn: BO~ B~C~R 805-831-5100 P~03ec: N~er: 8132 Da:e Collec=ed: 12/02/98 S~ling Locati~: · S~ Da=e ~ura==~d-8020~ 12/05/98 S~le ID: ~1-20' Date ~lyzed-8020: 12/05/98 s~le ~r~x: S0=1 Dilution Used-8020: 500 S~le Collected By: R. BEC~R Da~e Extrac=ed-8015M(~): 12/05/98 Da=e ~alyzed-801~M(g): 12/05/98 Dilu~io~ Used-8015M{~): Practical ~lysis ~po~ing ~titat Benzene Nons D~:~cted m~/k~ 3. Toluene None De~ected m~/k~ 3. .. Ethyl ~enzene 4.2 mg/kg ~ - Total xylenes 79. mg/kg 50. To~al Pe=role~ ~0c~bons {gas). 2500. .rog/kg ..... 2000 Surrogaue % Recove~ ' 91. % TPH Individual co~suiUuen=s by EPA ~=h~ 5030/8020- ...:;'-'.: No~e: 'PQL's were raised due to ~lucion re~ired to brin~ ~arge~ ~aly:es in=o calibra=ion r~e- S~le ~r~=o~r~ no: =~$cal of 9asoline. ~1~86,- ~ Licen;e: ~03~5 9nuart G. Buttr~ Depar~en: Dec-ZS-98 09:lSam From-BC Labs $0532719t$ T-$71 P.O3/1Z ;-661 ~ORATOFI~ES ~ge~ble SOILS ENGI~ERING ." Date ~700 DIS~ICT ~O~~ Date ~ceived: 12/02/98 ~FIE~, ~ 9331~ L~o~ato~ No.: 98-1A00S-2 Attn: ~0~ B~C~R 805-831-5100 Pro3ec~ N~e~: 8132 '~ Date Collected: 12/02/9S ~ 09:~0~ S~lin~ Location: S~ Date ~trac:ed-8020: 12/07/98 $~le ID: CB1-2~' Date ~alyze~-8020: 12/07/98 S~ple ~=rix: Soil Dilution USed-8020: 1 S~le Collected ~y: R. BRC~R Da=e E~rac=ed-801~M(~): 12/07/98 Date ~lyze~- ~01~ (~): 12/07/98 DiluUi~ USed-801~M(g): . v=actical - ~alysis ~9orting ~t~uion. ~e~zene · N~e Decec:ed mg/kg 0. 005 Toluene 0. 011 mg/kg 0'. 005 ~thyl Benzene 0. 0054 mg/kg 0. 005 To=al Xylenes 0.02~ mg/kg 0. To:al Pe=role~ .... Hydrocarbons (gas) ' 1.6 mg/kg 1.. Suffrage % Recove~ 86. % T~ST ~OD: TPH ~ D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T, ~ual ~ch~ - ~dified EPA 8015 · Individual constituents by EPA Metho4 50~0/8020. Note:PQL'm were raised due co dilution re~ire~ co brin~ ~ger ~alyces into calibratio~ S~le c~atogr~ nog t~ical of Gasoline. Calif. Cer ~1186, ~ License: ~0345 Deparment Supe~i eot Dec-28-g8 09:15am From-BC Labs '805~Z71918 T-571 P.O4/1Z F-$61 ~urgeable Aromatics and Tocal Pe~rol~ Hydrocarbon~ ~OILS ~GI~RINS Da:e ~9or=ed: 12/18/98 %700 DIS~ICT ~OUL~ Date Received: 12/02/98 ~FIE~. ~ 9~1~ L~rauo~ No.: 98-1400~-3 ~ro~ec: ~er: 8132 Da:e Collec=ed: 12/02/98 % 10:00~ S~ling Location: S~ Date Rx~rac=ed-8020: 12/07/98 9~1e ID: CB1-30' Da~e ~alyzed-8020: 12/07/98 ~le ~=rix: Soil D$1u=i~ U~d-8020: 250 S~le Collec=ed By: R. BEC~R Da=e Exurac=sd-8015M(~): 12/07/98 Da:e ~lyzed-801~M(g): 12/07/98 Dilution Used-8015M(g): 250 - Pracu~cal Benzene None De~ee~ed mg/kg 2. Toluene 21. mg/kg 2. ~uhyl ~enzene 2%. mg/~g 2. Total xylenes . 180. mg/kg 10. · To~al Petrole~ Hy~ocar~ns (~as) 1200. mg/k~ 1000. S~ro~a;e % Recove~ 98. % ~0-~0 TEST ~OD; TPH ~ D.O.H.S../ L.U.F.T- ~ual ~th~ - ~difi~d EPA 801B Individual constituents-by EPA Method 50~0/8020. in=o calibra=i~ $~le ~r~=~r~ hoc c~ical o~ gasoli~. Califo~'a .H.B. Cer . $1186, ~ License: ~03t5 Deprumen Oac-ZS-98 09:lTam From-BC Labs 8053Z71918 T-571 P.05/12 F-661- BORATDR;ES Page i Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum HydroCarbons SOILS ENGINEERING Da:e Reporced: 12/18/98 4700 DISTRICT ~OULEvARD Da=e Received: 12/02/98 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 Labora=ory No.: 98-140OS-4 A==n: BOB B~.CKE R 805-831-5100 Pro3ec~ Number: 8132 Da:e Collec:ed: 1~/02/98 ~ 10:30~ S~l~g LoCa:ion: S~ Date ~urac:ed-8020: 12/O%/98 S~le ID: CBi-~O' Date ~lyzed-8020: 12/04/~8 S~le ~:r~x: Soil Dilution Used-8020: 1 S~91e Colleu:e~ By: R. ~EC~R Dace ~x:rac:ed-g01SM(g~: 12/0~/98 Date ~alyzed- 801~M (g): 12/0%/98 Dilur~ Used-8015M(g): 1 - Prac~ical ~o~cituent s ~aUk:s _ Units Limit Benzene NoRa Detec:ed mg/kg 0. 005 Toluene N~e Detec:ed m~/kg 0. 005 Ethyl Benzene None TOtal ~lenes None De:ec:ed mg/kg 0.01 Total Peurole~ ........ --.- Hy~ocar~s (gas) None Detecced mg/kg Surrog~ue % ~cove~ 86. % ~0-1~0 TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S, / L.U.F,T. Manual Me:hod - Modified EPA 8015 Individual consc~cuen:s by EPA Method S030/8020,. Dec-ZS-98 Og:lram From-Be Labs 8053271918 T-571 P.O6/1Z F-661 Page Purgeable Aroma=ice and SOILS ENGINEERING Da=e ~eporued: 12/18/98 %700 DIST~CT-BO~ Da=e ~ceived: 12/02198 'A::n: B~ BEC~R 80~-8~1-~100 Projec= ~r: 8132 Da=e Coll~c=~d: 12/02/98 ~ 10:~0~ S~Di~ng Loca=i~: SJR Da~e Ex~rac=ed-8020: 12/0%/98 s~le ID: 'CBi-~S' Da~e ~aly~ed-8020: 12/04/98 ~le Collected By: R. BEC~R Dat~ E~rac=ed-801~M(~): 12/04/98 Du=~ ~alyz~d-B01~M(~): 12/0%/98 Prat=ica1. Benzene None De=et=ed ~/k~ 0,005 Toluene None De:ec=ed ~:hyl Benze~ None De:et:ed m~/kg 0,00~ To~al Xylenes None De=ected m~/k~ 0.01 To:al Pe:role~ Hydrocarbons (gas] None Detec=ed mg/kg Surr~ate · Recove~ 90, % TEST ~OD: TPH bY D,O.H,S, / L,U,F,T. ~nual'Me=h~ - ~ified E~A 80%5 Individual cons=i:uen:s ~ ~PA ~=h~ ~0~0/8020, · '1 I I I Pec-28-g8 O9:??am From-BC.LabS 8053271918 T-UI P.OT/12 F-$61 Page Pu~geable AromatXcs and To:al Petroleum H¥cl~ocarbons SOILS ENGINERRING Dace ReDorCed: 12/18/98 4700 DISTRICT BOULEVARD Dace Receive~: 12/02/98 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 Labor,cory No.: 98-14005-6 Ac:n: BOB ~HCK~R 805- 831-5100 Pro, eeC Number: . 8132 - Dace Collected: 12/02/98 · 12:00PM Sampling Location: SJR D&=e Zw=racced-8020: 12/09/98 sample ID: CB2-20 ~ Dace A~alyzed- 8020: 12/07/98 Sample Ma:rix: So~l S~le Collecced ~y% R. B~C~R DaCe Excracted-8015M(~): 12/07/98 Da:e ~alyzed-801~M(g): . 12/07/98 Dilu=ion U~ed-8015M(g): Prac=iual C0nstit~encs · _ Re~ul~s ~enzene N~e Decected m~/k9 0.00~ Toluene N~e De cee:ed m~/k~ 0 ~chyl Benzene 0. 008~ mg/kg 0.005 To:al Xylenes . 0. 059 mg/k~ 0.01 To:al Pe:rol~ ' ' ' Hy~ocar~ns (gas) ' 50. TZST ~THOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. ~ual ~h~ - ~difie~ ~PA 8015 Individual cons=i=u~:s by EPA ~ch~ 5030/8020. PQL's were r~ed due co dilucion re,ired co brin~ into callbra:io~ S~le ~cogr~ not g~ical of ~asollne. Stuart ~. gucrr~ Deparcmenc Oec-ZS-98 09:lram From-BC Labs 8053271918 T-571 Pi06/12 F-$61 I BORATORIES Laage ~u:gea.,ble . Total ~e:role~ ~ocar~e 5OZ~ ENGI~HRING -' Dace Regorue~: 12/18/98 .' 4700 DIS~I~ BO~~ Date Received: 12/02/98 ~RSPI~, ~ 93313 - L~orato~ No.: Projec: N~er: 8132 . Da:e Collecced: 12/02/98 ~ 12:1~PM S~l~ng Loc&tion: S~ DaGe ~xGracued-8020: 12/04/98 $~le ID: ~2-30' Da:e ~lyzed- 8020: 12/0%/98 S~le ~trix: Soil Dilu:ion U~ed-8020: 10 S~ple Collec:ed By: R. ~ZC~R Dace Ex:racced-8015M(g): 12/0&/98 . Dace ~alyzed-8015M(g): 12/04/98 DLluuion USed-8015M(~): 10 · . ~alysis . Repor:ing .N~e De,et:ed m~/k~ 0.0S Benzene Toluene N~e De,et=ed mg/kg 0.0$' Z:hyl ~enzene None De~ected mg/kg · 0.05 To:al xylene~ None Detected mg/kg 0.~ Total Pe:role~ Hydrocarbons (gas) ' %%. m~/k~ Surroga=e % ~cove~ 87. % T0-130 TEST ~OD T~. bY D '0, S / L ~' T.--~1 ~thod ~d~fi,d ,PA 801, ' Note: ~QL's were raised due to dilution r~ired co gring target ~al~es in~o calibraui~ r~ge. S~le ~r~c~r~ not u~cal of gasoline. uepar~enc $uper~i~or Dec-ZB-98 09:18am From-BC'Labs 805327t918 T-$71 P.Og/1Z F-6G1 BORATORIES Purgeable Arcm~t ~. ca Total ~etrole~ ~ocar~ns SOILS E~GI~ERING Da=e ~9or=ed: 12/16/98' 4700 DIS~ BO~ Daue' ~ceiwe~: 12/02/98 PrOject N~r: '81~2 Da=e Collected: 12/02/98 % 12':~0~ s~l~ng Loca:=~: SJR Da=e Extracted-8020: 12/04/98 S~le ID: '~2-40.' Da~e ~alyze. d-8020: 12/0%/98 $~la ~=rix: Soil Diluti~ Used-8020; 1 S~ple Collected ~y: R.-~EC~R Da:e ~:rac=ed-801~M(g): 12/04/98 Date ~alyzed-8015M(g): 12/0%/98 · - Dilu=ion used-8015M(~: 1 ~lysi s Reporuin~ ~itation Ben,eno 0 ~ 012 m9/~9 0.005 Toluene 0. ~:hyl Benz~ne 0. 018 mg/k9 0. 005 Toual Xylenem O. 08~ mB/kg 0.01 To=al Pe=role~ -'- ' Hy~oc~bons (gas) N~e 'De:et:ed m~/k~ 1. Surroga=e % ~cove~ S2. % 70-1~0 'IndLvLdu~l constituents by ~PA ~thod 5030/8020.~ I C , AZ License , S~uar~ G. ~ut~ram I DeparUnent Supervisor Dec-28-98 09:18am From-BC Labs 8053271918 T-571 P.lO/12 F-661 ~BORATORIES page Pu=gea~le Total' ~e~role~ ~oc~bons SOILS RNGI~gRING Da~e ~or~e~: 12/18/98 %700 DISTRICT ~O~~ Dace Received: 12/02/98 Projec~ N~e~: 8132 Dace Collec=ed: 12/02/98 ~ 01:20PM s~l~ng Location: SJR ' D~=e Extracted-8020: 12/0]/98 s~le ID: ~]-20 ~ Dace ~lyze~-8020: 12/0~/98 S~le ~crix: ' Soil Diluui~ 0sed-8020 S~le Collec=ed By: R. BEC~R Dace Extracted-S015M(g): Da~e ~lymed- 801~M (g}: 12/0~/98 Dilu=ion Used-8015M{g): ~rac=ical -Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.00S Ethyl ~enzene None Detected mg/kg 0. Total Xyle~e$ None De~C~.ed ~g/kg 0 Total Petrole~ Hydrocar~ns (gas; ~one' De:ecued mg/~ 1.- . Surrogate % Recove~ 82. _. % 70-1~0 T~ST ~OD: T~H ~ D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T- ~ual Method - ~&f&ed EPA 8015 Individual consci=uen=s ~ EPA ~th~ 5030/8020. , Cali 86, ~ License: ~0345 S:u~: G. Buttr~ 41~Acla~ D.c-28-98 Og:lSam. ;'rom-BC Labs T BORATORIES purgeablL~umatie i . Toral-PetroleumHTdrocarbons SOILS ENGINEERING ' Date Reporced: 12/18/98 [] %700 DISTRICT.'BOUL~VA Date Received: 12/02/98 I ~BAK~RSFiE~.D, CA 93313 . La~ora=ox~No.: 98-14005-10 At=n: BOB BECKER 805-831-S100 [] Project Number: 8132 ' ' I eampl$ng Location: gJR ,' Date Extracted-80201 :4OPM' 12/07/98 Sa~aple ID: C~3-]0 Date Analyzed~8020: 12/07/98 'sample Macrix: Soil - Diluc=o~ O~ed-8020: 1 [] Sample Collected By: R. B~CK~R Dace Ex:racced-8015M{~): 12/07/~8 · ' ' Dace A~..alyzed-8015M(~): 12/07/98 ~ Dilu=io~ used-8015M(g): Price,ca1 · a ysis - Re~ortin~ Quan:i:a:ion Consuicuenc~ ' ' ReBul~s I Benzene None De:ce=ed mG/kg ' . 0.005 m Toluene . None De=eeced mg/kG 0.005 E=hyl Benzene None mm To=al Xylenes None Detected mg/k~ Hydrocarbons (ga~) None Dece~ced mg/kg 1. m Surrogate % Recovery · 89. % ?0-130 . T~OD: TPH by D.O.~.S. / L.U.F.T .... nual Method - Modified EPA 8015 · Zndlv£dual constituents by EPA Me=hod 5030/8020. ' mm C lifo . Ce~r~,-~.~, AZ License: AZ03~5 S~uar~ O. mDepartment Bupervisor M mr..~ t,am:l m mm ~ are tM ~ e~Cl~ ,,,we o! tim wulamlTbng pa~y Be 0ec-28-98 09:18am From-BC Labs '8053Z71618 T-571 P.IZ/1Z F-661 ~BORATO~IES - pu~ge~[e Az'cmla. c~¢s To~&I Pecrole~d~oea~bons SOILS ~NGIN~£RING Dace ~9orced: 12/18/98 4700 DIS~ICT BO[~2~VAg~ Dace Received: 12/02/98 ~AK~RSFZE~, ~ 93313 Laboraco~ No.: 98-1%005-11 Anon': ~OB ~EC~R 805-831-5100 Projec= N~ber; ' 8132 D~=e Collected= 12/02/98 ~ 02:00PM s~ling LOC~=ion: S~ Da=e ~=racced-8020: 12/07/98 S~la ID: C~-t0' Da~e ~ly[ed-8020: 12/07/98 S~le ~crix= Soil Diluci~ U~ed-8020: 1 s~le Collec=ed ~: R. BEC~R Dace ExcracCed-8015Mi9): 12/07/98 Da=e ~lyzed- 80~5M (~): 12/07/98 Dilution Used- 8015M (g): I . Pr~cC~cal . Benzene ' None Degecred mg/kg 0,008 Toluene ' None Deteuted ~/~g 0.005 Echyl Benzene ' None DeCecced ~/kg 0.005 'Tor~i ~le~es None Deteeued mg/kg 0.01 Total Pecrole~ ' -'- - ~oc~r~ns (gan) Califo~'~ .H.S. Cerc 1186, SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Request For Closure/General Health Risk Analysis For San Joaquin Roofing Company 1501 E. 19th Street in Bakersfield, California Prepared For: I San Joaquin Roofing Company 1501 E. 19th Street I Bakersfield, California, 93305 I File No..97-8132 I i Prepared By: Soils Engineering, Inc. I 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA. 93313 I March 31, 1999 I I 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA93313 ° PHONE(805) 831-5100 ° FAX:(805) 831-2111 SOILS ENGINEERING, 'INC. March 31, 1999 97-8132 City Of Bakersfield Fire Department Office of Environmental Services 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Attn.: Mr. Ralph Huey RE: Request For Closure/General Health Risk Assessment Analysis San Joaquin Roof'mg Company, Inc. 1501 E. 19th St., Bakersfield, California Mr. Huey: Soils Engineering, Inc. (SEI) has prepared this Request for Closure/General Health Risk Assessment Analysis for the San Joaquin Roofing site following initial comments from the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Office of Environmental Services (BFDES) on the 4th Quarter Status Report dated January 4, 1999 in which closure for the site was requested (see Plate 1 for Location Map). Remedial Background Vapor extraction was conducted at the site from February, 1998 through the end of July, 1998 resulting in the removal of an estimated 7,299 pounds of gasoline vapors from the ground. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) concentrations decreased significantly from the initial influent air samples collected (10,000 ppm) during the start of the vapor extraction system operation to 182 at the end of extraction (Table 1). ppm To evaluate the residual hydrocarbon concentrations in the soil, SEI conducted 3 soil borings on 2, within the former hydrocarbon plume. Soil boring CB-1 December 1998 was placed approximately 8 feet northwest of well VW- 1 (near center of former UST) and drilled to a depth of 45 feet below ground surface (bgs.), boring CB-2 was placed approximately 14' east-northeast of VW-1 (near assessment boring B-2), and boring CB-3 was placed 15' south of VW-1 (near assessment boring B-3), both drilled to 40 feet bgs. (see Plate 2 for Plot Plan). A California registered geologist supervised the drilling process. Soil samples were collected at 5 foot intervals and evaluated in the field for petroleum hydrocarbons (staining and odor), soil type and photo-ionization detector (PID) readings. A soil sample from each sampling interval was sealed, labeled and placed in an iced cooler. Selected soil samples were analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) and TPHg utilizing EPA Methods 8020 and 8015m, respectively. I 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. ° BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA93313 · PHONE(805) 831-5100 ° FAX:(805) 831-2111 I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. i Request For Closure/General Health Risk Assessment File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing Co. March 31, 1999 ' Bakerstield. CA. Pa.ee 2 Petroleum impacted soil was first encountered at a depth of 20 feet in boring CB-1 and CB-2 and was not evident in boring CB-3. Slight to moderate petroleum odor was I encountered in borings CB-1 and' CB-2 to a depth of approximately 40 feet. The highest photo-ionization detector (PID) readings were in boring CB-1 at 30 feet. The petroleum staining and odor decreased significantly by a depth of 35 feet in soil borings CB-1 and I CB-2. I The analytical results of the soil samples indicate a significant reduction in total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the soil from the initial site assessment borings conducted in May, 1995 to the present (highest values~ 60,000 ppm TPHg to 2,500 ppm TPHg). The only I benzene concentration reported was 0.012 ppm at 40 feet in boring CB-2 compared to 650 ppm in May, 1995. I See attached Tables 2 & 3 for analytical results. Remedial Conclusions Based on field observations and analytical testing it appears that the majority of the petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil have been removed by the vapor extraction system. No significant BTEX concentrations were reported in any of the soil samples analyzed I from the confirmation soil borings. TPHg concentrations over 100 ppm were limited to only two silty zones at depths of 20 & 30 feet in boring CB-1. Cross-section A-A' and B- B' show the remaining TPHg plume over 100 ppm, with no benzene over 1 ppm (Plates I 3A & 3B). General Health Risk Assessment Analysis I In order' to justify leaving the remaining residual petroleum hydrocarbons soil, the SEI has prepared the following general health risk assessment analysis.. I Highest benzene concentrations remaining = <3 ppm @ 20' in CB-1 Highest TPHg concentration remaining = 2,500 ppm @ 20' in CB-1 I Depth to groundwater = 210' (Kern County Water Agency ID4, 2/98) Depth to groundwater from base of remaining TPHg plume = 210'-35'= 175' Nearest public groundwater well = ~A of a mile to the NW (California Water I Service). Based on this information an assumption can be made that the threat of an elevated cancer I risk for occupants of the site are less than 1 in 1 million, since the concentration of benzene remaining in the soil is <3 ppm and a 20 foot zone of silty non-contaminated soil is present between the remaining TPHg plume and the surface. Concentrations of toluene, I ethylbenzene and total xylenes in the soil are all very low and do not pose a threat to the environment. I I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. ~ · Request For Closure/General Health Risk Assessment File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing Co. March 31, 1999 Bakersfield, CA. Pa~e 3 The elevated TPHg concentrationS left in boring CB-1 are predominately confirmation within the silty zones and are less likely to migrate deeper. Based on this and the depth 'to i groundwater (175') from the base of the residual TPHg plume (35') and no benzene concentrations, the threat to groundwater beneath the site is minimal (see Plate 4-for Depth to Water Map). In addition, the nearest public water supply well is over ~A of a i mile away from the .site and it is highly unlikely that the remaining TPHg plume would ever migrate into the public water supply system. See Plate 1 for approximate well locations. I The remaining residual petroleum hydrocarbons will continue to bio-degrade over time, further decreasing the possible threat to the environment. I Recommendations SEI recommends no further vapor extraction take place and requests the closure of this I site. Schedule of Work I Once closure is approved 'by the BFDES the 5 vapor extraction wells will be abandoned ,[] ~ by filling them with a concrete slurry and removing the top 5 feet of casing. I If have questions or require additional information concerning this letter, please you any feel free to call SEI at (805) 831-5100. I S cerely. ~.~,~'F... O in , In . So RobertJ. BecF r ker, R.G. ~ ~k RE, e-Y~"d~// g I Envkonmental Dtvts~on''' Manager ~' '~o.r'cnlar:r~~-'- ~Off~~. ~7 I Encl.: Table 1 VES Data Sheet -,,,~, -' Table 2. Analytical Results Conf'a'mation Borings Table 3. Historical Analytical Results I Plate 1, Location Map & Well Locations Plate 2, Plot Plan Plate 3A & 3B, Cross-Sections A-A' & B-B' I Plate 4, Depth To Water Map I Table 1 VAPOR EXTRACTION PERFORMANCE DATA San Joaquin Roofing ~ 1501 E, 19th Street Bakersfield, California BoM Italic = Lab Analysis Data ' DATE Time Run Influent LEL Intl. Intl. Stack Temp. de~ F. sy~¢~, Stack TPH~: Time cum lbs total lbs lbs/day ppmv u[g/cc % Hours "wc CFM SCFM [NLEq CAT. STAC ¥~euum u~m/cc ppmv lbs/hr H H20 18-Feb-98 1:30 14124.00 A 29 29 704 10000 35.6 24.3 I 1.30 220 1502 28 A 23-Feb-98 11:00 14141.00 B 391 362 511 4526 16.1 11 17 1.30 220 1479 30 B 27-Feb-98 5:00 14174.00 C 785 394 287 3700 13.2 9 33 1.25 218 1471 28 C 2-Mar-98 11:15 14241.00 D 1425 640 229 3000 10.7 9 67 1.30 214 1475 29 D 4-Mar-98 1:30 14292.00 F 1795 370 174 2364 8.4 17 51 1.45 203 1485 50 F 0.0 0.01 0.00 20-Mar-98 11:15 14296.00 G 1821 26 153' 2364 8.4 21 4 1.45 2031 804 1475 50 G 23-Mar-98 12;20 14369.00 ! 2256 435 143 2000 7.1 15.3 73 1.45 205'804 1475 50 I 1-Apr-98 1;00 14565.00 L 3310 1054 129 1900 6~8 14.1 196 1.65 207 804 1465 50 L 6-Apr-98 1:00 14684.00 M 3912 602 121 1750 6.2 13.4 119 1.55 208 804 1444 50 M Il-May-98 9:00 14779.00 N 4336 424 107 1500 5.3 15.9 95 1.65 206 804 1431 50 N 3 (PID) 18-May-98 1:30 14952.00 O 4932 596 83 1048 3.7 7.8 173 1.75 2(J3 804 1426 50 O 0.0 0.01 0.00 29-May-98 10:00 14954.00 P 4954 22 263 1000 3.6 12.4 2 1.70 204 804 1441 50 P I(PID) 2-Jun-98 11:40 15051.00 Q 5393 439 109 940 3.3 8.5 97 1.75 203 350 1426 50 Q 3 (PID) 16-Jun-98 1:00 15218.00 R 6226 833 120 1200 4.3 12.5 167 1.75! 200 350 1435 50 R 5(PID) 26-Jun-98 11:30 15457.00 S 6971 745 75 137 0.5 10.8 239 1.75 203 350 1428 50 S 0.0 1.20 0.00 13-Jul-98 3:40 15700.00 T 7139 168 17 1613 0.6 13.9 243 1.75 197 350 1430 50 T 15<Pio> 27-Jul-98 2:30 15900.00 U 7299 159 19 182 0.6 7 200 1.75 195 350 1445 50 tJ IO. Ol I Table 2 I TABLE 2 I CURRENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS 1501 E. 19th St. I Bakersfield, CA. Samples Collected December 2, 1998 I SOIL SAMPLES Concentrations in mg/kg (parts per million) Sample Number I Date I Benzene I Toluene I Ethylbenene Xylenes ITPHg{ CB1-20' 12/2/98 <3 <3 4.2 79 2,500 I CB1-25' 1 2/2/98 <0.005 0.011 0.0054 0.024 2 CB1-30' 12/2/98 <2 21 24 180 1200 CB1-40' 1 2/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 . · CB1-45' 12/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 i'~ CB2-20' 12/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 0.0084 0.059 50 i CB2-30' 1 2/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 44 CB2-40' 12/2/98 0.012 0.064 0.018 0.084 <1 I CB3-20' 1 2/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 CB3-30' 1 2/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 CB3-40' 1 2/2/98 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 <1 ' ~ TPHg = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline ! Page I ! TABLE 3 I Historical Analytical Results San Joaquin Rooting i 1501 East I~)th Street JBoring Depth, in feet J Sample Date J TPH as gasolineJ Bem. eneJ Tol,tcneJ Ethyl Bcv, zeneJ Xylenes, totaJJ Lead. totalJ 15 5/26/95 59000 650 6100 I 100 9800 52 30 5/26/95 60000 590 3900 730 5900 NA~ I 40 5/26/95 - <I0 0.054 0.2 0.018 0.27 NA 55 5/26/95 <10 0.048. 0.022 0.007 0.051 NA 70 5/26/95 <10 0.012 0.006 <0.005 0.008 NA I 75 5/26/95 <10 0.016 0.010 <0.005 0.014 NA B-2 15 5/26/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA I 30 5/26/95 7300 3.4 ! 30 56 420 NA 40 5/26/95 <10 0.029 0.086 0.005 0.062 NA 55 5/26/95 <10 0.009 0.006 <0.005 0.016 - NA I 70 ' 5/26/95 <10 0.008 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 NA 75 5/26/95 <10 0.01 ! 0.036 0.005 0.045 NA I 20 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 0.015 <0.005 0. l I NA B-3 35 5/31/95 11000 37 640 150 1300 NA I 15 5/31/95 <I0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA B-4 30 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA I 40 5/31/95 <10 0.056 0.090 0.013 0.11 NA 55 5/31/95 <I0 0.049 0.007 <0.005 0.072 NA 65 5/31/95 <I0 0.090 0.005 0.011 0.054 NA 70 5/31/95 <10 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 0.007 NA 15 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.00} <0.005 <0.005 NA I , 30 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA 40 5/31/95 <10 0.068 0.19 0.022 0.27 NA 55 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.010 ' NA I 65 5/31/95 <10 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 NA 70 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Nb. · Notes: I All units are rog/Kg or parts per million, ppm. INA = Not analyzed I I IPage l I 3~rH .~.. ~'~"~ Sr ! COLLEGE I '"'z:~o st[ 24TH I '~- ---~.,,.~.,d :~ P! sr I ..." H CALIFORNIA AV '~'~ '~i~ ~~N I 8tH ~ ~ ~ ~:., .~ _~ ....._...~ ...... ~~-' ' - ....... ~--T- ~--' . ~ /~ ~ ~ ~ .~,~ ~ ~ ~~~ .... ,~~,, I SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE $OIL$ ENGINEERING, INC. 15Ol EAST 19TH STREET m 4700 District Blvd. BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 1 Bakersfield, CA 93313 I Project Number: Location Map Business EAST 19TH STREET VEW-2 Cross-section_Line B../I,~_ :< Gate i'l. liU ': '-'" : Manifold A ..- '~' CJi-2 ~I!i.i.A,, Gate ~///~///////////~ -- I~ ~-. II I~i l ocaton~f.. . · 1 inch ~ 20 foot 0 Assessment Boring DATE: 5-28-98 PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 , SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA PLOT PLAN PLATE 2 West East A A' VEW-1 VEW-3 CB-1 B1 CB-2 B3 B4 O -- -~" I ' I , ~.-..~'.~.-....., ,.~.~ .~ · ~,."~..", ,?.?..~..z..-', · '.'..'..' UST Excavation, ,.';,. ~.'- ~['., approximate 10 -- / ~"?:'~'":~-"'~'":' - Current Extent of Plume ~ TPHg Over 100 ppm ~_4.0__0.~ ~..~005 ~ No Benzene Over 1 .Dpm~ Original Extent of · ':: ' '~ 00+ y&Sa~ '"'"'"" Plume 30 -- i <2 Silt 9001 <0.005 "~' I TPHg Over 100 ~ 1200 44 ~ ppm & Benzene ',, Sandy Silt ~ over 1 ppm ~ o .......... / · ":~::~': ............. ::: ~:~:~:~:~ .............. ' --- · l i,~ch='~Ofe~t ..-:'::::-.:~::.!://:::':;'ii:;.;i!: '.::~::;< 1 ~!:::!::::" '" < ":;.::~ iiiiii...! '~<1' ° Silty Sand 1 50-- EXPLANATION Boring PID I~Benzene 60 -- Readin~-]'Tphg in PPmlin ppm [~] Sand and Gravel ~ Sand 70 -- ~ SiltySand I San Joaquin Roofing Company PLATE SOILS ENGINEERING, 47oo District Blvd. 1501 East 19th Street 3A i Bakersfield, CA 93313 Bakersfield, California PROJECT NUMBER: 97-8132 Cross Section A - A' page 1 of 1 ! I North South - cB-~ B-.~ CB-3 B-.~ B-~ 0 -- ~.~ ....,....?:..~.1~.....,..... ·. ·. · .... ;. ~ ~ ;...', , / / ,~ ~%'%'%'%'%'%o%o'--~' ,.%.%.% . ~.~.~.~.~.~..;~.~..~.C.-'.~, ;¢~.¢C.-'~.. UST Excavat,on, ~..; ~ -.'- . ............., ,.........--~ . ~. ~.. 3.3 .~..':~..'..~"...~ .~3 .~3 .';.~....; ~,.~ .'.3 .-.~.~. approximate ~C ..'..'..'-.'..'..'-.'..~.-'., ,......... ,,, ~u- ....-. ..... " ..................... ~ ..... .SiltySand - / , I:.. :ili' '::i~i:.i13001Xl:;~:::: '~/ m · ~i!'~;and':::!:::~::i::i!2500 ~ ~Silt¥ Sand T <1 Current Extent of Plum~'" I TPHg Over 100 ppm ~.-dh-~i3~<0.005 :~,~,~..,,,,~-~3 ~ · No Benzene Over I ppm 1 6 ~~ Cfi inal ~m~.~~1.6 ~ ~ I ~',,~' ent ogf · Ext . Plume.* / I 30 -- / ~t~2000+ I~ <2 2 ~] <0.0~5 '~'-....~ T~PHg>IO0~ ppm, ~ 1200 I <1 ......... ~enzene >~ ppm / ~ / I ~' "'"" s~ <0.005 I o.- ": ...................................................... :.::.i:&:i'i.:d 0:.:..~ i~::<0.005 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;ii~:~[:::~:. :~:[~ Vertical and Horizontal 50-- ! EXPLANATION 60 -- Boring PID I~Benzene Reading_rTPHg ' in ppm I in ppm ~ Sand 70 -- .. [~] Silty Sand Bi si, San Joaquin Roofing Company PLATE soILS ENGINEERING, INC. 470o District Blvd. 1501 East 19th Street 3 B Bakersfield, CA 93313 Bakersfield, California PROJECT NUMBER: 97-8132 Cross Section B - B' page 1 of 1 PLFATE 4 I ~ 28E Kern County Water Agency / 29 2s 27 =s =s ~o IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO.4 Bakersfield. California .i_ .... ~. ........ ~- ........ L ................................. 32 33 34 FIRST POINT ' ' " ' --~ WATER ' ' ' DEPTH TO ~ 4 ~ 1 6 IN WELLS ',l SEPTEMBER 1997 ~2 7 8 m 17 m I ~ - ~ rD4 BOUNDARY .~ 29 CONTOUR tNTERVAL 20 cr 100 FEET R 2gE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT 1st Quarter 1998 JUN ~ 1998 BY: For San Joaquin Roofing Company · 1501 E. 19th St. Bakersfield, CA. I Prepared For: I San Joaquin Roofing Company 1501 E. 19th St. I Bakersfield, California 93305 I I . File No. 97-8132 I Prepared By: Soils Engineering, Inc. I 4700 District Blvd. i Bakersfield, CA. 93313 I May, 1998 I I 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. ' BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93313 · PHONE (805) 831-5100 ~ FAX: (805) 831-2111 iSOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I I Mr. Howard Wines City of Bakersfield Fire Dept. I-- Office of Environmental Services I 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 'l RE: Is' Quarter, 1998 Status Report ~'1 . San Joaquin Roofing Company, Inc. 1501 E. 19th St., Bakersfield, California .Mr. Wines: Soils Engineering, Inc. (SEI) has. prepared this 1s' Quarter 1998 Status Report for the San Joaquin Roofing Company site where vapor extraction is being conducted (see Plate 1 for Location Map). This report describes the field work conducted to install the vapor extraction i system (VES), start-up of the VES, and operation and maintenance of the system. Included in this report are analytical reports, and testing data from the operation of the VES. Construction Activities Following the receipt of authority to construct (ATC) permit #S-3299-1-0, SEI installed the underground PVC piping from the six (6) vapor extraction wells (VEW's) and the natural gas I line to the remediation compound in December, 1997. Two-inch diameter PVC piping was placed approximately 2.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) attached to the VEW's casing and connected to a PVC manifold within the remediation compound. Taft Plumbing installed a 1" I diameter gas line from the existing gas meter to the remediation compound within the same trench. The trench was backfilled and compacted up to grade with sand being placed directly over the piping. The thermal oxidizer (EI-model 250) was placed within the compound in late I December, 1997. The manifold was constructed of 2" diameter PVC with a 2" shut-off ball valve, a sampling port and an air inlet port for each well. A 3" diameter PVC pipe attaches the manifold to the thermal oxidizer. A pitot tube attached to a magnehelic gauge was installed I between the manifold and the thermal oxidizer to measure inlet flow from the wells. A vacuum gauge was installed at the manifold to measure applied vacuum. See Plate 2 for Plot Plan. I L oop Electric installed power to the thermal oxidizer unit. Problems with the rented thermal oxidizer caused startup delays until new parts could be installed. Between February 18, and -- March 4, 1998 the thermal oxidizer was run periodically to determine proper operating I I 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. ° BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA93313 ° PHONE (805) 831-5100 ° FAX: (805) 831-2111 '- "' SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.~ . Id Quartet; 1998 Status Report · File Number 97'-8i32 : · San Joaqttin Roofing Co. May 28, 1998 .... .'l 1501 E. 19~ St.. Bakers~eld. CA. Pa~¢ 2 parameters. An-air sample collected from the influent port on February 18, 1998 had 10,000 I parts-per million (ppm) total non-methane hydrocarbons reported. Air Sampling & Flowrate Measurements ;:...BI -On'March 4, 1998, SEI met with Kari Fuqua of the SJVUAPCD at the site for the initial " inspection of the thermal oxidizer operation. Air samples were collected in Tedlar bags at the -- _. ': influent port and 'at the effluent port on the stack. The samples were collected by using clean I ' : hand bulbs to purge the sampling port of air and'then attached to the sampling port filling the - Tedlar bags. The Tedlar bags Were labeled and placed 'in storage for delivery to Zalco ~:- . Laboratories for analysis of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and benzene, toluene, 'l ' ~ .ethylbenzene, and total xylenes'(BTEX) with a chain-of-custody document. The analytical .. result for the effluent air sample (stack) had no TPH, benzene, ethylbenzene, and o-xylenes · . reported. Toluene was reported at 2.73 ppmv and m & p xylenes at 1.44 ppmv. The analytical I result for the influent air sample (influent) had 2,364 ppmv TPH, 155 ppmv benzene, 111 ppmv '- ethylbenzene, 795 ppmv toluene, and 642 total Xylenes reported. See attached analytical .. reports. I · Inlet flowrates, stack temperatur.e, and LEL readings were noted during the inspection and are recorded continuously, on a chart rec0fder. The inlet flow was 203 SCFM, the stack temperature I was 1485 degrees F and the LEL was 17% (see Table 1 for field data). No flowrate was possible ' at the stack. ~Since this was a requirement of the ATC permit, SEI contracted Steiner Environmental to measure the stack flow rate by EPA Method 2. Two 3" diameter metal ports ~ I " were installed.on the stack at 90 degree angles approximately 13" below the top of the stack (1/2 , : diameter below tOp and 2 diameters above bottom of stack) as required to take an accurate flow - measurement. Two flow' measurements were conducted in 30. minute time periods with rates of I 860 and 804 DSCFM ~alculated. See the attached Steiner Environmental for more report by detail. I APCD Permitting Based on the elevated flow rate measured at the stack a modification to the ATC was required. On April 7, 1998 the modification request was submitted to the SJVUAPCD (see attached). In discussions with the manufacturer the additional flowrate measured comes from the colder air surrounding the stack rushing into the air inlet at the base of the stack. The stack was designed this way so that the effluent stream is cooled quickly thus requiring a smaller thinner walled iI stack. Destruction efficienCies measured exceeded 99% in the air samples collected and analyzed I exceeding the permit requirement of 95%. i HYdrocarbons Removed To Date Based on influent analytical concentrations and influent flow rates approximately 5,531 pounds ot: gasoline constituents have been removed as of May 18, 1998. Influent concentrations (non-. ~ I methane hydrocarbons), have fallen dramatically from 10,000 ppmV initially to 1,048 ppmV in I 'SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I" Quarter 1998 StatUs Report ' File Number 97-8132 · San Joaquin Roofing Co. . May 28, 1998 i 1501 E. 19a St.. Bakersfield. CA. ' Pa~e 3 the latest sample collected on May 18, 1998. The system has been periodically pulsed (shut- Idown) to ensure maximum hydrocarbon recovery as well as utilizing the outer vapor extraction wells as air-inlets. See Table 1 for vapor extraction performance data and Plate 3 for hydrocarbon influent and removal curves.· I SEI will continue to monitor TPH and BTEX concentrations in the influent and effluent streams on a monthly basis as required by the ATC. A catalytic module will be utilized once influent I concentrations are consistently below 1000 ppmV. If You have any questions or require additional information concerning this status report please I feel free to call me at (805)'831-5100. ' ! i Sincerely, · Soils Engineering, Inc. V - /" ~ · -~ No. 5076 Robert J. l~ecker, R.G. · , ' Environmental Division Manager l~k..~ I~[N 2 7-<~'~/X, · Encl.: Table 1 VES Data Sheet OJvCAI~:~~- Analytical Reports "- '~ ~'~ ~- -- Steiner Environmental Report I ! Table 1 VAPOR EXTRACTION PERFORMANCE DATA San,Joaquin Roofing 1501 E, 19th Street Bakersfield, California BoM Italic = Idb Analysis Data DATE Time Run Influent: LEL Intl. Intl. Stack Temp. deg F System Stack TPHg Time cum lbs total lbs lbs/day ppmv u~/cc % Hours "WE CFM SCFM [NLEq CAT. STAC Vacuum ugm_/cc ppmv lbs/hr "H20 18-Feb-98 1:30 14124.00 A 29 29 704 I0000 35.6 24.3 I 1.30 220 1502 28 23-Feb-98 11:00 14141.00 B 391 362 511 4526 16.1 11 17 1.30 220 1479 30 27-Feb-98 5:00 14174.00 C 785 394 287 3700 13.2 9 33 1.25 218 1471 28 2-Mar-98 11:15 14241.00 D 1425 640 229 3000 10.7 9 67 1.30 214 1475 29 4-Mar-98 1:30 14292.00 F 1795 370 174 2364 8.4 17 51 1.45 203 1485 50 0.0 0.01 0.00 20-Mar-98 11:15 14296.00 G 1821 26 153 2364 8.4 21 4 1.45 203! 804 1475 50 23-Mar-98 12;20 14369.00 I 2256 435 143 2000 7.1- 15.3 73 1.45 205 804 1475 50 1-Apr-98 1;00 14565.00 L 3310 1054 129 1900 6.8 14.1 196 1.65 207 804 1465 50 6-Apr-98 1:00 14684.00 M! 3912 602 121 1750 6.2 13.4 119 1.55 208 804 1444 . 50 Il-May-98 9:00 14779.00 N 4336 424 107 1500 5.3 15.9 95 1.65 206 804 1431 50 3(PID) 18-May-98 1:30 14952.00 O 4932 596 83 1048 3.7 7.8 173 1.75 203 804 1426 50 0.0 0.01 0.00 I BoM ltalic DATE 18-Feb-98 23-Feb-98 27-Feb-98 2-Mar-98 4-Mar-98 20-Mar-98 23-Mar-98 1-Apr-98 6-Apr-98 11-May-98 18-May-98 Table 1 (cont.) VAPOR EXTRACTION PERFORMANCE DATA Former Frank's Automotive 1501 W. Ocean Way Lompoc, California Bold Italic = Lab Analysis Data VEW-ID IVEW-1S 55.1 45.9 12893 0.3 990(PID) 990(PID) 980(PID) 1260 (PID) 1360(PID) 970(PID) Air 3.9 1105 .I Air Inlet 145(PID) Air Inlet COLLEGE I SAN ]OAQUIN ROOFING coMPANY PLATE i soilS ENGINEERING, INC. 150! EAST IgTH STREET 4700 District Blvd. BAKERSFIELD, CAL]:EOR.N[A 1 i Bakersfield, CA 93313 Location Map project Number: I I Business EAST 19TH STREET VEW-2 _(~_ ~< Gate ~ I' ~ Manifold ~~~~///~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1"Gas ........... · ..................... ~EW-~ ~ '"":'::':~:~:~:~'::.::~:.::~:..,., ~ ~ .................. ~' ................................. ~ ................................... '~ ~ v~w-4 2' PVC E~raction Piping In 2 feet deep trenches (See Plate 3 For More Detail) I[,- - . ~ ~" )._Gate Location 'Of Thermal Oxidizer (VES) VEW-3 1" Gas Line SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 DATE: 5-28-98 PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM LAYOUT Business Property SCALE 10 20 1 inch = 20 feet EXPLANATION VEW Single Zone VEW Dual Zone PLATE 2 Plate 3 TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EXTRACTED vs. TIME n- 3000 z 0 0 2000 0 IOO0 0 18-Feb-98 23-Feb-98 27-Feb-98 2-Mar-98 4-Mar-98 20-Mar-98 23-Mar-98 1-Apr-98 SAMPLE DATE 6-Apr-98 11-May-98 18-May-98 INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS vs. TIME 12OOO Z O Z '" 4000 Z 2OOO 0 18-Feb--98 23-Feb-98 27-Feb-98 2-Mar-98 4-Mar-98 20-Mar-98 23-Mar-98 1-Apr-98 SAMPLE DATE 6-Apr-98 · 11-May-98 18-May-98 I MAY--29--'98 1 0 ~ 1;2 AM ZALCO LABS INC 805 395 3069 p. 0! - ZALCCD L_ BCD AT© IES, I / Analytical ~ Consulting Servicos 4309 Armour Avenue . (8051 395~353'9 i'1 I · Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 9802221 I 4700 District Blvd. Date Received: 02/18,'98 ~ Bakersfield CA 93313 Date Reported: 02/19i98 Purchase Order: ,i.. · Attention: Bob Becker cc: Date Reprinted: 02/23/98 ;. Sample Descriptiom I INFL .q a~ample~ 2-18-98. Test Code: 1610 i GCI Chromatographic Analysis, ASTM D-[945-8 l, ASTM D-3588-89, GPA 2145-94 Constituent: Norm Mci% Norm Wt% GPM i Gallons/1000 Cu. GPM, . Oxygen 8.45 8.84 (C3....C3) = I Nitrogen 80.12 73.36 0.000 .. (c3....c4) = Carbon Dioxide 10.42 14.99 0.000 i Carbon Monoxide ~0.00 0.00 (C3....C5) = 0.013 Methane 0.00 0.00 (C3..., C6+) = I ~:" .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.431 MAY--29--98 10 : 1~ AM ZALCO LABS' INC 805 395 3869 P. 01 . ZALCO EB©RAT©NIES, 4309 Armour Avenue '(8051 395-0539 Bakersfield, Ca;ifornia 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 9802221-! 4700 District Blvd. Date Received: 02/18/98 Bakersfield CA 933.13 Date Reported: · 02/19/98 Purchase Order: Attention: Bob Becker cc: Date Reprinted: 02/23/98 Sample Description: INFL Sampled 2-18-98. Test Code: 1610 GC 1 Chromatographic Analysb, ASTM D-1945-81, ASTM D-3588-89, GPA 2145-94 Constituent: Norm Mol% Norm Wt% GPM Gallons/1000 Cu. GPM, Oxygen 8.45 8.84 (C3....C3) = Nitrogen 80.12 73.36 0.000 (C3....C4) = Carbon Dioxide 10.42 14.99 0.000 Carbon Monoxide 0.00 . 0.00' (C3....C5) = 0.013 Methane 0.06 0.00 (C3... ,C6+) = Ethane 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.431 Propane 0.00 0.00 0.00 lsoButane 0.00 0.00 0.00 n-Butane 0.00 0.00 0.00 IsoPentane 0.01 0 03 0.00 n-Pentane 0.02 0.06 0.01 Hexanes + 0.97 2.73 0.42 Totals: 100.00 100.00 0.43 Total Flarmnable Gases: '1.01 .82 2 Gas Properties calculated(~STP: degrees F. 60 I Measurement Base Pressure ~,STP: psia 14.696 Relative Gas Density; lAir=l] Ideal 1.0565 I 'Gross Gas 47.7 Specific lAir=l] 1.0566 Btu/Cu. Ft., Dry Gravity, Ideal Gross Btu/Lb. Dry Gas 590.6 Real Gas Density, Lb/Cu. Ft. 0.0807 Net Btu/Cu.Ft. Dry Gas 44.1 Specific Volume, Cu. Ft./Lb 12.3935 I Gas 546.9 Relative Liquid Density ~ 60F/60F 0.8268 Ideal Net Btu/Lb Dry Gross Btu/Cu. Ft., water saturated 46.8 Compressibility, 'z' 0.9993 - Molecular Weight of gas 30.60 i /Waboratory Operations Manager . " ZALCO L BO AT© IES, I '/ 4aOgArmourAvenue ) Baker$field, CaliforniaB3308 FAX(805]395-3069 I Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 9802221-1 4700 District Blvd Date Received: 02/18/98 ' i Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported: 02/23/98 Contract No. :. A~tention: Bob Becker Date Sampled : 02/18/95 Time Sampled : 14:30 I sample Gas/NGL T~e: Description: INFL I Sampled by ' ' oRG~IcS ~ALYTICAL RESULTS I Constituents Results Unic~ DLR Method/Ref I BTXE in Gas Benzene 250 pp~ 40 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 80.8 PP~ 5 8020 /1 I Toluene 906 pp~- 40 8020 /1 m and p-Xylenes 342 pp~ 40 8020 /1 o-Xylene 101 pp~ 40 8020 /1 I Date Analyzed; 02/19/98 ~ I herton, Lab Operations Manager ~c: ,' i I Method Re erence l, EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 3. Annual Book of A.S.T.M. Standards ug/L : mil~igrams per Liter (parts per billion] ug/~ : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) I 'NO : None Detected N/A : Noc Applicable DLR .: De~ecti0n Limit for Reporting ~urposes ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. 4309 Armour Ave. Bakersfield, California 93308 (805) 395~)539 Fax (805) 395-3069 Chain of Custody Record Project T'~le Ice Chest # , Temperature,DC Turnaround Time: O RUSH By: E3E~pedited (1 Week) O Routine (2 Weeks) · Page Zalco Lab # Field Log # Work Order # Results City, State, Zip ' I Rep°"A"enti°nT~ ~ D~ SamplelD8 i S~mpledDate Sampled~me s~TY~Kw BeI~ Legal Sample Description ' Containers~ Ty~* ~ ~ ~ ~ Remarks NOTE: Samples are discarded 3O days after results am reported unless other anangements are made. KEY: * G-Glass P-Plastic M-Metal T-Tedlar V-VOA Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at ctient*s expense. ** W-Water WW-Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid O-Other White- Office Copy Yellow - Lab Copy Pink - Client Copy *** A-Acid, pH<2 (HCI,HNO3,H~,SO4) S-NaOH+ZnAc C-Caustic, pH>10 (NaOH) .ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. ~'~ "~ Analytical ~ Consulting Services ~ ~ 4309 Armour Avenue' (8051 395-0539 ·~.,~. ~. Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (8051 395-3069 I Laboratory No= 9803068-2 Soils Engineering 4700 District Blvd Date Received: 03/04/98 Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported: 03/13/98 I Contract No. : Attention: Bob Becker Date Sampled : 03/04/98 Time Sampled : 15:12 i SamPle T~e: Gas/NGL Description: Stack Sampled by R. B~c~er I ORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS I Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref Stack Gas Compliance I Methane, .C1· < 1 PPMV 1 18 /27 Ethane, C2 < 1 PPMV 1 18 /27 Propane, C3 ' . <-i PPMV 1 18 /27 I Butane, C4 < 1 PPMV 1 18 /27 Pentane, C5 < 1 PPMV 1.0 18 /27 Hexanes, C6+ < 1 PPMV 1 18 /27 I 18 /27 Total Hydrocarbons, C1-C6+ < 1 PPMV 1 18 /27 Total non-Methane Hydrocarbon < 1 PPMV 1 18 /27 I ~/herton, Lab Operations Manager I Method Reference I 1 . EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 27. CFR 40:60.45 ug/L milligrams per Liter (parts per billion) ug/L micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable IDLR. : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes I This report is fumished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. ZALCO LABORATORIES, INO ~Z~Analytical~COnSulcingServioes'~ ~ . I 430@ Armour Avenue (805) 395-0539 ~ .......... .-~.,.~L~. Bakersfield, Cali~rnia 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 ! · Soils ~n~ineerin~ Laboratory No: 9803068-2 4700 Distr~ct B1vd ':' Date Rece±ved: 03/04/98 I Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported: 03/13/98 " Contract No. : Attention: Bob Becker Date Sampled : 03/04/98 I Time Sampled : 15:12 Sample T~e: Gas/NGL Description: Stack Sampled by R. Becker I ORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS I Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXE in Gas I Benzene ND PPMV 1.0 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene ND PPMV 1.0 8020 /1 Toluene -- 2.73 PPMV 1.0 8020 /1 'Ii !:. m and p-Xylenes 1.44 PPMV '1.0 8020 /1 o-Xylene ND PPMV 1.0 8020 /1 ! Jim Etherton, Lab Operations Manager Method Reference I 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 27. CFR 40:60.45 U~/L milligrams per Liter (parts per billion) u~/L micro,rams per Liter (parts per billion) ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable I DLR : Detection Limit for Reportin~ Purposes I This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. APR--06--98 10:54 AM ZALCO LABS INC 805. 395 3069 P. 02~04 ' ' ZALCO LABORATORIES, INE3. 4309 Armour Avenue [805) 395-0539 .~ ~ Bakersfield. California 93308 FAX (80~;) 395-3069 Soils Engineerin9 Laboratory No: 9803068-1 4700 District Blw] Dat;.e Received: 03/04/98 Date Reported: 04/06/98- Bakersfield, CA 93313 Conl~ract No. : Attention: Bob Becket Date Sampled : 03/04/98 Time Sampled : 14:10 Sample Ty~;e: Gas/NGL Descrip~.ion: Influent Sampled by R. Becket ORGANICS ANALYTICAl. R'~SULTS Cons t i tuent s Resu 1 t s Uni ~ s DLR Method/Ref Stack Gas Compliance Methane, C1 7.5 PPMV 1 18 /27 E~a~c, C2 ¢. 'l PFMV 1 18 /27 Propane, C3 ~ 1 PPMV 1 18 /27 Butane, C4 1.9 PPMV 1 18 /27 Pentane, C5 . 54.9 PPMV 1.0 18 ./27 ~{exanes, C6+ 2307.4 PPMV 1 18 /27 18 /27 Total Hydrocarbo(%~d, C1-C6+ 2371.'7 ppMv 1 18 /27 Total 2364.2 1 18 /27 non-Methane Hydrocarbon PPMV I /,~' .~Ec'herton, Lab ~ Operations Manager Me~hod Reference I. EPA Sw-0.1~, L994 3rd Edition i 2~. CFR ~0:~0.45 ug/L : milligrams pe~ bi,er {pa:%~ per billion) · ug/L : ,.icr.~rams pe:' LiLe~' (par~$ per billion%) ND : No~e Detected N/A ; NOt Applicable DLR : Detection Limit for Repot'Ling Purposes ! I ~ '~ ZALCO LABORATORIES .... , INC. ~ ~ Analytical & Consulting Services " 9 08 FAX (805) 395-3069 I Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 9803068-1 4700 District Blvd Date Received: 03/04/98. Bakersfield, 'CA 93313 Date Reported: 03/13/98 I No. : Contract Attention: Bob Becker Date Sampled : 03/04/98 . Time Sampled : 14:10 I Sample Type: Gas/NGL Description: Influent i Sampled by R. Becker ORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS · I Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref I BTXE in Gas Benzene 155 PPMV 10 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 111 PPMV 10 8020 /1 i Toluene 795 PPMV 10 8020 /i m and p-Xylenes 484 PPMV 10 8020 /1 o-Xylene 158 PPMV 10 8020 /1 /"Jim Eth~rton, Lab Operations Manager Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 27. CFR 40:60.45 ug/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per billion) ug/L : m[c'~'ograms per Liter (parts per billion)' ND : Non~ Detected N/A : Not Applicable DLR : Detection Limit for 'Reporting Purposes I This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. 4309 Armour Ave. Bakersfield. California 93308 (805) 395-0539 Fax (805) 395-3069 ' Ice Chest # Y ' of Turnaround Time: C1 Expedited (1 Week) , Temperature,~c. 0 Routine (2 Weeks) Zalco Lab # Field ~.og # Work Order # Company Name r_ -_ . , P.one# '~' S~ple Date ~me ' ID~ : . SamPJed 'Sampl~ ~'KW Bel~ , · ..... ~ ~. ~,~ ~', .Ty~t ~ ~ ~ ~ Rem~ks ~. ~"A~ ~;' . . . '.; . · . -,~. , · , ',~....~ '.~:, ' , .:. , :. .,?~ - .. NOTE: Samples are dlscarded 30 days after results are repo~ed unlesa other anangements am made. KEY: * G-Glass P-Plastic M-Metal T-Tedlar V-VOA Hazardous samples will be returned to client o~ disposed of at client's expense. ** W-Water WW-Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid O-Other White - Office Copy Yellow - Lab Copy Pink - Client Copy *~ A-Acid, pH<2 (HCI,HNO3,H2SO4) S-NaOH+ZnAc C-Caustic, pH>10 (NaOH) "~'~i ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC Analytical & Consulting Services I ~Y ~&~;~_ 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395-O539 ~ ........... ~.~__~, Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX {805) 395-3069 I Soils Engineering . ' Laboratory No: 9805226-1 4700 District Blvd. Date Received: 05/18/98 I Bakersfield CA 93313 Date Reported: 05/20/98 PO Number: Attention: Bob Decker 0 I ' Date Printed: 05/21/98 Volatile Organic Cornpounds (VOC) by Gas Chromatography: Test Code: 1645 I References: ASTM E-260-73, Practice for Chromatography; (GC) Packed-column ASTM D-1945-'81, Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by GC -- ASTM D-3588-89, Method for Calculating (Btu and Gravity) of ...Fuels I SBCAPCD Rule 331 SJVUAPCD Rule 4403 KCAPCD Rule 1173 MDAQMD Rule 1102 TOG: Total Organic Gas (Hydrogen/Carbon Compounds) I ROC: Reactive Organic Compounds (TOG - Exempt Compounds) Component Mol% ppm vol. TOG, ppmv ROC, ppmv. ROC, ppmv. I (less) (less +C2) Cl Cl Oxygen 0.00 0.0 Nitrogen 0.00 0.0 I - Air (02 + N2) 0.00' 0.0 Hydrogen 0.00 0.0 Helium 0.00 0.0 I Carbon Dioxide 0.00 0.0 (H2S *) 0.00 0.0 Methane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 ~ Ethane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Propane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 IsoButane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 I N-Butane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 IsoPentane · 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 N-Pentane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 I Hexanes+ 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Totals · '1 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0I I Description lab no: 9805226-1 S JR Project: STACK-2 I Sample Notes: Sampled 5-18-98 13:40 hrs. LCCoratory Operations Manager · "This report is fumished for the exdusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples ~ed. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. I ~ ~ ZAECO LABORATORIES, INC. ~_ ~ Analytical & Consulting Services I ~,~..~' 4309 Armour Avenue - . . ~ '-~ Bakersfield, Cali~rnia 93308 (805) 395-0539 ~ ................... ~ FAX (805) 395-3069 I Soils Engineering ' ' Laboratory No: 9805226-1 4700 District Blvd Date Received: 05/18/98 Bakersfield, CA 93313 ' Date Reported: 05/22/98 I . '. . Contract No. : Attention:' Bob Becker Date Sampled :' '05/18/98 . ' ' Time Sampled : 13:40 i Sample T~e:' Gas/NGL DeScription: Stack-2 ' Sampled by B. Becker I · ORG~ICS ~ALYTICAL RESULTS I Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXE in Gas ' I Benzene ~ - PP~ 1.0 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene ~ PP~ 1.0 8020 /1 Toluen~ ND PP~ 1.0 8020 /1 I m and. p-Xylenes ~ PP~ 1.0 8020 /1 o-Xylene ' ~ PP~ 1.0 8020 /1 I ! I I , Date Analyzed:' 05/20/98 //m Etherton, Lab Operations Manager Method Reference I1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 27. CFR 40:60.45 ug/L : milligramsper Liter (parts per billion) ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable IDLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to Ihe samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. '1 ' ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC ~.~..,~,~*~ ~i Analytical & ConSulting Services ~~:~' 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395-0539 .. ............... ......... ;; Bakersfield, California 93308 . FAX (805) 395-3069 Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 9805226-2 4700 District Blvd. Date Received: 05/18/98 I Bakersfield CA 93313 Date Reported: 05/20/98 PO Number: Attention: Bob Becker -' 0 .I~ Date Printed: 05/21/98 -Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) by Gas Chromatography:· Test Code: 1645 I References: ASTM E-260-73, Practice for Packed-column Chromatography; (GC) ASTM D-1945-81, Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by GC ASTM D-3588-89, Method for Calculating (Btu and Gravity) of ...Fuels I SBCAPCD Rule 331 SJVUAPCD Rule 4403 KCAPCD Rule 1173 MDAQMD Rule 1102 . · TOG: Total Organic Gas (Hydrogen/Carbon Compounds) ROC: Reactive Organic Compounds (TOG - Exempt Compounds) i Component Mol% ppm vol. TOG, ppmv ROC, ppmv. ROC, ppmv. (less C1) (less C1+C2) Oxygen 0.00 0.0 i Nitrogen 0.00 0.0 Air (02 + N2) · 0.00 '0.0 Hydrogen 0.00 0.0 i Helium 0.00 0.0 - ' Carbon DiOxide 0.00 0.0 (H2S'*) 0.00 0.0 Methane 0.07 691.9 691.9 I Ethane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Propane 0.00 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 IsoButane - 0.00 < 0.5 < 0~'5 < 0.5 < 0.5 I N-Butane 0.00. < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 IsoPentane 0.00 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 N-Pentane 0.00 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 I . Hexanes+ 0.10 1037.7 1037.7 1037.7 1037.7 ~ Totals· I 0.17 [ 1739.8 1739.8[ 1047.8] 1047.8 Description lab no: 9805226-2 S JR Project: INFL-2 Sample Notes: Sampled 5-18-98 13:45 hrs. Labora~o. ry Operations Manager This report is fumished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. 'ZALCO LABORATORIES INC ~ ~ Analytical ~ C;onsuIting Services I ~ ~~ 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395-0539 ~ ........................ ~ Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 I S oils Engineering Laboratory No: 9805226-2 4700 District Blvd ·Date Received: 05/18/98 Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported: 05/22/98 IContract No. : Attention: Bob Becker Date Sampled : 05/18/98 Time Sampled : 13:45 Sample Type: Gas/NGL Description: infl-2 Sampled by B. Becker I ORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS iConstituents Results Units 'DLR 'Method/Ref BTXE in Gas ! Benzene 39.2 PPMV 1.0 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 64.8 PPMV 20 8020 /1 Toluene 267 PPMV 20 8020 /1 Im and p-Xylenes 294 PPMV. 20 8020 /1 o-Xylene 98.8 PPMV 20 8020 /1 ! ! IDate /mal¥~ed: 05/20/98 Lab'Operat±ons ~ana~er I. I Method Reference I1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 27. CFR 40:60.45 ug/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per billion) ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable IDLR : Detectfon Limit for Reporting Purposes I This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for repo~ alteration or detachment. 4309' Armour Ave'. Bakersfield. California 93308 (805) 395-0539 ~ Chain of Custody Record TurnarOund Time: [] RUSH By: ~ Expedited (1 Week) Page / Zalco Lab # Field Log # W of / 'i Fax (805) 395-3069 ,' Temperature,~C [] Routine (2 Weeks) Work Order #__~ ~__ -------------- Results Address Sample Date ~me Type~ . mOO ID~ Sampled Sampled ~ KW Bel~ Leg~ Sample Description Confiners ~ Ty~* ~ & ~ ~ Rem~ks NOTE: Sarnptes are diecarded 30 days a~t~"results are reported unless other arrangements are made. Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client's expense, KEY.' * G-Glass P-Plastic M-Metal T-Tedlar V-VOA ' ** W-Water WW-Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid O-Other White- Office Copy Yellow - Lab Copy Pink - Client Copy *** A-Acid, pH<2 (HCI,HNQ,,H~SO,) ,S-NaOH+ZnAc ~-~,~ st c, pH-, lr~ tNanH~ I Steiner Environmental, Inc. I Soils Engineering, Inc. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 Attention: Mr. Bob Becker Reference: Stack Gas Flowrate Measurements on a ThcnnaI Oxidizer at San $oaquin Roofing March 20, 1998, Report PS-98-3973L On March 20, 1998 Steiner Environmental, Inc. conducted, duplicate 30-minute EPA Method 2/4 tests on the effluent of the thermal oxidizer at San Joaquin Roofing tO measure flowrate and moisture. Attached is a summary of the results along with our raw test data and the plant operatir~ conditions during the test: If you have any questions on these data, please contact me at your collvenienc~. I Yours rally, I IS:sp Attachments ! 4930 Etovlan Street OCT 05 ,97 16:44 STEINER ENUIRONMENTAL INC. TO: 805 831 2111 PO1 ! FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: Bob Becket Fax 831-2111 i FROM: Sue Powers Fax (805).334-1440 DATE: March 30, 1998 I SUBIECT: San Joaquin P. oofmg Flow Test Data I am faxin~ lira Steiner's letter and data summary table. The report with all attachments is 13 pa~es. Let me know if you want it all faxed. This will 8o ou~ in ~oday's mail. I I I ! I I I I I I I 4930 Boyl~ ~met Bakersfield, Cali~mia 93308 (805) 334-1102 FAX (80~ 334-1440 A. FIELD DATA SUMMARY PLANT : soILS ENGINEERING THERMAL OXIDIZER DATE : MAR 20,1998 RUN RUN 1 2 Vlc -- Vol water collected in train, ml 21.9 22.8 Vm ~ Sample gas vol, meter cond., dacf 31.788 31.496 ¥ = Meter calibration factor 0.9930 0.9930 Pbar = Barometric pre~sure,'in. Hg 29.65 29.65 Pstatic = Stack static pressure, in. H20 -0.05 -0.04 dH -- Avg meter pressure diff, in. M20 3.00 3.00 Tm ~ Absolute meter temp., degrees R ' 538.2 540.4 %ha(etd) ~ Sample gas vol, Std. cond., dscf 30.449 30.044 Bws = Water vapor in gas stream, fraction 0.032 0.034 MF ~ Moisture factor ( i - Bws) 0.968 0.966 CO2 = Carbon Dioxide, dry, volume % 1.73 1.80 02 = Oxygen, dry, volume % 18.18 18.03 N2 -- Nitrogen, dry volume % 80.09 80.17 Md ~ Molecular weight of stack gas, dry 29.00 29.01 Ms ~ Molecular weight of stack gee,. wet 28.65 28.64 Cp ~ Pitot tube coefficient 0.84 0.84 Sq. Rt. dP = Avg. square root of each dP 0.1740 0;1670 Ts = Absolute stack temp., degrees R 933.0 980'.9 A -- Area of' stack, ft2 2.05 2.05 Qstd ~ Volumetric flowrate, dscfm 860 804 0 ~ Sample time, minutes 30.00 30.00 r! Steiner Environmental, Inc. PLANT Date ~" ~-20.~ . Barometric Pressure Test Location Tk¢¢~o Static in.wg. Run Number I Probe Type/Length Stack Diameter 1~.3~ PiLot Coefficient Operator Filter No. q, Heter Box No./? Nozzle No./Size lEST TYPE J'~ '2.*/'~ FIELD TEST DATA SHEET CPage / 'of INPi Nr-cR VOLUI, IES,/~ ! GHTS GAS COMP~! TIOId Contents IFinat Ilnitiat I Net Time Ico. lo. lco wi?- ~s-o.z W'/q.d~ o, ~ Leakrate cfm "Hg TOTAL 2l.~ Final. TEMPERATURE Pump Sample aP AH Gas Meter Gas Meter Vacuum Point Time in wg in wg Volume Ft3 Stack Probe Oven Imp. tn. Hg ~rAP Comments · In Out z ~ q ~q.s3q / r Steiner Environmental, Inc. PLANT Date Test Location 'rl~,~o~kha&tatic in.wg. Run Number ~- Probe Type/Length Stack Diameter Iq.3~s~Pitot Coefficient Operator J~ Meter Box No./y Filter No. (~ t o, ,", l<.., Nozzle No./Size Barometric Pressure FIELD TEST DATA SHEET (Page INPINGER VOLUI~S~IGHTS GAS C04POSITION I Contents I Final I lnttist J Net Time 15~ s--f,~..'z.~'z..z~.-sl.Ol ~l ~1,~ ~q. 3 I.R- teakrate cfm "Hg S.G. ~l.j.~,~j~ '~,3 ~o~ Initial TOTAL ,~.~ Final ~.~01 ' TEHPERATURE OF Pump Heter sample AP AH Gas Meter Vacuum Point Time in wg in wg Volume Ft3 Stack Probe Oven Imp. tn. Hg JaP Comments In Out '1 SOURCE TEST CALCULATIONS METHOD 2 - 4 PLANT : SOILS ENGINEERING RUN NO.: 1 THERMAL OXIDIZER DATE : MAR 20,1998 STANDARD TEMP.: 60 DEG. F METER TEMP. = 78.17 DEG. F STATIC PRESS.=. -0.05 in. H20 STACK TEMP. = 473.00 DEG. F Cp = 0.840 SQ.RT. dP = 0.1740 in. H20 STACK I.D. = 19.38 inch METER ORIFICE = 3.00 in. H20 DUCT LENGTH = inch METER VOLUME = 31.788 Cu. Ft. DUCT WIDTH = inch METER Y = 0.9930 STACK AREA = 2.047 .Sq. Ft. BAR. PRESSURE = 29.65 in.Hg TEST TIME = 30.00 min. COND.(Vlc)' = 21.9 ml GAS ANALYSIS = 18.18 % 02 0.00 % CO 1.73 % CO2 80.09 % N2 Vm(std) = [ T(std) + 460 / 29.92 ] x Vm x Y x (Pb + (dH / 13.6)) / (Tm + 460) ...... = 30.449 dscf Vw(std) =(8.9148 x 10e-5) x (Tstd + 460) x Vic = 1.015 scf Bws = Vw(std) / (Vm(std) + Vw(std)) ............ = 0.032 Lower Bws Bws @ Saturated Conditions = Vapor Press. of H20 value @ Dew Point Temp. / (Ps, in.Hg.) ...i .......... = 1.000 used. %EA =(%02 - 0.5%CO)/(0.264%N2 -~ (%O2-0.5%CO)) x 100 = 613.41 Md =(.44 x %CO2)+(.32 x %02)+[.28 x (%N2 + %CO)] = 29.00 Ms = (Md x (1-Bws)) + (18.0 x. Bws) ............. = 28.65 = 29.65 in. Hg' P(stack) = Pbar + [Pstatic / 13.6] ............ vs = 85.49 x CP x (Sq. Rt.dP) x [Sq. Rt.(Ts + 460) / (Ms x Ps)] ............................. = 13.10 ft/sec . Qs = vs x As x 60 ....................... ? ..... = 1,609 acf/min Qs(std) = Qs x (1-Bws)x((Tstd + 460)/(Ts + 460)) x (Ps/29.92) ........................ = 860 dscf/min SOURCE TEST CALCULATIONS METHOD 2 - 4 PLANT : SOILS ENGINEERING NO.: 2 THERMAL OXIDIZER DATE : MAR 20,1998 STANDARD TEMP.: 60 DEG. F METER TEMP. = 80.43 DEG. F STATIC PRESS.= -0.04 in. H20 'STACK TEMP. = 520.94 DEG. F Cp = 0.840 SQ.RT. dP '= 0.1670 in. H20 STACK I.D. = 19.38 inch METER ORIFICE = 3.00 in. H20 DUCT LENGTH = inch METER VOLUME = 31.496 Cu. Ft. DUCT WIDTH = inch METER Y = 0.9930 STACK AREA = 2.047 Sq. Ft. BAR. PRESSURE = 29.65 in. Hg TEST TIME = 30.00 min. COND.(Vlc) = 22.8 ml GAS ANALYSIS : 18.03 % 02 0.00 % CO 1.80 % CO2 80.17 % N2 Vm(std) = [ T(std) + 460 / 29.92 ] x Vm x Y x (Pb + (dH / 13.6)) / (Tm + 460)...-..'. = 30.044 dscf Vw(std) =(8.9148 x 10e-5) x (Tstd + 460) x Vic = 1.057 scf Bws = Vw(std). / (Vm(std) + Vw(std)) ........... ~ = 0.034 Lower Bws Bws @ Saturated Conditions = Vapor Press. of H20 value @ Dew Point Temp. / (Ps, in.Hg.) .............. = 1.000 used. %EA =(%02 - 0.5%CO)/(0.264%N2- (%O2-0.5%CO))'x 100 = 575.14 Md =(.44 x %CO2)+(.32 x %02)+[.28 x (%N2 + %CO)] = 29.01 Ms = (Md x (1-Bws)) + (18.0 x Bws) ............. = 28.64 P(stack) = Pbar + [Pstatic / 13.6] ............ = 29.65 in. Hg vs = 85.49 x CP x (Sq. Rt.dP) x [Sq.Rt.(Ts + 460) / (Ms x Ps)] ............................. = 12.89 ft/sec Qs = vs x As x 60 ............................. = 1,584 acf/min Qs(std) = Qs x (1-Bws)x((Tstd + 460)/(Ts + 460)) x (Ps/29.92) ........................ = 804 dscf/min I APPENDIX B PLANT OPERATING DATA I I ".:~ , .: ..... ~.. I ! SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. i 4700 District Blvd.] Bakersfield, CA 9331:3 i Fax.Cover Sheet DATE: March 23, 1998 TIME: 5:00 I TO: Steiner Environmental PHONE: I . FAX: 334-1440 FROM: Bob Becker PHONE: (805) 831-5100 I FAX: (805) 831-2111 I RE: Flow Rates & Temperatures SAN JOAQQUIN ROOFING TEST I CC: I Number. of pages Including cOver sheet: [1] Message I ' Here are readings recorded during the flow testing at San Joaquin'Roofing Co.' on Friday which you may need. I Flow Rate From Wells = 205 SCFM Temperature At Lower Stack = 1475 de~ees F I LEL% = 21.0 Natural Gas Consumption Avg, = 2800 cubic ft./Hr, through 1" pipe @ 10" I I Please call SEI if you have any questions at (805) 831-5100. ! i SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. VAPOR EXTRACTION TEST REPORT . REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN San Joaquin Roofing 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, CA. · File No. 97-8132 ' Prepared By: ~ ;/ // ' Robert J. ~Becker, R.G. 5076 Soils Engineering, Inc. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA. 93313 May 9, 1997 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. ° BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA93313 · PHONE(805) 831-5100 ° FAX:(805) 831-2111 I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I VAPOR EXTRACTION TEST REPORT I REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN 'l San Joaquin Roofing 1501 East 19th Street I Bakersfield, California 1.0 INTRODUCTION Soils Engineering, Inc. (SEI) has prepared this Vapor Extraction Test Report and Remedial Action Plan (RAP).following the performance of a vapor extraction test for San Joaquin Roofing located at 1501 East 19th Street, Bakersfield, California (site). See Plate 1 for location map. This report is based upon pilot vapor extraction test data obtained from vapor wells VEW-1A & VEW-lB on April 17, 1997. Included in this report is an evaluation of well flow characteristics, and suggested types of air-abatement equipment for soil remediation. I 2.0 VAPOR EXTRACTION.WELL INSTALLATION & PILOT TEST IOn April 2 and 3, 1997, five (5) vapor extraction wells (VEW) were installed at the site in accordance with the approved Vapor Extraction Test Workplan dated February 14, 1997. The main vapor extraction well (VEW-1A & B) was constructed of two (2) nested two-inch PVC casings slotted across · a shallow (lB) and deeper interval (lA) separated by a bentonite seal.' The vapor extraction wells designated VEW-2 through VEW-5 were constructed as single completion wells to be used as inlet or I extraction wells. This configuration will provide the most flexibility for adjusting vapor flow paths during the extraction phase of the project and provide maximum vacuum to the less permeable intervals. I Soil samples were collected from VEW-2 and to assess hydrocarbon VEW-5 concentrations in these locations. The 20 foot soil sample from VEW-2 had 1800 parts per million (ppm) TPHg reported, . Idecreasing to 3 ppm TPHg at 40 feet. Analytical results of selected soil samples from VEW-5 indicated only trace toluene at 40 feet. See Boring Logs, Appendix A and analytical results Appendix B for more I detail. See Plate 2 for Plot Plan with well locations. I I 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. ° BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA93313 ° PHONE(805) 831-5100 ° FAX:(805) 831-2111 I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. ,! ~ I On April 17, 1997, SEI performed a vapor extraction pilot test utilizing a 127 cfm blower connected to three (3) 200 pound carbon drums (in series) which were connected to the outlet of the blower. The i, I · vapor extraction piping' included provisions for fresh-air intake and instrumentation for monitoring , airflow rates, vacuum levels, temperature and hYdrocarbon concentrations. I During the test, vacuum was first applied to well VEW-IA (deeper) and then the shallow nested well (VEW-IB), while the neighboring wells (VEW-2 through VEW-5) were fitted with a I vacuum manometer gauge to provide information On the radius of influence of the extraction system. An increasing vacuum and extraction rate was applied to VEW-IA for a total of 80 ' I minutes. Vapor samples were collected from'the well at the start and end of the test. Then the ~ shallower well VEW-1B was' tested in a similar fashion. An effluent air sample was also collected for analysis t¥om the stack. Presented on Table 1-are the flow, vacuum, and hydrocarbon concentrations measured from each well. A copy of the laboratory analysis is enclosed. I TABLE 1 Vapor Extraction Test Data Samples Hg' Inlet Pressure Drop Influ/Effi B/TPH Test Well .Time Well Flow CFM VEW-2 VEW-3 VEW4 VEW-5 PID ppm VEW-IA 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Deep Well 5 2 0.30 47.96 0.40 0.15 0.30 0.30 10 2 0.30 47.96 0.40 0.15 0.30 0.30 250/0 25 2.5. 0245 58.86 0.50 0.2 0.30 0.35 VEW-iA-1 1926/28,290 40 2.5 0.45 58.86 0.50 0.2 0.3 0.35 60 3~0 0.53 65.40 - 0.50 0.20 0.3 0.35 200/0 80 3.0 ' 0.53 65.40 0.50 0.25 0.30 0.35 VEW-1A-2 1658/28,840 Hg Inlet Pressure Drop Influ/Efflu B/TPH Test Well Time Well Flow CFM VEW-2 VEW-3 VEW-4 VEW-5 PID ' ppm "W.C. VEW-1B 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shallow 5 1.5 0.35 51.27 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.40 Well 10 1.5 0.35 51.27 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.40 200/0 25 2 0.50 62.17 0.50 0.30 0.40 0.50 VEW-IB-I 1910/16,280 40 2 0.50 62.17 0.50 0.30 0.40 0.50 EFF ND/22.6 55 2.5 0.54 67.63 0.55 0.30 0.30 0.50 70 2,5 ' 0.55 67.63 0.55 0.30 0.30 0.50 VEW-IB-2 1848/17,100 I ~sjr/8132/sjvetrap 2 I . I' I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I 2.1 Flow Characteristics As the flow from the extraction well was increased, the corresponding vacuum also increased. A plot has been developed comparing flowrate vs. vacuum (see Chart 1). As can be seen in Chart 1, a projection of the linear curve shows that the extraction wells are capable of extracting vapors at a combined rate of over 200 CFM. Each shallow well is projected to extract over 100 CFM with a corresponding vacuum of apprOximately 55 inches of water column (w.c.). The deeper wells showed slightly lower flow rates at corresponding vacuums. This flowrate versus vacuum chart indicates that the predominantly sandy soils described during the well installation have sufficient Permeability to airflow. The deeper wells have a lower permeability to flow, however, the projected rates for all of the wells show that vapor extraction is a viable method for reinediating the soil at this location. 2.2 Vapor Concentrations .. Well-head vapor samples collected during the pilot test contained non-methane Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ranging from 16,280 ppm (VEW-1B) to 28,840 ppm(VEW-1A). At a flowrate of 200 cfm, these concentrations result in a projected start-up hydrocarbon removal rate of 1,024 lbs/day. These results also indicate that sufficient amounts of gasoline hydrocarbons can initially be removed by vapor extraction.. Long-term hydrocarbon removal rates will be significantly less, since vapor concentrations typically decrease exponentially with time.. From the data collected during the test, it is apparent that vapor extraction can be an effective method for the removal of subsurface hydrocarbons (see Laboratory Analyses Appendix A). 2.3 Estimate of Hydrocarbons in the Soil Using available soil boring data, SEI estimated the quantity of gasoline hydrocarbons in the subsurface soils. This rough, order of magnitude calculation will be used to select an appropriate design flowrate and attempt to estimate remediation time. Based upon the soil boring data, roughly 11,000 to 15,000 pounds of gasoline hydrocarbons are estimated to exist below the former UST location. These values were calculated solely for the purpose of selecting design flowrates and obtaining rough estimates of remediation time. 1 - - sir/8132/sjvetrap 3 .I I SOILS ENGINEERI'NG, INC. I 2.4 Design Flowrates / Estimated Remediation Time iBased upon the data collected from the plume assessment and vapor extraction pilot test, several conclusions can be made as to the most appropriate vapor abatement equipment for this project. · For design purposes, both remediation time and design flowrate were estimated Using generalized model predictions presented in the reference "A Practical Approach to the Design, Operation, and Monitoring of In-situ Soil Venting Systems", Shell Development Company. I By comparing the initial vapor concentrations from the pilot test to the saturation vapor I concentration of weathered liquid gasoline, a type of vapor efficiency was estimated. The-Shell Development reference suggests that in soils which contain over 500 mg/kg TPHg, the gasoline generally exists as a free liquid. Thus, in this scenario, the equilibrium vapor concentration over I the soils should be constant, independent of concentrations (but not composition). The equilibrium vapor concentration above weathered gasoline is estimated at 220,000 gg/liter I [Reference- Shell Development]. I By comparing initial vapor samples collected from the pilot test, an airflow efficiency was estimated. The vapor samples collected from VEW-1A & lB indicate that the wells have an air flow efficiency of approximately 45% and 29%, respectively. Using a target clean-up level of I 1000 mg/kg TPHg, soil concentrations may have to be reduced by up to 98%. The generalized model predicts that an estimated 100 liters of air per gram of gasoline may by required to I remove all of the volatile hydrocarbons. The design air flowrate was estimated as follows: Minimum Theoretical Airflow Over Project Lifetime: [100 liters ak/gm gasoline] x [12,500 lbs gasoline] x [454 gm/lbs] x [1 ft3/28.33 liters] = 20,003,200 ft3 air I Minimum Theoretical Flowrate for 6 Month Remediation: I 20,032,000 ft3 air = 77 cfm (6 months) x (43,200 min./month) I The design air flowrate should be larger since a portion of the air-stream will not flow directly over the contaminated soil zones. Since the average air flow efficiency for the wells is approximately 40%, .the theoretical 77 cfm flowrate should increase to a minimum of 192 SCFM. The selected equipment I should be able to extract vapors at a minimum, of 192 cfm with a vacuum of approximately 50 inches of water column (four inches Hg). I i sir/8132/sjvetrap 4 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.' 3.0 CONCLUSIONS 3.1 Abatement Equipment Considering the results of the vapor extraction test, air abatement equipment will be required to meet the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District permit requirements. Relatively high concentrations of total hydrocarbons were generated from the wells tested. Using average concentration values and the recommended minimum design flowrate Of 192 CFM, hydrocarbon extraction rates could be large at start-up: Potential Hydrocarbon Extraction Rates at Start-up [without abatement device]' 192 ft3-/minute x [1.440 minutes/day] x [28.33 liters/ft3] x 58.72 gg TPHg/liter = 1,013 lbs/day TPHg [454,000,000 gg/lb] 3.2 Radius of Influence On Plate 3 & 4, the estimated radius of influence is shown for wells VEW-1A and VEW-iB at extraction rates of 65 to 67 SCFM at 3" and 2.5" of Hg, respectively. The effective radius of influence is defined as the radial distance from a vapor extraction well within which recorded vacuum levels indicate that subsurface air flow rates are sufficient for remediation. Significant pressure drops were measured at each outlying well up to 30 feet from the test well. At a higher flow and vacuum, the associated radius of influence would be greater. Based on the four points of data obtained from VEW-2 to VEW-5 the radius of influence was calculated to be over 30 feet. As seen on Plates 3 & 4, the estimated TPH plume limit is well within the minimum radius of influence of 2.5" 67 cfm and 3.0" of at 65 cfm. provided by a vacuum Hg at Hg I 4.0 REMEDIATION SYSTEM DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION IAs shown in the Pilot Test Conclusions, a blower capable of extracting 200 cfm of air at a pressure drop of 5" Hg will be more than adequate for the cleanup of the subsurface volatile hydrocarbons. Due to the large quantity of hydrocarbons estimated in place below ground, SEI I recommends the use of a minimum 200 cfm positive displacement blower for the extraction of the volatile hydrocarbons. Extracted emissions should be abated using a thermal oxidizer and Ithen converted to a catalytic oxidizer or utilize Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) when concentrations are reduced significantly, if determined to be more cost effective. The thermal I s jr/8132/sjvetrap 5 I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I oxidizer and catalytic oxidizer will be used to destroy the hydrocarbons Once they are extracted , -- whereas the GAC system will adsorb the hydrocarbons. ' 4.1 Proposed Equipment I Based on the results of the Vapor Extraction Pilot Test; .it appears that a thermal oxidizer will be the most cost effective extraction system for at' least the first 3 months of extraction. Below is a I list of the major components required for the p.roposed vapor extraction system (VES). ~ I · OneThermal Oxidation System which includes: · Waterknock out pot · Automatic air dilution ' I · Combustion burner · Control panel · Air proving switch I · High/Low gas pressure switch · High temperature limit controller · FM approved flame safety device I · LELcombustibles sensor and controller · Flame arrestor · FM approved supplemental fuel train I · Oxygen sensor and dilution valve - · Temperature controller alarm card I · Pitot tube and magnehelic flow indicators · Vacuum indicator · Piping and manifold '1 4.2 System Construction I TWo inch PVC piping will be installed below ground to each of the 5 extraction wells. The piping will be manifolded together with a magnehelic gauges positiOned to record influent flow I from the wells. The manifold will be built to enable the wells to be either extraction or"inlet wells as needed throughout the remediation project. The manifold will be connected to the I water knockout on the thermal oxidizer before the blower. Natural gas will be connected to the oxidizer as a supplemental fuel source. Electric power will be connected to the unit as well. s jr/813 2/sjvetrap 6 i SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. ! The thermal oxidizer will be enclosed in a fenced compound for. security. Permits will be obtained from the local Building Department, and San Joaquin 'Valley Unified Ak Pollution I Control District See Plates 5 & 6 for the VES (SJVUAPCD). proposed location, piping layout, and Vapor ExtraCtion System schematic, I 4.3 System Operation I During normal operation, the extraction bloWer will process the vapor stream through the combustion burner and out of the stack. An' LEL and oxygen sensor will monitor the vapor I stream and add dilution air, if required, to maintain a safe influent concentration. Supplemental natural gas or propane will be used to maintain the proper combustion temperature. Combustion I temperatures will be monitored automatically. The system will be .designed.to operate continuously 24 hours per day. The remediation system will be monitored per the authority to I '1 operate permit. · I 4.4 Samplin~ Plan i Influent and effluent air samples will be collected as required by the SJVUAPCD permit guidelines. Typically, samples will be collected every day for the first week and weekly for the first month and bi-monthly thereafter. Air samples will also be collected from the influent and ' I effluent stream along with periodically from each extraction well. Samples will be collected in I one liter Tedlar bags and analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (as hexane) at a State certified analytical laboratOry. PID r~adings will also be used to monitor influent, effluent and I well concentrations. I 4.5 Remediation Completion Verification Based on the influent vapor concentrations from the extraction wells, a determination will be made whether to collect soil samples to verify cleanup of the soil. Depending on the projected influent decline curve, a decision will be'made when influen[~.~centrations are less than 0.50 gg/cc (140 ppmv). At that time, a-Work' Plan will be submitted to the BakerSfield Fire Department Office of Environmental Services (BFDES) for approval. The plan will most likely propose the drilling of two to three soil borings in the former plume location. Samples will be retrieved from several selected intervals for analysis. If the soil sample concentrations are all · -- SOILS ENGINEERING; INc. below the-minimum, cleanup levels, closure of the site will be recommended. If soil concentrations are fOund to be above the cleanup levels, a Risk Assessment may be proposed to I determine if continued remediation is needed. 4.6 Work Phases Schedule An AuthOrity to Construct (ATC) permit application will be submitted to the SJVUAPCD. i After receiving the ATC permit, all applicable building and fire permits will be obtained. Construction of the system will then be initiated. Construction of the system is expected to take Ione to two weeks. Upon approval of all inspections, full operation of the system will begin. When influent vapor concentrations indicate that remediation is complete, a work plan will be · submitted' to the BFDES for the drilling of confirmation borings. After completion of the I confirmation boring and sampling phase, a report will be submitted recommending closure of the site or continued operation of the system. When site closure is approved, the equipment will I be removed and the wells abandoned in a method approved by the BFDES. I 5.0 LIMITATIONS I This report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted standards of environmental geological .practice in California at the time it was prepared. The investigations were conducted solely for the purpose of evaluating environmental conditions 'of the soil and groundwater with I respect to hydrocarbon product. No soil engineering or geotechnical references are implied or should be inferred. Evaluation of the geologic conditions at the site for the purpose of these I investigations is made from a limited number of.observation points. Subsurface conditions may vary away from the data points available. Additional work, including further subsurface I investigation, can reduce the inherent uncertainties associated with these types of investigations. i6.0 REFERENCES "A Practical Approach to the Design, Operation, and Monitoring of In Situ Soil-Venting ISystems", P.C. Johnson, et al., Spring 1990, Ground Water Monitoring Review. I s jr/8132/sjvetrap 8 I z I I _q..~;,/...~ ~ =1 /18TH S[I ~ ~ s~ ST ['r ,~ .... ~[ CENTER I aC [ I~ ,..... ~ ~" "' ~:':.'.' ~r.~ ,,~v~,~ ~ ~ ~/ ":~ "~ ~ ~i ....'..... ~ · ~,~,~....:...........f,...,..~ ....... ~.,,,, ,T~' ?~--~'~':"::~''''':'': r :': '''~''' v'~''''~ ,,AY ~ ' -~'P'~ ~ ~ < ..... ~1 I ~- ~CuSsrD ~ ~ t~ ~ z ~ ~ > ~ . l ~~_ ~d~. ~*~~ .... ~-~-~ ...... +-~* =~ .... I L BELLE T~R~E' BELL~o_ }= ', al TER ~ ...... ~ ' ! - " }~,_;:t,,i~ I I SAN JOAQU]N ROOFING COMPANY PLATE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. lsol lAST 19~ ST~EX I "4700 District Blvd. BAKEP. SFmLD, 1 Bakersfield, CA 98813 Location Map I Project Number: I EAST 19TH STREET VEW-2 Gate B-3 VEW-4 VEW-3 _~ ~4Former Underground Storage Tank Former Dispenser SCALE 1 inch = 20 feet EXPLANATION Boring Location and Number VEW Single Zone VEW Dual Zone SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 DATE: 2-13-97 PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA PLOT PLAN w/VAPOR EXTRACTION WELLS PLATE '2 '-l' / I I I I / VEW-2 0.5' EAST 19TH STREET 0.25" Approximate Pressure drop of 0.25" @ 3" Hg Vacuum MINIMUM RADIUS OF INFLUENCE is 30' @ 3" Hg, 65 SCFM VEW-3 Former Underground Storage Tank 0.25" Former Dispenser / VEW-5 0.30" Estimated Extent Of ~ ' ,H drocarbon..PI e i, I 1 inch = 20 feet , EXPLANATIQN 0.30"' Boring Location and Number VEW~ Single Zone VEW Dual Zone Pressure Drop Recorded DATE: 2-13-97 PROJECT NUMB ER: '8132 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING cOMPANY. 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Radius Of Influence VEW-1A (DeeP) pLATE EAST 19TH STREET / ~ 0.2~proxlmate Pressure drop of 0.25" @ 2.5' Hg Vacuum ate i .. · .................................. -/ / \ / ,I r-'- -J~ I VEIV'3 1/.//////~,./,///./,/~,,//,r/.,,,~, [ ~., ~ ~ r' Former Underground Storage Tank :i ' 0.30" " , o~. ~n~'t;~ , : ' Former Dispenser z SCALE 0 1 inch = 20 fee! EXPLANATION B-1 Boring Location ~ ~ I , , ~ andNumberVEW Single Zone VEW Dual Zone 0,30" Pressure Drop Recorded SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. DATE: 5-8-97 PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFH~LD, CALII~ORNIA Radius Of Influence VEW-1B (Shallow) PLATE 4 I I I / I I I EAST 19TH STREET VEW-2 Gate I ~, ,~,~,~,~ ],,',w~ Proposed Location Of _ ~. I ~Thermal Oxidizer (VES) ,/ES Locati~.n Y////~ 2' PVC Extraction Piping · In 2 feet deep trenches 0 10 1 inch = 20 feet EXPLANATION Boring Location and Number' VEW Single Zone VEW Dual Zone SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 DATE: 5-9-97 PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM LAYOUT PLATE 5 THERMAL OXIDATION . Inlet Sampling Port Water Knockout *Not to Scale ~ STACK · WITH EFFLUENT SAMPLING PORT PITOT TUBE AND MAGNEHELI£ GAGE High Fence With Razor Wire MANIFOLD WITH AIR INLET VALVE & SAMPLING PORT Sand TRAFFIC BOX 2" Sch. 40 PVC VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL PLATE 6 San Joaquin.Roofing. 1501 E. 19th St. BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA REMEDIATION SYSTEM SCHEMATIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 DATE: 5~9-97 PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 ! SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. UJ ! I 0 I0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I fi-lOS eleJ ~o1-1 I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. ! I Appendix A I BoringLogs I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 ANALYSES SAMPLE Lab Field z BORING TPHg o '"" > m " '?' SOIL DESCRIPTION ABANDONMENT Benzene P.l.d. ~- La ~ o o · -J LLI ppm ppm 03 r~ -- -= ~ = 'Locking Well Cap & Box I : = 0 .? ', ', ~'sea~ ;!?iiiiiiil. sP Cuttings- Sand, It to reed brn, fn to I 'i 7'~' ...? modgr, ioose, damp, strongodor ?i:: i isorted, subangular, loose, dry, clean. ~ ~!!~i~!!!i~i~i~i}il SM Silty Sand w/lenses of Sand, mod brn, strong odor I Bentonite SM ~ ~%~,.%%,~Seal ML Becoming siltier between 26 and 30'. ~i~i ~ :~i:i:i~:;?i:i~?i~i~i~i --40 SM SILT/SILTY SAND, dk grey brn, fine grained, .... ~ ~:~' ~. subangular to subrounded, stiff, compact, damp, 1 O-inch 45 ................. Diameter __ Borehole -- LOGGED BY: Becker DIAMETER OF BORING: 10 inch i DATE DRILLED: 4/3/97 WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered TOTAL DEPTH: 45 feet SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split spoon DRILLING COMPANY: SEI DRILLER: Le° I SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. 1501 East 19th Street I Bakersfield, CA 93313 At Old Tank Site Bakersfield, California PROJECT NUMBER: 97-8132 LOG OF BORING VEW-1 page 1 of 2 I ANALYSES SAMPLE Lab Field z BORING tPhg 'o ~ > = ~-~' SOiL DESCRiPTiON i ABANDONMENT benzene P.l.d. 13_ I-- Z -- ' --] LB Z O ppm ppm rn (3 -- _ ~ "' Locking Well Cap & Box I - 0 ~,,t ,,,,,~ .'::?' Cuttings - Sand, clean -,'~-cement- '~'~::~':~ ' --10 'i: ?:,' i'.~i'~::..SAND. Grey brown,·medium grained, well ~ ~ --. '::'.!!:::~' . sorted, angular, soft, loose, dry, clean. .... SOO -- ~ VEW-2-20 : :i:!i:!ii SP Sand, alternating sand and Silly Sand, ¥ fn to I ~:' -- :~ .~;!:. SW med gr, dry, loose, strong odor, no stng. 8-inch Diameter : 120 -- __l VEW-2-40 :::?::::::::::::::::::::::: ML SILT/SILTY SAND. It to dk grey, fine grained, Borehole · __ --" SM subangular to subrounded, stiff, compact, damp, si _ odor. ! _ I -- $0 LOGGED BY: Becket DIAM£1ER OF BORING: 8 inch DATE DRILLED: .4/2/97 WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered I TOTAL DEPTH: 40 feet SAMPLING METHOD: Modified spoon DRILLING COMPANY: SEI DRILLER: Leo I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE 4700 District Blvd. 1501 East 19th Street I Bakersfield, CA 93313 18' North · Of VEW-1 Bakersfield,' California PROJECT NUMBER: 97-8132 LOG OF BORING VEW-2 page l of~ I " I ANALYSES SAMPLE Lab Field z ~ ,-, ~ ~ . rr E ---' > 03 ~ '?' SOIL DESCRIPTION BORING tPHg o T m i ABANDONMENT Benzene P.I.D. O~ I- LU =:) o Q- I-- Z -- ' _1 ILl Z O ppm ppm m r~ -- .---~ = 'Locking Well Cap & Box ,,,. ,,.,, -- i~;i:i:i;~i:: ALLUVIUM ,. -?~2 PVC- ........... I '," ~ff~.,., Blank - '::::':'~?: ,., ., ,. "~" ': Cuttings - Silty Sand/Sand. clean ','. .',',A,'Ce merit I ~/ /~ -- I ~--~ ~----~Bentonlte ~ ~ ::~:?:i:. SP SAND. med brown, fn-medium grained, well ,~,__,~, Z , ~;i::?? s°rted, subangular, I°°se, dry, clean' ?iiiiiiiiii: iiiiiiiiiiil - -2o-- · ".:::::~ SP Sand, alternating Sand and Silty Sand, v fn to :'i;;:!::::?: SW med gr, dry, loose, v sli odor, no stng. · ?ii?!iiiiiii :~:iii~#3 Sand: :.i::iii:::::: SM Trace gravel. ' I ~i~?i~?::~::~: /i::::::iii::iiii ..... ...::~ SP :i!!!!!]!!i;!' ~'!~ ...........? iiiiiiiiiiiii ~i!iiiiiiiiiii 0.02- --30 ~ iii!iiiiiiili!il. SM Silty Sand/Sandy Silt, dk gry, v fn gr, some med gr, I :-i!!i!iii!iiiiii: ML compact, v sli odor, no stng. ,~:i:!:i:i:i:i: :~:~:[:i:!:i: ......... :::::::::::::::: I ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::?::::::::?::::::::::::?,4.:: 40 -- SM SlIT/SILtY SAND. grey brn. fine grained. 8-inch Diameter ~ _ __ ~ subangular to subrounded, stiff, compact, damp, slJ Borehole __ to mod odor. ! _ $0 LOGGED BY: Becker DIAMETER OF BORING: 8 inch DATE DRILLED: 4/2/97 ' WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered i TOTAL DEPTH: 40feet SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split spoon DRILLING COMPANY: SEI DRILLER: Leo I mu~_,uc==i~, SAN-JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE SOILS INC. 4700 District Blvd. 1501 East 19th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93313 27' Northeast Of VEW-1 Bakersfield, California PROJECT NUMBER: 97-8132 LOG OF BORING VEW-3 page 1 of 2 I ANALYSES SAMPLE Lab Field z ~- BORING TPH§ =' _> m '~ '?' SOIL DESCRIPTION ABANDONMENT Benzene P.I.D. 0~ ~- ,,, :::) o o D- I-'- Z -- ' --J La Z ppm ppm m C) -- ~ -, 'Locking Well Cap & Box ~ ~ 0 '%'. .'%~¢*Cement i:ii:iil;i!ili!ii SP Cuttings- Silty Sand/Sand, It to mod brn, v fn to '%' '%', - '?:'~:~:~:~. SM fn gr, damp, clean '%' '% .... .::i::.:::: SP SAND. med brown, fn-medium grained, well · :.:!i!iii;iiil SM sorted, subangular, loose, dry, clean. MI_ compact, no odor, no stng. 2" PVO'- ?:~?:~:?:;. ===================== ;i~??:;::;::;::;:: ::!:i:~:i:i:~ :i:!:i:i:!:! ~ '"'"'""-'"' .............. ~ .............. 40' --40 SM SILT/SILTY SAND, grey bm, fine grained, S-inch Diameter Z m ~ ML subangular to subrounded, stiff, compact, damp, sli Borehole m to mod odor. - LOGGED BY: Becker DIAMETER OF BORING: 8 inch DATE DRILLED: 4/2/97 WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered TOTAL DEPTH: 40 feet SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split spoon DRILLING COMPANY: SEI DRILLER: Leo ~u~~m~., SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE SOILS INC. 4700 District Blvd. 1501 East 19th Street Bakersfield, CA 93313 21' Southeast Of VEW-1 Bakersfield, California PROJECT NUMBER: 97-8132 LOG OF BORING VEW-4 page 1 of 2 ANALYSES SAMPLE m. Lab Field z BORING TPHa UJ >., >o m ~ '?' SOIL DESCRIPTION ABANDONMENT Benzene P.I.D. Z O ppm ppm 03 m.Locking Well Cap & Box 0 '·' ·"' ' '::'~':' SP Cuttings - Silty Sand/Sand, clean i;:~:;:.:.:::.::.:}i SP SAND. reed brown, fn-medium grained, well ~ ~ :~:::~:i:i!i':' s°rted' subangular' I°°se' dry' clean' i....... .......... ~. SM Silty Sand/Sandy Silt, med-dk brn, v fn gr, some grey grained, 8-inch Diameter Z 17 -- -- subangular to subrounded,·compact, damp, Eli Borehole _ 23 -- -- odor. m ~ $o LOGGED BY: Becke} DIAMETER OF BORING: 8 inch DATE DRILLED: 4/2/97 WATER ENCOUNTERED AT: Not encountered m TOTAL DEPTH: 40 feet SAMPLING METHOD: Modified split spoon DRILLING COMPANY: EEl . DRILLER: Leo m c~u~.,uc~m~u~_, SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE SOILS INC. 4700 District Blvd. 1501 East 19th Street m Bakersfield, CA 93313 24' Southwest Of VEW-1 Bakersfield, California PROJECT NUMBER: 97-8132 LOG OF BORING VEW-5 page 1 of 2 I SOILS' ENGINEERING, INC. I I ~ Appendix B I i Analytical Reports I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I LABORATORIES I.N[":. I ' I April 16, 1997 i BOB BECKER i SOILS ENGINEERING 4700 DISTRICT BOULEVARD BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 i Subject: Laboratory Submission No.: 97-03493 Samples Received: 04/02/97 Dear Mr. Becket: .... The samples(s) listed on the Chain of Custody report were received by BC Labor~tories, Inc. On 04/02/97. ". I Enclosed please find the analytical data for the testing requested. If you have any questions regarding this report please contact me at (805) 327-4911, ext 250 ?" 'L?]'i'i"'~7'~?"'i~' ' '" ' ~'~'~ '~ · ·. ". :;.~..7.. }:'] ' · ' 'L~ ~.' ].' I ' Any unused sample will be stored on our premises for a minimum of' 30..'~a~s ..:.....' (excluding bacteriologicals) at which time they will be disposed unles~'.'otherwise requested at the time of sample receipt. A disposal fee of $5 per sampl~e may . apply for solid sample matrices. Please refer to ~ubmission number 97-03493 when calli~g':.'i'f'~:~'.iassis'~'~Ce.~i:.', incere!y, . ,/ ~ .' ,"}' ~'",...~. .... -~'. I Cherv! Ferguson '":" '. ....7 ' .... i.'~'". "."'/i.'?.': .~"'i?i ":."::"ii.".':".:"' Client Services '.' ' .... .... -' ..~.. BC Laboratories, Inc. '!. /:..... .i,~ ':-.':,'".~:~ .. ·/'~'.::.~... '..' -!.. -'-,~.>.~. ,~: ~'~..~. ,' ,L~-i~..~L." ""?'..'.~.~ i~i'..LL~.' '":". i/.i ..~'!~.. ' .. "."~.,~. · · .,....."'- . . ,. , ' ; ." · ..] ' .'~i'i '' : ... ! I -" ~, u~O md-~s Cg. · ~akansfield. r~ , ~:3~C)~ · C.~--05] 327-4~'11 · F.'~.',( t~a05] 327-1 Report To: Name: -~'E ~ Project:. Address: q~O b}',~"~r',~ ~- City: State: Zip: ~ Attn: Phone: Comment: Sample Disposal L-'I BC Disposal @ 5.00 ea. CI Return to client Project #: i;,:~l...~ ~.. Sampler. Name:: ~, Other: ' ' I I I I Sample Description 2o Date & Time Sampled. Billing infO:': Name: Address ¢~-00 .! ~)U~/.F_~ .. , City ..~'n ~' ~'~,~,'¢ State; ~r'.' Attention: ~ ~ 2~!. ~ uested i'gnatu~e) ~quished ,: (Signature) Received by: (gnature) Relinquished by:.(Signature) , Received by: (Signature) Received by: (Signature) Received by: (Signature) Received by: (Signature). Time: Miles: Relinquished by: (Signature) Relinquished by: (Signature) Relinquished by: .(Signature) rr Date: Time: Date: Time: Date: Time: Date: Time~ Date: Time: Date: Time: iASORATORIES Page 1 Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons I soILs ENGINEERING Date Reported:' 04/1i/97 4700 DISTRICT BOULEVARD Date Received: 04/02/97 I B~LKERSFIELD, CA 93313 Laboratory No.: 97-03493-1 Attn: BOB BECKER 805-831-5100 Sample DeScription: SJR #8132: VEW-2-20'~ SAMPLED BY RJB ! · Sample Matrix: Soil Date Collected: 04/02/97 @ 08:55~4 Date Extracted-8020: 04/07/97 i Date ~Lnalyzed-8020: 04/07/97 Date Extracted-8015M(g) : 04/07/97 Date 3%nalyzed-8015M(g) : 04/07/97 I Practical Analysis Reporting Quantitation Constituents Results Units Limit I None Detected m~/k~ 6. Benzene Toluene 98. mg/kg 6. Ethyl Benzene 33. mg/k~ 6. '"~"~'."~'~: Total Xylenes 280. mg/k~ 20 '"..~' Total Petroleum ' Hydrocarbons (gas) 1800. m~/kg 1000. '~.'.>.'i~ Surrogate % Recovery 90. % 70-130 "~' ! TEST iVIETHOD: 'TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA ~i5"-:~.~:~i '"'~'"? "'~ Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020. .~.~L'...!?.':! '"i...'/'''I'''.''I. .......:...,- I I Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requirin~ California D.O.H.S. 11 results listed in this repo, are for the exclusive use of the subml~lng pa~. BC Laboratories, Inc. a~umes no responsibility for repod alteration, separation, detachment or third ~ interpretation. 41 ~0 A~las Or. · ~akersfield, OA 93308 · (805) 327-~91 I · FAX (805) 327-1 91 8 iASORATORIES Page 1 · Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ! SOILS ENGINEERING Date Reported: 04/11/97 4700 DISTRICT BOULEVARD Date Received: 04/02/97 I BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 Laboratory No.: 97-03493-2 Attn: BOB BECKER · 805-831-5100 Sample Description: SJR ~8132: VEW-2-40' SAMPLED BY RJB I Sample Matrix: Soil Date Collected: 04/02/97 @ 09:35~1~ Date Extracted-8020: 04/07/97 i Date Analyzed-8020: 04/07/97 Date Extracted-8015M(g) : 04/07/97 Date D-nalyzed-8015M(g) : 04/07/97 I Practical Analysis Reporting Quantitation Constituents· Results Units Limit I Benzene 0.087 mg/kg 0.005 Toluene 0.24 mg/kg 0.005 Ethyl Benzene 0.028 mg/kg 0.005 I Total Xylenes 0 24 mg/kg 0 01 '"":L~'~"~:'~:i Total Petroleum ~!?'~.~.:'.! Hydrocarbons (gas) 3.0 mg/kg 1. ~i"~.".'!~ Surrogate % Recovery 98. % 70-130 ! TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8'~i5:~.::'i~¢:~:. '....'. Individual constituents by·EPA Method 5030/8020. "~.,:.'.'.."~:'~i ... · .'i '"~.~.~..'i ."'~ ' .... . California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186 :.. re~ult~ Ii,ted In thi~ repod ar~ ~or th* ~x~lu~l~ u~ o[ th~ ~ubml~}n~ i_ABORATORIES Page 1 Purgeable Aromatics and Total PetroIeum Hydrocarbons SOILS ENGINEERING Date Reported: 04/11/97 4700 DISTRICT BOULEVARD Date Received: 04/02/97 .. I B~KERSFIELD, CA 93313 Laboratory No.: 97-03493-3 Attn :. BOB BECKER 805-83Z-5100 Sample Description: SJR ~8132: VEW-5-30' S/~MPLED BY RJB I Sample Matrix: Soil Date Collected: 04/02/97 ® 01:15PM Date Extracted- 8020: 04/08/97 Date Analyzed- 8020: 04/08/97 I Date Extracted-8015M(g) : 04/08/97 Date Analyzed- 8015M (g) : 04/08/97 I Practical Analysis Report lng Quant itation Constituents Results Units Limit I None Detected mg/kg 0.005 Benzene Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005 Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005 Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg 0.01 : Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1. '~':'~ Surrogate % Recovery 97. % 70-130 ":ii TEST METHOD: TPH By D.O.H.S. / T,.U.F.T. Manual Method M6dif±ed ~.PA 8"6'i:5./i..:'" Individual constituents By EPA Method 5030 /8020. ":':.:?:.':.:.'.i::..~..:i::. California-D.O H.S. Cert. ~1186 '-~.'.i ": ..... 11 results listed in this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party interpretation. 41 O0 Atlas Ct. · Bakersfield, CA 93308'. (805) 327-491 I · FAX [805) 327-1918 iLABORATORIES Page 1 Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons SOILS ENGINEERING Date Reported: 04/11/97 4700 DISTRICT BOULEVARD Date Received: 04/02/97 · I BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 Laboratory No.: 97-03493-4 Attn: BOB BECKER 805-831-5100 Sample Description: SJR ~8132: VEW-5-40' SAMPLED BY RJB I Sample Matrix: Soil Date Collected: 04/02/97 ® 01:40PM Date Extracted- 8020: 04/08/97 Date Analyzed- 8020: 04/08/97 I Date Extracted-8015M(g) : 04/08/97 Date Analyzed- 8015~ (g) : 04/08/97 I Practical Analysis Reporting Quantitation constituents Results Units Limit ! · Benzene None Detected m~/k~ 0.005 Toluene 0.0'09 m~/k9 0. 005 Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005 i Total Xylenes None Detected m~/kg 0.01 To~al Petroleum .... Hydrocarbons · (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1. '~"~ ''~ Surrogate % Recovery 105. .% 70-130 ":~i~ I · TEST METHOD: TPH by D'.O.H.S. / L.U.'F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020. "?'.) ".:'?} I '~' ""'>i :~i results listed in this ~epod ale fei the exclusive use of the submlttln~ pa~. BC [aboratofles, Inc. assumes no responsibility f~ [epo. alle~tJo~, separation, detachme~l of lhi~g pa~ Inlefp~lalJon. 41 O0 At~as Ct. · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · (805) 327-491 I · FAX [805) 327-1 918 I ' ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. , ~ Analytical ~ ConsulCiag Services I 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395~539 ~ '9 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 68158-1 i 4700 District Blvd Date Received: 04/18/97 Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported: 04/23/97 Contract No.: Attention: Bob Becket~ Date Sampled: 04/17/97 I Time Sampled: 13:00 Sample Type: Gas/NGL I Sample Description: VEW-1A-1 Sampled by Bob Becker !l· REPORT OF ANALYTICAL.RESULTS I Constituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF Stack Gas Compliance I Methane, C1 1830 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Ethane, C2 5.7 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Propane, C3 < 1.0 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Butane, C4 30 ppmv .1.0 18 /27 I Pentane, C5 6495 1.0 ppmv 18 /27 Hexanes, C6+ 21760 ppmv 1.0 18 '/27 18 /27 I Total Hydrocarbons, C1-C6+ 30120 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane Hydrocarbons 28290 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 I Date /tnalyzed: 04/18/97 I /j/ 5/]if Etherton, Lab Operations Manager I CC: Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ut/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mt/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes ! This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. ' k~ 7_,~LCO LABORATORIES, INC. Analytical & Consulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395~)539 ~. · Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 68158-1 4700 District Blvd Date Received: 04/18/97' Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported: 04/23/97 Contract No.: Attention: Bob Becket Date Sampled: 04/17/97 Time Sampled: 13:00 Sample Type: Gas/NGL Sample Description: VEW-1A-1. Sampled by Bob Becket REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS IConstituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF BTXE in Gas IBenzene 1926 ppmv 0.5 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 159 ppmv 10 8020 /1 Toluene 3627 ppmv 10 8020 /1 m and p-Xylenes 623 ppmv 10 8020 /1 I o-Xylene 129 10 8020 /1 ppmv cc: Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes I This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples lesled. Zalco is not responsible fo,' report alteration or detachment. ' I' ZALCO LABOIqATORIES, lNG. ' 4309 Armour Avenue .. (805) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 I Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 68158-2 4700 District Blvd Date Received: 04/18/97 I Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported: 04/23/97 Contract No.: Attention: Bob Becker Date Sampled: 04/17/97 I Time Sampled: 13:20 Sample Type: Gas/NGL I Sample Description: VEW-1B-1 Sampled by Bob Becker i REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS IConstituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF Stack Gas Compliance IMethane, C1 2185 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Ethane, C2 < 1.0 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Propane, C3 < 1.0 ppmv 1o0 18 /27 Butane, C4 < 1.0 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 IPentane, C5 980 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Hexanes, C6+ 15300 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 18 /27 ITotal Hydrocarbons, C1-C6+ 18465 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane Hydrocarbons 16280 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Date Analyzed: 04/18/97 ,/~ _ ' /~/Ji~erton, Lab Operations Manager CC: Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes I I I This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tesled. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. I ' '~k~ ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. ~ Analytical ~ Consulting Services I . 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395-0539 ~ . ~ Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 ! Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 68158-2 I 4700 District Blvd Date Received: 04/18/97 Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported: 04/23/97 Contract No.: Attention: Bob Becker Date Sampled: 04/17/97 I Sampled: 13:20 Time Sample Type: Gas/NGL ISample Description: VEW-1B-1 Sampled by Bob Becker .~ REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS 1 IConstituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF BTXE in Gas IBenzene 1910 ppmv 0.5 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 285 ppmv 10 8020 /1 Toluene 4608 ppmv 10 8020 /1 Im and p-Xylenes 1297 ppmv 10 8020 /1 o-Xylene 328 ppmv 10 8020 . /1 Date Analyzed: 04/21/97 ~ ////~ / J~erton, Lab Operational Manager cc: / Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes I This report is furnished for the exclusive use al our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration o~ detachmenl. Analytical ~ Oonsulcin9 Servioes 4309 Armour Avenue (805] 395~539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 68158-3 4700 District Blvd Date Received: 04/18/97 Bakersfield,. CA 93313 Date Reported: 04/23/97 ' Contract No.: Attention: Bob Becker Date Sampled: 04/17/97 Time Sampled: 16:10 Sample Type: Gas/NGL Sample Description: VEW-1A-2 Sampled by' Bob Becker REPORTOF ANALYTICAL RESULTS' Constituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF Stack Gas Compliance Methane, C1 1370 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Ethane, C2 < 1.0 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Propane, C3 < 1.0 ppmv 1.0 1'8 /27 Butane, C4 39 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 C5 6600 1.0 18 ./2T· Pentane, ppmv Hexanes, C6+ 2·~200 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 18 /27 Total Hydrocarbons, C1-C6+ 30210 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane Hydrocarbons .28840 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 'l' Date Analyzed: 04/18/97 ..~'?'"7 ~' ICC: ..' Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi I 27. CFR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes .I This reporq is {umished {or the exclusive use o{ our Customer and applies onl,/to the samples tested. Zatca is nat responsible {0¢ *epar~ aiceration a,' detachment. I ' ZALCOLABORATORIES, INC. 4309 Armour Avenue (8051 395~539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 68158-3 4700 .District Blvd Date Received:. 04/18/97 Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported: 04/23/97 Contract No.: Attention: Bob Beaker Date Sampled: 04/17/97 I Time Sampled: 16:10 Sample Type: Gas/NGL I Sample Description: VEW-1A-2 Sampled by Bob Becker I REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS i Constituents Results units DLR METHOD/REF BTXE in Gas I Benzene 1658 ppmv 0.5 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 180 ppmv 10 8020 /1 Toluene 2308 ppmv 10 8020 /1 m and p-Xylenes 834 ppmv 10 '8020 /1 '1 o-Xylene 256 ppmv 10 8020 ./1 I Date Analyzed: 04/21/97 .... .'",i;~ ~ I Ji.; rton,Lab'O~ra~ions Manager cc: ! Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli I ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes I 1 · This report is lurnished for the exclusive use of our Customer end applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. ZALCOLABORATORIE$,INC. 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395~539 ~ J Bakersfield, California 93308 F~ (805) 395-3069 Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 68158-4 4700 District Blvd Date Received: 04/18/97 Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported: 04/23/97 Contract No.: Attention: Bob Becker 'Date Sampled: '04/17/97 Time sampled: 16:30 Sample T~e: Gas/NGL Sample Description: VEW-1B-2 Sampled by Bob Becker REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS I Constituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF Stack Gas Compliance I Methane, C1 409.0 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Ethane, C2 < 1.0 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Propane, C3 < 1.0 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 I Butane, C4 9 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Pentane, C5 990 ppmv 1.0 18 . /27 Hexanes, C6+ 16100 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 18 '/27 I Total Hydrocarbons, C1-C6+ 21190 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane Hydrocarbons 17100 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 I Date Analyzed: 04/18/97 I ,/Jira'Eth..e~t~n, Lab-Operations Manager. loc. / Method Re£oronce I 1. EPA $W-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per k±logram {parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 m~/k~ : milligrams per kilogram {parts per milli ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per bi.ilion) DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes ! I This reporl is furnished for the exclusive use oJ our Customer and appJies only to the samples tested. Zolco is not responsible fo,' report alteration or detachment. I ...... -- ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. I ~~~' Analyt:;ical&Consult:;ingServices 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395-0539 ~ ._-. Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 ! Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 68158-4 I 4700 District Blvd Date Received: 04/18/9J Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported: 04/23/97 Contract No.: Attention: Bob Becker Date Sampled: 04/17/97 I Time Sampled: 16:30 Sample Type: Gas/NGL I Sample Description: VEW-1B-2 Sampled by Bob Becker i REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS IConstituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF BTXE in Gas IBenzene 1848 ppmv 0.5 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 222 ppmv 10 8020 /1 Toluene 3803 ppmv 10 8020 /1 m and p-Xylenes 1006 ppmv 10 8020 /1 Io-Xylene 230 ppmv 10 .8020 /1 I Date Analyzed: 04/21/97 Ji n, Lab Operations Manager cc: ! Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts pe? billL i 27. ~FR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per mill! ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes ,! I This report is furnished for lhe exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. I ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. I 4309 Armour Avenue (8051 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 I · Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 68158-5 I 4700.District Blvd Date Received: 04/18/97 Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported: 04/23/97 Contract Attention: Bob Becker Date Sampled: 04/17/97 I Time Sampled: 13:25 Sample Type: Gas/NGL I Sample Description: EFF Sampled by Bob Becker i REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS I Constituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF Stack Gas Compliance I Methane, C1 11.0 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Ethane, C2 1.1 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Propane, C3 6.4 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Butane, C4 10.5 ppmv 1.0 -18 /27 I Pentane, C5 < ppmv 1.0 1.0 18 /27 Hexanes, C6+ 4.6 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 18 /27 I Total Hydrocarbons, C1-C6+ 33.6 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane Hydrocarbons 22.6 ppmv 1.0 18 · /27 I Date Analyzed: 04/18/97 I /~/t/herton,../ Lab Operations Manager I CC: Method Reference I 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) DLR : Detection Limit [or Reporting Purposes ! I This report is furnished Jar the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tesled. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. I ZALCOLABORATORIES, INC. I d309 Armour Avenue (805) 395~539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 I Soils Engineering Laboratory No: 68158-5 I 4700 District Blvd Date Received: 04/18/97 · Bakersfield, CA 93313 Date Reported: 04/23/97 Contract No.: Attention: Bob Becker Date Sampled: 04/17/97 I Time Sampled: 13:25 SamPle T~e: Gas/NGL I Sample Description: EFF Sampled by Bob Becket I REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS IConstituents Results Units DLR' METHOD/REF BTXE in Gas IBenzene ND ppmv 0.5 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 1.27 ppmv 10 8020 /1 Toluene 3.78 ppmv 10 8020 /1 m and p-Xylenes 5.98 ppmv 10 8020 /1 I2.18 10 8020 /1 o-Xylene ppmv I Date Analyzed: 04/21/97 I ~.. .......~-i~ Etherton, Lab Operations Man. ager i CC: Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition- ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi I 27. CFR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes 1 I I This repo~ is furnished tar the exclusive use o| our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report nlteration or detachment. Chain of Custody ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. Pa~e ! o, / Bakersfield. California 93308 Pdt. ~tle 5~ ~d ~ ~RusHTUrnar°undBy: ~k ]~rTime: Zalco Lab, [805) 395~539 'O~pedited (1 Week)~Field Log Fax (805] 395-3069 Ice Chest ~ . Temperature2C Ci~, Slate. Zip n . ~ -- _ I Repo. A~.tion ~ __ · ~ ~ t ~ Sampk Date ~me Ty~~ · Containers ~ ~ ~ ~ 00~ ~ ~ ID8 Sampled Sampled. See Kw"-BeI~ Legal Sample Descnpbon ~ Ty~* ~ ~ ~ ~ Remarks ? ~ ' ' ~ 0 NOTE: Samples are discarded 30 days after results are repoded unless olher arrangements are made. KEY: *' G-Glass P-Plastic M-Metal T-Tedlar V-VOA Hazardous samples will be returned Io client er disposed of at client*s expense. ** W-Water WW-Wastewater . S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid ' O-Other White- Office Copy Yellow - Lab Copy Pink - Client Copy *** A-Acid, pH<2 (HCI,HNO3,H2SO4) S-NaOH+ZnAc C-Caustic, pH>10 (NaOH) Bakersfield, Califorma ~,. FEB ~ ~ By Project No. 97-8132 .. Prepared By: Soils Engineering, Inc. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA. 93313 FebruarY 14, 1997 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93313 ' PHONE (805) 831~5100 · FAX: (805) 831-2111 SOILS ENGINeEriNG, INC. February 14, 1997 Mr. Ray Graham San Joaquin Roofing 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 Subject: Vapor Extraction Pilot Test Workplan San Joaquin Roofing 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, California 93305 Mr. Graham: Soils Engineering, Inc. (sEI), has prepared this Vapor Extraction Test Workplan to install five (5) vapor extraction wells and perform a vapor extraction pilot test at the subject site. This Workplan will stipulate what steps will be necessary tO collect sufficient data to form a complete Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The vapor extraction pilot test will gather data on the soil properties to determine if vapor extraction will be a viable method for the clean-up of the site. The RAP will recommend method for the of the soil. an appropriate treatment t 2.0 SITE LOCATION I The site is located on the southeast corner of E. 19th Street and Brown Street, as shown on the Location Map, Plate 1. A 1,000 gallon underground storage tank (UST) supplied gasoline to San Joaquin .Roofing's fleet of trucks, was located within the property boundary and outside the fenced yard. A dispenser island was located within the fenced yard. It is not know how long the UST was in operation I or when the dispenser was removed. Currently the area over the former UST and dispenser island is dirt covered. Plate 2 provides a Plot Plan. I I 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA93313 ° PHONE(805) 831-5100 ° FAX:(805) 831-2111 ! -- SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I Vapor Extraction Test' Workplan File NO. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 2 I 3.0 BACKGROUND I On February 23, 1995, RLW Equipment Company of Bakersfield, California I excavated and removed UST from the site. The UST excavation one 1,000-gallon measured approximately 15 feet by 15 'feet. The depth of the excavation is not I known but is estimated to be 10 feet below grade. The excavation was backfilled following the UST removal. I Soil samples collected from 2 feet and 6 feet below the base of the excavation were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) using modified EPA I method 8015, the constituents benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) using EPA method 8020, and total lead using EPA method 3050/7420. I The TPHg concentrations were 10,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg or parts per I million,' ppm) and 1,800 mg/Kg at 2 feet and 6 feet, respectively. Benzene I concentrations were 72 mg/Kg and 5.7 mg/Kg, respectively. Toluene concentrations were 680 mg/Kg and 170 mg/Kg, respectively. Ethylbenzene i concentrations were 420 mg/Kg and 59 mg/Kg, respectively. Total xylenes concentrations were 1,900 mg/Kg and 380 mg/Kg, respectively. Total 'lead concentrations were 50 mg/Kg and 23 mg/Kg, respectively. Following review of i the analytical data the BFD requested (letter dated March 9, 1995) that the vertical and lateral extent of petroleum hydrocarbons be assessed. I In May, 1995 five soil borings (B-1 through B-5) were advanced in the area of the former UST to assess the vertical and lateral extent of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil. Boring B-1 was centered over the former UST location and drilled to a i depth of 75 feet below ground surface (bgs). Boring B-2 was centered over the former dispenser location and was advanced to a depth of 75 feet bgs. Boring B-3 was located 15 feet east of boring B-I and was advanced to a depth of 35 feet. I Borings B-4 and B-5 were located 30 and 40 feet east and south, respectively from Boring B-1 and drilled to 70 feet bgs. Selected soil samples were analyzed for I TPHg and BTEX and the results are presented in Table 1. The highest hydrocarbon concentrations were encountered in boring B-1 at 15 feet (60,000 ppm TPHg and I l SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Vapor Extraction Test Workplan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 1501.E. 19th Street, BakersfieM, CA. Page No. 3 650 ppm benzene) and at 30 feet (59,000 ppm TPHg and 590 ppm benzene). The hydrocarbon plume was defined to extend to a depth of 40 to 50 feet bgs and extend laterally approximately 25 to 30 feet from the former UST. Vapor extraction of the hydrocarbon plume has been recommended for the subject site. To determine the appropriate remediation equipment to install at the site, a vapor extraction test is proposed. This Workplan describes the proposed vapor extract test procedures: 4.0 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY The site is situated in the Improvement District No. 4 of the Kern County Water Agency. The depth to groundwater near the site was reported, in the 1995 Report of Water Conditions by the Kern County Water Agency, to be approximately 240 feet. The groundwater flow direction was to the southwest. 5.0 PILOT TEST DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 5.1 Vapor Extraction Well Installations Five (5) extraction wells (VEW's) will be instal_led for the of vapor purpose the vapor extraction pilot test and future extraction of hydrocarbons. The VEW's will be placed at the points identified on Plate 3. The VEW.'s will be drilled with a SEI owned and operated hollow Stem auger rig using eight- inch diameter augers. The borings will be drilled to a depth of approximately 45 feet bgs. The extraction wells will be completed using 2" diameter PVC casing with 0.20" slots, placed adjacent to the intervals of highest contamination .encountered in the borings. The center VEW will be dual completed with two screened intervals (15' to 25' and 30 tO 40') separated by a bentonite seal. The other 4 VEW's will be placed out from the center well covering the perimeter of the plume. The screened annular spaces will 1 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Vapor Extraction Test Workplan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 4 be ffffled with 3/8" pea gravel from the bottom of the screen interval to 2 feet above the screen interval. Approximately two feet of bentonite will be placed on top of the pea gravel with bentonite or cement grout to the surface. A 12" water tight traffic rated well cover will be placed over each well. A vapor extraction well diagram is presented on Plate 4. Selected soil samples will be collected during the well installation at various depths. The soil samples will be used to collect site specific data such as soil moisture content, porosity, and bulk density. The results of the analyses will be used to determine average values for the site for each parameter. These values will then be used to more accurately determine expected rates the flow and radius of influence. 5.2 Vapor Extraction Pilot Test Procedures After completion of the well installations, a vapor extraction test (VET) will be performed to assess the maximum flow rate, initial hydrocarbon concentrations, and the radius of influence for the VEW's. The vapor flow rate will be measured using a pitot tube and magnehelic differential pressure gauge. During the test the temperature and absolute pressure at the main. vapor extraction well head (VW-IA & B) will be measured at a minimum of three different flow rates. Flow rates will be adjusted by increasing or decreasing the RPM of the blower. The absolute pressure will also be measured in the surrounding VEW's to help determine the effective radius of influence at specific extraction rates and pressure levels. The test will be performed for a minimum of four hours or until pressure readings have stabilized at the surrounding wells. I I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I Vapor Extraction Test Workplan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 5 I 5.3 Pilot Test Start-up Procedures I The start-up procedure for the vapor extraction pilot test will be performed I using the following steps: i 1. Open air inlet valve 2. Close the valve leading to the wellhead 3. Start the blower so that air is drawn in only through the air inlet 4. Fully open the valve to the wellhead and close the ak.inlet valve 5. Once the flow rate has stabilized, record the wellhead flow rate and I absolute pressure. 6. In a series of increments, increase the rpm of the blower to facilitate a I higher flow rate and 7. For each increment, allow the flow rate to stabilize and record the i wellhead flow rate and absolute pressure 6.0 EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS The VET will be performed using a 150 cfm regenerative blower. The inlet to the blower will be connected to the well head of VEW-1 using a two inch rubber flex hose With quick release fittings. The outlet of the blower will be connected to four 200 pound carbon canisters, connected in series. A schematic of the Vapor Extraction Pilot Test equipment is presented on Plate 5. Absolute pressure at the well head and VEW's will be measured using magnehelic differential pressure gages. 'l 7.0 WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT I The only anticipated wastes that will be generated during the pilot test will be drill cuttings from the installation of the extraction wells, condensate water from the I vapor stream and spent carbon from the vapor abatement system. These wastes will be stored on site until properly profiled for disposal. If the wastes are determined to I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Vapor Extraction Test Workplan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 6. be hazardous, a hazardous waste manifest will be generated and accompany the wastes during transport. Drill cuttings will be aerated on site, if required, The condensate water will be transported to a licensed disposal 'facility. The spent carbon will be to a carbon regeneration center for treatment and transported subsequent reuse. The precise disposal and regeneration facilities will be determined after the waste has been generated. Selection of the facilities will be based on price and availability. All hazardous wastes will be transported for disposal within 90 days of accumulation. 8.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS Two samples of the extracted soil gas will be collected during the test for laboratory analysis. Samples will be collected on the vacuum side of the blower in one liter Tedlar bags. Sample bags will be placed in a cool ice chest before transport under a chain of custody to a state certified laboratory for analysis. EaCh sample will be analyzed within 72 hours using EPA method 8015m and 8020 for TPHg and BTEX (C~-C6+). A sample of the extracted vapor will be collected at the beginning and end of the test. The first sample will be collected at the beginning of the test, once all flow and pressure readings have stabilized. The second sample will be collected at the end of the test at least one hour after the readings have stabilized. Influent and effluent vapor measurements will be recorded at one half hour intervals during the first half of the test and hourly thereafter with a photo-ionization detector (PID). Influent measurements will be collected on the pressure side of the blower. Effluent measurements will be collected at the stack exiting the last carbon canister. 9.0 DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS The data collected during the pilot test will be recorded on a data sheet along with the time each measurement was collected. The pilot test data sheet will be used to record the following data: SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Vapor Extraction Test Workplan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 1501 E. 19th Street, BakersfieM, CA. Page No. 7 · Time measurement was collected · Absolute pressure at the extraction wellhead · Absolute pressure at the perimeter wells · Air flow rate at the blower inlet Temperature at the blower inlet · PID readings at the blower discharge · PID readings at the treatment system effluent · Name and time for sample cOllected for laboratory analysis ( EPA 8015m and 8020) The results of the VET will be presented in a Vapor Extraction Test Report along with a Remedial Action Plan. The data. collected during the VET will be analyzed to determine the optimum flow rate, the expected pressures and radius of influence for each well and the estimated time required to remediate the soil at the site. The maximum flow rate for the extraction well will be linearly extrapolated from a plot showing the extraction flow rate vs. vacuum at the well. The repOrt will also include · a calculation of the mass removal rate in lbs/hr/day, a plot of PID Readings vs. time and a plot showing the vacuum pressure in the monitoring wells vs. well distance. All data sheets containing field data will be incorporated into the report. Based on the. results from the pilot test, the location of additional vapor extraction (if wells necessary) will 'be recommended. This report will also include the f'mal recommendations for the soil vapor extraction system as part of the Remedial Action Plan. 10.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY A site specific health and safety plan has been developed for the performance of the vapor extraction pilot test. A copy of the health and safety plan is presented in Appendix A. I I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.' I Vapor Extraction Test Workplan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 8 I 11.0 AIR PERMIT REQUIREMENTS I A pilot test exemption waiver will be requested and obtained from the San Joaquin I Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) before starting the pilot Valley Unified test. Effluent monitoring of the pilot treatment system will be in accordance with the I : i requirements of the SJVUAPCD pilot test waiver. An Authority to Construct permit will be obtained from the SJVUAPCD prior the construction and operation of i the soil vapor extraction (SVE) system. If you have any questions about this Workplan or require additional information, IiI1 please do not hesitate to give me a call at (805)831-5100~O~ Soils Engineering, Inc. -' Robert J. Becker, R.G. REN ! Environmental Division Manager Encl.: Analytical Results, Table 1 i Location Map, Plate 1 Plot Plan, Plate 2 Proposed Locations Of VEW's, Plate 3 i Typical Vapor Extraction Well Profiles, Plate 4 & 4A Vapor Extraction Pilot System Schematic, Plate 5 Health & Safety Plan, Appendix A I cc: Mr. Howard Wines, III City Of Bakersfield Fire Department I Hazardous Materials Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA. 93301 I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Table I Anal~,iical Results - Soil San Joaquiu Roofing 1501 East 19th Street [Boring Depth, in t~et ] Saraple Date ] TPH as gasoline[ BenzeneI Toluene Ethyl BenzeneI Xylenes, total] Lead, totalI 15 5/26/95 59000 650 6100 1 I00 9800 52 30 5/26/95 60000 590 3900 730 5900 NAt 40 5/26/95 <I0 0.054 0.2 0.018 0.27 NA 55 5/26/95 <10 0.048 0.022 0.007 0.051 NA 70 5/26/95 <I0 0.012 0.006 <0.005 0.008 NA 75' 5/26/95 <10 0.016 0.010 <0.005 0.014 NA B-2 15 5/26/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA 30 5/26/95 7300 3.4 130 56 420 NA 40 5/26/95 <10 0.029 0.086 0.005 0.062 NA 55 5/26/95 <10 0.009 0.006 <0.005 0.016 NA 70 5/26/95 <10 0.008 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 NA 75 5/26/95 <10 0.011 0.036 0.005 0.045 NA B-3 20 5/31/95 <I0 <0.005 0.015 <0.005 0.11 NA 35 5/31/95 11000 37 640 150 1300 NA 15 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA B-4 30 5/31/95 <I0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA 40 5/31/95 <10 0.056 0.090 0.013 0.11 NA 55 5/31/95 <10 0.049 0.007 <0.005 0.072 NA 65 5/31/95 . <10 0.090 0.005 0.011 0.054 NA 70 . 5/31/95 <10 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 0.007 NA B-5 15 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA 30 5/31/95 .<10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA 40 5/31/95 <10 0.068 0.19 0.022 0.27 NA 55 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.010 NA 65 5/31/95 <10 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 NA 70 5/31/95 <10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA · Notes: All units 'are m~JKg or parts per million, ppm. INA = Not analyzed I I I ,IALSOIL.XLS, 6/23/95 Page I ~.,~./. ..... t"t' ~ - ST T.i . I .e~ / ,.q ~ ~smm' ST I ~' sH * ,to~ " ~ ST :' ~': r~ o m ~ = '-.:,tu~;,~ .,.~.'.',.". ~ ~ = ~ ~ z[. < ~ ~ ~ > .uo~v z ~ -- ' ---5, om'"""-'~ ...... I ......... ~ ~V ~I ~a.~.~ mZ I ~ ~ o , / ~o~1~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ..... ~ . - ~ ~ I BELLE TdR ~ .... ~- ' ~ ~ 1 ~l o , , ~ I ........ , .: . . . ._~ j~ OCL~ .~o_'~ ~ TER ~ I ~ ~ e ~ e~,,~ ... ~ ...... t · :.::~,~ ~'...=1 ~ = ~ .~I ~1 ~ ~' ~:.':-' ...... ~ ~ ...... :=~:,, ~ ~ '.'.~t'~~c' , I I i SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING CO~Q:'AN¥ PLATE 1501 EAST 19TH STREET 4700 District Blvd. BAKERS1FIELD, CALEFORNIA Bakersfield, CA 93313 1 ' I Project Number: Location Map I mm m mm m m u EAST19TH STREET , Gate B-3 B.4Former Underground Storage Tank Former Dispenser B-5 0 10 20 1 inch = 20 feet EXPLANATION "" Fence Boring Location and Number SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 ' DATE: 5-8-95 PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA PLOT PLAN PLATE 2 EAST 19TH STREET ' , ~////////~//////~ ~ ~ ', __ ' ' _ Former Underground Storage Tank omc', ' ~ Formor Disponsor fistimatod fi~ont ~ ~///~ ~' ' H ydr~arbonPlume ~roposod VEW Sin~lo Zono ~roposod V[W ~ual Zono SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 DATE: 2-13-97 PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA PROPOSED VAPOR EXTRACTION WELLS PLATE 3 ! _~ ~ Locking Cap ,~ ~Water T,ght ! i ' -' Traffic I~ox ,, Concrete I ' ' , ~ ~¢ . , ~;~[onite ======================================= ::::i:i:i:~:i:! ::::::::::::::::::::: i~iiiiiiiii!ii!!!iiiii!iiiiiiiii!iiiii~' ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: il ~ 2' ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '.".'.'-'-'-'- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '-'-'-'-'-'-'- --- :~:i:E:i:E:i:i:E..-............... ....... .iii.ili.i.i.i.!.i.i.i.l.i.i.i.ii.l.i.:~":.-'.::i-'.::i-'.::! i.l.i.i.i.i.i.:i.:~.i:.i..~i:.i:.!.!.. Sand pack I ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..-.-.-.-.-.-. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: iiiiiii:.iiiii::i::ii}::i::i::iiiiiii::ii!~i::~: x-.x-.-.x-. ................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '.'.'.'.'.'.'. I :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-.-.-.-.-.-.-. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: i:,:E:E:i': Bottom Plug PLATE I $OIL$ £NGINI::£FIING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. Typical Single Zone 4 Bakersfield, CA 93313 I VADOSE EXTRACTION WELL ['reject ~f.mt~r: CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM I ! Dual Completed Vadose Monitoring Well Diagram To Remed. I -~-- I '..~.~'~----['~"~ - Compound ' ~, ! .~_ .~",~.' Bentonite ~.,- ;;~'~ ~.. . S~l ~ ~ ~ ~~, I~ ~/~ ~ -Concrete 5' Blank Casing 15 :~:::.:;::~::~:.~.:.:?.L:;;::~::~;;; ~.'.;'~:';~.~; Blank Casing Casing, 2" dia ...................................................... ~ ........... : .... Sand pack ~3 ~:~'~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ ~::::::;~::::' ~ ...:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ........................................... : ........ ~': ....... Bo~om 45' Plug '1 Not To Scale ISOILS ENGINEERING, INC. PLATE 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 r4 ~ I DA.TE: - ' PROJECT NUMBER: Dual Completed VEW VENT Magnehelic Vacuum Gauge Gau, ge i Vapor 2-inch Hose . - Manometer Manometer .jli< "e Displacement q~) & Blower, 100 SCFM ----- __= ~ Perforated Intervals -= _ _ _=-- (Vapor Extraction Wells) Test Well PLATE San Joaquin Roofing SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.' 1501 East 19th Street 4700 District Blvd. BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Bakersfield,' CA 93313 VAPOR EXTRACTION TEST UNIT PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Health & Safety Plan SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN San Joaquin Roofing 1501 E. 19th Street Bakersfield, Ca. SECTION 1 I FACILITY BACKGROUND I 1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION i The San Joaquin Roofing site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of East · 19th Street and Brown Street in Bakersfield, CA.. The site is an active roofing company serving the Bakersfield and Kern County area. A 1,000 gallon gasoline underground Istorage was utilized for fueling company vehicles. 1.2 SITE HISTORY I The underground storage tank, product lines and dispenser was removed by RLW Equipment in February, 1995. After tank removal, soil samples were collected from I depths of two feet and six feet beneath the UST location. The soil samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline and Ifor Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene total Xylenes (BTEX). Concentrations gasoline fuel constituents requiring further assessment were reported in samples from beneath the UST. I . At the request of the Bakersfield Fire Department Environmental Services (BFDES) a Site Characterization was performed by Smith Environmental to define the vertical and I lateral extent of hydrocarbons in the soil. A total of five (5) soil borings were drilled to depths of 35 to 75 feet below ground surface. 'Soil samples analyzed for TPHg and BTEX indicated a gasoline plume in the soil approximately 40 feet deep and 50 feet in I diameter. To evaluate the remedial effectiveness of vapor extraction at the site five vapor I extraction wells to be installed and a extraction test will be conducted. are vapor Hydrocarbon vapors will be extracted from the main well and adsorbed by granular activated carbon (GAC). I I I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 2 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND WORK PLAN I 2.1 PROJECT SCHEDULE The field activities will follow those outlined in the Vapor Extraction Test Workplan. I They are. scheduled to be completed within one to two working days followed by a Remedial Action Report describing the findings of the field work and specific remediation plans for the site. I 2.2 WORK PLAN I At least 48 hours prior to conducting the field work, Soils Engineering, Inc. (SEI) will notify the BFDES of the time and date. Five (5) soil borings will be drilled to a depth of approximately 45 feet each. Selected soil samples will be collected and analyzed for I TPHg borings completed as vapor by installing and BTEX. The will be extraction wells 2" diameter PVC piping with screen intervals adjacent to the highest contaminated zones in each boring. A vapor extraction test will be conducted on the main VEW in which I hydrocarbon vapors will be extracted and tested. The radius of influence of the wells will be measured at the perimeter wells during the test. A Vapor extraction Test Report i will be prepared detailing the field work performed, analytical results, plot plans, with conclusions and recommendations for the site (Remedial Action Plan). I SECTION 3 I KEY PERSONNEL AND RESPONSIBILITIES I 3.1 PERSONNEL Key personnel in charge of site activities for SEI I Project Manager Robert J. Becker Project Safety Officer Thomas Bayne I Site Safety Officer Robert J. Becker Field Personnel To be designated I I I I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 I 1501 E. 19th Street, BakersfieM, CA. Page No. 3 3.2 RESPONSIBILITIES Soils Engineering, Inc. has been given the responsibility for the preparation of this IHealth. and Safety Plan, and is to monitor compliance of its personnel and those of its subcontractors. Soils Engineering, Inc. personnel responsible for the distribution and monitoring of this site health and safety plan will be the Project Safety Officer, and the I Project Manager. The Project Safety Officer is responsible for delivering the plan and any addenda to the I Project Manager, and for advising the Project Manager and Site Safety Officer on health and safety issues. He has the authority to monitor compliance with the provisions of this plan, suspend work or modify work practices for safety reasons, and to dismiss I individuals whose conduct on the site endangers the health and safety of others. The Project Manager is responsible for distributing the plan to Soils Engineering, Inc. I field and its subcontractors and each firm with personnel working on site. personnel, The Project Manager is also responsible for review of Soils Engineering, Inc. field personnel's compliance with its medical examination requirements, providing the I appropriate safety equipment personnel protection, verify required health. for and that all and safety documentation is submitted to the Project Safety Officer. The authority of the i Project Manager is the same as the Project Safety Officer. The Site Safety Officer is responsible for assisting the Project Manager with on-site i implementation of the Site Health and Safety Plan. His responsibilities are as follows: 1) Maintain safety equipment supplies. I. 2) Perform air quality measurements as required or needed. i 3) Direct decontamination operations and emergency response operations in accordance with the information provided in this document. I 4) Establish the work zone markers and signs. I 5) Report all accidents, incidents and infractions of safety rules and I requirements to the Project Manager. The Site Safety Officer has the authority to suspend work anytime he determines that the Iprovisions of the Site Health and Safety Plan are inadequate to provide a safe working environment. He is to notify the Project Manager of individuals whose on-site presence jeopardizes their health and safety, and the health and safety of others. ! I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 I 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 4 I. SECTION 4 JOB HAZARD ANALYSIS I - 4.1 CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS I The chemical hazards at this site are the presence of aviation and jet fuel constituents in the subsurface soil. Specific compounds such as benzene, toluene, xylenes and I are known to be present in gasoline fuel. Benzene is a known carcinogen ethylbenzene and precautions are necessary to limit exposure to this compound. Material data sheets i (MSDS) for these compounds are in Attachment A. NOTES 1) Inh - Inhalation I Ing- Ingestion Abs - Absorption through the skin I 2) TLV-TWA - Threshold Limit Value-Time Weighted Average) i 3) ACGIH - American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists I 4.2 INHALATION HAZARD I The vapor and dust concentrations that might be encountered during sampling and mitigation procedures may exceed currently recommended exposure limits in which case respiratory protection must be used in the work area. Engineering and administrative I controls will be employed if required to abate windborne dust. These will include items such as water spray from a 500 gallon tank and/or administrative controls such as reducing site activities that produce windborne dust. I 4.3 DERMAL EXPOSURE HAZARD I Contact of sufficient duration .to cause significant absorption of toxic components is highly unlikely. Repeated daily or prolonged contact over a period of time may I however, lead to absorption through the skin, irritation and dermatitis.' For this reason direct skin contact shall be avoided by wearing protective gloves and clothing. However, I I I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 · · 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 5 · if contact does occur, the exposed areas shall be washed with soap and water and. rinsed thoroughly. 4.3.1 Eye Contact If eye contact is made with any chemical materials at the site, the eye shall be flooded with water for at least 15 minutes. Medical attention shall be obtained as soon as possible. I 4.3.2 Skin Contact Skin exposure shall be treated by washing with soap and water. Any contaminated clothing shall be removed and affected areas washed with I soap and water. I 4.4 OTHER HAZARDS i Attention must be paid to other possible hazards on the site including, but not limited to: - improper use of hand tools I - rotating machinery such as pumps - dehydration of the personnel - tripping on objects or open ditches i - falling objects from the overhead work - lack of oxygen through blockage of the mask - overhead power lines I I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC, I Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 I 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 6 I 4.5 HEAT STRESS PREVENTION The SSO shall monitor ambient temperature and use the following work/rest regimes as a I guide. For ambient temperature below 80°F, standard rest breaks (e.g. 15 minutes every 4 I hours) should be used. For temperature above 80°F, the following regime should be followed. I Temperature Work Rest Comments (a) 80 to 85°F 2 hr. 5 min. Review heat stress I in a safety meeting. Schedule a beverage break every 2 hrs., I at a minimum. 80 to 90oF 2 hr. 15 min. Seated rest. Drink at I least 8 ounces at each break. I Above 90°F 1.5 hr 15 min. As stated above. Rest area to be. shaded. SECTION 5 I JOB HAZARD SUMMARY I Exposure to chemical hazards may occur when contaminated soils are brought to the surface during drilling activities. As each of task begins, the potential risk of exposure increases. Consequently, level C personal protective equipment shall be 'available at the I site. If monitoring of the breathing zone establishes another action level, the personal protection level may be upgraded. Nearby residents or workers are at a sufficient distance that they shall be at no significant risk. The SSO shall determine if any further I action is required. I I I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 I 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 7 I SECTION 6 EXPOSURE MONITORING PLAN ! 6.1 DRILLING & EXTRACTION I The exposure monitoring activities shall be conducted or directed by the SSO during I those activities that require such monitoring. At a minimum, the breathing zone shall be ' monitored for organic vapor during drilling activities and while extracting vapors. This shall be accomplished by use of a Foxboro OVA, HNU or Photovac PID portable i analyzer. i 6.2 ACTION LEVELS Actions levels for explosive hazards are set at 25% of the lower explosive limit (LEL). i In the event that enough combustible vapor is present to sustain readings at or near 25% of LEL work shall cease until an evaluation is perform by the SSO and a determination can be made. I Action levels for organic vapors in the breathing zone shall be based on readings obtained by the portable equipment mentioned. The PID instrument determines the total ~ · organic vapor present in the breathing zone. Readings of 0 to 300 ppm (TWA for 'I gasoline is 300 ppm) shall be considered level D without respirators. Readings of 300 ppm or greater for 5 minutes or longer shall trigger an action level to upgrade to level C I or modified level D with respirators. SECTION 7 I PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT The respiratory and skin protection requirement shall be initially set at level "D" without respirators. This indicates that inhalable airborne substances are known, and Iconcentrations of chemicals in the atmosphere are not expected and are well below TLV- STEL levels. The use of the following personal protection equipment is mandatory. I I I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 i 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 8 I 7.1 EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR FIELD PERSONNEL - Hard hat I - Boots (with steel toes) Nitrile, or equivalent, work gloves - Eye protection ! 7.2 LEVEL C PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT - Half-mask air purifying respirator with organic vapor cartridge when necessary. I - Tyvek protective coveralls - Gloves (latex and/or Nitrile) I 7.3 EQUIPMENT TO BE USED OR AVAILABLE ON SITE: I First-aid kit with eyewash - Fire extinguisher Construction tape and barriers to delineate work zone I ' I A vehicle must be kept on site when personnel are working A cellular or public phone to be available on site for communication purposes I with off site facilities. Foxboro OVA portable analyzer or PID LEL meter ! Sanitation facilities portable or public I" I SECTION 8 SITE CONTROL I 8.1 WORK ZONE I The site area shall be controlled to reduce the possibility of exposure to chemical and/or mechanical hazards present at the site. I Work areas shall be delineated to protect the general public from exposures and hazards. If level C protection becomes necessary then zones and access points shall be clearly I I I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 i 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 9 I 'indicated. A restricted area for contamination reduction shall be maintained at the exit to the exclusion zone. Protective clothing and equipment as required by this health and safety plan shall be worn at all times in the exclusion zone and shall only be removed in I the designated decontamination corridor at the exit. The areas outside the contamination reduction area, is considered a clean area. I SECTION 9 i DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES Decontamination of equipment shall be conducted when necessary. However, if it becomes necessary to upgrade to a protect level greater that "D", then an Exclusion Zone I shall established and an area in the Contamination Reduction Corridor (CRC) shall be 'be used as a decontamination area. The CRC controls access into and out of the Exclusion IZone and confines personnel and equipment decontamination activities to a limited area. The CRC boundaries shall be marked and all personnel entering and leaving the site must do so through this corridor. I 9.1 DECONTAMINATION OF PERSONNEL IN LEVEL C I Exit from the exclusion zone through CRC shall include the following steps: I 9.1.1 While in the Exclusion Zone near the CRC. Deposit equipment used on site. i Outer boot and glove wash. - Outer boot and. glove rinse. Tape removal if used. -I - Boot cover removal. · - Outer glove removal. i 9.1.2 Exit the Exclusion Zone to the Contamination Reduction Zone for further decontamination. I - Remove garment - ' Wash inner glove - Rinse inner glove I - Face piece removal Inner glove removal I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I I Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 I 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. I0 I 9.1.3 Exit the Contamination Reduction Zone to the Support Zone. I - Wash face and hands. 9.2 DECONTAMINATION OF EQUIPMENT I Insofar as possible, measures shall be taken to prevent contamination of equipment. Any delicate instrument, which cannot be decontaminated easily should be protected while it I is used. It should be and the and secured around the instrument. being bagged bag taped Openings are made in the bag for sample intake. I Larger equipment shall be water or steam under pressure. These decontaminated with activities shall be conducted on an impermeable surface such as plastic. The rinsate shall i be collected and stored in fifty five (55) gallon drums. The drums shall be label as to its contents and staged for disposal or recycling. i SECTION 10.0 GENERAL SAFE WORK AND I STANDARD OPERATING PRACTICES I Site health and safety plan implementation will be the responsibility of SEI. If Soils Engineering, Inc. health and safety personnel find that the H&S plan is not being implemented by the subcontractors, the subcontractors will be instructed to suspend I further work. A meeting to evaluate the noncompliance will be scheduled with the subcontractors Project Manager. During the meeting the personnel will reach an agreement to either; I * Revise the Health and Safety Plan, I * Modify the Health and Safety Plan, · Request review by an Industrial Hygienist, I * Leave the Plan unchanged. I The subcontractor will then the Plan modified. implement as I I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 I 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 11 I · 10.1 SITE SAFETY ORIENTATION MEETING All field personnel from Soils Engineering, Inc. and the subcontractors must attend a I safety orientation meeting before commencing the field ·work. The meeting will be scheduled and conducted by the Site Safety Officer and is to include an overview of the site history, the potentially hazardous compounds, their potential mode of ingress into the I body, protective equipment requirements, and emergency response equipment. Ail individuals who do not have respirators and who may be required to wear them, will not be allowed on the site until they are provided with and fit tested for respirators by their I respective employers. 10.2 ACCIDENT/PERSONNEL EXPOSURE REPORTS The Site Safety Officer must be informed of all exposures to potentially hazardous material and all accidents whether or not injury was caused. After investigation of any the cause of the accident, he will take all immediate possible steps for the mitigation or the repeat of the accident and proceed with the preparation of an accident report. In the event of a serious or fatal injury resulting on from accidents the site, the relevant CAL/OSHA requirements for accident reporting must be met. The Project Manager will also be informed at the earliest possible time. 10.3 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES No eating, drinking, or smoking is allowed in the restricted zone, and only allowed off the site after personal decontamination has taken place. Removal of personal protection equipment and respirator required by articles of this plan, inside the contamination zone is prohibited. Under special circumstances, and after consultation with the Project Manager and/or the Project Safety Officer, the Site Safety Officer may lower the level of protection required and allow the disuse of specific items of personnel protection. Movements on the site singly and out of the sight of the rest of the personnel is prohibited. 10.4 TAIL GATE MEETING A Tail Gate Meeting will be held every morning before the start of work and is to be attended by all personnel on-site. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the days work, I I SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. I Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 I 1501 E. 19th Street, BakersfieM, CA. Page No. 12 potential hazards, and specific health and safety procedures to utilized during the day. The minutes of the meeting will be prepared by the Site Safety Officer. 10.5 VISITOR CLEARANCE Visitors to the site must inform the Site Safety Officer or the Project Manager upon their arrival on the site and must be informed of the contents of this report and fully equipped before entry is permitted. Visitors will be required to be escorted in the exclusion zone and must comply with escort directions at all times. Non-compliance with escort directions will not be tolerated, and violators will be required to leave the restricted access zones immediately. SECTION 11 SANITATION Sanitation facilities for site personnel will include the following: 1. Accessible, near-by restrooms 2. Washing facilities 3. Potable water 4. Electrolyte drink (Gator Aid) SECTION 12 CONTINGENCY PLANS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES Soils Engineering, Inc. requires the utmost care and safety for all of its employees. And therefore attempts to maintain all employees in a current status of emergency training. 12.1 PHYSICAL INJURY In the event of an accident resulting in a physical injury, apply first aid and call paramedics. Severely injured personnel are to be transported only by paramedics and/or I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 I 1501 E. 19th Street, Baicersfield, CA. Page No. 13 I ambulance personnel. At the hospital, a physician's attention is mandatory regardless of how serious the injury appears. I The Project Safety Officer and the Project Manager are to be notified by the Site Safety Officer, as soon after the injury as practical, regarding the nature of the accident. A written report is also to be prepared and submitted by the Site Safety Officer. I 12.2 FIRE, EXPLOSION, AND PROPERTY DAMAGE I In the event of a fire or explosion notify the fire department immediately by dialing: 911 I The Officer and the Project Manager are to be notified by the Site Safety Project Safety Officer as soon as practical and a written report prepared. I 12.3 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS I Fire Department 911 Police Department 911 I Paramedics 911 SEI (805) 831 - 5100 12.4 WORK SITE ADDRESS San Joaquin Roofing Southeast corner of E. 19th Street and Brown Street Bakersfield, CA. 93305 I I I I I I SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. I Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 I 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 14 I ' 12.5 HOSPITAL ADDRESSES AND ROUTES Plate 1 is a local map showing the route to the hospital. I Hospital Address Kern Medical Center I 1830 Flower Street, Bakersfield, CA 93305 phone (805) 326-2000 I Route: North (right) onto Brown Street to Edison Highway, turn right onto Edison Highway travel east to Mt. Vernon Avenue, turn left (north) and travel approximately 0.5 mile to Flower Street, turn left (west) I and travel one block, hospital is on right side (north) of Flower Street. SECTION 13 I TRAINING REQUIREMENTS I Training on the hazards at the site will be conducted at the start of the project as and conditions and personnel change. This plan will be reviewed with project personnel prior I to their entry onto the site. In addition, Soils Engineering, Inc. provides and encourages training opportunities such as CPR, First Aid, and 1910.120 annual refresher and supervisory training. I The initial training will include the following subjects at a minimum: I 1. Nature of the hazards, including the location of the site Material Safety Data Sheets for chemicals at the site. I 2. A description of the levels of personal protection at the site, and the condition for selection of each level. I 3. Emergency procedures. 4. Demonstration of respiratory protective equipment. I 5. Review of safe work practices at the site, and identification of forbidden practices. I Safety Meetings will be conducted daily at the site to review work plans and safety practices associated with them. These meetings will be conducted by the SSO, I SOILS ENGINEERING~ INC. Site-Specific Health & Safety Plan File No. 97-8132 San Joaquin Roofing February, 1997 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. Page No. 15 attendance by all Soils Engineering, Inc. employees, subcontractors, and visitors to the site will be mandatory. SECTION 14 MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM To meet with the criteria set forth in 29 CFR 1910.120 Soils Engineering, Inc. has implemented a medical surveillance program which includes all employees that work at or visit hazardous waste sites. SECTION 15 DOCUMENTATION I All required records of individual employees are maintained at SEI's central location in Bakersfield, California. The records include but are not limited to: medical surveillance, i training, and respiratory testing. This Site Safety Plan Is Hereby Approved and Acknowledge by SEI's Acting Health and I Safety Officer. 'l Robert $. ~!ker, R.G. I I I I I I I j~ .... J TRU~TU ' J Il CALIFORNIA ..... ~ ' %~ ' -BELLE T~R F BEL I SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY PLATE i SOILS ENGINEERING, lNG. 15Ol EAST 19TH STREET 4700 District Blvd. BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 1 Bakersfield, CA 93313 I Project Number: Location Map 1 EAST 19TH STREET Gate ' ........................................ :: '~: B.3 B.4F°rmer Underground Storage Tank ' ' CZ=~ , Former Dispenser SCAkE ' 1 inch = 20 feet EXPLANATION X X Fence B-I~ Boring Location ~ and Number SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 4700 District Blvd. Bakersfield, CA 93313 DATE: 5-8-95 PROJECT NUMBER: 8132 SAN JOAQUIN ROOFING COMPANY 1501 EAST 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALII~ORNIA PLOT PLAN PLATE 2