Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLt HEALTH SERVICES ,9PRViN. .io <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY = i <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION <br /> N: < <br /> Ernest M. Fujimoto, M.D., M.P.H., Acting Health Officer <br /> Cq �P <br /> 445 N. San Joaquin Street • P. O. Box 388 • Stockton, CA 95201-0388 t%F <br /> 209/468-3420 <br /> HAROLD AND DENA KNOWLES COPY <br /> 19381 FAWN DRIVE <br /> LODI CA 95243 <br /> 1 1994 <br /> RE: 102 S WILSON WAY SITE CODE: 9031 <br /> STOCKTON CA <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Services, Environmental Health Division (PHS/EHD) has completed <br /> the review of the "Report of Additional Subsurface Investigation" dated November 21, 1994, prepared <br /> by Mill Creek Associates, and has the following comments for your consideration. <br /> PHS/EHD has identified several errors in the report. The two newly installed wells at the site were not <br /> developed on September 25, 1994 as stated in the report. A PHS/EHD staff person was present the <br /> following day when the'wells were being sampled. The sampler mentioned that he had not ever been <br /> to the site previously and that he had not developed the wells. PHS/EHD recommends the wells be <br /> properly developed so that more representative groundwater samples can be obtained. <br /> The common datum point used to survey all the wells at the site was not recorded in the report. <br /> Please provide documentation of the survey results of the monitoring wells to PHS/EHD by <br /> January 9, 1995. <br /> Table 3 shows no reporting units. Table 4A shows reporting units to be in mg/1 unless otherwise <br /> specified. PHS/EHD has identified several reporting errors in this table with regard to the reporting <br /> units. Table Q shows no reporting units and the result for 1,2, dichloropropane for monitoring well <br /> MW/t7 is reported in error. Figure 1 shows one proposed monitoring well and three soil borings. This <br /> figure may also be in error as the narrative portion of the report recommends three additional <br /> monitoring wells and one soil boring. Please provide amended copies of the above noted tables <br /> and site map to PHS/EHD by January 9, 1995. <br /> The report concludes the soil contamination plume to be fully defined. PHS/EHD cannot concur as the <br /> available physical data does not support such a conclusion. <br /> Soil boring SB23 showed contamination between 20 feet below ground surface (BGS) and 40 feet <br /> BGS. A zero line may be able to be inferred to the north of this soil boring due to the limited zone of <br /> contamination and the concentrations of the contaminants. <br /> The area to the east, northeast and southeast of soil boring SB22 has not yet been fully defined. In <br /> fact, in a letter dated December 7, 1992, the PHS/EHD Technical Review Committee recommended a <br /> more thorough investigation of the former tank pit area and any former piping areas extending from the <br /> former tank pit to the former dispenser area. The report does not recommend soil borings in this area. <br /> However, this work should also be completed in this next phase of field work. <br /> Also, the area to the south of soil boring SB21/MW#6 has not yet been defined. However, the <br /> proposed soil boring to the south of this area may help in delineating the contaminant plume in this <br /> A Invision of San Joaquin County Health Care Services <br />