Laserfiche WebLink
Y, <br /> PUBLIC HEALTH SERtCES <br /> SAN JOAQUiN COUNTY J, <br /> J061 KHAN A KR.NIRIJ <br /> Healt4 Officer P <br /> P.O. Box 2009 • (1601 East Hazelton Avenue) • Stockton, California 95201 <br /> (209) 468-3400 <br /> OCT 2 1 199 �, ■ <br /> USA PETROLEUM COMPANY <br /> 1261 EAST NINTH STREET <br /> POMONA CA 91766 <br /> RE: USA Petroleum #65 IN REPLY REFER TO SITE CODE: 1356 <br /> 2500 E. Lodi Avenue <br /> Lodi, CA <br /> E San Joaquin County Public Health Services, Environmental Health <br /> Division (PHS/EHD) has reviewed the Groundwater Monitoring Report <br /> dated September 24, 1991, submitted by Western Geo-Engineers 'and <br /> has the following comments. <br /> Soil contamination was documented in 1987 during the drilling of <br /> 5-1 and S-2. Alsa <br /> monitoringwells , at that time, soil <br /> contamination was documented at the tank fill area. <br /> Additional monitoring wells revealed that the groundwater beneath <br /> the site had been impacted from the petroleum hydrocarbons in the <br /> soil. Unless shown otherwise, it must be assumed that the <br /> contaminated soil is still impacting the groundwater. <br /> Groundwater sampling at this site has shown significant levels of <br /> benzene. During the latest round of sampling, monitoring well 3 <br /> showed a benzene level of 15 parts per billion (ppb) , much in <br /> excess of the maximum contaminant level of 1 ppb. Monitoring wells <br /> I S-1 and S-2, which are now dry, previously have shown levels of <br /> i benzene above the maximum contaminant level. Monitoring well 4, <br /> which is now inaccessible; has also previously shown significant <br /> levels of benzene. Unless shown otherwise, it must be assumed that <br /> the groundwater in an around these monitoring wells is still <br /> impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons. <br /> Therefore, a Corrective Action Plan (or Final Remedial Plan). is <br /> being requested of USA Petroleum for this site. The corrective <br /> III action plan should include a feasibility study to evaluate <br /> alternatives for remedying or mitigating the actual and/or <br /> potential adverse effects of the contamination. Three alternatives <br /> should be proposed, one of which can be no action. Discussion of <br /> the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of all three alternatives to <br /> restore or protect the groundwater beneath the site should be <br /> included. Documentation to support the claims and to justify the <br /> assumptions put forth in the discussion is imperative and must also <br /> be included. <br /> �I <br />{ A Division of San Joaquin County Health Care Services �! <br />