Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLIC; HEALTH SERVICE 4� N <br /> o <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> a: .t <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION <br /> Ernest M. Fujimoto, M.D., M.P.H., Acting Health Officer <br /> 445 N. San Joaquin Street • P. O. Box 388 • Stockton, CA 95201-0388 ciF j'A' <br /> 209/468-3420 �V( <br /> CU u ' <br /> RICHARD CALLISTRO F <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CAPITAL PROJECTS <br /> 222 EAST WEBER AVE ROOM 678 <br /> STOCKTON CA 95202 t'• 'AN 2 8 1995 <br /> RE: San Joaquin County Human Services SITE CODE: 1257 <br /> 145 South Sutter Street <br /> Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Services, Environmental Health Division (PHS/EHD) <br /> has completed review of the "Work Plan and Drilling Permit Application" dated March 15, <br /> 1995 and prepared by Weston. PHS/EHD has the following comments for your <br /> consideration. <br /> The work plan proposed to install two replacement monitoring wells, for MW2 and MW3, <br /> which were reported dry in October 1993 and to destroy these wells. While PHS/EHD <br /> agrees that additional monitoring wells in the area of MW2 and MW3 are necessary to <br /> investigate groundwater contamination in this area; PHS/EHD disagrees with the <br /> proposal to destroy these wells at this time. PHS/EHD has observed throughout the <br /> area that groundwater levels have risen as a result of the considerable rainfall <br /> experienced in this region and believes it prudent to retain these wells for potential future <br /> use. Also, PHS/EHD questions the locations of the proposed replacement wells and <br /> requests that a technical justification be provided. Finally, the work plan included a <br /> permit application for the installation of the replacement wells, but did not include a <br /> permit application for the destruction of MW2 and MW3. <br /> As PHS/EHD has stated in correspondence dated March 14, 1994, August 19, 1992, <br /> June 12, 1992 and May 12, 1992, additional soil investigation to define the extent of soil <br /> contamination, would be necessary. Yet, this work plan failed to address this directive. <br /> If an amended work plan, including additional soil investigation, can be implemented in <br /> a timely manner, PHS/EHD suggests that the scope of work be expanded, to eliminate <br /> costs associated with another mobilization of the drilling subcontractor. If not, you <br /> should be aware that this work is still required and will be expected to completed in the <br /> future. <br /> As PHS/EHD indicated in correspondence dated June 12, 1992, the detection limits used <br /> during the investigation were erratic; thusly, PHS/EHD requested that all soil samples <br /> be summarized. To provide further clarification of this request, please provide tables <br /> which summarize all analytical results and when no contamination is detected, the <br /> detection limit designated. <br /> A Division of San Joaquin County Health Care Services <br />