Laserfiche WebLink
fi ARCO Meeting Minutes <br /> August 8, 1994 <br /> Page 3 <br /> Mike questioned as to ARCO's plans for remediating hydrocarbons that are present off-site. <br /> ARCO stated that the intent of air sparging is to provide an increase in dissolved oxygen to <br /> enhance biological activity in off-site material. ARCO supported this theory by discussing a case <br /> study which had positive results of remediating off-site material while performing air sparging on- <br /> site. <br /> Mike said that he had not received the first quarter status report. ARCO and EMCON stated that <br /> the report had been submitted but would send another copy. ARCO to send a copy. <br /> Mike said that further assessment, specifically north, northeast and east of the site, was <br /> necessary to completely delineate dissolved hydrocarbons. EMCON informed Mike that <br /> groundwater data from first and second quarter sampling events show concentrations have <br /> declined in wells located on the east and northeast portion of the site. EMCON asked if this <br /> subject could be addressed after Mike has received and reviewed the first and second quarter <br /> status reports. Mike said that once he has the reports he will discuss further assessment. <br /> Mike said that he has not been receiving quarterly status reports on a regular basis and expects <br /> these reports every three months, and never later than the sampling event of the following <br /> quarter. Mike also voiced concern regarding ARCO's groundwater sampling contractor; he has <br /> yet to meet a sampler on-site at the scheduled time and questions their sampling protocol. <br /> ARCO 21+68,Stockton (Mike Infurna) <br /> Mike said that he recently received the PAR and has not had a chance to thoroughly review the <br /> report but had noticed that the highest concentrations of hydrocarbons and chlorinated <br /> compounds(1,2, Dichloropropane[DCPD were detected in soil and groundwater from the <br /> recently installed off-site and upgradient monitoring wells. ARCO reiterated that this data <br /> suggests that an off-site source exists, possibly the transmission shop located west of Lincoln <br /> Ave. Mike said that PHS/EHS does not have any recourse against the transmission shop unless <br /> there has been a documented release., Currently there is no LSTs at the facility. <br /> Mike stated that the PAR did not include a discussion of remedial alternatives which is required <br /> by Title 23 as referenced above in discussion of ARCO SS No. 2130. ARCO told Mike that <br /> EMCON would prepare and submit and addendum to the PAR outlining remedial alternatives. <br /> Mike said that analysis of chlorinated organics is necessary for groundwater samples collected <br /> from monitoring wells which have previously detected DCP. <br /> i' <br /> Mike stated that the results of groundwater collected from the monitoring well installed down <br /> gradient of the Chevron station (installed by Texaco)were non detect, implying that Chevron <br /> does not have a problem. ARCO said that the location of the well was lateral of potential <br /> Chevron sources and may not have accurately characterized Chevron's impact to <br /> soil/groundwater. <br /> Mike, Linda Turkatte (County representative on Texaco site), and ARCO agreed to schedule a <br /> meeting to discuss the data collected from investigations performed at both the ARCO and <br /> Texaco site. Mike thought that ARCO and Texaco were coordinating sampling events and <br /> sharing data, but EMCON informed Mike that this was not occurring nor had it been requested by <br /> PHS/EHD. <br /> i <br /> r <br />