HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNDERGROUND TANK-C-3/11/92 (2) '; BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT
8 ,l- ~; ~Lg~ BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
Date APPLICATION Application No._
In conformity with provisions of pertinent ordinances, codes and/or regulations, application is made
'by:
Name of Com~y
Address
to display, store, install, use, operate, sell or handle materials or pracesses involving or creating con-
.L
ditlons deemed hazardous to life or property as follows:
Date
PHONED
OF RETURNED
.Yg~m
CALL
PHONE ~Acoo~ ~ /
WANTS T0
SEE Y0U
~ ~SlGNEO ~ TOPS~ ~OR~OO~
KE¥1N PHILLII~
WAREHOUSE MANAGER
215 ~ 21'st Str~ Bake~fiel~ CA 93305
WATS 1-8~a21-2936 ~ PHONE 1 (805) 327-9991 .~'~'~
E~. 185 ~,
Cu*ffRA~O~ONS FOR LEAKING TANKS
Site Specific Time Accounting Sheet
Fundlng~ (Local, Sta~e, of Federal),
Site Specific Status Changes:
Category Activity Hours
Date Code Code Description ~.., ( 10ths )
Da~ Enter~ By: ~te:
Permit #
Employee
TRACT OPTIONS FOR LEAKING TANKf
'S_~e Specific Time Accounting Shee~
Site Specific Status Changes:
Site Name or Addres~
Funding (Local,
Federal
~ego~ Activity
~o~e Code
Description
(10ths)
Data Entered By:
Date:
Env. Health 580 4113 137 (Rev. 5/89)
CC' 'TRACT OPTIONS FOR LEAKING TAI~"
.,te Specific Time Accounting Sheet
Permit #
Employee #
Employee S~g nakL(e~..,~'i,,
Site .amir A~dress/~ ~- ~ ~,~ ~~.
Funding (?~al,. State,~f FMeral) // ~ ti{/ '
Site Specific Status Changes:
Category Activity Hours
Date Code Code Description (lOths)
Data Entered By: Date:
Em,. Health 580 4113 137 (REV 5~89)
C(.. gRACT OPTIONS FOR LEAKING· TAb,.
Site Specific Time Accounting Sheet
Permit # /)
Employee #
Employee Signa~e
Site N.~ddres~;~:~ ~ ~//~
Fund~ (Loca~tate,.~ ~f F~deral) / {J ~ .
Site Specific Status Changes:
Category Activity Hours
Date Code Code i Descr ption (.lOths)
,te Specific Time Accounting Sheet'
Permit # / ~--: ~.)C_~ ~"~ 7 'i '
Empl°yee #~'~/x%~ ~/// /,~/?
EmployeeSg~e ~ ~ ~ ~ .~
t Site Name s,~
Category Activity
Code Code Description
Site Specific Stat~s Changes:
~urs
Entered By:-
Date:
Env. Health 580 4113 137 (REV. 5/89)
', , ' Site Specific Time
Permit # 1 ' -~- ;"' "" '"' ?' ~
CL _ ~ r~. ~ ~,r, ,--,- ~ccounting Sheet
Site Specific Status Changes:
Employee # /"
Em Io ee Signature \/ '
P Y '~ .. ... ',., r;,
------------- ~ ' -.
Site Name or Address
· ~--~": L.L 1. .i ~\:
Fundin~ (Local) State, ot t-e~,eral)
Category
Code Code Description
lOths) '
}ara Entered By:
Date:
, T oPTIONS FOH t.-'''~'''~ '"' ....
CC/..RA_C .... '----- Acc~;~-Sheet
anges: ~
Hours
Category
Code Code Description
Date:
Funding '
Category Activity
Code ~o~e Description
..... !i .~ Site Specific Time Accounting Sheet
v ..... site Specific Status Changes.: ,_~
Hours
(1Orbs)
/?
Data Entered By:
Employee
Employee
',ite Name or
C~NTRACT OPTIONS FOR LEAK~..NG S~eet
Site Specific Time ACCOUnulng see
Site Specific Status Changes:
)f Federal
'--- ~ Hours
Cat~egory Activity (10ths)
Date uo~e Code Description
,- x- ' -. , ........ o,.~-./',;(o2..T~ ....
\
Data ~.ntered By: ~ate:
-I
~ .e Specific Tnne Accounslng ~ ~
Site Specific Status Changes: ----------
3mployee # ---'----
~loyee ~ ~ ---------- _-------
Site
~ (L~,"'Stat~, of'~Federal~ v
Category
. Code
Activity
Code Description
Date:
Entered By: Env. Health 580 ~.113 13'7 (Rev. 5/89)
~fRACT OPTI°NS FOR LEAKING TANK
Specific Time Accounting Shee~
Permit # ~
)loyee %_ ~
Employee signa%u~e ~'~
Site ,Name or Address
Site Specific Status Changes:
Funding (Local,
Cat. egory
uo~e Code
Description
(10ths)
Employee#
Employee SignatUre'
Site Name or
Funding Federal
C~_,fRACTOPTIONS FOR LEAKINGTANKS
Site Specific Time' Accounting Sheet
Site Specific Status Changes:
-- Hours
~C9~ =t ~egory Activity
Code Description . . (lOths)
Date
Notes:
Data Entered By: ' Date:
C~i~ACT OPTIONS FOR LEAKING TANKS
Site Specific Time Accounting Sheet
Permit # / K~--~.~ ~,~ d~ Site Specific Status Changes:
Employee
Employee 8ignat'.~re '"x(~>~_~
~Cgtegory Activity --
Hours
Date ~x:te . C_x~e I~scription ~ (lOt_hs)
Da~ Enter~ By: " ~te:
Employee SignatUre
Site Name or Address~
C~VI~ACT OPTIONS FOR LEAKING TANKS'
Site Specific Time Accounting Sheet
site Specific Status Changes:
Federal)
Notes:
Description
Hours
(lOths)
Data Entered By:
Employee #
)loyee Signature
ite Name or AddreSs
Funding (Local
S_ .e Specizic 'l'lme acuu ~
Site specific status Changes:
Federal )
Notes:
Cat~egory
uo~e ~ Code
Description
Entered BY:
Date:
Env. Health 580 4113 1~ (Rev, 5/89)
f ~RACT OPTIONS FOR LEAKING TANKS
$_.e Specific Time Accounting Shee~
Permit # 1 .c~.; ~-~ cf Site Specific Status Changes:
Employee # / ~-- n "' ii~ 611~ ~ :~, ~-~ ~ ~
Employee Signa6u~'~C~:~ p:,,, z9'J--.
Site Name or A~ar ,,~.-1~..2_.~/
Funding (Local, Stat[, o~ Fe~eral) .~
---- Cat~egory ~ctivity .... Hours
D~afe ~oae Cod~ Description i(lOths)
N~{es"." [ ~ x ~.% .,.,.~_~ ~. ,~.~,~ ~
. -- /'/
~ Enter~ By: ~te:
~,,, ~lfh 5~0 4113 1~ (Rev. 5~89)
~ONTRACT OPTIONS FOR LW. AKING TANKS
Site Specific Time 'Accounting Sheet
Permit # 'l ~)~0(~ ~c7' Site Specific Status Changes:
Site Name or Address~ ' ~
Funding~ Stat~, ' of Yede~a~) ~ G ~
Notes:
Category Activity
~o~e Code Description
Data Entered By:
Date:
CONTRACT OPTIONS FORLEAKING TANKS
Site Specific Time Accounting Sheet
Site Specific Status Changes:,
eegOry Activity
Code Description
Notes:
IHours
( 1 ot_hs )
Data Entered By: Date:
CONTRACT O~r~ONS FOR r,~GiNG TANKS
Site Specific Time Accounting Sheet
Site SPecific Status Changes:
Hours
(lOths)
e egOry Activity
Code Description
~ ..
Notes: '~'k..,.~k ,),~-Da-~ i~-~-Ct-u,-e-~- ~
Data Entered By:
Date:
CO~._.~ACT oPTIONS FOR LEAKING TANKS
Site Specific Time Accounting Sheet
Permit # i 7> t~
Employee ' '" ''
Funding i,(Local:' State," of Federal)
Site Specific Status Changes':
Cat. egory Activity
Hours
Date ~xte Code l~scription
.... '-- ' --~ (lOths)
~ Enter~ By: ~te:
Env. Health 580 4113 137 (Rev. 5~89)
Employee
Employee
'.ite Name 'or Address
~ndin~i. _(_L0¢,~!? Stat~,
Site bl~eciIlc .l'Lm~ n~-~-,~,-- ~
Site Specific Status Changes:
Category Activity
co~e Code Description
Hours
(10ths)
'Permit # ~
F.m~,loyee signature
Site Name or Address ~
Funding .(Local of
Cat~egory Activity Description
co~e
t .I~ACT OPTIONS FOR LEAKING TANKS
Site Specific Time Accounting Sheet
Site Specific Status Changes:
)ata Entered By:
Date:
Env. Health 580 4113 137 (Rev. 5/89)
PINAL IN~PBCTION CI~CICI, IST
Plot Diagram
Plot plan notes
Yes No
1. All new and existlnE tanks located on plot plan9 J>~ I:l
2. Does tank product correspond to product labels on ~ IX]
plot plan? 9;~I'
3. ~ there~ modifications identified which were IX] ~
not depicted on the plot plans?
If '~.~" describeS:
4. Are monitoring wells secure and free of water and ~ 1-1
product in sump?
5. Is pipin8 system pressure, suction or gravity? ~c~,~o
£nvironmenta) Health Services Department
RANDALL L. ABBOTT STEV~ McCALLEY, REH$, DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR Air Pollution Control District
DAVID PRICE !!i WILLIAM J. RODDY, APCO
AS$1ST^NT DIRECTOR Planning & Development S~rvices Department
TED JAMES, AICP, DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
March 11, 1992
Kevin Phillips
PEPSI COLA/DR. PEPPER
215 E. 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
SUBJECT: Location: 215 East 21st Street, Bakersfield
Known As: Pepsi Cola/Dr. Pepper
Permit #: 150039 :
Dear Mr. Phillips:
~his letter confirms the c°mpleti~n of site investigation and
remedial action at the above site. With the provision that the
information provided to this agency was accurate and representative
of existing conditions, it is the position of this office that no
further action is required at this time.
Please be advised that this letter does not relieve you of any
liability under the California Health and safety Code or Water Code
for past, present, or future operations.at the site. Nor does it
relieve you of the responsibility'to clean up existing, additional
or previously unidentified conditions, at the site which cause or
threaten to cause pollution or nuisance or otherwise pose a threat
to water quality or public health.
Additionally, be' advised that' ichanges in the present or
proposed use of the site may require further site characterization
and mitigation activity. It is the property owner's responsibility
to. notify this agency of any change: in report content, future
contamination findings,, or site usage;
2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 300 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 861-3636
FAX: (805) 861-3429
Kevin Phillips'
Page Two
March 11, 1992
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Flora Darling at (805) 861-3636.ext. 549.
S incer~ ly, ~
ehris Burger, R.E.H.S.
Manager
Hazardous Materials Management Program
CB:jg
RE$OOt CE MANAGEMENT AGr_.mCY
Environmental Health Services Department
RANDALL L. ABBOTT STEVE McCALLEY, REH$, DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR ' ' Air Pollution Control District
DAVID PRICE 111 W~LLLO~ J. RODDY, APCO
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR' Planning & Development Services Department
. TED JAMES, AICP, DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
March 11, 1992
~Kevin Phillips
PEPSI CO~/DR.'PEPP~
215 E. 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA- 93305
$~JECT: Pe~it #150039
Risk~praisal
Dear ~. Phillips:
Our office is in receipt and has reviewed the general risk
appraisal submitted by Remediation Services, International (RSI).
'RSI reports the contamination pl~e has remained at
approximately its foyer position. No migration to deeper levels
has been demonstrated by the test hole bored by RSI, October, 1991,
and very little, if any, degradation has occurred.
It would 'appear from a review of the boring data and
laboratory analyses of selected soil samples that the contamination
pl~e is static.
Without a driving force to aid the pl~e's migration to deeper
levels, no threat to groundwater is imminent. Also, an assessment
of B.T.E.X~.does not appear to Dose a threat to Dublic health and
welfare. Based upon RSI's analyses of risk for the site our
Department believes an additional boring in two years time to be
redundant.
A closure letter will follow under separate cover. Thank you
for your cooperation.
Hazardous Materials Management Program
FD:jg
cc: Remediation services, International
2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 300 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNLA 93301 (805) 861-3636
FAX: (805) 861-3429
m mm m mm mm
i mm
March S, 1992
Flora Darlirlg
KC Environmental Health Services Department
2/00 M Street, Suite 350
Bakersfield, Ca 93301
Dear Ms. Darling:
RS1 has been asked to review your letter dated 12/19/91 and help us
evaluate our next step in the remediation process.
Attached please find the RSI report and recommendations. These results
should satisfy your request for 2 separate risk appraisals.
Please contact me if you have any further questions or comments..
Sincerely Yours,
Kevin Phillips
Warehouse Manager
215 East 21st Street, Bakersfield, California 93305 · 805,'327-9991 · WATTS 1-800-339-7377
RESuURCE MANAGEMENT A~dNCY
· ~~~ Environmental Health Services Department
RANDALL L. ABBOTT ~ STEVE McC^H £Y, REHS, DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR ~r Pollution Control Distr~ct
DAVID PRICE 111 w~ j. RODDY, APCO
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Planning & Developmen! Sendces Department
TED JAMES, AICP, DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
December 19, 1991
James Lindsey "
Pepsi Cola/Dr Pepper
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
RE: Permit # 150039
Two (2) year Monitoring Report
Dear Mr. Lindsey:
The status assessment boring report performed by Remediation Services Int'l (R.S.I.)
on October 21, 1991, has been reviewed.
Following two years of passive remediation, R.S.I.'s assessment boring has determined
that no degradation of the contamination plume has occurred. :.'Indeed, testhole B-8 tends
to support the premise that the contamination maY.~_ave migrated to deeper levels'in
comparison to testhole B-1 bored by Krazan and Associates on August 23, 1989.',
In view of the above facts our Department believes two seParate risk~analyses are
indicated. One may be '~esoil." The second must be one that is acceptable to this office.
The transport and fate analyses of' the contamination should include factors such as soil
porosity, pH, 02, CO2 and estimate of time before impact upon groundwater. The risk
analyses are required at 'this time in order for our Department to determine if a more
vigorous remediation technique will be necessary.
The completed risk analyses should reach my desk within 30 days of the above date.
Upon receipt of the report our office will be able to continue the review. If you have any
questions, contact me 'at (805) 861-3636, Extension 549.
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Hazardous Materials Management Program
FD:ch
darling~lindsey.let
2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 300 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 861-3636
FAX: (805) 861-3429
RESOL RCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Environmental Hea]th Services Department
RANDALL L. ABBOTT ST~W M~C^~ ~¥, RF. HS, mR£CTO~
DIRECTOR Air Pollution Control D~str~ct
DAVID PRICE !ii W~UJAM J. RODDY, APCO
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Plannin9 & Development ~r~ces [~N~partrnent
TED JAMES, AlCP, DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
September 25, 1991
Mr. James Lindsey
PEPSI COLA'/DR. PEPPER
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
SUBJECT: Location: '215 East 21st Street, Bakersfield
Known As: Pepsi Cola/Dr. Pepper
Permit #: 150039
Dear Mr. Lindsey:
Our Department has reviewed the site characterization workplan
submitted by' Remediation Service, International (R. S. I. ). The
workplan addressing soil sampling constituents to be analyzed, and
health and safety considerations are acceptable for investigation
of extent of contamination present at this former underground tank
site.
Please notify this office 48 hours prior to retrieving soil
samples. Within thirty (30) days after sampling and laboratory
analyses are completed, a comprehensive report describing extent of
the site contamination must be submitted to this office for review.
The report must· describe remedial alternatives available, and
professional recommendations for the most feasible one.
If you have any questions you may contact me at (805) 861-3636
ext. 549.
Sincerely,/~; ~ ~/~
F~ora Darling, R.E.H.S., ~.E.A.
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Hazardous Materials Management Program
FD: jg
cc: R.S.I.
2700 "M"- STREET, SUITE 300 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 861-3636
FAX: (805) 861-3429
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
.Flur~'~ Oarlinq
.fE;~v'~.ror'~mental He;~[~h
S~rvEc~s Oepar~r~rl~
2700 M SEt-eeL S~e 300
Bakersfie]Ld, CA 93301.
SubjecE: 2:L5 Eer~,t', 2ts~ S~ree~,' Bakersfietd
Follo~ Up Irr~estiqatcion
Dear' Ms. Darling:
· As you request:ed,, a ~ork plan is being prepared to de~ermihe the status
of contaminants at our former fuel.in9 site' Remediation Service~
-International (RSI) has been selected to coordinate the project and ~ill
for,ward the ~o'rk plan next week for your review.
tf you have any questJ, ons. feel free to-call.
SZncereZy,
Kevin Phil lips
~la rehouse M.anaqe r'
cc: Sgev, e Richardson (RSI)
215 East 21st Street Bakersfield, California 93305 · 805/327-9991 · WATTS 1-800-821-2936
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGE. CY
Environmental Health Services Department
RANDALL L. ABBOTT STEVE McCAL~FY, REHS, DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR ' ' Air Pollution Control District
DAVID PRICE ii! WmMAM ,J. RODDY, ~U,CO
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Planning & Development ,.~es Department
-TED JAMES, AICP, DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
June 10, 1991
Mr. James Lindsey
Pepsi Cola/Dr Pepper
215 East 21 st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
SUBJECT: 215 East 21st Street, Bakersfield, CA
Permit # 150039
Dear Mr. Lindsey:
A review of the above-referenced file discloses a passive remediation plus capping and
sealing was performed in 1989, with the stipulation that future borings would be performed to
determine the status of the. known contamination plume. Exploratory borings were scheduled
for September of this year.
The Site CharacterizatiOn Report of October 1989, submitted by Krazan and Associates,
Inc., revealed TPH and BTEX existing in high concentrations as demonstrated by borings B-l,
B-2, B-3, and B-5. Contaminants had progressed to depths of 50, 45, 55, and 45 feet,
respectively. In the past our Department allowed passive remediation with capping and sealing
in the anticipation of further biodegradation in situ. Such has been shown not to occur, or to
occur so slowly that it is insignificant.
In our Department's letter dated November 15, 1989, a series of borings were scheduled
for September 1991. Krazan and Associates, InC., proposed the borings be placed in the area
of former boring B-1 and B-3. It appears at this time that former boring locations of B-2 and B-5
should also be included in the assessment. Petroleum products to be analyzed should include
gasoline as well as diesel.
A workplan will be required for review and approval before any work begins. The
workplan should reach my desk by September 1st, 1991.
If you have any questions, contact me at (805) 861-3636, extension 549.
__ Sincerely, f ///"2
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Hazardous Materials Management Program
FD:cas \150039.1tr
2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 300 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301. (805) 861-3636
FAX: (805) 861-3429
· ENVIRONMF 'AL. HEALTH 300, SERVICES DEPART.~T
2'700 ""M" ST~ SUITE BAKERSF[ELDIA.93301
(805)881-3635
UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE STORAGE FACILITY
* ZNSPECTION REPORT *
~ ~] ~'"'" ]..~_.p~, r--NU~,IBER OF TANKS:
pERMITtt '~500.~9~ TI~E IN /.~,~':::~,,~,,T[HE ~.UT , ...'~...... ..........
.... -' ............ .....
:'ER~[T . ~,~c~. YES ..................... .. NO ~ ................... r~"NsPECT[ON DATE: ............................................. ~__..~ .
TY~E OF INSPECTION: ROUTINE ~ .......... ~'~[NSPECTION CCNPLAINT
~ AC ~ L'FTq'"'~';'9'["i"FF~'~'i'"'"E~'E'~7~'~". P ~ ~ P ~ R ~ O T ~ ~ ~ ~ G
.-A..~LITY ,~DORESS:2 5 EAST 215T STREET
PEPSI COLA/OR PEPPER EOT, _~NG
OWNERS NAHE:PEPSI COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING
o ~ e ~ .~. T o R S ~ A ~ ~: .~.~.~.~.~......~.~.L~,&~.g..=...~.~.~.~,[.~.....~..~.X.~.~.~..~.~.....~9..~ ......................................................................................................
C'CNHENTS:
; TEN V I OLAT I ONS/OBSERVAT l ONG
b. Standard Inventory Control
c. Modifi~ Inventory Control '
d. In-tank Level Sensing Device :-
e. Groundwater Monitoring
f. Vadose Zone Monitoring
S
ECONDARY CONTAINMENT MONITORING:
a. Liner
Double-walled tank
. Vault
'~.. PIPING MONITORING:
...... '(~ Pressurized
.. Suction
(Ii OVERFILL PROTECTION:
~ 5. ) TIGHTNESS TESING' i~
'~.' NEW CONSTRUCTION/MODIFICATIONS ~ 0 i~ ~
~.l~..,.'! CLOSURE/.~SANDONMENT ~ O
$..~ UNAUTHORIZEO ,RELEASE ~ ~)
9.MAINTENANCE, GENERAL SAFETY, ANO
OPERATING CONDITION OF FACILITY
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDAT IONS .................................... : ................................................................................................................. ~ ................................................
,%~'i"~'~'F~-~'f"~"6'~-"'§'~'~'6'~'E'~'F5 ............... '~';'~'"'"X'"'~'g'""ig'FF~6'~-'Fh'~'f'~-h'~-i'~'g-~'~'6'f~"~f~'"~ ...........................
Environmental Sensiti'~ity .. ,- · ~ction. Time * ~. '* *-.
UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE STORAGE FA(~iLI'TY
,. * INSPECTION REPORT * '
Facility Name .-,.' ':,'~. ....~ ..~-' ~-~'~;i" ~'":'~. ' Address ' . '~ . - .: ...i.";.. ;: --- · .... " -'i.'~'" '! '~':~. '- ~'~
No. of Tanks \ ~ Is Information on Permit/Application Correct? Yes __ No Permit Posted? Yea No
Type of Inspection: Routine' ",?.,~ . . ~ C0mplaint.. Rein,pection
\ .7-,, ....-.,~,. , .... . ..:
ITEM VIOLATIONS NOTED
1. Primary Containment Monitoring: ." -~' ~'" '~ '~.
/ "\ ; ~ ..... ~ , ~-- . ...... . ..~..
a. Intercepting and Directing System ~_;.-/ ......
b. Standard Inventory Control Monitoring
~..,~ ~'.:> ~ ~-'~:". ~ ......... , .........
c. Modified Inventory Control Monitoring *"" ~ ' , "·
' '" ':'. ,'.:'-':":~, "'.~-T-: '.. '.~ '-." v ',.::_.~.. - · . ~::.
..-"--~"-'-~. - ''''.:__~...r',....:~:~, ~ ._,:,? ~'.,'' ~L:--:;~:'--'' .'~" "'': '*' ~'~ ~. .'
d. In:Tank Level Sensing Device
· · ., . ; .~ ~.-..~
..- . \...._... :_ . .....,
....~: Groundwater Monitoring '
: ? . ,:. . : " :~.,. .
.... , . \ ',-_..~ .__~. - .~ ,.,-. '~;,~2x _~ .
f. Vadose Zone Monitoring ,. '~,,,.~:_...~:.~,_..-'~ .. ,~ :.._:~ ~, :: "" .... '~ . .- _..-
a. Liner .. ~.,,.:
,. b..DOuble-Walled Tank
c. Vault ........
3. Piping Monitoring: ' -" *, " · .--
a..,~'essu rized ': .
..::~ :~:-; . '.. ~ .~ ~.~_;,....~~....:.. ..
b. Suction ,~ . ~ ~... !...;;?...._~.1~. ~L~'~ ' " .... ;
c. Gravity
-
':? ' "' .... '" : ~ "'. '~ , .'~ ', 4 -\''' "".-- ~: ..-'-'~:._.~'
5. Tightness Testing ~-~
· ....... ?,,..-.",
7. Closure/Abandonment ~. '
-
/', ~'r ' .,u%. ¥?,...' ', ¥ ...........
'9. Unauthorized Release
,. Ma,.te.a.c.. Ge,era, Sefe,y. a.d
Operating Condition of Facility
Comments/Recomme.dat o.s:
...... '~ ...... t .....
~:~..,\ ~-:' :!<." . ...... .~ ~ ',. .
- % '~-:'~, "...: -.~ ,. . ,: :: - . ...... . __.~ ..
. .. '"':'
Reinspection scheduled?__ Yes o ,/' '~ Approximate Reinfection Date / .-- .-~'~-'.' , .--..
..~ ~ , . ~.~.. <' .
NSPECTOR~ ~ '[ ,<':~".,"-:~:"" ' ~'? '"~'"" /~/ ''~
~;: ~: .":" .,""., .~, ;~'" "~ ".~ ~ .' .- REPORT RECEIVED By: Z'-- ~;'" "' ,'.:',;'"":'.
· :-: ;-....-- .-.~.i~
Health 580 4113 170 (7-87)
= ---- == REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L.
P.O. BOX 1601, OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93032
(805) 644-5892 ~, FAX (805) 654-0720
February 28, 1992
Mr. Kevin Phillips
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, California 93305
Subject: RISK APPRAISAL OF THE SOIL CONTAMINATION LOCATED
AT PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING FACILITY, 215 EAST
21ST STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93305
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Per your request for an evaluation of Kern County Environmental Health
Services Department's (KCEHSD) request for a risk appraisal regarding the
subject site, RSI is pleased to present to you the following information and
recommendations.
BACKGROUND
The site is located at 215 East 21st Street in Bakersfield, California
(see Figure 1). The site is a soft drink bottling facility and consists of a
beverage packaging warehouse, office facilities and truck parking area. A
fueling facility was located south of the warehouse. The fueling facility
consisted of two 10,000 gallon tanks, containing gasoline and diesel, and a
dispenser island. The tanks, product lines and dispenser island were
removed on June 8, 1989 (see Figure 2). As part of the tank removal, soil
samples were collected and analyzed. The results showed hydrocarbon
concentrations above state action levels. Based upon these results, a site
assessment was conducted in August, 1989, by Krazan & Associates, Inc. to
determine the extent of soil contamination and to assess the potential for
ground water contamination.
Seven soil borings were drilled in the area of the former fueling facility
(see Figure 3). The soil borings were drilled to depths ranging from 45 to 70
Pepsi-Co d/Dr. Pepper Bottling Co.
Bakersfield, California
February 28, 1992
Page 2
feet below grade. Analytical results of selected soil samples showed the top of
diesel contaminated soil to be at a depth between 15 and 20 feet and the base of
contamination to be at a depth between 55 and 60 feet. TPH as diesel'
concentrations in that interval ranged from 18,300 to 23,600 parts per million
(ppm). Low (30 to 33 ppm) TPH as diesel concentrations were detected from
depths of 65 and 70 feet. The samples were also tested for benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene and total xylenes (BTEX compounds). Benzene concentrations
ranging from 2.80 to 0.39 ppm were detected at depths from 20 to 55 feet below
grade with the highest concentrations located from 50 to 55 feet below grade.
See Table 1 for Summary of Analytical Results of Soil Samples.
In November, 1989, it was determined that passive remediation and
monitoring was the best alternative for this site. This consisted of the
installation of an impermeable barrier (asphalt seal at the surface) and the
drilling of one boring two years from the time of the installation of the
asphalt seal. See Krazan & Associates, Inc. report dated November 3, 1989
On October 21, 1991, in accordance with KCEHSD's monitoring requirement,
RSI drilled a confirmational soil boring in the area of the former tank pit
through the interval of soil contamination identified in Krazan & Associates,
Inc. assessment. The purpose of the boring was to determine if vertical
migration of the hydrocarbon plume had occured and evaluate the potential
impact of the contamination on the ground water.
The confirmational soil boring, B-8, was drilled in the area of the former tank
pit between boreholes B-l, B-3 and B-5 as shown in Figure 3. The borehole
was drilled to a depth of 70 feet below grade and soil samples were collected at
five foot intervals. Five soil samples from depths of 30, 50, 60, 65, and 70 feet
were submitted for analysis and tested for TPH as diesel and TPFI as gasoline.
Analytical results of soil samples collected from depths of 30, 50 and 60 feet
showed concentrations of TPH as diesel ranging from 16,000 to 23,000 ppm
and TPH as gasoline concentrations ranged from 6.8 to 120 ppm. No
concentrations of TPH as diesel or gasoline were detected from the samples
collected from depths of 65 and 70 feet below grade. See Table 1 for Summary
of Analytical Results of Soil Samples.
Based upon the analytical results of the samples collected during the Krazan
& Associates, Inc. assessment and the RS! confirmational boring, the vertical
limit of soil contamination has remained at a depth of approximately 60 feet.
See figure 4 for'cross-section through the area of contamination.
Pepsi-Co~ aa/Dr. Pepper Bottling Co.
Bakersfield, California
February 28, 1992
Page 3
Concentrations of TPH as diesel have remained approximately the same
between October, 1989 and November, 1991. RSI recommended that
continued monitoring of the contamination plume be conducted by drilling
another borehole in two years.
In a letter dated December, 19, 1991, the KCEHSD requested that two separate
risk analyses be performed for the subject site (see Attachment 1). At the
request of Mr. Kevin Phillips, RSI has evaluated this request and the results
of this evaluation are presented below.
RISK APPRAISAL
DISCUSSION
In review of KCEHSD documents concerning leaking underground fuel tanks
(LUFT) and the California State Water Resources Control Board LUFT Field
Manual, October, 1989 Edition (LUFT Manual), it appears that the requested
risk analysis may not be warranted at this time.
According to the flow chart found on page 33 of the LUFT Manual, the initial
risk assessment of a site utilizes the general risk appraisal. If the general risk
appraisal is appropriate, alternative risk appraisals are not necessary.
The general risk appraisal is used to estimate the concentrations of BTEX
compounds that can be left in the soil without risking ground water
pollution. The General Risk Appraisal was derived using two models:
SESOIL, a vadose zone model, and AT123D, a ground water model. As stated
on page 36 of the LUFT Manual, "the general risk appraisal uses the latest
information on observed and calculated properties of chemicals and on
environmental fate processes." For an explanation of the general risk
appraisal, see pages 32 through 46 and Appendix F from the LUFT Manual
(Attachment 2).
PROCEDURES OF THE GENERAL RISK APPRAISAL
The General Risk Appraisal consists of an Applicability Checklist and an
Environmental Fate Worksheet. The Applicability Checklist (Table 2-2 on
page 38 of the LUFT Manual) contains site specific questions which help to
identify sites with conditions that could produce a greater risk to ground
Pepsi-Col~/Dr. Pepper Bottling Co.
Bakersfield, California
February 28, 1992
Page 4 ·
water than was modeled in the risk appraisal. See Attachment 3 for the
Applicability Checklist completed for the subject site.
An Environmental Fate Worksheet (Table 2-3 on page 42 of the LUFT
Manual) organizes the parameters used in the risk appraisal. In order to
complete the Environmental Fate Worksheets, physical parameters
concerning the site were determined from various sources. A value of 5.73
inches was used as the average annual precipitation at the site (phone
conversation with the meteorologist in charge at Meadow's Field Airport in
Bakersfield on February 6, 1992). According to the 1990 Report of Water'
Conditions in Improvement District #4, the depth to ground water beneath
the site is approximately 190 to 200 feet below the ground surface (phone
conversation with Tom Haslebacher, Kern County Water Agency, February
24, 1991). Concentration of BTEX compounds were taken from the Krazan &
Associates, Inc. report dated October 2, 1989. See Table 1 for Summary of
Analytical Results of Soil Samples.
Data from the sample analysis is used'to calculate the cumulative
contamination level (CCL) for the BTEX compounds.. This level is then
compared to the values shown in Tables 2-4 through 2-7 to determine the
acceptable CCL at which no clean-up is necessary and the soil may be left in
place. Although the depth to ground water is reported to be 190 to 200 feet
below ground surface, a depth of 150 feet was used in order to utilize Tables 2-
4 through 2-7. See Attachment 3 for the Environmental Fate Worksheets
completed for the subject site and Tables 2-4 through 2-7.
RESULTS OF GENERAL RISK APPRAISAL
As seen in Attachment 2, the results of the Applicability Checklist. show two
"yes" answers to the site specific questions. As stated in the LUFT Manual,
results of the general risk appraisal are most applicable if all the questions are
answered "no". The two "yes" answers appearing on the checklist may make
the risk appraisal less valid than the perfect model, however, the applicability
of the general risk appraisal remains valid.
Based upon the results of the Environmental Fate Worksheets, as shown in
Attachment 3, the CCL for the BTEX compounds are well within the
acceptable contamination levels derived from Tables 2-4 through 2-7. The
benzene CCL is 130 times below the acceptable contamination levels, the
toluene CCL is 94 times below the acceptable contamination levels, the
ethylbenzene CCL is 157 times below the acceptable contamination levels, and
Pepsi-Col~/Dr. Pepper Bottling Co.
Bakersfield, California
February 28, 1992
Page 5
the xylene CCL is 31 times below the acceptable contamination levels. This is
due to the relatively low contaminant concentration levels and the great
depth to ground water.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1) The General Risk Appraisal appears to be a valid approach in evaluating
whether the concentrations of BTEX compounds identified in the soil can
be left in place without risking ground water contamination. This risk
appraisal was derived from SESOIL, a vadose zone model, and AT123D, a
ground water model.
2) The results of the General Risk Appraisal show that the CCL for the BTEX
compounds are well within the acceptable contamination levels of soil to
be left in the ground. A breakdown of the results by compound show that
the benzene CCL is 130 times below the acceptable contamination levels,
the toluene CCL is 94 times below the acceptable contamination levels, the
ethylbenzene CCL is 157 times below the acceptable contamination levels,
and the xylene CCL is 31 times below the acceptable contamination levels.
This is due to the relatively low contaminant concentration levels and the
great depth to ground water.
3) As stated in RSI's report, dated November 15, 1991, the results of the last
monitoring episode indicate that the plume of contamination has
remained at approximately the same vertical depth. Considering the lack
of migration of the contaminant plume and the great depth to ground
water, a very minimal threat to ground water is present. However,
because the hydrocarbon concentrations have remained stable, continued
monitoring of the plume is recommended. This can be accomplished
with the drilling of another borehole in two years.
Pepsi-Col~"/Dr. Pepper Bottling Co.
Bakersfield, California
February 28, 1992
Page 6
RSI recommends that this report be forwarded to Ms. Flora Darling of the
KCEHSD for her review and approval. In summary, according to the LUFT
Manual, the General Risk Appraisal is appropriate in assessing the risk to the
ground water beneath the subject site. The results of the General Risk
Appraisal indicate that the soil can be left in place without risking ground
water pollution. These results should satisfy the KCEHSD in lieu of their
request for two separate (and much more costly) risk analyses.
Respectfully Submitted,
Steven M. Richardson, R.G. #4684
Senior Project Manager
Enclosures: Figure 1-Site Location Map
Figure 2-Site Plot Plan
Figure 3:Plot Plan Showing Borehole Locations
Figure 4-Cross-Section A-A'
Table 1-Summary of Analytical Results of Soil Samples
Attachment 1-KCEHSD letter dated December, 19, 1991
Attachment 2-California State Water Resources Control Board
LUFT Field Manual, pages 36 through 46 and
Appendix F
Attachment 3-Applicability Checklist, Environmental Fate
Worksheets and Tables 2-4 through 2-7 from
LUFT Manual
FIGURES
LEGEND
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.,
215 EAST 21ST STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
:~':"" "":":' FIGURE 1 - LOCATION MAP
· .' REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L.
WAREHOUSE
LOADING AREA
WAREHOUSE
ALLEY
OUTLINE OF
DISPENSER ISLAND EXCAVATIONYARD
YARD
SHED
GROVE STREET
NOTE: PLOT PLAN TAKEN FROM
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. REPORT
DATED 10/2¢'89
SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40
PEPSIICOLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO..
215 EAST 21ST STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN
REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L.
WAREHOUSE LOADING AREA
N
OFFICE
_p__ /, .~*/~"p~-~~ p P
DIESE~' TANK ' I ~ I
' FORMER 10,000 GALLON
~ GASOLINE TANK
B-6~ ~
B-5 I B-7
LOCATION OF ~ B-8 :
BOREHOLE DRILLED '-----\ ! i !
OUR,NGTHIS \ i ' i /
,NV~ST,~^T,ON \i ~--~ ~/~ I
ASSOCIATES REPORT DATED 10/2/89
P
YARD
LEGEND
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.
~ KRAZAN BOREHOLE LOCATION A A'
~--_~.--"-'- PEPSI-COLA/DR PEPPER Bo'r-rUNG CO.,
~ RSI BOREHOLE LOCATION CROSS-SECTION LINE 215 EAST 21ST STREET,
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
NOTE: PLOT PLAN TAKEN FROM SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 3 - PLOT PLAN SHOWING '
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES. INC. REPORT ..... ! BOREHOLE LOCATIONS
DATED 10/2/89 ~ ,0 ao FtS~ REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L.
A A'
B-6 B-1 B-8 B-5 B-7
DEPTH
10 - ND -- ND --
20 ~, 23,600--
ND -- ND --
3O - 20,000 --
14,500 --
40 - ND -- -- ND --
ND -- 18.300-- ND --
50 - 18,300 -- 23,000 --
60 ~ 16,000- ND-
33 --- ND -- ND-
/
70 -' / 3O -- ND --
/
/
AREA OF SOIL CONTAMINATION WITH TPH AS DIESEL
CONCENTRATIONS GREATER THAN 100 PPM
LEGEND
8OREHOLE PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.,
215 EAST 21 ST STREET,
TPH AS OIESFL SCALE iN FEET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
CONCENTRATIONS '-?. ~ ---J FIGURE 4 - CROSS-SECTION A-A'
(PPM) i 0 7.5 '~5 SHOWING AREA OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
L ~S~ REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L.
TABLE
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF SOIL SAMPLES
(mg/kg)
BOREHOLE DEPTH SAMPLE ID METHOD MOD. METHOD
NUMBER SAMPLED NUMBER 3540M/8020 8015 EPA METHOD 8020
(feet) TPH AS TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL
DIESEL GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES
B-1 20 B-1@20' 23,600 NA 0.27 0.59 0.69 3.28
B-1 35 B-1@35' 14,500 NA 0.63 1.25 0.43 3.96
B-1 50 B-1@50' 18,300 NA 2.80 3.58 1.76 ' 8.0
B-1 65 B-1 @65' 33 NA ND ND ND ND
B-1 70 B-1 @70' 30 NA 1',i3 ND ND ND
B-2 15 B-2@ 15' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-2 30 B-2@30' 2,320 NA ND 0.11 N D ND
B-2 45 B-2@45' 13,900 NA 0.89 1.26 1.03 4.64
B-2 55 B-2@55' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-2 60 B-2@60' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-3 10 B-3@ 10' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-3 25 B-3@25' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-3 40 B-3@40' 1,030 NA 0.39 0.57 0.56 3.14
B-3 55 B-3@55' 34,600 NA 2.72 3.22 1.79 8.46
Bo3 60 B-3@60' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-3 65 B-3@65' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-4 10 B -~ 10' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-4 25 B-4~25' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-4 40 B-4~40' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-4 45 B-4@45' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-5 15 B-5@ 15' ND NA 1'43 ND N D ND
B-5 30 B-5@30' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-5 45 B-5@45' 18,300 NA 0.89 1.33 1.12 5.21
B-5 60 B-5@60' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-5 65 B-5@65' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-6 10 B-6@ 10' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-6 25 B-6@25' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-6 40 B-6@40' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-6 45 B-6@45' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B -7 10 B -7@ 10' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-7 25 B-7@25' ND NA ~ ND N D NO
B-7 40 B-7@40' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-7 45 B-7@45' ND NA ND ND N O ND
B-8 30 B8-30 20,000 6.8 NA NA NA iNA
B-8 50 B8-50 23,000 120 NA NA NA NA
B-8 60 B8-60 16,000 57 NA NA NA NA
B-8 65 B8-65 ND ND NA NA NA NA
B-8 70 B8-70 ND ND NA NA 'NA INA
ND=Not Detected
NA=Not Analyzed
See Attachment 2-Laboratory Report for minimum detection limits.
ATTACHMENT 1
KCEHSD LETTER DATED DECEMBER 19, 1991
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT' AGENCY
I~AN[)AI.[. [.. ABBO'I'i' ..~f* '~':'- .~Fl:~.k~ ,~cC^LLFY. REH.%, DIreCTOR
DIRECTOR ';"' ~'
[)AVID PRICE III ~~~. ~:ll.I ~M J flDDD~. ~CO
EN'v'IRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES T'~EPARTME;%I
Pet)si Cola,,C')r Pepper
215 East 21st St[col
Bakcrsficld, CA 93305
RE: Permit ~ 150039
Dear Mr, Lindscy:
The status assessment boring ~'ei~_~'t ~:;er;c, rnxcz bx RcmcdmtKm ~crviccs [nt'l (.R.S.L,)
on October 21. 199L, has been re,dewed.
Fallow~ng two Vcar.s of oassivc renaedia[ ~on. R.S. ~.'s ~sscssmcnt boring has dctez'mhled
:o support the premi.¢e that the contaminatio2 ma). have migrated to deeper levels in
comparison to ~estho~e B-1 bored by Krazan and .~soc~ate:~ on i~ust 23, 1989.
In view of d~e above ~'acts our Department bcl:,cvcs ~vc separate risk analyses are
indicated. One ~nay bc '~c~oit." Thc second must be c ' ~h:.~ is accep~atHe to ~his office.
The transport and fate a;n2lyscs oI th~: conta~nina~io;~ .... 2, l~ )~t'lud¢ '~,~rs such a.; .soil
porosity: pit, 02. CC'). ,~::~ csti'~tatc ,,f tiui¢ bct'c~:c in~ut;:c: uisc'n <:~:....,dwatcr. Thc risk
k'~OFOu5 remcdfation technitlo¢ x~il.b¢, ntrcc .;-v
iI ' ~,'. ', '
[ [;5~11] Fc'.C¢' 3[ ,D{ 1}i¢ 7t ~,,',"' }'17 ~/[[:,'k' ',k;'i 1"~' .: .~ } k},.'l~: :' ",..' t'. ",-, %'2)[1 hcl%'C .,[]~"
tlLidMi~)D.~, COR;i':Cr. ~',lc', 'ct ;' ': ...,k,~l_;.~It~. ~-s';..~,'.. . .... ~:~ ;._
>::':.:C;'ci~. ,.-" . ..'
- ".' ."~ C · "' ~ ; ~/~ ....";'k''~/
.j · .~: ~,...:..~
:.'., .,. e] ',::. 5":7[ ">' ..... ;.::.-.~: . :. r:~z',:- ' ~'.-'.' "' '~"
t.,.v .<-.] ~,.7 .:.1~.
ATTACHMENT 2
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD LUFT
FIELD MANUAL, PAGES 32 THROUGH 46 AND APPENDIX F
D. Category 2: Known Soil Contamination
A decision tree flow chart outlining Category 2 is presented
in Figure II-3 (page 33).
1. Gather Existing Data on Precipitation and Site
Environment
Explanation
Information on the LUFT site environment should be
collected in order to determine which, if any, risk
appraisal can be used. Existing information on the
depth to ground water should already have been
collected during the process for selection of site
category and may again be used in Category 2. In
addition, existing data on precipitation and site
environment should also be gathered at this time and
evaluated for use with the appropriate, risk appraisal
methodology.
Instructions
Specific instructions for collecting information on
precipitation and site environment are contained in
Step 4 "Collect Environmental Information for Leaching
Potential Analysis" of Category 1 (page 24). These
instructions include collecting information on surface
characteristics, sub-surface characteristics and
precipitation. If Category 2 was reached by way of
Category 1, Step 7, this information may have already
been collected and can be used again in the Category 2
analysis.
2. Do Soil Borings and Take Soil Samples
Explanation
Soil samples should be collected from multiple soil
borings to check for lateral as well as vertical
movement of contaminants in the soil. The borings
should be deep enough to extend through the entire
depth of contaminated soil or to reach ground water.
When ground water is shallow enough to be. reached using
available equipment (i.e., less than 50 feet), it may
be appropriate to drill the bore holes so as to be
suitable for well installations.
Instructions
A minimum of three borings should be taken below or
next to the tank or the area previously occupied by
33
the tank. Additional borings may be necessary in some
cases, particularly at locations where associated
piping is suspected of leaking. To avoid bringing
drilling equipment on site more than once, the borings
should extend to a depth of 50 feet or just past the
point where ground water is encountered. The depth of
the borings may vary depending on what information is
available to help determine the vertical extent of soil
contamination. It is important to make the borings
deep enough to extend below the area of soil contamina-
tion. Sites with soil contamination which extends more
than 50 vertical feet should be treated as severe soil
contamination cases. These cases may require a more
extensive investigation and site specific analysis to
define both the lateral and vertical extent of
contamination and evaluate the associated risks.
Caution should be taken with regard to drilling through
aquatards to avoid unnecessary vertical spreading of
contamination. Borings should be made with the
supervision of an engineering geologist or a registered
geologist.
Soil samples should be taken from the borings at
consistent intervals of 5 feet to develop a complete
profile of the soil contamination. If a change in
lithology, an area of obvious contamination, or ground
water is encountered, an additional sample should be
taken at that point. If this sample is found to have a
higher concentration of fuel constituents than.the
sample taken from the nearest 5 feet interval, it
should be used in place of that 5 .feet interval sample
in the general risk appraisal. See Appendix C for
details on sample collection and handling and quality
assurance/quality control.
3. Evaluate Boring Log Data
Explanation
While drilling to collect soil samples, data on the
subsurface environment should be collected to later
assist in applying appropriate risk appraisal
methodology. This information should be organized into
logs for each boring performed.
Instructions
Each boring log should contain the following
information:
(a) drilling company,
34
'! (b) location,
~ (c) date drilled,
(d) total depth of the hole,
(e) diameter of the hole,
(f) drilling method and
(g) sampling metho~
Each boring log should graphically present information
on:
(a) soil types,
(b) depth from surface,
(c) location of sampling sites,
(d) location of ground water table if encountered and
(e) any unique subsurface features.
Descriptions of the soil classifications and notes of
specific observations of subsurface conditions should
also be included in the boring log.
4. Analyze Samples as Necessary to Characterize the Soil
Contamination Profile.
Explanation
Soil samples must be analyzed for concentrations of
BTX&E to provide information for risk appraisal. It is
not necessary to analyze the sample for TPH if the
analytical results are to be used only for the general
risk appraisal. It may not be necessary to analyze all
samples taken. However, any sample that might contain
concentrations of BTX&E should be analyzed in order to
characterize the entire profile of soil contamination.
Instructions
Samples should De sent to a certified laboratory tO
obtain analytical results for BTX&E concentrations
using EPA Method 8020 (Appendix D). Samples may be
analyzed all at one time, or the}' may be sent in
smaller groups to avoid analyzing numerous samples that
were taken below the area of soil contamination. The
concentration of the deepest sample analyzed should
have a non-detectable (0.3 ppm or lower) concentration
of BTX&E. If multiple borings'are used, the boring
sample with the highest concentration at a particular
depth should be used to represent the concentration at
that depth when using the general risk appraisal.
Results should be reported in parts per million, either
milligrams of fuel constituents per kilogram of soil
(mg/kg) or in micrograms of fuel constituents per gram
of soil (~g/g).
5. Is the Site Sui%able for the General Risk Appraisal?
Explanation
As presented in this field manual, the general risk
appraisal uses a simulated environmental system that
adapts two computer models to estimate the
concentrations of BTX&E that can be left in place
(using remedial action, if needed) without risking
ground water pollution. Appendix F describes the
elements of these computer models and how they were
adapted for this field manual.
This general risk appraisal uses the latest information
on observed and calculated properties of chemicals and
on environmental fate processes. It also considers a
variety of environmental conditions found throughout
the State (i.e., climate and depth to ground water).
This approach allows for a site-specific and
chemical-specific analysis. It is based on a technical
foundation which conservatively accounts for influences
on pollutant migration.
However, the general risk appraisal uses two models
which are subject to the deficiencies of all models.
Models are theoretical representations of complex and
only partially predictable events. The SESOIL model
has been tested and verified by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The extent of the testing and
verification includes comparison with other models and
field data. However, 5o the best of the task force's
knowledge, it has not been checked using field data
from leaking underground fuel tanks. Information
regarding testing and verification of the other model
(AT123D) and the ~nterfaced combination of the two
models could not be found. Data from underground tank
site cleanups will be used to assess the validity of
this general risk appraisal and make any necessary
changes.
The general risk appraisal assumes relatively
homogeneous permeable soil and simplified
hydrogeological features. The environmental input used
with these models is intended to represent sites with a
high potential for ground water pollution. However,
some site-specific conditions may present a greater
risk for ground water pollution than accounted for by
the general risk appraisal.
Instructions
The checklist in Table 2-2 (page 38) contains questions
which are designed to identify sites with environmental
conditions which could produce a greater risk to ground
water than was modeled. The questions may be answered
from existing data that were collected on the site
environment and data that were collected during
excavation or drilling. The predictions of the models
are most applicable if all of the questions on the
checklist can be answered "no" with reasonable
certainty. If any of the questions on the checklist
cannot be answered "no" then the results of the general
risk appraisal may be less valid. If answers to the
checklist questions indicate that the general risk
appraisal results are not valid enough to be practical,
then an alternative risk appraisal should be considered
(Step 7, Page 41).
6. The General Risk Appraisal
Explanation
The general risk appraisal was developed using
environmental fate and chemistry data for BTX&E to
evaluate the risk of ground water pollution from LUFT
sites under severe conditions. This risk appraisal
requires a limited amount of site-specific information;
conservative assumptions have been substituted for
other site-specific information. The general risk
appraisal is ·more sophisticated than the leaching
potential analysis done as part of the Category 1
investigation.
.3 7
TABLE 2-2
GENERAL RISK APPRAISAL
FOR PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY:
APPLICABILITY CHECKLIST YES NO
1. Is the site in a mountainous area? (shaded moist
areas &/or areas with rocky subsurface conditions)
2. Is the site in an area that could collect surface
runoff or intercept water from a source other than
the natural precipitation?
3. Does the areal extent of soil contamination
exceed 1000 feet~ ?
4. Do the concentrations of fuel constituents in any
soil samples exceed the following amounts:
benzene - 100 ppm, toluene - 80 ppm, xylene - 40
ppm, ethylbenzene - 40 ppm?
5. Are there any records or evidence of man-made or
natural objects which could provide a conduit for
vert. ical migration of leachate?
6. Do any boring or excavation logs show the presence
of fractures, joints or faults that could act as a
conduit for vertical migration of leachate?
7. Do any boring logs show that contaminated soil
could be within 5 ft. of highest ground water?
8. Do any boring logs show the presence of a layer of
material, 5 ft. thick or more, which is'more than
75% sand and/or gravel?
Directions:
1. Boring logs taken during the general risk
appraisal can be used to answer questions 5-8. In
addition, analytical results of the soil samples
taken during the general risk appraisal can be
used to answer questions 3 and 4.
2. Lateral migration of constituents to problem areas
should also be considered in questions 5-8.
3. The above checklist contains questions which are
designed to identify sites with environmental
conditions which could produce a greater risk to
ground water than was modeled. The results of the
general risk appraisal are most applicable if all
of the questions on the checklist can be answered
"no" with reasonable certainty. If any of the
questions on the checklist cannot be answered
"no", then the results of the general risk
appraisal may be less valid.
38
Instructions
An environmental fate worksheet (Table 2-3, page 42)
was designed to help organize and analyze information
on rainfall, ground water, and soil contamination used
in the general risk appraisal. Step-by-step
instructions for filling in the worksheet follow:
(a) Fill in information, previously collected, for
precipitation (A) and distance from the natural
soil surface (not the subsurface at the bottom of
the excavation) tc ground water (B). In areas
where ground water is deeper than 150 feet, the
general risk appraisal can be based on the maximum
depth presented in Tables 2-4 through 2-7. The
minimum seasonal depth, i.e., highest ground
water, should always be used in calculating
distance from surface to ground water.
(b) Determine the distance from the natural soil
surface to each sampling point (in feet, rounding
to the nearest tenth of a foot). Calculate the
distance from each sampling point to ground water
(D) by subtracting the depth of the soil sample
(C) from the depth of the ground water (B).
(c) Although this general risk appraisal is set up to
assess the risk associated with soil
concentrations on a sample-by-sample basis, the
total volume of contaminated soil must also be
considered. The computermodels have shown that
increasing the volume of contaminated soil,
independent of the concentration of contaminants,
produces an increase in ground water
concentrations. As a simplified and conservative
method of accounting for this additive effect of
soil volume, concentrations for each 5-feet
interval must be summed progressively with
vertical distance. This sum is referred to as a
cumulative contamination level and is no longer
expressed as a concentration. To determine what
the cumulative contamination level is at a
particular depth (E), add the concentration at
that depth to the sum of the concentrations for
each interval above it. For example': the first
sample (at a 15 ft. depth) = 4 ppm, the second
sample (at a 20 ft. depth) = 5 ppm, and the third
sample (at a 25 ft. depth) = 1 ppm; cumulative
contamination levels are ! for the first sample,
(&+5) for the second sample, and 10 (9+1) for the
third sample. .The last sample to be included in
the calculations for cumulative contamination must
39
be at or above the detection limit (0.3 pPm). The
calculation of cumulative contamination levels.is
only done for the zone of contaminated soil; the
analysis stops at the lowest extent of
contamination.
(d Use Tables 2-4 through 2-7 (pages 43 to 46) to
determine the acceptable cumulative soil contam-
ination levels for each layer of contaminated soil
(F). The tables show distance from contamination
to ground water on the vertical axis and annual
rainfall on the horizontal axis. Note that the
tables show dis%ance from the sampling point to
ground water (D), not from the surface of the soil
(C). For example, the acceptable levels in the
top row are acceptable for the layer 5 to 10 feet
above ground'water, while the values in the bottom
row are for the layers which are more than 150
feet above ground water. The models were used tc
derive acceptable cumulative soil contamination
levels, which the tables show as whole numbers
ranging from 0 to 1000. The acceptable levels can
be found on the table using the average annual
precipitation (A) and the distance from the
sampling point to ground water (D). The models
actually generated precise numbers, but it was
decided to round the numbers down to the left-most
digit for two reasons. First, the more precise a
number is, the more accurate it appears to be. The
general risk appraisal estimates, but does not
pinpoint, the threat of ground water pollution.
Second, the results were rounded down to lower
numbers to provide an additional margin of ground
water protection in the analysis.
(e Determine if the soil must be cleaned up or if it
can be left in place (G). If a cumulative contam-
ination level at any depth is higher than the
corresponding suggested acceptable level, remedial
action may be required. If.the cumulative contam-
ination levels are not higher than the acceptable
levels, the soil may be left in place, provided
that fire hazard or pollution of resources other
than water is not anticipated.
Also, if the concentration of any single field
sample is higher than 100 ppm for benzene, 80 ppm
for toluene, or 40 ppm for xylene or ethylbenzene,
the general risk appraisal should not be used.
These single-sample concentration limits are based
on the solubility of the fuel constituents. At
these concentrations, the chemicals may not be
40
entirely in solution. The models simulate
transport of chemicals in solution and cannot be
used for undissolved constituents. The less
soluble a chemical is, the smaller the amount of
the chemical that the model can handle will be.
(f) Simulate remedial action. Starting with the top
layer, change the concentration value to 0 ppm
(simulating soil treatment or removal and
replacement with clean backfill). Recalculate the
cumulative contamination levels. Continue with
the next layers until all cumulative contamination
levels are no longer above their corresponding
acceptable levels. This recalculation will
determine how much contaminated soil must be
treated or removed. Alternatively, take the
lowest acceptable contamination level from the
contaminated soil profile (the bottom contaminated
layer) and divide it by the number of contaminated
layers of soil to find the minimal cleanup level
(a soil concentration expressed in ppm) for the
entire volume of contaminated soil.
7. Can an Alternate Risk Appraisal be Used?
Explanation
For sites where the general risk appraisal cannot be
used, field investigators may consider using other
kinds of environmental risk appraisals approved by the
regulatory agency. Alternative risk appraisals for the
Category 2 investigation should be designed to answer
the question: Does soil contamination pose the risk of
polluting ground water?
Instructions
If ground water pollution is suspected or known at this
point, the investigation should proceed to Category 3.
In addition, if site-specific conditions prohibit the
practical use of any approved risk appraisal
methodologies, the investigation should also proceed to
Category 3. If an alternate risk appraisal is found to
be appropriate for this site, the investigation should
proceed with an alternate risk appraisal (Step 8, page
47) .
TABLE 2-3
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE ~K)RKSHEET FOR (FUEL CONSTITUENT)
F--~ AVE RAGE A
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIII/111111111
B C D E F G
DISTANCE FROM DISTANCE FROM DISTANCE FROM CUMULATIVE ACCEPTABLE CLEANUP?
SURFACE TO SAMPLE TO = SAMPLE TO CONTAMINATION CONTAMINATION YES IF E >
GROUND ~/ATER SURFACE GROUND ~IATER LEVELS C.C.L, LEVELS NO IF E <-
· · SOIL SURFACE
SAMPLE
fl: SAMPLE 1 fl: = C.C.L. 1 ~yes
sftj C.C.L. 1
+ SAMPLE 2 j)pm
· fl: SAMPLE 2 fl: = C.C.L. 2 ~yes __no
5fl: C.C.L. 2
* SAMPLE 3~,c~mn
· ft SAMPLE 3 ft : C.C.L. 3 ~yes __no
5ft C.C.L. 3
+ SAMPLE
· ft SAMPLE /, ft = C.C.L. 4 __yes __no
5ft C.C.L. 4
+ SAMPLE
ft SAMPLE 5 ft = C.C.L. 5 __yes __no
5ft C.C.L. 5
+ SAMPLE 6
· ft SAMPLE 6 ft = C.C.L. 6 __yes __no
5ft C.C.L. 6
+ SAMPLE 7 ppm
· ft SAMPLE 7 ft : C.C.L. 7 __yes __no
5ft C.C.L. 7
+ SAMPLE 8
· ft SAMPLE 8 ft = C.C.L. 8 __yes __no
5fti C.C.L. 8
+ SAMPLE 9
· ft SAMPLE 9 ft = C.C.L. 9 __yes __no
5ft C.C.L. 9
+SAMPLE 10
ft SAMPLE 10 ft =C.C.L. 10 __yes __no
5ft C.C.L. !0
+SAMPLE !
ft SAMPLE 11 ft =C.C.L. 11 __yes __no
5ft C.C.L. I1
+SAMPLE 12__p~
ft SAMPLE 12 ft :C.C.L. !2 __yes __no
................................................................................................................................ ~~ ................ ;:'::"" :"' :~' :~:I :':': ':~'': ~: ':':':' ':'. :.' .i ':I I.' ' ....... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ft = feet p~ = parts per mit
* NOTE: CONCENTRATIONS FO~ ANY SINGLE SOIL SAMPLE CANNOT EtKCEED 100pc~q FOR BENZENe, ~Oppm ~OR TOLUENE, 40~ F~ XYLEWE
ANO 40~ F~ ETHTLBENZENE IN ~DER FO BE uSEE' &ITH THE GENERAL RISK APPRAISAL.
THE LAST SAMPLE TO BE [NCL~ED IN THE CALCULAT[~S F~ C~ULATIVE C~TAMINAT]ON MUSl BE AT OR ABOVE THE
DETECT[~ LIMIT; DO NOT INCL~E BOTT~ S~PLES WHICH HAVE C~CENTRAT]~S LESS THAN THE DETECTI~ LIMIT.
· 12 :.
TABLE 2-4
BI~NZENE
ACCEPTABLE CL~I._AT~'V'E ~l:)iL CONTM, IINATICIi LEVELS
F~ ~TECTI~ ~ ~ ~TER AT ~LIFI~ SITES
St~: Do ~t use this table ~less the Site in questi~ has ~en screen~ usi~ the 8~ticabitity checktist (Tab{e 2-2) for generat risk a~ra~sa~ to protect gr~ water
MEAN ANNUAL INCHES PRECIPITATION
5-9.9 I ~ 0i nl 0 0 0 0 01 O, O' 0 Ol 01 O~ O~ 0
35-3g.9 10001 10001 7OOi 300; 1~ 601 ~ ~ 1~ Oi Oi Ol OI O~ 3~ O; O~ ~ O' O! 0
~o-~.9 ~ooo~ ~ooo~ 'soo~ ~ooo~ ~oo~ ~OOl 8o~ ~o] 9~ z~ oj o, o~ ol o~ o: o~ 0; o ~: o~ o
_~.9 10oo~ ~o00~ "~boo~ ~ooo~ ~o0o: 500~ 200! ~00~ 20~ ~ 1 ~' Oj O~ O: ,q' Oi O~ o~ O~ o] o
50-5;.9 1000J 1000j !000j !000~ 1~00~ lO00J 600! 200J 50~ 9j 2' 2' 11 1; O~ 0~ 0~ 0~ 0~ 0~ 0] 0~
60-~.9 1000 lO00j !000~ 1000~ 1000I lO00J lO00j 10001 300i ~oJ 9l 6[ 3~ 2! ~ ...... ~____ O~ g' O] O~ 0
70-7~.9 1000[ 1000I 1000] fO00] 1000: 1000I lO00J 1000] lO00j lOOj 30t 20] lOJ 9' 6J ~: ~ li i :g ~T 0
~-~.9 !000I 1000; i000~ lO00~ 1000~ 1000t 1000i 1000i 10001 3001 60~ ;C,~ 201 10 I:): 7 ;. 2' __L ..... ~__ O~ 0
~0-~..9 ~000, ~000, :O00i ~000 ~000; ~o00l lO00j 1000~ I000~ 700[ ~ooJ Z~, 40~ ~0~ :3 ~0,
~5-s9.9 '000, ~000~ ~000, :000~ 1000; 1000' lOOOJ ~oooi ~oooJ ~oooJ 200J ~00i 80J 50~ 33' ~0: ~: 7 ' ~ z ~; 0
90-94.9 !000~ 1000~ ;oso~ 1000i 1000~ lOOO loooJ looo' loooi loooI ~oo~ 2oo~ 100~ 90, 53l 30
95-~.9 !000~ 1000 lv~O~ 1000~ 1000 lO00j 1000 1000 1000~ 1000~ 70~I ~OOJ 200I 100. 90~ 5g' 30 ~0 I~' : 5 3; -1
' lO00J 1000 1000] 1000~ lO00j 1000 ~00~ ;00~ 200; :OO~ 9g~ 50~ 20' ~.q 2 4i 2
j05-~09.9~00'~04'9 1000~000' ~000j1000 ~O00j~O00[ IO00j~O00; 1000:1000J lO00J 1000 IOO0 ~O00i. IOOOJ 1000 ~O00j 8OO ~00~ 200~ 100
~o-~.9 ~ooo] ~oooj ~oooJ ~ooo ~ooo~ ~oooj looo ~ooo !ooo] lOOO ~ooo[ ~oooI ~ooo sool Aoo! 2oo~
'115-~19.9 lO00j 1000~ :000~ 1000 100~ 1000 10001 1000 10001 lO00J lO00J 10001 lO00J 1000~ 790~ ;00~ 200~ IO0~ So. 20 10~ 7
~20-~2;.9 ~000~ ~O00J ~000~ ~000~ ~O00J ~000 ~000' ~000 ~O00j ~OpoJ ~000[ ~oooJ ~000~ ~00,3~ ~000~ 600~ 300. ~s;~' ~3~ ~.; Zo~ ~0
125-129.9 lO00J 1000~ I000~ 1000~ 1C~0/ I000~ 1000 1000 I000~ ioooi lOOOI lOOO~ 1000[ I000[ 1000: lOOt:
130-134.~ 1000~ ~ooo: 1,300~ 1000~ Tooo~ 1000~ lOOOJ ~000 !000~ 1cool 1000~ 1000[ loooJ i000~ 1000~ 1000~ 900; ~oc' 20~; ~c ~oi 20~
.... ~s-~3~.9 looo~ ~ooo' ~oeo~ ~ooo~ ~ooo~ looo[ ~oooI ~oooJ ~oco~ Ioooi ~oooJ ~ooo~ lOOOl ~ooo~ ~ooo~ ~ooo~ ~ooo~
140-1~4.9 1000~ 1000~ 1000]" !COOJ 1000' lO00J 10001 1000 ' ' ' '
lO00j ~O00J 10001 ~O00j 1000 1000t ~000~ ~O00j ~000~ ~000~ 59C~ 200 ~00: ~0I
1~5-1~9.9j 1000~ 1000, 1000' t000~ 1000[ 1000 lO00j 1000 1000 lO00J 1000[ 1000 100~ 1000] lO00j lO00j 1000~ 700; JO0 lOCi 60I
,oooj ,ooo[ ,ooo ',oooi ,ooo ,oooj ,ooo I I ' .....
~ ~ooo ~ooo ~ooo ~ooo ~ooo ~ooo ~ooo ~ooo7%oooli i ~ooo~i ~oooj ~ooo~! ~ooo; soo zoo~ 9oj
C!STANCE
~IC~ES
SOIL
SAMPLE
FEET
#otc: l ndividuaI co~centreti~s for any soil sample cannot exceed 100 ppm. The nu~rs in this table do not represent soil concentrations; they reflect the a~cL~J~atio~ of
poJJutant mass in cont~inated soi These nu~rs can be derived from the LUFT manual worksheet (TabJe
43
T~BLE
T 0(. L~I~
ACC:EPTA~LE O~q. JCATIV~' SOIL ~T~I~Ti~ LE~LS
F~ ~TECTI~ OF ~ ~TER AT ~LIF]ED SITES
St~: Oo ~t use this taOte ~(ess the ~te ~ ~sti~ has ~ screea~ usi~ the a~t~cabi[ity checklist (Table 2-2) for ~e~ra( r~sk a~ra~sa[ to arot~t gr~ ~ater
~EAN ANNUAL INCHES PRECIPITATI~
5-9.9
10-14.9
t5-~9.9
3ISTAHCE ~
,.~. ff~ J 70- 79.9
J ~g-9;.9
32.1
~, o,~ to,~t to2oI to2~I to~l to~ to28 to3o~ =o32: -- to3o, ,osal
_ ;: 3:
1000; 1000t 1 ~ ;0 '~ -~
30; ~ _ ~'2/ 9
;0 30: 101 10:
,~u~ ~uuo~ :ooo~ ~ooi ~ooo ~ ~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~e.
:000_ ~OOO'. '~OOl ~000, 1000~ lonn~ ln~ ..... ~ ~r '~ ~ ~ 1000', 1000 ~OOe :3qe ~ ~ :CC
1000~ I00C. ~ ............ ,vuv ~uvu. ~uuu, 1000~ ,000~ 10001 1000~ ;O00, 1000 I0~ ~ 705 $~; 'i00 7CJ
10001
~2Oo: 100~ 1000, 1000
!000 lOOt. ~000: 1000
I000' ~OOOL_ ~0001 1000
!ooo~ lOOO 'oool
igoo~
~;~ lOOO
125.:_~79.9j 10001 1000; 1000
]37.!s..9j 1390 1000' 1000! !000 1000' 1000¢ 'O00I lonn' ~nnn, nnn
,ooo
~~ooo~ ~
lIS_- 1000i 1000
I ~ I
10001 1000] lO00J lO00j 10001 1000;
~OOOl ~oooJ. 10ool ~oooj lOOO: lOOO
IOOO~ :-55'~i ~oooI !ooo, ~ooo' :ooo'
1000~ I000i 10001 10001 1000l 1000~
~oo% ,,:ooot lOOOI ~oooi 1oooi ~ooo
1oooi :OOOl ~oooI IOOOi ~oooi ~ooo'
1000~ ~'3001 10001 !0001 1000 1000 1000 'C:'3~ !00S ;C,] 20C
I000~ !000l 1000' !000, I,['00~ 1000 1000 1000 ~0'},~ 5,00 200
1OO0: t000: !000 10001 ~00¢' 1000 1000' 1000 ~0'1," ~eT' ;0,'
10001 ID00' 1000~ 1000' !000 1000 1000' !000 ~000' 12,2,: 5/.C 200
!0001 :000' 1000' 1000J '$3C 1000 !000 ; 1000 :,300' '305 730
10001 1000! I000~ 1000, '300~ 1000~ 1000 !0001 !000 'DG0 ~30o--T2'~
lO001 1900i 1000. 1000' :OOO I000 1006 1000 1000 'L,O.D ~OOC, 'So~l
10001 tO00t 10001 10001 !000; 1000 !00,], 1000 1000 '[,,.'2 1000, 6ooI
1000; 10001 t000, 10001 1000 1000 OOq' 1000 1000 :00c. !0001 900[
1000i 10001 looo_L lOOOl lOOO~ lOOO looo~ ~ooo' :ooo: !o0~ 10001 lOOOJ
1000{ lO00j ~000! 1000! 10001 10001 :0001 ~000 lO00f '0o0 ~000
~ote: tr~v~c.x~al co~centraticx~s for any soil sample cannot exceed 80 pgm. The rx~bers in this table do
!Do{{utaqt mass in cO~tamir'~ted soil. lhese nu, ri~ers can be derived from the 1UFT m,anua[ worksheet
lO00J
not represent sol{ concentrat OhS; they reft e-,:t the a:zt~latioc~ of
(Table 2-3).
44
TAI~L~ 2-6
X'YLE#E
ACI~PTASLE CLI, IJLATIVI~ SOIL CX3IIT.A/~II~TION LEYI~LS
FOIl P1L~TECTION OF GILK]L~) r~,ATER AT C~MLIFIED SITES
c~ SAA'IP L E
FEE
St o O: ~o not u~e Chis ta~e unless the site in q~,estic>n has been screened using the applicability checklist (Tab(e 2-2) for genera! ;:s,' aooraisa( to protect gr~ water
MEAN ANNUAL INCHES PRECiPITATiON
O S.: 5.1 ! 7.1 ~ 8.1 m 9.~ ~ 10.1 ~ 11.1 ~ 12.~ ~ ~.1 ~ 1~.~ ~S.~ 20.~ ~ 22.~ 2~.~ 26.~ ~ : ~C: ~ 32.: ' ~c.~ 36.~ ~
/
:~ :, 's { to 7 i to ,~ : to, ~ :o 10i to 11 to 12~ to 1~ :o 161 to ts~ to ~r,' to 22~ to 2;' ~c, >'. :,:, 2S~ : ~,, to 52 :c, ~ 3a~ :~ -C
f I ; "': · --~ . to 36 :o
:oo,: 'ooc, ~ooo~ ~ooo~ ~ooo~ ~o[ sool ~ooj ~o1 so~ sc so~ ~ ~o~ ~o: ~o ~c, ~o~ ~o~ ~ z1
~':,0 'SO0 ~000~ ~000, ~0001 ~oO0~ ZOO 3001· ~00~ ~ ~o ~0~ ~0~ 30' 20; 2C' Z'O ~0' ~0: ~O, ~'
, !000; ~030 :000: :O00J 1000i :O00J 1000 700 ~001 100~ 90 FO 60~ 50~ 40~ 53' 20 20 ::', :~. !0;
2TST*NCEI 1000~ 1000~ I000~ i0001 12~0[ 1000[ 1000[ 1000 6001 200J ~OOi ~00~ ~001 BO: 60: 50: ;,:,: 3O 20. 20~ ~0~
~O00l 1000 ~000~ ~000! 1000~ ~000~ 1000~ ~000~ 500~_ 2eO~ 200~ ~OOj ~001 90~ zO' 50 40 30~ 2C. ~0~
'0 100c, 1000[ .~000 1000' ~oooi 1000 1000~ 100o1 8001 400~ 300, 200[ ~ooi on~ ~00 ~.: ~0 .:7. 30 20:
1000i I000[ ~0001 ~000~ !000~ 700~ 500; 3o0[ 20o 200: ~001 ~c 80 50. 4.~ ~01 20
10001 100 ,
400! 300i [~()91 100! 100, 70, ~0~ 30
:;Rc~ 1000! 1000i 1000 1000 700~ 400, 3OOi 200, ~C,C~ ~ 60~ '--
1000 ·
~00~ :;COI 2C0~ 100~ 100; 70~ 50
wATE~ 1000~ 10001 I0001 1000~ 1000 1000~ 1000J ~OOC'~ 1000 ~..CO. 4GO' 200~ ~00~ 90~
10001 1000 1000i ~0001 1000 ~000~ ~000 ~'33' ~OC, $eo, 200' 1001 70
"~ 1000 1000: 1000; 1000 ~000[ 700~ ~00~ 200~ I00,
SOIL 1000~ ~000 ~O00i 1000J ~ 50C~
1000 1000: I000I 500T ~¢0; 2001 100
1000~ 1000! 1000i 1000~,. '~0' 1000~ 500: $OOi 100
I000~ 1000~
100( 700I 400~ 200
~000 i000~ ~0,
10001 1000i 1000 ;003~ 1000;
1000[ I000: 1000 ~..' ~00' I000; !000 1J.¢S 1000~ ~.~:
1000~ 1000~ ~C30l lO00h 1000~ I000~ 1000 1000 lOGO; 1000; 406
1000~ !000; 1000~ 100 1000 I00~ 1000~ 1000' 1000, ~000 ~000; 1000 iOOC: $00
1000~ 100~ !000; I000 10001 100( 10001 1000 10001 ~000~ !000~ ~0~ ~O00t ~000~ ~000 ~000! ~0
10001 1000: 1000 ~ ~0001 !000~ 1000i 1000; 1000 lO00J
~000~ 1000I 1000:
1000¢ 10001 10001 10001 10,~0~ ~000[ ~000~ ~000, ~000~ 1000~ ~000~ ~000~ ~000
, ~ ~ooo~ ~OOOl ~ooo: ~ooo~ ~ooo~ ~ooo, ~ooo~
iot~: l~i~i~a~ c~trati~s for any soit sa~te ca~t exc~ 40 ~. fhe ~rs in this rabid ~ not represent soil concentrati~s; they re¢tect the acc~tati~
~ttut~nt ~ss in c~t~inat~ soil. r~ese n~rs can ~ ~riv~ fr~ the LUST ~nuat ~orksheet (Tabte
45
TABLE 2-7
£THTLBENZ£~E
AC.C~PTAI~LE CLI'IJLAT]V~ SOIL cl]I~TA~I#AT]CIN L£V~LS
FOIl PI~OTECTIOll OF ~ i,,~TER AT OUALIFIED SITES
St o O: Do r~ot use this table L~qless the site {r, q~estiom has b~e~ Screer~L'.d using the applicsbJlity checklist (tabLe ~-2 for ger~ral risk a~ra~saL to orotect ~rok.~,d ~ater
~EAN ANNUAL INCHES PRECiPiTATION
0 S.I ' .5.1 ! 7.; : 8.1 · 9.1 10.~ j 11.1 ; 12.1 i 1,1.1 ! tt~.~ i~.',, , 20.1 i 22.~ ~ ?~..; ! 26.1
~o~ 200, ~oo: ~oo: zo[ ~o~ ~oj ~oj ~oL 9~ ~, ~ ,, ~ o
I000' 800' 500: '~F 200t 1~t 701 40i 301 201 10~ ;~ 10' ~01 i01, 9, ~ B
~000~ ~000' ~ ~ ~000[ 8001 400J 2001 1001 60~ ao' 301 30, 20 2o: 20: 10
10001 I000~ ~0] 1000~ 1000[ 1000 '1000 ~00! 200~ 100i 70~ So~ ~0 ~c,. 3,5: 20. 20
1000~ ~000j ~000j lO00J 10001 ~000 1000 900J 400j 100~ 1001 ~01 z0J 60' SO~, ~C 30 20'
~ogg ~oool ~000~ ~000~ ~000[ ~oooJ 1000I 1000~ 800[ 300~ ~0~ ~j ~00~ me to. sc ~0.
!CO0'. 1000 ~T ~000t 1000~ 1000l, lO00j 1000 1000i 500~ 300 ~".3J ....................... 100] :00, '-~ ~' .... 60
~.gO' ~ ~ ~ I000~ ~000~ 10001 1000 ~000~ 1000/ ~CC 31).]. 290' 2'00 :~,. 'c"' S',; 60
~OC'O i OOo 1300' 1000~ 10001 I000! 1000! 1000 !000i ~OOO; 700 ::(,0 ' 400 }C"~ 37' t,]]. :.Z? BO
lOeO~ !0o0 100o' ~Soo~ 1000; I000] 1000~ 1000 ~0001 1000'. ;OCO, ~'...L' sOS 4"co J?.' 20: !30
~nnqi lOnO~ ~,]u. 1000' 10001 10001 1000] 1000 ',000~ lOGO! 1000 :S']G~ 1003 730 S:..: 30~: 2SL' 100
i_ '. 1.5,30. t]OOL 100[ 10001 10001 10001 10OOj 1000~ 1000 1000 :O:;3~ 1000: :COZ ':)] ' ~OS 50: 200'
1OO0 1000~ 10~': !030 1000' lgOO~ 1000~ 1000~ 10001 10001 1000. 1 ~:.~ ~'.. ~] C;,~_.. ;~,~ ..... '. 07': 7'30.
!0001 ~OOO~ CO,'. 1000 1000L ~OOOI loooi 1000. i000! ;.)O(; 1300 ~_:::'2)~._]'~':~.~ ...... ~[.~:~'/. ' ' ' __':~')(:.. (.2:
!003. !CO0 ~')OC lOO.3 1000 · 'gOO; 10001 ,nO0 :90,( '),) 1000 '. ':.j ~L:L'O ~"" ,,%~,r: BO,[ 500
~ ' ................................... =:_: ...... · .....
- - .u~ 1000 ,goo 00... 1008~ 1300 :~'r ~'-,O ' 0:-.,
~n,'~.,.. 1000 lC, fiG' 1000 lOOP ',OqO' lOOOi ~C)OO IOOO, ;;4,. 1:}O"J t(;CC, !,300 :.32. ..... ': '0':.[
9r' 1000' ~OOG: 1.700 1000 ' ?';'C ' lOOOi 1000 10001 1000 i0'}3 ' 0 i'.' ';; IO~C. I ?':'. '"''. 100( ! '3.? "'
' '17:: 1002. t800~ !000' 1000 :)OO' 1000 1000: 1000 1000 1000 ~ ,} :.. [;.' .__ 10,~ .... ~'~.': ..... ~.~..:'.::. ' .gth} 10,9~ :DOC
30.1 $2.: 34.' S6.1 J $8.t j
502' 2o,:. IC:i
: .:!? ' 1000 ~000' 100()! 1000 '000' 1000 1000 1000! 000' 100:) i ').0. !000 I C'O:' ' ). ')0' ' ?0',' :000 'gCC
- ~'.; !000 1000' !.)00 1000 !000 1000 !000 !000; ~OOO: ~35.3 ' ].; ~003 :0).[' .... . : ~:',_~] ~.:.'3'~ '00'] 12,3'C
OOO !:.",00i "OOO 1000' 1000 1000[ 1000 1005. ~000 1000 1000 " .. 1000 ~OC, C ' '' 1011:C :C.,:12 t000 'CC': ':'::.
10001 1000 '; 1000' 1000~ 1000~ 10001 1000 1000! 10001 10001 :O JO !07,01 1000. 10.:13 ':;?: !000 tC:O0 ; 00,.'. tOO6
!057' . 1000~ !000' 1030' 10001 !0001 1000 1033~ 1000i ;000' '000, '050; 10001 1000 ')~,(, 1000 ;0.00. !03.,,3 "000
.00
3CCI
, "0Or. ~OC 3001
~ 1000! 1000 1000 IOOOJ 1000' I000i 1000i 1000 10001 13001 i:h?'). 'qOP ~OOO 1000 ~r~OC '093 :OOO 1003 '0'% ~vL'. ~ ~00
~ 10001 1000; 1000' 1900! lO00f 10001 1000 lOOOJ 1000i 1000! 1000; 1000i 10001 ~000 !0.?:0 ~000' '000' !000 'SDS tODC 1000
,=~ ' 10001 1000~ 1300.. 10001 1000! 10001 1000 1000~ 1000 10001 1000, i0001 1000; 1000 ~030 ~000' 1000 1003 13001 1,3.00 10001
~ 1000~ 10001 I000~ !000i 1000t lO00J 10001 lO00J 000 I0001 1000~ 1,300t 10001 ~000~ '000. !000 !3001 ~000' ~000' 1000 1000' ?00
~ ~0001 10001 1OOO1 10001 ~000! 10001 1000f 1000i 1OOO! ~0001 1OOO1 ~O00i 1OOO! ~000' :000' 10001 ~000~ IOO0; tOO0 :0001 1000~ ~00
I
~ote: I r~d,,id~aI coocemtratims for amy SO~[ s~[e c8~ot exc~ 40 ~. The ~rs in this tabte do not represen[ sc;[ comcem~ratioms; they reftect the ~c=~tatiom of
~t~utant ~ss in ~mt~i~t~ soit. These n~rs can ~ ~riv~ fr~ the LUFI ~n,Jat ~orksheet (fabte
46
APPENDIX F
: i MODELING FOR GENERAL RISK .APPRAISAL
The general risk appraisal used in this manual to determine
acceptable cumulative contamination levels for soil was derived
using two models: SESOIL, a vadose zone model, and AT123D, a
· ground water model. Neither model could be used to produce the
acceptable cumulative contamination levels by itself; each model
represents an integral subsystem of the entire system being
modeled. The results produced by these models were incorporated
into a spreadsheet to create usable tables containing a wide
range of values.
It is important that regulatory agency personnel understand the
basic assumptions and development of the values given in the
tables. A conservative approach, allowing for severe case
scenarios, was followed.
Three phases were used in the modeling process: (1) SESOIL
modeling, (2) AT123D modeling, and 3) spreadsheet manipulation.
The following assumptions and input used to produce the
acceptable cumulative concentration levels are grouped under
these three phases.
A. SESOIL Modeling
SESOIL is a seasonal soil compartment model designed for
long-term environmental fate simulations of pollutants in
the vadose zone. It can simulate movement of pollutants
introduced into the vadose zone and predict the amount of
pollutant which will enter ground water.
SESO1L includes assumptions about environmental fate
processes, the handling of temporal and spatial variations,
and the applicability to different scenarios. User input
defined the climate, soil and pollutant characteristics, and
the application parameters as follows:
1. The soil column considered was ten meters wide by ten
meters long below an underground tank excavation five
meters deep. This assumes that the source of the leak
will be stopped and that the tank excavation will be
filled with natural backfill.
,\4 1
2. Each concentration value calculated from field samples
is assum,~(t tc represent n layer of soil ten meters lonq
by ten meters wide and tony be located anywhere in the
soi.l colum~. !,,ac~ l. aye~- c~nnot be eva].uated
' independently, but must be evaluated cumulatively with
; other layers directly, above it. The easiest way to
!. consider the: ~ cumulative effect of this ccntamlnation
~%hicknes:~ .L~ ~o add the .'.]ddJtiona[ concentration va]us
~ of each ].~,yer ns del:th i~creases. The samples are
taken at five-feet i:]tervals which lessen the number cf
concentrations which have to be added together and thus
decrease the cumulatJ, ve. total. This consideration more
accurately reflects the modeled effect of adding layers
of contaminated soil. and is'more compatible with field
procedures. The entire volume of contaminated soil
must be characterized in this fashion.
3. Simulations were carriea out for up to ten years to
determine the simulated maximum concentration of
pollutant in ground wate~ that would result from the
contaminated'soil.
4. Detailed climatic data from the following four areas in
California were used in the model: Bakersfield (south
interior), Los Angeles (south coastal), Sacramento
(north interior), and Eureka (north coastal).
5. November was used as the initial month of contamination
since the rainy season has usually begun by then.
6. The site was assumed to be exposed to rainfall and not
to be covered by an effective barrier to infiltration.
Although many sites may be covered with concrete or
asphalt, breaks and slopes in such covers may result in
a funnel effect unless underlying structures are
specifically designed as infiltration barriers.
7. Soil type used is homogeneous sandy loam with a density
(specific gravity) of 1.35, an intrinsic permeability
of 0.2, a disconnectedness index of 6.3, an effective
porosity of 0.25. an organic carbon content of 0.02
percent~ and a clay content of 10.0 percent. Note that
SESOIL should not be used in areas where there are
fissures or solution channels, or in areas where
secondary porosity is a significant factor. Because of
the scenario used in the SESO1L model, the tables are
not intended for use in areas where there exist
significant deposits of sand, gravel, or cobbles.
However, the tables may generally be used for silty or
clayey areas, or where such layers or lenses exist in a
sandy loam substrate. Such heterogeneous formations
'~'i%ich may retard], increase distance of travel, or
A42
increase dispersion should serve to make the table
values more conservative.
-! 8. Pollutants modeled were BTX&E'~ Chemical and physical
properties were obtained from standard chemical
references. These properties include molecular weight,
solubility, Henry's law constant, and organic
carbon/water partitioning coefficient. Biodegradation
was given a conservative rate of 0.002 percent per day.
Other types of degradation were not considered.
B. AT123D Modeling
AT123D is an analytical transient one-, two-, or three-
dimensional computer ground water model. The model is
designed to estimate the rate .of pollutant
transport/transformation in a ground water system, it is
used in this modeling application to intercept.leachate
simulations generated from SESOIL and predict resulting
concentrations in ground water. AT123D incorporates
assumptions regarding the simulation of hydrogeological
processes. Much of the input regarding hydrogeological
parameters and pollutant release comes directly from SESOIL
via an interactive modeling system. User input defined some
of the boundary conditions. Following are some of'the more
significant input and assumptions that were incorporated:
1. Pollutant input to AT123D is confined to only what is
released from the column of soil defined in SESOIL.
Pollutants moving outside the column are lost.
2. Maximum ground water concentrations are taken from a
point directly ten meters downstream, allowing some
mixing to occur, at the top of the aquifer.
3. The modeled aquifer is infinitely deep and infinitely
wide.
4. The longitudinal dispersivity is 5 meters; the lateral
dispersivity is 0.5 meters; the vertical dispersivity
is 0.5 meters; the decay constant is 0.0; and the
hydraulic gradient is 0.01.
5. All other parameters are set to match SESOIL output.
A4 3
C: Spreadsheet Manipulation
A Lotus 123 spreadsheet was used to create tables of
acceptable cumulative soil contamination. The spreadsheet
used modeling results to calculate which soil concentrations
of a pollutant would produce concentrations in the 'ground
· zater equivalent to its speci~ led water qua] itV ]imit.
Following are some of the pertinent input and assumptions
used:
1. The water quality limits used were: DHS, Sanitary
Engineering Branch, drinking water supply action levels
of 0.7 ppb (parts per billion) of benzene, 100 ppb of
toluene, and 620 ppb of xylene; and the federal water
criterion of 680 ppb of ethylbenzene. These levels in
turn are based on long-term health effects and assume a
lifetime exposure based on consuming two quarts of
water contaminated with BTX or E at the above levels
per day over a 70-year period.
2. Although model output is in precise numbers, the
numbers in the tables are shown as whole numbers
ranging from 0 to 1,000. It was decided to round the
numbers down to the leftmost digit, to diminish the
perception of accuracy and to provide an additional
margin of ground water protection in the analysis. The
first range (0.1 ppm) is assigned an acceptable level
of zero ppm (nondetectable level). The second range
(1-10) is rounded down to integer values (1, 2,
3...etc.). The third range (10-100) is rounded down to
multiples of ten (10, 20, 30...etc.). The last (100-
1,000) is rounded down to multiples of 100. The levels
did not exceed 1,000 because contamination above this
level may indicate a condition where the site should
always be either completely cleaned up or more
extensively evaluated.
3. Attenuation was assumed to be constant with depth.
4. Annual precipitation and depth to ground water and
volume of contaminated soil were the only factors
presented in the tables for determining acceptable
cumulative' contamination levels.
5. The effect of thickness of the contaminated layer was
assumed to be additive, ~;hen using concentrations taken
at five-feet intervals, in all cases.
A4 4 ~
D: Software Version: Risk-on-a-Disk
A software version of the general wisk appraisal is
available on a double sided/double density 5 1/4 inch floppy
diskette for IBM and IBM-compatible microcomputers with at
least 512k RAM. This software version consists of six Lotus
123 files which can only be run using the Lotus 123 program,
release 2.0 or later. Lotus 123 is not provided. It is not
necessary to know lotus 123 commands, because this software
package uses simple instructions instead of Lotus 123
commands.
Risk-on-a-Disk simulates twe remedial action alternatives:
(1) cleanup of the soil to a specified level of
contamination, and (2) removal of a specified, amount of the
contaminated soil. Intervals of sampling may be varied from
one to seven feet. All cumulative contamination levels are
calculated by the computer. For requests or additional
information, contact Kim Ward in the Division of Loans and
Grants of the State Board at (916) 739-4317.
REFERENCES
Bonazountas, M. and J. M. Wagner. 1984. "SESOIL": A Seasonal
Soil Compartment Model. Office of Toxic Substances, U. S. EPA,
Washington, D.C. (Contract No. 68-01-6271).
Bonazountas, M. in Fate of Chemicals in the Environment. R. L.
Swann and A. Eschenroeder (eds.). American Chemical Society (ACS
Symposium Series No. 225), Washington, D.C.
A45
ATTACHMENT 3
APPLICABILITY CHECKLIST, ENVIRONMENTAL FATE WORKSHEETS
AND TABLES 2-4 THROUGH 2-7 FROM
LUFT MANUAL
TAtILE z - 2
GENERAL RISK APPRAISAL
FOR PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY:
APPLICABILITY CHECKLIST YES NO
]. [s the site in a mountainous area? (shaded moist
areas &/or areas with rocky subsurface conditions)
2. Is the site in an area that could collect surface
runoff or' intercept water f r-~m a source other than
x/
the natural precipitation?
3. Does the area] extent o~ soi! contamination
exceed 100n feet" ? ~..) r ~4 m
4. Do the concentrations o~ fuel constituents in any
soil sampJes exceed the foil. owing amounts:
benzene - 100 ppm, toluene - 80 ppm, xylene - 40
ppm, ethylbenzene - 40 ppm?
5. Are there any records or evidence of man-made or
natural objects which could provide a conduit for
vertical migration of leachate?
[ 6.. Do any boring or excavation logs show the presence
[ of fractures, joints or faults that could act as a
conduit for vertical migration of leachate?
.:tl ~. . Do any boring logs show that contaminated soil
could be within 5 ft oI highest ground water?
8. Do any boring logs show the presence of a layer of
material, 5 ft. thick or more, which is more than
75% sand and/or gravel?
/\
Directions:
1. Boring logs taken during the general risk
appraisal can be used to answer questions 5-8. In
addition, analytical results of the soil samples
taken during the general risk appraisal can be
used to answer questions .3 and 4.
2. Lateral migration of constituents to problem areas
should also be considered in questions 5-8.
3. The above checklist contains questions which are
designed to identify sites with environmental
conditions which could produce a greater risk to
ground water than w~s modeled. The results of the
general risk appraisal are most applicable if all
ot the questions on the checklist can be answered
"no" with reasonable certainty. I~ any of the
questions on the che~klist canno~ be answered
"no", then the resul~.s o~' the ~eneral risk
F~_S-~ql'
I i'AVt~&r't ~..u~t l!
//////////////'
/ / z / /~ / //// / / /
c, nl ;
· ~'q .,, .:~,,-.,~ ..' !75.,· :.,., o tuO_~ ~ ~,
· I&o c.c.~ .....
~t~I ~.~.~ . ',.
Sft C.6.L. 0
,
C.C.t. 9
I,~
~ '60 '~'"~'~" ~'
5ft : C.C.t
._.___...__. .... . _ ,, .. ,. ,. ,...~-,,- ... ~ ..... , .
-'~"' --'--- . . ~,.'F ~-' ~,~:~ ~'~ ~ ~s%~:~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~'~_ %..: .h:.~:,'.~- ~:'~C ~' F ' '. ~..,""'~ ...... ....... ~,,~,
^~t.~ ^~u~t 11
ii "~'E£1PI TAT ION
: ~ . ~.,~ I NCNE S
//I/I/////////
~ C b ~ I / I I I I I11/i/ i /
I~/A~C~ F~:~ DTSTA~CF ~¢~ DISTA~('~ F~ r
~ SlJPr A~'~ T~ - CIJMU[ AT ~v~ AEC[P1A~[[ CLEANUP?
, , ' · ~J ~OO~ .. .~
.... - ' '.' ' o ~o ..~.~ .~ ....
'
',f:~
:~.C-L. 6 .
i E.C.L.
5ft ; C.C.L. 8
sf~' ] C.C.L. 9
s,, t30 ~'"~
' .... ': SA~PlF :~ t' -r.C.L. 11
- .._yes ....
5ft
C.C.:
, .... f~l SAMPLE :2 ~' - :
..... Yes ....
';~ ;'~'; 4-;- - -
..... t~:~ ~,'~:~':~,,.~ .... ~~. . ~~~ '~-. ......... ~.:~ .-;
- . ~ ..... --~ ..... :.-,._ ~ _"" , ~ ~-: '~ ; . ~,~;~,.~ ...... :.
- ~.-.' .... ~.,- .... -- . .T..~' . '-~.. ~ :'~c'~s..~ '1 '" : .......... ~'~: ...... '""~' - ..... '-.' ....
.,, .. ~..,....,.. · _
~' ': ' '~('[.'~ ~[ON% F~ A~T ~:~.,,t S(~. ,A~I'LL ([ANN ' ~{[{[ ~:}m';[~. :r_~' ~'N.:N~ ~.,;~, :.~h' ' . '~t ,%0~r, ~'~1~'
! ~g~(.lOI TAT I0~ '1
/ / / / / / / /'/ / / / / /
//////////////
C 0 I ~ C
DISTANCE ~(3~ DISTANC[ F~)~ DISTA~CF. FR(~ CU~LA~IV~ AC~['[A~L~ ~LEANUP7
SfTJ ~ C.C.L .
5ftl c.c.~ . 2
5fl ~ C.C.~ .
sftl 'i.~..t
5ft ~ C.~.t .',
· ~ ,~ ~,~,~, ~ [~..,. ,: .:.~. ~_~,]_~. _~.~_~o .... ~¢~ ~o
Sft C.C.L. O
· SA.Pt[
Sftl ~ C.C.L.
I
yes
5ft C.C.L. 8
' SA~PLf 11 0 ~'
5ft { C.C.t . 11
~ ft SAMPLF 12 t, C r L. 12 ....... yea ___~
..... . ........ ~. ~z~..~x. Lc~,~J~~~, ~ .........................
..' ' -- ~',:'~ ~,.~, ~ s*-.c. ~--~..:~--.
.......... ~ ............ L~ ... ~'~ ?'~'~ :~ :=:~-~' - x~'" --"~", '-,',- ~_, "..-..~,~Tt..~.~.)~,*~
' ~ , ~,4CE~TRATIONS F~ ANY SINGL[ SOIL SA~PL[ CA~)' [XCEE', 1:)~,~;~.
.
I I I II II III I I I I
DISIANE~ f~ OISTANC[ i~C~ DIS[A~CF F~ CU~ULATIv/ ACC~PIARI.[ CLEA~UP~
· 5AMPLE 50
$~tr { ~.C.L. 5
5fei C.C.L. /
5ftJ i C.C.k. 8
qft : : C.L_L. lr,
m .............. f~', SAMPtF 12 J~'~_f' :C,C L. 12 yes
tt feet ~ [~r~ ~f
4.
~ ~ °°°°°°°°°°° ..... ~~~~§
~ '-
._ ~ oooooooo~.o~ § §
o ooo~e~oo§oo oo oo §
o
"~ ..........................
~ ~ ~ooooooooooooooooo
~ ~ o~~mooooooooooooooooo~'o~
...............................................
~ g .... ~ooo~goOSooooooooooooooo
~ ~ oooooooooooooJ~'o~o~
°
..... ~o~oo~~§~§~o,oooooooooo
- ~ -~ ~ ~o oooo~oooo~o
= -~oo o .... oooooooooo
~_~ ooo .... oo .... o ....
~ ~8 88 8 888 8888
~ ~ 000000ooo~[~ooo ¢,o0000¢~ 000000
~o ~ ~o
~ ~ ~oo ..... o ooo
~ ~°
o ~ooooooo ~
· z ~
~ ~ ~.~ ooo o o o .---
- ~ -' o~x~~~oo§oo~oo§oooo oo ~oo~ooOO oo§
- oo § oo§oo§§§ §§§ § §
~ ~ - ~~oo~§~oo§oo§§~oo~§§~§oooo oo oo ~°
~ ..... o ooooo oo
°. °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°1°°°°°°°' i~
~ o ~oooooooooooooooooooooooooo
· ~ ~ ·
~- ~o ~ ..... ooooooooooooo ..... oloooo
~ - ..... o-~-~o~~§ §§§ § ~ ~
~ .................... ' t I i ' "t '. ..... o
, , ~
..... ~..1. ~ ~ i ~ I ...........
....................................
c o o ............ -~ .-~- ..........
ooooo00oooc 'Do ..l,z,c-.c) oc~iOooo~oO000
~ ............ : . . . ~,.., . ~ ~ .-, ,-,~: .; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
.... REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L.
P.O. BOX 1601, OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93032
(805) 644-5892 · FAX (805)654-0720
November .15, 1991 0V
Ms. Flora Darling
Kern County Environmental Health Services Department
2700 "M" Street, Suite 300
Bakersfield, California 93301
Subject:. ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE SOIL CONDITIONS AT
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING COMPANY,
215 EAST 21ST STREET, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Dear Ms. Darling:
Remediation Service, Int'l. (RSI) was contracted by Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling
Company to conduct a site investigation to assess the vertical extent of the soil
contamination plume at the subject site.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located at 215 East 21st Street in Bakersfield, California (see Figure 1). The
site is a soft drink bottling facility and consists of a beverage packaging warehouse,
office facilities and truck parking area. A fueling facility was located south of the
'warehouse. The facility consisted of two 10,000 gallon tanks, containing gasoline
and diesel, and a dispenser island. The tanks, product lines and dispenser island
were removed on June 8, 1989 (see Figure 2).
BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS WORK
Two underground storage tanks, associated product lines and dispenser island were
removed from the site on June 8, 1989. As part of the tank removal, soil samples
were collected and hydrocarbon concentrations above action levels were detected.
Based upon these results, a site assessment was conducted by Krazan & Associates,
Inc. to determine the lateral and vertical extent of the soil contamination and to
assess the potential for ground water contamination. Seven soil borings were
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Co.
Bakersfield
November 1991 - Page 2
drilled in the area of the former fueling facility (see Figure 3). The soil borings 'were
drilled to depths ranging from 45 to 70 feet below grade. Elevated BTEX and TPH as
diesel concentrations (greater than 1,000) were detected at depths between 20 and 50
feet in borehole B-l; at depths between 30 and 45 feet in borehole B-2; at depths
between 40 and 55 feet in borehole B-3; and at a depth of 45 feet in borehole B-5.
TPH as diesel concentrations of less than 35 parts per million (ppm) were detected at
depths of 65 and 70 feet in borehole B-1. See Table 1 for Summary of Analytical
Results.
In November, 1989, it was determined that passive remediation and monitoring
was the best alternative for this site. This consisted of the installation of an
impermeable barrier (asphalt seal at the surface) and the drilling of one boring two
years from the time of the installation of the asphalt seal.
In accordance with Kern County Environmental Health Services Department
(KCEHSD) a confirmational soil boring was proposed in RSI's work plan dated
September 12, 1991. The work plan was approved by KCEHSD in a letter dated
September 25, 1991. If is the purpose of this report to present the results of the
investigation.
GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The site is located in the southern 'portion of the San Joaquin Valley. The
topography is flat and gently slopes to the southwest. Elevation at the site is
approximately 405 feet above mean sea level. The nearest surface water body is the
East Side Canal, located approximately one-half mile north of the site. The Kern
River is located approximately two miles to the north. The area is underlain by
alluvium consisting of sand and silt and gravel derived from the Sierra Nevada and
deposited by the Kern River and its tributaries. According to the soil boring logs, the
soils underlying the site consists of silt, sandy silt and sand to a depth of seventy feet
As reported by Krazan & Associates, Inc. the site lies within the Kern County
Ground Water Basin. The basin contains two main aquifers separated by a day
aquitard of regional extent at a depth of approximately 300 feet. Ground water from
the upper, unconfined aquifer is not suitable for domestic purposes, but is used
extensively for agricultural use.? Ground water from the lower, confined aquifer is
used extensively for domestic and agricultural purposes. According to the Kern
County Water Agency, Depth tp Groundwater Maps, Spring 1990, The depth to
ground water in the area of the site is approximately_ 11~ to 200 feet. ?
/
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Co.
Bakersfield
November 1991 - Page 3
SOIL BORING PROCEDURES AND SAMPLING RESULTS
The purpose of the work was to confirm the vertical extent of the hydrocarbon
plume and evaluate the potential impact of the contamination on the ground water.
This was accomplished by drilling a soil boring in the area of the former tank pit
through the interval of soil contamination identified in the previous assessment.
Soil Boring Procedures
The borehole was drilled with an eight inch outside-diameter hollow-stem auger.
During the drilling process, soil cuttings were monitored for contamination by
visual inspection, odor and a photoionization detector (PID). Undisturbed soil
samples were collected at five foot intervals using a California split-spoon sampler.
All data was recorded on soil boring logs under the supervision of a State of
California registered geologist, and soils were classified according to the Unified Soft
Classification System (see Attachment 1 for Soil Boring Log). Prior to each sampling
episode, the sampling equipment was decontaminated with a standard three bucket
rinse method.
The samples were labeled, sealed, recorded on chain-of-custody forms and
transported to SMC Laboratory, a state-certified laboratory. Selected samples were
tested for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline and diesel according to
EPA Methods 8015 Modified and 3540M/8020, respectively (see Attachment 2 for
Laboratory Reports).
Soil Sample Results
Borehole B-8 was drilled in the area of the former tank pit between boreholes B-l, B-
3 and B-5 as shown in Figure 3. The borehole was drilled to a depth of 70 feet below
grade. Elevated PID readings were detected between depths of 10 and 60 feet. Five
soil samples from depths of 30, 50, 60, 65, and 70 feet were submitted for analysis.
Analytical results of soil samples collected from depths between 30 and 60 feet
(samples B8-30, B8-50, and B8-60) showed concentrations of TPH as diesel ranging
from 16,000 to 23,000 .ppm. Concentrations of TPH as gasoline ranged from 6.8 to 120
ppm. No concentrations of TPH as diesel or gasoline were detected from the
samples collected from depths of 65 and 70 feet below grade. See Table 1 for
Summary of Analytical Results and Attachment 2 for Laboratory Reports.
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Co.
Bakersfield
November 1991 - Page 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Analytical results of soil samples collected during the previous assessment
conducted in August, 1989 showed diesel contaminated soil to be located at
depths between 20 and 55 feet. TPH as diesel concentrations in that interval
ranged from 18,300 to 23,600 ppm. Low (30 to 33 ppm) TPH as diesel
concentrations were detected from depths of 65 and 70 feet.
2) Analytical results of soil samples collected during this investigation detected
TPH as diesel concentrations of 23,000 to 16,000 ppm at depths between 20 and
60 feet. TPH as gasoline concentrations of 6.8 to 120 ppm were detected within
the same interval. No TPH as diesel or gasoline was detected from 65 to 70
feet. ~__~1
3) The vertical limit of soil contamination has remained at a depth of 60 feet.
Concentrations of TPH as diesel have remained approximately the same since
the last assessment.
4) The depth to ground water in the area is reported to be approximately 150 to
200 feet. Because the base of contamination has remained at approximately 60
feet, the potential for ground water impact is extremely unlikely.
In November, 1989, it was determined that passive remediation and monitoring
was the best mitigation alternative for this site. The results of this monitoring
episode indicate that the plume of contamination has not migrated vertically.
Considering the lack of migration of the contaminant plume and the minimal
threat to ground water, RSI recommends that no further action is necessary at this
time. However, because natural biodegradation of the hydrocarbons does not appear
to have been effective in reducing the contaminant concentrations, continued
monitoring of the plume is also recommended. This can be accomplished with the
drilling of another borehole in two years.
LIMITATIONS
The discussion and recommendation presented in this report are based on the
following:
1. The professional performance of the personnel who' conducted the investigations.
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling'Co.
Bakersfield
November 1991 - Page 5
2. The observations of the field personnel.
3. The results of laboratory analyses performed by a state certified laboratory.
4. Any referenced documents.
5. Our understanding of the regulations of the State of California; also, if applicable, other local regulations.
It is possible that variations in the soil and ground water conditions could exist
beyond the points explored in this investigation.
The services' performed by Remediation Service, Int'l have been conducted in a
manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exerdsed by members
of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the State of
California.
Please note that contamination of soil and/or ground water must be reported to the
appropriate agencies in a timely manner. No other warranty, expressed or implied,
is made.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please call:
Respectfully submitted,
Steven M. Richardson, R.G. ~684 Brian Mossman
Senior Project Manager Project Geologist
SMR
Enclosures: Figures
Tables
Attachment 1 - Soil Boring Log
Attachment 2 - Laboratory Reports
HGURES
LEGEND
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.,
SCALE IN FEET 215 EAST 21ST STREET,
~ ~ I BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
o ~ooo 2ooo FIGURE 1 - LOCATION MAP
RSI REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L.
N WAREHOUSE WAREHOUSE
LOADING AREA
ALLEY
P ~.P . P P--
:
FORMERDiESEL10,000TANKGALLON~:' ~ .¥ I POWER LINES
',
FORMER IO,000GALLO -- -- I
GASOLINE TANK ' O
p m
FORMER
OUTLINE OF
.J
DISPENSER ISLAND EXCAVATION "
YARD
YARD
P
SHED
GROVE STREET
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.,
215 EAST 21 ST STREET,
NOTE: PLOT PLAN TAKEN FROM SCALE IN FEET ~ BAKERSFIELD, .CALIFORNIA
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. REPORT ~ FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN
DATED 10/2/89 0 2o 4o
RS~ REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L.
WAREHOUSE LOADING AREA
OFFICE
POWER UNES
FORMER 10,000 GALLON / ~ B-~ [ ~. P
.......... / ~'x"~"--....~FO R ME R 10,000 GALLON
' ' ~ GASOLINE TANK
LOO^T,ON O. .-8 i
BOREHOLE DRILLED --~-'-"~ i i /
DURING THIS \ i [ i
AREAL EXTENT OF SOIL CONTAMIANTION
AS DETERMINED BY KRAZAN & /
ASSOCIATES REPORT DATED 10/2/89
P
YARD
LEGEND
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.
)~ KRAZAN BOREHOLE LOCATION PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.,
215 EAST 21ST STREET,
~ RSI BOREHOLE LOCATION BAKERSFIELD, CAMFORNIA
NOTE: PLOT PLAN TAKEN FROM SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 3 - PLOT PLAN SHOWING
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. REPORT ~ r [ BOREHOLE LOCATIONS
DATED 10/2/89 0 10 20 F~SI REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L.
TABLES
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF SOIL SAMPLES
(mg/kg)
BOREHOLE DEPTH SAMPLE ID METHOD MOD. METHOD
NUMBER SAMPLED NUMBER 3540M/8020 8015 EPA METHOD 8020
(feet) TPH AS TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAl_
DIESEL GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES
B-1 20 B-1@20' 23,600 NA 0.27. 0.59 0.69 3.28
B-1 35 B-1@35' 14,500 NA 0.63 1.25 0.43 3.96
B-1 50 'J B-1@50' 18,300' NA 2.80 3;58 1.76 8.0
B-1 65 B-1@65' 33-! NA I~D ND ND ND
B-1 70 B-1@70' 30~ NA ND ND ND
B-2 15 B-2@15' ND NA ND ND ND ND
B-2 30 B-2@30' 2,320 NA ND 0.11 N D ND
B-2 45 B-2@45' 13,900 NA 0.89 1.26 1.03 4.64
B-2 55 B-2@55' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-2 60 B-2@60' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-3 10 B-3@10' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-3 25 B-3@25' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-3 40 B-3~40' 1,030 NA 0.39 0.57 0.56 3.14
B-3 55 B-3~55' 34,600 NA 2.72 ' 3.22 1.79 8.46
B-3 60 B-~60' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-3 65 B-3@65' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-4 10 B-4@10' ND NA ND ND ND ND
B-4 25 B~25' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-4 40 B-4~40' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-4 45 B-4~45' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-5 15 B-5@ 15' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-5 30 B-5@30' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-5 45 B-5~45' 18,300 NA 0.89 1 .~3 1.12 5.21
B-5 60 B-5~60' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-5 65 B-~65' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-6 10 B-6@10' ND NA ND ND ND ND
B-6 25 B-6@25' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-6 40 B-6~)40' ND NA ND ND N D I~)
B-6 45 B-6@45' ND NA ND ND N D ND
B-7 10 B-7@10' ND NA ND ND ND ND
B-7 25 B-7~25' ND NA I~ ND N D ND
B-7 40 B-7@40' ND NA ND ND N D
B-7 45 B-7@45' ND NA I~D I~) N D
B-8 30 B8-30 20,000 6.8 NA NA NA NA
B-8 50 B8-50 23,000 120 NA NA NA NA
B-8 60 B8-60 16,000 , 57 NA NA NA NA
B-8 65 B8-65 ND ND NA NA NA NA
B:8 70 B8-70 ND ND NA NA NA NA
ND=Not Detected
NA=Not Analyzed
See Attachment 2-Laboratory Report for minimum detection limits.
ATTACHMENT 1
SOIL BORING LOG
SOIL BORING LOG
,,,~- ~ ~ _c~ ~- z -r 'TZ SOIL 'I~PE, COLOR, GRADATION, CONSISTENCY,
o u~ m ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PLASTlCl]¥. MOISTURE. ODOR, STAIN
'/'·'¥'¥ :'1:'1:'1: SM GRAVELLY SILTY SAND. tan. fine grain, loose, slightly
'z',',~· :il:il:il: damp, dight HC odor starting at approximately 5 feet.
14
' '" ............................. SW 80 20
, ~ ~ ............................. slight HC odor.
, , , ............................. 5 85 10
~4 80 20,000'/'/'/'/ ::1::1::1: SM- 70 30 SILTY SAND, brown, mostly fine grain, slightly stiff,
2~ ~ , · : '..'::.:. ':':.:: SAND, tan, fine to medium grain, slightly damp, dight NC
27 , .~ · ..................... SP 70 30 odor.
-40-'~. 2~4~ 55 -'-'-'· ::1::1::1: eM- 10 50 40 SILTY SAND, brown, fine to ve~/coarse grain with some
/,,,~·,-'~.~1. gravel to 1/2", moderately consolidated, damp, dight HC
' .... : ....... ..: 85 15 SAND, tan, medium to vet7 coarse grain, loose, damp,
20
· ::1::1::1: SM- 70 30 SILTY SAND, tan, fine to medium grain, loose, damp
~a 04 · 10 O0 SILT, b~own, soft, non-p~a~¢, damp, dight HC odor.
· / · / ::1::1::1: SM- SILTY SAND, brown, fine to medium grain, moderately
-65 ~ 0 ND.·,,· / · / ::1::1::1: ML 70 30 loose, damp, slight HC odor at 60', no odor at 65' and 70'.
3O
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger SAMPLING METHOD: Split Spoon
CLIENT: UNDSEY HOLDING COMPANY
DRILLED BY: MELTON DRILLING
LOGGED aY: ~M REVIEWED aY: SBa PROJECT: PEPSI/DR. PEPPER BOTT'UNG CO.
BOREHOLE DIAMETER: 8 inch BOREHOLE NO.: B.8
CASING: NONE SCREEN: NONE FILTER PACK: NONE
DATE: 10/21/91 PAGE ~ O~ ~. R ~; I REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L
ATTACHMENT 2
LABORATORY REPORTS
SMC Laboratory Analytical Chemistry
Client Name: Remediation Service International
Address : P.O. Box 1601
Oxnard, Ca. 93032
Attention : Brian Mossman
Date samples received : 10-21-91
Date analysis completed: 11-01-91
Date of report : 11-06-91
Project Name: Pepsi Bottling
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS:
~3984 ID:B8-30 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm
TPH (Gasoline) 6.8 1.0
TPH (Diesel) 20000 1000 (PQL)
Method of Analysis for TPH (Gasoline): 8015M (FID)
Method of Analysis for TPH (Diesel): 3540M/8020 (FID)
PQL = Practical Quantitation Level
MDL = Minimum Detection Level
TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
ugm/gm = micrograms per gram (ppm)
ND = None Detected
Analytical emist
· 3 i 55 Pegasus Drive · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · (805) 393-3597
P.O. Box 80835 · Bakersfield, CA 93380 · FAX (805) 393-3623
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS:
~3952 ID: B8-50 ug/g MDL,ug/g TPH (Gasoline) 120. 1.0
TPH (Diesel) 23000. 1000.(PQL)
~3954 ID:B8-60 ug/g MDL,ug/g TPH (Gasoline) 57. 1.0
TPH (Diesel) 16000. 1000.(PQL)
~3955 ID: B8-65 ug/g MDL,ug/g TPH (Gasoline) ND 1.0
TPH (Diesel) ND 10.
~3956 ID: B8-70 ug/g MDL,ug/g TPH (Gasoline) ND 1.0
TPH (Diesel) ND 10.
~3957 ID: B8-30 Duplicate ug/g MDL,ug/g TPH (Gasoline) 15. 1.0
TPH (Diesel 12000. 1000.(PQL)
R . Michels
Analytical Chemist
C~IN OF CUSTODY
REco D
Location of Sampling
CompanY:
Telephone: ( )
Collector
Name :~~.~ ~~~
Company: .~%
Address .-~_~, ~'b~c
Telephone:
3155 Pegasus Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Telephone: ( 805 ) 393-3597
FAX: ( 805 ) 393-3623
SamDlin~ Method:
Sample Type:
Preservation Methods:
Sam:!e No. Date I Time Descriotion
\ I
Ana!vsis Requested
Laboratory No.
Company:
Received
Relinquished By:
Received' By:
Date
Company: Date:
Company: Date:
Relinquished By: Company: Date:
Received By: Company: Date:
............... Sheet [ of 2__
CI4-~%IN OF CUSTODY RECORI)
Location of Sampling
Address:
Te!ephone: ( )
Collector
Name :~\~ ~5~
Company: ~
Address :~.~.
Telephone:
SMC
31~$ P¢~amu Dfiv~
Bakcmfi¢ld~ CA 93308
Telephone: ( 80'5 ) 393-3597
FA_~: ( 805 ) 393-3623~'~
$~mDlin~ Method:
No.
Date I Time
Sample Tip, e:
Description
Prese~zation Methods:
Ana!v$is Recuested
] Laboratory Nc.
Received By: ~. ~_~~ Company:~.~.~ L~~~ Date:
Relinquished By: 5 Company: { Date:
Received By: Company: Date:
Relinquished By: Company: Date:
Received By: Company: Date:
Sheet 7_. of 2
= -~ '~-- REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L.
P.O. Box 1601, OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93032
(805) 644-5892 · FAX (805) 654-0720
WORK PLAN TO ASSESS THE SOIL CONDITIONS
at
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, California 93305
prepared by
RSI - REMEDIATION SERVICE INT'L
P.O. Box 1601
Oxnard, CA 93032
(805) 644-5892
September, 1991
= ~' ~=-- REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L.
P.O. BOX 1601, OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93032
(805) 644-5892 · FAX (805) 654-0720
September 12, 1991
Ms. Flora Darling
Kern County Environmental Health Services Dept.
2700 "M" Street, Suite 300
Bakersfield, California 92506
Re: Work Plan to Assess the Soil Conditions
at Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, California
Dear Ms. Darling:
The following work plan outlines Remediation Service Int'l
(RSI) proposed monitoring plan to assess the plume of soil
contamination at the subject site. The work was prepared
in accordance with Kern County Environmental Health Services
Department (KCEHSD) requirements.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
The site is located at 215 East 21st Street in Bakersfield,
California. The owner contact is Kevin Phillips, 215 East
21st Street, Bakersfield, California 93305 (see Figure 1). The
consultant is Steve Richardson of RSI, P.O. Box 1601, Oxnard,
California 93032. The phone number.is (805) 644-5892.
The site is a soft drink bottling facility and consists of a
beverage packaging warehouse, office facilities and truck parking
area. A fueling facility was located south of the warehouse.
The facility consisted of a 10,000 gallon gasoline tank, a 10,000
gallon diesel tank and a dispenser island. The tanks, product
lines and dispenser island were removed on June 8, 1989 (see
Figure 2).
LOCAL TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The site is located in the southern portion of the San Joaquin
Valley. The topography is flat and gently slopes to the
southwest. Elevation at the site is approximately 405 feet above
mean sea level. The nearest surface water body is the East Side
Canal, located approximately one-half mile north of the site.
Work Plan Pepsi-Cola/Dr.P
September, 1991 Page 2
The Kern River is located approximately two miles to the north.
The area is underlain by alluvium consisting of sand and silt and
gravel derived from the Sierra Nevada' and deposited by the Kern
River and its tributaries. According to the soil boring logs,
the soil underlying the site consists of silt, sandy silt and
sand to a depth of seventy feet.
As reported by Krazan & Associates, Inc., the site lies within
the Kern County Ground Water Basin. The basin contains two main
aquifers separated by a clay aquitard of regional extent at a
depth of approximately 300 feet. Ground water from the upper,
unconfined aquifer is not suitable for domestic purposes, but
is used extensively for agricultural use. Ground water from the
lower, confined aquifer is used for domestic and agricultural
purposes. The depth to ground water beneath the site is reported
to range from 185 to 250 feet.
BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS WORK
Two underground storage tanks, associated product lines and
dispenser island were removed from the site on June 8, 1989.
As part of the tank removal, soil samples were collected and
hydrocarbon concentrations above action levels were detected.
Based upon these results, a site assessment was conducted by
Krazan & Associates, Inc. to determine the lateral and vertical
extent of the soil contamination and to assess the potential for
ground water contamination. Seven soil borings were drilled in
the area of the former fueling facility (see Figure 3). The soil
borings were drilled to depths ranging from 45 to 70 feet below
grade. Elevated BTEX and TPH (as diesel) concentrations were
detected at depths between 20 and 50 feet in boring B-l; at
depths between 30 and 45 feet in boring B-2; at depths between
40 and 55 feet in boring B-3; and at a depth of 45 feet in boring
B-5 (see Attachment 1 for analytical results from Krazan report
dated October 2, 1989).
In November, 1989, it was determined that passive remediation
was the best alternative for this site. This consisted of the
installation of an impermeable barrier (asphalt seal at the
surface) and the drilling of one boring two years from the time
of the installation of the asphalt seal.
· ..) - ~'. i_.,/ .:'.../ 'y~,_,.;'l~.
WORK DESCRIPTION ""~: ...... ' ............
The intention of the proposed work is to confirm the vertical
extent of the hydrocarbon plume and evaluate the potential impact
of the contamination on the ground water. RSI proposes to drill
a soil boring in the area between borings B-l, B-3 and B-5 as
shown in Figure 3. Soil samples collected from a boring in this
area will determine the effectiveness of the asphalt seal as a
method of minimizing the vertical migration of the hydrocarbons.
Work Plan Pepsi-Cola/Dr.P
September, 1991 Page 3
The boring will be drilled with an eight-inch outside diameter
hollow stem auger to depth of eighty feet or to a depth where
two clean soil samples have been collected as indicted by field
photoionization detector (PID) measurements. The boring will
be continuously logged under the supervision of a California
registered geologist and the soil will be classified according
to the standard Unified Soil Classification System. Soil
samples will be collected at five foot intervals according
to the procedures described in Attachment 2. A total of five
soil samples, two bottom samples and three from above, will be
selected to be analyzed for TPH as gasoline and TPH as diesel
according to CA DHS LUFT Modified Method 8015. In addition,
one duplicate sample will be analyzed for Quality Assurance
and Quality Control (QA/QC). All work will be accomplished in
accordance with KCEHSD.
WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN
Ail soil will be stock piled on-site and covered with plastic,
pending laboratory results of soil samples.
WORK SCHEDULE
Work will begin within two weeks following acceptance of the
work plan by the KCEHSD. The KCEHSD will be notified at least
48 hours before conducting any on-site work. A final report will
be submitted to the KCEHSD approximately four to six weeks after
commencement.
SITE SAFETY PLAN
The health and safety plan for this site is included in
Attachment 3.
If you have any questions regarding this work plan, please call.
Re~ectfully submitted, ·
Senior Project Manager
SMR/sjd
Enclosures: Figure 1 - Location'Map
Figure 2 - Plot Plan
Figure 3 - Plot Plan Showing Boring Locations
Attachment 1 - Analytical Results from Krazan Report
Attachment 2 - Description of Boring Techniques and
Sampling Procedures
Attachment 3 - Site Safety Plan
FIGURES
LEGEND
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO.,
SCALE IN FEET 215 EAST 21ST STREET,
i I BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
o ~ooo 200o FIGURE 1 - LOCATION MAP
REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L.
WAREHOUSE WAREHOUSE
LOADING AREA
ALLEY
p ....~.p P P--
FORMER 10,000 GALLON ,.
· ' ' POWER LINES
DIESEL TANK ~ ~
FORMER 10,000 GALLO l
GASOLINE TANK ' '---' ~O
FORMER OUTLINE OF
DISPENSER ISLAND EXCAVATION u_
YARD
YARD
P
SHED
GROVE STREET
PEPSI-CCI.A/DR. PEPPER I~O'I'rLING CO,
PEPSI-COLNDR. PEPPER BOIl'LING CO.,
215 EAST 218T STREET,
NOTE: PLOT PLAN TAKEN FROM SCALE IN FEET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE
2
PLOT
PLAN
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. REPORT
DATED 10/2/89 0 2o 4o
F~Sl REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L.
k
WAREHOUSE LOADING AREA .
N
OFFICE
P P . P
/i - J~,[- ~ POWERLINES
FORME 0,000 ON L.....~ B-2 ~ \ I .
~ ~ GASOLINE TANK
DIS P ~ ~N D
ASSOCIATES REPORT DATED 10/~89
P
YARD
LEGEND
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOll'LING CO.
)J~ KRAZAN BOREHOLE LOCATION PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BO'I-rLING CO.,
215 EAST 21ST STREET,
'~ PROPOSED BOREHOLE LOCATION BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 3 - PLOT PLAN SHOWING
NOTE: PLOT PLAN TAKEN FROM SCALE IN FEET
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. REPORT ~ I J BOREHOLE LOCATIONS
DATED 10/2./89 0 10. 2o RSO REMEDIATION SERVICE, INT'L
ATTACHMENT 1
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM KRAZAN REPORT
'" ":-': .... Project No. E89-172
/~¥' Page No. 10
,/Z?" TABL~ II
Concentration of Petroleum Constituents in Soil
Site Characterization lnvestilation.
· ' Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Facility
,,/~. )'~i 215 East 21st Street
_.?.. Bakersfield, California
l~razan & Associates, Inc.
August 1989 Sampling
fCnncentrations in parts per million)
Ethyl Total
l~_9._m]~le I.D. l?,enzen~ Toluen~ Benzene Xylenes T1PH
I,t-1 @ 20 feet 0.27- 0.59 0.69 328 23600
B. 1 @ 35 feet 0.63- 1.25 0.43 3.96 14500
B-I @ 50 f~et 2.80 - 3.58 t.76 $.0 18300
B-1 @ 65 feet ND ND 'ND ND 33 -
B-1 @ 70 feet ND ND ND ND 30
B-2 @ 15 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-2 @ 30 feet ND 0.11 ND ND 2320
B-2 @ 45 ,feet 0.89 1.26 1.03 4.64 13900
B-2 @ 55 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-? @ 60 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-3 @ 10 f~t ND ND ND ND ND
! ·
~;-3 ~0 25 feet ND ND ND ND ND
13-3 @ 40 feet 0.39 0.57 0.56 3.14 1030
B-3 6:55 feet 2.72 3.22 ].79 8.46 - 34600
B-3 @ 60 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-3 ¢~ 65 feet N D N D N D N D N D
5-4 @ '10 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-4 @ 25 feet N D N D N D N D N D
]5-4 @ 40 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-4 @ 45 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-5 @ 15 feet ND NE) ND ND ND
B-5 @ 30 feet NE) ND ND ND .ND
B-5 @ 45 feet 0.89 1.33 1.12 5.21 '18300
B-5 @ 60 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-5 @ 65 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B.-6 @ '10 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-6 @ 25 feet ND ND ND ND ND
13-6 ~ 40 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-6 @ 45 feet ND ND ND ND ND
13-7 ~,~ 10 f~.,et ND ND ~D ND ND
B-7 ~,~ 25 feet N D N D N D N D N D
B-7 ~ 40 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-7 t~? 45 feet ND ND ND ND ND
TPH- --Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as diesel by EK-)HS L.U.F.T. Manual Method
ND =None Detected at the detoction limits noted on the analylical rcl.-,orls included in d~ppendix C.
ATTACHMENT 2
DESCRIPTION OF BORING TECHNIQUES AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
DESCRiPTiON OF BOR~N~ TECHNiqUES 1%ND Si~IPL~N~ PROCEDURES
Under the supervision of a Remediation Service Int'l - (RSI)
geologist, the soil borings are advanced using a truck mounted
hollow-stem auger. Each auger flight is 5 feet in length with an
inner diameter of 3.5 inches and an outer diameter of 8 inches.
A pilot assembly, in conjunction with the auger head which is
fitted with cutting blades, helps advance the auger through the
soil and prevents solids from entering the hollow-stem portion
of the auger. The hollow auger acts as a "temporary casing"
preventing collapse of the borehole wall. Soil cuttings are
carried up to the surface via the auger flights.
When the desired sample depth is reached, the drill bit and
center plug are removed from the auger stem and replaced with
a Modified California Split Spoon sampler. Usually, sampling
is done at the end of each 5 foot auger flight. The sampler
consists of an outer 12 to 18 inch long "split barrel" sampler
in which a thin-walled set of rings is inserted. These rings are
brass or stainless steel cylinders, each 2.0 to 3.25 inches in
diameter and 3 to 6 inches long.
A 140 pound hammer is used to drive the sampler into the
formation below the bottom of the auger flight, thereby filling
all of the sampling rings with soil. This method allows for
collection of an undisturbed soil sample, preventing introduction
of overburden soil by the drilling process. The number of hammer
blows per foot, BPF) to advance the sampler a given distance
is recorded on the boring log. This gives an indication of the
amount of force required to recover the sample.
After retrieving and dismantling the sampler, all the thin tube
rings are removed. The bottom ring is immediately sealed for
laboratory analysis by covering both ends with teflon sheeting,'
plastic caps and securing the caps with tape. If some of the
soil in the bottom ring has fallen out or appears to have been
disturbed during the recovery operation, the second to last ring
is used. This ring is labeled and placed in an ice chest for
cold storage pending transportation to the laboratory. This
packaging protocol is designed to prevent loss of volatiles
from the soil sample, and to prevent any cross contamination.
Standard chain of custody procedures are followed for all
samples.
Soil from the second ring is used for field analysis of possible
hydrocarbon contamination. The sample is placed in a Ziploc
bag, sealed and allowed to volatilize for a HNU Photoionization
Analyzer (PID) measurement. A head-space measurement is taken by
breaking the seal just enough to insert the probe. The highest
reading is recorded. However, if the reading stabilizes at a
significantly different level, this also is noted. The PID has a
detection range from 0.1 ppm to 2000 ppm for hydrocarbon vapors,
when calibrated with a benzene standard.
Soils in the remaining rings are used for the field descriptions.
The field data includes a written soils description, the Unified
Soil Classification code, and any notable odors, staining or
contamination. Also recorded are unusual drilling conditions,
equipment malfunctions or other observations of field conditions
for future reference. All data are included on the boring logs.
An alternative method to the use of brass rings is glass jars for
sample collection. This method still utilizes the split spoon
sampler, but no brass rings are inserted. 'Instead, soil from the
base of the sampler is encaPsulated in a glass jar. The jar is
then treated in the same manner as soil samples, in brass rings.
The remaining soil in the sampler is used for field analysis and
description.
To prevent any cross - contamination, the augers are steam
cleaned prior to drilling each boring. The split spoon sampler
is cleaned using a three step process commonly referred to as a
"three bucket wash". This consist of first a trisodium phosphate
wash, followed by a tap water rinse and finally a deionized water
rinse. This process is completed between each sample run.
ATTACHMENT 3
SITE SAFETY PLAN
Introduction
The following Health and Safety Plan has been developed to
protect the persons in contact with the equipment, and to ensure
a safe operation during drilling.
1. Facility Background:
The facility is an abandoned fueling facility. Gasoline and
diesel soil contamination is being assessed.
2. Key Personnel and Responsibilities:
Steve Richardson is the Project Manager.
The designated Safety Officer will be the field supervising
geologist onsite. This Safety Officer has full authority to
correct any problems or shut down the operation, if required, to
maintain safety.
Remediation Service, Int'l (RSI) Telephone No. (805) 644-5892,
8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
3. Job Hazard Analysls:
A. Hydrocarbons from gasoline are the greatest potential
known chemical hazard.
These are usually identified as:
a. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
b. Benzene
c. Ethylbenzene
d. Toluene
e. Xylenes
Chemical concentrations may vary from zero to free
product. ACGIH Gasoline TLV 300 ppm, STEL 500 ppm.
B. Benzene has been designated as a human carcinogen by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer and presents
the greatest health hazard. It is highly toxic by
either inhalation or ingestion. Exposure to high levels
of benzene can result in damage to a person's liver,
kidneys, central nervous system, and/or blood cells.
ACGIH TLV 1 ppm, STEL 5 ppm
The concentration of benzene in most commercial grades of
gasoline is usually two percent by volume.
C. Toluene can cause damage to a person's liver, kidneys
and/or central nervous system if inhaled or ingested.
ACGIH TLV 100 ppm, STEL 150 ppm
D. Xylenes also can cause damage, by inhalation or
ingestion, to a human's liver, kidneys, central nervous
system and/or blood cells.
ACGIH TLV 100 ppm, STEL 150 ppm
E. Total organic lead could be found in either the soil or
groundwater, as indicated by EPA methodologies.
Hydrocarbons from waste oil are .also a potential
contamination. Volatiles are not expected to be a problem
in the case of waste oil. Typical components of waste
oil include:
a. Total petroleum hydrocarbons
b. Heavy metals
F. Drilling operations will be conducted within a designated
restricted - entry area. Only persons directly involved
with the drilling will be authorized to enter this
area. The standard machinery safety practices will be
followed. Underground Service Alert will be notified the
prerequisite two working days before starting work. The
drill rig mast will be spaced at least 10 feet from all
overhead power lines, or a safe distance as indicated by
the drillers.
G. Should an unknown substance be encountered onsite via
PID, eye, or nose all work will stop on the boring.
If possible, a sample will be collected. A laboratory
analytical scan will be done to identify the unknown
and safety measures will be adjusted and its relative
concentration, based upon the scan results.
H. Heat stress is not expected to a problem. Temperatures
could range from approximately 45 degrees to'80 degrees
Fahrenheit for the duration of the project. However,
in the event of a large spill, when personnel must wear
protective clothing, the following precautions will be
taken:
a. Ail employees will be trained in recognition of the
health hazards and symptoms of heat stress.
b. Employees will take frequent breaks, in a shady area
with protective clothing removed. Decontamination
procedUres will be followed before removing
protective equipment.
c. Employees are to drink liquids at each break.
4. Risk Assessment Summary:
It is not possible to assess potential risk at this initial phase
of assessment.
Exposure Monitoring Plan:
Onsite monitoring will be conducted with a PID, the HNU meter.
An ambient air reading, within the breathing zone, will be
regularly taken by the designated Safety Officer onsite.
Personal Protection Equipment:
The most probable chemical exposure pathways are dermal contact
and/or inhalation; ingestion is considered extremely unlikely.
The following protection equipment is to be utilized during
drilling, sampling, or emergencies.
A. Personnel will always wear safety glasses during
sampling.
B. Nitrile gloves will be worn when there is a potential for
contact with hazardous chemicals. Nitrile is the best
material to use for dermal protection when dealing with a
gasoline and water mixture.
C. Gasoline has an ACGIH TLV of 300 ppm and STEL 500
ppm. The potential for these levels to be exceeded is
possible. The odor threshold of gasoline is 10 ppm and
provides a safety margin to warn personnel before any TLV
has been exceeded. Organic vapor cartridge, half-mask
respirators (MSHA-NIOSH TC-23C-40 or equivalent) will
be available and are to be used, should the odor becomes
continually noticeable. Respiratory protection will be
upgraded to a half-mask air purifying canister-equipped
respirator, as needed, by odor concentrations.
D. Tyveks (or equivalent) and PVC/nitrile boots are
available, should dermal exposure increase due to air-
borne vapors/particulates or saturated soils. Upgrading
to level C will be based on PID readings (300 ppm for
over 5 minutes) and for visible air borne dust.
E. Hard hats are to be worn when working around operating
· heavy machinery such as the drill rig.
F. Hearing protection will be available when heavy machinery
is being operated.
7. Work Zones and Security Measures:
An area immediately surrounding the rig and the sample processing
location will be off limits to all but authorized personal. Red
plastic traffic cones or plastic flagging tape will be used to
delineate the restricted area.
8. Decontamination Procedures:
In the case of.a small spill, the spilled product will be
absorbed with clay absorbent or any other available and
appropriate material. Upon completion of cleanup this material
will be placed in a sealable, labeled container compatible with
the waste. The appropriate disposal method will be decided
depending on concentration of the contaminant. In case of a
large spill the Fire Department will be called.
Ail reusable equipment (gloves, boots, respirators) will be
decontaminated by washing in a soapy solution. The drill augers
will be decontaminated within an area set up'to contain all
effluent. The rinse waters will be disposed of as dictated by the
contaminant concentrations. Disposable clothing and equipment,.
such as Tyveks and disposable gloves, will be placed in
appropriate containers.
9. Work Practices:
A brief summary of safety precautions:
A. No eating, drinking, smoking, gum chewing or wearing
contact lenses in the work area.
B. Ail personnel have been instructed to wash hands'and
face, even if no direct contact occurs, before eating,
drinking, smoking and at the end of work.
10. Standard Operating Procedures:
Instrument Calibration
A. Prior to beginning work each day, the HNU photoionization
detector will be calibrated with the cylinder of
calibration gas supplied by the manufacturer, according
to the manufacturerS' instructions.
B. Fit Testing
Each person working in a potentially contaminated zone
should have his/her respirator fit-tested to assure
that vapors cannot infiltrate past the edges of the
respirator. A simple and readily available field test is
to have the worker, wearing the respirator, inhale while
cigarette smoke is blown toward the respirator; the
worker should not be able to detect the odor of the
smoke.
C. "Buddy" System
In situations where there is possible exposure to
elevated levels of hydrocarbons, each team member will be
instructed to be alert to behavior of other members which
may indicate accidental overexposure.
~. &. Emergency Procedures:
a. If dermal contact occurs, the affected area is to be
flushed with tap water; distilled water is to be used for
flushing the eyes.
b. Should vapors or fumes be inhaled, the affected person
will be removed from the work area. If the person is
still feeling dizzy or ill, she/he will be driven to the
local hospital.
B. m~ergenc~ Responders:
a. Local Hospital: Memorial Hospital
420 34th Street
Bakersfield, CA
b. Fire Department: 911
c. Local Environmental Health Department: (805) 861-3636
12. Training Requirements:
Our employees have received the 40 hour safety training as
required under 29 CFR 1910.120 regulations.
13. Medical Surveillance Program:
Is under consideration at this time.
14. Recordkeeping:
A. Training - A record is being maintained on each employee's
training and respirator fit testing.
B. Employee Exposure - Potential exposures are being recorded
including location, time, potential contaminants and
concentrations'
C. Medical Records - These include field injuries and
illnesses.
D. RSI periodically reviews the Health and Safety Plan for
adequacy, focusing on any mechanical changes.
GARY J. WICKS ~ 2700 M Streel, Suite 300
Agency Director Bakersfield, CA 93301
Telephone (805) 861-3636
(805) 861-3502 .. '* " ; ' ' ':' ~ ;:' ' . Telecopier (805) 861-3429
STEVE McCALLEY ~'. ' I~ '"
O,,ec,o, RESOURCE .ly~ ENT AGENCy
DEPART~ NMFNTAL
November 15, 1989
Mr. James Lindsey
Pepsi Cola/Dr Pepper Bottling Co.
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
Subject: 'Location : 215 East 21st. Street, Bakersfield, . CA
'Known As : Pepsi Cola/Dr Pepper
Permit # : 150039
Dear Mr. Lindsey:
Our Department has reviewed the site remediation/implementation report
submitted by Krazan and Associates, Inc., for the above named facility. Your
choice of passive remediation plus capping and sealing has been approved,
however, a future boring to monitor the known contamination plume must be
performed in 1991. This date allows a two year time interval before monitoring
to evaluate the continued degradation of contaminatiom
Based upon the boring and soil sample laboratory analyses, our Department
will make further recommendations as required. Krazan and Associates, has
proposed the required future boring to be advanced in the area of borings B-1
and B-3. This is acceptable to our Department. Please schedule the boring to
be performed no later than September, 1991.
If you have any questions you may contact me at (805) 861-3636.
Sincerely, _ ~
Flora Darling, R.E.H.S. J
'Hazardous Materials Specialj,ff
Hazardous Materials Management Program
FD:cd
.CC: Krazan and Associates. Inc.
darling\lindsey, let.
KRAZAN ASSOCIA I t'ES , IN C.
ConstruCtion Testing and Inspection
Geotechnic. al Investigations ~
Environmental Engineering
Laboratory Soils Testing ~
Monitoring Wells
November 3, 1989 Project No. E89-172
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company
Attn: Mr. Kevin Phillips
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, California
RE: Site Remediation Implementation
· 215 E. 21st Street
Bakersfield, California
Dear Mr. Phillips,
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have completed the accompanying
report detailing the site remediation altemative chosen for the above-referenced project site. The
report also details the sampling' and analysis of the composite soil cuttings and rinsate waters
generated during the exploratory drilling activities. This report .includes the final documentation of
the site characterization investigation performed at-the above-referenced site.
If there are any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us at (209) 453-9637.
.~-'~ ~-'"~ ' 'Respectfully submitted,
· ~.;,. ~.v~.~'~D~,~-~
. ~,,~f'~,-~'.~y...':.l.',?.'~:~?-~N~, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
l:',,~:.......~ :~ i. ~ ,',,. ,~. ' /:9.¥,
l,"'d:--'":~ :' " ~ --~ . " ~; "' x
.'-' '.',-:..:,,
f,."/:"-"':'
~!~' . ........ ::'\ r:'\~Cynthia' C. Wagner
i ~' -..-' .........-,,-. ,~--~1 I[ Environmental Specialist'
'- 'x.-. /... ., .
x;,..~.~C'--.-'-- ~ ,'' :.> ;.~<"// Dean Alexander
· 'q~':" r~/.~'~\~/.,/ Geotechnical Engineer
~ RGE #002051/RCE #34274
' CCW/DA/Ic
lc Kern County Environmental Health Department
Attn: Ms. Flora Darling
Main Office: Fresno/Clovis · 3860 N. Winery · Fresno, California 93726 · (209) 291.7337
Bakersfield (805) 393-2343 [] California (800) 233-5050 [] FAX (209) 291-5010 .
SITE REMEDIATION IMPLEMENTATION
PEPSI~COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING COMPANY
215 EAST 21ST STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
November 3, 1989
Project No. E89-172
Prepared for:
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company
Arm: Mr. Kevin Phillips
215 E. 21st Street
Bakersfield, California 93305
(805) 327-9991 Ext. 185
Prepared by:
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Division
4816 East Shields Avenue
Fresno, California 93726
(209) 453-9637
KRAZAN A.SSOCIA ES, I NC.
Construction Testing and Inspe~lon ~
Geotechnical Investigations
Environmental Engineering
Laboratory Soils Testing
Monitoring Wells
November 3, 1989 Project No. E89-172
SITE REMEDIATION .IMPLEMENTATION
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING FACILITY
215 EAST 21ST STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
PRO.IECT HISTORY
On June 8, 1989, two 10,000 ,gallon underground fhel storage tanks, one dispenser island
and the associated underground piping were removed from the Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling
Company located at 215 East 21st Street in Bakersfield, California. As part of the removal process
and in accordance with Kern County requirements, soil samples were obtained from beneath the
tanks and dispenser island. Chemical analysis of these soil samples detected the presence of
petroleum fuel constituents in some of the soil samples. Concentrations of total petroleum
hydrocarbons in the soil samples ranged from non-detectable to 29,219 parts per nfillion.
Based on these results, the Kern County Environmental Health Department requested that
the extent of petroleum constituents in the soil beneath the site be determined. A work plan dated
Jul)' 27, 1989 was prepared and submitted to the Kern County Environmental Health Department to
conduct a prehminary site characterization investigation. Following approval of the proposed work
plan. a site characterization investigation con-mnenced on August 23, 1989. The site
characterization investigation was conducted to determMe the lateral and vertical extent 'of
petroleum constituents in the soil and to deternfine if such constituents pose a hazard to
groundwater resources in the area.
Based upon the results of the site characterization investigation, a report by Krazan &
Associates, Inc. dated October 2, 1989 was prepared detailing the subsurface investigation. A
feasibility stud), was also prepared at this time to evaluate the feasibility of several altemative
corrective options for the site.
Main Office: Fresno/Clovis · 3860 N. Winery · Fresno, California 93726 .' (209) 291.7337
Bakersfield (805) 393-2343 [] California (800) 233-5050 [] FAX (209) 291-5010
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 2
A combination of two corrective options were chosen for the site based upon site specific
characteristics. As no direct threat to the beneficial uses of the groundwater beneath the project
site appeared to exist, the options best suited for the Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Facility
appeared to be passive remediation combined with the placement of an impermeable membrane
cap. It was believed that the placement of an impermeable membrane cap would minimize the
downward leaching of the hydrocarbons present while allowing for biodegradation and natural
adsorption to occur in lieu of encountering groundwater present at a significant depth. As the
contaminant present was anticipated to be diesel, the heavier, less volatile, and lower soluble
components were anticipated to remain bound to soil panicles in the unsaturated zone. As a result,
leaching of the contaminant to a greater depth over time was anticipated to be minimal. Passive
remediation does not generate by-products and requires little handling of the soil; therefore,
possible exposure pathways for humans were minimized. Costs associated with passive
remediation are generally modest; however, periodic monitoring is commonly required in the area
to verify the bottom of the plume and confirm that downward migration of the petroleum
hydrocarbons has not occurred.
On October 9, 1989, Ms. Flora Darling of the Kern County Department of EnVironmental
Health Depanment responded to the Site Characterization Investigation Report/Feasibility Study in
writing. The letter stated that if passive remediation accompanied by the placement of an
impermeable membrane or cap was the remediation method chosen,' a monitoring well with yearly
monitoring and repons would be required (Appendix A).
As a consequence of this directive, a meeting was scheduled to discuss alternative
monitoring methods. The meeting took place on October 18, 1989. Present at the meeting were
Mr. Kevin Phillips and Mr. Steve Allman of Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Company, Ms. Flora Darling of
Kern County, and Ms. Cynthia Wagner and Mr. Robert Manin of Krazan & Associates, Inc.
It was the opinion of Krazan & Associates. Inc. that the placement of a monitoring well in the
petroleum affected area was not feasible for the following reasons: 1) If a monitoring well was
installed, it would need to be installed to a minimum depth of approximately 200 feet below grade
to account for groundw'ater level fluctuation. 2) The monitoring well would need to be placed in
the inunediate vicinity of the petroleum constituent plume to ascertain that the water samples
obtained from the well were below or down gradient of the petroleum constituent plume.
3) Finally, by advancing a monitoring well in this location, a possible conduit for vertical
migration of the contaminants to groundwater would be established unnecessarily.
An alternative remedial monitoring method was suggested, by Krazan & Associates, and
approved by 5,,Ir. Phillips, Mr. Allman, and Ms. Flora Darling. The method consisted of, the
advancement of one exploratory soil boring at a two )'ear interval from the present date.`/The
boring would be advanced in the vicinity of Borings B-1 and B-3 to confirm the vertical extent of
the petroleum constituent plume and re-examine the potential impact on groundwater resources.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 3
Boring B-1 marked the location revealing the greatest depth of the plume and B-3 marked the
location revealing the highest concentration of constituents present. One boring in this vicinity will
provide verification that the placement of an asphaltic concrete cap has minimized the migration of
hydrocarbon compounds by reducing the infiltration of precipitation and surface runoff. The. boring
will be advanced to a maximum depth whereby two consecutive nondetectable samples can be
obtained by use of a photoionization detector. Soil samples will be collected and logged at five
foot intervals in an attempt to further characterize the subsurface conditions. Soil samples will be
chemically analyzed for approximately every 10 to 15 feet of vertical boring and the bottom two
samples, respectively. By this method approximately all. soil layers will be represented, the
degradation of the petroleum constituents over the two year interval can be evaluated, and the
vertical extent of the plume can be reconfirmed.
Ms. Darling requested that the boring be advanced in the dry season. She further stated
that the feasibility of any additional annual monitoring would be determined following the
evaluation of the analytical results of the soil samples obtained from the boring advanced in two
vears.
DISPOSAL RECOMYIENDATIONS
Also discussed at the meeting were the disposal requirements of the soil cuttings and
rinsate waters generated during the drilling activities. Approximately 55 gallons of water had been
generated as a result of the drilling equipment steam cleaning operation. This water was contained,
barrelled, and stored on-site pending site characterization results. A composite samples of rinsate
water was to be collected and analyzed for the presence and concentration of total petroleum
hydrocarbons, benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene. Disposal altematives could then be
determined based upon the concentrations of petroleum constituents present following the meeting
with Ms. Darling.
One composite water sample was collected on August 18, 1989 by Krazan & Associates
personnel. The composite water sample was collected in three volatile organic analysis (VOA)
vials. The VOA's were laboratory clean with a Teflon lined septa to ensure a tight fit. Following
sample collection, each VOA was then placed in a cooler chest with synthetic ice and transported
under chain of custody protocol to BSK and Associates, a State of California, Department of
Health Sen, ices approved hazardous materials testing laboratory.
The following day, October 19, 1989, at the request of Ms. Flora Darling of Kern County
Environmental Health Services, two composite soil samples were collected from the drill cuttings.
The drill cuttings were in a pile placed upon and covered by polyvisquene and stored at the Pepsi-
Cola Facility. The pile measured approximately 13' x 15' x 2'. The two composite samples were
collected by pushing stainless steel tubes at various locations throughout the pile at depths of 12 to
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project No. F,89-172
Page'No.
18 .inches.
Samples tubes were capped on each end with aluminum foil and tight fitting plastic caps.
Each sample was then labeled with the project number, sampler's initials, sample number, date, and
time at which the sample was obtained. The samples were then placed in a pre-cooled ice chest
with synthetic ice pending transport to the analytical laboratory. The samples were collected,
maintained, and transported under chain of custody protocol to BSK & Associates.
The results of chemical analysis of the soil and water samples were used to characterize the
petroleum constituents present. The results of those analyses have been summarized in Table I as
follows. The certified analytical reports and chain of custody records are included following the
text of this report.
TABLE I
Concentrations of Petroleum Constituents
In Soil Cuttings and Rinsate Water
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Facility
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, Califomia
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
October 1989 Sampling
(Concentrations as noted)
Ethyl-
Sample I.D. Benzene Toluene benzene Xylenes TPH
Composite A (ppm) ND ND ND ND ND
Composite B (ppm) ND 0.04 0.04 .16 1800
Rinsate (ppb) ND ND ND ND ND
TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as diesel by DHS L.U.F.T. Manual Method
ND = None Detected at the detection limits noted on the analytical reports
following the text of this report.
ppm = Parts Per Million
ppb = Parts Per Billion
Based upon the results of the above composite samples, disposal requirements were
determined. Kern County Environmental Health Department personnel stated that the drill cuttings
could be reapplied to the ground surface underneath the impermeable asphalt cap as the soil levels
were far less than the soil currently being left in place and as a result posed no additional risk.
Based upon the nondetectable levels of petroleum constituents revealed in the rinsate water, it was
determined that the water could be disposed of within the Kern County Sanitary Sewer System.
The disposal of the rinsate water was also.approved by Ms. Flora Darling of the Kem County
Environmental Health Department.
KRAZAN &'ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project No. E89-172
Page, No. 5
IMPERMEABLE MEMBRANE PLACEMENT
The asphaltic concrete paving process took place one, bet..25, throUghwN~~/~'
1989:~ The work was conducted by Kern Asphalt Paving and Sealing Company. Approximately'
16,000 square feet of asphalt concrete was removed. The drilling returns were then spread evenly
in the vicinity. The 16,000 square foot area was then repaved with 4-inch asphalt concrete paving
over an 8-inch Class 11 Aggregate Base. This process was .observed and inspected by Ms. Flora
Darling of Kern County.
Kem Asphalt Paving and Sealing Company was contracted directly by Pepsi-Cola/Dr.
Pepper Company and is not a subcontractor to Krazan & Associates, Inc. All specifications for the
asphaltic cap were developed independently of Krazan & Associates. It is understood that it was
the sole responsibility of the property owner to conform with all applicable codes, laws, and/or
regulations regarding the structural integrity and placement of the impermeable layer, especially
where it may be affected by vehicular traffic. It is highly recommended, however, that the
asphaltic cap be well maintained. All future cracks or pot holes in the asphalt cap must be patched
and sealed immediately to avoid an area for future leaching.
LIMITATIONS
The findings of this report were based upon the results of field and laboratory
investigations, coupled with the interpolation of subsurface conditions associated with our soil
borings. Therefore, the data are accurate only to the degree implied by review of the data obtained
and by professional interpretation. The findings presented herewith are based on professional
interpretation using state of the art methods and equipment, and a degree of conservatism deemed
proper as of this report date. It is not warranted that such data cannot be superseded by future
geoteChnical, environmental, or technological developments.
Chemical testing was done by laboratories certified by the State of California Department
of Health Services. The results of the chemical testing are accurate only to the degree of the care
of ensuring the testing accuracy and the represehtative nature of the soils obtained.
The recommendations in this report were based upon the results of field and laboratory
investigations, interx, iews with Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper personnel, a meeting conducted with Kern
County Environmental Health Department personnel and interpolation of subsurface conditions
associated with our soil borings. The recommendations in this report were also derived based upon
site-specific data including: the exposure risk present at the site, the beneficial uses of water in the
vicinity of the project site in conjunction with the depth to groundwater and permeability of the
soil encountered in our soil borings, the nature and concentrations of the petroleum constituents
present, and the feasibility of the implementation of the option chosen. Therefore, the data is
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 6
accurate only to the degree implied by review of the data obtained and professional interpretation.
The maps contained in this report were complied from available maps and by measurements from
existing landmarks.
It is understood that it is the sole responsibility of the property owner to conform with all
applicable codes, laws, and/or regulations regarding the placement, of the impermeable membrane
cap.
If there are any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact our office at (209) 453-9637.
~ ~ ~ ..,. :--<~..,. Respectfully submitted,
u.,w ur,'~.~,~, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
'/3 <>'
;'. :'2" ,.,.. ~..._...~:X~.. Cynthia C. Wagner
~ E:-: p[re :,O~ .:i:-?_. 5:!,:~t/''~/t'2~/: Environmental~~Specialis~~~
r~ O2'-,,- . ,~xc° N~ Dean Alexander
~X~/~ Geotechnical Engineer
RGE #002051/RCE #34274
CCW/DA/Ic
2c herewith
2c Kern County Environmental Health Department
Attn: Ms. Flora Darling
(herewith)
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
~A~'Y .J. W*¢KS 2700 M Street, SuJto 2OO
AgenCy Director Bakerlfleld, CA 9330~
(805) 86~-3502 ..... '~;~ Telepho~ (805) 86~-~
..~~~~ Telecopler (805) 861-~42~
STEVE McCALLEY
D,~,o, R E S O U R C E ~/~N;'A_.G~"~:;E N T A G E N C Y
DEPARTN~I
October 9, 1989
James Lindsey
Pepsi Cola/Dr Pepper
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
Subject: Location : 215 E. 21st Street, Bakersfield, CA
Known As : Pepsi Cola/Dr Pepper
Permit # : 150039
Dear Mr. Linsdey:
The site characterization report prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. for
the above defined site location has been reviewed by this Department. The
report indicated soil contamination at 45-55 foot depths present in borings B-
i, B-2, B-3, and B-5, with a lateral radius of approximately 30 feet. Unconfined
groundwater present depth, is calculated to be 195 feet.
Krazan & Associates has presented six soil remediation options for the site.
Options
1. Passive Remediation: This method leaves the soil in place allowing
natural processes to continue the degradation of contaminants.
2. In Situ Isolation: This method caps the surface of the contaminated
area by the use of asphalt or cement to limit further downward
migration of hydrocarbon compounds. This method is used in
conjunction with option # 1, and reduces infiltration of surface
precipitation. Periodic monitoring is required to determine if the
isolated contaminants are continuing to move to deeper depths.
3. Soil Venting/Vapor Extraction: This option is essentially an air
stripping of volatile compounds. This method is effective in removing
gasoline, and diesel contamination in permeable soils. A permit from
the Kern County Air Pollution Control District, and Monitoring Well
Permits from our Department will be required for this method.
James Lindsey
October 9, 1989
Page 2
4. Biodegradation: In this method microbes are used to enhance the
degradation of contamination. The Biotransformation of a compound
is a result of chemical reactions catalyzed by enzymes which are
produced as part of the metabolic activity of organisms.
5. Excavation: In this method, contaminated soil is removed and replaced
by clean fill.
6. Land Farming: of contaminated soil is Not Approved in Kern County.
Krazan & Associates has recommended passive remediation accompanied by
the placement of an impermeable membrane, or cap. This method will require
a monitoring well with yearly monitoring, and reports to this office. Regardless
of the remediation technique chosen, a statement indicating which method will
be used must be submitted to this Depar'tment within 30 days. In addition, an
implementation plan of the chosen remedial alternative must be submitted to this
office for review and approval. .~
If you have any questions you may contact me at (805) 861-3636.
Sincerely,
Flora Darling, R.E.H.S. III
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Hazardous Materials Management Program
FD:cd
cc: Krazan & Associates, Inc.
darling\lindsey.let
GARY J. WICKS 2700 M Street. Suite 300
Agency Director Bakersfield, CA 83301
(808) 861-3502 ..... Telephone (808)
- D,,~,o, .R ESO U RC E ~'~A.G ~:~ ENT AG EN CY
DEPART~NT. 0F -.ENVIR'~NMENTAL
Octobc~ ~8, ~989
Mr. James Lindsey
Pepsi Cola/Dr Pepper
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, Ca 93305
Subject: Location: 215 East 21st Street, Bakersfield, CA
Known as: Pepsi Cola/Dr Pepper
Permit #: 150039
Dear Mr. Lindsey:
Pursuant to our conference with Krazan and Associates this date; the
following amended proposal to site mitigation were discussed.
1. Cap and Seal site - depth of seal
2. Borings to monitor plume status to be scheduled in two years, with
future borings to be determined.
3. Sampling of rinsate water from auger steam cleaning to determine level
of contamination and disposal.
4. Disposal of boring cuttings.
Upon receipt of Krazan and Associates site mitigation addendum, our
Department will review and respond to the proposed actions.
Sincerely, ,~ ~-~,
Fl~Sra Darling, R.E.H.S.
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Hazardous Materials Management Program
FD:cd
cc: Krazan and Associates
darling\lindsey.let
1414 Stanislaus Street · Fresno, California 93706 * Teleph(~ne (209) 485-8310 * Fax (209) 485-7427
Krazan & Associates
4816 E. Shields Lab No. Ch893457-1
Fresno, CA 93703
E89-172 Report Date 10/25/89
Sample Type Soil Date Sampled 10/19/89
Sample Description '1330 hrs. Date Received 10/20/89
Comp. A Date of Analyses 10/24/89
Soil Analyses for BTXE and TPH
Compound Results Detection
(mg/kg) Limit
(DLR)
Benzene ................... ND 0.02
Toluene ................... ND 0.02
Ethylbenzene .............. ND 0.02
Total Xylene Isomers ...... ND 0.02
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ND 10.
Method: BTXE-EPA 8020 TPH-DHS GC/FID
ND-None Detected BDL-Betow Detection Limit
DLR-Detection Limit For the Purposes of Reporting
1414 Stanislaus Street * Fresno, California 93706 Telephone (209) 485-8310 * Fax (209) 485-7427
Krazan & Associates
4816 E. Shields Lab No. Ch893457-2
Fresno, CA 93703
E89-172 Report Date 10/25/89
Sample Type Soil Date Sampled 10/19/89
Sample Description 1335 hrs. Date Received 10/20/89
Comp. B Date of Analyses 10/24/89
Soil Analyses for B TXE and T PH
Compound Results Detection
(mg/kg) Limit
(DAR)
Benzene ................... ND 0.02
Toluene ................... 0.04 0.02
Ethylbenzene .............. 0.04 0.02
Total Xylene Isomers ...... 0.16 0.02
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 1800 10.
Meth~: BYXE-EPA 8020 TPH-DHS GC/FID
ND-None Detect~ BDL-Be[ow Detection Limit
DLR-Detection Lfmit For the Pur~ses of Re~rting
R070~89 QA/~C/ Supe~ . gani~ '-'
$o115 Eng~n~j~g
C,,ai,,. Cu touy Record
DATE--&~--~-_/~ 4-('2')~ PAGE / OF__ /
ADDRESS KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3860 NORTH WINERY
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93726
(209) 291-7337
PROJECT .~; ." Lz-~) ¢~'-
SAMPLERS (SIGNATURE)
Printed Name
SAMPLE NO DATE
lc? /7'~':'?;
LOCATION
PARAMETERS OTHER
OBSERVATIONS/
COMMENTS
iture
Printed Name
Company
RELINQUISHED BY
Signature
Printed Name
Cr~mpany
RECEIVED BY
Signalure
Printed Name
Company
RECEIVED BY
RELINQUISHED BY
RECEIVED BY
TIME
DATE
Signature
Printed Name
Company
RELINQUISHED B~
TIME
Signature
Printed Name
Company
RECEI~...~ BY (l~3.bpratory)
Signature
Prinled Name
Company
Signature
Printed Name
Company
pany
TIME
TOTAL NUMBER
OF CONTAINERS
METHOD OF SHIPMENT
k{~,~O C,~zeY'
SPECIAL SHIPMENT/HANDLING
OR STORAGE REQUI~
~14'14 Stanislaus 5tree~ * Fresno, California 9.3?'06 * Telephone (209} 485-8.310 * Fax (209} 485-?42?
Krazan & Associates .-~..,
4816 E. Shields ": Lab No. Ch893433
Fresno, CA 93703
E89-172 Report Date 11/1/89
._.Sample Type Water Date Sampled 10/18/89
Sample Description 0915 hrs. Date Received 10/18/89
Rinsate Date of Analyses 10/27/89
I
I Water Analyses for BTXE and TPH
Results Detection
Compound '~ (ug/1) Limit
(DLR)
Benzene ................... ND 0.5
Toluene ............ ~ ...... ND 0.5
Ethylbenzene .............. ND 0.5
Total Xylene Isomers ...... ND 0.5
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ND 100
Method: BTXE-EPA 8020 TPH-DHS GC/FID
ND-None Detected BDL-Be[ow Detection Limit
DLR-DetectJon Limit For the Purposes of Reporting
-^70489 QA/Q~ Supe~~/--- rvlsor
Environmenfll Field resting and Sampling
A ~ ~ () t; ! A I' I~ .'S
C,,ai , of us[ooy Re'cora
ADDRESS KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3860 NORTH WINERY
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93726
(209) 291-7337 ._(::){
PROJECT -
Name
SAMPLE NO
DATE TIME LOCATION
PARAMETERS OTHER
OBSERVATIONS/
COMMENTS
iture
Name
RELINQUISHED BY
Signature
;D BY
DATE RELINQUISHED BY
Signalure
Printed Name
Company
TIME
nature
Company
RECEIVED BY
DATE RELINQUISHED BY
Signalure
Prinled Name
Signalure
Printed Name
Company
DATE RECEIVED BY DATE
Signature
Printed Name
Company
R~laborato~y)
Company
TOTAL NUMBER .
OF CONTAINERS
METHOD OF SHIPMENT
SPECIAL SHIPM~
OR STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
P
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Construction Te~tng eno Inspection
Envlron~tal Engl~ring
FAX TRANSMITTAL
Company:
Telephone:
Fax Numben
Krazan & Associates, Inc. Sender:
4816 EaSt. Shields
Fresno, CA 93726 No. of pages following:
Voice; (209) 453-9072. Fax No. (209) 453-9637
· PLEASE CALL IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES
Main Office: F~sno/Clovis · 3860 N. Wlne~ · P~sno, California ~726 · ~) ~1-7337
Beker~fie/d ~05, ~3-~343 ~ California ~800) 233-5050 r~ FAX (20g) 291.5010
i4i~,'Stan;slaus' Street · ~esno, C~lifornia 93706 ·Tclephone (209);t'8~O'-* --Fax (209) 485.7427
~r&~an & Assooiates
4S16 E. Shields ~ab No. Ch8934S7-1
F~esno, CA 93703
~89-172 .Report Date _.. 20A25/89
Sample Type .... SOil .... . Date Sampled 10/19/85
~ample De$crLption ~330 h~$, Da~e Received ~0/~0/~9 ....
....................... Comp, A .. Date of Analyses .... ~/24/89 ..
compound Results 'DeteCtion
(mg/k~) Limit
Bmnz~ne ' NB 00~
Toluene ' , N~ .0,0~.
Total X¥1ene Isomers " ND.._ 0.,02
Neth~: 8TX[-EPA 8OZD TP~-O~S GC/fl~
~D-~o~ D.te~tM KL,BeLo~ Oetectt~ L~mtt
AS sOc! AT.ES
Chain of Custody Record
PARAMETERS OTHER
: IDRESS KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, tNC.
3860 NORTH WINERY
' FRESNO, CALIFORNIA ~3726
t~-----------------~ 291-7337
i ,MPLERS ~IGNATURE)
~.MPLE NO
DATE T~ME
153o
LOCATION
: I "
[
REC EIV~D BY GATE
Signature
I~inled Name
C~
RECI=IVEO BY
TIME
DATE
REUNQUISHED BY
Signature
, Printed Name
RELINQUtSHEG BY
DATE
'~ME
RECEIVED 4BY
C~ny
RECEIVED BY 41atx~alaq')
~...:~.~.
Ir~nilecl Name ' i~'-'~-~ Nan,:
Company .._~ '
. TIME
OBSERVA~(IN~'
COMMENTS
DA~E.
TIME
..
TOI'AL MUMBF. R
OF CONTAIN ERS
i M Ell'tOD OF SHIPMENT/.
L_.__~'~./:~ -i, i :-' ~'
; SPECIAL SHIPMENT/HANDLING
· OR STORAGE REQLRREMEN.I~
o~ [ %~.,,,. ::/2,
/ O,C .:, /
.IL u/I
~ME. -3
GARY &-WICKS 2700 M Street, Suite 300
Agency Director Bakersfield, CA 93301
(805) 861-3502 Telephone (805) 861-3636
Director
RESOURCE ' M'(~':,NAG"EMENT AGENCY
D E PA RTi~E~'~::' OI~'' 'ENVIR(~NME NTAL
HEALTR ;.SERVICEs
October 18, 198'9
Mr. James Lindsey
Pepsi Cola/Dr Pepper
215 East 2.1st Street
Bakersfield, Ca 93305
Subject: Location:· 215 East 21st Street, Bakersfield,. CA
Known as: Pepsi Cola/Dr pepper
Permit #: 150039
Dear Mr. Lindsey:
Pursuant to our conference with Krazan and Associates this date; the
following amended proposal to site mitigation were discussed.
1. Cap and Seal site depth of seal
2. Borings to monitor plume status to be scheduled in two years, with
future borings to be. determined. · ·
3. Sampling of rinsate water from auger steam cleaning to determine level
of contamination and disposal.
4. 'Disposal of boring cuttings.
Upon receipt of Krazan and Associates site mitigation addendum, our
Department will review and respond to the proposed actions.
~iEa i~Sincerely,.~~~~
Hazardous Materials Management Program
FD:cd
cc: Krazan and Associates
darling\lindsey.let
James Linclsey
October 9, 1989
Page 2
4. Biodegradation: In this method microbes are used to enhance the
degradation of contamination. The Biotransformation of a compound
is a result of chemical'.reactions catalyzed by enzymes which are
produced as part of the metabolic activity of organisms.
5. Excavation: In this method, contaminated soil is removed and replaced
by clean fill.
6. Land Farminl~: of contaminated soil is Not Approved in Kern County.
Krazan & Associates has recommended passive remediation accompanied by
the .placement of an impermeable membrane, or cap. This method will require
a monitoring well with yearly monitoring, and reports to this office. Regardless
of the remediation technique chosen, a statement indicating which method will
be' used must be submitted to this Department within 30 days. In addition, .an
implementation plan of the chosen remedial alternative must be submitted to this
office for review and approval.
If you have any questions you may contact me at (805) 861-3636.
Flora Darling, R.E.H.S. III
Hazardous Materials SpeCialist
Hazardous Materials Management Program
FD:cd
cc: Krazan & Associates, Inc.
darling\lindsey, let
(:ARY J. WICKS 2700 M Slreet, Suite 300
Agency Director Bakersfield. CA 93301
(805) 861-3502 . - .... :.... Telephone (805) 861-3636
..'.'.-~T~?~.- Telecopler (805) 861-3429
S~EW ~C^~L~¥
Director "~"*"£~:" .... '"'~?~.'~'~'~"'"
R E S O U R C E M/~t".'.N_, A ..G. 'E~.-E,~,.~c~_ N T A G E N C Y
:"E NTAL
D E PA R T M.E NT ;-~$~!ylI~Q-N M E~~-i~?~'~li~'~:l~'S .
October 9,- 1989
James Lindsey
Pepsi Cola/Dr Pepper
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
Subject: Location : 215 E..21st Street, Bakersfield, CA
Known As : Pepsi Cola/Dr Pepper
Permit # : .150039
Dear Mr. Linsdey:
The site characterization report prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. for
the above defined site location has been reviewed by this Department. The
report indicated soil contamination at 45-55 foot depths present in borings B-
1, B-2, B-3, and B-5, with a lateral radius of approximately 30 feet. Unconfined
groundwater present depth, is calculated to be 195 feet.
Krazan & Associates has presented six soil remediation options for the site.
Options
1. Passive Remediation: This 'method leaves the soil in place allowing
natural processes to continue the degradation of 'contaminants.
2. In Situ Isolation: This method' caps the surface of the contaminated
area by the use of asphalt or cement to limit further downward
migration of hydrocarbon compounds. This method is used in
conjunction with option # 1, and reduces infiltration of surface
precipitation. Periodic monitoring is required to determine if the
isolated contaminants are continuing to move to deeper depths.
3. Soil 'Venting/Vapor Extraction: This option is essentially an air
stripping of volatile compounds. This method is effective in removing
gasoline; and diesel contamination in permeablfi soils. A permit from
the Kern 'County Air PollutiOn Control District, and Monitoring Well
Permits from our Department will be required for this method.
contract. The State will then charge you, a responsible' party, for both the costs
incurred by the County and the State pertaining to your site.
(B) COUNTY LOCAL AGREF_~E~
Kern County Environmental Health is providing this option' for those who prefer to.
pay the County directly and avoid the addition of-State costs. Prior to the County's
performance of services, this option requires your deposit of $1,000.00 (one thousand
dollars) with the County to be.held in the'Local 'Option Trust Account. Charges for
County oversight are made against this account.. In this option, a responsible party
must enter into a County agreement, attachment "B".
To safeguard the environment, the environmental sensitivity (Attachment "C") of this.
site has been reviewed by Environmental Health to determine'the'potential threat for
groundwater contamination. Only sites determined to be non-environmentally sensitive
may enroll in the Local Option Agreement. The site de{cribed above is not in an
environmentally.sensitive-area and may be enrolled in the Local Option Agreement;
however, the County of Kern reserves the right to cancel any Local Option Agreement,
should it be -discovered that groundwater contamination or a unique, complex
hydrogeological condition exists. In such cases, Environmental Health will utilize the
State contract to pay for County oversight activities. The County of Kern reserves this
right for any site even when the site is located in a non-environmentally sensitive
area.
It is necessary for you to respond in writing within t~n (10) calendar days of
receipt of this letter to advisd Kern County Environmental Health of your choice:
either the State'Contract or the County's Local Agreement option. If you select the
County's Local Agreement, pi'ease sign the Local Agreement,.enclosure "B", and return
it with your'check for $1,000.00 (one thousand dollars) made payable to the County of'
Kern. addressed to Kern County Environmental Health 2700 M Street, Suite 300,
Bakersfield, CA 93301, Attention: UndergroundStorage. Tank Contract Administrator.
If you.select the State Contract, pleaseindicate that you have made this selection
and that you have read attachment "D",'the official notification, in a letter sent to
the address indicated above.
Failure to respond in writing to this notice within ten (10) calendar days will
automatically result in.oversight cost recovery for your site(s) to be placed under
the terms of the State Pilot Program for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Enclosure
"D" will then serve as the. official notification of your enrollment into the State
Pilot Program for Underground Storage Tanks.
If you sh°uld have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Richard
Casagrande Program Manager, at (805) 861-3636.
.Sincerely,
Steve McCalley, Director
Environmental Health Services Department
attachments
cc: Kevin Phillips
Warehouse Manager
Attachment "B"
KERN COUNTY LOCAL AGREEMENT OPTION
BETWEEN
KERN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
(Kern County Underground Storage Tank Permitting Authority)
AND
Mr. James Lindsey
Responsible Party for Underground Storage Tank
for: Pepsi Cola\Dr. Pepper
Permit # 150039
This facility has experienced an unauthorized release of hazardous
substances from an underground storage tank. Action is necessary to'protect the
public health and the environment of the County, pursuant to Chapter 6.7 of the
California Health and Safety Code and Chapter 8.48 of the Kern County Ordinance
Code.
THE WITNESS FOR THE COUNTY AND SIGNATURE(S) FOR A RESPONSIBLE PARTY OF THE
SUBJECT FACILITY DESCRIBED ABOVE DO HEREBY AGREE THAT:
Kern County Environmental Health shall act as the lead agency for
regulatory oversight for the:
a) Site characterization: the study of a'site, including sampling of
subsurface soil and water where contamination is found in order to
fully assess its extent and threat to' the environment. It shall
include a discussion of the relative risk .to biological receptors
· . and possible pathways of exposure. It may include removal or in-
place closure of the tank, disposal or on-site treatment· of
Contaminated backfill or adjacent sOil, removal of hazardous
substances floating on groundwater, and the drilling of groundwater
monitor wells.
b) Feasibility study: the identification and evaluation of feasible
alternatives for cleaning up the site and remedying threats to public
health and safety.
c) ' Remedial action plan: the most cost effective, appropriate plan to
lessen, alleviate, abate, ·correct or clean-up the effects that a
-release of hazardous substances may have on the environment, based
on the feasibility studyl
d)' Remedtatlon: the action chosen by the responsible party and approved
by Kern County Environmental Health for the mitigation and clean-up
of contamination resulting from anunauthorized release of hazardous
materials and any ongoing monitoring of the site.
1
The responsible party' shall do the following:
a. Conduct all work as directed by Kern County Environmental Health
pursuant to State and local law and in conformance with appropriate
regulations tO assess and remediate the contaminated site.
b. Deposit with the Kern County Environmental Health Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Local Option Trust Fund the sum of $1,0OO.00. The
Department's oversight activities will be charged against this
account at the rate prescribed by Kern County Ordinance Code Chapter
8.04 (currently $42.00 per hour). Monthly statements will be
prepared detailing the activities and services provided and the
remaining credit balance.
Kern County Environmental Health shall provide the following services:
a'. Oversight'of alii activities to characterize the site's threat to
the environment and/or the groundwater, ,and coordination with the
appropriate State,, County and local regulatory agencies.
b. Serve as the single contact point for the. responsible party's
.representatives and other regulatory agencies for the activities
described in "a" above. If during-the DepaFtment's review of the
site characterization/remedial action plan, it is determined that
a permit may be required by another agency, the responsible' party
shall be referred to that permitting agency.
c. Review reports, conduct inspections, and oversee monitoring until
the site poses no further environmental or public health threat. An
official certification letter shall be given to the responsible party
when the site is determined to no longer pose a significant threat
to'the environment.
d. The responsible party will be officially notified.by Kern County
-Environmental Health when:
1. Necessary oversight is completed. A final statement will be
provided to the responsible party. If there remains an
unexpended balance of the deposit made by the responsible party
in the Leaking.Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, a r~fund
· for the unexpended balance will be issued;
--or -
2. Seventeen' (17) hours of. billable time has been reached. This
will give notice that the available funds will be exhausted
after five (5) additional hours of billable time at which time
the 'agreement will expire. A statement estimating the amount
time necessary to complete any remaining oversight work will
be sent. The responsible party will then have another
2
oppor'tunity to renew their agreemenf with the County.
Failure to enter in{o another agreement'shall require. Kern
County Environmental Health to utilize the State Water
Resources Control Board Pilot.Project for which the responsible
'party may be billed by the State directly for the cost.of
County services as well as State costs.
Kern coUnty Environmental Health reserves the right to cancel this
agreement at any time for any reasons, including groundwater contamination or
a uniquely complex hydrogeological 'condition. If an unexpended balance remains
on deposit from the responsible party under the terms of this agreement, a refund
for the unexpended balance will be issued and the agreement terminated. Once the
agreement is cancelled, you, as a responsible party, will be enrolled in the
State Leaking Underground Storage Tank Pilot Program. s&e enclosure "O".
This agreement may be cancelled anytime'by either party by certified
registered return receipt letter to the other' party within five days of said'
notification.
I, (responsible party), have read and agree to
the conditions of this agreement for the contaminated site described as:
Site Name
Site Address
City ' Zip
Owne~
Owner's Address
City Zip
Telephone
Operator
Telephone
Billing Address Attn:
Permit #
In order for this agreement to be executed, it must be signed and accompanied
by the deposit, of one-thousand dollars ($ 1000.00).
Responsible Party:
Date:
For the County of Kern:
Date:
2?QO '~' Street:. St.. 300
8ake~l~'i.~d. CA 9330t
0 ~.~I~n~enr'aZ He~l. th Services' De ~t~.. ~
(~Or.,) 861-,636
ATTACI~ENT "D".
June 29, 1989
Mr. James Llndsey
215 E. 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
SUBJECT: Location: 215 E. 21st Street
Bakersfield, California
Known'As: Pepsi Cola\Dr. Pepper
· PERMIT #: 150039
Dear Mr. James Llndsey:
This letter will serve as ,the official notification concerning reimbursement
requirements for a responsible party'enrolled in the State Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Pilot Program. As mentioned in the introductory letter, by either not responding to this
package within ten (10) Calendar days or through your own selection of the State Contract
option, your site will be placed under the terms explained below:
Whereas the Legislature has appropriated funds from the California'Hazardous Substance
-Clean-up. Fund to pay the local and state agency administrative and oversight costs
associated with the cleanup of releases from underground storage tanks; and Whereas
the direct and indirect costs of overseeing removal'or remedial action at the above
site are funded, in whole or in part, from the Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund; and
Whereas the above individual(s) or entity(.ies) have been identified as the party or
parties responsible for investigation and cleanup of the above site: YOU Al~ BF~BY
NOTIPIBD that pursuant to Sectlon 25360 of the Health and Safety code, the Above
Responsible Party or Parties shall reimburse the State Water Resources Control Board
for all direct and indirect costs incurred by any and all state and local agencies
while overseeing the cleanup of the above underground storage tank site, and the above
Responsible Party or Parties shall make full payment of such Costs within 30 days of
receipt of a detailed invoice from the State Water Resources Control Board.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Richard
Casagrande, Program Manager, at (805) 861-3636.
Sincerely,
Steve McCalley. Director
Environmental Health Services Department
attachments
' KRAZAN AssocIA ES, INC.
Construction Testing and Inspection
_.. Geotechnical Investigations ~
Environmental Engineering .
Laboratory Soils Testing
Monitoring Wells
October 2, 1989 Project No. E89-172
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company
Attn: Mr. Kevin Phillips
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
RE: Site Characterization Investigation
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, California ~'1 ~ ~
Dear Mr. Phillips,
In accordance with your request, we have completed the site characterization
investigation at the above referenced project site. The accompanying site characterization
investigation report and feasibility study have been prepared based upon the results of our
investigation.
The work was performed under your authorization to the specifications described in our
work plan dated July 27, 1989. The general res'ults of our investigation are as follows:
1. Concentrations of petroleum constituents exist in the subsoils in the location of
the former underground storage tanks and extend laterally to a radius of
approximately thirty feet. The lateral extent of the petroleum constituents in
the subsoils surrounding the former underground storage tanks were defined by
the chemical analyses of soil samples obtained from Boring B-6. This area is
approximately the soil encompassed within a radius of 30 feet from the center
of the former underground storage tanks. The lateral definition of petroleum
constituents is further supported by thd absence of petroleum constituents at any
depths in Borings B-4 and B-7.
2. Petroleum constituents were shown bv this investigation to exist in the subsoils
primarily at depths of 20 to 55 feet below grade. The concentrations of
Main Office: Fresno/Clovis · 3860 N. Winery · Fresno, California 93726 · (209) 291-7337
Bakersfield (805) 393-2343 [] Cafifornia (800) 233-5050 [] FAX (209) 291-5010
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 2
petroleum constituents attenuated to non-detectable levels by a depth of 70 feet
below grade using the' photoionization detector. The vertical extent of the
petroleum constituent plume appears to be defined by the non-detectable
concentrations of petroleum constituents which were revealed in at least the
bottom two soil samples obtained from exploratory soil borings B-2 throUgh B-7.
Minor concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons as a diesel were revealed
in the samples analyzed from depths of 65 and 70 feet below grade in Boring B-
1. No other petroleum constituents were noted to be present at these depths.
The rapid attenuation present was interpreted as being indicative of the bottom
of the petroleum constituent plume.
3. Historic information indicates that groundwater has existed beneath the
subject property at depths of approximately 185 to 250 feet below grade which
therefore defines the area as "non environmentally sensitive" in accordance
with Kern County Environmental Health Department's Handbook UT-35.
4. It appears highly unlikely that the petroleum constituents present in the
subsoils have/will impact groundwater resources from their present location.
If there are any questions or if we may be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact our office at (209) 453-9637.
Respectfully submitted,
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
q,;, ',,
~ ~ ~~,.,,, Dean Alexander
Environmental Engineer
~.~ RGE #002051/RCE #34274
CCW/DA/lc
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
SITE CHARACTERIZATION INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE
THE EXTENT OF PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS BENEATH A FORMER
UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE FACILITY
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING COMPANY
215 EAST 21ST STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
October 2, 1989
Prepared for:
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company
Attn: Mr. Kevin Phillips
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
(805) 327-9991 Ext. 185
Prepared by:
Krazan and Associates, Inc.
Environmental Division
4816 E. Shields
Fresno, California 93726
(209) 453-9637
Project No. E89-172
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project No. E89-172
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
SITE LOCATION 1
FIGURE I
SITE DESCRIPTION 2
SITE HISTORY 2
FIGURE II
Table I 3
GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC SETTINGS 4
Geology 4
Hydrology 4
PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION 5
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION 5
METHODOLOGY 5
FINDINGS OF THIS INVESTIGATION 8
FIGURE III
Soil Profile and Subsurface Conditions 9
Results of Chemical Analysis 9
Table II 10
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 11
FIGURE IV
FIGURE V
FIGURE VI
FIGURE VII
CONCLUSIONS 13
FEASIBILITY STUDY 14
Purpose of the Feasibility Study 14
Scope of the Feasibility Study 14
Evaluation Criteria 14
Soil Remediation Technologies 15
Beneficial Uses of Groundwater 17
Evaluation of Corrective Options 17
RECOMMENDATIONS 18
FIGURE VII
LIMITATIONS 19
REFERENCES (following text)
Appendix
Permits A
Logs of Soil Borings B
Certified Analytical Results and Chain of Custody Records C
KRAZAN ASSOCIATES, I.NC.
Construction Testing and Inspection
Geotechnical Investigations ~
Environmental Engineering
Laboratory Soils Testing
Monitoring Wells
October 2, 1989 Project No. E89-172
SITE CHARACTERIZATION INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE
THE EXTENT OF PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS BENEATH A FORMER
UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE FACILITY
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTrLING COMPANY
215 EAST 21ST STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
INWRODUC~ON
On June 8, 1989, two 10,000 gallon underground fuel storage tanks, one dispenser island and the
associated underground piping were removed from the Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company
located at 215 East 21st Street in Bakersfield, California. As part of the removal process and in
accordance with Kern County requirements, soil samples were obtained from beneath the tanks and
dispenser island. Chemical analysis of these soil samples detected the presence of petroleum fuel
constituents in some of the soil samples. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil
samples ranged from non-detectable to 29,219 parts per million. Based on these results, the Kern County
Environmental Health Department requested that the extent of petroleum constituents in the soil
beneath the site be determined. This site characterization was conducted to determine the lateral and
vertical extent of petroleum constituents in the soil and to determine if such constituents pose a hazard
to groundwater resources in the area.
SITE LOCATION
The Pepsi-Cola/Dr. 'Pepper Bottling Company is located at 215 East 21st Street in a largely
commercial area of Bakersfield, California. The site is on the south side of 21st Street between
Sacramento and Sonora Streets. It is bounded by Grove Street on the south. The property is described by
Kern County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 016-130-14-004. The site is zoned for light manufacturing.
Main Office: Fresno/Clovis · 3860 N. Winery · Fresno, California 93726 ° (209) 291-7337
Bakersfield (805) 393-2343 [] California (800) 233-5050 [] FAX (209) 291-5010
~E~-CP: I°d~ ~ 1~7~
~'~: 7-~ K~ZAN & ASSOCIATES
Approved ~y: ~
Merced Fresno Vi~lia Bakersfield
Drawing No.] of ~
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 2
The East Side Canal flows approximately 1/2 mile directly north of the project site. The Kern River is
also located approximately 2 miles directly north of the project site. According to the Oil Center,
California 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map published by the United States Geological Survey,
the site is located in a portion of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 295,
Range 28E, Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian. See Figure I.
S1TE DESCRIPTION
The site facility consists of warehouse space, beverage packaging lines, office facilities, and
truck parking areas. The pair of underground fuel tanks and associated product piping and dispenser
were located south of the warehouse. The fueling facility consisted of one 10,000 gallon diesel and one
10,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tanks. The tanks were buried side by side in a north-south
orientation. The dispenser island was located approximately 6 feet south of the underground storage
tanks. An above-ground propane storage tank is located approximately 25 feet east of the underground
storage tanks. An alley with city easements for sewer and water is located south of the warehouse just
north of the underground tanks. An overhead power line runs along the alley. Please refer to the site
plan for the locations of these structures. The property is relatively level, however, the Oil Center,
California topographic map of the area shows that land in the vicinity of the project site slopes gently
to the southwest. See Figure II.
SITE HISTORY
On June 8, 1989, the two underground storage tanks, associated product piping and dispenser
island were removed from the site..During the tank removal, soil samples were obtained from the
bottom of the tank excavation at various depths beneath each end of each tank. Soil samples were also
obtained from beneath the dispenser island. These soil samples were analyzed for the presence and
concentration of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. The results
of these analyses are presented in Table I as follows:
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 3
TABLE I
Concentration of Petroleum Constituents in Soils
Tank Removal Operations
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company
215 East 21st Street"
Bakersfield, California
May 8, 1989 Sampling
(Concentration of Petroleum Constituents are in Parts Per Million)
Ethyl-
Sample Location *Depth Benzene Toluene benzene **Xylenes ***TPH
West Tank-South End 12' 0.35 1.02 0.62 4.35 29,219
West Tank-South End 16' 0.24 0.71 ' 0.52 3.77 14,623
West Tank-North End 12' ND ND ND ND 113
West Tank-North End 16' 0.02 0.05 0.03 1.37 7,149
East Tank-South End 12' 0.95 4.55 0.80 6.32 389
East Tank-South End 16' 0.10 0.21 0.13 1.53 165
East Tank-North End 12' ND ND ND ND ND
East Tank-North End 16' 1.71 2.98 0.92 8.40 481
Dispenser Island 4' 12.42 136.22 61.48 648.20 1,875
Dispenser Island 8' 24.50 28.~7.94 1,,],fi,,4~8 ~ 10,069_
* Depth = Depth of soil sample beneath ground surface.
** Xylenes = Sum of the three xylene isomers.
*** T?H = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons referenced to diesel for the west tank, and
referenced tO gasoline for the east tank and dispenser island.
ND = Non-Detected at the detection limits noted on the certified analytical results.
Test Method - TPH for Gasoline and Diesel by the Department of Health Services (DOHS) L.U.F.T.
Manual Method. (Diesel by Carbon Disulfide Extraction) Individual Constituents by EPA Method 8020.
Analysis by B.C. Laboratories of Bakersfield, California.
Project No. E89-172
Page No.'4
GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC SETI'INGS
Geology
Bakersfield is located in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley of California. The San
Joaquin Valley is a structural trough which makes up the southern portion of the Great Central Valley
Geomorphic Province. Subsurface materials in the Southern San Joaquin Valley are composed
primarily of alluvium from Sierra Nevada source rock. The alluvium in the Bakersfield area is
derived from granitic Sierra Nevada source rocks deposited by the Kern River and its tributaries. The
Kern River has no outlet to the ocean and deposits all of its bed and suspended loads in the Southern
San Joaquin Valley. These sediments are generally fine to medium sand and silty sand, some of which
contain gravel.
The U.S. Geological Survey Oil Center topographic .quadrangle map shows the elevation of the
project site to be approximately 405 feet above mean sea level. See Figure I.
Hydrology
Bakersfield is within the San Joaquin Basin Hydrologic Study Area which is primarily an arid
to semi-arid climatic environment. Within the Study Area, 39 groundwater basins and areas of
potential groundwater storage have been identified. More specifically, Bakersfield is within the 70
square mile Kern County Basin. Below the Kern County Basin there is believed to be two main aquifers
separated by an aquitard of regional extent. This clay aquitard is known as the "300 foot clay". The
aquifer above the clay layer is referred to as an unconfined aquifer and that below the clay is a confined
aquifer. The upper unconfined aquifer is generally unsuitable for potable, domestic water supply due to
high total dissolved solids but is pumped extensively for agricultural use. The lower confined aquifer is
used for both domestic and agricultural purposes.
The groundwater beneath the Kern County Basin perennially suffer~ from overdraft conditions
of approximately 600,000 acre-feet per year. Overdraft is a condition whereby more water is pumped
from the subsurface than is recharged by natural and artificial means. This condition has caused some
deep subsidence of land as groundwater levels decline primarily due to agricultural pumping.
Since precipitation in the area is usually less than seven inches per year, little natural
recharge occurs. Instead, water for agricultural use and for artificial recharge is imported to the area
by means of the California Aqueduct System and bv the smaller canals of the Central Valley Project.
The Kern County Water Agency Improvement District #4, which consists of approximately 65,000 acres
in and around the city of Bakersfield, will import approximately 77,000 acre-feet of water this year. A
total of 86,000 acre-feet is expected to be pumped in 1988-89, and 3,000 acre-feet will be recharged by
natural and artificial means. Therefore, overdraft of the aquifer in this district will amount to 83,000
acre-feet.
Project No. E89-172 Page No. 5
According to the Kern County Water Agency, report on water conditions in Improvement District
No. 4 the depth to groundwater beneath the project site during the time period of October 1983 to
September 1988 varied from 250 tc~eet below grade respectively.
PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The purpose of the investigation was to determine the lateral and vertical extent of petroleum
constituents in the area of the previously removed underground storage tanks and dispenser island.
Additionally, the potential impact to groundwater resources was to be examined and based on the
information obtained, a feasibility study was to be prepared.
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The scope of the investigation was limited to the advancement of seven soil borings up to a
maximum depth of 70 feet below grade in the vicinity of the previously removed underground fuel
storage tanks and dispenser island. Soil samples were collected from all borings and selected samples
were submitted for chemical analysis to determine the presence and concentration of petroleum
constituents.
.METHODOLOGY
In order to accomplish the goals established in the purpose and scope of the investigation, the
following methods were employed:
1. All necessary permits were obtained prior to the commencement of the investigation at
the project site. A work/health and safety plan was released to the Kern County
Environmental Health Department in order to obtain approval to begin the field
investigation.
2. A literature survey of published geologic and groundwater data in the vicinity of the
project was conducted in an attempt to fully describe the conditions present.
3. The soil borings were advanced by a Mobile Drill B-61, truck-mounted drill rig utilizing
hollow stem auger. Drilling fluids were not used while advancing any of the borings.
~ Project No. E89-172
Page No. 6
4. Boring 1 was located at the fill end (north end) of the diesel tank which is the location
where the highest concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons was found from the
initial soil sampling. The reason for placement of this boring was to determine the
maximum vertical extent and the maximum concentration of petroleum constituents in
the soil.
5. Boring 2 was located at the far north end of the tank excavation. This was the northern
most boring. The presence of an overhead power line, an alley with sewer and water
easements, and the warehouse building limited the placement of a boring further to the
north. The reason for placement of this boring was to determine how rapidly the
concentrations decrease as they moved laterally north from the center of the plume.
6. Boring 3 was located in the dispenser island area. The purpose of this boring was
twofold. 1) To determine the vertical extent of petroleum constituents near the
dispenser islands and 2) To determine the lateral extent of petroleum constituents
originating from the diesel tank. It was expected that Borings 1, 2, and 3 would
encounter petroleum constituents at a shallow depth.
7. Borings 4, 5, and 6 were used to define the lateral extent of the petroleum plume
originating from the diesel tanks and the product dispenser island. Boring 4, 5, and 6
were advanced up to a maximum depth of 65 feet below grade, which was greater than
two times the distance to the nearest contaminated boring. This was done to insure that
these borings intersected the contaminated plume if it extended to these boring
locations.
8. In the event that these six borings, were insufficient to determine the entire extent of the
petroleum constituents in the soils, up to three additional borings were to be placed at
the discretion of the field engineer or geologist pending approval of a Pepsi-Cola
representative. Following approval of the Pepsi-Cola representative, a seventh
exploratory soil boring was advanced approximately 20 feet to the east of Boring 5 in an
effort to fully characterize the lateral extent of the petroleum plume.
9. The borings which were proposed to be advanced in the area of the new underground
storage tanks to be used to determine background levels of fuel hydrocarbons in the area
were not advanced at the request of the Pepsi-Cola representative..
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 7
10. Soil samples were obtained in each boring at five foot intervals beginning five feet
below grade in an attempt to fully characterize the physical conditions beneath the
site.
11. Sampling was conducted by means pushing stainless tubes at five foot intervals (ASTM
D-1587-86, "Thin Walled Tube Sampling of Soils"). Sample tubes were capped on each
end with aluminium foil and tight fitting plastic caps. Each sample was then labeled
with the project number, sampler's initials, boring number, date, time and depth at
which the sample was obtained. The samples.were then placed in a pre-cooled ice
chest with dry ice pending transport to the analytical laboratory.
12. During the drilling process, drilling returns and soil samples were examined for visual
evidence of hydrocarbon contamination. Soil samples were screened in the field using
an H-nu brand photoionization detector (PID). The PID is a direct-reading real time
analyzer that is capable of detecting most of the volatile hydrocarbons constituents
present in the vapor phase of petroleum contaminated soils. The PID that was used for
this investigation uses a 10.2 electronic volt lamp and was calibrated using an iso-
butylene calibration gas. Iso-butylene is a relatively safe calibration gas similar in
ionization potential to benzene.
13. The advancement of each boring ceased when visual evidence as well as PID readings
indicated the absence of petroleum constituents in two successive five foot s°il samples.
14. All samples were collected, maintained, and transported under chain of custody
protocol. Selected soil samples were analyzed at BC Laboratories, a state approved
chemical laboratory. The soil samples were analyzed for the presence and
concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel by DHS Method, and
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes by EPA Method 8020.
15. Soil samples were chosen for analysis in the following manner. Two consecutive soil
samples were analyzed from the bottom of each boring. This was done to define the
bottom of the petroleum constituent plume. In order to define the concentration of
petroleum constituents within the plume, one soil sample for each 10 to 15 feet of boring
was selected for analysis. This selection was made so that most or all of the soil layers
were represented.
Project No. E89-172 Page No. 8
16. Soil borings were backfilled with a-sand-cement slurry containing 3% to 5% bentonite.
The bentonite was added to reduce shrinkage and decrease permeabilityof the slurry.
17. Ail soil cuttings were stored on-site pending results of chemical analysis. The soil
cuttings were placed upon and covered by polyvisquene plastic sheeting. The proper
disposal of the excess soil cuttings is the responsibility of the client or his
representative following characterization.
18. The auger and sampling tools used for advancing the soil borings and sampling of soil
'were steam-cleaned prior to arriving on-site, between each boring and/or sampling,
before lea~'ing the site each day, and as necessary to minimize the chance of cross-
contamination. The rinsate from the cleaning was contained and barrelled..The rinsate
was stored on-site pending the results of chemical analysis. It is the responsibility of
the client to properly dispose of this waste following characterization.
19. All field work was conducted by personnel who meet the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration requirements for hazardous waste work including 40 hour
health and safety training and medical monitoring. The work was conducted under
standards set forth by industry and deemed acceptable by various regulatory agencies.
Hard hats, protective eyewear, steel-toe boots, protective clothing, and respiratory
devices were worn by field personnel when deemed appropriate by the field engineer or
geologist present. For additional health and safety information, please refer to the
approved Health and Safety Plan.
FINrDINGS OF THIS INVESTIGATION
This investigation of the subject property has assessed the nature and approximate extent of
petroleum constituents in the subsurface beneath the subject property. Seven soil borings were advanced
to a depth of up to 70 feet below grade in the vicinity of the former underground storage tanks and
dispenser island. Soil cuttings were logged and samples were obtained to characterize the physical
conditions beneath the site. Thirty-three of the seventy-nine soil samples obtained from these borings
were analyzed for the presence and concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel, benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes.
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 9
Soil Profile and Subsurface Conditions
The alluvial material comprising the soil profile at the project site was noted to vary slightly
between borings. The soils profile generally indicates fine to medium sandy silt to be present from
surface grade to a depth of approximately 18 feet below grade. Approximately 10 feet of sandy silt
with fine gravel was encountered in the previous tank excavation.
Well-graded and silty well-graded sands were encountered from approximately 18 to 38 feet
below grade. Lenses of sandy silt and gravelly sand were encountered in some borings below thirty feet.
From 38 to 43 feet below grade, an approximately five foot thick layer of silt to sandy silt was
encountered. A well graded sand is present in the soils at a depth of 43 to approximately 48 feet below
grade.
Silts and sandy silts were encountered from approximately 48 feet below grade to at least 70
feet below grade where the maximum depth of boring, was advanced. Thin beds of sand were
encountered above 58 feet below grade. More specifically, the soil profile can be summarized as
follows: '
Depth Soil
Grade - approx. 18 feet Fine to medium sandy silt
Approx. 18 feet - approx. 38 feet Well graded and silty well graded sand
Approx. 38 feet - approx. 43 feet Fine to medium sandy silt,
fine sandy silt, and silt
Approx. 43 feet - approx. 48 feet Well graded sand
Approx. 48 feet - approx. 70 feet Fine sandy silt and fine to medium
sandy silt
Please refer to Appendix B (Logs of Soil Borings) for further information regarding the soils
beneath this site.
Results of Chemical Analysis
During the advancement of our seven soil borings in the vicinity of the previously removed
underground storage tanks and dispenser island, soil samples were obtained for logging purposes.
Thirty-three soil samples were later submitted for chemical analysis. The results of chemical
analysis of the selected soil samples were used to help identify the presence and distribution of
petroleum constituents present in the subsoils. The results'of those analyses have been summarized in
Table II as follows. For the exact location of our soil borings please see Figure III. Refer to Appendix C
for the certified analytical results and chain of custody reports.
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 10'
TABLE II
Concentration 'of Petroleum Constituents in Soil
Site Characterization Investigation
Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Facility
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, California
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
August 1989 Sampling
(Concentrations in parts per million)
Ethyl Total
Sample I.D. Benzene Toluene Benzene Xylenes TPH
B-1 @ 20 feet 0.27 0.59 0.69 328 23600
B-1 @ 35 feet 0.63 1.25 0.43 3.96 14500_
R-1 ~ ~0 feet 2.80 3.58 1.76 8.0 18300t
B-1 @ 65 feet ND ND ND ND
B-1 @ 70 feet ND ND ND ' ND
B-2 @ 15 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-2 @ 30 feet N D 0.11 N D N D 2320
B-2 @ 45 feet 0.89 1.26 1.03 4.64 13900
R-2 @ 55 feeL ND ND ND ND . ND
B-2 @ 60 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-3 @ 10 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-3 @ 25 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-3 @ 40 feet 0.39 0.57 0.56 3.14 1030
B-~ ~ ~5 ~eet 2.72 3.22 1.79 8.46 ~
B-3 @ 60 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-3 @ 65 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-4 @ 10 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-4 @ 25 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-4 @ 40 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-4 @ 45 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-5 @ 15 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-5 @ 30 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-5 @ 45 feet 0.89 1.33 1.12 5.21 18300
B-5 ~ 60 feet ND ND ND ND N"-"~
B-5 @ 65 feet N D N D N D N D N D
B-6 @ 10 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-6 @ 25 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-6 @ 40 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-6 @ 45 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-7 @ 10 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-7 @ 25 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-7 @ 40 feet ND ND ND ND ND
B-7 @ 45 feet ND ND ND ND ND
TPH =Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as diesel by DOHS L.U.F.T. Manual Method
ND =None Detected at the detection limits noted on the analytical reports included in Appendix C.
· q Project No. E89-172
Page No. 11
DISCUSSION OF FINDING S
This investigation of the subject property has assessed the nature and approximate extent of
petroleum constituents in the soil. The subsoils beneath the subject property consist primarily of sandy
silts, and silty sands with additional strata of silts and well graded sands.
Concentrations of petroleum constituents were present in the soils of four of our seven soil
borings. Thirty-three soil samples were submitted for chemical analysis from Boring B-1 thru Boring
B-7.
Boring B-1 was advanced in the center of the former location of the underground storage tanks.
It was necessary to advance Boring B-1 to a depth of 70 feet below grade to obtain two consecutive five
foot samples of non-detectable soil using the photo-ionization detecto'r. Five samples from Boring B-1
were submitted to the analytical laboratory to be analyzed for the presence and concentration of
petroleum constituents. Petroleum constituents were present at high concentrations(23,600 to 18,300 ppm
total petroleum hydrocarbons) in the soil samples obtained from depths of 20, 35, and 50 feet below
grade. In the samples obtained from depths of 65 and 70 feet below grade minor concentrations of 33 to
30 ppm total petroleum hydrocarbons were revealed. No other petroleum constituents were present at
this depth. The rapid attenuation of the petroleum constituents was interpreted as being indicative of
the bottom of the plume.
Boring B-2 was advanced approximately twenty feet north of Boring B-1. It was necessary to
advance Boring B-2 to a depth of 60 feet below grade to obtain two consecutive five foot samples of non-
detectable soil using the photo-ionization detector. Five samples from Boring B-2 were analyzed for
petroleum constituents. Concentrations of petroleum constituents (2,320 to 13,900 ppm total petroleum
hydrocarbons) were revealed in the samples obtained~from depths of 30 and 45 feet below grade.
Petroleum constituents were not noted above detectable limits in the soil samples obtained from 15, 55
and 60 feet below grade.
Boring B-3 was advanced approximately 20 feet south of Boring B-1. Boring B-3 was advanced
to a depth of 65 feet below grade. Concentrations of petroleum constituents (1,030 to 34,600 ppm total
petroleum hydrocarbons) were noted to be present in the samples at 'depths 40 and 55 feet below grade.
The samples from depths of 10, 25, 60 and 65 feet below grade showed no detectable concentrations of
petroleum constituents to be present.
Boring B-4 was advanced approximately 40 feet so~th of Boring B-3 and 60 feet south of Boring
B-l. Boring B-4 was advanced to a depth of 45 feet below grade and no petroleum constituents were
noted to be present at any depth using the photoionization detector. Four soil samples which were
obtained from Boring B-4 were analvzed in the laboratory and showed no detectable concentrations of
petroleum constituents to be present at any depth.
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 12
Boring B-5 was advanced approximately 20 feet east of Boring B-1 to a depth of 65 feet below
grade. Five soil samples from Boring B-5 were analyzed for petroleum constituents. Only the sample
from a depth of 45 feet below grade showed detectable concentrations of petroleum constituents (!8~300
ppm total petroleum hydrocarbons) to be present. Petroleum constituents were not detected in the
samples obtained from depths of 15, 30, 60, and 65 feet below grade.
Boring B-6 was advanced approximately 30 feet west of Boring B-1 to a depth of 45 feet below
grade. Four soil samples from Boring B-6 were analyzed and showed no detectable concentrations of
petroleum constituents to be present at any depth.
Boring B-7 was advanced approximately 20 feet east of Boring B-5 and 40 feet east of Boring
B-1. An electrical power line runs directly between Borings B-5 and B-7 and for this reason it was
necessary to space the borings 20 feet apart. Four soil samples obtained from Boring B-7 were analyzed
and all revealed no detectable concentrations of petroleum constituents to be present.
Generally speaking, petroleum constituents are present in the subsoils beneath the backfilled
tank excavation area and appear to extend laterally with a radius of approximately 30 feet. These
hydrocarbons appear to be limited to the upper 70 feet. The lateral extent of these hydrocarbons
appear to be defined by the absence of petroleum constituents in Boring B-6 which was advanced
approximately 30 feet west of Boring B-1. The presence of petroleum constituents in Boring B-5 and the
absence of petroleum constituents in Boring B-6 would allow for an approximate a thirty foot radial line
of non-detectable soil. The absence of petroleum constituents in Boring B-4 and B-7 further support the
lateral definition of the petroleum constituent plume. Please see Figure IV.
The vertical extent of these hydrocarbons appears to be defined by the absence of petrole~!rr~
constituents in the bottom two consecutive five foot samples from Borings B-2 through B-7 V~ee~ low
levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel were noted to be present in Boring B-1 at depths of 65
and 70 feet below grade. No other petroleum constituents were noted to be present at these depths. The
rapid attenuation present is interpreted as being indicative as the bottom the the petroleum constituent
plume. Please see figures V, VI, and VII.
Currently groundwater is believed to exist beneath the project site at a depth of 195 feet below
grade. No groundwater (including perched waters) were encountered by any of our borings. At the
present time, no conduit for the vertical migration of contaminants (wells, faults, etc...) are known to
exist within the affected area.
!
' ' IVlerced I:reano Viaalia Bakerafield
- Pro~_?~o. Ora~ing bl~a-
· .::i'.' ii.' ~. ~.::'. '.'.', ':"'. ' "i~ ':'
~1~'- "'"' ': ...... ' ' '
" '"" .: v- "' :;":~'::":'
. f,~- :-'.',.' .: ':'~:.:o.' · . .,.
... ~~- --
J
/
App~_.~ed~.~y:..
~L~I J-~ ~-<:~. ' ~ I~erced Fresno Visalia Bakersfield
Pro~J~o. J:)ra)~inl~
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 13
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the review of the data obtained from our' field and la. boratory investigations, past
investigations of the project site, and published information regarding geologic, hydrologic, and
chemical characteristics, the following conclusions have been derived.
1. Concentrations of petroleum constituents 'exist in the subsoils in the location of the
former underground storage tanks and extend laterally to a radius of approxlrffately
,,_~thirty feet. The lateral extent of the petroleum constituents in the subsoils surrounding
the former underground storage tanks were defined by the chemical analyses of soil
samples obtained from Boring B-6. This area is appr. oximately the soil encompassed
within a radius of 30 feet from the center of the former underground storage tanks. The
lateral definition of petroleum constituents is further supported by the absence of
petroleum constituents at an), depths in Borings B4 and B-7.
2. Petroleum constituents were shown by this investigation to exist in the subsoils
primarily at depths of 20 to 55 feet below grade. The concentrations of petroleum
constituents attenuated to non-detectable levels by a depth of 70 feet below grade using
the photoionization detector. The vertical extent of the petroleum constituent plume
appears to be defined by the non-detectable concentrations of petroleum constituents
which were revealed in at least the bottom two soil samples obtained from exploratory
soil borings B-2 through B-7..Minors concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons as
a diesel were revealed.in the samples analyzed from depths of 65 and 70 feet below
I grade in Boring B-1. No other petroleum constituents were noted to be present at these
I depths. The rapid attenuation present was interpreted as being indicative of the
[ bottom of the petroleum .constituent plume.
3. Published information indicates that groundwater has existed beneath the subject
I property at depths of approximately 185 to 250 feet below grade which therefore
defines the area as "non environmentally sensitive" in accordance with Kern County
Environmental Health Department's Handbook #UT-35.
~/~. It appears highly unlikely that the petroleum constituents present in the subsoils
have/will impact groundwater resources from their present location.
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 14
FEASIBILITY STUDY
It has been determined that petroleum constituents are present in the subsoils below the site. In
order to preserve the aquifer beneath the site a Feasibility Study has been prepared to evaluate
several alternative corrective options based upon technical and economic feasibility and the potential
for impact of petroleum hydrocarbons on the beneficial uses of groundwater in the area.
Purpose of the Feasibility Study
The purpose of this study is to identify and evaluate feasible alternatives for remediating the
petroleum constitute plume and remedying threats to beneficial uses of groundwater in the vicinity.
Scope of the Feasibility Study
In accordance with Kern County Environmental Health Department requirements at least three
corrective actions are evaluated and described in the text of this report in relation to the site specific
needs associated with this project.
Evaluation Criteria
In evaluating a corrective action, several factors were considered. A number of remedial
technologies could be considered for the contaminated soil on the project site. However, not all of these
practices may meet the site-specific needs associated with this project. Additionally, the Kern County
Department of Environmental Health Services may deem some methods inappropriate for this project
site.
Technically, the actions considered must be capable of accomplishing the goals 'of the clean up
process. This action must take into account site specific data when assessing the potential results of
implementing each option. Some of the factors x~'hich need to be appraised when implementing the
various possible options are listed below:
1. Exposure risk to humans and the environment such as possible exposure path ways to
the surrounding community and side effects on air quality. These possible exposure
pathways may allow the surrounding community to be influenced by the various
adverse health effects associated ~x'ith petroleum constituents.
2. The potential beneficial uses of groundwater in the area.
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 15
3. The environmental sensitivity of the area, i.e., the permeability of the soil and depth
to groundwater in the area of the project site.
4. The hazardous nature of each pollutant and the mixture of pollutants present at the
site to determine the threat to the beneficial uses of groundwater in the area.
Generally, at a fuel leak site there are mixtures of pollutants present in the soil.
5. The concentrations of the constituents present.
6. The factors involved with implementation of the option such as cost, obtaining the
necessary .regulatory permits, design, treatment, disposal, and system monitoring.
tSased on the conclusions of our investigation several applicable methods of action have been
summarized as follows:
Soil Remediation Technologies
Current methods used when remediating petroleum affected soils include passive remediation,
in-situ isolation/containment, soil venting, biodegradation,.land fanning, and excavation. Although
other methods are available, the methods outlined are representative of those most commonly used.
Passive remediation is a method in which the soil is left in place and several natural processes
act to lower the concentrations of contaminants in the soil. The natural processes that act upon the soil
include biodegradation (microbial species feed on contamination),' d~orption (hydrocarbons adhere to
surrounding soil particles), volatilization (vaporization), and leaching (continued downward
movement due to the effects of precipitation). These processes depend upon the site-specific
characteristics of the project site. This "no action" alternative is sometimes found unacceptable when
potable water may become impacted. However, this is the most favored alternative when the
beneficial uses of groundwater are not threatened. Economically, the cost of this method is very Iow
including only the lateral and vertical definition of petroleum constituents. Follow up monitoring is
commonly required by rog~lato~ ~?ncies to verifv the bottom of the plume and confirm there has be~n
no downward migration of contaminates. The possible human exposures are limited to the inhalation
of petroleum vapors associated with volatization as little actual soil contact would occur.
In situ isolation/containment is a process whereby the contaminated area is isolated with a
layer of impermeable material such as asphalt concrete. The most common method is the placement of
an impermeable cap and is commonly used in association with passive remediation to limit the
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 16
potential for the-leaching of the petroleum constituents to a greater depth. This method minimizes the
migratiOn of hydrocarbon compounds by reducing the infiltration of precipitation and surface run on.
Thereby, decreasing the risk of the petroleum constituent plume contacting the groundwater table
through leaching and minimizing potential environmental exposure pathways. The constructed cap
should be sloped for drainage and would require periodic maintenance to repair cracks and weather
damage. The cost of this option is relatively low and generally serves a dual process for the site in
providing an area for vehicular access. The possible human exposures include inhalation of vapors and
dermal contact during application of the impermeable membrane.
Soil venting (volatilization) is a process in which the petroleum constituents present in the soil
are vaporized by means of circulated air. Generally, a network of monitoring wells is used for
circulating air through the soil by means of vacuum pump. Site-specific data such as soil permeability,
space considerations, and regulatory approval must be considered when examining this technology.
Vapor carbon filtration may be required by the local air pollution control district or air quality
management district to keep emissions below air quality limits..Generally, the costs associated with
this mot~v~,~ of romor~i~t'iO.P ~ro lnt,a tO moderate. Most of the cost involved is for the installation of the
monitoring wells and filtration units, and any fAllow-up monitoring that is required. Possible human
exposures include the inhalation of volatized vapors, dermal contact during installation, and ingestion
of soil ..particles.
'~, Biodegradation~is an in-situ process in which the growth and activity of naturally-occurring
microorganisms take place. Commonly this grox~'th is enhanced through some form of fertilization. As
they flourish, these organisms feed on the petroleum constituents present in the soils. Factors such as
temperature, soil pH, soil moisture contents, soil permeability, and the quantity of naturally-occurring
organisms affect the success of this type of remediation. Rog~latc~ry avvroval is more commonly
conceded if no nearby groundwater use exists.i Costs for this method are relatively high~. Potential
human exposure pathways include vapor or particle inhalation and dermal contact.
,_, ~_xcavatlon~.is generally considered the most expedient form of remediation in petroleum-
related contamination of soil. In this process, the contaminated soil is removed and properly disposed
of. Clean fill material is then placed in the excavation. An obvious advantage to this method is that
the removal of the soil prevents the continuing potential for contamination of groundwater. This
method of soil remediation is generally encouraged by regulatory officials. Economically, the cost of
this option is greatly influenced by the concentrations of contamination present, the extent of the
contamination, as well as by the degree of conserx~atism shown by regulatory personnel. Regulatory
personnel could consider "proper disposal" as being the spreading of the contaminated soil over an area
for rapid aeration, Class Ill waste disposal (e.g., county landfill), or Class I hazardous waste disposal
(e.g., Kettleman Hills facility), to name a few. Potential human exposure during this method are great
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 17
due to the increased handling of the contaminated soil and include vapor and/or particle inhalation
and ingestion and the increased risk of dermal contact.
Land farming is the process by which contaminated soils are excavated and spread out so as to
allow for aeration, volatilization, and photolysis (degradation due to sunlight). Normally, land
farming involves turning the soils to speed the process. Occasionally, the affected soil is returned to
the excavation following the confirmation of low levels of contamination present in the stockpiles. The
cost of land farming is relatively low, however, the use of this technology is sometimes limited by air
emission requirements of which most are in effect in Kern County. Potential human exposures are again
increased with this method due to the degree of contact necessary with the contaminated soil. Exposure
can occur through vapor and/or particle inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact during the soil
rotating process.
Beneficial Uses of Groundwater
The existing and potential beneficial uses of groundwater are described in the 1975 California
State Regional Water Quality Control Board's, Water Quality Control Plan Report for the. Tulare Lake
Basin and subsequent amendments. All surface and groundwa~ers with some exceptions are designated
as sources of municipal and domestic supply. The exceptions include certain waters within a one-half
mile of certain impoundments at the Chemical Waste Management facility near Kettleman City in
Kings County.
Evaluation of Corrective Options
The investigation of the subject property assessed the nature and approximate extent of
petroleum constituents in the soil. The subsoils beneath the subject property were shown to consist
primarily of s~andv silts, and silty sands with additional strata of silts and well graded sands.
Generally speaking, petroleum constituents were shown to be present in the subsoils beneath the
backfilled tank excavation area and appeared to extend laterally to a radius of approximately 30 feet.
The hydrocarbons appeared to be limited to the upper 70 feet. The vertical extent of the
hydrocarbons appeared to be defined by the absence of petroleum constituents in the bottom two
consecutive five foot samples from Borings B-2 throug,h B-7. Very low levels of total petroleum
hydrocarbons as diesel were noted to be present in Boring B-1 at depths of 65 and 70 feet below grade.
No other petroleum constituents were noted to be present at these depths. The rapid attenuation
present was interpreted as being indicative as the bottom the the petroleum constituent plume.
Currently groundwater is believed to exist beneath the project site of a depth of 195 feet below
grade. No groundwater (including perched waters) were encountered by any of the borings. The silty
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 18
soils noted to be present at depths of 48 to 70 feet below grade should not support an element of vertical
migration. Therefore, it appears to be highly unlikely that petroleum constituents related to the
subsurface release of petroleum constituents on this site have/will impact groundwater resources from
their present location. At the present time, no conduit for the vertical migration of cOntaminants
(wells, faults, etc...) are known to exist within the affected area. According to Handbook #B-35
developed by the Kern County Environmental Health Department, by definition the area is "Non
Environmentally Sensititive", as groundwater in the vicinity is greater than 100 feet below the ground
surface.
As no direct threat to the beneficial uses of the groundwater beneath the project site appears to
exist, the option best suited for the Pepsi-Cola/Dr. xPovper Bottling Facility alol~ears to be passive_
remediation combined with the placement of an impermeable membrane._The placement of an
impermeable membrane cap will minimize the downward leaching of the hydrocarbons present while
allowing for biodegradation and natural adsorption to occur in lieu of encountering groundwater which
is presen't at a significant depth. As the contaminate present is anticipated to be diesel, the heavier,
less volatile, and lower soluble components are~a_n_tic__ipated to remain bound to soil particles~ the
u__,_nsaturated zone.--Leaching of the contaminates to a greater depth over time is anticipated to be
minimal. Passive remediation does not generate by-products and requires little handling of the soil,
therefore possible exposure pathways for humans are minimized. Cost associated with passive
remediation can be modest h.owever periodic monitoring is commonly required in the area to verify the
bottom of the plume and confirm that downward migration of the petroleum hydrocarbons has not
occurred. This could be accomplished by the placement of one exploratory soil boring 2 and 5 years
from the present in the vicinity of our Boring B-1.
RECOMMENT) ATIONS
Based upon the review of all of the above options and the site-specific characteristics
associated with the Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Facility the following recommendation has been
formulated:
A combination of two options of corrective action appear to be best suited for the project site.
The method includes passive remediation used in conjunction with the placement of an impermeable
membrane cap such as an asphaltic concrete.
An asphaltic concrete cap of a minimum 2" thickness or greater should be placed over the
affected area and its vicinity. Asphalt is a hydrocarbon-based substance which includes sand and
gravel as a filler material. Please see Figure VII for delineation of the area to be paved.
All cracks or chuck holes in the surrounding paved areas must be patched to avoid an area for
leaching. The entire paved area (past and future) must be well maintained.
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 19
It is understood that the specifications for this pavement were developed for the purpose of
inhibiting the leaching of contaminants only. The properly owner assumes all responsibility for
meeting the codes and/or requirements for the structural integrity of this pavement section, especially
where it may be affected by vehicular traffic.
LIMITATIONS
The findings of this report were based upon the results of field and laboratory investigations,
coupled With the interpolation of subsurface conditions associated with our soil borings. Therefore,
the data are accurate only to the degree implied by review of the data obtained and by professional
interpretation. The findings presented herewith are based on professional interpretation.using state of
the art methods and equipment, and a degree of conservatism deemed proper as of this report date. It is
not war~:anted that such data cannot be superseded by future geotechnical, environmental, or
technological developments.
Exploratory soil borings were located in the field by review of available maps and by pacing or
tape measurement from existing landmarks. Therefore, these should be considered accurate only to the
degree implied by the methods used to locate them.
Chemical testing was done by laboratories certified by the State of California Department of
Health Services. The results of the chemical testing are accurate only to the degree of the care of
ensuring the testing accuracy and the representative nature of the soils obtained.
The recommendations in this report were based upon the results of field and laboratory
investigations, interviews with Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper personnel, and interpolation of subsurface
conditions associated with our soil borings. The recommendations in this report were also derived
based upon site-specific data including: the exposure risk present at the site, the beneficial uses of
water in the vicinity of the project site in conjunction with the depth to groundwater and permeability
· of the soil encountered in our soil borings, the nature and concentrations of the petroleum constituents
present, and the feasibility of the implementation of the option chosen. Therefore, the data is
accurate only to the degree implied by review of the data obtained and professional interpretation.
The maps contained in this report were compiled from available maps and by measurements from
existing~ndmarks. ,
/ Regulatory approval for the methods recommended would be anticipated but cannot be
guaranteed. It is understood that it is the sole responsibility of the property owner to conform with all
applicable codes, laws, and/or regulations regarding the placement of the proposed impermeable
layer.
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 20
If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
our office at '(209) 453-9637.
"Respectfully submitted,
-' ~c' ' KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
/,(,;2'/. ~' ",.'.,\'~ ~,
{,f?~::,:C ~,\;~\~ Cynthia C. Wagner
l.:~:;.'d[ - :' '.. e¢2:>$a ~/ Environmental Specialist
!;~ i-~,,..' -.-.,~ :,,-.~..; ,~0,1091/
~'~ \ /.~ /
x..'-.. ~ ':'- ¢./-/, /l
,~~,~/ Dean Alexander
~~/ Geotechnical Engineer
CCW/DA/lc
2c herewith
2c Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper
Attn: Mr. David Oskin
2c Kern County Environmental Health Department
Attn: Ms. Flora Darling
(herewith)
REFERENCES
EPA SW-846, 1986 (3rd Edition), Test Methods for Evaluation Solid Waste; U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Vols. I-II
State of California DOHS, 1986, Site Mitigation Decision Tree Manual; draft
working document
State of California Water Resources Control Board, 1987, Leaking
Underground Fuel Tank Field Manual (LUFT); draft document
State of California Department of Water Resources, 1975, "California's
Groundwater"; Bulletin No. 118
State of California Department of Water Resources, January 1989,
"Groundwater Basins in California, a report to the Legislature in
'Response to Water Code Section 12924"; Bulletin 118-80
State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley
Region, 1986, "The Designated Level Methodology for Waste
Classification and Cleanup Level Determination"; tentative staff report
State of California Department of Water Resources, Spring 1985, "Lines of
Equal Elevation of Water In Wells, Unconfined Aquifer, San Joaquin
Valley, Spring 1985"
State of California Department of Water Resources, Spring 1986, "Lines of Equal
Elevation of Water In Wells, Unconfined Aquifer, San Joaquin Valley,
Spring 1986"
State of California Department of Water Resources', Spring 1987, "Lines of Equal
Elevation of Water In Wells, Unconfined Aquifer, San Joaquin Valley,
Spring 1987"
State of California Department of Water Resources, Fall 1984, "Lines of Equal
Elevation of Water In Wells, Unconfined Aquifer, San Joaquin Valley,
Fall 1984"
Staie of California Department of Water Resources, Fall 1985, "Lines of Equal
Elevation of Water In Wells, Unconfined Aquifer, San Joaquin Valley,
Spring 1985
State of California Department of Water ResourCes, Fall 1986, "Lines of Equal
Elevation of Water In Wells, Unconfined Aquifer, San Joaquin Valley,
Fall 1986"
Driscoll, Fletcher G., 1986, Groundwater and Wells; Johnson Division, St. Paul,
Minnesota
Hem, Stephen C. and Melancon, Susan M., 1986, Vadose Zone Modeling of
Organic Pollutants; Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan
Hill, Mary, 1975, Geology of the Sierra Nevada; University of California Press,
Berkeley, California.
Hornbeck, David, 1983, California Patterns. A Geographical and Historical Atlas;
Mayfield Publishing Co., Palo Alto, California
Howard, Arthur D., 1979, Geologic History of Middle California; University of
California Press, Berkeley, California
Kern County Water Agency Report, District No. 4
Schwendeman, T.G. and Wilcox, H.K., 1987, Underground Storage Systems;
Lewis Publishers, Inc., Michigan
Vershueren, Karel, 1983, Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic
Chemicals: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid
Pacific Region, 1987, Annual Water Supply Report, 1986
United States Department of Health and Human Seevices, Pubic Health Service,
Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, 1985, NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards: U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
GARY J. WICKS
Lgcncy Director
~lkerafleld, CA ~I
="""' R E S O U R C E E N T A O E N C Y AU$ l 0 1989
DEPARTM~? ~:~~I'~NMENTAL EXEC. OFF, CE
Aug'usc 2, 1989
James B. L~dsey
215 E. 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
Subject: I,ocarion: 215 i. 21st S~., Bake=afield, ~ 93305
~o~ .Mr Pepsi Col~Dr Pepper
Pe~t · 150039
Dear Mr. LL,'tdsey:
Our Department kas reviewed the site characterization workplan submitted by Krazan &
Associates, Inc. The workplan addressing soil sampling constituents to be analyzed, and Health
and Safety consideration are acceprable for' ~vest~garion of extent of contaminarion present ac
tlc. is former underground tank site.
Please notify rkis office 24-48 hours prior to retrieving soil samples. Within thirty (30)
days after sampling and laboratory analyses are completed, a comprehensive report describing
extent of r2te site contamination faust be submixed to ri, is office for review. The report must
describe remedial altemarlves available, and professional recommendations for the most feasible
one.
If you have any questions or desire farther information you may contact me at (805) 861-
3636.
Sh'~cerely,
'I /" "
'~'""-';/'// u,-~'/;'
Flora Darling, R.E.H.S.
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Hazardous Materials Management Program
FD:cd
floraklindscy, lct
ProjectE89_172 Pepsi Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company Boring No. ~-]
DATE DRILLED: 8/23/89 TYPE OF BORING: 4 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
HOLEELEV: Approx. 405 ft.' above GROUNDWATER LEVEL: 185-205 feet below LOGGEDBY: RH
mean sea level grade
= ~ ~. ~ ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION
Fill
- / Fine to.medium sandy SILT with minor fine gravel (ML);. medium brown,
slightly moist, drills easy
5-- XX 6
10_ XX 4 Fine to medium sandy SILT (ML.); slightly moist, drills easy
- Dark greyish-green with black streaks
15-- XX 50 Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM); light green-grey, slightly moist,
drills easy
20-- XX 50 Light greyish-white in color
_ Fine to coarse SAND (SW); light greyish-tan, slightly moist, drills
easy
25- XX 50
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet 1 of 3
Project Pepsi . Pepper Bottling Company Boring No. r'~
E89-172
8/23/89 4 1/4" I.D. Hol low Stem
DATE DRILLED: TYPE OF BORING:
HOLEELEV: Approx' 405 ft. above GROUNDWATERL£VEL~ 185-205 feet below kOGGEDBY: RH
mean sea level grade
~ = c~ ~_ SOIL DESCRIPTION
30--
XX 46 with fine gravel below 30 feet
35-- XX 40
- Fine sandy SILT (ML,); dark brown, moist, drills easy
40-- XX 42
_ Fine to coarse SAND (SW); light grey/tan, slightly moist, drills
easy
45-- XX 30
m
_ Fine sandy SIL,T (ML); light orange brown, moist, drills firm
50-- XX 30
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet 2 of. 3
ProjectE89_172 Pepsi Pepper Bottl i ng Company' Boring No. ~-~
DATE DRILLED: 8/23/89 TYPE OF BORING: 4 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
HOLE ELEV: Approx. 405 ft. above
mean sea level GROUNDWATER LEVEL: 185-205 feet below LOGG~DSY: RH
grade
~ ~ ~ ~ ~- SOIL DESCRIPTION
55-- XX 30 No sand, damp
60_ XX 4
65-- XX 0 fine to coarse sandy silt, orange in color, slightly moist
70-- XX 0
- BOTTOM OF BORING
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet 3 of 3
Project Pepsi Col Pepper Bottling Company Boring.No. r~
E89-172
I i
41/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
DATE DRILLED: 8/24/89 TYPE OF BORING:
· 185-205 feet below .LOGGEDBY: RH
HOLE ELEV:meanApprOX'sea4051evelft' above GROUNDWATER LEVEL: grade
'~ ~ ~ :: SOIL DESCRIPTION
Fill
_ / Fine to medium sandy SIL,~ with fine gravel to 2 feet (ML,); medium-
brown, moist, drills easy
5 -- XX 30
lO-- xx o
- Fine sandy SZL,T (ML.); medium brown, slightly moist, drills easy
15-- XX 0
20-- XX 0
- Fine to coarse SAND (SW); light greyish-tan, damp, drills easy
25-- XX 0
KI:L~.ZAN & ASSOCIATES. INC. Sheet 1 of 3
Project Pepsi Co r. Pepper Bottling Company BoringNo.
E89-172
4 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
DATE DRILLED: TYPE OF BORING:
185-205 feet below LOGGEDBY: RH
HOLE ELEV:meanApprOX'sea4051evelft, above GROUNDWATER LEVEL: grade
:~- ~ -~ -~~ : SOIL DESCRIPTION
30 -- XX 8
35-- XX 13
Fine sandy SILT (ML,); medium brown, moist, drills easy
40-- XX 1
45-- XX 48 Fine to coarse SAND (SW); light greenish-grey, slightly moist, drills
easy
- Fine to medium sandy SILT (ML,); light brown, moist, drills slightly
fi rm
50-- XX 11
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet 2 , of 3
ProjectE89_172 Pepsi Co r. Pepper Bottling Company BoringNo. ~'~
DATE DRILLED: 8/24/89 TYPE OF BORING: 4 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
HOLEELEV: ApprOx' 405 ft. above GROUNDWATER LEVEL: 185-205 feet below LOGGEDBY: RH
mean sea level grade
~ -~ SOIL DESCRIPTION
55-- XX 0 No sand, orange brown
60 _ XX 0
- BOTTOM OF BORING
KP, AZAN & ASSOCIATES. INC. Sheet~3 of 3
ProjectE89._ 172 Pepsi Pepper Bottl i ng Company 'Boring No.
8/24/89 4 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
DATE DRILLED: TYPE OF BORING:
HOLEELEV: Approx. 405 ft. above GROUNDWATERLEVEI' 185-205 feet below LOGGEDBY: RH
mean sea level grade
= o ~.. ~- SOIL DESCRIPTION
Fi11
tine to medium sandy SIL.T (HL.); medium brown, moist, drills easy
5 -- XX 56
10-- XX 2
- Fine to medium sandy SIL.T (ML.); medium brown, slightly moist, drills
· easy
15-- XX 1..
- Fine to coarse SAND (SW); medium brown, slightly moist, drills easy
2O-- XX 0
25-- XX 0
KFL~kZ.~N & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet 1 of 3
Project Pepsi Pepper Bottling Company Boring No. ~-]
E89-172
8/24/89 4 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
DATE DRILLED: TYPE OF BORING:
Approx. 405 ft. above 185-205 feet below LOGGEDBY: RH
HOLE ELEV:
mean sea level GROUNDWATER LEVEL: grade
--' m ==- m SOIL DESCRIPTION
30 -- XX 0
35 _ XX 1
_ Fine sandy SILT (ML,); medium brown, slightly moist, drills easy
40 -- XX 28
_ Fine to coarse SAND (SW); tan, slightly moist, drills easy
45-- XX 11
- Fine to medium sandy SILT (ML,); orange brown, moist, drills easy
50-- XX 40
KP, AZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet 2 of 3
Project
Pepsi Col~'713r. Pepper Bottling Company Boring No. ~
E89-172
I- I
8/24/89 TYPE OF BORING: 41/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
DATE DRILLED:
185-205 feet below LOGGEDBY: RH
HOLE ELEV:meanApprOX'sea4051evelft' above GROUNDWATER LEVEI~ grade
~- ~ = =_ c~ SOIL DESCRIPTION
55-- XX 70
50 -- XX 0
65-- XX 0
- BOTTOM OF BORING
KFL~ZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet 3 of 3
Project Pepsi . Pepper Bottling. Company Bodng No. ~
E89-172
I J
DATEDR~LL~D: 8/25/89 TYPE OF BORING: 4 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
HOLEELEV: Approx. 405 ft. above GROUNDWATERLEVEL:~185-205 feet below LOGGEDBY: RH
mean sea level gr-~-de
~' ~ = ~ c~ SOIL DESCRIPTION
Asphaltic Concrete
Fine to medium sandy SILT (ML,); medium brown, moist, drills easy
5 - XX 0
10-- XX 0
15-- XX 0
- Fine to coarse SAND SW); tan, slightly moist, drills easy
20-- XX 0
25-- XX 0
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. . Sheet 1 of 2
Pepsi Corr. Pepper Bottling Company Boring No.
Project
E89-172
4 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
DATE DRILLED: 8/25/89 TYPE OF BORING:
HOLEELEV: Approx. 405 ft. above GROUNDWATER LEVEL: 185-205 feet below LOGGEDBY' EH
mean sea level grade
--' ~ ~ =- ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION
- '~E
30-- XX 0 .Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM); orange brown, slightly moist, drills
easy
- Fine to coarse SAND (SW); light tan, slightly moist, drills easy
35 ~ ×× 0
Fine sandy SILT (ML); medium brown, moist, drills easy
40-- XX 0
45-- XX 0
- BOTTOM OF BORING
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet 2 of 2
Project Pepsi ColOr. Pepper Bottling Company Boring No. ~
E89-172
4 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
DATE DRILLED: 8/24/89 TYPE OF BORING:
LEVEL 185-205 feet below
HOLEELEV: Approx. 405 ft. above GROUNDWATER LOGGEDBY: RH
mean sea level :gr~
--'~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION
- Asphaltic Concrete
- Fine to medium sandy SIL,T (ML,); medium brown, moist, drills easy
5 -- XX 0
lO-- XX 0
15-- XX 0
- Fine to coarse SAND (SW); light tan, damp, drills easy
20-- XX 0
25-~ XX 0
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet 1 of 3
ProjectE89_172 Pepsi . Pepper Bottling. Company Boring No. ~
.... DATE DRILLED: 8/24/89 TYPE OF BORING: 4 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
HOLEELEV: Approx. 405 ft. above GROUNDWATER LEVEL: 185-205 feet below LOGGEDBY: RH
mean sea level grade
~ ~ ~. ~E · SOIL DESCRIPTION
55-- XX 8 Fine to coarse SAND (SW); tan, damp, drills easy
XX 0 SIL,T (ML,); medium brown, slightly moist, drills firm
65-- XX 0
- BOTTOM OF BORING
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet 3 of 3
i Project Pepsi . Pepper Bottling Company Boring. No. F~
E89-172
I I
8/24/89 4 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
. · DATE DRILLED: TYPE OF BORING:
HOLEELEV: Approx. 405 Hr, above GROUNDWATER LEVEL: 185-205 Heet below LOGGEDBY: EH
mean sea level grade
__- ~ = = m SOIL DESCRIPTION
30 -- XX 0
35-- XX 0 Fine gravel below 35 feet
- Fine to medium sandy SIL,T (ML,); light brown, moist, drills easy
40-- XX 2
_ Fine'to coarse SAND (SW); medium brown, moist, drills easy
45-- XX 54
Fine sandy SILT (ML); medium brown, moist, drills firm
50-- XX 52
2 3 )
K~ZAN &ASSOCIATES, INC, Sheet of__
Project Pepsi ColOr. Pepper Bottling Company Boring No.
E89-172
DATE DRILLED: 8/25/89 i~fPE OF BORiNG: 4 1/4". I.D. Hollow Stem
HOLEELEV: Approx. 405 ft. above GROUNDVVATERLEVEI' 185-205 feet below LOGGEDBY: RH
mean sea level grade
~ ~ ~ c~ SOIL DESCRIPTION
Asphaltic Concrete
Fine to medium sandy SIL.T (ML); medium brown, moist, drills easy
5 -- XX 0
10-- ×× 0
15-- XX 0
Fine to coarse SAND (SW); tan, damp, drills easy
20--
25--
XX 0
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet 1 of 2
Project Pepsi . Pepper Bottling Company Boring.. No. ~
E89-172
I I
4 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
DATE DRILLED: 8/25/89 TYPE OF BORING:
'HOLEELEV: Approx. 405 ft. above GROUNDWATER LEVEL: 185-205 feet below LOGGEDBY: RH
mean sea level grade
~' - SOIL DESCRIPTION
30-- XX 0 Fine to medium sandy SIbT (ML,); medium brown, moist, drills easy
_ Fine to coarse SAND (SW); tan, slightly moist, drills easy
35 -- xx 0
_ SIL, T (ML,); orange brown, moist, drills firm
40-- XX 0
- Fine to coarse SAND (SW); light tan, damp, drills easy
45-- XX 0
- BOTTOM OF BORING
2 2
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet ~ of~ :
Project Pepsi Co~Dr. Pepper Bottling Company BoringNo. ~-1
E89-172
8/28/89 4 1/4" I.D. Hol low Stem
DATE DRILLED: TYPE OF BORING:
HOLE ELEV: Approx. 405 ft. above GROUNDWATER LEVEL: 185-205 feet below LOGGED BY: EH
mean sea level grade
,T -~ = ~ o SOIL DESCRIPTION
~ o ~
_ 2" Asphaltic Concrete
_ Fine to medium sandy SIL.T (ML); medium brown, slightly moist, drills
easy
5-- XX 0
10-- XX 0
15-- XX 0 Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM); medium brown, slightly moist,
drills easy
2O-- XX 0
25-- XX 0 Fine to coarse SAND (SW); light tan, slightly moist, drills easy
1 2
KIL~.ZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet ~ of
ProjectE89_172 Pepsi . Pepper Bottling Company · BoringNo. ~
DATE DRILLED: 8/28/89 TYPE OF BORING: 4 1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem
HOLEELEV: Approx. 405 ft. above GROUNDWATER LEVEL: 185-205 feet below LOGGEDBY: RH
mean sea level grade'
:' ~: ~ ~.'"' SOIL DESCRIPTION
30-- XX 0 ,
35-- XX 0
Fine to medium sandy SILT (ML,); orange brown, slightly moist, drills
- fi rm
40-- XX 0
45-- XX 0 Orange brown silt
BOTTOM OF BORING
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sheet 2 of 2
£NVIRONM£NTA£
L/NBO RATO RI ES, INC.
PETROLEUM J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
-(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 06-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: (~ynt?Lia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-7
Sample Desc: ~ES89-172
~0230 B2 @ 30' 8/24/89 @ 8:15
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COSLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Minimum
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ' ug/g 0.11 0.02
Et~hyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected O. 02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrc~arh~r,-~ ug/g 2320.00 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.N.S.L.U.F. T Man~l Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter -Basis
Cormments:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Q~antification of petrole~r~
hydrocarbor~ utilizir~ a diesel stmad~rd as outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petroleum ?~drocarbons are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
ENVIRONMENTAL -
LABORATORIES, INO.
PETROLEU¥ J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 06-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cyntkia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-9
Sample Desc: $ES89-172
$0255 B2 @ 55' 8/24/89 @ 8:55
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ T_J~: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Minimum
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected O. 02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected O. 02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.N.S.L.U.F. T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituen~.s by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter B~sis
Comments:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Q~/~tifir~tion of petrole~.
hydrocarbons utilizing a diesel stand.~-d as outlined by the
C~lifornia D.O.H.S. The petrole~ hydrocarbons are in addition
to the-constituents sr~ecifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
,J~. ,~3." E~lin Analyst
· ENVIRONMENTAL
PETROLEUM J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan ar,~ Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 06-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cy~thia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-8
S~mple Desc: ~ES89-172
~0245 B2 @ 45' 8/24/89 @ 8:40
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Mini~amt~
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g 0.89 0.02
Toluene ug/g 1.26 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g 1.03 0.02
p-X¥1ene ug/g 1.27 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g 2.33 0.02
o-X¥1ene ug/g 1.04 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ug/g 13900.00 10.00
TEST M~OD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S. L.U.F. T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter B~sis
Continents:
TOTAL ~ETROLELTM HYDROCARBONS: Q.~antific~tion of petrole~a
hydro, arbores utilizing a diesel st~d=~rd as outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petroleum ?~drc~arbor~ ,~re in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
~/J .Y/Ji E~lin Analyst
ENVIRONMENTAL
LABORATORIES, INC.
PETROLEUM J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petrole~ Hydrocarhor~s
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 08-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-10 ~
S~ple Desc: $ES89-172
$0260 B2 @ 60' 8/24/89 ~ 9:05
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: , COMPLETED:
'24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 O1-Sep-89
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Cons tituent Units Resul ts Level
Benzene u~/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected O. 02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydr¢~arbons ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TFH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F.T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
Corr~ents:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Qu,~tification of petrole~r~
hydrocarbons utilizing a diesel standard as outlined by the
Califorr~ia D.O.H.S. The petrole~ ?~droca~-bons are in addition
to the cor,-~tituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
~. ~. ~lin Analyst
~NVIRONMENTAL
LABORATORIES, IN(D.
/~ETROLE[/¥ J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Kr.~zan and Associates Date. of
4818 E Shields Report: 08-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93728
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 8888-11
Sa~le Desc: $ES89-172
$0310 B3 @ 10' 8/24/89 @ 10:40
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: PM)MPLETED:
24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Mini~zf~
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Cons ti tuent Uni ts Resul ts Level
Benzene ~u~/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xy!ene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-Xylene u~/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected O. 02
Total Pet.
.Wcvdrocark,ons ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F.T -Manual Method
( ~Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter B~sis
Co~n~_nts:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROC.~BONS: Qu.~tification of petrole~,
?~;droc=~rkons utilizing a diesel star~i~rd as outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petrole~ ?,~drc~..~'bor~s are in addition
to the cor~tituents s~ecifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
Analyst
LABORATORIES, INO.
PETROLEU¥ J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petrole~ Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4818 E Shields Report: 08-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93728
Attention: Cy~t?~a Wagoner
Lab No.: 8888-12
S~ple Desc: $ES89-172
$0325 B3 @ 25' 8/24/89 @ 10:55
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
24-Aug-89 $0-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Mir~imum
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Result~ Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Etb~l Benzene u~/g none detected 0.02
p-X¥1ene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-X~vlene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydr~arbor~s ug/g none detected 10. O0
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F. T Msnual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual cormtituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter B~sis
Comments:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Q~ntification of petrole~a
hydrocarbons utilizir~g a diesel start -dard as outlined by the
Califorr~ia D.O.H.S. 17~e petroleu3r~ hydrc~rbons are in addition
to the constit~ents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. $102
Analyst
E'N¥1RONUENTAL
LABORATORIES, INC.
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
PETROLEUM
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
?etroleum Hydr~Darbo~
<SOIL)
Krazan and' Ass~2iates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 06-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-13
San~le Desc: ~ES89-172
~0340 B3 @ 40' 8/24/89 @ 11:10
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LF]B: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Resul ts Level
Benzene ug/g O. 39 O. 02
Toluene ug/g 0.57 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g 0.56 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g 1.19 0.02
m-Xylene . ug/g 1.33 O. 02
o-Y~'lene ug/g O. 62 O. 02
Total Pet.
Hych-ocarbor,.~. ug/g 1030.00 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by. D.O.M.S.L.U.F. T -Manual Methyl
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
Cormu~nts:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: ~,~tification of I~trole~r~
hydrocar[~ns utilizir~ a diesel standard ~ outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petroleum ?vdr~car~Dr~s are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
Califozmia D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
~NVIRONYENT'A£
LABORATORIES, INC.
i~ETROLEU# J.J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 06-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: C~thia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-14
Sample Desc': ~ES89-172
~0355 ~3 @ 55' 8/24/89 @ 11:30
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ L&B: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89 ·
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g 2.72 0.02
Toluene ug/g 3.22 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g 1.79 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g 2.27 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g 4.26 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g 1.93 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons u~_~g 34600.00 10.00
TEST t~fHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F. T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter B~.sis
Cor~nts:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCAR~)NS: ~tification of petrole~,
hydrocarbons utilizir~g a diesel st~/ldard as outlined by the
Califorraia D.O.H.S. · The petz~letu~ ?~drocarbons are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
By ~~J. ~lin Analyst
ENVIRONt, fENTAL
LABORATORIES, INC.
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
PETROLEUM
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Pe%roleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 06-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-15
Sample Desc: ~ES89-172
$0360 B3 @ 60' 8/24/89 @ 11:37
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-~g-89 01-Sep-89
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected. 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xytene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbor~ ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST Y~THOD: TFH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F. T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual cor~tituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter -Basis
Corf~e_nts:
TOTAL PETROLE[~ HYDROCARBONS: Q~ntification of petrole~,
hydrocarbons utilizing a diesel stand~rd as outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petrole,~ ?vdrocarbor~ are in addition
tr~ the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
E~/VIRONYENTAL
LABORATORIES, INO.
I~ETROLEU~I J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 06-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: (~2r~t?~a Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-16
Sample £~sc: ~ES89-172
~0365 B3 @ 65' 8/24/89 @ 11:45
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Minimum
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected O. 02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected O. 02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected O. 02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbor~s ug/g none detected 10. O0
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F.T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual cor, stituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter B~sis
Corr;r~nts:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Qa.=_r. tification of petrole~l
hydrocarbons utilizing a diesel star,~mrd as outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petrOle~a ?vdr~-~rh~ms are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
Califozmia D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
ENVIRONMENTAL
lABORATORIES. INC.
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
' PETROLEUM
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-49'1'1
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates : Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 06-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cyr:tkia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-17
S=~mp!e Desc: .~ES89-172
~0515 B5 @ 15' 8/24/89 @ 14:30
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ k~B: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 3I-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Minin~m
Reporting AnalMsis Reporting
Cons ti tuent Uni ts Resul ts Leve 1
Benzene ug/g none detected O. 02
Toluene ug/g none detected O. 02
Et~v! Benzene ug/g none detected O. 02
p-X¥1ene ug/g none detected O. 02
m-Xy!ene ug/g none detected O. 02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected O. 02
Total Pet.
Hydrc~:arbor,.~ ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S. L.U.F. T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide F~xtraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
Co~mnents:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Q~tification of petrole~r~
hydrocarboras utilizing a diesel s%=~n~~d as outlined by the
Califoz~ia D.O.H.S. T~ pe_trole~ ~ck-¢~arbons sm~e in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
~lifornia D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
A~lyst
~NVIt~ONI4ENT4L
LABORATORIES, INC.
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
PETROLEU¥
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Kr ~azan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Atten%ion: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-18
Sample Dasc: ~ES89-172
$0530 B5 @ 30' 8/24/89 @ 14:45
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
'24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Minimum
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-X¥1ene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-X¥1ene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F.T M~zal Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual cor,-~tituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
Cor~.gents:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Quantification of petrole~,
hydrocarbons utilizir~ a diesel st~¢l~rd as outlined by the
C~lifornia D.O.H.S. The petrole~ hydrocarhorm are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. $102
2. ~. Eg~in Analyst
ENVIRONMENTAL
LABO RATORIFS, INC.
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
PETROLEUM
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-19
Sample Desc: ~ES89-172
~0545 B5 @ 45' 8/24/89 @ 15:03
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
'24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Minimum
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g 0.89 0.02
Toluene ug/g 1.33 0.02
Eth~l Benzene ug/g 1.12 0.02
p-Xy!ene ug/g 1.44 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g 2.62 0.02
o-Xy!ene ug/g 1.15 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ug/g 18300.00 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F. T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
CoH~nts:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCAR~)NS: Quantification of petrole~,
hydrocarbons utilizir~ a diesel standard as outlined by t?~
California D.O.H.S. The petrole~, hydrocarbons are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
~3..~. E~in - Analyst
ENWRONt~ENT~L
LABORATORIES, INC.
PETROLEUM J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cyntkia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-20
Sample Desc: ~ES89-t72
~0560 B5 @ 60' 8/24/89 @ 15:40
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
OOLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
'24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
~_i.~.r~
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Resul~ Level
Benzene ug/'g none detected O. 02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected O. 02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ug/g none detected 10. O0
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel ?~ D. Cl. H.S.L.U.F. T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
Cor[~nts:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Quantification of petroleum
hydrocarbons utilizir~g a diesel standard as c3atlined by the
.California D.O.H.S. The petroleum ?~drc~arbons are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
ENVIRONMENTAL
LABORATORIES, INO.
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
PETROLEUM
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-21
Sample Desc: $ES89-172
~0565 BS @ 65' 8/24/89 @ 15:45
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
'24-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Se~,-89
Minim~.
Reporting AnalMsis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene u~/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ,/g/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F. T Msnual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual cormti~ents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter B~sis
Corr~nents:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: ~z~ntification of petrole~,
?~drocarbons utilizir~ a diesel standard &s outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petrole,am hyd~rbons are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
j:Y..~/J. ~lin Analyst
ENVIRONMENTAL
LABORATORIES, INC.
J. J. EGL. IN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
PETROLEUM
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and 'Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-22
Sample I)esc: ~ES89-172
$0410 B4 @ 10' 8/25/89 @ 9:40
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRA(~ED: COMPLETED:
~25-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 O1-Sep-89
Minimt~,
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Cons tituent Units Resul ts Level
Benzene ug/g none detected O. 02
Toluene ug/g none detected O. 02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-X¥1ene ug/g none detected O. 02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected O. 02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons u~g none detected 10. O0
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F. T Msmual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dz7 Matter Basis
ComTents:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Quantification of petrole~f~
hydrocarbons utilizir~ a diesel s%~nd_~rd as outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The ~trole~n hydrocar~r,-~ are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
,//J ~/J..~lin Analyst
ENVIRONMENTAL
I ABORATORIES, INC.
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
PETROLEUM
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Skields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No. :. 6688-23
Sample Desc: ~ES89-172
$0425 B4 @ 25' 8/25/89 @ 9:55
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMFLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
· 25-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Minimm.
Reporting Analysis Reportin~
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xytene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbor~ u~g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F. T Man~zal Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual cormtiO~ents by
EPA '~+
n= ohod 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
Comments:
TOTAL PETROLE~ HYDROCARBONS: Quantification of petrole~n
hydrocarbons utilizir~ a diesel stang~rd ,~s outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petrole~ ?~drr~carbons are in addition
to the constif3nents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. C~rt. $102
~. ~. Analyst
ENVIRONMENTAL
LABO RATO RI F.?,, INC.
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
PETROLEUM
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-24 ·
S~ple Desc: ~ES89-172
~0440 B4 @ 40' 8/25/89 @ 10:08
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: C/XMPLETED:
· 25-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Cons tituent Units Resul ts Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-x¥1ene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-X¥1ene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel ~y D.O.H.S.L.U.F.T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter B~sis
Cor=~nts:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Qzantifir~tion of petroleum
hydrocarbons utilizir~ a diesel standard as outlined by t?~
California D.O.H.S. The petrole~ ?~ckv. r~arbor,s are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. C~rt. $102
~/j x~j. ~lin' Ar-~lyst
ENVIRONAiENTAL
LABORATORIES, INC.
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
PETROLEUM
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields. Report:. 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-25
Sample Desc: ~ES89-172
~0445 B4 @ 45' 8/25/89 @ 10:12
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: OOMPLETED:
· 25-~g-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Cons tituent Units Resul ts Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Et~lvl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Y~lene ug/g none detected 0.02
r~Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TFH for Diesel by D.O.H. $. L.U.F. T Manual Method
(-Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual cormti~aents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter B~sis
Co~=~nts:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDe)CARBONS: Q~antification of petrole~
hydrocarbons utilizir~g a diesel st~g~rd as outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. /t~e petrote~xm ?vdr¢~rhor,.~ are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
ENVIRONMENTAL
lABORATORIES. INC.
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
PETROLEUM
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynt?aia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-26
S~ple Desc: #ES89-172
$0610 B6 @ t0' 8/25/89 @ 11:10
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
· 25-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Minin~ur~
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TFH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F. T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter B~sis
Comnents:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Quantification of petroleum.
hydrocarbons utilizing a diesel standard as outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petroleum hydrocarbons are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
ENVIRONMENTAL
LABORATORIES, INC.
PETROLEU¥ d' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petrole~a Hydro~bons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4818 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93728
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: ,6688-27
S~ple Desc: $ES89-172
~0625 B6 @ 25' 8/25/89 @ 11:23
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
'25-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0 02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0 02
~th~l ~enzene ug/g none detected 0 02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected 0 02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected 0 02
o-Xylene ug/g none det. ected 0 02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D,0,H,S. L,U.F.T M~ual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
Cor~ents:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Quantification of petrole~t~
?vdrocarbor,-~ utilizir~g a diesel standard as outlined by t?~
California D.O.H.S. The petroleuza ?~drc~carboras ~ in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. C~rt. ~102
By f/~ ' E~in Analyst
E'NVIRONYENTAL
LABORATORIES, INC.
P~ROLEU~ J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-28
Saw~le Desc: $ES89-172
#0640 B6 @ 40' 8/25/89 @ 11:35
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
'25-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Minimum
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene u~/g none detected 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F.T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter B~sis
Corr~ents:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Quantification of petrole~.
hydrocarbons utilizi~ a diesel standard as outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petroleu~n ?~drocarborm az~ in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. $102
J~. ~. ~n Analyst
ENVIRONMENTAL
LABORATORIES, INC.
PETROLEUM J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4818 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93728
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner.
Lab No.' 8888-29
Sample Desc: $ES89-172
$0845 B6 @ 45' 8/25/89 @ 11:40
DATE SAMPLE DATE'SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
'25-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Mininum
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Cons ti tuent Uni ts Resu 1 ts Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TFH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F.T Man, zal Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individ,aal constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
Cormorants:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: f~antification of petrole~
hydrocarbor-~ utilizing a diesel stang~rd as outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petrole~n ?~drc~arbons are in addition
to the cor,-~tituents specifically def~ed.
California D.O.H.S. C~rt. $102
,~/J.~J..~lin Analyst
£NVIRONI~£NTAL
LABORATORIES, INC.
PETROLEUM J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petrole~n Hydrocarbons
(SO~L)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-30
Sample Desc: #ES89-172
~0710 B7 @ 10' 8/28/89 @ 10:30
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: PECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: C/)MPLETED:
· 28-Augz89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Minim~n
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g none de~ected 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
HydrocarboNs 'ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: ~ for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F. T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide W. xtraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter Bmsis
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Quantification of petrole~,
hydrocarbons utilizing a diesel standard as outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petroleum hydro~r~Dns are in addition
tr3 the cor~tituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
~NVIRON~NTAL
LABORATORIES, INC.
PETROLEUM J* J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-31
S~r~01e Desc: $ES89-172
$0725 B7 @ 25' 8/28/89 @ 10:47
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
'28-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 O1-Sep-89
Minimum
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ~%g/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ug/g r~one detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: ~ for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F. T H~nual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual c~nstituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter B~sis
Cor~n~nts:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Qm~ntification of petrole~rJ
hydrocarbons utilizing a diesel standard as outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petrole~ ?~/drocar~ns are in addition
to the constituents specificmlly defined.
California D.O.H.S. C~rt. ~102
J/J/~J. E~Iin Analyst
ENVIRONMENTAL
LABORATORIES, INO.
PETROLEUM J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petrole~a Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner
Lab No.: 6688-32
Sample Desc: ~ES89-172
~0740 B7 @ 40' 8/28/89 @ 11:10
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
'28-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 31-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xy!ene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
HycLrocarbons ug/g none deta~ted 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D. O,H. S. L.U.F. T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020,
Dry Matter Basis
Co~n~nts:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Quantification of petrole~.
hydrocarbons utilizir~g a diesel standa~r] as outlined by the
· California D.O.H.S. The petrole~r~ ?~vd~v~r~rm are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
~J.~. E~in An~ulyst
ENVIRONMENTAL
LABORATORIES, IN(].
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
PETROLEUM
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
Krazan and Associates Date of
4816 E Shields Report: 05-Sep-89
Fresno, CA 93726
Attention: Cynt~ia Wag. oner
Lab No.: 6688-33
S~rple Desc: $ES89-172
~0745 B7 @ 45' 8/28/89 @ 11:15
DATE SAMPLE .DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
C~LLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: QDMPLETED:
'28-Aug-89 30-Aug-89 SI-Aug-89 01-Sep-89
Minim~,
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Eth~l Benzene ug/g none detected 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g ' none detected 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02
Total Pet.
Hydrocar~x~ns ug/g none detected 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F.T 'Manual Method
(Ca~-bon Disulfide Extraction). Individual cor,-~tituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter B~sis
Corrrnents:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDS~CARBONS: Quantification of petrole~,
hydrocarbons utilizing a diesel standard as outlined by the
California D.O.H.S. The petrole~n ~vdr~bons are in addition
to the constituents specifically defined.
Califorr~ia D.O.H.S. Cert. ~102
~l ,~"J.' ~lin Analyst
E~/V/RONYENTAL
I_/NBO RATO RIES, INC.
PETROL£U¥ J' J' EGUN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
BTX/TPH DIESEL'
Quality Control Data
Krazan and Associates BTX Spike ID: 6750-12
4816 E Shields TFH Spike ID: 6693-2
Fresno, CA 93726 Analysis Date: 01-Sep-89
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner Ur~its: ug/g
Quality C~0ntrol
for Lab Nos: 6688-1, 6688-3, 6688-5, 6688-7, 6688-9
6688-11, 6688-13, 6688-15, 6688-17
One sample in twenty is selected as a representative matrix which is
spiked. The percentage recovery (% Rec) of the spike is a relative
measure of the accuz-acy of the analysis. The comparison of the spike
with a duplicate spike is a r~.~sure of the relative precision of the
analysis.
Conc. C~nc. Dup
in Spike Added to Spike~ Spike Spike
Constituent ~ple Spike % Rec % Rec RPI)
Benzene 0.00 5.01 96.12 97.91 1.85
Toluene 0.00 5.03 100.46 102.28 1.80
Ethyl Benzene 0.00 5.09 92.03 93.36 1.43
p-Xylene 0.00 5.02 95.11 96.47 1.42
m-Xylene 0.00 5.11 96.63 98.31 1.72
o-Xylene 0.00 5.03 97.07 98.57 1.53
TPH Diesel 0.00 100.01 96.92 103.25 6.32
QC Comments:
Spiked Sa~le Concentration - ?~rple ~ncentration
% Recovery = X 100
(concentration of Spike)
RPD (Relative Percent Difference) =
Sp'-zked Sample Conc.- Spiked Duplicate Sample Conc.
X 100
(Average Concentration of Spikes)
I ABORATORIES, INC.
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
P~ROLEU~
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Quality Control Data
Krazan and Associates BTX Spike ID: 6750-12
4816 E Shields TPH Spike ID: 6693-1
Fresno, CA 93726 Analysis Date: 01-Sep-89
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner Units: ug/g
Quality Control
for Lab Nos: 6688-2, 6688-4, 6688-6, 6688-8, 6688-10
6688-12, 6688-14, 6688-16
Ck~e sample in twenty is selected as a representative matrix which is
spiked. The percentage recovery (% Rec) of the spike is a relative
measure of the accuracy of the analysis. The comparison of the spike
with a duplicate spike is a rr~asure of the relative precision of the
analysis.
C~nc. Conc. Dup
in Spike Added to Spike Spike Spike
Constituent Sample Spike % Bec % Rec RPD
Ber~ene 0.00 5.01 96.12 97.91 1.85
Toluene 0.00 5.03 100.46 102.28 1.80
Ethyl Benzene 0.00 5.09 92.03 93.36 1.43
p-~vlene 0.00 5.02 95.11 96.47 1.42
m-~lene 0.00 5.11 96.63 98.31 1.72
o-Y~lene 0.00 5.03 97.07 98.57 1.53
TPH Diesel 0.00 100.01 100.39 111.94 10.88
QC Corr~nts:
Spiked S~le. Conce_ntration - Sar~,le Concentration
% Recovery = X 100
(Concentration of Spike)
RPD (Relative Percent Difference) =
Spiked Sample Conc.- Spiked Duplicate Sample Conc.
X 100
(Average Concentration of Spikes)
ENVIRONMENTAL
LABORATORIES. INC.
PETROLEUM J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
BTX/TPH DIESEL
Quality Control Data
Krazan and Associates. BTX Spike ID: 6750-12
4816 E Shields TPH Spike ID: 6688-18
Fresno, CA 93726 Analysis Date: 01-Sep-89
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner ~3nits: ug/g
Quality Control
". for Lab Nos: 6688-18, 6688-20, 6688-22, 6688-24
6688-26, 6688-28, 6688-30, 6688-32
One sample in twenty is selected as a representative ~trix w~ch is
spiked. The percentage recovery (% Rec) of the spike is a relative
measure of the accttrac~ of the armlysis. The comparison of t?~ spike
with A duplicate spike is a treasure of the relative precision of the
analysis.
C~nc. Conc. Dup
in Spike Added to Spike Spike Spike
Constituent Sample Spike % Rec % Rec RPD
Ber,~.ene 0.00 5.01 96.12 97.91 1.85
Toluene 0.00 5 03 100.46 102.28 1.80
Et?~l Ber~ene 0'. 00 5 09 92.03 93.36 1.43
p-Xylene 0.00 5 02 95.11 96.47 1.42
m-Xylene 0.00 5 11 96.63 98.31 1.72
o-Xylene 0.00 5 03 97.07 98.57 1.53
TPH Diesel 0.00 100 01 102.43 100.54 1.86
QC Cormnents:
Spiked Scruple Concentration - S~le Concentration
% Recovery = X 100
(Concentration of Spike )
RPD Relative Percent Difference) =
Spiked Sample Conc. - Spiked Duplicate Sample Conc.
X 100
(Average Concentration of Spikes)
~NVIflONMENTAL
LABORATORIES, INC.
PETROLEUM J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Q~ality Control Data
Krazan and Associates BTX Spike ID: 6687-6
4816 E Shields TPH Spike ID: 6688-19
Fresno, CA 93726 Analysis Date: O1-Sep-89
Attention: Cynthia Wagoner Units: ug/g
Quality Control
for Lab Nos: 6688-19, 6688-21, 6688-23, 6688-25
6688-27, 6688-29, 6688-31, 6688-33
~e sample in twenty is selected as a representative ~trix wkich is
spiked. The percentage recovery (% Rec) of the spike is a relative
measure of the accuracy of the ,~alysis. The cor~arison of the spike
with a duplicate spike is a rrmasure of t?~ relative precision of the
analysis.
Conc. ~nc. Dup
in Spike Added to Spike Spike Spike
Constituent Sample Spike % Rec % Rec RPD
Benzene 0.00 5.01 88.46 96.01 8.19
Toluene 0.00 5.03 109.93 99.76 9.70
Ethyl Benzene 0.00 5.09 86.68 90.77 4.61
p-Xylene 0.00 5.02 88.67 93.76 5.58
m-Xylene 0.00 5.11 91.31 95.53 4.52
o-Xylene 0.00 5.03 89.88 95.78 6.36
TPH Diesel 0.00 100.01 102.62 102.21 0.40
QC Co~nts:
Spiked S~ple Concentration - S~ple C~ncentration
% Recovery = X 100
(C~ncentration of Spike)
RPD (Relative Percent Difference) =
Spiked Sample Conc.- Spiked Duplicate SampleConc.
X 100
(Average concentrationof Spikes)
BTX/TPH Diesel
~ EPA 625/8270-
=° EPA 524.2/8240
m EPA 504 EDB/DBCP
'~.'~,EPA 502.2/8010/8020 ,
~ EPA 503.1/8020
~ .
q ~PA 502.1/8010
"
, ~ .
~1~ ~ ~ '~'~
~ '~^6oszsoso . ~-'
--~ B TX/TPH Gas
PCB
EVA 625/8270
EPA 524.2/8240
EPA 504 EDBfDBCP
EPA 502.2/8010/8020
EPA 503.1/8020
EPA 502.1/8010
EPA 608/8080
BTX/TPH Gas
- PCB
~EPA 625/8270
~EPA 524.2/8240
~ EPA 504 EDB/DBCP
,5 .~, EPA 502.2/8010/8020
~ EPA 503.1/8020
.<
EPA 502.1/8010
0
~0 ~ ov~] ]v101(809)
S3,Nvg~o 3],IV]OA
~ SOINVgBO ~]IIVIOA
~ S~9'SNOSSV3OSOXH
INflfl~]Od '~d
~.,
GARY J. WICKS 2700'M Street, Suite 300
Agency Director Baker-field, CA 93301
(805) 861.3502 .. ,','":",:'i,'-.:':,~'-:.-. Telephone (805) 861-3636
.,' !~'.~i~'~?:~::~'~.)?~i~?~' . Telecopler (805) 881-3429
STEVE McCALLEY
D,,.c,o, R E S O U R C E M~}~.~A..G. ~M..'-E N T A G E N C Y
. :.,',~;.,~z/..~.'
DEPARTME~T.'OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HE~LTH~:'SERVICES
,.':.,:, ~ ';~;,~..~,. :~: .:...,: ~ ...
August 2, 1989
James B. Lindsey
215 E. 21st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
Subject: Location: 215 E. 21st St., Bakersfield, CA 93305
Known As: Pepsi Cola/Dr Pepper
Permit # 150039
Dear Mr. Lindsey: '.
Our Deparbnent has reviewed the site characterization workplan submitted by Krazan &
Associates, Inc. The workplan addressing soil' sampling constituents to 'be analyzed, and Health
and Safety consideration are acceptable for investigation of extent of contamination present at
this former underground tank site.
Please notify this office 24-4-8 hours prior to retrieving Soil.samples: Within thirty (30)
days after sampling and laboratory analyses are completed, a comprehensive report describing
extent of the site eontamination must be submitted to this office for review. The report must
describe remedial alternatives available, and professional recommendations for the most feasible
one.
If you have arty questions or desire further information you may contact me at (805) 861-
3636.
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Hazardous' Materials Management Program
FD:cd
flora\lindsey.let
"KRAZAN ASSOCIA ITES, INC.
Construction Testing and Inspection
Geotechnical Investigations ~
Environmental Engineering
Laboratory Soils Testing
Monitoring Wells
July 27, 1989 Project No. E89-172
WORK PLAN FOR SITE C~CTERIZATION TO DETERMINE
THE EXTENT OF PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS BENEATH A FORM'ER
UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE FACILITY
PEPSI-COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING COMPANY
215 EAST 21ST STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
On June 8, 1989, two 10,000 gallon underground fuel storage tanks, one dispenser island and the
associated underground piping were removed from the Pepsi- Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company
located at 215 East 21st Street in Bakersfield, California. As part of the removal process, soil samples
were obtained from beneath the tanks and dispenser island. Chemical analysis of these soil samples
detected the presence of petroleum fuel constituents in some of the samples. Concentrations of total
petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil samples ranged from non-detectable to 29,219 parts per million.
Based on these results, the Kern County Environmental Health Department has requested that the
extent of petroleum contamination in the soil beneath the site be determined. A site characterization is
now necessary to determine the lateral and vertical extent of the petroleum related contamination and
to determine if such contamination poses a hazard to groundwater resources.
SITE LOCATION
The Pepsi-Cola/Dr. Pepper Bottling Company is located at 215 East 21st Street in Bakersfield,
California. The site is on the south side of 21st Street between Sacramento and Sonora Streets. It is
bounded by Grove Street on the south. The property is described by Kern County Tax Assessor's Parcel
Number 016-130-14-004. The site is zoned for light manufacturing property. The East Side Canal flows
1/2 mile directly north of the project site. The Kern River is also located approximately 2 miles
Main Office: Fresno/Clovis · 3860 N. Winery · Fresno, California 93726 ° (209) 291-7337
Bakersfield (805) 393-2343 [] California (800) 233-5050 [] FAX (209) 291-5010
Project No. E89-172 Page No. 2
directly north of the project site. According to the Oil Center, California 7.5 minute quadrangle map
published by the U.S. Geological Survey, the site can be found in the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4
of Section 29, T29S, R28E, Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site facility consists of warehouse space, beverage packaging lines, office facilities, and
truck parking areas. The pair of underground fuel tanks and associated product piping and dispenser
were located south of the warehouse. The fueling facility consisted of one 10,000 gallon diesel and one
!1~.000 gallon gaso_line underground storage tanks. The tanks were buried side by side in a north-south
direction. The dispenser island was located approximately 6 feet south of the underground storage
tanks. An above-ground propane storage tank is located approximately 25 feet east of the underground
storage tanks. An..al!ey__~y_i.th ._city~.. e_.a_.~.e..m._e_n_ts f_o_r_ _s~e_.w._~er_anclnata~r~is located south of the warehouse~st
no~_r.t_h._o, f_t_h._e__u_n~erground tanks. An overhead powerline runs along the alley. Please refer to the site
plan for'the locations of these structures. The property is relatively level, however, a topographic
map of the area shows that land in the vicinity of the project site slopes gently to the southwest.
SITE HISTORY
On June 8, 1989, the two underground storage tanks, associated product piping and dispenser
island were removed from the site. During the tank removal, soil samples were obtained from the
bottom of the tank excavation and beneath the dispenser island. These soil samples were analyzed for
the presence and concentration of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and total petroleum
hydrocarbons.
The results of these analysis are presented in Table I as follows:
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
'- , Project No. E89-172
· ' Page No. 3
TABLE I
Concentration of Petroleum Constituents in Soils
Tank Removal Operations
Pepsi-Cola Dr Pepper Bottling Company
215 East 21st Street
Bakersfield, California
May 8, 1989
(Concentration of Petroleum Constituents are in Parts Per Million)
Ethyl-
Sample Location *Depth Benzene Toluene benzene **Xylenes ***TPH
West Tank-South End 12' 0.35 1.02 0.62 4.35
' West Tank-South End 16' 0.24 0.71 0.52 3.77
West Tank-North End 12' ND ND ND ND 113
West Tank-North End 16' 0.02 0.05 0.03 1.37 7,149
East Tank-South End 12' 0.95 4.55 0.80 6.32 389
East Tank-South End 16' 0.10 0.21 0.13 1.53 165
East Tank-North End 12' N D N D N D N D N D
East Tank-North End 16' 1.71 2.98 0.92 8.40 481
Dispenser Island 4' 12.42 136.22 61.48 648.20 1,875
· Dispenser Island 8' 24.50 287.94 116.488 815.86 10,069
* Depth = Depth of soil sample beneath ground surface.
** Xylenes = Sum of the three xylenes isomers.
*** TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons referenced to diesel for the west tank, and
referenced to gasoline for the east tank and dispenser island.
ND = Non-Detected at the detection limits noted on the certified analytical results.
Test Method - TPH for Gasoline and Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F.T. Manual Method. (Diesel by Carbon
Disulfide Extraction) Individual Constituents by EPA Method 8020. Analysis by B.C. Laboratories of
Bakersfield, California.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 4
GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC SETTINGS
Geology
Bakersfield is located in the so~athern portion of the San Joaquin Valley of California. The San
Joaquin Valley is a structural trough which makes up the southern'portion of the Great Central Valley
Geomorphic Province. Subsurface materials in the Southern San Joaquin Valley are composed
primarily of alluvium from Sierra Nevada source rock. The alluvium in the Bakersfield area is
derived from granitic Sierra Nevada source rocks deposited by the Kern River and its tributaries.
These sediments are generally fine to medium sand and silty sand, some of which contain gravel.
The U.S. Geological Survey Oil Center topographic quadrangle map shows the elevation of the
project site to be approximately 405 feet above mean sea level.
Hydrology
Bakersfield is within the San Joaquin Basin Hydrologic Study Area which is primarily an arid
to semi-arid environment. Within the Study Area, 39 groundwater basins and areas of potential
groundwater storage have been identified. More specifically, Bakersfield is within the 70 square mile
Kern County Basin. Below the project site there is believed to be two main aquifers separated by an
aquitard of regional extent. This clay aquitard is known as the 300 foot clay. The aquifer above the
clay layer is referred to as unconfined and that below the clay is called confined. The upper unconfined
aquifer is pumped extensively for agricultural use. The lower confined aquifer is used for both domestic
and agricultural purposes.
According to the Kern County Water Agency, report on water conditions in Improvement District
No. 4 the depth to groundwater beneath the project site during the time period of October 1983 to
September 1987 varied from 205 to 185 feet.
PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The purpose of the investigation would be to determine the lateral and vertical extent of
petroleum constituents in the area of t'he previously removed underground storage tanks and prodUct
island.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
: ~ Project No.' E89-172
Page No. 5
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The scope of the investigation would be limited to the a.dvancement of six to nine soil borings to
a depth of approximatoly 50 foot in the area of the previously removed fuel storage tanks. Soil
samples would be collected from all borings and selected samples would be submitted for chemical
analysis to determine the presence and concentration of petroleum constituents. In addition, two soil
borings will be placed in the area where the new underground storage tanks are to be located to
establish background levels of hydrocarbons.
METHODOLOGY
In order to accomplish the goals established in the purpose and scope of the investigation, the
following methods would be employed:
1. All necessary, permits would be obtained prior to the commencement of the investigation
at the project site. It should be understood that copies of this work/health and safety
plan would need to be released to the Kern County Environmental Health Department
in order to obtain approval to begin the field investigation.
2. A literature survey of published geologic and groundwater data in the vicinity of the
project would be conducted in an attempt to fully describe the conditions present.
3. The soil borings would be advanced by a Mobile Drill B-61, truck-mounted drill rig
utilizing hollow stem auger. Drilling fluids would not be used while advancing any of
the borings.
4. Boring 1 would be located at the fill end of the diesel tank which is the location where
the highest concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons was found from the initial
soil sampling. The purpose of this boring would be to determine the maximum vertical
extent and the maximum concentration of petroleum fuel in the soil.
5. Boring 2 would be located at the far north end of the tank excavation. This would be
the northern most boring. North of this boring is an overhead powerline, an alley with
sewer and water easements, and the warehouse building. The purpose of this boring
would be to determine how rapidly the concentrations decrease as they moved
laterally north from the center of the plume.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
., ut No. E89-172
Page No. 6
6. Boring 3 would be located in the dispenser island area. The purpose of this boring
would be to determine the vertical extent of petroleum constituents near the dispenser
islands. Also Boring 3 would be used to determine the lateral extent of petroleum
constituents originating from the diesel tank. It is expected that Boring 1, 2, and 3 will
encounter petroleum fuel at a shallow depth.
7. Borings 4, 5, and 6 would be used to define the lateral extent of the contaminant plume
originating from the diesel tanks and the product dispenser island. Lin the event that
these six borings are insufficient to determine the entire extent of the petroleum fuels in
the soils, u tE_?~hree additional borings would be placed at the discretion of the field
engineer or geologist pending approval of a Pepsi-Cola representative. Boring 4, 5, and
6 would be advanced to a minimum depth of 45 feet or approximately two times the
distance to the nearest contaminated boring. This would be done to insure that these
borings intersect the contaminated plume if it extends to those boring locations.
8. Borings 7 and 8 would be advanced in the area of the new underground storage tanks
and would be used to determine background levels of fuel hydrocarbons in the area.
9. Soil samples would be obtained in each boring at five foot intervals beginning at five
feet below grade.
10. Sampling would be conducted by means pushing stainless tubes at discrete intervals
(ASTM D-1587-86, "Thin Walled Tube Sampling of Soils").
11. Sample tubes would be capped on each end with aluminium foil and tight fitting
plastic caps. Each sample would be labeled with the project number, sampler's initials,
boring number, time and depth at which the sample was obtained. The samples would
then be placed in a ice chest cooled with synthetic ice pending transport to the
analytical laboratory.
12. During the drilling process, drilling returns and soil samples will be examined for
visual and olfactory evidence of hydrocarbon contamination. Soil samples would be
analyzed in the field using an H-nu brand photoionization detector (PID). The PID is a
direct reading real time analyzer that is capable of detecting most of the volatile
hydrocarbons constituents present in the vapor phase of petroleum contaminated soils.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
'~'Project No. E89-172
Page'No. 7
The PID that would be used for this investigation uses a 10.2 electronic volt lamp and is
calibrated using an ~so-butyleno e~lihration gas. Iso-butylene is a relatively safe
calibration gas similar in ionization potential to benzene.
/
13. The advancement of each boring will cease when visual and olfactory evidence as well
as PID readings indicate the absence of petroleum constituents in two successive soil
samples (10 feet).
14. All samples would be collected, maintained, and transported under chain of custody
protocol. Selected soil samples would be analyzed at a state approved chemical
laboratory. The soil samples would be tested for the presence and concentration of total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel by DHS Method, and benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes by EPA Method 8020.
15. Soil samples would be chosen for analysis in the following manner. Two consecutive soil
samples would be analyzed from the bottom of each boring. This would be done to
define the bottom of the petroleum plume. In order to define the concentration of
petroleum constituents within the plume, one soil sample for each 10 to 15 feet of boring
would be selected for analysis. This selection would be made so that approximately all
soil layers would be represented.
16. Soil borings would be backfilled with a sand cement slurry containing 3% to 5%
bentonite. This action wo'uld be taken to reduce shrinkage and decrease permeability.
~'·' 17. Excess soil cuttings would be stored on-site pending results of chemical analysis. The
soil cuttings would be placed on and covered by polyvisquene. The proper disposal of
the excess soil cuttings will be the responsibility of the client or his representative.
18. Equipment used for advancing the soil borings will be steam-cleaned prior to arriving
on-site, between each boring and/or sampling, before leaving the site each day, or as
necessary to minimize the chance of cross-contamination. The rinsate from the cleaning
would be contained and barrelled. The water would also be stored on-site pending the
results of chemical analysis. It would be the responsibility of the client to dispose of
this waste.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project No. E89-172
Page No. 8
19.' All field work would be conducted by personnel who meet OSHA requirements for
hazardous waste work including 40 hour health and safety training and medical
monitoring. The work would be conducted under standards set forth by industry and
deemed acceptable by various regulatory agencies. Hard hats, protective eyewear,
steel-toe boots, protective clothing, and respiratory devices shall be worn by field
personnel when deemed appropriate by the field engineer or geologist present. For
additional health and safety information, please refer to the attached Health and
Safety Plan.
20. Upon completion of the field and laboratory investigation, a detailed report would be
compiled presenting the findings of our investigation, including any potential threat to
groundwater resources judged to be present. Remedial alternatives would also be
discussed if appropriate, in a remedial feasibility study.
We would be in a position to begin the field portion of the investigation within approximately
five to ten working days of notification of your and Kern County Environmental Health Department's
acceptance of our work plan. It is anticipated that the field portion of the investigation would take
about three working days, depending on the conditions encountered. Results of the chemical analysis
would be expected approximately two weeks after the completion of the field portion of the
investigation; however, results could be obtained by our firm within a shorter time at additional cost to
the client. The final report should be available for review approximately ten working days following
receipt of the results of chemical analysis. Verbal results could be made available sooner. This time
schedule is intended for use only as a planning tool. Factors such as the time necessary for regulatory
approval, weather, or the subsurface conditions encountered are beyond our control.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project No. E89-! 72
Page.No. 9
If there are any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to' contact
our office.
"Respectfully submitted,
~X KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
[~a~'/~ I,O. O02G5, ':~ CynthiaC. Wagner
Ia: lEx Pi re s Sep' 3'0'19'lJ J E~nv(~o~mental Specialist
~~'~Ct~ ~\*// Dean Alexander
.0[ : Geotechnical Engineer
RGE #002051/RCE #34274
CCW/DA/lc
cc: 3c Herewith
2c Kern County Environmental Health Department
Attn: Ms. Flora Darling
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Drawn ~'Y:'~'t~ ,,,,~r~ ~,y: ~ KRAZAN & 'ASSOCIATES
OrawingNo. Merced Fresno Visalia Bakersfield
IFO t~~
KRAZAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Construction Testing and Inspection
Geotechnical Investigations ~
Environmental Engineering
Laboratory Soils Testing
Monitoring Wells
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
SUMMARY
The purpose' of this summary is for quick field reference for the commonly
referred to items covered in the Health & Safety Plan. It is not the intent of this
summary to replace or supercede the information referred to in the Health & Safety
Plan.
ANTICIPATED CLOTHING/EQUIPMENT
· Hard Hat ,Safety Glasses
· Ear Plugs ,Steel Toe/Shank Boots (Work_~,/Rubber._)
· Gloves (work_./~_ nitrile__)
· Krazan & Assoc. Uniform_~White Tyvek$, Coveralls__/Yellow Tyvek® Coveralls__
· No Respirator:X--/Half-Face Air Purifying__/Full-Face Air Purifying__/Supplied
Air__
EMERGENCY CONTACTS
· K&A (Main Office) (209) 291-7337 ,Police 911
· Fire 91 1 ,Paramedics 91 1
· Hospital (805) 327-1 792 ,HazMatTeam (805) 861-3636
(805) 327-3371 ,County Env. Health (805) 81 6-3636
· Local DHS Office (209) 291-6676
NOTE: For additional information regarding this project site, please refer to the
Health & Safety or Work Plans for this investigation.
Main Office: Fresno/Clovis · 3860 N. Winery · Fresno, California 93726 · (209) 291-7337
Bakersfield (805) 393-2343 [] California (800) 233-5050 [] FAX (209) 291-5010
ect No. E89-172
Health & Safely Plan
Page No. 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 Project Description 3
1.2 Key Personnel & Responsibilities 3
2.0 HAZARD EVALUATION 5
2.1 Hollow-Stem Auger Drilling 8
2.2 Heat Stress/Stroke and Noise 9
2.3 Sampling for Chemical Analysis 1 0
2.4 Packaging and Shipment of Samples 1 0
2.5 Sample Preparation and Analysis 1 0
3.0 SAFE WORK PRACTICES AND LEVEL OF PERSONAL
PROTECTION 1 1
3.1 Potential Fire/Explosion Hazard 1 1
3.2 Potential Health Hazards 1 1
3.3 Potential Heat Stress Hazards 1 3
3.4 Potential Noise Hazards 1 3
4.0 HYDROCARBON VAPOR HAZARD CRITERIA 1 4
Table 1: Hydrocarbon Vapor Criteria and Responses 1 5
5.0 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING/EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1 6
5.1 Drilling Operation 16
5.2 Sample Collection 1 7
5.3 Packaging and Shipment of Samples 1 8
5.4 Sample Preparation and Analysis of
Samples 1 9
Table 2: Personal Protective Equipment Requirements 1 9
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
,Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 2
6.0 WORK ZONE ACCESS 21
7.0 DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES 21
7.1 Work Zones ' 22
7.2 Decontamination Protocol 23
7.3 Personal Hygiene Requirements 24
8.0 MONITORING PROGRAM 24
8.1 Photoionization Detector 25
8.2 Dr,~ger® Detector Tubes 25
9.0 SAFETY AND HEALTH TRAINING 25
10.0 MEDICAL MONITORING PROGRAM 27
11.0 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 27
11.1 Injuries 28
11.2 Fire and Explosion Hazards 28
11.3 Operations Shutdown 29
11.4 Community Protection 29
12.0 RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENT 30
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES i
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This plan describes the health and safety procedures for the activities
planned for the investigation at the Pepsi-Cola Dr. Pepper project site. All Krazan &
Associates employees and field personnel will abide by this plan. It is intended that all
project work will comply with applicable codes and regulations of the United States
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Each field team member working on this
project will have the general responsibility to identify and correct any health and safety
hazards and strive to make the work place safe.
1.1 Project Description
This project is the investigation to be performed by Krazan & Associates at
the previously-mentioned project site. The scope of the project will include the drilling
of exploratory soil borings and the sampling of soils on the subject property. Sample
labeling, preparation, shipment and analyses will also be performed.
1.2 Key Personnel & Responsibilities
The following personnel who will have the overall responsibility for the
safe operation of this investigation are:
Project Directors: Dean Alexander
Cynthia C. Wagner
Safety Officers: Bruce E. Myers
Task Leaders: Ronald E. Holcomb
Safety Task Leader: Ronald E. Holcomb
It is the responsibility of the above-designated safety officers to:
· Implement, the site safety training program for all project field team
members as desbribed in this document.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
iect No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 4
· Assure that all field personnel have read and understand this Health and
Safety Plan.
· Establish effective traffic and pedestrian control around the drilling site.
· Insure that adequate drilling site security is maintained.
· Perform work place surveillance for flammable/explosive conditions and
insure that there is a portable fire extinguisher located on-site.
· Provide nitrogen gas for the downhole flushing of vapors if conditions
are deemed to be appropriate.
· Observe activities to insure the proper use of personal protective
equipment such as hard hats, protective eyewear, coveralls(Tyvek®
etc .... ), respirators, gloves, and steel-toe boots, etc.
· Inspect safety equipment for use by all field personnel to insure that it
has been maintained and is in a useable condition:
· Shut down or modify field work activity based on the criteria presented in
Section 11.0 and
· Initiate outside emergency phone calls when an emergency or accident
requires medical attention.
· Insure that all field personnel meet or exceed the minimum requirements
for health and safety training, medical monitoring, and respiratory fit
testing as required by OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
ect No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 5
All field personnel will have a responsibility to:
· Read understand, and follow this plan.
· Perform work safety.
· Cooperate with all safety personnel.
· Report any unsafe conditions to the immediate supervisor.
· Be aware and alert for signs and symptoms of potential exposure to site
contaminants and health concerns.
· Attend the site safety training program/meeting.
· Insure drilling equipment and other machines are properly inspected and
maintained and in compliance with applicable sections of the California and
United States Occupational Health and Safety Codes.
· Maintain safety related protective equipment such as hard hats, Tyvek®
coveralls (or equivalent), gloves, safety eyewear, respirators, etc., as
specified in this plan.
2.0 HAZARD EVALUATION
This Health and Safety Plan addresses specific on-site work activities
related to the collecting of samples and data from the project site. While the basic Work
and Health & Safety Plans are by now very familiar to Krazan & Associates field crews,
work on certain sites, particularly in Category A, B and C protective equipment, involve
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
ect No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 6
exposure potentials to various contaminants and possibly to contaminants at
unpredictable levels.
Based on the limited historical and technical data available, this plan covers
anticipated activities and hazards, and makes provision for modification or amendment as
health-related data is obtained during this investigation. This plan will be amended with
site-specific hazards identified as posing a potential health hazard for workers. For
select sites, the Safety Officer will conduct a preliminary survey involving air and bulk
solid sample analysis, and amend the Health and Safety Plan as needed.
As analytical data become available, the information will be evaluated by a
Health and Safety Task Leader. Appropriate action in the form of Work/Health and Safety
Plan modifications will be initiated by the Safety Officer or the Health and Safety Task
Leader.
The anticipated activities of this investigation will include:
· The advancement of soil borings using hollow stem auger.
· Direct reading hydrocarbon monitoring (PID) of well head, and
ambient concentrations during drilling activities.
· Collection of samples for chemical analysis.
· Sample preparation packaging and shipment of samples for chemical
analysis.
· Analysis of selected samples by subcontracted laboratories (not covered
under this plan).
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
ect No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 7
The general categories of hazards associated with this investigation are:
· Mechanical hazards: cuts, contusions, slips, trips, falls, .being struck by
moving objects, being caught by rotating objects; also muscular injury
potential caused by overexertion or improper movement (e.g. back injury
due to improper lifting), etc ....
· Electrical hazards: possible excavation of buried cables, exposure to
overhead power lines, wet electrical cords, etc.
· Chemical hazards: exposure to chemicals/contaminants listed in Section
4.0 of this plan and exposure to extraction solvents, etc.
· Fire hazards; possible excavation of buried utilities, flammable
petroleum hydrocarbons, equipment fires, etc.
· Thermal (heat stress) hazards: exposure to outside temperature
extremes, and/or increased body temperatures while wearing protective
clothing/equipment etc.
· Acoustical hazards: exposure to excessive noise created by drilling
operations and/or related to the site-specific operations, etc.
· Routine job-related hazards in the subcontrator's laboratory. Neither
these hazards nor any activities performed in the subcontractors
laboratory are covered by this'plan..
Job hazard analyses associated with most major work activities are
presented in the following sections.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
ect No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 8
'2.1. Hollow-Stem Auger Drilling
Hollow-stem auger drilling activities will potentially expose field
personnel to the following hazards:
Chemical hazards:
· Exposure to various chemical substances, including but not
limited to petroleum hydrocarbon liquids and vapors, caustic
and acidic mists, and petroleum contaminated soils, and
sludges. Certain precautions may be necessary to properly
control the potential fire/explosion/health hazards
associated with these chemicals.
Physical hazards:
· Potential exposures to physical hazards associated with
hollow-stem augering include the following:
· snapping cables
· brush, equipment, gas-main, or hydrocarbon fires
· being hit by equipment
· becoming entwined in rotating tools
· falling objects
· exposure to excessive noise
· exposure to outside temperature extremes.
· exposure to the potential for heat exhaustion due to
protective clothing
· slips, trips, and falls
· buried cables and underground utilities
· overhead utility hazards
· not using the proper tool for the job
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
iProject No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 9
2.2 Heat Stress/Stroke and Noise
During day-to-day field work, the on-site engineer/geologist and/or safety
officer will be alert for the signs and symptoms of heat stress. Hazard exists when
individuals are required to work in warm or hot temperatures while wearing protective
clothing. When the ambient air temperature exceeds 85°F, heat stress may become a
problem. For an unacclimatized person this temperature may be less. If these conditions
are encountered, the following precautions will be taken:
The on-site geologist/engineer or safety officer will regularly monitor the
ambient air temperature.
Field team members will be observed for the following sign~ and symptoms
of heat stress:
· profuse sweating
· skin color change
· increased heart rate
· vision problems
· body temperatures in excess of 100°F as measured by fever
detectors (forehead strips) may also be used.
Any team member who exhibits any of these signs or symptoms will be
removed immediately from field work and be requested to remove impervious clothing,
and consume electrolyte fluid or cool water while resting in a shaded area. The
individual will be instructed to rest until the symptoms are no longer recognizable. If
the symptoms appear critical, persist or get worse, immediate medical attention will be
sought.
While working around drilling equipment the potential exists for exposure
to excessive noise. If noise levels are known/believed to exceed 85 dBA-8 hours per
day, all individuals will be instructed to use adequate hearing protectors (ear plugs).
All field team members will be given background and annual evaluations. All field team
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 10
members have been/will be trained in noise hazards and how to wear the protective
equipment.
2.3 Sampling for Chemical Analysis
Samples will be collected for the purpose of observation and soil logging.
Additionally, selected samples will be submitted for chemical analySis. Some of these
samples may contain high levels of hazardous materials creating the potential for
chemical inhalation exposure, skin contact and possibly even ingestion. These activities
may pose one of the greatest risks of chemical exposure for the site assessment work
plan. Appropriate worker training, protective measures and medical monitoring will be
enforced to control this health hazard potential.
2.4 Packaging and Shipment of Samples
After the samples have been collected in sample containers, they will be
properly packaged to protect shipping personnel. The hazards associated with shipping
samples are minimal, provided care is taken to prevent the containers from leaking or
breaking. Additionally, sample containers will be plainly marked in case of exposure.
2.5 Sample Preparation and Analysis
The preparation of samples for analysis may expose the technician to
routine hazards associated with laboratory work. Standard laboratory safety procedures
should be used to prepare and analyze these samples. The samples should be treated
carefully and handled inside a properly operating fume hood due to their potentially
volatile and hazardous nature. In the event of a mishap, the laboratory supervisor
should be notified immediately.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
iProject No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 11
3.0 SAFE WORK PRACTICES AND LEVEL OF PERSONAL PROTECTION
The following sections present procedures on how to adequately address the
primary potential hazards encountered in the different task of this project. The standard
level of personal protection is also defined.
Based on the work to be performed the type of chemical hazards that may be
encountered, EPA Level D personal protection has been determined to be adequately
protective and suitable for most of the tasks in this project. Certain tasks may require
a higher level of protection, such as air-purifying or air-supplied respirators. These
determinations will be made by the Safety Officer or Safety Task Leader and will be
specified as amendments to this section of the plan.
3.1 Potential Fire/Explosion Hazard
Due to the flammable nature of the hydrocarbons, explosive vapor
conditions will be carefully monitored by the Krazan & Associates task leader. The lower
explosive limit (LEL) for gasoline hydrocarbons is approximately 1.4% in air. Using a
lO-fold safety factor, a working criteria of 1400 ppmv (10% LEL) as measured by a
PID is established for explosion hazards. When measurements obtained near the bore
hole reveal this concentration, nitrogen gas will be injected into the well to reduce the
possibilities of explosion. Should total hydrocarbon levels of 1,400 ppmv or above be
detected in the general drilling work area, work will be stopped. Additionally, the field
crew will be instructed to stay upwind until these concentrations diminish.
3.2 Potential Health Hazards
Depending on the conditions encountered, the Task Leader in coordination
with the Project Safety Officer may increase or decrease the level of personal protection
required of all field team members. Such decisions will be made based on initial and
periodic measurement of breathing zone concentrations of petroleum constituents by PID
and on other data collected as work is conducted on a given site.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 12
Generally speaking, EPA Level D Personal Protection will be in accordanCe
with the following quidelines:
· Krazan & Associates technician uniform
· hard hat
· safety glasses
· ear plugs (as required)
· steel-toe boots.
Some general guidelines representing EPA Level C personal protection that
may be used are:
· Tyvek® coveralls (or equivalent), neoprene boots and rubber gloves (to
be worn by any personnel who handle contaminated drilling equipment.
· Individuals at drilling sites not directly exposed to contaminated soils or
liquids may not need to wear Tyvek® coveralls due to the increased hazards
of heat stress when wearing this type of clothing.
· Latex or PVC disposable gloves should be worn under butyl rubber or
nitrile gloves to provide an extra measure of hand protection when handling
heavily contaminated soils and water samples.
· Chemical splash goggles will be worn when increased splash hazards
exist, such as steam cleaning activities, during or the handling of
contaminated liquid samples.
· Respiratory protection will be worn during drilling activities that expose
workers to hazardous levels of airborne contaminants. Direct reading
personal breathing zone monitoring will be performed. The criteria
established for the use of respiratory protection are discussed in Section
4.0.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
iect No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No, 13
3.3 Potential Heat Stress Hazards
During conditions when the temperature, humidity and/or radiant heat are
high and air movement is Iow, the following procedures will be followed to prevent heat
stress hazards for workers wearing protective clothing/equipment:
· Work activity will be limited to reduce the amount of heat naturally
produced by the body. Alternating work and rest periods will be used in
high potential conditions. For example, in moderately hot conditions, 5
minute rest breaks in the shade with 60 minute work periods in the sun
may be desirable. Under severe conditions, the duration of rest periods
will be increased as necessary,
· Heavy work will be performed during the cooler periods of the day when
feasible.
· Under heat stress conditions special attention will be given toward
assuring workers replace lost body fluids. Adequate supplies of cool
drinking water or electrolyte solution will be provided by each company for
their own employees' use. Workers will be instructed in the need to
replace the fluids throughout the working day.
· Special care and attention will be paid to field crew members that may not
be acclimatized to the area.
3.4 Potential Noise Hazards
Exposure to excessive noise will be controlled by issuance and use of
hearing protection as instructed by the Task Leader or Safety Officer.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
!Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 14
4.0 HYDROCARBON VAPOR HAZARD CRITERIA ..
Exposure to elevated levels of hydrocarbon.vapors presents potential 'health
risks that must be addressed. Work practices and methods will be used to limit
exposures. Where elevated exposures persist, respiratory protection will be used to
protect personnel from inhalation of hydrocarbon vapors. The hydrocarbon vapors
expected to be encountered during the field portion of this investigation are composed of a
variety of volatile refined petroleum constituents. Most of these chemicals have limited
toxicity thus requiring minimal controls at the concentrations that are anticipated to be
encountered. There are certain components, such as benzene vapors, that present
significant toxicological hazards and must be properly controlled. Water, soil, and
vapor samples collected near the point of release commonly contain benzene at 1% of the
total hydrocarbon constituents. Criteria for the use of respiratory protection is based
on limiting potential exposures to benzene.
A limit of 100 ppmv total hydrocarbon is proposed as the maximum
acceptable hydrocarbon level of exposure without respiratory protection. An H-nu®
photoionization detector (PID) will be used.to measure real-time breathing zone
concentrations for comparison with the 100 ppmv limit. When a persistent level of
100 ppmv is noted to exist, an appropriate respirator will be donned by that field team
member. In a typical situation, with 1% of the hydrocarbon vapors being benzene, a
100 ppmv concentration of total hydrocarbon would result in a breathing zone level of
less than 1 ppmv benzene. This level is one tenth of the current Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) for an 8-hour occupational exposure to benzene.
To assure benzene exposures are below a 1 ppmv limit, Drager® benzene
detector tubes will be used if PID measurements indicated persistent hydrocarbon levels
above 30 ppmv. These detector tubes are not compound specific and may respond to
other less hazardous petroleum hydrocarbons such as toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene.
In the event that benzene detector tube measurements indicate that levels exceed 1 ppmv;
respirators will be required.
If benzene concentrations exceed 10 ppmv, work will cease. The field crew
will be instructed to stay upwind of the borehole until the concentrations subside. This
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan.
Page No. 15
is considered a conservative approach since the Dr~iger® detector tubes may respond to
several hydrocarbons other than benzene.
Table 1 summarizes the various hydrocarbon vapor concentration and
appropriate responses to prevent exposure to these potential vapor hazards.
TABLE 1
HYDROCARBON VAPOR CRITERIA AND RESPONSES
HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS RESPONSE
<30 ppmv Total Volatile Hydrocarbons Limited hazard, no special action.
30-100 ppmv TVH General Work Areas Benzene detector tube
measurements taken each 30 min.
100-1400 ppmv TVH General Work Areas Half-mask OV Respirators worn by
all in work area.
Benzene detector tube measurements
taken each 30 minutes.
>1400 ppmv TVH Well Head Emissions Flush downhole with nitrogen gas.
(near bore hole or auger flights)
>1400 ppmv TVH General Work Areas Work stops; procedures taken to
subdue excessive vapor levels.
>1 ppmv Benzene in General Work Areas Half-mask OV respirators worn by
all in work area.
Benzene detector tube and measure-
ments taken each 15 minutes until
levels are well below 1 ppmv.
>10 ppmv Benzene in General Work Areas Work stops; procedures taken to
subdue excessive vapor levels.
Benzene detector tube measurements'
taken each 15 minutes until con-
centrations are below 1 ppmv.
OV=Organic Vapor
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 16
5.0 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING/EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
This section specifies personal protective clothing/equipment required for
the various tasks to be performed during this investigation. Table 2 summarizes these
requirements.
5.1 Drilling Operations
· Respiratory Protection: All field personnel will be required to have
available for use, a properly fit tested half-mask air purifying respirator
with organic vapor cartridges and particulate pre-filters. These will be
required to be worn based on the criteria listed in Section 4.0.
· Protective Clothing: All field personnel who handle contaminated soils,
liquid, or auger flights will wear semi-permeable (white) Tyvek®
coveralls (or equivalent). Company issued safety helmets will be worn by
all personnel during field work.
· Hand Protection: Butyl rubber or nitrile gloves will be worn by all
personnel handling auger flights and contaminated soils. Wearing
disposable latex or PVC gloves under the butyl gloves will provide added
protection and aid in a more effective decontamination process.
· Ear Protection: Based on anticipated on-site noise measurements, field
personnel may be required by the task safety leader of safety officer to
wear hearing protection devices (ear plugs) during drilling operations.
· Eye Protection: Each field team member will wear a minimum of impact-
resistant safety glasses with attached side shield. Where splashes of
potentially hazardous liquid or flying particles are likely, chemical safety
goggles_ will be required in place of safety glasses.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 17
· Foot Protection: Field personnel will wear neoprene rubber boots with
steel toes and shanks. Under non-liquid exposure conditions, leather boots
with steel toes and shanks are permissible. The boots will be taped to the
leg of Tyvek® suits.
Rubber gloves, Tyvek® coveralls and neoprene boots may not be required if
soil or water is not obviously contaminated, or if PID measurements of
the split-spoon soil samples are below 500 ppmv.
5.2 Sample Collection
Personnel who may be exposed to contaminated samples and/or liquid
splashes will be required to wear the following equipment:
· Respiratory Protection: All sampling personnel will be required to have
available for use a properly fit tested half-mask air purifying respirator
with organic vapor cartridges with particulate pre-filters. Respirators
will be worn based on criteria listed in Section 4.0.
· Body Protection: All sampling personnel will wear semi-permeable
(white) Tyvek® coveralls when contact with contaminated soil or liquids is
likely to occur. Company issued safety helmets will be worn when overhead
hazards exist.
· Hand Protection: Butyl rubber or nitrile gloves will be worn over
disposal latex or PVC gloves.
· Eye Protection: Impact-resistant safety glasses with attached side shield
must be worn during sampling activities. Where splashes may occur,
chemical goggles must be worn.
· Foot Protection: Neoprene rubber boots with steel toes and shanks will be
worn.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 18
5.3. Packaging and Shipment of Samples
· Eye Protection: Impact resistant safety glasses with attached side shield
will be worn while packaging samples for shipment.
· Hand Protection: Butyl rubber or nitrile gloves will be worn under
disposal PVC gloves.
Packaging and Shipping Requirements:
All samples will be shipped strictly to a state approved laboratory.
Shipping must comply with Department of Transportation (DOT)
regulations. The following instructions will be followed to comply with
DOT regulations:
· tape all lids with electrical or other tape,
· wrap the primary container with absorbent brown paper
(wading),
· place the primary container in a plastic bags (zip-lock, or
equivalent)
· place into an "ice chest" with a synthetic ice
· tape or secure the "ice chest" lid and secure with a chain of
custody seal (if applicable)
· classify the containers according to the DOT regulations.
In the event that samples are to be personally transported to the state-
approved laboratory, some of the above packaging and shipping
requirements may not apply. Any questions should be referred to the
project manager.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No.' E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 19
5.4 Sample Preparation and Analysis of Samples
All laboratory safety practices should be accomplished in accordance with
the specific labs policy. Krazan & Associates, its owners, clients, employees, and
representatives are not responsible for safety on laboratory premises.
Therefore, both shall be held harmless in the event' of any mishap, accident or
long term adverse health effects occurring or originating at the subcontractor
laboratory.
TABLE 2
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
DRILLING OPERATIONS
Drilling Crew
MANDATORY ITEMS AVAILABLE ITEMS
Tyvek® Coveralls* Respirator
Chemically Resistant Gloves* Splash Goggles
Neoprene Safety Boots* Ear Plugs
Safety Helmet Safety Glasses
Geologist/Engineers
MANDATORY ITEMS AVAILABLE ITEMS
Neoprene Safety boots* Respirator
Safety Glasses Tyvek® Coveralls
Safety Helmet Chemically Resistant
'Gloves
Splash Goggles
Ear Plugs
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 20
Surveyors/Safety Personnel
MANDATORY ITEMS AVAILABLE ITEMS
Neoprene Safety Boots* Respirator
Safety Glasses Tyvek® Coveralls
Safety Helmet Chemically Resistant
Gloves
Splash Goggles
Ear Plugs
PACKAGING AND SHIPPING SAMPLES
Sample Controller
MANDATORY ITEMS AVAILABLE ITEMS
Safety Glasses Respirator
Chemically Resistant
Gloves
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 21
SAMPLE PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS
Analyst
MANDATORY ITEMS AVAILABLE ITEMS
Safety Glasses Respirator
Chemically Resistant
Gloves
* Not required if soil or water is not visibly contaminated, or if PID measurements of
the soil samples are below 500 ppmv.
6.0 WORK ZONE ACCESS
During drilling operations a work zone shall be established and roped off.
This zone should include ail drilling equipment and its immediate vicinity. Only
authorized personnel will be permitted to enter this work zone. Authorized personnel
will include those who have duties requiring their presence in the work zone, have
received appropriate health and safety training, and whose background medical records
may be obtained to verify that the health of that individual is not at extreme risk by
his/her presence.
7.0 DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES
The Work Plan specifies initial drilling and sampling activities at areas
where petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soils, sludges, liquids and/or vapors are
anticipated. Due to the volatile nature of the petroleum hydrocarbons that may be
encountered during the initial drilling and sampling operations, decontamination of
equipment and vehicles will be of minimal importance since the volatile hydrocarbons
will rapidly vaporize. However, contaminated sampling equipment and any obvious
contaminant accumulations will not leave the project site. Field team members will also
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 22
abide by the following guidelines to insure that contaminants will not remain in contact
with their body.
· All personnel involved in the field portion of this investigation will be
instructed to wash their hands, face, neck and arms at the end of the
workday. Krazan & Associates will assure the presence of soap, water and
towels at the drilling site for this purpose. All crews will be instructed to
shower at their home or lodge at the end of the workday.
· No eating, drinking, smoking or chewing of gum or tobacco will be
permitted in the work zone.
· During this investigation, the nature of materials handled and the extent
of contamination may require formal decontamination procedures and
delineated work/clean zones. At the discretion of the Task Leader, the
following work zones and decontamination procedures will be used to
minimize the transfer of hazardous substances from the site so as to protect
the environment and public health.
7.1 Work Zones
The field team shall prevent the uncontrolled movement of waste materials
or hazardous substances from the drilling site. The team will prevent migration of site
contaminants by using the following work zones and equipment/personnel
decontamination procedures.
Exclusion Zone: A 30-foot circle around any given bore hole will be defined
before drilling starts. In most cases, the zone will be "roped off" with an applicable
barricade tape. This designated area will constitute the "Exclusion Zone". This zone is
where potentially hazardous surface contaminants as a result of our investigation and
physical hazards to the workers will be contained. Personal protection equipment will
be required in this area according to the discretion of the Task Leader and/or in
accordance with the quidelines contained in this plan. The size of the Exclusion Zone may
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 23
be changed to accommodate site conditions and to ensure contaminant containment at the
discretion', of the project manager, safety officer, or task leader. No personnel will be
permitted into the Contamination Reduction Zone or the Exclusion Zone unless they are in
full compliance with the existing Safety Plan. The buddy system must be maintained by
all personnel while in this zone. Intrinsically safe communications will be maintained
with all personnel in this area.
Contamination Reduction Zone: An area surrounding the Exclusion Zone will
be defined. All personal decontamination activities Will occur in this area. A waste
container may be placed in this area so that contaminated disposal equipment can be
placed inside and covered. Surface/soil contamination in this area may be controlled by
use of some form of plastic sheeting.
Support Zone: A Support Zone, must be defined for each field activity.
SuPport personal and/or equipment is located in this uncontaminated (clean) area.
Normal Krazan & Associates field uniforms are appropriate within this zone. The
location of this zone depends on factors such as accessibility, wind direction, nearby
rods, utilities, traffic patterns, shelter, etc ....
7.2 Decontamination Protocol
Decontamination of personnel and equipment will be important to ensure
that contamination does not spread to others. PersOnal decontamination mainly involves
the removal of some outer wear and good personal hygiene habits. Contamination .should
never by in contact with the skin. All field team members must follow this plan to
ensure that contamination does not remain on equipment, sample containers or their
body.
All field team members should remove their personal protective clothing in
a certain sequence to avoid contaminating their inner clothing or themselves. When
removing personal protective equipment, the following steps should be observed:
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
~Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 24
Step 1: Remove all equipment, sample containers, and notes and non-
essential items while in the Contamination Reduction Zone. Obtain
decontamination solutions or a steam cleaner and decontaminate all tools
and sampling equipment. Under most circumstances, all wastes and
rinsates will be properly contained.
Step 2; Remove outer gloves and boot covers and place them inside a
garbage bag or drum.
Step 3: Remove tape from boots and gloves and remove the Tyvek® coverall
(if used). Tyvek® coverall removal should be accomplished by rolling,
the outside of the coverall inside itself so that only the inside of it is
exposed. Boots, inner gloves, and respirator should still be worn.
Step 4: Remove the inner gloves and respirator when in the Support Zone.
7.3 Personal Hygiene Requirements
The following procedures should always be observed in the support zone:
· All personnel must wash their hands, face, neck and forearms before
consuming any food or liquids, smoking, or using the rest room.
· All personnel must take a shower at the end of each work day. Particular
attention should be given to areas of the body that are typically overlooked.
8.0 MONITORING PROGRAM
Personal exposure to ambient 'levels of airborne hazards and noise'should be
monitored or observed to insure that personnel exposures do not exceed acceptable limits
and for the selection of protective equipment. Airborne contamination and downhole
hydrocarbon vapor concentrations will be measured primarily by the use of a direct
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 25
reading instrument such as a photoionization detector. If concentrations approach
established levels, Dr~iger® detector tubes will be used to determine the presence and
concentration of benzene. Site visits/inspections may be conducted by the Krazan &
Associates Safety Officer to insure compliance with this plan.
8.1 Photoionization Detector
During this investigation, the ambient air, drilling returns, soil samples,
and boreholes will be screened with a calibrated H-nu® brand, portable photoionization
detector (PID). The PID is a direct reading real-time analyzer that is capable of
detecting most of the volatile hydrocarbons constituents present in a vapor phase. The
PID to be used for this investigation uses a 10.2 electron volt lamp and is calibrated
using an iso-butylene calibration gas. Iso-butylene is a relatively safe calibration gas
similar in ionization potential to benzene (the carcinogen of primary concern present in
petroleum products).
8.2 Dr~ger® Detector Tubes
Dr~ger® detector tubes will be used to determine airborne concentrations
of benzene in the breathing zone during this investigation. A member of the field team
will take detector tube readings if high PID measurements so warrant.
Readings will be taken in the area where the field team members are
working. Dr~ger® #6728561 benzene detector tubes will be used (measurement range
0.5-10 ppmv). The detector tube pump will be inspected for proper operation prior to
field operations.
9.0 SAFETY AND HEALTH TRAINING
All field personnel will be trained in methods of safely conducting field
activities. This plan is intended to provide additional site specific information to
accomplish this goal. It will be the responsibility of the Project Directors, Safety
Officer, and Safety Task Leader to ensure the field team has access to, reads, and
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
~Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 26
understands this plan. It will be the individual's responsibility to bring to the attention
of the Project Director or Safety Officer any portion of this plan and related training
they do not fully understand. Prior to the commencement of the field portion of this
investigation, the field team will meet to discuss the contents of this plan and make sure
all members 'understand it.
At the site meeting, all field team members will be instructed regarding the
health and safety hazards. Especially:
· Physical safety hazards.
· Emergency procedures.
· Explosive/flammability hazards.
· The hazardous materials tha~ may be encountered and their
potential routes of exposure.
· Personal hygiene practices.
· The types, proper use, inspection,limitations, maintenance,
and storage of protective clothing and equipment (as
applicable).
· In the event that the ambient air temperature exceeds 85°F,
a review of heat stress symptom recognition/corrective
procedures will be conducted. For an unacclimatized person,
this value may be less.
Special emphasis will concern the use and limitations of respiratory
protection. Half-mask respirators (or equivalent) equipped with air purifying organic
vapor cartridges will be used. Full-face respirators will be used if eye irritation or
skin contact exposure potential exists.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES i
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 27
Medical/physical fitness requirements to wear respiratory protection, will
be established by a physician, and
Individuals will be trained in use limitations and maintenance of half-mask
and full-face respirators including qualitative fit testing, routine inspection, -.
replacement of parts, cleaning, disinfection, and storage requirements.
Copies of this entire plan will be provided for each field team member at
the project site, or prior to arrival.
10.0 MEDICAL MONITORING PROGRAM
The field investigation at this project site is expected to involve active
physical work and potential exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons, and possibly other
related hazardous substances. Exposure to heat stress, noise and physical safety hazards
may also be encountered. The work will require people of good health with normal vision
and hearing. Krazan & Associates' industrial physician is periodically asked to provide
documentation of employee medical fitness to perform the required work in the form of
signed document. This documentation should also indicate the employee's ability to
perform the required work while wearing a respirator.
11.0 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
The emergency procedures described in this plan are designed to give the
field team guidance in the handling medical emergencies, fires, explosions, and excessive
emissions. These emergency procedures will be carefully explained to the field team
during the on-site health and safety meeting.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 28
11.1 Injuries
Medical problems must be quickly dealt with; a road map to the nearest
emergency medical facility are kept in an envelope on the dash of each Krazan field
vehicle of drill rig. The local emergency numbers are:
Police: 91 1
Fire: 91 1
Paramedics: 91 1
Memorial Hospital (805) 327-1792
Mercy Hopital (805) 327-3371
Kern County Hazardous Materials Team (805) 861-3636
Kern County Environmental Health Dept. (805) 861-3636
The field team is to seek immediate professional medical attention for all
serious injuries. A first aid kit will be present at the drilling site for use in case of
minor injuries. If any field team member receives a splash or particle in the eye, the
eye is to be flushed for 15 minutes. Clean water or a portable eye wash will be available
for this purpose. Instruction will also be provided to wash any skin areas with soap and
water if direct contact with contaminants has occurred.
During normal field activities work clothes may become wet. If a field team
member's clothing becomes saturated with an obviously contaminated liquid/sludge the
possibility for dermal exposure to contaminants may exist. Under these circumstances,
that field team member will change out of the contaminated clothing into clean clothing of
the proper level of protection.
11.2 Fire and Explosion Hazards
Fires are of particular concern during this investigation due to the
possibility of encountering flammable petroleum hydrocarbon liquid or vapors. An
adequate multi-purpose (A,B,C) fire extinguisher will be located on-site at all times.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety Plan
Page No. 29
The lOcal fire department will be notified by a Krazan &'Associates
representative of the location and anticipated activities in order to provide a more
timely response in the event of an emergency. In the remote chance that a fire does
occur, the local fire department will be notified immediately. Additional calls to the main
office of Krazan & Associates will be made. The project director would then notify the
client.
11.3 Operations Shutdown
Under certain extremely hazardous situations the Task Leader, Project
Director, Task Safety Officer, may request that field operations be temporarily
suspended while the underlying hazard is corrected or controlled.
During any sampling or drilling activity breathing zone PID measurements
for hydrocarbons will be performed. If these levels exceed 30 ppmv, detector tubes will
be used to further quantify the benzene vapors present. If the level of benzene is
detected above 1 ppmv or PID readings are consistently in excess of 100 ppmv,
respirators will be required. If benzene is detected above 10 ppmv in breathing zone
detector tube samples, all activity will cease until these concentrations diminish. If PID
measurements above 1400 ppmv occur, a potential fire or explosion hazard may exist.
Under these circumstances activities will be stopped until these levels are brought down.
This may be accomplished by containerizing contaminated soils or liquids, covering
contaminated soil, foam, visquene, or with clean soil to isolate the source.
11.4 Community Protection
To assure the community is not affected by our investigation, upwind and
downwind monitoring with the PID will be performed if the general work area
hydrocarbon levels exceed 100 ppmv. If site downwind monitoring indicates persistent
levels above 300 ppmv at the perimeter of the work area, work will be shut down until
PID readings drop below 30 ppmv. Alternately the exclusion zone may be expanded to
provide additional community protection.
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
Project No. E89-172
Health & Safety. Plan
Page No. 30
12.0 RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENT
The following record keeping requirements will be maintained
in the health and safety or program file indefinitely:
· Copy of this Health and Safety plan
· Health and Safety training certification forms
· Written respiratory protection program
· Respirator training certification
· Any accident/illness report forms
· Documentation of employees medical ability to perform work
and wear respirators
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES
^.. -- ~,g ROBEF u'~
rit~n ~ '--- ~ Water St.
St
G~man
3ri~Wv.
~monio A.. 33r~ ~
~ 28th S~r~t B .
27th S~ ~AO~IN 'E · SC~
Ih ~ m
~. ~ ~ 21 st St.~ ~
e'AVENUE
V. Sunset JA,e. ~ t O~n~ st~. =
~ ~ Ln Forest St. ~ 0 ~ Street
~n8 SCHOOL ~ ~ Z 7th ~ ~ S~ ~ 0
~-~; ~ = ~ ¢~*~c~ st. ~ · · ' .
~ ~ ~ Oak 3rd St > 3rd S1ree~ ~ H~GH ~
I
I
g-~--~°JeAt~*177 Ho. Merced Fresno Vi~lia Bakersfield
of
KRAZAN A S S 0 C.IA-TE S., INC.
Construction Testing and Inspection
Geotechnical Investigations ~
Environmental Engineering
Laboratory Soils Testing
Monitoring Wells
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
FIELD PERSONNEL RELEASE FORM
I, do hereby confirm that I
have read and understand the health and safety plan for Project No. E89-172, Pepsi-
Cola Dr. Pepper located at 215 E. 21st Street, Bakersfield, California. I do agree to
follow this plan, and to make every effort to make the work place safe. I will report any
health or safety hazard that I observe to the Safety Task' Leader, Project Safety Officer,
or the Project Director.
I do agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Krazan & Associates, Inc., its
owners, employees, representatives, clients, and the property owner for any accidents,
sickness, or injuries resulting from the violation, alleged violation, or non-compliance
of this of this Health & Safety Plan.
Name: Title:
Signature: Date:
Main Office: Fresno/Clovis · 3860 N. Winery · Fresno, Ca#fornia 93726 ° (209) 291-7337 ·
Bakersfield (805) 393-2343 [] California (800) 233-5050 [] FAX (209) 291.5010
COUNTY OF KERN-
Environmental Health Servic,:s Department
2700 "hi" 'Slreel, Sulle 300
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(805) 861-3636 ..
(805) 861-3429 'Fax Number
July 3, 1989
James B. Lindsey
215 E. 21st Street
Bakersfield, California 93305
SUBJECT: Location 215 E. 21St Street, ' Bakersfield. CA 93305
Known As Pepsi Cola/Dr. Pepper
PERMIT # A946-15 -"
Dear Mr. Lindsey:
The intent of this letter is to inform you of the necessary deadlines for work
required at the property described above. As a responsible party for a leaking
underground storage tank, you have previously received a letter from this Department
notifying you of the required work necessary to identify the extent of the contamination.
We are now requesting· that this work, outlined in UT35, be done in a timely manner.
In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.7 and Kern County
Ordinance Code Chapter 8.48, the Kern County Environmental Health Services
Department requires a determination of the threat to the environment. Accordingly, you
must select an environmental ·contractor and submit a site characterization workplan
proposal to this office within 30 days from the date of this letter. The workplan must be
approved by this Department before any work is started.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please immediately contact
me at (805) 861-3636.
Environmental Health Specialist III'
FD:cas
cc:' Kevin Phillips\215 E. 21st Street, Bakersfield, CA 93305
\HM12.1et\6-29-20
Stltl of Califm'~tl.~Health and Welfare Ag See f Page 6 Oepartme.* of Heatm Se~vlce.
F~ A~ov~ O~ No. ~9 (Exp~e~ and Front si Pa~e 7 Tox~ S~ta~. ~tr~ DIviai~
Please ~int ~ ~. (F~ de~n~ f~ u~e on ~e ( ~2-p~ ~e~).
WASTE.MANIFEST I~~1~I I Ig~
3. Generatm'. Name and Mailing Address ~i B~I~ Co '
z. it,* ',w-_. ' ....... 8853528'0"
4. Generator's Phone ( ) I~1~ 'I '. I '1 "
~ ' D. Tm~l P~
7. Transpolar 2 Company_Name ~, 8. US EPA ID Numb~ E.
~ ,~..ig..~.d~.c~,~..*S~.A*~....__ I I I I '.1 I I I '1 I I I ~'~'~ "
' 12. Container~ 13. Total 14. L
~ ~ ~ 1. US DOT Description (Including Prop~ Shipping Name, Hazard Class, and ID Number)
' ~. Wt / Vol
~' ~ 2'.:... ~. ..
~ o ' i I I I I I I ?~:~':" ~.'"
~::. ':.' ~:,:.;~_." , ·
- I I .I I I I'1 '"
~ d. · · ~l : , .
~ ~A/~
~ I I I I I I I " ..... '"'~'::'
' ~ J. Ad~t~l De~a ~ Mat~l. Listed ~ ; - ~ ~ ~ ~ W~lt~ ~ ~ -' ,.:..:, ...
~ -- g~J ". :7~?:-. : .-' .* .:~':.-:,..'..:... ;-~:.;:.....: O !. :-..r..;~:.~-'?:':.'~:~ ':~'...'77:'..
. ,: .............: .:':'.' .... :. ,..'.." ...:'.:s.:7~'. ..... -'..-~,"..~s~_~.~....' ·
...... '?'~' "'
O
~ 15. Sp~ial ~ndling Inmtru~n~ and Additi~al Inf~mati~
GE~RATOR'S CERT~A~: I hereby ~lare that t~ c~tento °1 mis cms~m~ are ~IN and .cc~at~
and are claasifi~, pack~, ma~, and label~, and are in all resp~l · ~ c~d~ f~ tran~ by hi~ly
anti.al ~vemm~t reg,lati~l.
ff I am a la~e quanti~ gen~at~. I ce~i~ that I have a pr~ram In place Io red~e the v~ume a~ tox~i~ of waste g~at~ to ~ d~ I ~ det~
O to be ~onomica,y practicab~ and that I have sele~ the practicable meth~ si treatm~t, storage. ~ di~sll ~ ava~a~ to ~ ~ ~nimizea the
~es~t and future threat to human health and the environment; ~, if I am a small quant~ g~eral~. I ~ ma~ a ~ faHh eff~ to min~e my waste
g~erati~ and sele~ the best waste management meth~ that is avai~ble to ~ and ~t I
Z
Pdnted/Typed Name ~../I ~ 8~at~ ~ Day . Year
~ T 17. Tr~nspo~ I Acknowledgement of Receipt of MalaPai8
~ O ~8. Transpo~er 2 Acknowl~gement of Receipt of Matehala
< ~ Printed/Typed Name ] Signature M~ Day Year
~ E ''
I
~ R I I I I I I
19. Discrepancy Indication Space
F
A
I 20. Facil~y ~ner ~ Operator ~e~ification of receipt of hazardous materials covered by this man,teat except aa not~ in Hem 19.
y Printed/Typed Name ; Signature / M~th Day Year
DHS 8022 A (I/~) .Do Not Write ~low This Line
EPA 87~22
(Rev. 9-88) Previa ad,ions are obsolete. ~ite: TSDF SENDS THIS CO~ TO ~HS WITHIN 30 DAYS
~ To: p.O. ~x 3~, ~romenfo, CA
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE (LEAK) / CONTAMINATION SITE REPORT
EMERGENCY HAS STATE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES : FOR LOCA[~AGENCY USE ONLY::;. :'. :'.'~:~i '::.' "..: :.. :.'" '.:.':.:... '.:'.::'.::: i'::" :" '.:':'":: ':'~"'"::::' ..:i':'"' '7':. '" '.'
NO REPORTBEENFILED? [] YES [] NO : BEPORTED:!HiS INFORMAT!O~;'T0;..LO~A~:OFF~CIALS':PUBSUA~T'T0.'.~C'{ION 25!80.7. .OF
~ YES "I HEREBY.CERTIFY THAT;I.AM:A.DESIGNATEDGOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE~AND. THATtHAVE.
.....~EALTH AND SAFT~3DE." ..~:i'L...; .h ..'.:':.. ":.'ii::::.:'. '.'.:h.i:.::::'..~ ...' ...... · .... '":.
NAME OF iNDIVIDUAL FILING REPORT
REPRESENTING .
~ [] OWNER/OPERATOR [] REGIONAL BOARD ICOMPANYORAGENCYNAME
~ [~,OCALAGENCY [] OTHER '1 ~"~1 ~)4. ~'~J~O~' i~="~-~'"'H
~ ADDRESS
NAME ' CON'(ACT PERSON PHONE
~o. ADDRESS X 135
FACILITY NAME (IF APPLICABLE) __ OPERATOR I PHONE
ADDRESS
~ CROSS STREET TYPE OF AREA [~ COMMERCiAL [] INDUSTRIAL [] RURAL TYPE OF BUSINESS [] RETAIL FUEL STATION
[] RESIDENTIAL [] OTHER ' [] FARM ~ OTHER
~ 03 LOCAL AGENCY AGENCY NAME CONTACT PERSON PHONE
,-, ,
· s m REGIONAL BOARD PHONE
(1) NAME QUANTITy LOST (GALLONS)
:~ .u ('~-- .~'~,..1 [[.)('--~'-- (~ UNKNOWN
u3-- [] UNKNOWN
DATE DISCOVERED Y HOW DISCOVERED [] INVENTORY CONTROL [] SUBSURFACE MONITORING [] NUISANCE CONDITIONS
~ O '1 ~ "I ~DI ? DI ~'~1 ~ [] TANK TEST E~ T ANKREMOVAL [] OTHER
~f DATE D.SCHARGE SE~'N M~OO USEDTO STOP D.SC.ARGE (CHECK AL.~TAPPm
~ ,.,I ,.I si OI ¥1 ¥1' ~ UNKNOWN [] REMOVE CONTENTS ..[] REPLACE TANK .[] CLOSETANK
O HAS DISCHARGE BEEN STOPPED ? [] REPAIR TANK REPAIR PIPING ~ CHANGE PROCEDURE
[] YES [] No , YES. DA . "1 "J ol ¥1 ¥ oTHETT'IF.v¢.
T,~K~ ONLY,~ACITY .A'~l~
~ SO.~_.CE ~,~C.ARGE
~ [] PIPING LEAK AGE ~.----"" YRS ~'STEEL [] CORROSION ~.ER UNKNOWN
@ [Z~ OTHER w. [] DinER F-I sP,u. [] o
CHECK ONE ONLY
L,ULU
o ~ UNDETERMINED [] SOIL ONLY [] GROUNDWATER [] DRINKING WATER - (CHECK ONLY IF WATER WELLS HAVE ACTUALLy SEEN AFFECTED)
~ m CH~ONFONLY .
~: ~ ~ SITE INVESTIGATION IN PROGRESS (DEFINING EXTENT OF PROBLEM) [] CLEANUP IN PROGRESS [] SIGNED OFF (CLEANUP COMPLETED OR UNNECESSARY~
,~u~ NO ACTION TAKEN [] POST CLEANUP MONITORING IN PROGRESS [] NO FUNDS AVAILABLE TO PROCEED [] EVALUATING cLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
CHECK A~PROPR~ATE ACT~N(S)(SEE BACK FOR ~TA~LS)
~~ ~ [] CAP SITE (CD) ' [] EXCAVATE & DISPOSE (ED) [] REMOVE FREE PRODUCT (FP) [] ENHANCED BIO DEGRADATION (IT)
~. [] CONTAINMENT BARRIER (CB) [] EXCAVATE&TREAT(ET) [] PUMP&TREATGROUNDWATER(GT)[] REPLACE SUPPLY (RS)
[] TREATMENT AT HOOKUP (HU) [] NO ACTION REQUIRED (NA) [] OTHER(CT)
·
8
HSC (~ (4/8;3
'June 29,.1989
Mr. James Llndsey
2]5 E. 22st Street
Bakersfield. CA 93305
SUBJECT: Location: 215 E. 21st Street
· ' Bakersfield, California
Known As: Pepsi Cola\Dr. Pepper
PER)fIT #: 150039
Dear Mr. james L.lndsey:
This letter is an official notice to inform you that the property described above
has been determined by Kern County Environmental Health to be the site of an
unauthorized release of hazardou~ materials from an underground storage tank. Thls
notice is sent to you because our records indicate that you are a responsible party
for this property.
As a responsible party, you must'provide for all studies and work relating to the
above described property and the cost for oversight of these activities. California
Health and. Safety'Code Chapter 6.7 and Kern County Ordinance Code Chapter 8.48 requlre
a determination of the threat to the environment as a result of this release. THE
RESPONSIBLE PARTY SHALL,· ON A TIMELY BASIS, DEVELOP A SITE CHARACTERIZATION,
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR KERN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH'S
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BEFORE THE WORK IS INITIATED. Enclosed you will find attachment
'A", Handbook UT-35, which states the minimum required site workplan activities, the
necessary requirements for selecting environmental contractors qualified to perform
this work. a glossary.of terms, example illustrations, and a section discussing the
answers tO commonly asked questions.
The cost incurred by Kern County Environmental Health for the oversight'of the work
for the site characterization, feasibility study, remediation action plan, site
remediation, and ongoing monitoring is not covered by any fees or permits. These costs
are recovered'by Kern County Environmental Health in one of the two ways described
below. It is your responsibility to select the method of oversight cost recovery under
the terms of the (A) State contract or (B) County of Kern. Local Agreement Option. These
options ONLY pertain to costs associated with oversight.
(A) STATE CONTRACT
The State Leaking Underground Storage'Tank Pilot Program-provides a mechanism for
the .State to reimburse the County for County oversight. The County will conduct the
necessary oversight and bill the State Water Resources Control Board under this State
' FI LE CON'I'i'~IITS INVEN'I'OiIY
Fac [ I [ ty '-)- ¥- -,,~'~
P~r~iL Lo COllSLl'UCL I Date
Permit Lo Operate- I Dale .
lppJJcaLJOll Lo AballdOll_ .,_ .~ 'rallk.(sJ Dale
Appi JcatJoll Lo COliSLl'ocL
Appllcatio~ to Operate /D ~ O~ '['auk Sheets Plot Plans
Ameaded Permit Conditions
Amlual Report Forms
Copy of ~rltten ConLract BeL~een O~'l~er &OperaLor
Inspection Rei,or ts
Corresi)omleuce - Received '~.
Date
Date
Da te
Dale
Ua Le
Correspondence - [lalled
Dale
Date
Date
Date
Date
AbalJdoilmell t/C J oslll'e
SampJ [llg/Lab Rel)oi'ts [~X~~ _
~ CompJJallCe Chock (~eu CollSLi'ucLJOll Chuiklls[)
S1'D Compliance Check (Ne~ CousLrucLJou Checklist)
~V[ P]ali Check ([te~ CmlsLrucLJoll)
[IVF iJlall Check (Existing Facility)
STD Plan Check JExlsLlng Facility)
"Incomplete Appl lcaLlm&
Peralt -Appl lcaL
Permit ll~structlmls Discarded
Tightness Test Results Date
Date
Uale
Mun]lor~n~ We~] Cuuslrucl]u~ Uala/Perm]~s
LocalJon
5LalemeuL u[ Under,round Co, 'lulls
Plot Plan Featuring Ail gnx",'onn, enLally Sensitive Data
Photos Constructlou Dras~' :~gs Location:
COUNTY or KElli
Enviromnental Health Services Department
2700 "M" Street, Suite 300
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(805) 86t .36.36
(805) 86t-3429 Fnx Number
PERMIT FOR PERMANENT CLOSURE [~~~~_~1 PERMIT NUMBER A946-15
OF UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES STORAGE FAGILITY
FAGILITY NAME/ADDRESS: OWNER(S) NAME/ADDRESS:. GONTRAGTOR:
Pepsi Cola/Dr. Pepper James B. Lindse¥ McNabb construction
215 East 21st Street .215 East 21st Street 7808 Olcott Ave.
Bakersfield, CA Bakersfield', CA Bakersfield, CA 93308
License #4'14331
Phone: (805)7327-2'210 Phone: (805)-399-4742
PERMIT FOR CLOSURE OF PERMIT EXPIRES September. 6, 1989
~ TANK(S) AT ABOVE APPROVAL DATE J~ne ~., 1989
Turonda R. Grumpier,. R.E.H.S.
................................ Post ON PREMISES ................... ' ........
CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS:
1. It is the responsibility of 'the Permittee to obtain permits which may be
required by other regulatory agencies prior to.beginning work.
2. Permittee must ~_ot~_f_y the Hazardous Materials Management Program at (805)
861-3636 two working days P~_~9.~ to tank (removal) or (inerting and filling)
to arrange for required inspections(s).
3. Permittee must obtain a Gity'Fire Department permit prior to initiating
closUre action.
4. Tank closure activities must be per Kern Gounty Environmental Health
Services and Fire Department approved methods as described in Handbook UT-
30.
5. Soil Sampling
Any deviation from sample locations and numbers or ConStituents to be
sampled for which are described below and in Handbook UT-30 must receive
prior approval by the Environmental Health Department.'
a. .(Tank size between 1,000 to 10,000 gallons) -a minimum of four samples
must be retrieved one-third of the way in from the ends of each tank
at depths of approximately two .feet and six feet.
PERMIT FOR PERMANENT CLOSURE PERMIT NUMBER A946-1§
OF UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS ADDENDUM
SUBSTANCES STORAGE FACILITY
6. If any contractors or disposal facilities other than those listed on permit
and permit.application are to be utilized, prior approval must be'granted
by the'specialist, listed on the permit.
7. Soil Sampling (piping area)
. a minimum of two samples must be retrieved at ~depths of approximately two
feet and six feet for every 15 linear feet of pipe run and also near the
-dispenser. area(s).
8.' .Sample analysis
a. All (leaded/unleaded) gasoline samples must be'analyzed for benzene,
toluene, xylene, and total petroleum hydrocarbons.
b. All diesel samples must be analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons
and benzene.
9. Copies of transportation manifests'must be submitted to the Environmental
Health Services Department within five days of waste disposal.
10. All applicable state laws for hazardous waste disposal, t.ransportation,
or treatment must be adhered to. The Kern County Environmental Health
Services Department must be notified before moving and/or disposing of any
contaminated soil.
ll. Permittee is responsible for making sure that "tank disposition-.tracking
record" issued with this permit is properly filled out and returned within
14 days of tank removal.
12. Advise .this office of'the time and date of the proposed sampling with 48
hours advance notice.
13. Results must be submitted to this office' within three days of analysis
completion.
TRC: cd
crumpler\946-15, pt.a
6-5-31
COUNTY OF KEpiS'
ronmental ltealth Services Department
2700 "M" Street, Suite 300
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(805) 86t.3636
(805) 86[-3429 Fax N.mher
PERMIT FOR 'PERMANENT' CLOSURE PERMIT NUMBER A946-15
OF UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES STORAGE FACILITY
FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS: OWNER(S) NAME/ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR:
Pepsi Cola/Dr. Pepper James B. Lindsey McNabb Construction
215 East 21st Street 215'East 21st Street 7808 Olcott Ave.
Bakersfield, CA Bakersfield, CA Bakersfield, CA 93308
License #474331
Phone: (805)-327-2210 Phone: (8.05)-399-4742
PERMIT FOR CLOSURE OF .PERMIT EXPIRES September 6, 1989
2 TANK(S) AT ABOVE APPROVAL DATE June 6, 1989
Turonda R. Crumpler', R.E.H.S.
.................................. POST ON PREMISES ............................
CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS':.
1. It is the responsibility of the Permittee to obtain permits which may be
'required by other regulatory agencies prior to beginning work.
2. Permittee must notify the Hazardous Materials Management Program at (805)
861-3636 two working days prior to tank (removal) or (inerting and filling)
to arrange for required inspections(s).
3. Permittee must obtain a City Fire Department permit prior to initiating
closure action.
4'. Tank .closure activities must be per Kern County Environmental Health
'Services and. Fire Department approved methods as described in Handbook UT-
30.
5. Soil Sampling
Any deviation from sample locations and numbers or constituents to be
sampled for which are described below and in Handbook UT-30 must receive
prior approval by the Environmental Health Department.
a. (Tank size between 1,000 to 10,000 gallons) -a minimum of four samples
must be retrieved one-third of the way.in from the ends of each tank
at depths of approximately two feet and six feet.
PERMIT FOR PERMANENT CLOSURE PERMIT NUMBER A946-15
OF UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS ADDENDUM
SUBSTANCES STORAGE FACILITY
6. If any. contractors or disposal facilities other than those /istedon permit
and permit application are to be utilized, prior approval must. be granted
by the .sPecialist listed on the permit.
7. Soil Sampling (piping area)
a ~~ of two samples must be retrieved at depths of approximately two
feet and six feet for every 15 linear feet of pipe run and also near the
dispenser area(s).
8. Sample analysis
a. All (leaded/unleaded) gasoline samples must be analyzed for benzene,.
toluene, xylene, and total petroleum hydrocarbons.
b. All diesel samples must be analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons
and benzene.
9. Copies of transportation manifests must be submitted to the EnvirOnmental
'Health Services Department within five days of waste disposal.
10. All applicable state laws for hazardous waste disposal, transportation,
or treatment must be adhered to~ The Kern County Environmental Health
Services Department must be notified before moving'and/or disposing.of any
contaminated soil.
11. Permittee is responsible for making sure that "tank disposition tracking
record" issued with this permit is properly filled out and returned within
14 days of tank removal.
12. Advise this office of the time and date of'the proposed sampling, with 48
hours advance notice.
13. Results must be submitted to this office within three days of analysis
completion.
ACCEPTED By: DATE
'TRC: cd
crumpler\946-15, pta
6-5-31
RATORIES Inc.
J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGII~.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petrole~a Hydrocarbons
· ' (SOIL)
McNabb Construction Date of
7808 Olcott Ave. Report: 12-Jun-89
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Attention: Bryon McNabb
Lab No.: 4503-5
Sample Desc: Pepsi-Yard '~
West Tank'- South En~ 2"
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: 'RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
08-Jun-89 09-Jun-89 08-Jun-89 1Z-Jun-89
Reporting ". Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g O. 35 O. 02
Toluene ug/g 1.02. O. 02
Ethyl Benzene · ug/g O. 62 O. 02
p-Xylene · ug/g 1.29 '" O. 02
m-Xylene ug/g 1.73' O. 02
o-Xylene ug/g I. 33 O. 02
Total Pet .....
Hydrocarbons ug/g 29219. O0 10. O0
TEST METHOD'. TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U.F.T Man~al Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
Co~n~nts:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Quantification of petroleum k~drocarbon
· utilizing a diesel standard as outlined by the California D.O.H.S.
The petroleum hydrocarbons are in addition to the constituents
· Specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. $102
J. J. Eglin Analyst
LABORATORIES, .I.r-Ic.
J. J. EGLIN, REG. CH~:M. ENGII.
PE~ROLE~
4100 PIERC( RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Pet~le~
(~IL)
McNabb ~t~ction ~ of
7808 Ol~tt Ave. Re~: 12-J~-89
~rsfield, CA 93308
At~ntion: B~on McNabb
~b .No.: 4503-6
~le ~sc: Peri Y~'
~ West T~ - ~th ~d 6'
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: _ RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
08-Jun-89 09-Jun-89 08-J,xn-89 .12'Jun-89
Minimum
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g O. 24 O. 02
Toluene ug/g O. 71 O. 02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g O. 52 O. 02
p-Xylene ug/g 1.11 O. 02
m-Xylene ug/g 1.45 O. 02
o-Xylene ug/g 1.21 O. 02
Total Pet.
Hydrocarbons ug/g .... 1'4623: O0 10. O0
TEST METHOD: TFH for Diesel 'by D.O.H.S.L.U.F.T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.'
Dry Matter Basis
Comments:
TOTAL FETRO~ HYDROCARBONS: Q~ntification of petrole~mm hydrocarbon
utilizing a diesel standard as outlined by the California D.O.H.S,
The petroleum hydrocarbons are in addition to the constituents
specifically defined.
California D.O. H, $. Cert. ~102
J. J. Eglin ~lyst
J. J. EGL! , EG. CHEM. ENGgR.
. PETROLEUM 4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petrole~ Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
McNabb Construction Date of
7808 Olcott Ave. Report: 12-Jun-89
-Bakersfield, CA 93308
Attention: Bryon McNabb
Lab No.: 4503-7
Sample Desc: 'Pepsi Yard
West Tank - North En~ 2~
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: COMPLETED:
08-Jun-89 09-Jun-89 08-Jun-89 12-Jun-89
Mini3~mm
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent ', Units Results Level
Bez~,ene .;~,,--' t~'/g .none detec~ O. 02
Toluene u~g none 'detect, ed' O. 02
Et, i'll Bez'~,ene t,~'/g none detected O. 02
:~-Xylene t,~'/g none detec~ ' 0'. 02'.
m-Xylene u~/g none de'betted. O. 02
o-Xylene t,~'/g none detected O. 02
Tot, a_). Pet .....
Hydrocarbons t,~:,/g . 113. O0 1_0. O0
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H. $. L.U.F.T Manual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
Comments .'
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: Quantification of petroleum hydrocarbon
utilizing a diesel standard as outlined by the California D.O.H.S.
q~ae petroleum hydrocarbons are in addition to the constituents
specifically defined.
.California D.O.H.S. Cert. '~102
J. J. Egl£n Analyst
AGRIC(/L
.,,,,,,,-, .,.,.,,,,,,., LABORATORIES. Ir'lo.
J. J. EGLIN, .REG. CHEM. ENGI~.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Petrole~rJ Hydrocarbons
(SOIL)
McNabb Construction Date of
7808 Olcott Ave. -- Report: 12-Jun-89
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Attention: Bryon McNabb
.Lab No.: ~4503-8
Smmple Desc: Pepsi Yard
West Tank - North Eh8 $'
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: EXTRACTED: C(IMPLET~:
08-Jun-89 09-Jun-89 08-Jun-89 12-Jun-89
Minimum
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g 0 ~ 02 O. 02.
Toluene 'ug/g O. 05 O. 02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g 0.03 0.02
p-Xylene ~g/g 0.30 ' 0.02
m-Xylene ~g/g 0.54 0.02
o-Xylene · ug/g 0.53 0.02
Total Pet. .. ·
Hydrocarbons ug/g 7149.00 10.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for Diesel by D.O.H.S.L.U. F, T M~nual Method
(Carbon Disulfide Extraction). Individual constituents by
EPA Method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
Coranents:
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS: ~antification of petroleum hydrocarbons
utilizing a diesel standard as outlined by the California D.O.H.S.
The petrole~0-hydrocarbons are in addition~ to the cor~tituents
specifically defined.
California D.O.H.S. Cert.
J. J. Eglin. Analyst
,,,,,,,,,,, LABORATORIES, I.r'qc.
J..I. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGil.
PETROL~CLIt, f
4100 PIERCE RD.; BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Purgeable Aror~tics
.(SOIL)
McNabb Construction Date of
7808 Olcott Ave Re~ort:. 12-Jun-89
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Attention: Br~on McNabb
Lab No.: 4503-1
Sample Desc: PePSi Yard'~
East Tank -'South End 2°'
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS·
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: COMPLETED:
08-Jun-89 08-Jun-89 09-Jun-89
Minimum
Reporting Analysis Re~orting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene. ug/g · 0.95 0.02
Toluene ug/g 4.55 0.02
Ethyl Benzene . ug/g 0.80 ., O. 02
p-Xylene ug/g 1.60 0.02
m-X¥1ene ug/g 2.90 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g 1.82 '0.02
Total Petroleum ....
Hydrocarbons ug/g 389,07. 5.00
TEST METHOD: TPH for gasoline by D.O.H.S, L.U.F.T. method.
Individual constituents by EPA method 8020.
Dry Matter ~asis
Conm~nts :'
0
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ¢102
J. J. Egl/n t
LABORATORIES, Inc.
J. J. EGLIH, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
P£ TROL
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-49! 1
Purgeable Aromatics
(SOIL)
McNabb Construction Date of
7808 Olcott Ave Report: 12-Jun-89
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Attention: Bryon McNabb
Lab No.: 4503-2'
Sample Desc: Pepsi Yard':
East Tank - South' End 6'
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLL~°TED: RECEIVED @ LAB: COMPLETED:
08-Jun-89 08-jun-89 09-Jun-89
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene ug/g 0.10 0.02
Toluene ug/g 0.21 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g 0.13 ... O. 02
p-Xylene ug/g 0.36 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g 0.68 0.02
o-Xylene ug/g 0.49 0.02
Total Petroleum ....
Hydrocarbons ug/g 165,47 5,00
TEST METHOD: TPH for gasoline by D.O.H,S. L.U.F.T, .ffmthod.
Individual constituents by EPA method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
Co~nts:
0
California D.O.H.S. Cert. $102
J. J. Eglin st
,,,,,,,, .ABORATORIES. INC..
p.CTROL.CLIM J.J. EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGR.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911
Purgeable Aromatics
(SOIL)
McNabb Construction Date of
7808 Olcott Ave Report: 12-Jun-89
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Attention: · B~yon McNabb
Lab Non: 4503-3
Sample Desc: Pepsi Yard:~'
East Tank- North End' 2'
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
COLLECTED: RECEIVED @ LAB: COMPLETED:
08-jun-89 08-Jun-89 09-Jun-89
Minimum
Reporting An~] ysis . Reporting
Constituent Units Results Level
Benzene 'ug/g none detected 0: 02
Toluene ug/g none detected 0.02
Ethyl Benzene ug/g none detected .. 0.02
.p-Xylene ug/g none detected O. 02
m-Xylene ug/g none detected O. 02
o-Xylene ug/g none detected 0.02'
Total Petroleum ....
Hydrocarbons ug/g .* none detected 5. O0
TEST METHOD: TPH for gasoline'by D.O.H.S.L.U.F.T. method.
Individual constituents by EPA method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis'
Comments:
0
California D.O.H.S. Cert. $102
J. J. Eglin t
AG*91£LIL TUR~c
,,,,,,,, LABORATORIES, Inc.
PETIIOL£LI~ J' J' EGLIN, REG. CHEM. ENGI~.
4100 PIERCE RD., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 PHONE 327-4911 '
~¢~abb Oonstr~¢t±o~ Date o£
7808 01oott Ave fie:~,:rt,: 1~-~u~-89
B,~e~s£ie].d, O~ 93:308
Attention: Bryon McNabb
Lab No.: 4503-10
Sample DeSc: Pepsi Yard~.
Sorvice ~ 6 ~
DATE SAMPLE DATE SAMPLE DATE ANALYSIS
· 08-Jun-89 08-Jun-89 09-Jun-89
Reporting Analysis Reporting
Constituent Units Results - Level
Benzene ~g/g 24.50 f- 0.02
Toluene ag/g 287.94 -- 0.02
Ethyl Benzene, ug/g 116.48-' ._. 0.02
p-Xylene ug/g 166.90'" 0.02
m-Xylene ug/g 401.22-' 0.02
o-Xylene ~/g 247. ?4' 0.02
Total Petroleum ....
Hydrocarbons ug/g 10069.86 5.00
· TEST METHOD: TPH for gasoline by D.O.H.S.L.U.F.T. method.
Individual constituents by EPA method 8020.
Dry Matter Basis
Co~nents
0
California D.o.H.S. Cert. $102
J. J. Eglin ~-~lyst
TNI'I~HA~ USE ONLY:
ITOO FLOWER STREET, BAKERSFIELD. CA 93305 I OF TANKS ~ BE A~NED
180S) 881-3638 LEHGTH OF PTPING ~
APPT..~. CAT! ON FOR PERM! T FOR PERI~[~NENT
CLOSURE/ABANDONMENT OF UNDERGROUND "
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES STORAGE FACI LITY
THIS APPLTCATION iS POR ENOVAL. OR ARANDO~ TN P~C~ *' (PILL O~ ON~ APPLICATION PER
PROJECT CONTA~ ~ .. . PHONE , SEC/T,'R IRU~L LOCATIONS ONLY)
TANK REHOVAL CO~RACT~ - ~ IADDRESS
ADDRESS ~ , ( PIIONE
WORKER'S COHPENSATION I INSURER PNONE
~DOR~Y TIIA~ILL A~ALY~ SANPL~ ADDRESS PIIONE
CJIENICAL CONPOSITION OP ~TERiALS STORED
CII~ICA~RED (~ON-CO~ERCIAL NANE) DA~S S~D ~ CIIEH[C~L P~EV~OUSLY
STORED
N~REST WATER ~ELL - GIVE DISTAN~iAND DESCRIBE ~PE [P WITHIN 800, PEET ~E AT PAC~LI~ i ~ ·
· . . ~ ..... ._ . .~'. ~ ' . ,
IIO~ RE3]DUE iN T~KI~P~NI AND P~P N~ IS ~ BE R~O~D A~ DZSPOSED~OP (iNCLUDE ~N~AT~ON ~D ~POSA~ CO~ANI~SI:
,,~.~ .~NPLET~D ~ER P~NAL~ O~ P~RJURY AND ~ TIlE BE~T OF ~VLE~OE IS ~UE AND CORRE~. .
GNA~RE
ALL OF THE FOLLCWING £NFORMATICN MUST BE INCLUDED [:l ORDER.FOR APPLICATION TO SE
PROCESSED ~/
%/ TANK(S), PIPING &-DISPENSER(S), INCLUDIiIG [~GTHS AND DIMENSIONS
¥/. PROPOSED SAMPLING LCCATIONS DESIGNATED BY THIS'SYMBOL "(~)"
V/ ~ST STRE'ET OR £NTERSECTION
~ANY WATER'Wk'tr.rA OR SURFACE WATERS WITHIN 100' RADIUS OF FACILITY
~. ~t ~ '~,.
lease prk~t °r;tyl~. (Fo~n designed for uae (t2.p/tch typewrfter). Sacramento. California
' UNIFORM HA~RDOUb [~: Generator's US EPA ID No. ,~ Manife, 2. Page 1 information ~ the shaded areas
~ "WASTE MANIFEST ~ i~lGlO~l~/ l.~l~~ i~l~J~°~t~' i o, j is not required by Federal law.
~ .'; :: .. ~ .,-: .~ ~- ~ ~ .-,-~' ; B..State~nerator'e'~
~ ~Tranlpo~er I ~mpany Name 6. US EPA ID Number C- State Transp~.'. ID ~
~ ~.. ;,,,;~, ,.'.'t../(e' ~1/ '5
~ 7. Trnns~er 2 Core.ny Name 8. US EPA ID Number E. Stale Transpo~er's ID
~ I I I I I I I I I I I I F. Tran~er'a Phofle :
-- ~D~nal~ Facility Na~ and Site Address 10. US EPA ID Number G. State Faclll~'a ID
12. Containers 13. Total 14. ~1. : .'
1 1. U~ DOT Description (Including Proper ~hipping Name, Hazard Class, and ID Number) Quantity Unit · Walls ~.
No. Type WI/Vol ...... :..: ',>..:.: ) · .
n. Stale ...... ~ · -.. -.'
- EPA/~her .
' ...... .
T ' ' ~A/~h~. -.~_, :,'... ::. ;'
4 .o I I I I I I I '' .... " ....
. ~t~,-' :'. '.' ·
~ I I I '"'~ I I I · ~ -'"'.-'."..-':
.-.,'../. ~r.~ :-~,~..r ?::4~'
O.~ ~~.~ -.-. .~ '. ... .. ~. : _~.:'~........>:~ .~ .... .......¥: ?~..:.
.~r_,r,.,~ ~cmi~ ~ x ~ ~.~ · ' ' ' ~ ...... " '~ '~ ' ~ "" '~ ' '"._1 . ' '"'
~. t~.':~,.~.-'OJ~'t. ' '.?'. :' :' "~" "~' ' "~" :~ ........
~ 18. ~1 ~1~ ln~truet~ ~d ~ddiflon~l
L--
~N~ATM'S CER~A~: I hereby declare that the contents Of this c~signment are lulN and accurately descr~ed above by proper shipping name
~ are ~sifi~, ~ck~, ma~, and la.led, and are in all reap~a in ~oper condition for tran~ by highway according to appli~ble international and
aat~l ~m~t r~ationa. .
If I em a ~e q.ant~y generalor. I ce~i~ that I have a pr~ram in place to r~uce the volume and toxicity of waste generated to the degree I have dete~ed
to be ~i~lly ~act~ab~ and that I have ~ed the predicable method of treatm~t, storage, or dispo~l currently available to me which minimizes the
~el~t and furze t~eat to human health and the environment; OR. if I am a .~11 quantity generator. I have made a go~ faith effo~ to minimize my waste
0 ~t~ and ael~ the beat waste m~age~nt method that ia avai~ble to me and t~t I can a~.
~ T 17. Tr~ I A~g~t of R~pt of Material8 t /
Month Day Year
O ~8. Trnn~er 2 A~now~ent of R~eipt of Material. ·"
'~ 'E ~ ' P~edlTyped ~me I Signature . Month Day Year
~ R I I
19. Oi~a~y I~ication ~ace
A
20. Fa~y ~er ~ ~at~ ~ffication of receipt of hazardous materials covered 'by this manifest except as noted in Rem 19.
T
DHS ~22 A (1/~) DO Not Write ~low This Line
EPA ~7~22
(Rev. ~-~) Previou~ ed~ne are obaolele.'
,~ . Yellow: TSDF SENDS THIS COPY TO GENERATOR WITHIN 30 DAYS
' __ __LINIFOi~M HAZARDOL~ ,. Ge .... to,'$ US EPA ID i'do Ma, 2 Page 1
· _ ,
~ : ...,; . ,. : ...;. ~ )
__ . ,.~
, ' I.'(~ ~: D Transporter's Phone
' ' .... .- , u,':, ..... d IJS EPA ID NumD*~r E Sf-~,: r-~nspc, rter's ID
':' ~ f ,. I i [ ~ [ [ [ [ [ [ I Il0 US EPA ID Number F. Transponer's PhOneFacihty,s ID
~ ~ 9 D,:.:,.mnt¢..~ F:,-,~,:,,. r ;m~, Rnd S Address · G State
'~O ~. ~ '.' . .... ~ .?. ¢¢ ~,.tI .~ ~ / ~.1~
~ O [ I: US Der Descr;phon (!ncluOmg Proper Shipping Name, Hazard Class, and ID Number) Quantity Unit Waste No.
State
__()z: - ' '" ''' ~ ~ - /'~/ mJ~/ ~ /
E b. j , State
'~ I
R c State
~ Er, A/~her
= I I '1 ;'1 I I I
m d. State
z
~ ~A/~her
O ·
~ I I I I I I I
e J. Additional Descr~tions for Materials Listed Above K.-~dli~ ~es f~ W~tea ~¢.~e - -
= q ...... .
~0 0 ~ ~ 0~__ . · . . . . .. :t ' .... ': -..' .' ~, '.. .: ~7'. . . .-:'
~ r¢- bj~-& .'..':' ' ' - '~ :;' .'
i.
·
18.
~ ~ENER~fOR'~ CERTIFIC~11ON: I hereby decl~¢e lh~l lhe co~ll~ll ot lhil conli nmeol ~re tully ~nd lccur~Illy de~cribed ~bove by ¢re~r ~biCping ~me
--~ a~d are cla~ailied, packed, m~d, ~nd I~el~, ~nd ~re in ~ll r!~ I~ proper condili~ fer Ir~n~ by ~ioh~y ~ccordinI to ~¢pllc~ble inI~lioo~l
~ Il I ~m ~ I~rge que~lily ~e~eralor, I ce~i~ l~I I hive i ~¢~rlm i~ Circe lo r~uce lha volume ~nd Ioxicily of ~gle O~n~r~led te the d~Oree I
Z
~ T 17. Transpo~er 1 Acknowl~ge~nt of R~eipt of Matedala
0 18. Transpoder 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of Materials
~ RE~ Printed/Typed Name ' ' J Signature ....... IM°nth
19. Discrepancy Indication Space
F
A
C
I
0. Facility Owner or Operator Ce~ification of receipt of haza~oua materials cov~ by this manBest except aa noted in ~em 19.
y~nted / Typed Name
3HS 8022 A (1/88) Do Not Write ~mow This Line ....
SPA 87~22
;Rev. 9-8S) Previous editions are obsolete. Blue: GENERATOR SENDS THIS COPY TO DOH5 WITHIN 30 DAY5
To: P.O. ~x 4~, Sacromento, CA 95812-04~
'-,/ooF~ow~, s,,o,t I(EilN COUNTY I IEAI-II'I DEPARTMENT · I!EAL3110FFICEn
r.qlleld. Cnlllo~dn O,3Rtt5 Loo. M Iloborlson. M.D.
~llty ~ame . -~ ~~~~~' l(orn County Permit ~
· * U~D~JIUJI(}U~I~ 'I'A~I{ DJSJ'USI'J'IOH 'I'JIACJ{I~g JIECt~IID * *
This £orm is to be returned to the
~[~ of ncc.eptm~ce o~ tnnk(s) by disposnl or recyolln~ ~ellity, The
...... _th, t .tb}., form .la coml~loted
-ect%on I - To be ~1lled out ~.tank removal coukra~pr: ' '
-,,,.-,
AuChot'ized t'epreae,tative of COlitt'actof col'rifles by SJgllJlig belot~ khat '
tmlk(s) have been (leCOlitamJllaL0{] Ill accordllllCe IfJtJl [er~ CouIiC~ Ilea/th
Vepartmen~ requiremell~s.- .
· / ~ig,a~ure 'title
laotian ~ -I'o be filled ou~ aud aiR,ed ~ an auUmrlzed representative o~ the
. treatment, storage. 9~ dlspgsul ~clllCy accepting tank(si:
Uake la.ks ltecelvel ~ ~ ,
(Authorized Repz'(~senCatlve) ~/ ~ '
· * HAILING It~STI{UUTIONS: Fo/d Ju half' and sLaplo.
Form III~I~IP- 1 SO) .
O/~lfllCr OFFICES'
Deln,o . Lamp,.' "- ,belin . MoJ~v~ . flld,~mesl Slmllet . Tall
' .: ':.. POST CARD AT JOBSITE ...
Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. ' 1'50039 Pepsi C°la Bottling Co. '" :'~'~i~':.. .....
ACILITY -' PERMIT # OWNER
DDRESS 215 East 21st St.". ' · ADDRESS -215 East 21st St. '"'-.
HONE NO. (805) 327-9992- Ext.-185 "-" '.'
NSTRUCTIONS: Please ~all for an inspector only when each group of inSpections
ith the same number are ready. They will run in consecutive o_rder beginning
ith number 1. DO NOT ·cover work for any numbered group until all, tt~ms in
hat'grOup are signed· off:.' by the Permitting Authority. Following these
nstrutions will reduce 'the number of. required Inspection visits and therefore
revent assessment of additional, fees.
- TANKS & BACKFILL -'
INSPECTION DATE INSPECTOR
Spark Test Certification
ll___~c~L. Number from tank
2~ressure test on tank
- PIPING SYSTEM -
2 Piping & Raceway w/Collection Sump ~ff'~'~ ~'~.
2 Corrosion Protection of Piping, Joints, Fill Pipe ~-Z$-S9 ~.~.
Electrical Isolation of Piping From Tank(s)
Cathodi c 'Protection System-Pipin~ ~~ ~
2 Pressure test on Primary Piping ,,, ~ -, ~
2 Pressure test on Secondary Piping -"~ -x~ ~_ ~ ~-~~
- SECONDARy CONTAINMENT, OVERFILL PROTECTION. LEAK DETECTION -
Liner Installation - Tank(s) ".
Liner Installation - Piping'
2 Level Gauges or Sensors, Float Vent Valves ~J~6~ ,~)~ .
3 Product ComPatible Fill Box(es) ~',7~ --
3 Product Line Leak Detector(s) ~-~.-~ ~f~ .'~~
2 Leak Detector(s) for Annular Space-D.W. Tank(s) ~/~/~f~ -/~,~~ /
Monitoring Well(s)/Sump(s) ~/' "
Leak Detection Device(s) For Vadose/Groundwater ~~~~ · ....
2 Under~o~d Conduct Packing & S~i/ ~/~ '
M°nlt°~iugW~ns' Caps*L°cks --~
b Monitoring Requirements ~(~¢
5 Fipa~
No
6. Are Red Jacket subpumps and all line leak detector .
Type of line leak detector .if any ~ 2~F
?. Overfill containment box as. specified on application? . ~ }~{
If. "No". what .type and model number: ~J ~{--,~00i.~'
a) Is fill box tightly sealed around fill tube? ~ I~l
b) Is access over water tight?
c) Is product present in fill box7 IZl
'8. Identify type of monitoring:
a) Are manual monitoring instruments, product and {~{ {~}
water finding paste on premises?
b)' Is the fluid level in Owens-Corning liquid level
monitoring reservoir and alarm panel in proper
operating condition?
c) Does the annular space or secondary containment
liner leak detection system have self. diagnostic
capabilities?
If "Yea", is it functional
If "No", how is it tested for proper operating
condition?
9. Notes on any abnormal- conditions:
. /. ..
7. All underground metal connections (e.g. piping, fitting, fill pipes) to tank(s) must be electrically isolated,
' and wrapped to a minimum 20 mil thickness with corrosion-preventive, gasoline-resistant tape or otherwise
protected from corrosion.
8. Prior to placing underground o/c tank in the excavation or backfilling, tanks must be air/soap tested for
leaks for no less than 30 minutes. (According to manufacturers specification.) Test must be certified by
the manufacturer, and a copy of test certification supplied to the Permitting Authority.
9. No product shall be stored in tank(s) until approval is granted by the Permitting Authority.
*10. Contractor must be certified by tank manufacturer for' installation of fiberglass tank(s), Or tank
manufacturer's representative must be present at site during installation.
11. Tanks must be 50 feet from contaminated site.
12. Monitoring probe must be located at the lowest point in the containment sump.
13. Monitoring requirements for this facility will be described on final "Permit to Operate".
* Submit certification prior to installation
ACCEPTED BY~ 1 ~. T~_4 DATE
TRC:cd
cmmpler\150039.ptc
Permit Application Checklist
Facility Name
Facility Address-"2~,~,(-"'~
Application Category:
Standard Design Motor Vehicle Fuel Exemption Design
(Secondary COntainment) -- (Non-Secondary Containment)
~pp~r~e~ Permit Application Form Properly Completed
Deficiencies: ~
Copies of Plot Plan Depicting: ~/ .
~,~..i~ea encompassed ~y mi~imum_100%foot radius 9round 'tank(s) and
A
~k r ed
ntified by a number and product to be sto __
Adequate scale. ~minimum 1"=16'0" in detail)
North arrow ~
All structures within50 foot radius of tan~(s) and_pi~ing
Lbcation and labe lng o all product plpi~g~~ispenser
islands ~
Envi.ronmen~al' sensitivity data including:
*Depth to first groundwater at site
*Any domestic or agricultural water well within 100 feet of
tank(s) and piping
'*Any surface water in unlined conveyance within 100 feet of
tank(s) and piping
*All utility lines within 25 feet of tank(s) and piping
(telephone, electrical, water, sewage, gas, leach lines,
seepage pits, drainage systems)
*Asterisked items:, appropriate documentation, if permittee
seeks a motor vehicle fuel exemption from secondary
containment
Comments:
Approved 3 Copies of Construction Drawings Depicting:
-- Side Vi~ of Tank Installation with ~ Raceway(s),
Secondary Containment and/or Leak Monitoring System in Place
T?qp View~__o~f.Tank Installation with Raceway(s)',Q'~-~econ~a~y) '.
~o~ntain~n~ and/or Leak Monitoring System in Place
A Materials List (indicating ~those used in the construction): ·
%-~%% -- Backfill· ---~ ~~ ' ·
%-~ Product Pipin~ - ... ~"O ~ ~.. ,,
~.~% Raceway(s) ~ %~~
' Sealer (S)
~.~ Secondary Containment k'~O ~~ ~
~~% Leek Detecto~(s) ~&' ~~ ~0~ ~~' ~ ~.~~~
Over f fll Protection
~ Gas or Vapor. Detector (s)
, Sump(s) ~ ~5
~ Monitoring (s)
Well
Additional:
Documentation of Product Performance
Additional Comments
Reviewed By Date
SITE INSPECTION: Approved Disapproved
Comments:
Inspector Date
FILE CONTENTS SUMMARY
ADDRESS : .~/~ ~' ~/ ~3~ 5/-
'.PERMIT ~: /.~Cd~. ENV. SENSITIVITY:
Activity Date # Of Tanks Comments
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ARTMENT Permit No.
2700 "M" STREET , STE. :atioI1 Date
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO opERATE UNDERGROUND
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES STORAGE FACILITY
Type Of Application (check):
~ew Facility [~Modification'Of Facility []Existing Facility C]Transfer Of Ownership
A. Emergency 24-Hour Contact (name, area code, phone): Days
Nights
Facility Name~'~_~-dOu~Y]q-u~-,~O.D~.-'~-c~t~-~ No. Of Tanks
TYpe Of Business (check): [~Gasoline Station ~ther (describe)~q>-t~l,{~
· Is Tank(s) Located On An Agricultural Farm? [~Yes
Is Tank(s) Used PrimarilYFor Agricultural Purposes? ~Yes [~
Facility Address ~.~o~;5-%-~~T- Nearest Cross St.
T R SEC (Rural Locations Only)
Owner ~-(fC, A~=o,-r~C~.~{~c:~=~~1~ Contact Person Y~{~
Address ~. ?_i~,-~-C-~- Zip ~'~°5:nf' Telephone~-~?.1-~'~
Operator ~-~ Coatact Person
Address Zip Telephone
B'. Water To Facility' Provided 8y~e~-~i{~l~~kd~ Depth to Groundwater
Soil Characteristics At Facility
Basis For Soil Type and Groundwater Depth Determinations
C. Contractor C{~l~ ~k%c:~-bZuC~. ~, CA Contractor's License No. ~-~[~ [(
Address I~b~4- ~..~'.\u~C-~ Zip ~%~c~4 Telephone
Proposed Starting Date %~1~ (~ Proposed Completion Date
Worker's Compensation Certification No.~.~.'~[~ Insurer-,~Z~
D. If This Permit Is For , ~°dification Of An Existing Facility, Brief!¥ Describe
Modifications Proposed
~/~
E. Tank(s) Store (check all that apply):
Tank ~ Waste Product ~otor Vehicle Unleaded Regular Premium Diesel Waste
0il
Fuel .'
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] O
[] [3. [] [] [] [] []
[] [] [] [] [] [] []
F. Chemical Composition Of Materials Stored (not necessary for motor vehicle fuels)
Tank , Chemical..StoreJ (aon-c~mmercialk / name)CAS t (if known)Chemical(if Previously different) Stored
O. Transfer Of Ownership ·
Date Of T~ansfer ' k / ' . Previous Owner
Previous'Facility Name I x / '
I, accept ~ully all obligations of Permit No. issued to
. . I/und~stand that the Permitting Authority may review and
modify or terminate the trag~fer/~ the Permit to Operate this underground storage
facility upon receiving this ~ompie~form.
This form has been completed under penalty of perjury and to the best of my knowledge is true
and correct.
t~
1, Tank is: [] Vaulted [] Non-Vaulted [~'~)mfl~le-l.~ll [] Slngle-lfall
2. Tank
[] C~.~r'hor, Steel ~ Stainless S~ee] ~ Polyvi,,vl Chlor.(de ~ Fiberglass-Clad Steel
~ Ftherglass-I(einl'orced Plas~.[c ~ Concrete I._] Alumilium ~ Ilronze ~ Unknown
~ [)~her (describe):
3. P~lmar~ Contalmnel~
DaLe ln~L. ulled' Thickness (.[nc:hes) Calmc.ity [Gallo.s)
4. 'l'uIIk Seco.(lur~ Co.l:a.illmellt
~l)ouh.l.e--Wa.lJ ~ S~nthe~lc [,.lu~r ~ i,Jlm(I Vault [~ None ~ IJnl(nowl~
F~ O~her (describe): H~,u,~no~u~r:
Material ~~LA~ Thl(:l<ness (tncl.~s) ~4~ Captlcliy (aa.Is.)
5. Tank lnLe~ior
~ 'llul~her J~ A.Ilcx. I ~ Epoxy ~ Phenolic [~$]ass ~ Clay ~ Unlined ~ Unknown
~ OLher (descrl. be)j~
6' Tank Cavt'osJon Pvot~'lon
~ 'aalva.lzed ~iber~]ass-Clad ~ Po.l~eth~:lelm Wrap ~. Vinyl Nrapping
~ Tar or Aspha[~ ~ IInkllOWll ~ .None ~ Hi:her (descrlbe)$
C~ho(lic l'rotec~l(~[: ~Nolle -~ Impressed Curren~ System ~ Sacrificial Anode System
Describe.S~s~e~ ~ gqUll)men~:
a. Tank: ~ Visual (vaulted tanks of~l~) ~ drnf,Jdl~a[er Alotlltorlf~g I~ell/s)
~ Vfldose' Zone MonJt:ol'Jllg i~e]](8) ~ U-'rul)e T~JtJlouL l,lner
~] U~Tube with Compatible'Liner D[recl:llIg Flnw To Nonl~ortng ~ell(s)*
~ Vapor Iletector *~,iquid l,eve] Sens~r* ~(~ouduc'tiviCy Sensor*
[~ Pressure Senso~ In Annular Space ()F Double Wall Tan~ *'
~ hlquid Retrieval & Inapectiolt F~oln U-Tube, Monitoring Well Or Aimular Space
~ Dally Gauging & Inventory Reconcillatloll ~e~iodlc Tlghtnes~ Testing
~ None ~ Ilnknowl~ ~ Other
b, PipJrtff: ~ Flow-Restricting Leak Detectoris) For Pressurized Piping*
['~ Honltortng Sump ~]th Racewax~ ~ Seflled eoncreLe Raceway
~ llalf-Cut Compatible .Pipe Raceway ~ Synthetic Liner Raceuay ~ None
*l)escrlhe Make & Hodel:.~(~~, ~
~. T~nk
Ilas This 'ranJc Beell Tightness Tested? ~Yes ~ No ~
l>a~e OF Las~ TJ~htness Tes~ ~/A Husu.JLs OF Test
'Pest Name ~~ __ 'res Ling ComlmnY
9. Tank ~al~. ,'
Tank Relmireclm ~ Yes ~No [~ Ilnlcnowl~'
Describe Repairs
O. ~[~ ['rote.ctt. o~!
~ OperuLor Ftl.ls, Controls. & Visa.lily Hmlit~rs l.evel
~ Tala Float Gauge ~aloaL VenL Va.lves I~] Auto Shut-OfF Conl:rol~
I~ 'CalmclLaneg Sensor ~Sea]ed FIll ilo~ [~] None [~
~ Uther: ~ ~}~ [,ls~ Make & Hodel For Above Devices
'1. ~l~lng
a. th~dergrouml Piping: ~es ~ No ~ Unl(nown MaLerlal
Thlckuess (inches) ~ Dlame[er '~ Manufactu~e~.~.~~
'~Pressnre ~ Such.ion ~ Grav.i~y Al~Proxlmate Leng[h Of Pipe Ru~
b. Uncler~round PJptnE CorrosJoll ProCecLJoll:
~ 6n.lvanlzed ~F.lber[['lass-(]]~.l I~ Impressed CHrrelt~ ~ Sacri. Etctal Anode
~] ['olye[hy.[eile I~rap ~ E[ec~ric~ll [sola~iou I~ Vinyl ~rap ~ Tar or AsPhalt
~ Unkt~o~n ~ None ~ Other (descrihe):
c, UlidePEt, ound PJptIiE, Secondary
~l)ouble-Wall' ~ Synthetic Liner Sy~t:em ~ None ~ Unlclmwn
~ Other (describe): . .
Standard Compliance Check
Equi.pa'ent to be installed:
[ T.nk(sl. ~_~_.rt. or · DSuct~on ~LPressurized C]oravity. ~ping
Req'd Appr'ov~
~.~-~% Pr.oof of Contractor's license - License ,'~q~G~ [ ~':
.~ /~ Type of License C~l A ~~
q-X /Proof of Contractor's Worker's Compensation Insurance,~_gl~~
Primary Containment
lberElass-ciad steel ~ake & ~odel
~Uncoated steel '~ake & ~odel
~Other: ~ake & ~odel
Inspection:
ouble-walled tank(s) Make & Model O~C~\~'~
ynthetic liner Make & Model
,[~Llned concrete vault(s) Sealer used
~-]Other Ty~Pe~~oL~ ,ake a ,odel
Comment: ~~C~
~ddltton~l:
Inspection:
Secondary Contplnment Volume at Least 100~ of Primary Tank
Volu.e(s )__~~~ '
Additional: u · .
Inspection:
Secondary Containment Voluse for More Than One Tank
Contains 150~ of Voluee of Largest Primary Containment or
10~ of Aggregate Prieary Voluke.~ ~hichever is Greater
Comment:
Additional ~,
'~ctt~n.~'~
Req'd Approved
Secondary Containment Open .to Rainfall Must Accommodate 2
Hour Rainfall Total Volume 'Comment:
Additional:
Inspection:
~~-~ Sec,Ondary Cootalnm~nt ls Product-Compatible
/'Additional:.Comment: Product ~'~-~ ' Documentation ~~~
Inspection:
Annular Space Liquid is Compatible with Product
Product Annular liquid
Comment:
Additional:
Inspection:
ry Containment of Piping
/ ~iberglass piping Size & Make 2/I
UCoated steel piping Size & Make
DUncoated steel piping Size
DOther
Comment:
Additional:
Inspection:
J ~Oouble-walled pipe ~& Make ~.~.~~
~ ~Jiynthetic liner in trench Size & Make
~']Other
Additional:
Inspection:
~orros'lon.~Tank(s)Protectlo~l~j~_~.~
OElectrlcal Isolation
Comment:
Additional:
Inspection:
~anufactuxer-Apur~ved B~ckfill ~or Tanks ~ Piping
Req'd Approved
Additional:
Inspection:
Ta/nk(s) Located no Closer than lO .Feet to~Bui]ding(s)~.
Inspection. '
-~\~-~\ Complete Monitoring System
Mop,nj/toting device within secondar~ cont~inmeflt:. ..
~fLlquld level 'Indicator(s)
[~Llquld used
~Thermal conductivity sensor(s)
~Pressure sensor{s)
~Vacuum gauge
Oas or vapor detector(s)
Manual inspection & sampling
Visual inspection
Other
Comment:
Additional:
Inspection:
Other Monitoring
Periodic tightness testing Method
Pressure-reducing line leak detector(s)~>(~ ~-~/~-
~Other
Comment:
Additional:
Inspection:
Overfill Protection
/~~cFTape float gauge(s)
loat vent valve(s)
apacitance sensor(s)
~High level alarm(s)
~l~omattc shut-off control(s) ~o~.<~~
1 box(es) with .1 ft. 3 volume~k~
~]Operator controls with visual level monitoring
Other
Req'd Approved
Additional:
Inspection:
Monitoring Requirements
Additiona! Comments
Inspection:
Inspector Date
Extra Inspectlons/Reinspections/Consultatlons
Date:
Purpose:
Comlent: ·
Tine Utilized
Date:
Purpose:
Comment:
Time Utilized
Date:
Purpose:
Comment
Time Utilized
Date:
Purpose:
Comment
Time'Utilized
InVoice Date: Total Time:
Inspector- Date:
.R E C E I P T PAGE
.... ~:i'?~.' ........................ i ................. . ................................................................ ; ............................. ~'~'"~'~ ...... ~ ............. ~"'
9:04 am. KERN COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
2?00 'M' Street
8akersfffe~d, CA 93301 Type of Order
(805) 861-2615'
CASH REGISTER LCI
Customer P.O.~ ! Mtn By Order Oate Shffp Date I Vfia Terms
H073189-i ! LJD 07/31/89 07/31/89 .! NT
L~ne Description Quantity Price Unit Disc Tota~
1 TANK PLAN CHECK 1 100.00 E 100.00
I?0A
Order Total 100.00
Amount Due 100.00
Payment Made By Check 100.00
THANK YOU.!
R E C E I P T PAGE
:]7/3 ~, 8~ [nvoic~ Nbr. 'l 20S0'5
9:04 am KERN COUNTY' PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
2700 'M'
Bakersfield, CA 93301 Type· of Order
.(805) 851-2615
..
CASH REGiStER LCI
HOT3lSg-: LJD i 07/31/89 07/31/89 ! i NT
-T.&N~; PLAN CNECK ! t00.00 E t00.00
170~.
Order Total ~00.00
'Amount CDue 100.00
Payment Made By Check 100.00
TH.~NK YOU!
1700 Flower Street ,..:RN COUNTY HEALTH DEPA. RTI~51% HEALTH OFFICER.
Bakersfield, California 93305 Leon M Hebertson, M.D.
Telel;hone (805) 861-3636 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Vernon S. Reichard
INTERIM PERMIT PERMI T$150039C
TO OPERATE:
I S SUE D: JULY 1, 1986
EXPI RES: JULY 1; 1989
UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
STORAGE FACILITY NUMBER OF TANKS= 2
FACILITY: I OWNER:
PEPSI COLA/DR. PEPPER BOTTLING I PEPSI COLA/DR... PEPPER BOTTLING
9-15 EAST 21ST STREET I . 21'5 EAST 21ST STREET.
BAKERSFIELD, CA ~ BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 '
TANK # AGE(IN yRs) SUBSTANCE CODE PRESSURIZED PIPING?
10,11 9 MVF 3 NO
NOTE': ALL INTERIM. REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE PERMITTING
AUTHORITY MUST BE MET DURING THE TERM OF .THIS pERMIT
NON--TRANSFERABLE ~ * * POST ON PREMISES
DATE PERMIT MAILED: ' PiU(~ £ 5 1986
DATE PERMIT CHECK LIST RETURNED: .
KERN couNTy
?70{) '{~' Street, Ste. 300 {~l.
Bakersfield, CA 93301 .~ironaental Health Se~ices O~
(805) 861-3636.,. , ~.
STO~G~ FAC IL I TY -~~~
FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS: OWNER(S) NAME/ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR:
Pepsi Cola Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. R.L.W. Engineering
215 East 21st'Street 215 East 21st Street 2080 So. Union Avenue
Bakersfield, CA' 93305 Bakersfield, CA 93305 Bakersfield, CA 93305
License # 294074
__NEW BUSINESS I PERMIT EXPIRES July 27, 1989
CHANGE OWNERSHIP
RENEWAL i APPROVAL DATE /~%pri1~7,/i~89! '
X MODIFICATION
_~ OTHER APPROVED BY .
POST ON PREMISES ........
CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS:
Standard Instructions
1. This permit applies only to the modification of an existing facility
involving I - 10,000 gallon unleaded gasoline and 1-10,O00'gallon diesel
tanks~ Tanks will be uncoVered to determine cause of tank tightness test
failures. If contamination is found a preliminary site assessment will
.be required as Per. #UT-30. If no contamination is found the new equipment
to be installed will include, fill pipes and containment boxes.
2. Ali construction to be as per facility plans approved bY this Department
and verified by inspection by permitting Authority.
3. All equipment and.materials in this construction must 'be installed in
accordance with all manufacturers' specifications.
4'. Permittee must contact Permitting Authority for on-site inspection(s) with
48 hour advance notice.
5. Backfill material for piping and tanks to be as per manufacturers'
specifications.
PERMIT TO CONSTRUOT PERMIT NUMBER 150039M
UNDERGROUND STORAGE FAOILITY ADDENDUM
6. Construction inspection record card is included with permit given, to
Permittee. This card must be posted at jobsite prior to initial
inspection; Permittee must contact Permitting Authority and arranger for
each group of required inspections nUmbered as per instructions on card.
Generally inspection will be made of:
a. Tank
b. Piping system
c. Any other inspection deemed necessary by Permitting Authority
?. All underground metal connections (e.g. piping, fittings, fill pipes) to
thickness with corrosion-preventive, gasoline-resistant tape or otherwise
protected from corrosion.
ACCEPTED, BY DATE
DS:cas
Starkey\lS0039M
4-26-01
Kern. County llealth Depart~ .. Permit No. ~,~0(~
Division of Environmental lth .icatton Date
1700 Flower Street, Bakersfield, CA 93305
(805) 861-3636
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO'OPERATE UNDEROROUND
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES STORAGE FACILITY
Type Of Application (ct~eck):
~]New Facility~Modificatton Of FacilitY OExistlng Facility,]Transfer Of Ownershi~
A. Emergency 24-Hour Contact (name. area code, phone): Days ~- ~'
- · · Nights .~- ~- ~/
Facility Name y~4; ~/~ No. Of Tanks
Type Of Business (c~eck): ~Gasoltne Station ~Other (describe) ~~
Is Tank(s) Located On An Agricultural Farm7 ~Yes ~No
Is Tank(s) Used Primarily For Agricultural Purposes7 ~Yes .~No
Facility Address ~y~~~~/~.~. Nearest Cross St. ~
T R SEC (Rural LocatiOns Only)
Address ~ /~ ~, ~/t~ ~.~.~,/~ ~ip ~~ Telephone ~gT-'
O~erator ~~ Contact Person
Address Zip Telephone
B..ater To Facility Provided By ~ /,~/ ~.~,~,. ~.Depth to Ground.ater~
Soil Characteristics At ~aclltty ~? ~/.~
Basis For Soil Type and Ground~ate~ Depth~eter~lnattons
~J ~. CA Contractor's License No. ~~7~
C.
Contractor
· Address ~ ~ ~. ~,'~ ~.~ Zip ~~ Telephone ~~//~
Proposed 8tarring Date ~f Proposed Completion Date ~-/~---
Worker's Compensation Certification No. ~ ~,'/, Insurer
D. If This Permit Is For' Modification Of An Existing Facility. Briefly ~Descrihe
E. Tank(s) Store (check all that apply):
Tank S Waste Product Motor Vehicle Unleaded Regular Premium Dieset Waste
Fuel Oil
O- o 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F. Chealcal Co.position Of Naterlals Stored (not necessar~ ~or motor' vehlcle ~uels}
Tank ~ C~e~lcal ~o~ed (non-cos~er~lal na~e) Ca5 ~ (1~ kno~n} Chemical P~evlouslv S~ored
(if different)
0. Transfer Of Ownership
Date Of Transfer Previous Owner
Previous Facility Name
I. accept fully all obligations of Permit No. Issued to
I understand that the Permitting Authority may review and
modify or terminate the transfer of the Permit to Operate this underground storage
facility upon receiving this completed form.
This form has been completed under penalty'of perjury and to the best of my knowledge Is true
and correct.
Signature ~~~~~ Tttl~.~ "~~- /~Y~7~. Date ~/:,~f~ ,
Facility Name y-~j~ f~_~/~_ Permit No.
TANK #~/. (FILL OUT' SEPARATE FORM EACH TANK)
--FOR EACH SECTION,' CHECK ALL APPROPRIATE BOXES
H. 1. Tank is: []Vaulted ~]N°n-Vaulted []Double-Wall ~Single-Wall
2. ~ Material ;'
Carbon Steel [2] Stainless Steel [] Polyvinyl Chloride [] Fiberglass-Clad Steel
Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic [] Concrete [] A~_umin~ [] Bronze []Unknown
Other (describe) '
3. Primary Containment
Date. Installed Thickness (Inches) Capacity (Gallons) Manufacturer
4. Tank Secondary Contai/~ent
DDouble-Wall [1Synthetic Liner []Lined Vault ~None •Unknown
[-1Other (describe): Manufacturer:
[-1Material Thickness (Inches)- Capacity (Gals.) __.. .
5. Tank Interior Lining
~]~Rubber []Alkyd []Epoxy []Phenolic []Glass []Clay ~Unlined [2]t~kno~n
[]Other (desq. ribe):
6. Tank Corrosion Protection
~Galvanized- . i IFiberg~ass-Clad [2]~olyethylene Wrap []Vinyl Wrapping
~Tar or Asphalt []Unknown [2]None ['1Other (describe)
Cathodic Protection: [-]None []Impressed Current System ['1Sacrificial Anode System
Describe System & Equipment:
7. Leak Detection, Monitoring, and Interception
a. 'Tank: ~'[Visuai (vaulted 'tanks only) .L~Groundwater Monitorirg' Well(s)
DVadose Zone Monitoring Well(s) [~]U-Tube Without Liner
~U-Tube with Compatible Liner Directing Flow to Monitoring We.ll(s)
[] Vapor Detector* [-] Liquid Level Sensor* [~ Conductivit~ Sensor
~ Pressure Sensor in Annular Space of Doub&e Wall Tank·
D Liquid Retrieval & Inspection Frcm U-Tube, Monitoring Well or Annular Space
~_ Daily Gauging & Inventory Reconciliation [-1periodic Tightness Testing
[]None DUnknown ~Other '
b. Piping:. ~lFlow-Restrictin~ Leak Detector(s) for Pressurized Piping"
~Monitoring S~p with Raceway DSealed Concrete Race~ay'
[]Half-Cut Compatible Pipe Raceway []Synthetic Liner Raceway ~None
[] Unknown [] Other
*Describe Make & Model:
8. Tank Tightness
]~T'~uls Tank ~een Tightness Tested? ~¥es ~No []unknown
Date of Last Tightness Test ~/- 3 ~_ _f-_~ Results of Test ~ ,~/~/
Test Name /~/~/-/d.~.~
9. Tank. Repa! r
Tank Repaired? [:]Yes ~N~ ['1Unknown
~ Date(s) of Repair(s)
Describe Repairs
10.Overfill Protection.
Operator Pills, Controls, & Visually Monitors 'Level
Tape Float Gauge []Float Vent Valves [] Auto Shut- Off Controls
Capacitance Sensor [-1Sealed Fill Box []None []~nknown
Other: j3~7/~ ~/-~ ~~ ~...~z~lst Make & Model ~or Above Devices
11. Piping.
a. Underground Piping: I-lyes ['1No ~Unknown Material
· Thickness (inches) Diameter Manufacturer
[2]Pressure [2]Suction [~]Gravity Approximate t~.ngth of Pipe Run
b. Underground Piping Corrosion Protect[on :
DGalvanized ~Fiberglass-<Jlad [2]Impressed Current []Sacr{fic~al Anode.
Polyethylene Wrap '[]Electrical Isolation []Vinyl Wrap []Tar or Asphalt
Unknown [2]None [-]Other (describe)
c. Underground Pipirg, Secondary Containment:'
[2]Double-Wall ~Synthetic Liner System ~None ~Unknown
~Other (describe)
Facility Name ~ ;.. Permit No. /~OO~%
TANK (FILL OUT SFPARATE FORM __ EACH TANK)
~FOR EACH SECTION, CHECK ALL APPROPRIATE BOXES
H. 1. 'Tank is: [VaUlted [~Non-Vaulted []Double-Wall ~Sin~le-Wall
Car~n Stol ~Stai'nless Steel ~l~inyl C~oride ~Fiber~lass~l~ Steel
Fi~rglass-Reinforc~ Plasti~ ~C0no~ete ~ ~in~ ~ Bronze
Other (de~ri~)
3. Priory Contai~nt
~te Ins~lled ~ic~ess (Inches) Ca,city (~llons) ~nufactu~er
Seconda ~y Contai~ent
~Other (descri~) ~ ~ufacturer:
5. Tank Interior Lini~
'~Othe~ (de~ri~)~
6. Tank Corrosion Protection'
~Tar or ~p~lt ~k~ ~No~ ~Other (de~ri~):
~rl~ System & Equl~ent~
7. Leak Dete~tion, ~nitori~, and Interception
a. Tank: ~Vis~l (vault~ t~n~s only) ~Gro~ter ~nitori~'
~Vadose Zone ~nitori~ ~ll(s) ~U~ Wi~out ~ner
· ~U-~ wi~ C~tible Liner Dir~ti~ Flow ~ M°nitorl~ ~l(s)~
~ Va~r ~t~tor* ~ Li~id ~vel ~n~r- ~COnd~tivit~ Se~r'
'~ Pressure Sen~r In ~ular S~ce of ~ub&e Wall Tank
~ Liquid ~tri~al ~ Ins~ction F~ U-T~, Monitori~ ~11 or ~ular S~ce
b.. Pipit: ~Fl~Restricti~ ~ak ~tector(s) for Pressuriz~ Pipit"
~ ~nitori~ S~p with ~ce~y ~al~ ~n~rete ~ce~y
~lf-Cu~ C~tibl~ Pi~ ~ceway ~S~t~ti~ Liner ~eeway ~Non~
8. Tank Tightness
~'mis ~'a~ ~en Ti~h~ess ~sted~ ~Yes ~ ~kno~
Results of Test ~
9. Tank
Ta~ Re~ir~ ~Yes ~ ~kno~
10. ~erflll Protection.
~O~rator Fills~ Controls, ~ Visually Monitors
~Ta~ Fl~t Ga~ ~Fl~t Vent Valves ~ Auto Shut- Off Controls
Thtckne~ (i~hes) Di~eter Manufacturer
~Pressur~ ~tfon ~Gravity ~proxi~t~ ~ of Pl~
b. Undergro~ Pipig Corrosion Prot~tion ; . -.
~lvanized ~Fi~rqlass~l~ ~ess~ ~rrent ~cr~ficial
~Polye~yle~ Wrap '~Electrical Isolati~ ~Vinyl Wrap ~Tar or As~lt
~un~o~ ~None ~her (de~ri~):
c. Underpro~ Pipit, Seco~ary Contai~ent:
~Other (de~ri~):
FILE CONTENTS INVENTORY
Fac I 1 I ty t ~ ~ .
Permit to # .' of Tanks Da're
Permit to Construct t Oate
Permit to Operate # f~'O0~*c{ d~ Date
Application to Abandon ~ Tank(s) Date
Plot Plans
Application to Operate
Amended Permit Conditions . ~ ~.~ ':%
Annual Report Forms
· ~ ~::~ '-?t .-' '"~ · ~ --
Copy of Written Con~ruct ~;ween Owner & O~dr~d' '~ ~:~.~ ..
Xn p t o. .?' .,,'" / ?
~responden~Mai led ..,~':.~
.~3~ ~ .
· '~ ~ :~'" ~ ' ~ '
Sa~pl ing/C~Repor ts ~ _
8VF Co~pl[:~ce C~ck {~e~ Co~ct~on Checklist}
STD Compliance Check ~e~ Co.ruction Checklist)
gVF Plan Check' {~e~ Constru~on}
STa Plan Check {~e~ Construction)
~VF Plan Check (Existing Facility)
5TD Plan Check (Existing Facility)
"Incomplete Application" Form
Permit Application Checklist
Permit Instructions Discarded
Tightness Test Results Date
Date
Date
~onitorlng ~ell Construction Data/Permits
Environmental Sensitivity Data;
Groundwater Drilling, Boring Logs
Location of Water Wells
Statement of Underground Conduits
Plot Plan Featuring All Environmentally Sensitive Data
Photos Construction Drawings Location:
Miscellaneous
May 1, 1989
~ Boyce Kern Co~-- al Health, n..
Kern County Environmental Health Services ~myHealth'~'~.
1700 Flower Street
Bakersfield, CA 9330S
Subject.. Underground Fuel Storage ?anks
Dear Ms. Boyce,
As you are aware, we are currently investigating the status of our
underground tank condition at our facility in Bakersfield. The following
is. a summary of our progress to date.
Special Notes~
Key, Tank #10 (10,000 gallon Diesel Storage / previously regular
gasoline storage).
#11 (lO,Q00 gallon Diesel Storage)
Item ~ Date Work Description
1 4/22/89 Tightness test conducted on tanks #10 and #11
by RLW / Redwine Manley show tank #10 suspect of
fill tube leak, tank #11 suspect of tank and / or
line leak.
2 4/24/89 Notification of Kern .County Environmental Health
Services of test results, potential release and need
for further investigation.
3 4/26/89 Obtained permit to expose fill tube/tank connections
on tanks #10 and #11.
'4 4/27/89 Excavated site and noted tank #10 has a cracked vent
pipe fitting located in the overfill box area,
approximately 20" above the connection of the vent pipe
0/9~/ to the tank. The surface of the exposed tank wall
showed various pitted areas and corrosion damage but no
/5~~ ? /~ visible leaks. Tank #11 showed good wall surface
condition and no visible leaks in .the expOsed areas.
215 East 21st Street, Bakersfield, California 93305. 805/3'27-9991 · WA]-fS 1-800-821-2936
5 4/28/89 Further inspection of tank #11 included filling to
capacity to observe inventory level changes..
6 5/1/89 Loss of fuel from fill tube of.tank #11 noted over
weekend. Arrangements to expedite the emptying of tank
#11 contents include the transfer of fuel to tank #10,
nightly fueling from tank#Il and pumping remaining
contents on 5/4 (to be shipped to our Mojave Branch
Facility).
At this point our proposed action plan includes the following steps.
Item# Date Work Description
1 5/4/89 Completely empty the contents from. tank #11 by 5/4 to
prevent any further release.
2 5/5/89 Obtain bid proposals from Groundwater technology and
RLW to cover the removal and abandonment of tanks #10
and.#11. ·
3 Wk of 5/10 Completely empty the contents from tank #10 and provide
a temporary diesel fueling site. utilizing an above
ground tank.
4 5/12/89 Present'a proposal to your office explaining our
timetable and action plan.to abandon tanks #10 and #11.
5 5/19/89 Present a proposal to your office outlining a new fuel'
tank installation project.
Our goal at this point is to eliminate any further losses while evaluating
options for the removal of our current tanks and design of a new fueling
system.
Please contact me' as soon as possible if you have further questions or
concerns.
Sincerely Yours,
Kevin Phillips
Warehouse Manager
KP/jg
KERN COUNTY HE,/kI. TH DEP,A1;tTlqENT PERMIT
I N~ffORY RECORDING SHEET
E~U~T~ ON 1
-- OPENING OPENING CLOSING CLOSING METER DAI~Y METER TOTAL RE~ING GAUGING GAUGING DELIVERED WATER
DATE GAUGING I~ENTORY INVENTORY READING - R~DING ' METERED ADJUSTMENT BEFORE AFTER INVENTORY GAUGING
' SALES DEL IVERY DEL I VERY
DAY/HOUR :NCHES GALLONS GALLONS" GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS -GALLONS INCHES GALS INCHES GALS GALLONS
'?~ ~ -:?'2 .-?~,g{ ?R~z.z~ ~P .... , , ,","~/F./' ? ~.~
, ~.; g~ ,~ ~,~ i()~i~ '; ,...~ - .c ~I.~
~.~- L~F ~ ~z~.~ ~ .~ /Z~Ig. ~' }' ', ?.'." 2 ~.~ ..........
~'/V' q"' :.,.' /.'~ ~ ~.~ /~/~,~ ~/~2". ~,~' /~ -
, ,
~ ,
~ {.
I HER'-'-EBY CERTII~Y THAT THIS IS TRUE AND ACCURATE REPORT. SIGNATURE DATE
Health SlO
KERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT PERMIT · /--¢~
~6~ ~ ~~~ I NVIBNTORY RECONCILIATION SHEET
FACILITY- . TANK · // CAPACITY ~/~..~ ~ PRODUCT ~ MoNTH/YEAR
E(~UATI ON 2 E(~VATI ON 3 EQUATI ON 4
DATE OPENING + DELIVERED CLOSING I~ENTORY .TOTAL METERED RE~ING TOTAL.METERED TOTAL METERED INVENTORY ~O'UNT
INVEN~RY INVENTORY INVEN~RY ~, REDUCTION SALES - ~JUSTMENT ~ THROUGHPUT THROUGHPUT - REDUCTION = OVER OR SHORT
DA~/~}OU~ -~ GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS O~LONS GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS +GALS. -GALS.
~ I ~ !~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll tlllllllllllllll ,~:,:/,~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~1111111111111 / 77
~-i~ ,~ __ e~,~ 7~. ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~s
~ ~ ~ /~ /I/I/I/lll////IH ~111//111/1///// ~? . //////////////I/~'//////////I// /~/
z-,~ ~ 7~/'~ ~ ~ ~97 ' . ~
~ ~vGz ~o ~
Z-17 i~ ' ~ ~, ~
~ ~ ~ 17~ lllllllllllllllll, MIIIIIIIIIIIIII ...... -. IIIIllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIII '~ ,.
~EK 4 ~ALS ~ I//l/llllllllllllllllllllll////// ~, IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1,1111111111111, ..~
I I -
I II
k. i4~iith {lO 4113 1017 |6/16) (Irronll
.g
A. Percen_~t Variation:
IN3~KNTORY RECONCILI-~ekTIoN StDeqZdtY
Amount Over/Short (Col. 1G) ~-/77 Gals. ~ Total Metered ThrouEhput (Col. 15) /Z~Z- Gals. x 100 = /~/ ~ Variation
B. ~eportlng: /~'0 '
1. Does the Amount Over or Short exceed-O~O Oale? ~NO - Continue r~, ,onltorln, ~YES - Report within 24 hours of discovery.
2, Does the Variation exceed 5~? ~NO - Continue routine monitoring ~S - Report to Permitting Authority within 24 hours of discovery.
/--
A. Percent. Variation:
Amount ~er/Ghort (Col. 16) /d/ Gals. + Total Metered Throughput (Col. 15) ' /~ 6a18. x 100 ~ ~,~ · Variation
B. Reportlnr: 1. Does the ~ount ~er or Short exceed 350 Gals? ~0 - Continue routine monitorlnE ~YES Report ,lthin 24 hours of discovery.
2. ~es the Variation exceed St? ~NO - ~ntinue routine monitorl~ ~S - Report to Persltting Authorit~ uithln 24 hours of dltcover~.
A. Percent Variation:
Amount Over/Short (Co!. 16). ~'~ Gale.
B. Reportlna:
1. Does the Amount Over or Short exceed 350 Gala?
Total Metered Throuzhput {Col. 15) ~'7
6nls. x 100 - ' 7~ · Variation
Does the Variation exceed
F~NO
~-]NO - Continue routine aonitorln~
- Continue routine monitorin~ [-]YEG Report within 24 hours of discovery.
~'~YES - Report to Permitting Authority, within 24 hours of discovery.
/5~ Gals. x 100 * ~ Variation
.sss 41
A. Percent Variation:
Amount Over/Short (Col. 161 Oale. + Total Metered ThrouEhput (Col. 15)
B. Resort lnR:
1. Does the Amount Over or Short exceed 350 6als? ' OMO - Continue routine nonitoriq
2. Does the Variation exceed B~? ~NO - Continue routine monitoring OYlS8
mmTRI
A. Percent Variation:
Amount Over/Short (Col. IO) ~~ Gale. ~ Total Metered Throughput (Col. 15)
B. Reporting:
Does the Variation exceed 1.5~? ]-]NO - Continue routine lonltorin~ f-lYRE _
[-]YES - Report within 24 hours of discovery.
Report to Permitting Authority eithln 24 hours of discovery.
,~ 6ale. x 100 - -Z~,O · Variation
Report to Permitting Authority within 24 hours of discovery.
! HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THI8 I$ A TRUE AND ACCUR/~_TE RBPORT;
gev. Health 5804113 1017 (m/K) (BaCk)
sim~Tm~
DATE
KERN COUNTY HE.i~TH DEP~.RTMENT PERMIT
TN~ffO~y RECORDXNG SHEET
E(~UATi ON !
1 2 $ 4 5 6 [ '/ * [ 8 9 10 11 12 13
OPENING OPENING CLOSING CLOSING METER DALLY METER TOTAL READING GAUGING GAUGING DELIVERED WATER
DATE GAUGING INVENTORY INVENTORY READING, - READING = METERED ADJUSTMENT BEFORE AFTER INVENTORY GAUGING
. SALES DELIVERY DELi VERY
DAy/HOUR INCHES GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS - GALLONS INCHES GALS INCHES GALS GALLONS [NCH{~'-
.... ~ ,~ I~ ~.Z~ /~.~ I~,~ / ~U~.~ ~,~ --
I- 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~e~.~ ~7 z~.5 ~ ~/? ~/~,,I ./~ ~ ~. ~ ~ vz, $ ..... !.~_
'r/- /~ xT ; //.'/' 6o~. ~ ~-~?.~7 /'1 ~-~ , '"' ~-~, / ~ /~ ~'~ .,
' ..--. .,.~, :,?/ ~/.~ ~?~/.~ · ~ ~,~ ~/.,~-'.,'. ~z.~
i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE REPORT. SIGNATURE DATE
Em,,. flmilth S80 4113 1016
KERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
l NV'ENTORY. RECONCI LI ATX ON SHEET
TANK · // CAPACITY ,,/~::~c~c).~/C- PRODUCT ~)1~'~.:*~-
HONTH/YEAR ~ I°/oe~'
EOUATI ON 2 · E(~JAT! 9ON :3 E()UATX ON 4
I ~ 4 · I I~ I ~ I 14 s I I~ l~ ! ~4 I ~6
DATE OPENING + DELIVERED CLOSING INVENTORy TOTAL METERED . RE'lNG TOTAL METERED TOTAL METERED INVENTORY ~OUNT
I~ENTORY I~ENTORY - INVENTORY ~ REDUCTION SALES - ~JUS~ENT = THROUGHPUT THROUGHPUT - REDUCTION OVER 0R SHOR~
~AY/~0U~8~ _~ GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS GALLONS +GALS. -GALS.
,_~ ,~ ~.~1 /~// ~ /~// /&// /~//
~ 1 ~ ~ I~ [[[////////////// '/////////////// ~,. ////////////////,'/////////////
/-1 ~ qo~,~ ~4~.$~ ~o. I ~o /~o /~o ,~ .~.~,.
~- /~ ~57 P//5./~ ~/r /P7 ~7 /97 ~,/
~ 2 -~ {~ [11[1111111111111 r/1/1/1/1/////// ,t,~ I llll/ll/llllllllllllllllllllll .
,-17 ~o 7~,~$ bT~.~'t 737 ~7~ gT~ ~75 787
~ S ~ Eg~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1'111111111111111 .~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~!-7 -
WEEK 4 ~T~S ~l~ ////I/I/111/111// '/1111111111//11 ~ IIIII/I/I/I/11// f////////lll//
~ I II
- I II -
-- ~y ~ g7 7~ 1/1/ill/U/////////////////////lll ~' t/1/1/1/1//////////////////////
Ib~. Hl~tb 5804113 1017 (6/B6) (Front)
II~'T~I~NTOR¥ RECoNCxLXATXON SUMMAI~¥
A. Percent Variation:
Amount Over/Short (Col. 16) ' ; /o GalS. ~ Total Metered Throughput {Col. 15) ~- ,Oaln. x 100 - ,oo~ ~ Variation
B. Reporting:
i. Does the Amount Over or Short exceed/350 Dais? ~ - Continue routine monitoring [--]YES - RePort ,lthln 24 hours of discovery.
2. Does the Variation exceed 5%?~q~JNO - Continue routine monitoring [~YES - Report to Permitting Authority within 24 hours of diecovery.
A. Percent Variation:
Amount Over/Short (Col. 16) --~ Gals. ~ TOtal Metered Throughput {Col. 15} /~c~c) Gain. x 100 * ~.~ ~ Variation
B. Reporting:
1. Does rheA mount Over or Short exce~O Dale? [-]NO - Continue routine monitoring - Report within 24 hours of discovery.
2. Does the Variation exceed H%? ~,~NO - Continue routine monitoring . [-]YKS - Report to Permitting Authority within 24 hours of dtecover¥.
A. Percent Variation: ~L~.,~ .
Amount Over/Short (Col. 16) ~-- Gals. ~ Total Metered Throughput (Col. 15) ~ 6als. x 100 - /'~ ~ Variation
D. Reporting:
~. Does the Amount Over or Short exceed3/60 6aim? ' [~NO - Continue routine nonitoring ~/YK8 - Report within 24 hours of discovery.
2. Does the Variation exceed 5~?~t~JNO - Continue routine monitoring ~-]YES - Report to Permitting Authority within 24 hours of discovery.
A. Percent Variation:
Amount Over/Short (Col. 16) -~ GelD. ~ Total Metered Throughput (Col. 15) ~ 0818. x 100 - ,/~Z ~ Variation
B. Reportinl:
'1. Does the Amount Over or Short exceed/~8~ Gals? Continue routine monitoring . '[-]YK9 - Report within 24 hours of discovery.
2. Does the Variation exceed'5~?~NO - ~ontlnue routine monitoring ~YES' - Report to Permitting Authority within 24 hour8 of discovery.
mi
A. Percent Variation:
Amount Over/Short (Col.
B. Reporting:
Doe8 the Variation exceed 1.5~?
Gals. ~ Total Metered Throughput (Col. 15)
NOah-Continue routine monitoring g-lYES -
~7~ .Omit. x 100 - ' ~ · Variation
Report to Pernitting Authority within 24 hour8 of discovery.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE REPORT.
SIONATURK
DATK
Env. ~eaJtn 580 4113 1017 (6/86) (8ack)
1700Flower Street KERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT HEALTH OFFICER
Bakersfield, California 93305 Leon M Hebertaon, M.D.
Telephone (805) 861-3636 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Vernon S. Reichard
September 4, ~987
Don Buckner, Warehouse Manager
Pepsi
215 East 21st 'Street
Bakersfield, CA 93305
Dear Mr. Buckner:
After careful review of the reporta_ble inventory
variations at your facility located at 215 East 21st Street
(permit #150039C), this Department has concluded that these·
results are due to a history of low throughput. This
letter is to advise you that you will. be granted a
"provisional exemption" from the standard reporting
described in your permit packet.
This Department is currently undertaking a study of the
inventory control problems of Iow-throughput tanks. To
facilitate this, a copy of reconciliation worksheets for
tanks listed on the attached outline must be sent to this
Department monthly so that 'we may add this Information to
our data base. Please send all submittals to my attention.
Our preliminary Information indicates that a change in
reportable variations, is necessary when the throughput of a
tank is less than 2,00~ gallons per week and less than
1___0,000 gallous pe~ month. The accompanying "Low-Throughput
Tank Reporting Outline" describes these changes.
A revised action chart and an example of a changed
summary sheet (on the . back of' Inventory reconciliation
worksheet) have also been enclosed for your convenience.
Please make these changes on your worksheets for weeks in
which you have low throughput.
DISTRICT OFFICES
Delano . Lamont . ' ~ke Isabella MoJave Ridgecrest . Shafter . Taft
Don Buck,~er, Warehouse Manager
Paffe 2
September 4, 1987
Be advised that thi's provisional exemption is subject
to change as further 'data becomes available to. the Health
Department. If, however, a listed tank at any time exceeds
the defined low-throughput amounts, you must revert to
Compliance with the original reporting requirements. If
you have any questions regarding this correspondence I
can be reached at (805) 861-3636 between 8 am -9 am.
Sincerely,
nis Lehman
Environmental Health Specialist
· Hazardous Materials Management Program
JL:aa
Enc 1 osures
(Form letter #HMMP 510)
Low--Throuffhput Tank
Re~orti n~ Outline
These amended permit requirements are only applicable to tank(s)
indicated below when weekly throughput is less than 2000 gallons
and monthly throughput is 'less than 10,000 galions:
Effective Date: September 4, 1987
Facility Permit # 150039C
Tank # 10 , Diesel
Tank # 1'1 , Gas
Tank # ,
Tank # ,
Amended Permit Requirements:
1. Revised Inventory reconciliation monitoring worksheets are to
be submit'ted to the Health Department on a monthly basis.
2. Revised Action Chart is to be posted at facility
3.. All variations · exceeding the following amounts must be
reported as described on page 16, part "2" of Handbook #UT-10.
DAILY - 75 gallons
WEEKLY - 150 gallons
MONTHLY - 200 gallons
TREND ANALYSIS - No change
(Form #HMMP~llO)
CHECKLIST
Facility
This checklist is provided to ensure that all necessary packet enclosures were received
and that the Permittee has obtained all necessary equipment to implement the first phase of
monitoring requirements.
Please complete this form and return, to KCHD in the self-addressed envelope provided
within 3__~0 days of receipt.
Check:
Yes No
A. The packet I received contained:
..... "" 1) Cover Letter, Permit Checklist, Interim Permit, Phase I Interim .Permit
Monitoring Requirements, Information Sheet (Agreement Between Owner and
Operator), Chapter 1§ (KC0C #0-3941), Explanation of Substance Codes,
Equipment Lists and Return Envelope.-
../ 2) Standard Inventory Control Monitoring Handbook #UT-10.
~7 3) The Following Forms:
a) Inventory Recording Sheet
b) Inventory Reconciliation Sheet with summary on'reverse
c) Trend Analysis Worksheet
':../. 4) An Action Chart (to post at facility)
!
:/ B. I have examined the information on my Interim Permit, Phase I Monitoring
Requirements, and Information Sheet (Agreement between Owner and Operator), .and
find'owner's name and address, facility name and address, operator's name and
address, substance codes, and number of tanks to be accurately listed (if "no"
is checked, note appropriate corrections on the back side of this sheet).
C.I have the following required equipment (as described on page 6 of Handbook):
1) Acceptable gauging instrument
2) "Striker plate(s)" in tank(s)
3) Water-finding paste-.
D. I have read the information on the enclosed "Information Sheet" pertaining to
Agreements between Owner and Operator and hereby state that-the o~ner of this
facility is'the operator (if "no" is checked, attach a copy of agreement between
owner and operator).
E. I have enclosed a Copy of Calibration Charts for all tanks at this facility (if
tanks are identical, one chart will suffice; label chart(s) with corresponding
tank numbers listed on permit).
F. As required on page 6 of Handbook #UTT10, all meters at this facility have had
calibration checks within the last $0 days and were calibrated .by a registered
device repairman ~f out of tolerance (all meter calibrations must.be recorded on
"Meter Calibration'Check Form" found in the Appendix of Handbook). "
G. Standard Inventory ContrOl Monitoring was started at this facility in accordance
with procedures described in Handbook #UT-10.
Date Started /~-. ~--
Title: (.~,4% ~.~.~,,~.c,..~_ ,,~~
Date: ]~-.2 ? -
F[I.F....'ONTI-'.NTS IN~.-~HTOHY
~Constructlon Perml~ I Date
~perml~ ~o ab, nd.hi ~o. o~ Tanks ~. Date
O~ende~ permit..Condl ~ lons
Perml~ ~ppllca~lon Form,
App~$cation to Abandon tanks{s> Date
~Annual ~spo~t Foz~s
[::]Copy o-~ Written Contract Between Owner &
I:] inspect ton Report.
~Corraapondance - Received
- Date
Date
I:]Cor re.pond.nc.'-
· :. Date
Date
Date
I::lgnauthort~'~16 RoLe. ce Report.
I-i&bandonmenf;./CLoeure Reports
Q6ampl lng/Lab Il.porte
1'157D CompLiance Check (New Construction CheckList)
~#VF PLan Check (llew Con.tructton)
I'I81'D Plan Check (lieu Con.truction)
O#VF Plan Check (Bxletlng Facility)
STI) Plan Check (lxliti~g FaciLity)
IncompLete AppLication, Form
I-IPermit Application Checklist
BPermit. Znetruct lone I'lDl acarded
?lghtneae Teat ReeuLti L~ste
Date
Da te
OXonicoring Well Construction uata/Vermlta
I:]environmenta SeneitLvity Data,
RGroufldwater Drilling Boring Logs
Location of Water We~ls.
[:]Statement of~ Underground Conduits
f~PLot Plan Featuring All Environmentally Sensitive Data
l-lPhotoa r'lconstructiofl Drawings Location:
[-Itlall! sheet' showing 4ate received and tal~y o1~ inspection time,
[~]Xi ice! lan.cue
~o~.L~...,,.,,: P_epsi Cola / Dr Bottling'Company or. Bakers '~Lmlt No. 1
TANK ~ '[0 (FILL OUT ~EPA~TE FO~ FOR ~ T~K)
F~ SE~I~, ~ECK ~ ~PROPRIATE ~XES
~. 1. Tank is: ~Vaulted ~n-vault~ ~uble-Wall. ~Si~le~all
2. ~ ~terial
Car~n Stol ~S~inless Steel ~l~inyl ~o~ide ~Fi~rglass<l~ Steel
Fi~rglass-Reinforc~ Plastic ~Conc~ete ~ln~ ~Bronze
~ Other
3. Pri~r~ Contai~nt
~te Install~ . ~ic~s (Inches) Ca.city (~llons) ~nufacturer
2/7~ 10,O00 . Unkno~
4. Tank ~condary Conta[~nt
~1~11 ~thetic Liner ~Lin~ Vault ~ne ~o~
~Other (de~ri~): ~ufacturer:
~terial ~ic~ess (Inc~s) Ca.city (~ls.)
5. Tank Interior Llnl~
~~r ~k~ ~xy ~enolic ~Glass ~Clay '~li~
~Other (de~i~):
6. Ta~ Corrosion Protecti~
~Tar or ~lt ~~ ~No~ ~her (de~ri~):
Ca~ic Prot~tion: ~ne ~es~ ~rent ~t~ ~crificial
7. Leak ~t~tion, ~ltorl~, a~
a. Ta~: ~Vl~l (vault~ ~ ~y) ~Gro~t~ ~itoNl~
. ~V~o~ ~ ~itorl~ ~ll.(s) ~~ Wl~ut ~ner
-~ Va~r ~t~r* .~ ~id ~el ~re ~ C~tivity
~Li~ld ~tri~al & I~ctl~ ~ U-~, ~ito~l~ ~11 ~
~ ~~ ~ ~r Includes Keylock ~v~to~ Syst~ and Totalizer
b. Pipl~ Fl~tricti~ ~ ~t~or(s) for ~e~i~ Pipit"
8. T~ Tigh~
~ .of ~ Tfgh~ Te~ InStallation Resul~ of ~ OK
~st ~e Pneumatic Test ~Stl~ ~Y ~W Equipment
9. T~ Re. ir
~ri~ Re. irs
10. ~erflll .Pro~ti~
~rator ~lls, C~trols, & Vi~lly ~itors ~vel
~Ta~ FL~t ~e -~Fl~t Vent Valv~ ~ S~t- Off
ci~e ~r ~al~ ['ill ~x ~ ~o~
O~r: List ~ & ~1 F~
11.' Pipi~
a. ~er9r~ Pipit: ~Yes .~ ~~ ~terial
Thic~e~ (i~hes) UDkno~Dl~ter _2" ~ufac~rer Un~o~
' ~es~re ~tfon ~Gravity ~roxl~ ~ of ~
b.' .U~ergro~ Plpi~ Corrosi~ Prot~tl~ :
~l~yle~ W~ap ~El~tri~l I~lati~ ~Vlnyl Wr~ ~Tar ~ ~lt
~Un~o~ ~ ~r (~ri~): FittinEs W/10 ~1 Wrap
c. · U~ergro~ Pipit, Seco~ary Contai~nt:
~l~all ~~etic Liner ~st~ ~ ~o~
~Other (de~rl~):
rmcllity N~ne Pepsi Cola )e ,Bottling Company of~BakerOeld r, emit No,
TANK # 11 (FILL OUT SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH TANK)
--FOR EACH SECTION, CHECK ALL APPROPRIATE BOXES
H. 1. Tank is: [-]Vaulted [~Non-Vaulted []Double-Wall ~]Single-Wall
2. ~ Material
Carbon Steel [-] Stainless Steel [-]Polyvinyl Chloride []Fiberglass-Clad Steel
Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic [] Concrete' [2] Aluainum [] Bronze [-]Unk~own
Other (describe)
3. primary Containment ·
Date Installed Thickness (Inches) Capacity (Gallons) Manufacturer
2/76 1/4" 10,000 Unknown
4. Tank ~econdary Containment
[]'Double-Wall [.~ Synthetic Liner [ Lined Vault [/~ None []Unkno~
[-].Other (describe): Manufacturer:
C]Material Thickness (Inches) Capacity (Gals.)
5. Tank Interior Lining
--~Rubber •Alkyd []EpoXy [Phenolic []-]Glass' []Clay ~]%~limed []t~kno~
•Other (describe):
61 Tank Corrosion Protection
--]~Galvan~ UFiberglass-Clad [-]l~l~thylene Wrap ~Vin¥1 Wra[~i~
[~Tar. or Asphalt []t~kn~ _~None []Other (describe)
Cathodic ~rotectio~: ~lNone [-]Imp~esSed 'Current System :~Sacrifl¢ial ~ System
Describe System & Equilm~ent:
'7. Leak Detectio~, Mo~ltoring, and'Interception
a. Tank: ~lvisual (vaulted 't~nks only) klGroundwater Moni~orirq' Well(s)
[1Vadose Z~e Moni~o~ir~ Well(s) 1-1~ Withou~ Llne~
[]U-Tube ~ith Compatible Line~ Directir~ Flor to Monitorirq
~ U1 Vapor Detachol' ~l Liquid Level Sensor~ O Co~duc~ivl?~ .Sensor
~l Pressure Sensor in Annular Space of Double Wall Tank ·
[] Liquid Re~rieva! & Inspection From U-Tube,~oring Well or Annular Space
~]l)all¥ Gaugin9 & Inventory Reconcilia~io~ [] Periodic ?l~htmeas ?ea~irq
~11~ []'~ [~ Other Includes Kevl0ck 'System and Tota~zer' · .
b. Pipir~. Flou-Restrictirq Leak Detector(s) for Pressurized Pipin~-
UI MoaiCo~lng. S~ap with Race~¥ [] Sealed Concreta Race~¥
[-llialf-CuC Canpa~ible Pipe Race%my ['lSyntbe~c Liner Race~a¥
r'i Unkno~ O O~her
· Describe Make & #odel s
8. Tank Tightness
lias 't:,ls ~n~ umen Tightness Tested? k'lyes I-!N°
Date of La~ Tightness Test Installation .Results of Test: OK
~St l~e P~,,~4~ Ta.~t ~Stll~ Coapany RLW Equipment
9. Tank Repair
Date(s) o~ ~epaic(s)
Describe Repairs
10. Overfill Protection
~lOperat:or Fills, Coat:rolm, & Vis•ally t4onit:or{ Level
•Tape FLoat:. Gauge •Float: Vent Valves •Auto Shut:- Off Cont:rolm
Capacitance Sensor •Sealed Fill Box ONone OLnknom
Other~ List Make & Model For Above DeVices
11. Pipin~
.... a. .L~lerground Piping: [~Ws ~iNo []Onkno~ Material Unknown
Thickness (inches) Diameter 2" Manufacturer
'; 7 []Pressure [-~Suction i IGravit¥ Approximate Length of Pipe i~n 10ft
'L'.b. Underground Pipir~ Corrosion Protection :
.. ~lGalvanized C]Fiberglass-Clad C]Impressed Current C]Sacrificial Anode
~{Polyethylene Wrap OElectrical Isolation •Vinyl Wrap [-1Tar orAsphaIt
[~Unknown []None FlOther (aSCribe): Yitcinls W/lO Mil Wrap
c. Underground Piping, Secondary Containment:
U]Double-Wall U1Synthetic Liner System ~]None C]unkno~m
C]Other (describe):
BAKERSFI EbD
.PEPSI'COLA COMPANY.
LYNi/
jo'
223'8"
It(]RtZONTAL TANK---(RND) ..... 95 IN. DIA. X 336 IN. SHELL LENGTH
HEAD DEPTH-a- 0 IN.
DEPTH (IN.) VOLUME (GAL.)
0. 250 2 37
0. 500 -6.68
0. 750 12 26
1. 000 -18.86
1. 250 26.33
1. 500 34.57
1. 750 43.53
2. 000 53. 14
2. 250 63.35
2. 500 74. 14
6:. 750 85.46
3. 000 97.30
3. 250 109.62
3. 500 122.41
3. 750 135.64
4. 000 149.31
4. 250 163.39
4. 500 177.87
4. 750 192.74
5. 000 207.98
5. 250 ~_~':'c'~. 59
5. 500 239.55
5. 750 '--,~.55.86
6. 000 272.50 '
6. 250 289.47
6. 500 306.76
6. 750 324.35
7. 000 342.25
7. 250 360.45
7. 500 378.94
7. 750 397.71
8.. 000 416.76
8. 250 436.08
8. 500 455.67
8. 750 475.52
9. 000 495.63
9. 250 515.99
9. 500 536.59
9. 750 557.44
10. 000 578.53
10. 250 599.85
10. 500 621.40
10.750 643. 17
11.000 665. 17
11. 250 687.38
11. 500 709.81
1 l. 750 732.46
,. 12 000 755.31
12. 750 825.07
13. 000 848.72
13. 250 872. 56
13. 500 896.59
14. ::5~ 969.79
14. 50~D 994. 54
14.75 ~) 10. I. 9.4 cd
15.2:5~D 1069.8 z
15.50D 1095.31
16. ~ 1146.7~ ·
.16.25~ 1172.64
16.50~ 1198.75
16. 750 1224.98
17.~0 . 1251.39
17. ~-'~
· ~.~,0 1277.95
17.5~0. 1304.66
17.750 ' 1331.52
18. ~DO 1358.52
18. 250 1385.67
18. 500 1412.96
18. 750 1440.39
19. 000 1467.95
19. 250 1495.66
19. 500 1523.50
19 750 1==1 47
20. 000 1579.57
20. 250 1607.80
20.500 1636. 16
'20'. 750 1664.64
21.0~0 1693.25
21. 250 1721.98
21.5~0 175'D. 83
21. 750 1779.80
22 ~00 1808.89
.... =~'~ 1838. 10
~ 500 I867.41
22. 750 1896.84
23. 000 1926.38
23. 250 1956.03
~ 500 1985.79
'>~ 750 2015.66
24.0~D0 2045.62
24. 250 2075.70
24. 500 2105. ~7
24.750 213~. 15
~ 000 2166.5~
25. ~-'~ ~ .
~0 2197.00
5 500 2227.56
~J. 750 2258.23
26. 000 2288.99
~_,0 2319.84
26. 500 235~. T8
26. 750 2381.81
27. 000 2412.93
27. 250 2444. 13
27. 500 2475.42
27. 750 2506.80
28.00~ 2538.26
28. 500 2601.42
28. 750 2633. 12
29. 000 2664.90
29. 250 2696.76
29. 500 2728.69
29. 750 2T60. TO
30. 000 2792.77
,7~Z~. 75,~ 8889. 44
3 ~. 25vT 2954. ~3
3i. 500 2~88. 72
==' 000 305i. 90
32. 500 3117. 34
~2.750 3150. 14
33. 000 ~183.01
33. 500 3248.92
33. 750 3281.96
34. 000 3315.05
34. 250 3348.20
,34~ 500 3381.40
34. 750 '3414. ~5
35. 000 3447.96
35. 250 3481.31
35 ~00 3514.?I
35. 750 3548. 1~
36. 000 3581.65
3~. 500 3~48.78
36. 750 3682.41
37. 000 371~. 08
37. 250 3749.79
37. 500 3783.54
37. 750 3817.33
38. 000 3B51. 1~
38. 250 3885.02
36. 500 3918.93
38. 750 3952.88
3~. 000 3986.83
39. 250 4020.84
39. 500 4054.87
39. 750 4088.94
40. 000 41 '23.04
40. 250 4157. 17
40. 500 4191.32
40. 750 4225.50
41. 000 4259.71
4 1.25'~ 4293.94
41. 500 4328.20
41. 750 4362.48
42. 000 439~. 78
42. 250 4431. 11
42. 500 4465.45
42. 750 4499.81
43. 000 4534. 1~
43. 250 4568.59
43. 500 4603.01
43. 750 4637.44'
44. 000 4671. ~8
44. 250 4706.34
44. 750 4775.29
45. 000 4809. ~9
45.25~ 4844.29
45. 5~ 4878.80
45. 750 4D13.32
46. 000 4947.84
46. 250 49~2.37
4'6.50~ 501C. 9I
47. 5155. 08
47. 750 5.~89.63
4~. 000 5224. 17
48. 250 5258.71
48. 500 5293. ~5
48.750 5327.79
.49.000 5362.32
49.250 5396.8z~
49.500 5431.36
49.750 5465.87
50.000 5500.37
50.'250 5534.87
50'.500 5569.35
50.750 5603.82
51'.000 5638.28
51'.250 5672.72
51.500 5707.15
51.750 5741.57
5,° 000 5775.97
~:2.250 5810.45
52 500 5844.71
52 750 5879.05
53.000 5913.38
53.250 5947.68
53.500 5981.96
53.750 6016.~'='~
54.000 6050.45
54.250 6084.66
54.500 6118.84
54.750 6152.99
==.JJ. 000 6187.12
~o. 500 6255.29
~. 750 6289.32
56.000 6323.33
56.250 6357.30
56. 500 6391.~°?
56.75.0 6425.14
57.000 6459.00
'57.250 6492.83
57.500 6526.62
57.750 6560.37
58.000 6594.08
58.250 6627.75
58.500 6661.38
58.'750 6694.97
59.000 6728.51
59.250 6762.00
59.500 6795.45
59.750 6828.85
60.000 6862.20
60.5o0 692 . 76
60. 750 6961.96
61.000 6995.11
61.250 7028.20
61.500 7061.24
62.0~0 7127..15
62.250 7160.02
62.500 7192.82
62.750 7225.57
63.75 7355.93
64. 7388.36
G4. 250 7420.'72
~.~. 500 7453.01
65. 000 7517.39
65.250 7549.46
65.500 7581.47
65.750 7613.,40
66.000 7645.26
66.250 7677.04
66.500 7708.74
66.750 7740.36
67.000 7771.90
67.250 7803.36
67.500 7834.?4
6'7.750 7866.03
68.000 7897.23
68.250 7928.35
68.500 7959.38
68.750 '7990.32
69.000 8021.17
69.250 8051.93
69.500 8082.60
69.750 811~. 16
70.000 8143.64
70.250 8174.01
70.500 8204.29
70.750 8234.46
7i.000 8264~54
71.250 8294.50
71.500 8324.37
71.750 8354 1~
72.000 8383.78
72.250 8413.32
72.500 8442.75
72.750 8472.06
73.000 8501.27
73.250 8530.36
73.500 8559.33
73.750 8588.18
74. 000 8616.91
74. 25~D 8645. ~2
74. 500' 8674.00
74. 750 870~. 36
75.000 8730.59
75.250 '8758.69
75.500 8786.66
75.750 8814.50
76.000 8842.21
76.250 8869.77
76.500, ~897.20
76.750 8924.49
77.000 8951.64
77.250 8978.64
77.500 9005.50
77.750 9032.21
78.500, 9111.43 ~;~.
78..750 9137.52
79.000 9163.46
79.250 9189.24
79.500 9214.85
81.500 9437.60
81'.750 9461.44.
8L_.000 9485.09
82.250 9508.'54
82.500 9531.80
82~750 9554.85
83.000 9577.70
83.250 9600.35
83.500 9622.78
83.750 9644.99.
84.000 9666.99
.84.250 '9688.76
84.500 9710..31
84.750 9731.63
85.000 9752.72
85.250 9773.57
85.500 9794.17
85.750 9814.53
86.000 9834.64
86.250 9854.49
86.500 987'4.08
86.750 9893.40
87.'000 9912.45
87.250 993~..22
87.500 .9949.71
87.750 9967.91
88.000 9985.81
88.250 10003.40
8B.500'
10020.69
88.750 10037.66
89.'000 10054.30
89.250 10070.61
89.500 10086.57
89.750 10102.18
90.000 10117.42
90.250 10132.'~9
90.500 10146.77
90.750 10160. fl5
91.000 10174.52
91.250 101B7.75
91.500 .10200.54
91.750 10212.86
92.000 10224.70
'92.250 10236.02
92'500 10246.81
92.750 10257.02
93.000 .10266.63
93.250 10275.59
93.500 10283.83
93.750 10291.30
94.000 10297.90
94 500 10303.48
' 10307.79 ~
94.750 10310.15
95.'000
Total Vol,lme ....... ) 10310.16 Gallor~s -