SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE FILE 1

Home Browse Search

ARCO Meeting Minutes August 8, 1994 Page 2 i ' Diane Hensen : Passed out a copy of the California UST regs revised Mat 5, 1994 (Title 23) . Kyle Christie: He explains that ARCO has dedicated four soil vapor extraction remediation systems to San Joaquin County. These systems will be moved from ARCO site to ARCO site as the sites are remediated. The prioritization of the sites requiring remediation will be based on estimates of the amounts of product in the subsurface, distance to municipal wells, soil permeability, groundwater direction and magnitude. Kyle requested six weeks (September 12, 1994) to prepare the prioritization schedule to the County and the County agreed to this submittal date. ARCO 6020, Manteca (Mike Infurna) Mike stated that PHS/EHD was requiring only annual groundwater monitoring and reporting at this site due to the minimal impact to soil and low risk to groundwater. EMCON informed Mike that a groundwater sampling event was performed by ARCO's groundwater sampling contractor late July and the annual report will be submitted before PHS/EHD's September 15, 1994 deadline. When ARCO anticpates removing the existing UST's, a tank closure plan and workplan will be submitted to PHS/EHD as required. Mike said that hydrocarbons detected in the soil in the vicinity of the existing USTs, even though they were at very low concentrations, will need to be evaluated at the time the USTs are replaced. Mike stated that he views this site as a low priority. ARCO 2130, Stockton (Mike Infurna) Mike commented on the slow response in initiating remediation. ARCO stated that activities leading to remediation have been underway; subgrade piping and well heads have been installed , PAR and FRP were submitted, system design is completed , permits and ATC obtained , and contractor has been selected to perform the final installation. ARCO stated that installation activities are scheduled to begin this month (August). Mike needs to receive copies of all permits and ATC. Mike said that he recently received the PAR and FRP and that the PAR presented only air sparging as a remediation method. Mike said that Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16 of the California Code of Regulations, which became effective May 5, 1994, requires at least two remedial alternatives be discussed in the PAR. ARCO stated that EMCON will prepare and submit an addendum to the PAR that addresses a second remedial alternative. Mike also said that the FRP did not discuss the connecting of subgrade piping to the existing monitoring wells which he thought (based on a site visit) had been done. ARCO and EMCON said that all vapor extraction wells were connected but did not think that the monitoring wells had been connected. EMCON will verify and inform Mike. Mike said that MW-5 had been aspha@ed over some months ago and therefore has not been sampled in two quarters. ARCO stated that they will have their construction department uncover the well. Mike also stated that some site plans submitted on behalf of ARCO had mislabeled boring numbers to the corresponding wells ; boring numbers were not needed on site plans included in groundwater monitoring reports.