Laserfiche WebLink
BREA AG - 3 - <br /> Meeting Summary <br /> On 20 August 1991 , Rudy Schangl and I met with Kurt Neuharth of Brea Ag and Mike <br /> Blankenship of Kleinfelder. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Phase II <br /> report, and the Board's thoughts on future activities at the site. The main points <br /> made at the meeting are listed below. <br /> 1 . The Regional Board would like to continue working cooperatively with Brea Ag. At <br /> this time, there is no need to issue an order such as a Cleanup and Abatement <br /> Order. That would only be issued if there were great delays on the project, or if <br /> Brea Ag refused to work with us. All present agreed that we want to continue <br /> working together, and that the project has been moving smoothly to date. We <br /> emphasized that it is to Brea Ag's benefit to have regulatory agencies approve <br /> workplans before any investigative or remediation activities occur at any of their <br /> sites. <br /> 2. We discussed the State and EPA numbers for 1,2-DCP in water (see page 1 of this <br /> memo) . It was emphasized that if a cleanup is needed, then the cleanup goal would <br /> be 0.5 ppb. It's fine to continue to use APPL Labs for analysis of 1,2-DCP, since <br /> their method 601 has a detection limit of 0.5 ppb. <br /> 3. Kurt stated that before Brea Ag commits to a full-scale cleanup of groundwater, <br /> that they want to know background/upgradient concentrations of 1,2-DCP. This <br /> information would be collected through monitoring wells, and possibly through a <br /> literature review. There isn't enough information yet to determine who caused the <br /> groundwater degradation. <br /> 4. A fair amount of time was spent discussing the 2 ppm of DDT found at 6' depth in <br /> boring B-3. Brea Ag has two options. The first would be to excavate and haul out <br /> the soil . This would also involve confirmation sampling of the sidewalls and <br /> bottom of the excavation. The second option is to leave the material in place, and <br /> cap it with the concrete base of the tank farm. This option would require the <br /> Board writing a letter to DHS (or the new Cal-EPA) , informing them of the plans, <br /> and asking for comments within 30 days. If no response is received by the <br /> deadline, then Brea Ag could go ahead with the tank farm construction. However, <br /> if DHS objects to leaving the soil in place, then Brea Ag would have to work with <br /> both agencies to have it removed/treated. Kurt will notify me if he wants a letter <br /> sent to DHS. <br /> 5. The last subject discussed was the placement of monitoring wells on the Brea Ag <br /> facility. We all agreed that they should be out of the way of the new tank farm <br /> and protected from truck traffic. However, we don't have enough information to <br /> determine location yet. Mike was asked to look at the Well Investigation's Final <br /> Report (I gave him a copy) , and to do some more research about groundwater flow <br /> directions. <br /> In conclusion, there are two ongoing environmental projects at this site: the DDT in <br /> the soil , and the nitrate and the 1,2-DCP in the groundwater. Brea Ag must decide <br /> which option they want to follow in dealing with the DDT in the soil . They will notify <br /> me if they want to leave it in place. If they decide to excavate it, they will submit <br /> a short workplan. For the groundwater, Brea Ag needs to submit a workplan for <br /> monitoring well placement and installation. <br />