Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MITIGATION
m RECEIVED r H,~7 ~4aT. DIV. l i ! ! . I l I [arth Systoms [nvironmontal, Inc. A Mombor of Tho Earth Systoms Group l I I I I I I I TANK CLOSURE REPORT WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION NO. 29 I 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA I I November 18, 1992 I I I Prepared by I Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. 6701 MeDivitt Drive, Suite B Bakersfield, CA 93313 I (805) 836-0901 FAX (805) 836-0911 i Project No. EB-8275-1 I I I TANK CLOSURE REPORT WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION NO. 29 21t)1 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA TABLE ,OF ,CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 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 RESULTS OF SOIL SAMPLING ........................................................................................ 3 6.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 6 7.0 CLOSURE .......................................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP ........................................................................................................ 8 FIGURE 2: SITE MAP ................................................................................................................. 9 I LIST OF APPENDICES i APPENDIX A ANALYTICAL REPORT AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENT I I 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 I City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division 2101 H Street i Bakersfield, California 93301 Attention: Mr. Ralph Huey I SUBJECT: TANK CLOSURE REPORT WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION I 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA I 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents results of soil sampling performed by Earth Systems I Environmental, Inc. (ESE) of the base of the excavation pit where four 12,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tanks, twelve gasoline dispensers, and associated I 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 I Figure 2 is a site map showing the location of the former underground storage tanks, dispensers, product lines and the soil sample locations. I 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION · l 2.1 Site · The site is located at 2101 Brundage Lane the city of Bakersfield in Kern County, I California. The site was formerly operated as a retail gasoline sales facility. 2.2 Background I World Oil Company contracted with Hallmark Construction Company of Los Angeles, California to remove the four 12,000 gallon underground fuel storage tanks, twelve I associated lines the site. Hallmark Construction gasoline dispensers, and product at subcontracted with Mobile Labs of Bakersfield, California to provide laboratory I analytical services for soil samples collected during the tank removal operations. World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 2 November 18, 1992 On October 21, 1992 Hallmark Construction excavated the soil above and around the tanks, and removed the and associated The tanks tanks, dispensers, product pipelines. 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 collected of feet and six feet beneath the samples were at depths two 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 collected hand and the soil collected from beneath dispenser was by auger, samples 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. 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 samPler, date and time of collection and job number, 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. I EB -8275-1 9211-5008.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 3 November 18, 1992 4.0 ANALYTICAL METItODS The soil samples for chemical submitted to Mobile designated analysis were 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. I 5.0 RESULTS OF SOIL SAMPLING TPPH as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics were detected in soil I 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 i 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 i mg/kg. Table 1 presents the analytical results for TPPH as gasoline, and the gasoline I constituent volatile aromatics in the 12 soil from beneath the dispensers, and samples the four soil samples from the stockpiled soil. Table 2 presents the analytical results I for the 12 soil samples from beneath the gasoline tanks. I i 1 ,! IEB-8275-1 9211-5008.RPT I World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 4 November 18, 1992 ! 1 I ,, ~ ~,n,,a,Ly, uca~ ,res, m~S ,expressea ~n mm~grams ,p.er,.,.~ug~ram) ,... ,,...... . .. I " S-1 .... W Dispenser-S End , , 88 ....... ,ND ND ND ND S-lA W, Dispenser-S End,,,, ,61'' 20 ND ND ND , ,ND, ~S-2' W,D,ispenser-S Cen.ter,,, 21 ,, .221'" ' ' 'ND ' ! ND' '~D ' ND I s'2A',','! W D~spenser-,S ,C,,ente, r,, ,6',, ,33 ND ,ND, ,, ND . ND" , .S:3, ' .,,W, Dispenser-N Cen, 2' 44,, , ND , , ND .... ,ND, , ,ND , S-,3A ~.W ,Disp,enser-N Cen ,,, 6' 2,6!2. ND. 8,238* ,, ND,. 1,18. ,040' I S-4 W Di,spenser-,N End 2' 19 ND, ND ND ND ',S'-4A ,W Dispen, s~r'N 'End, , 6' ,8 ,, ,ND ND ND ' , ,~,, , S.5 Ce,n Disp,ens,er~S End ,2 ~ , ND ~, ,ND ,ND ....... ND ND, I S'5A Cen, Dispe, nserTS End 6' ND ND ND ND ND '$-i~ '" e, en' Di,sp,enser,.S.,,Cen ,,2',, ND [ ND,, ,ND,, ND ND S.6,A,,, , ,Cen ,, Dispe,n,ser:,S Cen, 6' ' 88.4* ..... ,ND . :2.64,3* ', , ND ..... 6,0,7959* .... I S-7 Ce, n,, D, ispense, r-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, , I S-8A Cen Dispenser-N End ,6.' .... ND , ND ..... ,ND , , ,ND, ...... ND , ,S-9 E Dispenser-S End 2i 34 ND ND ND , ND S-9A E Dispenser-S End 6' ND' 'ND~ ' ND ND ND I ., S-10,., E. Dispe, nser-,S Cen, 2' , ND ND ND ND ND , S710A, E, Dispenser-S, Ce, n 6,,', ND,,, ....... , NB,. ' ND, ' ND ND'" ~, S- ! I , , ,E ,Dispg,,nserrN C~n 2' .... 10 , ND, NDo~, ND ND I S-I,IA i ,E ,Di,spe,nserrN ,C,,en 6' ,,1,5 ND ND ND ND S- 12 E ,,Di, spenserrN End 2' ND .... ND ND .... ND ND 'S-12A .... E Dispenser-N End ,,6' 'ND ND ND ND, ND i C7! North End ,,,Stockpile, 4' 10 ND ND ND ND . C-2 ' West Side Sto,ckpile 4"' ,'13 ND ...... ND ND 'NI~ · C-3 "E~tsi"side Stockpile~ '4" '" 41 "ND ' ND ND "' ND ..... i C-4.. South, E,n,.d, Stockpile 4' 0* ND ND ND 4.428'~ ,, MRL NA NA 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0., ,001 ,,, ^ L ...... NA ..... , ,0.6? ,, 3,0 .... ,2.0 I ND: None Detected at or above minimum reporting level (MRL). I NA: Not Applicable *: Exceeds RWQCB recommended ,guidelines. A L: Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for contaminants in soil. The i 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. I I EB-8275-1 9211-5008.RPT I World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 5 November 18, 1992 I I TABLE 2 I(Analytical results expressed in milligrams per kilogram) ' TPPH {Be~z,e'~e '"T'~luene [ Ethyl- "Toial · 'samPle! .... L0cati~n ' ~ I I G~s°l}n.e NO, I benzene Sr13 . . Tank...27.C. en.te,r .... 2', 1,010. ND 1.232' ND 17.896' I S-13A Tank 2-Center 6' 1,100' ND 16.719' ND t01.6~0' I "82i4 .... Tank. 1-East End " '2; . 10" ND' ' 'ND 'ND .... ND ' 'S'14A ..... Tank l'East End. ' "6' .. ' 8 ND ND ND .... ~".... S, i5 ' Ta~n.k .1-Center 2' [ 21 ND ND ND ND I S-I~A " 6; ND' ' 'ND ........... ND 1' 'ND ' Tank 1-Cent.~r "S.'1'6 '"~Tank ..1-We~'t' End.. 2' '. 86 ND ' ' ND .... ND .1..1..11. S~16A Tank l-We. st End 6' 1.416, ND 45.742*' ND' 161.403' I '"S~17 'Tank 3-Center 2' 12.417. 109.232, 2.224 209~225' S-!7~ . . Tank 3-Centor 6'. 171. .ND . . J.547..*. ND 23.051' S-18 Tank 2 West End' 2'.,. 4,112. 15.214. 127.826* ..5.0i6'... .. 220.9i8'. I $218.A . Tank` ~-,We. stl ,End' 6'. 3,046* . .1,856,* .'. 5,9,29.0' ..... ND. 204.717, S-19...Tang 3-West En..d . . .2.' 2,86.7.* .7.080*, 94.182* 1.312 ,07.77.7,* "S"i9A Tank 3'~est End. 6'. ,2,560', .. 0~575 . 91.75,5. ND 199.613' IS'-20 Tank 4-EaSt End 2' 102' ND ND ND 1.216 S-20A Tank 4-East End 6' 186' ND ND ND 2.435*~ S-21 . Tank 4'Center 2' 31 ND ND ND 0.339 I S721A Tank. 4-Center 6'. ,23 ND ND .ND. 0.197 . s-22 Tank 4-West End 2'. ....... 2,314' ...... ND 79.630* ND...205.173' S-2.2A, ~. Tankj..4:W.e. St..End 6'.. 2,118' ND .~ .70.87.5.,' . .ND.. .1,89.661' I S-23 . T.~nk 3~Eas. t End. 2' . .... 1,25.6' .ND .2,10!.* ND .. .1.3,..0!.~* . S-23A . .Tank .3.'Ea.st End ..... 6' 1,0!0, .. ND. .... ND ...... ~ . .2.22,.6, S-24... . Tartly. 2-East En.d ...... 21.. 3.3 ND~ .. .ND ....... ~ .... ..ND.. MRL ,Na ,NA 5, 0 00} 1 O 0,01 A L .... NA NA 100, 0.67 1.0 3.0 2.0 I ND: None Detected at or above minimum reporting level 0VIRL). I NA: Not Applicable · : Exceeds RWQCB recommended guidelines. A L: Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for contaminants in soil. The I 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 i groundwater. I I EB -8275-1 9211-5008.RPT ! World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 6 November 18, 1992 ! I 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analysis, TPPH as gasoline, and the I gasoline constituent volatile aromatics were detected at concentrations in excess of RWQCB recommended guidelines for additional assessment activities. Samples where i 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-I3A, S-18 and S-18A at the west end and I 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 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 I Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division is likely to require that assessment activities, performed under the direct supervision of a California I 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 I hydrocarbons impacting groundwater. I 7.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of World Oil Company as it I pertains to the referenced property at 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, Kern County, California. The findings and conclusions rendered in this report are opinions based i 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 I with exhaustive additional testing. All work has been performed in accordance with generally accepted practices in geotechnical/environmental engineering, I engineering geology, and hydrogeology. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. I i I EB-8275-1 9211-5008.RPT IWorld Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 7 November 18, 1992 I I 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 I at your convenience. i Respectfully Submitted, I EARTH SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. I Tim ~. Martin / Mark Magargee, R~# ~[892 Environmental Specialist Senior Geologist I , I Distribution: 1/Addressee 3/Mobile Labs 1/BAK File I I/SLO File 1 I 1 I I I EB-8275-1 9211-5008.RPT I I I I I FIGURES I I I I I I I I I 1 I I II~IfAY HWAY I I I I ~ Earth Systems TITLE - Figure. I ¼ Environmen~l, Inc. I I I I I I APPENDIX A I LABORATORY REPORT AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENT I I I 1 I I I I I I I 5327 Wingfoot Drive I Bakersfield, CA 93306 (805) 872-4750 I : Date Received ; 10/21/92 Laboratory Results For World Oil Co. Date Analyzed : t0/2L/9~ ~101 Brunda~e Lane Analyst : J.S. Johnson I Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 920174 Sample Matrix ; Soils ! Benzene Toluen~ Ethylbenzerle Iylene~ Tot Pet ~yds I mg/k~ mg/kg mg/kg mg/~g m~/kg I S-1 ND ND ND ND 88 S-lA ND ND ND ND 20 I MD ND ND ND 221 S-2A ND ND ND ND 33 I S-3 ND ND ND ND 44 i S-3A ND 8.238 ND 118.,940 2612 S-4 ND ND ND ND 19 IS-4A ND ND ND ND 8 $-5 ND ND ND ND ND I $~"~'~'": ....... ~" ND ND ND ND ND QA/QC Spikes % Recovery 98 98 94 99 102 Gasoline .~11 Results Reported in M_tlligrams per Wiloc.'ram ND = .~fon De~ec~able ; EPA 8020 (.001 mg/kg) EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline (5 mg/kg', Ana!.~sis of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 8020 *Analysis of Total Petroleum ~ydrocarbons ; ~',PA 8015 ~{odified [or ~asoline *The TPM Mebhod for Gasoline is the calif DOE;S Recommended Procedure ....... Cedified Full So.ice On-S~te Anal~ic:;¢ La~ratories 5327 Wingfoot Drive I Bakersfield. CA 93306 (805) 872-4750 I Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 10/2t/9~ World Oil Co. Date Analyzed : 10/2:2/9~ .7101 Brundage Lane Analyst : J.S. John$o~ Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 9~0174 Sample Matrix ; Soils ! Benzene Toluen~ Ethylbenze:to xylenes Tot Pet ~]fds i mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg S-6 ND ND ND ND ND S-6A ND 2.64] ND 60.959 884 S-7 ND ~D ~D 2.662 t16 $-7A ND ND ND ND 41 S-$ ND ND' ND ND 53 $-8A ND ND ND ND ND S-9 ND ND ND ND 34 ND ND ND ND ND S-gA S-10 ND ND ND ND ND S'-I'O'~ ND ND ND ND ND QA/QC Spikes % Recovery 95 96 98 96 105 Gasoline I All Results Reported in Milligrmms per Kilogram ND = Non D~tectable ; EPA 8020 (.001 mg/k~) I EPA 80!5 Modified for Gasoline (5 mg/kg Analysis of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 80~0 *Analysis of Total Petroleum Mydrocarbons ; EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline i * The TPH Me~kod for ~asoltne is ~he Calif DOF[S Recommended Procedure I Codified Full Se'vice On-Site Analyt~c;¢ Laboratories 532'7 Wingfoot Drive Bakt; rsfield, CA 93306 (;305) 872~4750 Laboratory Resui~,s For : Date ~,tece~ved : t0/21/92 World Oil Co. Date Analyzed : 10/22/92 2101 Brund~ge Lane Ana!ys% : C:.S. Johnson Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 920174 Sampla Ma%ri× ; Soils 'Benzene Toluene E~hylbenzene X¥1ene8 Tot Pet Hyds mg/~g mg/kg rog/kg rog/kg ~.:g/~ g $-11 ND ND ND ND l0 S-11A ND ND ND ND 15 $-12 ND ND ND ND ND S-12A ND ND ND ND ND C-1 ND ND ND ND 10 C-2 ND ND ND ND 13 C-3 ND ND ND ND 4t C-4 ND ND ND 4.425 850 S-13 ND 1.232 ~D 17.896 10!0 S-!3A ND 16.719 ND 101.6~0 II00 S-14 ND ND ND ND 10 QA/QC Spikes % Recovery 95 97 92 94 99 Gasoline i A ll Results Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram ND = Non De~ectable ; ~PA 8020 ( .001 mB/kg) mPA $015 Modified for Gasoline (5 mB/kg) I A nalysis of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 8020 · *Analysis of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ; £PA 8015 Modified for Gasoline · The TPH Method for Gasoline is the Calif DOHS Recommended Procedure ~ ! Codified Full Se~ice On-Site Anal~ical Laboratories I _ .;327 Wingfoot Drive · B~kersfie!d, CA 93306 · (805) 872-4750 I Laboratory Resuit~ For Date Received : I0/21/92 Wor.Ld~ Oil Co, Date Anal¥;:ed : I0/22/92 2101 BrundaGe Lane Analy,'.~ : J.S. Johnson I Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 920174 Samu!e Matrix ; Sol!s i Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylene$ Tot Pet Hyds I mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg I $-14A ND ND ND ND 8 S-15 ND ND ND ND 21 I S-ISA ND ND ND ND ND S-16 ND ND ND 1.i. ll 86 I S-16A ND 45.742 ~D 161.zi0~ 1416 I $-17 12.417 109.232 2.224 209.225 3066 $-17A ND i . 547 ND 23.05I I71 I $-18 t5-214 127,826 5.010 220.915 4112 8-18A 1 · 850 59.290 ND 204. 717 3046 ' I $'-',9,~ 7.080 94.182 1.3,2 207.777 2867 i S- 19., .575 91 .75§ ND 199.613 2560 QA/QC Spikes I % Recovery 97 96 94 97 103 Gasoline I Ail Restilts Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram · ND -- Mon Detectable : EPA 8020 (.001 mg/kg) EPA 80!5 Modified for Gasoline (5 · Analysis of Voiatil~ Aromatics ; EPA 8020 *Analysis of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ; ~iPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline · The TPM Method for Gasoline is the Cali~ DOES ~ecommended Procedure Che i I ,' Certified Full Sep,,ice On-Site Analytic;d Laboratories 53;!7 Wingfoot Orive I ~C~akersfield, CA 93306. (805) 872-4750 I Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 10/2'[/92 World Oil Co. Date Analyzed : 10/212/92 2101 Brundage Lane Analyst : J.$. Johnson I Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 920174 Sampl~ Matrix ; Soils I Benzene Toluene Eth~lbenzene xylenes Tot Pet Hyds m~/~g mg/kg mg/kg m§/kg mg/kg I I S-20 ND ND ND 1.216 102 S-20A ND ND ND 2.435 186 S-21 ND ND ND .339 31 S-21A ND ND ND .197 ~3 I 5-22 ND 79.630 MD 205.I73 2314 i $-22A ND 70.87!~ ND 189.56I 2118 $-23 ND 2.I0[ ND 13.011 !256 I S-23A ND ND ND 2.226 1010 S-24 ND ND ND ,ND 33 I!:":~1 S-24A ND ND ND ND 41 I QA/QC Spikes % Recovery 95 96 93 95 99 Gasoline All Results .~eported in Milli]rams per Kilogram ND = Non Debectable ; EPA 8020 ( .001 mg/kG) ~PA 8015 Modified foz' Gasoline (5 Analysis of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA -Analysis of To~a! Petroleum Hydrocarbons ; EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline '~he TPH MethOd for Gasoline is the calif DOHS Recommended Procedure Cedified Full E;er/ice On-Site Anal~ioa~ ta~ratories m m m m :~: CALIFORNIA * NEVADA * ~ ~ I 5327 WINGFOOT DRIVE BAKERSFIELD, CAt,IFORNIA 93306 i'~':. ,.' (805) 872-4750 ' FAX (805) 872-6356 'L'- CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE ON S~TE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES PROJECT NO.' ~StTE NAME'. ' ' SiTE ADDRESS ~"- REMARKS SAMPLET~OCAT/ON DESIGNATION f DATE 'riME RECEIVED BY !SIGNATURE) ~ INQUISHED 8Y (SIGNATURE] ~ DATE TIME ~ RECEIVED BY (SIGNA~~ RELINQUISHED BY' {SIGNATURE) 'r ' ~ FOR LA~'0RATO'flY BY 5327 WINGFOOT DRfVE ~,!~ii': CALIFORNIA · NEVADA ~ ARIZON, '~ BAKERSFIELID, CALIFORNIA 93306 '~ (805) 872-4750 · FAX (805) 872-635~,(,, CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE ON S~TE' ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES ID N~ OA~'E TIME ~ COMP G~TRiX SAMPFE LOCATION DESIGNATION RELINQU~SHED BY: iSiG~ATURE} ] m~T¢ TiME ~REC~IVEO FOR LABORATORY ~f DATE TIMEjREMARKS: f Z ....... t'"~'~~' ~,~.~ 532? WINGFOOT DR1VE -i:- CALIFORNIA '" NEVADA "ARIZONA '~ HAWAII BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93306 ..., f805) 872-4750 ', FAX {805) 872-6356 ' CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE ON SITE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES ,,). ? .g- (... ~o,¢.?,A. o,,L 4tX S,AMPLE~ LOCATION DESIGNATION _ ..__~_: ~ ~J__.. I7 _l~_~_Z -. ...... . 5i~ol !~'' !~:~ x~_ .......... " ~'~ ~' E.~fB~(SIGNATUFIE) _---- TIME RECEIVED BY {SIGNATURE) iSiGNAi'LiRE) I (JAf~ TiME I .... : ..................... Y BY DATE Ti~II: IREMARKS; 532'7 WINGFOOT DRIVE ' BAKERSFIF._LD, CALIFORNIA 93306 (805) 872-4750 · FAX (805) 872-6356 i, CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE ON SITE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES BY: [SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGIqATURE) HELiNQUiSt~ED DY (S~GNAT[ ~E) l~ ' TIME ' R~CEIV/D BY {S GNATURE) ~eL~uu,.¢,¢~c~, ........ BY' (qI~NATtJRE) DATE TIME RECEIVED FOR LA$ORAIORY BY DATE TIME REMARKS: .I ! ' I ,'1 ! 1 '! ~ Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. i A Member of The Earth Systems Group I WORK PLAN FOR WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION NO. 29 I UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITE SOIL CHARACTERIZATION I 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA I ! i February 5, 1993 I Prepared by Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. i 6701 MeDivitt Drive, Suite B Bakersfield, California 93313 (805) 836-0901 i · FAX (805) 836-0911 Project No.: EB-8322-1 I ! TABLE OF CONTENTS WORLD OIL SERVICE STATION 'NO. 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIF:ORNIA PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 3 SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN ................................................................................. 7 SITE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................. 7 Soil Boring Drilling and Sampling ................................................................ 7 Laboratory Analysis of Soil Samples .............................................................. l I- REPORT OF FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... 11 SCHED~ OF COMpLETIoN ........................................................................................... 11 FIGURE I ~ VICINITY MAP ........................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 2 - SITE MAP ..................................................................................................... 13 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 Corporation's Service Station No. located at Brundage Lane, Oil 29 2101 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 gasoline constituent volatile aromatics were detected in soil samples the 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 Regional 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 I World Oil Service Station No. 29 2 February 5, 1993 O 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 findings 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 Titl~e 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/geotechnical 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. I EB-8322- t 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 3 February 5, I993 ' ~ BACKGROUND I World Oil Corporation contracted with Hallmark Construction Company of Los Angeles, California to remove the four 12,000 gallon underground fuel storage tanks, 'l , twelve gasoline dispensers, and associated product lines at the site. Hallmark Construction subcontracted with Mobile Labs of Bakersfield, California to provide Ilaboratory analytical services for soil samples collected during the tank removal operations. I On October 21, 1992 Hallmark Construction excavated the soil above and around the I tanks, and removed the tanks, dispensers and associated product pipelines. The tanks were removed under City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division permit. I Mobile Laboratories contracted with Earth Systems Environmental to provide an Ienvironmental technician to collect soil samples at the direction of Mr. Joe Dunwoody with the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. I Six soil samples were collected at depths of two feet and Six feet beneath the east end, i west end and cemer 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 I each of the 12 dispensers at the site. These samples are designated S-I through S-t2. Four composite soil samples (C-1 through C-4) were collected from within the I stockpile of soll 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 I 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 ithe 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 I labeled, handled and transported according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol to a State of California Departmem of Health Services (DOHS) certified laboratory. I EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP I World Oil Service Station No. 29 4 February S, 1993 ! I 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, pr~~ 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. I 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 i 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 15.214 I mg/kg. I 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 Ithe four soil samples from the stockpiled soil. Table 2 presents the analytical results for the 12 soil samples from beneath the gasoline tanks. I I I I E1~-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 5 February 5, 1993 TABLE 1 ~Anatyt!eai results expressea m mm~grams per...~mo:~ram) ......... samplei Location ~ T, PPH ~[ Toluene Ethyl, I Total S- lA W.. DispenserrS.....End 6'. 20. ND. ....... ND .... ND , , ND S-2,, :W ~Dispens,er-S. ,Ce0ter 2' 2~21.,,, , ND. ,_ND, , ND ND.. S-2A...;.,W DispenserT, S C.e. nt. er . 6' 33 . . ND . J ND ,, ND S-3,,. W .Dispenser-N Cea 2' 4,4 ...... ND ND, ND ND S:,3A , ,W ... Dispenser-.N Cen . 6' ~)612,, ND 8,..23.8~ , ,ND ....... S-4 W, Dispenser-N, E,nd 2,' !9 .... ND, ND, ND , ND S-4A,, W Dispenser-N End, 6' 8 ..... ND ND ,, ND ND i S~5 Cen. Dispenser-S End 2' ND ND ND.. , ND. ND ,'S~5A' ,Cen Disp,en, ser-S, End,' 6' ND ,ND ,ND ND ND S.-6 ~ ,Cgn ,D~sp~nse~r:S, Cea ,2,' ND .... ,ND , ND ND ND S-6A Cen Dispenser, S, ,Cea ,.6' 884* ND 2.643* ND 601959*, ~ fi-7" Cen .,D~spens.er-.N Cen., 2' . i1'6'*,' ......, ND ~. ND. . ...... , ND ., ..,, 2.662* S-7A,, Ceg,, Dispe.n,~ser,-N ,Cen ,, 61 41 ND ND ND , ND,~ S-8 Cen .DispenserTN ,E~d.,' 2' "5'3' ND' "ND~ ND ND S-9 E, Dispe,n,ser-S,End ...2' , .... 34 ,, .ND , ~ ND ,,. ND . ND. ·S.-9,A E ,, Dispenser-S ,End ..... 6,' ND ND ND ND ND ,S-10 E Dispe, n,ser-S Cea 21 bid ... ,Np, ND ND ND ,,'S"10A " E, Dispenser-S Cen " 6, ,,, ' ND ........ ,ND .... , ,~ND, ,, ' ....... ND ND S- 1 ! ,,E,., Dispenser-N ,C,en ,, 2' 10 ND ND ND , ,ND, ,, ~-IIA E Disp,enser-N ,Cea' 6'" 15 " ND .... ND ND ND , S,,.,12A .... E, Dispeaser-N End , , 6' i , ND , ..... .,ND ND, .ND ND C-1 North End Stockpile 4' 10 ND. ,, ND ND ND .C:3 .......... E,a, st Side Stockpile .... ,4', , 41 ND , I, ND ND' .. .ND. ...... C-4 South ,E,nd ,,S,t, oq,kpile 4' ,850'' ND , ,iND ND 4.428* MRL ........ NA ..... NA 5 ,, ,,0r0,~01 ,,, 0~001 , ,0.001 , 0.001 , A, L, N,A NA, 100 0 67 1 ,0, 3 0 2 0 ND: None Detected at or above minimum reporting level (MILL). NA: Not Applicable *: Exceeds RWQCB recomm_ende~l 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. I EB-8322-1 9301-$031.WP I World Oil Service Station No. 29 6 February 5, 1993 ' ! . · TABLE 2 (Analytical results expressed in milligrams per kilogram) Sample Location ' 'TPP. H ' Benzene Tol'u~nl;'[ T~tai NO, Gasoline ] benz-ene ~ ...S'1.3 .... Tank 2-Center 2' 1,010' 'ND 1.232' ND 17,896' ! I S;13A ""~ank 2-Center 6' .. ,1.100. ND 16,719' ' ND 101.670' 'S- 1'4 ..... Tank i",Ea'~t End ' ' 2; .... ' i0... ND ND ND ND' S- 14A 'Tank i-East End 6' 8 .... ND ND ND ND I .... S-15 .... Tank. 'l-~'en/;r'' ' 2' ] ..... 2i'" ND ' ND ND.. ND 'S"-'I5'A' ' tank '"l-C~nter ......... 6' .... ND ND ND ND ND ,i,,,' '. i ,hk:' E-d,.',,,,,, ':",, 2' 86, ND ND 1.. 11 ' · ! S-16A Tank 1-West End 6' i,416. ND . 45.742* ND 161.403' ,· !.'u_'~ii7''i".'...Ta.n.k .3.-.C...en.t.,e.r .. 2' 3,066, 12.417' 109.232' 2.224 2091225, .S-..17A. .... Tank 3-Cente. r ............. 6'. ......... 1TI,.. NI?.. 1.547, ND 23.051' I Tank.2 West End 2' '~ 4,112, 15.214. 127.826, 5.010, 220.918' S,,,-!S, , ,, , , ............. , S:[,8A Tank. 2-West En..d ........ 6'.... 3.,0.46.* ...... 1,,.850, 59.2.90. ND 204,717, .... S.r !9.. .... T..ank...3:We.s.t...End 2'.... 2,867* 7.080, 94.182' 1.312 207.777* I .S-!.9A. Tanl~. 3..Wes. t En.d 6..'. 2,560' 0.575- . 9.1.755'" ND.. 199.613. S:20. Tank 4.-.East .En.d ..2.' .. 102, ND ND ND' 1.216 S-20A Tank 4-East End 6' 186' ...,ND ND ND_ 2.435* 1· ['.'.".Si:.2il...i. iTan'k.. '4}center ..".' 2.,..".'....".3'1...' ...'")] ND ND_ ND 0~.339 S.21A Tank ' 4-Center .6' 23 ND ND ND 0. !.9.7 .. S.22 Tank 4~west End 2' ~ 2,314. ND 79~630. ND 205.173. I .8.7.2..2A. .Tank. 4-.West End ... 6' ..... 2.,1!8, ..N~..... 70:875* ND t89.66[* ...... S-23 ....... Tank.. 3-East.. End ...... 2~. .... 1.,256' ND. .2.101. ND 13.011, S-23A Tank 3-East E.nd .6' .~ 1.,010... ND' ......... ND ND ~1 .2,226'~ S~24 Tank 2-East End 2' 33 ND ND ND ND I .Tank 2-East End ...... 6',, 41 ...... .,ND, , ,, ND ...... ND . . ND MRL NA NA 5 0.001 0.001 .0,001 0,001 i A L .. N.A .............. .. NA ,'..1.0.0.. ..... 0.67 1.0 '3,0 . 2.0 I ND: None Detected at or above minimum reporting level (MRL). NA: Not Applicable *: Exceeds RWQCB recommended guidelines. A L: Regional Water Quality. Control Board recommended guidelines for contaminants in soil. The 1 · recommended guidelines were calculated using the LUFT methodology by multiplying the most I 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 I groundwater. ,I I EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP I World Oil Service Station No. 29 7 February 5, 1993 I Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analysis, TPPH as gasoline, and the I gasoline constituent volatile aromatics were detected at concentrations in excess of RWQCB recommended guidelines for additional assessment activities. Samples where I 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 I 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, 8-17, S-17A, S-19, S-19A, S-23 and. S-23A. I 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 I 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 Iextent of the impacted soil, and to determine whether there is a threat of these hydrocarbons impacting groundwater. I 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 '1 .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 I 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 I work plan. SITE CHARACTERIZATION I Soil Boring Drilling and Sampling Prior to drilling, Underground Service Alert (USA) will be notified a minimum of 48 Ihours 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 Itank cavity to a bottom hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity to assess I EB-8322-I 9301-5031.WP ! World Oil Service Station No. 29 $ 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. borings (TH-4 through TH-7) positioned to assess The other four soil will be 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-53TM 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 groundwater, less 50' if than 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 beneath the site with the direction of flow the south grade groundwater to (Kern County Water Agency, 1991 Report on Water Conditions, Improvement District No. 4, 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 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 will be observed for evidence of sheen, odor, and sample floating product, 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 I EB-$322-1 9301-5031.WP I World Oil Service Station No. 29 9 February $, 1993 ' ! samples for laboratory analysis. ESE will submit grab samples only at the written I 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 I 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 I586) 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). Headspaee vapor analysis is performed by first discarding a portion of the soil retained at one end of the sleeve to produce a headspaee. 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 destination. Laboratory analysis will be performed on all of the samples from the vertical I 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. 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 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 operator 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 backfilled with a five sack cement sand slurry with the aid of a tremmie pipe. I EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 I 1 February 5, 1993 Laboratory_ Analysis of 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 To~al Purgeable Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPPHg) with a minimum detection limit of 1.0 mg/kg, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) with a minimum detection limit of 0.005 my/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. I I I I EB-8322-1 930 !-5031.WP I World Oil Service Station No. 29 12 February 5, 1993 ' ! ! Thank you for your consideration, of 'this work plan. If you have any questions, or if I we can be of service in any way, please contact this office at your convenience. I R espectfully Submitted, I EARTH SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. I ! ! I ! I cc.: Addressee- 1 World Oil - Greg Petmska o 1 I SLO- 1 I I I I EB -8322-1 9301-5031 .WP , Systems T I TLE Figure APPENDIX A SITE HEALTH AND 'SAFETY PLAN I SITE tIEALTH 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 residemial subdivision. The overall site topography is essentially 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, 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 5-13 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-1 through C-4) were collected from within the stoekpiie of soil from above and around the former tank locations. I I World Oil Service Station No. 29 4 February 5, 1993 ! 'l 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 rog/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 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. 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 I EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP World Oil SerVice Stntion No. 29 $ February $, 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, mobiIi~ation, project operations, and demobilization. Changes and/or unanticipated site conditions may requtre 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 1910.120 (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 of responsibility for other health and acceptance any 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 subcontractor's Site Health and Safety Plan at any time. EB-8322-1 9301-503 ! .WP I World Oil Service Station No. 29 6 February 5, 1993 I 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: Corporate Health and Safe.ty Officer 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 Manager The ESE Project Manager (PM) for this prOjeCt is Mr. Mark Magargee. It is his 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. · 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. Site Health and SafeW 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. I · 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. I * Assign key safety duties and responsibilities to team members. · Monitor the work parties for signs of stress, and also monitors on-site I hazards and conditions. · Know emergency procedures, evacuation routes, arranges on-site first aid i facilities and off-site emergency care. · Conduct daily safety meetings and periodic inspections to determine if SHSP is being followed. I · Establish and maintain site record keeping, including reporting accidents, as required. I · Participate in preparation of SHSP and revise it as necessary. · Verify that drilling Or excavation locations have been cleared for I underground utilities and other subsurface structures before subsurface exploration is initiated. I Team. The responsibilities for the team members are as follows: I · Take all reasonable precautions to prevent injury to themselves and to their fellow employees; and I · 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. I · 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 ] c. so. I I EB-8322-1 930I -$031 .WP ! World Oil Service Station No.' 29 8 February 5, 1993 ' O ! SITE INFORMATION I 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 I 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 eontamina~ted 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 Charaeteristjc~ Hydrocarbon Fuels Liquid/Absorbed Irritant The following materials potentially present at this project site are specified by California Health and Safety Code 25249.5 as recognized and confirmed by the State of California as carcinogenic and/or mutagenic: 1. Gasoline fuel containing benzene. EB-8322-1 9301-503 I.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 - PUrENTIAL EXPOSURE VALUES Chemical Highest. Conc. IP1 TLV2 I LI-I3 Flammable Detected in (electron (ppm) Level Range .~ Sami>les (pi>m) volts) (percent) Benzene 15,214 . 0.9245 !0 ~ Carcinogen 1.3- 7.1 ' lionization Potential in electron volts (eV) 2Threshold Limit Value as the time-weighted .average (TWA) published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) 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. IConditions. for Suspension. of Operations Site monitoring equipment will include a Photo-ionization detector (PID) or a Flame- Iionization detector (FID) during drilling and trenching. Field activities at Level D I I EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil SerVice Station No. 29 1 0 February 5, 1993 ' suspended when 'the continuous FID or PID level in the breathing zOne ten times background levels (assuming an ambient range of five to ten ~onal Protection Equipment (PPE) needed for this investigation is D PPE includes coveralls, leather boots with steel toes and shanks, eye helmet and gloves. If warranted, this Site Safety Plan can be use of Level C situations. Modification to Level B or Level A is beyond this Site Safety Plan and is not permitted. Level C PPE is the detection of unknown or for upgrading to gasses 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. phyS.i.cal. Hazards Drilling equipment will be working near buildings and overhead phone lines. Proper precautions required when working around an operating drill rig will be All workers will be upwind from drilling equipment at strictly adhered to. positioned 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 shall chemical resistant gloves and goggles to All field personnel appropriate wear prevent potential dermal exposure to accident splashes and spills that may occur during excavation of contaminated soil and soil samnlinm I EB-8322-! 930t-5031.WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 I 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. He~.t. Stre$~ 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. I Heat stress monitoring should commence when personnel are wearing PPE, including Tyvek-type coveralls, and the ambient temperature exceeds 70°F. If iimpermeable 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 I 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 I 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 I heat stroke or heat exhaustion, that person may be predisposed to additional heat injuries. To avoid heat stress, the following steps may be taken: I · Modify work/rest schedules according to monitoring requirements, and mandate slowdowns as needed. I I EB -8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 2 February 5, 1993 I · Alternate personnel assigned to particular tasks to minimize over stress at I one job function. · Add additional persons to work team, and work during cooler hours, if i possible. · Provide shelter or shaded areas to protect personnel during rest periods. I · 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 I least 16 ounces of fluid during each rest period. · Encourage workers to maintain an optimal level of physical fitness. I 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 I 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 I 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. i Some of the signs and symptoms of heat stress are heat rash, heat cramps, heat 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 treatment with mild drying lotions are necessary to prevent infection. Heat cramps are caused by heavy sweating with inadequate electrolyte I replacemem and are characterized by muscle spasms and pain in the hands, feet, and abdomen. Treatment of this disability consists of administering salted liquids orally. I 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 i I 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 I as follows: 1. Immediately remove victim to support area, or if you are the victim, I proceed to the support area. I EB -8322-1 9301-5031 .Wp I World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 3 February 5, 1993 ' ! 2. Decontaminate, if practical, before entering support area. I 3. Start cooling, but be careful not to cause a chill. i 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 I room. 6. If person is a victim of heat exhaustion, they should not work the I remainder of ~the day. The most serious form of heat stress is heat stroke. This is caused when the Iregulation 'fails and the body rises to critical levels. temperature temperature Immediate action must be taken to cool the body before serious injury and death I 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 i 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 I 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. I 4. Treat for shock, if needed. I 5. Transport the victim to a medical facility immediately for further cooling and monitoring of body functions. I Cold Stress Cold stress is a particular concern when field activities are performed while the air I 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. i · Donning of appropriate clothing, having warm shelter readily available, carefully I ~ scheduling work and rest periods, and monitoring workers' physical conditions are precautions that will be taken to prevent cold stress. I I 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 o? 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. I Heavy Equipment .and. Dr_illing Before beginning any site work, the drilling subcontractor will perform a safety I 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 Iimproper use for site conditions. All equipment shall be bonded and grounded, sparkproof, and explosion-resistant, as appropriate. I 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 I EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 1 5 February 5, 1993 boots/shoes are required during drilling operations, as well as during operation of other heavy equipment. IThe driller must maintain a safe clearance (at least 10 feet) between overhead utility lines and the drill rig at all times. I Underground.. Utiliti,es., I The general engineering contractor will locate all underground utility locations prior to the starting of drilling activities. Resources used include s'ite plans, utility companies, and Underground Services Alert (USA). In California, USA must be I contacted at least two, but not more than fourteen, days prior to drilling on public property. I MEDICAL MONITORING I All Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. (ESE) employees assigned to the sampling operations must be active participants in ESE Employee Medical Surveillance I Program, which meets the requirements of 29 CFR t910.120. 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 I current copies of training certificates and statements of medical program participation for all site personnel. I Work-Rest Schedule I 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 I site supervisor. A supply of potable water will be kept available near the site. Safety Training I 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 Ihours 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 tnelude Ithe following: I 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 Contacts Should any situation or unplanned occurrence require outside or support services, the appropriate contact from the following should be made: Agency Person to Contact Telephone Ambulance dispatcher 91 t 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 first 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. I EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP I World Oil S~'vice Station No. 29 1 7 February 5, 1993 I I 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 att 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, ali 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 rtnse and a contaminant-free distilled water rinse. I EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 I 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 no debate! immediately, * 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 selection other route will be emergency, escape based on the nature of the emergency and wind direction. 3. Visual contact should be maintained between "buddies" on-site, with the team remaining in close proximity in order to assist each other in case of 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 1 9 February 5, 1993 I i 5. Wind indicators visible to all on-site personnel should be provided by the project supervisor to indicate possible routes for upwind escape. I 6. The discovery of any condition that would suggest the existence of a situation more hazardous than anticipated should result in the evacuation of the field I team and re-evaluation of the hazard and the level of protection 'required. 7. In the event an should accident occur, it will be necessary to complete an Accident Report Form with the company Safety officer. STANDARD SAFE-WORK PRACTICES General 1. Eating, drinking, chewing tobacco and smoking are prohibited in the contaminated or potentially contaminated area of where the possibility for the transfer of contamination exists. 2. Avoid contact with potentially contaminated substances. Do not walk through puddles, pools, mud, etc. Avoid, whenever possible, kneeling on the ground, leaning or sitting on equipment or ground. Do not place monitoring equipment on potentially contaminated surfaces (i.e., ground, etc.). All field crew members should be alert to the presence of strong, irritating or 3. nauseating odors that could indicate a potentially dangerous situation. Other senses should be kept alert to possible hazards as well. 4. Precaution should be taken to prevent spillage. In the event a spillage should occur, the liquid should be contained. 5. Prevent splashing of the contaminated liquids. 6. Field crew members shall be familiar with the physical characteristics of investigations, including following: the * Wind direction in relation to ground-zero area. * Accessibility to associates, equipment, and vehicles. * Communications. * Hot Zone (areas of known or suspected contamination). * Site access. I EB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 20 February 5, 1993 O * 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 The Plan Acceptance Form (attached) should be filled out by all employees working on the site and retained in the job file. 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. Signature:~Date:~~/~_~. BB-8322-1 9301-5031 .WP World Oil Service Station No. 29 2 1 February 5, 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 I i I EB-8322-1 9301-5031.WP PRELIMINARY SITE CHARACTERIZATION WORLD OIL STATION NO. 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA April 22, 1993 Prepared by Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. 6701 McDivitt Drive, Suite B Bakersfield, California (805) 836-0901 FAX (805) 836-0911 Project No. EB-8322-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Description .......................................................................................... 2 1.2 Project History ........................................................................................... 2 2.0 GF_DLOGIC SEITING ................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Geologic Conditions ................................................................................... 2.2 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................. 3.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION .............................................................................. 6 3.1 Drilling and 'Soil Sampling ...................................................................... 6 3.2 Laboratory Analysis ................................................................................. 8 4.0 RESULTS OF ENV/RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................................................... 8 4.1 Subsurface Conditions .............................................................................. 8 4.2 Soil Vapor Monitoring .............................................................................. 9 4.3 Laboratory Analytical Results ................................................................ 9 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 11 6.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................. 12 6.1 In-Sim Vapor Extraction .......................................................................... 12 6.2 Natural In-Situ Biodegradation .............................................................. 13 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 14 8.0 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................. 14 REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 16 Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Map Figure 3 Geology Map Figure 4 Cross Section A-A' Figure 5 Cross Section B-B' Table 1 Summary of Analytical Data Dispenser Decommisioning Table 2 Summary of Analytical Data UST Decommisioning Table 3 Summary of Soil Vapor Monitoring - Drilling Operations Table 4 Summary of Analytical Data - Drilling Operations Appendix A Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. A Member o! The Earth Systems Group 6701 McDivitt Drive, Suite B · Bakersfield, CA93313 · (805)836-0901 ,, FAX (805)836-0911 April 22, t993 Doc. No.: 9303-5024.RPT Project No.: EB-8322-1 World Oil Marketing Company 9302 South Garfield Avenue South Gate, CA 90280 Attention: Mr. Greg Petruska S~: PRELIMINARY SITE CHARACTERIZATION FOR GASOLINE IMPACTED SOILS WORth OIL STATION NO. 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFll~.D, CALIFORNIA Reference: Soil Characterization Work Plan, World Oil Station No. 29 (ESE, February 5, 1993) 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a preliminary site characterization performed by Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. (ESE) at World Oil Marketing Company's (World Oil) Station No. 29 located at 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California. ESE · proposed to conduct-a Phase I Soil Characterization associated with a release of gasoline hydrocarbons from the underground gasoline storage tanks (USTs) and associated fuel dispensers at the above referenced facility which were removed under permit issued by the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division (BFDFIMD). On October 21, 1992 Hallmark Construction excavated the soil above and around the tanks, and removed the USTs, dispensers and associated product pipelines. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH(g)) and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes (BTEX) were detected in soil samples from beneath each of the four USTs, the western and central dispenser islands, and in the stockpiled soil. The greatest concentration of TPH(g) detected was 4,112 mg/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 15.214 rog/kg. These concentrations are in excess of Regional Water Quality Control World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 2 April 22, 1993 Board (RWQCB) guidelines for gasoline hydrocarbons in the soil, and resulted in the BFDHMD requesting an initial site characterization. The scope of work for this project was developed in consultation with Mr. Greg Petruska of World Oil Corp., and Mr. Ralph Huey of BFDHMD. All drilling, sampling, equipment decontamination, sample transfer, and analytical methods employed are in compliance with federal, state and local regulations and guidelines. Work performed to date includes the following: · Development of site health and safety, and technical work plans. · Drilling and sampling of seven exploratory soil borings to a maximum depth of 100 feet below surface grade. · Laboratory analysis of 41 selected soil samples for TPH(g), and BTEX. · Preparation of this report presenting our results, conclusions, and remedial action alternatives for the site. 1.1 Site Description The site is located at 2101 Brundage Lane in the city of Bakersfield, Kern County, California (Figure 1). The site was formerly operated as a retail gasoline station. The site is located in an area of commercial and residential properties. The overall site topography is generally flat, sloping slightly to the south. 1.2 Site History World Oil contracted with Hallmark Construction Company of Los Angeles, California to remove the four 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs, 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 UST removal operations. On October 21, 1992 Hallmark Construction excavated the soil above and around the tanks, and removed the USTs, dispensers and associated product pipelines. The tanks were removed under BFDHMD permit. Mobile Laboratories subcontracted with ESE to EB-8322- 1 9303-5024. RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 3 April 22, 1993 provide an environmental technician to collect soil samples under the direction of Mr. Joe Dunwoody of BFDHMD. 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 USTs as shown on Figure 2. These samples are designated S-13 through S-24. Soil samples were also 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. In addition, four composite soil samples (C-1 through C-4) were collected from within the stockpile of soil excavated from above and around the former USTs. The soil samples taken from the stockpile were collected by driving 2-inch diameter brass tubes into the stockpiled soil. The soil samples collected from beneath the former gasoline dispensers were collected by hand auger, and the soil samples collected from beneath the USTs were collected from the backhoe bucket immediately after soil excavation and stored in 2-inch 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 Mobile Labs, Inc., a State of California Department of Health Services (DOHS) certified laboratory. Sample identification and chain-of-custody procedures were followed 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, then rinsed again with de-ionized water prior to sampling. At Mobile Labs, the soil samples were analyzed for TPH(g) using USEPA Test Method 5030/8015M (modified for gasoline), and for the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) using USEPA Test Method 503018020. EB-8322- 1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 4 April 22, 1993 TPH(g), and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, 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(g) detected was 4,112 mg/kg in Sample $-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 15.214 mg/kg. Tables I and 2 can be found at the end of the text which summarize the analytical results for the facility decommisioning operations. Table 1 presents the analytical results for TPH(g), and BTEX 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 USTs. Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analysis, TPH(g), and BTEX were detected at concentrations in excess of RWQCB 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 west end of the southern UST No. 1, S-13, S-13A, S-18 and S-18A at the west 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 west end of the northern UST No. 4. The BFDHMD required 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 these hydrocarbons pose a threat of impacting groundwater. EB-8322-I 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 5 April 22, 1993 2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 2.1 Geologic Conditions Regional Geology: 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. Surface and groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley is derived predominantly frbm the Sierra Nevada mountain range to the east, and is transported by five major rivers, the southern most being the Kern River. The subject site is located approximately two miles south of the Kern River. The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed primarily of unconsolidated Pleistocene (1.6 million to 11,000 years ago) and Recent (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 20,000 feet. Site Geology: Geologic deposits in the study area include Pleistocene alluvial sediments of 'the Kern River Formation, which form a homocline dipping gently to the soUthwest (Figure 3). The deposits are alluvium consisting of poorly indurated and dissected fan deposits (CDMG, 1964). 2.2 H3, drogeology 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 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 Kern Lake bed (Kern County Water Agency, 1991 Water Supply Report, May 1992). No perched groundwater is known to exist beneath the subject site. EB -8322- 1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 6 April 22, 1993 3.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 3.1 Drilling and Soil Sampling Prior to commencing field operations, a technical work plan was reviewed and approved by BFDHMD personnel. Underground Service Alert was notified 48 hours in advance of the site activities. Drilling was performed by Melton Drilling and commenced on March 2, 1993 using both MobileTM B-80 and B-53 truck-mounted drill rigs, equipped with 6-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. Borings under the overhead canopy of the dispenser islands were drilled using Melton's prototype B-53 drill rig with a detachable mast capable of being .positioned beneath a 12 foot overhang. The augers were steam cleaned prior to use to minimize the possibility of cross-contamination. A total of seven soil borings were drilled in this phase of soil characterization (Figure 2). Soil boring TH-1 was slam drilled at a 30° angle from vertical from the south side of the gasoline tank cavity to a depth of 100 feet below surface grade and a 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 below surface grade to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this probable source. Soil boring TI-I-3 was advanced adjacent to the central dispenser island to a depth of 35 feet below surface grade to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this probable source. Soil borings TH-4, TH-5, TH-6, and TH-7 were positioned to the north, east, south and west of the source areas to assess the lateral limits of impacted soil in those directions, respectively. An experienced environmental geologist under the direct supervision of a California Registered Geologist was on site to log the borings, monitor soils during drilling, and collect soil samples. Boring logs are presented in Appendix A. EB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 7 April 22, 1993 Soil samples were collected at 5-foot intervals in each of the borings 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 stainless steel sleeves for soil retention. The soil samples were obtained by driving the sampler with a 140-pound hammer dropping 30 inches in accordance with ASTM D 1586. The lowermost sleeve at each sample interval was screened for total organic vapors with a photo-ionization detector (PID). Headspace vapor analysis was performed by first discarding a portion of the soil retained at one end of the sleeve to produce a headspace. The sleeve was then capped and the probe of the PID was inserted through a hole in the cap and into the headspace for analysis. The PID was calibrated with an isobutylene standard of 100 parts per million (ppm) and contained an 11.8 electron volt (eV) lamp, capable of detecting benzene (9.25 eV). The PID readings are recorded on the boring logs and in Table 3 (see section 4.2, Soil Vapor Monitoring). The middle sample sleeve was immediately sealed with Teflon® film, capped, and placed on ice at less than 4°C for transport to a California Department of Health Services (DOHS) certified laboratory. The temperature within the ice chest was · recorded at each sampling interval and recorded on the chain-of-custody document. Strict chain-of-custody procedures were utilized for all samples collected to ensure · sample integrity and to document sample possession from the time of collection to the final destination. The temperature within the ice chest was recorded at the time that the ice chest was delivered to the laboratory and recorded on the chain-of-custody document. Sampling equipment was washed with TSP (tri-sodium phosphate) cleanser, and rinsed with tap water and de-ionized water prior to sampling, between sample intervals, and between'borings to minimize the potential of cross contamination. The augers were steam cleaned prior to drilling and between borings to minimize the potential of cross contamination. The borings were backfilled with a cement- bentonite slurry. EB -8322-1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 8 April 22, 1993 3.2 Laboratory Analysis Forty-one soil samples were submitted to Mobile Labs. The soil samples were analyzed for TPH(g) with a minimum detection limit of 1.0 mg/kg using USEPA Test Method 5030/8015M (modified for gasoline), and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, BTEX with a minimum detection limit of 0.005 mg/kg using USEPA Test Method 5030/8020. 4.0 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.1 Subsurface Conditions Subsurface material encountered during drilling was alluvium to the total depth of each boring. The alluvium was characterized by unconsolidated, moderate to low permeability, slightly moist, dark brown, silt (ML) to a depth of approximately 17 feet, overlying unconsolidated, highly permeable, slightly moist, tan, well graded medium- to coarse-grained sand (SW/GW) with minor gravel to a depth of approximately 28 feet. Underlying this is a zone of unconsolidated, highly permeable, slightly moist, light tan, well graded very fine- to medium-grained sand (SW/SM) with minor silt to a depth of approximately 53 feet. This is underlain by an unconsolidated, highly permeable, dry, light tan, well graded, fine- to coarse-grained sand (SW) to a depth of 82 feet. Underlying this is a zone of consolidated, low permeability, slightly moist, light brown, silty clay (CL/ML) to a depth of 98 feet. This is underlain by an unconsolidated, highly permeable, slightly moist, tan, well graded medium- to coarse-grained gravelly sand (SW/GW) to a depth of 100 feet which is the greatest depth peneffated in this investigation. Cross Sections AA' and BB' have been prepared to integrate the geology, the location of the former underground storage tanks and dispensers, and the distribution of gasoline hydrocarbons in the subsurface (see Figures 4 and 5). EB -8322-1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 9 April 22, 1993 4.2 Soil Vapor Monitoring Soil vapors were detected in the soil samples obtained from boring TH-I advanced beneath the location of the former gasoline tanks at elevated concentrations to a depth of 80 feet, and continued at detectable concentrations to a depth of 90 feet. Soil vapors were detected in the soil samples obtained from boring TH-2 advanced through the location of the western dispenser to a depth of 80 feet. Soil vapors were detected in the soil samples obtained from boring TH-3 advanced through the location of the central dispenser at elevated concentrations through the depth of 35 feet. Soil vapors were observed at very low to non detectable concentrations in the lateral ~assessing borings TH-4, TH-5. TH-6 and TH-7. These field readings are collaborated by the analytical results presented below. 4.3 Laboratory Analytical Results TPH(g) was not detected in boring TH-I, slant drilled from the south side of the tank cavity to a bottom hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity, in the samples from depths of 25, 35 and 45 feet. This was due to the boring being, in a lateral position to the former USTs at those depths. Below 45 feet, TPH(g) was detected increasing to a maximum concentration of 353 mg/kg at a depth of 75. feet, decreasing to 239 mg/kg at 85 feet, then dropping to 11 mg/kg at 95 feet, then back to non-detect at 100 feet. The gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, BTEX, were not detected in boring TH-1 in the samples from 25, through 45 feet, and in the samples from 95 and 100 feet. The volatile aromatics were detected directly below the former USTS in the samples from 55 feet through 85 feet. TPH(g) was detected in boring TH-2, positioned through the western dispenser location, at concentrations of' 39 rog/kg at 10 feet, 75 mg/kg at 20 feet; and 11 mg/kg at 30 feet. Below that depth, TH-2 intersected the lateral extent of the tank cluster plume and the hydrOcarbon concentration increased to 210 mg/kg at 60 feet, decreasing to 36 mg/kg at 70 feet, and remaining detectable at 36 mg/kg at 90 feet. The volatile aromatics were also detected in the samples from 10 feet through 90 feet in TH-2. TH-2 was terminated at that depth due to TH-1 already delineating the vertical extent of impacted soil directly beneath the former USTs at 100 feet. EB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 1 0 April 22, 1993 TPH(g) was detected in boring TH~3, positioned through the central dispenser location, at a concentration of 4,058 mg/kg at 10 feet, 725 mg/kg at 20 feet, then decreasing to 229 mg/kg at 30 feet and 234 mg/kg at 35 feet. The volatile aromatics were also detected in TH-3 in the samples from 10 feet through 35 feet. TH-3 was terminated at that depth due to TH-1 already delineating the vertical limits of impacted soil. TPH(g) was detected in boring TH-4, positioned 15 feet north and midway between the western and central dispenser islands, at a concentration of 39 mg/kg at 15 feet, 18 mg/kg at 25 feet, 15 mg/kg at 35 feet, and 16 mg/kg at 45 feet. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations. TPH(g) was detected in boring TH-5, positioned 25 feet east of the tank cluster, at a concentration of 14 rog/kg at 15 feet, 23 mg/kg at 25 feet, 15 mg/kg at 35 feet, and 51 mg/kg at 45 feet. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations. TPH(g)' was detected in boring TH-6, positioned 20 feet south of the tank cluster, at a concentration of 116 mg/kg at 10 feet, 8 rog/kg at 20 feet, 17 mg/kg at 30 feet, 12 mg/kg at 40 feet, and was not detected at 50 feet. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these-samples, with the exception of benzene at 0.162 mg/kg at 10 feet, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations in these samples. TPH(g) was detected in boring TH-7, slant-drilled from the southwest corner of the tank cluster, to a bottom hole location 15 feet west of the center of the tank cluster, at a concentration of 15 mg/kg at 25 feet, 29 mg/kg at 35 feet, 16 mg/kg at 45 feet, 71 mg/kg at 55 feet, and 117 mg/kg at 65 feet. TH-7 was terminated at that depth because TH-1 already delineated the vertical limits of impacted soil. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, with the exception of benzene at 0.063 mg/kg at 60 feet, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations in the samples. EB-8322-1 9303-5024. RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 1 1 April 22, 1993 Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, BTEX, 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 site- specific parameters including vertical separation to groundwater, soil lithology, fractures in subsurfaces, annual average precipitation, and any direct conduits to groundwater. The recommended guidelines are 1,000 mg/kg for TPH(g), 1.0 mg/kg for benzene and toluene, and 50.0 for ethylbenzene and total xylenes. Laboratory analytical results for the 41 selected soil samples from the seven borings are summarized in Table 4 Summary of Analytical Results. Copies of the analytical reports and chain-of-custody documentation are presented in Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Results. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The data obtained from the tank removal operations suggest that soil impacted with gasoline hydrocarbons at concentrations in excess RWQCB recommended guidelines exist 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 extend to a depth of less than 30 feet below surface, and in a radius of 15 feet from the location of the former gasoline USTs; to a depth less than 10 feet and within 10 feet radially from the western dispenser island; and to a depth of 15 feet and within a 10 foot radius of the center dispenser island. Based on the field information and analytical data, approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil contain hydrocarbon concentrations greater than 1,000 mg/kg. EB -8322-1 9303-5024. RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 1 2 April 22, 1993 6.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES At least two alternatives for remediation of the soil are applicable to the site; Option 1) in-situ vapor extraction, and Option 2) in-situ natural biodegradation. 6.1 In-Situ Vapor Extraction Option 1 would involve treating the soil to non-hazardous concentrations through the process of in-situ soil vapor extraction. While ESE recommends the following Option 2, ESE believes that in-situ soil vapor extraction would be appropriate as a second choice at this site because the soil appears to be impacted with low molecular weight gasoline hydrocarbons which will respond very favorably to this technology. This option would allow the soil to remain in place, and the volatile aromatic hydrocarbons to be extracted through wells drilled into the impacted soil. The effectiveness of this option would be dependant on the ability of an air flow to be created throughout the zone of impacted soil, permitting the volatile aromatic hydrocarbons to volatilize, and to then be extracted through the wells. The stratigraphy and high soil permeabilities at this site lends itself well to. vapor extraction. ESE's experience in vapor extraction of volatile aromatic hydrocarbons from high permeability soils indicates that the time frame for successful treatment would be approximately six months. The cost for in-situ vapor extraction would be approximately $65,000. Management fees including work plans, regulatory liaison, site supervision, soil sampling, and the closure report would be approximately $15,000. The overall cost for this option would be approximately $80,000. This is a costly alternative given the significant distance to groundwater. EB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 1 3 April 22, 1993 6.2: Natural In-Situ Biodegradation In view of the facts presented at this site, natural in-situ biodegradation is a viable alternative. This option is appropriate in these circumstances and is protective of the environment given the following facts: (1) the small volume of contamination; (2) the nearly 85 foot distance of vertical separation between the imPacted soil and the first occurrence of groundwater (at approximately 175 feet); (3) the existence of intervening sedimentary barriers to migration; and (4) the ability of natural processes to biodegrade the contamination without risk to groundwater or people. Furthermore, becaUse this option would not expose contaminated soil to people or the atmosphere, or take up scarce hazardous waste landfill space, this option poses the lowest risk to the environment and human health. If BFDHMD requires further analysis, a contaminant fate risk assessment could be done to document that the gasoline constituent hydrocarbons do not present a risk of affecting the public health at the site. Such a risk assessment would evaluate the potential for hazardous constituents to be released from or to migrate off site. Such a risk assessment would, be based on USEPA-HRS 1985, USEPA-HRS 1988, and NYDOH TR-847-ZC. All probability equations would be based on these recognized scoring ~ systems used by and develOped for state and federal regulatory agencies. The migration pathways assessed would be: on site contact, surface water transport, groundwater contamination, air vapor transport, and soil vapor transport. This type of risk assessment would cost'approximately $5,000. EB -8322-1 9303-5024. RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 1 4 April 22, 1993 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Having considered both of the options outlined above, ESE recommends approval of Option 2, the natural in-situ biodegradation option. We reached this recommendation because of the. geologic character of the area, the nature of the contaminant itself, and the absence of risk to groundwater or human health. Specifically, this recommendation is appropriate because of: (1) the depth to groundwater; (2) the existence of intervening sedimentary barriers between the contamination and known groundwater; (3) the small volume of contamination in the soil; (4) the opportunity to prevent contaminated soil from being exposed to the atmosphere where they would volatilize; (5) the opportunity to avoid transporting contaminated soils long distance to a hazardous materials landfill; (6) the opportunity to avoid occupying scarce hazardous waste landfill space; (7) the fact that natural processes will degrade the contaminant over time without risk to groundwater; and (8) the high costs of the other possible remedial alternatives (at least $80,000). In light of the advantages of Option 2 and the disadvantages of other approaches, World Oil recommends that BFDHMD approve Option 2. 8.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of World Oil Marketing Company as it pertains to the location of the former World Oil Station No. 29, 2101 Brundage Lane, B.akersfield~ California. The results contained in ~eaeh verbal or written report are based upon the information acquired during the assessment. It is possible that variations could exist beyond points explored during the course of the investigation. Also, changes in conditions found could occur at some time in the future due to contaminant migration, variations in rainfall, temperature, and/or other factors not apparent at the time of the field investigations. This report should not be regarded as a guarantee that no further contamination, beyond that which may have been detected within the scope of this study, is present on or beneath the site. If additional information regarding the possible presence or past use of hazardous materials at the site becomes available, then the need for further field investigation should be re-evaluated. Similarly, if suspected EB-8322~ 1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA l 5 April 22, 1993 contamination is encountered during earthwork or construction activities, a qualified engineer or geologist should be on-site to monitor the soils and collect samples for laboratory analysis. The services performed by ESE were conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the state of California. No other warranty is expressed or implied. Thank you for this opportunity to be 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. Kenneth Mitchell Mark R. Magargee,&R.(~. Staff Geologist Senior Hydrogeologist " cc: 1 - Addressee 2 - Greg Petruska - World Oil Corp. I Bakersfield File 1 - San Luis Obispo File EB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 1 6 April 22, 1993 REFERENCES · California Division of Mines and Geology, 1964, Geologic Map of California, Bakersfield Sheet. · Kern County Water Agency, 1991, Water Supply Report, September 1992. · Kern County Water Agency, 1991, Report on Water Conditions-Improvement District No. 4, February 1992. · Tri-Regional Board Staff Recommendations for Preliminary Evaluation and Investigation of Underground Tank Sites · California Water Resources Control Board, 1989, 'LUFT Manual Guidance Document. · California Water Quality' Control Board-Central Valley Region, Compilation of Water Quality Goals, October 1991. EB-8322-1 9303-5024. RPT FIGURES (^EARTH TITLE FIGURE SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. WORLD OIL PROPERTy ME~O~mE~S'~'~4S~ - 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE 8701 McDivitt Drive Suite B BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Bakersfield, Ca. 93313 EB-8275-1 (805) 836-0901 ¥1CINITY MAP FAX (805) 836-0911 ~!~ FENCE SCALE 1" = 20' I i~ TANK REMOVAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS I I i {~. BORING LOCATIONS ! i I i A FORMER DISPENSER S-4A~ . S- 12A r'- S.3A /S-11A S-2 i':':':~ .............. ;:"'"~ ,-~ "~' ................. S-23A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^EARTH SYSTEMS TITLE FIGURE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. WORLD OIL PROPERTY ~O~T.EEAm~S~'~S~R~U. 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE 2 6701 McDivitt Drive Suite B BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Bakersfield, Ca. 93313 PROJECTNO. (805) 836-0901 SITE MAP EB.8275-1 EARTH TITLE F~URE SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAl, INC. WO~LD OIL PROPERTy 8701 McDivi~ Drive Suite B BA~R~IELD, OAUFORN~ Bake~field, Ca. 93313 ~~' EB-8275-1 (805) 836-090~ GEOLOGY F~ (e05) e36-09~ I 10' 10' 20' ~ . ~ 20' 30' 30' 80' '~W='.Y" -- -=~:~.-.:.: 80' 90' '~~- -~~:~ 90' ~R~T~ ~D ~~ ~A~ 1' = ~ ~ SW- ~ G~DED S~D '~'~'~' SW~W- ~LL G~ED G~Y ~D '~'='~ ~SW~M- ~LL GRAND SIL~ ~D I~:~ C~L- SIL~ C~Y RTH TITLE F~URE SYSTEMS 2101 BRUNDAGE ~NE 4 6701 M~ivi~ Drive ~ite B ~RSFIELD, CALIFORN~ Baker~eld, Ca. 93313 P~ ~. (e0S} a3S-0S0~ CRO~ SE~ ~' E B-8275-~ F~ (e05) ~3~ II I El ~- -. ~L, ~ I TH-7; TH-1 THo5 {'~;';';';';'J'~.,,.~ ~ ~.~"" ...~~~..,.~', :':'4,,.':1% 20' ~_-.-.:.~ ,..:...~ 30' ~~ >~,ooo .................. . ~.~ :,.,.¢~;,-'.--~-~ ~ .~ ........ ~~~ ~- ........... ~' .'" -.,~'~;~..,.~ ~.**~-,=,~ . 40' · . :~.~. .~ ~.,.,, ~;~= .. ~ ~ .~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ '~ ~. ~ ............ ~';~ 2-'""-' ~, ~ :...:...:. ~-.:.-.:.-.:... . ~ ~.. .~ .~,~ ~.~ · '.'.'.-. '.-.-~.-. · ~ ~ 60' ~l ' ' ' ~ ...:.........~ ..... ~ ~ ~;~ .... ,~ ,'-:.'.:-'.:~'-~- .. 1~00 ~ -.~- ~ ......... · .'.:.'...'~.:-x.- ~ ~ . i~:~'. · ".' o~ .".' . ~ ' ~?"-' 70' ~~ >1~ M~Kg ..... 100' ~~~ RW/~W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~ 100' ~RIZ~TAL ~D ~AL ~ALE 1" = ~ ~- ~LL G~DED 8~D · · · SW~W- WELL G~D G~Y ~D ~ 8W/~ ~LL G~DED 81L~ ~ ML- SILT ~:~:~ C~L- SIL~ ~Y EARTH SYSTEMS . TITLE FIGURE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. WORLD OIL PROPERTY ~~~~" 2101 BRUNDAGE ~E 6701 U~iviE Drive Suite B BA~RSFIE~, CALIFORN~ Bakersfield, Ca. 93313 ~~N~ (805) 836-0901 CR~ ~~ ~ E B-8275-1 FAX (eo~ 836-09~ TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA - DISPENSER DECOMMISIONING Analytical results expressed in milligrams per kilogram (ppm by weight). Sample I [b enzene X~,lenes 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-SA Cen Dispenser-S End 6' ND ND ND i. 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-!0A E Dispenser-S Cen. 6' 'ND ND ND ND ND S- 11 E Dispenser..N Cen 2' 10 ..ND. . . ND ND ND S-I1A E Dispenser-N Cen 6' 15 ND ND ND ND S- 12 E Dispenscr-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' I 0 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,, 1 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 contarnirtants 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). No~ I .. Gasoline benzene S-13 UST 2-Center 2' Ii010. ' 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 1-Center. 2' 21 ND ND ND .......ND S-15A UST 1-Center 6' ND ND ND ND ND S- 16 UST 1-West End 2' 86 ND ND ND 1.111 .S-16A UST ..1-VCest.. End 6' !,416'. ND ..45.7'42* ND 161.403' S- 17 .. UST 3-Center 2' 3,066* . ,12.4.17' 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 91.755' · 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 ~I-21 UST 4-Center I 2' 31 " ND ND ND 0.339 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 E.nd ' 6' 2,118. ND 70.875* ..ND .189.661. S'-23 UST. 3.~.East End 2' 1,256,. ND ....... 2.!.0.1' ND 13.011 S-23A UST 3-.F_.ast 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' 41 ND ND ND ND MRL 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 A L lt000 I 1 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 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-3 SUMMARY OF SOIL VAPOR MONITORING - DRILLING OPERATIONS Values in parts per million by volume (ppm(v)). .Dep.th (fee.t)I TI-I-1 [ TH-2 [ TH-3 I TH-4 I I xI~-7 5 ND 10 2~000+ ND ND ND ND 10 ND 10 2,000+ 4 ND 10 ND 15 ND 20 20 ND 40 500 2 2 2 ND 25 ND 20 300 3 5 ND 2 30 ND 5 100 3 5 5 3 35 ND l0 100 2 5 2 5 40 NR 20 2 5 2 3 45 ND 15 2 3 ND 3 50 120 IO ND 10 55 125 50 20 60 145 , 100 , 20 · 65 150 40 20 70 170 20 75 260 15 $0 200 15 85 175 hid 90 20, 95 ND 100 ND ND: Not Detected. NR: No Recovery. TABLE-4 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA - DRILLING OPERATIONS Values in milligrams per kilogram (ppm by weight). Boring No.I DepthI TP~I I Benzene I Toluene [ Ethyl- I Total Gasoline benzene Xylenes TH-1 25' ND ND ND ND ND TH-I 35' ND ND ND ND ND TH-1 45' ND ND ND ND ND TH-1 55' 100 ND 0.73i 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' 11 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 2.533 TH-2 90' 36 0.023 0.134 ND 3.290 TH-3 1 o' 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 ND 20.312 A L 1~000 ,1 , 1 ,50 50 MRL I 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 ND: None Detected at or above minimm 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. TABLE-4 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA - DRILLING OPERATIONS Values in milligrams per kilogram (ppm by weight). Boring No.] Depth ] TPH Benzene } Toluene } Ethv!- [ Toial Gasoline be...nzene Xyl,enes TH-4 15' 39 ND 11~87' NlS' 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. i36 TH-6 10' 116 0. !,62 0.947 ND 7.706 I TH-6 20' 8 ND ND ND ,,, ND I 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 I, 0-063 0.805 ,ND , 3.8,33 I A L , 1;000 1 1 50 50 I MRL ,~ I I 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 LUFF 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. APPENDIX A Boring Logs WELL CONSTRUCT,ON ?..,,e~ ,,J)'" 'a~,~ I .;,~ $OIL DESCRIPTION I/ ~ ! .i -~ ~ ! I ! ,,~ I I I I I II I I I I I I I i I I I II It i I I I I I . SOIL DESCRIPTIOI4 ~i I .I .I ~ '' I I i i I ,,I I I ~ ! ~ ,,1~ I I I II I I t I .I II - I I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I II I I It -,I "1 I I ..! I I I I I _ I II I ~ ~ I II I I WELL I I I I I I I I I " It I I I I i II i I i -I i ! I I ~ [ ~ : --__ill I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I t I II I Iti II I I I I I I I I I ...... I Pro;ecl ~umbe~ CONSTRUCTION T,~FH pin · u . ~l ~l .; ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION i I I I I ~ I I ~ ~ .. I I I -I I I I I' I' I I II I I I I I I I I I, I I Ii I I I I I II "'~ I I I I I I I I t I, I I II t I I I I II I I ' I II v~- ~',~'/' I II .I I !' " I I t I I! I I I I II _ I I I I I I !I I I I I II I I~ I I WELL ~1~ ~ .~ ~ ~ g SOIL DESCRIP~OH conclusion r~ d '1 I - ~ ~' ~"/I ~1=~ ~ ., I I I I~ 110 b _ - I I I' I I II ' ~ ' Ii ~ i , !1 ---- I I I .I I I I I I I ~ ~ ,- I I I I I II i ~//~~ ~~ I I 7 z f ~o t ~- I~ I ~ ' I I I I I II I t I I I I "' I ~/~ ~~~ ~ ~ I I I I t Ii i I I I I II I I t ~ ,. I I t I II -,I I _ !' I I I I tl I I ~ ~ II I I I ~ I I I I I I I I II _ I "I I I[ Ii IllI I I'' ' ..... II II - - ' ' I'' I I I I I I I! ~.~~./~~a~~. ~ ~ L O'G o r. B 0 R ~ ~ G ~- ~ ~.,./~/ WELL I 1 -~1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... ' ~//~./~~ ELL I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I _ WELL I I I I.,,I I I I I I I ~ I I I ,I _ I I I -I .i' I I I I I I i I I [' --_ ! I s I ~ r~ ,,. I I I I I II I I" I I I I I I I i I I I II I I I I I .I I i I I I II I I I I ~ M ~ ~,'/~ ~/~~ ~-~'~~- I I /7 I I I I I t I I I I I II I t I I I~c~ I I I I II I t ~:,1, -.I I I ,_ I Il I I I I I I I I I I IJ I I '" I I I I I I -' i ~ I I I II ' '~ ClIE,,%I I CAL ANALYSE. S! I I I I I I WELL ~o~~.-" ! ;. SOIL D[SCRi~ON ~ I I I I I I I I I v x~ ~ I I -I i II i I i I II I t I I II I I I I I~ I I I I II I I I I II i I I I .11 , I I ,I t .11 i I ,I I II ,,~ i I I I It I I I I II I I I I II I I I I II I I I II I I I I - . ., ~ ~ t~ _ I I I I I I I _ I I I I , I I I I II ~/~ ~./~~~ ~. ~ L 0 ~ o L B 0 R I N ~ APPENDIX B Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody 5327 Wingfoot Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306 (805) 872-4750 Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 3/4/93 World Oil Site Date Analyzed : 3/14/93 2101 Brundage Lane Analyst : J.S. Johnson Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 93019 Sample Matrix ; Soils Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Tot Pet Hyds mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 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 ND .731, ND .502 100 TH-1 ~65 3.147 2.490 .616 4.496 166 TH-1 ~75 3~188 3.171 .590 20.242 353 TH-1 ~85 4.842 5.453 1.010 18.466 239 TH-1 ~95 ND ND ND ND TH-! ~100' ND ND ND ND ND QA/QC Spike Recovery 92 91 86 89 98 Gasoline All Results Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram ND = Non Detectable ; EPA 8020 (.001 mg/kg) EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline (5 mg/kg) Analysis of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 8020 *Analysis of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ; EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline *The TPH Method for Gasoline is the Calif DOHS Recommended Procedure Certificate Number : E739 ~--~~n~ ~ ~ ~temi st Certified Full Service On-Site Analytical Laboratories 5327 Wingfoot Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306 (805) 872-4750 Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 3/4/93 World Oil Site Date Analyzed : 3/14/93 2101 Brundage Lane Analyst : J.S. Johnson Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 93019 Sample Matrix ; Soils Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Tot Pet Hyds mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg TH-2 ~10 .800 .571 ND 1.068 39 TH-2 ~20 1.252 1.404 ND 9.905 76 TH-2 ~30 ND ND ND .100 11 TH-2 ~40 ND .439 ND .617 27 TH-2 ~50 .068 .188 ND .404 17 TH-2 ~60 .056 .737 ND 10.594 210 TH-2 ~70 .526 .782 ND .743 36 TH-2 ~80 .265 .429 ND .931 28 TH-2 ~85 .518 .945 ND 2.533 37 TH-2 ~90 .023 .134 ND 3.290 36 QA/QC Spike % Recovery 88 91 85 92 90 Gasoline All Results Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram ND = Non Detectable ; EPA 8020 (.001 mg/kg) EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline (5 mg/kg) Analysis of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 8020 *Analysis of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ; EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline *The TPH Method for Gasoline is the Calif DOHS Recommended Procedure ~ Certificate Number : E739 ~--~~ .n,~Che-~ Certified Full Service On-Site Analytical Laboratories -,. 5327 Wingfoot Drive i Bakersfield, CA 93306 (805) 872-4750 Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 3/4/93 World Oil Site Date Analyzed : 3/14/93 2101 Brundage Lane Analyst : J.S. Johnson Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 93019 Sample Matrix ; Soils Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Tot Pet Ryds mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg TH-3 610 9.605 387.169 6.693 539.834 4058 TH-3 620 .082 .255 ND 88.444 725 TH-3 630 ND .459 ND 19.334 229 TH-3 635 .061 .662 ND 20.312 234 TH-4 615 ND 1.287 ND 2.143 39 TH-4 625 ND ND ND .211 18 TH-4 635 ND .188 ND .260 15 TH-4 645 ND .137 ND 1.004 16 TH-5 ~15 ND ND ND .236 14 TH-5 ~25 ND .142 ND .879 23 TH-5 ~35 ND ND ND .100 15 TH-5 ~45 ND .259 ND 1.136 51 QA/QC Spike % Recovery 92 94 85 88 101 Gasoline All Results Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram ND = Non Detectable ; EPA 8020 (.001 mg/kg) EPA' 8015 Modified for Gasoline (5 mg/kg) Analysis of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 8020 *Analysis of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ; EPA'8015 Modified for Gasoline *The TPR Method for Gasoline is the Calif DOHS Recommended Procedure Certificate Number : E739 ~ ~/~/ ~ ~_ ~~~ mist Ce~ied ~llSe~ice On-S~eAnal~icaltabor~ories 5327 Wingfoot Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306 (805) 872-4750 Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 3/4/93 World Oil Site Date Analyzed : 3/14/93 2101Brundage Lane Analyst : J.S. Johnson Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 93019 Sample Matrix ; Soils Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Tot Pet Hyds mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg TH-6 ~10 .162 .947 ND 7.706 116 TH-6 ~20 ND ND ND ND 8 TH-6 ~30 ND ND ND ND 17 TH-6 ~40 ND ND ND ND 12 TH-6 ~50 ND ND ND ND ND TH-7 ~25 ND ND ND .296 15 TH-7 ~35 ND .132 ND .632 29 TH-7 ~45 ND .069 ND .592 16 TH-7 ~55 ND .365 ND 1.615 71 TH-7 ~60 .063 .805 ND 3.833 117 QA/QC Spike % Recovery 90 88 86 91 96 Gasoline All Results Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram ND = Non Detectable ; EPA 8020 (.001 mg/kg) EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline (5 mg/kg) Analysis of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 8020 *Analysis of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ; EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline *The TPH Method for Gasoline is the Calif DOHS Recommended Procedure Certificate Number : E739 ~--~oso~n,--'~T~ Certified Full Service On-Site Analytical Laboratories. 5327 WINGFOOT DRIVE CALIFORNIA.e NEVADA · ARIZONA BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93306 (805) 872-4750 CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE ON SITE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES -~lO~E~fNb.: .... SlI:ENAME; '" / '/ "/ / ' / .... ~ SAMPLE ' ~AMPLE " ' ~D. NO. DATE ~IME COMP GRAB MATRIX ~MPLE LOCATION DESIGNATION /,,, ~. / ~1~1~ OF~ ~ 5o~c ~-I ~ ~5' , ( -~ 'f~.~=¢,x ( f ~s' ( ~~...... , -~ /¢~ , x,~ ,~5' / ~ ..... -~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ,~ ?5' x K - ~~ 4~o ,~~ /~" ~,~ .... I-iff,,/, ~ /( ao' X ~~ .... -/~ ~ IOo~ ~ / ~ , ~' , X ,, ' ' .... .... ,. -~¢ ~/o3~ ~l ~ 50' )X X ~ ,,-is ,,, ~, ins x ~ ~ ~, ~~~,,, RELIN ISHED V: SI ATURE) .DATE. TIME ,, RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED BY"I'SIGNATd~E) .D~E,, 'TIME RECEIVED B~ISIG~ATURE) RELINQUISHEO BY: (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME R~CEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED BY (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME R~CEIVED BY ISlGNATUR'E) ,,I , I ,, RELINQUISHED BY~'(SI~NATURE) ,DATE 'TIME RECEIV~ ~OR ~BORATORY BY DAT~ TIME REMARKS:' ........ ~// ...... 5327WINGFOOT DRIVE CALIFORNIA.® NEVADA · ARIZONA BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93306 (805) 872-4750 CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE ON SITE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES SAMPLE 3AMPLE ID, NO. DATE TIME COMP GRAB MATRIX ~M~E ~ATION DESIGNATION RELIN~ DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED BY (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) OATE TIME RECEIVED B~ ~SlGNATUREI R~INQUISHED BY (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY [SlGNATUREJ REEINOUISHED BY: ISlGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED~OR ~BORATORY BY DA~E TIME REMARKS: .... 5327WlNGFOOT DRIVE CALIFORNIA.® NEVADA · ARIZONA ." BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93306 .. (805) 872-4750 CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE ON SITE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES ~ ' , , SAMPLE , ~ RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RE~'EIVED BY JSIGNATURE) R~INQU~SHED B~ (SIgNATuRE) "'DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (sIGNATURE) REg~NQ~ISHEDBY: (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED FOR ~BORATORY BY ' DA~E ' TIME REMARKS: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ., A Member of The Earth I I I I I I I PRELIMINARY SITE CHARACTERIZATION I WORLD OIL STATION NO. 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE i BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA I I April 22, 1993 I I Prepared by Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. I 6701 MeDivitt Drive, Suite B Bakersfield, California (805) 836-0901 I FAX (805) 836-0911 Project No. EB-8322-1 I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Description .......................................................................................... 2 1.2 Project History ........................................................................................... 2 2.0 GEOLOGIC SEITING ................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Conditions 5 Geologic 2.2 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................. 5 3.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION .............................................................................. 6 3.1 Drilling and Soil Sampling ...................................................................... 6 3.2 Laboratory Analysis ................................................................................. 8 4.0 RESULTS OF ENvIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................................................... 8 4.1 Subsurface Conditions .............................................................................. 8 4.2 Soil Vapor Monitoring .............................................................................. 9 4.3 Laboratory Analytical Results 9 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 11 6.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. '...12 6.1 In-Situ Vapor Extraction .......................................................................... 12 6.2 Natural In-Situ Biodegradation .............................................................. 13 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 14 8.0 CLOSURE 14 REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 16 Figure I Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Map Figure 3 Geology Map Figure 4 Cross Section A-A; Figure 5 Cross Section B-B' Table 1 Summary of Analytical Data Dispenser Decommisioning Table 2 Summary of Analytical Data UST Decommisioning Table 3 Summary of Soil Vapor Monitoring - Drilling Operations Table 4 Summary of Analytical Data - Drilling Operations Appendix A Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody I I 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 I April 22, 1993 Doc. No.: 9303-5024.RPT Project No.: EB-8322-1 World Oil Marketing Company I 9302 South Garfield Avenue South Gate, CA 90280 I Attention: Mr. Greg Petruska SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY SITE CHARACTERIZATION I FOR GASOLINE IMPACTED SOILS WORLD OIL STATION NO. 29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE I BAKERSFIEI.D, CALIFORNIA I Reference: Soil Characterization Work Plan, World Oil Station No. 29 (ESE, February 5, 1993) 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a preliminary site characterization performed by Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. (ESE) at World Oil Marketing Company's (World Oil) Station No. 29 located at 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California. ESE proposed to conduct a Phase I Soil Characterization associated with a release of gasoline hydrocarbons from the underground gasoline storage tanks (USTs) and associated fuel dispensers at the above referenced facility which were removed under permit issued by the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division (BFDHMD). On October 21, 1992 Hallmark Construction excavated the soil above and around the tanks, and removed the USTs, dispensers and associated product pipelines. Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH(g)) and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes (BTEX)'were detected in soil samples from beneath each of the four USTs, the western and central dispenser islands, and in the stockpiled SOil. The greatest concentration of TPH(g) detected was 4,112 me/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 15.214 me/kg. These concentrations are in excess of Regional Water Quality Control I World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 2 April 22, 1993 ! Board (RWQCB) guidelines for gasoline hydrocarbons in the soil, and resulted in the BFDHMD requesting an initial site characterization. The scope Of work for this project was developed in consultation with Mr. Greg Petruska of World Oil Corp., and Mr. Ralph Huey of BFDHMD. All drilling, sampling, equipment decontamination, sample transfer, and analytical methods employed are in compliance with federal, state and local regulations and guidelines. Work performed to date includes the following: · Development of site health and safety, and technical work plans. · Drilling and sampling of seven exploratory soil borings to a maximum depth of 100 feet below surface grade. · Laboratory analysis of 41 selected soil samples for TPH(g), and BTEX. · Preparation of this report presenting our results, conclusions, and remedial action alternatives for the site. 1.1 Site Description The site is located at 2101 Brundage Lane in the city of Bakersfield, Kern County, California (Figure 1). The site was formerly operated as a retail gasoline station. The site is located in an area of commercial and residential properties. The overall site topography is generally flat, sloping slightly to the south. 1.2 Site History World Oil contracted with Hallmark Construction Company of Los Angeles, California to remove the four 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs, gasoline dispensers, twelve 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 UST removal operations. On October 21, 1992 Hallmark Construction excavated the soil above and around the tanks, and removed the USTs, dispensers and associated product pipelines. The tanks were removed under BFDHMD permit. Mobile Laboratories subcontracted with ESE to I I EB-8322- 1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 3 April 22, 1993 provide an environmental technician to collect soil samples under the direction of I Mr. Joe Dunwoody of BFDHMD. I 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 USTs as shown on i Figure 2. These samples are designated S-13 through S-24. Soil samples were also 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. I In addition, four composite soil samples (C-I through C-4) were collected from within the stockpile of soil excavated from above and around the former USTs. The soil samples taken from the stockpile were collected by driving 2-inch diameter I brass tubes into the stockpiled soil. The soil samples collected from beneath the former gasoline dispensers were collected by hand auger, and the soil samples i collected from beneath the USTs were collected from the backhoe bucket immediately after soil excavation and stored in 2-inch diameter brass tubes. All soil samples were sealed with TeflonTM liners and end caps. The samples were then labeled, handled I and transported according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol to Mobile Labs, Inc., a State of California Department of Health I (DOHS) laboratory. Services certified Sample identification and chain-of-custody procedures were followed 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, then rinsed again with de-ionized water prior to sampling. At Mobile Labs, the soil samples were analyzed for TPH(g) using USEPA Test Method 5030/8015M (modified for gasoline), and for the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) using USEPA Test Method 503018020. I EB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 4 April 22, 1993 I TPH(g), and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, BTEX, were detected in soil samples from beneath each of the four USTs, the western and central dispenser I islands, and the stockpiled soil. The greatest concentration of TPH(g) detected was 4,112 mg/kg in Sample S-18 at a depth of two feet beneath the western (fill) end of iUST No. 2. The greatest concentration of benzene was also found in this sample at 15.214 mg/kg. I Tables I and 2 can be found at the end of the text which summarize the analytical results for the facility decommisioning operations. Table I presents the analytical I results for TPH(g), and BTEX in the 12 soil samples from beneath the dispensers, and the four soil samples from the stockpiled soil. Table 2 presents the analytical results I for the 12 soil samples from beneath the gasoline USTs. i Based on the soil sampling and laboratory analysis, TPH(g), and BTEX were detected at' concentrations in excess of RWQCB recommended guidelines for additional assessment activities. Samples that had concentrations of gasoline hydrocarbons exceeding the I recommended guidelines are S-3A at the western dispenser island, S-6A at the .central dispenser island, S-16A at.the west end of the southern UST No. 1, S-13, S-13A, S-18 and I S-18A at the west 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 I S-22A at the west end of the northern UST No. 4. i The BFDHMD required 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 I determine the vertical and lateral extent of the impacted soil, and to determine whether these hydrocarbons pose a threat of impacting groundwater. ! I I I EB-8322-1 9303-$024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 5 April 22, 1993 I I 2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 2.1 Geologic Conditions i Regional Geology: 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. Surface and groundwater in the San I loaquin Valley is derived predominantly from the Sierra Nevada mountain range to the east, and is transported by five major rivers, the southern most being the Kern I River. The site is located miles south of the Kern River. subject approximately two I The surface of the San loaquin Valley is composed primarily of unconsolidated Pleistocene (1.6 million to 11,000 years ago) and Recent (11,000 years ago to the I 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 20,000 feet. I Site Geology: Geologic deposits in the study area include Pleistocene alluvial I sediments of 'the Kern River which form homocline Formation, a dipping gently to the southwest (Figure 3). The deposits are alluvium consisting of poorly indurated I and dissected fan deposits (CDMG, 191M). i 2.2 Hydrogeology 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 I County Water Agency, 1991 Report on Water Conditions, Improvement District No. 4, February 1992). The nearest known occurrence of perched groundwater is five I 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 I Supply Report, May 1992). No perched groundwater is known to exist beneath the subject site. 1 I I EB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 6 April 22, 1993 3.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 3.1 Drilling and Soil Sampling Prior to commencing field operations, a technical work plan was reviewed and approved by BFDHMD personnel. Underground Service Alert was notified 48 hours in advance of the site activities. Drilling was performed by Melton Drilling and commenced on March 2, 1993 using both MobileTM B-80 and B-53 truck-mounted drill rigs, equipped with 6-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. Borings under the overhead canopy of the dispenser islands were drilled using Melton's prototype B-53 drill rig with a detachable mast capable of being positioned beneath a 12 foot overhang. The augers were steam cleaned prior to use to minimize the possibility of cross-contamination. A total of seven soil borings were drilled in this phase of soil characterization (Figure 2). Soil boring TH-1 was slant drilled at a 30° angle from vertical from the south side of the gasoline tank cavity to a depth of 100 feet below surface grade and a bottom hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this source area. I Soil boring TH-2 was advanced adjacent to the western dispenser island to a depth of 90 feet below surface grade to assess the vertical extent of impacted soil beneath this I probable source. Soil boring TH-3 was advanced adjacent to the central dispenser island to a depth of 35 feet below surface grade to assess the vertical .extent of I impacted soil beneath this probable source. Soil borings TH-4, TH-5, TH-6, and TH-7 were positioned to the north, east, south and I west of the source areas to assess the lateral limits of impacted soil in those directions, respectively. I An experienced environmental geologist under the direct supervision of a California IRegistered Geologist was on site to log the borings, monitor soils during drilling, and collect soil samples. Boring logs are presented in Appendix A. I I EB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT I World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 7 April 22, 1993 I Soil samples were collected at 5-foot intervals in each of the borings using a split- i spoon sampler (ASTM D 3550 with shoe similar to ASTM D 1586) equipped with three 6- inch by 2.5-inch diameter stainless steel sleeves for soil retention. The soil samples were obtained by driving the sampler with a 140-pound hammer dropping 30 inches I in accordance with ASTM D 1586. I The lowermost sleeve at each sample interval was screened for total organic vapors with a photo-ionization detector (PID). Headspaee vapor analysis was performed by Ifirst discarding a portion of the soil retained at one to produce a end of the sleeve headspace. The sleeve was then capped and the probe of the PID was inserted I through a hole in the cap and into the headspace for analysis. The PID was calibrated with an isobutylene standard of 100 parts per million (ppm) and contained an 11.8 Ielectron volt (eV) lamp, capable of detecting benzene (9.25 eV). The PID readings are recorded on the boring logs and in Table 3 (see section 4.2, Soil Vapor Monitoring). I The middle sample sleeve was immediately sealed with Teflon® film, capped, and placed on ice at less than 4°C for transport to a California Department of Health I Services (DOHS) certified laboratory. The temperature within the ice chest was recorded at each sampling interval and recorded on the chain-of-custody document. I Strict chain-of-custody procedures were utilized for all samples collected to ensure. sample integrity and to document sample possession from the time of collection to the I final destination.- The temperature within the ice chest was recorded at the time that the ice chest was delivered to the laboratory and recorded on the chain-of-custody i document. Sampling equipment was washed with TSP (tri-sodium phosphate) cleanser, and I rinsed with tap water and de-ionized water prior to sampling, between sample intervals, and between borings to minimize the potential of cross contamination. The Iaugers were steam cleaned prior to drilling and between borings to minimize the potential of cross contamination. The borings were backfilled with a cement- ibentonite slurry. I I EB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT ! World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 8 April 22, 1993 0 ! 3.2 Laboratory Analysis Forty-one soil samples were submitted to Mobile Labs. The soil samples were analyzed for TPH(g) with a minimum detection limit of 1.0 mg/kg using USEPA Test Method 5030/8015M (modified for gasoline), and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, BTEX with a minimum detection limit of 0.005 mg/kg using USEPA Test Method 5030/8020. I 4.0 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.1 Subsurface Conditions I Subsurface material encountered during drilling was alluvium to the total depth of each boring. The alluvium was characterized by unconsolidated, moderate to low I permeability, slightly moist, dark brown, silt (ML) to a depth of approximately 17 feet, overlying unconsolidated, highly permeable, slightly moist, tan, well graded i medium- to coarse-grained sand (SW/GW) with minor gravel to a depth of approximately 28 feet. Underlying this is a zone of unconsolidated, highly permeable, slightly moist, light tan, well graded very fine- to medium-grained sand I (SW/SM) with minor silt to a depth of approximately 53 feet. I This is underlain by an unconsolidated, highly permeable, dry, light tan, well graded, fine- to coarse-grained sand (SW) to a depth of 82 feet. Underlying this is a zone of I consolidated, low permeability, slightly moist, light brown, silty clay (CL/ML) to a depth of 98 feet. This is underlain by an unconsolidated, highly permeable, slightly Imoist, tan, well graded medium- to coarse-grained gravelly sand (SW/GW) to a depth of 100 feet which is the greatest depth penetrated in this investigation. I Cross Sections AA' and BB' have been prepared to integrate the geology, the location of the former underground storage tanks and dispensers, and the distribution of Igasoline hydrocarbons in the subsurface (see Figures 4 and 5). 1 I I EB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT I World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 9 April 22, 1993 ! ! 4.2 Soil Vapor Monitoring I Soil vapors were detected in the soil samples obtained from boring TH-1 advanced beneath the location of the former gasoline tanks at elevated concentrations to a I depth of 80 feet, and continued at detectable concentrations to a depth of 90 feet. Soil vapors were detected in the soil samples obtained from boring TH-2 advanced i through the location of the western dispenser to a depth of 80 feet. Soil vapors were detected in the soil samples obtained from boring TH-3 advanced through the location' of the central dispenser at elevated concentrations through the depth of 35 feet. Soil I vapors were observed at very low to non detectable concentrations in the lateral assessing borings TH-4, TH-5. TH-6 and TH-7. These field readings are collaborated by Ithe analytical results presented below. 4.3 Laboratory Analytical Results TPH(g) was not detected in boring TH-l, slant drilled from the south side of the tank cavity to a bottom hole location beneath the center of the tank cavity, in the samples from depths of 25, 35 and 45 feet. This was due to the boring being in a lateral position to the former USTs at those depths. Below 45 feet, TPH(g) was detected increasing to. a maximum concentration of 353 rog/kg at a depth of 75. feet, '~-~decreasing to 239 mg/kg at 85 feet, then dropping to 11 mg/kg at 95 feet, then back to non-detect at 100 feet. The gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, BTEX, were not detected 'in boring TH-1 in the samples from 25, through 45 feet, and in the samples from 95 and 100 feet. The volatile aromatics were detected directly below the former USTs in the samples from 55 feet through 85 feet. TPH(g) was detected in boring TH-2, positioned through the western dispenser location, at concentrations of 39 rog/kg at 10 feet, 75 mg/kg at 20 feet, and 11 mg/kg at 30 feet. Below that depth, TH-2 intersected the lateral extent of the tank cluster plume and the hydrocarbon concentration increased to 210 mg/kg at 60 feet, decreasing to 36 mg/kg at 70 feet, and remaining detectable at 36 mg/kg at 90 feet. The volatile aromatics were also detected in the samples from 10 feet through 90 feet in TH-2. TH-2 was terminated at that depth due to TH-1 already delineating the vertical extent of impacted soil directly beneath the former USTs at 100 feet. EB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 1 0 April 22, 1993 ' 0 T H(g) was detected in boring TH-3, positioned through the central dispenser locati°n,at a concentration of 4,058 mg/kg at 10 feet, 725 mg/kg at 20 feet, then decreasing to 229 rog/kg at 30 feet and 234 rog/kg at 35 feet. The volatile aromatics were also detected in TH-3 in the samples from 10 feet through 35 feet. TH-3 was terminated at that depth due to TH-1 already delineating the vertical limits of impacted soil. TPH(g) was detected in boring TH-4, positioned 15 feet north and midway between the western and central dispenser islands, at a mg/kg at feet, concentration of 39 15 18 mg/kg at 25 feet, 15 rog/kg at 35 feet, and 16 rog/kg at 45 feet. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations. TPH(g) was detected in boring TH-5, positioned 25 feet east of the tank cluster, at a concentration of 14 mg/kg at 15 feet, 23 rog/kg at 25 feet, 15 mg/kg at 35 feet, and 51 mg/kg at 45 feet. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations. TPH(g)'was detected in boring TH-6, positioned 20 feet south of the tank cluster, at a concentration of 116 rog/kg at 10 feet, 8 mg/kg at 20 feet, 17 mg/kg at 30 feet, 12 rog/kg at 40 feet, and was not detected at 50 feet. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, with the exception of benzene at 0.162 rog/kg at 10 feet, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations in these samples2 ~- TPH(g) was detected in boring TH-7, slant-drilled from the southwest corner of 'the tank cluster, to a bottom hole location 15 feet' west of the center of the tank cluster, at. a concentration of 15 mg/kg at 25 feet, 29 mg/kg at 35 feet, 16 mg/kg at 45 feet, 71 rog/kg at 55 feet, and '117 rog/kg at 65 feet. TH-7 was terminated at that depth because TH-1 already delineated the vertical limits of impacted soil. Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, with the exception of benzene at 0.063 mg/kg at 60 feet, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations in the samples. EB -8322-1 9303-5024.RPT World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 1 1 April 22, 1993 , , Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, BTEX, 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 site-specific parameters including vertical separation to groundwater, soil lithology, fractures in subsurfaces, annual and direct conduits to groundwater. average precipitation, any The recommended guidelines are 1,000 mg/kg for TPH(g), 1.0 rog/kg for benzene and toluene, and 50.0 for ethylbenzene and total xylenes. Laboratory analytical results for the 41 selected soil samples from the seven borings are summarized in Table 4 Summary of Analytical Results. Copies of the analytical reports and chain-of-custody documentation are presented in Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Results. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The data obtained from the tank removal operations suggest that soil impacted with gasoline hydrocarbons at concentrations in excess RWQCB recommended guidelines exist 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 extend to a depth of less than 30 feet below surface, and in a radius of 15 feet from the location of the former gasoline USTs; to a depth less than 10 feet and within 10 feet radially from the western dispenser island; and to a depth of 15 feet and within a 10 foot radius of the center dispenser island. Based on the field information and analytical data, approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil contain hydrocarbon concentrations greater than 1,000 mg/kg. I ! I EB -8322-1 9303-5024.RPT iWorld Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 1 2 April 22, 1993 I I I 6.0 'REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ~At least two alternatives for remediation of the soil are applicable to the site; I Option 1) in-situ vapor extraction, and Option 2) in-situ natural biodegradation. 6.1 In-Sim Vapor Extraction I Option 1 would involve treating the soil to non-hazardous concentrations through the process of in-situ soil vapor extraction. While ESE recommends the following I Option 2, ESE believes that in-sim soil vapor extraction would be appropriate as a second .choice at this site because the soil appears to be impacted with low molecular Iweight gasoline hydrocarbons which will respond very favorably to this technology. I This option would allow the soil to remain in place, and the volatile aromatic hydrocarbons to be extracted through wells drilled into the impacted soil. The i effectiveness of this option would be dependant on the ability of an air flow to be created throughout the zone of impacted soil, permitting the 'volatile aromatic 'hydroearbons to volatilize, and to then be extracted through the wells. The I stratigraphy and high soil permeabilities at this site lends itself well to .. vapor extraction. I ESE's experience in vapor extraction of volatile aromatic hydrocarbons from high I permeability soils indicates that the time frame for successful treatment would be approximately six months. The cost for in-situ vapor extraction would be i approximately $65,000. Management fees including work plans, regulatory liaison, site supervision, soil sampling, and the closure report would be approximately $15,000. The overall cost for this option would be approximately $80,000. This is a I costly alternative given the significant distance to groundwater. I I IEB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT ! World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 1 3 April 22, 1993 ! I I 6.2: Natural In-Situ Biodegradation In view of the facts presented at this site, natural in-situ biodegradation is a viable I alternative. This option is appropriate in these circumstances and is protective of the environment given the following facts: (1) the small volume of contamination; i (2) the nearly 85 foot distance of vertical separation between the impacted soil and the first occurrence of groundwater (at approximately 175 feet); (3) the existence of intervening sedimentary barriers to migration; and (4) the ability of natural I processes to biodegrade the contamination without risk to groundwater or people. Furthermore, becaUse this option would not expose contaminated soil to people or the I atmosphere, or take up scarce hazardous waste landfill space, this option poses the lowest risk to the environment and human health. I If BFDHMD requires further analysis, a contaminant fate risk assessment could be I done to document that the gasoline constituent hydrocarbons do not present a risk of affecting the public health at the site. Such a risk assessment would evaluate the I potential for hazardous constituents to be released from or to migrate off site. Such a risk assessment would be based on USEPA-HRS 1985, USEPA-HRS 1988, and I NYDOH TR-847-ZC. All probability equations would be based on these recognized scoring systems used by and developed for state and federal regulatory agencies. The Imigration pathways assessed would be: on site contact, surface-water transport, groundwater contamination, air vapor transport, and soil vapor transport. This type Iof risk assessment would cost approximately $5,000. I I I EB -8322-1 9303-5024.RPT ! World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 1 4 April 22, 1993 ! I 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Having considered both of the options outlined above, ESE recommends approval of Option 2, the natural in-situ biodegradation option. We reached this recommendation because of the geologic character of the area, the nature of the contaminant itself, and the absence of risk to groundwater or human health. Specifically, this recommendation is appropriate because of: (1) the depth to groundwater; (2) the existence of intervening sedimentary barriers between the contamination and known groundwater; (3) the small volume of contamination in the soil; (4) the opportunity to prevent contaminated soil from being exposed to the atmosphere where they would volatilize; (5) the opportunity to avoid transporting contaminated soils long distance to a hazardous materials landfill; (6) the opportunity to avoid occupying scarce hazardous waste landfill space; (7) the fact that natural processes will degrade the contaminant over time without risk to groundwater; and (8) the high costs of the other possible remedial alternatives (at least $80,000). In light of the advantages of Option 2 and the disadvantages of other approaches, World Oil recommends that BFDHMD approve Option 2. 8.0 CLOSURE This has been prepared for the exclusive use of World Oil Marketing Company report as it pertains to the location of the former World Oil Station No. 29, 2101 Brundage Lane,-Bakersfield, California. The results contained in each verbal or written report are based upon the information acquired during the assessment. It is possible that variations could exist beyond points explored during the course of the investigation. Also, changes in conditions found could occur at some time in the future due to contaminant migration, variations in rainfall, temperature, and/or other factors not apparent at the time of the field'investigations. IThis should be that no' further contamination, report not regarded as a guarantee beyond that which may have been detected within the scope of this study, is present I on or beneath the site. If additional information regarding the possible presence or past use of hazardous materials at the site becomes available, then the need for I further field investigation should be re-evaluated. Similarly, if suspected I EB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT I World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 1 5 April 22, 1993 contamination is encountered during earthwork or construction activities, a Iqualified engineer or geologist should be on-site to monitor the soils and collect samples for laboratory analysis. I The services performed by ESE were conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently I practicing under similar conditions in the state of California. No other warranty is i expressed or implied. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions regarding I this report or the information contained herein, please contact this office at your convenience. I Respectfully Submitted, I EARTH SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. I I Kenneth Mitchell ~ Staff Geologist Senior Hydrogeologist I I I cc: 1 - Addressee 2 - Greg Petruska - World Oil Corp. ~ I I Bakersfield File 1 - San Luis Obispo File I EB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT I World Oil Station No. 29, Bakersfield, CA 1 6 April 22, 1993 ! I REFERENCES · California Division of Mines and Geology, 1964, Geologic Map of California, I Bakersfield Sheet. · Kern County Water Agency, 1991, Water Supply Report, September 1992. I · Kern County Water Agency, 1991, Report on Water Conditions-Improvement District No. 4, February 1992. I · Tri-Regional Board Staff Recommendations for Preliminary Evaluation and Investigation of Underground Tank Sites I · California Water Resources Control Board, 1989, LUFT Manual Guidance Document. I · California Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region, Compilation of Water Quality Goals, October 1991. 1 I 1 I I I I I I EB-8322-1 9303-5024.RPT I FIGURES HIGHWAY EARTH TITLE FIGURE SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. WORLD OIL PROPERTy ' ~ ^,~e~o~,~.s~r~.ou. 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE 1 8701 McDivitt Drive Suite B BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Bakersfield, Ca. 93313 PROJECTNO. (805) 836-0901 EB-8275-1 FAX (805) 836-0911 VICINITY MAP 'TANK REMOVAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS -- ! I i i~' BORING LOCATIONS' I i i i A FORMER DISPENSER i -- / ISLANDS ~ r~ "~S-I : ..................................... ( ~AEARTH TITLE FIGURE SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. WORLD OIL PROPERTy 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE 2 6701 McDivitt Drive Suite B BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Bakersfield. Ca. 93313 PROJECT NO. (805) 836-0901 SITE MAP E B- 8275-1 FAX (805) 836-0911 I~. I I '.~ ~ ' ~J I~" ~' ~' .'-. ~, .: . ' ', ~' ~' I ' ' ~'*-; .., ' ' '~ ' ~ " ~' ~ ' ~' ~'~ '~ '=- ~' ~, ~ ~ : '" a ~,~1- ~ ~ . , ~ ~' .-.' ~, '~ . . . ,. .. ~L~ ~ ,I t ~;~ .-' ,'f,";:,'" ~ ,'% .'~ · ~- - J ~",-~"~' '~ .: ~ './-'."'?'~ ..'.- ~, ~ ~s~,~ ~,' ..,.. '~c 'l I %~.~.~-'s. · = .... '~ ".,].' ~~~'- ' ' - ' -' ' ~1 ~" .... ~~t';~. 'c;~' . ~. · ~.. - ~~~. · J~;SP ..' ' '"'~, P" ~' '*",' ' ' ,,' ~ '~ ~ I' ~ -' ' ~ '. ' .~ I .... " .... I:. .( _ [- . . (.~%.//I, ~_ . ;:'"~d*~ ; I: .t~'¢~'~f ~ ~_i'x .~ . '. ~.'..."t'~.5'_-I .~ "'.-7.:cr'~ ." ~¢ ~. J%~ .i .J ~ .~, .~ ..'. '..:t I ,I I ~' ".J I ~.' t' · ~' · ;1 " .... ~' ' ' ' f ~ ~ I ~ " · ~ ~ " ~ J' · ~ ~ ' I . ~(~'.~, - . ~ ,. c , . . ~ ~ J ~' "~- ~-~'( ~1 .- /, i" ~ i_ ~' ;"~,,,.,~. ..~ : :~j ~ , C~l --~ ~~%~-~ I~ ' '' ) ~ r . 1..... ~k I ': i ' ~' "~'~1 ' - It ' ~ ..... ~ ,.- ~ .... --. ... , . ........ ~~."~ · ~~_1 ~=-"- .... .~-<_. _J . . : --~~~_~m,' - t . - , '--- ' .L__J / '.~ % -~- '/, t,.. : ~'~ 'u." ',: :--- AEARTH TITLE F~URE SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. WORLD OIL PROPERTY ~~m~~P 2101 BRUNDAGE ~NE 6701 McDivi~ Drive Suite B BA~RSFIELD, CALIFORN~ ~ Bakemfield. Ca. 93313 ~~. (805) 836-090~ EB-8275-1 F~ (e05) a=S-09~ GEOEOG~ 0 TH-4 TH-2 TH-I FoTH-~ 40' ~ 40' 50' -- 50' 70' 70 80' 8O' HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE 1" =20' ".' :...:~ SW- WELL GRADED SAND .... SW/GW- WELL GRADED GRAVELLY SAND SWlSM- WELL GRADED SILTY SAND i i ML- SILT ^EARTI-I TITLE FIGURE SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. WORLD OIL PROPERTY ~e,e~OFT.EE~.S'rSr~a~U. 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE 4 6701 McDivitt Drive Suite B BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Bakersfield, Ca. 93313 PROJECTNO. (sos) 836-0901 CROSS SECTION AA" E B- 8 2 7 5-1 FAX (805) 836-0911 I . "' 45' ~ I TH-5 0 0 20' 20' 30' ~ ................... ~j~ ~: 30' ~ >~,ooo U~Kg ~ · ~ ~. ~;~ ~2~~-'~.'' ~~ ~ ......... TD45 50' ~~ .. - 50' 70 ' ~~'":' '"':" ~J~ :~ ~" ':<' :: "~"' "' '" "' 70' ~ ~..~?;~ · . ~-- .: .... ~. .... · '.?.?.~..'.?.?.~. ~ ~' ~..~ ~ ~ ..... ....~...~, .?....%?.? ....................:. 80' ..-.....-x..-.-. ~r~x,r~ ~ '"~'m 80' 90' ~~)~~>:<<~'" =<<~ ....... ~:<<<~' ~;~ 90' ~~~[~ CL/UL ~:S::~ ~g:::~ >> 1~ ~Kg ~::::~ .... ~~ ~~~<-:- 100' r:-;. SW/nW "" .... '""""""""'*"""""""'~""~ 100' ~RIZ~TAL AND ~AL ~ALE 1" = ~ ~ SW- ~LL GRADED S~D ';';';: SW~W- WELL GRAND G~Y ~D 'SWI ~LL GRADED SIL~ S~D ML- SILT I I AEART H TITLE FIGURE SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. WORLD OIL PROPERTY ~~~;~, 2101 BRUNDAGE ~NE 5 s;o~ u~ivi, Drive Suite ~ BA~RSFIE~. CALIFORN~ ~kersfield, Ca. 93313 ~~ N~ (80~) 83~-0~0~ CR~ SE~ ~' Ea-S27S-~ FAX (80~ 836-0911 I I ! I I TAi~LF~ I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA - DISPENSER DECOMMISIONING Analytical results expressed in milligrams per kilogram (ppm by weight). ' I Sample[ Loca00n [ Ethyl-! Total , lenes S-I W Dispenser-S End 2' 88 ND ND ND ND ' I S-IA W Dispenser-S End 6' 20 ND ND ND ND I S-2 W Dispenser-S Center 2' 221 ND ND ND ND ~. S-2A W Dispenser-S Center 6' 33 ND ND ND ND I S-3 W Dispenser-N Cen 2' 44 ND ND ND ND S-3A I W Dispenser-N Cen 6' 2,612' ND $.238* ND 118.040' S-4 W Dispenser-N End 2' 19 ND ND .ND ND I 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-SA Cen Dispenser-S End 6' ND ND ND ND ND I 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 I 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 I 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 i 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-IIA E Dispenser-N Cen 6' 15 ND ND ND ND i 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 I East Side Stockpile 4' 41 ND ND ND ND C-3 C-,4 ,South End Stockpile 4' 850 ND ND ND 4.428 MRL 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 I ' ' A L 1~000 I 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 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. I I SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA - UST DECOMMISIONING Analytical results expressed in milligrams per kilogram (ppm by weight). I sampleNo. [ Location I~[GasolineTPH [Benzene[Toluene[ Ethyl- benzenel Total I 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' $- 14 UST 1-East End 2' 10 ND ND ND ND I $- 14A UST l-East End 6', 8 ND ND ND ND S- 15 UST 1-Center 2' 21 ND ND ND. ND S-15A UST l-Center 6' ND ND ND ND ND I S- 16 UST 1-West End 2' 8 6 ND ND ND 1.111 $-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* i S-17A UST 3-Center 6' 171 ND 1.547' biD 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',, ~I S-19A UST 3-West End 6' 2~560' 0.575 91.755' 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 I S-21 UST 4-Center 2' 31 ND ND ND 0.339 S-21A UST 4-Center 6' 23 ND ND ND 0.197 $-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 2.10,1' ND 13.011 S-23A usT 3-East End 6' 1~010' ND ND ND 2.226 I S-24 UST 2-East End 2' 33 ND ND ND ND S-24A UST 2-East End 6' 41 ND ND ND ND MRL 5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 i , ,A L 1~000 I 1, 50 50 I ND: None Detected at or above minimum reporting level 0VIRL). *: Exceeds RWQCB recommended guidelines. A L: Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for contaminant3 in soil. The Irecommended 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 Igroundwater. I TABLE-3 SUMMARY OF SOIL VAPOR MONITORING - DRII J.tNG OPERATIONS Values in parts per million by volume (ppm(v)). 5 ND 10 2~000+ ND ND ND ND 10 ND 10 2~000+ 4 ND 10 ND 15 ND 20 I t000 5 5 4 ND - 20 ND 40 500 2 2 2 ND 25 ND 20 300 3 5 ND 2 30 ND 5 100 3 5 5 3 35 ND 10 100 2 5 2 5 40 NR 20 2 5 2 3 45 ND 15 2 3 ND 3 50 120 1'0 ND 10 55 125 50 20 60 145 100 20 65 150 40 20 70 170 20 75 260 15 8O 20O 15 85 175 ND 90 20 ND 95 ND 100 ND ND: Not Detected. Nil: No R~ovea'y. I TABLE-4 I SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA - DRH.!-ING OPERATIONS Values in milligrams per kilogram (ppm by weight). I Boring NO, Depth ] TPH ] Benzen~ ] Toluene ] Ethyl- ] TOtM Gasoline benzene Xylenes TH-I 25' ND ND ND ND ND I TH-1 35' ND ND ND ND ND TH-I 45' ND ND ND ND ND TH-1 55' 100 ND 0.731 ND 0.502 I 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 I TH-I 95' 11 ND ND ND ND TH- 1 100' ND ND ND ND ND TH-2 10' 39 0.800 0.571 ND 1.068 I 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 I 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 I TH-2 80' 28 0.265 0.429 ND 0.931 TH-2 85' 37 0.518 0.945 ND 2.533 TH-2 90' 36 0.023 0.134 ND 3.290 I 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 I TH-3 35' 234 ' 0.061 0.662 ND 20.312 A L 1~000 I ,I 50 50 MRL I 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 ! ND: None I~tected ~t or above minimum r~pol'ting level {MRL). I *' 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 i 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. ! I TABLE-4 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA - DRIL!.ING OPERATIONS Values in milligrams per kilogram (ppm by weight). I i TI'I-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 3.,.5 ' 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 01063 0.$05 ND 3.~33 A L , 1~000 1 I 50 50 MRL ,, , I 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 ~oil. 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. I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I Boring Logs I I I I I I I I I I CilF.,.'~ICAI. ANAI. YS~,S I WELL oo~ o~ .~ SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTJON ?"PLY1 fl J) ~u '1 I ' ~' ~" !v' /I ! i ~ - ~ I I I I I I I I I i I I,,~I'' I I I I I II I I I -I I I ... I I I i I,~k ! I ~ ~ ~~ I I I I I II I I ,~,~ ~ I~'''' I ~.'~"~/~--.~ .'., ,/,~. I I I I I I I ,~.~ ,..~,,.~ ' I I I I I II I I I I I I I ;~ I i I I I II I i I I t II I I I I I II i . I i t I I I .i I I I !' I~. d . I " I i ~ I~ I i" I~-~ I I I I I I I I I I f ~ Ic~ k I I I~I .... I I I I I I ~/~~,/~~~~. ~ ~ L 0 G o f. ~ 0 R ~ ~ G I CHF.:d ICAL A~HAL. Y SE.~S_S t ISAJ~IFLr - "' . SOIL DESCKIP~ON /~ I I~ I I I I I I I II I i · I t I I I I I I _ I I I t i I II I I I I I II _ I i I I I I I I WELL °2 · il= · COH~'fRUC'fiOH TI~ptt PI~ i~u~ ~' I~ ~ ~; ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION I I I I I I J I I I il I I I I -, I ,l I I ~ ~ ~ ~ -----' I I I I I II I i I I I I I I I I '1 I ' I I I I I I I I I I II I t I -.I I I ? :' I ! I I I I II I II -'1 I I I " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I/~' I[~ k ~ .. I P~o;ect Numbe~ ~- 8~zz-/ , WELL ' = o~ - SOIL DESCRIPTION CO~ST~,UC-nO~ ~.~,~,~ ~ I I I lit, Iz'l ill I I I I I II ' i m i m m , ! I I I I I II I I I I I I ...... I I I I I t I I I I I I I I ,11 _ i I I I I I I m I I I J I II I I I I J II I I I I I II m ' ' ' '"'"""' ~,- I I I I I II v ~..,,~ ~,/· m ! ,I -,1 I I I ~ ,. I I I I !1 J I I II I I"-I I Il " "J''''l' " .... I I m II · I I ,,,,, I I '1 I I I II i -' I ~ I I I I I .. ,,d~.~//,~,.~,:,,~,~/,~.~...;//;.,,~ P~o icc! Number:.,,~d'- ~'.~zr..-/ . ' ',. Cl[~,M~ C,~ L ,~I,~LY S ;.S I .~ ~ ~ L~bor~o~' iifX,Id~ :~ E WELL CO..RU.iO" G~//~~'~" ~t~ 'u~ ~ i ~':o SOIL DESCRIP.O. I ' ' ~' "'/I I~l I I ! I .... I I I I ~ I I I I _ I I I~ I~ ~ I' I I II ' ~ i '~ !~ - ---- I I · I I I ~ ~//~, ~ ~ ~.~/~/~ I I~di '~1" .... I t' I i ~ I ~ ~ I I I I II I// I~k z~ /_'~~,~X~~/~ ~ I i ~ Ii I I I I II I I ,,I I I I I i t Il I I I I II I I I/~ I~c M I 2~ I/~1~ I~ l~ .~*~-~.~~ ~ · I II I I Ill , - ~ ~' "~I -.I I _ !'..i , I , II, , I " I !1 I I i Il ... I I I II I I I II I t I I I I , iI i I I Il I I t I~ .- I I I I II ~- ~ . ~.,./~/ P~olecl ~umbe~ ~- 8~zz-/ WELL CON~RU~ION I I I I i ~ I i i i I I I I i I I - I I I ! I I I I t I - I C;IIr.~IICAL, ANALYSE,$ I ~AJ~FL£ CON~-rRUC-IIOH T-p~e~ al~ eau I I ' ~' ~" I"'/I !~'1 I I i ! I I .I I I I I I I I ! i I ~ I i I I I I I ,,,, I. I I I il ~' ' I I I I ! I .I I I - ! I I I I1~ / I I i I I' -- I I I I I II I I I I I.~n id ~,.--..1/,,~~/-'o~,,,~, I I I I I I~ .... ! I I I I I ..J - I I I ..f i i I I I ! I I , _ - I I I I I I - I I I i I II I I I I I~ ~ I I I I I! i . I i t I I II .I I I I I I tl - I I I I I I I I I I I~ I I I I i II I I I I I I .__-1--- ...... i~ I I.. ~ h ~,~,~ 7 ,.,./., yfolect Number:. d"d'-- ~',~z~o/ WELL ~ ~.~ ~ CON~RU~ION ~H -. o:~ ~ ~; SOIL DESCRi~nO~ , , ~ / ~ ~ / II 1'~ ~/~~ ~ ~'~ ~' I ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ ~- ~ I t I I i Il - i I '1 I II I ! I I II I I i I II I I I I II I I '1 I II ~ I I I Ii I I I I I J I I II I I I I II ~ I I I II ~ I I I -II I I I I Ii I I I I II I I I I II I I I I I I I ! !I I I I I Ii i I I I I I I II "1I -.I I I I I I I , , ! ! I I I II I I I I I II I , I , II ' I I I I II - ~/~ ~./ ~~~~. ~ L 0 G o f. e 0 R ~ ~ G T~- 7 '.,.2'~ Numbe~- ~z~-/ ,, - I I I I I I I APPENDIX B I Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody I I I I I '.~ I I I I 5327 Wingfoot Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306 (805) 872-4750 Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 3/4/93 World Oil Site Date Analyzed : 3/14/93 2101 Brundage Lane Analyst : J.S. Johnson Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 93019 Sample Matrix ; Soils Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Tot Pet Hyds mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg TH-1 625 ND ND ND ND ND TH-1 635 ND ND ND ND ND TH-1 645 ND ND ND ND ND TH-1 655 ND .731 ND .502 100 TH-1 665 3.147 2.490 .616 4.496 166 TH-1 675 3~188 3.171 .590 20.242 353 TH-1 685 4.842 5.453 1.010 18.466 239 TH-1 695 ND ND ND ND 1! TH-1 6100' ND ND ND ND ND QA/QC Spike % Recovery 92 91 86 89 98 Gasoline All Results Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram ND = Non Detectable ; EPA 8020 (.001 mg/kg) EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline (5 mg/kg) Analysis of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 8020 *Analysis of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ; EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline *The TPH Method for Gasoline is the Calif DOHS Recommended Procedure certificate Number : E739 ~_~~n~n~.~'' ~ ~emist Ce~ied Full So.ice On-S~e Anal~ical La~r~ories 5327 Wingfoot Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306 (805) 872-4750 Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 3/4/93 World Oil Site Date Analyzed : 3/14/93 2101Brundage Lane Analyst : J.S. Johnson Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 93019 Sample Matrix ; Soils Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Tot Pet Hyds mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg TH-2 ~10 .800 .'571 ND 1.068 39 TH-2 ~20 1.252 1.404 ND 9.905 76 TH-2 ~30 ND ND ND 1100 11 TH-2 ~40 ND .439 ND .617 27 TH-2 ~50 .068 .188 ND .404 17 TH-2 ~60 .056 .737 ND 10.594 210 TH-2 ~70 .526 .782 ND .743 36 TH-2 ~80 .265 .429 ND .931 28 TH-2 ~85 .518 .945 ND 2.533 37 TH-2 ~90 .023 .134 ND 3.290 36 QA/QC Spike % Recovery 88 91 85 92 90 Gasoline All Results Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram ND = Non Detectable ; EPA 8020 (.001 mg/kg) EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline (5 mg/kg) Analysis of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 8020 *Analysis of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ; EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline *The TPH Method for Gasoline is the Calif DOHS Recommended Procedure Certificate Number : E739 ~--~~ n,~Ch~ Cerlified Full Service On-Site Analytical Laboratories 5327 Wingfoot Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306 (805) 872-4750 Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 3/4/93 World Oil Site Date Analyzed : 3/14/93 2101 Brundage Lane Analyst : J.S. Johnson Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 93019 Sample Matrix ; Soils Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Tot Pet Hyds mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg TH-3 610' 9.605 387.169 6.693~ 539.834 4058 TH-3 620' .082 .255 ND 88.444 725 TH-3 630' ND .459 ND 19.334 229 TH-3 ~35 .061 .662 ND 20.312 234 TH-4 ~15 ND 1.287 ND 2.143 39 TH-4 625 ND ND ND .211 18 TH-4 ~35 ND .188 ND .260 15 TH-4 645 ND .137 ND 1.004 16 TH-5 ~15 ND ND ND .236 14 TH-5 ~25 ND .142 ND .879 23 TH-5 ~35 ND ND ND .100 15 TH-5 ~45 ND .259 ND 1.136 51 QA/QC Spike % Recovery 92 94 85 88 101 Gasoline Ail Results Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram ND = Non Detectable EPA 8020 (.001 mg/kg) ; EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline (5 mg/kg) Analysis of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 8020 *Analysis of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ; EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline *The TPH Method for Gasoline is the Calif DOHS Recommended Procedure Certificate Number : E739 ~ mist I Certified Full Service On-Site Analytical Laboratories I 5327 Wingfoot Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306 I (805) 872-4750 . · Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 3/4/93 ' B World Oil Site Date Analyzed : 3/14/93 2101 Brundage Lane Analyst : J.S. Johnson i I Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 93019 Sample Matrix ; Soils ,! Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Tot Pet Hyds I mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ! TH-6 ~10 .162 .947 ND 7.706 116 I i TH-6 ~20 ND ND ND ND 8 I TH-6 ~30 ND ND ND ND 17 : I TH-6 ~40 ND ND ND ND 12 i TH-6 ~50 ND ND ND ND ND TH-7 ~25 ND ND ND .296 15 I TH-7 ~35 ND .132 ND .632 29 TH-7 ~45 ND .069 ND .592 16 I TH-7 ~55 ND .365 ND 1.615 71 TH-7 ~60 .063 .805 ND 3.833 117 I' QA/QC Spike % Recovery 90 88 86 91 96 Gasoline I , · Ail Results Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram ~I ND = Non Detectable ; EPA 8020 (.001 mg/kg) EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline (5 mg/kg) Analysis of Volatile Aromatics ; EPA 8020 I *Analysis Petroleum Hydrocarbons ; EPA 8015 Modified for Gasoline of Total *The TPH Method for Gasoline is the Calif DOHS Recommended Procedure I Certificate Number : E739 I ~yJ ~o~~n, ~hemist Ced~ied Full So.ice On-Site Anal~ical Laboratories 5327WINGFOOT DRIVE CALIFORNIA.® NEVADA · ARIZONA BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93306 (805) 872-4750 CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE ON SITE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES SAMPLE ' , ,~~,E,~~. ~31DATEoTIME~&~ RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE, .. RELINQUISHED 8, (SIGNATURE, .DATE j TIME' RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) .RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE, DATE TIME RECEIVED BY {SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED BY {SIGNATURE, DATE TIME ' RECEIVED BY {SlGNATUREI I I .... ~RE[INQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) DATE .TIME RECEIV~ ~OR ~BORATORY BY DATE ~IME REMARKS: ..... ~// 5327WINGFOOT DRIVE CALIFORNIA.® NEVADA ® ARIZONA BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93306 (805) 872-4750 CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE ON SITE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES_~ SAMPI:ER,$ ,SJGNATIJR&): ~~ ~ SITE ADDRESS_ _ ~ REMARKS - SAMPLE SAMPLE ' ,ID. NO. DATE TIME,, COMP GRAB MATRIX ~MPLE ~OCATION, DESIGNATION I I , RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATUREI' DATE I TIME (SIG~RECEIVEDFOR ~BORATORY, BY ~JOATE I~' TIME REMARKS: 5327 WINGFOOT DRIVE CALIFORNIA.® NEVADA · ARIZONA BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93306 (805) 872-4750 CERTIFIED FULL SERVICE ON SITE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES PflOJ£GT NO.: "" ITE NAME: REMARKS SAMPI. E ID. NO. ~AMPI. E I.OCATION DESIGNATION ! cd ,/' ~/$' DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED BY {SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) RE~.INQUISHED BY (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED FOR LABORATORY BY DATE TIME REMARKS; I~ HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS · SCIENTISTS · GEOLOGISTS AND ENGINEERS Contaminated Site Assessments · Real Eslale Audits * Site Remediation · Hazardous Waste Management HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATe, INC. ~ ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 143 South Figueroa Street · Ventura, California 9300] (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 #29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 23, 1993 Contractor: Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. Address: 3157 Pegasus Drive Bakersfield, California 93308 Client: World Oil Marketing Company Address: 9302 South Garfield Avenue South Gate, California 90280-0100 H/~Z. MAT. DiV. Attention: Greg Petruska 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, E , Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc, ENVff=tON~XITAL ImLANNE'~Ir;~ * SCIENTISTS * GEOLOGISTS ANE3 ENGINEERS Contaminated Site Assessments * Real Estate Audils * Site Remediation * Hazardous Waste Management HOLGUIN, & IATES, 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 Addilional 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 11- FIGURES 1 Site Location Map 2 Plot 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 DriJlers 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 I HOLGUIN, FAHAN I & ASSOC T , INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I I 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of an environmental risk assessment performed by I Holguin, Associates, Inc,, (HFA) at the above referenced site, The purpose of the risk Fahan & assessment is to quantify the environmental risk from soil impacted by gasoline hydrocarbons i associated with the four 12,000-gallon gasoline underground storage tanks (USTs) 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 I 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 I greater than 100 vertical feet of between the separation containing multiple clay layers impacted soil and the first occurrence of groundwater, World Oil Marketing Company (World iOil) requests that the Bakersfield Rte 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. I 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. I 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 I 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, I On behalf of World Oil, HFA requests that the BFDHMD-UST LOP concur with the NFA determination, I HOLGUIN, Mr, Greg Petruska I World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN November 23, 1993- Page 2 I & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I I :~. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 2101 Brundage Lane in the city of Bakersfield, Kern County, I 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 Brundage Lane, on the east I 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. I 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 I 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 I hydrocarbons. i 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 I 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 I Avenue, South Gate, California, 90280, (310) 928-0100. The consultant contact is Mark Magargee, Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc., 3157 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, California, 93308, I (805) 391-0517. I HOLGUIN, Mr. Greg Petruska I World 011 Marketing Company FA~-~'~N November 23, 1993- Page 3 I & ASSOC T , INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 SITE GEOLOGY I The site is located in a relatively fiat 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 I portion as the Joaquin Valley. The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is of which is known San primarily composed of unconsolidated Quaternary-aged alluvial sediments. Beneath the ialluvial 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 Figure 3 - Geology Map). I 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 Figure 3). The deposits I are alluvium of poorly indurated and dissected fan Division of consisting deposits (California Mines and Geology, 1964). On-site soil borings indicate that the alluvium is characterized by i 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 Iunconsolidated, 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 89 feet BGL Underlying this is a zone of I 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 i 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 I 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 I in thickness. These 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 I Attachment 1 for various driller's from the KCWA Well hydrocarbons (see logs File). HOLGUIN, Mr. Greg Petruska World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN November 23, 1993- Page 4 &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 3.2 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY 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 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 subject site. Groundwater 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, 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. 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 permi't. 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, ethyIbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX). TPH as gasoline and BTEX were detected in soil samples from beneath each of the tour USTs, the western and central dispenser islands, and the stockpiled soil. The greatest concentration of TPH as gasoline detected was 4,112 mg/kg in sample S-18 at a depth ct 2 feet beneath the western (fill) end of UST No. 2. The greatest concentration ct benzene was also found in this sample at a concentration of 15.214 rog/kg. A summary of the analytical results for the facility decommissioning operations is presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. .! I HOLGUIN, Mr, Greg Petruska I World Oil Marketing Company FAH N November 23, 1993- Page 5 I & ~IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I 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-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 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 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 oreo. 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 Soil TH-3 advanced to the central probable source, boring was adjacent 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 salt 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 nondeteclable concentrations in the lateral assessing soil borings TH-4, TH-5, TH-6, and TH-7. I I HOL©UIN, Mr, Greg Petrusko FAHAN World 011 Marketing Company I & ~IATES, INC. November 23, 1993- Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ! I 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 I 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 rog/kg at I 95 feet BGL, and was not detected 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. BTFX was I 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 I location, at concentrations of 39 mg/kg at depths of 10 feet BGL, 76 mg/kg at 20 feet BGL, and 11 rog/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 I 60 feet BGL, decreased to a concentration of 36 rog/kg at 70 feet BGL, and remained detectable at a concentration of 36 rog/kg at 90 feet BGL Benzene, toluene, and total xylenes iwere 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. I TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-3, 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, I then decreased to 229 at 30 feet BGL and 234 at 35 feet BGL. BTEX also rog/kg rog/kg was 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 I impacted soil. I 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 89 rog/kg at depths of 15 feet BGL, 18 rog/kg at 25 feet BGL 15 mg/kg at 85 feet BGL and 16 rog/kg at 45 feet BGL. I Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, and toluene and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations. I 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 rog/kg at 25 feet BGL, 15 rog/kg at I35 feet BGL, and 51 rog/kg at 45 feet BGL Benzene and ethylbenzene were not detected in these samples, and toluene and total xytenes were detected at trace concentrations. ! I I_~__ HOLGUIN, Mr. Greg Petruska I World Oil Marketing Company FAHAN November 23, 1993- Page 7 I ~ & ASSC~IATES, INC. ENVI~IONMENTAL MAN,&~EMENT r~ONSULTANT~, I I 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 rog/kg at 30 feet BGL, 12 mg/kg at 40 feet BGL, and was not detected at ,50 feet BGL. EthyIbenzene Iconcentrations were not detected in these samples and benzene, toluene, and total xylenes were detected at trace concentrations or were nondetectable, I TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-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 I concentrations of 15 rog/kg at depths of 25 feet BGL, 29 mg/kg at 35 feet BGL, 16 mg/kg at 45 feet BGL, 71 rog/kg at 55 feet BGL, and 117 rog/kg at 60 feet BGL. Soil boring IH-7 was terminated at that depth because soil boring TH-1 already delineated the vertical limits of I 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 I 7 soil borings is presented in Table 3,3. I 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 I USTs and near the western and center dispenser islands. The subsequent soil drilling activities indicate that gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in excess of 1,000 rog/kg likely extend to a depth of less than 30 feet BGL. Gasoline hydrocarbon concentrations in excess of 100 mg/kg I extend to of less than 90 feet and detectable concentrations of a depth BGL, gasoline hydrocarbons extend to a depth less than 100 feet BGL. I 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 I 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 I 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 I the clay zone at 80 to 95 feet BGL, as well as a complete contaminant fate risk assessment, World Oil contracted with HFA to conduct these additional assessment activities and to Iprepare this contaminant fate risk assessment. The results of the additional soil investigation are presented in Section 4, below. I I HOLGUIN, Mr, Greg Petruska World Oil Marketing Company ~ FAHAN ~J,...,i,...,~ November 23, 1993 - Page 8 I~ & ASSOC~T~, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ! I 4. ADDITIONAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION 4.1 SOILS INVESTIGATION AND SAMPLING RESULTS I 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 I 95feet 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 i 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 I describe the stratigraphic sequence beneath the gasoline-impacted soil to the first occurrence of groundwater at approximately 200 feet BGL. I Prior to utilities such water, electrical, and the fuel tanks drilling, underground as sewer, storage were mapped by USA Underground Alert. HFA slant drilled a single soil boring 90 linear feet to a i depth of 72 feet BGL on September 9, 1993 (see Figure 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 I of silty sand was observed during the drilling of soil boring TH-8 (see Attachment 2 for the soil boring log). 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 I 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 i sampling procedures). TPH as gasoline was detected in soil boring TH-8 at a concentration of 65 mg/kg at a depth of I 48 feet BGL, but was not detected at 24, 32, 40, 56, 64, and 72 feet BGL (see Attachment 4 for the i~)~ laboratory analysis report). Benzene was detected at concentrations of 0.269 mg/kg at depths of 48 feet BGL, 0,057 mg/kg at 56 feet BGL, and 0.008 mg/kg at 64 feet BGL, but was not detected I 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 I 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'). I I HOLGUIN, Mr. Greg Petruska FAHAN World OII Marketing Company & ~IATES, INC. November 23, 1993- Page 9 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 fine-grained, sand-sized grains. The permeability of the samples was 4.7 x 10-5 centimeters per second (cm/sec) in the sample from 90 feet BGL, and 4.9 x 10.5 cm/sec in the sample from 95 feet BGL (see Attachment 5 for the grain size and permeability analysis report). IHOL©UIN' ¼TES, Mr, Greg Petruska World Oil Marketing Company FAF[AN November 23, 1993- Page 10 I & INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ! I 5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE ADDITIONAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION Based upon soil samples collected from beneath the tour former 12,000-gallon gasoline USIs, I gasoline hydrocarbons were present in the soil immediately beneath the USTs 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 mg/kg at a depth of 10 feet BGL beneath the I central dispenser isJand, 353 rog/kg at 75 feet BGL beneath the USTs, and was not detected in the sample from 100 feet BGL I The subsequent HFA drilling activities were consistent with the interpretalion that the concentrations of TPH as gasoline were confined to the 10 feet of sediment directly beneath I 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 mg/kg at a depth of 10 feet BGL I dispenser during the site assessment, and mg/kg at feet beneath the central ESE 4.842 85 BGL beneath the USTs during the ESE site assessment, but was not detected in the samples from i 95 and 100 feet BGL. No groundwater was encountered to the total depth of the boreholes drilled at the site to I100feet 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. I HFA believes that a contaminant fate risk assessment is viable at this site given the vertical i 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 I area of impacted soil. I 1 I HOLGUIN, Mr, Greg Petruska ~ World Oil Marketing Company ~ FAHAN November 23, 1993- Page 11 I ~ & ~IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ! I 6. TIER I RISK ASSESSMENT The Tier I risk assessment is intended to assess the potential for migration of hazardous I 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 I 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 i and federal regulatory agencies. The calculated probabilities for each migration pathway are then compared to a threshold I 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. I Therefore, HFA conducted Tier II to the for soil a leaching potential modeling assess potential vapor transport threatening groundwater resources. ! ~ HOLGUIN Mr, Greg Petruska J ' World 011 Marketing Company FAHAN November 23, 1993- Page 12 & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 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, probability of poPulation contact (PPC) is 0,033, Because the threshold probability The 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 supported 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, I HOLGUIN, Mr, Greg Petruska World Oil Marketing Company ~ FAHAN ~ November 23, 1993 - Page 13 I~ &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ! I 8. TIER II LEACHING POTENTIAL MODELING The Tier II leaching potential model was performed using the State Water Resources Control I 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 I program, boring log analytical data was collated by depth zone instructions for the All and interval for BTEX. The highest concentration of each analyte was used to represent each 5-foot i 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 I used for the model runs. The model is designed to calculate a cumulative concentration of each contaminant per I each 5-foot interval based on the soil concentration of each found in that highest target analyte interval. As such, it represents a worst-case condition with respect to average concentrations i 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 I been summarized in Table 3.5, and the risk assessment worksheets are included in Attachment 7, Mr. Greg Petruska HOLGUIN, World 0il Marketing Company FAHAN November 23, 1993- Page 14 & ASSOCIATES, 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-foot 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 property; 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 layers 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 and the individual the ppm, layers over 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. I HOLGUIN, Mr, Greg Petruska & ING. November 23, 1993- Page 15 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I 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 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 to cap 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. I 1~ HOLGUIN, Mr, Greg Petruska FAHAN World Oil Marketing Company I & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 23, 1993- Page 16 ENVIIqONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I 11. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of World Oil as it pertains to the location of I the former gasoline USTs at 2101 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California, The conclusions rendered are published risk assessment models based on intormation obtained Within the scope of work authorized by the client, The services performed by HFA were conducted in a I manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the state of California, No other iwarranty is expressed or implied. I I I I I MRM:ffm:kad I I I I I I I I ~ HOLGUIN, ~ FAHAN I~ &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I I I I I I SECTION II I FIGURES I I I I' I I I I I I I LEGEND WORLD OIL I STATION//29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE I BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA FIGURE1 - SITE LOCATION MAP I llOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. BRUNDAGE LANE / .-. FENCE I i I i i I ~ A FORMER DISPENSER i -- / ISLANDS s-~ j ~ ,/ / ~.s-~ ~ s-~ H 2 TH-3~ [~5 S-21A S-20A i ~'S 5 ~ s-~ ~& .... ] ...... ~ .... ~ - ~ c-~ m~ S- ~ A~~~:<<<-] :~<<-:~<-:<<-: Z<-:<a:<<~:~" S-SA " ~ S-9 x~:. S 1 7 S-9A ~;~ ~ .~ ~.~.~-~+ ~,O~AL, ~TA~ ~:~ b-/ lA i~¢~%~ ................... Z.~ ~~::::::::" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I .... C-~ ~,~ =' -3 - . ' .... .-- .~ ~., ¢: .~ ~ C · ' '::: ................................... =:::- ~ ~{~:~ ¢- 1 R ~ZL< .................................. .....~ ~ ..... ,~ ,,.~,~Z~Zf~] o , ~ ========================== ~ ~ ~ f~;~ b- I ~A I -~ ..... :~ ........... ~ I / ~ / ~:~&~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ .............. ~, · ................................................... ~ ..... LEGEND WORLD OIL ~ TANK REMOVAL SAMPLE LO~TIONS STATION ~29 SCALE IN FE~ 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE ~ BORING LOCATIONS ~ BAKERSFIELD, CALIFOBNIA 0 10 20 "' '\ · l' ?.-.~. - -, :' '"" ¢7 'l-~ _ ]-.:~-.Z T _ '-..I. ~ ' ' ,.~ ,',, ." , -,-.....,,~.,,.I . .,. LEGEND WORLD OIL STATION//29 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE3 - GEOLOGY MAP HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. N S A b .L. .b .b JA' 0 TH-4 TH-2 TH.8 TH-] TH.6 [ 1 O' FORMER 12,000 GALLON TANKS 10' :ifil >100 Mg/Kg TPH(g) SW/6W 30' >1,000 Mg/Kg 30' 15 40' SW/SM TPH (g) ~2 40' ~6 >1 O0 Mg/Kg ~ BEHIND LINE O~ 50' '" CROSS SECTION 50' 60' '"'"'"'"'"'""'"'-'-" ':'":'"" ........ ..... :'":':': ....... '" SW 60' 70' ............ -.-.. ................. :..:.. 70' 80' ..... ':.:.,'.:.':.:. ...... ,u:......,:. ............ '"':'":"':"':'":"':'" 80' 37 239 ........ --- ........ TD90 ........ 100' 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' ML- SILT CL/ML- SILTY CLAY HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. w E ,~ 28' ,,.1-~ 15' 0 TH-? TH-1 TH-8 TH-5 · ~'~' ~.~.i':' 0 9N LIMIT', 1 O' FORMER 12,000 1 0' GALLON TANKS 14 zo' I--:....-........ SW/GW 20' 30' TPH(g) 30' >1,000 Mg/Kg 35 40' SW/SM 40' 50' TD45' 50' 6 0' '{':'" ' P.OJ~CT~D F.O~ ................. BEHIND LINE OF ;.:..' '.' ':"':"':"':'":'":'":-'-:.',' 6 0 ~ · .:-. TD60' c,oss SECT~ ................. :'" · ,. -.. 166 ........ ;'" ~i~i!i..-i~.!...~!~i~i~iii!!~i:i~ii!.;!~i~i~i!! -. ................ 70' .....-....: SW TPH(g) ............... 70' I'~..'-:'~i'!i'ii· TD72' >100 Mg/Kg ......... ... I.':--: ':-:--:--.-. 80' ...... 80' TPH(g) !i 90' .... :..::..:..:..:..:..:. ,o 100' :-.:-.:-.:..:-.:..:. :- :. :. ~. :. ~. ~. :.:: -.~..: -. ~.:: 100' 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, FAItAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. I DEPTH IN I~ ~_1~ DEPTH IN FEETBGL ,-* 35o"~r'~25o"~-'--'45o' --I-- :300'~300'-~'~350"~S°t~ 700' '~1 FEEtbGL M-1 J-50 G-1 G-50 TH-1 Q-1 k-50 k-2 H-1 0 ti:~ ;;~: 0 ~ ~ ~ FORM---R USTs ~~__~~ SW/SM SW/SM SW/SM 60 SW/SM 60 CL ~ ~ SW/SM TD 100' CL CL 120 _ ~ ..... ~ -... 120 SW/SM -- SW/SM SW/SM CL CL 180 180 -- ~ ~ -"'-----.- CL ~ SW/SM SW/SM ~ ' ~ ~ ~ I ~ 240 240 SW/SM SW/SM SW/SM ~%"',. CL ..~.-- .,,.,.....,.._ CL ~.~ SW/SM ~ ~ SW/SM SW/SM 3OO 300 T~29-9' LEGEND WORLD OIL MARKETING COMPANY SERVICE STATION #29 HORIZONTAL VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET SCALE IN FEET ~ GROUND WATER SURFACE 2101 BRUNDAGE LANE -- BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~~ ...... ~ SW/SM - SANDS AND SILTY SANDS FIGURE 6 - CROSS SECTION C-C' 0 200 400 0 30 60 CL- CLAYS AND SILTY CLAYS HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. REVISON DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1993; FFM I ~ HOLGUIN, I & ASSC~IATES, ING. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS ! I I I I I SECTION III I SUMMARY TABLES I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM THE OCTOBER 21, 1992 I DISPENSER DECOMMISSIONING SAMPLE TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL I NUMBER LOCATION DEPTH GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (feet BGL) (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) MRL N/A N/A 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 I S-lA W Dispenser-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 Dispense, r-S Central 6 33 N D N D N D N D i 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 N D 8.238 N D 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 I S-5 Center Dispenser-S End 2 N D " N D N D N D N D S-5A Center Oispenser-S End 6 N D N O N D N O 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 601959 I 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 i 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-10 , E Dispenser-S Central 2 N D N D .N D N D 'N D I S-IOA E Dispenser-S Central 6 ND ND ND ND ND S-11 E DispenserTN Central 2 10 N D N D N D N D S-11A E D!spenser-N Central 6 15 ND ND ND ND S-12 E Dispenser-N End 2 N D N D N D N D N D I 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 i 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 = Belowgrade level. MRL = Minimum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable. N D = Not detected. W= West. S = South. N = North. E = East. i *Collected at a depth of four feet from within the stockpile of soil. I Summary Tables Page 2 ! I TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM THE OCTOBER 21, 1992 I 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-Center 2 1,010 N D 1.232 N D ! 17.896 I 6 1,100 ND 16.719 ND 101.670 S-13A UST 2-Center S-14 UST 1-East End 2 10 ND ND ND ND S-14A UST 1-East End 6 8 N D N D N D N D I 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 1-West End 6 1,416 ND 45.742 ND 161.403 I 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 i 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 I 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 6 231 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 I S-22A UST 4-West End 6 2,118 N D 70.875 N D 1 89.661 S-23 UST 3-East End 2 1,256 ND 2.101 ND 13.011 S-23A UST 3-East End 6 1,010 N D' N D N D 2.226 i 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 I~I:IT: r.~,~low I.,~^ Of tank. MRL = Minimum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable. UST = Underground storage tank N D = Not detected. I I '1 I Summary Tables Page 3 I TABLE 3.3 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM EARTH SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.'S, MARCH SITE 3, 1993, ASSESSMENT TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL BORING NO. DEPTH GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (feet BGL) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kgI 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 3.171 0.5901 20.242 TFF1 75 353 3. 1 88 TH-1 85 239 4,842 5,453 !.0101 18.466 TH-1 95 11 ND ND ND~ ND TH-1 100 ND ND ND ND ~D 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 I N D N D 0.100 TH-2 40 27 N D 0.439 N D 0.6:17 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 0.429 N D 0.931 TH-2 80 28 O.265 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.'!, 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 ND 0.188 ND 0,260 TH-4 45 16 N D O. 137 N D 1.004 TH-5 15 14 N D N D N D 0.236 TH-5 25 23 N D O. 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 TI-l-6 10 116 0.162 0,947 N D 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 N D I 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 TFF7 55 71 N D 0.365 N D 1.615 TH-7 60 117 0.063 0,805 N D 3.833 elow ground level. MRL: Minimum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable, N D = Not detected. I Summary Tables Page 4 ! I TABLE 3.4 SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM IHOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.'S, SEPTEMBER 9, 1993, SITE ASSESSMENT TPH AS ETHYL- TOTAL i BORING NO. DEPTH GASOLINE BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES (feet BGL) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/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 I 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 0.883i 4.5 TH-8 56 N D(<MRL) 0.057 0.248 0.04 0.209 I 0.02 N D 0.017 TH-8 N D 0.008 TH-8 72 N D(<MRL) N D 0.014 N D N D = g level. MRL = Minimum reporting level. N/A = Not applicable. N D -- Not detected. I I TABLE 3.5 SUMMARY OF BTEX TIER II RISK APPRAISAL RESULTS I ANALYTE FINAL DEP' ~ H ZONE CUMULATIVE CONTAMINATION ACCEPTABLE CONTAMINATION (feet BGL) (ppm) (w/o layer removal) (ppm) BENZENE 100 41.96 1,000 i TOLUENE 100 602.8 1,000 ETHYLBENz:ENE 100 15.36 1,000 TOTAL XYLENES 100 1,174 ' 1,000 R~I -' I:~,lnw grn~ ,nH ! I ~ HOLGUIN, I& A,_qSC~IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I I I I I I SECTION IV I ATTACH M E NTS I I I I I I I I I I I HOLGUIN, ~ FAHAN I~ & A.oqSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I I I I I I ATTACHMENT 1. I VARIOUS DRILLER'S LOGS - KCWA WELL FILE I I I I I I I I I I .om~,~'~ ~/~,?.~... . ~R:~ ~D~ILLERS R~PORT.. CON~O~'~O~RD ~ ' '- . -"~' ~ '~I~ .... ' · , . ' ':" ~' ~ ,~,,,,,-,.,,,,**,*~.~~~~(l;!.xle.~"-~,'/~'~l' ,,': ~_~'~ ~ ,~aa~'~` Pi 0 ~:~ Box'~0~;~'.~'~!~:~i~'?:"?'?:'~t"~"~I 'r.,i~"~ ~,,,~,~. ~, ,~,.,..~,,,, .... ,,,., ,.,~,.,. L--ii-~-- 2~""L--&' ~i--"~,o.'------. , " '" "' ~ " ~'/o "uoa~e sang ' ~"'~$~::' "'"~ ?~""" :'~"~"' "~'~'~":~"~";:'~ '' ' ...................... 244'" .. .... .... ~,~..i,..::...-.;...~.~,...~.;~,;~ - '" ' ~0 ~'~" 353 [_ t'~o~.se~and ~ F~m .~3_84 . "403.~ ?,Y~l~,v_clay _~ '.-:' ~6 ~ ';.Co~se..-s~d '~ ['~43 "46_0:: ';Blue_clay ...... : 460 "4~.~ "O_~arse__.sand .474 '" :.~ 50? "~ 524 "' ,53~ , ' 558 ":SvO~ "2a~d ~ 586.:?~ 598~[..."Coarse sand ;~ [~ 598 ? 600 '~ "Clay "600. ~:.'~; .604 .' "O~e sand ~.. 604:'" 610.~ "Clay . ., , .. ,.. ............................................... ....... '~'i~h'' - t~.~:'~',.'~~', -~n~~'~~~.~~~~~i,r~:;. ' ' '~ :'~; ~ ''?: "" i :~ ~O~lO~"~-- ~ m '~ ...... .... ~.~_~.~a~l~,~, ~.. -- .. ,~, ,t.,.~..~ .... . ........ ~n.3 .r ~ ..... ,~::- - . ": , d ,,. . .: oa ..~.:. 0.,:..,;..:,.3~. ,...~.., ~ ~10. ~. E30_tnch. 1/i .... : . ~let~of'~in~'~'~:::Oe~e~ted'ifif~v~V~ ......... ':.~':'~':' -o,, ...... ~Nov 27; .' ......... ;,;. '; ~.~"~!:" ~-~ ;;. ,'~, ; ~'~'~" · ,~,-,/~";' ~':'~' ~..:~.l~ ,:..~!.~ ' · r~ts ~rll ~,ill~ ~.~fr,.my, j.ri~iclio. ~.~ ~/:',: ( ~'~,'"~,*-,".,.:';:':~:~'9~'"':~'~'~'~' ....... ~,. _~ .... ::,.,,. ,: , .................... , - ,.i. :: , · k ' i. 'L - t :' ,, ',: ,,: ,'( ~d~,,,, 1900 Min~ Road ~I.O)::~E~i~T~T$1 ~:~':'~,,-~,~.:.~:~.~;a X-~- .... :. ~:.t~'~i~'-' ' ;: ....... Bakersfield, Calil'orn2a l~=z~,!.;-[-'.:: ..::: ".;-t..'[t~,,,,~.~'~'",',, ~-,,' o '., ~.~.[ ~;c u,,,,, .................................. ~,,~ - J~nu~r .¥~ ~! :... ~ . .'~: :?~,!~ i, t · WELL ' DR I RIOINAt ; ' '~:~.' "'Y0r E LERS REPORT l)o Not Ftlt In N9 2 ;358 THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALWO~NIA S~3te Wrl N,_ ~ ' _ ' ' '~1) OWNER~ .~'.' .~ :-~. ~ (Il) WELL LOG~ I '. San ,Tns~ ~2) LOCATION OF W~LLt , ;' O +.n 1 g f, op soil co~,, Kern o .... ' .... ~."'"~ 1)15'01 18 25 s~lty s;,nd ~o...,t~,.x,., .... a~.,i..T 30 S. R 27 E, Sec 1 i~O. 9< ~O ~:md a. C~vc rot:ks 9< ~+..qn,,+.h nP 0nl,,on . ' . ] ~'~ ' 7~1 sand ~, sm-~l]_ cl~y sere ks " '. I~) TYPE OF WORK (check): ' : I ~, ?PS ~.-~51 =~ th n]ay sera, ks .~ rock . l] de, truct,~, de,er,be matertal .nd procedure ,. Item ) PROPOSED USE (check): (~) EQUIPMENTI 9g~ q~g roek~ b gand' .omestic D Ind~triat ~ M~cipal rjgation D %st Well ~ . Other ~ Cable ~ 31 1_ 320 san~ Other ~_ 320 3~6 clay 6) CASING INSTALLED~ R~ 411 sand ~ttt: ' or.tn, If gravel packed mFrom 'rd ) or ol ~ I From To ~{g 675 sea e~ blue cl~.y wS.%h sm~ll . ~,. ' ~,. m,~. [ ~,, ~"' [ fi' ~" -' st, r~.~s of sand Go 90 30" I 36" J o 9o 875 680 ,, joint ~)' PERFORATIONS OR SC~EN~ From - To per ~r ': '}. Size ft. ft. row ft. in. x in. ~. . - -, ..... CONFID NTIAL '" I CONSTRUCTION: ",~ .... : any miyata ~alcd a~ainst pollut;on~ Yes ~ No ~ l( ~ee. note depth of strata 2/1~/66,, ~/9~/~v~ M~,hod 0~ ,,,l~., WELL DRILLER'S STATEMENT: WATER LE~: ' :" This ~11 w~ drilled u,sder my jurisdiction ~.d tbi~ report is true to the bc~t ~ ' o[ my knowledge and belie/. S,,~mdi.. h-,I ~,ro,, ~,,or,,i.~. ir ~ .... f,. NAME SLOC~ WATEr{ V~L bRtLLDI_.- ~I0) WELL TESTS: aaa,{,, 19~ [~n~ Rd r,~.. ...... ~" r"~ nod ur.,,~r-~=,Fnrm Implement Bakersfield, Calii'ou~ia 93 .bi ~,'~' 9~0 ,,,./.~.. -i,~ 23 r,. ~,,-d .... r,,, 8 ~,,. [ :... , ~, . ,. .,: ..... ~'"'~' ~l ~"~' ~'~'~' ~ .',"',' ', · , ':t.. · . ' ~ ..... / 1 I ' '. i - .' I.. ~ ' ~'~.-'~.'. ".~, .. '77:': ...... "-.-~ -'~ ":'1; ~,.~:;;~:'f'7JT'~~'' ~? ::-I:.~..f:-.~ ..... ....,. : "~. ,,.F; ... '~' '~" ; ~ ......... ~.~. ,.,~., ~ . .... ,~ .. ;~ ...- :,",-'.,~,,:. '. ........... ~.;:.~,..,. ~. ATEB. %'~ ELL DKILLEK$ KEI.'OKT ' RIX;IONAL WATER ~LI.UTION .-Y ~ ' Sla~c Wcll N,,. ' ' ~O~Tzo~ ~OA~° N,....5._.a.:''~" THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA o,h,, w~, ~,~~'~'/~. ........ ~me . ~:~i ~n~ni~ Wnf,~r S~rv~ c~ ~onmanv. . ~;nn Jns~. CalJl'ornla 9~100 O ~,.,~ ~ ~,.n;mdy soil (2.) LOCATION OF WELLI ~ .... co..,~ Kerr) o .... ',..~,,,u,.~- lh~-Ol ~9 " }~0 "~rn~! ?- .~nd '~cLion 1. Townshi~ tO S. Range 27 E ~ ..... f~8 ~ "v,~] }..o;'; clay --qo ~6 South ~ P~lle Terrace m" (!) TYPE OF ~O~K (c~cA): ~1~ " well ~ Dee~nln$ D Reconditioning ~ Abandon ~ abandonment, describe m$terid ~nd ~roced.re in Item !1. (4) PROPOSED USE (check.): [(l) EQUIPMENT~ ~3[~ " P60 .. ~nd .. omestic ~ Industrial ~ Municipal ~ [ Rotary ~ ~60 " [ Cable ~ 288 " ~10 "son~ . rrigation ~ Test Well ~ other ~ [ Dug Well ~ ql O " ~25 "yol 1 o'i; clay __(6~) CASING INSTALLED:~' ~:. ' ": If gravel packM ~rom f,. to ft. Di~m. Wall ] ' of Bore ft. >'8~"~ ~,~ " ~0 " ~,,' -~-r:, , · " 0 "7~ .. 30.. ~ "l ' 0.. 75 " '' . _ .. .. [y, 620.. 6~ .. . --'~""a""o~'t ..... "'~"' tank end si,,.~,,,.,h,. 8 & under ~<o... " ~:;fi, "yol )n~-, el ~? . 7) PERFORATIONS: ..: - ~ ,.-. .... - . ., , .-.' ,~.~r,rt.,i, ..... a ~,ouver A):C " A[~ "vol I n:~. r:ln': .... m ~ It: ,o h. P, rL ~, ,o, ~o-, ~er f,. .. "P},O 60D " lQ ~ ..... 5 ...... " ............ 2'. FrOm ~,. ,~ ft. [cthod of ~aling Wo,k ...... a 9/8/(r,<, ~ ,, ~,,,d _~/1. ./~q-. ' '. ,., ".,. '9) WATER LEVELS: WELL DRILLER'S STATEMENT: Addr,, 1000 ;.:inr~ Rd 1'0) WELL TESTS: '":' ' ] , ~ o'"~ ' ~ma: ,,t./~i,. ,hS t,. d,,- d~t~tle S,,. [. m ~.] ........... ~....' ..... Z.~ ..... ~ ~ ................................ _ (Ghat.Les ~ Bo~ker~m~'F~/,'m- -- / ' I~ ........ ~ ..... ~ ....~.~,,,, ..,,,,, ..a., ~ ,., ~ ~. u,,,,. No._X~_g639_~..57. .... D,,,a ................ 3/7J/~:5. ,, ........ . , .... , '.. :- .~..'. '. ',: .'.;~;~ys'>~>~;'~:~,t:~!?~.~,-.~', ..... ":"". " I · ' : .... .':r.::.'.; ~'..' f?; STATE OF CALIFORNIA I ' ~-, . .." CONTROL BOARD No,: _ :_ Z/,' ~, ' ; ,:;h ,,,::t ,= . ~ 'J (~her Wr I N,, ' / ' ....' ,"' -. .............. · .............. /," ~1 ..... ~2) LOCATION OF WELL~ ' .,, ~;-- :' ~0)~ :~_~ov~c~'_ ~""" Kern o .... """~' "'"'- ~o o~ --~0~~28 'co~s~.san~' 4 ...... ~.~__ ~' - -~ " ........ ~U . .220 '~.e1~o~:-_~,7 ........ (4) PROPOSED USE (check):' I (5) EQUIPMENT: - ?89 " .306 'co~a~d .... m Domestic ~ Industrial ~ Municipal ~ [ Rotary ~ - 306,,." 320 'yeiZow ~ i~-at:-~ m TestWell ~ Other ~ [ Cable ~ 3~0 " 3P~ 'e~ar~ .~~ _ ~'~"*.. '~'" ~ ~.. ~ I Dug Well ~ .. -. 32~ " ~ '~oeka ...... ' ' ' : - "' '" d -,,1~ '~ 37~ ~,0~ ~nd~oc~, C~=v-,,%- - --!O 9~ '-- 3Q zI/~'l 3~ ~ ?~ ~ ." fi~ "=~_o~y' :. ' m·o ·.. 627 " 16" x. q~ (~' Pti', .. "gfi 89? ),l g " )]3q "~a vnc~,'~v~] ' _; . "., . ~ ' .. ..' ..... ' .. I----- ~: )~50 " h67 ,,,:'co~s~ ~" ..... "',', po~ I~,,.,,,,,..,~ z/~.. 3/', l;~h" ~,oa"~ .~ ' I;7) PERFORATIONS: .... .':"' ~1~." ~25 · "~a .sand .' g26 " ghl "bins Cl~ ' s~ .,~,,..,,,.., Z} ,.-.'..,,,.,, 5/~ '"' '563 " _ 7 607" ~ ".. .. '~ .... k¢o ".~ ~~~ay .... $0h " 62t "coarse ' 633 6]t8 co~.~d. ('~) CONSTRUCTION: : .... ~::. 6~8 " ~70 "5i-~ .~v % ':' ' ,'". ~!~ 670 " 6S~ " I" .... ~,,,,,.i,,,,,,,),~,N,~, ~v,, On. to-k.,d,~,~ ~6 ~:.: n. 680 608 "blue q~y ,, .From n.,. ,,. . 705 " 726 "blue cley , '" /~.. " 726 .... ~m~ .......... O~ ~o,~ ...... a 9-11~ "63 ' ~9) WATER LE~LS: .... : ~'Et.t DRILLER'S STATEMENT: Add',- 1900 I.~n~ ~:,,~..,,,,~,~,, ~ ),, m ~. ,~,,,,~,-~.~r~ T~p1 ~t, ~ ~ ~_~. ...... ~r~..E .... 81ac~ ...bF...~~ ' '~--~'~,;"~ -I I~ HOLGUIN, ~ FAHAN ~ &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I I '1 I I ATTACHMENT 2. I SOIL BORING LOG ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! m m m m mm m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m LOG OF $O~L BORING CHECKED BY: M. Magargee, R.G.//4892 CUENT: World Oil Marketing Company SAMPLE/SAMPLER TYPE: Undisturbed/2.5" CA split spoon PROJECT: Service Station #29 DATE: September 9, 1993 DRILLING 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 USTs (slant drilled 30° to the west) WEATHER CONDITIONS: Sunny and warm IDENTII~ICATION GRADATION DESCRIPTION AND SOIL CLA,~SIFICATIbN =~ 1. Descriptive Classification Name: Gradation, Angularity, Structure, Plasticity, Moisture, _O ~ 2. Particle Size, Shape, and Gradation Consistency, Odor, Stain tucc ~. ~ '< ~: ~" z~-~''r ~' ~3 3. Consistency, E,seticity ~ -- ,-. ~= ~ Nm ~ ^ I~ ~ 4. Reaction to Shaking, Dry Strength. Etc. d W008-1 20 SW 6 - 0 95 5 gray Sand Well graded, medium to coarse grained, dry Iooss~ no odor~ no stain~ blow count = 6, 8, 9 WO08-~ 24 ' S~V 4 - 0 95 5 gray Sand; well graded, medium to coarse,~qralned, dry, Iooss, no odor, no stainI blow count = 10, 12~ 14 Woo8-j 28 sW/SM 10 - 0 90 10 gray Sand; well graded significant silt very fine to medlun grained, dry, loose, no o.~r, no stain; blow count = 13~ 1~'~ 2~" ~/0J'8-4 32 SW/GW 26 0.39" 5 90 5 gray GraVelly sand;, fine to very coarse grained, minor gravel, slightly moist, loose, stight odor, no stain; blow 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, ~lightiy moist, loose, stron~ odor, no stain; blow count = 21 ~ 26~ 38 W008-6 40 SM 2,000+ _ 0 85 15 light red Silty Sand; slightly moist, loose stron~l odor, no stain; blow count = 20, 25, 30 W008-7 44 ML 2,000+ - 0 5 95 light red Silt; moist dense stroh,() odor no stainI blow count = 35, 40, 45 W008-8 48 SM 2,000+ - 0 90 10 yellowish Silty Sand; slightly moist, looser stroh0 odor, no stain; blow count = 28, 33, 39 red W008-9 52 SM/SW 2,000+ - 0 95 5 light red SI)ty Sand; significant silt, slighily moist, loose, stro'ng odor~ no stainI blow count = 30, 36, 42 W008-10 56 SM 787 - 0 90 10 yellowish Silty Sand; minor sllt~ slij)htl~/moist~ loose, stron_q odor, no stainI blow count = 34, 36~ 38 red W008-11 60 SW/SM 1,500 0 90 10 light red Silty Sand; sij)nlficant sllt~ slightly moistr loose, stron~ odor~ no stain; blow count = 35, 40, 45 W008-12 64 SW 1,788 - 0 95 5 light red Sand; well _qraded, very fine to fine ~rained~ sllghlty moist, Iooss~ moderate odor, no stain; blow count = 42, 46 50 W008-13 68 SW 1,522 - 0 95 5 light red Sand; well qraded fine to medium !~rained, slighlty.moist,,Iooser sli~iht odor~ no stainI blow count = 40, 48, 50 W008-14 72 SW 410 - 0 95 5 light red Sand; well graded, very fine to fine !)rained, sllghlty moist, Ioose~ slight odor, no stain; blow count = 45, 48, 50 Total de, pth = T2'; no groundwater encountered *Type of PID utilized: OVM Serial No.: 580B-31208-240 Calibrated to: Isobutyiene 100 ppm .. , Number of background samples taken: 3 Results of background samples: 0 SEE PLATE A-1 FOR LEGEND TO LOGS 'J-fOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, iNC. I ~ HOLGUIN, ~ FAHAN I~ &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I I I I I I AI'rACHMENT 3. I BOREHOLE DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES I I I I I I I I I I 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, holiow-~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 log 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 lithology 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 supervision 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 log, including observations regarding the types and quantities of waste materials encountered and any photoionization detector readings. This data was recorded on a standardized log sheet in the Field Log Book. Specific information that recorded is listed in Table 1, below. was 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 · 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 Borehole Drilling and Soil Sampling Procedures Page 3 The field and verbatim in of the risk assessment log was typed presented on appendix 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 The borehole log was checked for the following presented. 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 softing, grain-size distribution, cementation, etc. The borehole location was 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, 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 was abandoned with a five percent bentonite neat cement grout delivered by a The boreholes grout pump through a tremmie pipe. I ~ ] HOLGUIN, ~ FAHAN I~l &~IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I I I I I I ATTACHMENT 4. I LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORTS I I I I I I I I I I HOLGUIN, FAHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES 43 South Figueroa Street · Ventura, California 93001 * (805) 652-0219 · FAX: (805) 652-0793 REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS September 21, 1993 Page 1 CLIENT: PROJECT: World Oi 1 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 Analyzed Gasoline Diesel Benzene Toluene Benzene Xylenes TRPH No, No, Matrix Received and Tested B~ By Units MRL MRL MRL MBL 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 933247 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 i0 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 10 005 .005 .015 .015 933250 W008-10 Soil 9/9/93 9/11/93 9/16/93 K. M. mg/kg ND <MRL .057 .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 10 005 .005 .015 .015 ExtractLon and Analyses Methods: EPA 5020 DHS-TPH DHS-TPR EPA 8020 EPA MRI, m Method Reporting Limit 418.1 ND = Not Detected at or above MRL TRPH m Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons DHS-TPH ' CAL-EPA TP,I Draft Method t~/~__~.~__~/~ Lab Certification: CAELAP #18781 1/31/94 Laboratory Direc ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES ]43 South Figueroo Streei · Ventura, Colifornio 9300] · (805) 652-0219 · FAX: (805) 652-07(23 METHOD BLANK REPORT REPORT OF ANAL]~TXCAL RESULTS Repol-t Date: September 21, 1993 Date Analyzed: September 16, 1993 QC Batch ID: 091693 Analyzed By: M. Price Analysis Method: 8020/8015 TOTAL PETROLEUM H]~DROCAR~ONS WITH BTEX DISTINCTION Ethyl Total Lab Sample TPH-Naptha Benzene Toluene Benzene ' Xylenes No. No. Matrix Units ~L ~4RL ~RL ~L MRL Method Blank MBS91693 Soil rog/kg ND ND ND ND ND 10 .005 .005 .015 .015 Volatile fuel hydrocarbons are quantitated against a gasoline standard. Hydrocarbons 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 ~RL TPH = CAL-EPA TPH Draft Method Lab Certification: CAELAP #1878; 1/31/94 HOLGUIN, & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES ]43 South Rgueroo Streel · Ventur(], C(~lifornia 9300] · (805) 652-0210 · FAX: (805) 652-0?93 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.$.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 mm m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m m CHA~N-OF-CUSTODY RECORD Page_l_of 1 Client Name World Oil Marketing Corp. Prelect Name Station # 29 Client Contact/Phone No. Send report to: 3ontract Code WOO8 Grey Petruska / (310) 928 0100 Holguin, Fahan & Associates, Inc. Sampler'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 -i Matrix (soil, Olher Informallon No. and O x HFA Dale Time ground waler, (e.g., sampling location, depth, Type o! n3:. ~ LU F- SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS r,.9 rn (i.e., lurnaround time, etc.) Sample # Sampled Sampled air, wate~) soil boring or MW #, etc.) Containers I-- ~ WOO8-2 9/9/93 0905 SOIL TH-8 @ 30' 1 SOIL X X .............................................. _._~_~.~_~, ._ _SLEEVE WOO8-4 9/9/93 0922 SOIL TH-8 @ 40' " X X WOO8-6 9/9/93 0941 SOIL TH-8 @ 50' " X X ............. WOO8~8 9/9/93 1000 SOIL TH-8 @ 60' . WOO8~10 9/9/93 1030 SOIL TH-8 @ 70' ?.~ "~__~'"'O " X X REQUIRED DETECTION LIMITS WOO8-12 9/9/93 1045 SOIL TH-8 @ 80' ~;~:~,,~.~.-] " X X L--] Los Angeles County E)~J California LUFT ..................................... [] Santa Barbara County ~-~ SW-84§ WOOS-14 9/9/93 1102 SOIL TH-8 @ 90' ~¢,~_~ ~,.~"-~_.. " X X [] ventura county [] Other .................. see reverse for. required detection limits SAMPLE RECEIPT ................................ Yes NO Sample Seal Intact [~_-] ..................................... Sample Condition Acceptable [:5 L-~ Sample Temperature Appropriate L-J PRESERVATIVE ADDED? All samples stored overnight at HFA are · refrigerated 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) . ~ 7f., ~ ~ehnqu~sh~d By (Signa~ure/o~ganizatio~) Date/Time Received By: (Slgnature/Organizatloo) Laboratory Name & City f~ehnqulshed By: (Signature/organization) Date/Time Received By: (Signature/Orga~ization)(// . ,, (foKm updafed 8/93) Rellnqu~[hed By: (Signature/Organization) Date/Time R~C~vja~J=or LabOratory By~_JSl~ture/Organlzation) Include Special 'Hazarda Here: Return sample(s)/cooler to: Holclutn, Fahan & Associates. Inc.; ,3157 Pp.n~m~q flrlv~ Rc~kc, r~fic, IH ~A c~'l~n¢~ . ¢¢~nc:,, "~n'~ _nc4"-/ . r:.a v ~ ,¢,'-,-, ,-,,-,, I ~ HOLGUIN, ~ FAHAN ~ I & ~IATF_~, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I I I I I I ATTACHMENT 5. I GRAIN SIZE AND PERMEABILITY ANALYSIS REPORTS I I I I I I I I I I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. TRANSM. iTTAL FROH = .... Soil~ ]a-~q~~, T ~_,:.:_.. RE:. YOUR ,JOB NO, ......... . ,_, .._ , , ' OUR J~S NO, JOB DESCRJPT[ON= ......... .~2o ~ ~., ~. ~ .............. _ .. ~~ ~. 93308 HESSAGES . ~AT~ J , ~ 25~ 1993 I 4700 DISTRICT BLVD. ' BAKERSFIELD, OALIFORNIA93313 ' Pt;lONE (80~ 831-5100 ' FAX; (805)~1~31-2111 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION ~ TH-2 go Soils Engineering GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION P~TE No:l " I SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.. I Hol~_~i_~; Fahaa & Aasoc In~. File 93-7067 t*c~'maS~ on Sample delivered to lab. Au~st, I I I CONS'gkNT*HF.,AD P~ILITY TEST DATA Coefficient of Permeability I Test Location* ' Dep~ . ,cm/se~, Test Hole 1 .: 95' 4.9 x 10~ I Test Hole 2 ' '90' t 4.7 x l0s Note* Sample delivered to lab. by client. No tes~ locations given other than as I shown above. I ~1 HOL©UIN, ~ FAHAN I ~ &ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I I I I I I AI'[ACHMENT 6. I TIER I RISK ASSESSMENT I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION A Determine the Chemical Constituents of Concern at the facility. ! 1, CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN i 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 I 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. I Whenever possible, specific compounds are listed, rather than families of compounds. i Individual metallic compounds, in particular, are likely to have properties significantly different from those of the elemental metals, Indicator compounds associated with the site are those of greatest concern based on toxicity, persistence, and prevalence on-site. The selection of I contaminants listed may be based in part on the quantities disposed of at the site and on environmental sampling data. I 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 i compound. 2, MIGRATION POTENTIAL I 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 I 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 I soil (soil retention potential). iUsing 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. I 3. FINALIZE SELECTION OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN To reduce the list of contaminants of concern, select those chemicals with the highest scores in I category migration potentials: each of I I Tier Risk Assessment Page 2 EVAPORATIVE POTENTIAL (EP) Chemical EP Score I 1. Benzene 3 2. Toluene 3 I 3, Ethylbenzene 3 4. O-Xylene 3 5. M-Xylene 3 I 6. P-Xylene 3 LEACHING POTENTIAL (LP) i Chemical LP Score 1. Benzene 3 2, Toluene 3 I 3. Ethylbenzene 3 4, O-Xylene 3 5. M-Xylene 3 I P-Xylene 3 6, SOIL RETENTION POTENTIAL (SRP) I Chemical SRP Score 1. Benzene 1 2. Toluene 1 I 3, Ethylbenzene 1 4, O-Xylene 1 5. M-Xylene 1 I 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 80 t780 75.20 0,879 Toluene 108-88-3 95,0 110 587 21,84 0,867 Ethylbenzene 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 I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 4 ! I TABLE A-2 Determination of Migration Potential Scores from i Chemical and Physical Properties Evaporation Potential (All Compounds): I Vapor Pressure Evaporation (mm Hg at 25°C) Potential Score I >1 3 1 to 10-3 2 <10-3 1 I Leachin.q Potential (Orgl_an c Compounds): Water Solubility Vapor Pressure Leaching I (ppm at 20°C) (mm Hg at 25°C) Potential Score >100 <,500 3 0.1 to 100 <,500 2 I <0,1 -- 1 -- >,500 1 I Leaching Potential ('lnorgan c Compounds) Water Solubility Vapor Pressure Leaching Classitication (ppm at 20°C) Potential Score I >105 3 Soluble Slightly soluble 10to 10`5 2 i Insoluble <10 1 Soil Retention Potential (Or.qanic Compounds):a i Water Solubility Vapor Pressure Soil Retention (ppm at 20°C) (mm Hg at 25°C) Potential Score <0,1 < 10-3 3 I 0,1 to 100 10-3 to 1 2 >100 >1 1 i Soil Retention Potential (Inor.qan c Compounds): Water Solubility Water Solubility Soil Retention Classification (ppm at 20°C) Potential Score I Soluble >105 1 Slightly soluble 10to 105 2 Insoluble <10 3 I solubility and/or vapor pressure as selection criteria. a Use water ! I I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 5 ! I TABLE A-3 Worksheet for Estimation of Migration Potential Scores Chemical Name Water Solubility Vapor Pressure Migration Potentials (a) I (ppm) (mm Hg at 25°C) EP LP SRP I Benzene 1780 75,20 3 3 1 Toluene 537 21.84 3 3 1 I Ethylbenzene 167 7,08 3 3 1 I O-Xylene 162 6,16 3 3 1 I M-Xylene 162 6,16 $ 3 1 P-Xylene 162 6.16 3 3 1 I (a) Migration potentials: EP = Evaporation Potential i LP = Leaching Potential SRP = Soil Retention Potential I I I I I I I I I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 6 ! SECTION B Determine the probability of human contact with hazardous materials on-site: 1, SITE ACCESSIBILITY Assign a value from Table B-1 that best describes existing accessibility to the facility by the outside population. I 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 i 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 I population, On-Site Population = (Number of persons on site) x (average hours per day spent on site)/24= I On-Site 20x8 =6.67 Population 24 I ON-SITE ADJACENT POPULATION VALUE (APV) I Population Adjacent Within One-Mile Radius Population Value (APV) 0 0,1 I 1-1QO 0,,5 IOI-I,QO0 1 I 1,001 -5,000 2 >5,000 3 I Adjacent Populalion Value (APV) = _3 I I I I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 7 TABLE B-1 On-Site Accessibility Values (AV) Barrier Accessibility Value (AV) 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 separale means to control entry 2 Barriers do not completely surround the facility 3 Adapted from the HRS (USEPA 1985) Accessibility Value (AV) = 0,__~_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) I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 8 ! I 1. Is there a confirmed instance in which contact with substances at the facility has caused illness, injury or death? I YES X NO i If yes, then the probability of population contact (PPC) = 1. If no, then go to next step. I 2. Record values for following the factors as previously determined in Sections B-l, B-2, and B-3: Accessibility Value (AV) = 0.1 I Containment Condition Value (CCV) = 3 Adjacent Population Value (APV) = 3 I 3. Estimate PPC using the following equation: i PPC + (AV x CCV x APV)/27 = (0.1 x 3 x $)/27 4, Record observed PPC (from Step 1) or estimated PPC (from Step 3]) below: I PPC = 0.033 I I I I I I I I I Tier i Risk Assessment Page 9 I TABLE B-2 On-Site Containment Condition Values (CCV) I Conditions Site Containment on Condition Value (CCV) I General Conditions: No odor at the site 1 I Some odor on site 2 Strong odor on site 3 Exposed patches or piles of solid waste 3 I Open creeks or drainage ditches on site or emerging from site 2 i Discolored surface water or drainage ditches 3 Soil stained by liquid (area >10 m2) 2 Ponded or saturated areas of liquid waste 3 I Areas of stressed (or absent) vegetation 3 Containers: (includes drums, aboveground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, and i other containers of hazardous materials) Containers sealed and in sound condition and protected from I deterioration by weather 0.1 I Container sealed and in sound condition but not protected 1 I Containers deteriorated but no evidence of leakage or liquid contents 2 I i Containers leaking or liquid visible or evidence of contamination 3 i Containment Condition Value (CCV) = 3 5. Record the Probability of Population Contact (PPC) value in the designated space of I Table G-1 in Section G. I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 10 I Assess the probability of hazardous materials migrating off site via surface water transport. ! 1, CO~IAI~MENI CO~DIIIONS i 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. I Containment Value (CV) = 3 I 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 I the largest Area Value (AV) to present a worst-case scenario. ISITE AREA VALUES (AV) Area of Exposed Contaminants, m2- Site Area Values (AV) I Gl0 0.1 11-100 0.5 101-1,000 1 I 1,001-10,000 2 >10,000 2 I 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 facility is located. I I I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 11 TABLE C-1 Containment Values for Surface Water Runoff (CV) Conditions on Site Containment Value (CM) 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 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 I Tier l Risk Assessment Page 12 I I ONE-YEAR MAXIMUM 24-HOUR RAINFALL VALUES (RV) Amount of rainfall (inches) Rainfall Value (RV) I <1,0 0,1 1.0 to 2,0 1 i 2.1 to3.0 2 <3.0 3 Drainage from adiacent I property flow across the site 3 Rainfall Value (RV) = 1 I 4. SLOPE AND TERRAIN Assign a value from Table C-2 that best describes existing surface slope conditions at the I facility as well as the terrain immediately surrounding the facility. I 5. CALCULATE THE PROBABILITY FOR MIGRATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VIA SURFACE WATER TRANSPORT I WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING PROBABILITY OF SURFACE WATER TRANSPORT (PSWT) 1. Are there identifiable ditches, intermittent streams, or depressions on site that serve as I channels for flow or runoff? YES X NO I Have contaminants associated with the facility been detected in surface soil, sediment, or I surface water surrounding the site? YES X NO I Is any part of the facility submerged in water? I YES X NO Is there a storm sewer within 400 meters of the site in which contaminants have been I detected? i YES X NO Is there a stream or other surface water body on the site or directly adiacent to the site? I YES X NO I I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 13 ! I Is there direct evidence of contaminant transport from the site via runoff (i.e., quantitative evidence that facility is releasing contaminants into surface water, ditches, storm sewer, or adiacent property)? I YES X NO if any of the above are yes, then probability of surface water transport (PSWT) = 1. i If not, then go to next step. 2, Record values for the following factors as determined previously in Sections C-1, C-2, C-3, I and C-4: Containment Value (CV) = 3 Rainfall Value (RV) = 0,1 I Slope/Terrain Value (STV) = 0.1 Site Area Value (AV) = 0,5 I 3. Estimate PSWT using the following equation: PSWT = (CV x RV x STV x AV)/81 = (3 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.5)/81 I 4. Record observed PSWT (Step 1) or estimated PSWT (Step 3) below: I PSWT = 0.00019 I 5. Record the Probability of Surface Water Transport (PSWT) Value in the designated space of Table G-1 in Section G. I I I I I I I 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 (SIV) = 0.1 I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 15 ! I SECTION D Assess the probability for groundwater contamination resulting from migration of hazardous I materials on site, i 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, I Containment Value (CV2) = 3 I 2, GROUNDWATER PROXIMITY Assign a value from the table below that best approximates the depth of the local groundwater itable, GROUNDWATER PROXIMITY (GPV) I Depth of Water Table (feet) Groundwater Proximity Value GPV) 0-20 3 21-75 2 I 76-150 1 >150 0.1 I CONTAINMENT VALUE 0,1 (cv I 3. SOIL PERMEABILITY Assign a value from Table D-2 that best describes the soil type underlying the facility. I 4, NET PRECIPITATION Assign a Net Precipitation Value (NPV) trom the table below that best approximates annual net precipitation tot 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 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 DumpingS: 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 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 I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 17 ! I TABLE D-1 (continued) i Conditions on Site Containment Value (CV2) I Piles: Piles uncovered and waste stabilized; or piles covered, i waste unstabilized, and essentially nonpermeable liner 0.1 Piles uncovered and waste unstabilized; moderately permeable liner, and no leachate collection system 1 I Piles uncovered and waste unstabilized; moderately permeable liner, and leachate collection system 2 I Piles uncovered, waste stabilized, and no liner 3 I TABLE D-2 Permeability of Soils at the Site (SPV) Type of Material Soil Permeability I Value (SPV) Clay, compact till, shale; unfractured I metamorphic and rocks 0.1 igneous Silt, loams, silty clays, silty loams; clay I loams; less permeable limestone dolomites and sandstone; moderately permeable till 1 Fine sand and silty sand; sand loams; loamy I sands; moderately permeable limestone, dolomites and sandstone (no karst); moderately i fractured igneous and metamorphic rocks, some coarse till 2 Gravel, sand; highly fractured igneous and I metamorphic rocks, permeable basalt and lavas; karst limestone and dolomite 3 I Soil Permeability Value (SPV) = 3 i Adapted from HRS (USEPA 1985) I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 18 ! I NET PRECIPITATION VALUE (NPV) Net Precipitation (inches)a Net Precipitation Value (NPV) I <-10 0.1 -lOto +5 1 I 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)? I YES X NO If the contamination is documented in the aquifer only, then the probability of groundwater I contamination (PGWC) = 1.0. If the contamination is documented in a drinking water well. or at the tap. then (PGWC) = 1,1 . I 2. Record values for the following factors as determined in Section D-l, D-2, D-3, D-4, and D-5. Groundwater Proximity Value (GPV) = 0.1 I Net Precipitation Value (NPV) = 0.1 Soil Permeability Value (SPV) : 3 Containment Value (CV2) = 3 I Leaching Potential (LP) = 3 I I I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 19 ! I 3. Estimate PGWC using the following equation: PGWC = (GPV x NPV x SPV x CV2 x LP)/243 = (0.1 x 0,1 x 3 x 3 x 3)/243 = 0,0011 4, Record observed PGWC (from Step 1) or estimated PGWC (from Step 3) below: ,! i PGWC = 0.0011 I 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 g3 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 Value (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 3. 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 I 1. Is there direct evidence (i.e,, ambient sampling) of air contamination on or near the site that is attributable to wastes on 1he site? I YES X NO i Has a fire or explosion involving hazardous materials ever occurred on site? YES X NO (Post Closure) I If 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-l, E-2, and E-3, Evaporation Potential (EP) = 3 I Containment Value (CV3) -- 0.1 Reactivity and Incompatibility Value (RIV) = 0,1 ! Tier I Risk Assessment Page 21 ! I 3, Estimate PAVT using the following equations: If EP>RIV = PAVT = (CV3x EP)/9 (0.1 x3)/9 = 1,0 If RIV>EP then PArT = (CV3 x RIV)/9 I 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, ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 22 ! I TABLE E-1 Containment Values tot Air Vapor Transport (CV3) Conditions On Site Containment I Value (CV3) General Conditions: I No odor on site 0,1 I Some odor on site 1 I Strong Odors 2 Odor problems observed off site 3 I Soil stained by liquid (area >10m2) 2 I Ponded or saturated areas of liquid waste 3 i Containers: (includes above and underground storage tanks, drums, etc.) Containers sealed and in sound condition, I protection from deterioration by weather conditions 0.1 I Containers sealed and sound, no protection from weather 1 I Containers deteriorated, no evidence of leakage or liquid contents 2 I Containers leaking or liquid visible 3 I Containment Value (CV3) = 0.1 I I I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 23 TABLE E-2 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 that violent chemical at elevated or undergo change temperatures and pressures. Also 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) I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 25 I SECTION F Assess the probability of contaminant migration via soil vapor transport. 1. CONTAINMENT CONDITIONS Assign a value from Table F-1 that best approximates existing conditions regarding containment of hazardous constituents on site. if more than one situation applies, assign the containment condition of highest numerical value. 2, CONTAINMENT CONDITIONS Using Table F-2, estimate the depth to which underground storage tanks are buried or the depth to which known subsurface soil contamination extends. If more than one situation applies, assign the contaminant depth of highest numerical value. 3. BURIED/SUBSURFACE MATERIALS Assign a value from Table F-3 that best describes the types of materials buried or stored in the subsurface at the facility. 4. CALCULATE THE PROBABILITY OF CONTAINMENT MIGRATION VIA SOIL VAPOR TRANSPORT WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING PROBABILITY OF SOIL VAPOR TRANSPORT (PSVT) 1. Is there direct evidence of release of soil vapors from the facility to nearby areas (i.e., analytical evidence of contamination in area houses at a level significantly higher than background?) YES X NO If the contamination is documented in soil vapor monitoring wells only, then the probability of soil vapor transport (PSVT) = 1.0. Has there ever been a known release of hazardous materials to the subsurface: X YES NO I It yes, then PSVT = 1.0. If there is no documented contamination, then go to the next step. I 2. Record previously determined values for the following factors: Soil Permeability Value (SPV) = 3 (from Section D-3) I Evaporation Potential (EP) = 3 (from Section E-3) I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 26 I 3. Assign values for contaminant depth (CDV), containment (SCV), and (BSM) Contaminant Value (CV4) = 4 I Contaminant Depth (CDV) = 3 Buried/Subsurface Material Value (BSM) = 2 I 4. Estimate PSVT using the following equation: i PSVT = (SPV x EP x CV4 x CDV x BSM)/243 (3 x 3 x 4 x $ x 2)/243 = 0,88 5. Record PSVT for the site below: I 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 >50 >dEl 3 CONTAMINANT DEPTH VALUE (CDV) = 3 TABLE F-3 Buried/Subsurface Material Values for Soil Vapor Transporf (BSM) Type Material Value (BSM) Buried or located in Subsurface Nontoxics only 1 Toxics only 2 Nontoxics and toxics 3 BURIED/subsurface material value (BSM) = 2 Tier I Risk Assessment Page 28 SECTION G Assess the probability of off-site migration of hazardous constituents and the need to initiate a baseline risk assessment (Tier Il) for the facility, WORKSHEET FOR ASSESSING THE PROBABILITY OF OFF-SITE MIGRATION OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS Column 1 Column 2 Calculated/Observed Probabilities (limit Action Level to 3 Decimal Places) PPC = 0,033-1f PPC > 0.125 then proceed to Tier II P S W T = 0,00019-1f PSWT > 0,062 then proceed to Tier II PGWC = 0,0011 -If PGWC >0,031 then proceed to Tier II P A V T = 0,033-ff PAVT > 0,250 then proceed to Tier II PSVT = 1.0-If PSVT > 0.031 then proceed to Tier II If none of the calculated observed probabilities in Column 1 exceed their respective action level values in Column 2, then calculate the Total Probability (Pt) for off-site migration of hazardous constituents, Total Probability = PPC + PSWT + PGWC + PAVT + PSVT/5 (,Pt) (Pt) = ~ If Pt--> 0,067 then proceed to Tier II I Tier I Risk Assessment Page 29 ! I LIST OF REFERENCES i 1. Criteria for Selection of Groundwater Exposure Assessment Models, OHEA-E-219, USEPA, 2/1987. I 2. Doull J., Klaassen C.D., Amdur M,O. (eds): Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY 1980. I 3. Endangerment Assessment Handbook USEPA/OWPE, TR-693-24B, 10/1985. i 4. Exposure Factors Handbook, USEPA/OHEA/EAG, Second Draft, 5/1988. 5. GeneraIQuantitative Risk Assessment Guidelines for Noncarcinogenic and Nonmutagenic I Health Effects, USEPA/RAF, Third Draft, 2/1988. 6. Guidance for Establishing Target Clean-up Levels for Soils at Hazardous Wastes Sites, I USEPA/ORD, 1989. 7. Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation Procedures: Ecological Risk Assessment, I USEPA/ORD, EPA 540/9-85-001,6/1986. ' I 8. Health and Environmental Effects Profiles, USEPA/OHEA/ECAO, 1984-1988 (300 total). 9. Health Effects Assessments, USEPA/OHEA/ECAO, 1984-1988 (65 total). I 10. Health Risk Assessment for Chemical Mixtures, USEPA, Draft, 2/1988. I 11. Integrated Risk Information Systems, On-Line, USEPA Risk Data Base (updated monthly). i 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. I 13. Nonexposure Aspects of Risk Assessment, EPA Contract #68-02-4254-75, OTS, 1988. 14. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Interagency Staff Group on Chemical i I Carcinogenesis, Executive Office of the President. Chemical Carcinogens: A Review of the ', Science and its Associated Principles. Federal Register 50:10372-10442, 1985. I Tier I Risk Assessment Page ~ I 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/OH EA/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-603-21 A, 10/1985, 20. Toxicology Profiles, ATSDR.CDC, 1987-1988 (Selected Chemicals: Dioxins, 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. I ~ HOLGUIN, I & ~IATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I I I I I I A'I'rACHMENT 7. I TIER II RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS I I I I I I I I I I TIER II DATA INPUT FILE DEFq'H BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYLBENZENE TOTAL XYLENES (feet BGL) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) {mg/kg) 5 N D (MRL>O.O01) 8.238 N D (MRL>0.001) 118.040 10 9.605 38 7.169 6.693 53 9.834 15 15.214 i 127.826 5.010 220.918 20 1.850 59.290 N D (MRI_>0.001) 204.717 25 N D (MRL_>0.001) N D (MRL>0.001) N D (MRL>0.001) N D (MRL>0.001) 30 N D (MRI_>0.005) N D (MRL,~0.005) N D (MRL>0.005) N D (MRI_>0,005) i 35 0.061 0.662 N D (MRI_>0.001) 20.312, 40 N D (MRI_>0.001) 0.439 N D (MRL>0.001) 0.617 45 N D (MRI_>O.O01) N D (MRI_>O,001) N D (MRI~O.001) N D (MRL>O.001 / 50 0.269 2.600 0.883, 4.500 55 0.057 0.731 0.040; 0.,?)02 60 0.506 0.737 U D {MRL>0 001)1 10.594 65 3,147 2.490 0.616! 4.496 70 0.526 0.782 N D (MRI_>0.001) 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 O (MRL>O.001) N'D (MRI_>0.001) N D (MRL>O.001) N D (MRL>0.001) 100 N D (MRL>0.001) N D (MRI_>O.001) N D (MRL>O.001) N D (MRL>O.001) 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. I BENZENE RISK I BENZENE SOIL CONTAMINATION RISK APPRAISAL FOR PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER Press the escape key (or make a blank entry) for the options menu I 6 --- AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION (INCHES) 200 --- DISTANCE FROM SURFACE TO GROUNDWATER (FEET) i 20 --- NUMBER OF SAMPLES (UP TO 32 SAMPLES AT INTERVALS OF 1 TO 6 FEET) MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS OPTIONS CUMULATIVE CONTAMINATION SAMPLE REMOVE CLEANUP W/O VVITH --WITH ACCEPT NUMBER DEPTH BENZENE LAYER TO: OPTION A B i-ABLE (teet) (ppm) LEVEL I I 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 I 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 I 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 I 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 I 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 i 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 i 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. ! I TOLUENE RISK I TOLUENE SOIL CONTAMINATION RISK APPRAISAL FOR PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER Press the escape key (or make a blank entry) for the options menu I 6 --- AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION (INCHES) 200 --- DISTANCE FROM SURFACE TO GROUND WATER (FEET) i 20 --- NUMBER OF SAMPLES (UP TO 32 SAMPLES AT INTERVALS OF 1 TO 6 FEET) MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS OPTIONS CUMULATIVE CONTAMINATION A B I W/O WITH WITH ACCEPT SAMPLE REMOVE CLEANUP NUMBER DEPTH TOLUENE LAYER TO: OPTION~ A B -ABLE (feet) (ppm) LEVEL I 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 I 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 I 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 I 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 I 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 i 16 80 0.429 NO 50 594.6 71.3 800 1000 17 85 5.453 N O 50 600 77 850 1000 18 90 2.727 NO 50 602.8 79.5 900 1000 i 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 I 15 feet BGL exceed the acceptable soil retention concentration of 50 calculated the model. ppm by 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 IACCEPT NUMBER DEPTH E-BENZENE LAYER TO: OPTION A B -ABLE (feet) (ppm) LEVEL I 5 0.001 NO 40 0.001 0.001 40 1000 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 IOOO 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 O. 616 NO 40 13.25 13.25 520 1000 14 70 0.001 NO 40 13.26 13.26 560 looO 15 75 O. 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 40 15.36 15.36 800 1000 20 lO0 O.O01 NO NOTE: The leaching potential model indicates that the accumulated concentration is less than the acceptable concentration, and no layer removal is required. TOTAL XYLENES TOTAL XYLENES 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 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 - TO:I'AL 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 1008 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 1104.44 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: The leaching model indicates that without layer removal the accumulated concentration of totalxylenes exceeds the aceptable cumulative concentrations, and the individual layer concentrations exceed the acceptable soil retention concentration of 40 ppp calculated by the model.