SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

are a considerable distance from the former excavation and if used to estimate the size of the plume may indicate a larger plume than actually exists. MW-6 is well within the plume. A monitoring well should be installed north of MW-6 to establish the lateral extent of the plume in that area. I The former tank location was over excavated on-5st 20, 1993. Results of confirmation sampling of soil from the bottom and sidewalls of the over excavation indicate the presence of a small amount of contamination remaining. This residual soil contamination requires additional remediation. The excavation has been backfilled with the soil stockpile. The results of laboratory analyses indicate that there was no detectable contamination in the soil stockpile prior to using it for backfill. To remain in compliance with CCR Article 11 you should submit a workplan to PHS/EHD to address the investigation of contaminated groundwater north of MW-6 and downgradient of the former UST location, and remediation of the remaining soil contamination in the overexcavated area. The workplan shall be submitted by March 15, 1995. There is no letter of commitment from the State Water Resources Control Board in your file. If your tanks were in compliance when they were removed you may be eligible for reimbursement for cleanup costs associated with the cleanup of the release from your underground storage tank. PHS/EHD issued a letter to you explaining the reimbursement fund on May 5, 1993. If you have any questions regarding completion of your application to the state fund or any aspect of the investigation please call Steven Sasson (209) 468-3459 for assistance. Donna Heran, REHS, Director Environmental Health Division 4 Steven Sasson, Senior REHS Diane M. Hinson, REHS Site Mitigation Unit Supervisor SS cc: Elizabeth Thayer- RWQCB 1 cc: Barbara Anderson- SWRCB cc: Dayne Frare- W.W. Irwin, Inc. i