ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0002728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Phase II Remedial In f,esti-gation Results Addendum. ' Site Code #2514 Summary of Meeting of December 17 19 .i ' On December 17, 1991, a meeting with San Joaquin County Environmental Healih Department was held. Those present were Eugene Tiscornia, the site owner; Marie ` Silvera, legal Counsel for the site owner, and Steve Furnas, of WHF Environmental rConsultants, Inc. ' Numerous items of discussion were addressed at this meeting; the primary questions posed by Mr. Tiscornia to the Health Department was 'what will. it take to obtain site closure'. The response was that the County needed some additional maps showing soil ' contamination, another round of well sampling showing "NDs" in the water, evidence that MW #3 does, in fact, produce water, and a restatement of conclusions regarding Well #1, along with a new statement as to why we believe the site is clean. In addition, the previously excavated spoils pile was to be resampled and the waste oil line, under the building, was to be investigated and sampled. PI All of these questions, as well as the questions posed in the letter of Decen.Mber, 1991, from the County Health Department will be addressed, in detail, either in the J!Urative ' section, or in the Figures section as was requested. Narrative Response Additional maps were requested to better illustrate both the original exploratory trench ' that had .contamination, and the re-excavation of the trenched arca. A zero line map showing contamination was also requested in the letter.. The re-excavation map and sec- tion are shown in Figure 4. In that same regard, the question was raised as to why the spoils pile contained only 82 yards, given the size of the trenching and re-excavation activities. The answer is that ' most of the soil removed was overburdened and not contaminated. The contamination was in the form of a pod-like plume that began two feet (2') below the surface. Near ' the surface, the pod was approximately two feet (2') thick and four feet (4') wide. As the pod plunged to the north, the pod narrowed in both thickness and in width. It was two feet (2') in diameter at the bottom. The re-excavation was approximately 20'x2O' at the surface, and 6'x6' at the bottom. The reason this was re-excavated in this fashion was twofold; first, we did not know it would continue in a vein as it did and, secondly, was to prevent a cave-in. 1� r