Laserfiche WebLink
San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health 'De a,�rtment DIRECTOR <br /> Donna Heran,REHS <br /> r-- _ 600 East Main Street <br /> - : Stockton, California 85202-3029 PROGRAM COORDINATORS Robert McClellon,REHS <br /> =_ Jeff carruesc:o,REHS,RD{ <br /> Website: www.sjgoy.org1ehd t{asey Foley,REHS <br /> �F° <br /> Phone: (209)465-3420 <br /> Fax: (209)464-0138 <br /> March 3,2010 <br /> Mr: Robert.Trommer, CHG <br /> State Water Resources Control.Board <br /> Division of Financial Assistance <br /> 1001 1 Street <br /> Sacramento, CA 95814. <br /> UBJVC.T: COMMEN S ON CLEANUP:FUND SITE CLOSURE RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> Dear Mr.Troiiriirier <br /> The San Joaquin County. Environmental Health Department (EHD) has received your e-mail.- <br /> dated February 1. 2010; requesting comments on the status of 25 sites your office <br /> recarnrnended 'for dlc�sure in 2008 through June 2009. Of the: :24 sites in:the San Joaquin <br /> County LOP(one of'the sites listed is in Sacramento County); <br /> +� Eleven:are either in the final closure processor are;about td enter <br /> • Seven. have problems related tol vapor intrusion evaluations, are in rebound testing or <br /> awaiting additional technical evaluation; and <br /> +• Six require further work succi as additional monitoring, delineation or remediation.. <br /> Specifically,the EHD norrimen'ts are as follows: <br /> Claim Na: W1,-_2287'1 (now.932);S. Hwy 99, Ripon <br /> Ciosure:.on this site is delayed by a vapor intrusion evaluation that encountered TPHg in sdil gas.. <br /> at concentrations that exceeded the Tier I evaluation. Subsequent evaluatidn by the consultant. <br /> has been by methods that.. are not supported by authoritative guidance documents, such as <br /> those provided by the CaliforniaDepartment of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or by the Los <br /> Angeles Regional W.6ter Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). The EHD requested technical data <br /> supporting the subdivision of total petroleum hydrocarbons quantified as gasoline (TPI-Ig) data <br /> into Mailer barbb6 number ranges than reported by the analytical laboratory and valjdwtiorlof' <br /> the datar manipulation methods employed by the consultant. The EHD"has questions regarding <br /> the calibration methods and standards utilized for conducting the laboratory analysis, and the <br /> EHD is concerned that the standard utilized was not appropriate for the analytical method. In <br /> addition, the consultant did not analyze the soil gas samples for total petroleum. hydrocarbons <br /> quantified as diesel (TPHd) by method TO-17 as was approved in the work plan and has not <br /> provided a justification for deviating from the work plan or demonstrated that the results of the <br /> Analysis employed.are:equivalent to those that would have'been obtained by TO-17. The EHI. <br /> Comments on CU.F Site Closure Recommendations 031 O.doc <br />