HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNDERGROUND TANK-C-4/15/96~O~S M'ATERLAT ~:' IV~SION ~
TIME CH_A_RGED
BUSINESSfDEAPRTMENT NAME: ~T'~'~ ~C.~
ADDRESS: ~ l
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT NUMBER: ,4{'~ ~~~-c~·. ..
DATE: NAME: CHGD: COMMENTS:
· PRO.CT CO.LEmON: ~o>c~ DA~:
UT762701
Account Number
RECEIVABLE ADJUSTMENT
May 18, 1995
Date New Account
New Address
Esther Duran Close Account
From Sewice Chanae
Other Adjustments X
Fire Department- Hazardous Materials Division
Department/Division
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION INC
Billing Name
5306 ALDRIN CT
Billing Address
Site Address
Parcel # (if Applicable)
Landlord Name & Address (If Applicable)
ADJUSTMENT
Last Billed Correct Billing Adjustment to Effective Date of
Billing Change
<.09> 05-01-95
Approved By'.'~
Remarks: WE ARE ADJUSTING OFF ALL OUTSTANDING FINANCE CHARGES BEFORE TRANSFER
TO THE NEW SYSTEM.
SITE CHARACTERIZATION WORK PLAN
·
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
PROPERTY
· BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 1995
SMITH-GUTCHER
· AND A$$OCIATE$, INC.
Consulting Geologists
· Post Office Box 60706
Bakersfield, California 93386-0706
(805) 871-3207 FAX (805) 871-3698
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
Description of Site ............................................................................... 1
Preliminary Site Assessment Results ....................................................... 1
Site Geology ............................................................................................ 2
Characterization Plan .................................................................................... 3
Soil Sampling Plan ............................................................................... 3
Site Safety Plan ........................................................................................... 4
Exhibits:
Figure I Location Map
Figure 2 Vicinity Map
Figure 3 Test Hole Location Map
Appendix A Analytical Results, Preliminary Site Assessment
Appendix B Site Safety Plan
C:\WPWIN6~WPDOCS~FILES\ FILE $9.~TESCON ST.TOC
SITE CHARACTERIZATION WORK PLAN
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY
· BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
De~crlpti0n of Site
The TES Electrical Construction property is located at 5306 Aldrin Court, Bakersfield, Kern
· County, California. The site is situated.in the north half of Section 15, T.30S., R.27E.,
M.D.B.& M. The property consists of a large shop building which includes offices in the
southern portion of the building. The area around the building is mostly asphalt paved. A
parking area is located along the southern edge of the building. The tank was located west
of the building along the western property boundary. The site location is shown on Figure 1.
One underground fuel storage tank was removed from the property on January 13, 1995. The
tank was used to store gasoline and had a capacity of 6,000 gallons. There was one product
dispenser associated with the tank. It was located approximately 40 feet east of the tank. The
tank location relative to the existing building is shown on Figure 2. No products other than that
listed are known to have been stored in the tank.
Preliminary Site Assessment Results
· Following the tank removal, six soil samples were collected from beneath the bottom of the tank
and the dispenser. Four samples were collected from beneath the tank and two samples were
collected from beneath the dispenser. Samples were collected at depths of 2 and 6 feet below
· the bottom of the tank and dispenser. The samples were analyzed for total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline using the modified EPA Method 8015 and benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTX&E) using EPA Method 5030/8020. The analytical results
are included as Appendix A.
1
I~ . ,i ..... , , ~ ~ ' ~ '. ( ~~ i .r~ .. K .,e~ .. .' ,~ ~ ........
~ ~:~v:~,,,', ~ ,-~-~ ~ ~l'" '. ~ x i ~r;t,'"" i ~.:".: ,'
~ ~. ~r ..... , '. ~ i ,~,.~ .... A~ES~ : /, ~~ . ' ,.~ ·
~ ..... J'~ i~:iit~ :~i~J~~ . ~ i ~.~ ~ ~:' ~?' L:.. ", ~t :' ~n~,,
- · -~..'~'~,~,. · ~ __ ~ F . ~, ....... ~,.- .
.~4' { j% DA~tDCI~I~I~~~",~."~.~.~,,,.~,,.
:~'.~ ~',- ~'--kr_~ ...." · ~ '~' ~~~ ~,: ~ .o.,~,..,,~ ~ ~ ~ l; ' I ~ ~
~I~IA ~ ~ t/ ~ S=cz ~ ~ . ~ L ; ' ~ ' · ~ , ~ /
~..~.,.~.,,,.I..,o~,~, , , ,t~ ~r .o,,,,. 1.1,q ,-,.~ ,~ . ,.* ,_,*. r .~ .*
,,,.,,, ..... ~=..,>~.. , ~., &LL, ~...,.o..,.,. 'F - < ~,,,.< r- a · I~ ,,.. ,~,,,. / I ~,.' ~ ?1 ~ Jr. ~ "'
~;FN~I"f~T~I4K~RF.'~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ re.dF , ~ ~ : ~ "~T, : Al[VIM , ,
, , ...... ...... I i,~~~, t.~,.?l :~ : ~, '~... !'
"~ ~ · ' '/~ ' ~~ ~{.l~ ' Ro~ m~ ' ~ "' .t Romd~ '
' ~1 .~: 'SCAL~: I ~~ S : ~ ~ ~,,~,.~ , ..o.
. .'1 /~ ~ = 4.25 ~L~S ~~ ~ ~ ~ .... J t ...
__~.. .~ .............. ~...~,,,,~ .
LOCATION MAP
TE8 ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY
Source of Base Map: Map of ~e Golden Empire, Bakersfield and Kern Count, Hoven and Compang Inc.
F~uro 1
vICINi~fY MAi=
TES ELECTRICAL I~ONSTRUCTION
PROPERTY
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SMITII -GUTCIIEI~ A~D ASSocIATEs - SEPTE~iBEI~ 199.5
Figure 2
Significant soil contamination was detected beneath the tank. The 2 and 6 foot soil samples from
the north end of the tank reportedly contained TPH as gasoline of 34 mg/kg and 2,300 rog/kg,
respectively. The 2 and 6 foot samples from the south end of the tank reportedly contained TPH
as gasoline of 7,100 rog/kg and 26,000 mg/kg, respectively. Minor to high concentrations of
toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes were also detected in the samples. No benzene was
detected in the samples.
Minor gasoline constituents were reportedly detected in the 2 foot soil sample collected from
below the dispenser. No gasoline constituents were detected in the 6 foot soil sample.
SITE GEOLOGY
· According to the Geologic Map of California, Bakersfield Sheet (Division of Mines and
Geology, 1965), the property is situated over alluvial fan deposits of Recent age In general,
these sediments consist of silt, sands, and gravels deposited during flood stages of major
streams.
According to the Kern County Water Agency, Water Supply Report, 1993, the depth to
groundwater below the property is approximately 175 feet. There is no known shallow
· groundwater in the general area. Groundwater quality within the unconfined aquifer below
the property is fair. The quality within the confined aquifer is good.
· CIIARACTERIZATION PLAN
Soil Sampling Plan
· Three test holes are proposed to assess the vertical and lateral extent and the degree of
contamination beneath the former gasoline tank location. The proposed locations are shown on
Figure 3. Test Hole No. 1 will be located near the center of the former tank location. Test
· Hole Nos. 2 and 3 are offset borings intended to acquire data to delineate the lateral extent of
2
·
TEST HOLE LOCATION IVlAp
TES ELECTRICAL I~ONSTRUI~TION
PROPERTY
· BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SIIHTII .CUTCtlER AND ASSOCIATES. SEPTEMBER 1 ~5
F J. gure ~
contamination. The locations of Test Hole Nos. 2 and 3 may very slightly based on the field
screening of soil samples from Test Hole No. 1.
For the purpose of planning, each test hole will be drilled to a depth of 50 feet. Drilling will
terminate if the contaminated soil is penetrated before a depth of 50 feet is reached. Autho-
rization of the client will be needed to continue drilling if the contamination exceeds a depth of
50 feet.
Soil samples will be collected at 5 foot intervals starting at a depth of 10 feet below the ground
· surface. The sample intervals may be modified slightly depending on soil conditions, however,
they should not deviate significantly from the intended depths. Approximately 27 soil samples
will be collected and field-screened.
Selected soil samples will be analyzed for TPH as gasoline and BTX&E constituents. The
samples will be analyzed by BC Laboratories in Bakersfield using the modified EPA Method
8015 and EPA Method 5030/8020. The quality assurance and quality control of the laboratory
are available from the laboratory upon request. Chain of custody records documenting sample
handling will be included.
· Soil samples will be collected using a split-spoon core sampler driven into the soil utilizing a
truck-mounted hollow stem auger rig (Mobile Drill B-53). The split-spoon sampler holds three
two and one-half inch diameter by six inch long brass liners. The core sampler will be driven
through the proper interval after the hole is drilled to the sample depth with the hollow stem
auger. The sampler will then be removed from the drilling equipment and the brass liners
removed from the sampler.
The ends of one liner from each sample depth will be covered with Teflon seals and
polyethylene caps. The liner will then be labeled and placed in a polyethylene sample bag and
the bag sealed and labeled. Each bagged liner will be placed on blue ice and retained in a
chilled state for delivery to the laboratory.
3
·
Another soil sample from each sample depth will be retained for field screening and soil
descriptions using the Unified Soil Classification System. Field screening will consist of a
· headspace reading for hydrocarbon vapors with an Hnu photoionization detector (PID). In
addition to the headspace readings, hydrocarbon odors, if present, will be noted.
The augers will be steam-cleaned between test holes. The sampling equipment will be scrubbed,
washed and thoroughly rinsed between each sample collection. Test holes that encounter
contaminated soil will be backfilled with bentonite chips. Contaminated drill cuttings, as
identified by field screening, will be placed in DOT drums for future treatment or disposal by
· the client.
SITE SAFETY PLAN
The Site Safety Plan is included as Appendix B.
~ _ Submitted by:
I ~.~ '~'"~J~oE. ~;~,,n I~l Duane R. Smith
Registered Geologist
· State of California No. 358
C:\W PWIN (~O~W PDOC~FI I,ES\FI LE,~9 5\~N ~T. PLN
·
4
APPENDIX A
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT
LABORATORIES
·
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
·
CALPI Date of
P O BOX 6278 Report: 0i/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab ~: 95-00533-1
Attn.: J.P. MULLHOFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: TANK 1 NORTH END 2ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO
· 2:00PM SAMPLED BY JERRY~MASON OF BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
· Sample Matrix: Soil
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ® Lab: Completed:
01/13/95 01/13/95 01/17/95
· Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantitation
Constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
· Total Xylenes 0.33 mg/kg 0.01
Total Petroleum .~ ~'i ~
Hydrocarbons (gas) 34. mg/kg '.i' 5..
· Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring
sample dilution.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Department Supervisor '..?.~' '" ' ·
· All ~suNs listed In this ~pod are for the exclusive use of the subml~lng pa~. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no ~s~nslblll~ for repod alteration, separation, detachment or thlff pa~ Interp~taflon.
4100 Aclas Ct. · Bskersfield. CA 93308 · (805) 327-491 I · FAX (805) 327-1 918
LABORATORIES
·
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
·
CALPI Date of
P O BOX 6278 Report: 01/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab ~: 95-00533-2
Attn.: J.P. MULLHOFER 589-5648
· Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: TANK 1 NORTH END 6ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO
2:00PM SAMPLED BY JERRY~MASON OF BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
· Sample Matrix: Soll
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ® Lab: Completed:
01/13/95 01/13/95 01/17/95
· Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantltatlon
Constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.2
Toluene 9.9 mg/kg 0.2
· Ethyl Benzene 29. mg/kg 0.2
Total Xylenes 380. mg/kg 0.5
Total Petroleum '~ ~.~
Hydrocarbons (gas) 2300. mg/kg .~ :.. 500.' .
· Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring
sample dilution.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Department Supervisor
A-2
· All results listed in this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation.
41 O0 Atlas Ct. · Bakersfield, CA 93308 . (805) 327-481 I · FAX (805) 327-1918
LABORATORIES
·
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
CALPI Date of
P O BOX 6278 Report: 01/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab ~: 95-00533-3
Attn.: J.P. MULLHOFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: TANK 1 SOUTH END 2ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO
· 2:00PM SAMPLED BY JERRY'MASON OF BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
· Sample Matrix: Soll
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ® Lab: Completed:
01/13/95 01/13/95 01/17/95
· Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantltatlon
Constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 6.
Toluene 27. mg/kg 6.
· Ethyl Benzene 31. mg/kg 6.
Total Xylenes 630. mg/kg 10.
Total Petroleum ~
Hydrocarbons (gas) 7100. mg/kg . ~ 1000...
· Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring
sample dilution.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Department Supervisor .. :. "~ L~':
A-3
I · All resutis listed in this report are for the exclusive use or the submitting party, gC Labore~ories, Inc. essumes no responsibility for re~rt stieret~on, sepsrsllo(% detachment or third psr(y interpretation.
4100 Atlas Ct. · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · (805] 327-491 I · FAX [805] 327-1918
LABORATORIES
·
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
·
CALPI Date of
P O BOX 6278 Report: 01/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab ~: 95-00533-4
Attn.: J.P. MULLHOFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: TANK 1 SOOTH END 6ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO
· . 2:00PM SAMPLED BY JERRY~MASON OF BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
· Sample Matrix: Soil
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ® Lab: Completed:
01/13/95 01/13/95 01/17/95
· ' Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantitatlon
Constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 80.
Toluene 1000. mg/kg 80.
Ethyl Benzene 800. mg/kg 80.
· Total Xylenes 5700. mg/kg 200.
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) 26000. mg/kg ':i'?i~:i.::'''' 20000~
· Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring
sample dilution.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Department Supervisor
A-4
· All results listed In this report are for the exclusive use of the subm;Itlng party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third paw Interpretation.
41 O0 Atlas Ct. · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · (805) 327-491 I · FAX (B05) 327-1918
LABORATORIES
·
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
CALPI Date of
P 0 BOX 6278 Report: 01/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab ~: 95-00533-5
Attn.: J.P. MULI/~OFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: DISPENSER 1 2ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO 2:00PM
· SAMPLED BY JERRY MASON ~F BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
· Sample Matrix: Soll
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed:
01/13/95 01/13/95 01/17/95
· Practical
Analys i s Report lng Quantltat ion
Constituents Results Units ·Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.1
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.1
· Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg 0.2
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) 300 mg/kg '\' "~ 20
· Note: Sample chromatogram not typical of gasoline.
PQL's were raised due to high matrix background requiring sample dilution.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
·
Department Supervisor
A-5
· All results llsted in this reporl are for the exclusive use of the submlltln§ pady. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation.
4100 Atlas CC. · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · [805) 327-491 I · FAX (805) 327-1918
LABORATORIES
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
CALPI Date of
P 0 BOX 6278 Report: 02/02/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab ~: 95-00533-6
Attn.: J.P. MULLHOFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: DISPENSER 1 6ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO 2:00PM
SAMPLED BY JERRY MASON OF. BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Sell
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ® Lab: Completed:
01/13/95 01/13/95 01/16/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantitatlon
Constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Department Supervisor .-
A-6
All results listed In this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation..
4100 Atlas Ct. · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · (805) 327-491 I · FAX [805) 327-1918
Report To: e']: Analysis Requested
Name: ~L.o I Project:
I ' ' ~~ .~ (13
Address: p. o ~x G~q ~ Project ~:
, · ,,,
City: ~~ Sampler Name:.~ ~~ ~
~ Zip~ ~ Other:
State: o~ ~- ~ ~ ~ E ~
~ '~ ~ ~ ' ~,~ ~ ~ ~ zo°
Phone:
Lab~ Sample D~s~ription Date & Time'Sampled ~ , ,
....
[Comment: Billing Info: Rtq ~ished by: (Sigoature,~'~~'~¢ ~~_ by: ,~~' {, {~3 .. :~'Date: Tim~:,~,~ ~.:
J Name: -~ ~ ~ ;~ R°l. ~ ignature) Received by: (Signature) Date: Time:
J Address ~a
J gi~ State Re uished by' (Signature, Received by: (signature) Date: Time:
~ J Attention: .
~J Time: . ..~ ~ .~ '~~ Relinquished bY: (SignatUre) Received by: (signature) Date: Time~'
L ~J Miles: ,, Relinquished ~y: '(Signature) Received by: (Si~ature) Date~ Time:
~/ Sample Disposal P.O., ~: '~ q ~ ~ _ q ~ Relinquished by: (Signature, Received by: (Signature) Date: Time:
JJ O BC Dispo~l ~ 5.00 ea.
'J ~ Return to ctienl ....
APPENDIX B
· SITE SAFETY PLAN
SITE SAFETY PLAN
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY
5306 ALDRIN COURT
Introduction
A Site Safety Plan (SSP) has been designed to address safety provisions needed during the
characterization of gasoline contaminated soil. Its purpose is to provide established procedures to protect
all on-site personnel from direct skin contact, inhalation, or ingestion of potentially hazardous materials
that may be encountered at the site. The SSP establishes personnel responsibilities, personal protective
equipment, standard decontamination procedures, and emergency action plans.
The purpose of this work is to characterize gasoline contaminated soil at the site. The drilling will
performed by:
Melton Drilling Company
7101 Downing Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93308
(805) 589-0521
C-57 license number 508270
The SSP describes means for protecting all on-site personnel from contamination or personal injury
while conducting on-site activities.
Site Background
An underground gasoline storage tank was located on the property. Soil contamination associated with
the tank was identified during the tank removal work.
Responsibilities of Key Personnel
All personnel on-site will have assigned responsibilities. Duane Smith, a California registered geologist,
will serve as project manager, field technician, and site safety officer (SSO) for the work. Mr. Smith will
assure that all on-site personnel have a copy of the site safety plan. Personnel will be required to
document their full understanding of the SSP before admission to the site. Compliance with the site
safety plan will be monitored at all times. A training session will be conducted to assure that all
personnel are aware of safe work practices. In the training session, personnel will be made aware of
hazards at the site. Mr. Smith will be responsible for keeping field notes, collecting soil samples, and
following chain-of-custody protocol.
On-site employees will take reasonable Precautions to avoid unforeseen hazards. After documenting
understanding of the SSP, each on-site employee will be responsible for strict adherence to all points
contained herein. Any deviation observed will be reported to the SSO and corrected. On-site employees
are held responsible to perform only those tasks for which they believe they are qualified. Provisions
of this SSP are mandatory and personnel associated with on-site activities will adhere strictly hereto.
Job Hazard Analysis
Hazards likely to be encountered on-site include those commonly encountered when operating any
mechanical equipment, such as the danger of falling objects or moving machinery. Simple precautions
will reduce or eliminate risks associated with operating such equipment.
Only drilling company personnel will perform the test hole drilling. Only qualified personnel will have
any contact with the equipment. All on-site personnel are required to wear hard hats when in close
proximity to any equipment. Proper respiratory equipment will be worn if vapor contamination levels
detected on-site exceed action levels as determined using a PID. Action levels requiring respiratory
apparatus will be 25 ppm in the breathing zone. Furthermore, no smoking, open flame, or sparks will
be permitted during drilling operations in order to prevent accidental ignition.
B-2
No personnel will be allowed into the excavation. All personnel will keep a safe distance for the edge
of the excavation. The excavation will be fenced during none working hours.
Ri~k Assessment Summa~
It is expected that exposure to chemicals on-site will be limited to gasoline and some possible volatiles.
These chemical represent a minor to moderate hazard because they are mildly toxic. The Threshold
Limits Values (TLV), Short Term Exposure Limits (STEL), and Toxicity levels, all in ppm, are listed
below:
Compound I TLV I S TEL I Toxicity
Gasoline 200 300 --
Benzene 10 25 4894
Toluene 100 150 5000
Xylene 100 150 4300
Exposure Monitoring Plan
A Photo-Ionization Detector (PID) will be used to monitor vapor concentrations around the excavation.
Should concentrations exceed TLV levels, work will be stopped until protective measures have be taken.
Personal Protective Equipment
Hard hats will be worn by all personnel on-site when in proximity of any equipment.
Work Zones and Security Measures
Access to the area of investigation will be restricted to authorized personnel. The project manager will
be responsible for site security.
· Decontamination Measures
Avoidance of contamination whenever possible is the best method for protection. Common sense
dictates that on-site personnel avoid sitting, leaning, or placing equipment on possible contaminated soil.
All personnel will be advised to wash their hands, neck, and face with soap and water before taking a
break or leaving the site. Ifrespirators are used, they will be washed with soap and water following each
day's use. Sampling equipment will be decontaminated before each sample is collected.
General Safe Work Practices
On-site personnel will be briefed each day in "tailgate" meetings as to the day's goals and equipment to
be used. Anticipated contaminants and emergency procedures will be reviewed, The project manager
will oversee operations and act as the sample coordinator to assure that proper protocol is used at all
times in collecting and handling samples.
Training Requirements
The SSO will inform all personnel on site of contaminant properties, health hazard data, risk from
exposure, and emergency first aid. All chemicals present will be discussed and the SSO will assure that
everyone fully understands site hazards.
Medical Surveillance Program
According to 29 CFR 1910.120 Paragraph (O, employees who wear respirators 30 days or more during
one year or who have been exposed to hazardous substances or health hazards above established
permissible exposure limits are required to be monitored medically.
Record Keeping
Documentation will be kept on personnel exposed to contaminant hazards on the job site according to
OSHA regulations. These will include documentation that employees have received training on the SSP,
respiratory protection, and all emergency procedures. These will be reviewed during the pre-site
training. Exposure records on each job will be kept for 30 years to meet requirements. Included will be
names and social security number of employees, first aid administered, and personal air monitoring
records.
Contingency Plans
In the event of accident, injury, or other emergency, the project manager, or other person will notify
appropriate government agencies or individuals as follows:
1. city of Bakersfield
Fire Department - Hazardous Materials Division
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Mr. Howard Wines
(805) 326-0576
2. Kern County Sheriffs Department, Fire Department, or Paramedics
Dial 911
3. Mercy Hospital
2215 Tmxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California
(805) 632-5000
B-5
We, the undersigned, have read the preceding Site Safety Plan, and agree, by signing below, that we
understand the Site Safety Plan and will adhere to the safety standards established in the Site Safety Plan.
1. Name (signature) Date
Name (Primed) Social Security No.
2. Name (Signature) Date
Name (Printed) Social Security No.
3. Name (Signature) Date
Name (Printed) Social Security No.
4. Name (Signature) Date
Name (Printed) Social Security No.
5. Name (Signature) Date
Name (Printed) Social Security No.
6. Name (Signature) Date
Name (Printed) Social Security No.
C :~WPW1N 60VdVPIDOCS\ F ILF. S'~F{LF~q95XT F_..SCO N ST ,~L'~P
B-6
SITE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
PROPERTY
5306 ALDRIN COURT
BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 1995
SMITH-GUTCHER
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Geologists
Post Office Box 60706
Bakersfield, California 93386-0706
(805) 871-3207 FAX (805) 871-3698
TABLE OF CONTENTS
· Page
Introduction .................................................. '. 1
Site Background~ ................................................. 2
Former Underground Tank Site ........................... ' ...... '..2
Preliminary Site Assessment Results ................................ 3
~ Site Geology ................................................... 4
Investigation Procedures ............................................ 5
Drilling and Sampling ......................................... 5
Results of Site Characterization ....................................... 7
Conclusions ................................................... 9
i~ Recommendations ................................................ 11
Exhibits:
~ Figure I Location Map
Figure 2 Vicinity Map
Figure 3 Test Hole Location Map
· Figure 4 Cross Section Location Map
Figure 5 Cross Section A-B
Figure 6 Cross Section A-C
Table I Summary of Analytical Results
Appendix A Bakersfield Fire Department, Correspondence
~. Appendix B Preliminary Site Assessment, Analytical Results
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
· Appendix C Bakersfield Fire Department, Correspondence
Appendix C Logs of Test Holes
Appendix D Site Characterization Study, Analytical Results
J
·
(2:\WPWIN60\WPDOC~WILES\FILES95~TES.TOC
SITE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY
5306 ALDRIN COURT
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
A site characterization study has been performed for a former underground storage tank site
located at the TES Electrical Construction property, 5306 AIdrin Court, Bakersfield, California.
The site is situated in Section 15, T.30S., R.27E., M.D.B.& M. The site location is shown on
Figure 1. Land use in the general area is mostly commercial.
The purpose oft[tis investigation was to assess the degree and extent of soil contamination resulting
from unauthorized releases of gasoline into the subsurface at the site. This investigation included
an inspection of the site, drilling and logging of four test holes, chemical analyses of fifteen soil
samples, research of existing data, and the preparation of this report by Mr. Duane R. Smith,
Registered Geologist No. 3584.
Handbook #UT-35, Site Characterization and Remediation, prepared by the Environmental Health
Services Department, County of Kern, was followed in the preparation of this report. The site
characterization work plan, completed in September 1995, was approved by the Bakersfield City
Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division as the lead regulatory agency. City oversight of the
1
"' ": SITE
IFIEL§ .
.. ,,, ~,.., .,.
LOCATION MAP
TE8 ELECTRICAL CONBTRUCTION PROPERTY
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Source of Base M.p: M.p of the Golden Empire, Rakersfield and Kern County, Hoven and Cnmp,qny, Inc.
I II II I _ II IIII _ I II
I Figure !
characterization was the responsibility of Mr. Howard Wines (see Appendix A). The investigation
reported herein has been conducted in accordance with generally recognized and current state-of-
the-art geological procedures. The geological factors that were considered are outlined in this
report. Other geological factors were not considered inasmuch as they were not deemed relevant
to the intended land use and scope of this investigation. This investigation was conducted to the best
of the investigative geologist's abilities in accordance with the foregoing limitations.
SITE BACKGROUND
Former Underground Tank Site
One underground storage tank was removed from the property (see Figure 2). The tank was used
to store gasoline and had a volume of approximately 6,000 gallons. The tank was removed on
January 13, 1995. It was constructed of steel and appeared to be in good condition when
removed. One dispenser was located approximately 40 feet east of the tank along the west side
of the building. The vent line from the tank appeared to be located along the west edge of the
building near the dispenser. No products other than gasoline are known to have been stored in the
tank.
I I _ II I I II II II iii I
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
PROPERTY
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
$1;IITll -GUTCIIER AND A&SOCiA~S - SEP~ilBER 1995
I II II I I __ II II IIII I~ I I I I III I II
Figure 2
Preliminary Site Assessment Results
Following removal of the tank, six soil samples were collected from beneath the bottom of the tank
and dispenser. The samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline and
for benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and total xylenes (BTX&E). They were analyzed by BC
Laboratories in Bakersfield, California. The analytical results are included as Appendix B.
Significant soil contamination was detected beneath the south end of the tank. The 2 and 6 foot soil
samples collected from the south end of the tank contained TPH concentrations of 7,100 rog/kg and
26,000 mg/kg, respectively. Toluene, ethyl benzene and xylenes also were detected in the samples.
Minor soil contamination was detected beneath the north end of the tank. The 2 and 6 foot samples
contained TPH concentrations of 34 rog/kg and 2,300 mg/kg respectively. Toluene, ethyl benzene,
and xylenes also were detected in the samples. Slightly contaminated soil was detected in the 2 foot
sample from below the dispenser. The sample contained a TPH concentration of 300 rog/kg No
· BTX&E constituents were detected in the sample. No contaminants were detected in the 6 foot
sample collected from below the dispenser. No samples were collected from below the product line.
Based on the results of the preliminary site assessment, which indicated soil significantly
contaminated with gasoline below the south end of the diesel tank, the Bakersfield City Fire
· Department required further characterization to "define the vertical and horizontal extent of the
contamination" (see Appendix C).
·
3
SITE GEOLOGY
According to the Geologic Map of California, Bakersfield Sheet, the site is situated on alluvial fan
deposits of Recent age. In general, these sediments have been deposited from streams emerging
from high lands surrounding the Great Valley. The sediments encountered in the three test holes
drilled at the site consist mostly of brown sand to silty sand to clayey sand. The sediments are loose
to dense and appear highly to moderately permeable. They are also moist to slightly moist. Logs
of the test holes are included as Appendix D.
According to the Kern County Water Agency, Water Supply Report 1993, the depth to groundwater
below the property is approximately 175 feet. There is no known shallow groundwater in the
general area. Groundwater quality within the unconfined aquifer below the property is fair. The
quality within the confined aquifer is good. The groundwater gradient below the property appears
to be to the northeast.
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES
Drillin_g and Samvlinl~
Four test holes were drilled on September 14, 1995 to assess the vertical and lateral extent and
the degree of contamination below the south end of the tank location. Figure 3 shows the test
hole locations. Test Hole No. I was located near the center of the southern half of the tank. This
location was near the area were the preliminary site assessment encountered highly contaminated
soil. Test Hole No. 2 was located approximately 15 feet south of Test Hole No. 1. Test Hole No.
3 was located approximately 9 feet east of Test Hole No. 1. Test Hole No. 3 encountered only a
trace level ofcontaminants at a depth of 20 feet. Test Hole No. 4 was located approximately 5 feet
southeast of Test Hole No. 1. Each additional test hole was moved progressively closer to Test Hole
No. 1 because the data obtained from the previous test hole indicated a small diameter plume. Test
Hole No. I was drilled to a depth of 61 feet. Test Hole Nos. 2 and 4 were drilled to a depth of 40
feet and Test Hole No. 3 was drilled to a depth of 30 feet.
Soil samples were collected at depths of 11, 16, 21, 26, 36, 41, ,16, 51, 56, and 61 feet in Test Hole
No. !. Samples were collected at depths of 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 feet in Test Hole No. 2.
In Test Hole No. 3, samples were collected at depths of 10, 20, 25, and 30 feet and in Test Hole No.
4 samples were collected at depths of 15, 25, 30, 35, and 40 feet.
TEST HOLE LOCATION MAP
TIES IELIEGTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
PROPIERTY
· BAKIERSFIIELD, CALIFORNIA
·
Figure 3
Soil samples were collected using a split-spoon sampler driven into the soil utilizing a truck-
mounted 8 inch diameter hollow-stem auger rig (Mobile Drill B-53). The split-spoon sampler holds
three 2.5 inch diameter by 6 inch long brass liners. The sampler was driven through the proper
sampling interval utilizing a 140 pound drop-hammer after the hole was drilled with the hollow-stem
auger.
The sampler was then removed from the drilling equipment and the brass liners removed from the
sampler. The ends of the bottom liner from each sample depth were covered with Teflon seals and
polyethylene caps. The liner was then labeled and placed in a polyethylene sample bag and the bag
· sealed and labeled. Each bagged liner was immediately placed in an ice chest on blue ice and
retained for laboratory analyses.
·
The soil from the middle liner from each sample depth was used for field screening and soil
descriptions. Field screening consisted of a headspace reading for hydrocarbon vapors with an
Hnu photoionization detector (PID) using a 10.2 eV lamp. In addition to the headspace readings,
hydrocarbon odors, if detected, were noted. The samples were geologically field logged following
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
The augers were either steam-cleaned after drilling each test hole or augers previously cleaned
were used when starting a new test hole. The sampling equipment was scrubbed, washed, and
thoroughly rinsed between each sample collection. Contaminated drill cuttings, as identified by field
screening, were retained in DOT drums for future treatment or disposal. Test Hole Nos. 1 and 4
6
were backfilled with bentonite chips to within 5 feet of the surface. Test Hole Nos. 2 and 3 were
backfilled with clean soil since no contaminants were detected during field screening.
RESULTS OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION
Fifteen of the soil samples collected from the four test holes were submitted for chemical
analyses. The samples were analyzed for TPH as gasoline and for BTX&E. The TPH analyses were
performed using the DOHS/LUFT Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015. The BTX&E analyses
were performed using EPA Method 5030/8020. The analyses were conducted by BC Laboratories.
The analytical results and chain of custody records are included as Appendix E. Table 1 lists a
summary of the analytical results.
The samples collected from 11, 21, 26, 41, 56, and 61 feet in Test Hole No. 1 were submitted for
analyses. Field screening indicated hydrocarbon contamination from a depth of 10 feet to a depth
of approximately 32.5 feet. Slightly contaminated soil appeared to extend from 32.5 feet to a depth
of approximately 45 feet. The samples collected from 25 and 40 feet in Test Hole No. 2 were
submitted for analyses. Field screening indicated that the soil was not contaminated with gasoline.
The samples collected from 20, 25, and 30 feet in Test Hole No. 3 were submitted for analyses.
Field screening indicated slight contamination at a depth of 20 feet. The soil above and below this
depth appeared clean. The samples collected from 15, 25, 30, 35, and 40 feet in Test Hole No. 4
were submitted for analyses. Field screening indicated hydrocarbon contamination from a depth of
· · · · · · · · · · ·
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
5306 ALDRIN COURT
Depth TPH Benzene Toluen~ Ethyl Benzene Total
Test Hole (feet) Gasoline Xylenes
11 17,000 ND 180 170 ND
21 4,300 0.53 310 170 1,400
26 ND ND ND ND ND
Test Hole
No. I 41 ND ND ND ND ND
56 ND ND ND ND ND
61 ND ND ND ND ND
25 ND ND ND ND ND
Test Hole
No. 2 40 ND ND ND ND ND
20 ND ND 0.017 ND 0.082
Test Hole
25 ND ND ND ND ND
No. 3
30 ND ND ND ND ND
15 620 0.059 1.1 2.2 67
25 ND ND ND ND 0.020
Test Hole
No. 4 35 ND ND ND ND ND
40 I~ID ND ND . ND ND
Concentration~ ar~ in mg/kg.
ND - Non~ Detected
Table 1
approximately 10 feet to a depth of approximately 30 feet. The samples collected from a depth of
35 and 40 feet appeared clean.
The analytical results show that the 1 ! foot soil sample from Test Hole No. 1 reportedly contained
a TPH concentration of 17,000 mg/kg. It also contained toluene and ethyl benzene concentrations
of 180 rog/kg and 270 rog/kg, respectively. No benzene was detected in the sample. The 21 foot
sample from Test Hole No. 1 reportedly contained a TPH concentration of 4,300 mg/kg. It also
contained benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and total xylenes concentrations of 0.53 rog/kg, 310
rog/kg, 170 rog/kg, and 1,400 rog/kg, respectively. No gasoline contaminants were detected in the
samples collected from depths of 26, 41, 56, or 61 feet. The analytical results for the sample
collected from a depth of 26 feet are considered questionable. Field screening indicated that the
sample was contaminated (50 ppm). Field screening indicated that the sample collected from a
depth of 31 feet was also contaminated (200 ppm). Hydrocarbon odors were noted in both of the
above samples. The 31 foot sample was not analyzed because it was lost from the sample tube after
it was removed fi.om the drive sampler. The analytical results appear to indicate that Test Hole No.
I penetrated the center of the plume.
·
No gasoline contaminants, above the practical quantitation limits, were detected in the 25 or 40 foot
soil samples analyzed from Test Hole No. 2. It appears that the test hole was located well outside
the contaminant plume.
·
The 20 foot soil sample from Test Hole No. 3 reportedly contained toluene and total xylenes
concentrations of 0.017 rog/kg and 0.082 rog/kg, respectively. No TPH, benzene, or ethyl benzene
were detected in the sample. No gasoline contaminants were detected in the 25 or 30 foot samples
from Test Hole No. 3. The analytical results appear to indicate that Test Hole No. 3 was located at
· the very edge of the contaminant plume.
Test Hole No. 4 was drilled since Test Hole No. 3 did not penetrate much of the contaminant plume.
The 15 foot soil sample from Test Hole No. 4 reportedly contained a TPH concentration of 620
mg/kg. It also contained benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and total xylenes concentrations of 0.059
· rog/kg, 1.1 mg/kg, 2.2 mg/kg, and 67 mg/kg, respectively. Field screening indicated that the 25 foot
sample from Test Hole No. 4 was contaminated (30 ppm). No gasoline contaminants were detected
in the sample, above the practical quantitation limits, by the laboratory. No gasoline contaminants
were detected in the 35 or 40 foot samples from Test Hole No. 4. The analytical results indicate that
Test Hole No. 4 was located near the southern edge of the contaminant plume.
CONCLUSIONS
· Figure 4 shows the location of cross sections A-B and A-C. The cross sections are shown on
Figures 5 and 6 and depict vertical profiles through the contaminant plume in south-north/west-
east and south-north directions. Figure 4 also shows the approximate areal extent of the
contaminant plume at a depth of approximately 20 feet.
·
CROSS SECTION LOCATION MAP
TEG ELECTRICAL CONgTRUCTtON
PROPERTY
· BAKER~FII~LE]~ CALIFORNIA
SMITII-(TUTCIIER AND ASSOCIATES - SEPTEMBER 1995
Figure 4
cROss SEi~i0N A-B
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
PROPERTY
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SMITII-GUTCIIER AND ASSOCIATES -SEPTEMBER 1995
Figure 5
CROSS SEi~i0iM A-C
TEE] ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
PROPERTY
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SMITII-GUTCHER AND ASSOCIATES -SEPTEMBER 1995
Figure 6
Based on analytical results and field screening, Test Hole No. 1 appeared to penetrate the center of
· the contaminant plume. The Hnu PID meter registered between 50 and 200 ppm for the soil samples
collected from depths of 10 to 30 feet. Below this depth the meter readings decreased. Toluene,
ethyl benzene, and xylenes were detected in two of the samples from Test Hole No. 1. These
chemicals are known to be very mobile, odoriferous, and the sensory threshold is high. The samples
were delivered to the laboratory on September 15, 1995 and were extracted on September 26, 1995.
Test Hole No. 2 did not appear to penetrate the contaminant plume. The Hnu PID meter registered
l or 2 ppm for the seven soil samples collected from the test hole. No hydrocarbon odors were noted
· in the samples.
Test Hole No. 3 appeared to be located at the very edge of the contaminant plume based on the
analytical results and field screening. The Hnu PID meter registered only I or 2 ppm for three of
the soil samples. Hydrocarbon odors were noted in the 20 foot sample. The Hnu meter registered
· 20 ppm for this sample.
Test Hole No. 4 appeared to penetrate the southern edge of the contaminant plume based on the
analytical reSUlts and field screening. The Hnu meter registered between 5 and 150 ppm for the soil
samples collected from depths of approximately 10 to 25 feet. Hydrocarbon odors were noted in the
· samples.
·
10
Subsurface migration of contaminants appears to have been controlled primarily by the influence
of gravity. The lithology beneath the site appears to have had little influence on contaminant
migration. All of the sediments encountered in the test holes were highly to moderately permeable.
No significant permeability barriers were noted. Based on the analytical results, it would appear that
the area of concern extends to a depth of approximately 32.5 feet. The source of the contaminants
has been removed.
The maximum vertical extent of the contaminant plume is estimated to be approximately 32.5 feet
centered beneath the southern end of the former tank location (see Figures 5 and 6). There appears
to be a slightly contaminated area extending from a depth of 32.5 feet to approximately 45 feet. This
area most likely contains the vapor phase of the contaminants. Contaminants within this area should
have no adverse effect on the environment or biological receptors. The maximum areal extent of
the contaminant plume is estimated to be 18 feet at a depth of approximately 20 feet (see Figure 5).
It is estimated that the contaminant plume consists of approximately 350 cubic yards of soil. This
estimate is based on the extent of the contaminated soil shown on Figures 5 and 6.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Three possible remedial alternatives for the contaminant plume at the site are no action,
excavation and disposal, or excavation and on-site remediation. The no action alternative is an
acceptable method at the site. The top of the primary groundwater table is approximately 143 feet
below the base of the contaminant plume. Benzene was detected in only two of the soil samples
II
analyzed. The contaminant plume does not extend under any building. The surface ofthe site
would be covered by asphalt and since the property is commercial, there is very limited access to
the property by the public. The general area is occupied mostly by commercial properties. Possible
vapors migrating towards the surface should be insignificant. If the contamination is lef~ in place,
the owner of the property would continue to be liable for any possible effects on the environment.
Excavation and disposal of the contaminated soil is an acceptable remedial alternative. Based on
a cost of $75.00 per cubic yard to excavate, transport, and dispose (recycle) of the estimated total
of 350 cubic yards of contaminated soil, it would cost approximately $26,500 to complete
remediation. This figure may be somewhat conservative depending on the distance that the
contaminated soil would be transported. Also, it is likely that the actual amount of soil to be
excavated would exceed the estimated 350 cubic yards of contaminated soil because it is not
practical to remove only the contaminated soil.
The third option, excavation and on-site remediation, involves excavating the contaminated soil and
either spreading it in a thin layer across a portion of the property to allow natural degradation of the
hydrocarbons or removing the hydrocarbons by mechanical means. These methods can work well
with gasoline contaminated soil. The best results for aeration would occur during the summer
months. There appears to be limited open space on the property for aeration. Because of this, the
soil would have to be spread in a thicker layer and aeration would take longer to complete. The soil
could also be remediated on site using a mechanical means. The soil could be treated with heat
and/or steam to remove the hydrocarbons. The cost for these remediation methods could range from
12
$20,000 to $30,000. Aeration could take several months to complete. Mechanical treatment of the
soil on site could take several weeks to complete.
Based on the foregoing evaluations, the no action alternative appears to be an acceptable remedial
alternative for the site. Even though the Bakersfield City Fire Department may agree with the no
action alternative, the property owner may chose to remediate the contaminant plume to remove any
possible future liabilities. It would appear that the property owner can quali~ for the State of
California, Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund. This fund reimburses most costs for
characterization and remediation associated with the abandonment of underground fuel storage
· tanks. The fund reimburses the cost of characterization and remediation up to $1,000,000 with a
$10,000 deductible. Excavation and disposal or excavation and remediation on site may be
considered if the property owner prefers to remediate the contaminant plume.
Submitted by: .
No. 3584 )}~] Duane R. Smith
e Registered Geologist
_ __ _ _ __~ State of California No. 3584
· SITE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 1995
· C:~WPWIN 60\WPDOCSWILE,~;\ FILF~95~T ES .CHA
13
APPENDIX A
BAKERSFIELD CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT
CORRESPONDENCE
CITY of BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE SA FETY SERVICE,¥ & OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1715 CHESTER AVE. · BAKERSFIELD, CA · 93301
R.E. HUEY R.B. TOBIAS,
HAZ-MAT COORDINATOR FIRE MARSHAL
[805) 326-397Q (805) 326-3951
Duane Smith ............................
Smith-Gutcher and Associates
P.O. Box 60706
Bakersfield, CA 93386-0706
RE: TES Electrical at 5306 Aldrin Court in Bakersfield.
Dear Mr. Smith:
This is to notify you that the workplan for the above stated address is satisfactory.
· Please give this office 5 working days notice prior to the commencement of work.
Please be advised that any work done that is not performed under direct oversight
by this office will not be accepted, unless previously approved.
· If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979.
Sincerely,
Howard H. Wines, III
H~.ardous Materials Technician'
·
HHW/dlm
cc: R. Wenn
·
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LABORATORIES
·
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
CAI, PI Date of
P 0 BOX 6278 Report: 01/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab #: 95-00533-1
Attn.: J.P. ~JLLHOFER 589-5648
· Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: TANK I NORTH END 2f~. (SOIL) 01-13-95 PROM 1:00 TO
2:00PM SAMPLED BY JERRY MASON OF BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Indivldual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Soil
Date Sample Date S~ple Date ~alys~s '~'~: ~':~
CoIlected: ~eceived ~ Lab: Completed
Pract~cai
Benzene None Detected mg/kg
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0. ~'0~
Ethyl Benzene None Detecte~ mg/k9 0.005
0.01
·
Note: ~QL~s were raised clue to high concentration of target analytes requiring
sample dilution
......... :....~...,..~: ,. ":.:.:
"~:':":"' ~'i:':;=:.:L ';:'.:; ~.::'l~: :I~;:! ?i:'' ";:! "'!;?!'~
":::'":": ' ' :'.:!]..;;:'i "~.'"' ':'k:
·
· California D.O.It.S. Cert. #1186
· '"?' i "::~ ""'
~:""':'"" .... "~::' ":": ':::'
Department supervi sot '" :i!!'..'.;"?!ii ':":" "'
":,~.-:., '.~'1:1~,;' ~' ': '~":l~.~ .', ':' ': :~'~:'~'~
"'"'i:':'~]: "; ':i'-'i:;{ '"< :"g ": ""~" :'> ""
· '"' .~: ,,:;. ,..:..,. ....
All results Ilsled In ~is ~epor'l ara for I~la sxclusNa use of I~a submitting pad)'. BC taboratode$, Inc. assumes no ~esponalblllt~ for repod alle~alfon, separation, d~ll~hmenl or I~IKI party Mtefpralalloa.
lABORATORiES
·
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
·
CALPI Date of
P O BOX 6278 Report: 01/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab #: 95-00533-2
Attn.: J.P. MULLHOFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: TANK i NORTH END 6ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO
· 2:00PM SAMPLED BY JERRY MASON OF BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Soil
-~....- :..:
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis '~:::~:'~:
Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed:
Practical
Benzene None Detected mg/k~ ~'" '~i ".,.~:;
Toluene 9,9 m~/kg 0.2
· Ethyl Benzene 29. mg/kg 0.2
Total Xylenes 380. mg/kg... 0.
Hydrocarbons (~as) 2]00 m~/k~ ' ':::~::' ::'"": .........
Note;PQ~.~s were raised due to high co~centration o~ target a~alytes requiring
sample dilution.
All ~esulls listed Iff this Aepod are lot the exclusive use of the submlUlng party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no respoflslblllty for report altomtlm% aeparatloA, detachment or third party Intafpretalfofl.
LABORATORIES
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
CALPI Date of
P O BOX 6278 Report: 01/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab #: 95-00533-3
Attn.: J.P. MULLHOFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: TANK I SOUTH END 2ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM l:00 TO
2:00PM SAMPLED BY JERRY MASON OF BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 50]0/8020.
Sample Matrix: Soil
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis ':'" ,~.''
Collected: Received · Lab: Completed:
~ract. ical
gonstituent9 Results Units . Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 6 ~:~:; ':~:ii!
Toluene 27. mg/kg 6.
Ethyl Benzene 3~. mg/kg 6.
Total Xylenes 630. mg/kg 10.
Total Petroleum "='~ i .......... ·
Note: PQL's were raised due ~o high concentration of target analytes
l' ....... ' · .,:~[..... :
LABORATORIES
·
Purgeable Aromatics .-
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
·
CALPI Date of
P O BOX 6278 Report: 01/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab #: 95-00533-&
At. tn.: J.P. MULLHOFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: TANK i SOUTH END 6ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO
· ~:00PM SAMPLED BY JERRY MASON OF BC LA~ORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Indivldual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
· ' Sample Matrix: Soil
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis .:..-_-.
Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed:
· Practical
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 80".:;.ii!! ':'-'=~.-,."
Toluene 1000. mg/kg 80.
· Ethyl Benzene 800. mg/kg 80.
Total Xylenes 5700. mg/kg. ....... 200.
Note:PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring
sample dilution.
Ag ~e~ul~ ~sted in I~b ~epe~ are for lhe exclusive u~e ef ~he submit~n~ pa~. Be Lab~raterle% Inc. a~$umas no res~en~ib~lit¥ for ~e~od alter~6o., ee~ffo., ~eta~hmenl o~ thud ~/int~rpmtellon.
LABORATORIES
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total ~etroleumHydrocarbons
CALPI Date of
P O BOX 6278 Report: 01/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab #: 95-00533-5
Attn.: J.P. MOLLHOFER 589-56¢8
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: DISPENSER ! 2ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO 2:00PM
SAMPLED BY JERRY MASON OF BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Soll
"
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed:
01/1]/95 01/13/gS 01/X?/95
Practical
~alys i s Report ~ng 'Q~'~'L'~ ~ t i o~:'~:~ ':':~:.." "~
Consti~uent~ Re~lt~ Unite ... '~"L{~'~ '~??:~:..:~
Benzene None oetected mg/kg 0
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0. ~:'
~thyX Benzene None Detected mg/kg
Total Xylene~ None De~ected mg/kg ................ ," 0.2
Hydrocarbons (gas) 300. mg/kg ' ~'t~]?~:~ "i~0.,: :.:';;":,, '::~"-.'::'q;~,:, ::. ..,...:.
",':': ...... ':~!:i:f?..;.u~: %:'.:;:'L21: '?L.;: ::...
. .: ~ ':::~:~ :!;:( ::'...:::
Note: Sample chromatogram not typical of ~lasoline.
.......
':: ': ':.:~f;i:'f .:':.:..: ',,.:.:.
";
California
Department Supervi sot ':~ '~' ·-~:4 ',.',:,. ' .::::m:: ";':;..::.:..'~] .:.::.... ::,, , :-:c:~..,.
'~ :;": ::'~': ::' :' :': "', ~if:;L": .... · ......
..... : '::', ': '~'. {'. :i:L'.?.: ": .::[.
· ..,~: ....
,, '.t: .. ~ - .
All results IIsled In this tel)od ire for the exclusive use of the lubmlttlng pi~ly. IIC labor'dtodes, Inc. assumes no (esponslbllily Io~ repoit alta(ilion, Seplritiorl, delichmenl or thl/d pm'fy Inle~ililfofl.
LABORATORIES
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
·
CALPI Date of
g O BOX 6278 Report: 02/02/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab #: 95-00533-6
Attn.: J.P. MULLHOFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: DISPENSER i 6ft. (SOIL) 01-1]-95 FROM 1:00 TO
· SAMPLED BY JERRY MASON OF BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST ~THOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method Modified EPA 8015
Indlvidual constituents by EPA Method 50]0/8020.
Sample Matrix: Soll
Collected: Received · Lab: Completed: ~;;:ii~.:.~!:
~alys i s Report ing. Quant ~ tarpon
Toluene None Datacted mg/kg O. 005 ~:-"
~=hyl Benzene ~one Detecte~ mg/kg 0.005 '
Total Xylene~ None
Total
CaliEornia D.O.H.S Cert. ~1186 '~i:::~:!.: ..:.~;...... ...!.~. :.. -.:.'::.:.':;.
· ,~.,::. "} .:.::: .: . . ~.,,
': 'f':';r ". ":!: a'.:' t,'. ;":'"!!{i::"":. .... : · · : ":' :;''' .:'"~
·: :f; ~;:::..:: · :!.i~ ~.: .::,:: .... ,.., ..:..,
· ':: ':-'":~t:?' ....;..: :..: :: '""':
· '.;:; .;:.~: . .:.. .. · ':! :..
· '.
Analysis Requested
~,eport To: _
~ame: ~F~LI } ~
,Address: Project#: -o~ '~1.~
· State: ~..~ Zip:Cf.~X (~ Othen ' ~ ~ 3
Phone:
Sample Description Date & Time S~pled
Comment: Billing Info: ature) Date:
Name: ~ ~ ~L~)[~'..~-,-~ Received by; (Signature) Date: Time:
Address
City State luished by:. (Signature) Received by: (Signature) Date: Time:
~ Attention: ~ ~. ,--f~ Relinquished by:. (Signature) Received by: (Signature) Date: Time:
Sample Disposal Milos: ~ ~9 ._~' ,~' ~ ~" t4elinquishod bY: (Signature)p-o-# -- Received by: (Signature) -: Date:Time:
"" Relinquished by: (Signature) Received by: (Signature) Date: Time:
O BC Disposal @ 5.00 ea. ..
APPENDIX C
BAKERSFIELD CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT
CORRESPONDENCE
·
"WE CARE"
FIRE DEPARTMENT 1715 CHESTER AVENUE
M. R. KELLY BAKERSFIEtD, 93301
FIR~ CHIEF 328-3911
· February 7, 1995
· Robert $. Wenn
TES Electrical Construction
5306 Aldrin Ct.
Bakersfield, CA 93313
· REI Laboratory results from preliminary site assessment conducted
on the 6000 Gallon gasoline tank removal at 5306 Aldrin Ct. In
Bakersfield, CA. (Permit #BR-0116)
Dear Mr. Wenn:
· Upon review of the recently submitted laboratory results from your
facility, this office has determined that the extent of the
contamination plume, associated with the gasoline tank previously
located on your property, has not been adequately defined.
This office requires (in accordance with Chapter 6.7 of the
· California Health and Safety Code and Chapter 16, Title 23 of the
California Code of Regulations) that further assessment be done to
define the vertical and horizontal extent of the contamination plume.
Please submit a work plan for further assessment, to this office,
with in 30 days from receipt of this letter The work pla~ should follow
guidelines found in~ Appendix A - RepQFts; Tri - Reqlo~al Board Staff
Recommendations for Prellmlnary.. Evaluation _ and In~estiaation of
Underground Tank Sites; January 22, 1991.
Additionally, be advised that oversight cost for this project will
be billed to you at a rate of $62.00 per hour.
If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 328-3979.
Sincerely,
Howard H; Wines, III
Hazardous Materials Technician
HHW/ed
LOGS OF TEST HOLES
LOG OF TEST HOLE
LOCATION: TE$ Electrical Construction TEST HOLE NO.: T.H. No. 1 ELEVATION: -370'
DATE DRILLED: 09/14/95 DRILLING CO.: Melton Drilling Company DRILLER: Rendy Walton
DRILLING RIG: Mobile Drill B-53 HSF Auger SAMPLING METHOD: split spoon with brass sleeves
HOLE DIAMETER: 8+" TOTAL DEPTH: 61' FIRST WATER: None LOGGED BY: D.R. Smith
SAMPLE E o
- z ; SMITH - GUTCHER
= o ~ ~ < o & ASSOCIATES, INC.
.~ ~ Z
~ ~ B u -c ~ =_ u BAKERSFIELO~ CALIFORNIA
~ ~ E= ~ go ~q ~ ~ ~ ~o Oo [805] 871-3207
_ ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ 0
c m ~ LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
'0-
- - Depth of Open Excavation (2')
~::':' ~'~.: hydrocarbonBackfill' sand,odorbrown,at 5'. medium- to fine-grained, loose, moist, no
_ _ ~.: .-.'..
'10' .r'
Base of ~ackfill (10')
.; .. ,~..
- ' I 2 ~.~ Send, brown, clayey, coarse- to fine-grained, loose, moist, hydrocar-
O1 0845 2 200 17,000 '--,'"
I
ben odor at 11'.
= ,= :'.-~-~.
-15- :':' ""
- - I 3 ~' ." :' .'.'. Sand, brown, silty, medium- to fine-grained, loose, moist, hydrocar-
I
O2 0850 5 150 .... :'" ben odor at 16'.
6 sm ?~...~ ,~.
220 . .,....
~ ..':.
- -~ 5 ~' ;'',~
I
O3 0855 6 200 4,3~ ' ~'~' '. Sand, light brown, coarse- to fine-grianed, loose, moist, hydrocarbon
7 · ." '~ odorat 21'.
7 "~.'"' '".'J*":"' Silt, light brown to gray, sandy, fine-grained, loose, slightly moist,
'~ *.""' '" hydrocarbon odor at 26'.
.
O4 0905 7 ~0 ND (?) · ; -...
11 mi '..: ,, ...*:: :~
~ ~':;' ;~:~'~;Sand, brown, medium- to fine-grained,loose, slightly moist, hydrocar-
'30- *;*'" '" bon odor at 31'.
~w ["~'~¥.:.*'
(continued on next page)
Sh~t ~ o~ 2
D-1
LO(; OF
LOCATION: TES Electrical Construction TEST HOLE NO.: T.H. No. 1 ELEVATION: -370'
DATE DRILLED: 09/14/95 DRILLING CO.: Melton Drilling Company DRILLER: Randy Walton
DRILLING RIG: Mobile Drill B-53 HSF Auger SAMPLING METHOD: split spoon with brass sleeves
HOLE DIAMETER: 8+" TOTAL DEPTH: 61' FIRST WATER: None LOGGED BY: D.R. Smith
SAMPLE
o_~ SMITH - GUTC:HEI:I
$ ucz o BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
c ~ ~ LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
-30 -
10 sw ' .'. ,.'; ;'; ' Sand, brown, medium- to fine-grianed, slightly densa, slightly moist,
- -I
.. - .... hydrocarbon odor at 31'.
OS 0915 15 200 Lost -' "'. '.'
17 Sample ~ ~' '. ·
',' ,.'.. Major Break in Contaminant Concentrations (32.5')
-~s- ::~:....~...~
- '1
7 ." ?...
06 0925 13 20 --- sw ", .,' Sand, gray. coarse- to fine-grianed, slightly dense, slightlv moist.
14 ..... " slight hydrocarbon odor at 36'.
';: .~,d~, ~,,,~ a~ow 4o'
-40'
- ' ~ 13 ~" ' ~'~
I
07 0930 13 60 ND . ,. "' Sand, gray, silty, medium- to fine-grianed, gravel rare, dense, slightly
25 ~; "~' moist, hydrocarbon odor at 41'.
- "~ ' Major Break in Contaminant Concentrations (44')
'45 ' '
:l '
7 ~'.';'""..
~ OS OS40 11 lO --- . · ,f~'.."
; 13 o'.' ~...
~ ~ .2,.' .....
18 ~' "~ ;' ~ Same as Above
-~ 09 0945 24 9 .... ':',~
25 ',,.' ...,'
;~'f- ,'"
'55' "' ''.
' 'B ;o .'~,' ';'
I
10 1000 13 5 ND .~ , i '~, No Groundwater Encountered
'60'
13 ? "l ,
11 1015 17
26 Total Depth - 61'
Sh~t 2 of 2
II I
D-2
LOCATION: TES Electrical Construction TEST HOLE NO.: T.H. No. 2 ELEVATION: -370'
DATE DRILLED: 09/14/95 DRILLING CO,: Melton Drilling Company DRILLER: Randy Walton
DRILLING RIG.' Mobile Drill B-53 HSF Auger SAMPLING METHOD: split spoon with brass sleeves
HOLE DIAMETER: 8+" TOTAL DEPTH: 40' FIRST WATER: None LOGGED BY: D. R. Smith
SAMPLE [ Z ~ ~MITH -
<z o S AE~SCICIA TES, INC.
· D 0 ,~ .c__
u - -- ~ EIAKIERSFIELO, CALIFORNIA
- "' [80!5] 871-3207
,,, z z 0 '" ~- ~0 0 0
- -J '" -- u) 0
c m ~ LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
' 0" . Asphalt
':" ' ~..". Silt, brown, sandy, fine-grained, loose, moist, no hydrocarbon odor.
- - mi ,i..' '...2'
. ....; ;..'.
-5 - .; :,.;'. ;..'
I' .
ml i ' Silt, light brown, $ond¥, fino-gr~inod0 Ioo$o0 moist, no hydroesrbon
, . $i~t, brown, ,snd¥, fin,-~r~in~d, ~oo~, moist, no hydrocarbon odor.
'10~1 ~ m! :.':i ....
' -I ~2 --- 7 1 .... '.' ....
,.. · ,.. $~nd, brown, ~I~¥~¥, eo~r*~- to fin.-~r~}nod, loo,~, mol,t, h~drO~r-
· ~ bon odor ~t 10t
· " ;~;
'15'a- 4 ~. ·
I
. _ 13 --- 6 1 ....
9 '' :,"
- .. : ' Sand, brown, silty, medium- to fine-grained, loose, moist, hydrocar-
. '.' '.". bon odor at 15'.
sm - .''' '.
'20'I 5 · ,:.
_ _~ ~4 ~40 ~ ~ --- . ....
' .' ' ~ Send, light brown, coarse- to fine-g~ianed, loose, moist, hydrocarbon
- "~ · ' ' odor at 20'.
- ~w · · , , ' ,i
; · '..'1
'25-1 s · ,' ,
I
_ _ 15 1145 11 2 ND '"~..,,
13 ,~ .....
' "-' '.' ."- Silt, light brown to gray, sandy, fine-grained, loose, slightly moist,
-
. ., " slight hydrocarbon odor at 25'.
mi ':~3"..'~"
'30' :':":
· ~?,:" Sand, brown, medium- to fine-grained, loose, slightly moist,
· ', '. slight hydrocarbon odo~ at 30'.
sw . . .; ..
(continued on next page)
D-3
LC: I: OF' 'rEsT'
LOCATION: TES Electrical Construction TEST HOLE NO.: T.H. No. 2 ELEVATION: -370'
DATE DRILLED: 09/14/95 DRILLING CO.: Melton Drilling Company DRILLER: Randy Walton
DRILLING RIG: Mobile Drill B-53 HSF Auger SAMPLING METHOD: split spoon with brass sleeves
HOLE DIAMETER: 8+" TOTAL DEPTH: 40' FIRST WATER: None LOGGED BY: D.R. Smith
Z
SAMPLE ~ E MITH - GUTCHER
~-- :g- ~ u° z E e~ o_ o BAKERSFIELO~ CALIFORNIA
= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [805] a71-3207
- ~ 0
c ~ b LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
-30' I 9
I...
-I 16 1150 11 1 --- sw I~*'*:':~'~': Send, brown, medium- to fine-griened, slightly dense, slightly moist,
13 :.· ·; · :. · slight hydrocarbon odor at 30'.
13 ~.. Sand, gra~, coarse- to fino-grianod, slightly dense, slightly moist,
- · ~ ;' .~ ,~.. slight hydrocarbon odor et 35'.
'.'~: -'~.'.
17 Total Depth - 40'
'45 '
~ No Groundwater Encountered
Sh~ 2 of 2
LCI 01: TEST HOLE
LOCATION: TE$ Electrical Construction lEST HOLE NO.: T.H. No. :3 ELEVATION: ~370'
~Alr ~FII/L[D: 00/14/0§ D~ILUNG CO.: Molton DriUing Company DRILt_£~: ~and¥ Wa~ton
DRILLING RIG: Mobile Drill B-§3 HSF Auger SAMPLING METHOD: split spoon with brass sleeves
HOLE DIAMETER: 8 +" TOTAL DEPTH: 30' FIRST WATER: None, LOGGED BY: D. R. Smith
SAMPLE '[oZ =~ SMITH -
o z
-r >~ I~ u _ u BAKERSFIELD~ CALIFORNIA
~ - '" [eOB] Ig71-3s~07
.J o: - (~) 0
¢ ~ ~- LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
......:..:~
'"" Silt, brown, $~nd¥, fino-grainod,~oo~o, moist, no hydroesrbon odor 8t
~'.-~-:..
-lo-I
_ _ 17A 1320 6 1 .... ~-':-.o Sand, brown, clayey, coarse- to fine-grained, loose, moist, no
7 '~' ' ' hydrocarbon odor at 10'.
mo .. · .
·" ". Sand, brown, silty0 modium- to fine-grained, loose, moist, no
.... :, .. hydroesrbon odor ~t
18A 1330 8 20 ND . '; '
- 12 ,'.'° ," Send, light brown, coorse- to fine-grianed, loose, moist, slight
"°'" '~' hydrocarbon odor at 20'.
19 1345 18 2 ND ' '.:-: '. i Silt, light brown to gray, sandy, fine-grained, loose, slightly moist, no
- 20 .*~':~'.:. '... hydrocarbon odor at 25'.
'30- ': [' :;2 Sand, brown, medium- to fine-grained, loose, slightly moist, no
I ., ·. '. ,' hydrocarbon odor at 30'.
13 sw ' ...,:,
20 1355 16 1 ND "' ' "' No Groundwater Encountered
21 Total Depth- 30'
Sheet 1 of
D-5
LOCATION: TES Electrical Construction TEST HOLE NO.: T.H, No. 4 ELEVATION: -370'
DATE DRILLED: 09/14/95 DRILLING CO,: Melton Drilling Company DRILLER: Randy Walton
DRILLING RIG: Mobile Drill B-53 HSF Auger SAMPLING METHOD: split spoon with brass sleeves
HOLE DIAMETER: 8+" TOTAL DEPTH: 40' FIRST WATER: None LOGGED BY: D, R, Smith
Z
SAMPLE -- Z = SMITH - Gu'rcHER
E o
< o & ASE~CICI~EES~ linC.
BAKERSFIELD~
CALIFORNIA
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < 3: c~ ~5 o ~ o ~ [805] 871-3~07
[:3 nn ~ U T
c m ~- LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
'0-
_ _ Depth of Open Excavation
- . , .'.' Backfill, sand, b~own, medium- to fine-grained, loose, moist, no
· . ,. hydrocarbon odor at ~'.
No
= 5 ' Sample 1 sw . , ~
- ,':?
' 10 = Sample 1 . ,' .~'. ~
- Sand, brown, clayey, coarse- to fine-grained, loose, moist, no
~'_ . hydrocarbon odor at 10'.
~ sc ....~.~- ..
. , 21 1405 8 150 620 " ·, .'
Sand, brown, silty, medium- to fine-grained, loose, moist, slight
· ?"". · hydrocarbon odor at 15'.
sm . ' ~.
No .: · '
'20 "' Sample .;'..":' "',
_ . .:..' ':
- ' :" ' Sand, light brown, coarse- to fine-grianed, loose, moist,
' ".'." slight hydrocarbon odor at 20'.
-25-~ 9 '. · .
' -I 22 1425 11 30 ND ' ° '
13 '..;'.': ': ," Silt, light brown to gray, sandy, fine-grained, loose, slightly moist,
- .. '.=. :" slight hydrocarbon odor at 25'.
m;
.',.,:~,: i?i'I
;.'. ;.2 ,
· :;.:' $~nd, brown, modium- to fino-grsinod, looso, ~fightl¥
'~0' ~w . ...,2 no hydrocarbon odor ,! 30'.
(continued on next page)
Shee~ ! of 2
D-6
LOCATION: TES Electrical Construction TEST HOLE NO.: T.H. No, 4 ELEVATION: -370'
DATE DRILLED: 09/14/95 DRILLING CO.: Melton Drilling Company DRILLER: Randy Walton
DRILLING RIG: Mobile Drill B-53 HSF Auger SAMPLING METHOD: split spoon with brass sleeves
HOLE DIAMETER: 8+" TOTAL DEPTH: 40' FIRST WATER: None LOGGED BY: D. R. Smith
Z
SAUPLE z E;IVIlTH - I: UTCHEI:I
INC.
m ~ ~ ~ ~ u° o- --~ ~ e - ~ ~ _o BAKERSFIELD~ CALIFORNIA
~ ~ ~ .~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~o o° [e05] 871-3207
~ z z 0 ~
c m ~ LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
'30 '1
_ _ 23 1430 14 S --- ' :" '"' ' Sand, brown, medium- to fine-grianed, slightly denee, slightly moist,
20 ".: .:' "' no hydrocarbon odor at 30'.
=35- ~ 14 '-' ' ''
24 1435 16 2 ND "" '~' ~ ;'
20 .'..' · ', ',
- '~ ," .' Sand, gray, coarse* to fine-grianed, slightly denee, slightly moist, no
"' ' "' hydrocarbon odor at 35' or 40 '
- .w ~',~,
_ _~ 25 1445 24 2 ND Total Depth - 40'
26
No Groundwater Encountered
-45 '
Sh~t 2 o~
APPENDIX E
SITE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-1
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
· Sample Description: TES: TPH1 ® 11' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soll Date Collected: 09/14/95 ® 08:30AM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantitation
Constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 5.
· Toluene 180. mg/kg 5.
Ethyl Benzene 170. mg/kg 5.
Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg 10.
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) 17000. mg/kg 1000.
Surrogate % Recovery 93. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring
· sample dilution.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart O. Buttram
Department Supervisor
· All results listed In this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for repod alteretlon, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation.
41 O0 Atlas Ct. · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · (805) 327-491 I · FAX (805) 327-1918
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-2
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
Sample Description: TES: TPH1 ® 21' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soil Date Collected: 09/14/95 ~ 08:30AM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantltation
Constituents Results Units Limit
· Benzene 0.53 mg/kg 0.2
Toluene 310. mg/kg 10.
Ethyl Benzene 170. mg/kg 5.
Total Xylenes 1400. mg/kg 20.
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) 4300. mg/kg 500.
· Surrogate % Recovery 101. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
· Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring
sample dilution.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart G. Buttram
Department Supervisor
·
All results listed In this report are for the e~clustve use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation.
Zl'l [DO Atlas CD15. · EBaker~sfield. CD,a, 93:3C]E~ · [EiCD~5) ~B~7-zl~'l '1 · F:,a.)< lEI[DS] ~77-I ~q 8
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-3
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
Sample Description: TES: TPH1 ~ 26' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soll Date Collected: 09/14/95 ® 08:30AM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/25/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/25/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/25/95
Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/25/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantltation
Constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene None Detected ms/kg 0.005
Toluene None Detected ms/kg 0.005
/
Ethyl Benzene None Detected f y) rog/kg 0. 005
Total Xylenes None Detected · '~ mg/kg 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected ms/kg 1.
Surrogate % Recovery 93. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart G. Buttram
Department Supervisor
All results listed In this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting psrty. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation.
4100 Atlas Ct. · Bakersfield, CA 9330EI · [B05) 327-4911 · FAX (1905~) 327-1 ~)18
LABORATORIES Page
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-4
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871~3207
· Sample Description: TES:.TPH1 ~ 41' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soil Date Collected: 09/14/95 ® 08:30AM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
· Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantltation
Constituents Results Units Limit
· Benzene None Detected mg/kG 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kG 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kG 0.005
Total Xylenes None Detected mG/kG 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mG/kG 1.
Surrogate % Recovery 99. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart G. Buttram
Department Supervisor
· All results listed In this report ere for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or thlrd party Interpretation.
41 O0 Atlas Ct. · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · (805) 327-491 I · FAX (805) 327-1918
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-5
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
· Sample Description: TES: TPH1 ~ 56' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soil Date Collected: 09/14/95 ® 08:30AM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
· Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantitatlon
Constituents Results Units Limit
· Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
Surrogate % Recovery 98. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart G. Buttram
Department Supervisor
· All rasults listed In this report ere for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC leboratorles, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation.
41 O0 Atlas Ct. · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · (805) 327-491 I · FAX (805) 327-191B
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-6
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
Sample Description: TES: TPH1 ® 61' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soll Date Collected: 09/14/95 @ 08:30AM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantitatlon
Constituents Results Units Limit
· Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
Surrogate % Recovery 96. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart G. Buttram
Department Supervisor
·
All results listed In this repod are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation.
41 O0 Atlas Ot. · Bakersfield, GA 93308 · [805) 327-491 I · FAX (1~05) 327-1919
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATgS, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-7
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871~3207
Sample Description: TES: TPH2 ® 25' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soll Date Collected: 09/14/95 ® 08:30AM
Date gxtracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantltation
Constituents Results units Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
Surrogate % Recovery 96. % 70-130
TgST I~THOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified gPA g015
Indivldual constituents by gPA Method 5030/8020.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart G. Buttram
Department Supervisor
All results listed In this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation.
41 O0 Atlas Ct. · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · (805) 327-491 I · FAX (805) 327-1918
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-8
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
· Sample Description: TES: TPH2 ~ 40' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soll Date Collected: 09/14/95 ® 08:30AM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
O Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantltation
Constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
· Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
Surrogate % Recovery 96. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart G. Buttram
Department Supervisor
· All results listed In this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation.
41 O0 Atlas CC. · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · (805) 327-491 I · FAX (805) 327-1918
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
· Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-9
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
Sample Description: TES: TPH3 ~ 20' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soll Date Collected: 09/14/95 ® 08:30AM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
· Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantltatlon
Constituents Results Units Limit
· Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Toluene 0.017 mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Xylenes 0.082 mg/kg 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
Surrogate % Recovery 96. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart G. Buttram
Department Supervisor
· All results listed In this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting pady. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third pady Interpretation.
41 O0 A~31as Ct. · Bskersfield, CA c~3308 . (BO5} 327-491 I · FAX [805] 327-1 91B
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-10
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
· Sample Description: TES: TPH3 ® 25' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soll Date Collected: 09/14/95 ® 08:30AM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantltatlon
Constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
· Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
Surrogate % Recovery 96. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart G. Buttram
Department Supervisor
· All results listed In this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation.
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-11
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
· Sample Description: TES: TPH3 ® 30' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soil Date Collected: 09/14/95 ® 08:30AM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
· Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantitation
Constituents Results Units Limit
· Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
Surrogate % Recovery 90. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart G. Buttram
Department Supervisor
· All results listed In this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation.
41 O0 Atlas Ct. · Bakersfield, (DA 93309 . (805) 327-491 I · FAX (805) 327-1919
· LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
· P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-11
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
Sample Description: TES: TPH3 ® 30' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soil Date Collected: 09/14/95 ® 08:30AM
· Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
· Analysis Reporting Quantitation
constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg 0.01
· Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
Surrogate % Recovery 90. % 70-130
· TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
·
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-12
Attn: DUD/gE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
· Sample Description: TES: TPH4 ~ 15' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soll Date Collected: 09/14/95 ® 08:30AM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
· Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantltation
Constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene 0.059 mg/kg 0.05
~ Toluene 1.1 mg/kg 0.05
Ethyl Benzene 2.2 mg/kg 0.05
Total Xylenes 67. mg/kg 1.
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) 620. mg/kg 100.
Surrogate % Recovery 102. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method ~ Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring
· sample dilution.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart G. Buttram
Department Supervisor
All results listed in this Teport are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretalton.
41 O0 Atlas Ct. · 15)akersfield, (DA 93308 · [805) 3~7-491 I · FAX [8(D5) 327-191B
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-13
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
Sample Description: TES: TPH4 ~ 25' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soil Date Collected: 09/14/95 ~ 08:30AM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantltatlon
Constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected ms/kg 0.005
Total Xylenes 0.020 ms/kg 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected ms/kg 1.
Surrogate % Recovery 93. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart G. Buttram
Department Supervisor
All results listed In this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation.
41 O0 Atlas Ct. · Elekersfield, CA ~)3[B08 · (805) 327-491 I · FAX (805) 5)27-1 ~)18
·
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH-GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-14
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
· Sample Description: TES: TPH4 ® 35' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soil Date Collected: 09/14/95 ® 08:30AM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantitation
Constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
· Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
Surrogate % Recovery 98. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart G. Buttram
Department Supervisor
· All results listed In this raped ere for the e~cluslve use o! the eubm~l~;j psdy. BC Laborers;les, Inc. assumes no responsibility for re)od alteration, separation, detachment or third parly Interpretation.
41 O0 Atlas Ct. · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · (805) 327-491 I · FAX (805) 327-191B
LABORATORIES Page 1
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SMITH~GUTCHER and ASSOCIATES, INC. Date Reported: 09/28/95
P.O. BOX 60706 Date Received: 09/15/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386-0706 Laboratory No.: 95-11250-15
Attn: DUANE R. SMITH 805-871-3207
Sample Description: TES: TPH4 ® 40' SAMPLED BY DUANE SMITH
Sample Matrix: Soll Date Collected: 09/14/95 ® 02:45PM
Date Extracted-8020: 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8020: 09/26/95
Date Extracted-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Date Analyzed-8015M(g): 09/26/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting Quantitatlon
Constituents Results Units Limit
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
Surrogate % Recovery 93. % 70-130
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186
Stuart O. Buttram
Department Supervisor
All results listed In this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party Interpretation.
41 O0 Atlas Ct, . Bakersfield, CA ~)330B . (805) 327-4911 . FAX [BO5) 327~191B
· · · · ~,~ · · · e. ~r~'~ ·
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
t~cation of Samglino Samplq Collector ~lien~
Te[~:' ( ) Te,~: (805)871-3207 Te[~: (
..,inouis~ed ~: ¢~ ~-~ Comoan,: Smith-Gutc.e, and Associates. Inc. Date and ~m,:
Relinouished ~: Company: Date and
Received by: Comoany: Date and Time:
Sheet
CHAIN OF CUSTOD Y.R£CORD ~----~
I..~cation of Samolino Sample Collector Client
L~ R~S ~o ~r~ ~r ~ L~ R~rts :o ~te cott~tor ~ L~ e~rts to cti~t
.
Reiin.u,s.ed~. ~~ ~~ Comoanv: Smith-Gutc.erandAssoc,ates. lnc. Date anti.me: ~/,~/'~
Retinouished~: ~' Company: Date and ~me:
'Received by: ~omoany: Date and Time:
Sheet % of ~
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR
, GASOLI NE CONTAMINATED SOIL
TLS ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
5306 ALDRI N COURT
BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA
APR I L 1996
SMITH-GUTCHER
· AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Geologists
Post Office Box 60706
Bakersfield, California 93386-0706
(805) 871-3207 FAX (805) 871-3698
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ..................................................................... 1
· Site Background ................................................................. 2
Former Underground Tank Site ............................................... 2.
Site Geology .................................................................... 2
· Summary of Investigation Results ................................................... 3
Preliminary Site Assessment Results ..... :-. .................................... 3
Site Characterization Results ................................................. 4
Conclusions Based on Site Characterization ..................................... 7
Assessment of Potential For Contaminant Migration ..................................... 8
· Assessment of Potential Vapor Emissions ............................................. ! 2
Benzene Emission Rate ...................................................... 12
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Assessment ....................................... 16
Conclusions ..................................................................... 18
Limitations ..................................................................... 18
Selected References
Exhibits:
· Figure I Location Map
Figure 2 Vicinity Map
Figure 3 Test Hole Location Map
Figure 4 Cross Section Location Map
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Figure 5 Cross Section A-B
Figure 6 Cross Section A-C
Table ! Summary of Analytical Results
Appendix A PTPLU Modeling Results for Potential Benzene Emissions
C: ~g/PW'IN60WILESWILES961TE,Y. FAB
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR
· GASOLINE CONTAMINATED SOIL
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
· INTRODUCTION
A site characterization study was completed in September 1995 for the TES Electrical
Construction property located at 5306 Aldrin Court in Bakersfield, California. It is situated in
Section 15, T.30S., R.27E., M.D.B.& M. just southwest of the intersection of Stine Road and
· White Lane (see Figure I). The property is occupied by a large building. The area surrounding
the building is asphalt-paved. The asphalt area is used for storage and parking. The surrounding
properties are occupied by private businesses. The nearest residential area is located approxi-
mately 400 feet to the north, along the north side of White Lane.
· The site characterization study was conducted to determine the degree and extent of soil
contamination resulting from unauthorized releases of hydrocarbons into the subsurface at the
site. This assessment considers the possible long-term effects on the health and safety of the
public and the environment if the contaminated soil is left in place at the site. The maximum
vertical migration of bulk hydrocarbons in the soil and the possible adverse health effects of
· vapors emanating from the soil to the atmosphere are assessed herein. Remediation at the Site
would be relatively costly because of the need to work in close proximity to the property
boundary and existing structure.
1
IFIELO .
~ OI.'A I If
fl~ ; ~lnl '"
1" = 4.25 MILES I ' ~
Ro~
.... , ....... ~. ...~...
LOCATION MAP
TEB ~L~CT~ICAL OON~TRUOTION PROPERTY
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Source of Base Map: Map of the Golden Empire, Bakersfield and Kern Cotlnty, Hoven and Company, Inc.
Figure I
·
SITE BACKGROUND
·
Former Under~round Tank Site
·
One underground storage tank was removed from the property (see Figure 2). The tank was used
to store gasoline and had a volume of approximately 6,000 gallons. The tank was removed on
January 13, 1995. It was constructed of steel and appeared to be in good condition when
removed. One dispenser was located approximately 40 feet east of the tank along the west side
of the building. The vent line from the tank appeared to be located along the west edge of the
· building near the dispenser. No products other than gasoline are known to have been stored in
the tank.
·
SITE GEOLOGY
· According to the Geologic Map of California, Bakersfield Sheet, the site is situated on alluvial
deposits of Recent age. In general, these sediments have been deposited from streams emerging
from high lands surrounding the Great Valley. The sediments encountered in the four test holes
drilled at the site consist mostly of brown sand to silty sand to clayey sand. The sediments are
loose to dense and appear highly to moderately permeable. They are also moist to slightly moist.
According to the Kern County Water Agency, Water Supply Report 1993, the depth to
groundwater below the property is approximately 175 feet. There is no known shallow
2
VICINITY MAP
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
PROPERTY
BAKERSFIELO, CALIFORNIA
groundwater in the general area. Groundwater quality within the unconfined aquifer below the
property is fair. The quality within the confined aquifer is good. The groundwater gradient below
the property appears to be to the northeast. Detailed descriptions of the sediments underlying the
tank location are shown on the test hole logs in Appendix D of the site characterization study (see
Smith, 1995).
According to the Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part, published by the Soil
Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (1988), the site is located on Kimberlina
fine sandy loam. The soil is classified as well-drained with moderately slow permeability.
SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION RESULTS
·
Prelimina~ Site Assessment Results
· Following removal of the tank, six soil samples were collected from beneath the bottom of the
tank and dispenser. The samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as
gasoline and for benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and total xylenes (BTX&E). They were
analyzed by BC Laboratories in Bakersfield, California.
· Significant soil contamination was detected beneath the south end of the tank. The 2-foot and 6-
foot soil samples collected from the south end of the tank contained TPH concentrations of 7,100
rog/kg and 26,000 rog/kg, respectively. Toluene, ethyl benzene and xylenes also were detected
3
in the samples. Minor soil contamination was detected beneath the north end of the tank. The 2-£oot
and 6-foot samples contained TPH concentrations of 34 mgtkg and 2,300 rog/kg respectively.
Toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes also were detected in the samples. Slightly contaminated soil
was detected in the 2-foot sample from below the dispenser. The sample contained a TPH
concentration of 300 rog/kg. No BTX&E constituents were detected in the sample. No
contaminants were detected in the 6-foot sample collected from below the dispenser. No samples
· were collected from below the product line.
Based on the results-of the preliminary site assessment, which indicated soil significantly
contaminated with gasoline below the south end of the diesel tank, the Bakersfield City Fire
Department required further characterization to define the vertical and horizontal extent of the
· contamination. The analytical results are included in Appendix B of the site characterization study
(see Smith, 1995).
· Site Characterization Results
Four test holes were drilled on September 14, 1995 to assess the vertical and lateral extent and the
degree of contamination below the south end of the tank location. Figure 3 shows the test hole
locations. Test Hole No, ! was located near the center of the southern half of the tank. This location
· was near the area were the preliminary site assessment encountered highly contaminated soil. Test
Hole No. 2 was located approximately 15 feet south of Test Hole No. I. Test Hole No. 3 was
located approximately 9 feet east of Test Hole No. I. Test Hole No. 3 encountered only a trace level
4
I II I II I I I I I
TEST HOLE LOCATION MAP
TEES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
PROPERTY
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
of contaminants at a depth of 20 feet. Test Hole No. 4 was located approximately 5 feet southeast
of Test Hole No. 1. Each additional test hole was moved progressively closer to Test Hole No. !
because the data obtained from the previous test hole indicated a small diameter plume. Test Hole
No. 1 was drilled to a depth of 61 feet. Test Hole Nos. 2 and 4 were drilled to a depth of 40 feet and
Test Hole No. 3 was drilled to a depth of 30 feet.
Fifteen of the soil samples collected from the four test holes were submitted for chemical analyses.
The samples were analyzed for TPH as gasoline and for BTX&E. The analytical results show that
the ! 1-foot soil sample from Test Hole No. 1 reportedly contained a TPH concentration of 17,000
mg/kg. It also contained toluene and ethyl benzene concentrations of ! 80 mg/kg and 270 mg/kg,
respectively. No benzene was detected in the sample. The 21-foot sample from Test Hole No. 1
reportedly contained a TPH concentration of 4,300 mg/kg It also contained benzene, toluene, ethyl
benzene, and total xylenes concentrations of 0.53 rog/kg, 310 mg/kg, 170 mg/kg, and 1,400 mg/kg,
respectively. No gasoline contaminants were detected in the samples collected from depths of 26,
41, 56, or 61 feet. The analytical results for the sample collected from a depth of 26 feet are
considered questionable. Field screening indicated that the sample was contaminated (50 ppm).
Field screening also indicated that the sample collected from a depth of 31 feet was contaminated
(200 ppm). Hydrocarbon odors were noted in both of the above samples. The 3 l-foot sample was
not analyzed because it was lost from the sample tube after it was removed from the drive sampler.
· The analytical results appear to indicate that Test Hole No. I penetrated the center of the plume.
No gasoline contaminants, above the practical quantitation limits, were detected in the 25-foot or
40-foot soil samples analyzed from Test Hole No. 2. It appears that the test hole was located well
outside the contaminant plume.
The 20-foot soil sample from Test Hole No. 3 reportedly contained toluene and total xylenes
concentrations of 0.017 mg/kg and 0.082 mg/kg, respectively. No TPH, benzene, or ethyl benzene
were detected in the sample. No gasoline contaminants were detected in the 25-foot or 30-foot
samples from Test Hole No. 3. The analytical results appear to indicate that Test Hole No. 3 was
located at the very edge of the contaminant plume.
Test Hole No. 4 was drilled closer to the center of the contaminant plume since Test Hole No. 3
· penetrated only the very edge of the plume. The 15-foot soil sample from Test Hole No. 4
reportedly contained a TPH concentration of 620 rog/kg. It also contained benzene, toluene, ethyl
benzene, and total xylenes concentrations of 0.059 rog/kg, 1.1 mg/kg, 2.2 mg/kg, and 67 mg/kg,
respectively. Field screening indicated that the 25-foot sample from Test Hole No. 4 was
contaminated (30 ppm). Only total xylenes were reportedly detected in the sample at a
concentration of 0.020 mg/kg. No gasoline contaminants were detected in the 35-foot or 40-foot
samples from Test Hole No. 4. The analytical results indicate that Test Hole No. 4 was located near
the southern edge of the contaminant plume.
·
6
·
The analytical results of the fit~een samples submitted for analyses are included in Appendix E of
· the site characterization study (see Smith, 1995). Table ! is a summary of all of the analytical
results of the site characterization study as well as the pertinent preliminary site assessment data.
Conclusions Based on Site Characterization
· Figure 4 shows the location of cross sections A-B and A-C. The cross sections are shown on Figures
5 and 6 and depict vertical profiles through the contaminant plume in south-north/west-east and
south-north directions. Figure 4 also shows the approximate areal extent of the contaminant plume
at a depth of 20 feet.
Subsurface migration of contaminants appears to have been controlled primarily by the influence
of gravity. This is to be expected because the soils beneath the site, as observed in the test holes,
are moderately to highly permeable and no significant permeability barriers were encountered within
· the zone of contamination. Capillary action in the soil has caused limited horizontal migration, but
vertical migration was dominant.
·
The maximum vertical extent of the contaminant plume is estimated to be 32.5 feet centered beneath
the southern end of the former tank location (see Figures 5 and 6). There appears to be a slightly
· contaminated area extending from a depth of 32.5 feet to approximately 45 feet. This area most
likely contains the vapor phase of the contaminants. Contaminants within this area should have no
adverse effect on the environment or biological receptors. The maximum areal extent of the
7
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
5306 ALDRIN COURT
Depth TPH Total
Test Hole or Tank (feet) Gasoline Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes
2 34 ND ND ND 0.33
Tank
North End
6 2,300 ND 9.9 29 380
2 7,1 O0 ND 27 31 630
Tank
· South End
6 26,000 ND 1,000 800 5,700
11 17,000 ND 180 170 ND
21 4,300 0.53 310 170 1,400
26 ND ND ND ND ND
· Test Hole
No. 1
41 ND ND ND ND ND
B6 ND ND ND ND ND
61 ND ND ND ND ND
· 25 ND ND ND ND ND
Test Hole
No. 2
40 ND ND ND ND ND
20 ND ND O.O17 ND 0.082
Test Hole
25 ND ND ND ND ND
· No. 3
30 ND ND ND ND ND
15 620 0.059 1.1 2.2 67
25 ND ND ND ND 0.02
Test Hole
· No. 4
35 ND ND ND ND ND
40 ND ND ND ND ND
· Concentrations are in mg/kg
ND - None Detected
Table 1
TI=I~I ELECTRICAL CI~N~TRUCTIEIN
PROPERTY
· BAKERgFII=LD, CALIFORNIA
SMITIt .GUTCtlER AND ASSOCIATES . SEPTEMBER 1 ~95
F~c~ur~ 4
CROSS SECTION A-B
TES ELECTRII~AL CONSTRUCTION
PROPERTY
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
rD. - ~1 '
V6rzT'. /~Mb
In -_/0t
SMITIt .GUTCHER AND ASSOCIATES - SEPTEMBER 1995
Figure 5
CROSS SECTION A-C
TIES ELEI~TRICAL CONSTRUCTION
PROPERTY
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
SMITH-GUTCHER AND ASSOCIATES. SEPTEMBER 1995
Figure 6
contaminant plume is estimated to be 18 feet at a depth of approximately 20 feet (see Figures 4 and
5). The plume is assumed to be symmetrical and roughly circular in a horizontal cross section. A
"point source" of contamination in laterally uniform soil should lead to the development of a
symmetrical plume.
·
Based on the data gathered during site characterization, it is estimated that the contaminant plume
consists of roughly 250 cubic yards of contaminated soil. The volume varies from that reported in
·
the site characterization report. The difference is due to a more detailed volume calculation for the
risk assessment. This value was determined by calculating the individual volumes of five
· horizontally-oriented thin cylindrical slabs of various dimensions which approximate the shape of
the plume and then summing the volumes of each slab.
·
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL FOR CONTAMINANT MIGRATION
· An assessment of the potential for contaminant migration, based on the discussion in Dragun
(1988), is presented below. Downward migration of light hydrocarbons in the vadose zone is
due to gravity and capillary action. Maximum downward migration of light hydrocarbons in soil
is limited by three factors: (1) an impermeable soil layer, (2) the capillary fringe (zone of partial
water saturation just above the water table), and (3) transformation of all of the free hydrocar-
boris into residual saturation. No significant impermeable layers 'were encountered in the test
holes drilled to vertical depths of 61 feet. Also, given the geologic setting at the site, it unlikely
that any such layers exist above the groundwater. The capillary fringe below the site is expected
8
to be at least 170 feet below the ground surface. Therefore, it is most likely that the maximum
vertical migration of the contaminant plume would be controlled by the third factor, residual
saturation.
·
As hydrocarbons migrate through unsaturated soil, a portion of the hydrocarbons cling to the soil
particles by capillary forces. If no additional liquid is added, hydrocarbons retained by the soil
· particles are effectively immobile and are referred to as residual saturation. Residual saturation
capacity is the maximum quantity of hydrocarbons that can be retained by a soil. If all of the
hydrocarbons in a soil body are converted to residual saturation, vertical migration of the
· hydrocarbons ceases.
The porosity of the soil and characteristics of the hydrocarbons control the volume of soil necessary
to immobilize a plume of hydrocarbons. Dragun (1988) reports that the volume of soil required to
immobilize a plume of hydrocarbons can be grossly estimated as
-- 0.2-
(?)(Rs)
where
Vnc = volume of discharged hydrocarbons in barrels,
P = soil porosity,
· RS = residual saturation capacity, and
Vs = volume of soil required in cubic yards.
The maximum residual saturation for gasoline is O.I. The maximum amount of gasoline released
at the site was estimated using the plume volume estimate and the average TPH concentrations. The
average TPH concentration, from Table 1, is slightly less than 10,000 mg/kg, or 1%. The volume
of gasoline in the plume, using an average TPH concentration of 1%, is estimated as
Vg,~s = (0.01)(250 yd3) = 2.5 yd3 ~ 500 gallons = 12 barrels. (2)
· If 500 gallons (12 barrels) of gasoline were released, then V, can be determined from equation (!)
as
12 _ 96yd3'
· -- 0.2 (3)
Based on Table 2.4 of Freeze and Cherry (1979), the soil porosity is conservatively estimated at
25%. This value (V,) is about one-third of that estimated during site characterization (250 yd3). This
difference can be ascribed to four possible factors. First, the soil could have a lower residual satura-
· tion capacity for gasoline than 0.1. Second, the porosity could be much lower than 25%, but this
is unlikely. Third, the volume of product released could have been about twice as much as was
estimated. Or fourth, the volume of contaminated soil may have been overestimated. Also, a
combination of these factors is possible.
Dragun (1988) gives a gross estimation of the maximum possible depth of penetration as
® 0 = ~ lA (4)
where
· ,4 = the area of infiltration in square yards and
D = the depth of penetration in yards.
It is assumed that contaminants released from the tank spread out over the bottom of the tank pit
through the backfill before infiltrating the underlying native soil. Therefore, the area of
infiltration is estimated to be about 22 yd2 based on the size of the tank. Using the estimate of V,
· = 96 yd3 derived in equation (3) above, D is estimated, using equation (4), as
D = 96yd3/22yd2 = 4.4yd = 13feet. (5)
Clearly, this underestimates the depth of penetration. If the estimate of contaminated soil from the
site characterization study (250 yd3) is used for V,, then equation (4) yields
· D = 250yd3/22yd~ = l l.4yd = 34feet. (6)
This valu.e is very close to the maximum vertical extent of the contaminant plume estimated in the
· site characterization study which implies that the plume is already in equilibrium. Based on the
foregoing evaluation, it appears unlikely that the existing soil contamination would ever affect
groundwater unless additional liquids were added to the contaminated soil.
·
11
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL VAPOR EMISSIONS
·
An assessment of the potential for vapor emissions to the surface from the contaminant plume is
presented below. The assessment is based on a simplified vapor pathway evaluation as
described in guidelines issued by the County of San Diego (1991). Results from the simplified
vapor pathway evaluation are then used in a "screening level risk assessment" using the PTPLU
· modeling technique presented in the Air Toxics Assessment Manual prepared by the California
Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Calculations for the excess lifetime
cancer risk using a worst case scenario of benzene concentrations are included.
Benzene Emission Rate
The emission rate is calculated as the steady-state vapor flux F through a soil matrix from a non-
diminishing source. The vapor flux is given as
F - (7)
X
where
De = effective diffusion coefficient,
C = concentration in soil gas, and
· x = distance between contamination and surface.
·
12
·
C can be calculated as
·
Csg = (VP)(MW)(MF)
Rr (8)
where
VP = vapor pressure,
MW = molecular weight,
MF = mole fraction,
R = universal gas constant, and
T= absolute temperature.
D is calculated as
· D - D'~PJ~)
e Pt2 (9)
· where
D = diffusion coefficient in air,
P = total porosity, and
P = air filled porosity.
13
Po is calculated as
· P,,: P, - MB (10)
where
M = soil moisture and
B = bulk density.
The soil moisture content is estimated at 0.08 which corresponds to an average value for a moist
sand (U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, 1989). The bulk density is essentially the dry
density of the soil (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). The average dry density of sand is used for the
bulk density. According to Table 2.2 of Telford and others (1976), the average dry density of
sand is 1.60 g/cm~. The porosity is conservatively estimated at 25% as before. Substituting into
equation (10) yields
= 0.25 - -- 0.12. (11)
· The diffusion coefficient of benzene in air at 30°C (86°F) is 0.0960 cmZ/sec (9.60 x 10'6 m2/sec).
Then
· D : (9.60 x 10-~ m2/secX0.12)(!°/3) = 1.31 x lO-Tm2/sec. (12)
e (0.25)2
· The following values for VP, MW, R, and Tare from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989).
These parameters are from a table on the chemical properties of a synthetic gasoline blend at 30°C
(86°F or 303°K). The vapor pressure (VP) of benzene, at 30°C, is 119.33 mm Hg. The molecular
14
weight (MW) of benzene is 78. ! 1 g/mole. The universal gas constant, R, is 0.0623 mm Hg-m3/mole-
· °K.
The mole fraction can be estimated from the measured concentrations in soil samples. The most
contaminated soil sample is assumed to be the most representative of the original composition of the
gasoline released to the soil. The 21 foot sample from Test Hole No. I reported benzene at 0.53
· mg/kg and TPH gasoline at 4,300 rog/kg which yields a mole fraction of 0.00012.
Substituting these values into equation (8) yields
(119.33 mmHg)(78.11 g/mole)(O.O0012) = O.059g/m 3. (13)
C,g =' (O.0623 mm Hg-m31mole-°K)(303°K)
·
To solve equation (7), x is assumed to be 9 feet (2.7 m). Nine feet is the depth to the bottom of the
former tank location, which is the depth to the top of the contaminant plume. Then,
F = (1.31 x lO-7m2/sec)(O.O59g/m3) = 2.9 x lo-gg/m2-sec. (14)
2.7m
·
To determine the emission rate r, the flux, F, is multiplied by the area of the plume from which the
vapors would emanate. If the plume radius near the surface is 8 feet, then the area, assuming a
· circular distribution, is ! 8.7 m2. Thus,
r = (2.9 x lO-9g/tn2-secXlS.7 m2) = 5.4 x lO-Sg/sec. (15)
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Assessment
·
The excess lifetime cancer risk (R) is calculated using the general formula
R= L
7--~ (x, UR,) (16)
where
x~ = annual average concentration of substance i in lag/m3,
URi = unit risk factor for substance i, and
· L = operational lifetime of facility in years.
Since there are no residences in the immediate vicinity of the site, the greatest risk is to
employees at the site. The risk to employees is calculated as
e £ un) (17)
R~ = 0.22 -~(x~
where
Ri = employee excess lifetime cancer risk for inhalation of substance i,
L = operational lifetime of proposed facility in years~ if lifetime of facility is greater than 46
years, assume that maximum employment exposure is 46 years (L = 46), and
0.22 = factor accounting for an exposure of 8 hours per day, 240 days per year.
·
16
·
The value for the annual average concentration x~ is determined using the CAPCOA PTPLU
· ' modeling program. The unit risk factor UR~ for benzene comes from Table 3.15 of the CAPCOA
manual (5.3 x 10'Sling/m3). Using the PTPLU modeling program, the maximum hourly average
concentration x~ was calculated to be 0.000087 pg/m~ (value labeled "<-- MAX" on page A-2,
Appendix A). The maximum annual average concentration is obtained by multiplying the maximum
hourly concentration by 0.1 (Dolores Gough, personal communication, July 1992). Inserting the
· maximum concentration fi.om the modeling results (multiplied by 0. i) into equation (! 7), the excess
lifetime cancer risk for an employee at the site (Ri) is calculated as
~ R~e = 0.22 46 yrS(O.OOOOO87/ag/m3) (5'3 x 10-5) _ 6.7 x 10-~t. (18)
70 yrs l~g/m 3
This value is the calculated probability of the potential increase in cancer risk for an employee at
the site. The calculated value is well under a one in one million risk.
The risk is almost certainly overestimated primarily because the assessment does not account for
attenuation of the emissions with time since the calculations are for a steady-state non-diminishing
source. As the contaminants in the soil dissipate with time, the concentrations of potential emissions
will decrease. Another factor which results in an overestimation of the risk is the assumption that
the contamination exists beneath an unpaved area. The excavation will be completely filled with
clean soil and paved with asphalt. Diffusion through pavement should be slower than through soil
which would result in lower emission concentrations.
·
17
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the foregoing evaluations, it appears that the contaminated soil, if left in place, poses
little or no threat to the health and safety of the public or the environment. Assuming no
additional fluids are added to the soil, it is unlikely that gasoline contamination of the underlying
groundwater would ever occur from the soil contamination addressed in this assessment. It is
also unlikely that vapor emanations from the contaminated soil would adversely affect the health
and safety of employees at the site.
LIMITATIONS
The investigation reported herein has been conducted in accordance with generally recognized
and current geological procedures. The factors that were considered are outlined in this report.
Other factors were not considered inasmuch as they were not deemed relevant to the intended
land use and scope of this investigation.
The conclusions in this assessment apply only to the specific zone of soil contamination
discussed herein. No assessment of other aspects of the site or vicinity are intended. This inves-
tigation was conducted to the best of the investigative geologist% abilities in accordance with the
foregoing limitations. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
·
18
·
)NN Submitted by: __
i-r I Dua e R Smith .
~-.,~/ Reg, stered Geolog, st
~/ State of California No. 3584
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR
GASOLINE CONTAMINATED SOIL
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION
APRIL 1995
c:~?~6o~nasv:nas~,rEs ~sr ' ' i 9
SELECTED REFERENCES
'California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 1987, Air toxics assessment
manual, October 1, 1987.
County of Kern, 1990, Site characterization and remediation: Dept. of Environ. Health Services,
Resource Management Agency, Handbook UT-35, 11 p.
County of San Diego, 1991, Site remediation, risk assessment guidelines: Hazardous Materials
Management Department, section IV, p. F-1 through F-14.
Dragun, J., 1988, The soil chemistry of hazardous materials: The Hazardous Materials Control
Research Institute, Greenbelt, Maryland, p. 41-47.
Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 604 p.
· Gough, D., 1992, Environmental Health Services Department, Resource Management Agency,
County of Kern, personal communication, July 29, 1992.
Kern County Water Agency, 1995, Water supply report 1993, 87 p.
Smith, A.R., 1964, Geologic map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Bakersfield sheet: Calif.
Div. Mines and Geol., second printing 1971.
Smith, D.R., 1995, Site characterization study, TES Electrical Construction, 5306 Aldrin Court,
Bakersfield, California, September 1995: Smith-Gutcher and Associates (unpublished), 13
p.
State of California, 1988, Leaking underground fuel tank field manual: guidelines for site
assessment, cleanup, and underground storage tank closure: Leaking Underground Fuel Tank
Task Force, 121 p.
Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., and Keys, D.A., 1976, Applied geophysics: Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 860 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1988, Soil survey of Kern County, California, northwestern part:
U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, 304 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Test methods for evaluating solid waste: SW-846,
Volume II: Field Manual, Third Edition.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989, Estimating air emissions from petroleum UST
cleanups: Office of Under§round Storage Tanks, Washington, D,C,
SELECTED REFERENCES (Continued)
·
Verschueren, K., 1983, Handbook of environmental data on organic chemicals, second edition: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1310 p.
e
C: IF,~'F/1N~O~FI~E$~FII~$9~TE$.P, EF
APPENDIX A
PTPLU MODELING RESULTS FOR
POTENTIAL BENZENE EMISSIONS
Listed below is the output data from the PTPLU modeling program for the potential benzene
concentration calculated in equation (14) of the text. Default values were used throughout except
for the ambient temperature which was set at 30°C (303 °K) to be consistent with the parameters
used in the text and to better reflect the generally high temperatures in the Bakersfield area. The
output format has been modified using word processing software for clarity.
PROGRAM OUTPUT
PTPLU (Version 2.0)
ANALYSIS OF CONCENTRATION AS A FUNCTION OF STABILITY AND WIND SPEED
(CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD MODELING SECTION VERSION)
TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION - POTENTIAL BENZENE EMISSIONS
Source Conditions
emission rate = 0.000000054 g/sec
physical stack height = 10.00 m
stack gas temperature = 304.00 °K
stack gas velocity = 1.00 m/sec
stack diameter = 1.O0 m
· volume flow rate = 0.785 m~/sec
buoyancy flux = 0.008 m4/sec~
Meteorological Conditions
ambient temperature = 303.00 °K
anemometer height = 10.00 m
· mixing height = 1500.00 m
Wind profile exponents: A: 0.15, B: 0.15, C: 0.20, D: 0.25, E: 0.30, F: 0.30
Receptor data
receptor elevation above ground level = 0.00 m
· Options used
stack downwash
buoyancy induced dispersion
urban dispersion coefficients (McElroy-Pooler)
Results - using extrapolated winds
· Stability Wind Maximum Distance Effective
Speed Concentration of Max. Height
(m/sec) (~,g/m~) (km) (m)
A O. 50 7. 68156E-05 O. 046 16.0
A O. 80 6. 95111E-05 0. 038 13.2
A 1. O0 6. 75972E-05 0.035 12.0
A 1.50 6. 05363E-05 O. 030 10.3
· A 2.00 5. 35932E-05 0.028 9.5
A 2.50 4. 77174E-05 O. 026 9.0
A 3.00 4. 28436E-05 O. 025 8.7
B 0.50 7. 68156E-05 O. 046 16.0
B O. 80 6. 95111E-05 O. 038 13.2
B 1. O0 6. 75972E-05 O. 035 12.0
· B 1.50 6. 05363E-05 O. 030 10.3
B 2.00 5. 35932E-05 0.028 9.5
B 2.50 4. 77174E-05 0.026 9.0
B 3.00 4. 28436E-05 O. 025 8.7
B 4.00 3. 54340E-05 O. 024 8.2
B 5.00 3. 01136E-05 0.023 8.0
· C 2.00 6. 41223E-05 O. 034 9.5
C 2.50 5. 71454E-05 0.032 9.0
C 3. O0 5. 13303E-05 O. 031 8.7
C 4. O0 4. 24765E-05 0. 029 8.2
C 5. O0 3. 61250E-05 O. 028 8.0
C 7. O0 2. 77436E-05 O. 027 7.7
C 10.00 2. 05363E-05 O. 027 7.5
C 12. O0 1. 75057E-05 O. 026 7.4
~ C 15. O0 1. 43264E-05 0. 026 7.3
D 0.50 8. 70205E-05 0.081 16.0 <-- MAX
D 0.80 7.91659E-05 0.067 13.2
D 1.00 7. 71656E-05 0.061 12.0
D 1.50 6. 93068E-05 0. 052 10.3
D 2.00 6. 14783E-05 0.048 9.5
· D 2.50 5. 47839E-05 0.046 9.0
D 3.00 4. 92280E-05 0.044 8.7
D 4.00 4. 07363E-05 0.042 8.2
D 5.00 3. 46491E-05 0.041 8.0
D 7.00 2. 66159E-05 0.039 7.7
D 10. O0 1. 97100E-05 O. 038 7.5
D 12. O0 1. 67937E-05 O. 038 7.4
· D 15.00 1. 37422E-05 O. 037 7.3
D 20.00 1. 05453E-05 0.037 7.3
E 2. O0 2. 66182E-05 O. 120 12.8
E 2.50 2. 32454E-05 0. 115 12.2
E 3. O0 2. 07041E-05 0. 111 11.8
E 4.00 1. 71010E-05 0. 106 11.3
· E 5. O0 1. 46474E-05 O. 102 10.9
F 2.00 3. 04784E-05 O. 112 12.0
F 2.50 2.64982E-05 0.107 11.5
F 3. O0 2. 35112E-05 O. 104 11.1
F 4. O0 1. 92959E-05 0. 099 10.7
F 5.00 1. 64442E-05 O. 096 10.3
A-2
Cai~EPA Pete Wilson
GoYe~r~/or
State Water
Resources
Control Board J/~ J ~ 1998
Division of
Clean Water Wallace Nelson
Programs Turnupseed Electric Service, Inc.
P O Box 26
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 944212 Tulare, CA 93275.
Sacramento, CA
94244-2120 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND, CLAIM NO. 1 1516, FOR SITE
2014 TS~reet ..... _ADDRESS: 5306 ALDRIN_CT,_BAKERSFIELD
Suite 130
Sacramento, CA
95814 The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) is able to issue, pursuant to applicable
(916) 2274307 regulations, the enclosed Letter of Commitment (LOC) in an amount not to exceed $10,000.
FAX (916) 227-4530 This LOC is based upon our review of the corrective action costs you reported to have incurred
World Wide Web to date. The LOC may be modified by the State Board.
http://www.swrcb.ca.
gov/~cwphome/ It is very important that you read the terms and conditions listed in the enclosed LOC. Claims
lhndhome.htm
filed with the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund far exceed the funding available and it is
very important that you make use of the funding that has been committed to your cleanup in a
timely manner.
Consequently. if you do not submit your first reimbursement request for corrective action.
costs which you have incurred within ninety. (90) calendar days from the date of this letter,
your funds will automatically be deobligated. Once deobligated, any future funds for this
site will be obligated subject to availability of funds at such time when we receive your
reimbursement request.
You are reminded that you must comply with all regulatory agency time schedules and
requirements and you must obtain three bids for any required corrective action. Only corrective
action costs required by the regulatory agency to protect human health, safety and the
~- ~ ~en.vironment can be claimed for reimbursement. Unless waived in writing, you are required to
obtain preapproval of costs for all future corrective actiOn work (form enclosed). If you
have any questions on obtaining preapproval of your costs or the three bid requirement, please
call Ismael Jacobo, our Technical Reviewer assigned to claims in your Region, at (916) 227-
4322. Failure to obtain preapproval of your future costs may result in the costs not being
reimbursed.
The following documents needed to submit your reimbursement request are enclosed:
."Reimbursement Request InstruCtions" package. Retain this.package for future
reimbursement requests. These instructions must be followed when seeking
~.,?' ' .reimbursement for corrective action costs incurred after January 1, 1988. Included in the
·" ".. instruction'package are samples of completed reimbursement, request forms and
ispreadsheets' -. : ·
Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of California's water resources, and
Recycled Paper ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and fimtre generations.
JAN 13 1998
TURNUPSEED ELECTRIC SERVICE, INC.
Page 2
· "Bid Summary Sheet" to list information on bids received which must be completed
and returned.
· "Reimbursement Request" forms which you must use to request reimbursement of
costs incurred.
· "Spreadsheet" forms which you must use in conjunction with your reimbursement
request.
"Claimant Data Record" (Std. Form 204) which must be completed and returned with
your first reimbursement request.
We continuously review the status of all active claims. If you do not submit a reimbursement
request or fail to proceed with due diligence with the cleanup, we will take steps to withdraw
your LOC7 - ~
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed documents, please contact Nancy Callsen at
(916) 227-4311.
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Ray Bruun Mr. Joe Can'as
RWQCB, Reg. 5 - Fresno Kem County EHD
3614 E. Ashlan Ave. 2700 M Street, Ste. 300
Fresno, CA 93726 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of California's water resources, and
RecycledPaper ensuretheirpr~perall~cati~nandef~cientusef~rthebene~t~fpresentandfuturegenerati~ns.
Continued =n Reverse
Claimant in Corrective Action Compli,~nce
Claimant NOT in Corrective Action Compliance at the Time of this Review- 90 Day Le~er Required
Clairpant ,NOT in Corrective A~tio. Compliance- Recommend Rejection
BAKERSFIELD
FIRE DEPARTMENT
April 16, 1996
Mr. Wallace J. Nelson, President
FIRE CHIEF
MICHAELR. KELLY Turnupseed Electric Service Inc.
P.O. Box 26
~M,NISn~,VESER~CES Tulare, CA 93275
2101 'H" Street
'Bakesfie~, CA 93301
(805) 326-3941
FAX(805)395-1349 RE: Closure of 1 Underground Storage Tank Located
SUPPRESSION SERVICES Dear Mr. Nelson:
2101 'H" Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
c805) 326-3941 The Site Assessment and Risk Analysis for 5306 Aldrin Ct. has been
FAX (805) 395-1349
reviewed by this office.
PREVENTION SERVICES
171s Chester^v~. The proposed mitigation of this site, which includes capping the site
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(805) 326-3951 to prevent percolation of seasonal rainwater, is found to be acceptable to
F~XC~)326-O~76 this office· We do concur that the vertical separation between the
ENWRONMmT^~SERVK:ES impacted soil and potential groundwater, along with the lithology in this
1715 Chester ^ve. area provide adequate protection to groundwater.
· Bakersfield, CA93301
CB05) 326-3979
FAX(8[]5)326-0576 This letter does not relieve you of any liability for past, present or
future operations. In addition, any future changes in the site use may
TRAINING DIVISION
5642 Victor Street require further assessment or mitigation. It is the property owners
Bakersfield. CA93308 responsibility to notify this department of any changes in site usage or
(805) 399-4697
FAX(805) 39g-5763 changes in property ownership.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me
at (805) 326-3979.
Sincerely,
Howard H. Wines, III
Hazardous Materials Technician
HHW/dlm
cc: Jason Castillo, RWQCB
D. Smith
CITY of BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE SAFETY SERVICES O OF£ICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL S£RVICE$
~~ 1715 CHESTER AVE. · BAKERSFIELD, CA · 93301
r~.E. HUEY ~.B. TOBIAS,
H~-MAT COORDINATOR FI~E MARSHAL
(805) 326-3979 (805) 326-3951
Febma~ 9, 1~
Mr. Wallace J. Nelson, President
Tumupseed Electric Service, Inc.
P.O. Box 28
Tulare, Ca 93275
RE: Gasoline contaminated soil at TES Electrical Construction (_5~ _C_o_u rt_in_Baker~fi~lTdT~.
Dear Mr. Nelson:
In response to your letter of February 2, 1996, this office is willing to review an alternate proposal for
closing the above referenced site.
.................... An acceptable closure proposal recommending "no further action" shall adequately address the two
following concerns:
1) Is there a "significant' risk from gasoline vapors migrating through the soil to any
human receptors at the surface?
2) Since the contamination exceeds residual hydrocarbon concentrations expected for
an immobile source, what would be the deepest vertical extent of the plume at
stabilization, and what measures would be used to prevent any further migration?
For example, if the former tank area is completely re-asphalted, would both health dsk concerns and
rainwater percolation be adequately protected? Also, if left in place, how much farther down will the gasoline
travel through the soil.'?
Please provide a Closure Report which answers the above questions and whose conclusions are
substantiated by either a Registered Professional Engineer or Registered Geologist in the State of California.
If you have any questions regarding this risk based closure alternative, please call me at (805) 326-
3979.
Sincerely,
Howard H. Wines, Ill
Hazardous Materials Technician
HHW/dlm
cc: R. Wren, TES
Turnupseed ElecTric Service, Inc.
· Our People MaKe The Difference ·
Since 1947
RECEIVED
February 2, 1996 ~:£8 '~ ? i996
HAZ. MAT. DIV.
Howard Wines, III
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, Ca. 93301
Subject: Request
Project: Gasoline Contaminated Soil
at 5306 Aldrin Court
Dear Mr. Wines:
After careful review of the characterization study by our hazardous waste
consultant, & given the nature and extent of contamination, we would like to
request your approval for closing of the contaminated site.
We plan on submitting appropriate paperwork to the State Water Board
for approval of any funds that may in the future be available to us.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated.
incerely Yours,
Wallace J. Nlelson,
President
WJN/lw
cc: Bob Wenn - T.E.S Electrical Construction
Steve Coldren - Enviro Spec
Vern Onstine - CPA
electrical Contractoas · S~ate [ic£nse Number 114906
Dost Office Box 26 · lul~at, C~[l[o~ni~ 93275 · Phone (209) 686-1541 · [AX (209) 686-4454
tUR UpsEEd ElecTRic SERVICE, linc.
· OUR PEople Make The DifferenCE ·
Since 1947
December 12, 1995
~~: -, L," ,','~-~/."I~
Howard
City o~ gake~fie]d
~ ? ] 5 C~estet
~e: ~ettet o~ i~te~t
~atdous c]eamu~
5306 ~d~ CouP, ~ake~fie]d, Ca]ff.
At this point in time, the responsible party, Turnupseed Electric Service,
Inc. is applying this week for compensation from the State of California
Underground Storage Clean-Up Fund. Hopefully, we will hear back from the
State within a reasonable time. frame, and begin the process of clean-up
immediately using option 2 listed in the site characterization study of'
excavation and offsite recycling which we feel is the best method.
Hopefully this will suffice for our letter of intention. If there are any
further questions or concerns, please call or write to:
Turnupseed Electric Service, Inc.
P.O. Box 26
Tulare, Calif. 93275
~ I zll
Sincerely,
.
Wall.ace J. NelSon,
President
cc: Bob Wenn - T.E.S Electrical Construction
Steve Coldren - Enviro Spec
Vern Onstine - CPA
Electrical Contractors · State License Number 114906
Post Office Box 26 · Tulare, California 93275 · Phone (209) 686-1541 · FAX (209) 686-4454
CITY of BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT
December 4, 1995
RE HUEY R.B. TOBIAS,
H,&Z-MAT COORDINATOR FIRE MARSHAL
(805) 326-3979 (805) 326-395
Mr. Robert S. Wenn
TES Electrical Construction
5306 Aldrin Court
Bakersfield, Ca 93313
RE: Results of site characterization of the property located at
~30~rin-Cou~, Bakersfield, CA.
Dear Mr. Wenn:
This office has reviewed the site characterization report submitted by you for the
property located at the above stated address. Laboratory results reveal petroleum
hydrocarbons are present in the soil at levels exceeding limits ~lowable by state
guidelines.
The TES Electrical Construction Company is hereby notified that mitigation of the
contamination plume to acceptable levels is required by this office.
This office accepts option 2, listed in the site characterization study,
excavation and offsite recycling, as the most practical method for accomplishing a
reduction in the hydrocarbon levels detected at the site. However, if you, or your
consultant have an alternate method you wish to employ, you may submit a request to
this office for review and approval.
Please respond within twenty (20) working days form receipt of this letter as to
your intention regarding this matter and a time table for carrying them out.
If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979.
Sincerely,
/
>-./. : ,,. .
Howard H. Wines, 111
Hazardous Materials Technician
HHW/dlm
FIRE SAFETY SERVICES & OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1715 CHESTER AVE. · BAKERSFIELD, CA · 93301
R.E. HUEY R.B. TOBIAS,
HAZ-MAT COORDINATOR FIRE MARSHAL
(80,5) 326-3979 (805] 326-395 t
September 8, 1995
Duane Smith
Smith-Gutcher and Associates
P.O. Box 60706
Bakersfield, CA 93386-0706
RE: TES Electrical at 5306 Aldrin Court in Bakersfield. .
Dear Mr. Smith:
This is to notify you that the workplan for the above stated address is satisfactory.
Please give this office 5 working days notice prior to the commencement of work.
Please be advised that any work done that is not performed under direct oversight
by this office will not be accepted, unless previously approved.
If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979.
Sincerely,
Howard H. Wines, III
Hazardous Materials Technician'
HHW/dlm
cc: R. Wenn
,SENDER: A I alsJl~l~ish to receive the
Complete items 1 ar~2 for additional services.
' Complete items 3, a~ll~ & b. followit~rvices (for an extra
· Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can fee):
return this card to you.
· Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space 1. [] Addressee's Address
does not permit.
· Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number 2. [] Restricted Delivery
· The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
delivered, COnSUlt postmaster for fee.
3. Article Addressed to: 4a, Article Number
P-390-214-455
[~[R. ROBERT S. ~NN 4b. Service Type
TES F..LEC~ICAL CON$~IJCTION [] Registered [] Insured
i5306 AiJ)RIN CO[IET I~ Certified [] COD
BAEERSFIE]J), CA 93313 [] Express Mail [] Return Receipt for
Merchandise
es 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
~. Signature (Agent)
PS Form 3811, December 1991 .u.s. ePO.'~3--~s~-?~* DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
Official Business PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
USE TO AVOID PAYMENT
OF POSTAGE, $300
Print your name, address and ZIP Code here
·
CITY OF EAKEgSFIELD FIRE DEPT.
RAZARDOUS14ATERIALS DIVISIO~
1715 CHESTER AVENUE, SUITE 300
BAKERSFIELD, CA 933301
P 390 214
Receipt for
Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided
~ Do not use for International Mail
(See Reverse)
Sent to
ROBERT S. ~
-~306~d M-.DRIN COURT
P.O., State and ZIP Cede
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313
~os~ege $ .3 2
Certified Fee
1'- 10,
Specia~ Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to Whom & Date Delivered I 1 . 10
Return Receipt Showing to Whom, !
Date, and Addressee's Address
TOTAL& Fees Postage, ]] $
Postmark or Date
STICK POSTAGE STAMPS TO ARTICLE TO COVER FIRST CLASS POSTAGE,
CERTIFIED MAIL FEE. AND CHARGES FOR ANY SELECTED OPTIONAL SERVICES (see front).
1. If you want this receipt postmarked, stick the gummed stub to the right of the~et~ro add~'~s
leaving the receipt attached and present the article at a post office service window or hand it to
your rural carrier (no extra chargel.
2. If you do not want this receipt postmarked, stick the gummed stub to the right of the return
address of the article, date, detach and retain the receipt, end mail the article.
3. If you want a return receipt, write the certified mail number and your name end address on a
return receipt card, Form 3811, and attach it to the front of the article by means of the gummed
ends if space permits. Otba~ise, affix to back of article. Endorse front of article RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED edjacent tn the number.
4. If you want delivery restricted to the addressee, or to an authorized agent of the addressee,
endorse RESTRICTED DELIVERY on the front of the article.
5. Enter fees for the services requested in the appropriate spaces on the from of this receipt. If
return receipt is requested, check the applicable blocks in item 1 of Form 3811.
6. Save this receipt and present it if you make inquiry. 105603~92-B-0226
FIRE SAFETY CONTROL & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISIONS
1715 CHESTER AVE. * BAKERSFIELD, CA · 99301
June 5, 1995
R.E. HUEY R.B. TOBIAS,
HAZ-MAT COORDINATOR FIRE MARSHAL
(805) 326-3979 (805) 326-3951
Mr. Robert S. Wenn
TES Electrical Construction CERTIFIED MAIL
5306 Aldrin Court
Bakersfield, CA 93313
NOTICE OF VIOLATION - SCHEDULE FOR COMPLIANCE
RE: Gasoline contaminated soil at 5300 Aldrin Court
Dear Mr. Wenn,
Our records indicate that your former underground storage tank site is currently subject to Corrective Action
Requirements under Article 11 of Title 23 California Code of Regulations concerning leaking underground
tanks.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 2722(b) of Article 11, you are hereby directed to begin the necessary work
at your site within 90 calendar days from the date of this letter. Therefore, prior to September 5, 1995, the
required work shall include:
Defining the full vertical and horizontal extent of the contaminated soil associated with the former
underground tank at the site.
Please be aware that, pursuant to Section 2722(c) of Article 11, you are required to have an approved workplan
on file with this office prior to initiation of any corrective action work.
In addition, you are to provide ongoing status reports of all activities involving the progress of this case to this
office every 90 days.
If you have any questions regarding the provisions of this notice, please call me at 326-3979.
Sincerely,
Howard H. Wines, III
Hazardous Materials Technician
HHW/dlm
cc: R. Huey, Hazardous Materials Coordinator
C. Hemandez, III, Deputy City Attorney
of BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE SAFETY CONTROL & HAZARDOUS MATERI.~LS DIVISIONS
1715 CHESTER AVE. · BAKERSFIELD, CA · 99301
R.E. HUEY R.B. TOBIAS,
HAZ-MAT COORDINATOR FIRE MARSHAL
(805) 326-3979 March 2, 1995 (805) 326-3951
Mr. Robert S. Wenn, President
TES Electrical Construction, Inc.
5306 Aldrin Court
Bakersfield, CA 93313
Dear Mr. Wenn,
Thank you for your letter of 17 February, 1995 regarding the insurance claim
investigation prompted by a leak from the former tank installation.
This office is certainly willing to work with you as you resolve the insurance claim
issue. However, progress toward defining the vertical and lateral extent of the
contaminated soil must occur no later than 90 days from discovery.
Since you were notified 7 February, 1995 that a site assessment is required, we
will accept that progress is occurring, if this office is in receipt of a workplan for the site
assessment no later than 7 May, 1995.
This extension should allow you and other parties to resolve the insurance claim
and begin addressing the more important issue of mitigating the contamination on site.
If I can be of further assistance, please call me at 326-3979.
Sincerely,
Howard H. Wines, III
Hazardous Materials Technician
HHW/dlm
T E S Electrical
Constf'uction, Inc.
February 17, 1995
City Of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, Ca. 93301
Attention' Mr. Howard Wines
Subject'- Under~roundFuel Tan~
Mr. Wines:
In receipt of your letter dated February 7, 1995, I fee! I must
respond to !et you know what we are doing and what is transpiring in
regard to this problem.
First of all, this contamination is an insurance claim from the
original installation of this tank in 1978. The previous owner of
this facility is Turnupseed Electric Service from Tulare, California.
The original installation was installed and fue! was employed
into the tank and discovered a few days later that there was an
apparent leak. The installer removed that tank and replaced it with
the present tank that we removed recently. At that time there was
--an insurance claim filed against the installer and their insurance
company reimbursed Turnupseed Electric Service for the loss of fuel.
As the present owner of the facility I made the decision to
remove this tank in 1993 and applied for a temporary closure of the
tank. In November of 1994 I contracted with Big Valley Construction
to remove the tank, involved with that contract was an environmen-
ta! company by the name of Calpi Inc.. The tank was removed and
soil samples were taken, the results of that was the soil showed
contamination.
I contacted the insurance company and we had a meeting with
Big Valley Construction, Calpi and the insurance company on Febu-
ary 8, 1995. At that meeting the insurance company cou!d not or
Telephone (805) 834-0900 Electrical Cont£acto£s
5306 Aldrin Court · Bakersfield, California · 93313 state LicenseNo. 440163
would not make a commitment. We agreed to give them thirty (30)
days to investigate this claim so at that time we could proceed
with the plan that Calpi presented reguarding further samples.
In closing TES Electrical Construction and Turnupseed Elec-
tric Service want to work with the City Of Bakersfield to resolve
this problem with the quickest expediency as possible. Please
cai! me if you have any further questions or information that
can expedite this situation.
Robert S. Wenn, President
TES Electrical Construction Inc.
CITY of BAKERSFIELD
"WE CARE"
FIRE DEPARTMENT 1715 CHESTER AVENUE
M. R. KELLY BAKERSFIELD, 93301
FIRE CHIEF 326.391~1
February 7, 1995
Robert S. Wenn
TE$ Electrical Construction
5306 Aldrin Ct.
Bakersfield, CA 93313
RE: Laboratory results from preliminary site assessment conducted
on the 6000 Gallon gasoline tank removal at 5306 Aldrin Ct. in
Bakersfield, CA. (Permit #BR-0116)
Dear Mr. Wenn:
Upon review of the recently submitted laboratory results from your
facility, this office has determined that the extent of the
contamination plume, associated with the gasoline tank previously
located on your property, has not been adequately defined.
This office requires (in accordance with Chapter 6.7 of the
California Health and Safety Code and Chapter 16, Title 23 of the
California Code of Regulations) that further assessment be done to
define the vertical and horizontal extent of the contamination plume.
Please submit a work plan for further assessment, to this office,
with in 30 days from receipt of this letter. The work plan should follow
guidelines found in: Appendix A - Reports, Tri - Regional Board Staff
Recommendations for Preliminary Evaluation and Investigation of
Underground Tank Sites; January 22, 1991.
Additionally, be advised that oversight cost for this project will
be billed to you at a rate of $62.00 per hour.
If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979.
Sincerely,
Howard H. Wines, III
Hazardous Materials Technician
HHW/ed
~/f~~ -- Bakersfield Fire Dep~_
UNDERGROUND STOraGE TANK PROO~M WG~ol
PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF AN UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
SITE INFOBMATION
SITE TES ELECTRICAL ADD~ESS5306 ALDRIN CTzIPCODE 9331~EEA~N~,' ,'.
FACILITY NAME TES ELECTRICAL CROSS S~REET GRISSOM
~ANK OWNEN/OPENA~OR TES ELECTRICAL PHONE No.
MAILING ADDRESS 5306 ALDRIN CT CI~ BKFD ZIP CODE 93313
CONI~AC~O~ INFO,MA*ION
COMPANY CALPI, INC. PHONE No. 589-5648 LICENSE No. A50'6025
ADD~ESS P.O. BOX 6278 CI~B~ ZlPC~E: 93386
iNSURANCE CARRIER STATE FUND WORKMENS COMP No. ~ 1011809
PRE[IMANA~Y ASSEMEN; INFORMATION
COMPANY CALPI~ INC. PHONE No. 589-5648 [ICENSENo. AC5.06025
ADONESS P.O. BOX 6278 CI~BAKERSFILED ZIP CODE .... 93386
INSURANCE CARRIER STATE FUND WONKMENS COMP No. 1 011 809
TANK C[EANIN~ INFO,MA;ION
COMPANY CALPI, INC. PHONE No. 58~r5'648
AOO~ESS P.O. BOX 6278 CI~BAKERSFIELD ZIPCOD~93386.- ,
WASTE ~ANSPOR~EN IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 438674
NAME OF RINSIA~E DISPOSAt FACItI~ GIBSON REFINERY
ADDRESS END OF COMMERCIAL DRIVE CI~BAKERSFIELD ZlP CO~ 9~3308b~'
FACI[I~INDEN[IFICAHON NUMBER CAD 9808831 77
TANK ~gANSPO~E~ INFOgMA~ION
COMPANY CALPI~ INC PHONE No. 589-5648 [ICENSENO. A 506025
ADDRESS P.O. BOX 6278 CI~BAKERSFIELD ZIP CODE" .93386
lANK DESTINATION GOLDEN ~TATE METALS
TANK INFO~MA~ION
TANK No. AGE VOLUME CHEMICAL DALES CHEMICAL
S[O~ED STORED PREVIOUSLY
1 UNKNOWN 6 r 000 GASOLINE UNKNOWN ~
THE APPLICANT HAS I?EC ErrED. UNDENSTA I~IDS, A ND W~tt COMPLY Wlrl-I THE AITACHED CONOIIION$ OF THIS P[I~MI! AND ANY Oil-'
STARE. LOCAL AND FEDERAL REGUtAIIONS.
rills FOItM HAS BEEN COMPtETEO UNDEr' PENALTY OF PERJURY. AND rD THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IS II1UE AND coRr~ECI'.
APPROVED BY: / } ,~- ,., APPLICANT NAME (PRINT) APPLICANTSIGNA~r :
THIS APPLICATION BECOMES A PERMIT WHEN APPROVED
~KERSFIELD FTRE DEPARTNE~
~[I~Z~US NATERIAL D'rvIsIoI~
2130 G Street, '
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(80.5) 326-3979
? rs .E.ovm, INSP :C?'ro.
O~ER 2,2.~, /.J~,., PER~IT T(~ OP'ERATE#'
LABORATORY ~-~]~/(~ , # OF SAMPLES .. ~ '" ..
TEST METHODOLVOGY .
PRELIMANARY ASSESSMENT CO. · ~/~., CONTACT PERSON ~Z3~p//~;~/~
CO: RECIEPT
PLOT PLAN
CONDITION OF TANKS
CONDITION OF PIPING ~/.~/,: ,~,-~'-~-(; /~,~e,~,, ~.,
CONDITION OF SOIL ~_)~j ~k,,;0~./~ ~-o~j~.,~,~.
" DA~ INSPE~ N~ SIG~
......... · ,:,. .: ,:~.:. ;.*
.'.':" ..,.,~ ~ : :.~.:;~.. , .~'.~ , .
Plot Plan must rd~ow the following: . 1. '., Roods and alleys, ..;....~., :-..: .. · ' · '
.. '~:"~' 2. ' · "'l~ulldlng~"' ' ' '
~J'. 3. location of tanks, plplngo and dlsDensers "
· 4. utilities
'" 5. SCALE
~ .' :: .. 6. Water wells (if on site) ~-' '
7. any other relevent Information
- : .'..: - .~ .- -
-.-' := ;_-: ~- -
No 10686
GOLDEN STATE METALS, lNG. TANK DISPOSAL FORM.
P. O. Box 70158 · 2000 E. Brundage Lane
Phone (805) 327~559 · Fax (805) 327-5749
~rap Me~ls, Pro~ssing & R~cling License No. · .
WEiGhT CE~T. NO:
TOTAL
E~S8 ~ER~IT NO: a~ GALLONS SERI&L NO. NET TONS
250 .14
550 .24
1000 - 6 ff .61
~ECTION 2000 .97
~ RESIDUALS PRESENT (REJEC~ 3000 1.32
~ DISPOSAL FEE 9000 ~.~
12000 4.93
TOTAL
net 30 days from receipt of tank. Contractor's signature
represents acceptan~ of terms for payment, and confirms
that tank removal complies with State laws.
RTIFY~ HE RECENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE TANK(S) AS SPECIFIED ABOVE. ALL MATERIAL~EClFIED WILL BE COMPLETELY
WHITE- Con. actor Co~W- Rle 6opyk / .
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE (LEAK) / CONTAMINATION SITE REPORT
REPRESENTING ~ OWNE~PE~TOR ~ REGIO~ BOARD ~ ~MPA~ OR ~ENCY N~E
ADDRESS
~RE~ C~ 9TA~ ZIP
NAME [ ~NT~TPERSON [ PHONE
~RE~ C~ STA~ $~p
FAClLIW N~E (IF ~P[IC~[~ OPE~TO~ [ PHONE
ADDRESS
~RE~ C~ ~U~ Zjp
CRO~ STREET
L~AL AGENCY AGENCY N~E ~NT~T PERSON PHONE
REGDN~ BOARD PHONE
(1) NAME QUANTI~ LOST (~LLONS)
~ UNKNOWN
DA~ DI~VERED ~ HOW DIS~VER~ ~ INVENTO~ ~NTR~ ~ SU~URFACE MONITORING ~ NUIS~CE CONDITIONS
DA~ DI~HARGE BE~N .EHOD USED TO STOP DlSCHA"GE (CHECK AL ~AT APPL~
HAS DISCHARGE B~N STOPPED ? ~ REPAIR TANK ~ CLOSE TANK & FI~ IN P~CE ~ CHANGE PR~EDURE
SOURCE OF DI~HARGE CAUSE(S)
~ .:..~:. ~ u...ow. ~ ov~.~:~ ~ .u.~.m:,~u.~ ~
~ .i.:.:~. ~ o~.~. ~ m..os:o. ~ u...ow. ~ o*.~.
CHECK ONE ONLY
~ UNDERMINED ~ SOIL ONLY ~ GROUNDWATER ~ DRINKING WATER - (CHECK ONW. IF WATER WELLS ~ AC~ALLY BEEN AFFEC~D)
CHECK ONE ONLY
m ~ NO AC~ON TArN ~ PR~IMINARY S~ A~ESSMENT~RK~N SUBMI~ED ~ POLLUTION C~RAC~RI~TION
~m
~<1 ~ LE~BEING~NFIRMED ~ PR~IMINARYS~A~E~M~TUNDERWAY ~ POSTCLE~UPMONITORINGINPROGRE~
~ REMEDIATION P~N ~ CASE ~OSED (CLE~UP ~MPLE~D OR UNNECE~AR~ ~ CLE~UP UNDERWAY
CHECKAPPROPR~TEACTION(S) ~ EXCAVA~&DIS~SE(ED) ~ REMOVE FREE PRODUCT (FP) ~ ENH~CEDBtODEGRADATION(I~
~ C~ SI~ (CD) ~ EXCAVATE & TREAT (E~ ~ PUMP & TREAT GROUNDWA~R (G~ ~ REPACK SUPPLY (R~
~ ~NTAINMENT BARRIER (CB) ~ NO ACTDN REQUIRED (HA) ~ TREA~ENT AT H~P (HU) ~ VENT miL
~ v~uu. eX~CT~ ~ OTHER (O~
iNS?RUCTiONS
EMERGENCY Leak Bein~ Confi~ - Leak suspected at site, but has not been confirmed.
IndiCate whether emergency r~sponse perso~unel ~nd e-c~ui~ent were involved Preliminary Site A~sess~=-nt ~urkDian Submitted - workplan/proposal
at any tim~. If so, a Hazardous Material Incident Report should be filed requested o~/su~.~!~ed~respunsible party to determine whether ~ro~nd
with the State Office of Emergency Sea!ices (OES) at 2~80 ~4eadowview Koad, water has been, or will be~ ~._.~l~acted as a result of the release.
Sacramento, CA 95832. Copies of the OES report form~ay be obtained at Preliminary. Site ~.ssess~ent Un~e~av - implementation of ~orkplan.
your local underground storage tank Uerpaittins agsncy. Indicate w~ether Pollution Charact~rizatic~ - iesponsible party is in the process of ful[~'
the OES report has been filed as of %he date of ~his repumt, defining the e.~tent ~f coL~nation in soil and ~round water and assessin~
impacts on surface ~/Dr~ru,~nd wa~er.
LOCAL AGENCY ONLY Remediat~on Plan - r-~-~di~%iun ~l~n submitted evaluating long term
To avoid duplicate notification pursuant to Health and Safety code Section remediation optics. ?r=~Dsal and implementation schedule for appropriate
25180.5, a government employee should sign and date the form in this block, remediatlon options
A signature here does no___~tmean that the leak bas been determined to pose a Cleanup Unde~ay - ~/em_=~tation of remediation plan.
significant threat to human health or safety, only ~ha~ ~otification Post Cleanup Monituzin~ in _~rctress - periodic ground water or other
procedures have been followed if reTaired, monitoring at sit~, as necessa-~y, to verify and/or evaluate effectiveness
of remedial activities.
REPORTED BY Case Closed - regi~a~ ~ard and local agency in concurrence that no
,Enter your name, telephone number, ~nd address. Indicate ,;hich party you further work is ne~sssaz-~ ~ the site.
represent and provide company or agency
IMPORTANT: THE INFORF~%TI~t3-~RU%~DFDON THIS POEM IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL
RESPONSIBLE PARTY STATISTICAL PBqTPOSES G}U~Y 3=qD i~ ~T TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFRESE}~ING THE
Enter name, telephone number, contact person, and address of the party OFFICL~L POSITION OF ~2¥f ~i~AL AGENCY
responsible for the leak. The responsible ~artywould normal!y be she
owner. REMEDIAL ACTION
! Indicate which action have been used to cleanup or remediate the leak.
SITE LOCATION Descriptions of options
Enter Information regarding the tank facility. At a minimum, you must
provide the facility name and full address. Cap Site - install horiz~ntal impermeable layer to reduce rainfall
infiltration.
IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES Containment Barrier - instat3, vertical dike to block horizontal movement of
Enter names of the local agency and Regional Wa~erQualityControl Board contaminant.
involved. ~ Excavate and Dispose - re_-ove contaminated soil and dispose in approved
site. "
SUBSTANCES INWOLVED Excavate and Trees - re=xrce contaminated soil and treat (includes spreading
Enter the name. and quantity lost of the hazardous substance involved. Room or lmnd farming).
is provided for information on two substances if appropriate. If more than Remove Free Produc~ - ren~m~e floating product from water table.
two substances lea(ed, list the two of most concern for cleanup. Pump and Treat Grolmd~ater - ~enerally employed %o remove dissolved
contaminants.
DISCOVERY/ABATEMENT Enhanced Biode~radatien - us~ of any available technology to promote
Provide information re~arding the discovery and abatement of the leak. bacterial decomposition, of cont~n~inants.
Replace Supply - provide alternative water supply to affected parties.
~ Treatment at ~o~xuD - install water treatment devices at each dwelling or
Indicate source(s) of leak. Check box(es)indicating cause of leak. other place of use.
Vacuum Extract - use lmm"ps or blowers to draw air through soil.
CASE TYPE Yent Soil - bore he,es in s~iito allow volatilization of contaminants.
Indicate the case type category los this leak. Check ~ne box only. Case No Action Required - ~nciden~ is minor, requiring no remedial action.
type is based on the most sensitive resource affected. For e~ample, if
both soil and ground water have been affected, case type ~ill be "Ground C~-~MENTS - Use ~his space~oel~orate on any aspects of the incident.
Water". Indicate "Drinking Water" only if one or more ~nicipai or
domestic water wells have actually been affected. A "Ground Water" SIGNATURE - Sign the form in ~he s~ace provided.
designation does not imply that the affected water cannot be, or is not,
used for drinking water, but only that water wells have not yet been pISTRIBUTION
affected. It is understood that case type may chan~e upon' further if the form is comp!ete~ by ~he %~k owner or his agent, retain the last copy
investigation, and forward the remainim4~ ~opies intact to your local tank permitting agency
for distribution.
Cb~RENT STATUS I. Original - Local Tzalk Fer~itting ~ency
Indicate the category which host describes the currant status of the ease. 2. State Water Resources Cont~oi Board, Division of Clean Water Programs,
Check one box only. The response should be relative to the case type. For Underground Storage Tank Pro,ram, P.O. Box 9442!2, Sacramento, CA 94244-
ex~mple~ if case type is "Ground Water", then "Current Status" should refer
to the status of the ground water investigation or cleanup, as opposed to 3. Regional Water ~ualityControi Board
that of soil. Descriptions of options follow: 4. Local Health Officer and County Board of Supervisors or their designee to
receive Proposition 65 notifications.
No Action Taken - No action has been taken by responsible party beyond 5. O~er/responsible party.
initial report of leak.
i IT¥oft IK£R'SFI££
"WE CARE" "
January 30, 1995
FIRE DEPAmE~ 1715 CHES~R AVENUE
M. R. KE~Y
FIRE CHIEF WA R N I N G !
CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIRED
2 i 5-~Zu30-~Z~00413
'TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION iNC
5:£;0G, ALDRIN CT
~AKERSF i EL.D~ CA 93313
ROBERT S. WENN
O~ Underground ~tomge Tan~
Ou~ ~o~d~ indi~te that ~ou~ bu~ine~ doe~ n~ ha~e a Oe~i~tion of Finanoial R~pon~ibil~ on fil~ ~ thi~ ~i~.
PI~ fo~d e~he~ a oop~ of ~ou~ e~i~ing ~tate appm~ m~haniam to ~ho~ finanoial ~on~bil~ o~ ~l~
oompl~e the a~oh~ Ce~ifi~tion of Finanoial ~e~pon~ibili~ fo~.
An a~oh~ le~er from the ~te ~ater ~e~ume~ Control B~d Ii~ the app~ finano~l ~pon~ibil~ m~ani~m~
r~ui~ to pa~ fo~ oo~e a~ion~ m~ulting from I~ing underground fuel ~nk~.
Remember, mo~ ~n~ o~ne~ onl~ ha~e to ~ho~ finanoial re~pon~ibil~ for at I~ $10,~ ~ olin up Iiabil~. The
Underground ~to~ge Tan~ Clan Up Fund {U~TO~ ma~ be u~ a~ the m~hani~m
Iiabili~.
The to~l amount~ of finanoial mspon~ibili~ required {oheo~ bo~ from ~ion
If ~ou don't ~ell p~u~ from ~ou tan~, and ~ou pump le~ than 10~0 gallon~
oh~ "~00,000 pe~ ooou~enoe". EI~, o~ if ~ou are in the bu~ine~ of ~lling f~m
tan~, oheok "l million dolla~ pe~
Fo~ o~nem of 101 or mo~e petroleum underground ~omge ~n~ oh~ the "~ million doll~
annual aggregate" bo~. All othe~ n~ onl~ oh~ the "l million dolla~ ~nnual
Pl~e be a~are that failure to pro~ide the finanoial responsibili~ d~ument
your Pe~it to Ope~te being revoked. {~5~85.1 {b} California H~lth ~ ~afe~
If ~ou ha~e an~ que~ion~, or ~ould like help in oompleting the ~e~i~tion of Finanoial ~pon~ibil~, pl~ eon~
Ho~d ~ne~, H~rdou~ ~atedal~ Teohnioian~ at
~inoerel~,
H~rdou~ Mat~rial~ Goo~inator
REH/dlm
Underground Hazardous Materials Storage Facility
: :~ :.EVER E SIDE
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Approved by:
Ralph E. Huey, Hazardous ~alerlals Coordinator Valid from:- ~
P.O. BOX 6278 · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93386 · (805) 589-5648
.. FEB 6 1995
February 2, 1995 By,
Bakersfield City Fire Department
ATTENTION: MARK TURK
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. Turk
SUBJECT: PERMIT #BR-0116
On January 13, 1995, CALPI, Inc. removed one 6,000 gallon tanks
from TES Electrical at 5306 Aldrin Ct., Bakersfield, CA 93313.
The tank were decontaminated on site using a high pressure steam
cleaner and inerted with.dry ice. Rinsate was disposed of at
Gibson EnVironmental in Bakersfield, California under hazardous
waste manifest #9319647. The' tank were removed to Golden State
Metal.
Soil was sampled under the direction of the Bakersfield City Fire
Department. The samples were analyzed at BC Laboratory of
Bakersfield for TPH Gas, BTX&E. A complete chemical analysis is
enclosed.
In addition to the lab results, copies of the manifest, chain of
custody and the tank disposition tracking record are enclosed.
Please contact our main office at (805) 589-5648 if you have any
questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
Pat Mullhofer
Supervisor
PM/sb :.
cc: TES Electrical
ATTENTION: ROBERT WENN
5306 Aldrin Ct.
Bakersfield, CA 93313
Santa IMaria, California 93454 (805) 925-2231 · Bakersfield, California . FAX (805) 589-5312
LABORATORIES
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
CALPI Date of
P 0 BOx 6278 Report: 01/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab $: 95-00533-1
Attn.: J.P. MULL~OFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: TANK I NORTH END 2f~. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO
2:00PM SAMPLED BY JERRY MASON OF BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA ·8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Soil
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed:
01/13/95 01/13/95 01/17/95
Practical
Constituents Results Units ::."i~i'mi ~
Benzene None Detected mg/k9
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.0'05
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Xylenes 0.33 mg/kg. .................. 0.01
Hydrocarbons (gas) 34. mg/k~ '::'"; ....... ;:';
Note: PQL's were raised due to hi9h concentration of target analytes requiring
sample dilution .... .:....,;...;, · . ~;i:).~:.~]:.i ':?':;:"" :::;;,~ '".::!.i:?"i;i~;!!..il~
· '";;":": :' ' ::~'??'!:!:'!!' ' ":':~"::-:;;/-:.~':.--....,,. '"
": :':; '"!X. '"L
California D.O.E.S. Cert. $1186 ':'i'; ':ii.:,
'::""":'~'; .... "::::' ":::';::' ': ;"~':~:' :::':::
· "!:~;~:" ';' ':'?!":]!iL:.;i ':' ': ';::": .... : '"":
DeDartment~ , °u-err" sot ':":"'?';<; ':~':"'"!:" ~'~ ........ ':':':::"'~:'"' ' '
,1:;,:,.:,.:: . :.
,..;:.:.:~:: "t,," ' ;'"::;: ':.';'..i ": "";',
All results listed In ~ts reper~ ara toe tha exclusive use o~ t~,e submitting party. BO Labaratorles, lac. assumes no responsibility for mp~ alte~tion, separation, detsct~meril or lillrd party 41 00 At;l~ C~t;. - E~k~r"~Ic~, I~A ~,':~. ,"~('3~ · l'~k'-),c:~] ,'~:?T-,4,cl'1 '1 · tAX fF:][-1,~l ,':l~::~'~-q ,cV1 ~l
LABORATOA(ES
Purgeable ~romatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
CALPI Date of
P 0 BOX 6278 Report: 01/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab ~: 9~-00533-2
Attn.: J.P. ~JLLHOFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: TANK i NORT}~ END 6ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO
2:00PM SAMPLED BY JEP~Y F~%SON OF BC LABOP~ATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020,
Sample F~trix: Soil
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received @ Lab: Completed:
01/13/95 01/13/9~ 01/17/95
Prac'tical
Analys i s Report lng
Constituents, Results Units '~.'L~m~t
Benzene None Detected mt/kg
Toluene 9.9 mt/kg 0,2
Ethyl Benzene 29. mg/k~ 0.2
Total Xylenes 380. mg/k~, ....... 0.5
Hydrocarbons (gas } 2300. mt/kg ' ~i'i"'~i!:!!!';~i~ "5 ~ 0'i :i.i}. ~;:iii;il :~,.!.
Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target ~alytes re~irin9
LABORATORIES
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
CkLPI Date of
P 0 BOX 6278 Report: 01/20/95
B~RSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab #: 95-00533-3
Attn.: J.P. I~ULLHOFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: TANK I SOUTH END 2ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO
2:00PH SAMPLED BY JER~Y XcJ%SON OF BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Soll
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis ':'.:".?... ,,,. '~.''-
Collected: Received @ Lab: Completed:
01/13/95 01/13/95 01/17/95
Practical
Analysis Reporting "Q~t'ii~'ation..':i.i,.~' ~.'-":i':~" iii
Constituen~ Results Units ~"::~:~i~'~
:,~ .-i..~i
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 6':.ii!:!~.
Toluene 2 7, m~/kg 6.
Ethyl Benzene 31. mg/k9
Total Xylenes 630. mg/kg 10.
Hydrocarbons (gas) 7100. mg/kg ....... "~:
1000, .:~
.;:..:.~:./: ';:.". ~!~ ' ::~;'~...
Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of t~r~et ~alytes re~irln~
A~ ~ul~ flsted In ~is mpod ~e for ~e exclu~ve u~ of ~e submi~lng pa~. BC Laboratories, Inc. a~su~ no mspon~l~ for r~p~ ~ltemff~, s~m~on, d~m~nt or ~ pa~ ~t~a~on.
LABORATORIES
Purgeable Aromatics -
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
CALPI Date of
P O BOX 6278 Report: 01/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab #: 95-00533-4
Attn.: J.P. F/ULLHOFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: TANK 1 SOUTH END 6ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO
2:00PM SAMPLED BY JERRY MASON OF BC LABOP, ATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Soil
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed:
01/13/95 01/13/95 01/17/9~
Practical
Analys ~ s Report lng
Constituents Result S Unit s
~enzene None Detected m~/kg
Toluene 1000. mg/kg 80.
~thyl Benzene 800. mg/k9 80.
Total Xylenes 5700. mg/k~ 200.
Hydrocarbons (gas) 26000. rog/kg
Note: PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target ~al~es re~iring
NI results ;is~d in th~s repo~ are for the exclus]~ use ~ ~e submi~ng p;~. ~C ~ra~odes, I~. assumes no responsJbBity for mpo~ al~m~n, sepsraflon, dem;hmenl or ~ ps~ ~te~t~on.
LABORATORIES
Purgeable Aromatics
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
CALPI Date of
P 0 BOX 6278 Report: 01/20/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab %: 95-00533-5
Attn.: J.P. MULLHOFER 589-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: DISPENSER I 2ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO 2:00PM
SAMPLED BY JERRY MASON OF BC LABORATORIES, INC.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 801§
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Sell
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collecged: Received @ Lab: Completed:
01/13/95 01/13/95 01/17/95
Practical
Analys i s Report ing ~an~.tat ~on
Constitue .nts, Results Units
Benzene None Detected mg/kg
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0. i':
Ethyl Benzene None Detected m~/k~ 0.1
Total Xylenes None Detected mg/kg ................ 0.2
Note: Sample chromatogram not typical of gasoline.
PQL's were raised due to high..,..m.~rix backg~oun.~t req~_iring..sample dilution ..........
California D.O.H,S. Cert. %1186 -:,~ ',t..'~
.. ,, q, .¥: ..
NI results listed in this report are for the exr'luslve use of ~he submiMlng party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteraUon, separation, deMchment or third pans/Interpretation.
" LABORATORIES
Pur~eable AromaClcs
and
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
CALPI Date of
P 0 BOX 6278 Report: 02/02/95
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93386 Lab %: 95-00533-6
Attn.: J.P. ~/IILLHOFER S89-5648
Sample Description: ALDRIN CT.: DISPENSER I 6ft. (SOIL) 01-13-95 FROM 1:00 TO 2:00PM
SAMPLED BY JERRY M/ASON OF BC LABORATORIES, INC
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Sol1
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ® Lab: Completed:
o~/~3/~5 o~/~3/~s o~/16/95 "~".':
Practical
Analys i s Report lng. Quant i tat ion
Constituents Results Units :'.'.;:: 'Limit '-~ .~,~;~::;;:~:,..:
· .... .:.:..'i t:.": ' ' :'" .... "~"
Benzene . None Detected mg/kg
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.0'05
Total Xylenes None Detected mg/k~ 0.01
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected rog/kg :.; :~:i. iii~:::!!~:~i. '-.."::}'.:11..: ~..~. ~.;":::" ::.'...:~'. '.::."~... ".
' ":i:...;'!i?: ..". :.
:;.f.[l. 4
All results listed in this report are i'ar the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, I.e. assumes no rasponslb[llty for report a~teratlo., sepa~atm., detachment ~r third party ~nte~ratatlon.
-' 'd 8 'ON ~£:~ ~66~ '~0'~0 WO~
' ~ Report To: .... ~ ~ ~ Analysis Requested " '
Ci~: ~[~ ~, ~ampler Name:~~ ~~_ ~ ,
~ State: ~ ~ip:~~ Other:
~ J Lab~ Sample Description Date & Time ~mpled .,'
. , , ... ' ....... ~ ~ , .
R~inq a~shed by: (~g~ature) ~?~d by:~,~ture)
~ J Comn ent: Billing Info: ' Date: Ti~
Z~ // AddressName: -~ ~ ~~ Re0~ishedby;~ignature) ,ece~edby:(S~nature) - ' Date: Time:
~j ' ARention:Time: ~ ~_~ .~ ~'~~ J' Relinquished by: (signature) ............ Received by: (signature~ .... . Date: 'Time:
~J ' Miles: ' ' Relinquished by: (Signature) Received by: (Signature) ~ '~e: Time:
Sample Disposal P.O.g ~ ~ '
~l S~C . -.~ ~ ~ ,~-- q ~ Relinquished by: (Signature) Received by: (Signature) Date: Ti~:
J J O BO Dis~l Q 5.00
. , J O Return Io client ..
LABORATORIES SAMPLE RECEIPT FORM
"Lab Number O~-~00 5~ Date Rec. \-
Time Rec. ~', Lin Rec. By'.'
SHIPPING SPECIFICATIONS: SHIPPING CONTAINER:
Federal Express ~ce Chest
UPS Box
~BC Lab Field Service None
Hand Delivery Other(Specify)
Other (Specify)
co I? O :
Temperature ~'~ ~ Ice Blue Ice' None
If temper.ature .is not between 2 and 6 C please explain:
AllCUSt°dy SealSReceived::__ I~st __ Containers
samples N
All samples intact: N
Descriptions match COC N ~.i!~','.!'~?.]
.,QT PE ~P.., __TOC BACT QA/Qc
_ . PT PE ~P . TB ..,.504 ,.QT ~BER
QT ~T VOA SET 507 ~?::?,~ ~.?OZ J~-~.:::.".::;......~
_ -__mT MET VOA VI~ __ 508 ..:,.%~:,~ ...... ... ........
CN COD 515.1"~:}}~':~ O~ :~;.~':
N FORMS ~IL & GR 525 ":~:'~
,, . "~'.% .:. ';:':,.~
S~FIDE ODOR 547
NOB/N02 ~IO 5B1.1
Comments. .... ; ':~]:.~; '~;f~?.~:'
Completed by: ~ :-.. -,,,,~:..~... .. ;.'~,,~,~ ;;:
..... e.;;.;':::;?..' ::~]...'...":.?.'.,
Ali results listed in ~ls repo~ are for the exclusg~ use of t~ subm~lUng'pa~y, BO ~boratorles, Inc. assu~s no ms~nstb~[ly for re~d altemffon, separation, detachment
GOLDEN STATE METALS, INC. TANK DISPOSAL FORM
P. o. Box 70158 · 2000 E. Brundage Lane DateI]1
Bakersfield, California 93387
Phone (805) 327-3559 · Fax (805) 327-5749 Contractor's~ ' -
Scrap Metals, Pro~ssing & Recycling License No.
Contractor's
Phone No.
DESTINA~ON: G.S.M. · 2000 E. BRUNDAGE LANE · BAKE~SFI D, CA 93387
~AULE~: I LICENSE NO:
' ' ~ TOTAL
550 .24
1000 - 6 ff .61
NSPECTION 200o
~ RESIDUALS PRESENT (REJECT) 3o0o
~ LEL READING Sooo ~.~2
OXYGEN CONTENT 7soo 3.28
__ DISPOSAL FEE ~000
12O0O 4.93
TOTAL
net 30 days from receipt of tank. Contractor's signature
represents acceptance of terms for payment, and confirms
that tank removal complies with State laws. ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ CERTIFICATE OF TANK DISPOSAL / DESTRUCTION
THIS ~ TQ CERTIFY THE R~EIPT AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE TANK(S) AS SPECIFIED ABOVE. ALL MATERIAL SPECIFIED WILL BE COMPLETELY
p ST OY . C.AP CYCUN PURPOSES ONL
WHITE ~ Con.actor Copy · LOW ~ Rle Copy · PINK ~ ~rma~nt Copy
State of £alifornic~--Environmental Protection Agency --
Farm Approved OMB No. 2050-0039 (Expires 9-30-94) See Instructions on )age 6. Department of Toxic Substances Ccmrra!
Please print or type. Form designed for use on elite Sacramento, California
t. Generator's US EPA ID No. Manifest Document No. 2. Page 1 Information in the shaded areas
UNIFORM
HAZARDOUS
is not required by Federal law.
WASTE MANIFEST
3. G ..... togs Name and Mailing Address f~'*.~' ~'~/~/,~..,~
4. Generator's Phone
5. T .... porter I CompN~a~/ /~/~. o 6. US EPA ID Number ~C; ' S~ate~ Tranq~ortegs ' ~:~
7. Transporter 2 Company Name 8. US EPA ID Number ~$tate T~'anspoH'er~s ID
9. Designated Facility Name and Site Address 10. US EPA ID Number Ea'~ilit~';s'lD
11. US DOT Description (including Proper Shipping Name, Hazard Class, and ID Number) 12. Containers 13. Total
Quanti~
b.
EPA/O&er >:?' ,' ;'' '
15. Special Handling Instructions and Additional Inform~n ,, ,~
16. GENERATOR'S CERTIFICATION: I hereby declare that ~e conten~ of ~e con~gnment are fully and accurately described above by proper shipping n~me and are classified,
packed, marked, and labeled, and are in all res~cts in proper condition for transport by highway according to applicable federal, state and internatlona~ tows·
I{ I am a large quanti~ generator, I ce~i{y ~at I have a program in pl~e t~ the volume and toxlci~ o{ waste generated to the degree i have determined to be
economically practicable and that I have selected the profitable me~ of~atment/storage, or disposal currently available to me which minimizes the present and lucre
health and ~e environment; OR, if I am a small quanfi~enerato~l have m~de a good faith ella, to minimize my waste generation and sele~ the best
J ~at is available to me and ~ l can afford./ ~ . I ~ '
Si~o~r. ///// / ~ont~ =.y ~
Signature~~~" Month Day Year
of ~e6al~ ' Yea>
Printed/Typed Name I Signa~re ~ Month Day
19. Discrepancy Indication Space
Ce~fication of receipt of hazardous materials covered by this m~ as no~n Jte~ ~
!r I?
DTSC 802?
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM
PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF AN UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK .
SITE INFOI~MATION
SITE TES ELECTRICAL ADDRESS5306 ALDRIN CTZIPCODE 93313'EGAE, N~:"
FACILITY NAME TES ELECTRICAL CROSS STREET GRISSOM ,~,~,,~ ..
TANK OWNER/OPERATOR TES ELECTRICAL PHONE No. ~34-Oguu
MAILING ADDRESS 5306 ALDRTN CT CITY BKFD ZIP CODE 93313
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
COMPANY CALPT, TNC, PHONE No. 589-5648 LICENSE No...AE0~6025
ADDRESS .P,O, :BOX 6278 CITY:B~ ZIP COD.E,.~ 93'386
INSURANCE CARRIER STATE FUND WORKMENS COMP No. 1011809
PRELIMANAI~Y ASSEMENT INFORMATION
COMPANY CALPI~ INC. PHONE No. 589-5648 LICENSE No. A'J506025
ADDRESS P.O. BOX 6278 CITYBAKERSFILED ZIP CODE .... 93386. -.
INSURANCE CARRIER STATE FUND WORKMENS COMP No. 1 011809
TANK CLEANING INFORMATION
COMPANY CALPI, INC. PHONE No. 589-5'648
ADORESS P.O. BOX 6278 CI~YBAKERSFIELD ZIP CODE~'93-386,' ~
WASTE TRANSPORTER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 438674
NAME OF RINSTATE DISPOSAL FACILITY GIBSON REFINERY
ADDRESS END OF COMMERCIAL DRIVE CHYBAKERSFIELD ZIP CODE3 9~3308;,,:;,;~:?
FACILITY INDENTIFICATION NUMBER CAD 980883177
TANK TRANSPORTEI~ INFORMATION
COMPANY CALPI~ INC PHONE No. 589-5648 LICENSE No.A 506,0'25 :'
ADDRESS P,O. BOX 6278 CITYBAKERSFIELD ZIP CODE;' .9~3386
TANK DESTINATION GOLDEN STATE METALS
TANK INFORMATION
TANK No. AGE VOLUME CHEMICAL DATES CHEMICAL
STORED STORED PREVIOUSLY STORED
1 UNKNOWN 6 r 000 GASOLINE UNKNOWN '.~ ~,~' ..... ~ -'
THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED. UNDERSTANDS, A ND WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT AND ANY OI'F'
STATE. LOCAl. AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
THIS FORM HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDE~ PENALI'Y OF PERJURY. AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
l
THIS APPLICATION BECOMES A PERMIT WHEN APPROVED /
Plot Plan must show the following: . I.. , .~ .~.R, oods and op!ey.s.., :-'.;:.;i :,: ~": :..- 7. *..r .
:. , . "2; bulldln
]",1'/ 3. -- location of tanks, piping, and dispen'sers -
· 4. utilities
'-'" 5. SCALE . -... ~ .-.
~ .- '.'~; · .. 6, ' Water w~lls (If on site); '
7. any other relevent Information
.~ ~. ,- ;, ..- .. .. .....
· ' ~' ;":"' - i" -- ' . .........
J. J
"WE CARE"
October 3, 1994
FIRE DEPARTMENT 1715 CHESTER AVENUE
M. R. KELLY BAKERSFIELD, 93301
FIRE CHIEF 326-3911
Robert S. Wenn
TES Electrical Construction
5306. Aldrin Ct.
Bakersfield, CA 93313 RE: 5306 Aldrin Ct.
Dear Mr. Wenn:
This is to confirm that the unleaded gasoline underground storage tank located above
has been granted temporary closure by this agency for the 12 month period beginning
12/2/93 and ending on 12/2/94.
Temporary closure is hereby granted under the following conditions contained in Title
23 of the California Code of Regulations:
2671. Temporary Closure Requirements
(a) An Owner or operator shall comply with all of the following requirements to
complete and maintain temporary closure of an underground storage tank:
(1) All residual liquid, solids, or sludges shall be removed and handled in
accordance with the applicable provisions of in accordance with Chapters
6.5 and 6.7 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) If the underground storage tank contained a hazardous substance that
could produce flammable vapors at standard temperature and pressure,
it shall be inerted, as often as necessary, to levels that will preclude an
explosion or to lower levels as required by the local agency.
(3) The underground storage tank may be filled with a non corrosive liquid that
is not a hazardous substance. This liquid shall be tested and the test
results submitted to the local agency prior to removal from the
underground storage tank at the end of the temporary closure report.
(4) Except for required venting, all fill and access locations and piping shall be
sealed using locking caps or concrete plugs.
(5) Power service shall be disconnected from all pumps associated with the
use of the underground storage tank unless the power services some other
equipment which is not being closed, such as the impressed-current
cathodic protection system.
(b) The monitoring required pursuant to the permit may be modified by the local
agency during the temporary closure period. In making a decision to modify
monitoring requirements, the local agency shall consider the need to maintain
monitoring in order to detect unauthorized releases that may have occurred
during the time the underground storage tank was used but that have not yet
been detected. In all cases, corrosion protection shall continue to be operated.
(c) The underground storage tank shall be inspected by the owner or operator at
least once every three months to verify that the temporary closure measures are
still in place, the inspection shall include but is not limited to the following:
(1) Visual inspection of all locked caps and concrete plugs.
(2) If locking caps are used, at least one shall be removed to determine if any
liquids or other substances have been added to the underground storage
tank or if there has been a change in the quantity or type of liquid added
pursuant to subsection (a) (3) of this section.
(d) At the end of a temporary closure period over 12 months, including any extension
granted by the local agency, the owner may reuse the underground storage tank
only if the tank meets the requirements of Article 3 for new underground storage
tanks or is upgraded to meet the requirements of Article 6.
(e) All new and existing underground storage tank systems which have been
temporarily closed must continue to comply with repair and recordkeeping
requirements, release reporting and investigation requirements, and release
response and corrective action requirements specified in this chapter and Chapter
6.7 of the Health and Safety Code.
Failure to comply with the requirements will immediately terminate the temporary closure
status. Upon termination of temporary closure, either through non-compliance or by
expiration of the 12 month term, the tank(s) must either be integrity tested and
repermitted for operation or else removed from the site under a valid permit for
permanent closure.
If you have any questions regarding this temporary closure authorization, please call the
Hazardous Materials Division at 326-3979.
Sincerely,
Ralph E. Huey
Hazardous Materials Coordinator
REH/ed
BAKERSFIELD DEPARTMENT
HAzARDous DIVISION
PERMIT TO OPERATE
UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS STORAGE' FACILITY'
Permit No.: 310079C State ID No.: 310079
Issued to: TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION INC.
Location: 5306 ALDRIN CT. ';~
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313
Owner:. TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION INC.
5306 ALDRIN CT.
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 -
Operator:. ROBERT S. WENN
5306 ALDRIN CT.
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313
Facility Profile:
Year ls Piping
Tank No. Substance Capaci ,ty Installed ~
1 GASOLINE 6,000 GAL UNKNOWN YES
This permit is granted subject to the conditions listed on the attached summary of conditions and may be revoked for ~ to
adhere to the stated conditions and/or violations of any other State or Federal regulations.
Issued by: Ralph E. H~ue/y Issue Date: JULY 1, 1991
I Expiration Date: JULY 1, 1994
POST ON PREMISES
NONTRANSFF, RABLE
erate
Underground Hazardous Materials !torage Facility
State I.D. No. 310079 ,.?:i??;ii;!i;;; ~iiiiii iiiiiiill !ill ?~?!%?,..Perm[t No.
'CONDITION,$i:~ p~!!~i~ ~i~ii
ihEVERSE 'SIDE
Tank Hazardous O~ii~?i:%:.:?;::i:: .... Y~:~iiiiiiiiiiii.~:~::.. ':ii ?.~ank '::~:;i:';i~il}!:~i?}ii:::: Piping Piping Piping
Number Substance C~]~:~ff~%?' I d'~"{'~ii~?;.'::;:... ~ :?];~T y p e M o ~i{~i'~?.:']:'~.~;:~:-~;~: Type -Method Monitoring
01 UNLADED , :~::6:~::~:?.? :'~a:~~ ~0~.~ ' M~:~:S~:~-~EPERMIwED AND RETESTED
Issued By: ~'-~ ~
~;:;; 326 397 ~ Coordinator BAKERSFIELD, CA 03313
Approved by: ~ Valid from: 12-02-93 to: 12-02-94
SUMMARy OF
CONDITIONIPROHIBITIONS
CONDITIONS/PROHIBITIONS: MONITORING REQUIREMENTS:
1. The facility owner and operator must be familiar with all conditions specified Within this permit 1. Any underground storage tank not utilizing interstitial monitoring or a State approved automated
and must meet any additional requirements to monitor, upgrade, or close the tanks and associated tank gauging method shall be monitored utilizing the following method:
piping imposed by the permitting authority, a. Standard Inventory Control Monitoring (tank gauging five to seven days per week). If
2. If the operator ofthe underground storage lank is not the owner, then the owner shall enter into a needed forms can be obtained from the Bakersfield Fire Department. Inventory reconciliation
written contract with the operator, requiring the operator to monitor the underground storage tank; and/or tankgauging shall not be used on any tank for leak detection after December 1998.
maintain appropriate records; and implement reporting procedures as required by the Department. 2. All tanks shall be tested annually utilizing a tank integrity test which has been certified as being
3. The facility owner and operator shall ensure that the facility has adequate financial responsibility capableofdetectingaleakof0.1 gallonperhourwithaprobabilityofdeteetionof95 percent and
insurance coverage, as mandated for all underground storage tanks containing petroleum, and a probability of false alarm of 5 percent. The first test shall be completed before December 31,
supply proof of such coverage when requested by the permitting authority. 1992, and subsequent tests completed each calendar year thereafter. All tank integrity tests
4. The facility owner must ensure that the annual permit fee is paid within 30 days ofthe invoice date. completed after September 16, 1991, shall be completed under a valid, unexpired Permit to Test
5. The facility will be considered in violation and operating without a permit if annual permit fees are issued by the Bakersfield Fire Department.
not received within 60 days ofthe invoice date. 3. Manual tank gauging and/or inventory reconciliation for purposes of leak detection shall not be
6. The facility owner and/or operator shall review the leak detection requirements provided within allowed after 1993 for tanks located in areas wh~re the highest historical ground water is with in
this permit. The monitoring alternative shall be implemented within 60 days of the permit issue twenty feet of the bottom of the tank.
date. 4. Ali suction piping shall be monitored for the presence of air in the pipeline by observing the suction
7. The facility underground storage tanks must be monitorexi, utilizing the option approved by the pumping system for the following indicators:
permitting authority until the tank is closed under a valid, unexpired permit for closure, a. The cost/quantity display wheels on the metered suction pump skip or jump during
8. Any inactive underground storage tank which is not being monitored, as approved by the operation;
permitting authority, is considered improperly closed, proper closure is ~'equired and must be b. The suction pump is operating, but no motor vehicle fuel is being pumped;
completed under a permit issued by the permitting authority, c. The suction pump seems to overspeed when first turned on and then slows down as it begins
9. The facility owner/operator must obtain a modification permit before: to pump liquid; and
a. Uncovering any underground storage tank after failure of a tank integrity test. d. A ratlling sound in the suction pump and erratic flow, indicating an air and liquid mixture.
b. Replacement of piping. 5. All underground storage tanks containing motor vehicle fuel shall be retrofitted with overspill
c. Lining the interior of the underground storage tactic, containers, over fill protection, automated tank gauging/inventory control and/or interstitial
d. Any other work which alters the tank or piping, monitoring devices and corrosion protection by December 1998, or shall be removed and replaced
10, The tank owner must advise the Bakersfield Fire Department within 10 days of transfer of with a system that meets new construction standards specified by the State regulations. All tanks
ownership, containing a hazardous substance other than motor vehicle fuel shall have secondary containment
11. Any change in state law or local ordinance may necessitate a change in permit conditions. The and meet all other State standards by December of 1998.
owner/operator will be required to meet new conditions within 60 days of notification. 6. Ail equipment installed for leak detection shall be operated and maintained in accordance with
12. The owner and/or operator shall keep a copy ofall monitoring records at the facility for a minimum manufacturer's instructions, including routine maintenance and service checks (at least once per
of three years, or as specified by the permitting authority. They may be kept off`site if they can be year) for operability or running condition.
obtained within 24 hours ora request made by the local authority. 7. An annual report shall be submitted to the Hazardous Material Division ofthe Bakersfield Fire
The owner/operator must report any unauthorized release which escapes from the secondary Department each year alter monitoring has been initiated.
containment, or from the primary containment if no secondary containment exists, which increases
the hazard of fire or explosion or causes any deterioration of the secondary containment within 24
hours of discovery. ANY QUESTIONS, RELEASE REPORTS, ETC. SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE:
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DIVISION
BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT
Code Explanations: 1715 CHESTER AVE., BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
(805) 326 3979
Tv~'s of Tanks and Pioim~
DWF: Double Wall Fiberglass Monitoring Methods
FCS = Fiberglass Clad Steel ALD = Automatic Leak Dct~cto~
LPT = Lined Piping Trench ATG = Automated Tank Gauging
SWF = Single Wall Fiberglass CLM = Continuous Leak Monitor
SWL = Single Wall w/Linor LTT = Line Tightness Testing
SW$ = Single Wall Steel MIR = Manual Inventory Reconciliation
MTG = Manual Tank Gauging
SIR = Statistical Inventory Reconciliation
'I~IT = Tank Tightness Testing
CITY of BAKERSFIELD
"WE CARE"
FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET
S. D. JOHNSON BAKERSFIELD, 93301
FIRE CHIEF 326-3911
December 2, 1993
Bob Wenn
T.E.S. Electric
5306 Aldrin Court
Bakersfield, CA 93313
Dear Mr. Wenn,
Attached please find the guidelines for .temporary closure of an underground storage
tank. Item 1 (d) states that the tank must be intended for use within the next 12 months.
Per our agreement I will permit temporary closure with the intent to remove the tank
· within 12 months.
I have also enclosed a brochure on the underground storage tank cleanup fund. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
~Ralph E. Huey ' '~"'
Hazardous Materials Coordinator
REH/dlm
Encl.
cc: Mark Turk ...
CITY of BAKERSFIELD
"WE CARE"
FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET
S. D. JOHNSON BAKERSFIELD, 93301
FIRE CHIEF 326-3911
December 2, 1993
Bob Wenn
T.E.S. Electric
5306 Aldrin Court
Bakersfield', CA 93313
Dear Mr. Wenn,
Attached please find the guidelines for temporary closure of an underground storage
tank. Item 1 (d) states that the tank must be intended for use within the next 12 months.
Per our agreement I will permit temporary closure with the intent to remove the tank
within 12 months.
I have also enclosed a brochure on the underground storage tank cleanup fund. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
"/~Ralph E Huey
Hazardous Materials Coordinator
REH/dlm
Encl.
cc: Mark Turk
Fax No. Sending Message to' : ~:~.7~ ' ,
Contact Ferson: ~ ~),e~ .~._'/~' )B',,CO ,4/~z-/TWt
Number of Pages (inc!uding cover shee.*)' ~.
Oes,cription of Materials Sent/Special InstrUctions:
STATE' OF CALIFORNIA
Pete Wi/son, Governor
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
James M. Strock, Secretary
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
(916) 657-2390
Eliseo Samaniego, Vice Chairman
John Caffrey, Member
Marc Del Piero, Member
James M. Stubchaer, Member
Walt Pettit, Executive Director
Dale Claypoole, Deputy Director
California Underground Storage Tank Guidelines
March 1993
LI~AK 'DETECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING UNDERGROuND STORAGE
TANKS
What are the Leak Detection Monitoring Re- What are the Quantitative Leak Detection
quirements for Existing Underground Storage Methods for F. xisting Underground Storage
Tanks? Tanksla3
Owners of e~ei~tin$ USTs must implement a leak Quantitative' leak detection methods must corn-
detection monitoring programaa that is capable ply with certain performance standards in order
of detecting any leak from the UST system as to be used. Owners or operators can use the
early as possible. The monitoring program must following monitoring methods for existing USTs:
be approved by the appropriate -LIA and written
into the operating permit.
· Automatic tank gauging: UST testing equip-
A monitoring program for an existing UST must ment is permanently installed on the tank and
include visual monitoring4t for all portions of the control unit is in a building. At least once
the UST system that can be seen. Where feasi- a month, the equipment is put into the leak'
ble, all visible exterior surfaces of the UST and detection mode and the UST is tested for
any visible surface beneath the UST must be in- tightness.
spected daily by direct viewing. A written state-
ment describing the routine monitoring proce- · Monthly manual inventory reeoneilia-
dure should be on file at the facility for refer- tion~ plus an annual tank integrity test:
enee by facility personnel or for compliance Armual tests must be conducted'by tank test-
checks by the appropriate LIA. ers licensed by the State Water Board4s. For
information on tank tester licensing, call
Written records of the visual monitoring results (916) 227-4303 or write to the State Water
should be maintained and must include the Board at the address given in the front of this
liquid level in the UST at the time of each in- document.
spection.
The tank test method must be eertilled by
If liquid around or beneath the UST is observed, a third party evaluator. Third party
the owner or operator must investigate to deter- evaluators are people who evaluate leak
mine whether or not a leak has occurred, detection equipment and have no financial
interest in the equipment they are evaluat-
Any portion of the UST that cannot be seen must lng? The owner must notify the local
be monitored by a non-visual method4z. Non- imPlementing agency 48 hours before a
visual methods for determining whether or not a tank integrity test is performed and must
leak has occurred are classified into two catego- submit a written report47 of the results to
ries: quantitative and qualitative, the appropriate LIA within 30 days.
Quantitative release detection methods mca- In addition, the owner or operator must
sure the rate of release of product from the tank take daily readings, such as with a dipstick,
and/or piping. Qualitative leak detectors test and record the volume of substance in the
for the presence of hazardous substances in the UST. With' this daily reading and informa.
soil or ground water around the UST but do not tion on UST input and withdrawals, man-
measure the amount of' released substance, ual inventory reconciliation can be used to
'~' determine ff the UST is leaking. See the
section entitled "Inventory Reconciliation
Requirements" for further discussion.
California Underground Storage Tank Guidelines
March 1993
· Monthly statistical inventory renoncilia- The following are some examples for monitoring.
tion4s plus a tank integrity test conducted existing pressurized piping:
every two years: If the owner or operator
uses' statistical inventory reconciliation rather · Automatic line leak detectors that conduct a
than manual inventory reconciliation, a tank leak test at least hourly, and a line test at least
integrity test is required every two years. The monthly.
suction and pressurized line testing frequency
is not changed. See the section entitled "In- · Automatic line leak detectors that conduct
ventory Reconciliation Requirements" for a both a leak test at least hourly, and a line
discussion of statistical inventory reconcilia- tightness test annually.
tion.
· · Automatic line leak detectors that cOnduct a
· Manual tank gauging49 plus tank testing: leak test at least hourly, plus an annual line
Owners or operators of small USTs (less than tightness test performed by a licensed tank
2,000 gallons) may perform manual tank gaug- testers°.
lng on a weekly basis to test for a leak in the
UST. If the capacity of the UST is between 551
: gallons and 2,000 gallons, then the UST must What are the Requirements for Quantitative
also have a tank integrity test each year to Leak Detention for Existing Suction Piping?s!
supplement the manual gauging.
Suction piping conveys hazardous substances
To gauge a tank, the UST must be taken under pressure that is less than outside air pres-
out of service for at least 48 continuous sure. -These systems must be given a line tight-
.- hours each week. At the beginning and ness test every three years. If the piping fails the
end of a 36-hour period in which no liquid tightness test, then it is considered to be leaking.
is added or removed from the UST, liquid In addition, suction piping must be monitored
levels are read on a dipstick. If the differ- for the presence of air by checking the suction
ence between these two liquid level mea- pumping system daily. If the equipment is not
surements exceeds certain limits, which working normally, this may indicate a leak in the
vary according to the size of the tank, then piping.
other tests must be performed to deter-
mine whether or not the UST is considered
leaking. What are the Inventory Reconciliation Re-
quirements?
After December 22, 1998, manual tank
gauging may only be used on USTs having Monthly inventory reconciliation must be used
a capacity of 1,000 gallons or less. along with a tank integrity test to monitor exist-
ing underground storage tanks. Inventory recon-
ciliation compares liquid volumes determined 'by
What are the Requirements for Quantitative manual stick readings with volumes determined
Leak Detection for Existing Pressurized Pip-. by summing input and withdrawals. Both esti-
Lng? mates of the volume are determined daily. The
variation between the two estimates is also re-
All existing pressurized piping must have an corded daily. The daily variations are summed
hourly leak detector, as well as a periodic pre- for one month. If the sum of the monthly vaxia-
cision test. The hourly leak detector must be r. ion exceeds one percent of the monthly flow-
able to restrict or shut off the flow, or trigger an through plus 130 gallon_s, the owner or operator
alarm that can be-seen or heard if a leak occurs, must notify the appropriate LIA and investigate
After December 22, 1998, the leak detection the situation (The total flow-through volume
method must turn off the pump when a leak may be either the sum of the volume based on
occurs, monthly pump readings or the total amount of
14
California Underground Storage Tank Guidelines
March 1993
product delivered in a month. Whichever meth- There are two types of qualitative leak detection
od is chosen should be used consistently), methods:
· Vadose zone monitoring?~ This method
There are two types of inventory reconciliation: monitors vapors and/or liquids in the soil
between the ground surface and the ground
Manual inventory reconciliation: With man- water table. Vadose zone monitoring must
ual inventory reconciliation, daily inventory meet certain conditions relating to number
records are recorded by a mechani- and location of monitoring wells, ground wa-
cai/electronic device or from manual dipstick ter level, backl'dl material, vapor characteristics
readings. The liquid level measurements are of the substance being monitored, and exist-
converted to volume measurements based on lng amounts of the substance that may be in
a calibration chart for the tank. If the actual the in soil due to natural causes. Vapor moni-
ground water level or highest anticipated toring is conducted continuously, while liquid
ground water level is less than 20 feet below monitoring is conducted at least weekly.
the bottom of the tank, manual inventory rec-
onciliation may not be used after January 1, · Ground water monitoring: With this method,
1993. Manual inventory reconciliation may not ground water samples are collected and aha-
be used after December 22, 1998. lyzed by field or laboratory analysis. The LIA
must approve both the frequency and labora-
· Statistical inventory reconciliation: This tory tests used to analyze the ground water
type of inventory reconciliation satisfies the samples. Ground water monitoring is usually
requirement for testing existing USTs on a used in combination with other leak detectors,
monthly basis. Once a month, daffy dipstick because it is not an early warning device to
readings and flow-through information are help prevent contamination. By the time the
entered into a computer program that deter- substance has reached ground water, contami-
mines the leak rate of the UST based on statis, nation has occurred.. If, however, the ground
tical analysis, water has been' determined to have no present
or future beneficial use by the appropriate Re-
If inventory reconciliatiOn data indicates that gional Water Quality Board as specified in its
there may have been a leak, it must be deter- respective Basin Plan, ground water monitor-
mined definitely whether there is a leak. SZOnce ing may be the sole monitoring method used.
every year, any owner or operator who uses
either statistical or manual inventory reconcilia- The following information is needed for
tion must submit to the LIA a written document ground water monitoring: the behavior of the
stating whether the inventory reconciliation data stored substance in water, soil and air; the
is within the allowable variations, presence of free product on top of the ground
water; seasonal ground water levels, soil char-
acteristics, and number and location of moni-
What are the Qualitative Leak Detection toring wells.
Methods for Existing Underground Storage
Tanks?~3
What are the Well Construction~ and Sam-
These monitoring methods determine whether pling Requirement?
an UST is leaking by testing for the presence of
the hazardous substance in the soil Or ground If the existing UST site is monitored by vadose
water near the UST. Like quantitative leak detec- zone or ground water monitoring, proper well
tion methods, qualitative leak detection methods construction and sampling techniques must be
must be certified by an independent third party used.
evaiuator.
15
CaLifornia Underground Storage Tank Guidelines
March 1993
Local, state, and federal regulations speU out the
design and construction requirements for the
installation of monitoring wells. They also cover
procedures for collecting soil and ground water
samples.~6
How are Leak Detection Methods Certified?
Each leak detection method used to monitor
tanks or piping (except manual inventory recon.
ciliation and manual cank gauging) muSt be eval.
uated by an independent third party testing
laboratory. The evaluation report ia reviewed by
the State Water Board to make sure that the
evaluation followed test procedures issued by
the 'U.S. Environmental.Protection Agency.
Evaluations are necessary for leak detection
equipment used on new and existing USTs.
The State Water Board publishes a document
(Appendix E) that lists all equipment that has
been 'properly certified by a third party. UST
owners should be sure that their leak detection
methods and equipment are included on this
list. ff they are not, the owners must switch to
approved methods.
Automatic tank gauging, vadose zone monitoring
equipment, ground water monitoring equip-
menr, statistical inventory reconciliation, auto-
matic line leak detectors, electronic line leak
detectors, tank integrity tests,~ and piping
tightness tests require this certification. The
cerUfieation states that the detection' method
complies with applicable state and federal stan.
dards.
16
KERN BUSINESS FORMS MFG. -- K-3047-$
CORRECTION NOTICE
BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT N° '1"3 4 8
i?' 'Location T, ~, S, ~J,'~OG,
*~'., Sub Div. Blk. . ~t ·
"~' You are hereby required to make the following cor~etions '...~
at the above location:
~ ' Cot. NoJ ,
~,.~
Completion Dale for Corrections
Date I I %
- ~ - ~ Inspector *:.~J
':
~ ".- 3Z~-3951 '
,;~
BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPT
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION
Operating Permit: -..~l OC) 7q C_ Date Completed
Business Name: T~. ~. ~, ~/~~ Oe~~ ~ -.~,~,
Location: ~5~0~ ~Y~
Business Identification No. 215-000 ~[ 5 ~op of'Business Plan)
Number of Tanks: I Type: ~~ ~
Containment: ~ Unes: .~
Contact Information
Emer~ne~ Contaet~:
~dequate Inadoquat~
'Monitoring Program _ .~
. ' ...... ~. - ~ - .
Records
Maintenance _ __,//
Testing _
Inventory Reconciliation
Response Plan
Emergency Plan
Violations: ~.'~0 ~-/t~.,',~ ;,~;~- -~. ~ ~ ~e~
/ All Items OK
Correction Needed
Business Owner
BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DIVISION
PERMIT TO OPERATE
UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS STORAGE. FACILITY'
Permit No.: 310079C State ID No.: 310079
Issued to: TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION INC.
Location: 5306 ALDRIN CT. '~
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313
Owner. TES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION INC.
5306 ALDRIN CT.
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313
Operator. ROBERT S. WENN
5306 ALDRIN CT.
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313
Facility Profile:
Year Is Piping
Tank No. Substance Capacity Installed ~
1 GASOLINE 6,000 GAL UNKNOWN YES
This permit is granted subject to the conditions listed on the attached summary of conditions and may be revoked for failure to
adhere to the stated conditions and/or violations of any other State or Federal regulations.
Issu~ ~ ~h ~ ~ Issue Date: JULY 1, 1991
.7___ .._._.._._ __v Expiration Date: JULY 1, 1994
za rdinator ~
POST ON PREMISES
NONTRANSFERABLE
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
,,. uNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM A
/ COMPLETE THIS FORM FOR EACH FACIETY/SITE
MARK ONLY [~ 1 NEW PERMIT [] 3 RENEWAL PERMIT E~ 5 CHANGE OF INFo~MATION [] 7 PERMANENTLY CLOSED SITE
ONE ITEM [] 2 INTERIM PERMIT. r--] 4 AMENDED PERMIT [] 6 TEMPORARY SITE CLOSURE
I. FACILITY/SITE INFORMATION & ADDRESS - (MUST BE COMPLETED)
!
ADDRESS NEAREST CROSS STREET PARcEl' # (0'FTK~NAL)
:i:/'~,, (' ?,
CITY NAME . - STATE / ZIP CODE SITE PHONE at WITH AREA CODE
TOINOICATE ,~,~_~¢3RPORATION ~ INDIVIDUAL ~ PN:~TNER$141P ~ LOCAL-AGENCY : [~ COI. INTY-ACENCY F-'] STA'I'~-AGENCY F'-I FEDERAL-AGENCY
DISTFaCTS
TYPE OF BUSINESS ~[~'~S STATION3 FARM r-~E~ 42 DISTRIBUTORpRocESSOR F"] 5 OTHER I[''-'~OR RESETRuST'/IF INDIAN I# ?F TAN;S AT SITE IF-P'A'RVATIONLANDS LD. at (optional)
EMERGENCY CONTACT PERSON (PRIMARY)
I DAYS: ~NAME (LAST. FIRST) PHONE # WI~H ARENA CODE DAYS: NAME (LAST. FIRST) PHONE # WITH AREA CODE
NIGHTS: NAME (LAST. FIRST) PHONE # WIT~-I AREA CODE NIGHTS: NAME (LAST. FIRST) PHONE # WITH AREA CODE
I1. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION - (MUST BE COMPLETED)
I NAME [ CARE OF ADDRESS INFORMATION o
MAILING OR STREET A~I~RI~SS ' ~ E~ INDIVIDUAL '[~ LOCAL.AGENCY [~] STATE-AGENCY
I CITY NAME STATE ZIP CODE
III. TANK OWNER INFORMATION - (MUST BE COMPLETED)
NAME OF OWNER CARE OF ABDRESS INFORMATION
As "'"
MAILING OR STREET ADDRESS / ! / ¢ ~[ t~ i~icate E~ INDIVIDUAL I-'-] U2C~k..&CENCY [~ STATE.AGFcNOY
r"q CORPORATION ~ PARTNERSHIP ~ COUNTY-~GENCY ~ I:EDERAL-AGENOY
CITY NAME STATE t ZIP CODE I PHONE # WITH AREA CODE
I
IV. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MST STORAGE FEE ACCOUNT NUMBER · Call (916) 739-2582 if questions arise.
V. LEGAL NOTIFICATION AND BILLING ADDRESS Legal notification and billing will be sent to the tank owner unless box I or II is checked.
CHECK ONE BOX INDICATING WHICH ABOVE ADDRESS SHOULD BE USED FOR LEGAL NOTIFICATIONS AND BILLING: I. [] ~,[~ IlL []
THIS FORM HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IS TRUE AND CORRECT
LOCAL AGENCY USE ONLY
COUN ,";'Y # JURISDICTION # FACILITY #
LOCATION CODE - OPTIONAL CENSUSi?)/TR'~CT at - OPTIONAL SUPVISOR - DISTRICT CODE - OPTIONAL
THIS FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AT LEAST (1) OR MORE PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM B~ UNLESS THIS IS A CHANGE OF SITE INFORMATION ONLY.
FORM A (9-90) FOR0033A-R2
SI'ATE OF CAUFOI:~IIA
STATE WA'FER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM B
~.~' COMPLETE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH TANK SYSTEM.
MARK ONLY [~; NEW PERMIT [] 3 RENEWAL PERMIT [] 5 CHANGE OF INFORMATION [] 7 PERMANENTLY CLOSED ON SITE
ONE ITEM [] 2 INTERIM PERMIT [] 4 AMENDED PERMIT [] 6 TEMPORARY TANK CLOSURE [] 8 TANK REMOVED
OBAOR FACILITY NAME WHERE TANK IS INSTALLED:-'ff", ~'~. ':'-:~._-=- ..... ", ,.- ~ ?",~,.%,,?.?~.~,..,.¥ -r- ..~.{ ,,
I. TANK DESCRIPTION COMPLETE ALL ITEMS -- SPECIFY IF UNKNOWN
A. OWNER'S TANK L D.# / B. MANUFACTURED BY: · ~
C. DATE INSTALLED (MO/DAY/YEAR) Z~' / -'~ ~ D, TANK CAPACITY IN GALLONS: -~.
- /
II. TANK C ,ONTENTS IF A-1 IS MARKED, COMPLETE ITEM C.
j~,/( ~ ~'-~d'~i~EGULA R ~ 3 DIESEL D . 6 AViATiON GAS
A. MOTOR V~H,CLE fUEL [] 40,L S. C.''' UNLEADED
'"' .[~ 2 PETROLEUM [] 80 EMPTY ODUOT [] lb PREMIUM [] 7 METHANOL
- UNLEADED [] 5 JET FUEL
[] 3 CHEMICAL PRODUCT [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 2 WASTE [] 2 LEADED [] 99 OTHER (DESCRIBE IN ITEM D. BELOW)
D. IF (A.1) IS NOT MARKED. ENTER NAME OF SUBSTANCE STORED C.A.S. #:
IlL TANK CONSTRUCTION MARK ONE ITEM ONLY IN BOXES A, B, AND C, AND ALL THAT APPLIES IN BOX D
A. TYPE OF ~UBLE WALL [] 3 SINGLE WALL WITH EXTERIOR LINER [] 95 UNKNOWN
SYSTEM ~ 2 SINGLE WALL [] 4 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (VAULTED TANI0 [] 99 OTHER
- [~,v'; BARE STEEL [] 2 STAINLESS STEEL [] 3 FIBERGLASS [] 4 STEEL CLAD W/FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC
B. TANK
MATERIAL [] 5 cONCRETE [] 6 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE [] 7 ALUMINUM [] 8 100% METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP
(PrimaryTank) [] 9 BRONZE [] 10 GALVANIZED STEEL [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER
[] , ,UBBER LINED [] 2~0 LI. ING [] 3 EPOX~ LINING [] 4 ".ENOL,: LI,ING
C. INTERIOR [] 5 GLASS LINING [~l~' UNLINED [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER
UNING
IS LINING MATERIAL COMPATIBLE WITH 100% METHANOL ? YES__ NO__
D. CORROSION [] 1 POLYETHYLENE WRAP [] 2 COATING [] 3 VINYL WRAP [] 4 FIBI~RGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC
PROTECTION [] 5 CATHODIC PROTECTION ~1 NONE [] 85 UNKNOWN [] 99J OTHER
IV. PIPING INFORMATION C~RCL~ A IF ABOVE GROUND OR U IF UNDERGROUND, BOTH IF APPLICABLE
A. SYSTEM TYPE A U~i SUCTION .it U 2 PRESSURE A U 3 GRAVITY A U 99 OTHER
B. CONSTRUCTION A ,U'~xl SINGLE WALL A IJ 2 DOUBLE WALL A U 3 LINED TRENCH A IJ 95 UNKNOWN ~, U 99 OTHER
C. MATERIAL AND A(.~"~x~ BARE STEEL A IJ 2 STAINLESS STEEL A ~ 3 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE(PVC}A U 4 FIBERGLASS PIPE
CORROSION A U 5 ALUMINUM A IJ 6 CONCRETE A IJ 7 STEEL W/ COATING A U 8 100% METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP
PROTECTION A U 9 GALVANIZED STEEL A U 10 CATHODtC PROTECTION A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER
D. LEAK DETECTION [] 1 AUTOMATIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR [] 2 LINE TIGHTNESS TESTING [] 3 INTERSTITIAL
V. TANK LEAK DETECTION
[] 6 TANK TESTING [] 7 INTERSTITIALMONITORING [] 91 NONE [] '5 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER
VI. TANK CLOSURE INFORMATION
I 1. ESTIMATED DATE LAST USED (MO/DAY/YR) 2. ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF
SUBSTANCE REMAINING GALLONS INERT MATERIAL ?
THIS FORM HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IS TRUE AND CORRECT
o
I APPLICANT'S NAME DATE
{PRINTED & S~GNATURE)
LOCAL AGENCY USE ONLY THE STATE I.D. NUMBER IS COMPOSED OF THE FOUR NUMBERS BELOW
COUNTY # JURISDICTION # FACILITY # TANK #
FORM B (9-90) THIS FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM A, UNLESS A CURRENT FORM A HAS BEEN FILED.
FOROO348-P~
bOUNTY OF KERN
· Environmental Health Services Department
2700 '~M" Street, Suite 300
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(sos) 86t.3636
(805) 861-3429 Fax Number ~~
May 17, 1989
T.E.S. Electrical Construction, Inc.
,5 306 Ak/ha
Bakersfield, CA 93313
RE: Underground Storage Tank(s)
Dear Sir: J
It has come to the attention of the Kern County Environmental Health Services Depm tment
that one '(1) underground storage tank is located at 5306 Aldrin Court and is not permitted.
You are therefore in violation of:
1) Division 20, Chapter 6.7 Section 25284(a) of the California Health and
Safety Code which states "... no person shall own or operate an
underground storage tank unless a permit for its operation has been issued
by the local agency to the owner."
2) Division 8, Section 8.48.030(a) of the Kern County Ordinance Code which
states, "No person shall operate a facility for the underground storage of
any hazardous substance..., unless by authority of a valid, unexpired and
unrevoked Permit to Operate is issued to owner..."
Enclosed you will find an application for the Permit to Operate. The completed form must
be returned to this office within 14 days of the date of this letter. In lieu of the application for
a Permit to Operate, a completed permit for permanent closure of your tanks may be submitted
within 14 days. Failure to obtain a permit may result in fines of five hundred dollars ($500.00)
to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per day per Division 8 Section 8.48.480 of the Kern County
Ordinance Code.
T.E.S. Electrical Construction, Inc.
May 17, 1989
Page 2
After we receive the application, an invoice will be sent to you for the annual fee for a
Permit to Operate of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first tank and twenty dollars ($20.00)
for each additional tank. A state surcharge of fifty-six dollars ($56.00) per tank for each facility
permitted will also be included. This is per Chapter 6.7 Section 25287(b) of the California Health
and Safety Code.
if you have any questions, please do not. hesitate to contact me at (805) 861-3636. Your
cooperation is much appreciated.
Sincerely,
LaureI Funk
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Hazardous Materials Management Program
LF:dr
\permit. no
· t. OUNTY OF KERN
Environmental Health Services Department
2700 "M" Street, Suite 300
Bnkersfleld, CA 93301
(805) S61-3636
(805) 861-3429 Fax Number
/b,~/~
July 3, 1989
T.E.S. Electrical Construction, Inc.
ATFN: Sandra Julian
- 5306 Aldrin Court
Bakersfield, California 93313
Dear Ms. Julian: ,
In reviewing your application for your underground storage tank, sederal areas were found
to be deficient. Enclosed is a copy of your submittal application, instructions on filling the forms
out, and a tank information sheet. Please complete the items marked in red on the application.
Also please complete the tank information sheet.
Also requested is a plot plan, showing tank, piping dispenser, buildings and other various
items, see the instruction sheet for detailed information.
Sincerely,
Laurel Funk
Hazardous Materials Specialist
Hazardous Materials Management Program
LF:cas
\res.let\6-29-17
2700: "M" STREET, STE. 300 Application Date
'!AI<E RS/;'i ]~L D , CA 933U1
AI'I'LICA'I'iON FOR PERMIT TO OPERATE UNDERGROUND
IIAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES STORAGE FACILITY
Type Of ApPlication {chec!.(,):
Of Facllity~Existing Facility []Transfer Of Ownership
Facility
[]Modification
A. Emergency 24-11ouc Contact (name, area code, phone): Days ~/ /n_~
Type Of BusineSs (check): QGasoline Station ~her (descrlbe)~c~./~t/
Is Tank(s) Located On Aa Agrlcultucul Farm? ~Ves
Is Tank(s) Used P~imarily For A~ctcultucul Purposes? ~Yes
Facility Address ~ ~/~z~ ~zz~ Nearest Cross St.
~r- R ~EC ~ (Rural Locations Only)
Operator ~~ ~ f~ . Contact Person
C. Contractor ~ ~~.~/ ~ CA Contractor's L~cense No.
Proposed Starting Date Proposed Completion Date
Worker's Compensation Certification No. Insurer
D. If This Permit Is For Modification Of An Existing Facility, Briefly Describ
Modifications Proposed
E. Tank(s) Store (check all that apply):
Tank ~ Waste Product Motor Vehicle Unleaded Regular Premium Diesel Waste
Fuel
F. Chemical Composition Of Materials Stored (not necessary for motor vehicle fuels)
Tank r Chemical Stored (non-commercial name) CAS ~ (If known) Chemical Previously Stored
(If different)
G. Transfer Of Ownership
Date Of Transfer /L/~//~ Previous Owner
Previous Facility Name
I, accept fully all obligations of Permit No. issued t
I u.derstand that the Permitting Authority may review an
modify or terminate tile transfer of the Permit to Operate this underground storug
facility upon receiving this compl,,ted form.
This form has been completed under pe.:'lty of perjury and to the best of my knowledge Is true
and correct, y'~ ~ /~-,
..~--~ . .. , , .. '> ~.,
" "~? ..... /~ '/~/' ' / ~ ".'-'" Date / /~'i'; '-' -'
qlrr:~nt:lll'q ' '~ ' ' - ' . T.ltle .' __ .
· Permit # i~ ! t",} C~ 7].. ? .- TANK iNFORMATION FORM Contents'
(FILL OUT SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH TANK) Tank #..~'
FOR EACH SECTION, CHECK ALL APPROPRIATE BOXE~
H. 1. Tank is: ( )Vaulted ( )Jacketed ( )Double-Wall ( ) Single-Wall
2. Tank Matedal
(,,-)~Carbon Steel ( ) Stainless Steel ( ) Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic (
( ) Concrete ( ) Unknown ( ) Other (Describe)
3. Pdmary Containment
Date Installed Thickness (Inches) Capacity (Gallons) Manufacturer
5. Tank-Interior Unincj
(,P/'~ Unlined ( ) Unknown ( ) Lined (describe)
6. Tank Corrosion Protection
( ) Galvanized ( ) Fiberglass-Clad ( ) Polyethylene/Vinyl (Wrapped or Jacketed)
(.,,~Tar or Asphalt ( ) Unknown ( ) None ( ) Other (describe):
Cathodic Protection: ~ None ( ) Impressed Currant System ( ) Sacrificial Anode System
Describe System and Equipment:
_ 7. Leak Detection, Monitodnq, and Interception ~' (Must be describecl below)
a. Tank: ( ) Vapor Detector" ( ) Liquid Level Sensor ', ( ) Conductivity Sensor *
( ) Vadose Zone Monitoring Well(s)
( ) U-Tube with Liner ( ) U-Tube without Liner
( ) Visual Inspection (Vaulted tanks only) ( ) Grounchvater Monitoring
( ) Sensor in Annular Space ( ) Vapor ( ) Uquid
IJ Regular Monitoring of U-Tube, Monitoring Well or Annular Space
Dally Gauging & Inventory Reconcili~on ( ) Periodic Tighmess Testing
( ) None ( ) Unknown ( ) Other
· Describe Make & Model:
b. Piping: ( ) Flow-Restricting Leak Detector(s) for Pressurized Piping' ( ) Seaiecl Concrete Racew~
( ) Monitoring Sump'with Raceway ( ) Complete Containment Liner with Sumps
( ) Half-Cut Compatible Pipe Raceway ( ) Synthetic Liner Raceway (,--y/Non
() Unknown () Other
· Describe Make & Model:
8. Tank ~qhtness
Has This Tank Been Tightness Tested? ( ) Yes ('~No ( ) Unkno~
Date of Last Tightness Test Results of Test
Test Name Texsting Company
9. Tank Repair ( ) Yes (1/) No ( ) Unknown
Date(s) of Repair(s)
Descdbe Repairs
10. Overfill Protection (Must describe below)
( ) Operator Fills, Controls, & Visually Monitors Level
( ) Tape Float Gauge ( ) Float Vent Vak, es ( ) Auto Shut-Off Controls
( ) Capacitance Sensor ( ) Sealed Fill Box (~//None ( ) Unknown (.) Other *
( ) List Make & Model for all Devices
· Describe other; Protection System
a. Underground Piping: ~ Yes () No () Unknown Matedal ~'~',~'/
Thickness (incl3es) Diameter ~ Manufacturer
b. Type of piping System/
( ) Pressure (O/~Suction ( ) Gravity Approximate Length of this Pipe Run ~,e'
c. Underground Piping Corrosion Protection:
(~ Galvanized ( ) Fiberglass-Clad ( ) Impressed Current ( ) Sacrificial Anoc
( ) Polyethylene Wrap ( ) Electrical Isolation ( ) Vinyl Wrap ( ) Tar or Asphalt
( ) Unknown ( ) None ( )Other (describe):
FILE CONTE.'~TS SUMMARY
~0~.~:~7.~- ~ ~!~__~r,'~l ~.~.,~L~_¢,.,~.?. 7-~. --
Activity Date # Of Tanks Comments