SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

r �� CYNTHIA C ADKISSON Page 2 for a full year for confirmation of nondetection of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, (BTEX), and total petroleum hydrocarbons-gas (TPH-G). In September 1994, BVWSI submitted an application for waste discharge to the CVRWQCB. The CVRWQCB Waste Discharge Unit staff requested that the CVRWQCB UST Unit staff provide comments concerning the proposed remediation prior to completing the waste discharge evaluation. Six months lapsed before the CVRWQCB UST Unit staff prepared comments for the waste discharge permit application. These comments were included in the CVRWQCB correspondence dated 10 March 1995. Specifically, the CVRWQCB's concern in the Memorandum #2, page 2, "Subsurface Injection/Extraction System", states that based upon the most recent data reported in the 4th quarter 1994 report, hydraulic control may not be achieved successfully with the monitoring wells and/or injection/extraction wells proposed. While it is true that hydraulic control may not be readily achieved with the existing and proposed wells, at the time of PHS-EHD review of the RAP the current system would have been adequate. Additionally, the RAP stated that BVWSI would perform groundwater modeling to ensure hydraulic control of the plume. PHS-EHD does not agree that the RAP is incomplete. In correspondence dated December 27, 1994, PHS-EHD stated that following the appropriate public comment period and concurrence from the Waste Discharge Unit, the RAP could be implemented. The concerns that the CVRWQCB have relative to the bioremediation, with the exception of the hydraulic control issue, can easily be addressed during the quarterly reporting process and during the startup of the remediation. The reluctance of CVRWQCB staff to acknowledge that the RAP was acceptable to PHS-EHD and the lack of knowledge of the specifics of the chemical and physical properties of the reactions anticipated to occur during the remediation process has delayed the implementation of the treatment to the point that the contaminant plume has migrated beyond monitoring well #9. In accordance with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 23, Article 2, Section 2205 and Government Code (GC) 65943, the RWQCB must determine the adequacy of a Report of Waste Discharge (RWD) within 30 days of its submittal. Furthermore, GC 65956 and Section 13264 of the Water Code (Porter-Cologne) states that the discharge may be initiated in: 1) accordance with the RWD after issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), 2) the expiration of 120 days after submittal of the RWD, or 3) in the event that a lead agency or a responsible agency fails to act to approve or disapprove a development project within the time limits required by the article, such failure to act shall be deemed approval of the development project. The CVRWQCB did not respond as to the completeness of the RWD within the 30 day