SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

report states additional over-excavation was accomplished but does not disclose the locations. PHS/EHD discusses site with the RB. The RP will need to continue assessment and treatment of the soils in situ as further excavation is unfeasible. PHS/EHD relays this information to the consulting firm over the phone. 03-30-87 PHS/EHD visits site to observe soil sampling of the excavation. 06-24-88 PHS/EHD receives copy of a letter from the RB to RP on the lack of progress being made in defining and remediating the soil and groundwater contamination. The letter requests a PAR by 08-08-88 and failure to submit the PAR may result in formal enforcement action. PHS/EHD receives a copy of groundwater monitoring report dated 06-21-88. The groundwater at the site has receded to approximately 20' BGS. The results of the sampling from all three wells show TPH as gasoline and BTEX as nondetect at detection limits of 100 ppb, 0.5 ppb, 1.0 ppb, 2.0 ppb, and 1.0 ppb, respectively. The groundwater flow direction is towards the southwest. 07-07-88 PHS/EHD receives a copy of a letter from RB to RP with comments on the groundwater monitoring report that indicated the three on site MWs, sampled on 05-27-88, were nondetect and the groundwater flow direction was to the southwest. The letter from the RB requests that a downgradient MW be installed to the southwest, between MW#1 and MW#3, and between a municipal well located several hundred feet downgradient The soil and groundwater sampling results from the MW installation should be sent to PHS/EHD and the RB by 08-28-88. 10-09-90 PHS/EHD sends letter to RP again requesting the additional well downgradient of the former dispenser island. A WP for this purpose is requested by 11-20-90 and a report on the installation and sampling is requested by 01-01-90. 11-26-90 PHS/EHD receives a letter from the RP. The sampling of the wells on 10-24-90 show all three wells as nondetect Based on this data, the RP does not want to do further work and requests closure. The sampling report is enclosed and shows all three wells nondetect for TPH as gasoline and BTEX at detection limits of 50 ppb and 0.5 ppb, respectively. The groundwater has again receded and is currently between 25.3' BGS and 25.77' BGS at this site. The flow direction is still to the southwest. 01-25-91 PHS/EHD sends letter to RP in response to the 11-26-90 letter from RP. The letter denies the closure request and again asks for the downgradient well and for quarterly reports by 02- 18-90. 02-15-91 PHS/EHD receives a letter from the RP. Although they disagree with PHS/EHD's request, they will install the additional well provided PHS/EHD "close" the site if the well produces clean groundwater sample results. 03-08-91 PHS/EHD sends letter to RP stating that additional assessment and monitoring will be required at this site before a"closure"can be granted. 04-25-91 PHS/EHD sends letter to RP requesting a WP to define the extent of the groundwater contamination by 05-31-91, a PAR by 07-30-91 and the initiation of quarterly status reports. The failure to comply may result in formal enforcement action. 05-08-91 PHS/EHD receives a letter from a law firm representing the RP. The letter states that they are willing to install the additional well, and if the well tests"clean"for two rounds, they would like closure. The letter states that this is the most they will do and, if not satisfactory, then a judge will have to settle the matter. 05-22-91 PHS/EHD sends letter to RP requesting a meeting to discuss the investigative and reporting requirements for LUST sites. The meeting is set for 06-11-91. 06-11-91 Meeting is held at PHS/EHD with the RP and the RB attending. A WP to install an additional well is to be submitted by 07-31-91. Quarterly sampling of the wells is to be initiated. The PAR is to be submitted by 07-27-91. 2