SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD— CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 3443 ROUTIER ROAD SACRAMENTO,CA 95827-3098 20 November 1989 NAV 2 2 184 Mr. Jeff Warner PER �j��' " Geweke Ford 1045 South Cherokee Lane Lodi , CA 95240 GEWEKE FORD (GEWEKE) , 16 SOUTH CHEROKEE LANE, LODI - GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION We have reviewed the 10 February 1987 investigation report for this site prepared by Brown and Caldwell Engineers. The investigation included one additional round of water level measurements, and a review of other sites in the area. During a recent telephone conversation Board staff notified you that the 1987 report did not provide adequate assessment of the site, and that additional investigation and remediation would be necessary. You indicated that you did not believe Geweke was responsible for the contamination, and that Geweke would not voluntarily conduct any additional investigation. Beginning in 1985, when ground water contamination was identified at the Geweke property, Regional Board staff has attempted to work with Geweke to resolve this matter. However, during a site meeting in 1986, attended by Board staff and Geweke representatives, Geweke indicated that no further work would be done on the site. According to the 10 February 1987 report, other sites in the area have actual or potential ground water contamination, and previous investigations on this site detected high levels of ground water contamination near the former tanks and pump island on the west boundary of your property, but relatively low levels of hydrocarbon contamination in soil . Based on these findings, Geweke's consultant concluded that the ground water contamination beneath the Geweke property is part of a widespread regional problem, and may have originated from an off-site source. Therefore, Geweke's consultant recommended that no remedial action be initiated by Geweke, and that no further effort be made on Geweke's part to identify the extent of the contamination. The available information does not fully support these conclusions. Although no obvious evidence of soil contamination was noted when the tanks were removed, high levels of hydrocarbon contaminants were detected in deeper soil samples and in the ground water monitoring wells located near the former tanks and dispenser island. Subjective field observations and failure to detect high levels of contamination in the shallow soil samples are not sufficient evidence that the ground water contamination beneath your site originated solely from an off-site source. No soil samples were taken either beneath the tanks or the piping which connected the storage tank to the dispenser island.