Laserfiche WebLink
, <br /> PUBLIC r1EALTH SERVICES pU1N <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY . <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION y Z< <br /> Ernest M. Fujimoto, M. D., M.P.H., Acting Health Officer <br /> 304 E. Weber Ave., Third Floor • P. O. Box 388 • Stockton, CA 952 <br /> 209/468-3420 <br /> DOUG SCHNEEBERGER MAILED MAY 2 81996 <br /> WESTERN REFRIGERATING & COLD STORAGE COMPANY <br /> 5100 N FEDERAL HIGHWAY SUITE 412 <br /> FORT LAUDERDALE FL 33308 <br /> RE : Tracy Cold Storage SITE CODE: 505329 <br /> 24500 MacArthur <br /> Tracy, CA <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Services, Environmental Health <br /> Division (PHS/EHD) has reviewed the "Quarterly Report Ground <br /> Water Sampling" dated March 22 , 1996, prepared by American <br /> Geological Services, Inc . for the above referenced site . <br /> PHS/EHD concurs that the lateral and vertical extent of the <br /> groundwater contamination has been defined. PHS/EHD also concurs <br /> with the recommendation that monitoring wells MW2, MW3 , and MW4 <br /> be removed from the quarterly sampling being conducted at this <br /> site . It is not necessary to destroy these wells at this time <br /> and it may be more cost effective to destroy these wells when the <br /> site has been remediated and all the monitoring wells are to be <br /> destroyed. <br /> As stated in the PHS/EHD letter dated November 8 , 1995, according <br /> the Corrective Action Requirements, California Code of <br /> Regulations, Title 23 , Division 3 , Chapter 16, Article 11 , a <br /> feasibility study that evaluates at least two alternatives for <br /> remediating the contamination at the site must be included in the <br /> Corrective Action Plan to be prepared for this site . <br /> In a letter dated January 3 , 1996, American Geological Services, <br /> Inc . stated that it was their opinion that soil excavation <br /> followed by ground water pump and treat would be the most cost- <br /> effective alternative . It has been found that pump and treat is <br /> not a viable remedial alternative, it is effective in preventing <br /> plume migration, which is not a concern at this site . Therefore, <br /> pump and treat should not be conducted at this site . <br /> The monitoring wells at this site are screened from 8 feet below <br /> grade (fbg) to 18 fbg and the soil and groundwater contamination <br /> was encountered at 11-12 fbg in August 1994 . PHS/EHD recommends <br /> conducting a vapor extraction test on monitoring well MW1 to <br /> investigate vapor extraction as a remedial alternative . Other <br /> alternatives that may be investigated are bioventing or air <br /> sparging with vapor extraction. In addition, soil excavation <br /> followed by groundwater monitoring should be investigated. The <br /> A Division of San Joaquin County Health Care Services <br />