HomeMy WebLinkAboutMITIGATION FILE #1~G J L Environment9
Gary J. Leary, R.E.A.
Environmental Consultant
4009 FAIRWOOD ST.
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93306-1310
(805) 872-1543
PRELIMINARY SITE CHARACTERIZATION
OF GASOLINE IMPACTED SOIL
ROBERT E. GRANT PROPERTY
1919 COLUMBUS STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
July 17, 1992
I
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
I RESULTS OF PRELIM/NARY SITE CHARACTERIZATION
OF GASOLINE IMPACTED SOIL
ROBERT E. GRANT PROPERTY
1919 COLUMBUS STREET
I BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Site Description .......................................................................................... 2
I 1.2 Background ................................................................................................ 2
2.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION .............................................................................. 4
2.1 Drilling and Soil Sampling ...................................................................... 4
I 2.2 Laboratory Analysis 5
3.0 FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 5
I 3.1 Geologic Conditions ................................................................................... 5
3.2 Subsurface Conditions .............................................................................. 6
3.3 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................. 7
3.4 Soil Vapor Monitoring .............................................................................. 7
I 3.5 Laboratory Analytical Results .......................................... ...................... 8
4.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Remedial Alternatives ......................... ~ .................................................... 11
I 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 13
6.0 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................. 13
I REFERENCES 15
Exhibit A Vicinity Map ............................................................................... 16
· Exhibit B Site Map ........................................................................................ 17
'· Exhibit C Cross Section ................................................................................ 18
I APPENDIX A Boring Logs
APPENDIX B Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody
!
July 17, 1992
Mr. Robert E. Grant
6302 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY SITE CHARACTERIZATION
OF GASOLINE IMPACTED SOIL
ROBERT E. GRANT PROPERTY
1919 COLUMBUS STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a preliminary site characterization performed by
GJL Environmental (GJL) at the above referenced site. The purpose of the
characterization was to assess the lateral and vertical e×tent of soil impacted by
gasoline hydrocarbons associated with the former 1,000 gallon underground gasoline
storage tank removed from the property in September 11, 1991 by BS Construction of
Bakersfield, California- A concentration .of Total Purgeable Hydrocarbons (TPH) as
gasoline was detected at 11,750 mg/kg, and 9,550 mg/kg at depths of two and six feet
beneath the former tank. Benzene was not detected in the two samples above an
elevated detection limit of 6.25 mg/kg due to high
the
concentrations
of
gasoline
in
the samples. Toluene was detected at 439 mg/kg, and 10.5 mg/kg at depths of two and
six feet beneath the tank. Ethylbenzene was detected at 199 mg/kg, and 17.7 mg/kg at
depths of two and six feet beneath the tank. Total xylenes was detected at 1,230
rog/kg, and 269 mg/kg at depths of two and six feet beneath the tank. The
concentrations of TPH as gasoline and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics
detected in the samples from beneath the tank are in excess of Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) recommended 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 samples be performed to
assess the vertical and lateral extent of gasoline impacted soil in the vicinity of the
former underground gasoline storage tank. The fuel dispenser was located directly
above the tank, and therefore no additional soil samples were required at this
Robert E. Grant Property 2 July 17, 1992
location. A 500 gallon waste oil tank was also removed, and had no indication of
petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil. Therefore no additional assessment is required
in this area.
The scope of work for this project was developed in conjunction' with Mr. Robert E.
Grant and Mr. Joe Dunwoody of the City of Bakersfield 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.
· Drilling and sampling of three exploratory soil borings to a maximum
depth of 40 feet below surface grade.
· Laboratory analysis of eleven selected soil samples for Total Purgeable
Hydrocarbons as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics.
· Preparation of this report presenting our results, conclusions,
recommendations, and remedial action alternatives for the site.
1.1 Site Description
The subject site is located south side of Columus Street in the city of Bakersfield, Kern
County, California (Exhibit A). The site is used as an automotive sales and
maintenance facility. The gasoline tank had formerly served to fuel the new and
used vehicles sold at the dealership.
The site is situated within a developed urban area. Nearby properties are primarily
commercial businesses along both sides of Columbus Street, and residential
surrounding that area. The overall site topography is essentially flat, however there
is a significant fall to the south just to the south of the property.
1.2 Background
Based on a review of analytical results, and conversations with Robert Grant, on
September 11, 1991, a 1,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tank, and dispenser
located directly above the tank were removed under City Of Bakersfield Permit
Number 090008 from the above referenced property as well as a 550 gallon waste oil
tank (Exhibit B). Reportedly, no soil was removed from the site during removal of the
I Robert E. Grant Property 3 July 17, 1992
I
a l
tanks, and the areas displaced by the former tanks were filled by backfilling the
I excavated soil along with imported soil.
i Soil samples were collected at depths of 2 and 6 feet from beneath the removed tanks.
The samples from beneath the gasoline were analyzed for the presence of total
purgeable hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, and the gasoline constituent volatile
I aromatics (BTE×). Gasoline was detected at 11,750 ma/kg, and 9,550 ma/kg at depths of
two and six feet beneath the former tank. Benzene was not detected in the two
above elevated detection limit of 6.25 due to the
samples'
an
ma/kg
high
concentrations of gasoline in the samples. Toluene was detected at 439 ma/kg, and
I
10.5 mg/kg at depths of two and six feet beneath the tank. Ethylbenzene was detected
at 199 ma/kg, and 17.7 ma/kg at depths of two and six feet beneath the tank. Total
· xylenes was detected at 1,230 mg/kg, and 269 mg/kg at depths of two and six feet
beneath the tank. The concentration of TPH as gasoline and the gasoline constituent
volatile aromatics detected in the soil samples from beneath the tank are in excess of
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) recommended guidelines, and resulted
in the Lead Implementing Agency (LIA) which is the City. of Bakersfield Fire
IMaterials Division that initial site
Department-Hazardous
requesting
an
characterization consisting of soil borings and laboratory analysis of soil samples be
I performed to assess the vertical and lateral extent of gasoline impacted soil in the
vicinity of the former underground gasoline storage tank. The fuel dispenser was
I located directly above the tank, and therefore no additional soil samples were
required at this location. A 500 gallon waste oil tank was also removed, and had no
indication of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil. Therefore no additional assessment
I is required in this area.
IBased on these analytical results GJL was been retained by Robert E. Grant to perform
a site characterization in the vicinity of the former gasoline tank. Below are the
Iresults of the site characterization.
,I
I
Robert E. Grant Property 4 July 17, 1992
I
2.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
I 2.1 Drilling and Soil Sampling
Prior to commencing field operations, a technical work plan was reviewed and
I approved by City of Bakersfield Fire Department-Hazardous Materials Division
personnel. Underground Service Alert was notified 48 hours in advance of the site
activities. Drilling commenced on June 3, 1992 using a CMETM B-75 truck mounted
I drill rig, operated by Soils Engineering, Inc. of Bakersfield, California, and equipped
with 6 3/4-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. The augers were steam cleaned prior
I to use to minimize the possibility of cross-contamination.
A total of three soil borings were drilled within this phase of soil characterization
(Exhibit B). One soil boring, G-l, was drilled through the center of the former tank
location to a depth of 40 feet beIow surface grade to assess vertical migration of
gasoline hydrocarbons. A second soil boring, G-2, was drilled twelve feet southwest
of G-1 to assess the lateral limits of 'gasoline hydrocarbons in that direction. The
third soil boring, G-3, was drilled six feet northeast of G-1 to further assess the lateral
limits of gasoline hydrocarbons in that direction. Boring. logs are 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 three 6-
I 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
I 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
Iheadspace. The sleeve was then capped and the probe of the PID was inserted
through a hole in the cap and into the headspace for analysis. The PID readings are
Irecorded on the boring logs.
Robert E. Grant Property 5 July 17, 1992
The middle sample sleeve was immediately sealed with Teflon® film, capped, security
taped, labeled, and placed on ice for transportation to a California Department of
Health Services (DOHS) certified laboratory. Strict chain of custody procedures were
utilized tbr all samples collected to ensure sample integrity and to document sample
possession t¥om the time of collection to the final destination.
All sampling equipment was washed with TSP (tri-sodium phosphate) cleanser, and
rinsed with tap water and de-ionized water prior to sampling, between sample
intervals, and between borings to minimize the possibility of cross-contamination.
The drill auger was steam cleaned between borings, also to minimize the possibility, of
cross-contamination. Contaminated drill cuttings and soil sample spoils were stored
in D.O.T. approved 55-gallon drums, sealed, and left on-site pending appropriate
disposal. After drilling, the borings were backfilled with a 2 sack cement, sand, and
bentonite clay grout to seal the abandoned boreholes.
2.2 Laboratory Analysis
Eleven samples were selected for analysis based' on: a)observations and greatest .PID
readings of odorous soil, b) observations and PID readings of 'the first encountered
sampling locations containing apparently uncontaminated soils, which would serve
to define the lateral and vertical extent of contamination, and c).requirements that
the two lowermost samples of each boring which detects gasoline hydrocarbons be
submitted for analysis. The eleven samples were analyzed at BC Laboratories for
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes (BTEX) by the USEPA Test Method
8020, and total purgeable hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline by the DOHS LUFT Manual
Method.
3.0 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3. i ~eoioglc ~ond{t{ons
I l~egionai Geology: The site is located in the southern part of the Great Valley
geomorphic province. The Great Valley is a north-south trending valley,
Iapproximately 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
I
!
Robert E. Grant Property 6 July 17, 1992
I
the east, and is transported by five major rivers, the southern most being the Kern
River. The subject site is located approximately one mile south of the Kern River.
The surface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed primarily of unconsolidated
Pleistocene (1.6 million to 11,000 years ago) and Recent (11,000 years ago to the
present) alluvial sediments. Beneath the alluvial sediments are older, predominantly
lake bed deposits. These lie unconformably on Mio-Pliocene marine sediments which
extend to crystalline basement at approximately 60,000 feet.
Site Geology: Geologic deposits in the study area include Pleistocene alluvial
sediments of the Kern River Formation, which form a homocline dipping to the
southwest. The deposits are alluvium consisting of poorly indurated and dissected fan
deposits (CDMG, 1964).
The depth to the regional unconfined aquifer is approximately 200 feet below surface
grade beneath the site with the direction of groundwater flow to the south (Kern
County Water Agency, Improvement District.. No. 4, 1991 Report on Water Conditions,
February, 1992). The nearest known occurrence of perched groundwater is 2 miles to
the southwest at a depth of 20 feet in the abandoned Kern River channel to the
ancient Kern Lake Bed (Kern County Water Agency, 1991 Water Supply Report, May,
1992). No perched groundwater is known to exist beneath the subject site.
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface material encountered during drilling included artificial fill in the
former tank pit underlain by alluvium to the total depth of each boring. The
artificial fill was encountered in the upper portion of boring G-1 from the surface to
8 feet. The fill consisted of a medium brown, silty sand (SM).
The alluvium was characterized by moderate to moderate permeability, loose, medium
brown, sandy silt (ML/SM) to a depth of 13 feet. This is underlain by a high
permeability, tan, moist, well graded sand (SW) to a depth of 17 feet. Beneath this is a
high permeability, medium tan, slightly moist, well graded gravelly sand (SW/GW) to
a depth of 28 feet. This is underlain by highly permeable, tan, slightly moist, well
!
Robert E. Grant Property 7 July 17, 1992
I
I!
graded sand (SW) to a depth of 37 feet. Beneath this is a low permeability, light
brown, slightly moist silty clay (CL/ML) to a depth of 40 feet, which was the deepest
penetrated by this assessment. Cross Section AA' has been prepared which integrates
Ithe geology, the location of the former tank, and the distribution of gasoline
hydrocarbons in the subsurface (Exhibit C).
3.3 Hydroge.ology
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings drilled during this project.
The depth to the regional unconfined aquifer is approximately 200 feet below surface
grade beneath the site with the direction of groundwater flow to the south (Kern
County Water Agency, Improvement District No. 4, 1991 Report on Water Conditions,
February, 1992). The nearest known occurrence of perched groundwater is 2 miles to
the southwest at a depth of 20 feet in the abandoned Kern River channel to the
ancient Kern Lake Bed (Kern County Water Agency, 1991 Water Supply Report, May,
1992). No perched groundwater is known to exist beneath' the subject site.
3.4 Soil 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
Ian isobutylene standard of 100 million (ppm) and contained an 11.8
parts
per
electron volt (eV) lamp, capable of detecting benzene (9.25 eV). Table 1- Soil Organic
I Vapor Concentrations, graphically presents the PID readings. Appendix A - Boring
Logs, presents the PID readings as they were recorded in the field.
,I
I
I
Robert E. Grant Property 8 July 17, 1992
I
TABLE- 1
I SUMMARY OF SOIL ORGANIC VAPOR CONCENTRATIONS
(values in parts per million)
Sample Depth (feet)] G-1 [ G-2 I G-3
I 5 100 ND ND
10 500 ND
-1 15 750 ND ND
20 I ~000 ND ND
I 25 NR ND ND
3O ND ND ND
I 35 ND ND ND
40 ND
ND: Not detected.
As Table 1 indicates, the soil vapor concentrations detected in. the soil samples
I obtained from boring G-1 were significantly elevated below the base of the former
northern tank to a depth of 20 feet. Soil vapor concentrations were not detected in
I the laterally assessing, borings G-2, and G-3.' These field readings .are collaborated by
the analytical results presented below.
E! 3.5 Laboratory Analytical Results
Boring G-1 was advanced through the center of the former 1,000 gallon tank where
I total purgeable hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline were detected at 2,000 mg/kg at 15
feet, and 6,000 mg/kg at 20 feet, but were not detected at the depths of 30, 35, and 40
I feet below surface grade. TPH as gasoline was not detected at 15, 25, and 35 feet in
boring G-2, or 20, 25, and 35 feet in boring G-3.
,'1
The gasoline constituent volatile aromatic benzene was detected in one of the eleven
I samples analyzed. Benzene was detected in boring G-2 at a concentration of 0.036
mg/kg at 15 feet. However, the detection limits for the samples at 15 feet, and 20 feet
in boring G-1 were significantly elevated (5 and 10 mg/kg, respectively) because of
I the high concentrations of gasoline detected.
Robert E. Grant Property 9 July 17, 1992
Toluene was detected in one of the eleven samples analyzed. Toluene was detected in
i I G-2 at a concentration of 0.036 mg/kg at 15 feet. Again, the detection limits for the
samples at 15 feet, and 20 feet in boring G-I were significantly elevated (5 and 10
i mg/kg, respectively) because of the high concentrations of gasoline detected.
Ethylbenzene was detected in one of the eleven samples analyzed. Ethylbenzene was
I detected in G-2 at a concentration of 0.033 mg/kg at 15 feet. Again, the detection
limits for the samples at 15 feet, and 20 feet in boring G-1 were significantly elevated
I and 10 because of the concentrations of
(5
mg/kg,
respectively)
high
gasoline
detected.
I
Total xylenes were detected in three of the eleven samples analyzed. Total xylenes
were detected in G-1 at a concentration of 456 rog/kg at 15 feet and 620 mg/kg at 20,
and in boring G-2 at 0.152 mg/kg at 15 feet.
'l Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for gasoline, and the
gasoline constituent...volatile aromatics, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total
'i- 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
ii account for attenuation due to site-specific parameters including vertical separation
to ground water, soil lithology, fractures in subsurfaces, annual average
I precipitation, and any direct conduits to ground water. The limits are 1,000 mg/kg
for TPH as gasoline, 1.0 mg/kg for benzene and toluene, and 50 mg/kg for
i ethylbenzene and total xylenes.
Laboratory analytical results for the eleven selected soil samples from the the
I borings are summarized in Table 1 Summary of Analytical Results. Copies of the
analytical reports and chain of custody documentation are presented in Appendix B -
I Laboratory Analytical Results.
[]
I
!
Robert E. Grant Property 10 July 17, 1992
I
I TABLE- 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA
values in milligrams per kilogram
I I
Gasoline benzene Xylenes
G- 1 15' 2,000* ND1 ND1 ND1 456*
I G~ 1 2 0' 6,000' ND2 ND2 ND2 ~ 620*
G- 1 30' ND ND ND ND ND
G-1 35' ND ND ND ND ND
I G- 1 40' ND ND ND ND ND
G-2 15' ND 0.036 0.036 0.033 0.152
G-2 25' ND ND ..ND ND ND
I G- 2 35' ND ND ' ND ND ND
G-3 20' ND ND ND ND ND
G-3 25' ND ND ND ND ND
I G-3 35' ND ND ND ND ND
MRL NA 1.0 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
A L NA l_,000 1.0 i.0 50.0 i 50.0
I "
ND: None Detected at or above minimum reporting level (MRL).
NA: Not Applicable.
I I: MRL=5 rog[kg due ro high concentration TPH as gasoline in sample
2:MRL=t0 mg/kg due to high concentration TPH as gasoline in sample
*' exceeds current recommended guidelines
A L: Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended guidelines for contaminants in soil. The
recommended guidelines were calculated using the LUFT methodology by multiplying the most
stringent current federal or state water quality standards by a factor of 1,000 to account for
,I attenuation due to soil composition and distance from groundwater.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
I The data obtained from the field operations suggest that soil impacted with gasoline
hydrocarbons, and the gasoline constituent volatile aromatics at concentrations in
I excess RWQCB recommended guidelines exists at the subject site in the area directly
beneath the former 1,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tank to a depth of less
: than 25 feet below surface grade, and laterally less than 5 feet from the location of
I the former tank. The estimated volume of soil with concentrations of gasoline
hydrocarbons in excess of 1,000 mg/kg, and volatile aromatics in excess of their
! I respective recommended guidelines i~ic yards.
I
Robert E. Grant Property 1 1 July 17, 1992
I
4.1 Remedial Action Alternatives
At least four options for remediation of the soil are applicable to the site 1)
excavation and transportation of soil to an approved landfill or recycling facility,
2) in-situ vapor extraction, 3) excavation and uncontrolled aeration, and 4) no action.
In the first option, impacted soil would be excavated using a backhoe to a depth 25
feet where the site assessment has indicated that the limits of concentrations in
excess of the recommended guidelines will have been reached, and laterally 5 feet
from the former tank. Selection of the appropiate disposal facility 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 qualify to be recycled at
the Gibson Oil Refinery's solids recycling facility in Bakersfield, California. Given
the small volume of soil to be transported to Gibson's facility,, and the current
exemption that recycling has from any state or federal generator or transportation
taxes, recycling isa cost effective alternative for this site. The cost for excavation
and backfilling will be approximately $20,000. The cost for transportation of the
estimated 75 cubic yards will be approximately $2,000. The cost for recycling will be
approximately $8,000. Management fees including work plans, regulatory liaison,
site supervision, soil sampling, and the closure report will be approximately $5,000.
The overall cost is estimated to be $35,000. This option can be particularly attractive
since recycling alleviates the clients future liability for the soil.
The second option is to treat the soil through in-situ vapor extraction. 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. The extracted vapors are then treated to non
hazardous concentration with a surface treatment unit like a thermal oxidizer. Given
the small volume of impacted soil, one extraction well would effectively extract the
gasoline hydrocarbons, and the time frame for successful treatment will be
approximately six months. The cost for installation of the extraction well and
manifolding to the extraction unit will be approximately $6,000. The cost monthly
1
!
Robert E. Grant Property 12 July 17, 1992
I
rental of the extraction unit will be approximately $8,000/month, or $24,000 for the
three months, excluding the cost of electricity and/or supplemental fuel. The cost
for verification soil sampling and system abandonment will be approximately
$10,000. Management fees including work plans, regulatory liaison, site supervision,
and the closure report will be approximately $5,000. The overall cost is estimated to
be $45,000. This option can be particularly attractive since surface disturbances are
kept to a minimum.
The third option is similar to option one in that the impacted soil is excavated using a
backhoe to a depth 25 feet where the site assessment has indicated that the limits of
concentrations in of the recommended will have been and
excess
guidelines
reached,
laterally 8 feet from the former tank. However, in option three the impacted soil is
treated to non hazardous concentrations through the process of uncontrolled
aeration. The small volume of impacted soil involved makes this option viable
because of the small health risk to the surrounding residential populace. This
alternative is very effective in reducing the concentrations of gasoline
hydrocarbons in the soil, and a cost effective mitigation 'option for this site: Because
only 75 cubic yards of soil is to be treated, the soil can be treated in several stages to
comply with City of. Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District Kern Zone air emissions The for
County
requirements.
cost
excavation and backfilling will again be approximately $20,000. The cost for soil
treatment will be approximately $10,000. Management fees including work plans,
regulatory liaison, site supervision, soil sampling, and the closure report will be
approximately $5,000. The overall cost is estimated to be $35,000. This option can be
particularly attractive since recycling alleviates the clients future liability for the
soil. The limitations involved in this option is available land to conduct the
treatment, and land that is not in a residential area. The subject property is not
suitable because of the residential setting. If the client can not find suitable land to
conduct the this be viable.
treatment,
option
may
not
The fourth option, natural in-situ biodegradation (i.e., no action), is viable given the
small volume of soil with concentrations of gasoline and the gasoline constituent
I volatile aromatics in excess of RWQCB recommended guidelines, and the significant
I
I Robert E. Grant Property 1 3 July 17, 1992
I
!
vertical separation between the deepest impacted soil at 25 feet and the first
I occurrence of groundwater at 200 feet. A risk assessment may be required by the
City of Bakersfield Fire Department-Hazardous Materials Division to document that
I the gasoline hydrocarbons do not present a risk of leaching to groundwater, or
affecting the public health at the site. This risk assessment will cost $7,500, and does
i not guarantee regulatory agency acceptance of the no action alternative.
Additionally, long term. monitoring of the fate of the gasoline hydrocarbons may be
required at an additional periodic cost. Finally, the ability to sell property with an
I environmental liability is greatly restricted.
The client should be aware that the State of California has been mandated to have a.
leaking underground storage tank cleanup fund to cover site investigation and
remediation expenses above $10,000. but not to exceed $1,000,000. GJL Environmental
personnel will assist the client in complying with .the qualifying requirements for
the fund. Proper and complete documentation. 'of tank operation permits, tank
abandonment permits, and compliance with regulatory requests for assessment and
remediation is critical for both qualification, and 'prioritization of your site within
the funding system.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
While all of the above options are applicable to the site, if remedial actions are
I required'then GJL Environmental would recommend the excavation and recycling of
the soil at Gibson Refinery because it is the most cost effective, the project duration is
I the most timely, and future liabilities for the soil are alleviated. However, given the
very limited volume of impacted soil at the site, GJL Environmental recommends that
the no action alternative is appropriate for this site and should be considered by the
I City of Bakersfield Fire Department-Hazardous Materials Division.
I 6.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Robert E. Grant, as it
' I pertains to the location of the former gasoline tank at 1919 Columbus Street,
I' Bakersfield, California. The conclusions and recommendations rendered are opinions
i based on information obtained within the scope of work authorized by the Client.
I
m
Robert E. Grant Property 14 July 17, 1992
! ·
!
This report should not be regarded as a guarantee that no further contamination,
m beyond that which have been detected within the of this study, is
may
scope
present
on or beneath the site. If additional information regarding the possible presence or
m past use of hazardous materials at the site becomes available, then the need for
further field investigation should be re-evaluated. Similarly, if ~uspected
contamination is encountered during earthwork or construction activities, 'a
m 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 geotechnical and environmental engineering,
engineering geology, and hydrogeology. No other warranty, either expressed or
I implied, is made.
m Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions regarding
this report or--,he information contained herein, please contact this office at your
m convenience.
Sincerely,
I GJL ENVIRONMENTAL
Ga~ry'J. l~e~i~, REA /~ Mark-~. Magarge ,~~
Project l~anager (~ Registered Geologist
I _ Dunwoody\'3 _ City Department
m cc: 1 Mr. Joe of Bakersfield Fire
Hazardous Materials Division
I 1 - Bakersfield File
Robert E. Grant Property 15 July 17, 1992
REFERENCES
· California Division of Mines and Geology, 1964, Geologic Map of California,
Bakersfield Sheet.
· Kern County Water Agency, 1991, Water Supply Report, May, 1992.
· Kern County Water Agency, 1991, Report on Water Conditions-Improvement
District No. 4, February, 1992.
· Tri-Regional Board Staff Recommendations for Preliminary Evaluation and
Investigation of Underground Tank Sites
· California Water Resources Control Board, 1989, LUFT Manual Guidance
Document.
· California Water Quality Control Board-Central Valley Region, Compilation of
Water Quality Goals, October 1990.
.
ROUND
OU
KERN
BA~LD~
Ave.
Deacon Rd.
GRANT PROPERTY ·
I ~,, .~,:_: ~Z..-. ~.:..'.-.
· - ................... · iglg'(~ol~fnbus ~' . ... , .... '.'.; . ..
I
I
Alley
G,3 ~'..~
Sewer Light Poll ·
Tank Arect-
I G as I~ War er
Lines I1": 2o' I
I Power Lines
m/
m l~sw ,' 12(---).ne ~sw~6~,nel
G'-2 G"I G"3 O/
m TPH ~ s Go~ I 0~
~l 0 m~
m SW ND 30'
ND ND NE 35 ~
m
T~
So~le I"* ~'
SW ~ ~ellgr~d~d ~d ..-
. SW/6W- ~eligr~d~ gr~,elly.: s~d
m
mGjL GRANT PROPERTY EXHIBIT
mENVIRONMENAL CROSS' SECTION A A/ C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX A
I Boring Logs
I
'iI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WELL
CONST~UC-rloN r,,v,'/ Pig) '~°Su ~ "' SOIL. D£SC.".IPnON
I I ' ~" (/ "' '1 } I
I I I I I
~ I ~ ~,. I
I I ! I I ....
I
I
i .~ I I ~.-~ ~.
! I I I I il _.._.
I I I '1
I' 1¥51 I.,
I
I I -
I
I I 'J i I Ii
I I I I '1 .11 -
I I I
I I I I I ii
I I
I I I I I II "' "
I t I
I J I I I I
~ ! I I ~ ~j -
I I I I Ij
I I I
I I II
~ t ,
I I I I
I i I I I I!,,,
])LATE
~ r' .~. ,,t/'7"' ,~/"'d)/Z:)'e,,'-',/'/~ L O G. o f. BO R IN G
,,.,./.,/
ProTect Numbe~.
I" ~ -~' ~' r~1 ~ I~ -,,
. I ,,I
I I i I ~ ~ ~ ....
I I I I I' i-i ,.
I I I I I II ,
'1 , ,I I I I II ~ ~ ' / - ' /
I I I I I II _ __-
I I I I I Ii ,.
~ I I I ~ Il _,
'1 'l I I~ I~ ~
I I I I I
~ I' I,,,' !.
i ' , ~ II -'
~ f f ,, :.'
i I i
~ t.~ ~ ~ ......
WELL - o
o/,a,,$~/,,w~, rr n ,. ~ ~ SOIL DESCKIPnON
,I I I I .I
I I ! I ! -~ '
I i!
~ I I i ~ Ii/0 / , ,,
I I I I I II
,,ii ~ ~ '~ ~
I I I I I II
i '"1 i i I j -
I I I I I II
I i ! i~ I~ ~
I "1 I I I ! [o ~ ' /
I "1 J ..,I '1 II
-- I I I I I II , ,,,
I I I ,,.I I I
I I I .I I II .... . .,, ,,j
I I I I ~, Ii
I I I I J ~
I I I I I II
I I I I I II
I i I il~., I~( /
I I t I '! - F ~z'
~ .,, t ! I~ _
i-- I-- I I I
~ I."I ~ I -
J ' ' J 'I I'
.,,,. .. ..
I I I I I1
I I I I I
I
I ,I ~ II
~ ,I I II
I ,- I ,
,,, il ....
' ~ i I ~ .... ~
I
i i I I I
PLATE
~- ~ ~.,,/~/
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-Custody
FROM 06. 15. 1992 11:54 MO. 8 P. 9
I
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
GJL ENVIRONMENTAL Date of
4009 FAIRWOOD STREET Report: 06/12/92
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93306 Lab ~:
Attn.: GARY J. LEARY R.E.A. 805-872~1543
Sample Description: GRANT, SOIL G-!-2 15'. SAMPLE WAS TAKEN ON 06-03-92
LEAR¥ o
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Soil
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed: ' ,-."i:
06/03/92 06/03/92 06/11/92 ...'
Minimum
Analys i s Report ing Report lng
~Const ituents Results Units Level
Benzene None Detected mg/kg "5.. .. ""
Toluene ~one Detected mg/kg 5 -.
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 5.
o-Xyl ene 96. mg/kg 5,
m & p-X¥1ene 180. mg/kg 5.
Total Petroleum
}{ydrocarbons (gas) 2000. mg/k9 1000.
High reported PQL due to h±gh concen~:ration of target analytes.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. #1186 · :' ,
Department SupervisOr . .
41 (DfD Adss ~--~c. · Bskec~h-~ield, C-~ 9:~30~ · ~) 327-4911 · F~ (E)Ob-] 327-1 BI 8
~ROM 06. i5. 1992 11:~5 NO. 8
'Petroleum Hydrocarbons
GJL ENVIROI~I~ENT. A/~ Date of
4009 FAIRWOOD STREET Report: 06/12/92
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93306 Lab ~: 493~-2
Attn.: GARY J. LEARY R.E.A. 805-872-1543
Sample Description: GRANT, SOIL G-!-3 20'. SAMPLE WAS TAKEN ON 06-03-92 · $:40AM BY G.
LEARY.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.N.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Sell
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed: '..
06/03/92 06/03/92 06/11/92 ... · ,.]
Minimum
3%nalysis Reporting Reporting
Cpn~ituent~ Results Units Level
Benzene None Detected mg/kg
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 10.
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/k9 10.
o-Xylene 160. mg/kg 10.
m & p-Xylene 230. mg/kg 10.
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) 6000. mg/kg .. · 2000.
High reported PQL due to high concentration of target analytes.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. %115~ ..
Department Supervisor ~
!
.41 CID ~s ~--'~"r,. · E~,~ker.~qeld, ~ '=:J33CIB · ~ 327.-4911 . ~O< (805-") 32.7-191B
!
~ROM 06. t5.1992 11:56 ~0. 8
1
I Perrole~ Hydrocarbons
I GJL E~IRONME~ Date of
4009 FAIRW~D ST~ET Report: 06/12/92
Attn.: GARY J. LEARY R.E.A. 805-872-1543
Sample Description: GRANT, SOIL G-1-5 30' SAMPLE WAS T~EN ON 06-03-92 @ 9:05~ BY G.
I LE~Y.
~ST ~THOD~ TPH by D.O.H.S. / 5.U.F.T. M~ual ~ethod - Modified EPA 8015
I Individual constituents by EPA Ee~hod 5030/8020.
S~ple Matrix: Soll
!
Date S~mple Date S~ple Date ~alysis
Collected: Received ~ L~: Co~leted:
I 06/03/92 06/03/92 06/11/92
~inim~
~alysis Reporting Reporting
I Constituents .., Results Units Level
Benzene None Detected m~/kg 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.00~
I Ethyl Benzene None Detected m~/k~ 0.005
o-Xylene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
m & p-Xylene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Petrole~
I Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
!
I
!
I C
allforn~a D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1!86
I Departmen~ Supervisor
I
FROf~ 06. 1~. 1992 11:~6 NO. 8 P. 12
!
I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
I GJL ElgVIRONI~ENT/LL Date of
4009 FAIRW00D STPd~ET Report: 06/12/92
BD2fERSFIELD, C.A 93306 Lab ~: 4934-4
IAttn.: G~Y J. LEARY R.E.A. 805-$72-1543
Sample Description: GRA/gT, SOIL G-I-6 35'. SASfPLE WAS TllKEN ON 06-03-92 ~ 9:15D/~ BY G.
i LE~%R~.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
i Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/~020.
Sample Matrix: Soil
I
Date S~mple Date Sample Da~e Analysis
Collected: Received @ Lab: Completed:
I 06/03/92 06/03/92 06/11/92
Minimum
Analysis Reporting Reporting
I Constituents Results Units Level
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
I Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/k~ 0.005
o-Xylene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
m & p-Xylene None Detected m~/kg 0.005
Total Petroleum
iHydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
I
I C
alifornia D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1186 <"
I Department Supervisor
I
,41 OlD At;as Cc. · E~ak;er'sfi, elr..J. ~ ~)330~ · [E~ 3~7~4.~)11 . ~ [Etli~ 3;::7-1 91 8
FROM 86.15.1392 11:37 NO. 8 P.15
I Petrole~ Hydrocarbons
0JL E~IRON~ Date of
4009 FAIRWOOD STREET Report: 06/12/92
i B~ERSFIELD, CA 93306 Lab ~:
Attn.: G~Y J. LEARY R.E.A. 805-872-1543
Sample Description: GRART, SOIL G-l-7 40'. S~PLE WAS TAKEN ON 06-03-92 ~ 9:30~ BY G.
I LE~¥.
I Individual con,t£tuent~ ~¥ EP~ ~ethod 5030/@020.
I Date S~ple Date S~ple Date ~alysis
Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed:
I 06/03/92 06/03/92 06/11/92
Minim~
~alysls Reporting Reportln~
IConstituents Result~ Units, , L~vel
· Benzene ~one Detected mg/kg . 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected m~/kg 0,005
o-~lene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
m & p-~lene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Petrole~
I ~drocarbons (gas) None Detec[ed mg/kg 1.
I C
alifornia D.O.H.S. Cert. ~1156
I Department Supe~isor
I
41 CO Ar~as Ct. · ~skersf~e~, (2A 93308 · (805) 327-491 I · FAX (5)1~-] 2~27-1918
I
FROM 06. 15. 1992 11: 37 NO. $ P. 14
I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
!
GJL Eh-VIRON/~ENTAL Date of
4009 FAIRWOOD STREET Report: 06/12/92
I BA-K~RSFIELD, CA 93306 Lab ~: 4934-6
Attn.: GARRY J. LEARY R.E.A. 805-872-1543
Sample Description: GP~NT, SOIL G-2-1 15'. SAMPLE WAS TAKEN ON 06-03-92 ~ 10:20AM BY G.
I LEARY.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
IIndividual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
i Sample Matrix: Soil
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysi~
i. Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed:
06/03/92 06/03/92 06/11/92
Minimum
i Analysis Reporting Reporting
~gn~tuents Resu~s. Units Level
Benzene 0.036 mg/kg . 0.005
IToluene 0.036 mg/kg 0~005
Ethyl Benzene 0.033 mg/kg 0.005
o-X¥1ene 0.032 mg/kg 0.005
m & p-Xylene 0.060 mg/kg 0.005
I Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
!
California D.O.H.S. Cer%. $1i86 '".~'
Department Supervisor
I
FROM 06.15.1992 11:55 NO. 8 P.15
I
I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
I GJL ENVIRONMENTAL Date of
4009 FAIRWOOD STREET Report: 06/12/92
I B;%KERSFIELD, CA 93306 Lab ~: 4934-7
Attn.: GARY J. LEARY R.E.A. 805-872-1543
Sample Description: GRAi~T, SOIL G-2-2 25' SAMPLE WAS TAJfEN ON 06-03-92 ~ 10:40AM BY
I LEA-RY.
TEST I~ET~qOD: TP~ by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
I Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Soil
!
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed:
I 0
6/03/92 06/03/92 06/11/92
Minimum
i /%naiysis Reporting Reporting
Constituents Results Units Level
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 02005
iToluene None Detected mg/k~ 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/k~ 0.005
o-Xylene None Detected my/kg 0.005
m & p-Xylene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
i Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) Ncne Detected mg/kg .1.
I California D.O.H.S. Cert. #1186
Department Supervisor
4100 ~,tlas C~. - Be~ersf. e~0. CA 933C~ · (8C~) 327-4S ~, 1 · ~X [8Ob--) 327-1818
FRO~ 0~o 1~. 1992 :~ NO. 8 P. 16
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
!
GJL ENVIRONMENTAL Date of
4009 FAIRWOOD STREET Report: 06/12/92
I B~ERSFIELD, C~ 9330~ Lab ~: 4934-8
Attn.: GARY J. LE3%RY R.E.A. 805-872-1S43
Sample Description: GRAiNT, SOIL G-2-3 35'. SD~PLE WAS TAKEN ON 06-03-92 @ ll:00AM BY G,
TEST ~iE~OD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / 5.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
IIndividual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
i Sample Matrix: Soil
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed:
I 0
6/03/92 06/03/92 06/11/~2
Minimum
i Analysis Reportln~ Reporting
Constituents Results Unit~ Level
Benzene None Detected m~/k~ .0.005
iToluene None Detected mg/k9 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected m~/k~ 0.005
o-Xylene None Detected m~/k~ 0.005
m & p-Xylene None Detected m~/k~ 0.005
I Total ~etroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected m~/k~ i.
!
I California
D.O.M.S. Cer~. ~i18~
I Department Supervisor
I
FROM 06o15.1992 11:59 HO. 0 P. 17
!
I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
I GJL ENVIROITMENTAL Date of
4009 FAIRWOOD STREET Report: 06/12/92
B/LKERSFIELD, CA 93306 Lab ~: 4934-~0
I Attn.: GARY J. L?JkRY R.E.A. 805-872-1563
Sample Description: GRA1NT, SOIL G-3-2 20'. SA~IPLE WAS TAKEN ON 06-03-92 · 11:45AM BY G.
i LEARY.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method ~ Modified EPA 8015
i Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Soil
I Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed:
I 06/03/92 06/03/92 06/11/92
Minimum
;~nalysis Reporting Reporting
I gonstituents Results Units Level
Benzene None Detected mD/kg 0,005
Toluene None Detected mg/k~ 0,005
I Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/k9 0.005
o-Xylene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
m & p-Xylene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Petroleum
IHydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mD/kg i.
I
California D.O.H.S. Cert. ~i186
I Department
Superviso~
FROM 86. 15. 1992 11:48 NO. $ P. 18
!
I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
I GJL ENVIRONMENTAL Date of _
~009 FAIRWOOD STREET Report: 06/12/92
i BA/fERSFIELD, C_A 93306 Lab #: 4934-11
Attn.: GARY J. LEARY R.E.A. 805-872-1543
Sample Description: GRANT, SOIL G-3-3 25'. SAMPLE WAS TDI<EN ON 06-03-92 % 12:00PM BY G.
I LEERY.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
I Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Soil
I
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received ~ Lab: Completed:
I 06/03/92 06/03/92 06/11/92
Minimum
Analysis Reporting Reporting
I Constituents Results Units Level
Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Toluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
I Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/k~ 0.005
o-Xylene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
m & p-Xylene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Total Petroleum
IHydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/kg 1.
California D.O.H.S. Cert. 51186
I ~-=p~rtment SupW~
I
4100Ac!as Ct. · Beke~¢eld, CA 93308 · (805)327-491 I · FAX (E)(3~ 327-1 91 8
FROM 06. 15.1992 11:4~
I
I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
I GJL ENVIRO~ME~Tr~LL Date of
4009 FAIRWOOD STREET Report: 06/12/92
I BAKERSFIELD, CA 93306 Lab ~: 4934-12
Attn.: GARY J. LEARY R.E.A. 805-872-1543
Sample Description: GRANT, SOIL G-3-4 35'. SAY~LE WAS TAKEN ON 06-03-92 · 12:15PM BY G.
I LEARY.
TEST METHOD: TPH by D.O.H.S. / L.U.F.T. Manual Method - Modified EPA 8015
I Individual constituents by EPA Method 5030/8020.
Sample Matrix: Soil
!
Date Sample Date Sample Date Analysis
Collected: Received @ Lab: Completed:
I 0
6/03/92 06/03/92 06/11/92
Minimum
Analysis Reporting Reporting
I Constituents R.esu!ts Units Level
Benzene None Detected mg/k~ 0.005
iToluene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
Ethyl Benzene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
o-Xylene Nome Detected mg/k~ 0.005
m & p-Xylene None Detected mg/kg 0.005
i Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (gas) None Detected mg/k~ 1.
I California D.O.H.S. Cert. %1186
Department Supervisor ~
I
Report To: ~e Analysis Requested
Address: ~ o ~ " '
La~ Sample Description Date & Time Sampled
' ,:'"' '" City ~ (~ I.-.S~'~/c~ State~, ... Relinquished by: (Signature) Received by: (Signature) Date: Time:
... ,. A. entio~:'{~ 7 [ ~L~k'~ R~linquished by: (Signature) Received by: (Signature) Date: Time:
Time:
Miles: ~olinquishod by: (Si~naturo) ~ocoivod by: (S~naturo) Oato: limo:
Samplo Disposal ~.0.~ Bolinquish~d by: (Si~naturo) ~ocoivod by: (Si~naturo) Dato: limo:
~ 8~i~oosal ~ 5.00
~Relurn to client __