Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT <br /> " SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> Unit Supervisors <br /> Donna K.Heran,R.E.H.S. Carl Bor an,R.E.H.S. <br /> 304 East Weber Avenue, Third Floor gs, <br /> Director Mike Huggins,R.E.H.S.,R.D.I. <br /> AI Olsen,R.E.H.S. Stockton, California 95202-2708 <br /> Douglas W.Wilson,R.E.H.S. <br /> Program Manager Telephone: (209) 468-3420 Margaret Lagorio,R.E.H.S. <br /> Laurie A.Cotulla,R.E.H.S. Robert McClellon,R.E.H.S. <br /> Program Manager Fax: (209) 464-0138 Mark Barcellos,R.E.H.S. <br /> MAY 2 8 2002 <br /> JAY MCILRATH <br /> J C & M MCILRATH <br /> P O BOX 326 <br /> STOCKTON CA 95201 <br /> RE: JAMAR Service SITE CODE: 1667 <br /> 4075 Main Street <br /> Stockton CA 95212 <br /> San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (SJC/EHD) has reviewed the <br /> "Additional Site Assessment Work Plan" dated April 2002 that was prepared on your <br /> behalf by GHH Engineering, Inc. (GHH) and has the following comments. <br /> The work plan was written in response to SJC/EHD directives to continue the investigation <br /> of the vertical and lateral extent of the documented petroleum hydrocarbon contamination <br /> at your site. The work plan was written following numerous discussions between <br /> SJC/EHD, you and your consultant. On page 2 of the work plan, GHH states that <br /> SJC/EHD directed that a cone penetrometer test (CPT) investigation be conducted, and <br /> that an extraction well be installed on site. Neither of these statements is completely <br /> accurate. The referenced site is located on the corner of a busy intersection with many <br /> overhead power lines. In a telephone conversation between GHH and SJC/EHD, the <br /> difficulties presented by these site restrictions and possible locations for the well <br /> installations were discussed. SJC/EHD suggested that it might be beneficial to conduct a <br /> CPT investigation first to obtain data that would aid selection of the proper locations for <br /> down-gradient monitoring wells. GHH agreed that this might be a beneficial approach to <br /> take. SJC/EHD also did not direct the installation of an extraction well. Rather, SJC/EHD <br /> stated that installation of a monitoring well in the middle of Main Street, as had been <br /> proposed by GHH in a draft version of this work plan, would not be approved, and that the <br /> expense of a well installation may be better utilized at this time putting in either a deep <br /> boring for vertical assessment of the contamination onsite near the source area, or for <br /> installation of an extraction well for feasibility testing. The only specific directives <br /> SJC/EHD has issued to you are to complete the investigation of the vertical and lateral <br /> extent of the documented contamination at your site, to continue quarterly groundwater <br /> monitoring and sampling of the wells currently located onsite, and to conduct a sensitive <br /> receptor/well survey. <br /> The work plan proposes to continue the investigation at this site with the installation of <br /> three CPT borings followed by the installation of two or three shallow wells for lateral <br /> assessment of the plume in the down gradient direction, the installation onsite of a <br /> groundwater extraction well built to total depth of 80 feet below surface grade (bsg)with <br /> 70 feet of screened casing for feasibility testing, to conduct a step-drawdown groundwater <br /> extraction test and a soil vapor extraction test, and to conduct a sensitive receptor/well <br /> survey to find any wells located within a 2000-foot radius of the site. <br />