Laserfiche WebLink
' 4 A <br /> Working To Restore Nature <br /> San Joaquin/ARCO Meeting Minutes, March 30, 1993 <br /> II. ASSESSMENT, REMEDIATION, CLOSURE <br /> A. Current Guidelines <br /> 1. Leaching Potential Analysis (used by SJC): Dianne Hinson briefly <br /> described the approach used by SJC, and indicated the county uses <br /> groundwater elevations from 1983 and 1986 as "historic highs"; she <br /> indicated that other factors (site history, results of tank tests, soil type, <br /> location, etc.) are also taken into account; ARCO and RESNA <br /> requested documentation of their methods, and Dianne agreed to <br /> provide it; Dianne also indicated that the RP's can request review by <br /> the CRWQCB, if desired; <br /> B. Future Guidelines <br /> 1. LUFT Manual: a general discussion took place regarding the ongoing <br /> revision to .the LUFT Manual; Beth indicated that the Tri-Regional <br /> Rec's take precedence over the LUFI'Manual; SJC indicated that time <br /> constraints have prohibited production of a guidance document by the <br /> county, but they have considered it; Beth indicated that the pending <br /> closures of the military bases will have some impact to the state and <br /> local LUFT regulations, especially cleanups, due to the different <br /> approaches of the federal (EPA) and other state agencies (DTSC, <br /> Waste Mngt.Board, etc); Region 2's"alternative points of compliance" <br /> concept was discussed, but Region 5 and SJC were not aware of the <br /> concept and have no plans to implement at this time; <br /> C. Assessment <br /> 1. "Zero-Line" definition: SJC and the CRWQCB indicated that they <br /> consider this a site-specific evaluation; they will consider quality of <br /> data and physical constraints on data gathering on that basis; they <br /> indicated that the subjective nature of this evaluation is problematic; <br /> D. Remediation <br /> 1. Site Prioritization: prioritization was briefly discussed; a preliminary <br /> matrix of site priority was presented by ARCO; SJC was in general <br /> agreement to the concept, but deferred discussion of prioritization <br /> criteria; <br /> 2. Risk Assessments/Fate and Transport Studies: The CRWQCB and <br /> SJC indicted that they have not received RA/FT studies in support of <br /> site closures;both agencies indicated that the studies must be based on <br /> water quality, human health risks are not a valid basis for the studies, <br /> in their opinion; <br /> 2 <br />