Laserfiche WebLink
LE COr <br /> HEALT Hi, DEPARTMENT <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL <br /> ...... SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY -Unit Supervisors <br /> A Donna k.-Heranv R.E.H.S: veDJ?, Thiia Floor Carl Borgman,R.E.H.S. <br /> 304 East Weber A, <br /> Director Mike Huggins,R.E.H.S.,R.D.l. <br /> Al Olsen,R.E.H.S. <br /> Stockton, California 95202!12708 Douglas W.Wilson,REH.S. <br /> 1r <br /> Program Manager Telephone: (209) 468-3420 Margaret Lagorio,R.E.H.S. <br /> 4Q�i 6, Laurie A.Cotulla,PLE.H.S. Robert McClellon,R.E.H.S. <br /> Fax: (209) 464 0 13 81 <br /> Program Manager Mark Barcellos,R.E.H.S. <br /> AUG..1 3 2012 <br /> THRIFTY OIL COMPANY <br /> RAYMOND FRIEDRICHSEN <br /> 13116 IMPERIAL HWY PO BOX 2128 <br /> SANTA FE SPRINGS CA 90670 <br /> �� k <br /> RE: Thrifty Gas Station #171 SITE CODE: 1299 <br /> 1250 N. Wilson Way ROM 0000552 <br /> Stockton, CA. 95205 <br /> San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department 'E"DI has reviewed "Aquifer <br /> J uly 11, 2002 as submitted <br /> Testing Report and Remedial Action Plan" (ATR <br /> -RAP) dated <br /> by HydroGeo Consultants on July 19, 2002 and has the following comments. <br /> On January 30, 1996 EHD approved part of the Corre btive Action Plan (CAP)'dated A <br /> of Thrifty Oil ComlP� any (TOC). Originally, the <br /> September 26, 1995 submitted on behalf <br /> CAP proposed both soil vapor extraction (SVE) and ground' ater extraction (GWE). At <br /> that time, GWE was not considered to be cost-effective nor,needed. Only SVE was <br /> approved by EHD and the system was finally activated July 1 j1999. <br /> After nearly continuous operation since its installation, the SVE system has removed <br /> ydro" as gasoline (TPHg) <br /> slightly more than 62,900 pounds of Total Petroleum carbons <br /> as of March 2002. .1 <br /> Due to rising levels of MtBE in MW-5, TOC re-evaluated the current remedial effort and <br /> concluded, that due to site-specific subsurface conditions, the SVE without the <br /> i <br /> proposed GWE was not effectively reducing the petroleum l�impact to the groundwater <br /> beneath the site. TOC resubmitted its original request to conduct GWE at the site and <br /> u!� ifer 6y extracting contaminated <br /> proposed testing the pumping effectiveness of the aq <br /> groundwater from MW-5. EHD offered no objections.1 <br /> test was conducted onsite during March k02. MW-5 was utilized as <br /> An aquifer pump te 1� - g wells were monitored <br /> the 'pumping well' and seven surrounding groundwate' r-monitorin <br /> for subsurface influence. Multiple pumping rates andl-sam6iing times were used to <br /> � <br /> gather data and 2,040 gallons of purge water were'collected and disposed under <br /> manifest at an approved facility. Conclusions includi6d with the ATR-RAP indicated, "a <br /> sustained pumping rate of 1.6 gallons per minute in MW-5i would be sufficient to <br /> rounding�this well" <br /> effectively capture the dissolved phase plume sur <br />