SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT p4u ` " SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY Unit Supervisors Donna K. Heron, R.E.H.S. Carl Bor man, R.E.H.S. Drrecror 304 East Weber Avenue, Third Floor g Al Olsen, R.E.H.S. StOC1CtOri, California 95202-2708 Mike Huggins, R.E.H.S., R.D.I. Douglas W. Wilson, R.E.H.S. Program Manager Laurie A. Cotulla, R.E.H.S. Telephone : (209) 468 -342 E. Margaret Lagorio, R.E.H.S , 9yFOR � . Fax : (209) 464- 0138 Robert McClellon, R.E.H.S. Program Managei Mark Barcellos, R.E.H.S. ERNEST & JERI FOPPIANO JUN 2 1 2004 FOPPIANO INVESTMENTS 2386 PHEASANT RUN CIRCLE STOCKTON CA 95207 RE : Stockton City Taxi Company SITE CODE : 1117 2085 Fremont Street Stockton CA 95205 San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (SJC/EHD) has reviewed the revised section 3 . 0 "Scope of Work" and accompanying cover letter dated May 13, 2004 that were submitted on your behalf by WHF; Inc. and has the following comments. SJC/EHD has twice requested an explanation of the discrepancies between the reported as built depths of the monitoring wells constructed on your site and the actual measurements that have been reported at the groundwater monitoring events . In response WHF states that the wells were built under supervision of SJC/EHD and- that they have not been properly developed . This is to inform you , and your consultant, that SJC/EHD does not supervise fieldwork. SJC/EHD observes fieldwork to ensure the work is being done per state and local standards, and performs grout inspections . Supervision of the implementation of approved work plans is the responsibility of the consultant whom you hired to implement the work plan . Of specific concern is monitoring well MW4 , which was reported to have been built to 100 feet below surface grade (bsg ) , but was measured at the well development, and at each subsequent monitoring event, as being approximately 90 feet deep. WHF submitted that the well was not properly developed , but this raises other concerns. The well was reported as being built with 5 feet of screened casing . If the well has a screen interval from 95-100 feet bsg , but the well casing is filled with silt from 90-100 feet bsg , purging and sampling of the well could be anticipated to be very difficult due to a slow recharge rate for the well . However, discussions with the sampler and review of field logs note that there has never been a recharge problem with this well , as one might expect if the screen interval were completely occluded . Also, the well purged clear water at the last reported event, which would not seem to indicate a problem with fines migrating into the well . Actually, it may be a good thing if the well is screened form 85-90 feet bsg , as there may be a thin sand bed in that interval , as indicated in the logs of the CPT borings discussed below. In correspondence dated April 21 , 2004 SJC/EHD directed you to submit an addendum to the incomplete March 31 , 2004 work plan submitted on your behalf by WHF . This was SJC/EHD's second request for an addendum to complete the work plan . One of the points SJC/EHD directed you to address was the installation of additional deep monitoring wells to investigate the lateral extent of the contaminant plume documented in MW4 . Instead , WHF has submitted a proposal to install three monitoring wells to approximately 125 feet, even though there is no documentation of a plume at this .depth, and it is 25 or 35 feet deeper than MW4 . Three additional wells must be installed to