Laserfiche WebLink
€ _ SENT BY;Xerox Telecopier 7021 -9-16-95 ;11 ;34AM y 59052359044 8 <br /> ,JUN 16 1995 <br /> PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION ' . � <br /> Ernest M. Fujimoto, M.D., M.P.H., Acting Health Officer <br /> •T i <br /> 445 N. San Joaquin Street • P. Q. Box 388 • Stockton, CA 95201.038$ <br /> 209/468-3420 <br /> JOHN LANE <br /> k <br /> SMITH ENVIRONMENTAL <br /> 1710 E MAIN STREET MAM JUN 14 X995 <br /> ESCALON CA 95320 <br /> RE: Ekhoim Property SITE CODE: 1855 <br /> 1702 Jackson Street t <br /> Escalon, Ca <br /> 1 <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Services, Environmental Health Division (PHS/EHE)) has completed <br /> O Jthe review of the Quarterly Monitoring Report dated May 14, 1995, submitted by Clearwater Group, C <br /> and has the following comments for your consideration. <br /> The "as built, drawing of the soil vapor extraction system (figure 5) Is misleading and in error. The <br /> configuration of the system Is not as pictured in this figure. The reported configuration appears to be a <br /> more efficient design for the piping from the wells to the vacuum pump than the actual configuration at <br /> the site. Please provide a true and accurate "as built" drawing to PHSIEHD. 'Please also Include <br /> a site spathic schematic of the system In a format similar to-the attachment to this letter:. : <br /> Please provide an explanation as to the discrepancy between the reported configuration and <br /> the.actual configuration of the system. <br /> - <br /> QIt is unclear why Influent and effluent readings (flow, vacuum and contaminant concentrations) are <br /> being obtained as the carbon has been removed from the system. <br /> ® It is also unclear whether the inappropriate vacuum gauges have been replaced. if so, what units do <br /> they measure In and where are they now located on the system? ' <br /> It appears that the inappropriate, nonfunctional flow meters have been removed from tha system. <br /> However, it does not appear that they have been replaced. Please provide an explanation as to why <br /> there are no In-1ln.e flow meters on the system. <br /> © It is unclear how FID, flow, and vacuum measurements are being obtained from the small sample <br /> holes near the well heads of vapor wells W01 through VW#3. The reliability and confidence <br /> associated with results obtained by portable field measuring devices is dependant on the t <br /> demonstration of the proficiency and expertise of the person using the devices as well as adequate <br /> documentation of their proper care and calibration. The methods observed by PHSIEHD used to <br /> obtain the date documenting the operation of the vapor extraction system at the site to date are <br /> dubious. <br /> The values being reported for air flow are in units of Standard cubic feet per minute. The flow rates <br /> being.measured In the field using a portable flow meter are assumed to be In units of nonstandardized <br /> cubic feet per minute. Please explain why the values are the same for both types of units_ <br /> I?lease.alow-provlde the calculations used to convert the units. <br /> ® Past correspondence has Indicated than the design flow rate for the system at the site is .100 standard <br /> A Division of San.toaquin County Health Care Services <br />