Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLIC HVALTH SPQ�� <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY r._: �• <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION <br /> Karen Furst, M.D., M.P.H., Health Officer <br /> 304 East Weber Avenue, Third Floor • Stockton, CA 95202 4�rF6`R`'� <br /> 2091468-3420 <br /> FILE COPY <br /> DAVID THRELFALL <br /> WEGE — WESTERN GEO—ENGINEERS MAY 2 49� <br /> 1386 EAST BEAMER ST 4 <br /> WOODLAND CA 95776-6003 1 <br /> I <br /> RE: Sanchez Property SITE CODE: 1844 i <br /> 1876 Country Club Blvd. <br /> Stockton,CA.,95204 <br /> i <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Services, Environmental Health Division(PHS-EHD)has reviewed the <br /> WEGE May 6, 1999 correspondence delivered to Michael Infurna in the field May 14, 1999 and has the <br /> following comments. <br /> California Underground Storage Tank(UST)Regulations[California Code of Regulations,Title 23,Division <br /> 3,Chapter 16,Article 11, section 2725(f)]requires "71ie nVmsiblepztrysballanhaaj6sibd4 study to 62&fate <br /> altematiz,m for remekyo7g ormitigaring dhv acaal or ponmai d adu,y a effects of the wz zzctl"nzai release Ezcb ahematzw shall <br /> he eudikir d for cost-ff ress, and the nTponsible party shall propose to arplarr the most cost ejaxue ire actim" <br /> Additionally, section (2) states, "For sites uh m the tauu,&zed release a*ts or dnaVOrs 0xrters with aMMt Or PO 076d <br /> bazqeial uses designated in unwrgmhV mtrol plmzs,the feasibility swdy shall also r ie*and eu7lzratz at least trr o <br /> alonatii es for restornzg or pyor=rrg dxse hmefuzal uses. <br /> I <br /> In previous conversations concerning remedial options for this site,there may be some misunderstandings I <br /> about field data needed to complete the feasibility study and support your conclusions for thetitost cost- <br /> effective remedial alternative. <br /> WEGE informed PHS-EHD that this site was discussed with Mr.Jim Munch at the State Water Resources <br /> Control Board(SWRCB) Clean Up Fund(CUF),who said he "wadd be wxi5W if WEGE in&z1ad ntlim a work <br /> plan a short discussion that uez# d thepro costs for uazr extmcam agairut the costs ofdm -t rem ud of coruorrmated � <br /> soil... "The misunderstanding anises when WEGE continues to propose standard vapor extraction with <br /> vertical vapor wells as one of the remedial options. <br /> Michael Inform with PHS-EHD has discussed the site with Mr.Munch and he recognizes our agency's <br /> familiarity with the lithology and other site speck information in this area and our ability to evaluate viable <br /> remedial alternatives. The groundwater at this site is currently 8-9 feet below the surface and the soils are <br /> mostly silty clays. Conventional vapor extraction utilizes the installation of vertical vapor wells which are <br /> installed in the vadose soil and PHS-EHD does not consider standard vapor extraction a viable remedial <br /> alternative for this site since the contamination is from 10 to 25 feet below the surface which is below <br /> groundwater. <br /> Other soil vapor extraction methods may include horizontal vapor wells positioned over the area of <br /> contaminated soil that has an air-sparge well installed through it. This combination of air sparging the <br /> shallow contaminated groundwater and extracting the vapors directly over the air sparge well may be a viable <br /> remedial alternative that could be field-tested. Costs for this type of vapor extraction system could be <br /> estimated and included in a cost-effectiveness study. <br /> A Division of San Joaquin County Health Care Services <br />