Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> ?-� •_��'-.oG Unit Supervisors <br /> Donna K.Heran,R.E.H.S. <br /> Q. 304 East Weber Avenue, Third Floor <br /> irector Carl Borgman,R.E.H.S. <br /> D <br /> Mike Huggins,R.E.H.S.,R.D.I. <br /> AI Olsen,R.E.H.S. Stockton, California 95202-2708 Douglas W.Wilson,R.E.H.S. <br /> .. P Program Manager <br /> 6.0 Laurie gTelephone: (209) 468-3420 Margaret Lagorio,R.E.H.S. <br /> FO <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 /> B M SAMSON SEP 3 2002 <br /> SUTTER OFFICE CENTER <br /> 2001 UNION STREET #300 <br /> SAN FRANCISCO CA 94123 <br /> RE: 242 Sutter Street SITE CODE: 9327 <br /> Stockton CA 95202 <br /> APN 139-250-05 <br /> In correspondence dated March 22, 2002, San Joaquin County Environmental Health <br /> Department (SJC/EHD) directed you to submit a work plan to continue the investigation <br /> of the vertical and lateral extent of the documented petroleum hydrocarbon <br /> contamination at the above referenced site. The work plan was due May 20, 2002. In <br /> addition, you were directed to continue quarterly groundwater monitoring and sampling <br /> of the three monitoring wells installed in August 2001, to have the wells surveyed to an <br /> established benchmark by a licensed surveyor, and to submit to SJC/EHD copies of the <br /> boring logs for borings H, J and I, which were installed in January of 2002. To date, <br /> SJC/EHD has not been notified that any of the above tasks have been completed. <br /> On March 29, 2002 SJC/EHD received a correspondence from your consultant, Hydro- <br /> Geo Consultants, Inc. (HGC), prepared in response to the directive to submit a work <br /> plan for further investigation of this site. In their letter HGC states that their report of the <br /> most recent work completed at your site was based on the work plan presented in an <br /> SJC/EHD letter dated February 2, 2001. Please note that SJC/EHD provides general <br /> directives for site investigations and recommendation, but does not prepare work plans. <br /> Work plans are prepared by consultants hired by responsible parties to meet the <br /> requirements of the general directives, as was the work plan referred to in the SJC/EHD <br /> February 2, 2001 correspondence prepared by your consultant. <br /> In their letter HGC states that probes 'A' and 'B', which were completed during a <br /> previous phase of work, were logged and sampled, and therefore probes `I' and `J', <br /> which were located adjacent to probes 'A' and 'B', were for the collection of groundwater <br /> samples only. However, the report stated in the section titled "Field Investigation and <br /> Sampling" that soil samples were obtained at 10-foot intervals to total depth in all <br /> borings. Probes 'A' and 'B' were advanced to total depth of 40 feet below surface grade <br /> (bsg). Probes `I' and `J' were advanced to 90 feet bsg. Boring logs for the interval from <br /> 40-90 feet bsg in probes 'I' and `J' should have been prepared and submitted with the <br /> report of findings. In addition, the soil sample collected at 40 feet bsg from probe 'A' was <br /> reported to contain 250 parts per million (ppm) total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline <br /> (TPHg) and 1,600 ppm TPH as diesel. Vertical definition of the soil contamination at this <br /> site has therefore not been completed. Please note that the standard soil sampling <br /> interval is 5 feet, especially during the initial stages of a site investigation or in new areas <br /> of investigation. <br />