Laserfiche WebLink
DAMES & MOORE aPROR, . <br /> San Joaquifi County <br /> Page 2 <br /> Based on the data collected during the three site <br /> investigations, we believe the lateral and vertical extent of soil <br /> contamination has been adequately described. A total of 54 soil <br /> borings have been drilled in the vicinity of the maintenance shop, <br /> on of <br /> and 188 soil samples chemically analyzed. The distrib ti <br /> resented <br /> diesel fuel present in the soils was describedcion Plan <br /> graphically in our July 1988 Feasibility Study/Remedial A <br /> report. In addition, we believe that groundwater underlying the <br /> site has not been adversely impacted by the presence of the <br /> residual diesel fuel in the overlying soils. <br /> With respect to conformance with the Central Valley Regional <br /> Board Reporting Requirements, dated July 11 1988 (revised April 3 , <br /> 1989) , we consider the July 1988 report entitled Feasibility <br /> Study/Remedial Action Plan the equivalent of what is98r8er ed o <br /> in the July 1, reporting <br /> as a Soil Remediation Proposal (SRP) in our July 1988 report <br /> requirements. Our SRP as presented <br /> consists of the following activities: <br /> o Demolition of existing maintenance shop; <br /> o Excavation of soils containing greater than 10, 000 ppm <br /> TPH as diesel fuel ; <br /> o On-site treatment of excavated soils using enhanced bio- <br /> degradation technology. <br /> The cleanup level proposed in our SRP was developed by <br /> assessing public health and environmental risks posed by existing <br /> site conditions. The risk assessment phase of our investigation <br /> did not utilize the soil leaching risk models presented compounds were <br /> LUFT <br /> Manual because benzene, toluene, and xylenes (BTX) <br /> not detected in soil samples collected from the site. Based on the <br /> nature of the leaked fuel product and the presence of naphthalene <br /> in soil samples collected from the site, naphthalene was selected <br /> as the indicator compound. <br /> Since your agency has been working on this fuel leak casei <br /> acase for <br /> tour <br /> for <br /> some time and have familiarity with he e, However, we <br /> AFPC would like to continue working with y agency. <br /> are confused about the steps necessary to resolve the remaining <br /> issues at the site. Our client is anxious to do whatever <br /> process. <br /> appropriate to expedite the review and approval <br /> Accordingly, we respectively request a meeting with your agency to <br /> discuss the issues related to the site. <br />