Laserfiche WebLink
.``' California Regional Water Quality Control Board <br /> `/ Central Valley Region0-01-111 Robert Schneider,Chair <br /> Winston H.Hickox Gray Davis <br /> Secretaryfor Sacramento Main Office Governor <br /> Environmental Internet Address: http://www,swrcb.ca.gov/mgcb5 <br /> Protection 3443 Routier Road,Suite A,Sacramento,California 95827-3003 <br /> Phone(916)255-3000•FAX(916)255-3015 <br /> 30 April 2001 <br /> Mr. Andrew Smith <br /> Herman &Helen's Marina <br /> 15135 Eight Mile Road <br /> Stockton CA 95219 <br /> REVIEW OF REQUEST TO ABANDON MONITORING WELL MW-1, HERMAN & HELEN'S <br /> MARINA, VENICE ISLAND FERRY, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> We have reviewed the 23 April 2001 letter requesting to destroy monitoring well MW-1 based on <br /> historical groundwater analytical and flow direction data submitted by Condor Earth Technologies, Inc. <br /> (Condor) on behalf of Herman& Helen's Marina at the Venice Island Ferry in Stockton (site). The site <br /> was originally under the oversight of the Board's Underground Storage Tank(UST) Unit and San <br /> Joaquin County Environmental Health Division. These agencies determined that the main source of <br /> contamination was associated with the aboveground tanks, and on 2 April 2001 issued a no further <br /> action required letter for the UST portion of the site. The site was then referred to the Board's Cleanup <br /> Section for further oversight of the petroleum contamination at the site. <br /> Herman and Helen's Marina has requested that monitoring well MW-1 be abandoned under the UST <br /> cost reimbursement program. Condor has provided information to illustrate that the groundwater flow <br /> has been to the southeast away from MW-1 since December 1997. In addition, analytical data show that <br /> MW-1 has been non-detect for petroleum constituents, except for methyl tertiary butyl ether(MTBE) at <br /> 1.3 micrograms per liter(µg/1) and 1.0 µg/l reported in December 1998 and March 2001, respectively. <br /> To determine whether monitoring well MW-1 can be abandoned, we need to determine the following: <br /> 1. Would the installation of monitoring well MW-1 have been required based on the concentrations <br /> from investigative work done at the site? <br /> 2. Is the groundwater flow direction consistent? <br /> 3. Is there a control point to delineate the plume if monitoring well MW-1 is abandoned? <br /> The 26 September 1995 Soil and Groundwater Investigation Report submitted by Condor lists results <br /> for hydropunch locations HP and HP2, both approximately 35 feet from monitoring well MW-1. <br /> Hydropunch sample HPI exceeded water quality goals for benzene, total petroleum hydrocarbons as <br /> gasoline (TPHg) and TPH as diesel (TPHd). Hydropunch sample HP2 exceeded water quality goals for <br /> TPHd. Based on these results, monitoring well MW-1 would have been required to delineate the plume. <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> 0a Recycled Paper <br /> The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. <br /> For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs,see our Web-site at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/mgcb5 <br />