Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of3 <br /> V-4 <br /> From: Vicki McCartney [EH] [mailto:vmccartney@s}cehd.com] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 20127:57 AM <br /> To: bmillman@advgeoenv.com <br /> Cc: Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: Former Stefano's Gas Station <br /> Brian, <br /> will have to discuss this with Nuel Henderson.before I respond to your question at the end of your email. <br /> Vicki McCartney, Senior REHS <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Department <br /> 600 East Main Street <br /> Stockton,California 95202. <br /> Phone: (209)468-9852 <br /> Fax: (209)468-3433. <br /> Email: vmccarmeynsjcehd.com <br /> From: Brian Millman fmailto:bmillman(c}advgeoenv.coml <br /> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 20124:51 PM <br /> Ilk To: Vicki McCartney [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: Former Stefano's Gas Station <br /> Vicki, <br /> OK Vicki I understand. .I think I misunderstood the letter as it relates to performing a soil- <br /> vapor investigation. I did read the.part about the CUF stating in email that the "limited area <br /> of soil contamination and the direction of groundwater gradient was unlikely to create a <br /> vapor threat but then EHD comments that they will not direct the destruction of OZ-4 and <br /> installation of a new.ozone point. I did not make the connection that a vapor investigation <br /> was not required. <br /> Additionally, the 02 February 2012 THD letter,directs preparation of a closure summary <br /> report that addresses the human health risk avid hazard posed to residents of the motel. .1 <br /> thought a soil-vapor investigation would be necessary to address the human health risk <br /> and hazard posed to residents of the motel because we don't have any soil sample/soil- <br /> vapor data between.MW-2 and the motel. Soil samples were coilected.in the UST area but <br /> below 12 feet bsg. Advanced GeoEnvironmental (AGE) submitted a risk assessment—soil <br /> vapor intrusion evaluation to EHD in Ground Water Monitoring Report— Third Quarter <br /> 2010,dated 08 October 2010. EHD commented on the risk assessment in a letter dated 23 <br /> February 2011, listing the reasons why several of AGE's interpretations and observations <br /> did not address the risk of vapor intrusion in the location between MW-2 and the motel and <br /> further stating that a soil boring north of MVV-2 would address the risk. <br /> Based on the denial of the Soil Vapor Investigation Work Plan, dated 17 February 2012 will <br /> the risk assessmentlsoil vapor intrusion,evaluation submitted in,Ground Water Monitoring <br /> Report— Third Quarter 2010 be an acceptable evaluation now? <br /> Thanks, <br /> Brian W. Millman <br /> 3/7/2012 <br />