SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

June 30, 1995 `'' •.� Page 8 6. The chlorinated plume has been documented from other sources at the Lincob7 Center. No comment. 2.5 Remediation 1. Tank removal and replacement is not a remedial action. Post reme- dial monitoring is not a valid approach for the site. Although removal of the former USTs in itself is not a remedial action, removal of the hydrocarbon-affected pea gravel surrounding the -former tank complex is a remedial action. Further, given the low degree of hydrocarbon impact beneath the site and the likelihood that hydrocarbon impact may have originated from product delivery opera- tions, it is possible that these soils were the primary source of hydro- carbon impact. 2. Residual soil contamination continues to threaten andlor impact groundwater quality and requires remediation via implementation of an approved corrective action plan. Data collected to date does not indicate that significant hydrocarbons exist in vadose zone soil beneath the site, as previously discussed. An additional three soil borings in the area of the former product piping are proposed to further support this conclusion. A corrective action to address remediation of vadose soils at this time is not warranted. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND SAFETY GOALS 1. The list of beneficial uses in the CAP were incomplete. The list of beneficial uses, while incomplete, included the relevant uses and the most stringent uses from a water quality goal perspective. 2. The 1986 LUST manual includes detection limits for benzene and toluene that are less than the concentrations listed in the CAP. The detection limits listed in the CAP were denoted as reasonable detection limits. These detection limits are practical quantitation limits determined to be an industry standard by state certified laboratories. 32013570CAPLET.DOC.doc