Laserfiche WebLink
Geweke Land Development nd Marketing - 2 - 18 October 2010 <br /> 16 S. Cherokee Lane • <br /> Lodi, San Joaquin County <br /> Maximum soil borings results are reported in milligrams per kilo ram m /k in Table 2 below. <br /> Sample Date TPHg Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes 1,2-DCA <br /> September- 214.5 7.76 3,709 29.9 111 NA <br /> October 1985' <br /> July 1986 1,100 17 36 ND 97 NA <br /> April-October 4,329 85 205 108 209 NA <br /> 19933 <br /> March- 7,347 45 360 11U570 NA <br /> December 1995° <br /> June 19970 4,900 23 220 110 510 NA <br /> February 1999 5,900 6.8 120 49 690 NA <br /> 1: MW-1 through MW-4 2:MW-5 3:B-1 through 13-7, and VW-5 through VW-7 4:Pt through P19 5:P20 through P21 <br /> 6:P22 through P27 <br /> The 10 February 1987 Site Investigation Results report identified a Beacon station northwest <br /> of the Site as a possible source of all contamination at the Site, did not recommend corrective <br /> action for the soil and groundwater contamination discovered at the Site, and recommended <br /> continued groundwater monitoring and installation of additional monitoring wells. However, all <br /> work ceased onsite until 20 November 1989, when the Regional Water Quality Control <br /> (Regional) Board Executive Officer issued an enforcement order pursuant to California Water <br /> Code Section 13267, requiring resumption of quarterly groundwater monitoring and a work <br /> plan for a problem assessment report (PAR), due 30 January 1990. The submitted PAR <br /> workplan was rejected as incomplete, and on 5 March 1990, Regional Board Cleanup and <br /> Abatement Order (CAO) 90-702 were issued by the Regional Board Executive Officer. <br /> On 2 April 1990, GLDM appealed CAO 90-702 to the State Water Resources Control (State) <br /> Board, but included an amended PAR workplan with the appeal. The Regional Board <br /> Executive Officer accepted the amended PAR workplan in a letter dated 4 April 1990. The <br /> appeal of CAO 90-702 was held in abeyance for two years by a State Board letter dated <br /> 13 June 1990, pending completion of the work. <br /> The 31 July 1991 PAR recommended groundwater extraction as a feasible remediation <br /> technology; however the remediation was not implemented and groundwater monitoring <br /> continued at the Site. <br /> On 15 March 1993, CAO 90-702 was rescinded and CAO 93-701 was issued by the Regional <br /> Board Executive Officer. CAO 93-701 required quarterly monitoring, submittal of a workplan to <br /> complete delineation of the groundwater plume, submittal of a final remediation plan (FRP) <br /> and operation of the approved remediation system. <br /> Regional Board staff collected split groundwater samples from the monitoring wells on <br /> 1 April 1993 and 7 April 1993. In addition to the previously reported petroleum hydrocarbons, <br /> the Regional Board contract laboratory also reported 1, 2-DCA (see Table 1 above), <br /> 1,1,1'-trichlorethane, and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in groundwater. A 27 July 1993 Report of <br /> Waste Discharge (ROWD) was submitted to Regional Board staff for Waste Discharge <br /> Requirements (WDRs) for a permit to conduct bio-inoculation (injection) of soil by petroleum <br /> hydrocarbons degrading bacteria. The 30 July 1993 FRP recommended bacteria injections <br /> (inoculums) for an in-situ bio-remediation (Bio) of soil and groundwater. The Bio was initiated <br /> on 17 August 1994, when 1,200 gallons of inoculums were injected into selected wells at the <br />