Laserfiche WebLink
,Y Ms. Mea s <br /> ` ,December 31,-1991 <br /> This.-alternative-_could-effectively treat the site soils. Sufficient space to <br /> accommodate the ,soil-pile is available' at...the site; therefore, this. alternative <br /> } <br /> could also be implemented. <br /> (6) Treated' ground water could be discharged_to a river, canal, or. other surface <br /> water body. . Such a discharge would require a NPDES permit issued .by-the <br /> CVRWQCB. Discharge of' treated-`ground water for irrigation -purposes <br /> would require a State permit which. would also.be issued by the CVRWQCB. <br /> In either .case, the treated- ground":water would 'have to meet the waste <br /> discharge _requirements as specified in the applicable permit. <br /> The application' procedure for.-either permit requires the .submittal of a <br /> "Report of Waste Discharge" form and a technical report _(certified by a P.E. <br /> or R.G.) describing the site conditions',° geology, etc. The filing fee for either <br /> permit is in the range from. $200-$600 which-'would then become an.annual <br /> fee. <br /> The time frame required to-obtain-a permit varies. For a non-NPDES permit, <br /> the CVRWQCB legally:has a 30-day review period. If 120 days passes after <br /> the end of the 30-day period, then ground water can be discharged without a <br /> permit. If the CVRWQCB :asks for additional information for the application, <br /> then the 30-day review period starts over. For a NPDES°permit, the 30-day <br /> review period still applies; 'however, 180 days must expire: after. the 30-day <br /> comment period and: then discharge of ground water without a permit can <br /> still not take .place,. .-Currently the CVRWQCB is prioritizing NPDES permit <br /> applications.- <br /> (7) <br /> pplications.(7) ERM-West believes that the status of the ground water with respect to fecal <br /> coliform is a separate issuefrom this;_UST investigation. <br /> -According to Mr. Ed Formosa (209-944-8718),-SEriior 'Nater and Collection <br /> Systems Supervisor, at the City bf-Stockton Municipal.Utilities Department <br /> (CSMUD), leaks or .breaks along city-owned sewer lines.are the oresponsibility <br /> of the CSMUD. Private lines are the responsibility of-the private property_ - <br /> owner. Mr. Formosa indicated that a CSMUD-30-inch force main sewer line <br /> is situated approximately 70 feet to the west of MW1 at 1515 West Weber <br /> Avenue. On December 23, 1991, the CSMUD obtained-a groundwater sample <br /> at their own expense from MW1 to assess fecal..colifbrm contamination and <br /> --ihepossi_li Iffy 6f a sewer line leak: The resin-ts oI'their anal"ysis vvili-be - " ` `"` <br /> forthcoming shortly. <br /> ERM-West believes that quarterly analysis of fecal coliform in ground water <br /> from MW1:is not necessary because (1) there is.no connection between fecal <br /> coliform.levels and.a leaking underground fuel iank investigation; (2) the <br /> sewer line of concern is reportedly 70 feet from MW1; and (3) leaks from this <br /> sewer line, if present, are the responsibility of the CSMUD. <br /> It should be noted that elevated fecal coliform counts may be attributable to <br /> factors other-than broken or leaking sewer lines. Itis impossible to maintain <br /> complete sterilization of drilling, monitoring well, and sampling-equipment. <br />