Laserfiche WebLink
FILE COPY <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> QP?P°'"'" Environmental Health Department DIRECTOR <br /> �•• _. f: •.p Donna Heran, REHS <br /> 600 East Main Street <br /> ar li\, %I` -{ PROGRAM COORDINATORS <br /> u):. Stockton, California 95202-3029 <br /> s Robert McClellon,REHS <br /> • Jeff Carruesco,RENS,RDI <br /> �q ....:.'•�;�P Website: www.sjgov.org/ehd Kasey Foley,REHS <br /> 4.iii F o R Linda Turkatte,REHS <br /> Phone: (209)468-3420 <br /> Fax: (209) 464-0138 <br /> February 18, 2011 <br /> Mr. Sergio Morescalchi <br /> Atlantic Richfield Company <br /> PO Box 1257 <br /> San Ramon, CA 94583 <br /> Subject: 76 (Former BP) Service Station #11192 LOP Case#:19951.23 <br /> 1403 Country Club Blvd Global ID#: T0607700329 <br /> Stockton CA, 95204 CUF#: 2413 <br /> The San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (EHD) has reviewed Second <br /> Revision to Work Plan Addendum for Additional Site Assessment (Plan), dated December 7, <br /> 2010. This Plan is.the fourth proposal submitted to the EHD since the original work plan dated <br /> October 2005 was approved on November 9, 2005 but never enacted. The first addendum, <br /> dated March 26, 2010 was submitted at the request of the EHD to update the then out-dated <br /> original work plan. <br /> Since the original 2005 work plan was approved by the EHD, off-site conditions that were to be <br /> investigated by ARCO have been mostly addressed by Shell with the installation of their off-site <br /> monitoring wells S-15 and S-17 in March 2008. The March 26, 2009 Stantec Consulting work <br /> plan was submitted on behalf of ARCO with modifications that reflected the presence of Shell's <br /> new wells and included only the installation of MW-14. The plan was approved by the EHD in <br /> correspondence date July 6,.2009 with the condition that an additional monitoring well would be <br /> installed. Stantec's response to this request was reflected in the third work plan submittal, <br /> dated April 26, 2010. <br /> The EHD responded to this latest proposal in correspondence dated May 28, 2010 and <br /> determined that this latest plan was inadequate and advised ARCO that the on-site vertical <br /> extent of the groundwater plume and the lateral extent of 'B' and 'C' zones were not defined and <br /> that no monitoring wells were proposed in these areas/depths of concern. A revision to address <br /> these data gaps was requested by the EHD. <br /> FILE COPY <br />