Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> 2` Donna K. Heran, R.E.H.S. Unit Supervisors <br /> Director- � g <br /> 304 East Weber Avenue Third Floor Carl Bor man,R.E.H.S. <br /> Al Olsen, R.E.H.S. Stockton,California 95202-2708 Mike Huggins, R.E.H.S., R.D.I. <br /> =a'P • Program Manager Telephone: (209)468-3420 Douglas W.Wilson,R.E.H.S. <br /> 4<<Fo'dMar aret La orio,R.E.H.S. <br /> Laurie A. Cotulla, R.E.H.S. g g <br /> Program Manager Fax: (209)464-0138 Robert McClellon, R.E.H.S. <br /> Website:www.sjgov.org/ehd/ Jeff Carruesco, R.E.H.S. <br /> KNOWLES <br /> CARL KNOWLES <br /> P o BOX 640 DEC 2 8 2009 <br /> WOODBRIDGE CA 95258 <br /> RE: 1140 W. Hammer Lane <br /> Stockton, CA <br /> John Dunlap of Dunlap, Van Vleck & Brown, LLC, as a representative of the <br /> Knowles family, contacted San Joaquin County Environmental Health <br /> Department (EHD) and at his request a meeting was held at the EHD office, at <br /> 304 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, on December 21, 2005. Attending the meeting <br /> for EHD were Margaret Lagorio, Harlin Knoll, and Nuel Henderson; attending on <br /> behalf of the Knowles family were John Lane of Ground Zero Analysis, and John <br /> Dunlap and Leslie Huffman of Dunlap, Van Vleck & Brown, LLC. <br /> Discussed at the meeting were a brief history of the site, past assessment and <br /> remedial actions, the City of Stockton proposal to acquire a portion of the <br /> property that would include where monitoring well MW-5 (well with greatest <br /> petroleum contaminated groundwater samples) is located, additional assessment <br /> and remedial actions. <br /> EHD informed the Knowles representatives that the basic assessment needs for <br /> the site had been provided in the EHD letter dated January 25, 2005 and the <br /> remediation requirement had been directed in the EHD letter dated November 7, <br /> 2001. Simply stated, the vertical extent of impacted ground water must still be <br /> delineated and groundwater requires a remedial approach demonstrably more <br /> effective than ORC. <br /> The potential benefits and shortfalls of using oxidizing agent injection and <br /> groundwater extraction, treatment and disposal (GWE) were discussed. With the <br /> limited ability to monitor whatever remedial system is utilized, due to most of the <br /> plume being off-site, EHD believes GWE may be the most effective remedial <br /> option. EHD did stress that the remedial options considered would be those that <br /> are submitted by the consultant and EHD was not directing that GWE specifically <br /> be utilized. Some addresses of sites where Ground Zero had used remediation <br /> systems were provided to John Dunlap in case his company wanted to request a <br /> review of EHD files those sites. <br />