Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> . . � pUBLIC14EALTH SERVICES <br /> ,�PgU�ly <br /> r.• ••z <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION <br /> M.D., M.P.H., Acting Health Officer <br /> Ernest M. Fujimoto, <br /> 304 E.Weber Ave., 3rd Floor •209/468-3420. ox388 a Stockton, CA 95201-0388 <br /> LC 0 T L <br /> TOM PORTELE MAILED 0 C T 111995 <br /> GREYHOUND LINES INC <br /> PO BOX 660362 <br /> DALLAS TX 75266-0362 <br /> RE: Greyhound Terminal #8969 <br /> SITE CODE: 1041 <br /> 121 South Center Street <br /> Stockton, CA 95201 <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Services, Environmental Health Division (PHS-EHD) has <br /> reviewed the "Offsite Assessment and Feasibility Study"comments.datedSeptember 1995 as submitted <br /> by Parsons Engineering Science and has the following <br /> In addition to a "description of the lateral and vertical extent of soil contamination", as <br /> mentioned in Task 3, PHS-EHD will require ow° suration site face (bgs) aps Soi�stratigraphyr soil data TPH and as <br /> Diesel and BTEX) from multiple depths be ground <br /> cross sections showing soil plume definition and extent should be submitted also. <br /> All depths where soil contamination has been previously detected <br /> shouldexists be re have additional <br /> presented in the <br /> iso-concentration maps. Depths or areas where no data currently <br /> soil data gathering techniques (ie: soil borings, Geo-Probes, hand augers, etc) conducted. <br /> PHS-EHD can only evaluate Feasibility Studies that are based upon conclusions that are <br /> supported by data that reflects the total site condition. These ed app r end of the roves ns should <br /> be <br /> pp that is re <br /> submitted in the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) q which evaluates the <br /> phase. Also included within the CAP should rationale for the use of the alternative chosen must <br /> results of tests methods done on site resented for evaluation by PHS <br /> be discussed. At least two remedial alternatives must be p <br /> EHD• <br /> This most recent proposal submitted for review by PHS-EHD only provides for at most, two <br /> T it. Based on in-field evaluation only, this boring or the <br /> borings to the west of the tank p well. PHS-EHD is concerned <br /> second boring will be converted into a groundwat monitoring ld enough data to support the <br /> that although this phase of investigation and sampling <br /> 1 definition, no provisions within this "Offsite Assessment and beeFeasibility <br /> related to�you plow <br /> westerly <br /> for the further definition of the unknown areas and depths 26, 1994, and February 3, 1995. <br /> correspondences dated May 25, 1993, July 9, 1993, January <br /> PHS-EHD highly <br /> recommends that you re-evaluate your proposal and take the necessary steps <br /> now to submit a workplan that will allow for full site characterization and testing of possible <br /> remedial alternatives so that A Feasibility sSa Study m��y Health <br /> c�a Services <br />