Laserfiche WebLink
Sent,,8y: RtNOCS SACRAMENTO, 916 255 3015 Apr-6-99 0:40; Page 717 <br /> T <br /> 22 <br /> S ' <br /> �Lih+fMARY ' <br /> The Regional Board's response to the draft order.white disputing some of the data cited and <br /> taking exception to come ofthe oonoluaioda poav■atad,does ret addrsee the eentrsl ieenoe of th:. <br /> order.' ;These are: 1)Are conditions at the site a threat to human health and safety?;2)Do those <br /> conditions represent an unreasonable threat to current or,anticipated beneficial use?; and 3)Is <br /> further corrective action necessary? Data in the record and those resulting from work armpicted <br /> in January and February of 1994,show that the site is adequately characteriwd;shallow <br /> groundwater, in addition to its poor ambient water quality,is not in direct hydraulic <br /> communication with deeper groundwater production aquifers,and the plume of dissolved phase <br /> hydrocarbons is stable and is self-remediating via natural attenuation and intrinsic <br /> bioremediation- The draft order presents these findings and the conclusions that site conditions <br /> are not a threat to human health and safety,dao not represent an unreasonable threat to current or <br /> anticipated beneficial use,and that further corrective action is not necessary. <br /> it <br /> cc: <br /> Dave Deaner <br /> UST Cleanup Fund Manager <br /> Allan Fulton, Manager <br /> Underground Storage Tank Program <br /> i <br /> California Envir nmentat Prvtecdion Agency <br />