Laserfiche WebLink
' Californi0egTonal Water Quality Co -ol Board . ...; -. <br /> r Central Valley g Re ion <br /> Iry <br /> Karl L. Longley,SCD, P.E.,Chair ' <br /> Linda S. Adams - <br /> Secreion,jo Sacramento Main Office Arnold <br /> fnrirarotenrul 1 1020.')un(VIIIVI I)rnc e200. Ktuicho Cordo%.i.L aIllUflll❑ 9 670-6114 Schwarzenegger <br /> Prorecrlon I'honc(916)464-3291 •I'AX(916)464-4b4i Gorel17or <br /> hltr,'�N%Nx\ vcaterboardsca_guv/ccmrilxill IV� <br /> 23 January 2008 <br /> Mr. Donald Rodgers `SAN ` 4 2008 <br /> 11900 South Union Rd. ENVIR0)NMENT HEALTH <br /> Manteca, CA 95336 PE`'' I: 'SERVICES <br /> DOCUMENT REVIEW, THE TRANSMISSION STORE, 515 WEST CHARTER WAY, STOCKTON, <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY (REGIONAL BOARD CASE # 390891) <br /> 1 reviewed the Supplemental Information (Report), received on 17 January 2008 as attachments by <br /> email from Shaw Environmental Inc. (Shaw) for your site. The Report was submitted in response to my <br /> 27 December 2007 letter (Letter), and addresses Letter items numbers 1, 2 and 5 below. <br /> Letter items: <br /> 1. The FS (feasibility study) needs to include current cost estimates for each alternative, in order <br /> to provide a more focused cost comparison and to fully evaluate cost effectiveness. Please <br /> provide the four cost estimates in a letter response by 18 January 2008. You may email this <br /> information to me. <br /> 2. The Workplan should include one additional deep zone (75 to 85 feet bgs) monitoring well <br /> (one deep well is currently installed as MW-4D and one is proposed as MW-11 D), to provide <br /> the minimum three points necessary to determine groundwater flow direction and gradient in <br /> that zone. I suggest that the third deep well be located nearer MW-101, to allow adequate <br /> separation. Provide a revised Figure 9 showing the proposed location of the additional deep <br /> well by 18 January 2008. You may email this figure to me. <br /> 3. A report of the investigation, due by 30 April 2008, should also include a recommendation for <br /> any additional investigation (if necessary), and a schedule for corrective action. <br /> 4. 1 concur conditionally with Shaw's selection of BIO to remediate groundwater (pending receipt <br /> of the above cost estimates). A pilot study for oxygen injection is necessary to determine <br /> whether this alternative is effective. Once I have reviewed the cost estimates and notified you <br /> that BIO has received final concurrence, submit a pilot study workplan by 21 March 2008. <br /> 5 The Workplan includes Figures 3 and 4, which present isoconcentration contour maps of <br /> benzene in the shallow and deep zones from results of quarterly monitoring in September 2007. <br /> As of this date, the Regional Board has not received paper copies of the quarterly report, nor <br /> have the quarterly report or these two reviewed documents been submitted to GeoTracker. <br /> Submittal of all documents to this agency is a requirement for your case, as stated my <br /> 6 June 2007 letter. We require a paper copy, while the San Joaquin County Environmental <br /> Health Department (SJCEHD) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) require <br /> electronic submittals to GeoTracker. Submit the documents in paper to me and electronically to <br /> GeoTracker by 18 January 2008. <br /> 6. There are two boxes of SWRCB Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Cleanup Fund (CUF) <br /> invoices in my possession, which you mailed to us without an explanation or instructions. <br /> Please contact me as soon as possible to discuss them, as we only keep copies of public <br /> records (letters and documents) in the public file. If you need assistance from the SWRCB <br /> UST CUF with your invoices, we can provide contacts for a meeting with them. If they require <br /> our assistance, we can attend that meeting. <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> ,Z J Xeer(led Paper <br />