WORK PLANS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

KLEINFELDER 3 BACKGROUND The San Joaquin County Mosquito & Vector Control District (SJC/MVCD) requested a'Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the above -referenced site. The Phase II scope of work is summarized in Kleinfelder's proposal titled "Proposal/Cost Estimate, Phase U Environmental Site Assessment Update, Mosquito Abatement Property, 200 North Beckman Road, Lodi, California," (File Number ST03P327) dated September 3, 2003. The scope of work was developed based on information summarized in a prior Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the subject site and on Kleinfelder's brief site visit interview with Mr. John Stroh of SJC/MVCD on August 14, 2003. The prior ESA was conducted by Neil O. Anderson & Associates, Inc. (NOA). The ESA was titled "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Mosquito Abatement Property, 200 North Beckman Road, Lodi CA, 95240," dated January 10, 2001 The NOA report referenced previous Phase II work at the site, including underground storage tank (UST) removal, soil excavation of petroleum impacted soil, and former monitoring well sampling and analyses at the site. Appendicized in the NOA report was a report conducted by Weston environmental consultants titled "Case Closure Report, Site Code 1849, 200 North Beckman Road, Lodi, California," dated May 1997. The Weston report illustrated specific information related to groundwater flow direction and UST excavated areas including sampling locations and cross sections of the former UST area. This information was used in part to develop monitoring well installation locations and soil and groundwater sampling and analyses in the former UST area. Also noted in the NOA report is a "No Further Action", letter addressed to Mr. Stroh of the SJC/MVCD from EHD stating completion of investigation and remedial activities related to former USTs at the site. This letter was dated April 7, 1998 and was located in the Appendix of NOAs report. The NOA ESA, (Project No. LE02-510, dated January 10, 2003) included the following selected opinions, conclusions and recommendations: ■ "It is NOA's opinion that the subject property being on the various databases and county lists is due to the leaking underground storage tank case in which the file had been reviewed. The remediation of the aforementioned case did not remove all of the contamination from the soils beneath the subject property, and contamination may extend to the saturated zone. The case was closed; however, it was not a clean closure. It is NOA's opinion that the San Joaquin County Environmental Department could reopen the case when the land use changes or at any other time. • "It is NOA's opinion that the application of herbicides, pesticides (DDT in particular) and larvicides on the subject property represents a threat of environmental degradation to the subject property." • "It is NOA's opinion that the contamination stemming from the LUST case located immediately adjacent and north of the subject property has migrated under the subject site property. The responsible party in the case has been identified. However, it is NOA's opinion that some contention as to the responsibility of the extent of the contamination might arise if the knowledge of the amount of residual contamination on the 362741 ST03R1919 Page 4 of 19 0 2004 Kleinfetder, Inc. January 5, 2004