Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 4 <br /> Lori Duncan [EH] <br /> From: Lori Duncan [EH] <br /> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:58 PM <br /> To: 'Rosecrance, Ann' <br /> Subject: RE: 6131 Pacific Ave, Stockton - Former Shell Service Station -CRA 240854 <br /> Ann, <br /> Nuel said OK, go ahead. <br /> Lori Duncan, Senior REHS <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Department <br /> Iduncan@sjcehd.com <br /> (209)468-0337 phone <br /> (209)468-3433 fax <br /> From: Rosecrance, Ann [mailto:arosecrance@craworld.com] <br /> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:34 PM <br /> To: Lori Duncan [EH] <br /> Cc: denis.l.brown@shell.com; Neely, Joe; Filing <br /> Subject: 6131 Pacific Ave, Stockton - Former Shell Service Station - CRA 240854 <br /> Lori: <br /> We received your January 13, 2010 letter in response to our proposed Corrective Action Plan and <br /> Site Investigation Work Plan(CAP/WP) of December 9,2009 and discussed it with Shell (Denis <br /> Brown and Shell's technical group in Houston). We still believe that the work we proposed in <br /> our CAP/WP is warranted and prudent. In determining the next step for this site,our initial <br /> thought was to propose a meeting with you to discuss this matter and come to a resolution. <br /> However,in the interest of moving this project along,we thought it best to first present our <br /> thoughts to you regarding this work via email. If you agree with our expanded explanation <br /> regarding our proposed work provided below,then we would not need to have a meeting and <br /> will proceed with your approval. But if you and Nuel still feel that some or all of the proposed <br /> work described below is not needed,then we would like to meet with you to discuss this further. <br /> Below is a description of the major elements of our work plan and our rationale for proposing <br /> this work. <br /> 1. We proposed one well (MW-15) north of the former USTs to provide shallow delineation <br /> along the northern portion of the site since wells MW-1 and MW-2(northern wells)have <br /> submerged screens. <br /> . MW-15 was not approved by EHD. <br /> . EHD states that MW-1 and MW-2 provide sufficient delineation(we agree with this). <br /> • We agree that MW-15 is not needed since EHD states that MW-1 and MW-2 provide <br /> sufficient delineation to the north. <br /> 2. We proposed two wells(MW-16 and MW-17) on the west side and east side,respectively,of <br /> 7/19/2011 <br />