Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
UNDERGROUND TANK
'TIME CHARGED BUSINESS/DEAPRTMENT NAME: .//~~' ~mDm~SS: Z I ~ PRO.CT NUMBER: DA~: N~E: ~* 'CHGD: COM~~S: ' 1.:., . January 3, 2003 Mr. William F. Girolamo, RG NMWW, Inc. 7740 W. Manchester Avenue, Suite 205 Play/~ del Rey, CA 90293 FIRE CHIEF RON FRAZE RE: Former World Oil Station 29 located at ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 2101 Brundage Lane in Bakersfield 2101 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (661) 326-3941 Dear Mr. Girolamo: FAX (661) 395-1349 .. SUPPRESSION SERVICES I have reviewed your notification of change in property use and 2~Ol 'H' Street request for decision regarding site closure letter, dated November 20, Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (661) 326-3941 2002. FAX (661) 395-1349 PREVENTION SERVICES After reviewing the proposed site redevelopment plan and supporting FIRE SAFE'W SERVICES · ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1715 ChesterAve. documentation, this office is satisfied that the proposed change in land Bakersfield, CA 93301 use to a commercial office and/or retail fourplex does not adverselY VOICE (661) 326-3979 FAX (661) 326-0576 affect conditions at the site under which closure was originally granted on December 8, 1993. PUBLIC EDUCATION 1715 Chester Avb. Bakersfield, CA 93301 Accordingly, no further action is required at this time regarding this VOICE (661) 326-3696 FAX (c~) 3~05~6 matter. FIRE INVESTIGATION Sincerely, 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 vOiCE (66~) 3~6-395~ FAX (661) 326-0576 Ralph E. Huey Director of Prevention Services TRAINING DIVISION 5642 Victor Ave. Bakersfield, CA 9.3,308 by: VOICE (661) 399-4697 FAX (661) 399-5763 Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Sepcialist Registered Geologist No. 7239 Office of Environmental Services cc: J. Hundley, World Oil 4¸. * Mos Incorporated' Envirorr~!~ntal Consulting Services · "-~:~""" """...... 7740 W.. Manchester Ave. $uite 205 . "111111PlayadelRey, Califomia90293 (310) 578~6788 Telephone (310) 578-9688 lax LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: November 13, 2002 To: Bakersfield Fire Department ~.~-. Attn: Ralph E. Huey RE: Site Assessment Report, Former World Oil Station No. 29 Located at 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California -- Mr. Huey, On behalf of Wodd Oil Marketing Company (World), I am fon~arding the enclosed Site Assessment Report to you for the above-referenced site. Please contact me at (310) 578- 6788 or Mr. John Hundley of World at (562) 928-0100 if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, NMWW, Inc. Bill Girolamo Principal Geologist [] · · · Environrfl~l~tal Consulting Services m m re.m:'774° W. Manchester Ave. Suite 205 : Playa del Re~ California 90293 (310) 578-6788 Telephone (310) 578-9688r.~ nm~e. net~~ ~.~~'~ November 20, 2002 ~* Mr. Ralph E. Huey City of Bakersfield Fire Department 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA "93301 RE: Notification of Change in Property Use and Request for Decision Regarding Site Closure Former World Oil Station 29 Located at 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, Califomia Dear Mr. Huey: This letter serves as notification of a proposed change in site use for the above- referenced site. The former station building and canopy currently exist at the site, but the underground storage tanks (USTs) and related infrastructure have been removed. Redevelopment of the site into a commercial property is proposed. The site was previously granted conditional closure by the BFD in a letter to World Oil Marketing Company (World) dated December 8, 1993. The letter stated "...any future Changes in the site use may require further assessment or mitigation." A copy of the letter is attached for reference. NMWW, Inc., on behalf of World therefore requests a decision from the City of Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD) regarding site closure. Prior site assessment in 1992 and 1993 showed an absence of contamination in the vicinity of the former underground storage tank (UST) pit below a depth of 95 feet. A silt/clay layer was identified below about 85 feet. The BFD determined that World would need to provide additional information on the clay zone and complete a contaminant fate risk assessment. World contracted Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. (HFA) to conduct the work. In a report entitled Risk Assessment Report dated November 23, 1993, HFA stated that based on published information, groundwater in the vicinity of the site was estimated to be in excess of 200 feet below ground surface (BGS). However, the Kern County Water Agency, 1991 Report on Water Conditions, Improvement District No. 4, February 1992 reportedly states that the depth to the regional unconfined aquifer is approximately 175 feet BGS. Mr. Ralph E. Huey, City of B sfield Fire Department Page 2 Notification of Change in Property Use and Request for Decision Regarding Closure Former Wodd Station 29, 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfiels, CA November 20, 2002 NMWW completed additional assessment at the site in 2001. A report prepared by NMWW summarizing the results of that assessment entitled Site Assessment Report dated September 29, 2001 was recently submitted to the BFD for review. The NMWW investigation showed that soil contamination beneath the site is present to a depth of at least 106.5 feet BGS. Silt layers encountered below 91 feet underlain by alternating sand/clay layers could be interpreted as the Iow-permeability or confining zone that was identified at 85 feet in the pdor studies. Soil contaminant concentrations beneath the former UST pit appear to be concentrated in a zone ranging from 51.5 to 81.5 feet BGS. The highest total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) concentration below 81.5 feet in boring TH-9 was at the bottom depth of 106.5 feet and was in the interlayered sand/clay zone. This suggests that the lower-permeability sediments at that depth may have inhibited further downward migration of contaminants. HFA stated that a 100 foot interval of clean soil exists between the bottom of the soil contaminant plume and the water table. This statement has not been vedfled however because drilling to date at the site has not progressed sufficiently deep to determine either the actual depth to groundwater or the vertical limit of soil contamination beneath the site. Modeling results from the contaminant fate dsk assessment performed by HFA showed that all target analytes within the impacted soil zone did not appear to pose a significant risk through migration as vapor except for total xylenes in the upper 20 feet. Based on findings of the risk assessment and site assessment, the BFD stated that upon capping the site to inhibit the percolation of groundwater, no further action was necessary and that the vertical separation between the impacted soil and potential groundwater along with the lithology in the area provide adequate protection to groundwater. However, the BFD may restdct future site uses because of the presence of the subsurface contaminants and further assessment or mitigation may be required now that a change in site usage is planned. The proposed future site use is a commercial property. A site plan showing the proposed future site layout is attached for your review. In light of this proposed change in site usage, World requests a decision by the BFD to either grant unrestricted site closure based on the Iow-risk nature of residual soil contamination beneath the site, or issue a directive regarding additional corrective action necessary to obtain unrestricted site closure. NMVVW, Inc. 7740 W. ManchesterAve. Suite 205, Playa del Rey, California 90293 ~_~ Tel: (310) 578-6788 Fax: (310) 578-9688 nmww@gte.net ~J0J Mr. Ralph E. Huey, City of sfield Fire Department Page 3 Notification of Change in Property Use and Request for Decision Regarding Closure Former World Station 29, 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfiels, CA November 20, 2002 We request a decision from the BFD at your earliest convenience so that redevelopment of the site can proceed in a timely manner. Please contact me at (310) 578-6788 or Mr. John Hundley of Wodd at (562) 928-0100 if you have any questions or require further information regarding this site. Sincerely, NMWW, Inc. William F. Girolamo, R. G. Principal Geologist Cc: John Hundley, World Oil Marketing Company Attachments: Letters from BFD to Wodd dated December 8, 1993 Site Plan Showing Proposed Future Site Use NMWW, Inc. 7740 W. ManchesterAve. Suite 205, Playa del Rey, Californi'a 90293 Tel: (310) 578-6788 Fax: (310) 578-9688 nmww@gte.net CITY of BAKERSFIELD · December 8, 1993 FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Mr. Greg Petruska World Oil Marketing Company P. O. Box 1966 South Gate, CA 90280 RE: Closure of four (4) Underground Storage Tanks Located at World Oil StatiOn No. 29, 2101 Brundage Lane, .Bak'ersfield, CA Dear Mr. Greg Petruska: The Site Assessment and Risk Analysis for. World Oil Station No. 29 has been reviewed by this office. The proposed mitigation of this site, which includes capping the site to prevent percolation of seasonal rainwater, is found to be acceptable to this office. We .dO concur that the vertical separation between the impacted soil and potential groundwater, along with the lithology in this area, provide adequate protection to groundwater. This letter doesnot relieve you of any liability for past, present .... or future operations. In addition, any future.changes in the site use may require further. -assessment'or mitigation. It is 'the property owners responsibility to notify this department of any changes in site usage or changes in property ownership. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely yours, Hazardous Materials CoordinatOr REH/ed cc: Mark Magargee, Holguin, Fahan & Assoc. . Greg I do need a time table for.completion of the capping of this site and surface restoration. BRUNDAGE LANE I JJ~ 12,0C J ~. ~UNE T~K JJ I .~. LEGEND PROPOSED SITE REDEVOLPMENT P~N ~P~X. P~P~ UNE Site: FIGURE: Foyer Station 29 ~ G~ ~ ~NCR~ 2101 Bmndage~ne ~NSULT~. ~nec PuuP ~s~ ~ ;ORUER U~ ~Z P~,~ ~N G~Y Wodd Oil Ma~eting Company mR ~=~C~ 9302 South Ga~eld Ave. 0 20 ~0 South Gate, CA 90280 I I ~ Drown ~ D~e: SCALE IN FE~ SJM 1/14/02 CONCEPT2.DWG V ENTAL , ~UI~iOUI.. I II&i~ SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY FORMER STATION NO. 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA September 29, 2001 Prepared for: Mr. John Hundley World Oil Marketing Company 9302 South Garfield Avenue South Gate CA 90280 Prepared by: NMWW, Inc. 7740 W. Manchester Ave. Suite 205 Playa del Rey, California 90293 NMVVVV Job No. WO29-002 SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY FORMER STATION NO. 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA September 29, 2001 Prepared for: Mr. John Hundley World Oil Marketing Company 9302 South Garfield Avenue South Gate CA 90280 Prepared by: NMWW, Inc. 7740 W. Manchester Ave. Suite 205 Playa del Rey, California 90293 NMWW Job No. WO29-002 Prepared by: William F. Girolamo, R.G. \ Principal Geologist SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY FORMER STATION NO. 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............'. .............................................................................................. 1 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ......................................................... ; ........................... 1 3.0 GENERAL AND SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY ................................................................. 5 4.0 GENERAL AND SITE-SPECIFIC HYDROGEOLOGY ..................................................... 5 5.0 ' PRE-FIELD ACTIVITIES ................. ; ............................................................................... 6 6.0 DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING ................................................................................... 6 7.0 POST-DRILLING ACTIVITIES ................................................................................ ~ ....... 8 8.0 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS ....................................................................... 8 8.1 ANALYSES PERFORMED .............................................................................................. ;. 8 8.1 SO~L ANALYTICAL RESULTS ........................................................................................... 9 9.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 9 10.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................ 11 TABLE TABLE 1 .............................................................. SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS FIGURES FIGURE 1 · SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2 ................................................... SITE PLAN SHOWING SOIL BORING LOCATIONS WO29-002 Site Assessment Rpt ii NMWW, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDICES APPENDIX A ..................................................... i ....................... AGENCY'CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX B .' ................. PRIOR SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS APPENDIX C ..................................................................... APPROVED PERMIT APPLICATION APPENDIX D .................................................................. DRILL LOG LEGEND AND DRILL LOG APPENDIX E ..................................... ......................................................... WASTE MANIFESTS APPENDIX F ........................................ SOIL LABORATORY REPORT AND C-O-C RECORDS WO29-002 Site Assessment Rpt iii NMWW, Inc. Site Assessment Report September 29, 2001 World Oil Marketing Company Station No. 29 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes site assessment activities at World Oil Marketing Company (Wodd) former Station No. 29, located at 2101 Brundage Lane in Bakersfield, Califomia. The site is located on the southwest comer of the intersection of. Brundage Lane and Oleander Street (Figure 1). Site assessment was performed under the supervision of an NMWW, Inc. (NMWW) Registered Geologist. The site assessment was performed at Wodd's request in order to further assess the nature and vertical extent of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in soil beneath the site in order for Wodd to decide if further action at the site is necessary. Pdor site assessment, including dsk assessment, was performed at the site'in 1992 and 1993 (detailed below). In response to a recommendation by World's pdor consultant that no further action be required at the site, the City of Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD), lead agency for the site, sent a letter to Wodd dated December 8, 1993. In that letter the BFD granted conditional closure of the site, i. e., no further action was required but any future changes in site use may require further assessment or mitigation. A copy of that letter is included in Appendix A. The site is currently vacant. 'All underground storage tanks (USTs) and product dispensers have been removed from the site.. A site plan showing the layout of the station, pdor soil bodng locations and the location of one new soil bodng completed as part of this study is included as Figure 2. 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Or{ October 21, 1992, Hallmark Construction excavated and removed the four 12,000-gallon ' gasoline USTs, twelve gasoline dispensers and associated product lines from the site. The USTs were removed under a BFD permit and soil samples were collected, under the direction of a BFD inspector. Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. (ESE) provided an environmental technician to collect the soil samples. Soil. samples were collected at depths of two and six feet below the bottoms of each UST and at depths of two and six feet from trenches excavated immediately adjacent to the three pump islands. Appendix B includes a figure showing the WO29-002 Site Assessment Rpt ' NMWW, Inc. Site Assessment Report september 29, 2001 World Oil Marketing Company Station No. 29 Page 2 sampling Iocaiions and tables that summarize laboratory analytical results of those samples'. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) were detected in soil beneath all four USTs, with the highest concentration of 41114 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) found at a depth of two feet beneath the west end of UST 2 (see Figure ~2). Of the 24 samples collected beneath the USTs, benzene was detected in five samples, with the highest concentration of 15.214 mg/kg also found at a depth of two feet beneath the west end of UST 2. TPHg was detected near all three pump islands with the highest concentration of 2,612 mg/kg found at adjacent to the west dispenser island. Benzene was not detected in any of the dispenser island samples. Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) was not analyzed in any of the samples. Upon review of the above soil sample results, the BFD required additional site assessment consisting of soil bodngs to assess the lateral and vertical extent of the impacted soil and to determine if the subsurface hydrocarbons posed a threat to groundwater. ESE supervised the drilling and sampling of seven soil borings numbered TH-1 through TH-7 in March 1993, including five vertical borings and two angle borings. The total drilling depth (in TH-l) was 100 feet below ground surface (BGS). The soJJ boring locations are shown on Figure 2 and on drawings and cross-sections from prior reports 'included in Appendix B. Appendix B also includes a table that summarizes laboratory analytical results of samples collected from the soil borings. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. Soil analytical results from the seven soil bodngs showed detectable TPHg in all soil bodngs including TPHg ranging from 11 to 353 mg/kg in soils beneath the UST pit at a depth ranging from 55 feet to 95 feet BGS (in TH-l). The highest TPHg concentration was 4,058 mg/kg found at a .depth of ten feet adjacent to the center pump island (in TH-3). The highest benzene concentration beneath the UST pit was 4.482 mg/kg at a depth of 85 feet. The maximum benzene concentration at the pump islands was 9.605 mg/kg at a depth of 10 feet adjacent to the center pump island. MTBE was not analyzed in any of the samples. Soil sampling dudng station decommissioning and the additiOnal site assessment detailed above were summarized in a report entitled Preliminary Site Characterization by ESE, dated April 22, 1993. Based on the findings of the assessment, the BFD sent a letter to World dated May 21, 1993 stating that the vertical and lateral limits of gasoline-impacted soil had been delineated. However the BFD recommended that further assessment be conducted to WO29-002 Site Assessment Rpt NMWW, Inc. Site Assessment Report September 29, 2001 Wodd Oil Marketing Company Station No. 29 Page 3 determine the vertical profile within the area of greatest concentrations of impacted soil beneath the former UST pit. In a meeting between World, the BFD and World's consultant on June 16, 1993, the BFD determined that since World intended to pursue a Uno further action' (NFA) designation for the site, World would need to provide additional definition of an existing clay zone at 80 to 95 feet BGS and must complete a contaminant fate dsk assessment. World contracted Holguin, Fahan & AssociateS, Inc. (HFA) to conduct the additional work. On September 9, 1993 HFA supervised the ddlling and sampling of angle bodng TH-8 to a total vertical depth of 72 feet BGS. The location of TH-8, which was ddlled beneath the former UST pit between USTs 2 and 3, is shown on Figure 2 and on drawings and' cross-sections from pdor reports included in Appendix B. Appendix B also includes a table that summarizes laboratory analytical results of samples collected from bodng TH-8. Groundwater was not encountered dudng drilling. Soil analytical results from bodng TH-8 yielded a detectable TPHg coricentration (65 mg/kg) in only one sample at a vertical depth of 48 feet BGS. Benzene was detected in three samples ranging from 48 to 64 feet BGS, with the highest concentratiOn of 0.269 mg/kg at 48 feet BGS. MTBE was not analyzed in any of the samples. Based on research of existing wells in the area, HFA estimated that the depth-to-groundwater beneath the site is in excess of 200 feet BGS and that published information indicates that the 100-foot interval between the deepest gasoline soil contamination and groundwater contains three clay layers in excess of five feet in thickness. HFA completed a Tier I Fate Risk Assessment to assess the potential for migration of hazardous constituents from the site. The dsk assessment was based on USEPA~HRS 1985, USEPA-HRS 1988 and NYDOH TR-847-ZC. Initial dsk probability calculations indicated a very Iow dsk for each migration' pathway with the exception of the potential for soil vapor transport. So HFA conducted Tier II leaching potential modeling to assess the potential for soil vapor transport to threaten groundwater resources. Tier II modeling was performed using the State Water Resources Control Board's software for General Risk Appraisal for Protection of Groundwater. Modeling results showed that the cumulative concentration of each target analyte within the impacted soil zone did not exceed the specific retention of the soil to hold contamination in place with the exception of total xylenes in the upper 20 feet. wo29-oo2 Site Assessment Rpt NMWW, Inc. Site Assessment Report September 29, 2001 World Oil Marketing Company Station' No. 29 Page 4 HFA summarized the additional site assessment and the contaminant fate dsk assessment in a report entitled Risk Assessment Report dated November 23, 1993. In that report, HFA, on behalf of World, requested that the BFD concur with an NFA determination for the site (i. e., allow natural in-situ biodegradation) for the following reasons: 1. greater than 100 feet of vertical separation is assumed to exist between the impacted soil and the first occurrence of groundwater,' 2. intervening clay layers exiSt as barriers to vertical migration of contaminants, 3. the current and future use of the site and a concrete cap over the site will inhibit percolation of seasonal rainwater and future surface exposure of humans to the contaminant, and 4. natural processes will biodegrade the contamination without dsk to groundwater or people. Upon review of the HFA report and the request for NFA designation, the BFD issued a letter to World dated December 8, 1993 (see Appendix A) stating that proposed mitigation of the site, which includes capping of the site to prevent percolation of seasonal rainwater, was acceptable. They concurred that the vertical Separation between the impacted Soil and potential groundwater along with the lithology in the area provide adequate protection to groundwater. The letter further stated that it did not Urelieve [World] of any liability of past, present or future operations. In addition, any future changes in the site use may require further assessment or mitigation.' The site is located in the northwest quadrant of the northeast quadrant of Section 1 of Township 30S Range27E. The site lies at an elevation of approximately 390 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The nearest water bOdy to the site is the Kern Island Canal which flows in a man-made culvert, located about one-half mile southeast of the site. The site is essentially fiat with a very shallow slope toward the south. The site is currently vacant. The pump islands, .station canopy, station kiosk and trash enclosure and planters still exist at the site. A chain link fence is in place along the site perimeter and there is an opening in the fence at the northeast comer of the site. The entire site with the exception of pre-existing planters located around the site periphery, is completely capped with concrete except in areas where excavation had taken place during UST removal. WO29-002 Site Assessment Rpt NMWW, Inc. Site Assessment Report September 29, 2001 World Oil Marketing Company Station No. 29 Page 5 Those areas are capped with asphal{ paving. The concrete has age-related cracks but in general both the concrete and asphalt surfaces appeared to be in reas, onably good condition at the time of this investigation. 3.0 GENERAL AND SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY The site is located in the southem part of the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley is a north-south trending valley, approximately 400 miles long by 50 miles wide. Surface and groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley is dedved predominantly from the Sierra Nevada mountain range to the east, and is transported by five major dyers, the southernmost being the Kern PJver. The site is located approximately two miles south of the Kern River. The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed pdmadly of unconsolidated Pleistocene to ' Recent alluvial sediments. Beneath the alluvial sediments are older, predOminantly lakebed deposits. These lie unconformablY on Mio-Pliocene madne sediments that extend to crystalline basement at approximately 20,000 feet. depth, Geologic deposits in the vicinity of the site include Pleistocene alluvial sediments of the Kern River Formation which form a homocline dipping gently to the southwest (see Figure 1). The deposits are alluvium consisting of poorly indurated and dissected fan deposits. Ddlling at the site dudng the current investigation shows the site to be underlain by predominantly poody graded sand to a depth of about 44 feet. Below that depth, sediments consist of interlayered poorly graded sand and silty sand with lesser well graded sand. Two silt layers three to four feet thick exist between 91 and 104 feet BGS with the bottom silt zone underlain by alternating thin layers of poody graded sand and clay to the maximum drilling/sampling depth of 106.5 feet. 4.0 GENERAL AND SITE-SPECIFIC HYDROGEOLOGY The depth to the regional unconfined aquifer is reported to be approximately 175 feet below surface grade beneath the site with the direction of groundwater flow toward the south (Kem County Water Agency, 1991 Report on Water Conditions, Improvement District No. 4, WO29-002 Site Assessment Rpt NMWW, Inc. Site Assessment Report September 29, 2001 World Oil Marketing Company Station No. 29 Page 6 February 1992). The nearest known occurrence of perched groundwater is five miles to the south-southeast at a depth of 20 feet in the abandoned Kern River channel to the ancient Kem Lake bed (Kern County Water Agency, 1991 Water Supply Report, May 1992). Drilling at the site has shown that no groundwater exists to the maximum drilling depth of 106.5 feet BGS. 5.0 PRE-FIELD ACTIVITIES Pdor to beginning field work at the site, NMWW completed an Application and Permit for Monitoring Wells to constru~;t a test hole and submitted it to the Kem County Health Services Department (KCEHSD). The KCEHSD issued approved permit no. TH3924 to World dated July 19, 2001. A copy of the approved permit is included in Appendix C. On July 21, 2001, an NMWW technician visited the site to pre-mark the ddlling location. NMWW then notified Underground Services Alert for underground utility clearance. The KCEHSD was also notified in advance of the field work. 6.0 DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING On August 1, 2001, an NMWW geologist supervised the ddlling and soil sampling of one on- site soil boring designated TH-5. Bodng TH-5 was located near the center of the former UST pit. The bodng location is shown on Figure 2. In keeping with NMWW's and World's safety protocol, the soil b°dng was hand augered to a depth of 4 feet prior to commencement of mechanical drilling. Ddlling was performed by A & R Drilling, Inc. using a CME-75 Hi-Torque hollow-stem auger ddlling dg: The bodng was ddlled and sampled to a maximum depth of 10.6.5 feet using 8-inch outer-diameter augers. All down-hole ddlling and sampling equipment was either pressure washed or tdple dnsed prior to being introduced to the subsurface. Soil samples were collected dudng ddlling at approximately 5 foot depth intervals using a 2- inch diameter, 18-inch long split-barrel sampler inside the hOllow stem augers. The lithology of the borehole was logged by the NMWW geologist using the Unified Soil Classification system (USCS). A field photoionization detector (PID) was used to screen soils for the presence of WO29-002 Site Assessment Rpt NMWW, Inc. Site Assessment Report September 29, 2001 World Oil Marketing Company Station No. 29 Page 7 volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A ddll log that was prepared from field notes recorded dudng ddlling is presented in Appendix D. The log. provides a summary of' the sample collection and retrieval intervals, lithology and PID readings from the borehole. Undisturbed soil samples were collected into 1.5-!nch diameter, 6-inch long brass rings that were placed into the 18-inch long split-barrel sampler. The sampler was driven into the undisturbed soil at the bottom of the borehole by hammering it after the borehole was drilled to the top of the desired sampling depth. Soil samples collected for laboratory analysis were packaged by taking the bottom sample ring from the split-barrel sampler and placing teflon® sheeting over each end. Clean plastic caps were then pushed over the ends of eaCh ring and taped to the ring using duct tape. The rings were labeled with identification information, placed into sealable plastic bags and placed into a cooler on ice. All packaged samples were transported to a State-certified laboratory for chemical analysis. Soil in the remaining sample rings was used for visual inspection, lithologic logging, and field headspace readings for VOCs. Headspace readings were obtained by placing soil into a sealable plastic bag and agitated. The PID probe was then inserted into the bag to screen the headspace air for the' presence of volatile organics. Sampling intervals and headsPace readings are recorded on the drill log (see Appendix D). All packaged soil samples were labeled in the folloWing manner. "TH," which denotes ~test hole", followed by the boring number, followed by a hyphen and the sample collection depth. For example, sample UTH9- 86.5" denotes a sample collected from boring TH-9 at a depth of 86.5 feet. Upon completion, the soil bodng was propedy abandoned by filling it with bentonite slurry up to about five feet BGS. The bentonite slumj added to the borehole from the bottom up using a tremie pipe. The top five feet of the boring were capPed with Portland cement. Drill cuffings and decontamination (decon) water were placed into DOT-approved 55-gallon drums that were propedy labeled and sealed. The drums were temporarily stored on site pending the receipt of laboratory results. WO29-002 Site ASsessment Rpt NMWW, Inc. Site Assessment Report September 29, 2001 World Oil Marketing Company Station No. 29 Page 8 7,1) POST-DRILLING ACTIVITIES Upon receipt of the. laboratory analytical results, NMWW arranged the removal of the drummed waste from the site for disposal by a licensed waste hauler. Soil was disposed at TPS Technologies in Adelanto, California. Water was disposed at Demenno-Kerdoon in Compton, California. Copies of the waste manifests for the transport and disposal of these materials are included in Appendix E. 8.0 LABORATORY ANALyTICAL RESULTS 8.1 Analyses Performed A total of twenty-one soil samples collected from bodng TH-9 were transported.to State- certified American Analytics Laboratory in Chatsworth, Califomia for chemical analysis following proper chain-of-custody procedures. All packaged soil samples were subjected to the following analyses: TPHg by EPA Method 8015M, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes (BTEX) by EPA Method 8020, and · MTBE by EPA Method 8020. In addition, the twelve deepest samples (depth range 51.5 feet through 106.5 feet) were analyzed for the following compounds following EPA Method 8260B: · BTEX, · MTBE, · tert-amyl methyl ether (TAME), · 'ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE), · di-isopropyl ether (DIPE), and · tert-butanol (TBA). WO29-002 Site Assessment Rpt ' NMWW, Inc. Site Assessment Report September 29, 2001 World Oil Marketing Company Station No. 29 . Page 9 8.1 Soil Analytical Results Soil analytical results are presented in Table 1. The complete soil laboratory report and chains,of-custody are included in Appendix F. All compounds analyzed in the samples ranging from 6.5 feet BGS through 46.5 feet BGS were below laboratory reporting limits (LRLs) eXcept for 0.0067 mg/kg of total xylenes in sample TH9-46.5.. In the samples collected below that depth, all samples contained detectable TPHg except at 86.5 feet and 101.5 feet. The highest TPHg concentration was 4,100 mk/kg at a depth of 66.25 feet. TPHg appeared to diminish with depth below 76.5 feet with Concentrations of 1.7 and 3.9 mg/kg at 91.5 and 98 feet BGS, respectively. The deepest sample at 108.5 feet contained 140 mg/kg of TPHg. That sample had been collected in the zone of altemating layers of sand and clay. Benzene was detected in six of the twelve deepest samples. The highest benzene concentration was 1.5 mg/kg (by EPA 8020, or 0.45 mg/kg by EPA 8260B) in sample TH9- 51.5. From 71.5 to 106.5 feet BGS, benzene was detected in only two samples: 0.021 mg/kg (EPA 8020) at 91.5 feet and 0.0028 mg/kg (by EPA 8020) at 101.5 feet. MTBE and all of the additional oxYgenates tested (TAME, ETBE, DIPE, and TBA) were not detected above the laboratory reporting limit in all twenty-one samples that were analyzed. 9.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the most recent data collected dudng the ddlling of bodng TH-9 through the former gasoline UST pit at Wodd OilStation No. 29, the following conclusions are made: Boring TH-9 was properly permitted, drilled to a total sampling depth of 106.5 feet BGS .and abandoned according to KCEHSD requirements; · The site is underlain by predominantly poody graded sand to a depth of about 44 feet and intedayered poody graded sand and silty sand with lesser well graded sand to 91 feet;* two silt layers three to four feet thick exist between 91 and 104 feet BGS underlain by. alternating thin layers of POorly graded sand and clay to the maximum drilling/sampling depth of 106.5 feet; wo29-oo2 Site Assessment Rpt NMWW, Inc. Site Assessment Report September 29, .2001 World Oil Marketing Company Station No. 29 Page ~10 · Groundwater was not encountered to the total drilling/sampling depth of 106.5 feet; · Twenty-three of 43 samples tested (including two duplicate samples) contained detectable contaminant concentrations. The highest TPHg concentration was 15,000 mg/kg (MW4-21), the highest benzene concentration was 3.1 mg/kg (MW5-21), and the highest MTBE conCentration was 0.26 mg/kg (MW10-21). TAME, ETBE and DIPE showed no detectable concentrations in any of the samples tested but TBA was detected in seven samples, with a high of 0.83 mg/kg in sample MW10-15.25; · All compounds analyzed in the samples ranging from 6.5 feet BGS through 46.5 feet BGS were below LRLs except for 0.0067 mg/kg of total xylenes in sample TH9-46.5; · In the samples collected below 46.5 feet BGS, the .highest TPHg concentration was 4,100 mk/kg at a depth of 66.25 feet; TPHg appeared t° diminish with depth below 76.5 feet; the deepest sample at 106.5 feet contained. 140 mg/kg of TPHg; · Benzene was detected in six of the twelve deepest samples. The highest benzene concentration was 1.5 mg/kg (by EPA 8020, or 0.45 mg/kg by EPA 8260B) in sample TH9-51.5; and · MTBE and all of the additional oxygenates tested (TAME, ETBE, DIPE, and TBA) were not detected above the laboratory reporting limit in all twenty-one samples that were analyzed. · Ddlling to date at the site has not progressed sufficiently deep to determine either the actual depth to groundwater or the vertical limit of soil contamination beneath the site. WO29-002 Site Assessment Rpt NMWW, Inc. Site Assessment Report September 29, 2001 Wodd Oil Marketing Company Station No. 29 Page 11 '10,0 LIMITATIONS Ddlling and soil sampling completed du~ing the completion of this work were performed by or under the supervision of an NMWW California Registered Geologist. All data presented in this report was reviewed by an NMWW California Registered Geologist for correctness. The conclusions contained in this report are based in part on direct observation by an NMWW geologist and in part on data provided by other subcontractors to World. Conclusions are based on currently available information and are arrived at in accordance with currently accepted hydrogeologic practices at this time and location. No 'other warranty is implied or intended. WO29-002 Site Assessment Rpt NMWW, Inc. Table 1 Summary of Soil Analytical Results for TPHg, BTEX, MTBE, and Additional Oxygenates World Oil Marketing Company Station 29, 2t0t Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California August 1, 2001 Sample ID with I Sample TPHg Efltyl-benzene Total Xylene~ Depth I Date (rog/kg) Benzene (rog/kg) Toluene (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) MTBE (rog/kg} TAME (m~/kg; ETBE (rog/kg] DIPE (mg/kg) TBA (mg/kg) Laboratow Report~g Limit 0.05 0.002K).002 0.002f0.002 0.002/0.002 0.002/0.004 0.02/0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0~2 TH9-6~5 8/1/2001 ND ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/ ..... TH9.-11.5 8/1/2001 ND ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- .... TH9-16.5 8/1/2001 ND ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- .... TH9-21.5 8/1/2001 ND ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- .... TH9-26.5 8/1/2001 ND ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- .... TH9-31.5 8/1/2001 -ND ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- .... TH9-36.5 8/1/2001 ND ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- .... TH9-41.5 8/1/2001 ND ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- ND/- - - - * - THg-46.5 8/1/2001 ND ND/- ND/- ND/- 0.0067/- ND/- .... TH9-51.5 8/1/2001 1~200 1.r~0AS 50/49 26/24 t40/164 ND<0.5/ND<0.25 N[~.25 ND<0.25 ND<0.25 ND<I TH9-56.5 8/1/2001 320 ND<0.?J0.036 3.~/3A 2.9/2.7 22/24.4 ND<2/ND<0.0250 ND<0.025 ND<0.025 ND<0.025 ND<0.1 '1'H9~1.5 8/1/2001 2,900 ND<0.2/0.34 64/59 50/53 ~001400 ND<2/ND<0.25 ND<0.25 ND0.25 ND<025 ND<I TH9-66.25 8/1/2001 4~t00 0.96~ND<02 110/100 9?/80 r,401550 ND<2/ND<0.5 ND<0.5 ND<0.5 ND<0.5 ND<2 TH9-71.5 8/1/2001 3~000 ND<025/ND<0.2 76~66 65/64 ~80/390 ND<2.5~ND<0.5 ND<0~, ND<0.5 ND<0.5 ND<2 TH9-76.5 8/1/2001 2~00 ND<O.25~ND<0.2 52/44 46/40 300/310 ND<2.5/ND. cO.5 Nl~c0.5 ND<0.5 ND. cO.5 ND<2 TH9-81.5 8/1/2001 180 ND<0.OS/ND<0.02 ' 1.7/1.6 1.6/1.6 13/14.6 NO<0.5/ND<O.05 ND<0.05 ND<0.05 ND<0.05 ND<0.2 TH9-86.5 8/1/2001 ND ND/ND 0.024/0.022 0.0058/0.007 0.053/0.0?8 ND/ND ND ND ND ND TH9-91.5 8/1/2001 1.1 ~.021/0.017 0.32/0.4 0.046/0.062 0.NV0.46 ND/ND ND ND ND ND TH9-g6 8/1/2001 -%9 ND/ND 0.022./0.014 0.021/0.011 0.18/0.104 ND/ND ND ND ND ND TH9-101.5 8/1/2001 ND 0.0028/ND 0.041/0.017 0.0057/ND 0.05~/0.021 ND/ND ND ND ND ND TH9-106.5 8/1/2001 140 ND<0.05/ND<0.02 0.45/0.42 0.62/0.52 4.~5.1 ND<0.5/ND<0.05 ND<0.05 ND<0.05 ND<0.05 ND<0.2 Notes: - = not anelyzed. ND = Not ck~ected above ~he la~ mporUng i~t. 'xxhoC = EPA 8020~PA 82608 for ~ole~ ana~ by bo~ mett~ds. 'rPHg = to~ petrc~eurn I'e~roca~oons as gasoline (EPA Me,~od 80~5M). BTEX = be¢lzene, toluene, e6¥benzene and ~ (EPA k~s 8020~8260B). MTBE = methyt terttaqpbut~ e~ler (EPA Me~'x~s ~). TAME = Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (EPA ~ 8260~). ETBE = Ethyl reft-Butyl Ether (EPA Method 82~0B). D~PE = Di-lsopmm4 Ether (EPA Method TBA = tert-Suten~ (EPA Methoc18260B). lofl ~ T,u, ~ NMWW, INC. FIGURES 1 P~j~ No: ~e: WO29-002 WO29figl SITE LOCATION MAP Drown ~ D~: c...u USGS 7.5-Minute o 1/2 ~ World Oil Topographic Map , ~ Marketing Company, Inc. Gosfo~ Quadrangle SCA~ IN MILES 9302 S. Ga~eld Avenue World Oil Station No. 29 Bake~field, California ~RUN~/~E LANE SIDEWALE .I ..................... ,' I I - ., I ~ i~ '~TH 3 ~ L]----=---~=~:~_~A~_ -_~:.. J · / ___L'.._., ........... . ........... , Project No: qle: LEGEND W029-002 wo29oo2fi~ SITE PLAN TH-5 ~ PRDR VERTIC~ BORING CO~ON, 1993 Drown ~. ~,~ SHOWING TH-8 ~---~PRIOR ANGLE BORING LOCATION, 1993 WFG 6123101 SOIL BORING c[~.~ WOrld Oil LOCATIONS -- ~ APPROX. PROPERTY UNE "°~s: ~ u~°"s ~ ~PpR°x'~co~su,r~s.s.~ P~ol ~SE~ o~ u~O~20PP~P~ ~ P~O,,~O. ~':2101 Brundage Lane MMM MMM Marketing C°mpanYFormer Station 29 tim · SCALE IN FEET · Bakersfield, Califomia APPENDIX A AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE "WE CARE" December 8, 1993 S. D. JOHNSON BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Mr. Greg Petruska World Oil Marketing Company P. 0. Box 1966 South Gate, CA 90280 RE: Closure of four (4) Underground Storage Tanks Located at World Oil Station No. 29, 2101Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, CA Dear Mr. Greg Petruska: The Site Assessment and Risk Analysis for World Oil Station No. 29 has been reviewed by this office. The proposed mitigation of this site, which includes capping the site to prevent percolation of seasonal rainwater, is found to be acceptable to this office. We do concur that the vertical separation between the impacted soil and potential groundwater, along with the lithology in this area, provide adequate protection to groundwater. 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 require further assessment or mitigation. It is the property owners responsibility to notify this department of any changes in site usage or changes in property ownership. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 326-3979. Hazardous Materials Coordinator REH/ed cc: Mark Magargee, Holguin, Fahan & Assoc. y. Greg I do need a time table for completion of the capping of this site and surface restoration. APPENDIX B PRIOR SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS L. SCALE 1" = 20' p FENCE I ~ TANK REMOVAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS I ; i {~ BORING LOCATIONS i i I I A FORMER DISPENSER i -- ,/ ISLANDS i S-8 ' z S-1 A i ~ ~':-'.':::::~ S-SA ~ ~ ~, '~ ~, A' ::, (^EARTH TITLE FIGURE SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. WORLD OIL PROPERTy NE.~.RO~.EEAmS~S~p 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE 2 6701 McDivitt Drive Suite B BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Bakersfield. Ca. 93313 PROJECTNO. (805) 836-0901 SITE MAP E B-8275-1 FAX (805) 836-0911 N S A L. ~r ~L ~2' "~ lo' ~ A' TH-4 TH-2 TH-! TH-O o L ........................................... , _ I o ~-=-==:--- :'- ....:-¥~ ~ ~('CA~TION LIMITS~-ML ~' ~ ~ o' ' ~ -~;~llr~ FORMER 12,000 GAL. T^NKS ~: ! l~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ 0' 20. TPH-(O) ::. .... ; ....... :::'.J'-':'-'::::::::]'-:'. I 2o' '-' ·100 M K '..'" ~i~~!~..':~i~'-:-~ "7. ~w/~wl'" "'~ ........................... ., ~.-,~-.,-,~:<.~ ...... ~,.-. :~:~-~,-~:.~i.~..-,'-:-.. -7.,.' .......... ~:.~i-~ a.' ~-:'~:-:a.-':-;~:~ L--' '- ~ ~ ......... ~, ~ .~:.~.~:.,,~, ............ ~ ~,,:-~ ..... ~-,,~..~ ............. .. 4 0'~SWISM ---- ~z ..~,~[~.,...::.:~:-~~ .~;.<~.~.~,~:~ .?. t~/ 4 0 ~ e .............. -,-,-,* "*~'":"A~'"";'~:~'~i.,:.:.,~.:.:.~~['~'~'*'?'~'P;':'~"~?'":<~' ~ ~ '"~g":~'~:' '" · :,,. ............... ~.<'...>:~.~:..,.::.,.~..:-,~,~ ..-:f~.?~.~....:.-.,,:-~.. ;~:~,,~.:.:~:.~- ..:~ .:.-.:::;:..-:?,:. ,.,; ..................... ~:.. ~.<,~ ..... , ........... :~.~...~ -~..-~:~,~.~ ........ ,,. 100 M K ..................... -. ~-. - ...~ ,.- -,,. ................... .~[(L:-~ ...... g/ g -' [,[ To~ .............. ,,,.,.,.,,..~.,...,..,.,., ...... "'; ~i'~-~''''~;;'~'~' ~'~:'**~"*'-',...,~'~-'"~"~ '~' ~'~ ~';" "~,-~~.'"~,~ m!;-~':*'~>:~'~'~;:~'"'~;'~'~*~ " '~ '~" :<~:~'~"~;' ~"~:'" '~' ~o ...................... ~-.,,.- ...... ................. : ~J ~~.T:~ 50' 5 0 . .........................!............. ' ~ ~ ~! 6 4.6 ..-...-.-..--.-.....-.--.....-. , · '-'.'.'-'.'.:.'.:o'o'-%'.%'.'-:.%:-'-:.%:-'.:o' , ,~.~/' ..~ ...... ;~ o.--.--.".'% ." %'°.'%" 0 :- . .-'::*:'.*~. ~.~v · ..'~'~'~:~'.".':'~ .,.?.~..'.~,~¥.:..,.~ -~-Y.~x:.'~ ~-.-:'./-~ · ~-'. :~';~':?.?.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.'. .-.-'.'~.:-'::::'~' ':':.~.i.' '.' '.". ..~:."-".",:' ~..::"..':..::..:-: 7 o' k~~ ~~..'~ ~ u ~~..:...:...:.-.: 80' ~ 80' .......... . ............ .~.~.~: .... .~.~.~ .... ~_'.~ ............................. ~-:-:-.'-:-:-:, ~-'-~::::.'::'-5 ~~ ~-- - -:-:-.'-:-:- · -.-------=~:-;-;-;-:-;-=-:-:-:-:- -,::--::--.-, aa ::-'::~ M '~;::;"":'"': ~~":'"': ' 90' ~ - ~..-.---...-;;.;-., ... - ....... r.-; ~ I fl ~ 1 00' ;';.;-";-. .-.-.-;'" '-'-'-;.;-;' '-;-";-";'2; ...... '.;.;-:.;..:-;.o >10 Mg/Kg ;-.:.? · . . ~ ., ,,,.. . 4L ~. ~, e, . . , ~ .,e,...'~,.o,,. /UIII,~U ....,, ..,..'. -, ., HORIZONTAL AND VERTIOAL ,~DALE 1" = 20' ~ ~W- WELL GRADED SAND ~;"~'; ~W/GW- WELL GRADED GRAVELLY ,SRND ~ SWISM- WELL GRADED SILTY SAND ~ ML- SILT ~-'.-'.'.:'-.::~: Cl./ML- SILTY CLAY /~-~EARTH TITLE FIGURE SYSTEMS ~~-----"'---'"----"-/~i::I~IVlRnNlUlI~NTAI' INC. WORLD OIL PROPERTY 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE 4 A IVEI~ER OE THE EAR1H b-'3~3EMS GROUP 6701 McDivitt Drive Suite B BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Bakersfield, Ca. 93313 PROJECT NO, (805) 836-0901 CROSS SECTION AA' E B-8275-1 FAX (805) 836-0911 10' 10' t.:~~ ,':'::~-~-~\ 20, 3O' I ~ TO 5 7 o' ... ~ ...~ ~. ~ m~ ....... ~..~.,~ ,..~ 7 o' · --.'. .~ ~ >1~ M~Kg ~ ...:...:...:....:...:...:. ~ ~;~ .... ~. ,~ .., ............ ~RE~TAL ~D ~ICAL ~ALE 1" = ~ SW- ~LL G~DED S~D SW~W- WELL G~D G~Y ~D ~ SWI~ ~LL G~DED SlL~ S~D ~ ML- SILT ~:~ C~L- SIL~ C~Y ,EARTH TITLE FIGURE SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. WORLD 01~ PROPERTY 2101 BRUNDAGE ~E 5 6701 a~ivia Drive ~ite B BAKERSFIELD, C~IFORN~ Bakersfield, Ca. 93313 ~~NO. (805) 836-0901 CR~S ~~ ~' E B-8275-1 FAX (80~ 836-0911 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA - DISPENSER DECOMMISIONING Analytical results expressed in milligrams per kilogram (ppm by weight). Sample I~l TPH. I Benzenel Toloene NO. I Location Gasoline] ] Ethyl-I Total benzeneI Xylenes S-1 W Dispenser-S End 2' 88 ND ND ND ND S-IA W Dispenser-S End 6' 20 ND ND ND ND S-2 W Dispenser-S Center 2' 221 ND ND ND ND S-2A W Dispenser-S Center 6' 33 ND ND ND ND S-3 W Dispenser-N Cen 2' 44 ND ND ND ND S-3A W Dispenser-N Cen 6' 2~612' ND 8.238* ND 118.040' S-4 W Dispenser-N End 2' 19 ND ND ND ND S-4A W Dispenser-N End 6' 8 ND ND ND ND S-5 Cen Dispenser-S End 2' ND ND ND ND ND S-5A Cen Dispenser-S End 6' ND ND ND ND ND S-6 Cen Dispenser-S Cen 2' ND ND ND ND ND S-6A Cen Dispenser-S Cen 6' 884 ND 2.643* ND 60.959* S-7 Cen Dispenser-N Cen 2' 116 ND ND ND 2.662 S-7A Cen Dispenser-N Cen 6' 41 ND ND ND ND S-8 Cen Dispenser-N End 2' 53 ND ND ND ND S-8A Cen Dispenser-N End 6' ND ND ND ND ND S-9 E Dispenser-S End 2' 34 ND ND ND ND S-9A E Dispenser-S End 6' ND ND ND ND -ND S-10 E Dispenser-S Cen 2' ND ND ND ND ND S-10A E Dispenser-S Cen 6' ND ND ND ND ND S- 11 E Dispenser-N Cen 2' 10 ND ND ND ND S- 11A E Dispenser-N Cen 6' 15 ND ND ND ND S- 12 E Dispenser-N End 2' ND ND' ND ND ND S-12A E Dispenser-N End 6' ND ND ND ND ND C- 1 North End Stockpile 4' 10 ND ND ND ND C-2 West Side Stockpile 4' 13 ND ND ND ND C-3 East Side Stockpile 4' 41 ND ND ND ND C-4 South End Stockpile 4' 850 ND ND ND 4.428 MRL 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 A L 1~000 1 I 50 50 ND: None Detected at or above minimum reporting level 0dRL). *: Exceeds RWQCB recommended guidelines. A L: Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for contaminants in soil. The recommended guidelines were calculated using the LUFT Manual methodology by multiplying the most stringent current federal or state water quality standards by a factor of 1,000 for gasoline, and the volatile aromatics to account for attenuation due to soil composition and distance from groundwater. TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA - UST DECOMMISIONING Analytical results expressed in milligrams per kilogram (ppm by weight). Sample] Location [D_Q~p_Lh_I TPH [Bcnzen¢lToluene{ Ethyl- ]' Total No. Gasoline benzene Xylenes S-13 UST 2-Center 2' 1,010' ND 1.232' ND 17.896 S- 13A UST 2-Center 6' 1,100' ND 16.719' ND 101.670. S- 14 UST 1-East End 2' 10 ND ND ND ND S-14A UST 1-East End 6' 8 ND ND ND ND S- 15 UST l-Center.. 2' 21 ND ND ND ND S- 15A UST l-Center 6' ND ND ND ND ND S- 16 UST 1-West End 2' 8 6 ND ND ND 1.111 S-16A UST 1-West End 6' 1~416' ND 45.742* ND 161.403' S- 17 UST 3-Center 2' 3,066* 12.417' 109.232' 2.224 209.225* S-17A UST 3-Center 6' 171 ND 1.547' ND 23.051 S-18 UST 2 West End 2' 4~112' 15.214' 127.826' 5.010 220.918' S-18A UST 2-West End 6' 3,046* 1.850' 59.290* ND 204.717' S- 19 UST 3-West End 2' 2,867* 7.080* 94.182' 1.312 207.777* S-19A UST 3-West End 6' 2,560* 0.575 91.75.,5' ND 199.613' S-20 UST 4-East End 2' 102 ND ND ND 1.216 S~20A UST 4-East End 6' 186 ND ND ND 2.435 S-21 UST 4-Center 2' 31 ND ND ND 0.311;9 S-21A UST 4-Center 6' 23 ND ND ND 0.197 S-22 UST 4-West End 2' 2,314' ND 79.630* ND 205.173' S-22A UST 4-West End 6' 2,118' ND 70.875* ND 189.661' S-23 UST 3-East End 2' 1,256' ND 2.101' ND 13.011 S-23A UST 3-East End 6' 1,010' ND ND ND 2.226 S-24 UST 2-East End 2' 33 ND ND ND ND S-24A UST 2-East End 6' 4 1 ND ND ND ND MRL 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 A L 1;000 1 I 50 50 ND: None Detected at or above minimum reporting level (MRL). *: Exceeds RWQCB recommended guidelines. A L: Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for contaminants in soil. The recommended guidelines were calculated usin8 the LUFT Manual methodology by multiplying the most stringent current federal or state water quality standards by a factor of 1,000 for gasoline, and the volatile aromatics to account for attenuation due to soil composition and distance from groundwater. TABLE-4 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA - DRILLING OPERATIONS Values in milligrams per kilogram (ppm by weight). Boring No. Depth] TPH Benzene Toluene I Ethyl- Total Gasoline benzene Xylenes TH-1 25' ND ND ND ND ND TH- l 35' ND ND ND ND ND TH- l 45' ND ND ND ND ND TH-I 55' 100 ND 0.731 ND 0.502 TH-I 65' 166 3.147' 2.490* 0.616 4.496 TH-1 75' 353 3.188' 3.171' 0.590 20.242 TH-1 85' 239 4.842* 5.453* 1.010 18.466 TH- 1 95' ! 1 ND ND ND ND TH- 1 100' ND ND ND ND ND TH-2 10' 39 0.800 0.571 ND 1.068 TH-2 20' 76 1.252' 1.404' ND 9.905 TH-2 30' 11 ND ND ND 0.100 TH-2 40' 27 ND 0.439 ND 0.617 TH-2 50' 17 0.68 0.188 ND 0.404 TH-2 60' 210 0.506 0.737 ND 10.594 TH-2 70' 36 0.526 0.782 ND 0.743 TH-2 80' 28 0.265 0.429 ND 0.931 TH-2 85' 37 0.518 0.945 ND 21533 TH-2 90' 3 6 0.023 0.134 ND 3.290 TH-3 10' 4~058' 9.605* 387.169* 6.693 539.834* TH-3 20' 725 0.082 0.255 ND 88.444* TH-3 30' 229 ND 0.459 ND 19.334 TH-3 35' 234 0.061 0.662 biD 20.312 A?L 1;000 1 ,. 1 50 50 I~ L 1 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 ND: None Detected at or above minimum ~po~ting level (MRL). *: exceeds eur~nt recommended guidelines. A L: Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for concentrations in soil. Recommended guidelines were calculated using the LUFT Manual methodology by multiplying the most stringent em'rent federal or state water quality standards by a factor of 1,000 to account for attenuation due to soil composition and distance from groundwater. TABLE-4 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA - DRILLING OPERATIONS Values in milligrams per kilogram (ppm by weight). Boring No. Depth ] TPH Benzene I Toluene [ Ethy,l- I Total Gasoline benzene ,Xylenes TH-4 15' 39 ND 1.287. ND 2.143 TH-4 25' 18 ND ND ND 0.211 TH-4 35' 15 ND 0.188 ND 0.260 TH-4 45' 16 ND 0.137 ND 1.004 TH-5 15' 14 ND ND ND 0.236 TH-5 25' 23 ND 0.142 ND 0.879 TH~5 35' 15 ND ND ND 0.100 TH-5 45' 51 ND 0.259 ND 1.136 TH-6 10' 116 0.162 0.947 ND 7.706 TH-6 20' 8 ND ND ND ND TH-6 30' 17 ND ND ND ND TH-6 40' 12 ND ND ND ND TH-6 50' ND ND ND ND ND TH-7 25' 15 ND ND ND 0.296 TH-7 35' 29 ND 0.132 ND 0.632 TH~7 45' 1.6 ND 0.069 ND 0.592 TH-7 55' 71 ND 0.365 ND 1.615 TH~7 60' 117 0.063 0.805 ND 3.833 A L 1 ~000 1 .... 1 50 50 MRL 1 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 ND: None Detected at or above minimum reporting level (MRL). *' exceeds current recommended guidelines. A L: Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for concentrations in soil. - Recommended guidelines were calculated using the LUFT Manual methodology by multiplying the ~:".. ~ '~' most stringent current federal or state water quality standards by a factor of 1,000 to account for ':' attenuation due to soil composition and distance from groundwater. N S 0 1tl-4 TH-2 iil~fl II1-1 111-6 0 EXCAVATION LIMITS ...... · .-' · ! - ~ ~.~.~.:.. 1 O' FORMER 12,000 GALLON TANKS l O' 20' ::i:i TPH (g) -:: Z,118 1.416 .... "-"." · /-/,/-/~ :' 20' ::':: > 1 O0 Mg/Kg TPH(g) SW/GW __ ~8 -.-.....-' :i >1,000 Mg/Kg " ...... 30' 30' 15 ND 40' SW/SM TPH (g) ,2 40' 16 ... >100 Mg/Kg 1D45' PROJ~CI[D FROM ND 5 O' '" BEHIND LINE 01: ND CROSS 5[CTIO~ 5 0' :~:.'.':.:::..'.::.'::.~'.:::.:.'.'.: TDS0' J'"' ................... 100 ':"':'";"':'":'":'":'":' 60 .... -'i'-'. SW ;.i'":'":"" · ...... . . -..-. SW .... 60' ?4 '.:.' :-'.:-'-: '-:-'.. 70' .:.-.:.-.:.-.:...:...:...:.-.:.- -. ..:.. :.-.: ..: · ~ s ~ ?.!'.~'. j:~!:i!'::i!i~'.";;~i~(-.(!i . .'..'..'..'. .'.:.:;.'-::.i';'"""'"' ....... .'.'.'-'-'-'-'.'-'-'.'-'-'-'-'.' :-' :-'.: '.:.' :.'.. 80' -;i-:-;i-::i';~t;:';'!-;:':-ii-. ........... :';':::::;::;;i ..iii:::::i:;: 80' 31 239 90' 36 i::'-':':!:%':' ...... CL/ML 90' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .......... TDgO' ;~i!i!i?:-:-.--:-:-.--:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.--.--.-~ -:i-: .................... =:-.-i' :i~ .; ...... . ..........:.;.:.;.:.:.. ......... ...;.:.:.:.;.;.:.;...:....:.:.:.:....:.:.;..:..::....~: ~::-:-:::-:':: :: :: ~_._:f'-:: ~""-:"-:'~:~: ~:-::' ::...-...; ;-:..:f :.-_.:.:.~.:.>:.:....::::::.~ ,11 I: .........: .............. """"""""""""""""" ND TPH(g)"" ~ I :;:;:3 1 00' .',.',.'~':',.'.' ...... :','.,'.;.;.,'.,'.,'.:.:-:-:.,'.:.,'.:.:.:.:.:-,'.,'.:.:.:."_~. :::::'-:::::'.:~:( ':':': 1 00' ::',:'-:'-:'.:'-:- SW/GW ..' -."~'~',:'-:'-."~'-."-."-.",.",."-."-."-."~'-."..",."-.",.". Tn~ nn' ::::::::::::::::::::::::: > 10 Mg/Kg .....,.. ~ ~ . .... ~ ............... ~'.. °..'..'..'.. '-. ~.: ........... -.:.~. '. LEGEND WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE 1" = 20' SERVICE STATION//29 " SW- WELL GRADED SAND 210~ BRUNDAGE LANE '~ SW/GW- WELL GRADED GRAVELI.Y SAND BAKERSFIELD. CAI. IFOFINIA SW/SM- WELL GRADED SIi_TY SAND FIGt~tI: 4 - (}ROSS SEC] ION A-A' ML- SILT CI./lVll - ,c, II IY CI. AY lt()I.(;IIIN, FAIIAN & ASS(')(tlA'FES, INC. W E B p 16' 'J'' 28' 'J" -~lB' 'T' '1' TH-7 TH~I TH-8 TH-S 0 0 10' 10' 20' t'i<<")';:i<:;' 20' SW/GW 30' 30' SW/SM 40' 40' 50' 50' LEGEND WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE 1" = TO' SERVICE STATION//29 SW- WELL GRADED SAND 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE SW/GW- WELL GRADED GRAVEl I_Y SAND BAKEF~SFIELD, CALIFORNIA SW/SM- WELL GRADED SII 'IY SAND FI(~UFIE- 5- CFIOSS SECTION B-B' ML- SILT CL/ML- SILTY CLAY IIOI.(;I~IN, FAIlAN & ASSOCIATES, IN(]. Summaw Tables Page 4 TABLE 3.4 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.'S, SEPTEMBER 9, 199,:1, SITE ASSESSMENT TPHAS ETHYL- TOTAL BORING NO. DEPTH GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (leer BGL) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) MFIL N/A 10 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 TH-8 24 ND ND ND ND ND TH-8 32 ND ND ND ND ND TH-8 40 N D(<MRL) N D 0.128 0.007 0.36 TH-8 48 65 0.269 2.6 0.883 4.5 TH-8 56 N D(<MRL) 0.057 0.248 0.04 0.209 TH-8 64 N D 0.008 ' 0.0'2 N D 0.017 · ' Th-8 "72 N D(<MRL) N D 0.014 N'D N D BGL = Below ground level. MRL = Minimum reporting level, N/A = Not applicable. N D = Not detected. TABLE 3.5 SUMMARY OF BTEX TIER II RISK APPRAISAL RESULTS ANALYTE FINAL DEPTH ZOnE GU MULATIVE CONTAMI N'ATION ACCEPTABLE CONTAMINATION (feet BGL} (ppm) (wlo layer removal) (l:)pm) BENZENE 100 41.96 1,000 TOLUENE 100 602.8 1,000 ETHYL.BENZENE 100 15.36 1,000 TOTAL XYLENES 100 1,174 1 ~000 BGL = Below ground level. APPENDIX C APPROVED PERMIT APPLICATION KEKN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT Application Date: 7-/9-O / 2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 300 ' No. of Wells/Borings:- BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 ~ ~ PTONo.: Well uo(o.: 5/' · APPLICATION AND PEI~yIIT FOR MONITORING WELLS This application is to: ]~[ Constr.~et F-i Modify [] Destroy Type of well/boring [] Groundwater El -Cathodic Protection ~ Test Hole ~ Other Environmcntal Contractor-,.M?;~ W ';~d}', --//~'-f.~,' Liccnsc# and TyI~ "" Proposed stm date: "/ / ' ' } / ~; · .," ._ :' - , l)~plh to groundwater: (ii?/ 'O [,L) ]~ GENEIIA[ CONDITIONS OF THIS PEIIMIT FOIl CONSTIIlJOTION: 1. Well site approval is required before beginning any work related to well construction. It is unlawful to continue work past the stage at which ~ inspection is required unless inspection is waived or completed. 2.Other required inspections include: conductor casing, all annular seals, and £mal construction features. 3. A phone call to the Department office is required on the moming of the day that work is to commence and 24 hours before the placement of any seals or plugs. 4.Gonstruction under this Permit is subject to any instructions by Department representatives. 5. All wells constructed of PVC located at a contaminated site where degradation may occur must be destroyed after two year~ ', or prove no degradation is occurring or has occurred. 6. Any misrepresentation or noncompliance with required Permit Conditions or Ordinance will result in issuance of a "STOP WORK ORDER." 7. A copy of the Department of Water Resources Driller's Report, as well as copies of logs, water quality analyses, and builts of wells must be submitted to the Environmental Health Services Department within 14 days after completion of the work. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT FOIl DESTRUCTION: !. A well destruction application must be filed with this Department if a well is being destroyed that is no.._!t in conjunction with a test hole permit. 2.Destruction procedures must be followed us per UT-50. 3. Placement of the seal must be witnessed by a representative of this Department. Twenty-four-hour advanced notice is required for an appointment. SPECIAl. CONDITIONS: THIS APPBOATION BECOMES A PER~IT WHEN APPI:IOVED APPENDIX D DRILL LOG LEGEND AND DRILL LOG DRILL LOG LEGEND UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Major Divisions Symbols Descriptions ~.:~.~;. WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, UTTLE OR NO "' :' GW ~f~..~ FINES. E i ~ ~ GP NO FINES. Gravels [~ [ ~ GM SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES. ~C CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY blIXTURES. ,,.,,,~;~.~. WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITrLE OR NO FINES. ~.-~..~, SW ,{.',-;;'.-;,:.',": POORLY GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, LITQ_E OR NO ::~ .'..-' ~'.,: ." SP FINES. Sands iltlii!i::ii s. SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES. INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR ME CLAYE'F FINE SANDS, OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTlCrrY. INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICFIY, GRAVELLY Silts & Cloys ct. c~. Liquid Limit < 50. i OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY. I u'u INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR mR SILLY SOILS. E~nC S,LTS. SiltSuq~o u~t & Cloys> so. ~ cH ,.o.~,c c~s o~- .,~. ~,cr~. ~. c~s. Organic Soils /. I. / p~ ~ o~ om[~ .~.t~ o~c so~s. CONSTRUCTION SAMPLING ~ CEMENT '." SAMPLING INTERVAL: ~ BENTONITE GROUT NO SAMPLE RETRIEVED ~ BENTONITE CHIPS SAMPLING INTERVAL: ~ FILTER PACK SAMPLE RETRIEVED WELL SCREEN SAMPLING INTERVAL: ~ SLUFF PACKAGED FOR LAB TRAFFIC RATED I I WELL BOX ~ LOCKING WELL CAP ¥7 INITIAL WATER LEVEL RILL LOG Job No. W029-002 Job Name World Oil Station No. 29 Site Assessment Site Owner World Oil Location 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California BORING NO.:TH-9 Surface Elev. Total Hole Depth. 106.5 ft. Diameter _8 in. I CDHMENT$,' Top of Casing Water Level: Initial no water encountered ~ Hand auger first 4 feet. Screen: Dia. N/A Length N/A T~i~ --- ILocated in center of Casing: Oia. N/A Length N/A Type N/A I former tank pit. Drilling Co.. A & R Drillinq, Inc. Filter Pack N/A . ~ Borehole abandoned using Rig CME 75 Hi-TorqUe Method Hollow Stem Auger ~ bentonite slurry capped Driller Renaldo Boca Logged by W. F. Gimlamo ~ with portland cement. Date ~ 8/~ PermitNo:- --- i Checked by: W. F. Girolamo Ucense No. R. G. 5723 J SampLe BLow ID Court-I:/ Description oder. 1'-16' Po~ Croded SN~ FT.L (S?) 100~ me(lure smd mlh o boce of c~ome sond, qulor, dork yde~ onqe (m~ 6/6). kx~ stghUy mo~ no odor. 10 TH9-6.5 12 -- TH9-11.5 THg-16,§ 11 16'-18' say ~ (sa) 6o~ r~e smd, 4~ non-dosGc sat, dark yeio~h bn)m (IOYR 4/2). ~e. d,y to =r,#y ,,,oisL. no odor. 18'-4.3.5' Poody CrodecI S/WI) (SP) 100~ medium ongulor s~nd, with boca of mJbrOUnded gr~ to flMWW, lOC ®DRILL LOG ~. ~ o~ ~ W029-002, World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, California BORING NO.' TH-9 S(lmp[e Brow ID Count/ ])escrip-tion Recover' TH9-21.5 5 Rx~ C~lal S~ql) (SP) as above, becm=s me~um to c~e ~1~ dep~ ~ <IO'Z s~brour~l~l gr~ te O~k, re TH9-;~6.5 16 15 30 -- =m~ = ~ ~m~ ~ angular, mode~ )dai~ I~m (1~ 5/4), d~/to ~ TH9-31,5 5'0 moist, no oax, I~com~s mm~um (la~e b ~ ~h ~ TH9-41.5 P3 ~. IIIgUlUl. 1110. ODRILL LOG .~. ~o~ W029-002, World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA BORING NO.' TH-9 ]epth PI]) S(xmp[e Brow Gr(xphlc (?t.> (ppm> I]) Count/ Log ])escription Recovery --46- TH9-46,5 49 '.~"-"~ . ~ ~' IIIIlilJUJ. 1110. IDRILL LOG W029-002, World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA BORING NO.' TH-9 Sample Brow I]3 Count/ Description Recover' THg-7G.5 O,5-in. at 76.5 fi. TH9-91,5 91'6525' SIT (1~.) 70~ nm-elastic ~ sit, 20~ rme angular sand, I(~ cloy, stgblly pbsSc, mo(lerote yelow~h tx'own (1OWl 5/4), soft, sightly fn~ fnodeo~ hydrocmbm 50, 9525'-100.75' Poedy (;roded SI~ND (SP) I~ Fie t~ TH9-96 6/6), dense, dr/to sr~hlly moist, mederote h~ ada'. NIIIUILU. lOC el)RILL LOG W029-002, World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA BORING NO.' TH-(. SampJe BJow ID Count/ Description Recover' 16__ TH9-101,5 19 100.'~-1017~'~[T (MI.) !0~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~m~ ~mxl. dom~ ~ ormge ($OYR B/B), so~ loi75'-1o6.5' ~temoUn~ 6-k. ~ o( Poody Groded Send (S~) 100X fine to mdum onguk]r smd. modefote )'eloeish brown (10)R 5/4), medium dmse, dp/to srKjiflly meist, ~ CkAY (Cl.) 7ox mode,]b~ pk~c doy, ~ fine smd, 10~ ~ d~k)do.~ bom (ImR 4/2), TH9-106,5 9myish oive (10Y 4/2), foint Io modeflde h)fln)c~rbon odor. IIMIIJLU. INC. APPENDIX E WASTE MANIFESTS ; "0g/21/01 1;RI 13:42 FiX 949 4~1177 B E.S I r7~002 Fo: B2S~ A~: 9194~1177 t~u ~m ~uu~; ~ep-~l-~ :Z~P~; Page 1/ ~S ~hnologles So~ g~cli~ Non-Hu~ou~ ~ils WORLD OIL CORPO~ON ~ 93~ S, G~ELD AVENUE JOHN HUND~ WORLD OIL ~29 ~ ~ c~a~: T~ 800- 86Z-8~1 TPS TECHNOL.O~, INC. ~e~ m 1Z~Z~ ~B~C~ AVENUE DARREN ~RTL~'r ADE~NTO, ~ ~1 ~ixe 76~Z~-8~4 Tr~r~r Name and Mai~& A~r~: Tr~'s~ I: Tr~'s US EPA ~ 94~ 4~-~OtO CA~833~81 254~ TR~UCO R~D ~[05-269 ~RRY MOOT~RT ~KE FORE~T, ~ 92630 F~.: c~,o~Ac~t N~ wi~T~ hnd ~ O~O 10-~ ~ ~mI Q / S~t ~pl~ted and cerfi~ ~ ~ ~r f~ ~t~ Site s~ n~ ~ notMng ~ ~ ad~ ~ ~ ~ ~h ~D t~t ~M ~f~ ~t ~RRY UOOT~RT BEll for WORLD OIL ca.ilion ~s w~n ~. I~e ~ ~t~ ~t thi~ ~tl i~ t~ Site t~ f~ ~i~f~ Facttity ~ubt~i~m ~ in TPS FACILITY COPY ............... [~.(105 09/21/01 FRi 13:45 FA~ 9:!9 450 1117 B.E.S.1. - ~ ......... ........................... eNO. NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE DATA FORM WORIJ~ O~.L C~~Og ~f'O~LP ~I~. ~ COM~N~ OF W~ PPM ~ C~PON~T~ O~ W~ WA6TE ~ pescRm~ ~s ~ ~ ...... _ ~M ENflO KER~OON N~ ~ C~P~, C~ ~.'2~ ~ · , ~.~" 3~.~-~-'r ~O PN~ NO. ~ $ NONE ,, APPENDIX F SOIL LABORATORY REPORT AND C-O-C RECORDS ANALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 1 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA Project No.: A291822 Project No.: WO29-002 Date Received: 08/02/01 Project Name: WO #29 Date Reported: 08/09/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8015M (GRO) Date Date AA I.D. No. Client I.D. No. Sampled Analyzed Results MRL 124313 TH 9-6.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 < 0.5 0.5 124314 TH9-11.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 < 0.5 0.5 · 124315 TH9~I 6.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 < 0.5 0.5 124316 TH9-21.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 <0.5 0.5 124317 TH9-26.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 < 0.5 0.5 124318 TH9-31.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 <0.5 0.5 1243 19 TH9-36.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 <0.5 0.5 124320 TH9-41.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 < 0.5 0.5 124321 TH9-46.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 <0.5 0.5 124322 TH 9-51.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 1200 0.5 124323 TH 9-56.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 320 0.5 124324 TH 9-61.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 2900 0.5 124325 TH 9-66.25 08/01/01 08/06/01 4100 0.5 124326 TH9-71.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 3000 0.5 124327 TH 9-76.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 2300 0.5 124328 TH9-81.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 180 0.5 124329 TH 9-86.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 < 0.5 0.5 124330 TH9-91.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 1.7 0.5 124331 TH 9-96 08/01/01 08/06/01 3.9 0.5 124332 TH9-101.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 < 0.5 0.5 ...., ~ 124333 TH9-106.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 140 O. 5. MRL: Method Reporting Limit NOTES: GRO: Gasoline Range Organics George Haval~' / Laboratory D~r~cto~ r / American Analytics · 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth. California 913'11 LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT ; ANALYTICS Page 1 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA ID No.: 124313 Project Name: WO #29 Project No.: WO29-002 Method: EPA 8015M (GRO) AA Project No.: A291822 Sample ID: Matrix Spike Date Analyzed: 08/03/01 Concentration: 0.5 mg/Kg Date Reported: 08/10/01 Spike Dup. Spike/Dup. Result Recovery Result Recovery RPD Accept. Rec. Compounds (mg/Kg) (%) (mg/Kg) (%) (%) Range (%) Gasoline Range Organics 0.45 90.0 0.5 100.0 10,5 50 - 150 George Havali~ / Laboratory~ect°r American Analytics · 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 9131'! ANALYTICS LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT Page 1 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA ID No.: 124321 Project Name: we #29 Project No.: WO29-002 Method: EPA 8015M (GRO) AA Project No.: A291822 Sample ID: Matrix Spike Date Analyzed: 08/06/01 Concentration: 0.5 mg/Kg Date Reported: 08/10/01 Spike Dup. Spike/Dup. Result Recovery Result Recovery RPD Accept. Rec. Compounds (mg/Kg) (%) (mg/Kg) (%) (%) Range (%) Gasoline Range Organics 0.44 88.0 0.45 90.0 2.2 50 - 150 George Laborato~70/¢tor American Analytics · 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, Calilornia 9'13't~ T~ { AMERICA~ ANALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 1 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA Project No.: A291822 Project No.: WO29-002 Date Received: 08/02/01 Project Name: WO #29 Date Reported: 08/09/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8020 (BTEX) Date Sampled: 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 Date Analyzed: 08/03/01 08/03/01 08/03/01 08/03/01 AA ID No.: 124313 124314 124315 124316 Client ID No.: TH9-6.5 TH9-11.5 TH9-16.5 TH9-21.5 MRL Compounds: Benzene <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 , 0.002 Ethylbenzene <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002 Toluene < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.002 Xylenes < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.002 American Analytics · 9765 Eton Avenue. Chatsworth. C~lifornia 913't1 ANALYTICS ~ LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 2 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA Project No.: A291822 Project No.: WO29-002 Date Received: 08/02/01 Project Name: WO #29 Date Reported: 08/09/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8020 (BTEX) Date Sampled: 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 Date Analyzed: 08/03/01 08/03/01 08/03/01 08/03/01 AA ID No.: 124317 124318 124319 124320 Client ID No.: TH9-26.5 TH9-31.5 TH9-36.5 TH9-41.$ MRL Compounds: Benzene <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 '0.002 Ethylbenzene <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002 Toluene <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002 Xylenes < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.002 George Havali~S / Laboratory Director / American Analytics · 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth. Cai ,'ornia 9'!311 ANALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 3 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA Project No.: A291822 Project No.: WO29-002 Date Received: 08/02/01 Project Name: WO #29 Date Reported: 08/09/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8020 (BTEX) Date Sampled: 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 Date Analyzed: 08/06/01 08/06/01 08/06/01 08/06/01 AA I D No.: 124321 124322 124323 124324 Client ID No.: TH9-46.5 TH9-51.5 TH9-56.5 TH9-61.5 MRL Compounds: Benzene < 0,002 1.5 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.002 Ethylbenzene <0,002 26 2.9 50 0.002 Toluene <0.002 50 3,5 54 0.002 Xylenes 0.0067 140 22 300 0.002 American Analytics * 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth. California 913'I-! ANALYTICSJ LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 4 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA Project No.: A291822 Project No,: WO29-002 Date Received: 08/02/01 Project Name: WO #29 Date Reported: 08/09/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8020 (BTEX) Date Sampled: 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 Date Analyzed: 08/06/01 08/06/01 08/06/01 08/06/01 AA ID No.: 124325 124326 124327 124328 Client ID No.: TH9-66.25 TH9-71.5 TH9-76.5 TH9-81.5 MRL Compounds: Benzene 0.96 <0.25 <0.25 <0.05 0.002 Ethylbenzene 97 65 46 1.6 0.002 Toluene 110 76 52 1.7 0.002 Xylenes 540 380 300 13 0.002 George Hava!ias_/~~ ~~/~/~' ' Laboratory D~rector / American Analytics * 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, Cali~orni~ 9~3'~'~ T_ .... ; '~ .~ .~ ', '~ .~ ~ _ '7, ~, z. ~ ANALYTICSJ LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 5 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA Project No.: A291822 Project No.: WO29-002 Date Received: 08/02/01 Project Name: we #29 Date Reported: 08/09/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8020 (BTEX) Date Sampled: 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 Date Analyzed: 08/06/01 08/06/01 08/06/01 08/06/01 AA ID No.: 124329 124330 124331 124332 Client ID No.: TH9-86.5 TH9-91.5 TH9-96 TH9o101.5 MRL Compounds: Benzene <0.002 0.021 <0.002 0.0028 0.002 Ethyl benzene 0.0058 0.046 0.021 0.0057 0.002 Toluene 0.024 0.32 0.022 0.041 0.002 XYlenes 0.053 0.30 0.18 0.059 0.002 George Hava!i/a/~i/ LaboratorgT~tor American Analytics · 9765 Eton Avenue. Chatsworth. Californic 9'13.1! ANALY'TICS~ LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 6 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA Project No.: A291822 Project No.: WO29-002 Date Received: 08/02/01 Project Name: we #29 Date Reported: 08/09/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8020 (BTEX) Date Sampled: 08/01/01 Date Analyzed: 08/06/01 AA ID No.: 124333 Client ID No.: TH9-106.5 MRL Compounds: Benzene <0.05 0.002 Ethylbenzene 0.62 0.002 Toluene 0.45 0.002 Xylenes 4.5 0.002 MRL: Method Reporting Limit George Havali~s//' ./ Laboratory Director / American Analytics · 9765 Eton Avenue, Chc~tsworth. Cc]litornia 9'!31t ANALYTICS Page 1 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA ID No.: 124313 Project Name: WO #29 Project No.: WO29-002 Method: EPA 8020 (BTEX) AA Project No.: A291822 Sample ID: Matrix Spike Date Analyzed: 08/03/01 Concentration: 0.04 mg/Kg Date Reported: 08/10/01 Spike Dup. Spike/Dup. Result Recovery Result Recovery RPD Accept. Rec. Compounds (rog/Kg) (%) (rog/Kg) (%) (%) Range (%) Benzene 0.036 89.00 0.036 90.00 1.12 65 - 135 Ethylbenzene 0.035 88.00 0.035 88.00 0.00 77 - 123 Toluene 0.036 90.00 0.035 88.00 2.25 66 - 134 Xylenes 0.035 88.00 0.035 88.00 0.00 73 - 127 George H avali/as/ Laboratory ~ifector American Analytics · 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 9'13-11 ANALYTICS LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT ~ Page 1 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA ID No.: 124321 Project Name: WO #29 Project No.: WO29-002 Method: EPA 8020 (BTEX) AA Project No.: A291822 Sample ID: Matrix Spike Date Analyzed: 08/06/01 Concentration: 0.04 mg/Kg Date Reported: 08/10/01 Spike Dup. Spike/Dup. Result Recovery Result Recovery RPD Accept. Rec. Compounds (mg/Kg) (%) (mg/Kg) (%) (%) Range (%) Benzene 0,041 103.00 0.042 105.00 1.92 65 - 135 Ethylbenzene 0.046 115.00 0.043 108.00 6.28 77 - 123 Toluene 0.047 118.00 0.043 108.00 8.85 66 - 134 Xylenes 0.047 118.00 0.043 108.00 8.85 73 - 127 George Ha LaboratorYTirector American Analytics · 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatswarth. Ca[ilorn a 9'~3~.1 ANALYTICS .~ LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 1 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA Project No.: A291822 Project No.: WO29-002 Date Received: 08/02/01 Project Name: we #29 Date Reported: 08/09/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: MTBE (EPA 8020) Date Date AA I.D. No. Client I.D. No. Sampled Analyzed Results MRL 124313 TH9-6.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 < 0.02 0.02 124314 TH9-11.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 <0.02 0.02 124315 TH9-16.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 < 0.02 0.02 124316 TH9-21.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 < 0.02 0.02 124317 TH9-26.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 < 0.02 0.02 124318 TH9-31.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 <0.02 0.02 124319 TH9-36.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 < 0.02 0.02 124320 TH9-41.5 08/01/01 08/03/01 <0.02 0.02 124321 TH9-46.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 <0.02 0.02 124322 TH 9-51.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 < 0.5 0.02 124323 TH9-56.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 < 2 0.02 124324 TH 9-61.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 < 2 0.02 124325 TH9-66.25 08/01/01 08/06/01 < 2 0.02 124326 TH 9-71.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 < 2.5 0.02 124327 TH 9-76.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 < 2.5 0.02 124328 TH9-81,5 08/01/01 08/06/01 < 0.5 0.02 124329 TH 9-86.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 < 0.02 0, 02 124330 TH 9-91.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 < 0.02 0.02 124331 TH9-96 08/01/01 08/06/01 <0.02 0.02 124332 TH9-101.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 <0.02 0.02 124333 TH9-106.5 08/01/01 08/06/01 < 0.5 0.02 MRL: Method Reporting Limit George Havalia~,~i/ /, Laboratory Director / Ame(ican Analytics * 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California & ANALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 1 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA Project No.: A2.91822 Project No.: WO29-002 Date Received: 08/02/01 Project Name: WO #29 Date Reported: 08/10/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8260B (BTEX,Oxygenates) Date Sampled: 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 Date Analyzed: 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 AA ID No.: 124322 124323 124324 124325 Client ID No.: TH9-51.5 TH9.56.5 TH9-61.5 TH9-66.25 MRL Compounds: Benzene 0.45 0.036 0.34 '< 0.2 0.002 Di-isopropyl Ether <0.25 <0.025 <0.25 <0.5 0.005 Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether < 0.25 < 0.025 < 0.25 < 0.5 0.005 Ethylbenzene 24 2.7 53 80 0.002 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether <0.25 <0.025 <0.25 <0.5 0.005 Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether <0.25 <0.025 <0.25 <0.5 0.005 Toluene 49 3.4~ 59 100 0.002 m, p-Xylenes 120 17 290 400 0.002 o-Xylene 44 7.4 110 150 0.002 tert-Butanol < 1 - < O. 1 < 1 < 2 0.02 George Havalia~J Laboratory/~tor American Analytics * 9765 Eton Avenue. Chatsworth, Cclifornia 9'13'!'~ ANALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 2 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA Project No.: A291822 Project No.: WO29-002 Date Received: 08/02/01 Project Name: we #29 Date Reported: 08/10/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8260B (BTEX,Oxygenates) Date Sampled: 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 Date Analyzed: 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 AA ID No.: 124326 124327 124328 124329 Client ID No.: TH9-71.5 TH9-76.5 TH9-81.5 TH9-86.5 MRL Compounds: Benzene <0.2 <0.2 <0.02 <0.002 0.002 Di-isopropyl Ether <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.005 0.005 Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.005 0.005 Ethylbenzene 54 40 1.5 0.0070 0.002 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.005 0.005 Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.005 0.005 Toluene 66 44 1.6 0.022 0.002 m, p-Xylenes 280 220 9.8 0.046 O. 002 o-Xylene 110 90 4.8 0.032 0.002 tert-Butanol <2 <2 <0.2 <0.02 0.02 George HavallaS~/ / Laboratory Dir~/~tor / American Analytics * 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth. Ccliforni:~ 9'13-1'! ANALYTICS LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 3 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA Project No.: A291822 Project No.: WO29-002 Date Received: 08/02/01 Project Name: WO #29 Date Reported: 08/10/01 Sample Matrix: Soil Units: mg/Kg Method: EPA 8260B (BTEX. Oxygenates) Date Sampled: 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 08/01/01 Date Analyzed: 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 08/09/01 AA ID No.: 124330 124331 124332 124333 Client ID No.: TH9-91.5 TH9-96 TH9-101.5 TH9-106.5 MRL Compounds: Benzene 0.017 <0.002 < 0.002 < 0,02 0.002 Di-isopropyl Ether <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 0.005 Ethyl ten-Butyl Ether < 0.005 <0.005 < 0.005 < 0.05 0.005 Ethylbenzene 0.062 0.011 <0.002 0.52 0.002 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 0.005 Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.05 0.005 Toluene 0.40 0.014 0.017 0.42 0.002 m.p-Xylenes 0.31 0.065 0.012 3.4 0.002 o-Xylene 0.15 0.039 0.0090 1.7 0.002 tert-Butanol < 0.02 <0.02 < 0.02 < 0.2 0.02 MRL: Method Reporting Limit LGaeb°~rga(~oHr~~~t o~/r American Analytics * 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 9~3~ ANALYTICS LABORATORY QA/QC REPORT ~ Page 1 Client: World Oil Marketing Company AA ID No.: 124332 Project Name: WO #29 Project No.: WO29-002 Method: EPA 8260B (BTEX, Oxygenates) AA Project No.: A291822 Sample ID: Matrix Spike Date Analyzed: 08/09/01 Concentration: 0.04 mg/Kg Date Reported: 08/10/01 Spike Dup. Spike/Dup. Result Recovery Result Recovery RPD Accept. Rec. Compounds (rog/Kg) (%) (rog/Kg) (%) (%) Range (%) Benzene 0.0392 98.00 0.0394 99.00 1.02 50 - 150 Ethylbenzene 0.0428 107.00 0.0434 109.00 1.85 50 - 150 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether 0.0340 85.00 0.0335 84.00 1.18 50 - 150 Toluene 0.0413 103.00 0.0422 106.00 2.87 50 - 150 m,p-Xylenes 0.0435 109.00 0.0446 112.00 2.71 50 - 150 o-Xylene 0.0445 111.00 0.0458 115.00 3.54 50 - 150 George Haval~r'''' Laboratory Director / American Analytics · 9765 Eton Avenue, Chatsworth, California 9t3'I'~ WORLD OIL MARKIg'FI/N(J COMPA/NY South Gate, Ca 90280-3896 Phone (310) 928-0100 F~ (310) 928-0391 ~oord Labg TAT: ~24Hr ~48Hr ~72Hr ~Normal(5Days) ~Other( , SHIPPED VIA: ~Walkln ~Courler ~FedEx ~Other( ) SAMPLE ~D MATRIX ~ DOTE'::~ EiiME,~:I~B:iD,:: :~:::~:~5 '::":STo~SEUDGE&~A, IER:':;~ -/7/'~--i~ . : o~o~ i~ff.~ x ..~.. ~ / ,~ .... :~ ~ . .: Tp 5 -.?~ ..:- . ~A~PLER~ NA~ ? t -' /,~ Printed Name: ~ Printed Name: Printed Name: Signature: ~' Signature: ~l ~>~ Signature: ..... ~~~ / //~j' ~-- Data.line: Date~ime: ~ RECEIVED BY: 2):'RECEIVED <7~' ~ ~ ~]~ Printed Name: Printed Name: Printud Name: ~ ~ ~ Signature: Signature: Si~nature: ~ ~/~/,~{ ~=~ ~ Dategime: Dategime: D~te/Time: WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY 9302 South Garfield Avenue Anal~ical Laborato~: South Gate, Ca 90280-3896 Phone (310) 928-0100 F~ (310) 928-0391 8~oord Lab~ SITE/STATION ~ ~ :~:~:~ CONSULTAN ,~ IX/ z ~ . o o PROdECT ~: ~)0 ~J~-OO~ PROJECT NAME: ~:'tf~ , TAT: ~24Hr ~48Hr ~72Hr ~Normal(SDays) ~Other( )' SHIPPED VIA: DWalkln DCourler ~FedEx DOther( ) z ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m O SAMPLE ID MATRIX .DA~E?:: ~.::~i~=:::~::~B:iD~::5:::~;:::::::::::: -~--zi~)' -- ~ 1. b'- ,~ ~' t~b~ I~ff 330 .), ]/) 6.//,~1d./4.~? ~~ COMMENTS: SAMPLERS NAME 1) RELINQUISHED aY: ': ~3)~ RE LINQUi:S:H E~ :B~:::: Printed Name: ~ ~ ) ~ ~A;~/~ ~ Printed Name: Printed Name: s~..,ure: ~'2~'~.~' Date/Time: ~///0 / /~ ~--- Date~ime:Slgnature: Data.line:Signature: 1) RECEIVED BY: : :; :2) RECEIVED B~t Printed Name: ~-~ ~:~ ~ Printed Name: Printed Name: Signature: ~/~ ' Signature: Signature: Date/Time: g/'~4~ [~ ~ ""' ':' Date~ime: Date~ime: WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY 9302 S. Garfield Avenue South Gate, CA 90280 Phone: (562) 928-0100 Fax: (562) 928-0391 Re: ,~/~/~:~'g',~/::>~d~' Zx2 Pages: CC: ~[~gent I~_or Review [] Please Comment [] Please Reply [] Please Recycl WORLD OIL MARKETIN( COMPANY February 14, 2001 Inspector Steve Underwood City of Bakersfield Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue, Suite 3 Bakersfield, CA 93301 RECEIVED Re: World Oil Marketing Company Former Service Station #29 ~ p.'l2001 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield nV CES Dear Insp. Underwood: As discussed in our conversation on Monday, February 12, 2001, World is enclosing all of our records regarding the referenced site for your files. The documents included are as follows: CORRESPONDENCE: 1. Letter from BFD to Sunco Oil regarding Underground Storage Tanks Violations, dated August 7, 1992. (Sent 2-12-0'1) 2. Letter from World to BFD confirming bids for tank removal were being requested, dated. . August 14, 1992. (Sent 2-'12-0'1) 3. Permit Application for Removal of an Underground Storage Tank issued by BFD, dated October 15, 1992. (Sent 2-12-01) 4. Letter from BFD to World regarding Laboratory Results from Preliminary Site Assessment, dated January 6, 1993. 5. Letter from BFD to World regarding the Workplan for the Site is Satisfactory, dated February 17, 1993. 6. Letter from World to BFD regarding the Preliminary Site Characterization, dated April 23, 1993. 7. Letter from BFD to World regarding Review of the Preliminary Site Characterization, dated May 21, 1993. 8. Meeting with BFD, dated June 16, 1993. 9. Letter from BFD to World regarding the Workplan for the Site is Satisfactory, dated August 24, 1993. 9302 SO. GARFIELD AVENUE, SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA 90280-3896 P.O. BOX 1966. SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA 90280-1966 TEL. (562) 928-0100 · FAX. (562) 928-3234 City of Bakersfield Fire De"l~l~ment February 14, 2001 Former Service Station//29 2101 Brundage Lane 10. Letter from World to BFD regarding Environmental Risk Assessment Supporting Request for a 'No Further Action" Determination, dated November 23, 1993. 11. Letter from BFD to World regarding Closure of Four Tanks, dated December 8, 1993. (Sent 2-12-0'/) 12. Letter from World to BFD regarding Schedule to Backfill and Pave, dated December 21, 1993. REPORTS: 1. Tank Closure Report, Earth Systems .Environmental, Inc., dated November 18, 1992. (Sent 2-12-01) 2. Workplan for Underground Storage Tank Site Soil Characterization, Earth Systems Environmental, Inc., dated February 5, 1993 '% 3. Preliminary Site Characterization, Earth Systems Environmental, Inc., dated April 22, 1993. 4. Work Plan for Additional Site Characterization and Risk Assessment, Holguin, Fahan and Associates, dated July 30, 1993. 5. Risk Assessment Report, Holguin, Fahan and Associates, Inc., dated November 23, 1993. If you have any questions or require anything further please contact me at (562) 928-0100. Sincerely, WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY Associate Environmental Engineer CI T Y of BAKER SFIELD "WE CARE" FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON August 7, 1992 BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Sunco Oil Company 9302 South Garfield Avenue Southgate, CA 90280 Attn: Richard Roth Mr. Roth, It has come to our attention that you currently own property located at 2101 Brundage Lane (APN 147-261-08), Bakersfield, CA which contains at least one underground storage tank. The tank has been out of service and you are in violation of the following sections of code. California H&SC: Sec. 25284(a), Failure to obtain a permit to own and operate an underground storage Facility for Hazardous Material; Sec. 25298, Failure to properly close an underground tank; Sec. 2587(a&b), Failure to pay city fees and state surcharge for underground tanks; Sec. 2529F, Failure to monitor and maintain records. Uniform Fire Code: Sec. 79.115 (a,b,& f); (a) Failure to remove or safeguard an out of service tank(s), (b) Failure to obtain an permit to remove or temporarily close an underground tank(s), (f) Failure to remove an underground tank out of service for one (1) year. Violations of the Health and Safety Code are punishable by fines of not less than $500.00 or more than $5,000.00 per day, per violation, per tank. ? / The Uniform Fire Code viOlations are misdemeanor offenses and punishable by fines and imprisonment. Please make arrangements to properly abandon the tank(s) by September 30,.1992 to avoid further action. If you have any questions Please contact me at (805) - 326 - 3797. · Sincerely, ~Joe' A. Dunwooa!~---. // Hazardous Material Specialist ~/ Underground Tank Program · WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY P.O. BOX 1966 .. August 14, 1992 SOUTH GATE. CA 9028~1966 · (213) 560-8801 FAX (213) 928-0391 ~~~r. Joe Dunwoody · ~ Hazardous Materials Specialist Underground Tank Program City of Bakersfield 2101 "H". Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: your letter dated August 7, 1992 pertaining to 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, CA Dear Mr. Dunwoody: Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.-- We will immediately begin obtaining bids to remove these tanks in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Please contact me with any further questions. Sincerely, L-JD08. 142 9302 S. GARFIELD AVENUE, SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA 90280-3896 Bakersfield-Fire De~ PERMII~iil~..-~~ ' ~NDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PR~ PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF AN UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITE INFORMATION ' SITE " ADDRESS~IOi ~UM~ZIP CODE ~0V APN ' FACILI~ NAME ~ 01~ CROSS STREET ~ L~~ ~7. TANK OWNER/OPERATOR f~o~LD Ot~ PHONE No. ~1~- ~ CON.ACTOR INFORMATION COMPANY~~ ~~U~ PHONE N~/~) ~ I~1 LICENSE No, ~e INSURANCE CARRIER ~1~ ~ /~ '~M WORKMENS COMP No. ~ ~ 7~ PEELIMANAEy ASSEMENT INFORMATION COMPANY~u ~ ~. 'PHONE No.(~gTZ-HT~ LICENSE No. INSURANCE CARRIER rl~J ~N~ WORKMENS COMP No, ~X~OE~p TANK CLEANING INFORMATION ADDRESS ~. ~O~ ~g~¢ · ' CIW ~~~ ZIP CODE WASTE TRANSPORTER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ~gZ} ~ D NAME OF RINSTATE DISPOSAL FACILIW ~/&~O~ FACIMW INDENTIFICATION NUMBER ~ y~ ~ / 77 TANK ~ANSPORTER INFORMATION ' COMPANY ~ ~//E~E~ PHONE No.~~-~ LICENSE ADDRESS ~,~y ~ CIW ~~~ ZIP CODE TANK DESTINATION ~~ ~~ ~Z~ ~~ TANK INFORMATION TANK 'No.':-~.-AGE VOLUME CHEMICAL DATES CHEMICAL STORED STORED PREVIOUSLY STORED THE APPUCANT HAS RECEIVED, UNDERSTANDS, AND WILl. COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT AND ANY OTHER STATE° LOCAL AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. THISpRM ~I~S BEEN COMPLETED UNDER PENALTY oF PERJURY, AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. IS TRUE AND CORRECT. . //~PPROVED BY: ~~ APPLICANT NAME (PRINT) ~__~[I-~NT SIGN'ATURE THIS APPLICATION._ BECOMES A PERMIT WHEN APPROVED ___ ..... '~ i MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE "CITY OF BAKERSFIELD" Plot Plan must Show the following: - Roa~ and alleys ~ , ~ 3. location of tanks, piping, and dispens~rs 4. utilities 5. SCALE 7. ony:o~ho~ rolovon~ infor~oflon RCV BY: Il-II-(J2 ; 9:,~IAM ~ d Callfomlo--rmvimnmemol Proftcti~ A~ f' · ' ~ A~ ~ ~o. ~ (~ 9.~) See Ins~u~io~ on ~ck o. ~ W~TE ~NI~T 5. T~o~ I ~ny ~ 6. US ~A ~ ~ 7. Tz~o~f 2 C~p~y Name 8. US EPi DO NOT W~TE' BELOW THiS*LIN~ . .,. :.: : · .... . ... ?. . .:,, .:-. ?:,;;:.~:, ....,:~ ~..'.../.,. :~ ,':.: '.. : 81~ ~RAT~ SENDS ~1S CO~ TO DTSC ~IN Phon~ (~5) 327-3~59 · Fax' (BO5) 227-5749 ]Conlraclor~s Phone DEBTINATION: G. ~..M, · 2000 E. DRUNDAC~E LANE - BAKERSFIELD, BED PERMIT NO' ANK INSPEC~ ~LE~ READING OXYGEN CONTE~ DISPOSAL FEE ................. __ SCRAP VALUE ..................... All lees Ineu~ed are p~r load un~sss~clfled. T~rms net ~0 deye from re~elpl of teak. Contrector's signature representseO0eptenceofterms for payment.oo~ cnn[t~ms that tank re~ovel ~omplles wllh ~talo lewd. CERTIFICATE OF TANK DISPOgAL / DESTRUCTION THIS I~ TO CERTIFY THE RECEIPT AND ACC~P'I'Ah'&I: c>~' 1 I Ct. 'rAt~(~l ~C ~,~l~;CId]f~[~ A¢~Ov~. Al, I. MATERIAL SP~OIFI~ W~I,L R~ OOMPI. ~FI.V RCV BY: ._1_1-18-92:11:27AM : .._('.CI_T)'._(J,'?, _.Wo.r_ld.,O__i.I.C,'o_rp,..:Z# 4. N°. 10369 GOLDEN STATE' METALS, 1NC. TANK DISPOSAL FORM P', O, ~X 70~{~1~ ' ;'t.~)O I:, I~'i~¢|;~l~ I ar~! f .......................... ',~c R" 3:!7 I-~-O -~n ~l~'~'~-~"''~'~'''~ .............. - ......... PhOr~O (805) $2? .,~..~ · Fax (R. 05) S74~ No. ........................................... I..~?.?... ...... ~?~.g~__~ - _ ...... (%_[ ...... .................... ,-., ItRUND3OE ........ L~NE · BAKFRSFIEt ~, CA 03387 . _ .~.=~. v .~ ~~v_i>~.¢.~__¢.... ~ . >_~¢~. ye ~ . . ...... i ................. WEI6HT 1- ......... -'~- ,--~~""~-""- ...............I ~ E~SO PERm ~o. ~ ................. :: ....... : .~, _ ........ __~ ............................................ [ ~'~ I ~" '~"~'"";~'%" :~i:; '~ '='~":'~"'~&~:'~ ..... '" ""'~t}'~i~'~" . .. ~..., .... . ........... ....,~ .......... :.~..~~ ....... COUNT~, K INSPECTION ...... ~;,~, .,* .... .'~'. '.'?; :;..:, ............................. ............. ~ .~ ' :' ~ ' ;~:', ' : r" ·: t~ "':,'~wi~=:;:4':: ~ :".;::~:::. ' :;~%~ ~+ 'L49;;:~:~ a]i'~4 :: ~ RESIDUALS PRESENT [R EJECl ) ~0 1,32 :;..~.i: ': ~., ~ .. ~:.? :..,~ ........ :: fl~a'!:~.~.=>..:[.~:~;~{~ ;~i~; a~n.:: :~=..~. LEL REAOING ................ ~ooo ~,4~ :,~k'~' ;'~ ........ ~'~?~':?:~'~?', ';::'":';',~¥ ;~ ::;~.:fi :'~;'~:'~:?: .;.:. ~. ~.;~,~,~,,~..~ ~ ........ ~.;...i :~:..~... ,I..,,. ~.,a ........ ~ ........ .., OXYGEN CONTENI ................ '/~o DISPOSAL FEE .:~:.~ ~,. ~a,,;, .:.*~::,,.,;,,.~m =:~.~;~c..."~..;<' ............... ~ . ~ORAP VALUE ;,~,,~.,a~'"~.~. ..... ~,~:~,.~..~..:~..c:~:;:;.:.~~.:~:=.=~ ................ ~ '=~ , , ~'~ I net 30 days f~ ~0~elpt el lank. Cbntr;~r's represent s acoepl0nce of le r ~ for psyment, ;~n ~ con Ih ms thai tBnE ~emoval ~ol,plles with Stere CONTRACTOR'S $iONA'rUR OERTIFICA'I'[? OF TANK DISPOSAL t DE$1RUCTION THIS 18 TO CERTIFY THE' R~.C£1PT AND ACCEPTANOf~ l)1 II H. TANK(S) A:; ¢;['H:CiFII!D ll~2Vl~. ALt. MATERIAl. SPECI~I[D WILL 8E ~OMPI..¢TriI.Y DEST~ FOR $¢R~P REOYCUN~R~OSE~ &~IHORIZEO REP, ~E RCV BY: 11-18-92 ;ll:2G^M : CCITT G:3-* World Oil Corp. :# · ,.,..., ', ..... .. ,.,, ,,,: il: , :.. ,, . ., .. '.' ..,,,....... .'.' ]:.' ... ,... , 1034 GOLDEN STATE METALS, INC. TANK DISPOSAL FORM P. O, ~OxS~kGr&fi01~,?01~8, (;nl~rnla~O(~ E. ~.'~md,:ge~33~7 ~no ~ ..... ]Phone No. _ ADBRESS ..... :.' ................ G. S.M. · 2~00 t'.. URUNDAGE LANE , BAKERSFIELD, CA ,aB7 --~O~ D~S~'INA~ON= WEIBHT CERT HO ...... I ............... - ...... - ..... ~ .......... EHSD PERMIT NO; ~TY ~ONS 8EHIA[ NO, NET ~ ........................... _. ~ ._ .-- ~ .~4 ~; ~.~.'"~'%~ ~,~,' .~ , , ~., ...... ..... . ........ ~ .... ~,,~ .... ~ ..,~ _ ~ OLEAN ~ DRY (ACCEPT), On ':.::'~<'~'" ":~':':~"~ ~ ":* '"'~'"" ":"~"'~ ~:~::;': .'~:::~ ~?~ ~. ":~:,,..;~:.~ ' '~ r[.~:': ;.~3E ? ..... ' "'~'1~ ~:!~'.~ .";:' ~ RE. DUAl ~ PRESENT (REJECT) ' ~ ~.~ .~ LEL R~DING ~uo 1,41 ~ OXYGEN G~TENT ........... ... ~o ~.~e .~ ......... ~,..,~ :,,~-~.:. .... .,,~,., ~.. ~ .~::~. ~,,~. ,. ..... ~,=~,.,~ ..... ~18~05~ F~[ ................. ::-,----~ ~ .... ~' ~,',.,¥ '~' ,, ~ ¥,:~:~'.' ::, ~¥~.~,;,. '~ , ~. =~.,~ .~ All fe~B I~OU~O~ ere per to.d Unless ap~c~lied. Term~ aro net 30 dayt from receipt of tan~ ~t~tractor'~ ~lgn~ture represenlg aeeoptan~ of terms for paymeat, :~'d confirms thai tank romoval complies with Stale lawm CON'~ HAC, TOH'$ $1GNAI'~J HE CERTIFICATE OF' TAhlI~ ID~SPO~AL / DESTRUCTION THIS IS TO CERTIFY THE. RI~,CEIPT AND ACCF..PT/~NCE ('~F 'i'H~: '7^f,:K[$2 AD ,~;. F.',.,IH~(D AL~OVQ. ALL MATERIAL SPECIFIED WILl. ill~ COMPLETELY DPST~OYED FOR SCRAP PtECYC, L[NGPURP~t,-,'-", ·, WKF~I*'.. ¢.ontr#,~t~,,Oopy · Y£~LOw--F'deOc~y PtN~,.Pe~nlnenlC~py " RCV BY: ._1_1-18-92 ;II:80AM ; CCITT G3~ World Oil Corp. :# 7 ....i...~.,....,?,.; .. ~ ':~ /:::.ii ii:!~'~ ' ~.~'":'~7,?~ '~?~:?!:":~::".'".~':~'~':""~"': ~.~...~ ~ .. ~ ..... ....,. .. ...... ... : ....' ..i'.' . '-:. 7 ....... . ...... ~, ..'. :-.' ,:";:':", i':' ..'~,~'.;-.';'"'; . · .,'...' . . ' '? ::"/~.''.'i:" "' "v~'.i.,'!~::'.':'...' ;'.' .::::'5: ..~ i" '.. '] ....... :'::. .' "". ~'. " ".' '"( '. ':"'?"i.'." :."?'".;';" ;';(.'.:~'"." 7'"".;'""~"':'' ".' '.' '"' '."' ".: .' i' '." . ..' ::'/.. · .:: .,. ' ' ,' ..": .' · ': .. ' '... ' '.' .: "" ..:: '.' ,.... "..-"? .'~. '. ~..' ',' ",.'.:. ',?." ".:'.C~i~* -'.',.'~;,4';~;;~ "'. -' '.:.'" : , .:'.- · '" .... ' ......... ..'. ' ..... : ............... '".L k'.~'.,-:':,'(,.'..'~',::~c.::..;"",'. ......... ';~..;.:..;.. Bakersfield, CA 9330a ................... (805).872-4750 ~o~d 011 co. Dace Analyzed , 10/~2/92 2101G=ttnaage Lane AnaLy~% ~ ~.S, ~ohnson Sample Ma%t'~ ; Soils 9eazene ~oluene ~%hylbenzene Xyleaoa ?o~ Pe~ Hyds ag/kg ~g/~g ~gikg ag/kg ~g/kg S-20 ~D ~D ND 1.216 102 a-20& ~D ~D ND 2.4~$ 186 $-~1 RD ~D ND ,339 31 S-22 ND 79,630 ND 205.175 2314 6-22A ND 70,875 ~D 189.661 2118 S-2~ ND ~ ND ~.226 1010 OA/qc Sptk~ % ~oCo~,ar~ 95 96 93 95 99 Ga~01~O All ltesul~, Repot[ed in .v, illlgram8 pe~ Kilogram ND = NO~t De~ectable j ~PA 80~0 (.001 mg/kg) BPA 8015 ~od[zted for ODsol~ne (5 mg/kg) Analys~s Of vo[a~tlO Aromatlce ; ~PA 8020 *Ana~ysla'or Total Pe~roleu~ ~yd~ocarboas ; EPA 0015 Hodifted fo= GasoLine Ce~tirtcato ~u~ber : ~739 , Cofli*ied Full Se~lce On-S~e Anal~ical ~r~ofles ' ~-3 H~ ~D ~D N~ 44 ~-3~ ~D 6.~38 ND I I~.fldO 261~ ~"~ ~n ~1~ ND MD ND ~'~ ~11 ~Tt ND ND ND ~ ae~Q~er¥ Ye 98 94 99 102 ~dbulln~ ~t~lif o~ VoX/tile Aroma~io~ f ~A 80~0 ~ 16 ND ~P O-l? 12.417 !Og 232 2.724 70~,77R 30§6 a-10k 1,8~0 56 290 a-19 7.000 g.~ 15~ 1.~13 207.V'~7 3-~9& ,57~ ~1 75~ ~D 190-613 2~60 ~l 8Ol~ ~odt~i~d r~ -aGOAine (5 RCV BY: ._1_1-18-~2 :ll:29AM ; CCITT G,B-~ World Oil Corp. :# 6 Ar/~na O- l ND ND ~ 41 0-4 ND ~b ND - 4'. 428 fg.flq6 I010 OA/O¢ C~tke~ ~0 · .. · Re~t~,, r~ q! 91 9~ 94 O0 OQOOli~O ~D . Nob betectab~o ~ ~r'A e020 (.OOl I sol' ' ' ' 5327 Wi~f~ Ori~ A~ona ~akOra~i. Ol~, CA ~6 ' / CITY of BAKER SFIELD "WE CARE" FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON January 6, 19 93 BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Mr. Gil Juarez General Manager, Operations World Oil Marketing Company P.O. Box 1966 South Gate, Ca. 90280-1966 RE: Laboratory results from preliminary site assessment conducted at the World Oil Facility, 2101Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, CA. (Permit #BR-0063) Dear Mr. Juarez, - 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 tanks 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 Investiqation of Underqround Tank Sites; January 22, 1991. Additionally,~be advised that oversight cost for this project will be billed to you at a rate of $47.50 per hour. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely, Ralph g. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator cc: Carlos Vera Hallmark Petroleum 19113 Hamilton Ave. Gardena, Ca. 90248 ClTY of BAKERSFIELD "WE CARE" FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSQN BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 February 17, 1993 Mr. Gil Juarez World Oil P. O. Bo× ].966 South Gate, CA 90280-1966 RE: Site LOcation 2101Brundage Lane Dear Mr. Juarez: This is to notify you that the workplan for the above stated address is satisfactory. Please give this office 5 working days notice prior to the commencement of work. Please be advised that any work done that is not performed under direct over sight by this office will not be accepted, unless previously approved. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. ~us Materials Coordinator / Underground Tank Program WORLD OIL MARKETING cOMpANY April 23, 1993 P.O.B.O.X 1966 SOUTH GATE, CA 90280-1966 TEL (310) 928-0100 FAX (310) 928-0391 City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division ~2101 H Street Bakersfield, California 93301 Attn: Mr. Ralph Huey Re: Preliminary Site Characterization for Gasoline Impacted Soils World Oil 929 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California Dear Mr. Huey: Please find attached a copy of the Site Assessment Report performed by Earth Systems Environmental (ESE) for World Oil Marketing Company's Station No. 29 located at 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California. ESE advanced seven soil borings to a maximum depth of 100 feet below surface grade (bsg). Laboratory analysis of soil samples detected the presence of gasoline hydrocarbons to a depth 95 feet bsg. The shallowest occurrence of groundwater beneath the site~is reported by the Kern Water Agency to be approximately 175 feet bsg. Based upon the results of the following site assessment, World Oil requests approval, of natural in-situ biodegradation to mitigate the gasoline hydrocarbons in the subsurface. Thank you for your consideration of this report. If you have any questions, or if we can be of service in any way, please call me at (310) 928-0100. Sincerely, WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY Grog Petru~ka, P.E. Director, Environmental Affairs /encl. 9302 S. GARFIELD AVENUE, SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA 90280-3896 CITY of BAKERSFIELD "WE CARE" May 21, 1993 FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Mr. Gil Juarez General Manager, Operations World Oil Marketing Company P.O. Box 1966 South Gate, CA 90280-1966 RE:' Preliminary Site Characterization (April 22, 1993) World Oil Station No. 29, 2101 Brundage Lane Bakersfield, California Upon review of the site assessment submitted for your station number 29 on ~prii '22, 1993, this office has determined that insufficient data exists to accept the recommendations of your environmental consultant to allow natural in site biodegradation as the only remedial action. The hydrocarbon concentration is significant. .... At this point we would approve alternative' two, vapor extraction, that would involve additional testing during the well site construction. Or, further assessing of the extent of the plume as it interacts with the clay lense of 80 feet, as well as concentration present in the center of the contaminated area, accompanied by a dsk analysis to evaluate the potential for migration to groundwater. This analysis may also involve further definition of the clay lense discovered at 80 feet. We would suggest a meeting between your companies representative, your environmental consultants and ourself to further pursue alternatives and to more clearly define the scope of additional work to be completed. Please submit a work plan for your proposed action within 30 days from receipt of this letter. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely yours, cc: Earth Systems Environmental Inc. Greg Petruska, World Oil CI T Y of BAKER SFIELD ~"WE CARE" FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON August 24, 1993 BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Mr. Greg Petruska World Oil ~arketing Company 9302 South Garfield Avenue South Gate, California 90280 RE: World Oil Marketing Company Service Station #29, 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California. Dear Mr. Petruska, This is to notify you that the workplan for the above stated address is satisfactory. Please give this office 5 working days notice prior to the commencement of work. Please be advised that any work done that is not performed under direct over sight by this office will not be accepted, unless previously approved. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely, Hazardous Materials Coordinator Underground Tank Program REH/dlm cc: Mark Magargee WORLD OIL MARKETING.COMPA . f -- November 23, 1993 P.o. Box 1966 SOUTH GATE, CA 90280-1966 Mr. Ralph Huey TEL (310) 928-0100 FAX (310) 928-0391 City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR A "NO FURTHER ACTION" DETERMINATION FOR WORLD OIL SITE NO. 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Huey: Please find attached a copy of the Environmental Risk Assessment prepared by Holguin, Fahan and Associates, Inc. (HFA) for Word Oil Marketing Company's (World Oil) Site No. 29 (the Site) located at 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California. The purpose of the Risk Assessment is to quantify the environmental risks fi.om the soil impacted by gasoline hydrocarbons associated with operating the four underground storage tanks CUSTs) and associated piping that were removed fi.om the Site on October 21, 1992. Based on the results of the Risk Assessment and considering the greater than 100 vertical feet of separation containing multiple clay layers between the impacted soil and the first occurrence of groundwater, HFA recommends a "No Further Action" (NFA) determination be made for the Site. Word Oil concurs with HFA's recommendation and requests that the Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division UST Local Oversight Program accepts'the following Risk Assessment as sufficient justification to make a NFA determination for thc Site. Thank you for your consideration of this Environmental Risk Assessment and request for NFA for the Site. If you have any questions regarding thc following information, please call me at 010) 928-0100 Ext. 215. Sincerely, WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY Greg Petmska, P.E. Director, Environmental Affairs 9302 S. GARFIELD AVENUE, SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA 90280-3896 CITY of BAKERSFIELD "WE CARE" December 8, 1993 F~RE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S, D. JOHNSON BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Mr. Greg Petruska World Oil Marketing Company P. O. Box 1966 South Gate, CA 90280 RE: Closure of four (4) Underground Storage Tanks Located at World Oil StatiOn No. 29, 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, CA Dear Mr. Greg Petruska: The Site Assessment and Risk Analysis for World Oil Station No. 29 has been reviewed by this office. The proposed mitigation of this site, which includes capping the site to prevent percolation of seasonal rainwater, is found to be acceptable to this office. We do concur that the vertical separation between the impacted soil and potential groundwater, along with the lithology in this area, provide adequate protection to groundwater. 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 require further assessment or mitigation. It is the property owners responsibility to notify this department of any changes in site usage or changes in property ownership. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely yours, Hazardous Materials Coordinator REH/ed cc: Mark Magargee, Holguin, Fahan & Assoc. y. Greg I do need a time table for completion of the capping of this site and surface restoration. WORLD OIL M KETING COMPANY P.O. BOX 1966 December 21, 1993 SOUTH GATE, CA 90280-1966 TEL (310) 928-0100 FAX (31.0) 928-0391 Mr. Ralph Huey City of'Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division 2101 H Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 SUBJECT: SCHEDULE TO BACKFILL AND PAVE OVER WORLD OIL SITE NO. 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Huey: Thank you for your expedient review of the, "Risk Assessment Report, World Oil Marketing Company Service Station #29, 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California", dated November 23, 1993 and your approval of our request for closure upon capping of the site. I have reviewed bids to backfill, re-compact and pave over the subject site and have selected RLw Equipment to do the work. Weather permitting, the work is expected to commence on December 27, 1993 and take approximately four days to complete. Upon completion of the work, the site will be covered with the existing concrete or asphalt to be laid," all debris will have been removed, and the site swept clean. If you have any questions on the work or schedule, please call me at (310) 928-0100 Ext. 215. Sincerely, WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY Greg Petruska, P.E. Director of Environmental Affairs cc: Mark Magargee, Holguin, Fahan & Associates 9302 S. GARFIELD AVENUE, SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA 90280-3896 TANK CLOSURE REPORT WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION NO, 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA November 18, 1992 Prepared by Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. 6701 McDivitt Drive, Suite B Bakersfield, CA 93313 (805) 836-0901 FAX (805) 836-0911 Project No. EB-8275-1 TANK CLOSURE REPORT WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION NO. 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUC~ON ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Site ....................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Background ........................................................................................................ 1 3.0 SOIL SAMPLING ............................................................................................................ 2 4.0 ANALYTICAL METHODS ................................................................................................ 3 5.0 RF_~ULTS OF SOIL SAMPLING ........................................................................................ 3 6.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 6 7.0 CI.~URE .......................................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP ........................................................................................................ 8 FIGURE 2: SITE MAP ................................................................................................................. 9 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A ANALYTICAL REPORT AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENT Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. A Member of The Earth Systems Group 6701 McDivitt Drive, Suite B · Bakersfield, CA 93313 · (805) 836-0901 · FAX (805) 836-0911 November 18, 1992 Doc. No.: 9211-5008.RPT Project No.: EB-8275-1 City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division 2101 H Street · Bakersfield, California 93301 Attention: Mr. Ralph Huey SUBJECT: TANK CLOSURE REPORT WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents results of soil sampling performed by Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. (ESE) of the base of the excavation pit where four 12,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tanks, twelve gasoline dispensers, and associated product pipelines were removed on October 21, 1992 from the World Oil Service Station No. 29 site, located at 2101 Brundage Lane in the city of Bakersfield, Kern County, California. Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and Figure 2 is a site map showing the location of the former underground storage tanks, dispensers, product lines and the soil sample locations. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located at 2101 Brundage Lane the city of Bakersfield in Kern County, California. The site was formerly operated as a retail gasoline sales facility. 2.2 Background World Oil Company contracted with Hallmark Construction Company of Los Angeles, California to remove the four 12,000 gallon underground fuel storage tanks, twelve gasoline dispensers, and associated product lines at the site. Hallmark Construction subcontracted with Mobile Labs of Bakersfield, California to provide laboratory analytical services for soil samples collected during the tank removal operations. World Oil Station No. 29, Bake~field,' CA 2 November 18, 1992 On October 21, 1992 Hallmark Construction excavated the soil above and around the tanks, and removed the tanks, dispensers, and associated product pipelines. The tanks were removed under City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division permit. Mobile Laboratories contracted with Earth Systems Environmental to provide an environmental technician to collect soil samples at the direction of Mr. Joe Dunwoody with the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. 3.0 SOIL SAMPLING Six soil samples were collected at depths of two feet and six feet beneath the east end, west end and center of each of the former 12,000 gallon gasoline tanks as shown on Figure 2. These samples are designated S-13 through S-24. Two soil samples were collected at depths of two and six feet in trenches excavated immediately adjacent to each of the 12 dispensers at the site. These samples are designated S-1 through S-12. Four composite soil samples (C-I through C-4) were collected from within the stockpile of soil from above and around the former tank locations. The soil samples taken from the stockpile were collected by driving the 2~ diameter brass tubes into the stockpiled soil. The soil sample collected from beneath the former gasoline dispenser was collected by hand auger, and the soil samples collected from beneath the underground fuel and chemical storage tanks were collected from the backhoe bucket immediately after soil excavation and stored in 2~ diameter brass tubes. All soil samples were sealed with tefionTM liners and end caps. The samples were then labeled, handled and transported according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol to a State of California Department of Health Services (DOHS) certified laboratory. Sample identification and chain-of-custody procedures were utilized for the samples to ensure sample integrity and to document sample possession from the time of collection to its ultimate destination. The sample label identified the job number, sampler, date and time of collection and sample number unique to the sample. All sampling equipment was washed with TSPTM (tri- sodium phosphate) cleanser, pre-rinsed with tap water and a final rinse of de-ionized water prior to sampling. EB-8275-1 9211-5008.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 3 November 18, 1992 4.0 ANALYTICAL METHODS The soil samples designated for chemical analysis were submitted to Mobile Laboratories in Bakersfield, California, a State of California Department of Health Services (DOHS) certified laboratory. Appendix A presents copies of the analytical report and chain-of-custody sheet. The soil samples were analyzed for Total Purgeable Petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPPHg) using the California DOHS LUFT Method for gasoline, and for the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) using USEPA Test Method 8020. 5.0 RESULTS OF SOIL SAMPLING TPPH as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics were detected in soil samples from beneath each of the four tanks, the western and central dispenser islands, and the stockpiled soil. The greatest concentration of TPPHg detected was 4,112 rog/kg in Sample S-18 at a depth of two feet beneath the western (fill) end of Tank No. 2. The greatest concentration of benzene was also in this sample at i5.214 Table 1 presents the analytical results for TPPH as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics in the 12 soil samples from beneath the dispensers, and the four soil samples from the stockpiled soil. Table 2 presents the analytical results for the 12 soil samples from beneath the gasoline tanks. ~ EB-8275-1 9211 -$008.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 4 November 18, 1992 TABLE 1 ~^nalyneal results expresse,,9 ~n mm~grams per ~mo;ram) "' LOcation I o_m_ l TPp I nz, .el Ethyl,- To, gal ,No. ~1 ,, [ I Gasp, linel I ~benzene S.1 . W, Dispen,ser,,S End ,2," i'"88 .... , ND, ' ' ND .... ND" ND S-lA , ,W DisPenser-S,,End' ,6', 20,, ND ND ND : ND S-2 W, ,Dispenser, S ,., ~,~nt, er 2' 221' ,, ND ,,ND, ,ND,. ND , S-2A 'W Dispenser-S Center 6' "" 33 ND ND ND ND ,S~3, W ,Dispen,.$.er-N Cen ,,', ,2',,, ,44 ..... ND .... ,ND N~,,. ND .... S-3A , ,W~ Dispg. n, ser-.N Cen 6' .. 2,612' ND 8.238, ND . !18~040' , S-.4. .W,.Dispens, errN End' 2,' 19 ND ..,ND, .. ND. ND , 6' 8 ND ND ND ND S-4A .W. Dispenser'N End ,.,, .......... S-5 Cen Dispen,ser,-S En~ , 2', , ,ND ND,., ND, ND, NDe, S25A" cen Dispenser-S End 6' ND ND ND ND ND S-6 C,e,n, D!spg,nser-S, Cen, 2' ND , ,, ND,, ~, ND ND., ND S-6A. Cen Dispenser-S Cen 6' 884* ND 2.i543. ND. 60.9~91'' S'7 Cen Dispense,r,-N Cen , 2,,' ,, ,116' , ,ND,. ,ND , ,, ND ,2.662. s-7A Cen, Dispenser-N Ce, n.. , 6' 41 , ,,,ND, ND , ND ND, , S-8 Cen , ,Dispenser,'N, End 2' ,, , 53, ND ND ND , ND S-SA ,C, en Dtspen,ser-N End 6' , ND,, ND .,ND,,, ND, , , ,,ND ,,, S,9 E Oisp, en, ae,r-S Eod 2' 34 .... ND .... ,,I~, , ND ~ ND s-9A E Dispg..nser-S...E..nd... 6'. .... ..ND.. . ND.,. , ND ....ND ND , , S'10, E, Dispenser-S Cen 2' ND, .... ND , , ND ,., ND , ND, ,S',10A E Dispen, serrS Cen ,,,6' ~,,,ND, , ND ..... ND ND , ND, $-11 ,E Dis ,penser-N Cen 2' .... 1,0 Np, I ND,,, ~ .... ND, S- 11A E, Disp.e, nser, N .Cen 6' 15 ND ND ND, ~ , S- 12 E Dispe,nse,r-N, ,End,, 2' ,,ND ND "I[ID" ND ' ND S'I2A ,,,~. ,Dispenser-N End ~ ,6;' ,,, ,ND ..... ND .... ND, ~ND, ,, ND C~I, ,North End Sto,ckpile 4' 10 ND ND ND ND C-2 Wost Side Stockpile 4' 13 ND ND ND ND C-3 East Side Stockpile i, ",4", 41 , , ND ..... ND , ND ND C-4 South End Stockpile 4' 850' ND ND OND 4.4,2.8,* MRL ~ NA NA 5 0,001 0~001 001, ,'0.0(?1 A L NA NA I00 0.67 1.0 3.0 2.0 ND: None Detected at or above minimum reporting level 0VIRL). NA: Not Applicable *' Exceeds RWQCB recommended guidelines. A L: Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for contaminants in soil. The recommended guidelines were calculated using the LUFT methodology by multiplying the most stringent current federal or state water quality standards by a factor of 100 for gasoline, diesel, and the volatile aromatics to account for attenuation due to soil composition and distance from groundwater. ~ EB-8275-1 9211-5008.RPT 'i World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 5 November 18, 1992 TABLE 2 (Analytical results expressed in milligrams per kilogram) S'ample! Location" ]~q~-I-h-I' TPPH BCnZen~ T'~it~elle I Eta.vi.' I 'T°t'ili' S-13 Tank 2-Center 2' 1,010' ND 1.232' ND 17.896' S- 14 Tank 1-East End ,2' 10 ND , ND ND .... ND S-14A .... Tank 1,-East End .6' 8 , "ND'. , , ,, ND, ND ND, ,S.15 Tank, 1-Center 2' 21 ND ,ND , ND _.ND .... ,S;16 ,Tank lyWest End .... 2', , 86 ,,. ND ND ND 1.111 S-16A Tank l-West End 6' 1,416' ND 45.742*' ND 16'1.403' S-,17 Tank 3-Cent.e,,r, 2' 3~066. 12.417. 109.232' 2.224 209.225* S-I~'A' Tank 2-West End 6' 3,046. 1.~50. 59.290* ND 20~[.71~i S:19 Ta,nk 3-West En, d Z', ~,867. 7.080* 94.182' ",!.3i,2 ,20717,7"~* S-19A Tank,,.37West ,End 6' ,, 2,5,60* 0.575 9!.7,5.,5. ND 1,9,9.6,13. S-20 Tank 4-East End ,,. 2 ,102. ND , ~ ,, ~ ND , 1.216 S-21 Tank 4-Center 2' 31 .... ND, , ND , , ND 0.3,39, S-21A Tank 4-Center ' 6'; '~23' ND' ND 'ND 0.197 . S-'22' ' ' ',, Ta~k,, 4-w~,st, ,,End 2' , ,2,314. 'ND 79.'6'~'0.., ,,,ND, 205:.i73'· .S-22.A Tank,4~West End 6' 2,.I18. ND ,70.,87,5' .... ND ,, 189.66!,~,' S-23 Tank 3-East End 2"", '1~256'* ND 2.101. ND 13.011' S-24, ,,Tank, 2-East End,. , 2' , 3,3, ND ~ , ND ND ,, S224A Rank 2-E~, s,t,, End 6' 41 ND ND ND ND MRL' ' NA ".' ', NA ' 5' 0.001 0.0010.001 ' ,0.001 A L NA NA', 100 0.67,,, 1:9 3.,0 2 0 ND: None I>~tocted at or above minlmlull reporting level (MRL). NA: Not Applicable *: Exceeds RWQCB recommended guidelines. A L: Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for contaminants in soil. The recommended guidelines were calculated using the LUFT methodology by multiplying the most stringent current federal or state water quality standards by a factor of 100 for gasoline, diesel, and the volatile aromatics to account for attenuation due to soil composition and distance from groundwater. EB-8275-1 9211-5008.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 6 November 18, 1992 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analysis, TPPH as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics were detected at concentrations in excess of RWQCB recommended guidelines for additional assessment activities. Samples where ~ gasoline hydrocarbons exceeded the recommended guidelines are S-2 and S-3A at the ~! western dispenser island, S-6A and S-7 at the central dispenser island, S-16A at the west end of the southern Tank No. 1, S-13, S-13A, S-18 and S-18A at the west end and ::~ center of the south central Tank No. 2, S-17, S-17A, S-19, S-19A, S-23 and S-23A beneath the length of the north central Tank No. 3, and S-20, S-20A, S-22 and S-22A at '].; both the east and west ends of the northern Tank No. 4. Sample C-4 from the south end of the soil stockpile also exceeded the recommended guidelines. The City of ~.] Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division is likely to require that ..._t assessment activities, performed under the direct supervision of a California · 4 Registered Geologist or Civil Engineer, consist of soil borings and laboratory analysis ...- ........ ~ of soil samples for the presence of gasoline hydrocarbons to determine the vertical and lateral extent of the impacted soil, and whether there is a threat of these · : hydrocarbons impacting groundwater. 7.o CLOSURE This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of World Oil Company as it pertains to the referenced property at 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, Kern County, California. The findings and conclusions rendered in this report are opinions based on laboratory testing of the soil samples collected during this project. This report does not reflect subsurface variations which may exist between sampling points. These variations cannot be anticipated nor can they be entirely accounted for even with exhaustive additional testing. All work has been performed in accordance with generally accepted practices in geoteehnieal/environmental engineering, engineering geology, and hydrogeology. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. EB-8275-1 9211-5008.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 7 November 18, 1992 O Thank you for this opportunity to have been of service. If you have any questions regarding this report or the information contained herein, please contact this office at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted, EARTH SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Tim A. Martin Mark Magargee, Environmental Specialist Senior Geologist Distribution: 1/Addressee 3/Mobile Labs !i}:.~ EB-8275-1 9211 -S OO8.RPT FIGURES iHWAY Earth Systems T I TLE Figure. Environmental, Inc. / APPENDIX A LABORATORY REPORT AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENT 5327 Wingfoot Orive I~akersfield, CA 9330~.:. (805) 872-4750 Laboratory ResultB For : Date Received ; 10/2]/9~ World Oil Co. Date Analyzed : 10/21/92 210! Brunda~e Lane Analyst : J,S. Johnson ~akersfie!d, CA Lab No. 920~74 Sample ~atr~x ; Soils Benzene Toluen~ E~hy!benzene ~ylenes Tot Pet Myds m~/kg mg/k~ mg/k~ m~/~ mg/kg S-1 ND ND ND ND 88 S-lA ND ND ND ND 20 ~ S-2 MD ND ND ND 291 S-2A ND ~D ND ND 33 ~.. .~. $-3 ND ND ND ND 44 S-3A ND 8.~38 ND 118.040 2612 S-4 ND ND ND ND 19 S-4A ND ND ND ND 8 S-§ ND ND ND ND ND ~ S'~'Sa~' "' ND ND ND ND ND QA/QC Spikes % Recovery 98 98 94 99 102 Gasoline Ail Results Reported in Mtlligram$ per ~ilo~;ram ND = Non De~ectable ; EPA 8020 (-00! mg/kg) EPA 8015 Modified for GaSoline (5 mg/kg~ Analysis of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 8020 *Analysis of Total Petroleum ~ydrocarbons ; ~;PA 8015 ){odif~.ed for Gasoline *The TPH Method for Gasoline is the Calif DOF;S Recommended Procedure Certificate Number fler~i~,d FtHI .c:;o. rvicP. On-.c;il~ Annlv~ie..;~l I aboratorie.~; 5327 Wingfoot Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306 (805) 872-4750 Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 10/21/9~ World Oil Co. Date Analyzed : 10/22/92 210! Brundage Lane Analyst : J.$. John$o~ Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 9~0174 Sample M~Srix ; Soils Benzene Toluene Ethylbenze:te Xylenes Tot Pet H,!ds mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/k~ mg/kg S-6 ND ND ND ND ND S-6A ND 2.64] ND 60. 959 884 i S-7 ND ND ND 2.662 I16 S- 7A ND ND ND ND 4 ! · ,!$-8 ND ND ND ND 53 $-8A ND ND ND ND ND S-9 ND ND ND ND 34 'i $-9A ND ND ND ND ND S-10 ND ND ND ND ND -! S'~ I'0'A ND ND ND ND ND QA/QC Spikes e~ Recovery 96 96 98 96 105 Ail Results Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram ND = Non Detecbable : E~A 8020 {.00! mg/kg) EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline Analysis of Volatile Aromatics : EPA 80~0 *Analysis of Total Petroleum Mydrocarbons ; EPA 8015 ModifJ. ed for Gasoline *The TPH Metkod for Gasoline is the Calif DOF{S Recommended Procedure 5327' Wingfoot Drive Bak6 rsfield, CA 93306 (305) 872-4750 Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 10/21/92 World Oil Co. Date Analyzed : 10/22/92 2101 ~rundage Lane Analyst : d'.S. Johnson Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 920174 Sample Matrix ; Soils Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene xylenes Tot Pet Hyds mg/~g mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg $-11 ND ND ND ND 10 S-11A ND ND ND ND 15 i S-12 ND ND ND ND ND ~ S-12A ND ND ND ND ND ,. ~-1 ND ND ND ND 10 el2 ND ND ND ND 13 C-3 ND ND ND ND 41 .! C-4 ND ND ND' 4.428 850 5-13 ND 1.232 ND 17.896 10!0 S-I3A ND 15.719 ND 101.670 1100 l: SiI4 ND ND ND ND 10 QA/QC Spikes % ~ecovery 95 97 92 94 99 Gasoline Ali Resul~s Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram ND = Non Detectable ; ~PA 8020 ( .001 ag/kg) EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline (5 mg/kg) Analysis of Volatile Aroma~!cs ; EPA 8020 *Analysis of To%al Petroleum Ey~rocarbons ; £'PA 8015 Hodif!.ed for Gasoline *The TPH Me~hod for Gasoline is the calif DOES Recommonded Procedure Certificate Number : E739 ~l [;327 Wingfoot Dr,ve B.~kersfield, CA 93306 (805) 872-4750 Laboratory Results For : Date Receipted : 10/21/92 World Oil Co. Date Analyzed : 10/22/92 210I Brundage Lane Analy'J~ : J.S. Johnson ~akersfield, CA Lab No. 920174 Sample Matrix ; Soils Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xyie[:es Tot Pet Hyds $-14A ND ND ND ND 8 $-15 ND ND ND ND 21 i S-15A ~D ND ND ND ND S-16 ND ND ND 1.;11 86 ~-16A ND 45.742 ND 161.403 1416 ; $-17 12.417 109.~2 2.224 209.225 ~066 $-17A ND 1.547 ND 23.051 [71 S-!SA 1 · 850 59. 290 ND 204. 717 3046 .{ i S'- 1'9' 7.000 94.182 1.312 207.~77 2867 -': $-19A .575 91.755 ND 199.613 2560 QA/QC Spikes % Recovery 97 96 94 97 103 Gasoline Ail Results Reported in Mllltgrams per Kilogram ND -- Non Detectable : EPA 8020 (.001 m~/kg) EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline (5 mg/kg; Analysi~ of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 3020 'Analysls of To~al Petroleum Hydrocarbons ; ~;PA 8015 ModifY. ed for Gasoline *The TPM Me~hod f3r G~sollne is %he Calif DOFiS ~ecommended Procedure Wingfoot Drive ~;akersfie!d, CA 93306. (805) 872-4750 Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 10/2[/92 World Oil Co. Date Analyzed 2!01 Brundage Lane Analyst : J.$. Johnson Bakersfield, CA L~b No. 950174 Sample Matrix ; Soils Benzene Toluen(~ Ethy!benzene xylenes Tot Pet Hyds mg/Rg mg/kg mg/kg mg/k~ mg/kg S-20 ND ND ND 1.216 t02 $-20A ND ND ND 2.435 186 S-21 ND ND ND .339 31 $-21A ND ND ND .~97 23 S-22 ND 79.630 ND 205.173 2314 S-22A ND 70.87!5 ND 189.661 2118 S-23 ND 2.101 ND 13.011 1256 $-~3A ND ND ND !.226 1010 $- 24 ND ND ND ND 33 ,i -3 S-24A ND ND ND ND 41 · ! QA/QC Spikes % Recovery 95 96 93 95 99 GaSoline All Results ~eported in Milligrams per K/lc. gram ND = Non De~ec~ab~e ; EPA 8020 (.00! mg/kg) EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline (5 ~/kg) Analysis cf Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 5020 *Analysis o[ To,al Petroleum Hydrocarbons ; EPA 8015 :todified for Gasoline · The ?PH Method for Gasoline is the Calif DOHS Recom[aended Pr~)cedure codi~ic, rt r, dl ~::,~r.,ice C)n-,qite Analvtica! Laboratories __ __________ ___BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93306 (805) 872-4750 ' FAX (805) 872-6356 ; CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE O~ S~TE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 'ROJECT NO i SITE NAt~[: {SIGNA' StT~ ADDRESS ~' REMARKS SAMPLE SAMPL~OCATION DESIGNATION ID. NO. 5327 WINGFOOT DRIVE ~.':' .-'CALIFORNIA * NEVADA · AR{JZONA'"HAW~. ...... 8AKI~RSFIELD, CA IFORN~A 93306 :: (605) 872-4750 · FAX (805) 872-635~:i.... CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE ~N SITE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES PROJECT NO. SITE NAME' SAMPLERS (SIGNA'fURE): SITE ADDRESS SAMPLE '~E LOCATION DESIGNATION ID. NO .~. ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ,.':" RELINN~HED~Y~( GNATUREJ J DATE -rimE [ HE~EIVEO BY {SIGNATURE) RFLINQUISHED BY (SIGNATURE~ DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATUREI '~'"" ' ' CALIFORNIA" NEVADA" ARIZONA" HAWAII ' CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE Obi SITE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 7-T--/-- · ~AMPLEFIS ISIGNATURE): --'-- SITE A[~DRE. SS : ...... ' ~ ~:/ REMARKS SAMPLE ISAMPLE SAMPLE:LOCATION DESIGNATION IO NO DATE TIME COMP.., ,GRA~ MATRIX ,! ,. ~' ' ' ' "~ ~t-~ t I ~ - 'l ...................... , ' - "1, J~~H~B2,SIGNATURE) ~ DATE ,Md RECEWEO SY (SIGNATURE} BY (SIGNATURE) TIME RECEIVED 6Y (,SIGNATURE) ~,NQU/HED BY' (SIGNATLI"E] / DATE T~ REC~,VeD BY (SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED BY (SIGNATURE)J J jRECe,VeD BY (SIGNATURE, l ~-. ""x~ALIFORNtA · NEVADA · ARIZONA ~' HAWAII ' 5327 WINGFOOT ORIVE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93306 ::: .:- ' (805) 872-4750 , FAX (805) 872-6356 ' CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE O~ SITE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES ~ROJECT NO: ~ SITE NAME' ': 6 ~IlN( SH£D-"[~~ . (.SI ATUREi, UA'IrE :EIVED BY ISIGNAI!JREi R~'-'LIt'JQUISHED BY (RIGNATUREI, DATE TIME ~RECEIVE~ BY (SIGNATURE) ~ATE TIME RECEIVED FOR LA~ORAfORY BY ~REMARKS: WORK PLAN FOR WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION NO. 29 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITE SOIL CHARACTERIZATION 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~ February 5, 1993 Prepared by Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. 6701 McDivitt Drive, Suite B Bakersfield, California 93313 (805) 836-0901 FAX (805) 836-091! Project No.: EB-8322-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION NO. 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 3 SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN ................................................................................. ? SITE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................. 7 Soil Boring Drilling and Sampling .................................. ; ............................. ? Laboratory Analysis of Soil Samples ............................................................. 11 REPORT OF FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... 11 SCI4F. I)UI~ OF COMPLETION ........................................................................................... 11 i FIGURE I - VICINITY MAP ............ ............................................................................... 12 FIGURE 2 - SITE MAP ..................................................................................................... 13 '1 .::.~ FIGURE 3 - GEOLOGY MAP ............................................................................................. 14 APPENDIX A SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. A Member of The Earth Systems Group 6701 McDivitt Drive, Suite B · Bakersfield, CA 93313 · (805) 836-0901 · FAX (805) 836-0911 February 5, 1993 Doc. No.:9301-5031.WP Project. No.:EB-8322-1 City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division 2101 H Street Bakersfield, California 93301 Attention: Mr. Ralph Huey SUBJECT: SOIL CHARACTERIZATION WORK PLAN FOR GASOLINE IMPACTED SOILS WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION NO. 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Huey, This communication presents our work plan for soil characterization activities at World Oil Corporation's Service Station No. 29 located at 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California. Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. (ESE) proposes to conduct a Phase I Soil Characterization associated with a release of gasoline hydrocarbons from the underground gasoline storage tanks and associated fuel dispensers at the above referenced facility which were removed under permit with the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. On October 21, 1992 Hallmark Construction excavated the soil above and around the tanks, and removed the tanks, dispensers and associated product pipelines. TPPH as gasoline and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics were detected in soil samples from beneath each of the four tanks, the western and central dispenser islands, and in the stockpiled soil. The greatest concentration of TPPHg detected was 4,112 mg/kg in Sample S-18 at a depth of two feet beneath the western (fill) end of Tank No. 2. The greatest concentration of benzene was also in this sample at 15.214 mg/kg. These concentrations are in excess of Regiotial Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) guidelines for gasoline hydrocarbons in the soil, and have resulted in the Lead Implementing Agency (LIA) which is the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division requesting an initial site characterization. ESE proposes to conduct a site characterization consisting of seven soil borings. One soil boring will be slant drilled from the side of the gasoline tank cavity to a bottom World Oil Service Station No. 29 2 February 5, 1993 hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this source area. Two soil borings will be advanced adjacent to the western and central dispenser island locations to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath these probable sources. The other four soil borings will be positioned to assess the lateral extent of gasoline concentrations in the soil. ESE estimates that 30 soil .samples will be analyzed .for the presence of gasoline hydrocarbons and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics. Upon completion of the field investigation, and receipt of the laboratory data, ESE will prepare a report of fmdings documenting the field activities, analytical results, data analysis, conclusions and recommendations resulting from the soil characterization. All methods to be employed are in compliance with regulations and guidelines set forth in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Article 11, and Title 23, Chapter 3, California Site Mitigation Decision Tree Manual, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 29, Part 1910, Section 120, CFR Title 40, Parts 300-399, Tri-Regional Board Staff Recommendations for Preliminary Evaluation and Investigation of Underground Tank Sites, the City of Bakersfield and Kern County regulations as well as accepted professional environmental/geoteehnieal engineering procedures. PURPOSE AND SCOPE Subject to your acceptance of this work plan, ESE's plan to investigate the soil includes: · Prepare a Site Health and Safety Plan covering the field operations associated with this investigation. · Conduct a Phase I Soil Characterization in the vicinity of the gasoline tanks and dispensers including the drilling of seven soil borings, and sampling and laboratory analysis of thirty samples from these borings for the presence of total purgeable petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, and gasoline constituent volatile aromatics. · Preparation of a Report of Findings documenting the field activities, analytical results, data analysis, conclusions and recommendations resulting from the soil investigation. EB-8322-1 9301-503 I.WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 3 February 5, 1993 BACKGROUND World Oil Corporation contracted with Hallmark Construction Company of Los Angeles, California to remove the four 12,000 gallon underground fuel storage tanks, twelve gasoline dispensers, and associated product lines at the site. Hallmark Construction subcontracted with Mobile Labs of Bakersfield; California to provide laboratory analytical services for soil samples collected during the tank removal operations. On October 21, 1992 Hallmark Construction excavated the soil above and around the tanks, and removed the tanks, dispensers and associated product pipelines. The tanks were removed under City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division permit. Mobile Laboratories contracted with Earth Systems Environmental to provide an environmental technician to collect soil samples at the direction of Mr. Joe Dunwoody with the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. Six soil samples were collected at depths of two feet and six feet beneath the east end, west end and center of each of the former 12,000 gallon gasoline tanks as shown on Figure 2. These samples are designated S-13 through S-24, Two soil samples were collected at depths of two and six feet in trenches excavated immediately adjacent to each of the 12 dispensers at the site. These samples are designated S-1 through S-12. Four composite soil samples (C-1 through C-4) were collected from within the stockpile of soil from above and around the former tank locations. The soil samples taken from the stockpile were collected by driving the 2" diameter brass tubes into the stockpiled soil. The soil sample collected from beneath the former gasoline dispenser was collected by hand auger, and the soil samples collected from beneath the underground fuel and chemical storage tanks were collected from the backhoe bucket immediately after soil excavation and stored in 2' diameter brass tubes. All soil samples were sealed with teflonTM liners and end caps. The samples were then labeled, handled and transported according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol to a State of California Department of Health Services (DOHS) certified laboratory. EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 4 February 5, 1993 Sample identification and chain-of-custody procedures were utilized for the samples to ensure sample integrity and to document sample possession from the time of collection to its ultimate destination. The sample label identified the job number,· sampler, date and time of collection and sample number unique to the sample. All sampling equipment was washed with TSPTM (tri-sodium phosphate) cleanser, pre- rinsed with tap water and a final rinse of de-ionized water prior to sampling. The soil samples designated for chemical analysis were submitted to Mobile Laboratories in Bakersfield, California, a State of California Department of Health Services (DOHS) certified laboratory. The soil samples were analyzed for Total Purgeable Petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPPHg) using the California DOHS LUFT Method for gasoline, and for the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) using USEPA Test Method 8020. TPPH as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics were detected in soil samples from beneath each of the four tanks, the western and central dispenser islands, and the stockpiled soil. The greatest concentration of TPPHg detected was 4,112 mg/kg in Sample S-18 at a depth of two feet beneath the western (fill) end of Tank No. 2. The greatest concentration of benzene was also in this sample at 15.214 Table 1 presents the analytical results for TPPH as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics in the 12 soil samples from beneath the dispensers, and the four soil samples from the stockpiled soil. Table 2 presents the analytical results for the 12 soil samples from beneath the gasoline tanks. EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 5 February 5, 1993 J TABLE 1 ......... ~,Ana!yt,!cal results expressea m mmlgram,s per Kno,;ra,m! ,, ~ .,LocationTPPU' l u n z ,a, l Ethyl-"'Total No. I I Gasoline! ] b?nzene, ~ S-1 W Dispenser'S'" ........ End , , 8,8 ND ........ S-1, A W, Dispenser,:S End 6' . ..... 20 .,,ND ..[, ND ND ..... ND S-2 W Dispenser.-S Center ..... 2' .. 221', ,L , ND , ..ND. ,~ ,..ND ...ND S-~A W DisPenser.-S ,Center 6' 33 ND. ., ND ,ND,, ,ND S-3 W Dispenser-..N. Cen ...... 3' '.." 441.'. .. ND ..... ,ND ,ND ND. Si3. A' '..W DispenserrN C,en , 6' 2,6,12',. ..ND 8.238* ND 118.040,, , ,. S-.4 W. Di. spense, r-N, En,d ~., 19 .., ND .... ~ .... ,ND ,ND S-4A. W D..ispe0ser.-N...End . 6' ,8 ..ND ,ND ND.,.. ND . S~5 Cen .Dispenser.-S .End . . 21 .. ND.. ND ND ND , . ND.. S-SA .Cen'Dispen..s..er:..S. End . .6' , ND ND , , , ND,., , ND .... ,ND ~ S-6 Cen D,.i,spenser-$ c,en 2' ,,.~ ND.,, ND ,ND ,ND [,, ND,. S-6A Cen, , D,ispenser-,S ,C,,en 6' 884* ND 2.643, .ND... [ .60.959, S-7, Cen, Dispe..n,se.r'N, ,Cen .... 2' , ,., 116' ND,, ND ,, ND .... .2..662..* S7.7.A .C. en Dispense. r-N, Cen .,,.6': 41 . ND .... .ND ND ND S.-8' ',.Cen. D...ispe.nse. r-N End 2' 53, ND ND, ,ND ,_. ,ND, s'8A Cen Dispen..s. er,N En.d. 6' ND ND ND .ND. ND S.-.9 . ..'.'.",I~ .Dispenser-S End 2' ,, ,34, 'ND,i,~ii ' ,ND ',,ND, ,, ND, S-gA E Dispenser-S End 6' ND ND ND ND ND S-!0 E Disp, enser-S Cen 2' ND ND ND' ND ND 8:1,0n ," E D,t.,spen,s,e~:s Cen, 6' ,,ND ', ND .... ND .... ND., ND S- 1 1 E, Di,,spens. er-N, Cen 2' 10 ,ND, ..... ND ND ND S.i'IA E .Dispenser-N Cen .'6,' 15 I" ........... ND ND' "ND ND S-!2 ,E DispenSer-N E,,,nd, 2' ND ND ND .. ND'....ND S,r,!2A ,,E,, ,Dis, penser-N End, ,~', ~ ,,ND ,, ND ,ND,, ND ,,, n,d' C~I North E Stockpile 4' 10 ND ND ND ND C-,2 , West Side,,,, ,Stockpile ,4' , 13, , , ND ,, ,ND, ,. ND ..... .ND, C~3 East, Side S.t .ockpile 4' 41 ND ND ND ND ~'C-4 South End Stockpile" 4' ' 8501' ND' ND ND,' 4.428* .... , N)i 5 0rooi" o.ool,, ,o.0oi o.ool M, L ,, ....... ,,,,,, ,,, ,AL, ........ NA .... 100 0.6,7, ,1.0 , , 3.0 2,0. ~ None Detected at or above minimum repotting level (MRL). NA: Not Applicable *: Exceeds RWQCB recommended guidelines. A L: Regional Water Qualioy Control Board recommended gu/delines for contaminants in soil. The recommended guidelines were calculated using the LUFT methodology by multiplying the most stringent current federal or state water quality standards by a factor of 100 for gasoline, diesel, and the volatile aromatics lo account for attenuation due to soil composition and distance from groundwater. EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 6 February 5, 1993 TABLE 2 (Analytical results expressed in milligrams per kilogram) ~ L0cat'i~n' P_tlz~[ TPPH B~lazene Tolu,ene [Ethyl-, To, t,~l' N0,,~ [ GaSolinel benzene ~ S-13 , Tank 2-Center , 2' 1:010- , ND, .,, 1.23,2. ~,ND , ,, !7.896* S- 14A Tank 1-East End 6' 8 ND ND ND ND S7.15' .... Ta, nk l-Center .. 2~ .... 21.. ..,. ND. ND ND ND S-15A Tank . ,1.~Cent, er ......... 6.~ . ND . ND ND ND ND. S-16A Tank !-We_st, End ...... ,6,1 , [,416. ...... ND, ,. 45:742* ND '161.403' .S' 1SA,. . Tan. k. 2-.West .. E.nd. 6' 3,,046' . 1..8.50' 59.290* ND 204.7177 .Sr 1.9.. .. Tank. 3rWest End. , 2' 2.867* 7.080, 94.182' 1.312 207.777* S-lpA.. Tank, 3~West End. .6: ,. 2,560. .0,575, ..... ,91.755.... ,ND, 199.613. S-20' T,ank 4..F. ast -End ., 2' .. !.02' ND ND ND 1.2i6 S-20A Tank, 4-East' En, d' 6~ ..... 186" ,. ,ND , ND ND ' '2,43.5,' S221' Tank 4.-Center .. ,2' .31 .... 'ND, .ND ND ° 0.339 ~-2~'A ..... Tank 4-Center 6' 23. ND ND ND ,. 0.197 $-2.2 Tank. 4-west.,,Ead. , 2' .. 2.314' ND 79.630* ...ND. ...... 205.173' S-22A ... Tank 4,-West End 6' 2,118.. ND 70.875* ND 189.66!* S-23A ~ T,ank 3~East End 6' I,,:.0i0. ND ND .ND 2.226* 8-24 Tank~ 2-East End 2' 33 ND ND ND MRL i~,A ,N,A 5 0.0,0! 0.00! ,0,.001 0,001 , NA .... !00 0.67 1.0 ,,3.0 2,-0, ND: None Detected at or above minimum reporting level 0gIRL). NA: Not Applicable · : Exceeds RWQCB reco~ended guidelines, A L: Regional Water Quality Control Board recommetRled guidelines for contaminants in soil. The recommended guidelines were calculated using the LUFT methodology by multiplying the most stringent current federal or state water quality standards by a factor of 100 for gasoline, diesel, and the volatile aromatics to account for attenuation due to soil composition and distance fxom groundwater. EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP i World Oil Servi~e Station No. 29 7 February 5, 1993 I Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analysis, TPPH as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics were detected at concentrations in excess of RWQCB recommended guidelines for additional assessmen! activities. Samples where gasoline hydrocarbons exceeded the recommended guidelines are S-2 and S-3A at the western dispenser island, S-6A and S-7 at the central dispenser island, S-16A at the west end of the southern Tank No. 1, S-13, S-13A, S.18 and S-18A at the west end and center Of the south central Tank No. 2, S-17, S-17A, S-19, S-19A, S-23 and S-23A beneath the length of the north central Tank No. 3, and S-20, S-20A, S-22 and S-22A at both the east and west ends of the northern Tank No. 4. Sample C-4 from the south end of the soil stockpile also exceeded the recommended guidelines. The City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division is requiring assessment activities, performed under the direct supervision of a California Registered Geologist or Civil Engineer, consisting of soil borings and laboratory analysis of soil samples for the presence of gasoline 'hydrocarbons to determine the vertical and lateral extent of the impacted soil, and to determine whether there is a threat of these hydrocarbons impacting groundwater. HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN A written Health and Safety plan will be implemented for site work conducted during the field investigations conducted for this 'project. The purpose of the plan is to provide specific safety procedures to be implemented during the handling of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated materials. The Health and Safety Plan is required under regulations set forth in Federal OSHA CFR 29 1910.120, since the tank removal laboratory reports documented the presence of potentially hazardous materials at the site. This Health and Safety plan is included as Appendix A to the work plan. SITE CItARACTERIZATION Soil Boring Drilling and Sampling Prior to drilling, Underground Service Alert (USA) will be notified a minimum of 48 hours in advance of drilling activities. A total of seven soil borings are proposed (Figure 2). One soil boring (TH-I) will be slant drilled from the side of the gasoline tank cavity to a bottom hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity to assess EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 8 February 5, 1993 the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this source area. Two soil borings (TH-2 and TH-3) will be advanced adjacent to the western and central dispenser island locations to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath these probable sources. The other four soil borings (TH-4 through TH-7) will be positioned to assess the lateral extent of gasoline concentrations in the soil. Flexibility will be maintained to adjust the location of the other borings based on observations in the field. Drilling for the borings will be accomplished using a truck mounted Mobile B-53~ drill rig, operated by Melton Drilling utilizing 6-inch outside diameter hollow-Stem augers. Because of the overhead canopy at the dispenser islands, these borings will be drilled using Melton's prototype rig with a detachable mast capable of being positioned beneath a 12 foot overhang. The borings will be drilled to a maximum depth of either 1) 50' at each boring, or 2) first grotundwater, if less than 50' from grade, or 3) drilling refusal due to impenetrable, soil or granite, or 4) ten continuous feet of soils not contaminated (based on screening by PID). If field screening indicates that gasoline hydrocarbons are present when drilling has reached a depth of 50 feet, then permission will be obtained from the client to continue to drill the borings to a depth where ten consecutive feet of unimpaeted soil is encountered, or groundwater. The depth to the regional unconfined aquifer is approximately 175 feet below surface grade beneath the site with the direction of groundwater flow to the south (Kern County Water Agency, 1991 Report on Water Conditions, Improvement District No. 4, February t992). The nearest known occurrence of perched groundwater is five miles to the south-southeast at a depth of 20 feet in the abandoned Kern River channel to the ancient Kern Lake bed (Kern County Water Agency, 1991 Water Supply Report, May 1992). No perched groundwater is known to exist beneath the subject site. If groundwater is encountered in any of the borings, then drilling will be terminated, and a bailer will be lowered into the well to collect a water sample. The sample will be observed for evidence of floating product, sheen, odor, and discoloration. The PID will be used to field screen the sample. The results will be recorded on the field boring log. However, ESE does not intend to submit the grab EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 9 February 5, 1993 samples for laboratory analysis. ESE will submit grab samples only at the written request of the City's representative. The results of the laboratory analysis will be communicated to the Client and City's representative, but will not be included in any written report prepared by ESE. ESE is pursuing this policy since grab samples from the inside of drill augers which have penetrated impacted soil at shallower depths have a high probability of producing a false reading of impacted groundwater. A bentonite plug will be placed in the bottom of any soil boring which encounters groundwater to protect the integrity of groundwater prior to grouting the hole. Soil samples will be collected at five foot intervals of depth beginning at five feet below surface grade. Soil sampling will be accomplished using a split-spoon sampler (ASTM D 3550 with shoe similar to ASTM D 1586) equipped with three 6-inch by 2.5- inch diameter brass sleeves for soil retention. The soil samples will be obtained by driving the sampler with a one hundred and forty pound hammer dropping thirty inches in accordance with ASTM D 1586, The lowermost sleeve at each sample interval (corresponding to approximately 18 inches below the actual sample interval) will be screened for total organic vapors with a portable photoionization detector (PID). Headspace vapor analysis is performed by first discarding a portion of the soil retained at one end of the sleeve to produce a headspace. The sleeve is then capped and the probe of the PiD protruded through a hole in the cap and into the headspace for analysis. The PID readings will be recorded on the boring logs. The lowermost and uppermost sleeves will then be observed for lithology. The middle sample sleeve will be immediately sealed with Teflon® film, capped, security taped, labeled, and placed on ice for transportation to a California Department of Health Services (DOHS) certified laboratory. Strict chain of custody procedures will be utilized for all samples collected to ensure sample integrity and to document sample possession from the time of collection to the final destiuation. Laboratory analysis will be performed on all of the samples from the vertical t.! EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 0 February 5, 1993 ') assessing boring, except those near surface samples from within the backfilled excavation pit, and those samples which would duplicate the samples retrieved during the tank removal. ESE will analyze the deepest two "clean" samples not only in the vertical assessing borings, but in any lateral boring which field screening indicates the presence of gasoline hydrocarbons as well as analyzing the "hottest" samples in each of these borings. The lateral assessing borings will be advanced to a sufficient depth to assess that the plume does not extend laterallY to that location. It is estimated that thirty soil samples will be analyzed depending on the depth of the borings. Laboratory turn around time for this phase will be 10 working days. i'J All sampling equipment will be washed with TSP (tri-sodium phosphate) cleanser, and rinsed with tap water and de-ionized water prior to sampling, between sample i intervals, and between borings to minimize the possibility of cross-contamination. The drill auger will be steam cleaned between borings, also to minimize the .) possibility of cross-contamination. Hot pressure washing of the augers will be ~.- performed .within a containment tub, with the augers positioned on a rack. ~:~ The resulting rinsate water will be pumped from the tub into DOT 55 gallon barrels for storage on the site. The facility opera,or is then responsible for the disposition of ?~ the rinsate, either through laboratory analysis to verify non hazardous constituents, or disposal at the appropriate liquids recycling facility. Contaminated drill cuttings, /~-~ and soil sample spoils will also be stored in D.O.T. approved 55-gallon drums, sealed, and left on-site pending confirmation from laboratory analysis as to whether the · .~ contents are hazardous. Disposal of any contaminated soil is the responsibility of the facility operator. ESE will provide a recommendation in the report of findings as to the appropriate disposition of drill cuttings which are confirmed to be impacted with fuel hydrocarbons. After drilling, the clean borings will be backfilled with the clean drill cuttings and capped with a five foot cement grout to seal the abandoned boreholes. Impacted soil borings will be baekfilled with a five sack cement sand slurry with the aid of a tremmie pipe. EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 1 February 5, 1993 Laboratory Analysis o.f Soil Samples Soil samples will be sent to a state-certified laboratory for chemical analysis. The soil samples from the gasoline assessing borings will be analyzed for Total Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPPHg) with a minimum detection limit of 1.0 rog/kg, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) with a minimum detection limit of 0.005 mg/kg using USEPA Test Method 8015 GC/FID (modified for gasoline), and USEPA Test Method 5030/8020 GC/PID, respectively. REPORT OF FINDINGS A report will be prepared which details the field activities, sampling procedures, analytical results, data analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Based upon the conclusions, Earth Systems Environmental will recommend what further actions, if necessary, should be performed. The report will be prepared under the supervision of a Registered Professional. Certified laboratory reports and chain of custody documents will be included. SCHEDULE OF COMPLETION Earth Systems Environmental can mobilize on-site beginning work described in this work plan within approximately one week upon authorization to proceed from Client, and approval of the work plan by the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. The projected time frame for completion of the major tasks is two days for drilling and sampling the borings, two weeks for laboratory analysis, and two weeks for report preparation once the laboratory analysis has been completed. ~ EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP .! World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 2 February 5, 1993 Thank you for your consideration of this work plan. If you have any questions, or if we can be of service in any way, please contact this office at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted, EARTH SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Mark R. Magargee, Senior Hydrogeologist cc: Addressee- 1 World Oil - Greg Petmska - 1 BAK- 1 SLO- ! ! EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP Earth Systems · I TLE Figure. Environmental. Inc. / e.~-o~o~ 4Q6, -MO. ._,~__~ ~.~,, V/ C/N/;r'y ' ~P ~-/ Eadh Systems T I TLE Figure Environmental. Inc. APPENDIX A SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located at 2101 Brundage Lane the city of Bakersfield in Kern County, California. The site was formerly operated as a retail gasoline sales facility. The site is situated within an area of predominantly commercial properties, and residential subdivision. The overall site topography is essemially flat, with a slight fall to the south. SITE HISTORY World Oil Corpoation contracted with Hallmark Construction Company of Los Angeles, California to remove the four 12,000 gallon underground fuel storage tanks, twelve gasoline dispensers, and associated product lines at the site. Hallmark Construction subcontracted with Mobile Labs of Bakersfield, California to provide laboratory analytical services for soil samples collected during the tank removal operations. On October 21, I992 Hallmark Construction excavated the soil above and around the tanks, and removed the tanks, dispensers and associated product pipelines, The tanks were removed under City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division permit. Mobile Laboratories contracted with Earth Systems Environmental to provide an environmental technician to collect soil samples at the direction of Mr. Joe Dunwoody with the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. Six soil samples were collected at depths of two feet and six feet beneath the east end, west end and center of each of the former 12,000 gallon gasoline tanks as shown on Figure 2. These samples are designated S-13 through S-24. Two soil samples were collected at depths of two and six feet in trenches excavated immediately adjacent to each of the 12 dispensers at the site. These samples are designated S-I through S-12. Four composite soil samples (C-I through C-4) were collected from within the Stockpile of soil from above and around the former tank locations. World Oil Service Station No. 29 4 February 5, 1993 TPPH as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics were detected in soil samples from beneath each of the four tanks, the western and central dispenser islands, and the stockpiled soil. The greatest concentration of TPPHg detected was 4,112 mg/kg in Sample S-18 at a depth of two feet beneath the western (fill) end of Tank No. 2. The greatest concentration of benzene was also in this sample at 15.214 mg/kg. ! -~ Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analysis, TPPH as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics were detected at concentrations in excess of RWQCB recommended guidelines for additional assessment activities. Samples where gasoline hydrocarbons exceeded the recommended guidelines are $-2 and S-3A at the western dispenser island, S-6A and S-7 at the central dispenser island, S-16A at the west end of the southern Tank No. 1, S-13, S-13A, S-18 and S-18A at the west end and 'L,~ center of the south central Tank No. 2, S-t7, S-17A, S-19, S-19A, S-23 and S-23A ~-'-:9~ beneath the length of the north central Tank No. 3, and S-20, S-20A, S-22 and 8-22A at I both the east and west ends of the northern Tank No. 4. Sample C-4 from the south --.~ end of the soil stockpile also exceeded the recommended guidelines, The City of .~ Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division is requiring assessment ~:! activities, performed under the direct supervision of a California Registered Geologist or Civil Engineer, consisting of soil borings and laboratory analysis of soil samples :.-.::.~ for the presence of gasoline hydrocarbons to determine the vertical and lateral extent of the impacted soil, and to determine whether there is a threat of these (-i hydrocarbons impacting groundwater. I Based on these analytical results ESE has been retained by World Oil to perform a site · ~ characterization in the vicinity of the gasoline tanks and associated fuel dispensers. PURPOSE The purpose of this plan, which was developed specifically for operations at the referenced site, is to assign responsibilities, establish personnel protection standards and mandatory safety procedures, and provide for contingencies that may arise while field operations associated investigating soil and groundwater are being EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 5 February 5, 1993 conducted at the site. This plan complies with, but does not replace, Federal Health and Safety Regulations as set forth in 29 CFR 1910 and 1926, California Health and Safety Regulations set forth in Title 8, California Code of Regulations, and guidance established by the California Department of Health Services. This plan is to be used by ESE as a supplement to such rules, regulations, and guidance. APPLICABILITY The provisions of the plan are mandatory for all on-site ESE employees engaged in activities known to be or potentially associated with the presence of hazardous materials. These activities may include, but are not limited to, mobilization, project operations, and demobilization. Changes and/or unanticipated site conditions may require modification of this Site Health and Safety Plan (SHSP) in order to maintain a safe work environment. Any proposed changes to this plan should be reviewed by the Corporate Health and Safety Officer of ESE, prior to their implementation. If this is not feasible, the project team leader may modify the plan and record all changes in the field log book. Under no circumstances will the plan modifications conflict with Federal~ state, or local health and safety regulations. Under 29 CFR 19i0.120 (b) (15) ESE is required to notify each subcontractor of the hazardous materials identified by ESE. The acceptance of such responsibility does not and shall not be deemed an acceptance of responsibility for any other health and safety requirements, such as those related to excavating, trenching, drilling or backfilling. Each subcontractor shall perform all work in accordance with a Site Health and Safety Plan for its employees, which covers any exposure to hazardous materials which may be present on site. The subcontractor shall hold ESE harmless from, and indemnify it against, all liability in the case of any injury or injury of its own employees. ESE reserves the right to review the subcontraetor's Site Health and Safety Plan at any time. EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 6 February $, 1993 ESE reserves the right to suspend the subcontractor's site work and ask the subcontractor's personnel to evacuate the hazard area in the event of grossly inadequate health and safety precautions on the part of the subcontractor or the belief that the subcontractor's personnel are or may be exposed to an immediate health hazard. KEY PERSONNEL AND RESPONSIBILITIES ~. The key personnel and their responsibilities for this project are as follows: .-i :! Corp_orate Health. and Safety_ Office. r _.] The ESE Corporate Health and Safety Officer (CHSO) for this project is Mr. Robert Mohle. It is his responsibility for developing and coordinating the ESE health and safety programs. For this project, he is responsible for reviewing and approving this SHSP for accuracy and incorporating new information or guidelines which aid the Project Manager and Site Health and Safety Officer in further definition and control of potential health and safety hazards associated with the project. ~ Project Mamlg~r The ESE Project Manager (PM) for this project is Mr. Mark Magargee. It is his :i!t responsibility to report to upper-level management. The duties of the PM are as follows: ~-~ · Prepare and organize the SHSP which describes all planned field activities ?! that may be encountered at the site. · Obtains permission for site access and coordinate field activities. · .:i · Brief field team on specific assignments and potential hazards, and ensures that all health and safety requirements are met. · Provides a copy of this SHSP to each member of' the project field team. Sit~ Heallh and Safety Officer The ESE Site Health and Safety Officer (SHSO) for this investigation is Mr, Ken Mitchell. He advises the PM on all aspects of health and safety on-site and recommends stopping work if any operation threatens' worker or public safety. Other duties include: EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 7 February 5, 1993 · Implement the SHSP. · Select personal protective clothing and equipment specific for the project and ensures that they are properly stored and maintained. · Assure that all personnel assigned to site have appropriate health and safety training and have a current baseline medical examination. · Assign key safety duties and responsibilities to team members. . ·Monitor the work parties for signs of stress, and also monitors on-site hazards and conditions. ·Know emergency procedures, evacuation routes, arranges on-site first aid facilities and off-site emergency care. · Conduct daily safety meetings and periodic inspections to determine if SHSP is being followed. · Establish and maintain site record keeping, including reporting accidents, as required. · Participate in preparation of SHSP and revise it as necessary. · Verify that drilling or excavation locations have been cleared for underground utilities and other subsurface structures before subsurface exploration is initiated. To~m M~mber~ The responsibilities for the team members are as follows: · Take all reasonable precautions to prevent injury to themselves and to their fellow employees; and · Performing only those tasks that they believe they can do safely, and immediately reporting any accidents and/or unsafe conditions to the client and the CHSO. · Implementing the procedures set forth in the SHSP, and reporting any deviations from the procedures described in the Plan to the SHSO and to the CHSO. EB-8322- I 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 8 February 5, 1993 SITE INFORMATION All field activities will take place on the World Oil Service Station No. 29 property. All drilling activities will take place in the daylight hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. The presence and location of hazardous materials, which are hydrocarbon compounds, has been confirmed through previous investigation. If needed, three blasts of a horn will be sounded for site evacuation. This site information is current and has been verified through analytical testing. HAZARD ASSESSMENT Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials may be a health hazard to site personnel via ingestion, skin absorption, or inhalation. Biohazards or accidental ingestion of contaminants 'may occur via hand-to-mouth actions. Dust inhalation may also contribute to ingestion of chemical contaminants. During excavation, soil sample collection, and sample preparation, inhalation of contaminant vapors could occur. Skin absorption may occur via contact with contaminated soil and/or ground water. The degree of hazard depends upon the adverse characteristics and toxicity of the chemical contamination, the amount of potential contact, and the exposure time. The greatest potential for chemical hazard to site personnel is during excavation activities. The following substance is potentially a chemical hazard at the subject site: Substances Involved Physical State Gh~raeteristics Hydrocarbon Fuels Liquid/Absorbed lrritant The following materials potentially present at this project site are specified by California Health and Safety Code 25249.5 as recognized and conf'mned by the State of California as carcinogenic and/or mutagenie: 1. Gasoline fuel containing benzene. EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 9 February 5, 1993 Potential Worker Hazards With hydrocarbon-based liquids, contact may result in dermal irritation due to desiccation. Respiration of air laden with hydrocarbon vapors may result in oxygen deficiency and/or mucous membrane irritation. Mixtures of air and hydrocarbon fuels exhibit an explosive range thus presenting an explosion hazard. Gasoline fuel may contain significant amounts of benzene, a proven human carcinogen. Potential exposure values and limits for benzene are listed in the table below. TABLE 1 - POTENTIAL EXPOSURE VALUES Chemical Highest Cone, IP1 TLV2 IDLH3 Flammable Detected in (electron (ppm) Level Range volts) ...... Samples (ppm) ....... (percent) . .B. enzene .., 15.214. , .0.9245 ., 10 ... Carcinogen . 1,.3 - Z1 , lionization Potential in electron volts (eV) 2Threshold Limit Value as the time-weighted average (TWA) published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGtH) 3Immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH) level as published by National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Publication Number 85-114, September 1985. ND: non detected Benzene is a colorless liquid with an aromatic odor. It is incompatible with strong oxidizers like chlorine or"" bromine with iron. The routes of exposure for benzene include inhalation, skin absorption, ingestion, and skin and/or eye contact. Symptoms of exposure to benzene include irritation to the eyes, nose, and respiratory system, giddiness, headache, nausea, staggering gait, fatigue, anorexia, lassitude, dermatitis, and abdominal pain. The potential health hazard from benzene exposure is moderate to high at this site. Conditions for. Suspension of .Operations Site monitoring equipment will include a Photo-ionization detector (PID) or a Flame- ionization detector (FID) during drilling and trenching. Field activities at Level D EB-8322-1 930 t -5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 0 February 5, 1993 will be suspended when the continuous FID or PID level in the breathing zone increases to ten times background levels (assuming an ambient range of five to ten ppm). Level of .Protection The level of Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) needed for this investigation is Level D. Level D PPE includes coveralls, leather boots with steel toes and shanks, eye protection, safety helmet and gloves. If warranted, this Site Safety Plan can be modified for use of Level C situations. Modification to Level B or Level A is beyond the scope for this Site Safety Plan and is not permitted. The criteria for upgrading to Level C PPE is the detection of unknown gasses or vapors in concentrations greater than 10 times background levels or unknown liquids present within the work area. Level C PPE includes Tyvek suits, nitrile gloves and rubber boots, eye protection, hard hat, and a full-face air-purifying respirator with Scott 642-OA-H cartridge-filters or equivalent. physical Hazards Drilling equipment will be working near buildings and overhead phone lines. Proper precautions required when working around an operating drill rig will .be strictly adhered to. All workers will be positioned upwind from drilling equipment at all times. Slips, Trips and Falls All field personnel shall become familiar with the general terrain and potential physical hazards (ravines, potholes, and loose gravel) which would be associated with accidental risk to slips, trips and/or falls. Splashes and Spills All field personnel shall wear appropriate chemical resistant gloves and goggles to prevent potential dermal exposure to accident splashes and spills that may occur during excavation of contaminated soil and soil sampling. EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 1 February 5, 1993 Sunburn Working outdoors on sunny days for extended periods of time can cause sunburn to the skin. Excessive exposure to sunlight is associated with the development of skin cancer. Field staff should take precautions to prevent sunburn by using sun-screen lotion and/or wearing hats and long-sleeved garments. Heat Stress Heat stress can be a major hazard, especially for workers donning personnel protective equipment (PPE). The same protective materials that shield the body from chemical exposure also limit the dissipation of body heat and moisture. Heat stress can occur very quickly, depending on the work being performed, the ambient weather conditions, clothing, and the individual characteristics of the worker. Because heat stress is probably one of the most common (and potentially serious) illness at hazardous waste sites, regular monitoring and other preventive precautions are vital. Heat stress monitoring should commence when personnel are wearing PPE, including Tyvek-type coveralls, and the ambient temperature exceeds 70°F. If impermeable garments are not worn, monitoring should start when the temperature reaches 85°F. The following monitoring program is for workers wearing semipermeable or impermeable encapsulating ensembles when the temperature in the work area is above 70°F: Heart Rate should be measured by the radial pulse during a 30 second period as early as possible in the rest period. The next work cycle should be shortened by one-third while the 'rest period is kept the same, if the heart rate exceeds 110 beats per minute. If the heart rate still exceeds 110 beats per minute at the beginning of the next rest period, shorten the following work cycle by one- third. Preventing heat stress is particularly important because once someone suffers from heat stroke or heat exhaustion, that person may be predisposed to additional heat injuries. To avoid heat stress, the following steps may be taken: · Modify work/rest schedules according to monitoring requirements, and mandate slowdowns as needed. '~ EB -8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 2 February 5, 1993 , Alternate personnel assigned to particular tasks to minimize over stress at one job function. · Add additional persons to work team, and work during cooler hours, if ~ possible. · Provide shelter or shaded areas to protect personnel during rest periods. '-? · Maintain workers body fluids to ensure that the cardiovascular system functions adequately by having workers drink 16 ounces of fluid (preferably water) before beginning work, and urge workers to drink at ~ least 16 ounces of fluid during each rest period. · Encourage workers to maintain an optimal level of physical fitness. .l An initial work/rest cycle on one hour work and fifteen minutes rest is recommended for protection of staff when the heat stress hazard is high. The '~ recommended cycle will be adjusted up or down based upon worker monitoring, environmental conditions, and the judgement of the site safety officer. At any time -., field team members recognize the signs or symptoms of heat stress prior to a .... scheduled rest period, they will notify the site safety officer immediately in order -i that a rest period can be called. '~1 Some of the signs and symptoms of heat stress are heat rash, heat cramps, heat ::-ii exhaustion, and heat stroke. Heat rash is characterized by a decreasing ability to tolerate heat and skin irritation and may result from exposure to heat or humid air. :.~.i Skin cleanliness and treatmem with mild drying lotions are necessary to prevent infection. Heat cramps are caused by heavy sweating with inadequate electrolyte ..! replacement and are characterized by muscle spasms and pain in the hands, feet, and '- abdomen. Treatment of this disability consists of administering salted liquids orally. -! Heat exhaustion may result form physical exertion in a hot environment when cardiac output is inadequate to meet increased flow of blood that results from dilation of peripheral blood vessels or dehydration. It is distinguished by pale, cool, moist skin, heavy sweating, dizziness, nausea, and fainting. First aid for heat exhaustion is as follows: I. /mmediately remove victim to support area, or if you are the victim, proceed to the support area. EB -8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 3 February 5, 1993 2. Decontaminate, if practical, before entering support area. 3. Start cooling, but be careful not to cause a chill. 4. if conscious and not in shock, give water to drink slowly. 5. If vomiting, and/or signs and symptoms are not lessening within an hour, call for emergency help and/or transport victim to emergency ~ room. 6. If person is a victim of heat exhaustion, they should not work the ~: remainder of the day. The most serious form of heat stress is heat stroke. This is caused when the temperature regulation fails and the body temperature rises to critical levels. J Immediate action must be taken to cool the body before serious injury and death occur. Red, hot, usually dry skin, lack of, or reduced perspiration, nausea, dizziness and confusion, strong, rapid pulse, and coma are the signs and symptoms of heat stroke. First aid for heat stroke is as follows: 1. Immediately move victim to cool, uncontaminated area, the support area, ., and remove and dispose of victim's chemical-resistant clothing, if wearing any. 2. Cool the victim rapidly using whatever means necessary. This can i include, but may not be limited to, removing clothing, fanning, and ~ placing in water. :~ 3. Do not give drinking water to victim. -'~ 4. Treat for shock, if needed. ': 5. Transport the victim to a medical facility immediately for further cooling :.:-: and monitoring of body functions. Cold Stress Cold stress is a particular concern when field activities are performed while the air temperatures at the site are below 40°F. If winds are blowing at 5 mph or grater and/or the weather is damp or wet, cold stress is even more of a potential hazard. Donning of appropriate clothing, having warm shelter readily available, carefully scheduling work and rest periods, and monitoring workers' physical conditions are precautions that will be taken to prevent cold stress. EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 4 February 5, 1993 Cold injury (frostbite and hypothermia) may occur if cold stress is not prevented. As a preventive measure, the body core temperature must not drop below 96.8°F. Pain in the extremities is the first early sign of cold stress. Severe shivering sets in when the body core temperature drops below 95°F. If this occurs, work will stop immediately and the affected worker(s) will take a warming break of sufficient duration that the signs and symptoms of cold stress go away. Noise Heavy equipment, such as drilling rigs and excavators, may produce loud noise. The effects of noise can include, but may not be limited to: · Physical damage to the ear, pain, and temporary and./or permanent hearing loss. · Communication interference that may increase potential hazards due to the inability to warn of dangers and the proper safety precautions to be taken. OSHA regulation '29 CFR Part 1910.95 describes an effective hearing conservation program that must be administered whenever noise exposures equal or exceed an 8- hour, time-weighted average sound level of '85 dBA (decibels on the A-weighted scale). In addition, if workers are subjected to noise exceeding an 8-hour, time- weighted average sound level of 90 dBA, feasible administrative or engineering controls must be utilized. Heavy Equipment and Drilling Before beginning any site work, the drilling subcontractor will perform a safety inspection of the drilling equipment. Personnel shall not work with equipment that they judge to be unsafe because of deterioration, missing parts, obvious defects, or improper use for site conditions. All equipment shall be bonded and grounded, sparkproof, and explosion-resistant, as appropriate. ANSI-approved hardhats must be worn at and near the drill rig or any other heavy equipment. Since.heavy pieces of equipment will be used during drilling, steel-toed i EB -8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 $ February 5, 1993 boots/shoes are required during drilling operations, as well as during operation of other heavy equipment. The driller must maintain a safe clearance (at least 10 feet) between overhead utility lines and the drill rig at all times. Underground. Utilities The general engineering contractor will locate all underground utility locations prior to the starting of drilling activities. Resources used include site plans, utility companies, and Underground Services Alert (USA). In California, USA must be contacted at least two, but not more than fourteen, days prior to drilling on public property. MEDICAL MONITORING Alt Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. (ESE) employees assigned to the sampling operations must be active participants in ESE Employee Medical Surveillance Program, which meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120. ESE's program requires employees assigned to hazardous waste site investigations and remediation to take pre-assignment, annual, and exit medical examinations. The CHSO will maintain current copies of training certificates and statements of medical program participation for all site personnel. Work-Res~ ~;chodl~l~ Depending on the prevailing temperature and humidity, a work-rest schedule may be necessary. Duration and frequency will be at the discretion of the excavator and/or site supervisor. A supply of potable water will be kept available near the site. Safety. Training Field personnel must receive 40-hour basic health and safety training, designed to comply with the OSHA/EPA requirements for hazardous waste operations and eight hours of annual refresher as set forth in 29 CFR 1910.120, and attend a site-specific safety orientation conducted by the project supervisor. The briefing shall include the following: EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 6 February 5, 1993 1 ) A briefing on the work to be performed and the work schedule 2) A discussion of the potential chemical and physical hazards associated with the work to be performed 3) Hazard identification 4) Purpose and limitations of personal protective equipment 5) Decontamination and emergency response procedures 6) Proper on-site conduct. EMERGENCY CONTACT AND PROCEDURES Contaet.s Should any situation or unplanned occurrence require outside or support services, the appropriate contact from the following should be made: A g e n e y Per son to .Contae. t T ? 1 e p.h o.n.e Ambulance dispatcher 911 Kern County Fire Department dispatcher 911 Police dispatcher 911 City Hazardous Materials Mr. Ralph Huey (805) 326-3911 Mercy Hospital dispatcher .(805)326-2620 To reach Mercy Hospital, take Brundage Lane west one mile to the Oak Street and turn right onto Oak Street Proceed north on Oak Street one mile to Truxtun Avenue, and turn right. Proceed one half mile east on Truxtun Avenue following the signs to the emergency entrance of the hospital at 2215 Truxtun Avenue which will be on the right (south side of Truxtun Avenue in Bakersfield). Paramedics should be summoned in the event of a serious injury; they will arrange to transport the victim to the nearest appropriate facility. A fu'st aid kit will be . available at the site for use in case of minor injuries. If anyone receives a splash or particle in the eye, the portable eyewash will be used to irrigate the eye for 15 minutes. If direct contact with contaminants occurs, affected skin areas should be washed immediately with soap and water. At least one person at the site will have current certification in First Aid and CPR. EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 7 February 5, 1993 SITE LAYOUT The level of hazard associated with the work to be performed does not require dividing the site into formal exclusion, contamination reduction, and support zones. However, care will be taken to avoid breathing vaporized gasoline fuel. CONTAMINATION MONITORING Organic vapor monitoring of the ambient air shall be conducted at reasonable intervals as determined by project personnel. The purpose of monitoring is to determine if vapor levels in the work area are high enough to warrant personal protection measures or evacuation of the site. Organic vapor levels should be monitored using an OVM photoionization meter with an 11.7 eV lamp (probe), calibrated to benzene or a Foxboro~ OVA (organic vapor analyzer) 108 flame-ionization detector calibrated for non-methane hydrocarbons. Background should be determined by taking readings before sampling begins. All readings, background and others, must be recorded. If any continuous measurement is observed to be 10 times over background levels in the work area, respiratory protective action will be required, Lesser protective measures are at the field geologists or engineers discretion. DECONTAMINATION Before leaving the site/work area, personnel must remove all protective equipment and wash their hands, faces and necks. These washing procedures shall be observed before all work breaks. To minimize the potential for cross-contamination, all excavation equipment shall be decontaminated before the start of drilling, between borings, and before removal from the site. Sampling equipment shall be decontaminated before Sampling and between sampling with washing with laboratory-grade detergent, a water rinse and a contaminant-free distilled water rinse. EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 8 February 5, 1993 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES Emergency conditions are considered to exist if: * Any member of the field crew is involved in an accident, experiences any adverse effects or symptoms of exposure while on-site; or * A condition is discovered that suggests the existence of a situation more hazardous than anticipated. In the event of an on-site emergency, the procedures described below are to be immediately followed. 1. Personnel on-site should use the "buddy system" (stay in pairs). In the event of a communication breakdown, i.e. radio malfunction or if radios are not available, ~buddies' should use prearranged hand signals or other means of emergency signals as follows: * Hand gripping throat out of air, can't breath. * Grip partner's wrist or place both hands around waist leave area immediately, no debate! * Hands on top-of head - need assistance * Thumbs down - no, negative. · ~:?~ 2. The field engineer or geologist will establish emergency evacuation routes and will make all project personnel aware of these routes prior to the first on-site ':'~':..~ activities. In the event of an emergency, selection other escape route will be .... based on the nature of the emergency and wind direction. · - 3. Visual contact should be maintained between "buddies" on-site, with the team i remaining in close proximity in order to assist each other in case of .... 1 emergencies. 4. In the event that any member of the field crew experiences any adverse effects of symptoms of exposure while on site, the entire field crew should immediately halt work and follow the instructions provided the project supervisor. EB -8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 20 February 5, 1993 * Nearest water sources. 7. The number of personnel and equipment in the contaminated area should be minimized but only to the extent consistent with work-force requirements of '~ safe site operations. 8. All wastes generated during Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. and/or " subcontractor activities at the site remain the property of the client. PLAN ACCEPTANCE FORM 'i The Plan Acceptance Form (attached) should be filled out by all employees working on the site and retained in the job file. il Corporate Health & Safety Officer Robert Mohle (805) 541-5983 Site Safety Officer Ken Mitchell (805) 836-0901 office (805) 872 8984 - home / Project-Site Safety Plan ·prepared by Mark Magargee in conjunction with the '-~ Corporate Health & Safety Officer. 1 · ::} EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 2 1 February $, 1993 The undersigned have read and understood the attached safety plan and agree to comply with the provisions of this plan. Name Date Name Date Position Position Name Date Name Date Position Position Name Date Name Date Position Position :~.~ Name Date Name Date Position Position Name Date Name Date Position Position EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 143 South Figueroa Street · Ventura, California 93001 (805) 652-0219 · FAX (805) 652-0793 853 West 17th Street · Costa Mesa, California 92627 (714) 642-2660 · FAX (714) 642-2544 2820 Pegasus Drive, Ste. I · Bakersfield, California 93308 (805) 391-0517 · FAX (805) 391-0826 Juty 30, 1993 Mr. Greg Petruska World Oil Marketing Company 9302 South Garfield Avenue South Gate, California 90280 Subject: WORK PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT AT THE FORMER WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY SERVICE STATION #29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Petruska: The following work plan outlines Holguln, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s (HFA) proposed methodology for completing the environmental characterization at the above referenced site. This work plan has been prepared in response to the Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division (BFDHMD) Underground Storage Tank (UST) Local Oversight Procjram's (LOP's) letter dated May 21, and direction recleved from Mr. Ralph Huey of the BFDHMD UST LOP In a June 16 meeting between BFDHMD UST LOP, Mark Magargee with HFA, and yourself. The required work includes further assessment of the area of greatest concentrations of gasoline-containing soil, evaluation of a possible impermeable clay zone beneath the impacted soil, and the preparation of a contaminant fate risk assessment. HFA proposes to drill and sample a single, slant-drilled soil boring 65 linear feet to a depth of 46 feet below ground level (BGL) in order to assess the area of highest concentrations of hydrocarbon-containing soils associated with a former gasoline storage tank at the site. -HFA will also conduct laboratory analyses on three soil samples collected during previous assessment activities to determine the physical characteristics of the clay layer encountered between 80 and 95 feet BGL. Upon completion of the drilling and laboratory analytical work, HFA will provide a report that includes an environmental contaminant fate risk assessment. The risk assessment is intended to provide World Oil Marketing Company (World Oil) with support in the recommendation to the BFDHMD UST LOP that the site be considered for a No Further Action (NFA) determination. 1. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located at 2101 Brundage Lane in Bakersfield, Kern County, California (see Figure 1 - Site Location Map). The site is an abandoned retail gasoline sales facility that previously contained three dispenser islands and four 12,000-gallon, USTs (see Figure 2 - Plot Plan). The project site is bound on the north by ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS ® SCIENTISTS · GEOLOGISTS AND ENGINEERS Contaminated Site Assessments * Real Estate Audits * Site Remediation * Hazardous Waste Management Mr. Greg Petruska ~ HOLGUIN, World Oil Marketing Company ~ FAHAN July 30, 1993- Page 2 ~ &/MqSOCIATES, INC. · ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Brundage Lane, on the east by Oleander Street, on the south by an alley, and on the west by a commercial business. The property Is situated within a developed commercial area along both sides of Brundage Lane, with residential properties flanking Brundage Lane. The topography at the site Is relatively flat with a slight fall to the southwest. The owner contact is Greg Petruska, World Oil Marketing Company, 9302 South Garfield Avenue, South Gate, California, 90280, (310) 928-0100. The consultant contact is Mark Magargee, Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc., 2820 Pegasus Drive, Suite 1, Bakersfield, California, 93308, (80,5) $91-0,517. 2. SITE I~IAP$: Site maps are included as Figures 1 and 2. $. TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND I. IYDROGEOLOG¥: The site is located in a relatively flat area at an elevation of approximately ,500 feet above mean sea level. The site is located in the southern part of the Great Valley geomorphic province, The Great Valley is a north-south trending valley, approximately 400 miles long by',50 miles wide, the southern portion of which is known as the San Joaquin Valley. The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed primarily of unconsolidated Pleistocene-aged (1.6 million to 11,000 years ago) and Recent-aged (11,000 years ago to the present) alluvial sediments. Beneath the alluvial sediments are older, predominantly lake bed deposits, These lie unconformably on Mio-Pliocene marine sediments, which extend to crystalline basement at approximately 80,000 feet. Geologic deposits In the study area include Pleistocene-aged alluvial sediments of the Kern River Formation, which form a homo¢line dipping gently to the southwest (see Figure 3 - Geology Map). The deposits are alluvium consisting of poorly indurated and dissected fan deposits (California Department of Mines and Geology, 1964). On-site soil borings indicate that the alluvium is characterized by unconsolidated, moderate to Iow permeability silt to a depth of approximately 17 feet BGL, overlying unconsolidated, highly permeable, medium-grained to coarse-grained sand with minor gravel to a depth of approximately 28 feet BGL. Underlying this is a zone of unconsolidated, highly permeable, very-fine-grained to medium-grained sand with minor silt to a depth of approximately ,53 feet BGL. This is underlain by unconsolidated, highly permeable, fine-grained to coarse-grained sand to a depth of 82 feet BGL Underlying this is a zone of consolidated, Iow permeability, silty clay to a depth of 98 feet BGL This is underlain by an unconsolidated, highly permeable, medium-grained to coarse-grained gravely sand to a depth of 1D0 feet BGL, which is the greatest depth penetrated in the investigation. ' ~ Mr. Greg Petruska ~ HOLGUIN, World Oil Marketing Company ~ FAH N July 30, 1993- Page 3 &ASSOCIATES, INC. · ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Surface and groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley is derived predominantly from the Sierra Nevada mountain range to the east, and is transported by five major rivers, the southernmost being the Kern River, The subject site Is located approximately two miles south of the Kern River. The depth to the regional unconfined aquifer is approximately 200 feet BGL with the direction of groundwater flow to the south (Kern County Water Agency, 1991 Report on Water Conditions, Improvement District No. 4, February 1992). The nearest known occurrence of perched groundwater is 5 miles to the south-southeast at a depth of 20 feet BGL in the abandoned Kern River channel to the ancient Kern Lake bed (Kern County Water Agency, 1991 Water Supply Report, May 1992). No perched groundwater is known to exist beneath the subject site. 4. TANK HISTORY: World Oil had the former gasoline retail sales facility demolished in October 1992. Hallmark Petroleum Company (Hallmark) of Los Angeles, California, decommissioned the station and removed all of the USTs, product pipelines, and fuel dispensers at the property (see Figure 2). Items removed included four 12,000-gallon, gasoline USTs. 5. IDENTIFICATION AND ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF MATERIAL RELEASED: Gasoline fuels: the quantity released is unknown. 6. PREVIOUS WORK: On October21, 1992, Hallmark excavated the soil above and around the tanks and removed the USTs, dispensers, and associated product pipelines. The tanks were removed under a BFDHMD UST LOP permit. Earth Systems Environmental, Inc., (ESE) provided an environmental technician to collect soil samples under the direction of the BFDHMD UST LOP. Soil samples were collected at depths of 2 and 6 feet below the base of the tanks beneath the eastern end, western end, and center of each of the former 12,000-gallon, gasoline USTs (see Figure 2). These samples are designated S-13 through S-24. Soil samples were also collected at depths of 2 and 6 feet BGL in trenches excavated immediately adjacent to each of the 12 dispensers at the site. These samples are designated S-1 through S-12. In addition, four composite soil samples (C-1 through C-4) were collected at a depth of four feet from within the stockpile of soil excavated from above and around the former USTs. The soil samples were analyzed at Mobile Labs, Inc., for the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, and for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX). TPH as gasoline and BTEX were detected in soil samples from beneath each of the four USTs, the western and central dispenser islands, and Mr. Greg Petruska ~ HOL©UIN, World 0il Marketing Company ~ FAHAN July30, 1993- Page 4 ~ &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS stockpiled soil, The greatest concentration of TPH a,s gasoline detected was 4.112 rog/kg in / sample S-18 at a depth of two feet beneath the western (fill) end of UST No. 2. The greatest concentration of benzene was also found In this sample at a concentration of 15,214 mg/kg. A summary of the analytical results for the facility dJecommissioning operations is presented in Attachment 1, Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analysis, TPH as gasoline and BTEX were detected at concentrations in excess of California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region (RWQCB-CVR) recommended guidelines for additional assessment activities. Samples that had concentrations/ of gasoline hydrocarbons exceeding the recommended guidelines are S-3A ~atj. the western dispenser island, S-6A at the central dispenser island, S-16A at the western en~ of the southern UST No. S-18, and S-18A at the western end and center of the south-central UST No. 2, S-17, S-17A, S-19, S-19A, S-23, and S-23A beneath the length of tl~e north-central UST No. 3, and S-22 and S-22A at the western end of the northern UST No. 4. The BFDHMD UST LOP required assessment activities, consisting of soil borings and laboratory analysis of soil samples for the presence of gasoline hydrocarbons, to determine the vertical and lateral extent of the impacted soil, and to determine whether these hydrocarbons pose a threat of Impacting groundwater. World Oil contracted ESE to perform the preliminary site assessment at the property. Drilling commenced on March 2, 1993, with a total of seven soil borings being drilled in this phase of soil characterization (see Figure 2). Soil boring TH-1 was slant drilled at a 30° angle from vertical from the southern side of the gasoline tank cavityI to a depth of 100 feet BGL, with the / bottom-hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity to assess the vertical extent of Impacted soil beneath this source area. L Soil boring TH-2 was advanced adjacent to thewj estern dispenser island to a depth of 90 feet BGL to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this probable source. Soil boring TH-3 was advanced adjacent to the central dispenser isiand to a depth of 35 feet BGL to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this probable source. Soil borings TH-4, TH-5, TH-6, and IH-7, drilled to del~ths of 45, 45, 50, and 60 feet BGU respectively, were positioned to the north, east, ~outh, and west of the source areas, respectively, to assess the lateral limits of impacted ~soil in those directions. Soil vapors indicative of volatile fuel hydrocarbons were detected in the soil samples obtained from soil boring TH-1 advanced beneath tl-{e location of the former gasoline tanks at elevated concentrations to a depth of 85 fee BGU and continued at detectable ~" ~ ~ Mr. Greg Petruska I HOLOUIN, World 0il Marketing Company FAHAN July 30, 1993- Page 5 & IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS concentrations to a depth of 95 feet BGL. Soil vapors were detected in the soil samples obtained from soil boring TH-2 advanced through the location of the western dispenser to a depth of 90 feet BGL. Soil vapors were detected in the soil samples obtained from soil boring TH-3 advanced through the location of the central dispenser at elevated concentrations through a depth of 35 feet BGL. ,Soil vapors were observed at very Iow to nondetectable concentrations in the lateral assessing soil borings TH-4, TH-5, TH-6, and T H-7. These field readings are collaborated by the analytical results presented below. TPH as gasoline was not detected in the samples from depths of 25, ,.35, and 45 feet BGL in soil boring TH-l, which was slant drilled from the southern side of the 'tank cavity with a bottom-hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity. This was due to the soil boring being in a lateral position to the former USTs at those depths. Below 45 feet BGL, TPH as gasoline was detected to a maximum concentration of 353 rog/kg at 75 feet BGL, decreased to a concentration of 239 mg/kg at 85 feet BGL, dropped to a concentration of 11 mg/kg at 95 feet BGL, and was nondetectable at 100 feet BGL. BTEX was not detected in sail boring TH-1 in the samples from 25 through 45 feet BGL and in the samples from 95 and 100 feet BGL. BTEX was detected directly below the former USTs in the samples from 55 through 85 feet BGL. TPH as gasoline was detected in sail boring TH-2, positioned through the western dispenser location, at concentrations of 39 rog/kg at 10 feet BGL, 76 mg/kg at 20 feet BGL, and 11 rng/kg at 30 feet BGL. Below that depth, ,soil boring TH-2 intersected the lateral extent of the tank cluster plume and the hydrocarbon concentration increased to 210 rog/kg at 60 feet BGL, decreasing to a concentration of 36 rog/kg at 70 feet BGL, and remaining detectable at a concentration of 36 rog/kg at 90 feet BGL. Benzene, toluene, and total xylenes were also detected in the samples from 10 through 90 feet BGL in soil boring TH-2. Soil boring TH-2 was terminated at that depth due to soil boring TH-1 already delineating the vertical extent of impacted soil directly beneath the former USTs at a depth of 100 feet BGL. TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-3, positioned through the central dispenser location, at concentrations of 4,058 rog/kg at 10 feet BGL, 725 rog/kg at 20 feet BGL, then decreasing to 229 mg/kg at 30 feet BGL and 234 rog/kg at 35 feet BGL. BTEX was also detected in soil boring TH-3 in the samples from 10 through 35 feet BGL. Soil boring TH-3 was terminated at that depth due to soil boring TH-1 already delineating the vertical limits of impacted soil. HOLGUIN, World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN July 30, 1993- Page 6 i &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-4, positioned 15 feet north and midway between the western and central dispenser islands, at concentrations of 39 rog/kg at 15 feet BGL, 18 rog/kg at 25 feet BGL, 15 mg/kg at 35 feet BGL, and 16 rog/kg at 45 feet BGL. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations. TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-5, positioned 25 feet east of the tank cluster, at concentrations of 14 mg/kg at 15 feet BGL, 23 rog/kg at 25 feet BGL, 15 mg/kg at 35feet BGL, and 51 mg/kg at 45feet BGL. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations. TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-6, positioned 20 feet south of the tank cluster, at concentrations of 116 mg/kg at 10 feet BGL, 8 mg/kg at 20 feet BGL, 17 rog/kg at 80 feet BGL, 12 mg/kg at 40 feet BGL, and was not detected at 50 feet BGL, Ethylbenzene concentrations were not detected in these Samples and benzene, toluene, and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations or were nondetectable. TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-7, slant drilled from the southwestern cornet of the tank cluster to a bottom-hole location 15 feet west of the center of the tank cluster, at concentrations of 15 rng/kg at 25 feet BGL, 29 mg/kg at 85 feet BGL, 16 rog/kg at 45 feet BGL, 71 mg/kg at 5,5 feet BGL, and 117 rng/kg at 65 feet BGL. Soil boring TH-7 was terminated at that depth because soil boring TH-1 already delineated the vertical limits of impacted soil. Ethylbenzene concentrations were not detected In these samples and benzene, toluene, and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations or were nondetectable. A summary of the analytical results for the 41 selected soil samples from the 7 soil borings Is presented in Attachment 1, Table 1.3. The data obtained from the tank removal operations suggests that soil impacted with gasoline hydrocarbons at concentrations in excess of RWQCB-CVR recommended guidelines exists at the subject site beneath the former gasoline USTs and near the western and center dispenser islands. The subsequent soil drilling activities indicate that gasoline hydrocarbons in excess of 1,000 rog/kg likely extend to a depth of less than 30 feet BGL. Gasoline hydrocarbons in excess of 100 rog/kg extend to a depth of less than 90 feet BGL, and detectable concentrations of gasoline hydrocarbons extend to a depth less than 1 CI0 feet BGL. Il Mr. Greg Petruska HOL©UIN, World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN July 30, 1993- Page 7 & ~IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS The BFDHMD UST LOP reviewed the preliminary assessment data, and concurred in their letter dated May 21, 1993, that the vertical and lateral limits of gasoline-impacted soil had been delineated. However, the BFDHMD UST lOP recommended that further assessment be conducted to determine the vertical profile within the area of greatest concentrations of gasoline-impacted soil immediately beneath the locations of the former UST. Furthermore, in the June 16 meeting between Mr. Ralph Huey of the BFDHMD UST LOP, Mark Magargee of HFA, and yourself, Mr Huey directed that, if World Oil desired to pursue an NFA determination for the site, then the BFDHMD UST LOP would require additional definition of the clay zone at 80 to 95 feet BGL, as well as a complete contaminant fate risk assessment. 7. STRATEGY AND PROCEDURES FOR ADDITIONAL SITE ASSESSMENT: The intention of this work plan Is to take measures to further assess the vertical profile of gasoline-impacted soils immediately beneath the location of the former USTs, and to define the procedures to be used to assess the physical characteristics and lateral continuity of the clay zone from 80 to 9,5 feet BGL at the site. It is proposed to accomplish this through the drilling and sampling of a single, slant-drilled soil boring 65 linear feet to o depth of 46 feet BGL; conduct laboratory analysis on three soil samples collected during the previous ossessment activities to determine the physical characteristics of the clay layer; research county files for well logs of water wells in the area; and construct cross sections through the site using these wells logs to describe the stratigraphic sequence beneath the gasoline-impacted soil to the first occurrence of groundwater at approximately 200 feet BGL. HFA will then provide a report that includes an environmental contaminant fate risk assessment. The risk assessment is intended to provide World Oil with support in the recommendation to the BFDHMD UST LOP that the site be considered for an NFA determination. The risk assessment is Intended to assess the potential release of hazardous constituents from the former gasoline tanks at World Oil Station 29 to potential human and environmental receptors. The assessment estimates the potential for release of the hazardous constituents from the facility by examining a combination of chemical and physical factors that affect the potential for contaminants to migrate off site. This approach to risk assessment is based on USEPA-HRS 1985, USEPA-HRS 1988, and NYDOH TR-847-ZC. All probability equations are based on these recognized scoring systems used by and developed for state and federal regulatory agencies. The calculated probabilities for each migration pathway are then compared to an estimated value that serves as a flag to indicate if initiation of any portion of a baseline risk assessment is warranted. The migration pathways to be assessed are: 1. on-site contact; Mr, Greg Petruska FIOLGUIN, World Oil Marketing Company ~ FAHAN July 30, 1993- Page 8 ~ & ~IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 2. surface water transport; 3. groundwater contamination; 4. air vapor transport; and 5. soil vapor transport. It is HFA's opinion that this assessment will indicate a Iow probability for all of the above items, except the potential to impact groundwater. Therefore, further risk assessment will be required to quantify the risk of leaching to groundwater. This additional assessment is performed to quantify the potential for the gasoline hydrocarbons documented at the subject site to leach to groundwater. Gasoline hydrocarbons have been detected to a depth of 95 feet BGL, and groundwater is estimated at a depth of greater than 200 feet BGL. The risk assessment will use a computer program to model the mass of contaminants present in the subsurface, the leaching pathway of this mass of contaminants, and the potential that any of these contaminants will leach to the groundwater. Information required to input into the computer program Includes physical characteristics of the soil through the depth of groundwater. 8. DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED: Prior to any intrusive methods being conducted at the site, USA Underground Alert will be contacted. Based on the clearances obtained, ~ HFA will site the soil boring in a safe location. HFA proposes to slant drill a single soil boring 65 linear feet to a depth of 46 feet BGL utilizing a hollow-stem, flight auger (see Figure 2 for proposed location). The soil boring (TH-8) will be drilled from a surface location on the eastern side of the tank cavity to a bottom-hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity. The site stratigraphy will be continuously monitored using the Unified Soil Classification System by an experienced environmental geologist under the direction of a State of California registered geologist. Soil vapor samples will be analyzed on site using a photoionization detector, and the data will be recorded along with sample location, depth, and background concentrations. Soil sampling will be performed at five-foot intervals while drilling. Each soil sample will be collected with a California split-spoon sampter lined with two-inch by six-inch stainless steel or brass sleeves. When the sample is withdrawn from the sampler, the ends of the sleeve will be covered with TeflonTM tape followed by plastic caps. Sample preservation, handling, and transportation will be as described in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) field manual. Bofehole drilling and soil sampling procedures are described in Attachment 2, Approximately six selected soil samples will be analyzed for TPH as gasoline using DOHS LUFT Manual Method (Modified EPA Method 8015) and for BTEX using EPA Method 8020. HOLGUIN, World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN Ju¥ 30, 1993- Page 9 & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 9. EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES: Sampling equipment will be decontaminated using a non-phosphate soap wash, a water rinse, and two distilled, deionlzed water rinses. The hollow-stem, flight auger will be decontaminated in a similar manner between boreholes. 10. WASTE DISPOSAL PROCEDURES: All contaminated soil will be containerized on site In ,55-gallon, Department of Transportation drums, pending analysis results from ,the laboratory. If contaminated, the waste will be hauled off site for disposal at an appropriate facility. 11. EMERGENCY OR INTERIM CLEANUP: Not applicable. 12. WORK SCHEDULE: Work will begin within two weeks subsequent to acceptance of this work plan by the BFDHMD UST LOP. The BFDHMD UST'LOP will be notified at least 48 hours before any on-site work commences. A report of additional site characterization and contaminant fate risk assessment will be submitted to the BFDHMD UST LOP approximately six weeks after commencement of the work. 13. SITE SAFETY PLAN: A health and safety plan developed by HFA's industrial hygienist for underground storage tank site investigations is included In Attachment 3. Procedures for conducting all work are outlined In this plan, and site-specific information is provided on the cover page. All work will be accomplished in accordance with all regulatory requirements as defined by the SWRCB LUFT field manual and the BFDHMD UST LOP LUFT guidance documents. HOLGUIN, World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN July 30, 1993- Page 10 & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc., trusts that this work plan provides you with the information you require. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to carl. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth J~;~it~h-ell -~ Mark R. M6gargee, R.G/ ~' Assistant Geologist Senior Hydrogeologist Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. MRM:ffm:drr Enclosures: Rgure 1 Site Location Map Rgure 2 Plot Plan Rgure $ Geology Map Attachment 1 Summary Tables Attachment 2 Borehole Drilling and Soil Sampling Procedures Attachment.3 Health and Safety Plan LEGEND WORLD OIL S1-A [ION//29 210~ Bt:~UNDAGE LANt:-- I~AKI.~I'~',~F I1~1_1). CAI IFO~-~NIA I:I(;IJI]F'I F;III!I.(}E~ATIONMAI) II()I,(;IIIN, FAllAN & A,~,~()(;IA'I'I,:,",;, IN(:. I 1 .- F£NC[ I I I I ~ i ~ A FORMER DISPENSER i i __ / ISLANDS i S ~ S-~2 s-] [~/ / ~ ~ ~ TH-3. S-2 i [<: ~TH-2 S-ZA~ i S-21 S-Z0 m ~S-6A . . ........ o-i ~ _i~ S-ZlA S-20A s-~ ~&:~,~.,~::::.~,~,,_~s-s ~~ ~ ~ c-L~ ~ i . S-lA- ~~~:t:/~5/i S-SA ~-~A ~ ~ i ,, S-Z2A . :::::.~..==-j .......................... .... : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ~ ~ ,~ ¢~ ~{ ~'~ [~'~{[~f{f~'~ ~J: i ~ LEGEND WORLD OIL ~ TANK REUOVAL SAUPLE LO~TIONS STATION g29 SCALE IN FE~ 2101 BRUNDAGE ~NE : BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~ BORING LOCATIONS ~ FIGURE 2 - PLOT P~N ~ PROPOSED 0 10 20 I BORING LOOATION N LEGEND WORLD OIL STATION//29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE3 - GEOLOGY MAP HOLGUIN, FA/LAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ..... l-H-1 TH-6 0 EXCAVATION LIMIT~ ' ~'i'~'' · FORMER 12,000 GAL. TANKS 1 O' I ~;~i >100 Mg/Kg TPH(g) SW/GW -" 30' >1,000 Mg/Kg ', 7 30' 15 40' SW/SM TPH (g) ~2 16 40' > 100 Mg/Kg TD45' I'~ 50' ~ '50' loo ::..-.:...:...:...:...:...:..... TDS0' 60' SW SW 60' 166 . . . 70' :....', ..:.. 70' 353 :.-.:.-.:...:.-.:...: 80' '" '" "' ' ...... ]] ]":" 80' 37 239 90' 3~ :::.....-:'.:.:_:~.-':-! CL/ML TD90 ........ 90' 11 100' :?'.':,'.':~i:::?'.':~'-:-:-:.:-:-:.".?,'.'.,'.'-~:-,'.-.:-'..:. .:.: ~ .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. TPH(g) :?:":'"":' SW/GW :::"-':'::'.':--':-.'::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::-'.'::::.'.':.'.'ii" ':':':':':':':':' i:i::i::J 100' ~:.:.:.:.' TD100' -".:-'..'.-:.:.:.:. >10 Mg/Kg ....... ~"-.:.:.:.:.:.':,.". ........... :.:.:.~ LEGEND WORLD OIL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE 1" = 20' STATION #29 SW- WELL GRADED SAND 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE SW/GW- WELL GRADED GRAVELLY SAND BAKERSF ELD, CALIFORNIA SW/SM- WELL GRADED SILTY SAND FIGURE 4- CROSS SECTION AA' ML- SILT CL/ML- SILTY CLAY ' HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. B I~_ 16' ..L. d B' 45' 'T' '1 TH-7 TH-1 TH-5 EXCAVATION 10' 10' 14 :::::::::::::::::::::::: 20' SW/GW ~-:- 30' \ 30' 35 I 40' SW/SM I 40' 50' TD45' '50' / 60' 60' .:.'.-:.?....!.. 70' .;~..-.~:?.-~; SW 70' 80' 80' 90' TPH(g) i:~-'.::.-':90' ~ ~.:~i > 100 Ivlg/Kg ..-.:. .'-:~;~._,.~. '-:.-:~-:::~.-----:~::~.-:-i-~i-:--.-?:.-:-:::-:-::---:::~-~ 1 00' SW/G 1 0' LEGEND WORLD OIL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE 1" = 20' STATION #29 SW- WELL GRADED SAND 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE SW/GW- WELL GRADED GRAVELLY SAND BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA SW/SIvI- WELL GRADED SILTY SAND FIGURE 5- CROSS SECTION BB' ML- SILT CL/IVlL~ SILTY CLAY HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT 1. SUMMARY TABLES & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM DISPENSER DECOMMISSIONING SAMPLE LOCATION TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL NUMBER DEPTH GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (feet BGL) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/k~l) (rog/kg) MRL N/A NIA 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 S-1 W Dispenser-S End 2 88 N D N D N D N D S-lA W DisDenser-S End 6 20 N D N D N D N D S-2 W Dispenser-S Central 2 221 N D N D N D N D S-2A W Dispenser-S Central 6 33 N D N D N D N D S-3 W Dispenser-N Central 2 44 N D N D N D N D S-3A W Dispenser-N Central 6 2,612 ND 8.238 ND 118.040 S-4 W Dispenser-N End 2 19 N D N D N D N D S-4A W Dispenser-N End 6 8 N D N D N D N D S-5 Center Dispenser-S End 2 N D N D N D N D N D S-SA Center Dispenser-S End 6 N D N D N D N D N D S-6 Center Dispenser-S Central 2 N D N D N D N D N D S-6A Center Dispenser-S Central 6 884 N D 2.643 N D 60.959 S-7 Center Dispenser-N Central 2 116 N D N D N D 2.662 S-7A Center Dispenser-N Central 6 41 N D N D N D N D S-8 Center Dispenser-N Central 2 53 N D N D N D N D S-8A Center Dispenser-N End 6 N D N D N D N D N D S-9 E Dispenser-S End 2 34 N D N D N D N D S-9A E Dispenser-S End 6 N D N D N D N D N D S-lO, E Dispenser-S Central 2 N D N D N D N D N D S-IOA E Dispenser-S Central 6 N D N D N D N D N D S-11 E Dispenser-N Central 2 10 N D N D N D N D S-11A E Dispenser-N Central 6 15 N D N D N D N D S-12 E Dispenser-N End 2 N D N D N D N D N D S-12A E Dispenser-N End 6 ND ND ND ND ND C-1 North End Stockpile 4* 10 N D N D N D N D C-2 West Side Stockpile 4* 13 N D N D N D N D C-3 East Side Stockpile 4* 41 N D N D N D N D C-4 South End Stockpile 4' 850 N D N D N D 4,428 BGL = Below grade level. MRL = Minimum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable. N D = Not detected. W = West. S = South. N = North. E = East. *Collected at a depth of four feet from within the stockpile of soil. HOLGUIN, Summary Tables FAHAN Page 2 & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS TABLE 1.2 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM TANK EXCAVATION SAMPLE LOCATION TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL . NUMBER DEPTH GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (feet BBT) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) MRL N/A N/A 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 S-13 UST 2-Center 2 1,010 N D 1.232 N D 17.896 S-13A UST 2-Center 6 1,100 N D 16.719 N D 101.670 S-14 UST 1-East End 2 10 N D N D N D N D S-14A UST l-East End 6 8 ND ND ND ND S-15 UST 1-Center 2 21 N D N D ! N D N D S-15A UST 1-Center 6 N D N D N D N D N D S-16 UST 1-West End 2 86 N D N D N D 1.111 S~16A UST l-West End 6 1,416 ND 45.742 ND 161.403 S-17 UST 3-Center 2 3,066 12.417 109.232 2.224 209.225 S-17A UST 3~Center 6 171 N D 1.547 N D 23.051 S-18 UST 2 West End 2 4,112 15.214 127.826 5.010 220.918 S-18A UST 2-West End 6 ,3,046 1.850 59.290 N D 204.717 S-19 UST 3-West End 2 2,867 7.080 94.182 1.312 207.777 S-19A UST 3-West End 6 2,560 0.575 91.755 N D 199.613 S-20 UST 4-East End 2 102 N D N D N D 1.216 $-20A UST 4-East End 6 186 N D N D N D 2.435 S-21 UST 4-Center 2 31 N D N D N D 0.339 S-21A UST 4-Center 6 23 N D N D N D 0.197 S-22 UST 4-West End 2 2,314 N D 79.630 N D 205.173 S-22A UST 4-West End 6 2,118 N D 70.875 N D 189.661 S-23 UST 3-East End 2 1,256 N D 2.101 N D 13.011 S-23A UST 3-East End 6 1,010 N D N D N D 2.226 S~24 UST 2-East End 2 33 N D N D N D N D S-24A UST 2-East End 6 41 N D N D N D N D BBT: Below base of tank. MRL = Mimmum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable. UST = Underground storage tank N D = Not detected. HOL©UIN, Summary Tables FAHAN Page 3 & IATES, INCi ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS TABLE 1.3 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM ESE'S PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT TPH A~ ETH ~'L- T0'TAL BORING NO. DEPTH GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (teet BGL) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) MRL N/A 1 0,001 0.001 0.001 0.00i TH-1 25 ND ND ND ND NE) TH-1 35 ND ND: ND ND ND TH-1 45 ND ND ND ND Nd TH_i 55' ,, 100 N D; 0.731 N D, 0.502 TH-1 65 166 3.147 J 2.490 0.616 4.496 TH-1 75 353 3.188 " 3.171 0.590 20.242 TH-1 85 239 4.842 5,453 1.010 18.466 TH-1 95 11 ND ND ND ND TH-1 100 ND ND ND ND ND TH-2 10 39 0,800 0.571 N D 1.068 TH-2 20 76 1.252 1.404 N D 9,905 TH-2 30 11 N D N D N D 0.100 TH-2 40 27 N D 0,439 N D 0,617 TH-2 50 17 0.68 0.188 N D 0.404 TH-2 60 210 0.506 0.737 N D 10.594 TH-2 70 36 0,526 0.782 N D 0.743 TH-2 80 28 0.265 0.4'29 N D 0,931 TH-2 85 37 0.518 0,945 N D 2,533 TH-2 90 36 0.023 0.134 N D 3,290 TH-3 10 4,058 9.605 387.169 6.693 539.834 J TH-3 20 725 0.082 0,255 N D 88.444 TH-3 30 ~'29 N D 0,459 N D 19,334 I TH-3 35 234 0.061 0.662 N D 20.312 TH-4 15 39 N D 1.287* N D 2.143 TH-4 25 18 ND ND ND 0.211 TH-4 35 15 N D 0.188 N D 0.260 TH-4 45 .16 N D 0.137 N D 1.004 TH-5 15 " 14 ND ND ND 0.236 TH-5 25 23 N D 0.142 N D 0.879 TH~5 35 15 N D N D N D 0.100 TH-5 45 51 N D 0.259 N D 1.136 TH-6 10 116 0.162 0.947 N D 7.706 TH-6 20 8 N D N D N D N D TH-6 30 17 N D N D N D N D TH-6 40 12 ND ND ND ND TH-6 50 N D N D N D N D N D TH-7 25 15 ND ND ND 0.296 TH-7 35 29 N D 0.132 N D 0.632 TH-7 45 16 N D 0,069 N D 0.592 TH-7 55 71 ND '0.365 ND 1.615 TH-7 J 60 117 0.063 0.805 J ND 3.833 ESE = Earth Sistems Environmental, Inc. BGL = Below ground level. MRL = Minimum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable. N D = Not detected. AI'rACHMENT 2. BOREHOLE DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES .~ HOLGUIN,~ & ASSC~IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS BOREHOLE DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES SITING Soil borings will be positioned as noted in the work plan. TRUCK-MOUNTED DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES Each borehole will be manually drilled for the first tour feet in order to establish that the area was clear of subsurface structures. The borings will be drilled with 8-inch outside diameter, hollow-stem, flight augers to the depths noted in the work plan. During the drilling process, soil cuttings will be continuously monitored in conformance with the monitoring procedures, and data was recorded on soil boring logs by an experienced environmental geologist under the direct supervision of a State of California registered geologist. Soil samples will be collected with a California split-spoon sampler at intervals consistent with the work plan, unless a change in lithology was noted, in which case an additional sample will be collected. The sampler will be outfitted with 2,5-inch by S-inch stainless steel or brass sleeves'. When the sample is withdrawn, the ends of the sleeve are covered with aluminum foil or TeflonTM tape followed by plastio caps. Sample preservation, handling, and transportation procedures will be consistent with HFA's QA/QC procedures. BOREHOLE MONITORING PROCEDURES Cuttings from soil borings will be continuously classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and logged by an experienced environmental geologist under the direct supervision of a State of California registered geologist. Specific geologic and hydrologic information that will be collected include stratigraphy (i.e., layer thickness, unit correlation, aquifer thickness, depth to groundwater, and confining units, if any), relative permeability, observed porosity, plasticity, moisture content, soil type. structure, size, and other features that could affect contaminant transport. Specific geologic and hydrologic information that will be obtained during borehole construction includes the following: · stratigraphic characteristics: thickness, correlation of units, extent (horizontal and vertical) of aquifers and confining units, if any; · observed porosity; * volatile organic content; · particle-size distribution; · moisture content; · plasticity; * strength; EN¥1RONMENT~L MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS · mineral composition; · depth to groundwater; · soil type, structure, size; and · distribution of soil type. The data will be recorded on individual soil boring logs, including observations regarding the types and quanlities of waste materials encountered and any photoionization detector readings. This data 'is recorded on a standardized Icg sheet in the Field Log Book. Specific information that will be recorded is listed in Table 1, below. TABLE 1. SOIL BORING LOG INFORMATION GENERAL ,* Project name * Borehole location; map and · Borehole name/number elevation '~ !* Date started and finished * Rig type (bit size/auger size) '? J* Geologist's name * Petrologic lithologic classification Driller's name scheme used (Wentworth, USCS) Sheet number INFORMATION' COLUMNS Depth * Gradation Sample location/number * Narrative description Photoionization or Flame * Soil Classification Ionization Detector Reading NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION Geologic Observations - Soil/rock type - Particle Size - Organic content - Color and stain - Depositional structures - Odor - Gross petrology - Bedding - Suspected contaminant - Friability - Fossils - Discontinuities - Degree of weathering - Moisture content Water-bearing zones - Particle shape - Formational strike and dip Drilling Observations - Changes in drilling method - Advance rates or equipment rig - Amounts and types of - Readings from detection chatter any liquids used equipment (if any) - Caving/hole stability - Water levels - Drilling difficulties :* Other Remarks - Equipment failures - Deviations from drilling plan - Possible contamination Weather HOL©U1N, soi Boring Procedures FAHAN Page 3 & IATES, INC. ENVI~ONMENT.~.L MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS All field logs will be typed and presented verbatim in an appendix of the preliminary soil assessment report. The typed soil boring logs will be on a form identical to that used in the field Icg book. Each soil boring Icg includes a graphic Icg in which a symbol for each USCS soil group is included for each soil interval. DATA REDUCTION The data compiled from the soil borings will be summarized and analyzed. A narrative summary of the soil characteristics will also Presented. The soil boring logs are checked for the following information: · correlation of stratigraphic units among boreholes; · identification of zones of potentially high hydraulic conductivity; · identification of the confining formation/layer; · indication of unusual/unpredicted geologic features (fault zones, fracture traces, facies changes, solution channels, buried stream deposits, cross-cutting structures, pinchout zones, etc.); and · continuity of petrographic features such as sorting, grain-size distribution, cementation, etc. Borehole locations will be plotted on a properly scaled map. The purpose of each borehole/piezometer/monitoring well/pit/soil sample is indicated on the map. Depending on the results of this analysis, the soil stratigraphy of the site is presented,in a scaled stratigraphic column (if soil stratigraphy is laterally homogeneous) or, more likely, in a scaled cross section or a fence diagram (if soil is laterally heterogeneous). Specific features that may impact contaminant migration, e.g., fault zones or impermeable layers, will be discussed in narrative form and supplemented with graphical presentations as deemed appropriate. DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES Prior to each sampling episode, the sampling equipment was decontaminated using a non-phosphate soap wash, a tap water rinse, and two deionized water rinses. The drill string was decontaminated with a steam cleaner between each well/boring. HOL©UIN, Soil Boring Procedures FAHAN Page 4 & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS BOREHOLE ABANDONMENT The boreholes will be abandoned with a 5% bentonite neat cement grout delivered by a grout pump through a tremmie pipe. WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL The cuttings from the boreholes will be stored in 55-gallon, Department of Transportation drums. Each drum will be labeled with the date that the waste was generated and the numbers Of the soil borings from which the waste was withdrawn, The drums will be stored at the site of generation until sample analyses were obtained. Sample analyses and an inventory of drums will be then given to World Oil marketing Company's project manager, Mr. Greg Petruska, who will coordinate on-site treatment or proper disposal of the soil, according to Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. ATrACHMENT 3. HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN HOLGIJIN -FAHAN & IATF_ , INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK INVESTIGATIONS SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION Site Address : 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California Name of Business Occupying Site : World Oil Station 29 Owner Name : World Oil Marketing Company Owner Contact : Greg Petruska Owner Tel. #: (310)928-0100 BFDHMD Contact : Ralph Huey Tel. #: (805) 326-3979 FIELD ACTIVITIES AND GOALS OF THIS INVESTIGATION: Advance one soil boring to a depth of 6,5 feet and analyze six soil samples for gasoline hydrocarbons. KNOWN HAZARDS AT THE SITE INCLUDE: Gasoline Hydrocarbons KEY PERSONNEL AND RESPONSIBILITIES: N A M E RESPONSIBILITIES Kenneth Mitchell SITE SAFETY OFFICER - Person primarily responsible for site safety, response operations, and protection of the public. Responsible for work site inspections to identify particular hazards and define site (805) 391-0517 security. Mark Magargee _PROJECT MANAGER - Responsible primarily for site characterization. The project manager delineates authority, coordinates activities and functions, and directs activities related to mitigative efforts of clean-up (805) 391-0517 contractors. Kenneth Mitchell SITE INVESTIGATIVE PERSONNEL - Persons responsible for actual field work including sampling, monitoring, equipment use, and other related (80,5) 391-0517 tasks as defined by the project manager. ANTICIPATED WEATHER CONDITIONS FOR THIS AREA DURING THE PROJECT'S DURATION WILL BE: Temp. range : 80-100°F Humidity: 10-20% Ambient temp.: 90°F Potential for heat stress : High: X Medium: Low: ANTICIPATED PROTECTION LEVEL DURING THIS PROJECT* Level D *Will be upgraded or downgraded to fit situations as they arise. EMERGENCY INFORMATION: All emergency calls : 911 Closest hospital with emergency room : Mercy Hospital 221§ Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California (805) 632-5275 Map Showing Route from Site to Hospital Attached? Yes: X No: HOLGUIN,~ ~~--~ FAHAN ~ & A.~SOCIATF~, 1NC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITE REMEDIATIONS This document outlines Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s (HFA) health and safety plan for City of Bakersfield underground storage tank (UST) site assessments. Site-specific information is provided on the cover page to this document. This health and safety plan was developed by HFA's industrial hygienist through consultation of the following documents: * OSHA 29 CFR 19113 - "Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, Final Ruling," March 1989; · NIOSH/OSHA/USCG/EPA "Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities," October 198,5; and · HFA's Corporate Standard Safety Program. This health and safety plan is divided into the following categories: 1. Job Hazard Assessment 2. Exposure Monitoring Plan 3. Personal Protective Equipment 4. Work Zones and Security Measures 5. Decontamination and Disposal 6. Worker Training 7. Emergency Procedures 1. JOB HAZARD ASSESSMENT Immediate tasks at any leaking UST site include an evaluation of any present or potential threat to public safety. Questions need to be answered regarding the dangers of significant vapor exposures and potential explosion hazards. POTENTIAL CHEMICAL HAZARDS The chemical components of gasoline that are the most dangerous to site workers are the volatile aromatics benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and potentially, organic lead. Additionally, solvents such as 1,2-dichlorobenzene and 1,2-dichloroethane may also be used as cleaning solutions at service stations. The primary health risks associated with each of these chemicals are described below. GasQJ~le_- Suspected human carcinogen. A threshold limit value (TLV) of 300 ppm or 900 mg/m3 has been assigned to gasoline. This value of 300 ppm was assigned based on an average of 3 percent benzene (10 ppm TLr) in gasoline. Low-level inhalation exposure to gasoline can cause irritation to the eyes, nose and respiratory system, headache, and nausea. HOLGUI Health and Safety Plan J Page 2 FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS B_er~z~ene_ - Suspected human carcinogen. A TLV of 10 ppm or $0 mg/m3 has been assigned to benzene. Benzene has a Iow odor threshold limit of 1.4 ppm. Low level inhalation exposure to benzene can cause irritation to the eyes, nose and respiratory system, headache, and' nausea. ~o. JLLe~ - A TLV OF 100 ppm or 375 mgJm3 has been assigned to toluene. Toluene has a Iow odor threshold limit of 2.1 ppm. Low level inhalation exposure to toluene can cause fatigue, weakness, confusion, and euphoria. ~JJ~_~nzene - A TLV of 100 ppm or 455 mg/m3 has been assigned to ethylbenzene. Ethylbenzene has a Iow odor threshold limit of 2 ppm. Low level inhalation exposure to ethylbenzene can cause irritation to the eyes and mucous membranes. ~yJ~,j;~ - A TLV of 100 ppm or 435 mg/m3 has been assigned to xylene. No Iow odor threshold limit has been established for xylene. Low level inhalation exposure to xylene can cause dizziness, excitement, 'and drowsiness. ~-Dichlorobenzene A TLV of 50 ppm Or 306 mg/m~ has been assigned to 1,2-dichlorobenzene. 1,2-dichlorobenzene has a Iow odor threshold limit of 4.0 ppm. Acute ) vapor exposure can cause coughing, dizziness, and drowsiness. It may cause skin irritation. 1,2-Dichloroethane - A TLV of 200 ppm has been assigned to 1,2-dichloroethane. No data is available concerning odor threshold. Acute vapor exposure can cause coughing, dizziness, and drowsiness, ff may cause skin irritation. ~e_~ Lead - A TLr of 0.1 mg/m3 has been assigned to tetraethyl lead. Tetraethyl lead is a colorless or red-dyed liquid at atmospheric conditions. No data is available concerning odor threshold. Acute vapor exposure can cause insomnia, delirium, coma, and skin irritation. POTENTIAL PHYSICAL HAZARDS ~rLLenchirkg - Dangerously high fuel vapor levels will be monitored using a lower explosive limit (LEL) meter. The presence of underground utilities also are of concern and the Underground Service Alert will be notified in advance of any drilling work for identification of all underground utilities in the immediate area. HOLGUI Health and Safety Plan FAHAN Page 3 & ~TES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS D_r.illing - Dangerously high fuel vapor levels will be monitored using an LEL meter. The presence of underground utilities also are of concern and Underground Service Alert wi)l be notified in advance of any drilling work for identification of all underground utilities in the immediate area. Sampling - Use of personal protective equipment will minimize the exposure of site investigations. Heat stress will be monitored by each individual and controlled through regular work breaks as au;dined in the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' TLV's for heat stress conditions. 2. EXPOSURE MONITORING PLAN Potential exposure hazards found at UST sites primarily include toxic airborne vapors from leaking UST's. The most dangerous airborne vapor likely to be encountered during a UST investigation is benzene. Gasoline vapor concentration levels will be monitored in the breathing zone with a photoionization detector (PID) calibrated to benzene. When the action level of 150 ppm (1/2the TLV of gasoline) is detected in the 'breathing zone, respiratory protection will be required utilizing full-face or half-face respirators with organic vapor caflridges. Monitoring for combustible gases will also be performed using an LEL meter when vapor concentrations above 2,000 ppm are detected with the PID. The action level is 35 percent of the LEL for gasoline vapors or 4,500 ppm. ff this level is attained or exceeded, the work party will be IMMEDIATELY withdrawn. 3. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT The level of protection during the site investigation will usually be level "D." Level "D" protective equipment includes coveralls, safety boots, safety glasses, gloves, and hard hats if drilling or trenching operations are in progress. Upgrading the protection level would be based on airborne benzene concentration levels equal to or exceeding the action level. An upgrade to level "C" protection would be required if the action level is equaled or exceeded. Additional equipment required for level "C" would be a full-face or half-face air purifying canister-equipped respirator and Tyvek suits with taped arm and leg seals. if the action level was met or exceeded (35 percent) for the LEL, work would cease until the vapor level was measured to be below 20 percent of the LEL. A fire extinguisher will be maintained on site. Decisions for workers' safety are based on a continual evaluation of existing or changing conditions. ~ ] HOLGUIN, Health and Safety Plan ' FAHAN Page 4 & ASS(X IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 4. WORK ZONES AND SECURITY MEASURES To facilitate a minimum exposure to dangerous toxic vapors and/or physical hazards, only authorized persons will be allowed on the iob site. Work zones will be defined by HFA staff who will also be responsible for maintaining security within these zones. Only the minimum number of personnel necessary for the UST investigation will be present in the work zone. 5. DECONTAMINATION AND DISPOSAL HFA's standard operating procedures establish practices that minimize contact with potentially contaminated materials. Decontamination procedures are utilized if there is suspected or known contamination of equipment, supplies, instruments, or any personnel surfaces. Soap and water will be utilized in removing contaminants from personnel surfaces as well as equipment and instruments. Contaminated washwater will be disposed of in accordance with procedures outlined in the City of Bakersfield UST Local Oversight Program guidance documents. 6. WORKER TRAINING All HFA employees working on the site will have had, at a minimum, the 40-hour required OSHA Training for Hazardous Waste Site Activities (29 CFR 1910, 120) which includes training in the use of personal protective equipment. Individualized respirator fit testing is required of all HFA employees working at the site. 7. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES HFA employees ore trained in emergency first aid and emergency first aid provisions will be brought to the site. In event of overt personnel exposure (i.e., skin contact, inhalation or ingestion), the victim will be transported to and treated at the closest hospital. (~ STATE HIGHWAY SAN FRANCISCO O COUNTY ROUTE NUMBER LOS ANGELES NOTE: HIGHWAYS ARE 1 PT. LINES T_RUXIUN AVENUE MERCY HOSPITAL 2215 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CAUFORNIA CALIFORNIA AVENUE z DRACENA STREET uJ ~: rr rr WORLD OIL O u_ T BRUNDAGE LANE STATION # 29 ................................ I .................. 2~o~ BRU.DAGE LANE - ~ ~ BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA · ' ~ .---..--- HOSPITAL MAP HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. HOLGUIN, FAHAN'& ASS( )CIATES, INC. ~ ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 143 South Figueroa Street * Ventura, California 93001 (805) 652-0219 * FAX (805) 652-0793 853 West 17th Street * Costa Mesa, California 92627 (714) 642-2660 · FAX (714) 642-2544 3157 Pegasus Drive · Bakersfield, California 93308 (805) 391-0517 · FAX (805) 391-0826 RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY SERVICE STATION #:)9 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 23, 1993 ,,~-' Contractor: Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. A d d tess: 3157 Pegasus Drive ! Bakersfield, California 93308 ! Client: World Oil Marketing Company Address: 9302 South Garfield Avenue i South Gate, California 90280-0100 Attention: Greg Petruska .! 'i Project Manager Name: Mark R. Magargee, R.G. Telephone Number: (805)391-0517 Mark R. Magargee, R.G. ~,/ , ~' Mark R. Fahan, R.G., R.E.A. ~_~ Senior Hydrogeologist Vice President Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. ENVIRONMEI' JNE~S · SOIENTISTS · GEOLOGISTS AND ENGINEERS Contaminated Site Assessments * Re~l Estate Audits * Site Remediation * Hazardous Waste Management HOLGUIN, FAHAN &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1, Executive Summary .......................................................... 1 2. Site Description .................................................................. 2 3. Background ....................................................................... 3 3,1 Site Geology ............................................................. 3 3.2 Site Hydrogeology ................................................... 4 3.3 Previous Work .......................................................... 4 4. Additional Site Characterization ....................................... 8 4.1 Soils investigation and Sampling Results ................. 8 5. Conclusions of the Additional Site Characterization ......... 10 6. Tier I Risk Assessment ........................................................ 11 7, Conclusions of Tier I Risk Assessment ............................... 12 8. Tier II Leaching Potential Modeling ................................... 13 9. Conclusions of Leaching Potential Modeling ................... 14 10. Risk Assessment Conclusions and Recommendations.. 15 11. Limitations .......................................................................... 16 SECTION II- FIGURES 1 Site Location Map 2 PIct Plan 3 Geology Map 4 Cross Section A-A' ,5 Cross Section B-B' 6 Cross Section C,C' SECTION III - TABLES 3.1 Summary of Soil Sample Analysis Results from the October 21, 1992, Dispenser Decommissioning 3.2 Summary of Soil Sample Analysis Results from the October 21, 1992, Tank Excavation 3.3 Summary of Soil Sample Analysis Results from Earth Systems Environmental, Inc.'s, March 3, 1993, Site Assessment 3.4 Summary of Soil Sample Analysis Results from Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s, September 9, 1993, Site Assessment 3.5 Summary of BTEX Tier II Risk Appraisal Results SECTION IV - ATTACHMENTS 1 Various Drillers Logs - KCWA Well File 2 Borehole Log 3 Borehole Drilling and Soil Sampling Procedures 4 Laboratory Analysis Reports 5 Grain Size and Permeability Analysis Report 6 Tier I Risk Assessment 7 Tier II Risk Assessment Worksheets HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of an environmental risk assessment performed by Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc., (HFA) at the above referenced site. The purpose of the risk assessment is to quantify the environmental risk from soil impacted by gasoline hydrocarbons associated with the four 12,000-gallon gasoline underground storage tanks rUSTs) that were removed from the property on October 21, 1992. Site investigation activities indicate that gasoline hydrocarbons are present to a depth of 100 feet below ground level (BGL), but laterally less than 30 feet from the former USTs. The first occurrence of groundwater beneath the site is greater than 200 feet BGL. Due to the greater than 100 vertical feet of separation containing multiple clay layers between the impacted soil and the first occurrence of groundwater, World Oil Marketing Company (World Oil) requests that the Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division (BFDHMD) UST Local Oversight Program (LOP) consider the following contaminant fate risk assessment in order to concur with a recommendation that the site receive a No Further Action (NFA) determination. The contaminant fate risk assessment is intended to quantify the potential for hazardous materials to migrate off site by examining a combination of chemical and physical factors. All probability equations are based upon recognized scoring systems and modeling techniques used by and developed for state and federal regulatory agencies. The migration pathways assessed are: on site contact, surface water transport, leaching to groundwater, air vapor transport, and soil vapor transport. The conclusion of the contaminant fate risk assessment is that the probability of exposure due to these migration pathways is Iow. On behalf of World Oil, HFA requests that the BFDHMD-UST LOP concur with the NFA determination. [~1 HOLGUIN, Mr. Greg Petruska World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN November 23, 1993- Page 2 & ~IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 2. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 2101 Brundage Lane in the city of Bakersfield, Kern County, California (see Figure 1 - Site Location Map). The site is an abandoned retail gasoline sales facility that previously contained three dispenser islands and four 12,000-gallon, USTs (see Figure 2 - Plot Plan). The project site is bound on the north by Brundage Lane, on the east by Oleander Street, on the south by an alley, and on the west by a commercial business. The topography at the site is relatively flat with a slight fall to the southwest. The location of the former USTs is the parking lot on the western side of the property. Only the area of the tank excavation is not covered with concrete. With the approval of the BFDHMD UST LOP, World Oil proposes to backfill the tank excavation and re-concrete the area. Therefore, the former location of the USTs and associated impacted soil will be entirely beneath a cap of concrete, inhibiting the continued vertical migration of the gasoline hydrocarbons, The property is situated within a developed commercial area along both sides of Brundage Lane, with residential properties flanking Brundage Lane. The nearest school is 1 mile to the north. The nearest residential housing is 100 feet to the south. It is estimated that the residential population within a 1 -mile radius is less than 10,000. The owner contact is Greg Petruska, World Oil Marketing Company, 9302 South Garfield Avenue, South Gate, California, 90280, (310) 928-0100. The consultant contact is Mark Magargee, Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc., 3157 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, California, 93308, (805) 391-0,517. HOLGUIN, Mr, Greg Pefruska World Oil Marketing Company FAFtAN ~ November 23, 1993 - Page 3 &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 SITE GEOLOGY The site is located in a relatively flat area at an elevation of approximately 500 feet above mean sea level in the southern part of the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley is a north-south trending valley, approximately 400 miles long by 50 miles wide, the southern portion of which is known as the San Joaquin Valley. The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is primarily composed of unconsolidated Quaternary-aged alluvial sediments. Beneath the alluvial sediments are older, predominantly lake bed deposits. These lie unconformably on Miocene and Pliocene-aged marine sediments, which extend to crystalline basement at a depth of approximately 30,000 feet BGL (see Rgure 3 - Geology Map). Geologic deposits in the study area include Pleistocene alluvial sediments of the Kern River Formation, which form a homocline dipping gently to the southwest (see Rgure 3). The deposits are alluvium consisting of poorly indurated and dissected fan deposits (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1964]. On-site soil borings indicate that the alluvium is characterized by unconsolidated, moderate to Iow permeability silt to a depth of approximately 17 feet BGL, overlying unconsolidated, highly permeable, medium-grained to coarse-grained sand with minor gravel to a depth of approximately 28 feet BGL. Underlying this is a zone of unconsolidated, highly permeable, very-fine-grained to medium-grained sand with minor silt to a depth of approximately 53 feet BGL. This is underlain by unconsolidated, highly permeable, fine-grained to coarse-grained sand t° a depth of 82 feet BGL. Underlying this is a zone of consolidated, Iow permeability, silty clay to a depth of 98 feet BGL, This is underlain by an unconsolidated, highly permeable, medium-grained to coarse-grained gravelly sand to a depth of 100 feet BGL which is the greatest depth penetrated in the investigation. Drilling logs inspected at the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) for water wells within 1 mile of the subject site indicate that the sedimentary sequence beneath the impacted soil to the first encountered groundwater is an interbedded section of clays, silts, sands, and gravels. Most of the logs indicate that clay zones at depths of 90, 115, 130, and 170 feet BGL are in excess of 5 feet in thickness, lhese clay layers represent the northern flank of the ancient Kern Lake Bed as it onlaps the southern flank of the Bakersfield Arch. The clay zones are laterally continuous over the subject site. and provide a substantial barrier to the vertical migration of gasoline hydrocarbons (see Attachment 1 for various driller's logs from the KCWA Well File). HOLGUIN, Mr. Greg Petruska FAHAN World Oil Marketing Company & INC. November 23, 1993- Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 3.2 SITE HYDROGEOLOG¥ Surface and groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley is derived predominantly from the Sierra Nevada mountain range to the east, and is transported by five maior rivers, the southernmost being the Kern River. The subject site is located approximately 2 miles south of the Kern River. The depth to the regional unconfined aquifer is approximately 200 feet BGL, with the direction of groundwater flow to the south (KCWA, 1991 Report on Water Conditions, Improvement District No. 4, February 1992). The nearest known occurrence of perched groundwater is 5 miles to the south-southeast at a depth of 20 feet BGL in the abandoned Kern River channel to the ancient Kern Lake bed (KCWA, 1991 Water Supply Report~ May 1992). No perched groundwater is known to exist beneath the subiect site. G~oundwater was not encountered during drilling to a depth of 100 feet BGL at the subject property. 3.3 PREVIOUS WORK World Oil had the former gasoline retail sales facility demolished in October 1992. Hallmark Petroleum Company (Hallmark) of Los Angeles, CaJifornia, decommissioned the station and removed all of the USTs, product pipelines, and fuel dispensers at the property (see Rgure 2). Items removed included four 12,000-gallon, gasoline USTs. On October 21, 1992, Hallmark excavated the soil above and around the tanks and removed the USTs, dispensers, and associated product pipelines. The tanks were removed under a BFDHMD UST LOP permit. Earth Systems Environmental, Inc., (ESE) provided an environmental technician to collect soil samples under the direction of the BFDHMD UST LOP. Soil samples were collected at depths of 2 and 6 feet below the base of the tanks beneath the eastern end, western end, and center of each of the former 12,000-gallon, gasoline USTs (see Figure 2). These samples are designated S-13 through S~24, Soil samples were also collected at depths of 2 and 6 feet BGL in trenches excavated immediately adjacent to each of the 12 dispensers at the site. These samples are designated S-1 through S-12, In addition, four composite soil samples (C-1 through C-4) were collected at a depth of 4 feet from within the stockpile of soil excavated from above and around the former USTs. The soil samples were analyzed at Mobile Labs, Inc., for the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, and for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX). TPH as gasoline and BTEX were detected in soil samples from beneath each of the four USTs, the western and central dispenser islands, and the stockpiled soil. The greatest concentration of TPH as gasoline detected was 4,112 rog/kg in sample S-18 at a depth of 2 feet beneath the western (fill) end of UST No. 2. The greatest concentration of benzene was also found in this sample at a concentration of 15.214 mg/kg. A summary of the analytical results for the faCility decommissioning operations is presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. HOL©UIN, Mr. Greg Petruska World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN ~ November 23, 1993 - Page 5 &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analysis, TPH as gasoline and BTEX were detected at concentrations in excess of California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region (CRWQCB-CVR) recommended guidelines for additional assessment activities. Samples that had concentrations of gasoline hydrocarbons exceeding the recommended guidelines are S-3A at the western dispenser island; S-6A at the central dispenser island; S-16A at the western end of the southern UST No. 1; S-13, S-13A0 S-180 and S-18A at the western end and center of the south-central UST No. 2; S-17, S-17A, S-19, S-19A, S-23, and S-23A beneath the length of the north-central UST No. 3; and S-22 and S-22A at the western end of the northern UST No. 4. The BFDHMD UST LOP required assessment activities consisting of soil borings and laboratory analyses of soil samples for the presence of gasoline hydrocarbons to determine the vertical and lateral extent of the impacted soil, and to determine whether these hydrocarbons pose a threat of impacting groundwater. World Oil contracted ESE to perform the preliminary site assessment at the property. Drilling commenced on March 2, 1993, with a total of 'seven soil borings being drilled in this phase of soil characterization (see Rgure 2). Soil boring TH-1 was slant drilled at a 80° angle from vertical from the southern side of the gasoline tank cavity to a depth of 100 feet BGL, with the bottom-hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this source area. Soil boring TH-2 was advanced adjacent to the western dispenser ISland to a depth of 90 feet BGL to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this probable source. Soil boring TH-3 was advanced adjacent to the central dispenser Island to a depth of 35 feet BGL to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this probable source. Soil borings TH-4, TH-5, TH-6, and TH-7, drilled to depths of 45, 45, 50, and 60 feet BGL respectively, were positioned to the north, east, south, and west of the source areas, respectively, to assess the lateral limits of impacted soil In those directions. Soil vapors indicative of volatile fuel hydrocarbons were detected in the soil samples obtained from soil boring TH-1 advanced beneath the location of the former gasoline tanks at elevated concentrations to a depth of 85 feet BGL, and continued at detectable concentrations to a depth of 95 feet BGL. Soil vapors were detected in the soil samples obtained from soil boring TH-2 advanced through the location of the western dispenser to a depth of 90 feet BGL. Soil vapors were detected in the soil samples obtained from soil boring TH-3 advanced through the location of the central dispenser at elevated concentrations through a depth of 35 feet BGL. Soil vapors were observed at very Iow to nondetectable concentrations in the lateral assessing soil borings TH-4, TH-5, TH-6, and TH-7. ,; .J J HOL©UIN, Mr. Greg Petruska FAHAN World OII Marketing Company & ASSC IATES, INC. November 23, 1993- Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS TPH as gasoline was not detected in the samples from depths of 25, 35, and 45 feet BGL in soil boring TH-l, which was slant drilled from the southern side of the tank cavity with a bottom-hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity. This was due to the soil boring being in a lateral position to the former USTs at those depths. Below a depth of 45 feet BGL, TPH as gasoline was detected to a maximum concentration of 353 mg/kg at 75 feet BGL, decreased to a concentration of 239 mg/kg at 85 feet BGL, dropped to a concentration of 11 mg/kg at 95 feet BGL, and was not defected at 100 feet BGL. BTEX was not detected in soil boring TH-1 in the samples from 25 through 4,5 feet BGL and in the samples from 95 and 100 feet BGL. BTEX was detected directly below the former USTs in the samples from 5,5 through 85 feet BGL. TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-2, positioned through the western dispenser location, at concentrations of $9 mg/kg at depths of 10 feet BGL, 76 mg/kg at 20 feet BGL, and 11 mg/kg at 30 feet BGL. Below that depth, soil boring TH-2 intersected the lateral extent of the tank cluster plume and the hydrocarbon concentration Increased to 210 mg/kg at a depth of 60 feet BGL, decreased to a concentration of 36 rog/kg at 70 feet BGL, and remained detectable at a concentration of 36 mg/kg at 90 feet BGL Benzene, toluene, and total xylenes were also detected in the samples from 10 through 90 feet BGL in soil boring TH-2. Soil boring T H-2 was terminated at that depth due to soil boring TH-1 already delineating the vertical extent of impacted soil directly beneath the former USTs at a depth of 100 feet BGL TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-8. positioned through the central dispenser location, at concentrations of 4,058 rog/kg at depths of 10 feet BGL, 725 rog/kg at 20 feet BGL, then decreased to 229 rog/kg at $0 feet BGL and 254 mg/kg at $5 feet BGL. BTEX was also detected in soil boring TH-3 in the samples from 10 through 35 feet BGL. Soil boring TH-3 was terminated at that depth due lo soil boring TH-1 already delineating the vertical limits of impacted soil. TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-4, positioned 15 feet north and midway between the western and central dispenser islands, at concentrations of 39 mg/kg at depths of 15 feet BGL, 18 rog/kg at 25 feet BGL, 15 mg/kg at 35 feet BGL, and 16 mg/kg at 45 feet BGL. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations. TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-5, positioned 25 feet east of the tank cluster, at concentrations of 14 rog/kg at depths of 15 feet BGL, 23 mg/kg at 25 feet BGL, 15 mg/kg at 35 feet BGL, and 51 rog/kg at 45 feet BGL. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in .! these samples, and toluene and tolal x¥1enes 'were detected at trace concent~alions. HOLC;UIN, Mr. Greg Petruska F'AI-t N World Oil Marketing Company & ~J/~T~.~, INC. November 23, 1993- Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-6, positioned 20 feet south of the tank cluster, at concentrations of 116 mg/kg at depths of 10 feet BGL, 8 mg/kg at 20 feet BGL, 17 mg/kg at 30 feet BGL, 12 rog/kg at 40 feet BGL, and was not detected at ,50 feet BGL. Ethylbenzene concentrations were not detected in these samples and benzene, toluene, and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations or were nondetectable. TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring 1H-7, slant drilled from the southwestern corner of the tank cluster to a bottom-hole location 15 feet west of the center of the tank cluster, at concentrations of 15 mg/kg at depths of 25 feet BGL, 29 mg/kg at 35 feet BGL, 16 rog/kg at 45 feet BGL, 71 mg/kg at 55 feet BGL, and 117 rog/kg at 60 feet BGL. Soil boring TH-7 was terminated at that depth because soil boring TH-1 already delineated the vertical limits of Impacted soil. Ethylbenzene concentrations were not detected in these samples and benzene, toluene, and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations or were nondetectable. A summary of the analytical results for the 41 selected soil samples tram the 7 soil borings is presented In Table 3.3. The data obtained from the tank removal operations suggests that soil impacted with gasoline hydrocarbons at concentrations in excess of CRWQCB-CVR recommended guidelines to conduct additional assessment activities exists at the subject site beneath the former gasoline USTs and near the western and center dispenser islands. The subsequent soil drilling activities indicate that gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in excess of 1,000 mg/kg likely extend to a depth of less than 30 feet BGL. Gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in excess of 100 rog/kg extend to a depth of less than 90 feet BGL, and detectable concentrations of gasoline hydrocarbons extend to a depth less than 100 feet BGL. The BFDHMD UST LOP reviewed the preliminary assessment data, and concurred in fheir letter dated May 21, 1993, that the vertical and lateral limits of gasoline-impacted soil had been delineated. However, the BFDHMD UST LOP recommended that further assessment be conducted to determine the vertical profile within the area of greatest concentrations of gasoline-impacted soil immediately beneath the locations of the former USTs. Furthermore, in the June 16, 1993, meeting between Mr. Ralph Huey of the BFDHMD UST LOP, Mark Magargee of HFA, and Greg Petruska of World Oil, Mr. Huey directed that if World Oil desired to pursue an NFA determination for the site, then the BFDHMD UST LOP would require additional definition of the clay zone at 80 to 95 feet BGL, as well as a complete contaminant tale risk assessment. World Oil contracted with HFA to conduct these additional assessment activities and to prepare this contaminant fate risk assessment. The results of the additional soil investigation are presented in Section 4, below. HOLGUIN, Mr, Greg Petruska World OII Marketing Company FAI-t N November 23, 1993- Page 8 INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 4. ADDITIONAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION 4.1 SOILS INVESTIGATION AND SAMPLING RESULTS The intent of this work is to further assess the vertical profile of gasoline-impacted soils immediately beneath the location of the former USTs. and to define the procedures to be used to assess the physical characteristics and lateral continuity of the clay zone from 80 to 95 feet BGL at the site. It was proposed to accomplish those goals by: drilling and sampling a single; slant-drilled soil boring of 65 linear feet to a depth of 46 feet BGL; conducting laboratory analyses on three soil samples collected during the previous assessment activities to determine the physical characteristics of the clay layer; searching county files for well logs of water wells in the area; and constructing cross sections through the site using the well logs to describe the stratigraphic sequence beneath the gasoline-impacted soil to the first occurrence of groundwater at approximately 200 feet BGL. Prior to drilling, underground utilities such as water, electrical, sewer, and the fuel storage tanks were mapped by USA Underground Alert. HFA slant drilled a single soil boring 90 linear feet to a depth of 72 feet BGL on September 9, 1993 (see Rgure 2). The soil boring (TH-8] was drilled from a surface location on the eastern side of the tank cavity to a bottom-hole location west of the center of the tank cavity. A sequence of well-graded sand and gravel with minor development of silty sand was observed during the drilling of soil boring TH-8 (see Attachment 2 for the soil boring Icg). No groundwater was encountered. Undisturbed soil samples were collected at 5-foot intervals to 72 feet BGL and selectively tested for TPH as gasoline and BTEX using EPA Methods 8015 (M) and 8020, respectively. Soil samples were field screened using a portable photoionization detector during drilling (see Attachment ,3 for borehole drilling and soil sampling procedures), TPH as gasoline was detected In soil boring TH-8 at a concentration of 65 mg/kg at a depth of 48 feet BGL, but was not detected at 24, 32, 40, 56, 64, and 72 feet BGL (see Attachment 4 for the laboratory analysis report). Benzene was detected at concentrations of 0.269 rog/kg at depths of 48 feet BGL, 0.057 mg/kg at 56 feet BGL, and 0.008 rog/kg at 64 feet BGL, but was not detected at 24, 32, 40, and 72 feet BGL. A summary of the analytical results Is presented in Table 3.4. HFA has prepared geologic cross sections that integrate the site lithology with the laboratory analysis of concentrations of gasoline hydrocarbons to present an interpretation of the limits of gasoline hydrocarbons in the subsurface (see Figure 4 - Cross Section A-A', Figure 5 - Cross Section B-B', and Figure 6 - Cross Section C-C'). J HOLGUIN, Mr. Greg Petruska World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN November 23, 1993- Page 9 & ~IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Soil samples retained by Mobile Labs, Inc., from the ESE assessment at depths of 90 and 95feet BGL were analyzed for grain size distribution and permeability by Soils Engineering, Inc. The grain size distribution indicates that greater than 50 percent of the samples by weight have a grain size of silt and clay, and the remainder of the samples are fine to very tine-grained, sand-sized grains. The permeability of the samples was 4.7 x 10-5 centimeters per second (cra/sec) in the sample from 90 feet BGL, and 4,9 x 10.5 cm/sec in the sample from 9§ feet BGL (see Attachment ,5 for the grain size and permeability analysis report). HOLGUIN, Mr. Greg Petruska ~~J World OII Marketing Company ~ FAJ~N November 23, 1993- Page 10 ~ & ASSOCIATF. q, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE ADDITIONAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION Based upon soil samples collected from beneath the four former 12,000-gallon gasoline USTs, gasoline hydrocarbons were present in the soil immediately beneath the US1s at a maximum concentration of 3,066 mg/kg. During the subsequent ESE drilling activities, TPH as gasoline was detected at a maximum concentration of 4,058 rog/kg at a depth of 10 feet BGL beneath the central dispenser island, 353 rog/kg at 75 feet BGL beneath the USTs, and was not detected in the sample from 100 feet BGL The subsequent HFA drilling activities were consistent with the interpretation that the concentrations of IPH as gasoline were confined to the 10 feet of sediment directly beneath the UST, and were detected at lower diffused concentrations throughout the remainder of the contaminant plume. Benzene was detected at a maximum concentration of 15.214 mg/kg directly beneath the USTs during the tank removal, 9.605 rog/kg at a depth of 10 feet BGL beneath the central dispenser during the ESE site assessment, and 4,842 mg/kg at 8,5 feet BGL beneath the USTs during the ESE site assessment, but was not detected in the samples from .. 95 and 100 feet BGL. No groundwater was encountered to the total depth of the boreholes drilled at the site to i 100 feet BGL, and first groundwater is estimated to be at a depth In excess of 200 feet BGL. Published information indicates that the 100-foot Interval between the deepest gasoline- containing soil and first groundwater contains three clay layers in excess of 5 feet in thickness. HFA believes that a contaminant fate risk assessment is viable at this site given the vertical separation in excess of 100 feet between the deepest impacted soil and the unconfined groundwater aquifer, the presence of three intervening clay barriers to vertical migration, and the current and Intended future use of the property with a concrete cap covering the entire area of Impacted soil. ~ HOL©UIN, Mr. Greg Petruska ~ FAHAN World Oil Marketing Company & LATF_ , INC. November 23, 1993- Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 6. TIER I RISK ASSESSMENT The Tier I risk assessment is intended to assess the potential for migration of hazardous constituents from the World Oil site. The Tier I assessment estimates the potential for migration of hazardous constituents from a facility by examining a combination of chemical and physical factors that assess the potential for contaminants to migrate off site. This approach to risk assessment is based on USEPA-HRS 1985, USEPA-HRS 1988, and NYDOH TR-847-ZC. All probability equations were based on these recognized scoring systems used by and developed for state and federal regulatory agencies. The calculated probabilities for each migration pathway are then compared to a threshold value that serves as a flag to indicate if Initiation of any portion of an expanded risk assessment (Tier II) is warranted at the facility. In this case, Initial risk probability calculations indicate a very Iow risk for each migration pathway, with the exception of the potential for soil vapor transport. Therefore, HFA conducted a Tier II leaching potential modeling to assess the potential for soil vapor transport threatening groundwater resources, I HOL©UIN, Mr, Greg Petruska , FAHAN November 23, 1993- Page 12 i & ASSOCIATES. INC. '~ ENVI~(~INMENT.~,L MANAI~EMENT I~ONfi3ULT~NT~ 7. CONCLUSIONS OF TIER I RISK ASSESSMENT The Tier I risk assessment indicates that the probability for adverse affects through the exposure routes of: on site contact; surface water transport; leaching to groundwater; and air vapor transport are below the threshold values and do not warrant further Tier II risk assessment. 1. The probability of population contact (PPC) is 0,033. Because the threshold probability value is 0,125, do not proceed to a Tier II risk assessment, 2. The probability of surface water transport (PSWT) is 0,00019, Because the threshold probability value is 0.062. do not proceed to a Tier II risk assessment. 3, The probability of ground water contamination (PGWC) is 0.0011. Because the threshold probability value is 0.031 ,' do not proceed to a Tier II risk assessment. 4. The probability of air vapor transport (PAVT) is 0.033. Because the threshold probability value is 0.250, do not proceed to a Tier II risk assessment. 5. Because of the presence of gasoline hydrocarbons in the subsurface discovered during the tank removal, the probability of continued soil vapor transport (PSVT) is 1.0. Because the threshold probability value is 0.031, proceed to a Tier II risk assessment. These conclusions are empirically support_ed given the following: 1, the intended future use of the site beneath a concrete cover, capping the buried impacted soil and eliminating the migration pathway for surface exposure to people; 2. no surface water systems at the site; 3. the vertical separation between the deepest known gasoline-containing soil and the first occurrence of groundwater is greater than 100 feet; and 4. three Intervening clay barriers to vertical migration (see Attachment 6 for the Tier I Risk Assessment). The Tier I risk assessment does indicate that further assessment of continued contaminant soil vapor transport is warranted given the uncontained condition of the release of mobile gasoline hydrocarbons. This expanded Tier II assessment is conducted in the form of the following leaching potential modeling. HOLGUIN, Mr. Greg Petruska I World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN November 23, 1993- Page 13 & IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 8. TIER II LEACHING POTENTIAL MODELING The Tier II leaching potential model was performed using the State Water Resources Control Board's software for General Risk Appraisal for Protection of Groundwater entitled "Risk on a Disk." The software is operated under the MS-DOS operating system and consists of a spreadsheet program in Lotus 1-2-3 format. Data was prepared for entry according to the instructions for the program. All boring Icg and analytical data was collated by depth zone interval for BTEX. The highest concentration of each analyte was used to represent each 5-foot interval. Where data was not available at a 5-foot interval, values were interpolated from'the nearest depth points, Annual rainfall of 6 inches, predominantly silty sand to well-graded sand lithology, soil moisture content of 20 percent, and a depth to groundwater of 200 feet BGL were used for the model runs. The model is designed to calculate a cumulative concentration of each contaminant per each 5-foot Interval based on the highest sail concentration of each target analyte found in that interval, As such, it represents a worst-case condition with respect to average concentrations across the affected area of the site. The program computes two options: cumulative contamination after removal of layers exceeding the cleanup level, and cumulative concentrations without removing the non-compliant layers. The results of the model have been summarized in Table 3,5, and the risk assessment worksheets are included in Attachment 7. Mr. Greg Petruska Il HOL©UIN, World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN November 23, 1993- Page 14 & ASSOCIATe, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 9. CONCLUSIONS OF LEACHING POTENTIAL MODELING The leaching potential modeling was performed to determine whether gasoline constituent hydrocarbons in the subsurface beneath the location-of the former USTs present a risk of leaching and impacting groundwater. The pertinent chemical and physical factors considered include: the gasoline chemistry; the site geology; the depth to groundwater; annual precipitation; soil moisture; and the future site use. Specific impedances to the migration of the gasoline hydrocarbons to groundwater include: the removal of the source of gasoline to the subsurface; a 100-fo°t vertical separation between the deepest known contamination and the first unconfined groundwater aquifer; intervening clay barriers to the migration of gasoline hydrocarbons; the Iow annual rainfall at the properly; and the intended property use given a concrete cap at the site that will inhibit percolation of seasonal rainwater. The modeling results reveal that for each target analyte, the cumulative concentration without layer removal does not exceed the Maximum Acceptable Cumulative Concentration, except for the case of total xylenes in the soil in the upper 20 feet. In other words, the cumulative concentration of each target analyte within the Impacted soil zone does not exceed the specific retention of the soil to hold the contamination in place, with the exception of the concentrations of total xylenes in the upper 20 feet. The sum of the concentration of total xylenes of 1174.15 ppm exceeds the Maximum Acceptable Cumulative Concentration of 1,000 ppm, and the concentration of total xylenes in each of the individual lavers in the upper 20feet exceeds the soil retention concentration of 40 ppm as calculated by the computer model. Despite the model accumulating total xylenes in the upper 20 feet over the Maximum Acceptable Cumulative Concentration of 1,000 ppm, and the Individual layers over the specific retention concentration of 40 ppm, it is believed that total xylenes greater than the irreducible concentration will not remain mobile given the underlying site lithology. Furthermore, there are three Iow permeability clay layers below the impacted soil, which could act as barriers to possible continued vertical migration of gasoline hydrocarbons. Therefore, the Tier I and II risk appraisal results support an NFA determination for this site. ' World Oil Marketing Company FAH N November 23, 1993- Page 15 & ~IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 10. RISK ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In view of the facts presented at this site, on the behalf of World Oil, HFA requests that the BFDHMD UST LOP concur with an NFA determination (i.e,, natural in-situ biodegradation), This option appears appropriate given the following: .. 1, The greater than 100-foot distance of vertical separation between the impacted soil and the first occurrence of groundwater (at approximately 200 feet BGL); 2, The existence of intervening clay barriers to migration; 3, The current and intended future property use beneath a concrete cap to the site inhibiting percolation of seasonal rainwater and any possible future Surface human exposure to the contaminant: and 4, The ability of natural processes to biodegrade the contamination without risk to groundwater or people, Furthermore, the NFA option ensures that people and the atmosphere will not be exposed to further contamination resulting from soil removal and remediation operations, and scarce hazardous waste landfill space will not be used up with relatively Iow level contaminated soil, HOLGUIN, Mr. Greg Petruska I World Oil Marketing Company ~ FAHAN November23, 1993- Page 16 ! & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 11. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of World Oil as it pertains to the location of the former gasoline USTs at 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California. The conclusions rendered are published risk assessment models based on information obtained within the scope of work authorized by the client. The services performed by HFA were conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession cudently practicing under similar conditions in the state of California. No other warranty is expressed or implied. MRM:ffm:kad ~ HOLGUIN, ~ FAHAN ~ &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS SECTION II FIGURES 'HIGHWAY LEGEND WORLD OIL STATION//29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE1 - SITE LOCATION MAP ltOI.GUIN, FAIIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. :\~.,1' !:"~ - '.: I :' '-"' I ,. ,..,~:l'7 I- · : ' '1-;- _:r.?.-'.T---~' ~ , ,,~:,.,, ,.. .... ,,<f,,..., r-' "~-.-~-~.. .'"~'1. ~ LEGEND WORLD OIL STATION//29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA FIGURE3 - GEOLOGY MAP HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. v BRUNDAGE LANE .~ FENCE i i i i I I ~ A FORMER DISPENSER i J / ISLANDS I LEGEND WORLD OIL TANK REMOVAL SAMPLE LO~TIONS STATION ~29 SGALE IN FE~ 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BORING LOCATIONS ~ BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA J FIGURE 2 - PLOT P~N PROPOSED BORING LOCATION 0 lO 20 NJ N S A b ,.k, ,,L, d., .~A' F 27' 36' 36' tO' m T m -I I I 0 I TH-4 TH-2 TH-8 TH-1 TFF6I 0 EXCAVATION LIMITS i.:.i.:-i.:.~.:.i.:.i.: lO' lO' 20' 20' 30' 30' 40' TPH (g) ~2 40' 50' ~ 50' :c.'.;::..::..:.:.:.:,::..'.:.:: TD50' 100 ':-'-:-'-:-'-:-":-'-:-'-:"-:- 60' 60' 70' 70' LEGEND WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE 1" -- 20' SERVICE STATION//29 SW- WELL GRADED SAND 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE SW/GW- WELL GRADED GRAVELLY SAND BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA SW/SM- WELL GRADED SILTY SAND FIGURE 4 - CROSS SECTION A-A' ME- SILT CE/NIL.- SILTY CLAY HOLGUIN, FAIIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. w E B ~- 16' ~L''T' 28' d..,.1~ 1 5'-~B' TH-7 TH-1 TH-8 TH-5 O O 10' 10' 14 zo' :::::::::::::::::::::: zo' SW/GW 30' 30' SW/SM 40' 40' 50' 50' 60' 60' 70' ...... SW 70' :::::¥ . 80' 80' ........................... TPH(g) ~i 90' 90' ~iil CL/ML "~~'?::~:i".-:~":" > 10 mg/Kg i ........... ~ - -.:-:.-': -:'-' ~ -~-:'-."-:' &:- F.'- ........... oo' ! !!!!!'; LEGEND WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE 1" = 20' SERVICE STATION//29 SW- WELL GRADED SAND 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE SW/GW- WELL GRADED GRAVELLY SAND BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA SW/SM- WELL GRADED SILTY SAND FIGURE 5- CROSS SECTION B-B' ML- SILT CL/ML- SILTY CLAY HOLGUIN, FAIUtN & ASSOCIATES, INC. " ._~_. C' NORTH SECTION 36 T29S R27E SOUTH SECTION 1 T30S R27E ri-'/ DEPTH IN DEPTH IN ~ ,~, ~ FEET BGL l-- '~ ~ 250' ~ 450' ~ 300' ~ 300' ~ 350'---~S01~ 700' ~1 FEET BGL M'I J-50 G-1 G-50 TH-1 Q-1 K-50 K-2 H-1 0 · ~; ~ :;.~ 0 ~~ FORM ~R USTs GL ~ ~SW/SM SW/SM SW/SM 60 SW/SM ~ SW/SM TD10~ CL CL 120 ~2o _ / ' ' ~ ~ SW/SM SW/SM SW/SM c~ ~ s~,s- _~ c~ ~_~ CL 180 180 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ _~ ...... ~ _ _ ~ ~M_ - ~ ~L CL ~ SW/SM SW~SM ' ' ' -_ ~ ~ ~ 240 240 SW/SM SW/SM SW/SM CL ~ ~ CL ~ CL .~ SW/SM ~ ~~ SW/SM SW/SM 300 300 T6~%' LEGEND WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY SERVICE STATION d29 HORIZONTAL VERTICAL ~ GROUND WATER SURFACE 2101 BRUNDAGE ~NE SCALE IN FEET SCALE iN FE~ ~ BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~~._~.~. ~.~ ~~ SW/SM- SANDS AND SIL~ SANDS FIGURE 6- CROSS SECTION C-O' 0 200 400 0 30 60 CL - CLAYS AND SIL~ CLAYS ~o~uz., ~ · zssocz~ss, z~c. RE,,~SON DATE NOVEMBER 18, 1993: FFM ~ HOLGUIN, ~ FAHAN ~ & ASSOC~T~, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS SECTION III SUMMARY TABLES TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM THE OCTOBER 21, 1992 DISPENSER DECOMMISSIONING SAMPLE TP'H AS ETHYL- TOTAL - NUMBER LOCATION DEPTH GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (feet BGL) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) MRL N/A N/A 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 S-1 W Dispenser-S End 2 88 ND ND' NDI ND S-lA W DisDenser-S End 6 20 N D N D ! N D N D S-2 W Dispenser-S Central 2 221 N D N D N D N D S-2A W Dispenser-S Central 6 33 N D N D N D N D S-3 W Dispense.r-N Central 2 44 N D N D N D N D S-3A .. W DisDenser-N Central 6 2,612 N D 8.238 ! N D 118.040 S-4 W DisJ3enser-N End ' 2 19 N D N D N D ' I ND S-4A W Dispenser-N End 6 8 N D N D N D N D S-5 Center Dispenser-S End 2 ND " N D N D N D N D S-5A Center Dispenser-S End 6 N D N D " N D N D N D S-6 Center D~penser-S Central 2 ND N D N D 'N D N D S-6A Center Dispenser-S Ceniral 6 884 N D 2.643 N D 60.959 ~-7 Center Dispenser-N Central 2 116 ND ND ND 2.662 S-7A .Center Dispenser-N Central 6 41 N D N D 'N D N D S-8 Center Dispe~er-N Central 2 53 N D N D N D N D ~ S-8A Center Dispenser-N End 6 N D N D N D N D N D ~;' S-9 E Dispenser-S End 2 34 N D "N D N D N D S-9A E Dispens ,er-S End 6 N D N D i N D N D N D S-10 E Dispenser-S Central 2 N D N D N D N D N D S-IOA E Dispe.nser-S Central 6 ND 'ND" ND ND ND S-11 E Dispenser;N Central 2 10 N D N D N D N D S-11A . E Dispenser-N Central. 6 15 N D N D N D N D S-12 E Dispenser-N End 2 N D N D N D N D N D S-12A E Dispenser-N End 6 " N D N D i N D N D N D = C-1 North End Stockpile 4* 10 N D I N D N D N D C-2 West Side Stockpile 4' 13 N D N D N D N D C-3 East Side Stockpile 4* 41 N D N D N D N D C-4 South End Stockpile 4* 850 ND ND ND 4.428 " BGL = Below grade level. MRL = Minimum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable. N D = Not detected. W = VVest. S = South. N = North. E = East. *Collected at a depth of four feet from within the stockpile of soil. Summary Tables Page 2 TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM THE OCTOBER 21, 1992 TANK EXCAVATION SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL NUMBER LOCATION DEPTH GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (feet BBT) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) ' (mg/kg) MRL N/A N/A 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 S-13 UST 2-C, enter 2 1,010 N'D 1.232 N D 17.896 S-13A UST 2-Center 6 1,100 ND' 16.719 ND 101.670 'S-14 UST l-East End 2 10 ND~ ND ND ND S-14A UST l-East End 6 8 ND I ' ' ND ND ND S-15 UST 1-Center 2 21 N D N D N D N D S-15A .. UST l-Center 6 N D N D N D N D N D S-16 UST 1-West End 2 86 N D N D N D 1.111 S-16A UST 1-West End 6 1,416 N~) 45.742 ND 161.403 S-17 UST 3-Center 2 3,066 ' 12.417 109.232 2.~24 209.225 S-17A UST 3-Center 6 171 ND 1.547 ND 23.051 S-18 UST2 West End 2 4,112 15.214 ' 127.826 5.010 220.918 S-18A UST 2-West End 6 3 046 1.850 59.290 N D 204.717 S-19 US¥ 3-West End 2 2,867 7.080 94.182 1.312 207.777 S-19A UST 3-West End 6 2,560 0.575 91.755 ND 199.6'13 S-20 UST 4-East End 2 102 N D N D N D 1.216 ..~ S-20A UST 4-East End 6 186 N D N D N D 2.435 ./ S-21 UST 4-Center 2 31 N D N D N D 0.339 S-21A UST 4-Center "6 '23 ND ND ND 0.197 S-22 UST 4-West End 2 2,314 N D 79.630 N D 205.173 S-22A UST 4-West End 6 2,118 N D 70.875 N D 189.6~1 S-23 UST 3-East End 2 1,256 ND 2.101 ND 13.011 S-23A UST 3-East End 6 1,010 N D N D N D 2.226 S-24 UST 2-East End 2 33 N D N D N D I~'D S-24A UST2-East End 6 41 ND N'D ND "ND BBT = Below base of tank. MRL = Minimum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable. UST = Underground storage tank N D = Not detected. Summary Tables Page 3 TABLE 3.3 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM EARTH SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.'S, MARCH 3, 1993, SITE ASSESSMENT TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL BORING NO. DEPTH GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (feet BGL) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) MRL N/A 1 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 TH-1 25 N D N D N D N D ND TH-1 35 ND ND ND ND ND TH-1 45 ND ND ND ND ND TH-1 55 100 N D '0.731 N D 0.502 TH-1 65 166 3.147 2.490 0.616 4.496 TH-1 75 353 3.188 3.171 0.590 20.242 TH- 1 85 239 4.842 5.453 !. 010 i 8.466 TH-'1 95 " 11 ND ND . ND ND TH-1 100 ND ~ID ND ND ND TH-2 10 39 0.800 0.571 N D ' 1.068 TH-2 20 76 1.252 1 .z~04 N D 9.905 TH-2 30 11 ND ND ND 0.100 TH-2 40 27 N D 0.439 N D 0.617 TH-2 50 17 0.68 O. 188 N D 0.404 TH-2 60 210 0.506 O. 737 N D 10.594 TH-2 70 36 0.526 O. 782 N D O. 743 TH-2 80 28 0.265 0.429 N D 0.931 TH-2 85 37 0.518 0.945 ND 2.533, TH-2 90 36 0.023 '0.134 N D 3.290 TH-3 10 4~058 9.605 387.169 6.693 539.834 TH-3 20 725 0.082 0.255 N D 88.444 TH-3 30 229 N D 0.459 N D 19.334 TH-3 35 234 0.061 0.662' N D 20.312 TH-4 15 39 ND 1.287" ND 2.143' TH-4 25 18 ND ND ND 0.211 TH-4 35 15 ND 0.188 ND 0.260 ~ TH-4 45 16 ND 0.137 ND 1.004 TH-5 15 i4 ND ND ND 0.236 TH-5 25 23 N D 0.142 N D 0.879 TH-5 35 15 ND ND ND 0.100 TH-5 45 51 N D 0.259 N D 1.136 I "TI-I-6 10 116 0.162 0.947 ND 7.7061 TH-6 20 8 ND ND ND ND TH-6 30 17 ND ND ND ND TH-6 40 12 ND ND ND ND, .... TH_6 50 ND ND ND ND NDI TH-7 25 15 N D N D N D 0.296 TH-7 35 29 N D 0.132 N D 0.632 ~ TH-7 45 16 N D 0.069 ' ' N D 0.592 ' TH'7 55 71 N D 0.365 N D 1.615 TH-7 60 11'7 0.063 0.805 N D 3.833 BGL = Below ground level. MRL = Minimum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable. N D = Not detected. Summary Tables Page 4 TABLE 3.4 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.'S, SEPTEMBER 9, 1993, SITE ASSESSMENT TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL BORING NO. DEPTH GASOLI NE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (feet BGL) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) MRL N/A 10 0.005 ' 0.005 0.005 0.005 TH-8 24 ND ND ND ND ND TH-8 32 N D N D N D N D N D TH-8 40 N D(<MRL) N D 0.128 0.007 0.36 TH-8 48 65 0.269 2.6 0.883 4.5 TH-8 56 N D(<MRL) 0.057 0.248 0.04 0.209 TH-8 64 ND 0.008 0.02 ND 0.017 TH-8 72 ND(<MRL) I ND 0.014 ND ND - = hum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable. N D = Not detected. TABLE 3.5 SUMMARY OF BTEX TIER II RISK APPRAISAL RESULTS ANALYTE FINAL DEI-qH ZONE CUMULATIVE CONTAMINATION A(~,EPTABLE CONTAMINATION BENZ~_NE (feet BGL) (ppm) (w/o layer removal) (ppm) 100 41.96 1,000 TOLUENE 100 602.8 1,000 ETHYLBENZENE 100 15.36 1,000 TOTAL XYLENES 100 1,174 1~000 BGL =' Belnw nmHnrl I~ &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS SECTION IV ATTACH M E NTS IHOLGUIN, FAHAN & ~TES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ATTACHMENT 1. VARIOUS DRILLER'S LOGS - KC:WA WELL FILE ~ OWNE~":'~ (11 ) WELL LOGt ~' ~A,,Str'ee~near .:~, .... 129 175 "Coarse sand & gravel__ : ~... ~75 "]80 rYellow ~mndy_cla~ TYP~'J~F; (~ ): (~) '~53 . 7ao~se _ 1 s,NOC~') ~ow_clay 430 ·" 443[~ ':O_~.ar.sO.._sand .... iOiIIOINAL "~ i '5:'::!~'~'!~'W'~I~ER' WELL" DRILLERS REPORT Do Not rill %' THE ~E~OUR~ES ABENGY OF CALIFORNIA ~ DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ........ Y. --~- ~1:) OWNER: ,~' .;.. (il) WELL LOG: N~me c ~ ~ Co~ a Water Company .0,., ~.~,s 6p~ ., .,.,~., ..~.,,,.~ -.. 695" Address P .O .Ro~ ] ] 50 F ..... ~0., n,,.n., s~ ..l .... ~.,,.u,, .. ol .,.,.I, ..~ gnn ,Tn~_ ~a~ ~ Cornea 9qOg ~ .... (2.) LOCATION OF W~LLt · ,' O +.n lB t.,',p soil co,~,, Ke. rn o .... ' .... ~,. it,.~ .1}l~-0~ ] g -. P5 S9 1 ty s;md [3) TYPE OF WO~ (chect): : 7!~ ~P~ ~:~cl vf*.h clay stern, les .5 rock ~WeJl. ~ ' 'D'ce~ning U Reconditioning U' D.trorin¢ U 9~ 938 clny " t/~str'ucti~, dewribe material ~ng procedure in Item ! I. .236 ~65 sn nd (4) PROPOSED USE (chec~): (5) EQUIP~NTs 9~< 306 ?oeks ~ uu.8 ' D.omestic ~ Ind~trial ~ M~cipal ~ Rota~ ~ 308 ,311 clay irrigation ~ Test Well ~ ' Other ~ Cable ~ 3] 1 ~20 sand Other ~. 3~0 326 {6) CASING INSTALLED: ~fi hll sand i ~u, ovue., · If gravel packed ': hl i J,21 c~y ;" I : I I ~,,,u.~,,... I I 57n 615 fine j From I To I I or of I From I To fi] ~ _ 67g sf, t e~ blue clo3F with' small ""' 'l "' I ~'"' I ~'" .., 36" .. , , ~t,r~.,~. or ~-~ . o I 30,.., { x , 0 90 675 68n ~, · A: fio~" i gl16 _ 275" I ' 9o I_ 695 690 695 bD? e!ay ;.; ~,~ .... , ,*., ta~ end s~..t .... ,~, 3/0, & ~der ;/-~ ~;., ' weld~ { ' From .- . T0 -' per ' " ~r ':? Size ,~ . m~ ~o = ~} ~ a/]~ CO~~L '" ~.7" ~ Whirr Codu ~ve. 10~0 CONSTRUCTION: '~-~' - ~.' .~t,k~ or ,,,ii,, WELL DRILLER'S STATEMENT: Thi~ ~ll wa~ drilled u.der ~ ]~rildiction snd thi~ report h iruf tO the WATER LE~: " o/my ~nowltdge 4ff8 bdie]. i O) WELL TESTS: Addrc. ~9~ },~ing ltd ico~or noa~v N......~. ...... i' THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA o,,. w., ~ .............. ~'~'/~ ,',) OWNEKt .5" ~ ' '" (11) WELL LOG~ ::(2.) LOCATION OF WELL~ 5~ction 1. To;reship ]0 S, RanEe 27 E ~ (3,) TYPE OF WORK (checA): ,158 " ]rio "ve]]nuc ala.v N~. well ~ Dcc~nlng ~ Reconditioning ~ Abandon O ~[ ibanJonment,$escribe matcriat an~ ~roce~ure in llem l l. '(4) PROPOSED USE (checA): [(l) EQUIPMENTt ~'Stt " P60 "~avd ~DomestlC ~ Induatrial ~ Municipal ~[ Kotary ~ ~60 ". ?~ "ye!].Qv; .c] a~; , · Cable 0 288 " 310 "s~nd ~rrigation 0 Test Well ~ other U , Dug Well 0 31 ~ " ~2~. "ye] ]m': clay ,(6~) CASING INSTALLED:~:' ' H gravel packed · 3P~ " 3h8... "sand ~'. o ..6eO .. ~6.. ~/16., ~¢ 1~" 62o :~" Ph~ " ~,OS " 10 ~ ..... ~ ...... (i) CONSTRUCTION, "' '' From h. ~o (~ ..... v/6) WATER LEVELS: WELt rattLEr'S . Addr~, 1900 ;iiqc Rd }1'0) WELL TESTS: " : Pakcr::fie!cl~.C.'~'f'.:'rn~ . : : :,.' , .. :, (Charles ~Y. Bo~ker~ m~'P~;~'at'' - / ' " · ,~ ~ ~,,~'.~,',~li;,:,'.:,~';i~ .... ': ~ ' ' ' ' '"' riOT' '(';I ILt:t · - ' .... ~,' -'. ~ ~t n4'~:;, :':,.: I)o N,I Fill Jn · '. i : ~..~. kr"~*f~,' '( : ":':.~,~': :...ii.:.;.' STATE OF CALIFORNIA .': · , ~DNTROL BOARD No.: - ~ .... ::~ : '~T'; .... / .:L' ,',.~ .' ' ~ ' '~.,,..w.t,~,.-~,o ,. 7~ { ~ I,. vdt N .... ' (I) O~K~ · .,:: .., ~: :,. ..~,,..,. :.' "' ' (1 ~) WBLL L : (.Z) LOCATION OF WELLi -: pJt_~ZO~ZZo~z_cZ~y .. c ..... , Kern o~.,',~,~,.,, ....1)9-fi! ~Oh " 128 'co~aa_.~and ~. ~. u.., ~,,,,, ~0. ~28 " lhn :~ellow_.c~y ()) TYPE OF WORK (cbc<A): .. 2h3. 5 2~~.l,w ~..~.,.~ .... ~.,.~,~,~, ,,,,,~,~..~ ~,~,d.,,~.,,~ ~,. 275 '" 289 'yc~o~-~la~ '-. Domestic ~'Industrial ~ Municipal ~ Rotary ~ 306 " 32n 'yellow Cable ~ . ~P0 ". 32< 'nnar~ J?figation ~ Test Well ~ Other ~ Du~ Well ~ 32~ "~35 '~ocks l'i~) CASINO INSTALLED, - if gravel Packed - 330 "33a '?ella= ~ 338 "'36~ '~ook~ ~0 o~ -. ~nd ~ a~,, a6" .."O 06' hOP." }DS "yn~o~Le~ :' .... .... .. .. , ~ 3" .. .."BP? 7f'fi.. hag.. ~_ " Id~0 "?~_'~ m~y " ' :,~','" '"~ ..... ( '~ .... """. po~ I s~,. ,f ,...., 1/8 -- 3/I l;8~ " hOB ':eonrse ~and J ~7) PERFORATIONS:':':' ' '"" : :4:' ~'L9 " ~26 eo~se~and · Size 0~,.,0.,,0., 2~- ,... ,~.,,s, s, .. ~/32 .'".. 563 " 578 "blue i. "~27 " ~7 .... ~:~" '~ ..... ~9o" ~~~=:~ ,'"- ..... . ..... .r ... ~ " 62~ "eo~rse r~d ~'N " ::" .. .. ' .......... _.." ':'c:: ... '- ~ ~ 6h8 " 870 "bi=~el~.y "-._ '" = ,::'.~ ('8) CONSTRUCTION= ~:: 670 " 63~ "eom's.~~~!.~'5 ',~ _ ~' ...... , ...... ,,,, ,-, ~--~,a, m ,- ~ ,. ~. -~., ~,,,~ 96. ~. . 688 600 "blue ~i~Y ~_:.' "~.t~'- From ~ .... ~" 705 " 726 "blu~ ola~ "~ .'.':,... '~ ~ 726 .... ~ '-.' ..~_,:__~. ~leth~ of Sealing =o,~ ...... ~ 2-~ "6~ ' co~r:,:,~ ~_~ 1 ~ ;,'~ {~) WATER LE~LS: X': WELL n~att~'s STATEMENT: [ . '' TI, i, wdl u'd~ ffrille~ under my juri~fficlio~ : ~g Ed. .}!°} WELL. T~TS~ ' ' ~:~:".35{,. ,. .,:. !3alcnrsC~ o] d; Ea] if._ '' ~.,,,~-r-,,m,~,~ ~ v,, O ~* lt.,.t,-t.~urm !mpl ~mPnt & E~ ,. .5. ...... ~ry...E,...Sloc~ .. by..=./ ' / ~-,.,.,,~,-,,,, - .... t.-~-,,..,,,,-~., o ,.. ~ ,. Li=,.,, No...!98639.G ~7 ..... D,,,a L;'r i3. l(' .... '5% R~.r R OOSEVEL. T [ ', P AI',~. LA : I, II c£ SAR Wy · C E C I L ,, ' ~ST~ LN.~O~ R ADVANCE ~DR J TAUSMAN On ~ < JUNE , , i & ASSOC~T~, INC. ', ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ATTACHMENT 2. SOIL BORING LOG LOG OF SOIL BORING CHECKED BY: M. Magargee, R.G.//4892 CLIENT: World Oil Marketing Company SAMPLE/SAMPLER TYPE: UndiSturbed/2.5" CA split spoon PROJECT: Service Station #29 DATE: September 9, 1993 DRILLJNG METHOD: 8" hollow-stem auger DRILL HOLE NUMBER: TH-8 PREPARED BY: Ken Mitchell DRILLED BY: Melton Drilling Company DRILL HOLE LOCATION: 5 feet east of USTa (slant drilled 30° to the west) WEATHER CONDITIONS: Sunny and warm IDENTIFICATION GRADA¥1ON DESCRIPTION AND SOIL CLASSIFICATION , . ~' 1. Dsecrlptlve Classification Name: Gradation, Angularity, Structure, Plasticity, Moisture, O 2. Particle Size, Shape, and Gradation - Consistency, Odor, Stain LU n- -< ~= ~ ~ 3. Consistency, Elasticity '~ ~ ~u''r'~ ~ ~ "~ Z~ ~' --~;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- - 4. Reaction to Shaking, Dry Strength, Etc. ,-I W008-1 20 sW 6 - 0 95 5 gray Sand; well graded, medium to coarse grain;d, dry, Ioose~ no odor, no stain~ blow count = 6, 8, 9 W00~-2 24 SW 4 - 0 95 5 gray Sand; well graded~ medium to coarse grained, dry~ loose, no odor, no stain; blow count = 10~ 12~ 14 'W008-~ 28 SW/SM 10 - 0 90 10 gray Sand; well graded, significant slit, very fine tO medlun ~rained, dry~ I9ose~ no odor~ no stain; blow count = 13, 17, 20' W008-4 '32 SW/GW 26 0.39" 5 90 5 gray Gravelly Sand; fine to ,very coarse grained, minor gravel~ slightly moist, loose, slight odor, no stain; blo,w count = 18~ 25~ 29 W008-5 36 SW/GW 2,000+ 0.39" 5 90 5 light red Gravelly Sand; fine to very coarse grained, minor gravel, slightly moi~ loose, strong odor, no stain; blow count = 21~ 26~ 38, W006-6 40 SM 2,000+ - 0 85 15 light red Silty Sand; slightly moist, loose, strong odor, no stain; blow count = 20~ 25~ 30 , , W008-7 44 "MI. 2,000+ - 0 5 95 light red Silt; moist, denss~ strong odor~ no staJn~ blow count = 35 40~ 45 W008-8 48 SM 2,000+ - 0 90 10 yellowish S, Ilty Sand; slightly moist, lOOse, strong odor, no stain; blow count = 28~ 33r 39 red W008-9 52 SM/SW 2,000+ - 0 95 5 light red Silty Sand; significant slit, slightly moist, loose, strong odorr no stain; blow count = 30, 36~ 42 W008-10 56 SM 787 - 0 "90 10 yeiowish Silty Sand; minor slit, si .qhtly moist, loose, strong od. or~ no stainI blow count = 34~ 36r 38 red W008-11 60 · SW/SM 1,500 - 0 90 10 light red Silty Sand; significant silt, slightlY' moist, Ioose~ strong odor~ no st,alnI blow count = 35, 40~ 45 W008-12 64 S~ 1,788 - 0 95 5 light red Sand; well gre~led, very fine to fine grained, sllghlty moist, loose, moderale odor~ no stain; blow count = 42, 46, 50 W008-13 68 SW 1,522 - 0 95 5 light red Sand well graded, fine to medium grained, sllghlty moist, Ioose~ slight odor~ no stainI blow ,count = 40~ 48~ 50 W008-14 72 S~V ' 410 - 0 95 5 light red Sand; well graded, very fine to fine grained, sllghlty moist, loose, slight odor no stain; blow count = 45, 48, 50 Total depth = 72'; nO groundwater encountered 'Type of PID utilized: OVM Serial No.: 580B-31208-240 Calibrated to; Isobut~lene 100 ppm Number of background samples taken: 3 Results of background samples: ~EE PLATE A-1 FOR LEGEND TO LOG'~ ~'LGUIN, ~ ..... ~ *"~"'""-'~'-°, INC. HOLGUIN, & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS AI'I'ACHMENT 3. BOREHOLE DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES BOREHOLE DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES SITING The borehole was positioned as noted in the report. TRUCK-MOUNTED DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES The borehole was manually drilled for the first 4 feet in order to establish that the area was clear of subsurface structures. The borehole was drilled with 8-inch outside diameter, hollow-~tem, flight augers to the depth noted In the report. During the drilling process, soil cuttings were continuously monitored in conformance with the monitoring procedures, and data was recorded on a borehole Icg by an experienced environmental geologist under the direct supervision of a State of California registered geologist. Soil samples were collected with a California split-spoon sampler at intervals consistent with the work plan, unless a change in iithology was noted, in which case an additional sample was collected. The sampler was outfitted with 2.5-inch by 6-inch stainless steel or brass sleeves. When the sample was withdrawn, the ends of the sleeve were covered with TeflonTM tape followed by plastic caps, Sample preservation, handling, and transportation procedures were consistent with HFA"s QA/QC procedures. BOREHOLE MONITORING PROCEDURES Cuttings from the borehole were continuously classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and logged by an experienced environmental geologist under the direct supe[vision of a State of California registered geologist. Specific geologic and hydrologic information that was collected includes stratigraphy (i.e., layer thickness, unit correlation, aquifer thickness, depth to groundwater, and confining units, if any), relative permeability, observed porosity, plasticity, moisture content, soil type, structure, size, and other features that could affect contaminant transport. Specific geologic and hydrologic information that was obtained during borehole construction Includes the following: · stratigraphic characteristics: thickness, correlation of units, extent (horizontal and vertical) of aquifers and confining units, if any; · observed porosity; · volatile organic content; · particle-size distribution; · moisture content; · plasticity; · strength; Borehole Drilling and Soil Sampling Procedures Page 2 · mineral composition; · depth to groundwater; · soil type, structure, size; and · distribution of soil type. The data was recorded on an individual borehole Icg, including observations regarding the types and quantities of waste materials encountered and any photoionization detector readings. This data was recorded on a standardized Icg sheet in the Field Log Book. Specific information that was recorded is listed in Table 1, below. TABLE 1. BOREHOLE LOG INFORMATION GENERAL · Project name · Borehole location; map and * Borehole name/number elevation *· Date started and finished · Rig type (bit size/auger size) Geologist's name · Petrologic lithologic classification Driller's name scheme used (Wentworth, USCS) · Sheet number INFORMATION COLUMNS · Depth · Gradation · Sample location/number · Narrative description · Photoionlzation or flame · Soil classification ionization detector reading NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION · Geologic Observations - Soil/rock type - Particle size - Organic content - Color and stain - Depositional structures - Odor - Gross petrology - Bedding - Suspected contaminant - Friability - Fossils - Discontinuities - Degree of weathering - Moisture content - Water-bearing zones - Particle shape - Formafional strike and dip · Drilling Observations - Changes in drilling method - Advance rates or equipment rig - Amounts and types of - Readings from detection chatter any liquids used equipment (if any) - Caving/hole stability - Water levels - Drilling difficulties · Other Remarks - Equipment failures - Deviations from drilling plan - Possible contamination - Weather Borehole Drilling and Soil Sampling Procedures Page 3 The field log was typed and presented verbatim in an appendix of the risk assessment report. The typed borehole log is on a form identical to that used in the field log book. The borehole log includes a graphic log in which a symbol for each USCS soil group is included for each soil interval. DATA REDUCTION The data compiled from the borehole was summarized and analyzed. A narrative summary of the soil characteristics is also presented. The borehole log was checked for the following information: · correlation of stratigraphic units among boreholes; · identification of zones of potentially high hydraulic conductivity; · identification of the confining formation/layer; · indication of unusual/unpredicted geologic features (fault zones, fracture traces, facies changes, solution channels, buried stream deposits, cross-cutting structures, pinchout zones, etc.); and · continuity of petrographic features such as sorting, grain-size distribution, cementation, etc. The borehole location was plotted on a properly scaled map. The purpose of each borehole/plezometer/monitoring well/pit/soil sample is indicated on the map. Depending on the results of this analysis, the soil stratigraphy of the site is presented in a scaled stratigraphic column (if soil stratigraphy is laterally homogeneous) or, more likely, in a scaled cross section or a fence diagram (if soil is laterally heterogeneous). Specific features that may impact contaminant migration, e.g., fault zones or impermeable layers, were discussed in narrative form and supplemented with graphical presentations as deemed appropriate. DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES Prior to each sampling episode, the sampling equipment was decontaminated using a non-phOsphate soap wash, a tap water rinse, and two deionized water rinses. The drill string was decontaminated with a steam cleaner between each well/boring. BOREHOLE ABANDONMENT The boreholes was abandoned with a five percent bentonite neat cement grout delivered by a grout pump through a tremmie pipe. ~ HOLGUIN, ~ FAHAN ~ & ASSC~IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ATTACHMENT 4. LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORTS HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES 143 South Figueroa Street * Ventura, California 93001 * (805) 652o0219 · FAX: (805) 652-0793 REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS September 21, 1993 Page 1 CLIENT: PROJECT: World Oil Company Bakersfield Greg Petruska 29 Post Office Box 1966 PHONE: South Gate CA 90280-1966 (310) 928-0100 CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL' PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (TPH) WITH BTEX DISTINCTION CONSTITUENT TPH- TPH- Ethyl Total Lab Sample Dates Sampled, Sampled A~alyzed Gasoline Diesel Benzene Toluene Benzene Xylenee TRP}t No. No. Matrix Received and Tested B~ B~ Unite MRL MRL 'MRL MRL MRL MRL MRL 933246 W008-2 Soil 9/9/93 9/11/93 9/16/93 K. M. mg/kg ND ND ND ND ND Mitchell Price 10 ,005 ,005 .015 .015 9.13247 W008-4 Soil 9/9/93 9/11/93 9/16/93 K, M, mg/kg ND ND ND ND ND Mitchell Price 10 .005 .005 .015 .015 933248 W008-6 Soil 9/9/93 9/11/93 9/16/93 K. M. mg/kg ND <MRL ND .128 .067 .36. Mitchell Price 10 .005 .005 .015 .015 933249 W008-8 Soil 9/9/93 9/11/93 9/16/93 K. M. mg/kg 65 .269 2.6 .883 4.5 Mitchell Price ,~0 .005 .005 .015 .015 933250 W008-10 Soil 9/9/93 9/11/93 9/16/93 K, M. mg/kg lid <MRL ,05? ,248 ,04 .209 Mitchell Price 10 .005 .005 .015 .015 933251 W008-12 Soil 9/9/93 9/11/93 9/16/93 K, M, mg/kg ND ,008 .02 ND .017 Mitchell Price 10 ,005 .005 ,015 .015 933252 W008-14 Soil 9/9/93 9/11/93 9/16/93 K, M, mg/kg ND <MRL ND .014 ND ND Mitchell Price I0 .005 .005 .015 .015 Extraction and Analyses Methods~ EPA 5020 DHS-TPB D[1S-TPH EPA 8020 EPA MRI, = Method Reporting Limit 418.1 ND = Not Detected at or above MRL TRPH - Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Lab Certi£ication: CAELAP #1878; 1/31/94 LaboratoryDirec HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ',, ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES ]43 South Rgueroa Street · Ventura, California 9300] · (805) 652-0'219 · FAX: (805) 652-0773 METHOD BLANK REPORT REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Report Date: September 21, 1993 Date Analyzed: September 16, 1993 QC Batch ID: 091693 Analyzed By: M. Price Analysis Method: 8020/8015 TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS WITH BTEX DISTINCTION Ethyl Total Lab Sample TPH-Naptha Benzene Toluene Benzene ' Xylenes No. No. Matrix Units ~4RL Method Blank MBS91693 Soil mg/kg ND ND ND ND ND 10 .005 .005 .015 .015 Volatile fuel hydrocarbons are quantitated against a gasoline standard. Bydrocarbons detected by this method range from C6 to C15. Analytes reported as ND were not present above the stated limit of detection. Extraction Method: EPA 5020 MRL = Method Reporting Limit ND = Not Detected at or above MRL TPH = CAL-EPA TPH Draft Method Lab Certification: CAELAP #]878; 1/31/94 i HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES-, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES '- ] z~3 South Rgueroa Slreel · Ventura, Califomio ?300] · (805) 652-02]? · FAX: (805) 652-0773 QA/QC MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Report Date: September 21, 1993 Analyzed By : M. Price QC Batch ID: 091693 Date Analyzed: September 16, 1993 Analytical TPH: TPH-Gasoline Matrix: Soil Methods: BTEX: EPA 8020 Units: rog/kg M.S. M.S.D. Sample Spike M. S. M. S. D. Percent Percent Parameter Results Amount Recovered Recovered Recovery Recovery R. P. D. Benzene ND 0.01 .013 .012 93% 86% 8% Toluene ND 0.01 .013 .013 93% 93% 0% E.Benzene ND 0.01 .013 .013 93% 93% 0% Total Xylene ND 0.04 .038 .037 90% 88% 3% TPH-Gasoline ND <MRL 25.00 26.9 26.8 88% 88% 0% ND= Not Detected MRL= Method Reporting Limit M.S. = Matrix Spike M.S.D. = Matrix Spike Duplicate R.P.D. = Relative Percent Difference TPH = CAL-EPA TPH Draft Method Lab Certification: CAELAP #1878; 1/31/94 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD Page 1 of 1 .~lient Name World Oil Marketing Corp. Project Name Station # 29 !Client Contact/Phone No. Send report to: .7,ontrac! Code WOO8 Greg Petruska / (310) 928 0100 Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. Sampiei's Name Sampler_'s,Si~ ~ .~, ' Date Analyses Requested 3157 Pegasus Drive "' .-:-- Bakersfield, CA 93308 Ken Mitchell 9/9/93 LU .... Z Attn: Mark Magargee Sample Matrix (soil, Other Information No. and O x HFA Dale Time ground waler (e.g., sampling location, depth, Type of ~ ~ LU SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS r...o ~ (i.e., lurnaround time, etc.) Sample # Sampled ~ Sampled air, walef) soil boring or MVV #, etc.) Containers I- ~ "i^,'OO8-2 9/9/93 0~)05 SOIL TH-8 @ 30' 1 SOIL X"' X ................................................. '2'._.~,~ .2-_'t':.G . _~t,.E_~V.F-~_ ..... WOO8-4 9/9/93 0922 SOIL TH-8 @ 40' " X X WOO8-6 9/9/93 0941 SOIL TH-8 @ 50' " ¥ X WOO8-8 9/9/93 1000 SOIL TH-8 @ 60' " X X WOO8-10 9/9/93 1030 SOIL TH-8 @ 70' ------------------~'~ 3 ~__~"'C:) " X X REQUIRED DETECTION LIMITS WOO8-12 9/9/93 104.5 SOIL TH-8 (~ 80' ~;~ ~ ~,~...~,~ " X X ~--~ Los Angeles County ~_X~J California LUFT ................................................... [] Santa Barbara. County ~'] SW-646 WOO8-14 9/9/93 1102 SOIL TH-8 @ 90' ~;~,..~.~.~,-~.. " X X [] VenturaCounty [] Other ................................ see reverse for required detection limits SAMPLE RECEIPT ................................... Yes No Sample Seal Intact ~] ' ~.l ............................................................ Sample Condition Acceptable [~-J ~'~ Sample Temperature Appropriate ['-~ PRESERVATIVE ADDED? All samples stored overnight at HFA are ........................ relrlgerated at 4°C. Samples are transpoded to the laboratory in coolers filled with Blue Ice Delivered to HFA's refrigerator for temporary storage on ....................... ~,, (Initials) ~ ~ ~ ei~r~U~Sh~d By (Signalure/Orgar~izatJo~i Date/Time ' ' Received Byl "($1g~lalure/Organlzatlon) .... Laboratory Name & City ehnqu~shed By: (Signalure,Organizalior~) DatefTime Received By: (Signature/Ofgacf[ization)~ (f~ updated 8~3) e!,nqu~shed By: ('~,gnature~rganization) Date/Time Rec_e.~j..F~r L.~t~rate~ ey~..JSIJ~ture/Organlzation) Include Special I~lazard~' Nero: Relurn~sample(s)/cooler tO: Holeuln. Fahan & Associates. Inc.; R1.~7 Pc~n~e r'lrh~, R~,rcfialrl ~^ o,l,'~no . t~,n:~ ,':,n-~ ~c,~ . r'^ v .. HOLGUIN, ~ FAHAN ~ &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ATTACHMENT 5. GRAIN SIZE AND PERMEABILITY ANALYSIS REPORTS SOILS ENGINE£R[NG. INC. TRANSM. I'TTAL FROH: soi:[~ _]~q~_:b'~q,. T ~_,~ ....... RE: · YOUR JOB NO, .......... · OUR JDI~ NO, 93-7067 JOB DESCR[ PT.rON,· TO: . c - rio ,:)~.~, ~ & ~...:[nom_ ~ s~7~e~.a~ :Petmea~:~, ~... .?.~2o ~,~. n~-,, sra. ). :aake. rsf:i.e.ld~ O~,. 93308 ERCLOS~ .~ FOR Y~R S ISNATURE~ ' ' ' .PL~SE .RE~RN IHH~[ATELY ~ SELO~) '*~ ' FOR Y~R FILES · DATE: 4700 DISTRICT Bt..VD. ' OAKERSFIELD, OALIFORNIA93313 ' PHONE (8OS) 831*$100 '~ FAX:(805)i8~31-2111 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION COBBLEff ' " i - - SILT OR Cl..AY ,_ ~o,.~ I ''~, '~ ',,~.o,.. , I ""~ .... ,,, ' u.s. ~'~: ~ IN ~ICHE8 ~ U.~, B'tA,TOA~O ~ No. ~0~ ' '. 3 3/4 3/8 4 10 m O0 - --.: ..... '~ ' ~ ,, [ ~ ~ ', . ~ I I · i 0 ~ .... ,. ~.r..,, ~ .i ~ *00 : ~o~ '" ~_~ .... "~o " ~.' .... - ' ..... ~_~'"' '''t'~~' "~'.~.'~' · ' O~ SIZE 0 ~-~ o5 .: ~ ~-2 go Retook : ~3 D~ TO ~O~TORY BY ~T.- F!LE.No;93-7067 HO~N-F~ .~D ~SOClA~. Soil~ Engineering GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION P~E ~o:~ CONSTANT-~ PERMEABILITY TEST DATA Coe~c~ent of Permeability Test Location* 'Depth · cra/sec. Test Hole 1 .: 95' 4.9 x 10~ Test Hole 2 ' '90' 4.7 x l0s Note= Sample delivered to lab. by client.. No tzs~ locations given other than as shown above. ~ HOLGUIN, ~'~ FAHAN ~l & ASSOC~T~, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS AI'I'ACHMENT 6. TIER I RISK ASSESSMENT SECTION A Determine the Chemical Constituents of Concern at the facility. 1. CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN Contaminants of concern were selected to characterize the potential for human exposure and were selected from the known contaminants present, or suspected to be present, at the site. The first step in this selection process was to generate a list of the known chemicals from records for the facility. It is useful to obtain as much information as possible about chemicals that were handled at the site, or that have been detected by collection and analysis of environmental samples from the site, and about the sources of these contaminants, Whenever possible, specific compounds are listed, rather than families of compounds. Individual metallic compounds, in particular, are likely to have properties significantly different from those of the elemental metals. Indicator compounds associated wilh the site are those of greatest concern based on toxicity, persistence, and prevalence on-site. The selection of contaminants listed may be based in part on the quantities disposed of at the site and on environmental sampling data. In Table A-l, specific indicator chemical compounds are listed that are either suspected or known to be present at the facility, as well as the physical/chemical properties of the compound, 2. MIGRATION POTENTIAL The ease with which hazardous constituents migrate from a site depends in part on the chemical and physical properties of the individual compounds. The contribution of the chemical and physical properties of the compound to its ease of migration is represented by migration potential scores for various exposure pathways. These scores represent the comparative likelihood of chemicals to volatilize rapidly (evaporation potential), to be leached by rainfall passing through the soil (leaching potential), and to remain immobile in the soil (soil retention potential). Using the guidelines provided in Table A-2 and the worksheet in Table A-3, an Evaporation Potential score (EP), a Leaching Potential score (LP) and a score for Soil Retention Potential (SRP) is assigned to each chemical compound listed in Table A-1. 3. FINALIZE SELECTION OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN To reduce the list of contaminants of concern, select those chemicals with the highest scores in each category of migration potentials: Tier I Risk Assessment Page 2 EVAPORATIVE POTENTIAL (EP) Chemical EP Score 1. Benzene 3 2. Toluene 3 3, Ethylbenzene 3 4, O-Xylene 3 5. M-Xylene 3 6, P-Xylene 3 LEACHING POTENTIAL (LP) _Chemical LP Score 1, Benzene 3 2, Toluene 3 I 3, Ethylbenzene 3 ~ 4, O~Xylene 3 5. M-Xylene 3 6, P-Xylene 3 SOIL RETENTION POTENTIAL (SRP) Chemical SRP Score 1. Benzene 1 2. Toluene 1 3. Ethylbenzene 1 4. O-Xylene 1 ,5. M-Xylene 1 6. P-Xylene 1 Tier I Risk Assessment Page 3 TABLE A-1 Chemical Compounds Known to be Present at the Facility Chemical Name CAS No, M. P, B, P, Solubility Vapor Pressure Specific (C) (C) (ppm) (mm Hg at 20-25 C) Gravity Benzene 71-43-2 5,51 83 1780 75,20 0,879 Toluene 108-88-3 95.0 110 537 21.84 0.867 EthyIbenzene 100-41-4 -93.9 136.2 167 7,08 0,867 O-Xylene 1330-20-7 -29 144 162 6.16 0,880 M-Xylene 1330-20-7 -53.6 139.1 162 6.16 0.864 ~ P-Xylene 1330-20-7 -13.2 138,4 162 6.16 0,861 ) Tier I Risk Assessment Page 4 TABLE A-2 Determination of Migration Potential Scores from Chemical and Physical Properties Evaporation Potential (All Compounds): Vapor Pressure Evaporation (mm Hg at 25°C) Potential Score >1 3 1 to 10-3 2 <10.3 1 Leaching Potential (Organic Compounds~: Water Solubility Vapor Pressure Leaching (ppi at 20°C) (mm Hg at 25°C) Potential Score >100 <500 3 0.1 to 1130 <500 2 <0.1 -- 1 -- >,500 1 Leach n.q._ Potential (Inorganic Compounds) Water Solubility Vapor Pressure Leaching Classification (ppi at 20°C) Potential Score Soluble >105 3 Slightly soluble 10to 1 05 2 Insoluble <10 1 Soil Retention Potential (Orga. n c Compounds):a Water Solubility Vapor Pressure Soil Retention (ppi at 20°C) (mm Hg at 25°C} Potential Score <0.1 <10-3 3 0.1 to 100 10-3 to 1 2 >100 >1 1 Soil Retention Potential {Inorganic Compounds): Water Solubility Water Solubility Soil Retention C~assification (ppi at 20°C) Potential Score Soluble >1 05 1 Slightly soluble 10to 105 2 Insoluble <10 3 a Use water solubility and/or vapor pressure as selection criteria. Tier I Risk Assessment Page 5 TABLE A-3 Worksheet for Estimation of Migration Potential Scores Chemical Name Wafer Solubility Vapor Pressure Migration Potentials (a) (ppm) (mm Hg at 25°C) EP LP SRP Benzene 1780 75.20 3 3 1 Toluene 537 21.84 3 3 1 Ethylbenzene 167 7.08 3 3 1 ~ O-Xylene 162 6.16 3 3 1 M-Xylene 162 6.16 3 3 1 P-Xylene 162 6.16 3 3 1 (a) Migration potentials: EP = Evaporation Potential LP = Leaching Potential SRP = Soil RetentiOn Potential Tier Risk Assessment Page 6 SECTION B Determine the probability of human contact with hazardous materials on-site: 1, SIIE ACCESSIBILIIY Assign a value from Table B-1 that best describes existing accessibility to the facility by the outside population. 2. ADJACENT POPULATION Assign a value from the table below that best approximates the population located within a 1-mile radius of the facility. NOTE: If the facility has completely controlled access to the site and all hazardous materials are confined within the site boundaries, the number of persons on site during normal operating hours is used to approximate population within a one-mile radius of the facility. If the situation applies, use the following equation to calculate the on-site population. On-Site Population = (Number of persons on site) x (average hours per day spent on site)/24= On-Site Population = 20x8 =6.67 ON-SITE ADJACENT POPULATION VALUE (APV) Population Adjacent Within One-Mile Radius Population Value (APV) 13 0.1 1-100 0.5 lOl-l,O00 1 1,001 -5,000 2 >5,000 3 Adjacent Population Value (APV) = 3 Tier I Risk Assessment Page 7 TABLE B-1 On-Site Accessibility Values (AV) Barrier Accessibility Value (AY) A 24-hour surveillance system (e.g., television monitoring or surveillance by guards or facility personnel) that continuously monitors and controls entry onto the facility; 0.1 or An artificial or natural barrier (e.g., a fence combined with a cliff) that completely surrounds the facility and a means to control entry, at all times, through the gates or other entrances to the facility (e.g., an attendant, television monitors, locked entrances, or controlled roadway access) 0.1 Security guard but no barrier 1 Barrier but no separate means to control entry 2 Barriers do not completely surround the facility 3 Adapted from the HRS (USEPA 1985) Accessibility Value (AY) = 0._J.1 NOTE: Pavement, locked gate, and industrial area with no aboveground storage. 3. ON-SITE CONTAINMENT CONDITIONS VALUE (CCV) Assign a value from Table B-2 that best describes existing conditions on site. If more than one situation applies, assign the highest containment condition value (CCV) to assume a worst-case scenario. 4. CALCULATE THE PROBABILITY OF POPULATION CONTACT WITH ON-SITE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING PROBABILITY OF POPULATION CONTACT (,PPC) TOTAL XYLENES TOTAL XYLENES SOIL CONTAMINATION RISK APPRAISAL FOR PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER Press the escape key (or make a blank entnj) for the options menu 6 --- AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION (INCHES) 200 --- DISTANCE FROM SURFACE TO GROUND WATER (FEET) 20 --- NUMBER OF SAMPLES (UP TO 32 SAMPLES AT INTERVALS OF 1 TO 6 FEET) MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS OPTIONS CUMULATIVE CONTAMINATION A B SAMPLE TOTAL REMOVE CLEANUP TO: W/O WITH WITH ACCEPT NUMBER DEPTH XYLENES LAYER OPTION A B -ABLE (feet) (ppm) LEVEL 1 5 118.04 YES 40 118.04 0 40 1000' 2 10 539.834 YES 40 657.87 0 80 1000 3 15 220.918 YES 40 878.79 0 120 1000 4 20 204.717 YES 40 1083.51 0 160 1000 5 25 0.001 NO 40 1083.51 0.00 200 1000 6 30 0.005 NO 40 1083.52 0.01 240 1000 7 35 20.312 NO 40 1103.83 20.32 280 1000 8 40 0.617 NO 40 1104.441 20.94 320 1000 9 45 0.001 NO 40 1104.45 20.94 360 1000 10 50 4.5 NO 40 1108.95 25.44 400 1000 11 55 0.502 NO 40 1109.45' 25.94 440 1000 12 60 10.594 NO 40 1120.04 36.53 480 1000 13 65 4.496 NO 40 1124.54 41.03 520 1000 14 70 0.743 NO 40 1125.28 41.77 560 1000 15 75 20.242 NO 40 1145.52 62.01 600 1000 16 80 0.931 NO 40 1146.45 62.94 640 1000 '17 85 18.466 NO 40 1164.92 81.41 680 1000 18 90 9.233 NO 40 1174.15 90.64 720 1000 19 95 0.001 NO 40 1174.15 90.64 760 1000 20 100 0.001 NO 40 1174.15 90.65 800 1000 NOTE: Tb leaching model indicates that without layer removal the accumulated concentration of total xylenes exceeds the aceptable cumulative concentrations, and the individual layer concentrations exceed the acceptable soil retention concentration of 40 ppp calculated by the model. Tier I Risk Assessment t Page 8 1. Is there a confirmed Instance in which contact with substances at the facility has caused illness, injury or death? YES X NO If yes, then the probability of population contact (PPC) = 1. If no, then go to next step. 2. Record values for tollowing the factors as previously determined in Sections B-l, B-2, and B-3: Accessibility Value (AV) = 0.1 Containment Condition Value (CCV) = 3 Adjacent Population Value (APV) = 3 3. Estimate PPC using the following equation: PPC + (AV x CCV x APV)/27 = (0.1 x 3 x 3)/27 4. Record observed PPC (from Step 1) or estimated PPC (from Step 3) below: " PPC = 0.033 Tier I Risk Assessment Page 9 TABLE B-2 On-Site Containment Condition Values (CCV) Conditions on Site Containment Condition Value (CCV) General Conditions: No odor at the site 1 Some odor on site 2 Strong odor on site 3 Exposed patches or piles of solid waste 3 Open creeks or drainage ditches on site or emerging from site 2 Discolored surface water or drainage ditches 3 Soil stained by liquid (area >10 m2) 2 Ponded or saturated areas of liquid waste 3 Areas of stressed (or absent) vegetation 3 Containers: (includes drums, aboveground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, and other containers of hazardous materials) Containers sealed and in sound condition and protected from deterioration by weather 0.1 Container sealed and in sound condition but not protected 1 Containers deteriorated but no evidence of leakage or liquid contents 2 Containers leaking or liquid visible or evidence of contamination 3 Containment Condition Value (CCV) = 3 ,5. Record the Probability of Population Contact (PPC) value in the designated space of Table G-1 in Section G, · Tier I Risk Assessment Page 10 SECTION C Assess the probability of hazardous materials migrating off site via surface water transport. 1. CONTAINMENT CONDITIONS Assign a value from Table C-1 that best describes existing conditions for containment of hazardous materials on site. If more than one situation applies, assign the highest Containment Value (CV) to assume a worst case scenario. Containment Value (CV) = 3 2, SITE AREA Assign a value from the table below that best approximates the area of contaminants exposed at the ground surface. If more than one area of exposed contaminants exists, assign the largest Area Value (AY) to present a worst-case scenario. SITE AREA VALUES (AV) Area of' Exposed Contaminants, rn~2 Site Area Values 0-10 0.1 11-100 0.5 101-1,000 1 1,001-10,000 2 >10,000 2 Area Value (AV) : 0.,5 3. RAINFALL Assign a value that best approximates the amount of rainfall received during a single event for the area in which the taciliht is located. Tier I Risk Assessment Page 11 TABLE C-1' Containment Values for Surface Water Runoff (CV) Conditions on Site Containment Value (CV) Surface Impoundment: Sound diking or diversion structure, adequate freeboard and no erosion evident 0.1 Sound diking or diversion structures, but inadequate freeboard 1 Diking not leaking but potentially unsound 2 Diking unsound, leaking, or in danger of collapse 3 Waste Piles: Piles are covered and surrounded by sound diversion or containment system 0.1 Piles covered, wastes unconsolidated, diversion or containment system not adequate 1 Containers: (includes drums, aboveground and underground storage tanks, etc.) Containers sealed, in sound condition, and ~ surrounded by sound diversion or containment system 0.1 i Containers sealed and in sound condition but not surrounded by sound diversion or containment system 1 Containers leaking or spills during filling ~ have occurred and diversion or containment ~ structures potentially unsound 2 Containers leaking/leaked and no diversion or containment structures or diversion ~ structures leaking or in danger of collapse 3 ',, Tier Risk Assessment Page 12 ONE-YEAR MAXIMUM 24-HOUR RAINFALL VALUES (RV) Amount of rainfall (inches) Rainfall Value (RV) <1.0 0,1 1,0 to 2,0 1 2,1 to3,0 2 <3,0 3 Drainage from adjacent property flow across the site 3 Rainfall Value (RV) = 1 4. SLOPE AND TERRAIN Assign a value from Table C-2 that best describes existing surface slope conditions at the facility as well as the terrain immediately surrounding the facility. 5. CALCULATE THE PROBABILITY FOR MIGRATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VIA SURFACE WATER TRANSPORT WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING PROBABILITY OF SURFACE WATER TRANSPORT (PSWT) 1. Are there identifiable ditches, intermittent streams, or depressions on site that serve as channels tot flow or runoff? YES X NO Have contaminants associated with the facility been detected in surface soil, sediment, or surface water surrounding the site? :j. YES X NO Is any part of the facility submerged in water? YES X NO Is there a storm sewer within 400 meters of the site in which contaminants have been detected? YES X NO Is there a stream or other surface water body on the site or directly adjacent to the site? YES X NO Tier I Risk Assessment Page 13 Is there direct evidence of contaminant transport from the site via runoff (i.e., quantitative evidence that facility is releasing contaminants inlo surface water, ditches, storm sewer, or adiacent property)? YES X NO If any of the above are yes, then probability of surface water transport (PSWT) = 1, ff not, then go to next step. 2. Record values for the following factors as determined previously in Sections C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4: Containment Value (CV) = 3 Rainfall Value (RV) = 0.1 Slope/Terrain Value (SIV) = 0.1 Site Area Value (AV) = 0.5 3. Estimate PSWT using the following equation: PSWT = (CV x RV x STY x AV)/81 = (3 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.5)/81 4. Record observed PSWT (Step 1) or estimated PSWT (Step 3) below: PSWT = 0.00019 5, Record the Probability of Surface Water Transport (PSWT) Value in the designated space of Table G-1 in Section G. Tier I Risk Assessment Page 14 TABLE C-2 Value for Facility Slope and Intervening Terrain (STC) Average Slope of Intervening Terrain Facility Slope Less Than 3% or Terrain Terrain Site in or Completely Surrounded Average Average Immediately by Areas of Higher Slope 3-8% Slope Greater Surface Elevation Than 8% Facility is closed basin 0.01 0.1 1 1 Facility average slope less than 3 percent 0,1 1 2 3 Facility average slope 3 to 8 percent 0.1 2 3 3 Facility average slope greater than 8 percent 0.1 3 3 3 Slope And Terrain Value (STV) = 0.1 Tier l Risk Assessment Page 15 SECTION D Assess the probability for groundwater contamination resulting from migration of hazardous materials on site. 1, CONTAINMENT VALUE (CV2) Assign a value from Table D-1 that best approximates the existing conditions regarding containment of hazardous material at the facility. Containment Value (CV2) = 3 2, GROUNDWATER PROXIMITY Assign a value from the table below that best approximates the depth of the local groundwater table. GROUNDWATER PROXIMITY (GPV) Depth of Water Table (feet) Groundwater Proximity Value GPV) 0-20 3 21-75 2 76-1,50 1 >150 0.1 CONTAINMENT VALUE (CV2) = 0,1 3. SOIL PERMEABILITY ', Assign a value from Table D-2 that best describes the soil type underlying the facility. 4. NET PRECIPITATION 'J Assign a Net Precipitation Value (NPV) from the table below that best approximates annual net precipitation for the region (this value can be obtained from local weather station). Tier I Risk Assessment Page 16 TABLE D-1 Containment Values for Groundwater Transport (CV2) Conditions on Site Containment Value (CV2) General Conditions: All hazardous substances are underlain by an essentially nonpermeable surface (natural or artificial), and adequate leachate collection system and diversions systems are present 0.1 There is no groundwater in the vicinity 0.1 Surface Impoundment (and Liquid Dumping): Sound run-on diversion structure, essentially nonpermeable liner (natural or artificial) compatible with the waste and adequate leachate collection system 0.1 Essentially nonpermeable, compatible liner with no leachate collection system or inadequate freeboard 1 Potentially unsound run-on diversion structure or moderately permeable compatible liner 2 Unsound run-on diversion structure, no liner, or incompatible liner 8 Containers: (including drums, above and underground storage tanks, etc.) Containers sealed and in sound conditions, adequate liner, and adequate leachate collection system 0.1 Containers sealed and in sound condition, no liner, or moderately permeable liner 1 Containers leaking or spills have occurred, or permeable liner 2 Containers leaking/leaked and no liner or incompatible liner 3 Tier I Risk Assessment Page 17 TABLE D-1 (continued) Conditions on Site Containment Value (CV2) Piles: Piles uncovered and waste stabilized; or piles covered, waste unstabilized, and esse.ntially nonpermeable liner 0.1 Piles uncovered and waste unstabilized; moderately permeable liner, and no leachate collection system 1 Piles uncovered and waste unstabilized: moderately permeable liner, and leachate collection system 2 Piles uncovered, waste stabilized, and no liner 3 TABLE D-2 Permeability of Soils at the Site (SPV) Type of Material Soil Permeability Value (SPV) Clay, compact till, shale; unfractured metamorphic and igneous rocks 0.1 Silt, loams, silty clays, silty loams; clay loams; less permeable limestone dolomites and sandstone; moderately permeable till 1 Fine sand and silty sand; sand loams; loamy sands; moderately permeable limestone, dolomites and sandstone (no karst); moderately fractured igneous and metamorphic rocks, some coarse till 2 Gravel, sand; highly fractured igneous and metamorphic rocks, permeable basalt and lavas; karst limestone and dolomite 3 Soil Permeability Value (SPV) = 3 Adapted from HRS (USEPA 1985) Tier I Risk Assessment Page 18 NET PRECIPITATION VALUE (NPV) Net Precipitation (inches)a Net Precipitation Value (NPV) <-10 0.1 -10 to +5 1 5to 15 2 >15 3 a Where net precipitation = precipitation-evaporation Net Precipitation Value (NPV) = 0.1 5. LEACHING POTENTIAL From Section A-4 in which the chemical contaminants of concern were identified, assign the Leaching Potential (LP) with the highest numerical value. Leaching Potential (LP) = 3 6. CALCULATE THE PROBABILITY FOR GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION RESULTING FROM MIGRATION OF ON-SITE HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING PROBABILITY OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (PGWC) 1. Is there direct evidence of release of a waste compound from the facility to groundwater (i.e., analytical evidence in which contaminant is measured in groundwater or In a well In the vicinity of the facility at a significantly higher level than the background level)? YES X NO If the contamination is documented in the aquifer only, then the probability of groundwater contamination (PGWC) = 1.0. If the contamination is documented in a drinking water well, or at the tap, then (PGWC) = 1.1 2. Record values for the following factors as determined in SeCtion D-l, D-2, D-3, D-4, and D-5. Groundwater Proximity VaJue (GPV) = 0.1 Net Precipitation Value (NPV) = 0.1 Soil Permeability Value (SPV) = 3 Containment Value (CV2) = 3 Leaching Potential (LP) = 3 Tier I Risk Assessment Page 19 3. Estimate PGWC using the following equation: PGWC = (GPVx NPV x SPV x CV2x LP)/243 = (0,1 x0,1 x3 x 3x 3)/243 =0,0011 4,~ Record observed PGWC (from Step 1) or estimated PGWC (from Step 3) below: ~ PGWC = 0,0011 5, Record the Probability of Groundwater Contamination (PGWC) value in the designated space of Table G-1 in Section G. Tier I Risk Assessment Page 20 SECTION E Assess the probability of contaminant migration via air vapor transport. 1. CONTAINMENT CONDITIONS Assign a value from Table E-1 that best describes existing conditions on site. If more than one situation applies, assign the highest Containment VaJue (CV3). 2. REACTIVITY AND INCOMPATIBILITY From Tables E-2 and E-3, assign a value that best describes the reactivity and incompatibility characteristics of the hazardous materials known or suspected to be on-site. In order to estimate the Reactivity/Incompatibility Value (RIV), assign the highest of the individual values. Reactivity/Incompatibility Value (RIV) = 0,1 $. EVAPORATION POTENTIAL From Section A-4, in which the chemical contaminants of concern were identified, assign the evaporation potential (EP) with the highest numerical value. Evaporation Potential (EP) = 3 4. CALCULATE THE PROBABILITY OF CONTAMINANT MIGRATION VIA AIR VAPOR TRANSPORT WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING PROBABILITY OF AIR VAPOR TRANSPORT 1. Is there direct evidence (i.e., ambient sampling) ct air contamination on or near the site that is attributable to wastes on the site? YES X NO Has a fire or explosion involving hazardous materials ever occurred on site? YES X NO (Post Closure) ff any of the above are yes, then (PAVT) = 1. If not, proceed to Step 2. · : 2, Record values for the following factors as determined in Sections E-1 E-2, and E-3. i Evaporation Potential (EP) = 3 iI Containment Value (CV3) : 0.1 ~ Reactivity and Incompatibility Value (RIV) = 0.1 Tier I Risk Assessment Page 21 3. Estimate PAVT using the following equations: If EP>RIV = PAVT = (CV3xEP)/9(0,1 x3)/9 = 1,0 If RIV>EP then PAVT = (CV3 x RIV)/9 4. Record observed PAVT (from Step 1) or estimated PAVT (from Step 3) below: PAVT = 0.033 5. Record the Probability of Air Vapor Transport (PAVT) value in the designated space of Table G-1 In Section G, Tier I Risk Assessment Page 22 TABLE E-1 Containment Values for Air Vapor Transport (CV3) Conditions On Site Containment Value (CV3) General Conditions: No odor on site 0,1 Some odor on site 1 Strong Odors 2 Odor problems observed oft site Soil stained by liquid (area >10m2) 2 Ponded or saturated areas of liquid waste 3 Containers: (includes above and underground storage tanks, drums, etc.) Containers sealed and in sound condition, protection from deterioration by weather conditions 0.1 Containers sealed and sound, no protection from weather , 1 Containers deteriorated, no evidence of leakage or liquid contents 2 Containers leaking or liquid visible 3 Containment Value (CV3) = 0.1 Tier I Risk Assessment Page 23 TABLE Incompatibility Ratings Incompatibility Assig ned Incompatibility Value No incompatible substances are present 0.1 Incompatible substances are present but do not pose a hazard 1 Incompatible substanCes are present and may pose a future hazard 2 Incompatible substances are present and pose an immediate hazard 3 Tier I Risk Assessment Page 24 TABLE E-3 Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Reactivity Ratings and Assigned Values Description NFPA Assigned Rating Reactivity Value Materials that are normally stable even under fire exposure conditions and that are not reactive with water 0.1 0.1 Materials that in themselves are normally stable but that may become unstable at elevated temperatures and pressures or that may react with water with some release of energy, but not violently 1 1 Materials that in themselves are normally unstable and readily undergo violent chemical change but do not detonate. Includes materials that can undergo chemical change with rapid release of energy at normal temperatures and pressures or that can undergo violent chemical change at elevated temperatures and pressures. Aisc includes those materials that may react violently with water or that may form potentially explosive mixtures with water 2 2 Materials that in themselves are capable of detonation, explosive decompositions or explosive reaction but that require a strong initiating source or that must be heated under confinement before initiation. Includes materials that are sensitive to thermal or mechanical shock react explosively with water without requiring heat or confinement 3 3 Materials that in themselves are readily capable of detonation, explosive decomposition, or explosive reaction at normal temperatures and pressure. Includes materials that are sensitive to mechanical or localized thermal shock 4 3 Adapted from HRS (USEPA 1985) Tier Risk Assessment Page 26 3. Assign values for contaminant depth (CDV), containment (SCV), and (BSM) Contaminant Value (CV4) = 4 Contaminant Depth (CDV) = 3 Buried/Subsurface Material Value (BSM) = 2 4, Estimate PSVT using the following equation: PSVT = (SPV x EP x CV4 x CDV x BSM)/243 (3 x 8 x 4 x 3 x 2)/243 -- 0.88 5, Record PSVT faf the site below: PSVT = 1,0 6. Record the Probability of Soil Vapor Transport (PSVT) Value in the designated space of Table G-1 in Section G. TABLE F-1 Containment Condition Values of Soil Vapor Transport (CV4) Conditions On Site Containment Value (CV4) Sealed containers in sound condition; protected from deterioration by weather; secondary containment sound 0.1 Containers sealed and In good condition: not protected from weather; secondary containment system sound 1 Containers deteriorated; no visible evidence of leakage; secondary containment structures unsound 2 No secondary containment; containers deteriorated; visible ponding; no run-off control 3 Known subsurface discharges 4 CONTAINMENT CONDITION VALUE (CV4) = 4 Tier I Risk Assessment Page 27 TABLE F-2 Containment Depth Values for Soil Vapor Transport (CDV) Depth of Tanks Depth of Contaminant Depth Contamination (ft) Value (CDV) 0-20 0-20 0,1 21-40 21-40 1 41-60 41-60 2 >60 >60 3 CONTAMINANT DEPTH VALUE (CDV) = 3 TABLE F-3 Buried/Subsurface Material Values for Soil Vapor'Transport (BSM) Type Material Value (BSM) Buried or located in Subsurface Nontoxics only 1 loxics only 2 Nontoxics and toxics 3 BURIED/subsurface material value (BSM) = 2 Tier I Risk Assessment Page 29 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Criteria for Selection of Groundwater Exposure Assessment Models, OHEA-E-219, USEPA, 211987. 2. Doull J., Klaassen C.D., Amdur M.O. (eds): Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY 1980. 3, Endangerment Assessment Handbook USEPA/OWPE, TR-693-24B, 10/1985. 4. Exposure Factors Handbook, USEPA/OHEA/EAG, Second Draft, 5/1988. 5. General Quantitative Risk Assessment Guidelines for Noncarcinogenic and Nonmutagenic Health Effects, USEPA/RAF, Third Draft, 2/1988, 6. Guidance for Establishing Target Clean-up Levels for Soils at Hazardous Wastes Sites, USEPA/ORD, 1989. 7, Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation Procedures: Ecological Risk Assessment, USEPA/ORD, EPA 540/9-85-001,6/1986. 8. Health and Environmental Effects Profiles, USEPA/OHEA/ECAO, 1984-1988 (300 total). 9. Health Effects Assessments, USEPA/OHEA/ECAO, 1984-1988 (65 total). 10. Health Risk Assessment for Chemical Mixtures, USEPA, Draft, 2/1988. 11. Integrated Risk Information Systems, On-Line, USEPA Risk Data Base (updated monthly). 12. National Science Foundation, Division of Policy Research and Analysis. Risk Assessment and RiSk Assessment Methods: The State-of-the-Art. NSF/PRA-84016, 1985. 13. Nonexposure Aspects of Risk Assessment, EPA Contract//68-02-4254-75, OTS, 1988. 14. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Interagencv Staff Group on ChemicaJ Carcinogenesis, Executive Office of the President. Chemical Carcinogens: A Review of the Science and its Associated Principles. Federal Register 50:10372-10442, 1985. Tier I Risk Assessment Page 30 15. Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contamination under Emergency Response Conditions, EPA 600/8-83-030, 11 / 1983. 16. The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986, USEPA/OHEA/ECAO, EPA 600/8-87-045, 8/1987. 17. Superfund Exposure Assessment Guidelines of 1986, USEPA/OSWER, 68-01-6271, 1/1986. 18. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual, USEPA/OERR, EPA/540/1-86/060, 10/1986. 19. Toxicology Handbook, USEPA/OWPE, TR-603-21A, 10/1985. 20. Toxicology Profiles, ATSDR.CDC, 1987-1988 (Selected Chemicals: Dioxlns, PCBs, etc.). 21. USEPA. Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. Federal Register 49:46294-46301,1984a. 22. USEPA. Proposed Guidelines for Exposure Assessment. Federal Register 49:46304-46312, 1984b. 23. USEPA. Proposed Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment. Federal Register 49:46313-46321,1984c. 24. USEPA. Proposed Guidelines for Health Assessment of Suspected Developmental Toxicants. Federal Register 49:46323-46331, 1984d. 24. USEPA. Proposed Guidelines for Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Federal Register 50:1170-1176, 1985, ~ HOLGUIN, ~ FAHAN ~ &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ATTACHMENT 7. TIER II RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS TIER II DATA INPUT FILE. DEPTH BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYLBENZENE TOTAL XYLENES (feet BGL) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) 5 N D (MRI_>O.001) 8.238 N D (MRI_>0.001) · 118.040 10 9.605 387.169 6.693 539.834 15 15.214 127.826 5.010 220.918 20 1.850 59.290 N D {MRL>0.001) 204.717 25 N D {MRi_>0.001 ) N D {MRL,>0.001 ) N D {MRL>O.001 ) N D/MRI_>0.001 ) ! 30 N D {MRL>0.005) N D {MRL>0.005) N D (MRI.>O.005) N D {MRI~0.005) 35 0.061 0.662 N D (MRL>0.001) 20.312 40 N D (MRL>O.001) 0.439 N D (MRL>0.001) 0.617 45 N D (MRL>O.O01) N D (MRL>O.001) N D (MRL>0.001~ N D (MRL>0.001) 50 0.269 2.600 0.883 4.500 55 0.057 0.731 0.040 0.502 60 0.506 0.737 N D (MRL>0.001) 10.594 65 3.147 2.490 0.616 4.496 70 0.526 0.782 N D IMRI~O.001) 0.743 75 3.188 3.171 0.590 20.242 80 0.265 0.429 ND (MRL>0.001) 0.931 85 4.842 5.453 1.010 18.466 90 2.421 2.727 0.505 9.233 95 N D (MRI,>O.001) N O (MRL>O.001) N D (MRL>O.001) N D (MRI_>0.001) 100 N D (MRL>O.001) N D (MRL>0.001) N D (MRI_>0.001) N D (MRL>O.001) Below ground level. MRL = Minimum reporting level. N D = Not detected. The concentrations specified for each 5-foot interval are the greatest concentrations detected at those depths the tank removal operations and soil investigations. BENZENE RISK BENZENE SOIL CONTAMINATION RISK APPRAISAL FOR PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER Press the escape key (or make a blank entry) for the options menu 6 --- AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION (INCHES) 200 --- DISTANCE FROM SURFACE TO GROUNDWATER (FEET) 20 --- NUMBER OF SAMPLES (UP TO 32 SAMPLES AT INTERVALS OF 1 TO 6 FEET) MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS OPTIONS CUMULATIVE CONTAMINATION .... A B SAMPLE REMOVE CLEANUP W/(~ WITH WITH ACCEPT NUMBER DEPTH BENZENE LAYER TO: OPTION A B -ABLE (feet) (ppm) LEVEL 1 5 0,001 NO 31.2 0.001 0.001 31.2 1000 ' 2 10 9,605 NO 31.2 9.606 9.606 62.4 1000 3 15 15,214 NO 31.2 24.82 24.82 93.6 1000 4 20 1,85 NO 31.2 26.67 26.67 124,8 1000 5 25 0,001 NO 31.2 26.67 26.67 156 1000 6 30 0.005 NO 31.2 26.68 26.68 187,2 1000 7 35 0.061 NO 31.2 26.74 26.74 218.4 1000 8 40 0.001 NO 31.2 26.74 26.74 249.6 1000 9 45 0.001 NO 31.2 26.74 26.74 280.8 1000 10 50 0.269 NO 31.2 27.01 27.01 312 1000 11 55 0.057 NO 31.2 27.07 27.07 343.2 1000 12 60 0.506 NO 31.2 27.57 27.57 374.4 1000 13 65 3.147 NO 31.2 30.72 30.72 405.6 1000 14 70 0,526 NO 31.2 31.24 31.24 436.8 1000 15 75 3,188 NO 31.2 .34.43 34.43 468 1000 16 80 0.265 NO 31.2 34,7 34,7 499,2 1000 17 85 4,842 NO 31.2 39.54 39.54 530.4 1000 18 90 2,421 NO 31.2 41.96 41.96 561.6 1000 19 95 0,001 NO 31.2 41.96 41.96 592.8 1000 20 100 0,001 NO 31.2 41.96 41.96 624 1000 NOTE: The leaching potential model indicates that the accumulated concentration is less than the acceptable concentration, and no layer removal is required. TOLUENE RISK TOLUENE SOIL CONTAMINATION RISK APPRAISAL FOR PROTECTION OF GROUNDWAI:ER Press the escape key (or make a blank entry) for the options menu 6 --- AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION (INCHES) 200 --- DISTANCE FROM SURFACE TO GROUND WATER (FEET) 20 --- NUMBER OF SAMPLES (UP TO 32 SAMPLES AT INTERVALS OF 'J TO 8 FEET) MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS OPTIONS CUMULATIVE CONTAMINATION A B SAMPLE REMOVE CLEANUP W/O WITH WITH ACCEPT NUMBER DEPTH TOLUENE LAYER TO: OPTION A B -ABLE (feet) (ppm) LEVEL I 5 8.238 NO 50 8.238 8.238 50 1000' 2 10 387.169 YES 50 395.4 0.0 100 1000 3 15 127.826 YES 50 523.2 0.0 150 1000 4 20 59.29 NO 50 582.5 59.3 200 1000 5 25 0.001 NO 50 582.5 59.3 250 1000 6 30 0.005 NO 50 582.5 59.3 300 1000 7 35 0.662 NO 50 583.2 60.0 350 1000 8 40 0.439 NO 50 583.6 60.4 400 1000 9 45 0.001 NO 50 583.6 60.4 450 1000 10 50 2.6 NO 50 586.2 63.0 500 1000 11 55 0.731 NO 50 587 64 550 1000 12 60 0.737 NO 50 587.7 64.5 600 1000 13 65 2.49 NO 50 590.2 67.0 650 1000 14 70 0.782 NO 50 591 68 700 1000 15 75 3.171 NO 50 594.1 70.9 750 1000 16 80 0.429 NO 50 594.6 71.3 800 1000 17 85 5.453 NO 50 600 77 850 1000 18 90 2.727 NO 50 602.8 79.5 900 1000 19 95 0.001 NO 50 602.8 79.5 950 1000 20 100 0.001 NO 50 602.8 79.5 1000 1000 NOTE: The leaching potential model indicates that the accumulated concentration is less than the acceptable concentration, and no layer removal is required. However, the individual concentrations of the layers at 10 and 15 feet BGL exceed the acceptable soil retention concentration of 50 ppm calculated by the model. ETHYLBENZENE RISK ETHYLBENZENE SOIL CONTAMINATION RISK APPRAISAL FOR PROTECTION OF GRO'UNDWATER Press the escape key (or make a blank entry) for the options menu 6 --- AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION (INCHES) 200 --- DISTANCE FROM SURFACE TO GROUNDWATER (FEET) 20 --- NUMBER OF SAMPLES (UP TO 32 SAMPLES AT INTERVALS OF 1 TO 6 FEET) MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS OPTIONS CUMULATIVE CONTAMINATION A B --SAMPLE REMOVE CLEANUP W/O WITH WITH ACCEPT NUMBER DEPTH E-BENZENE LAYER TO: OPTION A B -ABLE (feet) (ppm) LEVEL I 5 0.001 NO 40 0.001 0.001 40 100(J 2 10 6.693 NO 40 6.694 6.694 80 1000 3 15 5.01 NO 40 11,7 11.7 120 1000 4 20 0.001 NO 40 11.71 11.71 160 1000 5 25 0,001 NO 40 11.71 11.71 200 1000 6 30 0.005 NO 40 11.71 11.71 240 1000 7 35 0.001 NO 40 11.71 11.71 280 1000 8 40 0.001 NO 40 11.71 11.71 320 1000 9 45 0,001 NO 40 11.71 11.71 360 1000 .. 10 50 0.883 NO 40 12.6 12.6 400 1000 11 55 0.04 NO 40 12.64 12.64 440 1000 12 60 0.001 NO 40 12.64 12.64 480 1000 13 65 0.616 NO 40 13.25 13.25 520 1000 14 70 0.001 NO 40 13.26 13.26 560 1000 15 75 0.59 NO 40 13.85 13.85 600 1000 16 80 0.001 NO 40 13.85 13.85 640 1000 17 85 1.01 NO 40 14.86 14.86 680 1000 18 90 O. 505 NO 40 15.36 15.36 720 1000 19 95 0.001 NO 40 15.36 15.36 760 1000 20 100 0.001 NO 40 15.36 15.36 800 1000 NOTE: The leaching potential model indicates that the accumulated concentration is less than the acceptable concentration, and no layer removal is required. CITY of BAKERSFIELD "WE CARE" .... December 8, 1993 FIRE DEPARTMEN'T 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Mr. Greg Petruska World Oil Marketing Company P. O. Box 1966 South Gate, CA 90280 RE: Closure of four (4) Underground Storage Tanks Located at World Oil Station No. 29, 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, CA Dear Mr. Greg Petruska: The Site Assessment and Risk Analysis for World Oil Station No. 29 ~has been reviewed by this office. The proposed mitigation of this site, which includes capping the site to prevent percolation of seasonal rainwater, is found to be acceptable to this. office. We do concur that the vertical separation between the impacted soil and potential groundwater, along with the lithology in this area, provide adequate protection to groundwater.' This letter does not relieve you of any liabilit~ for past, present or future operations. In addition, any future changes in the site uSe may require further assessment or mitigation. It is the property owners responsibility to notify this department of any changes in site usage or changes in property ownership. if you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely yours, a ph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator REH/ed cc: Mark Magargee, Ho~guin, Fahan & Assoc. P.S. Greg I do need a time table for completion of the capping of this site and'surface restoration. Cal/EPA vcte wi so. Governor State Water Resources Control Board 13 1998 Division of Clean Water John P. Hundley Programs World Oil Marketing Co. P O Box 1966 Mailing Address: P.O. Box944212 South Gate, CA 90280-1966 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND, CLAIM NO. 8014, FOR SITE 2014 T Stree~ ADDRESS: 2101 BRUNDAGE LN, BAKERSFIELD Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95814 The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) is able to issue, pursuant to applicable (916) 227-4307 regulations, the enclosed Letter of Commitment (LOC) in an amount not to exceed $3 5,000. FAX (916) 2274530 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 fundhome.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 environment can be claimed for reimbursement. Unless waived in writing, you are required to obtain preapproval of costs for all future corrective action work (form enclosed). If you have any questions on obtaining preapproval of your costs or the three bid requirement, please call 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 spreadsheets. Our misston 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 future generations. - JAN '~ 3 1998 WORLD OIL MARKETING CO. 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 LOC= 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 Kern 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 Cafifornia's water resources, and Recycled Paper ert~ure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations. 12/02/97 12:08 UST CLEANUP FUND ~ 805 ]26 05?6 NO. 167 . }~ Continued on Re~ers~ 'wACrtO, COUPL "* ..................... : ~ ' coHFIRM~ FiOH OF ' J:~ , .... , ,.,,,,,, ~ ...... ~ ......... .~ Claimant in Co~ective Aotion Compliance :::;i?~ ~ Claimant NOT in Corrective Adion Compliance at the Time of'this Review - 90 Day Le~er Required :[.:'~.. ~ Claimant NOT in Corrective A~ion Compliance - Recommend Reje~on t ~ .... ' DATE ~~ C~S R~IEWER SIGNATUR~ . . DATE OIL MARKETING_ PANY P.O. BOX 1966 December 21, 1993 SOUTH GATE, CA 90280-1966 TEL (310) 928-0100 FAX (31.0) 928-0391 Mr. Ralph Huey RECEIVED City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division 2101 H Street HAZ. MAT. D!V. Bakersfield, CA 93301 SUBJECT: SCHEDULE TO BACKFILL AND PAVE OVER WORLD OIL SITE NO. 29 2101 BRIJNDAGE LANE, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Huey: Thank you for your expedient review of the, "Risk Assessment Report, World Oil Marketing Company Service Station #29, 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California", dated November 23, 1993 and your approval of our request for closure upon capping of the site. I have reviewed bids to backfill, re-compact and pave over the subject site and have selected RLW Equipment to do the work. Weather permitting, the work is expected to ~commence:~.gp~..,D..ecember..27,..199,3 ,and,.. take~.approximately four days to complete. Ui~on' comple(ibn:"~f the' 'w°rl~i':ihe die. ~{il"'6~e~'covered with the existing concrete or asphalt to be laid, all debris will have been removed, and the site swept clean. If you have any questions on the work or schedule, please call me at (310) 928-0100 Ext. 215. Sincerely, WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY Greg Petruska, P.E. Director of Environmental Affairs 9302 S. GARFIELD AVENUE, SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA 90280-3896 t UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE (LEAK) / CONTAMINATION SITE REPORT ~ [-~YES [] NO REPORT BEEN FILED ? NAME OF INDIVIDU~ FILING REPORT PHONE SIGNA~RE. REPRESENTING ~ OWNE~PE~TOR ~ REGION~ BOARD ~ COMPA~OR~ENCYNAME ADDRESS STRE~ C~ STA~ ADDRESS CROSS STREET L~AL AGENCY AGENCY N~E ~NT~T PERSON PHONE REGION~ BOARD. PHONE (1) NA~E QUANTIW LOST (~LLONS) ~ ,%~C~ ~ UNKNOWN ~ UNKNOWN DATE DIS~VERED ~ HOW DIS~VER~ ~ INV~TORY ~NTR~ ~ SU~URFACE MONITORING ~ NUIS~CE CONDITIONS DA~ DI~HARGE BE~N ' ' M~HOD USED TO STOP DISCHARGE (CHECK ~L ~AT APPLY) HAS DISCHA~E SEEN STOPPED ? ~ REPAIR TANK ~ CLOSE TANK & FILL IN P~CE ~ CHANGE PR~EDURE SOURCE OF OI~HARGE CAUSE(S) ~ TANK~AK ,~ UNKNOWN ~ OVERFILL ~ RUP~R~AILURE ~ SPILL ~ PIP{NGL~K ~ OTHER ~ ~RROS~N ~ UNKNOWN ~ OTHER CHECK ONE ONLY ~ UNDERMINED ~ SOIL ONLY ~ GROUNDWATER ' ~ DRINKING WATER - (CHECK ONLY IF WATER WELLS HA~ AC~ALLY BEEN AFFEC~D CHECK ONE ONLY ~ NO ACTION TArN ~ PRELIMINARY SI~ A~ESSMENT ~RK~N SUBMI~ED ~ POLLUTION CHARAC~RI~TION ~ LE~ aR,< ~NFiR~ED ~ PREL,~INARY S,~ A~E~MENT UN~RWA~ ~ P~T CLE~UP MON~OR,NG ,N P~OGRE~ ~ REMEDmTION P~N ~. CASE CLOSED (CLE~UP ~MPLE~D OR UNNECESSAR~ ~ CLE~UP UNDERWAY CHECK APPROPRIATE ACTION(S) ~ EXCAVA~&DIS~SE(ED) ~ REMOVE FREE PRODUCT (FP) ~ ENH~CEDBIODEGRADATION(I~ ~CAP SI~ (CD) ~ EXCAVATE & TREAT (E~ ~ PUMP & TREAT GROUNDWA~R (G~ ~ REP~CE SUPPLY (RS) ~ ~ ~ ~NTAINMENT BARRIER (CB) ~ NO ACTION REQUIRED (NA)~ TREA~ENT AT H~P (HU)~ VENT~IL~S) ~ vAcUuM EXT~CT ~ ~ OTHER (O~ UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE (LEAK) ! CONTAMINATION SITE REPORT HAS STATE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES )FOR'I~OOA~AGENC¥ ::USE EMERGENCY NAME OF INDIVIDU~ FILING REPORT PHONE SI ~ ~ L~ALAGENCY ~ OTHERREPRESENTING ~ OWNE~PE~TOR ~ REGION~BOARD I COMPANY OR AGENCY NAME ADDRESS STA~ ZIP ,NAME [ ~NT.T PERSON I PHONE STRE~ C~ STA~ FACILI~ N~E (IF APPLICABL~ OPERATOR ~ PHONE Otc 5rA , I1 ) ~ ADDRESS ~ ~RE~ C~ COU~ ZiP ~ CROSS STREET ~ L~AL AGENCY AGENCY N~E ~NTACT PERSON PHONE m ~ REGION~ BOARD PHONE ~ {1) NAM~ QUANTI~ LOST (~LLONS} UNKNOWN m ~ UNKNOWN ~z~ DATE( M~ DI~VEREDo ~ ~D~ DE ~ Y~ ~Y HOW~DIS~VEREDTANK ~ST ~ TANK REMOVALINVENTORY ~NTROL ~ OTHERSU~URFACE MONITORING ~ NUIS~CE CONDITIONS ~ DA~ D1~HARGE BE~N M~NOD USED TO STOP DISCHARGE (CHECK ~L ~AT APPLY) HAS DISCHARGE BEEN STOPPED ? ~ REPAIR TANK ~ CLOSE TANK & FILL IN P~CE ~ CHANGE PR~EDURE g~ ~ 0 ~ PIPING L~K ~ OTHER ~ mRROSION ~ UNKNOWN ~ OTHER' ~ UNDERMINED ~ SOIL ONLY ~ GROUNDWATER ~ DRINKING WATER - (CHECK ONLY IF WATER WELLS HA~ AC~ALLY BEEN AFFEC~D) CHECK ONE oNLY ~ NO ACTION TA~N ~ PRELIMINARYSI~ASSESSMENT~RKP~NSUBMI~ED ~ POLLUTIONCHARAC~RI~TION ~ ~ LE~ BEING ~NFIRMED ~ PRELIMINARYSI~ ASSE~MENTUN~RWAY ~ POSTCLE~UP MONITORING IN PROGRE~ ~ REMEDIATION P~N ~ CASE CLOSED (CLE~UP ~MPLE~D OR UNNECESSAR~ ~ CLE~UP UNDERWAY CHECK APPROPRIATE ACTION(S) ~ EXCAVA~ & DISUSE (ED) ~ REMOVE FREE PRODUCT (FP) ~ ENH~CED BIO DEGRADATION (1~ ~ ~CAPSI~(CD) (CB) ~ EXCAVATE&TREAT(E~(NA) ~ PUMP&TREATGROUNDWA~R(G~ ~(HU) REP~CE SUPPLY (RS) ~ ~NTAINMENT BARRIER ~ NO ACTION REQUIRED ~ TREA~ENT AT H~P ~ VENT ~IL ~S) ~ VACUUM EXTRACT ~E) ~ OTHER (O~ HOC ~ (~) CITY of BAKERSFIELD "WE CARE" May 21, 1993 FIRE DEPARTMENT . 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Mr. Gil Juarez ~ (~O~~ General Manager, Operations World Oil Marketing Company P.O. Box 1966 South Gate, CA 90280-1966 RE: Preliminary Site Characterization (April 22, 1993) World Oil Station No. 29, 2101 Brundage Lane Bakersfield, California Upon review of the site assessment submitted for your station number 29 on Al~ril 22, 1993, this office has determined that insufficient data exists to accept the recommendations of your environmental consultant to allow natural in site biodegradation as the only remedial action. The hydrocarbon concentration is significant. At this point we would approve alternative two, vapor extraction, that would involve additional testing during the Well site construction. Or, further assessing of the extent of the plume as it interacts with the clay lense of 80 feet, as well as .concentration present in the center of the contaminated area, accompanied by a risk analysis to evaluate the potential for migration to groundwater. This analysis may als0 involve further,definition of the clay lense discovered at 80 feet. We would suggest a meeting between your companies representative, your environmental consultants and ourself to further pursue alternatives and to more clearly define the scope of additional work to be completed. Please submit a work plan for your proposed action within 30 days from receipt of this letter. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely yours, Ralph E. Huey cc: Earth Systems Environmental Inc. Greg Petruska, World Oil CITY of BAKERSFIELD '~,. "wE CARE" ~% 0~,~'~ ,,. ,~ / t FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON August 24, 1993 BAKERSFIELD. 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Mr. Greg Petruska World Oil Marketing Company 9302 South Garfield Avenue South Gate, California 90280 RE: World Oil Marketing Company Service Station ~29, 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California. Dear Mr. Petruska, . < This is to notify you that the workplan for the above stated address is satisfactory. Please give this office 5 working days notice prior to the commencement of work. Please be advised that any work done that is not performed under direct over sight by this office will not be accepted, unless previously approved. If you have any questions, Please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely, (~ E. Hu~ Hazardous Materials Coordinator Underground Tank Program REH/dlm cc: Mark Magargee ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 143 South Figueroa Street · Ventura, California 93001 (805) 652-0219 · FAX (805) 652-0793 853 West 17th Street · Costa Mesa, California 92627 (714) 642-2660 · FAX /714) 642-2544 2820 Pegasus Drive, Ste. I · Bakersfield, California 93308 (805) 391-0517 · FAX (805) 391-0826 July 30, 1993 RECEIVED Mr, Greg Petruska HAZ. MAT. DIV. World Oit Marketing Company 9302 South Garfield Avenue South Gate, California 90280 Subject: WORK PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT AT THE FORMER WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY SERVICE STATION #29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr, Petruska: The following work plan outlines Holguin, Fohan & Associates, Inc.'s (HFA) proposed methodology for completing the environmental characterization at the above referenced site. This work plan has been prepared in response to the Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division (BFDHMD) Underground Storage Tank (UST) Local Oversight Program's (LOP's) letter dated May 21, and direction recieved from Mr. Ralph Huey of the BFDHMD UST LOP in a June 16 meeting between BFDHMD UST LOP, Mark Magargee with HFA, and yourself. The required work includes further assessment of the area of greatest concentrations of gasoline-containing soil, evaluation of a possible impermeable clay zone beneath the impacted soil, and the preparation of a contaminant fate risk assessment. HFA proposes to drill and sample a single, slant-drilled soil boring 65 linear feet to a depth of 46 feet below ground level (BGL) in order to assess the area of highest concentrations of hydrocarbon-containing soils associated with a former gasoline storage tank at the site. HFA will also conduct laboratory analyses on three soil samples collected during previous assessment activities to determine the physical characteristics of the clay layer encountered between 80 and 95 feet BGL. Upon completion of the drilling and laboratory analytical work, HFA will provide a report that includes an environmental contaminant fate risk assessment. The risk assessment is intended to provide World Oil Marketing Company (World Oil) with support in the recommendation to the BFDHMD UST LOP that the site be considered for a No Further Action (NFA) determination. 1. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located at 2101 Brundage Lane in Bakersfield, Kern County, California (see Figure 1 - Site Location Map). The site is an abandoned retail gasoline sales facility that previously contained three dispenser islands and four 12,000-gallon, USTs (see Figure 2 - PIct Plan). The project site is bound on the north by ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS ' SCIENTISTS ' GEOLOGISTS AND ENGINEERS Contaminated Site Assessments * Real Estate Audits · Site Remediation · Hazardous Waste Management Ne Mr. Greg Petruska ~ HOL©UI World Oil Marketing Company ~ FAF[AN July 30, 1993- Page 2 ~ &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEME~NT CONSULTANTS Brundage Lane, on the east by Oleander Street, on the south by an alley, and on the west by a commercial business. The property is situated within a developed commercial area along both sides of Brundage Lane, with residential properties flanking Brundage Lane. The topography at the site is relatively flat with a slight fall to the southwest. The owner contact is Greg Petruska, World Oil Marketing Company, 9302 South Garfield Avenue, South Gate, California, 90280, (310) 928-0100. The consultant contact is Mark Magargee, Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc., 2820 Pegasus Drive, Suite 1, Bakersfield, California, 93308, (805) 391-0517. 2. SITE MAPS: Site maps are included as Figures 1 and 2, 3. TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND HYDROGEOLOGY: The site is located in a relatively flat area at an elevation of approximately ,500 feet above mean sea level. The site is located in the southern part of the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley is a north-south trending valley, approximately 400 miles long byS0 miles wide, the southern portion of which is known as the San Joaquin Valley. The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed primarily of unconsolidated Pleistocene-aged (1.6 million to 11,000 years ago) and Recent-aged (11,000 years ago to the present) alluvial sediments. Beneath the alluvial sediments are older, predominantly lake bed deposits. These lie unconformably on Mio-Pliocene marine sediments, which extend to crystalline basement at approximately 30,000 feet. Geologic deposits in the study area include Pleistocene-aged alluvial sediments of the Kern River Formation, which form a homocline dipping gently to the southwest (see Figure 3 - Geology Map). The deposits are alluvium consisting of poorly indurated and dissected fan deposits (California Department of Mines and Geology, 1964). On-site soil borings indicate that the alluvium is characterized by unconsolidated, moderate to Iow permeability silt to a depth of approximately 17 feet BGL, overlying unconsolidated, highly permeable, medium-grained to coarse-grained sand with minor gravel to a depth of approximately 28 feet BGL. Underlying this is a zone of unconsolidated, highly permeable, very-fine-grained to medium-grained sand with minor silt to a depth of approximately 53 feet BGL. This is underlain by unconsolidated, highly permeable, fine-grained to coarse-grained sand to a depth of 82 feet BGL. Underlying this is a zone of consolidated, Iow permeability, silty clay to a depth of 98 feet BGL. This is underlain by an unconsolidated, highly permeable, medium-grained to coarse-grained gravely sand to a depth of 100 feet BGL, which is the greatest depth penetrated in the investigation. -.. i~ Mr. Greg Petruska ] HOLGUINe World Oil Marketing Company F/~J-J/~N July 30, 1993- Page 3 & A. IATES, INC. ENVI~[~]NMENT.~,L MANAGEMENT C~ON~I_I/'I-~qTS Surface and groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley is derived predominantly from the Sierra Nevada mountain range to the east, and is transported by five major rivers, the southernmost being the Kern River. The sublect site is located approximately two miles south of the Kern River. The depth to the regional unconfined aquifer is approximately 200 feet BGL with the direction of groundwater flow to the south (Kern County Water Agency, 1991 Report on Water Conditions, Improvement District No. 4, February 1992). The nearest known occurrence of perched groundwater is 5 miles to the south-southeast at a depth of 20 feet BGL in the abandoned Kern River channel to the ancient Kern Lake bed (Kern County Water Agency, 1991 Water Supply Report, May 1992). No perched groundwater is known to exist beneath the subject site, 4. TANK HISTORY: World Oil had the former gasoline retail sales facility demolished in October 1992. Hallmark Petroleum Company (Hallmark) of Los Angeles, California, decommissioned the station and removed all of the USTs, product pipelines, and fuel dispensers at the property (see Figure 2). Items removed Included four 12,000-gallon, gasoline USTs. 5. IDENTIFICATION AND ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF MATERIAL RELEASED: Gasoline fuels: the quantity released is unknown, 6. PREVIOUS WORK: On October21, 1992, Hallmark excavated the soil above and around the tanks and removed the USTs, dispensers, and associated product pipelines. The tanks were removed under a BFDHMD UST LOP permit. Earth Systems Environmental, inc., (ESE) provided an environmental technician to collect soil samples under the direction of the BFDHMD UST LOP. Soil samples were collected at depths of 2 and 6 feet below the base of the tanks beneath the eastern end, western end, and center of each of the former 12,000-gallon, gasoline USTs (see Figure 2). These samples are designated S-13 through S-24. Soil samples were also collected at depths of 2 and 6 feet BGL in trenches excavated Immediately adjacent to each of the 12 dispensers at the site. These samples are designated S-1 through S-12. In addition, four composite soil samples (C-1 through C-4) were collected at a depth of four feet from within the stockpile of soil excavated from above and around the former USTs. The soil samples were analyzed at Mobile Labs, Inc., for the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, and for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX), TPH as gasoline and BTEX were detected in soil samples from beneath each of the four USTs, the western and central dispenser isJands, and the HOLGUINe World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN July 30, 1993- Page 4 . & ~IPxTES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS stockpiled soil, The greatest concentration of TPH as gasoline detected was 4,112 mg/kg in sample So18 at a depth of two feet beneath the western (fill) end of UST No. 2. The greatest concentration of benzene was also found in this sample at a concentration of 15.214 mg/kg. A summary of the analytical results for the facility decommissioning operations is presented in Attachment 1, Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analysis, TPH as gasoline and BTEX were detected at concentrations in excess of California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region (RWQCB-CVR) recommended guidelines for additional assessment activities. Samples that had concentrations of gasoline hydrocarbons exceeding the recommended guidelines are S-3A at the western dispenser island, S-6A at the central dispenser island, S-16A at the western end of the southern UST No. 1, S-13, S-13A, S-18, and S-18A at the western end and center of the south-central UST No. 2, S-17, S-17A, S-19, S-19A, S-23, and S-23A beneath the length of the north-central UST No. 3, and S-22 and S-22A at the western end of the northern UST No. 4. The BFDHMD UST LOP required assessment activities, consisting of soil borings and laboratory analysis of soil samples for the presence of gasoline hydrocarbons, to determine the vertical and lateral extent of the impacted soil, and to determine whether these hydrocarbons pose a threat of impacting groundwater. World Oil contracted ESE to perform the preliminary site assessment at the property. Drilling commenced on March 2, 1993, with a total of seven soil borings being drilled in this phase of soil characterization (see Figure 2). Soil boring TH-1 was slant drilled at a 30° angle from vertical from the southern side of the gasoline tank cavity to a depth of 100 feet BGL, with the bottom-hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this source area. Soil boring TH-2 was advanced adjacent to the western dispenser island to a depth of 90 feet BGL to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this probable sour(~e. Soil boring TH-3 was advanced adjacent to the central dispenser island to a depth of 35 feet BGL to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this probable source. Soil borings TH-4, TH-5, TH-6, and TH-7, drilled to depths of 4,5, 45, 50, and 60 feet BGL, respectively, were positioned to the north, east, south, and west of the source areas, respectively, to assess the lateral limits of impacted soil in those directions, Soil vapors indicative of volatile fuel hydrocarbons were detected in the soil samples obtained from soil boring TH-1 advanced beneath the location of the former gasoline tanks at elevated concentrations to a depth of 8,5 feet BGL, and continued at detectable ~ HOL©UINe World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN July 30, 1903- Page 5 & ASSOCIATe, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS concentrations to a depth of 9,5 feet BGL. Soil vapors were detected in the soil samples obtained from soil boring TH-2 advanced through the location of the western dispenser to a depth of 90 feet BGL, Soil vapors were detected in the soil samples obtained from soil boring TH-3 advanced through the location of the central dispenser at elevated concentrations through a depth of 35 feet BGL. Soil vapors were observed at very Iow to nondetectable concentrations in the lateral assessing soil borings TH-4, TH-5, TH-6, and T H-7. These field readings are collaborated by the analytical results presented below. TPH as gasoline was not detected in the samples from depths of 25, 35, and 45 feet BGL in soil boring TH-l, which was slant drilled from the southern side of the tank cavity with a bottom-hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity. This was due to the soil boring being in a lateral position to the former USTs at those depths. Below 45 feet BGL, TPH as gasoline was detected to a maximum concentration of 353 mg/kg at 75 feet BGL, decreased to a concentration of 239 mg/kg at 85 feet BGL, dropped to a concentration of 11 rog/kg at 95 feet BGL and was nondetectable at 100 feet BGL. BTEX was not detected in soil boring TH-1 in the samples from 25 through 45 feet BGL and in the samples from 95 and 100 feet BGL. BTEX was detected directly below the former USTs in the samples from 55 through 85 feet BGL. TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-2, positioned through the western dispenser location, at concentrations of 39 mg/kg at 10 feet BGL, 76 mg/kg at 20 feet BGL, and 11 rng/kg at 30 feet BGL, Below that depth, soil boring TH-2 intersected the lateral extent of the tank cluster plume and the hydrocarbon concentration increased to 210 mg/kg at 60 feet BGL, decreasing to a concentration of 36 mg/kg at 70 feet BGL, and remaining detectable at a concentration of 36 mg/kg at 90 feet BGL. Benzene, toluene, and total xylenes were aisc:) detected in the samples from 10 through 90 feet BGL in soil boring TH-2. Soil boring TH-2 was terminated at that depth due to soil boring tH-1 already delineating the vertical extent of impacted soil directly beneath the former USTs at a depth of 100 feet BGL TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-3, positioned through the central dispenser location, at concentrations of 4,058 rog/kg at 10 feet BGL, 725 mg/kg at 20 feet BGL, then decreasing to 229 mg/kg at 30 feet BGL and 234 mg/kg at 35 feet BGL. BTEX was also detected in soil boring TH-3 in the samples from t0 through 35 feet BGL. Soil boring TH-3 was terminated at that depth due to soil boring TH-1 already delineating the vertical limits of impacted soil. j Mr. Greg Petruska ~ HOLOUIb4, World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN July 30, ~ 993- Page 6 & A.%SOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-4, positioned 15 feet north and midway between the western and central dispenser islands, at concentrations of 39 mg/kg at 15 feet BGL, 18 mg/kg at 25 feet BGL, 15 rog/kg at 35 feet BGL, and 16 rog/kg at 45 feet BGL. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations. TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-5, positioned 25 feet east of the tank cluster, at concentrations of 14 rog/kg at 15 feet BGL, 23 mg/kg at 25 feet BGL, 15 mg/kg at 35 feet BGL, and 51 rog/kg at 45 feet BGL. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations, TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-6, positioned 20 feet south of the tank cluster, at concentrations of 116 mg/kg at 10 feet BGL, 8 rog/kg at 20 feet BGL, 17 mg/kg at 30 feet BGL, 12 rog/kg at 40 feet BGL, and was not detected at 50 feet BGL. Ethylbenzene concentrations were not detected in these Samples and benzene, toluene, and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations or were nondetectable. TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-7, slant drilled from the southwestern cofne[ of the tank cluster to a bottom-hole location 15 feet west of the center of the tank cluster, at concentrations of 15 mg/kg at 25 feet BGL, 29 rog/kg at 35 feet BGL, 16 rog/kg at 45 feet BGL, 71 mg/kg at 55 feet BGL, and 117 mg/kg at 65 feet BGL. Soil boring TH-7 was terminated at that depth because soil boring TH-1 already deJineated the vertical limits of impacted soil. Ethylbenzene concentrations were not detected in these samples and benzene, toluene, and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations or were nondetectable. A summary of the analytical results for the 41 selected soil samples from the 7 soil borings is presented in Attachment 1, Table 1.3. The data obtained from the tank removal operations suggests that soil impacted with gasoline hydrocarbons at concentrations in excess of RWQCB-CVR recommended guidelines exists at the subject site beneath the former gasoline USTs and near the western and center dispenser islands. The subsequent soil drilling activities indicate that gasoline hydrocarbons in excess of 1,000 mg/kg likely extend to a depth of less than 30 feet BGL. Gasoline hydrocarbons in excess of 100 rog/kg extend to a depth of less than 90 feet BGL, and detectable concentrations of gasoline hydrocarbons extend to a depth less than 100 feet BGL. Ne Mr. Greg Petruska HOLGUI World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN July 30, 1993 Page 7 ~ - & IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS The BFDHMD UST LOP reviewed the preliminary assessment data, and concurred in their letter dated May 21, 1993, that the vertical and lateral limits of gasoline-impacted soil had been delineated. However, the BFDHMD UST LOP recommended that further assessment be conducted to determine the vertical profile within the area of greatest concentrations of gasoline-impacted soil immediately beneath the locations of the former UST. Furthermore, in the June 16 meeting between Mr. Ralph Hue¥ of the BFDHMD UST LOP, Mark Magargee of HFA, and yourself, Mr Huey directed that, if World Oil desired to pursue an NFA determination for the site, then the BFDHMD UST LOP would require additional definition of the clay zone at 80 to 95 feet BGL, as well as a complete contaminant fate risk assessment. 7. STRATEGY AND PROCEDURES FOR ADDITIONAL SITE ASSESSMENT: The intention of this work plan is to take measures to further assess the vertical profile of gasoline*impacted soils Immediately beneath the location of the former USTs, and to define the procedures to be used to assess the physical characteristics and lateral continuity of the clay zone from 80 to 95 feet BGL at the site. It is proposed to accompJish this through the drilling and sampltng of a single, slant-drilled soil boring 65 linear feet to a depth of 46 feet BGL; conduct laboratory analysis on three soil samples collected during the previous assessment activities to determine the physical characteristics of the clay layer; research county files for well logs of water wells in the area; and construct cross sections through the site using these wells logs to describe the stratigraphic sequence beneath the gasoline-impacted soil to the first occurrence of groundwater at approximately 200 feet BGL. HFA will then provide a report that includes an environmental contaminant fate risk assessment. The risk assessment is intended to provide World Oil with support Jn the recommendation to the BFDHMD UST LOP that the site be considered for an NFA determination. The risk assessment is intended to assess the potential release of hazardous constituents from the former gasoline tanks at World Oil Station 29 to potential human and environmental receptors, The assessment estimates the potential for release of the hazardous constituents from the facility by examining a combination of chemical and physical factors that affect the potential for contaminants to migrate off site. This approach to risk assessment is based on USEPA-HRS 1985, USEPA-HRS 1988, and NYDOH TR-847-ZC. All probability equations are based on these recognized scoring systems used by and developed for state and federal regulatory agencies. The calculated probabilities for each migration pathway are then compared to an estimated value that serves as a flag to indicate if initiation of an,/portion of a baseline risk assessment is warranted. The migration pathways to be assessed are: 1. on-site contact; [ Mr. Greg Petruska HOL©UINe World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN July 30, 1993- Page 8 & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 2. surface water transport: 3. groundwater contamination; 4. air vapor transport; and 5. soil vapor transport. It is HFA's opinion that this assessment will indicate a Iow probability for all of the above items, except the potential to impact groundwater. Therefore, further risk assessment will be required to quantify the risk of leaching to groundwater. This additional assessment is performed to quantify the potential for the gasoline hydrocarbons documented at the subject site to leach to groundwater, Gasoline hydrocarbons have been detected to a depth of 95 feet BGL, and groundwater is estimated at a depth of greater than 200 feet BGL. The risk assessment will use a computer program to model the mass of contaminants present in the subsurface, the leaching pathway of this mass of contaminants, and the potential that any of these contaminants will leach to the groundwater. Information required to input into the computer program includes physical characteristics of the soil through the depth of groundwater, 8. DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED: Prior to any intrusive methods being conducted at the site, USA Underground Alert will be contacted. Based on the clearances obtained, HFA will site the sell boring in a safe location. HFA proposes to slant drill a single soil boring 6,5 linear feet to a depth of 46 feet BGL utilizing a hollow-stem, flight auger (see Figure 2 for proposed location). The soil boring (TH-8) will be drilled from a surface location on the eastern side of the tank cavity to a bottom-hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity. The site stratigraphy will be continuously monitored using the Unified Soil Classification System by an experienced environmental geologist under the direction of a State of California registered geologist. Soil vapor samples will be analyzed on site using a photoionization detector, and the data will be recorded along with sample location, depth, and background concentrations. Soil sampling will be performed at five-foot intervals while drilling. Each soil sample will be collected with a California split-spoon sampler lined with two-inch by six-inch stainless steel or brass sleeves, When the sample is withdrawn from the sampler, the ends of the sleeve will be covered with TeflonTM tape followed by plastic caps. Sample preservation, handling, and transportation will be as described in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) field manual. Borehole drilling and soil sampling procedures are described in Attachment 2. Approximately six selected soil samples will be analyzed for TPH as gasoline using DOHS LUFT Manual Method (Modified EPA Method 801,5) and for BTEX using EPA Method 8020. ~ HOLGUINe Mr, Greg Petruska ~ FAHAN World Oil Marketing Company July 30, 1993- Poge 9 ~ & ~IATF~, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 9. EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES: Sampling equipment will be decontaminated using a non-phosphate soap wash, a water rinse, and two distilled, deionized water rinses, The hollow-stem, flight auger will be decontaminated in a similar manner between boreholes, 10. WASTE DISPOSAL PROCEDURES: All contaminated soil will be containerized on site in 56-gallon, Department of Transportation drums, pending analysis results from. the laboratory, If contaminated, the waste will be hauled off site for disposal at an appropriate facility, 11. EMERGENCY OR INTERIM CLEANUP: Not applicable. 12. WORK SCHEDULE: Work will begin within two weeks subsequent to acceptance of this work plan by the BFDHMD UST LOP. The BFDHMD UST 'LOP will be notified at least 48 hours before any on-site work commences, A report of additional site characterization and contaminant fate risk assessment will be submitted to the BFDHMD UST LOP approximately six weeks after commencement of the work, 13. SITE SAFETY PLAN: A health and safety plan developed by HFA's industrial hygienist for underground storage tank site investigations is included in Attachment 3, Procedures for conducting all work are outlined in this plan, and site-specific information is provided on the cover page, All work will be accomplished in accordance with all regulatory requirements as defined by the SWRCB LUFT field manual and the BFDHMD UST LOP LUFT guidance documents. HOLGUINe Mr, Greg Petruska ~ PAI-IAN World Oil Marketing Company ~ July 30, 1993 - Page 10 ~ & ASSOC~T~, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc., trusts that this work plan provides you with the information you require. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth J. Mitchell Mark R. Magargee, R.C-~-/. // Assistant Geologist Senior Hydrogeologist Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. ~-. MRM:ffm:drr Enclosures: Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Plot Plan Figure 3 Geology Map Attachment 1 - Summary Tables Attachment 2 Borehole Drilling and Soil Sampling Procedures Attachment 3 Health and Safety Plan LEGEND WORLD OIL STATION//29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE I~AKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA I'--I(';I JI-tl~ 1 - $1'1'~! LOCATION MAI~ II()I,(;[IIN, I"AllAN & AS,%O(~.IA'I'I,:,%, IN(:. '~' BRUNDAGE LANE .-- FENCE I i I I i I I I I I I i i ~ A FORMER DISPENSER i i _ / ISLANDS i 4 , tm..~ S7 S_ 3 A .~.....~--: / ./ ~ ..... ~-]{{- 12,0~ GAL GA~LINE TANK %%=%= ~ {~ ~ J .... ~- .... ~ , ~ ~ ..... : - ~¢ ~ ~-m .~ : S-18A - ['" ~:" S-14 . ' ~-.u:::::::.u:.u?':::::.u.u:. '.u::.u::.u::.~v i LEGEND ~ORLD OIL TANK RE~OVAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS STATION ~29 SCALE IN FE~ 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BORING LOCATIONS ~ BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 2 - PLOT P~N ~ PROPOSED 0 ~0 20 BORING LOCATION N ~ ~o~. ~ ~ ~ssoc~.t~s. ~c. : ..-'\ ,. J' '- c, · -~ '": I- · J _ ir.:..-.--. T---i.. ~ , , -, . . /... LEGEND WORLD OIL STATION//29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE3 - GEOLOGY MAP HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. N S 0 TH-4 IH-2 ]'t.t- 1 TH-6 I I 0 EXCAVATION LIMITS :':':':': 10' FORMER 12,000 GAL. TANKS 1 O' I 30' 15 40' SW/SM IPH (~) ~2 40' > 100 M~/K~ ID4 5' 50' '50' .......................... ~..":. ~oo ~?~:.:':.:~::?:~:.:':.:~?:~?:.:~{?}{ IDS0' 60' ":' SW :t.t{~{'~t:":~ ' SW 60' :.'-:-',:.'-:- 166 ~t:':~""~' ':'":' ... ?. . :~.,?.::~.?:...:...:...:~.~.:... .............. 70' ...... '" · ' 80' 37 ~39 90' ~ ~'~:~?~ CL/ML '::: '-¥.~:: TD90' ':¥:::'¥¥: 90' 1 ~:":':':':~:' SW/GW ID100' >10 Mg/Kg ....... LEGEND WORLD OIL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE 1": 20' STATION//29 SW- WELL GRADED SAND 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE SW/GW- WELL GRADED GRAVELLY SAND BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA SW/SM- WELL GRADED SILTY SAND FIGURE 4 - CROSS SECTION AA' NiL- SILT CL/ML- SILTY CLAY HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. B 16' 'J" 45' TH-7 TH-] TH-5 10' 10' ]4 SW/GW 30' 30' 35 40' SW/SM J 40' 50' ID45' ',,gO' 60' ": ' 60' 70' 70' i:.i-'..'.'.!. SW .:' 80' .i?:...:?::-:-~.,.? ?.. 80' IPH(§) i$i-'~: ~0' 90' ~iii CL/ML ,, !:-'"~:.:--:-:~-:-:i!i'::::~':'-:::'~-::'::~_:':.:i > 100 Mg/Kg .......... E :"--':':.::,:::'-'--':i:.::.::i:i-'.-':~:i-'.:-':':!:-::~:i ? ........................ :.:.~?..~.~.-'_:: 100' ,..:.,.., ....... ::: :,.,. ND ......................... · .':~:::: SW/GW i::!::!:'-I:DlO0' :i!i!i!i!~!i!i!:!!i!i!~!i!ii:!!i!iiiii!i!i!i!i!:iii!t 100' LEGEND WORLD OIL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE 1" = 20' STATION//29 SW- WELL GRADED SAND 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE SW/GW- WELL GRADED GRAVELLY SAND BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA SW/SM- WELL GRADED SILTY SAND FIGURE 5- CROSS SECTION BB' ML- SILT CL/ML- SILTY CLAY HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT 1. SUMMARY TABLES HOLGUIN, FAHAN &.ASS(X2IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM DISPENSER DECOMMISSIONING SAMPLE LOCATION TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL NUMBER DEPTH GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (feet BGL) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (m~/k~) (mg/kg) MRL N/A N/A 5~ 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 S-1 W Dispenser-S End 2 881 N D N D N D N D S-lA W Dispenser-S End 6 20 N D N D N D N D S-2 W Dispe,nser-S Central 2 221 N D N D N D N ~ S-2A W Dispenser-S Central 6 ,33 N D N D N D N D S-3 W Dispenser-N Central 2 44 N D N D N D N D S-3A W Dispenser-N Central 6 2,612! ND 8.238 ND 118.040 S-4 W Dispenser-N End 2 19 N D N D N D N D S-4A W Dispenser-N End 6 8 N D N D N D N D S-5 Center Dispenser-S End 2 N D N D N D N D N D S-5A Center Dispenser-S End 6 N D N D N D N D N D ' S-6 Center Dispenser-S Central 2 N D N D N D N D N D S-6A Center Dispenser-S Central 6 884 N D 2.643 N D 60.959 S-7 Center Dispenser-N Central 2 116 N D N D N D 2.662 S-7A Center Dispenser-N Central 6 41 N D N D N D ~ N D S-8 Center Dispenser-N Central 2 53 N D N D N D N D S-8A Center Dispenser-N End 6 N D N D N D N D N D S-9 E Dispenser-S End 2 34 N D N D N D N D S-9A E Dispenser-S End 6 N D N D I N D N D ! N D S-10 E Dispenser-S Central 2 N D N D N D N D N D S-IOA E Dispenser-S Central 6 N D N D N D N D N D S-11 E Dispenser-N Central 2 10 N D N D N D ~ N D S-11A E Dispenser-N Central 6 15 N D N D N D N D S-12 E Dispenser-N End 2 N D N D N D N D N D S-12A E Dispenser-N End 6 N D N D N D N D N D C-1 North End Stockpile 4' 10 N D N D N D N D C-2 West Side Stockpile 4' 13 N D N D N D N D C-3 East Side Stockpile 4* 41 N D N D N D N D C-4 South End Stockpile 4* 850 N D N D N D 4.428 BGL = Below grade level. MRL = Minimum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable. N D = Not detected. W = West_ S = South. N = North. E = East. *Collected at a depth of four feet from within the stockpile of soil. HOL(3UIN, Summary Tables FAHAN Page 2 & IATES, INC. ENVII::IONMENT~,L M.~N.~GEMENT CONSULT~,NTS TABLE 1.2 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM TANK EXCAVATION SAMPLE LOCATION TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL NUMBER DEPTH GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (feet BBT) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) MRL N/A N/A 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 S- 13 UST 2-Center 2 1,010 N D 1.232 N D 17.896 S-13A UST 2-Center 6 1,100 N D 16.719 N D 101.670 S-14 UST l-Eas! End 2 10 ND ND ND ND S-14A UST l-East End 6 8 N D N D N D N D S-15 UST l-Center 2 21 N D N D N D N D S-15A UST 1-Center 6 N D N D N D N D N D S-16 UST l-West End 2 86 ND ND ND 1.111 S-16A UST 1-West End 6 1,416 ND 45.742 ND 161.403 S-17 UST 3-Center 2 3,066 12.417 109.232 2.224 209.225 S-17A UST 3-Center 6 171 N D 1.547 N D 23.051 S-18 UST 2 West End 2 4,112 15.214 127.826 5.010 220.918 S-18A UST 2-West End 6 3,046 1.850 59.290 N D 204.717 S-19 UST 3-West End 2 2,867 7.080 94.182 1.312 207.777 S-19A UST 3-West End 6 2,560 0.575 91.755 ND 199.613 S-20 UST 4-East End 2 102 N D N D N D 1.216 S-20A UST 4-East End 6 186 N D N D N D 2.435 S-21 UST 4-Center 2 31 N D N D N D 0.339 S-21A UST 4-Center 6 23 N D N D N D i 0.197 ~ S-22 UST 4-West End 2 2,314 N D 79.630 i N D 205.173 S-22A UST 4-West End 6 2,118 N D 70.875 ' N D 189.661 S-23 UST 3-East End 2 1,256 N D 2.101 N D 13.011 S-23A UST 3-East End 6 1,010 N D N D N D 2.226 S-24 UST 2-East End 2 33 N D N D N D N D S-24A UST 2-East End 6 41 N D N D N D N D BBT = Below base of tank. MRL = Minimum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable. UST = Underground storage tank N D = Not detected. HOLGUIN, Summary Tables I FAHAN Page 3 &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS TABLE 1.3 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM ESE'S PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL BORING NO. DEPTH GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (1eet BGL) (mglkg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mglk§) (rog/kg) MRL N/A I 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 TH-1 25 ND ND ND ND ND TH-1 35 ND ND ND' ND ND TH-1 45 ND ND ND ND ND TH-1 55 100 N D 0.731 N D 0.502 TH-1 65 166 3.147 2.490 0.616 4.496 TH-1 75 353 3.188 3.171 0.590 20.242 TH-1 85 239 4.842 ~ 5.453 1.010 18.466 TH-1 95 11 ND ND ND ND TH-1 100 ND ND ND ND ND TH-2 10 39 0.800 0.571 N D 1.068 TH-2 20 76 1.252 1.404 N D 9.905 TH-2 30 11 N D. N D N D 0.100 TH-2 40 27 N D 0.439 N D 0.617 TH-2 50 17 0.68 0.188 N D 0.404 TH-2 60 210 0.506 0.737 N D 10.594 TH-2 70 36 0.526 0.782 N D 0.743 TH-2 80 28 0.265 0.429 N D 0.931 TH-2 85 37 0.518 ~ 0.945 N D 2.533 TH-2 90 36 0.023 0.134 N D 3.290 TH-3 10 4,058 9.605 387.169 6.693 539.834 TH-3 20 725 0.082 0.255 N D 88.444 TH-3 30 229 N D 0.459 N D 19.334 TH-3 35 234 0.061 0.662 N D 20.312 TH-4 15 39 N D 1.287* N D 2.143 TH-4 25 18 N D N D N D 0.211 TH-4 35 15 N D 0.188 N D 0.260 TH-4 45 16 N D 0.137 N D 1.004 TH-5 15 14 N D N D N D 0.236 TH-5 25 23 N D 0.142 N D 0.879 TH-5 35 15 N D N D N D 0.100 TH-5 45 51 N D 0.259 N D 1.136 TH-6 10 116 0.162 0.947 N D 7.706 TH-6 20 8 N D N D N D N D TH-6 30 17 N D N D N D N D TH-6 40 12 ND ND NE) ND TH-6 50 ND ND ND ND ND TH-7 25 15 N D N D N D 0.296 TH-7 35 29 N D 0.132 N D ! 0.632 TH-7 45 16 N D 0.069 N D I 0.592 TH-7 55 71 ND 0.365 ND 1.615 TH-7 I 6o I 117 0.063 0.8051 N D I 3.833 [ ESE = Earth S ,stems Environmental, Inc. BGL = Below ground level. MRL = Minimum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable. N D = Not detected. ATTACHMENT 2. BOREHOLE DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS BOREHOLE DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES SITING Soil borings will be positioned as noted in the work plan. TRUCK-MOUNTED DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES Each borehole will be manually drilled for the first four feet in order to establish that the area was clear of subsurface structures. The borings will be drilled with 8-inch outside diameter, hollow-stem, flight augers to the depths noted in the work plan. During the drilling process, soil cuttings will be continuously monitored in conformance with the monitoring procedures, and data was recorded on soil boring logs by an experienced environmental geologist under the direct supervision of a State of California registered geologist. Soil samples will be collected with a California split-spoon sampler at intervals consistent with the work plan, unless a change in lithology was noted, in which case an additional sample will be collected. The sampler will be outfitted with 2.5-inch by 3-inch stainless steel or brass sleeves'. When the sample is withdrawn, the ends of the sleeve are covered with aluminum foil or TeflonTM tape followed by plastic caps. Sample preservation, handling, and transportation procedures will be consistent with HFA's QA/QC procedures. BOREHOLE MONITORING PROCEDURES Cuttings from soil borings will be continuously classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and logged by an experienced environmental geologist under the direct supervision of a State of California registered geologist. Specific geologic and hydrologic information that will be collected include stratigraphy (i.e., layer thickness, unit correlation, aquifer thickness, depth to groundwater, and confining units, if any], relative permeability, observed porosity, plasticity, moisture content, soil type, structure, size, and other features that could affect contaminant transport. Specific geologic and hydrologic information that will be obtained during borehole construction includes the following: * stratigraphic characteristics: thickness, correlation of units, extent (horizontal and vertical) of aquifers and confining units, if any; * observed porosity; · volatile organic content; · particle-size distribution; * moisture content; * plasticity; * strength; HOLGUIN, Soil Boring Procedures FAHAN Page 2 & ASSOCIATe, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS · mineral composition; · depth to groundwater; · soil type, structure, size; and · distribution of soil type. The data will be recorded on individual soil boring logs, including observations regarding the types and quantities of waste materials encountered and any photoionization detector readings. This data is recorded on a standardized log sheet in the Field Log Book. Specific information that will be recorded is listed in Table 1, below. TABLE 1. SOIL BORING LOG INFORMATION GENERAL Project name · Borehole location; map and Borehole name/number elevation Date started and finished * Rig type (bit size/auger size) Geologist's name * Petrologic lithologic classification Driller's name scheme used (Wentworth, USCS) Sheet number INFORMATION COLUMNS Depth * Gradation Sample location/number * Narrative description Photoionization or Flame * Soil Classification Ionization Detector Reading NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION Geologic Observations - Soil/rock type - Particle Size - Organic content - Color and stain - Depositional structures - Odor - Gross petrology - Bedding - Suspected contaminant - Friability Fossils - Discontinuities - Degree of weathering - Moisture content Water-bearing zones - Particle shape - Formational strike and dip · Drilling Observations - Changes in drilling method - Advance rates or equipment rig - Amounts and types of - Readings from detection chatter any liquids used equipment (if any) - Caving/hole stability - Water levels - Drilling difficulties ? Other Remarks - Equipment failures - Deviations from drilling plan - Possible contamination Weather HOLGUIN, Soil Boring Procedures FAHAN Page 3 & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS All field logs will be typed and presented verbatim in an appendix of the preliminary soil assessment report. The typed soil boring logs will be on a form identical to that used in the field log book. Each soil boring log includes a graphic log in which a symbol for each USCS soil group is included for each soil interval. DATA REDUCTION The data compiled from the soil borings will be summarized and analyzed. A narrative summaw of the soil characteristics will also presented. The soil boring logs are checked for the following information: · correlation of stratigraphic units among boreholes; · identification of zones of potentially high hydraulic conductivity; · identification of the confining formation/layer; · indication of unusual/unpredicted geologic features (fault zones, fracture traces, facies changes, solution channels, buried stream deposits, cross-cutting structures, pinchout zones, etc.); and · continuity of petrographic features such as sorting, grain-size distribution, cementation, etc. Borehole locations will be plotted on a properly scaled map. The purpose of each borehole/piezometer/monitoring well/pit/soil sample is indicated on the map. Depending on the results of this analysis, the soil stratigraphy of the site is presented in a scaled stratigraphic column (if soil stratigraphy is laterally homogeneous) or, more likely, in a scaled cross section or a fence diagram (if soil is laterally heterogeneous). Specific features that may impact contaminant migration, e.g., fault zones or impermeable layers, will be discussed in narrative form and supplemented with graphical presentations as deemed appropriate. DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES Prior to each sampling episode, the sampling equipment was decontaminated using a non-phosphate soap wash, a tap water rinse, and two deionized water rinses. The drill string was decontaminated with a steam cleaner between each well/boring. I4OLC, UIN, Soil Boring Procedures FAHAN Page 4 & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS BOREHOLE ABANDONMENT The boreholes will be abandoned with a 5% bentonite neat cement grout delivered by a grout pump through a tremmie pipe. WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL The cuttings from the boreholes will be stored in 55-gallon, Department of Transportation drums. Each drum will be labeled with the date that the waste was generated and the numbers Of the soil borings from which the waste was withdrawn. The drums will be stored at the site of generation until sample analyses were obtained. Sample analyses and an inventory of drums will be then given to World Oil marketing Company's project manager, Mr. Greg Petruska, who will coordinate on-site treatment or proper disposal of the soil, according to Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. All'ACHMENT 3. HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN HOLGUINe FAHAN & A. S( IATF_ , INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK INVESTIGATIONS SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION Site Address : 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California Name of Business Occupying Site : World Oil Station 29 Owner Name : World Oil Marketing Company Owner Contact : Greg Petruska Owner Tel. #: (310) 928-0100 BFDHMD Contact : Ralph Huey Tel. #: (805) 326-3979 FIELD ACTIVITIES AND GOALS OF THIS INVESTIGATION: Advance one soil boring to a depth of 6,5 feet and analyze six soil samples for gasoline hydrocarbons. KNOWN HAZARDS AT THE SITE INCLUDE: Gasoline Hydrocarbons KEY PERSONNEL AND RESPONSIBILITIES: NA ME RESPONSIBILITIES Kenneth Mitchell SITE SAFETY OFFICER - Per~on primarily responsible for site safety, response operations, and protection of the public. Responsible for work site inspections to identify particular hazards and define site (805] 391-0517 security, Mark Magargee PROJ~,.C:~'~MAN&_G~.J~ - Responsible primarily for site characterization. The project manager delineates authority, coordinates activities and functions, and directs activities related to mitigative efforts of clean-up (805) 391-0517 contractors. Kenneth Mitchell SITE INVESTIG~ PERSONNEL - Persons responsible for actual field work including sampling, monitoring, equipment use, and other related (805) 391-0517 tasks as defined by the project manager. ANTICIPATED WEATHER CONDITIONS FOR THIS AREA DURING THE PROJECT'S DURATION WILL BE: Temp. range : 80-100°F Humidity: 10-20% Ambient temp.: 90°F Potential for heat stress : High: X Medium: Low: ANTICIPATED PROTECTION LEVEL DURING THIS PROJECT* Level D *Will be upgraded or downgraded to fit situations as they arise. EMERGENCY INFORMATION: All emergency calls : 911 Closest hospital with emergency room : Mercy Hospital 2215 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California (805) 632-5275 Map Showing Route from Site to Hospital Attached? Yes: X No: " HOLGUINe & A~_qOCIATF_~, lNG. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITE REMEDIATIONS This document outlines Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc.'s (HFA) health and safety plan for City of Bakersfield underground storage tank (UST) site assessments. Site-specific information is provided on the cover page to this document. This health and safety plan was developed by HFA's industrial hygienist through consultation of the following documents: · OSHA 29 CFR 1910 - "Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, Final Ruling," March 1989; · NIOSH/OSHA/USCG/EPA "Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities," October 1985; and · HFA's Corporate Standard Safety Program. This health and safety plan is divided into the following categories: 1. Job Hazard Assessment 2. Exposure Monitoring Plan 3. Personal Protective Equipment 4. Work Zones and Security Measures 5. Decontamination and Disposal 6, Worker Training 7. Emergency Procedures 1. JOB HAZARD ASSESSMENT Immediate tasks at any leaking UST site include an evaluation of any present or potential threat to public safety. Questions need to be answered regarding the dangers of significant vapor exposures and potential explosion hazards. POTENTIAL CHEMICAL HAZARDS The chemical components of gasoline that are the most dangerous to site workers are the volatile aromatics benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and potentially, organic lead. Additionally, solvents such as 1,2-dichlorobenzene and 1,2-dichloroethane may also be used as cleaning solutions at service stations. The primary health risks associated with each of these chemicals are described below. GasgJiEl~ - Suspected human carcinogen. A threshold limit value (TLV) of 300 ppm or 900 mg/m3 has been assigned to gasoline. This value of 300 ppm was assigned based on an average of 3 percent benzene (10 ppm TLV) in gasoline. Low-level inhalation exposure to gasoline can cause irritation to the eyes, nose and respiratory system, headache, and nausea. HOLGUI Health and Satety Plan ~ FAI lAN Page 2 ~ &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS B_enze_n~ - Suspected human carcinogen. A TLV of 10 ppm or 30 mg/m3 has been assigned to benzene. Benzene has a Iow odor threshold limit of 1.4 ppm. Low level inhalation exposure to benzene can cause irritation to the eyes, nose and respiratory system, headache, and nausea. T~olu_e_rle_ - A TLV OF 100 ppm or 375 mg/m3 has been assigned to toluene. Toluene has a Iow odor threshold limit of 2.1 ppm. Low level inhalation exposure to toluene can cause fatigue, weakness, confusion, and euphoria. F_}bylbeoz_ene - A TLV of 100 ppm or 435 mg/m3 has been assigned to ethylbenzene. Ethylbenzene has a Iow odor threshold limit ot 2 ppm. Low level inhalation exposu~'e to ethylbenzene can cause irritation to the eyes and mucous membranes. )r~yJene - A TLr of 100 ppm or 43,5 mg/m3 has been assigned to xylene. No Iow odor threshold limit has been established for xylene. Low.level inhalation exposure to xylene can cause dizziness, excitement, and drowsiness. ~,2-Dichlorobenzene A TLV of 50 ppm Or 306 mg/m3 has been assigned to 1,2-dichlorobenzene. 1,2-dichlorobenzene has a Iow odor threshold limit of 4.0 ppm. Acute vapor exposure can cause coughing, dizziness, and drowsiness. It may cause skin irritation. ~, -2:DJc~:~ze~aJ~Le_ - A TLV of 200 ppm has been assigned to 1,2-dichloroethane. No data is available concerning odor threshold. Acute vapor exposure can cause coughing, dizziness, and drowsiness. It may cause skin irritation. ~traethyl Lead - A TLr of 0.1 mg/m3 has been assigned to tetraethyl lead. Tetraethyl lead is a colorless or red-dyed liquid at atmospheric conditions. No data is available concerning odor threshold. Acute vapor exposure can cause insomnia, delirium, coma, and skin irritation. POTENTIAL PHYSICAL HAZARDS Trenchil~kg - Dangerously high fuel vapor levels will be monitored using a lower explosive limit (LEL) meter. The presence of underground utilities also are of concern and the Underground Service Aled will be notified in advance of any drilling work for identification of all underground utilities in the immediate area. ~ HOLGUI Health and Safety Plan FAHAN Page 3 ~ & ASSOC~T~, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS D_dlliQg - Dangerously high fuel vapor levels will be monitored using an LEL meter. The presence of underground utilities also are of concern and Underground Service Alert will be notified in advance of any drilling work for identification of all underground utilities in the immediate area. Samp Bg Use of personal protective equipment will minimize the exposure of site investigations. Heat stress will be monitored by each individual and controlled through regular work breaks as outlined in the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' TLV's for heat stress conditions. 2. EXPOSURE MONITORING PLAN Potential exposure hazards found at UST sites primarily include toxic airborne vapors from leaking UST's. The most dangerous airborne vapor likely to be encountered during a UST investigation is benzene. Gasoline vapor concentration levels will be monitored in the breathing zone with a photoionization detector (PID) calibrated to benzene. When the action level of 150 ppm (1/2the TLV of gasoline) is detected in the breathing zone, respiratory protection will be required utilizing full-face or half-face respirators with organic vapor cartridges. Monitoring for combustible gases will also be performed using an LEL meter when vapor concentrations above 2,000 ppm are detected with the PID. The action level is 35 percent of the LEL for gasoline vapors or 4,500 ppm. ff this level is attained or exceeded, the work party will be IMMEDIATELY withdrawn. 8. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT The level of protection during the site investigation will usually be level "D." Level "D" protective equipment includes coveralls, safety boots, safety glasses, gloves, and hard hats if drilling or trenching operations are in progress. Upgrading the protection level would be based on airborne benzene concentration levels equal to or exceeding the action level. An upgrade to level "C" protection would be required it the action level is equaled or exceeded. Additional equipment required for level "C" would be a full-face or half-face air purifying canister-equipped respirator and Tyvek suits with taped arm and leg seals. If the action level was met or exceeded (35 percent) for the LEL, work would cease until the vapor level was measured to be below 20 percent of the LEL. A fire extinguisher will be maintained an site. Decisions for workers' safety are based on a continual evaluation of existing or changing conditions. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 4. WORK ZONES AND SECURITY MEASURES To facilitate a minimum exposure to dangerous toxic vapors and/or physical hazards, only authorized persons will be allowed on the job site. Work zones will be defined by HFA staff who will also be responsible for maintaining security within these zones. Only the minimum number of personnel necessary for the UST investigation will be present in the work zone. 5. DECONTAMINATION AND DISPOSAL HFA's standard operating procedures establish practices that minimize contact with potentially contaminated materials. Decontamination procedures are utilized if there is suspected or known contamination of equipment, supplies, instruments, or any personnel surfaces. Soap and water will be utilized in removing contaminants from personnel surfaces as well as equipment and instruments. Contaminated washwater will be disposed of in accordance with procedures outlined in the City of Bakersfield UST Local Oversight Program guidance documents. 6. WORKER TRAINING All HFA employees working on the site will have had, at a minimum, the 40-hour required OSHA Training for Hazardous Waste Site Activities (29 CFR 1910, 120) which includes training in the use of personal protective equipment. Individualized respirator fit testing is required of all HFA employees working at the site. 7. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES HFA employees are trained in emergency first aid and emergency first aid provisions will be brought to the site. In event of overt personnel exposure (i.e., skin contact, inhalation or ingestion), the victim will be transported to and treated at the closest hospital. ~ STATE HIGHWAY SAN FRANCISCO O COUNTY ROUTE NUMBER LOS ANGELES NOTE: HIGH, NAYS ARE I PT. LINES ,, , T-UXTUNR ' AVENUE MERCY HOSPITAL SAN DIEGO 2215 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CAEFORNIA CALIFORNIA AVENUE LUI ~ W! W ~ rr n- WORLD OIL O l LL i "r [ STATION # 29 BRUNDAGE~_~S~AA~i~ ~~LANE !i ~._ -'~- ..... , 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE ~ ROOSEVELT ~ BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~ HOSPITAL MAP WORLD ()IL MARKETING COMPANY April 2:t, 1993 P.O. 80×~.q88. SOUTH GAT~, CA 90280-1966 TEL (310) 928-0100 FAX (310) 928-0391 City of .Bakers field RECEIVED Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division MA " J 1993 -2101 H Street Bake.rsfi~-ld, Californ.i_a 93301 HAL ~AL Attn: Mr. Ralph Huey Re: Preliminary Site Charac~erization for Gasoline Impacted Soils World Oil #29 : 2101 Brundage I.ane, Bakersfield, California Dear Mr. Huey: Please find attached a copy of the Site Assessment Report performe,-~ by Earth Systems Environmental (ESE) for World Oil Marketing Company's Station No. 29 located at 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, Ca.lifornia. ESE advanced seven soil borings to a maximum dep':h of 100 feet below surface grade (bsg). Laboratory analysis of soil samples detected the presence of gasoline hydrocarbons to a depth 95 feet bsg. The shallowest occurrence of groundwater beneath 'the site. is reported by the Kern Water Agency to be approxil~ate].y 175 feet bsg. Based upon the results of the following site assessment, World Oil requests approval . of :natural in-situ biodegi.~adation to mitigate the gasoline hydrocarbons in the subsurface. . .. Thank you for your consideration of this report. If you have any questions, or if we can be of service in any way, please call me at: (310) 928-0100. Sincerely, WORLD OIL MARiKETING COMPANY Creg Petruska, P.E. Director, Environmental Affairs /encl. 9302 S, GARFIELD AVENUE, SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA 90280-3896 CITY of BAKERSFIELD ~ "WE CARE" FIRE DEPARTMENT 2~101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON BAKERSFIELO, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 February 17, 1993 Mr. Gil Juarez World Oil P. O. Box 1966 South Gate, CA 90280-1966 RE: Site Location 2101 Brundage Lane Dear Mr. Juarez: This is to notify you that the workplan for the above stated address is satisfactory. Please give this office 5 working days notice prior to the commencement of work. Please be advised that any work done that is not performed under direct over sight by this office will not be accepted, unless previously approved. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely, - ' dEo~s Materials Coordinator / Underground Tank Program "WE CA RE" FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON January 6 ~, 1993 BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Mr. Gil Juarez General Manager, Operations World Oil Marketing Company P.O. Box 1966 South Gate, Ca. 90280-1966 RE: Laboratory results from preliminary site assessment conducted at the World Oil Facility, 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, CA. (Permit #BR-0063) Dear Mr. Juarez, 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 tanks 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 Investiqation 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 $47.50 per hour. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. · Ralph E. Huey Hazardous Materials Coordinator cc: Carlos Vera Hallmark Petroleum 19113 Hamilton Ave. Gardena, Ca. 90248 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM A COMPLETE THIS FORM FOR EACH FACILITY/SITE MARK ONLY [~] I NEW PERMIT E~] 3 RENEWAL PERMIT [] 5 CHANGE OF INFORMATION ~"~7 PERMANENTLY CLOSED SITE ONE ITEM [~ 2 INTERIM PERMIT ~ 4 AMENDED PERMIT [] 6 TEMPORARY SITE CLOSURI~ I. FACILITY/SiTE INFORMATION & ADDRESS - (MUST BE COMPLETED) DBA O R FACIliTY NAME ~/'~ ! ~ NAME OF OPERATOR TO INDICATE ~R~RATION ~ iNDIVIDUAL [-'--1 PN:ITNERSRIP ~ LOCAL-AGENCY [~ COUNTY-AGE~Y ['-'-] STATE-AGENCY I-'-'] FEDER~L-AGEh~Y DISTRICTS EMERGENCY CONTACT PERSON (PRIMARY) EMERGENCY CONTACT PERSON (SECONDARY) - optional DAYS:NAME (LAST..~FIRST) PHONE # WITH AREA CODE DAYS: NAME (LAST, FIRST) PHONE # WITH AREA CODE NIGHTS: ~M((LAST, FIRST) PHONE # WITH AREA CODE NIGHTS: NAME (LAST, FIRST) PHONE # WITH AREA CODE II. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION - (MUST BE COMPLETED) ~f/t ~,~ j 7~AME . # I[ CARE~ .~'~'""~'~ ~OF ~,DDRESS iNFORMATION ~ MAILINGOF~STREETAD[~RESS , ~_____.._~,~ .,~ I ~ ~x~i~,cate ~ INDIVIDUAL ~ LOCAL-AGENCY ~ STATE-AGENCY ~ PARTNERSHIP ~ ~ FEDE~L-AGENCY IlL TANK OWNER INFORMATION- (MUST BE COMPLETED) ' / CARE OF ADDRESS INFORMATION ~A[L[NG ~R STREE~ ADDRESS ~ ~x~i~ ~ INDIVIDUAL ~ LOCAbAG~CY ~ STATE-AGENCY ~ COR~RA~ON ~ P~TNERSHIP ~ COU~Y-AGE~Y ~ FEDE~L-AGENCY CI~ NAME STATE ZiP ~DE PHONE ~ WITH AREA CODE IV. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MST STORAGE FEE ACCOUNT NUMBER - Carl (916) 739-2582 if questions arise. TY(TK) He I V. [~G~L ROIIFIC~IIO~ ~D BIL~I~G ~¢D~8S ko,al notili~tion and billia~ will bo sont to tho tank ownor unloss box I or II is chockod. I CHECK ONE BOX INDICATING ~ICH ABOVE ADDRESS SHOULD BE USED FOR LEGAL NOTIFICATIONS AND BILLING: I.~ ~ II1.~ THIS FORM HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AND TO THE BEST ~ MY KNOWLEDGE, IS TRUE AND CORRECT [~~S NAME (PRINTED& SIGNA~RE) ~ DATE MONTH/DAY.EAR LOCAL AGENCY~NLY C~N~ LOCATION CODE - OPTIONAL ~CENSUS TRACT~ - OPTIONAL SUPVlSOR - DISTRICT ~DE - OPTIONAL THIS FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AT LEAST (1) OR ~RE PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM B, UNLESS THIS IS A CHANGE OF SEE INFORMATION ONLY. FORM A (9-90) FOR0~3A-R2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERUIT APPLICATION - FORU B COUPLETE A SEPARATE FORU FOR EACH TANK SYSTEU. I MARK ONLY [] 1 NEW PERMIT [] 3 RENEWAL PERMIT [~ 5 CHANGE OF INFORMATION [] 7 PERMANENTLY CLOSED ON SITE ONEITEM [] 2 INTERIM PERMIT [~ 4 AMENDED PERMIT [] 6 TEMPORARY TANK CLOSURE ~ TANK REMOVED I. TANK DESCRIPTION COMPLETE ALL ITEMS -- SPECIFY IF UNKNOWN II. TANK CONTE~S ~F A-1 IS MARKED, COMPLETE ITEM C. ~ lbPREM{UM ~ 7 METHANOL ~.~E*DE~ ~ ~ J~T~U~L ~ 3 CHEMICAL PRODUCT ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 2 WASTE ~ 2 L~DED ~ 99 OTHER (DESCRIBE IN I~M D. BELOW D. IF (A.1) IS NOT MARKED, ENTER NAME OF SUBSTANCE STORED C.A.S. ~: II1. TANK CONSTRUCTION MARK ONE ITEM ONLY IN BOXES A, B, ANDC, ANDALLTHATAPPLIESINBOXD A. TYPEOF~ 1 DOUBLE WALL ~ 3 SINGLE WALL WITH E~ERIOR LINER ~ 95 UNKNOWN SYSTEM ~2 SINGLE WALL ~ 4 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (VAULTED TAN~ ~ 99 OTHER B. TANK ~ BARE STEEL ~ 2 STAINLESS STEEL ~ 3 FIBERGLASS ~ 4 STEEL CLAD W/FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC MATERIAL ~ 5 CONCRETE ~ 6 POL~INYL CHLORIDE ~ 7 ALUMINUM ~ 8 10~ METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP (Pr[marymank) ~ 9 BRONZE ~ 10 GALVANIZED STEEL ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 OTHER ~ 1 RUBBER LINED ~ 2 AL~D LINING ~ 3 EPO~ LINING ~ 4 PHENOLIC LINING c. INTERIOR ~ 5 GLASS LINING ~UNLINED ~ 95 UNKNOWN 99 OTHER LINING IS LINING MATERIAL COMPATIBLE WITH 100% METHANOL ? YES__ NO~ D, CORROSION ~ I POLYETHYLENE WRAP~ 2 COATING ~ 3 VINYL WRAP ~ 4 FIBERGLAS REINFORCED PLASTIC PROTECTION ~ 5 CATHODIC PROTECTIONS91 NONE ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 O~ER IV, PIPING INFORMATION CIRCLE A IFABOVEGROUNDOR U IF UNDERGROUND, BOTH IF APPLICABLE SYSTEMTYPE A U 1 SUCTION ~2 PRESSURE A U 3 GRAVlW A U 99 OTHER A, B, CONSTRUCTION ~ SINGLE WALL A U 2 DOUBLE WALL A U 3 LINED TRENCH A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER A~I BARESTEEL A U 2 STAINLESS STEEL A U 3 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE(PVC)A U 4 FIBERGLAS PIPE c. MATERIAL AND CORROSION A ~ 5 ALUMINUM A U 6 CONCRETE A U 7 STEEL W/ COATING A U 8 10~/~ METHANOL.COMPATIBLEW/FRP PROTECTION A U 9 GALVANIZED STEEL A U 10 CATHODIC PROTECTION A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER D. LEAK DETECTION ~ 1 AUTOMATIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR ~ 2 LINE TIGHTNESS TESTING ~ 3 INTERST~TtALMONEORiNG ~ OTHER~~_ V, TANK LEAK DETECTION VI. TANK CLOSURE INFORMATION SUaSTANCE REMAINING _ GALLONS INERT MATERIAL ? THIS FORM HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER PENAL ~ OF.PERJURY, AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IS TRUE AND CORRECT I A~UCAN~S,AME I '~ ~ ~ X~ I 9AT~ t ~ I LOCAL AGENCY USE ONLY THE STATE I.D. NU~COMPOSE~ OFTHE FOUR NUMBERS BELOW COU~T~ JURISDICTION ~ FACILITY PERMIT NUMBER PERMIT APPROVED BY/DATE PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE FORM B (9-90) THIS FORM MUST BE AC~MP~IED BY A PERM~ ~PMCATION - FORM A, UNLESS A CURRENT FORM A HAS BEEN FILED. FORO~B-~ STATE OF CAUFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM B COMPLETE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH TANK SYSTEM MARK ONLY [] I NEW PERMIT [] 3 RENEWAL PERMIT [] 5 CHANGE OF INFORMATIONL--.-~ .~'{~ 7 PERMANENTLY CLOSED ON SITE ONEITEM [~ 2 INTERIM PERMIT [~ 4 AMENDED PERMIT [] 6 TEMPORARY TANK CLOSURE ..,,[~"~8 TANK REMOVED DBA OR FACILITY NAME WHERE TANK IS INSTALLED: 4:3 I. TANK DESCRIPTION COMPLET~ ALL ITEMS -- SPECIFY IF UNKNOWN ~ A. OWNER'S TANK LD.# ~,.¢0~ B. MANUFACTURED BY: c. DATE ,NSTALLED (MO,DAY. EAR, D. TANK CAPAC,TY ,, GALLONS: / I1. TAN K CONTENTS ~F A-1 IS MARKED. COMPLETE ITEM C. A. ~ MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL [] 4 OIL B. ~ r---~'"~REGULAR [] 3 DIESEL 6 AVIATION GAS [] 4 GASAHOL [] 2 PETROLEUM [] 80 EMPTY ~PRODUCT ~J~--J UNLEADED [] [] lbPREMIUM [] 7 METHANOL UNLEADED [] 5 JET FUEL [] 3 CHEMICAL PRODUCT [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 2 WASTE [] 2 LEADED [] 99 OTHER (DESCRIBE IN ITEM D. BELOW) D. tF IA.l)IS NOT MARKED, ENTER NAME OF SUBSTANCE STORED C.A.S. #: III. TAN K CONSTRUCTION MARK ONE ITEM ONLY iN BOXES A, B, AND C, AND ALL THAT APPLIES IN BOX D A. TYPE OF~-'[] 1 DOUBLE WALL [] 3 SINGLE WALL WITH EXTERIOR LINER [] 95 UNKNOWN SYSTEM ~2 SINGLE WALL [] 4 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (VAULTED TANK) [] gg OTHER B. TANK~' """ "~'~ BARE~ STEEL [] 2 STAINLESS STEEL [] 3 FIBERGLASS [] 4 STEEL CLAD W/FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC MATERIAL '~ [] 5 CONCRETE [] 6 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE [] 7 ALUMINUM [] 8 100% METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP (PrJmaryTank) [] 9 BRONZE [] 10 GALVANIZED STEEL [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER [] 1 RUBBER LINED [] 2~'YD LINING [] 3 EPOXY UNING [] 4 PHENOLIC LINING C. INTERIOR [] 5 GLASS LINING ~ UNLINED [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER LINING iS LINING MATERIAL COMPATIBLE WITH 100% METHANOL? YES__ NO__ D. CORROSION [] 1 POLYETHYLENE WRAP [] 2 COATING [] 3 VINYL WRAP [] 4 FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC PROTECTION [] 5 CATHODIC PROTECTION.~;~ NONE [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 9g OTHER IV. PIPING INFORMATION C~RCLE A IF ABOVE GROUND OR U IF UNDERGROUND, BOTH IF APPLICABLE A. SYSTEMTYPE A U 1 SUCTION O PRESSURE A U 3 GRAVITY A U 99 OTHER B. CONSTRUCTION A~U~I SINGLE WALL A U 2 DOUBLE WALL A U 3 LINED TRENCH A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER C. MATERIAL AND u~ BARESTEEL A U 2 STAINLESS STEEL A U 3 POLYVlNYL CHLORIDE(PVC)A U 4 FIBERGLASS PIPE CORROSION A I~ 5 ALUMINUM A {J 6 CONCRETE A U 7 STEEL W/ COATING A U 8 100% METHANOL.COMPATIBLEW/FRP PROTECTION A U 9 GALVANIZED STEEL A U 10 CATHODIC PROTECTION A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER D. LEAK DETECTION [] 1 AUTOMATIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR [] 2 LINE TIGHTNESS TESTING [] 3 INTERSTITIALMoNiTORiNG ~ OTHER~i~.~.~..~ V. TANK LEAK DETECTION I [] 1 VISUAL CHECK [] 2 INVENTORY RECONCILIATION ~---~ 3~.~VAPORMONITORING [] 4 AUTOMATIC TANK GAUGING [] 5 GROUNDWATER MONITORING []6 TANK TESTING [] 7 ,NTERSTITIALMONITORING ~91 NONE [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 09 OTHER VI, TANK CLOSURE INFORMATION i ,. 772 I 2' ESTIMATED OUANTITY OF ~ [ 3, WAS TANK FILLED WITH YES E~ NO~~ SUBSTANCE REMAINING , GALLONS INERT MATERIAL ? LOCAL AGENCY USE ONLY THE STATE I.D. NUM~i~E~Iit4$ COMPOSED OF THE FOUR NUMBERS BELOW V COUNTY Ct JURISDICTION # FACILITY ct TANK ct PERMIT NUMBER PERMIT APPROVED BY/DATE I PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE FORM B (9-90) THIS FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM A, UNLESS A CURRENT FORM A HAS BEEN FILED. FOROO34B-R4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM COMPLETE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH TANK SYSTEM. MARK ONLY [~ 1 NEW PERMIT [] 3 RENEWAL PERMIT [] 5 CHANGE OF INFORMATION F--I~.,~ PERMANENTLY CLOSED ON SITE~ ONE ITEM ~ 2 tNTERIM PERMIT ~ 4 AMENDED PERMIT ~ 6 TEMPORARY TANK CLOSURE ~ 8 TANK REMOVED I I. TANK DESCRIPTION COMPLETE ALL ITEMS -- SPECIFY IF UNKNOWN II. TANK C~E~S IF A-1 IS MARKED, COMPLE~ ITEM C. ~' ~ - ~'REGULAR ~ 3 DIESEL A. 1 MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL ~ 4 OIL B. ~ UNLEADED ~ 6 AVIATION GAS ~ 4 GASAHOL 2 PETROLEUM ~ 80 EMPW T ~ ~bPREMIUM ~ 7 METH~OL 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. ~: III. TANK CONSTRUCTION MARK ONE ITEM ONLY IN BOXES A, B, ANDC, ANDALLTHATAPPLIESINBOXD A. TYPEOF ~ 1 DOUBLE WALL ~ 3 SINGLE WALL WITH E~ERIOR LINER ~ 95 UNKNOWN SYSTEM ~~NGLE WALL ~ 4 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (VAULTEDTAN~ ~ 99 OTHER MATERI~ ~ 5 CONCRETE ~ 6 POLWlNYL CHLORIDE ~ 7 ALUMINUM ~ 8 10~/~ ME~ANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP (PrimaryTank) ~ 9 ~RONZE ~ 10 GALVANIZED STEEL ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 O~ER ~ 1 RUBBER LINED ~ 2 AL~D LINING ~ 3 EPO~ LINING ~ 4 PHENOL~ LINING C. INTERIOR ~ 5 GLASS LINING ~INED ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 O~ER LINING IS LINING MATERIAL COMPATIBLE WITH 1~ METHANOL? YES~ NO~ D. CORROSION ~ I ~LYE~YLENE WRAP ~~G ~ 3 VI~L WR~ ~ 4 FIBERGLAS REINFORCED PLASTIC PROTECTION ~ 5 CATHODIC PROTECTIO~ 91 NONE ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 OTHER IV, PIPING INFORMATION CIRCLE A IFABOVEGROUNDOR U IF UNDERGROUND, BOTH IF APPLICABLE A. SYSTEM TYPE A U 1 SUCTION ~2 PRESSURE A U 3 GRAVI~ A U 99 OTHER B. CONSTRUCTION A~ 1 SINGLE WALL A U 2 DOUBLE WALL A U 3 LINED TRENCH A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 O~ER C. MATERIAL AND A~ BARE STEEL A U 2 STAINLESS STEEL A U 3 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC)A U 4 FIBERGLAS PIPE CORROSION A U 5 ALUMINUM A U 6 CONCRETE A U 7 STEEL W/ COATING A U 8 10~ ME~ANOL.COMPATBLEW/FRP PROTECTION A U 9 GALVANIZED STEEL A U 10 CATHODIC PROTECTtON A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER D, LEAK DETECTION ~ 1 AUTOMATIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR ~ 2 LINE TIGHTNESS TESTING ~ 3MONEOR~NGINTERSTIT~L ~OTHER.~~ V, TANK LEAK DETECTION VI. TANK CLOSURE INFORMATION I 1. EST/~D~A~ US ED (MO/DAY. R) 2. ESTIMATED QUANT,~ OF SUBSTANCE REMAINING ALLONS INERT MATERIAL ? T~I~ FO~M ~A~ ~EE~ COMPLETED ENDER PENAL~ OF PERJURY, A~D TO THE BEST OF MY K~OWLEDGE, /S TRUE A~D CORRECT LOCAL AGENCY USE ONLY THE STATE LD. NU~O~POSED OF THE FOUR NUMBERS BELOW COUN~ ~ JURiSDiCTiON ~ FACILITY STATE I.D.~ ~ PERMIT NUMBER PERMIT APPROVED BY/DATE PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE FORM B (9-90) THIS FORM MUST BE AC~MP~IED BY A PERM~ ~PLICATION - FORM A, UNLESS A CURRENT FORM A HAS BEEN FILED. FORO~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM B COMPLETE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH TANK SYSTEM. MARK ONLY [] 1 NEW PERMIT [] 3 RENEWAL PERMIT [] 5 CHANGE OF INFORMATION~[] 7 PERMANENTLY CLOSED ON SITE ONEITEM [] 2 INTERIM PERMIT [~ 4 AMENDED PERMIT [] 6 TEMPORARY TANK CLOSURE j,,,,,,,,~"- ~ TANK REMOVED I. TANK DESCRIPTION COMPLETE ALL ITEMS -- SPECIFY IF UNKNOWN I1. TANK CO~E~S ~F A-1 ~S MA.K~D, COMPL~T~ ~T~M C. ~ 3 CHEMICAL PRODUCT ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 2 WASTE ~ 2 LEADED ~ 99 OTHER (DESCRIBE IN ITEM D. BELOW)~ D. tF (A.1) tS NOT MARKED, ENTER NAME OF SUBSTANCE STORED C.A.S. ~: II1. TANK CONSTRUCTION MARKONEITEMONLYINBOXESA. B. ANDC. ANDALLTHATAPPLIESINBOXDANDE A. ~PE OF ~ ~ DOUBLE WALL ~ 3 SINGLE WALL WITH EXTERIOR LINER ~ 95 UNKNOWN SYSTEM ~INGLE WALL ~ ~ 4 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (VAULTED TANK) ~ 99 OTHER ~RE STEEL ~ 2 STAINLESS STEEL ~ 3 FIBERGLASS ~ 4 STEELCLAD W/FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC B. TANK MATERI~ ~ 5 CONCRETE ~ 6 POL~INYL CHLOEIDE ~ 7 ALUMINUM ~ 8 1Om/, METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP (PrimaryTank) ~ 9 BRONZE ~ 10 GALVANIZED STEEL ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 OTHER ~ 1 RUBBER LINED ~ 2 ALKYD LINING ~ 3 EPO~ LINING ~ 4 PHENOLIC LINING C, INTERIORLiNiNG ~ 5 GLASS LINING ~UNLINED ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 OTHER IS LINING MATERIAL COMPATIBLE WITH 100% METHANOL ? YES__ O. CORROS~ON ~ 1 POLYETHYLENE WRAP~ 2 COATING ~ 3 VINYL WRAP ~ 4 FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC PROTE~ION ~ 5 CATHODIC PROTECTIO~~NONE ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 OTHER E. SPILL AND OVERFILL SP~LL CONTAINMENT INSTALLED (YEAR) ~ OVERFILL PREVENTION EQUIPMENT ~NSTALLED (YEAR) IV. PIPING INFORMATION C~RCLE A IFABOVEGROUNDOR U IF UNDERGROUND, BOTH IF APPL~CABLE A. SYSTEM TYPE A u 1 SUCTION A~ PRESSURE A U 3 GRAVI~ A U 99 OTHER B. CONSTRUCTION A~ SINGLE WALL A U 2 DOUBLE WALL A U 3 LINED TRENCH A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER A~ BARESTEEL A U 2 STAINLESS STEEL A U 3 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE(PVC}A U 4 FIBERGLASS PIPE c. MATERIAL AND CORROSION A U 5 ALUMINUM A U 6 CONCRETE A U 7 STEEL W/ COATiNG A ~ 8 10~/o METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP PROTECTION A U 9 GALVANIZED STEEL A U 10 CATHODIC PROTECT~ON A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER D. LEAK DETECTIO~ ~1 AUTOMATIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR ~2 LINE TIGHTNESS TESTING ~ 3 INTERSTITIA~MON~ORiNG ~ OTHER V. TANK LEAK DETECTION ~ 1 VISUAL CHECK ~ 2 INVENTORY RECONCILIATION ~ 3~OZE MONITORING ~ 4 AUTOMATIC TANK GAUGING ~ 5 GROUND WATER MONITORING ~ 6 TANK TESTING ~ 7 INTERSTITIAL MONITORING ~ 91 NONE ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 OTHER VI. TANK CLOSURE INFORMATION 1.ESTi~E~ D~T~SED (MO/DAY'R) I 2, ESTIMATED QUANTI~ OF ~ ~ 3. WAS TANK FILLED WITH Y~R ~ ~/ ~ SUBSTANCE REMAINING ~ GALLONS~ INERT MATERIAL ? --- ~ LOCAL A~ENCY USE ONLYTHE STATE ~,D, ~~POSED OF~HE FOUR NUMaERS BELOW H COUNTY ~ JURISDICTION ~ FACILITY ~ TANK ~ STATE h D.fl ~ ~ ' PERMIT EXPIRATION ~ATE PERMIT NUMBER PERMIT APPROVED BY/DATE FORM B (7-91) THIS FORM MUST BE AC~MPANIED BY A PERMff APPLICATION - FORM A, UNLESS A CURRENT FORM A HAS BEEN FILED, FORO~B-R5 ' STATE OF CAUFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM B COMPLETE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH TANK SYSTEM. MARK ONLYoNE ITEM [~[] 21 NEWiNTER~MPERMIT [] 3 RENEWAL PERMIT [] 5 CHANGE OF INFORMATION~[] 7 PERMANENTLY CLOSED ON SITE PERMIT [~] 4 AMENDED PERMIT [] 6 TEMPORARY TANK CLOSURE _[~,,.,,I-- ~ TANK REMOVED I. TANK DESCRIPTION COMPLETE ALL ITEMS -- SPECIFY IF UNKNOWN II. TANK CO~TE~S ~A.~ ~S MARKeD, COMPLeTE ~TEM C. UNLEADED ~ 5 JET FUEL ~ 3 CHEMICAL PRODUCT ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 2 WASTE ~ 2 LEADED ~ 99 OTHER DESCRBE N ITEM D. BELOW)~ D. IF (A.1) IS NOT MARKED, ENTER NAME OF SUBSTANCE STORED C, A. S. ~: III, TANK CONSTRUCTION MARKONEITEMONLYINBOXESA. B. ANDC. ANOALLTHATAPPLIESINBOXDANDE A. ~PEOF ~ 1 DOUBLE WALL ~ 3 SINGLE WALL WITH EXTERIOR LINER ~ 95 UNKNOWN SYSTEM ~SINGLE WALL -- ~ 4 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (VAULTEDTAN~ ~ 99 OTHER ~RESTEEL ~ 2 STAINLESS STEEL ~ 3 FIBERGLASS ~ 4 STEEL CLAD W/FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC B. TANK MATERI~ ~ 5 CONCRETE ~ 6 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE ~ 7 ALUMINUM ~ S 10~/~ METHANOL COMPATIBLE W/FRP (PrimaryTank) ~ 9 BRONZE ~ 10 GALVANIZED STEEL ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 OTHER ~ 1 RUBBER LINED ~ 2 ALKYD LINING ~ 3 EPO~ LINING ~ 4 PHENOLIC LINING C. INTERIORLiNiNG ~ 5 GLASS LINING ~UNLINED ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 OTHER IS LINING MATERIAL COMPATIBLE WITH 100% METHANOL ? YES~ NO~ D. CORROSION ~ 1 POLYETHYLENE WRAP~ ~ 2 COATING ~ 3 VINYL WRAP ~ 4 FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC PROTECTION ~ 5 CATHODiC PROTECTIO~I NONE ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 OTHER SPILL AND OVERFILL SP~LL CONTAINMENT INSTALLED (YEAR)~ OVERFILL PREVENTION EQUIPMENT INSTALLED (YEAR) ~~' E. IV, PIPING INFORMATION CIRCLE A IFABOVEGROUNDOR U IF UNDERGROUND, BOTH IF APPLICABLE A. SYSTEM TYPE A U 1 SUCTION A~ PRESSURE A U 3 GRAVI~ A U 99 OTHER B, CONSTRUCTION A~ SINGLE WALL A U 2 DOUBLE WALL A U 3 LINED TRENCH A U 95 UNKNOWN A 99 OTHER A~I BARESTEEL A U 2 STAINLESS STEEL A U 3 POL~INYL C. MATERIAL AND CHLORIDE (PVC) A U 4 FIBERGLASS PIPE CORROSION A U 5 ALUMINUM A U 6 CONCRETE A U 7 STEEL W/ COATING A U 810~/~ METHANOL COMPATiBLEW/FRP PROTE~ION A U 9 GALVANIZED STEEL A U 10 CATHODIC PROTECTION A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER D. LEAK DETECTION ~1 AUTOMATIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR ~2 LINE TIGHTNESS TESTING ~ 3 ,NTERSTmALMoNFORiNG ~ OTHER V, TANK LEAK DETECTION ~ 1 VISUAL CHECK ~ 2 INVENTORY RECONCILIATION ~ 3~OZEMONITORING ~ 4 AUTOMATIC TANK GAUGING ~ 5 GROUND WATER MONITORING ~ 6 TANK TESTING ~ 7 INTERSTITIAL MONITORING ~1 NONE ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 OTHER VI, TANK CLOSURE INFORMATION 1. ES SED {MO/DAY. R) 2. ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF 3. WAS TANK F~LLED WITH YES SUBSTANCE REMAINING ALLONS INERT MATERIAL ? THIS FOR~ HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER PENAL~ OF PERJURY, AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IS TRUE AND CORRECT COUNTY ~ ~JURISOICTION ~ FACILITY ~ TANK ~ PERMIT NUMBER PERMIT APPROVED BY/DATE PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE FORM B (7-91) THIS FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A PERM~ APPLICATION- FORM A, UNLESS A OURRENT FORM A HAS BEEN FILED, FO~O~B-R5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM B COMPLETE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH TANK SYSTEM, MARK ONLY [~ 1 NEW PERMIT [] 3 RENEWAL PERMIT [] 5 CHANGE OF INFORMATION [~] ~,,, PERMANENTLY CLOSED ON SITE ONE ITEM [] 2 INTERIM PERMIT [] 4 AMENDED PERMIT [] 6 TEMPORARY TANK CLOSUREy8 TANK REMOVED I. TANK DESCRIPTION COMPLETE ALL ITEMS -- SPECIFY tF UNKNOWN C. DATE :NSTALLED {MO/DAY/YEAR) /. D. TANK CAPACITY IN GALLONS: / ~' II. TANK C~.ONTENTS IFA*I IS MARKED, COMPLETE ITEM C. A .,.~7~~ C F~C'~'REGULAR [] 3 DIESEL 1 MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL [] 4 OIL B. ~ UNLEADED [] 6 AVIATION GAS .... []4 GASAHOL [] 2 PETROLEUM [] 80 EMPTY~*I*"'~I~ODUCT [] lb PREMIUM [] 7 METHANOL UNLEADED [] 5 JET FUEL [] 3 CHEMICAL PRODUCT [] 95 UNKNOWN ~ [] 2 WASTE [] 2 LEADED [] g9 OTHER (DESCRIBE IN ITEM O. BELOW D. IF (A.1)IS NOT MARKED, ENTER NAME OF SUBSTANCE STORED C.A.S. #: III. TANK CONSTRUCTION MARKONEITEMONLYINSOXESA, B, ANDC, ANDALLTHATAPPLIESINBOXD A, TYPEOF [] 1 DOUBLE WALL [] 3 SINGLE WALL WITH EXTERIOR LINER [] 95 UNKNOWN SYSTEM ~*'~ SINGLE WALL [] 4 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (VAULTED TANK) [] 99 OTHER B, TANK ~ '~' SAnE STEEL [] 2 STAINLESS STEEL [] 3 FIBERGLASS [] 4 STEELCLAD W/FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC MATERIAL [] 5 CONCRETE [] 6 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE [] 7 ALUMINUM [] 8 100% METHANOL COMPATIBLE W/FRP {PrimaryTank) [] 9 BRONZE [] 10 GALVANIZED STEEL [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER [] 1 RUBBER LINED [] 2 ALKYD LINING [] 3 EPOXY LINING [] 4 PHENOLIC LINING Cl INTERIOR [] 5 GLASS LINING ..,,,~'6"UNLINED [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER LINING IS LINING MATERIAL COMPATIBLE WITH 100% METHANOL ? YES__ NO__ D, CORROSION [] 1 POLYETHYLENE WRAP.~[] 2..,~.OATING [] 3 VINYL WRAP [] 4 FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC PROTECTION 5 CATHODIC PROTECTION,,~.~'~91 NONE [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER IV, PIPING INFORMATION CIRCLE A IFASOVEGROUNDOR U IF UNDERGROUND, BOTH IF APPLICABLE A. SYSTEM TYPE A U 1 SUCTION ~'0)2 PRESSURE A U 3 GRAVITY A U 99 OTHER B, CONSTRUCTION AU~ 1 SINGLE WALL A U 2 DOUBLE WALL A U 3 LINED TRENCH A U 95 UNKNOWN J, U 99 OTHER C. MATERIAL AND A U~.,~ SAnE STEEL A U 2 STAINLESS STEEL A U 3 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC)A U 4 FIBERGLASS PIPE CORROSION A U 5 ALUMINUM A U 6 CONCRETE A U 7 STEEL W/ COATING A U 8 100"/. METHANOL.COMPATSLEW/FRP PROTECTION A U 9 GALVANIZED STEEL A U 10 CATHODIC PROTECTtON ALI 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER D. LEAK DETECTION ~ 1 AUTOMATIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR [~] 2 LINE TIGHTNESS TESTING [] 3MONITORINGINTERSTtTIAL ,~ OTHER ~'.//~'"~"~ V. TANK LEAK DETECTION I [] 1 VISUAL CHECK [] 2 INVENTORY RECONCILIATION -- 3 V~P~ MONITORING [] 4 AUTOMATIC TANK GAUGING [] 5 GROUNDWATER MONITORING NONE [] 99 OTHER [] 6 TANK TESTING [] 7 INTERSTITIAL MONITORING ~ 91 [] 95 UNKNOWN VI. TANK CLOSURE INFORMATION ESTI. M~.TED DAT. E~A.,~T USED (MO/DAY/YR) 2. ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF 3. WAS TANK FILLED WITH 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 LOCAL AGENCY USE ONLY THE STATE I.D. NuM-~F~R'fs COMPOSED OF THE FOUR NUMBERS BELOW COUNTY ~ JURISDICTION # FACILITY # TANK # PERMIT NUMBER I PERMIT APPROVED BY/DATE PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE FORM S (9-90) THIS FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM A, UNLESS A CURRENT FORM A HAS BEEN FILED. FOROO34B.R4 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM B COMPLETE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH TANK SYSTEM. MARK ONLY [] 1 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 DBAOR FAClLI NAMEW.ERETANKISINSTALLEO: / , h'L ? I. TANK DESCRIPTION COMPLETE ALL ITEMS -- SPECIFY IF UNKNOWN } A. OWNER'S TANK,.D., '~ ? 0 ~ B. MANUFACTURED BY: II. TANK CONTE~S ~: A-1 IS MARKED, COMPLETE ITEM C. A.~ MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL ~ 4 OIL B. ~ UNLEADED ~ 6 AVIATION GAS ~ 4 GASAHOL ~ 2 PETROLEUM ~ 80 EMP~ ~ PRODUCT ~ lb PREMIUMuNLEADED ~ 5 JET FUEL ~ 7 METH~OL ~ 3 CHEMICAL PRODUCT ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 2 WASTE ~ 2 LEADED ~ 99 OTHER (DESCRIBE IN ITEM D. ~ELOW D. iF (A.1) IS NOT MARKED, ENTER NAME OF SUBSTANCE STORED C.A.S. e: III, TANK CONSTRUCTION MARK ONE ITEM ONLY IN BOXES A. B,ANDC, ANDALLTHATAPPLIESINBOXD A. TYPE OF~ 1 ~OUBLE WALL ~ 3 SINGLE WALL WITH E~ERIOR LINER ~ 95 UNKNOWN SYSTEM ~ 2 SINGLE WALL ~ 4 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (VAULTED TAN~ 99 OTHER B. TANK~ ~BARE~ STEEL ~ 2 STAINLESS STEEL ~ 3 FIBERGLASS ~ 4 STEELCLAD W/FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC MATERIAL ~ ~ 5 CONCRETE ~ 6 POLWiNYL CHLORIDE ~ 7 ALUMINUM ~ 8 10~/~ METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP (PrimaryTank) ~ 9 BRONZE ~ 10 GALVANIZED STEEL ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 O~ER ~ 1 RUBBER LINED~ 2 AL~D LINING ~ 3 EPO~ LINING ~ 4 PHENOL~ LINING C. INTERIOR ~ 5 GLASS LINING ~LINED ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 OTHER LINING IS LINING MATERIAL COMPATIBLE WITH 100% METHANOL ? YES~ NO~ O. CORROSION ~ I POLYE~YLENE WRAP~ ~ 2 COATING ~ 3 VINYL WR~ ~ 4 F~gERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC PROTECTION ~ 5 CATHODIC PROTECTIONS1 NONE ~ 95 UNKNOWN ~ 99 OTHER IV. PIPING INFORMATION CIRCLE A IFAEOVEGROUNDOR U IFUNDERGROUND, BOTH IF APPLICABLE A. SYSTEM TYPE A U 1 SUCTION ~2 PRESSURE A U 3 GRAVI~ A U 99 OTHER B. CONSTRUCTION ~1 SINGLE WALL A U 2 DOUBLE WALL A U 3 LINED TRENCH A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER ~1 BARE STEEL A U 2 STAtNLESS STEEL A G 3 POLYVINYL CHLOR~DE(PVC)A G 4 FtBERGLASS PtPE C. MATERIAL AND CORROSION A U 5 ALUMINUM A U 6 CONCRETE A U 7 STEEL W/ COATING A U 8 10~/~ METHANOL.COMPATIBLEW/FRP PROTECTION A U 9 GALVANIZED STEEL A U lO CATHODIC PROTECTION A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER D. LEAK DETECTION ~ 1 AUTOMATIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR ~ 2 LINE TIGHTNESS TESTtNG ~ 3 INTERSTITIAL V. TANK LEAK DETECTION ~ 1 VISUAL CHECK ~ 2 INVENTORY RECONCILIATION ~ 3 VAPOR MONITORING ~ 4 AUTOMATIC TANK GAUGING ~ 5 GROUNDWATER MONITORING VI, TANK CLOSURE INFORMATION 1. E USED (MO/DAY. R) 2. ESTIMATED OUANTI~ OF 3. WAS TANK FILLED WITH YES ~ N~~ SUBSTANCE REMAINING __ ~LLONS INERT MATERIAL ? THIS FORM HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER PENAL~ OF PERJURY, AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IS TRUE AND CORRECT COUN~ ~ JURISDICTION ~ FACILITY ~ TANK ~ PERMIT HUMMER PERMIT APPROVED BY/DATE PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE FORM B (9-90) THIS FORM MUST BE AC~MP~IEB BY A PERM~ ~PLICATION - FORM A, UNLESS A CURRENT FORM A HAS BEEN FILED. STATE OF CAUFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMIT APPLiCATiON - FOF1U B COMPLETE A SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH TANK SYSTEM. MARK ONLY ~-~ 1 NEW PERMIT [] 3 RENEWAL PERMIT [~ 5 CHANGE OF INFORMATION [~ 7 PERMANENTLY CLOSED ON SITE ONEITEM [] 2 INTERIM PERMIT [] 4 AMENDED PERMIT [] 6 TEMPORARY TANK CLOSURE~ TANK REMOVED DBAOR FACILITY NAME WHERE TANK IS INSTALLED: ~ ~./'/.,/,/~,f~.~'J'~;¢~,,/'/ I. TANK DESCRIPTION COMPLETE ALL ITEMS -- SPECIFY IF UNKNOWI',I c. DATE ,NSTALLED(.O,DAY. EA,, 0. TA,KCAPAC,TY,NGALLONS: II. TANK CONTENTS IF A-1 IS MARKED, COMPLETE ITEM C. A. ~MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL [] 4 OIL B. C. [] IaUNLEADEDREGULAR [] 3 DIESEL [] 6 AVIATION GAS [] 2 PETROLEUM [] 80 EMPTY I-,~i~I'~RODUCT ~ lb PREMIUM [] 4 GASAHOL [] 7 METHANOL -- ~___~.,~.JJNLEADED [] 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. #: III. TANK CONSTRUCTION MARK ONE ITEM ONLY IN BOXES A, B, ANDC, ANDALLTHATAPPLIESINBOXD AD TYPE OF~ ~.~[] 1 DOUBLE WALL [] 3 SINGLE WALL WITH EXTERIOR LINER [] 95 UNKNOWN SYSTEM y~ SINGLE WALL [] 4 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (VAULTED TANK) [] 99 OTHER B, TANK ~ BARE STEEL [] 2 STAINLESS STEEL [] 3 FIBERGLASS [] 4 STEELCLAD W/FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC MATERIAL [] 5 CONCRETE [] 6 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE [] 7 ALUMINUM [] 8 100% METHANOL COMPATIBLEW/FRP {Pi'imaryTank) [] g BRONZE [] 10 GALVANIZED STEEL [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER [] I RUBBER LINED [] 2 ALKYD LINING [] 3 EPOXY LINING [] 4 'PHENOLIC LINING C. INTERIOR LINING [] 5 GLASS LINING NLINED [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER IS LINING MATERIAL COMPATIBLE WITH 100% METHANOL? YES__ NO__ D, CORROSION [] 1 POLYETHYLENE WRAP~[] 2 COATING [] 3 VINYL WRAP [] 4 FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC PROTECTION [] 5 CATHODIC PROTECTION,,~I~'91 NONE [] 95 UNKNOWN r-~ 99 OTHER IV, PIPING INFORMATION CIRCLE A IFABOVEGROUNDOR U IF UNDERGROUND, BOTH IF APPLICABLE A, SYSTEM TYPE A U I SUCTION A~i~,~2 PRESSURE A U 3 GRAVITY A U 99 OTHER B. CONSTRUCTION A~U~I SINGLE WALL A U 2 DOUBLE WALL A U 3 LINED TRENCH A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER C, MATERIAL AND A~ 1 BARE STEEL A U 2 STAINLESS STEEL A U 3 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC)A U 4 FIBERGLASS PIPE CORROSION A U 5 ALUMINUM A U 6 CONCRETE A U 7 STEEL W/ COATING A U 8 100°/o METHANOLCOMPATIBLEW/FRP PROTECTION A U 9 GALVANIZED STEEL A U 10 CATHODIC PROTECTION A U 95 UNKNOWN A U 99 OTHER D. LEAK DETECTION [~ ! AUTOMATIC LINE LEAK DETECTOR [~ 2 LINE TiGHTNESS TESTING ~ 3 iNTERSTITIAL V, TANK LEAK DETECTION [] 1 VISUAL CHECK [] 2 INVENTORY RECONCILIATION [] 3 VAPOR MONITORING [] 4 AUTOMATIC TANK GAUGiNG [] 5 GROUNDWATER MONITORING [] 6 TANK TESTING [] 7 INTERSTITIAL MONITORiNG~ ~NONE [] 95 UNKNOWN [] 99 OTHER VI. TANK CLOSURE INFORMATION ,.'"2 SUBSTANCE REMAINING_ .----~ GALLONS ~NERT MATERIAL ? / TH/S FORM HAS BEEN.COMPLETED UNDER PENALTY OF,PERJURY, AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IS TRUE AND CORRECT LOCAL AGENCY USE ONLY' THE STATE I.D. NUM'I~ER~S COMPOSED OF THE FOUl{ NUMBEl{S BELOW COUNT~;~/' JURISDICTION # FACILITY # TANK # PERMIT NUMBER PERMIT APPROVED BY/DATE I PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE FORM e (g-go) THIS FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A PERMIT APPUCATION - FORM A, UNLESS A CURRENT FORM A HAS BEEN FILED. FORoO34B-R4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ' STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMIT APPLICATION - FORM A COMPLETE THis FORM FOR EACH FACILITY/SITE ONE ITEM [] 2 INTERIM PERMIT F'~ 4 AMENDED pERMIT [] 6 TEMPORARY SITE I, FACILITY/SITE INFORMATION & ADDRESS - (MUST BE COMPLETED) DBA OR FACtI, ITY NAME ~; ADDRES~ ' .' ..,) ~:~ NEARESTCROSS STREET. ~ PARCEL#(OFTIONAL) ;{7¢/ /:: /> '/-CITY'NAME~'~ :~/~'~ ~" ~ ' f~'3 ~/~,..~./~,~_~', ~'~ . .~ STATEcA ZIP,~,~ '~ '~*/~(G,9~'''''CODE[~ SITE~___~.,.~.,~.~PHONE # WITH AREA CODE ~'~ORPORATION ~ INDIVIDUAL r-~ PARTNERSHIP [~ lOCAL-AGENCY ~ COUNTY-AGENCY ~ STATE-AGENCY ~] FEDERAL-AGENCY TO INDICATE DISTRICTS TYPEOF BUSINESS GAS STATION [~ 2 DISTRIBUTOR ~ RESERVATION I ~-~ ~ 3 FARM ~ 4 PROCESSOR [~ 5 OTHER ORTRUST LANDS EMERGENCY CONTACT PERSON (PRIMARY) EMERGENCY CONTACT PERSON (SECONDARY) - optional DAYS: NAME (LAST,~FIRST) PHONE # WITH AREA CODE DAYS: NAME (LAST, FIRST) PHONE # WiTH AREA CODE NIGHTS: NAME (LAST, FIRST) PHONE # WITH AREA CODE NIGHTS: NAME (LAST, FIRST) PHONE # WiTH AREA CODE II. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION - (MUST BE COMPLETED) I ~. AME~ ,~ ~ / I CARE O~ ~RESS ~NFORMAT~ON 1 / / .... ~ MAILING OR STREET ADDRES~ . ~ ~ ~ ~x ~ indicate ~ INDtV[DUAL .... ~ ~ L~AL-AGENCY ~ STATE-AGENCY [I 'Cl~ NAME~/~/)~:/~' ~STATE. ZIP CODE~ ~ e/~l ¢/~ ~ ~PHONE ~ WITH~AREA:~ CODE__[ ~ III. TANK OWNER INFORMATION- (MUST BE COMPLETED) NAME,~/~' OF -~'~/OWNER, ~t ~ ~' . J~ '; ~ .~ ~ ~ , ~ CARE OF ADDRE~ INFORMATION MAILING OR STREET~DRESS ~ ~x~i~a~ ~ INDIVIDUAL ~ LOCAL-AG~CY ~ STATE-AGENCY ~ COR~RATION ~ P~TNERSHIP ~ COU~Y-AGE~Y ~ FEDE~L-AGENCY CI~ NAME STATE ZiP ~DE PHONE ~ WITH AREA CODE IV.BOARD OF EQUALIZATION UST STORAGE FEE ACCOUNT NUMBER - Call (916) 739-2582 if questions arise. (TK) HQ ~ - TY V. LEGAL NOTIFICATION AND BILLING ADDRESS Legal notification and billing will be sent to the tank owner unless box I or II is checked. THIS FORM HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AND TO THE BEST ~ MY KNOWLEDGE, IS TRUE AND CORRECT LOCAL AGENCY'~SE*ONLY COUk~ ~ J~RISDICTION ~ FAClLI~ ~ LOCATION CODE - OPTIONAL CENSUS T~AOT · - OPTIONAL 8U~VISO~ - OlSTRIOT CODE - ~TIONAL THIS FOR~ ~ST BE ~COO~NIE~ B~ ~T LEAST (1) O~ ~RE PER~IT ~LIO~IOH - [0~ B~ ~NLE~8 ~HI~ I~ ~ CH~N~E OF 8ffE INFORmaTION ONLY. FORO~-R~ FORM A (g-~o) HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DIVISION 2130 G Street, Bakersfield,' CA 93301 (805) 326-3979 TANK REMOVAL INSPECTION FORM FAC IL I TY WORLD OIL ADDRESS 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE .OWNER WORLD OIL PERMIT TO OPERATE# 13739 CONTRACTOR HALLMARK PETROLEUM CONTACT PERSON CARLOS VERA LABORATORY ~4D~; / /~ ~ # OF SAMPLES TEST METHODOLOGY TPH-GASOLINE & DIESEL,~'BTEX ASSESSMENT CO. MOBIL LAB CONTACT PERSON~-~/~3'.pg~_~ PRELIMANARY PLOT PLAN co~o~ o~ ~sD~ - CONDITION OF PIPING ~OND~ON O~ SO~n_~~ COMMENTS ~~ .~¢~/./,~ 10 / 21 / 92 JOE DUNWOODY ~ ! S I GNA~URE DATE INSPECTORS NAME ~ ~ CITY of BA KEn SFIELD~ "WE CARE" FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DIVI$ ION 326-3911 2130 G Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805) 326-3979 CERTIFICATION STATEMENT OF TANK DECONTAMINATION I, C//~ V/~ an authorized agent of name HALLMARK PETROLEUM here by attest under penalty of contracting co. perjury that the tank(s) located at 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE and address being removed under permit# BR - 0063 has been cleaned/decontaminated properly and a LEL (lower explosive limit) reading of no greater than 5% was measured immediately following the cleaning/decontamination process. date - ~me (print) ~/ 's~nature p Bakersfield F/re Dai~t. ~~.~~ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PR~RAM- PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF AN UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITE INFORMATION SITE ~' ADDRESSgl0/ ~U~4~ZIPCODE ~OV APN FACILI~ NAME ~0~ 0/~ CROSS STREET ~ Lf~~ ~7. TANK OWNER/OPERATOR [~L~ ~ PHONE No. ~16- ~f- MAILING ADDRESS ~b~ ~fl ~~ ,~V~ Cl~ ~o~ ~T~~ ZIP CODE CONTRACTOR INFORMATION ~/O COMPANY~~ D~~U~ PHONE N ) ' ~ / ~/,)b LICENSE No. ~ ADDRESS J~l~ H~iC~ ~V~ Cl~ ~O~ ZIP CODE INSURANCE CARRIER ~L~ ~ /~5 '~g WORKMENS COMP No. ~d ~OG 7~ PEELIMANAEY ASSEMENT INFOEMATION COMPANY~0~ ~ ~, PHONE No.~TZ-NT~ LICENSE No. ADDRESS ~ ~,~ ~- Cl~ ~E~~ ZIP CODE ~0~ INSURANCE CARRIER ~H~ ~N~ WORKMENS COMP No. TANK CLEANING INFORMATION COMPANY ~ E~VI~~I~L ~ /~ PHONE No. ADDRESS ~0, ~0~ ~ CIW ~~~ ZIP CODE WASTE TRANSPORTER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ~/) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~) NAME OF RINSTATE DISPOSAL FACILI~ 6/~ 'ADDRESS ~~,~ ~ C~ ~~ Z~PCOO~ FAC~U~ ~DE~T~F~CAT~O~ ~U~E~ U~ ~ ~2 / ~ T~K TRaNSPORTeR ~NFORM~T~ON COmPAnY ~ ~r~~r~C ~HO~E No.~~ff-~~ UC~SE ~of~O~V~5~ ~DDRESS ~.~ ~ CI~ ~~~ ZIP CODE TANK DESTINATION ~~ ~~ ~~ TANK INFOR~TIO~ TANK No. AGE VOLUME CHEMICAL DATES CHEMICAL STORED ~ STORED PREVIOUSLY STORED THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED, UNDERSTANDS, AND WILL COMPLY WITH THE AI-rACHED CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT AND ANY OTHER STATE, LOCAL AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. ..~RM ;I-~S BEEN COMPLETED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IS TRUE AND CORRECT. ,~PPROVED BY: - ~ APPLICANT NAIgIE (PRINT) ~/,'A~LI-~'AhT SIG"~ATURE .. THIS APPLICATION.BECOMES A PERMIT WHEN APPROVED ...... .... "' MAKE GHECK$ PAYABLE TO THE "CIT~ OF BAKP:RSFIELD" PLOT PLAN Plot Plan must show the following: 1, Roads arid alleys ' 2., buildings ~T 3. location of tanks, piping, and dispensers 4. utilities 5. SCALE · 6. water wells (if on site) 7. any other relevent information // ! WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY P.O. BOX 1966 SOUTH GATE, CA 90280-1966 September 21, 1992 (213) 560-8801 FAX (213) 928-0391 RECEIVED Mr. Joe A. Dunwoody ~P 2 4 1992 Hazardous Material Specialist Underground Tank Program HAF~ ,~-~T. ~IV. City of Bakersfield, Fire ~ 2101 "H" St. Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Your letter dated August 7, 1992 (I think mis-dated, because it refers to a previous letter dated 8/14/92) Dear Mr. Dunwoody: After speaking with you on Friday, I will disregard your above letter as you instructed me to do. As I told you, our contractor, Hallmark Petroleum, is scheduled to begin the permit process early this week. Thank you for you assistance in this. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (310) 928-0100. Sincerely, WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY ~~Gen'~~ger/, Operations LGT. DOC 9302 S. GARFIELD AVENUE, SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA 90280-3896 WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY P.O. BOX 1966 August 14, 1992 SOUTH GATE, CA 90280-1966 (213) 560-8801 FAX (213) 928-0391 Mr. Joe Dunwoody RECEIVED Hazardous Materials Specialist Underground Tank Program City of Bakersfield AUC 1 7 ~992 2101 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 HA~... ~T..~V. RE: your letter dated August 7, 1992 pertaining to 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, CA Dear Mr. Dunwoody: Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. We will immediately begin obtaining bids to remove these tanks in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Please contact me with any further questions. Sincerely, ~~c__.na~_c[-.~,~_~,'n.owct_o_n . . . Vice President, Marketing L-JD08. 142 9302 S. GARFIELD AVENUE, SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA 90280-3896 August 7, 1992 Sunco Oil Company 9302 South Garfield Avenue Southgate, CA 90280 Attn: Richard Roth Mr. Roth, It has come to our attention that you currently own 'property located at 2101 Brundage Lane (APN 147-261-08), Bakersfield, CA which contains at least one underground storage tank. The tank has been out of service and you are in violation of the following sections of code. California H&SC: Sec. 25284(a), Failure to obtain a permit to own and operate an underground storage Facility for'Hazardous Material; Sec. 25298, Failure to properly close an underground tank; Sec. 2587(a&b), Failure to pay city fees and state surcharge for underground tanks; Sec. 25292, Failure to monitor and maintain records. Uniform Fire COde: Sec. 79.115 (a,b,& f); (a~ Failure to remove or safeguard an out of service tank(s), (b) Failure to obtain an permit to remove or temporarily close an underground tank(s), (f) Failure to remove an underground tank out of service for one (1) year. Violati6ns of the Health and Safety Code are punishable by fines of not less than $500.00 or more than $5,000.00 per day, per violation, per tank. The Uniform Fire Code violations are misdemeanor offenses and punishable by fines and imprisonment. Please make arrangements to properly abandon the tank(s) by September 30, 1992 to avoid further action. If you have any questions Please contact me at (805) - 326 - 3797. Sincerely, Joe A. Dunwoody Hazardous Material Specialist Underground Tank Program CITY of BAKERSFIELD "WE CARE" FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON August 7, 1992 BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 World Oil Marketing Company P. O. Box 1966 Southgate, CA 90280-1966 Attn: Richard R. Snowden Re: your letter dated August 14, 1992 Mr. Snowden, Please be informed, that to avoid further enforcement action against World Oil Marketing. Company (Sunco Oil Co.) you must submit in witting, to this office, a time table outlining the scheduling for compliance with regard to the violation notice dated August 7, 1992. If this information is not received by the September 30, 1992 deadline we will precede with the current actions. If you have any questions Please contact me at (805) - 326 - 3797. Si, ncere!3, ~,oe A. Dunwood~ // Hazardous Material Specialist .~ Underground Tank Program CITY of BAKERSFIELD "WE CARE" FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON August 7, 1992 BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 3263911 Sunco Oil Company 9302 South Garfield Avenue Southgate, CA 90280 Attn: Richard Roth Mr. Roth, It has come to our attention that you currently own property located at 2101 Brundage Lane (APN 147-261-08), Bakersfield, CA which contains at least one underground storage tank. The tank has been out of serviCe_ and you are in violation of the following sections of code. California H&SC: Sec. 25284(a), Failure to obtain a permit to own and operate an underground storage Facility for Hazardous Material; Sec. 25298, Failure to properly close an underground tank; Sec. 2587(a&b), Failure to pay city fees and state surcharge for underground tanks; Sec. 25292, Failure to monitor and maintain records. Uniform Fire Code: Sec. 79t. 115 (a,b,& f); (a) Failure to remove or safeguard an out of service tank(s), (b) Failure to obtain a~ permit to remove or temporarily close an underground tank(s), (f) Failure to remove an underground tank out of service for one (1) year. Violations of the Health and Safety Code are punishable by fines of not less than $500.00 or more than $5,000.00 per day, per violation, per tank. The 'Uniform Fire Code viglations are misdemeanor offenses and punishable by fines and imprisonment. Please make arrangements to properly abandon the tank(s) by September 30,1992 to avoid further action. If you have any questions Please contact me at (805) - 326 - 3797. sincerely, // Haz_araous Material Specialist ~/ Underground Tank Program ~?cc Fiowe, street KERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTM HEALTH OFFICER Bakersfield, California 93305 ' Leon M Hebertson, M.D. Telephone (805) 861-3636 .. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION .. . DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH T NTERIM PERMIT '/" -" T SSU~:~.D = 3ULY l~ 1956 UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ...... .. PACILITY WORLD OIL COMPANY #29 . I u. . _..WORLD OIL COMPANY ,i~':.-t,~!.. ~-.'.11 ":.. NOTE: ALL INTERIM REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE PE~ITTING . DATE PERMIT M~[T.~D: JUL 2 1 1986 DATE PERMIT CHECK LIST RETURNED: Kern County Health Det~rtmer~ Permita~. Division o£ Environmental H4~?~ Applicatio~~. 1700 Flo~r Street, Bakersfiel~ ' CA 93305 · ~PLI~TION FOR PE~IT ~ OPE~TE ~E~R~D ~~US SUBST~CES S~E FACILI~ T~ of Application (ch~k): · ~Ne~ Facflit9 ~dification of Facility ~isti~ Facility ~ansfer of ~ership area c~e ~one) A. ~ergen~ 24-Hour Contact (n~e, , : ~ys Facility ~ ~Omg d ~L .~~N~ ~ of B~iness (cheCk): ~lineS;~tion ~er (de~ri~) Is Tank(s) ~cat~ on ~ Agricultural Faa? ~Y~ ~ Is Tank(s) Us'~ ~imarily for.~ricultural ~r~ses? ~Yes ~ Facility ~dre~X~Of ~,~~ ~~ . Nearest Cro~ St. T R . SEC (Rural ~ations ~ly) ~dress ~ Zip ~Z ~ ~le~one O~rator Con,ct ~r~n ' ~dress ~ ~"'~ ~ Zip Tele~o~ B. ~c ~ Facili~ Pcovid~ by ~9~ ~il ~racteristics at Facility ~sis for Soil ~ a~ Gro~ter ~p~ C. Contractor ~ ~ntractor's ~ce~e ~. ~dre~ Zip . . Tele~ Pro~s~ ~6i~ ~te Pro~s~' C~pleti~ ~te ~rker's C~~ti~ Certification % Insurer D. If ~is ~mit Is For ~ification Of ~ ~isti~ ~cility, Briefly ~ri~ ~ifi~ti~ E. T~k(s) Store (~eck all ~t a~ly): Tank ~ ~s~ Pr~uct ~tor Vehicle Unlead~ R~ular Pr~i~ *Die~l ~ste ' ' Fuel -- F. Ch~i~l ~si~ion of ~terials Stor~ (~t ~ces~ry fo[ '~tor v~icle f~ls) Tank J Chemi~l Stor~ (non-c~rcial ~e) ~ J (if kn~) (if different) G. Transfer of Ownership Date o--f-~-ans--~r Previous Owner Previous Facility Name I, accept fUlly all 'o61iga'tiOns of Pe'~it' No. issued to . I understand that the Permitting Authority may review and mod{fy or terminate the transfer of the Permit to Operate this ~derground storage facility upon receiving this c~mpleted form. This form has been completed under penalty of perjury and to the best of my knowledge is true and correct. Signature ~ Title _.~.._~~L/~te ~.,F~-F~ FILE' C. ONTENT.~ INVEN%~ORY . ~Permit to Operate ~'~Tff~- / [ Date ~Construction Permit ~ Date ~Permit to abandon~ No. of Tanks Date ~ended Permit Conditions ~Permit Application Form, ' ~ _ Tank Sheets ~Application to Abandon tanks(s) ~ Date ~Annual Report Forms [-1Copy of Written Contract Between'Owner & Operator I']Inspection Reports .. I-]Corresponde.nce- Received .' Da te -. ...... '. Da te , Date I-1Correspondence - Mailed " · Date Date Date I-IUnauthorized Release Reports I'1 Abandonment/Closure Reports I'lSampling/Lab Reports ' ' I-IMVF Compliance Check (N~'w Constructi'on CheCklis't~) [-ISTD Compliance Check (New Construction Checklist) ['IMYF Plan Check (New Construction) D STP Plan Check (New Construction) ['IMVF Plan Check (Existing Facility) [~STD Plan Check (Existing Facility) ri"Incomplete Application' Form O Permit Application Checklist ['~Permit Instructions [-]Discarded rlTightness Test Results Date Da te Da te I-]Monitoring Well Construcfion'"[Ja'ta/Pe'rmits [-]-Environmental Sensitivity Data: [~]Groundwater Drilling, Boring Logs . [-]Location of Water Wells ['~Statement of Underground Conduits ~Plot Plan Featuring All Environmentally Sensit~7_9,~a~ta I-1 Photos Construcfion Drawings Location ['~Malf sheet showing date received and tally of inspection time, etc ~Mi scellaneous FO-R EACH sECTIoN,~ECK ALL APPROPRIATE BOXES 1. Tank is: [~aulted [~Non-Vaulted [-]Double-Wall ~ingle-Wall 9~. ~ Material [~Carbon Steel [-]Stainless Steel ['~olyvinyl Chloride ['~FiberglassrClad Steel []Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic [']Concrete [] Al~in~u []Bronze ~Unknown [-[Other (describe) 3. Primary Containment Date Installed Thickness (Inches) Capacity (Gallons) Manufacturer · 4. Tank Secondar~ Con'tainment -- ' ['~Doubfe-Wall '[-]Synthetic Liner [']Lined Vault [qNone ~]Other (describe): Manufacturer: []Material Thi6'kness (Inches) Capacity (Gals.) 5. Tank Interior Linin~ ---~Ru~ber ~Alkyd []Epoxy []Phenolic [']Glass I-]Clay [~[~%lined ~kno~ ['lOther (describe): 6. Tank Corrosion Protection --l~Galvanfzed --~I-~'~==~ass-Clad [']Polyethylene Wrap []Vinyl [~Tar or Asphalt ~t~known []None []Other (describe): '- .' Cathodic Protection: ~ione [~Impressed Current System ['1Sacrificial ~ode DeSCri6e System & Equil~aent: 7. Leak Detection, Monitoring, a.n~.. I. nt,.erception ~,. a. Tank: []Visual (vaulted tanks only) ~]Ground~ter Monitorirg' Well(s)'. ['lVadose Zone Monitoring Well(s) ~lU-Tube Without Liner ['~U-Tube with C~mpatible Liner Directin~ Flow to Monitorirg We.Il(s)* [] Vapor Detector* [] Liquid L~vel Sensor [] Conductivit~ Sensor' ' [] Pressure Sensor in Annular Space of Double Wall Tank [] Liquid Betrie~al & Inspection Fr~u U-Tube, Monitoring Well or Annular Space Daily Gauging m Inventory Reconciliation ['[ Periodic Tigh~ None ~ Unkno%a% ~] Other b. Piping: Flow-Restricting Leak Detector(s) for Pressurized PiPing" [] Monitoring S~p with Race~¥ [] Sealed Concrete Race~ay []Half-Cut Ccmpatible Pipe Raceway [-]Synthetic Liner Race~ay ~None [] Unkno [] Other *Describe Make & Model: 8. Tank Tightness · 11~--Tn~ Tan~' Been Tightness Tested? ~Yes r~No J~Jnknown Date of Last Tightness Test Results of Test Test Name Testing Caapan¥ . . 9. Tank ~ ~Repatred? []Yes ~qNo ~Unknown Date(s) of Repair(s) Describe Repairs 10. Overfill Protection []Operator ~tlls, Controls, & Visually Monitors Level []Tape Float Gauge []Float Vent Valves [] Auto Shut- Off Controls [.']Capacitance Sensor []Sealed Fill Box ]~one []Unknown ~Other: List Make & Model For Above Devices a. Underground Piping: ~Yes []No [7Unknown Material Thickness (inches) Diameter ~ Manufacturer []pressure []SuctiOn- []Gravity Approximate Length b. Underground Piping Corrosion Protection : [2]Galvanized [~]Fiberglass-Clad [qImlxessed Current []Sacrificial Anode []Polyethylene Wrap ~Electrical Isolation []Vinyl Wrap []Tar or Asphalt [~lJnkno~n [TNone ~Other (describe): Underground Pipirg, Secondary Containment: ~]Double-Wall ['lSynthetic Liner System [']None ~[Unknown [[]Other (describe): TANK ~ ~ ' (FILL OUT SEPARATE FORM FOR~CH'¥ANK) FOR EACH SECTION, CHECK Au- APPROPRIATE BOXES H. 1. Tank is: [~Vaulted ~Non-Vaulted [~Double-Wall ~ingle-Wall. 2. ~ Material []Carbon Steel [] Stainless Steel [-]Polyvinyl Chloride [] Fiberglass-Clad Steel []Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic [~Concrete [-]Altlnin~ []Bronze ~Unknow~ f'~ Other (describe) 3. Primary Containment Dmte Installed Thickness (Inches) Capacity (Gallons) Manufacturer 4. Tank Secondary Cont'air~nent - [] Double-Wall~'' [] Synthetic Liner []Lined Vault ' [] None ~lJnknown · [']Other (describe): Manufacturer: []Material Thickness (Inches) Capacity (Gals.) 5. Tank Interior Lining FgOthet (describe): 6. Ta~k Corrosion Protection --~Galvani?~] ~ass~Clad i-lpol~thylene Wrap ?gViny~ [~Tar or Asphalt ~Unknown ~lNone []Other (describe): Cathodic Protection: ~None []Impresse~ Current System ~"lSacrf~l¢i~al Armde System Describe System & Eguil:aent: 7. Leak Detection, Monitorinc/, and Interception ~.~ ~. ~.- ~-~isual (va'ulted' ~ks only) ' ~Ground~ter Monitorirg' Well(s) []Vadose Zone Monitoring Well(s) [']U~ Without Liner ' [']U-Tube with C(~.u. patible Liner Directin~ Flow to Monitorin~ We,Il(s)* [] Vapor Detector*~ [] Liquid Level Sensor' [] Conductivit~ Sensor '[~] Pressure Sensor'in Annular Space of Double Wall Tank- [] Liquid l%etrie~al & Inspection From U-Tube, Monitori~] Well or A~nular Space Daily Gau~irg & Irmentory Reconciliation [~ Periodic Tightness Testirg None [] U. kno~ [] Other b. Pipirg: Flow-Restrictin~ Leak Detector(s) for Pressurized ~Monitoring S~np with Race%ay [']Sealed Concrete Raceway []Half-Cut Compatible Pipe Raceway []Synthetic Liner Raceway ~None [] Unknown [] Other *Describe Make & Model: 8. Tank Tightness · .: ]~'~-Thi~ Tan~ Been Tightness Tested? ~Yes []No ~]nknown Date of Last Tightness Test Results of Test Test Name Testirg C~upany 9. Tank Re_~__~ -- ~ Repaired? []Yes ~]No ~Unknown Date(s) of Repair(s) Describe Repairs 10. Overfill Protection []Operator Fills, Controls, & Visually Monitors Level []Tape Float Gauge []Float Vent Valves []Auto Shut- Off Controls Capacitance Sensor []Sealed Fill Box ~None []Unknown Other: List Make & Model For Above Devices 11. Pip:.ng a. Underground Pipirg: ~Yes []No FqUnkno~ Material Thickness (inches) Diameter Manufacturer []Pressure []Suctioh' []Gravity Approximate Lergth of Pipe b. Underground Pipirg Corrosion Protection : ~Galvanized []Fiberglass-Clad []Impressed Current []Sacrificial Anode []Polyethylene' Wrap [qElectrical Isolation [-]Vinyl Wrap [qTar or Asphalt ~Un~nown []None []Other (describe): c. Underground Piping, Secondary Contairment: ~DOuble-Wall []Synthetic Liner System []None ~[Unkno~n ~Other (describe): FOR EACH SECTION, CHECK ALL APPROPRIATE BOXES H. 1. Tank is: [']Vaulted nNon-Vau!ted []Double-Wall ~ingle-Wall 2. ~ Material []Carbon Steel DStainless Steel [~olyvinyl Chloride [-]Fiberglass-Clad Steel D Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic [-1 Concrete [~ Alumin~! [] Bronze [~ Other (describe) 3. Primary Containment Date Installed Thickness (Inches) Capacity (Gallons) Manufacturer 4. Tank Se'c'ondar~ containment - []----~uble-Wall []Synthetic Liner []Lined Vault"[]None ~.~nknown i-]Other (describe): Manufacturer: []Material Thickness (Inches) Capacity (Gals.) 5. Tank Interior Lining ---[~Rubber []Alkyd []Epoxy []Phenolic l'~Glass r~Clay nt~inmd ~kno~ ~Other (describe): 6. Tank Corrosion Protection --]~Galvanized -]~~ass-Clad i-]Pol~thylene Wrap []Vinyl Wrap~ln~ []Tar or Asphalt ~___known []None []Other (describe): Cathodic Protection:- i~None nImpressed Current S~st-,- . rlSacrifl¢~al ~ Syst~ Describe System & F. xtuisment: 7. Leak Detection, Monitoring, and Interception .~- a. Tank: nvisual (vaulted tanks only) [-IGroundwater Monitorirg' W~ll(s) []Vadose Zone Monitorir~ Well(s) ~]U-Tube Without Liner : []U-Tube with Cc~patible )irecti~g Liner £ Flow to Monitorirg Well(s)* · [] Vapor Detector- I-i Liquid Level Senso:~" [] Conductivit~ Sensor* '- '[~ Pressure Sensor i~ Annular Space of Double Wall Tank- IlLiquid Bmtrie~al & Inspection Fr~m U-Tube, Monitorin~ Well or A~nular Space Daily Gaugirg & Inventory Reconciliation [] Periodic Tightness Testing None i-I Unknown [] Other b. Piping: Flow-Restricting Leak Detector(s) for Pressurized Pi. ping' []Monitoring S~I~p with Race~y []Sealed Concrete Raceway []Half-Cut Compatible Pipe Raceway []Synthetic Liner Raceway [] Unknown []Other *Describe Make & Model: 8.~Tank Tightness en · Tightness Tested? r~Yes []No ~Jnknown Date of Last Tightness Test Results of Test Test Name Testing Ccmpan¥ 9. Tank Repair Tank RePaired? []Ye~ []No ~UnknOwn Dat~(s) of RePair(s) Describe Repairs 10. Overfill Protection [][]Operator Fills, Controls, & Visually Monitors Level []Tape Float Gauge []-]Float Vent Valves [] Auto Shut- Off Controls [']Capacitance Sensor []Sealed' Fill Box ~None []Unknown []Other: List Make & Model For Above Devices a. Underground Piping: ~Yes []No []Unknown Material Thickness (inches) Diameter Manufacturer []Pressure []Sucti'on []Gravity Approximate Length Of Pipe R~ b. Underground Pipirg Corrosion Protection : .' []Galvanized l-IFiberglass-Clad []Impressed Current [~Sacrificial Anode []Polyethylene Wrap ~Electrical Isolatio~ [~Vinyl Wrap ~Tar or Asphalt · ~nknown []None []Other (describe): c. Underground piDirg, Secondary Containment: [2]Double-Wall []Synthetic Line~' System []None ~i~[Unknown []Other (describe): TANK ~ (FILL OUT SEPARATE FORM FO FOR SECTION, CHECK ;~tt APPROPRIATE BOXES Ii, 1. Tank is: [-]Vaulted. I-IN•n-Vaulted [~Double-Wall ~ingle'Wall 2. ~ Material [~Carbon Steel [] stainless Steel [~Polyvin'yl ChlOride [-~Fiberglass-Clad Steel []Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic []Concrete [~Alumin~ [-1Bronze ~Unknown [] Other (describe) 3. Primary Containment Date Installed Thickness (Inches) Capacity (Gallons) Manufacturer 4. Tank Secondary Contair~nent [']Double-Wall [] Synthetic Liner nLined Vault [] None ['lOther (describe): Manufacturer: OMaterial Thickness (Inches) Capacity (Gals.) 5. Tank Interior Lining GRubber ['lAlkyd [-]EpoXy [~Phenolic [-]Glass [-~Clay [-lttllined [~Other (describe): · 6. Tank Corrosion Protection -~Galvanized ~ass-Clad []Pol~thylene Wrap [~Vinyl Wrappir~] []Tar or Asphalt ~_known ['lNone . [~Other (describe): ° .-'~' .... Cathodic Protection: ~ [~None []Impressed Current System ['l~a~lfl¢lal i~%ode System I~scribe System & Equipment: 7. Leak Detection, Monitorir~, and Interception a. Tank: UlVisual (vaulted tanks only) [qGroundwater Monitorirg' Well(s) ['~Vadose Zone Monitoring Well(s) ~U-Tube Without Liner [-1U-Tube with C~.patible Liner Directtrg Flow to Monitorirg Wel. l(s)* · [~ Vapor Detector* [] Liquid Level Sensor* [-1 Conductivity Sensor' Pressure Sensor in Annular Space of Double Wall Tank7 [~ Liquid Retrieval & Inspection Frcm U-Tube, Monitorir~] Well or i~ar Space ~DailyGa~ugirg & Inventory Reconciliation [] Periodic Tightness Testir~ [] None [] Unknown [-] Other b. Piping: Flow-Restricting Leak Detector(s) for Pressurized Piping' ['lMonitortng S~np with Race~ay []-]Sealed Concrete Raceway []Half-Cut Compatible Pipe Raceway []Synthetic Liner Raceway [~ Unknown [] Other · Describe Make & Model: 8. Tank Tightness . · ]~-~--This Tan~ Been Tightness Tested? []Yes []No ~l]nknown Date of Last Tightness Test Results of Test Test Name Testing Company 9. Tank Re~air Ramir n es ON• Date(s) of Repair(s) Describe Repairs 10. Overfill Protection []O~erator Fills, Controls, & Visually Monitors Level •Tape Float Gau~e []Float Vent Valves O Auto Shut- Off Controls ~-]Capacitance Sensor []Sealed Fill Box ~one U]Unknown •Other: List Make & Model For Above Devices a. Underground Piping: ~Yes []No ~Unknown Material Thickness (inches) Diameter Manufacturer []Pressure ~Suction []Gravity Approximate Length of Pipe ~ b. Underground Pipirg Corrosion Protection : [~]Galvanized ~Fiberglass-Clad [-]Impressed Current []Sacrificial Anode []Polyethylene Wrap [-]Electrical Isolatio~ []Vinyl Wrap ~]Tar or Asp/~lt ~nknown []None []Other (describe): c. Underground Piping, Secondary Contaim~nt: ~.Double-Wall []Synthetic Liner System []None ~Unknown [-~Other (describe):