Laserfiche WebLink
ARCO Meeting Minutes <br />' August 8, 1994 <br /> Page 2 i <br /> I <br /> Diane Hensen: <br /> Passed out a copy of the California UST reps revised Mat 5, 1994 (Title 23). <br /> Kyle Christie: <br /> He explains that ARCO has dedicated four soil vapor extraction remediation systems to San <br /> Joaquin County. These systems will be moved from ARCO site to ARCO site as the sites are <br /> remediated. The prioritization of the sites requiring remediation will be based on estimates of the <br /> amounts of product in the subsurface,distance to municipal wells, soil permeability,groundwater <br /> direction and magnitude. Kyle requested six weeks (September 12, 1994) to prepare the <br /> prioritization schedule to the County and the County agreed to this submittal date. <br /> ARCO 6020, Manteca (Mike Infuma) <br /> Mike stated that PHS/EHD was requiring only annual groundwater monitoring and reporting at <br /> this site due to the minimal impact to soil and low risk to groundwater. EMCON informed Mike <br /> that a groundwater sampling event was performed by ARCO's groundwater sampling contractor <br /> late July and the annual report wi l be submitted before PHS/EHD's September 15, 1994 <br /> deadline. <br /> When ARCO anticpates removing the existing USTs, a tank closure plan and workplan will be <br /> submitted to PHS/EHD as required. Mike said that hydrocarbons detected in the soil in the <br /> vicinity of the existing USTs, even though they were at very low concentrations, will need to be <br /> evaluated at the time the USTs are replaced. Mike stated that he views this site as a low priority. <br /> ARCO 2130, Stockton (Mike Infurna) <br /> Mike commented on the slow response in initiating remediation. ARCO stated that activities <br /> leading to remediation have been underway;subgrade piping and well heads have been installed, <br /> PAR and FRP were submitted, system design is completed, permits and ATC obtained, and <br /> contractor has been selected to perform the final installation. ARCO stated that installation <br /> activities are scheduled to begin this month (August). Mike needs to receive copies of all permits <br /> and ATC. <br /> :i <br /> Mike said that he recently received the PAR and FRP and that the PAR presented only air <br /> sparging as a remediation method. Mike said that Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16 of the <br /> California Code of Regulations,which became effective May 5, 1994, requires at least two <br /> remedial aftematives be discussed in the PAR. ARCO stated that EMCON will prepare and ' <br /> submit an addendum to the PAR that addresses a second remedial alternative. Mike also said <br /> that the FRP did not discuss the connecting of subgrade piping to the existing monitoring wells <br /> which he thought (based on a site visit) had been done. ARCO and EMCON said that all vapor t <br /> extraction wells were connected but did not think that the monitoring wells had been connected. <br /> EMCON will verify and inform Mike. <br /> Mike said that MW-5 had been asphalted over some months ago and therefore has not been <br /> sampled in two quarters. ARCO stated that they will have their construction department uncover <br /> the well. Mike also stated that some site plans submitted on behalf of ARCO had mislabeled <br /> boring numbers to the corresponding wells; boring numbers were not needed on site plans <br /> included in groundwater monitoring reports. C <br /> I <br /> i <br /> 5 <br />