Laserfiche WebLink
Califoi—;a Regional Water Quality Control Board <br />Central Valley Region <br />Karl E. Longley, ScD, P.E., Chair <br /> <br />Linda S. Adams <br />Sacramento Main Office <br />I I 02O Sun Center e ,=.200. Rancho Cordo\ a. California 95670-6114 <br />Phone (9161464-3291 • FAX (916) 464-4645 <br />hop 'iv, \\ \\ waterboards.ca.govicenlnivalle <br />Arnold <br />Schwarzenegger <br />(;01.cruor <br />1 February 2008 <br />Ms. Donna Sartini-Gardner <br />1206 W. Struck Ave. <br />Orange, CA 92867 <br />REcefis <br />FEB <br /> 1\f - 0i41\11: 2 1‘11:Pc` 6nald Jr. and Ms Bonnie Barber <br />PERIVISER*1411 Small Rd. <br />Manteca, CA 95336 <br />DOCUMENT REVIEW, DONNA GARDNER PROPERTY, 26056 N. THORNTON ROAD, <br />THORNTON, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY (REGIONAL BOARD CASE # 390412) <br />I reviewed the Remedial Investigation Report (Report), submitted 28 January 2008 by <br />Mr. & Ms. Barber's consultant, Advanced GeoEnvironmental Inc. (AGE). Per my <br />5 December 2007 letter request, the Report reviews the 1997 Problem Assessment Report <br />(PAR), provides a technical reevaluation of the 1997 approved proposal for a Soil Vapor <br />Extraction/Air Sparging (SVE/AS) pilot study (which was not implemented), and evaluates <br />potential additional technologies for at least two remedial options. <br />The Report includes the PAR as an appendix, states SVE/AS is a viable technology based on <br />a review of the site conditions, and recommends a pilot study workplan be submitted for a <br />72-hour AS field test and 5 day SVE field test. The Report also evaluated Ozone Injection and <br />Groundwater Pump and Treatment (GWP&T) technologies and reported that they were also <br />viable technologies; however, the increased cost for conducting Ozone Injection and GWP&T <br />make them less cost effective than SVE/AS. Ozone Injection was also considered less likely <br />to be effective than GWP&T. The Report recommends that if the SVE/AS pilot study shows <br />the technology is ineffective, then a GWP&T pilot study should be conducted. <br />Comments: <br />I concur to the conclusions of the Report and the recommendation to submit a workplan for an <br />SVE/AS pilot study. Due to the proposed pilot study's proximity to the Thornton Municipal <br />Well 2 (Well 2, enclosed Figure 2) and to petroleum hydrocarbon impacted monitoring well <br />MW-4, the workplan should also include test monitoring for Well 2. If the field test results <br />show that the pilot study is affecting Well 2, then the pilot study will be stopped and the <br />Regional Board will be notified by email or voice mail at the contact information listed below. <br />Please submit the pilot study workplan with a proposed schedule for fieldwork and reporting by <br />14 March 2008. The subsequent SVE/AS pilot study report should also include 1) a proposed <br />schedule for conducting an additional pilot study for GWP&T, or 2) a schedule for submittal of <br />a full-scale corrective action plan (CAP) using SVE/AS, and a discussion of the estimated <br />technologies costs (dollar amounts). <br />California Environmental Protection Agency <br />clr:t Recycled Paper