Laserfiche WebLink
San Joaquin County sw� DIRECTOR <br /> Donna Heran,REHS <br /> Environmental Health Department <br /> ASSISTA <br /> X. NT DIRECTOR <br /> wry. G <br /> a a•. ya 600 East Main Street Laurie Cotulla,REHS <br /> U): < <br /> Stockton, California 95202-3029 PROGRAM COORDINATORS <br /> Carl Borgman, REHS <br /> Mike Huggins,REHS,RDI <br /> Website: www.sjgov.org/ehd Margarett-agorio, REHS <br /> Phone: (209) 468-3420 Robert McClellon, REHS <br /> 209 464-0138 .teff Carruesco,REHS,RDI <br /> Fax: <br /> ( ) Kasey Foley,REHS <br /> WALTER SHOCKEY MAY 2 2 2007 <br /> C/O LEE SHOCKEY <br /> 11.7 GOODALE CT <br /> MANTECA CA 95337 <br /> RE: SHOCKEY TRUCKING LOP SITE CODE: 2581 <br /> 850 MILGEO <br /> RIPON,CA. 95366 <br /> San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (EHD) has reviewed the information on <br /> your site and determined that the lateral and vertical extent of total petroleum hydrocarbon <br /> quantified as diesel (TPH-diesel) contamination has not been defined. TPH-diesel is the <br /> predominant contaminant in soil and groundwater. To date, five monitoring wells (MW)and 6 <br /> ozone sparge wells (OSP) have been installed. Numerous on-site and off-site borings have been <br /> completed and soil and groundwater samples collected for laboratory analysis. <br /> EHD staff met with Mr. Ree Shockey and your consultant Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. <br /> (AGE)on 22 January 2007 to discuss: site history, site soil/groundwater assessment, the April to <br /> July 2003 on-site ozone sparge pilot study test, additional assessment requirements for plume <br /> definition and interim remediation options to mitigate the free product-like groundwater <br /> concentrations that exist in the area of off-site MW1 and on-site MW4. <br /> After holding the above-referenced meeting, EMD received the Additional Site Assessment Work <br /> Plan, dated 06 March 2007, prepared by AGE. EHD has completed review of the work plan (WP) <br /> proposal and has the following comments: <br /> 1. MW5 has been damaged by facility business activities beyond repair, as reported by <br /> AGE. AGE proposes to decommission this MW. The EHD requires that MW5 be <br /> properly destroyed under EHD permit and inspection. <br /> 2. A groundwater grab sample was collected and analyzed at location P6 during a previous <br /> phase of assessment and the result was positive (TPH-diesel 850 micrograms/liter). The <br /> installation of the proposed MW6 to collect reproducible groundwater sampling data at <br /> this location is approved. <br /> 3. The proposed MW7, a deep well, with a screen from 45-50 feet below ground surface <br /> (BGS) near the existing MW1 (shallow well)off-site to investigate the vertical extent of <br /> groundwater contamination is approved. <br /> 4. Previous grab groundwater sample results collected from P12A at 40 feet BGS and P12B <br /> at 50 feet BGS were positive for TPH-diesel. The EHD believes that an additional deep <br /> well with similar construction to MW7 should be installed at the P12A1B location. <br /> 5. The grab groundwater results at location P8 were below detection limits. AGE's proposal <br /> for installation of two additional MWs near P8 (MW8 and MW9) should be reconsidered. <br /> The proposed MW8 is approved at this time. Further rationale for the proposed MW9 <br /> location must be provided to EHD. <br />