ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0009452 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Steven Schneider Page Three ` January 3, 1991 In contrast, vacuum extraction after the pit has been backfilled has the advantage of avoiding safety risks associated with extensive excavation and other problems accompanying on-site treatment such as air quality impacts. We also estimated the cost of vacuum extraction to be substantively less than excavation and on-site bioremediation. Because groundwater contamination is evident, we expect that the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be involved in the project. Please advise us concerning whether San Joaquin County, the Regional Water Quality Control Board or another governmental agency, will be acting as the lead agency for this project. We would like to open a dialogue with the lead agency as soon as possible to further discuss cleanup standards and remediation methods. As an initial matter we believe that excavation and treatment is not a feasible alternative and thus would like to rule it out as an alternative. If further excavation can be ruled out, Manna Pro would like the lead agency to consider as a preliminary matter an authorization to backfill the pit. Concerns that subsequent rainfall may exacerbate existing safety, engineering, and environmental problems have made the backfilling of the pit an important issue for everyone. For your convenience we have enclosed an additional copy of the report. Please forward it to the appropriate person at the Regional Water Quality Control Board or call us if you would like us to send them another copy of the report directly. We are in the process of preparing a remediation plan for on-site remediation of the hydrocarbon contaminated soil, extraction and treatment of groundwater, and on-site bioremediation of stockpiled soils will send them to you as soon as they are finished. We expect the work plan to be completed during February, 1991.