Laserfiche WebLink
San Joaquin County <br /> or l ,.cooEnvironmentalDIRECTOR <br /> ter. It ray Donna�� r ,Rl�s <br /> 1868 East Stockton, California 95205-6232 PROGRAM COORDINATORS <br /> Robert lice Cellon,REFI a <br /> W... Jeff carruesco,REH ,RM <br /> e f e: t v; Z/ 1 se Foley,REE <br /> e Uncia T rkatte, H <br /> Phone: 468-3420 Rodney Estrada,R H <br /> Fax: (299)464-0136 Adrienne Ellsaesser,REHS <br /> March 1, 2014 <br /> Chevron Products Company Spanos Jet tenter <br /> Darryl Pessler Marc tl . Hardy <br /> 145 S. State College 1010 Trinity Parkway, tri Floor <br /> Brea, CA 92821, Stockton, CA 95219 <br /> United States Dept st of the Army San Joaquin County <br /> Corp of Engineers Stockton Metropolitan Airport <br /> Gerald Vincent Patrick Carr n l <br /> { EPP` - 5000 S. Airport Way, <br /> 1325 J Street Room 202 <br /> Sacramento, CA 95314 Stockton, CA 95206 <br /> Subject: Stockton Metropolitan Airport <br /> Former Fuel Station <br /> 5000 South tr cert'Boulevard <br /> Stockton, CA 95206 <br /> The San Joaquin County Environmental health Department ( l ) has reviewed Humans <br /> Health Risk Assessment PA) and Request for Closure Report rt (Report) dated June 5, <br /> 2012, submitted on your behalf by Ramage Environmental, Inc., (Ramage). In the Report, <br /> Ramage presented the I"H A for the petroleum hydrocarbons originating from the former <br /> USTs at the site and requested the site be considered for low-risk closure. The EHD had <br /> reviewed the report and responded by letter, dated October 30, 2012 with recommendations. <br /> Ramage submitted Groundwater ndwater brit srin l epoil Second Half 2013 (GWR), dated <br /> December;HCl, 2013, that addressed some of the EHD recommendations. <br /> By email dated March 4, 2014, Ramage requested the EHD to specify the information needed <br /> o complete the case closure evaluation for this site. In the email, Ramage indicated that the <br /> HHRA evaluated the risk associated with on-site ingestion and dermal contact with surface <br /> soil, on-site inhalation of outdoor air, andoff-site ingestion and dermal contact with <br /> groundwater. The evaluation was based only on post-2002 soil samples, excluding all older <br /> data as not representative dud to contaminant degradation, thereby effectively considering the <br /> data "non-detectable". In addition, the HHRA included contaminant concentration, but not an <br /> estimate of time required data to reach dater Quality ity Objectives (WC ); The following <br /> actions should be taken to resolve some of the identified issues and to move the site toward <br /> closure: <br /> The HHRA should be reevaluated using all soil data, including pre-20102 data to determine <br /> a conservative, gorse-case scenario to prat an upper limit on the risk. A reasonable <br /> degradation rate may be utilized to "correct"data for use in the HH <br />