Laserfiche WebLink
Californi#egional Water Quality Coa-ol Board <br /> Central Valley Region � � <br /> Karl E. Longlev,ScD, P.E.,Chair <br /> Linda S.Adams <br /> Secretaryjot <br /> Sacramento Main Office Arnold <br /> Environmental 11020 Sun Cerner Drive 4200,Rancho Cordova.California 95670-6114 Schwarzenegger <br /> Protection Phone(916)464-3291 •FAX(916)464-4645 Governor <br /> hup//%vwNv„atcrboards ca.gov/centralvalley RECENED <br /> 27 December 2007 <br /> DEIN 2 8 2007 <br /> Mr. Donald Rodgers ENVIRCNMENT HEALTH <br /> 11900 South Union Rd. PERMIT/SERVICES <br /> Manteca, CA 95336 <br /> DOCUMENT REVIEWS, THE TRANSMISSION STORE, 515 WEST CHARTER WAY, STOCKTON, <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY (REGIONAL BOARD CASE # 390891) <br /> 1 reviewed the Feasibility Study For Onsite Petroleum Hydrocarbon Remediation (FS), received <br /> 21 November 2007 and the Work Plan For Further Delineation Of Groundwater Petroleum <br /> Hydrocarbon Plume (Workplan), received 19 November 2007 from Shaw Environmental Inc. (Shaw) for <br /> your site. The documents were submitted in response to my letter of 6 June 2007, which announced <br /> the change of lead agency and requested the following: <br /> 1. Submit a workplan for an additional investigation to delineate the vertical extent of the <br /> petroleum hydrocarbon release to soil and groundwater by 20 July 2007. A report of the <br /> investigation, due 20 September 2007, shall provide conclusions and recommendations for <br /> additional investigation or remediation, if warranted. <br /> 2. By 20 July 2007, submit a feasibility study for remediation of groundwater. <br /> 3. Conduct routine quarterly monitoring of all monitoring wells, except MW-2R and MW-3R, which <br /> will continue to be monitored annually. <br /> 4. Submit all documents (workplans and reports) and data in electronic format to Geotracker, as <br /> required by the State Water Resources Control Board. <br /> In a meeting with you on 11 July 2007, Regional Board staff agreed to allow an extension for the above <br /> dates so that you could contract with your consultant. <br /> The FS compares four remedial alternatives for treatment of groundwater. <br /> • Groundwater pump and treatment (GWP&T), <br /> • Air sparging with soil vapor extraction (AS/SVE), <br /> • Biosparging (BIO) with oxygen and nutrients (optional) injection <br /> • In-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) with ozone injection <br /> Based on technical effectiveness, implementability (ease of), and cost (Enclosed Table 5-1), each <br /> alternative received an overall ranking. The BIO received the highest ranking, followed by ISCO, <br /> AS/SVE, and GWP&T. All alternatives were listed as "limited" for effectiveness in silts and clays. <br /> The Workplan proposes the installation of one shallow zone (screened 35 to 45 feet below ground <br /> surface or bgs), three intermediate zone (screened 55 to 65 feet bgs), and one deep zone (screened <br /> 75 to 85 feet bgs) monitoring wells (Enclosed Figure 9) to complete the groundwater investigation. <br /> California Environmental Protection Agencjt <br /> �a Rec7'cled Pupe>r <br />