Laserfiche WebLink
San Joaquin County <br /> %oPa!N c Environmental Health Department DIRECTOR <br /> Linda Turkatte, RENS <br /> 1868 East Hazelton Avenue <br /> - { Stockton, California 95205-6232 PROGRAM COORDINATORS <br /> �`) <br /> I at Robert McClellon, REHS <br /> Jeff Carruesco, RENS, RDI <br /> c p <br /> F Website: www.sjgov.org/ehd Kasey Foley, REHS <br /> Rodney Estrada, REHS <br /> Phone: (209) 468-3420 Adrienne Ellsaesser, REHS <br /> Fax: (209)464-0138 <br /> February 27, 2015 <br /> Messrs. Kirk Larson, PG, and Robert Trommer, CHG <br /> State Water Resources Control Board <br /> Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund <br /> PO Box 944212 <br /> Sacramento, CA 94344-2120 <br /> Subject: 639 Clay Street, W., Stockton, CA <br /> Review Summary Report—Additional Work (Sixth Review) for CUF Claim No. 8542 <br /> San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (EHD) has received and reviewed the <br /> Review Summary Report — Additional Work (Sixth Review) for CUF Claim No. 8542, dated 20 <br /> January 2015, from Kirk Larson and Robert Trommer of the State Water Resources Control <br /> Board (SWRCB) Cleanup Fund (CUF) for the above-referenced site. The CUF recommended <br /> that the EHD direct the Responsible Party to define the extent of groundwater contamination <br /> north (downgradient) of the site. Commenting on the Low-threat Underground Storage Tank <br /> Case Closure Policy (LTCP) checklist review by the EHD, the CUF states that the conceptual <br /> site model (CSM) is consistent with the Policy, that the secondary source has been removed to <br /> the extent practicable, and that the site qualifies for the commercial fueling station exemption. <br /> The EHD concurs with the CUF that additional plume delineation is required downgradient of <br /> the most intensely impacted monitoring well MW-1; by letter dated 30 January 2015, the EHD <br /> has directed that a work plan to accomplish this objective be submitted to the EHD. <br /> The EHD has reviewed the LTCP checklist on GeoTracker in light of the CUF's evaluation. For <br /> the time being, the EHD is leaving the general criterion for a complete CSM as not being met <br /> since one of the required elements, as indicated on GeoTracker, as a completed assessment of <br /> the areal extent of contamination, is not yet complete. As noted above, completion of this task <br /> has been directed. <br /> Also for the time being, the EHD is not indicating that the site meets the active commercial <br /> fueling facility exception for evaluation of vapor intrusion issues as the site has two former <br /> underground storage tank (UST) unauthorized releases (UARs),- one from the former USTs <br /> associated with the current fueling facility (the northern release), but the other located at least <br /> 150 feet south of the active fueling facility and the most impacted well (MW-1) located 250 feet <br /> from the fueling facility. There is a large building between the southern UAR and the fueling <br /> facility. The EHD agrees that the northern release would fall under the active fueling facility <br /> exception, but thinks that distance and site characteristics makes the active fueling facility <br /> exception irrelevant to the southern UAR. <br /> 2015 Review Summary Report (Sixth) Response CUF Claim No 8542.doc <br />