Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNDERGROUND TANK-C-01/22/03 August 5, ~)03 8:41 AM Custo ruer T~e Balance CustomerlD: 6539 CHA~ES CHOPS LAWRENCE LODGE Customert~e: FD FIRE HAZMATINSPECTIONS Payoff amount i 425.00 i___P_e~_di~n~g_g _._.._ _. ~__.__._.._' ........................ : .0__0. Previous ..... : !I 425.00 Deposit ...... : ii ................ ~..0__0___ _ ClickOK for detail information CustomerTR)e Balance Oetai Display CustomerlD: 6539 CHARL~HOPS LAWRENCE LODGE Customer type: FD FIRE HAZ MAT INSPECTION S Current mlance: 425.00 Loan bdance: .00 Totat 425.00 Pending balance: .00 Deposit balance: .00 = $~.a t;eme, n t;s ?~: ocess ec~ tl 00 = 00 *= Pending activity TIME CHARGED BUSINESS/DEAPRTMENT NAME:. ,L~,,~c~ ADDRESS: t ztqZl- E. c_~,t.~z~/~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT NUMBER: ~3~,q DATE: NAME: CHGD: COMMENTS: PROJECT COMPLETION: :" .DATE: BUSINESS/DEAPRTMENT NAME: Z.~c~ ~,,s ~,~.e PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROmCT NUMBER: %~ (¢~ DATE: NAME: CHGD: COMME~S: PROJECT COMPLETION: .DATE: TIME CHARGED BUSINESS/DEAPRTMENT NAME: ;( ~tx~.,* AVDRESS: /'//"/ ~- ~_- ~ . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: /~, ST' '~'r~~) DATE: NAME: CHGD: COMMENTS: PROJECT COMPLETION: DATE: RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location: ?Z/.~ ~ ~__ ~-c/~-c~c<,,J ,.~, ID~ Busin~ N~e: ~~~ ~~ Conta~ N~e: ~ ~ ~ ~5~'~ ~ Business Phone: F~: Insp~or's N~e: ~ Time of C~I: Date: ~z ~ ~ Time: [ o ~o~ · Min: ~ Type of C~I: Incoming [~ Outgoing [ ] R~urn~ [ ] Content of C~l: ~ ~~ ~~0 ~ ~ ~~A~ Actions Required: Time Required to Complete Activity # Min: CITY D .'... FIRE DEPARTMENT T "1'" '~%tl'l~'~- C H.,~3~x.I::~'~----___~''l=~- D 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ~S~x~ DATE: N~E: CHGD: CO~ENTS: . D July 29, 2003 FIRE CHIEF RON FRAZE Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Lawrence Elks Lodge #325 2101 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 C/O 2103 20th Street VOICE (661) 326-3941 CA 93301 FAX (661) 395-1349 t3a~.ersllelu, su.P.ESStON SERVICES NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED 2101 "H' Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (661)326-3941 FAX (661) 395-1349 Re: 1414 E. California Ave. Remedial Activity Site Restoration PREVENTION SERVICES Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: 1715 Cheater Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (661)326-3951 FAX (661) 326-0576 This is to inform you that this department has reviewed the results of the installation of the asphalt cap associated with the restoration of the surface ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES to conditions existing prior to remedial activities performed at the above- 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 referenced location. VOICE (661) 326-3979 FAX (661) 326-0576 Based upon the information submitted, this office is satisfied with the TRA~Nm DIVlSIO. corrective action performed and requires no further action at this time in the 5642 Victor Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93308 above-referenced matter. VOICE (661) 399-4697 FAX (661)399-5763 If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 661-326-3649. Sincerely, RALPH E. HUEY, Director of Prevention Services By: Howard H. Wines, 11I Hazardous Materials Specialist Registered Geologist No. 7239 Office of Environmental Services HW:db FIRE W May 5, 2003 Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick Lawrence Elks Lodge #325 c/o 2103 20t~ Street F~.~E CHIE~ Bakersfield, CA 93301 P,, O Ixl FR~E RE: Closure Request for 1414 E. California Avenue ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 2101 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (661) 326-3941 FAX (661)395-1349 Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: SUPPRESSION SERVICES 2101 "H" Street This office has reviewed the Soil Confirmation Sampling Report, Bakersfield, CA 93301 dated October 2002, prepared by RAM Environmental Engineering VOICE (661) 326-3941 FAX (661) 395-1349 Services, [nc. PREVENTION SERVICES 'Thc conclusion supporting thc request for site closure is based on thc 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 absence of hydrological forces increasing the transport of constituents VOICE (661) 326-3951 FAX (661) 326-0576 of concern through the soil. However, site conditions are such that rain water can readily percolate through the soil above the petroleum ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES impacted area. Closure cannot be granted on that basis. 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (661) 326-3979 FAX (661) 326-0576 Therefore, it is ordered that a competent asphaltic cap be installed at the site at the same time as vapor extraction wells are destroyed under TRAINING DIVISION permit and the area contoured to conditions existing prior to remedial 5642 Victor Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93308 activities. VOICE (661) 399-4697 FAX (661) 399-5763 If you have any questions regarding this directive, please call me at 661-326-3979. Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Specialist Registered Geologist No. 7239 Office of Environmental Services H/-IW/dc FIR[:. l-)t-i?A RTMENT E~IRONMENTAL SERVICES [7[~ Chester Ave. · B~ersfielct, CA9 ~,~() '~'~ Business Phone (661)326-3979 · F,&X (661) 326-0576 F~ Transmittal :i COMPANY' ~C5 FAX No. ~"~fi 44~'. ~-~'O COMMENTS: Attachment I ~ . Underground Storage Tank Cleanu und ~. ~, CASE ~VIEW FO~M , Telephone No.: I Site Name/Add~ss: Responsible Parties: {Address: ~,6L I l. CASE I:NFOi~IATION {NI& 1 Not Appli~ble) Tank No. Siz~ in Gallons Con~.c~ Closed In-Place/Removed? [ Dam ii. srrE Clff~dL~CI~I~Z~TION ll~WOR~ION (GW - Iroundwater) GW Basin: 'T-/,~L/~- ~ I Bon~flcial Uses: ~/O Depth to Drinking Water Aquila. t-,-- Z~-O / Distunc~ to Nemm Municipal Sui~ly Well: </ Distance Between Known Shallow OW Contamination & Aquifer. Soil Typa: .~,./~ y/ ~ Maximum [X"lm~ ~amplcd: ', II1. MAXIMU~ D~NTED CONTAMINANT C~I':C~rrRATION$. [,itinl nad Lntest -- Not Reported, ~- Noa-Dete~t .. Con~inam ~oil (m~ ~r (,~/L) Conmminam Soil (m~/k~) Wa~-r (u~') ~. SOIL V. GRO~WA~R VII. RECOMMENDED A~ION Ad~ilional Action Rgquirad (L"., addidon~ sit~ ~ssm~nt. m~dialion, moni~ring): ~O ~~ ~C~d~ ~111, .IU~IFICATION FOI i[COMMENDED ENGINEERING ~: _ · SERVICES, INC. State Water Resource Control Board March 20, 2003 Division of Clean Water Programs P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 Attn: Mr. Mark Owens Subject: Cost Pre-Approval Request · Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California RAM Project No.' 200721 Dear Mr. Owens: RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. (RAM) is pleased to submit this Cost Pre-Approval Request for the destruction/abandonment of monitoring and vapor extraction wells at-the-above site. Destruction of the wells is required by the Bakersfield City Environmental Services (BCES). The Scope of Work necessary to close the project at the Elks Lodge site on 1414 East California Avenue; Bakersfield, CA. RAM proposes to destroy the wells by drilling out the wells and fill with cement-bentonite grout to' the surface according to State and County standards. RAM will obtain a Well Destruction Permit from KCEHD prior to beginning abandonment activities. After completion of the work, RAM will prepare a brief letter-report to describe field activities and request site closure from BCES. RAM will perform the above work in a time and material basis. The estimated cost is $11,316.00 and includes permit fees. Work will be started within one week following your authorization for the work.' RAM will cOntinue to assist Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick in obtaining reimbursement from the State UST Cleanup fund Program including this scope of work. If you have any questions regarding this scope of Work, please feel free to contact me at (661) 324-6152. If cost pre-approval is not necessary for this scope of work, please leave a message at the above ~-.~ Richard M. Casagr~nOe President, Ram Environmental Engineering Enclosure Cc: Charles Kirkpatrick Howard H. Wines, III, BCES esc 2000 02 721 04 ltr-l-I 210-3-20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 ELKS C'LUB Job No. 200721 Well Destruction Hours/Item Rate Cost Subtotal 4 Monitoring Wells 4 WELLS $808.00 per/unit $3,232.00 4 Vapor wells (205 feet total) 205 FEET $12.50 per/feet $2,562.00 Drum Removal 2 HOURS $65.00 per/hour $130.00 Backhoe rental 16 HOURS $65.00 per/hour $1,040.00 County Inspection fee 12 HOURS $85.00 per/hour $1,020.00 Field technician 16 HOURS $50.00 per/hour $800.00 Project manager 2 HOURS $90.00 per/hour $180.00 Closure Report 21 HOURS $88.00 per/hour $1,848.00 Administrative 19 HOURS $55.00 per/hour $1,045.00 Total $11,858.00 2003_721 cost January 23, 2003 Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick Charles "Chops" Lawrence Elks Lodge #325 1414 E. California Ave Bakersfield, CA 93307 RE: Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Case Closure FIRE CHIEF Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: RON FRAZE This is to inform you that this department has reviewed the result of the ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 2101 "H' Street Soil Confirmation Sampling Report dated October 2002 associated with the 8akemfield, CA 93301 underground tank removal. VOICE (661) 326-3941 FAX (661) 395-1349 Based upon the information provided, this department has determined that SUPPRESSION SERVICES appropriate response actions have been completed, that acceptable remediation 2101 "H' Street Bakersfield. CA 93301 practices were implemented, and that, at this time, no further investigation, remedial vOiCE 1661)326-3~41 or removal action or monitoring is required at the above stated address. FAX (661) 395-1349 PREVENTION SERVICES Nothing in this determination shall constitute or be construed as a ~,.~ s,~..~.v.:~s.~,,~.o.~,~s~.v,~ satisfaction or release from liability for any conditions or claims arising as a result of 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 past, current, or future operations at this location. Nothing in this determination is vOICE (661)326-3979 intended or shall be construed to limit the rights of any parties with respect to claims FAX (661) 326-0576 arising out of or relating to deposit or disposal at any other location of substances Puauc EDUCATION removed from the site. Nothing in this determination is intended or shall be 1715 ChesterAvb. construed to limit or preclude the Regional Water Quality Control Board or any Bakersfield, CA 93301 [ other agency from taking any further enforcement actions. VOICE (661) 326-3696 FAX (661) 3260576 I , This letter does not relieve the tank owner of any responsibilities mandated FIRE INVESTIGATION under the California Health and Safety Code and California Water Code if existing, 1715 Chester Ave. ~ Bakersfield. CA 93301 additional, or previously unidentified contamination at the site causes or threatens to VOICE (661) 326-3951 cause pollution or nuisance or is found to pose a threat to public health or water FAX (661) 326-o578 quality. Changes in land use may require further assessment and mitigation. TRAINING DIVISION 5642 VlctorAve. If yOU have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (661) Bakersfield, CA 93308 VOICE (661) 399-4697 326-3979. FAX (661) 399-5763 Sincerely, Director of Prevention Services Office of Environmental Services cc: J. Whiting, RWQCB S:~USTFORMS~UST. L8 05/02/2003 15:51 6613 RAM EHVIROHMENTj PAGE 01 RAM ENvlRONMENTat ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. FAX TRANSMITTAI SHEET PROJECT No. ADD~SS:_I~._I~ ~~ _ . , TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER PAGE: ORGINAL: WILL WILL NOT~ FOLLOW BY: ~ INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THI3 FACSIMILE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY ALSO BE PPJVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS /NTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE rlqDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS &DDRF~SED. IF YOU ARE HOT TIlE ~DED RECIPIENT. OP. THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE I]qTENDI~D RECIPIENT, YOU AR~ I-[EREBY NOTIFII[D THAT ANY USg-, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF TH15 COMMUHICATIOlq IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVRE RECEIVED THIS FACSIMILE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY l~Y TELEPHONE, AND ILl,TURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO LIS AT THE ADDRESS BELOW VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICES, THANK YOU, ENGINEERING SERVICES~ INC. To: Howard Wines IH Haz. Mats. Specialist Office of Environmental Service~ Bakersfield City Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: Charles 'Chops' Laurence Elks Lodge #325 E. California Avenue Bakersfield, California Dear Mr. Wines. Ram Environmental Engineering is in the process of complying with your dircctive to close and removc the Soil Vapor Extraction System (SVB) on the above location. The SVE operated over time to remove most, but not all o£ the gasoline type petroleum hydrocarbons. As our later Site Characterization Report noted, the conclusions reached were based on the total petroleum hydrocarbons volume, concontration, dispersion, soil type, depth to groundwaIer, removal of the point source, average rainfall in the area, and installation cfa competent cap over the area still impacted. We estimate the square footage to be covered as approximately 2000 ~iuare feet. An asphaltic ~;ap 2" dccp will be contracted to be installed on the site at the same time aa the vapor extraction wells are destroyed under permit and the area contoured to conditions similar tO those existing prior to our initiation of remedial activities. The above desoribcd activities will commence on-site on May 6, 2003. To facilitate your concurnmce with the above scope of work, please fax to (661) 324-6172 a letter ~knowledging your approval. Thank you for your prompt attention and directives in this matter. RMC:e~ Cc: Charles Kidcpatrick 2103 20th-Street e-Bakersfield, C:A 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. January i5,2003 Mr. Howard Wines Bakersfield Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Subject: Submittal of Driller's Log, Test Hole CB1, .................... Disp~s a[ of_Dr~ums_at~roj ect_Si_te Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California RAM Project No.: 200721 Dear Mr. Wines: As per our Conversation Wednesday January 15, 2003 I have enclosed a copy of the Driller's Log for Test Hole CB1, which was inadvertently left out of the report dated October 2002. In addition, RAM has initiated proper disposal of the drams of soil cuttings located at the site. I will notify you as soon as the drams have been removed from the property and properly disposed of. Please call me at (661) 324-6152 if you have any questions. Sincerely, RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. Kevin Maiamma~-REA Project Manager KDM:kdm cc: Charles Kirkpatrick, Elks Lodge Attachments ....... · . !. ~,. ':- 'i' : : ' .... i 2000_02 721 06 2103 20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. _.i.._._,, 2103 20th Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301 Tel: (661) 324-6152 Fax: (661) 324-6172 Page 1 of 1 Project Name: Elks Lodge # 325 Drilling Date: 09/24/2002 Loaction: 1414 E. California Ave., Bakersfield, CA . Test Hole No.: CB1 Project No.: 200721 Logged By: Sarah Bartling, R.G. PID Blow Hole Depth Time Rdg. Counts Soil Description Completion 0' No sample collected. ~ :.:.:.:.:.. Hydrated Bentonite , ~ :i:i:i:i:i: 5'---........... Ne-~-fl:sampte-¢ellested?-~--~ ---~--? Chips. ..... :.:.:.:.:.. 10' 1117 0 13 SM - silty sand, fine to medium grained, moderately graded, light brown, 17 soft, friable. ::::::::::::::::::::: 27 ::::::::::::::::::::: 15' 1125 0 9 CL - silty clay, light olive brown, soft, damp. 14 20' 1135 0 15 SP- sand, very fine to finel poorly graded, light olive gray, soft, 17 dark minerals (mafics) -20-30%. 21 25' 1142 0 9 ML- clayey silt, trace fine sand, soft, light olive brown, damp. ::i::i::i[i 13 :::::::: 21 ' :-:.:.:.: 30' 1150 0 17 SM - silty sand, very fine sand and silt, soft light olive brown. 30 27 35' 1203 0 17 ML - sandy, clayey silt, very fine sand 20%, 20% clay, soft, 30 light brown, slightly damp. 20 40' 1217 0 5 CL - soft, light olive, damp, kaolinitic - 10%. :!:!:!:i: 45' 1230 0 9 ML - sandy silt, trace coarse grained sand and pebbles, :.:.:-:.;. 13 very fine sand - 20%, soft light olive brown, damp. ;:::::::::: 50' 1240 0 9 SC- SM - clayey silty sand, clay - 30%, very fine sand, poorly graded, 13 soft, light brown, damp. No HC odor. Total depth = 50 feet. Hole backfilled with cuttings to-1' bgs. ::!::i!i::?: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. November 1, 2001 Mr. Howard Wines Bakersfield Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Subject: Status Report, Third Quarter 2001 Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California RAM Project No.: 200721 Dear Mr. Wines: On behalf of the Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 (Elks Lodge), RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. (RAM) has prepared this Status Report, Third Quarter 2001 (Third Quarter Report) for the soil vapor extraction system (SVES) operating at the above referenced site. This Third Quarter Report is intended to update our SVES Status Report, Second Quarter 2001 dated August 16, 2001 (Second Quarter Report). The Third Quarter Report covers the period from July 1, 2001 to September 30, 2001. BACKGROUND In a letter dated December 9, 1997, the Bakersfield Fire Department (Department) concurred with RAM's recommendation that soil vapor extraction be used to remediate site soils. The SVES was started on April 26, 2000. The SVES consists of four extraction wells, a manifold system and an electric catalytic oxidizer (Cat Ox). The State of California Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF) initially approved operation of the SVES for a three-month period. In our Status Report, RAM requested that the Department retroactively approve a nine-month period of operation already completed (August 2000 through April 2001) and approve an additional six-month period of operation (May 2001 through October 2001). The Department approved the additional periods of operation in a letter dated May 25, 2001. OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING On June 14, 1999, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) issued Authority to Construct Permit No. S-3557-1-0 (ATC). On April 26, 2000, a Cat Ox SVES 2000__01 __721 __06 2103 20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 ° FAX (661) 324-6172 Mr. Howard Wines November 1, 2001 Page 2 manufactured by Stealth Industries and rated at 250 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) was put into service. RAM monitors the SVES on a weekly basis. A Permit to Operate (PTO) the SVES has not yet been issued by the SJVAPCD. The SVES is currently operating under the conditions of the ATC. As reported in the Second Quarter Report, the SVES was shut down on June 27, 2001 for repair and service. A Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued to RAM by the SJVAPCD on August 17, 2001 for the Cat Ox SVES's previous non-compliance with emission limits. EnviroSupply & Service, Inc. (EnviroSupply) repaired and serviced the Cat Ox SVES. The system was restarted on September 20, 2001. The SVES has not operated continuously since the start date due to intermittent mechanical problems. The SVES has operated approximately 236 hours during this reporting period for a cumulative total of 6,994 hours as of September 30, 2001. A summary of the hours of operation is included in the attached Summary Table. Due to the limited amount of operating time, the SVES was not sampled during this reporting period. Therefore, the amount of hydrocarbons removed from the soil this quarter and cumulatively could not be calculated. Hydrocarbon removal data will be included in the next quarterly report. USTCF STATUS A Cost Pre-Approval Request dated June 7, 2001, along with a copy of the Department's May 25, 2001 letter, was submitted to the USTCF requesting reimbursement for the additional 15 months of operation approved by the Department. The USTCF agreed to reimburse the Elks Lodge for the additional months of operation in a letter dated June 20, 2001. USTCF funding for operation of the SVES is approved through October 31, 2001. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT REPORTING PERIOD The SJVAPCD will be notified when the SVES is restarted so they can witness the sampling. Upon receipt of acceptable analytical results (i.e., emissions within ATC conditions), a PTO should be issued by the SJVAPCD. RAM will continue to monitor the SVES on a weekly basis and sample on a monthly basis. RAM will provide a fourth quarter status report to the Department in January 2002 for the quarter beginning in October 2001 and ending in December 2001. The additional period of operation approved by the Department and USTCF technically ends on October 31, 2001. However, the SVES has not operated for approximately two months and it is our understanding, based on conversations with EnviroSupply, that we would not be billed for 2000_01_721_06 Mr. Howard Wines November 1, 2001 Page 3 the two months that the SVES was not operating. If that is indeed the case, there should be enough pre-approved funds available to operate the SVES through December 31, 2001. Prior to December 31, 2001, a determination will have to be made whether or not to extend the operation of the SVES for an additional period of time. Please call me at (661) 324-6152 if you have any questions or would like to discuss this Third Quarter Report in detail. Sincerely, RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. Mark J Pishinsky, REA Project Manager MJP:mjp cc: Charles Kirkpatrick, Elks Lodge Kari Fuqua, SJVAPCD Attachment 2000_01_721_06 ELKS LODGE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM THIRD QUARTER SUMMARY TABLE RAM Project No.: 200721 DATE Hours of Cumulative Flow Inlet Exhaust VOC VOC VOC VOCs Cumulative Operation Hours Rate Conc. Conc. Extraction Emission Control Extracted VOCs (Hours) (Hours) (scfm) (ppmv) (ppmv) Rate Rate Efficiency (lbs) Extracted (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (%) (lbs) 04/26/00 Start 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 09/18/00 2520 2866 303 1090 927 111.56 94.88 14.95% 11714 11714 10/10/00 432 3298 300 1530 654 156.60 66.28 57.25% 2819 14533 12/05/00 558 3856 300 1500 380 152.01 38.51 74.67% 3535 18068 01/09/01 816 4672 301 1360 1020 137.82 103.71 25.00% 4685 22753 02/20/01 180 4852 256 863 743 87.75 64.25 13.90% 658 23411 03/19/01 588 5440 251 259 389 22.40 32.98 -50.19% 549 23960 04/23/01 380 5820 191 227 469 19.25 30.26 -106.61% 305 24264 06/27/01 938 6758 24837~ 09/30/012 236 6994 Notes: scfm - standard cubic feet per minute ppmv - parts per million by volume lbs/day - pounds per day VOC - volatile organic compounds % - percent of VOCs destroyed lbs - pounds ~ Cumulative VOCs extracted as of 06/27/01 assumes that results reported for 04/23/01 are constant for the entire reporting period. 2 VOC data is not available due to no sampling events during the reporting period. 2000 O1 721 06~s ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. May 1, 2002 State Water Resources Control Board Division of Clean Water Programs P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 Attn: Ms. Janice Douglass RE: Cost Pre-Approval Request Charles "Chops" Lawrence Lodge//325 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California Claim No.: 010391 RAM Project No.: 200597/200721 Dear Ms. Douglass: On behalf of the Charles "Chops" Lawrence Lodge #325, RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. (RAM) is submitting this letter requesting pre-approval for additional corrective action measures at the above referenced site (Request). RAM is requesting pre-approval of estimated costs of $ 36,540 for additional corrective action measures. The reasons for the additional costs are summarized below. In a letter dated February 16, 1999, the State of California Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF) approved operation of a Catalytic Oxidation Soil Vapor Extraction System (SVES) for a three-month period. The SVES was started on April 26, 2000. Near the end of the first three-month period (May 2000 through July 2000), the concentrations of hydrocarbons being extracted increased and RAM requested that additional remedial actions be approved. An additional 15 months of operation (August 2000 through October 2001) were approved by the USTCF in a letter dated June 20, 2001. The additional period of operation approved by the USTCF technically ended on October 31,2001. However, the SVES did not operate for approximately two months due to mechanical problems. RAM requested that EnviroSupply & Service, Inc. (EnviroSupply) not bill us for the equipment rental for the period that it was not operating. EnviroSupply agreed that we would not be billed for the two months that the SVES was not operating. Taking into account the two months of rental fees we were not charged, there should have been enough pre-approved funds available to operate the SVES through December 31,2001. In our Status Report, Fourth Quarter 2001 dated January 18, 2002 (Status Report), RAM requested that the City of Bakersfield (City) approve an additional six months of operation (January 2002 through June 2002) based on the continued removal of hydrocarbons from the soil. A copy of the Status Report is attached to this letter. In a letter dated April 8, 2002, the City approved our request for six additional months of operation. The letter also requested that a workplan for confirmation soil 2000 02 597 01 2103 20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 ° FAX (661) 324-6172 Ms. Janice Douglass May 1, 2002 Page 2 sampling to support a risk assessment (Workplan) be prepared and submitted to the City prior to May 10, 2002 for their review and approval. A copy of the City's letter is attached to this Request. A completed Cost Pre-Approval Request for the additional months of operation is attached to this letter. Pre-approval of the following additional costs are requested: Six months of operation ~ $6,090 per month, includes the following: SVES equipment rental · Security fence rental · Electricity · Weekly monitoring · Monthly sampling · Laboratory analyses · Quarterly reports Total $36,540 Costs are based on an average of actual monthly costs incurred to date. A detailed cost estimate is attached to this Request. A Cost Pre-Approval Request .for the additional activities requested by the City (i.e., closure workplan, well destruction, closure report) will be submitted to the USTCF for approval under separate cover. RAM, on behalf of the Charles "Chops" Lawrence Lodge #325, requests that the three bid requirement be waived since this is a continuation of existing work. Thank you for considering this requ6st. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me. Mark J. PistS'insky, tREA Project Manager MJP: mjp cc: Charles Kirkpatrick, Chares "Chops" Lawrence Lodge #325 Howard Wines, City of Bakersfield (w/o Attachments) Attachments 2000_02_597_01 ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. April 25, 2002 Ms. Veronica Pennington State Water Resources Control Board Division of Clean Water Programs 1001 I Street, 17th Floor P.O. Box 944212 ' Sacramento, CA 94244-2121 Subject: Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 Reimbursement Request No. 4 Request for Additional Information Claim # 010391 RAM Project No. 200597/200721 Dear Ms. Pennington, On behalf of Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 (Elks Lodge), RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. (RAM) has prepared this response to your request for additional information dated April 12, 2002. Our response to each of your requests is provided below. Cancelled Check From Reimbursement Request # 3 Due to the non-profit nature of the Elks Lodge's activities, RAM has agreed to wait for payment from the Elks Lodge until they have received payment from the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF). Therefore, the only cancelled check available to accompany Reimbursement Request No. 4 was check no. 5881 in the amount of $29,283.00, which represents the entire amount of Reimbursement Request No. 3 ($29,283.00). A copy of cancelled check no. 5881 was included with Reimbursement Request No. 4. An additional copy of cancelled check no. 5881 is enclosed with this letter. Cancelled Checks Dated More Than One Year Prior To Reimbursement Request # 4 Due to the non-profit nature of the Elks Lodge's activities, RAM has agreed to wait for payment from the Elks Lodge until they have received payment from the USTCF. Therefore, there are no cancelled checks for the Reimbursement Request #4 invoices that are more than one year old as listed in your request. As we discussed during our April 24, 2002 telephone conversation, we have enclosed a copy of an Agreement For Payment signed by the Elks Lodge and RAM (Agreement). The Agreement formalizes the fact that RAM has agreed to Wait for payment from the Elks Lodge until they have received payment from the USTCF. 2000 02 597 04 2105 20th-Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 Ms. Veronica Pennington April 25, 2002 Page 2 If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (661) 324-6152. Sincerely, Mark J. Pishinsky, REA Project Manager MJP:mjp Cc: Charles Kirkpatrick, Elks Lodge #325 Howard Wines, City of Bakersfield Fire Department (w/o enclosures) Enclosures 2000 02 597 04 CHARLES "CHOPS' LAWRENCE ELKS LODGE 325, INC. 1414 E. CALIFORNIA AVE. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93307 (681) 324-2734 PAY TO THE BANK OF AMERICA ": '.:' I: I, ~ ~OOO r-, G l,l: 5,q R I,,,,O t, I, q~,,,O 3 I, R Gll' ,,'000 ~?q ~?R ~,00,,' AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Claim # 010391 RAM Project No. 200597/200721 Due to the non-profit nature of the Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 (Elks Lodge) activities, RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. (RAM) has agreed to defer payment from the Elks Lodge for work previously invoiced by RAM until the Elks Lodge has received payment from the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF). The Elks Lodge agrees to pay RAM the invoiced balance due in full within five working days of the Elks Lodge's receipt of the funds from the USTCF. Charles Kirkpatrick Date Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 ' d '"' Mark J. Pishinsky -- Date RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. 2000 02 597 04 R A ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. January 18, 2002 Mr. Howard Wines Bakersfield Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Subject: Status Report, Fourth Quarter 2001 Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California RAM Project No.: 200721 Dear Mr. Wines: On behalf of the Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 (Elks Lodge), RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. (RAM) has prepared this Status Report, Fourth Quarter 2001 (Fourth Quarter Report) for the soil vapor extraction system (SVES) operating at the above referenced site. This Fourth Quarter Report is intended to update our Status Report, Third Quarter dated November 1, 2001 (Third Quarter Report). The Fourth Quarter Report covers the period from October 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001. BACKGROUND In a letter dated December 9, 1997, the Bakersfield Fire Department (Department) concurred with RAM's recommendation that soil vapor extraction be used to remediate site soils. The SVES was started on April 26, 2000. The SVES consists of four extraction wells, a manifold system and an electric catalytic oxidizer (Cat Ox). The State of California Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF) initially approved operation of the SVES for a three-month period ending July 31, 2000. Based on successful removal of petroleum hydrocarbons, RAM requested that the Department approve additional remedial activities. The Department approved the additional period of operation (August 2000 through October 2001) in a letter dated May 25, 2001. OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING On June 14, 1999, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) issued Authority to Construct Permit No. S-3557-1-0 (ATC), a copy of which is attached to this Report. On April 26, 2000, a Cat Ox SVES manufactured by Stealth Industries and rated at 250 standard 2000 02 721 OI 2103 20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 Mr. Howard Wines January 18, 2002 Page 2 cubic feet per minute (SCFM) was put into service. RAM monitors the SVES on a weekly basis. A Permit to Operate the SVES has not yet been issued by the SJVAPCD. The SVES is currently operating under the conditions of the ATC. The SVES has not operated continuously since the start date due to intermittent mechanical problems. The SVES has operated approximately 2,089 hours during this reporting period for a cumulative total of 9,083 hours as of December 31, 2001. A summary of the hours of operation is included in the attached Summary Table. As reported in the Third Quarter Report, a Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued to RAM by the SJVAPCD on August 17, 2001 for the SVES's previous non-compliance with emission limits. EnviroSupply & Service, Inc. (EnviroSupply) repaired and serviced the Cat Ox SVES and the system was restarted on September 20, 2001. The SVES was found to be shutdown for unknown reasons during a few inspections in the month of October 2001. The SVES was restarted each time. Monthly samples for October were not collected due to the intermittent operation of the SVES. As required by the NOV, re-sampling of the influent and effluent vapor samples from the SVES was required when the system was returned to operation. Sampling was conducted on November 28, 2001 and was witnessed by a representative of the SJVAPCD. Samples from the SVES influent and effluent are collected monthly by RAM provided the system is operating properly, or when requested to do so by the SJVAPCD. Samples are collected by connecting a small pre-cleaned vacuum pump to the sample source using Teflon tubing and pumping a sample into a Tedlar bag. The vacuum pump is used to overcome the system vacuum to allow sample capture. The influent sample is collected from a sample port located downstream of the manifold where the flow from the four extraction wells is regulated. The effluent sample is collected from a sampling port located in the Cat Ox exhaust. Air samples are transported using appropriate chain of custody procedures to Zalco Laboratories, Inc., a State of California certified laboratory. All vapor samples are analyzed for Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, total Xylenes (BTEX), Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE), and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg). During the reporting period, SVES effluent concentrations have not exceeded SJVAPCD permit conditions. The SVES was sampled on the following date during this reporting period: · November 28, 2001 A summary of analytical results is included in the attached Summary Table. Copies of the laboratory analytical reports and chain of custody documents are also attached. 2000 02 721 01 Mr. Howard Wines January 18, 2002 Page 3 Approximately 1,565 pounds of hydrocarbons have been removed from the soil this quarter for a cumulative total of 26,207 pounds as of December 31, 2001. The amount of hydrocarbons removed on a daily basis peaked in October 2001 at approximately 155 pounds per day. Approximately 18 pounds of hydrocarbons per day are currently being removed from the soil. USTCF STATUS The additional period of operation approved by the Department and USTCF technically ended on October 31, 2001. However, the SVES did not operate for approximately two months due to mechanical problems. RAM requested that EnviroSupply & Service, Inc. (EnviroSupply) not bill us for the equipment rental for the period that it was not operating. EnviroSupply a~reed that we would not be billed for the two months that the SVES was not operating. Taking into account the two months of rental fees we were not charged, there should have been enough pre- approved funds available to operate the SVES through December 31, 2001. In our Third Quarter Report, we requested that a determination be made by the Department on whether or not to extend the operation of the SVES for an additional period of time beyond December 31, 2001. We have not yet received a response from the Department. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT REPORTING PERIOD Based upon the favorable analytical results (i.e., emissions within ATC conditions), a PTO should be issued by the SJVAPCD. The SVES continues to remove measurable amounts of hydrocarbons from the soil. The daily hydrocarbon extraction rate peaked in October 2000 and appears to be decreasing. RAM recommends that the SVES continue to operate for another six-month period. During the period, RAM will evaluate the performance of the SVES and determine if additional remedial actions or closure are warranted. RAM requests that the Department approve an additional six-month period of operation (January 2002 through June 2002). If this request is acceptable to the Department, please notify us in writing so that the appropriate forms can be submitted to the USTCF for review and approval. Until we hear otherwise from the Department, RAM will continue to monitor the SVES on a weekly basis and sample on a monthly basis. RAM will provide the Status Report, First Quarter 2002 to the Department in April 2002 for the quarter beginning in January 2002 and ending in March 2002. 2000 02 721 01 Mr. Howard Wines January i 8, 2002 Page 4 Please call me at (661) 324-6152 if you have any questions or would like to discuss this Fourth Quarter Report in detail. Sincerely, RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. Mark J. Pishinsky, REA Project Manager MJP:mjp cc: Charles Kirkpatrick, Elks Lodge Kari Fuqua, SJVAPCD Attachments 2000_02_721_01 ELKS LODGE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM FOURTH QUARTER 2001 SUMMARY TABLE RAM Project No.: 200721 DATE Hours of Cumulative Flow Inlet Exhaust VOC VOC VOC VOCs Cumulative Operation Hours Rate Conc. Conc. Extraction Emission Control Extracted VOCs (Hours) (Hours) (scfm) (ppmv) (ppmv) Rate Rate Efficiency (lbs) Extracted (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (%) (lbs) 04/26/00 Start 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09/18/00 2520 2866 303 1090 927 111.56 94.88 14.95% 11714 11714 10/10/00 432 3298 300 1530 654 155.05 66.28 57.25% 2791 14505 12/05/00 558 3856 300 1500 380 152.01 38.51 74.67% 3535 18040 01/09/01 816 4672 301 1360 1020 138.28 103.71 25.00% 4700 22740 02/20/01 180 4852 256 863 743 74.63 64.25 13.90% 560 23300 03/19/01 588 5440 251 259 389 21.96 32.98 -50.19% 538 23838 04/23/01 380 5820 191 227 469 14.65 30.26 -106.61% 232 24070 06/27/01 938 6758 24642~ 09/30/012 236 6994 11/28/01 1296 8290 1041 5121 101 17.99[ 0.351 98.05%I 971 25613 12/31/01 793 9083 262073 Notes: scfin - standard cubic feet per minute ppmv - parts per million by volume lbs/day - pounds per day VOC - volatile organic compounds % - percent of VOCs destroyed lbs - pounds 1 Cumulative VOCs extracted as of 06/27/01 assumes that results reported for 04/23/01 are constant for the entire reporting period. 2 VOC data is not available due to no sampling events during the reporting period. 3 Cumulative VOCs extracted as of 12/31/01 assumes that results reported for 11/28/01 are constant for the entrire reporting period. 2000 02 721 Olds ZALCO I- E ORATORII S, INI . Analytical ~ Consulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 8akersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0111305-2 2103 20th Street Date Received: 11/28/01 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 12/03/01 Contract No. : 200721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 11/28/01 Time Sampled : 13:50 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: El12801, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Re~ BTXEM & TPH-Gasoline Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.1 8020/8015M Benzene ND ppmv 0.1 8020/8015M Toluene 0.12 ppmv 0.1 8020/8015M Ethylbenzene ND ppmv 0.1 8020/8015M Total Xylenes 0.58 ppmv 0.1 8020/8015M TPH Gasoline ND ppmv 10 8020/8015M Analyzed : 11/29/01 JMM cc: " ~ Method Reference ~o~e~t Cortez, tory Manager 8. DOHS LUFT M~]nua] mg/L : milligrams per Liter (p~]-ts ~e]~' million' ug/L : ~,icrogl-ams p~r Litel- (parts %>er blll~o~3 umhos/cm : micl~omhoE./cm at 25 C mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : N(D[ Ap~iicabJe NSS : Not Sufficient ~;ample ~o¥ A~alw~i~ DLR : Detection Limit ~or Reporti~]9 ~'urpo~e-s ZALOO LAF ORATORIE S, INO. Analycioal & Consulting Seevioes 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0111305-1 2103 20th Street Date Received: 11/28/01 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 12/03/01 Contract No. : 200'721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 11/28/01 Time Sampled : 13:45 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: Ii12801, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM & TPH-Gasoline Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.50 8020/8015M Benzene 0.58 ppmv 0.5 8020/8015M Toluene 54.0 ppmv 2.5 8020/8015M Ethylbenzene 14.0 ppmv 2.5 8020/8015M Total Xylenes 82.3 ppmv 2,5 8020/8015M TPH Gasoline 512 ppmv 50 8020/8015M Analyzed : 11/29/01 JMM CC: Method Reference ~'~r~ Corte',~, Laboratory Manager l{. DOllS LUFT Mauual mfj/b : milligrams pe~ Liter ug/L : micrograms poi Litel~ ([~arts p~-I bi!lion umhos/cm : micromhos/,-m at 25 m,nhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : NOt Apt~licab.[e NSS : Not Sufficient Sample ~or DLR : Detection LimiL for Repo.'ting This repod is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not rp.~r~.dl-,I- ~ ......... Chain of Custody Record Page [ Bakersfield, California 93308 ' ' 0 RUSH By:__ . [661) 395~539 0 Expedited (1 Week) Field Log ddress ' 0 F~' %' ~ .... ~1 ample Date Time// Type" Containers ~ o o o ~ o o Remarks Io~ Sampled Sampled See Key Below Legal Sample Description ~ Ty~' .. NOTE: ~mples are di~a,d~ ~ days a~er resutts ar~ r~d.~ unle~ other arra~emen~ are made' TRITO Environmental Group .luly 2, 2002 Mr. Howard H. Wines III Bakersfield Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue, Suite 300 Bakersfield, California 93301 Subject: Interim Status Report Charles "Chops" Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, California Project No.: 005 Dear Mr. Wines: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me on June 25, 2002 regarding the status of the soil vapor extraction system (SVES) operating at the above referenced site. Triton Environmental Group, Inc. (Triton) was asked to contact the Bakersfield Fire Department (Department) on behalf of the Charles "Chops" Lawrence Lodge #325 (Elks) by Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick of the Elks. Triton has prepared this letter to memorialize that telephone conversation. As you will recall, the following subjects were discussed: · The SVES was shut down by RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. (RAM) due to monthly monitoring results that identified effluent hydrocarbon concentrations to be greater than the inlet concentrations. The SVES has not been repaired or restarted since then. On behalf of the Elks, Triton requested that the SVES be removed so that no further rental charges are incurred. Upon your approval of that request, Triton contacted RAM on June 27, 2002 and forwarded your verbal approval to remove the SVES from the site. · The Elks, with assistance from Triton, will prepare a request for proposal (RFP) for the risk assessment and subsequent site closure. The Elks will send the RFP out to bid in accordance with the State of California Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF) requirements. Upon receipt of bids and the selection of a qualified consultant, a risk assessment to determine the impact of petroleum hydrocarbons remaining in site soils, if any, will be conducted. Upon completion of the risk assessment, site closure or additional remediation activities will be recommended. This letter is intended to accurately record the subjects we discussed and update you on actions currently underway and proposed. If you feel there are any discrepancies or omissions, please feel free to contact me. Additionally, please feel free to contact me if YOu have any questions or require additional information on this project. Sincerely, //~ ~ Environmental Engineer N.1P:mjp cc: Charles Kirkpatrick, Charles "Chops" Lawrence Lodge #325 Mr. Richard Casagrande, RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. 02_005_01 Triton Environmental Group, Inc. 4450 California Ave., Suite K-299, Bakersfield, CA 93309 ph/fx: (661) 588-2448 triton@bak.rr, com www.tritonenv.com ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. September 12, 2002 Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, California 93307 Subject: Confirmation Sampling C_ha[les Chops_ _La_w[ence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California- RAM Project No.: 200721 Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that we have scheduled the confirmation sampling at the subject site on September 24, 2002 beginning at 8:00 A.M. If there is a problem with this schedule, please call us immediately at 324-6152. Sincerely, Dolores M. Gough Project Engineer Cc: Howard H. Wines, III - Bakersfield Fire Department 2000 02 721 051tr 2103 20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 R A ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. August 21, 2002 Mr. Howard Wines Bakersfield Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Subject: Workplan for Soil Confirmation Sampling Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California RAM Project No.: 200721 Dear Mr. Wines: On behalf of the Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 (Elks Lodge), RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. (RAM) has prepared the following workplan for confirmation soil sampling at the Elks Lodge site (Site). The confirmation sampling is to verify effectiveness of the soil remediation that was recently conducted at the Site. The workplan was requested in your April 8, 2002 letter to RAM. BACKGROUND The Site was an operating service station until the mid-1970s. In July 1985, the property that included two 10,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs), was purchased by Elks Lodge. Elks Lodge never used the tanks and had them removed in August 1991. Subsurface soil investigations indicated elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were present beneath the tank area to 60 feet below ground surface (bgs). RAM was contracted by Elks Lodge to assume work at the Site in May 1996 at which time RAM installed four soil vapor extraction wells and conducted a soil vapor extraction pilot study. Based on the results of the study, RAM recommended operating a full- scale vapor extraction system to remediate the impacted soil. In a letter dated December 9, 1997, the Bakersfield Fire Department (Department) concurred with RAM's recommendation. A soil vapor extraction system (SVES) that includes the vapor wells, a manifold system and an electric catalytic oxidizer was subsequently installed at the Site. Operation of the SVES began on April 26, 2000 and continued until June 28, 2002 (with some downtime due to mechanical problems). Status reports on the system operation were prepared and submitted to the City by RAM on a quarterly:basis. SECOND QUARTER 2002 STATUS The SVES has not operated continuously during the second quarter of 2002 due to intermittent mechanical problems. The SVES has operated approximately 1679 hours during this period for a 2000_02_72 l_03wp 2103 20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 Mr. Howard Wines August 21, 2002 Page 2 cumulative total of 12,748 hours as of June 28, 2002. The amount of hydrocarbons removed this quarter has not been determined since no reliable samples were collected due to problems with the SVES. The catalytic converter has been removed from the Site. PROPOSED CONFIRMATION SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS RAM proposes to drill and sample two soil borings to determine residual hydrocarbon concentrations at the Site. The borings will be drilled adjacent to vapor extraction wells VEl and VE2 as shown in Figure 1. Soil samples will be collected at five-foot intervals beginning at 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) to 65 feet bgs. A minimum of four samples will be selected from each boring for laboratory analysis. Selection for analysis will be based on field screening results. A portion of each 5-foot interval sample will be screened for volatile organic compounds using a photoionization detector (PID, Photovac Model 2020). The sample portion will be placed in a recloseable plastic bag, sealed, disaggregated, and allowed to sit for three minutes. The bag headspace will then be tested with the PID probe. The PID readings will be recorded on the soil boring log. The PID will be calibrated at the start of the field work day following procedures recommended by the equipment manufacturer. In addition to the PID screening, a portion of the 5-foot interval sample will also be collected for geologic logging by a qualified professional in accordance with the United Soil Classification System (USCS). Soil logging will be performed or certified by a geologist or civil engineer registered in the State of Califomia. Significant drilling observations will also be recorded in the soil boring log. Sampling equipment will be cleaned in the field before any sampling and between sampling intervals. The samplers will be washed with a detergent followed by potable water. Augers and bits will be cleaned with a high-pressure wash before arriving on Site and between drilling locations. Residuals derived from the drilling will be contained in 55-gallon drams. The drums will be sealed and labeled with the source boring, interval, residual type and date generated. The drams will be stored in a secure area at the Site pending receipt of laboratory analysis. RAM will assist Elks Lodge in the proper disposal of the drilling spoils. The samples selected for laboratory analysis will be analyzed for the following constituents: · Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the gasoline range using EPA Method 8015M; · Benzene, Toluene, Xylenes, Ethylbenzene, and Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) using EPA Method 8260. 2000_02_72 l_03wp Mr. Howard Wines August 21, 2002 Page 3 RISK ASSESSMENT If residual levels of petroleum hydrocarbons exceed regulatory levels, such as the US EPA's Preliminary Remediation Goals, a risk assessment will be performed to evaluate if leaving the residual hydrocarbons pose a threat to groundwater or to biological receptors aboveground. REPORTING A Confirmation Sampling Report will be prepared summarizing field activities, laboratory results, and risk assessment results. The Report will also include conclusions and recommendations for Site closure, if appropriate. SCHEDULE Field activities will be initiated within two weeks following receipt of written approval from the City of Bakersfield. The City will be notified at least 48 hours prior to beginning sampling activities. The Report will be submitted within 60 days following completion of field activities. If this workplan is acceptable, RAM on behalf of Elks Lodge requests the City to send Elks Lodge and RAM an approval letter for submittal to the Cleanup Fund Program. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this workplan in detail, please call me at (661) 324-6152. Sincerely, Dolores M.Gough, P.E. Project Engineer DMG:dmg cc: Charles Kirkpatrick, Elks Lodge Kari Fuqua, SJVAPCD Attachment: Figure 1 2000_02_72 l_03wp FORMER UST LOCATIONS _/ VE2 j J VEl CB2~ FORMER PROO~Ti LINES 1 I VE~, I I R~R DISPENSER ISL~DS ~st C~ifornia Ave. Legend 0 lO 20 30 40 I I , I I,, .... SITE PROERTY LINE (CURB) ,~PROXIMATE SCALE (FEET) VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL VE4 PROPOSED CONFIRMATION BORING J ENVIRONMENTAL Elk's Lodge No. 325 Figure I RAMENGINEERING 1414 E. California AvenUe, Confirmation Boring Location SERVICES, INC. Bakemfield, CA Project No.: 200721 Date: 08109/02 RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Subject: Remedial Investigation Report Date: 9/25/97 Send Via: Courier FOR: As Requested Attn: Howard Wines, Ill Review X Your Information Company: Bakersfield Fire Department Approval Signature Address: 1715 Chester Avenue Return Bakersfield, CA 93301 Other Project Name: Elks Lodge # 325 Project No.: 200634 Items Enclosed: Quantity Remedial Investigation Report, Elks Lodge #325 1 Comments: The enclosed report is submitted for your review. It summarizes the results of our installation of soil vapor extraction wells, the completion of a soil vapor extraction pilot study, and our recommendations. If you have any questions please call me or Jon Cooper at (805) 324-6152. Signature: Mark Pi~i~sky ' -t h Title: Project Manager e:L2000.97~634.16 R A ~ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. May 10,2002 Mr. Howard Wines Bakersfield Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Subject: Status Report, First Quarter 2002 Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, California RAM Project No.: 200721 Dear Mr. Wines: On behalf of the Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 (Elks Lodge), RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. (RAM) has prepared this Status Report, First Quarter 2002 (First Quarter Report) for the soil vapor extraction system (SVES) operating at the above referenced site. This First Quarter Report is intended to update our Status Report, Fourth Quarter 2001 dated January 18, 2002 (Fourth Quarter Report): The First Quarter Report covers the period from January 1, 2002 to March 31, 2002. BACKGROUND In a letter dated December 9, 1997, the Bakersfield Fire Department (Department) concurred with RAM's recommendation that soil vapor extraction be used to remediate site soils. The SVES was started on' April 26, 2000. The SVES consists of four extraction wells, a manifold system and an electric catalytic oxidizer (Cat Ox). On June 14, 1999, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) issued Authority to Construct Permit No. S~3557-1-0 for the operation of a Cat Ox SVES. On April 26, 2000, a Cat Ox SVES manufactured by Stealth Industries and rated at 250 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) was put into service. The State of California Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF) initially approved operation of the SVES for a three-month period ending July 31, 2000. Based on successful removal of petroleum hydrocarbons, RAM requested that the Department approve additional remedial activities. The Department approved the additional period of operation (August 2000 through October 2001) in a letter dated May 25, 2001. 2000 02 721 02 2103 20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 Mr. Howard Wines May 10, 2002 Page 2 Permit To Operate No. S-3557 was issued by the SJVAPCD on November 13, 2001, a copy of which is attached to this Report. OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING The SVES has not operated continuously since the start date due to intermittent mechanical problems. The SVES has operated approximately 1,986 hours during this reporting period for a cumulative total of 11,069 hours as of March 31, 2002. A summary of the hours of operation is included in the attached Summary Table. Approximately 2,446 pounds of hydrocarbons have been removed from the soil this quarter for a cumulative total of 28,653 pounds as of March 31, 2002. The amount of hydrocarbons removed on a daily basis peaked in October 2001 at approximately 155 pounds per day. Approximately 38 pounds of hydrocarbons per day are currently being removed from the soil. Samples from the SVES influent and effluent are collected monthly by RAM provided the system is operating properly, or when requested to do so by the SJVAPCD. Samples are collected by connecting a small pre-cleaned vacuum pump to the sample source using Teflon tubing and pumping a sample into a Tedlar bag. The vacuum pump is used to overcome the system vacuum to allow sample capture. The influent sample is collected from a sample port located downstream of the manifold where the flow from the four extraction wells is regulated. The effluent sample is collected from a sampling port located in the Cat Ox exhaust. Air samples are transported using appropriate chain of custody procedures to Zalco Laboratories, Inc., a State of California certified laboratory. All vapor samples are analyzed for Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, total Xylenes (BTEX), Methyl reft-Butyl Ether (MTBE), and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg). The SVES was sampled on the following dates during this reporting period: · January 2, 2002 · February 12, 2002 · March 12, 2002 During the reporting period, SVES effluent concentrations have exceeded SJVAPCD permit conditions. Upon receipt and review of the March 12, 2002 sampling event results, the SVES was shut down for repairs on March 26, 2002 based on daily monitoring results that identified effluent concentrations to be greater than the inlet concentrations. EnviroSupply & Service, Inc. (EnviroSupply) repaired and serviced the Cat Ox SVES and the system was restarted on April 18, 2002. A summary of analytical results is included in the attached Summary Table. Copies of the laboratory analytical reports and chain of custody documents are also attached. 2000 02 721 02 Mr. Howard Wines May 10, 2002 Page 3 In our Fourth Quarter Report, RAM requested that a determination be made by the Department on whether or not to extend the operation of the SVES for an additional period of time beyond December 31, 2001. Mr. Howard Wines of the Department verbally approved the additional six months of operation (January 2002 through June 2002) during a February 21, 2002 telephone conversation. The Department followed up with written approval for the additional six-month period of operation (January 2002 through June 2002) in a letter dated April 8, 2002. Also in their letter, the Department requested that a workplan for confirmation soil sampling to support a risk assessment (Workplan) be prepared and submitted to the Department prior to May 10, 2002 for their review and approval. USTCFSTATUS The USTCF-approved period of operation for the Cat Ox SVES ended on December 31, 2001. A Cost Pre-Approval Request dated April 30, 2002, along with a copy of the City's letter, was submitted to the State of California Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF) requesting reimbursement for the additional six months of operation approved by the City (January 2002 through June 2002). The USTCF has not yet approved the Cost pre-Approval Request for the additional six months of operation. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT REPORTING PERIOD On behalf of the Elks Lodge, RAM will prepare a Cost Pre-Approval Request for the Workplan and proposed work and submit it to the USTCF for review and approval. RAM will concurrently prepare the Workplan for submittal to the Department. Soil sampling activities will be initiated upon Department approval of the Workplan. The SVES continues to remove measurable amounts of hydrocarbons from the soil. The daily hydrocarbon extraction rate peaked in October 2000 and appears to be decreasing. RAM recommends that the SVES continue to operate through June 2002 as approved by the Department. RAM will continue to monitor the SVES on a weekly basis and sample on a monthly basis. RAM will provide a Status Report, Second Quarter 2002 to the Department in July 2002 for the quarter beginning on April 1, 2002 and ending on June 30, 2002. 2000 O2 721 02 Mr. Howard Wines May 10, 2002 Page 4 Please call me at (661) 324-6152 if you have any questions or would like to discuss the First Quarter Report in detail. Sincerely, RAM Environmental/Engineering Services, Inc. Mark J. Pishins"ky, REA Project Manager MJP:mjp cc: Charles Kirkpatrick, Elks Lodge Kari Fuqua, SJVAPCD Attachments 2000_02_721_02 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Permit to Operate FACILITY: $-3557 EXPIRATION DATE: 04/30/2005 LEGAL OWNER OR OPERATOR: RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING MAILING ADDRESS: 2103 20TH ST BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 FACILITY LOCATION: 1414 E CALIFORNIA AVE BAKERSFIELD, CA FACILITY DESCRIPTION: SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION The Facility's Permit to Operate may include Facility-wide Requirements as well as requirements that apply to specific permit units. This Permit to .Operate remains valid through the permit expiration date listed above, subject to payment of annual permit fees and compliance with permit conditions and all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. This permit is valid only at the location specified above, and becomes void upon any transfer of ownership or location. Any modification of the equipment or operation, as defined in District Rule 2201, will require prior District approval. This permit shall be posted as prescribed in District Rule 2010. David L. Crow Seyed Sadredin Executive Director / APCO Director of Permit Services Southern Regional Office · 2700 M Street, Suite 275 · Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370 · (661) 326°6900 · Fax (661) 326-6985 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District · PERMIT UNIT: S-3557-1-0 EXPIRATION DATE: 04/30/2005 EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION: IN-SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM WITH A STEALTH INDUSTRIES BOBCAT 250 CFM CATALYTIC OXIDI7ER AND ROTRON DRS08 7.5 HP VAPOR EXTRACTION BLOWER PERMIT UNIT REQUIREMENTS l. No air contaminant shall be discharged into the atmosphere for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour which is as dark as, or darker than, Ringelmann 1 or 20% opacity. [District Rule 4101] 2. No air contaminant shall be released into the atmosphere which causes a public nuisance. [District Rule 4102] 3. The soil remediation system shall be maintained in proper operating condition at all times. [District NSR Rule] 4. Either the VOC control efficiency shall not be less than 95%, or the total VOC emissions rate shall not exceed 2 pounds in any one day. [District NSR Rule] 5. The minimum operating temperature for the combustion chamber of the catalytic oxidizer shall be maintained at or above 600 degrees F. [District NSR Rule] 6. The total VOC emission rate from the soil remediation system served by the catalytic oxidizer shall not exceed 1 ! .0 pounds in any one day. [District NSR Rule] 7. The catalytic oxidizer shall be equipped with an operational temperature gauge to indicate the temperature of the combustion chamber. A continuously recording device shall be utilized to indicate the combustion chamber temperature during operation. [District NSR Rule] 8. The soil remediation system shall not be operated unless the combustion chamber is at or above the minimum operating temperature. The system shall automatically terminate operation if the temperature drops below the minimum operating temperature. [District NSR Rule] 9. Sampling ports adequate for extraction of grab samples, measurement of gas flow rate, and use of an FID, PID or other District-approved VOC detection device shall be provided for both the influent and effluent gas streams. [District Rule 1081] 10. Laboratory samples shall be analyzed for TPH and BTEX. [District Rule 1081] l 1. Ongoing compliance with VOC emission rate and control efficiency requirements shall be demonstrated by sampling both the influent and the effluent gas streams with an FID, PID, or other District-approved VOC detection device. [District Rule 1081 ] 12. Sampling to demonstrate ongoing compliance shall be performed at least once per month. [District Rule 1081] 13. Re~ords of the cumulative running time and the measured influent and effluent VOC concentrations shall be maintained. [District Rule 1070] 14. All records shall be retained for a minimum of 2 years, and shall be made available for District inspection upon request. [District Rule 1070] These terms and conditions are part of the Facility-wide Permit to Operate. Facility Name: RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Location: 1414 E CALIFORNIA AVE. BAKERSFIELD, CA ZALCO BORATORIES, IN( LI Analytical ~ (DonsuICing Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 P~AM Environmental Laboratory No: 0201017-1 2103 20th Street Date Received: 01/02/02 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 01/14/02 Contract No. Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 01/02/02 Time Sampled :12:50 Sample Type: Gas/NGI,/LPG Description: I010202, Elks Lodge Sampled by Client REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Menhyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Benzene N-D ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Toluene 16.3 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 EthylbenzeJe 4.68 ppmv 0.5 8020/]. Total· l[yl,anes 31.7 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12 GRO 170 ppmv 50 GASLUFT/8 ~-nalyz ed : 01/04/02 JMM CC: Method Reference ;~'~cbert Cor~e'~, ~,ab~za~ory'Manager 1. EP~' S'W-846, 199~ 3rd Editio]~. 8. DOHS. LUFT Manual ~;l~/b : milligrams per Liter (parts p,~- million', ug/L : micrograms p~£ L~ter (parts per bil!ion~ umbcs/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C mmhc.~/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected- N/A : Nor. Applicable NSS : Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting ?urposes This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report a}teration or detachment. ZALCO A 5 ORATORIES, IN AnalyCioal ~. (Donsulting Servioes 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 .......... ~,,~ Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0201017-2 2103 20th Street Date Received: 01/02/02 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 01/14/02 Contract No. Attention: Mark J Pishinsky ~Date Sampled : 01/02/02 Time Sampled : 12:50 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: E010202, Elks Lodge Sampled by Client REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Benzene ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Toluene 0.352 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 0.164 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Total Xylenes 2.05 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-.C12 GRO '11.3 ppmv 10 GASLUFT/8 Analyzed : 01/04/02 JMM cc: Cortez, Labor~ory Manager Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 8. DOHS LUFT Manual mg/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per millions> ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion~ umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable NSS ~ Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis DLR : Detection Limin for Reporting Purposes This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only 1o the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. Chain of Custody Record 4309 Armour Ave. Turnaround Time: Bakersfield, California 93308 Pr~tle --~ 0 RUSH By: (661) 39~539 F~x(661)39~3069 ,ceChest, .,Te~rau,e,C ~Routine (2 Weeks) , _ ~b ~ Sam~ by: ] Employed ~y: J Sample J Oate ~me Type" Cont2ners ~ ID~ Sampled Sampled See Key Below Leoal Sample Description ~ Type* , ~ o o Remarks I. I ' ~' ~ ~ I ' - ~ ' NOTE: ~m~l~ are di~d~ ~ days after resu~ are m~d~ unle~ o~er a~em~B are made. K~: * G-Glass P-Plastic M-Metal T-Tedlar V-VOA ~ardous sampl~ will ~ return~ to client ¢ dls~ M a~ ~iem'~ ex~n~. ~ W-Water ~-Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid O-~her ZALCO i: BORATORIES, INI Analytioal ~ Consulting Servioes 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 ........... Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0202128-1 2103 20th Street Date Received: 02/12/02 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 02/18/02 Contract No. : 200721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 02/12/02 Time Sampled : 11:50 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: Elk Lodge, I021202 Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF Ai~ALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Benzene ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Toluene 17.8 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 8.97 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 Total Xylenes 78.9 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12 GRO 626 ppmv 250 GASLUFT/8 Analyzed : 02/14/02 SVM cc:I Method Reference %c Ro~ Cortez, Laborato[jManager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 8. DOHS LUFT Manual mg/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per million' ug/L : micro.qrams pel~ Liter (parts per b[ilion! umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable NSS : Not Suf[icient Sample for Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Puz-poses This repor~ is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report a~teration or detachment. ZALOO ORATORIES, IN Analytioal & Consulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 .......... Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0202128-2 2103 20th Street Date Received: 02/12/02 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 02/18/02 Contract No. : 200721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 02/12/02 Time Sampled : 11:50 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: Elk Lodge, E021202 Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Benzene ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Toluene 0.27 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 0.19 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Total Xylenes 1.90 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 13.4 ppmv 10.0 GASLUFT/8 Dn~alyzed : 02/14/02 SVM CC: Method Reference ~b~t Cortez, Laboratq~ Manager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 8. DOHS LUFT Manual mg/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per million", ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion! umhos/cm : micromhos/cm att 25 C mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm att 25 C ND : None Detected ~/A : Not Applicable NSS : Not Sufficient Sample foz- Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. · 3 Chain of Custody Record ~LqZALCO LABORATORIES' INC' Fax (661) 395-30694309 Armour Ave. ~ Bakersfield, California 9330B Projec~'l'.le ~_~ //~) Turnarourld Time: Zalco Lab ~ ' ' ORUSH By:__ [661) 395~539 ,ceChes,, ,Temperature,~ ~outine (2 Weeks) WorkOrder~ ~! -- ~mpan, Name~~~ ] O Phone ~ -- -- -- . Address ~ F~ ~/ ~ ~~ Results ~q'~ City, State, Zi - ' ' ~ ~ . ~Repo~A.ention j.) . · Employed by: Sample Date ~me /Type" Containers ~ ~ o~o Remarks ID~ Sampled Sampled See Key Below) Legal Sample Description V NOTE: ~mp~ are di~ard~ ~ days after resul~ are re~ unle~ o~er ar~men~ ~e made. K~: * G-~ass P-Plastic M-Metal T-Tedlar V-VOA ~ardous sampl~ will ~ retu~ to client or dis~ of at client's e~n~. ~ W-Water ~-Wastewater S-So,id P-Petroleu~ E-Liquid O-~her White - Office Copy Yerlow - Lab ~0~ Pink - Client Cepy ~ A-Acid, pH<2 (HCLHNO3,H2SO4) S-NaOH+ZnAc C-Caustic, pH>10 (NaOH) Analytical & ConsultinB Services IN MAR ~ ~ 2~1 '~i~5_0539)j~i~1 4309 Armour'Avenue ,,~ ........ Bakersfield, California 93308 ~ F~ (661~5-3069 ~ Environmental ~%~%%5~ ~ ' ~ ~&~ 7 - 1 2103 20th Street Date Received: 03/12/02 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 03/19/02 Contract No. : 200721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 03/12/02 Time Sampled : 12:30 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: I0301202, Elks Lodge, WO~200721 Sampled by Client REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE ND ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Benzene AID ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Toluene 69.8 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 34.4 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 Total Xylenes 195 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4~C12) GRO 1070 ppmv 250 GASLUFT/8 Analyzed : 03/15/02 JMM cc: Method Reference '~--~>~ Ro~D~ Cortez, Labo~atory/~anager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 8. ~HS LUFT Manual mg/L : milligrams per Lztez~ (parts per million) ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable NSS : Not Sufficient Sample [or Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting ~urposes This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. Analytioal ~, (Consulting Servioes 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0203127-2 2103 20th Street Date Received: 03/12/02 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 03/19/02 Contract No. : 200721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 03/12/02 Time Sampled : 12:35 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: E031202, Elks Lodge, WO# 200721 Sampled by Client REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Benzene ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Toluene 1.13 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 1.15 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Total Xylenes 8.89 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4~C12) GRO 66.6 ppmv 10 GASLUFT/8 Analyzed : 03/15/02 JMM cc: Method Reference ~%' Ro~e~-~ Cortez, Labora~or3~ MJager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 8. DOHS LUFT Manual mg/L : milligrams pet- Liter (parts per million) ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable NSS : Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Rep~rting Purposes This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested, Zolco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. .--) r: Chain of Custody Record Pa~e J of / 7 I,q 430g ~mou~ ~ve. Proj~,,~ Turnaround Time: za,oo La~, 0 '~0 ~1 ~O - Bakersfield. California 93308 ~ RUSH By: [805) 395~539 O ~pedited (1 Week~ Field Log N ~mpanY Name ~~ ~ Phone N ~~~ ~~~~------ 0 F~ .... ,ampi. Da,e ~me f Type Containers ~ l~ ~ 8 o o Remarks IDN Sampled Sampled ~ See Key Below Legal Sample Description ~ Type* NOTE: ~mples are di~rded ~ days a~er resul~ are re~d~ unle~ other arrangements are made. K~: * ~Glass P-Plastic M-Metal T-Tediar V-VOA ' ~ardous samples will ~ retum~ to client or dished of at client's ex~n~. ~ ~?~?r .... ~p2t~aJ~r, S-S~li~. -.. P~P?o~eum L-Liquid O-Other ELKS LODGE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM FIRST QUARTER 2002 SUMMARY TABLE RAM Project No.: 200721 DATE Hours of Cumulative Flow Inlet Exhaust VOC VOC VOC VOCs Cumulative Operation Hours Rate Conc. Conc. Extraction Emission Control Extracted VOCs (Hours) (Hours) (scfm) (ppmv) (ppmv) Rate Rate Efficiency (lbs) Extracted (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (%) (lbs) 04/26/00 Start 0 0 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 (2 09/18/00 2520 2866 303 1090 927 111.56 94.88 14.95% 11714 11714 10/10/00 432 3298 300 1530 654 155.05 66.281 57.25% 2791 14505 12/05/00 558 3856 300 1500 380 152.01 38.51 74.67% 3535 1804Cl 01/09/01 816 4672 301 1360 1020 138.28 103.71 25.00% 4700 2274Cl 02/20/01 180 4852 256 863 743 74.63 64.25 13.90% 560 2330(~ 03/19/01 588 5440 251 259 389 21.96 32.98 -50.19% 538 23838 04/23/01 380 5820 191 227 469 14.65 30.26 -106.61% 232 2407G 06/27/01 938 6758 246422, 09/30/012 236 6994 11/28/01 1296 8290 1041 5121 101 17.991 0.351 98.05%I 971 25613 12/31/01 793 9083 262073 01/02/02 48 9131 104 170 11.3 5.97 0.40 93.35% 12 26219 02/12/02 931 10062 104 626 13.4 21.99 0.47 97.86% 853 27072 03/12/02 673 10735 104 1070 66.6 37.59 2.34 93.78% 1054 28127 03/26/02 334 11069 286534 Notes: scfm - standard cubic feet per minute, ppmv - parts per million by volume, lbs/day - pounds per day, VOC - volatile organic compounds, % - percent of VOCs destroyed, lbs - pounds i Cumulative VOCs extracted as of 06/27/01 assumes that results reported for 04/23/01 are constant for the entire reporting period. 2 VOC data is not available due to no sampling events during the reporting period. 3 Cumulative VOCs extracted as of 12/31/01 assumes that results reported for 11/28/01 are constant for the entrire reporting period. 4 Cumulative VOCs extracted as of 3/26/02 assumes that results reported for 3/12/02 are constant for the entrire reporting period. 2000_02_721_02x~ R A ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. ~ay 15, 2001 Mr. Howard Wines Bakersfield Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Subject: SVES Status Report/Request for Operation Extension Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California RAM Project No.: 200721 Dear Mr. Wines: On behalf of the Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 (Elks Lodge), RAM has prepared this Status Report/ Request for Operation Extension for the soil vapor extraction system (SVES) operating at the above referenced site. The Status Report covers the period from April 26, 2000 to April 27, 2001. The Request for Operation Extension is based on the continued removal of petroleum hydrocarbons from site soils by the SVES. BACKGROUND In a letter dated December 9, 1997, the Bakersfield Fire Department (Department) concurred with RAM's recommendation that soil vapor extraction be used to remediate site soils. The SVES was started on April 26, 2000. The SVES consists of four extraction wells, a manifold system and an electric catalytic oxidizer (Cat Ox). OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING On June 14, 1999 the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) issued Authority to Construct Permit No. S-3557-1-0, a copy of which is attached to this Report. On April 26, 2000 a Cat Ox SVES manufactured by Stealth Industries and rated at 250 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) was put into service. Equipment specifications are attached to this Report. RAM monitors the SVES on a weekly basis. The SVES has not operated continuously since the start date due to intermittent mechanical problems. The SVES has operated a total of 5,820 hours, as of April 23, 2001. A summary of the hours of operation is included in the attached Summary Table. 2000_01 _721 _01 2103 20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 Mr. Howard Wines May 15,2001 Page 2 Samples from the SVES influent and effluent are collected monthly by RAM. Samples are collected by connecting a small pre-cleaned vacuum pump to the sample source using Teflon tubing and pumping a sample into a Tedlar bag. The vacuum pump is used to overcome the system vacuum to allow sample capture. The influent sample is collected from a sample port located downstream of the manifold where the flow from the four extraction wells is regulated. The effluent sample is collected from a sampling port located in the Cat Ox exhaust. Air samples are transported using appropriate chain of custody procedures to Zalco Laboratories, Inc., a State of California certified laboratory. All vapor samples are analyzed for Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, total Xylenes (BTEX), Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE), and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg). The SVES was sampled on the following dates during this reporting period: · September 18,2000 · October 10,2000 · December 5, 2000 · January 9, 2001 · February 20, 2001 · March 19, 2001 · April 23, 2001 During the reporting period, SVES effluent concentrations have exceeded SJVAPCD permit conditions. Modifications were made to correct this but it continues to be an ongoing problem. Additional modifications to the SVES are planned to correct this. A summary of analytical results is included in the attached Summary Table. Copies of the laboratory analytical reports and chain of custody documents are also attached. Approximately 24,264 pounds of hydrocarbons have been removed from the soil between April 26, 2000 and April 23,2001. Approximately 20 pounds of hydrocarbons per day continue to be removed from the soil. Monitoring continues on a weekly basis and sampling continues on a monthly basis. RAM will provide a quarterly status report to the Department in August 2001 for the period beginning in May 2001 and ending in July 2001. USTCF STATUS In a letter dated February '16, 1999, the State of California Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF) approved operation of the SVES for a three-month period. The SVES was started on April 26, 2000. Near the end of the first three-month period (May 2000. through July 2000), the concentrations of hydrocarbons being extracted increased and operation continued without further approval. Due to an oversight on our part, a Cost Pre-Approval request was not submitted to the USTCF for the additional time of operation. 2000 01 721 02 Mr. Howard Wines May 15, 2001 Page 3 REQUEST FOR OPERATION EXTENSION The SVES continues to remove significant amounts of hydrocarbons from the soil. The daily hydrocarbon extraction rate peaked in October 2000 and now appears to be decreasing. RAM recommends that the SVES continue to operate for another six-month period. During the period, RAM will evaluate the performance of the SVES and determine if additional remedial actions or closure are warranted. RAM requests that the Department retroactively approve the additional nine-month period of operation already completed (August 2000 through April 2001) and approve an additional six- month period of operation (May 2001 through October 2001). If these requests are acceptable to the Department, please notify us in writing so that the appropriate forms can be submitted to the USTCF for review and approval. Please call me at (661) 324-6152 if you have any questions or would like to discuss this Status Report/Request for Operation Extension in detail. Sincerely, RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. Mark J. Pis"hinsky, REA Project Manager MJP:mjp cc: Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick Attachments 2000 01 721 02 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT PERMIT UNIT: S-3557-1-0 ISSUANCE DATE: 06/14/1999 LEGAL OWNER OR OPERATOR: RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING MAILING ADDRESS: 3333 GIBSON ST, SUITE 200 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 LOCATION: 1414 E CALIFORNIA AVE, BAKERSFIELD EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION IN-SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM WITH A STEALTH INDUSTRIES BOBCAT 250 CFM CATALYTIC OXIDIZER AND ROTRON DRS08 7.5 HP VAPOR EXTRACTION BLOWER CONDITIONS 1. No air contaminant shall be discharged into the atmosphere for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour which is as dark as, or darker than, Ringelmann 1 or 20% opacity. ['District Rule 4101] 2. No air contaminant shall be released into the atmosphere which causes a public nuisance. [District Rule 4102] 3. The soil remediafion system shall be maintained in proper operating condition at all times. [District NSR Rule] : :'"' ' ' 4. Either the VOC control efficiency shall not be less than 95 %, or the total VOC emissions rate shall not exceed 2 pounds in any one day. [District NSR Rule] CONDITIONS CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE This is NOT a PERMIT TO OPERATE. Approval or denial of a PERMIT TO OPERATE will be made after an inspection to verify that the equipment has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and conditions of this Authority to Construct, and to determine if the equipment cam be operated in compliance with all Rules and Regulations of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. YOU MUST NOTIFY THE DISTRICT COMPLIANCE DIVISION AT (661) 32645900 WHEN CONSTRUCTION OF THE EQUIPMENT IS COMPLETED. Unless construction has commenced pursuant to Rule 2050, this Authority to Construct shall expire and application shall be cancelled two years from the date of issuance. The applicant is responsible for complying with all laws, ordinances and regulations of all other governmental agencies which may pertain to the above equipment. DAVID L. CROW, Executive Director/APCO APPRV:_ _Date:_ Job No: - SEYED SADREDIN, Director of Permit Services · Southern Regional Office *2700 M Street, Suite 275 *Bakersfield, California 93301 *(661) 3264900* FAX (661) 3264985 conditions continued: S-3557-1-0 Page 2 5. Laboratory samples shall be taken at the initial inspection, under the supervisi6n of the APCD Inspector. Samples shall be taken from both the influent and the effluent gas stream sampling ports. [District Rule 1081] 6. Sampling ports adequate for extraction of grab samples, measurement of gas flow rate, and use of an FID, PID or other District-approved VOC detection device shall be provided for both the influent and effluent gas streams. [District Rule 1081] 7. Laboratory samples shall be analyzed for TPH and BTEX. [District Rule 1081] 8. Measurements to determine the influent and the effluent gas flow rates shall be taken at the initial inspection. Flow rate calculations shall be submitted to the District with the laboratory sample analysis results. [District Rule 1081] 9. Initial compliance with VOC emission rate and control efficiency shall be demonstrated by the results of the laboratory analysis. The results shall be submitted to the District within 60 days of the test. [District Rule 1081] 10. Ongoing complianc~ with VOC emission rate and control efficiency requirements shall be demonstrated by sampling both the influent and the effluent gas streams with an FID, PID, or other District-approved VOC detection device. [District Rule 1081] 11. Sampling to demonstrate ongoing compliance shall be performed at least once per month. [District Rule 1081] 12. Records of the cumulative running time and the measured influent and effluent VOC concentrations shall be maintained. [District Rule 1070] 13. All records shall be retained for a minimum of 2 years, and shall be made available for District inspection upon request. [District Rule 1070] 14. Operation of the soil remediation system shall not exceed 1 year without prior District approval. [District Rule 4102] 15. The minimum operating temperature for the combustion chamber of the catalytic oxidizer shall be maintained at or above 600 degrees F. [District NSR Rule] 16. The total VOC emission rate from the soil remediation system served by the catalytic oxidizer shall not exceed 11.0 pounds in any one day. [District NSR Rule] 17. The catalytic oxidizer shall be equipped with an operational temperature gauge to indicate the temperature of the combustion chamber. A continuously recording device shall be utilized to indicate the combustion chamber temperature during operation. [District NSR Rule] 18. The soil remediation system shall not be operated unless the combustion chamber is at or above the minimum operating temperature. The system shall automatically terminate operation if the temperature drops below the minimum operating temperature. [District NSR Rule] FACILITY NAME:RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING LOCATION: 1414 E CALIFORNIA AVE, BAKERSFIELD STEALTH BOBCAT CATALYTIC OXIDIZER SPIgCIlVlCATION SI-fEET- 250 CFM Genecai_lnformation Skid Footprint 72" - 72" Trailer Size 96" X 72", PLUS 48" 'TONGUE" $~ack Height I56' Vapor Inlet 3" NFl' FEMALE Recommended Electrical Service: 240 Vott/3 Phase/IS0 amp 230 Volt/l Phase/200 amp Components Con'tbu~tibles Sensor MSA Air Flow Transmitter Dwyer .~.Vapor Extraction Blower Positive Displacement ES Blower Motor 7 1/2 HP @ 6" Hg, I0 HP @ 10 Hg P.I.D. Controllers (3) Yokogawa Su'ip Cl~u't Recorder Yokogawa Flame Arrestor F, nardo Catalyst (Platinum) 0.51 FT3 of Johnson Mat'they Operational Informattol~ Temperature - Catalyst Inlet 650~ Temperature - Catalyst Outlet (Max) 1200°F. Heat Exchanger Efficiency 50% Element Kw Requirement (Max) 40.0 Destruct. ion £fficieney 95.0 % to 99.5 ~ Recommended Iafluent Concenwation: 0 % - 25 % L.E.L. / .. BOBCAT 250 $CFM Electric Catalytic V~ GENERAL APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR THE 250 SCFM ALL ELECTRIC CATALYTIC VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM The 250 SCFM Electric Catalytic VES (Vapor Extraction System) is ideal for remediation sites such as gas stations with low volumes of gasoline in the soil, or small manufacturing sites where a known volume of VOCs have been determined to be present in the soil. Like most sites, the nominal VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) con~ntration entering the V£$ will decrease with time. In order for an all Electric Catalytic Oxidizer to operate as efficient as possible, pump tests conducted prior to VES specification should indicate a maximum of 3,500 parts per million VOCs by volun~, calculated as hexane, in the soil vapor. The all Electric Catalytic oxidizer is designed to operate with a catalyst module and a shell and tube heat exchanger. In this way, the VES can continue to treat soil vapors at maximum rate with minimum supplemental energy costs (see section 2.~,). GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF YES The equipment described herein consists of one skid or trailer all Electric Catalytic VES complete with entrahunent 'separator, vacuunt purap, h~ating elements, oxidizer chamber. catalytic cell, and a 50% effective h~t exchanger. Soil Vapor enters the VF.,$ through a 3'? valve mounted directly on the entrainment separator. Ambient dilution air enters the entrainment separator (only when required) through a separate 3' valve. Dilution air is required for high VOCs soil vapor, usually 3500 ppmv or above. The entrainment separator removes a minimum of 90% of the fr~ liquid entrair~d within the soil vapor stn:am. The soil vapor, or CO-Feed (catalytic oxidizer fred) leaves the entrainment separator through 3" pipe to the inlet of the vacuum pump. The vacuum pump which can geuerau.- up to 7' mercury vacuum and sufficient discharge pressure to force the CO-Fr~d through the rest of the system. The CO.Feed flow. rate, % of LEL, catalytic cell inlet and outlet, and heat excha.uger pm-heat temperature are constantly monitored. These parameters are displayed and recorded by the 6-charmel strip.chart recorder located on the outer door of the electrical panel. The CO-Feed then passes through a discharge sileucer, flan~ arrestor, through the heat exchanger, and then into the oxidation chamber. The catalytic oxidizer is electrically heated using custom designed heating elements to maintain at least 650°F preheat temperature before entering the catalysts cell zone. Destruction efficiency for non-methane hydrocarbons, calculate<[ ... as hexane, is 99% +. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS "1.0 DESIGN BASIS 1.I Process Flow The SVE can treat up to 230 SCFM of soil vapor contaminated with non-chlorinated 1.2 Soil .Vapor Connection One, 3" Nlq' (female) connection. 1.3 VOCs Concentration At 1,200°F outlet, the maximum Soil Vapor VOCs concentration that can bc treated without dilution is 3.500 ppm by volume, meamred as hexanc. This is equivalent to approximately 23% LEL. VOCs concentration of CO-Feed entering the oMdizer chamber is continuously monitored with an LEL detector. If CO-Fced exccccis the % LEL set-point, dilution air is automatically added to maintain the LEL entering thc combustion chamber at tile proper concentration. High LEI. level will cause the system to go into alarm mode (see 5.0).. 1.4 Catalytic'Module The catalytic module causes VOC destruction to occur ten times quicker and at t~ml~rature$ $0~; lower than in a thermal incinerator. Thc conversion is so efficient that it doesn't need continuous monitoring. Made from a variety of durable and highly dispersed Platinum Group Metals. The mc-tals provide the highest catalytic activity and poison resistance, allowing lower inlet temperatures for achieving conversion levels and withstanding higher operating temperatures without degradation. Catalytic oxidiafion is clearly economically superior technology for destroying VOCs. 1.5 Operating Temperature Operating temperature, when processing soil vapors, is 650°F minimum inlet to the catalytic cell and 1200°F maximum outlet of thc catalytic cell. The combustion temperature is measured in the exhaust stack where oxidation of the VOC$, and the accompanying exotherrnlc reaction occurs. 1.6 Destruction Efficiency ,/ The oxidizer is designed to destroy a minimum of ninety-nine percent (99%) of the non- metha.ue VOCs, calculated as hexane, entering the thermal oxidizer, under the following operating cooditions: In~¢t ~mpcramr¢: 650°F Outlet temperature: 1200°F max CO (catalytic oxidizer) feed: 250 SCFM VOCs, ppmv as hcxane: 3,.,s00 2.0 MAJOR COMPONENTS 2.1 Trailer/Skid The VES can be mounted on a trailer or a skid. A 250 SCFM VF.S is mounted on a trailer with a 2-5/16' ball. The trailer is street legal, and is equipped with an electric brae system. A tow vehicle requires a mating system to accommodate the u'ailer electric brake system. The DMV trailer registration fee is invoiced as a separate item. Skid mounted systems come on a 6' X 6' steel skid. Number of Axles One Maximum Lengr. h 6' + tongue (,~') Surface. Flat Stock Material~ of Construction Carbon Steel Braking System Electric 2.2 Vacuum Pump The vacuum pump will extract soil vapor from extraction wells designed ami in, tailed by others. At 250 SCFM, the vacuum pump generates up to 7' Hg vacuum. The vacuum pump generates sufHcient discharge pressure to forc~ the soit vapor through the remainder of the system. 8OBCAT 10~ Process Connection 2'h inches Materials of Construction, Aluminum Impellor Materials of Construction, Casing Aluminum Blower Performance 250 $CFM ~ 5" Hi. Motor H.P. 7'A Motor Voltage 230/460, 3 Phase NEMA Rat~l Motor Amps 18.8/9.4 2.3 Entrair, ment Separator The entrainment separator is placed upstream of the vacuum pump and is designed to remove up to 90% of the entrained liquid contained in the soil vapor. The entrainment ' separator consists of.a "tube within a tube" and has an Lntegral manual or optional auto- drain system. Dilution air, which may be required because of high Soil Vapor VOCs ' ' -'"" concentration enters be SVE system at the entrainment separator. The flow of dilution air, and that of soil vapor, is controlled by the tEL controller. Standard on the entrairanem separator is a visual site glass to monitor any liquids that may accumulate. The liquici accumulated in ~e entrainment separator may be considered hazardous waste and must be disposed of in accordance with all local, state, and federal regulations. · ~ . · .~.~..: Process Connection Size '"3" female NPT Materials of Construction [ 3/16" carbon stc~l 2.4 Oxidizer From the vacuum pump di~harge, ~he CO-Feeds the oxidizer charuber duough a discharge silencer and a flamc-arrester. The'oxidizer body is constructed from 3/16" plate steel and lined with ceramic fiber insulation. The oxidizer zone provides the retention time necessary to achieve 99 % destruction efficiency for organic VOCs. The oxidizer is lined with ceramic fiber refractory material. The refractory material provides enough insulation to maintain the surface temperature of tl~ oxidizer at safe levels. An exhaust stack is provided with the VES. The standard height is 13 feet. Longer lengths are available ac additional costs. UO~^T zee ~ --i iI · I iii I Materials of Construction, Sl~ll Carbon Steel Insulation Ceramic Fiber CO-Feed 3" Flanged Design Inlet Temperature 600°F Minimum Design Outlet Temperature ......... 1,200°F Maximum 1~$i$n vOCs Destn~tion Effi¢i=ncy 99% ($¢~ section 1.6) The' 'Energy Table" shows fu~l required for various VOCs concentrations. The hi§host '~ requirement is for zero VOCs concentration, and energy consumption normally decreases with increasing roes concentr~ttion. The lowest energy consumption values shown corrcspo~ to the maximum VOCs values tha~ can be processed without exceeding 1,200°F for catalytic oxidation, or 1,200°F for catalytic oxidation. Higher VOCs concentrations require dilution. "ENEROY TABLE" Calculations ., ! 0.0 0 45 1.8 250 36 KW 3.6 500 3~ KW 7.2 1000 26 KW - 10.9 1500 19 KW 14.5 2000 13 KW 18.1 2500 6 KW 21.7 3O00 0 KW 25.4 3500 0 KW 29.0 4000 0 KW 32.6 45O0 0 KW 36.2 5000 0 KW Note 1: Calculations assume 100% LEL -- 13,800 ppm VOCs. Note 2: ppm VOCs = parts per million VOC$, by volume,calculated as hexane. Note 3: Based on 70°F oxidizer feed temperature and 650°F inlet temperature requirement and 15 % heat losses. These are theoritical values and actual operating data may vary due to multiple site variables. IIO~CAT 100 6 2.:~ Fl~me .,~-restor One flame arrestor ,is placed between the vacuum pump and the oxidizer. Process Co~cction 3" fl~ged Ma[edals of Comt~ction- Cell Aluminum Material, of Comt~c~ion - Housing Steel Weued Para Aluminum 3.0 ~e ~S h~ ~o buHe~y control valves u~em of ~e entraiment ~parator to con~rol soil vapor and d~udon air How. ~e ~tio of ~il vapor ~d dilution air in CO-Feed is con=oiled by ~e LEL con~ller. ~e soil vapor valve N also ~ ~ isolam ~e ~ l~om ~e exaction wells. ~is valve clo~s automdcally u~er ~l al~ and shutdown conditions (s~ 5.0). A~itional pr~s vaiving includ~ a mahdi d~in valve for the en~ent sepan[or, and ~o s~ess ~[~! ball valves used in ~e C~Feed and stack g~ s~pl~ lin~. ~e automdc dilution v~ve ~ates ~e How of mbient air ~to ~e VES, ~d is o~d by ~e ~ co~ller. Materials of Co~Sdon,~t ~ Smi~ess Steel .. ~t~dals of Com~cdon, Body~ Forg~ Steel 3 Inc~ .... ~ch of ~e ~o ~ple ~pling lines conmi~ one smi~ess s~l v~ve. One line is for CO-Feed ~pl~g, ~e o~r for stuck g~ smpl~g. Materials of Co~ion, S~t} ] S~e~ Steel Materials of Correction, U~y Smi~e~ Steel S~e ~ Inch ao~cAr ~o~ 7 3.3 Manual Entrainment Separator Drain Valve The entrainment ~parator is supplied with a one inch ball valve. This valve provides manual drain capability. 3.4 Soll Vapor Control and Isolation Valve The electrically operated butterfly control and isolation valve installed in the soil vapor line upstream of the entrainment separator isolates the VF_.3 from the extraction wells under all shutdown and alarm conditions. Operation of this valve in conjunction with Valve 3.1 controls VOCs concentration in CO-Feed. 4.0 INSTRUMENTATION 4.1 Strip-Chart Recorder The strip-chin recorder is placed inside of the electrical enclosure. Persoanel access to the recorcler is via a window installed in the door of the electrical enclosure. The recorder has an integral LI~D display. The recorder accepts three or six inputs. ~.~'" ........, ......... ,~,...:~,.~¥.... .,"-~ .............. ~..,~ ~+',~-.~, ~.,'~':.*'~ ............ ~ , ~"~'~ "~? '~. ~.~. ,~' , ~ ~ · : .' , .~ Channel I Combustion Temperature, ~F Chann~l 2 CO-Feed Stream, % LEL Channel 3 CO-Feed Stream, SCFM Channel 4 Catalytic Outlet Temperature, °F Channel $ CO-Feed Stream - Temp, °F Channel 6 OPTIONAL I~v ISF,.D 1/95 nO I~C,a,T ~0o 8 Available Inputs.. 6 Standard Electrical Scan Cycle 5 seconds (6 points) Printer Typ~ Dot Matrix, Color Voltage Requirements 110 VAC Phase Single Amp Rating < I 4.2 LEL Monitor The LEL Controller measures % LEL in the CO-Feed stream. Thc % LEL is controlled through the operation of the soil vapor and dilution air control valves upstream of the entrainment separator. If % I. EL exceeds the set-point, the controller closes the soil vapor control valve, and opens the dilution air valve. If ~he comroiler senses % LEL below the set-point, the action is reversed. The LEL sensor must be replaced at lea. st every three months. This procedure is was'rarity service but may be performed by STEALTR Industries, Inc. persormel. Range 0-100% We .uefl Para Carbon Steel Output 4-20 ma & 0-5 V'DC Voltage Requi:ements 24 VDC Amp Rating < 1 4.3 Flow Measurement Device Diluted process gas flow is measured utilizing two devices. The primary How measuring device downstream of the vacuum pump, is based upon differential pressure. The differential pressure signal is converted to a flow signal and recorded by the strip-chart recorder. BOBCAT Range 0-300 SCFM Wetted Parts Aluminum Output 4-20 ma Voltage Requiren~nts 24 VDC Amp Raring < I 4.4 Static Pre.~ure Switch Proee_$s The static pressure switch dow~trea_,n of ~e vacuum p~p mo~m~ CO-Feed total pressu~. ~hould ~e p~r¢ fall ~low a pr¢-~ value, ~e sysmm will go ~[o m~ (~c 5.0). ~ge 0 - I0" W.C. Weued P~ S~ess Stol ~ut &P.D.T. Volag~ Requ~me~ 110 VAC P~e Co.ct ~s 3 ~ps 4.5 Le~ S~tch~ Should the Level Switch in the entrainment separator detect lxigh liquki level, the system will go into a shutdown mode (see 5.0). Range N/A Wem~cl Pat~s Stainless Steel Output $.P.D.T. Contact Voltage Requirements 110 VAC Phase Single Contact Ratings 3 Amps ~OBC~T 2~0 l 0 $.0 PROCESS ALARMS , / The following alarms and shutdowns ar~ provided with the I II 3. High VOCs Concen~ation X a. ~w CO-Feed P~s~ X 5. High Ent~i~ent Sep~tor ~vel X I.) Alarm Condition: Well isolatioa valve closes. 2.) Shutdown Condition: W'cll isolation valve closes. SVE has to ~ ~s~ed manually. Additio~l ~a~s ~e available. Ple~ comult STE~TH Ind~i~, he. for cost and t~al s~ifica6om " 6,0 E~C~C~ SPEC~CATIONS 6.1 U~ Requkemen~ ~h 250 ~S ~q~es o~ (2~ - ~wer ~pply coition from a 1~ p~! or u~ pole. A q~ lice~ el~l con~ctor m~t Hi~cM co~on is not ~clud~ wi~ ~e pu~ha~ of a ~id~er. 6.2 EI~ ~ting All cl~I~ conduit s~ll ~ of rigid, galv~ed co~crion suimblc for a ~ncral REVIS~D t/~ .o~c^r ~ 11 I CATALYTIC ELKS LODGE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM SUMMARY TABLE RAM Project No.: 200721 DATE Hours of Cumulative Flow Inlet Exhaust VOC VOC VOC VOCs Cumulative Operation Hours Rate Cone. Cone. Extraction Emission Control Extracted VOCs (Hours) (Hours) (scfm) (ppmv) (ppmv) Rate Rate Efficiency (lbs) Extracted (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (%) (lbs) 4/26/00 Start 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 09/18/00 2520 2866 303 1090 927 111.56 94.88 14.95% 11714 11714 10/10/00 432 3298 300 1530 654 156.60 66.28 57.25% 2819 14533 12/05/00 558 3856 300 1500 380 152.01 38.51 74.67% 3535 18068 01/09/01 816 4672 301 1360 1020 137.82 103.71 25.00% 4685 22753 02/20/01 180 4852 256 863 743 87.75 64.25 13.90% 658 23411 03/19/01 588 5440 251 259 389 22.40 32.98 -50.19% 549 23960 04/23/01 380 5820 191 227 469 19.25 30.26 -106.61% 305 24264 Notes: scfm - standard cubic feet per minute ppmv - parts per million by volume lbs/day - pounds per day VOC - volatile organic compounds % - percent of VOCs destroyed lbs - pounds 2000_01_721_01xls Analytical ~ Consulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0009278-2 2103 20th Street Date Received: 09/18/00 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 09/21/00 Contract No. : 200721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 09/18/00 Time Sampled : 11:00 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: I091800, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Benzene 3.71 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Toluene' 92.0 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 25.6 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Total Xylenes 124 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 1090 ppmv 130 GASLUFT/8 Analyzed : 09/20/00 JMM Method Reference ~oann ag e r 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition L - mcr Lte (p ts De b 11 on mmhos/cm:/ mllllmhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable NSS : Not Sufficient SamDle for Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Pu~-poses This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. Analytical ~ Consulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 . Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0009278-1 2103 20th Street Date Received: 09/18/00 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 09/21/00 Contract No. : 200721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 09/18/00 Time Sampled : 10:55 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: E091800, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF Ai~ALYTIC~L RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Benzene 2.85 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 Toluene. 66.5 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 20.0 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 Total Xylenes 91.1 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 927 ppmv 130 GASLUFT/8 APPRV: Date:, Job No:, Task: . Amount:. CC: A/~alyzed : 09/20/00 JMM Method Reference /E~---~Jim E~erton, Lab Operations Manager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition / 8, DOHS LUFT Manual m~/L milligrams per Liter (parts per million) ~g/L m~,crograms pea- Liter (parts per billion~ umhos 'cm/: micromhos/cm at 25 C J n~ ~/~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~)~[~ ~'~'~' mmhos'cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ~[~ ~~ ~-~ ~ :/ / ~ ..... ND None Detected N/A : Not Applicable i_L~=.~,~.L:~:..~.i{~~ NSS NOt Sufficient Sample for Analysis ~{,{ { DLR Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes This repod ~ ~urn{sh~d ~or fhe exclusive use o~ our Cusfomer ond opplies only fo fhe somples reefed. Zolco ~ nol responsible {or repod olferof~on or delochment Chain of Custody Record cj ~ ;:~ r--),~ ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC .... /~/¥~ ........... Pa~e/ 4309 Armour Ave. : . j ....~...:':.~.7 .. _ ,:~.~,~../(~ti Turnaround Time: ~co ~b ~ Bakersfield, California 93308 Pr~le -/ ~ RUSH By: (661 ) 395~539 ~ ~ Expedited (1 Week) Field Log ~ ..... Fax (661) 395-3069 Ice Che~ 8 , Temper~ure2C ~ Routine (2 Weeks) Work Order ~mpany Name ~ -- Phone ~. ~ ------ ~-~ / Results .... . .. ~.~ ' Ci~ State, Zip ' - ./' / Repo~ A~ention . . / . . '~-- L ~ { ~ampe Date ~m~ Ty~" ' . ~ ~ ID~ Sampled Sampled S~Kw Below Legal Sample Description Containers ~ ~ ~ ~ Ty~* . i, / : ,. . NOTE: Samples are diecarded 30 days after results are reported unless other anangements are made. KEY: * G-Glass P-Plastic M-Metal T-Tedlar V-VOA Hazardous samples will be returned to client ~ disposed of at clients expense, ** W-Water WW-Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Uquid O-Other White - Office Copy Yellow - Lab Copy Pink - Client Copy *** A-Acid, pH<2 (HCI,HNO3,H2SO4) S-NaOH+ZnAc C-Caustic, pH>10 (NaOH) ZALCO BORATORI FS, IN( . Analytical & Consulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0010135-1 2103 20th Street Date Received: 10/10/00 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 10/16/00 Contract No. : Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 10/10/00 Time Sampled : 10:00 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: I101000, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Benzene 3.43 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Toluene 110 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 31.7 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Total Xylenes 151 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 1530 ppmv 50 GASLUFT/8 Analyzed : 10/10/00 JMM CC: ~ ~ Method Reference ~ imm~.l/i ?erton,LLab Operations Manager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 8. DONS LUFT Manual /L ~. 1 ' g ?ams per lter' (pa[ts-- pe~- million)' .micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) /umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND None Detected N/A : Not Applicable NSS Not Sufficient Sample foL- Analysis DLR Detection Limit for Reportin9 Purposes This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the sompJes tested. Zalco is not responsible for report c~Jteration ar detachment. ZALCO L BORATORIES, INC. Analytical & Consulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0010135-2 2103 20th Street Date Received: 10/10/00 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 10/16/00 Contract No. : Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 10/10/00 Time Sampled : 10:05 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: El01000, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Me~hod/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Benzene 1.88 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 Toluene 51.1 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 13.1 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 Total Xylenes 73.0 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 654 ppmv 130 GASLUFT/8 Analyzed : 10/10/00 JMM ~i~: ~i ~ I~[-[~ ~ ~i~:::i CC: ~ Method Reference Jim ~erton, Lab operations Ma?ager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 8~ DOH$ LUFT Manual umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable NSS : Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Reportin~ Purposes This reporl is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for ~epod alteration or delachment. ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. /i' , , ~- ,'/ Bakersfield, California 93308 Project TrUe ( ./' ~....../ L.-"~' d' ~/('~..../ Turnaround Time: Za,co Lab # I~1 RUSH By:__ [661) 395~539 -" ~ ~pedited (1 Week) Field Log ~ Fax (681) 395-3089 Ice Che., , Tem~r~ure,~ ~Routine (2 Weeks) wo~ Order, .~ ~' ~. ~= ~ ) ~mpany Name ) O ph~e ~ Results~ ~ /.~J~) Address Ci~, State, Zi "~ Date Sampled Sampled S~ K~ Bel~ Legal Sample Description Containers ~ Ty~* Remarks V NOTE: Sarnp~esarediscarded3~daysafterresu~tsarerep~rtedun~ess~therarrangements~remade~ KEY: * G-Glass P-Plastic M-Metal T-Tedlar V-VOA Hazardous samples will be returned to client o~ disposed o~ at client's expense. ** W-Water WW-Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid O-Other VVhite- Office Copy Yellow- LabCopy Pink- Client Copy *** A'Acid, PH<2 (HCI,HNO3,H2SO4) S-NaOH+Zn~c C-Caustic, pH>10 (NaOH) ZALI O BORATORIES, INI . Analytical & C;onsulcing Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 . Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0012053-1 2103 20th Street Date Received: 12/05/00 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 12/08/00 Contract No. : 200721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 12/05/00 Time Sampled : 11:05 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: I120500, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ~dqALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Benzene 4.24 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Toluene. 75.6 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 34.3 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Total Xylenes 127 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 1500 ppmv 130 GASLUFT/8 Analyzed : 12/05/00 JMM cc: C ............ / Method Reference Jim Et'herton, Lab Operations Manager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 8. DOHS LUFT Manual mg/L : milligrams per Liter (parts per million'.~ ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion' umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable NSS : Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Furposes This report is furnished for.the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for repod alteration or detachment. ZALOO RORATORIF S, IN Analytical ~, (DonsuICing Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 .~ Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RB24 Environmental Laboratory No: 0012053-2 2103 20th Street Date Received: 12/05/00 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 12/08/00 Contract No. : 200721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 12/05/00 Time Sampled : 11:05 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: E120500, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Benzene 0.635 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Toluene. 8.15 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 6.98 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Total Xylenes 18.4 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 380 ppmv 10 GASLUFT/8 Analyzed : 12/05/00 JMM cc: -~.~ Method Reference nl~litg Operations Manager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 8. DOMS LUFT Manual mg//L : m rams per Liter (parts per mi!lion~' ugYL : micrograms per Liter (pal-ts per billioni' omhos/C~m : micromhos/cm at 25 C ~mhos~cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable MSS : Not Sufficient Sample ~o~- Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting ~'urposes This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Za(co is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. Chain of Custody Record ....... ~, ,, ! ~ALCO LABORATORIES. INC.._,- . ..~-~:-~ {.) 4309 Armour Ave. Pr~ Tale ~.. /~ .... /~... _ ..~ Turnaround Time: ~lco ~b ~ Bakersfield, California 93308 0 RUSH By:__ [661 ] 395~539 O ~pedited (1 Wee~) Field Log 8 .... Fax [661) 395-3069 Ice Chest., . , Temper~ure~C ~outine (2 Weeks) Wo~ Order 8 ~mpa~ ~e ~ Phone ~ Address . 0 F~ ~ ~'-. Samplei Date ~ Legal S~ple Description Containers , ~ o o ID~ Sampled Sampled ~ KW BeI~ ~ Ty~* ~= }~ ~ ~ ~ Remarks t / ,-;' NOTE: Samp~esarediscarded3~daysafterresu~tsarerep~~~tedun~ess~therarrangementsaremade~ KEY: * G-Glass P-Plastic M-Metal T-Tedlar V-VOA Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client's expense. ~ W-Water WW-Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid O-Other White- Office Copy Yellow - Lab Copy Pink - Client Copy '"'* A-Acid, pH<2 (HCI,HNO3,H2SO4) S-NaOH+ZnAc C-Caustic, pH>10 (NaOH) ZALCO L I ORATORIES, IN( . Analytical I onsuIting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 ..... Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0101121-1 2103 20th Street Date Received: 01/09/01 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 01/12/01 Contract No. : 200721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 01/09/01 Time Sampled : 11:15 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: I010901, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Benzene 1.80 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Toluene. 99.8 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 39.0 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 Total Xylenes 155 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 1360 ppmv 130 GASLUFT/8 .. Method Reference // ' rations Manager 1. EPA SW~846, 1994 3rd Edition 8. DOHS LUFT Manual ,.~g/L : mil.~igrams per Liter (pal-ts pez- ,nillion~ ug/L : mi0rograms per Liter (parts per billion umhos/cm ~: micromhos/cm at 25 C mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not NSS : Not Sufficient Sample for Anals~$is DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Yum-poses This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for repor~ alteration or de'~ochment ZALCO I BORATORIES, INC. Analytical & Consulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0101121-2 2103 20th Street Date Received: 01/09/01 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 01/12/01 Contract No. : 200721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 01/09/01 Time Sampled : 11:25 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: E010901, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Benzene 0.935 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Toluene. 84.7 ppmv 1.3 8020/'1 Ethylbenzene 28.3 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 Total Xylenes 136 ppmv 1.3 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 1020 ppmv 130 GASLUFT/8 CC: Analyzed : 01/10/01 JMM Method Reference / Jim Etherton, Lab Operations Manager ! 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 8. DOHS LUFT Manual ~/L : milligrams pe¥ Liter (parts pel ~g/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion,' /umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable NSS : Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting ~q~rposes This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only lo the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment ~ kq ZALCO LABORATORIES, iNC' Chain of Custody Record"'L"L/<'/.'~ Page(of/ r our Bakersfield, California 93308 ~ ~e '.~ 0 RUSH By: (661 ) 395~539 Fax (661) 395-3069 ,ce Che$, , Tem~rSure,~ ~Routine (2 Weeks) wo~ Order ~IIH I Address , C'~. ~State. Zip .... .. , /. ~/ (,.../ ('~ ~'~ ~ 'Repo, A,e~io, , ._ ") ' , ~ ~" ' ., , Employed ~: . ~b~ S~pled ~: / I ~ ~ .... 2 ....... " Sample Date ~me ~ Ty~-- Z Containers ;""' ~ ~ ~ Remarks ID~ Sampled Sampled S~ KW Below Legal Sample Description ~ - NOTE: ~ =e di~ ~ days afl~ r~u~ ~ m~ un~ ~ ~ ~e m~.  ~m~ ~11 ~ mtu~ to client ~ d~ ~ at ~nfs e~. K~: * G-Glass P-Pla~ic M-Metal T-Tedlar V-VOA ~ W-Water ~-Wa~ew~er S-Solid P-P~roleum L-Liquid O-~her ~te- Office Copy Yellow- Lab Co~ Pink - Client Copy ~ A-Acid, pH<2 (HCI,HNO3,H2SO4) S-NaOH+Z~c C-Cau~ic, pH>10 (NaOH) Analytical & (~onsuICing Servioes 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0102262-1 2103 20th Street Date Received: 02/20/01 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 02/23/01 Contract No. : 200721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 02/20/01 Time Sampled : 13:05 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: 1022001, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Benzene 1.35 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Toluene 52.7 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 26.2 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Total Xylenes 90.6 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 863 ppmv 50 GASLUFT/8 Analyzed : 02/20/01 JMM cc: Method Reference ~/'J~ Et err ~, Lab Operations Manager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition / m~/L(// ~ / 8. DOHS LUFT Manual : milligrams, ter (parts per million~ u9/L : micrograms per Liter (pa~-ts per billiol]3 umhos/cm : micl-omhos/cm at 25 C m,nhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable NSS : Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples lested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. AnalyCioal ~ Consulting Servioes 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0102262-2 2103 20th Street Date Received: 02/20/01 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 02/23/01 Contract No. : 200721 Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 02/20/01 Time Sampled : 13:15 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: E022001, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Benzene 1.27 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Toluene 49.6 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 21.9 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Total Xylenes 82.3 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 743 ppmv 50 GASLUFT/8 Analyzed : 02/20/01 JMM cc: Method Reference Jim Etherton, Lab Operations Manager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 8. DONS LUFT Manual mg/L : millig~ams per Liter (parts per million) ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parTs per billion) umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable NSS ~ Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. 4309 Armour Ave. ~""-' ' /; -- ( ..... 7(?,,/" Turnaround Time: ' "a'ers"e'-, --""" '"' "'/'~""~ '~ ' Zalco Lab # ID RUSH By: (6611 395-0539 {~ Expedited (1 Week) Field Log # Fax (6611395-3069 IceChest# ,Temperature?C i~Routine (2 Weeks) WorkOrder# City, State, ZiP ,..,. r ~'~/i ,Lab// ~] .Sampled ?y: I ,mployed by: ~ ' ...... :j/l'.Y? / :'" ' Sample Date ~t~e Ty(3e" "'('' (~'' ~ J ~'/'?//';'' ) (~' ,, ' '"' ID# Sampled Sampled See Key Se~ow Legal Sample Description ¢ontainom# TV~* ~'~ !'~ ~- ~oO Remarks _.-.¥.,/:~. -, ----' .7) ~/ -.:. ~- ~ ...,?_~.?/ ~.:/C'~:.- :,:z.:.:o.I .: Fg.Y: ...... .>~..,? lL'l ..//,.',,,'i~,,'/ /)<,....'~: . .,T>r,;',~t:zf'?,v,- ' :/'~:;' ) ,/~ ". NOTE: Sa~ples~,e,~ir~--,,'~'ded~Od~ys~fterres~'emlx~nle~,~er~r~gem~em~, ~/': * ~-Glass P-Plastic M-Metal H~.z,~ ~l:~S ~11 ~ returr~:l to client ~' dispe~ ~ ~t clie~s expe~e, - T-Tedlar V-VOA · * W-Water WW-Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid O-Other White. Office C6py Yellow - Lab Copy Pink - Client Copy *** A-Acid, pH<2 (HCI,HNO. wH2SO~)_ _ S-NaOH+ZnAc C-Caustic, pH>10 (NaOH) I ZALCO I ABORATORIES IN Analytical & C;onsulting Servioes 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 ~ ,,, Bakersfield, California 9330B FAX (661) 395-3069 R3%M Environmental Laboratory No: 0103258-1 2103 20th Street Date Received: 03/19/01 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 03/21/01 Contract No. : Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 03/19/01 Time Sampled : 11:30 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG DescriPtion: I031901, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl reft-Butyl Ether (MTBE) N-D ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Benzene 0.34 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Toluene 21.7 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 5.94 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 Total Xylenes 36.6 ppmv 2.5 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 259 ppmv 250 GASLUFT/8 cc: Analyzed : 03/20/01 SVM ~/~ Method Reference //Jim Et/erton, Lab Operations Manager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 8. DOHS LUFT Manual m~/L : milligrams peF Liter (par~s per million" ug/L : micrograms pel- Liter (parts per billion} umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 fl mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable NSS : Not Sufficient Sample lot- Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes This report is furnished for the exc(usive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. Analytical ~ C;onsulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0103258-2 2103 20th Street Date Received: 03/19/01 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 03/21/01 Contract No. : Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 03/19/01 Time Sampled : 11:40 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: E031901, Elks Lodge Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ;kNALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Benzene 0.223 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Toluene 12.4 ppmv 10 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 9.40 ppmv 10 8020/1 Total Xylenes 20.9 ppmv 1.0 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 389 ppmv 250 GASLUFT/8 Method Reference rations Manager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition 8. DOHS LUFT Manual mg/,~ : milligrams pel~ Liter (pa~ts pe~ ugf/L .- micrograms per Liter (parts pel- billion' umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : NOt Applicable NSS : Not Sufficient Sample for Analysis DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting ~'ulqposes This report is ~urnlshed ~or the exclusive use of our Customer and applies only to the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. Chain of Custody Record !" ! -'i ~> "' ~ q Page / ~ / ZALcO LABORATORIES' .NC' -- ~,' ,. ~.,- 4809 Armour Ave. ~T~,e t. / ~ '~--'~/-~ Turnaround Time: Bakersfield. California 9330B ~ O~USH By: (661 ) 395~539 ~ Expedited (1 Week) Field L~ Fax(6Sl) 895-3069 ,ceChe~, .Te~raum~C ~o~ine (~ Weeks) Sampled d S. e~ow Leoa $ampe Oesc piton ~ Ty~,' '% ~ · · NOTE: Samples are discarded 30 days afler resuRS are repotted unless other arrangements are made. KEY: * G-Glass P-Plastic M-Metal T-Tedlar V-VOA Hazard'S)ds s~' amp~ be returned to client or disposed of at client's expense. ** W-Water WW-Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid O-Other · ** A-Acid, DH<2 (HCI.HNO.,H~SO.) S-NROH+ZnAc Nhite - Office Copy Ye{Iow - Lab Copy Pink - Client Copy Analytioal ~, OonsulCing Servioes 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0104261-1 2103 20th Street Date Received: 04/23/01 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 04/27/01 Contract No. : Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 04/23/01 Time Sampled : 12:15 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: I042301 Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Benzene 0.449 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Toluene 16.7 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 7.05 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Total Xylenes 31.1 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 227 ppmv 50 GASLUFT/8 i 8. DOHS LUFT Manual Y~' ' . '. ~ ?' "~] [~ ~ ~ ~; ~/L : m~grams pe¥ Liter (pa~ts pet' billion' · '. ' ': ............ ~,. 6mhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C ~' mmhos/cm : millimho~/cm at 25 C ..... ~.~ ND :None Detected N/A : No~ ADplicab~e .- Jt NSS : Not Sufficient Sample fo~' Analysis  DLR': Detectio~l Limit for Reporting Purposes Th~s report is Jam;shed faf the exclusive use of oaf Customer and applies only to lhe samples tested Zolco is not responsible for repo~'l alteration or detachment. ZAL(]]C BORATORIES, IN Analytical & (]]onsulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0104261-2 2103 20th Street Date Received: 04/23/01 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 04/27/01 Contract No. : Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 04/23/01 Time Sampled : 12:20 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: E042301 Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF D~NALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) NI) ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Benzene 0.544 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Toluene 30.5 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 9.94 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Total Xylenes 45.6 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 469 ppmv 50 GASLUFT/8 cc: Analyzed : 04/23/01 JMM ~~ Method Reference / Jim Ethe~ton, Lab Operations Manager 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition /g/L / 8. DOHS LUFT Manual : milligrams pe~ Liter (parts pe~' million! /ug/L micrograms pet- Liter (parts per billion) umhos/cm : micromhos/cm at 25 C mmhos/cm : mJllimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None Detected N/A : Not Applicable NSS : Not Sufficient Sample [o¥ Analysis DLR : Detection 6imit for Reporting Put-poses This report ,s furnished for the exclusive use of our Custon",er and applies only to the samples tested Zalco ,s not respor, slble for report alteration or detachment Chain of Custody Record 0 ~ :;~ 4 ~. 6 1 Pa.e__~o, (~/ 43D9 Armour Ave. Pr~ %.Ir Turnarou.d Time: za, so ~' 0 ~ ¢6_ { Bakersfield. California 93308 ~RUSH By: [661) 395~539 ¢~pedited (~ Week) FieldL~ F~x (661) 395-3089 IceChe~ .Tem~ra, u.e.~ ~.ti.O (2 Woeks) wo~o,~e,~ ~~ [ _ ~ddress ~ ~ Sample Oate ~ ~ legaISample Description Containers ~ ~ ~ Remarks lOl Sampled Sa d S~e KW Bel~ N Ty~* ~ NOTE: Sam~es are discarded 30 days after results are repocled unless other arrangements e, re made. KEY: * G-Glass P-Ptastic M-Metal T-Tedlar V-VOA ~_ardo,ds samples will be returned to client er disposed of at clierlfs expense. ** W-Water VVW.Wastewater S-Solid P-Petroleum L-Liquid O-Olher ~ A-Acid. pH<2 (HCI,HNO_,,H~SO.') S-N~OH*?n~r r, r', ..... : .......... White -Office Copy Yellow - Lab Copy Pink - Client Copy September 10, 2002 Ms. Dolores Gough, P.E. FiRE CHIEF ~oN ~R~E RAM Environmental 2103 20t~ Street ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 2101 ",'Street Bakersfield,CA 93301 Bakersfield. CA 93301 VOICE (661) 326-3941 FAX (661) 395-1349 SUPPRESSION SERVICES RE: Confirmation Soil Sampling Workplan 2101 "H' Street Bakersfield. CA 93301 1414 East Califomia Ave VOICE (661)326-3941 FAX (661) 395-1349 Dear Ms. Gough: PREVENTION SERVICES FIRE SAFETY SERVlCE$· F~N,. ~ER~/ICE$ 1715ChesterAve. This is to notify you that the work plan for the above stated Bakersfield, CA 93301 VO~CE(661)32~-3979 address is satisfactory. Please give this office 5 working days FAX (661) 326-0576 notice prior to the commencement of work. PUBLIC EDUCATION 1715ChesterAv~. Please be advised that any work done that is not performed Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE(661)326-3696 under direct oversight by this office will not be accepted, unless FAX (661) 326-0576 previously approved. FIRE INVESTIGATION 1715 Chester Av.. If you have any questions, please call me at (661) 326-3979. Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (661) 326.-3951 FAX (661) 326-0576 Sincerely, TRAINING DIVISION Bakersfield, CA 93308 _. VOICE (661) 399-469'~ FAX (661) 399-5763 Howard H: Wines, III Hazardous Materials Specialist Registered Geologist No. 7239 Office of Environmental Services HHW/dc cc: C. Kirkpatrick, Elks Lodge $:~USTFORMStUST.L3 07/18/2002 09:25 6613246172 RAM ENVIRONMENTAL PAGE 01 A M ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET PROJECT No. A. DDRES, ~: COMME]~TS: / TOTAL IUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER PAGE: zf ... ORGINA ,: WILL WILL NOT FOLLOW BY: THE INFOR~ [ATION CONTAINI~D IN THIS FACSIMILE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY ALSO BE PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT 1S ADDRESSEI L IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER I?"TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE, DISSEMINATION. DISTRIBUTI DN, OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FACSI] fflLE/N ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY T]BLEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE T' ) US AT THE ADDRESS BELOW VIA THE U,S. POSTAL SERVICES. THANK YOU. 2103 20th ;treet · Bakersfield. CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 SERVICES, INC. Mr. Charl :s Kirk-patrick Charles C lops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfiel ri, California 93307 Subject: Proposal Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California RAM Project No.: 200721 Dear Mr. ,~irkpatrick: RAM is I)leased to present the Scope of Work necessary to finally close the project at the Elks Lodge sit~ on East California Avenue; Bakersfield, CA. The site has b~en a location ora project to remediat~ the effects of all underground tank leakage of gasoline. RAM's S~op¢ o£Work to close the site will include: 'reparation of Closure Work Plan to thc City of Bakersfield. · )n-site work plan implementation to include: drilling, sampling well closure and lab a~alysis. · ?rc, paration and submittal of Closure Report to include negotiations with the City of ~takersfield for their closure letter to the Elks Lodge. · RAM will continue to assist the Elks Lodge for the redmbursement of monies from the grate Clean-up Fund Program. RAM is ] ~leased to have worked with you over thc past years and wish to continue our relationship "in to your a tvantage. Your date and signature below is our authorization to submit our progress workplac to the city; you may fax it back at (661) 324-6172, as we .will call on you Thursday thc 11th or F1 lay the 12th for a discussion of RAM's strategy to maximize the benefits o£this project's final stag ,'s to the Elk Lodge. Respectfi ,fly,/,2 ,., ~Richara t.~. CasagrandeJ" '"""-~-~~d~~'~~ ~/~ } Date: Authorized Agent ~~' President RMC:ta 'Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · tAX (661) 324-6172 07/18/2002 09:25 6613246172 RAM ENVIEONMENTAL PAGE 03 TRITON Envi 'onrnental Group JUL 3uly 2, 2002 :..~. :.~' L'"l' I I I. Mr. Howard H. W neb Bakersfield Fire [ ~epartment :tT:[S Chester Ay, ~nue, Suite 300 Bakersfield, Calif ,rnla 93:30[ Subject: I, ~erirn Status Report ¢1 lartes ~C:hops~ Lawrence Lodge #32S l~ Ll4 East Californin Avenue B ikersfleldf California Pi z)Ject No.: 005 Dear Hr, Wines: Thank you for tal ',lng the time to speak with me on .luna 25, 2002 regarding the status of the soil vapor extraction system (SVES) ¢ )erating at the above referenced site. Triton Environmental Group, [nc. (Triton) was asked to contact the Bake~ ~fleld Fire Department (Department) on behalf of the Charles 'Chops~ Lawrence Lodge #325 (Elks) by Hr. Charles KI 'kpatrick of the Elks. Triton has prepared this letter to memorialize that telephone conversation. As you will recall the following subjects were discussed: · The SvEs was shut down by RAH Environmental Engineering Services, [nc. (RAN) due to monthly monitoring results th ~t identified effluent hydrocarbon concentrations to be greater than the inlet concentrations. The SVES has not been repaired or restarted since then. On behalf of the Elks, Triton requested thatthe SVES be removed Bo that no further rental charges are incurred. Upon your approval of that request, Triton contacted RAH on .1 ina 27, 2002 and forwarded your verbal approval to remove the SVES from the site. · The Elks, with assistance from Triton, will prepare a request for proposal (RFP) for the risk assessment and subseque ~t site closure. The Elks will send the RFP out to bid In accordance with the State of California Undergro Jnd Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF) requirements. Upon receipt of bids and the selection of a qualified :onsultant, a risk assessment to determine the impact of petroleum hydrocarbons remaining In site soils, If ~ny, will be conducted. Upon completion of the risk assessment, site closure or additional remediatiDn activities will be recommended. This letter is inte ~ded to accurately record the subjects we discussed and update you on actions currently underway and proposed, you feel there are any discrepancies or omissions, please feel free to contact me. Additionally~ please reel free contact me if you have any questions or require additional Information on this project. Sincerely, //~ '~ Hark I. FIshin~k b REA Environmental E,~gineer' M.1P:mjp cc: Charles I~irkpatrick, Charles ~Chops' Lawrence Lodge #325 Mr. Richalrd Casagrande, RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Xnc. IIIIII I I III I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII · Triton Environmental Gfou~, In¢, 4450 Califon ia Ave.. Suite K-299, Bakersfield. CA 93;309 l~h/fx: (66~) 588.2448 tritofl~bak.rr, com www. tritoflenv.corn 07/18/2002 09:25 6613246172 RAM ENV[RONMENTAL PAGE 04 - - I PHONE :CALL TELEPHONED :F .......... , . ~. RETURNL=D PHONE~ YOUR CALL CALL ~uty 3, 2~: ~AX~A MES AGAIN Mr, ~le ~kpatfick ~'.?~?.?.:~=(~~~ ~" ~[~:;,?;;...,~,.';..~.'..~.~:~:?' WAN~ 1414 E~t' '.alifo~aAvenuc ~ ~ ~ ~~z~~ B~e~fi~[( California 93307 ., Subject: Proposal Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California RAM Project No.: 200721 Dear Mr. .ri<patrick: ENGIN[;~I~I NG 21~ 2~h ~r~t · ~K~Tle~ CA93~1 / Charles Chop~ [~wr~nc~ 1414 East Cahfomia ,&yen:ne Richard M Casagrande Date: Elks Lodge #325 Date: President Authorized Agent RMC:tah State V ater Resources Contro t oard Division of Clean Water Programs Winston H. Hickox 1001 1 Street · Sacramento, California 95814 · (916) 341-5796 , Secretary for Mailing Address: P.O. Box 944212 · Sacramento, California · 94244-2120 Gray Davis FAX (916) 341-5806 * Interact Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/cwphome/ustcf Governor Environmental Protection June 5, 2002 Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 C/o Charles Kirkpatrick · 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 REQUEST FOR PRE-APPROVAL OF CORRECTIVE ACTION COSTS, CLAIM NO. 10391, SITE ADDRESS: 1414 EAST CALIFORNIA AVENUE E, BAKERSFIELD I have reviewed your request, received on May 16, 2002, for pre-approval of corrective action costs. I have included a copy of the "Cost Pre-Approval Request" form; please use this form in the future for requesting pre-approval of corrective action costs. It appears you have completed your SVES operation and are soon to initiate confirmation sampling, as requested by the Bakersfield Fire Department's Environmental Services (BFDES)April 8, 2002 letter and per Fund's conversation with BFDES. Furthermore, the Fund pre-approved your consultant 15 months O&M, beginning June oftast year. Please submit your incurred costs for operating the SVES with your next reimbursement request submittal - pre- ' approv~il is not applicable at this time. Please call if you have-any' questions; I can be reached at (916) 341-5796. Sincerely, Mark Owens, Water Resources Control Engineer Technical Review Unit ........ Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Enclosure cc: Mr. Howard Wines -. -' Bakersfield Fire Dept' Environmental Services 1715 Chester Avenue :' :;'..-"Bakersfield, Ch 93301 ..... California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper ~ : D April 8, 2002 r Mr.. Mark J. Pishinsky, Project Manager RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. 2103 20~h Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Status Report, 4* Quarter 2001 Charles "Chops" Lawrence Lodge #325, 1414 E. California Ave. FIRE CHIEF Re. FROZE Bakersfield, CA ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 2101 'H' Sb'~t aake,~,eld. CA W01 Dear Mr. Pishinsky, VOICE (661) ~1 FAX (661) 395-1349 I have reviewed the above referenced report associated with the soil · SUPPRESSION SERVICES vapor extraction system (VES) operating on site. This office concurs with Bakersfield, CA 93301 your previous request to continue operation of the VES throughout the VOICE 1661) 326-3941 FAX (661) 395-1349 additional six-month period (January 2002 through June 2002). PREVENTION SERVICES While the VES continues to remove measurable amounts of 1715 Chestm' Ave. &,ke,~aeld. CA 9,~ hydrocarbons from the soil, the daily extraction rate has significantly VOICE (661) 326-3951 FaX (66~) a~?S decreased. Based on the cumulative amount of hydrocarbons removed to date as compared with the aerial extent, gasoline concentrations, and soil ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES types reported in the original site ch~acterization, this office concludes that 1715 Chester Aw. Bakersfield. CA 93,301 thc bulk of thc contaminant mass has been effectively removed and that VOICE (661) 326-39?9 FAX (661) 3~6-667s confirmation soil sampling should now be conducted. TRAINING5642 VlctorDWIsiOHAve. Therefore, prior to May 10, 2002, please submit a workplan for Bakersfield. CA93308 confirmation sampling to support a risk assessment that any residual gasoline vOiCE (66~) 309-4697 FAX (661) 3~*-S?SS concentrations which may still exist will not pose a threat to groundwater. Sincerely, RALPH E. HUEY Director of Prevention Services Howard H. Wines, III, RG 7239 Hazardous Materials Specialist Office of Environmental Services cc: C. Kirkpatrick, Lawrence Lodge ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. March 29, 2002 Ms. Janice Douglass State Water Resources Control Board Division of Clean Water Programs 1001 I Street, 17th Floor P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2121 Subject: Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 Reimbursement Request No. 4 Claim # 010391 RAM Project No. 200597/200721 Dear Ms. Douglass, On behalf of Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 (Elks Lodge), RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. (RAM) has prepared the enclosed Reimbursement Request No. 4. We have also included copies of all supporting documents. Due to the non-profit nature of the Elks Lodge's activities, RAM has agreed to wait for payment from the Elks Lodge until they have received payment from the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Program. Therefore, the only cancelled check available at this time is the Elks Lodge payment to RAM from Reimbursement Request No. 3. A copy of the cancelled check is included with Reimbursement Request No. 4. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (661) 324-6152. Sinc,erely, .~ /~. ,---- Mark J. Pishinsky~, REA Project Manager MJP:mjp Cc: Charles Kirkpatrick, Elks Lodge #325 Howard Wines, City of Bakersfield Fire Department (cover letter only) Enclosures 2O00 02 597 03 2103 20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. August 16, 2001 Mr. Howard Wines Bakersfield Fire Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Subject: SVES Status Report SeCond Quarter 2001 Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California RAM Project No.: 200721 Dear Mr. Wines: On behalf of the Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 (Elks Lodge), RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. (RAM) has prepared this Status Report, Second Quarter 2001 (Second Quarter Report) for the soil vapor extraction system (SVES) operating at the above referenced site. This Second Quarter Report is intended to update our SVES Status Report/Request for Operation Extension dated May 15, 2001 (Status Report). The Second Quarter Report covers the period from April 1, 2001 to June 30, 2001. Due to the date the Status Report was prepared, there is some duplication of data in the Second Quarter Report and the Status Report. BACKGROUND In a letter dated December 9, 1997, the Bakersfield Fire Department (Department) concurred with RAM's recommendation that soil vapor extraction be used to remediate site soils. The SVES was started on April 26, 2000. The SVES consists of four extraction wells, a manifold system and an electric catalytic oxidizer (Cat Ox). The State of California Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF) initially approved operation of the SVES for a three-month period. In our Status Report, RAM requested that the Department retroactively approve a nine-month period of operation already completed (August 2000 through April 2001) and approve an additional six-month period of operation (May 2001 through October 2001). The Department approved the additional periods of operation in a letter dated May 25, 2001. OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING On June 14, 1999, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) issued Authority to Construct Permit No. S-3557-1-0 (ATC), a copy of which is attached to this Report. 2000 01 721 04 2103 20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 Mr. Howard Wines August 16, 2001 Page 2 On April 26, 2000, a Cat Ox SVES manufactured by Stealth Industries and rated at 250 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) was put into service. RAM monitors the SVES on a weekly basis. A Permit to Operate the SVES has not yet been issued by the SJVAPCD. The SVES is currently operating under the conditions of the ATC. The SVES has not operated continuously since the start date due to intermittent mechanical problems. The SVES has operated approximately 1,516 hours during this reporting period for a cumulative total of 6758 hours as of June 27, 2001 when the SVES was shut down due to effluent concentrations exceeding SJVAPCD permit conditions. A summary of the hours of operation is included in the attached Summary Table. Samples from the SVES influ~_ent- ~an~ effluent are_ co_l!ec_ted monthly by RAM. Samples are collected by connecting a small pre-cleaned vacuum pump to the sample source using Teflon tubing and pumping a sample into a Tedlar bag. The vacuum pump is used to overcome the system vacuum to allow sample capture. The influent sample is collected from a sample port located downstream of the manifold where the flow from the four extraction wells is regulated. The effluent sample is collected from a sampling port located in the Cat Ox exhaust. Air samples are transported using appropriate chain of custody procedures to Zalco Laboratories, Inc., a State of California certified laboratory. All vapor samples are analyzed for Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, total Xylenes (BTEX), Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE), and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg). The SVES was sampled on the following date during this reporting period: · April 23, 2001 During the reporting period, SVES effluent concentrations have exceeded SJVAPCD permit conditions. The SVES was shut down on several occasions this period and repairs were made to correct the SVES performance but it continued to be an ongoing problem. Monthly samples for May and June were not collected due to the intermittent operation of the SVES. The SVES was shut down for repairs on June 27, 2001 based on daily monitoring results that identified effluent ' ' - concentratiOns 'to'be greater than fne inlet concentratit)hg arid 'h~ts not yet been restarted. 'The manufacturer is replacing the catalytic oxidizer cell. It is anticipated that the SVES will be restarted no later than September 1,2001. A summary of analYtical results is included in the attached Summary Table. Copies of the laboratory analytical reports and chain of custody documents are also attached. Approximately 305 pounds of hydrocarbons have been removed from the soil this quarter for a cumulative total of 24,264 pounds as of June 27, 2001 when the SVES was shut down. Approximately 20 pounds of hydrocarbons per day continue to be removed from the soil. 2000_01 _721 _04 Mr. Howard Wines August 16, 2001 Page 3 " USTCF STATUS A Cost Pre-Approval Request dated June 7, 2001, along with a copy of the Department's May 25, 2001 letter, was submitted to the USTCF requesting reimbursement for the additional 15 months of operation approved by the Department. The USTCF agreed to reimburse the Elks Lodge for the additional months of operation in a letter dated June 20, 2001. USTCF funding for operation of the SVES is approved through October 31,2001. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT REPORTING PERIOD The SJVAPCD will be notified when the SVES is restarted so they can witness the sampling. Upon receipt of acceptable analytical-results (i.e., emissions within ATC conditions), a PTO should be issued by the SJVAPCD. RAM will continue to monitor the SVES on a weekly basis and sample on a monthly basis. RAM will provide a third quarter status report to TCEHSD in October 2001 for the quarter beginning in July 2001 and ending in September 2001. The additional period of operation approved by the Department and USTCF technically ends on October 31, 2001. However, the SVES has not operated for approximately two months and it is our understanding, based on conversations with the manufacturer, that we would not be billed for the two months that the SVES was not operating. If that is indeed the case, there should be enough pre-approved funds available to operate the SVES through December 31,2001. Prior to December 31,2001, a determination will have to be made whether or not to extend the operation of the SVES for an additional period of time. Please call me at (661) 324-6152 if you have any questions or would like to discuss this Second Quarter Report in detail. Sincerely, RAM Environmental En,~/neering Services, !nc. _ Mark J. Pishinsky, REA Project Manager MJP:mjp cc: Charles Kirkpatrick, Elks Lodge Kari Fuqua, SJVAPCD Attachments 2000__01__72 IL04 ELKS LODGE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM SUMMARY TABLE RAM Project No.: 200721 DATE Hours of Cumulative Flow Inlet Exhaust VOC VOC VOC VOCs Cumulative Operation Hours Rate Conc. Conc. Extraction Emission Control Extracted VOCs (Hours) (Hours) (scfrn) (ppmv) (ppmv) Rate Rate Efficiency (lbs) Extracted (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (%) (lbs) 4/26/00 Start 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0' 0 0 09/18/00 2520 2866 303 1090l 927 111.56 94.88 14.95%~ 11714 11714I 10/10/00 432 3298 300 1530 654 156.60 66.28 57.25% 2819 14533 12/05/00 558 3856 300 1500 380 152.01 38.51 74.67% 3535 18068 01/09/01 816 4672 301 13601 1020 137.82 103.71 25.00%' 4685 22753 02/20/01 180 4852 256 863 743 87.75 64.25 13.90% 658 2341 II 03/19/01 588 5440 251 259 389 22.40 32.98 -50.19% 549 23960 04/23/01 380 5820 191 2271 469 19.25 30.26 -106.61%' 305 24264 06/27/01 938 6758 System Shut Down - No test results available Notes: scfm - standard cubic feet per minute ppmv - parts per million by volume lbs/day - pounds per day VOC - volatile organic compounds % - percent of VOCs destroyed lbs - pounds 2000_01 _721 _04xls  ZALCO LABORATORIES, INO. Analytical ~ Consulting Semvices 4309 Armour Avenue (661) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAN Environmental Laboratory No: 0104261-1 2103 20th Street Date Received: 04/23/01 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 04/27/01 Contract No. Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 04/23/01 Time Sampled : 12:15 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: I042301 Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Benzene 0.449 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Toluene 16.7 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 7.05 ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Total Xylenes 31.1 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 227 ppmv 50 GASLUFT/8 cc: Analyzed : 04/23/01 JMM ~~_. / Method Reference /Jim Et/ton, Lab Operations Manager l. EPA SW-846, 1994 3~'Ct Edition 8. DOHS bU~'T ~a,ma] ~---~ r~ ' ,'[:~ ~[~ ¢/b ~tcr~drams pe,- [,it:er (parr. s po,- '.'~ ........ ~.4~; umhos/cm : rnicromhos/cm at 25 mmhos/cm : mi I l imhos/cm at 25 C ' " ¢~0~ ND : None Dotectted N/A : Not Ai3i) t it:able .... 7~ NSS : Not Sufficient. Sample ~or Analys~s  DLR : Detectton bimtt: for Reporting Pu~pos,es Analytical & Consulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (661 ) 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (661) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 0104261-2 2103 20th Street Date Received: 04/23/01 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Date Reported: 04/27/01 Contract No. : Attention: Mark J Pishinsky Date Sampled : 04/23/01 Time Sampled : 12:20 Sample Type: Gas/NGL/LPG Description: E042301 Sampled by Jennifer Davis REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR Method/Ref BTXEM in Gas Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) ND ppmv 0.1 8020/1 Benzene 0.544 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Toluene 30.5 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Ethylbenzene 9.94 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 Total Xylenes 45.6 ppmv 0.5 8020/1 TPH Gasoline (C4-C12) GRO 469 ppmv 50 GASLUFT/8 cc: Analyzed : 04/23/01 JMM Method Reference / Jim EtheFton, Lab Operations Manager ). EPA SW-~46. 1994 3L'd Ectitton ~.g/b /' 8. DOHS LUFT Manual : milligrams pe~ Liter (parLs /ug/L micrograms per Liter (parts umhos/cm : m~cromhos/cm at 25 mmhos/cm : millimhos/cm at 25 C ND : None DcLected N/A : Not App~ Chain of Custody Record ~) ~ ~ ~ 2.~ ].page~o, _[ · Turnaround Time: 4309 Armour Ave. Prq~ T~le Bakersfield, California 93308 ORUSH By:__ .[681 ) 395~539 F.x(SS~)3SS-3OSS ,c.c,~, .T~m~t,rerO ~mine (2 Weeks) wo,~O~der, ~~0 [  e ' " Sample Date ~ ' ~ Legal Sample Description Containers ~ ~ ~ Remarks ID~ Sampled Sa d See K~ Below ~ Ty~* ~ '' I ~ ' J , NOTE: ~m~ are di~rd~ ~ days a~ resuB are re~ un~ o~ ~m~B are made. K~: * G-Glass P-Pla~ic M-Metal J-Tedlar V-VOA ~arO~s ~mpl~ will ~ return~ to cliem or d~ of al cl~nt's ex~. White Off~ce Copy Yellow. LAb Copy Pink - Client Copy ENGINEERING ,~ SERVICES, INC. I I June 7, 2001 ..' .... . .... ~ State Water Resources Control Board ~,%~' Division of Clean Water Programs ~ P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 ~ Attn: Ms. Janice Douglass RE: Cost Pre-Approval Request Charles "Chops" Lawrence Lodge/t325 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California Claim No.: 010391 RAM Project No.: 200721/200597 Dear Ms. Douglass, On behalf of the Charles "Chops" Lawrence Lodge //325, RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. (RAM) is submitting this letter requesting pre-approval for additional corrective action measures at the above referenced site. RAM is requesting pre-approval of estimated costs of $89,895 for additional corrective action measures. The reasons for the additional costs are summarized below. In a letter dated February 16, 1999, the State of California Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF) approved operation of a Catalytic Oxidation Soil Vapor Extraction System (SVES) for a three-month period. The SVES was started on April 26, 2000. The SVES consists of four extraction wells and an electric catalytic oxidizer. Near the end of the first three-month period (May 2000 through July 2000), the concentrations of hydrocarbo~ns being extracted increased and operation contifiued without further approval' Due to an oversight on our part, a Cost Pre-Approval request was not submitted to the USTCF for the additional time of operation. The SVES continues to remove hydrocarbons from the soil. In our SVES Status Report/Request for Operation Extension dated May 15, 2001 (Status Report), RAM requested that the City Of Bakersfield (City) retroactively approve the additional nine months of operation (August 2000 through April 2001) and approve an additional six-month period of operation (May 2001 through October 2001) based on the continued removal of hydrocarbons from the soil. A copy of the Status Report is attached to this letter. In a letter dated May 25, 2001, the City approved our request for 15 additional months of operation. A copy of the City's approval letter is attached to this letter. 2000 _01 _ ?21 _02 2103 20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 Ms. Janice Douglass June 7, 2001 Page 2 A completed Cost Pre-Approval Request is attached to this letter. Pre-approval of the following additional costs are requested: 15 months of operation ~ $5,993 per month, includes the following: · SVES equipment rental · Security fence rental · Electricity · Weekly monitoring · Monthly sampling · Laboratory analyses ~ - Qfiarterly reports '~ Total $89,895 Costs are based on an average of actual monthly costs incurred to date. A detailed cost estimate is attached to this Request. RAM, on behalf of the Charles "Chops" Lawrence Lodge //325, requests that the three bid requirement be waived since this is a continuation of existing work. Thank you for considering this request. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me. Project Manager MJP: mjp cc: Charles. Kirkpatrick, Charles "Ghops" Lawrence Lodge #325 Howard Wines, City Of Bakersfield (w/o Attachments) Attachments 2000_01_721_02 D May 25, 2001 Mr. Mark J. Pishinski, REA RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. 2103 20th Street FIRE CHIEF Bakersfield, CA 93301 RON FRAZE RE: Request for Operation Extension; Soil Vapor Extraction ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES at 1414 E. California Avenue, Bakersfield 2101 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (661) 326-3941 Dear Mr. Pishinski: FAX (661) 395-1349 I have reviewed the Soil Vapor Extraction System (SVES) report, SUPPRESSION SERVICES dated, May 1 5, 2001, for the Charles Chops Lawrence Elks Lodge #325. 2101 "H" Street Bakerslield, CA 93301 - VOICE (661) 326-3941 This letter confirms the approval of the previous nine months of FAX (661) 395-1349 SVES operation, as well as the request to extend operation of SVES for PREVENTION SERVICES another six month period; unless conditions dictate otherwise, pending 1715 Chester Ave. results of the next quarterly status report for the period beginning Bakersfield, CA93301 May 2001 and ending July 2001 VOICE (661) 326-3951 ' FAX (661) 326-0576 If you have any questions, please call me at (661) 326-3979. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1715 Chester Ave. Si nce rely, Bakersfield, CA 93301 VOICE (661) 326-3979 /. ,~~ FAX (661) 326-0576 ~~/~q~ TRAINING DIVISION Howard H. Wines, III 5642 Victor Ave. Bakersfield, CA93308 Hazardous Materials Specialist VOICE (661) 399-4697 RG No. 7239, Exp. 3/31/03 · FAX (661) 399-5763 Office of Environmental Services HHW/db S:\May 2001~nPishinski SVES ~ 1414 E Calif Ave hWines.wpd 2000 Ms. Jennifer White, AGPA State Water Resources Control Board Division of Clean Water Programs P.O. 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 Subject: Cost Pre-Approval Claim # 10391 RAM Job No. 200721 Dear Ms. White, RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. (RAM) has been operating a soil vapor extraction system (SVE System) at the Elks Lodge #325 on 1414 East California Avenue in Bakersfield, California since April 26, 2000. Problems with the extraction equipment during the first month prevented the SVE System from running continuously. Since then the SVE System has operated continuously. Your office initially approved the operation of the SVE System for three months of operation in a letter dated February 16, 1999. Due to continued high concentrations of hydrocarbons being extracted (>90 pounds per day), RAM requests that the operation of the SVE System be extended for another three months. Three additional months of operation would require an additional $24,700 to be authorized by your office. A copy of the original cost estimate provided to your office is included with this request. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (661) 324-6152. Sincerely, ~ark Pish~~ Project Manager MJP:mjp Cc: Charles Kirkpatdck, Elks Lodge #325 Howard Wines, City of Bakersfield, Fire Department Attachment 2000_99_721 _03 2103 20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 Elks Lodge #325 Cost Estimate for Soil Vapor Extraction System Using An Electric-Powered Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer Project No. 200597 Task 1 - Site Preparation: Construct Collector Manifold (including trenching and materials) 2,500 · Construct Security Fence (including labor and materials) 1,500 Modify Electrical Service (including labor and materials) 600 RAM Supervision (5 hrs x $55/hr plus mileage) 300 Total Site Preparation Cost* $4,900 Task 2 - System Startup: Prepare and Submit PTO (8 hfs @ $80/hr) $ 640 SVES Mobilization/Demobilization 3,500 SVES System Startup 635 Analytical (5 samples $125/sample) 625 RAM Supervision (5 hrs x $55/hr plus mileage) .300 Total Startup Cost* $5,700 Task 3 - Operation and Maintenance: Electricity (3 months x $2,000/month) 6,000 SVES Rental (3 months x $2,500/month) 7,500 SVES Monitoring/Sampling/Maintenance (3 months x 4 weeks/month x 2 trips/week x 4 hrs/trip x $55/hr plus mileage & equip) 5,965 Analytical (3 months x 5 samples/month x $125/sample) 1,875 Weekly Summary/Data Entry (3 months x 4 weeks/month x 2 hrs/week x $55/hr) 1,320 ~0oo_~_~_lo 1 Review of SVES Operation and Efficiency (3 months x 4 weeks/month x 2 hours/week x $85/hr) 2,040 Total O & M Cost* $24,700 Task 4 - Report: Project Manager (16 hours x $85/hr) 1,360 RG/PE Review (2 hour x $95/hr) 190 Principal Review (1 hour x $115/hr) 115 Clerical (6 x $45/hr) 270 Drafting (2 hours x $55/hr) 110 Miscellaneous Project Materials (copies, postage, etc.) 155 Total Report Cost* $2,200 TOTAL COST* $37,500 * All costs based on a three month project life 20~0_99_597_ 10 2 ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. 5, 2001 ECE vED 'Ms. Janice Douglass ~ {:'~ 0 9 2001 State Water Resources Control Board Division of Clean Water Pro,ams 1001 I S~eet, 17~ Floor P.O. Box 944212 Sacr~emo, CA 94244-2121 Subject: Request for Additional Information Claim g 010391 ~M Project No. 200597/200721 Dear Ms. Douglass, On behalf of Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge g325 (EI~ Lodge), ~M Enviro~ental Engineering Se~ices, ~c. (~M) has prepared this response to your request for additional info,etlon dated December 28, 2000. Our response to each of your requests is provided below. Non-RecoveW From Other Sources Disclosure Ce~ification A Non-Recove~ From Other Sources Disclosure Ce~ification, si~ed and dated by the claimant, is enclosed with this le~er. Cancelled Checks Due to the non-profit na~e of the Elks Lodge's activities, ~M has a~eed to wait for pa~ent ~om the EI~ Lodge until they have received pa~ent ~om ~e Under~ound Storage Ta~ Cleanup Fund Pro,am. Therefore, there are no cancelled checks available at this time. Copies of the cancelled check(s) will be included with Reimbursement Request No. 4. We have also included a copy of the Reimbursement Request Fo~ as you requested. If you have any questions or require additional info~ation, please call me at (661) 324-6152. Sincerely, Mark J. Pishinsky,' ~A Project Manager MJP:mjp Cc: Charles Kirkpatrick, Elks Lodge g325 Howard Wines, City of Bakersfield Fire Depa~ent Enclosures 2000_01 597 01 2103 20th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 324-6152 · FAX (661) 324-6172 State Water Resources Control Bol~. Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund NON-RECOVERY FROM OTHER SOURCES DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATION Charles Chops Lawerence Lodge //325 [CLAIMNO.:,01.0391 CLAIMANT NAME: SITEADDRESS: 1414 E. California' Aven)ie, Bakersfielde CA 93307. This form is a required supplement to your claim application. It must be filled out and signed by you and any joint claimants. Ali si~uat.res must be originals. This form's primary purpose is to ensure that you do not receive double payment for corrective action costs or third party compensation claims. A Fund regulation prohibits such double payment or "double recovery". (Cal. Code l~gs., tit. 23, § 2912.2, subd. Co).) On this form, you must identify money for costs related to your cla/m that' you have received or expect to receive from any source, including but not limited to/nsurance claims, l~gal judgments, and contributions from other potentially respensible parties. Although only payment for corrective action costs could constitute double recovery because those are the only costs that the Fund reimburses; you must identify any payment related to or made in consideration for the unauthorized release that is the subject of your claim, no matter how the payment is characterized. This form also se~ves.to identify other varties who ma3' b~ inv01v~ in the cles, up that i~ Finally, you must by sign Jag this form assign to the Stat~ of California any rights that you may have to reCOver from anY party responsible for the unauthorized release that is the subj~t of your claim corrective action costs for which you receive Fund reimbursement. The Fund {generally do~s not, however, pursue cost r~'..overy absent evidenco of intentional misconduct. Please 'fill out this form carefully and completely, attachin§ additional sb~ts as necessary, Failur~ to' fully and a~uratdy disclose information or to provide supportin{g dOCumentation will constitute grounds for rejecting your claim and barring you from further p .aFticipation in the Fund. INSURANCE If YES, l/st the company name and address, the policy number, and the claim representative's name and telephone number for each policy: Company Name Address Representative Name Telephone Number Policy Number Company Name Address Representative Name Telephone Number Policy Number you filed, or do you intend to file, a claim with the insurance carrier(s)? [~ NO [~ B. Have YES ffYv. s, attach an explanation of the status of the claim and copies of your latest correspondence with the insurance company. LITIGATION A. Have you sought or do you intend to seek money from any other party for the unauthorized release or the contaminated site ? [~ NO [--] YES If YES, identify the party(les) below and its name, address, telephone number, and representative, if any. Nmvm Y~DDRESS '~ELEPHONE REPRESENTATIVE B. Has legal action commenced? ~] NO [~] YES If YEs, provide the case number and county in which the action has been filed. Attach a copy of the complaint and any amendments to the complaint. Case No. County USTCF019.NON(Rev. 4/98) CONTINUED ON REVERSE OTHER SOURCE OF FUNDS A. Have you or anyone acting on YOur behalf received, or do you or anyone acting on your behalf expect to receive, funds from any source (including but not llmi~ed to insurance claimz, legal judgments, and contributions fi.om other potentially ' responsible parties, or any other source regardless how the fimds were characteriZed) which were related to or paid in consideration for the unauthorized release that is thc subject of your claim?. ~] NO [~ YES If YEs, attach copies of all such documents, and list each source of funds and thc amount below: DATE SOURCE IN PAYMENT OF AMOUNT B. Have you or anyone acting on yOur behalf received funds related to the contamination but not directly for the cleanup of the contamination which is the subject of the claim? ~'~ NO [~] YES IfYig$, submit documentation (such as a settlement agreement or pleading, judgments or any other such documen0 that identifies the pm'Dose(s) for which the money was received. C. Are you obligated to repay any Part of tho funds received? ~ NO [--] YES If Ye.S, attach documentation indicating what is to be repaid. AGREEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS PLEASE READ CAREFULL Y BEFORE SIGNING: · "I (we) authorize the'Fund to contact the parties identified on this form and to obtain from those parties any information neeessaot to determine my (our) eligibility for reimbursement from the Fund and the amount that may be reimbursed. "I (we) agree to notify the FUnd pr°raptly ff I (we) receive payment related to or made in consideration for the unauthorized release that is th~ subject'of my (our) claim. I (we) further agree to remit to the Fund.any amount that in the Fund's determination constitutes double payment. "I (we) assign to the state of California and subrogate the state to any rights that I (we) have to recover fi.om any person responsible for the unauthorized release that is the subject of my (our) claim corrective action costs for which I (we) received reimbursement. "I (we) declare under' penalty of perjury that al! facts and statements set forth herein-are .true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge emd be!icf. ! (we) u....~d, ergt~.~d dmt fail ,~ to fu!!y.~qd a~ .urat¢.ly di~!.ose' information or to provide supporting documentation will constitute grounds for rejeCting my '(our) claim and barring me (us) from further participation in the Fund." EXECUTEDAT: Bakersfieldt California ONTHIS~ ~?~/ !~ '~DAYOF January' 2001 ~~~/~ '~%~~~~~~ Charles Ki rk patrick JOINT CLAIMANT SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME JOINT CLAIMANT SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME USTCF019.NON (Rev. 4/98) -: State Water Resources Control Board UST Cleanup Fund DOCUMENTATION REQUEST ClaimNo: 010391 Region: 5 Date: 11/28/00 Claimant: CHARLES CHOPS LAWRENCE LODGE #325 Reimbursement Request #: 3 Reviewed By: Janice Douglass Submit copies of canceled checks (front and back) for the eligible cost on the invoices listed below. PLEASE NOTE: Future payments will not be processed until verification of these costs is received. Check Made Invoice Payable To: Invoice # Date Amount Eligible Cost (comments) RAM Env. 2005976 04/30/98 $ 718.00 Need copy of canceled check(s) 2005977 10/31/98 $ 85.00 2005978 11/30/98 $ 340.00 ~ 20059710 01/31/99 $ 85.00 20059711 02/28/99 $ 297.50 200721 02/28/99 5; 440.00 2007211 03/31/99 $ 410.00 20059712 04/30/99 5; 85.00 2007212 04/30/99 $ 425.00 2007213 05/31/99 $ 740.00 2007214 07/31/99 $1880.00 2007215 08/31/99 $1347.50 2007216 10/31/99 $3817.00 2007217 11/30/99 $ 126.50 Need proof of payment for invoices over 1-year RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Busines~ Name: , ~ (~ s T~e'~ C~I: In.ming [ ] O~oing [~ R~m~ [ ] Actions Recluired:. ~(c~-: ¥~ s ~ 'r--. fit) ' {/~'~m~ ' (~rzo--r__../4~Ss. , Time Required to Complete Activity # Min: //~ P,,. ENGINEERING March 3, 1998 Ms. Pamela Rarick State Water Resources Control Board Division of Clean Water Programs UST Cleanup Fund Program P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 RE: Claimant: Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 Claim No.: 010391 RAM Project No.: 200597/200634 Dear Ms. Rarick: Enclosed is Reimbursement Request No. 2, Spreadsheet No. 2 and supporting documentation fbr the above referenced claim. Please be reminded that $1,000 of the eligible reimbursement amount of Reimbursement No. 1 was withheld by your office pending receipt of the final Remedial Action Report. A copy of the Remedial Action Report, dated September 25, 1997, is included with Reimbursement Request No. 2. If you have any questions or require more information please call me at (805) 324-6152. SincerelY' ,/"~ / -' Mark J. Pishf'nsky, R.E.A. Project Manager MJP:mjp cc: Charles Kirkpatrick Howard Wines III (w/o.enclosures) Enclosures 2000.98\597.04 3333 Gibson St., Suite 200 · Bakersfield, CA 93308 (805) 324-6152 · FAX (805) 324-6172 BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT December 9, 1997 FIRE CHIEF MICHAEL R. KELLY Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 ADMINISIl~AllVE SERVICES 2101 'H° Sh'eet 14 14 East California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 CA 93307 (805) 326-3941 ~aKersneta, FAX (805) 395-1349 RE: Remedial Investigation Report for 1414 East California Avenue SUPPRESSION SERVICES 2101 'H" Street Bakorsfleldo CA 93301 Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: (80,5) 326-3941 FAX (80~) 39,5-1349 I have reviewed the above referenced report and concur with the findings nmannON SERVICES --'-' that soil vapor extraction techniques should effectively'remediate subsurface 1715 Chester Ave. - Bakersfield. CA 93301 soils. (805) 326-3951 FAX (805) 326-0576 In order to qualify for reimbursement from the State Water Resources ENVlEONMENTALSEEVICES Control Board's Clean Up Fund, it will be necessary to obtain and submit three 1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield. CA93301 bids for pre-approval by the State. The environmental consultants contacted (805) 326.-3979 should be willing and able to assist you in the pre-approval process. FAX (805) 32641576 TRAINING DIVISION Our office will monitor the effectiveness of the vapor extraction through 5642 Victor Street required quarterly reports, once in operation. Please notify this office of when Bakersfield, CA 93,308 , -' (805) 3~9-4697 vapor extraction is to begin. FAX (805) 399-5763 If you have any questions, please call me at 805-326-3979. Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Technician HHW/dm cc: M. Pishinsky, RAM RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location: Business N~e: Conta~ N~e: Business Phone: ~ ~ - ~ ~ S~ F~: Inspe~or's N~e: Time of C~I: Date: Type of C~I: Incoming [ ] Outgoing Content of C~I: Time Required to Complete Activity # Min' B A K E R S F I E L D FIRE DEPARTMENT April 15, 1997 Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 fiRE CHIEF MICHAEL R. KELLY 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 ADMINISTrAtiVE SERVICES 2101 'H' Street Bakersfield, CA93301 RE: Gasoline Comaminated Soil at ~E-~TC~li~0--rnia~A~ (805) 326-3941 FAX (805) 395-1349 Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: SUPPRESSION SEBVICE$ 2101 'H' Sfreet Bakersfield, CA93301Our records indicate that your former underground storage tank site is currently subject to (805) 326-394] Corrective Action Requirements under Article 11 of Title 23 California Code of Regulations FAX (806) 395-1349 concerning leaking underground tanks. PREVENTION SEEVICE$ 1715 Chester Ave. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 2722(b) of Article 11, you are hereby directed to begin the Bakersfielcl, CA 93301 (805)326-3951 necessary work at your site within 90 calendar days from the date ofthis letter. The required work FAX (805) 326-0576 shall include: ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1715 Chester Ave. · Installation of a soil vapor extraction piping system and the completion of a pilot Bakersfield, CA 93301 C805) 326-3979 test prior to design of a soil vapor extraction and treatment unit. FAX (805) 326-0576 · Preapproval of costs by the State Water Board Clean-up Fund.' TRAINING DIVISION 5642 V~ctor Street Bakersfield, CA 93308 (80,5) 399-~97 Please be aware that, pursuant to Section 2722(c) of Article 11, you are required to have an FAX (805) 399-5763 approved workplan on file with this office prior to initiation of any corrective action work. In addition, you are to provide ongoing status reports of all activities involving the progress of this case to this office every 90 days. If you have any questions regarding the provisions of this letter, please call me at 326-3979. Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, 1II Hazardous Materials Technician HHW/dlm cc: J. Cooper, RAM Environmental Resources - Co.tmi ~o.~ ~i~io~ of CI~ Water P~g~s M~g ~: ~.o. ~ ~,m CiW of B~ersfield F~e Dep~ent S~, CA ~4~mo 1715 Chester Avenue, ~rd Floor B~ersfiel~ CA 93301 2014 TS~ Sui~ 130 S~to, CA ~4 Deg ~. W~es: ~ERGRO~ STOOGE T~K CLE~P ~D PROG~; LIST OF World W~ Web: ~/~.~.~ POSS~LE CLOSED SITES gov/~hom~ ~n~ome. h~ Please ~cate below, at ~e fi~t of ~e site ad.ess, whe~er ~e sites have received clos~e ~om yo~ o~ce. Claim No. Site address Closure eranted? 11591 101 19th Street,, Bakersfield 10391 1414 E. California Ave, Bakersfield 10536 1501 E. 19th Street, Bakersfield 9910 300 Baker Street, Bakersfield 8443 601 Brundage Lane, Bakersfield 802 601 Eureka Street, Bakersfield ~ ....... ~-z.g': ~ee ,~'r,~c,E~ If you would like to fax your request, our fax number is (916) 227-4530. Sincerely, " ('I Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund cc: Nancy Camacho, Closure Unit-USTCF Recycled Paper Our m~sston ts to preserve and enhance the quality of California's water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations. BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRECHIEF October 30, 1996 MICHAEL R. KELLY ADMINIS11~ATIVE SEI~/ICE$ 2101 'H' Street Bakersfield. CA 93301 (805) 326-3941 ~Ax(~)395-~9 Mr. Charles KirkpatrJck Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 SUPPRESSION SERVICES 2]0] 'H' Street ~_1-41-45_E_ ~-gtLC.alifor-fl'l. 'i'aTAve]3-ae~ Bakersne~u.c^933m Bakersfield, Ca 93307 (8O5) 326-394I FAX (805) 395- RE: Implementation of Vapor Extraction System PREVENTION SERVICES ] 7]5 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 9330] Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick · (8O5) 326-395! FAX (8O5) 326-O576 The intent of this letter is to inform you of the necessary deadlines for ENVIla3NMENTALSE~ICES work required at the property described above. As a responsible party for ] ?I5 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 a leaking underground tank, you were previously sent a letter from this office ¢05) 326-3979 FAX(805)326-0576 on November 30, 1995 notifying you of the required work necessary to remediate the contamination within 90 days of that notice. We are now ~,u.,.s~,~ws~o. requesting that the implementation of vapor extraction, as previously 56~2 Victor Street BakersfielcI, CA93308 indicated, be done in a timely manner. (805) 399-~697 FAX (805) 399-5763 If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me immediately at 805-326-3979. Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials TechniCian HHW/dlm cc: M, Pishinsky, RAM 'ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. September 18, 1996 /~ l/ S&~P 2 $ ]996 //~ Ms. Nancy Camacho State Water Resources Control Board Division of Clean Water Programs 2014 T Street, Suite, 130 P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 RE: Claimant: Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325. Claim No.: 010391 Dear Ms. Camacho: Enclosed is Reimbursement Request No. 1, Spreadsheet No. I and supporting documentation for the above referenced claim. If you have any questions or require more information please call mc at (805) 324-6152. Sincerely, // . Mark J. Pishinsky, R.E.A. Project Manager cc: Charles Kirkpatrick Howard Wines III e:\2000.96\597.01 3333 Gibson St,, Suite 200 · Bakersfield, CA 93308 (805) 324-6152 * FAX(805) 324-6172 ENGINEERING August 23, 1996 Ms. Nancy Camacho State Water Resources Control Board Division of Clean Water Programs P.O. Box 944212 Sacr~ento, CA 94244-2120 RE: Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund, Claim No.: 010391 Site Address: 1414 East California Avenue, B~ersfield, California Dear Ms. Camacho: Due to delays in obtaining copies of appropriate cost documentation, we have not submi~ed a reimbursement request on behalf of Charles Chops La~ence Lodge No. 325. We have recently received what should be the final documentation and intended to submit a reimb~sement request before September 6, 1996. Please feel free to call me at (805) 324-6152 should you have ~y questions. Sincerely, Mark J. Pish[~sky 'l Project Manager cc: Howard Wines III Charles Kirkpatrick MJP:cN e:\1000.96\563.01 3333 Gil)son SI., Suile 200 · Bakersfield, CA 93308 (805) 324-6152 · FAX (805) 324-61. 72 RAM ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. July 17, 1996 Mr. Dave Deaner State Water Resources Control Board Division of Clean Water Programs P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 RE: Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund, Claim No. 010391, for site address: 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California Dear Mr. Deaner: l)ue to delays in obtaining copies of appropriate cost documentation, we have not submitted a reimbursement request on behalf of Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge No. 3..25. We intend to submit a reimbursement request before August 15, 1996. On May 29 and 30, 1996, four dual-completion vadose zone wells were installed at the site. The next phase of corrective action will include the installation of a soil vapor extraction (SVE) piping system and the completion of a SVE pilot test prior to design of a SVE system. Estimated costs incurred to date for corrective action total $11,000 - $151000. Exact, documented cost will be provided with the reimbursement request. Sincerely, Mark J. is'hinsky Project Manager cc: Howard Wines III Charles Kirkpatrick crt ..-. e:\ 1000.96~563 3333 Gibson St., Suite 200 · Bakersfield, CA 93308 (805) 324-6152 · FAX (805) 324-6172 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA ~L PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor STATE WATER REsouRcEs CONTROL BOARD · DIV'J~ION OF CLEAN WATER PROGRAMS 2014 T STREET, SUITE 130 P.O. BOX 944212 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94244-2120 (916)227-4307 (916)227-4530 (FAX) RECEIVED CHARLES CHARLES C.~,NOPS LAWRENCE LODGE #325 HAZ, MAT. DIV. 1414 C~,Efi=ORNIA AVE E .~,ERSFIELD, CA 93307 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND, CLAIM NO. 010391, FOR SITE ADDRESS: 1414 CALIFORNIA AVE.E, BAKERSFIELD - Thee State W~,t~r Resources Control Board (State Board) tak6s pleasure in isSUing the attached Letter of Commitment (LOC) in an amount not to exceed $10,000. This LOC is based upon our review of the corrective action costs incurred to date and your application received on July 14, 1995 and may be modified by the State Board by an amended LOC. Read the terms and conditions listed in the LOC. The State Board will take steps to withdraw this LOC after 90 calendar days from the date of this transmittal letter unless you proceed with due diligence with your cleanuP effort. This means that you must take positive, concrete steps to ensure that corrective action is proceeding with all due speed. For example, if you have not started your cleanup effort, you must obtain three bids and sign a contract with one of these bidders within 90 calendar days. If your cleanup effort has already started and was delayed, you must resume the expenditure of funds to ensure that your cleanup is proceeding in an expeditious manner. You are reminded that you must comply with all regulatory agency time schedules, and requirements. This package includes the following: · "Reimbursement Request Instructions" package. Retain this package for future reimbursement requests. These instructions must be followed when seeking reimbursement for corrective action costs incurred after January 1, 1988. Included in the instruction package are samples of completed Reimbursement Request forms and Spreadsheets. · "Bid Summary-Sheet to list information on bids received which must be completed and returned. · "Certification of Non-Recovery From Other Sources" which must be returned before any reimbursements can be made. · "Reimbursement Request" forms which you must use to request reimbursement of costs incurred. · "Spreadsheet" forms which you must use in conjunction with your Reimbursement Request. · "Claimant Data Record" (Std. Form 204) which must be completed and returned with your first Reimbursement Request. YOU MUST SUBMIT A REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST PACKAGE BY JULY 17, 1996, OR SEND A wRITTEN UPDATE EXPLAINING: 1. Status of cleanup to date. 2. Reason(s) why a reimbursement request has not been submitted. 3. Costs incurred to date for corrective action. 4. Projected date for submitting a reimbursement request. We continuously review the status of all active claims. If you do not submit a reimbursement request or a written update by the date above, or fail to proceed with due diligence with the cleanup, we will take steps to withdraw your LOC. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed package, please contact Lydia Bracco at (916) 227-4374. Dave Deane¢ ~anager UST CleanulYFund Progra~ . Enclosures cc."- Howard Wines III Bakersfield Fire Dept. 17! 5 Chester Ave. - Bakersfield, CA 93301 RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location:' I~' 14 ~-~ (L./~ ID# Business Name: Conta~ Name: ~~ ~,s~,~f/ Business Phone: ~'3~- ~ ~'~ ~ /~} F~: Inspe~or's Name: Time of C~I: Date: Type of C~I: Incoming [ ] Outgoing ~ Returned [ ] Time Required to Complete Activity # Min: STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON Governor STATE WATER RESOURCES CON L BOARD DIVISION OF CLEAN WATER PROGI ~ 2014 T STREET, SUITE 130 P.O. BOX 944212 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94244-2120 (916) 227-4307 (91 6) 227-4530 (FAX) CHARLES KIRKPATRI~J¢,-~'~ November 30, 1995 CHARLES CHJ;;3.g-S'T_AWRENCE LODGE #325 141~RNIA AVE E ,,,~d~ERSFIELD, CA 93307 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND PROGRAM, NOTICE OF PENDING LETTER OF COMMITMENT: CLAIM NUMBER 010391; FOR SITE ADDRESS: 1414 CALIFORNIA AVEE, BAKERSFIELD This is to.notify you that we_ recently completed the detailed rey~iew of your application and it has been determined that your claim is eligible for reimbursement from the Underground Storage'Tank Cleanup Fund. Our next step in the claims process is to issue a Letter of Commitment (LOC); however, our review indicates you have not yet incurred corrective action costs exceeding your deductible of $10,000. We are prepared to issue a LOC committing money toward the reimbursement of your eligible cleanup costs once you have incurred the $10,000 deductible or are obligated (signed contract) and are diligently pursuing your cleanup effort. You must take positive, concrete steps to ensure that corrective action i§ proceeding with all due speed. · If you have not started your cleanup effort, you must obtain three bids and sign a contract with One of these bidders within 90 calendar days. If you need assistance'with the bidding process, selection of the Iow bidder, or desire pre-approval of the costs before proceeding with the work, please contact George Lockwood at (916) 227-4424. · If your cleanup effort has already started and was delayed, you must resume the expenditure of funds to ensure that your cleanup is proceeding, in an expeditious manner. You are reminded that you must comply with all regulatory agency time schedules and requirements. In addition, you must submit a written update explaining: (1l status of cleanup to date; (2) costs incurred to date for cleanup; (3) status of any contractual obligations for further work or reason(s) why a contract for work has not yet been obtained; and (4) projected date you will contract for the balance of your $$10,,000 deductible. If you fail to submit the documentation requested above in ninety (90) calendar days from the date of this notice, we will begin the process to remove your claim from the Priority List at the expiration of said ninety (90) day period. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 227-4374. Leader Region 5 Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund cc~. H~oward Wines ~ Bakersfield Fire De~t;' -1715 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 9330~  CITY of BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT ~ FIRE SAFETY CONTROL & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISIONS 1715 CHESTER AVE. * BAKERSFIELD, CA * 99301 R.E. HUEY R.B. TOBIAS, HAZ-MAT COORDINATOR November 30, 1995 FIRE MARSHAL (805) 320-3979 (805) 326-3951 Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 RE: Gasoline Contaminated Soil at 1414 East California Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: Our records indicate that your former undergrOUnd storage tank site is currently subject to Corrective Action Requirements under Article 11 of Title 23 California Code of Regulations concerning leaking underground tanks. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 2722(b) of Article 11, you are hereby directed to begin the necessary work at your site within 90 calendar days from the date of this letter. The required work shall include: · Installation of four vapor extraction wells. · Implementation of the vapor extraction pilot study. · Preparation of a Remedial Action Plan, as referenced in the workplan prepared by SECOR and approved by this office on August 24, 1995. In addition, you are to provide ongoing status reports of all activities involving the progress of this case to this office every 90 days. If you have any questions regarding the provisions of this letter, please call me at 326-3979. Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Technician HHW/dlm FAX nsmittai ~. ~ s.~ ~ ~. ~ ~ Cover Sheet CALIFORNIA Bakersfield Fire Dept. Ofl~ce of Environmental Services 1715 Chester Ave. · Bakersfield, CA 93301 FAX No. (805) 326-0576 · Bus No. (805) 326-3979 Today's Date ~/~-~/~ C- Time No. of Pages ~-- TO: COMPANY!?:~':~; ':":~ ~~ - ":::?' :? ..... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Bakersfield:Fire Dept. · Office of Environmentali:.~Se~iCes C OMM E NTS~ii?i:~;:~... ~~-" ', ::::P~'~ ~ Scie~ce O E~gi~eeri~g Analysis Co~oration E~wironmental Engineering August 22, 1995 Job No. 5C001-001-01 RF. OE~vED Mr. Howard Wines, III /[{JO 2 ,~ 1993 Bakersfield City Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division HAZ,~ DIV. 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 SUBJECT: WORK PLAN FOR VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL INSTALLATION, VAPOR EXTRACTION PILOT STUDY, AND REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN, ELKS LODGE #325, 1414 EAST CALIFORNIA AVENUE, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Wines: On behalf of the Elks Lodge #325 (Elks), SE¢OR International Incorporated (SECOR) has prepared this work plan for installation of four vapor extraction wells, implementation of a vapor extraction pilot study, and preparation of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the above referenced site. The vapor extraction wells will be installed to facilitate the pilot study. The purpose for the pilot study is to evaluate vapor extraction as an alternative for removing petroleum hydrocarbons from the soil. The RAP will present SE¢OR's approach for future remediation at the site. Background The subject property was an operating service station until the mid 1970s. After that time, the surface structures were removed but the underground storage tanks (USTs) were not removed. The Elks purchased the vacant property in July 1985 and never used the USTs. The property is unpaved and is currently used for parking by the Elks. Two 10,000 gallon USTs were removed from the site in August 1991. Elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in soil samples collected from beneath one of the USTs and one of the dispensers. The attached figure shows the location of the former USTs and their associated dispensers. In November 1991, four soil borings were advanced in the areas where petroleum hydrocarbons were previously detected during UST removal. Elevated concentrations of 5401 Ca/idbrnia Avenue, Suite 300, Bakers~'eld, CA 93309-0702 (805) 634-9541 (805) 6340604 FAX August 22, 1995 Page 2 petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in soil samples collected from boring TH-1 in the area of the former southern most UST. Petroleum hydrocarbons were not detected in soil samples collected from the other soil borings. Vapor Extraction Well Installation Four vapor extraction wells (VEl through VFA) will be installed at the locations identified on the attached Figure 1. Prior to installation, soil borings will be drilled and sampled. Soil samples will be obtained at five foot intervals starting at five feet bgs. VEl will be drilled to a total depth of approximately 55 feet bgs. VE2 through VE4 will be drilled to a total depth of approximately 40 feet bgs. Immediately after sampling, vapor extraction wells will be installed in the borings. The wells will be installed in a "nested" configuration. This configuration will consist of two 2~inch diameter polyvinylchloride (PVC) wells, set at different stratigraphic intervals, within a single 10-inch diameter borehole. The installation of "nested" wells will allow for better control of subsurface extraction from the non- homogeneous strata previously reported by others. VEl will be screened from 5 to 20 feet bgs (VEla) and from 25 to 55 feet bgs (VElb). VE2 through VE4 will be screened from 5 to 20 feet bgs (VE2a through VE4a) and from 25 to 40 feet bgs (VE2b through VE4b). All of the above screen intervals are approximate based on previous work by others. Actual screen intervals will be determined in the field based on the conditions encountered. The borings will be logged by a geologist working under the supervision of a State of California Registered Geologist. The drilling, soil sampling, and well installation procedures are included as an attachment to this work plan. Approximately four soil samples from each boring will be selected for analysis. Selected samples will be analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons characterized as gasoline (TPHg) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Test Methods 8015/8020. In addition, one soil sample from each boring will be analyzed for total lead.. All samples will be analyzed by a state of California certified laboratory. Soil cuttings from the boreholes will be contained in labelled 55 gallon Department of Transportation (DOT) approved steel drums and stored on-site pending analytical results. Once the analytical results are known, the soil will be disposed of properly by the Elks. August 22, 1995 Page 3 Vapor Extraction Pilot Study A vapor extraction (VES) pilot study will be conducted following completion of the vapor extraction well installation. A portable vapor extraction unit consisting of a 250 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) positive displacement blower and a thermal oxidizer will be used for the VES pilot study. Two of the vapor extraction wells will be used as extraction points during two separate 2 to 4 hour tests. VEl and a second well, based on field screening results, will be used as the extraction wells. The surrounding wells will be used as observation wells. The VES pilot study will be conducted in two phases. The purpose of the first phase will be to obtain an air sample at a point when the hydrocarbon concentration may be at the highest level and to evaluate the radius of influence at variable vacuum rates. The purpose of the second phase will be to evaluate fluctuations in hydrocarbon concentrations recovered from the extraction well through time and to evaluate the optimum operating parameters for the site conditions. During the first phase, the vacuum applied and the corresponding air flow rate will be increased in equal time increments. An air sample will be obtained for laboratory analysis during the first phase of the VES pilot study. The vacuum measurements and flow rates will be recorded during each change in vacuum at the extraction well. In addition, vacuum measurements and flow rates will also be obtained from the vapor monitoring wells at various extraction rates. During the second phase, the air flow rate from the extraction well will remain constant. Air samples for laboratory analysis will be obtained at the beginning and the end of the second phase of the VES pilot study. The three air samples obtained during the pilot study will be analyzed for TPH characterized as gasoline and BTEX. Tedlar bags will be used to contain air samples collected from a sampling port located on the extraction piping upstream of the blower. The purpose of the bag samples is to evaluate the organic vapor concentrations being extracted from the vadose zone. Remedial Action Plan Upon completion of the VES pilot study, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) will be prepared and submitted to the Elks for review. The RAP will document SE¢OR's methodologies used for data collection during the vapor extraction well installation and VES pilot study, present the findings of the pilot study, present analytical laboratory results, and include a conceptual August 22, 1995 Page 4 design for a vapor extraction remediation system. All data will be tabulated and presented on figures as necessary. Subsequent to review by the Elks, the final RAP will be submitted to the Bakersfield City Fire Department. We hope this work plan meets your needs at this time. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Mark Pishinsky at (805) 634-9541. Sincerely, SECOR International Incorporated Mark J. Pishinsky, R.E.A. Steve Little, R.G. Environmental Engineer Principal Geologist attachments: Figure 1 - Proposed Well Location Map Standard Operating Procedures cc: Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick, Elks Lodge #325 5C001-001-01 :elksvep.wkp I I I I I ~ FORMER UST LOCATfONS .,/ I I VE ~ BUILDING ~ ~E4~ I I I I FORMER PRODUCT LINES I ~ VES~ I F '- ~ '- k''- L ._ ~ L ._ L.._ I - I DISPENSER IS~NDS I EAST CAlIFOrNIA AVENUE ~EGEND SITE PROPER~ LINE · P~ous SO~L ~ PROPOSED VAPOR EXTRACTION WELLS NOTES: 1. SOURCE OF MAP: ~RTH SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC, 2. SITE F~TURES AND LOCAtiONS ARE APPROXIMATE. APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET S~COR SITE MAP~ INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED CLIENT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWING DATE: REVISION NO.: ELK'S LODGE 5C001-001-01 8/9/95 LODGE NO. 325 SITE ADDRESS: DRAFTED BY: CAD FILE: FIGURE: 1414 EAST CALIFORNIA AVENUE AJK 325-ASM ~, ,~ BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA' STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES Drilling and Soil Sampling Procedures Drilling will be accomplished with a truck mounted drill rig equipped with 10-inch diameter hollow stem augers. Soil sampling will be conducted through the hollow stem augers. The augers will be steam cleaned prior to use and between boreholes to reduce the possibility of cross contamination. The soil samples will be obtained with a sampler equipped with three 6 inch by 2.5 inch diameter stainless steel or brass sleeves. The sampler will be driven at the desired sample interval with a one hundred and forty pound hammer dropping thirty inches. The sampling equipment will be washed with a non-phosphate detergent solution, rinsed with clean tap water and distilled water, then allowed to air dry prior to use and between sampling intervals to minimize the possibility of cross contamination. The lowermost sleeve at each sample interval will be immediately sealed with TeflonTM film, and then capped, labeled, and chilled in an ice chest for transport to a state of California laboratory certified for the analyses requested. The second sleeve will be screened for total organic vapors with a portable organic vapor analyzer (OVA). Screening with the OVA will take place by first discarding a portion of the soil retained at one end of a sleeve to produce a head space. The sleeve will then be capped and the probe of the OVA protruded through a hole in the cap and into the head space for analysis. The OVA readings represent relative levels of total organic vapors for the site conditions at the time of drilling. All of the sleeves will be observed for lithology and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Soil samples for laboratory analysis will be based on field observations including OVA readings. "Nested" Vapor Extraction Well Construction Procedures Vapor extraction well construction will be conducted through the inside of the 10-inch diameter hollow stem augers. Well construction details will include extending a 2-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing from the bottom of each borehole to the surface. Perforated casing will be placed from the bottom of the borehole to the top of the lower interval where hydrocarbons are to be extracted from. The exact interval will be determined based on field observations. The casing will be factory perforated with 0.02-inch wide slots. The remainder of the casing will be unperforated 2-inch diameter PVC. A filter pack of #3 or 2/12 commercially graded sand will extend from the bottom of the borehole to approximately two feet above the perforated casing. The filter pack will be tremied down the augers as the augers are slowly pulled from the borehole. The annular space will be sealed with three feet of hydrated bentonite clay. A second 2-inch diameter PVC casing will be placed from the top of the well seal to the surface. Perforated casing will be placed from the top of the well seal to the top of the upper interval where hydrocarbons are to be extracted from. The exact interval will be determined based on field observations. The well will be completed in the same manner as described for the deeper well. The annular space will be sealed with three feet of hydrated bentonite clay. Above the well seal, a 2 sack cement/sand/bentonite slurry will be tremied to approximately one foot below grade. A locking, water-tight well cover will be set in concrete to protect and secure the wellheads. _ FIRE SAFETY CONTROL & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISIONS ~ , 1715 CHESTER AVE. · BAKERSFIELD, CA · 99301 November 30, 1995 R.E. HUEY R.B. TOBIAS, HAZ-MAT COORDINATOR FIRE MARSHAL (805) 326-3979 (805) 326-3951 Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick Lawrence Elks Lodge 1414 E. California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 RE: State Clean Up Fund Eligibility Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: I have recently been in contact with Ms. Lydia Bracco of the State Clean Up Fund for leaking underground storage tanks. Ms. Bracco has indicated to me that your application for reimbursement is now dependant on having the necessary work initiated prior to the tentative February, 1996 approval date. Therefore, in order to assist you in the process, the attached letter directs you to begin the work to install the vapor extraction wells within 90 days. The cost of this work is to be incurred to insure the ,$10,000 deductible has been met. Any costs beyond the first $10,000 applied toward clean up will be eligible for reimbursement pending approval by the State Clean Up Fund. Please make the necessary arrangements to begin the required work prior to February, 1996 so as not to have your clean up fund application rejected for failure to comply with the attached directive. Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Technician HHW/dlm attachment RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location: /~/~ E:' ('/x ID# Business Name: Contact Name: L ~,~/, ~, ~ ~¢. o Business Phone: ,~/~ ~ z z 7 .- ~3 ~ ~ F~: Inspe~or's N~e: Time of C~I: Date: ~/~o ~ Time: Type of C~I: Incoming [ ] Outgoing Content of C~: ~,~ ~.~ ~o~ Time Required to Complete Activity # Min:  FAX 'l~ansmittai B A K ~ it $ F I l=. L D Cover Sheet CALIPOliNIA Bakersfield Fire Dept. O~ce of Environmental Services 1715 Chester Ave. · Bakersfield, CA 93301 FAX No. (805) 326-0576 · Bus No. (805) 326-3979 Today's Date / (/'~l/~'- Time No. of Pages ~'-- TO: /--- ~) '~ ~rz/~cco · ~./. Bakersfield':Fire Dept. · Office of Environmental:~Se~ices :.:.. ?... · . : ::...::? ..'.: . .. . RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Business Name: Contact Name: Business Phone: ~ ~ ~ ~s- - ~? ~ F~: Inspe~or's Name: Time of C~I: Dine: s-~z~ Type of Call: Incoming [ ] Outgoing Content of Call: A~ions Required: Time Required to Complete Activity # Min: STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMWAL PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DIVISION OF CLEAN WATER PROGRAMS ~ 2014 T STREET, SUITE 130 P.O. BOX 944212 . SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94244-2120 (916)227-4307 (916) 227-4530 (FAX) TRANSMITTAL OF FAX MATERIAl TO:~ FROM: LYDIA BRACCO, TEAM LEADER REGION 5 DIVISION OF CLEAN WATER PROGRAMS CLEANUP FUND FAX # (916) 227-4530 (if you did not receive all of this fax, please call me at (91 6) 227-4374) NO. OF PAGES ~) (including this sheet) FOR YOUR INFORMATION PER YOUR REQUEST _;~""FOR YOUR REVIEW AND SIGNATURE REMARKS:~ ...... Underground,Storage Tank Cleanup Fund DETAILED. REVIEW CHECK LIST Rag, ion; , Aeai~ned: o.-.-,.-: ..~:=~~:~~~.~:.....:' :. '...' . ..".'" " ;'J ' :. '.' :., '"':' :: ::'". L: ': ~::::;'::~.~ "". :' ', ,,',: :.:.':'::;~.~.?.:~:~ ~':~:~!L~:~ ~::~'~'.'.'~::?? Claimant OwnertOperat~ 0f ~ST T~ Iden~n Provided , · .......... :,:..,~.,~.,, ,:~:~., , ....,.~ :..'j,. . :;.~~[~0~:'..:.: "...": :' '.: :':'.' ':..~"' .'..'.' Valid Thi~ Pa~ Claim ................... . ....... , .......... ",, :~..' ..... ,.,.,.,:.~ , :::~~t~:::..:.:.....~.?~. :....'...:... :::....~.:.. ......... : ....'.. .... :. Joint Cia?ant ~er/Opemb[ of UST ..... T~ Idenflfi~on Provided :....~~;..,. ................ .... .'.....'...' ...:. ~.:.~:.:.' ... .. .,,.,. ......... .'.".' ... ~ ..,,.,.: .: .:. :.......:......:::?~.:;:.~l~i~.,~:,, , ,~ ,, ..,,.,.,, '.': . ..... ............'.??,.;..,:.:::.....~:::~::..~.::.~~:':~:~.~ ~:~:.~.:~;.:~ ..... Financial Agr~ent Provided T~ Iden~fion Provided :~:~s~e~y~'~c~o~,.' :.' '.' .'..:.: '..'; .'~. '.... ::. :'= :' .:' "='::..:."'~:::~::.~:~m~=~ :':'.. '..' .:..'...::: :":::~'::'.:~:~ ::.~:::~ '=~::::~: ~..~'.,,~: ' Ta~~ Des~ption, Tank U~ /'/~ ~. ~' ~ // ...... . Tank Substance ...... ~:Map.~rovided . ,, Cu~nt O~er/Opemtor Ident~ed' , ......... A~uimd After 1/1~ Reasonable Diligen~ Past ~r/O~r~tor Identified Other Claims For This S~e Subm~d .......... c .............. .'. ~.. ........... :v ,.. ~lC~ .' .... :' '.' :.:::':.?:~: ":'~...'~F~ :~':. : :": ~S.'. :: :.:~:':.:.Nb.:~':': ":...~ '.~GI~I~::~eUIR~EH~::'". . ~:~'". · ':.....:.::.: N ""' U~oHzed Release Dat. :~l~m~"e Dis~vered Confi~ed Co~five A~i~ R~quired ..... Release Eligible (not a sp~ll, ove~ll, etc~ .,, .~~ . '~' Co~eflve Action Re~a~ Pflor to 1/I~8, CA initiated by 6~0/88 ....... ~'~e A~i,~n.in, ~0m~ll~n~ " ., "" , ..... "' Pe~ P.~, ,~u~,~. pet b~ ~n~0 ,,, ...... Pe~ ~er, Being Requested ~. ., Pe~ Wa~er Granted Financial Claimant in Compliance :~'[~:.TE~E~s....:~:..:.:: ::;~:,:Z.,::'::.::..'...:'..' :.'".' ' . ..... ::.:;..:.:~'~::":?~ :: .'.' :':'..:': Lawsu~, Insumn~ Claim, Se~lement Date.Filed '-" Date ~?lete~ ,. ,, , ', "' Amount Re~ed O~nal ~i~nature(s~ .... A~o~ed Re~.resentafive ~tatement ......... ..... Joint C~i~nt Signature(s} ....... USTCFO25.D~ (Rev DEl'AILED REVIEW CHECK LIST ' Plge 3 Continued on Reveme Claimant NOT in Coffe~ve Amion Compliance at ~e. Time of th~ Review - 90 Day Le~er Required ~ CI.a~ant NOT In Co~ve A~on Complian~ - Recommend Rejection USTCF025. DET (R~ FIRE SAFETY SERVICES & OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1715 CHESTER AVE. · BAKERSFIELD, CA · 93301 R.E. HUEY RB. TOBIAS, HAZ-MAT COORDINATOR FIRE MARSHAL (805) 326-3979 (805) 326-3951 August 17, 1995 Lydia Bracco, Team Leader Region V Underground Tank Cleanup Fund State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 RE: Claim No. 010391, 1414 East California Avenue in Bakersfield Dear Ms. Bracco, In response to claim review check list item regarding any Permits to Operate the UST system prior to 1990, the enclosed correspondence indicates the former service station became vacant in 1977. A review of the files from both Kern County and Bakersfield as Local Implementing Agencies, prior to, and after July 1, 1991 respectively, shows that no Permit to Operate has ever been issued for this UST site. The tanks were removed under a valid Permit to Remove, issued by Kern County on June 14, 1991. Corrective action oversight has been handled by this office ever since the tanks were removed on August 20, 1991. If you have any other questions that we, as the LIA can help you with, please feel free to contact me directly at 805-326-3979. Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, Ill Hazardous Materials Technician HHWJdlm enclosure cc: C. Kirkpatrick, Elks Lodge #325 M. Pishinsky, SECOR BAKERSFTELD ~ CA 1.400 Ei~T CI~IiFORNIIt Melvin W. Magnus, Esq. 828 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Magnus: In response to your March 7, 1991 letter concerning abandoned tanks the above-captioned site, I will be handling this matter on behalf of Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. ("Texaco"); and any correspondence should be directed to my attention. As your letter failed to specify any particulars concerning the alleged former Texaco service station at the site, Texaco relied on a statement given to the Department of Environmental Health Services by your client to guide its research. According to this statement, there was allegedly a Texaco service station on the site in the early 1960's, which was allegedly sold in the mid- 1960's to an OK Tire. Pursuant to this description of an alleged past interest, Texaco has reviewed its records for this period and can find no evidence of any Texaco interest in the land, or with ownership or operation the tanks. Because of this lack evidence, Texaco is unable to answer any of the various questions in your letter. For your information, according to two permits found at the Bakersfield Building Department, the original service station building and canopy were constructed in 1962 by a Briggs Oil Company, located at 3940 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, CA. The Official Record shows that Briggs Oil Company, a co-partnership in dissolution, conveyed this Rosedale property to Charles J. Briggs and Thomas Briggs in an Grant Deed recorded in Book 6207, Page 2191, Official Records. The grantees, Charles and Thomas Briggs, also were the grantors in the deed as the partners comprising Briggs Oil Company. It can presumed that Briggs Oil Company installed, owned and probably operated the tanks on this site. City directory references from 1964 to at least 1970 show the station to have been a Hancock (a Signal Oil trade name) outlet with a Big "0" Tire Shop doing business at the same address. A Reliable Tire Shop and Texaco branded station existed on the site from approximately 1972 to 1974, with the tire store becoming vacant about 1974, and the service station in 1977. Texaco had no legal relationship with this service station -- its products were being sold by an independent dealer, who probably bought his Texaco products from a distributor located at the above Rosedale Highway address by the name of R. L. Ragsdale. Supplemental inquiries with the Bakersfield Fire Department yielded no further information'concerning this service station. I trust that this is responsive to your client's needs; should you have any question concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at (818) 505-3032. Very truly yours, MARK J. ASPLUND cc: Ms. Carrie Georgi Department of Environmental Health Services Kern County Resource Manaegement Agency 2700 "M" Street, Suite 300 Bakerfield, CA 93301 MAY\gwh3006.WP CIT BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPA T ~ i FIRE SAFETY SERVICES & OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES '~. ~ " 1715 CHESTER AVE. * BAKERSFIELD, CA * 93301 R.E. HUEY R.B. TOBIAS, HAZ-MAT COORDINATOR FIRE MARSHAL (805) 326-3979 (805) 326-3951 August 24, 1995 Mark J. Pishinsky SECOR International 5401 California Avenue, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93309 RE: Va~or Well Installation at Elks Lodge, 1414 E. California Ave. Dear Mr. Pishinsky: This is to notify you that the workplan for the above stated address is satisfactory. Please give this office 5 working days notice prior to the commencement of work. Please be advised that any work done that is not performed under direct over sight by this office will not be accepted, unless previously approved. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely, Howard H.. Wines, III Hazardou/s Materials Technician HHW/dlm cc: C. Kirkpatrick August 24, 1995 Page 4 design for a vapor extraction remediation system. All data will be tabulated and presented on figures as necessary. Subsequent to review by the Elks, the final RAP will be submitted to the Bakersfield City Fire Department. We hope this work plan meets your needs at this time. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Mark Pishinsky at (805) 634-9541. Sincerely, SECOR International Incorporated Mark J. Pishinsky, R.E.A. [ e Little, R.G. Environmental Engineer Principal Geologist attachments: Figure 1 - Proposed Well Location Map Standard Operating Procedures cc: Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick, Elks Lodge #325 5C001-001-01: elksvep.wkp 08/17/95 08:47 FAX 805 634 9604 SEACOR BAK ~001 FAX COVER SHEET 5401 California Avenue, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93309 (805)634-954I FAX(805)634-9604 Number of pages including cover shee't: '~ , / ........ 0.8.71.7./95 08:47 FAX 805 634 9604 SEACOR BAK ~002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMI PROTECTION AGENCY ~ PETE WILSON, Governor STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DIVISION OF CLEAN WATER PROGRAMS ~ 2014 T STREET, SUITE 130 P.O. BOX 944212 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94244-2120 (916)227-430.7 (916) 227-4530 (FAX) Charles Kirkpatrick August 1, 1995 Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 E. California Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93307 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND PROGRAM, REQUEST FOR FURTHER DOCUMENTATION DURING CURSORY REVIEW: CLAIM NUMBER 010391; FOR SITE ADDRESS: 1414 E. California Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93307' After reviewing your claim application for reimbursement, we find that the following additional information is needed to determine your eligibility for placement on the Priority List. A permit to own or operate the UST dated before Jaunuary 1, 1990 from the local regulatory agency, not air pollution {pursuant to Chapter 6.7 of the Health and Safety Code). r-~ Verification from the local regulatory agency that ar, unauthorized release of petroleum from the UST was discovered on a specified date (letter or form). If the release was discovered before January 1, 1988, documentation from the local regulatory agency indicating the cleanup was initiated on or prior to June 30, 1988. If the cleanup was q0t initiated on or before June 30, 1988, provide documentation from the local regulatory agency stating no direction was giw~,n before June 30, 1988 to begin cleanup. [--'] A copy of the court approved settlement, final judgment, etc. for the third party compensation claim. Additional priority class information: Other: NOTE: Failure to respond to this request within thirty 130) calendar days from the date of this letter may result in an ineligibility determination of your claim. If you have any questions, please contact me at (91 6) 227-4374. Sincer~J~, , ~ ~'m Leader Region 5 Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund  M E M O R A N D U M July 20, 1995 TO: HOWARD WINES, Hazardous Materials Technician FROM: CARL HERNANDEZ III, Deputy City Attorne~ SUBJECT: Elks Lodge Demand Letter As you requested, please find enclosed with this memorandum a copy of the demand letter which we sent to the Elks Lodge in connection with the underground storage tank problem located on its property. Moreover, as we discussed, it would probably be beneficial for us to get together in the near future to discuss any pending or problem cases which you are having with other underground storage tank matters. I am interested in becoming more familiar with your operation. CH:laa CO~I/CODE.ENF/c~s-7lg,mmo THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE EY ,Judy K. Skousen '~ Cm£F ASSiSTAnT C~TV A~*ro~.~£¥ ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS Alan D. Daniel John D. Closs Lam*a C. Marino AJIcn M Shaw J,. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DEPUTY CITY ATTOPd~E¥S Michael G. Allford OFFICE OF THE CITY AI~I'ORNEY Jamco Scanlan 1501 TRLDqTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD. CA 93301 Carl Hemandcz Ill i LAW OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR TELEPHONE: 805-326-3721 Frances E. Thompson FACSI1MILE: 805-325-9162 June 29, 1995 Charles Kirkpatrick Lawrence Elks Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, California 93307 Re: Gasoline Contaminated Soil Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: It has recently come to our attention that an unauthorized release from an underground storage tank located on the property at 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California has occurred. Attempts have been made to gain your cooperation in providing remedial measures to abate or correct the effects of the unauthorized release without favorable results. Please be advised that cooperation in this matter is urgent. Please contact Howard H. Wines III, Hazardous Materials Technician, for the City of Bakersfield Fire Department as soon as possible to provide the remedial action workplan which he has requested in previous correspondence. Please note that unauthorized releases from underground storage tanks carry heavy civil penalties of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) or more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each day of violation. Very truly yours, CARL HERNANDEZ III Deputy City Attorney CH:laa CORR l~i~patr.629 RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location: t~ I~ ~'~ ~',~ ID# Business Name: ~-~ Contact Name: Business Phone: ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ F~: Inspe~or's Name: Time of C~I: Date: Type of C~I: Incoming [ ] Outgoing Time Required to Complete Activity # Min: / RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Location: [ ~ !/4 P-~ ~'~/.~',~ ID# Business Name: ~ t t~ r Conta~ Name: ~ ~ Business Phone: ~ ~- ~ ~ ~: Insp~or's Name: ~ ~ Time of O~l: Date: ? ~/< ~ Time: Type of Call: Incoming [ ] Outgoing Time Required to Complete A~ivi~ · Min: / & May 22, 1995 . DEZ III, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Gasoline Contamined Soil at 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield As you requested, please find attached hereto a draft letter which I propose to provide to Charles Kirkpatrick. It is not clear to me whether there are one or more tanks on the property or whether the tanks have been removed. If the factual statements of my letter are incorrect, please feel free to provide me with further information so that we may hopefully gain compliance by Mr. Kirkpatrick. If compliance has already been gained, please disregard this notice. However, please notify me if you have any other questions regarding this matter. CH:ha CORRl/wines522.mmo THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY--CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE CITY ATTORNEY "~ ~'- ~ ' ~ ~ Judy lC Skousen ~.':~ Jo~ D. ~l~n M. Shaw w~.. ~o~. J~. CI~ OF B~ERSFIELD DEPU~ CI~ A~O~EYS ~c~el G. ~lford OFFICE OF THE CI~ A~O~EY J~ce ~ 1501 ~ A~ C~I H~dez IH B~RS~LD, CA 93~01 LAW OFFICE ADMINIS~TOR ~LEPHO~: 805-32~721 Fr~s E. ~omp~ FACS~: 805-~2~-9162 ~a7 22~ 199% Charles Kirkpatrick Lawrence Elks Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, California 93307 Re: Gasoline Contaminated Soil Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: It has recently come to our attention that an unauthoriZed release from an underground storage tank located on the property at 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California has occurred. Attempts have been made to gain your cooperation in providing remedial measures to .abate or correct the effects of the unauthorized release without favorable results. Please be advised that cooperation in this matter is urgent. Please contact Howard H. Wines III, Hazardous Materials Technician, for the City of Bakersfield Fire Department as soon as possible to provide the necessary ~ 'which he has requested in previous correspondence. Please note that unauthorized releases from underground storage tanks carry heavy civil penalties of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) or more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for ~~.._ -- .... Very truly yours, CARB HERNA~DEZ III Deputy City Attorney CH:laa CORRl/kirkl~tr.$22 SENDER: · Complete items 1 e~ -"r 2 for additional services.· I also-,wish to receive the : Complete items 3,~, ~..a & b. follow~,_~ervices (for an extra Print your name ane'~.~mress on the reverse of this form so that we can fee): return this card to you. · Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space 1. [] Addressee's Address does not permit. · Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number, 2. [] Restricted Delivery · The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered, Consult postmaster for fee. 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number CHARLES KIRKPATRICK 4b. Service Type - - 7~_~C~. Etas LODCF. NO. 325 [] Registered [] Insured 1414 ~ST CALIFORI~IA A~/E ~[Certified [] COD CA Return for BAKERSFIELD, 93307 [] Express Mail [] Receipt Merchandise 7. Date of Delivery 5, Signature (Addressee) 8. Addressee's Address {Only if requested and fee is paid) 6. Si_qDa.ture (A~l,ent) PS For--n~381'T;, dec~,,~ ~'99'T- ~.~2-7t4 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT P 390 214 410 Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Prov~l_ed ~_~ DO(seenOtReverse)USe for International pail -S~nt to Charles Kirkpatrick ~re%t~O.E. California Ave. P.OB~e~{~id, CA 93307 Postage ~ · 32 certified Fee 1.10 ~pecisl Delivery Fee ~estricted Deliver/ Fee ~ ~eturn Receipt Showing 03 to Whom & Date Delivered I . ]-0 ~" Return Receipt Showing to Whom. ~3 Date' and Addressee's Address ~ TOTAL Postege ~ & Fees --  ~stmark or Date CITY of BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE SAFETY CONTROL & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISIONS 1715 CHESTER AVE. · BAKERSFIELD, CA ° 99301 May 5, 1995 R,E. HUEY R.B. TOBIAS, HAZ-MAT COORDINATOR FIRE MARSHAL (805) 326-3979 (805) 326-3951 Mr. Charles Kirkpatrick Lawrence Elks Lodge No. 325 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 CERTIFIED MAIL NOTICE OF VIOLATION - SCHEDULE FOR COMPLIANCE RE: Gasoline Contaminated Soil at 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield. Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick, You are hereby ordered to comply with the provisions of Section 2722 (b) of Title 23, California Code of Regulations, which reads, in pertinent part: The responsible party shall take or contract for interim remedial actions, as necessary, to abate or correct the actual or potential effects of an unauthorized release, On February 8, 1995, by Certified Mail, this agency directed the Lodge to begin the necessary work at the site within 90 days. As of the date of this writing, this office has not received an approved workplan for the remediation of the site. Therefore, prior to 31 May, 1995 you shall submit a workplan to this office for the proposed remediation of the site. Failure to comply with this order will result in formal enforcement action. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please call me at 326-3979. Sincerely, Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Technician HHW/dlm cc: R. Huey C. Hernandez, Deputy City Attorney RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Business Name: ~[ ~---~ Con~ N~e: ~L~ ~, c~ ~ Busin~ Phone: ~ ~ - ~O ~ F~: Insp~or's N~e: Time of C~i~ D~e: ~/~C/~ Time: ~ ~ ~ Min: Type of C~I: In.ming [ ] Outgoing ~ Returned Time ,Required to Complete Activity # Min: ' Complete items 1 e~%r 2 for additional services. ~ al'~wish to receive the : Complete items 3,. ta & b, Print your name an~>--~ress on the reverse of this form so that we can f°ll°~_~zservices (for an extra return this card to you. fee): · Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, the back if space d or on oas not permit 1 ~ A~ ' vvnte"ReturnReceptRe~ueste~ ........ d ess ' The Retu~ ~-~;-+ ...-- ~ u u. ~ne mmtp~ece below the a~icle number, delivered. ' ...... ,~ wi. Snow to whom the a~/cle was delivered and the date 2. ~ Restricted Delivery ~ ~ Consult postmaster for ~o. ~[LIU[U mumDer ~- ~ES CO~ P-390=214-414 ~CE LODGE NO. ~ ~. Service TyPe- -' ~ ~RSFIE~ CA no.~ ~~~ ~ COD ' -O.U/ ~~ Return Receipt for S Form 381 1, December 1991 ~U.S. GPO: 199~2-714 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT P 390 214 414 ~ Re~ipt ,~r (See Reverse) ~. C~ES CO~ ~ Street and No. ~NCE LODGE NO. 325 P.O., State and Z{P Code Certified Fee ~pecial De~iver~ Fee Restricted Delivery Fee ~ Ream Receipt Showing ~ to Whom & Date Delivered [. [0 ~ Return Receipt Showing to Whom, ~ Date, and Addressee's Address ~ TOTAL Postage O Postmark or Date CITY of BAKERSFIELD "WE CARE" FIRE DEPARTMENT February 8, 1995 1715 CHESTER AVENUE M. R. KELLY BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Mr. Charles Coar Lawrence Lodge No. 325 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 Certified Mail RE: Gasoline contamination is soil at 1414 East California Avenue Dear: Mr. Coar Our records indicate that your former underground storage tank site is currently subject to Corrective Action Requirements under Article II of Title 23 California Code of Regulations concerning leaking underground tanks. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 2722(b) of Article II, you are hereby directed to begin the necessary work at your site within 90 calendar days from the date of this letter. The required work shall include: Mitigation of the contamination plume to acceptable levels. This office concurs with the recommendation that in-situ vapor extraction is the most cost effective alternative for this site. However, if your consultant has an alternate method you wish to employ, you may submit a request to this office for review. Please be aWare that, pursuant to Section 2722(c) of Article II, you are required to have an approved workplan on file with this office prior to initiation of any corrective action work. In addition, you are to provide ongoing status reports of all activities involving the progress of this case to this office every 90 days. If you have any questions regarding the provisions of this letter, please call me at 326-3979. Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Technician RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Business Name: ~-~~-~ Con~ N~e: Busin~ Phone: F~: insp~or's N~e: Time of C~l: D~e: ~/~/~ Time: T~e of C~I: In.ming [ ] Outgoing ~] Rmurned [ ] Actions Required: Time Required to Complete Activity # Min: CITY of BAKERSFIELD "WE CARE" ~ May 25, 1994 FIRE DEPARTMENT 1715 CHESTER AVENUE M, R. KELLY BAKERSFIELD, 93301 ACTING FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Mr. Charles Coar CERTIFIED MAIL Lawrence Lodge No. 325 P 078 216 445 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 Re: Gasoline contamination in soil at 1414 East California Avenue Dear Mr. Coar: A review of the correspondence file shows that you were last notified on April 9, 1993 and were then required to do the following: "The Lawrence Lodge No. 325 is hereby notified that mitigation of the contamination plume to acceptable levels is required by this office. Please respond within twenty (20) days from receipt of this letter as to your intention regarding this matter and a time table for carrying them out." (§25299.36(c) California Heath and Safety Code) Unfortunately, I can't find anything else in your file that indicates you have complied with the code requirements. I'm especially alarmed because so much time has elapsed since our last contact. State money is now available to pay for these types of clean ups. A $10,000 deductible must be met first, then the state will pay for up to an additional $990,000 in clean up expenses. Also be advised that $10,000 is the maximum penalty amount for not initiating clean up (and will not count toward your deductible). Please feel free to call me at 326-3979 for details on how to qualify for the state clean up fund. Please also help me update your file by responding within 14 days, in writing, as to how you will address the previous code violation. If you've had difficulties with compliance, I'll need to know that as well. I'm willing to work with you toward gaining compliance with the law, but we do need to resolve this issue at once. Very truly yours, Howard H. Wines, III Hazardous Materials Technician cc: Alan Daniel, Assistant City Attorney SENDER: · Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the · Complete items 3, and 4a & b. following services (for~-e. n extr~ · Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can fee): retLJrn this card to,¥qu · Attach this form t~ the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space 1. ~ Addressee's Address does not permit. ' · Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the a~icle number 2. · The Return Receipt will show to whom the a~icle was delivered and the date delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number ~A~c~ ~D~ ~ ~ 4b. Service Type ~ ~!~ ~ Registered ~ Insured ~ ~A~ ~ Certified ~ COD ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Express Mail ~ Return Receipt for ~ere.h.~ndise ~d~O~ ~ ~O'7 7. Date of De very~T¢~ .~..~,..~t,...- .~ --. ~i~ture {A~ressee}~ ~ 18. Addressee's ~dare;ss and fee is pai~ 6. Signature (Agent) PS Form 3811, December 1991 ~U.S. GPO:~**2~ DOMESTIC RE~U~'R~CEIPT P 078 2.16 445 ~~,. Receipt for Certified Mail No insurance Coverage Provided u,~os,,,~s Do not use for International Mail (See Reverse) sent to Street and No. P.O., State and ZIP Code Postage Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to Whom & Date Delivered Return Receipt Showing to Whom, Date, and Addressee's Address TOTAL Postage (~ &Fees Postmark or Date Exalted Ruler Financial Secre~ Charles "Chops" Lawrence Lodge No. 325 1414 E. CALIFORNIA AVENUE, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93307 {805) 324-2734 " APRIL 28, 1993 RALPH E. HUEY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COORDINATOR UNDERGROUND TANK PROGRAM DEAR MR. HUEY, WE HAVE CONTACTED OUR ATTORNEY, MR. MELVIN MAGNUS, WHO IS SETTING UP A MEETING WITH THE CONTRACTORS WHO REMOVED THE TANKS FROM OUR LOT AND ALSO ~DI.D THE SAMPLING oF THE SOIL. AFTERWHICH PER A COnVeRSATION WITH YOU BY ATTORNEY MAGNUS, A MEETING~ WILL BESET WITH YOU. WE HAVE CONTACTED THE STATE wATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, WHICH HAS MAILED US A CLEAN-UP APPLICATION FORM WHICH WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF FILLING OUT, BUT WE DEFINITELY NEED A COPY OF THE SOIL SAMPLE REPORT IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE ITS COMPLETION. SINCERELY, CHARLES "CHOPS" LAWRENCE LODGE f/325 cc:ATTY. MAGNUS CEC/gt CITY of BAKER SFIELD "WE CARE" FIRE DEPARTMENT S. D1 JOHNSON April 9, ].993 2101 H STREET BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Charles Coar Lawrence Lodge No. 325 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 RE: Results of site characterization of the property located at 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, Ca. Dear Dear Mr. Coar, This office has reviewed the site characterization report submitted by you for the property located at the above stated address. Laboratory results reveal petroleum hydrocarbons are present in the soil at levels exceeding limits allowable by state guidelines. The Lawrence Lodge No. 325 is hereby notified that mitigation of the contamination plume to acceptable levels is required by this office. Please respond within twenty (20) working days from receipt of this letter as to your intention regarding this matter and a time table for carrying them out. If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerely, ,/ /Ralph E. Huey 'Hazardous Matei~i~ls Coordinator Underground Tank Program REH/dlm RECEIVED J~N 0 {5 1992 HAZ. MAT. DIV. Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. A Member of The Earth Systems Group PRELIMINARY SITE CHARACTERIZATION AT THE ELK'S LODGE #325 -- 1414 EAST CALIFORNIA AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Prepared by Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. 6501 McDivitt Drive, Suite B Bakersfield, California January 6, 1992 Project No. EB-8057-1 I I TABLE OF CONTENTS RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY SITE CHARACTERIZATION AT THE ELK'S LODGE//325 1414 EAST CALIFORNIA AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Description .......................................................................................... 3 1.2 Background ................................................................................................ 3 2.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION .............................................................................. 4 2.1 Drilling and Soil Sampling ...................................................................... 4 2.2 Laboratory Analysis ................................................................................. 6 3.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Geologic Conditions ................................................................................... 6 3~2 Subsurface Conditions .............................................................................. 7 3.3 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................. 7 3.4 Soil Vapor Monitoring .............................................................................. 8 3.5 Laboratory Analytical Results ................................................................ 9 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 11 4.1 Remedial Alternatives ............... ~ .............................................................. 12 5.0 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................. 14 REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 16 Figure 1 Vicinity Map ............................................................................... 17 Figure 2 Site Map ........................................................................................ 18 Figure 3 Cross Section ................................................................................ 19 APPENDIX A Boring Logs APPENDIX B Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody I 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 January 6, 1992 Doc. No,: 9112-E069.RPT Project No.: EB-8057-1 Mr. Joe A. Dunwoody City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. 2101 H Street Bakersfield, California 93301 I SUB.IECT: PRELIMINARY SITE CHARACTERIZATION AT THE CHARLES "CHOPS LAWRENCE ELK'S LODGE//325 I 1414 EAST CALIFORNIA AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA I REFERENCE: SOIL CHARACTERIZATION WORK PLAN AT THE CHARIdES "CHOPS LAWRENCE ELK'S LODGE #325 I 1414 EAST CALIFORNIA AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA (ESE, NOVEMBER 11, 1991) I i Dear Mr. Dunwoody, I. 0 INTRODUCTION I This report presents the results of a preliminary site characterization performed by Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. (ESE) at the above referenced site. I The purpose of the characterization was to assess the lateral and vertical extent of soil impacted by gasoline hydrocarbons associated with the southern of the two ' I former 10,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tanks, the product pipeline between the southern tank and the western and central dispenser islands, and the i north ends of the western and central dispenser islands recently removed from the above referenced facility. The concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline were detected at 760 rog/kg at a depth of 6 feet below the east end of the I southern tank, 480 rog/kg at 6 feet below the associated product pipeline, 340 rog/kg at 6 feet below the north end of the western dispenser island, and 110 rog/kg at 6 feet below the north end of the central dispenser island. The gasoline constituent volatile I Elk's Lodge //325 2' January 6, 1992 I aromatics benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes were detected in these I areas at concentrations in excess of .Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) guidelines, and resulted in the Lead Implementing Agency (LIA) which is the City of I Bakersfield Fire Department-Hazardous Materials Division requesting that an initial site characterization consisting of soil borings and laboratory analysis of soil I samples be performed to assess the vertical and lateral extent of gasoline impacted soil in the vicinity 'of this former tank. Soil samples collected from beneath the northern 10,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tank, west end of the southern I underground gasoline storage tank, the eastern dispenser island, and from beneath the southern end of the western and central dispenser islands did not detect I concentrations of gasoline in excess of RWQCB guidelines, and therefore required no further assessment. ESE has subsequently conducted an initial site characterization I consisting of four soil borings and laboratory analysis of ten soil samples to assess the vertical and lateral extent of gasoline impacted soil in the vicinity of the former I tank, associated product line, and dispenser. Because of the close proximity of each of these potential sources, and the significant possibility that a single source is being reflected by each of the samples, ESE had recommended using the sample with the I greatest concentration of TPH as gasoline at the east end of the southern gasoline tank as the likely source' of release and therefore, advanced the initial vertical I assessing boring through this location. All methods to be employed are in compliance with regulations and guidelines I 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 I Regulations (CFR) Title 29, Part 1910, Section 120, CFR Title 40, Parts 300-399, and the Tri-Regional Board Staff Recommendations for Preliminary Evaluation and i Investigation of Underground Tank Sites, as well as accepted professional environmental/geotechnical engineering procedures. The scope of work for this project was developed in conjunction with Mr. Earl IMcFadden of the Elk's Lodge /1325 and Mr. Joe A. Dunwoody of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division. In addition, remedial action I alternatives are presented. Work performed to date includes the following: · Development of site health and safety, and technical work plans. I I ER-8057- ! 9 ! 12-E069.RPT Elk's Lodge //325 3 January 6, 1992 · Drilling and sampling of four exploratory soil borings to a maximum depth of 63 feet below surface grade. · Laboratory analysis of ten selected soil samples for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics. · Preparation of this report presenting our results, conclusions, and remedial action alternatives for the site. 1.1 Site Description The subject site is located north side of East California Avenue, and the east side of Haley Street in the city of Bakersfield, Kern County, California (Figure 1). The site is currently used as a vacant parking lot by the Elk's Lodge. The site is situated within a developed urban area. Nearby surrounding properties are primarily residential subdivisions as well as commercial businesses along both sides of East California Avenue, and Haley Street. The overall site topography is essentially flat,, with a very slight fall to the southwest. The subject property had been an operating gasoline services station until the mid' 1970s. Subsequently all of the surface structures were demolished. The Elk's Lodge purchased the property in the mid 1980s, and have never used the underground fuel storage tanks. Pursuant to a request by the City of Bakersfield Fire Department-Hazardous Materials Division, the two 10,000 gallon underground fuel tanks which had .not been removed when the original service station was storage demolished, were removed on August 21, 1991. 1.2 Background Based on a review of analytical results, and conversations with Earl McFadden, representing the Elk's Lodge //325, on August 21, 1991, two 10,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tanks, associated product pipelines and three dispenser islands were removed by CALPI, Inc. of Bakersfield, California from the above referenced property (Figure 2). Soil samples were collected from beneath each end of the two former tanks, at both ends of each of the three and dispensers, a single sample along the product pipelines at depths of 2 and 6 feet beneath these features. The samples were analyzed, for the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics (BTEX). Gasoline was detected beneath the Southern of the two 10,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tanks, the I EB-8057-1 9'112-E069.RPT I Elk's Lodge #325 4 January 6, 1992 ! product pipeline between the southern tank and the western and central dispenser I islandS, and the north ends of the western and central dispenser islands. The concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline were detected at 760 I mg/kg at a depth of 6 feet below the east end of the southern tank, 480 mg/kg at 6 feet below the associated product pipeline, 340 mg/kg at 6 feet below the north end of I the western dispenser island, and 110 mg/kg at 6 feet below the north end of the central dispenser island. The gasoline constituent volatile aromatics benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes were detected in these areas at I concentrations which may be in excess of Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) guidelines. Soil. samples collected from beneath the northern 10,000 gallon I underground gasoline storage tank, west end of the southern underground gasoline storage tank, the eastern dispenser island, and from beneath the southern end of the I western and central dispenser islands did not detect concentrations of gasoline in excess of RWQCB guidelines, and therefore required no further assessment. I Reportedly, no soil was removed from the site during removal of the tanks. The area displaced by the "former tanks was filled by backfilling the excavated soil along with imported soil. I Based on these analytical results ESE was been retained by the Elk's Lodge //325 to perform a site characterization in .the vicinity of the former southern gasoline I tank. Below are the results of the site characterization. i 2.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 2.1 Drilling and Soil Sampling I Prior to commencing field operations, a technical work plan was reviewed and approved by City of Bakersfield Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division i personnel. Underground Service Alert was notified 48 hours in advance of the site activities. Drilling commenced on November 26, 1991 using a CMETM 55 truck mounted drill rig, oPerated by Earth Systems Consultants, and equipped with 4 3/4-inch I diameter hollow-stem augers. The augers were steam cleaned prior to use to minimize the possibility of cross contamination. I A total of four soil borings were drilled within this phase of soil characterization (Figure 2). One soil boring, TH-l, was drilled through the center of I the east end of the former southern 10,000 gallon gasoline tank location to a depth of IEB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT I Elk's Lodge //325 5 January 6, 1992 I 63 feet below surface grade to assess vertical migration of gasoline hydrocarbons. The other three soil borings, TH-2 through TH-4, were drilled at varying distances laterally from the former tank location to assess the lateral limits of gasoline · hydrocarbons. Boring TH-2 was advanced at a location 42' feet southwest of TH-1 to assess whether a possible release from the western and central dispenser islands had migrated to that location. Borings TH-3 and TH-4 were advanced 30 feet north, and 20 _ feet east of TH-1 to assess lateral migration .in those directions, respectively. A California Registered Geologist was on site to log the borings, monitor soils during drilling for contamination, and collect soil samples. Boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Soil collected 5-foot intervals in each of the samples were at 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 headspaee. The sleeve was then capped and the probe of the PID was inserted hole in the and into the for The PID through a cap headspace analysis. readings are recorded on the boring logs and in Table 1 (see section 3.5, Soil Vapor Monitoring). The second sample sleeve was immediately sealed with Teflon® film, capped, and placed on ice for transport to Mobile Laboratories, Inc. in Bakersfield, a California Department of Health Services (DOHS) certified laboratory. Chain of custody procedures were utilized for all samples collected. Sampling equipment was washed with TSP (tri-sodium phosphate) cleanser, and rinsed with tap water and de-ionized water prior to sampling, between sample and between minimize the of contamination. intervals, borings to potential cross 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-sand slurry. I EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk's Lodge //325 6 January 6, 1992 ! 2.2 Labor~tory. A~alysis Isoil samples were submitted to the laboratory analysis. Ten for Selection of soil sampIes for analysis was based on: a) observations and greatest PID readings of I odorous soil, b) observations and PID readings of the first encountered sampling locations containing apparently uncontaminated soils, which would serve to define I the lateral and vertical extent of contamination, and c) requirements that the lowermost sample of each boring be submitted for analysis along with the two successive "clean" samples from the bottom of the vertical assessing boring. The ten I samples were analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes (BTEX) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Test Method 8020, and for Total I Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline by the DOHS LUFT Manual Method. i 3.0 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Geologic Conditions I Regional Geology: The site is located in the southern part of the Great Valley geomorphie province. The Great Valley is a northwest-southeast trending valley, approximately 400 miles long by 50 miles wide. Surface and groundwater in the San I Joaquin 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 IRiver. The subject site is located approximately 3 miles south of the Kern River. The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed primarily of unconsolidated I 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 I lake bed deposits. These lie unconformably on Mio-Pliocene marine sediments which extent to crystalline basement at approximately 20,000 feet. Site Geology: Geologic deposits in the study area include Pleistocene alluvial I sediments of the Kern River Formation, which form a homocline dipping gently to the southwest. The deposits are alluvium consisting of poorly indurated and dissected I fan deposits (CDMG, 1964). The depth to the regional unconfined aquifer is approximately 200 feet below Isurface grade beneath the site (Kern County Water Agency, Improvement District No. 4, 1990 Report on Water Conditions, February 1, 1991). The nearest known Ioccurrence of perched ground water is 2 miles to the south at a depth of 20 feet in the I EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT I Elk's Lodge //325 7 January 6, 1992 ! ! abandoned Kern River channel to the ancient Kern Lake Bed (Kern County Water I 1990 Water Supply Report, September 1991). No perched ground water is Agency, known to exist beneath the subject site. I 3.2 Subsurface Conditions . · Subsurface material encountered during drilling included artificial fill · underlain by alluvium to the total depth of each boring. The artificial fill was encountered in the upper portion of all four borings from the surface to depths I ranging from approximately 3 to 4 feet. The fill consisted of a dark brown, fine- to medium-grained, poorly graded, silty sand (SM). Additionally, boring TI-I-1 was I advanced the previous tank removal excavation pit. Backfill material as through encountered in this boring to a depth of approximately 15 feet below surface grade. I The backfill material in all of the lateral borings had a musty septic like odor, ~ whereas the backfill material encountered by boring TH-1 had a gasoline like odor. i The alluvium was characterized by unconsolidated, highly permeable, light tan, fine- to coarse-grained sand (SW) with minor silt to a depth of approximately 15 I · feet, overlying unconsolidated, highly permeable, light tan, fine- to coarse-grained I sand (SW) to a depth of approximately 3'1 feet. Between the 'depths of 31 feet to 37 feet is a layer of medium dense, low permeability, slightly plastic, tan to gray, clayey silt I by a sequence slightly moderately permeable, (ML/CL). This is underlain of dense, tan, sandy silt (ML/SM) to a depth of 47 feet. Underlying this is a second zone of medium dense, low permeability, slightly plastic, tan, clayey silt (ML) to a depth of 55 feet. Beneath this to the total depth investigated of 63 feet are unconsolidated, highly I i permeable, light tan, fine- to coarse- grained sand (SW). A Cross Section has been I'I prepared which integrates th~ geology, the location of the former tanks, and the distribution of gasoline hydrocarbons in the subsurface to yield an interpretation of I limit of gasoline hydrocarbons in excess of RWQCB recommended guidelines (Figure ~ 3). I 3.3 Hydrogeology I Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings drilled during this project. The depth to the regional unconfined aquifer is approximately 200 feet I · below surface grade beneath the site (Kern County Water Agency, Improvement 1 I EB-8057.- 1 9112-EO69.RPT Elk's Lodge //325 8 January 6, 1992 I District No. 4, 1990 Report on Water Conditions, February 1, 1991). The nearest known I occurrence of perched ground water is 2 miles to the south at a depth of 20 feet in the abandoned Kern River channel to the ancient Kern Lake Bed (Kern County Water I Agency, 1990 Water Supply Report, September 1991). No perched ground water is known to exist beneath the subject site. I 3.4 Soil Vapor Monitoring Soil samples collected during drilling were monitored with a photo-ionization I detector (PID) to evaluate organic vapor concentrations. 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). Table 1- Soil Organic Vapor Concentrations, graphically presents the PID readings. Appendix A Boring ILogs, presents the PID readings as they were recorded in the field. TABLE-1 SUMMARY OF SOIL ORGANIC VAPOR CONCENTRATIONS (values in parts per million) ,sa,re, pie Depth (feet) l TX-I-1 1, TH-2 I TH-3, [ TH-4 5. 500 ND ND ND 10 550 ND ND ND 15 1,o00 ND ND ND 20 1~700 ND ND . ND 25 . .1,500 ND .... ND 3,0 1 ~.500 ND ND 35 1,000 , ..ND 40 700 45 600 50 '.' 350 55 200 60 20 ND: Not detected. I EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk's Lodge #325 9 January 6, 1992 I As Table 1 indicates, the soil vapor concentrations detected in the soil samples I obtained from TH-1 remained elevated beneath the former tank to a depth of boring greater than 55 feet, but was significantly reduced at a depth of 60 feet. Drilling in I boring TH-1 was discontinued at a depth of 63 feet due to a bolt shearing from an auger. The auger was subsequently fished from the hole, and the boring abandoned. i Soil vapor concentrations were not detected in borings TH-2, TH-3, and TH-4, despite the observation of a septic like odor in the near surface, and a musty decomposed odor along with gray discoloration in the first encountered clayey silt at a depth of 30 I feet. These field readings are in general collaborated by the analytical results presented below with the exception that gasoline hydrocarbons were detected in all I the samples analyzed. of I 3.5 Laboratory Analytical Results All of the ten samples analyzed contained detectable levels of total petroleum I hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline. TPH was detected at a concentration of 8,825 mg/kg at 20 feet, 54,065 rog/kg at 40 feet, 170 rog/kg at 55 feet, and 40 mg/kg at 60 feet in boring TH-I. TPH as gasoline was detected at 70 rog/kg at 30 feet in boring TH-4. TPH I as gasoline was detected in the remaining soil samples analyzed at less than 45 rog/kg. IThe volatile aromatic benzene detected concentration of 107.905 was at a mg/kg at 20 feet, 2,312.325 mg/kg at 40 feet, and 0.140' rog/kg at 55 feet in boring TH- I 1. Benzene was not detected at or above the detection limit of 0.005 rog/kg at 60 feet in boring TH-1. Benzene was also detected at a concentration of 0.130 at 20 feet in I boring TH-3. Benzene was not detected at or above the detection limit in the remaining five soil samples. The volatile aromatic toluene was detected in all ten of the samples analyzed. I Toluene was detected at a concentration of 1,072.310 mg/kg at 20 feet, 11,367.370 mg/kg at 40 feet, 10.380 mg/kg at 55 feet, and 1.970 at 60 feet in boring TH-1. Benzene I was detected at a concentrations less than mg/kg in remaining 2.5 the six soil samples. : i The volatile aromatic ethylbenzene was detected at a concentration of 463.920 rog/kg at 20 feet, 1,044.660 mg/kg at 40 feet, and 0.415 mg/kg at 55 feet in boring TH- I 1.. Ethylbenzene was not detected at or above the detection limit of 0.005 rog/kg at 60 I EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk's Lodge //325 1 0 January 6, 1992 I feet in boring TH-1. Benzene was not detected at or above the detection limit in the I remaining six soil samples. The volatile aromatics o-, m-, and p-xylenes were detected in all ten of the I samples analyzed. Total xylenes were detected at a concentration of 5,030.635 mg/kg at 20 feet, 15,227.630 rog/kg at 40 feet, 36.670 mg/kg at 55 feet, and 13.055 at 60 feet in i boring TH-1. Benzene was detected at a concentration less than 7.7 mg/kg in the remaining six soil samples. i Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes have been calculated using the LUFT 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 site-specific parameters including vertical separation to ground water, soil lithology, fractures in subsurfaces, annual average precipitation, and any direct conduits to ground' water. The recommended guidelines I are 1,000 mg/kg for TPH as gasoline, 1.0 mg/kg for benzene, 50 mg/kg for toluene, 68 mg/kg for ethylbenzene, and 175 mg/kg for total xylenes. Laboratory analytical results for the ten selected soil samples from the four I borings are summarized in Table 2 - Summary of Analytical Results. Copies of the analytical reports and chain of custody documentation are presented in Appendix B I Laboratory Analytical Results. I I I I I I EB-8057-I 9112-E069.RPT Elk's Lodge #325 ! 1 January 6, 1992 TABLE-2 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA (values in milligrams per kilogram) ... Gasoline . benzene Xylenes TH-'I ..... '20" ,8,82~5 "*'10~L905 "*1'~072.310 *463.920 *5,030.635 . .TH-1 40' *54,065 '2,312.325 .11,367.370 ... ,'1,0,44.660'.'15,227.630 TH~I 55' 170 0.140 .. !0.3.80 0.415 36.670 ' TH-1 60' 40 " ND 1.970 ND ..... !.3,.055 ..... " TH-2 10' ,, 2,0 ND 1.655 ND 2.590 . TH.:2 20' 25 ND' .. 1.050 .... ND 2.260 TH~3 2.0' 35 0.130 ..... 0..6.55 ND 2.055 TH-3 , 35, , , , 30 ND 0.1,4,5 ND 0.280 .... ,TH,-4 , 20' 45 ND 0.895 ND ,, 1.5,80,,, TH-4 30' '7'0 '" ND ...... 2.475 "' ' ND 7.655 MDL NA .... 5,, ,, 0,.005 0.905 0;005 , ,, 0.005 ND: None Detected at or above minimum reporting level. NA: Not Applicable. MDL: Minimum Detection Limit. *: exceeds current 'recommended guidelines. A L: Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for concentrations in soil. Recommended guidelines were calculated using the 'LUFT 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 groundwat~. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The data obtained from the field operations suggest that soil impacted with gasoline hydrocarbons at concentrations in excess RWQCB recommended guidelines exists at the subject site in an area beneath the former location of the southern 10~000 gallon underground gasoline tank to a depth in excess of 40 feet, and dropping to concentration less than the recommended in both of the from a guidelines samples a depth of 55 and 60 feet below surface grade as indicated in boring TH-1. None of the concentrations of gasoline and gasoline constituent volatile aromatics were detected in excess of the RWQCB recommended guidelines in the six samples collected from the three lateral assessing borings. Therefore, the radial extent of soil concentrations in excess of the recommended guidelines is assumed to be less than the nearest lateral assessing boring which was TH-4 positioned 20 feet east of boring TIt-1. Based on the I EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT I Elk's Lodge #325 12 January 6, 1992 I I field information and analytical data, it appears that when remediation measures Iwere undertaken, they probably approximately yards would involve 2,000 cubic of soil in an area less than 20 feet radially from the location of boring TH-I, and to a I depth of at least 50 feet at the location of boring TH~I. i 4.1 Remedial Actio.n Alternatives Five options for remediation of the soil are assessed for the site; 1) no action, 2) excavation and transportation of soil to an approved landfill, 3) excavation and I uncontrolled aeration, 4) excavation and controled vapor extraction, and 5) in-situ vapor extraction. IThe first natural in-sim (i.e., action), is not viable option, biodegradation no given the large volume of contamination and the significantly high concentrations I of gasoline and the gasoline constituents. In particular, TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 54,065 mg/kg, and benzene at 2,312.325 mg/kg. Despite the 150 i feet of vertical separation between the deepest known impacted soil and the first known occurrence of groundwater, the concentrations at the site present a significant risk of leaching to groundwater, and require that remedial' actions be I understanding to reduce the concentrations to below the RWQCB recommended guidelines. IIn 2 contaminated soil would be excavated until field options through 4, hydrocarbon screening indicates that the limits of contamination in excess of the I recommended guidelines have been reached. Additional sampling from within the excavation would be performed to confirm the results of the field screening. Options I 2 through 4 have an added excavation cost due to the depth of the contaminated soil and the likelihood the the excavation pit will require shoring on the sides adjoining East California Avenue, and Haley Street. The cost of excavation, shoring, and I backfilling with 90% compaction would probably exceed $I00,000. Implementation of option 2 depends on the concentration of contaminants in Ithe soil after it is from the of this it stockpiled. Judging findings study, appears likely that the soil would not qualify to be recycled at the Gibson Oil Refinery's solids Irecycling facility in Bakersfield, California. The probable disposal option is at Laidlaw Environmental's Class 2 hazardous materials solid waste disposal facility in IButtonwillow, California. This is a costly alternative with costs in excess of $250 per I EB-8057-1 9112-EO69.RPT Elk's Lodge //325 13 January 6, 1992 I cubic yard including excavation, transportation, disposal, and generators fees, or $500,000, and this does alleviate the clients future liability approximately option not for the soil. Disposal at Laidlaw is the least desirable option. Option 3 involves excavating the soil and treating the soil to non hazardous concentrations through the process of uncontrolled aeration. The large volume of impacted soil involved, and the presence in high concentrations of the chemical of concern, benzene in the soil makes this option unviable because of the health risk to the surrounding residential populace. Additionally, the City of Bakersfield currently has a moratorium on all uncontrolled aeration of gasoline and diesel impacted soil to redUce their contribution to volatile organic compound emissions within the southern San air basin, this alternative both Joaquin Valley Despite being very effective in reducing the concentrations of gasoline hydrocarbons in the soil, and a cost effective mitigation option for this site, the health risks involved make this option unviable. Option 4 involves excavating the soil and treating the soil to non hazardous concentrations through the process of containing the soil in a covered treatment cell, extracting the gasoline hydrocarbons using a vacuum blower, and destructing of the hydrocarbons using a regenerative thermal oxidation unit prior to emitting a "clean" air flow to the atmosphere. Permitting for this method will require obtaining an Authority to and a to Operate Construct Permit from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), although air emissions from the process will be very low and would likely be acceptable to the APCD. This is a common, cost-effective, and efficient method. However the cost is significantly given that the soil must first be excavated, and then the emissions from the soil must be "cleaned" by an approved emission control device. The cost for this option is approximately $175,000. The fifth option is to treat the soil through in-situ vapor extraction. This is very similar to option 4, except that the soil remains in place, and the gasoline hydrocarbons are extracted through wells drilled into the impacted soil. The effectiveness of this option is dependant on the ability of an air flow to be created throughout the zone of impacted soil., permitting the gasoline hydrocarbons to volatilize, and then being extracted through the wells. The stratigraphy at this site lends itself to vapor extraction with exception of the lower permeability zones from 30 to 55 feet below surface grade. ESE has experience in vapor extraction of gasoline I EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk's Lodge //325 1 4 January 6, 1992 hydrocarbons from low permeability soils which indicates that with a well engineered system, the gasoline hydrocarbons can be successfully removed from these lower permeability zones. However, these zones will require placement of several additional extraction wells, and the time frame for successful treatment will be extended to approximately one year. The cost for in-situ vapor extraction will be approximately $100,000. In-situ vapor extraetionr is the recommended remedial alternative for this site. While the above options 2 through 4 are applicable to the site, ESE believes that the in-situ vapor extraction option is appropriate for this site because it is more cost effective than excavation, and there is a high probability of successfully reducing the concentrations of the gasoline hydrocarbons to below the RWQCB recommended guidelines. 5.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Earl McFadden of the Elk's Lodge /1325, as it pertains to the location of' the former fuel tanks at 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California. The conclusions and recommendaiions ' rendered are opinions based on information obtained within the scope of work authorized by the Client. 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 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. Work has been performed in accordance with generally accepted practices in geotechnical and environmental engineering, engineering geology, and hydrogeology. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. I EB -8057-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk's Lodge //325 15 January 6, 1992 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. Sincerely, EARTH SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Mark R. Magargee, ~.Gf' Senior Geologist 1 Mr. Earl McFadden/ Bakersfield Elk's Lodge /1325 1 Bakersfield File 1 - San Luis Obispo File EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT I Elk's Lodge //325 16 January 6, 1992 I REFERENCES I · California Division of Mines and Geology, 1964, Geologic Map of California, Bakersfield Sheet. · Kern County Water Agency, 1990, Water Supply Report, September 1991. i · Kern County Water Agency, 1990, Report on Water Conditions-Improvement District No. 4, February 1991. 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 1990. ! I I I 'l i I i I i ' EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT I I I i ~Amo I Lindo' Mont ~)ITORIUM :rd St. Earth Systems T ITL E Figure 6701 acDivitt Drive, Suite B (805) 836-0901 JOB NO. -.. ~~_ L_ ~- , I  Eadh Systems ~~- T I ICE Figure (805) 836-090~ dOB NO, ( Eadh Systems TLE Figure FAX (805) 836-0911 I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I Boring Logs 1 I I I I 1 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 '1 I i II I I I I I I Ii .... I I i I/~ I '~'~ I I I I I I .. I I ~ ~.,,'.-.-,, ~',,.~-~.- I I I I I II _ . I I i~1~1~ I .. ~ ~ ~.'~, -~~" I I I 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 I I ~'~ ~ I~o~1 S~l'~ I~-~ ~ .. ~ ' ~' ~ ~" ' ' i I'' ' ' I i I I I I I I I I I I II I ~/~ ~~~ *~ LOG of. BORING CONSTRUCTION 7'P~ · ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION ~ ~,,~,/,',,~?/~ I I I I II z , ~ I I I I 'ii ~ ! I I i I! I f I I I il .... i I i 'i i Ii ,. I i ~ i I ii i i I i I !1 I I I I I II I I I I I ii I I I i I II I I I 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 .11 I I I I I II I i I .'1 I II I i I I I II I i I I I II I I I ,I I II I I I I I II I I I I I il ~ I I I I ,,,il I I I I I II I I I ! I II .. I , , , , Il ' l I ..... I I ! I I I I I ! I I , "' i I II ... I "~ I I I II I I Il I i I I I II I I I I I II Zo~~ ~~ LOG of. BORING I ,V£LL rPd'/~ o ~~ d CONSTRUCTION -~ 50 ~; g 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION I -- J I il II Jl II 'i J -,-'~'"'"C' .... .~,'-,,, Xo,,,.~.. ,",~,~ ~.~.;,,- -~;'~. ~'/,X~ 4.-/' I I I,~ I,~ Ill I - i ! i I ~ i'l ' i i i i ~ !l .., I I I i~.~ I~ld · , '-~. t t I I I Il '" ' I I I I i I II r ~ ~ I I~ I",~ ~ .... I -- I I i i I II I I I I I II I I I I I .1i I i .I I II i I I I J I I II .... I I I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I I II I i J I I I II I i I i I II '"~ I i ~. ! I i ~ I~ ., i .,,I } { I-.{ { !! { I I' I {1.1_ I ,', ! ' I I I I I II I I I I I II _! T/-/-Z ,,.,./.,/ I Project Number:. ,~--<~.- ~'C~',~--'/ WELL ~ 50 ~; ~n SOIL DESCRIPTION I I I I i i ~e i~ i1~ l I I I I il I I I I II , i I I I II I I I I i-I i I I I II I I I I II ' I I I I Ii _ _ r~,~'o~L' ' ' I I I I II I I i ~ I I FI~" ' ~ ~' ' I I--I I I! I I ! I I i I I I II -' I I I I Labor'~tor' WELL o CONST~UC'r]Otq ~e~ ~ ~/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SO~L WSC~]P~O~ o j ~' ~ ~"~ I~ II I' ' 'l~ i ~ '!, s~ -~-~~-.--. ~,'/~ ~--~.~ . . . . I~1~ i~ I ., .- . I I' I I I,~ I I J I '1 i'i ' ' "I/~W I I I I 19 ~- I I I I II i I ' j I i , I I I Il _ I I i Il l i I I I Il i I I i I I I I II I I I I II ,, I I ! I II I I I I il I I I I II · ,,I ! ! I' '1 I 1 , ~ I i ~ ~1 .. I I II I m m Ii I I I I II ~ ~. ~ LOG of. BORING ,,.,./.,/ Project Numbe~ ~-~57-/ //-~/ I I I I I I I APPENDIX B I Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 5327 Wingfoot Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306 (805) 872-4750 Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 11/26/91 Elk's Lodge ~ 325 Date Analyzed : 12/5/91 1414 East California Ave Analyst : J.S. Johnson Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 910177 Sample Matrix ; Soils Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Tot Pet Hyds mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg TH-1 ~20 107.905 1072.310 463.920 5030.635 8825 TH-1 ~40 2312.325 11367.370 1044.660 15227.630 54065 TH-1 ~55 .140 10.380 .415 36.670 170 TH-1 ~60 ND '1.970 ND 13.055 40 TH-2 ~10 ND 1.655 ND 2.590 20 TH-2 ~20 ND 1.050 ND 2.260 25 TH-3 ~20 .130 .655 ND 2.055 35 TH-3 ~35 ND .145 ND .280 30 TH-4 ~20 ND .895 ND 1.580 45 TH-4 ~30 ND 2.475 ND 7.655 70 QA/QC Spike % Recovery 96 89 88 103 92 Gasoline All Results Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram ND = Non Detectable ; EPA 8020 (.005 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 Gasoline is the Calif DOHS Recommended Procedure Method for Certificate Number : E739 __~~~>~'~--~- ~-%Jo~ns~, Chemist Certified Full Service On-Site Analytical Laboratories 5327 WINGFOOT DRIVE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93306 (805) 872-4750 CERTIFIED FULL ON SITE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES PROJECT NO.: ]-~ITE NAME: E): SITE ADDRESS REMARKS SAMPLE SAMPLE LOCATION DESIGNATION ID. NO. / RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED BY (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) I 1 RELINQUISHED BY: (S~GNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED BY (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) I ' I ~/~1 n e '" Exalted Ruler Financial Secretary Charles "Chops" Lawrence Lodge No. 325 1414 E. CALIFORNIA AVENUE, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93307 1805) 324-2734 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPT. ' HAZARDOUS MATERIAL~.. DIVISON APR 0 8 1992 2101 "H" STREET BAKERSFIELD, CA. 93301 By. ' DEAR MR..DUNWOODY, WE ~C£NOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER' DATED 2-7-92, REGARDING THE RESULTS OF SITE CHARACTERIZATION REPORT PREPARED BY EARTH SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, I~IC'. DUE TO A CHANGE IN ADMINISTRATION AND SEVERAL RESIGNATIONS, WE ARE VERY TARDy IN OUR REPLY, HOWEVER; WE ARE NOW PUTTING OUR FULL EEFORT TOWARD COMPLIANCE. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE OPTIONS, AND. A~KEE THAT OPTION #5-( IN-SITU VAPOR EXTRACTION ) AT' APPROXIMATELY. $100,000.00 IS C~P$~- EFFECTIVE, EXCEPT THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO. WORK OUT A SOLUTION, AND WILL BE CONTACTING YOUR OFFICE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. ROBERT '~RAHAM G.D D~. MEMORANDUM "WE CARE" February 11, 1992 TO: Valerie Pendergrass fO~0 0. FROM: Joe A. Dunwoody SUBJECT: Billing for assessment oversight of the Lawerance Lodge Project. The assessment phase of the Lawerance Lodge soil contamination is now complete. A total of seven and one-half(7 1/2) hours, at a rate of $45.00 per hour, was spent on this project. The total amount is listed below. Please enter the amount on the computer, .note the date on the memo and file when completed. 7 1/2 hrs. * $45.00/hr. = $337.50 cc: Ralph E. Huey 6:/L CITY of BAKERSFIELD "WE CARE" FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON February 7, 1992 BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Earl McFadden Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 E. California Ave Bakersfield, CA 93307 RE: Results of site characterization of the property located at 1414 ~ast California Avenue. Dear Mr. McFadden, This office has reviewed the site characterization report submitted by you for the property located at the above stated address. Laboratory results reveal petroleum hydrocarbons are present in the soil at levels far exceeding limits allowable by state guidelines. Lawrence Lodge is hereby notified that mitigation of the contamination plume to acceptable levels is required by this office. It is this office's opinion that option 4, vapor extraction, is the most practical method for accomplishing a reduction in the hydrocarbon levels detected at the site. However, if you, or your consultant have an alternate method you wish to employ you may submit a request to this office for review and approval. Please respond within twenty (20) working days from receipt of this letter as to your intentio~ regarding this matter and a time table for carrying them out. If you.have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. S i~ncese.%Y, / Hazardous Material Specialist Underground Tank Program cc: Ralph E. HUey CITY of BAKERSFIELD "WE CARE" FIRE DEPARTMENT 2101 H STREET S. D. JOHNSON November 13, 1991 BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Earl McFadden Elk's Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 RE: Site characterization work plan for the facility located at 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, CA. Dear Mr. McFadden, This is to notify you that the workplan for the 'above stated address is satisfactory. Please give this office 72 hours notice prior to the commencement of work. .If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerel_y, /Joe A. Dunwo~y~ / Hazardous Material Specialist Underground Tank Prog'r'am cc: Mark Magargee, Earth Systems Environmental I I I I I I WORKPLAN FOR CHARLES "CHOPS" LAWRENCE ELK'S LODGE //325 I UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITE SOIL CHARACTERIZATION I 1414 EAST CALIFORNIA ' AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA I I I 1 I Prepared by I Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. 6701 MeDivitt Drive, Suite B Bakersfield, California 93313 I (805) 836-0901 I I i · I I I i TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE ......................................................... i ..................................... 2 i BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 3 SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN ...................................................................... 3 SITE CHARACTERIZATION ..................................................................................... 4 I Soil Boring Drilling and Sampling .......................................................... 4 Chemical Analysis of Soil Samples ........................................................ 5 REPORT OF FINDINGS .............................................................................................. 6 I SCHEDULE OF COMPLETION .................................................................................. 6 i APPENDIX A SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN I 1 I I I I I I 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 11, 1991 Doc. No.: 9111-E00TPRP Project No.: EB-8057-1 Mr. Joe A. Dunwoody City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division 2101 H Street Bakersfield, California 93301 SUBJECT: SOIL CHARACTERIZATION WORKPLAN AT THE CHARI FS "CHOPS LAWRENCE ELK'S LODGE//325 1414 EAST CALIFORNIA AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Dunwoody, This communication presents our workplan for soil characterization activities at the above referenced site (Figure 1). Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. (ESE) proposes to conduct a Phase I Soil Characterization associated with a release from the southern of the two former 10,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tanks, the product line between the southern tank and the western and central dispenser islands, and the north ends .of the western and central dispenser islands recently removed from the above referenced facility. The concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline were detected at 760 mg/kg at a depth of 6 feet below the east end of the southern tank, 480 mg/kg at 6 feet below the associated product line, 340 mg/kg at 6 feet below the north end of the western dispenser island, and 110 rog/kg at 6 feet below the north end of the central dispenser island. The gasoline constituent volatile aromatics benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes were detected in these areas at concentrations which may be in excess of Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) guidelines, and have resulted in the Lead Implementing Agency.(LIA) which is the City of Bakersfield Fire Department- Hazardous Materials Division requesting that an initial site characterization consisting of soil borings and laboratory analysis of soil samples be performed to assess the vertical and lateral extent of gasoline impacted soil in the vicinity of this former tank. Soil samples collected from beneath the northern 10,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tank, west end of the southern underground gasoline storage tank, the eastern dispenser island, and from beneath the southern end of the Elk's Lodge #325 2 November 11, 1991 western and central dispenser islands did not detect concentrations of gasoline in excess of RWQCB guidelines, and therefore require no further assessment. ESE proposes to conduct an initial site characterization consisting of four soil borings and laboratory analysis of eight soil samples to assess the vertical and lateral extent of gasoline impacted soil in the vicinity of the former tank, associated product line, and dispenser. Because of the close proximity of each' of these potential source, and the significant poss!bility that a single source is being reflected by each of the samPles, therefore, ESE recommends using the sample with the greatest concentration of TPH as gasoline at the east end of the southern gasoline tank as the likely source of release and advancing the initial vertical assessing' boring through. this location. 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, and groundwater characterizations. All methods to be employed are in compliance with regulations and guidelines set forth in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Article- 11, and Title 23, Chapter 3, California Site Mitigation Decision Tree Manual, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 29, Part 1910, Section 120, CFR Title 40, Parts 300-399, the Tri- Regional Board Staff Recommendations for Preliminary Evaluation and Investigation of Underground Tank Sites, as well as accepted professional environmental/geotechnical engineering procedures. PURPOSE AND SCOPE Subject to your acceptance of this workplan, ESE's plan to investigate the soil, and groundwater 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 former underground gasoline storage tank including the drilling of four soil borings, sampling and laboratory analysis of these borings for the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline and 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-8057-1 9111-E007.WP I Elk's Lodge #325 3 November 11, 1991 I I BACKGROUND On August 21, 1991, two 10,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tanks, I associated product lines and three dispenser islands were removed by CALPI, Inc. of Bakersfield, California from the above referenced property which is currently used I lot for the adjacent Elk's Lodge (Figure 2). Soil samples were collected as a parking from beneath each end of the two former tanks, at both'ends of each of the three I dispensers, and a single sample along the product lines at depths of 2 and 6 feet. The samples were analyzed' for the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as I gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics (BTEX). Gasoline was detected beneath the southern of the two 10,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tanks, the product line between the southern tank and the western and central I dispenser islands, and the north ends of the western and central dispenser islands. The concentrations of Total .Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline were detected at 760 Iof 6 feet below the east end of the southern tank, 480rog/kg at 6 feet rog/kg at a depth below the associated product line, 340 mg/kg at 6 feet below the north end of the I western dispenser island, and 110 mg/kg at 6 feet below the north end of the central dispenser island. The gasoline constituent volatile aromatics benzene, toluene, i ethylbenzene, and total xylenes were detected in these areas at concentrations which may be in excess of Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) guidelines. Soil samples collected from beneath the northern 10,000 gallon underground gasoline I storage tank, west end of the southern underground gasoline storage tank, the eastern dispenser island, and from beneath the southern end of the western and I islands did detect concentrations of in of RWQCB central dispenser not gasoline excess guidelines, and therefore require no further assessment. I HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN I 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 I petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated materials. The Health and Safety Plan is required under regulations set forth in Federal OSHA CFR 29 1910.120, since the I I EB-8057-1 9111-E007.WP Elk's Lodge #325 4 November 11, 1991 referenced report documented the presence of potentially hazardous materials at the site. This Health and Safety plan is included as Appendix A to the workplan. SITE CHARACTERIZATION Soil Boring .Drilling and Sampling Prior to drilling, Underground Service Alert (USA) a will be notified minimum of 48 hours in advance drilling activities. A total of four soil borings will be drilled within this phase of soil characterization (Figure 2). One soil boring will be drilled through the center of the east end of the former southern 10,000 gallon gasoline tank location to assess vertical migration of gasoline hydrocarbons. The other three soil borings will be drilled at varying distances laterally from the former tank location to assess the lateral limits of gasoline hydrocarbons. Drilling for all borings will be accomplished using a truck mounted CMETM 75 drill rig or equivalent utilizing 8-inch outside diameter hollow-stem augers. The borings will be drilled to a maximum depth of 40 feet surface grade, or 10 feet of impacted soil, or to the below first encountered groundwater. The depth to the regional unconfined aquifer is approximately 200 feet below surface grade beneath the site (Kern County Water Agency, Improvement District No. 4, 1990 Report on Water Conditions, February 1, 1991). The nearest known occurrence of perched ground water is 2 miles to the south at a depth of 20 feet in the abandoned Kern River channel to the ancient Kern Lake Bed (Kern County Water Agency, 1990 Water Supply Report, May 1991). No perched ground water is known to exist beneath the subject site. Soil sampling will be performed while drilling the borings at a five foot interval beginning at 5 feet below grade to the designed termination depth. Soil sampling will be accomplished using a split-spoon sampler (ASTM D 3550 with shoe similar to ASTM D 1586) equipped with three 6-inch by 2.5-inch diameter brass sleeves for soil retention. The soil samples will be obtained by driving the sampler with a one hundred and forty pound hammer dropping thirty inches in accordance with ASTM D 1586. The lowermost sleeve at each sample interval (corresponding to approximately 6 inches below the actual sample interval) will be screened for total organic vapors with a portable photo-ionization detector (PID) or a Foxboro® OVA (organic vapor analyzer) 108 flame-ionization meter (FID). Headspaee vapor analysis will be EB-8057-1 9111-E007.WP ! Elk's Lodge #325 5 November 11, 1991 I performed by first discarding a portion of the soil retained at one end of the sleeve to produce' a headspace. The sleeve is then capped and the probe of the PID or FID inserted through a hole in the cap and into the headspace for analysis. The PID or FID readings will be recorded on the boring logs. The uppermost sleeve will be observed for lithology. The middle sample sleeve of the sampler immediately will be sealed with TeflonTM film, capped, labeled, and placed on ice at 4oc for transport to a California Department of Health Services (DHS) 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. Two samples collected from each the three borings will be retained for-laboratory analysis. The selected soil samples will consist of the sample from each boring which is field screened as having the highest concentration of volatile hydrocarbons, and the soil sample from total depth in each boring. 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 reduce the possibility of cross- contamination. The drilling augers will be steam cleaned between borings, also to reduce the possibility of cross-contamination. Drill cuttings, and soil sample spoils,will be contained in D.O.T. approved. 55 gallon drums awaiting confirmation from laboratory analysis as to whether the contents are hazardous. Disposal of any contaminated soil is the responsibility of the facility operator. A field engineer or geologist will be on-site to log the borings in accordance with the Unified Soil System, monitor soils during drilling for Classificati°n contamination, collect soil samples, and construct wells. Laboratory Analysis of Soil Samples Soil samples will be sent to a state-certified laboratory for chemical analysis. Based on field observations, two soil samples from each boring will be selected for laboratory analysis. Soil samples will be analyzed for total purgeable hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, and the fuel constituent volatile aromatics benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) using the California DOHS LUFT methods for gasoline and diesel, and USEPA Method 8020. EB-8057-1 9111-E007.WP Elk's 'Lodge //325 6 November 11, 1991 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 workplan within' approximately one week upon authorization to proceed from Client, and approval of the workplan by the City of Bakersfield. The projected time frame for completion of the major tasks is one day for drilling and sampling the wells, two weeks for laboratory analysis, and two weeks for report preparation once the laboratory analysis has been completed. ' Thank you for your consideration of this work plan. If you have any questions, or if we can be of service in any way, please contact this office at 'your convenience. Respectfully Submitted, ~ Mark R. Magargee, R.G.// 4892 ~ Senior Geologist I cc: Addressee - 1 Elk's Lodge //325- Earl McFadden - 1 BAK- 1 I . SLO 1 IEB-8057-1 9tll-E007.WP I · ! ! ,  Earth Systems ~~ T I IL E Figure Environmental, Inc. , 6701 UcDivitt Drive, Suite B Bakersfield, CA 93313 (805) 836-0901 J08 NO. APPENDIX A SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN I I I I SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN SITE DESCRIPTION I The subject site is located north side of California Avenue, and the east side of Haley Street in the city of Bakersfield, Kern County, California. The site is currently Ias a parking adjacent Lodge facility. used lot to the Elk's The site is situated within a developed urban area. Nearby properties are I primarily residential subdivisions as well as commercial and light industrial businesses along both the north and south sides of East California Avenue. The site I itself is mostly unpaved with only partial remnants of the former asphalt and concrete associated with the former gasoline service station on the property. Neither' the office or .garage of the former gasoline service station at the site I remains. The overall site topography is essentially fiat, with a very slight fall to the south. I SITE HISTORY I Based on a review of analytical results, and conversations with Earl' McFadden, the project coordinator with the Elk's Lodge, two 10,000 gallon underground gasoline I tanks, three dispenser islands, and associated product lines were removed from the site under permit with the City of Bakersfield on August 21, 1991. Reportedly, no soil was removed from the site during removal of the tanks and dispensers; the area I displaced by the former tanks was filled by backfilling the excavated soil along' with imported soil. I During the UST removal activities on August 21, 1991, samples were soil collected from beneath the tanks, dispensers, and product lines. Subsequent I laboratory analysis of the soil samples concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, and gasoline constituent volatile aromatics above I the State Water' Resources Control Board (WRCB) Action Level for these compounds in soil. Based on these analytical results ESE has been retained, to perform a site I characterization in the vicinity of the former southern gasoline tank. I I Elk's Lodge //325 4 November 11, 1991 I I i PURPOSE The purpose of this plan, which was developed specifically for operations at the referenced site, is to assign responsibilities, establish personnel protection I standards and mandatory safety procedures, and provide for contingencies that may arise while field operations associated inw~stigating soil and groundwater are being I 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 I 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 I by ESE as a supplement to such rules, regulations, and guidance. APPLICABILITY I 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 I hazardous materials. These activities include, but are not limited to, may mobilization, project operations, and demobilization. I Changes and/or unanticipated site conditions may require modification of this Site Health and Safety Plan (SHSP) in order to maintain a safe work environment. i 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 re,tm leader may modify the plan and record I all changes in the field log book. Under no circumstances will the plan modifications conflict with Federal, state, or local health and safety regulations. IUnder 29 CFR 1910.120 ESE is to each subcontractor of (b) (15) required notify the hazardous materials identified by ESE. The acceptance of such responsibility does I not and shall not be deemed an acceptance of responsibility for any other health and safety requirements, such as those related to excavating, trenching, drilling or i 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 I 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 I Safety at any Plan time. IEB-8057-1 9111-E007.WP' I Elk's Lodge #325 5 November 11, 1991 ,! ! 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 I belief that the subcontractor's personnel are or may be exposed to an immediate health hazard. ! KEY PERSONNEL AND RESPONSIBILITIES I The key personnel and their responsibilities for this project are as follows: i Corporate Health and Safety 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 I 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 Ithe Project Manager and Site Health and Safety Officer in further definition and control of potential health and safety hazards associated with the project. I Project Manager The ESE Project Manager (PM) for this project is Mr. Mark Magargee. It is his I responsibility to report to upper-level management. The duties of the PM are as follows: I · Prepare and organize the SI-ISP which describes all planned field activities i 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 I that all health and safety requirements are met. · Provides a copy of this SItSP to each member of the project field team. ! Site .Health and Safety Officer I The ESE Site Health and Safety Officer (SHSO) for this investigation is also Mr. Mark Magargee. He advises the PM on all aspects of health and safety on-site and ! I EB-8057-1 9111-E007.WP I Elk's Lodge #325 6 November 11, 1991 I I recommends stopping work if any operation threatens worker or public safety. I Other duties include: I · 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 I safety training and have a current baseline medical examination. - Assign key safety duties and responsibilities to team members. I · Monitor the work parties for signs of stress, and also monitors on-site hazards and conditions. I · Know emergency procedures, evacuation routes, arranges on-site first aid facilities and off-site emergency care. I · 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. · Participate in preparation of SHSP and revise it as necessary. I · Verify that drilling or excavation locations have been cleared for underground utilities and other subsurface structures before subsurface I exploration is initiated. I Team Members 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 i and the CHSO: · Implementing the procedures set forth in the SHSP, and reporting any deviations from the procedures described in the Plan to the SHSO and to the I CHSO. i EB-8057-1 9111-E007.WP I Elk's Lodge //325 7 November 11, 1991 I I I SITE INFORMATION Al! field activities will take place on the Elk's Lodge //325 property. All drilling I activities will take place in the daylight hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. The presence and location of hazardous materials, which are hydrocarbon I compounds, has been confirmed through previous investigations. If needed, three blasts of a horn will be sounded for site evacuation. This site information is current I and has been verified through analytical testing. i HAZARD ASSESSMENT Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials may be a health hazard to site personnel via ingestion, I skin absorption, or inhalation. Biohazards or accidental ingestion of contaminants may occur via hand-to-mouth actions. Dust inhalation may' also contribute to I ingestion of chemical contaminants. During excavation, soil sample collection, and sample preparation, inhalation of contaminant vapors could occur. Skin absorption I may occur via contact with contaminated soil and/or ground water. The degree of hazard depends upon the adverse characteristics and toxicity of the chemical i contamination, the amount of potential contact, and the exposure time. The greatest potential for chemical hazard to site personnel is during excavation activities. I The following substance is potentially a chemical hazard at the subject site: I S~Ibstances Involved Physical State Characteristics Hydrocarbon Fuels Liquid/Absorbed Irritant The following materials potentially present at this project site are specified by i California Health and Safety .Code 25249.5 as recognized and confirmed by the State of California as carcinogenic and/or mutagenic: I 1. Gasoline fuel containing benzene. I I EB-8057-1 91-1 I-E007.WP Elk's Lodge /1325 8 November 11, 1991 Potential Worker. Hazards With hydrocarbon-based liquids, contact may result in dermal irritation due to desiccation. Respiration of air laden with hydrocarbon vapors may result in oxygen deficiency and/or mucous membrane irritation. Mixtures of air and hydrocarbon fuels exhibit an explosive range thus presenting an explosion hazard. Gasoline fuel may contain significant amounts of benzene, a proven human carcinogen. Potential exposure values and limits for benzene are listed in the table below. TABLE 1 - POTENTIAL EXPOSURE VALUES Chemical Highest Cone. IP 1 TLV2 IDLH3 Flammable Detected .in (electron (ppm) Level Range I. Samples (ppm) volts) .... (.pe.rcent.) ,Benzene .... !.3 0~9245 10 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 (ACGH-I) 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. NA: not available 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 at this site. Conditions for Suspension of .Operations Site monitoring equipment will include a Photo-ionization detector (PID) or a Flame-ionization detector (FID) during drilling and trenching. Field activities at Level D will be suspended when the continuous FID or PID level in the breathing I EB-8057-1 9111-E007.WP ! Elk's Lodge 0325 9 November 11, 1991 I I zone increases to ten times background levels (assuming an ambient range of five to I ten ppm). I Level of Protection The level of Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) needed for this investigation I is Level D. Level D PPE includes coveralls, leather boots with steel toes and shanks, eye protection, safety helmet and gloves. If warranted, this Site Safety Plan can be I modified for use of Level C situations. Modification to Level B or Level. A is beyond the scope for this Site Safety Plan and is not permitted. i The criteria for upgrading to Level C PPE is the detection of unknown gasses or vapors in concentrations greater than 10 times background levels or unknown liquids present within the work area. Level C PPE includes Tyvek suits, nitrile gloves I and rubber boots, eye protection, hard hat, and a full-face air-purifying respirator with Scott 642-OA-H cartridge-filters or equivalent. I Physical Hazards I Drilling equipment will be working near buildings and overhead phone lines. Proper precautions required when working around an operating drill rig will be strictly adhered to. All workers will be positioned upwind from drilling equipment at I all times. I Slips, .Trips .and Falls All field personnel shall become familiar with the general terrain and I physical hazards (ravines, potholes, and loose gravel) which would be potential associated with accidental risk to slips, trips and/or falls. I Splashes and Spills i All field personnel shall wear appropriate chemical resistant gloves and goggles to prevent potential dermal exposure to accident splashes and spills that may occur during excavation of contaminated soil and soil sampling. I I EB-8057-1 9111-E007.WP I Elk's Lodge #325 1 0 November 11, 1991 ! Sunburn Working outdoors on sunny days for extended periods of time can cause sunburn to the skin. Excessive exposure to sunlight is associated with the development of skin cancer. Field staff should take precautions to prevent sunburn by using sun-screen lotion and/or wearing hats and long-sleeved garments. Heat Stress Heat stress can be a major hazard, especially for workers donning personnel protective equipment (PPE). The same protective materials that shield the body from chemical exposure also limit the dissipation of body heat and moisture. Heat stress can occur very quickly, depending on the work being performed, the ambient weather conditions, clothing, and the individual characteristics of the worker. Because heat stress is probably one of the most common (and potentially serious) illness at hazardous waste sites, regular monitoring and other preventive precautions are vital. Heat stress monitoring should commence when personnel are wearing PPE, including Tyvek-type coveralls, and the ambient temperature exceeds 70°F. If impermeable garments are not worn, monitoring should start when the temperature reaches 85°F. The following monitoring program is for workers wearing semipermeable or impermeable encapsulating ensembles when the temperature in the work area is above 70°F: Heart Rate should be measured by the radial pulse during a 30 second period as early as possible in the rest period. The next work cycle should be shortened by one-third while the rest period is kept the same, if the heart rate exceeds 110 beats per minute. If the heart rate still exceeds 110 beats per minute at the beginning of the next rest period, shorten the following work cycle by one- third. Preventing heat stress is particularly important because once someone suffers from heat stroke or heat exhaustion, that person may be predisposed to additional heat injuries. To avoid heat stress, the following steps may be taken: I · Modify work/rest schedules according to monitoring requirements, and mandate slowdowns as needed. I I EB-8057-1 9111-E007.WP I Elk's Lodge #325 I 1 November 11, 1991 1 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 proteqtion 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. Some of the signs and symptoms of heat stress are heat rash, heat cramps, heat i 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. Skin cleanliness and treatment with mild drying lotions are necessary to prevent I infection. Heat cramps are caused by heavy sweating with inadequate electrolyte replacement and are characterized by muscle spasms and pain in the hands, feet, and Iabdomen. Treatment of this consists of salted disability administering liquids orally. Heat exhaustion may result form physical exertion in a hot environment when I cardiac output is inadequate to meet increased flow of blood that results from dilation of peripheral blood vessels or dehydration. It is distinguished by pale, cool, moist skin, heavy sweating, dizziness, nausea, and fainting. First aid for heat exhaustion is I as follows: I 1. Immediately remove victim to support area, or if you are the victim, proceed to the support area. ! I EB-8057-1 9111-EOO7.WP. Elk's Lodge //325 1 2 November 11, 1991 2. Decontaminate, if practical, before entering support area. 3. Start cooling, but be careful not to cause a chill. 4. If conscious and not in shock, give water to drink slowly. 5. If vomiting, and/or signs and symptoms are not lessening within an hour, call for emergency help and/or transport victim to emergency room. 6. If person is a victim of heat exhaustion, they should not work the remainder of the day. The most serious form of heat stress is heat stroke. This is caused when the temperature regulation fails and the body temperature rises to critical levels. Immediate action must be taken to cool the body before serious injury and death occur. Red, hot, usually dry skin, lack of reduced perspiration, nausea, dizziness and confusion, strong, rapid pulse, and coma are the signs and symptoms of heat stroke. First aid for heat stroke is as follows: I 1. Immediately move victim to cool, uncontaminated area, the support area, and remove and dispose of victim's chemical-resistant clothing, if wearing any. I 2. Cool the victim rapidly using whatever means necessary. This can include, but may not be limited to, removing clothing, fanning, and placing in water. I 3. Do not give drinking water to victim. I 4. Treat for shock, if needed. 5. Transport the victim to a medical facility immediately for further cooling i and monitoring of body functions. .C.. oId Stress I Cold stress is a particular concern when field activities are performed while the air temperatures at the site are below 40°F. If winds are blowing at 5 mph or I grater and/or the weather is damp or wet, cold stress is even more of a potential hazard. Donning of appropriate clothing, having warm shelter readily available, I EB-8057-1 9111 -E007.WP ! Elk's Lodge #325 1 3 November 11, 1991 I carefully scheduling work and rest periods, and monitoring workers' physical conditions are precautions that wilt be taken to prevent cold stress. 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. NO.ise Heavy equipment, such as excavators, may produce loud noise. The effects of noise can include, but may not be limited to: · Distracted, annoyed, or startled workers. · Physical damage to the ear, pain, and temporary and./or permanent hearing loss. · Communication interference that may increase potential hazards due to the inability to warn of dangers and the proper safety precautions to be taken. OSHA regulation 29 CFR Part 1910.95 describes an effective hearing conservation program that must be administered whenever noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 85 dBA (decibels on the A- weighted scale). In addition, if workers are subjected to noise exceeding an 8-hour, time-weighted average sound level of 90 dBA, feasible administrative or engineering controls must be utilized. Heavy Equipment. and Drilling Before beginning any site work, the drilling subcontractor will perform a safety inspection of the drilling equipment. Personnel shall not work with equipment that they judge to be unsafe because of deterioration, missing parts, obvious defects, or improper use for site conditions. All equipmem shall be bonded and grounded, sparkproof, and explosion-resistant, as appropriate. I EB-8057-1 911 I-E007.WP · ! Elk's Lodge #325 1 4 November 11, 1991 I I 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 boots/shoes are required during drilling operations, as well as during I operation of other heavy equipment. The driller must maintain a safe clearance (at least 10 feet) between overhead I utility lines and the drill rig at all times. I Underground Utilities The general engineering contractor will locate all underground utility I locations prior to the starting of drilling activities. Resources used include site plans, utility companies, and Underground Services Alert (USA). In California, USA must be contacted at least two, but not more than fourteen, days prior to drilling on public I property. MEDICAL MONITORING All Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. (ESE) employees assigned to the sampling operations must be active participants in ESE Employee Medical Surveillance Program, which meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120. ESE's program requires employees assigned to hazardous waste site investigations and remediation to take pre-assignment, annual, and exit medical examinations. The CHSO will maintain current copies of training certificates and statements of medical program participation for all site personnel. Work-Rest Schedule Depending on the prevailing temperature and humidity, a work-rest schedule may be necessary. Duration and frequency will be at the discretion of the excavator and/or site supervisor. A supply of potable water will be kept available near the site. Safety Training Field personnel must receive 40-hour basic health and safety training, designed to comply with the OSHA/EPA requirements for hazardous waste operations and eight hours of annual refresher as set forth in 29 CFR 1910.120, and attend a site- I EB-8057-1 9111-E007.WP I Elk's Lodge #325 1 8 November I1, 1991 I I i 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. I 5. Wind indicators visible to all on-site personnel should be provided by the I 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 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 I Accident Report Form with the company Safety Officer. I 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.). 3. All field crew members should be alert to the presence of strong, irritating or 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 the following: * Wind direction in relation to ground-zero area. I EB-8057-1 9111-E007.WP Elk's Lodge //325 1 7 November 11, 1991 I I EMERGENCY PROCEDURES Emergency conditions are considered to exist if: I * Any member of the field crew is involved in an accident, experiences any adverse effects or symptoms of exposure while on-site; or I * 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 I be immediately followed. i 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 I emergency signals as follows: I * Hand gripping throat - out of air, can't breath. · Grip partner's wrist or place both hands around waist ~ leave area i immediately, no debate! · Hands on top of head - need assistance I * Thumbs down - no, negative. i 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 I activities. In the event of an emergency, selection other escape route will be based on the nature of the emergency and wind direction. I 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 I emergencies. 1 'l EB-8057-1 9111-E007.WP I Elk's Lodge //325 1 6 November 11, 1991 I 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 SITE LAYOUT The level of hazard associated with the work to be performed does not require I dividing the site into formal exclusion, contamination reduction, and support zones. However, care will be taken to avoid breathing vaporized gasoline fuel. CONTAMINATION MONITORING Organic vapor monitoring of the ambient air shall be conducted at reasonable I 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 i 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. I DECONTAMINATION I Before leaving the site/work area, personnel must remove all protective equipment and wash their hands, faces and necks. These washing procedures shall i be observed before all work breaks. To minimize the potential for cross-contamination, all excavation equipment shall be decontaminated before the start of drilling, between borings, and before I removal frOm the site. Sampling equipment shall be decontaminated before sampling and between sampling with washing with laboratory-grade detergent, a " water rinse and a contaminant-free distilled water rinse. I EB-8057-1 9111 -E007.WP I Elk's Lodge #325 1 5 November 11, 1991 I I i specific safety orientation conducted by the project supervisor. The briefing shall include the following: I 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 I the work to be performed 3) Hazard identification 4) Purpose and limitations of personal protective equipment 5) Decontamination and emergency response procedures i 6) Proper on-site conduct. EMERGENCY CONTACT AND PROCEDURES I .Contacts ' I any or unplanned occurrence require or support Should situation outside services, the appropriate contact from the following should be made: Agency Person to Contact Telephone i Ambulance dispatcher 911 Bakersfield Fire Department dispatcher 911 Police dispatcher 911 I Hazardous Materials Division Joe Dunwoody (805) 326-3911 Kern Medical Center dispatcher (805)326-2620 I To reach Kern Medical Center, take East California Avenue east to Mount I Vernon Avenue and turn left; take Mount Vernon Avenue north one mile to Flower Street and turn left; take Flower Street west 1/8 mile following the signs to the I emergency entrance of the hospital which will be on the right (north side of Flower Street) at 1830 Flower Street in Bakersfield. Paramedics should be summoned in the event of a serious injury; they will I arrange t° transl~ort 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 'l or particle in-the eye, the portable eyewash will be used to irrigate the eye for 15 I EB-8057- I 9111-E007.WP Elk's Lodge //325 1 9 November 11, 1991 * Accessibility to associates, equipment; and vehicles. * Communications. * Hot Zone (areas of known or suspected contamination). * Site access. * 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. I Corporate Health & Safety Officer Robert Mohle (805) 541-5983 I Site Safety Officer Mark Magargee (805) 836-0901 - office (805) 872-2496 - home I Project-Site Safety Plan prepared by Mark Magargee in conjunction with the Corporate Health & Safety Officer. I I I I EB-8057-1 9111-E007.WP FIRE DEPARTMENT S. D. JOHNSON September 18, 1991 2101 H STREET BAKERSFIELD, 93301 FIRE CHIEF 326-3911 Earl McFadden Lawrence Lodge #325 1414 g. California Ave Bakersfield, CA 93307 RE: Laboratory results from preliminary site assessment conducted at the facility located at %6~24 i_.i-'-' 0"=~ Bakersfield. / ~ ~~~'~ Dear Mr. McFadden, Upon review of the recently submitted laboratory results from your facility, this office has determined that the extent of the contamination plume has not been adequately defined and may pose an evironmental risk. This office requires (in accordance with chapter 6.7 of the California Health and Safety Code and chapter 16, Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations) that further assessment be done to define the vertical and horizontal extent of the contamination plume, o Please Submit a work plan for further assessment, to this'office, with in 30 days from receipt of this letter. The work plan should follow guidelines found in: Appendix A - Reportst Tri - Regional Board Staff Recommendations for Preliminary Evaluation and Investigation of Underqround Tank Sites; January 22, 1991. If you have any questions, Please call me at (805) 326-3979. Sincerel/~, · /~oe A. Dunwood~ / _ _ Hazardous MatWr3r~l Specialist Underground Tank' Program cc: Pat Mullhofer, Calpi UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE (LEAK) / CONTAMINATION SITE REPORT NAME~ OE INDIVIDUAL. FILING ~E~T , PHONE ~81QNATU~E REPRESE~ING ~ OWNE~OPERATOR ~ REGIO~L ~A~ . ~, / cross ST~ .~' L~AL AGENCY ~NTACT PER~N · P~NE (1) : :. ~ NAME QU~TI~ LOST (G~LONS) DATE DI~VERE~ Y ~W DI~OVE~D ~ INVE~ORY ~ROL ~ SUBSURF~E MONITORING ~ NUISANCE ~NDITIONS ~SDI~HARGEBEENSTOP~D? ' / yi ~ O~ER ~URCE OF D'I~H~RGE ~ "' CAUSE(S) ~E~ ONE ONLY '~E~ ONE ONLY ~ REUEDIATION P~ ~ CASE ~ED (C~UP COMP~TED OR UNNECESSAR~ ~ CL~NUP UNDERWAY CHECK~PROPRIA~ACTION(8) ~ EXOAVA~&DISPOSE(ED) ~ REUO~F~EP~OT(F~ ~ ENH~OEDBD~GRADATION0~ ~ CAP SITE (CD) ~ EXCAVA~&TREAT(E~ ~ F'U~P&TREATG~UNDWA~R(G~ ~ REP~CE SUPPLY (RS) ~ CONTAINMENTBARRIER(CB) ~ ~ACTDNREQUIRED(NA) ~ TREATMENTAT~OKUP(HU) ~ VENTSOIL(VS) ~ W~UM E~nACT(~) ~O~E. (O~ INSTRUCTIONS EMERGENCY Indicate whether emergency response personnel and equipment were involved Preliminary Site Assessment Workplan Submitted - workplan/proposal at any time. If so, a Hazardous Material Incident Report should be filed requested of/submitted by responsible party to determine whether ground with the State Office of Emergency Services (OES) at 2800 Meadowview Road, water has been, or will be, impacted as a result of the release. Sacramento, CA 95832. Copies of the OES report form may be obtained at Preliminary Site Assessment Underway - implementation of workplan. your local underground storage tank permitting agency. Indicate whether Pollution Characterization - responsible party is in the process of fully the OES report has teed filed as of the date of this report, defining the extent of contamination in soil and ground water and assessing impacts~ on surface and/or ground water. LOCAL AGENCY ONLY Remediation Plan - remediation plan submitted evaluating long term To avoid ~uplicate notification pursuant-t~Health and Safety code Section remediation options. Proposal and implementation schedule for appropriate 25180.7, a designated government emp~oyee.~houl~ sign and date the form in remediation options also submitted. this block. A signature here does not m~an that the leak has been Cleanup Underway - implementation of remediation plan. determined to pose a significant threat to human health or safety, only Post Cleanup Monitorin~ in Pro~ress - periodic ground water or other that notification procedureshave been followed if required, monitoring at site, as necessary, to verify and/or evaluate effectiveness of remedial activities. REPORTED BY Case Closed - regional board and local agency in concurrence that n6 Enter your name, telephone number, and address. Indicate which party you further work is necessary at the site. represent and provide company or agency name. IMPORTANT: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL RESPONSIBLE PARTY STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REPRESENTING THE Enter name, telephone number, contact person, and address of the party OFFICIAL POSITION OF ANY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY responsible for the leak. The responsible party would normally be the tank owner. REMEDIAL ACTION Indicate which action have been used to cleanup or remediate the leak. SITE LOCATION Descriptions of options follow: Enter information regarding the tank facility. At a minimum, you must i provide the facility name and full address. Cap Si~e - install horizontal impermeable layer to reduce rainfall --- infiltration. · IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES Containment Barrier - install vertical dike to block horizontal movement of ~ Enter names of the local agency end Regional Water Quality Control Board contaminant. ~ involved. Excavate and Dispose - remove contaminated soil and dispose in approved site. ~ SUBSTANCES INVOLVED Excavate and Treat - remove contaminated soil and treat (includes spreading Enter the name and quantity lost of the hazardous substance involved. Room or land farming). is provided for information on two substances if appropriate. If more than Remove Free Product - remove floating product from wate~ table. Lwo substances leaked, list the two of most concern for cleanup. Pump and Treat Groundwater - generally employed to remc-.'e dissolved contaminants. DISCOVERY/ABATEMENT Enhanced Biode~radation - use of any available technology to promote Provide information regarding the discovery and abatement of the leak. bacterial decomposition of contaminants. Replace Supply - provide alternative water supply to affected parties. SOURCE/CAUSE Treatment at Hookup - install water treatment devices at each dwelling or Indicate source(s) of leak. Check box(es) indicating cause of leak. other place of use. Vacuum Extract - use pumps or blowers to draw air through soil. CASE TYPE Vent Soil - bore holes in soil to allow volatilization of contaminants. Indicate the case type category for this leak. Check one box only. Case No Action Required - incident is minor, requiring no remedial action. type is based on the most sensitive resource affected. For example, if both soil and ground water have been affected, case type will be "Ground C~NTS - Use this space to elaborate on any aspects of the incident. Water". Indicate "Drinking Water" only if one or more municipal or domestic water wells have actually been affected. A "Ground Water" SIGNATURE - Sign the form in the space provided. designation does not imply that the affected water cannot be, or is not, used for drinking water, but only that water wells have not yet been DISTRIBUTION affected. It is understood that case type may chan~e upon further If the form is completed by the tank owner or his agent, retain the last copy investigation, and forward the ~emaining copies intact to your local tank permitting agency for distribution. CURRENT STATUS 1. Original - Local Tank Permitting Agency Indicate the category which best describes the current status of the case. 2. State Water. Resources Control Board, Division of Loans and Grants, Check one box only. The responss should be relative to the case type. For Underground Storage Tank Program, P.O. Box 944212, Sacramento, CA 94244- example, if case type is "Ground Water", then "Current Status" should refer 2120 to the status of the ground water investigation or cleanup, as opposed to 3. Regional Water Q~ality Control Board that of soil. Descriptions of options follow: 4. County Board of Supervisors or designee to receive Proposition 65' notifications. No Action Take~ - No action has been taken by responsible party beyond 5. Owner/responsible party. initial report of leak. Leak Bein~ Confirmed - Leak suspected at site, but-has not been ~nfirmed. . ~ ~ ~ , ,- ,~,, , , ', ............................ -p --'~-,'~ ~-:-;~-~-~//~ - -, ............. --~ .... d--~--- I-, ' ', .... f I' ' ........ ~-.- ~ ..... ~-~, ,~q .... ~: ~T~.. ~ ....................... . - ~-I--~-~ ....... -~ ~ I ...... -~-~.~ .........~ -- ~ I P.O. BOX 6278 · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93386 · (805) 589-5648 Augusk 2'.;, 1991 Environmental Health Services 2700 "M" Street Suite 300 Bakersfield, California 93301 ATTENTION: Carrie Ge0rgi RE: Permit #1509-15 Dear Mr. GeorgJ., On August 20, 1991, CALPI, Inc. removed two (2), 1-10,000 and 1-. ~ : 8,000 gallon underground gasoline tanks from Charles Chop Lawrence Lodge #325, 1414 E. California Avenue, Bakersfield, California. The tanks wer~ decontaminated on site using a high pressure steam cleaner and inerted with dry ice. Rinsate was disposed of at Gibson Oil and Refining in Bakersfield, 'California under hazardous waste manifest #89634372. The tanks were removed to Golden State Metals. Soil was sampled under the direction of Kern. The samples were analyzed at~ SMC Laboratory of }~akersfield for TVH and BTX. A complete chemical analysis is enclosed. ~ In addition to the lab results, copies of the manifest, chain of custody and the tank disposition tracking record is enclosed. Please contact our main office at (805) 589-5648 if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, Pat Mullhofer Supervisor Pa/ph Santa Maria, California 93454 (805) 925-2231 · Bakersfield, California FAX (805) 589-5312 Client Name: CALPI, Inc. Address : P.O. Box 6278 Bakersfield, CA 93386 Attention : Mr. J.P. Mulhoffer Date samples received : 8-20-91 Date analysis completed: 8-23-91 Date of report : 8-23-91 Projec% ~ : 4293 P.O. ~ : 03-2693-91 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: ~3371 ID: 1 6gm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene ND 0.0050 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0050 p-Xylene ND ~0.0050' m-Xylene ND 0.0050' o-Xylene ND 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0050 TPH(Gasollne) ND 1.0 Method of Analysis for BTX/TPH (Gasoline) : 8020 MDL = Minimum Detection Level TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ugm/gm = micrograms Per gram (ppm) ND = None Detected ~. AnalytiCal 'Chemist 3155 Pegasus Drive · Bakersfield, CA 93308 ·(805) 393-3597 P.O. Box 808.35 · Bakersfield, CA 93380 · FAX (805) 393-3623 CEIVED ...... ,: RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: ~3372 ID: 2 'ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene ND 0.0050 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0050 p-Xylene ND 0.0050 m-Xylene ND 0.0050 o-Xylene ND 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) ND 1.0 #3373 ID: 3 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene 0.0086 0.0050 Ethylbenzene 0.0099 0.0050 p-Xylene 0.0083 0.0050 m-Xylene 0.017 0.0050 o-Xylene 0.022 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene 0.029 0.0050 TPH(Gmsoline) 1.7 1.0 ~3374 ID: 4 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene ND 0.0050 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0050 p-Xylene ND 0.0050 m-Xylene ND 0.0050 o-Xylene ND 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) ND 1.0 Analytical Chemist RECEIVED RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: ~3375 ID: 5 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene 0.0074 0.0050 Toluene 0.058 0.0050 Ethylbenzene 0.047 0.0050 p-Xylene 0.083 0.0050 m-Xylene 0.16 0.0050 o-Xylene 0.]7 0.005'0 Isopropylbenzene 0.068 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) 10. 1.0 ~3376 ID: 6 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene 14. 0.0050 Toluene 55. 0.0050 Ethyl.benzene ~4. 0.0050 p-Xyl~ne 35. 0.0050 m-Xylene 61. 0.0050 o-Xylene 52. 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene 11. 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) 760. 1.0 ~3377 ID: 7 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene ND 0.0050 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0050 p-Xylene ND 0.0050 m-Xylene 0.0096 0.0050 o-Xylene 0.0061 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) ND 1.0 Analytical Chemist RECEIVED , · , ,,. ....... RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: ~3378 ID: 8 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene ND 0.0050 Ehhylbenzene ND 0.0050 p-Xylene ND 0.0050 m-Xylene ND 0.0050 o-Xylene ND 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0050 TPH~G~soline) ND 1.0 ~3379 ID: 9 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene 0.025 0.0050 Toluene 0.013 0.0050 Ethylbenzene 0.099 0.0050 p-Xylene 0.058 0.0050 m-Xylene 0.040 0.0050 o-Xylene 0.63 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene 0.51 0.0050 TPH(G~sollne) 5.5 1.0 ~3380 ID: 10 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene 7.4 0.0050 Toluene 27. 0.0050 Ekhylbenzene 10. 0.0050 p-Xylene 25. 0.0050 m-Xylene 49. 0.0050 o-Xylene 34. 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene 5.5 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) 480. 1.0 Analytical Chemist RECEIVED ,...._ ;' ~ , .... ~ SMC Laboratory Analytical Chemistry Client Name: .CALPI, Inc. Address : P.O. Box 6278 Bakersfield, CA 93386 Attention : Mr. J.P. Mulhoffer Date samples received : 8-21-91 Date analysis completed: 8-23-91 Date of report : 8-23-91 Project ~ : 4293 P.O. ~ : 03-2693-91 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: ~3381 ID: 11 U~m/gm MDL, ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene ND 0.0050 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0050 p-Xylene ND 0.0050 m-Xylene ND 0.0050 o-Xylene ND 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) ND 1.0 Method of Analysis for BTX/TPH (Gasoline) : 8020 MDL = Minimum Detection Level TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ugm/gm = micrograms'per gram (ppm) ND = None Detected Maung j~,-~Tkcin Analytical Chemist 3155 Pegasus Drive · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · (805) 393-3597 P.O. Box 80835 · Bakersfield, CA 93380 · FAX (805) 393-3623 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: ~3382 ID: 12 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene ND 0.0050 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0050 p-Xylene ND 0.0050 m-Xylene ND 0.0050 o-Xylene ND 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) ND 1.0 ~3383 ID: 13 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene ND 0.0050 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0050 p-Xylene ND 0.0050 m-Xylene ND 0.0050 o-Xylene ND 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) ND 1.0 ~3384 ID: 14 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene ND 0.0050 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0050 p-Xylene ND 0.0050 m-Xylene ND 0.0050 o-Xylene ND 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) ND 1.0 Maunff~ Analytical Chemist RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: ~3385 ID: 15 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene 0.0059 0.0050 Toluene 0.0053 0.0050 E%hylbenzene 0.0099 0.0050 p-Xylene 0.020 0.0050 m-Xylene 0.036 0.0050 o-Xylene 0.042 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene 0.024 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) 6.1 1.0 ~3386 ID: 16 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene 1.3 0.0050 Toluene -6.0 0.0050 Ethylbenzene 7.5 0.0050 p-Xylene 11. 0.0050 m-Xylene 19. 0.0050 o-Xylene 14. 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene 5.5 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) 340. 1.0 ~3387 ID: 17 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene 0.0065 0.0050 Ethylbenzene 0.055 0.0050 p-Xylene 0.080 0.0050 m-Xylene 0.13 0.0050 o-Xylene 0.22 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene 0.18 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) 12. 1.0 Analytical Chem~ st z RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: ~3388 ID: 18 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene ND 0.0050 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0050 p-Xylene ND 0.0050 m-Xylene ND 0.0050 o-Xylene. ND 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) ND 1.0 ~3389 ID: 19 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene 0.011 0.0050 Toluene -~ ND 0.0050 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0050 p-Xylene ND 0.0050 m-Xylene ND 0.0050 o-Xylene ND 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene 0.0080 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) ND 1.0 ~3390 ID: 20 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene 0.23 0.0050 Toluene 2.9 0.0050 Ethylbenzene 3.6 0.0050 p-Xylene 8.7 0.0050 m-Xylene 17. 0.0050 o-Xylene 11. 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene 1.4 '0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) 110. 1.0 Analytical Chemist RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: ~3391 ID: 21 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene ND 0.0050 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0050 p-Xylene 0.0078 0.0050 m-Xylene 0.016 0.0050 o-Xylene 0.045 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene 0.026 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) 2.7 1.0 ~3392 ID: 22 ugm/gm MDL,ugm/gm Benzene ND 0.0050 Toluene . ND 0.0050 Ethylbenzene ND 0.0050 p-Xylene ND 0.0050 m-Xylene ND 0.0050 o-Xylene ND 0.0050 Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0050 TPH(Gasoline) ND 1.0 Ma~un~~]~e in ~ Analy%ical Chemis% · S. late Gl Calilornia£-Heallh and Wellare Agency~ i~,~.. ' · ' ' ' '" ' · · ' · Depnrtme"l of Health Services Please prat or type, (Form dealgned for use on el~2*pitch tYP~rit~r~.:' :" "~:" ~ , ' ,, : Sacramento California · ' I'l~l~U HATAnn~H~ . J 1. Generalor's US EPA ID No - .' ' . ' Man feat .2.~age 1~. I Info,malign In the shaded areas . ~ k "WASTE MANIFEST.:~:. i~1 i~iZi~i~ j ~j~j~ /of /. J ls.ot,equ,,edbyFederal,aw. 3. 5: T'ranepoHer 1 Company Name ..:. ~ '~ .:.' '.. 6, US ~PA ID Number .: .; . '7;Z'I' M~ [~?I~0~TAb ~ERV[Cg~,. [~c, ~ ~ iT JO JO i0 i~ J)'J4 J2 J4 i7 D"~ransp°der'sPh°n~D~l~O~{-l'i <i":'-[' ' 7. Transporter 2 Company Name . ',:'/- .. 8..' - · US EPA ID Number ". . E. State Transpoder'a]~TM -r:~.~,:'"~.'~':' ' 9. Oesignsted Facilily Name and Site Add,ess . 10..' US EPA ID Number G. Sl~te Facilily*s ID ': ,.. :, '."'..¥:" ' . .'..' . - . ... . ...::.'~[< ..'....~ .....:. B~ERS~IgLD,..CA;' 93308. ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ Iq I~ I~ h' I'~ 1¢' ~/a,~!~" "'' .:"-'~"".',.":.' ' '. - · ', 12. C~ntain;r~~'' -~3:T~aJ'~ 14. --'[' ~- "I.. i I. US DOT Deacr¥llon (Including Proper Shipping Name. Hazard Class, and ID Number) Quantity . Unll '?.:'.:~'. Wasle No. ' . , , ,.. .... No. ~ype Wi/Vol .':~" ". '..' .'. ': a '~ }:'. : ' State ..... E ~0~ P'C~ ~Z~OUS WAST~ L~QUID 0 0 It T 1T I ~X~'~I~ ~: ":" R T EPA/~her .... .... ' R c. ' ."' Stale. '>. ,. · ,. EPAl~her · - I I I / I I I . d. Stale . ~PAIOlher J. Addilio~al Descriptions lot Materials OGled ~ve J I I I I I I . - .: . K. Handling Codes for Wastes'Listed Above · . .. . , ~/.': · GLOVES, GOGGLES, AND PNOTECTIVE OUTER (:A~UENTS, ' RSLEASEI' ~OZ~' ~ I GENERATOR'S CERTIFICATION: I hereby declare lhal Ihe conlenl~ of lhl~ conslgnme~l ~re fully ~d accut~lely described ~bove by proper 8hlpping n~me ~nd ~re cl~88ifled, p~cked, marked, 8~d I~beled, 8nd ~re In BII te~pecls In proper co~dillon for Ir~nspofl by hlghw~y ~ccotdin~ Io ~pplic~ble inlemalionel J national government regulations. ' , If I am a large quantity generator, I cedJfy Ihat I have a program in place lo reduce the volume end toxicity of wasle generaled to Ihe degree I have delermined I Io be economically practicable and thai I have selecled Ihe practicable melhod of Irealmenl, slorage, or disposal currently available Io me which minimizes present and future threat to human health and the environment; OR. il I am a small quantity generator, I have made a good leith ello~ to minimize my waste generellon and selecl the besl waste managemenl method lhal Is available fo me and thai I can afford. .~. /. . ,, T ~7. Transpolar I Acknowledgement of Receipl of Malarial] ' R ~ 18. Tre,spoder 2 Acknowledgement of Receipl of Malerial~ ~ PdnledlTyped Nsm~ ~ Signalme ' :-. Month Day Year lO. Dt~crepanc~ Indication Space I - ' L I 20. Facility Owner or Operator CeHificelion of receipt of hazardous malerlals cove his manilesl excepl aa holed tn Item 19. T , · // , ~ y ~Typed Name I S~~~~ Month O.y Year OHS 8022 A (1188) Do Not Write Below This Line t EPA 87~22 (Rev. 9-88) Previous editions are obsolele. GREEN: HAUL[R ~ETAIN5 i AODR~S C.~21, inc. , BAK~S~I~LD CA 92386 '. , (805) 589-5648 ~ '~ /~ -, ~ , , , , I 1 ~ Sionature ~ ' Slgnatu~ I ~ ' ~' j J Signatur, Signature C;mcAny ~ Comoa~ / , Ccmoanv .I Comoa~ AEUNCUISHED BY DATE RECEIVED 8Y CATE 5~qnature Signature i Signature Signalure . ..o.o .,.... AODR~$ C~2Z, :nc. ~ 0 BOX 6278 BAKERSFIELD CA 93386 (805) 589-5648 SAmPLaRS SignOre: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ COMM~ SAM~L~ NO 0A~ ~ ' ~M~ ' LOCA~ON, ~,~ ~'!/~ ~ ~ i5' ~ ' !/ ~ ~ , /~ ~ ~ /1 , ,, i/~.:~ ~, ~;~ ~. ~o~_. t ' ', , ~7 , · I ~ ~' I i I !t 1 !~/~/~ ~ ~~i~natut~ ~ ~ ~ME ~Slgnature' ~~  ~ ComDa~ ~'l Comoanv Company Ccm0any · , .. REUNCUISH~D 8Y DATE REC~NED 8Y DATE REUNQUISHED BY DATE RECEI~ aY (la~mto~) D~ Signature L-- Signature Signature ':'IME" Signature I TTME T1ME .TIM ~. ~nn:eO Name i 13nnteO Name PrinleO Name ~ Pnnt~ Na~ RESt, 'RCE MANAGEMENT ~DALL L. ABBO~ STE~ McCA! ! Fy, R~S, DI~CTOR DIRECTOR ~i~ Po,~ut~. Com~o~ D~tmt DASD PRICE Ill ~ a. RODDV. ~CO PMnni~ & D~ebpm~t ~es ~ent ~ d~, ~CP, DI~CTOR ENVIRONMENTAL H LTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT **UNDERGROUND TANK DIS~D$!TI~N TRACKING RECORD** Th~s form ~s to be returned to ~he Kern County Environmental Health Services Department w~h~n ~4 days of acceptance, of.,:.~the tank(s) by an approved d~sposa] or recyc]~n9 facility. The ho]der responsible for ~nsur~n~ tha~ ~h~s fo~ ~s completed and returned. Section 1 To be f~]]ed out by tank removal contractor: Tank Removal Contractor: ~7~ / Address: ~/ ~ ~-Tff Phone Date Tank(s) Removed: ~~7 ~/ No. of Tank(s): ~ Section 2 To be f~l]ed out by contractor "decontaminating" tank(s): Tank "Decontamination" Contractor: Address: ~o~ ~ Z'? ~ Phone $: ~r- ~ ~'~ Tank Size L.E.L. Tank S~ze L.E.L. Authorized representative of the contractor certifies by signin9 below that the tank(s) have been decontaminated in accordance with Kern County Environmental Health Services Department requirements. Si gna~tUre ~ - T~tle Section 3 To be filled out and signed by an authorized representative of the approved disposal or recycling facility accepting the tank(s): Date ~~ ~'--~o-~) No. of~k(s): / S~ ~~ ~ ~ Title: ~~~ _~ ' (Authorized Repr~entative) 27~ "M" S~, SU~ 3~ B~RSF~, C~FORN~ 9~01 (~5) ~1-3~6 * * * MAILING INSTRUCTIONS: , Fold and staple, F~: (~5)~1-3429 June 17, 1991 BAKERSFIELD, CA 1400 EAST CALIFORNIA Melvin W. Magnus, Esq. 828 Chester Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Magnus: In response to your March 7, 1991 letter concerning abandoned tanks the above-captioned site, I will be handling this matter on behalf of Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. ("Texaco"); and any correspondence should be directed to my attention. As your letter failed to specify any particulars concerning the alleged former Texaco service station at the site, Texaco relied on a statement given to the Department of Environmental Health Services by your client to guide its research. According to this statement, there was allegedly a Texaco service station on the site in the early 1960's, which was allegedly sold in the mid- 1960's to an OK Tire. Pursuant to this description of an alleged past interest, Texaco has reviewed its records for this period and can find no evidence of any Texaco interest in the land, or with ownership or operation the tanks. Because of this lack evidence, Texaco is unable to answer any of the various questions in your letter. For your information, according to two permits found at the Bakersfield Building Department, the original service station building and canopy were constructed in 1962 by a Briggs Oil Company, located at 3940 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, CA. The Official Record shows that Briggs Oil Company, a co-partnership in dissolution, conveyed this Rosedale property to Charles J. Briggs and Thomas Briggs in an Grant Deed recorded in Book 6207, Page 2191, official Records. The grantees, Charles and Thomas Briggs, also were the grantors in the deed as the partners comprising Briggs Oil Company. It can presumed that Briggs Oil Company installed, owned and probably operated the tanks on this site. City directory references frOm 1964 to at least 1970 show the station to have been a Hancock (a Signal Oil trade name) outlet with a Big "O" Tire Shop doing business at the same address. A Reliable Tire Shop and Texaco branded station existed on the site from approximately 1972 to 1974, with the tire store becoming vacant about 1974, and the service station in.1977. Texaco had no legal relationship with this service station -- its products were being sold by an independent dealer, who probably bought his Texaco products from a distributor located at the above Rosedale Highway address by the name of R. L. Ragsdale. Supplemental inquiries with the Bakersfield Fire Department yielded no further information concerning~this service station. I trust that this is responsive to your client's needs; should you have any question concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at (818) 505-3032. Very truly yours, MARK J. ASPLUND cc: Ms. Carrie Georgi Department of Environmental Health Services Kern County Resource Manaegement Agency 2700 "M" Street, Suite 300 Bakerfield,. CA 93301 MAY~gwh3006.WP  Environmental Health Services Department RANDALL L. ABBOTT STEVE McCALLEY, REHS, DIRECTOR DIRECTOR Air Pollution Control District DAVID PRICE !11 UnLUAM J. RODDY, APCO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Planning & Development Services Department TED JAMES, AICP, DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT PERMIT FOR PERMANENT CLOSURE PERMIT NUMBER A 1509-15 OF UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES STORAGE FACILITY FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS: OWNER(S) NAME/ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR: Charles Chop Lawerence Lodge #325 Charles Chop. Lawerence #325 Calpi, Inc. 1414 E. California Avenue 1414 E. California Avenue P.O. Box 6278 Bakersfield, CA 93307 Bakersfield, CA 93307 Bakersfield, CA 93386 License #506025 Phone: (805) 324-2734 Phone: (805) 589-5648 PERMIT FOR CLOSURE OF PERMIT EXPIRES September 14, 1991 2 TANK(S) AT ABOVE APPROVAL DATE June 14, 1991 Carrie Georgi Hazardous Materials Specialist ......................................................................................... ; ..... POST ON PREMISES ................................................................................................ CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS: 1. It is the responsibility of the Permittee to obtain permits which may be required by other regulatory agencies prior to beginning work (i.e., City Fire and Building Departments). 2. Permittee must notify the Hazardous Materials Management Program at (805) 861-3636 two working days prior to tank removal or abandonment in place to arrange for required inspections(s). 3. Tank closure activities must be per Kern County Environmental Health and Fire Department approved methods as described in Handbook UT-30. 4. It is the contractor's responsibility to know and adhere to all applicable laws regarding the handling, transportation or treatment of hazardous materials. 5. The tank removal contractor must have a qualified company employee on site supervising the tank removal. The employee must have tank removal experience prior to working unsupervised. 6. If any contractors other than those listed on permit and permit application are to be utilized, prior approval must be granted by the specialist listed on the permit. Deviation from the submitted application is not allowed. 7. Soil Sampling: a. Tank size less than or equal to 1,000 gallons - a minimum of two samples must be retrieved from beneath the center of the tank at depths of approximately two feet and six feet. b. Tank size greater than 1,000 to 10,000 gallons - a minimum of four samples must be retrieved one-third of the way in from the ends of each tank at depths of approximately two feet and six feet. c. Tank size greater than 10,000 gallons - a minimum of six Samples must be retrieved one-fourth of the way in from the ends of each tank and beneath the center of each tank at depths of approximately two feet and six feet. 8. Soil Sampling (piping area): A minimum of two samples must be retrieved at depths of approximately two feet and six feet.for every 15 linear feet of pipe run and under the dispenser area. 2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 300 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 .(805) 861-3636 FAX: (805) 861-3429 JUN 2 ~ tg~l NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FOR a PERMIT ACTIVITY AT a US T FAC ILI TY I N BAKERSFIELD CITY APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR WORK T0 BE COMPLETED AT THE FACILITY LISTED BELOW: DESCRIPTIONS 0F WORK FOR WHICH PERMIT APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED: SPECIALIST GIVEN THE APPLICATION: DATE GIVEN TO THE SPECIALIST: BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT ' / ~ BUREAU OF FIRE PREYEHTION ~ Date APPLICATION Application No. In conformity with provisions of I~rtinent ordinances, codes, and/or regulations, application is made by: ~- ~ ~) -.~ 4; ~ , / Name of Core.ny ~/ Address to display, store, install, use, o~rate, s~ll or handl~ ma~rials or pr~ss~s involving 'or creating ca~'- ditions d~em~d hazardous to life or pra~r~ as fallows: / ~uthorized ~¢remntative :~...... ~ .......~~_.........~ ......................... : ............ : .................... RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY  STEVE McCALLEY, DIRECTOR DIRECTOR Air Pollution Cdntrol District DAVID PRICE II1 w~LL~M d. RODDY, APCO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR P~nning & Development Services Department ':P~' TED JAMES, AICP, DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT PERMIT FOR PERMANE PERMIT NUMBER A 1509-15 OF UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES STORAGE FACILITY FACILITY NAME/ADDRESS: .OWNER(S) .NAME/ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR: Charles Chop Lawerence Lodge #325 Cliarles Chop Lawerence #325 Calpi, Inc. 1414 E. California Avenue 1414 E. California Avenue P.O. Box 6278 Bakersfield, CA 93307 Bakersfield, CA 93307 Bakersfield, CA 93386 License #506025 Phone: (805) 324-2734 Phone: (805) 589-5648 PERMIT FOR CLOSURE OF PERMIT EXPIRES September 14, 1991 2 TANK(S) AT ABOVE APPROVAL DATE June 14, 1991 LOCATION APPROVED BY ~ _ ~z Carrie Georgi Hazardous Materials Specialist ............................................................................................... POST ON PREMISES ......... 2 ...................................................................................... CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS: 1: It is the responsibility of the Permiltee to obtain permits which may be required by other regulatory agencies prior to beginning work (i.e., City Fire and Building Departments). 2. Permittee must notify the tlazardoua Maierials Management Program at (805) 861-3636 two workin, g day~ prior to tank removal or abandonment in place to arrange for required inspections(s). 3. Tank closure activities must be per Kern County Environmental Health and Fire Department approved methods as described in Handbook UT-30. 4. It is the contractor's responsibility to know and adhere to all applicable laws regarding the handling, transportation or treatment of hazardous materials. 5. The tank removal contractor must have a qualified company employee on site supervising the tank removal. The employee must have tank removal experience prior to working unsupervised. 6. if any contractor~ other than those listed on permit and permit application are to be utilized, prior approval must be granted by the specialist listed on the permit. Deviation from the submitted application is not allowed. 7. Soil Sampling: a. Tank size leal than or equal'to 1,000 8allorm - a minimum of two samples mu;q be retrieved from beneath the center of the tank at depths of approximately two feet and six feet. b. Tang size greater than 1,000 to 10,000 gallons - a minimum of four samples mu.st be retrieved one-third of the way in from the ends of each tank at depths of approximately two feet and six feet. c. Tank size greater than 10,000 gallons - a minimum of six samples must be retrieved one-fourth of the way in from the ends of each tank and beneath the center of each tank at depths of approximately two feet and six feet. 8. Soil Sampling (piping area): A minimum of two samples must be retrieved at depths of approximately two feet and six feet for every 15 linear feet of pipe run and under the dispenser area. 2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 300 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 861-3636 FAX: (805) 861-3429 F. RMIT FOR PERMANE~ PERMIT NUMBER A 1509-15 OF UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS ADDENDUM SUBSTANCES STORAGE FACILITY 9. Soil Sample analysis: a. All soil samples retrieved from beneath gasoline (leaded/unleaded) tan'~ and appurtenances must be analyzed for benzene, toluene, xylene, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (for gasoline). b. All ~oil samples retrieved from beneath diesel tanks and appurtenances must be analyzed for total p?trolcum hydrocarbons (for diesel) and benzene. e. All soil samples retrieved from beneath waste oil lanks and appurtenances must be analyzed for total organic halides, lead, oil and grease. d. All soil samples retrieved from beneath crude oil tanks and appurtenances must be analyzed for oil and grease. e. All soil samples retrieved from beneath tanks and appurtenances that contain unknown substances must be analyzed for a full range of substances that may have bees stored w/thin the tank. 10. The following timetable lists pre- and post-tank removal requirements: ^C'HVITY Complete permit application submitted At least two weeks prior to closure to Hazardous Materials Management Program Notification to inspector listed on permit of date Two working days and time of closure and ~oil sampling Transportation and tracking forms sent to Hazardous No later than 5 working'days for transportation and 14 working Materials Management Program. All hazardous waste days for the tracking form after tank removal manifests mhst be signed by the receiver of the hazardous waste Sample analysis to Hazardous Materials Management No later than 3 xvorking days after completion of analysis Program 11. Purging/Inerting Conditions: a. - Liquid shall be pumped from tank prior to purging such that leas than 8 gallons of liquic{ remain in tank. (CSH&SC 41700) b. .. Tank shall be purged through vent pipe discharging at least 10 feet above ground level. (CSH&SC 41700) e. No emission shall result in odors detectable at or beyond property line. (Rule 419) d. No emission shall endanger the health, safety, comfort or repose of any person. (CSH&SC 41700) e. Vent lines shall remain attached to tank until the inspector arrives to authorize removal. RECOMMENDATIONS/GUIDELINES FOR REMOVAL OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS This department is responsible for enforcing the Kern County Ordinance Code, Division 8 and state regulations pertaining to underground storage tanks. Representatives from this department respond to job sites during tank removals to ensure that the tanks are safe to remove/close and that the overall job performance is consistent with permit requirements, applicable laws and safety standards. Tile following guidelines are offered to clarify the interests and expectations for this department. 1. Job site safety is one of our primary concerns. Excavations are inherently dangerous. It is the contractor's responsibility to know and abide by CAL-OSHA regulations. The job foreman is responsible for the crew and any subcontractors on the job. As a general rule, workers are not permitted in improperly sloped excavations or when unsafe conditions exist in the hole. Tools and equipment are to be used only for their designed function. For example, backhoe buckets are never substituted for ladders. 2. Properly licensed contractors are assumed to understand the requirements of tile permit issued. The jqb foreman is responsible for knowing and abiding by the conditions of tile permit. Deviation from the permit conditions may result in a stop-work order. 3. Individual contractors will be held responsible for their post-removal paperwork. Tracking forms, hazardous waste manifests and analyses documentation are necessary, for each site in order to close a case file or move it into mitigation. When contractors do not follow through on necessa~ paperwork, an unmanageable baciclog of incomplete eases results. Il' this continues, processing time for completing new closures will increase. OWNER OR/~ENT DATE CG:cas xalS09-15.ptc ~, i'!., .- ..... '~"""~?'~' BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT'- I 'i*~"/' '-~~.. ' '-~":~'i~'/~'~ ~'i"i ''~ BUR U, OF:'FIR I"0H'' '~ "~': ~" '~ "~' ':: ;'~'~%~: · " ' ;":;1';'i'-t'- EA E,PREyENT :', .:. ' ,.-, '. ,.,. ,.,, .?:': -". ' '" ":";- , .Appli.cc_.tion, No,--'-'" ?,'-':0:, ~/' ,,~., ..... :,.....~..,...-.:. ,.....--:...-; ....-,-:.?..-, ..~....' ,.:..-~-. .... .:. ',.,,.....,.--.:.~:.:,:. "": :' ~' nformi -;~ Oyls!ons of pertinent:'6rdinancesi'-'i:odes; an;d/or.reg dationSi.a icOtion 'is. , ~ . .... ..,-, .... ...... "~ ....... .., . .... ppi made,.-' ~ ' 'inst iSpia "Sto~ ;ii ~$ r 'o ate/sell o~ handle:'m~terialS~:ow; e~ s':invbivi"g'.:o~.,~reat ..:..-.: _~.: 7_ :: ....... , ...... . ..... -",-i-'2i:.: :: ...'; "- _'. _, "' . "' ' ' " ' ~? , '~ ' ' ' I '- ',; ' '* - '.' ' '. , : . ' ~ ' . ' --. '. ,' ", . ' :, ' .... '-'"'""' '" ' ;~;.,.;;.;:..L. :,~.. .LL, . -"' .' ,. i ~ - ';"'- - - ~ .' :" . :'. ::--'--';": :-, :"~-' .: -- , ,-. .... : ':~';. , L"''- ' ;7' - . :;;>:' ;, ~;:- = .._ .-. .( ,": i"' ::,:; :i:. !::':' ' 'h . ;~.-' ?;L',-.'-- . . ..:......, ~.:,~, -,,., .. ,. ..... :- '_'¢:'::;~,.:?~: .; : : - t.' . ":': ..... · RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY · * . ~ Env~onmental Health Sewices Department ~DA~ L ABBO~ **- ; '~ ~ Mc~l I ~, ~, DIe.OR DIe. OR ' ' Ab P~I~ C~I~ ~ DASD PRICE ~ ~ J' ~DDY, ~O ~T~ D~R ~i~ & D~t ~ De~r~ent ~ J~. ~CP. DIe.OR VIRONM TAL SER CES DEPARTMENT PE~ FOR PE~~~ - '* PE~ ~ER A 15~-15 OF U~ERORO~ ~OUS S~ST~C~ STO~OE FAC~ FAc~ N~~D~S; .O~R(S) N~~D~S: CO~~OR: ICharl~ Chop ~wer~n~ ~dgo ~3~ Charl~ ~op ~weren~ ~3~ ~lpi, Inc, '14~4 E, ~l~omi~ Avenuo 1414 E, ~liforni~ Avonuo P, O, Box 6278 Bako~flold, CA 93307 Bake~fleld, CA 93307 Bake~fleld, CA 93386 Phono: (~5) 324-2734 Phono: (805) 589-56~ ,PE~IT FOR CLOSU~ OF P~MIT E~ Soptember 14, 1991 I~ T~K(S) AT ~O~ ~PROV~ DA~ 3une 14, 199t ~io Oeorgi . ' ' H~rdo~ Materia~ Special~t ............................................................................................... POST ON PREMISES ..... : .......................................................................................... ~ COND~ONS ~ FO~OWS; L It is th~ ~ibili~ ~{ the P~it[~ to ob~in ~[t~ which may ~ ~ui~ ~ olh~ ~ula[o~ ngen~ prior to ~ginning ~rk (Lc., City ~ ~nd Building [ Dc~men~). ~ Pe~i~t~ m~ notify the H~o~ ~te~b Ma~gemem Pmg~m at (80~) ~1-~ two ~r~g ~ poor to tank ~mo~l or abando~cnt in pia~ to a~nge for ~ui~ im~to~(s). · Tank clmu~ a~tim m~t ~ ~ ~m ~un~ En~mnmentsl H~ith and ~ D~flment appmv~ meth~ ~ d~d in Hand~k ~-30. 4. It ~ the ~ntmcto~s ~ibili~ to ~ and ~dhe~ to all appli~ble ~ ~ing the ~ndling, t~tion or t~tment o[ h~o~ ~. ~e ~ ~m~l ~m~or m~l ~e a q~]~ ~m~ cmpl~ on sile su~ing Ibc ~nk ~m~. ~e ~pl~ m~t ~ve tank ~m~! poor m ~r~ng 6. ~ any ~mmcm~ o~her lhan ~h~ 1~ on ~it and ~it sppli~flon a~ to ~ util~, p~or appel m~t ~ groined ~ the s~i~list ~it. D~flon ~m thc submitt~ appU~tion ~ not ~7. SoU Samplin~ Tank ~ 1~ t~n or ~ to 1,~ gMlo~ - a minimum of t~ ~mpl~ m~r ~ re~ [mm ~n~th the ~mer o[ the tank app~male~ ~ f~t and s~ [~. b. ~ ~ ~t~ ~ 1,~ to 10,~ pUo~ - a ~inimum of four ~mpl~ m~t ~ ~tfi~ one-thUd o~ thc ~y In E~m the ~ o~ ~ tank at dept~ of app~mate~ ~ f~t and s~ T~ ~e ~t~ t~ 10,~ ~Uo~ - a minimum o[ s~ ~mpl~ m~t ~ ~t~ onc-[ou~h of thc ~y in ~m thc cn~ o~ ~ch ~nk and ~n~th ~he comer of ~ch tank al depl~ of app~c~ ~o f~t and s~ 8. Soil Sampling (piping a~): A ~inimum of t~ ~mpI~ must ~ ~fl~ a~ dept~ of app~tely ~ [~t and s~ [~t for ~e~.l~ l~r ~ o~ pi~ ~n and under the d~n~r 2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 300 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 861.3636 FAX: (805) 861.3429 'RMIT FOR P~~ PERMIT NUMBER A ~ UNDBROROUND HAZARDOUS ~D~ " :BST~ STO~OE FAC~ a. ~1 ~il ~mpl~ ~t~ from ~n~th g~line (l~d~d~) tan~ and appune~n~ m~l ~ a~ for ~c, tolu~e, ~ienc, and to~ ~tmleum ~d~ (for ~liae). b. ~1 mil ~mpl~ ~td~ imm ~n~th di~el mn~ and appuncnan~ m~t ~ a~ for total ~tmicum ~~ (for di~l) and c. ~! ~ll ~mpl~ ~t~ from ~n~th waste oil tan~ and appunenan~ mint ~ ana~ed {or Io~l orphic ~fid~, l~d, oil and g~ d. ~1 ~ll ~mpl~ ~tfi~ Imm ~n~th ~de oil ~n~ and appun~an~ m~t ~ ana~ for oil and g~ e. ~1 ~11 ~mpl~ ~ from ~n~th mn~ and appune~n~ lhat ~nmln un~ su~tan~ m~t ~ ana~ for a full range of su~mn~ that may ~ve ~n sto~ ~t~n the rank ~e foiling timetable i~ p~- and ~t-~nk ~m~al requirement: ~mplete ~it nppli~tion submitt~ ~ I~t ~ w~ p~or to to H~o~ Mal~ Ma~gement Program Notlf~tion to i~tor ~t~ on ~lt of ~te ~ wor~ng ~ and time of ~u~ ~d ~R ~p~g T~m~tion and tmc~g fo~ ~nt to ~om No later lhan 5 wor~ng da~ for t~m~tion and 14 wor~g ~t~ Management P~m~ ~1 ~ous ~te ~ for the truing fo~ after rank ~m~ manif~ mint ~ sign~ ~ the ~ of the Sample'a~l~g to ~om ~t~ Management No ~ter than 3 wor~ng da~ after ~mpletion of a~l~ Program Pu~in~nen~g ~nditiom: a. Liquid sh~l ~ pum~ imm tank p~or ~o pur~ng such that !~ lhan ~ gallom of liquid ~ain in mnL (~H~C 417~) b. .. Tank shall ~ purg~ through vent pi~ d~charging at I~t 10 f~t a~ve ground I~el. (~H~C 417~) ~ No cm~ion s~li ~ult in ~o~ det~mble at or ~ond p~ny lin~ (Ruie 419) · No erosion s~ll endanger the h~lth, ~fe~, ~mfon or ~e of any ~on. (~H&SC 417~) ~ Vmt lin~ shall ~main atmch~ to tank until the i~ctor a~v~ to autho~ ~mo~l. ~CO~DA~ONS/OU~EL~ FOR ~MOV~ OF UNDEROROUND STO~OE T~ ,is department ~ r~nsible for enfo~ing the ~m ~unF O~inan~ ~, D~ion 8 and state regu~tions ~ining to undegmund stooge ~enativ~ from thg de~ment ~nd to job sit~ du~ng tank ~mo~g to e~u~ Ihat the tan~ a~ ~[e to gm~cl~ and t~t ~e ov~ll job ~'.o~tent ~th ~lt ~uiremen~, appll~ble ~ and ~feF smn~ ~e foiling guidelin~ are offe~ to ~ the tnte~ and ~tio~ for ~ob site ~fc~ is one of our pfima~ ~n~. ~tions are inhc~ntly dangem~. It h thc ~nt~cto~s ~ibili~ to ~ and abide ~ ~ulatio~. ~cjob In,mn ~ ~Jblc Ior thc c~ and any su~nlmcto~ on thc job. ~ a general mit, ~e~ a~ not ~it(~ ~ impm~ slo~ ~tio~ or when u~fe ~nditio~ ~st in thc hol~ T~ and ~uipment am to ~ ~ on~ ior.~ dmign~ [un~iom For ~pl~ ~ bu~c~ am n~ su~titat~ for ~dd~ "' Pm~ ~ ~ntmclo~ am ~um~ in ~ndm~nd the ~ui~cn~ of thc ~it ~u~. ~e jgb Iogmn g ~iblc for ~ng ~d abi~ng thc ~nditio~ of thc ~L D~tJon [mm thc ~it ~nditio~ ~ ~uli ~ a ato~rk o~. n~ for ~ch site ~ o~ to d~ a ~ file or m~ il into mitigatiom ~ ~ntm~o~ do not foll~ through on n~ ~ an unmnag~blc bac~og of inmmplcte ~ ~ul~ I[ thg ~ngnu~, p~iag time for ~mpleting n~ dmu~ ~ ~ PI~RMIT FOR PERMANENT CLOSURE PERMIT NUMBER A 1509-15 OF UNDEROROUND HAZARDOUS ADDENDUM SUBSTANCES STORAOE FACILITY 9, Soil Sample analysis: a. All soil samples retrieved from beneath gasoline (leaded/unleaded) tanks and appurtenances must be analyzed for benzene, toluene, xylene, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (for gasoline). b. All soil samples retrieved from beneath diesel tanks and appurtenances must be analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (for diesel) and benzene. c. All soil samples retrieved from beneath waste oil tanks and appurtenances must be analyzed for total organic halides, lead, oil and grease. d. All soil samples retrieved from beneath crude oil tanks and appurtenances must be analyzed for oil and grease. e. All soil samples retrieved from beneath tanks and appurtenances that contain unknown substances must be analyzed for a full range of substances that may have been stored within the tank. 10. The following timetable lists pre- and post-tank removal requirements: ACTIVITY DEADLINE Complete permit application submitted At least two weeks prior to closure to Hazardous Materials Management Program Notification to inspector listed on permit of date Two working days and time of closure and soil sampling Transportation and tracking forms sent to Hazardous No later than $ working days for transportation and 14 working Materials Management Program. All hazardous waste days for the tracking form after tank removal manifests must be signed by the receiver of the hazardous waste Sample'analysis to Hazardous Materials Management No later than 3 working days after completion of analysis Program 11. Purging/Inerting Conditions: a. Liquid shall be pumped from tank prior to purging such that less than 8 gallons of liquid remain in tank. (CSH&SC 41700) b. Tank shall be purged through vent pipe discharging at least 10 feet above ground level. (CSH&SC 41700) c. No emission shall result in odors detectable at or beyond property line. (Rule 419) d. No emission shall endanger the health, safety, comfort or repose of any person. (CSH&SC 41700) e. Vent lines shall remain attached to tank until the inspector arrives to authorize removal. RECOMMENDATIONS/OUIDELINES FOR REMOVAL OF UNDEROROUND STORAOE TANKS This department is responsible for enforcing the Kern County Ordinance Code, Division 8 and state regulations pertaining to underground storage tanks. Representatives from this department respond to job sites during tank removals to ensure that the tanks are safe to remove/close and that the overall job performance is consistent with permit requirements, applicable laws and safety standards. The following guidelines are offered to clarify the interests and e~pectations for this department. 1. Job site safety is one of our primary concerns. Excavations are inherently dangerous. It is the contractor's responsibility to know and abide by CAL-OSHA regulations. The job foreman is responsible for the crew and any subcontractors on the job. As a general rule, workers are not permitted in improperly sloped excavations or when unsafe conditions exist in the hole. Tools and equipment are to be used only for their designed function. For example, backhoe buckets are never substituted for ladders. 2. Properly licensed contractors are assumed to understfind the requirements of the permit issued. The jo.b foreman is responsible for knowing and abiding by the conditions of the permit. Deviation from the permit conditions may result in a stop-work order. 3. Individual contractors will be held responsible for their post-removal paperwork. Tracking forms, hazardous waste manifests and analyses documentation are necessary for each site in order to close a case file or move it into mitigation. When contractors do not follow through on necessary paperwork, an unmanageable backlog of incomplete cases results. If this continues, processing time for completing new closures will increase. CG:cas · 'val509-15.ptc KEI~I COI~TY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACENCY iNTERNAL USE ONLY,, ENVIRCH~ITAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPL]CA'[ION DATE== '~-//'(~ 2700 'H' STREET, SUITE 300 ........ BAKEI~SFIELO. C.A 93301 1~ o~TANKs To (805)861-3536 PIP]HG FT. TO ABNqOON'. (FILL OUT ONE ^PPL]C^T]ON PE. FACILITY) - -- APPLICATION FO..EMIT FOR CLOSURE/ADANCONHENT OF UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE STORAGE FACILITY THIS APPLICATION IS FOR ~ REHOVALo OR [] ABAN[XINHENT IN PLACE A; FACILlrf m~~.. EARL MCFADDEN [~=: 324-2734 []/~U~(.~]~).. ¢~ClLI~f~: CHARLES CHOPS [~01~: 1414 E CALIFORNIA [N~)J~IC~6S LAWRENCE" LODGE %325 '[ ' [STl~[l: R~N[~: 324-2734 C][Y: BAKERSFIELD]~: 93307 HALEY U~R: CHARLES CHOPS LAWRENCE ~: 1414 E CALIFORNIA !$~A]E: CA LODCE ~ ~ n = ' ~: 324-2734 ¢]~: BAKERSFIELD HP: 93307 [ANK~[KN~I~C]~: CALPI, INC. I~. P. O. BOX 6278 IS]DE: CA. ~N[I: (805) 589,5648 !CID: 'BAKERSFIELD I~P:93386 ZIP: 9338,6 L~0P~I0~Y~T#III~i~/ESA~S: sM~--4~'~ ' [HI~E~. 3155 PEGASUS [$~ATE~ CA. ~1: (805) 3.93r3597 [CID: 'BAKERSFIELD ZIP: 93308 [ICAt~Tl~ OF ~TERIAtS STORSO: T~K ~ VOhUME~ ~]CAt STOREO OAT~ STORSO ~]CAC 50~ERCY STORED ~ i --~SOLiNE UNKN ] .... mTm T0 F~iLI~ ~i~ ~: CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE I IS ~T~ H]mZN W F~ Y ~I~ DI~ IF WlmlN ~ ~: [ ~IL ~ AT F~ILi~: SANDY LOAM ~I$~i[~~~~I~H~: KERN COUNTY AGENCY IMP~,~EMENT DIST. %4 ~: (805) 589-5648 GIBSON REFINING DI~ ~ ~ 1~(~): RECYCLE 01~ ~TI~ ~ T~(S): AMR ~lS FO~ H~ BE~ ~LE!EOUNDER P~AL~ OF PERJURY ~O TO ~E B~T OF ~ ~LE~E ,S T~E ~O ~RRECT. ~~ R E C E I P T PAGE 4:19 pm KERN COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 2700 'M' Street Bakersffield, CA 93301 Type o¢ Order W (805) 861-2615 CASH REGISTER CALPI INC H0611913 I YKN I 06/11/91 I 08/11/91 IDD I NT I 1 ....................... I.:L ............. I ............................ I ............................ Line Description Quantity Price Unit Disc Total 1 PERMIT TO CLOSE/ABANDON 1 250.00 E 250.00 Order Total 250.00 Amount Due 250.00 Payment Made By Check 250.00 THANK YOU AND HAVE A NICE DAY! .I FILE CONTE.~ITS SUMMARY PE~IT ~: 1~00~3 ENV. SENSITIVITY: Activity Date # Of Tanks Comments CHARLES CHOPS LAWRENCE LODGE SOIL CONFIRMATION SAMPLING REPORT Project No. 200721 " · October 2002 ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. I I TABLE OF CONTENTS I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' 1 2.0 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 1 I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...................................................................................... 2 3.1 Regional Physiographic Setting ............................................................................ 2 3.2 Regional Hydrogeologic Setting ........................................................................... 2 I 4.0 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................... 2 4.1 Pre-Field Investigation ................................................... ' ....................................... 2 4.2 Soil Sampling ....................... · ................................................................................. 2 I 4.3 Laboratory Analysis : 3 5.0 ' FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. : ......... 3 5.1 Lithology .......................................................... . ............................ 2 ........................ 3 I 5.2 Analytical Results 3 6.0 RISK APPRAISAL .................................. : ........................................................................ 5 6.1 Environmental Fate and Transport Analysis ......................................................... 5 I 6.2 Risk and Hazard Estimation 8 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 8 8.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................... · .............................................. 8 I 9.0 REFERENCES 9 I · 10.0 SIGNATURE PAGE ....................................................................................................... 10 I TABLES I Table 1 Summary of Soil Analytical Results Table 2 Input Data for SESOIL Model I I Table 3 Site SESOIL Model Figure 1 Site Location Map FIGURES Figure 2 Confirmation Boring Location APPENDICES Appendix A Soil Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Results Appendix C~ Copies of Modeling References Appendix D Summary of Modeling Results Appendix E Computer Printouts of SESOIL Modeling Appendix F Summary of SESOIL Run No. 2 Results I I I CHARLES CHOPS LAWRENCE LODGE #325 I SOIL CONFIRMATION SAMPLING REPORT I 1414 E. California Avenue' Bakersfield, California I RAM Project No. 200721 October 2002 I 1.0 INTRODUCTION I Mr. Charles has authorized RAM Environmental Inc. Kirkpatfick Engineering Services, to prepare this Soil Confirmation Sampling Report (Report) for the former underground storage tank (UST) at the Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 (Elks Lodge or Site) located at 1414 E. I California Avenue in Bakersfield, California (Figure 1). Fieldwork was conducted on September 24, 2002 in accordance with a workplan prepared by RAM and approved by the Bakersfield City I Fire Department (City). This Report describes the field procedures, observations, and findings including laboratory results of the soil samples collected at the Site. I 2.0 BACKGROUND I The Site was an operating service station until the mid-1970s. In July 1985, the property that included two 10,000-gallon USTs was purchased by Elks Lodge # 325. Elks Lodge # 325 never used the tanks and had them removed in August 1991. Subsurface soil investigations indicated I elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were present beneath the tank area to 60 feet below ground surface (bgs). RAM was contracted by the Elks Lodge to assume work at the Site in May 1996, at which time RAM installed four soil vapor extraction wells and conducted a soil I vapor extraction pilot study. Based on the results of the study, RAM recommended operating a full-scale vapor extraction system to remediate the impacted soil. I In a letter dated December 9, 1997, the City concurred with RAM's recommendation. A soil vapor extraction system (SVES) that included the vapor wells, a manifold system and an electric catalytic oxidizer was subsequently installed at the Site. Operation of the SVES began on April I26, 2000 and continued until June 28, 2002 (with some downtime due to mechanical problems). Status reports on the system operation were prepared and submitted to the City by RAM on a quarterly basis. I In the first quarter 2002 report, RAM had estimated the project had removed 2,446 pounds' of hydrocarbons from subsurface soils at the Site. RAM had also requested the City to make a I on operation be to June 2002. The City determination whether of the VES could extended concurred for additional SVES operation only until that time, since the daily extraction rate of the system had significantly decreased. At that time the City also requested that a workplan be I I 2000_02_721_05 report 1 ! Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 Soil Confirmation Sampling Report October 2002 prepared for the soil confirmation sampling. The workplan was prepared by RAM and was approved by the City on September 10, 2002; and work commenced on-site on September 24, 2002. I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING I 3.1 Regional Physiographic Conditions The Site lies on the eastern margin of the San Joaquin Valley, near the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range and near the southwest comer of Section 28, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, Mt. Diablo Baseline & Medriidan. The Site, with an elevation of approximately 408 feet above mean sea level, lies on the Kern River fan which, exhibits low local relief. Ground surface in the Site vicinity slopes gently I southward at a rate of approximately 15 feet per mile (USGS, 1973). 3.2 Regional Hydrogeologic Setting i · The Site is located in the southern Portion of the Great Valley geornrphic province. ' The ~· Great Valley is a large, northwestward-trending, asymmetric structural trough that has been filled with as much as 6 miles of sediment in the San Joaquin Valley. The I I sediments range in age from Jurassic to Holocene. Granitic and metamorphic rocks crop '· out along most of the eastern and southeastern flanks of the Great Valley. The post- Eocene-aged continental rocks and deposits contain most of the fresh groundwater, and are underlain by saline water at depth in most places. They range in thickness from zero along the flanks of the Great Valley to more than 15,000 feet in the extreme southern I part. Mostly fine-grained sediments lie along the southeastern flank of the San Joaquin i~ I Valley (Page, 1986). The estimated depth of groundwater in the general area of the Site is 175 feet bgs as I indicated in Kern County Water Water Supply 1997. Agency Report 4.0 SCOPE OF WORK I The scope of work for this investigation was presented in the Soil Sampling Workplan submitted i to the City in August 2002. 4.1 Pre-Field Investigation i Prior to conducting subsurface field activities, RAM notified the City and Mr. Kirkpatrick of proposed drilling schedule. Drilling activities were conducted on September 24, 2002 I 4.2 Soil Sampling The locations of the confirmation borings are shown in Figure 2. Due to difficulty in I locating the vapor extraction wells under the asphalt (as reference points), boring locations were estimated based on existing scaled drawings of the Site. Further exploration of the Site at a later date indicated confirmation boring CB1 was located ! 2000_02_721_05 report 2 I Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 Soil Confirmation'Sampling Report " I October 2002 approximately 8 feet north of vapor extraction well VE2 and CB2 was approximately 4 I feet south of VEl. I CB1 was drilled to a total depth of 50 feet bgs while CB2 was drilled to 65 feet bgs. Soil samples were collected at 5-foot intervals beginning at 10 feet bgs for geologic logging, field screening, and laboratory analysis. A portion of each 5-foot interval sample was I placed in a recloseable plastic bag~ then screened for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a photoionization detector (PID, Photovac 2020). After field screening, the samples were logged by a California registered geologist using the United Soil I Classification System. A total of eight samples were selected for laboratory analysis based on the PID readings. Samples with the highest readings were chosen to obtain a representation of the worst impaction. I CB 2 was backfilled with hydrated bentonite chips to the surface and CB 1 was backfilled with the drill cuttings. Drill cuttings from CB2 were placed in DOT- approved drums I and left onsite for disposal at a later date. RAM will assist Elks Lodge in the proper disposal of the remaining cuttings if requested. I 4.3 Laboratory Analyses All the samples collected were analyzed for the following constituents using EPA approved methods: I · Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg, carbon range C4-C'12) using i EPA Method 8260 and GC/MS combination; and · Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX) and fuel oxygenate methyl i tert-butyl ether 0VITBE) using EPA Method 8260 and GC/MS combination Analyses were performed by BC Laboratories in Bakersfield, California, a state certified I laboratory for the above methods. ' I 5.0 FINDINGS 5.1' Lithology I Subsurface soils as observed in soil borings CB 1 consist generally of silty sand and some clay while soils in CB2 consist generally of clayey silts and also some clay. Fine to coarse grained sand was also encountered at 30 to 40 feet bgs in CB2. Detailed I description of the soil lithology is presented in the soil logs included as Appendix A. 5.2 Analytical Results I The analytical results are summarized in Table 1 below and 'included as Appendix B. I I 2000_02_721 _05 report 3 ! Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 Soil Confirmation Sampling Report I October 2002 I I Table 1 Summary of Analytical Results Soil Boring Depth Benzene I Ethylbenzenel Toluene [ XylenesI MTBE I TPH-g No. (ft) (mglkg) CB1 20 < 0,005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.01 0.005 < 1 CB1 35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0,01 0.005 < 1 CB1 50 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.01 0.005 < 1 CB2 15 < 0.05 44 12 550 < 0.05 4500 CB2" 35 < 0.05 130 140 650 < 0.05 2800 CB2 45 0.67 110 240 620 <0.1 3900 CB2 60 < 0.005 ' < 0.005 0.0055 0.011 < 0.005 <1 CB2 65 0.021 0.0077 0.032 0.039 < 0.005 <1 PRG's Residential Soil 0.6 8,9 520 270 17' NS PRG's Industrial Soil 1.3 20 520 420 36 NS Soil Screening Level DAF 1 0.002 0.7 0.6 10 NS NS Soil Screening Level DAF 200.03 13 12 210 NS NS Soil Screening Level DAF 100 0.2 70 60 1000 ~ NS NS LUFT Manual Table 2-1 1 50 50 50 NS 1000 Notes: PRG's - Preliminary Remediation Goal from EPA Region 9, October 2002. DAF - Dilution attenuation factor; 20 is EPA's default value. 17'- Cai Modified PRG NS - none specified I The above analytical results (CB2) show some decrease in concentrations compared to the concentrations detected prior to the vapor extraction operation (fi.om VEl soil samples). TPHg concentrations remained elevated to 45 feet bgs. I Results from CB 1 indicated no gasoline impaction at that location. These results indicate vapor extraction was very effective or the impaction did not extend beyond 8 feet north of I the VE2. Regardless, the information provides better delineation of the aerial extent of the plume (to the north). Data from both confirmation borings indicate the vertical extent remained at 45 feet bgs., with trace amounts at 65 feet bgs. I I 2000_02 721 05 report 4 I Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 Soil Confirmation Sampling Report I October 2002 I 6.0 RISK APPRAISAL The confirmation sampling results indicate impacted soil was not remediated to levels below I generally accepted cleanup levels such as the preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) and the California LUFT manual action levels. Benzene concentration (0.67 mg/kg) at the 45-fi sample in CB2 was slightly over the PRG for residential soil (0.60 mg/kg) but below the PRG for I industrial soil (1.3 mg/kg). The only other benzene detected was at the 65-fi sample, the concentration (0.021 mg/kg) of which is significantly below the residential PRG. Toluene concentrations were all below the PRGs for both residential and industrial soil. MTBE was not Idetected in any of the samples analyzed. Ethylbenzene and xylene concentrations exceeded both PRGs. The TPHg concentrations were over the generally accepted 1,000 mg/kg action level at sites where groundwater is present 100 feet bgs. There is no listed PRG for TPHg. I In addition to the PRG's, generic soil screening levels (SSLs) using dilution-attenuation factors of 1 and 20 are also available from the US EPA Region 9 for the protection of groundwater. The I DAF accounts for natural processes that reduce contaminant levels in the subsurface. Most of the CB2 samples collected from 45 feet and above exceeded the generic DAF-20 concentration for BTEX. Since groundwater at the site is well over 100 feet bgs and subsurface soil is I primarily silt, a more appropriate and still conservative DAF for the site would be 100. A DAF of 100 would raise the trigger levels as shown in Table 1. I 6.1 Environmental Fate and Transport Analysis Since the concentrations of the chemicals of concem (COCs) in some of the samples analyzed exceeded one or more of the generally accepted action levels, a fate and I transport analysis was performed, potential to migrate to the The of these chemicals surface and to groundwater was evaluated using the computer model SESOIL. The SESOIL used is the version that was incorporated in the American Petroleum Institute I Decision Support System (API DSS) Version 2. i For modeling purposes, the exposure routes used are from drinking water and vapor inhalation. These two routes are the likely pathways for any potential exposure of humans to the COCs. Simulation was run for 30 years. The parameters used to run the SESOIL i model is summarized in Table 2 and the computer printout of these parameters is included as Appendix C. A site model (Table 3) was also prepared for reference for inputting site specific and assumed data into the program. A copy of the references is I included as Appendix C. The results of the SESOIL modeling indicate none of the COCs will reach the estimated I groundwater depth of 175 feet bgs in 30 years. Low levels of the COCs were predicted to migrate to the surface. A summary of the results is included in Appendix D. Computer printouts for the SESOIL modeling for the first the last three years of the thirty years I simulation time are included as Appendix E. A second SESOIL simulation was made assuming groundwater at 100 feet bgs. The results indicated none of the COCs will reach groundwater in the 30 year period use. A table summarizing this run is included as I Appendix F. I 2000_02_721_05 report 5 Table 2 DATA FOR SESOIL MODEL PARAMETER VALUES LAYER 1 LAYER 2 LAYER 3 LAYER 4 UNITS SOURCE Simulation time 50 ~ears ~rofessional iudgment No. of Layers 4 N/A )rof, Judgment based on site assessment data No. of Sublayers/Layers 1 2 3 2 N/A )rof. Judgment based on site assessment data Solubility Default * mg/I chemical specific Diffusion Coefficient in AirDefault cm2/sec chemical specific Henry's Law Constant Default Img/I)/(mg/I) chemical specific Koc Default ug/g oc/ug/ml chemical specific Overall decay rate 0 l/day worst case; prof. Judgment Surface Temperature 30 ideg C professional iudgment Evapotranspiration 0.3 ~rofessional judgment Precipitation 14.9 'cm/yr KCWA., 1997 data Storm Duration 1 ,days National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Storm Events 11 event/yr National Climatic Data Center --ffective Porosity 0.3 oC )rof. Judgment basedon site assessment data Soil Bulk Density 1.55 Ig/cm3 APl DSS Handbook Soil Discon Index 6.5 N/A APl DSS Handbook X-dim of source 10.7 m site assessment data Y-dim of source 12.2 'm site assessment data Thickness of the layer 3.1 9.1 10.7 32.0 m site assessment data Intrinsic Permeability 1.00E-08 2.50E-09 5.00E-11 1.00E-08 cra2 APl DSS Handbook; prof. Judgment :raction VOC allowed 0.2 professional judgment Fraction Organic Carbon 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 conservative assumption; prof. Judgment Chemical Concentration See Model site assessment data ~draulic Conductivity 1.00E+01 mid conservative assumption; USGS WS Paper 2220 -lydraulic Gradient 0.01 rolm site Specific Depth of Mixing Zone 1.5 m )rofessional judgment Table 3 SITE SESOIL MODEL Layer Sublayer Depth Soil Type TPHg Benzene Toluene Xylenes Ethylbenzene (ft) (mg/I) (mg/I) (mg/I) (mg/I) (mg/I) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 5 SW 1 10 ML 15 ML 4500 0.05 12 550 44 II 20 SW 4500 0.05 12 550 44 2 25 ML 30 SW 35 ML 2800 0.05 140 650 130 1 40 SW 45 CL 3900 0.67 240 620 110 III 2 50 SC 55 ML 60 CL 1 0.005 0.006 0.011 0.005 3 65 ML 1 0.021 0.032 0.039 0.0077 0 0 0 IV 1 100 0 0 0 2 175 NOTES: 1) Groundwater depth was estimated to be 175 feet bgs (KCWA, Spring 1998). 2) Chemical concentrations in sublayers where analysis was not availbale were assumed as indicated in italics. 3) PQL concentrations were used where concentrations are less than PQLs. 3) Soil type between 0 to 10' depth was assumed to be sand (conservative assumption). ! Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 Soil Confirmation Sampling Report I October 2002 I 6.2 Risk and Hazard Estimation In addition to the potential migration of the COCs, the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks were estimated using the concentrations that were calculated in the SESOIL I modeling. Ethylbenzene has not been known to be a carcinogen, but has carcinogenic slope factors for inhalation and oral routes listed in the most recent PRG tables. Hence, carcinogenic risk was evaluated along with benzene. Toluene and xylenes are not known I to be carcinogens. Risk factors are not available for TPHg. In order to evaluate a · conservative risk from TPHg, the risk factors for toluene were used. I The results indicate the total carcinogenic risks for benzene and ethylebenzene to be well below the generally accepted standard of one in a million. The total hazard index is 0.00188, which is also significantly below the accepted standard of one. I 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I From April 2000 to June 2002, RAM operated a SVE system to remove gasoline from a former U.S.T., which had contaminated the soils beneath it. After the SVE was removed, RAM sampled I the soils and evaluated the lab analysis. Based on the results of this investigation, RAM concludes that gasoline constituents above the current regulatory levels still remain in the soils beneath the location of the former UST system at the Elks Lodge site. However, approximately I 2,400 pounds of petroleum hydrocarbons have been removed during two of remediation by years vapor extraction. Extraction rate of the system has significantly decreased which indicate remediation by vapor extraction is no longer cost effective. A risk assessment performed I remaining not migrate to groundwater (175 bgs) 30 indicated the concentrations will feet in the years modeled. The calculated total carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks for the assumed' exposure routes were well below the generally accepted standards. I ' RAM recommends that no additional active remediation be conducted and the remaining icontamination be left in place and allowed to degrade further by biodegradation and other natural attenuation mechanisms. The source of contamination has been removed, and there are no hydrological forces to increase transport of COC in soils. I 8.0 LIMITATIONS I RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. has prepared this Report, for the exclusive use of Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 in c/o Charles Kirkpatrick as it pertains to the property located at1414 E. Califronia Avenue, California. Our professional services have been performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by other professionals practicing in this field. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the Iprofessional advice in the Report. Any use of or reliance on this Report by a third party shall be at such phrty's sole risk. I I 2000 02 721 05 rcpofl 8 ] Charles Chops Lawrence' Lodge #325 Soil Confirmation Sampling Report October 2002 RAM assumes no responsibility for site conditions or activities that were outside the scope of the inquiry requested by Mr. Kirkpatrick. It is recognized that regulatory requirements may change, including the revision of accepted action levels, which could necessitate a review of the discussion, findings, recommendations or opinions of the Report. 8.0 REFERENCES RAM Environmental Engineering Services, 1997, Elks Lodge #325 Remedial Investigation Report, Bakersfield, California. RAM Environmental Engineering Services, 2002, Status Report, First Quarter 2002 Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325, Bakersfield, California. Kern County Water Agency, Water Supply Report, 1997. Bakersfield Fire Department, Prevention Services, 04/08/2002 Correspondence to RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. Bakersfield Fire Department, Prevention Services, 09/10/2002 Correspondence to RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. American Petroleum Institute, API's Decision Support System for Exposure and Risk Assessment, Version 2.0, 1999. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Preliminary Remediation Goals Table, 2002. I 2000_02_721 _05 report 9 Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325 Soil Confirmation Sampling Report October 2002 9.0 SIGNATURE PAGE This Confirmation Sampling Report for Charles Chops Lawrence Lodge #325, dated October 31, 2002 was prepared by RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. under the responsible charge of the following professionals: vo ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii~~.~ . '%\ Dolores Gough, P.E. l[ ~-[ ~,~, ,- ..... J~ }] P rojectEngineer C Richard M. Casagrand~, REHS ia~-~Av'~*' ~t(~ ~.~~ President ~t~.~~~ 2000 02 nl 05~m~ 10 I I I I I I I I I I FIGURES I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I ENGINEERING Elks Lodge #325 Figure ] RAM SERVICES, INC. 4 E. California Ave., Bakersfield, CA Site Location Map Project No.: 200721 Date: 11/07/02 I ', m m I ~ ~ ~ ~ YE2 Approximate ]i~t ; f I I I ~ ~Hg remaining I I ' ~ VE3 m m , : ~.~ ~,~"s~ ,s~s I ~st C~ifor~ia Avo. m .... SITE PROERTY LINE (CURB) APPROXIMATE SC~E (FEET) j~ m ~ vAPoR EXTRACI)ON WELL VE4~ m ~ CONFIRMATION BORING m ENVIRONMENTAL Elk's Lodge No. 325 Figure 2 ~ri;~,~ RAM ENGINEERING m1414 E. California Avenue, Confirmation Boring Location '~"~'~ SERVICES, INC. Bakersfield, CA Project No.: 200721 Date: 10/23/02 APPENDIX A SOIL BORING LOGS RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. ~"i?~_'-: 2103 20th Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301 Tel: (661) 324-6152 Fax: (661) 324-6172 Page 1 of 2 Project Name: Elks Lodge # 325 Drilling Date: 09/24/2002 Loaction: 1414 E. California Ave., Bakersfield, CA Test Hole No.: CB2 Project No.: 200721 Logged By: Sarah Bartling Sample PID Blow Hole Depth Tim(~ Rdg. Counts Soil Description Completion 0' No sample collected. 5' No 5-fl sample collected. 10' 0835 463 12 ML - very clayey silt, soft, light brown-tan, dry. 14 . 28 I Hydrated _'.~- · bentonite ~ 15' 0840 685 9 ML - as above, slightly damp. chips 19 20' 0848 291 9 SW - fine to coarse grained sand, fine (50%), meal (20%), coarse (30%), 15 soft, tan, dry, 10-20% dark minerals/lithics. 16 25' 0855 630 14 ML- very fine sandy silt, 30-40% very fine sand, soft, tan, dry. 20 30' 0908 644 1'0 SW - fine to coarse clayey sand, 10-20% clay, 40% fine, 20% coarse, 11 well graded, soft, tan-light brown, dry, 10% dark minerals/lithics. 15 35' 0915 871 13 ML - clayey silt, 30% clay, soft, tan-light brown, dry. 15 40' 0927 789 11 SW - silty, fine to coarse sand, 40-50% fine, 20% coarse, silt, soft, tan, 14 10% dark minerals/lithics, dry. 45' 0940 1062 9 CL - silty clay, soft, light orange brown, damp, koalinitic 10%. 7 50' 0950 0 8 SC- clayey sand, silty, fine to medium sand, soft, light brown, damp. 20 No HC odor. 17 Page 2 of 2 Project Name: Elks Lodge # 325 Drilling Date: 09/24/2002 Loaction: 1414 E. California Ave.', Bakersfield, CA Test Hole No.: CB2 Project No.: 200721 Logged By: Sarah Bartling, PID Blow Depth Time Rdg. Counts Soil Description 55' 0958 0 8 ML - clayey, fine sandy silt, fine sand 10%, soft, ligkt olive brown, damp. 9 No HC odor. 25 60' 1015 13 13 CL - silty clay, trace sand, soft, light olive brown, damp. 17 Slight HC odor. 19 65' 1030 0 17 ML - clayey silt, trace sand, soft, light orange brown, damp. J 35 No HC odor. 33 Hydrated bentonite chips Total depth = 65 feet. Hole backfilled with hydrated bentonite chips. I I I I I I I i APPENDIX B LABORATORY RESULTS I I I I I I I I I __ Certified Analytical Report Cover - Page 1 of 1 £aboratories, Inc. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 ET~ ~ f'~ ~" :? ~:,~? ~';~.',.:':~ ~:~/ COC Number: Attn: DOLORES GOUGH . ,.i II~) ECL Number: 02-09683 Dear Ms. Gough: This repoA contains the anal~ical results for the samples received under chain of custody by BC Laboratories, Inc. The samples were logged into the Laborato~ Information Management System (LIMS) and BC Lab numbers were assigned to each sample. The result of the temperature check, condition of the samples and any other discrepancies were recorded on the cooler receipt form.  All applicable quality contrOl procedures met method-specific acceptance criteria, except as noted on the following anal~ical and quality control repoAs. ~ This repoA shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the ' laborato~. California DOHS Ce~ification ~1186 I Authorized Signature !~ll res~d~ lis~cd i~ ~his re?ri are 1Bt the exclusive use of the submitting pa~xy~ BC Laboratories. Inc. assumes no re~ponsiBiliW for repo~x aheration~ detachment or lhird pa~Xy iale~retalion. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakersfield. CA 93308 * (661)327-4911 * Fax(661)327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Laboratories, Inc.Chain of Custody Form ~, 2 310 Page__~ :lient: ~'/~/'~) /~/~ [~~~t ~: ~ ~ ) ~ttn: t~b~ ~]'-~/~/~ [PrdjectName:~//~ Comments: gtreet Addres~/~ ~/~ ' ~Project Code: gubmittal ~, 0~- O ~ & ~ ~ ~ Ye~ ~ No ~ . D:: ~ . . . ~ Standard Turnaround = 15workdays I I Il/ii I ~ ~o,es -[ f C~/~ m/ I~ ~//z ~ ~ ~ame as above Report Drin~ng Sample Disposal Special Reporting Waters on State Form? ~ Return to Client ~ Disposal by lab ~ ~chive: Months .......... ~ ~ ~ ~ WIP ~ ~aw Data Client: ~ Yes ~ No 1. ~nquished By~ , Date .Time 1. Received By {~ . re, ~ .Time Address: 2.~linquished g~ I Date' j ....... ~ '' ~ime 2. Re~e~e~By .... Send Copy to State of / - Time Ci~: ~ State Zip CA? Attn:pog: ~ Yes ~ No 3. Relinquished By Date Time 3. Received By Date j Time BC Laboratories, Inc. - 4100 At~s Ct. -Bakersfield, CA 93308 - 661.327.4911 -F~: 661.327.1918 - www.bc~bs.com ~ Laboratories, Inc. Chain of Custody Form 12308 gtreetnddress: Z103 20.~ ~. ~ProjectCode: /~fi~ . :i~,State, Zip: ~~9~ ~))ol[Sampler(s)~ . ~ ?hone: ~-~l ~ Fax: 324 -&l 3 z] . ,. ~mail Address: I .~a~:'q:;:::~ ~~~~e~atrlx ~ ~ ~ Are there an~t~t~u~t::' '}~l~i~r}i'~'es less t h a n ,.,~-,J ~ . I I I I ~ -~l ~z-~' ~1~ I~ l,o~O ~,~ / v' ~ ' ~1 I/ , Waters on State Form? g Return to Client Disposal by lab ~ ~chive: Months .......... g OO ~ WIP ~ flaw 1. Relinquished By' .~ : D~e Time .~~~ ~Jl ~ Time 21lent: ~ Yes ~ No ~ ' ~ ' ~D.te Time ~c~iveQ By ~Dat, '/~/Time Sead Copy to State of 2. li~is~d~ ~i~: State ~ Zip Cm 'Og:~ttn: -- ~ Yes ~ No ~.' a,~ia~,is~ B~ Dat, j Ti~e ~. ~cei~ By g~te Tim, BC Laboratories, Inc. - 41OO Atlas Ct. -Bakersfield, C3 93308 - 66~.327.4911 -F~: 661.327.1918 - www.bc~bs.com BC LABORATORIES INC. SAMPLE RECEIPT FORM Rev. No. 8 06/12/02 Page ~ Of ,_~' Submission #: ~ ~_ (~C~(.~ I Projec~ Code: I TB Batch # SHIPPING INFORMATION SHIPPING CONTAINER Federal Express I-I UPS [] Hand Delivery ~ Ice Chest ~ None [] BC Lab Field Service [] Other [] (Specify)~ Box [] Other [] (Specify) Refrigerant: Ice ~'"'~B'lue Ice~/"None [] Other [] Comments: i ~Custody Seals:" ~ ~ ~ None .~Comments: All samples received? Yes~ NoD All samples containers intact? Yei~'~ NoD Description!s) match CCC? Yes~/No O ~EC Received IceChestlD. ~ Emissivity ,/ D. ate/]'iF~('~/.~./~-- Temperature:{,.~' ~ °C Container ~,~-t ~1~)~-- An~alis~n.d~l '~,~ S [] NO Thermometer ID: ] ~AMPLE NUMBERS SAMPLE CONTAINERS ] 1 I 2 ] 3 I 4 ] 5 ] 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 aT GENERAL MINERAL/GENERAL PHYSICAL ri' PE UNPRESERVED QT INORGANIC CHEMICAL METALS PT INORGANIC CHEMICAL METALS PT CYANIDE PT NITROGEN FORMS PT TOTAL SULFIDE Zoz. NITRATE / NITRITE 100mi TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON QT TOX PT CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 100mi PHENOLICS 140mi VOA VIAL TRAVEL BLANK t0ml VOA VIAL PT ODOR RADIOLOGICAL BACTERIOLOGICAL PT EPA 504 QT EPA $08/605/8080 QT 515.1/8150 EPA QT EPA 525' QT EPA 525 TRAVEL BLANK 100ral EPA 547 100mi EPA 531.1 QT EPA 548 QT EPA 549 QT EPA 632 QT EPA 8015M QT QAJQC QT AMBER 8 OZ. JAR 32 OZ. JAR soi~ SLEEVE I ( t I 1. I I I ( ( PCB VIAL PLASTIC BAG IComments: Sample Numbering Completed By: (.~ Date/Time: '~"~ ~-~'~ / ~ [H:\DOCS\WP80\LAB_DOCS\FORMS\SAMREC2.WPD] BC LABORATORIES INC. SAMPLE RECEIPT FORM Rev. No. 8 06112102 Page _~_ Of Submission #: cg~"Ot~p~.~ [ Projec~ Code: [ TB Batch SHIPPING INFORMATION~ SHIPPING CONTAINER Federal Express ~ UPS ~ Hand Delivery ~ Ice Chest ~~ None BC Lab Field Service ~ Other ~ (Specify). Box ~ Other ~ (Specify) Refrigerant: Ice ~ue Ice~'None ~ Other ~ Comments: Custody Seals:[~[~ ' ~ None .~mments: All samples received? Yes ~ No D All samples containers intact? Yes~ No ~ Description(s) match CCC? Yes C~IS Received Ice Chest ID. _ Emissivity ~ Temperature:~ ' ~ °C Container ~~ A~ j ' D NO The~ometet ID: ~ ~& . I SAMPLE NUMBERS QT GENERAL MINE~L/GENE~L PHYSICAL ~T INORGANIC CHRMICAL METES ~ INORGANIC CHEMICAL M~TALS ~ NITROGEN FO~S ~ TOTAL ~oz. NIT~TE ] NITRITE 100~ TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON QT TOX ~ CH~M1CAL OXYGEN I00~ PHENOLICS 40~ VOA VIAL T~VEL BLANK 40~ VOA V~L ~ ODOR ~DIOLOGICAL BA~ERIOLOG1CAL ~ EPA 5~ QT EPA 508160818080 QT EPA 515.115150 QT EPA 5~5' QT EPA 5~5 T~VEL B~NK 100mi EPA ~7 100mi EPA 531.1 QT EPA ~8 QT EPA 549 QT ~PA 632 QT EPA 8015M ~QT Q~QC ~T AMBER g OZ. SAR 32 OZ. JAR PCB VIAL PLASTIC BAG Comments: Sample Numbering Completed By: ~{~ D~temm,: ~?-~ ~F~ IH :~DOCS~WPSO~LAB_DOCS~FORMS~SAMREC ~.WPD] BC LABORATORIES INC. SAMPLE RECEIPT FORM Rev. No. 8 06112/02 Page _~ Of __~ Submission #: (~-- (~'~_~ I Projec~ Code: ~ TB Batch SHIPPING INFORMATION/ SHIPPING CONTAINER Federal Express D UPS ~ Hand Delivery ~ Ice Chest ~ None BC Lab Field Service ~ Other ~ (Specify). Box ~ Other ~ (Specify) Refrigerant: Ice ~lue Ice~None ~ Other ~ Comments: Cust°dySeals:l I ~ None.~mments: C C Received ~ce Chest ID. -- o Emissivity Temperature:~~ ~ ~C Container ~~ ~ ) [ '~, ~tS ~ NO Thermometer ID:~~ ~ ' Analy~t- ~ PE UNPRESERVED ~QT INORGANIC CHEMICAL METES ~PT INORGANIC CHEMICAL META~ ~ CYANIDE ~ NI~OGEN FORMS ~ TOTAL SULFIDE ~oz. NIT~TE / NITRITE 100mi TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON QT TOX ~ CHEMICAL OXYGEN DE.ND 100mi PHENoLICS 40~ VOA VIAL T~VEL BLANK 40~ VOA VIAL VOA SET ( I ~ { ~ QT EPA 413.1,413.~, 418.1 ~ ODOR ~DIOLOGICAL BA~ERIOLOGICAL ~ EPA 504 QT EPA 508/608/8080 QT EPA 515.1/8150 QT EPA QT EPA 5Z5 T~VEL BLANK 100mi EPA 547 100mi EPA 531.1 QT EPA 548 QT EPA 549 ~QT EPA 63Z IQT EPA 8015M QT Q~QC QT AMBER 8 OZ. JAR t2 OZ. JAR SOIL SLEEVE PCB VIAL PLASTIC BAG I Comments: Sample Numbering Completed By: ~'~ Date/Time: Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons COC Number -._ Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 ............ Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 11:35 Sampling Location ELKS iSample Depth --- Sampling Point CB1-20' iSample Matrix Soil ;Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID I02-09683-3 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:::::;:::::::::¥:::::::::%;;;;~¥;;;;;;;;;;;;;i:::;;;;;i:; :::~i~:i~i~i~::~i!i~i::~i:i:i:i~i~i~5~i:i~i:i~i~:;~i?:~i~ii~ii:i~:i~i~i~i~i?:i~i~i~i~ i~i~?5~:ii~i:i:i~i~ii~ii.!.::::~?:?:i~?::~i~ii::i~i~?:i :ii?~i~iiii?ili!?i!!?i~?;ii~i!i~::i?~:::~?:~?! :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..................................................... ::iiiiii~ii~i~iiiifi~ii?:!i!~ilililili~?:iiii~iiiil iiiii~6~i5 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: i::iii~;iiii~'t ~a:;~:~:~:~ ......................................................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:~::~;:~:~:~:~:~:~:r~ m:~:~:~:~;~:~::~: ~::~-~:~:~:::~:~:~:~ ~:~::::~ ................. Gasolino Range Oroanics < POt. mo/k~ 1 0.04~ 8015M 0~/30/02 09/$0/02 20:30 TLF GG-V8 1 302-~0032~ ND :~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ii!i!ii~i~iiiiili~:: ~iiii~!!il}}i::!ii!}iiiiiiii!i::iiiiii::i iiiii~:.i~ii !:!:!~:!~:i:!:i:!:i:i~:i~:i:!~:i:ii:i:i:i::~ :!ili!i!g'gt~:~;i;ii: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: iii?:?:i:.!?:i!i}i!::!?:::i:::.i~i!::i}i}::i?:!ii???:ii!}i ::!i!??:i:??:iii'~:~??:!::i?:!::!?: i!?i:i!}!!i::i~:~'~i!i!ii!!!??i?:i::i a,a,a-Tdfluorotoluene (8015 Surrogate) 96 % 70-130 8015M 09/30/02 09/30/02 20:30 'rLF GC-V8 1 I 302-~00321 California DOHS Certification #1186 All resulc~ listed in this report are for the exclusive use oft. he submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party interpretation. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakersfield, CA 93308 * (661) 327-4911 * FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/03/2002 13:51:59 02-09683-3 Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons COC Number --- Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 12:03 Sampling Location ELKS Sample Depth ~-- Sampling Point CB1-35' Sample Matrix Soil Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID 02-09683-6 Gasoline Range Organics < PQL rog/kg 1 I 0.046 8015M 09/30/02 09/30/02 21:29 TLF GO~V8 1 302-100321 ND a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (8015 ~ Surrogate) 102 % 70-130 8015M 09/30/02 09/30/02 21:29, TLF GC-V8 1 302-100321 California DOHS Certification #1 186 All results listed in this report are for the exclu.siv¢ use oft. he submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party interpretation. 4100 Atlas Cour~ * Bakersfield, CA 93308 * (661) 327-4911 * FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/03/2002 13:52:08 02-09683-6 Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons COC Number .... Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 12:40 Sampling Location ELKS !Sample Depth --- Sampling Point CB1-50' Sample Matrix Soil Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID 102-09683-9 Gasoline Range Organics < PQL mg/kg 1 0.046 8015M 09/30/02 09/30/02 22:28 TLF GC-V8 1 302-100321 ND a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (8015 Surrogate) 96 % 70-130 8015M 09~30~02 09~30~02 22:28 TLF GC-V8 1 302-100321 California DOHS Certification #1186 All results listed in this report arc for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party interpretation. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakemfield, CA. 93308 * (661) 327-4911 * FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/03/2002 13:52:16 02-09683-9 Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons COC Number ___ Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 08:40 Sampling Location ELKS Sample Depth --- Sampling Point CB2-15' Sample Matrix Soil ....................... Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID 02-09683-11 ........ ':.'.'.'.'.'.':.'-'.'.'.'.'==.'...'.-'-'-'.'. ............................................................. '.":.'.':.".'.".'.'.'.'.'.'.. ................ ' .'.':='.,,,,- ..................................... :i:iii:i:i~:i~:i~: i:i:iR~q::¥~: :~.:~+:+:~.:.:.z~.:.:~.z~.:+ i!:i:i:ii~$~ru~:~::::t:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::x :i:i:i:i? Gasoline Range Organics 4500 mg/kg 500 23 8015M 09/30/02 09/30/02 23:26 TLF GC-V8 500 302-100321 ND I A09 ·iii:!;;~iii:i:}:i~i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::?::~:~:~::;;:~:~:::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::~:::;:~::~:::::~;:~:~:::~ ............................................................................................................ a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (8015 Surrogate) 106 % 70-130 8015M 09/30/02 09/30/02 23:26 TLF GC-V8 500 302-100321 IFlag J~-xplanations IA09 JPQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring sample dilution. California DOHS Certification #1186 All resulk~ listed m this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, [nc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or tl]ird party interpretation. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakersfield, CA 93308 * (661) 327-491 l * FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/03/2002 13:51:20 02-09683-11 Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons COC Number --- Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 09:15 Sampling Location ELKS Sample Depth --- Sampling Point :CB2-35' Sample Matrix Soil Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID 02-09683-15 Gasoline Range Organics 2800 mg/kg 500 23 8015M 10/01/02 10/01/02 00:25 TLF GC-V8 500 302-100321 ND A09 a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (8015 Surrogate) 102 % 70-130 8015M 10/01/02 10/01/02 00:25 TLF ~ GC-V8 500 302-100321 I Fla.cl Explanations lA09 PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring sample dilution. California DOHS Certification #1186 All results listed in this report arc for the exclusive use of the submitting part~. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or ddrd part3, interpretauon. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakersfield, CA 93308 * (6611 327-4911 * FAX (6611 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/03/2002 13:51:24 02-09683-15 Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Purgeable Aromatics and Total PetroleUm Hydrocarbons COC Number --- Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 !Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 09:40 Sampling Location ELKS , iSample Depth --- Sampling Point CB2-45' Sample Matrix Soil Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID 02-09683-17 Gasoline Range Organics 3900 mg/kg 500 23 8015M 10/01/02 10/01/02 01:24 TLF GC-V8 I 500 302-100321 ND $09,A09 a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (8015 Surrogate) 142 % 70-130 8015M 10101102 10101102 01:24 TLF GO-V8 500 I302.100321 t so9 Flag Explanations A09 PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring sample dilution. - .... S09 The surrogate recovery on the sample for this compound was not within the control limits. California DOHS Certification #1186 All results listed in this report arc for the exclusive use oft. he submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc, assumes no responsibility for report alteration, scparation, detachment or *dzird party interpretation. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakersfield, CA 93308 * (661) 327-4911 * FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/03/2002 13:51:32 02-09683-17 Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons COC Number --- Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 10:15 Sampling Location ELKS Sample Depth --- Sampling Point !CB2-60' Sample Matrix Soil Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID 02-09683-20 Gasoline Range Organics < PQL mg/kg 1 0.046 8015M 10/02/02 10/02/02 07:56 TLF I GC-V8 I 302-100321 ND a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (8015 Surrogate) 101 % 70-130 8015M 10/02/02 10/02/02 07:56 TLF GC-V8 1 302-100321 California DOHS Certification #1186 All result.~ listed in this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation,-detachment or ddrd party interpretation. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakersfield, CA 93308 * (661) 327-4911 * FAX (66!) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/03/2002 13:51:41 02-09683-20 ~ Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORESGOUGH Purgeable Aromatics and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons COC Number --- Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 10:30 Sampling Location ELKS Sample Depth --- Sampling Point CB2-65' Sample Matrix Soil Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID 02-09683-21 Gasoline Range Organics < PQL mg/kg 1 0.046 8015M 10/02/02 10/02/02 08:26 TLF GC-V8 1 302-100321 ND a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (8015 Surrogate) 107 % 70-130 8015M 10/02/02 10/02/02 !08:26 TLF GC-V8 1 302-100321 California DOHS Certification #1186 All results listed in this report arc for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility t'or report alteration, separation, detachment or dfird party, interpretation. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakersfield, CA 93308 * (661)327-4911 * FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/03/2002 13:51:50 02-09683-21 Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Volatile Organic Analysis (EPA Method 8260) COC Number .... Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 11:35 Sampling Location ELKS Sample Depth --- Sampling Point CB1-20' Sample Matrix Soil Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID t02-09683-3 Benzene < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00080 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 06:26 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND Ethylbenzene < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00066 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 06:26 JES MS-V8 " 1 376-100307 ND Toluene < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00089 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 06:26 JES MS-V8 I 376-100307 ND Total Xylenes < PQL mg/kg 0.01 0.0024 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 06:26 JES I MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND p- & m-Xylenes < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.0016 8260 09/26/02 I 09/26/02 06:26 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND o-Xylene < PQL I mg/kg 0.005 0.00089 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 06:26 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND Methyl t-butyl ether < PQL rog/kg 0.005 0.00087 8260 09~26~02 09~26~02 06:26 JES MS-V8 1 I 376-100307 ND 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 102 % 70-121 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 06:26 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 Toluene-d8 100 % 81-117 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 06:26 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 4-Bromofluorobenzene 100 % 74-121 8260 09/26/02 ~09/26/02 06:26 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 Flag Explanations Q02 Matrix spike precision is not within the control limits. Q03 Matrix spike recovery is not within the control limits. California DOHS Certification #1 186 All results listed in this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party interpretation, aloo Atlas Court * Bakersfield, CA 93308 * (661) 327-4911 * FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/09/2002 14:46:47 02-09683-3 tBC_ Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Volatile Organic Analysis (EPA Method 8260) COC Number --- Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 12:03 Sampling Location ELKS Sample Depth --- Sampling Point CB1-35' Sample Matrix. Soil Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID 02-09683-6 Benzene < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00080 8260 09126102 09~26~02 07:00 ,lES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND Ethylbenzene < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00066 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:00 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND Toluene < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00089 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:00 JES MS-V8 I 376-100307 ND Total Xylenes < PQL mg/kg 0.01 0.0024 8260 09~26~02 09126/02 07:00 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND p- & m-Xylenes < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.0016 8260 09/26/02 09~26~02 07:00 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND o-Xylene < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00089 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:00 JES. MS-V8 1 376-100307 'ND Methyl t-butyl ether < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00087 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:00 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 I ND ............................................... :,...... ......................... ,...,.,...,.,...........,,.,. .............. , .............. , ............. .., ..... L..~..........i! ............ E: ..... . ........... ...-. ......, ..... 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 103 % 70-121 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:00 JES MS-V8 I 376-100307 Toluene-d8 99 % 81-117 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:00 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 4-Bromofluorobenzene 98 % 74-121 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:00 JES MS-V8 I 376-100307 Flag !Explanations .Q02 'Matdx sPike precision is not within the control limits. Q03 Matrix spike recovery is not within the control limits. California DOHS Certification #1186 All results listed in this report are for the exclusive use of thc submitting party. BC Laboratories, h~c. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party interpretation. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakersfield, CA 93308 * (661) 327-4911 * FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/09/2002 14:46:56 02-09683-6 Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Volatile Organic Analysis (EPA Method 8260) COC Numbe.? _. --- Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 12:40 Sampling Location ELKS Sample Depth Sampling Point CB1-50' Sample Matrix 02i/9683_9-0 Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID -'::~::::: 7.~:::: ::~ ~:: ~ ~::~ ~::~::::~::~::~, ,.~..::..~=:,:~=:~-..~...~. ~-.-... ~.......~..~..-.-.~-.-,... ~.,.....-,:.-....-,._............ ..................................................... Benzene < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00080 8260 09~26~02 09/26/02 07:34 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND 002,003 Ethylbenzene < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00066 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:34 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND Toluene 0.0051 rog/kg 0.005 0.00089 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:34 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND TotaIXyl'enes < PQL rog/kg 0.01 0.0024 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:34 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND p- & m-Xylenes 0.0065 rog/kg 0.005 0.0016 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:34 JES MS-V8 I 376-100307 ND o-Xylene < PQL rog/kg 0.005 0.00089 8260 09~26~02 09/26~02 07:34 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND Methyl t-butyl ether < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00087 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:34 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ``~``~`~`~`~`~`~ ~:::::::::::~:::::~:~..,,~¢....,:,,,,~,,..,,,,,....~,..,~.. ~.:,z.2.:~.z.~v:.v.~t~- ..-.. ............... 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 102 % 70-121 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:34 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 lToluene-d8 102 % 81-117 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:34 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 4-Bromofluorobenzene 96 I % 74-121 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 07:34 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 I Fla_cI Explanations Q02 Matrix spike precision is not within the control limits. Q03 Matrix spike recovery is not within the control limits. -- .... California DOHS Certification #1186 All results listed in this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting par~y. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party interpretation. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakersfield, CA 93308 * (661) 327-4911 * FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.¢om Printed 10/09/2002 14:47:04 02-09683-9 Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Volatile Organic Analysis (EPA Method 8260) COC Number --- Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 08:40 Sampling Location ELKS Sample Depth --- Sampling Point CB2-15' Sample Matrix Soil Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID 02-09683-11 AO9,QOE,QO Benzene < PQL mg/kg 0.05 0.0080 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 11:35 JES MS-V8 10 376-100307 ND 3 Ethylbenzene 44 rog/kg 3 0.33 8260 09/27/02 09/27/02 01:20 JES MS-V8 500 376-100307 ND A0g I AO9,QOZ,QC Toluene 12 mg/kg 3 0.45 .8260 09/27/02 09/27/02 01:20 JES MS-V8 500 376-100307 ND 3 Total Xylenes 550 mg/kg 5 1.2 8260 09/27/02 09/27/02 01:20 JES MS-V8 500 376-100307 ND A09 p- & m-Xylenes 380 mg/kg 3 0.76 8260 09/27/02 09/27/02 01:20 JES MS-V8 500 376-100307 ND o-Xylene 170 rog/kg 3 0.45 8260 09/27/02 09/27/02 01:20 JES I MS-V8 500 376-100307 ND Methyl t-butyl ether < PQL rog/kg 0.05 0.0087 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 11:35 JES I MS-V8 10 376-100307 ND AO9 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 103 % 70-121 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02' 11:35 JES MS-V8 10 376-100307 Toluene-d8 115 % 81-117 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 11:35 JES MS-V8 10 376-100307 4-Bromofluorobenzene 154 % 74-121 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 11:35 JES MS-V8 10 376-100307 S09 Flag Explanations A09 PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring sample dilution. Q02 Matrix spike precision is not within the control limits. Q03 Matrix spike recovery is not within the control limits. S09 .The surrogate recovery on the sample for this compound was not within the control limits. California DOHS Certification #1 186 All results listed in this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party, interpretation. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakersfield, CA 93308 * (661) 327-4911 * FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/09/2002 14:46:06 02-09683-11 Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Volatile Organic Analysis (EPA Method 8260) COC Number --- Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 09:15 Sampling Location ELKS Sample Depth --- Sampling Point CB2-35' Sample Matrix Soil Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID 02-09683-15 A09,QOE,Q0 Benzene < PQL mg/kg 0.05 0.0080 8260 0g/26/02 0g/26/02 12:44 JES MS-V8 10 375-100307 ND 3 Ethylbenzene 130 mg/kg 3 0.33 8260 0g/27/02 0g/27/02 lg:04 JES MS-V8 500 376-100307 ND Toluene 140 rog/kg 3 0.45 8260 09/27/02 0g/27/02 19:04 JES MS-V$ 500 376-100307 ND Total Xylenes 650 mg/kg 10 2.4 8260 10/02/02 10/02/02 22:10 JES MS-V8 1000 376-100311 ND p- & m-Xylenes 470 mg/kg 5 1.6 8260 10/02/02 10/02/02 22:10 JES MS-V8 1000 376-100311 ND o-Xylene 180 mg/kg 5 0.89 8260 10/02/02 10/02/02 22:10 JES MS-V8 1000 376-100311 ND Methyl t-butyl ether < PQL mg/kg 0.05 0.0087 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 12:44 JES MS-V8 10 376-100307 ND A09 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 91 % 70-121 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 12:44 JES MS-V8 10 376-100307 Toluene-d8 98 % 81-117 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 12:44 JES MS-V8 10 376-100307 4-Bromofluorobenzene 102 % 74-121 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 12:44 JES MS-V8 10 376-100307I I Fla_q Explanations A09 PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring sample dilution. Q02 Matrix spike precision is not within the control limits. Q03 Matrix spike recovery is not within the control limits. California DOHS Certification #1186 All results listed in this report are for the exctusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes uo responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party interpretation. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakersfield, CA 93308 "(661) 327-4911 * FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/09/2002 14:46:10 02-09683-15 Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Volatile Organic Analysis (EPA' Method 8260) COC Number --- Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55, Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 09:40 Sampling Location ELKS Sample Depth --- Sampling Point CB2-45' Sample Matrix Soil Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID 02-09683-17 Benzene 0.67 mg/kg 0.1 0.016 8260 09/26/02 09~26~02 13:54 JES MS-V8 20 376-100307 ND Ethylbenzene 110 mg/kg 3 0.33 8260 09~27~02 09~27~02 03:39 JES MS-V8 500 376-100307 ND A0g A0g,Q02,Q0 Toluene 240 rog/kg 3 0.4fi 82~0 0~/~7/02 0g/27/02 03:3g JE$ ~S-V8 fi00 37~-100307 ND 3 Total Xylenes S20 rog/kg fi 1.2 82~0 0g/27/02 09/27/02 03:3~ JES MS-V8 fi00 37~-100307 ND A09 p- ~ m-Xy[~nes 4fi0 rog/kg 3 0.7~ 82~0 0g/27/02 0g/27/02 03:3g JES MS-V8 500 37~-100307 ND A09 o-Xyl~n~ 170 rog/kg 3 0.4fi 8260 0g/27/02 0g/27/02 03:3g JES ~S-V$ 500 37~-100307 ND A09 Methyl t-butyl ~ther < PQL rog/kg 0.1 0.018 82~0 ~ 0~/2~/02 0g/2~/02 13:fi4 JES MS-V8 20 37~-100307 ND A09 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 92 % 70-121 8260 09126/02 09~26~02 13:54 JES MS-V8 20 376-100307 Toluene-d8 98 % 81-117 I 8260 09~26~02 09/26/02 13:54 JES MS-V8 20 376-100307 4-Bromofluorobenzene 102 % ~ 74-121~ 8260 09126102 09126102 13:54 JES MS-V8 20 ~ 376-100307 Flag Explanations A09 PQL's were raised due to high concentration of target analytes requiring sample dilution. Q02 Matrix spike precision is not within the control limits. Q03 Matrix spike recovery is not within the control limits. California DOHS Certification #1186 All resultS listed in this repo~'t are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party inteupretation. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakersfield, CA 93308 * (661) 327-4911 ~' FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/09/2002 14:46:19 02-09683-17 Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Volatile Organic Analysis (EPA Method 8260) COC Number --- Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 10:15 Sampling Location ELKS Sample Depth --- __ Sampling Point CB2-60' Sample Matrix Soil Sampled By DG BCL Sample ID 02-09683-20 Benzene < PQL mg/kg 0,005 0.00080 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 19:10 i dES MS~V8 I 376-100307 ND Q02,Q03 Ethylbenzene < PQL mg/kg 0,005 0.00066 8260 09126102 09~26~02 19:10I JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND Toluene 0.0055 mg/kg 0.005 0.00089 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 19:10 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND Q02,Q03 Total Xylenes 0.011 mg/kg 0.01 0.0024 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 19:10 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND p- & m-Xylenes 0.0074 mg/kg 0.005 0.0016 8260 09~26~02 09~26~02 19:10 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND o-Xylene < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00089 8260 09/26~02 09/26/02 19:10 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND Methyl t-butyl ether < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00087 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 lg:10 I JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 97 % 70-121 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 19:10 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 Toluene-d8 102 % 81-117 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 19:10 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 4-Bromofluorobenzene 95 % 74-121 8260 09~26~02 09~26~02 19:10 JES MS-V8 I 376-100307 Flag Explanations Q02 Matrix spike precision is not within the control limits. Q03 Matrix spike recovery is not within the control limits. California DOHS Certification #1186 All results listed in this report are for the exclusive use of the submitting party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachment or third party interpretation. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakersfield, CA 93308 ~' (66l) 327-4911 * FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.com Printed 10/09/2002 14:46:28 02-09683-20 Laboratories, Inc RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 2103 20TH ST. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH Volatile Organic Analysis (EPA Method 8260) COC Number --- Receive Date/Time 09/24/2002 @ 13:55 Project Number 200721 Sampling Date/Time ~09/24/2002 @ 10:30 Sampling Location ELKS Sample Depth --- Sampling Point CB2-65' Sample Matrix Soil Sampled By ::)G BCL Sample ID 02-09683-21 Benzene 0.021 mg/kg 0,005 0.00080 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 16:13 dES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND Ethylbenzene 0.0077 mg/kg 0.005 0.00066 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 16:13 dES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND Toluene 0.032 mg/kg 0.005 0.00089 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 16:1: JES MS-V8 I 3'76-100307 ND Total Xylenes 0.039 mg/kg 0.01 0.0024 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 16:13 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND p- & m-Xylenes 0.029 mg/kg 0.005 0.0016 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 16:13 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND o-Xylene 0.01 mg/kg 0.005 0.00089 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 16:13 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND Methyl t-butyl ether < PQL mg/kg 0.005 0.00087 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 16:13 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 ND 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 92 % I 70-121 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 16:13 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 Toluene-d8 98 % 81-117 8260 09/26/02 09/26/02 16:13 JES MS-V8 1 376-100307. 4-Bromofluorobenzene 93 % 74-121 8260 09/26/02 i 09/26/02 16:13 ~ JES MS-V8 1 376-100307 Flag Explanations Q02 Matrix spike precision is not within the control limits. Q03 Matrix spike recovery is not within the control limits. California DOHS Certification #1 186 All results listed in this report are ['or the exclusive use of the submiRing party. BC Laboratories, Inc. assumes no responsibility for report alteration, separation, detachme~lt or third pa~ty interpretation. 4100 Atlas Court * Bakarsfield, CA 93308 * (661) 327-4911 * FAX (661) 327-1918 * www.bclabs.¢om Printed 10/09/2002 14:46:37 02-09683-21 INVOICE NO I ~ 161409 LABORATORIES, INC. I Client Copy J.J. Eglin, Reg. Chem. Engr. - 4100 Atlas Court, Bakersfield, California 93308 Phone (661) 327-'4911; Fa,: (661) 32%1918 I I~FINVI~ PO Number: Client-No. Invoice Date: 10/11/2002 RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Lab Number: 02-09683 I 2103 20TH ST. Submitted On: 09/24/2002 Attn: DOLORES GOUGH 324-6152 Submitted By: RAM ENVIRONMENTAL ENGI EE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Payment Due: 11/10/2002 I Terms: Net 30 days luantity Description of Serv ice Dept. Unit Amount 3 200721, ELKS, CB1-2£. , 09/24/2002 @ I 11:35, DG 6 200721, ELKS, CB1-35~, 09/24/2002 @ 12: 03, DG 9 200721, ELKS, CB1-50', 09/24/2002 @ I 12:40, DG 11 200721, ELKS, CB2-15', 09/24/'2002 @ 08:40, DG 15 200721, ELKS, CB2-35' , 09/24/2002 @ I 09: 15, DG 17 200721, ELKS, CB2-45', .39/24/2002 @ 09:40, DG 20 200721, ELKS, CB2-60', 09/24/2002 @ I 10:15, DG 21 200721, ELKS, CB2-65~, 09/24/2.002 @ 10:30, DG i ORGANICS: EPA 8260 - Purgeable Halogenated & Aromatics - (Samples 3, 6, 9, 11, 15, 17, 20, 21) 206 250.00 2000.00 I ORGANICS: EPA 8015M - TPH (g~;) -- (Samples' 3, 6, 9, 11, 15, 17, 20, 21) 206 110.00 880.00 I DISPOSAL CHARGES DISPOSAL CHARGES (21 samples @ 5.00 each) 212 105.00 $2985.00 I I I I I[ Please refer to the invoice number above when making your payment. IThis is your invoice - We do not itemize again I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C I COPIES OF MODELING REFERENCES 1 I I I I I I I I EPA Region g PRGs Table 8 10/01/02 Key: SFo,i=Can¢:~- Slope Factor ond. inhalation FUDo.i=Reference Dose oral, inhale'don. I=IRIS h=HEAST n=NCEA x=WIthdraval o=Other EPA Source r=Route-axtrapolation ca=Cancer PRG rtc=Noncancer PRG ca' (v/ne*e: nc < 1 0OX ca) ca"(where: nc < 10X ca) +++=No,l-Standard Melhod A~olied (See ~,,~nn 2.3 of the 'R~.=lon 9 PRGs Table User's Guide") sat=Soil Saturation (See Section 4.5) max=Calling limit (See~Sec'don 2.1 ) DAF=Dilution At~nua~on Fact~' (See Sedan 2.5) CAS=Chemical Abs~aof Services TOXICITY INFORMATION CONTAMINANT PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL GOALS (PRGs) SOIL SCREENING LEVELS V skin "Direct Contact Exposure Pathways .... Migration to Ground Water'' SFo RfDo SFi RfDi O abs. CAS No. Residential Industrial Ambient Air Tap Water DAF20 DAF 1 1/(rog/kg-d) (rog/kg-d) ll(mg~kg-d) (rog/kg-d) C soils Soil(rog/kg) Soil(rog/kg) (ug/m^3) (ug]l) (mg~g) (mgAg) 5.0E-03 ~ 5.0E-m r 0 0.10 166T2-87-0 Ethephon(2-chloroethylphosphonicacid) 3,1E+02 nc 3.1E+03 nc 1.8E+01 nc 1.8E+02 nc 5.0E-04 I 5.0E-04 r 0 0.10 563-12-2 Ethion 3.1E+01 nc 3.1E+02 nc 1.8E+00 nc 1.8E+01 nc 4.0E-01 h 5.7E-02 I 0 0.10 110a0-5 2-Ethoxyethanol 2.4E+04 nc 1.0E+05 max 2.1E+02 nc 1.5E+04 nc 3.0E-01 h 3.0E-01 r 0 0.10 111-15-9 2-Ethoxyethanolacetate 1,8E+04 nc 1.0E+05 m~x 1,1E+03 nc 1.1E+04 nc e.0E*01 I 9.0E-01 r 1 141-78-6 Ethyl acetate 1.9E+04 nc 3.7E+04 ~at 3.3E+03 4.8E-O2 h 4.SE-02 r I 140-Se*5 Ethyl acrylate 2.1E-01 ca 4.5E-01 ca 1.4E-01 ca 2.3E-01 ca 3.85E-03 r 1.0E~)1 i 3.85E-03 n 2.9E-01 i 1 ~0~4~-4 ~t~'~hyl~'enZe--~ 8.9E+00 ca 2.0E+01 ca 1.7E+00 ca 2.9E+00 ca 1.3E+01 7.0E-01 2.9E-O3 n 4.0E-01 n 2.9E-03 r 2.9E+00 I I 75-00-3 Ethyl chloride 3.0E+00 ca 6.5E+00 ca 2,3E+00 ca 4.6E+00 ca 3.0E-01 h 3.0E-01 r 0 0.10 109-78-4 Ethylene cyanohyddn 1.8E+04 nc 1.0E+05 n~ax 1.1E+03 2.0E-02 h 2.0E-02 r 0 0.10 107-15-3 Ethylene diamine 1,2E+03 nc 1,2E+04 nc 7.3E+01 2.0E+00 i 2.0E+00 r 0 0.10 107-21-1 Ethylene glycol 1,0E+05 max 1.0E+05 max 7.3E+03 nc 7.3E+04 nc 5.0E-01 i 3.7E+0O I 0 0.10 111-76-2 Ethylene glycol, monobutyl ether 3.1E+04 nc 1.0E+05 max 1.4E+04 nc 1.8E+04 nc 1.0E*0O h 3.5E,01 h t 75-21-5 Ethylene oxide 1.4E-01 ca 3.4E-01 ca 1.9E-02 ca 2.4E-02 ca 1.1E-01 h 8.0E,05 i 1.1E-01 r 8.0E-05 r 0 0.10 ~e-45-7 Ethylenethiourea(ETU) 4.4E+00 ca-- 1.6E+01 ca" 6.1E-02 2.OE-O~ I 2.0E-0~ r ~ ~0-29-? Ethyl ether 1.8E+03 at 1.8E+03 ~at 7.3E+02 nc 1.2E+03 nc 9.0E-02 h 9.0E-02 r 1 97-63-2 Ethyl methacrylate 1.4E+02 sat 1.4E+02 sat 3.3E+02 nc 5.5E+02 nc 1.0E-05 i 1.0E-05 r 0 0.~0 2104-64-S Ethyl p-nitmphenylphenylphosphorothioate 6.1E-01 ~ 6.2E+00 ,c 3.7E-02 nc 3.6E-01 nc 3.OE+OO i 3.0E+00 r 0 0.10 ~4-72-0 Ethylphthalylethyl glycolate 1.0E+05 n~x 1.0E+05 m,~ 1.1E+04 nc 1.1E+05 8.0E-03 i 8.0E-03 r 0 0.~0 ~0~2O0`40-C Express 4.9E+02 ,c 4.9E+03 ,c 2.9E+01 2.5E-04 i 2.5E-04 r 0 0.10 22224-92-8 Fenamiphos 1.5E+01 ~ 1.5E+02 nc 9.1E-01 nc 9.1E+00 1.3E-02 i 1.3E-02 r 0 0.10 2~54-~?-2 Fluometuron 7.9E+02 nc 8.0E+03 n~ 4.7E+01 nc 4.7E+02 nc 6.0E*02 i 0 0.10 16964-45-8 Flourfde 3.7E+03 r~ 3.7E+04 ,c 2.2E+03 5.0E-02 i S.0E-02 r 0 0.10 59756-6O-4 Fluoridone 4.9E+03 nc 4.9E+04 nc 2.9E+02 nc 2.9E+03 nc 2.0E-02 i 2.0E-02 r 0 0.10 5~425-91-3 Flurpdmidol 1.2E+03 nc 1.2E+04 nc 7.3E+01 nc 7.3E+02 nc 6.0E-02 I 6.0E-02 r 0 0.10 66332-96-5 Flutolanil 3.7E+03 nc 3.7E+04 nc 2.2E+02 nc 2.2E+03 nc 1.0E-02 I 1.0E-02 r 0 0.10 S~409-~4-S Fluvalinate 6.1E+02 nc 6.2E+03 n~ 3.7E+01 nc 3.6E+02 nc 3.5E-03 i 1.0E-01 i 3.5E-03 r 1.0E-01 r 0 0.10 133-07-3 Folpet 1.4E+02 ca' 4.9E+02 ca 1.9E+00 ca 1.9E+01 ca 1.9E-01 I 1.9E-01 r 0 0.10 72175-02-0 Fomesafen 2.6E+00 ca 9.1E+00 ca 3.5E-02 ca 3.5E-01 ca 2.0E-03 I 2.0E-0O r 0 0.10 944-22-9 Fonofos 1.2E+02 ~ 1.2E+03 ,c 7.3E+00 nc 7.3E+01 nc 1.5E-01 i 4.6E-02 I 0 0.10 5O-0O-0 Formaldehyde 9.2E+03 nc 1.0E+05 nc 1.5E-01 ca 5.5E+03 nc 2.0E*0O h 2.0E+00 r 0 0.10 64-18-6 Formic Acid 1.0E+05 ma~ 1.0E+05 max .7.3E+03 ,c 7.3E+04 nc 3.0E+00 i 3.0E+00 r 0 0.10 39145-24-8 Fosetyl.al 1.0E+05 ~ 1.0E+05 m~x 1.1E+04 nc 1.1E+05 nc 3.0E+01 i 8.6E*00 h I 76-13-1 Freon113 5.6E+03 ~at 5.6E+03 at 3.1E+04 1.0E-03 I 1.0E-03 r 1 110-00-9 Furan 2.5E+00 nc 8.5E+00 nc 3.7E+00 3.8E+~0 h 3.8E+0O r 0 0.10 S7`45-8 Furazolidone 1.3E-01 ~= 4.5E-01 ca 1.8E-03 ca 1.8E-02 ca 3.OE-03 i 1.4E-02 h 0 0.10 98-01-1 Furfural 1.8E+02 nc 1.8E+03 nc 5.2E+01 nc 1.1E+02 nc EPA Region 9 PROs Table 16 10/01/02 Key: SFo,l=Cancer ~l~pe Factor oral, Inhala~J~l RfDo,l~Refl~re~ca Dose oral, inhala~ca i=lRl$ h=H EAST n=NCEA x=WIthdrawn o=Other EPA ~ource r=P, oute-extrapola~a3 ca=Clinch' PRO nc=Ncacancar PRO ca'- (where: tlc < 100X ca) ca"(whe~: nc < 10X ca) +++=Non.Standard Me~lod ~, ,~. lim"l (S~e Sit, Jori 2.3 of the 'Region 9 PROs Table Users G~Jide') sat=-S~t SaturalJon (See Sec~on 4.5) max=Ceiling I~mit (Sca Sec~ 2.1 ) DAF=Dilu~on At~rtuati~l Fackx' (See Sectkxl 2.5) CAS=Chemical Aboftacl Services TOXICITY INFORMATION CONTAMINANT PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL GOALS (PRGs) SOIL SCREENING LEVELS V skin "Direct Contact Exposure Pathways .... Migration to Ground Water'' SFo RfDo SFi RfDi O abs. CAS No. Residential Industrial Ambient Air Tap Water OAF 20 DAF 1 Il(rog/kg-d) (rog/kg-d) l/(mgJkg-d) (mg/kg-d} C soils Soil (mg/kg) Soil (mg/kg) (ug/m^3) . (ug/I) (rng/kg) (rog/kg) 2.0E+01 h 2.0E+01 r 0 0.10 5216-26-1 ),a,a,a-Tetrachlorotoluene 2.4E-02 ca 8.6E-02 ca 3.4E-04 c~ 3.4E-03 ca 2.4E-02 h 3.0E-02 I 2.4E-02 r 3.0E-02 r 0 0.10 961-11-$ Tetrachlorovinphos 2.0E+01 ca' 7.2E+01 ca 2.8E-01 ca 2.8E+00 ca 5.0E-04 I 5.0E-04 r 0 0.10 3689-24-5 Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate 3.1E+01 nc 3.1E+02 nc 1.8E+00 nc 1.8E+01 nc 7.6E-03 n Z1E-01 n 6.8E-03 n 8.6E-02 n 1 109-99-9 Tetrahydmfuran 9.4E+00 ca 2.1E+01 ca 9;9E-01 ca 1.6E+00 ca 6.6E-O5 i 0 7440-26-o Thallium and compounds+++ 5.2E+00 nc 6.7E+01 nc 2.4E+00 nc 1.0E-02 i 1.0E-02 r 0 0.10 28249-77-6 Thiobencarb 6.1E+02 nc 6.2E+03 nc 3.7E+01 nc 3.6E+02 nc 5.0E-02 n 5.0E-02 r 0 0.10 N/A Thlocyanate 3.1E+03 no 1.0E+05 max 1.8E+02 nc 1.8E+03 nc 3.0E-04 h 3.0E-04 .r 0 0.10 39156-18~1 Thiofanox 1.8E+01 nc 1.8E+02 nc 1.1E+00 nc 1.1E+01 nc S.0E-02 i 8.0E-02 r 0 0.10 23564-05-6 Thiophanate-methyl 4.9E+03 nc 4.9E+04 nc 2.9E+02 nc 2.9E+03 nc S.0E-03 I 5.0E-03 r 0 0.10 137-26-8 Thiram 3.1E+02 nc 3.1E+03 nc 1.8E+01 nc 1.8E+02 nc 6.0E-01 h 0 Tin (inorganic, see tributyltin oxide for o~anic tin) 4.7E+04 nc 1.0E+05 max 2.2E+04 nc 2.0E-01 t 1.1E*01 ~ 1 108-69.3 (~o~uene-'~3 5.2E+02 cat 5.2E+02 ~ 4.0E+02 nc 7.2E+02 nc 1.2E+01 6.0E-01 3.2E+00 h 3.2E+~0 r 0 0.10 95-80-7 Toluene-2,4-diamine 1.5E-01 ca 5.4E-01 ca 2.1E-03 ca 2.1E-02 ca 6.0E-01 h 6.0E-01 r 0 0.10 96-70~ Toluene-2,5-diamine 3.7E+04 nc 1.0E+05 max 2.2E+03 nc 2.2E+04 nc 2.0E-01 h 2.0E-01 r 0 0.10 823-4O-5 Toluene-2,6-diamine 1.2E+04 nc 1.0E+05 max 7.3E+02 nc 7.3E+03 nc 2E-01 I 2E-01 r 0 0.10 106-49-0 )-Toluidine 2.6E+00 ca 9.1E+00 ca 3.5E-02 ca 3.5E-01 ca I.IE*O0 I 1.1E+00 r 0 0.10 8001-35.2 Toxaphene 4.4E-01 ca 1.6E+00 ca 6.0E-03 ca 6.1E-02 ca 3.1E+01 2.0E+00 75E*03 t 7.5E-03 r 0 0.10 as841-25-slTralomethfin 4,6E+02 nc 4.6E+03 nc 2,7E+01 no 2.7E+02 nc 1.3E-02 I t.3E-02 r 0 0.10 2303-17-5 Triallate 7.9E+02 nc 8.0E+03 nc 4.7E+01 nc 4.7E+02 nc 1,0E-02 i 1.0E-02 r 0 0.10 82097-50-5 Triasulfuron 6,1E+02 nc 6,2E+03 nc 3.7E+01 nc 3.6E+02 nc 5.0E-03 I 5,0E-03 r 0 0,10 615-54-3 1,2,4-Tribromobenzene 3.1E+02 nc 3.1E+03 nc 1.8E+01 nc 1.8E+02 nc 3.OE-04 i 0 0.10 56*36-9 Tributyltin oxide (TBTO) 1.8E+01 nc 1.8E+02 nc 1.1E+01 nc 3.4E*02 h 3.4E-02 r 0 0.10 634-93~5 2,4,6-Trichioroaniline 1,4E+01 ca 5.1E+01 ca 2,0E-01 ca 2.0E+O0 ca ZOE~O2 h 2.9E-02 r 0 0.10 335~3-50-2 2,4,6-Tdchlomanilinehydrochloride 1.7E+01 ca 5.9E+01 ca 2.3E-01 ca 2.3E+00 ca 1.0E-02 i 5.7E-02 h 1 120-62-1 1,2,4-Tdchlorobenzene 6,5E+02 nc 3.0E+03 ~1 2.1E+02 nc 1.9E+02 nc 5.0E+O0 3,0E-01 2.BE-01 n 6.3E-01 n 1 71-55-6 1,1,1-THchloroethane 1.2E+03 ca1 1.2E+03 ca1 2.3E+03 nc 3.2E+03 nc 2.0E+00 1.0E-01 5.7E-02 i 4.0E-03 I 5.6E-02 i 4.0E-03 r 1 79-00-S 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 7.3E-01 ca' 1.6E+00 ca' 1.2E-01 ca 2.0E-01 ca 2.0E-02 9.0E-04 4.00E-01 n 3.00E-Of n 4.00E-01 n 1.00ES2 n 1 79-01-6 Trlchloroethylene(TCE) 5.3E-02 ca 1.1E-01 ca 1.7E-02 ca 2.8E-02 ca 6.0E-02 3.0E-03 3.0E-01 i 2.0E-01 h 1 76-~9-4 Tdchlorofluoromethane 3.9E+02 nc 2.0E+03 ca1 7.3E+02 nc 1.3E+03 nc 1.0E-01 i 1.0E-61 r 0 0.10 55-e5-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 6.1E+03 nc 6.2E+04 nc 3.7E+02 nc 3.6E+03 nc 2.7E+02 1.4E+01 l.lE-m I 1.0E-04 n 1.1E-02 i 1.0E-04 r 0 0.10 88-06-2 2,4,6-Trlchlorophenol 6.1E+00 nc" 6.2E+01 nc" 3.7E-01 nc" 3.6E+00 nc- 2.0E-01 8.0E-03 7.0E-02 7.0E-02 0.10 88-06-2 "CAL-ModifiedPRG" 6.9E+00 ca 2.5E+01 ca 9.6E-02 ca 9.6E-01 ca 1.0E-02 i 1.0E-02 r 0 0.10 93-76-5 2,4,5-TrichlorophenoxyaceticAcid 6.1E+02 nc 6.2E+03 nc 3.7E+01 nc 3.6E+02 nc a.0E-03 i 8.0E-03 r 0 0.10 e3-TZ-1 2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy) propionicacid 4.9E+02 nc 4.9E+03 nc 2.9E+01 nc 2.9E+02 nc 5.0E-03 I 5.0E-03 r 1 see-77.s 1,1,2-Trichloropmpane 1.5E+01 nc 5.1E+01 nc 1.8E+01 nc 3.0E+01 nc 2.0E+00 n 6.0E-03 i 2.0E+00 r 1.4E-03 n 1 96-18-4 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 5.0E-03 ca 1.1E-02 ca 3.4E-03 ca 5.6E-03 ca EPA Region 8 PRG$ Table 17 10/01/02 Key: SFo,i=Cancer S~ope Factor or~, Inhalation RfDo,i=Refa'ence Dose oral, Inhalation i=IRI$ h=H EAST n=NCEA x=W~hdraw~ o=O'her EPA Source r--Rou~e-extrapolation ca=Canca* PR(3 nc=Noncancar PRG ca' (where: nc < 100X ca) ca"(whem: nc < 10X ca) +++= Non-Standard Me~lod .~lled (See SeatJon 2.3 of the 'Region 9 PRGs Table Usel's Guide"} sat=.~il Saturation (See Soci/on 4.5} max=Ceiling ~mit (See Section 2.1 ) DAF=Dilution Afler'~ation Facfl3r (See socli(3n 2.5) CAS=Chemical Aestract sorvlces TOXICITY INFORMATION CONTAMINANT PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL GOALS (PRGs) SOIL SCREENING LEVELS V skin "Direct Contact Exposure Pathways" "Migration to Ground Water" SFo RfDo SFi RfDi O aba. CAS No. Residential Industrial Ambient Air Tap Water DAF20 DAF 1 1/(rog/kg-d) (rog/kg-d) l/(mgJkg-d) (rog/kg-d) C soils Soil(rog/kg) Soil (rog/kg) (ug/m^3} (ug/I) (mgAg) (rog/kg) 5.0E-03 h 5,0E-03 r I 96-19-5 1,2,3-Trichloropropene 1,2E+01 nc 3.8E+01 nc 1.8E+01 nc 3.0E+01 n= 3.0E-03 I 3,0E-03 r 0 0.10 58138-08-2 Tridiphane 1.8E+02 nc 1.8E+03 n,c 1.1E+01 nc 1.1E+02 r= 2,0E-03 r 2.0E-03 t I 121-44-8 Triethylamine 2.3E+01 nc 8.6E+01 nc 7.3E+00 nc 1.2E+01 nc 7.7E-03 t 7.5E-03 I 7.7E-03 r 7.5E-03 r 0 0.10 1582-09-8 Trifiuralin 6,3E+01 ca" 2.2E+02 ca' 8.7E-01 ca' 8.7E+00 ca' 1.400E-04 r 1,400E-04 n 0.10 552-30-7 Trimellitic Anhydride (TMAN) 8.6E+00 nc 8.6E+01 nc 5.1 E-01 nc 5.1E+00 5.0E-02 n 1.7E-03 n I 95-63.6 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 5.2E+01 nc 1.7E+02 nc 6.2E+00 nc 1.2E+01 nc 5.0E-02 , 1.7E-03 n t 1~8-67-8 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 2.1E+01 nc 7.0E+01 nc 6.2E+00 nc 1,2E+01 nc 3.7E-02 h 3,7E-02 r 0 0.10 512-56-1 Trimethyl phosphate 1.3E+01 ca 4.7E+01 ca 1.8E-01 ca 1.8E+00 ~a 3.0E-02 I 3.0E-02 r 0 0.10 99-35-4 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene 1.8E+03 nc 1.8E+04 nc 1.1E+02 n~ 1,1E+03 nc 1.0E-02 h 1.0E-02 r 0 0.10 479-45-8 Trinitrophenylmethylnitramine 6.1E+02 nc 6.2E+03 nc 3.7E+01 nc 3.6E+02 nc 3E-02 i 5.0E-04 I 3E-02 r 5.0E-04 r 0 0.10 118-96-? 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene 1.6E+01 ca" 5.7E+01 ca" 2.2E-01 ca" 2.2E+00 ca-' 5.00E-03 n 5.00E-03 r 0.10 791-28.6 Tdphenylphoaphlneoxlde 3.1E+02 nc 3.1E+03 nc 1.8E+01 n= 1.8E+02 nc 3.2E-03 n 1,1E-01 n 3,2E-03 r 1.1E-01 r 0.10 115-96-8 Tde(2-chloroethyl)phosphate 1.5E+02 ca' 5.4E+02 ca 2.1E+00 ca 2.1E+01 ca 2.00E*04 n 7440-61-0 Uranium (chemical toxicity only) 1.6E+01 nc 2.0E+02 nc 7.3E+00 nc 7.0E-03 h 0 7440-62-2 Vanadium and compounds 5.5E+02 nc 7.2E+03 nc 2.6E+02 nc 6.0E+03 3.0E+02 1.0E-03 I 1.0E-m r 0 0.10 1929-77-7 Vernam 6.1E+01 nc 6.2E+02 nc 3.7E+00 nc 3.6E+01 nc 2.5E-02 i 2.5E-02 r 0 0.10 S0471~4~ V[nclozolin 1.5E+03 nc 1.5E+04 nc 9.1E+01 nc 9.1E+02 ,c 1.0E+00 h 5.7E-m i I 108-0~-4 Vinyiacetate 4.3E+02 nc 1.4E+03 nc 2.1E+02 nc 4.1E+02 nc 1.7E+02 8.0E+00 1.1E-01 r a.6E-04 r 1.1E-01 h e. SE-04 I 1 593-60-2 Vinyl bromide (bromoethene) 1.9E-01 ca' 4.2E-01 ca' 6.1E-02 ca' 1.0E-01 ca' 1.5E+00 i 3.00E-03 i 3.1E-02 i 2.86E-02 i 1 75-014 Vinyl chloride (child/adult)-H-+ 7.9E-02 ca 1.1E-01 ca 2.0E-02 ca 1.0E-02 7.0E-04 7.5E-01 i 3,00E-03 i 1.6E-02 i 2.86E-02 i 1 75-01-4 Vinyl chloride (adult) 7.5E-01 ca 3.0E-04 i 3,0E-04 r 0 0.10 81-81-2 Warfarin 1.8E+01 nc 1.8E+02 nc 1.1E+00 nc 1.1E+01 nc 7.0E-01 i 2.9E-02 i I 0.10 1330-2~7(~Xylenes~"~ 2.7E+02 nc 4.2E+02 sat 1.1E+02 nc 2.1E+02 r~ 2.1E+02 1.0E+01 3.0E-01 i 0 ?440.66-6 Zinc 2.3E+04 nc 1.0E+05 max 1.1E+04 nc 1.2E+04 6.2E+02 3.0E-04 i 0 1314-84-7 Zinc phosphide 2.3E+01 nc 3.1E+02 nc 1.1E+01 nc 5.0E-02 i 5.0E-02 r 0 0.10 12122-67-7 Zineb 3.1E+03 nc 3.1E+04 nc 1.8E+02 nc 1.8E+03 nc I Soil Column Data Group This data group contains the input parameters that are constant for the entire soil I column. Effective Porosity The effective porosity is the volume of void spaces available to transmit water in the soil. Eagleson (1978) defines effective porosity as N=(1-sr)n, (A-18) where: N = effective porosity (cm3 voids/cma soil) nt = total porosity (om3 voids/cm3 soil) s, = residual saturation (cm3 watedcm3 soil) The residual saturation is'the volume of water unmoved by gravity drainage/volume of voids. The New SESOIL User's Guide (Hetrick et al., 1994) presents the following table showing default values of effective porosity. Table A-2. Effective Porosity by Soil Class. Effective Porosity USDA Textural Soil Class (Bonazountas and Wagner, 1994) Clay (ve..n/fine),, 0.20 ..... ....C.!a)(...(, ,m,., ,ed,..!~., ,m...f.!, ,n.,e. )' ............................................................. ,.0.:..2...0. .................................... Clay (fine) 0.22 Silty clay o.25 Silty clay loam 0.27 ...c.. La.y..!.o...a....m.. ............................................ 0.30 Loam 0.30 Silt loam 0.35 Silt ,, 0.27 .... San~ clay. 0.24 ' Sandy clay loam 0.26 Sandy loam 0.25 i Loamy sand i 0.28 _.n_.d .................................... i .................... I I A-23 Soil Column Data Group This data group contains the input parameters that are constant for the entire soil column. I Efective Porosity The effective porosity is the volume of void spaces available to transmit water in the soil. I Eagleson (1978) defines effective porosity as N=(l-sr)n, (A-18) where: N = effective porosity (cm3 voids/cm3 soil) n, = total porosity (cm3 voids/cm3 soil) sr = residual saturation (cm3 watedcm~ soil) The residual saturation is the volume of water unmoved by gravity drainage/volume of (Hetrick al., 1994) presents the following table voids. The New SESOIL User's Guide et showing default values of effective porosity. Table A-2. Effective Porosity by Soil Class. Effective Porosity USDA Textural Soil Class (Bonazountas and Wagner, 1994) : · i___Clay (v.e~ fi.n..~) 0.~0 Cia (medium fine .................................................................................. .......... Y. ............................. :). ......................... 0.20 ~Clay (fine) 0.22 Silty clay 0,25 . Silty clay loam ....... 0.27 Loam 0.30 Silt loam 0.35 Sandy clay 0.24 Sandy clay loam 0.26 Sandy loam 0.25 Loamy sand i 0.28 San~d ....................... i 0.30 I A-23 Table A-4. Intrinsic Permeability by Soil Class. Intrinsic Permeability (cm2) ..... USDA Textural Soil Class (Bonazountas and Wagner, 1994) Clay (very fine) 7.5E-11 . Clay (medium fine) 2.5E-10 Clay .(fine) 6.0E-10 ,. Silty clay loam 8.5E-11 Clay loam 6.5E-10 Loam 8.0E-10 Silt loam 3.5E-10 Sandy clay 1.5E-9 Sandy...c!ay loam 2.5E-9 ................................................................................ ..2.....0...E...-..9. ................................. Loamy sand 5.0E-8 [ Sand 1 E-8 Fraction Organic Carbon (g oc/g soil) Fraction organic carbon (Fo~) is easy to measure by a soil laboratory. The Foc is used to estimate retardation and sorption rates for organic chemicals (having a non-zero Ko~). higher the F~, the greater the sorption to soil by the chemical, and the greater the The retardation with respect to average groundwater flow. This value should describe the soil's pH value for the given sublayer. The pH value is used in the cation exchange processes and for deriving the hydrolysis degradation rates. Fraction of Emissions Allowed (fraction) SESOIL allows the user to "dial down" the amount of emissions occurring between each layer and between the top layer and the ambient air. The SESOIL code first calculates rate should be and then if a value less than 1.0 is entered for this what the emission fraction, the actual emission rate from the given layer is adjusted accordingly. This option was included because the volatile emission algorithms used in SESOIL (and many other codes using a Farmer's type algorithm) tend to overestimate emissions. (See explanation in the section entitled "Diffusion and Volatilization".) Since SESOIL A-26 I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX D ! SUMMARY OF MODELING RESULTS ! ! ! Receptor Point Concentration in Groundwater Averaging TPH Aliphatic C5- Time* Benzene Ethylbenzene Toluene 6 Xylenes [Years] [mg/I] [mg/I] [mg/I] [mg/I] [mg/I] 5 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 15 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 20 0.00E+00 '0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 25 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 30 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 O.00E+00 0.00E+00 35 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 40 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 45 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 55 0,00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 60 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 65 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 70 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 75 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Note: These are the maximum running average concentrations for the averaging pedods listed above. For example, the 5-year maximum running average corresponds to the average concentration over the 5 consecutive years with the highest concentrations. Concentration in Groundwater Over Time 1.00E+00 9.00E-01 8.00E-01 7.00E-01 ~ 6.00E-01 · ~ S.OOE-Ol ¢ 4.00E-01 o 3.00E-01 2.00E-01 1.00E-01 0.00E+00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Years I--e-- TPH Aliphatic C5-6 J Mass Loading to Groundwater Over Time 1.00E+00 9.00E-01 8.00E-01 7.00E-01 ~ 6.00E-01 ,-= 5.00E-01 ,.I ~ 4.00E-01 3.00E-01 2,00E-01 1.00E-01 O.OOE+O0 ~ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Years [--.e-- TPH Aliphatic C5-6 ] Receptor Point Concentration in Air Averaging TPH Aliphatic C5- Time* Benzene Ethylbenzene Toluene 6 Xylenes [Years] [mg/m^3] [mg/m^3] [mg/m^3] [mg/m^3] [mg/m^3] 5 6.19E-09 3.53E-07 3.28E-07 4.51E-03 7.17E-06 10 5.88E-09 3.24E-07 3.03E-07 4.51E-03 6.60E-06 15 5.53E-09 2.94E-07 2.77E-07 4.51E-03 6.01E-06 20 5.10E-09 2.63E-07 2.49E-07 4.49E-03 5.39E-06 25 4.58E-09 2.31E-07 2.20E-07 4.42E-03 4.74E-06 30 3.96E-09 1.98E-07 1.89E-07 4.08E-03 4.07E-06 35 3.96E-09 1.98E-07 1.89E-07 4.08E-03 4.07E-06 40 3.96E-09 1.98E-07 1.89E-07 4.08E-03 4.07E-06 45 3.96E-09 1.98E-07 1.89E-07 4.08E-03 4.07E-06 50 3.96E-09 1.98E-07 1.89E-07 4.08E-03 4.07E-06 55 3.96E-09 1.98 E-07 1.89E-07 4.08 E-03 4.07E-06 60 3.96 E-09 1.98E-07 1.89E-07 4.08 E-03 4.07E-06 65 3.96E-09 1.98E-07 1.89E-07 4.08E-03 4.07E-06 70 3.96E-09 1.98E-07 1.89E-07 4.08 E-03 4.07E-06 75 3.96E-09 1.98E-07 1.89E-07 4.08E-03 4.07E-06 Note: These are the maximum running average concentrations for the averaging periods listed above. For example, the 5-year maximum running average corresponds to the average concentration over the 5 consecutive years with the highest concentrations. Concentration in Air Over Time 7.00E-09 6.00E-09 5.00E-09 ~ 4.00E-09 ~ 3.00E-09 o 2.00E-09 1.00E-09 0.00E+00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Years [+Benzene Concentration in Air Over Time 5,00E-03 4.50E-03 4.00E-03 ~ 3.50E-03  3 .00E-03 .o 2.50E-03 2.00E-03 O o 1.50E-03 1.00E-03 5.00E-04 O.OOE+O0 , , 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Years I--e--- TPH Aliphatic C5-6 Chemical Intake Analysis Carcinogenic Risk by Chemical for Each Route of Concern Ingestion of ' Inhalation of ;Chemical Drinking Water Soil Emissions Total Benzene 0.00E+00 4.50E-12 4.50E-12 Ethylbenzene 0.00E+00 2.98E- 11 2.98E-11 Toluene ND ND 0.00E+00 TPH Aliphatic C5-6 ND ND 0.00E+00 Xylenes ND ND 0.00E+00 Total 0.OOE+00 3.43E-11 3.43E-11 Hazard Index by Chemical for Each Route of Concern Ingestion of Inhalation of Chemical Drinking Water Soil Emissions Total Benzene 0.00E+00 3.32E-07 3.32E-07 Ethylbenzene 0.00E+00 1.11E-07 1.11 E-07 Toluene 0.00E+00 2.72E-07 2.72E-07 TPH Aliphatic C5-6 0.00E+00 3.75E-03 3.75E-03 Xylenes 0.00E+00 2.26E-05 2.26E-05 Total 0.00E+00 3.77E-03 3.77E-03 Deterministic Run ND = Not Determined because RfD or Slope Factor not entered NA = Not Applicable 10/31/02 12:38 I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX E I COMPUTER PRINTOUTS OF SESOIL MODELING I I I I I I I I 1 {VI DSS Data Requirements A:~ELKS325.SAV 10131/02 12:49 ELOPMENT OF RISK SCENARIO IThe following chemicals were selected: Benzene Ethylbenzene Toluene m TPH Aliphatic C5-6 Xylenes raThe following exposure routes were selected: Drinking Water Inhalation of Soil Emissions mRECEPTOR POINT CONCENTRATIONS m Data for Fate and Transport Models Models Selected: SESOIL AT123D Box Simulation Time (max= 100) [years]: 30 Simulation Title: DSS Fate and Transport Date and Time of Simulation: 10/31/02 12:03 SESOIL Model Model~Control Parameters Climate data entered using annual average values. SESOIL still run in a monthly mode, Evapotranspiration is entered as a fraction of rainfall. Number of soil layers: 4 Sublayers in layer 1: 1 Sublayers in layer 2 · 2 Sublayers in layer 3 · 3 Sublayers in layer 4: 2 Initial Soil Concentrations Month for initial loading of concentrations: Jan Benzene Layer I Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Sublayer I 0.0 0.05 0.05 0.0 Sublayer 2 0.05 0.67 0.0 Sublayer 3 0,021 Ethylbenzene Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Sublayer 1 0.0 44.0 130 0.0 Sublayer 2 44.0 110 0,0 Sublayer 3 0.008 Toluene Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Sublayer 1 0.0 12.0 140.0 0.0 Sublayer 2 12.0 240.0 0.0 Sublayer 3 0,03 'I'PH Aliphatic C5-6 Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Sublayer I 0.0 4500.0 2800.0 0.0 Sublayer 2 4500.0 3900.0 0.0 Sublayer 3 1.0 Xylenes Layer I Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 I 0.0 550.0 650.0 0.0 Sublayer Sublayer 2 550.0 620.0 0.0 Sublayer 3 0.04 Climate Parameters: Enter Site Description Here Soil Temperature [C] 30 Evapotranspiration [cra/day] 0.1 Precipitation [cm/yr] 14.9 Storm duration [days] 1 Number of storms [per month] 1 Length of Rainy Season [months] Albedo (solar inclination angle) 0 Relative Humidity [fraction] 0 Cloud Cover [fraction] 0 Soil Data: Default soil type Effective porosity [-] 0.3 Dry Wt. Soil Bulk Density [g/cm^3] 1.55 Disconnectedness Index [-] 6.5 Latitude of site location [;] 1 X-dimension of the source [m] 10.7 Y-dimension of the source [m] 12.2 Layer 1 Thickness of Layer [m] 3.1 Intrinsic Permeability [cm^2] le-8 Fraction Organic Carbon [-] 0.05 Fraction Volatile Emissions Allowed [-] 0.20 pH [-] 7 Freundlich coefficient [-] 1.0 Layer 2 Thickness of Layer [m] 9.1 Intrinsic Permeability [cm^2] 2.5e-9 Fraction Organic Carbon [-] 0.05 Fraction Volatile Emissions Allowed [-] 0.20 pH [-] 7 Freundlich coefficient [-] 1.0 Layer 3 Thickness of Layer [m] 10.7 Intrinsic Permeability [cm^2] 5e-11 Fraction Organic Carbon [-] 0.05 Fraction Volatile Emissions Allowed [-] 0.20 pH [-] 7 Freundlich coefficient [-] 1.0 Layer 4 Thickness of Layer [mi 34 Intrinsic Permeability [cm^2] le-8 Fraction Organic Carbon [-] 0.05 Fraction Volatile Emissions Allowed [-] 0.20 pH [-] 7 Freundlich coefficient [-] 1.0 Saturated Zone Mixing Model Data (directly under source) Saturated Conductivity oYAquifer [m/d] 1 Hydraulic Gradient [-] 0.01 Thickness of Aquifer (mixing zone) [m] 1.5 SESOIL Chemical Specific Parameters Benzene Solubility [mg/I] 1.75E+03 Diffusion Coeff. in Air [cm^2/s] 8.80E-02 Henrys Constant [(mglL)l(mglL)] 2.28E-01 Koc [uglgOCluglml] 5.89E+01 Liquid Degradation Rate [1/days] 0.00E+00 AT123D Model I Model Control Parameters Infinite aquifer (y) No I Infinite in depth No Media Specific Parametem Effective Porosity [-] 0.3 I Hydraulic Conductivity [m/yr] 365 Hydraulic Gradient [-] 0.01 Longitudinal Dispersivity [fraction] 0.7 I Transverse Dispersivity [fraction] 0.3 Vertical Dispersivity [fraction] 0.1 Dry Wt. Soil Bulk Density [g/cm**3] 1.8 Fraction Organic Carbon [-] 0.05 I Thickness of the aquifer [mi 30 Width of the aquifer [m] 10 I Receptor Well Geometry X Coord. (distance downgradient) [m] 10 Y Coord. (distance cross-gradient) [m] 10 Z Coord - Top of Screen [m] 22 I Z Coord - Bottom of Screen [mi 30 I Chemical Specific Parameters for AT123D Benzene KOC [uglgOCluglml] 5.89E+01 Degradation Rate in Saturated Zone Il/days] 0.00E+00 I Diffusion Coeff. in Water [cm"2/s] 9.80E-06 Ethylbenzene KOC [ug/gOC/ug/ml] 3.63E+02 I Degradation Rate in Saturated Zone [l/days] 0.00E+00 Diffusion Coeff. in Water [cm^2/s] 7.80E-06 Toluene KOC [ug/gOC/ug/ml] 1.82E+02 I Degradation Rate in Saturated Zone [1/days] 0.00E+00 Diffusion Coeff. in Water [cm^2/s] 8.60E-06 TPH Aliphatic C5-6 I KOC [ug/gOC/ug/ml] 7.94E+02 Degradation Rate in Saturated Zone [1/days] 0.00E+00 Diffusion Coeff. in Water [cm^2/s] 1.00E-05 Xylenes I KOC [ug/gOC/ug/ml] 2.40E+02 Degradation Rate in Saturated Zone [1/days] 0.00E+00 Diffusion Coeff. in Water [cm^2/s] 8.50E-06 I ~ Box Dispemion Model~ Wind Speed [m/si 3.5 Height of Box [m] 4 I Width of Box [m] 4 I INTAKE PARAMETERS Analysis Type: Deterministic I Body Weight and Lifetime Average Weight (kg) 70 I Lifetime (yrs) 70 Drinking Water Exposure Frequency [days/yr] 350 IExposure Duration [years] 30 Ingestion Rate [liters/day] 1.4 I Drinking Water Chemical Specific Parameters Benzene Bioavailability [fraction] 1.00E+00 Ethylbenzene Bioavailability [fraction] 1.00E+00 Toluene Bioavailability [fraction] 1.00E+00 TPH Aliphatic C5-6 Bioavailability [fraction] 1.00E+00 Xylenes Bioavailability [fraction] 1.00E+00 Inhalation of Soil Emissions Exposure Frequency [days/yr] 350 Exposure Duration [years] 30 Inhalation Rate [m^3/hr] 0.833 Time Outdoors [hours/day] 8 Inhalation of Soil Emissions Chemical Specific Parameters Benzene Bioavailability [fraction] 1.00E+00 Ethylbenzene Bioavailability [fraction] 1.00E+00 Toluene Bioavail.ability [fraction] 1.00E+00 TPH Aliphatic C5-6 Bioavailability [fraction] 1.00E+00 Xylenes Bioavailability [fraction] 1.00E+00 I Oral Toxicity Parameters Benzene Slope Factor [ 1/(mg/kg-day) ] 2.90E-02 Reference Dose [mg/kg-day] 1.70E-03 Ethylbenzene Slope Factor [ 1/(mg/kg-day) ] ND Reference Dose [mg/kg-day] 1.00E-01 Toluene Slope Factor [ l/(mg/kg-day) ] ND Reference Dose [rog/kg-day] 2.00E-01 TPH Aliphatic C5-6 Slope Factor [ l!(mg/kg-day) ] ND Reference Dose [mg/kg-day] 5.00E+00 Xylenes Slope Factor [ l/(mg/kg-<lay) ] ND Reference Dose [mg/kg-day] 2.00E+00 Inhalation Toxicity Parameters Benzene Slope Factor [ l/(mg/kg-day) ] 2.90E-02 Reference Dose ling/kg-day] 1.70E-03 Ethylbenzene Slope Factor [ l/(mg/kg-day) ] ND Reference Dose [mg/kg-day] 2.90E-01 Toluene Slope Factor [ l/(mg/kg-day) ] ND Reference Dose [mg/kg-day] 1.14E-01 TPH Aliphatic C5-6 Slope Factor [ 1/(mg/kg-day) ] ND Reference Dose [mg/kg-day] 5.04E+00 Xylenes Slope Factor [ l/(mg/kg-day) ] ND Reference Dose [mg/kg-day] 2.00E-01 i Solid Degradation Rate Il/days] 0.00E+00 Molecular Weight [g/mole] 78 Valence [-] 0.0 Nuetral Hydrolysis Constant [1/day] 0.0 I Acid Hydrolysis Constant [I/mol/day] 0.0 Base Hydrolysis Constant II/mol/day] 0.0 Cation Exchange Coefficient [milliequivalents/100g soil] For each layer: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I Ethylbenzene Solubility [mg/I] 1.69E+02 Diffusion Coeff. in Air [cm^2/s] 7.50E-02 I Henrys Constant [(mg/L)/(mg/L)] 3.23E-01 Koc [ug/gOC/ug/ml] 3.63E+02 Liquid Degradation Rate Il/days] 0.00E+00 Solid Degradation Rate Il/days] 0.00E+00 I Molecular Weight [g/mole] 106.2 Valence [-] 0.0 Nuetral Hydrolysis Constant Il/day] 0.0 · Acid Hydrolysis Constant [I/mol/day] 0.0 · ' Base Hydrolysis Constant [I/mol/day] 0.0 Cation Exchange Coefficient [milliequivalents/100g soil] For each layer: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I Toluene Solubility [rog/I] 5.26E+02 Diffusion Coeff. in Air [cm^2/s] 8.70E-02 I Henrys Constant [(mg/L)/(mg/L)] 2.72E-01 Koc [ug/gOC/ug/ml], 1.82E+02 Liquid Degradation Rate Il/days] 0.00E+00 a Solid Degradation Rate Il/days] 0.00E+00 · Molecular Weight [g/mole] 92.1 Valence [-] 0.0 Nuetral Hydrolysis Constant Il/day] 0.0 I Acid Hydrolysis Constant [I/mol/day] 0.0 Base Hydrolysis Constant [I/mol/day] 0.0 Cation Exchange Coefficient [milliequivalents/100g soil] For each layer: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I TPH Aliphatic C5-6 Solubility [mg/I] 3.60E+01 Diffusion Coeff. in Air [cm^2/s] 1.00E-01 I Henrys Constant [(mg/L)/(mg/L)] 3.40E+01 Koc [ug/gOC/ug/ml] 7.94E+02 Liquid Degradation Rate [1/days] 0.00E+00 Solid Degradation Rate Il/days] 0.00E+00 I Molecular Weight [g/mole] 81 Valence [-] 0.0 Nuetral Hydrolysis Constant [1/day] 0,0 I Acid Hydrolysis Constant [I/mol/day] 0.0 Base Hydrolysis Constant II/mol/day] 0.0 Cation Exchange Coefficient [milliequivalents/100g soil] For each layer: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 I Xylenes Solubility [mg/I] 1.98E+02 Diffusion Coeff. in Air [cm^2/s] 7.20E-02 I Henrys Constant [(mg/L)/(mg/L)] 2.90E-01 Koc [ug/gOC/ug/ml] 2.40E+02 Liquid Degradation Rate [1/days] 0.00E+00 Solid Degradation Rate Il/days] 0.00E+00 I Molecular Weight [g/mole] 106.2 Valence [-] 0,0 Nuetral Hydrolysis Constant [1/day] 0,0 I Acid Hydrolysis Constant [I/mol/day] 0.0 Base Hydrolysis Constant [I/mol/day] 0.0 Cation Exchange Coefficient [milliequivalents/100g soil] For each layer: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! Xylenes IPARAMETER NAb~Z UNITS VALUE IWater Ingestion Bioavailibility (-) 1.00E+00 Inhalation Soil Bioavailibility (-) 1.00E+00 Oral Slope Factor kg-dy/mg ND Oral Reference Dose mg/kg/dy 7.00E-01 IInhalation Slope Factor kg-dy/mg ND Inhalation Reference Dose mg/kg/dy 2.90E-02 SUMMARY OF THE OUTPUTS CDI: Chronic Daily Intake LADI: Lifetime Average Daily Intake DRINKING WATER Daily CDI LADI Risk Hazard Intake Quotient (mg/kg-dy) (mg/kg-dy) (mg/kg-dy) i-) (-) IBenzene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Ethylbenzene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Toluene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TPH Aliphatic C5-6 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 IXylenes 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION OF SOIL EMISSIONS Daily CDI LADI Risk Hazard Intake Quotient (mg/kg-dy) (mg/kg-dy) (mg/kg-dy) (-) (-) IBenzene 3.77E-10 5.65E-10 1.55E-10 4.50E-12 3.32E-07 Ethylbenzene 1.88E-08 3.22E-08 7.74E-09 2.98E-11 1.11E-07 Toluene 1.80E-08 3.00E-08 7.39E-09 ND 2.72E-07 TPH Aliphatic C5-6 3.88E-04 4.12E-04 1.59E-04 ND 3.75E-03 I Xylenes 3.87E-07 6.54E-07 1.59E-07 ND 2.26E-05 Receptor Point Concentrations Max. 5-year ave Ave. over ED Groundwater Concentrations: (non-carcinogens) (carcinogens) Benzene .000 .000 Ethylbenzene .000 .000 Toluene .000 .000 TPH Aliphatic C5-6 .000 .000 Xylenes .000 .000 Max. 5-year ave Ave. over ED Air Concentrations: (non-carcinogens) (carcinogens) Benzene 6.188E-09 3.962E-09 Ethylbenzene 3.528E-07 1.979E-07 Toluene 3.283E-07 1.888E-07 TPH Aliphatic C5-6 4.513E-03 4.076E-03 Xylenes 7.166E-06 4.066E-06 I Chemicals in the analysis: Benzene Ethylbenzene oluene PH A~iphatic C5-6 Xylenes I Chemical Intake Analysis Deterministic Run PARAMETER NAME UNITS VALUE Body Weight kg 7.00E+01 ILife Time yr 7.00E+01 Exposure Duration Groundwater yr 3.00E+01 Exposure Frequency Ingestion dy/yr 3.50E+02 Water Ingestion Rate 1/day 1.40E+00 I!Exposure Duration Inhalation yr 3.00E+01 Exposure Frequency Inhalation dy/yr 3.50E+02 Exposure Time - Outdoor Air hr 8.00E+00 Air Inhalation Rate m^3/hr 8.33E-01 I Benzene PARAMETER NAME UNITS VALUE Water Ingestion Bioavailibility (-) 1.00E+00 Inhalation Soil Bioavailibility (-) 1.00E+00 IOral Slope Factor kg-dy/mg 5.50E-02 Oral Reference Dose mg/kg-dy 3.30E-03 Inhalation Slope Factor kg-dy/mg 2.90E-02 Inhalation Reference Dose mg/kg/dy 1.70E-03 Ethylbenzene PARAMETER NAME UNITS VALUE Water Ingestion Bioavailibility (-) 1.00E+00 Inhalation Soil Bioavailibility (-) 1.00E+00 IOral Slope Factor kg-dy/mg 3.85E-03 Oral Reference Dose mg/kg-dy 1.00E-01 Inhalation Slope Factor kg-dy/mg 3.85E-03 Inhalation Reference Dose mg/kg/dy 2.90E-01 Toluene PARAMETER NAME UNITS VALUE Water Ingestion Bioavailibility (-) 1.00E+00 Inhalation Soil Bioavailibility (-) 1.00E+00 Oral Slope Factor kg-dy/mg ND Oral Reference Dose .mg/kg-dy 2.00E-01 Inhalation Slope Factor kg-dy/mg ND Inhalation Reference Dose mg/kg/dy 1.10E-01 TPH Aliphatic C5-6 PARAMETER NAME UNITS VALUE Water Ingestion Bioavailibility (-) 1.00E+00 Inhalation Soil Bioavailibility (-) 1.00E+00 Oral Slope Factor kg-dy/mg ND Oral Reference Dose mg/kg-dy 2.00E-01 Inhalation Slope Factor kg-dy/mg ND Inhalation Reference Dose mg/kg/dy 1.10E-01 ***** SESOIL-84 : SEASONAL CYCLES OF WATER, SEDIMENT, AND POLLUTANTS IN SOIL ENVIRONMENTS ***** ***** DEVELOPERS: M. BONAZOUNTAS,ARTHUR D. LITTLE INC. , (617)864-5770,X5871 ***** ***** J. WAGNER ,DIS/ADLPIPE, INC. , (617)492-1991,X5820 ***** ***** MODIFIED EXTENSIVELY BY: ***** ***** D.M. HETRICK ***** ***** OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY ***** ***** (615) 576-7556 ***** ***** VERSION : JANUARY, 1995 ***** ****** MONTHLY SESOIL MODEL OPERATION ****** MONTHLY SITE SPECIFIC SIMULATION RUN: 1 REGION : ( 1) **** Climate Data SOIL TYPE : ( 1) Default soil type COMPOUND : ( 1) Benzene WASHLOAD DATA : ( 0 ) APPLICATION AREA: ( 1) DSS Fate and Transport WARNING- SOIL PERMEABILITY VARYS CONSIDERABLY AMONGLAYERS SESOIL MAY NOT BE ACCURATE FOR SUCH AN INHOMOGENEOUS COLUMN WARNING- SOIL PERMEABILITY VARYS CONSIDERABLY AMONG LAYERS SESOIL MAY NOT BE ACCURATE FOR SUCH AN INHOMOGENEOUS COLUMN GENERAL INPUT PARAMETERS -- SOIL INPUT PARAMETERS -- SOIL DENSITY (G/CM**3): 1.55 INTRINSIC PERMEABILITY (CM**2): .100E-07 DISCONNECTEDNESS INDEX (-): 6.50 POROSITY (-): .300 ORGANIC CARBON CONTENT (%): 5.00 CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (MILLI EQ./100G DRY SOIL): .000 FREUNDLICH EXPONENT (-): 1.00 1 -- CHEMICAL INPUT PARAMETERS -- SOLUBILITY (UG/ML): .175E+04 DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT IN AIR (CM**2/SEC): .880E-01 HENRYS LAW CONSTANT (M**3-ATM/MOLE): .548E-02 ADSORPTION COEFFICIENT ON ORGANIC CARBON(KOC): 58.9 ADSORPTION COEFFICIENT ON SOIL (K): .000 MOLECULAR WEIGHT (G/MOL): 78.0 IVALENCE (-): .000 NEUTRAL HYDROLYSIS CONSTANT (/DAY): .000 BASE HYDROLYSIS CONSTANT (L/MOL-DAY): 000 ACID HYDROLYSIS CONSTANT (L/MOL-DAY): 000 DEGRADATION RATE IN MOISTURE (/DAY): 000 DEGRADATION RATE ON SOIL (/DAY): 000 LIGAND-POLLUTANT STABILITY CONSTANT (-): 000 NO. MOLES LIGAND/MOLE POLLUTANT (-): 000 LIGAND MOLECULAR WEIGHT (G/MOL): 000 -- APPLICATION INPUT PARAMETERS -- HYDROLOGY SUMMARY FOR SESOIL Average moisture content [%] 7.57 Other Hydrology Parameters cm/yr % of prec. Total precipitation 5.55 100 00 Surface runoff .00 00 Infiltration 5.55 100 00 Evapotranspiration .56 10 07 ' Groundwater recharge rate 4.99 89 93 Moisture retention .00 00 Note: the infiltration rate is equal to precipitation minus surface runoff. i*-*** SESOIL-84 : SEASONAL CYCLES OF WATER, SEDiMENT,.AND POLLUTANTS IN 'SOIL O[~ENT S * * * * I ~* DEVELOPERS: M. BONAgOUNTAS,ARTHUR D. LITTLE iNC. ,.(6i7)'864-§770,X587.i :'~;:6'~;~~' J. WAGNER ,DIS/ADLPIPE,. INC. ,.(_617).492-1991,X5820 I**.**.MODtFiED EXTENSIVELY 'BY-: ~OAK RIDGE N~TiONAL LAB'ORATOR¥ I ~ (61'5~ 576-7556 ~**.** VERSION : JANUARY, 1995 ****** MONTHLY SESOiL MODEL OPERATION huN~H~Y o~'E SDECIFIC o~MU~_~I~N IU'N-: 1 r EGiON : ( i) Climate D~-a ATT ~Vhm i, ~..~ ~ ~4 ~ type' COMPOUND : ( 1) Benzene ~PPLI, CATiON AREA: ( i) DSS Fate and Transport ARNiNG- SOIL PERMEABiLiTY VARYS CONSIDERABLY ~ONG LAY-ERS IARNiNG- 'SOIL PERMEABiLiTY VARYS CONSIDERABLY ~ONG LAY'ERS ! GENERAL iNPUT PARAivi'ET'ERS ! -- SOiL iNPUT PARAMETERS --  0i.% 'D'~N'S1TY (G/CMOS3): 1.55 NTRINoIC PERMEABILITY ('CM**2): .IOOE-07 DISCONNECTEDNESS INDEX (-): '6.-50  OROSITY (-): .300 RGANIC 'CARBON CONTENT (%): ~5.'00 ~ '"' ' ~' ~ ~ ~ . OOG ~R~ SOIL): .Our CA~ION ~C~GE C~A~Y (M~ EQ /i ~ ~ ~  REUNDLiCH EXPONENT (-): i.O0 -- CH~MI.C~ INPUT PA~iETERS -- ~OLUBILI.TY (UG/ML): . t75E+04 DIFFUSION -COEFFICIENT IN AIR (CM**2/SEC): .880E--01  R. YS LAW CONST~T (M**3-ATM/MOLE): .'548E-02 ~O.RPTION COEFFICIENT ON OR~4IC C~ON(KO.C): 58.9 ADSORPTION COEFFiCiENT ON SOIL (K): .000 OLEC ~ WEIGHT ~G/~u~: 78 0 ~ENcE .(-): .O00 NEUT~ HYDROLYSIS CONSTANT (/DAY): .000  SE HYDROLYSIS CONST~T (L/MOL-DAY): .000 ID HYDROLYSIS CONSTANT (L/MOL-DAY): .000 DEG~DA'i'ION ~'fE IN MOISTURE (/DAY): .000  EG~DATION ~TE ON SOIL (/DAY): .000 IG~D-POLLUT~T ST~ILiTY CONST~T (-): .000 NO.. MOLES LIG~ND/5~LE POLLUTanT (-): .000  IG~D MOLECUL~ WEIGHT (G/MOL): .000 -- APPLICATION INPUT P~iET-E-RS -- ND%i'BER OF SOiL LAYERS: .4  S TO BE SIMU~TED: 30 R~ (.CM**2): . i3t-E+07 PPLICATION ~ ~TITUDE ,n ~ ~E~. ): 1.00  Pi.LL (t) OR STaY AFFLiCATiON (0): i ODIFIED SLg~ERS MODEL USED (1) OR NOT (0) FOR GWR. CONC.: 1 iN~Ti~ CHEMIC~ CONCENT~TiONS GIVEN (i) OR NOT GIVEN (0) i  EPTHS (CM): .31E+03 .91E+03 .11 04 .34E+0 594BER OF SUB~YERS/~YER 1 2 3 FH : 7.0 7.0 (CM) 7.0 7.0 INTRINSIC PE~4~ILITIES (CM**2): .10E-07 .25E-08 .50 I -.iO . t0E-0 IKDES ,~TiO'S (-): i.0 1.0 1.0 OC ~Ti.OS (-): i.0 i.0 i..O ~EC ~TiOS (-): i.0 i.'0 i.0  FRN ~TIOS(-): 1.0 i.0 i.0 ADS ~TIO.S(-): t.0 i.-0 i.0 I ~-, - ~- Mu~,~u,.~ INPUT PARAMETERS I-- CLi~;~TiC INPUT PARAMETERS OCT NOV DEC jAN FEB M~AR ABR I. M~.Y .JfjN JUL AUG S E i ~EMP. (DEG C) 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.00-0 30.000 30.00.0 30.000- 30.000 30.000 30.00 :LOUD 'CVR (FRAC.) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .'000 .000 .000 .0'00 .000 .~ IEL. 'H'UM.(FRAC.) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .'0'0'0 .O00 00'0 000 000 nnn .'00 ALBEDO (-) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00'0 .'000 I nnO 000 000 nnn O0 VAPOT. (CM/DAY) .002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .002' .'002 .002 .002 .002 .002 .00 I?RECi.P. (CM) .466 .466 .466 .466 .466 .4'66 .4.66 .466 .466 .466 .466 .46 r.,T-i'M'E RAiN(DAYS) 1.000 i.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 i.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 M. STO'PdvI NO. (-) i.000 i.000 i.000 i.000 i.000 i.000 t.'000 1.'000 I 000 i 000 i 000 ~ SEASON (DAYS) 30.400 30.400 30.400 30.400 30.400 30.40'0 30.400 30.400 30.400 30~400 30.400 30.40 ! i I.Nt.'I'tAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN UG/ML, INPUT FOR MONTH 4 OF YEA~ t AYER i: SUSZA Sn N,.ITIAL CONC. (UG/ML) 0.'0'0'g+00 ILAYER 2: oUB~Y~R I~Nt?IAL CONC. (UG/ML) ?.75E-02 ?.75E-0~ ILAYER 3: INITIAL CONC. (UG/ML) /.'/5E-02 i.04E+00 3.25E-02 I LAYER 4: iNITIAL CONC. (~G/ML) O.OOE+O0 O.OOE+O0 I -- POLLUTANT IN~UT ~AR~qET~S -- I OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB i¢~-R AP I ~ v ~JN ~ AUG e ~ ..OL. 1NF-1 (UG/CM**2) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+'0'0-0..00 00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00' 0.00E+00'0.00E+0 RNSffOi~ID-i (UG/CM**2) 0.00m+00 0.00~+00 0.00$+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+'0-0 '0.-00 . ~'~ 0'u~0u 0 u0~u ~+00 u.00~00 u.'u0E~uu 0 0u~uu 0. . ~:;tN'KS-1 (UG/CH**2) 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00g+00 0.00~+00 0.00g+00 0.00~+00 '0.00 ~uu 0.00~00 0.00~0u 0 0u~0u 0.'0'0~0u 0.00E+0 ±G.±NFUT-1 (UG/CH**2) 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+'00 0.-00 ~'00 u.00~+00 '0.00E+00 0.uu~*uu 0.00~u0 0.00g+0' '"VOLATILI'ZATiON MULT.-i 2.00E-0i 2.00E-01 2.00E-0i 2.00E-0'i 2.00E-0i 2.0'0E--0i 2..00 E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-0  UR'FACE RUNOFF MULT. 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+O0 '0.O0 00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+0 POL. iN RAIN (FRAC-SL) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+'0'0 0.-.00 00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+0 ~OL. iNP-2 (UG/CM**2) 0.00~+00 0.00g+00 0.00E+00 '0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+-0'0 '0.00 00 0.00g+00 0.00E+00 0.00g+00 0.00g+00 0.00g+0 ~NS~i{MD-2 (UG/CM**2) 0.00~+00 0.00$+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00S+00 0.00~+'0'0 '0.00 _.0'0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+0 ~N'~S-'2 (UG/CM**2) 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.0'0$+'0'0 '0.00 g+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00g+00 0.00g+00 0.00E+0 IIG.1NPUT-2 (UG/CM**2) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.0'0E+'0'0 '0.'00 00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+0 VOLATILIZATION ~OLT.-2 2.00E-01 2.00E-0i 2.00E-0i 2.00E-0i 2.00E-0i 2.00E-'0i 2..00 10% 2.00E-0t 2.00E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-0 ~PO~. i'N~-3 (UG/CM**2) 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+'0'0-0.-00 I,.~+00 0.00E+00 0.00ET00' 0.00g+00 0.00g+00 0.00g+0 TRNS~'ORMD-3 (UG/CM**2) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+'0'0 0.00 00 0.00E+00 0.0~E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+0 iN-KS-3 (UG/CM**~) 0.00z+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+'0-0 '0.00 00 0.00E+00 0.00g+00 0.00g+00 0.00E+00 0.00g+0 _IG.LN~UT-3 (UG/CM**2) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+'0'0-0.00 0'0 0.oOE+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+0 OLATiLiZATiON MULT.-3 2.00E-01 2.00E-0i 2.00E-01 2.00E-0i 2.00E-0i 2.00E-Oi 2.00 i-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-0 FOL. 1NP-L (UG/CM**2) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+'0'0-0.'00 ,00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+0 RNSffORMD-L (UG/CM**2) 0.00$+00 0.00E+00 0.00$+00 0.00E+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+'00 '0.'00 E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+0 ~ZN-~S-n (UG/CM**2) 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+00 0.00~+'00 '0.00 ~+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+.0 LIG.INPU'£-L (UG/CM**2) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00~+O0 '0.'00 _00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+0 OLATiLiZATiON MULT.-L 2.00E-01 2.00E-0i 2.00E-01 2.00E-0i 2.00E-01 2.00E-0i 2.00 E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-01 2.00E-0 I YEAR - 2 M~u~v ~, ~,~ ~u*~ ~NPo~ P~4ETERS -- CLiMATiC INPUT PARA~iETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR -- ,POLLUTANT INPUT PARAivIETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR YEAR - 3 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMETERS CLiMATiC INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR -- POLLUTANT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR YEAR - 4 MONTHLY INPUT PARAMETERS --. CLIt~iATIC INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LA'ST YEAR -- POLLUTANT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR ;fEAR- 5 MONTHLY INPUT PARAMETERS --.CLIMATIC INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR -- P. OLLUTANT INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEaR YEAR - 6 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMETERS --CLI-MATiC iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST Y-EAR -- POLLUTANT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SA/~iE AS LAST YEAR -YEAR - 7 MONTHLY INPUT PARAkeET-ERS -- CLIMATIC iNPUT P~ETERS ARE SAME A-S LAST Y-EAR -- POLLUTANT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR YEAR- 8 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMET'ERS --CLIMATIC INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR -- POLLUTANT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR · YEAR- 9 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAFiET'E'RS -- CLIMATIC INPUT PARAiviETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR -- POLLUTANT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LA-ST YEAR YEAR- i0 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMETERS --. C-Li~¢L~TiC INPUT PAR~IETERS ARE SAME AS LA-ST YEAR -- POLLUTANT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAi~iE AS LAST YEAR ~YEAR - ti MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMETERS --. CLIMATIC INPUT Pi~wJ~iqETERS ARE SAi~tE AS LAST Y.EAR -- POLLUTANT INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR- 12 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMETERS --CLiMATiC INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST Y-EAR -- POLLUTANT INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME A-S LAST :f-E~kR -YEAR- 13 MONTHLY INPUT PARAMETERS -- C.LIMATiC INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR -- POLLUTANT INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAi~iE AS LAST ¥.EAR ,YEAR - 14 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMET'ERS --CLIMATIC INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR -- POLLUTANT INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR YEAR - 15 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMETERS --. C,LiMATtC INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST ¥.EJ~R -- POLLUTANT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST Y-EAR .YEAR -' 16 MONTHLY iNPU~ PARAMETERS -- C-LIt~TiC iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAi~iE AS LA'ST'Y-EAR -- POLLUTANT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SA/viE AS LAST Y'~ -YEAR- 17 MONTHLY INPUT PARAMET'E'RS -- GLI'MATIC INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAi~iE AS LAST YE-AR -- 'POLLUTAiqT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAi~iE AS LAST YEAR YEAR- 18 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMETE-RS -- C.LiMATIC iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME A'S LAST ¥'E~R -- POLLUTANT' iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR CL i~.~T i C iNPUT -- ~'~'~"'~~4,'.T,'.~o~ ARE S~,~E AS ~ '~ ~A~ ~ Y.E~ -- POLLUTanT iNPUT PA~4ETERS ARE S~ME AS LAST YEAR YEAR- 20 MONTHLY INPUT PA~4ETERS --..C.Li~TiC INPUT PA~ETERS ~E S~E AS LAST -- POLLUT~T INPUT P~ETERS ~E S~E AS ~ST -YEAR- 2i MONTHLY iNPUT P~ETERS --.C-LIi~TiC INPUT P~tETERS ~E S~tE AS ~-ST Y-~ -- POLLU'T~T iNPUT P~ETERS ~E S~E ~ ~T Y.~ -YE~- 22 MONTHLY INPUT PA~ETE'RS -- ,.CLit~TIC iNPUT P~iETERS ~E S~E AS ~'ST Y-~ -- POLLUT~T iNPUT P~iETERS ~E S~IE AS LAST Y-~ YEAR - 23 MONTHLY INPUT PA~ETE'RS -- ..CLIMATIC INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME A'S LAST YEAR -- POLLUTANT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST Y-EAR · YEAR - 24 MONTHLY INPUT PARAMET'E'RS. CLiiCu~TiC iNPUT PARA~mT~S ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR -- POLLUTANT INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST Y-EAR YEAR - 25 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMETERS --. CLiMATiC iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LA'ST YEAR -- POLLUTANT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR - 26 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMETERS I --.CLiMATiC INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST -YEAR -- POLLUTANT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME /-t-~ LAST ~fEAR YEAR - 27 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMETERS --.CLI{~LATIC iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST Y-EAR -- POLLUTANT INPUT PARA/vtETERS 'ARE SAME AS LAST Y.EAR · YEAR - 28 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMETERS \ --CLiMATiC iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LA-ST YEAR -- POLLUTANT iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST Y.EAR · YEAR- 29 MONTHLY iNPUT PARAMET'E~RS --, CLIMATIC iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST YEAR -- POLLUTANT INPUT PARAiqETERS ARE SAME AS LAST Y-EAR. YEAR - 30 MONTHLY INPUT PARAMETERS --.CLIMATIC iNPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST Y-EAR' --POLLUTANT INPUT PARAMETERS ARE SAME AS LAST Y.EAR ! -- MODIFIED SUMMERS MODEL PARAMETERS -- (INPUT FOR CA_LCULATION OF CONT~4IN~T IN GROUNDWATER). ! SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTiViTY (CM/DAY): 1.00'g+02 I HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC GRADIENT: I 00E-02 THICKNESS OF SATURATED ZONE (CM): i.50'E+02 WIDTH OF CONT~24I~L~tTED ZONE PERPENDICUI_JiR TO FLOW (CM): 1.22E+03 IBACKGROUND CONTAMINANT CONCENTP~kTiON IN A~UIFER (UG/ML): 0.00E+00 1 ! YEAR - i MONTHLY RESULTS (OUTPUT) -- HYDROLOGIC CYCLE COMPONENTS -- OCT NOV DEC jAN FEB MAR APR M~AY ~'~ ~TT ,~.~ SE MOiS. iN L1 (%) 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.-572 7 572 7 7 4,2uu 7 4,2~ 7 .MOi-S. BELOW L1 (%) 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.-57~ 7.4,2 7. 572 7.572 7. 572 7.4, I PRECiPATION (CM) .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .462 .4.63 .463 .463 .4-63 .46 NET iNFiLT. (CM) .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 463 .463. ~6o ~ ~ .463- 46 EVAPOTRANS. (CM) .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .04~ .047 047 ~ . .u4, ..047 ..04 I MOI'S. RETEN (CM) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .'00~ ~0 ..000 .0.0.0 .000. O0 SUR. RUNOFF (CM) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00'0 .'00E ~ .000 .000 .000 ..000 .00 · GRW' RUNOFF (CM) .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .41-6 .4i~ .416 .416 .416 .416 .41 I YIELD (CM) .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .4i6 .'4i~ .~ .'416 .4~6 .~6 .41 I PAU/MPA (GZU) .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .99'4 .994 .994 .99- ~A/M'PA (G~) .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .-994 I .994 .994 .994 .994 .99 1 -- POLLUTANT MASS iNPUT TO COLUMN (UG) - INCLUDES INITIAL -PC LUTANT ~ON~E~R/~No - OCT NOV DEC jAN FEB MAtR APR PR~CiP. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.'00'OE+0C 0 000E+00 0 000E+00 '0 000E+00 0.000E'+00 0.'0~'~ ~ ~LOAD UPPER 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.~00'0E+0~ ~0 000E+00 0 000E+00 0.000E+00 0 0n~+~ 0 LOAD 'ZONE 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 9.204E+07 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.'00'0E+0[ 0'.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 LOAD 'ZONE 3 0.'000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 5.353E+08 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.'000E+0( 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 I LOAD LOWER O.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0'00E+0[ 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 ITOTAL iNPUT 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 6.273E+08 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 O.00OE+0( 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 0 -- POLLUTANT MASS DiSTRiBUTiON iN COLUMN (UG) -- NOTE: IF.COMPONENT iS I ERO EACH MONTH, IT IS NOT PRINTE ! UPPER SOIL ZONE: SUBLAYER I VOLATILiZED 0.000E+00 O.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.136E+01 9.607E+0i 1.605E+02 2.t60E+02 2.756E+02 3.350E+02 3o94'8E+02 4.oo9-E~0z 5.127E+0 I%.N-S@tL MOi 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 5.801E+02 1.178E+03 i.773E+03 2.347E+02 2.917E+03 3.485E+03 4.051E+03 4.615-E+03 5.177E+0' ADS .ON SOIL 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.497E+04 7.100E+04 i.069E+05 i.4t5E+0~ Il 758E+05 2 101E+05 2 . . .~~ 2.782E+05 3.121E+0 iN.SOIL AiR 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.889E+02 7.895E+02 i.188E+03 i.5i'9'E+0~ 1.888E+03 2.256E+03 2.627E+03 2.992E+03 3.356E+0 I SOIL-ZONE 2: SUBLAYE.R i DiFF,USED UP 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.V22E+04 3.7i3E+04 3.V05E+04 3.57tE+0~  3.5.64E+04 3.556E+04 3.554E+04 3.547E+04 3.539E+0 IN .SOIL MO1 0.000m+oo 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 7.420E+05 7.4i2E+05 V.405E+05 7.4'OOE+0[ 7.393E+05 7.385E+05 7.378E+05 7.371E+05 7.363E+0 lADS ON SOIL 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 4.473E+07 4.468E+07 4.464E+07 4.4-6i-E+0~ 4.457E+07 4.452E+07 4.448E+07 4.443E+07 4.439E+0 iN ,S-OiL AiR 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 4.974E+05 4.969E+05 4.964E+05 4.7-90E+0[ 4.785E+05 4.781E+05 4.784E+05 4.779E+05 4.774E+0 SUBLAYER 2 ID.iFFUSED UP 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 i.983E+0i 5.846E+0i 9.757E+0i t.3i9E+0~ 1.695E+02 2.075E+02 2.464E+02 2.853E+02 3.247E+0 IN-SOIL MOi 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 7.428E+0~ /.428E+05 7.428E+05 7.431E+0[ 7.432E+05 7.432E+05 7.433E+05 7.433E+0~ 7.434E+0 ADS ON SOIL 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 4.478E+07 4.478E+07 4.478E+07 4.480E+0Q 4.480E+07 4.480E+07 4.481E+07 4.481E+07 4.482E+0 ' ~iN .SOIL AiR 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 4.979E+05 4.979E+05 4.979E+05 4.8±~' ~'°'~+~U. 4.811E+05 4.81tE+05 4.819E+05 4.820E+05 4.820E+0 SOIL ,ZONE 3: SUBLAYER i IDiF-F.USED UP 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.752E+02 i.149E+03 i.9i8E+03 2.5-80E+02 3.290E+03 3.997E+03 4.708E+03 5.409E+03 6.106E+0 IIN SOiL MOi 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 5.9i4E+UO ~.009E+05 6.103E+05 6.i-96-E+0[ 6.286E+05 6.376E+05 6.466E+05 6.555E+05 6.644E+0 ADS ,ON SOiL 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.565E+0/ 3.622E+07 3.679E+07 3.73'5E+0~ 3.790E+07 3.844E+07 3.898E+07 3.951E+07 4.005E+0 IN SOiL AIR 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0O 3.965E+05 4.028E+05 4.09iE+0O 4.'0it'E+0~ 4.069E+05 4.127E+05 4.192E+05 4.250E+05 4.308E+0 SUBLAYER 2 IDiF.FUSED UP 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 5.894E+05 5.877E+05 5.860E+05 5.64-5E+0[ 5.629E+05 5.613E+05 5.606E+05 5.591E+05 5.575E+0 IN-SOIL'MOi 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 o.000E+00 7.802E+06 /./90E+0~ /./79E+06 7.77iE+0( 7.760E+06 7.749E+06 7.738E+06 7.727E+06 7.716E+0 ADS-ON SOiL 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 4.703E+08 4.696E+08 4.689E+08 4.684E+0~ 4.678E+08 4.671E+08 4.664E+08 4.658E+08 4.651E+0 iiN .SOIL AiR 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 5.230E+06 0.222E+06 5.215E+06 5.'030'E+0( I SUBLAYE'R 3 .N 'SOIL MOi 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.463E+05 2.483E+05 2.504E+05 2.'52'6~E+05 .547E+05 2.567E+05 2.588E+05 2.609E+05 2.629E+0 DS 'ON 'SOIL 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.'000E+00 i.484E+07 i.497E+07 i.5i0E+07 i.523E+07 1.535E+07 1.548E+07 t.560E+07 1.573E+07 1.585E+0 iN .SOIL AIR 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 i.65iE+05 i.665E+05 1.679E+05 i.63'5'E+05 1.648E+05 1.662E+05 1.678E+05 1.691E+05 1.705E+0 I LOWER SOIL Z'ONE-: 'SUBLAYER I ,SUBLAYE'R 2 IGWR. RUNOFF 0.000E+00 O.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 I I -- ~OLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS (UG/M~) OR (UG/G) -- NO'I'~: 1~' CONCENTRAT±ON$ RRk ZERO FOR EACH MONTH, THEY ARE NOT PRINTED - I i -UPPER SOIL ZONE-: .SUBLAYER I iMOI,STURE 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 i.894E-05 3.845E-05 5.787E-05 7.'6'60.E-0E 9.522E-05 1.138E-04 1.322E-04 1.506E-04 1.690E-0 .%SOLUBILITY 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 i.082E-06 2.i97E-06 3.307E-06 4.377E-0{ 5.441E-06 6.500E-06 7.556E-06 8.609E-06 9.656E-0 ADSORBED 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 b.b//m-Ob i.i32E-04 i.704E-04 2.2'5'6E-0~ 2.804E-04 3.350E-04 3.894E-04 4.437E-04 4.977E-0 ISOiL AiR 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 4.286E-06 8.70iE-06 i.3i0E-05 i.674'E-0[ 2.081E-05 2.486E-05 2.895E-05 3.298E-05 3.699E-0 I ~'o±~ ZONE 2': · SUBLAYER i I MOISTURE 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 i.650E-02 i.649E-02 i.647E-02 i.64-6-E-0~ 1.644E-02 1.643E-02 1.641E-02 1.639E-02 1.638E-0 I%SOL-UBiLiTY 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 9.430E-04 9.42iE-04 9.4iiE-04 9.4'ob'm-u, 9.396E-04 9.386E-04 9.377E-04 9.368E-04 9.358E-0 ADSORBED 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00om+u0 4.860E-02 4.855E-02 4.850E-02 4.'847E-0% 4.842E-02 4.838E-02 4.833E-02 4.828E-02 4.823E-0 SOiL AiR o.o00E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.735E-03 3.73iE-03 3.727E-03 ~.o~7E-0[ 3.593E-03 3.590E-03 3.592E-03 3.589E-03 3.585E-0 I SUBLAYER 2 I. MOiS'TURE 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 1.652E-02 i.bbZ~-UZ i.652E-02 i.6-53-E-0~ .SOLUBiLiTY 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 9.440E-04 9.440E-04' 9.~4iE-04 9.44~E-04 .445E-04 9.446E-04 9.446E-04 9.447E-04 9.448E-0 ADSORBED 0.000E~00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 4.865E-02 4.865E-02 4.865E-02 4.867E-02 .868E-02 4.868E-02 4.868E-02 4.869E-02 4.870E-0 OiL AiR 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.739E-03 3.739E-03 3.739E-03 3.6t2E-03 .612E-03 3.613E-03 3.619E-03 3.619E-03 3.620E-0 ISOiL ZONE 3.: · SUBLAYER' i ~'OiS'TURE 0.000E+00 0.000E+0u u.000E+00 i.678E-02 i.705E-02 i.732E-02 i.7-5-8E-02 1.784E-02 1.809E-02 1.834E-02 1.860E-02 1.885E-0 tSOLUBiLiTY 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 9.589E-04 9.742E-04 9.895E-04 i.005-E-03 .019E-03 1.034E-03 t.048E-03 1.063E-03 1.077E-0 ADSORBED 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 4.942E-02 ~.u2iE-02 5.i00E-02 5.t77E-02 ~5_253E-02 5.328E-02 5.403E-02 5.477E-02 5.551E-0 ~IL AiR 0.000E+00 0.000E+0u u.000E+00 3.798E-03 3.859E-03 3.9t9E-03 3.-842E-O3 3.898E-03 3.954E-03 4.016E-03 4.071E-03 4.126E-0 'SUBLAYER 2 IMOiSTURE 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.2i4E-0i 2.2i0E-0i 2.207E-0i 2.2'0-5'E-'0.i 2.202E-01 2.199E-01 2.t95E-01 2.t92E-01 2.189E-0 %SOLUBILITY 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 i.265E-02 i.263E-02 i.261E-02 t.26-0'E-02 t.258E-02 1.256E-02 1.255E-02 1.253E-02 1.251E-0 ADSORBED 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 6.5i9E-01 6.5i0E-0i 6.500E-0t 6.4-93'E-0i 6.484E-01 6.475E-0t 6.465E-01 6.456E-01 6.447E-0 i SOIL AiR 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 5.010E-02 5.003E-02 4.995E-02 4.-8t'8'E-02 4.812E-02 4.805E-02 4.806E-02 4.799E-02 4.792E-0 i SUBLAYE-R 3 MOi'S'TURE 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 6.987E-03 V.046E-03 /.i05E-03 7.i-67E-O~ 7.225E-03 7.284E-03 7.343E-03 7.401E-03 7.460E-0 I%SOLUBiLiTY 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.993E-04 4.026E-04 4.060E-04 4.0-95E-O~ 4.129E-04 4.162E-04 4.196E-04 4.229E-04 4.263E-0 ADSORBED 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.058E-02 2.075E-02 2.092E-02 2.itiE-0~ 2.128E-02 2.145E-02 2.162E-02 2.180E-02 2.t97E-0 SOiL AiR 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 1.58iE-03 i.595E-03 i.608E-03 i.566E-02 1.579E-03 1.592E-03 t.607E-03 t.620E-03 1.633E-0 LOWER SOIL Z-ONE-: I POL DEP CM' 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.ii2E+03 2.ii2E+03 2.i12E+03 2.it2E+0] 2.112E+03 2.112E+03 2.112E+03 2.112E+03 2.113E+0 -- ~O~LU'rAN'r CONC~N'rHAT±ON ±~ G~OUNDW~r~R (UG/ML) -- I GWR. CONC. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.O00E+0( 0.000E+00 0..000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 YEAR - i ANNUAL SU-M/~IARY REPORT -- TOTAL INPUTS '(UG) -- .UPPER SOiL ZONE 0.'000E+00 SOIL ZONE 2 9.204E+07 SOIL 'ZONE J 5.353E+08 LOWER SOIL ZONE 0.000E+00 I -- HYDROLOGIC CYCLE COMPONENTS -- AVERAGE SOiL MOISTURE ZONE 1 (%) 7.'572 AVERAGE SOIL MOISTURE BELOW ZONE 1 (%) 7.572 TOTAL PRECIPITATION (CM) '5.-552 TOTAL INFILTRATION (CM) 5.552 TOTAL EVAPOTRANSPiRATION (CM) .-559 TOTAL SURFACE RUNOFF (CM) .000 TOTAL GRW RUNOFF (CM) 4.-994 TOTAL MOISTURE RETENTION (CM) .000 TOTAL YIELD (CM) 4.994 -- POLLUTANT MASS DISTRIBUTION IN COLUM~M (UG) -- NOTE: IF COMPONENT IS ZERO EACH MONTH, IT iS NOT PRINTE I FOR FINAL MASS iN SOiL MOi., ADS. ON SOIL, SOiL AIR, IiqMOBiL CEC, COMPLEXED, AND lUREPHASE FOR EACH SUBLAYER, SEE ABOVE ~mur~in S~P I UPPER SOIL ZONE-: .SUBLAYER .T'OTAL VOLATiLiZED 2.476E+03 .SOIL ZONE 2.: SUBLAYER i · T.OTAL DIFFUSED (UP) 3.247E+05 I 'SUBLAYER 2 TOTAL DI~'~'OSED (UP) i.54t-E+03 SOiL 'ZONE 3-: 'SUBLAYER TOTAL DIFFUSED (UP) 2.'953'E+04 SUBLAYER 2 TOTAL D±~'~'USED (UP) 5.i29E+06 I .SU'BLAYER 3 LOWER SOIL ZONE-: i SUBLAYER i i· .SUBLAYER 2 TOTAL iN GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.000E+00 i -- AVERAGE POLLUTANT CONCenTRATIONS -- NOTE: ONLY NON-2 RO VALUES ARE PRINTED - UPPER SOiL ZONE-: SUBLAYER 1 SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 7.106E--05 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 2.093E-04 .SOIL AiR (UG/ML) 1.'5'62E-05 SOiL ZONE 2: · SUBLAYER 1 SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) i.233E--02 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 3.631E-02 SOiL AiR (UG/ML) 2.728'E-'03 SUBLAYER 2 SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 3.651E-02 .SOIL AiR (UG/ML) 2.743E-03 SOiL "ZONE 3: SUBLAYER i SOiL MOISTURE (UG/ML) t.337E-02 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 3.938E-02 SOiL AiR (UG/ML)~. 2.'957E-03 SUBLAYER 2 SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) i.65iE-O-i S~ (UG/G) 4.862E-01 ADSORBED SOiL A1R (UG/ML) 3.653E-'02 SUBLAYER 3 SOIL MOISTURE (UG,/ML) 5.4i'8E-03 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 1.596E-02 SOiL AiR (UG/ML) i.i'9-9E-03 LOWER SOIL ZON'E.: MAX. POLL. DEPTH (M) 2.it3'E+0t AVE. CONTAMINA_NT CONC~NTRATION iN GROUNDWATER (UG/ML) YEAR - 2 MONTHLY RESULTS (OUTPUT) ! --HYDROLOGIC CYCLE COMPONENTS -- I I OCT NOV DEC jAN FEB MAR APR MAY ~JN ~JL AUG S E [MOiS. iN Li (%) 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.57 MOIS. BELOW L1 (%) 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.~57~ 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.57 PRECiPATiON (CM) .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .46~ .463 .463 .463 .463 .46 NET iNFILT. (CM) .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .4-6~ .463 .463 .463 .463 .46 EVAP-OTRANS. (CM) .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .04' .047 .047 .047 .047 .04 IMOi.S. RE'TEN .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 (CM) .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 SUR. RUNOFF (CM) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00'0 .00( .000 .000 .000 .000 .00 GRW. RUNOFF (CM) .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .4i-~ .416 .416 .416 ,416 .41 Yi,ELD (CM) .416 .416 .416 .4i6 .416 .4i6 .4i.~ .416 .416 .416 .416 .41 FAO/MPA (GZU) .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .'99, .994 .994 .994 .994 .99 PA/MPA (GZ) .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 , .99, .994 .994 .994 .994 .99 i -- POLLUTANT ~LASS iNPUT TO COLD-MN (UG ! YEAR - 28 MONTHLY RESULTS (OUTPUT) - HYDROLOGIC CYCLE COMPONENTS -- I OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP IMOIS. IN L1 (%) 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 MOIS. BELOWL1 (%) 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 PRECIPATION (CM) .463 .463 .463 .463 ,463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 i NETINFILT.(CM) .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 EVAPOTRANS. (CM) .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 MOIS. RETEN(CM) .000 ,000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 SUR. RUNOFF(CM) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 IGRW. RUNOFF(CM) .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 YIELD(CM) .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 I PAU/MPA(GZU) .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 ,994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 PNMPA(GZ) .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 i 1 -- POLLUTANT MASS INPUT TO COLUMN (UG) -- OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP PRECIP. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E I+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 LOAD UPPER 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 00E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 iLOAD ZONE 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 00E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 LOAD ZONE 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 00E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 I LOAD LOWER 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 00E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 ITOTAL INPUT 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00 0E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 0 -- POLLUTANT MASS DISTRIBUTION IN COLUMN (UG) -- NOTE: IF COMPONENT IS ZERO EACH MONTH, IT I iS NOT PRINTE I UPPER SOIL ZONE: SUBLAYER 1 I VOLATILIZED 1.240E+07 1.243E+07 1.246E+07 1.291 E+07 1.295E+07 1.298E+07 1.257E+07 1.260E+07 1.263E+07 1.26 8E+07 1.272E+07 1.275E+0 iN SOIL MOl 1.141E+08 1.144E+08 1.147E+08 1.150E+08 1.153E+08 1.156E+08 1.159E+08 1.162E+08 1.165E+08 1.168 +08 1.171E+08 1.173E+0 ADS ON SOIL 2.803E+10 2.810E+10 2.817E+10 2.824E+10 2.832E+10 2.839E+10 2.847E+10 2.854E+10 2.861E+10 2.86 8E+10 2.875E+10 2.882E+1 IN SOIL AIR 9.414E+07 9.438E+07 9.462E+07 9.804E+07 9.830E+07 9.855E+07 9.541E+07 9.565E+07 9.589E+07 9.629 I E+07 9.653E+07 9.677E+0 SOIL ZONE 2: m SUBLAYER 1 ~ mDIFFUSED UP 8.719E+07 8.715E+07 8.711E+07 8.997E+07 8.993E+07 8.988E+07 8.676E+07 8.672E+07 8.668E+07 8.6 78E+07 8.674E+07 8.669E+0 IN SOIL MOl 1.894E+09 1.893E+09 1.893E+09 1.892E+09 1.892E+09 1.891 E+09 1.891 E+09 1.891 E+09 1.890E+09 1.890 E+09 1.889E+09 1.889E+0 roADS ON SOIL 4.651E+I 1 4.650E+11 4.649E+11 4.648E+11 4.646E+11 4.645E+11 4.645E+11 4.644E+11 4.643E+11 4.64 2E+11 4.641E+11 4.640E+1 · ' IN SOIL AIR 1.562E+09 1.562E+09 1.561E+09 1.613E+09 1.613E+09 1.612E+09 1.557E+09 1.557E+09 1.556E+09 1.558 m E+09 1.558E+09 1.558E+0 SUBLAYER 2 IDIFFUSED UP 8.694E+06 8.716E+06 8.739E+06 9.055E+06 9.079E+06 9.102E+06 8.813E+06 8.835E+06 8.858E+06 8.8 95E+06 8.918E+06 8.940E+0 IN SOIL MOl 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066 E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+0 ADS ON SOIL 5.075E+11 5.075E+11 5.075E+11 5.074E+11 5.074E+11 5.074E+11 5.075E+11 5.075E+11 5.075E.11 5.07 5E+11 5.075E+11 5.075E+1 .m IN SOIL AIR 1.704E+09 1.704E+09 1.704E+09 1.761 E+09 1.761 E+09 1.761 E+09 1.701 E+09 1.701 E+09 1.701 E+09 1.704 E+09 1.704E+09 1.704E+0 SOIL ZONE 3: mSUBLAYER 1 mDIFFUSED UP 2.005E+07 2.004E+07 2.003E+07 2.069E+07 2.068E+07 2.067E+07 1.995E+07 1.994E+07 1.993E+07 1.9 95E+07 1.994E+07 1.993E+0 IN SOIL MOl 1.863E+09 1.863E+09 1.863E+09 1.863E+09 1.863E+09 1.863E+09 1.863E+09 1.863E+09 1.862E+09 1.862 m E+09 1.862E+09 1.862E+0 ADS ON SOIL 4.577E+11 4.577E+11 4.576E+11 4.576E+11 4.575E+11 4.575E+11 4.575E+11 4.575E+11 4.575E+11 4.57 ~5E+11 4.574E+11 4.574E+1 m IN SOIL AIR 1.537E+09 1.537E+09 1.537E+09 1.588E+09 1.588E+09 1.588E+09 1.534E+09 1.533E+09 1.533E+09 1.536 ,E+09 1.536E+09 1.536E+0 SUBLAYER 2 m IN SOIL MOl 1.808E+09 1.808E+09 1.808E+09 1.807E+09 1.807E+09 1.807E+09 1.808E+09 1.808E+09 1.808E+09 1.808 E+09 1.808E+09 1.808E+0 mADS ON SOIL 4.440E+11 4.440E+11 4.440E+11 4.439E+11 4.439E+11 4.439E+11 4.440E+11 4.440E+11 4.440E+11 4.44 0E+I 1 4.440E+11 4.440E+1 IN SOIL AIR 1.491E+09 1.491E+09 1.491 E+09 1.541E+09 1.541 E+09 1.541 E+09 1.488E+09 1.488E+09 1.488E+09 1.491 miE+09 1.491E+09 1.491E+0 · SUBLAYER 3 m IN SOIL MOl 3.895E+07 3.907E+07 3.919E+07 3.931E+07 3.943E+07 3.955E+07 3.967E+07 3.979E+07 3.991E+07 4.003 E+07 4.015E+07 4.027E+0 ADS ON SOIL 9.568E+09 9.597E+09 9.627E+09 9.655E+09 9.685E+09 9.714E+09 9.745E+09 9.775E+09 9.804E+09 9.83 r E+09 9.863E+09 9.893E+0 N SOIL AIR 3.213E+07 3.223E+07 3.233E+07 3.351E+07 3.382E+07 3.372E+07 3.266E+07 3.276E+07 3.286E+07 3.301 E+07 3.311E+07 3.321 E+0 m LOWER SOIL ZONE: SUBLAYER 1 ! m SUBLAYER 2 GWR. RUNOFF 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0. i000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 m _ POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS (UG/ML) OR (UG/G)-- NOTE: IF CONCENTRATIONS ARE ZERO FOR EACH M ONTH, THEY ARE NOT PRINTED - ! UPPER SOIL ZONE: m SUBLAYER 1 MOISTURE 3.725E+00 3.735E+00 3.744E+00 3.754E+00 3.763E+00 3.773E+00 3.783E+00 3.793E+00 3.802E+00 3.81 m2E+OO 3.821E+00 3.830E+0 %SOLUBILITY 1.881E+00 1.886E+00 1.891E+00 1.896E+00 1.901E+00 1.906E+00 1.911E+00 1.916E+00 1.920E+00 1.9 25E+00 1.930E+00 1.935E+0 mADSORBED 4.470E+01 4.482E+01 4.493E+01 4.504E+01 4.516E+01 4.528E+01 4.540E+01 4.551E+01 4.563E+01 4.57 4E+01 4.585E+01 4.597E+0 SOIL AIR 1.038E+00 1.040E+00 1.043E+00 1.081E+00 1.083E+00 1.086E+00 1.052E+00 1.054E+00 1.057E+00 1.061E m+oo 1.064E+00 1.067E+0 SOIL ZONE 2: m SUBLAYER 1 MOISTURE 4.211E+01 4.210E+01 4.210E+01 4.208E+01 4.207E+01 4.206E+01 4.206E+01 4.205E+01 4.204E+01 4.20 3E+01 4.202E+01 4.201E+0 %SOLUBILITY 2.127E+01 2.126E+01 2.126E+01 2.125E+01 2.125E+01 2.124E+01 2.124E+01 2.124E+01 2.123E+01 2.1 23E+01 2.122E+01 2.122E+0 mADSORBED 5.054E+02 5.053E+02 5.051E+02 5.050E+02 5.049E+02 5.047E+02 5.047E+02 5.046E+02 5.045E+02 5.04 4E+02 5.043E+02 5.041E+0 SOILAIR 1.173E+01.1.173E+01 1.172E+01 1.211E+01 1.211E+01 1.211E+01 1.169E+01 1.169E+01 1.169E+01 1.170E +01 1.170E+01 1.170E+0 mSUBLAYER 2 mMOISTURE 4.595E+01 4.595E+01 4.595E+01 4.594E+01 4.594E+01 4.595E+01 4.595E+01 4.595E+01 4.595E+01 4.59 5E+01 4.595E+01 4.595E+0 %SOLUBILITY 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2.320E+01 2.320E+01 2.320E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2.3 m21E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+0 ADSORBED 5.514E+02 5.514E+02 5.514E+02 5.513E+02 5.513E+02 5.513E+02 5.514E+02 5.514E+02 5.514E+02 5.51 4E+02 5.514E+02 5.515E+0 SOIL AIR 1.280E+01 1.280E+01 1.280E+01 1.323E+01 1.323E+01 1.323E+01 1.277E+01 1.277E+01 1.277E+01 1.279E m+011.280E+011.280E+0 SOIL ZONE 3: m SUBLAYER 1 mMOISTURE 5.287E+01 5.286E+01 5.286E+01 5.285E+01 5.285E+01 5.285E+01 5.285E+01 5.285E+01 5.284E+01 5.28 4E+01 5.284E+01 5.283E+0 %SOLUBILITY 2.670E+01 2.670E+01 2.670E+01 2.669E+01 2.669E+01 2.669E+01 2.669E+01 2.669E+01 2.669E+01 2.6 69E+01 2.669E+01 2.668E+0 mADSORBED 6.344E+02 6.344E+02 6.343E+02 6.342E+02 6.342E+02 6.342E+02 6.342E+02 6.342E+02 6.341E+02 6.34 1E+02 6.341 E+02 6.340E+0 SOILAIR 1.472E+01 1.472E+01 1.472E+01 1.521E+01 1.521E+01 1.521E+01 1.469E+01 1.469E+01 1.469E+01 1.471E m~.~l 1 ~71 l:.4.1nlt 1 ~.71 I SUBLAYER 2 MOISTURE 5.129E+01 5.129E+01 5.129E+01 5.128E+01 5.128E+01 5.128E+01 5.129E+01 5.129E+01 5.129E+01 5.12 I 9E+01 5,129E+01 5.129E+0 %SOLUBILITY 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.5 90E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+0 ADSORBED 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.15 I 4E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+0 SOIL AIR 1.428E+01 1.428E+01 1.428E+01 1.476E+01 1.476E+01 1.476E+01 1.426E+01 1.426E+01 1.426E+01 1.428E +01 1.428E+01 1.428E+0 I SUBLAYER 3 I MOISTURE 1.105E+00 1.109E+00 1.112E+00 1.115E+00 1.119E+00 1.122E+00 1.126E+00 1.129E+00 1.132E+00 1.13 6E+00 1.139E+00 1.143E+0 %SOLUBILITY 5.582E-01 5.599E-01 5.616E-01 5.633E-01 5.650E-01 5.667E-01 5.685E-01 5.702E-01 5.720E-01 5.737E-0 1 5.754E-01 5.771E-0 I ADSORBED 1.330E+01 1.334E+01 1.338E+01 1.342E+01 1.347E+01 1.351E+01 1.355E+01 1.359E+01 1.36 1.326E+01 3E+01 1.367E+01 1.371E+0 SOIL AIR 3.078E-01 3.088E-01 3.097E-01 3.210E-01 3.220E-01 3.230E-01 3.129E-01 3.138E-01 3.148E-01 3.163E-01 3. I 172E-01 3.182E-0 LOWER SOIL ZONE: I POL DEP CM 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.11 i 9E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+0 -- POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER (UG/ML) -- 'l ! GWR. CONC. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 00E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 .I 1 YEAR - 28 ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT ! I -- TOTAL INPUTS (UG) -- I UPPER SOILZONE 0.000E+O0 SOIL ZONE 2 0.000E+00 SOIL ZONE 3 0.000E+00 I LOWER SOILZONE 0.000E+00 i -- HYDROLOGIC CYCLE COMPONENTS -- AVERAGE SOIL MOISTURE ZONE 1 (%) 7.572 AVERAGE SOIL MOISTURE BELOW ZONE 1 (%) 7.572 I TOTAL PRECIPITATION (CM) 5.552 TOTAL INFILTRATION (CM) 5.552 TOTAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (CM) .559 I TOTAL SURFACE RUNOFF (CM) .000 TOTAL GRW RUNOFF (CM) 4.994 TOTAL MOISTURE RETENTION (CU) .000 I TOTAL YIELD (CM) 4.994 0 ~- POLLUTANT MASS DISTRIBUTION IN COLUMN (UG) -- NOTE: IF COMPONENT IS ZERO EACH MONTH, IT I S NOT PRINTE FOR FINAL MASS IN SOIL MOl., ADS. ON SOIL, SOIL AIR, IMMOBIL CEC, COMPLEXED, AND PURE PHASE FOR EA I ?- ........................................................................ m UPPER SOIL ZONE: SUBLAYER 1 m TOTAL VOLATILIZED 1.521 E+08 m SOIL ZONE 2: SUBLAYER 1 m TOTAL DIFFUSED (UP) 1.052E+09 m SUBLAYER 2 TOTAL DIFFUSED (UP) 1.066E+08 I SOIL ZONE 3: SUBLAYER 1 m TOTAL DIFFUSED (UP) 2.418E+08 m SUBLAYER 2 m SUBLAYER 3 LOWER SOIL ZONE: m SUBLAYER 1 m SUBLAYER 2 TOTAL IN GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.000E+00 m l _. AVERAGE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS -- NOTE: ONLY NON-ZERO VALUES ARE PRINTED -- m UPPER SOIL ZONE: m SUBLAYER 1 SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 3.778E+00 m ADSORBED SOIL(UG/G) 4.534E+01 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.060E+00 SOIL ZONE 2: i, m SUBLAYER 1 m SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 4.206E+01 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 5.047E+02 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.181E+01 I SUBLAYER 2 SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 4.595E+01 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 5.514E+02 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.290E+01 SOIL ZONE 3: SUBLAYER 1 SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 5.285E+01 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 6.342E+02 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.483E+01 SUBLAYER 2 SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 5.128E+01 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 6.154E+02 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.440E+01 SUBLAYER 3 SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 1.124E+00 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) ' 1.349E+01 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 3.155E-01 LOWER SOIL ZONE: MAX. POLL. DEPTH (M) 2.119E+01 AVE. CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER (UG/ML) 0.000E+00 ! YEAR- 29 MONTHLY RESULTS (OUTPUT) I I I -- HYDROLOGIC CYCLE COMPONENTS -- I OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP MOIS. IN L1 (%) 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 I MOIS. BELOWL1 (%) 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 PREClPATION (CM) .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 NETINFILT.(CM) .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 I EVAPOTRANS.(CM) .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 MOIS. RETEN (CM) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 SUR. RUNOFF(CM) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 i GRW. RUNOFF(CM) .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 ..416 .416 .416 YIELD(CM) .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 m PAU/MPA(GZU) .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 PNMPA(GZ) .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 m l .. POLLUTANT MASS INPUT TO COLUMN (UG) .- m OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP m PRECiP. o.oooE+oo 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E +00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 LOAD UPPER 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 I 00E+00 0.000E+00. 0.000E+0 LOAD ZONE 2 0,000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 00E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 LOAD ZONE 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0,000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 m 00E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 LOAD LOWER 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 00E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 m TOTAL INPUT 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00 0E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 m o .. POLLUTANT MASS DISTRIBUTION IN COLUMN (UG) -- NOTE: IF COMPONENT IS ZERO EACH MONTH, IT I S NOT PRINTE m UPPER SOIL ZONE: m SUBLAYER 1 VOLATILIZED 1.278E+07 1.281E+07 1.285E+07 1.331E+07 1.334E+07 1.337E+07 1.295E+07 1.298E+07 1.301E+07 1.30 m 6E+071.309E+07 1.313E+0 IN SOIL MOl 1.176E+08 1.179E+08 1.182E+08 1.185E+08 1.188E+08 1.191 E+08 1.194E+08 1.197E+08 1.200E+08 1.202 E+08 1.205E+08 1.208E+0 ADS ON SOIL 2.889E+10 2.896E+10 2.904E+10 2.911E+10 2.918E+10 2.925E+10 2.933E+10 2.940E+10 2.947E+10 2.95 m 4E+10 2.961E+10 2.968E+1 IN SOIL AIR 9.704E+07 9.727E+07 9.751E+07 1.010E+08 1.013E+08 1.015E+08 9.829E+07 9.853E+07 9.876E+07 9.916 E+07 9.940E+07 9.963E+0 I SOIL ZONE 2: m SUBLAYER 1 DIFFUSED UP 8.668E+07 8.664E+07 8.659E+07 8.944E+07 8.940E+07 8.935E+07 8.625E+07 8.621E+07 8.617E+07 8.6 27E+07 8.623E+07 8.618E+0 m IN MOl .888E+09 1.888E+09 1.888E+09 1.887E+09 1.887E+09 1.886E+09 1.886E+09 1.886E+09 1.885E+09 1.885 SOIL 1 E+09 1.884E+09 1.884E+0 ADS ON SOIL 4.639E+11 4.638E+11 4.637E+11 4.635E+11 4.634E+11 4.633E+11 4.633E+11 4.632E+11 4.631E+I 1 4.63 m 0E+l 1 4.629E+11 4.628E+1 IN SOIL AIR 1.558E+09 1.558E+09 1.557E+09 1.609E+09 1.609E+09 1.608E+09 1.553E+09 1.552E+09 1.552E+09 1.554 E+09 1.554E+09 1.554E+0 m SUBLAYER 2 DIFFUSED U P 8.966E+06 8.988E+06 9.010E+06 9.335E+06 9.358E+06 9.382E+06 9.083E+06 9.105E+06 9.127E+06 9.1 m 64E+06 9.186E+06 9.208E+0 IN SOIL MOl 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066 E+09 2.067E+09 2.067E+0 ! ADS ON SOIL 5.075E+11 5.075E+11 5.076E+11 5,075E+11 5.075E+11 5.075E+11 5.076E+11 5.076E+11 5;076E+11 5.07 m6E+11 5.076E+11 5,076E+1 IN SOIL AIR 1.705E+09 1.705E+09 1.705E+09 1.762E+09 1.762E+09 1.762E+09 1.701 E+09 1.701 E+09 1.701E+09 1.704 E+09 1.704E+09 1.704E+0 m S OiL ZONE 3: SUBLAYER 1 m DIFFUSED UP 1.992E+07 1.991 E+07 1.990E+07 2..056E+07 2.055E+07 2,054E+07 1.982E+07 1.981 E+07 1.980E+07 1.9 83E+07 1.982E+07 1,981E+0 mIN SOIL MOl 1,862E+09 1,862E+09 1.862E+09 1.862E+09 1.861E+09 1,861E+09 1.861E+09 1,861E+09 1,861E+09 1.861 E+09 1.861E+09 1.861E+0 ADS ON SOIL 4.574E+11 4,574E+11 4,573E+11 4,573E+11 4.572E+11 ~.572E+11 4.572E+11 4,572E+11 4~572E+11 4.57 m2E+l 1 4,571E+11 4.571E+1 IN SOIL AIR 1,536E+09 1.536E+09 1.536E+09 1.587E+09 1.587E+09 1.587E+09 1.533E+09 1.532E+09 1.532E+09 1.535 E+09 1.535E+09 1.535E+0 m SUBLAYER 2 IN SOIL MOl 1.808E+09 1.808E+09 1.808E+09 1.807E+09 1.807E+09 1.807E+09 1.808E+09 1.808E+09 1.808E+09 1.808 mE+09 1.808E+09 1.808E+0 ADS ON SOIL 4.440E+11 4.440E+11 4.440E+11 4,439E+11 4.439E+11 4.439E+11 4.440E+11 4.440E+11 4.440E+11 4.44 0E+I 1 4,440E+11 4.440E+1 m IN SOIL AIR 1.491 E+09 1.491 E+09 1.491 E+09 1.541 E+09 1.541 E+09 1.541 E+09 1.488E+09 1.488E+09 1.488E+09 1.491 E+09 1.491 E+09 1.491 E+0 SUBLAYER 3 m IN SOIL MOl 4,039E+07 4.051E+07 4.063E+07 4.075E+07 4.087E+07 4.099E+07 4.112E+07 4,124E+07 4.136E+07 4.148 E+07 4.160E+07 4.172E+0 mADS ON SOIL 9.922E+09 9.952E+09 9.981E+09 1.001E+10 1.004E+10 1.007E+10 1.010E+10 1.013E+10 1.016E+10 1.01 9E+10 1.022E+10 1,025E+1 IN SOIL AIR 3.332E+07 3,342E+07 3,352E+07 3.474E+07 3.485E+07 3,495E+07 3.385E+07 3.395E+07 3,405E+07 3.420 i E+07 3.430E+07 3.440E+0 LOWER SOIL ZONE: mSUBLAYER 1 m SUBLAYER 2 GWR. RUNOFF 0.000E+00 0.000E+000.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0,000E+00 0. 000E+00 0,000E+00 0,000E+0 -- POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS (UG/ML) OR (UG/G) -- NOTE: IF CONCENTRATIONS ARE ZERO FOR EACH M ONTH, THEY ARE NOT PRINTED - UPPER SOIL ZONE: SUBLAYER 1 MOISTURE 3.840E+00 3.849mE:+00 3.859E+00 3.868E+00 3.878E+00 3,887E+00 3.897E+00 3,907E+00 3.916E+00 3.92 m5E+OO 3,935E+00 3,944E+0 %SOLUBILITY 1.939E+00 1.944E+00 1.949E+00 1.954E+00 1.958E+00 1.963E+00 1.968E+00 1.973E+00 1.978E+00 1.9 82E+00 1.987E+00 1.992E+0 ADSORBED 4.608E+01 4.619E+01 4.630E+01 4.642E+01 4.653E+01 4.665E+01 4.677E+01 4.688E+01 4.699E+01 4.71 mOE+01 4.721E+01 4.733E+0 SOIL AIR 1.069E+00 1.072E+00 1.075E+00 1.113E+00 1.116E+00 1.119E+00 11083E+00 1.086E+00 1.088E+00 1.093E +00 1.095E+00 1.098E+0 m S OiL ZONE 2: SUBLAYER 1 m MOISTURE 4.200E+01 4.199E+01 4.198E+01 4.197E+01 4.196E+01 4.195E+01 4.195E+01 4.194E+01 4.193E+01 4.19 2E+01 4.191E+01 4.190E+0 m%SOLUBILITY 2.121E+01 2.121E+01 2.120E+01 2.120E+01 2.119E+01 2.119E+01 2.119E+01 2.118E+01 2.118E+01 2,1 17E+01 2.117E+01 2.116E+0 ADSORBED 5.040E+02 5.039E+02 5,038E+02 5.036E+02 5.035E+02 5.034E+02 5.034E+02 5.033E+02 5.031E+02 5.03 0E+02 5.029E+02 5.028E+0 m SOILAIR 1.170E+01 1.170E+01 1.169E+01 1.208E+01 1.208E+01 1.208E+01 1.166E+01 i.166E+01 1.165E+01 1.167E +01 1.167E+01 1.167E+0 m SUBLAYER 2 MOISTURE 4.596E+01 4.596E+01 4.596E+01 4.595E+01 4.595E+01 4.595E+01 4.596E+01 4.596E+01 4.596E+01 4.59 6E+01 4.596E+01 4.596E+0 %SOLUBILITY 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2.3 21E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+0 ADSORBED 5.515E+02 5.515E+02 5.515E+02 5.514E+02 5.514E+02 5.514E+02 5.515E+02 5.515E+02 5.515E+02 5.51 5E+02 5.515E+02 5.515E+0 SOIL AIR 1.280E+01 1.280E+01 1.280E+01 1.323E+01 1.323E+01 1.323E+01 1.278E+01 1.278E+01 1.278E+01 1.280E +01 1.280E+01 1.280E+0 m SOIL ZONE 3: m SUBLAYER 1 MOISTURE 5.283E+01 5.283E+01 5.283E+01 5.282E+01 5.281E+01 5.281E+01 5.281E+01 5.281E+01 5.281E+01 5.28 1E+01 5.280E+01 5.280E+0 m%SOLUBILITY 2.668E+01 2.668E+01 2.668E+01 2.668E+01 2.667E+01 2.667E+01 2.667E+01 2.667E+01 2.667E+01 2.6 67E+01 2.667E+01 2.667E+0 ADSORBED 6.340E+02 6.339E+02 6.339E+02 6.338E+02 6.338E+02 6.337E+02 6.338E+02 6.337E+02 6.337E+02 6.33 I7E+02 6.336E+02 6.336E+0 SOIL AIR 1.471E+01 1.471E+01 1.471E+01 1.520E+01 1.520E+01 1.520E+01 1.468E+01 1.468E+01 1.468E+01 1.470E +01 1.470E+01 1.470E+0 m SUBLAYER 2 m MOISTURE 5.129E+01 5.129E+01 5.129E+01 5.128E+01 5.128E+01 5.128E+01 5.129E+01 5.129E+01 5.129E+01 5.12 9E+01 5.129E+01 5.129E+0 %SOLUBILITY 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+~01 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2.5 90E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+0 mADSORBED 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.15 4E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+0 SOIL AIR 1.428E+01 1.428E+01 1.428E+01 11476E+01 1.476E+01 1.476E+01 1.426E+01 1.426E+01 1.426E+01 1.428E m +011.428E+011.428E+0 SUBLAYER 3 m MOISTURE 1.146E+00 1.150E+00 1.153E+00 1.156E+00 1.160E+00 1.163E+00 1.167E+00 1.170E+00 1.173E+00 1.17 7E+00 1.180E+00 1.184E+0 %SOLUBILITY 5.788E-01 5.806E-01 5.823E-01 5.839E-01 5.857E-01 5.874E-01 5.892E-01 5.909E-01 5.926E-01 5.943E-0 ml 5,961E-01 5.978E-0 ADSORBED 1.375E+01 1.379E+01 1.384E+01 1.387E+01 1.392E+01 1.396E+01 1.400E+01 1.404E+01 1.408E+01 1.41 2E+01 1.416E+01 1.420E+0 ! SOILAIR 3.192E-01 3.202E-01 3.211E-01 3.328E-01 3.338E-01 3.348E~01 3.243E-01 3.252E-01 3.262E-01 3.277E-01 3. I286E-01 3.296E-0 LOWER SOIL ZONE: ! POL DEP CM 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.11 9E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+0 ! -- POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER (UG/ML) ~- · m GWR. CONC. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 00E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 ml YEAR - 29 ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT m ._ TOTAL INPUTS (UG) -- m UPPER SOILZONE 0.000E+00 SOIL ZONE 2 0.000E+00 SOIL ZONE 3 0.000E+00 mLOWER SOILZONE 0.000E+00 -- HYDROLOGIC CYCLE COMPONENTS __ m AVERAGE SOIL MOISTURE ZONE 1 (%) 7.572 AVERAGE SOIL MOISTURE BELOW ZONE 1 (%) 7.572 m TOTAL PRECIPITATION (CM) 5.552 TOTAL INFILTRATION (CM) 5.552 TOTAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (CM) .559 I TOTAL SURFACE RUNOFF (CM) .000 TOTAL GRW RUNOFF (CM) 4.994 TOTAL MOISTURE RETENTION (CM) .000 mTOTAL YIELD (CM) 4.994 0 -- POLLUTANT MASS DISTRIBUTION IN COLUMN (UG) -- NOTE: IF COMPONENT IS ZERO EACH MONTH, IT I S NOT PRINTE m FOR FINAL MASS IN SOIL MOl., ADS. ON SOIL, SOIL AIR, IMMOBIL CEC, COMPLEXED, AND PURE PHASE FOR EA CH SUBLAYER, SEE ABOVE (MONTH SEP ! UPPER SOIL ZONE: m SUBLAYER 1 TOTAL VOLATILIZED 1.567E+08 m SOIL ZONE 2: m SUBLAYER 1 TOTAL DIFFUSED (UP) 1.045E+09 m SUBLAYER 2 TOTAL DIFFUSED (UP) 1.099E+08 ! SOIL ZONE 3: I SUBLAYER 1 m TOTAL DIFFUSED (UP) 2.403E+08 SUBLAYER 2 I SUBLAYER 3 m LOWER SOIL ZONE: I SUBLAYER 1 i SUBLAYER 2 TOTAL IN GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.000E+00 1 -- AVERAGE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS - NOTE: ONLY NON-ZERO VALUES ARE PRINTED -- I UPPER SOIL ZONE: SUBLAYER 1 I SOIL MOISTURE 3.892E+00 (UG/ML) ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 4.670E+01 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.092E+00 m SOiL ZONE 2: m SUBLAYER 1 SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 4.195E+01 i ADSORBED SOIL(UG/G) 5.034E+02 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.178E+01 SUBLAYER 2 I SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 4.596E+01 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 5.515E+02 I SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.290E+01 SOIL ZONE 3: m SUBLAYER 1 SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 5.281E+01 m ADSORBED SOIL 6.338E+02 (UG/G) SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.482E+01 I SUBLAYER 2 SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 5.128E+01 m ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 6.154E+02 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.440E+01 m SUBLAYER 3 SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 1.t65E+00 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 1.398E+01 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 3.269E-01 LOWER SOIL ZONE: MAX. POLL. DEPTH (M) 2.119E+01 AVE. CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER (UG/ML) 0.000E+00 I YF__.AR - 30 MONTHLY RESULTS (OUTPUT) I -- HYDROLOGIC CYCLE COMPONENTS -- I OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP I MOIS. INL1 (%) 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 MOIS. BELOWL1 (%) 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 7.572 PRECIPATION(CM) .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 I NETINFILT.(CM) .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 .463 ..463 .463 EVAPOTRANS.(CM) .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 .047 MOIS. RETEN (CM) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 SUR. RUNOFF(CM) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 IGRW. RUNOFF .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 , .416 .416 .416 (CM) YIELD(CM) .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 I PAU/MPA(GZU) .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 PA/MPA(GZ) .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 1994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 .994 I1 -- POLLUTANT MASS INPUT TO COLUMN (UG) -- OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP PRECIP. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E I+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 LOAD UPPER 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 00E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 ILOAD ZONE 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 01000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 OOE+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 LOAD ZONE 30.O00E+O0 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 iOOE+00 0.000E+00 O.000E+0 LOAD LOWER 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 OOE+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 TOTAL INPUT 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.00 I0E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 0 - POLLUTANT MASS DISTRIBUTION IN COLUMN (UG) -- NOTE: IF COMPONENT IS ZERO EACH MONTH, IT I S NOT PRINTE UPPER SOIL ZONE: I SUBLAYER 1 I VOLATILIZED 1.316E+07 1.319E+07 1.322E+07 1.370E+07 1.373E+07 1.376E+07 1.332E+07 1.335E+07 1.338E+07 1.34 4E+07 1.347E+07 1.350E+0 IN SOIL MOl 1.211E+08 1.214E+08 1.217E+08 1.219E+08 1.222E+08 1.225E+08 1.228E+08 1.231E+08 1.234E+08 1.237 iE+08 1.240E+08 1.242E+0 ADS ON SOIL 2.975E+ 10 2.982E+ 10 2.989E+10 2.995E+10 3.003E+10 3.010E+10 3.017E+10 3.024E+10 3.031E+10 3.03 8E+10 3.045E+10 3.052E+1 IN SOIL AIR 9.990E+07 1.001 E+08 1.004E+08 1.040E+08 1.042E+08 1.045E+08 1.011E+08 1.014E+08 1.016E+08 1.020 IE+08 1.022E+08 1.025E+0 SOIL ZONE 2: I SUBLAYER 1 iDIFFUSED UP 8.617E+07 8.613E+07 8.609E+07 8.892E+07 8.888E+07 8.883E+07 8.575E+07 8.570E+07 8.566E+07 8.5 76E+07 8.572E+07 8.568E+0 IN SOIL MOl 1.884E+09 1.883E+09 1.883E+09 1.882E+09 1.882E+09 1.881 E+09 1.881 E+09 1.881 E+09 1.880E+09 1.880 E+09 1.879E+09 1.879E+0 lADS1 4.621E+11 4.621E+I 1 4.620E+11 4.619E+11 4.61 ON SOIL 4.627E+1 1 4.626E+1 1 4.625E+1 1 4.623E+1 1 4.622E+1 8E+11 4.617E+11 4.616E+1 IN SOIL AIR 1.554E+09 1.553E+09 1.553E+09 1.605E+09 1.604E+09 1.604E+09 1.549E+09 1.548E+09 1.548E+09 1.550 I E+09 1.550E+09 1.550E+0 SUBLAYER 2 I DIFFUSED UP 9.233E+06 9.255E+06 9.277E+06 9.610E+06 9.634E+06 9.657E+06 9.348E+06 9.370E+06 9.391E+06 9.4 29E+06 9.450E+06 9.472E+0 IN SOIL MOl 2.067E+09 2.067E+09 2.067E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.066E+09 2.067E+09 2.067E+09 2.067E+09 2.067 IE+09 2.067E+09 2.067E+0 ADS ON SOIL 5.076E+11 5.076E+11 5.076E+11 5.076E+11 5.076E+11 5.076E+11 5.077E+11 5.077E+11 5.077E+11 5.07 7E+il 5.077E+11 5.077E+1 I IN SOIL AIR 1.705E+09 1,705E+09 1.705E+09 1.762E+09 1.762E+09 1.762E+09 1.702E+09 1.702E+09 1.702E+09 1.704 E+09 1,704E+09 1.704E+0 ISOIL ZONE 3: SUBLAYER 1 IDIFFUSED .980E+07 1.979E+07 1 2.043E+07 2.042E+07 2.041E+07 1.970E+07 1.969E+07 1.968E+07 1.9 UP 1 70E+07 1.969E+07 1.968E+0 IN SOIL MOl 1.861 E+09 1.861 E+09 1.861 E+09 1.860E+09 1.860E+09 1.860E+09 1.860E+09 1.860E+09 1.860E+09 1.860 IE+09 1.860E+09 1.860E+0 ADS ON SOIL 4.571E+I 1 4.571E+I 1 4.570E+11 4.570E+11 4.569E+11 4.569E+11 4.569E+11 4.569E+11 4.569E+11 4,56 9E+11 4.568E+11 4.568E+1 I IN SOIL AIR 1.535E+09 1.535E+09 1.535E+09 1.586E+09 1.586E+09 1.586E+09 1.532E+09 1.531 E+09 1.531 E+09 1.534 E+09 1.534E+09 1.534E+0 SUBLAYER 2 I IN SOIL MOl 1.808E+09 1.808E+09 1.808E+09 1.807E+09 1.807E+09 1.807E+09 1.808E+09 1.808E+09 1.808E+09 1.808 E+09 1.808E+09 1.808E+0 ! ADS ON SOIL 4.440E+11 4.440E+11 4.440E+11 4.439E+11 4.439E+11 4.439E+11 4.440E+11 4.440E+11 4.440E+11 4.44 m,0E+l 1 4.440E+11 4.440E+1 IN SOIL AIR 1.491 E+09 1.491E+09 1.491 E+09 1.541 E+09 1.541 E+09 1.541 E+09 1.488E+09 1.488E+09 1.488E+09 1.491 E+09 1.491 E+09 1.491E+0 I SUBLAYER 3 IN SOIL MOl 4.184E+07 4.196E+07 4.208E+07 4.219E+07 4.231 E+07 4.243E+07 4.256E+07 4.268E+07 4.280E+07 4.292 mE+07 4.304E+07 4.316E+0 ADS ON SOIL 1.028E+10 1.031E+10 1.034E+10 1.036E+10 1.039E+10 1.042E+10 1.045E+10 1.048E+10 1.051E+10 1.05 4E+10 1.057E+10 1.060E+1 m IN SOIL AIR 3.451E+07 3.461E+07 3.471E+07 3.597E+07 3.608E+07 3.618E+07 3.504E+07 3.514E+07 3.524E+07 3.539 E+07 3.549E+07 3.559E+0 m LOWER SOIL ZONE: SUBLAYER 1 I SUBLAYER 2 m GWR. RUNOFF 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0. 000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 m -- POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS (UG/ML) OR (UG/G) -- NOTE: IF CONCENTRATIONS ARE ZERO FOR EACH M ONTH, THEY ARE NOT PRINTED - UPPER SOIL ZONE: SUBLAYER 1 mMOISTURE 3.953E+00 3.962E+00 3.972E+00 3.981E+00 3.990E+00 4.000E+00 4.010E+00 4.019E+00 4.028E+00 4.03 7E+00 4.047E+00 4.056E+0 %SOLUBILITY 1.997E+00 2.001E+00 2.006E+00 2.011E+00 2.015E+00 2.020E+00 2.025E+00 2.030E+00 2.034E+00 2.0 m39E+O0 2.044E+00 2.048E+0 ADSORBED 4.744E+01 4.755E+01 4.766E+01 4.777E+01 4.789E+01 4.800E+01 4.812E+01 4.823E+01 4.834E+01 4.84 5E+01 4.856E+01 4.867E+0 m SOILAIR 1.101E+00 1.104E+00 1.106E+00 1.146E+00 1.149E+00 1.151E+00 1.115E+00 1.117E+00 1.120E+00 1.124E +00 1.127E+00 1.129E+0 SOIL ZONE 2: SUBI_AYER 1 mMOISTURE 4.189E+01 4.188E+01 4.187E+01 4.186E+01 4.185E+01 4.184E+01 4.184E+01 4.183E+01 4.182E+01 4.18 1E+01 4.180E+01 4.179E+0 %SOLUBILITY 2.116E+01 2.115E+01 2.115E+01 2.114E+01 2.114E+01 2.113E+01 2.113E+01 2.113E+01 2.112E+01 2.1 m12E+01 2.111 E+01 2.111E+0 ADSORBED 5.027E+02 5.026E+02 5.025E+02 5.023E+02 5.022E+02 5.021E+02 5.020E+02 5.019E+02 5.018E+02 5.01 7E+02 5.016E+02 5.015E+0 m SOILAIR 1.167E+01 1.167E+01 1.166E+01 1.205E+01 1.205E+01 1.204E+01 1.163E+01 1.163E+01 1.162E+01 1.164E ,+01 1.164E+01 1.164E+0 SUBLAYER 2 MOISTURE 4.596E+01 4.596E+01 4.596E+01 4.596E+01 4.596E+01 4.596E+01 4.597E+01 4.597E+01 4.597E+01 4.59 7E+01 4.597E+01 4.597E+0 %SOLUBILITY 2,321E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2,321E+01 2.321E+01 2.321E+01 2.322E+01 2.322E+01 2.322E+01 2.3 22E+O1 2.322E+01 2.322E+0 ADSORBED 5.516E+02 5.516E+02 5.516E+02 5.515E+02 5.515E+02 5.515E+02 5.516E+02 5.516E+02 5.516E+02 5.51 6E+02 5.516E+02 5.516E+0 m SOIL AIR 1.280E+01 1.280E+01 1.280E+01 1.323E+01 1.323E+01 1.323E+01 1.278E+01 1.278E+01 1.278E+01 1.280E +01 1.280E+01 1.280E+0 SOIL ZONE 3: m SUBLAYER 1 m MOISTURE 5.280E+01 5,279E+01 5.279E+01 5.278E+01 5.278E+01 5.278E+01 5.278E+01 5.278E+01 5.277E+01 5.27 7E+01 5.277E+01 5,276E+0 %SOLUBILITY 2.667E+01 2.666E+01 2.666E+01 2,666E+01 2.666E+01 2.665E+01 2,666E+01 2.665E+01 2,665E+01 2.6 m65E+01 2.665E+01 2,665E+0 ADSORBED 6.336E+02 6.335E+02 6.335E+02 6.334E+02 6.333E+02 6.333E+02 6,334E+02 6.333E+02 6,333E+02 6.33 2E+02 6.332E+02 6.332E+0 SOIL AIR 1,470E+01 1.470E+01 1.470E+01 1.519E+01 1,519E+01 1.519E+01 1,467E+01 1.467E+01 1.467E+01 1.469E m +011.469E+011.469E+0 SUBLAYER 2 m MOISTURE 5.129E+01 5.129E+01 5.129E+01 5,128E+01 5.128E+01 5,128E+01 5,129E+01 5.129E+01 5.129E+01 5.12 9E+01 5.129E+01 5.129E+0 m%SOLUBILITY 2,590E+01 2,590E+01 2,590E+01 2,590E+01 2,590E+01 2.590E+01 2.590E+01 2,590E+01 2,590E+01 2.5 90E+01 2,590E+01 2.590E+0 ADSORBED 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6,154E+02 6.154E+02 6,154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+02 6.15 4E+02 6.154E+02 6.154E+0 m SOIL AIR 1.428E+01 1.428E+01 1.428E+01 1.476E+01 1.476E+01 1,476E+01 1.426E+01 1,426E+01 1.426E+01 1.428E +01 1,428E+01 1.428E+0 mSUBLAYER 3 MOISTURE 1.187E+00 1.190E+00 1.194E+00 1.197E+00 1.201E+00 1,204E+00 1.207E+00 1.211E+00 1.214E+00 1.21 mSE+O0 1.221 E+00 1.225E+0 %SOLUBILITY 5.995E-01 6,012E-01 6.030E-01 6.046E-01 6.063E-01 6.080E-01 6,098E-01 6.116E-01 6.133E-01 6,150E-0 1 6.167E-01 6.185E-0 ADSORBED 1.424E+01 1.429E+01 1.433E+01 1.437E+01 1.441E+01 1.445E+01 1.449E+01 1,453E+01 1.457E+01 1.46 ml E+01 1.465E+01 1.469E+0 SOIL AIR 3.306E-01 3,316E-01 3.325E-01 3.446E-01 3.456E-01 3,466E-01 3.356E-01 3.366E-01 3.375E-01 3,391E-01 3. 400E-01 3.409E-0 m LOWER SOIL ZONE: m POL DEP CM 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.119E+03 2.11 9E+03 2.119E+03 2.120E+0 -- POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER (UG/ML) -- mGWR. CONC. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.0 00E+O0 0.000E+00 0.000E+0 1 YEAR - 30 ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT -- TOTAL INPUTS (UG) -- UPPER SOIL ZONE 0.000E+00 ~SOIL ZONE 2 0.000E+00 mSOIL ZONE 3 0.000E+00 LOWER SOIL ZONE 0.000E+00 -- HYDROLOGIC CYCLE COMPONENTS -- AVERAGE SOIL MOISTURE ZONE 1 (%) 7.572 mAVERAGE SOIL MOISTURE BELOW ZONE 1 (%) 7.572 TOTAL PRECIPITATION (CM) 5.552 TOTAL INFILTRATION (CM) 5.552 I TOTAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (CM) .559 TOTAL SURFACE RUNOFF (CM) .000 TOTAL GRW RUNOFF (CM) 4.994 iTOTAL MOISTURE RETENTION (CM) .000 TOTAL YIELD (CM) 4.994 0 - POLLUTANT MASS DISTRIBUTION IN COLUMN (UG) - NOTE: IF COMPONENT IS ZERO EACH MONTH, IT I S NOT PRINTE FOR FINAL MASS IN SOIL MOl., ADS. ON SOIL, SOIL AIR, IMMOBIL CEC, COMPLEXED, AND PURE PHASE FOR EA CH SUBLAYER, SEE ABOVE (MONTH SEP UPPER SOIL ZONE: SUBLAYER 1 TOTAL VOLATILIZED 1.612E+08 SOIL ZONE 2: SUBLAYER 1 TOTAL DIFFUSED (UP) 1.039E+09 SUBLAYER 2 TOTAL DIFFUSED (UP) 1.131E+08 SOIL ZONE 3: SUBLAYER 1 TOTAL DIFFUSED (UP) 2.388E+08 SUBLAYER 2 SUBLAYER 3 LOWER SOIL ZONE: SUBLAYER 1 SUBLAYER 2 TOTAL IN 'GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.000E+00 1 -- AVERAGE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS -- NOTE: ONLY NON-ZERO VALUES ARE PRINTED -- UPPER SOIL ZONE: m SUBLAYER I SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 4.005E+00 m ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 4.805E+01 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.124E+00 m SOiL ZONE 2: SUBI_AYER 1 m SOiL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 4.184E+01 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 5,021E+02 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.174E+01 m SUBLAYER 2 m SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 4.596E+01 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 5.516E+02 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.290E+01 m SOiL ZONE 3: SUBLAYER 1 m SOiL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 5.278E+01 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 6.334E+02 m SOiL AIR (UG/ML) 1.481E+01 SUBLAYER 2 m SOIL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 5.128E+01 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 6.154E+02 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 1.440E+01 m SUBLAYER 3 m SOiL MOISTURE (UG/ML) 1.206E+00 ADSORBED SOIL (UG/G) 1.447E+01 SOIL AIR (UG/ML) 3.384E-01 m LOWER SOIL ZONE: m MAX. POLL. DEPTH (M) 2.120E+01 m AVE. CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER (UG/ML) 0.000E+00 m APPENDIX F SUMMARY OF SESOIL RUN NO. 2 RESULTS Elks Lodge Run #2 Receptor Point Concentration in Groundwater Averaging TPH Aliphatic C5- Time* Benzene Ethylbenzene Toluene 6 Xylenes [Years] [mg/I] [mg/I] [mg/I] [mg/I] [mg/I] ! 5 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 15 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 20 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 25 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 30 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 35 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 40 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 45 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0,00E+00 50 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 55 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 60 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 65 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 70 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 75 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Note: These are the maximum running average concentrations for the averaging .pedods listed above. For example, the 5-year maximum running average corresponds to the average concentration over the 5 consecutive years with the highest concentrations. ELKS LODGE #325 I 1414 E. CALIFORNIA BAKERSFIELD REMEDIAL I INVESTIGATION Project No. 200634 September 25, 1997 I I Prepared by: I RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. I ENVIRONMENTAL i/ ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. I 3333 Gibson St., Suite 200 · Bakersfield, CA 93308 (805) 324-6152 ° FAX (805) 325-8942 i I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT ELKS LODGE #325 I 1414 East California Avenue i Bakersfield, California I September 25, 1997 Job No. 200634 I I Submitted by: RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. I 3333 Gibson Street, Suite 200 Bakersfield, California 93308 I Prepared for: Elks Lodge #325 I 1414 East California Avenue Bakersfield, California 93307 I I l~epared by: Reviewe~by:/7v' .~.~ '~ / Jon Cooper, R./GT~ m.~,\ NO. 6081 ,/_ / Mark J. eYsltinsky, R~.~.~I ~' I ;er Expires: ' ~/ Geologist ~ ~ mrojectManager ~~ I 1 I TABLE OF CONTENTS I 2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................ 1 i 2.1 Site Settings ..................................... 1 2.2 Regional Hydrogeologic Setting ........................ 1 I 3.0 FINDINGS ................................................ 2 I 3.1 Vapor Extraction Well Installation ...................... 2 3.2 Vapor Extraction System Pilot Study .................... 3 I 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 4 I 5.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................ 6 6.0 REFERENCES ............................................. 7 TABLES Table 1. Summary of Soil Sample Analytical Results Table 2. Summary of Vapor Sample Analytical Results Table 3. Nested Vapor Extraction Well Construction Details FIGURES Figure 1. Site Location Map · Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. Hydrocarbon and Lead Concentrations Figure 4. Cross Section II I C:x2000.97~634.11 I APPENDICES I Appendix A Soil Boring and Well Construction Logs Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Results Appendix C Field and Laboratory Procedures I Appendix D Soil Vapor Extraction Test Report I I I I I I I i 1 I I I I IC52000.97X634.11 l I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT ELKS LODGE #325 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION On behalf of the Elks Lodge #325 (Elks), RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc.(RAM), has prepared this Remedial Investigation Report (RIR) for the Elks Lodge #325, located at 1414 East California Avenue in the City of Bakersfield, California (Site) shown on Figure 1. The RIR summarizes the methodology and results of the installation of vapor extraction wells and the completion a vapor system (VES) pilot study, purpose pilot study was of extraction The of the to evaluate vapor extraction as an alternative for removing petroleum hydrocarbons from the soil. The RIR presents RAM's approach for future remediation at the Site. 2.0 BACKGROUND The Site was an operating service station until the mid 1970s. After that time, the surface structures were removed but the underground storage tanks (USTs) were not removed. The Elks purchased the vacant property in July 1985 and never used the USTs. The property is unpaved and is currently used for parking. Two 10,000 gallon USTs were removed from the site in August 1991. Elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in soil samples collected from beneath one of the USTs and one of the dispensers. Figure 2 shows the location of the former USTs and their associated dispensers. In November 1991, four soil borings were advanced in the areas where petroleum hydrocarbons were previously detected during UST removal. Elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in soil samples collected from one boring located in the area of the former southernmost UST. Petroleum hydrocarbons were not detected in soil samples collected from the other soil borings. 2.1 Site Setting The Site lies on the eastern margin of the San Joaquin Valley, near the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range and near the southwest comer of Section 28, Township 29S, Range 28E, M.D.B.M. The Site, with an elevation of approximately 408 feet above mean sea level, lies on the Kern River fan which exhibits low local relief. Ground surface in the Site vicinity slopes gently southward at a rate of approximately 15 feet per mile (USGS, 1973). I C52000.97~634.11 2.2 Regional Hydrogeologic Setting The Site is located in the southern portion of the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley is a large, northwestward-trending, asymmetric structural trough that has been filled with as much as 6 miles of sediment in the San Joaquin Valley. The sediments range in age from Jurassic to Holocene. Granitic and metamorphic rocks crop out along most of the eastern and southeastern flanks of the Great Valley. The post-Eocene-aged continental rocks and deposits contain most of the fresh ground water, and are underlain by saline water at depth in most places. They in thickness from zero along the flanks of the Great Valley to more than 15,000 feet range in the extreme southern part. Mostly fine-grained sediments lie along the southeastern flank of the San Joaquin Valley (Page, 1986). Ground water in the vicinity is recharged by winter and spring storm water flow from the Kern River, located approximately five miles northward from the Site. Depth to groundwater at the Site has been mapped at approximately 230 feet below ground surface (bgs) in September, 995 1 (KCWA, 1996a). The regional groundwater flow direction is interpreted as southeastward (KCWA, 1996a). Shallow groundwater has not been mapped within approximately 4 miles of the Site (KCWA, 1996b). 3.0 FINDINGS 3.1 Vapor Extraction Well Installation Four vapor extraction wells (VEl through VE4) were installed at the locations identified on Figure 2 on May 29 and 30, 1996. Prior to installation, soil borings were drilled and sampled. Soil samples were obtained at five- foot intervals starting at five feet bgs. VEl was drilled to a total depth of approximately 55 feet bgs. VE2 through VE4 were drilled to a total depth of approximately 40 feet bgs. Immediately after sampling, vapor extraction wells were installed in the borings. The wells were installed in a "nested" configuration, consisting of two 2-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) wells set at different stratigraphic intervals within a single 10- inch diameter borehole. VEl was screened from 5 to 20 feet bgs (VELA) and from 25 to 55 feet bgs (VE1B). VE2 through VE4 were screened from 10 to 20 feet bgs (VE2A through VE4A) and from 23 to 38, 25 to 40, and 27 to 42 feet bgs (VE2B, VE3B, and VE4B, respectively). Soil boring and well completion logs are included as Appendix A. Approximately four soil samples from each boring were selected for analysis. Samples were analyzed Hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) benzene, for Total Petroleum characterized and toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Test Method 8260 and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) combination by Zymax Envirotechnology, Inc. in San Luis Obispo, California (Zymax). In addition, one soil sample from each boring was analyzed for total lead. Soil cuttings from the boreholes were contained in labeled 55 gallon Department of I C:~2000.97X634.11 2 I Transportation (DOT)-approved steel drums and stored onsite pending analytical results. The soil was transported by Belshire Environmental, Inc. under waste manifest No. 8516-001 928602. It was treated and disposed at TPS Technology, Inc. of Adelanto, California. Soil sample analytical results are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 3, and discussed below. · Soil samples from boring VEl contained TPHg within a range of concentrations from 5.3 mg/kg at 60 feet bgs to 6,600 mg/kg at 35 feet bgs. The greatest concentrations of BTEX were also detected at 35 feet bgs, including benzene at 1.9 mg/kg. Lead was detected in the 35- and 60-foot samples at concentrations of 9.3 and 5.1 mg/kg, respectively. Lead was not detected in the 15- and 50-foot samples. · Soil from VE2 contained within of concentrations samples boring TPHg a range from 1.1 mg/kg at 20 feet bgs to 1,900 mg/kg at 45 feet bgs. The greatest concentrations of BTEX were also detected at 45 feet bgs, including benzene at 2.7 mg/kg. Lead was detected in the 35-foot sample at a concentration of 12 mg/kg. Lead was not detected in the 20-, 45-, and 55-foot samples. · Soil samples from the 20- and 35-foot depths of boring VE3 contained TPHg at concentrations of 1.4 and 1.8 mg/kg, respectively. The greatest concentrations of BTEX were detected at 35 feet bgs, including benzene at 0.019 mg/kg. TPHg and BTEX were not detected in the 45-foot sample. Lead was detected in the 20-foot sample at a concentration of 5.4 mg/kg. Lead was not detected in the 35- and 45- foot samples. · Soil samples from boring VE4 did not contain TPHg at detectable concentrations. BTEX were not detected in the soil samples from 20 and 40 feet bgs. BTEX were detected at 45 feet bgs, including benzene at 0.011 mg/kg. Lead was not detected in the soil samples from soil boring VE4. 3.2 Vapor Extraction System Pilot Study A vapor extraction (VES) pilot study was conducted on April 9, 1997, by Enviro Supply and Service of Fountain Valley, California. Cambria Environmental Technology, Inc., of Oakland, California, provided test design and data interpretation services. A portable extraction unit vapor consisting of a VR Systems Model V3 internal combustion engine, a Foxboro Model 108 flame ionization device, a TS 1 model, 8360 Velocicalc air mass flow meter, a vacuum sample collection pump, Magnahelic pressure gauges and associated tubing and connectors were used differential for the VES pilot study. I C:L2000.97~634.11 3 I I The test protocol was based on data which indicated that highest TPHg concentrations are in VE1B and VE2B, as shown in Table 1 and on Figures 3 and 4. A four-hour SVE test was I performed on VE1B, and shorter tests on VE2B, VE3B and VE4B. Vapor extraction flow rates, applied vacuum at the wellhead, and vacuum influence (response) in nearby wells were measured. Samples from each well were analyzed for TPHg and BTEX, and one sample was analyzed for I lead to evaluate potential impact on treatment equipment catalysts. Vapor sample analytical results are included in Appendix B and summarized in Table 2. I As shown in Table 2, the total hydrocarbon (THC) concentrations in soil vapor ranged from 4,330 to 2,478 parts per million by volume (ppmv). The total non-methane hydrocarbon (TNMH) concentrations ranged from 1,265 to 2,134 ppmv. The benzene concentrations in I extracted ranged from 3.76 to 220 Vapor extraction flow rates ranged from 18 to vapor ppmv. 19 scfm based on an applied vacuum ranging from 3 to 19 inches of water. This resulted in THC removal rates ranging from 15 to 26 pounds per day (ppd), and TNMH removal rates ranging I from 8 13 The benzene removal from 0.02 1.2 to ppd. rate ranged to ppd. The effective radius of influence was estimated with guidance from "A Summary of Nationwide I Vapor Extraction System Performance Study," T.E. Buscheck, T.R. Peargin, November, 1991. This approach first involves normalizing the vacuum data by dividing the vacuum observed at i the wellhead and at the monitoring wells by the vacuum observed at the wellhead. The normalized vacuum data is then plotted on a log basis versus the distance to the vacuum influence monitoring wells. The effective radius of influence is frequently considered to be the distance Icorresponding to 1% of the normalized vacuum. The effective radii of influence for the shallow and deeper soil are 27 to 52 feet, respectively. Plotting vacuum influence data from testing of wells VE-2B and VE-4B yields an effective radius of influence in deeper soil of 41 and 58 feet, Irespectively (Cambria, 1997). I 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results of vadose zone characterization by soil borings indicated that impaction of subsurface I soils is sufficient to require remediation. VES Pilot Study results suggest that SVE techniques should effectively remediate subsurface soil. Based on the estimated effective radii of influence, SVE from the existing wells should influence the estimated area of hydrocarbon-impacted soil. I Based on the hydrocarbon concentrations and removal rates, several types of extraction and vapor treatment equipment could remediate the Site. Ideally, the selected equipment should be able to extract and treat up to approximately 100 to 150 ppd THC, which is the estimated initial mass I loading from all site wells actual be if the during startup (the hydrocarbon loading may higher hydrocarbon concentrations are closer to the FID readings, which were significantly greater than the THC concentrations), and mass loading decreases with time. Selection of the most cost Ieffective equipment will depend on cost of available equipment and available utilities. For example, internal combustion engines only require supplemental fuel such as propane, while ioxidizers require an electrical supply and sometimes supplemental fuel. Depending on available I C:k2000.97~634.11 4 utilities and cleanup objectives, we recommend considering among the following types of vapor treatment equipment: A 200 to 250 scfm thermal/catalytic oxidizer (gas-fired); · A 100 to 200 scfm catalytic oxidizer (electric-powered); or · An internal combustion engine. Discussed below are the most appropriate treatment systems. Thermal/Catalytic Oxidizers The thermal mode of operation would allow treatment of hydrocarbon concentrations up tO 6,000 and would handle excessive inert commonly in the subsurface, while the ppmv gases present catalytic mode of operation would allow cost-effective treatment of hydrocarbon concentrations below 3,000 ppmv. Alternatively, a catalytic oxidizer without the thermal option could be used but may require additional operation time with dilution initially hydrocarbon air if the concentrations exceed its capacity of about 3,000 ppmv. A 250 scfm thermal/catalytic oxidizer, which may be the most common treatment approach for this type of site, can extract and treat approximately 500 ppd THC in the thermal mode and 250 ppd THC in the catalytic mode. Given the estimated mass loading of 100 to 150 ppd THC, a 250 scfm would be ideal. Electric Catal~ic Oxidizers Catalytic oxidizers that operate on electricity alone offer cost-effective vapor extraction and treatment when hydrocarbon removal rates are below approximately 200 ppd. A 200 scfm catalytic oxidizer can typically process about 200 ppd of hydrocarbons but typically requires 3- phase power. A 100 scfm oxidizer typically processes about 100 ppd of hydrocarbons, occupies little space and can operate on single phase electrical service. The 100 scfm units are very common for small hydrocarbon remediation projects. Although these electric-powered units are not as energy efficient as gas-fired oxidizers, they avoid the need for a propane tank or natural gas. For this Site a 200 scfm electric catalytic oxidizer would probably remediate the Site faster and more cost-effectively than the smaller 100 scfm unit. If a 100 scfm unit were used, we estimate that significant dilution air would be required until hydrocarbon concentrations decrease. Internal Combustion Engines Internal combustion engines (ICEs) are most commonly used to treat hydrocarbon concentrations or to remediate sites without electrical service. ICEs are usually not cost-effective for low hydrocarbon concentrations or mass loadings, and ICEs typically achieve significantly lower flow rates than oxidizers. Based on our experience a VR Systems Model V3 ICE achieves only 50 scfm 500 scfm that be achieved oxidizers. An ICE could be compared to Can by appropriate for this Site if you only wish to treat the high hydrocarbon concentrations initially and not perform SVE until hydrocarbon concentrations decrease significantly and approach asymptotic levels. Utility availability, space requirements and permitting issues often govern the treatment equipment selection process. The thermal/catalytic oxidizers typically require natural gas at 5 psig pressure, which is often more than the local utility can provide. If sufficient gas pressure I C52000.97~634.11 5 is not available or is expensive to install, a propane tank can be used, although they require significant space, permitting, crash posts, and property setbacks. Catalytic oxidizers are available that require electricity only and occupy relatively little space, but electricity is generally more expensive than natural gas, and the catalytic oxidizers are limited to 3,000 ppmv. If electricity is required, three-phase power is less costly than single-phase power, although either may suffice. Internal combustion engines can operate on natural gas at only 0.25 psig, which is commonly available, but are not cost effective for low to moderate hydrocarbon concentrations. Based on the above discussion, the most cost-effective SVE equipment for the duration of the project would most likely be a combination thermal/catalytic oxidizer. 5.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared by RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc., for the exclusive use of Elks Lodge #325 as it pertains to the property located at 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, Kern County, California. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by other geologists and professionals practicing in this field. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice in the report. Any use Of, or reliance on this report by a third party shall be at such party's sole risk. In the preparation of this report, RAM has had all access to all property without restriction. RAM assumes no responsibility for site conditions or activities which were outside the scope of the inquiry requested by Elks Lodge #325 as outlined in this document. It shall be understood by all who read or rely on this report for whatever reason, RAM has relied on the accuracy of documents, oral information, and other material and information provided by Elks Lodge #325 or associated parties. It is recognized that regulatory requirements may change, including the revision of accepted action levels, which could necessitate a review of the discussion, findings, recommendations or opinions of the report. Any change to, revision of or verification of this report must be provided in writing by RAM Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. through its client, Elks Lodge #325. I C52000.97~634.11 6 I 6.0 REFERENCES I Kem County Water Agency (K.C.W.A.), 1996A, Imp. Dist. #4, 1995 Report on Water Conditions, Water Supply Report, 1994. I Page, R.W., 1986, Geology of the Fresh Ground-Water Basin of the Central Valley, California with Texture Maps and Sections, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1401-C. I U.S.G.S., 1973, Lamont, California, 7 1/2 Minute Series, Topographic Map. Cambria Environmental Technology, Inc. (Cambria), 1997, Soil Vapor Extraction Test Report. 1 1 I I I I I I I I ,I I I C52000.97X634.11 7 I TABLES -, ! I Table 1. Soil Sample Analytical Results. Elks Lodge #325, Bakersfield, California. VEl-15 5-29-96 11 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.7 <5 ¥E1-35 5-29-96 6600 1.9 230 160 860 9.3 VEl-S0 5-29-96 44 <0.1 0.9 0.8 5.2 <5 VE 1-60 5-29-96 5.3 0.58 1.1 0.091 1.1 5.1 VE2-20 5-29-96 1.1 <0.005 0.013 0.007 0.061 <5 VE2-35 5-29-96 970 0.9 39 19 110 12 VE2-45 5-29-96 1900 2.7 130 46 310 <5 VE2-55 5-29-96 1.6 0.026 0.044 0.005 0.029 <5 VE3-20 5-30-96 1.4 0.007 0.036 0.017 0.095 5.4 VE3-35 5-30-96 1.8 0.019 0.18 0.039 0.24 <5 VE3-45 5-30-96 <0.5 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <5 VE4-20 5-30-96 <0.5 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <5 YE4-40 5-30-96 <0.5 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <5 VE4-45 5-30-96 <0.5 0.011 0.055 0.008 0.049 <5 I C:~2000.97~634.13 I Table 2. Summary of Vapor Sample Analytical Results. Elks Lodge #325, Bakersfield, California. VElA 4-9-97 1130 2478 2134 3.76 115 34.4 212 NA VE1B 4-9-97 1200 4312 1427 202 2810 658 3390 NA VE1B 4-9-97 1600 4330 1600 148 1676 203 1000 0.58 VE2B 4-9-97 1645 3090 1810 124 1861 269 468 NA VE4B 4-9-97 1730 3995 1265 220 1222 284 1099 NA NA - not analyzed, THC - total hydrocarbons, TNMH - total non-methane hydrocarbons, ppmv - parts per million by volume C:~2000.97\634.14 FIGURES AVE -. AVE {x '. Union C~ _: ~--~,{ __-', 388 ' :~ ~,~ ~RUNO~ ~avande~ ~'I ' ~.. ~ -7. LOM~ i ,. . ~RIVE '2~ ~ ~I~ELINE '~ I l RAM ENVIRONMENTAL , 0 2000 ENGINEERING I J SERVICES, INC. N APPROXIMATE SCALE (FEET) Project No. 2006~4 Date · Jury 11, 1997 ~ Figure 1 Site Location Map Elk's Lodge No. 325 elkssit~.dcJn 7-11-97 FORMER UST LOCATIONS / r I, r- I ~ VE2 · VE4 1 VEl ~ I FORMER PRODUCT LINES · 'r" r F East California Ave. 0 10 2O 30 ¢0 Legend .... SITE PROERTY LINE (CURB) APPROXIMATE SCALE (FEET) (~ VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL VE¢ RAMENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Project No.: 200634 Da~e · June 10, 1997 Rgum 2 Site Map Elk's Lodge No. 325 elkssite.dqn 6-13-97 Depth i (ft.) i TPHg B T E X Pb FORMER UST LOCATIONS 20 1.1 (0.005 0.013 0.007 0.061 _~ 55 970 0.9 39 19 110 12 ', 45 1900 2.7 130 46 310 Depth TPHg B T ' E X Pb -- -- (ft.) !1r- 55 1.6 0.26 0.044 0.005 0.029 <5 I 20 <0.5 <0.005 <0.00 <0.005 <0.005 (5 ~ I . 40 (0.5 40.005 40.00.~ 40.005 (0.005 (5 , I I Depth, TPHg B T E X Pb 45 <0.5 0.011 0.05~/ 0.008 0.049 <5 r--i ...... (ft.) ~ ~ ' I I I 15 11 (0.1 0.1 (0.1 0.7 ~ 55 6600 1.9 230 160 860 9.5 ~ I VEl 50 44 (0.1 0.9 0.8 5.2 VE4!, FORMER 60 5.5 0.58 ~.1 10.091 1.1 5.~ ~ I PRODUCT LINE: -I- r- T 1 Depth TPHg B T E X Pb (ft.) 20 1.4 0.007 0.056 0.017 0.095 <5 FORMER DISPENSER ISLANDS 55 1.8 0.019 0.18 0.039 0.24 45 <0.5 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <5 East California Ave. Legend 0 10 20 .~0 40 SITE PROERTY LINE (CURB) APPROXIMATE SCALE I~L (FEET) SERVICES, INC. Project No.: 200634 Date: July 11, 1997 Figure 3 Hydrocarbon and Lead Concentrations (mg/kg) Elk's Lodge No. 325 elkss~te,dgn 7-11-97 VE3 VEl VE2 0- ~ ~ / Screened Interval  _ 11 _ 11 I 20_  ~ of 1000 mg/kg TPHg _ . _ g70 horizon in soil _<o.~ ~ _ _~oo ~0 - _ 5.3 I ~ote: r~H~ in m~/k~ 0 20 I ' ' '' ~ Cloy, Sand and Silt FEET ~ Clay, SiR and Silty Sand 'l ~ Sand ~ Clay and Silt ~ Sand and Silty Sand I ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. I Project No.: 200634 Date · June 11, 1997 Iqgum 4 Cross Section elkssite.dgn 7-11-97 / APPENDIX A PROJECT NO. AND ADDRESS: Elks Lodge 1414 E. California Ave., Bakersfield LOG OF BORiNG/WELL: PAGE BORING LOCATION (AT SITE): CenterIIPROJECT NO,: 200654 Vel SUBCONTRACTOR AND EOUIPMENT: SB~'S - B61 Mobile Drill LOGGED BY: JWC 1 / 2 SAMPLING METHOD: 2" Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: HNU START DATE/(TIME): 5/29/96 0800 FINISH DATE/(TIME): 5/29/96 1400 FIRST WATER (BOS): None Encountered STABILIZED WATER LEVEL (NOS): NA SURFACE ELEVATION: NA CASING TOP ELEVATION: NA RAMEN~RONMENTAL TOTAL WELL DEPTH(S): 20', 55' BORING DIAMETER AND DEPTH: 10" x 60' ENGINEERING CASING DIAMETERtS): 2" PVC SCREEN INTERVAL(S): 5'- 20', 25'- 55' SERVICES, INC. ANNULUS FILL MATERIAL: ".5 Sand SCREEN SLOT (IN.): 0.020 o~1 -~ ~ ~ '~>, LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION BORING ABANDONMENT/ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~o ,~ ~ ~ (soil classification, color, moisture, 9rain size/plasticity, other) WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS I ~ 0 --0 I -- - I -- 0 o 0 I -- -- o o o I 2 -- o o o I o o o I -- -- 2.5 o o o I -- o o o I __ Hydrated Bentonite Chips _ o o o '0 0 0 I 4 -- o o o I 0 CL Sandy Cloy; -- 5 -- I 5 -- Moderate yellowish-brown, slightly moist, IOZ sand, Iow plasticity, -- -- 0855 I ~- 6 no hydrocarbon odor -- -- I I ~ 5 10 -- 10 -- 0845 I 50 2 -- -- I 12 -- -- __/ ~ I I 700 S~ndy Silt: I~18 ~ Olive gr~y, slighUy moist, 20~ sand, no plasticity, -- 0900 I 28 slight hydrocarbon odor i -- _ 17.5 -- I ~8 -- -- ~ -- _ _ I 800 20 Silty Sand: -- 20 ' -- I 8 oooo~ I 2~ -- SM Olive 9~uy, sfightly moist, 20Z silt very floe 9roi.ed, -- o o o o o 09~0 I 5~ s~ron9 hydroc0rbon odor ~ o o o o, o i __ ooooi o I 22~ ' ooooi o I --/ -22.5 oooo: 0 i 0000: 0 -- 0000 0 I -- - oooo o I oooo o I I0 ~ - 1005 I 2~ 850 SW Sond: 25 .... I 3~ ~ Moderoie yellowish-brown, moder~tel~ moist, very fine to fine gr~ined - ~ 26 strong hyd~ocorbon odor .... I ~ - 27,5 .... ~ ' I 28 I PROJECT NO. AND ADDRESS: Elks Lodge 1414 E. California Ave., Bakersfield LOG OF BORiNG/WELL: PAGE BORING LOCATION (AT SITE): Center PROJECT NO.: 200634 · SUBCONTRACTOR AND EOUIPMENT: SB~S- B61 Mobile Drill LOGGED BY: JWC VEl SAMPLING METHOD: 2" Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: HNU START DATE/(TIME): .5/29/96 0800 FINISH DATE/(TIME): 5/29/96 1400 FIRST WATER (BGS): None Encountered STABILIZED WA]ER LEVEL (BGS): NA I SURFACE EL£VATION: NA CASING TOP ELEVATION: NA RAM ENWRONMENTAL TOTAL WELL DEPTH(S): 20', 55' BORING DIAMETER AND DEPTH: 10" × 60' ENGINEERING CASING DIAMETER(S): 2" PVC SCREEN INTERVAL(S): 5'- 20', 25'- 55' SERVICES, INC. ANNULUS FILL MATERIAL: "5 Sand SCREEN SLOT (IN.): 0.020 o ~1 -~ ~' ~ >. LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION BORING ABANDONMENT/  I :~ ~ ~ ::z: ~ (soil classification, color, moisture, grain size/plasticity, other} I <: ~- u~ ,";- ~- WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS I 9 900 30 -- 30 1020 I 30 i 27 ....... I 32 I I -- __ 32.5 ....... .-ii , lOOO __ 35 ...... I 10 CL Sandy Clay: I 1055 I 1'~' -- Light olive gray, slightly moist, 207. sand, Iow plasticity, - i 5"-'~~ .36 strong hydrocarbon odor I --~ - 37.5 I 38 ........ I i I __ _ ~ lfi 700 40 Silty Sand: -- 40 ....... -- -- Lkjht olive groy, slightly moist, 307. silt, very fine groined, -- ....... 10,50 I 3~ SM strong hydrocarbon oOor ~ 4-'~ ....... I -- -- 42.5 .... ' -- · I I I I 44 I 850 Silty Sand: -- 45 .... , -- - I 1--2 __ Moderate yellowish-brown, slightly moist, 207. silt ........ 1105 I 1--9 very fine to medium groined, moderate hydrocarbon odor I I 50 46 ........ i -- _ 47.5 ....... I 4B ....... 1120 I ' 16 700 50 Silty Sand: -- 50 ..... ! · I I 25 -- Moderate yellowish-brown, slicjhtJy moist, 207. silt, - very fine to medium grained, moderate hydrocarbon odor I occasional cloy lenses I 52 ....... I -- - 52.5 ..... ~ · I i 54 ........ I I 7 300 Silty Sand: -- 55 -- __ Moderate yellowish-brown, slightly moist, $07. silt ......... 1145 I 12 very fine to medium grained, slight hydrocarbon odor ~ Z~ 56 ........ I -- _ 57.5 ....... I Silty Sond: I I 12 __ Uoderote yellowish-brown, stighUy moist, 307. silt ..... __... 121,5 I 1-'~' very fine to medium grained, slight hydrocarbon odor v I 2~ .300 60 T.D. 60' 60 I PROJECT NO. AND .ADDRESS: Elks Lodge 1414 E. Colifornio Ave., Bokersfield LOG OF BORING/WELL: PAGE BORING LOCATION (AT SITE): North Lost of VEl PROJECT NO.: 200634 SUBCONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT: SB&S - B61 Mobile Dril! LOGGED B~: JWC Me2 I SAMPLING METHOD: 2" Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: HNU START DATE/(TIME): 5/29/96 1440 FINISH DATE/(TIME): 5/50/96 1030 FIRST WATER fBGS): None Encountered STABILIZED WATER LEVEL (BOg): NA I SURFACE ELEVATION: NA CASING TOP ELEVATION: NA RAM ENVIRONMENTAL TOTAL WELL DEPTH{S): 20', 5B' BORING DIAMETER AND DEPTH: 6" x 55' ENGINEERING CASING DIAMETER(S): 2" PVC SCREEN INTERVAL(S): 10'- 20', 25'- 38' SERVICES, INC. i ANNULUS FILL MATERIAL: "5 Sond SCREEN SLOT (IN.): 0.020 I ' o --, I ~ ~ ~ ~ >. LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION  . cn BORING ABANDONMENT/ ~ I<= ~--Ld r-,_ ~ (soil clossificotion, color, moisture, grain size/plosticity, other) WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS I I - o c~ w I I ' I o o o -- -- O O O i I 2 -- o o o I o o o I I -- --2.5 o o o I -- o o o I __ _ o o o o o O I 4 -- o o o I -- -- o o o I I 1 Sond: -- 5 o o o -T' I 2 o o o 1450 I T -- SW Moderote yellowish-brown, slightly moist, fine to medium groined, -- o o o -~. 6 no hydrocorbon odor __ o o o I o o o I -- -- o o o I I -- o o o o o o I -- ~ Hydroted Bentonite Chips --7.5 o o o I 8 -- o o o I __ _ o o o i I __ _ . I I. ~ ~ 10 -- 10 - 1455 I 5 1 -- --. I I 12 -- -- I -- - 12.5 -- ' / / __ _ / 'l , 14 -- I 15 -- 15 ' Silty Send: I 10 -- kiqht olive 9roy, slightly moist, 107. silt, very fine groined, - 1458 I 16 SM! slight hydrocorbon odor I I 2'-'~' 16 -- -- I --/ - 17.5 -- I I 18/ -- I I __ _ t 50 20 SW Sond: -- 20: I 10 oooo -6- i -- -- Pole yellowish-brown, dry, fine to medium groined, - o o o o I 14 slight hydrocarbon odor 1500 I 2-'~' -- o o o o o I -- -- 0000 0 I 22 -- o o o 0 o.__ I -- _ 22.5 I 24 -- -- I 15 -- -- -- i 1505 I ,3] 1000! Sond: -- 25 .... -- I 50 -- M0derote yellowish-brown, slightly moist, very fine groined - ' ' ' ' -- I 26 strong hydrocarbon odor __ · · · · _ i -- ~ 30 3O I PROJECT NO. AND ADDRESS: Elks Lodge 1414 E. California Ave., Bakersfield LOG OF BORING/WELL: PAGE BORING LOCATION (AT SITE,: NE of VElI'PROJECT NO.: 200654 VE2 SUBCONTRACTOR A~D EOUIPM£NT: SBB, S - 861 Moblle Drill LOCCED BY: JWC I SAMPLING METHOD: 2" Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: HNU START DATE/(TIME): 5/29/96 1440 FINISH DATE/(TIME): 5/50/96 1050 FIRST WATER f~GS): None Encountered STAB~LLTED WA?ER LEVEL fBOS): NA I SURFACE ELEVATION: NA CASING TOP ELEVATION: NA TOTAL WELL DEPTH(S): 20', 38' BORING DIAMETER AND DEPTH: 6" × 55' ENGINEERING CASING DIAMETER(S): 2" PVC SCREEN iNTERVAL(S): 10'- 20', 25'- 38' SERVICES, INC. , ANNULUS FILL MATERIAL: "3 Sond SCREEN SLO'f (IN.): 0.020 ~- v = >. LI'fHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION BORING 4BANDONMENT/ ~ ~ I ~ ~ " ~ :z: ~n (soil classification, color, moisture, groin size/plasticity, other) ~ co I ¢ ~. .~ ~. ~ ~n WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS I I 19 200 50 Sandy Clay: -- 50 ...... I I -- -- Light olive gray, slightty moist, lOX sand, Iow plasticity ........ 1515 I 4(} CL strong hydrocarbon odor i 50 t 32 ...... I I -- __ 32.5 ....... I I :1000 Silty Send: 35 ...... I 14 1520 I 2--~ -- SM Light olive gray, slightly moist, 10X silt, very fine groined, - ....... I 40 36 strong hydrocarbon odor ...... I -- _ 37.5 ....... I 38 -- ,o o o o ~"-6 o I -- -- 0000000 t oooo000 I I ooooooo I -- -- ooooooo ~ 800 40 Silty Sand: --40 o o o o o o o 1530 I 30 -- Light olive gray, siightly moist, 107. silt, very fine groined, - ....... I 6~ strong hydrocarbon odor ....... I -- / - 42.5 ' - ...... I I I 500 Sand: 45 I 2._~.1 __ Pole yellowish brown, dry. fine to medium groined, _ /// 1540 t 40 SW slight hydrocarbon odor .'l I 5'-'~' 46 I -- / -47.5 I 48 / i.' I ii -- Slough// 500 50 SM Silty Sand: 50 / I 15 __ Moderate yellowish-brown, moderately moist, 207. silt, I 1545 I 2~ very ,fine to medium grained, slight hydrocarbon odor / ~ 52 / I -- - 52.5 I i 54 / I I 200 Silty Send: 55 __ Moderate yellowish-brown, moderately moist, 207. silt, _ 1610 Il 6-~'15 56 very, fine to medium grained, very slight hydrocarbon odor I T.D. 55' I I -- - 57.5 i 58 -- i -- · I 60 -- 60 I // I PROJECT NO. AND ADDRESS: Elks Lodge 1414 E. California Ave., Bakersfield LOG OF BORING/WELL: PAGE BORING LOCATION (AT SITE): South of VEl PROJECT NO.: 200634 J SUBCONTRACTOR AND EOUIPMENT: SB&S -B61 Mobile Drill LOGGED BY: JWCr VE3 1/, I SAMPLING METHOD: 2" Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: HNU START DATE/(TIME): 5/50/96 0650 FINISH DATE/(TIME): 5/30/96 FIRST WATER (BGS): None Encountered STABILIZED WATER LEVEL (BG$): NA I SURFACE ELEVATION: NA CASING T0P ELEVATION: NA RAMENVlRONMENTAL TOTAL WELL DEPTH(S): 20', 40' BORING DIAMETER AND DEPTH: 6" x 45' ENGINEERING CASING DIAMETER(S): 2" PVC SCREEN INTERVAL(S): 8.5'- 20', 22.5'- 45' SERVICES, INC, ANNULUS FILL MATERIAL: '5 Sand SCREEN SLOT (IN.): 0.020 I I ~ ~ ~ >. LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION  ~ BORING ABANDONMENT/ ~ ~ II ~ ~ _~ :z: ~ (soil classification, color, moisture, groin size/plasticity, other) WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS I t :., I 0 0 0 -- -- 0 0 0 I I 2 -- o o o O O O I I -- -2.5 o o o I -- o o o I __ _ o o o o o 0 I 4 -- o o o I -- -- o o o I I Sandy Silt: -- 5 o o o I __2 0 -- Moderate yellowish-brown, moderately moist, lOZ sand, Iow plasticity, - o° o° o° 06401 ~ 6 ML no hydrocarbon odor __ o o o I 5 o o o I -- -- 0 0 0 O 0 O I -- Hydrated Bentonite Chips --7.5 o o o I 8 -- o o o I I- ! 0645 I 1'~ 2 10 Sand: -- 10 I 1-'~' __ Light olive gray, moderately moist, very fine to fine groined _ _ I very slight hydrocarbon odor __ _ I -- -12.5 ' :-- I . I I 14 I _ 0655 I--25 50 Sand: -- 15 I I 60 __ Light olive gray, moderately moist, very fine groined _ I 16 very slight hydrocarbon odor ~ _ · I I --// - 17.5 -- I I 18 -- -- i 2-! -- 0700 I 30 200 20 Sandy Cloy: -- 20 ' -- I I 4~ -- CL Light olive gray, slightly moist, 307. sand, Iow plasticity _ ~ o o o -5' I -- oooo o I __ _ oooo o I 22 / -- oooo o I --// -22.5 oooo o__ I I Sand: -- ' .... I __ Pole yellowish-brown, dry, very fine to fine groined. _ · - · · I SW moderate hydrocarbon odor .... I · ~ 20 200 --25 . .......--' 0710 I -- 26 Silty Sand: -- ' ' ' ' -- I 55 __ Moderate yellowish-brown, slightly moist, 50% silt, very fine grained, _ · · · · _ -' I slight hydrocarbon odor __ . . . . __ ! , ' I -- SM -- 27.5 .... -- ' I 28 -- ' ' ' ' -- I 30 -- 30 .... -- ' I PROJECT NO. AND ADDRESS: Elks Lodge 1414 E. California Ave., Bokers'lield LOG OF BORING/WELL: PAGE · BORING LOCATION (AT SITE): South of VEl PROJECT NO.: 2006,34 · SUBCONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT: SB&S- B61 Mobile Drill LOGGED BY: JWC VE3 I SAMPLING METHOD: 2" Split Spoon MONITORING DEVICE: HNU START DATE/(TIME): 5/30/96 0630 FINISH DATE/JTIME): 5/30/96 FIRST WATER (BGS): None Enc0unteFed STABILIZED WATER LEVEL (BGS): NA TOTAL WELL DEPTH(S): 20', 40' BORING DIAMETER AND DEPTH: 6" × 45' ENGINEERING ' CASING DIAMETER(S): 2" PVC SCREEN INTERVAL(S): 8.5'- 20', 22.5'- 45' SERVICES, INC. IANNULUS FILL MATERIAL: ,3 Sand SCREEN SLOT (IN.): 0.020 I ' o -.J I ~ ~ ~ ~ >. LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION uJ o_ BORING ABANDONMENT/ ~_ ~ ~ ~ u~ ~--~ ~--r ~ (soil classification, color, moisture, grain size/plasticity, other) WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS I I 200 30 Silty Sand: -- 30 I 07201 2,5 -- SM Moderate yellowish-browr~, slightly moist, 107. silt, _ ....... I 60 very fine groined, slight hydrocarbon odor I -I , -/ -32.5 ...... I[] " 14 600 Sondy Silt: 55 0725 I 2--~ --ML Light olive gray, slightly moist, 207. sand, Iow plasticity, - ! I 3'-~ 36 strong hydrocarbon odor I ' / ~ -- - 37.5 , 38 I . ! ' 0745 I 1--~-500 40 Cloy: 40 ..... i 2-'~' I Light olive gray, dry, Iow plasticity, moderate hydrocarbon odor ........ I CL I 42 ....... I -- J - 42.5 ....... I i 2__~ 0800 I 100 Sand: 45 I 60 I Pole yellowish-brown, dry, fine to medium groined, - V l I 46 slight hydrocarbon odor __ I __ ~ T.D. 4,5' - I -- -- 47.5 : i 48 -- · .I I I _ · I I I I 50 -- 50 I t -- I 52 -- I I -- 52.5 II ~ __ I I 54 -- i - I -- - 57.5 : I 58 I I I -- _ · I 6O 6O I I PROJECT NO. AND ADDRESS: Elks Lodge 1414 E. Cafitornia Ave., Bakersfield LOG OF BORING/WELL: PACE BORINC LOCATION {AT SITE): West ot VEl PROdECT NO.: 200654 SUBCONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT: SB~,S - B61 Mobile Drill LOGGED "Y: ,WC Ye4 :.i:·· SAMPLING METHOD: 2" Split Spoon MONITORINC DEVICE: HNU START DATE/(TIME): 5/50/96 0900 FINISH DATE/(TIME): 5/30/96 FIRST WATER (BGS): None Encountered STABILIZED WATER LEVEL (BCS): NA I SURFACE ELEVATION: NA CASING TOP ELEVATION: NA RAM ENE/IRONMENTAL TOTAL WELL DEPTH(S): 20', 42' BORING DIAMETER AND DEPTH: 6" x 45' ENGINEERING CASING DiAMETER(S): 2" PVC SCREEN iNTERVAL(S): 10'- 20', 27'- 42' SERVICES, INC. ANNULUS FILL MATERIAL: '5 Sand SCREEN SLOT (IN.): 0.020 v ~ >, L]THOLOGIC DESCRIPTION BORING ABANDONMENT/ ~uJ~'' ~u~ ,-7~ ~ ~ (,oilclassification, color, moisture, grain size/plasticity, other, WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS I l I I -- - I -- O] 0 0 ,:.':i: I -- - o o I 2 -- o~ o o I -- 2.5 o! o .~ I '-- o o Io ! I Hydrated Bentonite Chips -- o o ia I __ _ O; 0 ,0 0 0 iO I 4- -- O; 0 :0 i -- -- I O, 0 0 I 2 Sandy Clay: -- ,5 al o o i 4 __ Dod< yellowish-brown, moist, 107. sand, moderate plasticity, - o o 09001 ~ 6 CL no hydrocarbon odor __ o°i o o I 16 al o o I -- -- 0 o 0 I --- -7.5 ' -- 0905 I 1-'~' 5 10 Sand: -- 10 ' ' I 2--~ -- Light olive gray, moderately moist, very fine grained, _ "-- I SW no hydrocarbon odor __ -! I I 1;] -- -- I -- / -12.5 -- I I I 10 Silt: -- 15 0920I 2.3 -- Olive 9roy, moderately moist, no plasticity, - -- I 40 16--- ML very slight hydrocarbon odor I - _ I 47 . - -17.5 i.-- , - -- ~ 20 20 20 'i I ' I 13 __ _ oooo 0955 I 26 i o I -- Sand: o° o° °o g o° I 22 OJive gray, moderately moist, fine to medium grained, -- o o o o o I -- SW slight hydrocarbon odor -- 22.5 o I i oooo :o I -- oooo I 24 __ oooo i · 0945 I 4--~ 90 25 I 50 -- ' I .i .... [] ' - / - .... - - ! I · I 28 -- ' '' ' -- I I -- -- ' ' ' '-- I 30 ---- 30 : I t , -- . I, PROJECT NO. AND ADDRESS: Elks Lodge 1414 E. Caliiornia Ave., BakersfieJd LOG OF BORING/WELL: PAGE BOR,NO LOCAT,ON ,AT est of yE, I PRO ECT NO.;' 200 4 VE4 SUBCONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT: SB&S - B61 Mobile Drill LOGGED BY: JWC 2 / SAMPLING METHOD: 2" Sp(i( Spoon ~MONITORINC DEVICE: HNU START DATE/(TIME): 5/30/96 0900~ FINISH DATE/(TIME): 5/30/96 FIRST WATER (BGS): None Encountered STABILIZED WATER LEVEL (BGS): NA SURFACE ELEVATION: NA CASINO TOP ELEVATION: NA TOTAL WELL DEPTH(S): 20', 42' BORING DI~ETER AND DEPTH: 6' x 45' ENGINEERING CASING 0(~ETER(S): 2" PVC SCREEN ~NTERV~(S): 10'- 20', 27'- 42' SER~CES. INC. ~NULUS FILL ~ATERI~: '3 Send SCREEN SLOT (IN.): O.020 > ~ ~ ~ LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION ~ ~ ~ BORING ~DONMENT/ D~ ~ ~1~ ~ _ ~ ~ (soil cbssificotion, color, moisture, groin size/plosfici~y, o~her) WELL CONSTRUCTION DET~LS I 40 30 CL Sondy Cloy: 30 1000 f 5~ -- Olive groy, slighUy moist, 20Z sond, bw piesticity, - .... !-- . I 90 no odor I I ~00 Sond: 35 ...... I 27 ~ Light olive gray, dry, very fine groined, - .... ,~ . 10]0 I 7~ 36 SW ~ very slight hydrocorbon odor I -- - 37.5 , __ _ ....~-'. I 1025 I ~7 slight hydrocorbon odor , __ _ I ~ _ 42.5 I Slouqh I 100 ~ 45 ~ 3~ ~ _ ~040 I 52 CJoyey I 4~ 46 Light olive groy, dry, Iow plosticity, slight hydrocorbon odor I ML T.D. 45' i ,I ~ - 47,5 I 48 t ~ - I I 50 ~ 50 I i I 52 I ~ - 52.5 t 54 ~ ~ 55 I , I ~ - 57.5 i 58 -- i -- I 60 -- 60 I , I '1 I I I APPENDIX B I I I I I I /. Chain-ol Cu,s!od~, Number: _ _, ~ A ~, ~~]~- Chain-of Custody Record ' ' ~ ~J Additional documents are attached, and are a part ol Ihis Record. , P~o/e~ ~ ~ Tas~ II Analysis Request Laboratory ~~ urnaround Time Sampler's Name Special Inslructions/Comments: Relinquis~e~by: R~ceived by: , Sample Receipt ~el~nquished by: ~ __, Receive~by: Chain-el Cuslody Number: ~)/\ ~ ::~:~?~ Chain-of Custody Record F,eld Office:E/~/~ ~ v~ o~_~~./~ ~t ~e~/~ ~~,c. ~ Additional documenls are attached, and are a part of Ihis Record. Address: ~~"~ ~, ~~o o/ JobName: E//~ ~ ~'~ Project ¢ ~Task ¢ Analysis Request Project Manager A Laboratory ~~. Turnaround Tim Sampler's Name Sampler's Sign ~ ~ ~ ~ e~ eo >~ E~ ~ -~ ~ Sample ID ~ / Dale Time Mahix ~ ~ o eo .- >~ ze ~ ~ ~ InslructJons -~ ~_ - // Special Instructions/Comments: ~m~ Received t Sample Receipt p~;1¢ ~ ~~~-- Print/~'O~/4 G_~//~/~ Chain el cuslody seals: C~ny _~- K~'--~ Company ~~_ J~/V~._ Rec'd. in ,good condition/cold: ~jme Date~}O~ Time ~/ ~ Date~_¢~6 Conforms to record: R~linquished by:_ . , _ Received b~: Si~ company ._ _ Time _//~ .__ Date ~~ Client Phone: __.. ,ECOli CUS 111[6 Rev Date: I Zyma' e n v i r o t e ¢ h n o I o g ¥ REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS [Client: Mark Pishinsky ' ILab Number: 8935-1 RAM Environmental Engineering ICollected: 05/29/96 3333 Gibson St., Ste. 200 I Received: 05/31/96 Bakersfield, CA 93308 IMatrix: Soil Project: Elks Lodge #325 ISampie Description: I VE1-15 I Project Number: IAnalyzed: 06/03/96 ICollected by: Jon Cooper I Method: See Below I {CONSTITUENT mg/kg PQL* RESULT** I mg/kg 0.1 ND Benzene Toluene O. 1 O. 1 Ethylbenzene O. 1 ND Xylenes 0.1 0.7 Percent Surrogate Recovery 96 TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Gasoline 10. 11. I BTX as a Percent of Fuel 7 ZymaX'envirotechnology, inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717. I*PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit **Results listed as ND would have been reported if present at or above the listed PQL. iNote: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. I Submitted by, I ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. MSD #6 I 8935-1 .xis John MacMur JMM/jgtlwr/mh Laboratory Director I I 71 Zaca Lane. Suite 110 fax 805.544.8226 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 e-mail: zymax~callamer.com tel 805.544.4696 IClient: Mark Pishinsk~/ " Lab Number: 8935-2 RAM Environmental Engineering Collected: 05/29/96 3333 Gibson St., Ste'. 200 Received: 05/3i/96 Bakersfield, CA 93308 Matrix: Soil I Project: Elks Lodge #325 Sample Description: VE1-35 IProject Number: Analyzed: 06/04/96 I Collected by: Jon Cooper Method: See Below CONSTITUENT mg/kgPQL* RESULT'*mg/kg Benzene 1.0 1.9 Toluene 1.0 230, Ethylbenzene 1.0 160. Xylenes 1.0 860. Percent Surrogate Recovery 96 TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Gasoline 100. 6600. BTX as a Percent of Fuel 17 ZymaX envirotechnoiogy, inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717 *PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit **Results listed as ND would have been reported if present at or above the listed PQL. Note: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. ! Submitted by, "1 ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. I 8935-2.xls John MacMur JMM/jgt/wr/mh Laboratory Director I 71 Zaca Lane, Suite I I0 fax 805,544.8226 San Luis Obispo. California 93401 e-mail: zymax(~callamer, com tei 805,544.4696 o. i.oteoh.o,oey REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS iI IClient: Mark Pishinsk~ ' Lab Number: 8935-3 RAM Environmental Engineering Collected: 05/29/96 3333 Gibson St., St~. 200 Received: 05/31/96 I .Bakersfield, CA 93308 Matrix: Soil Project: Elks Lodge #325 Sample Description: I VEl-50 Project Number: Analyzed: 06/03/96 Collected by: Jon Cooper Method: See Below I ICONSTITUENT mg/kg PQL* RESULT** t mg/kg I Benzene 0.1 ND Toluene 0.1 0.9 Ethylbenzene 0.1 0.8 I Xylenes 0.1 5.2 Percent Surrogate Recovery 96 I TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS I Gasoline 10. 44. I BTX as a Percent of Fuel 14 ZymaX.envirotechnology, inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717 i *PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit **Results listed as ND would have been reported if present at or above the listed PQL. Note: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. ! I Submitted by, '1 ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. ,o I 8935-3.xls Murph JMM/jgt/wr/mh Laboratory Director I i 71 Z. aca Lane, Suite 110 fax 80";.S44.8226 San Luis ObJspo. California 93401 e-mail: zymax~callamer.com tel 805.54 4.46 9 6 / I Zyma, envirotechnomogy REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS i [Client: Mark Pishinsk~ - Lab Number: 8935-4 ' RAM Environmental Engineering Collected: 05/29/96 3333 Gibson St., St~. 200 Received: 05/31/96 I Bakersfield, CA 93308 Matrix: Soil I Project: Elks Lodge #325 Sample Description: I VE1-60 I Project Number: Analyzed: 06/05/96 lCollected by: Jon Cooper Method: See Below I CONSTITUENT mg/kgPQL* RESULT''mg/kg I Benzene 0.005 0.58 '~: Toluene 0.005 1.1 Ethylbenzene 0.005 0,091 I Xylenes 0.005 1,1 Percent Surrogate Recovery 91 ! TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS I Gasoline 0.5 5.3 BTX as a Percent of Fuel 52 ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717 *PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit **Results listed as ND would have been reported if present at or above the listed PQL. Note: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. Submitted by, ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. 8935-4.xls cMurp JMM/jgt/wr/jk Laboratory Director 71 Zaca Lane, Suite I I0 fax 805.544.8226 San Luis Obispo. California 93401 e-mail: zymax~callamer.com tel 805.544.4696 ' Zyma envirote hno'oay REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Client: Mark Pishinsk~/ Lab Number: 8935-5 RAM Environmental Engineering Collected: 05/29/96 3333 Gibson St., ste. 200 Received: 05/31/96 CA 93308 Matrix: Soil Bakersfield, Project: Elks Lodge #325 Sample Description: VE2-20 Project Number: Analyzed: 06/04/96 Collected by: Jon Cooper Method: See Below IcONSTITUENT mg/kgPQL' RESULT''mg/kg Benzene 0.005 ND Toluene 0.005 0.013 Ethylbenzene 0.005 0.007 Xylenes 0.005 0.O61 Percent Surrogate Recovery 98 TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Gasoline 0.5 1.1 I BTX as a Percent of Fuel 7 ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717 I*PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit ''Results listed as ND would have been reported if present at or above the listed PQL. iNote: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. I Submitted by, I ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. · I 8935-5.xls John MacMurphey JMM/jgt/wr/mh Laboratory Director I I 71 7aca Lane, Suite I I0 fax 805.544.8226 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 e-mail: zymax~callamer.com tei 80 S .544.4696 I ZYma~ envirotechnolog¥ REPORT OFANALYTICALRESULTS Client: Mark Pishinsky ILab Number: 8935-6 RAM Environmental Engineering IC°llected: 05/29/96 3333 Gibson St., Ste. 200 IReceived: 05/31/96 Bakersfield, CA 93308 IMatrix: Soil Project: Elks Lodge #325 ISample DescriptiOn:vE2.35 Project Number: IAnalyzed: 06/04/96 Collected by: Jon Cooper I Method: See Below I ICONSTITUENT mg/kg PQL' RESULT'' I mg/kg Benzene 0.1 0.9 Toluene O. 1 39. Ethylbenzene O. 1 19. O. 1 1 10. Xylenes Percent Surrogate Recovery 95 TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Gasoline 10. O?O. BTX as a Percent of Fuel 15 ZymaX envirotechnoiogy, inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717 *PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit **Results listed as ND would have been reported if present at or above the listed PQL. Note: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. I Submitted by, ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. I 8935-6.xls acMurph JMM/jgt/wr/mh Laboratory Director I I 71 Zaca Lane. Suite I I0 fax 805.544.8226 San Luis Obispo. California 93401 e-mail: zymax~callamer, com tel 805.544.4696 !"1 IClient: Mark Pishinsky " "Lib Number: 8935-7 I RAM Environmental Engineering Collected: 05/29/96 i 3333 Gibson St., St~. 200 Received: 05/31/96 Bakersfield, CA 93308 Matrix: Soil i iProject: Elks Lodge #325 Sample Description: I VE2-45 ~Project Number: Analyzed: 06/04/96 {Collected by: Jon Cooper Method: See Below I ICONSTITUENT mg/kg PQL* RESULT** I,. I Benzene 0,1 2.7 Toluene O. 1 130. Ethylbenzene O. 1 46. I Xylenes 0.1 310. Percent Surrogate Recovery 97 ,I TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS I Gasoline 10. 1900. BT× as a Percent of Fuel 23 ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717 *PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit **Results listed as ND would have been reported if present at or above the listed PQL. Note: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. ! Submitted by, I ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. MSD#6 Jo~nMa~t 'h~ I 8935-7.xls cMurp JMM/jgt/wr/mh Laboratory Director I 71 Zaca Lane, Suite I I0 fax 805.544.8226 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 e-mail: zymax~callamer.com tel 805.544.4696 I Zyma ! e n v i r o t e c h n o I o g y REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS ~ IClient: Mark Pishinsk~ " ILab Number: 8935-8 RAM Environmental Engineering IC°llected: 05/29/96 3333 Gibson St., ste. 200 I Received: 05/31/96 Bakersfield, CA 93308 I Matrix: Soil 'I Project: Elks Lodge #325 IlSample DescriptiOn:vE2.55 Project Number: IAnalyzed: 06~04~96 Collected by: Jon Cooper IMeth°d: See Below I {CONSTITUENT mg/kg PQL* RESULT** I mg/kg I Benzene 0.005 0.026 Totuene 0.005 0.044 Ethylbenzene 0.005 0.005 I Xylenes 0.005 0.029 Percent Surrogate Recovery 98 ! TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS I Gasoline 0.5 1.6 i I BTX as a Percent of Fuel 6 ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717 [] *PQL o Practical Quantitation Limit . ! **Results'listed.asND would have been reported if present at or above the listed PQL. · Note: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. Submitted by, '1 ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. I 8935-8.xls John MacMurphey JMM/jgt/wr/mh Laboratory Director I I 71 ZacaLane. Suite I10 faxS05.544.8226 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 e-mail: zymax(~callarner.com tel 805 .S 44.4696 Zyma envirotechnolog¥ REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Mark Pmhmsky I Client: Lab Number: 8935-9 RAM Environmental Engineering Collected: 05/30/96 3333 Gibson St., Ste'. 200 Received: 05/31/96 Bakersfield, CA 93308 ' Matrix: Soil Project: Elks Lodge #325 Sample Description: VE3-20 Project Number: Analyzed: 06/04/96 Collected by: Jon Cooper Method: See Below I ICONSTITUENT mg/kg PQL*RESULT** Benzene 0.005 0.007 Toluene 0.005 0.036 Ethylbenzene 0.005 0.017 0.005 0.095 Xylenes Percent Surrogate Recovery 99 TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Gasoline 0.5 1,4 BTX as a Percent of Fuel 10 ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717 *PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit **Results listed as ND would have been' reported if present at or above the listed PQL. Note: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. ! Submitted by, I'-iii ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. I 8935-9.xls John MacMurphey JMM/jgtlwrlmh Laboratory Director I ,! I 71 Zaca Lane, Sui[e I I0 fax 80S.544.8226 San Luis Obispo. California 93401 e-mail: zymax@callamer.com tei 805.544.4696 / I Zyma ' er, virotochr, o,ogy ~i Client: Mark Pishinsk{/ " [Lab Number: 8935-10 RAM Environmental Engineering ICollected: 05/30/96 ' · 3333 Gibson St., ste. 200 IReceived: 05/31/96 Bakersfield, CA 93308 [Matrix: Soil I Project: Elks Lodge #325 [Sample Description: I I VE3-35 IProject Number: IAnalyzed: 06/05/96 [Collected by: Jon Cooper IMethod: See Below I [CONSTITUENT mg/kg PQL* RESULT** ag/kg I Benzene 0.005 0.019 :' Toluene 0.005 0.18 Ethylbenzene 0.005 0.039 I Xylenes 0.005 0.24 I Percent Surrogate Recovery 92 ~ TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS '! ~ Gasoline 0.5 1.8 I BTX as a Percent of Fuel 24 ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717 I *PQL ~ Practical Quantitation Limit **Results listed as ND would have been reported if present at or above the listed PQL. I Note: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. Submitted by, ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. MSD#6 ~hn M,/~--~ 8935-10.xls acMur JMM/jgt/wr/mh Laboratory Director I '1 71 Zaca Lane, Suite 1 I0 fax 805.544.8226 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 e-mail: zymax@callamer.com tel 805 .S 44.4696 I Zyma envirotechno,oav REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS [~ M--'-~-~rk ~ Lab Number: 8935-11 RAM Environmental Engineering Collected: 05/30/96 3333 Gibson St., St&. 200 Received: 05/31/96 Bakersfield, CA 93308 Matrix: Soil Project: Elks Lodge #325 Sample Description: VE3-45 Project Number: Analyzed: 06/05/96 Collected by: Jon Cooper Method: See Below I ICONSTITUENT. mg/kg PQL* RESULT** mg/kg Benzene 0.005 ND Toluene 0.005 ND Ethylbenzene 0.005 ND Xylenes 0.005 ND Percent Surrogate Recovery 99 TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Gasoline 0.5 ND BT× as a Percent of Fuel N/A -ZymaX envirotechnoiogy, inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717 *PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit **Results listed as ND would have been reported if present at or above the listed PQL. Note: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. Submitted by, ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. 8935-11 .xls John MacMurphey JMM/jgtlwr/mh Laboratory Director I71 Zaca Lane, Suite I I0 fax 805.544.8226 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 e-mail: zymax~callamer.com tel 80 $.544.4696 Zyma I ' onvi,'ote,:hno,oey REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS I- · Client: Mark Pishinsky -' ILab Number: 8935-12 RAM Environmental Engineering ICollected: 05/30/96 3333 Gibson St., ste. 200 IReceived: 05/31/96 I Bakersfield, CA 93308 [Matrix: Soil I Project: Elks Lodge #325 IISample Description:yE4.20 Project Number: IAnalyzed: 06/05/96 Collected by: Jon Cooper [Method: See Below I ICONSTITUENT mg/kg PQL* RESULT** I mg/kg ~1 Benzene 0.005 ND .... Toluene 0.005 ND Ethylbenzene 0.005 ND I Xylenes 0.005 ND Percent Surrogate Recovery 99 ! TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS I Gasoline 0.5 ND I BTX as a Percent of Fuel N/A ZymaX envirotechnology; inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717 i*PQL- Practical Quantitation Limit *~Results listed as ND would have been reported if present at or above the listed PQL. iNote: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. I Submitted by, '1 ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. I 8935-12.xls acMur JMM/jgt/wr/mh Laboratory. Director I .I I 71 Zaca Lane, Suite I I0 fax 805.544.8226 San Luis Obispo. California 93401 e-n~ail: zymax@callamer.com tei 805.544.46 96 I Zym~~' enviroteehno,oeV R~PO.T O~ ^NA~r,CAL ~ESULTS Client: Mark Pishinsky ILab Number: 8935-13 RAM Environmental Engineering ICollected: 05/30/96 I 3333 Gibson St., Ste'. 200 J Received: 05/31/96 Bakersfield, CA 93308 IMatrix: Soil Elks Lodge #325 ISample Description: Project: ·· I VE4-4o ~ Project Number: IAnalyzed: 06/05/96 Collected by: Jon Cooper I Method: See Below I CONSTITUENT PQLe RESULT* mg/kg mg/kg I Benzene 0.005 ND Toluene 0.005 ND i Ethylbenzene 0.005 ND Xylenes 0.005 ND Percent Surrogate Recovery 99 ! TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS I Gasoline 0.5 ND I BTX as a Percent of Fuel N/A .:' ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717. I* PQL -. Practical:Quantitation Limit · *Results listed as ND would have been reported if present at or above the listed PQL. INote: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. I ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. MSD #6 J~hn M~'~-rr~ I 8935-13.xls acMu JMM/jgtlwrlmh Laboratory Director ! '1 71 Zaca Lane, Suite I I0 fax 805.544.8226 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 e-r~ail: zymax@callamer.com cei 80 S .S 44.46 96 I Zyma e n v i r o t e ¢ h n o I o g y REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS '"1 Client: Mark Pishinsky ILab Number: 8935-14 RAM Environmental Engineering IC°llected: 05/30/96 "I 3333 Gibson St., St~. 200 IReceived: 05/31/96 Bakersfield, CA 93308 IMatrix: Soil Project: Elks Lodge #325 Sample Description: Project Number: IAnalyzed: 06/05/96 Collected by: Jon Cooper I Method: See Below ?1 ICONSTITUENT PQL* RESULT** I ',.' mg/kg mg/kg ..~1 Benzene 0.005 0.011 :.' Toluene 0.005 0.055 - Ethylbenzene 0.005 0.008 '1 Xylenes .. 0.005 0.049 Percent Surrogate Recovery 98 I TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS I Gasoline 0.5 ND I BTX as a Percent of Fuel N/A ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. is certified by'CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717 I*PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit **Results listed as ND would have been reportedif present at or above the listed PQL. iNote: Analyzed by EPA 8260 and GC/MS Combination. I Submitted by, I ZymaX envirotechnoiogy, inc. I 8935-14.xls acMur JMM/jgt/wr/mh Laboratory Director I I 71 Zaca Lane, Suite I10 fax 805.544.8226 San Luis Obispo. California 93401 e-n~ail: zymax(~callamer.com tel 805 .S 44.4696 I Zyma' e n v i r o t ® ¢ h n o I o g y REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS I lClient: Mark Pishinsky I Lab Number: See Below RAM Environmental Engineering IC°llected: 05/29/96 - 05/30/96 i 3333 Gibson St., Ste'. 200 JReceived: 05/31/96 Bakersfield, CA 93308 IMatrix: Soil I Project: Elks Lodge #325 Sample Description: I See Below /Project Number: Analyzed: 06/06/96 [Collected by: Jon Cooper Method: EPA 7421 ! TOTAL LEAD ! i. Lab Number Sample Description PQL* RESULT** mg/kg mg/kg I 8935-1 VE1-15 5.0 ND 8935-2 VEl -35 5.0 9.3 i 8935-3 VEl -50 5.0 ND - 8935-4 VEl-60 5.0 5.1 8935-5 VE2-20 5.0 ND I 8935-6 VE2-35 5.0 12. 8935-7 VE2-45 5.0 ND 8935-8 VE2-55 5.0 ND i 8935-9 VE3-20 5.0 5.4 8935-10 VE3-35 5.0 ND 8935-11 VE3-45 5.0 ND 8935-12 VE4-20 5.0 ND I 8935-13 VE4-40 5.0 ND 8935-14 VE4.-45 5.0 ND I ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. is certified by CA Department of Health Services: Laboratory #1717 *PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit **Results listed as ND would have been reported if present at or above the listed PQL. I Note: Analysis performed by CA Department of Health Services certified laboratory #1958 "1 I Submitted by, I ZymaX envirotechnology, inc. 89351,xls Jo~n MacMur~hey~'~~ I JMM/jgt/wr/oo Laboratory Director · · 71 Zaca Lane. Suite I I0 fax 805.544.8226 I San Luis Obispo. California 93401 e-rhail: zymax(~callamer.com tei 80 S .S 44.4696 Chain of Custody Record ",) Page of  kq ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. ~ - Bakersfield, California 93308 [-" ~ ~ P~oj~ Title . ~ . -. (805) 395~539 ~ . , ~.~¥.~: =~ ~ ORUSH By:.__ Fax [805] 395-3069 ~, ~., '" '"" .... Ice Chesl ~mpany Name / ~ Phone q,y State Zip /. l .: I Repo. Attention ...... ~b" Sampled by: I Employed by: Sample Date Time Type'* k" Containers ~..~ (~ '"'ql $. o° o° ID~ Sampled Sampled SeeKey Below Legal Sample Description ~ Type* ~ 0 0 Remarks .... ~ .) . ~ · ~ite- Office Copy Yellow - Lab Cop~ Pink - Client Copy "'* A-Acid, pH<2 (IICI,~NO3,H2SO4) S-NaOH,ZnAc C-Caustic, pH~10 (NaOH) ZALCO L BORATORI S, INC. Analytical & Consulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395~3539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 PJ%M Environmental Laborato~%; No: 68025-1 3333 Gibson St Ste 200 Date Received:.04/lO/97 Bakersfield, CA 93308 Date Reported: 04/22/97 Contract No.: Attention: Jan Cooper Date Sampled: 04/09/97 Time Sampled: 11:30 Sample Type: Gas/NGL Sample Description: ~-E1A Sampled by Jan Cooper REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF Stack Gas Compliance Methane, C1 344 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 C2 7.4 1.0 18 /27 Ethane, ppmv Propane, C3 1.3 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Butane, C4. < 1.0 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Pentane, C5 < 1.0 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Hexanes, C6+ 2125 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 18 '/27 Total Hydrocarbons, C1-C6+ 2478 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total'non-Methane Hydrocarbons 2134 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane non-Ethane 2126 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Hydrocarbons ........... / Date Analyzed: 04/16/97 ~therton, Lab Operations Manager cc: Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes I This repot1 is furnished for the exclusive use of our Cuslomer ond"applies only to the samples tested. Zolco is not responsible for report alteration or detachment. I ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. ~L~Analyt;ical&ConsultingServices 4309 Armour Avenue (8051 395~539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 ! ' R3~M Environmental Laboratory No: 68025-1 i 3333 Gibson St Ste 200 Date Received: 04/10/97 Bakersfield, CA 93308 Date Reported: 04/22/97 Contract No.: Attention: Jon Cooper Date Sampled: 04/09/97 I Time Sampled: 11:30 Sample Type: Gas/NGL I Sample Description: VElA .. Sampled by Jon Cooper i REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS I Constituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF BTXE in Gas I Benzene 3.76 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 Toluene 115 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 34.4 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 I I Total Xylenes 212 ppmv 1.0 8020 /! Date JMualyzed: 04/16/97 · ations Manager CC: I Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ut/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 y/kg : milligra~ per kilogram (parts per milli ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) I DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes I This repon is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and'~pplies only to the samples tested. Zolco is not responsible for report aherolion o,' detachment. .'...'1 An@ly ic@l & Consulcin§ Services 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395-0539 8ake~field, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 I RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 68025-2 I 3333 Gibson St Ste 200 Date Received: 04/10/97 Bakersfield, CA 93308 Date Reported: 04/22/97 Contract No.: Attention: Jan Cooper Date Sampled: 04/09/97 I Time Sampled: 12:00 Sample Type: Gas/NGL I Sample Description: VE1B · Sampled by Jan Cooper I REPORT OF Constituent s Result s Units DLR METHOD/REF Stack Gas Compliance Methane, C1 2885 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Ethane, C2 115 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Propane, C3 6.8 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Butane, C4' 1.5 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Pentane, C5 4.2 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Hexanes, C6+ 1300 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 18 27 Total Hydrocarbons, C1-C6+ 4312 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane Hydrocarbons 1427 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane non-Ethane 1312 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Hydrocarbons ........... / Date Analyzed: 04/16/97 atxons Manager CC: Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ut/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mt/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes ./:'i This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer ond-~pplies only Io the samples tested. Zalco is not responsible for reporl aherolion or detachment. I ~L~] ZALI~O LAI~©RATORIF:S, Analytical ~ Consulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (8051 395~539 Bakersfield; California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 ! RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 68025-2 3333 Gibson St Ste 200 Date Received: 04/10/97 I Bakersfield, CA Reported: 04/22/97 93308 Date Contract No.: Attention: Jan Cooper Date Sampled: 04/09/97 I Time Sampled: 12:00 Sample Type: Gas/NGL Sample Description: VE1B Sampled by Jan Cooper i REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS I Constituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF BTXE in Gas Benzene 202 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 Toluene 2810 ppmv. 1.0 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 658 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 Total Xylenes 3390 ppmv 1.0 8020 I " Date Analyzed: 04/16/97 I cc: ~/~erton, Lab Operations' Manager I Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per mil!i ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion} .1 DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes 1 I .. I This report is furnished tar the exclusive use o| our Customer and applies only to the.samples tested. Zolco is not responsible |or report olterolion o, detachment. I ZA, LCOLABORATORIES,'INC. 4309 Armour Avenue (8051 395~539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 I ' P~ Environmental L~orato~ No: 68025-3 3333 Gibson St Ste 200. Date Received: 04/t0/97 I Bakersfield, CA Date. Reported: 93308 04/22/97 Contract No.: Attention: Jon Cooper Date Sampled: 04/09/97 I Time Sampled: 16:00 Sample I~;pe: Gas/NGL Sample Description: ~iB .. Sampled by Jon Cooper i PORT OF YTIC S TS Constituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF Stack Gas Compliance Methane, C1 2730 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Ethane, C2 102 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Propane, C3 6.2 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Butane, C4- 1.3 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Pentane, C5 3.4 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Hexanes, C6+ 1490 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 18 /27 Total Hydrocarbons, C1-C6+ 4330 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane Hydrocarbons 1600 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane non-Ethane 1500 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Hydrocarbons ........... / Oate alyzed: 04/16/97 ns Manager cc: Method Reference 1. EPA $W-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/k~ : dicro~3ram$ per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mt/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli ut/l, : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes I I Th,s reporl is furnished for the exclusive use o{ our Customer and Applies only to the samples tested. Zolco is n0t responsible (or report alteration or detachment.  Analytical ~ ,Oonsulcing Servioes 4309 Armour Avenue (8051 395-0539 , Bakersfield: California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 68025-3 3333 Gibson St Ste 200 Date Received: 04/10/97 ICA 93308 Date 04/22/97 Bakersfield, Reported: Contract No.: Attention: Jon Cooper Date Sampled: 04/09/97 I Time Sampled: 16:00 Sample Type: Gas/NGL Sample Description: VE1B Sampled by Jon Cooper I REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS 'l Constituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF I BTXE in Gas i Benzene 148 ppmv i.0 8020 /1 Toluene 1676 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 203 ppmv 1.0 8020 /t · Total Xylenes 1000 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 I Date Analyzed: 04/16/97 ·, '.l ' tions Manager CC: I Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per mi!li ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) i DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes I This report is furnished [or the exclusive use of our Customer and'bpplies only Io the samples lesled. Zoico is no! responsible |ar report olleral~on or detachment. I ~k~ ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. Analytical ~ Consulting Services 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395-0539 , Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 I RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 68025-3 3333 Gibson St Ste 200 Date Received: 04/10/97 I Bakersfield, CA 93308 Reported: Date 04/25/97 Contract No.: Attention: Jon Cooper Date Sampled: 04/09/97 I Time Sampled: 16:00 Sample Type: Gas/NGL Sample Description: VE1B Sampled by Jon Cooper i REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS I Constituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF Total Lead in Air i Lead in Air 0.126 mg/cu.ft 0.04 D-3112-7/3 Lead in Air 4.44 ug/L 1.4 D-3112-7/3 Lead in Air 0.58 ppmv 0.2 D-3t12-7/3 Lead in Air 5.0 mg/m3 1.6 D-3112-7/3 ! i erton, Lab Operations Manager I Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms p~r kilogram (parts per bitli 3. Annual Book of A.S.T.M. Standards mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli 27. CFR 40:60.45 ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) I DLR : Detection Limit for Reportin9 Purposes I This reg)ort is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and 6pplies only to'the samples tested. Zolco is hal responsible for repor~ alteration o, detachment. I ZALCOLABORATORIES, INC. 4309 Armour Avenue (8051 395~539 Bake~field, California 93308 F~ (805) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laborato~ No: 68025-4 I 3333 Gibson St Ste 200 Date Received: 04/10/97 Bakersfield, CA 93308 Date Reported: 04/22/97 Contract No.: Attention: Jon Cooper Date Sampled: 04/09/97 I Time 16:45 Sampled: Sample T~e: Gas/NGL I Sample Description: ~2B Sampled by Jon Cooper · REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS I I Cons tituent s Results Unit s DLR METHOD/REF Stack Gas Compliance I Methane, C1 1280 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Ethane, C2 43 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Propane, C3 2.4 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 i Butane, C4' 2.4 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Pentane, C5 3.8 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Hexanes, C6+ 1760 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 18 /27 I Total Hydrocarbons, C1-C6+ 3090 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane Hydrocarbons 1810 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane non-Ethane 1770 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 I Hydrocarbons ........... / I Date Analyzed: 04/16/97 I therton, Lab Operations Manager CC: I Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli i ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion] DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes This r~!:mn is {urnish'~:l {or th~ ~xclusi,~. us~ o{ our Custorne~ and a!~plies onCt to %h~ samgles v~s'l~cl. Za[co is nor re. sDonsible Analyt;ical ~ .Consul'cinl~l Services '- 4309 Armour Avenue (805] 395-0539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 68025-4 3333 Gibson St Ste 200 Date Received: 04/10/97 CA 93308 Date 04/22/97 Bakersfield, Reported: Contract No.: Attention: Jon Cooper Date Sampled: 04/09/97 Time Sampled: 16:45 Sample Type: Gas/NGL Sample Description: VE2B Sampled by Jon Cooper REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF BTXE in Gas Benzene 124 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 Toluene 1861 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 269 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 Total Xylenes 468 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 Date Analyzed: 04/16/97 therton, Lab Operations Manager Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes This rel)ort is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and'bpplies only Io the samples tested. Zalco is nat responsible for reporl allerotion or detachment Analycioal ~, ,Oonsulcing Services 43~9 Armour Aven~ (805) 395~539 Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 68025-5 3333 Gibson St Ste 200 Date Received: 04/10/97 IBakersfield, CA 93308 Date Reported: 04/22/97 Contract No.: Attention: Jan Cooper Date Sampled: 04/09/97 I Time Sampled: 17:30 Sample Type: Gas/NGL iSample Description: VE4B Sampled by Jan Cooper I REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Constituents Results Units DLR METHOD/REF Stack Gas Compliance Methane, C1 2730 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 IEthane, C2 126 ppmv' 1.0 18 /27 Propane, C3 9.6 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Butane, C4. 8.2 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 I I Pentane, C5 11.5 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 '· · Hexanes, C6+ !110 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 18 /27 ITotal Hydrocarbons, C1-C6+ 3995 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane Hydrocarbons 1265 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Methane non-Ethane 1140 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Hydrocarbons ........... / Date Analyzed: 04/16/97 I tions Manager cc: I Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 ~/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli ug/L : microgram per Liter (parts per billion) iDLR : Detection Limit for Reportin~ Purposes I This repoi~ is furnished for the exclusive of Customer applies only the samples tested. Zalco is responsible for alteration detachment. use our to I ZALCC) LABORATORIF:S, INC. 4309 Armour Avenue (8051 395-0539 · Bakersfield, California 93308 FAX (805) 395-3069 I RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 68025-5 3333 Gibson St Ste 200 Date Received: 04/10/97 I Bakersfield, CA 93308 Date Reported: 04/22/97 Contract No.: Attention: Jon Cooper Date Sampled: 04/09/97 I Time Sampled: 17:30 Sample Type: Gas/NGL I Sample Description: VE4B . Sampled by Jon Cooper i REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS '1 Cons t i tuent s Re sul t s. Unit s DLR METHOD/REF BTXE in Gas i Benzene 220 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 Toluene 1222 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 284 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 Total Xylenes 1099 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 ! Date Analyzed: 04/16/97 , cc: I rton, Lab Operations Manager I Method Reference 1. EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition ug/kg : micrograms per kilogram (parts per billi 27. CFR 40:60.45 mg/kg : milligrams per kilogram (parts per milli ug/L : micrograms per Liter (parts per billion) I DLR : Detection Limit for Reporting Purposes i I This report is furnished for the exclusive use of our Customer and '~pplies only to the samples tested. Zolco is not responsible for report alteration o, detachment. APPENDIX C STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES Drilling and Soil Sampling Procedures Drilling will be accomplished with a track mounted drill rig equipped with 10-inch diameter hollow stem auters._ Soil sampling will be conducted through the hollow stem augers. The augers will be steam cleaned prior to use and between boreholes to reduce the possibility of' cross contamination. The soil samples will be obtained with a sampler equipped with three 6 inch by 2.5 inch diameter stainless steel or brass sleeves. The sampler will be driven at the desired sample interval with a one hundred and fort5, pound hammer dropping thirty inches. The sampling equipment will be washed with a non-phosphate detergent solution, rinsed with clean tap water and distilled water, then allowed to air dry pridr to use and between sampling intervals to mimmize the possibility of cross contamination. The lowermost sleeve at each sample interval will be immediately sealed with TeflonTM film, and then capped, labeled, and chilled in an ice chest tbr transport to a state of California laboratory certified for the analyses requested. The second sleeve will be screened for total organic vapors with a portable organic vapor analyzer (OVA). Screening with the OVA will · ."rake place by first discarding.a portion of the.soil retained atone end of a sleeve to produce ~ head space. Tile sleeve will then be capped and the probe of the OVA protruded through a hole in'-the cap'and into the head space for'analysis. The OVA readings represent relative '~leveis .of total organic vapors for the site conditions at the time of drilling. All of the,sleeves will be observed for lithology and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Soil samples for laboratory analysis will be based on field observations including OVA readings. "Nested" Vapor Extraction Well Construction Procedures Vapor extraction well construction will be conducted through the inside of the 10-inch diameter hollow stem augers. Well construction details will include extending a 2-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing from the bottom of each borehole to the surface. Perforated casing will be placed from the bott:~m of the borehole to the top of the lower interval where hydrocarbons are to be extracted from. The exact interval will be determined based on field observations. The casing will be factory perforated with 0.02-inch wide slots. The remainder of the casing will be unperforated 2-inch diameter PVC. A filter pack of #3 or 2/12 commercially graded sand will extend from the bottom of the borehole to approximately two feet above the perforated casing. The filter pack will be tremied down the augers as the augers are slowly pulled from the borehole. The annular space will be sealed with three feet of hydrated bentonite clay. A second 2-inch diameter PVC casing will be placed ti'om the top of the well seal to the surface. Perforated casing will be placed from the top of rile well seal to the top of the upper interval where hydrocarbons, are to be extracted from. The exact interval will be determined based on field observations. The well will be completed in the. same manner as described for the deeper well. The annular space will be I sealed with three feet of hydrated bentonite clay. Above the well seal, a 2 sack cement/sand/bentonite slurry will be tremied to approximately one foot below grade. A I locking, water-tight well cover will be set in concrete to protect and secure the wellheads. I I '1 I I APPENDIX D '1 I I I I I I I May 2,1997 Jon Cooper Ram Environmental Engineering Services, Inc. 3333 Gibson Street, Suite 200 Bakersfield, CA 93308 I Re: Soil Vapor Extraction Test Report Elk's Lodge #325 1414 East California Avenue I 'l Bakersfield, CA 93308 :'~ Cambria Job No: 115-550-2 II Dear Mr. Cooper I As you requested, Cambria Environmental Technology, Inc. (Cambria) prepared this report for soil vapor extraction (SVE) testing performed by EnviroSupply and Service (ESS) on April 9, 1997 at the site referenced above (Figure 1). The test objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of SVE for remediating I hydrocarbons beneath the former fuel dispensing Presented below are the SVE test procedures, system. .. equipment; results, and our conclusions and'recommendations. I ,~ SOIL'VAPOR EXTRACTION TESTING I SVE Test Procedures I Cambria first prepared a protocol for ESS to .test the shallow and deep vapor extraction wells during one day of testing. The test protocol was based on assessment data that indicated that the highest I concentration are present in soil near deeper wells VE-1B and VE-2B. The approximate well screen depths are as follows: - CAMBRIA I ENVIRONMENTAL Shallow Wells Deeper Wells T£CHNOL0C¥, INC. Well ID Screen Depth(fi) Well ID Screen Depth(fi) I ll~165mSrREEr, VE-IA 5 - 20 VE-1B 25 - 55 I SUITE B VE-2A 10 - 20 VE-2B 23 - 38 0AKL,:ND, VE-3A 10 - 20 VE-3B 25 - 40 I VE-4A 10 - 20 VE-4B 27 - 43 CA 94608 ?H:(SlOH20-O700 ESS performed a 4 hour SVE test on vapor extraction 'well VE-1B, and shorfer tests on vapor extraction 1 .i F~:(510)43~170 wells VE-1B, VE-2B and VE-4B. ESS measured the vapor extraction flow rates, the vacuum applied to I ! Jon Cooper I May 2, 1997 CAMBRIA the wellheads, and the vacuum influence in nearby wells. Samples from each well were analyzed for hydrocarbons within the petroleum gasoline range and for BTEX. One sample was also analyzed for lead to evaluate the potential impact on a catalyst within a treatment equipment. SVE Test Equipment A VR Systems Model V3 internal combustion engine (ICE) was used to extract and treat soil vapor. A Foxboro Model 108 Flame Ionization Device (FID) was used to measure hydrocarbon concentrations in extracted vapor in the field. A TSI Model No. 8360 VelociCalc air mass flow meter was used to measure vapor extraction flow ratesi A vacuum pump was used to collect the vapor samples. Magnahelic differential pressure gauges were used to measure the vacuum applied at the wellheads and induced in nearby monitoring wells. SVE Test Results SVE test results and soil gas concentrations are presented Table 1. Field forms are included in Attachment A. Analytic results for soil vapor are included in Attachment B. As shown on Table 1, the total hydrocarbon (THC),concentrations in-soil vapor ranged from 4,330 to 2,478 parts per million by volume (ppmv)~'~i'he total non-methane .' hydrocarbon (TNMH) concentrations ranged 'from .1,265 to 2,134 ppmv. The benzene .'concentrations in. extracted vapor ranged from 3.76 to 220 ppmv. Vapor extraction flow rates ranged from 18 to:19:scfm based on anapplied vacuum ranging from 3 to 19 inches of'water. This resulted in THC removal ~.rates ranging from 15 to 26 pounds day (ppd), and TNMHremoval rates ranging from 8 to 13 ppd. The per benzene-removal rate ranged from 0.02 to 1.2 ppd. Estimated SVE Radius of Influence I We estimated effective radius of influence guidance from "A Summary. of Nationwide Vapor Extraction System Performance Study," T.E.-Buscheck, T. R. Peargin, November 1991'. This approach fa:st-involves normalizing the vacuum data by dividing the vacuum observed at the wellhead and at the monitoring wells by the vacuum !:i.'I observed at the wellhmd. The normalized vacuum data is then plotted on a log basis versus the distance to the :'.- vacuum influence monitor/ng wells. The effective radius of influence is frequently considered to be the distance i I corresponding to 1% of the normalized vacuum. As shown on Figures A and B below, the effective radii of ~· influence for the shallow and deeper soil are 27 and 52 ft, respectively. Plotting vacuum influence data from testing of wells VE-2B and VE-4B yields an effective radius of influence in deeper soil of 41 and 58 ft, I respectively. Jon Cooper CAMBRIA May 2, 1997 Figure A -Effective Radius of Influence in Shallow Soil from VE-1A Test Dam Estimated Radius of Influence from Extraction Well VE-1A 1.000 ~ Estimated Radius of Influence 0.010 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Distance (ft) [e M3nitoring Well Point] ~Figure B -Effective.Radius of Influence in Deeper Soil from VE-1B Test Data - Estimated Radius of Influence from Extraction Well VE-1B - . Estimated Radus of Influence 0.100 0.010 0 10 20 ~0 40 ~ 60 rl~tan~ {It) I ' M3nit°fing VVe~I P°int t .! I Jon Cooper CAMBRIA ' I May2, 1997 _. I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I SVE Effectiveness Test results suggest that SVE should effectively remediate subsurface soil. And based on the estimated effective radii of influence, SVE from the existing wells should influence the estimated area of hydrocarbon- impacted soil. ~ I Equipment Selection Based on the hydrocarbon concentrations and removal rates, several types of vapor extraction and treatment I equipment could remediate the site. Ideally, the selected equipment should be able to extract and treat up to approximately 100 to 150 ppd THC, which is the estimated initial mass loading from all site wells during I starmp (The actual hydrocarbon loading may be higher if the hydrocarbon concentrations are closer to the FID readings, which were significantly larger than the THC concentrations determined by the analytic laboratory). The system should also operate cost effectively as the hydrocarbon concentrations and mass loading decreases I with time. Selection of the most cost effective equipment will hinge on cost of available equipment, and :. .... :..available.utilities.- For example,' internal combustion engines only. require supplemental fuel such as propane, I - ...,while oxidizers require an electrical supply andsometimessupplemental fuel. Depending on available utilities .... :'.and cleanup objectives, we recommend consideringamongthe following types of vapor treatment equipment: I ·' A 200 to 250 scfm thermal/catalytic oxidizer (gas-fired); : · . A 100 to 200 scfm catalytic oxidizer (electric~powered); or · An internal combustion engine. Discussed below are the most appropriate treatment systems and the utility, space and permitting issues. Thermal/Catalytic Oxidizers I For this site the most cost-effective SVE equipment for the duration of the project would most likely be a combination thermal/catalytic oxidizer. The thermal mode of operation would allow treatment of hydrocarbon concentrations up to 6,000 ppmv and would handle excessive inert gases commonly present in the subsurface, I while the catalytic mode of operation would allow cost-effective treatment of hydrocarbon concentrations below 3,000 ppmv. Alternatively, a catalytic oxidizer without the thermal option could be used but may require I additional operation time with dilution air initially if the hydrocarbon concentrations exceed its capacity of · about 3,000 ppmv. A 250 scfm thenml/catalytic oxidizer, which may be the most common treatment approach for this type of site, can extract and treat approximately 500 ppd THC in the thermal mode and 250 ppd THC I catalytic mode. estimated initial mass loading of to 150 ppd THC, a 250 scfm would be the Given the 100 ideal. Jon Cooper CAMBRIA May 2, 1997 _. I Electric Catalytic Oxidizers Catalytic oxidizers that operate on electricity alone offer cost effective vapor extraction and treatment when I hydrocarbon removal rates are below approximately 200 ppd. A 200 scfm catalytic oxidizer can typically process about 200 ppd of hydrocarbons but typically requires 3-phase power. A 100 scfm oxidizer typically processes about 100 ppd of hydrocarbons, occupies little space and can operate on single phase electrical I service. The 100 scfm units are very common for small hydrocarbon remediation projects. Although these electric-powered units are not as energy efficient as gas-fired oxidizers, they avoid the need for a propane tank :l or natural gas. For this site a 200 scfm electric catalytic oxidizer would probably remediate the site faster and -..! · more cost effectively than the smaller 100 scfm unit. Ifa 100 scfm unit were used, we estimate that significant i dilution air would be required until hydrocarbon concentrations decrease. Internal Combustion Engines I Internal combustion engines (ICEs) are most commonly used to treat high hydrocarbon concentrations or to remediate sites without electrical service. ICEs are usually not cost effective for low hydrocarbon concentrations or mass loadings, and ICEs typically achieve significantly lower flow rates than oxidizers. Based on our:experience-a V3 ICE achieves only 50 scfm compared to 100, 200 or 500 scfm achieved by I .' . ~ .'oxidizers. An ICE' could be'appropriate for this. site if you only wish to treat the high hydrocarbon ~. · : concentrations '.initially. and not perform SVE until hydrocarbon'concentrations decrease significantly and -' approach asymptotic levels. ! Utility, Space and Permitting Concerns I Utility availability, space requirements and permitting issues often govern the treatment equipment selection process. The thermal/catalytic oxidizers typically require natural gas at 5 psig pressure, which is often more I than the local utility can provide. If sufficient gas pressure is not available or is expensive to install, a propane tank can be used, although they require significant space, permitting; and crash posts and property setbacks. Catalytic oxidizers are available that require electricity only and occupy relatively little space, but el .ectricity is generally more expensive than natural gas, and the catalytic oxidizers are limited to 3,000 ppmv. Internal combustion engines can operate on only 0.25 psig, which is commonly available, but are not cost effective for I Iow to moderate hydrocarbons concentrations. Electricity is also required to operate air sparge equipment, if used, and three-phase power is more less costly than single-phase power although both may suffice. ! I 5 ! Jon Cooper I Mag 2, 1997 .. CAMBRIA Cambria appreciates this opportunity to work with you on this project. Please call us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Cambria Environmental Technology, Inc. Bob Clark-Riddell, P.E. I Principal Engineer F:~ROJECThMIS~ envgSVE-RAM.WPD I Attachments: Figures and Tables A - Field Forms I B - Analytic Results for Soil Vapor I I I I I _ _ -I I I I I 6 '~ II I ' ! _/- , F'OR~,IER UGT LOCATIONS I I uj .... '-" U J I ! ~LK'S :.. F', -I LO~ I I ! ~ FORMER P~ooucr LIN-CS f "1' T I YES. I ~ ri'- I ~ I- , I ~ . - ~ .- L~-- j \ .I· EAST CALIFORNIA AVENUE LEGEND - · I ~ ~,~o~,osEo VA~'OR ~XrRACr~ON I NOTES: o 2o ~o I ~. 50URC~ OF MAP: ~RFH SYSTEMS E~RONM~NFAL, INC. ~ '~ 2. SIrE F~RES ANO LOCATIONS ARE APPROX~TE. APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET I SZCO~ SITE MAP INTERNA T[ON&t I~COR~RA TED cLiEnt NAME: ........ PROJECT NUMBER': ORAWING'OAT[: REVISION I ELK'S LODGE LODGE NO. 325 5C001-001-01 8/9/95 :: Sli[ AOORESS: DRAFTED BY: CAD FilE: FIGURE:  1414 EAST CALIFORNIA AVENUE AjK 525-AS~ (1:1) BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA CAMBRIA Table 1. SVE Test Results - Elks Lodge #325, 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California Well Date Total Wellhead Flow Hydrocarbon Concenlxations3 Hydrocarbon Removals Vacuum Influence Estimated Duration Vacuum~ Rate2 (ppmv) (lbs/day) Radius of FID THC TNMlt Benz TItC TNMH Benz Vacumn Distance Welt ID {ft) ("water) (ft) I 0.65 20 VE-2A VE-IA 4/9/97 1.0 19 18.5 2,500 2,478 2,134 3.76 15 13 0.02 0.74 20 VE-3A 27 0.59 20 VE-4A 0.1 3 19 80,000 4,312 1,427 202 26 9 1.12 0.50 20 VE-2B VE- 1B 4/9/97 0.60 20 VE-3B 52 4.0 3 19 75,000 4,330 1,600 148 26 10 0.8 , 0.48 20 VE4B 0.58 20 VE-1B VE-2B 4/9/97 0.5 7 18 45,000 3,090 1,810 124 18 10 0.6 0.33 35 VE-3B 41 0.27 35 VE-4B 0.60 20 VE- 1B VE-4B 4/9/97 0.5 5 18.5 35,000 3,995 1,265 220 24 8 1.2 0.34 35 VE-2B 58 0.50 35 VE-3B Notes: 1. The wellhead vacuum is the vacuum measured at the wellhead. 2. The flow rate was measured with an anemometer and converted to standard cubic fcet per minute (scfm) based on pressure and temperature. 3. Concentrations are based on flame ionization detector (FID), total hydrocarbons (THC) and total non-methane hydrocarbons (TNMH) and benzene. 4. The hydrocarbon removal rate is based on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Procedures for Soil Vapor Extraction. Rate = concentration (ppmv) x flow rate (scfm) x 1 lb-moie/386ft3 x molecular weight (78 for benzene and 86 for TPHg as Hexane) x 1440 min/day. 5. Estimated radius of influence based on "A summary of Nationwide Vapor Extraction System Performance Study," by T.E. Buscheck, T.R. Peargin, November 1991. FAPROJECTgdISC-~am envl~VET 1 .WPD C AMB RIA ,ATTACHMENT A Field Forms Field Notes ime Comments~" I t ~. , .f -~ ..~ ~ , 8Y-~ CAMBRIA ~ ATTACHMENT B Analytic-Results for Soil Vapor _ 4:~)9 Armour ~enue (~05) Beke~eld. Oa~o~ia 9330~ FAX (805] 39~069 ~ Environmental L~orato~ No: 6802S-1 3333 Gibson S= S=e 200 Da=~ Received: 04/10/97 Bakersfield, ~ 93~08 DaCe R~9orbed: 04/22/97 Conbrac= No.: Ab~en=ion= Jori Coop=r D~=e S~Dled: 04/09/97 Tim~ Sa~le~: 11:30 Sa~l~ Description= ~IA Sampled by Jon Cooper ~PORT OF ~YTIC~ ~S~TS Constituents Re~ult~ Unit~ D~ ~OD/~F Gas Co~li~ce Stack Ethane, C2 7.4 ppmv 1 0 18 /27 Prop~, C3 1.3 pDmv i 0 18 /27 -.~ut~e, C4 .P~n~an~.. C5 ..Hexan~s, C6+ 212S ppmv I 0 18 /27 '~' To=al Hy~ocarbons, C1-C6. 2478 p~v ~.0 18 /27 Total non-Metre Hy~rocar~ns To~al ~n-~ethane ~on-Et~ne 2~2~ p~mv ~.0 ~8 /2~ Hyd=ocarbon~ Date Analyzed: 04/16/97 Cc: " ~herton, Lab 0perationI Manager ~C~ KI £,rence . £0 39t/d 9NIDASgNBAN~N~/~ ~L~gt~§08 G~ :LI LGGI/§~/t~O  ZALCO LABORATORISS, INC. 4~ ~mour Avenue (805) 39~5~ Ba~e~field, ~lifomie 93~ F~ (805) ~ Enviro~en~al haboraco~ No: 68025-1 3333 ~ibson $~ S~e 200 Da~e Received: 0~/10/97 Bakersfield, CA 93]08 Dar= R~por~ed: 04/22/97 Con=rat= No.: Attention: Jon Cooper Da=e Sailed: 04/09/97 Tl~e Sampled: ll:B0 ~a~le ~eec~ption: ~ S~le~ by Jon Cooper ~PORT OF ANAL~IC~ ~TS Cons= i =uen= s Re sul~ s Unit s DL~ ~OD/REF ~XE in Gas Benzene 3.76 pp~ 1.0 9020 Toluen~ 115 pp~v 1.0 8020 /1 Ethylbenzene 34. % ppmv 1.0 80~0 /1 ,Total Xylenes 212 ppmv 1.0 8020 /I · Da=e. ~aiyzed: -04/16/97 at'ions u~/~ : micr~ra~ ~ LAter (pares per "' ~ ~ : De~ec~o~ Li~ for ~epor~lng ~0 B~d ONIOASg~B~ ~LIB~ESQ8 Gl :LT LGGI/S~ F-ql - ZAPCO eom mom,sS.,NC. I / ~& 4~ ~mour Avenue (8~) 395~539 ~ 395~9 ~l ~ ~ Ba~eld, Califo~ia 9~08 (805) ~ Environmental ~ora~o~ NO: 6802~-2 333~ Gibson St Ste 200 Dare ~c~iv~a= 04/10/97 Bakersfield, CA 93308 Dare Repot=sd: 04/22/97 Contract No.: A=tenuion: Jon Cooper Dare Sailed: 04/09/97 Time Sampled: 12:00 Sample ~e: Gas/NGL Sa~l~ Description: ~iB Sailed by Jon CooDer PORT OF .: Consti=uents Results Units DLR ME~OD/REF Stack Gas Co~li~ce ' · Et~ne, C2 11~ 'ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Prop~e, C3 6.8 ppmv 1.0 lB /27 Bu=ane, C~ !.5 ppmv 1.0 lS /27 · Pen=ane, C5 ~. 2 p~v 1.0 1~ /27 · Hexanes, C6- 1300 ~pmv 1.0 18 lS /27 Total Hydrocar~ns, C1-C6+ 4112 ppmv 1.0 18 Total non-Me=~e Hydrocar~ns 1427 ppmv ' 1.0 lS /2~ To~al non-Meth~e non-E~h~e 1312 ppmv 1.0 18 /~ Date ~alyzed: 04/16/97 ~ ~era=ions Manager .. .: ..: ~7. CFR 40:60.%S ~/k~ : mllligr~ pm~ kxlo~am {part~ per D~R : Detection Limit for Reporting ~ee~ SQ 29~d DNIDAS~N3AN~ ~LIB~EgQ8 GI :LI LGGI/g~/~Q [ -~~~---~ ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. Aaalyl;ical & Coneulcing Services 430~ Am'nouc Avenue [805) 39~539 Beke~fleld. Celi~omia 93308 .... F~ (805J 395-3~9 ~ Environmental L~ora~o~ No: 6802~-2 3333 Gib~on St Ste 200 DaC~ Received: 04/10/97 Bakersfield, ~ 93308 Date Reporte~: 04/22/97 At~en=ion: Jon CooDer Date Sampled: 04/09/97 Sable T~e: Gas/N~L Time Sampled: ~2:00 S~le Deecription: Sampled by Jon Cooper ~PORT OF ~~IC~ ~~TS Conetituen~s Result~ Uni~8 DLR ~OD/R~F Benzene 202 pDmv 1.0 8020 /i Toluene 2810 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 ppmv 1.0 ~020 /! Total Xylenes 3390 ~mv 1.0 8020 /! Date .~alyzed:~O4/16/97 CC: .... / .. _ _ - 9~ 39Vd ONIO~9N3nN3N~. EZIg~SEgG8 ~I:&I ~66I/g5/~ 4309 Arfnour Avenue (805] ~95-0539 8eke~field, California 93308 FAX (805] RAM EnvlronmenCal Laboratory No: 68025-3 3~33 Gibson S: S:e 200 Da:~ Receive~: 0~/10/97 ~akergfield, CA 9~308 Da:e Re~or~=d: 04/22/97 Con:ract A:Cen:ion: Jon Cooper Da:e Sampled: 04/09/97 Time SamDled: [6:00 gable ~e: Sable Description: Sailed by Jon Coo~,r ~PORT OF~ALYT~C~S~TS Con, Ci~uen~a ~esult~ Uni~ DLR ~THOD/~F Stack Ga~ Compli~ce MeCh~e, C1 2730 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Ethane, C2 102 .pp~v 1.0 !8 /27~ .Propane, C3 6.2 D~v 1.0 18 /27 ~u:~e, C4 1.3 ppmv 1.0 18 /2T. 9entane, C5 3.4 pDmv 1.0 18 /27 .Hex~es, C6. 1~90 pp~v 1.0 18 /27 To=al Hydrocarbons, Cl-C6+ ~0 pp~ 1.0 To~al ~on-Methan~ Hy~rocar~n~ 1~00 p~ 1.0 18 /~7 To:al non-Me:h~e non-E:hane 150~ ~pmv 1.0 18 /27 Ry~ocarbons ........... DaCe Analyzed: 04/16/97 -' ns Manager / CC: ../ Nn~ Aeference I .' ~ ,ep(~n % (~'fl~hocl fo~ ~he ~ch~,~ ~&6 of oq~¢ C,,~Jo~ne, ond ol)pl~es o~, ~ ~h~ ~O%s ia,Md. Z~lCo ,$ flq~ (o~,~ons,l~le LOf ;e~Qfl Oh~'OhOn O, de~chmonl. L~ :]9~/cl T, NI2ASgNUlAN2Nt;r8 ~LIgt~£~88 G~; :LI LGGI/~7_,/t~l~ k( Z~LCO L~OR~TO~IE~, Ir,JO. 4~ ~r Avenue {805) 39~38 ~ ~nvi~onm~t~l ~a~o~Co~ No: 3333 Glbaon St SCe 200 Dare Received: 04/10/97 ~erefield, CA 9~08 Date Repot:ed: 04/22/97 . Contrac: No.: A::ention: Jon Cooper Dare Sampled: Time Sa~le~: ~6:00 S~le Description; ~IB .. Sampled by Jon Cooper Cons ti ~uen~ s Re sul t s Unit e D~ ~OD/REF .. ~ in Gas Benzene 148 p~ 1.0 8020 /1 . Toluene 1676 ppmv 1-0 8020 /1 ~:hylbenzene 203 ppmv 1.0 ~ 020 / 1 Total Xylenes 1000 ppmv 1.0 8020 /i .... ~ ~ DeCeCCLO~ Li~t for Re.reins Pu~aee .....~ ..-~ 88 ~ ~IOASgN~AN~ ~zTg~GQ8 Gl :L~ LGGIIG~/~8 ZAU~ lED LAI~OI~ATO~I~S, Analytical ~ ~om~ulcing I 430g Armour ~enue (80~) Bake~field, California 93308 FAX (805) 995-306~ I l{~t4 ~nvironmencal L~oratory ~o; 68025-3 3333 GiBson St Ste 200 Date Recciv=d: I B~ersfield, CA 93308 Date ReDorted: 04/2S/97 Con=fac= No.: Attention: Jon Cooper Da=e Sampled: 04/09/97 T~me Sampled: 16:00 I Sample Tyl~e: G~s/NGL Sample ~scr~p=ion: VEZB i Sampled by Jon REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS I Conseituent~ Result0 ~niea DLR METHOD/~ m To=al ~ad in Air Lead in Air 0,126 mg/cu,ft 0.04 D-3112-7/3 Lead in Air {,44 ug/L 1.4 D~3112-7/3 I Lemd in Air 0.58 pDmv 0.2 D-3112-7/3 Lead in Air $.0 ~/m3 1.~ D-3112-7/3 I DaCe Analyzed: ~ ~er~ce Analytical & Consulting Service~ 4309 Armou~ Avenue (805) 395-0.~39 , Bakers~eld, CaWomia 93308 F~ (805] 395-3~ ~ ~vironmental ~aborato~ No: 68025-4 3]33 Gibmon S~ S~e 200 Da~e ~ecei~: 04/10/97 ~r~ield, CA 93308 Dat~ Reported: 04/22/97 Con=rat= No.: Attention: Jon Cooper Dace Sampled: 04/09/9? Time Sampled: S~le~ by Jon Coo~er ~PORT OF ~ALYTICAL ~S~TS Con~Ci tuenbs Results ~t t · D~ ~OD/~F SCack Ga~ ComplianCe ~e~hane, C1 1280 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Et~ne, C2 %) ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Propane, C] 2.4 pp~v !. 0 18 /27 Butane, C4 2.4 pp~ 1.0 18 /27 Pent,e, C5 3.8 ppmv !.0 18 . /27. Hexanes, C6+ 1760 ~pmv 1.0 19 /27' ~s /~7 Total non-Me~h~e Hydrocarbons 1810 ppmv 1.0 18 Total non-Methane non-Eth~e 1770 pp~ 1.0 18 --- /27 Hy~ocarbons ........... / Date ~alyzed: 04/16/97 /J~th~r=on, h~ Oper~tion~ ~ag~r cc: ~7, C~ .0:60.~ ~/k~ : milligr~ per OLR : Detection Llml~ ~0~ ~rting Analytical ~-Consulting Services I 430~ At-hour Avenue (805) 3954539 , Bake~field. Califo~ie 93308 . FAX (805) I RAM Environmental Laboratory No: 68025-~ 33]3 ~ib$on'St Ste 200 Date Received: 04110197 Bakersfield. CA 93308 DaCe Reported: 04/22/97 I Contract Attention: Jon Cooper Date Sampled: 04/09/97 Time Sampled: 16:4S I Sampl= Typu: Gas/NGL Sample Description: VEIB Sampled by Jon Cooper I REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS "i Constituents Re~ul~s Units DLR METHOD/REF '1 8TXE in. Gas Benzene 124 ~pmv 1,0 ~020 /1 Toluene 1861 pDmv 1.0 8020 /1 i .Zthylbenzene 269 ppmv 1.0 8020 /1 Total Xylenes 468 ppmv 1.0 $020 /1 I Date Analyzed-.. 04/.16/97 I ~E~herton, Lab Operations-ffanag,r ZALCO L~I~OI::::I~ITO~IE S, 4.~Clg ~mour Avenue (8051 ~95-05~9 Bake~field, California g3308 F~ (805] .;~ ~ ~nviromenral Laboratory NO: 3333 Gibson S~ S~e 200 Da~e Received: 0~/10/97 ~akerofiel~, CA 93308 Da~e Re~or~ed: 04/2~/97 Contract No.: A~ention: Jon Cooper Daae Sampled: 04/0~/97 Time Sampled: 17:30 Sa~I~ ~: Ga~/N~L Sa~le Description: VE4B Sailed by Jon Cooper ~RT OF ~~ICAL ~S~TS '~.~ C0n~ ~ i ~uent s Re sul ~ s ~i ts DLR ~OD/RgF Me~, C1 Z730 ppmv 1 0 18 /27 E=h~ne, C2 126 ~mv i 0 le /27 Prop~, C3 9.6 p~ ! 0 18 /~7 Bu~e, C~ 8.2 ~mv I 0 18 /27 Pentane, C~ 11. S ppmv I 0 1.$ /2~ Hex~eo, C6. 1110 pF~v 1 0 18 /27 ~s /2, Total Hydrocarbons, C1-C6+ 3995 ~mv · I .0 18 /27 Total non-Meth~e Hydrocarbon~ 1265 ppmv 1.0 18 /27 Total non-Me~hane non-Ethane 1140 9~mv 1.0 18 /2~ Hydrocar~n~ ........... /-- Da~e ~alyzed: 04/16/97 . __ cc; ~ Reference I 4309 Armour Avenue (805) 395~§39 Beke~field, California 93308 FAX (BO5) 395-3069 I ~ta/W Environmental baboraco~No: 68025-S 3333 Gideon S~ See 200 Date Recei=ed= 04/10/97 Bakerefield, CA 93308 Da=e Reported: 0%/22/97 I ConCracg No.: A==en=ion: Jon Cooper DaCe Sampled: 04/09/97 Time Sampled: 17:$0 I Sable Type= Gas/NGL · amPle Deecription: ~4B. Sampled by Jon Cooper I REPORT OF ANALYTICALRESULTS. I Constituents Results Onits D~ ~OD/~F I BTXE in Ga~ Benzene 220 ~pmv 1.0 ~020 Toluene 1'222 pp~ 1.0 8020 /1 i ~t~lbenzene 284 9~mv 1.0 8020 Total Xy!enes 1099 9pmv 1.0 8020 /1 I Da=~. An&lyzecl: 04/16/~7 I r~on, ~.ab .Operae£ons-ff~a~e= cc: I "' --~LR ; ~cect&on ~mtC for ReporCi~ ~el Earth Systems Consultants Northern California Consulting Engineers and Geologists RECEIVED I .{dAR R _6. {996 I HAZ. iVtAT. DIV. ! ,l i PRELIMINARY SITE CHARACTERIZATION AT TI-IE ELK'S LODGE #325 i 1414 EAST CALIFORNIA AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA I Prepared by Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. 6501 McDivitt Drive, Suite B Bakersfield, California January 6, 1992 Project No. EB-8057-1 I ! :l I TABLE OF CONTENTS RESULTS OF PREI.IMINARY SITE CHARACTERIZATION AT THE ELK'S LODGE//325 1414 EAST CALIFORNIA AVENUE i BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............ :~ ........................................................................................ 1 1.1 Site Description ................................................................................ : ......... 3 1.2 Background ................................................................................... ~ ...... ; ..... 3 I 2.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION .......... ~ ................................................................... 4 2.1 Drilling and Soil Sampling ...................................................................... 4 · 2.2 Laboratory Analysis ................................................................................. 6 '~' 3.0 FINDINGS ................................................................ .i ............................ ~ ................ 6 3.1 Geologic Conditions ................................................................ .' .................. 6 I 3.2 Subsurface Conditions ...................................................... ~ ................ · ....... 7 3.3 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................. 7 3.4 Soil Vapor Monitoring .............................................................................. g 3.5 Laboratory Analytical Results ................................................................ I 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 11 i 4.1 Remedial Alternatives ...... ~ ....................................................................... 12 5.0 ~URE ................................................................................................................. 14 REFERENCES .................... ' ........................................................................ 16 Figure I Vicinity Map ............................................................................... 17 Figure 2 Site Map ............. , ....................................................................... ;..18 Figure 3 Cross Section .................................................................... ; ..... ~ ..... 19_ I APPENDIX A Boring Logs APPENDIX B Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody I ! Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. ~A Membe~ of The Earth Syslems Groul~ ,,, 6701 McDivitt Drive, Suite B * Bakersfield. CA 93313 * (805) 836-0901 * FAX (805) 836-0911 January 6, 1992 Doc. No.: 9112-E069.RPT Project No.: EB-8057-1 Mr. Joe A. Dunwoody City of Bakersfield Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division 2101 'H Street Bakersfield, California 93301 SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY 'SITE CHARACTERIZATION AT THE CHAR! ES "CHOPS LAWRENCE ELK'S LODGE #325 1414 EAST CALIFORNIA AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA REFERENCE: SOIL CHARACTERIZATION WORK PLAN AT TIlE CHARIf~ 'CHOPS LAWRENCE ELK'S LODGE #325 1414 EAST CAIJ~FORNIA AVENUE BAKERS~I~, CAI IFORNIA (ESE, I~OWMSER 11, 1991) Dear Mr. Dunwoody, 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a 'preliminary site characterization performed by Earth Systems Environmental, Inc. (ESE) at the above referenced site. The purpose of the characterization was to assess the lateral and vertical extent of soil impacted by gasoline hydrocarbons associated with the southern of the two former I0,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tanks, the product pipeline between the southern tank and the western and central dispenser islands, and the north ends of the western and central dispenser islands recently removed from the above referenced facility. The concentrations of Total Petroleum' Hydrocarbons as gasoline were detected at 760 rog/kg at a depth of 6 feet below the east end of the southern tank, 480 rag/kg at 6 feet below the associated product pipeline, 340 rog/kg at 6 feet below the north end of the western dispenser island, and 110 rog/kg at 6 feet below the north end of the central dispenser island. The gasoline constituent volatile Elk's Lodge #325 2 January .6, 1992 , O aromatics benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes were detected in these I areas at concentrations in excess of Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) guidelines, and resulted in the Lead Implementing Agency (LIA) which is the City of Bakersfield Fire Department-Hazardous Materials Division requesting that an initial site characterization consisting of soil borings and laboratory analysis of soil i samples be performed to assess the vertical and lateral extent of gasoline impacted 'soil in the vicinity of this former tank. Soil samples collected from beneath the northern 10,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tank, west end of the southern I underground gasoline storage tank, the eastern dispenser island, and from beneath the southern end of the western and central dispenser islands did not detect concentrations of gasoline in excess of RWQCB guidelines, and therefore required no further assessment. ESE has subsequently conducted an initial site characterization I consisting of four soil borings and laboratory analysis of ten soil samples to assess the vertical and lateral extent of gasoline impacted soil in the vicinity of the former i tank, associated product line, and dispenser. Because of the close Proximity of each of ! these potential sources, and the significant possibility that a single source is being reflected by each of the samples, ESE had recommended using the sample with the greatest concentration of TPH as gasoline at. the east end of the southern gasoline tank as the likely source' of release and therefore,, advanced the initial vertical I assessing boring through this location. 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 I Regulations (CFR) Title '29, Pan 1910, Section 120, CFR Title 40, Pans 300-399, and the Tri-Regional Board Staff Recommendations for Preliminary Evaluation and Investigation of Underground Tank Sites, as well as accepted professional I environmental/geotechnical engineering procedures. The scope of work for this project was developed in conjunction with Mr. Earl McFadden of the Elk's //325 and Mr. Joe A. of the of Bakersfield Lodge Dunwoody City Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division. In addition, remedial action alternatives are presented. Work performed to date includes the following: · Development of site health and safety, and technical work plans. I EB-8057-1 9112~E069.RPT Elk's Lodge //325 3 January 6, 1992 Drilling and sampling of four exploratory soil borings to a maximum depth of 63 feet below surface grade. · Laboratory analysis of ten selected soil samples for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics. · Preparation of this report presenting our results, conclusions, and remedial action alternatives for the site. 1.1 Site Description The subject site is located north side of East California Avenue, and the east side of Haley Street in the city of Bakersfield, Kern County, California (Figure 1). The site is currently used as a vacant parking lot by the Elk's Lodge. The site is situated within a developed urban .area. Nearby surrounding properties are primarily residential subdivisions as well as commercial businesses along both sides of East California Avenue, and Haley Street. The overall site topography is essentially fiat, with a very slight fall to the southwest. The subject property had been an operating gasoline services station until the mid 1970s. Subsequently all of the surface structures were demolished. The Elk's Lodge purchased the property in the mid 1980s, and have never used the underground fuel storage tanks. Pursuant t'o a request by the City of Bakersfield Fire Department-Hazardous Materials Division, the two 10,000 gallon underground fuel steerage tanks which had not been removed when the original service station was demolished, were removed on August 21, 1991. 1.2 Background Based on a review of analytical results, and conversations with Earl McFadden, representing the Elk's Lodge #325, on August 21, 1991, two 10,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tanks, associated product pipelines and three dispenser islands were. removed by CALPI, Inc. of Bakersfield, California from the above referenced property (Figure 2). Soil samples were collected from beneath each end of the two former tanks, at both ends of each of the three dispensers, and a single sample along the product pipelines at depths of 2 and 6 feet beneath these features. The samples were analyzed for the of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, presence and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics (BTEX). Gasoline was detected beneath the southern of the two 10,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tanks, the EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk's LOdge #325 4 January 6, 1992 ! I product pipeline between the southern tank and the western and central dispenser I islands, and the north ends of the western and central dispenser islands. The concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline were detected at 760 i mg/kg at a depth of 6 feet below the east end of the southern tank, 480 mg/kg at 6 feet below the associated product piPeline, 340 rog/kg at 6 feet below the north end of Ithe western dispenser island, and 110 mg/kg at 6 feet belOw the north end of the central dispenser island. The gasoline constituent volatile aromatics benzene, l toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes were detected in these areas at concentrations which may be in excess of Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) guidelines. Soil samples collected from 'beneath the northern 10,000 gallon I underground gasoline storage tank, west end of the southern .underground gasoline storage tank, the eastern dispenser island, and from beneath the southern end of the' I western and-central dispenser islands did not detect concentrations of gasoline in excess of RWQCB guidelines, and therefore required no 'further assessment. I Reportedly, no soil was removed from the site during removal of the tanks. The area displaced by the former tanks was filled by backfilling the excavated soil along with ! imported soil. Based on. these analytical results ESE was been retained by the Elk's Lodge #325 to perform a site characterization in the vicinity of the former southern gasoline I tank. Below are the results of the site characterization. I 2.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 2.1 Drilling and Soil Sampling I Prior to commencing field oPerations, a technical work plan was reviewed and approved by City of Bakersfield Fire Department, 'Hazardous Materials Division I personnel. Underground Service Alert was notified 48 hours in advance of the site- activities. Drilling commenced on November 26, 1991 using a CMETM 55 truck mounted drill rig, operated by Earth Systems Consultants, ,and equipped with 4 3/4-inch ! · diameter hollow-stem augers. The augers were steam cleaned prior to use to - minimize the possibility of cross contamination. I A total of four soil drilled within this of soil borings were phase characterization (Figure 2). One soil boring, TH-I, was drilled through the center of I the east end of the former southern 10,000 gallon gasoline tank location to a depth of EB -805 7-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk's Lodge //325 5 January 6, 1992 I 63 feet below surface grade to assess vertical migration of gasoline hydrocarbons. I The other three soil borings, TH-2 through TH-4, were drilled at varying distances laterally from the former tank location to assess the lateral limits of gasoline i hydrocarbons. Boring TH-2 was advanced at a location 42 feet southwest of TH-I to assess whether a possible release .from the western and central dispenser islands .had ~ migrated to that location. Borings TH-3 and TH-4 were advanced 30 feet north, and 20 ~ ' feet east of TH-I to assess lateral migration in those directions, respectively. A California Registered Geologist was on site to log the borings, monitor soils Ifor contamination, and collect soil Boring logs are during drilling samples. presented in Appendix A. I 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 I 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. I The lowermost sleeve at each sample interval was screened for total organic vapors with a photo-ionization detector (PID). Headspaee vapor, analysis was sam I performed by fa'st discarding a portion of the soil retained at one end of the sleeve to produce a headspaee. The sleeve was then capped and the probe of the PID was I inserted through a hole in the cap and into the headspace for analysis. The PID readings are recorded on the boring logs and in Table 1 (see section 3.5, Soil Vapor I Monitoring). The second ' sample sleeve was immediately sealed with Teflon® film, capped, and placed on ice for transport to Mobile Laboratories, Inc. in Bakersfield, a I California Department of Health Services (DOHS) certified laboratory. Chain of custody procedures were utilized for all samples collected. I Sampling equipment was washed with TSP (tri-sodium phosphate) cleanser, and rinsed with tap water and de-ionized water prior to sampling, between sample I intervals, and between borings to minimize the potential of cross contamination. The augers were steam cleaned prior to. drilling and between borings to minimize the I potential of cross contamination. The borings were backfilled with a cement- bentonite-sand slurry. ! I EB-8057-1 9112-EO69.RPT Elk's Lodge //325 6 .lanuary 6, 1992 ! ! 2.2 Labor~t0ry Analysis I Ten soil samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis. Selection of soil samples for analysis was based on: a) observations and greatest PID readings of I odorous soil, b) observations and PID readings of the first encountered sampling ioeations containing apparently uncontaminated soils, which would serve to define the lateral and vertical extent of contamination, and c) requirements that the I lowermost sample of each boring be submitted for analysis along with the two successive ~elean* samples from the bottom of the vertical assessing boring. The ten I samples were analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes (BTEX) by the-Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Test Method 8020, and for Total I Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline by the DOI-IS LUFT Manual Method. I 3.0 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Geologic Conditions i Regional Geology: The site is located in the southern part of the Great Valley geomorphie province. The Great Valley is a northwest-southeast trending valley, .approximately 400 miles long by 50 miles wide. 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 southern most being the Kern I River. The subject site is located approximately 3 miles south of the Kern River. The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is comPosed primarily of unconsolidated I Pleistocene (1.6 million to !1,000 years ago) and Recent (11,000 years ago to the present) alluvial sediments. Beneath the alluvial sediments are older, .predominantly i lake bed deposits. These lie unconformably on Mio-Pliocene marine sediments which extent to crystalline basement at approximately 20,000 feet. Site Geology: Geologic deposits in the study area include Pleistocene alluvial I sediments of the Kern River Formation, which form a homocline dipping gently to 'the southwest. The deposits are alluvium consisting of poorly indurated and dissected I fan deposits (CDMG, 1964). The depth to the regional unconfined aquifer is approximately 200 feet below Isurface grade beneath the site (Kern County Water Agency, Improvement District No. 4, 1990 Report on Water COnditions, February 1, 1991). The nearest known ioccurrence of perched ground water is 2 miles to the south at a depth of :20 feet in the EB-8057- ! 9112-E069.RPT Elk'~ Lodge #325 7 San~ary 6, 1992 abandoned Kern River channel to the ancient Kern Lake Bed (Kern County Water 1990 Water 1991).' No perched ground water is Agency, Supply Report, September known to exist beneath the subject site. 3.2 Subsurface Conditions Subsurface material encountered during drilling included artificial fill underlain by alluvium to the total depth of each boring. The artificial fill was encountered in the upper portion of all four borings from the surface to depths ranging from approximately 3 to 4 feet. The fill consisted of a dark brown, fine- to medium-grained, poorly graded, silty sand (SM). Additionally, boring TH-I was advanced the tank removal excavation Backfill material as through previous pit. encountered in this boring to a depth of approximately 15 feet below surface grade. The backfill material in all of the lateral borings had a musty septic like odor, whereas the backfill material encountered by boring TH-I had a gasoline like odor. The alluvium was characterized by unconsolidated, highly permeable, light tan, fine- to coarse-grained sand (SW).with minor silt to a depth of approximately 15 feet; overlying unconsolidated, highly permeable, light tan, fine- to coarse-grained sand (SW) to a depth of appwximately 31 feet. Between the depths of 31 'feet to 37 feet is a layer of medium dense, low permeability, slightly plastic, tan to gray, clayey silt (ML/CL). This is underlain by a sequence of slightly dense, moderately permeable, tan, sandy silt (ML/SM) to a depth of 47 feet. Underlying this is 'a second zone of medium dense, iow permeability, slightly plastic, tan, 'clayey silt (ML) to a depth of 55 feet. Beneath this to the total depth investigated of 63 feet are. unconsolidated, highly permeable, light tan, fine- to coarse- grained sand (SW). A Cross Section has been prepared which integrates the geology, the location of the former tanks, and the distribution of gasoline hydrocarbons in the subsurface to yield an interpretation of limit of gasoline hydrocarbons in excess of RWQCB recommended guidelines (Figure 3). 3.3 .Hydrogeology Groundwater was not encountered in of the borings drilled during this any project. The depth to the regional unconfined aquifer is approximately 200 feet below surface grade beneath the site (Kern County Water Agency, Improvement I EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk's-Lodge #325 / $ January 6, 1992 District No. 4, 1990 Report on Water Conditions, February 1, 1991). The nearest known occurrence of perched ground water is 2 miles to the south at a depth of 20 feet in the abandoned Kern River channel to the ancient Kern Lake Bed (Kern County Water Agency, 1990 Water Supply Report, September 1991). No perched ground water is known to exist beneath the subject site. 3.4 S0il Vapor Monitoring Soil samples collected during drilling were monitored with a photo-ionization detector (PID) to evaluate organic vapor concentrations. 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). Table 1- Soil Organic Vapor Concentrations, graphically presents the PID readings. Appendix A Boring Logs, presents the PID readings as they were recorded in the field. TABLE-I SUMMARY OF SOIL ORGANIC VAPOR CONCENTRATIONS (values in parts per million) Sample Depth. (feet)] TH-I ] TH-2 1. TH-3 [ TH-4 5 500 ND .. ND .. ND 10 550 ND ND ND 15 1,000 ND ... -ND ND .. 2 0 1,700. ND ND ND 25 1,5.00 .. ND .ND 30 1~500 ND ND 35 .... 1 ~000 ND .. 40 700 45 60O 50 350 55 200 60 20 ND: Not detected. o EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk's LOdge #325 9 January 6, 1992 ! , 0 - As Table 1 indicates, the soil vapor concentrations detected in the soil samples I boring TH-I remained elevated beneath the former tank to a depth of obtained from greater than 55 feet, but was significantly reduced at a depth of 60 feet. Drilling in I boring TH-I was discontinued at a depth of 63 feet due to a bolt shearing from an auger. The auger was subsequently fished from the hole, and the boring abandoned. I Soil vapor concentrations were not detected in borings TH-2, TH-3, and TH-4, despite the observation of a septic like odor in the near surface, and a musty decomposed odor along with gray discoloration in the first encountered clayey silt at a depth of 30 I feet. These field readings are in general collaborated by the analytical results presented below with the exception that gasoline hydrocarbons were deteeted~ in all of the samples analyzed. 3.5 Laboratory Analytical Results All of the ten samples analyzed contained detectable'levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline. TPH was detected at a concentration of 8,825 mg/kg at 20 feet, 54,065 mg/kg at 40 feet, 170 rog/kg at 55 feet, and 40 .rog/kg at 60 feet in boring TH-1. TPH as gasoline was detected at 70 rog/kg at 30 feet in boring TH-4. TPH as gasoline was detected in the remaining soil samples analyzed at less than 45 rog/kg. The volatile aromatic benzene was detected at a concentration of 107.905 mg/kg at 20 feet, 2,312.325 rog/kg at 40 feet, and 0.140 mg/kg at 55 feet in boring TH- 1. Benzene was not detected at or above the detection limit of 0.005 mg/kg at 60 feet in boring TH-1. Benzene was also detected at a concentration of 0.130 at 20 feet in boring TH-3. Benzene was not detected at or above the detection limit in the remaining five soil samples. The volatile aromatic toluene was detected in all ten of the samples analyzed. Toluene was detected at a concentration of 1,072.310 mg/kg at 20 feet, 11,367.370 mg/kg at 40 feet, 10.380 mg/kg at 55 feet, and 1.970 at 60 feet in boring TH-1. Benzene was detected at a concentrations less than 2.5 mg/kg in the remaining six soil samples. The volatile aromatic ethylbenzene was detected at a concentration of 463.920 rog/kg at 20 feet, 1,044.660 mg/kg at 40 feet, and 0.415 mg/kg at 55 feet in boring TH- l. Ethylbenzene was not detected at or above the detection limit of 0.005 mg/kg at 60 I EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk's LOdge #325 10 January 6, 1992 , 0 feet in boring TH-1. Benzene was not detected at or above the detection limit in the remaining six soil samples. The volatile aromatics o-, m-, and p-xylenes were detected in all ten of the samples analyzed. Total xylenes were detected at a concentration of 5,030.635 mglkg at 20 feet, 15,227.630 rog/kg at 40 feet, 36.670 rog/kg at 55' feet, and 13.055 at 60 feet in boring TH-I. Benzene was detected at a concentration less than 7.7 mg/kg in the remaining six soil samples. Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes have been calculated using the LUFT '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 ground water, soil lithology, fractures in subsurfaces, annual average precipitation, and any direct conduits to ground water. The recommended guidelines are 1,000 mg/kg for TPH as gasoline, 1.0 rog/kg for benzene, 50 mg/kg for toluene, 68 rog/kg for ethylbenzene, and 175 rog/kg, for total xylenes. Laboratory analytical results for the ten selected soil samples frOm the four borings are summarized in Table. 2 - Summary of Analytical Results. Copies of the analytical reports and chain of custody documentation are presented in Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Results. I I I I EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk's Lodge #325 I 1 January 6, 1992 TABLE-2 SIJMMARY OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA (values in milligrams per kilogram) . b¢.nzene . Xylen.es..., TI-I- 1 20' '8~82~ '* 107.905 * 1,072.~ 10 *463.920 '5~030.635 TH-I 40' '54~065 '2,312.325 *11~367.370 ,1~044.660. '15,227.630 TH- 1 55' 170 0.140 ! 0.380 0.415 36.670 · TH-I 60' 40 ND 1.970 ND 13.055 TH-2 '10' '20 ND 1.655 ND 2.590 TH-2 20' 25 ND- 1.050, ND ... 2.260 TH-3 20' 35 0.130 0.655 ND 2.055 TH-3 35' 30 ND 0.145 .. ND ..0.280 TH-4 20' 45 ND 0.895 . ND 1.580 TH-4 30' 70 ND 2.475 ND 7.655 A L NA 1T000 1.0 50.0 68.0 175.0 ,. MDL ,. NA 5 0.005 0.,005 0~005 0.005 ND: None Detected at or above minimtnn reporting level. NA: Not Applicable. MDL: Minimum Dete~tion Limit. · : exceeds current recommended guidelines. A L: Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for concentrations in soil. Recommended guidelines were calculated using the LUFT 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. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The data obtained from the field operations suggest that soil impacted .with gasoline hydrocarbons at concentrations in excess RWQCB recommended guidelines exists at the subject site in an area beneath the former location of the southern 10,000 gallon underground gasoline tank to a depth in excess of 40 feet, and dropping to a concentration less than the recommended guidelines in both of the samples from a depth of 55 and 60 feet below surface grade as indicated in boring TH-1. None of 'the concentrations of gasoline and gasoline, constituent volatile aromatics were detected in excess of the RWQCB recommended guidelines in the six samples collected from the three lateral assessing borings. Therefore, the radial extent of soi! concentrations-in excess of the recommended guidelines is assumed to be less than the nearest lateral assessing boring which was TH-4 positioned 20 feet east of boring TH-1. Based on the I EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk°~ Lodge #325 I 2 January 6, 1992 , 0 field information and analytical data, it appears that when remediation measures were undertaken, they would probably involve approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil in an area less than 20 feet radially from the location of boring TH-I, and to .a depth of at least 50 feet at the location of boring TH-1. 4.1 Remedial Action Alternatives Five options for remediation of the soil are assessed for the site; 1) no action, 2) excavation and transportation of soil to an approved landfill, 3) excavation and uncontrolled aeration, 4) excavation and controled vapor extraction, and 5) in-situ vapor extraction. The first option, natural in-situ biodegradation (i.e., no action), is not viable given the large volume of contamination and the significantly high concentrations of gasoline and the gasoline constituents. In particular, TPH as gasoline was detected at a concentration of 54,065 rog/kg, and benzene at 2,312.325-rog/kg. Despite the 150 feet of vertical separation between the deepest known impacted soil and the first known occurrence of groundwater, the concentrations at the site present a significant risk of leaching to groundwater, and require that remedial actions be to reduce the concentrations to below the RWQCB recommended understanding guidelines. In options 2 through 4, contaminated soil would be excavated until field hydrocarbon screening indicates that the limits of contamination in excess of the recommended guidelines have been reached. Additional sampling from within the excavation would be' performed to confirm the results of the field screening..-Options 2 through 4 have an added excavation cost due to the depth of the contaminated soil and the likelihood the the excavation pit will require shoring on the sides adjoining East California Avenue, and Haley Street. The cost of excavation, shoring, and with 90% would exceed $100,000. backfilling compaction probably Implementation of option 2 depends on the' concentration of contaminants in the soil after it is stockpiled. Judging from the findings of this study, it appears likely that the soil would not qualify to be recycled at the Gibson Oil Refinery's solids recycling facility in Bakersfield, California. The probable disposal option is at Laidlaw Environmental's Class 2 hazardous materials solid waste disposal facility in Buttonwillow, California. This is a costly alternative with costs in excess of $250 per EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk's Lodge '#325 I 3 January 6, 1992 ! , 0 cubic yard including excavation, transportation, disposal, and generators fees, or and this does not alleviate the clients future approximately $500,000, option liability for the soil. Disposal at Laidlaw is the least desirable option. I Option 3 involves excavating the Soil and treating the soil to non hazardous concentrations through the process of uncontrolled aeration. The large volume of I impacted soil involved, and the presence in high concentrations of the chemical of concern, benzene in the soil makes this option unviable because of the health risk to the surrounding residential populace. Additionally, the City of Bakersfield currently I has a moratorium on all uncontrolled aeration of gasoline and diesel impacted soil to reduce their contribution to volatile organic compound emissions within the Isouthern San Joaquin Valley air basin. Despite this alternative being both very effective in reducing the concentrations of gasoline hydrocarbons in the soil, and a I cost effective mitigation option for this site, the health risks involved make this option unviable. i · Option 4 involves excavating the soil and treating the soil to non hazardous ~ I concentrations through the process of containing the soil in a covered treatment . · cell, extracting the gasoline hydrocarbons using a vacuum blower, and destructing I of the hydrocarbons using a regenerative thermal oxidation unit prior to emitting a 'clean' air flow to the atmosphere. Permitting for this method will require I obtaining an Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), although air emissions from the process will be very low .and I Would likely be acceptable to the APCD. This is a common, cost-effective, and efficient method. However the Cost is signifieamly given that the soil must fa'st be ! I excavated, and. then the emissions from the soil must be 'cleaned" by an approved emission control device. Thc cost for this option is approximately $175,000. I The fifth option is to treat the soil through in-situ vapor extraction. This is very similar to option 4, except that the soil remains in place, and the gasoline I hydrocarbons are extracted through wells drilled into the impacted soil. The effectiveness of this option is dependant on the ability of an air flow to be created throughout the zone of impacted soil, permitting the gasoline hydrocarbons to I volatilize, and then being extracted through the wells. The stratigraphy at this site : lends itself to vapor extraction with exception of the lower permeability zones from I 30 to 55 feet below surface grade. ESE has experience in vapor extraction of gasoline IEB-8057-I 9112-E069.RPT Elk's ~Lodge #325 1 4 January 6, 1992 ' 0 hydrocarbons from low permeability soils which indicates that with a well engineered system, the gasoline hydrocarbons can be successfully removed from these lower permeability zones. However, these zones will require placement of I several additional extraction wells, and the time frame for successful treatment will be extended to approximately one year. The cost for in-situ vapor extraction will be approximately $100,000. In-situ vapor extraction is the recommended remedial I alternative for this site. While the above options 2 through 4 are applicable to the site, ESE believes that ama ' ! the in-situ vapor extraction option is appropriate for this site because it is more cost effective than excavation, and there is a high probability of successfully reducing I the concentrations of the gasoline hydrocarbons to below the RWQCB recommended guidelines. m 5.0 CLOSURE i This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Earl McFadden of the Elk's Lodge /1325, as it pertains to the location of the former fuel tanks at 1414 East California Avenue, Bakersfield, California. The conclusions and recommendations I rendered are opinions based on information obtained within the scope of work authorized by the Client. This report should not be regarded as a guarantee that no I further contamination, beyond that which have been detected within the scope may of this study, is present on or beneath the site. If additional information regarding I 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 i suspected 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. Work has been performed in accordance with I generally accepted practices in geoteehnical and environmental engineering, · engineering geology, and hydrogeology. No other warranty, either expressed or I implied, is made. I EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT Elk's -Lodge #325 1 5 January 6, 1992 Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions Iregarding this report or the information contained herein, please contact this office at your convenience. I Sincerely, I EARTH SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Mark R. Magargee,ffR.G. I Senior Geologist I I - Mr. Earl McFadden/ Bakersfield Elk's Lodge //325 I - Bakersfield File I - san Luis Obispo File I I I I EB-8057-1 9112-EO69.RPT IElk's .Lodge #325 1 6 January 6, 1992 '50 I REFERENCES · California Division of Mines and Geology, 1964, Geologic Map of California, I Bakersfield Sheet. · Kern County Water Agency, 1990, Watex~ Supply Report, September 1991. I · Kern County Water Agency, 1990, Report on Water Conditions-Improvement District No. 4, February 1991. 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 1990. I I I I I I 1 I I I EB-8057-1 9112-E069.RPT ~o,~.~.,.,. ' ..'-.'tN; \N,t ~,~,c~-~~-°/'* / /:~ ~_~'~m~, ?'._~.1.,(_+-'1 I;,.,-T:l. ¢~ =_ ~1 [, ~1~: E ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ > Gi d~ s.ve,=,. , Zl d~\%' /A .... 'I. ~l --I.C'I ICh~s6~,...6~.~q~.~ '".,/~' .... ! , ~ ,~1 '"1 '-I ~ .~ ---- ~ .- ' ~ Cl&¢em. ~,...,~ ' ' - ~ODle O Ave o ..L. , / , ~ ~ m: ~- · .~yJar~i,~ ~ HElP v7 ~_._ IP I /~'~ Cl & ~ IG' JR. HI. SCH. i 1 e ' I~ ~ ~ ~ i ~1~. I~ ~I I I J~s~l~l~l.~/ = .~ ~~~- L,,~.__.~ ~~ I >~co~o~ I ~CHO0~ E ~ ~ St.~ ~1~[~ > .~ .... ~ Jeffr~ o Street ~ . ~ SCHOOL~ ' '~ " --X~ ~~ /~-' --~'~--~ :~'~ ~1 ~ ~ . ~ ~ I Height St, ~ /~ ~ ~. . ~ ~ KERN~IEW La Me ~ ~ ~' Irene ~ St. c m ~ ~ - ~- -~ ~ ~ -~ ~ =~ ~~ F~ ' ~ ~ ~J I (' Loma /e~~ I . ~ St. E ~ ~;~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~lr~am ~ Pac f c ~ i ~ , ~ ' "c'EI ~P8~ ' ~ '~ SCH. ~ ~' ~ sc Ave. He~lr. ; . E ~ '~S ~cKINLE~.,.,;~ I. ~ CH .... ~:~' o c ~ ' Eadh Systems TITLE Figure Environmental, Inc. 6zo~ McD~v~. ~r~ve, Su~e B /~/~ ~ ~Z/F~/~ (co5) 8~6-0901 JO8 N0. ~ ' - .... ~~- '.-~ Eadh Systems TITLE Figure Environmental, Inc. (805) 836-0901 ~,__ _ _ ~ ........ ~ ............. ?~ _~, ~ ~ ~/~T  Eadh Systems T I IL E Figure [nviroamental, Inc. ~~ ~~,, ~~~~, 6701 McDivitt Ddve, Suite Bakersfield, CA 93313 ¢o~) ~-o~o, C~0 55' ~v/~~_~ ' JO~ .o. F~ (805) 836-0911 APPENDIX A Boring Logs CU~:.~¢lCAt. ANAI-YSr-S ! IS.~PL£ . Labonto~ i ~ield 3 ~ ~ ~ WELL ~ ~ - SOIL DESCRIP~O~ I I I i II I i i i Il ,, -' ~ "' ' ", , , ,, ' I I I I ~. I I I I II I I I I , I I ~ r~;~.. ~ I i I .i Ii __~ ' I I ~ ~ ~/e~~~, ~v,./~o~ ~, I I I I fi I I I I II I I I I II I I I I II j I I I II I I' ' I~ I~ d ~.;~ ~//~, ~/~ o/~, ~ ~. I I ! I,, ~ ' , , I "' I II [ I I~ I~ ~ I I I I ! I I I I II ~~: LOG oLBORING CONSTRUCTION 7'~>,~/ ~ ~ ~ ~n SOIL DESCRIPTION ~ i ~ ti ,, [ I I I i ' I I I I I' tl ! ! I ! I il I I I i II ~ I ~ I I i II i' I I I I I I I I I II ,., ~ ! ! ~ ~,,~i I I I ! I !1 " I- i i i i ii I i I I I II , I ! I I I II ,., I I I I I .il I ! I,,,~ I' II I I I I .I II I I i I I,_11 I ~ I I '1 II ,, I I I I I II I I I I I II _. I I I I I II i .,,I I I I .!! I I I -' I I .... ~ ~"I~ ,., ~ ~ ~"1 ~"- ~ ~" I 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 II ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ L 0 G ~ L B 0 R I N G ¢ Laborator? I ~'ield :3 ~ f~ ~ · lit g g SOIL D~CRIP~O~ CON~RU~ON ~~~ P/~,~ ~ ~ o I I I I I ~ ~.'/~.'~~. ~ ~*~. ~z~/. ~.~. t t,~ I~ ~ ~ ,-~ .... ~~ .... I I I, I ~ ~.~. I I,~ ''i I ~ I ~ II · i i i i i It i. I I I I ~1 ~ ~ I I I I. I , -I I I I I II I I ! i~ I~ . I I I I I II I I I I I II I I i I I II t' 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 II I I I I I II I I I I I II .. I I I ,I I II I.. I I I I II , I I I i I II I I I I I II I I I I I II I ,.I ! I I I I I I I tt i I I' I IIt · I I t I I I I I I I II t ~ I Il I t I ' I I I II t ~ I I I il ~, ~, ! ! Ii I i i i. I! I I I I II .... it I ~ I II ' '1 I I I I I II i I I I I !1 i I I I I II ~w~~ ~5 LOG of, BORING Proiec~ Numbe~ ~-~~/ I I I I I I I t' ' I I I I ------ ~ I I I I l"' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " 'l I I i i Il I ! ~ ~' ~ ~ .' I I I' I I II I I t. I i II , 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 II , I I I I I I I ~;~... . - i I I I I II ~ ,.i ~ ~ ! .!.. ! ~ i--.I ~ t .. I ' ''''l ' '"' I I I I II I ~ I t ~ ~l ,,. I II I I I I I II I I !~ ~ ~ ~ , ,,,. i I I I I II WELL .a ~ ~' · ~ ~- ' 50IL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION G ~,,~/,',~,~ I i ~- ~ :'~ ,I I I I ! ! I I It. ! ' I I I' I I I I f. f it - ~ ! I !~/I fl ,. I I I I i II ' ' ' I~ ',/~ ~ ' i I I I I !'1 __- i i t I. ~ ,,,I, I I I I I II I i i I I 'I I I 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 I I I ,, I I i ii . ~ ~/ ' I I I I I Il I I I ~ I II I I I i. I ii I I I I I II , ' I I I i I It t I II I i II i I ~"'' I I I I I II i i ~ LOG oL80~IMG ~W~' ..,./0,/ I I I I I APPENDIX B I Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5327 Wingfoot Drive I Bakersfield, CA 93306 (805) 872-4750 Laboratory Results For : Date Received : 11/26/91 Elk's Lodge # 325 Date Analyzed : 12/5/91 1414 East California Ave Analyst : J.S Johnson Bakersfield, CA Lab No. 910177 I1' I Sample Matrix ; Soils Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Tot Pet Hyds I mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg rog/kg rog/kg TH-i 820 107.905 1072.310 463.920 5030.635 8825 TM-1 640 2312.325 11367.370 1044.660 15227.630 54065 TH-1 655 .140 10.380 .415 3-6.670 170 TH-1 660 ND 1.970 ND 13.055 40 TH-2 610 ND 1.655 ND 2.590 20 TH-2 620 ND 1.050 ND 2.260 25 TH-3 620 .130 .655 ND 2.055 35 TH-3 635 ND .145 ND .280 30 TH-4 620 ND .895 ND 1.580 45 TH-4 ~30 ND 2.475 ND 7.655 70 QA/QC Spike % Recovery 96 89 88 103 92 Gasoline All Results Reported in Milligrams per Kilogram ND = Non Detectable ; EPA 8020 (.005 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 I Certificate Number : E739 ~~sns) ,~C~ mist I Certified Full Service On-Site Analytical Laboratories · CALIFORNIA · NEVADA · ARIZONA ~ (805) 872-4750 CERTIFIED FULL ON SITE ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES SAMP~S (S~GNATURE): SITE ADDRESS SAMPLE ~ / SAMPLE ID, NO. DATE TIME COMP GRAB MATRIX SAMPLE LOCATION DESIGNATION RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE} RELINQUISHED BY (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) DATE TiME RECEIVED BY (SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED BY (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY. (SIGNATURE) RELINQUISHED~: (SIGNATURE) DATE TIME RE~p~E~ FOR LABORATORY BY DATE TIME REMARKS'.