SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

ARCO Meeting Minutes August 8, 1994 Page 3 Mike questioned as to ARCO's plans for remediating hydrocarbons that are present off-site. ARCO stated that the intent of air sparging is to provide an increase in dissolved oxygen to enhance biological activity in off-site material. ARCO supported this theory by discussing a case study which had positive results of remediating off-site material while performing air sparging on- site. Mike said that he had not received the first quarter status report. ARCO and EMCON stated that the report had been submitted but would send another copy. ARCO to send a copy. Mike said that further assessment, specifically north, northeast and east of the site, was necessary to completely delineate dissolved hydrocarbons. EMCON informed Mike that groundwater data from first and second quarter sampling events show concentrations have declined in wells located on the east and northeast portion of the site. EMCON asked if this subject could be addressed after Mike has received and reviewed the first and second quarter status reports. Mike said that once he has the reports he will discuss further assessment. Mike said that he has not been receiving quarterly status reports on a regular basis and expects these reports every three months, and never later than the sampling event of the following quarter. Mike also voiced concern regarding ARCO's groundwater sampling contractor; he has yet to meet a sampler on-site at the scheduled time and questions their sampling protocol. ARCO 2168,Stockton (Mike Infurna) Mike said that he recently received the PAR and has not had a chance to thoroughly review the report but had noticed that the highest concentrations of hydrocarbons and chlorinated compounds (1,2, Dichloropropane(DCPJ) were detected in soil and groundwater from the recently installed off-site and upgradient monitoring wells. ARCO reiterated that this data suggests that an off-site source exists, possibly the transmission shop located west of Lincoln Ave. Mike said that PHS/EHS does not have any recourse against the transmission shop unless there has been a documented release. Currently there is no USTs at the facility. Mike stated that the PAR did not include a discussion of remedial alternatives which is required by Title 23 as referenced above in discussion of ARCO SS No. 2130. ARCO told Mike that EMCON would prepare and submit and addendum to the PAR outlining remedial alternatives. Mike said that analysis of chlorinated organics is necessary for groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells which have previously detected DCP. Mike stated that the results of groundwater collected from the monitoring well installed down gradient of the Chevron station (installed by Texaco)were non detect, implying that Chevron does not have a problem. ARCO said that the location of the well was lateral of potential Chevron sources and may not have accurately characterized Chevron's impact to soil/groundwater. Mike, Linda Turkatte (County representative on Texaco site), and ARCO agreed to schedule a meeting to discuss the data collected from investigations performed at both the ARCO and Texaco site. Mike thought that ARCO and Texaco were coordinating sampling events and sharing data, but EMCON informed Mike that this was not occurring nor had it been requested by PHS/EHD.