Laserfiche WebLink
Agenda <br /> CVRWQCB & San Joaquin County EHD <br /> January 9, 2003 10:OOam <br /> 10365 Old Placerville Road, Suite 210, Sacramento, CA. <br /> Anticipated Attendees: <br /> Cori Condon — CVRWQCB Nuel Hendersen — SJCEHD <br /> Jim Barton — CVRWQCB Mike Infurna — SJCEHD <br /> Agenda: "Pacific Car Wash" 4405 Pacific Ave, Stockton. <br /> I. Purpose: <br /> a: working session to discuss 'a less than fully characterized' LOP <br /> site entering interim remedial action now, <br /> b: obtain CVRWQCB support for multiple interim remedial actions <br /> and, <br /> c: secure CUF 'pre-approval' for multiple interim remedial actions. <br /> II. Site Status: <br /> a: highly contaminated groundwater site (100,000 µg/, TPHg) with <br /> plume migration offsite under large city street not accessible to <br /> remediation and, <br /> b: the deeper, second 'hydrological unit' has an increasing impact <br /> offsite and, <br /> c: currently,site is not a high-priority MtBE site (only 37 µg/I onsite <br /> shallow, 240 µg/I onsite deep). But immediate, offsite shallow <br /> groundwater has 1,500 µg/l, and distant offsite shallow groundwater <br /> has 470 µg/l. Distant offsite deep monitoring well is at 66 µg/ and, <br /> d: site serviced by municipal water supply and no receptors truly <br /> endangered and, <br /> e: onsite sail mass delineated but, <br /> f: vertical extent of impacted groundwater is not: quarterly data <br /> indicates plume is migrating with increasing concentrations offsite. <br /> II. Concerns to be discussed: <br /> a: does mass of onsite, fuel impacted soil need interim remedial <br /> action? Is soil vapor extraction in combination with in-situ air <br /> sparging approvable for interim action now for source reduction? <br /> b: consulting prepared to conduct groundwater extraction for migration <br /> control as an interim, but not readily open to multiple interim <br /> remedial actions due to cost concern. Are multiple interim remedial <br /> actions indicated? <br /> c: is there al justifiable need for onsite groundwater 'in-situ' interim <br /> remediation also (ozone?), for lessening offsite impact? <br /> d: priortization of site characterization field work versus interim <br /> remediation and problem with RPs cash flow, <br /> e: are MtBE groundwater concentrations priority? H R <br /> D <br /> PI <br />