Laserfiche WebLink
San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Department <br /> DIRECTOR <br /> Donna Heran,REHS <br /> 600 East Main Street <br /> 2 <br /> IN y3 ` Stockton, California 95202-3029 PROGRAM COORDINATORS <br /> 1 Robert McClellon, REHS <br /> A Jeff Carruesco, RENS, RDI <br /> Website: www..sjgov.org/ehd Kasey Foley, REHS <br /> i F ti <br /> Phone: (209) 468-3420 Linda Turkatte, REHS <br /> Fax: (209) 464-0138 <br /> December 19, 2011 <br /> Mr. Dan Silva <br /> Ms. Tina Mayhew <br /> West Clay Properties <br /> Post Office Box 51-�52 Ga 99 '� <br /> Stockton, California 95206 <br /> Subject: West Clay Properties <br /> 639 West Clay Street <br /> Stockton, California 95206 <br /> Dear Ms. Mayhew and Mr. Silva: <br /> In Quarterly Report — Second Quarter 2011, dated 15 August 2011, your consulting firm, <br /> Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (AGE), has recommended that quarterly groundwater <br /> monitoring and sampling of monitoring wells MW-27, MW-28 and MW-29 be terminated; and a <br /> work plan be prepared to install ozone sparging wells and conduct an ozone injection pilot <br /> study in the region known as the southern former underground storage tank (UST) No. 3 area. <br /> By letter dated 15 September 2009, the San Joaquin County Environmental Health <br /> Department (EHD) had expressed concern about the effectiveness of ozone injection when <br /> this remedial method was applied at the north portion of the above-referenced property known <br /> as the former Cluster UST area. The EHD compared groundwater analytical results from <br /> before and after ozone injection was initiated in November 2006 in the former Cluster UST <br /> area to demonstrate the questionable results of ozone injection.. based on these findings. the <br /> EHD recommended that ozone injection be terminated and that the groundwater in the former <br /> Cluster UST area be monitored for rebound. Ozone injection continued through 2009 and <br /> AGE terminated the ozone system in January 2010. <br /> In the same September 2009 letter, the EHD had directed a feasibility evaluation of in-situ <br /> ozone injection. air sparing, and chemical oxidation (Regenox or another solid media) for the <br /> southern former UST No. 3 area of this site. These methods had been initially identified as <br /> potential remedial technologies by AGE by letter dated 17 August 2009. The EHD directed <br /> that estimates of the resource requirements of each technology be included in the evaluation <br /> for cost effectiveness, and the EHD directed that the effects of ozone injection be evaluated <br /> and presented to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region <br /> (CRWQCBCVR) for Notice of Intent requirements to comply with the terms of General Waste <br /> Discharge Requirements. and the Monitorinq and Reportinq Proqram No. R5-2008-0149 <br />