Laserfiche WebLink
IL <br /> ENVIRONMENT kL JIVALLT <br /> �,7 �����iN cOU1Y �IirrtSzjiervisars <br /> Carl Borgtnan,R.E,H S. <br /> v <br /> Mile l-luggins,R.E.H.S..RDA. <br /> Donna K.Heran, <br /> .c' <br /> R.E..S. 304 Fa,,t Weber ,,venue,Third F pt�r <br /> California 95202-2708 Douglas W.wilson.R.�..H.S. <br /> Al Olsen, <br /> Stockton, 2(J 4C8-342C'! Margaret Lagoiio.R.E.H.S: <br /> g } Robert Mcdellon,R.h.ws, <br /> Y� Program Manager Tele hOue. (2 09)209 464-0138 <br /> [;�prie A:Cotulla,R.F.fi;S. l�'aX: ( � Marg Barcellos,R111.5- <br /> program Mallagel, <br /> G p $ 2.004 <br /> JOE TOSTE JR <br /> JT STORAGE <br /> 2:4:5:.0 TOSTE AQAD <br /> TRACY CA 95:37:6 <br /> RE-,: 'SITE CODE' W <br /> Gurkiss Porit'rac=Cadillac <br /> �4.O-Tosta Road <br /> Tracy CA 95376 <br /> San Joaquin County En ironmental.Health Department has received a latter date <br /> November 112 20040 written 6h. rbehalf by Advanced GeoEnvironmental, trlc:,(AG1=} <br /> ard..has.the following comments.. <br /> The letter was writtemto discuss concems about the remediation by aver-excavations of <br /> contaminated soil thatwas conducted at your site in June 2000 . The California State <br /> Water;ResourceS Control Board Cleanup Fund (SWRCS-CUF) has issued a partial <br /> reimbursement of the:total cost of the remediation, citing the actual work went beyond <br /> what was proposed, thus rendering the option of over-excavation not the most cost: <br /> effective option for remediation at this sita. <br /> The Corrective Action Plan (CAP) dated July 18, 2002 compared two sail remediation <br /> options, over-excavation and insitu bioremediation. Estimated costs were,. in excess of <br /> $150,000,;and $50,000 to $1104000, respectively. However, the estimated cost for insitu <br /> bioremediation was for the initial year of remediation only, it did not include the <br /> estimated $15,000 to$30,000 yearly monitoring expenses for subsequent years that <br /> would be=required: <br /> The site in question is located in Tracy, California, The average depth to groundwater at <br /> the site has been 7.5 feet below surface grade (trig), The subsurface soils are <br /> predominately silts and clays. These conditions are not conducive to remediation by soil <br /> vapor extraction,and that was not considered as a remedial option for this site. As <br /> discussed in the CAP,feasibility testing for bioremediation parameters in the soil had <br /> been conducted Results indicated that little natural bacteria were present,the pH was <br /> high and nitrogen concentrations were low. These factors indicated that bioremediation <br /> was not likely to be an effective remediation tool at this site. Inoculation of additional <br /> bacteria would be required, which would require additional permitting by the Regional <br /> Water Quality Control Board,at additional expense. For these reasons, it was <br /> recommended that the most appropriate remedial option for this site would be over-:: <br /> excavation of contaminated soils, followed by monitored natural attenuation of the <br /> groundwater contamination In correspondence dated August 16, 2002, SJC1EHD <br /> agreed with the recommended option and directed the submittal of a Remedial Action <br /> Work Plan .(RAWP), <br />