Laserfiche WebLink
Iwo <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Department DIRECTOR <br /> ?•' �� c�G Donna Heran, RENS <br /> 600 East Main Street <br /> AI <br /> Stockton, California 95202-3029 PROGRAM COORDINATORS <br /> .. r. <br /> Robert McClellon, REHS <br /> Jeff Carruesco,REHS, RDI <br /> cq. Fo �P Foley, REHS <br /> GR Website: www.sjgov.org/ehd Linda Turkatte, <br /> RENS <br /> Phone: (209) 468-3420 <br /> Fax: (209)464-0138 <br /> March 30, 2011 <br /> Messrs. Kirk Larson, PG, and Robert Trommer, CHG <br /> State Water Resources Control Board <br /> Division of Financial Assistance <br /> 1001 1 Street <br /> Sacramento CA 95814 <br /> Subject: 15 Grant Line Road E, Tracy, CA CUF Claim No. 17179 <br /> February 2011 Draft Five-Year Review Letter Recommendations <br /> San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (EHD) has received and reviewed <br /> the draft five-year review letter dated 17 February 2011 from Kirk Larson of the State <br /> Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB) Cleanup Fund (CUF) for above referenced site. <br /> The CUF recommended that the EHD review the site for closure. <br /> A report of findings for a soil gas investigation has been reviewed by the EHD. One soil <br /> gas sample did not pass the California Health Services Screening Levels (CHSSLs) for <br /> benzene or the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's Environmental <br /> Screening Levels (ESLs) for total petroleum hydrocarbons gasoline range (TPH) and <br /> ethylbenzene, but did pass a Tier II evaluation. The consultant omitted the fixed laboratory <br /> analytical results from one soil gas sample as it had a high concentration of leak detection <br /> compound, and did not utilize the results from the same sampling point obtained by an on- <br /> site mobile laboratory which did not detect the leak detection compound. As both results <br /> for chemicals of concern appear to be high, the EHD is directing evaluation of the latter <br /> sample results for the vapor intrusion evaluation before determining that soil gas poses no <br /> significant health risk. <br /> The consultant recommended additional characterization of impacted soil in the source <br /> area, which the EHD had directed. The EHD is of the opinion that this is not necessary as <br /> contaminant concentrations in groundwater in the area have declined significantly and the <br /> depth to water is only approximately 8 to 10 feet — intuitively, if impacted soil is a <br /> significant risk, soil gas and groundwater should be intensely impacted. While being of the <br /> opinion that further characterization of the source area is not necessary, the EHD will give <br /> the consultant an opportunity to demonstrate the validity of their concern and that the <br /> proposed work is necessary when they report on the evaluation of the soil gas sample <br /> previously discussed. Anticipating that the characterization work is not needed and <br /> providing that the soil gas evaluation will be favorable, the EHD will start the formal <br /> closure process. <br /> Draft 5-Year Review Letter Response 0311.doc <br />