Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> CLEARWi�JER <br /> �. G R O U P, I N. C. <br /> Ms. Linda Turkatte August 28, 1995 <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Services <br /> Environmental Health Division <br /> P. Q. Box 38$ . <br /> Stockton, CA 95201-0388 <br /> Re: Ekholm Pro er ,.1702 Jackson Street, Escalon <br /> . P ,t5' <br /> Dear Ms. Turkatte, <br /> We are in receipt, of your letter dated August 18,-.1995, "which .provides your <br /> comments regarding communication submitted to your attention on June 30, 1995. . <br /> The following information ;responds to the points,-raised in this - recent . <br /> correspondence. - A copy of the most recent Quarterly Report was forwarded earlier <br /> under separate cover, and is referenced in this transmittal. <br /> Points <br /> Point 1. While the existing:system was designed to extract vapors from VW-4 and <br /> VW-5, it was temporarily plumbed to VW-1, 2, and 3 in order to draw an airstream <br /> ' for a sufficient period of time to generate data needed to enable a determination of <br /> whether permanent system modification was warranted. ,In the period of time that <br /> followed this temporary connection, hydrocarbon concentrations in samples drawn <br /> from vapor extraction wells VW-1, 2, and 3 have been measured in the field with a <br /> portable flame ionization detector (FID), as well as in the project lab. Results of field <br /> and laboratory analysis confirm data presented in investigative reports prepared by <br /> Resna that indicate that VW-1 and VW-3 were installed in areas free of hydrocarbon <br /> contamination, and that VW-2 was located near, but not in, the most significantly <br /> contaminated area of the site. - Existing wells VW-4 and 5 are best suited for the <br /> removal of contaminants detected beneath the former dispenser island. <br /> Point 2. As noted in the response to Point 1, the current system is capable of <br /> extracting a volume .of vapor from VW-1, 2, and 3 sufficient .to enable a <br /> determination of their effectiveness. <br /> Point 3. Clearwater has chosen to use a portable air flow meter to measure system <br /> performance. You assert that Clearwater has not chosen the most cost effective <br /> method because a daily rate is charged for the air flow meter. To date, $600 has been <br /> incurred for the use of the meter. This project will only be billed for the portable <br /> flow meter up to the amount which would have been incurred for installing in-line <br /> meters. Therefore, additional concern is not warranted. <br /> I <br /> 1125 Atlantic Avenue•Suite 102•Alameda•California •94501 • (510)337$730 + Fax(510)523-0984 <br /> E' <br />