Laserfiche WebLink
s <br /> WILLIAM P SCHULER <br /> Page 2 <br /> Under witness and permit by PHS-EHD, 2 vapor extraction wells (B-2 & B-3) and 1 <br /> borehole drilled to 45 feet below grade (fbg) with a 30 foot conductor casing (B-1) <br /> were installed 17 December 1992. The vapor well B-2 was screened from 65 fbg to <br /> 30 fbg; vapor well B-3 was screened from 70 fbg to 35 fbg. <br /> Six months later, on 15 June 1993, a monitoring well was completed within B-1, with <br /> the screened interval from 90 fbg to 65 fbg. The monitoring well (MW1) was <br /> developed 6 July 1993 and sampled 7 July 1993. <br /> The "Phase I Remedial Report" as prepared by WHF was submitted to PHS-EHD 19 <br /> August 1993. PHS-EHD staff began review of the document 26 August 1993. <br /> Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected from MW1: Benzene, 1.0 ppb and <br /> Ethylbenzene, 1.9 ppb. Benzene was detected at the California Department of Health <br /> Services, Primary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) which is 1 ppb. <br /> On 20 July 1994, Mr. Michael Infurna, PHS-EHD representative, telephoned and <br /> spoke to Ms. Fran Jarvis regarding the lack of quarterly monitoring to date, and <br /> requested that the monitoring be initiated commencing with the third quarter 1994. <br /> On 29 July 1994 and 11 August 1994, your office wrote letters asking for clarification <br /> of Mr. Infurna's verbal directive. <br /> Mr. Infurna spoke to Ms. Jarvis on 15 August 1994 and prepared a comment letter <br /> dated 22 August 1994 which provided the requested written explanation of the verbal <br /> directive. <br /> Based upon the information gathered during the preliminary site investigation, <br /> significant soil contamination remains within the saturated zone of seasonal high <br /> groundwater elevations. You have received directives from this department to <br /> conduct quarterly monitoring of the single monitoring well, and to present for our <br /> review a workplan to adequately define the extent of the soil contamination, verify the <br /> quality of the groundwater, and, based upon the site characterization, present at least <br /> 2 alternatives for remediation. This information was provided to you in the <br /> documents entitled "Tri-Regional Staff Recommendations for Preliminary Evaluation <br /> and Investigation of Underground Tank Sites" and "Appendix A to Tri-Regional <br /> Recommendations". These guidance documents are to assist in the preparation of <br /> workplans and reports. <br /> All work and reports which require geologic or engineering evaluations and/or <br /> judgements must be performed under the direction of an appropriately registered or <br />