Laserfiche WebLink
- - - <br /> ' ^�* <br /> - <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DE <br /> PARTMENT <br /> NTY �cm�S��SJOAQUIN COU <br /> �»^^*��Rv,»n'��B.D.8. 904 �ust�Vcbo' /�v0000` TbirdFgoor C^dB«�m»u.KZ.B.S. <br /> D/n'o/o' Mike Huggins,R.E.B.S,DD./. <br /> �}m|s,o,}�DJ8.q. 8to�k�oo, (�alifvcnia95202-27O0 Douglas`m.Wilson,n.S.H.3. <br /> mog»mMh»wrr Telephone: <br /> (20g) 4�� 3420 Kxn�o,o�Lo�o,io.����8�S <br /> R.E.H.S. <br /> ��� �u",i A.� � x»,�'8'B'q' pas. (�09\ 404-0138 Roh»� xoC|d|on'KE.n.S. <br /> Program Manager <br /> Mark BvocUoo.R.E.e.S. <br /> O 7 2005 PAUL SUPPLE <br /> ROUSE <br /> CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY ATLANTIC IlICBFIEI^l3 COMPANY <br /> PO BOX 6004 BLDG V PO BOX 6549 <br /> BAN R\MDN CA 94583 MORAGA C2\ 94570 <br /> RE: Chevron #9-4275 and ARCO #2133 <br /> 2905 and 2908 Ben Holt Drive <br /> Stockton CA 95207 <br /> The above referenced contaminated underground storage tank sites have applied to the <br /> California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Clean Up Fund for designation as <br /> a co-mingled plume. The o|ainn reference number for this application is CP0034. Per the <br /> conditions ofthe application, the claimants are required tohave entered into awritten <br /> egnaernent.t6 provide for coordinated corrective aotion, and are to proceed with that action <br /> oesoon aopracticable. <br /> ' <br /> San Joaquin CountvEnvronn�enta| Hem�hC>epm�n�ent (SJC/EHC)) has revGxvedthe <br /> ' <br /> respective files for these two sites an d found that neither site has completed definition of their <br /> respective contaminant plumes. Neither site has conducted avertical investigation ofthe <br /> groundwater contamination. Despite repeated directives bythis agency todoso, Chevron <br /> has declined to investigate the lateral extent of the groundwater contamination reported over <br /> the years inmonitoring wells K8VV-4and MVV-3. Review ofsoil analytical data from the <br /> Chevron site indicates widespread contamination onaiba, residing primarily from 15 to at least <br /> 31 feet below surface grade (bag). The maximum depth of soil contamination mooeooed at <br /> boring' (�[J��E� <br /> this site has been insoil -1). the only one extending to45feet beg. <br /> Hydrocarbon contamination in soil samples collected fromV[�SB-1 at 31.5 feet and deeper <br /> vv--s' nmt detectable, however, soil samples collected at 35 and 31 feet bsg from monitoring <br /> did report ofp��nJ|munn hydrocarbon <br /> wells MW-1 and MW-2 respectively napo '- <br /> contamination. Review mfsoil anm|\dioo| data from the ARCO site indicates that vertical <br /> de�niUOnofthegmi| contannination 'was not completed. Aspreviously noted, the vertical <br /> extent ofimpacted groundwater onthe site has not been assessed. CPT data collected <br /> offsite indicates the vertical extent of impacted groundwater in that area to be between 40 <br /> and 08feet bn0' but the area assessed has not been demonstrated 1obeinthe predominant <br /> contaminant migration pathway from either site. <br /> ARCO #2133 conducted interim remediation by groundwater extraction, and has been <br /> conducting airaparging since 1995. Aconditiona||y approved draft final remediation plan <br /> submitted onbehalf ofARCO to conduct soil vapor extraction was implemented, but could <br /> not be continued due 1orising groundwater levels. Chevron #8-4275 has been conducting <br /> air sparging under a conditionally approved corrective action plan (CAP) that was never fully <br /> implemented. Aswith the ARCO site, riming groundwater levels made soil vapor extraction of <br /> the contaminated soil intervals impossible. Please demonstrate that airaporginQ without <br /> benefit Ofsoil vapor extraction is providing o beneficial result and is not merely spreading and <br /> diluting the plume ofimpacted groundwater. <br />